About Tradition, Part 1
PART I. What Traditions we receive.
I. AND in the firſt place we acknowledge that what is now holy Scripture, was once onelyonly Tradition; properly ſo called: that is Doctrine by word of mouth. In this we all agree, I ſay, that the whole Goſpel or Doctrine of Chriſt, which is now upon record in thoſe Books, we call the Scriptures; was once unwritten, when it was firſt preached by our bleſſed Saviour, and his Apoſtles.
Which muſt be noted to remove that ſmall Objection, with which they of the Roman Church are wont to trouble ſome peoples minds, merely from the Name of Traditions: which Saint Paul, in his Epiſtles, requires thoſe to whom he writes, carefully to obſerve. Particularly in that famous place: 1 Theſſ. II. 15. where we find this exhortation, Therefore, Brethren, ſtand faſt, and hold the Traditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epiſtle.
Behold, ſay they, here are things not written, but delivered by word of mouth; which the Theſſalonians are commanded to hold. Very true, (ſhould the people of our Church ſay, to thoſe that inſiſt upon this) but, behold alſo, we beſeech you, what the Traditions are of which the Apoſtle here writes; and mark alſo when it was that they were partly unwritten.
For the firſt of theſe, it is manifeſt that he means by Traditions, the Doctrines which we now reade in the holy Scriptures. For the very firſt word therefore is an indication that this verſe is an inference, from what he had ſaid in the foregoing. Now the things he before treated of, are the grand Doctrines of the Goſpel, or the way of Salvation revealed unto us by Chriſt Jeſus, from God the Father: who hath from the beginning (ſaith he, v. 13. 14.) choſen you to Salvation, through ſanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, whereunto he hath called you, &c. This is the ſum of the Goſpel: and whatſoever he had delivered unto them about theſe matters, of their ſanctification, or of their faith, or of their ſalvation, by obtaining the glory of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt (to which they were choſen, and called, through their ſanctification, and faith) this he exhorts them to hold faſt; whether it was contained in this Epiſtle, or in his former preaching: for he had not occaſion now to write all that he had formerly delivered by word of mouth.
Which afterward was put in writing: for mark (which is the ſecond thing) the time when ſome things remained unwritten; which was, when this Epiſtle was ſent to the Theſſalonians. Then ſome things concerning their ſalvation, were not contained in this Letter: but, as yet, delivered onelyonly by word of mouth unto this Church. I ſay, to this Church; for it doth not follow, that all Churches whatſoever, were, at the time of the writing of this Epiſtle, without the Doctrine of the Goſpel completely written; becauſe among the Theſſalonians, ſome Traditions or Doctrines were as yet unwritten. Which can in reaſon be extended no farther than to themſelves, and to this Epiſtle; which did not contain all the Evangelical Doctrine, though other writings, which it is poſſible were then extant in ſome other Churches, did.
And, I ſay, as yet unwritten in that Church; becauſe the Theſſalonians, no doubt, had afterward more communicated to them in writing, beſides this Epiſtle, or the former either; viz. all the Goſpels, and the Acts of Apoſtles, and other Apoſtolical Epiſtles, which we now enjoy. Which writings, we may be confident, contain the Traditions, which the Apoſtle had delivered to the Theſſalonians, by word: concerning the Incarnation, Birth, Life, Miracles, Death, Reſurrection, and Aſcention of our bleſſed Saviour; and concerning the coming of the Holy Ghoſt, and the miſſion of the Apoſtles: and all the reſt which is there recorded for our everlaſting inſtruction.
And therefore it is in vain to argue from this place, that there are ſtill, at this day, ſome unwritten Traditions; which we are to follow: unleſs the Apoſtle had ſaid, hold the Traditions which ye have been taught by word, which ſhall never be written. And it is in vain for us to enquire after any ſuch Traditions, or to rely upon them when they are offered unto us: unleſs we were ſure, that there was ſomething, neceſſary to our Salvation, delivered in their Sermons, which was never to be delivered in writing; and unleſs we knew where to find it, as certainly, as we do that which they have committed to writing.
And it is to no more purpoſe to ſhew us the word Tradition, in other places of Saint Paul's writings: particularly in the III. Chapter of the ſame Epiſtle, v. 6. where, by Tradition, S. Chryſoſtome underſtands the Apoſtle's Example, which he had given them; and ſo it follows, v. 7. for your ſelves know, how you ought to follow us, &c. or it may refer to the commandment he had given them in his former Epiſtle IV. 11. (which the Reader may be pleaſed to compare with this) but cannot with any colour be expounded to ſignifie any Doctrine of Faith, about which the Roman Church now contends with us. For it is plain, it hath reſpect to their good manners, and orderly living: for the information of which we need go no whither, but to the holy Scriptures; wherein we are taught fully enough, how we ought to walk, and pleaſe God in all things.
The ſame may be ſaid of that place, 1 Cor. XI. 2. Now I praiſe you, Brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Traditions (or Ordinances, as we render it, or Precepts, as the Vulgar Latin it ſelf hath it) as I delivered them unto you. For we are ſo obſervant of what he hath delivered, that we are confident, if Saint Paul were now alive, and in this Church, he would praiſe us (as he doth the Corinthians) for keeping the Traditions, as he delivered them; and on the contrary reprove and condemn the Roman Church, for not keeping them, as they were firſt delivered. And we have good ground for this confidence: there being an inſtance in that very Chapter, which demonſtrates our fidelity in preſerving the very firſt Traditions, and their unfaithfulneſs in letting them go. For he tells us, v. 23. that he had delivered to them, what he had received of the Lord: and that which he received and delivered, was about the whole Communion (as you may reade there and in the following verſes, 24, 25.) in both kinds; the Cup, as well as the Bread. Thus, he ſaith, the Lord appointed it, and thus he delivered it: and this Tradition we keep intire, as he received it of the Lord, and delivered it to his Church, in this Epiſtle; which is a part of the holy Scripture: whereas they do not keep it, but have broken this Divine Tradition, and give the Communion of Chriſt's Body and Bloud otherwiſe than Saint Paul delivered, keeping the Cup from the people.
By which I deſire all, that love the Lord Jeſus in ſincerity, to judge which Church keeps cloſeſt to the Apoſtolical Tradition (for ſo Saint Paul calls this Doctrine of the Communion in both kinds; that which he delivered, or left as a Tradition with them) they that ſtick to what is unqueſtionably the Apoſtolical Doctrine, or they that leave it, to follow thoſe Doctrines (or preſumptions rather) which at the beſt, are very dubious and uncertain?
And farther, I deſire all that reade this Paper, to conſider, whether it be reaſonable to think that thoſe Rites, which have no Authority in the holy Scripture (but were inſtituted perhaps by the Apoſtles) have been kept pure and uncorrupted; according to their firſt intention: when thoſe ſacred Rites (for inſtance the holy Euchariſt) are not preſerved intire, which are manifeſtly ordained in the holy Writings.
And ſo much may ſerve for the firſt thing: for it would be too long, to explain all the reſt of the places of holy Scripture, which they are wont to alledge (though the word Tradition be not mentioned in them) to give a colour to their preſent pretences: How pertinently, may be judged by theſe places now conſidered.
II. Secondly then, That word of God which was once unwritten, being now written; we acknowledge our ſelves to be much indebted to the Church of God in all foregoing Ages, which hath preſerved the Scriptures and delivered them down to us, as his word: which we ought to do unto thoſe that ſhall ſucceed us; as our Church teacheth us in its Twentieth Article: where the Church is affirmed to be a Witneſs and a keeper of holy Writ.
This Tradition we own; it being univerſal, continued, uninterrupted, and undenied. Though, in truth, this is Tradition in another ſenſe of the word; not ſignifying the Doctrine delivered unto us, but the manner and means of its delivery.
And therefore, if any member of our Church be preſſed by thoſe of the Romiſh perſuaſion, with this Argument, for their preſent Traditions, that Scripture it ſelf is come to us by Tradition, let them anſwer thus: Very right, it is ſo, and we thank God for it; therefore let this be no part of our diſpute; it being a thing preſuppoſed in all diſcourſes about Religion, a thing agreed among all Chriſtian people, that we reade the word of God when we reade the holy Scriptures. Which being delivered to us, and accepted by us as his word; we ſee no neceſſity of any other Tradition or Doctrine, which is not to be found there, or cannot be proved from thence: for they tell us, they are able to make, even the men of God, wiſe unto Salvation.
And if they preſs you again and ſay, how do you know that ſome Books are Canonical and others not; is it not by a conſtant Tradition? Anſwer them again in this manner: Yes, this is true alſo, and would to God, you would ſtand to this univerſal Tradition; and receive no other Books, but what have been ſo delivered. But know withall, that this univerſal Tradition of the Books of Scripture (unto which you have added ſeveral Apocryphal Writings, which have not been conſtantly delivered, as thoſe we receive) is no part of the Tradition or Doctrine delivered. That is, no Doctrine diſtinct from the Scriptures; but onelyonly the inſtrument or means of conveying that Doctrine unto us.
In ſhort, it is the fidelity of the Church with whom the Canon of Scripture was depoſed: but is no more a Doctrine, not written in the Scripture; than the Tradition or delivery of the Code, or Book of the Civil Law, is any opinion or Law not written in that Code.
And we are more aſſured of the fidelity of the Church herein, than the Civilians can be aſſured of the faithfulneſs of their predeceſſours in preſerving and delivering the Books of their Law to them: becauſe theſe holy Books were always kept with a greater care, than any other Books whatſoever; and in the acceptance of them alſo, we find there was great caution uſed, that they might not be deceived: all Chriſtians looking upon them to be of ſuch importance, that all Religion, they thought, was concerned in them.
Of which this is an Argument, that they who ſought to deſtroy the Chriſtian Religion, in the primitive times, ſought nothing more than to deſtroy the Bible. Which they were wont to demand, of thoſe who were ſuſpected to be Chriſtians, to be delivered up to them; that they might burn it. And according as men behaved themſelves in this trial, ſo they were reputed to be Chriſtians, or not Chriſtians. And the Traditours, as they were called; that is, they who delivered the holy Scriptures into the hands of the Pagans; were look'd upon by Chriſtians as men that were content to part with their Religion. For which there could be no reaſon; but that they thought Chriſtian Religion to be therein contained; and to be betrayed by thoſe who delivered them to be burnt.
By which I have proved more than I intended, in this part of my Diſcourſe; that in the holy Scriptures, the whole will of God concerning our Salvation, is contained. Which is the true Queſtion between us and the Church of Rome: Not whether the Scripture be delivered to us as the word of God, or no, (in this our people ought to tell them we are all agreed) but whether they have been delivered, as the whole will of God. And from that argument now mentioned and many more, we conclude that Univerſal Tradition having directed us unto theſe Books and no other: they direct us ſufficiently, without any other Doctrines, unto God, and to our everlaſting reſt.
And if they urge you farther, and ſay, that the very credit of the Scripture depends upon Tradition: tell them that it is a ſpeech not to be endured, if they mean thereby that it gives the Scripture its authority (and if they mean leſs, we are agreed, as hath been already ſaid) for it is to ſay, that Man gives authority to God's Word. Whereas in truth, the holy Scriptures are not therefore of Divine Authority; becauſe the Church hath delivered them ſo to be: but the Church hath delivered them ſo to be, becauſe it knew them to be of ſuch authority. And if the Church ſhould have conceived, or taught otherwiſe, of theſe Writings, than as of the undoubted Oracles of God; ſhe would have erred damnably, in ſuch a Tradition.
I ſhall ſum up what hath been ſaid in this ſecond particular, in a few words. Chriſt and his Apoſtles at firſt taught the Church by word of mouth; but afterward that which they preached was by the commandment of God committed to writing, and delivered unto the Church, to be the ground of our Faith. Which is no more than Irenaeus hath ſaid in expreſs words. (L. III. C. 1.) ſpeaking of them by whom the Goſpel came into all Nations: which they then preached, but afterward, by the will of God delivered unto us in the Scriptures; to be, in time to come, the foundation and pillar of our Faith.
III. And farther we likewiſe acknowledge that the ſum and ſubſtance of the Chriſtian Religion, contained in the Scriptures, hath been delivered down to us, even from the Apoſtles days, in other ways, or forms, beſides the Scriptures. For inſtance, in the Baptiſmal Vow; in the Creed; in the Prayers, and Hymns of the Church. Which we may call Traditions, if we pleaſe: but they bring down to us no new Doctrine; but onelyonly deliver, in an abridgment, the ſame Chriſtianity, which we find in the Scriptures.
Upon this there is no need that I ſhould enlarge: but I proceed farther to affirm,
IV. That we reverently receive alſo the unanimous Tradition or Doctrine of the Church in all ages, which determines the meaning of the holy Scripture; and makes it more clear and unqueſtionable in any point of Faith, wherein we can find it hath declared its ſenſe. For we look upon this Tradition as nothing elſe but the Scripture unfolded: not a new thing, which is not in the Scripture; but the Scripture explained and made more evident.
And thus ſome part of the Nicene Creed may be called a Tradition; as it hath expreſly delivered unto us the ſenſe of the Church of God, concerning that great Article of our Faith; that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God. Which they teach us was always thus underſtood; the Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, and of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father.
But this Tradition ſuppoſes the Scripture for its ground; and delivers nothing but what the Fathers, aſſembled at Nice, believed to be contained there; and was firſt fetch'd from thence. For we find in Theodoret (L. I. C. 6.) that the famous Emperour Conſtantine, admoniſhed thoſe Fathers, in all their queſtions and debates to conſult onelyonly with theſe heavenly inſpired Writings: becauſe the Evangelical, and Apoſtolical Books, and the Oracles of the old Prophets, do evidently inſtruct us what to think in Divine matters. This is ſo clear a Teſtimony, that in thoſe days, they made this the complete Rule of their Faith, whereby they ended Controverſies (which was the reaſon that in ſeveral other Synods we find they were wont to lay the Bible before them) and that there is nothing in the Nicene Creed, but what is to be found in the Bible; that Cardinal Bellarmine hath nothing to reply to it, but this: Conſtantine was indeed a great Emperour, but no great Doctour. Which is rather a ſcoff, than an Anſwer: and caſts a ſcorn not onelyonly upon him, but upon that great Council, who, as the ſame Theodoret, witneſſeth, aſſented unto that Speech of Conſtantine. So it there follows in theſe words, the moſt of the Synod were obedient to what he had diſcourſed; and embraced both mutual Concord, and ſound Doctrine.
And accordingly S. Hilary a little after extols his Son Conſtantius for this, that he adhered to the Scriptures; and blames him onelyonly for not attending to the true Catholick ſenſe of them. His words are theſe, (in his little Book, which he delivered to Conſtantius) I truly admire thee, O Lord Conſtantius the Emperour, who deſireſt a Faith according to what is written. They pretended to no other in thoſe days; but, (as he ſpeaks a little after) look'd upon him that refuſed this, as Antichriſt. It was onelyonly required that they ſhould receive their Faith out of God's Books, not merely according to the words of them, but according to their true meaning (becauſe many ſpake Scripture without Scripture, and pretended to Faith without Faith, as his words are) and herein Catholick and conſtant Tradition was to guide them. For whatſoever was contrary, to what the whole Church had received and held from the beginning, could not in reaſon be thought to be the meaning of that Scripture, which was alledged to prove it. And, on the other ſide, the Church pretended to no more than to be a Witneſs of the received ſenſe of the Scriptures: which were the bottom upon which they built this Faith.
Thus I obſerve Hegeſippus ſaith (in Euſeb. his Hiſtory, L. IV. C. 22.) that when he was at Rome he met with a great many Biſhops, and that he received the very ſame Doctrine from them all. And then, a little after, tells us what that was, and whence they derived it, ſaying, that in every ſucceſſion of Biſhops, and in every City, ſo they held; as the Law preached, and as the Prophets, and as the Lord. That is, according to the Doctrine of the Old and New Teſtament.
I ſhall conclude this particular, with a pregnant paſſage, which I remember in a famous Divine of our Church (D. Jackſon, in his Treatiſe of the Catholick Church, Chap. 22.) who writes to this effect,
That Tradition, which was of ſo much uſe in the Primitive Church, was not unwritten Traditions or cuſtoms, commended or ratified by the ſuppoſed infalliblity of any viſible Church, but did eſpecially conſiſt in the Confeſſions, or Regiſters of particular Churches. And the unanimous conſent of ſo many ſeveral Churches, as exhibited their confeſſions to the Nicene Council, out of ſuch Forms as had been framed, and taught before this Controverſie aroſe, about the Divinity of Chriſt; and that voluntarily and freely (theſe Churches being not dependent one upon another; nor overſwayed by any Authority over them; nor miſled by faction to frame their confeſſions of Faith by imitation, or according to ſome pattern ſet them) was a pregnant argument, that this Faith wherein they all agreed, had been delivered to them by the Apoſtles and their followers, and was the true meaning of the holy Writings, in this great Article: and evidently proved, that Arius did obtrude ſuch interpretations of Scripture, as had not been heard of before; or were but the ſenſe of ſome private perſons in the Church, and not of the generality of Believers.
In ſhort the unanimous conſent of ſo many diſtinct viſible Churches, as exhibited their ſeveral Confeſſions, Catechiſms, or Teſtimonies, of their own or Forefathers Faith unto the Council of Nice, was an argument of the ſame force and efficacy againſt Arius and his partakers, as the General conſent and practice of all Nations, in worſhipping a Divine Power in all ages, is againſt Atheiſts. Nothing but the ingrafted notion of a Deity, could have induced ſo many ſeveral Nations, ſo much different in natural diſpoſition, in civil diſcipline and education, to affect or practiſe the duty of Adoration. And nothing but the evidence of the ingrafted word (as Saint James calls the Goſpel) delivered by Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the holy Scriptures, could have kept ſo many ſeveral Churches, as communicated their Confeſſions unto that Council, in the unity of the ſame Faith.
The like may be ſaid of the reſt of the four firſt General Councils; whoſe Decrees are a great confirmation of our belief: becauſe they deliver to us, the conſent of the Churches of Chriſt, in thoſe great Truths, which they aſſert out of the holy Scriptures.
And could there any Traditive Interpretation of the whole Scripture be produced, upon the Authority of ſuch Original Tradition, as that now named; we would moſt thankfully and joyfully receive it. But there never was any ſuch pretended; no, not by the Roman Church: whoſe Doctours differ among themſelves, about the meaning of hundreds of places in the Bible. Which they would not doe ſure, nor ſpend their time unprofitably, in making the beſt conjectures they are able; if they knew of any expoſition of thoſe places, in which all Chriſtian Doctours had agreed from the beginning.
V. But more than this, we allow that Tradition gives us a conſiderable aſſiſtance, in ſuch points as are not in ſo many letters and ſyllables contained in the Scriptures, but may be gathered from thence, by good and manifeſt reaſoning. Or, in plainer words perhaps, whatſoever Tradition juſtifies any Doctrine, that may be proved by the Scriptures, though not found in expreſs terms there, we acknowledge to be of great uſe, and readily receive and follow it: as ſerving very much to eſtabliſh us more firmly in that Truth, when we ſee all Chriſtians have adhered to it.
This may be called a confirming Tradition: of which we have an inſtance in the Doctrine of Infant Baptiſm; which ſome ancient Fathers call an Apoſtolical Tradition. Not, that it cannot be proved by any place of Scripture; no ſuch matter: for though we do not find it written in ſo many words that Infants are to be baptiſed, or that the Apoſtles baptiſed Infants; yet it may be proved out of the Scriptures, and the Fathers themſelves who call it an Apoſtolical Tradition do alledge teſtimonies of the Scriptures to make it good. And therefore we may be ſure, they comprehend the Scriptures within the name of Apoſtolical Tradition: and believed that this Doctrine was gathered out of the Scriptures, though not expreſly treated of there.
In like manner we, in this Church, aſſert the authority of Biſhops above Presbyters, by a Divine right: as appears by the Book of Conſecration of Biſhops, where the perſon to be ordained to this Office, expreſſes his belief, that he is truly called to this Miniſtration, according to the will of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Now this we are perſuaded may be plainly enough proved to any man that is ingenuous and will fairly conſider things, out of the holy Scriptures without the help of Tradition: but we alſo take in the aſſiſtance of this for the conviction of gain-ſayers; and by the perpetual practice and Tradition of the Church from the beginning confirm our Scripture proofs ſo ſtrongly, that he ſeems to us very obſtinate, or extremely prejudiced, that yields not to them. And therefore to make our Doctrine in this point the more Authentick, our Church hath put both theſe proofs together; in the Preface to the Form of giving Orders: which begins in theſe words; It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authours, that from the Apoſtles time there have been three Orders of Miniſters in Chriſt's Church, Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons.
I hope no body among us is ſo weak, as to imagine, when he reads this, that by admitting Tradition to be of ſuch uſe and force as I have mentioned, we yield too much to the Popiſh Cauſe; which ſupports it ſelf by this pretence. But if any one ſhall ſuggeſt this to any of our people, let them reply; that it is but the pretence, and onelyonly by the Name of Tradition, that the Romiſh Church ſupports it ſelf: For true Tradition is as great a proof againſt Popery, as it is for Epiſcopacy. The very foundation of the Pope's Empire (which is, his ſucceſſion in Saint Peter's Supremacy) is utterly ſubverted by this: the conſtant Tradition of the Church being evidently againſt it. And therefore let us not loſe this Advantage we have againſt them, by ignorantly refuſing to receive true and conſtant Tradition: which will be ſo far from leading us into their Church; that it will never ſuffer us to think of being of it, while it remains ſo oppoſite to that which is truly Apoſtolical.
I conclude this, with the direction, which our Church gives to Preachers in the Book of Canons 1571. (in the Title Concionatores) that no man ſhall teach the people any thing to be held and believed by them religiouſly, but what is conſentaneous to the Doctrine of the Old and New Teſtament; and what the Catholick Fathers and ancient Biſhops, have gathered out of that very Doctrine. This is our Rule, whereby we are to guide our ſelves: which was ſet us on purpoſe, to preſerve our Preachers from broaching any idle, novel, or popiſh Doctrines; as appears by the Concluſion of that Injunction, Vain, and old Wives opinions, and hereſies, and popiſh errours, abhorring from the Doctrine and Faith of Chriſt, they ſhall not teach: nor any thing at all whereby the unskilfull multitude, may be inflamed either to the ſtudy of novelty, or to contention.
VI. But though nothing may be taught as a piece of Religion, which hath not the forenamed Original; yet I muſt add that thoſe things, which have been univerſally believed, and not contrary to Scripture, though not written at all there, nor to be proved from thence, we do receive as pious opinions. For inſtance, the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God our Saviour: which is ſo likely a thing, and ſo univerſally received; that I do not ſee why we ſhould not look upon it, as a genuine Apoſtolical Tradition.
VII. I have but one thing more to add, which is, that we allow alſo the Traditions of the Church, about matters of Order, Rites and Ceremonies. OnelyOnly we do not take them to be parts of God's Worſhip; and if they be not appointed in the holy Scriptures, we believe they may be altered by the ſame or the like authority, with that which ordained them. So our Church hath excellently and fully reſolved us, concerning ſuch matters, in the XXXIV. Article of Religion: where there are three things aſſerted concerning ſuch Traditions as theſe.
Firſt, It is not neceſſary that Traditions and Ceremonies (they are the very firſt words of the Article) be in all places, one or utterly alike: for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diverſities of Countries, times, and mens manners, ſo that nothing be ordained againſt God's word. But then to prevent all diſorders and confuſions, that men might make in the Church, by following their own private fancies and humours; the next thing which is decreed is this,
Secondly, that whoſoever through his own private judgment, willingly and purpoſely doth openly break the Traditions 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 (that others may fear to doe the like) as he that offendeth againſt the common order of the Church, and hurteth the Authority of the Magiſtrate, and woundeth the Conſciences of the weak Brethren.
Laſtly, it is there declared, that every particular or national Church, hath authority to ordain, change and aboliſh, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained onelyonly by man's authority, ſo that all things be done to edifying.
This is ſufficient to ſhew what we believe concerning Traditions, about matters of Order and Decency.
VIII. As for what is delivered in matters of Doctrine, or Order, by any private Doctour in the Church, or by any particular Church, it appears by what hath been ſaid, that it cannot be taken to be more than the private opinion of that man, or the particular decree of that Church; and can have no more authority than they have: that is, cannot oblige all Chriſtians, unleſs it be conteined in the holy Scripture.
Now ſuch are the Traditions which the Roman Church would impoſe upon us; and impoſe upon us after a ſtrange faſhion, as you ſhall ſee in the Second Part of this Diſcourſe: unto which I ſhall proceed preſently, when I have left with you this brief reflexion on what hath been ſaid in this Firſt Part.
Our people may hereby be admoniſhed not to ſuffer themſelves to be deceived and abuſed by words and empty names, without their ſenſe and meaning. Nothing is more common than this: eſpecially in the buſineſs of Traditions. About which a great ſtir is raiſed; and it is commonly given out, that we refuſe all Traditions. Than which nothing is more falſe: for we refuſe none truly ſo called; that is Doctrines delivered by Chriſt, or his Apoſtles. No, we refuſe nothing at all, becauſe it is unwritten: but merely becauſe we are not ſure, it is delivered by that Authority, towhich we ought to ſubmit.
Whatſoever is delivered to us by our Lord and his Apoſtles, we receive as the very word of God: which we think is ſufficiently declared in the holy Scriptures. But if any can certainly prove, by any Authority equal to that which brings the Scriptures to us, that there is any thing elſe delivered by them, we receive that alſo. The Controverſie will ſoon be at an end: for we are ready to embrace it, when any ſuch thing can be produced.
Nay, we have that reverence for thoſe who ſucceeded the Apoſtles, that what they have unanimouſly delivered to us, as the ſenſe of any doubtfull place, we receive it, and ſeek no farther. There is no diſpute, whether or no we ſhould entertain it.
To the Decrees of the Church alſo we ſubmit in matters of Decency and Order: yea, and acquieſce in its authority, when it determines doubtfull opinions.
But we cannot receive that as a Doctrine of Chriſt, which we know is but the Tradition of man: nor keep the Ordinances of the ancient Church in matters of Decency, ſo unalterably as never to vary from them; becauſe they themſelves did not intend them to be of everlaſting obligation. As appears by the changes that have been made in ſeveral times and places: even in ſome things which are mentioned in the holy Scriptures; being but cuſtomes ſuted to thoſe Ages and Countries.
In ſhort, Traditions we do receive; but not all that are called by that name. Thoſe which have ſufficient Authority; but not thoſe which are impoſed upon us, by the ſole authority of one particular Church, aſſuming a power over all the reſt. And ſo I come to the Second Part.