Naked popery, Chapter 1
Naked Popery; OR, THE NAKED FALSHOOD Of a Book called the CATHOLICK NAKED TRUTH, OR THE Puritan Convert to Apoſtolical Chriſtianity; Written by W. H.
Opening their Fundamental Errour of Unwritten Tradition, and their unjuſt Deſcription of the Puritan; the Prelatical Proteſtant, and the Papiſt, and their differences; and better acquainting the ignorant of the true difference, eſpecially what a Puritan and what a Papiſt is.
By RICHARD BAXTER, a Profeſſor of meer Apoſtolical Chriſtianity.
Trita frequanſ que via eſt per Amici fallere nomen;
Trita frequenſ que licet ſit via, crimen habet.
The common beaten way of mens deceit
Is as a Loving Friend to work the Cheat:
But though this be the common beaten way,
It will prove criminal—another day.
W. H. this Author, pag. …5. ſaith [If you do not find that—they (your Catholick Neighbours) hold nothing, nor Practiſe nothing, but what they are able to give a very ſatisfactory account of to any impartial Enquirer, then ſay, I am a Knave, a Lyar, and a Cheat, one that deſerveth no mercy from God or Man, in this World or the next.]
LONDON,
Printed for N. Simmons at the Princes Arms in S. Paul's Church-Yard. M DC LXXVII.
TO THE AUTHOR AND HIS RELATIONS.
CHAP. I.
WHEN the Confutation of the Treatiſe of Tranſubſtantiation was in the Preſs, this Book came to my notice, written, if the Stile may go for Proof, by the ſame Author: It is conjectured that your Name is Mr. W. Hutchinſon of Lincolnſhire, ſometime of Queens Colledge in Cambridge; and that it is indeed your neareſt Relations whom you ſo earneſtly labour to pervert: Your Stile perſwadeth me that you are ſerious, and verily think that your way is right: And I ſuppoſe you ſee that we alſo are as confident of the truth of our Profeſſion, as you are of yours: The Queſtion is, whether it be your Zeal, or ours, that is according to Knowledge?
The Title of your Religion greatly pleaſeth me, and is the ſame that I aſſume: For we are, I perceive, agreed in this, that it is [the Apoſtolical Chriſtianity] that is the true and ſafe Religion: And hath God left the matter ſo obſcure as that we cannot come to an agreement in ſo weighty a matter of Fact, as to know what [the Apoſtolical Chriſtianity] was; when even Common Hiſtory giveth us notice what the Athenian Philoſophers held, and what the ancient Romans held, and ſo of almoſt every literate Nation? You ſtudy, and we ſtudy; You pray, and we pray: You would know the truth, whatever it coſt you, and ſo would We. As a Man that looketh daily when I am called away to God, I ſolemnly proteſt, that if I could find that Popery were the true Apoſtolick Chriſtianity, I would joyfully quit all the Friends, Hope, and Intereſts of this World, to embrace it. What is it that is your advantage, and what is our diſadvantage? Are you more impartial in your ſearch? I am ſo Conſcious of my Impartiality, that I cannot believe that this maketh the difference. Is it that we have not read the Papiſts writings? I have reaſon to believe that I have read as many of them, at leaſt, as you have done, if you are not much above ſixty years of age (as I hear you are not near it). But you have Converſed with more of them than I have done? It's like you have: But is that the reaſon of my miſtake? You earneſtly invite your Relations to Converſe with the Papiſts, becauſe mens writings may be miſtaken: And on this ground I perceive you build all the certainty of your Faith, That our Fathers and our Grand-Fathers have told us Infallibly, what they received from their Fathers and Grand-Fathers, and ſo on. This is your certainty.
I will tell you briefly what I take for the Apoſtolical Chriſtianity, and by what Notices I receive it; and then I will again conſider yours.
I take not Chriſtianity to be a thing ſo hardly to be known, as you would make it; either as to the Being of it, or the Publication. I take it to have its Eſſentials, Integrals, and Accidentals; and that theſe are not to be confounded: If it cannot be readily known what Chriſtianity is, how ſhall we preach it to Heathens? or how ſhall Chriſtians be known to others, or themſelves? and who can have the comfort of an unknown Religion?
You tell us that nothing of it is written in the New Teſtament, but the Life of Chriſt by four Men, and a few occaſional Epiſtles, &c. But do you think that Chriſt himſelf did not inſtitute Chriſtianity, and tell Men plainly what it was? Did not thoſe four Men write Chriſt's Doctrine as well as his Life? And is he not the Author of our Faith? Did he not preach the Goſpel? And do you not call theſe four Books the four Evangeliſts? And doth not the Goſpel contain and deſcribe Chriſtianity? Did not Chriſt oft tell us what it is to be his Diſciples? And were not the Diſciples called Chriſtians ſhortly after, as words of the ſame ſignification? But what place is there for any doubt, when Chriſt himſelf did inſtitute Baptiſm, and deſcribe it? and command that all Nations being Diſcipled ſhould be Baptized into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt; as being the Faith which Diſciples muſt profeſs? And do not you to this day profeſs, that Baptizing is Chriſtening, and that Baptiſm waſheth away all ſin, (ſuppoſing the Baptized to receive it as Baptiſm, by true Covenant-conſent at leaſt?) And doth not Baptiſm enter us into the true Church of Chriſt? Sure all this is paſt diſpute; where then is the difficulty? Is not a truly baptized Perſon a Chriſtian? And was it then as hard a matter as you make it, to know what Faith was neceſſary to Baptiſm, (in the Perſon at age, or the Parent of Infants?) Surely then the Scripture, that mentioneth the Hiſtory of ſo many thouſands baptized, would have told us of that grand Controverſie, and how it was decided. But no ſuch Controverſie was then debated, for ought we there find. If Baptiſmal Covenanting with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, as our God and Father reconciled in Chriſt, our Saviour, and our Sanctifier, be not the Symbol or Badge of Chriſtians, and that which viſibly maketh them ſuch; your own Church, and all the Chriſtian World is deceived. And we know that it was not the Cuſtom of the Apoſtles and Paſtors of the ancient Churches, to make a meer Ceremony and dead Formality of Baptiſm, by baptizing thoſe that would but ſay the words [I believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt,] without underſtanding what they ſaid: And therefore their ordinary Preaching was the Expoſition of theſe three Articles: And the Creed called The Apoſtles, is the Expoſition of theſe three Articles; which though ſome Clauſes were ſince added, and though the Churches tyed not themſelves juſt to the very ſame words, (as we find by the various forms of this Creed in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Marcellus's in Epiphanius, Ruffinus, &c.) yet for the ſubſtance and ſenſe, and moſt of the very words, all Churches uſed the ſame. And when the Council of Nice taught them the way of making new Creeds, (which Hilary Pictav. ſo ſadly complaineth of,) yet ſtill the matter of the old Creed was the ſubſtance of them all. And the Eaſtern Creed, which was uſed before the Nicene Council, (for that ſuch a one there was, the moſt Learned Antiquaries give us ſufficient proof,) was but the ſame in ſenſe as the Weſtern, even the Expoſition of the Baptiſmal Faith; and this the Baptized did profeſs before Baptiſm: And the work of Catechiſts was to teach this and the ſenſe of it to the Catechumens. And that [He that believeth and is baptized (that is, truly devoted to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, by the Baptiſmal Covenant) ſhall be ſaved, and he that believeth not ſhall be damned,] is by Chriſt himſelf made the ſum of his Goſpel, or Law of Grace.
As the Image of the bleſſed Trinity on mans Soul is Life, Light, and Love; ſo the ſummaries of that ſacred Doctrine which muſt imprint it on us, is the Symbolum Fidei, the Creed, the ſummary of things to be believed; and the Lords Prayer, the Symbolum and ſummary of things to be willed, deſired, and ſought; and the Decalogue, the ſummary of things to be practiſed; being the Directory of Mans three Faculties, the Intellect, the will, and the Executive Power. And all this we believe was delivered to the Churches by the Apoſtles, and received by all Chriſtians, many years (eight at leaſt) before any Book of the New Teſtament was written: And for the fuller underſtanding and improvement of it, and for all the integral parts of Religion that were to be added, the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts more enlargedly preached them to the People in their Sermons, as Chriſt himſelf had done much of them. We receive all that, as Gods Word, which by theſe Apoſtles was delivered as ſuch to the Churches; becauſe they had the promiſe of the Holy Ghoſt to lead them into all truth, and to bring all things that Chriſt taught and commanded to their remembrance. We are aſſured that all that is contained in the New Teſtament was written by ſuch inſpired Perſons; and that the Spirit of God will knew, that when they were to dye, without written Records, the memory of Mankind would not faithfully retain, and deliver to Poſterity, ſuch copious matter as the Integrals and uſeful Accidentals of Religion, and therefore cauſed them to write it and leave it to Poſterity.
So that our Chriſtian Religion is contained and delivered to us in three Formulas or Preſcripts: The firſt containeth the whole Eſſence of Chriſtianity, and is the Sacramental Covenant, in which we are believingly given up to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, and God to us, in the Relation of a God and Father, a Saviour and a Sanctifier. This is done initially, ad eſſe, in Baptiſm, and after ad robur in the Lords Supper. This is delivered to us by Tradition Naturally Infallible, de facto: For all Chriſtians, as ſuch, have received and entred this Sacramental Covenant; and full Hiſtory aſſureth us, that the very ſame Form of it is come down in all the Churches to this day.
The ſecond Formula, is the Expoſition of the three Articles of this Sacramental Covenant, in the Creed, Lords Prayer, and Decalogue; which hath been delivered by memory alſo, and kept unchanged (ſave the foreſaid additions of ſome explicatory words in the Creed,) to all the Churches to this day.
The third Form, is all the holy Canonical Scriptures, (the Old Teſtament being as preparatory to the New,) which contain all the Eſſentials, Integrals, and needful Accidentals.
Our Religion then is all from Chriſt and his Spirit, in inſpired men, commiſſioned to deliver it, and is well called as you do, the Apoſtolical Chriſtianity: We own no other. It is all brought down to us by Tradition from the Apoſtles. The Eſſentials in the Covenant, and the explicatory Symbols or Summaries, are delivered to us two ways: Firſt by Memory and Practice moſt currant and certain from Generation to Generation, being no more than what Memory might well retain, whereto yet the helps of the Ancients Writings reciting the Forms were uſed for the fuller certainty of Poſterity. Secondly in the holy Scriptures, where they are contained (as the Brain, Heart, and Stomach, in the Body) among all the reſt as the Principal Parts. The third form is ſo large that Memory could not preſerve it, and therefore God would have it delivered us in that Writing which we all call the Sacred Bible, or Canonical Scripture. This containeth thouſands of words more than are of abſolute neceſſity to Salvation; but no more than is uſeful or helpful to Salvation.
In all this I have ſhewed you what our Religion is, (Objectively taken) and which way we receive it. Where you are therefore to note, 1. That all our Sermons, Writings, Church-Articles, &c. are but the Expreſſions of our Subjective Religion, telling other Men how particular Men, and particular Churches, underſtand thoſe Divine Forms which are our Objective Religion: Theſe are various as Churches and Perſons are, every one having his own Faith and Religion in different meaſures, and ſuch expreſſions being but our ſides menſurata may be altered and amended, and we pretend not to perfection in them: But the former being our ſides vel Religio menſurans, our Divine Objective Faith or Religion, is inculpable and unalterable.
2. Note that you Papiſts do grant all our Objective Faith and Religion, even every word of it, to be true, infallible, and of God: You own, I ſay, every word of our Religion: That is, all the Sacramental Covenant, all the Creed, Lords Prayer, and Decalogue, and all that which we call the holy Canonical Scriptures. But we own not all yours: So that you do not, you cannot find fault with the leaſt Particle of our Religion as to the truth of it; but, 1. You think that it is not enough: And 2. That we come not to it the right way, that is, we take not our Faith upon the word of Papiſts, as Papiſts. Is not this the difference? And is not this all that you cry out againſt us for?
And now let us ſee whether your way be better and ſurer than this of ours is?
I. Your Religion is much Bigger than ours.
II. You hold it on other Reaſons, and plead another way of receiving it.
I. Your Religion (Objective) containeth, beſides all our Bible, all the Apocryphal Books, and all the Decrees of General Councils, and all the other un-written Traditions (if there be any more, who knows what?) you name your ſelf here, faſting on Frydays, and on the vigils of Saints, Ember-days, Lent, and Images, and ſuch like.
Here now we humbly propoſe to your conſideration; 1. Whether you will take all theſe into the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity, or not? If not, a Man may be a Chriſtian; and conſequently of the Church or Body of Chriſt, and in a ſtate of Salvation without them. Why then do you deny them this, and make them to be as out of the true Church and ſtate of Life? If yea,
Q. 2. Did all that the Apoſtles Baptized, believe all the Apocrypha and all the Decrees of your Councils, and your Oral Traditions?
Q. 3. Did the ancient Fathers and Catechiſts teach all thoſe to the Catechumens before they Baptized them?
Q. 4. And were not thoſe all Chriſtians, and in the true Church, and in a ſtate of Life, whom the Apoſtles Baptized, without the profeſſion of any ſuch Belief?
Q. 5. What was the Creed, the Symbolum fidei uſed for, if not to diſtinguiſh the Faith of the Chriſtian Church from Infidelity, Hereſie, and all without? And if all the Decrees of Councils be as neceſſary to be the Symbol of Faith, why were they not all made up into a Creed? and why is the Creed differenced from them all to this day? And why do you not cauſe the Baptized to recite and profeſs all theſe Councils Decrees, but only the old Chriſtian Creed?
Q. 6. Doth not Chriſt at the Inſtitution of his Sacrament, Mat. 28. expreſly promiſe that he that believeth (according to Baptiſm, in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt) ſhall be ſaved?
Q. 7. Is it not a reproach to God and the Chriſtian Religion, to tell the World that God hath written us by his Spirit ſo great a Book as the Bible is, and yet there is not in it enough to Salvation, but that abundance unneceſſary to Salvation is in it, and ſome neceſſary things left out?
Q. 8. Have your Oral ſuperadded Traditions more Evidence of Truth than the Bible, or more Evidence of Neceſſity to be believed? Not more Evidence of Truth: For you confeſs the certain Truth of all the Bible, and that as fully manifeſt as your Additions. If it have more Evidence of Neceſſity, what is it? It is not becauſe it is a Divine Revelation: For ſo you confeſs all the Bible to be? And do you pretend to a Tradition that ſaith, [You may be ſaved without moſt of the Bible, though it be of God, but not without faſting on Frydays, or on the Vigils of Saints-days, or other ſuch Traditions?] But if you will make both the whole Bible and Tradition neceſſary to be believed, it muſt be either Explicitely, or as you call it, Implicitely: If Explicitely, (that is, as each Point is particularly underſtood and believed,) then it's doubtful whether there be one Man in the World that is a Chriſtian, and can be ſaved? If Implicitely, that is, Virtually as it is in ſome General Propoſition, what is that General? Is it that All that God revealeth is true? Or that All that the Spirit of Chriſt in his Apoſtles delivered to the Church as his word, is true. Theſe we all agree in, if this will ſerve the turn? Is it that the Church is the Miniſterial Keeper of the Sacred Doctrine as delivered? This alſo we agree in. Or is it that the Church de eventu ſhall never corrupt, alter, or loſe, this word, or any part of it? If you mean it of every particular Church, we are agreed of the contrary. You confeſs that many Churches have fallen to Hereſie, and many Apoſtatized from the Faith: If you ſpeak of the Univerſal Church, we are agreed that the Univerſal Church ſhall never Apoſtatize; for if Chriſt had no Church, he were no Head of it. And we are agreed that they ſhall never turn ſuch true Hereticks, as hold not truly all the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity: For ſuch alſo are no Chriſtians; becauſe each Eſſential part is neceſſary to the Eſſence. But whether the Univerſal Church, much more the Greater part, may not make or receive ſome culpable alteration by Amiſſion, Omiſſion, or Commiſſion, we have reaſon to queſtion? We never heard any Proof that the Negative was neceſſary to Salvation, nor is it held by all your ſelves; and whether by any one man I cannot tell: For you take the Bible to be Gods Word, and your knowledge of the various Readings of the Hebrew and Greek Copies, and the multitude of Errours in the Vulgar Latine corrected by P. Clem. 8. and Sixtus 5. do ſatisfie all the World, that you hold that the Univerſal Church, or the major part, even your own, may culpably erre, or alter the very written Word of God. And who would then believe you, if you ſaid, [But the Unwritten Word it cannot alter?] It's true indeed, the Eſſentials conſidered, as Written or Unwritten, all the true Church, nor any one Chriſtian, while ſuch, cannot deny: But ſure, if many thouſand Errours may be found in that Book which you take your ſelves for the Word of God, and this through the fault or failing of ſuch as have had the keeping of it; and all Divine Revelations are to be believed, and all the Word of God is Divine Revelation, it notoriouſly followeth, That your own Church hath not kept all that is matter of Divine Faith from alteration. So that though many of your Wranglers will not diſtinguiſh the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity (called Fundamentals) from the Integrals and Accidentals, (as if Chriſtianity were nothing, and had no determinate Eſſence,) yet this ſheweth, that you muſt do it whether you will or not; or elſe you muſt confeſs that your Church may alter any thing, or every thing, as it hath done all theſe fore-mentioned: Which we will not confeſs of the Church Univerſal.
But, I ſuppoſe that we have not yet met with the Faith that you account neceſſary to ſalvation: It is that the Pope of Rome, and a General Council, cannot erre, in delivering to us the Apoſtolical Doctrine to be believed. And this is an implicite believing of all that is written in Scripture, and that is delivered orally from the Apoſtles. If ſo, words and names go very far with you as to mens ſalvation. Is this to believe a thouſand things which a man never knew or heard of? if he do but believe the Infallibility of your Church? What! Believe that which I never once thought of? But this is but Implicite Faith? A cheating Name for No-belief of thoſe things: For by Implicite here you can mean only Virtual, and that is no Actual Belief of that thing at all, but of ſomething elſe, which would infer more were it known: Nay Virtual is too high a Name for it.
But will this ſerve the turn to ſalvation, to believe that the Pope and his Council are Infallible? What! though the ſame Perſon believe not in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, nor any of the Articles of his Creed, no not a Life to come? If you ſay, Yea; Then will you call this Chriſtianity, to believe in the Pope, and not in Chriſt? Or do you mean, that men may be ſaved without Chriſtianity, but not without Popery? If ſo, why was not the Popes Name, rather than Chriſts, put into Baptiſm and the Creed, or at leaſt with Chriſts?
But the inſuperable difficulty is, How muſt I believe that the Pope hath this Infallibility? From Chriſt, or otherwiſe? If not from Chriſt, tell me which way, and why I muſt believe it? If from Chriſt, can I believe that the Pope hath Power from Chriſt, before I believe that there is a Chriſt, that hath ſuch Power to give? And can I believe in Chriſt, and not believe that there is a God that ſent him? Can I believe that Jeſus is the Chriſt, and not believe that he is a Sacrifice for ſin, or a Mediator between God and Man, and came to ſave his People from their ſins? And can I believe this, and not believe that we are all ſinners, and that ſin deſerveth that puniſhment which Chriſt came to ſave us from? Is not our Saviour, and our Sin and Miſery relatives? as a Phyſician, or Medicine and a Diſeaſe? And can we believe that we have ſin and deſert of Puniſhment, without believing that God is our Governour, and gave us that Law which we broke, and which obligeth us to Puniſhment? Can we believe in Chriſt, and not believe that he is God and Man, that he dyed, roſe, and aſcended into Heaven, and will judge us at laſt? and that he pardoneth ſin, reneweth Souls by his Spirit, and will give us life hereafter? All theſe are included in believing in Chriſt, as Chriſt. And how muſt I believe that Chriſt hath given the Pope this Infallibility or Power? By any written word which granteth it? or by Oral Tradition? If by the written Word, then I muſt believe that that Word is true, before I can believe that the Pope is made Pope or Infallible by it? If by Oral Tradition, whoſe muſt that be? Then I muſt believe ſome bodies Oral Tradition as true and infallible, before I believe in the Pope at all. If it be the firſt Hearers of the Apoſtles, then either the Pope was one of thoſe, or not. If yea, and he hath a Negative Voice in the credible report, then I muſt believe him as Infallible, before he is proved Infallible, in order to my believing that he is Infallible, which is a contradiction. If Not, Then I muſt believe the Infallibility of other Hearers of the Apoſtles, before I can believe the Pope's? And the Queſtion will recur, How I ſhall know them to be Infallible? And who they were that were thoſe Infallible Witneſſes? Whether Paſtors only, or the People? Whether of ſome one Church, or of all the Churches? And how I ſhall prove that they gave ſuch a Teſtimony?
So that your pretenſe of a Neceſſity of receiving Gods Word, or the Chriſtian Faith, from the Pope and his Council cometh too late: For it ſeemeth that we muſt believe it firſt, before it be poſſible to believe in the Pope and Council as authoriſed by Chriſt.
And if my Implicite Faith be the Belief of this Article, [Any Church in all the world, yea, the greater part of all the Churches, may err in matters of Faith, or Apoſtatize, and only the Pope of Rome and his Council cannot:] What Proof, or whoſe Tradition doth this reſt upon?
Q. 9. Do not Bellarmine, Coſterus, and many of your Writers profeſs that the Scriptures contain all things ordinarily neceſſary to Salvation? Yea many Writers, that the Creed hath all that is abſolutely to be believed? Yea ſome, that it hath more than all? Yea abundance (Cited by Fr. a Sancta Clara) that the Belief in Chriſt is not neceſſary to all? And will you ſay then, that he that believeth Explicitely the whole Bible cannot be ſaved without believing alſo your pretended Traditions?
Q. 10. And do you not hereby, inſtead of the light burden and eaſie yoak of Chriſt, and his Commands which are not grievous, bring Chriſtians under a harder yoak than that which the Jews were not able to bear? When it ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt in the Apoſtles to impoſe but a few and neceſſary things, Act. 15. 28. And how large a Law is all the Bible, and all your Councils Decrees, and Oral Traditions, ſet together? Do all your Prieſts themſelves, or one of an hundred, underſtand them all, or know what they are?
Q. 11. While you pretend a Neceſſity of your numerous Ceremonies, (as Faſting on Frydays, and ſuch other named by you,) do you not lay a ſnare of perpetual Diviſion in the Churches? and do you not make as many inconſiſtent Churches, as there be Societies of Chriſtians that differ (and ſtill will differ) about any of thoſe Traditions or Ceremonies?
Q. 12. And do you not lay open your own Church, to the accuſation of innovation, mutability, and corruption, when it is not to be denyed, but in ſuch things as thoſe they have been mutable or innovated? Have you not long left the Cuſtom of adoring on the Lords-days without genuflexion, though the firſt great General Council (Nic. Can. 20.) and the ancient Fathers commonly, made it a Tradition, and Practice of the whole Church? and it was Decreed to be ſo uſed by all? Abundance of ſuch Inſtances may be given.
Q. 13. You do very injuriouſly to your own Sect and Cauſe, here to pretend Tradition as coming down from the Apoſtles, for ſuch things as your own Doctors plead but your Churches later Inſtitution for: It's fully proved by Daleus de jejuniis, that the Lent Faſt was long but for a ſhort time, before it came to fourty days: And it's an odd thing, if you will pretend Tradition from the Apoſtles, for the Holy-days, or the Vigil Faſts, of thoſe Saints that were born many hundred years after the Apoſtles death?
We confeſs our Faith is not ſo big as yours? We have many ſcore Texts of Scripture that promiſe Salvation to them that believe much leſs than the Bible it ſelf containeth. Yet we profeſs our ſelves ready to believe as much more as you ſhall ever prove to us, to have been delivered by the Apoſtles, to the Church, to be believed.
II. And for the ſecond, (that we receive not our Faith the way that you do; that is, from the Authority of the Pope and Papiſts, and from your Tradition:) We crave your conſideration of theſe Queſtions.
1. When the Apoſtles (and Diſciples, Act. 8.) were ſcattered, and preached the Goſpel to many Nations, Were they not true Chriſtians, and ſaved, that received the Goſpel from any one of them, or from any Perſon whatſoever? If Aquila or Priſcilla Converted a Sinner, ſuch a one ſaved a Soul from Death, though Peter did it not; nor his Authority was known to ſuch a one?
2. Do you believe that if the Roman Biſhop or Churches Revelation or Propoſal were neceſſary to true Faith and to Salvation, that Chriſt would never have told Men ſo? Nor any of his Apoſtles have left it us on Record? When there were Hereſies and Schiſmes ſo wofully troubling the Churches as we find in Paul's Epiſtles to the Cor. Gal. Col. and in the Rev. 2. and 3. ch. ſhould we never have found one word for this ſpeedy way of deciſion, to appeal to the Church of Rome? Would Paul have rebuked them for ſaying, I am of Cephas, and made him but a Miniſter by whom they believed, without ever mentioning his Office and Dignity? would he never have told the Church of Rome of their Miſtriſ-ſhip and Infallibility above the reſt? Would ſo neceſſary a Fundamental of Faith have been ſo much ſilenced?
3. Did the Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, or ancient Fathers, uſe to Convert Infidels by any ſuch Method, and telling them that they muſt believe, firſt the Infallibility of the Biſhop of Rome and his Clergie, and then believe the Goſpel becauſe he ſaith it is true? Had this been the old Method, would there not have been more Books neceſſary, and written, to prove this firſt Fundamental (the Infallibility of the Roman Biſhop and his Councils) than to have proved the Goſpel it ſelf directly? Is it not a wonder that we ſhould have ſuch Volumes as Euſebius his Praeparatio & Demonſtratio Evangel. and ſo many written by thoſe before and after him, to prove the Goſpel, and none of them hit on this Method, nor write at large to make it good? The Churches Authority and Unity, is ordinarily pleaded againſt Hereſies and Schiſmes, but who ever Converted Infidels by the Authority of the Papal Church, either proved or aſſerted as the neceſſary Medium of Faith?
4. Do you not confeſs that all other Churches may erre beſides the Roman? And their plea of Tradition you account invalid: Your Book called [Conſiderations on the Council of Trent, by R. H.] p. 40. ſaith, [All Conciliary Definitions are not only Declarations and Teſtifications of ſuch Apoſtolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conſpicuous in all Chriſtian Churches Planted by them; but are many times Determinations of Points deduced from, and neceſſary conſequents to, ſuch clear Traditionals, whether written or unwritten. 2. If the Acts of General Councils were only ſuch Declarations of Apoſtolical Tradition, yet it is poſſible that ſome particular Church, may in time, depart from ſuch a Tradition entruſted to them; elſe how can any Church become Heretical againſt any ſuch Tradition?]
Do you not at this day accuſe the Greek Church, the Muſcovites, the Armenians, the Jacobites, Syrians, Copties, Abaſſines, the Proteſtants, &c. as having departed from, or corrupted the firſt Tradition? And how ſmall a part of the Univerſality of Chriſtians are the Papiſts? And if the greater part of Chriſtians may ſo forſake the Apoſtolical Tradition, why may not the Pope of Rome and his Council? How ſhall we be ſure of their exemption from ſuch danger? You tell us over and over of our receiving this and that from our Fathers and Grand-Fathers? And is that a certain Proof that it is Apoſtolical? Why is it not ſo then with all the reſt, the Abaſſines, the Armenians, &c. and the Majority of Chriſtians? But of this I have ſpoken in the former Treatiſe.
5. And there I have deſired you to tell us, whether your Grandfather, or his Prieſt, was Infallible? If yea, how, came he by it more than all thoſe Churches? If not, do you not delude your Relations, by drawing them to build their Faith on a fallible man, or upon nothing? Your Relations were not at the Council of Trent, or Florence, or Laterane: How ſhall they be ſure what the Pope and Council agreed on? What Foundation, but the words of your Prieſt or Grandfather, have you for your aſſurance? May not one of your Prieſts lye as well as all the Greek, Abaſſine, &c. Churches? When Pope Coeleſtine himſelf falſly urged the Nicene Council for Appeals to Rome, contrary to Auguſtine and the Carthage Council? Either tell your Readers plainly, that it's you, and ſuch as you, that are the Infallible Foundation of their Faith; or bid them ſtay, and not go your way, till they are certain what the Pope and his Council ſay; and that he is a true Pope, and it a true Council, and that they are more Infallible than the major part of Chriſtians. And our Faith can be no ſtronger than the weakeſt neceſſary medium of it, from whence it muſt ariſe.
6. I have ſaid ſo much of this in a ſmall Book, called, [The certainty of Chriſtianity without Popery,] which I intreat you impartially to peruſe, where I have alſo ſhewed the utter uncertainty that Popery would reduce our Chriſtianity to; that I will now only tell you, that after your talk of Tradition, and Church, and Fathers, and Grandfathers, if we had not much more teſtimony of Tradition for our Religion than you have for Popery, we ſhould think our Faith were very lame. Compare ours with yours: 1. Yours is A pretended Authoritative determination, which reſts upon a ſuppoſed Inſpiration of ſome Perſons, by virtue of a ſpecial Priviledge peculiar to themſelves. 2. It is the Tradition of the minor part of Chriſtians againſt the major. 3. It reſts on the pretended Infallibility of a Pope, which great General Councils have ſaid may be a Heretick, and have depoſed divers as Hereticks, and worſe: And upon the Infallibility of General Councils, which by Popes and other Councils are pronounced fallible, unleſs confirmed by a Pope (who may be a Heretick.) 4. It reſts upon a Foundation (viz. the Popes Divine Right of Primacy and Infallibility) which is expreſly denyed by two of the firſt four great General Councils, approved to this day; viz. that of Calcedon reciting the ſenſe of that of Conſtantinople againſt the ſaid Divine right, affirming, that the Popes Primacy was given him by the Fathers, becauſe Rome was the Imperial Seat. 5. It reſts upon an Authority (of Popes and General Councils,) which being at firſt but the Clergie of one Empire, hath thence claimed the ſame Power over all the Chriſtian World, which they had got in the Dominions of one Prince. 6. It reſts on a Claim downright contradictory to it ſelf, as aforeſaid, viz. That we muſt believe that the Pope hath this Power and Infallibility given him and his Councils, by Chriſt and his Goſpel, before we can believe that there is a Chriſt and a Goſpel authorized and true.
Now our Tradition is this: For all the Eſſentials of our Religion, the Sacramental Covenant, and the three expoſitory Symbols, we have the currant Tradition both of the Papiſts and all the reſt of the Chriſtian World: Yea, that every Book that we call Canonical is the true Word of God, not only the Papiſts but almoſt all the Chriſtian World confeſs: And, defacto, that theſe Books came down from the Apoſtles, at leaſt that the Goſpel was preached by them, we have the Teſtimony alſo of Enemies and Perſecutors. And are not all theſe more than the Teſtimony of one Sect alone? 2. And in this we have as much to confirm us as you have, of the wiſdom, piety, care of the Church to preſerve the Goſpel, and much more too; for we have the Piety of all the Churches to plead, and not your Sect alone: And we undertake to prove ſuch a moral Infallibility as is alſo Natural, viz. That Mans Nature and Intereſts ſuppoſed, it is no more poſſible for ſo many Perſons and Nations of croſs Intereſts to have agreed in their Teſtimony for the Goſpel, than for all the contentious Lawyers in the Land to have agreed falſly to inform us, that our Statutes were made by ſuch Kings and Parliaments. But a domineering Faction alone might eaſilier have deceived men.
3. Yea, even as to Chriſts Promiſe, we can better prove that the Univerſal Church, or Body of Chriſtians, ſhall never loſe the Faith, than you can prove it of Rome alone, or the Papal Sect. Bellarmine himſelf dare not ſay, that Rome ſhall not ceaſe to be the feat of the Papacy, or ſhall not be utterly deſtroyed. And then how can there be a Biſhop of Rome, when there is no Rome? But you'll ſay, that if he dwell at Avignion, he may be called Biſhop of Rome? But if he be called ſo when he is not ſo, at leaſt when there is no Rome, or no Chriſtian Church there, ſure a falſe Name is not an Eſſential part of our Religion. If you ſay, that at Avignion, or Ravenna, or Vienna, he may be S. Peter's Succeſſor, and ſo the Univerſal Monarch ſtill. I anſwer, Then it ſeems that the Council of Calcedon, as afore-cited, was in the right, (that Romes Priviledge was given by the Fathers, becauſe it was the Imperial Seat:) And ſo that the Pope is not S. Peter's Succeſſor, eo nomine, becauſe he is Biſhop of Rome. But if the Biſhop of Avignion, or Vienna, might become S. Peter's Succeſſor (who never was Biſhop there,) how ſhall we know that the Biſhop of Rome is his Succeſſor now? We have hitherto had no better means to prove it, and deceive the World, than by ſaying that S. Peter dyed Biſhop of Rome, where the Pope is Biſhop: But S. Peter dyed not Biſhop of Avignion. If the Place prove not the Succeſſion, tell us, if you can, what doth? Is it the Election? By whom? Who are thoſe men that have the Power of chuſing S. Peter a Succeſſor? You know, I ſuppoſe, that the Pope hath been choſen, 1. Sometime by the People, (witneſs the blood-ſhed at the choice of Damaſus in the Church:) 2. Sometime by the People, and the Neighbour Ordaining Biſhops: 3. Sometime by a Synod: 4. Sometime by the Emperours: 5. And laſtly, by the Roman Cardinals. If any of theſe may chuſe, then we may have four or five lawful Popes, choſen four or five ſeveral ways, at once. If only one of theſe have the Power, S. Peter had no Succeſſors under all the other Elections. So that the Claim will fall rather to Antioch than to Avignion, or any other Town, becauſe they ſay it was S. Peter's firſt Biſhoprick, from which he removed for a greater. If you are driven with poor Mr. Johnſon, alias, Terret, to ſay, that Any way will ſerve which ſerveth for the truth of an Election of Princes, &c. then ſtill we may have four Popes at leaſt. I doubt you muſt be forced to ſay as ſome, that it is the acceptance of the Univerſal Church, which muſt prove who is the Univerſal Monarch. 1. But ſome muſt be Electors, before it comes to acceptance. And who hath the Power of Electing? And 2. what if now the major part of the Church ſhould prefer the Biſhop of Conſtantinople? I hope you are not ſo ignorant of Coſmography as not to know that the Greek Church when they firſt preferred the Biſhop of Conſt. was far greater than the Latine. 3. And I ſuppoſe you know that it is not near half the Chriſtian World that now accepteth of the Pope as their Governour. 4. And I pray you do but get the Pope to ſuſpend his claim till the Church Univerſal accept him, and we ſhall not be troubled with him: For how ſhall they ſignifie their acceptance? If in a General Council, you know how they of Conſtance, Baſil, and Piſa, are reviled by the Pope and thoſe that now go for your Church, for pretending to a power to depoſe and chuſe Popes; and how Eugenius the fourth prevailed againſt ſuch a Depoſition. And if theſe Councils were not your Univerſal Church repreſentative, where ſhall we think to find it?
In ſum, we have the Tradition of a Church as big as three of the Roman for all our Religion; and of all the Roman Church it ſelf; beſides the Confeſſion of the Enemies of the Church, Pagans, Infidels, Mahometans, Jews, and Hereticks; we have not one word that's part of our Religion, which your ſelves confeſs not to be true: We believe that the Faith of the Univerſal Church ſhall never fail, nor the Gates of Hell prevail againſt it: And ſo you ſee that we may far better tell how Infallibly we have received our Religion from our Forefathers, than you can do of yours: But we believe not that this Univerſal Church hath any Head but Chriſt; no Humane Vicarious Monarch or Governour of all the World: We believe that Men muſt Believe in Chriſt before they can know that the Pope is his Vicar, if it had been true: We know, as ſure as Hiſtory can tell us, that the Pope's firſt Primacy, and the reſt of the Patriarchates were but the Humane Ordinances of the Clergie of one Empire, and not of the whole Chriſtian World. And we know not (nor you) but Rome and its Church and Biſhop, may yet all ceaſe together.
But you make me moſt admire at you, that (in this Book alſo) you tell your Relations, and other Readers, of the uncertainty of notice by Books in Compariſon of converſe and talk with thoſe of your preſent Party; yea that your own Religion is not to be known by Books, as being lyable to be miſunderſtood, ſo well as by talking with Papiſts, and asking them what is their Faith or Religion. Sir, I judge by your Stile that you are a man of zeal and conſcience in your way, and therefore that you write not this fraudulently againſt your conſcience. Sure then you muſt needs be a man of more than ordinary ignorance, that can believe what you ſay. 1. Is it your Objective or your Subjective Faith that we are diſputing of? If it be not the Rule and Object of your Faith, every man indeed may tell us what he believeth himſelf, but no man can tell us what another believeth. And then you have as many Religions as men; for every man hath one of his own, and no two men in the world know and believe juſt all the ſame things, neither more nor leſs: And what ſhall thoſe of us think of your Religion then, who find that one of you affirmeth what another denyeth? For inſtance, A worthy Perſon of your Religion affirmed to me, that notwithſtanding the Fifth Commandment [Honour thy Father and Mother,] a Mother hath not any Governing Power over a Child, nor the Child oweth any obedience to the Mother, during the Fathers life, becauſe it were confuſion were there more Governours in a Houſe than one, though ſubordinate one to the other. Is this your common Judgment? May I ſay therefore that this is other mens belief? You know that when we alledge the ſayings of your moſt Learned Writers, we are ordinarily told, that it is not the judgment of particular Doctors, but of the Church in Councils, which we muſt call your Churches Judgment. You undertake not to juſtifie any more. And if I talk with any of my Neighbours and ask him what he believeth, have I any more than a ſingle Doctors opinion? Is his Anſwer, the Faith of your Church? But would you have any one paſt ſeven years old believe you, that writing is of no more uſe to Memory for conſervation of Antiquities? when God would not truſt his Ten Commandments to the Peoples Memories, but would write them in Stone, and put them in the Arke, (which you have ſo little skill in Antiquity as to ſay here was the firſt writing: Sure if you will read your Jeſuite Euſeb. Nirembergius de Antiqu. ſcripturae you will not ſay that your Grand-Father taught you truly that Opinion as the Tradition of the Church.) Why do you write to your own Relations, if writing be ſo un-intelligible? Could the Bible have been kept as well in Memory as by Writings? Why were the Goſpels written then? Do you go to Tradition, or to Books, to decide any Controverſie now of the various readings? Did Pope Clem. 8. and Sixtus 5. reform the vulgar Latine by Memory or by Books? Pope Pius's Trent Oath ſweareth Men to Interpret Scripture according to the conſent of the Fathers: Do any of your Doctors know how that is by Memory and Oral Tradition, or by Books? Did Poſſevine, and Sixtus Senenſis, and ſuch others, Correct Books by Oral Tradition, or by Books? Did Celeſtine and the Carthage Council debate the Caſe of the Nicene Canon (a narrow Inſtance which Memory might have ſerved for) out of Mens Memories, or out of written Records? Why doth … bring us out new Forged Canons, and why do the Copies of many Councils differ in the recital of Canons, if Memory and Univerſal un-written Tradition can reconcile the difference? Was the Athenian Philoſophy propagated and preſerved better by Memory, or by Books? Why is not the Stoicks, and Epicureans, and others, as fully known now as Ariſtotles and Plato's, if Memory without Books could have done? Have you as full notice now of the Acts of James, John, Matthew, Thomas, Bartholomew, &c. without Book, as you have of Paul's by the Book? Is memory ſufficient to have preſerved to us the Statures of the Land, without Books and Records? Yea, or the Common-Law without any Records or Book Caſes? Why are all your Councils written? and all the Decretals? to ſay nothing of the Civil Roman Laws, Inſtitutes, Pandects, and Digeſts. Can you decide the Controverſies about the Decretals, publiſhed by Iſidore Mercator, by Tradition? What are all your Libraries for at the Vatican, Florence, Paris, and in each Learned Mans Houſe, if Books be ſo uſeleſs and unintelligible? If one of your Relations ask you, what is in the Council of Trent, Florence, Laterane, and ſo upward, can you tell him fully without Book by Tradition? And are not theſe Councils your very Religion? Doth every Papiſt Neighbour carry them all in his brain, more certainly than in Books? Or could your Grandfather and Grandmother have told us more certainly what is in them, than Crab, Surius, Binius, Baronius, Juſtellus, Albaſpinaeus, Petavius, Sirmondus, &c. could do? Or is all left uncertain becauſe it is written?
Through Gods Mercy our Eſſentials, and ſomewhat more, are delivered certainly down to us by two hands, by Oral and Practical Tradition, and by the Scripture, becauſe they lye in a narrow room. But yet if you had the front to tell the World, that your immutable Church hath never changed the Creed it ſelf, we could not believe you, becauſe Books contradict you. Tradition from your Great Grandfather cannot aſſure us that [Filio que ] was in the Creed from the days of the Apoſtles: Nor that [the Holy Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints,] and the other words mentioned in Veſſius, and Uſher de Symbolis, were in ſo long: Nor that the Greeks added no words to their Creed at Nice, nor afterward at Constantinople, in General Councils; nor that all S. Hilaries outcry againſt Creeds was in vain. Nor can Tradition without Book yet aſſure us, what were the very words of the Creed uſed commonly by the Greeks, immediately before the Nicene Council; nor who wrote that aſcribed to Athanaſius: Nor among the various Formula's of that called the Apoſtles, found, as aforeſaid, in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, &c. which of them was in conſtant uſe; or whether liberty of ſuch alteration of words was not then uſed.
And no Unwritten Report of your Grandfather can aſſure us, that your Maſs-Book or Liturgy was the ſame in the Apoſtles days as it is now; nor that it was for 600 years the ſame in all the Churches of one Empire; and that every Biſhop had not power to uſe what Liturgy he pleaſed, in his own City or Parochia: Nor can your Tradition aſſure us, that what the Father and Grandfather uſed, was uſed from the Apoſtles, when the Church of Neocaeſarea clamoured at S. Baſil for his ſingularity and innovations, and S. Baſil retorts on them, that they at Neocaeſarea had ſcarce left any thing unchanged: I hope this is not the leſs credible becauſe Baſil hath written it.
At leaſt, I pray hereafter give over your ill practice of leading ſimple Readers into a Wood of Church-Hiſtory, to loſe them and the Queſtion there among a multitude of Citations of old Books, when you know not what elſe to ſay (as William Johnſon did,) becauſe there the ignorant know nothing themſelves, but may as well believe the Affirmer as the Denyer; and at leaſt the diverſion to voluminous Controverſies about particular mens words may hide your Errours. Do not reſolve all the Controverſie, yea the Faith of your Followers, into a multitude of Books of Councils and Fathers which they never ſaw. And do not take ſo much care to corrupt and alter Books, for your intereſt, as inſtances and your Indices Expurg. tell us you have done. Reſolve without Book the Controverſie about your great Laterane Council, whether Dr. Taylor, Dr. Pierſon, Dr. Gunning, (and Biſhop Couſins lately) that ſay Innocent. 3. made and publiſhed the Canons, and the Council did not conſent to them, be in the right, or rather they that anſwered Dr. Pierſon and Dr. Gunning, and indeed your Church, which holds the contrary (which Mr. Dodwell ſeemeth to me lately to have fully proved, in his Book about tolerating Papiſts.)
Nay why may we not expect that you lay by your Book Catechiſms, your Office Books, your Controverſie Books, and teach your People all without Book?
But by this Counſel to your Relations, you fully ſhew that you would have them to have no certainty at all, either what Chriſtianity is, or what Popery is. For they ſhall never ſpeak with the Univerſal Church, or with a General Council, while they live: And all their. Neighbours, to whom you ſend them, are fallible Perſons. I ſuppoſe you one of the chief of them, and alas, how failible you are, you have in two Writings groſly ſhewed.
Having ſaid thus much more, to ſhew that your Foundation is Sand, who ſend us from Books to our Grandfathers, as infallible and that this is no better a ground than the Abaſſines, Greeks, and others, may build on as well as you; and that we our ſelves have a far ſurer and Univerſal Tradition than the Papacy hath, and have your own conſent to every word of our Objective Religion, I now proceed to conſider of your Character of Parties.