Articles of Catholick and Apostolick Faith by vertue of Oral Tradition communicating the same unto it what good cause can be shewn why Tradition should not be the Rule of Faith even without having the Doctrins it delivers confirm'd by parallel Texts of Holy Writ Answer since the Rule of Faith must doubtless be that into which it is ultimatly resolv'd as the best and highest Means of ascertaining Christs Doctrin to Mankind and that the same must contain in it no Error this Inference I think will be clear that in case Oral Tradition or the Living voice of the Church either be not the best and highest means whereby to ascertain Christs Doctrin to Mankind or that it may deliver or teach an Error under the notion of an Article of Faith it cannot be in justice esteem'd the Rule of Faith And that Oral Tradition or the Living voice of the Church is not the best and highest means whereby to ascertain Christs Doctrin to Mankind the following Paragraph I think will make good Where two Testimonies both averr and attest the same thing if the one be of Divine the other but of Humane Authority the Testimony that is Divine ought of Right to have the preeminence and the relyance for the verity of what is witnessed by them is to be ultimatly cast upon it Seeing then the Testimony of Scripture is Divine as being ex confesso the Word of God and Tradition but an Humane Witness forasmuch as it is said to be the Delivery of Christs Doctrine in the various expressions of Pastors Parents Tutors Masters of Families and Nurses 't is most reasonable that Faith should be finally resolved into Scripture and not into Tradition as it 's Rule Yea and albeit Tradition may peradventure in some things be thought more plain then Scripture as for example suppose in the Point of Christs Divinity these words of the Nicene Creed Deum de Deo Lumen de Lumine Deum verum de Deo vero genitum non factum consubstantialem Patri per quem omnia facta sunt yet that Scripture should be still esteem'd the Text and Tradition but the best and most certain Comment upon it I gather from hence That it cannot well be otherwise thought but that even the Disciples of the Apostles after the Books of the New Testament were publish'd and receiv'd among Christians would themselves confirm to their Auditors what they told them they had been Orally taught by the Apostles out of the written Word because the very sayings of Christ himself and his divinely inspir'd Apostles would in common prudence be thought to be of greater weight and authority with them then their own although beleiv'd to be esteem'd by the people as true and certain as any whatsoever not of more then Humane Authority Having found then I suppose one reason why Tradition ought not to be held the Rule of Faith I 'le make tryal if in another sense also it be not incapable of being justly so reputed for if the present Church of any one Age can teach us an Article of Faith what is not so but indeed an Error then is not Tradition the Rule of Faith Now to find out whether the Church in any one Age can do so or not this will be a sure way to try if discovery can be made That any Error has been ever taught by the Catholick Church or by any known and acknowledg'd Part of it as an Article of Faith for if that can be done the possibility of the thing is put out of doubt thereby To make a clear discourse on this subject 't will be expedient to consider That there be two sorts of Errors in Matters of Religion Fundamental and not Fundamental By Fundamental I mean such as either immediatly and directly or at least by necessary and apparent Consequence contradict some Articles of Catholick Faith by not-Fundamental I mean such as evidently do neither This Distinction premis'd and allow'd of since 't is clear as I take it by what has been said of the Motives and Means of perpetuating Christs Doctrin in the World that no Article of Catholick Faith can ever perish or cease to be beleiv'd 't will follow that no Fundamental Error can at any time get a setled and quiet possession in the Church but shall always after it is taken notice of find opposition by Orthodox Christians because they cannot chuse but see that the embracing of it would necessarily destroy the contrary Divine Truth firmly held by so many at least as rightly consider the matter to be necessary to Salvation Of the assured certainty of this we have a famous Instance in the Arian Heresie which though eagerly promoted by the Wit and industry of most cunning and restless Heretics and stiffly back'd and countenanc'd by the Authority of several great Prelats assisted with the might and power of Temporal Potentates and Princes yet was still oppos'd and when fraudulent and violent means had tyr'd and spent themselves the opposit Truth prevail'd and shew'd it self more glorious then before But as for Errors not-not-Fundamental or whose opposition to any Article of Faith is not seen because too remotely contradictory thereto to be easily discern'd if such once come to be receiv'd as pious Opinions and promoted by the Schoolmen I do not understand why they may not in long continuance of time be advanc'd to the repute of being esteem'd Articles of Faith For proof of the truth of which I 'le produce some few Instances in the Doctrin of the Church of Rome The first shall be this That the Council of Trent has desin'd Sess 7. Can. 9. That there is a Character or certain spiritual sign or mark imprinted in the souls of all that are Baptiz'd Confirm'd and Ordain'd which yet I find disprov'd by an eminently Learned Gentleman of the Romish Church if I understand the Council and Him aright in his Institut Sacr. Tom. 2. Lect. 4. Pag. 32. as was shewn before in Sect. 4. of this Treatise and so superfluously to be here again set down A second Instance is the Belief of freeing souls from Purgatory and bringing them thence to Heaven before the day of Judgement which Opinion the last mentioned Author Thomas Albius in his Book De medio animarum statu has prov'd to be erronious 'T is true indeed he saies That it is no Article of the Roman Faith and I find the Trent Council in disertis verbis to affirm only this Purgatorium esse animà sque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis potissimùm verò acceptabili Altaris Sacrificio juvari Decret de Purgatorio Sess 25. But the Popes granting InIndulgences and Priviledg'd Altars Priests saying of Masses and the Peoples praying and giving Alms for the delivery of souls out of Purgatory should better an indifferent person would be apt to think expound and declare the Churches sense or intention of Pastors Parents Tutors Master of Families and Nurses of the word juvari then any privat Doctor whatsoever Yea and if
their Sacred Office to use and exercise the same to it 's proper End whereas others generally speaking neither have the like aduantages to understand it as it ought to be nor so great Motives and Obligation to promote the true intendment and design thereof Have not then the People even every particular person of them it might well be ask'd a Judgement of Discretion in the choice and matters of Religion If by Judgement of Discretion be meant That they are to do nothing but what they themselves approve of I readily yield they have But in case they set themselves to oppose their own Judgement to the Judgment of the Clergy in Matters of Faith their Judgment will be found a Judgment of intolerable and pernitious Indiscretion For to make a true discovery of an Error in Faith the Rule of Faith must be well consulted and the Point in question duly apply'd to 't to be try'd by it so that if either the Rule it self be mistaken or the Thing to be regulated by it be not rightly apply'd no Doctrine concerning Faith can rationally be discover'd whether it be an Error or a Truth And 't is ridiculously absurd to think that the vulgar sort consisting of Servants Labourers Mechanicks and others generally busied and spending their days about Temporal affairs should be more sufficient and able to understand the Rule of Faith aright and to apply things doubted of thereto so as truely to determine of their rectitude or obliquity by it then the grave and Learned Prelats with the profound Doctors and others of the more Ancient and Reverend Divines who have spent many of them thirty several of them fourty and some amongst them fifty years or more in the study for the most part of sacred Learning being legally also call'd to the Office of teaching and directing Mankind as Christian by a Mission successively deriv'd from Christ and his Apostles which none besides the Clergy how Learned or Pious soever can justly make claim to Would it not then astonish and work compassion in any man of sobriety to see the ignorant people grossly misled to believe They are able enough of themselves to understand the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation when as 't is principally for instructing them aright in those very things and keeping them to the due observance of them that they have spiritual Guides and Governours set over them by God and his Holy Church Which yet they are many of them poor souls being strangely infatuated with a conceit of their own endowments so farr from having any regard to that although they dayly see before their eyes That the wise and gracious God in the Oeconomy of his great Family the World has provided and placed several men skill'd in several things some in Civil Government some in Laws some in Physick and others in other Professions all for the Good of the Community in assisting men in those things wherein they are presum'd not to have skill enough to do the best for themselves yet nevertheless they will not understand and discern a necessity of some skilfuller then they themselves be to advise direct and order them in those grand Matters which are of more Weighty and lusting Concern to them then all the things in the whole World besides but in contradiction to the Analogy of Providence seen round about them despiseing those who ought to have the oversight of their Belief and Manners make themselves their own Instructors and Rulers in the Learning and Management of those things wherein if they finally miscarry they are ruin'd to eternity SECT XIII The harme that may arise to the Church from the belief of an Error not-Fundamental to be an Article of Faith The true stating of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Whether or no the Church of England be justly accus'd of criminal Schism That the joynt Concurrence of Scripture and Oral Tradition or the practical Delivery of Christ Doctrine was recommended by the Apostles to the Church the Restauration of which Concurrence 't is humbly conceiv'd would be a firm Foundation for re-uniting dissenting Christians in Matters of Religion and the Continuance of it a lasting Means for perpetuating Christianity in ' its ancient native Purity I have now only one Scruple more remaining concerning Matters of Faith and it arises from what my self concluded before which was That no Fundamental Error could ever get a setled footing without disturbance but should perpetually meet with opposition from Orthodox Christians so that all necessary Truths shall be continually nourish'd in the Bosom of the visible Church In which if I have said right what harm may it with great appearance of reason be ask'd can be found to accrew upon it if an Error not fundamental chance to creep into the Church and grow by degrees to be held at length an Article of Faith seeing the belief thereof is not in it's self destructive of Salvation I answer there is this great harm in it if no other that in case it at any time come to be discover'd and National Churches be thereupon divided about it one holding it to be an Article of Faith another taking it to be an Erroneous Doctrin there will unavoidably a Schism happen upon it because that Church which thinks it to be an Article of Faith will conceive herself oblig'd to deny Communion to the other which rejects it as an Error and that other which rejects it as an Error must needs judge it to be an heinous Sin to acknowledge and profess that She beleeves a Doctrin to be an Article of Faith which in truth she holds to be an Erroneous Opinion and yet without such acknowledgment and answerable profession she cannot be admitted to Communion with the Church that believes it to be an Article of Faith Upon this very account it is that the Divisions between the Church of Rome and Church of England as to the Doctrinal Part of Religion are continued for I find that the most cautious and wary Vindicators of the English Church from the guilt of Schism which the Romanists incessantly accuse her of allege in excuse for her Separation that the Church of Rome requires as necessary Conditions of her Communion the acknowledgment of some erroneous Doctrins to be Articles of Faith together with a publick profession of them which Doctrins although not damnable in their own nature because not directly repugnant to any Fundamental Truth yet would become damnable to those who judging them to be Errors should acknowledge and profess them contrary to their Judgments to be Articles of Faith To this purpose writes the learned Bishop Montague the renowned Arch-Bishop Laud Doctor Ferne Doctor Hammond the late Lord Primat of Ireland Bishop Bramhal with others whereunto I 'le add one Cantrovertist more of the present time Doctor Stillingfleet of which two last mentioned not to multiply needless quotations about a thing so well known I 'le here transcribe two Passages
It was not saith the learned Primate the erroneous Opinions of the Church of Rome but the obtruding them by Laws upon other Churches which warranted a separation Bishop Bramhals Vindication against Mr. Baxter Pag 101. This is clearly the state of the difference saith Doctor Stillingfleet between the Church of Rome and Church of England The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believ'd as necessary to Salvation as appears c. But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Cbristian World of all Ages and are acknowledg'd to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires subscription not as Articles of Faith but as inferiour Truths which She expects a submission to in order to her peace and tranquillity Thus the ingenious Doctor in his Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion Pag. 54. The Church of England then by this holding nothing to be an Article of Faith but what Rome it self acknowledges to be so it 's evident That if the Church of England believe all the Articles of Catholick Faith as she professes she doth the Church of Rome does likewise the same and consequently since every Fundamental Truth is an Article of Catholick Faith that she believes all Fundamental Truths no less then the other doth So that the true and real difference between those two Churches is not about Fundamentals but Superstructures which if they be Errors or any of them as I think some of them are prov'd to be in Sect. 11. and if it were necessary others I conceive might be the imposing of them as Articles of Faith by the Romish Church layes the guilt of Schism at her door But that it ever will be granted by the Romanists while they esteem the Living Voice of the Church the Rule of Faith and hold the Council of Trent to be a true Representative of the Church that she proposes any Errors as Articles of Catholick Faith is not to be expected And that they 'l yield to change their pretended Rule of Faith there 's small encouragement yet to hope since 't is true aswell of them as of too many others what the rational Animadverter upon the Pamphlet entituled The naked Truth rightly observes That Political Authors commonly oppose those Passages in their Adversaries Books which are ready to fall of themselves and pass by those which urge and press them harder If it were not too truely so 't would be a matter of great amazement to me That Scripture and Tradition should still be cryed up one against the other and made to look as if they were at enmity when 't is manifestly clear that God at first joyn'd them amicably together in that the Blessed Apostles and Evangelists recommended the Holy Gospel or Revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God both in Writing and by an Oral Delivery and practical Profession of it to the World designing them no doubt to go hand in hand for Instructing Confirming and Regulating Men in the Belief and Practice of Christianity till the end of all things And therefore till their joynt Concurrence be restor'd to the Church I see not what great Good we can rationally expect by Controversie whereas if due respect and regard were had to both the Issue and Event thereof would as it appears in reason to me be this That nothing father'd on Scripture could be assented to and receiv'd as a Catholick Point of Faith unless there were likewise found a practical Tradition of it in the Church nor any Doctrine be taken and held for a Catholick Tradition but what was evidently seen by the Chief of the Clergy at least to have a real Ground in Holy Writ whence the Christian Religion 't is humbly conceiv'd might be in a certain way whensoever Interest or Passion prevented not to be secur'd from Error and the Church from Schism FINIS
Master Whites Adversaries in this Point should urge That there is a plain practical Tradition for the truth of the delivery of souls from Purgatory before the day of Judgement by the help of Indulgences Masses Prayers and Alms it would have some difficulty in it to disprove them For that the Members of the Roman Church do not only generally use those things to that end and purpose but were also taught by the preceding Age to do so will not I presume be deni'd so that unless they were told by the Recommenders of the Practice that it was the Product of a pious Opinion only grounded on probability which I cannot conjecture any likelihood of being done by Pastors Parents Guardians Masters of Families and Nurses who most commonly rather press the necessity of what they teach then otherwise I apprehend not how they should imbrace it save on the same Terms they did other practical things of their Religion which they judg'd to be of Catholick use and necessity A third Instance shall be the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which if it necessarily imply a Contradiction is doubtless an Error and to prove it doth I will of many Arguments that might be urg'd make use only of two when I have first set down three things which by the Traditionists I am sure by some of them will be granted to be all of them truths The first is That Transubstantiation is a conversion of the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of Christ The second is That a Body hath extension or partes extra partes The third thing is this That How many Hosts or conconsecrated Elements soever they be Christs Body is nevertheless but one These three Propositions presuppos'd as true I argue That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation implies a Contradiction in manner following Whosoever teacheth That one and the same Body may be equally extended and not equally extended at one and the same time teacheth in effect a Contradiction to be true But whosoever teacheth the Doctrin of Transubstantiation teacheth that one and the same Body may be equally extended and not equally extended at one and the same time Ergo Whosoever teacheth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation teacheth in effect a Contradiction to be true The reason of the Major is this Corpus quoquoversus extensum vel quod habet partes extra partes signifie the same thing and to be equally extended and not equally extended is one with this to be extended to one and the same degree and not be extended to one and the same degree which to befal one and the same thing at one and the same time is certainly contradictory since in regard a Body and a Thing every way extended differ not 't is in effect to be one and the same thing and not one and the same thing at once or the same thing not to be the same thing with it self The evidence for the truth of the Minor is no less then for that of the Major for since according to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation Christs Body is every where one and the same Body and the consecrated Elements are many either Substances or Accidents 't will follow That as often as the Eléments are at the same time of different sizes or bigness the Body of Christ which is neither more nor less extended on the Altar then the Elements must be of an unequal bigness at the same time or be equally and not-equally or just to such a degree and not just to such a degree of bigness extended in one moment of time For example The Body of Christ under the Elements extended in one place to two degrees and the same Body under the Elements extended in another place to three degrees would be at the same time extended just to two degrees and not just to two degrees and likewise just to three degrees and not just to three degrees which to suppose a truth seeing a Body and a Thing every way extended is the same were to put a thing to be not the same thing which it is Another Argument is offerr'd against Transubstantiation thus To affirme Christs Body to be greater and less then it self at the same time is in effect to affirm a Contradiction true But to affirm Christs Body to be in two or more distinct places at once as those who will defend Transubstantiation must do is to affirm it to be greater and less then it self at the same time Ergo To affirm Christs Body to be in two or more distinct places at once is in effect to affirm a Contradiction true The truth of the Major is clear from hence That it is the same for a Body or a thing extended to be greater and less then it self at the same time as to be and not to be the same with it self which is impossible And the Minor is equally certain for since two distinct places are of larger extent then one and that locus and locatum are commensurat if one Body fill distinctly and apart one place and yet at the same time fill another also it will of necessity be greater and less then it self whilst filling only one place it will be less then it self filling two and filling two it will be greater then it self filling only one Some Romanists I know will make light of all this I have said against Transubstantiation and think to confute it by flatly denying that a Body and Thing extended is all one but of such I would fain learn what a Body then is or how a corporeal substance as such is distinguish'd from an incorporeal a material from an immaterial otherways then by extension or having partes extra partes by which it is contiguous to the several distinct sides of the ambient Body or Bodies that encompass it whereas an incorporeal or immaterial substance having no such parts is of necessity all together wheresoever it is If it were said that a material substance is not of necessity actually extended yet naturally capable of being so which an immaterial is not I desire to be resolv'd whether by nature and creation there be or ever was any material substance in the world without extension if they yield as I assure my self they will there neither is nor ever was I shall take their concession for a grant that it is a natural and innate property of matter to have extension and consequently from thence inferr that if Christs Body in the Eucharist be unextended 't is either an immaterial substance that is a Spirit and no Body or els a new kind of Being which is neither materal nor immaterial since by Creation all substances were either the one or the other had quantitative parts or had not If reply were made that Christs Body is miraculously present in the Eucharist by way of substance as Aquinas and others say it is not including material nor immaterial but abstracting from both I would rejoyn and say That the existence of such a Being is to my apprehension