found in them And it is considerable that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not nor claimed any such Authority nor was any such given to them by the Primitive Church To this purpose it may be observed from (l) Epiph. Her 42. Epiphanius that when Marcion being excommunicated by his own Father a pious Bishop for his debauchery went to Rome and desired there to be received into Communion he was told there by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father there being one Faith and one Concord they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church whereby it was ordained (m) Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be received in another City whither he should come not having commendatory Letters he who received him should be himself also under excommunication And the novel Romish Notion of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman as to derive their power and authority from him is so contrary to the sense of the ancient Church that (n) Hieron Ep. ad Evagrium S. Hierome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus five Romae five Eugubii ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii omnes Apostolorum successores sunt wheresoever there was a Bishop whether at Rome or at Gubio he is of the same worth and the same Priesthood they are all Successors of the Apostles 20. and prejudicial to other Churches and to Religion it self However the Romish Church upon this encroachment and false pretence claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government and discipline of those Churches and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particular persons by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecutions and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of other Churches and Kingdoms to gratifie ambitious avarice But even the (o) c. 6. qu. 3. scitote Canon Law declares the great reasonableness that every Province where there is ten or eleven Cities and a King should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops and that all causes should be judged and determined by them among themselves and that no Province ought to be so much debased and degraded as to be deprived of such a Judicature Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See exempt such cases from this judgement where those who are to be judged enter an appeal which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed (p) Conc. Constant c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hearing of a Provincial one But in truth this right of ordering and judging what is fit in every Province is not only the right of that particular Church or Country or Kingdom but where they proceed according to truth and goodness it is the right of God and the Christian Religion which is above all contrary authority of any other and ought not to be violated thereby And appeals from hence (pp) Cod. ean Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Romanists Schismatical even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa 21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome towards other Churches deserves here to be mentioned This widens divisions and discords and perpetuates them by declaring an irreconcileable opposition to peace and truth They excommunicate them as Hereticks who discerning their right and their duty will not submit themselves to their usurpations and embrace their errors and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation Thus they deal with them who stedfastly hold to the Catholick faith and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice delivered by the Apostles and received by the Primitive Church and who also embrace that Catholick charity and Unity that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church and would with as much joy communicate with the Roman Church her self if she would make her Worship and Communion and the terms of it free from sin as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son But this is the crime of such Churches that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order they reject the novel additional doctrines introduced by the Church of Rome and they submit not to her usurped authority in not doing what in duty to God they ought to do in imbracing the right wayes of truth 22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others But the excommunicating such persons and Churches doth no hurt to them who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate For they who reject the Communion of them who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholick do divide themselves from that Communion To this sense is that received rule (q) c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes c. certum illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur sed eum à quo notatur and this was declared by (r) in Balsamon p. 1096. Nicon to be agreeable to the Canons And the excellency and power of the true Catholick Doctrine and the purity thereof is so much to be preferred before the authority of any persons whomsoever who oppose it that that which the ancient Canons (ſ) Conc. Sardic c. 17. established was very fit and just that if any Bishops and consequently any other persons were ejected from their own Churches or suffered any censures unjustly for their adhering to the Catholick Faith and profession they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities with kindness and love And whereas there were Canons of the Church which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule in such a case as this and thereby declare their fense to be That the observation of Canonical establishments must give place where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned 23. but only themselves When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresie and cast them who received it out of the Church the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church but they who rejected them were not so And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholick Communion as Schismaticks And when they at Rome so far follow their steps as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves or to a particular Church especially such an one as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church And since Charity and Vnity are of so great concernment in Christianity on that account also they are none
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
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.
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
Tradition § 11. He proceeds to the sixth Property That it is certain in it self because this will prove the fourth fifth and seventh Now though this be not true that what is certain in its self can satisfie the piercing Wits and convince obstinate Adversaries and be ascertainable unto us because there may be a certainty in the thing which is not discerned and it is not the being but the evidence of certainty submitted to that works these effects else could there be no dissatisfaction in any thing since all truth is certainly in it self truth yet if he can prove the certainty of Tradition I shall over and above yield the rest This he thus goes about to prove Since Faith must be certain and must have a certain Rule he hath as he saies shewed that Scripture is not certain therefore Oral Tradition is This loose Argument deserves no better answer than that I have shewed Scripture is certain in it self therefore Oral Tradition is not Yet I must tell him his Argument is otherwise faulty than in supposing his having proved Scripture not certain for there is something besides Scripture which is a better guide or leader to the Faith than the Oral Tradition and that is the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as preserved in the Ancient Fathers or approved Writers of their time For though they were men and might in some things mistake and therefore their testimony is much inferiour to Scripture yet since they lived in times near the Apostles and when the vigour of Christian piety was much continued the Doctrines then received are more like to be truth than what is now owned in the Church of Rome after many successions of Ages and great degeneracy of life even in the dreggs of time And we have as much and more reason to think these men both capable of knowing Doctrines then delivered as the Faith of Christ and faithful in relating them as we can have to judge so concerning any persons now in the Church of Rome But that there is not an agreement in all considerable points in what was then delivered and owned by the Fathers and the present Traditions of the Romish Church may be collected from one instance I shall hereafter mention Disc 8. and so far as concerns this Author from their Rule of Faith which shall be discussed in the end of this Book § 12. He would prove the certainty of Tradition in that he saith It hath for its basis the best nature in the Vniverse man's and that not in speculations which may mistake by passion but his eyes and ears which are necessarily subject to the operations of nature and this in most many times every day which is a much higher certainty than a sworn Witness hath of what he saw or heard but once These upon serious inquiry appear empty vain words For doth Faith consist only in seeing and hearing Must there not be a delivering and receiving which supposeth conceptions and many other acts of the mind He who considers this aright will find the hasis of Tradition to be like Fame's basis a man clad with all his infirmities with a memory that may let things slip especially if they be numerous as revealed truths are with an understanding that may mistake especially in things difficult as many truths are with affections that may disrelish or slight them if corruption prevail as it may oft do in the members of the Church with imaginations which may alter or add somewhat when they think they only explain and yet still may they not deliver all they know and remember In this case he who may be certain that he hath heard such and such words delivered may remain very uncertain whether they be true or not And he who is a Witness in any Court may be much more sure that what he once saw or heard if he perfectly remember it was so heard or seen by him than any man can be of the true relation of things he hath oft heard spoken by men who took them themselves upon others relations and they on others and so on So that the great imperfection of Tradition is chiefly as to the delivery of it by former Ages which this Author doth not so much as touch of here in his proof of its certainty and what pretensions he makes use of in after Discourses shall be answered in their place But what he saith That in most many times every day are these impressions made upon their senses this may be true concerning some Christian truths but to assert this concerning all truth is such an apparent falsity as no ingenuous man could be guilty of For it is plain that in many things they of the Romish Church cannot agree which is truth and have had in many Cases Councils and Decrees to determine what things are matters of Faith and in many other things they are yet undetermined which could not be if these things were daily cleared to their senses unless they be men of much duller sense than the rest of mankind are § 13. He reminds of what he had said before § 8. That it is as evident that while the next Age believes and practises as the former Age did they are of the same Faith as it is that to believe the same is to believe the same But this is not at all to the purpose concerning Oral Tradition only this Discourser pleaseth himself generally in shifting off or wholly omitting matters difficult and sometimes going about to prove what no Adversary would dissent in But there is no certainty in the way of Tradition as we have above shewed that any Age doth in all things believe as the former Age held See n. 13 14. § 14. He tells his Reader That Dissenters or Doubters can say nothing against the way of Tradition not with all the quirks ingenuously misused Logick and abused into Sophistry can furnish them with Indeed what he hath hitherto pleaded for Tradition hath been nothing else but disingenuously abused Logick and Sophistry but what he now asserts is a bold daring to let his Reader know that under some contrived expressions he will strain to vent any falshood though never so gross Will he say that nothing can be said against this Rule when he cannot but know that Protestants who dissent from it do say very much against it yea they say so much as they know can never be solidly answered Yea that we may see how little he designs truth in his Discourse he who here would perswade his Reader that nothing can be said against his way of Oral Tradition yet Disc 7. § 1. himself tells him of somewhat that seems mainly to prejudice it and spends that Discourse in Answer Though indeed much more than that is by us observed against Tradition He concludes § 15. from his Discourse that the four last conditions of the Rule of Faith agree to Tradition but since by Trial his Discourse appears very unsound and faulty I conclude from the
eighth Century and many other cases Now before the determination of such a Council it is not evident which are the true deliverers from the way of Tradition since both parties contend for their own delivery and no other Rule of Trial must be admitted according to this Discourser but delivery or Tradition and upon the former considerations it appears that the best deliverers may be the fewest And this may be as uncertain after a Council since there is nothing else to ascertain us but the vote of a major part which in many Councils hath certainly been the worser part and maintained Heresie and therefore so it may be in others where there can be no evidence given to the contrary And by Determinations of Councils the lesser part and their Adherents are determined to reject their way of delivery and receive the other and by this means the lesser number which may be in the truth must disclaim their own sense and judgment to submit to the judgment of others which may be in the wrong and so the true Tradition may be lost Yet that it may appear more evident how vain the pretence to demonstration in this Discourse is I shall applie his way of demonstrating to some other cases which it will fit as well as Romish Tradition It is certain that after Moses the true Doctrine was dispersed among the Jews and after Noah who was a Preacher of righteousness amongst his Sons they had the greatest hopes and fears to ingage them to this truth and these are the causes of actual will and the truths are knowable therefore both Gentile Tradition from Noah and Jewish from Moses were indefectible according to this Discourser's Principles and so the true Religion may at this time be found either among Gentiles or Jews Yea it was certain that Gods will was declared to Adam and Eve in Paradise and to the Angels that fell before their fall and they had the greatest hopes and fears to perswade them to keep to this will of God knowing that obeying it was their happiness and deserting it their ruine these hopes and fears are the causes of actual will and the duties themselves both knowable and practicable and they had no corrupt inclinations to sway them therefore according to this demonstrator Adam and Eve and all the Angels did continue in their obedience The same way of demonstration would prove that never any Heresies could either be broached or by many be received in the Christian Church But in these cases who sees not that it will be answered that either the truths of God declared were not sufficiently heeded or else the causes of hope and fear were not sufficiently applied and at all times acknowledged and observed and that in such cases there was a corruption either in belief or in practice but then every eye will see that this might as well be imagined in the Romish Church as in any other company of men So that he hath made it as clear that the Romish Tradition is indefectible as that the Gentile and Jewish Traditions were and are and as certain as it is that there is no Devil or fallen Angel and no fall of man and consequently no sin in the World and no Heresie ever in the Christian Church But here it is needful to do this Authour that right as to observe his unusual modesty that he intitles this Discourse not a demonstration but an indeavouring to demonstrate § 6. He speaketh to this purpose If any shall object Original Corruption indisposeth Parents wills since Christs Doctrine was intended to be an Antidote for that Original malice to say it is universally applied and preserves none good is to question Christs wisdom and many thousands Martyrs and Confessors did hereby overcome the declivity of their wills Again nature cannot incline all to this sort of sin to teach their Children what they think will damn them but most strongly carries them to the contrary To this I may in the first place observe that neglects of duty might be if there had been no Original corruption as was in Adam in Paradise and in the Angels where was no antecedent sinful inclination but they were only capable of sinning Yet I assert there is more danger by Original corruption and its prevalency both as to the Will and Understanding Now Christs Doctrine is indeed a poise or Antidote against this yet this is first where this Doctrine is carefully entertained and retained but not so that there should be no fear of its being retained in any Church S. Paul did not nourish needless fears for his Corinthians who had this Doctrine lest their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ nor were they untrue complaints of his Galatians Chap. 3.1 Who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth And we Protestants can discern nothing to shew that this Doctrine must needs be otherwise a poise in the Romish Church than in the Corinthian or Galatian Secondly where this Doctrine is retained it is a poise against Original corruption in a considerable degree yet not so as to remove all imperfections proceeding from Original sin which may hinder right delivery of all truth for though in some excellent persons there be a willingness to deliver truth yet there may be some mistake even in holy Martyrs and Confessors The Church of Rome as well as we own Cyprian as a Saint and Martyr and yet acknowledge him to have erred and most Africans then with him in delivering that they who were Baptized by Hereticks ought to be rebaptized so that in following good men there may be mistake but they are more like to err if they be bad as many certainly are But concerning his last clauses it is no way necessary to suppose that to invalidate Tradition Parents must design to teach Children what they think will damn them we suppose very many may design truth and good who yet may be in error yet there may be others who through prevalency of corruption in themselves may design to corrupt the truth and may teach their Children so and all this out of that Principle that prevails with men to wicked lives which is not a design to damn themselves but a design to gratifie their evil affections S. Paul 2. Cor. 2.17 speaks of many who corrupt the word of God and S. Peter foretells of others who shall bring in damnable Heresies and we know the Jews did teach their Children to worship Baalim most probably this was not out of design to damn them however we know no demonstrations to prove that Romanists have higher affections to their Children naturally than Jews had or that when there is danger of truth being corrupted in the Christian Church they of the Romish should be exempted from liableness to that danger § 7. He thus proceeds If any object the fickle nature of the will he answers Good is the object of the will Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed are
appellation of Catholick they must be content with other names as Lutherans Zuinglians Protestants c. He who observes the former part of this Paragraph will find it to be an acknowledging all his former Discourse ineffectual for if the formerly mentioned Motives may want application if Discipline be neglected and false tenets may be taking if Governours be not vigilant than all the pretended security of truth being preserved in the way of Oral Tradition must depend upon the supposed goodness and care of such persons as are to administer the Discipline of the Church and since there have been many bad Councils it is certain there have been bad and careless Church Governours and there cannot any security be given that these Governours might not sometimes cherish the false Doctrines and oppose the true and thereby the more effectually destroy the way of Oral Tradition But though there may be defection from truth this Discourser here seems to venture to find a way how the deliverers of Tradition may be known I will now examine all his Characters above recited First They who forsake truth are not alwaies an inconsiderable number in respect of the other When the ten Tribes served the Calves in Dan and Bethel they were a greater number than those who remained to Worship at Jerusalem In Elijah's time it was in Israel but a small number in comparison of the whole that did not bow their knees to Baal In the time when Christ was first manifested in the flesh the Dissenters from the Scribes and Pharisees in their pernicious Doctrines were not the greater number and when Arianism most prevailed the greater part of the Christian Church did acknowledge and own it for truth so that if the greater number have oft imbraced false Doctrine in points of Faith there can be no evidence from such numbers which is the true Doctrine Secondly Nor can the Professors of the true Doctrine be known by standing upon an uninterrupted succession of Doctrine publickly attested if by this he understands as he must the Oral and not the Scriptural way of attesting though even in the latter some may stand upon having what they have not and so likewise in the former for by this Rule the Scribes and Phasees and Talmudists who stand upon a constant succession of their Doctrine from Moses and Ezra must be acknowledged to hold truth where they differ from and contradict the Apostles and Christians nor can there be any reason why standing upon Tradition from Christ should be a security for truth when standing upon Tradition from Moses who was a faithful deliverer was no security yea by this Rule as hath been before observed Paganism would be defended for a true Religion and the Jews worshipping of Baalim and in the Christian state the Heresie of Artemon denying the Divinity of Christ since all these pretended a right to the most publick and open way of Oral Tradition Thirdly Nor are they to be accounted for Hereticks who make use of Criticisms for though nothing more than common reason and capacity is necessary to understand the main Doctrines of Christian Faith yet if all the users of Critical Learning in matters of Religion or points of Faith were to be condemned for Hereticks then not only Learned Protestants but all the most eminent writers among the Papists must be accounted Hereticks yea and even all the Fathers who have left any Books to us of considerable bigness must be taken into the number Yea the blessed Apostle S. Paul made use of Critical observation against the leven of the false Apostles in the Churches of Galatia Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one And to thy Seed that is Christ Yet I suppose this Discourser will not dare to say that S. Paul was in the error or Heresie because he made use of Criticisms and his opposers in the truth who pleaded a successively delivered Doctrine amongst the Jews Fourthly Nor can the true receivers of Christian Doctrine be known by being called Catholicks for first though the name of a Catholick be deservedly honoured by Christians and the persons who truly answer that name yet it was not the name whereby the Apostles did first call them who held the true Christian Faith but they were called Christians yea some both of the Ancients and of the Learned Moderns assert that this name of Catholick was not at all in use in the Apostles daies however that which then was not the chief name commonly applied to them who hold the truth can by no shew of reason be proved to be now the Character to know which hold the true Faith Secondly is it necessary they must be called Catholicks by all men or only by themselves and men of their own way if it be sufficient that they of their own way call them Catholicks then even the Arians must be acknowledged to have held the truth who published their Confession in the presence of Constantius under the name of the Catholick Faith as is asserted by Athanasius De Synodis Arim. and Seleucia and by this Rule Papists indeed will come in but if this was enough who sees not that it would be in the power of any party of men to evidence to the world that their Heresies are truths by their declaring themselves by the name of Catholicks But if it be necessary that they must be generally called Catholicks by them who differ from them then it would likewise follow that it is in the power of the Adversaries of the truth to take away from the holders of truth that certain Character whereby they may be known to hold truth if they refuse to call these holders of truth by the name of Catholick and it will likewise follow that their holding of truth must be judged of by the opinions or words of opposers and not from their own Doctrines and Positions And yet by this Rule the Papists must not be owned for holders of the truth for Protestants do not generally give them the name of Catholicks nor acknowledge them to be truly such but to be Schismaticks We indeed oft call them by the name of Roman Catholicks or Pseudocatholicks and when ever any Protestants call them Catholicks they mean those who call themselves so and would be so owned in the same manner as our Saviour called the Scribes and Pharisees Builders saying he was the stone which the builders refused Thirdly Nor is it possible there should be any such latent virtue in the name Catholick to shew who hold the truth more than was in the Old Testament in being called the Children of the Prophets and the Covenant which God made with Abraham the followers of Moses and the Keepers of the Law which were terms applied to the unbelieving Jews in and after the times of Christ Fifthly Nor is it the mark of an Heretick to be called by some other appellation than that of Catholick for if
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
of the Apostles and Evangelists the common delivery by word of mouth which Theophilus had heard of concerning matter of Christian Religion was not so certain as the Evangelical writing and therefore this Gospel was written that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things S. John would not have written his Gospel to this end that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God Joh. 20.31 if he did not think this writing should direct and rule our Faith S. Paul would not have told his Philippians Phil. 3.1 To write the same things for you is safe unless notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth they stood in need of this advantage of the Apostles writing for their safety and establishment nor yet would this be safe for them unless this writing was sufficient to effect this establishment which could not be unless it was a Rule of Faith Yea that the writing of Scripture was the way by which the spirit of God intended to preserve the Doctrine of Faith in after times when the Apostles were deceased S. Peter declares 2 Pet. 1.12 I will not be negligent to put you alwaies in remembrance of these things though you know them v. 15. I will indeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth signifies to make a short comprisal of things for the help of memory Now if this was the design of S. Peters Epistle it will necessarily follow that the preserving Christian Doctrine in memory is best secured by the Written Word of God otherwise possibly they could not have been able to have these things in remembrance And lest if this Apostle had said no more of this subject any might have objected that he endeavoured they might be able to have these things in remembrance by Tradition he himself directly shews that this is the advantage of his writing and the end of both his Epistles 2 Pet. 3.1 This second Epistle beloved I write unto you in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance So that notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth he thought writing necessary to keep these things in their remembrance And Jesus himself said to the Jews If you believe not Moses writings how shall you believe my words John 5.47 SECT II. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith NExt his search after Scriptures this Author pretends to give the Judgement of some few Councils which he asserts to own Oral Tradition for the Rule of their Faith I might here mind him that others of his Church have delivered that Councils owned Scripture as their Rule Nicol. de Cusa a Cardinal of the Roman Church lib. 2. de Concordant Cath c. 6. sayes That the manner of the General Councils was to have the holy Gospels placed in the middle where they were assembled And a little after he adds Matters of Faith were first treated of The Synod decreed according to the testimonies of the Scriptures But to examine his Testimonies The first is from the Synod of Lateran which was no ancient Synod being above six hundred and forty years after Christ They say We all confirm unanimously and consonantly consonanter not consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the holy Fathers adding nothing to those things which were delivered by them and we believe so as the Fathers have believed we preach so as they have taught These words are delivered indeed by that Synod but if that Synod be enquired into this will make little for Oral Tradition This Synod of Lateran was held under Pope Martin against the Monothelites in which were read the Testimonies of several Fathers S. Ambrose Austin Basil Cyrill Hippolytus Epiphanius Chrysostom Justine Athanasius Hilary Nyssen Nazianzen Leo and others with reference to whose words the Synod added We all confirm c. Where it is observable they proceeded upon the written Testimonies read out of the Fathers to determine what was the Doctrine of the Fathers and this is no way of Oral Tradition nor any thing rejected but highly approved by Protestants Yea here the Bishop of Rome and his Roman Council own that as Catholick Doctrine which was delivered in the Writings of the Fathers and eminent Writers in other Churches which is not this Discoursers way And it is further observable that these sayings of the Fathers no way appear to be the Rule of their Faith but are owned by them as Truths unto which they all agree whence these words Dogmata patrum omnes firmamus we all confirm their Doctrines cannot signifie that they make these their Rule but that they consent with them in the things alledged and confirm their saying to be truth And this Protestants will do as well as the Synod of Lateran But that we may enquire what appears to have been the Rule of this Synod it is observable that none of the Fathers Testimonies here cited against the Monothelites who denyed two wills in Christ refer to any Oral Tradition but very many to several grounds of Scripture For instance Leo Bishop of Rome is by Pope Martin produced in the opening that Synod that Christ said According to the form of God I and my Father are one but according to the form of a servant I came not to do my own will but his who sent me where he plainly manifests two wills Again from Leo He who was incarnate for us by his uncreated will and operation of his Divinity of his will wrought Miracles whence he testifies saying As the Father raiseth the dead and quickens them so the Son quickneth whom he will by his created will and operation he who is God above nature as man willingly underwent hunger thirst reproach sorrow and fear and this again the Evangelist testifies saying he went into an house and would have none know but could not lye hid and again They went through Galilee and he would not that any should know And again he would go into Galilee also they gave him Wine mingled with Gall and when he had tasted thereof he would not drink So S. Austin Ambrose Cyril c. in their testimonies read in this Council to prove the humane will of Christ urge farther If it be possible let this cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt My soul is sorrowful to death Now is my soul troubled And Deus-dedit Bishop of Sardinia declared in this Council that the testimony of Cyrill of urging those Texts was for the perfect refuting those Hereticks S. Austin is likewise produced thus glossing concerning Christs Humane Nature If we say he was not sorry when the Gospel saith My soul is exceeding sorrowful if we say he did not eat when the Gospel saith he did eat the worm of rottenness creepeth in and there will be nothing left sound then his body was not real nor his flesh real but
partake of our flesh and blood and made our Body his and became Man of a Woman Wherein he plainly enough makes use of the holy Scriptures to decide the Controversie concerning that point of Faith or rather to confirm that matter of Faith against its opposers SECT IX Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine AS it was easie to shew the general consent of the ancient Fathers to the Protestant Doctrine in this particular I shall now indeavour to do it in all those our Discourser pretends to be on his side and to avoid over great prolixity I will confine my self to them only His first citation is from Coelestine in his Epistle to the Ephesine Council where his words somewhat mis cited by the Discourser are to this purpose We must by all means indeavour that we may retain the Doctrines of Faith delivered to us and hitherto preserved by the Apostolical Doctrine But what is here for Oral Tradition Doth Coelestine tell us that that was the way of delivering and preserving truth till his time No such matter yea in the beginning of this Epistle he saith That is certain which is delivered in the Evangelical Letters But that we may better understand Coelestine whose Letter to the Council of Ephesus was written against Nestorius consider first his Letter to Cyril who confuted Nestorius in which are these words This truly is the great triumph of our Faith that thou hast so strongly proved our assertions and so mightily vanquished those that are contrary by the testimony of Divine Scriptures Yea in his Epistle to Nestorius he calls that Heresie of Nestorius a perfidious novelty which indeavours to pull asunder those things which the holy Scripture conjoins And in another Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople he hath these words of Nestorius He fights against the Apostles and explodes the Prophets and despiseth the words of Christ himself speaking of himself of what Religion or of what Law doth he profess himself a Bishop who doth so foully abuse both the Old and the New Testament And in the end of that Epistle thus directs those Constantinopolitans You having the Apostolical words before your eyes be perfect in the same sense and the same meaning These words of Coelestine seem plainly to shew that in the Romish Church Scripture was then the way whereby to try Doctrines But if this be not the sense of these words of this Roman Bishop which seem so plain I may well conclude that the words by which the Roman Church of old delivered truth were not generally intelligible and so their Tradition must be uncertain SECT X. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus THe next Father he cites is Irenaeus from whom he cites three testimonies From Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 4. though the naming the Book was omitted by him he would prove that the Apostles gave charge to the Bishops to observe Tradition and that it is a sufficient Rule of Faith without Scripture in which he abuseth Irenaeus From Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 3. he to the same end cites this as his testimony Though there be divers tongues in the world yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same the preaching of the Church is true and firm in which one and the same way of salvation is shown over the whole world Of which words only the first clause is in the place cited in Irenaeus but these words The preaching of the Church is true and firm c. though glossed upon by this Discourser as considerable are not to be there found in Irenaeus and if they were they would not serve his purpose as may by and by appear And from Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. though he mis-cites it lib. 1. c. 3. he cites words p. 138. to prove that the Doctrine of the present Church is the Doctrine of the Apostles Now that I may give a true account of the meaning of the words cited and also of the judgment of Irenaeus I shall first observe from Irenaeus himself what kind of Hereticks those in the Primitive times were who occasioned these words and how he confutes them and next which was his own judgement of the Rule of Faith Concerning the former Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. tells us That those Hereticks when they were convinced out of the Scriptures were turned into the accusing of the Scriptures themselves that they were not right nor of authority that they were variously spoken and that the truth could not be found out of them by those who have not Tradition and that the truth was given in a living voice which was the wisdom in a Mystery which every one of these Hereticks pleaded themselves had in Valentinus or Marcion Cerinthus or Basilides And when they were challenged to hold to the Tradition of the Apostles and their Successors in the Church they said they were wiser than the Apostles and so would neither hold to Scripture nor Tradition since they are slippery as Serpents indeavouring every way to evade he saith they must be every way resisted After this c. 3. he contends with them concerning Tradition and shews that the Churches Tradition is much more considerable than these Hereticks and hath the words which our Discourser cites p. 138. All they who will hear truth may discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world after which he adds We can mention the Bishops which were by the Apostles instituted in the Churches and were their Successors and if they had known any Mysteries to teach them who are perfect they would not have concealed them from them Further to manifest what was this Tradition he refers to Clemens his Epistle saying from thence they who will may know the Apostolical Tradition of the Church That there is one God c. Then that Polycarp who conversed with the Apostles whom Irenaeus had seen was a more faithful testifier than Valentinus or Marcion and he declared the same Doctrine and from his Epistle to the Philippians they who will may learn the preaching of truth and that John who lived to the time of Trajan was a true witness of the Apostles Tradition Cap. 4. He observes That the Church are the depository of truth and if any have any dispute of any question ought they not to have recourse to the ancient Churches in which the Apostles conversed and from them to receive what is certain concerning the present question And then he adds which our Discourser also cites p. 131. But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which Ordination assent many Nations of those Barbarians who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without Paper and Ink and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition believing in one God c. And after saith They who believe this Faith without
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
the Wicked and Evil-doers Even in Aaron's blessing the People God declared that he himself would bless them And the whole intention of the Gospel is a Dispensation of God's Blessing which cometh upon them who serve him The Blessed Jesus was sent to Bless in turning Men from their Iniquities to such he begins his Sermon in the Mount with Blessing Mat. 5.3.4 Luke 24.50 51 and this also was the last action he perform'd immediately upon his Ascension into Heaven Most of the Apostolical Epistles both begin and end with Benedictions which persons partake of according to their pious qualifications For when not only the Apostles but also the Seventy were commanded to pronounce Peace to the House or Place where they came Mat. 10.12 13 Luke 10.5.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Peace being according to the usual Jewish Phrase a comprehension of all Blessing our Saviour tells them that if the Son of Peace be there their Peace shall rest upon it if not it shall turn to them again The ancient Church to this end used particular Benedictions in Confirmation Ordination receiving Penitents Matrimony and to dying Persons but all these the Corruption of Times hath transformed into reputed proper Sacraments And those Blessings in Confirmation and Ordination are most Solemn the former of which was granted even by S. Hierome Hier. adv Luc. according to the custom of the Church all over the World to be performed by the Bishop only And in our Administration thereof the serious renewing the Baptismal Covenant which is a necessary duty of Christian Profession is a good disposition for receiving the Blessing of God and on this account Confirmation is not to be slighted or wilfully neglected by those who have a high esteem for the Blessing of God 3. They who receive this Ministry are to guide the Church and Christian Society that its Members may please God not forfeit his Favour or provoke his Displeasure The most things contained under this head will respect those Ministers of the Church who are the chief Governours thereof and the things established by their consent and agreement The Church of God is a most excellent Society and his Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are to have the care and ordering of this Family of God Titus 1.7 and such publick Worship as is ordered according to the Will of God being acceptable to him it belongs to them to take care of the performance thereof and also of establishing Order and Decency and the framing and executing such Rules and Canons for Government and Discipline as are meet And though the external Sanction of these things is well ordered by the Secular power yet the directive part and the spiritual Authority belongs to the Guides of the Church who by the Gospel are appointed therein Rulers and Presidents Hence Inferiours are required to obey them that are over them and submit themselves and Titus was sent to Crete to order the things that were wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13.7 17.24 Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Pet. 5.2 and Bishops in general stand charged by S. Paul and St. Peter to take care of the Church of God And as that is a requisite to Order and due Reverence in Religious Worship to them also belongs the setting apart and consecrating Places for the publick Service of God But because there can be no security for Order where every Officer may act independently at his own Pleasure therefore they have Authority to order Uniformity which is in it self desirable and ought to be observed not only with respect to the secular Sanction but together therewith in compliance also with the Ecclesiastical Authority invested in Synods which hath in all Ages from the Apostles been honoured in the Christian Church of which the observation of the Canons of the several Councels and Codes is an experimental Evidence And as the mutual Consent of Pastors in Synods is according to natural Prudence directly pursueth the great ends of Peace and Unity and by their agreement addeth Weight to their Authority so this Case is eminently included in that Promise of our Saviour Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them Mat. 18.20 Act. 16.4 5. Act. 21.18 24 26. Act. 8.14 And St. Paul himself yielded manifest Obedience both to the Decrees of the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. And to that other Council Act. 21. And so did S. Peter and S. John to another Council And since Christians being established in the Truth is of great use both to their own and the Churches Peace in order hereunto the Pastors of the Church in Councils have power to abandon Heretical and dangerous Doctrines and to require submission to the Truth they declare This was done in the Synod of the Apostles against the necessity of Circumcision and in the four first general Councils concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of the Mediator And such Decisions concerning matters of Doctrine when managed aright have been deservedly reverenced in the Church since one end of God's appointing these Officers is that we should be no more Children tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine Eph. 4.14 And upon this account a particular Honour is due to the established Doctrine of our Church which hath a high agreement with the Rule of Scripture and the Catholick and Primitive Church Besides these things all particular Officers of the Church in their charge are to watch over those committed to them as much as in them lies with special regard to the Sick and to those also who need to be Catechised in the Principles of Religion John 21.15 it being our Saviour's first charge to S. Peter to feed his Lambs with earnest Prayer for the Grace and Blessing of God upon them all 4. The Ministry of Reconciliation includeth an Authority of rebuking and admonishng Offenders of casting them out of the Church and of restoring them again upon Repentance This hath been the ordinarily received sense of those great words of our Saviour Mat. 18.18 Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven There is indeed a late Objection made that these words speak not of binding and loosing Persons but Things and that it is usual with the Jewish Writers to express the binding and loosing of Things not of Persons meaning thereby the declaring or judging such things prohibited or allow'd But besides what may be otherwise said I think it sufficient at present to observe that the admitting this notion may well enough consist with the true sense of these words which if interpreted by it will import 1. That the power of binding and loosing hath a considerable respect to such things as the Cases Offences and Penitent Performances of persons
despising the Blessings which he tenders by those Institutions Wherefore since Episcopal Ordination hath been of so general Practice from the Apostles in the Church of God and is regularly established and continued in this Kingdom no Man in this Church with respect to Order Unity and Apostolical Institution can reasonably expect that God will ever own him as his Officer in the Ministry of Reconciliation unless he be admitted thereto by such Ordination And private Christians both out of Duty to God and out of respect to their own Safety may not so esteem of any who oppose themselves against this Order because of the Danger under the New Testament of perishing in the gainsaying of Core And let every Person whosoever he be be wary how upon any pretence whatsoever he undertakes to execute any proper part of the Power of the Keys unless he be set apart thereunto by regular Ordination And now I shall conclude my Discourse with three Inferences First This gives us an account whence all that Opposition and Difficulty doth arise which the Ministration of the Gospel and the faithful Servants of God therein do meet with The Devil will use his utmost Power by all his Methods to hinder so good a Work as this Ministration is intended for Hence the Holy Jesus and most of his Apostles met with opposition even unto Death And as all the Persecutions of the Christian Church had an especial eye upon the Clergy so that violent one under Dioclesian Eus Hist l. 3. c. 12. for the first Year fingled them only out to be the Subjects of his Fury These are the ordinary Mark against whom all the Churches Enemies shoot their poysoned Arrows envenomed from the Malignity of the Old Serpent And when the Evil One cannot proceed by open Violence he oft makes use of Instruments to fix slanderous Censures and Calumnies upon the Officers of Christ to render their Ministration the less prosperous and successful in the World Insomuch that their Devoutness in Religion is by some upbraided with Ceremoniousness and their consciencious Observance of due Order and Averseness to Faction is branded with the odious Term of Popery and their embracing the necessary Reformation of the Church is by others stigmatized with the infamous Names of Heresy and Schism Thus our Saviour was called Beelzebub himself accused of Blasphemy and his Doctrine of Heresy Besides these things the vicious and scandalous Practices of too many who profess the Truth the various Schisms and other manifold Corruptions in the Doctrine and Practice of Religion and I wish I might not add the undue Proceedings of some Patrons in conferring Ecclesiastical Preferments are all of them dangerous Methods made use of by the Evil One to hinder the attaining the great Ends of this Ministration Secondly I now address my self to you my Reverend Brethren It is a weighty Charge a Business of great Importance that we are called unto and as we are Stewards of the Living God it is required of us that we be found faithful And for the putting us in mind of that serious Care and Diligence which we are to use in our Ministry I know not how to speak otherwise so well as by recommending the serious and frequent considering that useful Exhortation in the Book of Ordination And let us particularly look well to our own Paths for tho the Excellency of God's Ordinances doth not depend upon the Instruments yet if a Blemish appears in any of our Lives it becomes a great Prejudice to the Designs we should carry on among Men and will open the Mouths of our Enemies and if there be a Judas among the Apostles the Devil is ready to make a special use of him to his purposes But let us observe that Rule which but a few Verses after my Text the Apostle tells us was the Practice of himself and other Officers of the Christian Church Giving no Offence in any thing that the Ministry be not blamed but in all things approving our selves as the Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.3 4. Thirdly Let every one in their places lay to their helping-Hand to promote the Success of this Ministry upon themselves and others Wherefore let every Man who lives under the Dispensation of the Gospel reject all Wickedness of Life and exercise himself unto Godliness and so he will certainly advantage himself and probably others by his good Example And let all those who have the management of the Authority of the Church in their hands indifferently check the Neglect and Contempt of the Publick Service of God and all other Viciousness and Evil which comes within the Limits of their Authority and countenance and encourage all real Vertue Goodness Holiness and Religion And those Parish-Officers who stand charged upon their Oaths to give an account of Offences which is noted by our 26th Canon to be the chief Means whereby publick Offences may be reformed and punished and whose Miscarriage is there severely censured let not them sinfully neglect their Oath and their Duty the right Discharge of which may tend to the Glory of God the flourishing of the Church and Religion and the bringing Men into the Ways of Happiness And because the Apostle proposeth that humbling Question concerning the Ministerial Charge Who is sufficient for these Things Let us earnestly implore the Help and Grace of God to assist us and succeed our Ministrations to the great Good of Men. And let every devout Christian join his fervent and frequent Prayer to this end and purpose That he who hath committed to us this Ministration would bring all those who partake thereof unto true Holiness of Life here and eternal Happiness hereafter through the Merits of Jesus Christ our Lord To whom with the Father and the Holy-Ghost be all Glory for evermore Amen A SERMON Preached at NORWICH March 2. 1678. JOEL 2.12 Therefore also now saith the Lord Turn ye even to me with all your heart IN the foregoing part of this Prophecy there is a dismal appearance of things concerning Judah a heavy threatning of sad Calamities therein both by Famine and Sword in the first Chapter and former part of the second The dreadfulness hereof is represented according to an usual Prophetick Style as if God was making the whole Fabrick of his Creation to totter v. 10. The Earth shall quake before them and the Heavens shall tremble the Sun and Moon shall be dark and the Stars shall withdraw their shining And this great Calamity was like to be the more sad because of the terror of God's Vengeance going along with it v. 11. The Day of the Lord is great and very terrible and who can abide it In such a case as this these words which our Church directeth to be read at the beginning of Lent which is now near and which are of excellent use at all times are the beginning of the Prophetical Direction for their help and recovery from this sad Condition and such a Remedy as recovereth one gasping
(f) Chrys Hom. in Ps 44. S. Chrysostome there is nothing shameful but sin and if all the world shall reproach thee and thou not reproach thy self there is no shame in all this But it is never safe to join with a multitude either in the doing or speaking evil And the state of every offender when the sin grows common is upon this account the more dangerous because he is hereby the more like to be encouraged in his sin and the more unlike to repent of it and sometimes he may be by this means so emboldned in evil as to think it strange that others run not to the same excess speaking evil of them And thus his case is like that of a man who is carried away with a fierce and violent stream which leaves but little hopes of his escaping drowning Wherefore it is as reasonable that men be careful to avoid spreading vices as that they should be cautious and fearful of infectious diseases 9. Thirdly This disorder is prone to prevail 3 It is a sin earnestly pursued by many who appear strict and zealous about Religion not only among men of careless and negligent tempers but also among them who are strict scrupulous and conscientious in matters of Religion Thus was our Master treated with infamous reproaches by them who were zealous for the honour of God Such were the Pharisees and the devouter sort of the Jewish Nation such was S. Paul himself before his conversion being exceeding zealous for the law and yet a blasphemer and injurious And such were those unbelieving Jews to whom S. Paul bears record that they had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge Rom. 10.2 These were members of the Jewish Church were strict in many things both of practice and opinion and were very earnest to make Proselytes And besides the other Sects of the Jews who all joyned together against our Lord the holy Scriptures represent none more vehement in their oppositions and reproaches than the Pharisees who as S. Paul declares were of the exactest and straitest Sect of the Jewish Religion Acts 26.5 And though Josephus sometimes prefer the Essens before them yet he also tells us that (g) Joseph de Bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. the Pharisees were reputed to be more Religious than other men and more strict in their interpretation of the laws But there was so much pride and passion mixed with their zeal that they were vehement against those who did not comply with them in laying a great stress upon such things wherein Religion was not concerned yea and upon those things al o which really tended to the undermining of true piety and they were eager against them who would inform them better and hence they set themselves in opposition against Christ and his Apostles 10. Misguided zeal inflameth passions and sharpneth tongues There is nothing that more sharpens the tongues of men against others than the mistaken principles of a misguided conscience which was that by which the Jews acted against the Saviour of the World both reviling and crucifying him Hence also before the great Apostle was a convert he thought he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus Act. 26.9 And hence the Apostles and other Christians were upbraided and ill intreated in that high degree that they that killed them thought they did God service Joh. 16.2 And hence divers Hereticks and those who were engaged in Errors and Schisms and divisions vented many contumelious and reproachful censures against the true Church and its members So did the Gnosticks Montanists Novatians Donatists and others anciently and all dividing Sects of later times 11. For instance the Donatists raised such high accusations against the true Christian Church as (h) Aug. Ep. 50. Ep. 162. passim to reject it from being a true Church and not to own any but themselves to be the Church of Christ and thereupon not only rebaptized all others who came to them but by savage cruelty and violence forced divers to be rebaptized Sect. III. And other reproachers but not in the like degree were embraced by the other Sects For all men who have pretended to Christianity till some late unreasonable notions in our present age which discard all obligation to visible and external Unity and publick communion in the offices of the Church have been sensible that they could never justifie their own departure from the Church unless they could lay some such thing to her charge as made their secession necessary Among these some were more fierce and furious who yielded their conscience to the service of their affections and passions as too many of late have done both in the Church of Rome and of other parties in our late unhappy times And when S. Austin with lamentations spake of the incursions of the Barbarous Nations into France Italy Spain and Egypt he thought the inhumane cruelties some of which he particularly mentions of the (i) Aug. Ep. 122. Sic vastant Ecclesias ut Barbarorum fortasse facta mitlora sunt Donatists and especially the Circumcelliones towards them who held communion with the Church were rather more savage than what was commited by those barbarous people And indeed no rage is fiercer than that which is enflamed by an irregular and disordered zeal And others who continue in a milder temper though they abstain from outrages yet by their misapprehensions are engaged in unreasonable censures of the Church and publick order and of the Rulers who appoint and establish it 12. But zeal when not governed by piety prudence truth and goodness and not allayed with meekness is like a fire violently breaking out in any part of a building which threatens the wasting and ruine of the whole And it is never safe to promote or entertain unjust reproaches raised even by zealous men when these very things though they may be popularly taking to engage a party yet are they a great blemish to their profession uncharitableness and rash censoriousness being a manifest evidence of the want of a true Religious temper wheresoever it prevails To this purpose S. James speaking of that man who is wise by the wisdom which descends from above or who is truly pious and Religious directs this wise and good man Jam. 3.13 to shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom And he then assures us that where there is bitter zeal or envying and strife this wisdom discendeth not from above but is earthly sensual and devilish v. 14 15. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure and then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated or perswaded viz. to what is good just or reasonable SECT III. The monstrous and unreasonable strangeness of those censures which have been unjustly charged on the most innocent and excellent men and particularly on our blessed Lord and Saviour himself 1. The most infamous calumny sometimes raised against well deserving men IN sensible things
defamed as acting by Beelzebub Nor was this wicked and blasphemous slander only some rash sudden unadvised words of some inconsiderable persons but the Pharisees saith S. Matthew Mat. 9.34 and the Scribes saith S. Mark Mar. 3.22 passed this censure upon him and what was thus spoken at one time was repeated and declared again at another Mat. 12.24 And we may discern by this instance how easily the greatest calumnies may be propagated by a zealous and eager party from one age to another and from one place to another For the Jews in after ages still embraced for truth this impudent falshood which is taken into their (u) v. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 12.24 Talmud which contains a collection of the main body of their Traditions and Opinions And this wicked and contumelious aspersion of our Lord though contrary to the highest evidence was also endeavoured to be spread abroad among the Pagan Gentiles insomuch that (w) Orig. cont Cels l. 1. Eus Dem. Ev. l. 3. c. 6. divers Christian Writers thought fit to refell the same and to shew the manifest contradiction which this carried to the piety of our Saviours Religion to the nature of his precepts to the works which he did and to the Spirit and practice of his followers all which include a manifest opposition to the evil one 18. At other times they charged him with being a Samaritan and having a Devil and being a Samaritan Joh. 8.48 The name of Samaritan was fixed on him to promote a popular hatred The Samaritans rejected the true worship of God at Jerusalem and depraved and corrupted Religion and oft manifested a great hatred towards the Jews They frequented Mount (x) Joseph Ant. l. 13. c. 6. Gerazim as the place of their Worship in opposition to Jerusalem and their despising the true Worship of God at Jerusalem is observed in the (y) Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.20 Talmud and sufficiently in the holy Scripture it self And for the countenancing their depraved worship the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch as it is now extant hath corrupted the law and hath put in the word Gerazim in the place of Ebal where God commanded an Altar to be made and Sacrifice to be offered Deut. 27.4 5 6 7 8. Now the name of a Samaritan being odious to the Jews they call our Saviour a Samaritan not as if they thought he was so by his birth for they admitted him to the Jewish worship as a Jew and knew his nearest relations to be Jews but they would hereby declare that he had equally corrupted Religion and deserved to be as much hated as the Samaritans were And to this purpose was he thus aspersed though his custome was to attend the Jewish Synagogues Luk. 4.16 and he carefully served God according to the precepts of his Law But as if this foul calumny was not sufficient they further added that he had a Devil or that he in whom alone the Godhead dwelt bodily was possessed by the evil one And this wicked slander was intended to raise the highest prejudice of the people against him and to keep them far enough from being directed by him And therefore they said Joh. 10.20 he hath a Devil and is mad why hear ye him 19. And it may be observed And in like manner our Reformation Bishops and Ministry have been aspersed with Popery how the carriage of many men among us towards his Ministers the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England doth too nearly resemble this behaviour which I have mentioned of the Jews towards our Lord himself Certainly one of the great works the Devil contrives to uphold in this last Age of the World is the gross corruption of Popery Our Clergy and Bishops were very instrumental in the Reformation and casting out of Popery those of our Church Preach and Write against Popery so as to make the clearest discovery of the falseness of their doctrine and the sin of their practices These have confuted and baffled them the most effectually and with most convictive evidence These have plainly laid open in the face of the world the folly evil and mischief of many considerable things asserted and maintained by the Church of Rome and have thereby raised the indignation of the Romanists themselves who look upon these men to be their most formidable adversaries and they are indeed the great bulwark against Popery And yet because these men are not so weak and rash as to run beyond the bounds of truth and sobriety into other unreasonable errors they must needs be clamoured on as friends to Popery And other men who talk indeed against Popery with great noise and are real and earnest in what they say and some few of them have done useful service herein by many who are indeed eager against it but most of them speak with much weakness and many mistakes whereby they give great advantage to their adversaries these must be accounted the chief and main enemies to Popery when for the generality of them the Romanists themselves have no great fear of the Writings and Arguments of such opposers And from these our excellent Reformation meets with virulent censures 20. I doubt not as many Jews were against the Devil but among the Jews in our Saviours time there were many besides him and his Disciples who talked much against the Devil and did indeed hate him though in many things through their misguided zeal they greatly served his interest And that the Jews had some among them who sometimes cast out Devils is not to be doubted from what we read in the Scripture of the Jewish Exorcists and of our Saviours appeal to the Pharisees Mat. 12.27 By whom do your children cast them out (z) Antiq. l. 8. c. 2. de bel l. 7. c. 25. Josephus takes some notice of their Exorcisms but what he writes is of such a nature concerning the driving away Devils by some Herbs and charms that they who pretended to act against the evil one by these methods did seem rather to comply with him But that some of the Jews both before and after the coming of our Lord did cast out evil Spirits by the power and in the name of the God of Abraham and the God of Israel is asserted and acknowledged by (a) Justin adv Tryph. Iren. adv Haeres l. 2. c. 5. Justin Martyr Irenaeus and other ancient Christian Writers But their undertaking was far from being sufficient to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Satan nor were they always successful and effectual in lesser cases When the Sons of Sceva a Jew and chief of the Priests undertook to cast out a Devil the evil Spirit prevailed against them and they were not able to stand before him But it was he whom the Jews aspersed as complying with the Devil who did abundantly more against him than they all were able to do and he spoiled principalities and powers 21. And besides all this though the singular and sinless
c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Agrippa declared in his Oration to the Jews And from the time of Julius Caesar the Alexandrian (l) Jos Ant. l. 14. c. 17. Jews enjoyed the freedoms of that City Now from hence it appears that the Jewish Consistories under the Romans retained a sufficient right of Judicial authority and therefore Ananias in this chief Council was to be considered as an Officer in a Court of Judicature acting by a just and competent power and authority 50. The sense of these words I wist not that he was the High Priest enquired into Having spoken thus much concerning the words of the Apostle to Ananias and also concerning Ananias himself and the state of the Jewish Consistories at that time I shall now more particularly consider the sense of that expression v. 4. I wist not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or I knew not brethren that he was the High Priest Some think that the Apostle did not know the person of the High Priest and professed so much as an excuse for himself in his having uttered such words which he would not have done if he had known him to be the High Priest since the Law commands Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people But they seem not to consider that whether the word High Priest be taken in a more strict or more large sense that Law hath no singular and peculiar respect to the High Priest alone and S. Paul did know Ananias to be a Ruler and to sit as Judge and expressed so much v. 3. declaring that he sate to judge him according to the Law And therefore some other sense of these words must be enquired after And that which seemeth to me most agreeable to the whole Context and free from all just exceptions is this that as the word to know oft signifieth to approve regard affect or own so it oft-times signifies to consider duly and to attend to and think on and may be so best taken in this place So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew from whence probably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had their original is sometimes rendred in our English Translation to consider as Deut. 8.5 Jud. 18.14 2 King 5.7 and this sense is most agreeable to many other places as Gen. 12.11 Ex. 2.25 Deut. 4.39 chap. 9.6 Judg. 15.11 Ruth 3.4 2 Sam. 24.13 2 Chr. 12.8 chap. 13.5 with many others And among the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observa istud is an usual expression when they require a special attention or observation or a particular notice and consideration to be taken of any thing as is noted by (m) Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 935. Buxtorf And in that sense is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most properly to be understood in many places of the New Testament to denote to consider It appears so used by S. Luke Luk. 2.49 chap. 9.55 chap. 19.22 and also Joh. 6.61 chap. 11.49 chap. 19.10 Ephes 6.8 9. Col. 3.24 chap. 4.1 And if we thus expound these words of the Apostle the sense of these words will be this that he owneth somewhat in his former expression to have been words of sudden surprize and some degree of inadvertency and that being moved with the injury offered to him they fell from him over hastily and he did not on the sudden duly think of attend to and consider the Office and Dignity of the person to whom he spake otherwise he would not have used the least expression which might intimate any degree of unbecoming reflection or disrespect towards a person in Authority since he acknowledgeth this to be his duty not to speak evil of the Ruler of the people while the (n) Joseph de Bel. Jud. l 4. c. 19. gr Jewish Zealots spake and acted insolently against them without any remorse 51. And that there was somewhat in some measure blameable in the foregoing expressions of S. Paul is plainly acknowledged and declared by (o) Adv. Pelag l. 3. c. 1. S. Hierome and by (p) In Willet on Exod. 22. qu. 52. Procopius as I find him cited agreeably to my sense and by (q) Paraph. on Act. 23.5 Dr. Hammond and other worthy men And they who would by no means admit any thing to have been said or done amâ—ss by any of the Apostles might consider that even they were to pray for the forgiveness of their trespasses and that such things as S. Peters rebuking and denying his Master and drawing his sword the Apostles arguing who should be the greatest and their forsaking their Lord when he was laid hold on the desire of the Sons of Zebedee for the chief advancement in Christs Kingdom and their forwardness to call for fire from Heaven S. Peter and Barnabas their withdrawing at Antioch the sharp contention betwixt Paul and Barnabas and some other things ought not to be justified and defended And (r) Orig. cont Cels l. 2. p. 69 70. some of the ancient Christian Writers urged it as an evidence of the integrity of the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures and that they wholly designed to keep to truth and not to pursue any interest in that they did not endeavour to conceal and silence the failings of the Apostles and of their chiefest friends which had never been known to the world in after ages but from their writings Even S. Mark who was S. Peters follower did not omit to express his denying our Lord and S. Luke who was S. Pauls companion recorded this expression of his and his acknowledgement thereupon And a sudden hasty expression which was upon a great provocation and was soon recalled was no fault of any high degree especially considering the right the Apostle had being a Roman to claim satisfaction even from a Governour who should offer him an injury in proceeding against Law as was done Acts 16.37 38 39. and in part Acts 22.25 26 29. 52. Nor is this interpretation which admits some degree of blame in the expression of the Apostle inconsistent as I conceive with the promises of our Saviour to his Apostles The great assistances of the Apostles considered when they should be brought into the Synagogues and before Governours and Kings for his names sake that the Holy Ghost should teach them in the same hour what they ought to say Luke 12.12 and that he will give them a mouth and wisdom which all their adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist Luk. 21.15 For 1. It may be considered that due dispositions are requisite for obtaining the benefit of any of Gods promises and his special guidance and therefore a sudden complyance with some hastiness of temper might for the present hinder the fullest obtaining the benefit of that promise As S. Peter after he had asked our Lord whether he should smite with the Sword overhastily undertaking the action before he had received his answer deprived himself at that present of the
497. at the Council of Trent declared against the Infallible judgment of Councils and thought he had proved that sufficiently by observing that all the particular Bishops there assembled were fallible and that therefore the firmness of its Constitutions and Anathemas must depend on the Popes Confirmation And yet it might be thought that the Providence of God may as well order the decisions of General Councils to be infallibly true in points of Faith for the guidance of his Church as that it should infallibly guide the Bishop of Rome whenever he teacheth Doctrines of Faith who in other cases and in his own person is acknowledged by his chief Advocates to be fallible even concerning Matters of Faith 7. But there are others or Oral Tradition who call themselves Members of that Church but are in no great favour and esteem at Rome who lay no stress upon the unerring judgments of either Pope or Council more than of other men but place a kind of Infallibility upon the certainty of Oral Tradition and thence conclude that whatsoever is delivered down in a Church by way of Tradition must be infallibly true because no Age could make any change therein This is Mr. White 's way and particularly asserted in (n) J. S. h. sure footing the Discourses of Mr. Serjeant But what is said in defence of this way is pure Sophistry And if such persons furnished with these Notions or Fancies had lived in the beginning of Christianity they might have been Advocates either for Paganism or the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees on whose behalf the indefectiveness of Tradition might have been urged as well as for the Church of Rome and almost in a persect Parallel 8. Secondly Infallibility is not owned by the chief of the Romanists who neither own the Pope's judgment nor the Councils in deciding controversies There is good reason to think that the chief men of the Church of Rome give little credit themselves to the pretence of Infallibility For in such great Controversies wherein considerable numbers of that Church are ingaged on both sides these have some of them for many Ages continued without any satisfactory decision from their Infallibility even in such cases where such a decision would contribute much to truth would end quarrels and be greatly useful for the guiding all mens Consciences And therefore the determining such things would be an excellent work of charity but the leaving them undetermined or at least the allowing the liberty of rejecting any pretended or real determination may be politick lest they should disoblige the contrary party I shall instance in that Question which is at some times of concernment to all Mens Consciences of their Communion whether the authority of the Pope or a General Council be the greater Which hath never yet been decided by the consent of a Pope and a General Council Indeed in some smaller Councils (o) 70 Decret l. 3. Tit. 7. c. 1. Leo the tenth did at the Lateran assert the Authority of the Pope above a Council And Pius the second in a Provincial Council at Mantua declared (p) Ibid. l. 2. Tit. 9. c. 1. appeals from a Pope to a future Council to be void and Schismatical which was also confirmed (q) Ibid. c. 2. by Julius the second But this way of decision is so little satisfactory among themselves that the Cardinal of Lorrain did in the Council of Trent openly declare (r) Hist Conc. Trid. l. 8. p. 580. that the Council was above the Pope and that this was the general sense of the French Church And divers other Bishops spake their judgments there to the same purpose 9. And the General Councils of Basil and Constance asserted the authority of the Council above the Pope and yet this is no satisfactory decision to them of the contrary opinion So that here we have the pretence to Infallibility whether in the Pope or in a General Council slighted by themselves as they think fit And this is a thing of such concern that if the highest authority be in the Council this must fix the Infallibility there also if there be any such thing because infallible determination must be by a Divine guidance and so must include God's Authority in that Determination to which none can be Superior If this be seated in the Council it would take down the Pope's Plumes If in the Pope the World might be spared the trouble of General Councils as a needless thing and then all those Christian Churches Emperors and Bishops which will take in divers Bishops of Rome were very imprudent who either laboured much for them or took any great satisfaction in them Wherefore it must needs be a business of design and not of integrity to make a loud noise about Infallibility to prevail thereby upon the Consciences of other men when they have so low an esteem of it themselves 10. Thirdly No Infallibility of the Roman Church Romish Infallibility unknown to Primitive Christianity was ever known or owned in the Primitive Church and therefore was never delivered by Christ or his Apostles but the pretence thereof is an Innovation of later date And whereas the Pope unjustly pretends to a singular right of Succession to the Authority and Prerogatives of S. Peter it is observable that S. Peter himself though an eminent and prime Apostle even in a Council had no peculiar gift of Infallibility or judgment of decision above other Apostles For in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. when after much disputation S. Peter had declared his sense v. 7 11. and after him S. James expressed his judgment v. 13 21. the final determination of that Council did much more follow the words of S. James than of S. Peter v. 19 20. with 28 29. Wherefore the claim of (ſ) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 552. Pius the fourth in his Epistle to the Emperor must have an higher Plea than that of Succession to S. Peter that if the Bishop of Rome be present in a Council he doth not only alone propose but he also alone decrees and the Council adds nothing but Approbation 11. Nor can it be imagined that if the Primitive Church had owned any Infallibility in the Pope or Romish Church that so Pious and good a Bishop as Cyprian would so earnestly have opposed the declaration of Stephen Bishop of Rome concerning the Baptism of Hereticks But he not only declares Stephen to (t) Cyp. Ep. 74. be in an error but declares him to have written proudly impertinently ignorantly and imprudently which sufficiently shews him to have known nothing of his Infallibility And (u) Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75. Firmilianus a renowned Bishop of Cappadocia declares his sense against the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen also approving S. Cyprian's answer to it and using severe expressions against the behaviour and determination of Stephen as bold insolent and evil improbè gesta And (w) Sent. Episcop Conc. Carth. in
Cypr. a Carthaginian Council of eighty seven Bishops did unanimously declare their judgment for the baptizing Hereticks who returned to the Church which was contrary to what the Bishop of Rome had determined And that this Council did sit after Cyprian had received the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen Bishop of Rome is observed by (x) Argum. Ep. Cyp. 73. Pamelius Now though all these Bishops were in an error in accounting the Baptism of all Hereticks to be null and that they ought generally to be Baptized when they returned to the Church yet it cannot be supposed that they were so obstinately resolved in their error as to reject the infallible evidence of truth When many of these very Bishops who lived to understand their error did as (y) Dial adv Lucifer S. Hierome testifies disclaim and reject it and that Cyprian himself did so as did also those parts of the Eastern Church who adhered to Firmilian is judged not improbable by S. (z) Aug. Ep. 48. Austin though it was not certain But hence it appears that since Stephen's determination was slighted and opposed by such eminent Bishops both of the Carthaginian and Eastern Church who sincerely designed to embrace the truth no such thing was then owned as the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop And if Stephen did so generally declare against the Baptizing any who returned from any Heresie whatsoever as he seems to do in the words of his Epistle cited by (a) Ep. 74. S. Cyprian si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos c. he erred on the one hand as they did on the other and the determination of the general (b) Conc. Nic. c. 19. Council of Nice and of (c) Conc. Const c. 7. Constantinople takes the middle way requiring some sort of Hereticks who kept the substantial form of Baptism to be received upon their former Baptism and that others should be baptized when they returned to the Church 12. And the Practical judgment of the ancient Church is concerning this case sufficiently manifest in that when Heresies arose and their errors and impieties appeared necessary to be condemned and the Catholick Doctrine was necessary to be declared and confirmed by the greatest and fullest judgment which could be made in the Church this was not done by application to the particular Church of Rome only but by the summoning General Councils which with all the troublesome Journeys and expences attending them had been a very needless and vain thing if the Romish Infallibility had then been owned And in the four first General Councils the Bishop of Rome was personally present in none of them nor was his particular Sanction thought necessary to confirm them but they were all held in the Eastern parts of the Church and all of them desired and obtained the Imperial Confirmation with respect to their external force and effect And the (d) v Crackenthorp's Vigilius Dormitans None infallible who oppose the Doctrine of Christ and contradict themselves fifth General Council was managed perfectly contrary to the mind and sense of Vigilius then Bishop of Rome 13. Fourthly Since so many Doctrines and Practices are asserted in the Church of Rome which are plainly contrary to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles of which several instances are given in this Chapter that Church ought not nor cannot be owned infallible by those who own the Holy Scriptures and Christ and his Apostles to be so Besides this I might add that the Romish Bishops themselves have oft some of them at one time contradicted what others of them at other times have affirmed The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth was revoked by (e) Clement in l 3. Tit. 17. c. 1. Clemens the Fifth as scandalous and dangerous And I above observed that regal Supremacy in temporals is owned by Innocentius the Third but is disowned in the stile of many Bulls of Deposition by other Popes But there needs no other testimony against any pretended Infallibility than its being contradicted in what it delivers by that evidence which is certainly infallible And there can scarce be a greater imposture and delusion than such a false pretence as this which is designed both as a prop to uphold the whole bulk and fabrick of Popery and a contrivance to raise a very high veneration thereof 14. Secondly Of Indulgences and the pretence of freeing souls from Purgatory thereby I shall consider the pretended power of securing offenders from Purgatory or releasing their souls out of it partly by the Priests Masses and chiefly by the Popes Indulgences and being interested thereby in that treasure of the Church which he hath power to dispense For the Romanists tell us that as there is in sin a fault and in mortal sins an obligation to eternal punishment which is discharged in the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution so there is an obligation to temporal punishment even in venial sins and if this be not sufficiently undergone in this life by way of satisfaction it must be made up by the sufferings of Purgatory And thus a model is contrived and drawn up to shew how sinners may escape these evils of sin without amendment Now sin indeed is of that pernicious and hurtful nature in every respect that by reason of it God sometimes punisheth persons and Families even after true repentance and receiving the person into his particular favour and such were the judgements on Davids House after his Murther and Adultery And I esteem the practices of sin and vice to be so hurtful that though they be sincerely repented of if that repentance and the fruits of it be not very exemplary they will make abatements in the high degrees of the future reward And strict penitential exercises ought to be undertaken by all Penitents for greater offences according to the quality of their transgressions This in the ordinary discipline of the ancient Church was performed before the Church gave Absolution which oft included the severe exercises of divers years and this was the Exomologesis oft mentioned in Tertullian and Cyprian And if in danger of death such penitents were reconciled who had not compleated their penitential exercises (f) Conc. Nic. c. 13.4 Conc. Carth. c. 76. the Canons required that if they recovered these must afterwards be performed And these things were testimonies of their abhorrence of the sin their high value for the favour of God and the priviledges and Communion of the Church and that they had exercised themselves to undergo difficulties and severities rather than to forfeit them 15. But concerning the Romish Purgatory though God never revealed any such thing nor did the ancient Church believe it I shall not here engage in that dispute but shall only observe that this fiction of temperal punishment of sin in Purgatory is somewhat unequal since the body which is so great a partaker in and promoter of the sin is wholly freed from all these punishments and rests quietly in its
their former Communion they themselves become a distinct particular Congregation and thereby are under no Superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction nor can they be authoritatively censured by any and by this open separation they according to this principle are become a particular distinct Church and the Schism is healed and by being parted into two distinct Societies there remains no longer any such division as there was before in one Congregation which is Schism but by going further asunder and separating from one another they are in a wonderful manner brought to Unity in two opposite Congregations And thus by the late rare inventions of men which have been unknown to all former times the rending things asunder and breaking them in pieces are the new found methods to make them one But such a way of Unity if it can please some singular fancies will appear monstrous to the generality of mankind 11. That these notions and practices are great promoters of discord and division is not a bare speculation but hath been manifested by sufficient experience In Amsterdam the separate Communion of the Societies of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth under Brownism and in Rotterdam the like of those of Mr. Bridge and Mr. Simpson proceeded upon this principle And this very principle of Independency helped many forward in this Kingdom in our late times of discord to set up new parties of Anabaptists Seekers and other Sects many of which were the off-sets of fermented Independency and its adulterine off-spring And the sad and lamentable relation of the Bermudas Islands called the Summer Islands is also very considerable where after this Congregational way was there undertaken the rejected part are said to have neglected all care of Religion and the gathered or separated part to have run on in dividing till they in a manner lost their Christian Religion in Quakerism And thus many have made a further improvement than the asserters themselves allowed of the allowed liberty for them who (q) Instit o Chur. n. 28. are in Church-fellowship as they call their way to depart from the Communion of the Church where they have walked to join themselves with some other Church where they may injoy the Ordinances in the purity of the same 12. Wherefore this notion of Independency would misrepresent the Christian Society and the Institution of Christ as if whilst Unity was earnestly injoyned therein the state of this Society should be left without that Order and Government which is necessary to preserve it For under this model the Church would be as far from an orderly and regular state as an Army would be when every several Troop or Company were left wholly to themselves and their own pleasure allowing some respect to be had to the conduct of their own Captain and inferiour Officers but not owning any Authority of any General or higher Commander than what is in their own Troop Or it might be somewhat resembled by the state of such an imaginary Kingdom where every Village in the Country and every Parish in a City should have such a chief power within themselves that there should be no appeal for justice to any higher Court nor any other power to punish them but what is executed by themselves If such things as these were put in practice they would not only hinder the serviceableness and usefulness of such an Army or Kingdom if it could be allowed to call them so but here would be also wanting the beauty and comeliness of Unity and Order and a door opened to frequent discords and dissentions 13. Secondly I shall consider their gathering Churches as they call them out of those who were Christian members of the Church of Christ and entring them into their Societies by a particular Covenant made to and with a private Congregation and pretending this Covenant to be the main ground and true way of the establishment and Union of a Church The value they set upon this Covenant may appear from the declaration of the Churches in New England who say (r) Apol. for Ch. Cov. p. 5. First That this is that whereby a company of Christians do become a Church it is the Constitutive form of a Church Secondly This is that by taking hold whereof a particular person becomes a member of a Church And though they frequently speak so fairly to such Christian Churches as do not admit this special Covenant with a single Congregation only as to declare their owning them to be true Churches yet all this cannot well be reconciled with this principle And therefore those of this way in England at their publick meeting speak more openly and more consistently with their own notion when they declared (Å¿) Of Instit of Churches n. 23. every Society assembling for the celebration of the Ordinances according to the appointment of Christ within any civil Precincts and Bounds is not thereby constituted a Church and therefore a Believer living with others in such a precinct may join himself with any Church for his edification But since this in truth is a separating members from that which really is a true part of the Christian Church the Presbyterians truly declared that (t) Pref. to Jus div Regim Eccles gathering Churches out of Churches hath no footsteps in Scripture is contrary to Apostolical practice is the scattering of Churches the Daughter of Schism the Mother of Confusion but the Step mother to Edification But I must acknowledge that the present practices of this party also looks as if they had now laid aside this opinion 14. But this Congregational method doth suppose that Baptized Christians are not obliged by any Church-relation they are already in to Communicate with any particular Church or part of the Christian Church when the natural consequence of the Unity of the Christian Church will be to lay an obligation upon all its members to Communicate with that regular part thereof within whose Precincts they reside And this new notion gives a larger discharge to multitudes of Christians from the duties of Communion than the rules of Religion will allow until they shall enter into such a particular Covenant which is not only unnecessary but unwarrantable also as will hereafter appear And there seemed too much reason for that complaint of the Presbyterians by the Provincial Assembly as they stiled themselves that the removing the Parochial Bounds would open a gap to thousands of people to live like Sheep without a Shepherd and instead of joining with purer Churches to join with no Churches and in a little time as we conceive say they adding in the Margent as our experience abundantly shews it would bring in all manner of profaneness and Atheism And whilst they unwarrantably declare the fixed state of our Church to be such that Christians are not obliged to hold Communion therewith and thereupon both themselves depart from it and teach others to do the like it deserves to be more seriously considered by them than hitherto it hath been how this
difficult all Protestants do prepossess themselves with such truths as they have learned by plain Scriptures or other certain evidence and therefore know no difficult Text can be so interpreted as to contradict any such truth Here the vulgar Christians do suppose many times that to be the true sense of such places which they have received from those they judge able and faithful but such a sense of such Scripture they do not own as a necessary Point of Faith but admit it as most probable untill themselves be able fully to search and then if they discern this a true exposition they will receive it upon their own knowledge but if they find it a mistake they will lay down that former apprehension and will entirely be guided by what they see is the true sense of Scripture And persons of great abilities to make the best search into the sense of more difficult Texts do not prepossess themselves with any particular sense of such Scripture but are every where entirely guided by that which appears the best evidence to recommend any sense as knowing that it is not our interest or benefit that this or that opinion or interpretation should be true in things doubtful but our great concernment is to own that which is and God hath declared to be the Truth § 6. He enquires how we can demonstrate concerning any place of Scripture that it is not altered and that not is not inserted or left out I answer this as to any matters of Faith is discovered sufficiently by what we shewed to prove the Scriptures preserved entire in the foregoing Discourse Yea the common principles of Reason and Conscience in man will evidence to him in many necessary truths that if not was left out or put in they could never have been from God That God is Eternal Powerful Good and to be worshipped of his creatures that he treats man with great mercy that men must be holy and righteous that God will judge the World such things as these appear so evident that man where-ever he hears them cannot but acknowledge them to be true and from God and that the contrary cannot be so But further the consent of all Copies in several Countreys is in this case an abundant rational evidence especially considering that these Writings were dispersed into all Countreys presently after they were first written and so no miscarriage in the Faith could be in those first Copies taken from the Original of what this Author moves his doubts which would not have been easily discovered and reformed either by the surviving Apostles or by the Original Writing or Autographa of the Apostles and Evangelists which doubtless being of such high esteem in the Church were some time preserved Now since at the first dispersing of these Copies they did contain the Apostles Doctrine entire the constant agreement of all Copies sufficiently prove the same continued still especially considering that the Copies which all appear to have this agreement were written in several Ages long since past and in several Countreys And that to imagine not left out or foisted in in the matters of Faith in all Books generally and publikly and daily read by Christians must suppose 1. That they all every where in so many Countreys should conspire to falsifie the Faith of Jesus which they appeared to value above their lives and by this Tradition would be corrupted but yet Scripture in all these Books could not unless 2. They should falsifie all the ancient Copies which yet by the very writing appear to have nothing rased out or foisted in And this is a much higher certainty than Josiah could have of his own Copy yea than can be had of any passage in any Historian ancient Law or Record and if this we have said did not generally satisfie the Cavils propounded all History old Laws and Records must be rejected because there can be no such appearance of so great evidence that in any sentence not was not left out or foisted in And so all matters of Fame or Tradition must be disbelieved till he can demonstrate that they had not their original from the reading some Writings which have the same liableness to mistake with other Writings and that not hath not been put in or left out in the Oral delivery And how much his Reader will be beholden to him for such conceits as these we may gather from his own words Disc 9. § 4. where speaking of humane testimonies he tells us amongst the most extravagant Opinionasters none was ever found so frantick as to doubt them and should any do so all sober mankind would esteem them stark mad But as hath been proved this Author would here lead his Reader such a way as himself saith all sober mankind will esteem him mad if he follow him If this be not enough I shall add that the Primitive Christians owned such a tryal of Scriptures incorruptness as fully sufficient for them to rely on and to confound all who opposed it And even this Argument of this Author though urged with greater confidence was that with which several of the Hereticks from the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian to S. Austin opposed the Christians amongst which I shall now only mention the Manichees out of S. Austin who declares that whilst he was a Manichee Confess l. 5. c. 2. he was somewhat shaken by hearing a dispute between Helpidins and the Manichees but the Manichees afterwad privately told him The N. Testament was corrupted and there was no uncorrupt exemplar produced but this did as little satisfie him And after he became an opposer of the Manichees Contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 1. he urgeth against them Scripture testimony to which Faustus answers That this Scripture testimony was not right To which Saint Austin replies If this answer be esteemed of any weight what written Authority can ever be opened what holy Book can ever be searched cap. 2. he demands proof of Faustus what Books ever read otherwise and c. 3. urges All Books new and old have this testimony all Churches read it all tongues consent in it therefore put off the cloak of deceitfulness And in Epist 19. he saith he read the Scripture which is placed in the most sublime and celestial height of Authority being certain and secure of its truth but saith he the Manichees contend that many things in the Scripture are false yet so that they do not ascribe falshood to the Apostles who wrote them but to some which have corrupted the Books but because they cannot prove this by any ancient Copies he saith they are overcome and confounded by the most manifest truth But our Discourser saith It is certain there are many various readings yea so many in the New Testament alone observed by my Lord Usher that he durst not print them for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt We acknowledge there are several various readings but this speaks the greater security of this Rule because though all these
what this Authour calls his deep consideration as it hath no rational foundation so it hath not the advantage to be one of his own Church Traditions and shews there may be something delivered for truth which was not so received And of the same nature are almost all his Arguments against Scriptures being the Rule of Faith § 3. He further adds That the material causes to conserve these Characters are lyable to innumerable contingencies but mans mind by its immateriality is in part freed from Physical mutability and here we may with reason hope for an unalterableness and an unerrableness if there be a due proposal which must necessarily effect the sense These words are more monstrous than rational it is as much as in plain English to tell his Reader that having an immaterial soul he can never forget any thing that he either saw or heard distinctly and that when he hath read a Book observingly all the words and letters may be more exactly known from him by the impressions upon his mind than by viewing the Printed or Written Copy it self And yet all this will not serve his turn unless it be supposed that these immaterial souls must alwaies continue in the World or that what was by them received must thence necessarily in the same manner be continued on others Who sees not that this is as much against common sense as if he had said That because man hath an immaterial soul he may flie up to the Sun and Moon and fixed Stars at his pleasure Was Man of the nature of Angels without his gross Body its beyond the skill of this Authour to prove that nothing could be forgotten or blotted out of his mind that is once known especially considering that he is a sinner and even the Writers of his own Church do conceive that sinning Angels lost much knowledge by their sin But man is a Creature of another mold and letters and words and things are preserved in his memory by material impressions and every man knows they may be forgiven yea this Authour in this Book oft forgets and contradicts himself Do not all mankind appear sufficiently convinced that words or characters are more surely preserved in paper or writing than in mens memories in that what they would have faithfully kept they commit to writing and enter it upon Record Had the Jews been of this Authours opinion they would not have desired Ezra to have read the Law of Moses out of a Book Neh. 8.1 but to have spoken it out of the impressions of his own mind yet he would have been a more safe deliverer of Moses than the Church of Rome can shew for other Scripture Yea it is plain and self-evident that the Church of Rome agree with the rest of mankind to acknowledge writing upon some material subject a more sure way of preservation of things than the minds of men for they write the Acts of their Councils and Statutes of their Societies and yet these things are as much or more spoken of amongst them as the Scriptures are and so more like to be preserved in their immaterial minds yea they write or print their Creed Prayers Lessons and their whole Liturgy and have them read in their Churches when by this Authors Argument the best way to have these things preserved intire is to have them uttered from the memories of the Priests and others in the Church and not to mind the Writing or Printing at all as not being in it self certain The Roman Church know that mens minds are slippery and apt to forget something in their Liturgy if it were not written and that others would take the boldness to alter it and vary from it if they had no written Rule and shall writing be the best preservative for all other things and not for the words of the Scriptures and the truths therein contained I remember Salmeron tho' a Jesuit hath among the rest of his prolegemena one which is Proleg 25. Why the Scriptures were written and he declares as every one who designs to speak truth would do that it was that thence men may most surely know truth whereas the memories of men are very slippery and uncertain and S. Austin assigns a like cause of the Original of Letters de Doctr. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. Nor can I imagine for what end the Church of Rome prints Copies of the Bible if they did not think that by those printed Copies the Scriptures might be known and preserved And as if it was not sufficient absurdity without any colour of solid reason to contradict the experience of all civiliz'd Nations he at once opposeth even the wisdom of God himself also who commanded the King of Israel to write him a Copy of the Law in a Book and read therein all the daies of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God Deut. 17.19 20. Yea he commands Moses to write for a memorial in a Book Exod. 17.14 Yea Isaiah is commanded Isai 30.8 Write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever And though God himself declares this the way of keeping the memorial of things this Authour rejects this way and closeth with the uncertain way of mans frail memory § 4. He tells us That as there are some simple vulgar actions unmistakeable yet there are compound actions as the transcribing of a whole Book consisting of myriads of words single letters and stopps and the several actions over each of these are so short and cursory that humane diligence cannot attend to every of them Yet he grants that this may be done with care enough if there be diligent Examiners This Objection speaks against the common sense of every one who can write for it tells him that no man can possibly keep to the sense or words he intends in writing a Letter or such like though he hath a Copy before him For he who can write a page with due care may by the continuance of the same diligence write a sheet and if he want nothing else but what concerns his writing he may with the same care write a Book What extraordinary art hath this Discourser that he could write his Book intelligibly and the Printers print it so can none do the like He cannot be ignorant that these things may be done by common diligence and all men who understand writing acknowledge that Deeds and all Records may be exemplified and faithfully transcribed if there be had due care about it That there hath been such care about Scripture I shall shew in answer to his next Paragraph And I suppose he is not so self-conceited as to think that other men may not use as much care in writing Letters or Words as himself doth or can But if this little Argument of many little actions not being capable of due attention was considerable it would concern this Authour to find a way how the Papists may
men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith or matters of mere belief unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things than by plain words But doth not this cavil strike at all wayes of knowledge and even at Tradition as much as Scripture For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted If not it must either be because the same words written or read cannot have so plain a sense as when they are spoken without reference to any Book or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles in that they can speak the plain truths of God better and with less lyableness to mistake than the Apostles wrote who yet professed to use plainness But he asks when we see Protestants and Socinians making use as they conceive of the best advantages the letter gives them yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity what certainty can we promise to weaker heads I answer weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain In the beginning of Christianity the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence did not all agree in so main a point as which was the true Religion whether Christianity Judaism or Gentilism will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to perswade them to be Christians and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion though many thousands of them believed Or in the matter now in hand can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds I am confident himself doth not think so and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary In like manner Protestants in general even the Vulgar appear fully satisfied about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths yea so plain are they in Scripture that he must be acute in devising waies to evade the evidence of these truths who doth not receive them nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths or entertain their own way of interpretation if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend as it is rational to imagine much is which concerns the Infinite Divine Being and that they do too much magnifie reason in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith but rather in these points the setting up another Rule and making Scripture the thing ruled which is the cause of their not owning these truths Having now answered all his Objections and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH After this § 7. he excuseth himself as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles but that all he hath spoken as he saith but I have shewed the contrary follows upon the Protestants principles This speaks him to act a part in the disgracing Scripture which he is ashamed to own and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles For if he indeed think there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God and of the Canon of Scripture from the Churches delivery and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith from the agreement of ancient Copies then he must without dissimulation profess that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture since the Papists yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged that they have none other way to be assured of these things by and reason will evidence they can have none other which the Protestants cannot have as well as they But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs have this certainty But he saith all he designs is That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith and was never intended for such as may be evinced because the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to deliver Christs Doctrine but with words in their mouths whence Primitive Antiquity learnt their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar much less the Catalogue acknowledged What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New As to the Old Testament 't is certain that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands and which is most considerable had them ordinarily in their mouths to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24.27 And S. Paul Acts 17.2 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures opening and alledging and Apollos Act. 18.28 convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture as was the manner of the Jews teaching as we read 2 Chron. 17.9 they taught in Judah and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands Indeed before they were written they could not have them nor could they then be a Rule However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ but their testimony by Speech was temporary and could not remain after their death while this continued it was a Rule of Faith but they also had another way of testimony which was by Writing and this as it continues with us is to us a Rule of Faith because their testimony and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony Joh. 21.24 and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle 1 Pet. 5.12 What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors not having their Writings in their hands after they were written is a gross falshood as will more plainly appear from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers Yea S. Paul and Barnabas with other Apostolical men went to preach to the Gentiles with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands Act. 15.22 which was the first
alwaies preserved from alteration and change yea even at Rome notwithstanding this way of delivery wherein the following Generation have received their Language from their Fathers yet if they who conversed there in the Apostles times were now alive they would discern such alteration of speech and even in speaking mens names that they would not be able to understand their present language and if they can shew no greater security for the delivery of their Doctrine than of their Language that also may be as much changed notwithstanding their help of Tradition And it may be further observed that those Languages which in this way of Traditional Learning are grosly corrupted and even lost such as Hebrew Greek and Latin yet in Books and Writings they are faithfully preserved which shews Writings more sure keepers or preservers of words and civil things than this way of Tradition is It would be needless to shew that in Writings and civil behaviour there is as great variation in some few successions of Generations for this is sufficiently known to all observing men § 3 4. He applies this to Christianity and saith So Children get by degrees notions of God Christ Saviour Hell Virtue and Vice and are shewn how to say Grace and Prayers afterwards they become acquainted with the Ten Commandments Creed Sacraments forms of Prayer and other practices of Christianity the actions and carriages of the elder guiding the younger to frame their lives to several virtues by the Doctrine delivered in words as Faith Hope Charity Prayer c To this I answer That Children do indeed by degrees learn the Notions of God c. But this Tradition alone is not that which guides them here but also the Scriptures and Ancient Writers are of great use as they inable the Teachers of the foregoing Generation to guide them more faithfully Indeed in the way of this Tradition alone some general signification of words which concern matters of Faith may probably be delivered as that God signifies him whom we are to worship reverence serve and obey and such like But more particular notions of these matters of Religion as they may be sometimes preserved aright so where is no other way of preservation than this Tradition they may be very corruptly and dangerously delivered It is certain that Noah knew the true God and taught his Children concerning him and in his daies and since their Posterity increased to great multitudes and yet having only this way of Tradition they were so far corrupted in their knowledge of God that they owned Creatures yea the lowest of Creatures for God and thereby lost the knowledge of the true God and yet even the Gentiles who worshipped other things instead of God pretended that this they received by this way of Tradition and this was their great Argument why they should not receive Christianity because their Ancestors had delivered to them that way of Worship they then used in Heathenism Clemens Alexand. in his Admonition to the Gentiles brings them in speaking thus We must not reject those things which were delivered to us from our Fathers and almost all the Fathers who write against Gentilism industriously shew the vanity of this their plea. The saying of Prayers and Grace aright depends much upon the preservation of the true Notions of God and Christ and the knowledge of Duties and Promises and therefore if there be any corruption in the delivery of those things it is like to be also in the performance of these actions of Prayer and saying Grace in which case will the carriages and practices of the elder Christians be corrupted But he sayes they learn the Creed ten Commandments and forms of Prayer The Creed is indeed a good preservative of the chief Articles of our Belief Had it not been for this Form and some other like it received in the Church which because written and in stinted words is more of kin to the way of Scripture delivery than to other delivery by Oral Tradition it is like these points of Faith might have been rejected or lost among them who only hold unto the way of that Tradition The ten Commandments are likewise a sure preservative of that which God requires in them from man but these are the words of Scripture Neither the Creed nor the ten Commandments concern the Controversie of Tradition as it is disowned by Protestants otherwise than to observe the way whereby the certainty of them is conveyed unto us and thus we do assert that we are more certain of the Creed by its being committed to Writing and comprized in a fixed form of words and being every way agreeable to Scripture than any can be by way of delivery from Father to Son only by word of mouth in all successions of Generations and the same certainty we have of the ten Commandments by their being in the Scripture Records and being likewise delivered in writing which is the way which even Papists make use of as well as others What he adds of Sacraments and forms of Prayer these are like to guide men aright where the notions of Religion concerning them are preserved intire but if there be a corruption in Religion these things as soon as others may be depraved as indeed they are in the Romish Church where though the Creed and the Commandments do deliver much truth yet are they somewhat perverted by Traditional Expositions nor can they secure from the delivery of many other corruptions In § 5. He desires us to consider How the Primitive Faithful were inured to Christianity e're the Books of Scripture were written or communicated We know this then was by the preaching of the Apostles among them who had the inspiration of God to guide them and were unerrable deliverers and yet even they in this preaching made very great use of the Books of the Old Testament to prevail with men to receive the Doctrines of Jesus But I shall further mind him that the Christians at Rome in the Primitive state of that Church before they had any written Scripture of the New Testament thought it requisite for the inuring themselves to Christianity to obtain some Writings Apostolical concerning whom Eusebius writes thus At Rome the light of Religion did so shine upon the minds of these hearers of Peter that they thought it not sufficient to content themselves with once hearing him nor with the unwritten Doctrine of the Divine preaching but with all manner of perswasions they did earnestly desire Mark who followed Peter that by writing he would leave them a memorial of that Doctrine which was then delivered to them by words nor did they desist until he did perform it and this was the cause of the writing that which is called The Gospel according to Mark. He likewise relates That when the Apostle knew what was done by the revelation of the Spirit he was pleased with the forwardness of the men and by his Authority confirmed the Writing that it might be read in the Churches
it be followed it can convey Christs Doctrine down to the Worlds end as will appear if any consider that if Protestants have Children who believe and practise as their Fathers brought them up they will be Protestants too and so forward from Generation to Generation I answer Tradition framed according to a notion which would free it from all the above said imperfections would be indeed evidenceable as to its ruling power to every capacity but this is not such a Tradition as can be expected to be found in the World But if any man consider of such a Tradition as is in the World in case he be confident of the true delivery of the sense of the foregoing Generation yet it will not be evidenceable as to its ruling Power unless he can be satisfied that the foregoing Generation did certainly hold the truth in all points Persons who have little knowledge may possibly believe this without supposing it at all doubtful But they who know how uncertain the way of Tradition is and what corruption of Doctrine was in the Jewish Church what Prophecies of Apostasie under the New Testament and what great defections were reproved in many particular Churches in the Apostles times as the Churches of Galatia and the Church of Sardis and others will see that they can have no other certainty of the former Generation where their Fore-Fathers lived being in the right unless they make use of some other trial besides a knowledge that they professed Christianity than an over-weening esteem of their own Relations which may be an affectionate but not a rational ground of perswasion and by this means the perswading virtue of Tradition may be prevalent but its ruling Power cannot be evidenced Indeed where there is no better help than Tradition it may lead to error in one place if it lead to truth in another and so is no where certain thus it did perswade the Heathen to refuse Christianity because their Fathers delivered other wayes of Gentile Worship which I suppose is part of that vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers mentioned by Saint Peter 1 Pet. 1.18 Yea God himself complains Jer. 9.13 14. They have forsaken my Law which I set before them and have walked after the imagination of their own heart and after Baalim which their Fathers taught them Protestants acknowledge the practice or belief of Fore-Fathers to be a considerable Motive to perswade either to judge or do as they judged and did until by inquiring into the Rule it shall discover any error therein and then it is to be declined Yet withal he who understands that his Fore-Fathers did keep to a fixed Rule in preserved Records hath thereby the more reason to rely on their judgment as a strong Motive to perswade him and this is the case of Protestants § 9. He proceeds to shew That the third condition of the Rule of Faith agrees to Tradition that is it is apt to justifie unreflecting persons that they proceed rationally while they rely on it because it is a madness not to believe a multitude of knowers in things they were taught and practised all their lives Nor can any deceit be suspected in such multitudes who all agree in a matter of fact appear to speak seriously and practise as they speak especially since Parents will be apt to teach their Children things good and true I answer Where there are many testifiers capable of giving testimonies surely it would be a madness not to believe a multitude of knowers but where what evidence they give supposeth such innumerable contingencies which though possibly they may all have happened right yet it is a thousand times more like they have not this testimony is far from any tolerable satisfaction But in the present case none can give testimony but only concerning the last Age nor concerning that with absolute certainty They cannot testifie what is necessary here to be known to wit that all Ages were free in every Succession from unfaithfulness of memory that they forgat no truth that they all had right understanding to err in none and a liking of it to imbrace all truth and a sufficient care not to add any explications which might vary from the truth nor to deliver any thing upon opinion which they did not certainly know to be truth and withal that every Age did commit the whole truth to the next Generation If any one of these fail in any one succession all security of their knowledge is gone and a former Generation proceeding upon Tradition cannot testifie all this and therefore cannot be a multitude of knowers This way of Tradition must therefore suppose all things right in the Roman Church but will not prove them so Can there be any likelihood now of the certainty of Oral and practical Traditions bringing down truth since before the Flood where the Successions of Generations were not many and many of them lived together and had an Adam cast out of Paradise as a visible token of Gods vengeance against them who were negligent in Religion yet it is certain there was great corruption at that time And after the Flood they worshipped other gods though they had the argument of the deluge to make them more careful both to deliver and receive the true Religion after Moses's time they had the Motive of the terrible presence upon Mount Sinai and many wonderful judgments and after Ezra's time the Argument of the Captivity to make them careful in Religion and yet in all these times they miscarried But he tells us no deceit can be suspected here I answer if there be so many waies of failing otherwise what if there be no design of deceiving but indeed it is not a thing impossible that there should be a designed forsaking the truth in the Church which in the way of Oral Tradition will eventually include deceiving Is it not possible that men who profess Religion may so far gratifie the Devil and their own vain imaginations as to forsake the truth they know in great matters of Faith and to practise and live contrary to it and to promote that which they know is contrary to truth Else what mean such complaints as these Jer. 11.9 10. A conspiracy is found amongst the men of Judah and among the Inhabitants of Jerusalem They are turned back to the iniquity of their fore-fathers which refused to hear my words and they went after other Gods to serve them Is not a conspiring to refuse Gods Word and to serve other Gods a designed rejecting the truth Yea I further demand what account can possibly be given of the high corruptions among the Jews all along from Moses to Christ unless a designed rejecting the truth especially in such cases as these That they who had seen Gods wonders in Egypt and had heard the commandments delivered on Mount Sinai should say to Aaron Arise make us Gods Exod. 32.1 If this was not done wilfully and against sufficient knowledge then we must imagine
incomparably more powerfal causes to carry the will than temporal ones therefore a world of Believers cannot be willing to do that which would lose them and their Posterities infinite goods and bring them infinite harms To this I answer That if this be spoken of the generality of professed Christians these words would still as much plead against Adams fall and the corruptions of Gentiles and Jews as against defection in the Romish Church since all these had the greatest goods and harms proposed to them But I further answer That a considerable number in former Ages would indeavour to know and deliver ttuth aright but they still are liable to mistakes and others that hear them to misunderstandings and also it is possible that the subtilty of some Deceivers may take place and be received sooner than their delivery of truth by which means those truths may many of them be lost or perverted and even in these last Ages I doubt not but even in the Roman Church there are many who would desire good and love truth and therefore as they have discerned it many have forsaken the Romish way but they who most desire to find it can in the way of Tradition see no more than is there to be seen and if others by subtilty corrupt some of that it is not in the power of these honest meaning persons to hinder the prevalency of such corruptions if they be promoted by a more potent party and interest § 8. If any think the proposal of Sensible Objects more considerable than of Spiritual he indeavoureth to shew the excellent proposal of the truths of God and thereby evidenceth they may be applied This doth not much concern Protestants we acknowledge that there is nothing wanting as to the proposal of Gods truth but yet there was in many neglect of receiving what was sufficiently propounded whence followed all the abovementioned miscarriages And even God himself propounded his truths as he thought most meet that is he proposed such as were not so necessary for all to know more mysteriously whence many might be ignorant of them or misapprehend but other necessary truths he propounded with abundant evidence and plainness But in the present way of Tradition what this Authour observes to make the proposal evident is very imperfect for though they have obvious Metaphors daily Practices Language and Actions Sacraments and Ceremonies yet these things may themselves partake of corruptions and then may help to clear what is propounded that somewhat may be understood but not withal to secure that this is certainly from God and therefore is Divine truth Nor do most of these things reach all truth to be delivered nor secure from all misapprehension so far as they are intended to signifie truth in such matters as are more difficult and mysterious An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie § 1. HE observes That that which seems only and mainly to prejudice his Argument is that there have been Hereticks or deserters of Tradition but he saith it sufficeth that the Causes to preserve Faith intire are as efficacious as those laid for the Propagation of mankind the only subject of Faith and more particulars fail in propagating their kind than their Faith In answer to this I first observe that though it much destroyes the grounds laid by this Authour to observe that there have been Heresies and those much spread in the Church yet this is not the only prejudice against his Argument for if we had never heard of or could make no proof of any Heresies in the Christian Church yet from considering the very nature of Oral Tradition as hath been shewed in the former Discourse and from observing what great defects were in it both amongst Gentiles and Jews it is sufficiently manifest that it is not indefectible and hath not the certainty requisite to the Rule of Faith by which means if Heresies had not been they might begin But I further undertake to manifest that because it is certain that Heresies have spread in the Church from this consideration it is evidenceable that Oral Tradition is so defectible as that it cannot be a sure Rule of Faith His paralleling Tradition with the propagation of mankind is a meer piece of sophistry For if he indeed assert that the causes to preserve Faith intire in the way of Tradition are as sufficient as those to propagate mankind in the intire nature of man he must then either acknowledge that there have been oft Societies of persons of different natures both in themselves and from mankind who are brought up amongst men and call themselves men and propagate in their kind and cannot by the eye be distinguished from men and are capable of deceiving great multitudes by perswading them that they are the true men and that others are not or else he must deny that ever any such Hereticks have been in the Church who have declared themselves and have been owned by many others to be the true Christians and holders of the truth The case of Tradition and Propagation are wonderfully different also in that he who hath the nature of man in him by Propagation cannot alter this nature and make himself of another nature at his own pleasure whereas it is very possible for such as have imbraced the true Christian Doctrine to forsake it and fall aside into Heresies as hath been oft evidenced in the World and also in that those particular persons in mankind who do not propagate their kind are not capable at their pleasure of propagating any thing different from man but in the way of Christian Faith they who do not propagate the true Faith may and many of them do propagate error and that so subtilly that very many are oft deluded by it Yea this Discourser himself § 2. acknowledgeth that he knows the multitudes of Hereticks which have from time to time risen makes this his Position seem incredible and therefore I infer that unless his Reader can be assured that this Position is more true than it seems to be he must from his own words conclude it really incredible § 2. He comes to consider how an Heresie is bred where he tells us The Church is to be considered as a Common-wealth under Discipline having Officers to take care that all Motives be actually applied and because it is impossible the perfection of Discipline should extend it self to every particular some by pride ambition lust and itching desire of followers may propose new tenets which by their plausibleness and licentiousness if Governours be not watchful may suit with the humour of divers and draw them into the same faction Thus a body is made inconsiderable in respect of the whole The Church stands upon the uninterrupted succession of her Doctrine They cry the Church hath erred in Faith and disgrace Tradition A new Rule is sought for either by private inspiration or waxen natured words They study wordish Learning and Criticisms and whilst the Traditionary Christian hath the
read such a Position in a Book as that I hear or see other things in converse in the world Now since what is thus delivered by Protestants to their Children is so delivered because it appears to be the Scripture-Doctrine this is an establishing and holding to not a rejecting and throwing by the Scripture as a Rule But while we own Scripture as a Rule there is no more reason why Protestants should tolerate men to contradict what is plainly and evidently deducible from Scripture under pretence of holding to it as a Rule than there is that in a case of Rebellion one who is to indeavour to suppress the rebellion should be suffered to assault the King when he plainly appears to be the King under pretence that he took him to be a Rebel Yet as to matters not fully clear in Scripture Protestants do allow differences of Opinion if managed peaceably and that it may appear that we are not violent prosecutors of our own apprehensions only because they are so the Laws of England condemn nothing for Heresie but that which was so declared by one of the four first General Councils But what he intimates of obliging to act that is if with good conscience to hold as themselves do makes me think he designs chiefly to reflect upon prudential constitutions such as are amongst us the Oaths of Obedience and Supremacy and matters of Liturgy and Conformity But in none of these things do Protestants desert this Principle of Scripture being the Rule of Faith For Protestants who hold this assertion never intended to exclude the use of prudential Rules and Constitutions for the advantage both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Societies but such Constitutions they neither own nor press as matters of Faith nor as Gods Commands in themselves necessary to salvation In this case if Protestant Rulers oblige to nothing as prudential orderly and decent but what they are well satisfied that it is lawful according to Gods word and agreeable thereunto and for other ends expedient and not needlesly burthensome which appears the common case of all Protestant Churches they no way swerve from Scripture-Rule Yea if here any Protestant Rulers should err and urge as lawful decent and prudential what is indeed sinful and evil in this case they sin and practically swerve from the true Rule as men do in all acts of sin and mistakes of judgement but they do in no wise intentionally disown this Rule of Scripture since they hold fast this as a firm Principle that if any thing which they require to be practised as lawful can be fully manifested to be against Scripture they will rather reject that Constitution than oppose the Scripture and will acknowledge that their Subjects ought to obey the Scripture rather than such commands But he tells us That these Dissenters from Protestants do guide themselves to their best capacity by the Scriptures Letter which is the Rule their persecutors Protestants who punish them for not obeying taught them and made use of themselves when they brake from the Romish Church I answer 1. It is much to be feared that many who dissent from the Protestant Churches in these matters prudential do not act according to their best capacities but some from passion and self-will some from the applause of a party others from pride and a sinful resolution not to disown what they once unadvisedly and erroneously took up 2. Yet I doubt not but very many who dissent from the prudential Rules of the Protestant Churches or particularly of the Church of England do act according to the best light they have of Scripture truth yet have they not the same reasons and grounds to justifie them that Protestants have to justifie themselves in departing from Popery for we rejected Popery not only because we could not discern whether it was lawful or not by the Scripture-Rule but because in matters plain in Scripture we did clearly discern it sinful by clear Scripture-evidence which plain evidence Dissenters from the Church of England cannot have nor can they pretend it unless it be rashly under passion or preconceived prejudice But for those who act according to the best light they have from Scripture which will suppose them willing to be better informed we Protestants no way dislike but highly approve of their Rule and of them for designing to follow it so far as we can discern such persons And as the Protestant Doctrine asserts that all things necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture so we doubt not but these persons and all other who according to their best capacities close with the Faith there delivered and practise the duties there required are in the way to salvation nor can they err in matters fundamental But still they may err in some other matters and particularly about the lawfulness of some things prudential nor did Protestants ever assert that they who designed to follow Scripture to the best of their light could in nothing be subject to error where they have not a discovery of clear evidence which in all things all inquirers may possibly not attain Yet I must further declare that if this design of following Scripture according to mens best capacity were more followed and all passions prejudices and unchristian suspicions laid aside amongst all Dissenters the number of them who dissent from the Protestant Churches upon the best light of Scripture they have would in a short time be reduced to a very few 3. Where in any case such persons as these are punished it is not for designing to follow Scripture but for not obeying some prudential lawful commands in a case where their mistake is the cause of their not obeying not is it any more a condemning their design to follow Scripture than in Civil Laws and Constitutions when any one is impleaded in a Court because he for want of good Counsel acts what he by mistake thinks to be according to Law but is cast as not having acted according to the Law the Judge should be thought to punish this man unjustly because he designed obedience to the Law yea to punish him for designing this obedience to the Law Some such inconveniences as these are like to be in Civil things while men are liable to mistakes and something is capable of being mistaken but these things concern not at all the Rule of Faith or the rejecting the Scripture from being the Rule of Faith From what hath been said it is easie to vindicate the Protestants from the following self-contradictions he chargeth upon Hereticks The first of which is to reform upon pretence of Scriptures Letter being the Rule and afterwards in practice to desert that Rule in their carriage towards others This Rule Protestants desert not since they propound nothing to be assented to by any as a matter of Faith but what they judge certainly evident in Scripture nor require they any thing to be practised as orderly but what they discern or judge not contrary to Scripture 2. Nor
do we disallow to others the grounds our selves proceed upon for we allow to all and commend in all their practice upon clear and well grounded Scripture-evidence but we neither allow our selves nor others to practise upon ungrounded pretences of Scripture being on our side The Third pretended contradiction is To pretend first the Scriptures Letter clear of it self without needing the Church to interpret it and afterwards to judge the followers of it to their best power to go wrong that is to confess it obscure and to need their new Church's interpretation But Protestants do assert that in all necessary Doctrines the evidence of Scripture is so clear that it needs no interpretation nor can they be denied but by preferring interest passion or some other sond conceptions above evidence and this is to forsake Scripture but in many other things they who do not discern the evidence of Scripture may err though they follow it to their best power but notwithstanding this Scripture is sufficiently clear in the evidence it gives of all Divine revealed truth to them who do discern its evidence though men be confessed to be men and many of them not capable of full understanding many truths His Fourth contradiction charged on Hereticks but designed for Protestants is that they persecute others for taking that way which they held at least pretended meritorious in themselves in which charge as the thing intended is palpably false concerning Protestants so the language he useth agreeth not to them The Fifth pretended contradiction is to oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of Scriptures Letter and to rule themselves by their Tradition and at the same time against Catholicks to impugn Tradition as unfit to sense it and abet only the self-sufficiency of Scriptures Letter The former clause here charged on Protestants is no way their practice for though in matters prudential they require inferiours to be ruled by the commands of their Superiours which both Scripture and the Government of all Societies in the World require yet in matters of Faith they require that men receive them only from Scripture as the Rule of Faith or the main ground of belief Nor are any Protestants in any case commanded to relinquish Scripture as a Rule of Faith and to rule themselves by Tradition more than if in a Corporation a member who cannot read hath his duty read to him by another out of the Charter or told him in words with great care collected out of the Charter to express its sense this should be called a commanding this man as a member of this Society to relinquish the sole guidance of the Charter as his Rule and to be ruled by others Tradition when he follows the Charter by the best evidence he hath concerning it and relies not on a delivery of continued hearsaies report and fame which is a way suitable to the Romish Oral Tradition As to the latter part of this pretended Contradiction which concerns the impugning Tradition as unfit to sense Scripture if this be understood of the present way of Romish Oral Tradition this indeed we do so impugn But if this be understood of the Ancient and Primitive Tradition Protestants do acknowledge this so far as it can be manifested to be general to be very fit to sense such Scriptures as are otherwise difficult and obscure and so far as we have any intimations of such Traditions by the Ancient Fathers we own them useful The last pretended contradiction is To impute that carriage as a fault to our Romish Church which themselves practice and which is most material our Church punishes none but those who desert our Rule but they punish for too close following their Rule All the clauses of this charge are guilty of deserting the Rule of Truth For Protestants who fault this Traditionary way do not practise this Tradition as hath been above shewed nor do Protestants punish any for following Scripture too close as hath been evidenced The middle clause is likewise untrue for if he mean that the Romish Church never punisheth any who pretend to hold to the Tradition they received according to the best of their knowledge how came it to pass that Victor excommunicated all the Asian Churches for not keeping Easter the same day with the Roman Church though these Asian Churches pleaded a certain Tradition not only from their famous Bishops but from Philip the Deacon and his Daughters which were Prophetesses and from S. John the Apostle and Evangelist Eus Hist Eccl. 5. c. 24. Yea how came Mr. White to be censured at Rome who thought he defended the Rule of Tradition yea how came Monsieur Arnold to be so troubled by the Jesuits in France even for the using those words which he received from S. Austin a famous and approved Father But if he only mean that the Church of Rome punisheth none but such as swerve some way from the Traditions she delivers this if true in it self is nothing that can truly be called most material it being neither pertinent to his charge against Protestants nor considerable in it self since it only speaks the Church of Rome commendable in not punishing those who believe every thing it saies and practise every thing it commands and was there ever any Society in the World that in this thing was not as commendable as the Church of Rome But when he here tells us their Church punisheth none but those who desert the Rule she recommends surely he much forgat himself § 5. where speaking of Hereticks he saith that the deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few and the Descendents of these Revolters followed Tradition for either he must say that their Church punisheth no Descendents of Revolters as he calls them that is allows all Heresies in any but the first Authours of them or else must acknowledge that it punisheth them whom himself accounts and there as he thinks proves that they are not deserters of Tradition § 4. He asks What can follow hence but that Subjects whom common sense cannot but make exceeding sensible of such unreasonable carriage in persecuting them purely for following Gods word which themselves had taught them they ought in conscience to follow should strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors and to involve whole Nations in War and Blood but he after adds he intends not a justification of those revolting Sects But it cannot be that common sense nor any rational evidence should teach Subjects under Protestant Princes that they are persecuted purely for following Gods Word since there is no such thing in truth they can no otherwise think it is so but by evident mistakes or by such deluding perswasions as this Authour would deceive them with And indeed such pernicious incentives as these of this Discourser may possibly if they meet with fiery and malicious spirits inflame them into a Rebellion and withal shew what Principles may be instilled by pretenders to Tradition But such is the peaceableness
of this Principle of making Scripture our Rule that if any Christians should live under such a Power as this Author speaks of should be a self-condemning tyranny over mens consciences if in this case Subjects make Scripture their Rule they must live in patience meekness peace humility and subjection to the Higher Powers and it must be from pride wrath passion malice and refusing to be subject all which are directly contrary to the Scriptures that all Rebellion against Government must proceed Whence amongst the Primitive Christians where the Laws of their Persecutors commanded them the worship of a Deity and yet punished them for worshipping the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and Christ his Son with the holy Spirit which is the only God and the Christians knew there was none else and punished them for not worshipping as Gods them whom they knew were no gods yet in this case the Christian Principles which the Scripture delivers kept them in all loyal subjection to their Governours If this Principle of making Scripture every where our Rule both as to Faith and Life be prevalent as it will guide us aright into the truth so it will end all quarrels silence all animosities and contentions and would reduce the world to such a perfect state of quiet peace friendship and love as never yet flourished upon the face of the Earth § 5. He tells us The use of this Discourse is to conclude the deserters of the way of Tradition to be very few to which he hath received our answer § 3. and the Cause laid to preserve Traditionary Christians is far more steady than that laid to preserve mankind I have answered his comparison of Tradition and Propagation § 1. But if he will be so confident as to tell his Reader that the way of Tradition is as surely supported as the Propagation of mankind I would only advise him to be so ingenuous as to speak plainly out his meaning and say that as in mankind the causes for keeping intire the nature of man are such that no company in the World ever pretended themselves to be of the nature of man who really were not so the way to preserve Tradition is such that no Society of men ever did pretend to have received and held this truth when indeed they had it not and if he would thus do he might amuse his Reader but would never deceive him having before told him that there have been many Hereticks in the World and that even amongst these the way of continuing Heresie is the propagating of it by the way of Tradition An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori § 1. HE declares That he will trie to conclude the indeficiency of Tradition from such an effect as can only spring from Traditions indeficiency of its Cause § 2. he saith this seems needless against Protestants who yield the points of Faith we agree in to have come down by this way of Tradition He presseth therefore from Protestants a candid Answer to these Queries 1. Was not the Trinity Incarnation and all other Points in which we agree held in all Ages since Christ by Gods Church 2. Whether seeing those points were held ever of Faith Fathers did not actually teach Children so or the former Age the latter if so they came down by Tradition 3. By what virtue did Tradition perform this and whether the same virtue was not as powerful to bring down other things had any such been 4. Is there not a necessary connexion between such a constant cause and its formal effect so that if its formal effect be those Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery But because he fears the Protestant will flie off here he will follow his designed method Sure he rather supposed the Protestant could easily baffle these fancies than that he would flie from such shadows To the 1. Qu. I answer That if we indeed understand by Gods Church that number of Christians who have intirely and constantly held all the Principles of Christian Religion they must needs have held these great truths likewise But many have pretended to be Gods Church who held them not Nor hath this belief been alwaies preserved in the Churches who once imbraced it since the Eastern Churches who before received the true Doctrine of Christ were drawn aside by the Arian infection and denied those points which shews Tradition not certainly enough to preserve these points in any particular Church To the 2. Qu. I answer That in the Church of God which ever held these points Fathers did teach their Children these Doctrines yet were they not only nor chiefly continued by the way of Oral Tradition For the Primitive Christians made Scripture their Rule as shall be after shewed from their Writings and Fathers taught Children chiefly then by what they read and received by the writings of the Scriptures And the Children of these Parents had not only their Parents teaching but they had also the Scriptures read among them and perused by them and by this means in the Primitive times were these Doctrines continued That the Apostolical Doctrine was continued in the Church chiefly from the Scriptures Irenaeus testifies even of those Primitive times Adversus Haeres lib. 4. c. 63. The Doctrine of the Apostles is the true knowledge which is come even unto us being kept without fiction by the most full handling of the Scriptures That Christians then received their instruction in the Church chiefly from Scriptures he likewise sheweth lib. 5. c. 20. where he exhorts to flie from the Opinion of the Hereticks and flie unto the Church and be brought up in its bosom and be nourished by the Lord's Scriptures For saith he the Paradise of the Church is planted in this World therefore the Spirit of God saith Ye shall eat food of every tree of the Paradise that is eat ye of every Scripture of the Lord. For very many more testimonies and those very clear I refer to what shall be purposely discoursed in answer to his consent of Authority Yea such was the esteem of the use of Scripture that in the Primitive times before their Children were taught matters of human literature they were instructed in the holy Scriptures Thus was Origen brought up Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 6. c. 3. and Eusebius Emissenus according to the common custom of their Country in like manner first learned the Scriptures Sozom. Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 5. To his 3. Qu. Were it certain that these truths had been preserved by the way of Oral Tradition only in the true Church of God as indeed they have not been yet this is not by any such virtue in the way of Tradition as would secure the right delivery of all other things For this is wholly contingent in respect of Tradition depending upon this supposal that in such a Society it hath alwaies been rightly delivered and rightly received which
them out of design and by these men if in an allowed and confirmed Council both the present and future Generation must be determined But what he speaks of a future Generation easily discovering the innovation makes me think he forgets himself For how should the following Generation of Catholicks consistently with this Authours Principles discover it By former Monuments But he in this Book declares that they must not give heed to any former private mens Writings against the delivered Doctrine of the Church publickly attested And if any publick Writing though it be their own approved Canons seem contrary they must find such interpretation as will agree with this declared Doctrine and stick to it though it be wrested so that whatsoever can be shewed from History or Ancient Doctors as this Authour declares in his Corollaries is to such Papists of no account against present Tradition See Coroll 14.16 17. Yea if you shall produce a great number of opposers as may in many cases easily be done he will hold to the greater number in his present Council If you produce him a former Council against any now received Doctrine he must not rationally judge of the Tradition but from the present Tradition condemn that if it cannot be otherwise interpreted as Heretical If you produce the Eastern or Graecian or other Churches as delivering otherwise if this cannot by other means be evaded they must not be acknowledged by Romanists for true Deliverers But if we can produce an approved General Council have we not now such sufficient Monuments to discover thereby what was the Doctrine of the Church such Councils our Discourser calls the greatest Authority in the Catholick Church p. 129. Yet if the Council was approved and by the Roman Church acknowledged both for Catholick and General still they have a device to reject what ever dislikes them in such a Council by saying that it is ex parte approbatum and ex parte reprobatum or part of it rejected and part of it received by this device they reject part of the Second General Council at Constantinople and the Twenty eighth Canon of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon which declares that their Fathers gave Priviledges to the See of old Rome because that was the Imperial City and therefore upon the same consideration they gave the same Priviledges to the See of Constantinople And thus they have rejected others of old as also part of the Council of Constance and the Council of Basil more lately concerning the Authority and Power of the General Councils over the Bishop of Rome Thus doth Binius and other Papists So that no way remains for a Papist thus principled to detect this Innovation where he hath contrary evidence much less in many cases where the matter now determined hath not been so distinctly of old treated of so that the Roman Church may innovate and yet expect to be believed that the Doctrine was ever delivered Provided they take care not so palpably to contradict their own publick and former delivery in such a way as no possible interpretation can make things consist one with the other If they do take this care there is room enough left for many innovations in Doctrine in points not clearly enough determined formerly in the publick Monuments of that Church and in those also by misinterpretations But though Papists consistently with their Principles can make no discovery of Innovations but must either make use of strained interpretations of former Writers or else must condemn those Writers yet Protestants can and do make this discovery And blessed be God that they of the Romish Church have not so blotted out the Writings of the Ancient Fathers though they have shewed some good will thereto nor have they been able so to correct the Letter of the Scripture according to their own sense as this Authour thinks convenient Cor. 29. but that we are able from them to discover the Error and Apostasie of the present Church of Rome of which in the close of this Discourse I will give him one instance § 6. From these Principles he concludes That since nothing new could be owned as not new in any Generation by the first nor a foregoing Age make it received as not new by Posterity by the second therefore since we hold it descended uninterruptedly it did descend as such To this I answer That if the former Principles had been both true as neither of them are yet would not this conclusion have followed from them because it supposeth besides these Principles many other things to be true which are either very improbable or certainly false First it supposeth that all points held as matters of Faith have in all Ages since Christ been delivered in such terms as ever delivered-points of Faith whereby they have been known distinctly from disputable opinions if this had been so the many Controversies whether such and such things were de fide shew the maintainers of them on the one side not capable of understanding plain words Secondly it supposeth that nothing can be received as ever delivered by a following Generation which was not delivered as ever received in a former Generation unless they declare something not to be new which they know is new For why may not that which is propounded as a probable opinion in one Generation be thought to be delivered as a truth in the next Generation and in some following Generations who cannot give an Historical account how far in every Age every Position was received it may be owned as a point of Faith by which means also Constitutions of expediency may be owned as Doctrines necessary In which case they now only hold as a matter of Faith what the former Generation held as a truth and so they hold no new thing differing in the substance from the former nor design they any thing new in the Mode of holding it Thirdly This supposeth that every Generation from the time of the Apostles have been of the opinion this Authour pretends to to design to hold all and nothing but what the immediately foregoing Generation held which is a point can never be proved For this would be indeed to assert that never any persons studied to understand any point more clearly than it was comprized in the words they received from their Fathers or else that when they had so studied they never declared their conceptions or opinions in such points or if they did declare them yet no number of men would ever entertain them And this is as much as to say that the Church never had any Doctors studied in the points of Faith or at least that such studies never were honoured in the Church and the fruits of them received and applauded by it which if it would not cast a great indignity upon the Church yet it is apparently contrary to the truth Fourthly It supposeth but proves not that all points of Faith have come down by the way of Tradition and none of them failed of
the case of many great and famous actions in the world which are now buried in oblivion or upon misinformation condemned but would have been honourably esteemed if they had been truly known And here the Tradition of the Turks concerning the precepts of Mahomet which were liable to mistake would probably have been lost if they had not been preserved in a written Alcoran And the Traditional evidence of this very Alcoran containing his Doctrine is much inferior to the Tradition of Christians for the Scriptures containing the Doctrine of Christ for even from the beginning of the reception of the Turkish Alcoran their Tradition hath not procured it so full approbation but that the Persians who profess themselves Mahometans deliver another Alcoran different from that of the Turks which they declare to contain the true precepts of Mahomet whereas Primitive Christians have as with one mouth all acknowledged that the Scriptures of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists contain the Doctrine of Jesus Christ written by Divine inspiration Now to apply all this to the Doctrine of Christ It is certain 1. that many things delivered by him are capable of misunderstanding and not so easily intelligible as Mahomets existence is which is evidenced by the many mistakes in all Ages and disputes amongst true Catholick Christians as well as Papists about Doctrines of Religion 2. The Doctrine of Christ is likewise lyable to be perverted thus as in the time of the Old Testament the precepts of God were much corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees who made void the Commandments of God by their Traditions so under the New Testament have many Hereticks grossly perverted this truth and many extravagant Opinionists have strangely blended it with their own misconceptions whence many errors are gone forth into the world 3. Nor can it be proved that in the way of Oral Tradition considered without Scripture all things delivered by Christ are continued in the Church for since in the multitude of Christs words not written by the Apostles or Evangelists the Romish Church cannot say that her Tradition hath preserved any how can the certainty of this Tradition be reasonably imagined so great as to secure a preservation of every Doctrine Now let us again observe that all these Considerations have the greater advantage against the certainty of Tradition by considering with them the many successions of Generations for matters of Faith if but once a little mistaken in one Generation since they must with these mistakes be delivered to the next Generation they may then be more mistaken and so by degrees very considerable mistakes and great corruptions may come in in points of Faith and as to omission of delivery of some truth if it be continued in several Generations yet if it be not impossible that any one Generation as to any truth should neglect the delivery it will in so many successions be very probable that some one hath failed But in the way of Scripture evidence the words are the same which were then delivered and the same words are no more capable of mistakes and corruptions in Doctrine than they were at the first nor are they less delivered to us now than they then were I may now infer from what is abovesaid that the belief of Mahomets existence may be continued by Tradition and yet it may not preserve the whole Body of Christs Doctrine § 4. He observes That humane authority or testimony is such that none are so mad as to doubt them but he that considers Joh. 3.16 1 Cor. 3.9 Mat. 6.26 will be convinced that the wayes of Providence to bring about mans salvation are so much above all others that others in comparison scarce deserve the name of a Providence We own Christianity much more certain than other Histories and things but that the preserving its certainty depends much more on Scripture than on Tradition is evident partly from reason because in a set form of written words a change cannot be so easily made without plain discovery as it may be where there is no such set form of words and partly from considering matters of fact whereby it may appear that Hereticks and opposers of the truth have more corrupted and spread corruptions of Christian Doctrine by their false delivery than ever they could corrupt and spread any corruptions of the Scripture-writing § 5 6. We will touch of the advantages superadded to nature It is natural for every man to speak truth unless some design hinder but true Christian hearts are much more fixt to Veracity § 7. Original corruption leads men to violate Veracity by an undue love of Creatures but Christianity working an overpowering love of Spiritual good leaves mans disposition to truth free § 8. The hopes and fears of Christianity as much exceed others as eternity doth a moment and are so held by all yet other Motives bring down matters of fact truly as the Reigns of Kings Wars Eclipses c. but that Christian Motives are more prevalent than all others appears by considering the Martyrs and Persecutions In answer to this I first observe that what he hath here laid down as a high security to the Churches Tradition makes nothing at all so much as seemingly for the securing all or any of its members from mistakes and misapprehensions nor for the preserving the weak from being deluded by others subtilty All it seems to plead against is intentional deceiving without which there may be much error But yet even this design of deceiving may with many in the Church much prevail notwithstanding all indeavoured to the contrary by this Discourser Where Christianity takes full possession in the power of it it will ingage such men to truth and the love of Heavenly good and the minding of Spiritual hopes and fears but how many are there who profess Christianity who oft speak falshood and are tempted to sin by undue love of Creatures and do not guide their lives according to the hopes and fears Religion sets before them Therefore these things cannot assure us of preserving men from perverting truth or neglect of delivering it much less from ignorance and mistake And as in other matters of History many things are delivered amiss in the common fame but best in the allowed Records so it is also in Christianity § 9. The Ceremonies or Oaths tendered to Officers in a Commonwealth to ingage them to be true to their Trust have no proportion with the Sacraments of the Church applied to Christians that they may not prevaricate from the Faith of Christ These are indeed exceeding high obligations which lie upon Christians But besides that it is no waies credible that all Christians judged themselves hereby obliged to deliver in the way of Oral Tradition all matters of Faith directly as they received them by the same Tradition I say besides this its certain it obliges men as much to the purity of the Christian life as to hold fast the verity of the Christian Doctrine wherefore when it is certain
that with many it doth not work its effect in the former it may be much feared to want its effect in the latter especially since there have been many Hereticks § 10. They who do not to others what they would have done to themselves this is because they are swayed by some temporal good but this cannot be in the Church supposing sanctity in it because in virtue and glory we have not the less when others have the more but rather we have the more also so that here Fathers must do the greatest hurt to their Children without the least good to themselves if they should deceive them But alas Is this Discourser such a stranger to the world that when he hath proved as it is easie to do that it is highly irrational for any man to chuse any sin he would thence conclude for certain that there are no such sinners in the world How evident is it that there hath been so much want of Sanctity that many either to please their own fancies or to promote their own interests have depraved the true Religion or corrupted the Christian Doctrine But in these cases as in all acts of sin men do not aim at the evil and hurt that follows but at the seeming good and delight § 11. Christian Doctrine hath the advantage of the greatest universality wisdom and goodness of the recommenders § 12. Nature will teach all a care of their off spring but Christianity more and chiefly in matters of endless misery and happiness § 13. Consider credit he who will lie perniciously and to friends how ill is this esteemed Chiefly if this be against the highest Motives and with the greatest confidence and Oaths This is of all other cases most disgraceful in matters which concern Christs Doctrine chiefly if in a Pastor against his particular Oath to preach Christs Doctrine truly Nor can the world of Fore-Fathers all conspire to this villany Yet it is certain notwithstanding the recommendations of the Christian Doctrine it may be both mistaken and depraved Nor doth love of off-spring take place actually against all setting examples of sin nor against ignorance and mistakes nor in Jews and Hereticks did it take place against corrupting worship Nor have all men been so tender of their credit Many Hereticks have been self-condemned There were who said of Christ let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours Simon knew and was Baptized into the Christian Doctrine and yet thoughts of credit did not keep him from perverting it Yea men gain credit at least with a party by their erring explications if they be plausible and take with the multitude and then alone can they become Traditions However some there are who value not esteem either with men or with God who knowing the judgement of God that they which do such things are worthy of death not only do them but take pleasure in them that do them And if by such weak considerations as these above mentioned though the truth of the contrary is generally known in the world this Authour would conclude that Pastors can never deliver amiss and therefore whatever any Histories say to the contrary there never were erroneous Bishops in the Eastern or Western Churches or any places whatever I doubt he would be put to wonderful puzzles to reconcile the present Doctrines in all Churches Yet if Protestants may not as men of reason judge that Pastors have erred because all Histories and the present differences in Religion manifest it they will still as Christians believe that S. Peters Spirit was more infallible than this Discoursers who hath assured us 2 Pet. 2.1 2. That there shall be false Teachers who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies and many shall follow their pernicious wayes § 14. He concludeth with a flourish That every virtue and Science would contribute to Traditions certainty which would require he saith a large Volume to shew But that we may judge what this large Volume would be he gives us a taste wherein is nothing else but empty and frothy words Arithmetick lends her numbring and multiplying faculty to scan the vast number of testifiers Geometry her proportion to shew the infinite strength of certainty in Tradition c. But if such words as these were considerable this Discourser may receive a return more truly Arithmetick cannot number and determine the many possible and probable wayes of erring in Tradition Geometrical proportions cannot discover how manifold and great defects appear in the receiving the Body of Christs Doctrine by Tradition more than in the acknowledgement of Mahomets existence nor how great a proportion of men there are in the Church who have delivered their own opinions and speculations to one who only testifieth what he received Logick will discover the Sophistry in the pretended Arguments for Tradition Nature will evidence the great possibility of mans mistake or neglect in the way of Tradition Morality will shew the great corruption of man whereby he is lyable every where to err and miscarry Historical prudence will shew the failing of Tradition both in Jews and Gentiles and many Christian Nations overspread with known and confessed errors and will thence conclude that it is possible for any Nation or particular Church by Oral Tradition to neglect the faithful preserving truth Political Principles will evidence according to the practice of all Civil Policies that writing is a more exact way to convey down Laws and Rules of Order than Tradition is Metaphysicks with its speculations will evidence the very notion of Oral Tradition of the whole Body of Christs Doctrine to this Age to be an aiery vanity Divinity will discover much of the great wisdom and goodness of God in giving us the Scriptures rather than in leaving us to the uncertain and dangerous way of Tradition Controversie will evidence the uncertainty of almost every thing in Faith if it had no other Basis than mere Oral Tradition without any written support So that after all the survey of his several Discourses where nothing is solidly spoken for Tradition I may well conclude that this way of Tradition is defectible ANSWER TO HIS COROLLARIES AFter these several Discourses he deduceth forty one Corollaries built upon them all which must needs fall with the ruine of their foundation Yet that they may not pass without due Censure I shall briefly deduce other opposite Corollaries and for the most part directly contrary to them from our Discourse Corol. 1. They may of right pretend to Faith who hold not to Tradition since they have a sufficient Rule of Scripture and Motives enough to believe Disc 2.3 4. But they have no sure-footing in the Faith who depend only on this Oral Tradition since it is both a fallible and actually a false guide Disc 5.6 8. Cor. 2. They may pretend to be a Church and a true Church who own not Oral Tradition because they may be a number of Faithful Cor. 1. but whoever followeth any way of such Tradition cannot
Doctrine Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved general or Provincial Councils or Societies cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it because it may both mislead and be mistaken Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty because Tradition is fallible Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages to render it hereby more infallible than any other When he here saies That the joint indeavours Preaching Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome were more vigorous causes to imprint Christs Doctrine than were found any where else He sure forgat Jerusalem where were the joint indeavours Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself and all his Apostles the Passion of Jesus and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles and Prophets and yet in that Church were professed by the Bishops both Arianism and Pelagianism and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine by such Arguments Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind the Romish Church could not be secure that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christs sense Because if as this Author here talks They should correct Scriptures Letter by the sense of mens hearts it would be wonderfully depraved because in this sense Tradition may and doth err But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin And themselves declare that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction And by these means Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christs sense by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies in several Ages and Churches Cor. 30. Tradition disproved Scripture can no waies be infallibly interpreted by this Oral Tradition because it is fallible and false But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture since such things are delivered in clear and plain words Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved the Church which relies on it may receive as held ever what was not so held ever Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith because they may err in the Faith Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition Erroneous opinions may generally and with publick Authority spread themselves in the Church because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors by the viciousness of some and the liableness to error in others Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church in the way of Tradition because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth may both mistake themselves and be mistaken by others for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies so may the determination of a confirmed Council where error hath taken place give it sure footing among them who stand ingaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governours and the better part being overpowered may hinder many corrupt opinions from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition and cause many true opinions to be so declared against that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition they can never be received Because Tradition when once it errs can never return without denying it self Cor. 36. By the same reason Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church What he here saith That following evil practices will necessarily shew them opposite to Faith is his erroneous opinion because practices though bad if grounded on opinions held for truth are judged lawful by such holders nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil till first they be perswaded that such opinions were evil Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands as in Corban c. and Papists worshipping Images and Saints c. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful who follow the way of Oral Tradition Because since their Rule may fail them they may do their best to follow this and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church which follows Oral Tradition because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily since Tradition is a false guide and they may be generally owned by that Church in its publick profession and the determination of its Councils Cor. 39. Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church such opinions and practices Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity for since it could be no otherwise a principle than by declaring what God said and it may err and fail in that it is therefore no principle in Divinity Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth Christs promise to his Church can bear no part in the Rule of Faith nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Churches Tradition then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition hitherto erred in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies both of Scripture Councils and Fathers which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith then will we acknowledge it to be such and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence than the Scriptures that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith then this may be generally received Concerning Councils and Fathers if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times Protestants will grant That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith is certainly such But if only some Councils and Fathers in some after Ages be produced if such plead for Tradition Protestants own it not a demonstration because they know they might be in some error Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church we are so confident that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith which was by them declared to be such But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith yea not only to be fallible but false and self-inconsistent if that which is now delivered concerning it be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church
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
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
Churches were ordained by some one or more of the Apostles or of those Apostolical Men who received Ordination from them The ancient Testimonies of the Fathers assure us Tert. de Praesc c. 32. Iren l. 3. c. 3. Eus Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 35. gr Acts 6.3 6. Acts 14.23 Eus Hist l. 3. c. 23. gr that Clemens was ordained by St. Peter and Polycarp by St. John The Scriptures acquaint us that the seven Deacons were constituted by the twelve Apostles and where Paul and Barnabas came they ordained Elders in every Church And Eusebius declares as a Matter of certain Truth that St. John in his old Age in some places made Bishops and in others planted whole Churches After the Apostles had committed particular Churches to the Care of their Bishops or Metropolitans they also intrusted the Power of Ordination peculiarly in their hands which indeed is included in committing to them the chief Care of the Church Titus 1.5 1 Tim. 3. 1-14 15. To this purpose Titus was appointed to ordain Elders in every City of Crete and Timothy directed how he ought to behave himself in the Church of God concerning the Ordination of its Officers And from these Principles the Truth of what Clemens Romanus declareth may be easily inferred Epist ad Cor. p. 57. That the Apostles ordered that when those chief Officers of the Church whom they had appointed should die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others in their places should succeed them in the same Office and Ministration and therefore with a Power of Ordination And the universal Consent of genuine Antiquity shews the ancient Church to have received and followed that Platform and Model which was framed by the Apostles for Episcopal Eminency in Government and Power in Ordination To this purpose both Tertullian and Irenaeus urge this Tert. de Praesc c. 32. Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 3. as a convictive Argument against the later Brood of Heresies That the Catholick Church could produce such a Catalogue of their Bishops and the Succession of them which would manifest that the first of them who was fixed in their several Churches was there placed by the Apostles themselves or by Apostolical Men their Assistants And the Succession in divers chief Churches is still preserved in ancient Writers and Ecclesiastical Historians And that the Power of Ordination especially was peculiar to the Bishop besides the Testimony of ancient Canons and Practice is acknowledged even by St. Hierom. Hieron ad Evagr. ◠And the placing of this Power in a single Person was of great necessity and usefulness for preserving the Churches Peace and Unity From hence I conclude that Episcopal Ordination was according to the Constitution of the Apostles and constant Practice of the Ancient Church the only regular way of entring into this Office and Ministry of Reconciliation and he that knows how easy a thing it is to raise plausible Objections almost against any thing will not be much moved by such as some produce in this case against so plain Evidence and general Testimony Indeed there have been some and but some Protestant Foreign Churches not the Bohemian as some English Writers have unfaithfully misrepresented it nor those of Sueden and the Danish Dominions nor divers others in Germany who have been without this Episcopal Ordination and it must be said that in this particular which is a matter of moment they are defective in that Primitive Apostolical Order which we observe But in the first fixing these Churches and their Ministry all things seem not to have been done as they would have chosen but as their present Circumstances would give them leave while they wanted that Privilege which our Reformation enjoyed the Consent of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors For besides the Expressions of particular Writers the French Protestants in their General Confession Confes Gallic c. 31. concerning the Entrance into the Ministry pleaded a Necessity in their Reformation of having some things done extra ordinem out of the regular Way with respect to the making up the Ruines and Decays of the Church Yea those Churches themselves and the most worthy Men among them are no Opposers but Approvers of this Government and Order as hath been sufficiently shewed concerning many principal Persons among them And even in the Synod of Dort when those sent from England asserted Episcopacy as Apostolical there was not as they declared in their joint Attestation any one Person in that Synod who spake a Word against it yea as Bishop Hall acquaints us the President of the Synod said Domine Divine Right of Episcopacy part 1. c. 4. non licet nobis esse tam faelices We may not be such happy Men. Now I conceive it becomes private Persons not to be over forward in judging other Churches but to express as much Charity towards them as the case will bear but to shew no such respect to any as to neglect a due Reverence to whatsoever is of God Wherefore I shall only note three things in general 1. That it is indeed a Truth that some positive Precepts may in extraordinary cases be dispensed with by the Goodness of God who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice This was that which warranted David's Men in eating the Shew-Bread In this case Circumcision was forborn in the Wilderness and the Jewish Casuists thought that Precept not to oblige Hor. Hebr. in 1 Cor. 7.19 when the circumcising an Infant was inevitably like to procure his Death The sacrificing in another place than that which God had singly appointed was practised by Samuel as well as others after the Destruction of Shiloh and before the Building of the Temple and by Elijah under the general Defection of Israel The celebrating Baptism by Persons unordained was allowed in the ancient Church Hieron adv Lucif si necessitas cogit as St. Hierom phraseth it And the Command that all the Males of Israel should three times in the Year appear before the Lord doth yet by the Letter of the Scripture give allowance to him who was in a Journey and by the reasonable Interpretation of the Jewish Writers 1 Sam. 1.21 V. Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 7. p. 186 187. the same Liberty was to be extended to those in Childhood and Infancy as Samuel was and to those in Sickness Old-Age and such like 2. Yet it becomes all good Men who are to obey God and reverence his Institutions not to be forward in judging themselves disobliged by the appearance of such Cases as they account extraordinary from Obedience to any of his Rules of Order When Saul thought he had a Case of Necessity to warrant his Sacrificing yet God was highly displeased therewith and deprived him of his Kingdom Nor might Vzzah touch the shaking Ark. 3. In ordinary cases he who willingly breaks positive Rules established by God's Authority is guilty of heinous moral Evil in disobedience to God's Commands contempt of his Government and
makes use of to express the Discords and Rents in the Church of Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all of them enumerated in his Epistle to the Galatians tho there they be rendred by other English Words Gal. 5.20 among those Works of the Flesh concerning which we are told with earnestness of expression that they that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God And I think it considerable to be further observed that even in such Persons who are of a better Spirit and who in the main close with the other Duties and Rules of Christianity their miscarriage in this particular in not holding the Peace and Unity of the Church will lessen and abate the degrees of that future Glorious Reward which they would otherwise receive And this I think is sufficiently declared by St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians when he had rebuked the Corinthians for their Divisions one being of Paul and another of Apollo 1 Cor. 3.1 2 3 4. he still keeping his Eye upon and having an aim at these Divisions as appears from that third and the former part of the fourth Chapter tells them concerning them who hold to that only foundation which the Apostles laid If any shall build thereupon that which will not abide the Trial if his work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire v. 15. That is if any such person shall be engaged in Divisions in the Church or in any other unwarrantable Action or Doctrine it shall go the worse with him and be hereafter to his loss and though he escape Misery and obtain Life it shall be with the greater hazard danger and difficulty And therefore he who would seek his own greatest Good must carefully avoid this miscarriage Secondly Consider how extreamly opposite and contrary divisions in the Church are to Christ himself He is one Lord and Head he hath by one Spirit and in one Baptism established his Church to be one Body in one and the same Faith and Doctrine and upon the same Hope of their Calling and under the same Only God and Father of all And all these things S. Paul urgeth as containing in them special Obligations for Christian Unity Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And besides all the Precepts of his Doctrine let us seriously observe how much our dying Saviour did earnestly and again desire and pray that all his Disciples might be one John 17.11 21 23. And this he twice expresseth in his Prayer to be desired to this end that the World might believe that thou hast sent me Now if it would be an unworthy thing for any person against all reason and duty to oppose the Dying Request of the best Friend he ever had in the World it must needs be unaccountable to act against that which was even at the point of Death so affectionately and importunately desired by our Lord and Saviour Was this aimed at by our Lord as an useful means to bring over the World to believe in him and will any who have any Honour for Christ or Love for Men be so uncharitable as to be engaged in any such Works as tend to keep off Men from Christianity and from obtaining Salvation by Jesus Christ But this is sufficiently intimated by our Saviour to be the sad effect of the Divisions in his Church To all this I shall further add that it is related by Crusius Turcograec lib. 3. part 1. p. 234. that it is the daily Prayer of the Turks that Christians may not be at Vnity And they who are of the Church of Rome express their delight and satisfaction in our Disagreements Baronius Annal. Eccles An. 344. n. 9. makes use of this as a considerable Argument against the truth of the Protestant Doctrine and Salmeron Tom. 9. Tr. 16. n. 1. declares that this is that which giveth them expectations of prevailing against us And now shall any who own themselves the true followers of Christ so undertake to contradict the dying Request of their Saviour as in the mean time to chuse that which complieth with and gratifieth the Desires both of the professed Enemies of his Religion and of those also who strangely corrupt and pervert his Doctrine and Gospel But after all this or whatsoever else may be spoken to this purpose there are two sorts of Men who I doubt are not like to be perswaded 1. I fear there are some fierce Men who are so far from having hearts inclined to do this Duty that they have not Patience to hear it but rather to turn angry and to cry out as the Lawyer did to our Saviour Thus saying thou reproachest us also But it will become them and others too to bethink themselves of the sad danger of all those persons who will not hearken but stop their Ears to such plain Duties as those of Peace and Unity are But these Truths must be spoken whether they will hear or whether they will forbear 2. And others there are who will acknowledg in general the Truth of all I have said of the great Sin and Evil of Schisms and Divisions And though they be engaged in the dividing Parties will plead their own Innocence and charge the fault of these Divisions wholly upon the order and constitution of our Church and not upon themselves Now here much might be said to shew that the Worship and Service of God in our Church is agreeable to the true Christian Rule and that on the other hand there are many things unaccountable yea and unlawful which are embraced without scruple by Dissenters and contended for by the dividing Parties But this would be too long for me to insist upon in my present Discourse Wherefore instead thereof I shall mention a sensible and ocular Demonstration that it is not the Constitution of our Church but the ill temper of dividing Spirits that is the true cause of our Divisions And that is this That when this Constitution was thrown aside between thirty and forty years since the Rents and Divisions of the Church were not by this means removed but to the grief of good Men they were greatly encreased thereby and the Spirits of many Men in this particular have been the worse ever since Let all of us therefore take heed to our selves that we keep in the paths of Peace and Vnity and let us mourn and pray for others who neglect them II. A second thing to be done in our turning to God is the forsaking all Viciousness and Debauchery and becoming Serious and Sober Vice defiles and debaseth the nature of Man It is so much against Reason and Conscience and is so far condemned by the common sense of Mankind that it generally passeth for a disparagement in the World And Viciousness is so much against the interest of Men and the good of the World that thereupon it is prohibited and punished by the Laws even of Barbarous Nations This is
and receiving wrong is too common among men but is contrary both to the example and Doctrine of our Saviour Christs example requireth kindness to all and reverence to superiors though we sustain injuries He was every way injuriously treated by word and deed his enemies who set themselves against him were evil men and guilty of those faults which they falsly and undeservedly charged on him and yet in his sufferings he made no return of rash and reviling expressions towards them nor yet of passionate complaints against them but was brought as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb so he opened not his mouth Is 53.7 Such was the admirable practice of his meekness and patience and in these graces we must follow him even under difficulties 20. Indeed reason as well as the Christian Religion will condemn the return of passion violence or evil-speaking to them from whom we have received the like For as (o) Bas Hom. de Ira. S. Basil argues what excuse can there be for him who returns the like to him who provokes him will he plead that another began It is sutable to reason not to return injury in word or deed to any men would this defend the person who by compliance yields to the commission of adultery there is no Crown of Victory but to him who withstands and fights against his adversary and as that Father adds art thou angry at anothers reproaching as being bad and yet thou imitatest it as if it were good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what man can stand more self-condemned than he who complains of others who speak or act injuriously against him and at the same time followeth their example and doth the same thing to them For if this be not evil he hath no occasion to complain or be offended if it be evil in another it will also be so in him and ought to be avoided 21. It is an unmanly thing to imitate the croaking of a Frogg before you or the snarling of a Dog against you But though these be weak and silly things the acting by evil examples of bad men is far worse because there is a moral turpitude or sinful defilement in such actions The rules of our holy Religion require us to behave our selves otherwise 1 Thes 5.15 See that none render evil for evil and commanded in the Scripture And though a bad man deeply infected with the poyson of the Serpent may have a pestilential breath and his words may be envenomed the pious man who is of a sound temper of mind and heart must have no evil communication proceed out of his mouth It becomes him and is his duty to follow his Lord who in this case did not only forbear to speak or so much as to think or desire any evil but to his patience and gentleness he added his tender kindness and compassiate love in dying for his enemies Rom. 5.8 10. and praying for his persecutors Father forgive them they know not what they do Luke 23.34 22. This example and doctrine of our Lord outwent the rules of vertue delivered by the wisest Philosophers (p) de Virt. vitiis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle describes the vertue of meekness to be that by which a man can bear with moderation both calumny and disrespect and contempt and is not easily moved to anger but is of a calm and steady temper And the Stoicks went somewhat further by directing the wise man to esteem nothing to be injurious to him But our Lord and his Religion not only undertake the moderating and suppressing of irregular passion but the overcoming evil with good and herein his example and Laws are beyond all other patterns or institutions 23. Those Pagan examples were considerable which being mentioned by Plutarch are related also by (q) Cont. Cels l. 8. p. 401. Origen of returning kindness for unkindness both in words and actions That Lycurgus not only forbare all revenge against him who had struck out his eye The greatest Pagan examples are short of Christianity but would not give over instructing him till he had prevailed upon him to study Philosophy and vertue And Zeno when he heard that one who was his enemy had vowed to do him a mischief answered and let me perish if I do not my utmost to overcome him to be my friend To which I add that of (r) Sueton. in Tit. n. 9. Titus the Roman Emperour who when Domitian whom he had declared his Successor would not desist from designing evil against him he still not only continued his former kindness to Domitian but with intreating and tears besought him that they might have a mutual friendship towards each other 24. But such actions as these were mostly singular instances practised only towards some particular persons and remarked as things extraordinary nor did their precepts oblige others to do the like But Davids tenderness was more extended and general who behaved himself towards his enemies with that kindness as if his friend or Brother had been concerned Ps 35.11 14 15. And our Saviours love and affection unto them who were his enemies was universal and his precepts so fully require the same and so much beyond any other rules of practice received in the world that Tertullian might well say that the Christian kindness towards enemies and revilers is (s) Ad Scap. c. 1. perfecta propria bonitas nostra non communis a rule of compleat goodness peculiar to Christians and not common to others And though the Christian temper of meekness and love be at all times desirable that mildness which was practised by some of the Pagans that offenders should be set free from punishment is not alwayes fit to take place in the world That Oath of Titus who would not punish those two of the Patricii who would have seized themselves of the Empire was unadvised and indiscreet (t) Sueton. ubi sup periturum se potius quam perditurum that he though an Emperor on whom the publick welfare depended had rather be killed himself than put any other person to death But the rules of Christian meekness observe those right and regular bounds and limits which run into no hurtful extremes but promote and secure true goodness together with the common welfare of mankind 25. This returning kindness to the most ill-tempered persons was a thing very familiar to the ancient Christians even under their most heavy trials But as good men may sometimes misapprehend the due measures and rules of their duty so affectionateness and tenderness may in this case carry them sometimes into the other extreme to shew too great respect to those their enemies who are also adversaries to the truth It was an excellent sweet temper of Gr. Nazianzen that (u) Gr. in vit Gr. Naz. when the Church met with many oppositions and himself was particularly aimed at he much endeavoured to allay the heat of the Orthodox
Christians whenever he discerned them to exceed And when such Emperors reigned as were friends to the truth he declared that this was the revenge he would take of his enemies to endeavour they might be saved and own those good things which before they rejected And yet he had been loaded by them with injuries The Apolinarians by their calumnies and clamour had rendred him distastful to the people and when he was under the disrespect of the multitude the Arians stoned him and this meek man was accused before the Secular Tribunal to be the authour of tumult and sedition And after all his expressions of kindness he was so ill requited by these his enemies that they set a young man to assassinate and murder him who was so far moved with the converse and presence of this holy man that relenting with tears and lamentations he implored and easily obtained his pardon I confess (w) Naz Orat ad 150 Episc he was by some blamed for shewing too much kindness to the enemies of the truth and it is true that good men and especially Bishops and Governours ought not to express an equal favour to them who oppose truth peace and goodness and to those who embrace them But that kindness which may tend to their good and the good of others is such an excellent temper as ought not to be laid aside for any personal injuries 26. But the example of Christ The Example of Christ considered with respect to Rulers from whom we receive hard measure particularly recommends reverence and respect to Superiours though we should receive hard measure at their hands From hence S. Peter commands 1 Pet. 2.18 21. the reverent subjection of Servants to their Masters not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward And if such a behaviour be necessary towards them who possess a lesser degree of authority in a family much more to them in higher capacity for the neglect of duty to them is an offence of a more publick nature and tends to a more general scandal and prejudice And hence we may further inferr that neglect of dutiful carriage is much more inexcusable toward those Governours who are good and kind and from whom we receive no wrong or injury But how we ought to behave our selves even to froward Rulers we are to learn by the example of Christ which is to this purpose set before us 1 Pet. 2.21 He was without any crime and though he was condemned he did no sin v. 22. He suffered but without threatning or returning any evil word or reviling again but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously v. 23. And such is the Order that God hath established in the World that he who is wronged by his equal or fellow Subject ought not to avenge himself but if the case require it may apply himself to his Ruler for help and redress But if he be hardly and severely dealt with by them who have the Government of the world he must not then avenge himself no not so much as by reproach or evil expressions but commit himself to God as a righteous judge and this the example of Christ will direct him to do 27. Yea our Saviours prayer Father forgive them for they know not what they do did manifest his great and tender affectionateness not only to the common people but also to their Rulers who contrived and conspired his death For even they also knew not what they did as S. Peter declares Act. 3.17 And thus the ancient Christians though ill treated under Pagan or Heretical Governours did not only forbear evil speaking and irreverent and indecent carriage but thought themselves obliged to maintain an high respect to these Rulers and to desire their happiness and welfare This (x) Apol. ad Scap. Tertullian declared under an Ethnick Emperour and that Council of (y) in Athanas de Syn. Arim. Sâ—l Ariminum which established the Faith of Nice under Constantius the Arian Emperour in their Epistle which they sent unto him 28. Performing this duty is acceptable to God and conscience towards him will require it And such a continued respect and practice of duty to Governours even under harsh usage is that which conscience to God will oblige every Christian to perform S. Peter therefore commends that temper where a man for conscience towards God endures grief suffering wrongfully 1 Pet. 2.19 that is endures it patiently and without reviling as the following Verses will explain it And the reason for this is because this duty of respectful submission is not founded chiefly upon the good temper of our Superiours but upon the authority they receive from God and the precepts which God hath thereupon given to us So that here the debate lies between conscience and self-will whether the precepts and rules of Religion are to be followed which conscience will oblige unto or the passions of men which the unruly temper of sinful inclinations are prone to comply with Now where this Christian duty is carefully observed we are assured by S. Peter that this is acceptable to God 1 Pet. 2.20 And every good man will please himself best in doing those things which are pleasing to God And this he may do and bring honour to himself also by this Christian temper towards Governours For the Apostle in that place tells us What glory is it if when you be buffeted for your faults ye shall take it patiently but if when you do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable with God But if patience in suffering for faults hath not so much of vertue in it as to bring any honour and renown to him who practiseth it how blameable must they needs be who are faulty and yet though they be free from suffering are impatient and murmuring 29. To all these weighty Considerations I might add that this temper is a thing so necessary that in the neglect of it we cannot behave our selves as Christians or sutably to our Christian calling And therefore S. Peter v. 21. and this becomes our calling addeth For hereunto were ye called our Christian Religion greatly requires us herein to follow our Saviours steps And when S. Paul did beseech the Ephesians to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they were called the first things he requires from them to this end are all lowliness and meekness and long suffering Eph. 4.1 2. 30. Obj. 1. But possibly some men Obj. 1 This Discourse is against the true interest of man who are not willing to put these great Christian duties in practice may be forward to raise prejudices against such a Discourse as this and may pretend that these things are not suitable to the true interests of men but there is rather some ill design carried on by them To which I Answer Ans 1 It wholly designs to bring men from passion and sin to goodness First That this really tends to no other end but to