Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 8

Romanism Discussed · Treatise · Article 8

p. 187ARTIC. VIII.

Unwritten Tradition now no Rule of Faith.

The unwritten Tradition, which H. T. terms Apostolical, is not the true Rule of Christian Faith.

SECT. I.

The Argument for Apoſtolical Tradition unwritten as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conſerving Faith at firſt is anſwered.

H. T. intitles his eighth Article of Apoſtolical Tradition, and ſaith, Our Tenet is, That the true Rule of Chriſtian Faith is Apoſtolical Tradition, or a delivery of Doctrine from father to ſon, by hand to hand, from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and nothing ought to be received as Faith, but what is proved to have been ſo delivered, which we prove thus.

The firſt Argument. That is now the true Rule of Faith which was the eſſential means of planting and conſerving it at firſt: But oral and Apoſtolical Tradition, not written Books, was the eſſential means of planting and conſerving it at firſt; therefore oral and Apoſtolical Tradition not written Books is the true Rule of Faith. The Major is proved, becauſe the Rule of Faith muſt be immutable, and the ſame in all Ages, as the Faith it ſelf is. The Minor is proved, becauſe the firſt Gospel was not written till eight years after the Death of Chriſt or thereabouts; in which ſpace the Apoſtles had preached and planted the Faith of Chriſt in many Nations over almoſt all the World. Add to this that many Ages were paſſed before all the Books of Scripture were disperſed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church; ſo that when any difference aroſe in points of Faith among the Chriſtians of the firſt Age they were not to inquire what had been written, but whether the Apoſtles ſo taught.

p. 188Anſw THis Doctor, whether it be by reaſon of his ignorance, or heedleſneſs, or malignity to the holy Scriptures, determines worſe than his fellows, yea, againſt the Doctrine of the Trent Council and Pope Pius the fourths Bull. For whereas in the Trent Council, Seſſ. 4. it is ſaid, that the truth and Diſcipline of Chriſt and his Apoſtles is contained in written Books and Traditions without writing, and would have both to be received with equal affection and reverence of piety; and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull requires the admiſſion of the ſacred Scripture and Apoſtolical Tradition. H. T. concludes, that written Books are not the true Rule of Faith, but oral and Apoſtolical Tradition. If he had ſaid, they had not been the entire Rule of Faith he had agreed with the Trent Council, and the Popes Bull; but now he contradicts them as well as the Proteſtants, and his Argument doth as well conclude, that the holy Scripture is no part of the Rule of Faith, as that it is not the whole. But leaving him to be corrected by his fellows, let's view his Diſpute.

Setting aſide his non-ſenſe ſpeech of being received as Faith, in ſtead of being received as the object of Faith, and taking Apoſtolical Tradition to be meant of that which is truly ſo called, I grant his Tenet, and ſay with him that the true Rule of Chriſtian Faith is Apoſtolical Tradition, that is, the Doctrine which the Apoſtles delivered, or that delivery of Doctrine from father to ſon, by hand to hand, from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and that nothing ought to be received as Faith, that is, a thing to be believed with a Chriſtian divine Faith, which all Chriſtians are bound to believe, but what is proved to have been ſo delivered. For though in general any divine revelation is to be the object of Chriſtian Faith by whom or what way ſoever it be delivered, and God hath delivered divers revelations in the Books of the Old Teſtament, which are objects of Faith, yet ſith now Christ and his Apoſtles have delivered thoſe divine revelations as the oracles of God, and what the Apoſtles preached and thought needfull for us to know, and believe to ſalvation is written, and theſe Writings are conveyed from father to ſon by hand to hand, we grant the Tenet being meant of them, and yield further, that if they can prove there are Traditions truly Apoſtolical beſides thoſe which are written, and this Tradition, that thoſe Books which we call holy Scripture are divine Writings, we will embrace them as things to be believed. But then, 1. We ſay it is manifeſt that in the Apoſtles days there were Traditions put on the Apoſtles which were not theirs, 2 Theſſ 2. 1. 2. That the Apoſtolical Tradition written is ſufficient for faith to ſalvation. 3. That unwritten Traditions are uncertain, and much corrupted. 4. That there is no certain Rule to know which are Apoſtolical Traditions but by the Scripture or Apoſtolical Writings. 5. That neither the Popes nor Church of Rome nor general Councils determination is a ſufficient aſſurance of Apoſtolical Tradition unwritten. 6. That therefore to us now the holy Scripture is the onelyonly Rule of Chriſtian faith and life. And to the Argument of H. T. I anſwer, 1. By denying the Major, giving this as a Reaſon, becauſe the means of planting and conſerving faith, though it were the eſſential means, p. 189yet is not the rule of faith neceſſarily, there being great difference between theſe two. The means of faith is any way God uſeth to beget it, as by dreams, viſions, the ſpeech of Balaam's Aſs, his Prophecy, Caiaphas Prophecy, the Star which guided the Wiſe-men, Matth. 2. the Wives good converſation, 1 Pet. 3. 1. yet theſe are not the Rule of Faith, but the divine revelation it ſelf. And if it were ſuppoſed any one of theſe, or any other, were the eſſential means of Faith, that is, that means by which Faith is, and without which it were not, yet it were not therefore the Rule of Faith, but the divine revelation or truth delivered by that means. And to the proof of the Major which ſeems to be thus formed, That is the true Rule of Faith which is immutable, and the ſame in all Ages, as the Faith it ſelf is. But the eſſential means of planting and conſerving it at firſt is immutable, and the ſame in all Ages, as the Faith it ſelf is. Ergo. I anſwer, 1. By denying the Major, there are many things immutable, and the ſame in all Ages, as the Faith it ſelf is, and yet are not the true Rule of Faith, as namely, Gods Decrees and purpoſes, the being of the Heavens, the obedience of the Angels, &c. 2. By denying the Minor. For whether the immediate Declaration of God to Adam, Gen. 3. 15. or Chriſt's preaching by himſelf were the eſſential means of planting and conſerving Faith at firſt, or any other, yet it is not immutable, and the ſame in all Ages, as Faith it ſelf. God's Declaration immediately, or Chriſt's preaching by himſelf are not the ſame in all Ages; yea, Heb. 1. 1. it is ſaid, that God hath ſpoken to us in divers manners, ways and times by the Prophets, and in theſe laſt days onelyonly hath ſpoken to us by his Son, verſ 2. & chap. 2. 3. The ſalvation was at firſt begun to be ſpeken by the Lord, and ſince was confirmed by them that heard him: which ſhews the means to be variable, by which Faith is planted and conſerved. The Apoſtle tells us, 1 Pet. 3. 1. that without the Word thoſe that believe not the Word may be won by the converſation of the Wives: ſo that their good converſation was at firſt a means of converting them, and yet that was not to be the Rule of their Faith. Whence it may appear that this Argument goes upon theſe falſe Suppoſitions.

1. That there is ſome means eſſential to the planting and conſerving of Faith at firſt. 2. That the ſame means is eſſential to the planting and conſerving of Faith at firſt. 3. That this means is immutable and the ſame in all Ages as Faith it ſelf. 4. That what is the means of planting and conſerving Faith at firſt muſt be the true Rule of Faith.

2. I deny the Minor, that oral and Apoſtolical Tradition, not written Books, was the eſſential means of planting and conſerving Faith at firſt. And to his proof I anſwer, that by oral and Apoſtolical Tradition, in his Tenet he means, a delivery of Doctrine from father to ſon, by hand to hand, from Chriſt and his Apoſtles: now if it be granted, there was no Goſpel written till eight years after the death of Chriſt, or thereabouts, it muſt be granted alſo, that there was no delivery of Doctrine from father to ſon, by hand to hand, from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, but onelyonly their preaching viva voce, with living ſpeech, in their own perſons, and therefore if that which was according to H. T. the eſſential means of planting and conſerving Faith at firſt muſt be the true Rule of Faith ſtill, and no other, then that Rule muſt neither be unwritten nor written delivery of Doctrine from father to ſon, by hand to hand, from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, but their own perſonal Tradition viva voce, which now ceaſing there p. 190is no Rule of Faith at all left; but the Quakers device of each mans light within him to be his Rule muſt take place. But to me the Rule of Faith is divine revelation, by what means ſoever it be delivered: be it the Law written in the heart or in the Book, by the ſigner of God in Tables of ſtone, or delivered by an Angel in a Dream, Viſion, Apparition, by Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, or any other. But ſith God hath been pleaſed to order it, be it ſooner or later, that what Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught ſhould be written, we are aſſured God would have us to take it for the Rule of our Faith, and if Scripture be not the Rule of our Faith Chriſt and his Apoſtles did not well to commend it to us, Luk. 16. 31. Joh. 5. 39. and to commend them that ſearched the Scriptures, Act. 17. 11. nor the Apoſtles to direct us to them, 1 Pet. 1. 19, 20. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. nor to allege them, Act. 3. 22. & 13. 33, 34, 35. nor Chriſt to have uſed them againſt the Tempter, Matth. 4. 4. 7. 10. nor to have imputed errour to the ignorance of them, Matth. 22 29. nor to have ſent the Revelation of John to the ſeven Churches of Aſia, with declaration of bleſſedneſs to the obſervers of it, and denunciation of a curſe to the corrupters and infringers of it, Revel. 1. 1, 3. & 22. 18, 19. nor the Apoſtles to write a Letter to the Churches, Act. 15. 23. nor the Apoſtles to write ſeveral Epiſtles to ſeveral Churches. And if many Ages (though I think H. T. therein doth exceed) were paſſed before all the Books of Scripture were disperſed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church; yet it is certain ſome were, and they muſt be the Rule of Faith which were accepted. And when any difference aroſe in points of Faith among the Chriſtians of the firſt Age, though they were to inquire of the Apoſtles what they taught, yet when they could not ſpeak with them, they made uſe of their Letters written, as Acts 15. 31. 1 Cor. 7. &c. And if we are not to do ſo ſtill, why doth this Authour allege Scripture for the Churches Infallibility, the Popes Supremacy, &c. and tells us here, pag. 113. There is no better way to decide Controverſies than by the Scripture expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apoſtolical Tradition? But this is an evidence of Gods infatuating theſe Romaniſts, that though they have no ſhew of proof for Peter's Supremacy, and conſequently the Popes, without the Scripture, and therefore allege it, yet determine it not to be the Rule of Faith, and ſo make void their own proof, and the very Rule of Faith, which they would fain eſtabliſh.

SECT. II.

Unwritten Traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the aſſurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

But let us view what he adds. A ſecond Argument is, That is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly aſſured both what Doctrines Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and what Books they wrote, and without which we can never be infallibly aſſured of theſe things. But by Apoſtolical Tradition we may infallibly be aſſured both what Doctrines Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and what Books they wrote, and by no other means. Therefore Apoſtolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith. The Major is manifeſt, becauſe in the Doctrine which Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith; therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith. The Minor is proved, becauſe a full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of ſons of what they heard and ſaw is altogether infallible, ſince ſenſible evidence in a world of Witneſſes unanimouſly concurring is altogether infallible, how fallible ſoever men may be in their particulars; and ſuch a report, ſuch an evidence is Apoſtolical Tradition, for all the Doctrinos Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught and all the Books they wrote therefore infallible.

p. 191Anſw. THe Popiſh Tenet is, that unwritten Traditions of other points than what are in the written Books are the Rule of Faith, that ſo what they cannot prove out of Scripture of Peter's being at Rome, being Biſhop there, Purgatory-fire, Invocation of Saints, Adoration of the Hoſt, mixing Water with Wine in the Euchariſt, and many more, which Popes and Popiſh Councils obtrude on the Church of God as Apoſtolical Traditions, may be received as Objects of Faith. But here H. T. concludes Apoſtolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith, and proves it of no other Apoſtolical Tradition but that whereby the Books written are known to be the Apoſtles, which I might grant, and yet H. T. gain nothing for his purpoſe, ſith Apoſtolical Tradition may be the true Rule of Faith, and yet not Apoſtolical Tradition unwritten, much leſs that which Popes and Councils call Apoſtolical Tradition, which is every corruption that hath been any long time received in the Roman Church: and this Apoſtolical Tradition infallible [that the Books of holy Scripture were written by the holy men whoſe names they bear, and that the things in them related are certain] and yet other Traditions of other things not ſo. But to his Argument, I ſay, the Major is not true, nor is it proved by his reaſon, which in form is this, That is the true Rule of Faith in which are contained all things that are of Faith. But in the Doctrines which Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are contained all things that are of Faith. The Concluſion which followeth from theſe premiſes is not his Major, [that is the true Rule of Faith, by which we may be infallibly aſſured both what Doctrines Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and what Books they wrote, and without which we can never be infallibly aſſured of thoſe things] nor the Concluſion ſet down, [therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith] for theſe terms, [that by which we may be aſſured of the Doctrines or Books, the infallible means of knowing them] are not the ſame with [the Books or Doctrines in which are contained all things that are of Faith] and therefore the Major is not proved, but indeed the very Proteſtant Doctrine which he gainſays is proved unawares thus. That in which are contained all things that are of Faith is the true Rule of Faith. But in the Doctrines which Chriſt and his Apostles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are contained all things that are of Faith; therefore the Doctrines which Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are the true Rule of Faith. Which proves directly what H. T. denies, that the Scripture is the true Rule of Faith, and ſhews, that he miſtook the means of Faith for the Rule of Faith, between which there is manifeſt difference, the means of Faith being any outward or inward efficient, principal or inſtrumental, p. 192by which a perſon comes to believe, the Rule is that by which we know what we are to believe: the ſame means may be the means of believing contrary things: Caiaphas and Balaam may propheſie right things of Iſrael, and be a means of expectation of the Meſſiab, and yet alſo be a means of laying a ſtumbling-block to overthrow them. A meſſenger, that brings a grant, wherein a Prince grants a thing, is the means of belief, and ſo is the Seal, but the Rule of believing is the words of the grant: Thomas his ſeeing and feeling were the means of his believing Chriſt's Reſurrection, but the Rule was Chriſt's words.

2. I deny his Minor. For though I grant ſuch a full report, as he ſpeaks of, is infallible, nor do I deny, that there is ſuch a a report, or ſuch an evidence for all the Doctrines Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and all the Books they wrote, yet I ſay, 1. That this is not the Apoſtolical Tradition, which Papiſts aſſert; for with them any thing uſed in their Church a long time, and approved by a Pope, or a Council confirmed by him is an Apoſtolical Tradition, though it have not ſuch report, or evidence. 2. That there are other means by which we may be aſſured, what Doctrines Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and what Books they wrote, beſides this full report, as, 1. The inward teſtimony of the holy Spirit. 2. The innate characters of the Doctrine, and Books themſelves foretelling things to come, opening the Myſteries of God, advancing Gods glory, enlightning and converting the ſoul, with many more which ſhew whoſe the Doctrine and Books were. Yet by the way I obſerve, 1. That notwithſtanding he makes here ſuch an Infallibility in the report and evidence of ſenſe, yet pag. 205. he denies evidence of ſenſe infallible in the Sacrament, and thereby overthrows his Poſition here. 2. From his words here I argue againſt his opinion of Tranſubſtantiation thus, A full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of ſons of what they heard and ſaw is altogether infallible, ſince ſenſible evidence in a world of ey-witneſſes unanimouſly concurring is altogether infallible, how fallible ſoever men may be in their particulars. But there are worlds of ey-witneſſes, and hand-witneſſes, and tongue-witneſſes, and noſe-witneſſes, and ear-witneſſes of fathers and ſons who all unanimouſly concurring diſcern, and ſay of what they have ſeen, felt, heard, taſted, ſmelled, that there is no fleſh nor blood, but Bread and Wine in the conſecrated Hoſt, therefore the report that there is no fleſh and blood but Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt after Conſecration or conſecrated Hoſt, and conſequently no Tranſubſtantiation is altogether infallible. So inconſiſtent are this Authours ſayings in one place with that he ſaith in another, as indeed Popiſh Doctrine being a Lie muſt of neceſſity be ſelf-repugnant.

SECT. III.

The obligation of the Church not to deliver any thing as a point of Faith, but what they received, proves not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith.

H. T. proceeds thus. A third Argument. If Chriſt and his Apoſtles have given to the Church of the firſt Age [together with all points of Faith] this for the Rule of Faith, that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith, but what they had received from them as ſuch, then is was impoſſible that they ſhould deliver any thing for Faith to the ſecond Age, but what they had received from them as ſuch, and ſo from Age to Age to this time. But Chriſt and his Apoſtles did give to the Church of the firſt Age, [together with all points of Faith] this for the Rule of Faith, that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith, but what they received from them as ſuch. Therefore it was impoſſible that the Church of the firſt Age ſhould deliver any thing to the Church of the ſecond Age for Faith, but what they had received as ſuch from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, or conſequently that they ſhould erre in Faith. The Major is proved, becauſe to make her deliver more for Faith than ſhe had received, in this ſuppoſition the whole Church muſt either have forgotten what ſhe had been taught from her infancy in matters of Salvation and Damnation, which is impoſſible in a world of ear and ey-witneſſes, as hath been ſhewed; or elſe the whole Church muſt have ſo far broken with Reaſon, which is the very nature of man, as to conspire in a notorious Lie to damn her ſelf and poſterity by ſaying ſhe hath received ſuch or ſuch a point for Faith, which in her own conſcience ſhe knew ſhe had not received; and this is more impoſſible than the former, even as impoſſible as for men not to be men; as ſhall be ſhewed in the next Argument. The Minor is proved by theſe poſitive Texts of Scripture, Therefore brethren ſtand ye faſt, and hold the Traditions which ye have learned, whether by word or our Epiſtle, 2 Theſſ. 2. 15. Thoſe things which ye have been taught, and heard, and ſeen in me, theſe do ye, Phil. 4. So we have preached, and ſo ye have believed, 1 Cor. 14. 15. How ſhall they believe in whom they have not heard? and how ſhall they hear without a Preacher? Rom. 10. 17. The things that thou haſt heard of me before many witneſſes, the ſame commend thou to faithfull men, which ſhall be fit to teach others alſo, 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any man ſhall preach otherwiſe than ye have received, let him be Anathema, Gal. 1. 9. Although we or an Angel from Heaven preach to you beſides that which we have preached to you, be he Anathema, Gal. 1. 8.

p. 193Anſw. 1. THe Concluſion, were it granted, is not the Poſition to be proved, that the true Rule of Chriſtian Faith is Apoſtolical oral Tradition, not Books; nor is it included in it, ſith ſome in the Church, although not the whole Church of the firſt Age, might deliver to the Church of the ſecond Age, and ſo from father to ſon that for Faith, which was not received from Chriſt or his Apoſtles, and it be after received as from the Apoſtles, as is manifeſt in the reports of keeping Eaſter on the fourteenth of the Moon, of the Millenary opinion, as from John, and in points of Faith the whole Church might miſtake or forget, not deliver all truth, yea, might erre, and ſo not be fit to be a Rule of Faith. 2. Were it granted that unwritten Traditions of the whole Church of the firſt Age to the ſecond were a Rule of Faith, yet are not the Romanists Traditions unwritten proved Rules of Faith, unleſs they be proved to be delivered by the whole Church of the firſt Age to the Church of the ſecond Age, and ſo from father to ſon without alteration, which they cannot prove. Nevertheleſs, ſith this Argument tends to the aſſerting of an Infallibility p. 194in the Church of the firſt Age diſtinctly taken from the Apoſtles and their Writings; I grant the Minor, and omit the examining of the Texts brought to prove it, though ſome of them yield a good Argument againſt unwritten Tradition: But I deny the Major, as being contrary to experience both in the Jewiſh Church, to whom it was forbidden to add to, or diminiſh from Gods commands, Deut. 4. 2. and yet they did, Mark 7. 8. 9. and in the Chriſtian Church, as is moſt evident in the Traditions of the Chiliaſts, about Eaſter, and ſundry other things. And though the whole Church of the firſt Age did not deliver points of Faith to the ſecond Age, yet in the ſecond and after-ages corruptions did come in, which were taken for univerſal Traditions, as in giving Infants the Euchariſt, which Auguſtine and Pope Innocentius took for an Apoſtolical Tradition, though the Trent Council condemn it. And many things there are now taken for Apoſtolical Traditions, as Worſhip of Images, praying to Saints, not allowing the Wine to be drunk by all the Communicants, which yet are manifeſtly repugnant to the Apoſtles Doctrine.

As for the proof of H. T. I ſay, 1. The eye and ear-witneſſes of all the points of Faith are not a whole World. 2. Errours may be traduced as from the whole Church of the firſt Age, and from the Apoſtles which were not from them. 3. The Church delivers not Doctrines, but the Teachers in them, whereof many ſometimes are Hypocrites, ſometimes weak in underſtanding, all of them being men are liable to miſtakes, paſſion, forgetfulneſs, inadvertency, and thoſe that are not ſincere may againſt their conſcience deliver errours. Sure if Polycarpus an Auditour of John the Evangeliſt, and Anicetus Biſhop of Rome in the ſecond Age, Polycrates and Pope Victor in the ſame Age, Cyprian and Pope Stephanus in the next contradicted each other about Traditions, no marvel later and inferiour Teachers, ſuch as Papias a credulous man, and others miſtook about them, and the after Churches follow them in their miſtakes. 4. The Churches were in the Apoſtles days eaſily drawn away from the Doctrine, which Paul had evidently taught them by hearkening to Seducers, as the Galatians, Gal. 3. 1. though the Apoſtle warned them Gal. 1. 8, 9. neither therefore the warning given them, nor any ſtate of the Church in this life yields ſufficient ſecurity of not being deceived, nor deceiving others. The Church and Teachers thereof may not onelyonly be men, and have reaſon, but alſo good men and conſcionable, and warned not to deliver any thing but Chriſt's and his Apoſtle's Doctrine to be believed under pain of Damnation, and yet may build Hay and Stubble, and be ſaved as through fire, though their Building ſuffer loſs, keeping the Foundation, and repenting of all ſins and errours, though ſome be ſecret and unknown to them. Let us ſee what is in the next Argument, which he terms the laſt Argument for Traditions.

p. 195SECT. IV.

Counterfeits might and did come into the Church under the name of Apoſtolick Tradition without ſuch a force as H. T. imagines neceſſary thereto even in points of Faith.

To make, ſaith H. T. a whole world of wiſe and diſintereſted men break ſo far with their own nature as to conspire in a notorio…n Lie to damn themſelves and their poſterity (which is the onelyonly means to make an Apoſtolical Tradition fallible) ſuch a force of hopes or fears muſt fall upon them all at once, as may be ſtronger than nature in them. But ſuch a force of hopes or fears can never fall on the whole World or Church at once, which is disperſed over all Nations, therefore it is impoſſible for the whole World or Church at once to conspire in ſuch a Lie, or conſequently to erre in Faith.

Anſw. THis Argument concludes for the Churches Infallibility, which was the fifth Article, not for Traditions, as is pretended in this Article. But that the Church militant and all their Teachers ſetting aſide the Apoſtles, are fallible is proved before, and how the whole Church of later ages may be not onelyonly fallible, but alſo deceived and deceive others without breaking with their own nature ſo far as to conspire in a notorious Lie to damn themſelves and their poſterity, and without ſuch a force of fears or hopes falling upon them all at once as may be ſtronger than nature to them, hath been ſhewed before both by reaſon and experience, and our Lord Chriſt hath told us it would be, that while men ſleep the Enemy would come and ſow Tares, Matth. 13. 25. and the Apoſtle tells us, 1 Cor. 11. 19. that there muſt be Hereſies by Gods permiſſion, that they which are approved may be made manifeſt: Jude 4. there were certain men crept in unawares ordained of old to this condemnation: 2 Pet. 2. 1. 1 John 4. 1. And accordingly it fell out in the Chriſtian Church, as Euſebius notes out of Egeſippus lib. 3. hiſt. cap. 29. The Church of Chriſt remained a pure and uncorrupt Virgin unto the times of the Apoſtles, but after their deceaſe, and thoſe that heard them, there was a conspiracy of corrupters, which did lurk before that boldly vented knowledge, falſly ſo called, much of which was publiſhed under the name of Apoſtolical Tradition. Irenaeus lib. 2. adverſ. haeret. cap. 39. ſaith, In his days it was reported as from John, that Chriſt lived to the fiftieth year of his Age by all the Elders of Aſia, which met with John the Diſciple of the Lord, that John delivered it to them. Nor is this to imagine men to break with their nature, but to follow their nature, which is in all corrupt, in the beſt imperfect. As for what H. T. tells us of a whole World of wiſe and diſintereſted men, it is an Utopia in a countrey called no where, but in H. T. his brain. Surely the wiſeſt and diſintereſted men of Fathers and other Preachers have ſtill ſtood to the Scriptures, and have diſowned unwritten Traditions, as not being a true Rule of Faith. Popes and Popiſh Councils who have been the ſticklers for Traditions unwritten, as they have been none of the wiſeſt with any holy wiſdom, but ſerpentine craft, ſo have they bent all their endeavours to uphold Traditions for their intereſt of greatneſs and gain, being neceſſitated to … unwritten Traditions, becauſe their Doctrines cannot be maintained out p. 196of Scripture. He that ſhall reade the Hiſtory of the Council of Trent written by Frier Paul of Venice (in which Council Traditions unwritten were firſt equalled to Scripture) may perceive, that if ever there were a pack of deceivers and deceived men it was at Trent, the Biſhops generally being unlearned in the Scriptures, many of them meer Canoniſts, and ſuch as underſtood not the Diſputes in the Congregations, and the Divines a company of wrangling Sophiſters inured onelyonly to School-principles and arguings without skill in the Scriptures, and the Popes Legates and Italian Biſhops depending on the Court of Rome, never applying themſelves to ſearch out truth, but to hinder any the leaſt breaking forth of it, if it oppoſed any profit or advantage of the Popes and Court of Rome, and any thing that tended to juſtifie the Proteſtants, whom they would never permit to ſpeak for themſelves: nor were they willing any thing ſhould be concluded, but what the Pope (of all that ever were in the World the moſt notorious corrupter and Tyrant in the Church of God) liked. And he that ſhall reade the Book not long ſince publiſhed, intituled the Myſtery of Jeſuitiſm, will finde, that the chiefeſt Leaders now in the Popiſh Churches, the Jeſuits, who are for the Traditions of the Church of Rome, are wholly bent, though againſt Scripture and Fathers, to carry on their own intereſt by any devices whatſoever without regard either to Rules of Scripture or of Morality delivered by infidel Philoſophers. So that the talk of H. T. concerning a World of wiſe and diſintereſted men among Popiſh Teachers is like the talk of a company of honeſt Women in a ſociety of notorious Whores, or of juſt men in a Band of Robbers.

H. T. adds. It is the aſſurance of this impoſſibility that moves the Church of the preſent Age to reſolve her Faith and Doctrines into the precedent Age, and ſo from Age to Age, from ſons to fathers up to the mouth of Chriſt and his Apoſtles teaching it, ſaying, We believe it becauſe we have received it.

Anſw. 1. This reſolution of Faith not into the Scriptures teſtimony, but the teſtimony of the next age, and ſo upwards, and thereby judging what Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, can beget no other than a humane Faith, ſith in this way Chriſt and his Apoſtles are ſuppoſed to teach what the ſucceeding ages have taught: nor is it any better than an uncertain way, ſith in ſome ages it cannot be known what was taught in many points of controverſie, for as much as this Authour confeſſeth, pag. 25. There was no general or provincial Council that decided any Controverſies of moment in the tenth Age, which and the next before it are by Genebrard and Bellarmine counted unhappy for want of learned men: nor can this be any other than a fraudulent device to draw men from immediate ſearching into the Scriptures for their Faith, and prepoſſeſſing them with the Doctrines of the preſent age, which once received, very few, except men very learned and impartial inquiſitours into the truth, will be able to examine, and in effect that which the Pope and his Council have or ſhall determine muſt be taken for unqueſtionable: nor is this reaſonable, but againſt all right way of underſtanding, that we ſhould apply our ſelves to know what Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught ſixteen hundred years ago, rather by the preſent and precedent ages after the times wherein they lived, than by their own Wri…ings; as if a man might better know what Legacy his great grand-father …ave an hundred years ago by the teſtimony of men now living, than by his …wn Will upon record. 2. The pretence for this reſolution is but imaginary p. 197and fictitious, and refuted by experience. Surely if there were ſuch an impoſſibility as this Authour ſpeaks of, the whole World had not been corrupted as it was in Noa…'s and Abraham's days, nor the Church of Iſrael as it was in the days of the Judges, of Elias, Manaſſeh, our Lord Chriſt at his coming in the fleſh, in the time of Athanaſius, when as Hierom ſaid, The whole world groaned that it was become Arian, there would not be ſuch a falling away, as the Apoſtle foretold, 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2. Theſſ. 2 4 at which time the Rhemiſts grant in their note on that place, that even the ſervice of Chriſt ſhall be ſuppreſſed. And therefore the impoſſibility here ſuppoſed by H. T. is but imaginary out of inadverteney of what the Scripture hath related and foretold, and ignorance of the great corruption of man and the power of the old Serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole World, Revel. 12. 9.

3. But what Church is there that ſo reſolves her Faith? none that I know of beſides the Roman, or rather the Court of Rome. For I do not yet think that either the Greek, Aſiatick, or African Churches do ſo reſolve their Faith, no nor yet ſome of thoſe Churches who do hold communion with the Roman See; nay, I hardly think the Church or Court of Rome it ſelf doth reſolve it's Faith (ſuch as it is) as H. T. here ſpeaks: I inſtance in one main point, that the Pope is above a Council. For ſure if that be their reſolution they will be caſt, ſith the precedent age, I mean the fifteenth century did deliver by hand to hand from father to ſon that a general Council is above the Pope, as the two ſo termed general Councils of Baſil and Conſtance did expreſly determine. And in other points in difference between Proteſtants and Papiſts, if they go from age to age upwards, Papiſts would finde themſelves deſtitute of Tradition unwritten as well as written, in the half communion, Papal indulgences, worſhip of Images, and many more beſides. So that however this Authour pretend Tradition of a world of fathers to a world of ſons, when he and his party are put to it they have not any ancient univerſal Tradition elder than the ſixteenth century for the chief point of the Papacy the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, and therein the Pope and his packed Council of Trent are the great World, he means at which were at ſome determinations of great moment about fifty Biſhops ſuch as they were, and ſome of them but titular, and in other points there hath been no Tradition, but what hath been gainſaid; and therefore in fine, the Papiſts faith is reſolved into the Popes and Council of Trents determination, which is the Catholick Church with Papiſts, as is manifeſt by the words of this Authour here, p. 70. where he makes the Church which he counts infallible, A Council called out of the whole World, and approved by the Pope, which he judgeth the Trent Council to be, pag. 76. and if the Catholick Church do reſolve its faith into the catholick churches tradition, what is this but to reſolve its faith into its own tradition? at leaſt the catholick church repreſented in an oecumenical council approved by the Pope muſt reſolve its faith into it ſelf, Pius the fourth and the Trent Biſhops muſt reſolve their faith into their own tradition, and ſo muſt believe what they believe in points of Chriſtian Faith, becauſe they hold ſo, and judge themſelves infallible; and if ſo, it would be known whether they did believe the ſame things before they did determine them in a council; if not, they defined what they did not believe; if they did, then it would be known upon what tradition they did believe them, if they name the tradition of the foregoing age, the ſame queſtions will be put, p. 198and the anſwer muſt be either at laſt to reſolve it into Scripture, or ſome fallible men, or the proceſs will be endleſs, or it muſt reſt in the determination of the preſent church catholick, properly ſo called, or general council, or Pope, or elſe the queſtions wil return, and the arguing will be circular. Yet there are theſe Reaſons why Papiſts make ſhew of this way of reſolving their faith into the churches tradition unwritten, 1. Becauſe they would not have their Doctrines and Faith tried by the holy Scriptures alone, nor in the firſt place, nor by the Doctours of the firſt five hundred years. 2. Becauſe they know that few either of the learned or unlearned can track them in this way, it being impoſſible for any but men of very great reading and very accurate criticks to diſcern truth in this way by reaſon of the multitude of Nations in which the Church hath been, whereof ſome are unknown to ſome other Churches, the impoſſibility to know what each church throughout the World held in every age, the difficulty of travel, the variety of Languages, the multitude and uncertainty of Authours, eſpecially ſince they have been gelded and altered by the Indices expurgatorii, and practiſes of Monks and other Scribes, the foiſting in baſtard treatiſes under the names of approved Authours. For which reaſon it is that they decline as much as they can trial of their Doctrine by Scripture, pretending difficulties where there are either none, or ſuch as might be removed, though by their courſe they caſt men into inſuperable difficulties, and when they are neceſſitated to let people have the Scripture in the vulgar Language by reaſon of importunity of adverſaries, yet they ſo pervert it by corrupt Tranſlations and notes (as in the Rhemiſt's Teſtament is manifeſt) that people have much ado without much diligence to finde out their deceits.

SECT. V.

The Romaniſts can never gain their cauſe by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture, but will be proved by it to have revolted from Chriſtianity.

Yet H. T. hath the face to ſay, But if we refer the whole trial of faith to the arbitrement of Scripture, I ſee nothing more evident, than that this one Argument ad hominem, gives the cauſe into our hands, ſince it clearly proves either many controverted Catholick Doctrines are ſufficiently contained in Scripture, or many Proteſtant ones are not; and thus I frame my diſcourſe. All Proteſtant Tenets (ſay you) are ſufficiently contained in Scripture; but many Catholick Doctrines (ſay I) denied by Proteſtants are as evident in Scripture, as divers Proteſtant Tenets; therefore many Catholick Doctrines denied by Proteſtants are ſufficiently contained in Scripture. He that has hardineſs enough to deny this Concluſion let him compare the Texts that recommend the Churches authority in deciding controverſies, and expounding Articles of Faith with theſe that ſupport the Proteſtant private ſpirit, or particular judgement of diſcretion; let him compare the places that favour prieſtly Abſolution with thoſe on which they ground their neceſſity (not to ſtand upon the lawfulneſs) of Infant-baptiſm, let him compare the paſſages of the Bible for the real preſence of our Saviours body in the Euchariſt, for the primacy of St. Peter, for the authority of Apoſtolical Traditions, though unwritten, with what ever he can cite, to prove the three diſtinct perſons in the bleſſed Trinity, the conſubſtantiality of the Son with the Father, the proceſſion of the holy Ghoſt from both, the obligation of the Sunday in ſtead of the Sabbath, ſo expreſly commanded in the Moral Law; and when he has turned over all his Bible as often as he pleaſes, I ſhall offer him onelyonly this requeſt, either to admit the Argument or teach me to anſwer it.

p. 199Anſw. H. T. ſure hath a ſingular eyeſight, which ſees ſuch an evidence in this Argument, as that he ſees nothing more evident. What? is not this more evident, that the whole is bigger than a part, that God made the World, that the Word was made Fleſh (Sure an Argument ad hominem is no demonſtration, ſpecially when what the man holds at one time upon ſecond and better thoughts he relinquiſheth: nor is an argument ad hominem fit to eſtabliſh any truth, but ſomewhat to leſſen the opinion of the man who is thereby convinced of holding inconſiſtencies; and therefore the cauſe is not given into H. T. and his fellows hands, that unwritten traditions are a Rule of Faith, or that Popiſh Doctrine is grounded on Scripture, becauſe ſome Proteſtant tenets have no better proof thence than ſome Popiſh tenets denied to be contained in the Scripture.

But that I may gratifie H. T. (as much as in me lieth) in his requeſt, I tell him, The Syllogiſm is in no Mood or Figure that I know, nor (if I would examine the form of it) do I doubt, but that I ſhould finde four terms in it at leaſt, and then H. T. it is likely knows his Sy…logiſm is naught. Nor do I know how to form it better, unleſs it be formed diſ-junctively: but it belongs not to me to form his Weapons for him. To it as I finde it I ſay, that if he mean, that all Proteſtant tenets ſimply are ſufficiently contained in Scripture, who ever he be that ſaith ſo, yet I dare not ſay ſo: But this I think, that all, or moſt of the tenets which the Proteſtants hold againſt the Papiſts in the points of Faith and Worſhip, which are controverted between them, are ſufficiently contained in the Scripture, and all of them ought to be, or elſe they may be rejected. And for his Minor I deny it, if he mean it of thoſe Proteſtant tenets in points of Faith, which are held by all, or thoſe that are avouched by common conſent in the harmony of their confeſſions, excepting ſome about Diſcipline, Ceremonies, and Sacraments. And for his inſtances, to the firſt I ſay, I am willing any Reader, who reades what is written on both ſides in the fifth Article here, ſhould judge whether hath more evidence in Scripture, the Churches imagined infallible authority in deciding controverſies, or that each perſon is to uſe his own underſtanding to try what is propounded to be believed without relying on any authority of Pope, general Council, or Prelates, who are never called the Church in Scripture. And for the ſecond, I do not take it to be a Proteſtant tenet, that Infant-baptiſm is neceſſary; and for the lawfulneſs, I grant, there is as much evidence in Scripture for Prieſts judiciary ſacramental authoritative Abſolution as for it, that is none at all for either. And for the third, there are Proteſtants, that grant a real preſence of our Saviour's body in the Euchariſt, as the Lutherans, and ſome Calviniſts grant alſo a real preſence to the worthy receiver, but not bodily, p. 200but for the real preſence by Tranſubſtantion there is not the leaſt in Scripture of it ſelf, as Scotus long ago reſolved. And for the Primacy of St. Peter, it hath been told this Authour, that a Primacy of order, of zeal, and ſome other endowments, is yielded by Proteſtants, but Supremacy of Juriſdiction over the Apoſtles is denied, and it is proved before, Article 7. to have no evidence in Scripture. And for the authority of Apoſtolical traditions, though unwritten, (if there were any ſuch truly ſo called) I ſhould not deny it, but that there are any ſuch which are a rule of faith now to us, he hath not proved in this Article, nor brought one Text for it, but ſome far-fetcht Reaſons of no validity. But I preſume his brethren will give him little thanks for gratifying ſo much the Antitrinitarians, Arians, Socinians, as to yield, that thoſe points which are in the Nicene and Athanaſius his Creed, and were determined in the firſt general Councils are no better proved from Scripture than Tranſubſtantiation, the Popes Supremacy and unwritten Traditions being a Rule of Faith. Are not theſe Texts Matth. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 1. 1. 1 John 5. 20. and many more which Bellarmine lib. 1. de Chriſto brings to prove the Trinity of perſons, the Sons conſubſtantiality, the Spirits proceſſion more evident than, this is my Body, for Tranſubſtantiation, Thou art Peter, for the Popes Supremacy; and H. T. his Scriptureleſs reaſoning for unwritten Traditions? Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei, cap. 11. and elſewhere acknowledgeth the tenets about Gods nature, and the union of natures in Chriſt to be plainly in Scripture.

As for Sunday being in ſtead of the Sabbath, he ſhould me thinks allow ſomewhat in Scripture for it, Col. 2. 16. Acts 20 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. Revel. 1. 10. more evident than for his real preſence, Peter's Supremacy, unwritten Traditions. But I ſee prejudice doth much to ſway men, and make them ſee what others cannot. The Crow thinks her own Bird faireſt.

Yet again, ſaith H. T. The ſame Syllogiſm may with equal evidence be applied to the negative, as well as poſitive Doctrines on either ſide. All Catholick points denied by Proteſtants are ſufficiently (ſay you) condemned in Scripture. But many points imbraced by Proteſtants are as clearly (ſay I) condemned in Scripture, as divers they deny in oppoſition to Catholicks; therefore many points embraced by Proteſtants are ſufficiently condemned in Scripture. Where does the Bible ſo plainly forbid Prayer for the Dead, as this darling Errour and fundamental Principle of Protestancy, that any one however ignorant, however unſtable, ought to reade the holy Scriptures, and unappealably judge of their ſenſe by his private interpretation? Where is it ſo plainly forbidden to adore Chriſt in what place ſoever we believe him to be really preſent, as it is to work upon the Saturday? Thus if the Bible be conſtituted ſole Rule of Religion, Proteſtants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick, nor juſtifie their own.

Anſw. The Concluſion may be granted, that many points embraced by Proteſtants are ſufficiently condemned in Scripture without any detriment to the Proteſtant cauſe: Proteſtants do not pretend to Infallibility, but that the tenets in point of Faith, which in oppoſition to Papiſts their Harmony of Confeſſions avoucheth are ſufficiently condemned in Scripture, is more than H. T. or any other can prove. To his Syllogiſm I anſwer, by denying his Minor. And to his inſtances I anſwer, the Prayer for the Dead, which Proteſtants ſay is forbidden plainly in Scripture, is Popiſh Prayer for the Dead to have them eaſed or delivered out of Purgatory: now this we ſay is condemned plainly in Scripture. p. 2011. Becauſe it ſuppoſeth a belief of a Purgatory-place in Hell, which is an Errour, and every Errour is condemned in Scripture, as contrary to truth. 2. All Prayer is condemned, which is not agreeable to the Rules of Prayer; now the Rules of Prayer in Scripture are, that we ſhould pray in Faith, James 1. 6. Ask the things which are according to the will of God, 1 John 5. 14. Not for him that ſins unto death, verſ. 16. But to ask for deliverance out of Purgatory, when there is no ſuch place, nor God hath promiſed any ſuch thing, is not in Faith, nor according to Gods will, but is as vain as to ask for him that ſins unto death, it is all one as to pray that the elect Angels or Devils ſhould be delivered thence, which were a Mockery of God. 3. God forbids Jeremiah to pray for that which he would not hear him, in Jer. 14. 11. therefore Prayer for the Dead to be delivered out of Purgatory, in which God will not hear, is by parity of reaſon condemned, as if a man ſhould pray that the Reprobate ſhould not be damned, or the Elect ſhould not be ſaved.

The Proteſtants ſay not, that every one, however ignorant or unſtable, ought unappealably to judge of the ſenſe of all Scriptures by his private interpretation. There are plain Scriptures and Points fundamental, and of theſe they ſay they may and ought to judge of their ſenſe each one by his own private interpretation, if by it be meant his own underſtanding, but not if by it be meant a peculiar fancy ſuch as no man elſe conceives, nor the words import: but they ſay in difficult places and points not fundamental they ought not to judge of their ſenſe unappealably, that is, ſo as not to uſe the help of the learned, in which number Fathers and Councils have their place, and eſpecially their own Teachers, to finde out the meaning of them: yet when they have uſed means, they may, and muſt ſuſpend any judgement at all, or ſtick to that which in their own underſtanding ſeems moſt probable, or elſe they muſt go againſt their own conſcience, which were ſin, or they muſt be Hypocrites, ſaying, they judge that to be ſo, which they do not, yea, there ſhould be an impoſſibility in nature granted, that a man at the ſame time doth judge that to be the ſenſe of the ſame thing which he doth not: but they deny, that a man ought ſo to reſt on any Pope, or Councils, or Doctours judgement, as to hold what they hold without any other proof, though it be in their apprehenſion againſt Scripture, ſith that is plainly condemned, Matth. 23. 10. And they hold that every man, that hath the uſe of natural underſtanding ought to reade the Scripture, John 5. 39. Col. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. 2. Tim. 3. 15, 16. and to judge their ſenſe in this manner, and this is no Errour, much leſs a darling Errour of Proteſtancy. Nor can H. T. prove it any where condemned in Scripture. As for the place 2 Pet. 3. 16. to which his words ſeem to allude, it proves not the reading of the Scripture or judging of the ſenſe to be condemned, yea ver. 3. 15. proves the contrary, that Chriſtians ſhould reade Paul's Epiſtles, in which thoſe things are which are hard to be underſtood. onelyonly it condemns the wreſting of them to their perdition by the unlearned and unſtable, which Proteſtants do condemn as well as Papiſts.

It is not forbidden to adore Chriſt in what place ſoever he is, but 1. It is an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith to conceive Chriſt in a Wafer-cake on earth, called the Hoſt by Papiſts, whom we believe to be in Heaven at the right hand of God, and of whom it is ſaid, that the Heaven muſt contain him p. 202till the times of the reſtitution of all things. Acts 3. 21. and ſo it is forbidden to adore that Bread, as if Chriſt's Body were there, it being a belief of an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith. 2. It is flat Idolatry to adore with divine Worſhip a piece of Bread, though taken to be the Body of Chriſt, it being forbidden, Matth. 4. 10. Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God and him onelyonly ſhalt thou ſerve. Nor can the imagination of a perſon acquit the perſon that does it from Idolatry. For if it could, the Worſhip of the golden calf, which the Iſraelites proclaimed to be the Gods that brought them out of Egypt, Exod. 32. 8. and worſhipped God thereby, verſ. 4. 5, 8. Micah's Worſhip of his molten Image of the Silver, which he dedicated to the Lord, Judges 17. 2 3 4 and Jeroboam's Worſhip of the golden Calf, 1 Kings 12. 28. yea, all the Idolatry of the Heathens who worſhipped thoſe things which were no Gods ſhould be excuſed, becauſe they thought them Gods, or intended to worſhip God by them. As for working upon the Saturday, it is true, it was forbidden to the Jews; but we conceive it not forbidden to us, becauſe the Jewiſh Sabbath is abrogated, Col. 2. 16. And if H. T. do not think ſo, he doth Judaize, and if he hold the Lord's day and the Saturday Sabbath too, he agrees with the Ebionites, mentioned by Euſebius, lib. 3. hiſt. …ap. 27. ſo that it is utterly falſe, that if the Bible be conſtituted ſole Rule of Religion, Proteſtants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick, no juſtifie their own. B…t it is rather true, which Dr. Carleton in his little Book of the Church avouched, that the now Roman Church is proved not to be the true Church of Chriſt, becauſe in the Trent Council the Romaniſts have altered the Rule of Faith. And for my part, to my beſt underſtanding I do judge, that the Romaniſts are not to be reckoned amongſt Chriſtians, though they call themſelves ſo, but that as by their worſhipping of Images, burning Incenſe to them, praying to a Crucifix, adoring the Hoſt, and almoſt all their Worſhip, and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Chriſtianity, 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Epheſ. 4. 5, 6. and thereby are become Pagans; ſo by their ſubſtituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles in their Writings, to wit, unwritten Traditions, which are nothing elſe but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him, they do prove themſelves not to be Diſciples of Chriſt, which is all one with Chriſtians, Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Chriſt, but Papiſts (which name Bellarmine, lib. de not is Eccleſ. cap. 4. doth not diſown) or the Popes Church truly Antichriſtian.

SECT. VI.

Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith.

H. T. recites the ſayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition. The firſt of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith, but that if the Apoſtles (in ſtead of which fraudulently, as I fear H. T. puts, If the Fathers) had left p. 203us no Scripture at all, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered, to whom they committed the Churches. To underſtand which it is to be noted, that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be falſe out of the Scriptures, chap. 2. he ſpeaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks, When they are reproved out of Scriptures they are turned into accuſation of the Scriptures themſelves, as if they were not right, nor from authority; and becauſe they are diverſly ſaid, and becauſe the truth cannot be found out of theſe by thoſe who know not Tradition. For that truth was not delivered by Letters, but by living voice, (which is the very Plea for Traditions, which H. T. here uſeth) for which cauſe Paul ſaid, We ſpeak wiſdom among them that are perfect, as they took themſelves to be, and ſaid, They were wiſer than either Presbyters or Apoſtles, and would neither conſent to Scriptures nor Tradition; and then cap. 3. ſhews the Tradition of the Apoſtles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them; and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus, Anacletus, Clemens at Rome, and to Polycarpus and his Succeſſours at Smyrna, and after uſeth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule, but the Tradition from the Apoſtles to them that knew the Apoſtles, and that onelyonly in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour, and onelyonly upon ſuppoſition there had been no Scripture, and that after he had alleged the Scripture to ſtop the courſe of Hereticks that declined the Scripture. Whence it is apparent, 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the conſtant Rule of Faith. 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onelyonly upon ſuppoſition, that the Apoſtles had not left us Scripture. 3. No Tradition to be that Rule, but what was from men acquainted with Apoſtles. 4. To be uſed onelyonly in caſe men were ſo perverſe as to decline Scripture: which is our caſe in dealing with Papiſts, which moved Biſhop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Croſs to offer, that if the Papiſts could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the firſt five hundred years after Chriſt he would ſubſcribe: which neither Harding, nor Bellarmine, nor Perron, nor any of the Romaniſts could or can do. The words of Tertullian lib. de praeſcript. adverſ. Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are indeed, that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apoſtles, the Apoſtles from Chriſt, Chriſt from God. But he expreſſeth how he means it, when he ſaith in the ſame place, But what the Apoſtles have preached, that is, what Chriſt hath revealed to them, I will alſo preſcribe that it ought to be no otherwiſe proved but by the ſame Churches, which the Apoſtles themſelves built, they themſelves by preaching to them, as well by living voice (as they ſay) as by Epiſtles afterwards. Which plainly ſhews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apoſtles after wrote, nor from any other Churches than thoſe which the Apoſtles by preaching built, by which he means the Corinthian, Philippick, Theſſalonian, Epheſian, as well as Roman, chap. 36. And though he uſe againſt Valentinus, Marcion, and other Hereticks, the Tradition of thoſe Churches, yet chap. 8. he plainly directs to the Scriptures, as the way to finde Chriſt by uſing his words to the Jews, John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for ſalvation: for they do ſpeak of me. This will be, Seek and ye ſhall finde. Which being conſidered, it will appear, that Tertullian was far from aſſerting unwritten Traditions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in theſe later ages, and called p. 204Apoſtolical by Popes and Councils, the Rule of Faith. Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epiſt. cap. 3. ad Cacilium in ſome Editions, Epiſt. 63. ſhew his miſtake about Traditions, as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Euchariſt to be the Lord's tradition, ſo he did alſo Rebaptization, in which the Romaniſts deſert him: neither ſhew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith; yea, arguing againſt them that uſed Water without Wine, he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture, and urgeth it againſt them, and though his Reaſons be frivolous, yet theſe expreſſions ſhew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule. But if it be commanded by Chriſt, and the ſame be confirmed and delivered by his Apoſtle, that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the ſame thing, which the Lord alſo did, we are found that it is not obſerved of us which is commanded, unleſs we alſo do the ſame things which the Lord did, and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine magiſtery. Again, I marvel enough whence this hath been uſed, that againſt the Evangelical and Apoſtolical Diſcipline in ſome places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup, which alone cannot expreſs Chriſt's Blood. Whence may be perceived, that even in Cyprian's days corrupt uſages came in by following other Traditions than thoſe that are written. In the ſame Epiſtle Cyprian adds this remarkable ſpeech, Wherefore if Chriſt alone be to be heard, we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done, but what Chriſt who is before all; neither ought we to follow the cuſtome of a man out the truth of God, ſith God ſpeaks by the Prophet Eſay, and ſaith, Without reaſon do they worſhip me, teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men.

Origen's words do not prove unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith, when he ſaith, In our underſtanding Scripture we muſt not depart from the firſt Eccleſiaſtical tradition, Tract. 27. in cap. 23. St. Matthai; nor Athanaſius when he ſaith, This Doctrine we have demonſtrated to have been delivered from hand to hand by fathers to ſons, lib. 1. de Decret. Concil. Niceni; ſith that delivery was according to him by Scripture. Chryſoſtom on 2 Theſſ. 2. 15. ſaith, The Apoſtles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things without, and theſe are worthy of credit as the others, but doth not ſay, there remain ſtill in the Church Traditions unwritten in matters of Faith that are different from the written, and that they are to be the Rule of Faith: yea, Homily in 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16. he determines all is to be learned from Scripture; and the ſame anſwer may ſerve for the words of Epiphanius, Haereſi 61. The words of Auguſtine lib. 5. de Bapt. cap. 23. are about a point in controverſie between Cyprian and Pope Stephanus, in which both ſides pretended Tradition, Cyprian for Rebaptization, and here Auguſtine pretends Tradition for the contrary; by which and by Auguſtine's words lib. 1. de pecc. merit. & remiſſ. cap. 24. in which he makes the giving of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt to Infants an ancient and Apoſtolical tradition, which Pope Innocentius Epiſt. 93. among Augustine's Epiſtles determined to be neceſſary, yet is now condemned in the Trent Council, it is apparent how unſafe it is to rely on a Popes determination, or Auſtin's opinion of Apoſtolical tradition, and that groſs Errours have been received under the name of Apoſtolical traditions. As for the ſecond Council of Nice, Act 7. Anno Dom. 781. it was a late and an impious Council condemned by the Synod of Francford and at Paris for their impious Doctrine of worſhipping Images, and therefore we count its ſpeech not worthy p. 205to be anſwered but with deteſtation. Nor is there any reaſon to be moved with the words of the Council at Sens in France, which was later and but Provincial.

SECT. VII.

Objections from Scripture for its ſufficiency without unwritten Traditions are vindicated from H. T. his Anſwers.

H. T. proceeds thus. Objections ſolved. Object. You have made fruſtrate the Commandments of God for your Tradition, St. Matth. cap. 15. v. 4. Beware leſt any man deceive you by vain fallacy according to the Traditions of men, Col. 2. Anſw. Theſe Texts are both againſt the vain Traditions of private men, not againſt Apoſtolical tradition.

I Reply, they are againſt the Popiſh unwritten Traditions, which are falſly called Apoſtolical, which are indeed the meer Inventions of men, either deviſed by ſuperſtitious Prelates, Prieſts, Monks or people, or upon uncertain report received by credulous people, as from the Apoſtles, as the Traditions about Eaſter, Lent Faſt, Chriſt's age, and many more ſhew. And in ſuch kinde of mens Inventions doth almoſt all the Popiſh Worſhip and Service conſiſt, which cauſeth breaking the command of God to obſerve mens Traditions, as is manifeſt in Monkiſh Vows, whereby honouring of Parents is made void, and the keeping of the Cup from the people, whereby the expreſs command of Chriſt is evacuated.

Object. There is no better way to decide controverſies than by Scripture. Anſw. Than by Scriptures expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apoſtolical tradition, I grant: than by Scripture according to the dead Letter, or expounded by the private ſpirit, I deny. For ſo (as Tertullian ſays) there is no good got by disputing out of the Texts of Scripture, but either to make a man ſick or mad. De praeſcript. cap. 19.

I reply, it is well this man will grant, There is no better way to decide controverſies than by the Scriptures expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apoſtolical tradition: then Knot's Reaſons for a living Judge againſt Dr. Potter come to nothing: we deſire no other than to have our controverſies decided this way, rejecting any one infallible Judge that ſhall take on him, as the Pope doth, to preſcribe to the Church of God how they ſhall underſtand the Scripture. The Church of God, that is, the company of believers, who are the Church of God by Papiſts own definition, having the help of their godly and learned Guides may expound the Scriptures any where in the World, at Geneva, London, Dort, and other places as well, and better than the Pope and his Cardinals at Rome, or a Council of Canoniſts, titular Biſhops, ſworn vaſſals of the Pope, that never knew what it was to preach the Goſpel, ſophiſtical School-men at Trent. And for the Rule of Apoſtolical tradition, we like it well to expound Scripture by it, meaning that which is in the Books of Scripture, as Auſtin taught, lib. 1. de doctr. Chriſt. cap. 2. 35. 37. 40. lib. 2. cap. 8. 9. 11. p. 206lib. 3. cap. 2 3. 5. 10. 17. 18. 27. 28. lib 4. cap. 3. as the words are cited and vindicated from Hart's Replies by Dr. John Rainoll, Confer. with Hart. chap 2. diviſ. 2. Nor do I know any other Apoſtolical tradition, which is a Rule to expound Scriptures by for deciding controverſies but their Epiſtles, and other Writings. If H. T. can ſhews me any ſuch to expound them by, let him produce them, and I will embrace them. Sure I am Popes Expoſitions and Popiſh Councils, Canons, are ſo far from being Apoſtolical traditions, that they are rather the moſt ridiculous, profane, and blaphemous pervertings of Scripture that ever any ſober man uſed, as may appear by their Canon Law. Yea, the very Council of Trent hath abſurdly abuſed Scripture, as might be made manifeſt by going over their Canons, and the like may be ſaid of the Roman Catechiſm.

What H. T. means by the dead Letter I underſtand not, unleſs he mean the literal ſenſe, which ſure Bellarmine and others allow for one ſenſe, and that moſt genuine, and if it be not, why did the Trent Council decree the vulgar Tranſlation not to be refuſed? Why did Cajetan, Arias Montanus, the R…emiſts, and many more tranſlate and expound according to the Letter? Is the Scripture any more a dead Letter than the Popes Breves or Trent Canons? Are they any more a living Judge than the Scripture? Pope Pius the fourth ties Papiſts to expound the Scriptures according to the unanimous conſent of the Fathers, which is, except in very few things, a meer nullity, and, if it were a reality, impoſſible to be done, yet however could it be done the expoſition muſt be by a dead Letter in H. T. his ſenſe as much as the Scripture. But how intolerable is it that ſuch a Wretch as H. T. ſhould thus blaſphemouſly call that a dead Letter, which Stephen calls Living Oracles, Acts 7. 38. Paul the word of life, Phil. 2. 16. It is true for Popes, of whom ſome, if Alphonſus a Caſt… lib. 1. adverſ. Haeret. cap. 1. ſay true, were ſo unlearned as not to underſtand Grammar, it is deſirable that the Scripture ſhould not be expounded according to the Letter, ſith they are unable to do it, that they may vent their illiterate fopperies under pretence of Apoſtolical tradition, of which ſort many of their Decrees are in their Canon Law.

But me thinks all the learned Romaniſts; even the Jeſuits themſelves, ſpecially thoſe that have written large Commentaries according to the literal ſenſe, as Salmeron, Maldonat, Lorinus, Cornelius a Lapide, Tirinus, and many more ſhould reject this foolery of H. T. concerning the expounding of Scripture, not according to the literal ſenſe, which he calls the dead Letter, or elſe at once blot out all they have written for finding it as a meer encumbrance to the World. And the ſame may be ſaid of not expounding by the private ſpirit. For why do theſe private men take ſo much pains to publiſh Commentaries? Is not their ſpirit as much private, as Calvin's, Beza's, Luther's, and others, and theſe mens ſpirit as publick as theirs? Let any man aſſign Reaſons if he can why all the Commentaries of the Romaniſts ſhould not be caſhier'd under this pretence as well as the Proteſtants, who are as learned, induſtrious as they, and far more ſincere and impartial. Why ſhould not the Popes expoſitions be rejected as well as others? Have they any more than a private ſpirit? Do not their very Breves, and Monitories, and Decrees, ſhew that it is a private ſpirit they act and decide by? Sure the Spirit of God would not dictate ſuch vain things as they utter, and which ſometimes they are fain to recall, leſt their p. 207nakedneſs appear. Do not the Popes by their own confeſſions in correcting the vulgar Latin Tranſlation, and other things they ſet forth, declare, that they uſe induſtry and the help of learned men? If they have a publick ſpirit, why do not the Popes make us an Expoſition of Scripture, which all muſt own? Is it not becauſe they are for the moſt part a race of ignorant and unlearned men, ſpecially in the Scriptures, and, ſhould they attempt ſuch a thing, would make themſelves appear ridiculous, and ſhew their aſinine ears, though now they ſeem terrible, and to carry majeſty with their Lions skin? Is there any thing the Popes can do more neceſſary than this, that they may end all controverſies, and guide all ſouls aright? But the truth is, the Popes have been ſo unhappy in alleging Scripture in their Bulls, and Breves, and Monitories, in their diciſions of controverſies, that no ſide will acquieſce in their determinations they are ſo vain or ſo partial, but as of old in the controverſies between Dominicans and Franciſcans about the Virgin Maries immaculate Conception, ſo of late between the Moliniſts and Janſeniſts about Gods Decrees, each party holds what they held, notwithſtanding the Popes deciſion, which for the moſt part is ſo compoſed, that each party may think it makes for him, and he may looſe neither. And about the Edition of the vulgar Tranſlation in Latin of the Bible, how much have the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clemens the eighth diſcovered their unskilfulneſs, when after ſuch profeſſion of diligence and uſe of learned men as the Popes make, yet they have publiſhed their Editions contrary one to another! The words of Tertullian are cap. 17. againſt thoſe Hereticks Valentinus, Marcion, and ſuch as agreed not with Chriſtians in the Rule of Faith ſet down cap. 13. whom he denies to be Chriſtians, and ſuch he thinks it would be unfit to diſpute with out of Scripture, but he doth not ſo judge concerning ſuch as agree in the Rule of Faith, though ſome term them Hereticks. I may more truly ſay, there is no good got by Popes interpretations of holy Scripture but to make a man ſick or mad: ſuch Expoſitions as Alexander the third made of Pſalm 91. 13 Thou ſhalt tread upon the Asp and Baſili…k, when he trode on the Emperour Frederick's neck, or Boniface the eighth, when to prove himſelf above Emperours and Kings, he alleged Gen. 7. 16. God made two great Lights, that is, the Pope and the Sun, and the Emperour as the Moon, with many more of the like ſort are no better than ſick mens dreams or mad mens freaks.

It is added. Object. All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for teaching, for arguing, for reproving, and for inſtructing in righteouſneſs, that the man of God may be perfect, inſtructed to every good work, 1 Tim. 3. 16, 17. therefore Traditions are not neceſſary, Anſw. St. Paul ſpeaks onelyonly there of the old Scripture, which Timothy had known from his childhood (when little of any of the new could be written) as is plain by the precedent Verſe, which we acknowledge to be profitable for all thoſe uſes, but not ſufficient; neither will any more follow out of that Text, if underſtood of the new Scriptures: ſo that your conſequence is vain and of no force.

I reply, that which is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, inſtruct in righteouſneſs, ſo as that the man of God may be entire, fitted, or inſtructed for every good work. Sure that is a ſufficient Rule for Doctrine of Faith and good Works, and ſo to ſalvation. But ſuch is the Scripture, as the Text tells us. Ergo. The Major is apparent, ſith no more is required to a ſufficient Rule of p. 208Doctrine, if there be, let it be ſhewed, that it may be known wherein this is defective. Sure that which is profitable for all uſes to which Doctrine ſerves is a ſufficient Doctrine. The Anſwer of H. T. here is ſo far from being a full Anſwer to the Objection (as he vainly vaunts in the Title page of his Book) that indeed it is a confirmation of the Objection. For if the old Scriptures were ſo profitable as to make the man of God a Teacher of the Church, entire, that they were able to make him wiſe to ſalvation, and furniſh him with inſtruction to every good work, much more when the Books of the New Teſtament were added, of which one of the Goſpels is by H. T. here pag. 104. ſaid to have been written eight years after the Death of Chriſt, and doubtleſs Timothy knew it, and however he had the former Epiſtle to himſelf before the Epiſtle in which this paſſage is, which is ill printed, 1 Tim 3. 16, 17. it being 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. and therefore the Scripture he had was a ſufficient Rule to him a Biſhop without Traditions, much more to others, and ſo Traditions unwritten are proved unneceſſary and ſuperfluous.

Again ſaith H. T. Object. If any one ſhall add to theſe God ſhall add to him the Plagues written in this Book, Apoc. 22. 18, 19. Therefore it is not lawfull to add Traditions. Anſw. It follows immediately, And if any one ſhall diminiſh from the words of this Prophecy God ſhall take away his Part out of the Book of Life, verſ. 19. By which St. John evidently reſtrains that Text to the Book of his own Prophecies onelyonly; which is not the whole Rule of Faith; and therefore by that you cannot exclude either the reſt of the Scriptures or Apoſtolical Traditions from that Rule.

I reply, there is no reaſon why the ſame thing is not to be underſtood of the whole Canon, and each particular Book, ſith there is the like Deut. 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Jer. 7. 31. 2 Theſſ. 2. 1, 2. wherein are general Warnings of not receiving additions to the Scripture, yea, though the names of Moſes and Paul were pretended, eſpecially when the Traditions do adulterate the written Word as Popiſh traditions about Images, Faſting, ſingle life, of the Clergy, Monaſtick Vows, and others of their Traditions do.

Yet he adds. Object. We may have a certain knowledge of all things neceſſary to ſalvation by the Bible or written Word onelyonly. Anſw. No, we cannot; for there have been, are and will be infinite Disputes about that to the worlds end, as well what Books are Canonical as what the true ſenſe and meaning is of every Verſe and Chapter. Nor can we ever be infallibly aſſured of either, but by means of Apoſtolical tradition; ſo that if this be interrupted, and failed for any one whole Age together (as Proteſtants defend it for many) the whole Bible, for ought we know, might in that ſpace be changed and corrupted: nor can the contrary ever be evinced without new revelation from God: the dead Letter cannot ſpeak for it ſelf.

I reply, this profane Wretch it ſeems takes delight in this blaſphemous Title which he gives to the holy Scripture often in reproach terming it the dead Letter, which he hath no Warrant to do. For though it is true that Ro. 7. 3, 6. 2 Cor. 3. 6. the Law or old Covenant be termed the Letter, and is ſaid to be dead and killing, yet this is not meant of the holy Scripture of the Law, becauſe it is written, but becauſe it was abrogated in the Goſpel, as killing by its Sentence Sinners that continued not in all things written in it, Gal. 3. 10. And yet it can ſpeak for it ſelf as well, yea, incomparably better than any Writings of Popes, Councils, p. 209or Fathers from whence he hath his Traditions, which are as dead a Letter as the Scripture. And in this his expreſſion there is ſo much the more iniquity, in that he prefers before the holy Scripture the uncertain reports of credulous ſuperſtitious men, and the Decrees of doating Popes, as more lively than the holy Scripture inſpired of God And for this man who but the next Page before confeſſed, that the words of the Apoſtle, which tell us, that foreign, the holy written Letters were able to make Timothy wiſe to ſalvation, 2 Tim. 3 15. to be meant of the old Scripture, and yet here to ſay, that we cannot have a certain knowledge of all things neceſſary to ſalvation by the Bible or written Word onelyonly, what is it but flatly to gainſay the Apoſtle? which is the more impiouſly and impudently done, in that he aſcribes that to uncertain unwritten Tradition, which neither he nor any of his Fellows are able to ſhew where it is, or how it may be certainly known, which he denies to holy Scripture. As for his Reaſon it is frivolous. For a man may have a certain knowledge of that of which there will be infinite Diſputes to the Worlds end, elſe hath he no certain knowledge of the Popes Supremacy, Infallibility, power in Temporals, ſuperiority to a Council, of which yet there have been and are likely to be infinite Diſputes. As there have been Diſputes about the Canonical Books, ſo there have been about unwritten Traditions, as about the time of keeping Eaſter, Rebaptization, &c. Nor is it true that there are infinite Disputes about the true ſenſe and meaning of every Verſe and Chapter of the Bible. Sure among Chriſtians there is no diſpute of many fundamental truths, which every Chriſtian acknowledgeth; and yet if there were, it is no other thing than what is incident not onelyonly to Philoſophers Writings, but alſo to the Popes Decrees, about which there are infinite Diſputes among the Canoniſts, to the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, about which there were Diſputes between Catharinus, Soto, Vega, Andradius, and others, to the Popes Breves, as to Pope Paul the fifth his Breves about the Oath of Allegeance, which were not onelyonly diſputed by King James and other Proteſtants, but alſo by Widrington and other Popiſh Prieſts, and to his Monitory and Interdict of Venice diſputed by Frier Paul of Venice and others againſt Bellarmine, Baronius, and others. And if we can never be infallibly aſſured of either the Canonical Books or their ſenſe but by Apoſtolical tradition unwritten, then can H. T. never be aſſured of the Popes Infallibility, or Supremacy but by it, and if ſo, then the Scripture is not his ground of it, and ſo he cannot demonſtrate the truth of his Catholick Religion by Texts of holy Scripture, as he pretends in his Title-page, and therefore they are impertinently alleged by him, he ſhould onelyonly allege Tradition: which whether it be Fathers, Councils, or Popes ſayings, it cannot aſſure better than the Scripture, they being more controverted than it, and therefore by his reaſoning there can be no certainty in his Faith, and then he is mad if he ſuffer for it, as he is who ſuffers for any mans ſaying, who may be deceived. But we are aſſured both of the Books of Canonical Scripture, not onelyonly by Apoſtolical tradition unwritten, but alſo by univerſal tradition, and the evidence of their authour by their matter, and of the meaning without Popiſh tradition, not onelyonly by common helps of underſtanding and arts gotten by ſtudy, and the benefit of later and elder Expoſitours, but alſo by the Spirit of God aſſiſting us when we ſeek it duly. And for the interruption of this Tradition the Proteſtants do not pretend it to have p. 210been one whole age or day, though it have been ſometimes more full than at other times: and we have infallible aſſurance that the whole Bible hath not been changed or corrupted ſo but that by reaſon of the multitude of copies, and ſpecial providence of God, the chiefeſt points are free from change, and what is corrupted may be amended ſo far as is neceſſary for our ſalvation.

And conſidering Gods providence for the keeping of the Law, we aſſure our ſelves the Lord will preſerve the Scripture, which me thinks to H. T. ſhould give good aſſurance, ſith pag. 119 he ſaith, The Church is by Chriſt the Depoſitory of all divinely revealed veritie, neceſſary to be known by all, and hath the promiſe of divine aſſiſtance to all; whereby and by other arguments it may be evinced without new revelation from God, that though H. T. his apoſtolical tradition unwritten ſhould have failed for any one whole age together, yet the whole Bible ſhould not in that ſpace be changed or corrupted. And this is Reply enough to his venemous Anſwer to that Objection, which tends to depreſs the Scriptures authority (which confeſſedly comes from God) to exalt the authority of the worſt of men, the Popes of Rome, as the ſtories of their Lives proves ſufficiently

It is further urged. Object. Many other ſigns alſo did Jeſus in the ſight of his Diſciples, which are not written in this Book, but theſe are written, that you may believe that Jeſus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have Life in his Name, St. John 20. 30, 31. Therefore St. John's Gospel contains all things neceſſary to ſalvation. Anſw. I deny your Conſequence; for St. John omitted many things of great moment, as our Lord's Prayer and his laſt Supper, which are both neceſſary to be believed. And though he ſay, Theſe things are written that we may believe and have life, he ſays not, that theſe things onelyonly were written, or are ſufficient for that purpoſe, which is the thing in queſtion, ſo that he excludes not the reſt of the Gospels nor Apoſtolical traditions. And it is no unuſual thing in Scripture to aſcribe the whole effect to that which is but the cauſe in part; thus Chriſt promiſeth beatitude to every ſingle Chriſtian virtue. St. Matthew 5. and St. Paul, Salvation to every one that ſhall call on the Name of our Lord, or confeſs with his mouth the Lord Jeſus, and believe that God hath raiſed him from the dead, Rom. 10. 4, 9, 10. Yet more than this is requiſite to ſalvation.

I reply. He that ſaith, Theſe things are written that you may believe, and believing have life, doth inculcate that theſe are ſufficient ſo far as writing or revealing is requiſite to theſe ends, or elſe he ſhould make a vain attempt. Fruſtra ſit quod non aſſequitur finem, That is done in vain which attains not the end, and that is vainly done even deliberately, which is attempted to be done by that means which is foreknown to be inſufficient. And therefore H. T. muſt either yield St. John's Goſpel ſufficient to beget ſaith and procure life, or elſe John to have been imprudent to intend and attempt it by writing it. And therefore he doth ill to deny the Conſequence till he can avoid theſe abſurdities. As for his Reaſon it is inſufficient. For though the Lord's Prayer and the Lord's Supper omitted by John be neceſſary to be believed, yet they are not ſo neceſſary but that we may believe, that Jeſus is the Son of God, and have life in his Name without them. And though he ſay not, that theſe things onelyonly were written, yet he ſaith, Theſe things onelyonly which were written were for belief and life; and therefore ſufficient thereto. And though he excludes p. 211not the reſt of the Goſpels, nor Apoſtolical Traditions, yet he determines that they might believe and have life without them. As for the aſcribing beatitude and ſalvation to each ſingle Chriſtian virtue, it is either becauſe the beatitude is meant of a beatitude in part, or in ſome reſpect, as Matth. 5. 5. the reaſon doth import, or elſe becauſe all other Chriſtian virtues and duties neceſſary to ſalvation are connex or comprehended in that one which is named. And thus this Objection is vindicated.

The next is. Object. St. Luke tells us he hath written of all thoſe things which Jeſus did and taught, Act. 1. 1. Therefore all things neceſſary to ſalvation are contained in his Gospel. Anſw. He writ of all the principal paſſages of his Life and Death, I grant, (and that was the whole ſcope and intent of the Evangeliſts) of all abſolutely which he did and taught, I deny; for in the ſame Chapter he tells us, that during the fourty days which Chriſt remained with them after his Reſurrection, he often appeared to them, inſtructing them in the things concerning the Kingdom of God, very few of which inſtructions are mentioned by St. Luke, nor does he or any other of the Evangeliſts ſay any thing in their Goſpels of the coming of the Holy Ghoſt, or of the things by him revealed to the Church, which were great and many according to that, I have many things to ſay to you, but you cannot now bear them, but when the Spirit of Truth cometh he ſhall teach you all Truth, and the things which are to come he ſhall ſhew you, St. John 16. 12, 13, 14. Add to this, that if all things which Jeſus taught and did ſhould be written, the whole World would not contain the Books, St. John cap. 21. verſ. laſt. Therefore your Conſequence is falſe, and that ſaying of St. Luke is to be limited.

I reply, I grant the ſaying of Luke is to be limited, and yet the conſequence is not falſe. It is true, that St. Luke did not write all abſolutely without limitation which Jeſus did and taught, neither doth he ſay it, nor is the argument ſo framed as if he did; but thus, Luke wrote of all the things which Jeſus began to do and teach untill the day that he was taken up, and theſe were all things neceſſary to ſalvation, therefore Luke's Goſpel contains all things neceſſary to ſalvation. The Romaniſts ſay, that things of meer belief neceſſary to ſalvation are contained in the holy-days, Creeds, and Service of their Church, and H. T. himſelf in the next leaf, pag. 118. ſays, The whole frame of neceſſary points of Chriſtian Doctrine was in a manner made ſenſible and viſible by external and uniform practiſe of the Church Now theſe are onelyonly the principal paſſages of Chriſt's Life and Death, beſides which many more practical points and all fundamental Goſpel-truths are delivered therein, therefore even by their own grant all neceſſary points of Chriſtian Doctrine are taught in the Goſpel of Luke. It is certain their intent eſpecially of John was to write of his divine nature, and ſuch Sermons as tend to rectifie the Errours of the Phariſees and Sadduces, and predictions of his Death, Reſurrection, and ſtate of the Church after his Aſcenſion. It is true, he did inſtruct them for fourty days after his Reſurrection in the things concerning the Kingdom of God, but whether they are mentioned by Luke or not it is uncertain; that they are delivered by Tradition oral, unwritten or neceſſary to ſalvation, ſo as that without an explicit knowledge of then it cannot be had, is not proved. The ſame may be ſaid of the things mentioned John 16. 12, 13, 14. & 21. verſ. laſt, and therefore the conſequence is not infringed by theſe Exceptions. I add that p. 212H. T. ſays not true, that Luke ſays not any thing in his Gospel of the coming of the Holy Ghoſt. For Luke 2. 33. the Prediction of Chriſt, of ſending the Promiſe of the Father, which Acts 2. 33. is expreſly termed the Promiſe of the Holy Ghost, is ſet down.

SECT. VIII.

H. T. ſolves not the Objections from Reaſon for the Scriptures ſufficiency without unwritten Traditions.

H. T. proceeds. Object. At leaſt the whole Bible contains all things neceſſary to ſalvation, either for belief or practiſe for all ſorts of men whatſoever, and that explicitly and plainly. Therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith. Anſw. I deny both Antecedent and Conſequence. The three Creeds are not there, the four first Councils are not there; there is nothing expreſly prohibiting Polygamy or Rebaptization, nor expreſly affirming three diſtinct Perſons in one divine nature, or the Sons conſubstantiality to the Father, or the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from both, or that the Holy Ghoſt is God, or for the neceſſity of Infant baptiſm; or for changing the Saturday into Sunday, &c. all which notwithſtanding are neceſſary to be known by the whole Church, and to be believed by us in particular (as Proteſtants will acknowledge) if they be once ſufficiently propoſed to us by the Church. Nor is it ſufficient we believe all the Bible, unleſs we believe it in the true ſenſe, and be able to confute all Hereſies out of it (I ſpeak of the whole Church) which ſhe can never do without the Rule of Apoſtolical Tradition in any of the Points forementioned.

I Reply, unleſs the man had a minde to plead for Arians, Photinians, Macedorians, and Socinians, I know not why he ſhould ſo often make the Doctrines of three diſtinct Perſons in one divine nature, the Sons conſubſtantiality to the Father, the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from both, and his Godhead as Apoſtolical unwritten Tradition. Sure this is the way to bring into queſtion theſe Doctrines, which if they be not in Scripture, will never be believed by intelligent Chriſtians for the Pope and Council of Trent's ſayings, whoſe proceedings never tended to clear truth, but to juggle with the World. This is one certain evidence that they never intended to clear truth, becauſe they condemned the Doctrines of Proteſtants unheard, nor would ever permit them to come to plead for themſelves in any impartial aſſembly, till which be done no man can conſtrue the proceedings of a Council to be any other than practiſes to ſuppreſs truth. And for their juggling they were ſo notorious, that many Papiſts themſelves have obſerved them, as may be ſeen in the Hiſtory of the Council of Trent, eſpecially about the divine right of Biſhops, of the Laity having the Cup, Prieſts Marriages, in which Papiſts themſelves found that they were meerly mocked by the Pope and Court of Rome. As for this mans denying the Antecedent, it ſeems to me to ſavour of ſuch an imputation of a defect in God as tends to Atheiſm: For ſure he is not to be termed a provident and juſt God, who declaring his minde in the Scripture, and promiſing life to them that obſerve p. 213his Word, and threatning Death and Damnation to them that do not believe and obey, yet doth not ſet down all neceſſary points therein to be believed and obeyed unto life. Yea, doth not H. T. by denying it contradict himſelf, who ſaith, pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith. And for the Conſequence if it be not good, The Bible contains all things neceſſary to ſalvation, either for belief or practiſe for all ſorts of men whatſoever, and that explicitly and plainly; therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith, neither is his own ſecond argument good for Tradition, pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are contained all things that are of Faith, therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith; in both the Conſequence being the ſame.

As for his Inſtances, I ſay, If the three Creeds and four firſt Councils be not in the Scripture they are not neceſſary to be known for the whole Church, and to be believed by us in particular, though they be ſufficiently propoſed to us by the Church, that is, in their non-ſenſe gibberiſh the Pope or a general Council approved by him require us to receive them. Neither hath the Church (as he terms it) power to propoſe any thing as neceſſary to be known for the whole Church, and to be believed by us in particular, but what is contained in the Bible; nor hath it ſuch authority as that we are bound to believe them if it do propound them, though never ſo ſufficiently, but are bound to reject them as contrary to the duty we ow to Chriſt of acknowledging him our onelyonly Maſter; much more reaſon have we to contend againſt them, when they are propounded by the Popes of Rome, who teach not the Doctrine of Chriſt, but cruelly and proudly tyrannize over the ſouls and bodies of the Saints in a moſt Antichriſtian manner, and impoſe on them as Apoſtolical traditions things contrary to Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the Bible. Nor is it true, that all Proteſtants will acknowledge all thsſe Points he mentioneth as neceſſary to be known for the whole Church, and to be believed by us in particular. I grant it not ſufficient for us to believe all the Bible, unleſs we believe it in the true ſenſe, but aver we can believe it in the true ſenſe, and be able to confute all Hereſies out of it without the Rule of Apoſtolical tradition unwritten in any of thoſe points in which the Errour is, as our Lord Chriſt was able by it to vanquiſh Satan, for which reaſon it is termed the Sword of the Spirit, Epheſ. 6. 17. And for Traditions, or Popes Decrees, they are but a Leaden Sword without Fire and Faggot, yea, there is ſo much vanity in them as makes them ridiculous, and ſo unfit for refutation, and were it not for the horrid butchery and cruelty which Princes drunken with the Wine of the Cup of the Fornication of the Whore of Babylon, make of their beſt Subjects at the inſtigation of Popes and Popiſh Prieſts, nothing would appear more contemptible than their deciſions.

Yet more. Object. Doubtleſs for ſpeculative Points of Chriſtian Doctrine Books are a ſafer and more infallible Way or Rule than oral Tradition. Anſw. You are miſtaken, Books are infinitely more liable to Caſualties and Corruptions than Traditions, as well by reaſon of the variety of Languages, into which they are tranſlated, as the diverſity of Tranſlations; ſcarce any two Editions agreeing, but all pretending one to mend the other; beſides the multiplicity p. 214of Copies and Copiſts with the Equivocation and uncertainty of dead and written words if captiouſly wreſted or literally inſiſted on. Who can prove any one Copy of the Bible to be infallible or uncorrupted (thoſe that were written by the Apoſtles own hands we have not) or who can convince that any one Text of the Bible can have no other ſenſe and meaning than what is convenient for his purpoſe, inſiſting onelyonly on the dead Letter? All which dangers, and difficulties are avoided by relying on Apoſtolical tradition, which bindes men under pain of Damnation, to deliver nothing for Faith, but what they have received as ſuch by hand to hand from Age to Age, and in the ſame ſenſe in which they have received it. Think me not fooliſh (ſays St. Auguſtin) for uſing theſe terms; for I have ſo learned theſe things by Tradition, neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way than as I have received them, Lib. de utilit. cred. cap. 3.

I reply, A more impudently and palpably falſe Diſcourſe than this is a man ſhall ſeldom meet with, it being contrary to all experience and uſe among men, and condemns all the cuſtomes of the moſt civil people of folly in Writing and Printing their Statutes, Records, Deeds, Wills, Hiſtories, that they may be more certain and ſafely preſerved, as knowing, that oral Traditions are apt to be loſt, and corrupted, perſons underſtandings, memories, reports, lives, and all their affairs being mutable and liable to innumerable caſualties. Yea, hereby God himſelf is condemned of imprudence, in cauſing Moſes and all the ſacred Writers to write Books, and our Lord Chriſt in giving John expreſs charge to write, Revel. 1. 19. commending the Scripture, Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. as inspired of God, directing to it, John 5. 39. praiſing the ſearching of it, Acts 17. 11. making it a perſons excellency to be mighty in it, Acts 18. 24. uſefull to convince in the greateſt point of Faith, verſ. 28. Wit not Printing a great Benefit to the World? Was not the finding of the Book of the Law, 2 Chron. 34 15. the reading of it by Ezra, Nehem. 8. the having of ready Scribes counted a happineſs to the Jews? Do not men more credit eys than ears? Do not men complain of the Darkneſs of Times for want of Books? Are not the ninth and tenth ages ſince Chriſt counted unhappy for want of learned Writers? Was not this the great unhappineſs that came into the Weſt by the Inundations of barbarous Nations in that they ſpoiled Libraries? Is it not a thing for which Ptolomaeus Philadelphus was renowned, that he ſtored the Library at Alexandria in Egypt with Books? do not we count them great Benefactours who build and preſerve Libraries? Are not therefore Students encouraged, and they that ſearch Libraries the men that diſcover truth to the World? Were the things done before the Flood or ſince better preſerved by oral Tradition than by Moſes Writing? Were the things done before the Wars of Troy better preſerved thereby than theſe Wars by Homer's Poems? Or the Britiſh Antiquities by the Songs of Bardes than by Julius Caeſar's Commentaries, Tacitus, and other Hiſtorians Writings? How quickly are men apt to miſtake and miſreport ſayings appears by the miſtake of Christ's ſpeeches, John 2. 19. Matth. 26. 62. John 21 23. That which Euſebius ſaith of Papias, lib. 3. Eccleſ. hiſt. cap. 35. of his delivering divers fabulous things received by oral Tradition through his ſimplicity, Irenaeus of the Elders of Afia lib. 2. adverſ. Haeret. cap. 39. and innumerable other inſtances prove, there is nothing more uncertain than oral Tradition from hand to hand. A man may eaſily perceive this man is reſolved to outface plain truth, who is p. 215not aſhamed thus to aver that it is a miſtake to ſay that Books are a more ſafe and infallible way or Rule than oral Tradition, when his own printing his Books proves the contrary: For why did he write but for more ſure conveying and preſer…ing of his minde? Yea, his own Reaſon is truly retorted on himſelf. Oral Reports are infinitely more liable to caſualties and corruptions than Books, as well by reaſon of the variety of Languages in which Reports are uttered, as the diverſity of Interpreters, ſcarce any two Interpreters agreeing, but all pretending one to mend the others, beſides the multiplicity of expreſſions and relatours one not agreeing with the other, as Mark 14 56, 59. with the equivocations and uncertainties or Witneſſes words, if captiouſly wreſted or literally inſiſted on. Who can prove any one oral Tradition, which is not univerſal and written alſo to be infallible or uncorrupted (thoſe that were delivered by the Apoſtles own tongues we have not) or who can convince that any one oral Tradition can have no other ſenſe or meaning than what is convenient for his purpoſe inſiſting onelyonly on the ſound of a reporter? All which dangers and difficulties are avoided as much as is neceſſary by relying on the written Word of the Bible, which under pain of Damnation bindes men to deliver nothing for Faith, but what they have received as ſuch from Chriſt and his Apoſtles in their Writings by hand to hand from age to age, and in the ſame ſenſe in which they have received it. It is true, Books are ſubject to caſualties and corruptions, yet not to ſo many as oral Tradition, and the caſualties are better prevented by Writing, which remains the ſame, than by Reports which vary. Fama tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri. And as the Enemies malice hath been great in ſeeking to deprive the World of Bibles, ſo the providence of God hath been wonderfull in preſerving them and their genuine writing and meaning even by the diſperſing of Copies, that what is amiſs in one may be mended in another, by ordering variety of Tranſlations to the ſame end, perſecutions that they ſhould not be in all places at once, ſtirring up others to make Tractates, and Commentaries on them, all Chriſtians (till the late Faction at Trent, and the late Papal tyranny denied the liberty of tranſlating and reading of the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without leave, and began to puniſh in their Inquiſition the having them) reverencing and reading the holy Scripture, however the Decree of Councils and Popes were neglected, yea Traditours of the Bible to be burnt were moſt infamous.

As for the words of Auſtin lib. de util. cred. cap. 3. they are falſly cited and meerly impertinent to H. T's. purpoſe. Having ſaid, The Old Teſtament is delivered, that is, expounded four ways according to the Hiſtory, Aetiology, Analogy, Allegory; he then adds, Think me not a Fool, uſing Greek names. Firſt, becauſe I have ſo received, neither dare I intimate to thee otherwiſe than I have received: which is nothing at all about Apoſtolical traditions unwritten as the Rule of Faith beſides the Scripture, but of certain terms uſed by Expoſitours of Scripture. But that which a little after he adds is juſtly charged on the Romaniſts, and among them on H. T. Nothing ſeems to me to be more impudently ſaid by them (the Manichees) or that I may ſpeak more mildely, more careleſly, and weakly, than that the divine Scriptures are corrupted, when they cannot convince it by any Copies extant in ſo freſh a memory.

p. 216But H. T. in his ſottiſh vein adds, As to your difficulty of ſpeculative Points, I anſwer, that the whole frame of neceſſary Points of Chriſtian Doctrine was in a manner made ſenſible and viſible by the external and uniform practiſe of the Church. The incarnation and all the Myſteries thereof by the holy Images of Chriſt erected in all ſacred places, the Paſſion by the ſign of the Croſs uſed in the Sacraments, and ſet up in Churches. The Death of Chriſt by the unbloody Sacrifice of the Maſs, which is a lively Commemoration of it. The Trinity and Unity by doing all thing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, &c. now who can doubt but that oral Tradition thus ſeconded by the outward and uniform practiſe of the whole World is a much ſafer, and more infallible Rule for conſerving revealed verities than Books or dead Letters, which cannot explicate themſelves.

I reply, were not this man bewitched, or as the Prophet ſpeaks, Iſai 44. 20. Fed on Aſhes, having a deceived heart that turneth him aſide, ſo as that he cannot ſay, Is there not a Lie in my right hand? he would never have preferred oral Tradition ſeconded by erecting and uſe of Images made by idolatrous Sots, and termed Teachers of Lies by the Prophet Hab, 2. 18. as a ſafer and more infallible Rule of Faith than the holy Scriptures inſpired by God, and his great gift to men, though impiouſly termed by this Wretch dead Letters.' But it is the juſt judgement of God that they that make Images and adore them ſhould be like them. Pſalm 115. 8. that is, as blockiſh as the Images are. How uncertain oral Tradition is hath been ſhewed, and how impoſſible it is to be a true and right Rule ſince the departure of thoſe who could preach infallibly. That there is any ſuch uniform and outward practiſe of the Roman Church, which can ſecond oral Tradition, aud make any Point of Chriſtian Doctrine, much leſs the whole frame of neceſſary Points of Chriſtian Doctrine in a manner viſible and ſenſible is a Lie with a witneſs. Chriſtian Doctrine doth not conſiſt in the Hiſtory of the things ſenſible to the eye, but in the opening of the true cauſes, and ends, and uſes of things done, which can onelyonly be apprehended by the underſtanding, and is brought to it by hearing and reading, whence Faith is ſaid to come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10. 14, 15, 17. It is moſt falſe, that the erecting of Images of Chriſt and of the Croſs hath been the uniform practiſe of the Church. It is certain by many Writers that Chriſtians had no Images in their Churches for many hundred years, yea, it is certain that the beſt Emperours and Biſhops of the Eaſt and Weſt were againſt the having them in Churches, however Gregory the firſt Biſhop of Rome by his ſuperſtitious oppoſing Serenus his taking them down counting them Lay-men's Books, opened a Gap to that Deluge of Ignorance and Idolatry, which hath ſince ſpread over the Weſtern Churches, which have gone a whoring after them. This Authour calls them holy Image which the Scripture counts abominable, as defiling places, and making them not ſacred but polluted. He ſaith, The Incarnation and all the Myſteries thereof are made ſenſible by the Images of Chriſt erected in all ſacred places, the paſſion by the ſign of the Croſs uſed in Sacraments, and ſet up in Churches. But what a notorious falſhood is this? One Myſtery ſure is the Holy Ghoſt's overſhadowing the Virgin Mary, another the Union of the two Natures? Can any Image of Chriſt teach theſe? What can the ſign of the Croſs teach, but that there was ſuch a kinde of puniſhment to put men to Death? If Images did teach theſe Myſteries, then Image-makers p. 217would be Stewards of the Myſteries of God, and Succeſſours of the Apoſtles, and Michael Angelo and ſuch like Painters and Carvers more truly Peter's Succeſſours and Biſhops of Rome than Popes, as doing more to teach the Myſteries of God than Popes do. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Maſs is a meer figment of a thing preſent, which all the ſenſe of all the men in the World contradicts, full of apiſh geſtures and toyiſh faſhions, fitter for a Stage-play than a ſpiritual Service of the Chriſtian Church, and being in a Tongue not commonly underſtood, without teaching, informs not the Hearers or Seers in the Myſtery of the Death of Chriſt, nor makes any lively Commemoration of his Paſſion, but pleaſeth ſuperſtitious and womaniſh or childiſh ſpirits, which are taken with ſuch ſhews; the Sacrament opens no Myſtery thereof without the Word written. Accedat Verbum ad Elementum & fit Sacramentum, was the old reſolution, Put the Word to the Element then it is made a Sacrament. Nor is it true, that the practice hath been uniform therein, the variety of Miſſals, and the corruptions purged out of the Roman Miſſal, as is confeſſed in Pope Pius the fifth his Bull according to the Decree of the Trent Council prove the contrary. The Trinity is known by the inſtitution and practiſe of Baptiſm, but that is learned out of the written Word, not oral Tradition. None of theſe practiſes do at all open the Myſtery of the Goſpel, as experience ſhews, it being manifeſt by conference that none of the People in Italy and elſewhere, who go to Maſs, and look on Pictures, and have no other teaching, do underſtand any thing of the Myſtery of the Goſpel, the end, reaſon, uſe of Chriſt's Birth, or Death, but content themſelves with a meer theatrical ſhew without any true underſtanding of the grace of God, inward feeling or effectual change in their ſouls thereupon. Perhaps it is better with Papiſts in England, where their Superſtitions are not altogether ſo groſs, and their underſtanding bettered by neighbourhood and converſe with Proteſtants. But that Images ſhould conſerve revealed verities, or oral Tradition ſeconded with Images more explicate them than Books, which this man again impiouſly terms dead Letters, unleſs the Images be animated, as that was that it's ſaid told Thomas Aquinas, Thou haſt written well of me, which was fit to be ſilenced by telling it, that it had no allowance to ſpeak in the Church, is to me unintelligible. And if theſe be ſuch a ſafe and infallible Rule or means to teach and conſerve the whole frame of Chriſtian Doctrine, then ſure Chriſt did inconſiderately appoint Writers and Preachers to teach and guide the Church, till we all meet in the unity of the Faith, Epheſ. 4. 11, 12, 13. he ſhould rather for the times after the Apoſtles have appointed, Maſſing Prieſts and Painters to have taught the People: nor were the Council of Trent and ſome of the Popes ſo adviſed, as they might have been, in appointing the unneceſſary buſineſſes of framing a Catechiſm, and amending the vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible, and much more fooliſh have been all the learned Papiſts, who have in late years and formerly made large Commentaries and other Treatiſes to conſerve revealed verities, there being a more compendious way by oral Traditions with the uſe of Images, and Maſſes, and ſome other things, if this impudent Scribler ſay true.

Yet H. T. continues thus. Object. If all things neceſſary to ſalvation be not contained in the whole Bible, now ſhall a man ever come to know what is neceſſary p. 218to be known, either by the whole Church in general, or himſelf in particular? Anſw. For the whole Church in general, ſhe is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities, which are neceſſary to the ſalvation of all mankinde, ſhe being made by Chriſt the Depoſitory of all, and having the Promiſe of divine aſſiſtance to all. And for each particular man ſo much onelyonly it neceſſary to be believed, as is ſufficiently propoſed to him by the Church and her Miniſters for the Word of God, or would at the leaſt be ſo propoſed, if he himſelf were not in fault; all which we may eaſily come to know by means of Apoſtolical tradition, without which we can have no infallible aſſurance of any Point of Chriſtian Doctrine.

I reply, neither the Church nor her Miniſters can ſufficiently propoſe to any man for the Word of God any other than the Scripture, by which we may have infallible aſſurance of any Point of Chriſtian Doctrine without oral Tradition unwritten. And to ſay that the whole Church in general, and not each man in particular, is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are neceſſary to the ſalvation of all mankinde, is to ſpeak contradictions.

Yet once more ſaith H. T. Object. You dance in a vicious Circle, proving the Scripture and the Churches infallibility by Apoſtolical tradition, and tradition by the Scripture, and the Churches infallibility. Anſw. No, we go on by a right Rule towards Heaven. We prove indeed the Churches infallibility and the credibility of the Scriptures by Apoſtolical tradition, but that is evident of it ſelf, and admits no other proof. When we bring Scripture for either we uſe it onelyonly as a ſecondary teſtimony or argument ad hominem.

I reply, if this be ſo, then doth H T. in his Title-page pretend demonſtration of his falſly called Catholick Religion by Tents of holy Scripture in the firſt place onelyonly as a ſecondary teſtimony or argument ad hominem, but it is oral Apoſtolical tradition which he principally relies on for his demonſtration, as being evident of it ſelf, and admits no other proof; which oral Apoſtolical Tradition being no other than what Popes and Councils approved by him have approved, it follows, that what Papiſts call Catholick Religion is not what the Scriptures teach, but what Popes and their Councils define, into which their Faith is ultimately reſolved. No marvel then they decline Scripture, or if they uſe it do it onelyonly becauſe of Proteſtants importunity, not becauſe they think it is to be reſted on, and if ſo, ſure H. T. plays the Hypocrite in pretending to demonſtrate his Religion out of Texts of holy Scripture. If other Papiſts would ſtick to this which H. T. here ſaith, we ſhould take it as a thing confeſſed, that Popery is not Scripture doctrine, but onelyonly unwritten Tradition, and to have for its bottom foundation the Popes determination, and ſo to be imbraced upon his credit; which ſure can beget no other than a humane faith, and in fine doth make the Pope Lord of their Faith, which is all one as to make him their Chriſt, and that is to make him an Antichriſt. Therefore I conceive other Romaniſts will diſown this reſolution of H. T. and ſeek other ways to get out of this Circle, and herein they go divers ways. Dr. Holden an Engliſh man and Doctor of Paris, in his Book of the Analyſis of divine Faith, chap. 9. rejects the common way, and ſticks to that of univerſal Tradition, p. 219which by natural reaſon is evident and firm: But when he hath urged this as far as he can, this muſt be the evidence, that what all ſay and was ſo manifeſtly know by ſo many Miracles as Chriſt and his Apoſtles wrought muſt be infallibly true. But the being of Chriſt the Moſſiah, and his Doctrine from God, as the holy Scriptures declare, is avouched by all the Church and manifeſtly known by Miracles, therefore it muſt be true: which is no other than Chillingworth's univerſal Tradition, confirming the truth of the Scriptures, and deriving our Faith from thence, which if Papiſts do relinquiſh and adhere to the Popes reſolutions, whether they be with Scripture or without, they do expreſly declare themſelves Papiſts or Diſciples of the Pope, not Chriſtians, that is, Diſciples of Chriſt. I conclude therefore that H. T. and ſuch as hold with him according to the Principle he here ſets down are not Believers in Chriſt, whoſe Doctrine is delivered in the Scripture, but in men whether Popes, or Councils, or the univerſal Church, or any other who delivers to him that oral Tradition, which is his Rule, as being evident of it ſelf, and admits no other proof, though I have ſhewed it to be uncertain, yea, not ſo much as probable. I go on to the next Article.