The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 55
CHAP. 55. Texts of the New Teſtament which Cardinal du Perron brings for the Traditions not contained in the Scripture.
HE brings for the Traditions theſe proofs from the New Teſtament.Pag. 754. Firſt he makes a ſhew of this text of 2 Theſ. 2.15. Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epiſtle. The word foreign ſignifies every doctrine given to ſome body. The vulgar verſion 1 Cor. 11.2. tranſlates foreign praecepta. And the Apoſtle, Gal. 1.14. ſaith that he had been zealous of the tradition of his Fathers, calling thus the Law of Moſes of which he had been a zealous abettor. In that ſenſe Scripture it ſelf is a tradition. Thus the Apoſtle 1 Cor. 11.23. ſpeaking of the inſtitution of the holy communion, I received of the Lord foreign, that which I delivered or taught you. It is then a tradition, though it be contained in Scripture.
In this text the moſt advantagious ſenſe for our Adverſaries of this word Tradition is to take it for doctrines not written in the Epiſtle of St. Paul to the Theſſalonians, and by conſequent this text is not to the purpoſe. For our difference is not whether the firſt Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians, but whether the Old and the New Teſtament contain all the doctrines neceſſary to ſalvation. And although the Apoſtle had ſaid, Receive the traditions which you have learned by our word, or by the holy Scriptures, it would not follow that the things which he had told them were any thing elſe but what is contained in the holy Scriptures; duplicate page duplicate page for one may teach the ſame thing ſeveral wayes. Moreover, if one will know what thoſe traditions or doctrines were, which Saint Paul had given by word unto the Theſſalonians, let him read the fourth chapter of the firſt Epiſtle, beginning at the ſecond verſe, where he makes unto them a repetition of thoſe things: There you ſhall find none of the Traditions of the Church of Rome.
In another place the Cardinal repeateth the ſame objection, then addeth; You muſt not cavill that St. Paul ſpeaks of the Tradition unwritten at that time, but written ſince. For the Tradition after which and for which he pronounceth that generall precept, was a Tradition which neither then nor ſince was ever written, namely the cauſe why the coming of Antichriſt was delayed.
The Cardinals blindneſs is extream, to ſay that the cauſes of the delay of the coming of the Antichriſt were never written, whereas they are written in the ſame text,2 Theſ. 2.7. where the Apoſtle ſaith, Only he who now letteth will let untill he be taken out of the way; And then ſhall that wicked one be revealed; which the Antients underſtand of the ruine of the Roman Empire, before the Antichriſt (who was to come in his place) ſhould be revealed. Which experience alſo hath confirmed. So Tertullian underſtands it in the book of the reſurrection of the fleſh, chap. 24.(a)Tantum qui nunc tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat, quis niſi Romanus Status cujus abſceſſio in decem reges diſperſa Antichriſtum ſuperducit? Only let him that holds now, hold ſtill, untill he be aboliſht. Who is that but the Roman Empire, whoſe departure diſperſed into ten Kings will produce Antichriſt, &c. Chryſoſtom in the fourth Sermon, upon the ſecond Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe, in theſe words,(b)foreign. What is it that hinders him to be revealed? Some ſay that it is the Roman Empire, to whoſe opinion I rather incline. Auſtin in the twentieth book of the City of God, chap. 19. That which the Apoſtle ſaith, Only let him that holds now, hold till he be taken away, is not without reaſon eſteemed to be ſaid of the Roman Empire, as if it was ſaid, Only let him that reigneth, reign untill he be aboliſht. Primaſius upon this place ſaith the ſame, and Ambroſe in his Comment upon this text. And Hierom in the eleventh queſtion to Algaſia, where he ſaith that St. Paul durſt not ſay openly that the Roman Empire muſt be deſtroyed before the Antichriſt come, for fear of drawing perſecution upon the Church; and upon 2 Theſ. 2. he ſaith that the revolt that St. Paul ſpeaks of in this place, eſt diſceſſio Gentilium à Rege Romano, the revolt of the Gentiles from the Roman Emperour.
The Cardinal brings another text for Traditions; 2 Tim. 1.13. Hold faſt the form of ſound words, which thou haſt heard of me, in faith and love, which is in Chriſt Jeſus. Keep the good depoſitum (or that good thing committed unto thee) by the Holy Ghoſt. This text doth nothing for him; for the Apoſtle ſaith not that the things which Timothy had heard of St. Paul were diverſe from thoſe which he writ to him, or which are written in the holy Scripture. It is remarkable that Tertullian in the twenty fifth chapter of Preſcriptions ſaith, that the hereticks alledged theſe texts for their traditions. O Timothy keep that which was committed unto thee, and again keep that which was truſted unto thee. Thus the Cardinal maketh himſelf a diſciple to thoſe hereticks.
To the ſame purpoſe Bellarmin in the fifth chapter of his book of the unwritten word, alledgeth for the Traditions our Saviours words, John 16. I have yet many things to ſay unto you, but you cannot bear them now. But Tertullian in the twenty ſecond chapter of the ſame book, ſaith, that the hereticks defend their traditions with that text.
To the ſame purpoſe the Cardinal brings theſe words from the ſecond chapter of the ſame Epiſtle, ver. 2. The things that thou haſt heard of me among many witneſſes, the ſame commit thou to faithfull men, who, ſhall be able to teach others alſo. To which text we make the ſame anſwer, as to the precedent, Why will he have the things which Timothy had heard to be diverſe from thoſe that are written? But with what raſhneſs doth the Cardinal preſuppoſe without proof that thoſe things heard in the preſence of witneſſes, are the invocation of Saints, the ſervice of Images, the Succeſſion of the Pope in St. Peters primacy, and the like things?
He alledgeth alſo 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. That proof hath neither colour nor likelyhood. For the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, when it defends the truth contained in the holy Scriptures, not when ſhe adds unto Scripture. Thus Gregory Nazianzen in the beginning of the Oration upon his Fathers death, calls Baſil the pillar and ground of the Church. And in the Oration upon Athanaſius he gives to Athanaſius the ſame title of honour. Whereby he underſtands not that Baſil or Athanaſius had the power to give new Laws unto the Church, or to add unto her doctrine. I leave alſo to the judgement of the Reader, well read in the Greek tongue, whether in theſe words, [that thou maiſt know how thou oughteſt to behave thy ſelf in the houſe of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth] the laſt words, the pillar and ground of truth, may not be applied unto God, rather then to the Church; ſupplying the word foreign and tranſlating thus, the houſe of the living God, who is the pillar and ground of truth. For to ſpeak properly, God and true doctrine are the pillar and ground of the Church. So ſpeaks Chryſoſtome upon 1 Tim. 3.(c)foreign. Truth is the pillar and ground of the Church. And Irenaeus, book 3. chap. 11.(d)Columna & firmamentum Eccleſiae Evangelium. The pillar and ground of the Church is the Goſpel.