Ductor dubitantium, or, The rule of conscience in all her generall measures serving as a great instrument for the determination of cases of conscience : in four books / by Jeremy Taylor ...

RULE XIV. The Christian law both of Faith and Manners is fully contained in the Holy Scriptures; and from thence onely can the Conscience have divine Warrant and Authority.

OF the perfection and fulness of the Christian law I have already given accounts;* 1.1 but where this law is recorded, and that the Holy Scrip∣tures are the perfect and onely Digest of it, is the matter of the present Rule, which is of great use in the Rule of Conscience; because if we know not where our Rule is to be found, and if there can be several Tables of the law pretended, our obedience must be by chance or our own choice, that is, it cannot be obedience, which must be voluntary in the submission, and therefore cannot be chance, and it must be determin'd by the superior, and therefore cannot be our own antecedent choice, but what is chosen for us.

That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament doe con∣tain the whole will and law of God is affirmed by the primitive Fathers,* 1.2

and by all the reformed Churches; that the Scriptures are not a perfect Rule of Faith and manners, but that Tradition is to be added to make it a full repository of the Divine will, is affirmed by the Church of Rome. For the establishing of the truth in this great rule and directory of Conscience, I shall first shew, as matter of fact, that the Church of God in all the first and best ages, when tradition could be more certain, and assent to it might be more reasonable, did nevertheless take the Holy Scriptures for their onely rule of faith and manners. 2. Next, I shall shew what use there was of Traditions. 3. That the topick of traditions, after the con∣signation of the Canon of Scripture, was not onely of little use in any thing, but false in many things, and therefore unsafe in all questions; and as the world grew older, traditions grew more uncertain, and the argument from tradition was intolerably worse.

1. That the first ages of the Church did appeale to Scripture in all their questions,* 1.3 I appeale to these testimonies. S. Clemens of Alexandria hath these excellent words,* 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is not fit that we should simply attend to the affirmatives of men, for our Nay may be as good as their Yea. But if the thing be matter of faith, and not of opinion onely, let us not stay for a testimony of man, but confirme our question by the word of God; which is the most certain of all, or is indeed rather the onely demonstration. Now that there may be no starting-hole from these words of the Saint, I onely adde this, that it is plain from the whole order of his discourse that he speakes onely of the word of God written. For the words before are these, Doe they take away all demonstration, or doe they affirme that there is any? I suppose they will grant there is some; unless they have lost their senses. But if there be any demonstration, it is necessary that we make inquiry 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and from the Scriptures to learne demonstratively. And a litle after he addes, they that imploy their time about the best things, never give over their searching after truth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, untill from the Scriptures they have got a demonstration. He speakes against the Gnosticks, who pretended to secret traditions from I know not who: against them he advises Chri∣stians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to wax old in the Scrip∣tures, thence to seek for demonstrations, and by that rule to frame our lives.

S. Basil in his Ethics definit. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.5 whatsoever is done or said ought to be confirmed by the testimony of the Divinely-inspired Scripture; both for the ful perswasion of the good, as also for the condemnation of the evil: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, every thing that belongs to faith and manners, not every indifferent thing, but every thing of duty; not every thing of a man, but every thing of a Christian; not things of natural life, but of the supernatural. Which sense of his words clearly excludes the necessity of tradition, and yet intends not to exclude either liberty, or humane lawes, or the conduct of prudence.

5. To the like purpose is that of Origen: Debemus ergo ad testimonium

verborum quae proferimus in doctrina,* 1.6 proferre sensum scripturae, quasi con∣firmantem quem exponimus sensum, we ought to bring Scripture for the confirmation of our exposition: which words of his are very conside∣rable to those who are earnest for our admittance of traditive interpreta∣tion of Scriptures. Concerning which in passing by (because it will be no∣thing to the main inquiry, which is not how Scripture is to be understood, but whether being rightly understood it be a sufficient rule of faith and manners) I shall give this account: That besides there are (I mean in matters of faith, not in matters ritual and of government) no such tra∣ditive commentaries; there being no greater variety and difference a∣mongst the ancient and modern writers commonly and respectively in any thing than in their expositions of Scripture; no where so great liberty, no where so little agreement; besides this, I say, that they are in commen∣taries of Scripture to be lookt upon as so many single persons, because there was no publick authentick commentary any where, no assemblies in order to any such expositions, no tradition pretended for the sense of controverted places; but they us'd right reason, the analogy of faith, the sense of the words, and the notice of the originals, and so they expounded certainly or probably according as it hapned, according to that of S. Atha∣nasius Sunt verò etiam multi Sanctorum Magistrorum libri in quos si quis incurrat assequetur quodammodo scripturarum interpretationem,* 1.7 There are many bookes of the holy Doctors, upon which if one chance to light, he may in some measure attain to the interpretation of the Scriptures. But when they (according to Origens way here described) confirmed an exposition of one place by the doctrine of another, then and then onely they thought they had the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Scripture-demonstration, and a matter of faith and of necessary belief, and that this was the duty of the Christian Doctors,* 1.8 Origen does expressly affirme.

Afterwards, as Pauls custome is he would verify from the holy Scriptures what he had said; so also giving an example to the Doctors of the Church, that what they speak to the people should not be of their own sense, but confirmed by divine testimonies: For if he, such and so great an Apostle, did not suppose his own authority sufficient warrant to his sayings, un∣less he make it appear that what he sayes is written in the Law and the Prophets: how much more ought we little ones observe this, that we doe not bring forth ours, but the sentences of the holy Spirit,

viz. from Scripture; for that was the practice of S. Paul, whom he in this place for that very thing propounds as imitable. And in pursuance of this example and advice,* 1.9 S. Cyril expresses himself perfectly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attend not to my inventions; for you may possibly be deceiv'd: but trust no words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unless thou doest learne it from the Divine Scriptures. And more fully yet he speaks in another place; speaking of faith in the H. Trinity he advises them to retain that zeale in their mind, which by heads, or summaries is already lightly expounded to you,* 1.10 but if God grant, shall according to my strength be demon∣strated to you by Scripture, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of faith without the Divine Scriptures, nor to be moved with probable discourses. Neither give credit to me speaking, unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the holy Scriptures: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that is the security of our faith which is deriv'd not from witty

inventions, but from the demonstration of divine Scriptures. Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de scripturis Sanctis,* 1.11 said S Hierome, Every thing that we speak we must prove it from the holy Scriptures; not every thing absolutely but every thing of religion, every thing of faith and man∣ners: and if all this be not in the Scriptures, it can have no just authority. Hoc quia de scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemni∣tur quâ probatur,* 1.12 If it have not its warrant from Scripture, it may with as much ease be despis'd as it was offered. Where though S. Hierom speakes of a particular question, viz. whether Zecharias the son of Barachias were the Father of John the Baptist; yet it could not have been applied to this particular if it had not been true in the general, That every thing of religi∣on may be rejected that is not prov'd from Scripture.* 1.13 But this is expressly affirm'd by S. Chrysostome; Nam si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat, &c. If any thing be spoken without Scripture the thought of the hearers is lame; sometimes inclining to assent, sometimes declining; sometimes rejecting the opinion as frivolous, sometimes receiving it as pro∣bable: but when a testimony of the Divine voice proceedes from Scripture, it confirmes the speech of him that speakes, and the mind of him that heares. And upon this account it was that S. Cyril of Alexandria, being to dispute with Theodoret concerning some mysterious questions of Religion,* 1.14 refus'd to conferre but from the fountains of Scripture. It became him (saies he) being exercis'd in Scriptures, since his desire was to conferre with me about divine mysteryes, to speak with us onely out of the Holy Scriptures, and so to frame his discourse as becomes holy things. And I should wonder if Theo∣doret should doe otherwise:* 1.15 for he himself brings in the orthodox Chri∣stian saying to Eranistes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tell not me of your logismes and syllogismes: I rely upon Scripture alone. In which short sentence he makes provision against all devices of mans inventing; but he establishes a remedy and an affirmative that is equally strong against all pretension of traditions besides Scripture, by saying that Scripture alone is the ground of his confidence, the argument of his perswasion in matters of Religion. But S. Austin establishes the same sufficient and onely rule of Scripture,* 1.16 and by way of instance excludes the Authority of Councels. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium. Neque ego hujus authoritate neque tu illius detineris: Scripturarum authori∣tatibus, non quorumcunque propriis, sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet, I ought not to urge the Nicene Council, nor you that of Ariminum; as prejudging the question on either side. But let the causes be confronted, argument against argument, matter against matter, thing against thing by the authorities of Scripture, which are the witnesses common to us both. By which words, if S. Austins affirmative can prevaile, it is certain that nothing ought to be pretended for argument but Scripture in matters of Religion. For if a General Council, which is the best witness of tradition, the best expounder of Scripture, the best determiner of a question, is not a competent measure of determination, then certainly nothing else can pretend to it, nothing but Scripture. And if it be replied, that this is onely affirm'd by him in case that two Councils are or seem contrary: I answer that if Councils can be or seem contrary, so that wise and good men cannot competently insist upon their testimony, it is certain a man may be deceived, or cannot justly be determin'd by any topick but the words and consequences of Scripture;

and if this be the onely probation, then it is sufficient, that's certain. But that will be a distinct consideration. In the mean time that which I intend to perswade by these testimonies, is that the Fathers of the primitive Church did in all their mysterious inquiries of religion, in all matters of faith and manners, admit no argument but what was deriv'd from Scripture.* 1.17

2. Next to this and like it is,* 1.18 that the primitive Doctors did confute all heresies from Scripture; which could no way be done, but that because Rectum est index sui & obliqui, that which is straight will demonstrate its own straightness and the crookednesse of that which is crooked. Scrip∣ture must be a rule of all religion and all faith, and therefore sufficient to reprove all vice and every heresy. So Tertullian discourses, Aufer haere∣ticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt,* 1.19 ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant, Take from hereticks their Ethnic learning, that they may dispute their questions out of Scripture onely. To this purpose Origen brings in the precedent of our Blessed Lord,* 1.20 from Scriptures confuting the heresy of the Sadducees about the Resurrection. As Christ did, sic facient & Christi imitatores exemplis Scripturarum, quibus oportet secundum sanam doctrinam omnem vocem obmutescere Pharaonis, So will the followers of Christ doe by the examples of Scriptures, which will put to silence every voice of Pharaoh; that is, every doctrine of the adversaries. Plainer yet are those excellent words of S. Athanasius, speaking but of a small part of Scripture, even so much as was sufficient to prove the articles of the Nicene Creed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.21 he sayes, That faith which the Fathers confessed at Nice, ac∣cording to the Holy Scriptures, was sufficient to reprove all [heretical] impiety, and to establish our Religion or faith in Christ.* 1.22 And therefore S. Chry∣sostome compares the Scriptures to a doore: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 …., For they lead us to God, and open to us the knowledge of God, and keep hereticks from entring in. The metaphor is dogmatical and plain enough without a commentary. The Scripture must be the port at which every article of faith must goe forth, and by which every heresy can be kept from the fold of Christ.* 1.23 Quae ignoramus ex ea discimus. So Theo∣doret. Whatsoever we are ignorant of, we learn from thence. Nihil est quod nequeat Scripturis dissolvi. So Theophylact. There is no difficulty but may be untied by the Scriptures.

The Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew,* 1.24 usually attri∣buted to S. Chrysostome, discourses pertinently and extreme fully to this article. Then [when ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing in

the holy place] that is, when ye shall see impious heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the Church, in that time [he which is in Judaea let him flee to the mountains,] that is, they who are in Christi∣anity, let them run to the Scriptures. And why does he command all Christians in that time to run to the Scriptures? Because ever since heresy did infest those Churches, there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor any other refuge for Christians who would know the truth of faith, but that of the Divine Scripture. And a little after, Now by no meanes can he that desires, come to know which is the true Church of Christ, but onely by the Scriptures….Our Lord therefore knowing that there would be so great a confusion in the last dayes, commands that all Christians who would be established in the truth of faith should flye to nothing but to the Scriptures. These words in some edi∣tions of the works of S. Chrysostome are scratch'd out by a Roman hand, to the regret of some of his own party, and the shame of them that suf∣fered it or are pleased with it. All that I shall say to the book is this, that it is very often urg'd by the greatest patrons of tradition to serve their ends in many other questions, and therefore cannot be rejected upon pre∣tence of not being S. Chrysostom's; much lesse upon pretence that it was written or interpolated by an Arrian; because the Arrians call'd for Scripture in the use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but for the thing it self they offer'd to be tried by tradition: and so did the Catholicks, as it hapned, or as the peevishness of their adversaries, or the advantages of the question did prompt them; but the Catholicks and the Arrians never did differ upon the question of the sufficiency of Scripture.* 1.25 But as for the book, it is liber doctus & minimè spernendus, saies Bellarmine; and so is this testi∣mony: and the rather because it is perfectly agreeing with the doctrine of the other Fathers.

So S. Augustine,* 1.26 Contra insidiosos errores ••••us vol••it ponere firma∣mentum in Scripturis,* 1.27 contra quas nullus audet l••qui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum, Against treacherous e••••ors God would place our strength in the Scriptures; against which none that would any way seem a Christian dares to speak. And a little after he addes this example. When Christ offered himself to Thomas to be handled, non illi suffecit nisi de Scripturis confirmaret cor credentium, Christ thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not enough unless out of the Scriptures he had confirmed the heart of the believers: pro∣spiciebat enim nos futuros, He foresaw that we should come after: For if they therefore believed because they held and handled him, what doe we? Christ is ascended into heaven, not to return but at the end of the world that he may judge the quick and the dead: whence shall ••e bel••••ve but by that by which he confirm'd them who handled him? He opened unto them the Scriptures] The Scriptures therefore are the great repository and the great security of faith. They are also the great and the onely deletery of heresies. So Justus Orgilitanus expounds that of the Canticles [take the little foxes] that is, convincite haereticos eorúmque versutias sanctarum Scriptu∣rarum concludite testimoniis; convince hereticks, and restrain their subtle∣ties and crafts with the testimonies of Holy Scriptures. And thus in fact the Fathers did conclude against the Gnosticks, the Valentinians, the Mar∣cionites, the Manichees, the Photinians, the Arrians, the Novatians, Euti∣chians, Eunomians, Nestorians, Macedonians, and all the pests of Christen∣dome. Hos percussit gladius. The word of God is sharper then a two-edged sword; and the magazines of Scripture were the armories of the Church.

3. The Fathers did reject whatsoever was offered as an article of faith or a Rule of manners,* 1.28 that was not in, or could not be proved from Scriptures. So Tertullian,* 1.29 Sed quoniam unum aliquod attigimus vacuae observationis, non pigebit caetera quoque denotare, quibus meritò vanitas exprobranda est, siquidem sine ullius aut Dominici aut Apostolici praecepti authoritate fiunt. Hujusmodi enim non religioni, sed superstitioni deputantur, affectata & coacta, & curiosi potius quam rationalis officii. If you cannot shew the authority of a divine or Apostolical praecept, your office is not religion, but supersti∣tion, not a reasonable service, but curiosity, coaction or affectation. Pamelius suppos'd these words to be very dangerous against Ecclesiastical Tradi∣tions. They are indeed against all such traditions as either were meere matters of fact without command, or were postnate to the dayes of the Apostles, of which nature are almost all now in reputation and practice amongst the Romanists. But more ful yet and explicative of the former are those other words of Tertullian against Hermogenes: Whether all things were made of praeexisting matter,* 1.30 I have no where read, let the schoole of Her∣mogenes shew where it is written. Si non est scriptum, timeat Vae illud adjici∣entibus aut detrahentibus destinatum, If it be not written, let him fear the curse of them that adde or detract to or from what is written in the Scriptures. But S. Basil is yet more decretory:* 1.31 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is a manifest defection from the faith, and a conviction of pride, either to reject any thing of what is written,* 1.32 or to introduce any thing that is not. And therefore in pursuance of this great truth and measure of conscience, he gives this rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Whatsoever is without Scripture, not dervi'd from thence, is not of faith, and therefore is a sin: and therefore every such thing S. Austin accurses; Siquis sive de Christo,* 1.33 sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitámque nostram, non dicam si nos, sed, quod Paulus adjecit, si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legali∣bus & Evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit, If any of us I will not say, but if any Angel (for that S. Paul added) shall say any thing of Christ or of his Church or of any other thing pertaining to faith and our life, except what we have received from the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be Anathema. Scripturis non loquentibus quis loquetur?

If the Scriptures speak not,* 1.34 who will speak?

said S. Prosper. All things which are delive∣red to us by the Law and the Prophets and the Apostles we receive, acknowledge and confesse, neither doe we inquire after any thing else: For it cannot be that beside those things which are divinely spoken by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testament, we should say or at all think any thing of God.* 1.35 So S. Cyril. These Fathers speak dog∣matically, generally and peremptorily: nothing but what is in Scripture; nothing of God, nothing of Christ, nothing of his Church, nothing of any thing else. Adde to these, that by their doctrine of the sufficiency and sole use and necessity of Scripture in matters of Religion they doe exclude by name every thing that pretends against Scripture.* 1.36 So Theophilus Alexandrinus; Daemonici spiritûs est instinctis sophismata humanarum men∣tium sequi, & aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem sequi, It is the in∣stinct of the Devil to follow the inventions of mens minds, and to follow any thing without the authority of the Scriptures. No devise, no wit, no argument or invention of man is to be admitted into religion; nothing but Scriptures: but neither may traditions be received. Quae absque au∣thoritate

& testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperi∣unt & confingunt,* 1.37 percutit gladius. So S. Hierome. These things which they feign as if they were traditions Apostolical, the sword shall smite, if they be without authority and testimonies from Scripture.* 1.38 And so S. Basil to the Question, Whether new converts are to be accustomed to the Scrip∣tures; he answers, It is fit that every one should out of the Holy Scriptures learn what is for his use; yea it is necessary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both for the full cer∣tainty of godliness, and also that they may not be accustomed to humane tra∣ditions. Where it is observable, he calls all humane traditions that are not in Scripture; for if there were any divine traditions which are not in Scrip∣ture, he ought to have advis'd the learning of them besides Scripture, for the avoiding of traditions which are not divine: but the Scripture be∣ing sufficient for all, whatsoever is besides it is humane, and to be rejected. I summe up this particular with an excellent discourse of the same Saint to the same purpose:* 1.39 He asks a question, Whether it be lawful or profitable to any one to permit himself to doe or to speak what himself thinkes right, without the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. He answers (after the quo∣tation of many places of Scripture) Who therefore is so mad, that of him∣self he dare so much as in thought to conceive any thing, seeing he wants the Holy and good Spirit for his guide, that he may be directed both in minde, in word and in action into the way of truth, or that he would remain blind without our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Sun of righteousness, &c? But be∣cause of those things which are disputed amongst us some are determin'd by the Commandement of God in holy Scripture, others are passed over in silence; as for those things which are written, there is absolutely no power at all given to any one, either to doe any of those things which are forbidden, or to omit any of those things which are commanded: since our Lord hath at once denounc'd and said, Thou shalt keep the word which I command thee this day, thou shalt not adde to it, nor take from it. For a fearful judgment is expected and a burning fire to devour them who dare any such thing. But as for those things which are pass'd over in silence, the Apostle Paul hath appointed us a rule, say∣ing, All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful, but all things doe not edify: Let no man seek to please himself, but every one anothers good. So that it is altogether necessary to be subject to God according to his Commandement. The summe is this, Nothing is matter of duty either in word or deed, in faith or manners, but what is written in the Scriptures: whatsoever is not written there it is left to our liberty, and we are to use it as all indifferent things are to be us'd, that is, with liberty and with charity. Now if concerning such things as these there be any tradi∣tions, it matters not; they are no part of our religion, but to be receiv'd like lawes of man, or customes, of which account is to be given in the proper place.

4. The Fathers of the Church did affirme the Holy Scriptures to be a sufficient and a perfect rule of faith and manners. Adoro Scripturae pleni∣tudinem, said Tertullian,* 1.40 quae mihi & factorem manifestat & facta. I adore the fulness of Scripture, which declares God and Gods works. His instance is in one article, but that without the rest can be no fulness; as Virgils Georgics cannot be full, because he tells a few things well of Bees and tillage. But I will not chuse any authorities concerning which I need to argue; there are enough that are extremely plain, affirmative and conclu∣ding.

I instance in Irenaeus. Credere haec talia debemus Deo qui & nos fecit, rectissimè scientes qui Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt,* 1.41 quippe à verbo Dei & Spiritu ejus dictae, We know assuredly that the Scriptures are perfect, for they are the word of God, and spoken by the spirit of God. But therefore he advises,* 1.42 Legite diligentius id quod ab Apostolis est Evangelium nobis datum, & legite diligentius Prophetas, & invenietis universam actionē, & omnem doctrinam, & omnem passionem Domini nostri praedicatam in ipsis, Read the Gospel which the Apostles left us more diligently, read the Pro∣phets more diligently, and you shall finde declar'd in them all the doctrine of Christ, all his action & all his passion. By [universam actionem] he means his life indefinitely, and in general: and certainly the New Testament needs nothing to its being a perfect Rule, when it contains all Christs doctrine,* 1.43 and all his story, viz. so far as concerns us. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, said Constantine the Emperor. The Evan∣gelical books, and those of the Apostles, and the orcales of the old Prophets, doe evidently teach us to believe those things which we ought to believe con∣cerning that which is divine. And therefore S. Athanasius, or whoever is the Author of the Exhortation to the Monkes, Cura in canonicis ponenda est sa∣lubriter monumentis, non quod Apocrypha praesertim ignorata debeamus dānare, sed quod ad scientiam Dei digestam Canonis seriem putemus posse sufficere: Be careful in reading the Canonical Scriptures; not that the apocryphal (espe∣cially before they are known) ought to be rejected, but that we suppose the Canon is sufficient [to the knowledge of God.] The same with Constan∣tines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which is concerning God; that is, the religion. But more full is that short sentence of S. Athanasius,* 1.44 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The holy and di∣vinely-inspir'd Scriptures are in themselves sufficient for the preaching or enunciation of the truth.* 1.45 To the same purpose are the words of S. Chry∣sostome; If there be need to learn any thing, or to be ignorant of any thing, thence we learn; if we would reprove falshood, thence we draw; if any thing be wanting to correction, to castigation, to comfort, and that we ought to get it, from thence we learn it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Look for no other teacher,* 1.46 thou hast the oracles of God: none teaches thee like them. He that uses not the Scriptures, but comes into the fold of Christ some other way, that is, appoints a way to himself which the law [of God] hath not established, he is a thief. For the Scriptures are like a most strong gate,* 1.47 and keep out hereticks from entring, and make us alltogether sure of all things whatsoever we will: [of all things] that is, of all things of religion; for that is the subject of the discourse, and explicitely delivered by him in another place.* 1.48 Quicquid quaeritur ad salu∣tem totum jam adimpletum est in Scripturis, In the Scriptures fully there is whatsoever is look'd for unto Salvation.* 1.49 And this is so express'd in an excellent place of S. Austin, In iis quae apertè in Scripturis posita sunt inveni∣untur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scil, atque cha∣ritatem. More fully yet was that of Abbat Odilo of the Cluniac order, Omnis ratio quâ vel Deum vel nos cognoscimus,* 1.50 divinis libris continetur, In those things which are openly or plainly placed in the Scriptures all things are to be found which contain faith, and the manners of life, viz. hope and charity: every me asure or manner by which we know God or our selves is contain'd in the divine books. What can be more plain or more affirmative? But S. Austin sayes the same thing over and over; Legite

sacram scripturam in qua quid tenendū & quid fugiendum sit plenè invenietis,* 1.51 Read the holy Scriptures; in which ye shall [perfectly, or] fully find what is to be held, what is to be avoided. And again, Sancta Scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit,* 1.52 The Holy Scripture fixes or limits the rule of our doctrine. In hoc volumine cuncta quae aedificant, omnia quae erudiunt, scripta continentur,* 1.53 faith S. Gregory Bp. of Rome, In this volume whatsoever can instruct us, whatsoever can edify us is contained. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.54 said S. Damascen; All things delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets, the Apostles and Evangelists, we receive and know and reverence, looking for nothing beyond these.

And to bring in any thing that is a stranger to Scripture Theodoret calls it an ex∣tinguishing of the Spirit;* 1.55 something contrary to that duty whereby we are oblig'd to stirre up the grace of God we have received. * For the Church of Christ dwells in and possesses assemblies in all the world being joyn'd by the unity of the Spirit, and hath cities of the Law and the Pro∣phets, of the Gospel and Apostles, she departs not out of her own bounds, that is,* 1.56 from the Holy Scriptures, but retains her first possession.

So S. Hierome. And in his commentary on Psal. 86. (if he be the Author of it, as Rupertus affirmes,) expounding those words, Dominus narrabit in Scriptura populorum & principum horum qui fuerunt in ea, he sayes,

[Et principum] hoc est Apostolorum & Evangelist arum: [horum qui fuerunt in ea] videte quid dicat, Qui fuerunt, non qui sunt, ut exceptis Apostolis, quodcunque aliud postea dicitur, abscindatur, non habeat postea autoritatem. Quam vis ergo Sanctus sit aliquis post Apostolos, quamvis disertus sit, non habet autoritatem, quoniam Dominus narrat in Scriptura populorum & principum qui fuerunt in ea. The Princes of the people] that is, the Apostles and Evangelists: [of them which have been in her] which have been, not which are in her; that excepting what the Apostles say, every thing after them may be cut off, it hath after them no authority. For if there be any wise man, any Saint after the Apostles, he hath no authority; because our Lord saith in the Scripture or writing of the princes that have been in her. Sufficit Divina Scriptura ad faciendū eos qui in illa educati sunt sapientes, & probatissimos, & sufficientissimam habentes intelligentiam; indigemusque ad hoc prorsus nihil externis Magistris.

* 1.57 So S. Cyril of Alexandria.

The divine Scripture is suf∣ficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approv'd and having a most sufficient understanding, and be sides this we need no exter∣nal Masters.* 1.58 To the same purpose is that of Anastasius of Antioch, Quòd quae silentio praeteriit Scriptura divina non sint scrutanda, perspicuum: Omnia enim quae faciunt ad nostrā utilitatem dispensavit & administravit Spiritus sanctus: It is manifest that those things are not to be inquir'd into which the Scripture hath pass'd over with silence. For the holy Spirit hath dispen∣sed to us and administred all things which conduce unto our profit. Quic∣quid est de verbo Dei,* 1.59 quicquid sciri vel praedicari oportet, de Incarnatione, de vera Divinitate & Humanitate filii Dei, duobus ita continetur Testamen∣tis, ut extra haec nihil sit quod annunciari debeat aut credi. Totum in his comprehenditur coeleste oraculum, quod tam firmiter scire debemus, ut extra haec audire neque hominem nobis liceat, neque Angelum.

Whatsoever is of the word of God, whatsoever ought to be known or preached of the Incarnation, of the true Divinity and Humanity of the Son of God, is so contain'd in both the Testaments, that besides these there is nothing that may be believ'd or preach'd. All the whole celestial oracle is

comprehended in these, which we must so firmely believe, that besides these it is not lawful for us to hear either Man or Angel: and indeed it were not to be imagin'd how the Scripture should be a Canon or Rule to Christians, if it were so imperfect that it did not contain the measures of faith and manners. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, said Varinus, A Rule or Canon is an unerring measure, which at no hand can receive addition or suffer diminution. And S. Basil reproved the heretick Eunomius for folly besides his false doctrine,* 1.60 because that he affirm'd tradition of the Fathers to be the Gnomon or Canon of faith, and yet said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it wanted some additament to make it exact; one part contradicts the other. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Chrysostome,* 1.61 If anything be put to it, or taken from it, it ceases to be a Canon. And therefore Scriptures are not the Christian Canon, they are not Cano∣nical, if they need to be supplied by traditions. The same is also affirmed by Oecumenius, and the very words of Chrysostome are transcrib'd by Theo∣phylact.

5. Whatsoever Christ taught to his Apostles by his Sermons and by his Spirit,* 1.62 all that the Apostles taught to the Church, and set it down in writing.

This we learn from S. Irenaeus,* 1.63 Non per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quàm per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem hinc praeconiaverunt, postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. We have known the Oeconomy of our salvation by no other but by those by whom the Gospel came to us; which truly they then preach'd, but afterwards by the will of God deliver'd to us in the Scriptures, which was to be the pillar and ground to our faith:] viz. what the Church was afterwards to minister, the Scriptures did consigne, and both of them were pillars and grounds of faith, the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Scriptures 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Church by way of Ministery,* 1.64 the Scriptures by their Authority. To this purpose are those words of S. Austin, Cum multa fecisset Dominus Jesus, non omnia scripta sunt, sicut idem ipse sanctus Evangelista testatur, multa Dominum & dixisse & fecisse quae scripta non sunt: electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. Our Lord Jesus did doe many things which are not written; and the Holy Evangelist does witness that he both did and spake many things which are not written: but those things which were seen to suffice to the salvation of believers were chosen to be written. And therefore S. Austin and Optatus compare the Scriptures to the Will of the Testator:* 1.65 concerning his goods the kinred may strive, one affirming this, and ano∣ther that; but proferte tabulas, shew the Will, peruse the writings; then the Judge listens, the Advocates are silent, the people are in suspence, the litigants wait: let The testators words be read, that must end all con∣tention. Now this Will was therefore consign'd in writing, that when our Testator was gone from us we might not doubt concerning his Legacies and his Commandments. The same is by Nicephorus particularly affirm'd of S. Paul,* 1.66 Quae praesens oratione suâ dilucidè docuerat, eadem per compen∣dium absens in memoriam revocans per epistolas dedit. The things which he plainly and explicitely preach'd, he being absent, to recal into their memory what he had delivered, set them down in his Epistles as in a summary. And S. Peter having (as appeares in his Epistle) promised to doe something to

put them in mind after his decease (meaning to remind them of the doctrine delivered) caused S. Mark to write his Gospel.

Thus I have sufficiently demonstrated the Rule so far as this topick can extend;* 1.67 that is by matter of fact, and the doctrine of the Church. For if Tradition be regardable, then that the Scriptures are a sufficient and a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners is competently prov'd by that which our adversaries in this question pretend to regard: but if Tradition be not considerable, then the Scriptures alone are; and there is indeed no Tradi∣tion so clear, so regular, so unreprovable as those which are concerning Scripture. That these books are Scripture, that is, the written word of God, and that the written word of God is all that we have of Gods will, is universally delivered by the Christian, and of that which of late is questi∣on'd I have given a specimen: for if the concurrent testimony of so many Fathers cannot perswade this article, then the topick of Tradition will be wholly useless in all questions; but if they can, as indeed they ought in this question, then we are fix'd upon this great rule of Conscience; the Holy Scriptures are the great Rule of Conscience both in doctrines of Faith, and in doctrines of Manners.

2. The next inquiry is what use there is of Traditions,* 1.68 and if they cannot be a part of the Rule, what aides doe they bring to the Conscience in faith or manners.

1. To this I answer,* 1.69 that Tradition is of great use for the conveying of this great Rule of Conscience, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. For when I affirm that the Holy Scriptures are a perfect rule of faith and manners, that is, that they contain all the word of God; it is to be understood, that it is a rule, a perfect rule to them who believe them to be the word of God. For the question is not whether Scriptures be a Rule, but whether they be a perfect Rule: not whether they be the word of God, but whether they be all the word of God that is of necessity to be preach'd to the Church. So that the Traditions concerning Scripture it self, being extrinsecal to Scripture, are also extrinsecal to the question: and sup∣posing that Tradition were the onely instrument of conveying Scripture to us; yet that Tradition must not, cannot possibly be any part of the question, for Scripture must be suppos'd as deliver'd to us and accepted for the word of God, before we can inquire whether this Scripture so delivered be all the word of God or no. And indeed Tradition of Scripture is the hand that reaches forth this repository of the Divine word, but it self is not di∣rectly any part of it; it ministers to the will of God, but is no part of the matter of it: and therefore the common pretence for the necessity of Tra∣dition besides Scripture (because by universal Tradition we understand these to be the books of Scripture) will come to nothing; because the question of the plenitude of Scripture is after the admission of that tradition which reports Scripture to us to be the word of God: but it matters not how or why we believe it, whether by universal or particular Tradition, whether because my Priest tells me so or my Father, whether I am brought into it by reason or by education, by demonstrative or by probable induce∣ments: if it be believed heartily it is sufficient; and then it is that we affirme the Scriptures so believ'd to be the word of God, to be a perfect Rule of all that we are to think or speak or doe in order to Salvation.

2. Besides this,* 1.70 to inquire of what use traditions are is to no purpose for us, for there is no tradition of any doctrine of Faith or Rule of life but what is in Scripture; but if there were, Traditions would be of the same use as Scripture is, if the tradition were from Christ and his Apostles, and were as certain, as universal, as credible as that is by which we are told that Scripture is the word of God. For the word which is now written was first delivered, that which is now Scripture was at first tradition; and because it was afterwards call'd so, it hath been made use of by these per∣sons, who, knowing that the change of words in descending Ages is least discerned by mankind, and that from words which are fewer then things most advantages can be made by them who love every thing better then truth, have pretended every saying of the Scripture and Fathers, in which Tradition is us'd, to be a competent argument of the imperfection of Scrip∣ture, and of the necessity of a supply to be made by tradition.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tradition,* 1.71 is any way of communicating the notice of a thing to us: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have delivered to you that Christ died for our sins. But this tradition is also in Scripture: so S. Paul addes that Christ died for our sins, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the Scriptures;* 1.72 and he commands the Thessalonians to preserve the traditions which they had learned from his mouth or from his hand, from his preaching or his writings: and this use of the word continued in the Church for divers Ages, even till all traditions that were not in Scripture were lost, or made uncertain. Si ergo aut Evangelio prae∣cipitur,* 1.73 aut in Apostolorum epistolis aut actibus continetur….observetur divina haec & sancta traditio. So S. Cyprian. If this be commanded in the Gospel, or be contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, let this Divine and holy tradition be observed. Such was that which S. Basil calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the tradition of baptisme,* 1.74 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Our Lord him∣self having delivered or given the order in the tradition of baptisme. And S. Irenaeus calls it a tradition Apostolical, Christum accepisse calicem, & dixisse sanguinem suum esse, &c. That Christ tooke the cup, and said it was his blood; and that the Barbarians did diligently keep the tradition, Cre∣dentes in unum Deum & in Christum qui natus est ex Virgine,* 1.75 believing in one God and in Christ who was born of a Virgin. Such traditions as these the whole Church had before the consignation of Scripture-Canon, and she retain'd them better by help of the Scriptures. Tradition is a giving or delivering of it; and so long as it is a tradition of God, it is well enough: but if it comes to be your traditions, there is in them nothing of Divinity, nothing of that authority which is to prescribe in faith and holiness. So that in short the thing is this;

If God by his Son or by his Apostles, or any way else, hath taught his Church, there is no disputing of it, let it be made appear that it is a tra∣dition of God, whether written or unwritten, it matters not. If it cannot be made to appear, then idem est non esse & non apparere, it is not obliging to us: we cannot follow the light of a candle that is hid in a dark lan∣thorn, or thrust into a bushel. But that there is nothing of Faith and manners which the Church of God ever did hold necessary, or ought to have held necessary, but what is in the Scriptures, I have already largely prov'd, and shall in the consequents illustrate with other collateral lights.

In the mean time it ought to be known that in the first ages of the Church the Fathers disputing with Hereticks did oftentimes urge against them the constant and universal tradition of the Church▪* 1.76 and it was for these reasons. 1. Because the Hereticks denied the Scriptures: so did the Manichees reject the four Gospels; Ebion received onely S. Matthews Gospel, Cerinthus onely S. Mark, Marcion onely S. Luke, and not all of that, Valenti∣nus none but S. John, but the Alogi received all but that; Cerdo, Cherinthus, Tatianus and Manichaeus rejected the acts of the Apostles; the Ebionites all S. Pauls Epistles; the Church of Rome for a long time rejected the Epi∣stle to the Hebrews, so did Marcion; others also refus'd to admit the Epistles of S. James and S. Jude, the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. John, as we learn froma 1.77 Eusebius and S.b 1.78 Hierom. Now to such men as these, and in all the interval till the whole Canon was consign'd and accep∣ted, it was of great use to alledge Tradition, especially because the doctrine of the Scriptures was intirely and holily preach'd in all the Apostolical Churches, and by the known and universally preached doctrines they could very well refute the blasphemies of wicked and heretical persons▪ But in all this here is no objection, for all this tradition was nothing else but the doctrine of the holy Scriptures.

2. The hereticks did rely upon this topick for advantage,* 1.79 and would be tried by Tradition; as hoping because there were in several Churches con∣trary customes, there might be differing doctrines, or they might plausibly be pretended; and therefore the Fathers had reason to urge tradition, and to wrest it from their hands, who would fain have us'd it ill. Thus did the Carpocratians in Irenaeus,* 1.80 When they are reprov'd from Scripture, they accuse the Scriptures, as if they were not right, as if they had no authority, as if from them truth could not be found by them that know not tradition:* 1.81 For they affirme that Jesus spake some things in mystery to his Disciples apart, and that they requir'd that they might deliver them to the worthy, and to them that would assent to them.* 1.82 Upon this pretence Arte•••• expos'd his errors, saith Eusebius, and Papias introduc'd the Millenary heresy; and by tradition the Arians would be tried,* 1.83 and S. Basil was by them challeng'd in an appeal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to custome or tradition and by this Eunomius did suppose he had prevail'd; and S. Austin affirm•••• that all the most foolish hereticks pretend for their most senseless figments those words of our Blessed Saviour [I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot beare them now.] And to this purpose was that which the Basilidians did affirme, that the mysteries of their sect were no things of publike notice, but conveyed in secret. Now to such as these there were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 two wayes of confutation: one was, which they most insisted upon, that the Holy Scrip∣tures were a perfect rule of faith and manners, and that there was no need of any other tradition; the other, that the traditions which they pretended were false, and that the contrary was the doctrine which all the Churches of God did preach alwaies. Now thus far Tradition was useful to be plead∣ed; that is, though the hereticks would not admit the doctrine of Christi∣anity as it was consign'd in Scripture, yet they might be convinc'd that this was the doctrine of Christianity because it was also preach'd by all Bishops and confess'd by all Churches. But in all these contests the Fa∣thers did not pretend to prove by Tradition what they could not prove by Scripture; but the same things were preach'd which were written, and no other articles of Faith, no other rules and measures of good life: onely

because they did not consent in the authority of one instrument, they ought to be convinc'd by the other.

3. There is yet one use more of Traditions,* 1.84 but it is in Rituals, and in such instances concerning which S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians these words [The rest will I set in order when I come.] Such are, 1. The observa∣tion of the Lords day, solemnly once a year, and lesse solemnly once a week, that is, the feast of Easter, and the weekly Sunday; 2. The Government of the Church by Bishops, which is consign'd to us by a tradition greater then some books of Scripture, and as great as that of the Lords day: and that so notorious, that thunder is not more heard then this is seen in all the monu∣ments of Antiquity; 3. Offices Ecclesiastical to be said and done by Ecclesia∣stical persons: such as are the publick Prayers of the Church, the conse∣cration of the blessed Eucharist, the blessing of the Married paires and joyning them in the holy and mysterious rite of Marriage, the con∣secration of Bishops by Bishops onely, and of Priests by Bishops and Presbyters, though for this last there is not so universal tradition, that every where requiring the imposition of the Bishops hand, and but in some places requiring the assistance of the Presbyters. These three are the most Universal and Apostolical traditions, which although they also have great grounds in Scripture, yet because the universal practice and doctrine of the Church of God in all Ages and in all Chur∣ches primitive is infinitely evident and notorious, less liable to exception, and an apt Commentary upon the certain but less evident places of Scrip∣ture, therefore these may be plac'd under the protection of universal Tra∣dition; for they really have it beyond all exception. And although in these the Scripture is sufficient to all wise and good men, to all that are willing to learn and obey, and not desirous to make Sects and noises; yet because all men are not wise and good & dis-interess'd, Tradition in these things is to Scripture as a Burning-glass to the Sun, it receives its raies in a point, and unites their strength, and makes them burn as well as shine, that is, it makes them doe that which in their own nature they are apt to doe, and from doing which they are onely hindered accidentally.

By these instances it is evident that we ought not to refuse Tradition when it is universal,* 1.85 nor yet believe that in any thing of great concernment, though it be but matter of rite and government, the Scripture is defective; for in these things we admit Tradition to be the Commentary, but Scrip∣ture to be the Text:* 1.86 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Irenaeus in Eusebius ex∣presses it, all must be agreeable to Scripture. And although a tradition so absolutely universal as these, were a warranty greater then any objection can be against them, and were to be admitted though they had not express authority in Scripture, as all these have; yet that even these things also are in Scripture, is a very great argument of the perfection of it.

For all other things the Scripture is abundant,* 1.87 and whatever else is to be us'd in the Externals and appendages of Religion the authority of the Church is a sufficient warranty, as I shall prove in it's proper place. But if in these Externals there be a tradition, according to the degree of it's antiquity and universality, so it puts on degrees of reasonableness, and may be us'd by any Age of the Church: and if there be nothing supervening that alters the case, it is better then any thing that is new; if it be equally fit, it is not equally good, but much better.

This is all use which is by wise and good men made of Traditions,* 1.88 and all the use which can justly be made by any man; and besides the premisses this will be yet further apparent, That although there are some universal practices which ever were and still are in all Churches, which are excellent significations of the meaning of these Scriptures, where the practices are less clearly injoyn'd, yet there are no traditive Doctrines distinct from what are consign'd in Scripture. And this I shall represent in the third particular which I promised to give account of, viz.

That the topick of Tradition,* 1.89 after the consignation of the Canon of Scripture, was not onely of little use in any question of Faith or Manners, but falsely pretended for many things, and is unsafe in all questions of present concernment.

In order to the proof of this,* 1.90 I divide the great heap of Traditions, which are shovel'd together by the Church of Rome, into three little heaps: 1. of things necessary or matters of Faith, 2. of things impertinent to the Faith and unnecessary, 3. of things false.

The Traditions of things necessary,* 1.91 are the Trinity of Persons, the consubstantiality of the Eternal Son of God with his Father, the Bap∣tisme of infants, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and Ori∣ginal sin, that the Father was not begotten, that the Holy Ghost is God, and to be invocated, that Baptisme is not to be reiterated, that in Christ there are two natures and one person. Now that these be appertaining to the Faith, I easily grant; but that the truth of these articles and so much of them as is certain or necessary is also in Scripture, I appeal to all the books of the Fathers, and of all moderns who doe assert them by testimonies from Scripture. Quicquid sciri vel praedicari oportet de Incarnatione, de vera Divinitate atque humanitate filii Dei, duobus ita continetur Testamentis, ut extra haec nihil sit quod annunciari debet aut credi, said Rupertus Abbas, as I before quoted him.* 1.92 All the mysteries of Christs nature and person, of his humanity and Divinity are clearly set down in both Testaments. But they are not clearly reported in Tradition: the Fathers having sometimes spoken in these articles more in the Arian then in the Catholick style, say Hosius, Gordon, Huntly, Gretser, Tanner, Perron and Fisher. By Scrip∣tures therefore the Church confuted the Arians, the Eutychians, the Nestorians, the Monothelites, the Photinians and the Sabellians. The other articles are also* 1.93 evidently in the words of Scripture or in the first con∣sequences and deductions. And when we observe the men of the Church of Rome going about with great pretensions to confirme all their articles by Scriptures, they plainly invalidate all pretence of necessity of Traditions. If they say that all the articles of Trent are not to be found in Scripture, let them confess it plainly, and then goe look out for proselytes. If they say there are Scriptures for all their articles, then Scripture is sufficient, or else their faith is not. For all these I before reckoned, it is certain both they and we have from Scripture many proofs, and if there were not, I believe Tradition would faile us very much; for the heresies which oppug∣ned them were very early, and they also had customes and pretences of customes to prescribe for their false doctrines; as I shall make appear in the following periods.

There are also traditions pretended of things which are not necessary,* 1.94 such as are the Fast of Lent, Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme, the mixture of wine and water in the Eucharistical chalice, the keeping of Easter upon the first day of the week, trine immersion in baptisme, the Apostles Creed, prayer for the dead, the wednesday and the friday Fast, Unction of sick people, Canon of the Scripture, the formes of Sacraments, and the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary. Now that these are not Divine traditions nor Apostolical appears by the destitution of their proper proof. They are Ecclesiastical traditions and of several ages, and some of them of very great antiquity; but of what obligation they are I shall account in the Chapter of [Lawes Ecclesiastical.] In the mean time they neither are of the necessity of faith, or the essential duty of Christian reli∣gion: and therefore as a Christian can goe to heaven without the obser∣vation of them in certain circumstances, so is the Scripture a perfect Canon without giving rules concerning them at all.

But then as for others,* 1.95 there are indeed a great many pretended to be traditions, but they are false articles, or wicked practices, or uncer∣tain sentences at the best. I reckon some of those which the Roman Church obtrudes: such as are invocation of Saints and Angels, adoration of them, and worshipping of Images, the doctrine of Purgatory, prayer in an Unknown tongue, the Popes power to depose Kings, and to ab∣solve from lawful and rate oaths, the picturing of God the Father and the holy Trinity, the half Communion, the doctrine and practice of Indulgen∣ces, Canon of the Masse, the doctrine of proper sacrifice in the Mass, Monastical profession, the single life of Priests and Bishops. Now these are so far from being Apostolical traditions, that they are some of them appa∣rently false, some of them expressly against Scripture, and others con∣fessedly new, and either but of yesterday, or, like the issues of the people, born where and when no man can tell. Concerning Indulgences,* 1.96 Antoninus the famous Arch-Bishop of Florence, sayes that we have nothing express∣ly recited in holy Scripture, nor are they found at all in the writings of the ancient Doctors. The half-communion is by the Council of Constance affirmed to be different from the institution of Christ and the practice of the primitive Church. Concerning invocation of Saints, Cum scri∣berentur Scripturae nondum coeperateusus vovendi Sanctis.* 1.97 Bellarmine con∣fesses that in the age in which the Scriptures were written, the use of making vowes to Saints was not begun; anda 1.98 Cardinal Perron excludes the next ages from having any hand in the invocation of them. Et quant aux au∣theurs plus proche du siecle apostolique, encore qu'il ne se trouve pas de vestiges de ceste coustume &c. In the authours more near the Apostolical age no foot∣steps of this custome can be found.

Concerning making an image of the Father or of the Holy Trinity Ba∣ronius cites an Epistle of Gregory the second, An. Dom. 726. in which he gives a reason why the Church did not make any picture of the Father; which forces him to confess that the beginning of the custome of painting the Father and the Holy Ghost postea usu venit in Ecclesia, came into use afterward in the Church.

The doctrine of Purgatory is not onely expressly against Scripture, saying, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, even so saith the Spirit, that they rest from their labours; but it is also certain that it was not so ancient as the Canon of the Roman Mass, the age of which no man can tel any more

then they can tell the age of a flock of sheep, or a company of men and children together; for one piece is old, and another is late, and another of a middle age. But the prayer which in the Canon is for the Dead, supposes that they are not in Purgatory; but prayes for them which are asleep in rest and quietness.

I shall not instance in any more,* 1.99 because I shall in other places meet with the rest: but these are a sufficient indication how the Church hath been abused by the pretence of tradition, and that a bold man may in private confidently tell his parishioner that any doctrine is a Tradition; and he is the more likely to prevail because he cannot be confuted by his undiscer∣ning hearer, since so great parts and so many Ages of the Church have been told of things that they were traditions Apostolical, when the articles themselves are neither old nor true. Is it imaginable by a man of ordi∣nary understanding, or that hath heard any thing of antiquity, that the Apostles should command their followers to worship the reliques of S. James, or S. Stephen; or that S. Peter did ever give leave to a man that had sworn, to goe from his oath, and not to doe what he had sworn he would? Is it likely that S. Peter or S. Paul should leave secret instructions with S. Clement or S. Linus that they might depose Kings lawfully when it was in their power, and when Kings did disagree in opinion from them? Is there any instance, or precept, or line, or doctrine, or history that ever any Apostle or Apostolical man consecrated the Holy Communion where there was none to communicate? It was never heard that a Communion could be single, till the Catholick Church came to signify the Roman: and yet if Scripture will not prove these things, Tradition must. The experi∣ence and the infinite unreasonableness of these things does sufficiently give a man warning of attending to such new traditions, or admitting the topick in any new dispute, it having been so old a cheat: and after the Canon of Scripture was full, and after that almost the whole Church had been abus'd by the tradition of Papias in the Millenary opinion, which for 300. years of the best and first antiquity prevailed, all the world should be wiser then to rely upon that which might introduce an error, but which Truth could never need, it being abundantly provided for in Scripture.

Sometimes men have been wiser,* 1.100 and when a Tradition Apostolical hath been confidently pretended, they would as confidently lay it aside, when it was not in Scripture. Clemens Alexandrinus reckons many tradi∣tions Apostolical; but no man regards them. Who believes that the Greeks were sav'd by their Philosophy, or that the Apostles preach'd to dead In∣fidels, and then raised them to life, although these were by S. Clement affirm'd to have been traditions Apostolical? Did the world ever the more believe that a Council might not be called but by the authority and sentence of the Bishop of Rome, though Marcellus was so bold to say it was a Canon Apostolical? And after S. Hierom had said these words, praecepta majorum Apostolicas traditiones quisque existimat, that what their Fathers commanded, all men were wont to call them Traditions Apostolical; no man had reason to rely upon any thing which by any one or two or three of the Fathers was called Tradition Apostolical, unless the thing it self were also notorious or proved by some other evidence. But this topick of Tradition is infinitely uncertain, and therefore if it be pretended new, it can be of no use in any of our questions. For if in the primitive Church

Tradition was claimed by the opposite parties of a question, who can be sure of it now? Artemon pretended it to be an Apostolical tradition that Christ was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a meer man, and the Nicene Fathers prov'd it was not so, but much rather the contrary: but that Topick would not prevail for either side. In the question of Rebaptization of persons baptized by Hereticks, both sides pretended Tradition; so they did in that imper∣tinent, but (as they then made it) great question of the time of keeping Easter.* 1.101 Clemens Alexandrinus said it was an Apostolical Tradition that Christ preached but one year; but Irenaeus said it was an Apostolical Tra∣dition that Christ was about fifty years old when he died, and consequent∣ly that he preach'd almost twenty years. But if they who were almost at the fountain were uncertain of the Rivers head; how shall we know it who dwell where the waters are ready to unbosome themselves into the Ocean? And to pretend an Apostolical Tradition in matters of Faith, now that the books of the Fathers have been lost, and yet there are a very great many to be read for the proving of Tradition, that is, that there are too many and too few, that in the losse of some of them possibly we have lost that light which would have confuted the present pretences of Tradition, & the remaining part have passed through the limbecs and strainers of Hereticks and Monkes and ignorants and interested persons, and have passed through the corrections and deturpations and mistakes of transcribers, (a trade of men who wrote books that they might eat bread, not to promote a truth) and that they have been disorder'd by Zeal and Faction and expurgatory Indices, and that men have been diligent to make the Fathers seem of their side, and that Hereticks have taken the Fathers names and published books under false titles, and therefore have stampt and stain'd the Current; is just as if a Tartar should offer to prove himself to have descended from the family of King David, upon pretence that the Jewes mingled with their Nation, and that they did use to be great keepers of their genea∣logies.

But after all this,* 1.102 the question of Tradition is wholly useless in the questions between the Church of Rome and the other parts of Christen∣dome. Not onely because there are many Churches of differing rites and differing doctrines from the Roman, who yet pretend a Succession and Tra∣dition of their customes and doctrines per tempus immemoriale, they know not when they began, and for ought they know they came from the Apo∣stles, and they are willing to believe it, and no man amongst them questi∣ons it, and all affirm it; particularly the Greek Church, the Russians, the Abyssines: but also because those articles which they dispute with the other Churches of the West cannot be prov'd by Tradition universal, as infinitely appears in those pittiful endeavours and attempts which they use to perswade them to be such; which if they did not sometimes confute themselves, the Reader may find confuted every where by their learned adversaries.

Therefore although the perfection of Scripture be abundantly prov'd, yet if it were not,* 1.103 Tradition will but make it less certain, and therefore not more perfect. For besides that nuncupative records are like diagrams in sand and figures efform'd in aire, volatile and soon disordered, and that by the words and practice of God, and all the world, what is intended to last was therefore written, as appears in very many places in Scripture, [& therefore

Job calls out, O that my words were now written, O that they were printed in a book,* 1.104 that they were ingraven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever: upon which words the Greek Catena sayes, He drawes a similitude from them who put those things in writing which they very greatly desire should remain to the longest posterity] and that the very nature of things is such, that a Tradition is infinitely better preserved in writing then in speaking, and besides all those very many weak and uncertain and false Traditions with which several Men, and several Ages, and several Churches have abus'd others, or been abus'd themselves; I instance in two great things, by the one of which we may see how easily the Church may be imposed upon in the matter of Tradition; and by the other, how easily those men impose upon themselves whose faith hath a temporal bias and diver∣tisement.

The first is,* 1.105 That very many Epistles of Popes, viz. from S. Clement to S. Gregory, that is, for above 500. years, were imposed upon the Church as the genuine writings of those excellent men who govern'd the Church of Rome in all her persecutions and hardnesses; and of these Epi∣stles the present Church of Rome makes very great use to many purposes, and yet no imposture could be greater then this.

For 1.* 1.106 they are patched up of several arguments and materials not at all agreeing with the Ages in which they were pretended to be written, but are snatch'd from the writings of other men and latter times. 2. They were invented after S. Hieroms time, as appears in the citation of the testi∣monies of Scripture from S. Hieroms translation, and the Author cited S. Hieroms version of the Hebrew Psalter. 3. They were not known in Rome for eight Ages together: which were a strange thing that the records of Rome should have no copies of the Epistles of so many of the Bishops of Rome. 4. They are infinitely false in their Chronology, and he that in∣vented them put the years of false Consuls to their date, as Baronius himself confesses quite reckoning otherwise: and in the Epistles of the whole five & fourty, the decrees of Councils and the words of Ecclesiastical writers are cited, who yet were not at all in their ages, but wrote after the death of those Popes who are pretended to have quoted them, or something is said that could not be done or said by them, or in their times. 5. They are written with the same style; and therefore it is no more probable that they should be the genuine Epistles of so many Popes, then that so many men in several Ages should have the same features in their faces: but these Epistles say over the same things several times, even unto tediousness, and yet use the very same words without any differing expressions. 6. And sometimes these words were most intolerably barbarous, neither elegantly fine, nor elegantly plain, but Solecismes, impure words and the most rude expres∣sions, not unlike the Friers Latine or the Epistolae obscurorum virorum. 7. None of the Ancient writers of the Church did ever cite any testimony from these Epistles for 800. years together, onely one part of one of the Epistles of S. Clement was mention'd by Ruffinus and the Council of Vase. 8. None of those who wrote histories Ecclesiastical, or of the Church-writers, made mention of them: but all that doe were above 830. years after the Incarnation of our Blessed Lord. 9. And all this beside the innumerable errors in the matter which have been observed by the Centu∣riators of Magdeburg, David Blondel and divers others. And a more noto∣rious

cheat could never have been imposed upon the world; but that there are so many great notorieties of falshood, that it is hard to say which is greater, the falshood of the Pontifical Book, or the boldness of the Com∣piler. Now if so great a heap of Records can at once be clapp'd upon the credulity of men, and so boldly defended as it is by Turrian and Binius, and so greedily entertain'd as it is by the Roman Confidents, and so often cited as it is by the Roman Doctors, and yet have in it so many strange matters so disagreeing to Scripture, so weak, so impertinent, and some∣times so dangerous, there is very great reason to reject the topick of Tra∣ditions, which can be so easily forged, and sometimes rely upon no greater foundation then this, whose foundation is in water and sand, and falshood that is more unstable.

The other thing is,* 1.107 that Hereticks and evil persons, to serve their ends, did not onely pretend things spoken by the Apostles and Apostolical and Primitive men, (for that was easy) but even pretended certain Books to be written by them, that under their venerable names they might recom∣mend and advance their own heretical Opinions. Thus some false Apostles (as Origen relates) wrote an Epistle and sent it to the Church of Thessalo∣nica under S. Pauls name, which much troubled the Thessalonians, and con∣cerning which, when S. Paul had discovered the imposture, he gives them warning that they should not be troubled about any such Epistle, as if he had sent it. Thus there was a Book publish'd by an Asian Priest under S. Pauls name (as S. Hierome reports) containing the Vision of Paul and Tecla, and I know not what old tale of the baptizing Leo. Some or other made S. Clement an Eunomian, and Dionysius of Alexandria an Arrian, and Origen to be every thing, by interpolating their Books, or writing Books for them. Ruffinus tells that the Hereticks endeavoured to cor∣rupt the Gospels: and that they did invent strange Acts of the Apostles, and make fine tales of their life and death, we need no better testimony then Tertullians instances in his Books against Marcion: and for this rea∣son Origen gives caution, Oportet cautè considerare, ut nec omnia secreta quae feruntur nomine Sanctorum suscipiamus,* 1.108 We must warily consider, and not receive all those secret traditions which goe up and down under the names of Saints, [viz. of the holy Apostles.] And of the same nature is that famous cheat that usurps the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, called [The Pas∣sion of Peter and Paul] as who please may see in Laurentius Valla and Erasmus. And such is the Book of the same Passions attributed to Linus, which was invented so foolishly and carelesly that it contradicts the Scri∣ptures most apparently; as every one that reads it may without difficulty observe. Now the observation from these things is plain: In the matter of Traditions as they are now represented there is so much of humane fai∣lings, and so little of Divine certainty, they are often falsly pretended, and never truly proved, and if they should need to be proved, were therefore not to be accepted; because no particular proofs can make them universal, and if they be not universal, of themselves they cannot be credible, but need something else to make them so; they are (whether true or false) so abso∣lutely now to no purpose, because it is too late to prove them now, and too late to need them, the Church having so long accepted and relied up∣on the Canon of Scripture, that we are plainly, and certainly, and necessa∣rily devolv'd upon Scripture for the Canon of our Faith and lives. For though no man ought to reject Tradition if he did need it, and if he could

have it, yet because he neither can want it (because Scripture is a perfect Rule) nor can have it (because it cannot in any of our questions be prov'd) we must rely upon what we have. It is in the matter of traditions as in the Epistle of S. Paul to Laodicea: if this or those were extant and suffi∣ciently transmitted and consign'd to us, they would make up the Canon as well as those we have: but there is no such thing as the Laodicean E∣pistle, and there is no such thing as tradition of doctrines of Faith not con∣tained in Scriptures. The Fathers that had them, or thought they had them, might call upon their Churches to make use of them; but we that cannot have them, must use what we have; and we have reason to give thanks to God that we have all that God intended to be our Rule. God gave us in Scripture all that was necessary; it was a perfect Rule; and yet if it had not, it must become so when we have no other.

But upon the matter of this Argument,* 1.109 there are three Questions to be considered in order to Faith and Conscience.

1. Whether there be not any rules and general measures of discerning tradition, by which although tradition cannot be prov'd the natural way, that is, by its own light, evidence of fact and notoreity, yet we may be rea∣sonably induc'd to beleeve that any particular is descended from tradition Apostolical, and consequently is to be taken in, to integrate the rule of Conscience?

2. How farre a negative Argument from Scripture is valid, and obliga∣tory to Conscience?

3. Whether there may be any new Articles of Faith, or that the Creed of the Church may so increase, that what is sufficient to salvation in one Age cannot serve in another?

1. Question is concerning the indirect ways of discerning Tradition.

In vain it is to dispute whether traditions are to integrate the Canon of Scripture,* 1.110 when it cannot be made to appear that there are any such things as Apostolical traditions of doctrines not contained in Scripture. For since the succession in all the Chairs hath been either interrupted or disordered by warres or heresies, by interest or time, by design or by ignorance, by carelesness or inconsideration, by forgetfulness or unavoidable mistake, by having no necessity of tradition, and by not delivering any, it is in vain to dispute concerning the stability of atomes, which as of themselves they are volatile and unfixt, so they have no basis but the light aire: and so are traditions; themselves are no argument, and there are no traditions▪ they are no necessary or competent stabiliment of doctrine or manners, o•• if they were, themselves have no stabiliment.

For it is certain there can be no tradition receiv'd for Apostolical at a less rate then the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis.* 1.111 For to prove by Scripture that there are any traditions not written in Scripture is a trifling folly; since there might be necessity of keeping traditions before all that which is necessary was set down in writing. So that all the pretensions taken from Scripture in behalf of traditions are absolutely to no purpose, unless it were there said, There are some things which we now preach to you which

shall never be written; keep them: but the naming of [traditions] in some Books of Scripture, and the recommending them in others, is no ar∣gument to us to inquire after them, or to rely upon them; unless that which was delivered by Sermon was never to be delivered by writing, and that we knew it as certainly as that which is. * And the same is to be said of the sayings of Fathers who recommend traditions: for although the argument lessened every year, yet it was better then, then it can be now; it could serve some uses then, it can serve none now; it might in some instances be certain, and safe in many, but now it cannot be either, neither certain, nor safe, nor necessary, nor of any use at all: which having made to appear in the preceding numbers, it must follow that there can be no doctrinal traditions besides the matters of Scripture; because there are none such recommended to the Church by the measures of Vincentius L••rinensis. There is no doctrine, no rule of Faith or Manners which is not in the Holy Scriptures, and yet which was believed always, and in all Churches, and of all men in those Churches. For although it is very pro∣bable that Vincentius by this rule intended to reprove the novelties and un∣usual doctrines which S. Austin by his great wit and great reputation had brought into the Church, contrary to the sentiments and doctrines of the Fathers which were before him; yet it will perfectly serve to reprove all our late pretensions to traditions. For by this measure, we finde it not to be enough that a Doctrine hath been received for a thousand years toge∣ther by the Catholick Church, reckoning from this period upwards; un∣less it were also received by the Apostolical ages and Churches through∣out the world, it is nothing: and if it were received by all the Apostolical Churches, and all good and wise men in those Churches, and so down∣wards; whereever any Church failed, it was to their own prejudice, not to the prejudice of the doctrine; for that was Apostolical which was from the beginning; and whatsoever came after could not change what was so before; and the interruption of an Apostolical truth, though for a thou∣sand years together, cannot annul the obligation, or introduce the contrary. So that if we begin to account by this rule of Vincentius and goe back∣wards, it is nothing unless we goe back as farre as to the Apostles inclu∣sively: but if we begin there, and make that clear, it matters not how little a way it descends: and therefore although it is an excellent rule to reprove vain and novel pretensions, yet there is nothing to be proved by it pra∣cticably; for we need not walk along the banks and intrigues of Volga, if we can at first point to the fountain; it is that whither the long progres∣sion did intend to lead us. If any thing fails in the principle it is good for nothing; but if the tradition derive from the fountain, and the head be vi∣sible, though afterwards it ran under ground, it is well enough. For if a doctrine might invade the whole Church which was not preached by the Apostles, or if the doctrine might to many good and wise persons seem to have possessed the whole Church, that is, to be believed by all those that he knows, or hears of, or converses with, and yet not have been the do∣ctrine of the Apostles; it is certain that this universality, and any less then that which takes in the Apostles, can never be sufficient warranty for an article of Faith or a Rule of life, that is, the instance and obligation of a duty necessary to salvation. But how shall we know concerning any doctrine, whether it be a tradition Apostolical? Here the Rule of Vincentius comes in. If it can be made to appear that all Churches and all Men did from the Apostles times down to the time of inquiry accept it as true, and re∣port

it from the Apostles, then it is to be so received and continued. In∣deed a less series and succession will serve. For if we can be made sure that the Age next to the Apostles did universally receive it as from the Apostles, then we may not reject it. But what can make faith in this? certainly no∣thing; for there is no doctrine so delivered but what is in Scripture. In∣deed some practices and rituals are, because the publick exercise and usages of the Church being united and notorious, publick and acted, might make the rite evident as light; but in doctrines (besides Scriptures) we have not records enough to doe it: and therefore this general rule of Vincentius not being practicable, and the other lesser rules or conjectures rather being incompetent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we must remain as we are, and give God thanks for the treasures of Holy Scripture, and rejoyce and walk in the light of it.

But let us try a little.* 1.112 The first Rule which is usually given is this; That which the Catholick Church believes as an article of faith, which is not found in Scriptures, is to be believed to descend from Apostolical tradition. This Rule is false and in sufficient upon many accounts.

1. For if the Church can erre, then this Rule can have no firmament or foundation. If she cannot erre, then there is no need either of Scriptures or Tradition; and there is no use of any other argument to prove the truth of an article or the Divinity of a truth, but the present belief and af∣firmation of the Church, for that is sufficient whether it be written or not written, whether it be delivered or not.

But 2. Supposing the Church could not erre in matters of Faith, yet no man says but she may erre in matter of fact: but whether this thing was delivered by the Apostles is matter of fact; and therefore though the Church were assisted so that she could not mistake her article, yet she may mistake her argument and instrument of probation: the conclusion may be true, and yet the premisses false; and she might be taught by the Spirit, and not by the Apostles.

3. No man now knows what the Catholick Church does believe in any question of controversy; for the Catholick Church is not to be spoken with, and being divided by Seas, and Nations, and interests and fears, and Tyrants, and poverty, and innumerable accidents, does ••ot declare her minde by any common instrument, and agrees in nothing but in the Apostles Creed, and the Books of Scripture; and millions of Christians hear no∣thing of our controversies, and if they did, would not understand some of them.

4. There are thousands that doe believe such an article to be taught by the Catholick Church, and yet the Catholick Church with them is no∣thing but their own party; for all that believe otherwise they are pleased to call Hereticks. So that this Rule may serve every party that is great, and every party that is little, if they will adde pride and contumacy to their article: and what would this Rule have signified amongst the Donatists, to whom all the world was heretick but themselves? and what would it signify amongst those peevish little Sects that damne all the world but their own congregations? even as little as it can to the Church of Rome, who are resolved to call no Church Catholick but their own.

5. The believing of such an article of faith could not be indication of a true Catholick, that is, of a true member of the Catholick Church; because if the article is to be proved to be Apostolical by the present belief of the

〈…〉〈…〉, either the Catholick Church is the 〈…〉〈…〉 we can never tell what the believes in a particular 〈…〉〈…〉 nothing in the question, because i•• is be a question, 〈…〉〈…〉 Church is divided in her sense of it•• or else the Catholick 〈…〉〈…〉 or Church of Christians separate from the rest, and then 〈…〉〈…〉 by other means be first known that she is the Catholick Church 〈…〉〈…〉 accept her belie•• to be an argument that the article is an 〈…〉〈…〉. Adde to this, that the Churches believing it, is not, 〈…〉〈…〉 argument that the doctrine is Apostolical; but on the 〈…〉〈…〉 be prov'd to be Apostolical before it is to be admitted by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And it it be answer'd, that so it was to those Churches 〈…〉〈…〉 it first, but to us it ought to be sufficient that the Church 〈…〉〈…〉 we ought therefore to conclude it to be Apostolical: I reply▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 is a it was at first prov'd to the Church to be Apostolical; but 〈…〉〈…〉 primitive Church would not receive the doctrine without such 〈…〉〈…〉 sign that this was the right way of proceeding, and therefore 〈…〉〈…〉 to be with us▪ they would not receive any doctrine unless it were 〈…〉〈…〉 come from the Apostles, and why should we? and to say that 〈…〉〈…〉 receiv'd it, we ought to suppose it to have been Apostolical, 〈…〉〈…〉 to beg the question: for when we make a question whether the Church did well to receive this doctrine, we mean whether they did re∣ceiv•••• it from the Apostles or no. And therefore to argue from their 〈…〉〈…〉, that it was Apostolical, is to answer my question by telling 〈…〉〈…〉 to suppose that, and to make no question of it. But if this rule should prevail, we must believe things which even to affirm were impudent. The Church of Rome, calling her self the Catholick Church, affirms it to be Heresy to say that it is necessary to give the Communion under both 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Laity: but he that will from hence, though he believe that Church to be the Catholick, conclude that doctrine to be the Aposto lick, must have a great ignorance or too great a confidence. Nay this rule is in nothing more apparently confuted then in this instance; for the C••non in the Council of Constance which establishes this for Catho∣lick doctrine, by confessing it was otherwise instituted by Christ, and otherwise practis'd at the beginning, confesses it not to be Apostolick. So that upon this account it is obvious to conclude that either the uni∣versal Church can erre, or else the same thing can come and cannot come ••rom Tradition Apostolical. For the half-Communion is no where commanded in Scripture; therefore either the Ancient Catholick Church did erre in commanding the whole Communion, or the, modern Catholick Church (I mean the Roman, which pretends to the name ••oes erre in forbidding it; or else, if neither does erre, then the Commu∣nion under both kinds did come and did not come from Tradition Apo∣stolical.

But 6. suppose it were agreed that one Congregation is the Catho∣lick Church, and resolved upon which is that Congregation, yet if it be but a part of Christians, and that interested, it is not in the nature of the thing to inferre, that because this interested, divided part believers it, therefore the Apostles taught it: this Consequent is not in the bowels of that Antecedent, it cannot be prov'd by this argument: if it can be proved by revelation, that what the present Church believes, was a Tradition Apostolical, let it be shewn, and there's an end of it. In the mean time this rule is not of it self certain, or fit to be the proof of what is uncertain, and

therefore not a good rule, till it be proved by revelation.

7. It is evidently certain that what one Age believes as a necessary doctrine, another Age (I mean of the Catholick Church) did not believe for such; and it is not sufficient for the making of a Catholick doctrine that it be ubique, believ'd every where, unless it be also semper & ab omnibus, alwayes and by all men. I instance in the Communicating of Infants, which was the doctrine of S. Austin and of Pope Innocentius, and prevail'd in the Church for 600. years (saies Maldonat the Jesuit) that it was necessary to the salvation of Infants,* 1.113 that they should receive the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Now it is also as certain that for 600. years more, the Church which calls her self Catholick believ'd the contrary. Which of these can prove Apostolical Tradition? For if it be objected that this was not the doctrine of the Catholick Church in those ages in which the most eminent Fathers did believe and practise it, besides that it is not probable that they would teach it to be necessary, and generally practise it in their Churches, if the matter had been nothing but their own opinion, and dis∣puted by others; I adde this also, that it was as much the doctrine of the Catholick Church, that it was necessary, as it is now, that it is not necessary: for it is certain the Holy Fathers did believe and teach and practise it, and the contrary was not disputed; but now though it be condemned by some, it is still practis'd by very great parts of the Catholick Church, even by all the Greek Church,* 1.114 and by those vast numbers of Christians in Ethi∣opia. So that although no doctrinal Tradition is universally received but what is contained is Scriptures; yet those that have been received as universally as any other matter of question is, have been and have not been believ'd by the Church in several ages: and therefore if this rule be good, they must prove that the same doctrine was and was not a Tradition Apostolical.

8. This Rule were good (and then indeed onely) if there were no way to make an opinion to be universally receiv'd but by derivation from the Apostles. But 1. there are some which say every Age hath new revela∣tions: where this is believ'd it is apparent an opinion which the Apostles never heard of, may be adopted into the faith and universally received. But besides this are more wayes of entry for a popular error then any man can reckon or any experience can observe. 2. It is not impossible that some leading man may be credulous and apt to be imposed upon by Here∣ticks and Knaves; but when he hath weakly received it, it shall proceed strongly upon his authority. The matter of Papias about the doctrine of the Chiliasts is notorious in this particular. 3. It is also very possible that what is found at first to be good, shall be earnestly press'd by a zealous man, and he may over-express himself, and consider not to what consequence it may afterwards be extended; and then following ages may observe it, and make a Logical conclusion from a Rhetorical expression; and then what onely good men had entertain'd when it was called useful, all men shall receive when it is called necessary; and it is no great progression from what all men believe good, that some men should believe necessary, and from them others, and from others all men. It was thus in many degrees in the matter of Confession and Penance. 4. It is not very unlikely, certainly it is no way impossible, but that the reputation of some great man in the Church may prevail so far by our weaknesses and his own accidental advan∣tages, that what no man at first questions, very many will afterwards believe, and they introduce more, and from more to most, and from most to all

men, are no impossible progressions, if we consider how much mankind especially in Theology, have suffered the authority of a few men to pre∣vail upon them. 5. Does not all the world see that zeal makes men im∣patient of contradiction, and that impatience makes them fierce in dispu∣ting, and fierce in fighting, and ready to persecute their enemies? and what that Unity and Universality is which can be introduc'd by force, a great part of the world hath had two long an experience to be ignorant. 6. Beyond all this, a proposition may be suppos'd to follow from an Apo∣stolical Tradition, and prevail very much upon that account; and yet it would be hard to believe the Scholars deduction equally with the Masters Principle, and a probable inference from Tradition equal to the very affir∣mative of the Apostles. A man may argue, and argue well too, and yet the Conclusion will not be so evident as the Principle: but that it may equally prevail, is so certain, that no man can deny it but he that had never any testimony of the confidence of a disputing man, and the compliance of those who know not so well, or inquire not so strictly, or examine not suspici∣ously, or judge not wisely.

2. The next Rule which is pretended for the discovery of an Apo∣stolical Tradition is this,* 1.115 That which the Universal Church observes, which none could appoint but God, and is not found in Scripture, it is necessary to say that it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles. This Rule must needs be false, because it does actually deceive them that rely upon it. Because their Church, which they will fondly suppose to be the Catho∣lick, uses certain Sacramentals to conferre grace, (which none could in∣stitute but Christ, who alone is the fountain of grace) and the Holy Spirit to his servants: but yet to pretend that they are Traditions Apostolical were the greatest unreasonableness in the world. I instance in holy water, baptizing of bells, hallowing of agnus Dei's, roses, swords, hats, Chrisme and the like, which no man can fairely pretend to be Traditions Apostolical, but yet they are practis'd by all their Catho∣lick Church, and they are of such things as no man but God could be the author of, if they were good for any thing; but then to conclude from hence that they are Traditions Apostolical, were just as if one were to give a sign how to know whether lying were lawful or unlawful, and for the determination of this question should give this rule, Whatsoever man∣kind does universally which they ought not to doe without Gods law, that cer∣tainly they have a law from God to doe; but all mankind are given to lying, and yet nothing can make it lawful to lye, unless there be a warranty or no prohibition from God to lie; therefore certain it is that to lye descends from the authority of God. Indeed if the Catholick Church could not be uncharitable, if they could not sin against God, then it were certain, if they all did it, and it were not warranted in Scripture, it must be from God: but it does not follow, it would be by Tradition; because it may be by the dictate of right reason, by natural principles, or it would be a thing in∣different; but that it must be by Tradition, if it were not by Scripture, or by the Church, were as if we should say, if Laelaps be not a horse, or begotten by a Lyon, he must needs be a Bear: but these rules are like dead mens candles, they come from no certain cause, and signifie no determin'd effect, and whether they be at all, we are no surer then the reports of timorous or phantastick persons can make us. But this Rule differs not at all from the former, save onely, that speaks of doctrinal, and this of ritual

Traditions: but both relying upon the same reason, and that reason failing (as I have prov'd) the propositions themselves doe fail. But then as to rites, it is notorious beyond a denyall, that some rites used in the Universal Church, which are also said to be such which none ought to appoint but God, were not delivered by the Apostles. I instance in the singularity of baptisme of Hereticks, which the whole Church now adheres to, and yet if this descended from Apostolical Tradition, it was more then S. Cyprian or the African Churches knew of, for they rebaptized Hereticks, and dis∣puted it very earnestly, and lived in it very pertinaciously, and died in the opinion.

3. The third rule is,* 1.116 Whatsoever the Catholick Church hath kept in all ages by-gone, may rightly be believed to have descended from the Apostles, though it be such a thing which might have been instituted by the Church. This rule is the same with that of Lirinensis, of which I have already given account: and certainly in those things in which it can be made use of (which are extremely few) it is the best, and indeed the onely good one. But then this can relate onely to Rituals, not to matter of Doctrine; for nothing of this can be of Ecclesiastical institution and appointment: it can∣not be a doctrine of Faith unless it be of Divine Tradition; for Christ is the Author and finisher of our Faith, which the Church is to preach and believe, not to enlarge or shorten, not to alter or diversify. But then as to Rituals, the keeping of Easter on the first day of the week by this rule can∣not be prov'd to be an Apostolical Tradition; because the Asian Churches kept it otherwise: and by this rule the keeping of Lent fast for 40. dayes will not be found to be an Apostolical Tradition; because the observation of it was very full of variety, and some kept it 40. houres, some a day, some a week, as I shall afterwards in its proper place make to appear. But by this rule the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters is an Apostolical Tradi∣tion (besides the Scriptures, by which it appears to be Divine;) by this the consecration of the Blessed Eucharist by Ecclesiastical persons, Bishops and Priests, is certainly a Tradition Apostolical; by this the Lords day is deriv'd to us from the Apostles; and by this the Baptisme of infants is much confirm'd unto the Church: and whatsoever can descend to us and be observed in this channel, there is no sufficient reason to deny it to be Apostolical: but then how far it can be obligatory to all Ages and to all Churches, will be another consideration; it being on all hands confessed, that some Rituals which were observed in the Apostles times are with good cause and just authority laid aside by several Churches. But of this I shall give particular accounts.

4. When all the Doctors of the Church by common consent testify concer∣ning any particular that it descends from Apostolical tradition,* 1.117 we are to hold it for such: whether they affirm this in all their writings, or together in a Council. To this Rule I answer, That where it would doe good there it is not practicable, and where it is practicable there it is not true. For it is indeed practicable that a Council may give testimony to a particular that it came from the Apostles; but it does not follow that they are not decei∣ved, for it never was, and it never will be that all the Doctors of the Church shall meet together in Council, and unless they doe, their testi∣mony is not universal. But if all the Fathers should write in their Books that such a thing was delivered by the Apostles, unless it were evidently

against Scripture or right reason, there could be no sufficient cause to disbelieve it; and it were the best way we have of conveying and hand∣ing the tradition to us, next to the universal practice of the Church in her Rituals. But there is no such thing so conveyed to us: and therefore Bellarmine plays at small game with this Rule, and would fain have the world admit Tradition for Apostolical, if some Fathers of great name say so, and others that speak of the same thing contradict it not. But this is a plain begging that, when he cannot prove a thing to be Tradition Apo∣stolical by a good argument and sufficient, we will be content to take it without proof, or at least to be content with such as he hath, and believe his own word for the rest, though he knowes nothing of it. If it failes or goes less then Omnibus, and Semper, and Ubique, which is Vincentius his measure, it cannot be warranted, and he that allowes it is more kind then wise.* 1.118 S. Basil proves the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary by a Tradition that Zechary was slain by the Jewes between the Porch and the Altar for affirming her to be a Virgin after the birth of her most Holy Son:* 1.119 but S. Hierom sayes it is Apocryphorum somnium, a dream of Apocryphal persons. But it was a long time before the report of the Mil∣lenary Tradition was contradicted, and yet in that intervall in which many of the most eminent Fathers attested it to have descended from the Apo∣stles, it was neither true nor safe to have believed it. But then as to the particular and more practicable part of this rule, That if a general Coun∣cil affirmes it to be Tradition Apostolical it is so to be accepted, it is evi∣dently fallacious and uncertain; for the second Council of Nice affirm'd the veneration of Images to be an Apostolical Tradition: but it is so far from being true that it was so as they affirm'd, that not onely the Apostolical but divers of the following ages hated all Images, and did not think it law∣ful so much as to make them;* 1.120 of which I have already given a large account in this book.

5. When the Apostolical Churches,* 1.121 which from the Apostles have had un∣interrupted succession, doe witness concerning any thing that it is Apostolical tradition, it is to be admitted for such. This rule was good before the Cha∣nels were mingled with impure waters entring in: It was used by Irenaeus, Tertullian, S. Augustine, and others; and it was to them of great advan∣tage. But although it was good drinking of Euphrates when it newly ran from the garden of Eden, yet when it began to mingle with the Borborus it was not good: and who durst have trusted this Rule when Dioscorus was Bishop of Alexandria, who yet was lineally descended from S. Mark? And who durst have relied upon this Rule when Pope Julius absolved the Sa∣bellian Hereticks, and communicated with Marcellus Ancyranus? and when S. Basil complains of the Western Bishops,* 1.122 and particularly the Roman, quòd veritatem neque nôrunt, neque discere sustinent … cum iis qui verita∣tem ipsis annunciant contendentes, haeresin autem per se ipsos stabilientes: that they neither know the truth, nor care to learn it; but they contend with them who tell them the truth, and by themselves establish heresy. Quia multi Principes & summi Pontifices & alii inferiores inventi sunt apostatasse à fide,* 1.123 propterea ecclcsia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera, & confessio fidei & veritatis. How can this rule guide any man when all the Apostolical Churches have fallen into error, and many Popes have been apostates from the Faith, and the Church consisted not of Prelates, but indifferently of all that believ'd and profess'd the truth which the Popes

and Princes and Prelates did deny? The Apostolical Church of Antioch is not; and the Patriarchal Church of Alexandria is accus'd by the Latines of great errors; and the Mother Church of Jerusalem hath no succession, but is buried in ruines; and the Church of Rome is indeed splendid, but he that will take her word for Tradition is sure to admit many false ones, but not sure of any true, but such as she hath in common with all the Chur∣ches of the world.

44. I conclude therefore this question,* 1.124 that amongst those rules of discer∣ning Traditions truly Apostolical from them that are but pretended such, there is no rule competent but one, which is scarcely practicable, which indeed transmits to the Church a few Rituals, but nothing of Faith or rule of good life; and therefore it is to no purpose to look any where else for the Divine Rule of Conscience but in the pages of the Old and New Testa∣ment: they are sufficient, because they were intended by God to be our onely Rule; and yet if God had intended Traditions to be taken in to in∣tegrate the Rule and to oblige our Conscience, it is certain that God in∣tends it not now, because the Traditions are lost if there were any, and if they be now, they doe not appear, and therefore are to us as if they were not.

II. Question.

The second Question also does very nearly relate to Conscience and it's conduct.* 1.125 viz. Since the Scripture is the perfect Rule of Conscience, and contains in it all the will of God, whether or no, and how far is a negative argu∣ment from Scripture to prevail?

The resolution of this depends upon the premisses.* 1.126 For if Scripture be the intire Rule of Faith, and of Manners, that is, of the whole service and worship of God, then nothing is an article of Faith, nothing can com∣mand a moral action, that is not it's whole kind set down in Scripture. This I proved by direct testimonies of Tertullian, S. Basil, S. Austin, S. Cyril, Theophilus Alexandrinus and S. Hierome, in the* 1.127 foregoing numbers. To which I adde these excellent words of S. Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the Jerusalem Creed, which he had recited and explicated and promis'd to prove from Scripture; he gives this reason, Nam Divino∣rum sanctorumque fidei mysteriorum nihil, ne minimum quidem, absque Di∣vinis Scripturis tradi debet, neque simplici probabilitate neque verborum ornatu traduci. Not the least part of the Divine and Holy mysteries of Faith must be delivered without the Divine Scriptures. Believe not me telling thee, unless I demonstrate what I say from the Divine Scripture. For the safety and conservation of our Faith relics upon the proof of the Divine Scriptures. But because there are some particulars and some variety in the practise of this rule, I am to consider it now to other purposes.

1. Nothing is necessary either to be believ'd or done unless it be in Scrip∣ture.* 1.128 Thus S. Gregory Nyssen argues,* 1.129 Ubinam dixit Deus in Evangeliis oportere credere in unum & solum verum Deum? Non possent ostendere nisi habeant ipsi novum aliquod Evangelium. Quae n. ab antiquis per tradi∣tionem ad haec usque tempora in Ecclesiis leguntur, hanc vocem non continent quae dicat, oportere credere vel baptizare in unum solum verum Deum, quem∣admodum

isti autumant, sed in nomen Patris & Filii & Spiritus Sancti. I have I confess something wondred at the matter of this discourse. For ei∣ther the Arrians have infinitely imposed upon us, and interpolated Scri∣pture in a very material article; or else S. Gregory forgot the 17. of S. John and the 3. verse; or else he insisted onely upon the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the same sense is in the place now cited. For if this be life eternal to know him the onely true God, and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ, then also to believe in them onely is life eternal, and then we are tied to believe in none else; for we cannot believe in that we doe not know. Indeed the words are not there or any where else, that we ought to believe in [God the Father] him, the one, onely true God, &c. But certainly, if we are to know him onely, then onely to believe in him seems to be a very good con∣sequent. But S. Basil therefore onely insisted upon the very words, and thought himself safe (as indeed he was) upon the reverse of another argu∣ment. For since the words oportere credere in unum solum verum Deum were not in S. John or any where else, he concluded the contrary sense from a very good argument: we are commanded to be baptized into the faith of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, therefore we are to believe in three: and be∣cause the word [believe] was not set down expresly, where knowledge is confin'd to one or two, therefore it cannot be said that we are tied to be∣lieve onely in one or two: but because to believe in three can be inferr'd as a duty from another place, therefore it cannot be denied as a consequent from this; and therefore he had reason to insist upon his negative argu∣ment.* 1.130 Thus S. Austin also argued, Pater enim solus nusquam legitur mis∣sus, The Father is never in Scripture said to be sent; therefore no man must say it. So Epiphanius, Ipsa dictio non omnino cogit me de Filio Dei dicere: non enim indicavit Scriptura, neque quisquam Apostolorum meminit, neque Evangelium. The manner of speaking compels me not to understand it of the Son of God: For the Scripture hath not declared it; neither the Gospel nor any of the Apostles hath made any mention of it.

2. A negative argument from the letter of Scripture is not good,* 1.131 if the con∣trary affirmative can be drawn by consequent from any part of it. Thus our Blessed Saviour confuting the Sadducees in the article of the Resurrection hath given us a warranty for this proceeding; God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These were the words of Scripture. But these directly would not doe the work. But therefore he argues from hence, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: therefore these men are alive. That the Holy Ghost is God is no where said in Scripture; that the Holy Ghost is to be invocated is no where commanded, nor any example of its being done recorded. It follows not therefore that he is not God, or that he is not to be invocated: and the reason is, because that he is God is a cer∣tain consequent from something that is expresly affirmed; and therefore the negative argument is imperfect, and consequently, not concluding. Quae neque à Christianis dicuntur neque creduntur,* 1.132 neque ex consequente per ea quae apud nos certa sunt & concessa intelliguntur, &c. If Christians did never speak, nor believe any such thing, nor can they be drawn from the consequence of those things which are certain and granted amongst us, then indeed it is to be rejected from our Creed. Now amongst Christi∣ans this is believed as certain, that we may pray to him in whom we be∣lieve; that we believe in him into the faith of whom we are baptized; that we are commanded to be baptized into the belief and profession of the

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: from hence Christians doe know that they are to invocate the Holy Ghost. For S. Pauls argument is good, How shall we call on him on whom we have not believed? therefore we may call on him if we believe on him: according to that Rule of reason, Negatio unius diversum affirmat, The denying of one is the affirmation of its contrary in the like matter.* 1.133 And something of this was used by Paschasius the Dea∣con: and the effect of it prevail'd upon the account of a negative from Scripture; In nullis autem Canonicis libris, de quibus Symboli textus pen∣det, accepimus, quia in Ecclesiam credere sicut in Spiritum Sanctum Fili∣úmque debemus, We are taught in no Scripture (from whence the Creed is de∣riv'd) to believe in the Church, as we believe in the Son and in the Holy Ghost: and therefore we ought not to doe it; but it being plain in the Creed, and consequently in the Scripture, that we must believe in the Holy Ghost, therefore also we may pray to him, and confess him to be God. To the same purpose S. Basil argues concerning the Holy Spirit; Dignitate namque ipsâ secundum esse à Filio pietatis sermo fortassis tradit: naturâ verò tertiâ uti nec à Divinis Scripturis edocti sumus, nec ex antecedentibus possi∣bile est consequenter colligi, That the Holy Spirit is of a nature distinct from the Father and the Son we neither are taught in Scripture, neither can it be drawn into consequence from any antecedent pretences.* 1.134

3. A negative argument of a word or an expression cannot be conse∣quently deduc'd to the negation of the mystery signified by that word.* 1.135 The Arrians therefore argued weakly, Shew us in all the Scripture that the Son is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Consubstantial to the Father; if you cannot, you ought not to affirm it. For we know God is one; if therefore we finde in Scri∣pture that the Son is true God, we know he must needs be of the same sub∣stance with his Father; for two substances cannot make one God. So though the Blessed Virgin Mary be not in Scripture called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Mother of God, yet that she was the Mother of Jesus, and that Jesus Christ is God, and yet but one person, that we can prove from Scripture, and that is sufficient for the appellative: and if the Church of Rome could prove the mystery of Transubstantiation from Scripture, we would indulge to them the use of that word, or any other aptly to express the same thing.

4. A negative argument from Scripture is sufficient to prove an article not to be of necessary belief,* 1.136 but is not sufficient to prove it not to be true: because although the Scripture is the measure of Faith and of Manners, yet it is an adequate measure of all truth. The meaning of which rule takes in all truths of art, experience, of prudence, of tradition and common report. Thus although it be no where said in Scripture that our Blessed Saviour said, Nunquam laeti sitis nisi cum Fratrem vestrum in charitate vide∣ritis, Be never very merry but when you see your Brother in charity; yet S. Hie∣rome reports it of him, and it is a worthy saying, and therefore may very well be entertain'd, not onely as true and useful, but as from Christ. The

Scripture no where says that the blessed Virgin was a Virgin perpetually to the day of her death: but as therefore it cannot be obtruded as an ar∣ticle of faith, yet there are a great many decencies and probabilities of the thing, besides the great consent of almost all the Church of God, which make it very fit to be entertain'd. There are some things which are piè credibilia, there is piety in the believing them: and in such cases it is not enough that there is nothing in Scripture to affirm it; if there be any thing in any other topick, it is to be entertain'd according to the merit of the thing.

5. A negative argument from Scripture does not conclude in questions of fact:* 1.137* 1.138 and therefore S. Hierome did not argue rightly, Quanquam excepto Apostolo non sit manifestè relatum de aliis Apostolis quod Uxores habuerint, & cum de uno scriptum sit ac de caeteris tacitum, intelligere debemiis, sine uxori∣bus eos fuisse, de quibus nihil tale Scriptura significat; The Scripture names onely Peters wife, and does not say that any of the other Apostles were marri∣ed, therefore we are to conclude that they were not. For besides that the al∣legation is not true, and S. Paul intimates that the other Apostles as well as Peter did lead about a Sister, a Wife; and that from thence the Fathers did believe them all to have been married except S. John, and some also except S. Paul; yet the argument is not good: for it may as well be con∣cluded that S. Peter never had a child, or that Christ did never write but once when he wrote upon the ground, because the Scripture makes no mention of either.

6. When a negative argument may be had from Scripture for both the parts of the contradiction,* 1.139 nothing at all can be concluded thence, but it must be wholly argued from other topicks. The Scripture neither says that Christ did ever laugh, nor it does not say that he did never laugh; there∣fore either of the contradicting parts may be equally inferr'd, that is truly neither. And indeed this is of it self a demonstration that in matters of fact and matters not necessary a negative argument from Scripture is of no use at all.

7. But when the question is of lawful or unlawful,* 1.140 then it is valid. If it be not in Scripture forbidden directly or by consequent then it is lawful; it is not by God forbidden at all. And on the other side, if it be not there commanded it is not necessary. Lucentius thus argued in the Council of Chalcedon, Dioscorus Synodum ansus est facere sine authoritate sedis Aposto∣licae, quod nunquam licuit, nunquam factum est. That it was never done, proves not but it may be done; but if it was never lawful to be done, then it was forbidden; for whatsoever is not forbidden is not unlawful: but if it was not in Scripture forbidden, then aliquando licuit, it once was law∣ful, and therefore is always so, if we speak of the Divine Law; and if Lu∣centius speaks of that, he ought to have considered it in the instance: but I suppose he means it of custome, or the Ecclesiastical Law; and therefore I meddle not with the thing, onely I observe the method of his arguing.

8. An argument from the discourse of one single person omitting to af∣firm or deny a thing relating to that of which he did discourse,* 1.141 is no competent argument to prove that the thing it self omitted was not true:* 1.142 and therefore Ruffinus had but a weak argument against the traduction of the soul when

he argued thus, Si anima quoque esset ex anima secundum illorum vanas opi∣niones, nunquam profecto hoc Adam praeterisset. Nam sicut os ex ossibus meis, & caro de carne mea dicebat, sic etiam anima ex anima mea dicere potuis∣set. Sed tantum hoc dixit quod sibi videlicet sciebat ablatum. Adam seeing his wife, said, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, for he knew what was taken from him; but he could have said, soul of my soul, if the soul had been deriv'd from him. This I say is no good argument, unless every one must be supposed when he says any thing to say all that is true, and all that he knows: so that Ruffinus in this particular defended a good cause with a broken sword.

9. But if that which is omitted in the discourse be pertinent and mate∣rial to the inquiry,* 1.143 then it is a very good probability that that is not true that is not affirmed. When the Jews asked our Blessed Saviour, Why doe the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast often, but thy disciples fast not? he gave an answer that related to the present state of things and circum∣stances at that time, and said nothing of their not fasting in the time of the Gospel: from which silence we may well conclude that there is nothing in the Religion disobliging Christs disciples from fasting; if it had, it is very likely it would have been then expressed when there was so apt an occa∣sion, and the answer had been imperfect without it.* 1.144 S. Hieromes was also very good, but not so certain as the other, against the tale of Leo baptized after his death, and the periods of Paul and Tecla; Igitur periodos Pauli & Teclae & totam baptizati Leonis fabulam inter apocryphas Scripturas compu∣tamus. Quale enim est ut individuus comes Apostoli inter caeteras ejus res hoc solùm ignor ••verit? It is not likely that S. Luke, who continually at∣tended on S. Paul, observed all his actions, remark'd his miracles, de∣scrib'd his story, should omit things so strange, so considerable, if they had been true.

The reason of these things is,* 1.145 Every thing is to be suspected false that does not derive from that fountain whence men justly expect it, and from whence it ought to flow. If you speak of any things that relates to God, you must look for it there where God hath manifested himself; that is, in the Scriptures. If you speak of any humane act or ordinance, or story and matter of fact, you must look for it in its own spring and original, or goe the nearest to it you can. And thus the Bishops at the conference had with the Acephali, Hereticks who had Churches without Bishops,* 1.146 refused their allegations of the authority of Dionysius the Areopagite, upon this account, Illa testimonia quae vos Dionysii Areopagitae dicitis, unde potestis ostendere vera esse sicut suspicamini? Si enim ejus essent, non potuissent latere Beatum Cyrillum. Quid autem de B. Cyrillo dico, quando & B. Athanasius, si pro certo scisset ejus fuisse, ante omnia in Niceno Concilio de Consubstantiali Trinitate eadem testimonia protulisset adversus Arii diversae substantiae blasphemias? Si autem nullus ex Antiquis recordatus est ea, unde nunc potestis ostendere quia illius sunt, nescio. If neither S. Cyril, nor S. Athanasius, who were so diligent to inquire, so skilful in knowing, so concern'd that these Books should be the works of S. Dionys, did yet know nothing of them, and if amongst the Ancients they were not known, for you Moderns now to tell of Antiquity, what by them who then liv'd was not told, is a folly that can never gain credit amongst reasonable persons. Let every fruit proceed from its own root. We cannot say, because a thing is not in Scripture,

therefore it is not at all; but therefore it is nothing of Divine Religion. So it is also in things relating to the Ancient Church; from thence onely can we derive any notice of their doctrine and of their practices. For if an article prevail'd in S. Austins time, it was no argument that therefore it was believ'd in S. Cyprians time: but a negative argument from any Age ought to prevail in reference to that Age; and if there be in it nothing of Antiquity, no argument of the Moderns can prove it to be Ancient: and Baronius said well, Quod à recentiori Authore de rebus antiquis sine alicujus vetustioris authoritate profertur, contemnitur, What the Moderns say of the Ancients without warranty from themselves is to be despised. One thing one∣ly I am to adde to this out of Vincentius Lirinensis,* 1.147 Quicquid vero ab Anti∣quo deinceps Uno praeter omnes, vel contra omnes Sanctos novum & inaudi∣tum subinduci senserit, id non ad religionem sed ad tentationem potiùs intelli∣gat pertinere, If one of the Fathers say a thing, and the others say it not, but speak diversly or contrarily, that pertains not to Religion, but to tem∣ptation. I doubt not but he intended it against S. Austin, who spake things in the matter of Predestination, and the damnation of infants, and other appendant questions against the sense of all the Fathers that were before him;* 1.148 one (it may be) or scarce one being excepted. And to the same purpose Tertullian argued against Marcion concerning a pretended Gospel of S. Paul, Etsi sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intu∣lisset, non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio An∣tecessorum. If you cannot bring testimony from the Fathers and Ancient Records, you must not receive it; one alone is not to be trusted. He that affirms must prove; to him that denies, a negative argument is sufficient. For to a mans belief a positive cause is required, but for his not belie∣ving, it is sufficient that he hath no cause.* 1.149 Thus S. Hierome argues well against the rebaptizing of converted Hereticks, Ad eos venio haereticos qui Evangelia laniaverunt….quorum plurimi vivente adhuc Johanne Apo∣stolo eruperunt, & tamen nullum eroum legimus rebaptizatum. Of all the He∣reticks which appeared in S. Johns time, we never read of any that was rebaptiz'd: and therefore it is to be presumed they were not; for a thing so considerable and so notorious, in all reason would have given some signs, and left some indications of it. But then it is to be observed,

10. A negative argument must not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a partial or a broken piece of a medium.* 1.150 You cannot argue rightly thus, S. John in his Gospel speaks nothing of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, therefore that Sacrament is no part of the doctrine of salvation. For three Evangelists had done it before him, and therefore he did not; and a negative argu∣ment onely from one Gospel cannot conclude rightly concerning any ar∣ticle of the Religion. And this is very evident in matters of fact also. For if it be argued thus, We doe not finde in Scripture nor in the days of the Apostles any infant baptized; therefore we conclude there was none. This is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is true, if there were no way else to finde it but the practice of the Apostles, the negative argument had been very good; but we derive it from the force of Christs words of institution, and of his discourse with Nicodemus, and the analogy of Circumcision, and the practice of the Jews in baptizing their children, and many proprieties of Scripture, and the effect of the Sacrament, and the necessities of regenera∣tion. S. Irenaeus his negative argument was good;* 1.151 Quod neque Prophetae praedicaverunt, neque Dominus docuit, neque Apostoli tradiderunt, &c. If

neither Moses nor the Prophets, Christ nor his Apostles have taught it, it is not to be received as any part of Christian doctrine. For this negative is integral & perfect. But S. Cyril of Alexandria disputed also well with his ne∣gative argument from Antiquity,* 1.152 Etenim nomen hoc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nullus unquam Ecclesiasticorum Doctorum repudiavit: qui autem illo subinde usi sunt, & multi reperiuntur, & maximè celebres. Many famous Doctors used this word, calling the Virgin Mary the Parent of God; and none ever refused it; therefore it may safely be used. If the negative argument from Scri∣pture or Antiquity respectively can run thus, It was not condemn'd in Scri∣pture or Antiquity, but it was used, therefore it is good; the argument concludes rightly in relation to Scripture, and probably in relation to An∣tiquity. But if it be said onely, the Scripture condemnes it not, but neither does it approve it, then it cannot be concluded to be laudable, but onely not criminal. But if it be said of Antiquity, it was neither condemn'd nor us'd, it cannot be inferr'd from thence that it is either laudable or inno∣cent. The reason is, because Scripture is the measure of lawful and unlaw∣ful, but the writings of the Doctors are not; and these may be deficient, though that be full.

11. In the mysteries of Religion,* 1.153 and in things concerning God, a nega∣tive argument from Scripture ought to prevail both upon our faith and upon our inquiries, upon our belief and upon our modesty. For as S. Austin said well, De Deo etiam vera loqui periculosissimum, It is hard to talk many things of God: we had need have good warranty for what we say; and therefore it is very fit we speak Scripture in the discourses of God. And thus S. Au∣stin argued,* 1.154 Ideo nusquam scriptum est quod Deus Pater major sit Spiritu Sancto, vel Spiritus Sanctus sit minor Deo Patre: quia non sic assumpta est Creatura, in qua appareret Spiritus Sanctus, sicut assumptus est Filius homi∣nis. Since it is no where written that the Father is greater then the Spirit, we ought not to say he is. But if it be objected that neither does the Scri∣pture say, that he is not greater, it does not say that they are equal; and therefore it will be hard to use a negative argument in such cases; and how shall we know which part of the negative to follow? I answer, it is very true according to the sixth proposition num. 52. but then in this case we must inquire for other words of Scripture by which we may be directed, and proceed accordingly, or inquire into the analogy of faith, or the mea∣sures of piety: but if there be nothing to determine to any side of the negative, we must say nothing; and if there be, yet we must say but little, because the notice is not great.

12. Lastly,* 1.155 In matters of envy and burden, a Negative argument even in matter of fact ought to prevail, unless the contrary be proved by some other competent Topick. That the Clergy ought not to marry is no where affir∣med in Scripture, and therefore it is permitted; and because it is agree∣able to Nature, and the Lawes of all republicks▪ their marriage is also holy and pleasing to God. A burden must be directly imposed; a man must not be frighted or scar'd into it. When our Blessed Saviour reproved the Pharisees for imposing heavy burdens, such which God impos'd not, he taught us the value of this argument; ubi scriptum est? shew us where it is written that this is displeasing to God: if it be no where forbidden, praesumitur pro libertate; all men are as free as they were born. How this can be altered by the lawes of man will be afterwards consider'd. In the

mean time God hath left us under no more restraints then are describ'd in Scripture. This argument S. Chrysostome urges against the necessitie of corporal afflictions to a contrite weeping penitent. Lacrymas Petri lego, Satisfactionem non lego. I read that S. Peter wept, I doe not read that he impos'd penances on himself. The argument were good from this place, if the case be not special, or if it be not altered by some other considera∣tion. This is also to be extended to such negative arguments as are taken from matter of fact in accusations, and criminal proceedings: not that it can of it self be great enough to prevail, but that the case is so favourable, that every little thing ought to be strong enough.* 1.156 Thus S. Athanasius de∣fended his Decessor Dionysius: Et prius eorum Authorem Dionysium per hoc voluit esse purgatum, atque ab Arianorum crimine alienum, quod ipse non sicut Arius cum viveret de impietate fuerat accusatus, aut de Episcopatu de∣jectus, neque velut haeresim defendens de Ecclesia, sicut ille, decesserit, sed in ejus permanserit unitate. Dionysius was not accused while he was alive, he was not thrown from his Bishoprick, he did not depart from the Church, but remain'd in her Communion; and therefore he was no Arian. But argu∣ments of this nature, when the medium is so limited, and the instance so particular, have their force onely by accident. For this and the like Negatives are good arguments when they are the best light in the que∣stion, that is, when nothing greater can be said against them, or when men are easy and willing to be perswaded; as in the questions of burden and trouble all men ought.

III. Question.

Whether there may be any new articles of Faith:* 1.157 or that the Creed of the Church may so increase that what is sufficient to salvation in one age, can∣not serve in another.

If this Question were to be determin'd by witnesses,* 1.158 it were very easy to produce many worthy ones. Theodorus the Bp. of Rome in his Synodical Epistle to Paul the Patriarch of Constantinople thus concludes against the Monothelites, Sufficit nobis fides quam sancti Apostoli praedicaverunt, Con∣cilia firmaverunt, & Patres consignaverunt, That faith which the Apostles preach'd, which the Councils have confirm'd, which the Fathers have con∣sign'd, that faith is sufficient for us: Therefore nothing new can be super∣induc'd. After the Apostles had done preaching, the Faith was ful and in∣tire. It was so long before they died; but after their death the instru∣ments were seal'd and ratified, and there could be nothing put to them, but our obedience and consent. And therefore Victor Bp. of Carthage in his Synodical Epistle to Theodorus gives caution against any thing that is new. Vestrum est itaque, Frater Sanctissime, Canonica discretione solita con∣trariis Catholicae fidei obviare, nec permittere noviter dici quod patrum vene∣rabilium authoritas omnino non censuit. You must not permit any thing to be newly said, which the authority of the venerable Fathers did not think fit. If therefore the Fathers did not say it was necessary to believe any other articles then what they put into their confessions of Faith; he that sayes otherwise now is not to be suffer'd. Excellent therefore is the Coun∣sel of S. Cyprian,* 1.159

As it happens when the pipes of an aquaeduct are broken or cut off, the water cannot run, but mend them and restore the

water to it's course, and the whole city shall be refreshed from the foun∣tains head: Quod & nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes, praecepta Divina servantes, ut si in aliquo nutaverit & vacillaverit veritas, ad originem Dominicam & Evangelicam & Apostolicam traditionem revertamur, & inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde & ordo & origo surrexit. So must Gods Priests doe, keeping the Divine Commandements: if the truth be weakned or faile in any thing, let a recourse be made to the Original, to the fountain of Christ and his Apostles, to what hath been delivered in the Gospel; that thither our faith may return from whence it did arise.

From the simplicity,* 1.160 truth and ingenuity of this discourse it will plain∣ly follow, that what was the faith at first, the same it is now and no other, Sicut erat in principio &c. As it was in the beginning, so it is now, and so it shall be for ever. For to what purpose can it be advis'd that in all questi∣ons of faith or new springs of error we should returne to the fountains of our Saviour and the first emanations of the Apostles, but because no Di∣vine truth is warrantable but what they taught, no necessity is to be pre∣tended but what they impos'd? If it was their faith, it is and must be ours; but ours it ought not to be, if it was not theirs.

Now concerning this,* 1.161 there are very material considerations. 1. What∣soever the Apostles taught we must equally believe, if we equally know it: but yet all that they taught is not equally necessary to be taught; but onely so much as upon the knowledge of which good life is superstructed and our hopes of heaven depend. Whatsoever is in the Scripture is alike true, but whatsoever is there is not alike necessary, nor alike useful, nor alike easy to be understood. But whatsoever by reading or hearing or any other instrument we come to learn to be the truth of God, that we must believe: because no man disbelieves any such thing, but he disownes God. But here the question is not what we must believe when we know it to be the word of God, for that is every thing; but how much we are bound to know, what must be taught to all Christians, how much their memory and their hearts must be charged withall. For the Faith of a Christian is not made up of every true proposition; but of those things which are the foundation of our obedience to God in Jesus Christ, and the endearment of our duty, and the stabiliment of our hope. Faith, Hope, and Charity, are the fundamentum, paries & tectum, the foundation, the walls and the roofe of our building: Now this foundation is that necessary belief, without which nothing could subsist in our Religion.

2. This foundation was by Christ and his Apostles laid sure,* 1.162 but at first it was made but of a just latitude and eveness with the intended building. It was a little enlarged and paraphras'd by the Apostles and Apostolical men in their dayes; the Faith of Christians was the most easy and plain, the most simple and wise thing in the world: it was wholly an art of living well, and believing in God through Jesus Christ. And what Seneca said of the wisdome of the old men in infant Rome,* 1.163 is very true of the Aborigenes in Christianity, in the first spring of our Religion; Anti∣qua sapientia nihil aliud quam facienda & vitanda praecepit: & tum longè meliores erant viri: postquam docti prodierunt, desunt boni. The Ancient and primitive wisdome did onely command vertue, and prohibite vice; and then men liv'd good lives: but when they became more learned they became

less vertuous. Simplex erat ex simplici causa valetudo: multos morbos multa fercula fecerunt. The old world eat a simple and a natural diet, and they had a simple and a natural religion: but when variety of dishes were set upon the table, variety of diseases entred together with them. Now in what instance the simplicity of a Christian was at first exercised we find in S. Irenaeus.* 1.164 Melius itaque est nihil omnino scientem quempiam, ne quidem unam causam cujuslibet eorum quae facta sunt, cur factum, & credere Deo, & perseverare in ejus dilectione quae hominem vivificat, nec aliud in∣quirere ad scientiam nisi Jesum Christum filium Dei qui pro nobis cruci∣fixus est, quam per quaestionum subtilitates & multiloquium in impietatem cadere. It is therefore better for a man to know absolutely nothing of the causes of things why any thing was done, [and to believe in God, and to persevere in his love that makes a man to live, and to inquire after no knowledg but to know Jesus Christ the Son of God who was crucified for us] then by subtile questions and multitude of words to fall into impiety.

3. If we observe the Creeds or Symbols of belief that are in the New Testament,* 1.165* 1.166 we shall find them very short. Lord, I believe that thou art the Son of God who was to come into the world.* 1.167 That was Martha's Creed. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. That was Peters Creed. We know and believe that thou art Christ the Son of the living God. That was the Creed of all the Apostles.* 1.168 This is life eternal, that they know thee the onely true God, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. That was the Creed which our Blessed Lord himself propounded. And again, I am the resur∣rection and the life: he that believeth in me, yea though he were dead, yet shall he live, and he that liveth and believeth in me shall not die for ever. That was the Catechisme that Christ made for Martha, and question'd her upon the article, Believest thou this? And this belief was the end of the Gospel,* 1.169 and in sufficient perfect order to eternal life. For so S. John, These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name. For this i•• the word of Faith which we preach, namely, if you with the mouth confess Je∣sus to be the Lord,* 1.170 and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. That's the Christians Creed. For I have resolved to know nothing amongst you, but Jesus Christ and him crucified; that in us ye may learn not to be wise above that which is written,* 1.171 that ye may not be puffed up one for another, one against another. That was S. Paul's Creed, and that which he recommends to the Church of Rome, to prevent factions and Pride and Schisme. The same course he takes with the Corinthian Church;* 1.172 I make known unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which ye have received, in which ye stand, and by which ye are sav'd, if ye hold what I deliver'd to you, &c. Well; what is that Gospel by which they should be sav'd? It was but this, That Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he rose again the third day, &c. So that the summe is this, The Gentiles Creed or the Creed in the natural law is that which S. Paul sets down in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Deum esse, & esse Remuneratorem, that God is, and that God is a rewarder. Adde to this the Christian Creed, that Jesus is the Lord, that he is the Christ of God, that he died for our sins, that he rose again from the dead; and there is no question but he that believes this heartily, and confesses it constantly, and lives accordingly, shall be saved: we cannot be deceived; it is so plainly, so certainly affirm'd in Scripture, that there is no place left for haesitation.* 1.173 For this is his praecept, that we believe in the

Name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another. So S. John. This is his precept. True, and so there are many more: but why is this so signally remark'd, but because this is the fundamental precept, that upon which all the rest are superstructed? that is the foundation of faith and manners, & he that keeps this Commandement shall never perish, For other foundation can no man lay then this which is laid,* 1.174 which is Jesus Christ. But if any man shall build upon this foundation,* 1.175 gold, silver, pretious stones, wood, hay, stubble, Every mans work shall be made manifest; for that day shall de∣clare it,* 1.176 because it is revealed in fire; and every ones work the fire shall prove what it is. If any mans work which he hath superstructed shall remain, he shall receive a reward.* 1.177 But if any mans work shall be burned, he shall receive loss, yet himself shall be sav'd, but so as by fire. Nothing more plain,* 1.178 then that the believing in Jesus Christ is that fundamental article upon which every other proposition is but a superstructure, but it self alone with a good life is sufficient to Salvation. All other things are advantage or disadvan∣tage according as they happen; but Salvation depends not upon them. For every Spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ to have come in the flesh is of God,* 1.179 and whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God: and, Every one that believeth that Jesus is Christ is born of God: and, who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

In proportion to this measure of faith,* 1.180 the Apostles preach'd the doctrine of faith.* 1.181 S. Peters first Sermon was, that Jesus is Christ, that he was crucified, and rose again from the dead: and they that believed this were presently baptized. His second Sermon was the same; and then also he baptized Proselytes into that confession. And when the Eunuch had con∣fessed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Philip presently baptized him. And it is observable, that when the Eunuch had desir'd baptisme, S. Philip told him, He might if he did believe: and was, when he made that confes∣sion; intimating that this is the Christian Faith,* 1.182 which is the foundation of all his hope, and the condition of his baptisme, and therefore sufficient for his Salvation. For indeed that was the summe of all that Philip preached; for it is said of him, that he preached things concerning the Kingdome of God, and the name of Jesus Christ. And this was the summe of all that S. Paul preached in the Synagogues and assemblies of the people, this he disputed for, this he prov'd laboriously; that Jesus is Christ, that he is the Son of God, that he did, that he ought to suffer, and rise again the third day: and this was all that new doctrine for which the Athenians and other Greeks wondred at him, and he seem'd to them to be a setter forth of strange gods,* 1.183 because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. This was it into which the Jaylor and all his house were baptized; this is it which was propounded to him as the onely and sufficient means of Salvation; Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved and all thine house.* 1.184 This thing was illustrated sometimes with other glorious things still promoting the faith and honour of Jesus, as that he ascended into heaven and shall be the Judge of all the world. But this was the whole faith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the things which concerned the Kingdome of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, was the large circum∣ference of the Christian faith. That is, such articles which represent God to be our Lord, and Jesus Christ to be his Son, the Saviour of the world, that he died for us, and rose again and was glorified and reigns over all the

world, and shall be our Judge, and in the resurrection shall give us accor∣ding to our works; that in his name onely we shall be saved, that is, by faith and obedience in him, by the mercies of God revealed to the world in Jesus Christ: this is all which the Scripture calls necessary: this is that faith alone into which all the Church was baptized: which faith, when it was made alive by charity, was and is the faith by which the Just shall live.

This excellent summary of Faith we find also but with a very little Paraphrase propounded as sufficient by S. Polycarp in that excellent Epistle of his to the Philippians,* 1.185 which S. Irenaeus so much commends, Fidei vestrae firmitas à principio usque nunc permanet, & sanctificatur in Domino Jesu Christo, This is the firmness of your faith from the beginning, which remains unto this day, and is sanctified in Jesus Christ. This S. Ignatius calls ple∣nam de Christo cognitionem,* 1.186 a full knowledge concerning Christ: then he reckons the generation of the Son from God the Father before all worlds, his being born of the Virgin Mary, his holy life, his working miracles, his preaching one God even the Father, his passion and crucifixion, his death and resurrection, his ascension and sitting at the right hand of God, and that in the end of the world he shall rise again to judge the quick and the dead, and to give to every one according to their works. When he hath recited this, he addes, Haec qui planè cognorit & crediderit, beatus est, He that plainly knowes these things and believes them, is blessed. And in another Epistle,* 1.187 after the recitation of such another Creed, he addes, He that be∣lieves these things,* 1.188 is blessed that ever he was born. Justin Martyr affirmes expressly, that if any man should even then live according to the law of Moses (I suppose he means the law of the ten Commandements) so that he believes in Jesus Christ crucified, and acknowledge him for the Christ of God, to whom is given the judgment of all the world, he also shall possess the Eternal Kingdome.

The same Creed in more words but no more articles is recited by S. Irenaeus in his second and third chapters of his first book,* 1.189 saying that the Church throughout all the world being planted by the Apostles to the ends of the Earth, and by their Disciples, hath received this faith. He of all the Prelates that is most powerful in speech cannot say any thing else: for no man is above his Master, and he that is weak in speaking cannot say less. For since the faith is one and the same, he that speaks much cannot say more, and he that speaks little must not say less. And afterwards speaking of some barbarous nations that had not the Scriptures,* 1.190 yet having this faith, which he there shortly recites, beginning with belief in God the Father, the maker of the world, and in Jesus Christ, repeating the usual articles of his being born of the Virgin Mary, his being the Son of God, his reconciling God and man, his suffering under Pontius Pilate, his rising again and being received into glory, and his last judgment: he addes, Hanc fidem qui sine literis crediderunt quantum ad sermonem nostrum Barbari sunt, quantum autem ad sententiam & consuetudinem & conversationem propter fidem, sapientissimi sunt & placent Deo, conversantes in omni justitia, castitate & sapientia, They who believe this faith are most wise in their sentence and custome and con∣versation through faith, and they please God, living in all justice, chastity and wisdome.

Here were almost two Ages spent by this time, in which the most pe∣stilent Heresies that ever did trouble the Church did arise,* 1.191 in which some of the Questions were talk'd of and disputed, and which afterwards by the zeal of some that overvalued their own forms of speaking pass'd into a faction; and yet in all this time, and during all that necessity, there was no more added to the Christian Creed, no more articles for the condemna∣tion of any new heresy: whatsoever was against this was against the faith; but any thing else they reprov'd if it were false, but did not put any more into their Creed. And indeed they ought not. Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis & irreformabilis, Credendi scil in Unum Deum, &c. saith Tertullian;* 1.192 The Rule of faith is altogether One, and immovable and un∣alterable. This law of faith remaining, other things may be inlarged according as the grace of God multiplies upon us. But for the faith it self here con∣sign'd and summ'd up, the Epistle of Celestine to Nestorius is very affirma∣tive and clear, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The faith or Creed delivered by the Apostles requires neither addition nor defalcation. Neque enim ulla extitit haeresis quae non hoc Sym∣bolo damnari potuit, There was never any heresie but this Creed was suffici∣ent for its condemnation, said the Catechism of the Archbishop of Triers.

This faith passing into all the world was preserved with great sacred∣ness and great simplicity,* 1.193 no Church varying from it at all: some indeed put some great things into it which were appendages to the former; but the fullest and the most perfect were the Creeds of Jerusalem and Rome, that is, the same which the Greek and Latine Church use at this day. The first and the most simple forms were sufficient; but these fuller forms being compiled by the Apostles themselves or Apostolical men, and that from the words of Scripture, made no great alteration: the first were not too little, and these were not too much. The first was the thing it self, which was of a declar'd sufficiency; but when the Apostles were to frame an in∣strument of Confession, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a form of doctrine by way of art and method, they put in all that they directed by the Holy Spirit of God knew to contain the whole faith of a Christian. Now of this form so described, so delivered, so received, the Fathers of the Church affirm that it is intire and sufficient, and nothing is to be added to it. Ergo & cunctis credentibus quae continentur in praefato symbolo salus animarum & vita perpetua bonis actibus praeparatur, said the Author of the Epistle to S. James attributed to S. Clement, To all that believe those things contained in the foresaid Symbol or Creed, and doe good deeds, salvation of their souls and eternal life is prepared.

And therefore this summary of faith was called,* 1.194 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Regula fidei, depositum, breve Evangelium, The form or exemplar of doctrine, the Canon, a description of sound words, the proportion or measure of Faith, the milky way, or the Introduction of Novices, the Elements of the beginning of the Oracles of God, the Repository of faith, the faith that was delivered to the Saints, the Rule of Faith, that which was intrusted to the Church, A short Gospel. These and divers other appellatives of the Creed were used by the ancient Doctors, most of them taken out of Scripture. For what the Scriptures did affirm of the whole Faith, that the Fathers did apply to this

Creed, as believing it to contain all that was necessary. And as a grain of Mustard-seed in little contains in it many branches, so also this faith in a few words involves all the knowledge [the necessary knowledge] of the Old and New Testament,* 1.195 saith S. Cyril; and therefore he calls this Creed, Traditionem Sanctae & Apostolicae fidei, The Tradition of the Holy and Aposto∣lick Faith. Cordis signaculum, & nostrae militiae Sacramentum,* 1.196 so S. Am∣brose calls it, The seal of our heart, and the Sacrament of our Warfare. S. Hierome yet more fully,* 1.197 The Symbol of our faith and of our hope, which being delivered by the Apostles is not written with paper and ink, but in the fleshy tables of our hearts, after the confession of the Trinity and Unity of the Church. Omne Christiani dogmatis Sacramentum carnis resurrectione conclu∣ditur; The whole Sacrament of the Christian doctrine is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh to eternal life.* 1.198 Norma futurae praedicationis; so Ruf∣finus calls it; the rule of future preachings appointed by the Apostles; & hanc credentibus esse regulam dandam statuunt, they appoint this to be gi∣ven as a Rule to all believers: and again, This Creed was the token by which he should be known who did preach Christ truly according to the Rules of the Apostles; the indication of their Faith and Unanimity. Comprehen∣sio fidei nostrae atque perfectio, so S. Austin calls it. Virtus est Sacramenti, illuminatio animae,* 1.199 plenitudo Credentium, The illumination of the soul, the fulness of believers, the comprehension and the perfection of our faith. By this the knot of infidelity is untied, by this the gate of life is opened, by this the glory of our confession is manifested. It is tessera & signaculum quo inter Fideles perfidosque secernitur,* 1.200 said Maximus Taurinensis. Basis quaedam, & fundamentum immotum & inconcussum per universum orbem jactum: So S. Cyril of Alexandria. It is a badge and cognisance to distinguish the faithful from the perfidious; an immovable foundation laid for all the world; a Divine or Celestial armour, that all the opinions of Hereticks may be cut off with this sword alone; So S. Leo Bishop of Rome. I could adde very many more to this purpose; who please to require more, may see enough in Lucifer Calaritanus l. 2. ad Constantium, Paulinus Bishop of Nola ep. 1. ad Afrum, S. Austin his Book de Symbolo ad Catechumenos l. 1. c. 1. in Ruffinus his excellent exposition of the Creed, Eucherius Bishop of Lions in his first Homily upon the Creed, Petrus Chrysologus in his 62 Homily, Isidor of Sivil l. 6. originum c. 9. and in his Offices Ecclesiastical l. 1. c. 26. de Dominica palmarum, Rabanus Maurus l. 2. de instit. Clericorum cap. 56. the oration of Bernard Zane in the first Session of the Council of Lateran, in the discourse of the Greeks at the Council of Florence, Sess. 10. Cassia∣nus de incarnatione Domini, Eusebius Gallieanus in his Homilies on the Creed published by Gaigneus Chancellor of Paris, in Venantius Fortuna∣tus his explication of it; and he may if he please adde the two Homilies which S. Chrysostome made upon the Creed, and the great Catechetical oration of S. Gregory Nyssen.

Now to what purpose is all this?* 1.201 The Apostles compil'd this form of words, all Churches received them, all Catechumens were baptized into this faith, in the Roman Church they recited it publickly before their immersion, to this salvation was promised; this was the Sacrament of the Christian faith, the fulness of believers; the characteristick of Christians, the sign of the Orthodox, the sword of all heresies and their sufficient reproof, the unity of belief, sufficient, full, immovable, unalterable; and it is that and that alone in which all the Churches of the world doe at this day agree.

It is true,* 1.202 that the Church of God did explicate two of the articles of this Creed, that of the second, and that of the third Person of the Holy Trinity; the one at Nice, the other at Constantinople; one against Arius, the other against Macedonius; they did explicate, I say, but they added no new matter but what they supposed contain'd in the Apostolical Creed. And indeed the thing was very well done, if it had not been made an ill example; they had reason for what they did, and were so near the Ages Apostolical that the explication was more likely to be agreeable to the Sermons Apostolical: But afterwards the case was alter'd, and that ex∣ample was made use of to explicate the same Creed, till by explicating the old they have inserted new Articles.

But all the while,* 1.203 it is consented to on all hands, that this onely faith is sufficient. What can certainly follow from these infallible Articles is as cer∣tainly true as the Articles themselves, but yet not so to be imposed, because it is not certain that this or this explication is right, that this consequent is well deduc'd; or if it be certain to you, it is not so to me; and besides it is more an instrument of schism then of peace, it can divide more then it can instruct, and it is plainly a recession from the simplicity of the Chri∣stian faith, by which simplicity both the learned and the ignorant are the more safe.* 1.204 Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutis∣simam facit: and when once we come to have the pure streams pass through the limbecks of humane wit, where interest, and fancy, and error, and ignorance, and passion are intermingled, nothing can be so certain, though some things may be as true; and therefore here the Church does rest, here she finds peace; her faith is simple, easy and intelligible, free from temptation, and free from intrigues; it is warranted by Scripture, composed and delivered by the Apostles, entertain'd by all the world: In these they doe agree, but in nothing else, but this and in their fountain, the plain words of Scripture.

For all the rest,* 1.205 it is abundant to all excellent purposes. It can in∣struct the wise, and furnish the Guides of Souls with treasures of know∣ledge, and imploy the tongues and pens of the learned; it can cause us to wonder at the immensity of the Divine wisdome, and the abyss of revela∣tion: it is an excellent opportunity for the exercise of mutual charity in instructing and in forbearing one another, and of humility and patience and prayer to God to help our infirmities, and to enlighten us more and more in the knowledge of God. It is the great field of faith where she can enlarge her self; but this is the house of faith where she dwels for ever in this world.

So that for any other thing of the Religion it is to be believed so farre as it does appear to be the word of God;* 1.206 and by accidents and circum∣stances becomes of the family or retinue of faith: but it is not necessary to be believed for it self, unless it be for something else it is not necessary at all. A man may be saved without knowing any thing else, without hea∣ring of any thing, without inquiring after any thing, without believing any thing else, provided that in this faith he live a good life. But because sometimes a man is by the interests of a good life requir'd to know more, to inquire after more, and to learn more, therefore upon the stock of obe∣dience more may be necessary; but not upon the account of faith. So that

if some men doe not reade the Scriptures, and study them, and search into the hidden things of God, they sin against justice or charity, but not against faith, if they retain all the articles of the Apostles Creed: and a man may be extremely to blame if he disbelieve many other things; but it is be∣cause upon some evil account he disbelieves it, and so is guilty of that sin which is his evil principle, as of pride, ambition, lust, covetousness, idle∣ness, fear or flattery; but a man is not in any such case guilty of heresy. For heresy being directly opposed to faith, and faith being compleated in the Articles of the Christian Creed, it cannot be heresy unless it be a con∣tradicting of one of those Articles in the words or in the sense, in the letter, or in the plain, visible, certain, and notorious explication of it. In the Apo∣stolical Creed all the Christian world is competently instructed: in these things there is no dispute; and if they be simply believ'd as they are plainly deliver'd, it is the better. But in every thing else, every man according to his calling and abilities is to grow as much as he can in knowledge; that is, in edifying and practical knowledge: but in all things of speculation, he that believes what he sees cause for, as well and as wisely, as heartily and as honestly as he can, may be deceived, but cannot be a Heretick, nor ha∣zard his salvation. Salus Ecclesiae non vertitur in istis. In simplicitate fides est,* 1.207 in fide justitia: nec Deus nos ad beatam vitam per difficiles quaestiones vocat: in expedito & facili nobis est aeternitas, said S. Hilary. Faith is in simplicity, and righteousness in faith; neither does God call us to eternal life by hard questions. Eternity stands ready and easily prepar'd.

For I consider,* 1.208 if any thing else were necessary to be believed unto salvation, this symbol could absolutely be of no use; but if any thing be added to it and pretended also to be necessary, it cannot be entertained, unless they that adde it and impose it be infallible in their judgement, and competent in their authority: they must have authority equal to that of Christ, and wisdome equal to that of the Apostles. For the Apostles in this summary of faith, declar'd all that was at that time necessary; and if any man else makes a new necessity he must claim Christs power, for he onely is our Law-giver: and if any declares a new necessity, that is not sufficient, unless he can also make it so, for declaring it supposes it to be so already; and if it was so at first, the Apostles were to blame not to tell us of it; and if it was not so at first, who made it so afterwards?

But it is infinitely necessary that for the matter of faith,* 1.209 necessary and sufficient faith, we rest here and goe not further. For if there can be any new necessities, then they may for ever increase, and the faith of a Chri∣stian shall be like the Moon, and no man can be sure that his faith shall not be reproved; and there shall be innumerable questions about the autho∣rity of him that is to adde, of his skil, of his proceeding, of the particular article, of our own duty in inquiring, of our diligence, of our capacity, of the degrees of our care, of the competency of instruments, of chusing our side, of judging of questions: and he that cannot inquire diligently, and he that cannot judge wisely, and he that cannot discern spirits, and he that fears, and he that fears not shall all be in danger, and doubt, and scruple, and there shall be neither peace of minds nor Churches, as we see at this day in the sad divisions of Christendome; and every man almost damnes all but his own sect; and no man can tell who is in the right. Men dispute well on both sides; and just and good and wise men are oppos'd to one ano∣ther;

and every man seems confident, but few men have reason; and there is no rest, and there can be none, but in this simplicity of belief which the Apostles recommended to all the world, and which all the world does still keep in despite of all their superinduc'd opinions and factions; for they all retain this Creed, and they all believe it to be the summary of Faith.

But the Church of Rome pretends to a power of appointing new Ar∣ticles of Faith;* 1.210 and for denying this, Pope Leo the 10^th condemn'd Lu∣ther in his Bull added to the last Council in Lateran. For ad solam authori∣tatem summi Pontificis pertinet nova editio Symboli, A new edition of the Creed belongs to the sole authority of the Pope of Rome.* 1.211 So Aquinas: and Almain most expresly,* 1.212 The Popes of Rome by defining many things which before lay hid, Symbolum fidei augere consuevisse, are wont to enlarge the Creed. For Doctrina fidei admit∣tit additionem in essentialibus,* 1.213 saith Salmeron, The doctrine of faith admits addition even in essential things. And in consequence to these expressions, they did adde the article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, in a Synod at Gentilli in France; and twelve Articles to the Creed in the Council of Trent, with the preface and postscript of the Athanasian Creed, damning all that doe not equally believe the Creed of Trent as the Creed of the Apostles.

What effect and impress the declaration of any article by the Church* 1.214 hath or is to have upon the Conscience shall be discoursed under the title of Ecclesiastical lawes; but that which is of present inquiry is, whether any thing can be of Divine faith in one age that was not so in the age of the Apostles: and concerning this it is that I say, that it is from the premisses evident that nothing can make any thing to be of Divine faith but our Bl. Lord himself, who is therefore called the Author and Finisher of our Faith; he began it, and he made an end. The Apostles themselves could not doe it, they were onely Stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God; they did rightly divide the word of life, separating the necessary from that which was not so: so that their office in this particular was onely to declare what was necessary and what was not; no man, and no society of men could doe this but themselves, for none but they could tell what value was to be set upon any proposition: they were to lay the foundation, and they did so, and they built wisely upon it; but when they comman∣ded that we should keep the foundation, they onely could tell us which was it, and they did so by their Sermons, preaching the same doctrine to the simple and the crafty, and by immuring the necessary doctrine in a form of words, and consigning it to all the Churches where they preach'd the Gospel.

For we see that all the world is not able to tell us how much is neces∣sary,* 1.215 and how much is not, if they once goe beside the Apostles Creed: and yet it was infinitely necessary that at first this should be told, because there were so many false Apostles, and every one pretended authority or illumina∣tion, and every one brought a new word and a new doctrine; and the A∣postles did not onely foresee that there would be, but did live to see and feel the heresies and the false doctrines obtruded upon the Church, and

did profess it was necessary that such false doctrines should arise: and against all this that they should not provide an universal remedy, is at no hand credible, and yet there was none but the Creed; this all the Church did make use of, and profess'd it to be that summary of Faith which was a sufficient declaration of all necessary faith, and a competent reproof of all heresies that should arise.

But then that after all this any one should obtrude new propositions,* 1.216 not deducible from the Articles of the Creed, not in the bowels of any Article, neither actually express'd nor potentially included, and to impose these under pain of damnation, if this be not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which S. Paul said he had no power to doe,* 1.217 to have dominion or lordship over the faith, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.218 to lord it over Gods heritage, which S. Peter forbad any man to doe, I confess I doe not understand the words, nor yet saw or ever read any man that did. I conclude this with those excellent words of Justinian which are in the Code,* 1.219 part of the Imperial law by which almost all the world was long governed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This right and irreprehensible faith (speaking of the Apostolick Creed, part of which he there recites) which the Holy Ca∣tholick and Apostolical Church of God does preach, can by no means receive any innovation or change.

I conclude therefore this Question;* 1.220 In our inquiries of faith no mans Conscience can be press'd with any Authority but of Christ enjoyning, and the Apostles declaring what is necessary. I adde also, that the Apostles have declar'd it in this form of words which they have often set down in their writings, and which they more largely described in their Symbol of Faith. For since, as Sixtus Senensis says, Omnes Orthodoxi Patres affirmant Symbolum ab ipsis Apostolis conditum,* 1.221 that all the Orthodox Fathers affirm the Creed to be made by the Apostles, and they all say this is a sufficient Rule of faith for all Christians; here we ought to rest our heads and our hearts, and not to intricate our faith by more questions. For as Tertullian said well,* 1.222 Haec Regula à Christo, ut probabitur, instituta nullas habet apud nos quaestiones nisi quas haereses inferunt, & quae haereticos faciunt; Hereticks make disputes, and disputes make Hereticks, but faith makes none. For if upon the faith of this Creed all the Church of God went to heaven, all I mean that liv'd good lives, I am sure Christ onely hath the keys of hell and heaven; and no man can open or shut either, but according to his word and his law: so that to him that will make his way harder by putting more conditions to his salvation, and more articles to his Creed, I may use the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen, Tu quid salute majus quaeris? gloriam nempe quae illic est & splendorem: mihi vero maximum est ut salver, & fu∣tura effugiam tormenta. Tu per viam incedis minimè tritam & incessu diffi∣cilem: ego verò per regiam, & quae multos salvavit, What dost thou seek greater then salvation?* 1.223 (meaning by nice inquiries and disputes of articles beyond the simple and plain faith of the Apostles Creed) It may be thou lookest for glory and splendor here. It is enough for me, yea the greatest thing in the world, that I be saved and escape the torments that shall be hereafter. Thou goest a hard and an untroden path: I goe the Kings high-way, and that in which many have been saved.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1.
• * 1.2

  2.
• * 1.3

  3.
• * 1.4

  Clem. Alex. ••••onat. 7.
• * 1.5

  4.
• * 1.6

  in. Matth. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.7

  O••a••. contra. Gentes.
• * 1.8

  in cap. 3. ep. Rom.
• * 1.9

  S. Cyril. Hie∣rosol. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 12. illumin to∣rum.
• * 1.10

  Catech. 4. illuminat.
• * 1.11

  in Psal. 89
• * 1.12

  Idem in Matth cap. 23.
• * 1.13

  Homil. in Psal. 95
• * 1.14

  ad Euoptium.
• * 1.15

  Dialog. 1. cap. 6.
• * 1.16

  Contra Maxi∣minum lib. 3. cap. 14.
• * 1.17

  〈…〉〈…〉 & remigant animi popul••rum. Nemo vobis credat, nemo nobis: 〈…〉〈…〉 sunt Judues si Christiani, de utra••que parte dari non possunt, quia studtis 〈…〉〈…〉 et Ju••ex: si 〈◊〉〈◊〉, non potest nosse Christiana secreta; si Judaus, inimi••us est 〈…〉〈…〉 Ergo in 〈…〉〈…〉: de coelo quarendus est Judex. Sed ut 〈…〉〈…〉 cum ••••beamus in E••••gelio testamentum? Optat. lib. 5. contr. Parmen.

  〈…〉〈…〉 didici hunc 〈◊〉〈◊〉 honoremque deferre, ut nullam eorum scribendo 〈…〉〈…〉 ut quantalibet 〈…〉〈…〉 polleant: non ideò verum putem quia ipsi 〈…〉〈…〉 per illo•• auti•••••• Canonico••, vel probabilit 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quod à veritate non abhorreat, persuadere 〈…〉〈…〉 August 〈◊〉〈◊〉 19. ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

  〈…〉〈…〉, quae Canonica in Ecclesia nominantur, perspiciuá aliquid firmatur authoritate, 〈…〉〈…〉 est, Aliis vero testibus vel testimontis quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi credere 〈…〉〈…〉 &c. Idem Epist. 112. Vide cundem libr. ad 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••llationem cap. 15. & lib. de Unitate 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.18

  6.
• * 1.19

  De 〈◊〉〈◊〉 car∣nis cap. 3.
• * 1.20

  T••act 23. in M••••h.
• * 1.21

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.22

  Ho••••••. 58. in Johan.
• * 1.23

  Ad illud. ad docendum] in 2 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.24

  7.
• * 1.25

  De script. Eccl. de S. Joh. Chrysost.
• * 1.26

  8.
• * 1.27

  Tract. 2. in Epist. Johan.
• * 1.28

  9.
• * 1.29

  ••. C•••• cap. 12.
• * 1.30

  Cap. 22.
• * 1.31

  Homil. de fide.
• * 1.32

  In Asceticis, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 80.
• * 1.33

  Lib. 3. contra liter. Petiliani, cap. 6.
• * 1.34

  De vocat. gen∣tium in 20. tomo operum Ambros. l. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.35

  lib. de Trinit. & persona Christi.
• * 1.36

  Paschali 2.
• * 1.37

  In Agge. c. 1.
• * 1.38

  in Regni. bre•••• reg. 95.
• * 1.39

  in Reg. brev. reg. 1.
• * 1.40

  Advers. Her∣mogen. Cap, 22.
• * 1.41

  Lib. 2. cap. 47.
• * 1.42

  Lib. 4. cap. 66.
• * 1.43

  Apud Theodo∣ret. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 6. & apud Gela∣sium Cyzice∣num in actis Concil. Nicen. l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.44

  Orat. contra Gentes in initio
• * 1.45

  Homil. 9. in 2. T••m.
• * 1.46

  Homil. 9. in ep. Coloss.
• * 1.47

  Homil. 58. in Johan.
• * 1.48

  Homil. 41. opi. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Matth.
• * 1.49

  l. 2. c. 9. de doctri. Christi∣ana.
• * 1.50

  Collat. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.51

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.52

  〈…〉〈…〉 c. 1.
• * 1.53

  ••omil. 9. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.54

  lib. 1. de ortho fide c. 1.
• * 1.55

  in Levit. q. 9.
• * 1.56

  in Michae. c. 1.
• * 1.57

  lib. 7. contra Julian.
• * 1.58

  lib. 8. anagogi∣cae contempl. in Hexaeme∣ron.
• * 1.59

  Rupert. Abbas Tuitiensis Comment. in lib. Regum. l. 3. c. 12.
• * 1.60

  Lib. 1. contr. Eunomium.
• * 1.61

  Homil. 12. in 3. Philip.
• * 1.62

  11.
• * 1.63

  Lib. 3. cap. 1.
• * 1.64

  Tract. 49. in Johan.
• * 1.65

  Exposit. 2. Psal. 21. contr. Par∣men. l. 5.
• * 1.66

  Lib. 2. Hist. cap. 34.
• * 1.67

  12.
• * 1.68

  13.
• * 1.69

  14.
• * 1.70

  15.
• * 1.71

  16.
• * 1.72

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 15.
• * 1.73

  Epist. 74. ad Pompei.
• * 1.74

  ••••b. 3. contra 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.75

  Lib. 3. cap. 4.
• * 1.76

  17.
• a 1.77

  Lib. 3. hist. cap. 25.
• b 1.78

  Lib. de viris illustr.
• * 1.79

  18.
• * 1.80

  Lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.81

  Lib. 2. cap. 24.
• * 1.82

  Hist. lib. 5. c. 27.
• * 1.83

  S. Basil. l. 2. contr. Eunom Tract. 97. in Johan.
• * 1.84

  19.
• * 1.85

  20.
• * 1.86

  Lib 5 c. 20.
• * 1.87

  21.
• * 1.88

  22.
• * 1.89

  23.
• * 1.90

  24.
• * 1.91

  25.
• * 1.92

  De author. S. Script. l. 3. p. 53 Tom. 1. contr 1. de verbo Dei cap. 19. In colloq. Ra∣tisbon. lib. 3. c. 3. contre le Roy Jaques, & l. 2. c. 7. de Euchar. cont. Du Plessis & cap. 5. obser. 4. Resp. ad quaest. 9. Jacobi Regi•• Epiphaen. haere. 69.
• * 1.93

  S. Ambros. c. 5. lib. de side cō∣tra Arianos. S. Aug. tract. 97. in Johan. & epist. 174, & 178. S. Athanas. in libel. de decret. Synod. Nicen. Tertul. adv. Praxeam. Theodoret. Dial. 2. c. 4. Salmero, disp. 4. in 2. ad Timoth.
• * 1.94

  26.
• * 1.95

  27.
• * 1.96

  Summa Theol. p. 1. tit. 10. c. 3. de Indulg. fol. 202. Venet. 1582. Vtle etiam 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 2. dexs Indulgent. Na∣••••r. Comment. de J••••al. & indulgent. Biel lect. 57. in Can. Missae.
• * 1.97

  De cultu San∣ctorum cap. 9. § praeterea.
• a 1.98

  Contre le Roy de la Grand Bre∣tagne, p. 1009.
• * 1.99

  28.
• * 1.100

  29.
• * 1.101

  L. 1. Stroma••. Lib. 2. cap. 39.
• * 1.102

  31.
• * 1.103

  32.
• * 1.104

  Exod. 17. 14 & 34. 27. Job. 19. 23, 24. Psal. 102. 19. Isai. 30. 8. Jer. 30. 2. Revd. 1. 11, 19. & 21. 5.
• * 1.105

  33.
• * 1.106

  34.
• * 1.107

  35.
• * 1.108

  Homil 26. in Matth.
• * 1.109

  36.
• * 1.110

  37.
• * 1.111

  38.
• * 1.112

  39.
• * 1.113

  In cap. 6. Johan. n. 11••
• * 1.114

  Vide Hierem. Patriar. C. P. doctr. & exho••. ad Germanos.
• * 1.115

  40.
• * 1.116

  41.
• * 1.117

  42.
• * 1.118

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.119

  〈…〉〈…〉 23.
• * 1.120

  〈…〉〈…〉 6.
• * 1.121

  43.
• * 1.122

  1 pist. 10.
• * 1.123

  Lyra in Matth. c. 16.
• * 1.124

  44.
• * 1.125

  45.
• * 1.126

  46.
• * 1.127

  Vide 〈◊〉〈◊〉 9.
• * 1.128

  47.
• * 1.129

  O••••. 2 co•••••• Eunomiu••.
• * 1.130

  Lib. 2. de Tri∣nit. cap. 5. & cap. 6. contr. haer. l. 2. tom. 2.
• * 1.131

  48.
• * 1.132

  S. Greg. Nys∣••••n. ibid.
• * 1.133

  Lib. de Spi•••• c. 1.
• * 1.134

  Nónne per∣spicuum est, ista, tametsi non dicantur, tamen ex illis colligi quae haec necessariò efficiant ac probent? Quae tandem? Ego sum primus, & post haec, & ante me non est alius Deus, & post me non crit. Totum enim quicquid est, mecum est, nec principium habens, nec finem habiturum. His à Scriptura acceptis, illud quidem, quod ante eum nihil sit, nec anti quiorem causam habeat, Anarchum & Ingenitum appellasti: quod autem nunquam defiturum sit, Immortale, exiti••que expers. Nazianz. lib. 5. Theol. interprete Jacobo Billio. Et infra, Cum ergo in nominibus & rebus tantum discrimen reperiatur, quid causae est cur literae tantopere s••rvias, Judaicaeque sapientiae teipsum adjungas, relictisque rebus syllabas consecteris? Quod si te bis quinque aut bis septem dicente, decem aut quatuor decim ex verbis tuis colligerem, aut ex eo quod animal ratione praeditum. & mortale diceres, homi∣nem esse concluderem, an tibi viderer delirare? Neque enim verba magis sunt ejus qui loquitur quam illius qui loquendi necessitatem simul affert.
• * 1.135

  49.
• * 1.136

  50.
• * 1.137

  51.
• * 1.138

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.139

  52.
• * 1.140

  53.
• * 1.141

  54.
• * 1.142

  Lib. de fide, •• 28.
• * 1.143

  55.
• * 1.144

  Lib. de Script: Eccles. in Luca
• * 1.145

  56.
• * 1.146

  C. Pli. A••. Dom. 532.
• * 1.147

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.148

  Lib. 4 cap. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ma ••cion.
• * 1.149

  Dial. adv. Lu∣ciferianos.
• * 1.150

  57.
• * 1.151

  Lib. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.152

  Frima parte Concil. Ephes. cap. 25
• * 1.153

  58.
• * 1.154

  Lib. 2. de Tri∣nit. cap. 6.
• * 1.155

  59.
• * 1.156

  Apud Facun∣dum lib. 10. cap. 5
• * 1.157

  60.
• * 1.158

  61.
• * 1.159

  Epist. 74. ad Pompeium.
• * 1.160

  62.
• * 1.161

  63.
• * 1.162

  64.
• * 1.163

  Senec. ep. 9••.
• * 1.164

  Leo. 2. cap. 45.
• * 1.165

  65.
• * 1.166

  Joh. 11. 26, 27.
• * 1.167

  Ma••h. 16. 16. John 6. 69.
• * 1.168

  Joh. 17. 3
• * 1.169

  Joh. 20. 31.
• * 1.170

  Rom. 10. 8, 9.
• * 1.171

  1 Co••. 2. 2.
• * 1.172

  1 Cor. 15. 1.
• * 1.173

  1 J••k. 3. 23.
• * 1.174

  •• Cor. 3. 11,
• * 1.175

  12,
• * 1.176

  13,
• * 1.177

  14,
• * 1.178

  15.
• * 1.179

  1 Joh. 4. 2. 1 Joh. 5. ••.
• * 1.180

  66.
• * 1.181

  Act. 2. 24. & 3. 15.
• * 1.182

  Act. 8. 12, 3•• 38.
• * 1.183

  Acts 9. 20 17. 2.
• * 1.184

  Acts 16. 31.
• * 1.185

  67.
• * 1.186

  Ad Magnes.
• * 1.187

  Ad Philip.
• * 1.188

  Coll. cum Tryph.
• * 1.189

  68.
• * 1.190

  Lib. 3. cap. 4.
• * 1.191

  69.
• * 1.192

  De vela•••• Virgin. cap. 1
• * 1.193

  70.
• * 1.194

  71.
• * 1.195

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.196

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.197

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.198

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.199

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 115. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & ••erm. 131.
• * 1.200

  De 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ymb.
• * 1.201

  72.
• * 1.202

  73.
• * 1.203

  74.
• * 1.204

  August. contra epist. Fundam c. 4.
• * 1.205

  75.
• * 1.206

  76.
• * 1.207

  Lib. 2. de Trin. in princ.
• * 1.208

  77.
• * 1.209

  78.
• * 1.210

  79.
• * 1.211

  2. 2••. q. 1. a. 10.
• * 1.212

  August. Tri. de Ancona q. 59. art. 1. Novum Symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat, quia est caput fidei Christi∣anae, cujus authoritate omnia quae ad fidem spectant firmantur & roborantur. Idem art. 2. Sicut potest novum Symbolum condere, ità potest novos articulos supra alios multiplicare.
• * 1.213

  Tom. 13. part. 3. disp. 6. § est ergo.
• * 1.214

  80.
• * 1.215

  81.
• * 1.216

  82.
• * 1.217

  2 Co•• 1. 24.
• * 1.218

  1 ••et. 5. 3.
• * 1.219

  Cod. lib. 1. de span•• § Cum ••ecta.
• * 1.220

  83.
• * 1.221

  ••ib. 2. bibli∣oth. 5.
• * 1.222

  Lib 1. advers. haeret. cap. 13.
• * 1.223

  See Liberty of Prophes. sect. 1.