apprehend to be most natural the Apostle in those latter words v. 5. which are the key to the former owneth and confesseth some sudden unadvisedness in what he had expressed v. 3. When in the beginning of v. 3. he said God shall smite thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive S. Paul by the Spirit of Prophecy did know that Ananias would come to an untimely end and in these words expressed so much For he would not have made use of this form of speech in the name of God meerly in a passion And though Ananias lived after this several years in honour yet afterwards (m) Joseph de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiding himself for fear of the Bands of Robbers who were very mischievous in Judea he with his Brother was taken and murdered by them That phrase of a whited wall with other such like might in some cases admit of a favourable interpretation to denote painted innocency and not real according to the usage of the Jewish way of expression (n) Parâ—â—2 ch 1.11 hereafter noted Yet this and the words following being spoken in some passion as appears from the connexion of these clauses Thou whited wall for sittest thou to judge c. the Apostle being admonished thereof readily owns that there was something unawares uttered in those sudden expressions His formâ—r sudden words not free from all fault There are indeed by many great pains taken to acquit S. Paul from being chargeable with any even the least fault in what he had here spoken notwithstanding his own free acknowledgement as the like is done by many also to free S. Peter from all blame Gal. 2. notwithstanding S. Paul's own reproof of him and his plain declaration that he was to be blamed v. 11. And therefore I think it may be worth my pains in a weighty matter of practice to endeavour the clearing this place from difficulty and I hope there will appear so much usefulness therein as may excuse the largeness of my discourse concerning the explication of these words 44. Some with (o) Chrys in Act. 23. S. Chrysostome think that what the Apostle said to Ananias contained no expressions of any undue disrepect but that he used a just freedom in speaking thus to a Ruler and that when he unjustly received hard measure from him notwithstanding S. Chrysostom endeavours to excuse them it was requisite he should so speak to him with this openness and sharpness But this is opposite to the genuine sense of v. 4. 5. And therefore to reconcile those words to this sense they think that the Apostle spake these words I wist not that he was the High Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people in such a way of complyance with his auditory that his hearers might think him to have blamed the use of such expressions towards Rulers when in truth he did not do so nor intended any such thing And by this method that there might not appear any even the least fault in the Apostles practice they admit a want of sincerity in what he declared as a duty and doctrine that thereby he intended to guide men into a mistake and deceit and that includes a very great fault in practice also And this is much the same thing with that which S. Austin justly blames (p) Aug. Ep. 15. in S. Hierom's defence of the fact of S. Peter above-mentioned and the admitting this would cast a mighty aspersion on the Apostolical Doctrine And that S. Paul himself did not think sharp words needful to be returned to a Ruler in such a case of injury is manifest enough in that when Festus told him he was besides himself and was mad Acts 26.24 25. he presently treated him with honourable respect I am not mad most noble Festus nor did the Holy Jesus give such a return though but to an inferiour Officer of the Court who stroke him with the palm of his hand John 18.22 23. 45. Many others are of opinion that when S. Paul said and several methods used by others he wist not that he was the High Priest he thereby justified his former words by denying him to be an High Priest to whom if he had been so indeed he ought not to have thus spoken To this sense (q) Aug. Ep. 5. ad Marcel l. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte. S. Austin inclines upon thoughts that S. Paul would now own none other under the title of High Priest but only our blessed Saviour And yet it is plain that S. Paul did give this very title of High Priest to him who was so called amongst the Jews Acts 22.5 and when all the Christians in Judea were still zealous for the Law even the Apostle also still expressed so much honour to the Priestly Service at the Temple that he there purified himself and designed to offer his Offering Acts 21.26 Others think that he denyed Ananias to have any just authority (r) Erasm in Act. 23.3 because he tyrannically commanded him to be smitten as if Christians were not to reverence them that are over them not only the good and gentle but also the froward 1 Pet. 2.18 and our Religion teacheth that if we do well and suffer for it and take it patiently this is acceptable with God v. 20. And (Å¿) Annot. in Act. 23.5 Grotius supposeth the Apostle might reject the authority of Ananias because saith he he came into his Office by purchasing it with money But I can see no particular proof of his accusation and Josephus speaks oft of him as a person of great reputation and honour and however such a crime in an inferiour Officer will not make invalid the authority of a superiour by which he acts untill the superiour shall think fit to recall it even as David's sentence concerning the possessions of Mephibosheth was not void of it self though procured by Ziba's lye until David had otherwise determined And it is abundantly sufficient against alll these pretences in this Paragraph to observe that the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God in them do frequently own Ananias to be at that time an High or Chief Priest Acts 23.2 ch 24.1 ch 25.2 and it is a bad way of solving a difficulty by presuming that to be false which the Holy Scriptures declare to be true Nor would it be any thing considerable in this case if it be granted that Ananias was not properly the High Priest as will appear from what I shall now add 46. Whether Ananias was High Priest or not He was manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an High or Chief Priest but very probably he was not eminently the High Priest who entred into the Holy of Holies In the Old Testament sometimes and often in the New there are more persons than one who are called Chief Priests and so there were in this very Council before which S. Paul now appeared Acts 22.30
what this Authour calls his deep consideration as it hath no rational foundation so it hath not the advantage to be one of his own Church Traditions and shews there may be something delivered for truth which was not so received And of the same nature are almost all his Arguments against Scriptures being the Rule of Faith § 3. He further adds That the material causes to conserve these Characters are lyable to innumerable contingencies but mans mind by its immateriality is in part freed from Physical mutability and here we may with reason hope for an unalterableness and an unerrableness if there be a due proposal which must necessarily effect the sense These words are more monstrous than rational it is as much as in plain English to tell his Reader that having an immaterial soul he can never forget any thing that he either saw or heard distinctly and that when he hath read a Book observingly all the words and letters may be more exactly known from him by the impressions upon his mind than by viewing the Printed or Written Copy it self And yet all this will not serve his turn unless it be supposed that these immaterial souls must alwaies continue in the World or that what was by them received must thence necessarily in the same manner be continued on others Who sees not that this is as much against common sense as if he had said That because man hath an immaterial soul he may flie up to the Sun and Moon and fixed Stars at his pleasure Was Man of the nature of Angels without his gross Body its beyond the skill of this Authour to prove that nothing could be forgotten or blotted out of his mind that is once known especially considering that he is a sinner and even the Writers of his own Church do conceive that sinning Angels lost much knowledge by their sin But man is a Creature of another mold and letters and words and things are preserved in his memory by material impressions and every man knows they may be forgiven yea this Authour in this Book oft forgets and contradicts himself Do not all mankind appear sufficiently convinced that words or characters are more surely preserved in paper or writing than in mens memories in that what they would have faithfully kept they commit to writing and enter it upon Record Had the Jews been of this Authours opinion they would not have desired Ezra to have read the Law of Moses out of a Book Neh. 8.1 but to have spoken it out of the impressions of his own mind yet he would have been a more safe deliverer of Moses than the Church of Rome can shew for other Scripture Yea it is plain and self-evident that the Church of Rome agree with the rest of mankind to acknowledge writing upon some material subject a more sure way of preservation of things than the minds of men for they write the Acts of their Councils and Statutes of their Societies and yet these things are as much or more spoken of amongst them as the Scriptures are and so more like to be preserved in their immaterial minds yea they write or print their Creed Prayers Lessons and their whole Liturgy and have them read in their Churches when by this Authors Argument the best way to have these things preserved intire is to have them uttered from the memories of the Priests and others in the Church and not to mind the Writing or Printing at all as not being in it self certain The Roman Church know that mens minds are slippery and apt to forget something in their Liturgy if it were not written and that others would take the boldness to alter it and vary from it if they had no written Rule and shall writing be the best preservative for all other things and not for the words of the Scriptures and the truths therein contained I remember Salmeron tho' a Jesuit hath among the rest of his prolegemena one which is Proleg 25. Why the Scriptures were written and he declares as every one who designs to speak truth would do that it was that thence men may most surely know truth whereas the memories of men are very slippery and uncertain and S. Austin assigns a like cause of the Original of Letters de Doctr. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. Nor can I imagine for what end the Church of Rome prints Copies of the Bible if they did not think that by those printed Copies the Scriptures might be known and preserved And as if it was not sufficient absurdity without any colour of solid reason to contradict the experience of all civiliz'd Nations he at once opposeth even the wisdom of God himself also who commanded the King of Israel to write him a Copy of the Law in a Book and read therein all the daies of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God Deut. 17.19 20. Yea he commands Moses to write for a memorial in a Book Exod. 17.14 Yea Isaiah is commanded Isai 30.8 Write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever And though God himself declares this the way of keeping the memorial of things this Authour rejects this way and closeth with the uncertain way of mans frail memory § 4. He tells us That as there are some simple vulgar actions unmistakeable yet there are compound actions as the transcribing of a whole Book consisting of myriads of words single letters and stopps and the several actions over each of these are so short and cursory that humane diligence cannot attend to every of them Yet he grants that this may be done with care enough if there be diligent Examiners This Objection speaks against the common sense of every one who can write for it tells him that no man can possibly keep to the sense or words he intends in writing a Letter or such like though he hath a Copy before him For he who can write a page with due care may by the continuance of the same diligence write a sheet and if he want nothing else but what concerns his writing he may with the same care write a Book What extraordinary art hath this Discourser that he could write his Book intelligibly and the Printers print it so can none do the like He cannot be ignorant that these things may be done by common diligence and all men who understand writing acknowledge that Deeds and all Records may be exemplified and faithfully transcribed if there be had due care about it That there hath been such care about Scripture I shall shew in answer to his next Paragraph And I suppose he is not so self-conceited as to think that other men may not use as much care in writing Letters or Words as himself doth or can But if this little Argument of many little actions not being capable of due attention was considerable it would concern this Authour to find a way how the Papists may
men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith or matters of mere belief unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things than by plain words But doth not this cavil strike at all wayes of knowledge and even at Tradition as much as Scripture For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted If not it must either be because the same words written or read cannot have so plain a sense as when they are spoken without reference to any Book or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles in that they can speak the plain truths of God better and with less lyableness to mistake than the Apostles wrote who yet professed to use plainness But he asks when we see Protestants and Socinians making use as they conceive of the best advantages the letter gives them yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity what certainty can we promise to weaker heads I answer weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain In the beginning of Christianity the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence did not all agree in so main a point as which was the true Religion whether Christianity Judaism or Gentilism will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to perswade them to be Christians and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion though many thousands of them believed Or in the matter now in hand can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds I am confident himself doth not think so and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary In like manner Protestants in general even the Vulgar appear fully satisfied about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths yea so plain are they in Scripture that he must be acute in devising waies to evade the evidence of these truths who doth not receive them nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths or entertain their own way of interpretation if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend as it is rational to imagine much is which concerns the Infinite Divine Being and that they do too much magnifie reason in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith but rather in these points the setting up another Rule and making Scripture the thing ruled which is the cause of their not owning these truths Having now answered all his Objections and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH After this § 7. he excuseth himself as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles but that all he hath spoken as he saith but I have shewed the contrary follows upon the Protestants principles This speaks him to act a part in the disgracing Scripture which he is ashamed to own and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles For if he indeed think there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God and of the Canon of Scripture from the Churches delivery and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith from the agreement of ancient Copies then he must without dissimulation profess that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture since the Papists yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged that they have none other way to be assured of these things by and reason will evidence they can have none other which the Protestants cannot have as well as they But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs have this certainty But he saith all he designs is That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith and was never intended for such as may be evinced because the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to deliver Christs Doctrine but with words in their mouths whence Primitive Antiquity learnt their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar much less the Catalogue acknowledged What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New As to the Old Testament 't is certain that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands and which is most considerable had them ordinarily in their mouths to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24.27 And S. Paul Acts 17.2 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures opening and alledging and Apollos Act. 18.28 convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture as was the manner of the Jews teaching as we read 2 Chron. 17.9 they taught in Judah and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands Indeed before they were written they could not have them nor could they then be a Rule However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ but their testimony by Speech was temporary and could not remain after their death while this continued it was a Rule of Faith but they also had another way of testimony which was by Writing and this as it continues with us is to us a Rule of Faith because their testimony and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony Joh. 21.24 and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle 1 Pet. 5.12 What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors not having their Writings in their hands after they were written is a gross falshood as will more plainly appear from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers Yea S. Paul and Barnabas with other Apostolical men went to preach to the Gentiles with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands Act. 15.22 which was the first
his heart bringeth forth evil things And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified as (f) Hierocl in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles declared men speak either good or evil sutably to the contrary inclinations of their minds There is indeed some difference here between the evil and the good heart The man of a malicious spirit may sometimes speak fair and smoothly even unto flattery and a wicked man may speak good words and act the hypocrite and the reason of this is because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsly but such words though they carry a fair appearance are evil words because full of fraud unfaithfulness and dissimulation But where the heart is good and upright there true integrity prevails and though an evil man may in many outward things speak and do as the good man doth out of hypocrisie and still continue wicked no good man can speak and do evil things according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person and whosoever doth so must be really wicked because goodness and uprightness both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling and all other compliances with sin and evil 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety and being under sin is included herein He declares from the writings of the Old Testament Rom. 3.13 14 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre with their tongues they have used deceit the poyson of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness Their feet are swift to shed blood c. Now the sense of most part of these words is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing it may be worthy our observation that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others doth in some degree really include in it the true and proper nature of cursing it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil to him of whom he speaks And what S. Paul adds that their feet are swift to shed blood even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin For when men by evil speaking especially of their Superiours have wrought themselves and others into a greater dislike of them and hatred towards them how oft this hath fomented fierce passions and wrought dispositions to cruelty and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood the Histories of all times and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation will give undeniable evidence Now such a temper which gives an apparent indication that they who practised such things were turned aside from God and the ways of piety cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion 8. Thirdly This practice is mighty dangerous 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation with respect to mens great and eternal interests Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words but God hath assured us that at the great day he will take an account of them and will not then allow that liberty that men now give themselves in evil speaking but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation Our Lord hath declared Matt. 12.36 37. That of every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Judgment For by their words they shall be justified and by their words they shall be condemned And these words of our Saviour are so solemn and weighty as laying down a rule of proceeding in the future judgment and condemnation that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded but to be seriously pondered and considered Many of the ancient Writers interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification Thus S. Basil S. Hierom Greg. Magnus and others And (g) Iren. adâ—â— Haeres l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion and the rules and precepts thereof And it is thence inferred that if such words which are not of use to good shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day much more those which are contumelious and include evil 9. But this strict interpretation Mat. 12.36 Concerning every idle word explained would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation and that freedom of familiar speaking concerning common affairs which is necessary thereunto and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour whose yoke is easie would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples under pain of eternal damnation And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius and Dr. Hammond that by every idle word is understood every false and evil word including what is unseemly and unbecoming Sobriety is the much more probable sense of our Saviours speech and the account they give of it is very reasonable and considerable And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients Thus Theophylact expounds these words and so doth also S. Chrysostome both upon S. Matthew and (h) Chrys Serm. 62. in Paralyt elsewhere And (i) Eus praep Ev. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius declares that upon account of these words of our Saviour the Christians would not admit either any lye or any reproach nor any filthy nor any unseemly word 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression in divers other places where it speaks of things and words hurtful and evil under such phrases as most directly signifie their being not useful Thus S. Paul calls such words as turn men from piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain words Ephes 5.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain babling 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.16 and the expressions of an empty word and an idle word are not much unlike but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends wicked and sinful words So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities as Act. 14.15 and the adhering to them a becoming vain in their imaginations Rom. 1.21 it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness but that they are things abominable So the Apostle intends that it will be of pernicious consequence to men when those who watch for their souls give up their account with grief when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable Heb. 13.17 And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful when it designs them to be accounted hurtful Ephes 5.11 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures that revilers and lyars shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and that his Religion is vain who bridleth not
advantage of that good advice and guidance for his present action which he might otherwise have had 2. The thing mainly intended in these promises is that the Spirit of God should so guide and assist the Apostles and others as S. Stephen in their bearing witness to Christianity before Rulers and Governours that they should not be ashamed to own the truth and that they should be enabled to make it manifest with such evidence as should baffle and confound their adversaries who could not deny or disprove the truth of what they alledged in their testimony And S. Paul did thus confound them who opposed his Doctrine in Jerusalem Act. 22 1-22 chap. 23.1 6-9 11.3 Whereas the only thing in any wise amiss in what the Apostle said was that there fell from him a sudden expression too much reflective upon a Governour it may be here noted First That these his words appear all of them to be truth and the fault in them was they were uttered with some passionateness of temper and without sufficient reverence in the manner of expression Secondly By his recalling such words as these and owning his surprize therein the tenderness of his conscience and the strictness of his doctrine concerning the honouring of Rulers and against the least word of undue disrespect towards them is in a more eminent manner set down for the instruction and guidance of all Ages than if there had been no appearance at all of any thing blameable in his former expression Thirdly This is the more remarkable because this his reflexion upon and retracting what he had thus spoken as also the Doctrine he urgeth thereupon was no doubt under the guidance of that Spirit which our Saviour had promised in this case and so makes his Example in this particular to be a necessary pattern for every Christian that if he should offend in the like manner he ought to retract and own his fault in the least miscarriage of his expression 53. From this Practice and Doctrine of the Apostle I shall further observe First that though these words were but once spoken S. Paul's reflective words though but once spoken and upon a sudden provocation and then also in a sudden surprize and upon a great provocation of injurious dealing though the Apostle had never gone so far as frequently to blaze abroad by open contumelious expressions or secret whisperings what might ill affect the people against their Governour Yet in this case he acknowledged the fault and would by no means persist in it or do so any more And if one single reflective expression was not allowable in him who was commanded to be smitten against law and had no intention of defaming Authority the same and much more the frequently repeated uttering designed reproaches is far more blameable in them who receive no such injury but are rather favoured beyond what the Law establisheth Nor did the Apostle allow of such expressions towards Ananias being a Ruler though he was on this account a bad man as being a zealous opposer of the true Christian Doctrine And he would in no wise justifie but retract such reflective words though true as those which in some passion unwarily fell from him 54. Secondly Ananias was far from being a Supreme Governour Caesar had now the chief Authority in Judea and Felix was a Deputy Governour under him and both the President of Judea and the High Priest were under the power of the (ſ) Joseph Ant. l. 20. c. 5. de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to a subordinate Ruler Governour of Syria And Ananias was so far inferiour to Felix in his Authority that he with the other Synedrial Elders appeared upon summons before the tribunal of Felix as an Higher Court to desire judgment against Saint Paul Acts 24.1 And this and other things also he did at the command of Lysias the Chief Captain Act. 22.30 chap. 23.30 chap. 24.8 which shews his Authority also to be superior to that of Ananias And both Felix and Lysias disposed of the Apostle Paul otherwise than was desired by Ananias and the Elders And the Jewish Consistory in which Ananias sate was now in a declining state all power of capital punishments having for about thirty years been taken from them by the Roman Authority Now expressions aspersing a Superiour or supreme Governour are the greater fault because they affront an higher Authority to which a more eminent degree of honour and reverence is due yet S. Paul would not defend but condemn such a behaviour towards one who was in such an inferiour subordinate and declining Authority as that of Ananias and the Sanhedrin then was 55. Thirdly The Apostle declared thus much are presently and openly recalled in the face of a Civil Court presently after he had spoken the former words and as soon as he had considered them and was enquired of concerning them he made no demurr or delay but forthwith he forwardly and readily owned the indecency and unlawfulness of such expressions And this he also did very plainly and openly before the whole Assembly of the Jews that no person might either defend his practice or follow his example where he had spoken amiss This also he did in a Civil Consistory or Court though he was an Apostle and being there charged with a fault in his behaviour towards a Ruler he doth not so decline the thing as if it was fit for him to give his answer in a Civil Consistory But he there owns his duty and his fault also and treated Civil Governours at another rate than either the Conclave or the Kirk would do For though a Priest was sometimes not always President of the Jewish Sanhedrin that was chiefly a Civil Court (t) Seld de Syned l. 3. c. 1 2 c. inflicted Civil punishments and took cognisance of criminal causes and appeals from other inferiour Judicatures and in the progress of this case for which S. Paul was brought before them after he had been heard by Felix and Festus he appealed unto Caesar 56. Now I think that what I have said is not inconsiderable for my Exposition of these words which represents them to be a signal example of acknowledging the fault of any indecent expression towards a Superiour And I thought the influence which this ought to have upon the lives of men to be of so great use that it may be a sufficient excuse for my long discourse upon these words Yet I must acknowledge that the greater number of Writers which I have seen who discourse of these words and some very worthy and learned men do excuse the Apostle's words to Ananias from all blame according to some of the methods above mentioned especially by supposing that he did not know Ananias to be an High Priest or Ruler or that he did not own his Authority But since the Apostle was designedly brought to appear before the Jewish Council Act. 22.30 and when he began to speak did
caused that Law to be transmitted to several parts of the Empire but yet had plainly written to him how much it was against God And then adds utrobique ergo quod debui exolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minime tacui On both hands therefore I have performed what I ought I have yielded obedience to the Emperour and I have not forborn to speak what was my judgement on the behalf of God And in this Epistle also and in others frequently he owns Mauritius to be his Lord and himself to be his Servant And the usual subterfuge of Romish Writers that what the Popes have spoken in such a respect to Emperours was from humility and gracious condescension only can have no place here For he went as far as any Subject in his capacity might do in what he was perswaded was unlawful and further than he might do who was no Subject In humility he might dispense with his own right but not with what concerns God and Religion 15. These things do so plainly shew that those ancient Bishops acknowledged the Emperour to be their Superiour even in constituting Laws and doing other acts which had respect to the state of Religion that I think it unnecessary to add other instances which might be given for many Centuries The known expression of Otho Frisingensis declares Gregory the Seventh to be the first of the Roman Bishops who usurped the deposing power But Conradus (f) Ursp p. 336. Vrspergensis differing herein from Otho whom he mentions seems to fix the first Original of these Papal proceedings upon Gregory the Third who above seven hundred years after Christ in the contest concerning Images where it might have been expected that he who was so earnest for the adoration of Images should have highly honoured the Emperour who bare the impress of Divine authority did (g) ibid. p. 286. forbid Italy to pay any tribute to Leo Isaurus the Emperour and deprived him of his rights there But it is manifest that all the Roman Bishops who succeeded him were not of the like spirit and temper Above an hundred years after him Leo the Fourth (h) Gratian. Dist 10. de capitulis and to Leo the Fourth assures Lotharius the Emperour that he would as much as he was able irrefragably keep and observe his imperial precepts and that they were lyars who should suggest the contrary concerning him and (i) c. 2. qu. 7. Nos si incompetenter he likewise submits his actions to be examined by the Emperour or such as he should commissionate and to be corrected or amended if he had done amiss and not kept to the right rule of the Law 16. But the main hurt of this pretended Papal power so much contended for at Rome is not only the disturbing peace Such Principles of Rebellion lead men to damnation fomenting Wars and unjust invading the right of Princes but besides the ambition therein contained by stirring up Subjects in rebellion against their Soveraigns it puts them according to S. Paul's Doctrine into a state of damnation Rom. 13.2 And such rebellious practices are the more promoted by those frantick principles of many of the Church of Rome which have spread themselves also amongst other Sects which give liberty to Subjects without respect to the Popes Sentence to take away the lives of Princes It is too clear to be denied that such Positions are maintained by divers of the Jesuits and it must be granted also that there is truth in what some of the Jesuits have observed that the like was asserted by other Writers in the Church of Rome before the first institution of that Order 17. The Pope's usurped claim over other Churches and Bishops There is also great disorder and evil unduly occasioned in the Church by the claim the Roman See pretends to over all other Bishops and Churches To this authority she hath no just title but the exercise of this power did obtain and prevail in many Churches by various methods and degrees of encroachment And by this means both rights and also purity and due order are jointly violated Hence this Church obtrudes on others her pernicious Doctrines and practices under a pretence of authority And by the same means it hinders the necessary reformation of great and spreading corruptions and thunders out Censures against such Churches as reform themselves according to Primitive and Apostolical rules 18. Now such an Authority over all other Bishops and Churches could never be founded in any actual possession or in any human or Ecclesiastical constitution of what nature soever For an incroaching authority is void by the ancient Canons especially that of Ephesus and being an unjust possession ought to return to him who hath the true right And where there hath been any consent given to an unjust claim by misunderstanding or upon any other account or where any other act whatsoever hath been done by Princes falsty pretended to be of Divine Authority or by Bishops in any part of the Church to yield or convey any Superiour Authority to the Roman Bishop they cannot by any act of their own exclude themselves and their Successors from the obligation to perform their duty in duly guiding governing and reforming their people And therefore so far as the authority which Princes and Bishops have received from God and Christ doth oblige them to the performance of this work no pretended power of the Bishop of Rome nor any act done by any others or even by themselves can set them free from it But this universal Superiority is claimed by the Pope as not derived from any human Constitution but from the authority of Christ To which purpose the Catechism according to the Decree of the Council of Trent declares That the Catholick Church (k) Catech. ad Paroch c. de Ordinis Sacramento Summum in eo dignitatis gradum jurisdictionis amplitudinem non quidem ullis Synodicis aut aliis humanis constitutionibus sed divinitus datam agnoscit quamobrem omnium fidelium episcoporum caeterorumque antistitum quocunque illi munere potestate praediti sint pater ac moderator universali Ecclesiae ut Petri Successor Christique Domini verus legitimus vicarius praesidet doth acknowledge in him the Pope the highest degree of dignity and amplitude of Jurisdiction not given him by any Synodical or other human Constitutions but by Divine Authority wherefore he the Father and Governour of all the Faithful and of the Bishops and the rest who are in chief Authority whatsoever Office or Power they are indued with doth preside over the the Vniversal Church as the Successor of Peter and the true and lawful Vicar of Christ the Lord. 19. But notwithstanding this great noise it was unknown to the ancient Church no such Divine institution hath been or can be produced and pasce oves and tu es Petrus have been oft scanned and no such thing can be
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
did own himself to be the most high God and as Irenaeus relates (y) Iren. adv Haeres l. 1. c. 20. that it was he who appeared as the Son amongst the Jews and descended as the Father in Samaria and came as the Holy Spirit in other Nations and they who were his followers both in Samaria Rome and other Nations did worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the chief God as (z) Justin Apol. 1. Justin Martyr affirms and (a) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr Eusebius from him Now if it should be supposed that the Gnosticks should own the true God and that there is no other God besides him and should therefore design to give Divine honour to him alone but should be perswaded that he was incarnate in Simon Magus and thereupon should worship him with Divine honour this could not excuse them herein from being Idolaters And whereas Montanus and the propagators of his Heresie did declare him to be the Paraclete as is oft expressed in Tertullian and is affirmed also by divers Catholick Writers as (b) Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. Eusebius (c) Basil ad Amphil. c. 1. Basil and others or as (d) de Consec dist 4. c. Hi vero Gregory expresseth it that he was the Holy Ghost if any of his followers professing Divine Worship to be due only to the True God and the three persons of the glorious Trinity should upon a presumptive delusion believe that the Holy Ghost was imbodied in Montanus and thereupon yield to him that Divine Worship which is due to the Holy Ghost this could not excuse them from Idolatry 29. Assert 2. All Idolatry is not equally heinous Assert 2. In Idolatry which is in its nature a great and grievous sin all the acts and kinds thereof in misplacing proper Divine Worship are not equally heinous and abominable There is a great difference from the temper of the persons whence acts proceding from sudden surprize from weakness of understanding or from great fear are not of so high a guilt as those which proceed from carelesness of duty neglect of instruction or contempt of God or wilful enmity against the true Religion There is also difference in the acts of worship which I mentioned n. 27. as also from the plyableness of temper to be drawn from them and the resolved obstinacy of persisting in them And there is a difference also with respect to the object to which Divine Worship is given whence the worshipping of Baal or the Gods of other Nations in opposition to the God of Israel was more heinous than the Idolatry of Jeroboams Calves because it included a professed departing from the true God and the worshipping of Simon Magus was the more abominable as including a following him and consequently rejecting the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But the Idolatry of the Calves was not of so high a nature nor did it utterly exclude the ten Tribes from all relation to the Church of God though even this would exclude those persons who designedly espoused it or who perversely or negligently joined in it from the blessing of God 30. Assert 3. All misplacing Divine honour upon an undue object which is Idolatry is a very great sin Assert 3. All sorts thereof are greatly evil To suppose that ignorance and mistake should be any sufficient plea or excuse is to reflect upon the goodness and wisdom of God as if even under the Christian revelation he had not sufficiently directed men in so important a duty as to know the object of Divine adoration or whom we are to worship And how little any misunderstanding upon the grounds laid down by the Romanists is like in this case to be available for their excuse I shall manifest by proposing another case which may well be esteemed parallel hereunto As our Saviour said concerning the Eucharistical Bread This is my Body so there is a greater plenty of expressions in the Scriptures which are as plausible to confer Divine honour upon pious Christians They are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature to be born of God The Remish Adoration of the Host parallel'd to be renewed after the Image of God and that God dwelleth in them and that Christ is formed in them and is in them and that they are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones and with respect to them he said to Saul why persecutest thou me and he will say to others I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat c. and the Spirit of God dwells in them Now if from such expressions as these any sort of men should give Divine Worship to every Saint in pursuance of that fond notion of some Fanatick heads that they are Godded with God and Christed with Christ and consequently to those in Heaven as well as to those on Earth and thereby multiply the objects of Divine Adoration really beyond all the Polytheism of the Gentiles I doubt not but they of the Church of Rome would account this abominable Idolatry Nor would they think it sufficient here to be pretended that these worshippers own only one true God and give Divine Worship to the Saints only because they believe them to receive a new Divine Nature in becoming Saints and to put on Christ and to be changed into the nature and substance of that one God and though this may seem as contrary to sense and reason as Transubstantiation doth they therefore believe it because God hath said it if their manifestly mistaken sense of Scripture be allowed and they can confidently rely on his word And if we compare these two together the grace of the Sacrament is very excellent but it is that which is to be communicated to the communion of Saints and conferred upon them But the nature of the pious Christian is so much advanced above that of the Sacramental elements that that must be confessed to be true which was affirmed by Bishop Bilson (e) Differ of Christ Subject Unchr Rebel Part. 4. p. 713. that Christian men are members of Christ the Bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the Bread he doth not he will raise them at the last day the Bread he will not they shall reign with him for ever the Bread shall not But these and such like words we mention not as having any low thoughts of the Holy Sacrament but as owning the truth of the Sacramental elements remaining in their created substances and even these we duly reverence as set apart to an holy use and purpose but we most highly value the great blessings of the Gospel and the spiritual presence of Christ which though it be tendred in the Sacramental elements yet being the invisible grace of the Sacrament is to be distinguished from the visible sign thereof To this we have our eye chiefly in the Sacrament according to that ancient admonition (f) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. sursum
corda lift up your hearts unto the Lord. And we glorifie the grace of God who bestows upon them who truly repent and believe such unspeakable benefits in the use of those means or signs which are otherwise mean than as they are sanctified to an holy and excellent use by the Institution of God and the right celebration of his Ordinance SECT V. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy 1. IN this last Section Of the Politick interests driven on in the Roman Church I shall consider some such things in the Church of Rome which represent Religion as it is by them professed to be a crafty contrivance of human policy or a cunning method to serve the particular interests of some men in the world True Religion which hath respect to the chief good and happiness of men doth indeed bring the greatest satisfaction to men in this world but this is not done by gratifying their inordinate affections but by commanding and subduing them But this being from God and having to do with him is a thing of the greatest simplicity and sincerity in the world and therefore proposeth nothing but what is true and good and suitable to God and his Honour And when things manifestly false or evil which are fitted to advance the outward interest of the proposers are obtruded under the disguise of Religion and required as things sacred to be received with the greatest veneration this gives too much appearance that under the name of Religion politick designs and fraudulent ends and purposes of men are managed And where such things are done Sect. V. it may tempt many of those who discover and understand them to cast off the serious sense of Religion it self Now very many things in the Romish Church appear designed to impose on and delude the people and by false pretences to advance the honour of the Pope especially and of their Clergy also and to gratifie the avarice of the Romish Court and enervate piety 2. Their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution Divers of their errors carry on some interests seems contrived to make loose men who have little regard to God to have a mighty veneration for their Priest who notwithstanding their wicked life both can and will if they be taught right secure them in the other world upon such terms as Christ and his Gospel will not admit Their Service in a tongue not understood by the people is fitted to uphold the reputation of the Clergy among the Ignorant Vulgar as doth also the prohibiting the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue as is observed by (a) de Scr. q. l. non legendis c. 21. Ledesima Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation propitiatory Sacrifice and the conficient Priest alone receiving the Eucharist in one kind tend much to extol the dignity and greatness of their Clergy but the falseness of all these I have above discovered Their exempting their Clergy that as (b) M. Bec. Part. 2. Tr. 3. c. 6. Q. 11. Becanus saith they are not subject to Secular Princes nor can be punished by them nor are bound to observe their Laws out of obedience doth jointly tend to the advancement both of the Pope and the Clergy but is contrary to the true rules of Christianity as I have in another Discourse shewed And though amongst us the true honour of the Ministry which our Lord conferred upon it be by many too much neglected and disregarded we make not use of false methods for its support Besides these their feigned revelations and visions concerning matters of truth and Doctrine their many counterfeited Relicks as objects of veneration and their falsly pretended Miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrine are manifestly designed delusions to impose upon others that they may be admired by them 3. But because this Chapter hath been already very large I shall wave many things which might have been insisted on and shall only consider a few things which have a chief respect unto the Pope himself That the claim of the Papal Supremacy is in all the branches thereof groundless I have somewhat declared in the first Section of this Chapter and more fully in another Discourse there referred unto And that this is adapted to exalt the Papal dignity grandure and Soveraignty and to bring in vast revenues for its support needs not be suggested to any considering men And the Popes pretence to be S. Peter's Successor seems not to be ordered with plain and honest sincerity in his first entrance thereupon For at the time of his Coronation among other Rites one of the last is that (c) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 3. fol. 40. the Pope must take his handful of money from his Chamberlain in which he must be sure to have neither silver nor gold and scattering it among the people must use those words of S. Peter Silver and Gold have I none Some things in the form of the Papal Coronation observed but what I have that give I you Now it seems not very fair and upright dealing that the Pope by being advanced to his See should pretend himself to be a Successor of S. Peters poverty especially when in order to his expressing thus much there is care taken before-hand that he must cautiously avoid the having all silver or gold in his hand If S. Peter himself had been known to have done thus when he used those words this would have been looked upon in him as a cheat and imposture which is one of the first things declared by his pretended Successor in such a case where he might uprightly and infallibly have spoken truth And a like abuse of holy Scripture is in that other Rite at his Coronation which goes immediately before this when the Pope is sat down or almost lies along upon a Marble Seat at the Lateran Church at Rome which Seat is called Stercoraria and one of the Cardinals lifts him up (d) ibid. using those words in Psal 113.7 8. Suscitat de pulvere egenum de stercore erigit pauperem ut sedeat cum principibus solium gloriae teneat Where what the Psalmist calleth a dunghill the Roman Church who would be accounted the faithful Interpreter of Scripture interpreteth concerning a stately Marble Seat But waving such things as these I shall enquire into two other things of greater moment and concern the one of Infallibility the second of delivering Souls from Purgatory by Indulgences and applying to them a fit proportion of the Churches Treasury 4. Concerning Infallibility Infallibility calculated for design This is a strange claim in such a Church where there are so many palpable errors contrary to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the ancient Church But this pretence mightily serves their interest for if this be once believed and received all their other errors must thereupon be received with
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
it occasions incoherency and confusion in this his Discourse A Third miscarriage hence arising is That he buildeth part of his discourses upon a supposition which is certainly false to wit that all that Faith which is in the Vulgar or in any others is immediately produced by the application of the Rule of Faith so Disc 1. § 8 9. whence § 14. he calls the Rule of Faith the immediate producer and cause of the assent of Faith both with reference to the ruder sort and to the Learned Now though the Rule of Faith be the surest way to beget Faith or to try any point of Faith yet is not all Faith in all persons immediately produced by it but many times by other means Thus the Discourses of Origen Tertullian and Cyprian and their Writings have doubtless perswaded and prevailed with many to receive the Christian Faith by them and believe many things declared in it yet neither their words nor writings were any Rule of Faith since both in some things appear erroneous The Goths were brought in to Christianity by the preaching of the Arians and by that means believed many Christian truths and of later years many Pagans have believed the Christian Doctrine some by the preaching of Protestants and others by the Papists yet cannot all these ways of delivery be called the Rule of Faith nor indeed any of them Yea it is sensibly evident that many Christian truths are received and believed both among Protestants and Papists by the Vulgar either from the teaching of a Parent or from a private Doctor or Teacher which may be subject to some error and so are not the Rule of Faith since they may misguide and yet in many things of revealed truth this is the common case of the Vulgar before they come to understand the Rule of Faith or that which they own as such even before the Protestant comes to understand the Scripture and what is in it contained and before the Papist understands the Tradition of the Church and how he may know what is as such delivered since all that is taught or written by some particular persons cannot be as such received I come now to examine the particular properties of the Rule of Faith above recited The first property is That it must be self evident as to its existence to all His ground for this is that the rudest Vulgar who are capable of Faith are uncapable of any skill by speculation § 3 4 9 10. But First This proves not that it must be self-evident by which he means as appears in the following Discourse that that which is the Rule of Faith appeareth evidently to be such barely by considering this Rule in it self without any other helps and advantages since without this way of self-evidence it may be sufficiently evidenceable to all capacities in such a manner as the Vulgar are capable of knowing it The Statutes of England are a Rule for the decision of Cases in the Law concerning the matters contained in them but that they are so cannot appear satisfactorily in all these Laws by the bare reading of them but their being sufficiently and generally attested and acknowledged to be enacted by the Legislative Power and unrepealed evidenceth them to be such The Vulgar know that the last Will and Testament of a man is as a Rule to shew who hath title to the Goods of the deceased and they are capable of knowing which is the last Will and Testament of a person otherwise than from the bare reading of it to wit by the full witness and evident testimony of credible persons concerning it The ordinary Jews were capable of knowing the ten Commandments and the Books of Moses to be given them from God to guide them otherwise than by the reading of them to wit by delivery of them as such by the constant testimony of all the Jews in that and the succeeding Ages Whence it may appear to be self-evident that the Vulgar are capable of receiving other proof than self-evidence though not by deep speculation yet by testimonial evidence Nor 2. Will it hence follow from his proof that the Rule of Faith should be evident to all as to its existence By all he cannot here include them who have no knowledge of Gospel Revelation But I suppose he intends all who have faith or are in the way to attain it But in this latitude it is no property of the Rule of Faith to be actually evident to all these since there may be some Faith which is not immediately grounded upon the Rule as was before shewed Howbeit since the Rule of Faith is intended to confirm and determine matters of faith so that they may be received with a full and firm assent and is thence of great use to all to settle and stablish them in the faith I assert that the Rule of Faith is evidenceable unto all or may be made evident unto all who have capacities of reason both that it is and that it is a Rule if they be willing to receive that evidence which is sufficient The second property That it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to Enquirers even the rude Vulgar I allow supposing them willing to be satisfied with good evidence The third property I admit That it is apt to settle and justifie undoubting persons that is that they who rely on it without doubting may be satisfied that they act rationally The fourth property is That it is able to satisfie the most Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters Had he appeared only to mean by Sceptical the most curiously inquisitive I would readily have granted this property but it is suspicious that he includes such Scepticks as design to reject evidence because when he applies this Rule Disc 3. § 3. he speaks of his Sceptick as one who would find somewhat to reply rationally or at least would maintain his suspence with a Might it not be otherwise If he indeed includes persons who set themselves to reject evidence I answer the Rule of Faith needeth not be able to satisfie them nor can it since they are not capable of satisfaction and such were many of the Heathen Philosophers of the Hereticks among Christians and probably of the Scribes and Pharisees All he said for the proof of this property was That those who are out of the Church are intended by Christ to be brought in to embrace the faith and persons of highest reason and enquiry in the Church may be satisfied concerning the faith § 13 14. This is true of them who will embrace light and evidence where they find it but not of them who reject it and Protestants will affirm that the Rule of Faith taking in the testimonial evidence which is given concerning that Rule is able to satisfie all Dissenters or Doubters who are ready and willing to receive rational satisfaction The fifth property is That it must be able to convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries This he supposeth proved from § 15.
Doctrine of Faith as words written and spoken by men declare their sense and meaning to one another and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith § 3 4 5 6 7 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith First They cannot be certain by self-evidence that this is Gods Word which cannot be discovered but by deep speculation nor can this be concluded till all seeming contradictions are solved § 3. Secondly Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired either by self-evidence or by any skill they are possest of § 4. Thirdly Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities that the originals are any where preserved entire nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it § 5. Fourthly Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators § 6. Fifthly If it be most truly translated yet innumerable Copies before Printing and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relyed on by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture § 7. Lastly Still they are far to seek unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes about concerning Points and Christs Divinity shew not to be the task of the vulgar § 8. Ad § 3. To the first Objection I answer That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar that the Scriptures are the Word of God Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture is very considerable as to the truths contained in Scripture by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines suitable to God and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled yet as to the writing which contains these truths we have another more plain way and generally evidenceable to all persons to assure them that these Books are Gods Word which is that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls these Books have in all Ages since Christ and almost in all Countreys been preserved as the Writings of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists they have constantly and publickly read them as such and given them to us as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as Gods Word and by this way we have a plain and withal a very full certainty or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ Dei lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers by a most certain and known succession Compare the certainty of it with any Historical Writings in the World or with any other matters of fact in any former Age and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater because it is more generally delivered and hath been more constantly read Compare this again with any Records in the World and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society the Records of a Court the Statutes of a Colledge or the Charter of a Corporation are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court and the Members of that Corporation and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age because they are in written Records delivered as such to them and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty especially if he know that all foregoing Members of such Societies or Officers of such Courts are under the obligation of an Oath to preserve such Records or Charters entire and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe what this Record or Charter doth contain And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God since there are not only one but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World who all agree in this delivery and all these Societies by their Profession and the Christian Sacraments are under the highest obligations not to falsifie in any thing and especially in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers that they did religiously own and honour this Book as the Word of God Lastly Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition or rather with its uncertainty wherein we must consider that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures is of the same nature with that whereby Monuments preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another which the common apprehensions of men shew to be a much surer way of delivery than this Tradition by way of hear sayes since in every Corporation which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors if the Members of it would be sure what are the Priviledges that belong to it they will not think it the safest way to enquire what are the common Opinions of that Society and rely on this which is like the way of Oral Tradition but they will consult the Charter it self and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine or what God delivered to be more fully in the Scripture than in the words of other Christians or Tradition by the same way but by much greater evidence than that by which men of all Societies will conclude the truth of what concerns their Priviledges or what Emperours or Kings have granted them to be more fully contained in their Charters than in common reports Nor is this Tradition which we honour owned by us a Rule of our Faith but a rational evidence or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God or the Writings divinely inspired For in matters of Faith though a man is supported by reason which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God yet as to the matter or thing believed he doth not exercise his reason to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony and upon this Testimony owns what is attested by it but when we say we own the Scriptures to be Gods Word by the forementioned way of Tradition we act our reason as to the thing received by us and do own and acknowledge this as truth from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith because contained in a divinely inspired Writing and
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
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
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
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
do we disallow to others the grounds our selves proceed upon for we allow to all and commend in all their practice upon clear and well grounded Scripture-evidence but we neither allow our selves nor others to practise upon ungrounded pretences of Scripture being on our side The Third pretended contradiction is To pretend first the Scriptures Letter clear of it self without needing the Church to interpret it and afterwards to judge the followers of it to their best power to go wrong that is to confess it obscure and to need their new Church's interpretation But Protestants do assert that in all necessary Doctrines the evidence of Scripture is so clear that it needs no interpretation nor can they be denied but by preferring interest passion or some other sond conceptions above evidence and this is to forsake Scripture but in many other things they who do not discern the evidence of Scripture may err though they follow it to their best power but notwithstanding this Scripture is sufficiently clear in the evidence it gives of all Divine revealed truth to them who do discern its evidence though men be confessed to be men and many of them not capable of full understanding many truths His Fourth contradiction charged on Hereticks but designed for Protestants is that they persecute others for taking that way which they held at least pretended meritorious in themselves in which charge as the thing intended is palpably false concerning Protestants so the language he useth agreeth not to them The Fifth pretended contradiction is to oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of Scriptures Letter and to rule themselves by their Tradition and at the same time against Catholicks to impugn Tradition as unfit to sense it and abet only the self-sufficiency of Scriptures Letter The former clause here charged on Protestants is no way their practice for though in matters prudential they require inferiours to be ruled by the commands of their Superiours which both Scripture and the Government of all Societies in the World require yet in matters of Faith they require that men receive them only from Scripture as the Rule of Faith or the main ground of belief Nor are any Protestants in any case commanded to relinquish Scripture as a Rule of Faith and to rule themselves by Tradition more than if in a Corporation a member who cannot read hath his duty read to him by another out of the Charter or told him in words with great care collected out of the Charter to express its sense this should be called a commanding this man as a member of this Society to relinquish the sole guidance of the Charter as his Rule and to be ruled by others Tradition when he follows the Charter by the best evidence he hath concerning it and relies not on a delivery of continued hearsaies report and fame which is a way suitable to the Romish Oral Tradition As to the latter part of this pretended Contradiction which concerns the impugning Tradition as unfit to sense Scripture if this be understood of the present way of Romish Oral Tradition this indeed we do so impugn But if this be understood of the Ancient and Primitive Tradition Protestants do acknowledge this so far as it can be manifested to be general to be very fit to sense such Scriptures as are otherwise difficult and obscure and so far as we have any intimations of such Traditions by the Ancient Fathers we own them useful The last pretended contradiction is To impute that carriage as a fault to our Romish Church which themselves practice and which is most material our Church punishes none but those who desert our Rule but they punish for too close following their Rule All the clauses of this charge are guilty of deserting the Rule of Truth For Protestants who fault this Traditionary way do not practise this Tradition as hath been above shewed nor do Protestants punish any for following Scripture too close as hath been evidenced The middle clause is likewise untrue for if he mean that the Romish Church never punisheth any who pretend to hold to the Tradition they received according to the best of their knowledge how came it to pass that Victor excommunicated all the Asian Churches for not keeping Easter the same day with the Roman Church though these Asian Churches pleaded a certain Tradition not only from their famous Bishops but from Philip the Deacon and his Daughters which were Prophetesses and from S. John the Apostle and Evangelist Eus Hist Eccl. 5. c. 24. Yea how came Mr. White to be censured at Rome who thought he defended the Rule of Tradition yea how came Monsieur Arnold to be so troubled by the Jesuits in France even for the using those words which he received from S. Austin a famous and approved Father But if he only mean that the Church of Rome punisheth none but such as swerve some way from the Traditions she delivers this if true in it self is nothing that can truly be called most material it being neither pertinent to his charge against Protestants nor considerable in it self since it only speaks the Church of Rome commendable in not punishing those who believe every thing it saies and practise every thing it commands and was there ever any Society in the World that in this thing was not as commendable as the Church of Rome But when he here tells us their Church punisheth none but those who desert the Rule she recommends surely he much forgat himself § 5. where speaking of Hereticks he saith that the deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few and the Descendents of these Revolters followed Tradition for either he must say that their Church punisheth no Descendents of Revolters as he calls them that is allows all Heresies in any but the first Authours of them or else must acknowledge that it punisheth them whom himself accounts and there as he thinks proves that they are not deserters of Tradition § 4. He asks What can follow hence but that Subjects whom common sense cannot but make exceeding sensible of such unreasonable carriage in persecuting them purely for following Gods word which themselves had taught them they ought in conscience to follow should strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors and to involve whole Nations in War and Blood but he after adds he intends not a justification of those revolting Sects But it cannot be that common sense nor any rational evidence should teach Subjects under Protestant Princes that they are persecuted purely for following Gods Word since there is no such thing in truth they can no otherwise think it is so but by evident mistakes or by such deluding perswasions as this Authour would deceive them with And indeed such pernicious incentives as these of this Discourser may possibly if they meet with fiery and malicious spirits inflame them into a Rebellion and withal shew what Principles may be instilled by pretenders to Tradition But such is the peaceableness
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
thing as this but fully asserted one and the same God Nor was there ever any question about this in their daies for as there were questions about things offered to Idols about Marriage and Divorce about veiling Women and the hope of the Resurrection in which he plainly refers to the Apostles writings so he saith if there had been any Question about this matter it would have been found as a most principal thing in the Apostle that is the Apostles writings and then adds the words cited by this Discourser And no other is to be acknowledged the Tradition of the Apostles than that which is this day published in their Churches In which words as Irenaeus and Tertullian elsewhere did against Heretical inventions in general so he here establisheth the Churches Tradition against Marcions innovation or he establisheth the Doctrine of Christ as his Church received it which principally included the Scriptures And that Tertullian chiefly designed against Marcion to establish the Scriptural Tradition may appear sufficiently from what hath been above observed To see yet more of Tertullians mind in this case observe that known place against Hermogenes who asserted matter co-eternal with God Advers Hermog c. 22. I adore the fulness of Scripture which manifests to me both the maker and his works But whether all things be made out of a subject matter I never yet read Let Hermogenes his shop shew it written If it be not written let him fear that woe that is denounced against them who add or take away What can be more full to shew the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith than to declare that nothing may safely be received but from it and that it is full and compleat SECT XIII What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith FRom this Father he only cites one place and that so much contrary to the plain design which is obvious to any eye that it appears evidently he never took it from Clemens himself but hath in practice discovered what certainty there is in his Oral way or taking things upon hear-say For shewing which nothing more is needful than the setting down the words of Clemens more largely Strom. lib. 7. He saith In those who are indued with knowledge the holy Scriptures have conceived but the Hereticks who have not learned them have rejected them as if they did not conceive some indeed follow the truths saying and others wrest the Scriptures to their own lusts but if they had a Judgment of true and false they would have been perswaded by the Divine Scriptures Then follow the words cited If therefore any one of a man becomes a Beast like those inchanted by Circe so he hath lost his being a man of God and one remaining faithful to the Lord who kicks against Ecclesiastical Tradition and leaps into the opinions of humane Heresies Then his next words are but he who returning out of error obeys the Scriptures and commits his life to the truth of a man in a manner becomes as God We have the Lord the original of this Doctrine both by the Prophets and by the Gospel and by the Apostles He who is to be believed of himself is worthy of all belief when he speaks in the Lords voice and the Scriptures Doubtless the Scriptures we use as our Criterion to find out things And then he shews That we are not satisfied with what men say but inquire and believe what God saith which is the only demonstration according to which Science they who have tasted only of the Scriptures are faithful What can be more plain than that Clemens his design here is not to guide men to the Oral way this Discourser talks of but as Origen and Tertullulian do so also Clemens against the way of the ancient Hereticks who were opposers of the Scripture commendeth the Churches Tradition which was in the Scripture Much more might be observed to this purpose from this 7. Strom. of Clemens and several other places but that I think the very place this Author blindfoldly chose is sufficient against him SECT XIV What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius OUr Discourser wisheth Protestants would seriously weigh the Sayings of this Father and consider what sustained him who was a Pillar of Faith in his daies This we assure him we will do and likewise highly honor that Rule of Faith which Athanasius made use of which we know was not Oral Tradition but Scripture The first testimony he produceth from Athanasius is in his Epistle de Synodis Arim. Seleuc. where speaking of the Arians who were not satisfied in the Council of Nice but sought after some other Synodical determination where they might have the Faith and therefore procured another Council to be called he saith Now they have declared themselves to be unbelievers in seeking that which they have not which are part of the words cited by this Discourser his following words I think cannot be found either in that Book or elsewhere in Athanasius which are All therefore that are seekers of Faith are unbelievers They only to whom Faith comes down from their Ancestors that is from Christ by Fathers do not seek and therefore they only have Faith if thou comest to Faith by seeking thou wast before an Vnbeliever Thus far this Discourser I think frames Athanasius Against the Arians in this Epistle Athanasius further saies If they had believed they would not have sought it as if they had it not and if you have wrote these things as now beginning to believe you are not Clergy-men but begin to be Catechumens Which words he writes upon occasion that the Arians Confession began not So believes the Catholick Church but the Catholick Faith was in the presence of Constantius put forth such a day as Athanasius there declares But that we may understand Athanasius his mind where they who are Believers must have Faith and not elsewhere seek it which also is the way he must understand it to come from Ancestors if any such words be any where in Athanasius in this very Epistle he declares it thus It is a vain thing that they running about pretend to desire Synods for the Faith for the holy Scripture is more sufficient than all Synods And if for this there should be need of a Synod there are the Acts of the Holy Fathers they who came together in Nice wrote so well that whoever faithfully read their Writings may by them be remembred of that Religion towards Christ which is declared in the holy Scriptures So that these words of Athanasius as they design not the promoting Oral Tradition so they do advance Scripture The next testimony cited and vainly flourished over is from Athan. de Incarn against Paulus Samosatenus where he concerning this Subject of the Incarnation of the Word shews That such great things and difficult to be apprehended cannot be attained to but by Faith And they who have weak knowledge if they here reject not curious questions and keep to the
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