The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 56
CHAP. 56. Doctrines held in the Chriſtian Church, which the Cardinal ſaith are not contained in Scripture.
BUT that upon which the Cardinal inſiſteth moſt, is to ſeek ſome doctrines in Chriſtian religion which he holds neceſſary unto ſalvation, which yet are not found in Scripture. And he finds four of that nature. The firſt is the admiſſion or acknowledgement of the Baptiſm of hereticks for a true and real baptiſm, of which no mention is made in Scripture, and yet he holds that it is a doctrine neceſſary to ſalvation.
By ſpeaking thus he condemneth Cyprian and the whole African Church of his time to Hell, for they did err in that point. Certainly many were ſaved that never heard of that queſtion.
That which he adds [that if the doctrine that both we and they hold in that point be not true, the Proteſtants which were baptized by Catholicks (whom they hold for hereticks) have no true Baptiſm] hath no ſtrength againſt us, who think not that any perſon is excluded from ſalvation for not being baptized, when that happens not through his fault, but by ſome impediment which could not be removed. Yet it will be found that Scripture decideth that queſtion; for we ſee that the circumciſion of the ten tribes, that were idolaters, was received among the Jews, there being no Law that obliged them to be circumciſed again. Now Circumciſion was unto them that which Baptiſm is unto us now.
The ſecond Tradition which he ſaith is not contained in Scripture,Pag. 809. is the Baptiſm of little children. Upon which he confeſſeth that the Roman Church diſputing againſt the Anabaptiſts, brings may texts of Scripture, which he produceth, and endeavours to confute, making himſelf the Advocate of the Anabaptiſts. Yet not daring to condemn his own Church, he holds thoſe texts for good and uſefull, which is ſufficient to us. For what need we to prove to the Roman Church by Scripture that children ought to be baptized, ſince ſhe her ſelf baptizeth them, and diſchargeth us of that labour?
The third point is the Article of the proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt,Pag. 816. about which we diſſent with the Grecians. Which controverſie is rather imaginary, and fed by the animoſity of the parties, then a true controverſie. The Grecians ſaying that the Holy Ghoſt proceedeth from the Father through the Son; and the Latins ſaying that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. For I hold that he that ſaith that the Holy Ghoſt proceeds from the Father through the Son, ſaith alſo by conſequent that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. As for the manner of proceeding, it is better in ſuch a high matter to be ignorant then too great a diſputant. The Cardinal acknowledgeth that the Roman Church diſputing with the Grecians, alledgeth texts of Scripture, which texts he goeth about to weaken thereby diſputing not with us, but with the Roman Church. By overthrowing the doctrine of his Church he makes himſelf incapable to diſpute with us.
The fourth and laſt unwritten Tradition is the removing of the Sabbath day to the next day,Pag. 819. that is, from the laſt day of the week to the firſt; Of which he ſaith that no mention is made in Scripture. The Jeſuite Ribera in his Comment upon the firſt chapter of the Revelation, expounding theſe words, I was in the Spirit on the Lords day, ſpeaks thus, Here we ſee that the ſolemnity of the Sabbath hath been changed to the [now] Lords day in the time of the Apoſtles.
Thomas ſaith the ſame in the ſecond leſſon upon 1 Cor. 16. And Eſtius upon the ſame Chapter of the alledged text of the Revelation gathers, that we muſt not doubt but that the name and inſtitution of the Lords day muſt be referred to the Apoſtles. And as for not obſerving the old Sabbath, St. Paul diſpenſeth Chriſtians of that obſervation, Col. 2.16. Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in reſpect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath day, which are a ſhadow of things to come. He teacheth that Chriſtians ought not to be condemned for obſerving no more the Jewiſh diſtinctions of meats, or the holy dayes and Sabbaths of that Church. By Acts 20.6. and 1 Cor. 16.2. it is made evident that on the firſt day of the week ſolemn Aſſemblies did meet, and collections were made for the poor. And though all theſe proofs ſhould fail, yet obſervation of dayes is no point of doctrine, and is not an Article of its nature neceſſary to ſalvation. It is neceſſary for ſalvation to ſanctifie the Lords day, and to be employed that day in holy actions in holy Aſſemblies, not becauſe that day is of its nature better then another, but becauſe it is neceſſary for ſalvation, not to be contentious, and not to ſeparate from the union of the Church.
Then of theſe four points, as of many others, I ſay that either they are found in Scripture in expreſs or equivalent terms, or by good conſequence, or they are not found in Scripture. If they be found, we have what we ask; If they be not found, they are not neceſſary to ſalvation.