A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX.
Detect. 11. THE great endeavour of the Papiſts is to advance Tradition: The Council of Trent Seſ. 4. hath equalled it with the Scriptures, as to the pious affection and reverence wherewith they receive it. On pretence of this Tradition they have added abundance of new Articles to the faith, and accuſe us as Hereticks for not receiving their Traditions: And this is a principall difference betwixt us, that we take the Scriptures to be ſufficient, to acquaint us with the will of God, as the Rule of faith and holy living: and they take it to be but part of the word of God, and that the other part is in unwritten Tradition, which they equal with this (as afore.) For the maintaining of Tradition it is that they write ſo much to the diſhonour of the holy Scripture, as you may find in Ruſhworths Dialogues, and Tho. Whites Defence of them, and many others; ſo like to the Arguments and Language of the Seekers and Infidels, that we can ſcarcely know whom we hear when they ſpeak to us.
For the diſcovery of their deſperate fraud in this point, and the right confuting of them: 1. You muſt diſtinguiſh them out of their confuſion: 2. You muſt grant them all that is true and juſt, which we ſhall as ſtiffly defend as they: 3. You muſt reject their errors and confute them: And 4. You may turn their own principall weapon againſt them, to the certain deſtruction of their cauſe.
Of all theſe briefly in courſe.
1. For the firſt two I have ſpoke at large in the Preface to the ſecond part of the Saints Reſt, and in the determination in the firſt part of my Book againſt Infidelity. But briefly to touch ſome of the moſt neceſſary things here, 1. We muſt diſtinguiſh the Tradition of the Scriptures, or the Scripture doctrine, from the Tradition of other doctrines, pretended to be the reſt of the word of God. 2. We muſt diſtinguiſh between a certain proved Tradition, and that which is unproved and uncertain, if not groſly feigned. 3. We muſt diſtinguiſh between the Tradition of the whole Catholick Church, or the greater part, and the Tradition of the leſſer more corrupted ſelfiſh part (even the Roman part.) 4. We muſt diſtinguiſh between a Tradition of neceſſary doctrine or practice, and the Tradition of mutable Orders. 5. And we muſt diſtinguiſh between Tradition by way of Teſtimony, or Hiſtory, or by way of Teaching Miniſtry, and Tradition by way of Deciſive Judgement, as to the Univerſal Church: ſuffer them not to jumble all theſe together, if you would not be cheated in the dark.
2. And then concerning Tradition, we grant all theſe following Propoſitions, (ſo that it is not all Tradition that we deny.)
1. We grant that the Holy Scriptures come down to us by the certain Tradition of our fathers and Teachers; and that what the ſeeing and hearing of the Apoſtles was to them that lived with them, that Tradition and belief of certain Tradition is to us, by reaſon of our diſtance from the time and place: So that though the Scripture bear its own evidence of a Divine author, in the Image and ſuperſcription of God upon it, yet we are beholden to Tradition for the Books themſelves, and for much of our knowledge that theſe are the true writings of the Apoſtles and Prophets, and all, and not depraved, &c.
2. We thankfully acknowledge that the Eſſentials of the faith, (and more) hath been delivered even from the Apoſtles in other wayes or forms, beſides the Scriptures: as 1. In the Profeſſions of the Churches faith. 2. In the baptiſmal Covenant and ſigns, and whole adminiſtration. 3. In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. 4. In Catechiſms or Catechizings. 5. In the prayers and praiſes of the Church. 6. In the hearts of all true believers, where God hath written all the Eſſentials of the Chriſtian ſaith and Law: So that we will not do as the Papiſts perverſly do: when God delivereth us the Chriſtian Religion with two hands, Scripture (compleatly) and Verbal Tradition, (in the eſſentials) they quarrell with the one hand (Scripture) on pretence of defending the other: ſo will not we quarrell with Tradition (the other hand:) but thankfully confeſs a Tradition of the ſame Chriſtianity by unwritten means, which is delivered more fully in the Scripture: and this Tradition is in ſome reſpect ſubordinate to Scripture, and in ſome reſpect co-ordinate, as the ſpirits left hand as it were, to hold us out the truth.
3. We confeſs that the Apoſtles delivered the Goſpel by voice as well as by writing, and that before they wrote it to the Churches.
4. By this preaching we confeſs there were Chriſtians made, that had the doctrine of Chriſt in their hearts, and Churches gathered that had his ordinances among them, before the Goſpel was written.
5. And we confeſs that the Converted were bound to teach what they had received to their children, ſervants and others.
6. And that there was a ſetled Miniſtry in many Churches ordained to preach the Goſpel as they had received it from the Apoſtles before it was written.
7. And that the ſaid ordinances of Baptiſm, Catechizing, Profeſſions, Euchariſt, Prayer, Praiſe, &c. were inſtituted, and in uſe before the Goſpell was written for the Churches.
8. And that when the Goſpel was written, as Tradition bringeth it to us, ſo Miniſters are commiſſioned to deliver both the Books, and the doctrine of this Book, as the Teachers of the Church, and to preach it to thoſe without, for their converſion.
9. And that Parents and Maſters are bound to teach this doctrine to their children and ſervants: yea if a Miniſter or other perſon were caſt into the Indies or America without a Bible, he muſt teach the doctrine, though he remembred not the words.
10. We grant that to the great benefit of the Church, the writers of all ages have in ſubſerviency to Scripture delivered down the Sacred Verities, and Hiſtorians the matters of fact.
11. And that the unanimous Conſent of all the Churches, manifeſted in their conſtant profeſſions, and practices, is a great confirmation to us.
12. And ſo is the ſuffering of the Martyrs for the ſame truth.
13. And the Declarations of ſuch conſent by Councils is alſo a confirming Tradition.
14. And the Confeſſions of Hereticks, Jews and other Infidels, are Providentiall and Hiſtorical Traditions, for confirmation.
15. And we profeſs that if we had any Certain proof of a Tradition from the Apoſtles of any thing more then is written in Scripture, we would receive it: All this we grant them for Tradition.
3. But in theſe points following we oppoſe them. 1. We take the holy Scriptures as the Compleat univerſal Rule or Law of faith and Holy living, and we know of no Tradition that containeth another word of God; Nay we know there is none ſuch becauſe the Scripture is true, which aſſerteth its own ſufficiency. Scripture, and unwritten Tradition are but two wayes of acquainting the world with the ſame Chriſtian doctrine; and not with divers parts of that Doctrine, ſo as that Tradition ſhould add to Scripture: yea contrarily it is but the ſubſtance of greateſt verities that are conveyed by unwritten Tradition: but that and much more is contained in the Scripture, where the Chriſtian doctrine is compleat.
2. The manner of delivery in a form of words, which no man may alter, and in ſo much fullneſs and perſpicuity, is much to be preferred before the meer verbal delivery of the ſame doctrine. For 1. The Memory of man is not ſo ſtrong as to retain as much as the Bible doth contain, and preſerve it ſafe from alterations or Corruptions; Or if one man were of ſo ſtrong a memory, no man can imagine that all or moſt ſhould be ſo: Or if one Generation had ſuch wonderfull memories, we cannot imagine that all their poſterity ſhould have the like. If there were no ſtatute Books, Records, or Law-books in England, our Laws would be but ſorrily kept, and obeyed and executed.
2. If all the world had ſuch miraculous memories, yet men are apt to be negligent either in learning or keeeping of holy doctrine; All have not that zeal that ſhould excite them to ſuch wonderfull diligence without which ſuch a treaſure could not be preſerved.
3. When matter and ſo much matter, is commited to bare memory without a form of unalterable words, new words may make an alteration before men are aware: The change of one word ſometimes doth make a whole diſcourſe ſeem to have another ſenſe.
4. There are ſo many carnal men in the world that love not the ſtrictneſs of that doctrine which they do profeſs, and ſo many hereticks that would pervert the Holy Doctrine, that it would purpoſely be altered by them if it could be done; and it might much more eaſily be done, if it lay all upon mens memories: For one party would ſet their memory againſt the others, and (as it was about Eaſter a publick matter of fect) tradition would be ſet againſt tradition: eſpecially when the far greater part of the Church turn Hereticks, as in the Arrians dayes, then Tradition would be moſt at their keeping and interpretation; and if we had not then had the unalterable Scriptures, what might they not have done?
5. A whole Body of Doctrine kept only in Memory, will be ſoon diſjoynted and diſlocate; and if the matter were kept ſafe, yet the method and manner would be loſt.
6. And there could not be ſuch ſatisfactory Evidence given to another of the Integrity or Certainty of it, as when it is preſerved in writing. We ſhould all be diffident that the Laws of England were corrupted, or that Lawyers might combine to do it at their pleaſure, if there were no Law Books or Records, but all lay in their memories. If they were never ſo faithfull, yet they could not give us ſuch evidence of it.
I do not think any man of common reaſon can heartily believe, that all the holy Truths of God, Hiſtorical, Doctrinal, Practical, Prophetical, &c. could (without a courſe of miracles, or extraordinary means) have been kept through all ages, as well without writing, as with it.
7. And if writing be not neceſſary, why have we ſo many Fathers, Hiſtories, and Canons? And why do they fetch their Tradition from theſe, and ridiculouſly call them unwritten verities? Are they unwritten, when they turn us to ſo many volumes for them? And if mans writing be neceſſary for their preſervation, me thinks men ſhould thankfully acknowledge that God hath taken the beſt way in giving it us in his own unalterable phraſe.
3. If they do prove that ſome matters of fact are made known to us by Tradition that are not in the Scripture, or that any Church Orders or Circumſtances of worſhip then uſed are ſo made known to us, (which yet we wait for the proof of) it will not follow that any of theſe are therefore Divine Inſtitutions, or univerſal Lawes for the unchangable obligation of the whole Church. If there be ſome things Hiſtorically related in the Scripture, that were obligatory but for a ſeaſon, and ordained occaſionally, and ceaſed when the occaſion ceaſed (as the Love-feaſts, the Kiſs of Love, the waſhing of feet, the abſtaining from things ſtrangled and blood, the anointing the ſick, the Propheſyings one by one, mentioned 1 Cor. 14. 31. miraculous gifts and their exerciſe, &c.) then it will not follow, if they could prove that the Apoſtles faſted in the Lent, or uſed the ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſme or holy Ordinances, or confirmed with a Croſs in Chryſme, &c. that therefore they intended theſe as univerſal Laws to the Church, though I ſuppoſe they will never prove that they uſed the things themſelves.
4. We will never take the Popes Deciſion or bare word for a Proof of Tradition: nor will we receive it from pretended Authority, but from rational Evidence. It is not their ſaying, we are the authorized keepers of Tradition, that ſhall go with us for proof.
5. And therefore it is not the Teſtimony of the Papiſts alone, (who are not only a leſſer part of the Church, but a part that hath eſpouſed a corrupt intereſt againſt the reſt) that we ſhall take for certain proof of a Tradition: but we will prefer the Teſtimonie of the whole Catholick Church before the Romiſh Church alone.
6. They that can produce the beſt Records of Antiquity, or rational proof of the Antiquity of the thing they plead for, though they be but a few Learned Antiquaries, may yet be of more regard in the matter of Tradition then millions of the vulgar, or unlearned men: ſo that with us, univerſal Tradition is preferred before the Tradition of the Romiſh ſect, and Rational proof of Antiquity is preferred before ignorant ſurmiſes. But where both theſe concur, both univerſal conſent, and records or other credible evidence of Antiquity, it is moſt valid.
And as for the Romiſh Traditions which they take for the other part of Gods word: 1. In all Reaſon they muſt produce their ſufficient proof that they came from the Apoſtles, before we can receive them as Apoſtolick Traditions. And when they have done that, they muſt prove that it was delivered by the Apoſtles as a perpetual univerſal doctrine or Law for the whole Church: and when they have well proved both theſe, we ſhall hearken further to them.
2. Either theſe Traditions have Evidence to prove them Apoſtolical, or no Evidence. If none, how can the Pope know them? If they have Evidence, why may not we know it as well as the Pope? at leaſt, by the helps that his charity doth vouchſafe the world.
3. If there be any Proof of theſe Traditions, it is either ſome Antient Records or Monuments; and then our Learned Antiquaries may better know them then a multitude of the unlearned: Or it is the Practice of the Church: And then 1. How ſhall we know how long that practice hath continued, without recourſe to the writings of the ancients? The reports of the people is in many caſes very uncertain. 2. But if it may be known without the ſearch of Antient Records, then we may know it as well as they.
4. If the Pope and Clergy have been the keepers of it, have they in all ages kept it to themſelves or declared it to the Church? (I mean to all in common) If they have concealed it, 1. Then it ſeems it belonged not to others. 2. Or elſe they were unfaithfull and unfit for the office. 3. And then how do ſucceeding Popes and Clergy know it? If they divulged it, then others know it as well as they. We have had abundance of Preachers from among the Papiſts, that were once Papiſts themſelves, as Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Bucer, &c. and yet theſe knew not of your truly Apoſtolical Traditions.
5. And it mars your credit with us, becauſe we are able to prove the beginning of ſome of your traditions, or a time when they had no being, ſince the death of the Apoſtles.
6. And alſo that we are able to prove the death and burial of many things that have gone long under the name of Traditions.
7. And when we find ſo lame an account from your ſelves of the true Apoſtolical Traditions: You are ſo confounded between your Eccleſiaſticall Decrees and Traditions, and your Apoſtolical Traditions, that we deſpair of learning from you to know one from the other: and of ſeeing under the hand of his Holineſs and a General Council a Catalogue of the true Apoſtolical Traditions. And ſure it ſeems to us ſcarce fair dealing that in one thouſand and five hundered years time, (if indeed there have been Popes ſo long) the Church could never have an enumeration and deſcription of theſe Traditions, with the proofs of them. Had you told us which are Apoſtolick Traditions but as fully and plainly, as the Scriptures which you accuſe of inſufficiency and obſcurity, do deliver us their part, you had diſcharged your pretended truſt.
8. And it is in our eyes an abominable impiety, for you to equal your Traditions with the holy Scripture, till you have enumerated and proved them. And it makes us the more to ſuſpect your Traditions, when we perceive that they or their Patrons have ſuch an enmity to the Holy Scriptures, that they cannot be rightly defended without caſting ſome reproach upon the Scriptures. But this we do not much wonder at: for it is no new thing with the applauders of Tradition. We find the eighth General Council at Conſtantinople, Can. 3. decreeing, that [the Image of Chriſt be adored with equal Honour with the Holy Scripture,] But whether that be an Apoſtolical Tradition, we doubt.
9. And if General Councils themſelves, and that of your own, ſhould be for the ſufficiency of Scripture; what then is become of all your Traditions? Search your own Binnius, page 299. whether it paſt not as ſound doctrine at the Council of Baſil (in Raguſii Orat.) Sup. 6. [that faith and all things neceſſary to ſalvation, both matters of belief, and matters of practice, are founded in the literal ſenſe (of Scripture,) and only from that may argumentation be taken for the proving of thoſe things that are matters of faith, or neceſſary to ſalvation; and not from thoſe paſſages that are ſpoken by allegory, or other ſpiritual ſence] Sup. 7. [The Holy Scripture in the literal ſenſe ſoundly and well underſtood, is the infallible and moſt ſufficient Rule of faith] Is not here enough againſt all other Traditional Articles of faith? A plain man would think ſo. Yea, but Binnius noteth that he meaneth that explicitely or implicitely it is ſo. Well! I confeſs the beſt of you are ſlippery enough: but let us grant this; (for indeed he ſo explaineth himſelf afterward: yet thats nothing for Tradition. He there maintaineth that Scripture is the Rule of faith (not part of the Rule) [For (ſaith he) when the intellect hapneth to err, as in hereticks, its neceſſary that there be ſome Rule, by the deviation or conformity to which the intellect may perceive that it doth or doth not err. Elſe it would be ſtill in doubt and fluctuate—it appeareth that no humane ſcience is the Rule of faith. It remaineth therefore that the Holy Scripture is this Rule of faith. This is the Rule, John 20. where be ſaith, theſe things are written that you might believe, that Jeſus is the ſon of God, and believing might have life in his name. And 2 Pet. 2. You have a more ſure word of prophecy to which ye do well that ye attend as to a light, &c. And Rom. 15. Whatſoever things were written, were written for our learning, &c.—And its plain that the foreſaid authorities are of holy Scripture; and ſpeak of the holy Scripture, &c. The ſecond part alſo is plain, becauſe if the holy Scripture were not a ſufficient Rule of faith, it would follow that the Holy Ghoſt had inſufficiently delivered it, who is the author of it: which is by no means to be thought of God whoſe works are all perfect. Moreover if the Holy Scripture were wanting in any things that are neceſſary to ſalvation, then thoſe things that are wanting might lawfully and deſervedly be ſuperadded from ſome thing elſe (aliunde) or if any thing were ſuperfluous, be diminiſhed. But this is forbidden, Rev. 22. From whence its plain that in Scripture there is nothing defective, and nothing ſuperfluous, which is agreeable to its author, the Holy Ghoſt, to whoſe Omnipotency it agreeeth that nothing deminutely; to his Wiſdom that nothing ſuperfluouſly; and to his Goodneſs that in a congruous order, he provide for the Neceſſity of our ſalvation, Prov. 30. 5, 6. The word of God is a fiery buckler to them that hope in him: Add thou not to his words leſt be reprove thee, and thou be found a lyar.] How like you all this in a Popiſh General Council? and in an Oration againſt the Sacrament in both kinds.
Well! but perhaps the diſtinction unſaith all again? No ſuch matter; you ſhall hear it truly recited. He proceeds thus [But for the further declaration of this Rule as to that part, it muſt be known, that the ſufficiency of any doctrine is neceſſarily to be underſtood two wayes; one way Explicitely, another way Implicitely. And this is true in every Doctrine or ſcience, becauſe no doctrine was ever ſo ſufficiently delivered, that all the Concluſions contained in its principles, were delivered and expreſſed explicitely and in the proper terms: and ſo it is in our purpoſe: becauſe there is nothing that any way or in any manner (N.B.) pertaineth to faith and ſalvation, which is not moſt ſufficiently contained in the holy Scripture explicitely or implicitely. Hence ſaith Auſtin [every truth is contained in the Scriptures, latent or patent, as in other ſciences Speculative, or Moral and Civil, the Concluſions and determinations are contained in their principles, &c. and the deduction is by way of inference or determination—] This is the plain Proteſtant Doctrine. There is nothing any way neceſſary to faith or ſalvation, but what is contained in the Scriptures, either expreſly, or as the Concluſion in the premiſes. Good ſtill! we deſire no more. Let holy Reaſon then diſcern the Concluſion in the premiſes, and let us not be ſent for it to the Authority of Rome; nay ſent for ſome thing elſe, that is no Concluſion deducible from any Scripture principles: we grant Tradition or Church practices are very uſeful for our better underſtanding of ſome Scriptures. But what is this to another Traditional word of God? Prove your Traditions but by inference from Scripture, and we will receive them.
Yet let us hear this Orator further clearing his mind [Adding to a Doctrine may be underſtood four wayes. 1. By way of explication or declaration. 2. By way of ſupply. 3. By way of ampliation. 4. By way of deſtruction, or contrary. The firſt way is neceſſary in every ſcience and doctrine, and ſpecially in Holy Scripture; not for it ſelf, which is moſt ſufficient, and moſt cleare in it ſelf, but for us: (This we all yield) The ſecond way is neceſſary to ſciences diminutely and inſufficiently delivered by their authors, for their ſupplement: ſo Ariſtotle is ſupplemented by Albertus Magnus, &c. The third way, ſpecially if it be not exceſſive, is tolerable to the well being, though it be not neceſſary. The fourth way—aſſertively is to be rejected as Poyſon—Thus are the authorities to be underſtood, that forbid to add to, or diminiſh from the Scripture, Deut. 12, 32.
Well! by this time you may ſee, that when ſuch doctrine as this for Scripture ſufficiency and perfection as the Rule of faith and life, admitting no addition as neceſſary but explication, nor any other as tolerable, but moderate ampliation (which indeed is the ſame,) I ſay, when this doctrine paſt ſo lately in a Popiſh General Council, you may ſee that the very Doctrine of Traditions equaled with Scripture, or being another word of God, neceſſary to faith and ſalvation, containing what is wanting in Scripture, is but lately ſprung up in the world. And ſure the Traditions themſelves be not old then, when the conceit of them came but lately into the world.
4. Well: I have done the three firſt parts of this task: but the chief is yet behind, which is to ſhew 1 How little the Papiſts get by their Argument from Tradition. 2. And how …uch they loſe by it: even all their cauſe.
1. Two things they very much plead Tradition for: the one is their private doctrines and practices, in which they diſagree from other Chriſtians: and here they loſe their labour with the judicious. 1. Becauſe they give us no ſufficient proof that their Tradition is Apoſtolical. 2. Becauſe the diſſent of other Churches ſheweth that it is not univerſal: with other Reaſons before mentioned.
2. The other Cauſe which they plead Tradition for, is the Doctrine of Chriſtianity it ſelf. And this they do in deſign to lead men to the Church of Rome; as if we muſt be no Chriſtians, unleſs we are Chriſtians upon the credit of the Pope, and his Subjects. And here I offer to their Conſideration theſe two things, to ſhew them the vanity of their arguing.
1. We do not ſtrive againſt you in producing any Tradition or Teſtimony of Antiquity for the Scripture, or for Scripture Doctrine: we make as much advantage of ſuch juſt Tradition as you. What do ſuch men as White, Vane, Creſſy, &c. think of, when they argue ſo eagerly for the advantage of Tradition to prove the Scripture and Chriſtian faith? Is this any thing againſt us? Nothing at all. We accept our Religion from both the hands of Providence that bring it us; Scripture and Tradition: we abhor the contempt which theſe partial Diſputers caſt upon Scripture; but we are not therefore ſo partial our ſelves as to refuſe any collateral or ſubordinate help for our faith. The more Teſtimonies, the better. The beſt of us have need of all the advantages for our faith that we can get. When they have extolled the Certainty of Tradition to the higheſt, we gladly joyn with them, and accept of any certain Tradition of the mind of God. And I adviſe all that would prove themſelves wiſe defenders of the faith, to take heed of rejecting Arguments from Providences, or any neceſſary Teſtimony of man, eſpecially concerning matter of fact, or of rejecting true Church Hiſtory, becauſe the Papiſts over value it under the name of Tradition, left ſuch prove guilty of the like partiality and injuriouſneſs to the truth as the Papiſts are. And whereas the Papiſts imagine, that this muſt lead us to their Church for Tradition, I anſwer that in my next obſervation, which is,
2. We go beyond the Papiſts in arguing for juſt Tradition of the Chriſtian faith, and we make far greater advantage of it then they can do. For 1. They argue but from Authoritative Deciſion by the Pope, under the name of Church-Tradition (excepting the French party) whereas we argue from true Hiſtory and certain Antiquity, and prove what we ſay.
Where note 1. That their Tradition is indeed no Tradition: for if it muſt be taken upon the credit of a man as ſuppoſed Infallible by ſupernatural (if not miraculous) endowment, this is not Tradition but Propheſie. And if they prove the man to be ſuch a man, its all one to the Church whether he ſay that [This was the Apoſtles doctrine, or, This I deliver my ſelf to you from God.] For if he were ſo qualified, he had the power and credit of a prophet or Apoſtle himſelf. And therefore they muſt prove the Pope to be a Prophet, before their kind of Tradition can get credit: and when they have done that, there is no need of it: this their honeſt Dr. Holden was ware of, upon which he hath ſo handſomely canvaſſed them.
2. Note alſo that ſuch as Dr. Holden, Creſſy, Vane, White and other of the French way that plead for Tradition, mean a quite other thing then the Jeſuited Italian Papiſt meanes; and while they plead for univerſal Tradition, they come nearer to the Proteſtants, then to their Brethren, if they did not contradict themſelves, when they have done, by making meer Romiſh Tradition to be univerſal.
3. Note alſo, that when Papiſts ſpeak of Tradition confuſedly, they give us juſt reaſon to call them to Define their Tradition, and tell us what they mean by it, before we diſpute with them upon an ambiguous word; ſeeing they are ſo divided among themſelves, that one party underſtands one thing by it, and another another thing; which we muſt not ſuffer theſe juglers to jumble together and confound.
2. Another advantage in which we go beyond the Papiſts for Tradition, is, that as we argue not from the meer pretended ſupernatural Infallibility or Authority of any, as they do, but from rational Evidence of true Antiquity; ſo we argue not from a ſect or party as they do, but from the Univerſal Church: As far as the whole Church of Chriſt is of larger extent and greater credit then the Popiſh party, ſo far is our Tradition more Credible then theirs. And that is eſpecially in three things.
1. The Papiſts are fewer by far then the reſt of the Chriſtians in the world. And the teſtimony of many, yea of all, is more then of a part. 2. The Papiſts above other parties have eſpouſed an intereſt that leads them to pretend and corrupt Tradition, and bend all things to that intereſt of their own, that they may Lord it over all the world: But the whole Church can have no ſuch Intereſt and Partiality. 3. And the Papiſts are but one ſide; and he that will judge rightly, muſt hear the other ſides ſpeak too. But the Tradition that we make uſe of, is from all ſides concurring; yea Papiſts themſelves in many points.
Yea our Tradition reacheth further then the Univerſal Church: for we take in all rational Evidence: even of Jews, Heathens, and Hereticks, and Perſecutors, that bear witneſs to the matters of fact, and what was the doctrine and practice of the Chriſtians in their times, and what Books they made the ground of their faith: ſo that as true Univerſal impartial naturally-or-rationally-infallible Hiſtory or Teſtimony, differeth from a private, pretended-prophetical aſſertion, or from the Teſtimony of one party only; ſo doth our Tradition excell both the ſorts of Popiſh Tradition, both that of the Papal, and that of the Councill party. And now judge who may better boaſt of or extol Tradition, they or we; and to what purpoſe, Creſſy, White, and ſuch men do bring their diſcourſes of Tradition.
2. But yet we have not ſo done with them, till Tradition have given them their mortal ſtroak. You appeal to Tradition, to Tradition you ſhall go. But what Tradition mean you? The Tradition of the Catholick Church? And where is this to be found and known? but in the profeſſion and practice of the Church, and in the Records of the Church. Well then! of both theſe let us enquire.
The firſt and great Queſtion between you and us, is, Whether the Pope be the Head and Soveraign Ruler of the whole Catholick. Church: and then whether the Catholick Church and the Roman are of equal extent? What ſaith Tradition to this?
1. Let us enquire of the preſent Church: and there we have the profeſſion and practice of all the Greek Church; the Syrians, the Moſcovites, the Georgians, and all others of the Greek Religion diſperſed throughout the Turks Dominions, with the Jacobites, Armenians, Egyptians, Abaſſines, with all other Churches in Europe, &c. that diſclaim the Headſhip of the Roman Pope; all theſe do with one mouth proclaim that the Church of Rome is not, and ought not to be the Miſtriſs of the world, or of all other Churches, but that the Pope for laying ſuch a claim is an uſurper, if not the AntiChriſt. This is the Tradition of the Greeks; this is the Tradition of the Abaſsines: the far greateſt part of the Church on earth agree in this. Mark then what is become of the Roman Soveraignty, by the verdict of Tradition; even from the vote of the greateſt part of the Church. Rome hath no right to its pretended Soveraignty. Babylon is faln by the judgement of Tradition.
If you have the faces again to ſay that all theſe are Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, and therefore have no vote, we anſwer. If a minor party, and that ſo partial and corrupt, ſeeking Dominion over the reſt, may ſtep into the Tribunal, and paſs ſentence againſt the Catholick Church, or the greateſt part of it, blame not others, if on far better grounds they do ſo by that part. And for ſhame do not any more hereafter uſe any ſuch ſelf-condemning words, as to ask any Sect, [How dare you condemn the Catholick Church? Do you think all the Church is forſaken but you, &c?] And let us ask you, as you teach your followers to ask us, [If we muſt turn from the Univerſal Church to any Sect, why rather to yours then another? why not as well to the Anabaptiſts, or other party, as to the Papiſts?]
But your common ſaying is, that the Greeks, Proteſtants, and all the reſt were once of your Church, and departing from it, they can have no Tradition but yours, for their ſpring is with you. To which we anſwer. 1. The vanity of this your fiction ſhall by and by be anſwered by it ſelf. 2. You ſay ſo, and they ſay otherwiſe: why ſhould we believe you that are a ſmaller, partial and corrupted part? 3. Well then let us go to former ages, ſeeing it is not the preſent Church whoſe voice you will regard (only by the way, I pray forget not, 1. That you do ill then to call us ſtill to the Judgement of the preſent Church, and dare not ſtand to it. 2. And that you do ill to perſwade men that the greater part of the Church cannot err, if you ſentence the greater part as Schiſmaticks or Revolters.) But how ſhall we know the way and mind of the ages paſt? If by the preſent age, then the greater part giveth us in their ſence againſt you. If by the Records of thoſe times, we are content to hear the Teſtimony of theſe. And firſt when we look into the Antients themſelves, we find them generally againſt you; and we find in that which is antiquity indeed, no footſteps of your uſurped Soveraignty, but a contrary frame of Government, and a conſent of antiquity againſt it. 2. When we look into later Hiſtory we find, how by the advantage of Romes temporal greatneſs and the Emperors reſidence there your greatneſs begun, and preparation was made to your uſurpation, and how the tranſlation of the Imperial Seat to Conſtantinople made them your Competitors, yea to begin in the claim of an univerſal Headſhip; and we find how it being once made a queſtion, you got it by a murdering Emperor reſolved on your ſide for his own advantage. We find that it was long, even till Hildebrands dayes, before you could get any great poſſeſſion, for all this ſentence. It would but be tedious here to recite our Hiſtorical Evidence: we refer you to what is done already by Goldaſtus and Biſhop Uſher de ſtatu & ſucceſs. Eccleſiar. and in his Anſwer to the Jeſuits Challeng, and in his Diſcourſe of the Antient Religion of Ireland, &c. ſpecially by Blondel in his French Treatiſe of Primacy, and Dr. Field, and many others that have already given you the teſtimony of Antiquity. More then you can give a reaſonable anſwer to, I have produced in my Book called the ſafe Religion. In plain Engliſh, inſtead of Apoſtolical Tradition for your Soveraignty; we find that eight hundred years after the dayes of Chriſt, you had not neer ſo much of the Catholick Church in your ſubjection, as you have now: that at four hundred, or five hundred, if not till ſix hundred years after Chriſt you had no known part of the world that acknowledged your univerſal Soveraignty; but only the Latine Weſtern Church ſubmitted to the Pope as their Patriarch, and the Patriarch primae ſedis, the firſt in order among the Patriarchs: and that before the dayes of Conſtantine and the Nicene Council, he was but a Biſhop of the richeſt and moſt numerous Church of Chriſtians: and we ſee no proof that of an hundred years after Chriſt he was any more then the chief Presbyter of a particular Church.
If all this will not ſerve, we have National Evidences beyond all exception, that the Ethiopian Churches of Habaſſia, the Indians, Perſians, &c. were never your ſubjects to this day. That England, Scotland, and Ireland here in your Weſtern Circuits, were not only long from under you, but reſiſted you, maintaining the Council of Calcedon againſt you, and joyning with the Eaſtern Churches againſt you, about Eaſter day, &c. And that the Eaſtern Churches and many great Nations, (as Tendue, Nubia, &c.) that now are revolted, were never your ſubjects, and ſome of them had little to do with you.
And yet if all this will not ſerve, we have your own Confeſſions. I have elſewhere mentioned ſome: Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 7. fol. 201. ſaith [Not only the Greeks, but almoſt all the reſt of the Biſhops of the whole world, have vehemently fought to deſtroy the Priviledge of the Church of Rome: and indeed they had on their ſide, both the Arms of Emperors, and the greater number of Churches: and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the one Pope of Rome] Mark here whether the Catholick Church was then your ſubjects, when the greater number of Churches, and moſt of the Biſhops of the whole world, as well as the Greeks were againſt you, and vehemently fought againſt your pretended priviledges.
Rainerius (ſuppoſed) contra Waldenſes Catal. in Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 4. pag. 773. ſaith [The Churches of the Armenians, and Ethiopians, and Indians, and the reſt which the Apoſtles converted, are not under the Church of Rome.] Read and bluſh, and call Baronius a paraſite. What would you have truer or plainer? And what Controverſie can there be, where ſo many Nations themſelves are witneſſes againſt you? And you may conjecture at the numbers of thoſe Churches by what a Legate of the Popes that lived among them, ſaith of one Corner of them, Jacob. à Vitriaco Hiſtor. Orient. cap. 77. that the Churches in the Eaſterly parts of Aſia alone exceeded in multitude the Chriſtians both of the Greek and Latine Churches] Alas, how little a thing then was the Roman Catholick Church!
If all this were not enough, the Tradition of your own Catholick Church is ready to deſtroy the Papacy utterly. For that a General Council is above the Pope, and may judge him and depoſe him, and that is de fide, and that its Hereſie to deny it, and that all this is ſo jure that ne unquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit, no wiſe man ever doubted of it, all this is the judgement of the General Council of Baſil, with whom that of Conſtance doth agree; And whether theſe Councils were confirmed or not, they confeſs them lawfully called and owned, and extraordinary full: and ſo they were their Catholick Church Repreſentative; and ſo the Popes Soveraignty over the Council is gone by I radition: but thats not the worſt. For, if a free General Council ſhould be called, all the Churches in the world muſt be equally there repreſented: And if they were ſo, then down went the uſurped Head-ſhip of the Pope: For we are ſure already that moſt of the Churches in the world are againſt it: and therefore in Council they would have the Major vote. And thus by the conceſſion of the Roman Repreſentative Catholick Church the Pope is gone by Tradition. So that by that time they have well conſidered of the matter, me thinks they ſhould be leſs zealous for Tradition.