The grand presvmption of the Roman Church in equalling their own traditions to the written word of God by Francis Gregory.

The grand presvmption of the Roman Church in equalling their own traditions to the written word of God by Francis Gregory.

Table of contents

Title page

THE GRAND PRESƲMPTION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH In Equalling their own Traditions to th• Written Word of God.

[Page]

[Page]

THE GRAND PRESƲMPTION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH In Equalling their own Traditions to th [...] Written Word of God.

Col. 3.16.

Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly, &c.

TIs the Observation of St. Chrysostom, Chrysost. ad Col. c. 1. v. 1. and an undoubted Truth, [...]. All the Epistles of St. Paul are sacred; but yet there is something more then ordinary in those Epistles of his which were written and sent to such and such Churches or Persons when he was in his Bonds, Theophyl. in Argum. Epist. ad Col. whereof this to the Colossians was one. Theophylact reckons up five severall Epistles written by St. Paul whilst he was a Prisoner. [Page] [...]. The Epistle to the Ephesians, to Philemon, to Timothy, to the Philippians, and this to the Colossians, were written by St. Paul when he was in Bonds. That this Epistle was certainly written at Rome, we learn from its ancient Postscript; which is confirm'd by the express Testimony of Oecumenius, [...],Oecum. in Argum. Epist. ad Col. St. Paul sent this Epistle from Rome. Chrys. ad. Col. c. 1. v. 1. And that it was one of the latest, we gather from St. Chrysostom, who saith that the Apostle wrote it [...], towards the End of his Preaching; so late, that Chronologers place it in the sixtieth year of Christ.

Who these Colossians were, and in what Region of the world their City stood, we learn from severall Authours. [...] so St. Chrysostom: Chrys. ad Col. c. 1. v. 2. Theophyl. in locum eundem. Oecum. in locum eundem. and after him Theophylact, [...], or [...] saith Oecumenius; Colosse was a City of Phrygia, (now called Chona) as is evident, in that Laodicea was within its Neighbourhood. This City Herodotus styles [...], Great; and Xenophon calleth it [...], Prosperous, thriving, rich: so great, and so rich, that Pliny, reckoning up Phrygiae oppida celeberrima, the most famous Towns of Phrygia, counts this for one.

In this renowned City the Gospel was planted by Epaphras: which being done, the Devil, according to his usuall manner, raised up such and such Hereticks to subvert it.Theoph. in Argum. Epist. ad Col. Thus Theophylact, [...], There was a certain wicked Opinion spred amongst them: and what that was he tells us: [...], [Page] [...] They supposed that Man hath access to God and the Father, not by the Son, but by the Angels. But besides this heterodox and monstrous Opinion, Theodoret saith,Theodoret. in Argum. Ep. ad Col. [...], They had many Greek and Jewish Observations, mingling Heathenish Philosophy with Christianity, reducing the abrogated Ceremonies of the Law, and confounding Christ with Moses. The consideration of these erroneous Opinions and Practices, which Epaphras had made known to St. Paul, The [...] did [...], move the Apostle to write this Epistle; wherein, besides the Proem and the Epilogue, he layeth down, [...], the great Doctrines and Principles of Faith: he also gives them, [...], such and such morall Instructions and Rules of life. And because it was impossible for him in one short Epistle to illustrate or comprehend [...], the whole entire Systeme and Body of Christianity, in all its distinct and particular branches; he therefore refers them to that comprehensive and perfect Rule, the written Word of God, as being sufficient to arm them against all Heresies, to confirm them in the Faith, and guide them in their Conversation: and that's the business of the Text, Let the word of Christ dwell, &c.

The words contain a necessary Exhortation, given indeed immediately to that Church whereunto St. Paul wrote and directed this Epistle; but designed and intended for all Churches, yea and Persons too, where the Gospel is or shall be preached for ever. We have in them three things considerable.

[Page]1. The Matter or Object of that Endeavour and Study to which the Apostle doth invite us; and that is, [...], the word of Christ. But what's that? Cornelius à Lapide answers thus, Doctrina & Evangelium Christi, 'Tis the Doctrine and Gospel of Christ: and thus Calvin, who tells us, Vult Doctrinam Evangelii illis esse familiarem, The Apostle would have the Doctrine of the Gospel to be familiar to them. Estius expounds it thus; Fides seu Doctrina Christi, the Faith or Doctrine of Christ: [...], the Instructions, the Doctrines, the Admonitions, whereby Christ teacheth us; so Theophylact. Our learned Davenant extends the Expression farther, and takes in the Old Testament too: Evangelium, vel Doctrina Scripturarum; St. Paul means either the Gospel, or the whole Doctrine of the Scriptures. Accordingly St. Chrysostom here tells the Laiety, [...], St. Paul permits you to reade the Scriptures. So that by the word of Christ in the Text we may very well understand both the Testament: which Latitude of Interpretation is countenanced by some Manuscripts, which reade it, as Grotius observes, [...], the Word (not, of Christ, but) of God. And so the Arabick Version, Sermo Dei, the Word of God, even the whole Sacred Writ.

2. The [...], or Manner, which the Apostle prescribes, and every man must observe, in his reading and studying the Word of Christ. 'Tis thus expressed, [...], let it dwell. What's that? Nè patiamini Verbum Dei, quasi peregrinum, foris stare, sed intromittatur in domicilium Cordis vestri, saith our excellent Davenant; Do not suffer the [Page]Word of Christ to stand without doors, like a stranger, but admit it into the inward man: and when once 'tis received, keep it fast; nunquam ex animis vestris abeat, let it never go out of your minds; so Grotius. 'Tis the Observation of St. Chrysostom and Theophylact, [...] St. Paul doth not barely say, Let the word of Christ be in you; but, let it dwell, and that [...], richly, i. e. [...], in great abundance. 'Tis not enough to acquaint our selves with a few Passages onely; but we are concerned to study Prophetas, Apostolos, Evangelistas, saith Bishop Davenant, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, even the whole written Word of God.

3. The Persons whom St. Paul doth thus exhort to reade, study, and familiarly acquaint themselves with, the Word of Christ. The Text saith, [...], Let the Word of Christ dwell in you. But who are they? Certainly the self-same persons to whom he directs his whole Epistle; and that stands thus inscribed,Col. 1.2. [...], To the Saints and faithfull brethren in Christ which are at Colosse. The Expression takes in not Archippus, not the Bishop, not their Ministers onely; but the common people, even all that professed the Faith of Christ too.

The first thing considerable in the Text (and which alone I shall here handle) is the Matter or Object of that Study whereunto St. Paul doth here invite the Colossians and all Christians whatsoever; and that is, [...], the Word of Christ, the Law and the Gospel, Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles, the Old Testament and [Page] the New. Now that whatsoever is contained in any of these most certainly is, and may therefore most justly be styled, The Word of Christ, is evident upon a twofold ground.

1. Christ is the Efficient Cause of all the Scripture; each of the Testaments hath him for its Authour. See this distinctly in three Particulars.

First, Christ is the Great and undoubted Authour of the Law. Joh. 1.17. Origen. in Joannem. The Evangelist indeed tells us, The Law was given by Moses: but how that was Origen tells us, who thus distinguisheth; [...] We understand that the Law was given by Moses, but not from him. Doubtless Origen means the same thing which Erasmus thus expresseth,Erasm. in Joann. c. 1.17. Cast. in Joann. c. 1.16. Acts 7.38. Moses Legis Author non fuit, Moses was not the Authour of that Law; no, Castalio tells us, Quòd Lex data est, Divini fuit Beneficii, The giving of the Law was from the Kindness of God. As for Moses, 'tis said, he received the lively Oracles; [...], saith St. Chrysostom, Chrys. in Joan. 1.17. he received the Law from another; and so proved not the Legislator to establish and make the Law, but a Minister, an Herauld, a Scribe, to receive, proclaim and write it. So that Ebion, that pestilent Heretick, had no reason to think Moses, who is said to have given the Law, to be upon that score a greater man then Christ.

But although the first Promulgation and Delivery of the Law upon Mount Sinai cannot possibly be ascribed unto Moses, yet it seems very clearly to be attributed unto Angels. Thus St. Paul, For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, &c. [Page] What word was that? Theophylact tells us,Theophylact. in locum. [...] the Apostle means either the Decalogue, or generally all Commands dispensed by Angels under the Old Testament. Thus St. Chrysostom, [...], the Decalogue,Chrys. in locum. the Commandments: Lex Mosis, the Law of Moses; so Grotius. And of this Law the Apostle doth elsewhere thus affirm, [...], it was ordained by Angels. Galat. 3.19. How so? Ministerio Angelorum, by the Ministery of Angels; so Clarius. 'Tis the observation of Grotius, that the Law was pronounced by some one of the Angels, others attending round about him.

And that the Law was indeed delivered by some one single Angel, we learn from that of St. Stephen;Act. 7.38. This is that Moses who was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel that spake to him in the mount Sina: [...], with the Angel, the expression imports that it was some one particular Angel who pronounced the Law. But what and who this Angel was, 'tis somewhat uncertain. Grotius saith,Grot. in Heb. 2.2. it was unus ex praecipuis Angelis, one of the chiefest Angels; it was such an Angel as was counted worthy to represent the person and bear the name of God. So Moses tells us, God spake all these words. Exod. 20.1. And as Moses gives him this glorious Title, so doth this Angel himself assume and own it; I am the Lord thy God, &c. And that he was so indeed, the people believed; The Lord our God hath shewed us his glory, Deut. 5.24. and we have heard his voice: we have seen this day, that God doth talk with man, &c. From these expressions several Interpreters do gather, that this Angel who delivered the Law was the Second Person in the [Page] Trinity, whose various Appearances under the Old Testament were nothing else but, as St. Austine calls them, Symbola & Praeludia Incarnationis, the Symbols, Tokens and Essays of his Incarnation.

Gregorius Naz. Orat. 49.This is that which Nazianzene confidently affirms, Filium Dei in Monte Sina cum Mose locutum esse scimus; That the Son of God upon Mount Sina did discourse with Moses, is a thing that we know.Chrysostomus in Act. 7.30. And to this purpose doth St. Chrysostom expound that passage of St. Stephen, He was in the wilderness with the angel. What Angel means he? St. Chrysostom answers, [...] 'Tis the Son of God whom he calleth an Angel: and again, a little after, [...] the expression sheweth, that the Angel who appeared to Moses was the Angel of the great Counsel: Dionys. Areop. Coelest. Hierarchiae c. 4. and who is that? Dionysius the Areopagite answers thus, [...], Jesus himself.

And indeed, that it was some Person of the Blessed Trinity that delivered the Law, was the Opinion not onely of Philo the Jew, but of St. Cyprian, Justine Martyr, Tertullian, and some other Fathers of the Christian Church, who affirmed with one consent, revera fuisse Deum, that it was God indeed. But let us admit the Opinion of these learned and pious men to be a mistake, and that of St. Dionysius to be a Truth;Dionys. ubi supra. [...] The Scriptures teach us that the Divine Law was handed to us by Angels: Joseph. l. 1.5. so Josephus too; [...] Our most excellent Doctrines and most holy Precepts were delivered to us by Angels.

[Page]Well, suppose it be certain that Angels, properly so called, had to doe with the delivery of the Law; yet this doth no way hinder but that Christ may be, and surely is, the Legislatour still: for whatever this Angel, whoever he was, delivered upon Mount Sina, was the Dictate of God. So the same Authours tell us. [...], The Law was given by God; so Dionysius: [...], The Law was delivered by Angels, who had learn'd and received it from God; so Josephus.

And what Person of the Godhead it was,August. Contra Adimantum c. 9. Saint Austine thus informs us. Quemadmodum Verbum Dei, quod est Christus, loquitur in Propheta, sic & in Angelo loquitur; As the Word of God, which is Christ, speaks in a Prophet, so doth he speak in an Angel too.

I remember Caelius Rhodiginus tells us that the Law-givers of the Nations were very ambitious to make their Subjects believe,Cael. Rhodig. l. 18. c. 19. that all the Laws which they established were derived from some Deity or other. Thus Trismegistus fathered his Laws upon Mercury; Draco and Solon theirs upon Minerva; Zamolxis his upon Vesta; Plato his upon Jupiter and Apollo; Numa his upon Egeria, &c. Now that Divine Honour which they sought for their Laws ours hath, which undoubtedly is the Law of a God, or, as my Text words it, [...], the word of Christ, that Glorious Law-giver, with whom those of this World whom Seneca mentions for the wisest, Solon, Lycurgus, Zaleucus, Seneca Epist. 9. Charondas, &c. are not once to be named.

Secondly, All the Prophecies of the Old Testament have Christ for their Authour too.

[Page]'Tis certain, that those Holy men who delivered the Prophecies of the Old Testament to the Jewish Church were inspired from Heaven; and hence it is that the Scripture styles a Prophet [...],Deut. 33.1. a man of God, 2 Pet. 1.20. i. e. a man commissioned, authorized and informed by God. St. Peter tells us, No prophecie of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, [...] of private incitation, so our learned Hammond renders it: the expression imports, that the Prophets were not suae mentis, sed Divini Consilii, Interpretes, as Cameron words it; they did not reveal their own minds, but God's. Thus St. Paul, Heb. 1.1. God spake by the Prophets; they were [...], men carried, acted and taught by God.

And what Person of the Trinity it was that inspired these Prophets St. Peter tells us,2 Pet. 1.21. Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Thus Ezekiel, Ezek. 11.5. The Spirit of the Lord fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak, Thus saith the Lord, &c. There was [...], saith Cameron, the Spirit of God did invade, seise and enter the Prophets of old: and, upon that score, those Messages which they delivered and left upon record are commonly styled [...], the Holy Writings; or, as Dionysius calleth them, [...], the Discourses, Sermons, or Words of God.

And as the Prophecies of these Holy men with a respect to the whole Trinity are indeed the Word of God; so likewise with a more particular Appropriation to the Second Person they may be justly styled, according to the expression in the Text, [...], the word of Christ. For that this Blessed Spirit, by whom these Prophets were infallibly [Page] taught and guided in all their Messages, is indeed the Spirit of Christ, 'tis an Article of our Christian Faith, delivered to us both in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. For although the Title that was expresly given the Spirit by the ancient Fathers of the Greek Church in the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople were onely this, [...], the Spirit that proceeds from the Father; yet that it was their constant belief that the Spirit did also proceed from the Son, Pearson on the Creed. Epiphanius in Ancor. our excellent Bishop Pearson hath undeniably evinced from several expressions of Epiphanius, who thus affirms, [...], The Spirit of God is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son too; [...], he is from the Father and from the Son: and that, doubtless, not onely as he was anciently termed [...], receiving from the Father and the Son; but, [...], proceeding too.

And this Procession of the Spirit from the Son though the Scripture doth no-where deliver in expresse and open terms, yet it doth virtually contain and justly warrant it. For as he is styled the Spirit of the Father, so is he as plainly styled the Spirit of the Son too: so St. Paul, Gal. 4.6. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son. And as he is styled the Spirit of God, so is he styled the Spirit of Christ too: thus the same St. Paul, Rom. 8.9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, &c. So then, 'tis evident that this Blessed Spirit by whom the Prophets of old were inspired and acted is indeed the Spirit of Christ. So much St. Peter doth yet farther assure us,1 Pet. 1.11. The Spirit of Christ which was in the Prophets, &c. And methinks if that Holy Spirit by whose immediate [Page] Inspiration all the Prophets did speak and write were and is the Spirit of Christ, we may easily grant that every Truth which these Prophets, by the Guidance of this Spirit, have delivered and left upon record, is [...], the word of Christ.

Thirdly, The New Testament hath Christ for its Authour too.Rom. 1.9. 'Tis often styled [...], the Gospel of Christ. St. Paul calleth it [...], the Gospel of the Son: and well he may, for all the Sermons recorded by the four Evangelists are the Sermons of this Son; all the mighty works registred in these severall Gospels are the Miracles of this Son; all the Promises that are anywhere delivered by St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, are the Promises of this Son; and whatever Truth we find mentioned by any one or all the Evangelists, 'tis the Doctrine of this Son. Thus St. Paul, God hath spoken to us by his Son, Heb. 1.2. &c. Under the Law God spake by Angels and Prophets, that were his Servants; but under and in the Gospel he hath spoke more immediately by Christ, Who is his Son.

And as the main Passages recorded by the four Evangelists were thus immediately delivered by Christ in his own Person: so likewise those holy men, who were Amanuenses Dei, the Secretaries and Pen-men of the Spirit, to write what our Saviour did and preached, and so to transmit his Truths, his Commands and his Miracles to all succeeding Ages, were provided and raised by Christ too.Ephes. 4.11. So that Text informs us, He gave some Apostles, and some Evangelists, &c. [...], He gave, &c. but who is that? Idem ipse Christus, so Estius; [...], so St. Chrysostom: 'tis Christ, 'tis the [Page] Son, that gave. But what did he give? [...], Apostles, such as St. Paul, Silas, Barnabas, &c. to preach the Gospel; and [...], Evangelists, [...], so St. Chrysostom: he gave St. Matthew and others to write the Gospel, and by so doing to convey it sincere, pure and incorrupt to all Generations. And this doth Saint Paul acknowledge;Rom. 1.5. By Christ we have received Grace and Apostleship: hence doth St. Peter style himself thus, Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.1. &c. Christ himself was known by the name of [...], the Apostle of his Father; but St. Peter and St. Paul were His.

And as these Apostles received their severall Commissions from Christ, so were they careful to preach those very Doctrines which Christ himself had taught them. Thus St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.23. I have received of the Lord, that which I delivered unto you. Non confinxi pro Ingenio meo, &c. saith Cameron: St. Paul did not invent, but receive, what Truths he preached and wrote; they were not the Issues of his own Brain, but the Revelations and Dictates of Christ. And if so, if the Evangelists and Apostles, who preached and penned the whole New Testament, were not onely raised by Christ, but infallibly taught by his Spirit too, we may conclude, that this holy Gospell, which was published and registred by these inspired Persons, is indeed [...], the word of Christ. But,

2. The Scriptures are, and may be justly styled, [...], the word of Christ, not onely as he is the Authour of the whole, but also as he is the chief Subject and Matter of the most materiall Passages that are found therein. See this again in three Particulars.

[Page]First, Christ is the grand subject Matter of the Law. Gal. 3.24. St. Paul tells us, the Law was our Schoolmaster: but what Lessons doth it teach us? the Text answers, the Law was our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ: 'tis evident that Christ was taught even by the Law. Thus Calvin, In tota Ceremoniarum Pompa quicquid oculis ingerebatur, id quasi notam Christi impressam habebat; Whatever Ceremonies the Law commanded, they were so many Types and Representations of Christ.

And that Christ was indeed the Person concerned and aimed at in the Law, it seems very evident from that expression which St. Paul borrows from the Psalmist, Psalm 40.7. In the volume of the Book it is written of me, &c. [...], in the head of the Book. But what book doth he mean? Saint Augustine answers, librum Psalmorum, the Book of Psalms. But that cannot well be, because the Psalms in David's time were not yet collected into a Book. St. Hierom therefore expounds it thus, In the volume of the Book, i. e. In principio Genesis, In the beginning of Genesis. But if not so, if St. Hierom were mistaken in the particular Text to which the Psalmist referreth; yet we have all reason to believe that he meant the writings of Moses: for, as Ludovicus Cappellus rightly observes, in David's age there was scarce any other part of God's Word yet written praeter Pentateuchum, besides the Pentateuch, and perhaps that of Job. And to confirm this Interpretation of the Text, 'tis observed by severall Authours, that the five Books of Moses were usually styled by the Jews, [...] saith Muis, [...] saith Cappellus, [...], The Book; i. e. the chief and most excellent Book.

[Page]But whether the Psalmist, and after him St. Paul, do particularly mean these Books of Moses or not; 'tis sure enough that our Blessed Saviour was much concerned in them. So much doth he himself expresly tell the Jews, Moses wrote of me. Joh. 5.46. It was one great Argument whereby our Blessed Saviour did convince the Jews of gross Hypocrisy. [...], saith Christ, Ye do stoutly contend that ye believe the Writings of Moses, and doe what he commands; but indeed there is no such matter: for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; were ye indeed his Disciples, ye would have been mine too; for he wrote of me.

And that he did so indeed, is farther cleared from that Discourse which our Blessed Saviour had upon the day of his Resurrection with the two Disciples upon the way. The Text saith,Luk. 24.27. he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself: but whence took he the first rise and ground of his Discourse? the Text answers thus, [...], beginning from Moses. So then 'tis evident that Moses, who was the Pen-man of the Law, was the first Pen-man of the Gospel too; he was an Evangelist as well as a Prophet: and although he represented Christ, as Grotius words it, [...], by symbolicall Types and Figures; though his Doctrine of the Messias was involved and wrapt up, as Dionysius phraseth it, [...], in sacred Veils; yet, sure we are, the Matter of his Writings is [...] as well as Law.

2. Christ is the great and principall Subject of the Prophets too. The miraculous Conception, the wonderfull Nativity, the holy Life, the ignominious [Page] Death, the honourable Buriall, the stupendious Resurrection, the glorious Ascension and Session of Christ at God's right hand, and his coming again to Judgement, are all recorded by the Prophets. Insomuch that it seems very strange, that the Jews, who had long expected their Messias, should not discover Christ to be the man. St. Paul tells us, They that dwell at Hierusalem and their Rulers knew him not. Act. 13.27. But what made them to be thus ignorant? The reason follows thus, They knew not the voices of the Prophets: the Text imports, that whosoever knows the Prophets must needs know the Messias too; which is a convincing argument that they wrote about him.

The Evangelists do often tell us, that such and such Passages relating to Christ, such and such Circumstances that did attend his Life and Death, were signal Accomplishments of such and such Predictions. What expression more frequent then this, Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet? Yea, if it were fulfilled, then was it spoken too; if there was an Accomplishment, there must be a Prophecie too. And the truth is, the Prediction is often urged as the great reason of the Event in several Passages that relate to Christ. Thus St. Matthew, Matt. 1.22. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet. And thus our Saviour himself seems to argue;Luk. 24.44. All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Whatever stands written in the Prophets, we find accomplished in the Evangelists: his very Death, of all things in the world the most unlikely, could not be excepted.Matt. 26.54. Thus it must be; the Son of [Page] man must suffer and die; but why so? he tells us, The Son of man goeth, as it is written of him: written where? and by whom? St. Peter answers,Act. 3.18. God beforehand had shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ should suffer. 'Tis evident from these and many more like expressions, that Christ, and the things of Christ, were the great Argument, the principal Subject, nay the onely Theme, upon which the Ʋniversality of the Prophets did both speak and write.

3. Christ is the great Subject of the Evangelists and Apostles too. What is the grand Argument of St. Matthew's Gospel, the very first Verse thus informs us, The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ. Zegerus tells us, Hoc ceu Titulo totius rei summam, omnémque Evangelicae hujus Narrationis praesignat Historiam; The Evangelist in this short Title informs us what is the Summe and Argument of his whole Discourse: and that is, saith Clarius, tota Servatoris Vita, the whole Life of our Blessed Saviour.

Indeed Erasmus affirms, Hic Titulus non est universi Argumenti; This Title, which St. Matthew doth here prefix before his Gospell, doth not comprehend the Summe of his whole Book: and Grotius contends, that it is but [...], a partiall Inscription, referring onely to Christ's Originall. But however, what we want in the Title, we have in the Book, which from the beginning to the end contains nothing else but the Conception, Nativity, Life, Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ.

And as for St. Mark, who, as St. Austin observes, did little more then epitomize St. Matthew's Gospell, he thus enters upon his work; The beginning [Page]of the Gospell of Jesus Christ. And that this is indeed Operis Titulus, the Title of his whole Book, which comprehends the summe of all his following Discourse, and sheweth that his design was to treat of nothing else but Christ, is the acknowledgement of Erasmus, who denieth St. Matthew's Title so to be and doe.

And what is the Subject Matter of St. Luke's Gospel,Act. 1.1. himself acquaints his friend Theophilus: The former Treatise have I made of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach. Partitus est omnem Christi Vitam in Facta & Doctrinam, saith Erasmus; St. Luke doth here divide the whole Life of Christ into the Miracles which he wrought, and the Sermons which he preached; and tells Theophilus, that these two were the great Contents of his former Book. Thus Grotius: Haec verba brevem Evangelii descriptionem continent; These words contain a short description of St. Luke's whole Gospel, and shew that Christ is the Subject of it.

And as for the Acts of the Apostles, Quid aliud est quàm Evangelii pars? saith Erasmus, What is it else but a part of the Gospel? What contains it but an History of what the Apostles did and suffered upon the Account of Christ?

And what Saint John, our fourth Evangelist, treats of, the very first line of his Gospel tells us, In the beginning was the Word: 'Tis but one Word that makes up his whole Book, and that Word is Christ.

So then, 'tis clear enough that Christ is the onely Subject of all four Gospels; but what do the Epistles treat of? St. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do write of Jesus; but what doth St. Paul [Page] doe? 'Tis sure that no Apostle preached, no Apostle wrote so much as he; but what's his Subject? The Text answers, He preached Jesus: Act. 9.20. 2 Cor. 4.5. himself confirms it, We preach not our selves, but Christ. And as he preached, so he wrote too: 'tis easily seen, that in all his Epistles there are but few Passages to be found that do not one way or other relate to Christ. So that, upon the whole matter, we may safely say, as Maldonate doth,Maldon. in Luc. 24.27. Tota Scriptura Christum loquitur, The whole Scripture speaks of Christ. So Cornetius à Lapide too,Cornel à Lap. in Heb. 10.7. Tota Scriptura pro Argumento suo habet Christum; tota circa Christum versatur: All the Bible, the Old Testament and the New, Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles, do all treat of Christ; as Christ is the Authour of all Scriptures, so is he their great Subject matter too. And if so, we may well conclude, that the whole Bible is, what the Text styles it, [...], the Word of Christ. And since 'tis so, these Inferences will undeniably follow.

I. That the Scriptures have in them more of Excellence, Wisedom, Purity and Holiness, COROLLARIES. then any or all other Writings whatsoever.

Indeed, there may be, and certainly is, somewhat of worth in many other books besides: 'tis possible sometimes to find Gold among rubbish, and a Jewel may lie upon a dunghill. That there are many things of great use in Humane, nay, in Heathenish, Authours, no sober person, that reads and understands them, will deny. So excellent are the Writings of Plato, that I find him styled alter Moses, Cael. Rhodig. Antiquit. l. 30. c. 3 [...]. a second Moses; and the Ancients commonly surname him [...], Plato the Divine. Such are the Morals of Plutarch, (a man styled [...], [Page] the Venus of all Philosophy) that it was judged the fittest book to be preserved, if all books were to be burnt but one. Nay, so choise an Authour is that very Poet Homer, that Dionysius calleth him [...], most Divine. And methinks that little Poem of Pythagoras deserves its name, and those few lines of his are justly styled [...], Verses of Gold.

What great use may be made of Heathenish Moralists, Historians and Poets, we learn from those great Examples and learned men, the Primitive Fathers, Justine Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, &c. and amongst the Latins, Tertullian, Austine, Hierom, Cyprian, Lactantius, and many others, who overthrew the Idolatry of the Gentiles, and convinced the Nations of their abominable Superstitions and Practices, by the clear Testimonies of their own Writers. And in so doing these great Luminaries of the Christian Church did but follow the Example of St. Paul; who, to convince Pagans and Infidels, took Arguments from their own Authours, and translated some Verses of Callimachus, Epimenides, Menander, and Aratus, into the Word of God, and thereby made them sacred. And doubtless there is a great truth in that expression of Scultetus, Scultetus de Quaestione, Utrùm Theologo, &c. Fructuosè ancillantur Sacris, &c. The Testimonies of Humane Authours do contribute a great deal towards the Confirmation of many Truths, and the better understanding of the Oracles of God.

And if there be such a worth in the writings of other Authours, who were but Men; what value shall we set upon the Scripture, which is the undoubted Word of God? If the Laws of Solon [Page] be choise; what is the Law of Moses? If the Ethicks of Aristotle, Epictetus, Hierocles, Cicero, Seneca, and many others, be excellent; what then are the Proverbs of Solomon? If the Discourses of Plato be Heavenly; what then are the Sermons of Christ? Nay, if the Epistles of St. Austine, St. Hierom, St. Bernard, and other Fathers, be even Divine; what are St. Paul's then? Remember, other Writings are but the Writings of Men; but these are God's: other Books at best contain but the word of such and such a Saint; whereas our Bible contains [...], the Word of Christ.

II. That every man stands obliged readily and firmly to believe whatever the Scriptures contain and assert to be a Truth.

I remember, St. Paul demands of Agrippa, Act. 26.27 Believest thou the Prophets? and our Blessed Saviour himself demands of Martha, Believest thou this? Joh. 11.26. Certainly, were not man grown strangely sottish, such demands as these would have no place: and yet methinks 'tis a stranger Question which Christ put to the Jews, How shall ye believe my words? Joh. 5.47. But what should hinder? Is it possible for man to pretend any reason why the words of Christ should be so much as once suspected? So great is his Authority, so unquestionable is his Veracity, that his bare affirmation is a sure ground of Faith. Thus the Evangelist, The man believed the word. Joh. 4.50. But what moved him so to doe? the Text answers, and assigns this Reason of his faith, The man believed the word that Jesus had spoken. And such is every word which our Bibles contain; 'tis the Word of Jesus: and, upon that score, if we are the Disciples of Jesus, we stand obliged to doe what his other [Page] Disciples formerly did,Joh. 2.2 [...]. They believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. The truth is, the whole Scripture is nothing else but a Systeme of Words and Sentences which Jesus hath said and caused to be written: and if so, there is not a Verse, there is not a Line to be found, but requires and deserves our Faith. See this especially in three Particulars.

1. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, we are obliged to believe it in all the matter of History which is contained therein.

There are indeed such and such Historicall Narrations found in the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, so strange and miraculous, that, were they found in any Book besides, we might perhaps without any blame suspect the Writers Faith, and warrantably suspend our own. Did we reade in Herodotus what we reade in Moses, that this glorious fabrick of Heaven and Earth was created without any more adoe then onely this, [...], And God said, Let there be this and that; where is the man that, barely upon such an Authority, would believe it? Had Plutarch written the Life of Moses, as he did the Lives of Greeks and Romans; had he recorded the wonderfull Works of God in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the Wilderness; had he told us of a Rod that became a Serpent, of Waters that were consolidated into a Wall, of Rocks that were rarefied and melted into Wells, of Bread dropped down from Heaven, the Tast whereof was gratefull to the Ʋnicuique Manna secundùm propriam voluntatem in ore sapiebat, Aug. in Ep. 118. various Palates of every one that ate it: or, had Ovid told us, and onely he, or some other Authour like him, that [Page] the whole World was once drowned with water, and shall one day be burnt with fire; that a Woman was turned into Salt; that a King became a Beast, and fed on grass like an Oxe: had he told us, that the Chariot of the Sun, that wheels round the world with so strong and quick a Motion, stood still at one time, and went back at another: or, had some Humane Authour, who is of the greatest Credit, told us, what the Prophet Daniel peremptorily doth, namely, that a man was cast into a Den of hungry Lions, and yet remained untouched; that three persons were thrown into a flaming Furnace, that was heated seven times more then ordinary on purpose to consume them, and yet remained not onely unburnt, but even unsindged too: or, had any such Writer told us, what the Evangelist doth,Matt. 11.5. The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up: Such stories as these, had they been delivered by any humane and vulgar Authour, must needs have exceeded all the faith of the most credulous person which the whole World affords.

But although these Stories to carnall Reason may seem very strange and improbable; though the matter of fact be in it self so hard and difficult, that it doth rather discourage then induce us to believe them: yet since we find these things expresly and clearly delivered in our most holy Writ; since we find them strongly attested by Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles; we cannot, with any shew of Reason, without a great deal of guilt and sin, not onely deny our Assent, but even so much as suspend our Faith: and that because the whole [Page] Scripture, which contains these historicall Narrations how strange soever, is [...], the Word of Christ, that Christ who did not, will not, can not lie.

2. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, we are obliged to believe it in all the Promises which it contains.

1 Pet. 1.4.What those Promises are, St. Peter tells us; Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises. The Promises of God are exceeding great in their number, and exceeding precious in their nature too: there is not any one amongst them but is of more reall value then the whole world besides: so many, so sweet, so excellent are they, that a poor humble soul, who hath the greatest Interest in them, scarce knoweth how to believe them; as if they were too good to be true. That an offended God, upon the shedding of a few penitentiall Tears, upon a little Humiliation, Contrition and Reformation, which cannot possibly make the least Satisfaction for those frequent Injuries which man hath done him, should ever be so gracious, as to promise him that signal and inestimable Blessing, even the full Remission of all those Transgressions, which would otherwise have certainly damned him for ever! That, upon the Submission of a Sinner, God Almighty should promise to advance that Rebell to a Throne, whom he might have justly laid in that infernall Gaol, to be wrapped up in flames and chains of darkness, and that for ever! That upon some few Acts of such and such an inconsiderable service, which adds nothing to the ever-blessed Majesty of Heaven, the Great God should [Page] promise no less a Reward then an immortall Crown of Glory! Certainly, were such Promises as these reported by some mere man like our selves, nay more, were they delivered to us barely by an Angel from Heaven, they would not easily be believed. For, when some dejected and contrite Soul doth seriously consider with it self the dreadfull nature of its Sin, the worthlesness of its Repentance, the manifold imperfections and small value even of its highest Services, it can hardly enter into its head, that the one should so easily be forgiven, and the other so highly rewarded.

But although the Sinner, from the sad apprehension of his own Guilt, and his great Ʋnworthiness of those unvaluable Privileges which are the Subject matter of the grand Promises of the Gospell, may find in himself just cause to fear their Performance: yet when he seriously considers whose Promises they are, and where they stand recorded, he hath far greater reason to conclude their full Accomplishment. St. Paul tels us,Heb. 10.23. 2 Cor. 1.20. He that hath promised is faithfull: and again, All the promises of God in Christ are Yea and Amen. True it is, Man is but a poor Worm, a Sinner, a Rebel, unworthy to share in those glorious Promises that stand recorded in our Bibles: but what then? shall we take occasions from the Demerits of Man to suspect and question the Truth and Faithfulness of God? We must acknowledge that Promises of Pardon, Life, eternal Blisse and Glory, are such mighty things as pass our Ʋnderstanding; but must they therefore exceed our Faith? Methinks it should be as easie for us to believe them as it is to reade them. Certainly, if there be nothing too great [Page] for God to promise, there is nothing too hard for God to doe: whatever good words his Mercy hath made him speak, his Power and his Truth confirms: and for all this we have the Great Charter of Heaven, a sure word of Prophecy, even that blessed Security, which is [...], the Word of Christ. But,

3. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, we are obliged to believe it in all the Threatnings which it contains.

That the various Menaces recorded in Holy Writ are indeed most dreadfull things, whosoever doth but reade them must presently acknowledg. The Prophet tells us,Ezek. 18.4. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. What a sad condition then is the incorrigible Sinner in!Ps. 9.17. The Psalmist tells us, The wicked shall be turned into Hell. A dismal sentence surely! And, what is worse, the Evangelist, the very Gospel tells us too,Apoc. 20.10. They shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. What a killing word is this! So terrible are these and many other Comminations which we find most plainly delivered in our Bibles, that of all the Passages recorded therein these are they which man is most unwilling to believe. As for our scoffing Atheist, he is loath to believe that there is any such Being as an holy God, to call him to a strict account in another world for what he hath done in this; he will not be convinced that there is a most glorious Heaven to invite him to Holiness, or a most dreadfull Hell to scare him from Sin. And as for other ordinary Sinners, how apt are they to create themselves a God made up of nothing else but Compassions, Bowels and Mercy onely? They reade indeed such and such dismal Sentences denounced, in God's name, by [Page] his Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles; but withall they look upon them but as so many [...], Bugbears and Scarecrows onely. They cannot imagine that it is consistent with the Goodness of God, no nor with his Justice neither, to put such sad Threatnings of his in execution. For, say they, what great injury doth a little Sin doe to God, that he should ever think of such a strange Revenge? When a man enjoys the pleasure of his Lust, what harm thereby can he doe his Maker? If God be not one jot the better for all our Services, can he be so much the worse for our Miscarriages, as to punish us so severely, and that for ever? Is it imaginable, that for such and such Offences, committed in a short space of time, a God, that hath proclaimed himself so Good and Gracious, should revenge himself upon a poor inconsiderable worm by inflicting the most tremendious Torments, and those everlasting too? Yea, so reasons the foolish Heart of man: but what say the Wisedom and the Oracles of God?Matt. 25.46. These shall go away into everlasting punishment; so saith one Evangelist: Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched;Mar. 9.44. Luk. 16.24. so saith another: I am tormented in this flame; so writes a third. Now, whatever the Sinner may dream to the delusion and ruine of his immortal Soul, all these Expressions, and many more of a like nature, are expresly delivered in our Bibles, and so require our Faith; we find them in the Old Testament, we find them in the New: and if so, we are obliged most readily and firmly to believe them, because both these Testaments, even our Law and our Gospel, are [...], the Word, the infallible Word, of Christ.

[Page]III. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, we are obliged to obey it in all the Commands which it contains.

'Tis not enough to give credit to the Holy Scripture in whatever it saith, but we must also yield an universal Obedience to every thing that it doth require. For, as every Assertion contained in Sacred Writ, as being the Word of Christ, deserves our Belief, in respect of his Truth and Faithfulness: so every Precept delivered therein, as being the Word of the same Christ, expects our Obedience, in respect of his absolute Sovereignty and Dominion. See this in two Particulars.

I. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, we must obey it in all its Positive Laws, by doing whatever it doth require.

There are indeed many severe Commands which the Scriptures lay upon us: such Injunctions hath the Law imposed, and such Duties doth the very Gospel exact, as are quite contrary to the corrupt Inclinations of humane Nature, and consequently seem exceeding harsh to Flesh and bloud. Such was that unexpected Command of God to Abraham, Gen. 22.2. Take thy son, thine onely son Jsaac, whom thou lovest, and offer him up for a burnt-offering. Such another was that to Moses, Deut. 32.49. Go up to mount Nebo, and die. And such is that recorded by the Evangelist,Matt. 5.29. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, &c. and again,Luk. 18.22. Sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor, &c. Certainly these and many other like Commands, at the very first hearing, sound exceeding harsh and so severe, that were they imposed by any person of but ordinary Authority, man would rather hazard his displeasure, then [Page] obey his will by doing that which, in his own apprehension, doth so much tend to his Disadvantage. Should a man, like our selves, require us, upon the first wanton Glance of our dearest Eye, to pluck it out, rather then run the danger of second; should any man, like our selves, command us to lose the greatest Estate, rather then deny or dissemble the smallest Truth; should any worldly Power enjoyn us to lie in the flame our selves, rather then cast a little Incense into it; where dwells the man that would not disobey?

But although the matter of several Commands be so distastfull to flesh and bloud, and seems so contrary to that which man is apt to count his great Interest in the world, that, with some little plausibility and pretences of carnal Reason, it is wont to discourage and retard our Obedience: yet the due consideration of that Authority, Dominion, Wisedome and Goodness which hath imposed these Commands, even the severest of them, should excite and quicken us to obey. We are strictly charged to renounce the World, so far at least as it stands in competition with its Maker: and if this seem a difficult task, let us remember who it is that hath enjoyned it. We are bid to mortifie our members, to crucifie our old man, to subdue and kill our dearest lusts: and if these and the like injunctions do not please us, yet let us consider where they are recorded. There is not a man amongst us but doth avouch and own Christ to be his Lord, and the Scripture to be his Rule: and if so, since all these Commands, how displeasing soever to the nature of man, are imposed by this Lord, and contained within this Holy Writ; 'tis certain that [Page] we stand obliged, by all that Service and Homage we ow our Lord, and by all that respect we pretend to every Sacred Text, to obey even the most unwelcom Precepts, by doing whatever is required in any page or line which contains [...], the Word of Christ.

2. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, we are all obliged to obey it in all its Negative Precepts, by forbearing whatsoever it doth forbid.

'Tis not enough for the Servants of Christ to perform those Duties which his Laws require; but we must not meddle with any Sin which they do prohibit. 'Tis indeed very easie to believe, that there are several Prohibitions found in Holy writ that do as much oppose man's worldly Interest, and crosse his corrupt Inclinations, as many of its Positive Commands. So licentious is the nature of man, that it makes him impatient of all Restraints. We are grown like some fiery horses, that will endure a Spur rather then a Bridle; that never fret and foam so much as when they are strongly curbed. 'Tis somewhat hard to determine whether Sins of Commission or of Omission be the greater: whether that man bids the higher defiance to the Majesty of Heaven who neglects what the Great God requires; or he who doeth what the same God forbids. Nor is it easie to say, whether the perverse Will of man doth more incline him to disobey such and such Positive Laws, or to violate such and such strict Prohibitions. 'Tis sure that God's Positive Commands do frequently require from us such and such things which do by no means please us: and 'tis as sure that the Prohibitions of God do restrain [Page] and give us check in those things which our corrupt nature doth hugely like and love. When God Almighty gives us this Prohibition,Lev. 19.13. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against thy neighbour, doubtlesse he layeth upon us as hard a Task as when he exacts from us this or that.

But however, though God Almighty be pleased by his Negative Precepts to cross our corrupt Inclinations, to tie up our hands and chain our irregular and extravagant Affections; though the Scriptures deny us those matters which we fain would enjoy; though we must not doe what we infinitely desire; though we must not have what we strangely long for: yet notwithstanding we must gladly suffer our selves to be over-ruled, we must readily and chearfully submit to the Wisedom and Pleasure of God in all this; being well assured, that there is no one Prohibition, that doth concern us, but is a part of that holy Writ which is [...], the Word of Christ.

IV. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, we are all obliged to reade and hear it with that Attention, Meekness, Fear and Reverence, that well becomes it and us; it to receive, and us to shew.

What a great deal of Respect the ancient Servants of God have expressed towards the Holy Writ, is sufficiently evident from those reverential Gestures of body that have been used both by the Minister that read, and the People that heard. What Posture the Minister, who read the Word, was wont to use, the Scriptures tell us; They stood, Nch. 9.3. and read in the book of the Law. Our Saviour himself did so in the Synagogue, He stood up for to reade. Luke 4.16. [Page] And thus St. Paul, Act. 13.16. He stood up, and said. 'Tis the observation of St. Chrysostom, Chrysost. in locum. [...], It was the constant Custom of the Jews so to doe. True it is, the persons who expounded the Law did sometimes sit. Thus our Blessed Saviour, when he began to make his Sermon, 'tis said, [...], he sate down: and from his example, the Primitive Bishops [...],Clem. l. 2 Constitut. c. 11. Grotius in Matt. 23.2. sate in the Church and preached. But as for the [...], the person that read, his constant custom was to stand.

But what then? Suppose that not onely the Reader of the Law but its Expounders too had for ever been accustomed and obliged to stand, yet what Reverence doth this import? 'Tis certain that amongst the Nations of the World,Tacitus Dial. de Oratoribus. Ludovicus de la Cerda in Virgil. Aen. 6. Cicero de Orat. mos erat Oratorum stare, it was the general practice of Oratours to stand and speak. Amongst the Romans it was not onely Tully's Practice, but his Advice too: Oratoris staus sit erectus, Let an Oratour stand erect and upright when-ever he makes a speech. It was thus amongst the Grecians too. How oft doth Homer introduce such and such a person [...], rising and standing up to speak? His excellent Commentatour tells us,Eustáthius Il. [...]. p. 46. [...] Amongst the Ancients, if the King himself made an Oration, notwithstanding his Majesty, he was to stand up and speak. The reason of this Custom the same Authour gives us thus, [...] and thus Grotius too, ut rectiùs ab omni caetu exaudirentur; The Speaker, who-ever he were, stood up, that he might be the better heard by the whole Assembly.

[Page]But certainly, besides this Convenience of the People's better hearing, there was some farther reason why the Minister, who read or preached the Word, did rather stand then sit: and what that was, Carthusian gusseth well; ut Concioni ipsi honorem impertirentur; or, as Lorinus words it,Lorinus in Act. 1.15. & 13.16. reverentiae causâ: They stood to testifie what a reverential respect they had for that holy Word which they delivered.

And, doubtlesse, upon the self-same account did the People stand to hear too. Such was the Custom in the Church of the Jews. So the Scriptures tell us, Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people;Nch. 8.5. and when he opened it, all the people stood up: recti steterunt, they stood upright; so Vatablus. Grotius observes, that the whole Assembly stood dum ipsa Legis verba legebantur, whilst the express letter of the Law was in reading: and he tells us out of the Talmud, that this Practice continued in the Jewish Church even till our Saviour's time; Ad tempora Gamalielis stantes dudicêre Legem, Till Gamaliel's time they stood whilst they learnt the Law. And as the Jews stood whilst the Law was read, so did the Primitive Christians whilst the Gospel was pronounced too; and particularly that [...], that select Portion of the Evangelists which we now commonly call by that name. This Ceremony of standing up at the Gospel is laudable in it self, and venerable for its Antiquity too. The first Constitution of it is ascribed by some to Clemens; but by most to Anastasius, the first of that name, who was not Pope, but Bishop, of Rome. Nay, such a reverential Respect had the Servants of God for his Word, and every Part thereof, that, as the Jews [Page] stood at the reading of the Law, and the Christians generally at the pronouncing of the Gospel; so the Greek Churches,Microl. c. 9. as Micrologus tells us, were wont to stand ad lectiones Apostolicas, even when the Epistles were read too.

And lest all this Respect to the Word of God should seem too little, they thought fit to testifie what great Reverence they had for the Holy Scriptures by standing up, not onely whilst they were read, but whilst they were expounded too. Thus Lorinus, Lorinus, in Act. 1.15. Auditam olim à stantibus Concionem, &c. The people of old stood, not onely whilst the Psalms and Chapters were read, but whilst the Sermon was preached. Nor was this Posture used out of necessity, but from their own election and choice. They who thus stood at the Sermon were not onely men of low degree, who perhaps might want a convenient place to sit; but even the noblest Persons, who might have commanded what Seats they pleased.Euseb. de Vita Constant. l. 4. c. 33. Thus Eusebius reports of Constantine the Great, [...] When he heard the Sermon, he stood as well as the meanest person there. Nay, he would by no means be intreated to sit down; so saith the Historian, [...] the Bishop even begged of him to sit down and ease himself upon a Royal Throne, that was there placed purposely for him; but he would by no means use it. But what was his reason? why would he not sit? did he chuse to stand barely out of courtesie and complement to the Bishop or the whole Assembly? did he stand barely to evidence his Humility and Condescension towards his People? No; himself gives us another [Page] reason for it, [...] To stand whilst we hear the Oracles of God, is no more then what Religion it self commands us. Such was the Judgment and such was the Practice of this renowned and glorious Emperour. And yet lest this expression of Reverence towards the Word of God should prove too short, some higher ones have been used. I remember what Cornelius à Lapide saith of Charles Borromaeus, Bishop of Milan, Sacram Scripturam, ultimis vitae suae annis, Corn. à Lap. in Epist. ad Hovium. non nisi nudo capite & flexis genibus venerabundus lectitavit, he read not the Holy Scripture, no not in his Old age, but with a bare head and a bended knee.

Such hath been the Devotion of Saints in former Ages and other Churches: but how stands the case with us this day? What high Esteem, what inward Veneration have we for God's Holy Word? Alas! 'tis but sad to consider, that the generality of Christians do commonly reade and hear the Word with lesse regard then the profane Sinner reads his Romance or Play-book. We hear the Sermon as if it were but an ordinary Discourse, trivial in it self, and of no great Concern to us. 'Tis certain that the looseness of our deportment and carriage in the House of God, where the Scriptures are solemnly read and preached, is an infallible Symptom of our great Irreverence, and doth most surely betray the cursed Indifference and Slightness of our spirits. But let us remember what our Saviour himself commands us,Luke 8.18. Take heed how ye hear. 'Tis impossible to hear with too much Caution; we cannot reade with too great Reverence: and amongst many Reasons this is one, That [Page] blessed Word which we reade and hear is [...], the Word of Christ.

V. Since the whole Scripture is undoubtedly the Word of Christ, let us consider how much to blame the Roman Church is in equalling their Traditions to it, yea and in preferring them before it too.

That the Roman Church should endeavour by all possible means to keep up and vigorously assert the Credit of their Traditions, we cannot wonder; because they have no other way to maintain several Doctrines of theirs, which they are loath to part with, and yet can never prove them by the Written Word. Their Doctrines of Indulgences and Purgatory are so advantageous to them, that Chemnitius hath adventured to say,Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Trident. Coelum potiùs quàm Purgatorium sibi eripi paterentur, They would rather part with Heaven then with Purgatory. And since this Doctrine is so dear to them, who can blame them for magnifying those Traditions of theirs, by which alone this and several other gainful Doctrines of their Church are countenanced and supported?

What a great Esteem they have for their Traditions, we learn from their own Authours. Methinks Cornelius à Lapide ventures somewhat high,Cornel. à Lap. in 1 Cor. 11.2. when he tells us, Lex Tradita aequè obligat atque Lex Scripta, The Traditional Law doth oblige as much as the Written. That of Aquinas saith the same; Traditiones Religione unà cum Scripturis sunt tenendae, Traditions are to be observed with the self-same Veneration as the Scriptures themselves. But what need I mention particular persons, when the Conventicle of Trent, which, being [Page] approved by the Pope, is owned by them as the Representative Body of their whole Church, hath proclaimed their Determination in this matter to all the World by this Expression;Concil. Trident. Session. 4. Traditiones ac Scripturas ipsas pari pietatis affectu & reverentiâ suscipit ac veneratur SS. Synodus Tridentina, The Holy Council of Trent doth receive and reverence such and such Traditions with the self-same Respect and Devotion which it hath for the Scriptures themselves?

This Expression of those few Romish Bishops that were now convened at Trent sounds somewhat high: and yet methinks Bellarmine, as if he were above the Council, and willing to shew himself rather Pope then Cardinal, outgoeth the Canon of Trent, and braves it thus;Bellarminus de Verbo non scripto, l. 4. c. 7. Quaedam sunt Traditiones majores quoad Obligationem quàm quaedam Scripturae, There are some Traditions that lay upon us a greater Obligation then some parts of the Written Word. It were worth the while to enquire a little what those Traditions should be that are more binding then Scripture it self. We cannot reasonably imagine, that such a man as Bellarmine, that Illustrissimus Cardinalis, should be so fond of any Traditions that are merely Ecclesiasticall, as to tell the world, that the Church, or any Member thereof, stands more obliged by these then by such and such Texts of Law or Gospell. No, 'tis the ingenuous Confession of this Illustrious Cardinall, De Verbo non scripto, l. 4. c. 2. that Ecclesiasticall Traditions are nothing else but Consuetudines quaedam antiquae, vel à Praelatis vel à Populo inchoatae , quae paulatim, tacito Consensu populorum, vim Legis obtinuerunt, certain ancient Customes, begun either by the Prelates [Page] or the People, which by degrees, through the People's tacit Consent, obtained the force of Laws. And certainly, that such Traditions as are acknowledged to be from men, whether the Laiety or the Clergy, Councils or Popes, should ever be thought more binding then such and such Portions of Scripture, which the whole Christian Church doth own and confess to be the infallible Word of God, should not easily be affirmed. We must therefore grant, that those Traditions which Bellarmine asserts to be more obliging then some Portions of Scripture must be of at least an equall Authority with the written Word; which cannot be maintained without plain and equall Proofs, that such Traditions are Divine or Apostolicall.

That our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles might doe many Miracles that are not written, we are not afraid to grant: That our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles might preach many Sermons, and deliver several Discourses, which are not upon Record, we are not unwilling to acknowledg: There might indeed be severall Sayings of our Lord's omitted by the Evangelists, as well as that mentioned by St. Paul, Act. 20.35. Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give then to receive.Lorinus in locum.Lorinus observes, Non exstat in Evangeliis ista Sententia, sed Apostolorum one circumferebatur, This Sentence of our Blessed Saviour's is nowhere recorded in the Gospel, but was delivered by his Apostles by orall Tradition. And perhaps that other Sentence ascribed to Christ, though nowhere written in our Bibles, might notwithstanding be his too; Nunquam laeti sitis, nisi cùm fratrem vestrum videritis in Charitate, Be never [Page] merry, but onely then when ye see your Brother in Charity. These and some few more Sentences, not found in Sacred Writ, are imputed to our Blessed Saviour: and so is that too, by some to Christ, by others to some Apostle, Euseb. Hist. l. 7. cap. 7. [...], Be skilfull Exchangers: which words are styled in Eusebius [...], an Apostolicall expression.

And the truth is, that the Apostles might receive from Christ, betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension, directions to ordain Rites and Ceremonies, that concerned the Administration of God's publick Worship and the exteriour Discipline of the Church: and that these Orders and Determinations of his touching the Circumstances of God's Service were delivered to their Successours by word of mouth, and were not presently registred, we are not forward, nor indeed any whit concerned, to deny. But withall, the Church of Rome stands much obliged to prove, and that with clear Evidence and unquestionable Authority, that those present Traditions of theirs which they do so stifly contend for, equall to, and in some cases prefer before, the written Word, are indeed those very Traditions which were recommended to the Church by Christ or his Apostles.

This, I confess, the Romanists do pretend and promise to doe: but if they fail, what then? 'Tis the confident expression of Bellarmine, Bellarm. de Verbo Dei non scripto. l. 4. c. 3. Non est Audaciae aequare aliquid non scriptum Verbo Scripto; 'Tis no sawcy thing at all to equall something unwritten to that Word which is written: nor doth he think that expression of his too bold, Traditio sola sufficit, Scripturae non sufficiunt; Tradition [Page]alone is enough, but the Scriptures alone are not sufficient. Methinks such persons are much obliged to prove that these Traditions of theirs are indeed of Divine Authority, since they have a greater esteem for them then for the known and sure Word of God. For if it should happen that these Traditions, which are so highly magnified, should be found and proved the bare Inventions of men; those persons would appear somewhat too bold and sawcy indeed who have preferred them before the certain and infallible Decrees of Heaven.

This Aquinas well understood, and therefore knew himself concerned to maintain the Divine Authority of those Traditions, whereof he doth thus pronounce; Verbum Dei bifariam dividitur, in Scripturam & Traditiones, The Word of God is twofold, Scripture and Tradition. Thus Bellarmine too, who styles Tradition Verbum Dei non scriptum, the unwritten Word of God. And their Conventicle of Trent saith, that their Traditions were vel ore tenus à Christo, vel à Spiritu Sancto dictatae, delivered immediately by Christ's own mouth, or dictated by his Holy Spirit.

Thus doth the Church of Rome pretend a full and Divine Authority for several Traditions which they hold, though not recorded in our Bibles. And if this Assertion of theirs in favour of their Traditions can be proved with as convincing Arguments as those whereby the Authority of the Scripture is confirmed, we shall with equall Respect, even as the Romanists do, embrace them both. For though it be certain, that the committing of the Word of God to Ink and Paper was an excellent [Page] means to preserve it entire, and to secure it and us from Frauds, Cheats and Falsifications: yet the Members of the Reformed Churches have not so far lost their Religion and Reason, as once to imagine, that the bare writing of the Scripture should create and give it that Authority which is inherent in it. Insomuch that if any Traditionall Doctrine or Practice, that is now taught and used in the Roman Church, can be sufficiently proved to have been originally delivered by Christ or his Apostles, we shall as readily believe and doe it, as any thing else whatsoever that is required or delivered in any part of the Written Word.

But if bold and confident Affirmations be enough to justifie Unwritten Doctrines and Ʋsages, what Religion, what Sect, what Heresie will want such and such Pretences to plead for the Vindication of it self? 'Tis well known, that the very Heathens pretended that, as Plato words it,Plato 1. de Legibus. [...], the Disposition and Institution of their Laws, such especially as concerned their Religion, how absurd soever, was from God. It is the observation of Bellarmine himself,Bellarm. de Verbo Dei non scripto. l. 4. c. 4. In Alcorano passim legimus, ipsum Alcoranum de Coelo à Deo missum: It was, it seems, the pretence of that grand Impostour Mahomet, that even his Alcoran came down from Heaven, and was dictated by God. Eusebius tells us, that Menander, who was indeed but a Sorcerer, and the real disciple of Simon Magus, did pretend himself to be sent from Heaven. And that famous Heretick Cerinthus, whose very presence made St. John fly out of the Bath, who was an Enemy to the written Word of God, did make his Followers believe, that he received his [Page] Doctrines, though detestable enough, by Revelation from Angels. But what sober person gave any credit to him?

And what if the case stand thus with the Roman Church? what if those Traditions which they father upon Christ and his Apostles were indeed none of theirs? Sure we are, it was so with those superstitious Jews, who, in our Saviour's time, owned and stifly maintained, as the Papists now do, a twofold Law, [...], a written Law, and [...], an unwritten Law, or, [...], secondary Laws, [...], Hearings, [...], the Law in the mouth, and generally styled [...], Traditions.

These Traditions they received from the great Synagogue; that Synagogue derived them from the Prophets; the Prophets from the Elders; the Elders from Joshua; Joshua from Moses; and Moses himself from God: so they pretended.

But notwithstanding these fair Insinuations and plausible Pretences of theirs, to render their superstitious Rites and Customes the more acceptable to the ignorant and credulous Multitude, what was indeed their true Original we learn from Christ and his Evangelists, who style them [...], the Traditions of the Fathers; [...], the Traditions of the Elders; [...], the Traditions of men: and our Blessed Saviour, speaking to the Pharisees, calleth them [...], your Traditions: not Moses his, not the Prophets, not God's; but your own.

And as it was thus in the Jewish Church, so may it well be in the Roman too: 'tis very probable, that many Traditions which there are ascribed to [Page] Christ and his Apostles might deduce their Original from some other hand. Such counterfeit Traditions do we reade of, that were obtruded upon the Church in the Apostles names, very early indeed, even whilst the Apostles themselves were yet alive. So much doth that expression of St. Paul seem to intimate, We beseech you, brethren, 2 Thes. 2.2. that ye be not troubled, neither by word nor by letter, as from us. Grotius tells us, Multi fabricabant Epistolas sub Apostolorum nomine, There were many, even in that Age, that framed Epistles in the Apostles names, and ascribed their false Doctrines unto them. The same trick several Hereticks used in succeeding Ages. Clemens Alexandrinus tells us,Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Trid. ex Clem. Strom. 7. Sympson's Eccles. Hist. that Basilides, one of those Hereticks who were justly styled Borboritae, Coenosi, though he broached most detestable Doctrines, yet had the Impudence to affirm that he learnt them from Glaucias, whom he pretended to be the Interpreter of St. Peter. 'Tis also recorded, that Marcion in the Second Age of the Church, who was justly styled by Polycarp Primogenitus Diaboli, the First-born of the Devil, though he affirmed a Plurality of Gods, though he denied that our Blessed Saviour was,Ignatius in Epist. ad Smyrnaeos. as Ignatius expresseth it, [...], though he denied the Verity of Christ's Humane nature, and consequently the Reality of his Sufferings; yet he had the face to brag, that he received these abominable Doctrines from the Disciples of St. Matthias. And certainly, if such damnable Heresies were broached thus early, and pretended to be received from Apostolicall Tradition, we have no cause so easily to comply with such and such Doctrines of the Romish Church which have [Page] no warrant in the Written Word, barely because they assert them to be of Divine Originall.

But since an [...] will not doe; since bare Affirmations in matters of such great Concern will not be accepted; the Champions of the Roman Religion find themselves necessitated to produce some Proofs, which they pretend to be Great ones too. And amongst them all I meet with none that offers more fair then Bellarmine, whose Pretensions are so plausible, that if he prove an honest man, and make good his word, this whole Dispute will be over; and I dare engage, that the Reformed Churches will pay the self-same Respect to Traditions which the Pope and his Council of Trent do give them.Bellarm. de Verbo Dei non scripto, l. 4. c. 3. For thus he tells us, Traditiones eas tantùm recipimus pro Apostolicis, quas firmis Testimoniis Antiquorum probare possumus esse Apostolicas; We receive no Traditions for Apostolicall, but such alone which by the firm Testimonies of the Ancients we can prove to be such indeed. The Testimonies urged by Bellarmine and other Catholicks in behalf of their Traditions are drawn from Scriptures, Popes, Councils and Fathers; each of which we shall examine.

I. The Champions of the Roman Faith do pretend to prove their Traditions by several Texts of the Written Word; the chief whereof are these.

1. That Expression of our Blessed Saviour to his Apostles recorded by the Evangelist is one, I have yet many things to say unto you, Joh. 16.12. but ye cannot bear them now. Hence Bellarmine argueth thus, Constat Dominum multa dixisse quae non sunt scripta, 'Tis evident that our Lord spake many things that are not written.

[Page]But it will be no injury to Bellarmine's reputation, if we do not count him infallible, since he was, and would be, no more then a Cardinall; having begged of God, as some say, that he might never be Pope, lest perhaps he might probably be damned too; being, it seems, of the same mind with Marcellus the Second, who said, Non video quomodo qui altum hunc locum tenet salvari possit, I do not see how the man that holds this high place can possibly be saved.

But let us view his Argument. Christ said, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now: What then? The Cardinall thus infers, 'Tis evident that our Lord spake many things which are not written. MethinKs this Consequence is not necessary, nor can be proved, from this Text at least, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. All that can be gathered from this Text is onely this, That our Lord did not speak at this time several matters which he had to say to his Apostles, because they were not then fit to receive them. Yea, but the Cardinall farther adds, Illa quae promittebat Dominus se dicturum, dixit haud dubiè post Resurrectionem suam, Those things which our Lord promised that he himself would say, without all doubt he did say after his Resurrection; and that St. Luke doth testifie thus,Act. 1.3. He shewed himself alive to his Apostles after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Whether these things which our Blessed Saviour delivered to his Apostles were afterwards [Page]recorded by them or not, can neither be proved nor denied by any solid and certain Arguments, except it can first be infallibly known what his several Discourses were St. Chrysostom tells us, [...], Christ, at his several Apparitions to his Disciples after his Resurrection, spake words that savoured not of man, but of the Spirit. But whether any of these words were written, this general expression of St. Chrysostome's leaves us uncertain still. But mark another.Act. 1.2. The Text saith, He gave commandments to the Apostles. But what Commands might they be? were any of them written, or were they all afterwards delivered to the Church by Tradition? What the great one was, St. Chrysostom tells us, [...], Go and teach all nations, &c. and that, to be sure, is found upon Record.

But the Truth is, that expression of Grotius is undeniable, Multa dedit Praecepta quae hîc reticentur, Christ gave the Apostles many Commands which the Evangelist in that place hath not set down: but can the Romanists make it out, that no Evangelist, no Apostle hath set them down elsewhere? Lorinus in locum. I grant indeed, that if Lorinus have guessed right at the Subject matter of our Saviour's private discourses with his Apostles after his Resurrection, there is little or nothing of it in our Bibles: for, concerning Christ's talk with his Disciples, this man, as becomes a Jesuit indeed, giveth us his Opinion thus, Exposuit Authoritatem summi Pastoris, & Hierarchiam totam Ecclesiasticam, & formas ritúsque Sacramentorum, ac inprimis Sacrificii Missae cultum, & Invocationem Sanctorum, Dies festos, &c. He declared the Authority [Page] of the Pope, the whole Hierarchy of the Church, the forms and rites of the Sacraments, and especially the Sacrifice of the Masse, Invocation of Saints, the Observation of Holy-days, &c. 'Tis well guessed, bold Jesuite! but are these indeed the Doctrines which our Blessed Saviour, as Bellarmine saith, promised to teach his Apostles after his Resurrection? are these indeed the Lessons of which Christ said to his Disciples, Ye cannot bear them now? The truth is, neither Christ himself, nor any of his Apostles, could have born such Lessons at any time whatever.

But certain it is, those Doctrines which the Apostles could not have well born before Christ's Passion, and were therefore adjourned till after his Resurrection, were, and must needs be, of another nature: indeed, what they were in particular, cannot certainly be known.Aug. in locum. Thus St. Austine, Quaenam ista sunt quae Ipse non dixit, temerarium est velle praesumere & dicere; To affirm what those things were which Christ himseIf did not now declare, were rash and bold. Quis nostrûm dicat, ista vel illa sunt? Who of us can tell whether it were this or that? And yet for all this, whatever St. Austine thinks, that Jesuite Maldonate, as if he knew what Christ was pleased as yet to conceal, tells us with more of Confidence then Truth: Dicimus ex hoc loco constare Christum non omnia dixisse quae ad salutem nostram putabat pertinere; idémque fecisse Spiritum Sanctum credendum, &c. From the warrant of this Text we do affirm, that Christ told not his Disciples whatever he thought pertinent to our Salvation; and that the Holy Ghost did not afterwards doe it neither, we have cause [Page] to believe. Nay, to make way for Ecclesiastical Traditions, and the Pope's Authority to create new Articles of Faith, he makes bold to adde thus much; Idem ab Apostolis factum: ut non omnia scripta, multa etiam nè vivâ voce traderent, The same thing was done by the Apostles too: insomuch that they did not deliver all matters of Salvation in their Writings, no nor many so much as by word of mouth.

'Tis strange to think into what Absurdities and Contradictions the Romanists do run themselves, that they may justify those Doctrines and Practices which they are loath to part with. For this Jesuite Maldonate declares his opinion, that there are some matters of Salvation that were neither taught by Christ, nor by his Spirit, nor by his Apostles, either by Writing or Tradition: and yet Cardinal Bellarmine doth positively affirm, that the Church of Rome holds no Doctrines, maintains no Traditions, save onely such as they can clearly prove to be from Christ or his Apostles.

But as to those forenamed Discourses, wherein our Blessed Saviour did privately instruct his Apostles, and whereupon the Roman Church doth mightily ground their Doctrine of Tradition: though it cannot be certainly discovered what was the very Subject and particular Arguments of our Saviour's frequent Talk with his Disciples at his several Apparitions to them after his Resurrection; yet perhaps some probable guesses may be given; and accordingly several Conjectures are offered us by Interpreters.Origen. adv. Celsum l. 2. So Origen, [...]; &c. What were those many things which Christ had to say to his [Page]Apostles, which they could not bear? He answers thus, [...], &c. It was the design of our Blessed Saviour to teach his Disciples the utter abolition of the Ceremoniall Law, and the Mosaicall Ordinances. So St. Chrysostom guesseth too, [...], &c. Whether our Saviour speaks of the Abrogation of the Law, &c. And to this Christ might well refer, when he said, I have yet many things to say, but ye cannot bear them now; considering how hard it was for them, who were Jews, and the professed disciples of Moses, to embrace a new Religion, and quit the Principles of that wherein they had been born and bred. Nor indeed had this Discourse as yet been seasonable; because the Ceremoniall Law was not abrogated till the Sacrifice, Death and Passion of Christ, which then was not actually accomplished.

But besides this Guesse of Origen's and Chrysostom's, St. Austine gives us some ground for another, when he tells us,Aug. in locum. Mori pro Christo nondum idonei erant Apostoli, The Apostles were not as yet fit and strong enough to die for Christ. Which expression giveth us a fair Intimation of St. Austine's Judgment concerning our Saviour's words, I have many things yet to say: but about what? probably about their Sufferings and Martyrdom: but, saith Christ, ye cannot bear them now? But why not now? Surely it was now a time of trouble and sorrow with them; their hearts were almost broken already with the consideration of their dear Master's approaching Death and Passion: and therefore, saith St. Austine, Nunquid debuit illis ovibus dici in illo Tentationis articulo, quòd certare [Page]usque ad mortem pro veritate oportebat, & pro Christi nomine vel Doctrina sanguinem fundere? Was it seasonable for Christ to tell his Apostles, in this juncture of time and hour of Temptation, since as yet they were but as sheep infirm and weak, that they must expect to shed their bloud and suffer death for the Truths, Doctrines and Name of Christ? No; our Saviour was pleased to reserve these Lessons, that as yet might have seemed too harsh, as Origen words it, [...], for a fitter Opportunity, namely, the time after his own Passion and Resurrection.

That these Opinions of Origen, Chrysostom and Austine, concerning the matter of our Saviour's personall Discourses with his Apostles betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension, which the Romanists urge for their Traditions, are but conjecturall, we do acknowledge: but withall, we do avouch that they are ten times more probable then that of Lorinus. For, that the many things which the Apostles could not yet bear, and therefore Christ did not deliver till after his Resurrection, should be such as concerned the Abolition of the Mosaicall Law, or the Disciples own Sufferings, rather then the Authority of the Romane Bishop, the Invocation of Saints, and other superstitious Doctrines and Practices now taught and used in the Roman Church, as delivered by Christ in his forenamed private Discourses with his Apostles, is much more consonant to Christian Religion, humane Reason, and the Authority of the written Word.

And if so, if we may take the Judgment of Origen, Chrysostom and Austine, whose Opinions in this matter are countenanced by Holy Writ, [Page] rather then the Judgment of Lorinus, whose Opinion in this case the Scriptures themselves oppose; though there be in this business no Certainty on either side, yet if we have fairer Probabilities on our part then the Romanists have on theirs; if it be more likely, that the many things which Christ had to say before his Passion, but did not for prudentiall considerations actually declare till after his Resurrection, might concern, as the forenamed Fathers probably thought, the Abrogation of the Jewish Religion, the Calling of the Gentiles, and the Martyrdom of his Apostles, rather then those unwarrantable Traditions for which the Romanists do now contend; how then comes Bellarmine to assert that they are not written?

But, upon the whole matter, the Truth is this: Since 'tis altogether impossible to find out what those many things were which Christ had to teach his Disciples before his Death, but did not doe it, because as yet they could not bear them, till after his Resurrection; 'tis equally impossible to prove that they are or are not registred. But if the Romanists are of another mind, and will undertake by infallible Testimonies to demonstrate to us what were the particular matters of our Saviour's severall Discourses at the time of his severall Apparitions to his Apostles before his Ascension, then will we also undertake to demonstrate with equall evidence, when and by what Apostles whatever he so delivered stands recorded. And till the Roman Church shall make this out, certain we are, that those words of our Blessed Saviour, I have yet many things to say, assisted with those of St. Luke, he spake of the kingdom of God, prove [Page] not the thing for which our Adversaries urge them, namely, That there were severall necessary Doctrines delivered by Christ to his Apostles after his Resurrection that are nowhere found in the written Word of God.

2. But since these forenamed Texts will not doe their desired work, the Champions of the Trent Faith, who are resolved to endeavour the Justification of every Article maintained and concluded on by that illegal Conventicle of a few suborned, packed and titular Bishops, are obliged to try some other, if possibly they can find the least Countenance for their Traditions in Sacred Writ.

There is another expression of the Evangelist St. John that is often urged as a Text that will doe their businesse indeed;Joh. 20.30. and thus it runs, Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book. No; 'tis observed of St. John by one of the Greek Fathers, that he wrote [...], many of Christ's Sermons, but few of his Miracles. For 'tis certain that his Gospel, at the request of the Bishops of Asia, and in opposition to the Gnosticks and other Hereticks, was written last; upon which score he did advisedly passe by those Miracles which were already recorded by the other Evangelists; and so might well tell the world thus, Many other signs truly did Jesus, which are not written in this Book. And withall, 'tis observable, that the Evangelist doth not mention [...], other Doctrines, but [...], other Miracles, which are not written in his Gospel. But what then? what Evidence gives this [Page] to those Traditions about matters of Faith and Manners, which the Roman Church pretends to be as necessary to Salvation as those great Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles which are clearly found in the written Word?

I remember that St. Chrysostom and some other Interpreters do restrain this expression of the Evangelist to those Miracles onely which Christ wrought after his Resurrection, Many other signs truly did Jesus. Here Theophylact puts the Question thus, [...]; What Miracles were those which the Evangelist here speaks of? were they such as our Saviour wrought publickly and before his Passion? He answers thus, [...]. So Saint Chrysostom conjectures too, [...], It seems to me that the Evangelist means those Miracles which were done by our Saviour after his Resurrection; and that, [...], onely for the sake of his Disciples. And methinks this Conjecture of St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, hath a very fair foundation in the Text it self, which tells us, Many other signs did Jesus, which are not written in this Book, [...], in the presence, not, of the multitude, but, of the Disciples, and probably the Disciples onely; and that with a design to confirm his Apostles, who had been too incredulous, in the faith of his Resurrection. And certainly, if these Miracles of Christ were wrought in private before his Disciples, and for their sakes onely, to be, as Theophylact styles them, [...], Evidences and Proofs of his Resurrection, to remove their personall doubts, [Page] to satisfie their Curiosity, and to establish their Faith; 'tis not easy to imagine, that the omission of some of these Miracles by all the Evangelists should any way countenance the Traditions of the Roman Church, nor prejudice the Faith of the Ʋniversall, which hath otherwise such abundant Testimonies of Christ's Resurrection from the written Word, that it cannot need the Assistence and Supplement of Traditions for its Confirmation in that, or indeed in any other, Article of its Belief.

And as for those mighty Works of wonder which were publickly wrought by our Blessed Saviour, to prove his Commission from God, and to confirm the Divinity of that new Religion which he was then to introduce into the world, that they were not all written, we do easily grant. There might be several Miracles done by Christ which St. John and the other Evangelists thought fit to passe by, ut minimè necessaria, saith Grotius, as things no way necessary to be recorded. For although our Blessed Saviour, being desirous to doe good where-ever he came, and being willing to convince the whole Jewish Nation that he was indeed the true Messias, had frequent occasions to work various Miracles, because he went to severall places, and conversed amongst severall companies, where he met with divers objects of Mercy, and various persons that were to be brought over to his new Religion: yet we do affirm, that any one Miracle of his, being rightly considered and duly weighed, had been enough to have satisfied all its Spectatours, that the Person and Doctrine of Christ were both approved and sent by [Page] God. And this blessed effect some one single Miracle did sometimes produce. When Christ had raised Lazarus from the dead, we are immediately told upon that,Joh. 11.45. Many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

And if so, if one Miracle were sufficient to secure that End for which all Miracles were wrought, 'tis sure that we have enough recorded. What though the Apostles did not register all the Miracles of Christ [...], one by one, and with all those Circumstances that did attend them? St. John saith, they could not doe it:Joh. 21.25. If they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written. But what then? are we obliged to run to unwritten Traditions? are we bound to believe the Truth of all those Miracles which, as some say, Christ wrought in Egypt, when he was but a Child, as much as those which he wrought in Israel, when he was a Man, and thereby shewed himself to be the Son of God too? Are we no more bound to believe the miraculous Stories of the Four Evangelists then that related by Sozomen, Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 21. who tells us, that when Christ, in his Infancy, was entring into Hermopolis, there stood near the way an exceeding high tree, which, as our Saviour passed by, did [...], bow down his branches to the very ground, and thereby owned and made obeisance to its Lord? Of this Miracle Maldonate saith,Maldon. in Matt. 2.14. Meritò Traditio videri potest, 'Tis a Story that well deserves the name of a Tradition: and Sozomen saith, [...], This Story, and some other [Page] miraculous ones too about the same Tree, are testified by the Inhabitants of Egypt and Palestine. But are we therefore obliged to believe them with the same credit which we give to the Gospel? No; though all Christ's Miracles are not written, yet there are enough recorded to confirm our Faith: so St. John assures us, These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christs, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. And methinks, since the Evangelists have written, as St. Chrysostom doth express and affirm, [...], so many of Christ's Miracles as are a sufficient ground of Faith, such a Faith as will undoubtedly save us; we need not run to Traditions for more. But however, though the Evangelists have omitted such and such of our Saviour's Miracles, yet that is no proof that they have also omitted such and such material Doctrines of his, that are necessary to Faith, Manners, and Salvation, which must therefore be supplied, as the Roman Church pretends, by such and such unwritten Traditions. But yet,

3. There are some other Scriptures urged by our Adversaries, which, they hope, and make poor ignorant souls believe, will infallibly doe their work; such Texts, wherein Traditions are not onely mentioned, but in express terms recommended and enjoyned too.

2 Thes. 2.15.That of St. Paul is one, Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. The observation of Traditions is that which St. Paul doth here require, and elsewhere commend too,1 Cor. 11.2. I praise you, brethren, that ye keep [...] the traditions as I delivered[Page]them to you. Hoc loco se armant Papistae ad tuendas suas Traditiones, saith Calvin, The Papists arm themselves with this Text to defend their Traditions. So doth Cornelius à Lapide, who saith, but without a warrant, Hinc manifestè sequitur, non omnia quae fidem & mores spectant esse scripta, sed multa vivâ voce tradidisse Paulum & Apostolos, 'Tis evident from hence, that all things which concern Faith and Manners were not written, but that St. Paul and other Apostles did deliver many things by word of mouth. And thus Estius observes out of Theophylact, whose words are these, [...], 'Tis clear from this Text, that St. Paul and other Apostles delivered many things which they committed not to writing: and thence Estius doth thus infer, Locus hic palàm facit pro Traditionibus non scriptis, iisque necessariò tenendis, This place is a clear Evidence for unwritten Traditions, and proves it necessary to observe them. In answer to this Text we shall enquire into these three things.

1. We shall enquire what Traditions St. Paul here means, what their nature was: whether they concerned matters of Faith, and any such Points as are necessary to Salvation; or whether they respected such things onely as concerned Order and Decency, the exteriour Discipline and Government of the Church. Let us view the words again, and consider what St. Chrysostom thinks concerning them. I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, &c. Here St. Chrysostom puts this Question, [...]; What all things doth the Apostle mean? He answers, [Page] [...] St. Paul's discourse had been about not wearing of long hair, and not being covered in the Church; and for their observation of his Traditions in these matters onely doth he now commend them. So thinks St. Chrysostom: and learned Grotius is of the same mind too, who tells us, Hîc significat Praecepta quaedam pertinentia ad [...], St. Paul by his Traditions doth here mean nothing else but certain Rules which he had formerly delivered to the Corinthians concerning Decency and Order.

And if these be the Traditions in the Text, pray, who gainsayeth them? Not the Church of England; no, nor the Calvinists neither: for doth not Calvin himself thus acknowledg?Calvin. in 1 Cor. 11.2. Ego autem non nego quin aliquae fuerint Apostolorum Traditiones non scriptae; sed non concedo fuisse Doctrinae partes, nee de rebus ad Salutem necessariis. Quid igitur? quae pertinerent ad Ordinem & Politiam. I deny not but that there were some Apostolical Traditions unwritten; but I do not grant them to be matters of Doctrine and necessary to Salvation. But what were they then? why, such as concerned Order and Government. And the truth is, that these Traditions mentioned by St. Paul in the forenamed Texts were any other, the Romanists can never prove, and consequently gain no Advantage from them.

2. We shall enquire whether these Traditions, mentioned by St. Paul as delivered by word of mouth, might not afterwards be written.

'Tis sure that the Traditions in the Text, if, as St. Chrysostom and Grotius have conjectured, they [Page] were onely such as concerned Order and Decency, and particularly about wearing of Hair, and uncovering the Head in holy Assemblies, they are recorded; and that in the self-same Chapter too. And 'tis very possible, that whatsoever in any other place St. Paul styles a Tradition, might afterwards be written notwithstanding.

I remember, Grotius tells us, [...] est id quod docetur: Whatsoever is taught, whether by word or writing, is called a Tradition. 'Tis used in both senses by the ancient Fathers, yea and by the Apostles too. Thus St. Cyprian, Cyprianus ad Pompeium Ep. 74. Ʋnde est ista Traditio? utrúmne de Dominica & Evangelica Authoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum Mandatis atque Epistolis veniens? Whence is that Tradition? comes it from the Authority of our Lord and his Gospel, or from the Commands and Epistles of his Apostles? 'Tis evident by this expression, that St. Cyprian acknowledgeth, that though this or that be written, yet it may be styled a Tradition notwithstanding. So he farther explains himself a little after, Si ergò aut in Evangelio praecipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur, observetur etiam & haec sancta Traditio; Let this holy Tradition also be observed, if it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles.

And that the self-same Truths which St. Paul and other Apostles preached to the world were afterwards written, either by themselves or some body else,Adv. Hareses l. 3. c. 1. is evident from that expression of Irenaeus, Matthaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum linguâ scripturam edidit Evangelii, cùm Petrus & Paulus Romae evangelizarent & fundarent Ecclesiam. Post verò[Page]horum discessum, Marcus, discipulus & Interpres Petri, & Ipse quae à Petro annunciata erant per scripta nobis tradidit; & Lucas autem, sectator Pauli, quod ab illo praedicabatur Evangelium in libro condidit. The same thing is thus attested by Eusebius, Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 8. [...], &c. St. Matthew wrote his Gospel amongst the Jews in their own language, whilst St. Peter and St. Paul preached and founded a Church at Rome. And after their departure, St. Mark, who was the Disciple and Interpreter of St. Peter, delivered in writing the things which St. Peter had preached: St. Luke also, who was the follower of St. Paul, compiled in a Book that Gospel which St. Paul had published.Iren. adv. Haer. l. 3. c. 1. So Irenaeus saith again, Evangelium, quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt, postea per voluntatem Dei in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, That Gospel which the Apostles had then preached, they did afterwards deliver to us in the Scriptures, and that by the will, pleasure, and command of God.

And doubtless St. Paul intimates as much in that expression of his,2 Thes. 2.15. Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. What he had formerly taught them by word of mouth, and what he had already delivered in his former Epistle, is here equally called a Tradition. For, the truth is, the Substance of St. Paul's Sermons and Epistles, the Subject matter of his [Page] Preaching and his Writing, was all one. This seems clear from that expression of his,Phil. 3.1. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. What same things doth he mean? St. Hierom tells us, Eadem repetere quae praesens dixeram, To repeat the same things with my Pen, which I delivered with my Tongue when I was present with you. And thus did other Apostles and Evangelists too; what they spake at one time, that they wrote at another. Thus dealt St. Luke with his dear friend Theophilus, whom he first instructed by word of mouth, but afterwards by writing. So Theophylact tells us,Theophil. in praefat. Lucae. [...], I formerly catechized thee without writing, but now by giving thee a written Gospel. But what doth this written Gospel contain? new lessons or old ones? did St. Luke speak one thing, and write another? No; the reason why he wrote, Theophylact gives us thus, [...], I do by writing strengthen and secure thy mind, lest it should forget what things had been formerly delivered by word of mouth. So he tells us again, [...], I have therefore written thee a Gospel, that thou mayest the more firmly remember and keep the things which thou hast been taught by word of mouth.

And that St. Paul dealt thus with the Churches to whom he preached and wrote, we have ground enough to believe; 'tis more then probable, that the self-same Traditions, in all necessary points of Faith, which he taught them by word of mouth at [Page] one time, he also penned at another. Methinks we may very rationally collect this from what St. Chrysostom saith concerning that speech of St. Paul, [...] Cor. 11.2. ye keep the traditions as I delivered them to you: Hence that Father thus infers, [...], Therefore at that time St. Paul delivered them many things without writing. We grant it; but withall we must observe St. Chrysostom's [...], then, at that time; an expression, doubtless, that hath little of savour in it, if he doth not mean, that what St. Paul did thus deliver by orall Tradition at one time, he also wrote at another. And although the Epistles of St. Paul being written to particular Churches or Persons, upon particular matters, in answer to such and such particular Questions, and against such and such particular Opinions and Heresies, he had not a fair occasion in every, or, perhaps, in any one single Epistle, to give an account of every thing relating to Christ and his Religion: yet we do affirm, that if we take all his Epistles collectively and together, we shall find, that the whole Summe of that Gospel which St. Paul preached to the world by word of mouth is so fully delivered in them, that whosoever shall believe the Truths and perform the Duties contained in them, though he know no Scripture besides, shall certainly be saved. Nor indeed was it necessary that St. Paul should undertake to set down the whole Doctrine of Christ in every or any one of his short Epistles, since it was sometimes his command, and might always be his just expectation, that that Epistle which he wrote to one Church should be communicated to others also, for their farther Information too. And certainly, if [Page] all the necessary Points and substantial Parts of that Religion which St. Paul preached to the world by word of mouth were afterwards recorded either by himself in his own Epistles, or, as Eusebius and Irenaeus testifie, by St. Luke in his Gospel; the Roman Church will never be able to justifie their unwritten Traditions, those at least which they urge as necessary, from any one Instance or Expression of St. Paul. But,

3. We shall enquire whether the Traditions now contended for in the Roman Church be the same, or of a like nature, with those the observation whereof St. Paul requires from the Thessalonians, and commends in the Church of Corinth.

This Consideration is of great concern: for, if the Traditions of the Roman Church be of another kind; if they shall prove to be the late and new Inventions of men, not so much as thought of in the Apostles days; the whole case is so altered, that I do not see how it is possible for them to find the least Countenance from St. Paul. For all that St. Paul doth either require or commend in this matter is, the observation of those Traditions onely which he himself, who was guided by God's infallible Spirit, had delivered to such and such Churches: they are his own words, Ye keep the traditions as I delivered them; and again, Hold the traditions which ye have been taught by word, or our epistle. Here St. Hierom notes, Quando sua vult teneri, non vult extranea superaddi; Whereas St. Paul commands them to observe his Traditions, he doth in effect forbid them to introduce strange ones of their own. Now whatever Traditions the Church of Rome pretends to have been [Page] delivered by St. Paul to the Churches of Christ without being written, are of these two kinds.

1. 'Tis pretended that St. Paul, and other Apostles too, delivered some unwritten Traditions that concerned necessary Points of Faith, Worship, Manners, and Rules of Righteousness.

[...] Cor. 15.3.Thus he tells the Corinthians, I delivered unto you that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, &c. and again,1 Cor. 11.23. I received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, &c. 'Tis evident from these Texts, that these Traditions which St. Paul delivered to the Church concerning matters of Faith and Worship he received from God, and found them suitable to the written Word.

Now let us consider whether the present Traditions of the Roman Church about matters of Faith and Divine Service be such too: if they are,Cornel. à Lap. in 1 Cor. c. 16. v. 2. we oppose them not. They tell us, that the Observation of the Lord's day is an Apostolicall Tradition: we contradict it not, because we find ground for it in the written Word; we also find it mentioned by the Primitive and early Fathers. Ignatius (if yet that Epistle of his be not corrupted) tells us,Ignat. Epist. ad Trallianos. [...]. The Jewish Preparation was the day of Christ's Passion, their Sabbath of his Buriall, and our Lord's day of his Resurrection. 'Tis mentioned by Tertullian, who saith, Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, Tertul. de Corona. Greg. Naz. Orat. 43. To fast on the Lord's day we count it sin. 'Tis mentioned by Nazianzene, who styles it [...], [Page] [...], &c. 'Tis from the great Probabilities given us in the written Word, and the pregnant Testimonies of Antiquity, that the Reformed Church doth observe this Tradition which concerns the Lord's day with greater strictness then the Roman.

They tell us again, that the Baptism of Infants is an Apostolicall Tradition: we are so far from contradicting them, that we do not onely practise it our selves, but maintain it against all Opposers, because 'tis mightily countenanced in Sacred Writ, and commended to us by all Antiquity. Dion. Areop. de Eccl. Hierarch. p. 151, &c. I remember, Dionysius the Areopagite (if he that goeth under that name be indeed the man) tells us, [...], that Children who were yet uncapable to understand the Mysteries of the Gospel were made partakers of Divine Regeneration; and saith, that the Church observed this Practice, [...], being taught so to doe by ancient Tradition.Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Accordingly Nazianzene thus adviseth, [...] &c. Hast thou an Infant? let him be sanctified from his Infancy.Cyprianus in Epist. ad Fidum, de Infantibus bapt. And so St. Cyprian and other Bishops give their Judgments, Prohiberi non debet Infans qui recèns natus, &c. The Infant that is but newly born must not be debarred from Baptism. Whoever denied this was condemned by the Church;Concil. Carthag. Can. 112. and accordingly the Council of Carthage, which consisted of two hundred and seventeen Fathers, passed this Sentence upon him, [...] Whosoever denieth that little Children newly dropped from their [Page] Mothers Womb ought to be baptized, let him be Accursed. These and the like Authorities do induce us to believe that the Baptism of Infants, though no-where in plain terms commanded in Scripture, is yet a Divine Tradition; and upon that well-grounded Confidence our Church doth as constantly practise and as strongly defend it as ever theirs did or can do.

They tell us again, that the Institution of our Christian Festivals, and the observation of Lent, are Apostolicall Traditions. Well, though they will find it a difficult task to prove them such; though the first Institution of Lent is by some ascribed to Telesphorus; and though about the observation thereof there was, and that very early too, [...], doubts and various opinions,Irenaeus in Epist. ad Victorem. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. as Irenaeus and Eusebius tell us: yet, because our Christian Fasts and Festivals are very suitable to Scripture-Rules, and were observed as great helps to and expressions of their Devotion and Piety by our religious Ancestours, and indeed the Universality of the Christian Church, we do readily embrace and practise both.

But when our Adversaries press upon us, under the notion of Apostolicall Traditions, many things of Faith and Worship defined in their late Conventicle of Trent, though altogether unknown to the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church, and contrary to the written Words; we find reason to lie under the Anathema's and Excommunication of the Roman Church, rather then to comply wit [...] it in those Doctrines and Practices of theirs whic [...] are so exceeding far from being Apostolical [...]

They tell us, indeed, that their Veneration [...][Page]Saints is practised juxta Catholicae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum, Concil. Trident. die primâ S [...]ss. ult. Can. de Sanct. invoc. à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum, according to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church, and was received from the beginning of the Christian Faith: whereas the Invocation of Saints, now practised in the Roman Church,Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 627. is not mentioned by any of the Fathers till above two hundred years after Christ; and consequently cannot be imagined to be an Apostolical Tradition.

And as for the Roman Custom of Praying for the dead, by the Practice whereof in former Ages they would fain establish their Doctrine of Purgatory, and that especially to keep up the credit of their dear Indulgences: though we find this excess of groundless and uselesse Charity used in the Christian Church, and that somewhat early too; though St. Cyprian, in the third Century,Cyprianus Epist. 66. mentions Oblatio pro Dormitione, & Deprecatio nomine defunctorum; though Tertullian, in the same Century,Tertul. de Corona. mentions Oblationes pro defunctis; nay more, though Dionysius the Areopagite (who,Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. c. 7. if he be the man, lived in the first Century) tells us, [...], The holy Priest makes an holy Prayer for, or over, the dead: yet none of all these do assert this Practice to have had its Originall from any Divine or Apostolicall Tradition, as the Roman Church contends. Tertullian, indeed, concerning this and some other Practices used in his time confesseth thus, Si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam invenies, If you require a Scripture-command for this and that, there is none to be found: upon which score he ascribes these things to Tradition; but whence that [Page] Tradition took its rise, he doth not tell us. But the truth is,Chrysost. in Epist. ad Philip. c. 1. Orat. 3. in Mort. St. Chrysostom doth; who, in the behalf of persons deceased in the Guilt of sin, exhorts his hearers thus, [...], Let us assist and succour them to our utmost power. But what can surviving persons doe for the relief of departed Sinners? he answers, [...], let us both pray for them our selves, and beseech others to doe so too. And that the Dead should be particularly remembred in the Prayers of the Church at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, he saith, [...], it was ordained by the Apostles, and that not in vain. And that this Practice spred and continued in the Church after St. Chrysostom's time, is evident from that expression of St. Austine, August. de Cura pro mortuis gerenda. Non parva est universae Ecclesia Authoritas, quae in hac consuetudine claret, ubi in precibus Sacerdotis, quae Domino Deo ad ejus Altare funduntur, locum suum habet etiam commendatio Mortuorum. 'Tis clear indeed from these words, that to remember the dead in their most solemn Prayers at the celebration of the Eucharist, was grown, in St. Austine's time, the generall Custom of the Church: but that this Custom had its Originall from the Apostles, he doth not say. Nor indeed could this be the Institution of the Apostles, that there should be a particular Commemoration of the dead, and a solemn form of Prayer put up to God on their behalf, at the administration of the Lord's Supper, Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trident. p. 535. if that Observation be true which Chemnitius ascribes to St. Hierom, St. Gregory and others, in these words, Apostolos ad solam Orationem Dominicam celebrâsse [Page]actionem Mysteriorum Divinorum. If this be so, that the Apostles themselves used no other Prayer but the Lord's alone at their Celebration of the Eucharist, how can it be imagined, that those solemn Supplications which in after-times were made for the dead at the Altar should be of Apostolicall Institution.

But however, though the Church of Rome may pretend, but cannot prove, (for one St. Chrysostom is not enough) Apostolicall Tradition for such and such Doctrines and Practices of theirs; yet what Authority from Christ or his Apostles can they plead for those Articles of their new Creed, which their Pope Pius the Fourth hath impiously imposed upon the Church of Christ, and added to that received Nicene Creed, as if it were of equall Credit even with that, and to be believed upon penalty of Damnation?

When St. Paul delivered such and such Traditions to the Christian Church, he tells us, [...], I received of the Lord: but could Pope Pius say as much of his? and can the present Church of Rome say as much of theirs, when in their new-found Creed they teach us to say, I profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by Christ? Do they indeed gather this Article of their Faith, as we do all those in the three received Creeds, from clear Testimonies of Holy Writ? or do they collect this Doctrine and number of their Seven Sacraments, as their Patriarch of Venice is said to have done,Joh. 6.9. from that particular expression of St. Andrew, when he told his Lord, There is a lad here which hath five loaves and two fishes? When they [Page] require us to say, I profess that there is a true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice offered to God in the Masse for the Quick and the Dead, do they indeed father this Tradition upon St. Paul, who saith, Christ was once offered;Heb. 9.28. Heb. 10.14. and again, Christ by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified? Again, when they teach us to say, I profess that in the Eucharist the Bread and the Wine (and why not their Water too?) are transubstantiated into the body and bloud of Christ, do they ground this Tradition upon the words of Consecration, This is my Body; when Scotus himself, who was one of their own great Champions, hath told the world, that the words of Christ do not necessarily import it, and that Transubstantiation (for which Bellarmine indeed corrects him) was no Article of Faith till the Lateran Council? When they teach us to say, I acknowledge that under one Kind whole and perfect Christ and the true Sacrament is received, do they ground that Doctrine upon a Canon established by the Council of Constance, or upon the Example and Command of our Blessed Saviour, who delivered both the Elements to all his Communicants, and gave them this express injunction concerning the Cup in particular, Drink ye all of this? And that this Command of our Blessed Saviour was observed in the Primitive Church, where the Minister, according to Christ;s own Example, delivered the Consecrated Cup to all the Communicants,Ignat. in Epist. ad Philadelph. Dion. Areop. de Eccles. Hier. c. 3. is evident from the Testimony of the most early Fathers. [...], saith Ignatius; and [...], &c. saith Dionysius: there was then one Cup distributed to all. And if this were the known [Page] Practice of the Primitive Church, what ancient Tradition can the Roman Church produce for their Communion in one Kind onely? Again, when they bid us say, I do constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, do they derive this Tradition from the writings of Plato, who mentions three Receptacles for departed Souls; or from those Expressions of Prophets or Apostles, which say of all departed Saints, They rest from their labours, and of all departed Sinners, They shall be turned into hell? Once more; when they would have us believe that Saints and Angels are to be worshipped, that there is a Veneration lawfully paid to the very Reliques of Saints, to the Crosse of Christ, to the Images of the Virgin Mary, &c. do they ground this Tradition upon the Second Commandment, (which they could as willingly blot out of their Bibles as they have done out of some of their Catechisms,) or upon any Expression of St. Paul, both which do flatly condemn the Worshipping of any Creature? No; 'tis well observed by Calvin, Calvin. in 1 Cor. 11.2. Sub Traditionum titulo includunt omnes crassas abominationes manifesto Dei Verbo contrarias; The Romanists under the name of Traditions do include all their grosse Abominations which are directly contrary to the Word of God; and so are far enough from being those traditionall Doctrines, or any whit like them, of Faith and Worship, that are recommended by St. Paul, who imposed not any Belief or Practice upon the Church but what was, as himself words it, [...], according to the Scriptures. But,

2. 'Tis urged by the Roman Church, that St. Paul, and other Apostles too, delivered some unwritten [Page] Traditions to their immediate Successours which concerned the external Discipline, Order, Policy, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church.

Well, and who denieth it? not Calvin, who, though he were a great opposer of superfluous and burthensome Ceremonies, doth yet grant thus much; Paulus, Ecclesiae Corinthiacae primus fundator, Itstitutis piis & honestis eam formaverat, ut decenter & ordine illic agerentur omnia: St. Paul, who was the first Founder of the Church of Corinth, did so form it with pious and laudable Institutions, that all things there might be transacted without the least Indecency or Disorder. So runs that written and well-known Rule of his, Let all things be done [...],1 Cor. 14.40. decently and in order. But besides this Rule that he hath left upon Record, he farther tells them, The rest will I set in order when I come. And what he did, or enjoyned to be done, in pursuance of this Promise, perhaps might be never written.

But▪ as Calvin demands, Quid hoc ad insulsas Ceremoniarum nugas quae visuntur in Papatu? quid hoc ad Superstitionem plusquam Judaicam? What's all this to the insipid and foolish Ceremonies of the Roman Church? how doth this justifie those Superstitions of theirs that are more then Jewish? So numerous are their Ceremonies, that I cannot imagine what St. Austine would have said, had he lived in our times, who thus complained of his own,Aug. in Epist. ad Januarium. Religionem servilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum, &c. The Condition of the Jews, in respect of burthensom Ceremonies, was more tolerable then that of Christians.

[Page]I remember, Bellarmine reckons up no less then twenty two Ceremonies used in the Roman Church in the Administration of Baptism; and tells us, that they are all of Apostolicall Institution, or at least of great Antiquity: some of which are these; Exorcisms, Salt, Spittle, Chrism, the Wax-taper, the white Apparrell, and the Kisse, &c. And as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Bellarminus de Rom. Pontifice l. 4. c. 16. the same Bellarmine tells us, Apostoli legem condunt, ut sumatur ante omnes alios cibos, nimirum à jejunis; the Apostles established a Law, that it should be receiv'd before all other food, that is, by persons fasting. And yet that Rule of St. Paul, which the Romanists can never satisfactorily answer, stands upon record to the contrary,1 Cor. 11.34. If any man hunger, let him eat at home. Lutherus contra Hen. Oct. Hence Luther tells King Henry the Eighth, Apud nos non peccat qui modestè ederit & biberit ante Communionem, With us the man doth not sin who eats or drinks moderately before the Sacrament. And 'tis well known, that the Primitive Christians, who were very tender of all Apostolicall Institutions, did, at least in some places and upon some days, in imitation of our Blessed Saviour, receive the Sacrament after Supper. So much may we collect from that expression of St. Austine, who grants,Aug. Epist. 118. ad Januarium. Institutum esse multis locis, ut die Paschae post refectionem Deo offeratur, &c. that it was the Custom of many places, to offer (the Eucharist) to God after meat. And Sozomen tells us,Sozom. Hist. l. 7. c. 19. that some also dined before the reception of the Sacrament: [...], They coming together on the Sabbath towards the Evening, and having already dined, they partake [Page] of the Mysteries.Corn. à Lap. in 1 Cor. 11.21. From this Authority Cornelius à Lapide is forced to acknowledge thus much, Perduravit hic mos in nonnullis Ecclesiis per multa secula, This Custom of eating before the Sacrament continued in some Churches for many Ages: and yet is fasting an Apostolicall Institution? is it indeed Consuetudo necessariò servanda? a Custom that must of necessity be observed,Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 14. as Bellarmine contends?

But since Tertullian hath given us a fair Intimation,Tertul. l. 2. ad uxorem. in that expression of his, Non sciet maritus quid ante omnem cibum sumas, &c. that in his time the Sacrament was received before all other food; since Nazianzene hath assured us,Naz. Orat. 40. that the Eucharist was celebrated in his Church [...], before Supper;Aug. Epist. 118. and since St. Austine hath told us, Per universum orbem mos iste servatur, The Custom of receiving the Lord's Supper fasting is observed by the whole Christian Church throughout the World: we look upon it as a laudable Practice, and use it as an ancient Rite, though it will be hard to prove it an Apostolicall Institution. For St. Austine's Placuit Spiritui Sancto, &c. urged by Bellarmine, will not evince it; no, not upon the Principles of his own Church: for 'tis well known, that the Pope and his Councils do commonly ascribe to the Holy Ghost as well their own Determinations, as the Tradition of Christ's Apostles.

But although our receiving the Eucharist fasting were granted to be the Dictate of God's Holy Spirit, signified to the Church either by the Apostles themselves, or their immediate Successours in that Age wherein the extraordinary Revelations of the Holy Ghost were as yet continued; [Page] though, I say, this Ceremony of receiving the Sacrament fasting were certainly of Divine or Apostolicall Institution; yet doubtlesse severall Rites recommended and used by the Roman Church in the Administration of this Sacrament are not so. For, who commands that the Sacramental Bread must needs be broken into three Pieces, as if there were some great Mysteries signified by a threefold fraction? Who requires the Circumgestation of the Host? Who commands the Priest to sign himself, the Altar, the Book, the Elements, and all the Congregation, with the Crosse? Was it some Apostle, or their own Alexander, which ordained that the Sacramental Wine should be mixed with Water? What warrant can be pretended from the command or example of Christ, or any Apostle of his, for putting the consecrated Bread, not into the Hand, but the Mouth, of their Communicants? I remember that Canon of the Council of Altissiodorum, a Town in France, Concil. Altissiod. Can. 36. Non licet mulieri nudâ manu Eucharistiam sumere, 'Tis not lawful for a woman to receive the Sacrament with a bare and naked hand; no, if she want her Dominical, her linen Gloves, non communicet, let her not partake of the Sacrament: that's their law.Alex. Arist, Synopsis Canonum. Symeon May Epitome Canonum. I remember also another Canon established by a Council assembled in Constantinople, which runs thus, [...], The Communicant must frame his hands into the figure of a Crosse. And how that must be done too, there is a Jesuit who thus instructs us;Corn. à Lap. in 1 Cor. 11. ult. Dexterâ superpositâ sinistrae in modum Crucis, &c. Certainly these Canons are so superstitious, that they savour of a Pope rather then an Apostle: but [Page] however, they give sufficient evidence, that the Eucharist of old was received by the Communinicants with their Hands, not their Mouths. The truth is, the Roman Church hath no more warrant from any Apostolicall Tradition for these and some other Ceremonies used therein about the Eucharist, then they have for their half-Communion, whereby, against the Institution of Christ, the Discourse of St. Paul, and the Evidence of Primitive Practice, the Laiety are unworthily robbed of half the Sacrament, and are admitted onely to a [...], a dry Feast indeed.

'Tis very evident, that these and many other Ʋsages and Doctrines, received in the Roman Church, are not the Doctrines and Practices taught and required by Christ or St. Paul; no, such they are as have no Countenance from any clear Text of Prophets, Evangelists, or Apostles: and because 'tis so, because the Scriptures will never justifie those Practices and Assertions of theirs, they are resolved, and indeed much obliged in point of honour, to seek out for other Arguments to prove them: and what they are, we shall now consider.

II. The Champions of the Roman Church do endeavour to prove their Traditions to be Apostolicall by the Testimonies of their own Bishops, as if they were Infallible.

Thus, that the yearly Renovation of their Chrism is an Apostolicall Tradition, doth Bellarmine offer to prove by the Authority of Pope Fabian, who, in his second Epistle to the Bishops of the Eastern Church, tells them thus, Ista à Sanctis Apostolis & eorum Successoribus accepimus, Vobísque tenenda [Page]mandamus; 'Tis that which we have received from the Apostles and their Successours, and so we require from you its Observation. To this he adds the Testimony of Innocent the First, who, in his first Epistle to Decentius, saith, Si Instituta Ecclesiastica ut sunt à beatis Apostolis tradita integra vellent servare Domini sacerdotes, &c. If our Lord's Priests would entirely observe the Institutions of the Church as they were delivered by the blessed Apostles, &c. Now to these and the like Testimonies of the Roman Bishops, which are cited in the defence of such and such Traditions, we have two things to answer.

1. The Roman Bishops that have pleaded for the unwritten Traditions of that Church are not competent Witnesses; nor doth their Testimony deserve to be admitted in matters of this Concern.

'Tis notoriously known, that there are severall Traditions maintained by the Roman Church that are very advantageous to their Bishop, and others of their Clergy too, and that upon severall accounts. That Doctrine which teacheth the Pope's Primacy and Supremacy over all other Bishops and Secular Princes makes much for his Greatness, Splendour and Magnificence: that Doctrine which asserts his Power to dispense with Vows, Oaths, and in several cases with Matrimonial Contracts, either to allow or null them; that Doctrine which assigns him a Power, more then ordinarily Ministeriall, to pardon Sin, and deliver whom he will from Purgatory, &c. makes for his Wealth, and fills his Bags apace.

And if so, if these and other Doctrines do bring [Page] in such a Revenue to the Roman Bishop, and many more of his Church too; 'tis very likely that they will be so kind to themselves, as to plead for those Traditions by which alone those Doctrines can be maintained. That the Bishops of Rome have the usual Infirmities of other men, and may perhaps fail now and then in matters of Morall Concern, I think no man denieth. 'Tis a bug word that Baronius speaks of Pope Vigilius, Baron. tom. 7. Anno 538. whom he calleth a Thief, a Brigand, &c. and 'tis no great Commendation which Bellarmine gives of John the Twenty third, when he doth acknowledge him to have been a man vitae dissolutae, of a loose and dissolute Conversation; so dissolute, that fifty three severall Articles that concerned his Manners (for in Points of Faith the Pope, though an Heretick, must not be thought to erre) were exhibited against him in the Council of Constance, and proved by sufficient Testimonies. These two Instances (not to name the Sorceries and Treasons of Gregory the Seventh, nor the Concubine of Nicholas the Third; and to passe by the late pretty stories of Donna Olympia, who governed the Roman Chair, as Themistocles his little Son ruled Athens;) are more then enough to evidence, that even his Holinesse himself may erre in point of Morality.

And since other Vices are incident to the Bishops of Rome, why should we think it impossible for them to be a little tainted sometimes with those small Infirmities of Covetousness, Pride, and Ambition? Bern. de Consid. ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 6. Though St. Bernard indeed might tell his friend Pope Eugenius, Apostolis interdicitur Dominatus, Christ forbad his Apostles to exercise [Page] any Despotick Power, at least over one another; yet perhaps Boniface the Eighth might have in him some little remainders of unmortified Pride, which might prevail with him to accept the Title from others,Papyr. Mass. in vit. Bonif. yea and to style himself too Mundi Dominum, the Lord of the World. And though Alexander the Fifth, who professed himself a rich Bishop, a poor Cardinall, but a mere beggarly Pope, might perhaps deserve that Character which St. Paul requires in a Bishop, not greedy of filthy lucre: yet what may we think of John the Twenty Third, who was so covetous of Money, and heaped up so much Treasure, that he thought himself concerned to brand that man for an Heretick, who should dare affirm, that Christ and his Apostles had no Possessions in the World?

Now then, if the Roman Bishops, as well as other men, may possibly so far forget themselves, as to be guilty of Ambition and Avarice; 'tis not reasonable that we should admit their Testimony for the Justification of those Traditions wherein their own Advantage and Honour is so very much concerned: they are Parties so mightily interessed in this Cause, that there is ground enough to suspect their Evidence, and to imagine, that they will represent the matter, not impartially, as it really stands; but with those favourable Constructions, or false Glosses and Equivocations, which an ambitious or covetous heart may probably suggest, and a bad Cause doth certainly require. But,

2. Although the Testimony of the Roman Bishops should be admitted for the justification of their own Traditions, should we be so kind as to [Page] accept their Evidence in a Cause which so deeply concerns themselves, nay, should we pass a candid interpretation upon it, and suppose it to be impartial; yet neither so would it doe their work, nor prove firm, sure, and cogent. See why, upon a double ground.

1. The Testimonies of several Roman Bishops, especially those early ones, who would indeed have been very credible Witnesses in any matter which concerns the Church, have been counterfeited and notoriously forged.

Methinks we may use the same Consideration to invalidate the Testimony of any Roman Bishop, which Bellarmine himself doth to weaken and take off the Evidence of a Roman Cardinall. We find what horrid Crimes (if Simony, Heresie, Sorcery and Adultery be such indeed) are by several Authors laid to the Charge of Pope Gregory the Seventh. And because these detestable Villanies do much reflect upon the Honour of the Roman See, and do intrench too much upon that Fundamental Point of the Pope's Infallibility; 'tis the great endeavour of Bellarmine, by all ways and means to wipe off this Guilt, and to make the world believe, that all these Vices, objected against (as he styles him) an innocent Pope, were but unworthy Reproaches and base Calumnies, that were raised by Tilmannus and the Centuriatours out of a forged Book, that was fathered indeed upon Cardinal Benno, but was probably written (so Bellarmine would have it) by some Lutheran or other.

This kind of Argumentation we may justly retort upon the Roman Church, who justifie their [Page] own Traditions, and unjustly charge us with Heresie, as having departed from the true Faith of the Primitive and Catholick Church: and this they would fain prove by Testimonies produced out of some Writings, which are ascribed to several ancient Bishops of Rome: whereas 'tis very certain that those Writings neither were, nor could be, theirs.

'Tis the great Honour of the Roman See, that, in the three first Centuries, the Bishops who governed that Church were very choice and excellent Persons: we reade that Thirty and one successive Bishops of theirs, even from Linus to Sylvester, (if we except but Hyginus and Pius, who lived under the kinder Empire of Antoninus Pius) were Martyrs, or Confessours at least. The memory of these Champions and stout Assertours of the true Catholick Faith being precious, and their Authority being venerable in the Church of Christ; some well-wishers to the present Roman Church, that there might be some pretence of great Antiquity for their superstitious Novelties, have written such and such Epistles, Constitutions, and other Tracts, in the names of these Primitive Roman Bishops, which they have published and sent abroad into the world with as much confidence as if they were genuine and authentick indeed.

What Authority such Epistles have in the Roman Church, we learn from Gratian, who equals them to the Definitions of General Councils; and is not ashamed to make St. Austine say, that they are equal to the very written Word of God. But St. Austine is so much wronged in being produced [Page] by Gratian as the Authour of such an intolerable Assertion, that Bellarmine, who for once hath something more of Modesty, doth thus excuse it, Deceptus est Gratianus ex depravato Codice quem ipse habuit beati Augustini, Gratian was deceived by a corrupted Copy which he had of St. Austine's Works. But however, though Bellarmine dare not equal these Decretall Epistles to the very written Oracles of God; yet 'tis clear enough, that himself, Baronius, and others of the Roman Faith, do use the Authority of these forged Epistles to countenance several Doctrines and Practices wherein the Reformed Church and theirs differ.

And yet for all this, there are several learned Writers of the Roman Church, who cannot but acknowledge that such and such Epistles, Constitution, Recognitions, fathered upon their Primitive and Martyred Bishops, are shrewdly suspected, yea and clearly proved too, to be false and counterfeit. Lor. in Act. 20.35. Thus Lorinus, Verborum Domini liber tam est Apocryphus, quàm in quibus memorantur Clementis Recognitiones; The Book of our Lord's Words is as Apocryphall, as the Recognitions of Clemens, wherein that Book is mentioned. He tells us indeed, Clementis Constitutiones paulò majoris sunt fidei, the Constitutions of Clemens are of a little more Credit. But are these unquestionable?Lor. Act. 1.13. no; that he denieth: Clementis libri Constitutionum non sunt usquequaque indubitatae Authoritatis, The Constitutions of Clemens are not of an Authority that is undoubted altogether. And what else can we think of those Decretal Epistles that are ascribed to Zephyrinus, which contain [Page] things foolish, ridiculous, and false: as, that the Consecration of the Holy Cup must be in a vessel of Glasse onely; that a Bishop must be accused before twelve Judges, and that Evidence against him must be made by seventy two Witnesses? How contrary is this, not onely to Scripture, but to those very Canons which are ascribed to the Apostles? whereof this is one, [...]. And to the same purpose the Council of Nice too, [...]. These Canons, according to the Rules of St. Paul, require the Testimony two or three Witnesses onely even against a Bishop; whereas the pretended Decree of Zephyrinus demands seventy two, and that with an Appeal to Rome, which is enough to prove it false and forged.

Such a counterfeit Epistle too was the second of those two fathered upon Pontianus, which begins thus, Pontianus Sanctae & Ʋniversalis Ecclesiae Episcopus, Pontianus the Bishop of the Holy and Ʋniversal Church. This Title, in those early days unknown to the World, being as yet not claimed nor assumed by any Roman Bishop, but afterwards denied and decried by Gregory the Great, gives us a fair and clear Evidence, that this Epistle is counterfeit and written by some other hand, as well as those of Fabianus, Stephanus, and some other succeeding Bishops, with a design to pretend something of Antiquity for the defence of those unwarrantable Doctrines and Practices of the present Roman Church, for which they can produce no fair and clear Evidence from the genuine and [Page] acknowledged writings of the most ancient Fathers.

And as for the Decrees, Constitutions and Canons of the Bishops of Rome which have sate in that Chair since the time of Sylvester; what security have we but that these also may have been changed, corrupted, and falsified, according as the exigence of the Roman Church hath so required? Bellarmine tells us,Leo. in Ep. 83. ad Paleast. that Pope Leo complained, that whilst he himself was yet alive, the Graecians had corrupted his Epistle to Flavianus: and why might not the Latines, for their own ends, doe as much? What reason have we to give credit to such and such Papal Decretals, Bellar. de Pontif. R. l. 4. c. 12. when Bellarmine himself, being pressed with a Canon of Zacharias that made against him, had little to say but this, Zachariae Canon mihi valde suspectus est, This Canon of Zacharias I do very much suspect? And the truth is, we are so much of his mind, and have so much cause to be jealous, that many Canons and Constitutions ascribed to such and such Bishops of Rome were indeed none of theirs, but onely forged and counterfeited, that we cannot upon their Authority admit those Doctrines and Practices for which we can find no warrant in the written Word of God. But,

2. The Testimony of Roman Bishops, in the Cause of Traditions, is not firm and sure, because the Pope, at least in matters of this nature, notwithstanding their Pretence of his being Infallible, may possibly be deceived himself; and, if so, he may deceive us too.

'Tis the free Concession of Bellarmine, and that, as he saith, wherein all Catholicks do agree, Posse [Page]Pontificem, etiam ut Pontificem, & cum suo coetu Consiliariorum, vel cum Generali Concilio, errare in Controversiis facti particularibus, quae ex Informatione Testimoniísque hominum pendent; That the Pope, considered as Pope, with his private or General Council, may erre in particular matters of Fact, which depend upon the Information and Testimonies of other men. And that seems to be the Case in hand: the business of Traditions is a matter of Fact, and the whole Controversie under our present Disquisition is onely this, Whether Christ delivered to his Apostles, the Apostles to the Primitive Bishops, they to their immediate Successours, and so from Age to Age, such and such particular Doctrines and Practices as are now contended for by the Roman Church. So that the whole Question in hand being concerned about matters of Fact, wherein they themselves acknowledge the Fallibility of the Pope, we have little Reason to acquiesce in his Determinations, and to be so well satisfied with his Testimony, as to think our selves obliged thereby to believe and doe those things which the Scriptures do neither assert nor command.

But what if the Pope may erre in considerable Points of Faith too, and become an Heretick? are we obliged to believe his Testimony even then too? Photius tells us, that by the Canon-Law,Phot. Tit. 12. [...], Hereticks might not in any Judicature be admitted to bear witness against any Orthodox Christian within the Church. And certainly, if Heresie be a Crime of that nature, as that it hath been thought enough to exclude or evacuate any man's Evidence in Civil [Page] Causes; we shall have but little reason to admit any person, that is as liable to Heresie as other men, as an infallible Witnesse in matters of Spiritual and Sacred Concern.

And that several Bishops of Rome have been, not onely shrewdly suspected, but publickly accused and condemned too, and that of the foulest Heresies, 'tis not to be denied by any man whose brow is not made of Brass. 'Tis recorded by several Authours, and those of good name and credit, that some Roman Bishops have been Monothelites, some Montanists, some Eutychians, some Arrians, yea and some downright Atheists too. But the Charge being heavy against them, and the Honour of the Roman See lying at stake, and the Pope's Infallibility also being herein somewhat concerned, we must enquire into the Witnesses, and see that they are [...], such as deserve to be believed. For so justly tender is the Christian Church of the reputation of her Bishops, that she will not admit all persons whatsoever to bring in Evidence against them. No, the sixth Canon of the Second General Council forbids it, [...] No man shall be admitted to accuse a Bishop, till first his quality be duely examined; nor shall every fellow be suffered to exhibit Articles against the Governours of the Church. And as every man might not accuse a Bishop, so whosoever wrongfully did it, though it were but a Bishop elect, and yet to be ordained, he was severely punished: [...], Let his Penalty be a long Excommunication. So saith the Canon-Law.

[Page]So then, since there is an Indictment of no less Crimes then Atheism and Heresie drawn up and exhibited against several Bishops, and those of the Roman See too, who claim a Superiority over all Bishops besides, as being the onely Successours of the Prime Apostle, and the immediate Vicars of Christ; 'tis of a considerable Concern, that what is thus alledged against them be well proved too.

And here, that Pope Marcellinus offered Incense to Idols, might be proved with ease and evidence enough: but because he did it barely for fear of Diocletian, and afterwards repented and became a Martyr, we pass him by.Rhenan. Annot. in Tertul. lib. contra Praxeam. Rhenanus saith of Pope Zephyrinus, Episcopus Romanus Montanizat, The Bishop of Rome embraceth the Heresie of Montanus. So Tertullian, who was too much of the same Opinion, witnesseth too. That Pope Honorius the First was a Monothelite, and denied the distinction of two Wills in Christ, we have the Testimonies of Pope Agatho, Leo the Second, Adrian the Second, besides the Evidence of the Sixth General Council, wherein he was publickly condemned for an Heretick. That Pope Liberius, and his Antipope Felix, were Arrians, is testified by Athanasius, and St. Hierom too. Nor need we be ashamed to produce the Testimony of Calvin and Erasmus, who do both affirm that Pope John the Twenty second denied the Immortality of the Soul. And what if we mention that Expression of Picus Mirandula? Alium meminimus Pontificem, qui nullum Deum credens, &c. We remember another Pope, who believing that there is no God, &c. But that of the Council of Basil must not be forgot, which, having voted a [Page] General Council to be above the Pope, could not possibly give a better Reason for it then this; Multi Pontifices in Errores & Haereses lapsi esse leguntur, &c. 'Tis recorded that many Popes have fell into Errours and Heresies, &c. And the truth is, there is no Pope, who stifly maintains those Doctrines which assert the worshipping of Angels, Saints, Images, Reliques, a Morsel of Bread, or a Consecrated Wafer, but is a down-right Heretick: and since he is so, we cannot so far betray our own Reason, as to rest satisfied and be convinced, that such and such Doctrines, which have no Countenance in Scripture, are Apostolical, by the Testimony of any Roman Bishop, who, notwithstanding the Pretence of his Infallibility, is proved to be obnoxious to gross Errours, even Heresie and Atheism it self, as well as other men. But,

III. The Champions of the Roman Faith do endeavour to justifie their unwritten Traditions by the Testimonies of the Fathers; who are produced as Witnesses which seem, in their account, to speak a great deal for them.

Thus Bellarmine cites Ignatius, who is an early and substantial Witness indeed, as being [...], the Coetane, Collegue and Scholar of the very Apostles themselves: and of him Eusebius thus records,Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 36. [...] He exhorted the Christians to stick fast to the Traditions of the Apostles; and, that they might be preserved incorrupt, not long before his Martyrdom he judged it necessary that they should be written. This Testimony is clear for traditions; and so is that of Dionysius the [Page] Areopagite too,Dionys. Areop. Hier. Eccles. c. 1. [...], &c. The first Founders of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (the Apostles) delivered to us Heavenly Mysteries by Instructions written and unwritten according to the Sacred Laws. And thus great St. Basil too,Basil. Magn▪ de Sp. S. c. 29. [...]. To persevere in unwritten Traditions, I think 'tis Apostolical. Tertul. de Corona Mil. And so Tertullian also mentions several particular Observations, quas, sine ullo Scripturae Instrumento, solius Traditionis titulo, & exinde Consuetudinis patrocinio, vindicamus, &c. which the Church practised and defended, without the Authority of any Scripture, upon the bare credit of Tradition, and the Patronage of Custom, &c.

Now, this being Argumentum Achilleum, one of the strongest Arguments which the Romish Church can possibly urge for their Traditions, we shall give an Answer to it in some distinct Particulars.

1. Whatever Traditions are expresly and dogmatically delivered by the Ʋniversality of the ancient Fathers, we do readily embrace, own, and defend.

That Expression of St. Basil the Great we do willingly close with,Basil. M. de Sp. S. c. 29. [...] Old Doctrines are to be reverenced; and for, as it were, their hoary Antiquity, they deserve a Veneration. But withall those Doctrines that may justly challenge a respect for their Age must be such as were generally received, believed, and practised; according to that Rule which Vincentius Lyrinensis [Page] gives us, Id teneamus quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est, Let us hold that which hath been believed at all times, in all places, and by all Christians. Aug. in Epist. ad Jan. 118. And for this St. Austine gives this Reason, Illa quae non sunt scripta, sed tradita, custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur, dantur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis Conciliis (quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima Authoritas) commendata atque statuta retineri: sicuti quòd Domini Passio, & Resurrectio, & Ascensio in Coelum, & adventus de Coelo Spiritûs Sancti, anniversariâ Solennitate celebrantur; & siquid aliud tale occurrerit, quod servatur ab universa quácunque se diffundit Ecclesia. This Expression commends the belief and practice of those Traditions, supposing them to be the Institutions either of the Apostles themselves, or ancient General Councils, which were unanimously observed by the universal Church.

But now, that such and such traditional Doctrines and Ʋsages were indeed generally received by the whole Christian Church, we must have clear Proofs from credible Witnesses, that have given Testimony thereunto throughout all the respective Centuries and Ages of the Church. This is no more then was urged long since by Gregory Nyssene, Greg. Nyss. Orat. 3. contra Eunom. for the Ratification and full Establishment of all such Ʋsages and Doctrines as pretend to Antiquity. [...] For this (and nothing lesse) is sufficient for the Proof of our Assertion, that we have a Tradition derived to us from the Fathers, as it [Page] were a certain Inheritance descending by entail from the Apostles by those Saints who were all along their Successours.

And this is the onely thing which we demand from the Roman Church, being ready to acknowledge the Truth of all Doctrines, and the Equity of all Practices, which the Ʋniversality of the Fathers have left upon Record as things believed and done in the first and purest Ages of the Church. And thus to doe we have a great Encouragement from that Expression of Tertullian, Tertullian. de Praescript. Haeret. c. 21. Constat omnem Doctrinam quae cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis, Matricibus & Originalibus Fidei, conspiret, veritati deputandam; id sine dubio tenentem quod Ecclesiae ad Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo accepit, &c. 'Tis manifest that every Doctrine which agreeth with the Apostolick Churches, which were the Wombs and Originals of Faith, must be esteemed a Truth; as holding that which those Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.

So that whatsoever Traditions the Church of Rome can prove to be Apostolical by an unanimous Consent of all the ancient, learned and holy Bishops and Doctours, who from Age to Age have governed and taught the Church, though such Traditions are no-where recorded in the written Word, yet being obliged by the universal Testimony of all Antiquity to esteem them Apostolical Institutions, and consequently no-way repugnant to Holy Writ, we shall most readily receive and practise them upon the very first Conviction. For so great a respect hath the Church [Page] of England for all her pious Forefathers in Christ, that she doth most chearfully follow their Example in every thing that is convenient and laudable; and doth pay to venerable Antiquity all that imaginable Reverence which is consistent with that inviolable Rule she walks by, which is the written Word of God. But,

2. Although we are thus ready to embrace all those Doctrines and Practices which can be recommended to us by the general Consent and Approbation of Antiquity; yet the Testimonies of such and such particular Fathers, which the Romanists produce for the justification of their unwritten Traditions, we cannot think our selves obliged to accept, nor is it safe to comply with them in all Points whatsoever.

'Tis the great Prerogative of the Scripture alone to deserve and require our Assent to every thing that is there delivered by every particular Prophet, Evangelist, and Apostle. When once we do but clearly understand the meaning of Divine Revelations, and comprehend what such and such a Text doth import, there is no room for any farther Scrutiny or Examination; but all our business is to believe and practise. Thus stands the case with the Word of God, every line whereof is of unquestionable Authority: but as for the Writings of men, how holy or learned soever, but not infallibly guided by God's unerring and holy Spirit, we have ground enough, in all Points and matters of Controversie, which the Scriptures do not clearly determine, to pause a while, suspend our faith, and not immediately to give too quick an Assent to such and such Assertions, [Page] till we have taken mature Advice, and deliberately considered what is the matter of such and such Propositions that relate to the Worship of God, Points of Faith, or other Concerns of the Church, as well as who it is that recommends them. And for this we have several Reasons.

1. That the whole Church of God in after-Ages should, without all farther Examination, give an immediate Assent to all Propositions, Principles, Conclusions, Doctrines or Practices, which are laid down, recorded or recommended in the Works of such and such ancient Fathers, is a thing which those Fathers themselves did never doe or expect. The truth is, to give a firm and quick Credit to every thing which such or such a person hath said, were an instance of such a Respect as the best of men cannot deserve, nor did the best of the Fathers ever require or shew.

We are in this to imitate St. Austine, Aug. ad Hieron. Ep. 19. who told St. Hierom thus, Alios▪ (Scriptores, praeter Canonicos) ità lego, ut quantâlibet Sanctitate Doctrinâve praepolleant, non ideo verum putem quia Ipsi ità senserunt, sed quia mihi vel per illos Authores Canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quàd à vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt; When I reade any Authours that are not Canonicall, how holy or learned soever, I do not presently grant this or that to be a truth barely because those Authours thought so, &c. And as he reserved to himself this liberty of dissent, when he found just cause, from other mens Writings; so did he as willingly allow the same liberty to all other persons who should become the Readers of his.Aug. ad Fortunat. Ep. 111. So he tells his friend Fortunatianus, Talis ego sum in Scriptis [Page]aliorum, tales volo esse Intellectores meorum; Such am I in other mens Works, and such would I have other men be in mine. But how is that? he tells us;Aug. de bono Perseverantiae, c. 21. Neminem velim sic amplecti omnia mea, ut me sequatur, nisi in iis quibus me non errare perspexerit; I would have no man so to credit what I write, as immediately to comply with my Judgment, except it be in those things onely wherein he perceives me to be in the right. 'Tis a Golden Rule which he elsewhere gives us,Aug. ad Vincentium, Ep. 48. Audi, dicit Dominus: non, dicit Donatus, aut Rogatus, aut Vincentius, aut Hilarius, aut Ambrosius, aut Augustinus; sed, dicit Dominus. Hear and believe, not every thing which such and such a man saith, but what God saith.

So then, though perhaps we may dissent, in some particular matters not determined in the written Word, from such and such particular Fathers; though we have entred our Dislike and do solemnly protest against some Expressions that have unwarily dropped from some of their Pens: yet since these good men have declared themselves to be no-way injured or affronted thereby; we do not need (or, if we did, we should not matter) a Pardon from his Holiness, who wants indeed some better Evidences to confirm the Validity of his Indulgencies, and make them saleable in English Markets. But,

2. To comply with every thing that such and such a Father hath asserted, and to receive all their Testimonies indifferently as undoubted Truths, is a thing so gross and irrational, that even our Adversaries of Rome themselves will not doe it.

[Page]'Tis indeed very usual with them to exclaim against us as persons that have no Reverence for Antiquity, but reject the Fathers, and tread them under foot: but the truth is, if it be a fault to dissent from ancient Writers in any thing whatever, if our refusal to subscribe to their Opinions in all matters of Controversie may be interpreted as a Contempt done to those excellent Persons, from whom in some things we disagree; then do we retort this Argument upon our Adversaries, and, having a just ground of Recrimination, we do tell and can easily prove to the world, that if this be indeed our Crime, it is certainly theirs too.

That the Church of Rome doth give an universal Assent to whatsoever all the Fathers have written, will not be imagined by any person who considers what the Jesuits and other Doctours, who well understood the Sense of that Church, and durst not openly contradict it, have left upon Record. I remember that expression of Bellarmine, Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. who, being urged with a Sentence of Tertullian against Zephyrinus, who was Bishop of Rome, had little else to reply but onely this, Non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte, Tertullian in this matter (because Bellarmine did not like it) is not at all to be believed. No, nor St. Chrysostom neither, if he deliver any thing that contradicts the Romish Faith.Mald. in Luc. 16.29. Alium scopulum vitare Lector debet, nè Chrysostomum legens, &c. saith Maldonate; The Reader must avoid another Rock, lest perhaps, reading St. Chrysostom, he run into an Errour. And as for those two great Worthies of the Christian Church, St. Ambrose and [Page] St. Austine, Lorinus Act. 1.12. Lorinus did not think them infallible, when he ventured to say, Memoriâ lapsum oportet Ambrostum, idémque statuendum de Augustino, &c. St. Ambrose forgot himself, and so did St. Austine too.

Indeed, whatsoever is delivered by Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Austine, or any other ancient Father, how agreeable soever it be to the written Word of God, yet if it be inconsistent with the present Traditions and Practices of the Roman Church, they will not grant it to be a Truth. And if so, if the Romanists themselves, whenever their Interest doth so require, do make so bold with the Fathers, as to suspect their Judgments, and deny their Authority; methinks they should be so ingenuous, as to allow us the same liberty of Dissent, which they take to themselves. If they dissent from Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Austine, and other Fathers, and that in those very matters wherein those Fathers have clearly, dogmatically and designedly delivered their Judgments; why may not we dissent from Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and some others, especially in those things which they have onely rhetorically and accidentally mentioned, and yet are now violently drawn, forced and wrested to countenance those Articles of the Trent Faith whereof those Fathers did never dream?

But however, what just ground we have to dissent from such and such particular Fathers in such and such particular cases, especially in those Points now in Controversie betwixt the Reformed and Roman Church, we shall shew in two Particulars.

[Page]1. The first Reason (and that which indeed our Adversaries may justly plead as well as we) why we cannot think our selves obliged to comply with every particular Father, in every particular thing which they have delivered, is, Because they were but Men, and so might erre; and indeed often did, and some of them foully too.

'Tis very usuall with the Champions of the Roman Church, to produce the Testimonies of severall persons who are men of great Name and Authority in the Church of God, to justifie severall of those Traditions with which we can by no means comply. I remember Bellarmine produces and cites Ignatius, Dionysius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens, and others, for whom we have that signal Respect and Veneration which is justly due to their Piety, Learning and Antiquity: but withall we cannot forget, that the very best of the Fathers were subject to Mistakes and Errours, whereby they shewed themselves to be but men. And the truth is, we have so many and so sad Examples of Learned and Pious persons before us, who have been miserably deceived by meer Pretensions of Antiquity, that we shall not easily suffer our selves to be seduced by the same Delusions into the Belief and Practice of any Traditions, except we can find in them what Irenaeus found in those mentioned by Polycarp, [...],Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 2 [...]. an Agreeableness to the written Word of God.

We cannot forget what great Mischiefs to the Church of God the Authority of Papias, Origen, and some others, did in Primitive times. That this Papias was [...], the Disciple of [Page] the Apostles, the Auditour of St. John, the Companion of Polycarp, is, I think, universally granted; and that he received such and such Traditions from the Daughters of Philip the Evangelist at Hierapolis, Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 36. was, as Eusebius tells us, his own Assertion: and yet, for all that, the same Historian informs us, that this very man, relying too much upon Tradition, was so far surprized as to vent [...], strange Doctrines. And if so, shall we think our selves so far obliged to espouse and own all his Opinions, because they are old ones, as to become Chiliasts, and to be imposed upon, as Irenaeus himself and many more then were, [...], from that Respect and Veneration which they had for his Antiquity?

And as for Origen, whose Testimony the Church of Rome makes exceeding much of, as a great Patron of some Traditions which are advantageous to them; we do give him all that Respect which becomes him to receive, and us to shew: his learned Disputations against Celsus, his Confutations of the Psycho-Pannuchists, his Conviction and Conversion of Beryllus, that Arrian Heretick, his readiness to Martyrdom, his labours in Preaching, Catechizing, and Writing, have made his Name famous and his Memory venerable in the Church of God. But withall, had this excellent Person nothing of Errour to allay and stain his Glory? Doth the Church of Rome indeed think us, or themselves either, obliged to embrace every Opinion as an undoubted Truth, that hath the Patronage of Origen's Name? What if Origen seem, as our Adversaries contend, to [Page] countenance their Doctrine of Purgatory, which was doubtless the golden Dream and Invention of Plato? must we therefore acknowledge it to be as certain a Truth, as that there is an Heaven for Saints and an Hell for Sinners? Why doth not Bellarmine give the same Credit to Origen, when he discourseth of the Creation of many Worlds, as when he discourseth of Purgatory? I remember,Photius de Synod. Concil. 5. Photius mentions some Doctrines broached by Origen, and afterwards promoted by Didymus and Evagrius, that were his Followers, which, I hope, the greatest Sticklers for the Roman Religion will not allow. [...] They determined that there should be an end of Hell's endlesse Torments; they taught that the very Devils themselves should one day be restored to their former Dignity. These Opinions, being so welcome to the worst of men, grew apace: but withall, being so destructive to the Christian Religion, Justinian the Emperour, in the year 551. called the fifth Oecumenicall Council at Constantinople, where this Errour of Origen and his Followers, by the joynt Suffrages of one hundred and sixty five Bishops, was exploded, condemned, and anathematized, as being, what Photius rightly calleth it, [...], an Encouragement to all manner of Villany; even the chief of those [...], wicked Opinions, which were broached [...],Nilus de Synod. Concil. 5. by Origen when he was out of his wits, as Nilus doth inform us.

And, certainly, that Doctrine of Purgatory, for which the Testimony of Origen is so much urged [Page] by the Roman Church, deserves the same Censure too; as being a considerable Provocation to the Commission of those pleasing Sins, the Punishment whereof, how long or how short it shall be, is, according to their Doctrine, at the Pleasure of the Pope's Mercy and the Offender's Purse. And methinks 'tis strange, that such a Tradition as this, which can never be delivered from the just imputation of encouraging Vice, should, because mentioned by Origen and his Followers, be declared Apostolicall, and equalled to that written and sure Word of Christ, from which it receives sufficient Confutations, but nothing of Countenance, whatever the Romish Church may pretend.

But, alas! Origen is but one of many that are cited as Patrons and Abettours of the Romish Traditions: there is another Person as well as Origen, who lived,Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 13. as Eusebius words it, [...], in the very next Age to the Apostles, whose Testimony is often urged in this matter too; I mean, Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished in the reign of Commodus, and was the Scholar of Pantenus: which two were the first that I meet with who delivered the Principles of Christian Religion in a Catecheticall way in publick Schools, and for that deserve an Honour.

What Eusebius reports concerning this Clemens cannot be denied; [...], This man's Books are full of much excellent Learning: so excellent, that Chemnitius saith expresly of him, In tota Antiquitate habitus fuit vir celeberrimus, In all Antiquity there was not a man so famous as he. But yet for all that, he fell into many strange and heterodox Opinions; [Page] such, I suppose, as our Adversaries themselves will by no means allow. He telleth us, that our Blessed Saviour preached but one year onely: that the Apostles, being departed from the World, preached to the Dead; and converting some of them, raised them to life again. He countenanced the Tenets of Anabaptists, that Christians ought not to swear, nor implead one another before any Tribunal whatsoever. He affirmed, that if men who were once Baptized and enlightned fell into Sin, God perhaps might grant them [...], place of Repentance for once or twice, but no more for ever: and yet notwithstanding, as if he had forgot himself, and were not constant to his own Opinion, he saith elsewhere, that if men repent, [...], there is no place, either in this world or in the next, void of the Goodness of God.

And methinks, if this excellent and learned Person were betrayed into such gross and absurd Opinions as are directly contrary to the written Word, through those Traditions which had even thus early crept into the Church, and were fathered upon St. Paul, St. Peter, and other Apostles; we must beg, and may justly expect, our very Adversaries pardon, if we still suspect that such and such Traditions, mentioned by this Clemens, are very far from being, as Bellarmine contends, Apostolicall.

But although Clemens Alexandrinus fell into such erroneous and fond Opinions, that they have given the Church just occasion, in doubtfull matters, to like his Testimony so much the worse; yet what hath Tertullian done to forfeit [Page] his Credit, and so far to blemish his Reputation, that the large Testimony which he also gives in the case of Traditions should be questioned too? Tertullian was indeed a learned Preacher of the African Church; a man that confuted Marcion, and wrote excellent Apologies for the persecuted Saints of God;Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. a man that is styled by Eusebius [...], the most famous of all the Latine Writers: and yet notwithstanding, when he treats of Religious matters not contained within our Bibles, we have too much ground in some things to suspect his Judgment too; and for so doing, Bellarmine himself hath given us his own Example.

'Tis notoriously known, that this Person of excellent Parts shewed himself to be but a son of Adam, when, not finding that Respect from the Roman Clergy which he might have expected, through Discontent and Anger he miserably fell off from the Orthodox Christians, and took up the detestable Opinions of that Phrygian Heretick Montanus. What were the Opinions of this Montanus, Euseb. Hist. l. 5. Apollonius in Eusebius tells us. [...], &c. This was he that taught the world to dissolve that sacred bond of Wedlock; this is he that taught his Disciples such and such Doctrines tanquam à Paracleto traditas, saith Chemnitius, as if he had received them from the Blessed Spirit of God; this is he whom his Followers took to be the Paraclete, but whom sober persons looked upon, as Eusebius tells us, [...], as a man possessed and acted by the Devil; who had two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, to be his Prophetesses.

[Page]And certainly, if this Montanus were such a monstrous Villain, 'tis as well sad as strange to think, that such a man as Tertullian was should ever be so much transported with Passion upon such and such Neglects, or perhaps Indignities, received from some Clergy-men at Rome, as to make such a Defection from the true Faith, as if, for some Affronts received from some particular persons, he meant to revenge himself upon the whole Christian Church, by patronizing the cursed Doctrines of so vile an Heretick. But however, since 'tis clear that he did so, we are by no means bound to believe, what indeed he himself doth never affirm, that all those Traditions which we find recorded in his Writings are of Divine Originall; because we have ground enough to suspect, that he might receive some of them at least from Montanus, or some other unwarrantable hand, rather then from Apostles or Apostolicall men.

But may not St. Cyprian pass for an unquestionable Witness, if Tertullian do somewhat fail? Was not this Cyprian the renowned Bishop of Carthage, the stout Champion of Christ's true Religion, yea and his faithful Martyr too? And doth not this eminent Person give Testimony to justifie some of those Traditions, and to prove them Apostolicall, which are now received in the Roman Church, and yet have not the least Countenance from the written Word of God?

What Great St. Basil once said of Dionysius Alexandrinus, may,Basil. M. ad. Max. Philos. Ep. 41. without any Affront or Injury to St. Cyprian's name, be affirmed of him too, [...] [Page] We do not admire whatever that man said; but some things we condemn too.Aug. contra Crescon. l. 2. c. 31. We are of St. Austine's mind, who writes thus of Cyprian, Cypriani literas non ut Canonicas habeo, sed ex Canonicis considero: Quod in eis Divinarum Scripturarum Authoritati congruit, cum laude ejus accipio; quod autem non congruit, cum pace ejus respuo. I do not take St. Cyprian's Epistles to be Canonical, but I judge of them according to those which are such indeed: Whatever therein agreeth with the Authority of Divine Scriptures, to his honour I do applaud; but whatever agreeth not, with his leave I do reject.

'Tis evident by this Expression, that although St. Cyprian were indeed, what Nazianzene thought fit to style him,Gregor. Naz. in Orat. 18. [...], the great Name of the whole world; though he were [...], the great Champion of the Truth; yet it was St. Austine's Judgment, that sometimes he dropped from his Pen some things that did not well consist with the written Word of God.

The Scriptures tell us that there is One Baptism: accordingly the Council of Carthage thus defined,Concil. Carthag. Can. [...] and again, [...], Baptism ought not to be administred the second time, no not to Hereticks; so Arsenius, Arsen. Synopsis Can. 38. [...], Persons baptized by Hereticks must not be baptized again. Such was the Judgment of Fathers and Councils; and yet St. Cyprian was of his mind who said,Gregor. Naz. in Orat. 24. [...] If Baptism be at first administred by such Hereticks as deny the great Articles of the Christian Faith, as [Page] they in Nazianzene did the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, then give me a second Washing. And although Bellarmine tell us,Bellarm. de Conc. l. 2. c. 3. that St. Austine excuseth Cyprian from being an Heretick; yet sure we are he did not excuse him from being in an Errour: for thus he saith,Aug. ad Vincent. Ep. 48. Cyprianum aliter sensisse de Baptismo quàm Forma & Consuetudo habet Ecclesiae, in suis & in Concilii literis invenitur, That Cyprian did not think of Baptism as the Church doth, 'tis clear both from the Council's Letters and his own too.

And if St. Cyprian might erre about Baptism, why not about the Eucharist too, when he saith, Debet Aqua Vino misceri, Water must be mingled with the Sacramental Wine? If Cyprian were mistaken about the Government of the Church, when he said,Cyprian. Ep. 68. Ipsa plebs maximè habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi, The very common people have the chief Power to chuse good Bishops, or refuse bad ones; why might he not be mistaken about the Ceremonies of Baptism, when he said,Cyprian. Ep. 12. Ʋngi necesse est eum qui Baptizatus sit, &c. 'Tis necessary that every person who is Baptized should be Anointed too? If St. Cyprian might be, and certainly was, in an Errour in one case; what security have we but that he may be mistaken in some other matters too? We can never admit all the Doctrines and Usages received in the Roman Church to be of Apostolicall Authority, though countenanced by St. Cyprian's Testimony, except we shall first forget, that even Donatus and his Followers did shelter themselves and their erroneous Opinions under the name and Patronage of the same St. Cyprian too.

And truly, we cannot wonder that Clemens [Page]Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and other good men before and after them, were overseen in some Particulars, since, out of that great Respect and deserved Veneration which they had for the Apostles themselves and their immediate Successours, they became too prone, without any strict Examination, to give credit to such Traditions which were either delivered to them by word of mouth, or contained in any such Writings as bore the Apostles names, or were pretended to be derived from Apostolical men.

That there were such forged Writings sent abroad into the world, and that very early too, several Authours have informed us.Aug. ad Vincent. Ep. 48. Thus St. Austine, Non defuerunt qui sub Apostolorum nominibus multa confingerent, &c. Some there were who forged many things in the Apostles names: so he. And in that Edition of the Septuagint printed at Basil by John Hervagius I find the Lives of the Evangelists and Apostles, written by Sophronius, prefixed before their respective Gospels and Epistles; where, in the Life of St. Peter, there is mention made of several Writings wherein St. Peter was concerned, either as the Authour, or at least as the Subject matter of them; and thus they are named: [...]. The first was inscribed The Acts of St. Peter, the second was named The Gospel of St. Peter, &c. Of all these the Writer of his Life passeth this Judgment, [...], They are all rejected as Apocryphal Writings. And yet in the Life of St. James there is mention of a Book entitled [...], The Gospel according [Page] to the Hebrews; a Book, saith the Authour, [...], which Origen often used. And certainly, if Origen and other Fathers did reade and believe such Apocryphal books, we cannot wonder that they fell into some absurd Opinions, and have transmitted to posterity such fond Traditions as are far from being Apostolicall.

I remember St. Paul tells us, that Christ after his Resurrection was seen of James; and upon what occasion Christ was pleased to appear singly to St. James alone, that forenamed counterfeit Gospel thus informs us: [...] St. James had sworn that he would not taste one morsel of Bread from that hour wherein Christ died, till he should see him risen from the dead again. Upon this score, saith the Authour of that Book, Christ appeared to him, [...] and taking bread, and having given thanks, he brake it; and giving it to St. James the Just, said, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from the dead, &c.

So inconsistent is this Tradition, in its several Circumstances, with the written Word,Est. in 1 Cor. 15.7. that Estius himself styles it Narrationem fabulosam, a fabulous Narration; and Lorinus confesseth,Lor. in Act. 1.13. Hanc Historiam non admittit Augustinus, St. Austine doth not admit this Story: and yet Estius observes, that St. Hierom doth use some other Passages of that false Gospel, wherein this Tale is recorded. [Page] And what need I mention those other counterfeit Gospels of St. Thomas, St. Bartholomew, and Nicodemus? What need I mention the forged Acts of St. Andrew? and that pretended Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, the true one (if yet there were ever any such) being acknowledged by Bellarmine to be lost? What should I mention that Protevangelium fathered upon St. James, and yet full of such Traditions as are no way reconcilable with Christ and his Apostles? St. Luke tells us, [...], Many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, &c. Theophylact here puts the Question, [...]; Who were these many that thus undertook to write the Gospel? He answers, [...], they were false Apostles: and he tells us farther, [...] Many, even then, [...], without the Grace and Spirit of God, wrote several counterfeit Gospels; as the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Twelve, &c.

And certainly, albeit those good men, the Fathers of the Church, out of too much Credulity and Veneration shewed towards their Predecessours, were pleased to give so much Credit to those spurious Writings, which deserved rather to be expunged then believed, as to transcribe something of them into their own Works, and thereby transmit them to Posterity: yet all such Passages, derived from uncertain and deservedly-suspected Authours, can be no more authentick, nor claim any greater Authority, then the Originals from which they were borrowed.

[Page]And as for some other things which the Fathers wrote upon their own Judgments, delivering the sense of their own Understandings, they have sufficiently evidenced themselves to be too fallible, as our Adversaries themselves do acknowledge. It is true, where the Fathers do but seem to countenance the fond and superstitious Doctrines of the Roman Church, if there be found any Passage in them that can possibly be pretended to favour that absurd and incredible Assertion of Transubstantiation, or those advantageous Doctrines of Purgatory, Indulgencies, auricular Confession, or the like; every such Passage, how ambiguous soever, must pass for a certain Truth, as if it proceeded ex Tripode, even from an Oracle. But in common cases, and especially in those Controversies wherein the Fathers contradict the Opinions and Practices of that Church, they are esteemed no more then other men; and, how clear and plain soever their Expressions are, they are counted doubtful and fallible enough. Thus Lorinus, Lorin. in. Act. 1 13. Gentiles ignorantiâ Linguae Hebraeae lapsi sunt, ac nonnulli etiam Patres; The Gentiles, being ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, did erre, and so did some of the Fathers too. And in the same place he speaks thus of Clemens Alexandrinus, Longè abest à vero quod arbitratur Clemens Alexandrinus, The Opinion of this Clemens is far from being a Truth. And as for St. Basil, he giveth us this Caution too, Tanti Patris Doctrina cum Cautione intelligenda est, The Doctrine of so great a Father must be understood with Caution. And why, pray, with so much Caution? certainly, some nice and tender Point lieth at stake; and that was this, Nè justissimis Pontificum [Page]Decre [...]is adversetur, Lest St. Basil should perhaps contradict the Pope. Well, since 'tis granted on all sides, that the very best of the Fathers were subject to mistakes; we have reason to believe, that they might more probably erre in the case of Traditions sooner then in any other Point whatever: and upon that score, such Traditions as have no Countenance from the written Word, nor the general Testimony of Antiquity, we cannot receive as Apostolicall, though such and such a particular Father may seem to recommend them. But,

2. The Second Reason why we cannot comply with every thing which we find recorded in the Works of such and such ancient Fathers is, Because the Writings of these Fathers have been miserably abused, corrupted, falsified, or forged.

Such Abuses have the most early Fathers met with.Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 36. So Ignatius, who was, as Eusebius tells us, [...], amongst most men renowned, the second Bishop of Antioch, being the immediate Successour of St. Peter. But though this excellent Person were indeed so ancient, that his gray hairs might justly challenge a Veneration; yet have they not secured him from several gross and foul Affronts. We find some Bastards laid even at this old man's door; [...], supposititious and spurious Epistles, [...], &c. ascribed to Ignatius, though none of his. And as for those Epistles, collected by Polycarp, and mentioned by Eusebius, which, notwithstanding all the Cavils of Blondel, Walo, and other Antiepiscopal persons, our learned [Page] Pearson and Hammond ( [...]) have sufficiently vindicated and proved to be his; we find even these, as worthy Isaac Vossius well expresseth it, ità interpolatas, ut plurimùm Ignatium in hoc Ignatio frustrà quaeras, so interlarded and stuffed with such numerous Insertions, that in this new Ignatius the old one can scarce be found.

And as for Origen, though it is generally granted that his Writings, even as they dropped from his own Quill, are many times to blame; yet 'tis easily believed that some Corrupters and Falsifiers of his Works have made them worse. Thus Daniel Huetius, Dan. Huet. in Ptol. l. 2. Origen. c. 2. who hath given the world a solemn account of Origen's Life and Opinions, doth assure us: Cùm ab Haereticis violata esse constaret Origeniana volumina, &c. Since it was evident that Origen's Books were abused by Hereticks, &c. And doth not Valesius tell us,Vales. in Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 38. Clementis Romani libros qui [...] inscribebantur ab Ebionaeis corruptos fuisse atque falsatos, that the Books of Clemens Romanus named The Journals of Peter were corrupted and falsified by the Ebionites?

And this our Adversaries of Rome do not deny, when-ever it makes for their Advantage to confess it. Cornelius à Lapide, a learned Jesuit, finding that St. Hierom's Epistle to Damasus made against him, flieth to this Refuge, Epistola Hieronymi ad Damasum non videtur esse Hieronymi, sed conficta, The Epistle of Hierom to Damasus seems not to be really his, but a meer counterfeit.

Well; sure we are, there are no persons to be named throughout the world that have shewed themselves, shall I say more ingenious, or more impudent? in imitating their Forefathers Hands, [Page] and counterfeiting their Voices, and that to very ill Purposes too, then the men that we have now to deal with. 'Tis the great Shame of the Roman Church, and such a Blemish as is not to be wiped off for ever, that they put unsavoury words into their Fathers mouths, and cite the Dead to bear Testimony to those Follies and Falshoods which, when alive, they would have abhorred with just Indignation and Zeal.

'Tis well observed and unanswerably proved by an eminent Divine of our own Church, that the Romanists have used several Tricks to corrupt the Fathers, and make them speak even as they themselves would have them. For sometimes they insert illegitimate and bastard Treatises into the Fathers Works, hoping that these spurious Brats will pass for their lawful Children, because found within their doors. Sometimes again they do falsifie the known and undoubted Writings of ancient Authours, by adding one thing, detracting a second, and changing a third. Sometimes also they do cite and alleage such and such Passages out of such and such Fathers, so miserably wrested from the Sense of the Authour, that they offer Violence and commit a sacrilegious Rape even upon the Dead.

The Purging of the Fathers by suppressing, razing and blotting out such and such Passages which do not please them, the Roman Church doth own. Thus they tell us concerning the Venetian Edition of St. Austine, In Praes. Ind. lib. prohib. Curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fidelium mentes Haereticâ pravitate possent inficere, aut à Catholica Orthodoxa fide deviare: We have taken care for the removal out of St. Austine all [Page] those Passages of his which might infect the minds of the faithful with Heretical Pravity, or make them turn aside from the Catholick Orthodox Faith. We are also told in the Preface to the Paris Edition of St. Austine, Ex sanctissimo Concilii Tridentini Decreto veterum Patrum Codices expurgandi, By the most holy Decree of the Council of Trent the Books of the ancient Fathers are to be purged.Sixt. Sen. Epist. ad Pium quintum. And for so doing doth Sixtus Senensis thus commend Pius the Fifth: Expurgari & ema culari curâsti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum, praecipuè veterum Patrum, scripta; Thou hast caused the Works of all Catholick Writers, but chiefly those of the ancient Fathers, to be purged and made clean from blots and stains of Errours; that is, from every thing that contradicts the Superstitions of the Roman Church.

But if it were a thing indeed so commendable to purge the Fathers, yet is it a thing praise-worthy to falsifie and forge them too? St. Chrysostom left upon record an Expression which the Roman Church doth no way like, and that was this;Chrys. Hom. 49. in Matt. In times of Heresie there is no means to find out the Truth, save onely the reading of the Scriptures. Bellarmine confesseth, Totus hic locus è quibusdam codicibus nuper emendatis sublatus est; This whole Passage is left out of some Editions newly set forth and corrected. But how comes St. Chrysostom thus to deserve the Spunge? The Cardinal gives this Reason, Hoc Testimonium non est Chrysostomi, This Testimony is not Chrysostom's: but whose then? Ab Arrianis locus hic insertus, This place was inserted into St. Chrysostom's Works by the Arrians, and therefore deserved rather to be expunged then believed.

[Page]We see what liberty the Romanists take to themselves to raze and blot out such and such Passages of the Fathers which make against them, upon a groundless pretence that those Passages were inserted by some Heretick or other: and can they then justly complain of us, if we are not willing to credit some Expressions of ancient Authours, upon which they ground those Doctrines and Practices of theirs which we reject, since we have too much reason to believe that those Expressions are corrupted, falsified, and forged, and that by some of their own Church?

That the Roman Catholicks have indeed miserably corrupted the ancient Writers in their Editions, we are sufficiently convinced by the Testimony of our learned Doctour Featly, Featly's defence of Via Tuta. who hath traced them through the several Ages of the Church, and discovered to the world this unworthy dealing of theirs, by giving us particular Instances, and naming the Treatises and Expressions of several Fathers, which their Adversaries as well as ours have abused, perverted, and corrupted thus or thus.Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. That of Ignatius is one, who bespeaks Virgins thus; [...] &c. In your Prayers set Christ before your eyes and his Father, &c. To evacuate this great and ancient Testimony against the Invocation of Saints and Angels, a late Popish Edition printed at Lyons reads it thus, [...], In your Souls set Christ before your eyes, &c. Again, those words of our Blessed Saviour,Tertul. de Resur. c. 37. The flesh profiteth nothing, Tertullian thus expounds, Caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scilicet, The flesh profiteth nothing, that is, to quicken; so saith the true Tertullian: but a former [Page] Edition of theirs, set forth at Paris, (though mended since by Rigaltius) contrary to the meaning of Christ and Tertullian too, reads it thus, Caro nihil prodest, sed ad vivificandum, The flesh profiteth nothing, save onely to quicken. Once more: our learned Authour mentions those words of St. Cyprian too, Post gustatam Eucharistiam, After the eating of the Eucharist; which the Popish Edition at Paris, to countenance a Ceremony of theirs, changeth thus, Post gestatam Eucharistiam, After the Circumgestation of the Eucharist. Nor can this Change be imputed to the mistake of the Presse, because their Authours own and endeavour to justifie the Alteration.

These and a great many more Corruptions, Forgeries and Falsifications of the ancient Fathers are reckoned up in that learned Treatise, which give us fair warning not to believe every Testimony which our Adversaries pretend to produce out of such and such old Writers, set forth by themselves for the justification of those Traditions for which they can bring no good warrant from the written Word of God. For, since 'tis undeniable that they have notoriously abused the Records of Antiquity by suppressing, changing, and inserting, what and where they pleased; we have abundant cause to believe, that these Alterations are made in those very places which they commonly cite in their own defence; they being too wise to forge any counterfeit Deeds, and suborn any other false Witnesses, then such as are designed to speak for their Advantage. But,

IV. The Champions of the Roman Church endeavour to justifie their Traditions by the Testimony [Page] and Authority of such and such Councils. To which we have two things to reply.

1. We cannot imagine but that whole Councils may erre in their Judgments, and be mistaken in their Canons, Decrees and Constitutions.

That no meer man, save onely the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, ever was Infallible, is acknowledged by some learned persons even of the Roman Church. If Cajetane were not perfectly of this mind, what means that Expression of his, Solis Sacrae Scripturae Authoribus reservata est haec Authoritas, Cajetan. in Praef. Pentat. ut ideo sic credamus esse, quia Ipsi sic scripserunt? That we should certainly believe things to be thus and thus, barely because 'tis so written by such and such, is a Privilege peculiar to the Pen-men of Holy Writ alone. Surely then that Assertion of Gratian, mentioned by Bellarmine, seems somewhat sawcy,Bellar. de Concil. l. 2. c. 12. Epistolas Pontificum Decretales numerari debere inter Scripturas Canonicas, The Pope's Decretal Epistles ought to be reckoned amongst the Canonical Scriptures. And methinks the Cardinal himself seems somewhat confident, when he speaks thus indifferently of Scriptures and Councils, Ʋtraque sunt infallibilis Veritatis, & aequè certa, They are both of infallible Truth, and equally certain. But if Cardinal Cajetane were in the right; if all those Bishops and Doctours of whom Councils have consisted were but men, subject to Mistakes and Errours in their own particular persons; how the whole collective Body of any Synod should, in the result, prove infallible, the Church of Rome will never be able to shew by any such clear Evidence as may satisfie a sober and impartial man.

[Page]We do not deny but that there is much of Truth in that Assertion of St. Austine, Aug. ad Januar. Ep. 118. Conoiliorum in Ecclesia saluberrima est Authoritas, The Authority of Councils is of great Advantage to the Church of God: we do with all thankfulness to Heaven acknowledge and own the Four first General Councils; that of Nice, which vindicated the Divinity of Christ against Arrius; that of Constantinople, which asserted the Divinity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonius; that of Ephesus, which maintained the Unity of Christ's Person against Nestorius; and that of Chalcedon, which asserted the double Nature of Christ against Eutyches. So venerable is the Authority of these Four Councils, that we do not quarrel with that high Expression of that good Emperour Justinian, Justinian. Nov. 131. if rightly understood, [...] We receive the Doctrines of these Four holy Councils even as (not in equality, but similitude) the Holy Scriptures, and observe their Canons as so many Laws. Accordingly Evagrius tells us, [...], The Emperour commanded that the Decrees of these Four Councils should be read publickly in the Churches.

But although these Councils deserved this great Respect, as keeping close to the Word of God; yet other Councils, which the Roman Church makes much of, did not so. That Councils may possibly erre, and recede from Scripture-Rules, St. Hierom declared his Judgment in that Expression of his, cited by Chemnitius, Chemnit. de Sac. Script. p. 3. Spiritûs Sancti Doctrina est, quae Canonicis literis prodita est; [Page]contra quam siquid statuant Concilia, nefas duco: That is the sure Doctrine of the Holy Ghost, which is delivered in the Canonical Writings; against which if Councils determine this or that, I count it wicked. And did not their famous Council of Constance (when three Popes were upon the stage at once; John set up by the Italians, Gregory by the French, and Benedict by the Spaniards) define contrary to the Word of God, (not to mention the case of John Husse and Jerom of Prague) when they forbad all Priests, under the Penalty of Excommunication, to administer the Eucharist in both Kinds to the Laiety? And was not this Canon so contrary to the general Custom of Antiquity, that we must either grant the Primitive Church to have been mistaken in their old universal Practices, or else this Council to have been erroneous in this new Constitution?

Indeed, the Roman Church doth very well approve the Council of Constance in their Sacrilegious Decree which robs the People of half the Sacrament: but I remember the Roman Church doth also condemn the self-same Council for that Definition of theirs whereby they robbed the Pope of more then half his Authority. For when the Council of Constance had passed their Judgment, and declared that the Authority of Councils is superiour to that of Popes; and when the Council of Basil had ratified and solemnly confirmed the same Assertion; in opposition to these two Councils, (the last not then dissolved) Engenius the Fourth calleth a Council at Florence, which by a contrary Vote sets the Pope above the Council.

So then, here is Council against Council, Canon [Page] against Canon, directly contradicting one another in the self-same matter: and since 'tis so, we have all reason to conclude, either that some of these Councils were in an Errour; or else that all Logicians are certainly so, who tell us, that two contrary Propositions, though possibly both may be false, yet both can never be true together.

But the truth is, 'tis observed that there was such Ambition, such Animosities and Factions discovered in several Councils that were convened in several Centuries, that Gregory Nazianzene, had he lived in later Ages, might have had far more just occasion for those Complaints of his,Greg. Naz. ad Procop. Ep. 42. [...] I never saw an happy Issue of any one Synod whatsoever, which did not rather augment then remedy Evils. Upon which score he thus resolves, [...] If I may but write the Truth, my purpose is to decline all Conventions of Bishops whatsoever. But what is his Reason? 'Tis clear enough, that this excellent Person did highly esteem the Council of Nice; for he doth not onely call it [...], an Holy Council, but he also tells us that those three hundred and eighteen Bishops were such [...], whom the Holy Ghost had brought together: and as for the Council of Constantinople, the Argument of his Epistle to Procopius tells us, that he himself was magna Concilii pars, a very great man in it: and if so, what occasion had he to write such unkind things of Councils? Himself informs us, [...], There was so much Dissension and such Ambition in them as was beyond expression.

[Page]And certainly, if such an eminent Person as Gregory Nazianzene, who was deservedly styled [...], the Great Theologue or Divine of that Age, found cause enough to blame some early Councils of those Times; had he lived to see the Decrees and Canons established by the several Factions of later Conventions, he would never have thought them, as the Romanists contend, to be Infallible.Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. c. 3. True it is, St. Austine tells us, Concilia posteriora prioribus apud Posteros praeponuntur, Men that live in later times are apt to prefer later Councils before those that are more ancient: but what reason is there for it?Justellus in praefat. Can. Ecclesiae Africanae. That of Justellus is certainly true concerning these later Councils, Non sunt ejusdem fidei & dignitatis cum prioribus illis Quatuor Oecumenicis, &c. They are not of the same Credit, Faith and Honour with the Four first General Councils. And if so, since there are some just grounds of Suspicions and Jealousies concerning their Determinations, who shall perswade us that they are Infallible? But,

2. What if it appear that Councils are not onely fallible, but that they have been most miserably corrupted and forged too? What sure warrant have we for such and such Practices, not recommended in Sacred Writ, from the Authority of Councils, when such and such Constitutions, Decrees and Canons have been ascribed to such and such Councils, which indeed were never theirs?

We reade that Zosimus, Bishop of Rome, sent his Legats to the sixth Council of Carthage, with Instructions to maintain the Primacy of the Roman Bishop as the onely Judge in cases of Controversies [Page] and Appeals; and for that Prerogative of his they pretended a Canon of the first Nicene Council: which was indeed a very fair Plea, had it been true, because the Acts of that Council were not onely confirmed by the Emperour, but received by the universal Church. What particular Canon of the Nicene Council was pleaded for the Primacy of the Roman Bishop, Bellarmine tells us. Habemus Nicaenum Concilium, & illum ipsum sextum Canonem, &c. We have on our side the Nicene Council, and that very sixth Canon, &c. The Canon is this, [...]. The Design of this Canon was onely this, that the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and all other Metropolitans should still govern the Churches within their respective Provinces, as the Bishop of Rome was wont to govern those within his.

These being the express words and this being the undoubted Sense of the Canon, the Council of Carthage answered Faustinus, Philippus and Asellus, who were the Pope's Legates, that although they had strictly searched all Registers, and examined the most authentick Copies of the Acts of the Nicene Council, which they had received from Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, yet they could find nothing done by that Council to establish or countenance the Primacy of the Roman Bishop, nor that the Bishops of Africa were obliged by any Canon of the Nicene Council to appeal and be subject to the See of Rome.

[Page]But the Primacy of the Pope being a Point of great Concern to the Roman Church, and there being nothing more likely to establish it then the Authority of the Nicene Council, which is received by the universal Church; what greater Service could any man doe for the Bishop of Rome, then to prove his universal Preeminence over all other Bishops and Churches by some Act of that famous Council, which no Church gainsayeth? This is that which Bellarmine attempts: and because he cannot doe it convincingly by the Canon, as it is vulgarly read and expressed in the usual and publick Editions; he produceth a private Copy, and tells us, that the Canon, as it is commonly read, is imperfect, and ought thus to begin, Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum: Mos autem perduret, &c. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy, &c.

One would think it strange that Bellarmine should adventure to make such an Addition to the Canon of so known and famous a Council: but, to justifie himself, he tells us, that this Canon was anciently so read; and that about a thousand years ago it was thus translated out of the Greek Copies into Latine by a certain Abbot, named Dionysius; and that such a Copy was found in the Roman Library; and that it was so read by Paschasianus, the Legat of Pope Leo, in the Council of Chalcedon, and there approved.

But in desperate cases the old Rule must be observed, Scelere tutandum est Scelus, One Lie must be justified by another. For 'tis not easie to believe, that the onely true Copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council, and that in a Latine Translation [Page] too, should be preserved at Rome: nor is it easie to imagine, that if there had been such an authentick Copy of that famous Council lodged at Rome, it would have been permitted so long to have lain in the dark, and never have been produced ti [...] the Council of Chalcedon; especially since the Interest of the Roman Bishop required the Production thereof to prove the same Prerogative above fifty years sooner. For will any man believe that those Roman Bishops, Zosimus and his Successour Boniface, who claimed this Primacy from the sixth Council of Carthage, would have been so far wanting to themselves, as not to have produced such an authentick Copy, which, if clearly made out, would have satisfied the Council, ended the Controversie, and established the Primacy of Rome by a Law?

True it is, Faustinus, the Pope's Legate, produced in that Council his Commonitorium which he had from Rome, pretending the Authority of the Nicene Fathers for the Primacy of the Pope, and particularly in matters of Appeal: but how little these Pretences were liked by the Council, we may easily guess by that Answer which was returned by Alipius, who was a great man there, [...] It troubleth me, that though we have examined the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council, yet (how it comes to pass I cannot tell) we can by no means find any such thing as the Roman Bishop pretends and claims. And so much did they certifie Pope Boniface himself in their Synodical Letter, [...] [Page] [...] Having many Greek Copies before us, we could not find what was intimated and demanded from Rome, no not so much as in any one.

However, that they might satisfie themselves and the Bishop of Rome too so much the better, they thought fit to dispatch away their Letters to Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, desiring them to send over what Copies and Registers they had of the Nicene Council: who accordingly did so. For thus Cyril tells them, [...]. And thus Atticus too, [...]. 'Tis evident, by these Expressions, that these two Bishops sent over to the Council of Carthage the Acts, Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Fathers entire, uncorrupted, and unquestionable. And what's the Issue? do any one of these Copies agree with that of Rome? No; the Council having perused [...], these true Copies, sent this Message to Caelestinus, who was now become Pope, and had made the same Demands with Zosimus and Boniface, [...], We cannot find any such Canon as is pretended, no not in the most authentick Copies that we have perused.

But the truth is, that Copy of the Nicene Council mentioned by the Pope's Legate to the Council of Carthage was, to the shame of the Roman See, unworthily and basely corrupted; and those words mentioned by Bellarmine, Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum, were de novo, how politickly soever, yet knavishly enough, added to the [Page] old Canon. For 'tis evident that the Council of Carthage resolved to alter nothing that had been defined by the Nicene Fathers. [...] and again, [...]. Which Expressions are enough to convince all reasonable men, that this Council of Carthage had no inclination to change any, but confirm all, the Constitutions of the Nicene Fathers: but as to that Canon which the Pope's Legate pretended, requiring or allowing the African Clergy to appeal from their own Bishops to the Bishop of Rome, they were so far from confirming this, that they established an express Canon against it; and thus it runs, [...] Presbyters, Deacons, and other inferiour Clergy-men, in whatever Causes they have, let them not appeal to any Tribunal beyond the Sea, i. e. as the Council expresly words it in their Letter to the Pope, [...], let them not appeal to the Bishop of Rome. This Canon did so nettle the Roman Bishops, that upon this occasion Boniface the Second told Eulalius Bishop of Carthage, who had now unworthily submitted his Chair to the See of Rome, that his Predecessour Aurelius, St. Austine, and above two hundred more learned and pious Bishops assembled in the Council of Carthage, had denied Subjection to the Roman Bishop, because they were, as he impudently affirmed, inspired and instigated by the Devil.

But as from this Determination of the Council [Page] of Carthage we may conclude that pretended Canon of the Nicene Bishops, alleged by Faustinus in the Pope's behalf, to be spurious and forged; so may we reasonably infer as much from the consideration of its matter, which is altogether untrue and evidently false. For, is it imaginable that so early a Council as that of Nice should acknowledge and ratifie the perpetual Primacy of the Roman Bishop, since 'tis notoriously known, that the Primacy of the Roman Bishops was first derived from that bloudy Emperour Phocas, and procured by the crafty Insinuations of Boniface the Third, who, magna cum contentione, as Platina writes, with much adoe procured, but most willingly assumed to himself, the Title of Ʋniversal Bishop, and Head of all other Churches?

That it was not thus in former Ages, we have the Confession of Gregory the Great, who tells us,Gregor. M. l. 4. Ep. 36. Nullus unquam Praedecessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consuevit; None of all my Predecessours would ever assume to himself this profane Title: and as for himself, he was so far from owning it, that he was the very first Bishop of Rome that styled himself Servus Servorum Dei, the Servant of the Servants of God. To style himself by this humble Title he took occasion from the Pride and Arrogance of John, called [...], Patriarch of Constantinople, which being at that time the Imperial Seat, this John had took upon him the Title of Ʋniversal Bishop; whereof Gregory thus complains:Greg. M. l. 4. Ep. 32. O tempora! ô mores! Ecce destructae urbes, eversa castra, &c. & tamen Sacerdotes, qui in pavimento & cinere flentes jacere debuerunt, Vanitatis sibi nomen expetunt, & novis [Page]& prophanis vocabulis gloriantur. With this Expression of Gregory the Great agreeth that of Ʋspergensis;Ʋsperg. in Phocam. Rogatu Bonifacii Phocas constituit Sedem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae Caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum; nam antea Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam Omnium: Phocas, at the Request of Boniface, ordained that the See of Rome should be Head of all Churches; for before that time the Church of Constantinople did write herself the Prime of all Churches. And if so, how can it be imagined that the Primacy of the Roman Bishop should be acknowledged and granted, as Bellarmine contends, by the sixth Canon of the very first General Council?

No; the certain truth is, this Canon was unworthily corrupted in favour of the Roman Bishop: and although our Adversaries cannot for shame acknowledge their own corrupting of Councils; yet they cannot deny but that it hath been familiarly done by other persons. Nay, doubtless, in some cases they themselves pretend the Corruption of Councils, when in truth there was no such matter. For if the Authority of such or such a Council be urged against the Roman Church, and cannot otherwise be well escaped, they have no other Shift to save themselves, but onely to pretend that such and such a Canon, which they cannot answer, is false and counterfeit. 'Tis a certain Truth, that their Pope Honorius was condemned for a downright Heretick by the sixth General Council, which consisted of an hundred and seventy Fathers assembled at Constantinople; so 'tis recorded:Auctor Incertus de Synodis. [...], saith one; The Council condemned Honorius and some other Assertours of the same Opinion [Page] as Hereticks that fought against God. And that this Sentence was just,Photius in sext. Synodo. Photius thus assures us, [...], they brought them under a righteous Condemnation.

But will the Roman Church contentedly suffer any Bishop of theirs to be condemned, branded and recorded for an arrant Heretick, and plead nothing in his behalf? What would then become of their dear Infallibility? what would then become of Pope Agatho's Letter to the sixth General Council, wherein he bragged, that the Bishops of Rome never erred in Points of Faith? Or will the Roman Church acknowledg that a General Council may be mistaken, and that in a matter of so great Concern to themselves as they take the Infallibility of their Bishops to be? 'Tis a shrewd Dilemma that our Adversaries lie under in this case. For, if Honorius were certainly an Heretick, their Infallibility ceaseth: but if Honorius were no Heretick, then may General Councils erre, which the Roman Church is loath to grant. Well; to secure the Credit of Honorius, and the Authority of that General Council which condemned him too, Bellarmine invents this trick,Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. l. 4. c. 11. and tells us, Erat Consuetudo Graecorum ferè ordinaria corrumpendi libros, &c. It was even the familiar Custom of the Grecians to corrupt the Copies of Councils. And that it was so indeed in the case of Honorius, he takes for granted; Sine dubio Honorii nomen inter eos qui damnantur à sexta Synodo insertum esse ab aemulis Romanae Ecclesiae, &c. Without doubt the name of Honorius was inserted among those Hereticks whom the sixth Council condemned [Page] by some persons that bore no good will to the Roman Church. Thus would the Cardinal make the world believe, that what Canon soever spake any thing against a Bishop of his Church, must certainly be corrupted and forged by the Grecians; who, as he intimates, had no great Kindness for the Roman See.

And methinks, if Bellarmine be real in what he saith; if he did verily suspect that such and such Councils were indeed corrupted and forged by the Grecians, as being disaffected to the Roman Church; we have greater cause to be jealous, that such and such Councils have been miserably corrupted and forged by the Latines, who are sworn enemies to every Church which differs from their own. For, since 'tis evident that they have made so bold with that famous Council of Nice, as to falsifie a Canon of theirs; we cannot think that they have so great a Veneration for any other Council besides, but that they will corrupt and forge them, even as oft as their Interest doth so require.

And since 'tis thus; since, by the Confession of our Adversaries themselves, such and such particular Fathers have strangely erred; since the most Learned men of the Roman Church have acknowledged that even Popes and Councils have been, if not mistaken in themselves, yet basely corrupted by others: we cannot think our selves obliged to accept the Authority and Testimonies of such Fathers, Popes and Councils, as sure and infallible Proofs of those Traditions which are now received in and recommended by the Roman Church, though neither attested [Page] by the Ʋniversal Church, nor warranted by the written Word of God. And, upon this score, we can doe no less then wonder at the strange Confidence and unparallel'd Presumption of the Council of Trent and their Abettours, who dare at least equal their own Traditions, which stand upon such uncertain and slippery Grounds, even to those Holy Scriptures which are universally owned and infallibly proved to be [...], the sure and undoubted Word of Christ.

[...].

FINIS.

§

§

[Page]

THE GRAND PRESƲMPTION Of the ROMAN CHURCH In Equalling their own TRADITIONS TO THE Written Word OF GOD.

By FRANCIS GREGORY, D. D. Rectour of Hambleton in the County of Bucks, and one of his Sacred MAJESTIE's Chaplains in Ordinary.

LONDON, Printed by E. Flesher for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Sacred Majesty. 1675.

Information about this book

Title statement

The grand presvmption of the Roman Church in equalling their own traditions to the written word of God by Francis Gregory.

Gregory, Francis, 1625?-1707.

Edition statement

1675

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A42048

ID [STC]

Wing G1894

ID [STC]

ESTC R13146

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12846728

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12846728

ID [VID]

94450

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A42048)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 94450)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 713:22)

Source

— The grand presvmption of the Roman Church in equalling their own traditions to the written word of God by Francis Gregory., Gregory, Francis, 1625?-1707..

Extent

132 p.

Printed by E. Flesher for R. Royston ...,. London :: 1675.. (Includes bibliographical references.) (Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.