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
with that which others of them name confirming whilst both place the suppos'd infallibility in the Popes assent which assent those who call it defining think perhaps they make the Proposition more obviously denote that Prelats infallibility as exclusive of all the rest thereby SECT III. The second Opinion amongst the Romanists viz. That a General Council conciliary proceeding is infallible in Matters of Faith taken into consideration and it 's double meaning explain'd the truth of which in one of them only is here brought to the Test the certainty of it in it's other sense being left to be examin'd in other Sections THis Assertion of the Second sort of Romish Controvertists that A General Council conciliarly proceeding cannot erre in Points of Faith may be taken in a two-fold sense either as the words conciliarly proceeding include Tradition which the Traditionists say and then the meaning of it is That A General Council defining according to Tradition or the living voice of the Church cannot erre in which sense the consideration of it belongs to some following Sections Or els as they are intended only to denote the exclusion of all fraudulent and forcible ways us'd to procure the votes of the Prelats so as that the Definition of the Council being left to it's own freedom will be infallibly true although the Means preparative to it were not at all so Against That whatsoever was deliver'd to the primitive Christians by Christ and his Apostles as a Point of Faith hath been perpetually handed down from time to time without interruption till our days as such and it 's assign'd proof the indefectibility of Tradition I shall say nothing here but remit the discourse I intend upon them to another place and at present enquire Whether the present Church of Rome does indeed depend on this Maxim for the certainty of the purity of her Faith That Christs Doctrine was deliver'd to her as descending without interruption from Christ and his Apostles For if it appear upon trial made she doth not then however indefectible Tradition be it may notwithstanding fall out that new Articles of Faith may be introduc'd into the Church upon some other Ground not firm and safe such as the Traditionists will I know grant That the Definition of a General Council not founded on Oral Tradition but on this Presumption That the Bishops effectually proceeding to define are immediatly inspir'd from Heaven is And that the Roman Church does not rely on the mentioned Maxim for the certainty of the purity and uncorruptedness of her Faith I have somthing which seems considerable and of moment to alledge in proof It will not I presume be deny'd That Cardinal Bellarmin and the learned Romish Controvertists more generally taken notice of after him ever since the Reformation till Rushworths Dialogues came to light for all that they made it their business to resolve Faith according to the belief and practice of their Church did not conclude and averr Tradition to be the alone safe Means of conveying Christs Doctrine to the knowledge of succeeding Ages And if such great Lights among the Roman Clergy mistook the Rule of Faith how can we reasonably think that the inferiour Pastors and Laics in their time knew it aright And if they knew it not neither could they rely on it as such For although it were granted which some say that Bellarmin himself and all the learned Clerks of the Roman Church no less then the other Clergy and Lay-men did practically rely on Tradition in as much as they were Orally taught their Religion by the preceding Generation and that again by the next before it and so still backwards one Age of another ever since the very first beginning of Christianity yet unless they also knowingly did it when once they came to make enquiry upon what stedfast Ground the Christian Faith was to be embrac'd they would no longer rest upon the instruction they had when they first in their younger years believ'd if so be upon search made they conceiv'd as it seems the chiefest of them besides many more if not the generality did that the certainty of Faith was not sounded on Oral Tradition their first Instructor in it but on something els Yea I think I shall not mistake the truth if I say that it was not the private opinion of some great Doctors and their followers only but the sense of the Council of Trent it self also That Faith is not resolv'd into Tradition as it 's adequate Rule whilst in consulting the first Decree of the fourth Session of that Council I find two Passages which seem to make it out The former of them is this Sacrosancta Oecumenica Generalis Tridentina Synodus c. perspiciens hanc nempe Christianam veritatem Disciplinam contineri in Libris scriptis sine Scripto Traditionibus quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta omnes Libros tam veteris quám novi Testamenti cùm utriusque Deus sit Author necnon Traditiones ipsas tum ad Fidem tum ad Mores pertinentes tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo vel à Spiritu Sancto dictatas continuâ successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit ac veneratur The latter Passage closeth up the Decree thus Si quis Libros ipsos integros Scripturae scilicet cum omnibus suis partibus prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt in veteri vulgata Latina Editione habentur pro Sacris Canonicis non susceperit Traditiones praedictas sciens prudens contempserit anathema sit Omnes itaque intelligant quo ordine via ipsa Synodus post jactum Fidei Fundamentum sit progressura quibus potissimùm Testimoniis ac Praesidiis in confirmandis Dogmatibus instaurandis in Ecclesia Moribus sit usura In both these Passages Scripture and Apostolical Traditions are plainly contradistinguish'd as equally relating some way or other to Christian Faith and Manners And although in the former place they seem to be principally oppos'd as the Written and unwritten Word of God yet not without this apparent intimation also that as the Books or written Words call'd Scripture leade to the sense or Doctrine contain'd in them so likewise the unwritten words wherein Apostolical Traditions are taught guide to the meaning couch'd in them so that as Scripture and Traditions taken in the former sense are held by the Council to be equally the Word of God so are they moreover in the latter sense held to be equally significative and expressive of the Doctrine of Salvation delivered by them But in the latter rehearsed place of the Decree Scripture and Traditions are chiefly to be understood of written and unwritten words directing to the knowledge of the Objects of Faith as appears
by these Lines here following transcrib'd from thence Quibus potissimum Testimoniis Praesidiis nemque Scriptura Traditionibus in confirmandis Dogmatibus instaurandis in Ecclesia Moribus sit usura Synodus For Scripture and Traditions cannot here be taken for Christs Doctrine it self but for Characters and Sounds apt to discover what is meant by them From the whole therefore I gather That the Council of Trent resolves Faith into Scripture and Traditions when taken for the Word of God or Doctrine of Salvation as into it's proper Object and into the same Scripture and Traditions when taken the one for a Testimony in Writing the other for an Oral Testimony as into it's adequat Rule saving what the Adverb potissimùm in the last recited Passage of the Council may peradventure abate In hopes to enervate the force of this Discourse 't will not improbably be said That Scripture and Apostolical Traditions are granted to be held by the Tridentin Council the Totum or Extent of all reveal'd Truths and consequently the Characters and Sounds or the written and unwritten words wherein they are contain'd the material Rule of Faith but seeing it is Oral Tradition that informs us of the sense of both this alone is the formal Rule of Faith and that even according to the mind of the Trent Fathers themselves as the subsequent Passage of the second Decree of the fourth Session testifieth Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit eadem scilicet Sacrosancta Synodus et nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus Fidei Morum ad aedificationem Doctrinae Christianae pertinentium sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum quem tenuit ac tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia cujus est judicare de vero sensa interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum aut etiam contra sensum unanimem Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat In return to this I shall not deny but that if Holy Scripture were Writ and Apostolical Traditions express'd in Words not plainly significative of one determinate sense but had their intelligibleness in Matters of Faith and Manners from Oral Tradition this alone would be the formal Rule of Faith But then in case the thing were truely so and the late quoted place of the Council intended as much I see not how that learned Assembly can be clear'd from contradicting it self since Scripture and Apostolical Traditions if meer unintelligible Characters and Sounds without their suppos'd authentick Interpreter Oral Tradition would be so farr from being two Witnesses or Testimonies of Christs Doctrine which yet as was seen the Council solemnly and not transiently calls them that they would neither of them be any Witness or Testimony thereof at all the very nature and office of a Witness or Testimony being this to manifest and render intelligible to those who are immediatly concern'd to understand it what it bears witness or gives testmony unto immediatly I say concern'd but who those are in respect of the Rule of Christian Faith I deferr the enquiry of to another place At present in regard it will not I prefume be admitted that the Council contradicts it self the sence of the rehearsed Passage is farr more obvious then that which hath been mention'd if not evident to be this That whensoever the Holy Scripture is through either weakness or wilfulness drawn to a wrong sense it of Right belongs to the Governors of the Church to declare the true sence thereof which the Council might very well think to be just and fitting without supposing the words of Scripture to be unsens'd Characters since experience dayly shews that things easie to be understood are often mistaken by the vulgar and very plain words and sentences wrested by men of subtil wits to a perverse sense Two Witnesses then of Christs Doctrine viz. Scripture and Traditions the Council of Trent still seems to me plainly to assert But besides these let 's consider if there was not moreover a third which the Prelats had an eye to in respect of something defin'd by them for I cannot conjecture what they should mean by the Word potissimùm mentioned before except this That there are some divine Truths which are not so clearly contain'd either in Scripture or Apostolical Traditions as to be sufficiently attested by them and that therefore they stood need of a further Testimony to make them manifest which whether it was the unanimous consent of the Fathers or the immediat assistance of the Holy Spirit or something els which the Council intended I have no need to be scrupulous about since my business in this place was no more but to discover Whether the Church of Rome as 't is affirm'd by the Traditionists do really rely on this Maxim for her Faith that it was recommended to her as Orally descending by a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles or that it is but a thing speciously pretended on her behalf to avouch her Doctrine by wherein as the preceding Discourse hath already shewn in general so the subsequent will hereafter shew in particular what the truth to my apprehension is whilst that which has been said concerning the Council of Trents opinion in the Point shall be further seconded and confirm'd by several Instances out of the same The first shall be That it has defin'd Sess 4 Decree 1. What Books are Canonical Spâ—ture and anathematizes those who will not receive them as such amongst which the Epistle to the Hebrews is one and yet it has not always been esteem'd Canonical by the Western Church as is granted by Cardinal Perron and others of the Romish Profession that St. Jerom whose testimony cannot be in reason refus'd affirms for being in his time an eminent Member of the same Church he could not be ignorant of her practice and that he would Write an untruth whereof he might easily be detected is not at all credible The Second Instance is That the Books Arocryphal for which there is no Universal Tradition that they are the Word of God as Dr. Cosins late Lord Bishop of Durham in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture shews are defin'd by the Council of Trent Sess 4. Decree 1. to be Canonical Scripture The third and last Instance which at present I shall produce is to be seen Sess 7. Can. 9. of the Trent Synod where we find it thus defining Si quis dixerit in tribus Sacramentis Baptismo scil Confirmatione Ordine non imprimi Characterem in anima hoc est signum quoddam spirituale indelebile unde ea iterari non possunt Anathema sit These according to the Traditionists are the words or at least the sence of the words of the Church diffusive pronounc'd by it's Representative by which it seems there is a Tradition that a Character or a certain Spiritual indeleble signe is imprinted in the Souls of those who are baptiz'd confirm'd and ordain'd Now That the generality of Pastors Parents Tutors
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
THE SEVERAL WAYS Of Resolving FAITH IN THE ROMAN and REFORMED CHURCHES With the Authors impartial thoughts upon each of them And his own Opinion at length shewn wherein the Rule of Faith doth consist Which clears upon rational Grounds the Church of England from criminal Schism and laies the Cause of the separation upon the Roman YORK Printed by Stephen Bulkley and are to be sold by Richard Lambart Book-seller in the Minster-yard 1677. THE PUBLISHER To the Pious and Intelligent READER IF Reader thou be indeed so qualified as the style I give thee imports the following Treatise will I am confident find a very gratefull acceptance with thee For as the Subject of it's Discourse is of highest Consequence and so esteem'd by all who have a greater value for the Truth of Christianity then for the Concern of secular Interests and Enjoyments so will the handling of it be with that impartiality sincerity and seriousness seen perform'd that thou'lt easily own it to be a Tract wholly design'd for conviction and satisfaction not at all for contention or ostentation This 't is true makes it appear in a plain and homely dress the Author having purposely declin'd Rhetoricall Ornaments as fitter for an eloquent insinuating Harangue then for a controversiall strict Discourse whose aime and intent should not be to please the Phansie with gay and empty appearences but to fix the Understanding with plain and solid Truths Whereunto how far this small Piece in what it treats of is conducible I shall wholly leave to thy own impartiall thoughts to judge Permit me yet which with modesty enough I may crave to use the freedome to tell thee that the Way the Author takes for effecting his desire which is to be confirm'd upon sure Grounds What the Means instituted by God for attaining to the certain knowledge of Christs Doctrin be is such that nothing but very calumny can accuse him of any sinister or partiall proceeding This although a Motive materiall for recommending the perusall of his Book especially considering how polemick Disputes are too frequently mannag'd yet was my apprehension of the soundness of the Discourse it self and of the great assistance it brings to the rationall defence of the truly Protestant Profession but not of whatsoever is so call'd by every Opinionist the principall Inducement that mov'd me with my friends permission to publish it I speak not this Courteous Reader to forestall in the least thy Judgement but remit thee to thy full liberty and the rather because to do otherwise were to offer violence to the nature of the Treatise it selfe whose entire complexion in the whole and every part thereof is ingenuous and free looking on whatsoever is within it's prospect with the most equall eye imaginable and yet passing over nothing of moment without a due inspection of it as by an indifferent view thereof thou wilt easily perceive Farewell The Contents SEction 1. There is a Rule of Christian Faith or a Way whereby to come to the certain knowledge of Christs Doctrine instituted by God Three different Opinions among the Learned of the Roman Religion where that Way is to be found or wherein the Rule of Faith as 't is called by Controvertists doth consist Sect. 2. The Ground of the first Opinion of the Romanists which places the Rule of Faith in the Definition of a General Council confirmed by the Pope being this That a General Council confirm'd by the Pope cannot erre in Matters of Religion seriously consider'd of and thought to be erroneous Sect. 3. The Reason of the second Opinion among the Romish Party namely That the Definition of a General Council conciliarly proceeding with or without the Pope is the Rule of Faith held to be That a General Council conciliarly acting is infallible in Catholick Points of Faith taken into consideration and it 's double meaning explain'd the truth of which in one of them only is here brought to the Test the certainty of it in it's other sense being left to be examin'd in it's due place afterward Sect. 4. The Foundation whereon we find the third Opinion of the Romanists to wit that Oral Tradition or the living Voice of the Present Church in every Age is the Rule of Faith to be built viz. That Tradition is in Articles of Faith perpetually the same in all Ages well div'd into and more largely because of the present great vogue it has with the learned of the Romish Profession here in England insisted on then the Grounds of both the two former Opinions are Sect. 5. The Controvertists of the Reformed Church make Scripture the Rule of Faith Two main different Opinions notwithstanding in what sense it is so held to be The former Assertion viz. That the Scripture is clear to every understanding illuminated by the Holy Ghost in all those things which are necessary to salvation throughly inspected and esteem'd to be more plausible then sound A Sect that holds private inspiration of the Spirit of God absolutely necessary as well for knowing as understanding the Word of God Another sort of People who talk of a Light within them to be their sole Guide in Matters of Belief and Practise Both these Pretensions fairly discuss'd and found to be Delusions Sect. 6. The other Assertion which some of the Reformed hold viz. That all things necessary to Salvation are clear in Scripture to every understanding impartially reflected on and Reasons given why 't is thought to be rather popular and pleasing then solid and satisfactory Sect. 7. Whether the Rule of Faith affords infallible or but moral certitude of Christs Doctrin Whether we may not now in our days have as great certainty thereof as the Disciples of the Apostles had And whether the like certainty which they had be not enough for the Church of the present and future Ages Sect. 8. By what Means the knowledge of a Matter of Fact such as the preaching of the Gospel by Christ and His Apostles was may be perpetuated An examen of the force of the Romanists main Argument whereby they endeavour to shew that Scripture cannot be the Rule of Faith Whether the Scripture be not as intelligent in Points of Faith as Tradition or the Living voice of the Church is Sect. 9. What the Properties of the Rule of Faith be and whether they agree to Holy Scripture Sect. 10. An Enquiry Whether Christs Doctrine has been practically convey'd without intermission from the days of the Apostles unto ours And of what validity four grand Arguments urg'd against the indefectibility of Tradition are Sect. 11. What rational assurance we have That Scripture is not corrupted in Necessaries to Salvation The way to know what Things have been ever Orally taught Two Reasons given why Tradition though it be of an indefectible Nature should not be the Rule of Faith Whether a Fundamental Error can ever obtain a setled quiet possession in the visible Church An offer from Reason for the impossibility of the thing Errors
and Nurses the sure Conveyers of Christianity as the Traditionists tell us from Age to Age should know what it is to have a Character or spiritual signe imprinted in the Soul and without that they could not declare it in various forms of speech as was requisit they should in regard that one main reason given by the Traditionists why Christs Doctrine cannot fail in the conveyance is because it is express'd so many several ways that the generality of the Hearers cannot chuse but understand it aright I see small cause to think especially when I reflect That the great Master of the Traditionary Disciples in his Institut Sacr. Tom. 2. Lect. 4. thus teacheth Ponere signa spiritualia ie invisibilia contra ipsam rationem signi est quod pro materiali oportet esse notum visibile pro eô veró quod significat lateris unde non nisi inter homines qui colligunt scientiam ex objectis reperiuntur non possunt esse spiritualia sed ex necessitate sensibilia And in the page following the same learned Author asserteth Ipsam personam esse subjectum Characteris cúm actio sit communis corpori animae i. e. totius If perchance it should be said That the scope of the Canon is only to declare that there is an appropriation or appointment of a mans whole life to some solemn Engagement or Action as by Baptism to be a Christian by Confirmation to undergoe couragiously the Christian warfare by Order to Preach the Word to administer the Sacraments c. so that not any of them is to be iterated and this Christians generally know for who is ignorant that none us'd to be Baptiz'd none confirm'd none ordain'd more then once I reply If the Tradition of the Church be plac't wholy in that then in case the Council has defin'd more it could not ground the same upon the uninterrupted delivery thereof And that the Council has defin'd more appears from this That the Canon further declares two things which whosoever denies incurrs an Anathema the one is That the Character given in the three nominated Sacraments is a spiritual sign the other That the soul alone is the subject thereof for although the word alone be not in the Canon yet it is necessarily imply'd because a spiritual sign cannot be imprinted in a corporeal substance and therefore as to these the Council could not ground the Definition upon Tradition SECT V. The Controvertists of the Reformed Church make Scripture the Rule of Faith Two main different tion is a like impossible as that multitudes of people should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own and their Posterities everlasting Happiness seeing as I have shew'd 't is a thing easy and necessary to Salvation to be perform'd to prepetuate Christs Doctrin by a continued practical Delivery of it till the Consummation of all things However clear the truth of this may seem yet in regard I meet with four grand Arguments urg'd stiffly against the indefectibility of Tradition two of which are thought by some to be grounded on firm Reason the other two on certain Experience 't will be requisit well to consider of them and to try their strength The first is That Moral Causes work not necessarily and therefore it cannot be certainly concluded that however strongly the Motives for the practical continuance of Christs Doctrin be appli'd to the mind the Will will undoubtedly embrace them and act according to them This first Argument is sufficiently I think answer'd Section 7. yet for fuller conviction I will add this here that the same Argument if appli'd to Scripture would prove as much every jot against Scriptures preservation as against the continuance of Tradition If it be repli'd that Gods Goodness is engag'd for the preservation of Scripture I grant it if man use his own endeavours otherwise God is not I conceive concern'd to preserve it for I presume no man of sound Reason will say that God is oblig'd by his Goodness immediatly to save it Himself or to commit the safeguard of it to the sole care of Angels when Men whose Concern it is to preserve it are sufficient if there be no default in themselves for the work If Mans endeavours therefore for the conservation of it be free in that sence which the Objection supposes every action of Man to be there will be no more certainty of the continuance of Scripture then of the practical Delivery of Christs Doctrine throughout all Generations and if the Church should at any time be without it's Rule of Faith 't would either dwindle away to nothing or become a meer Babel of Anarchy and Confusion The second Argument to prove That Tradition is not of an indefectible nature is this If men be not free it is no virtue at all in them to be wrought upon by Moral Motives for what virtue can it be in any man to entertain the Christian Doctrine and adhere to it whether he will or no I willingly grant it is no virtue in any man to do a thing whether he will or no for to do a thing whether a man will or no is according to the common use of the Phrase to do it against his Will which as to the actus elicitus of the Will involves this manifest Contradiction to will and nill at once the same thing The words therefore whether he will or no must be interpreted to mean here in the Objection no more then necessarily or rather in propriety of Speech certainly for I take a necessary effect in the most strict and proper notion of it to be an effect wrought in a Subject wholly passive whereas the Will is an active Principle and always determines it self however powerfully the Motives work upon it Whence it is that even the blessed Saints and Angel's in Heaven though their affections be most strongly and unalterably fix'd on God are not necessitated thereto without their own great good-liking and active tendency to the enjoyment of their Sovereign Good If then the fruition of the very End be so voluntary that the Will is active therein 't is certainly so in respect of the Means conducing to it to the choice whereof deliberation is prerequir'd the office of which deliberation is to consult what means will be most available to obtain the design'd End by the principal of which in Morals is Mans Summum Bonum or sovereign Good namely the fruition of God whereunto as well the Moral as Theological Vertues are conducible Means so that to be actually virtuous is to act for the enjoyment of the Chief Good in a way proper for the attaining of it which to do the more stedfastly constantly and certainly were not I should think to do less but rather more virtuously yet without infringing the Liberty of the Will which retains always it's native power when it so likes to do otherwise But in case the habit of Virtue in any man grow so strong and potent that
it perpetually incline him to pursue his Chief Good I hope the enjoyment of God will not be made such a necessary effect thereby as that he 'l enjoy God whether himselfe will or no. The certainty therefore of a thing wrought by Moral Causes is no evidence that Man is not endued with Free-will but only shews that the Motives act so vigorously and powerfully considering the present disposition of the Mind and the Circumstances a man is in that the Wills native indifferency to will or not to will is cast by them on that side which makes for producing the Effect but yet so that it 's the Wills own choice to do it which determins itself by reason of the present agreeableness and gratefullness of the Motives thereunto For unless we 'll deny the constant Experience of all Ages we must needs confess that there is a certainty of divers Effects in the course of several things in the world such as were mentioned Section 7. besides many more not spoken of which flow from Moral Motives so that it would be more tolerable if there were no way to reconcile Free-will and that certainty to make doubt of the former rather then of the latter but we see by what has been said That a certainty of effects proceeding from Moral Causes and the native Liberty o◠Mans Will may well enough consist together The other two Arguments brought to prove That Tradition is defectible are Founded on two Instances the former of which is this The Tradition of the one true God was in a short time so defac'd and corrupted that the world did laps into Polytheism and Idolatry although it was setled in the heart of Noah and firmly believ'd by him to be the way to Happiness and the contradicting and deserting this to be the way to Misery and this Doctrin according to the Traditionists must be suppos'd to have been so taught to his children and by them also to their Posterity To this I answer first that there is not the like reason why a Doctrin committed only to three Families should be so permanent as that which is entrusted to millions of people allbeit the Motives for the preservation of it were the same But I secondly answer that the Motives for propagating Christianity are far more excellent then the Motives whith Noah and his Sons had for the continuing the belief of the one true God For the express motives in ancient time both before and under the Law were only temporall rewards and punishments which because they were seen to befal the bad and good promiscuously in that some of both sorts abounded with Riches and Honour and others had their afflictions 't is obvious to conceive considering the frequent tentations to Ambition Luxury and Avarice that men would be farr less intent to regard Truth and exercise acts of Piety and Vertue when everlasting Bliss and Misery were only gather'd by Consequence to be the final Portion of good and evill men then when in express words they were constantly press'd and inculcated as Motives the one to incline men to embrace Truth and Goodness the other to deterr them from Error and Vice as since the Preaching of Christs Gospel they have ever been Neither which I thirdly and lastly Answer will it be granted That the Tradition of the one true God ever faild or was totally lost till it appear that Abraham and Lot had not knowledge of Him from Sem or some of his Progeny Could Abraham saith Dr. Stillingfleet Origin Sacr. Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. when he was contemporary with Sem be ignorant of the Truth of the Flood when Sem from whom he deriv'd himself was one of the Persons who escap'd it in the Ark Could Sem be ignorant of the actions before the Flood when Adam the first Man lived some part of his time with Noah And could Noah then be ignorant of the Creation and Fall of Man The same Learned Author in the same Sect. a little before writeth thus Adam conversed sometime with Noah Sem his Son was probably living in some part of Jacobs time or Isaacs at least And how easily and uninterruptedly might the general Tradition of the ancient History be continued thence to the time of Moses when the number of Families agreeing in this Tradition was increas'd and withall incorporated by a common ligament of Religion I demand then saith the Doctor where can we suppose any ignorance or cutting off this general Tradition in so continued a Succession as here was The latter Instance offerr'd to disprove the Indefectibility of Tradition by is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost which the Latin Church saith the Objection affirms is from the Father and the Son and a nenessary Article of Faith the Greek Church holding That He proceeds only from the Father and not from the Son disowning any such Doctrin to have been deliver'd to them by the precedent Age or to any other Age of their Church as the Doctrin of Christ and yet no question can be made but that if the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son be an Article of Faith it was taught in the Greek as well as in the Latin Church and therefore the Non-belief of it in the Greek Church is an evident Argument of the actual failure of Tradition in this Point and of the possibility of it's failings in others also To this I return That seeing the Doctrin of the Blessed Trinity and more especially of the Holy Ghost was purposely handled in the Second General Council held at Constantinople which was principally call'd for confuting and condemning Macedonius who deni'd the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and that nevertheless no mention is made in the Creed there set forth of his procession save from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also the same Creed was not only receiv'd but continued likewise a long time after in the Latin Church without the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seems strongly probable at least that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son was not thought by the Constantinopolitan Fathers to be an Article of Catholick Faith seeing it was so obvious so easie and one would think so opportune also after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they had indeed believ'd it to be an Article of Faith The excuse that some make why they did it not which is that there was none as yet who denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son seems trivial since it was the very Divinity of the Holy Spirit that Macedonius oppos'd which alone therefore if the excuse were good should haue been asserted by the Council and the contrary opinion thereto only condemned But whatever was the cause or the occasion why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was omitted which I wave this is certain that the Doctrin of the Holy Ghosts procession from the Son is either an Article of Catholic Faith or it
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-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
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