Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 4
IV. He makes us ſay next, That Apoſtolical Traditions, and Ancient Cuſtoms of the Church (not found in the Written Word) are not to be received, nor do oblige us.
Anſwer.
THIS is a downright Calumny; for we have ever owned, that Apoſtolical Traditions, if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible, are to be received and followed, if delivered by them as of neceſſary Obligation. But we do likewiſe ſay, That we know no ſuch Traditions; for thoſe which have been called ſo, have been rejected even by the Roman Church it ſelf; or having received them, they have laid them aſide again. In ſhort, they ſometimes pretend to Traditions, where there are none; and where there are, they have forſaken them; and in ſeveral Caſes they pervert them, and turn them into another thing. As they have done, for inſtance, with Purgatory-fire; which the Ancients thought would be at the Day of Judgment, and not till then; but they have kindled already, and would have us believe Souls are now frying therein.
As for ancient Cuſtoms, ſometimes called alſo Traditions, they have not been always alike, nor in all places one and the ſame. But the Church of England declares, That whoſoever through his private judgment willingly and purpoſely doth openly break the Traditions (i. e Cuſtoms) and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common Authority, ought to be rebuked openly, &c. They are the very words of our XXXIVth. Article of Religion. Which teaches withal, That every particular or National Church, hath Authority to change and aboliſh ſuch Ceremonies or Rites as were ordained by man's Authority, &c.
And now what hath this Babbler to alledge out of our Bible againſt this? Truly, Nothing at all, but only the word Tradition, which he is very ignorant, if he do not know that we own. For we affirm, That the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture are Traditions: And of ſuch, the Apoſtle ſpeaks in 2 Theſſ. II. 15.2 Theſſ II. 15. which is thus expounded by Theodoret, Keep the Rule of Doctrine, the words delivered to you by us; which we both Preached when we were preſent with you, and wrote when we were abſent. So that the things which were ſpoken, were not different from thoſe which were written, but the very ſame. He ſpoke when he was with them, what he wrote when he was gone from them. Whence it is clear indeed, That the Traditions delivered by word of mouth, were of equal Authority with what was written, (as this man gravely ſaith), for they were the ſame. And it is alſo certain, as he adds, That before the New Teſtament was written, all was delivered by word of mouth. But what then? Therefore Apoſtolical Traditions are to be received. Yes; becauſe what was delivered by word of mouth, was the very ſame which afterwards was written. But here is no ſhadow of proof, that we are bound to receive Traditions which were never written.
Nor is there more in the next place,2 Theſſ. III. 6. 2 Theſſ. III. 6. but much leſs; for there is not a ſyllable of word of mouth; and Theodoret expreſly ſays, That by Tradition here the Apoſtle means not that foreign by Words, but that foreign, by Works; that is, he bids them follow his Example, (as St. Chryſoſtom alſo underſtands it) which he proves to be the meaning by what follows; where he ſaith the Apoſtle teaches what he had delivered by his Example; For your ſelves know how ye ought to follow us; for we behaved not our ſelves diſorderly among you, &c. v. 7, 8. Wherefore (as I may better ſay than this man doth) in the name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, let all good men withdraw ftom them, who thus falſly pretend to Tradition; when they dare not ſtand to the Interpretations of the beſt of the Ancient Fathers; and walk diſorderly, by breaking their own Rule, which requires them to interpret the Scriptures according to their unanimous conſent. Counc. of Trent, Seſſ. IV.
From hence he runs back (like a diſtracted man who catches at any thing at random) to the Firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. XI. 2.which one would have expected in the Front. But perhaps he was ſenſible it had nothing in it, but the bare word Tradition, to his purpoſe; and therefore brought it in after he hoped the Reader's mind would be poſſeſſed with a falſe Notion; which would make any thing go down with him. And the truth is, there is nothing here for his turn. For if the Traditions mentioned by the Apoſtle, be about matters of Order and Decency, (as one would think by what follows, concerning Praying with the head covered or uncovered) they themſelves acknowledge ſuch Traditions do not oblige in all places and times. If the Apoſtle means other Traditions about matters of Doctrine, how doth it appear that now they are not written? As that about the Holy Communion is, which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of in the latter part of that Chapter, v. 23, &c. In which the Church of Rome hath very fairly followed Tradition (I mean ſhamefully forſaken it), by leaving off the miniſtration of the Cup to the people, which according to what the Apoſtle ſaith, he received from the Lord, and delivered unto them, ought to be given as much as the Bread.
Conſider then, I beſeech you, with what Conſcience or Senſe this man could ſay, That we reject all Traditions, when we receive this, for inſtance, more fully than themſelves. And how he abuſes St. Paul, in making him as ſchiſmatically uncharitable as himſelf, by repreſenting him as diſowning us for his Brethren (which St. Auſtin durſt not do by the Donatiſts) who are ſo far from forgetting him in all things, that we remember him and his words better than they do; and keep to his Traditions (as I ſaid) juſt as he hath delivered them unto us. Poor man! he thinks he hath made a fine ſpeech for St. Paul, and made him ſay to us, quite contrary to that he ſays to the Corinthians. Whereas, (according to Theodoret, another kind of Interpreter than he) the Apoſtle diſpraiſes the Corinthians, as much as he makes him diſpraiſe us: For theſe words, ſaith he, do not contain true Praiſe; but he ſpeaks ironically, and in truth reprehends them, as not having kept the Orders which he had ſet them. As if he had ſaid, You have full well obſerved the Traditions which I left with you; when there is ſuch unbecoming behaviour among you, in the time of Divine Service. Which no body need be told, unleſs he be ſuch an Ideot as this, is not a form of Commendation, but of Reproof.
Laſtly, He comes from expreſs Scripture, to none at all; for he betakes himſelf to Reaſoning, and asks a very doughty queſtion; If nothing be to be believed, but only what is left us written, wherein ſhould the Church have exerciſed her ſelf from Adam to Moſes, the ſpace of Two thouſand ſix hundred years?
Let me ask him another, How doth he prove nothing was written all this time? Whence had Moſes all that he writes of the Times before him, if not out of Ancient Records? It is more likely there were Writings before his, than that there were not. However, our ſaying, There were, can no more be confuted, than his ſaying, There were not, can be proved.
If the Reader be not ſatisfied with this, he bids him ſee more Scriptures, and names near a dozen places; in never a one of which there is any mention, much leſs expreſs mention of Tradition: And in the laſt, the Decrees which the Apoſtles are ſaid to deliver, are expreſly written alſo in that very Chapter and place which he quotes, XV. Acts 28. For it is ſaid, v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner, &c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude, and delivered the EPISTLE. What an unlucky man is this, to confute himſelf after this faſhion?
As for his Fathers, he durſt not quote the words of any, but two only; St. Baſil and St. Chryſoſtome. The firſt of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Baſil *De Spiritu Sancto, c. 27.; into which ſomebody hath foiſted a diſcourſe about Tradition, which as it belongs not at all to his ſubject, ſo it contradicts his ſenſe in another place: Particularly in his book of Confeſſion of Faith; where he ſaith, It is a manifeſt infidelity and arrogance, either to reject what is written, or to add any thing that is not written. But admit thoſe words which this man quotes, to be St. Baſil's, they are manifeſtly falſe, by the confeſſion of the Roman Church, in that ſenſe wherein he takes them: For if thoſe things which he reckons up as Apoſtolieal Traditions, have equal force with thoſe things which are written in the Scripture, how comes the Church of Rome to lay aſide ſeveral of them? For inſtance; the words of Invocation at the oſtenſion of the Bread of the Euchariſt, and the Cup of Bleſſing; the Conſecration of him that is baptized; ſtanding in Prayer on the firſt day of the week, and all the time between Eaſter and Whitſontide? And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty, ſuch as Praying towards the Eaſt, and the Threefold Immerſion in Baptiſm? Both which they themſelves acknowledge to be indifferent; and yet are mentioned by this falſe St. Baſil (ſo I cannot but eſteem him that wrote this) among the things which are of equal force unto Godlineſs with thoſe delivered in Scripture. Nay, he proceeds ſo far as to ſay in the words following, that if we ſhould reject ſuch unwritten Traditions, we ſhould give a deadly wound to the Goſpel; or rather contract it into a bare Name. A ſaying ſo ſenſeleſs, or rather impious, that if theſe men had but a grain of common honeſty, they could not thus endeavour to impoſe upon the world, by ſuch ſpurious ſtuff, as I would willingly think they have wit enough to ſee this is.
As for St. Chryſoſtome, it is manifeſt he ſpeaks of the Traditions of the whole Church. And unleſs they be confirmed by Scripture, he contradicts himſelf in ſaying, Traditions not written are worthy of belief. For upon Pſal. 95. he ſaith expreſly, If any thing unwritten be ſpoken, the *foreign, &c.underſtanding of the auditors halts and wavers, ſometimes inclining, ſometimes haeſitating; ſometimes turning away from it as a frivolous ſaying, and again receiving it as probable; but when the *foreign, &c. Pag. 924. 30. Edit. Sav.written Teſtimony of the Divine voice comes forth, it confirms and eſtabliſhes, both the words of the ſpeaker, and the minds of the hearers.