may maintain his ground of suspense with a Might it not be otherwise If he may do so is this any fault in the Rule of Faith or any excuse to him to suspend his assent when he can make no rational exception Were not the Miracles of Moses sufficiently convictive so long as some Egyptians said Might they not be otherwise than from God and was not all that Christ did and spake enough to declare his Doctrine to be from God and a Rule of Faith because the Jews not only said May it not be otherwise but that it is otherwise and must the Rule of Faith now be needs made another thing by us from what it was made in the beginning by Christ himself shall the Scripture now be required to have that condition of a Rule of Faith which it is certain did not at the beginning of Christianity belong to the Rule of Faith If this satisfie not suppose amongst the Beraeans in S. Paul's time there should have been or were some of this Authors principles who thought Faith a Vice if not founded on demonstration and would smile at any man who should talk of demonstrating so much of Scripture as was requisite to found their belief in it and so should refuse to assent to and believe S. Paul when others searching the Scriptures did believe Will this Author so own these principles of this Discourse to say that these sceptical Vnbelievers acted more rationally than S. Paul's Converts and that they who believed his Doctrine by searching the Scriptures did betray their reason and their Faith was a Vice when S. Luke owned them of a noble Spirit and declared them to have searched diligently § 4. He comes to the fifth property that it is convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries Though obstinate persons are capable of no conviction yet we acknowledge that the Rule of Faith is defensible against all opposition and is such that the most acute Adversaries may be satisfied concerning it if sufficient evidence will prevail with them And this we assert concerning Scripture He now supposeth a Deist to enquire How we know the Book of Scripture to be Gods Word and supposeth us to answer By its excellencies These excellencies indeed give considerable evidence especially as he saith to eyes enlightned by faith and do further strengthen and satisfie them yet we need not nor do not assert this alone sufficient to give a rational account to all men without taking in how these Books were received and delivered in the Church as we formerly shewed But he saith his Deist will shew you Texts against known science and in his judgement contradictions Will he shew Texts against known science but what if he cannot and what if some expressions in Scripture are more suited to vulgar apprehensions than the Sciolists notion shall any reject so excellent a Writing because it condescends to speak intelligibly to the lowest capacities Nor where there is proof given of this being Gods Word can seeming contradictions to his judgment be sufficient not to receive it since somewhat mysterious and sublime may come from God and to understand aright all things written by the Pen-men of Scripture it is requisite to be acquainted with the circumstances of History measures proverbial expressions and the like and then he might reconcile as learned men have done many things which now to him seem contrary But he saith his Deist will shew you many absurdities and Heresies in the letter of Scripture as that God hath hands feet and passions like ours Here as his former words are unsavoury his latter are untrue Scripture speaks indeed of Gods hands and feet but no where saith he had such like ours Such things as are thus spoken of God in Scripture have a true literal sense if that may be called literal which is tropical and why may not Scripture be allowed to make use of Tropes or Metaphorical expressions as well as all other Writers and all Discoursers where the sense is easily discernable to reason which is requisite to be used that we may understand any Writing Now the considering what knowledge we have of God by reason and the pondering other places of Scripture which plainly speak God to be a Spirit and considering likewise how these words of hands and feet c. are oft used in a figurative sense this will plainly convince that they must be understood so when they are applied to God When the Romanists by Tradition deliver that the Pope is the Head of the Church will they not expect that mans common reason and what they otherwise teach of the Church should teach all to allow a tropical sense of the word Head and not that they should forthwith imagine that that Church whereof the Pope is the Head should have the outward shape of Man Woman or Beast Thus Celsus whose Arguments against Christianity were much of the nature of this Discoursers makes this an Objection against Christians that they speak unworthily of God as of the work of his hands the mouth of God and the voice of God And Origen lib. 6. cont Cels thought it sufficient to answer that Christians did understand all these in a spiritual not a corporeal sense and that if Celsus had read other places of Scripture he might thence know that Christians would not think otherwise of God It is an unchristian assertion to charge the letter of the Scripture which is the very words of the God of Truth with heresie where we have sure ground of it's interpretation both from other Scripture from Reason Against the latter he objects that then we disown the Scripture Rule and make our Reason and other knowledge our Rule I answer when we include Scripture we cannot disown it yet withal we own Reason as that whereby we judge of the significancy of Words and Phrases as well in Scripture as elsewhere he who doth not this either doth not understand Phrases or hath a prodigious art of understanding without reason Yea we do profess to make use of that knowledge we have of God by Reason thereby to understand the better other expressions which concern God in Truths revealed since we are certain that God gave the Scriptures as a further revelation to man who was supposed to have that Reason and Conscience which God had endued him with But he further in § 5. challengeth the consciousness of our own thoughts whether we do not bring thoughts along with us to interpret Scripture by and these from Tradition or what we have heard and received Here I shall give him a true and faithful account of the Protestants carriage in this thing which must be by a distinction of Persons and Texts of Scripture In such Texts as appear plain where the necessary truths are contained none of us bring any such thoughts to interpret by but discern the evidence plainly in it self and from thence we hold such Truths as Points of Faith In Texts of Scripture which appear more
considers that Faith or the knowledge of God the vulgar may both have since they may be saved § 8 9 10. and they may have doubts concerning it § 11. and since this Faith is a rational assent § 12. which they who are out of the Church should imbrace § 13. and eminent Wits may be satisfied in § 14. and the most skill'd Adversaries cannot shew its Rule possibly false § 15. and this Rule must assure us what Christ said § 16. From this he gathers seven Properties of the Rule of Faith § 17. 1. It must be plain and self-evident as to its existence unto all 2. Evidenceable as to its Ruling Power to Inquirers even the rude Vulgar 3. Apt to settle and justifie undoubting persons 4. To satisfie fully the Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters 5. To convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries 6. Built upon unmoveable grounds that is absolutely certain in it self 7. And absolutely ascertainable unto us Having given some account of his Discourse I come now to examine whether he hath laid a sufficient foundation to raise from thence the properties of the Rule of Faith and then whether the properties mentioned be rightly raised and do agree to the Rule of Faith The ground he lays from the words Rule and Faith is not sufficiently sure and stable for since these words Rule of Faith even as he treats of them do admit of some ambiguity in their sense it had been necessary to have first declared what was here intended to be signified by them For besides that the phrase of regula fidei or the Rule of Faith is by Irenaeus and Tertullian and other Ancients sometimes made use of for a kind of Creed or comprisal of the chief Articles of Christian Faith I say besides this the word Rule being here a Metaphor the true meaning of it in this place must be searched into Nor doth he sufficiently describe his Rule by saying it is able to regulate or guide him who useth it for still by a Rule may be understood either that which is able to guide him who useth it that by it something to be inquired after may be discovered knowably or else a Rule is that from which all things about which such a Rule may be made use of may receive the most exact perfect and compleat way of trial and discovery Now that is not the Rule of Faith by which a man may be guided to believe some Divine revealed truths or most truths which yet may either misguide in some others or not most exactly guide to the knowledge of them but it is that by which all Divine revealed truths are sufficiently discovered by which there may be had the best determination of all Questions about such truths which are necessary to be decided and which is the most sure and firm ground of believing every Divine revealed truth The want of considering and observing this hath cast this Author upon a threefold miscarriage First He hath omitted the most principal and necessary property of the Rule of Faith which is that it is the way to know try and determine all matters of Faith or revealed Truth and that it is sufficient to do all this so far as it is requisite it should be done For if this property be omitted all those laid down by this Discourser will not have light enough to discover which is the Rule of Faith certainly and infallibly For instance this sentence God Created the Heavens and the Earth or any other such like so delivered to us that it appears certainly to come from God though it cannot be called a Rule of Christian Faith because it contains not so much Divine truth as is necessary either for every mans Salvation or for the determining Controversies in Religion so far as it is requisite they should be decided and this is received as much amongst the unbelieving Jews as amongst Christians yet all the properties mentioned by this Discourser may be applied unto it as much as to the Rule of Faith 1. It may be to all self-evident as to its existence That there is such a truth delivered 2. It may be knowable to have a ruling power even to the Vulgar 3. It may settle them who undoubtingly receive it 4. It may satisfie either Dissenters or Doubters 5. It may convince Adversaries 6. It may be certain in it self and 7. Ascertainable to us A Second miscarriage hence arising is That in this Treatise he useth the phrase of the Rule of Faith in a very uncertain fallacious and ambiguous sense sometimes to signifie one thing and sometimes another For under Faith as he treats of it he sometimes includes all Divine revealed truth so far as to a general ending of Controversies about them So Praef. § 7. he saith Controversie or the skill to know what is Faith if a Science must be grounded on some self-evident Principle and soon after he tells us he hath indeavoured to shew the first Principle Catholicks proceed on self-evident and this he calls the first principle in controversie Where it is plain he includes under Faith all Divine revealed truths concerning which there are any Controversies raised But in Disc 1. § 8. where he lays as a ground that the Vulgar are to be saved that is are to have Faith or the knowledge of God he cannot mean that they must be surely and rationally determined as he grants Faith must be such an assent in all points of Faith about which there is any Controversie for it is plainly evident that even amongst the Papists the Learned men have not been determined in all points de Fide by the help of their Tradition So by the Rule of Faith he sometimes means an only way to come to Faith as Disc 2. § 9 10. he saith Faith is not possible to be had without the Rule of Faith other times he understands by it only a sufficient way to come to Faith as Disc 1. § 8 9. he calls it the means to arrive at Faith or come to Faith Sometimes he calls it the ordinary way to Faith so Corol. 1. and yet thence concludes none can pretend to have Faith who hold not to the true Rule and yet as having his heart misgiving him in this confidence he saith Disc 1. § 11. The Rule of Faith is the best if not the only means to come to the knowledge of Faith Now to treat of the Rule of Faith in such a manner as not to keep to one sense but some time by his Rule to mean an only way sometimes a sufficient way sometimes an ordinary way other times the best if not the only way and by Faith of which it is the Rule sometimes to understand such Faith as is in all the believing Vulgar and at other times under Faith to take in all Controversie about matters revealed of God this is a strange jumbling of different things together and as it discovers much want of accurateness and rational proceeding in the Author so
it occasions incoherency and confusion in this his Discourse A Third miscarriage hence arising is That he buildeth part of his discourses upon a supposition which is certainly false to wit that all that Faith which is in the Vulgar or in any others is immediately produced by the application of the Rule of Faith so Disc 1. § 8 9. whence § 14. he calls the Rule of Faith the immediate producer and cause of the assent of Faith both with reference to the ruder sort and to the Learned Now though the Rule of Faith be the surest way to beget Faith or to try any point of Faith yet is not all Faith in all persons immediately produced by it but many times by other means Thus the Discourses of Origen Tertullian and Cyprian and their Writings have doubtless perswaded and prevailed with many to receive the Christian Faith by them and believe many things declared in it yet neither their words nor writings were any Rule of Faith since both in some things appear erroneous The Goths were brought in to Christianity by the preaching of the Arians and by that means believed many Christian truths and of later years many Pagans have believed the Christian Doctrine some by the preaching of Protestants and others by the Papists yet cannot all these ways of delivery be called the Rule of Faith nor indeed any of them Yea it is sensibly evident that many Christian truths are received and believed both among Protestants and Papists by the Vulgar either from the teaching of a Parent or from a private Doctor or Teacher which may be subject to some error and so are not the Rule of Faith since they may misguide and yet in many things of revealed truth this is the common case of the Vulgar before they come to understand the Rule of Faith or that which they own as such even before the Protestant comes to understand the Scripture and what is in it contained and before the Papist understands the Tradition of the Church and how he may know what is as such delivered since all that is taught or written by some particular persons cannot be as such received I come now to examine the particular properties of the Rule of Faith above recited The first property is That it must be self evident as to its existence to all His ground for this is that the rudest Vulgar who are capable of Faith are uncapable of any skill by speculation § 3 4 9 10. But First This proves not that it must be self-evident by which he means as appears in the following Discourse that that which is the Rule of Faith appeareth evidently to be such barely by considering this Rule in it self without any other helps and advantages since without this way of self-evidence it may be sufficiently evidenceable to all capacities in such a manner as the Vulgar are capable of knowing it The Statutes of England are a Rule for the decision of Cases in the Law concerning the matters contained in them but that they are so cannot appear satisfactorily in all these Laws by the bare reading of them but their being sufficiently and generally attested and acknowledged to be enacted by the Legislative Power and unrepealed evidenceth them to be such The Vulgar know that the last Will and Testament of a man is as a Rule to shew who hath title to the Goods of the deceased and they are capable of knowing which is the last Will and Testament of a person otherwise than from the bare reading of it to wit by the full witness and evident testimony of credible persons concerning it The ordinary Jews were capable of knowing the ten Commandments and the Books of Moses to be given them from God to guide them otherwise than by the reading of them to wit by delivery of them as such by the constant testimony of all the Jews in that and the succeeding Ages Whence it may appear to be self-evident that the Vulgar are capable of receiving other proof than self-evidence though not by deep speculation yet by testimonial evidence Nor 2. Will it hence follow from his proof that the Rule of Faith should be evident to all as to its existence By all he cannot here include them who have no knowledge of Gospel Revelation But I suppose he intends all who have faith or are in the way to attain it But in this latitude it is no property of the Rule of Faith to be actually evident to all these since there may be some Faith which is not immediately grounded upon the Rule as was before shewed Howbeit since the Rule of Faith is intended to confirm and determine matters of faith so that they may be received with a full and firm assent and is thence of great use to all to settle and stablish them in the faith I assert that the Rule of Faith is evidenceable unto all or may be made evident unto all who have capacities of reason both that it is and that it is a Rule if they be willing to receive that evidence which is sufficient The second property That it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to Enquirers even the rude Vulgar I allow supposing them willing to be satisfied with good evidence The third property I admit That it is apt to settle and justifie undoubting persons that is that they who rely on it without doubting may be satisfied that they act rationally The fourth property is That it is able to satisfie the most Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters Had he appeared only to mean by Sceptical the most curiously inquisitive I would readily have granted this property but it is suspicious that he includes such Scepticks as design to reject evidence because when he applies this Rule Disc 3. § 3. he speaks of his Sceptick as one who would find somewhat to reply rationally or at least would maintain his suspence with a Might it not be otherwise If he indeed includes persons who set themselves to reject evidence I answer the Rule of Faith needeth not be able to satisfie them nor can it since they are not capable of satisfaction and such were many of the Heathen Philosophers of the Hereticks among Christians and probably of the Scribes and Pharisees All he said for the proof of this property was That those who are out of the Church are intended by Christ to be brought in to embrace the faith and persons of highest reason and enquiry in the Church may be satisfied concerning the faith § 13 14. This is true of them who will embrace light and evidence where they find it but not of them who reject it and Protestants will affirm that the Rule of Faith taking in the testimonial evidence which is given concerning that Rule is able to satisfie all Dissenters or Doubters who are ready and willing to receive rational satisfaction The fifth property is That it must be able to convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries This he supposeth proved from § 15.
Because such Adversaries the Church will have and the highest advantage they can have against the Church is to shew her Rule uncertain But this only proves that enough may be said for the Rule of Faith to vindicate it against all such Adversaries which is indeed true yea and more than this that enough may be said to convince them if they will attend to it and be not obstinate and however to satisfie all unprejudiced men that these obstinate Adversaries are in error and may be confuted But more than this is no way necessary to provide for the conviction of the obstinate If Porphyry Celsus or Julian were not convinced shall any conclude that God was wanting in the Rule of Faith to his Church But indeed the satisfaction of such Heathen Adversaries must be procured not only from the Rule of Faith which will shew what was delivered by Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets but also from other arguments and testimonial evidence not only to prove that this Rule was delivered by Jesus but also to shew the things so delivered to be of God and therefore true The sixth and seventh properties That it is certain in it self and ascertainable to us I do admit And indeed these two properties if by ascertainable to us we understand that we may be sufficiently certain concerning the Rule and what is contained in it include all the former so far as they are truly applicable to the Rule of Faith For to be certain and ascertainable to us includes so much of his two first properties as belong to this Rule of Faith that is it is evidenceable to all both as to its being and its ruling power seeing to be evidenceable and to be ascertainable is one and the same thing Yea if it be certain and it 's certainly thus ascertainable or evidenceable to us his third fourth and fifth Properties will be the consequent effects hereof so far as they of right appertain to this Rule of Faith that is where there appears certainty ascertainable it will have these effects it will justifie them who most stedfastly and undoubtingly rely on it and will satisfie inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters and will be able to convince the most acute Adversaries Whence it appears that his seven Properties are needlesly and without sufficient distinction multiplied and all the rest are well reducible to the two last to which if we add what I before observed concerning this Rule that it must be the best Guide in all matters of faith we have then three Properties which alone are sufficient to direct us to the Rule of Faith to wit its certainty its evidenceableness and its fulness exactness and compleatness as to all points of faith But since his Discourse I now examine is ordered according to his seven Properties saving that he himself Disc 2. confounds or at least conjoyns the two former it is necessary for me to follow him in his own way and to examine the Rule of Faith by what we have found to belong to it in all these Properties Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture OUR next work is to examine by these marks what the Rule of Faith is He tells us § 1. That the owned pretenders to it are only two Scripture and Tradition but withal insinuates That Protestants do indeed make private Spirit private Reason and the Testimonies of Fathers the Rule of Faith because these are they which do ascertain them of Scripture sense Now we Protestants do own Scripture as our Rule of Faith which was surely delivered to us by succession from the Apostles and do assert that what ever Properties do belong to the Rule of Faith are truly and fully applicable to the Scripture but unwritten Tradition we reject from being this Rule knowing that there is no certain and infallible delivery of Christian Doctrine thereby Nor do we any way make either private Reason or a private Spirit whether he mean an Enthusiastick Spirit which Protestants disclaim or the same thing with private Reason or Testimonies of Fathers our Rule of Faith For if Protestants should try any Doctrine by any of these immediately without referring them to Scripture they would as to that Doctrine make them their Rule but this no Protestant will do in matters of meer belief or supernatural Revelation But if they make use of their reason to apprehend the words phrases and sense of the Scripture that thereby they may more fitly judge what the Scripture will determine as to any matter of faith this is no more to make this a Rule than an Artist who measures any Materials by an exact known Rule can be said to make his eye his Rule because he judges by his eye how his Rule is applyed to the thing measured but in case he shall make use only of his eye without any other Rule then only can his eye be called his Rule Indeed the followers of Tradition and all rational men may as well be charged with making private reason their Rule as the followers of Scripture since by reason they are ascertained of Traditions sense for they make use of reason to judge what the words signifie which are delivered to them and what ground they have to receive them else could not their assent of Faith be as this Author acknowledgeth it must be rational Disc 1. § 14. unless he can imagine a man to give a rational assent which is not directed by reason Nor can we be said to make the Testimonies of Fathers our Rule though in plain truths we value them owning the same truth which we embrace as delivered by the Rule In some more difficult Scriptures we make use of them to satisfie our reason by their reason and evidence and this is to use them in the same manner we use our reason In other places difficult we make use of their authority as a probable motive to perswade us to encline to a sense by them delivered if it be not contradicted by greater authority or reason But in this case where there is no other evidence we do not urge such an interpretation or such a sense of such a Scripture necessary to be received as a Point of Faith but allow it in such a measure probable and to be assented to as the Authorities shall require § 2. He notes that when we make Scripture our Rule we must understand not Scripture sens'd but to be sensed that is their characters in a Book with their aptness to signifie I answer We assert the written words of Scripture to be a Rule of Faith as the words therein contained do manifest their own sense being in themselves in all things fit and necessary to be known sufficiently intelligible by men whom God hath endued with reason and understanding That is the words of Scripture which are written by inspiration from God do in the same manner declare Gods meaning in what he reveals which is the
Doctrine of Faith as words written and spoken by men declare their sense and meaning to one another and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith § 3 4 5 6 7 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith First They cannot be certain by self-evidence that this is Gods Word which cannot be discovered but by deep speculation nor can this be concluded till all seeming contradictions are solved § 3. Secondly Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired either by self-evidence or by any skill they are possest of § 4. Thirdly Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities that the originals are any where preserved entire nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it § 5. Fourthly Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators § 6. Fifthly If it be most truly translated yet innumerable Copies before Printing and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relyed on by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture § 7. Lastly Still they are far to seek unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes about concerning Points and Christs Divinity shew not to be the task of the vulgar § 8. Ad § 3. To the first Objection I answer That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar that the Scriptures are the Word of God Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture is very considerable as to the truths contained in Scripture by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines suitable to God and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled yet as to the writing which contains these truths we have another more plain way and generally evidenceable to all persons to assure them that these Books are Gods Word which is that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls these Books have in all Ages since Christ and almost in all Countreys been preserved as the Writings of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists they have constantly and publickly read them as such and given them to us as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as Gods Word and by this way we have a plain and withal a very full certainty or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ Dei lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers by a most certain and known succession Compare the certainty of it with any Historical Writings in the World or with any other matters of fact in any former Age and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater because it is more generally delivered and hath been more constantly read Compare this again with any Records in the World and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society the Records of a Court the Statutes of a Colledge or the Charter of a Corporation are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court and the Members of that Corporation and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age because they are in written Records delivered as such to them and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty especially if he know that all foregoing Members of such Societies or Officers of such Courts are under the obligation of an Oath to preserve such Records or Charters entire and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe what this Record or Charter doth contain And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God since there are not only one but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World who all agree in this delivery and all these Societies by their Profession and the Christian Sacraments are under the highest obligations not to falsifie in any thing and especially in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers that they did religiously own and honour this Book as the Word of God Lastly Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition or rather with its uncertainty wherein we must consider that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures is of the same nature with that whereby Monuments preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another which the common apprehensions of men shew to be a much surer way of delivery than this Tradition by way of hear sayes since in every Corporation which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors if the Members of it would be sure what are the Priviledges that belong to it they will not think it the safest way to enquire what are the common Opinions of that Society and rely on this which is like the way of Oral Tradition but they will consult the Charter it self and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine or what God delivered to be more fully in the Scripture than in the words of other Christians or Tradition by the same way but by much greater evidence than that by which men of all Societies will conclude the truth of what concerns their Priviledges or what Emperours or Kings have granted them to be more fully contained in their Charters than in common reports Nor is this Tradition which we honour owned by us a Rule of our Faith but a rational evidence or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God or the Writings divinely inspired For in matters of Faith though a man is supported by reason which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God yet as to the matter or thing believed he doth not exercise his reason to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony and upon this Testimony owns what is attested by it but when we say we own the Scriptures to be Gods Word by the forementioned way of Tradition we act our reason as to the thing received by us and do own and acknowledge this as truth from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith because contained in a divinely inspired Writing and
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
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
This same History is related also both by Clemens and by Papias and after this Mark preached in Egypt that same Gospel which he had written Thus Eusebius Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 10 11. and to the same purpose relating the words of Clemens lib. 6. c. 14. But our Discourser tells us He dare affirm that Presbyterians and Protestants adhere to their Faith because their Fathers or Pastors taught them it and not upon the evidence of Scriptures letter to their own private judgements because they who are brought up under Mr. Baxter are apt to follow him and others Mr. Pierce To this I answer That Protestants value the judgements of their Teachers if they think them to be learned and good men but yet in the Articles of Christian Faith and the great truths of God they do discern other grounds and surer to rely on than the opinion of Teachers and therefore whatever Teacher should contradict such truths they would not follow him And if any persons are so unstable as in such things to be led away by the Authority of any men they are far from being grounded Protestants In some matters more difficult or Controversial many Protestants are not capable of being better satisfied than by the judgment of their Pastors and are to be commended for following them yet in this case they own not their judgment as a Rule of their Faith but the best help to their understanding in a case of difficulty But if any Protestant by misapprehension do close with such things controversial as necessary points of Faith if afterwards he discerns them matters of Controversie not clear in Scripture or that the contrary is rather true and grounded on Scripture he will then submit his former apprehensions to the greater evidence now received And by this means through diligent examining very great multitudes of Protestants who have given up themselves impartially to follow Scripture truth have received some opinions different from some particular opinions of their Parent or Teacher And even all other Protestants who are not capable of making trial of the grounds of all controverted opinions yet unanimously will acknowledge that the trial of any truths by the Scripture is much more considerable than by any Teachers judgment and therefore if they were capable they would much rather chuse to be stedfastly fixed in any truth by the former than to be only perswaded to it by the latter Whence it appears that Protestants generally own only the Scriptures for their Rule And were there ever any who desired to be instructed in Philosophy or any Science designing therein to follow reason as their Rule who were not as much guided by their Teachers or Instructers as Protestants are by theirs that is to value their Authority or opinion until by examination of it by the Rule they should discern it an error § 6. He tells us That Objections made against a Prophetical afflatus and against the res traditae or things delivered instead of Tradition it self can have no force against his opinion I shall not dispute the truth of these things but shall so far satisfie this Authour as to assure him my following answer shall proceed neither of these waies § 7. He tells us The first Property of the Rule of Faith doth agree to Tradition to wit it is evident to all as to its existence because we see and hear daily sounds and actions about Practical Doctrines conveyed down to us But is this all that this Authour thinks necessary to be proved Did he not demand much more concerning Scripture than that the Book might be seen and the words heard did he not then require proof that Scriptures are Gods word c. Surely it is not only requisite that some thing should be delivered and received but at least it must be necessary for every Generation to know that all that Faith which the former received and professed is fully delivered and rightly received by them For since as himself saith in this Paragraph Tradition is the open conveyance of Doctrines if they be either not delivered or not received there is no conveyance and so a failure of the thing it self which is Tradition Now we assert that there can be no certainty of any such exact delivery in any one Generation since the Apostles daies and that for these reasons First because many matters especially in difficult things may be mistaken for want of right understanding and then these mistakes will be delivered That they are mistaken by many appears by the disagreement of great numbers and disputes about several Doctrines whether they be de fide or not and about the sense of Papal Decrees and Canons of Councils whence it is certain they do not all apprehend the truth or at least will not confess they do which will as much overthrow Tradition Secondly It 's possible that through the prevalency of corruption and sin in a. Generation of men they may much lose that knowledge of God which they had even in matters of Faith and then cannot deliver it aright It 's certain it was thus in the Generations after Noah in that great point concerning the true God and his Worship and there was then as much to be said from the nature of Tradition as now among Papists and therefore there can be now no security to the contrary unless the piety of all Ages could be demonstrated which the great complaints of the Teachers of several Ages renders impossible Thirdly because through the working of mans thoughts in apprehending and considering and explaining truths many things are concluded as consequences and explications of truths which were not received from the former age thus in almost all the Books and Discourses of the Papists and in the Book of this Authour are many particular assertions considerations and speculations which were not received from the open Tradition of the foregoing Age and they are here delivered and may hence by others be received Fourthly there may also be a combination through great viciousness or disrelish of truth against some particular truth which opposeth either the outward interest or the corrupt life Thus God complains of the Jews Jer. 5.30 The Prophets prophesie falsely and the Priests bear rule by their means and my people love to have it so Fifthly there may possibly be an omission of the delivery of many things to be delivered and true and I dare say it is impossible for this Author to prove upon his Principles that all truths are handed down from one Generation to another either amongst the Learned or the Vulgar and yet it will concern him to do it concerning every revealed truth since he rejects or at least will not own the distinction of truths into fundamental and not fundamental All these things considered there can be no certainty that there is any sure Tradition § 8. He saith The second Property belongs to Tradition to wit it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to any inquirer For it is certain if
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
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
the Papists do call the Godhead by And concerning the eternal generation of the Son of God it is there said Thou art one with the Papists in thy Doctrine in this thing who in one of their Creeds do affirm That Christ is God begotten before all Worlds when he was begotten as to his Sonship and Manhood and in time brought forth and manifest amongst the Sons of men Thus the most excellent truths may be misrepresented under odious names and by erroneous persons be called Popish 7. Secondly Their disparaging the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion The Scriptures contain the Prophetical and Apostolical Doctrine and this Doctrine is so certain and full that if an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel S. Paul denounceth him to be accursed But their denying the Scriptures to be the word of God though they admit them to contain truth and their setting up the Light within them as their great Rule both which are done frequently in their Writings and Conferences is that which tends to undermine the Authority of the Divine Writings and to substitute another rule which is very defective various and uncertain and of dangerous consequence For if we consider men as they truly are the Light within them is the light of Reason and natural Conscience with those improvements of knowledge and understanding which the Christian Revelation hath made in the minde and sentiments of men Now though this be very considerable and needful to be attended to yet to make this and not the Holy Scripture the main Rule and Guide in matters of Christian Faith and life is to prefer the light of Nature with the advantages it hath from Christian converse and Oral Tradition or the delivery of truth from one to another according to the thoughts opinions and judgements of men though mixed with many errors and much uncertainty before the infallible and unerring direction of the Holy Spirit in the Divine Scriptures And while the Scribes and Pharisees disparaged the Scriptures in preferring the Traditions of their Elders and the Romish Church doth much to the same purpose this Position of this Novel Sect is rather more unaccountable than either of those other practices For though they established mistaken false and erroneous Rules yet the things dictated thereby were approved by the joint consideration of many select men whom they esteemed men of greatest understanding while this way directs every man how corrupt and erroneous soever his mind may be to set up his own thoughts and apprehensions to be a sufficient Rule and Guide And this must suppose every mans own conceptions to be infallible though they be never so contrary to one another or to the Divine Revelation 8. But if we consider the followers of this Sect according to the pretences of many of them the Light within them must have chief respect to some Enthusiastick motions and impulses Such things were pretended to by the * Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 10. Messalians and other Hereticks of old But besides what may be said against such pretences in general the manifest falshood of them is in these particular cases apparent from the plain errors they assert contrary to the sure Doctrine of Christianity And to set up any Enthusiastick rule of Religion includeth a disparaging the Revelation of Christ and his Apostles which is the right instruction in the true Christian Religion and this is ordinarily also blasphemous against God in falsly making him the author of such errors by vainly pretending inspiration which are evidently contrary to what he hath truly revealed by Christ and his Gospel 9. Thirdly Their disowning Christs special Institutions to wit the establishing the Communion of his true Catholick Church and his Ministry and the Holy Sacraments Their disregard to the Communion of the Christian Church and their frequent reproaches against it and the Ministers thereof are very notorious But I shall here chiefly insist on what concerns the Sacraments which Holy institutions they generally disuse and against the use of these their Teachers have both spoken and written Now this is a thing so evil and of such dangerous consequence that besides the disobedience to what our Lord hath constituted and commanded by his plain precepts they hereby reject those things which the Gospel appoints to be eminent means of Communion and Union with the Church and Body of Christ Such things are both the Sacraments both that of Baptism and that of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 12.13 chap. 10.16 17. And this Union and Communion according to the ordinary method of the Gospel Dispensation is necessary to Membership with the Catholick Church And the disowning and rejecting these things is the refusing the means of grace which God hath appointed for the conveying the blessings of his Covenant and particularly the remission of sins to such persons who by performing the other conditions of the Covenant are duly qualified for the receiving the same in the use of these administrations Act. 22.16 Mat. 26.28 Our Lord appointed Baptism to be a part of the condition of obtaining salvation Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved And the ancient Christians had such an high esteem thereof that Tertullian begins his Book de Baptismo on this manner Foelix Sacramentum aquae quia ablutis delictis pristinae caecitatis in vitam aeternam liberamur Happy Sacrament of Baptism because the faults of our former blindness being washed away we are set free unto eternal life And our Lord hath declared that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood we have no life in us Joh. 6.53 and hath appointed the Holy Communion to be an eminent and peculiar way of eating his Body and drinking his Blood And what then can be said for them who grossly neglect and especially for them who declare against and totally reject these Sacred Institutions And if under the Old Testament God was so highly displeased with him who neglected Circumcision as to denounce him to be cut off from his people Gen. 17.14 and declared that they who attended not on the Passeover should bear their sin Num. 9.13 he cannot be pleased with the violating those Institutions which are of an higher nature being established by the Son of God himself under the Gospel 10. Fourthly The Doctrine of perfection as held by them who declare themselves throughly free from sin For this undermines all penitential exercises which take in the great part of the true Christian life and makes void confession of sin and sorrow for it together with prayer and application to the Sacrifice of Christ for remission and a diligent care of amendment We acknowledge and assert that every pious Christian doth overcome the power of sin so that he doth not serve it but lives in the practice of good Conscience towards God and man This is such a life that the Holy Scriptures speak much of the excellency and real holiness and purity thereof
adv Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus and (c) Eus Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others affirm were made and appointed by the Apostles themselves did Ordain the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers Bishops Priests and Deacons That the ancient Church did generally acknowledge that a Bishop was regularly to be Ordained by three Bishops who must be of other Churches may partly appear from the industrious care of (d) ibid. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novatus though very ill managed against peace honesty and other rules of common morality as Cornelius relates it to send about to find three obscure Bishops who might Ordain him in opposition to Cornelius But this is more fully evident from the great contests concerning the validity of Cecilians Ordination against which the Donatists earnestly objected as the main pretence for their Schism that Felix one of the Ordainers of Cecilian was not a regular Bishop and therefore his Ordination was insufficient which case was canvased in Africa Italy France and other places So that that first Canon of the old Code (e) Can. Ap. 1. that a Bishop was to be Ordained by two or three Bishops was so far manifestly agreeable to the ancient practice and sense of the Church that they usually insisted upon having the greater number of three in this Ordination And so it was particularly expressed in the Canons of the first General Council (f) Conc. Nic. c. 4. which also requires the consent of the other Bishops of the Province and particularly the (g) ib. c. 6. Metropolitan which was included in the more ancient practice And this may be sufficient to satisfie any man that Ordination and regular Ordination of the chief Officer in the Church was in the first Ages of Christianity accounted greatly necessary and that the Bishops of other Churches there being but one Catholick Bishop of one Church three at least must meet together to confer this Ordination Much more might be added if it were needful in so plain a case 30. And whereas so great a stress is laid upon the election of the people as if this were the great essential thing which constituted any one in the Office of the Ministry it is also manifest that the choice of any person for the Ministry which was by way of recommendation of him to those who were to Ordain him was sometimes done by the people and sometimes by others But there was no rule in the Scripture which requireth any necessity of the peoples election nor was there ever any constant practice hereof either in the time of the Holy Scriptures themselves or in the next ages of the Primitive Church When Christ chose his Apostles he called to him his Disciples and of them he chose twelve whom he named Apostles Luk 6.13 but he did not appoint his other Disciples to chuse them James who was made the first Bishop of Jerusalem is related to have been chosen by the Apostles (h) Eus Hist l. 2. c. 2. particularly by Peter James and John Many times the Holy Spirit guided the Ordainers to fix upon the particular person to be ordained Thus Timothy was chosen by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4 14. And the Spirit directed the other Prophets and Teachers that they should separate Saul and Barnabas for the work to which he had called them Act. 13.2 And (i) Cl. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 54 55. Clemens Romanus declares that the Apostles appointed Bishops and Deacons proving them by the Spirit And that the Spirit of God should then guide the Ordainers to choose persons for the Ministry rather than the other Believers and Disciples may be of use to acquaint men that our Saviour never made the peoples choice either necessary or the main thing essential to the Ministry In some places the Presbyters of the Church were the persons who elected their Bishop and this (k) Hieron ad Evag. S. Hierome saith was the practice at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius And since Mark died whilst many of the Apostles were alive and several years before the Martyrdom of S. Peter and S. Paul this also gives a fair evidence that popular elections were no Institution of Christ or his Apostles 31. Sometimes even under the early ages of Christianity Bishops were chosen by Councils of other Bishops And so was (l) Eus Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domnus chose Bishop of Antioch by the Council which deposed Paulus for Heresie And there are frequent instances of like nature And after the Empire was Christian this election was sometimes made by the Emperour himself and thus was Nectarius chosen by Theodosius at Constantinople even whilst a General Council was there sitting and had been deliberating about the choice of a Bishop of Jerusalem Now the considering how variously such elections or recommendations were made is sufficient to manifest that the Apostolical and first Primitive Churches accounted no one particular way of election to be the main thing essential to the Ministry And the popular way hath the least of all to plead on this account that the various inconveniences of admitting that were found so great that this was forbidden to be practised by one of the ancient Canons which was received in the general Code And the result of all this is That the insisting on this and those other things above mentioned which are the support of Independency are plain errors and mistakes and deviations from the true Christian Rule and Practice and are much the worse because they are imposed upon men in the name of God as if they were his special Institutions and thereby tend to create the greater disturbance to the best and most regular Constitutions of the Christian Church as if they had departed from the Divine Institutions and their form and establishment is such that it is not fit to be Communicated with but may most safely be forsaken FINIS AN ANSWER TO Mr. SERJEANT's DISCOURSE INTITULED Sure Footing IN CHRISTIANITY By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXIV The first Discourse examined shewing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith THis Author J. S. intending as his Title page tells us Rational Discourses on the Rule of Faith which I design to examine spends his first Discourse in seeking and laying down properties of that Rule This was indeed requisite to be inquired into and had it been faithfully managed as it is not I had then passed by this Discourse without any Animadversion But since it is neither accurate nor impartial some defects and miscarriages in it are necessary to be observed In this Discourse he examines the sense of these words RVLE which he saith signifies a thing able to regulate or guide him who useth it § 2. and FAITH which is a believing God in revealed Truths § 8. which imports some knowledge of supernatural things He
Reader for since he apparently designs his Book for English men and all our English Translations now in ordinary use had their original since our departing from Popery and our generally received Translation is not above Fifty Three Years older than his Book yet he would have the vulgar to imagine that there might be many faults in transcribing these Translations in innumerable Copies before Printing when Printing was long before these Translations were first made But to pass this by ordinary Protestants may be thus satisfied concerning the Printed Copies of the Scripture by considering that there is as great care taken about Printing Bibles as about copying Records and more than about Printing any other Books and yet this Author who would perswade other to doubt so much of the Printers keeping to the truth of the Copy before him as to the sense of it I suppose would not have sent his Book to the Press if he had thought indeed the sense of it was not like to be expressed in Print He may further consider that our English Bibles are daily read publickly or privately by learned men and compared with the Originals and found to agree with them except in some particular errors of Print which as they are not in many expressions may be discerned by common observation And the ordinary Christian hath the more cause to be confident of our ordinary Impressions of the Bible because even the Papists who are enemies to them and do peruse them yet dare not charge them to vary from the first translated Copies more than is above expressed Ad § 8. To the sixth and last Objection concerning the sense of Scripture I answer The faith of the vulgar no nor of the learned neither doth not require a certain knowledge of the sense of all Scripture The discovery of God what he is and of Christ and what he did and suffered for us and of the Gospel Promises and Commands and such like are so plain that he who can understand any thing of common speech may understand so much of them as is necessary for him to know yea they are in Scripture oft delivered in the very words and phrases which Christ himself and the Apostles and Prophets made use of to their hearers to instruct them in the faith and holy life and therefore he who will censure the Scripture as not sufficiently plain to teach the great truths of God must condemn the Apostles likewise and Christ himself as not teaching so as to be understood and then must impiously tell the World that either none were by them brought to the faith or that they who were did not understand it Indeed he thinks strangely of man who imagineth that he must go to an Oracle to understand such things as these That Christ came into the World to save sinners That he dyed for our sins and rose again and shall judge the World If these and such like plain words which are abundantly in the holy Scriptures cannot be understood by common capacities I dare affirm that they can never know these truths by any words and phrases and so can never be helped by such men as this Discourser who can shew no other ordinary way to teach the matters of meer belief but by words unless they will embrace Enthusiasm Indeed many things in Scripture are hard to be understood concerning which this ordinary Christian may satisfie himself that since God gave him this Book to lead him to God it is evident from Gods end in writing it that he hath expressed so much as is necessary for him to know that it is not beyond his capacity to discern it if he diligently attend to it and what he is not capable of understanding he may be ignorant of without fear of losing salvation by such ignorance provided he be careful to use such means as God affords him and be willing to receive further instruction as he shall be capable of further knowledge And then this ordinary Christian may by this means be of a sound mind and of a more knowing head in matters of Faith than most Papists are who know as little or less of the things which are obscure in Scripture than Protestants do and by this means he may own Christs Divinity as may appear n. 23. Having now shewed that in all his Arguments hitherto produced against the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith there is nothing rational I shall now briefly shew that the promoting such Cavils as these or being perswaded by them would be a way very much to hinder Piety and even wholly to disown Christianity which I shall do in applying most or all his Arguments to some particular Cases We read that Josiah when the Book of the Law was found did by that in a Pious and Religious Zeal reform the corrupt wayes of Worship which is of the nature of Practical Tradition 2 Kings 23.2 3 4. and from thence received the determination of very considerable Points of Doctrine which no Oral Tradition had brought down to him to wit what great wrath God had denounced against Judah and Jerusalem for the neglect of keeping that Law 2 Kings 22.13 19. This pious work of his for which he was so highly commended by God himself 2 Kings 22.19 20. and Chap. 23.25 That there was no King like him before or after him should never have been performed by him had he hearkned to such a Tempter as this Discourser For 1. Josiah could not more certainly know the Book of the Law to be the Word of God than Protestants now do the Book of Scriptures 2. And Josiah had only the Books of Moses 2 Chron. 34.13 and could then no more know the whole Canon of Scripture than we do 3. And before this Book was found he knew not that these Scriptures were any where preserved and after it was found having only one Copy and that probably written by they knew not whom he had not so much evidence of its integrity as Protestants now have of the whole Scriptures by the consent of all Copies 4. And if he was not capable of knowing the sense truly he should neither have humbled himself nor have reformed Judah Thus we see it would have destroyed his Piety to have been guided by these irrational Objections Consider next the state of Christianity When Christ came into the World as he condemns the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees which made void Gods Commandments so in the great Point of Faith concerning the Messias who and what manner of person he should be c. Christ sends his hearers to the Scriptures to learn John 5.39 and S. Peter when he spake of the glory of the Transfiguration yet saith 2 Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of Prophecy to which you do well to take heed Yet the Jews then had no more certainty than we have that Scriptures are Gods Word how many Books there are that they were preserved entire that they were rightly translated and rightly copied
readings are preserved yet according to any of them there is a consent in all the matters of Faith unless there be some manifest mistake in any Copy which may easily be discerned to be the Scribes or Printers error nor amongst all these readings can any point of Christian Faith be so doubted of that it is not capable of receiving sufficient evidence from some Texts And though this Authour would pretend that from these various readings there is an uncertainty in all things in Scripture which is contrary to all reason yet others more knowing and learned Papists are so ingenuous as to grant what I here contend for Bellarmine de Verbo Dei lib. 2. c. 2. asserts that the errors of Transcribers in the Old Testament are not of so great moment that the integrity of the Holy Scriptures should be wanting in those things which belong to Faith and Good Manners for the most part saith he the whole difference of the various readings is placed in some little words which either do not at all or do very little alter the sense And ch 7. he declares that he asserts the same concerning the New Testament which he there asserted concerning the Old Indeed before the time of Christ there were more various readings in the Old Testament than there now is in the New as may appear not only from the various Cheri and Ketib and the Tikkan Sopherim and such like which are probably more ancient but also because the Copies used by the Septuagint and Samaritan differed in many various readings from the Hebrew Copies used by the Chaldee Paraphrast which probably were most in use in Christ's time and after received by the Masoreths and yet since they all agreed in the same points of Doctrine Christ and his Apostles both had recourse to them and so perswaded others and we think it is safe for us to follow such examples The Vulgar may here consider our several English Translations which as to expressions have in most Verses some difference and in some few places the one may give a sense somewhat different from the other yet since it is but in very few places where they do not all agree in the sence of the place and where they do not yet none of them do assert any truth of Doctrine which the others either do not assert or do deny the common Christians may hence see that which may make them rather the more secure than doubtful of these truths because the latter Translations though differing in words yet agree in all Doctrines with the former And if there be the same variety of readings in several Translations in other Languages this is no more than is in our English But as for the Originals though there be several various readings yet in comparison of our English Translations but one for many and yet fewer places where the same sense of that Text is not expressed by such readings though in some small difference of words which difference of words was occasioned partly from several of the Fathers citing the Scriptures as is with all men frequent not alwayes in the very same words but words of the same sense from whence many of these various readings in the New Testament had their Original or partly that the Scribes or they who copied the Scriptures might have some mistake where yet the sense remained intire for the most part But he inquires Why may there not have been some various readings formerly in those places which now appear in all Copies we have to agree which various readings may possibly have been blindly determined and so misguide us in the main points of Faith I answer That since there are very many ancient Copies and Commentators and Citations of Fathers which fully accord with our present readings and since there are some ancient Translations as Syriack Latine and others all which agree in the same and since there is an accord in these Books scattered and dispersed over the whole World if there had been any such different readings they must be every where determined before these ancient Copies Commentaries or Citations were written before the ancient Translations were made yea before the Copies of the Scriptures were dispersed into the several Regions of the World and this is to imagine that there must have been some general alteration determined in the great matters of Faith whilst the hand writing of the Apostles was preserved yea even in the Apostles daies which is impossible unless the Apostles to whom Christ committed his truth and their Converts who were numerous and prized this Doctrine above all the World should all against the clear evidence of their own knowledge and the Original Writings of the Apostles then amongst them conspire to corrupt this Doctrine and to falsifie the Records which contain it which to assert is not only highly unreasonable but exceedingly impious and blasphemous nor would it leave Oral Tradition safe How much all this speaks to common sense I shall express in a case which is very parallel Suppose a Jury in any case of concernment should observe an hundred Witnesses produced examined asunder and every one of their attestations written and one by one read to them as to the great matter to be proved every one of them agree fully and not so much as one dissents will they not judge this a sufficient evidence of any thing spoken though in some of these attestations there be some small difference in a word though not at all to add or leave out any considerable sense yea Will they not think the testimony the more firm as to the things attested because they all agree firmly in them though they never met together to conspire so to correct one another that there might not be a syllable different in their words The Scripture certainty of points of Faith is much greater than this since the Copies every one of which gives its attestation are abundantly more numerous and withal the main points of Faith are not only expressed in some one Text of Scripture but in very many places where there is a concurrence in all these Copies which speaks these truths more certainly free from all possibility of error Yet besides all this certainty we have much in the end of Scriptures writing and therein Gods care of it to assure us that it is not corrupt of this we spake somewhat in the former Discourse What he speaks of Bishop Usher observing so many various readings in the New Testament which he durst not Print for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt This relation manifests it self to be such a story as I think neither this Author nor any man of reason either Protestant or Papist can believe upon serious consideration if he withal judge Bishop Vsher to have been a very knowing man No understanding Protestant can believe this because he knows that Protestants freely inquire after various readings and never the more doubt of Scriptures because there appears so full a
New Testament writing and Eusebius relates that S. Mark carried his written Gospel and preached it in Egypt Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 11. and S. Peter himself made use of S. Paul's Writings and commended them 2 Pet. 3.15 16. and so did all the Ancient Fathers of Apostolical Writings He is bold to say That the Revolters from Primitive method closed with Scripture as the Rule But in truth when the World erred by vain Tradition it was none other than God himself who wrote the ten Commandments and gave the Law of Moses and the Prophets to guide the Israelites And when Pharisaism that great Heresie was maintained by Tradition they who laid Scripture as the Rule against it were none other than Christ and his Apostles who referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament and gave forth the Scriptures of the New Testament But he saith Scripture as it is made the Rule of Faith is brought to the vilest degree of contempt and every upstart Heresie fathers it self upon it But who contemns it not Protestants who make it their Rule and they who do will be highly guilty as were the despisers of Jesus who was also contemned and despised of men But is this a cause of contempt if all Heresies pretend to it do they not all pretend to the right worshipping the true God the true following of Christ and owning Christian Religion as well as to the Scriptures and are these excellent things the more contemptible because they pretend to them yet it is false that all Heresies have pretended to Scripture For as some have denied Scripture as it is witnessed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as some have gone to revelation and secret wayes of delivery of Doctrine as the same Authors shew and the History of Simon Magus Basilides Marcion Manes and others evidence so others have pretended to the publick Church-Tradition continued to their time Thus did the Heresie of Artemon in Eus Hist Eccles lib. 5. c. 27. who declared That Christ was only man and their Ancestors they said had declared this unto them to be not only that which the Apostles received from the Lord but that which they generally taught and was continued until the times of Victor and that Zephyrinus who succeeded Victor at Rome and in whose time these Hereticks lived corrupted this teaching It seems this Heresie had numerous followers or Attestors in that it is there said in Eusebius it might have had much probability if it had not been contradicted by the Scriptures and the Writings of the Ancient Brethren Yea these very Hereticks did indeavour to alter and corrupt the Scriptures so far they were from making them a Rule He further sayes The many Sects in England flow from this Principle of Scripture being a Rule of Faith and it is a wonder this doth not oblige men to renounce that Principle which is the necessary Parent of such disorders This hath been answered Disc 3. n. 3 4. so far as concerns difference of opinions But that all the Sects in England do arise from this opinion of the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith is very far from truth for First it is certain that some of these Sects do not profess it to be their Rule I suppose he knows there are some of his perswasion that make Tradition their Rule and he knows there are others who pretend to be guided by the Light within them and the way of redressing these Sects is by receiving this general truth Secondly other Sects or Parties of men there are who indeed profess to follow these Scriptures as their Rule but it is not their owning but their not right using them which is the occasion of their error it is their over rashly entertaining their own conceptions without sufficient and unprejudiced inquiry as if they were plain in Scripture and necessary Doctrines when indeed they are not and the true way for healing these distempers is by laying aside such rashness and prejudice resolving to close with that only as necessary Doctrine which upon impartial inquiry appears plain in Scriptures and to use serious diligence in such inquiry and this is to act according to Protestant Principles yea according to the Doctrine of Christ who did not give such direction to the Sadduces who strictly professed to own the Law but denied the Resurrection that the way to be free from their error was to reject that Rule but blamed them as not knowing the Scriptures and declared that therefore they did err and if this was truly heeded all disorderly Sects would be at an end But on the contrary should we reject these excellent discoveries of God because they have been abused by the sin of man to the promoting many Sects where should we leave when Christians imbraced the Doctrine of Jesus and what was delivered by the Apostles many Sects hence took occasion all to pretend to this Doctrine must Christianity therefore be also disclaimed and with much greater reason must not all Controversial Enquiries and speculations in Theology be abandoned because they are the Parents of many Sects and Divisions even amongst the Papists and must not all reasonings and apprehensions be disclaimed because they are the original of so many disputes and different Sects both in Philosophy and Divinity This would be the way to renounce being men and being Christians Thus the rejecting the Scriptures would be taking Poyson instead of Cure yea it would be as if the food used amongst civilized Nations should be prohibited and their civil rights disclaimed because many abuse the former by intemperance to surfeits and Diseases and the latter is the occasion of War Strife and Contention and therefore that men should live only on Acorns and such other Fruits of the Field and without any Possessions as Wild men that they may be thereby out of these dangers Who sees not that temperance and a peaceable spirit would be the best preservatives from these dangers and would make the state of man and of the World excellent and though there might then remain some infirmities in the Constitution either of the Body Natural or Politick yet none so great as would be occasioned by rejecting the course of a civilized life so if the abovementioned Protestant Principles were put in practice there might remain some different apprehensions and opinions yet none such as would be either dangerous or disturbing but as the persons might have Faith and Salvation so both Church and State might injoy their peace and quiet An Answer to the fifth Discourse inquiring into Tradition and shewing that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith agree to it BEfore I come to disprove what is delivered by this Author on the behalf of his way of Tradition it will be requisite first to state the Question concerning Oral and Practical Tradition and to shew what we grant concerning it and what we deny that so it may after appear how far we have cleared the truth of the Protestants Assertion We assert the
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
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
detection of his falshood that they are not agreeable to Tradition and that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori § 1 2. HE propounds How know we that Tradition was ever held to by any and tells us he oweth a clearing of this to his former Discourse But he saith the carriage of Protestants makes this inquiry needless for if they had not faulted the Rule but only pretended men had failed it they might have deluded the World with some colour that they had held to the Doctrine of Ancestors and only deserted us because we deserted Ancestors formerly but if they fault the Rule they judge Tradition ever stood our friend and would overthrow them else they had no more efficacious way to ruine us than to oppose us upon those Principles laid in the former Discourse since the renouncers of Tradition a little after the Primitive times when they pretend we fell might be easily discovered To answer this its requisite first to understand the meaning Now his inquiry of Tradition being held to ever I conceive signifies thus much whether every Age hath designed the careful receiving holding and delivering all things owned by the former Generation in the same way as they were thence delivered and also whether they have effectually performed this And if this could be proved Protestants would grant his former Discourse satisfactory so far as concerns Tradition being the Rule of Faith The proof of this is highly necessary when he hath to do with Protestants because they therefore fault this Rule of Tradition because they know it such as cannot be probably expected to be long held to nor can ever be demonstrated or rationally proved to have been thus held to at any time unless by recourse to another Rule of Trial. Wherefore since we know the Rule insufficient which Papists relie on we delude not but with truth and evidence assure the World that we desert them only because they have deserted the Doctrine of Ancestors formerly Whether this was by mistake or by perverseness and wilfulness it is not necessary for us to know or declare since we do discover the difference of their Doctrine from that of their Ancestors partly by the writing of Fathers who shew what Doctrine they received and principally from the testimony of the Scriptures which assures us what was the Doctrine in the beginning preached by the Apostles Now when we give evidence that they have deserted the Primitive Doctrine it is a very vain proposal to require of us to discover who were the first Renouncers for though some Protestants have done somewhat to this purpose and some Renouncers may be manifested yet since neither Protestants nor Papists can know all particular designs or actings of men in former Generations and whatever may be known by History upon the Principles of this Discourser must not be believed especially since this is neither the only way nor the best way to shew Primitive Doctrines disowned I may well conclude that the proposal it self is both needless and unreasonable Will this Authour assert that Gentilism pretended to be held from their Fathers was a Tradition truly derived from Noah unless the person or persons can be named to him who were the first deserters of Noah's Doctrine or must the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees be owned as the Doctrine of Moses until the Authours of the first corruptions of those Traditions can be found out or could not our Saviour and his Apostles condemn such Traditions unless they first declared the Authors of them Doth he think it would be reason or madness if a temperate man in a sick state should say to his Physician I am sure I was in health and have indeavoured to keep my body in the same good temper I was in and therefore until I can have evidence given me what time and by what act my Distemper began I will not be perswaded but that I am still in health Or if an house that was once firm and strong now is cracked or decaied or burnt down can this be no otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated than by examining when the first crack or beginning of decay was occasioned and by what means and when it was set on fire and by whom And shall he who sees this house ready to moulder down or in its ashes think it reasonable to deny or doubt that it is either decaied or burnt if he cannot be satisfied in the former inquiries I know Papists have generally more wit than to act upon such reasonings as these in purchasing such houses and therefore I have the more reason to suspect that they do not mean honestly in urging such frivolous things in concernments of Religion Yet this Discourser further deludes his Reader in saying we pretend they fell a little after the Primitive times by which he interprets himself to mean times which had a vicinity to the Apostles as if Protestants did indeed grant that Popery as it now is was held and practised ever since a little after the Apostles whereas this Discourser cannot but know that Protestants do generally assert that though some corruptions might creep into the Church soon after the Apostles daies yet in the chief points of Controversie between Protestants and Papists we do assert that for the first six hundred Years the genuine Writings of the Fathers do favour the Protestants assertions and in many things very long after and therefore that those Popish assertions are of later original § 3 4 5. He tells us That such is Gods goodness that the Rule of Faith hath that in it which obligeth the generality not to desert it That Tradition is actually indefectible he undertakes to demonstrate à priori from proper Causes and à posteriori from a now-a-daies experienced effect His grounds for the former are these First the Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously setled in the hearts of great multitudes in several parts of the World Secondly this Doctrine was by all those believed to be the way to Heaven and the deserting it the way to damnation whence the greatest hopes and fears imaginable ingaged them to adhere to it Thirdly hopes and fears strongly applied are causes of actual will Lastly this was feasible the things were knowable and within their power Therefore from Age to Age a great number would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition I now come to examine these four grounds Concerning the first there was indeed Christian Doctrine firmly setled in multitudes and very great numbers that is so much of the Christian Doctrine as was requisite for them to know or all the great and most necessary Christian truths but that all matters of Faith or all Divine truth declared by Christ and his Apostles was firmly fetled in all the faithful can never
be proved Yea evident it is that among the most eminent Fathers who lived not long after the Apostles daies there are acknowledged some errors and they were not alone in them but had many partakers and followers Cyprian erred about re-baptizing Justin Martyr Papias Irenaeus Lactantius and others were in the error of the Chiliasts and many other erroneous opinions were in some of the forementioned Authors and in Clemens Alexandrinus and much more in Tertullian and Origen So that though this ground if the others all hold may help us to know the great points of Religion yet it can be no security to all the truths of God from the multitude of Believers The second ground is of the time nature with the former which concerns only the chief truths of Religion in the generality of Christians For the faithful could not while free from error believe this which is an error that the want of understanding any truth of God was the way to damnation for S. Paul saith expresly that they must receive the weak in the faith and God hath received him and God is able to make him stand Rom. 14.1 3 4. So that though they did know the great truths of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation and therefore would diligently learn them and teach them and though they did know that the denial or rejecting of any truth which they had evidence was of God was likewise dreadfully dangerous which would ingage them to hold fast all the truth they had received upon account of the highest hopes and fears fet before them yet would not the same inforcements lie upon them to shew the necessity either of their own knowing or of their Children being instructed in all manner of truths since there were Mysteries and strong meat for the perfect and milk for the weak Yet I also assert that as there were many persons of eminent knowledge in the mysteries of the Gospel in the Apostles daies who had great gifts of knowledge and interpretation by the teaching of these men if it was diligently heeded all Divine truth might possibly be received by some others in the next Generation who had capacities of understanding them but I have no reason to judge that these were multitudes And the love of God and his truth would excite all the faithful as they had opportunity both to indeavour to know all truth of God and also firmly to receive and declare it but this will not free them from all ignorance or capacity of erring The third ground is many waies imperfect and reacheth not to the proof of the case in hand for first it is not enough to prove Tradition indefectible to know that fears and hopes when strongly applied will have this effect but we must know that in all Ages they were thus strongly applied to the generality of testifiers or to the greatest number of the Church visible but alas how evident is it that in all Ages the causes of hope and fear have not been so applied by very great numbers in the Church that they should take due care of their souls by a holy life And since the Devil oft designs the perverting the Doctrine of Christ as well as corrupting the practice of Christians and they who reject a good Conscience are in a ready way to make shipwrack of the Faith what possible security can be given that those Motives hopes and fears are a firm security to preserve Doctrine Secondly though it is not to be doubted but that many pious men would be affected with such hopes and fears who had this Doctrine delivered to them yet considering that such pious men if considered as Fore-Fathers might have careless and wicked Children or as Priests and Teachers might have careless and irreligious Successors there must needs appear very great danger that in any family or place this Tradition will not be in every Age faithfully continued by the prevalency of such hopes and fears Nor is this only a Notion since it is certain that a very great part of the Christian Church did in the Primitive times entertain the Arian Heresie and promoted it and taught it to their Children And since it is evident that gross ignorance and sensuality hath reigned in some Ages more late among the generality both of Clergy and People in the Romish Church there can be from this ground no rational security given that any great part of the deliverers were conscientiously careful to deliver faithfully according to what they had received because it appears they did not act as men prevailed upon by such hopes and fears would do His last ground likewise is unsound for in the way of Tradition all Divine truth cannot be evidenced to be knowable not only because as is abovesaid much may be undelivered by the truly faithful and much perversely delivered by the corrupt and much mistaken but even that also which in the way of Oral Tradition is delivered by the best deliverers cannot in all things be clearly discovered to be a sufficient Tradition For first we cannot know whether the best deliverers now in the World in this Oral way do deliver sufficiently that which was by the former Generation to them declared for this must either be in a form of words received from the Apostles or without such a form if they deliver the Apostles very words it cannot be doubted but then the sense intended by the Apostles is as fully delivered as the Apostles themselves delivered it since the same words must needs signifie the same things But they who reject the way of Scripture-delivery as the Rule of Faith pretend not to any such form of words which should contain all truth But a delivery without a form of words is only a delivery of what is conceived judged or apprehended to be the sense of the former Generation and this is a way liable to error because it relies on the skill of every Generation or the way of framing thoughts and conceptions of all these truths and likewise upon a skill of fully expressing such conceptions in words after they are rightly framed in the mind and both these parts of art must be secured in the most exact manner to every succession of deliverers Now as it is not certain that in all Ages there hath been a readiness of full expression of what they conceived to be truth so for certain Controversies and Disputes they shew in many things that mens apprehensions are not unerrable Secondly if it had been certain that some in the late past Generations did deliver all truths fully yet in the way of Oral Tradition it cannot be known evidently who they are and which is that true Tradition for all men acquainted with Church History know that when there have been differences amongst great Doctors of the Church in their delivery this hath sometimes occasioned the calling of Councils to determine them and declare which is the Doctrine to be held in the Church as about the Religious use of Images in the
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
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
SECT I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture That the Rule of Faith is self-evident from Isai 35.8 This shall be to you a direct way so that fools cannot err in it Which words as cited by this Author shew only the knowledge of God under the Gospel to be so clear and evident that they who will seek after him and live to him though of low capacities may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking which Protestants assert also and own this evidence to be in Scripture But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture he alledgeth Isai 59.21 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seed and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever But 1. to have Gods Word and Spirit in their mouth proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith or unerring then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved be a Rule of Faith because the Scriptures assure us That every one who shall be saved hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth see Rom. 8.9 Rom. 10.9 10. Mat. 10.32 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth this will not secure us that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition is Gods Word no more than what the Psalmist saies Psal 37.30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgement would assure that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews were alwaies the true Doctrines since it might well be that those Jews were not such righteous men as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not Gods seed 3. Gods Word may be in the mouth where the holy Scriptures are the Rule We read Josh 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night Where it is evident that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth he had the Book of the Law for his Rule and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it God saith Mal. 2.6 concerning Levi The Law of truth was in his mouth and Vers 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth and when they did thus in Ezra's time he read the Law out of the Book of Moses and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth he declared that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed vers 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day and taught it the Children of Israel Is it not evident that it was from the writing of Moses that this Song was in their mouth and that writing by which they were taught surely was their Rule to know this Song by Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home but not to his purpose Jer. 31.33 I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it and notes that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace from Moses 's Law in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone and the former in fleshly tables of mens hearts But 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise than from one anothers hearts it might have seemed to serve his purpose S. Austin de Spiritu litera c. 21. having mentioned the place fore-cited of Jeremy and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts but the very presence of the holy Spirit who is the finger of God by whom being present Charity which is the fulness of the Law and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly imbraced by a Spirit of love and piety this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses and the Gospel in those words but he contradistinguisheth the way of Gods inward writing in the heart from the way of his outward writing in those tables For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians Hence such expressions as these Psal 119.11 Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee Psal 37.31 The Law of his God is in his heart none of his steps shall slide Yea Moses tells the Jews Deut. 30.11 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far of v. 14. but the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it Yet though Gods Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule as now is the Old and New Testament 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered 2 Cor. 3.3 it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts was enough to commend his Apostleship which is the scope and design of that place but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith for he declares to them in this same Epistle chap. 11.3 that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 4. And if we could have been assured as we cannot that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth was a Rule of Faith this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church rather than of the Roman which agreeth not with it and so would destroy Romish Tradition But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent I shall in brief observe whether the Scripture do not evidently declare it self to be the Rule of Faith To the which purpose besides many other places observed in the foregoing part of this answer let these be considered S. Luke 1.4 5. It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou maist know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Now that is a Rule of Faith which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith and from these words it is evident that even in the times
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
c. 18. Cyril relates that when the Metropolitans and Bishops had disputed with Nestorius and had clearly shewed out of the Divine Scripture that he was God whom the Virgin bare according to the flesh and therefore evidently concluded him to err he was full of anger and exclaimed in his manner wretchedly against the truth So that it seems the Metropolitans and Bishops who opposed Nestorius made Scripture their Rule as the Protestants do but the Nestorians then were not for these written words as their Rule but for what is written in mens hearts in which the Nestorian assertion may claim some kindred with our Discourser To observe further what Rule of Faith was made use of against Nestorius we may understand it from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria who as he was the chief opposer of Nestorius so was he highly approved of by this Council of Ephesus for his appearing against Nestorius and also by Coelestine Bishop of Rome as appears in his Letters directed to him Tom. 1. Conc. Eph. c. 16. Cyril concerning the right Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria shews that his Book may be of use to reduce some from error and by various Arguments and demonstrations of the Divine Scriptures to strengthen them in the Faith who are nourished in the Doctrine of truth in that whole Book propounds Doctrines from the several Books of the New Testament against the Doctrine of Nestorius And I suppose it will be granted that that which in such a case of Heresie arising would stablish in the Faith and reduce to the Faith must be established upon and have evidence from the Rule of Faith In another Treatise of his to the same Empresses of the same subject he tells them The Scriptures are the Fountains which God spake of by his Prophet Isaiah saying Draw the waters out of the wells of salvation Wholesom Fountains we call the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and a little after The speeches of the Holy Fathers and their Sanctions wisely stir us up that we should observe diligently what is most agreeing to the holy Scriptures and should with a quick sense contemplate the truth hidden in the Divine letters The same Cyril in an Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople declared his expectation that Nestorius would have returned from his perverse opinions and would with reverence imbrace the Faith delivered by the holy Apostles and Evangelical Writers as also by the whole holy Scripture and sealed that it might receive no damage by the voices and oracles of the holy Prophets Is not this to make Scripture a Rule of Faith I might add much more from Cyril and what shall be spoken concerning Coelestine who wrote to the Ephesine Council and approved it will further shew the Rule of Faith at that time owned by the Roman Church Therefore I shall here only subjoin one testimony of the whole Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Coelestine Bishop of Rome Tom. 4. Conc. Eph. c. 17. wherein they related That the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius had been read in the Council which the holy Synod did approve by its judgement because it was in the whole agreeable to the Divine Scriptures and the Exposition of Faith which the holy Fathers put forth in the great Synod of Nice We here meet with their being guided by Scripture and the former decisions founded upon it but the Rule of Oral Tradition or any other unwritten Rule was to this Age a perfect stranger SECT VIII What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon HAving sufficiently evidenced the Rule of Faith at the time of the first General Council against Arius who denied the Eternal Divinity of the Son of God and of the second against Macedonius who denied the Lordship of the holy Spirit and of the third against Nestorius who divided Christ into two Persons I now shall briefly inquire what was owned as this Rule at the time of the fourth General Council against Eutyches who denied that Christ had two natures wherein Dioscorus was also condemned Now Eutyches was opposed by many Catholick Bishops and more especially was opposed and condemned by Pope Leo. But the Rule by which these Bishops as well as this General Council did condemn him was the holy Scriptures Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in an Epistle of his extant amongst Leo's Epistles Ep. 6. saies There were some who knew not the Divine readings dispraise the Fathers and desert the holy Scripture to their own perdition such an one saith he was Eutyches amongst us Amongst the Epistles of Leo Ep. 53. is extant an Epistle of Eusebius Bishop of Millain and the Council assembled with him wherein that Synod declares their assent to the Faith contained in Leo's Epistle sent to the East because the brightness of light and splendor of truth did shine in it by the assertions of the Prophets Evangelical Authorities and the testimonies of Apostolical Doctrine Leo himself by whose means the Council of Chalcedon was called in which the errors of Eutyches were more fully censured in his tenth Epistle writing of the Eutychians sayes That they fall into this folly because when they are hindred by any obscurity in attaining the knowledge of the truth they have not recourse to the Prophetical voices the Apostolical Letters and Evangelical Authorities but to themselves And a little after of Eutyches he speaketh thus That he knew not what he ought to think of the incarnation of the word of God nor was he willing to gain the light of understanding to labour in the holy Scriptures And in the same Epistle cites and urges many Scriptures against Eutyches with such expressions as these He might have subjected himself to the Evangelical Doctrine in Matthew speaking He might have desired instruction from the Apostolical Preaching reading in the Epistle to the Romans ch 1. He might have brought holy diligence to the Prophetical pages and have found the promise of God to Abraham c. with other Scriptures in the like manner produced These testimonies of Leo evidence that he owned the holy Scriptures to be the best way to come to Faith and be stablished in it and is not this to be a Rule of Faith Yea he further observes that the neglect of them were the cause of swerving from the Faith To come to the Council of Chalcedon it self In its second Action this tenth Epistle of Leo was read and they declared they all believed according to that Epistle At the same time was read the Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius which as it was read in and approved by the third General Council Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. ch 3. So being in Chalcedon read they declared They all believed as Cyril did in which Epistle he shews that we must not divide Christ into two Sons nor make an union of Persons for the Scripture saith The Word was made Flesh which is nothing else but he did
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
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
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
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to