The Rule of Faith, Part 4 – Half title

The Rule of Faith · Part 4 – Half title

p. 301THE RULE of FAITH.

PART IV. Testimonies concerning the Rule of Faith.

SECT. I.

§. 1. THus far in the way of Reason and Principles. The rest is Note-book Learning, which he tells usMr. S's Testimonies examined. he is not much a Friend to; and there is no kindness lost, for it is as little a Friend to him and his Cause as he can be to it. I shall first examine the Authorities he brings for Tradition; and then produce express Testimonies in behalf of Scripture. In both which I shall be very brief; in the one, because his Testimonies require no long Answer; in the other, because it p. 302would be to little purpose to trouble Mr. S. with many Fathers, who for ought appears by his Book is acquainted with none but Father White, as I shall shew hereafter. By the way, I cannot much blame him for the course he uses to take with other mens Testimonies▪ because it is the only way that a man in his circumstances can take; otherwise, nothing can be in it self more unreasonable, than to pretend to answer Testimonies by ranking them under so many faulty Heads; and having so done, magisterially to require his Adversary to vindicate them, by shewing that they do not fall under some of those Heads, though he have not said one word against any of them particularly; nay, though he have not so much as recited any one of them; for then the Trick would be spoiled, and his Catholick Reader who perhaps may believe him in the general, might see Reason not to do so if he should descend to particulars, which (as he well observes) would make his **P. 161.Discourse to look with a contingent Face.

§. 2. I begin with his three Authorities from Scripture; which when I p. 303consider, I see no reason why he (of all men) should find fault with my Lord Bishop of Down's Dissuasive for being so **P. 320.thin and sleight in Scripture-Citations. Nor do I see how he will answer it to Mr. Rushworth, for transgressing that prudent Rule of his, viz. **Dial. 2. Sect. 14.That the Catholick should never undertake to convince his Adversary out of Scripture, &c. For which he gives this substantial Reason, **Ibid.because this were to strengthen his Opponent in his own Ground and Principle, viz. That all is to be proved out of Scripture; which he tells us presently after is no more fit to convince, than a Beetle is to cut withall; meaning it perhaps of Texts so applied as these are which follow. **Isa. 35.8.Isa 35:8This shall be to you a direct way, so that Fools cannot err in it. **Isa. 59.21.Isa 59:21This 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. **Jer. 31.Jer 31I will give my Law in their bowels, and in their hearts will I write it: From which Texts if Mr. S. can prove Tradition to be the only Rule of p. 304Faith, any better than the Philosophers Stone or the Longitude may be proved from the 1 Cap. of Genesis, I am content they should pass for valid Testimonies: Though I might require of him (by his own Law) before these Texts can signifie any thing to his purpose, to demonstrate that this is the Traditionary sense of these Texts, and that it hath been universally in all Ages received by the Church under that Notion; and then to shew how it comes to pass that so many of the Fathers, and of their own Commentators have interpreted them to another sense: And lastly, to shew how Scripture which has no certain sense but from Tradition, and of the sense whereof Tradition cannot assure us, unless it be the Rule of Faith; I say, how Scripture can prove Tradition to be the Rule of Faith, which can prove nothing at all unless Tradition be first proved to be the Rule of Faith. This I take to be as shameful a Circle as that wherewith Dr. Holden upbraids the generality of his Brethren.

§. 3. I proceed to his Authorities from Fathers and Councils; all which (not one of them excepted) he hath taken p. 305out of Mr. White's Tabulae Suffragiales, without the least acknowledgment from whom he had them. And that it might be evident that he had not consulted the Books themselves for them, he hath taken them with all their faults, and with the very same errors of Citation which Mr. White had been guilty of before him. So that though he is pleas'd to say of himself that **P. 239.he he is a bad Transcriber ▪ yet I must do him that right, to assure the Reader that he does it very punctually and exactly.

§ 4. He begins with Councils, of which he tells us he will only mention three in several Ages.

The first is the First Synod of Lateran. One might have expected, after he had told us he would mention three in several Ages, he should have produced them according to the order of Time, and have begun with the Council of Sardica, which was near 300 years before the Lateran. But there was a good reason why the Lateran should be first produced viz. because it is mentioned before the other in Mr White's Book. Well, but what says this Synod? We all confess unanimously and consequently, with one p. 306heart and mouth, the Tenets and Sayings of the Holy Fathers; adding nothing, substracting nothing of those things which are delivered us by them; and we believe as the Fathers have believed, we Preach so as they have taught. The force of which Testimony Mr. S. lays upon the Word delivered, as if that Word where-ever it is met with in Councils or Fathers, must needs be understood of oral delivery; whereas it is a general Word indifferently used for conveyance either by writing, or word of mouth. In this place it plainly refers to the writings of particular Fathers, out of whom a long catalogue of Testimonies against the Heresie of the Monothelites had been read just before this Declaration of the Synod. Now what signifies this to oral Tradition's being the Rule of Faith, that this Synod declares her Faith, in opposition to the Heresie of the Monothelites, to be consonant in all things to those Testimonies which had been produced out of the Fathers?

The next is the Council of Sardica; out of an Epistle of which Council he cites these words, We have received this Doctrine, we have been taught so, we hold p. 307this Catholick Tradition, Faith and Confession. Which are general words, and indifferently applicable to Oral Tradition, or Writing, or both. But be they what they will, Mr. S. ought not to have been ignorant, that this Council was rejected by St. Austin and other Orthodox Fathers, as **Concil. Tom 1.Binnius acknowledges; and which is more, that the latter part of this Epistle (out of which part Mr. S. cites these words) which contains a Confession of Faith, is by **An. 347.Baronius (and after him by Binnius) proved to have been surreptitiously added. For though it be found in Theodoret, and mentioned by Sozomen; yet Baronius thinks that it was the Arian Confession composed by the false-Synod of Sardica which sate at the same time; and that Sozomen lighting upon it, perhaps mistook it for the Confession of the Orthodox Synod of the same name. However that be, he proves out of Athanasius, and from the Testimony both of the Eastern and Western Bishops, that the Council of Sardica did not so much as add one word or tittle, no nor so much as explain any thing in the Nicene Faith. But Mr. White sayes nothing p. 308of this, and therefore Mr. S. could not, who is no Speculator in these matters, but only as a Testifier delivers down these authorities to us as he received them by hand from Mr. White; and if the word Tradition be but in them, they are Demonstrative.

As for his Testimonies from the 2d Council of Nice (which he calls the 7th General Council) who pretended their Doctrine of Image-worship to have descended to them by an uninterrupted Tradition, and proved it most doughtily by Texts of Scripture ridiculously wrested, by impertinent sayings out of obscure and counterfeit Authors, and by fond and immodest Stories (as is acknowledged by Pope **Quodlibet 6. cited by Espencaeus in 2d Epist. ad Tim. c. 4.Adrian the 6th) of Apparitions and Womens Dreams, &c. for which I refer the Reader to the Council it self; which is such a mess of Popperies, that if a general Council of Atheists had met together with a design to abuse Religion by talking ridiculously concerning it, they could not have done it more effectually: I say, as for his Testimonies from this Council, I shall refer Mr. S to that Western Council under Charles the Great, which a p. 309little after at Francford condemned, and also fully confuted the Decisions of this Council, calling their pretended Tradition of Image-worship [putidissimam Traditionem] a most stinking Tradition.

These are his authorities from Councils; Where (says he) we see General Councils relying on the Teaching of the Fathers or fore-going Church, and on the Churches Tradition as their Rule, &c. Where does he see any such matter? Or where does he see General Councils? Was the Council of Lateran a General one? Or was the Council of Sardica? If it was, let him shew how the 2d. of Nice could be the 7th. General Council. Mr. White must write more explicitly, and say which are General Councils, which not, otherwise he will lead his friends into dangerous mistakes.

§ 4. After ancient Councils (not so ancient neither) let us (says he) give a glance at Fathers. Glance is a modest word, and yet I doubt whether ever the Fathers had so much as that from him. Before I speak particularly to his Testimonies from the Fathers, I shall mind him of what Mr. Rushworth p. 310says in general, viz. **Dial. 3. Sect. 13.That who seeks Tradition in the Fathers, and to convince it by their Testimony, takes an hard task upon him, &c. Again **Ibid., As in other Points, so even in this of the Resolution of Faith, as Doctors seem to differ nowadays, so might the Fathers also. If this be true, Mr. S. is not very likely by a few Testimonies out of the Fathers to prove that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith. But let us see what he has done towards it.

He begins with a saying of Pope Celestine to the Fathers of the Ephesin Council. Now therefore we must act with a common endeavor to preserve things believed, and retained to this very time by Succession from the Apostles. Binnius's other Reading [of foreign for foreign] quite spoils the force of this Citation which Mr. S. puts upon the word Succession. But read it how he will; why may not the Christian Doctrine be said to come by Succession from the Apostles, when it is transmitted to us by Scripture, as well as when by oral Tradition? I am sure the same Celestine in an Epistle to Cyril, commends him for defending the Faith by Scripture, This (says he) is p. 311a great Triumph of our Faith, to demonstrate our Opinions so strongly, and to overthrow the contrary by Testimonies from Scripture. And neither in this Epistle, nor the other, does he make any mention of Oral Tradition.

Next he cites that known place in Irenaeus, But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, ought we not to follow the Order of Tradition, &c.? This makes clearly against him; for it implies, that now the Apostles have left us the Scriptures, we ought to follow them. The other passage he cites out of Irenaeus, Lib. 1. c. 3. is a clear eviction that he did not consult the Book. For he puts two sayings together which he had met with in Mr. White immediately one after the other; and because Mr. White had cited Lib. 1. c. 3. for the first saying, and brought in the other immediately upon it with an (Et rursus) Again, &c. Therefore Mr. S. (who is of a right Traditionary temper, which is to take things easily upon trust himself, and require Demonstration from others) concluded that these sayings were in the same place, though in truth they are in several Books. As for the p. 312Testimony it self, there is nothing in it to Mr. S's purpose besides the word Tradition, which Irenaeus does often apply to Scripture as well as Oral Tradition; and there is nothing in this place to determine it to Oral Tradition.

His Testimonies out of Origen will do him less stead: For every one that hath been conversant in the Writings of that Father, knows what he means by the Churches Tradition preserved by order of Succession, viz. The mystical Interpretations of Scripture, which (he says) were delivered by the Apostles to the Governors of the Church, and by them down from hand to hand. If this be the Tradition Mr. S. contends for, Origen is at his service; if it be not, I assure him he is not for his turn.

Next comes Tertullian, concerning whom (as also Origen) the Papist upon occasion thinks it enough to reply in St. Hierom's words **Advers. Helvid., As for Tertullian, I have nothing to say of him but that he is not a man of the Church. Whatever he was, these are his words, If thou beest but a Christian, believe what is [traditum] deliver'd. And here's nothing again but the word deliver'd; p. 313which (as I have said) is indifferent to Written or Oral Tradition, if the Circumstances do not determine it to one; as here they do (very unluckily for Mr. S.) to the Scripture. For he disputes here against Marcion, who denied the Flesh of Christ; and who to maintain that, denied his Nativity, and **His opinor consiliis tot Originalia Instrumenta Christi delere Marcion ausus est, ne Caro ejus probaretur. Ex qua, oro te, autoritate, &c.expunged the whole History of it out of the Gospel; But (saith Tertullian) by what authority dost thou do this? If thou be a Prophet, foretell something; If an Apostle, preach publickly; If Apostolical, be of the Apostle's mind; If no more but a Christian, believe what is delivered. And where delivered? But in those Instruments or Books of the Gospel out of which (as Tertullian immediately before tells us) Marcion had made bold to expunge this Story.

As for his Testimonies out of Athanasius, the two first of them prove nothing but that Faith comes down from our Ancestors, or was by them delivered to us; which no body denies: Nor is there a word in either of them concerning oral, in opposition to written Tradition. The third Testimony is out of an p. 314Epistle to Epictetus, to whom Athanasius writing concerning those who held Christ's Body to be Consubstantial with his Divinity, tells him this was so gross a conceit that it needed no sollicitous confutation; but that it would be a sufficient answer to say in general the Orthodox Church was not of that mind, our Fathers did not think so. From whence Mr. S. infers that Tradition is held by him a sole sufficient Rule of Faith, and the only Answer to be given why we reject Points from Faith, &c. But if he had consulted the Book, he would not have inferred that this was the only Answer to be given, &c. For it immediately follows, But lest from our being wholly silent, these Inventers of evil things should take occasion to be more impudent, it will be good to recite a few passages out of Scripture, &c. And from thence he confutes them at large. It was so gross an Error that he thought it might be sufficient, without bringing particular arguments out of Scripture against it, to say that it was contrary to the ancient Faith; but yet lest they should (if he had said no more) have taken boldness from thence, and thought that nothing more could p. 315be said against it, therefore he confutes it from particular Texts of Scripture. And what in his opinion was the sufficient Rule of Faith, Mr. S. might have seen at the beginning of this Epistle from these words, That Faith which was professed by the Fathers in that Council (viz. the Nicene) according to the Scriptures, is to me sufficient, &c. It seems that Scripture was to him the Rule and Standard whereby to judg even the Creeds of General Councils.

Mr. S. says he will be shorter in the rest, and so will I. For what is to be said to Testimonies brought at a venture? when he that brings them, had he read the Books themselves, could not have had the face to have brought them. Such is this out of **Stromat. L. 7.Clem. Alezand. As if one of a Man becomes a Beast, like those infected with Circes poyson; so he hath forfeited his being a Man of God and faithful to our Lord, who spurns against Ecclesiastical Tradition, and leaps into Opinions of human Election. Mr. S. knows whose way of quoting this is, to pick a bit out of the midst of a Text that sounds something towards his purpose, and leave out the rest which p. 316would make it evident to be meant just contrary. Yet I cannot charge this wholly upon Mr. S. whose implicit Faith were it not for his culpable Ignorance might excuse him. But for his Seducer Mr. White, how he can acquit himself of so foul an Imputation, I leave it to any ingenuous Papist to judg when I have nakedly set the whole passage before him. Clemens speaking of Hereticks who relinquish the Scripture, or abuse it by wresting it to their lusts, says, Men who deal in matters of highest importance must needs commit great Errors, if they do not take and hold the RVLE OF TRVTH from Truth it self. For such men having once deviated from the right way, do likewise err in most particulars; probably because they have not the Faculty of distinguishing Truths and Falshoods perfectly exercised to choose what ought to be chosen. For if they had this, they would be ruled by the Divine SCRIPTVRES. [Therefore as if any of Mankind should become a Beast, in such sort as those who were **foreign.bewitched by Circe; even so he hath lost his being a Man of God and abiding faithful to the Lord, who hath spurned p. 317against the Tradition of the Church, and skipt into the Opinions of human Sects **foreign.,] (not of human Election, as Mr. S. blindly following Mr. Wh. does most absurdly translate it), but he that hath returned from his Errors, and hearkned to the SCRIPTVRES, and conformed his life to the Truth, is as it were advanced from a Man to a God. At the same rate he goes on for several Pages together, taking the Scriptures for an indemonstrable Principle, from which all Divine Doctrines are to be demonstrated, and for the Criterion whereby they are to be tried; and charges the Hereticks in such words as we cannot find fitter for our Adversaries, As (says he) naughty Boys shut out their School-master, so these drive the Prophecies out of the Church, suspecting that they will chide and admonish them; and they patch together abundance of falshoods and fictions that they may seem RATIONALLY not to admit the Scriptures. Again, speaking of these Hereticks affronting the Scriptures, he tells us they oppose the **foreign.Divine Tradition with human Doctrines **foreign.by other Traditions [delivered from hand to hand] that they may establish a Sect or Heresie. p. 318Again he says, they adulterate the Truth, and steal the Rule of Faith, &c. but for ORAL Frauds they shall have WRITTEN Punishments. But enough of this; whosoever desires to see more of it, let him read on where these men to their shame have directed us, and see whether any Protestant can speak more fully and plainly in this Controversy. The whole trust of the Papists is upon the equivocal sense of the word Tradition. Which word is commonly used by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures or Divine Tradition as Clement here calls it; but the Papists understand it of their unwritten Tradition, and to this they apply all those passages in the Fathers where Tradition is honourably mentioned. So Mr. S. deals with us, in the Testimonies I have already examined: And there is nothing of argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this Word; which I need not shew of every one of them in particular, for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what he drives at.

§ 5. As for his Citations out of the Council of Trent, by which he would prove it to be the perswasion of their p. 319present Church, that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith; I have already shewn that that Council hath declared otherwise, and is otherwise understood by the chief of their own Writers, And therefore he did prudently to conceal in an &c. those choaking words, in which the Council declares itself to receive and honour, with equal pious affection and reverence, the Books of Scripture and unwritten Traditions. And after a great deal of shuffling, what a pitiful Account is it that he at last gives of that Council's putting Scripture constantly before Tradition, because Scripture being interpreted by Tradition, is of the same Authority as if an Apostle or Evangelist were present, and therefore no wonder they honour Scripture-Testimony so as to put it before Tradition; which is to say, that because Scripture is subordinate to Tradition and to be regulated by it, therefore it deserves to be put before it. Besides if Scripture and Tradition be but several wayes of conveying the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine, why should he imagine an Evangelist or Apostle to be more present by the Scripture than p. 320by oral Tradition? Especially if it be considered, that he supposes Scripture to be an uncertain, and Tradition an infallible way of conveying this Doctrine.

SECT. II.

Testimonies on the behalf of Scripture.§ 1. ALL that now remains, is to confirm the precedent Discourse by Testimonies of the most eminent Persons of the Church, in several Ages. in which I shall not need to be large, being so happily prevented by that full Account which is given of the sense of the Ancients in this matter, in the Answer to Labyrinthus Cantuariensis; which Mr. S. may if he pleases consult for his further Conviction.

§ 2 I begin with the Historical Account which Eusebius gives of committing the Gospel to writing; which is to this purpose, viz **Histor. Eccles. l. 2. c. 14.Sir 50:2▪ That the Romans were not content with the Doctrine Preached, unless it were also committed to writing; and therefore did earnestly beg of Mark, Peter's Companion, that he would leave them a Monument in writing of that Doctrine which had been deliver'd to p. 321them by word of mouth. And this was the occasion of the writing of St. Mark's Gospel. And when Peter did understand that this Work was publish'd (being suggested by the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit) it is said he was very much pleased with the ready and earnest desire of those Persons; and that by his Authority he confirmed this Writing, to the end that it might be every where read in the Church. As for St. Matthew and St. John, he tells us **Ibid. l. 3. c. 18., That of all the Disciples they two only have left monuments in Writing; of whom it is also reported that they betook themselves to write, being drawn thereto by necessity. Matthew after he had preached the Word of God to the Jews, and was resolved to go to other Nations, wrote his Gospel in the Language of his Countrey; and thus by the diligence and pains of Writing, did abundantly supply the the want of his presence to those whom he left. And when Mark and Luke had published their Gospel, it is reported that John (who had always used to preach the Word without writing it) being at length wrought upon by the same reason did betake p. 322himself to write. From this account it is clear, that the Apostles thought it necessary for the preservation and secure conveyance of the Christian Doctrine, that it should be put into Writing; and that they judged this a better way to supply the want of their presence, than oral Tradition. Therefore the same Author tells us **Ibid. c. 31., That the Disciples, who immediately succeeded the Apostles, as they travelled to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith, did with great care also deliver to them the Writings of the Holy Evangelists. Again **Ibid. c. 30., That Ignatius as he travelled towards Rome (where he was to suffer) exhorted the Churches of every City to hold fast the Tradition of the Apostles; which (as also by Writing he testified) for greater security he held necessary to be copied in Writing.

§ 4. That the Hereticks of Old made the same pretence which the Papists make now, of oral Tradition in opposition to Scripture, the same Eusebius tells us; and withal, that Books are a sufficient confutation of this p. 323pretence **Ibid. L. 5. c. 27.. Those (says he) who were of the Heresie of Artemon, said that all their Fore-fathers and the Apostles themselves had received and taught the same things which they also did; and had preserved the true Teaching unto the time of Victor Bishop of Rome, whose Successor Zephyrinus corrupted it. And this (saith he) would have great probability, were it not first of all contradicted by the Scripture; and next if there did not remain the Writings of other Brethren much more ancient than Victor's time, &c. in the Books of all whom Christs Divinity is acknowledged. And afterwards he tells us that these Hereticks did change and corrupt the Scriptures to bring them to their Opinions; so Mr. S. tells us that the outward Letter of Scripture ought to be corrected by Tradition and Sense written in mens hearts.

St. Hierom also tells us **Comment. in Isai. c. 19.Isa 19, That the Hereticks were wont to say, we are the Sons of the Wise, who did from the beginning deliver down to us the Apostolical Doctrine; but he adds, that the true Sons of Judah adhere to the Scripture.

p. 324§ 4. That Scripture is sufficiently plain in all things necessary.

St. Chrysostome **In 2 Thes. c. 2. Hom. 4.2 Thess 2, All things in the Divine Scriptures are plain and straight. Whatsoever things are necessary are manifest.

St. Austin having spoken of the profoundness of Scripture, adds **Epist. 3., Not that those things which are necessary to Salvation are so hard to be come at: But (saith he) when one hath there attained Faith without which there is no pious and right living, there are besides, many dark and mysterious things, &c. Again **Ibid., The manner of speech in Scripture how easie is it to all, though few can penetrate to the bottom of it? Those things which it plainly contains, it speaks without disguise like a familiar Friend to the heart of the learned and unlearned. How will Mr. S. reconcile this with his grand Exception against Scripture? And what these things are, which are plainly contained in Scripture, the same Father tells us else-where, in these words **De Doctr. Christ. L. 2. c. 9., Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture, all those things are to be found which comprehend Faith and good Manners. The same St. Austin (as also p. 325Clement in the Book which Mr. White quoted) for the understanding of obscure Texts of Scripture directs us not to Tradition, but to the plain Texts, without which he expresly says **De Vnitat. Eccles. c. 5.Eccl 5there would be no way to understand them.

§ 5. That Scripture is so plain, as to be fit to determine Controversies.

Justin sure thought so, when disputing with Trypho, concerning a point wherein the Jew had Tradition on his side, he told him he would bring such proofs (to the contrary) as no man could gain-say: Attend (says he) to what I shall recite out of the Holy Scriptures, proofs which need not to be explained, but only to be heard. Mr. White might have found likewise much to this purpose in his Clement.

But not to tire my Reader in a Point which the Ancients abound with, I shall only produce the judgment of Constantine **Theodoret. Hist. L. 1. c. 7.in that solemn Oration of his to the Council of Nice; wherein he bewails their mutual oppositions, especially in Divine things; concerning which they had the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Recorded in Writing; For (says he) the Books p. 326of the Evangelists and Apostles, and the Oracles of the old Prophets, do evidently teach us what we ought to think of the Divine Majesty. Therefore laying aside all seditious contention, let us determine the matters in question by Testimonies out of the Divine Writings. Not a word of any other Tradition but Scripture, which was held evident enough in those days, though now Mr. S. tells us it is not sufficient to decide that Controversy about the Divinity of Christ.

§ 6. Lastly, That Scripture is the Rule of Faith.

Irenaeus **L. 3. c. 1., The method of our Salvation we have not known by any other but those men by whom the Gospel came to us, which then they preached, but afterwards by the Will of God delivered it to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our Faith.

St. Cyprian the Church hath ever held a good Catholick; yet Mr. S. **P. 314.takes notice that he erred in a Point of Faith, and perhaps the rather because Mr. Rushworth **Dial. 3. Sect. 13.had told him that he was not theirs in this Controversy. For (says he) St. Cyprian seems to think that the p. 327Resolution of Faith was to be made into Scripture, and not into Tradition. But that we may not seem to accept of this of courtesie from him, nor yet wholly to despise it, I shall offer this one Testimony instead of many out of that Father; who being opposed with an Argument from Tradition, demands **Epist. 74., Whence have you that Tradition? Comes it from the Authority of the Lord, and of the Gospel, or from the Epistles of the Apostles? For God testifies that we are to do those things which are written, &c. If it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, then let us observe it as a Divine and Holy Tradition.

Hilary **Ad Constant.commends Constantius the Emperor for regulating his Faith only according to those things which are written. And to oblige him to deserve this commendation, he adds, He who refuses this is Antichrist, and who dissembles in it is Anathema.

**Lib. 5. de Schism. Donat.Optatus, concerning the Controversy with the Donatists, asks who shall be Judge? and answers himself, the Scriptures: Which he illustrates by the similitude of a Father who delivered his p. 328Will orally to his children while he was living, but when he was dying caused it to be written in lasting Tables, to decide all Controversies that might happen among them after his death. The passage is large, and it is obvious to apply it.

Basil maintaining the Doxology as it was used in his days, says **De Sp. Sancto c. 7., Thus we received it from our Fathers; but adds immediately, This is not enough for us, that it is the Tradition of the Fathers, for they followed the Authority of the Scriptures, making its Testimonies the Principles upon which they built. He has indeed in the same Book **C. 27.a passage much insisted on by the Papists concerning unwritten Traditions; but withal he says those Traditions were secretly conveyed, which makes all the rest of no use to Mr. S.

Chrysostom **Hom. 8. in Epist. ad Heb. c. 5.Heb 5having mentioned several Heresies, directs how they may be avoided, viz. By attending to the Faith delivered, and looking upon all that disagrees from that as adulterate. For (says he) as those who give Rules do not put men upon a curious enquiry after many measures, but bid p. 329them keep to the Rule given; so is it in Opinions. But no body will attend to the Scriptures; if we did, we should not only not fall into Errors our selves, but also rescue those that are deceived. Again **Hom. 52. in Joh., If we would be throughly conversant in the Scriptures, we should be instructed both in right Opinions and a good life. Again, among the many Sects of Christians **Hom. 33. in Act. Apost.it will be easie to judge of the right, if we believe the Scriptures, because these are plain and true; If any one agree with these, he is a Christian; if he contradict them, he is far from this Rule.

St. Austin calls the Scipture **De Bapt. Cont. Donat. L. 2. c. 6.the Divine Balance for the weighing of Doctrine. Again, the Holy Scripture (sayes he) fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine. And accordingly himself uses it both in his Dispute with Maximinus, to whom he sayes **Contr. Max. L. 3., Neither ought I now to alledg the Nicene Council, nor thou that of Arminium; for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one, nor thou of the other. Let us both contest with the Authorities of Scripture which are Wtinesses common to us both. p. 330And also against the Donatists in these words **De Vnitat. Eccles. c. 16.Sir 16, Let them if they can demonstrate their Church not by the Talk and Rumors [or oral Tradition] of the Africans, not by the Councils of their own Bishops, not by the Books of their Disputers, not by deceitful Miracles, &c, but by the prescript of the Law, Prophets, &c. i. e. by all the Canonical Authorities of the Holy Books.

Hierom saith **Comment. in Agg. c. 1.Hag 1, Of those things, which without the Authorities and Testimonies of the Scripture men invent of their own heads as from Apostolical Tradition, they are smitten with the Sword of God.

Theophilus Alexandr. whom Hierom hath Translated, calls Scripture more than once **Paschal. L. 3.the Rule, and the Testimonies of it the firm foundations of Doctrine. And again saith **L. 2., It comes from a Demonical spirit that men follow the Sophisms of humane minds, and think any thing Divine that wants the Authority of Scripture.

Theodoret **Haeret. Fabul. L. 5.charges all Heresies upon the not following of Scripture, which he calls the inflexible Rule of Truth. Again, We have have learned the Rule p. 331of Opinions from the Divine Scripture.

After the Fathers, I shall produce the Testimonies of two Eminent Persons of latter Times, Gerson and Lyra.

Gerson in his **Part 1. Consid. 2.Book of the Tryal of Doctrines, hath this remarkable passage; In the Tryal of Doctrines that which is first and principally to be considered is, Whether a Doctrine be conformable to the H. Scripture, &c. The reason of this is, because the Scripture is deliver'd to us as a SVFFICIENT and INFALLIBLE RVLE for the Goverment of the whole Ecclesiastical Body and its Members to the end of the world. So that it is such an Art, such a Rule or Exemplar, that any other Doctrine which is not conformable to it, is to be renounc'd as Heretical, or to be accounted suspicious, or not at all appertaining to Religion. Again, **De Distinct. Verar. Vision. a falsis.It is evident how pernicious the rejection of the H. Scripture is, and how certain a preparatory for the reception of Antichrist. Once more, **Serm. in die Circumcis. &c.What mischief, what danger, what confusion hath happen'd thorough contempt of the H. Scripture, which sure is sufficient for the Government of the Church (else Christ must have been p. 332an imperfect Law-giver) let us ask Experience, &c.

Lyra **Prolog. de Lib. Bib. &c.also writes thus **Prolog. de Lib. Bib. &c.; As in Philosophy truth is discovered by reducing things to their first and self-evident Principles; so in the Writings deliver'd by the H. Doctors, Truth is discover'd as to matters of Faith, by reducing them to the Canonical Scriptures.

Sir, You know how easy it were to swell up a large Volume, with Testimonies to this purpose; especially if I should take the course that Mr. Wh. does, to hale in quotations though never so impertinent; or use the wretched importunity which Mr. S. does, to perswade them to be pertinent. But these Testimonies which I have nakedly set down, leaving them to speak for themselves, are enough to satisfie an unpassionate Reader, such an one as dares trust himself with the use of his own eyes and reason. As for that sort of men which chuses to follow noise rather than light, we must be content to leave them to the blind conduct of those Guides who, having no better means to keep their Followers p. 333to them, go halloing in the dark, and fill their ears with the insignificant sounds of Infallibility, Indefectibility, Self-evidence and Demonstration.

Concerning the Appendix wherein you are particularly challeng'd, I hope for an Account very shortly, and so take leave,

SIR, Your Affectionate Friend, JOHN TILLOTSON. Lincolns-Inn, Febr. 20. 1665.

FINIS.

A REPLY TO M^r. J. S. his 3^d APPENDIX, Containing some Animadversions ON THE BOOK ENTITULED A RATIONAL ACCOUNT of the Grounds of Protestant Religion.

By Ed. Stillingfleet B. D.

London, Printed by H.C. for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard near the little North-door. 1675.