Sure Footing in Christianity, Authorization

Sure Footing in Christianity · Authorization

p. 271CONSENT OF AUTHORITY To the Substance of the Foregoing Discourses EXAMINED.

HAving spent his strength of Reason for his Traditions Indefectiveness, (how little soever, and with how little success let Reason in the Intelligent Readers judge) he now layeth aside his own bulrushes, and calls in Auxiliaries to second him by a consent of Authority; which may distresse him, but yeeld no support to his Cause; and then he is left miserable bereft of his Reason; and his Friends to boot, whom he beggs also to yeeld Assistance, but they hear him not. We have here offered by him these general Heads as to his closure.

1. Authorities urged as consenting, three fold, 1 Scriptures, Ss. 2, 3, 4.—2 Councils. S. 5.—3 Fathers. Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

p. 2722. A Question proposed and answered, S. 14.

3. Notes upon the Authorities alledged, S. 15.

4. A Declaration of his Churches sence in his Doctrine, Ss. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

Among his consenting Authorities, he giveth the Scriptures the first place; and its consent he only beggs, and that in vain, in three Eminent promises; which we shall orderly consider. But before we examine what consent they give him, or not give him to establish his Tradition: we shall only hint some special animadversions about the whole Authority of them urged.

1. He giveth the Scriptures of God the only Authority of consenting to that Doctrine of Popish Tradition, which his reason had forged, and as he thinks, establisht: And is not God upon this account much ingaged to him for this honour vouchsafed him to come and begge his Consent unto his vain Invention? We are by the light of nature guided to ascribe the Supreme and commanding Authority to God, whose word must be the Creatures Law: And is he now call'd in as a Consenter only, and put in a second form of Power, as we usually make Consent? See the Antichristian Pride of Popish Reason and Religion setting the Almighty God in the same Classis of Authority with Councils and Fathers.

p. 2732. He yet alloweth the Scripture to be in its consent an Authority proving his Tradition: A…otiori ignotius, Scientifical.And is not the Medium proving more sure and known than the matter proved or concluded? How then can Tradition be more certain than Scripture, seeing the Discourser urgeth Scripture to prove the certainty of his Tradition? The Apostle Peter on whom these Traditionaries do depend,2 Pet. 1, 17, 18, 192 Pet 1:172 Pet 1:182 Pet 1:19 as on their Rock, prefers the word of Prophesie written for certainty before his own Tradition given of Christ, which was grounded upon his own eyes and ears. What Logick this man hath, who pretends to so much, we know not: but surely he sheweth little here.

3. Suppose we, that it is no more but consent, that he beggs from Scripture; what is this worth, seeing it is a Consent, which he espouseth only by force? When the Scripture can come to speak for it self before fair and equal discerning Judges, it will clear it self, that it never gave consent unto this Discoursers abuse of it, and will charge him w…th a worse violence, than for a man to force a womans Consent to marry him by his pistol or sword.

4. We shall desire the man candidly to answer; Will he warrant us, that the Interpretation of these Scriptures which he urgeth is Traditionary, that is, according to his sence, the very same, which was the mind of Christ in them, and so uninterruptedly descended p. 274to him by Tradition? Let him speak out: But that he loveth not book-learning much, as he professeth, he might find many of the Pillars of his own Church disowning his Interpretations of them. However were he and they all agreed in such a sence, as he makes,foreign opposed unto foreign. 2 Pet. 1.20.21.2 Pet 1:202 Pet 1:21 it is all but priv…te Interpretation estranged from the opposite to the Innate sence which the spirit delivered to, and by those Prophets; which will appear unto a serious and due consideration of the occasion, Scope, Logical coherence and signification of the words: all which means the spirit useth, to open Gods mind in Scripture unto men. These things being generally premised, we shall proceed to consider the special Texts alledged by him; whether they give their consenting Authority to his Indefective Tradition or not.

1. He urgeth, sai. 35.8. of which place, 1. We have his Translation thus: This shall be unto you a direct way, so that Fools cannot erre in it. 2. His Interpretation, That is, saith he Evident to the Rudest vulgar, or self evident; else Fools might posssibly erre in it, in case it needed any skill of Discourse, and were not obvious to common sense. So then his sence of it is This, that is, This Method of Popish Tradition, shall be to you a direct way, that is, this Method of Popish Tradition, shall be to you a direct way, that is, to you Papists Traditionary Christians, a plain and p. 275straight means unto salvation: So that Fools cannot erre in it. That is, the rudest vulgar among Papists, continuing such fools as to the knowledge of God, and living by common sense, cannot miscarry in it.

Unto this we shall but oppose the Truth of the letter, and natural sense; and then let wise men judge how this Scripture is forced by him for a consent to his Tradition, which we shall do in this way.

1. We give Scriptures Readers this note. That this Evangelical Prophet under the Jews Captivity unto, and deliverance from Babylon, describeth both spiritual bondage to sin, and redemption from it: Both are to be considered in the present promise.

2. The true literal reading of the whole Text is this: And there shall be a troden path and a way (such as we call a Fosse-way) Even the way of Holiness shall be called on it, the unclean shall not passe over it; but this shall be for those; (viz. whose hands and feet were confirm'd and strengthned, &c.) He that walketh the way, even fools shall not erre. Here is difference enough between Readings.

3. The meaning then of it, as it concerns spiritual Redemption (typed under the return of the Jews from Babylon to Sion, by the Decree of Cyrus) is this, Gods high-troden-Fosse-way to Salvation, is the way of Holiness in Christ Jesus: The unholy and unclean p. 276shall not passe over it, indeed they cannot, their feet sute not with it; but they whose feet are strengthened and cleansed shall pass thorough it, yea he or they who walkt his way of holiness, though formerly fools and ignorant of the way unto salvation, yet now having God w…th them, and being confirmed unto his will, taken off from folly, even these shall not erre, or mistake the way to heaven. This is the naked and innate sence of this Promise; and what agreement hath this with the Discoursers gloss? God saith, Holiness is the way which will lead men to salvation, and they shall not erre: And the Discourser renders it, Romish Tradition is the way to salvation, in which though fools do walk, and abide such, yet they cannot erre. What Intelligent Reader will not nauseate at such senseless and unsavory glosses as this. But it may be he will better it in the next; we shall try.

2. To prove this way meant of Tradition, he tells us the same Prophet doth expresly declare it. Isai. 59.21. in these words: This is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord; my Spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy seed, and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever. His Interpretation runs thus. 1. It is a promise of perpetuating Christs Doctrin. 2. That it expresseth on what manner; p. 277that is, as he saith, by Oral-Tradition, or delivering it from Father to Son by word of mouth; not by a Book. 3. That this Tradition shall be indefecti…le and Ʋninterrupted. 4. That the spirit is in the Church and will be ever, supernaturally to assist her in this work.

Whereunto we shall only oppose these plain things evident to all rational observers in the very letter of the Text.

1. That in this and the former verse are given to us two main Articles of Faith in Promise. 1. The Redeemers Advent 2. The Fathers Covenant to him, and in him to his seed the Church.

2 That after the promise of the Redeemers coming to Zion (that is, his Church, turn'd away from their Iniquities) he declareth his Covenant both to him and them; wherein his Son manifested in the flesh the Redeemer,Isai. 53 11.Isa 53:11 is the first party with whom the Father covenanteth, and his seed begotten out of his bloody Travels are secondarily in and by him Parties confederate with the Father; so that none but these are in this Covenant or concerned in any of the matters mentioned therein.

3. That under Spirit and word are carried all Grace tending to salvation, both given to him in the flesh without measure and to his seed according to their respective measures assigned them;Act. 10, Ps. 45 7Acts 10Ps 45:7 He was anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power; or as paraphra…ed p. 278with the oil of gladness above his Fellows; 1 John 2.20.27.1 John 2:201 John 2:27they also receiving in their proportion of the same anointing which must needs keep them unto salvation.

4. That this is God the Fathers own Act incommunicable to any other, to put his Spirit upon Christ and his word or will in his mouth, and so upon his seed, and his seeds seed, in their perp…tual generations, they do not, they cannot convey or put this spirit and word one upon another: It is his own Tradition.

5. That this Covenant the Father himself will perform and execute upon this seed of Christ only in their successive generations for ever, while sojourning in this Earth: The fruit whereof doubtless must be spirit and mouth-profession of the Fathers love while they have being. And to all this the Prophet adds three times here Gods Test, that Jehovah hath said it; therefore it must be done.

Now this being the plain and simple sence of the words, what can this promise have to do, with Romish Church Apostate, or with Popish Tradition of Fore-fathers to their Children by word of mouth? Could ever the best of Fathers living put spirit upon their Chitdren, or the word and will of God into hearts and mouths to be beleeved and really professed and practiced by them, by their Oral-Tradition? Cain would then have been as good as Abel, and Ishmael the p. 279son of Promise as much as Isaac: Much less can Popish Fathers do it. We grant that the Doctrine of Christ unto Salvation is contained under this spirit and word: but the Tradition Indefectible and uninterrupted together with the perpetuation of it, in the seed of Christ only, throughout all their generations, we assert peculiar unto the Father alone in his Son and by his Spirit: These are all the true words of Jehovah which he hath promised to perform himself, and thereby to fix his fear in the hearts of his, that they should never depart from him. What violence then is this that the Discourser should transfer all this unto Popish Forefathers, as if they could put the spirit upon the Redeemer, and Gods word into his mouth, and his seeds by their Oral-Tradition? And what madness is it to arrogate this spirit for supernatural Assistances to his Romish Church, who with her seed is a bitter enemy to Gods word, (as this Disputer confesseth) unless it may be senced by his Tradition? It is as mad a prank for this man to challenge the Church to be his, that is, Popish, as it was of that mad fellow, who would call every ship his own, that he saw and yet he had none at all. But it is enough for this. God knoweth them that are his. And his spirit and word abiding on them will declare them. Let them who have eyes to see, see and consider.

p. 2803. His last Testimony for consent of Scripture unto his Tradition is Jer. 31.33. I will give my Law in their bowels, and in their hearts will I write it. This he interprets by the Apostle in the 2 Cor, 3.3. Where he descants on the Terms, Heart, Fleshie, e. i. &c.

We allow his Translation, but deny utterly that this Scripture or that by which he would interpret it, giveth the least consent to his vain Tradition. That of the Prophet is recorded also by the Apostle to the Hebrews as a copy of that better Testament, whereof Jesus was Mediator, whence we have help for a better Interpretation than what the Discourser would impose on us by and for his Tradition.

1. We deny that either here by the Prophet, or else by the Apostle, the Law of Grace is opposed, or contradistinguished to the Law of Moses, as to the substance of it; For Moses wrote of Christ, as Mediator, and of the same Covenant of Grace: Only the Forme and manner of delivering and ministring th…s Testament, was vastly different as to the Efficacy of it, between Moses the Servant and Christ the Son. This administers it powerfully as God, in and upon Hearts; but he though faithfully yet weakly to eies by writing on stones, and to ears by voice and speech. Whereupon God promiseth here to make a new Covenant, not according as he had done when he brough… their p. 281Fathers out of Egypt which they brake; and so he regarded them not: but now by Christ he would make sure work to write his law in the hearts of his Covenanted ones, so that they should not depart from him, nor he any more forsake them.

2. We assert that all spoken in this promise are Acts of Grace peculiar unto and possible only for Iehovah himself to do, as 1. That of Adoption, I will be their God, &c. 2. That of Iustification, I will forgive their Iniquity, and remember their sin no more. 3. That of Regeneration or Sanctification with the saving Effect of it, described indeed by Metaphorical terms of writing, but properly noting the change of their nature; when hearts, inward parts and whole Man, shall be delivered up to the will of God, and be conformed to it. Whence most inseparably followeth the saving knowledge of God which comprehends all duty into him, from those Hearts.

3. We note also that God by the Prophet expresly denieth any work of man or his Tradition, as to the producing of this effect, They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, &c. saying know the Lord, &c. Not, but that God hath appointed Tradition both Scriptural and Oral as subordinate means to saving knowledge, as he injoyneth in other places: but in th…s place he speaks of his own work only reciprocal with himself, declared in this Testament what he will do by p. 282his own finger as to the saving of his Covenanted ones.

Now these things being so apparent in the native sense of this Scripture: Who seeth not what violence is offered unto it? when the writing this Law in hearts, is wrested to this corrupt sence, of making men acquainted with the law of God, that they by Tradition should convey it down to others: And the work spoken of in this Text is only the Lords, wherein mans help of teaching is excluded? How much more Impudence is here discovered in Coster the Iesuite and others of his Tribe with this Discourser, who transfers all this to Popish rotten Tradition, which giveth no sound knowledge of God at all, but keepeth souls in dismal destroying Ignorance of the mysterie of his will? But their folly is made known, enough to make it odious and ridiculous in this matter: As well may they hope to evince this sense from th…s Scripture as that Philosopher who would fetch fire out of the Sea. They will prove Artists alike. Could ever any of them say so, as to do it, by their Tradition, that all to whom they spake from the greatest to the least shall know the Lord. O be ashamed!

4. The corruption of the Apostles words is as bad.

1. In setting the heart whereupon this law is written in contradistinction to the Brain, that is Affection unto Reason; whereas p. 283nothing is more clear, than that all the faculties of the soul are here intended by Heart, and this as bringing in the whole of man, which God doubtless intends, when he calls for mans heart.

2. In a most abusive gloss upon the word fleshy, which he makes, to note the Inferior part of the soul, even Sense and sensation: whereas he that runs may read that the Apostle opposeth Fleshy Tables to stony ones, whereon the law was written; And in this case Fl…sh is the paraphrase of Tenderness of Heart as the Stone is of the Hardness of the same:Ezek. 11.19.Ezek 11:19 and so usually are they opposed both by the Prophets and Apostles: So that the sence is pl…in that the Epistle or mind of Christ was written by the spirit of the living God upon fleshy, soft and tender hearts not upon stony, hard, and unyielding ones. What blindness or pervers…ness then is it, to turn this so as to note the Inferior part of the soul, meer natural sense, when it signifieth the whole soul sanctified? And to make this to be the work of Gods spirit by sensations to force into men natural knowledge, when it is to renew and regenerate men, by giving up their hearts to Gods will metaphorically expressed by writing his Law within them. Thus when Popish Tradition must sence Scripture, this must needs give consent to that, to be Indefective from Christ. Understanding Readers will see hence, what Consent he hath obtained to his Rule of faith p. 284from Scripture: And for his belying God in his own word we leave him to his reproof: But for his abusing men in his Circular notion from Tradition to Scripture and from Scripture to Tradition, he deserves an Hiss from junior Sophisters; as well as a check from his Sup…rintendents, for such unhandsome medling in Scripture debates with Protestants, of which he had warned his Romish-Catholicks before with an Item that their Adversaries having hooked them in to fight with their weapon, would even cry Victoria; and now he falls into the same fault himself. Alass poor man! But so it is that Popish Doctors could never do their work without Scripture, and when they use this two edged sword, having neither wit, nor honesty rightly to wield it, they blunt it what they can; but it pierceth and destroyeth them, being turn'd against them. For shame let them meddle with Scripture no more, to begg help from it; For it hath them in derision.

2. His next rank of consenting Authorities is humane; only here it is Complexe in Councils, the Representatives of the Church as he makes them: Among which he only nameth three in this order. 1 The first Synod of Lateran. 2. The Council Sardica. 3. The 7th. General Council of (as he calleth it) All as he saith consent to his Indefective Oral-Tradition.

p. 285To return shortly and enough to these 1. Generally. 2. Specially. 1. In General we animadvert, that the Discourser urgeth his Consenters disorderly; For that of Sardica was much elder to the first Lateran: That being held under Pope Julius the first about An. Dom. 340. or a little after: And this was held under Pope Martin about the year 643. Order therefore might have set the eldest first. 2. That in these Councils or some of them, the notion of Tradition is intended by the most ancient of them, especially of Scripture-delivery; and most usually; therefore the Disputer is either unwary or unfaithful to annex it only unto Oral-Tradition: So also is it used by the best of the Fathers to note Scripture-Tradition from the Apostles. 3. We acknowledg no Council expresly infallible, but that one of which we read, the Holy Ghost was President. Act. 15. Others have proudly boasted of his presence with them, but in vain. 4. As to all Councils, since that we professe our Faith concerning them, to be the same with our Church of England in these words. General Councils may erre &c. Therefore things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared, that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. Upon this ground, we deal with the Discourser and shall not shrink from it: Unless Scripture Authorize both Councils and Tradition too, we shall trust neither of p. 286them: And this might be a sufficient answer from us to this Authority.

2. Yet more specially, least he may think we fear his Witnesses.

1. As to the Lateran Testimony, all that he urgeth is, They substracted nothing of those matters which were delivered to them by the Holy Fathers: Grant this, Those things were delivered first from the Holy Scriptures, as well as taught them by voice. Let the man disprove it if he can; if not, what helps this consent?

2. As to that of Sardica (however it hath been branded and rejected by Ancients; which is enough to suspect it) yet all urged here is nothing to the purpose; For if it were that they did hold Catholick Tradition, Faith and confession; This was by Scriptural, as well as by Oral-delivery. Nay Osius a Bishop (as their own Caranza giveth it) against ordination of Laicks, urgeth that Scripture against Novices,1 Tim. 3.6.1 Tim 3:6 So that here was use of written Tradition in this Council expressely, though unknown to this Disputer.

3. As to his 3d. It was the 2d. Nicene Synod, which the Greeks (as the same Caranza reports) did call the 7th General Council held in the year 780. under Pope Adrian the first, Bishop of the City of Rome, which was celebrated against them, who condemned Images in Churches, and cast them out, wherein it was decreed, That images were relatively to be worshipped, and the Reliques p. 287of Saints honored. This being declared by their own Historian, and other idolatrous and abominable Constitutions (for which it hath been branded for a Filthie Conventicle) the Discourser might be ashamed to urge it as a Consenting Authority, and that under the Title of the 7th General Council, when there was never so many stiled truly General, by almost half the number: But he had no better to make use of for his purpose; Therefore his Tradition maketh this a General Council, and then the Authority of this must prove his Tradition Indefective from Christ; and so we run the round still. Yet we may excuse him, for he had much need of this Council to make his Tradition of Image worship indefectively descended from Christ. Let him hugge it, and perdition with it; but we abhorre it as an odious Conspiracy against the Lord and his Christ.

3. His last consenting is humane also from single witnesses, such as he calleth Fathers, though all of them deserve not the Name. Popes may be his Fathers; they are none of ours. He urgeth some passages out of six of them; which we shall shortly review.

1. In general we premise, 1. We honor the venerable name of Fathers in the Church, where truly named. 2. We say also according to our Church, Scripture is not to be beleeved for Fathers sake, but p. 288Fathers for Scriptures sake: When they leave this they speak as men and so are to be esteemed. 3. Tradition generally used by them signifieth delivery of Gods mind by Scripture, as well as voice, and under both these not the manner but matter of Tradition, which is the will of God. Which being applyed to all his particular Instances, might be reply sufficient to the purpose for which he urgeth them: For he overlooks and mistakes them both in their Authority and use of the word Tradition, which he claims every where to be understood in his sence, for delivery oral, from mouth to mouth.

2. In special we return. 1. To his Celestin (whom he stileth Saint and Pope;) Two Titles that seldome have met together, if we may believe his Historians concerning the lives of h…s Popes. Yet we have to do here with what he saies, more than with what he was: And to that which is urged by him, That we should belieue and retain what to this very time came by succession from the Apostles: And did not the Scriptures come down to us by that succession? what makes this passage more for Oral-Tradition? Nay to what follows, the Apostles did leave us the Scriptures, therefore we must follow them. And whatever he speaks more of his Testimony relates as much to scriptural, as to Oral-Tradition from the Apostles: which we have cause to beleeve, p. 289because the Ephesine Council under h…m, did confirm their decrees by Scr pture as their Caranza r…ports. He is then ou… witne…s for Scripture more than his …o… Oral Tradition, to be the Rule of Faith, not the way to it, as the Discourser usually confoun…s them.

2. As to Origen; whoever knoweth him can never beleeve him to test he aga…nst Scripture Tradition: For he is all or mostly upon …t; Only his slip was to abuse it too much by Allegorical Interpretations of it.

He cannot therefore assi t the Disputers cause for Oral-Tradition opposed to the Scripture; unless his Allegories be Tradition.

3. As to Tertullians vote, If thou beest but a Christian beleeve what is (Traditum) d…livered, &c. We quest on not this Delivery to be from Scripture, whi…h we find him o…ten to urge in his D scourses with the Adversaries of Christs Incarn…ion, we do not therefore trust this mans …nterpretation of him: however, we have m…ch more to say about this witness.

4. As to Athanasius; it is wonderful that any should be so impudent to urge h s Authority for Oral-Tradition against Scripture, when every man may see th…t he confuteth the Arians from the Scriptures; and when he useth the word Tradition, he must understand it, that, which issueth from the written word, and is conformed to it, unlesse he p. 290would undo his former proofs. He therefore will not help the Discourser in the Cause for which he produceth him.

5. As for Clemens Alex. It is most shameful that this man should pick out some independent shreds out of his discourse and pervert them to his corrupt ends; when as he is known to be a most strong Assertor of Scriptures Power and Authority to be the Rule of Faith; and sheweth it to be the Cause of mens Errors, that they forsake that Rule of Truth. He that will know the true Testimony of this witness must read him.

6. His last is Austin, whom whosoever urgeth as a witness for Oral-Tradition against Scripture, must have a face of brass; for none more maintains the written Truth of God to be the Rule of faith than He. Wilfully therefore must this man mistake him under the notion of Tradition which with that Father refers to Scripture; but he returns it to his Popish Oral-Delivery. None of these then speak home to h s Cause, though he doth most impudently begg them, or force them. We shall therefore stay no longer on this Head. It is not seasonable here to insert those Testimonies of Fathers against him, which are numerous, and would swell into a volume. The Champions of our own Church who have entred those lists heretofore with the Jesuits have given large Discoveries of them. He that will see the votes of Greek and Latin Fathers in this p. 291Controversie may read many compacted in that famous Chamier more faithfully,Cham… 1. lib. … 18, 1… 21. and fully to give satisfaction in this matter. And so we leave him Fatherless in his generation.

2. His question proposed is: How shall we know who enjoyes this Tradition? or what points have been handed down by it from the beginning? His resolution of enjoyment, is unto his own Mother-Church of Rome doubtless; that she enjoyeth it in her living voice, which he would prove by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Chrysologus. And concludes his Discourse true from Effects in Renouncers of Tradition, that there were more Heresies in the first 400 years than in any 400 after, &c.

We shall survey this a little. 1. In his one Question we have two.

1. Who enjoyeth this Tradition Indef…ctive from Christ at this day?

2. What points have been handed down by it from the beginning?

We shall note; That his pretended answer is only to the first, unto the second he speaks not one word: which had been Honesty to have done, and would have given us more light concerning the matter in debate, than any thing in all his discourses.

2. We animadvert, that to the first Question he answereth not one word directly but obliquely he insinuates it must be the Church of Rome; for he hath told us before, p. 292That none hold Tradition or are Traditionary Christians, but Romish Catholicks: Now then, unto this he is to answer; who now at this day do injoy Tradition, as he hath stated it? He saith, the Romish Church. How doth he prove it? He tells us by the Fathers, if he may trust them: what a strange answer is this? Can any of the Fathers who lived so many hundred years since, g…ve evidence to whom this injoyment is come at this day? Let the Discourser bethink himself: Can any men dead so long ago, testifie who injoy the Tradition of Christ in this Age? Yet this is the best return that he giveth us. Can Irenaeus, …ertullian, or Chrysologus tell of what Religion Rome is at this day? Egregious over-sight! To what purpose is it here for him to tell us, that they say, Tradition is the Rule? (however we assert they mean Scripture-Tradition, and none else but what is conformed to it,) Do they testifie that the Romish Church at this day have this Rule? This must be to prove his intended answer to his Question. No man (we suppose) could have put him an harder quaere to puzzle him: But the wit of the man hath insuared him: Let him see his folly.

3. We make bold to ask him, seeing he hath not touched one tittle of it; What are those points, that by Tradition have been h…nded down to this Age from the beginning? Let him speak. Is the point of the Popes Supremacy over Christian Princes one? p. 293Is that Doctrine of Christs being Mediator only in his humane nature anothe…? Is the joyning of Mans merit unto Christs Righteousness for justification one of them? Are the monster of Transubstantiation, Decrees for Image-worship, Purgatory, Laws of Penances, or indulgences to be placed among them? What an ease had this been to all his Readers to have known the Points that he had meant? But he durst not reveal, what a sink of filthiness by his Tradition, is thus maintained by him, indefectively to come down from Christ. Well, fools sometimes seem wise men by holding their peace.

4. We who own the Scripture to be the Rule of Fai h, as senced by God himself, do know that we injoy Scripture-Tradition from the Apostles; which the Trent-Authority it self durst not deny to be the word of God. And all tho…e points of Faith and no more than are contained therein, we ma…ntain were handed down from the beginning, that is, from Christ unto us. He and all his Traditionary Auxiliaries cannot disprove it.

5. His pretended effect of more Heresies to be in the first 400 years by reason of Renouncers of Tradition at that time, than in any 400 years afterward, is a great untruth in it self; and implieth other iniquities in it: For the Hereticks which were then, did truly renounce Apostolical Tradition by word and writing; But they who renounce the Tradition of Rome now, leave only that which is p. 294Apostolical from them: yet are they called Hereticks by Papists: But no great matter is it, seeing it is only from Hereticks themselves. And to tell him his own, in the nine last Centuries may it appear that more pernicious Errors against the true Faith of Christ, and …mpious practices have been hatched and harbored in Rome, than were known in all the Centuries before: The comparing of the first and last times will prove it: And all this is not by renouncing but by following Popish Tradition under that pretence that it was uninterruptedly descended from Christ. We shall only make this counter-close with him. No man needs more to doubt of the Truth of Scriptures-Tradition, and the Falshood of Popish Oral-Tradition, than of the Existence of Mahomet, or Julius Caesar, what time soever they lived.

3. He adds some notes to strengthen his Allegations.

1. That almost every citation alledged is of Councils and Fathers speaking directly against Hereticks.

To which we shall return these notes, 1. That [Almost] saved a Lye. 2. That his 7th. venerable Council, dealt against pernicious Hetericks (without doubt) Such as denied Images to be in Churches, and to be worshipped and the Reliques of Saints to be honoured. Were he not an Image-Worshipper himself he would be ashamed to reckon them among Hereticks, who maintained p. 295the second Commandment for Gods spiritual worship, against Image or Imagination-worship of Iehovah who is a Spirit. His relative distinction will clear it no more from Idolatry than it could the Israelites worshipping of him, who brought them out of the land of Egypt in the Image of a Calf.

2. That though some Fathers and Councils speak highly of Scripture as containing all Faith, &c. yet it must be mark't, whether it be of Scripture senc't, or to be senc't, &c.

O most subtle note! It telleth us that some Fathers and Councils speak highly of Scripture as a Rule of Faith, or containing all Faith: this is granted fully by him, which he spake not out before. 2. Yet he bids us mark whether they assert this of Scripture, senc't or to be senc't: which is the greatest mark of folly that ever any man put upon himself; to question Councils whether they should maintain the Scripture to contain all Faith, and yet not senc't. Is not Faith, or doctrine to be beleeved the sence of Scripture? Sure he must be sick of that phrensie, which he chargeth on others, to suppose such persons, and Assemblies to speak unsenc't Scriptures. 3. If he had lived to ask them, by whom these Scriptures were senc't? They would have answered, by God himself: They being his word.

p. 2963. He notes again, That we may observe it frequ…nt in Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sence of Scripture from th…se who gave them the letter; and that by Tradition: but never to bend Tradition to Scripture or to say, Vniv…rsal Tradition is insufficient witho t it.

VVe sh…ll he…e note also. 1. That the Fath…rs do for…e H retick… to the innate sence of Script…re …nspired by God, not affixed by Tradi… on. 2. That the true Fathers did subject all Tradition unto Scripture to be tried thereby. 3. That universal Tradition with them was both Scriptural and Oral; therefore they did not allow Tradition by word to be true, unless it were evidently apparent in the written Truth of …od: nor to be sufficient without it.

4 He saith. It is impossible that the Fathers should hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith; because the Hereticks, did h…ld it their Rule, &c.

We reply, 1. VVhat means Scripture (thus Interpretable)? Is it by his Tradition? we verily beleeve, that they never held Scripture so to be the Rule of Faith: but only as senced by God. 2. VVhat a sottish reason is …dded? That the Fathers could not urge Scripture for Truth, because the Hereticks did urge it for their Errors: Let the Discourser answer this: could not Christ urge Scripture to maintain Truth, because the Devil ci…ed it to tempt him? Let him …e p. 297dumb, if he cannot answer this, and we are sure, The case is the same. His vaunts there…ore are the fro…h of folly; Scripture hath not lost its edge to cut down his Popish Tradition; neither hath it outfaced Reason or true Authority, which is alone from Heaven. Let h m triumph therefore in the ruins of his Cause: His wild sh…uts will not amaze wise and sober Christians. His last shelter is, that in all this he hath but only explicated his Churches sence; and then he thinks he is safe enough, and shall be secured under her wing. We shall try whether he speak Truth in this; that he may not say any thing w…s left unconsidered; though it do not much concern us, or the p…e…ent Cause, whether he have given us herein only the sence of his Church or not, seeing all is contrary to the sence of God.

4. His last work is, to shew that all his discourse is the Sense of his own Romish Church, and that held out in her famous Representative, the Council of Trent, not by any private Authors (as the Protestants mode is to affix on her) And their sence he giveth in their several Sessions 4th. 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 14th, 21st, 22d, 23d, 24th. 25th. His close is, This is the Faith of blessed Peter, &c.

Whereunto we say. 1. He seems in all th…s to be an obed…ent son to his Trent-Fathers; let him have their blessing if he prove p. 298so. 2. We are not swayed by Trent Canons; they are improper mediums to use unto Protestants, they deny all their Authority for Tradition. 3. He need not put the Protestants in that Parenthesis, for they have as m…h battered his Counc…s, as private Authors. 4. As to the closing acclamation of Trent. This is the Faith of Blessed Peter. This is the Faith of the Fathers. This is the Faith of the Orthodox. It is as mad an outcry, as that of Demetrius and his Rout,Act. 19.28.Acts 19:28 Great is Diana of the Ephesians. For this Tradition-Faith hath got more revenue to the Roman See; than ever Diana's shrines brought in to Demetrius and the Crafts-men imploied in that work. This was none of the Apostles Faith, but they do bely them.

Unto this declaration of his Trent-Confession, he adds four notes. 1. That the Council constantly professeth Tradition. 2. That it layeth claim perpetually to th… uninterruptedness of this Tradition. 3. Tha… it makes the suggestion of the Holy Ghost▪ efficacious to perpetuate the Tradition of D… ctrine; As in their Decree about Iustification, and their Sacrament of the Eucharis…. 4. That (though the Council mention the Holy Scriptures with Tradition) ye… it is very rarely, and then Interpreting the… by Tradition; Jam. 5.14, 15.Jas 5:14Jas 5:15as in that text of the Apostle about the anoynting of the sick-f… healing, &c.

p. 299To all these notes we reply. 1. Let it be granted that the Council constantly professe Popish Tradition. Protestants do as constantly deny it. 2. That it claims the uninterruptedness of it from Christ; Is it therefore so because those deluded guides do claim it? It hath been proved that the Tradition meerly Popish is Apostolical from Christ; therefore could not uninterruptedly descend from him. They are mad Claimers. 3. Though they arrogate the suggestion of the Holy Ghost to p…rpetuate their Tradition, yet the spirit of Truth abhorrs it. And specially in those two decrees mentioned, which concern justification, by mingling man's works with Christs Righteousness; And Transubstantiation in their Sacrament of the Eucharist; no doctrins of Error are more Characteristical of Antichrist, than those as they are stated by the Trent Decrees.

4. That it doth so rarely mention Scripture, and when it doth, that it submits it to the Interpretation of Tradition; we must charge it as a sin on them if this Testimony be true: For nothing but Scripture is inspired of God, to give forth Doctrins of Faith: But this child may bely his Fathers, in this as in other things afterward, though they use not Scripture so frequently and honestly as they should: which appears in hammering out their Sacrament of extreme Vnction to fit men for death out of those words which express only an extraordinary work of anoynting with p. 300oyl for that time; and that was only to restore to life and health. And who dares intrude into the office of Christ to make Sacraments, but only the Antichrist? so we give him notes for notes.

Next to these, 1. He objects against himself; Why then is the Holy Scripure made use of at all by the Council, and that so solemnly? Nay, why doth it put Scripture constantly before Tradition. This difficulty he undertakes to satisfie fully. Though he saith, it is no proper season, &c. Why then doth he propose it.

We shall try how he performs this task: He may salve his credit somewh…t, if he do it, which is in no little danger to be lost.

1. His scope is to acquit his Trent-Fathers from the guilt imputable to them, for making use of Scripture and setting it before his Tradition. An heavy Crime! which if prov'd, would declare them honester: Or if exc…sed and palliated by him, as done in design to exalt Tradition, It must evince them to be a Pack of Hypocrites; or himself to bely them. For which his Mother should severely censure him.

2. To do this he leads us about the bush to look upon Aristotle and Vitruvius; whose minds, if we would know, we mu… make use of Scientifical discoursing interpreters, or a Carpenters practical Art: And such is, Tradition Popish unto the Scripture (As he saith) About three Pages p. 301he spends in those Extravagancies.

But in short. 1. We ask, May not an able writing Commentator salve difficulties in such Authors, as well as a Discourser? If so, Scripture may be opened by Scripture: neither will he gain one jot by this Ambushment. His girds against the use of Grammar and Criticismes in opening Scripture so frequently and frivolously repeated, may perswade us he hath little skill in either; And then it is no rare thing for men to speak evil of the things they know not. His flout that this kind of interpreting is of sleight force, and at best, good only for Ecclesiastical Rhetorick, or Sermons, savours of a Profane spirit: seeing (what ever Papists deem) Sermons that are such indeed, are convincing discoveries of the Gospel, applied effectually to save souls: But Papists care for no such Sermons; They will quickly batter down their Tradition, as ungrammatical, and a Syntackical; which is plain non-sense. In all this we have no word of answer to the objection: only he confidently concludes, Tradition gives us Christs sence, that is, the life of the letter ascertain'd to our hand; Against which Authority of interpreting, notwithstanding the Grammar and Reason of Scripture, we shal urge only his own Maldonat: Vellem ut unam aliquam ex his quae bonos Authores habent sequi possem Interpretationem: sed fateor praeter p. 302voluntatem meam in novam rationibus majoribus impelli. Maldon. Matthew 19.11. I would follow (saith he) the Interpretation which good Authors have, but I confess my self to be forced into a new one by greater reasons: Reason then, and not Tradition swaied with him best, for Scriptures Interpretation. Let the Discourser grapple with him: He speaks in this like a man: but we have Reason, and the very Reason of G…d helping us to interpre… Scripture, which indeed giveth life to th… letter, and moves it as the body naturally but Popish Tradition moveth it indeed artificially, to counterfeit that life which it truly wants.

3. After this diversion, he giveth this answer. The Council proceeding upon Traditionary-Interpretation, honors Scriptures Testimony, so as to put it before Tradition: Scripture thus alledged, having the same force, as if the Apostle or Evangelist himself did sit in the Council, &c. This is the summe of his answer, with some other loose Appendic…s thereunto: Hereabout note.

1. He satisfieth not, the first part, why the Council makes use of the Scripture at all? This perhaps were harder to answer; But we have told you before; They can do nothing as to the Popish design without Scripture cloak and pretence to cover it and carry it on.

p. 3032. He doth most grosly abuse his Fathers, making them to set their Tradition before Scripture in the Authority of an Interpreter: These are their own words; Omnes libros tam Veteris, quàm Novi Testamenti (cum utriusque unus Deus sit Author) nec non Traditiones ipsas, &c. pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac Ʋeneratur sacro-sancta Synodus. Conc. Trid. Sess. 2d… An, 1546All the Books both of the old and new Testament (seeing one God is the Author of both) as also Traditions themselves, the Holy Synod receiveth and honoureth with an equal Affection of Piety and Reverence. What Adversary of the Trent-Council, can so disingeniously misinterpret their words any way to prefer Tradition before Scripture when they say expresly, they do equally receive and honour them? What a degenerate son then is the Discourser thus to abuse them? for he is wholly silent of the work of this Session.

3. What simple Hypocrites doth he make his Fath…rs, that they should set Scripture before Tradition in word, and yet make it lacky after it indeed; For Tradition is made the life, and Scripture only the carcase, or dead letter. How doth he make this council a very Cheat? Notwithstanding we think better of their words; and beleeve if they were surviving, they would look upon this man as an unlucky Son, born out of due time, so to bewray them and betray their cause, as if it were an Hypocritical design.

p. 3041. VVe must carefully and candidly review his words and see how his reason abetts his answer: No wonder saith he, the Council honors Scripture Testimony, so as to put it before Tradition, they keeping to Traditionary Interpretation. For Scripture thus alledged and secur d hath the same force as if the Evangelist or Apostle himself should sit in the Council, and by living voice declare his own sence in the matter: To whom what Reverenc… (we suppose he meant) however the Typographer hath abused him to put in Deference for i…, the Council would have given is obvious to imagine. Here w… animadvert.

1. Expresly he s…ith, Scripture sen…'… by Tradition hath the same force as an Evangelist sitt…ng in Council. So then, Tradition supplieth the place of an Apostle or Evang list: Scripture is the matter under debate, what sence it shall bear; The Council hereupon giveth Reverence to Tradition as to its president Apostolical. Is not this handsomely con…rived? VVho durst put Tradition Popish into the room of an Evangelist or Apostle, but Antichristi…n Impudence.

2. This Apostle Tradition giv…ng sence to Scripture the Council receiveth it, and for recompence to this diminution, doth in order of words set the Scripture before Tradition: And for this the Discourser procla…ms the Protestants may see, what high esteem their Church giveth to Gods word: very high indeed! to take away its life by their Tradition; and p. 305then g…ve it a mock Primacy in naming it fi…st. Even such as the Ruffian Souldiers vouchsa…ed to the Lord himself, they put him on a purple Robe and Crown of Thorns; an… then cry, Hail King of the Jews, and so cruc fi…: him. Such Honour gives the Trent-Council to Scriptures, unless their Assertor do bely them: If he do, vapulet ille.

3. Suppose an Apostle himself did sit in Council as divers did in that of Jerusalem, Act. 15, 13. &c. A… 9.11Acts 15:13to determine the matter about Circumcision: we find the Apostle James urging a Scripture-Promise out of the Prophet Amos for inlarging Gods Church among the Genti…es, without imposing on them the Legal O…dinances:Gal. 1.8.Gal 1:8 Did that Apostle arrogate to himself to give life to that Scripture, or set his determinat…on above it? Did he not submit his judgment to it? Would it not incur the danger of that Anathema, by an Apostle, as mu…h as by an Angel, to impose a sence upon Gods Scripture more than simply his own. Yet thus this Disputer cal…eth in his Council to him to intrude on Gods Scripture their Tradition-sence, which makes it none of Gods word indeed, and then read Scripture before Tradition as a great point of hono…r done unto it. In sum his answer …s full of mockery and derision o… the holy Scripture, and of the God of it, for if it be h…s word (as the Trent Confession ack…owledgeth) He himself must spir…t it, and put that life into it, by wh…ch he dot… regene…ate souls, to attribute this p. 306then to Tradition, to give life to Scripture, which is Gods word can no more truly be said, than that Tradition giveth God his Being; for God and his word are reciprocally related, and must both be honoured or abused togegether. And as he liveth will he avenge these blasphemies against his revealed Truth, as against himself.

It is but vain repetition for the Discourser to tell us, That they sleight and undervalue only Scriptures-letter as used to hammer out a Faith by wordish skills; He hath been told the sence of Scripture is inspired, and innate, wherein are fixed the Principles of faith, not upon any words of men: But this sence cuts the sinews of the Romish Faith; which makes the man and his Assistants to storm, and bespatter it as the Issue of wordish skills, and cause of a Bedlam of new Sects in England. Let them go on so to reproach Gods word; Ignorance of the Scripture breeds error and not the true knowledge of it, which guides to Truth and Life. They have Bedlams enough of Sects and Orders in the Romish Territories, which are the proper Off-spring of their Tradition, their labour might be better spent in curing them which they never mean to do: for Spiritual madness is the health of Popish Religion.

He closeth with a Sarcastical Reflexion on a mighty Man of talk, who might say, This is an excellent way to bring all into their Churches hands. If ever there can be a more p. 307mighty man of talk, and lesse of reason than this Discourser, let the brand lye upon him; but this surely he w ll not deny, that his design by these discourses is to perswade wits to visit Rome, and bewitch them with his Tr…dition. This success would rejoyce him more than to hear his Books were so much sought after. But God hath given forth that light, which will frustrate his design. Yet he concludes confidently, till letter and sence of Scripture can be proved knowable, as to build faith on by any other way than this of Tradition, (that is Popish) he cannot hinder his Inferences, neither will any be ever able to confute his discourse. We shall shut up too with th…s short reply. 1. Tradition meerly Popish hath been proved Apostatical from Christ, therefore defective enough. 2. The letter and sence of Scripture have been made knowable for faith, to build on, primarily from heaven, secondarily by Tradition Scriptural as well as oral, more faithful than any from Rome. 3. His Inferences therefore vanish whether he hinder them or not; And if after all this, his Discourse be not confuted, we leave it to the judicious and impartial Reader to judge.

Hitherto he hath shewed his strength for support of the Indefectiveness of Popish Tradition from Christ, (which he may conceive impregnable) but wise men see to be but a Paper-fortification, that can endure no solid rational charge aga…nst it. Yet before he p. 308ends he hath something to say for himself, for his Romish Cathol…cks and to the Protestants.

1. For himself, he saith, his discourses are the very sense of the Romish Church in its Representative, the Trent Council.

Whether it be so or not it matters not much with us, as to the C…use; But he speaks not true, for his doctrin, and the Trent-decree do vastly differ in the terms, however he being born so long after his Fathers were de…d, undertakes an hard task to express their minds so farr disson…nt unto their words. Let him answer it to his Superiors.

2. His Romish Catholicks he vindicates and commends for adhering f…st to the Rule of Tradition when the Breach (as he calleth it) was in England; And hereby the most vulgar of them is ascertain'd that they are in the truth by common sense, and Gods goodness requireth no more of them, but so to receive their Tradition, which is a certain means to judge, they should be Papists and not Protestants, &c.

1. That Romish Catholicks did adhere at that time unto Popish-Tradition we grant, but that they received Tradition Indefective from Christ we deny. 2. That God requireth no more of those souls, than to receive Popish Tradition in order to their salvation, is both Blasphemy against the Lord, who commands all to search the Scriptures, that therein they may find Christ their life; and horrid cruelty p. 309to those poor souls so to perswade them to persist in the way of perdition. O poor sheep committed unto such Pastors! whose doctrin is, Ignorance to be the mother of Devotion, which God teacheth to be the high way to destruction.

3. He chargeth the Protestants. 1. To be Innovators, and Renouncers of Tradition. 2. To be Persecutors of Romish Catholicks, at that time adhering to it. 3. That they chose a new Rule, Scripture privately interpreted. 4. That hereby they are cut off from the Root of Faith, and from the Church: The guilt of which Fact neither Humane Authority, &c.

For defense, we say, 1. That Protestants in the year 1559. and many years before, did not renounce that Tradition Scriptural and Oral, which did truly and indefectively descend from Christ; neither were they Innovators of that Faith: But they renounced Popish Tradition as being of a long time Apostatical from Christ; and restored the use of Scriptures, and preached the Everlasting Gospel from thence to the throwing down of the Romish Babel. which was a glorious work of God; and hath been carried on successfully by the Men of God to this day; For which they will be had in everlasting remembrance.

2. As for persecution for that cause, of holding Tradition, we find none, If for maintaining the Popes Supremacy against p. 310their own natural Soveraign, or other traiterous Attempts any suffered, this was farre from being persecuted for Religion.

3. That Protestants then chose Scripture privately interpreted, as a new Rule of Faith, is a slander cast upon them by this Discourser and his Adherents: They hold Scripture as inspired and senced by God only, which is no private Resolution o… Mans: neither do they see vanity in it, but the very saving Truth of God, in Christs Jesus thereby conveighed wherein they rejoyce and will rejoyce.

4. That hereby Protestants are cut off from the Root of Faith, or the Body of the Church, which is Christs, is an Empty Fable; the Disputer may tell his simple Papists so, but Scriptures-Assertors know, they have hereby more rooting in Christ, and so more real Communion with his Body, the Church, being separated from that Adulteress of Rome. And as for any guilt of this fact, they need no Humane Authority, Multitude, Prosperity, Continuance, nor yet any Voluminous wordish Excuses to Efface it, (However their Apology heretofore given out is unanswerable by any Jesuitical Accuser) But God himself doth justifie them by his own Call;Revel. 18.4.Rev 18:4 Come out of her, my People, that ye… not Partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of h…r plagues. This voice they obeye… and the Lord became their God; and he hath p. 311owned, and doth own this Separation from that Idolatress at this day. O that this voice might be heard in the ears of them who yet are sitting in the Regions of darkness, and valley of the shadow of death under Romish Tyranny; that poor souls might flie from Traditions Snares and pits made to destroy them: For they,Jam. 2.8.Jas 2:8 who observe lying vanities, forsake their own mercy.

Behold the End of this Sure-Footing.

FINIS.

End of the text · George Hughes, Sure Footing in Christianity (1668)