Romanism discussed, or, An answer to the nine first articles of H.T. his Manual of controversies. Whereby is manifested, that H.T. hath not (as he pretends) clearly demonstrated the truth of the Roman religion by him falsly called Catholick, by texts of holy scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first five hundred years, common sense, and experience, nor fully answered the principal objections of protestants, whom he unjustly terms sectaries. By John Tombes, B.D. And commended to the world by Mr. Richard Baxter.

ARTIC. VIII.

Unwritten Tradition now no Rule of Faith.

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

SECT. I.

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

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

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

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

Setting aside his non-sense speech of being received as Faith, in stead of be∣ing received as the object of Faith, and taking Apostolical Tradition to be meant of that which is truly so called, I grant his Tenet, and say with him that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition, that is, the Do∣ctrine which the Apostles delivered, or that delivery of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, and that nothing ought to be received as Faith, that is, a thing to be believed with a Christian divine Faith, which all Christians are bound to believe, but what is proved to have been so deli∣vered. For though in general any divine revelation is to be the object of Christi∣an Faith by whom or what way soever it be delivered, and God hath delivered divers revelations in the Books of the Old Testament, which are objects of Faith, yet sith now Christ and his Apostles have delivered those divine revelations as the oracles of God, and what the Apostles preached and thought needfull for us to know, and believe to salvation is written, and these Writings are conveyed from father to son by hand to hand, we grant the Tenet being meant of them, and yield further, that if they can prove there are Traditions truly Apostolical besides those which are written, and this Tradition, that those Books which we call holy Scripture are divine Writings, we will embrace them as things to be believed. But then, 1. We say it is manifest that in the Apostles days there were Traditions put on the Apostles which were not theirs, 2 Thess 2. 1. 2. That the Apostolical Tradition written is sufficient for faith to salvation. 3. That unwritten Traditions are uncertain, and much corrupted. 4. That there is no certain Rule to know which are Apostolical Traditions but by the Scripture or Apostolical Writings. 5. That neither the Popes nor Church of Rome nor general Councils determination is a sufficient assurance of Aposto∣lical Tradition unwritten. 6. That therefore to us now the holy Scripture is the onely Rule of Christian faith and life. And to the Argument of H. T. I answer, 1. By denying the Major, giving this as a Reason, because the means of planting and conserving faith, though it were the essential means,

yet is not the rule of faith necessarily, there being great difference between these two. The means of faith is any way God useth to beget it, as by dreams, visions, the speech of Balaam's Ass, his Prophecy, Caiaphas Pro∣phecy, the Star which guided the Wise-men, Matth. 2. the Wives good con∣versation, 1 Pet. 3. 1. yet these are not the Rule of Faith, but the divine reve∣lation it self. And if it were supposed any one of these, or any other, were the essential means of Faith, that is, that means by which Faith is, and without which it were not, yet it were not therefore the Rule of Faith, but the divine revelation or truth delivered by that means. And to the proof of the Major which seems to be thus formed, That is the true Rule of Faith which is immu∣table, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith it self is. But the essential means of planting and conserving it at first is immutable, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith it self is. Ergo. I answer, 1. By denying the Major, there are many things immutable, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith it self is, and yet are not the true Rule of Faith, as namely, Gods Decrees and purposes, the being of the Heavens, the obedience of the Angels, &c. 2. By denying the Minor. For whether the immediate Declaration of God to Adam, Gen. 3. 15. or Christ's preaching by himself were the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first, or any other, yet it is not immutable, and the same in all Ages, as Faith it self. God's Declaration immediately, or Christ's preach∣ing by himself are not the same in all Ages; yea, Heb. 1. 1. it is said, that God hath spoken to us in divers manners, ways and times by the Prophets, and in these last days onely hath spoken to us by his Son, vers 2. & chap. 2. 3. The salvation was at first begun to be speken by the Lord, and since was confirmed by them that heard him: which shews the means to be variable, by which Faith is planted and conserved. The Apostle tells us, 1 Pet. 3. 1. that without the Word those that believe not the Word may be won by the conversation of the Wives: so that their good conversation was at first a means of converting them, and yet that was not to be the Rule of their Faith. Whence it may ap∣pear that this Argument goes upon these false Suppositions.

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

2. I deny the Minor, that oral and Apostolical Tradition, not written Books, was the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first. And to his proof I answer, that by oral and Apostolical Tradition, in his Tenet he means, a delivery of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles: now if it be granted, there was no Gospel written till eight years after the death of Christ, or thereabouts, it must be granted also, that there was no delivery of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, but onely their preaching viva voce, with living speech, in their own persons, and therefore if that which was according to H. T. the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first must be the true Rule of Faith still, and no other, then that Rule must neither be unwritten nor written deli∣very of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, but their own personal Tradition viva voce, which now ceasing there

is no Rule of Faith at all left; but the Quakers device of each mans light with∣in him to be his Rule must take place. But to me the Rule of Faith is divine revelation, by what means soever it be delivered: be it the Law written in the heart or in the Book, by the signer of God in Tables of stone, or delivered by an Angel in a Dream, Vision, Apparition, by Christ, or his Apostles, or any other. But sith God hath been pleased to order it, be it sooner or later, that what Christ and his Apostles taught should be written, we are assured God would have us to take it for the Rule of our Faith, and if Scripture be not the Rule of our Faith Christ and his Apostles did not well to commend it to us, Luk. 16. 31. Joh. 5. 39. and to commend them that searched the Scriptures, Act. 17. 11. nor the Apostles to direct us to them, 1 Pet. 1. 19, 20. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. nor to allege them, Act. 3. 22. & 13. 33, 34, 35. nor Christ to have used them against the Tempter, Matth. 4. 4. 7. 10. nor to have imputed errour to the ignorance of them, Matth. 22 29. nor to have sent the Revelation of John to the seven Churches of Asia, with declaration of blessedness to the observers of it, and denunciation of a curse to the corrupters and infringers of it, Revel. 1. 1, 3. & 22. 18, 19. nor the Apostles to write a Letter to the Churches, Act. 15. 23. nor the Apostles to write several Epistles to several Churches. And if many Ages (though I think H. T. therein doth exceed) were passed before all the Books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church; yet it is certain some were, and they must be the Rule of Faith which were accepted. And when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age, though they were to inquire of the Apostles what they taught, yet when they could not speak with them, they made use of their Letters written, as Acts 15. 31. 1 Cor. 7. &c. And if we are not to do so still, why doth this Authour allege Scripture for the Churches Infallibility, the Popes Supremacy, &c. and tells us here, pag. 113. There is no better way to decide Controversies than by the Scripture expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apostolical Tradition? But this is an evidence of Gods infatuating these Romanists, that though they have no shew of proof for Peter's Supremacy, and consequently the Popes, without the Scripture, and therefore allege it, yet determine it not to be the Rule of Faith, and so make void their own proof, and the very Rule of Faith, which they would fain establish.

SECT. II.

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

But let us view what he adds. A second Argument is, That is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught, and what Books they wrote, and without which we can never be infallibly assured of these things. But by Apostolical Tradition we may infallibly be assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught, and what Books they wrote, and by no other means. Therefore Apo∣stolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith. The Major is manifest, because in the Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles taught, and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith; therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith. The Mi∣nor is proved, because a full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether infallible, since sensible evidence in a world of Witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible, how fallible soever men may be in their particulars; and such a re∣port, such an evidence is Apostolical Tradition, for all the Doctrinos Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote therefore infallible.

Answ. THe Popish Tenet is, that unwritten Traditions of other points than what are in the written Books are the Rule of Faith, that so what they cannot prove out of Scripture of Peter's being at Rome, being Bishop there, Purgatory-fire, Invocation of Saints, Adoration of the Host, mixing Water with Wine in the Eucharist, and many more, which Popes and Popish Coun∣cils obtrude on the Church of God as Apostolical Traditions, may be received as Objects of Faith. But here H. T. concludes Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith, and proves it of no other Apostolical Tradition but that whereby the Books written are known to be the Apostles, which I might grant, and yet H. T. gain nothing for his purpose, sith Apostolical Tra∣dition may be the true Rule of Faith, and yet not Apostolical Tradition unwritten, much less that which Popes and Councils call Apostolical Tradition, which is every corruption that hath been any long time received in the Roman Church: and this Apostolical Tradition infallible [that the Books of holy Scripture were written by the holy men whose names they bear, and that the things in them related are certain] and yet other Traditions of other things not so. But to his Argument, I say, the Major is not true, nor is it proved by his reason, which in form is this, That is the true Rule of Faith in which are contained all things that are of Faith. But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are contained all things that are of Faith. The Conclusion which followeth from these premises is not his Major, [that is the true Rule of Faith, by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught, and what Books they wrote, and without which we can never be infallibly assured of those things] nor the Conclusion set down, [therefore the infallible means of know∣ing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith] for these terms, [that by which we may be assured of the Doctrines or Books, the infallible means of know∣ing them] are not the same with [the Books or Doctrines in which are contained all things that are of Faith] and therefore the Major is not proved, but indeed the very Protestant Doctrine which he gainsays is proved unawares thus. That in which are contained all things that are of Faith is the true Rule of Faith. But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are contained all things that are of Faith; therefore the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are the true Rule of Faith. Which proves directly what H. T. denies, that the Scripture is the true Rule of Faith, and shews, that he mistook the means of Faith for the Rule of Faith, between which there is manifest difference, the means of Faith being any outward or inward efficient, principal or instru∣mental,

by which a person comes to believe, the Rule is that by which we know what we are to believe: the same means may be the means of believing contrary things: Caiaphas and Balaam may prophesie right things of Israel, and be a means of expectation of the Messiab, and yet also be a means of lay∣ing a stumbling-block to overthrow them. A messenger, that brings a grant, wherein a Prince grants a thing, is the means of belief, and so is the Seal, but the Rule of believing is the words of the grant: Thomas his seeing and feeling were the means of his believing Christ's Resurrection, but the Rule was Christ's words.

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

SECT. III.

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

H. T. proceeds thus. A third Argument. If Christ and his Apostles have given to the Church of the first Age [together with all points of Faith] this for the Rule of Faith, that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be deliver∣ed for Faith, but what they had received from them as such, then is was im∣possible that they should deliver any thing for Faith to the second Age, but what they had received from them as such, and so from Age to Age to this time. But Christ and his Apostles did give to the Church of the first Age, [together with all points of Faith] this for the Rule of Faith, that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith, but what they received from them as such. Therefore it was impossible that the Church of the first Age should deliver any thing to the Church of the second Age for Faith, but what they had received as such from Christ and his Apostles, or consequently that they should erre in Faith. The Major is proved, because to make her de∣liver more for Faith than she had received, in this supposition the whole Church must either have forgotten what she had been taught from her infancy in mat∣ters of Salvation and Damnation, which is impossible in a world of ear and ey-witnesses, as hath been shewed; or else the whole Church must have so far broken with Reason, which is the very nature of man, as to conspire in a no∣torious Lie to damn her self and posterity by saying she hath received such or such a point for Faith, which in her own conscience she knew she had not received; and this is more impossible than the former, even as impossible as for men not to be men; as shall be shewed in the next Argument. The Mi∣nor is proved by these positive Texts of Scripture, Therefore brethren stand ye fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have learned, whether by word or our Epistle, 2 Thess. 2. 15. Those things which ye have been taught, and heard, and seen in me, these do ye, Phil. 4. So we have preached, and so ye have believed, 1 Cor. 14. 15. How shall they believe in whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? Rom. 10. 17. The things that thou hast heard of me before many witnesses, the same commend thou to faithfull men, which shall be fit to teach others also, 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any man shall preach otherwise than ye have received, let him be Anathema, Gal. 1. 9. Although we or an Angel from Heaven preach to you besides that which we have preached to you, be he Anathema, Gal. 1. 8.

Answ. 1. THe Conclusion, were it granted, is not the Position to be proved, that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical oral Tradi∣tion, not Books; nor is it included in it, sith some in the Church, although not the whole Church of the first Age, might deliver to the Church of the se∣cond Age, and so from father to son that for Faith, which was not received from Christ or his Apostles, and it be after received as from the Apostles, as is manifest in the reports of keeping Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon, of the Millenary opinion, as from John, and in points of Faith the whole Church might mistake or forget, not deliver all truth, yea, might erre, and so not be fit to be a Rule of Faith. 2. Were it granted that unwritten Traditions of the whole Church of the first Age to the second were a Rule of Faith, yet are not the Romanists Traditions unwritten proved Rules of Faith, unless they be proved to be delivered by the whole Church of the first Age to the Church of the second Age, and so from father to son without alteration, which they can∣not prove. Nevertheless, sith this Argument tends to the asserting of an In∣fallibility

in the Church of the first Age distinctly taken from the Apostles and their Writings; I grant the Minor, and omit the examining of the Texts brought to prove it, though some of them yield a good Argument against un∣written Tradition: But I deny the Major, as being contrary to experience both in the Jewish Church, to whom it was forbidden to add to, or diminish from Gods commands, Deut. 4. 2. and yet they did, Mark 7. 8. 9. and in the Christian Church, as is most evident in the Traditions of the Chiliasts, about Easter, and sundry other things. And though the whole Church of the first Age did not deliver points of Faith to the second Age, yet in the second and after-ages corruptions did come in, which were taken for universal Traditions, as in giving Infants the Eucharist, which Augustine and Pope Innocentius took for an Apostolical Tradition, though the Trent Council condemn it. And many things there are now taken for Apostolical Traditions, as Worship of Images, praying to Saints, not allowing the Wine to be drunk by all the Communicants, which yet are manifestly repugnant to the Apostles Do∣ctrine.

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

SECT. IV.

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

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

Answ. THis Argument concludes for the Churches Infallibility, which was the fifth Article, not for Traditions, as is pretended in this Article. But that the Church militant and all their Teachers setting aside the Apostles, are fallible is proved before, and how the whole Church of later ages may be not onely fallible, but also deceived and deceive others without breaking with their own nature so far as to conspire in a notorious Lie to damn themselves and their posterity, and without such a force of fears or hopes falling upon them all at once as may be stronger than nature to them, hath been shewed before both by reason and experience, and our Lord Christ hath told us it would be, that while men sleep the Enemy would come and sow Tares, Matth. 13. 25. and the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 11. 19. that there must be Heresies by Gods permission, that they which are approved may be made manifest: Jude 4. there were certain men crept in unawares ordained of old to this condemnation: 2 Pet. 2. 1. 1 John 4. 1. And accordingly it fell out in the Christian Church, as Eusebius notes out of Egesippus lib. 3. hist. cap. 29. The Church of Christ remained a pure and uncor∣rupt Virgin unto the times of the Apostles, but after their decease, and those that heard them, there was a conspiracy of corrupters, which did lurk before that boldly vented knowledge, falsly so called, much of which was published under the name of Apostolical Tradition. Irenaeus lib. 2. advers. haeret. cap. 39. saith, In his days it was reported as from John, that Christ lived to the fiftieth year of his Age by all the Elders of Asia, which met with John the Disciple of the Lord, that John delivered it to them. Nor is this to imagine men to break with their nature, but to follow their nature, which is in all corrupt, in the best imperfect. As for what H. T. tells us of a whole World of wise and disin∣terested men, it is an Utopia in a countrey called no where, but in H. T. his brain. Surely the wisest and disinterested men of Fathers and other Preachers have still stood to the Scriptures, and have disowned unwritten Traditions, as not being a true Rule of Faith. Popes and Popish Councils who have been the sticklers for Traditions unwritten, as they have been none of the wisest with any holy wisdom, but serpentine craft, so have they bent all their endeavours to uphold Traditions for their interest of greatness and gain, being necessitated to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unwritten Traditions, because their Doctrines cannot be maintained out

of Scripture. He that shall reade the History of the Council of Trent writ∣ten by Frier Paul of Venice (in which Council Traditions unwritten were first equalled to Scripture) may perceive, that if ever there were a pack of deceivers and deceived men it was at Trent, the Bishops generally being un∣learned in the Scriptures, many of them meer Canonists, and such as under∣stood not the Disputes in the Congregations, and the Divines a company of wrangling Sophisters inured onely to School-principles and arguings without skill in the Scriptures, and the Popes Legates and Italian Bishops depending on the Court of Rome, never applying themselves to search out truth, but to hinder any the least breaking forth of it, if it opposed any profit or advantage of the Popes and Court of Rome, and any thing that tended to justifie the Protestants, whom they would never permit to speak for themselves: nor were they willing any thing should be concluded, but what the Pope (of all that ever were in the World the most notorious corrupter and Tyrant in the Church of God) liked. And he that shall reade the Book not long since published, intituled the Mystery of Jesuitism, will finde, that the chiefest Leaders now in the Popish Churches, the Jesuits, who are for the Traditions of the Church of Rome, are wholly bent, though against Scripture and Fathers, to carry on their own interest by any devices whatsoever without regard either to Rules of Scri∣pture or of Morality delivered by infidel Philosophers. So that the talk of H. T. concerning a World of wise and disinterested men among Popish Teachers is like the talk of a company of honest Women in a society of noto∣rious Whores, or of just men in a Band of Robbers.

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

Answ. 1. This resolution of Faith not into the Scriptures testimony, but the testimony of the next age, and so upwards, and thereby judging what Christ and his Apostles taught, can beget no other than a humane Faith, sith in this way Christ and his Apostles are supposed to teach what the succeeding ages have taught: nor is it any better than an uncertain way, sith in some ages it cannot be known what was taught in many points of controversie, for as much as this Authour confesseth, pag. 25. There was no general or provincial Council that decided any Controversies of moment in the tenth Age, which and the next before it are by Genebrard and Bellarmine counted unhappy for want of learned men: nor can this be any other than a fraudulent device to draw men from immediate searching into the Scriptures for their Faith, and prepossessing them with the Doctrines of the present age, which once received, very few, ex∣cept men very learned and impartial inquisitours into the truth, will be able to examine, and in effect that which the Pope and his Council have or shall de∣termine must be taken for unquestionable: nor is this reasonable, but against all right way of understanding, that we should apply our selves to know what Christ and his Apostles taught sixteen hundred years ago, rather by the present and precedent ages after the times wherein they lived, than by their own Wri∣••ings; as if a man might better know what Legacy his great grand-father ••ave an hundred years ago by the testimony of men now living, than by his ••wn Will upon record. 2. The pretence for this resolution is but imaginary

and fictitious, and refuted by experience. Surely if there were such an impossi∣bility as this Authour speaks of, the whole World had not been corrupted as it was in Noa••'s and Abraham's days, nor the Church of Israel as it was in the days of the Judges, of Elias, Manasseh, our Lord Christ at his coming in the flesh, in the time of Athanasius, when as Hierom said, The whole world groaned that it was become Arian, there would not be such a falling away, as the Apo∣stle foretold, 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2. Thess. 2 4 at which time the Rhemists grant in their note on that place, that even the service of Christ shall be suppressed. And therefore the impossibility here supposed by H. T. is but imaginary out of inadverteney of what the Scripture hath related and foretold, and ignorance of the great corruption of man and the power of the old Serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole World, Revel. 12. 9.

3. But what Church is there that so resolves her Faith? none that I know of besides the Roman, or rather the Court of Rome. For I do not yet think that either the Greek, Asiatick, or African Churches do so resolve their Faith, no nor yet some of those Churches who do hold communion with the Roman See; nay, I hardly think the Church or Court of Rome it self doth resolve it's Faith (such as it is) as H. T. here speaks: I instance in one main point, that the Pope is above a Council. For sure if that be their resolution they will be cast, sith the precedent age, I mean the fifteenth century did deliver by hand to hand from father to son that a general Council is above the Pope, as the two so termed general Councils of Basil and Constance did expresly determine. And in other points in difference between Protestants and Papists, if they go from age to age upwards, Papists would finde themselves destitute of Tradition unwritten as well as written, in the half communion, Papal indulgences, worship of Images, and many more besides. So that however this Authour pretend Tradition of a world of fathers to a world of sons, when he and his party are put to it they have not any ancient universal Tradition elder than the sixteenth century for the chief point of the Papacy the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, and therein the Pope and his packed Council of Trent are the great World, he means at which were at some determinations of great moment about fifty Bishops such as they were, and some of them but titular, and in other points there hath been no Tradition, but what hath been gainsaid; and therefore in fine, the Papists faith is resolved into the Popes and Council of Trents deter∣mination, which is the Catholick Church with Papists, as is manifest by the words of this Authour here, p. 70. where he makes the Church which he counts infallible, A Council called out of the whole World, and approved by the Pope, which he judgeth the Trent Council to be, pag. 76. and if the Catholick Church do resolve its faith into the catholick churches tradition, what is this but to resolve its faith into its own tradition? at least the catholick church represented in an oecumenical council approved by the Pope must resolve its faith into it self, Pius the fourth and the Trent Bishops must resolve their faith into their own tradition, and so must believe what they believe in points of Christian Faith, because they hold so, and judge themselves infallible; and if so, it would be known whether they did believe the same things before they did determine them in a council; if not, they defined what they did not believe; if they did, then it would be known upon what tradition they did believe them, if they name the tradition of the foregoing age, the same questions will be put,

and the answer must be either at last to resolve it into Scripture, or some fallible men, or the process will be endless, or it must rest in the determination of the present church catholick, properly so called, or general council, or Pope, or else the questions wil return, and the arguing will be circular. Yet there are these Reasons why Papists make shew of this way of resolving their faith into the churches tradition unwritten, 1. Because they would not have their Do∣ctrines and Faith tried by the holy Scriptures alone, nor in the first place, nor by the Doctours of the first five hundred years. 2. Because they know that few either of the learned or unlearned can track them in this way, it being impossi∣ble for any but men of very great reading and very accurate criticks to discern truth in this way by reason of the multitude of Nations in which the Church hath been, whereof some are unknown to some other Churches, the impossibi∣lity to know what each church throughout the World held in every age, the difficulty of travel, the variety of Languages, the multitude and uncertainty of Authours, especially since they have been gelded and altered by the Indices expurgatorii, and practises of Monks and other Scribes, the foisting in bastard treatises under the names of approved Authours. For which reason it is that they decline as much as they can trial of their Doctrine by Scripture, pretend∣ing difficulties where there are either none, or such as might be removed, though by their course they cast men into insuperable difficulties, and when they are necessitated to let people have the Scripture in the vulgar Lan∣guage by reason of importunity of adversaries, yet they so pervert it by cor∣rupt Translations and notes (as in the Rhemist's Testament is manifest) that people have much ado without much diligence to finde out their deceits.

SECT. V.

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

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

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

But that I may gratifie H. T. (as much as in me lieth) in his request, I tell him, The Syllogism is in no Mood or Figure that I know, nor (if I would examine the form of it) do I doubt, but that I should finde four terms in it at least, and then H. T. it is likely knows his Sy••logism is naught. Nor do I know how to form it better, unless it be formed dis-junctively: but it belongs not to me to form his Weapons for him. To it as I finde it I say, that if he mean, that all Protestant tenets simply are sufficiently contained in Scri∣pture, who ever he be that saith so, yet I dare not say so: But this I think, that all, or most of the tenets which the Protestants hold against the Papists in the points of Faith and Worship, which are controverted between them, are sufficiently contained in the Scripture, and all of them ought to be, or else they may be rejected. And for his Minor I deny it, if he mean it of those Protestant tenets in points of Faith, which are held by all, or those that are avouched by common consent in the harmony of their confessions, except∣ing some about Discipline, Ceremonies, and Sacraments. And for his in∣stances, to the first I say, I am willing any Reader, who reades what is written on both sides in the fifth Article here, should judge whether hath more evidence in Scripture, the Churches imagined infallible authority in deciding controver∣sies, or that each person is to use his own understanding to try what is pro∣pounded to be believed without relying on any authority of Pope, general Council, or Prelates, who are never called the Church in Scripture. And for the second, I do not take it to be a Protestant tenet, that Infant-baptism is ne∣cessary; and for the lawfulness, I grant, there is as much evidence in Scripture for Priests judiciary sacramental authoritative Absolution as for it, that is none at all for either. And for the third, there are Protestants, that grant a real presence of our Saviour's body in the Eucharist, as the Lutherans, and some Calvinists grant also a real presence to the worthy receiver, but not bodily,

but for the real presence by Transubstantion there is not the least in Scripture of it self, as Scotus long ago resolved. And for the Primacy of St. Peter, it hath been told this Authour, that a Primacy of order, of zeal, and some other en∣dowments, is yielded by Protestants, but Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles is denied, and it is proved before, Article 7. to have no evidence in Scripture. And for the authority of Apostolical traditions, though unwritten, (if there were any such truly so called) I should not deny it, but that there are any such which are a rule of faith now to us, he hath not proved in this Article, nor brought one Text for it, but some far-fetcht Reasons of no validity. But I presume his brethren will give him little thanks for gratifying so much the Antitrinitarians, Arians, Socinians, as to yield, that those points which are in the Nicene and Athanasius his Creed, and were determined in the first general Councils are no better proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation, the Popes Supremacy and unwritten Traditions being a Rule of Faith. Are not these Texts Matth. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 1. 1. 1 John 5. 20. and many more which Bellarmine lib. 1. de Christo brings to prove the Trinity of persons, the Sons consubstantiality, the Spirits procession more evident than, this is my Bo∣dy, for Transubstantiation, Thou art Peter, for the Popes Supremacy; and H. T. his Scriptureless reasoning for unwritten Traditions? Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei, cap. 11. and elsewhere acknowledgeth the tenets about Gods na∣ture, and the union of natures in Christ to be plainly in Scripture.

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

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

Answ. The Conclusion may be granted, that many points embraced by Pro∣testants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture without any detriment to the Protestant cause: Protestants do not pretend to Infallibility, but that the tenets in point of Faith, which in opposition to Papists their Harmony of Confessions avoucheth are sufficiently condemned in Scripture, is more than H. T. or any other can prove. To his Syllogism I answer, by denying his Minor. And to his instances I answer, the Prayer for the Dead, which Protestants say is for∣bidden plainly in Scripture, is Popish Prayer for the Dead to have them eased or delivered out of Purgatory: now this we say is condemned plainly in Scri∣pture.

1. Because it supposeth a belief of a Purgatory-place in Hell, which is an Errour, and every Errour is condemned in Scripture, as contrary to truth. 2. All Prayer is condemned, which is not agreeable to the Rules of Prayer; now the Rules of Prayer in Scripture are, that we should pray in Faith, James 1. 6. Ask the things which are according to the will of God, 1 John 5. 14. Not for him that sins unto death, vers. 16. But to ask for deliverance out of Purgatory, when there is no such place, nor God hath promised any such thing, is not in Faith, nor according to Gods will, but is as vain as to ask for him that sins unto death, it is all one as to pray that the elect Angels or Devils should be delivered thence, which were a Mockery of God. 3. God forbids Jeremiah to pray for that which he would not hear him, in Jer. 14. 11. there∣fore Prayer for the Dead to be delivered out of Purgatory, in which God will not hear, is by parity of reason condemned, as if a man should pray that the Reprobate should not be damned, or the Elect should not be saved.

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

It is not forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever he is, but 1. It is an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith to conceive Christ in a Wafer-cake on earth, called the Host by Papists, whom we believe to be in Heaven at the right hand of God, and of whom it is said, that the Heaven must contain him

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

SECT. VI.

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

H. T. recites the sayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition. The first of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith, but that if the Apostles (in stead of which fraudulently, as I fear H. T. puts, If the Fathers) had left

us no Scripture at all, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered, to whom they committed the Churches. To understand which it is to be noted, that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be false out of the Scriptures, chap. 2. he speaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks, When they are reproved out of Scri∣ptures they are turned into accusation of the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right, nor from authority; and because they are diversly said, and be∣cause the truth cannot be found out of these by those who know not Tradition. For that truth was not delivered by Letters, but by living voice, (which is the very Plea for Traditions, which H. T. here useth) for which cause Paul said, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, as they took themselves to be, and said, They were wiser than either Presbyters or Apostles, and would neither consent to Scriptures nor Tradition; and then cap. 3. shews the Tradition of the Apostles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them; and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus, Anacletus, Clemens at Rome, and to Polycarpus and his Successours at Smyrna, and after useth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule, but the Tradition from the Apostles to them that knew the Apostles, and that onely in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour, and onely upon supposition there had been no Scripture, and that after he had alleged the Scri∣pture to stop the course of Hereticks that declined the Scripture. Whence it is apparent, 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the constant Rule of Faith. 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onely upon supposition, that the Apostles had not left us Scripture. 3. No Tradition to be that Rule, but what was from men acquainted with Apostles. 4. To be used onely in case men were so perverse as to decline Scripture: which is our case in dealing with Papists, which moved Bishop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross to offer, that if the Papists could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the first five hundred years after Christ he would subscribe: which neither Har∣ding, nor Bellarmine, nor Perron, nor any of the Romanists could or can do. The words of Tertullian lib. de praescript. advers. Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are in∣deed, that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God. But he expresseth how he means it, when he saith in the same place, But what the Apostles have preached, that is, what Christ hath revealed to them, I will also prescribe that it ought to be no otherwise proved but by the same Churches, which the Apostles themselves built, they themselves by preaching to them, as well by living voice (as they say) as by Epistles afterwards. Which plainly shews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apostles after wrote, nor from any other Churches than those which the Apostles by preaching built, by which he means the Corinthian, Philippick, Thessalonian, Ephesian, as well as Roman, chap. 36. And though he use against Valentinus, Marcion, and other Hereticks, the Tradition of those Churches, yet chap. 8. he plainly di∣rects to the Scriptures, as the way to finde Christ by using his words to the Jews, John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for salvation: for they do speak of me. This will be, Seek and ye shall finde. Which being con∣sidered, it will appear, that Tertullian was far from asserting unwritten Tradi∣tions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in these later ages, and cal∣led

Apostolical by Popes and Councils, the Rule of Faith. Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epist. cap. 3. ad Cacilium in some Editions, Epist. 63. shew his mistake about Traditions, as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Eu∣charist to be the Lord's tradition, so he did also Rebaptization, in which the Romanists desert him: neither shew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith; yea, arguing against them that used Water without Wine, he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture, and urgeth it against them, and though his Reasons be frivolous, yet these expressions shew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule. But if it be commanded by Christ, and the same be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle, that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the same thing, which the Lord also did, we are found that it is not observed of us which is commanded, unless we also do the same things which the Lord did, and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine ma∣gistery. Again, I marvel enough whence this hath been used, that against the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline in some places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup, which alone cannot express Christ's Blood. Whence may be per∣ceived, that even in Cyprian's days corrupt usages came in by following other Traditions than those that are written. In the same Epistle Cyprian adds this remarkable speech, Wherefore if Christ alone be to be heard, we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done, but what Christ who is before all; neither ought we to follow the custome of a man out the truth of God, sith God speaks by the Prophet Esay, and saith, Without reason do they worship me, teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men.

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

to be answered but with detestation. Nor is there any reason to be moved with the words of the Council at Sens in France, which was later and but Provincial.

SECT. VII.

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

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

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

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

I reply, it is well this man will grant, There is no better way to decide contro∣versies than by the Scriptures expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apostolical tradition: then Knot's Reasons for a living Judge against Dr. Potter come to nothing: we desire no other than to have our controversies de∣cided this way, rejecting any one infallible Judge that shall take on him, as the Pope doth, to prescribe to the Church of God how they shall understand the Scripture. The Church of God, that is, the company of believers, who are the Church of God by Papists own definition, having the help of their godly and learned Guides may expound the Scriptures any where in the World, at Ge∣neva, London, Dort, and other places as well, and better than the Pope and his Cardinals at Rome, or a Council of Canonists, titular Bishops, sworn vassals of the Pope, that never knew what it was to preach the Gospel, sophistical School-men at Trent. And for the Rule of Apostolical tradition, we like it well to expound Scripture by it, meaning that which is in the Books of Scri∣pture, as Austin taught, lib. 1. de doctr. Christ. cap. 2. 35. 37. 40. lib. 2. cap. 8. 9. 11.

lib. 3. cap. 2 3. 5. 10. 17. 18. 27. 28. lib 4. cap. 3. as the words are cited and vin∣dicated from Hart's Replies by Dr. John Rainoll, Confer. with Hart. chap 2. divis. 2. Nor do I know any other Apostolical tradition, which is a Rule to expound Scriptures by for deciding controversies but their Epistles, and other Writings. If H. T. can shews me any such to expound them by, let him pro∣duce them, and I will embrace them. Sure I am Popes Expositions and Popish Councils, Canons, are so far from being Apostolical traditions, that they are rather the most ridiculous, profane, and blaphemous pervertings of Scripture that ever any sober man used, as may appear by their Canon Law. Yea, the very Council of Trent hath absurdly abused Scripture, as might be made ma∣nifest by going over their Canons, and the like may be said of the Roman Ca∣techism.

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

But me thinks all the learned Romanists; even the Jesuits themselves, speci∣ally those that have written large Commentaries according to the literal sense, as Salmeron, Maldonat, Lorinus, Cornelius a Lapide, Tirinus, and many more should reject this foolery of H. T. concerning the expounding of Scripture, not according to the literal sense, which he calls the dead Letter, or else at once blot out all they have written for finding it as a meer encumbrance to the World. And the same may be said of not expounding by the private spirit. For why do these private men take so much pains to publish Commentaries? Is not their spirit as much private, as Calvin's, Beza's, Luther's, and others, and these mens spirit as publick as theirs? Let any man assign Reasons if he can why all the Commentaries of the Romanists should not be cashier'd under this pretence as well as the Protestants, who are as learned, industrious as they, and far more sincere and impartial. Why should not the Popes expositions be rejected as well as others? Have they any more than a private spirit? Do not their very Breves, and Monitories, and Decrees, shew that it is a private spirit they act and decide by? Sure the Spirit of God would not dictate such vain things as they utter, and which sometimes they are fain to recall, lest their

nakedness appear. Do not the Popes by their own confessions in correcting the vulgar Latin Translation, and other things they set forth, declare, that they use industry and the help of learned men? If they have a publick spirit, why do not the Popes make us an Exposition of Scripture, which all must own? Is it not because they are for the most part a race of ignorant and unlearned men, specially in the Scriptures, and, should they attempt such a thing, would make themselves appear ridiculous, and shew their asinine ears, though now they seem terrible, and to carry majesty with their Lions skin? Is there any thing the Popes can do more necessary than this, that they may end all contro∣versies, and guide all souls aright? But the truth is, the Popes have been so unhappy in alleging Scripture in their Bulls, and Breves, and Monitories, in their dicisions of controversies, that no side will acquiesce in their determinations they are so vain or so partial, but as of old in the controversies between Domi∣nicans and Franciscans about the Virgin Maries immaculate Conception, so of late between the Molinists and Jansenists about Gods Decrees, each party holds what they held, notwithstanding the Popes decision, which for the most part is so composed, that each party may think it makes for him, and he may loose neither. And about the Edition of the vulgar Translation in Latin of the Bible, how much have the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clemens the eighth discovered their unskilfulness, when after such profession of diligence and use of learned men as the Popes make, yet they have published their Editi∣ons contrary one to another! The words of Tertullian are cap. 17. against those Hereticks Valentinus, Marcion, and such as agreed not with Christians in the Rule of Faith set down cap. 13. whom he denies to be Christians, and such he thinks it would be unfit to dispute with out of Scripture, but he doth not so judge concerning such as agree in the Rule of Faith, though some term them Hereticks. I may more truly say, there is no good got by Popes inter∣pretations of holy Scripture but to make a man sick or mad: such Expositi∣ons as Alexander the third made of Psalm 91. 13 Thou shalt tread upon the Asp and Basili••k, when he trode on the Emperour Frederick's neck, or Boni∣face the eighth, when to prove himself above Emperours and Kings, he alleged Gen. 7. 16. God made two great Lights, that is, the Pope and the Sun, and the Emperour as the Moon, with many more of the like sort are no better than sick mens dreams or mad mens freaks.

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

I reply, that which is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, instruct in righteous∣ness, so as that the man of God may be entire, fitted, or instructed for every good work. Sure that is a sufficient Rule for Doctrine of Faith and good Works, and so to salvation. But such is the Scripture, as the Text tells us. Ergo. The Major is apparent, sith no more is required to a sufficient Rule of

Doctrine, if there be, let it be shewed, that it may be known wherein this is de∣fective. Sure that which is profitable for all uses to which Doctrine serves is a sufficient Doctrine. The Answer of H. T. here is so far from being a full Answer to the Objection (as he vainly vaunts in the Title page of his Book) that indeed it is a confirmation of the Objection. For if the old Scriptures were so profitable as to make the man of God a Teacher of the Church, entire, that they were able to make him wise to salvation, and furnish him with instru∣ction to every good work, much more when the Books of the New Testament were added, of which one of the Gospels is by H. T. here pag. 104. said to have been written eight years after the Death of Christ, and doubtless Timothy knew it, and however he had the former Epistle to himself before the Epistle in which this passage is, which is ill printed, 1 Tim 3. 16, 17. it being 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. and therefore the Scripture he had was a sufficient Rule to him a Bishop without Traditions, much more to others, and so Traditions unwritten are proved unnecessary and superfluous.

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

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

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

I reply, this profane Wretch it seems takes delight in this blasphemous Title which he gives to the holy Scripture often in reproach terming it the dead Let∣ter, which he hath no Warrant to do. For though it is true that Ro. 7. 3, 6. 2 Cor. 3. 6. the Law or old Covenant be termed the Letter, and is said to be dead and killing, yet this is not meant of the holy Scripture of the Law, because it is writ∣ten, but because it was abrogated in the Gospel, as killing by its Sentence Sin∣ners that continued not in all things written in it, Gal. 3. 10. And yet it can speak for it self as well, yea, incomparably better than any Writings of Popes, Councils,

or Fathers from whence he hath his Traditions, which are as dead a Letter as the Scripture. And in this his expression there is so much the more iniqui∣ty, in that he prefers before the holy Scripture the uncertain reports of credu∣lous superstitious men, and the Decrees of doating Popes, as more lively than the holy Scripture inspired of God And for this man who but the next Page before confessed, that the words of the Apostle, which tell us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the holy written Letters were able to make Timothy wise to salvation, 2 Tim. 3 15. to be meant of the old Scripture, and yet here to say, that we cannot have a certain knowledge of all things necessary to salvation by the Bible or written Word onely, what is it but flatly to gainsay the Apostle? which is the more impiously and impudently done, in that he ascribes that to uncertain unwritten Tradition, which neither he nor any of his Fellows are able to shew where it is, or how it may be certainly known, which he denies to holy Scripture. As for his Reason it is frivolous. For a man may have a certain knowledge of that of which there will be infinite Disputes to the Worlds end, else hath he no certain knowledge of the Popes Supremacy, Infallibility, po∣wer in Temporals, superiority to a Council, of which yet there have been and are likely to be infinite Disputes. As there have been Disputes about the Ca∣nonical Books, so there have been about unwritten Traditions, as about the time of keeping Easter, Rebaptization, &c. Nor is it true that there are in∣finite Disputes about the true sense and meaning of every Verse and Chapter of the Bible. Sure among Christians there is no dispute of many fundamental truths, which every Christian acknowledgeth; and yet if there were, it is no other thing than what is incident not onely to Philosophers Writings, but also to the Popes Decrees, about which there are infinite Disputes among the Ca∣nonists, to the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, about which there were Disputes between Catharinus, Soto, Vega, Andradius, and others, to the Popes Breves, as to Pope Paul the fifth his Breves about the Oath of Al∣legeance, which were not onely disputed by King James and other Protestants, but also by Widrington and other Popish Priests, and to his Monitory and In∣terdict of Venice disputed by Frier Paul of Venice and others against Bellar∣mine, Baronius, and others. And if we can never be infallibly assured of ei∣ther the Canonical Books or their sense but by Apostolical tradition unwritten, then can H. T. never be assured of the Popes Infallibility, or Supremacy but by it, and if so, then the Scripture is not his ground of it, and so he cannot demon∣strate the truth of his Catholick Religion by Texts of holy Scripture, as he pretends in his Title-page, and therefore they are impertinently alleged by him, he should onely allege Tradition: which whether it be Fathers, Councils, or Popes sayings, it cannot assure better than the Scripture, they being more con∣troverted than it, and therefore by his reasoning there can be no certainty in his Faith, and then he is mad if he suffer for it, as he is who suffers for any mans saying, who may be deceived. But we are assured both of the Books of Canonical Scripture, not onely by Apostolical tradition unwritten, but also by universal tradition, and the evidence of their authour by their matter, and of the meaning without Popish tradition, not onely by common helps of under∣standing and arts gotten by study, and the benefit of later and elder Exposi∣tours, but also by the Spirit of God assisting us when we seek it duly. And for the interruption of this Tradition the Protestants do not pretend it to have

been one whole age or day, though it have been sometimes more full than at other times: and we have infallible assurance that the whole Bible hath not been changed or corrupted so but that by reason of the multitude of copies, and special providence of God, the chiefest points are free from change, and what is corrupted may be amended so far as is necessary for our salvation.

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

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

I reply. He that saith, These things are written that you may believe, and believing have life, doth inculcate that these are sufficient so far as writing or revealing is requisite to these ends, or else he should make a vain attempt. Fru∣stra sit quod non assequitur finem, That is done in vain which attains not the end, and that is vainly done even deliberately, which is attempted to be done by that means which is foreknown to be insufficient. And therefore H. T. must either yield St. John's Gospel sufficient to beget saith and procure life, or else John to have been imprudent to intend and attempt it by writing it. And therefore he doth ill to deny the Consequence till he can avoid these absurdi∣ties. As for his Reason it is insufficient. For though the Lord's Prayer and the Lord's Supper omitted by John be necessary to be believed, yet they are not so necessary but that we may believe, that Jesus is the Son of God, and have life in his Name without them. And though he say not, that these things one∣ly were written, yet he saith, These things onely which were written were for belief and life; and therefore sufficient thereto. And though he excludes

not the rest of the Gospels, nor Apostolical Traditions, yet he determines that they might believe and have life without them. As for the ascribing beatitude and salvation to each single Christian virtue, it is either because the beatitude is meant of a beatitude in part, or in some respect, as Matth. 5. 5. the reason doth import, or else because all other Christian virtues and duties necessary to salva∣tion are connex or comprehended in that one which is named. And thus this Objection is vindicated.

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

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

H. T. says not true, that Luke says not any thing in his Gospel of the coming of the Holy Ghost. For Luke 2. 33. the Prediction of Christ, of sending the Promise of the Father, which Acts 2. 33. is expresly termed the Promise of the Holy Ghost, is set down.

SECT. VIII.

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

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

I Reply, unless the man had a minde to plead for Arians, Photinians, Mace∣dorians, and Socinians, I know not why he should so often make the Do∣ctrines of three distinct Persons in one divine nature, the Sons consubstantiality to the Father, the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both, and his Godhead as Apostolical unwritten Tradition. Sure this is the way to bring into question these Doctrines, which if they be not in Scripture, will never be believed by intelligent Christians for the Pope and Council of Trent's sayings, whose pro∣ceedings never tended to clear truth, but to juggle with the World. This is one certain evidence that they never intended to clear truth, because they condemn∣ed the Doctrines of Protestants unheard, nor would ever permit them to come to plead for themselves in any impartial assembly, till which be done no man can construe the proceedings of a Council to be any other than practises to suppress truth. And for their juggling they were so notorious, that many Papists themselves have observed them, as may be seen in the History of the Council of Trent, especially about the divine right of Bishops, of the Laity having the Cup, Priests Marriages, in which Papists themselves found that they were meerly mocked by the Pope and Court of Rome. As for this mans denying the Antecedent, it seems to me to savour of such an imputation of a defect in God as tends to Atheism: For sure he is not to be termed a provident and just God, who declaring his minde in the Scripture, and promising life to them that ob∣serve

his Word, and threatning Death and Damnation to them that do not believe and obey, yet doth not set down all necessary points therein to be be∣lieved and obeyed unto life. Yea, doth not H. T. by denying it contradict himself, who saith, pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught, and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith. And for the Consequence if it be not good, The Bible contains all things necessary to salvation, either for belief or practise for all sorts of men whatsoever, and that explicitly and plainly; therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith, neither is his own second argument good for Tradition, pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught, and the Books which they wrote, are contained all things that are of Faith, therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith; in both the Conse∣quence being the same.

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

Yet more. Object. Doubtless for speculative Points of Christian Do∣ctrine Books are a safer and more infallible Way or Rule than oral Tradition. Answ. You are mistaken, Books are infinitely more liable to Casualties and Corruptions than Traditions, as well by reason of the variety of Languages, in∣to which they are translated, as the diversity of Translations; scarce any two Editions agreeing, but all pretending one to mend the other; besides the multi∣plicity

of Copies and Copists with the Equivocation and uncertainty of dead and written words if captiously wrested or literally insisted on. Who can prove any one Copy of the Bible to be infallible or uncorrupted (those that were written by the Apostles own hands we have not) or who can convince that any one Text of the Bible can have no other sense and meaning than what is convenient for his pur∣pose, insisting onely on the dead Letter? All which dangers, and difficulties are avoided by relying on Apostolical tradition, which bindes men under pain of Damnation, to deliver nothing for Faith, but what they have received as such by hand to hand from Age to Age, and in the same sense in which they have received it. Think me not foolish (says St. Augustin) for using these terms; for I have so learned these things by Tradition, neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way than as I have received them, Lib. de utilit. cred. cap. 3.

I reply, A more impudently and palpably false Discourse than this is a man shall seldom meet with, it being contrary to all experience and use among men, and condemns all the customes of the most civil people of folly in Writing and Printing their Statutes, Records, Deeds, Wills, Histories, that they may be more certain and safely preserved, as knowing, that oral Traditions are apt to be lost, and corrupted, persons understandings, memories, reports, lives, and all their affairs being mutable and liable to innumerable casualties. Yea, hereby God himself is condemned of imprudence, in causing Moses and all the sacred Writers to write Books, and our Lord Christ in giving John express charge to write, Revel. 1. 19. commending the Scripture, Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. as inspired of God, directing to it, John 5. 39. praising the searching of it, Acts 17. 11. making it a persons excellency to be mighty in it, Acts 18. 24. usefull to convince in the greatest point of Faith, vers. 28. Wit not Printing a great Benefit to the World? Was not the finding of the Book of the Law, 2 Chron. 34 15. the reading of it by Ezra, Nehem. 8. the having of ready Scribes counted a happiness to the Jews? Do not men more credit eys than ears? Do not men complain of the Darkness of Times for want of Books? Are not the ninth and tenth ages since Christ counted unhappy for want of learned Writers? Was not this the great unhappiness that came into the West by the Inundations of barbarous Nations in that they spoiled Li∣braries? Is it not a thing for which Ptolomaeus Philadelphus was renowned, that he stored the Library at Alexandria in Egypt with Books? do not we count them great Benefactours who build and preserve Libraries? Are not therefore Students encouraged, and they that search Libraries the men that dis∣cover truth to the World? Were the things done before the Flood or since better preserved by oral Tradition than by Moses Writing? Were the things done before the Wars of Troy better preserved thereby than these Wars by Ho∣mer's Poems? Or the British Antiquities by the Songs of Bardes than by Julius Caesar's Commentaries, Tacitus, and other Historians Writings? How quickly are men apt to mistake and misreport sayings appears by the mistake of Christ's speeches, John 2. 19. Matth. 26. 62. John 21 23. That which Euse∣bius saith of Papias, lib. 3. Eccles. hist. cap. 35. of his delivering divers fabu∣lous things received by oral Tradition through his simplicity, Irenaeus of the Elders of Afia lib. 2. advers. Haeret. cap. 39. and innumerable other instances prove, there is nothing more uncertain than oral Tradition from hand to hand. A man may easily perceive this man is resolved to outface plain truth, who is

not ashamed thus to aver that it is a mistake to say that Books are a more safe and infallible way or Rule than oral Tradition, when his own printing his Books proves the contrary: For why did he write but for more sure conveying and preser••ing of his minde? Yea, his own Reason is truly retorted on himself. Oral Reports are infinitely more liable to casualties and corruptions than Books, as well by reason of the variety of Languages in which Reports are uttered, as the diversity of Interpreters, scarce any two Interpreters agreeing, but all pretending one to mend the others, besides the multiplicity of expressions and relatours one not agreeing with the other, as Mark 14 56, 59. with the equivocations and uncertainties or Witnesses words, if captiously wrested or literally insisted on. Who can prove any one oral Tradition, which is not universal and written also to be infallible or uncorrupted (those that were deli∣vered by the Apostles own tongues we have not) or who can convince that any one oral Tradition can have no other sense or meaning than what is conveni∣ent for his purpose insisting onely on the sound of a reporter? All which dan∣gers and difficulties are avoided as much as is necessary by relying on the written Word of the Bible, which under pain of Damnation bindes men to deliver nothing for Faith, but what they have received as such from Christ and his Apostles in their Writings by hand to hand from age to age, and in the same sense in which they have received it. It is true, Books are subject to casualties and corruptions, yet not to so many as oral Tradition, and the casualties are better prevented by Writing, which remains the same, than by Reports which vary. Fama tam ficti pravique tenax quam nun∣cia veri. And as the Enemies malice hath been great in seeking to de∣prive the World of Bibles, so the providence of God hath been wonder∣full in preserving them and their genuine writing and meaning even by the dispersing of Copies, that what is amiss in one may be mended in another, by ordering variety of Translations to the same end, persecutions that they should not be in all places at once, stirring up others to make Tractates, and Commentaries on them, all Christians (till the late Faction at Trent, and the late Papal tyranny denied the liberty of translating and reading of the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without leave, and began to punish in their Inquisition the having them) reverencing and reading the holy Scripture, however the Decree of Councils and Popes were neglected, yea Traditours of the Bible to be burnt were most infamous.

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

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

I reply, were not this man bewitched, or as the Prophet speaks, Isai 44. 20. Fed on Ashes, having a deceived heart that turneth him aside, so as that he can∣not say, Is there not a Lie in my right hand? he would never have preferred oral Tradition seconded by erecting and use of Images made by idolatrous Sots, and termed Teachers of Lies by the Prophet Hab, 2. 18. as a safer and more in∣fallible Rule of Faith than the holy Scriptures inspired by God, and his great gift to men, though impiously termed by this Wretch dead Letters.' But it is the just judgement of God that they that make Images and adore them should be like them. Psalm 115. 8. that is, as blockish as the Images are. How uncer∣tain oral Tradition is hath been shewed, and how impossible it is to be a true and right Rule since the departure of those who could preach infallibly. That there is any such uniform and outward practise of the Roman Church, which can second oral Tradition, aud make any Point of Christian Doctrine, much less the whole frame of necessary Points of Christian Doctrine in a manner visible and sensible is a Lie with a witness. Christian Doctrine doth not consist in the History of the things sensible to the eye, but in the opening of the true causes, and ends, and uses of things done, which can onely be apprehended by the un∣derstanding, and is brought to it by hearing and reading, whence Faith is said to come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10. 14, 15, 17. It is most false, that the erecting of Images of Christ and of the Cross hath been the uniform practise of the Church. It is certain by many Writers that Christians had no Images in their Churches for many hundred years, yea, it is certain that the best Emperours and Bishops of the East and West were against the having them in Churches, however Gregory the first Bishop of Rome by his superstitious opposing Serenus his taking them down counting them Lay-men's Books, opened a Gap to that Deluge of Ignorance and Idolatry, which hath since spread over the Western Churches, which have gone a whoring after them. This Authour calls them holy Image which the Scripture counts abominable, as defiling places, and making them not sacred but polluted. He saith, The In∣carnation and all the Mysteries thereof are made sensible by the Images of Christ erected in all sacred places, the passion by the sign of the Cross used in Sacra∣ments, and set up in Churches. But what a notorious falshood is this? One Mystery sure is the Holy Ghost's overshadowing the Virgin Mary, another the Union of the two Natures? Can any Image of Christ teach these? What can the sign of the Cross teach, but that there was such a kinde of punishment to put men to Death? If Images did teach these Mysteries, then Image-makers

would be Stewards of the Mysteries of God, and Successours of the Apostles, and Michael Angelo and such like Painters and Carvers more truly Peter's Successours and Bishops of Rome than Popes, as doing more to teach the My∣steries of God than Popes do. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is a meer figment of a thing present, which all the sense of all the men in the World con∣tradicts, full of apish gestures and toyish fashions, fitter for a Stage-play than a spiritual Service of the Christian Church, and being in a Tongue not com∣monly understood, without teaching, informs not the Hearers or Seers in the Mystery of the Death of Christ, nor makes any lively Commemoration of his Passion, but pleaseth superstitious and womanish or childish spirits, which are taken with such shews; the Sacrament opens no Mystery thereof without the Word written. Accedat Verbum ad Elementum & fit Sacramentum, was the old resolution, Put the Word to the Element then it is made a Sacrament. Nor is it true, that the practice hath been uniform therein, the variety of Missals, and the corruptions purged out of the Roman Missal, as is confessed in Pope Pius the fifth his Bull according to the Decree of the Trent Council prove the contrary. The Trinity is known by the institution and practise of Baptism, but that is learned out of the written Word, not oral Tradition. None of these practises do at all open the Mystery of the Gospel, as experience shews, it being manifest by conference that none of the People in Italy and elsewhere, who go to Mass, and look on Pictures, and have no other teaching, do understand any thing of the Mystery of the Gospel, the end, reason, use of Christ's Birth, or Death, but content themselves with a meer theatrical shew without any true understanding of the grace of God, inward feeling or effectual change in their souls thereupon. Perhaps it is better with Papists in England, where their Su∣perstitions are not altogether so gross, and their understanding bettered by neighbourhood and converse with Protestants. But that Images should con∣serve revealed verities, or oral Tradition seconded with Images more explicate them than Books, which this man again impiously terms dead Letters, unless the Images be animated, as that was that it's said told Thomas Aquinas, Thou hast written well of me, which was fit to be silenced by telling it, that it had no allowance to speak in the Church, is to me unintelligible. And if these be such a safe and infallible Rule or means to teach and conserve the whole frame of Christian Doctrine, then sure Christ did inconsiderately appoint Writers and Preachers to teach and guide the Church, till we all meet in the unity of the Faith, Ephes. 4. 11, 12, 13. he should rather for the times after the Apostles have appointed, Massing Priests and Painters to have taught the People: nor were the Council of Trent and some of the Popes so advised, as they might have been, in appointing the unnecessary businesses of framing a Catechism, and amending the vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible, and much more foolish have been all the learned Papists, who have in late years and formerly made large Commentaries and other Treatises to conserve revealed verities, there be∣ing a more compendious way by oral Traditions with the use of Images, and Masses, and some other things, if this impudent Scribler say true.

Yet H. T. continues thus. Object. If all things necessary to salvation be not contained in the whole Bible, now shall a man ever come to know what is ne∣cessary

to be known, either by the whole Church in general, or himself in particu∣lar? Answ. For the whole Church in general, she is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities, which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde, she being made by Christ the Depository of all, and having the Promise of divine assistance to all. And for each particular man so much onely it necessary to be believed, as is sufficiently proposed to him by the Church and her Ministers for the Word of God, or would at the least be so proposed, if he himself were not in fault; all which we may easily come to know by means of Apostolical tradition, without which we can have no infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine.

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

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

I reply, if this be so, then doth H T. in his Title-page pretend demonstra∣tion of his falsly called Catholick Religion by Tents of holy Scripture in the first place onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem, but it is oral Apostolical tradition which he principally relies on for his demonstration, as being evident of it self, and admits no other proof; which oral Apostolical Tradition being no other than what Popes and Councils approved by him have approved, it follows, that what Papists call Catholick Religion is not what the Scriptures teach, but what Popes and their Councils define, into which their Faith is ultimately resolved. No marvel then they decline Scripture, or if they use it do it onely because of Protestants importunity, not because they think it is to be rested on, and if so, sure H. T. plays the Hypocrite in pre∣tending to demonstrate his Religion out of Texts of holy Scripture. If other Papists would stick to this which H. T. here saith, we should take it as a thing confessed, that Popery is not Scripture doctrine, but onely unwritten Traditi∣on, and to have for its bottom foundation the Popes determination, and so to be imbraced upon his credit; which sure can beget no other than a humane faith, and in fine doth make the Pope Lord of their Faith, which is all one as to make him their Christ, and that is to make him an Antichrist. Therefore I conceive other Romanists will disown this resolution of H. T. and seek other ways to get out of this Circle, and herein they go divers ways. Dr. Holden an English man and Doctor of Paris, in his Book of the Analysis of divine Faith, chap. 9. rejects the common way, and sticks to that of universal Tradi∣tion,

which by natural reason is evident and firm: But when he hath urged this as far as he can, this must be the evidence, that what all say and was so ma∣nifestly know by so many Miracles as Christ and his Apostles wrought must be infallibly true. But the being of Christ the Mossiah, and his Doctrine from God, as the holy Scriptures declare, is avouched by all the Church and mani∣festly known by Miracles, therefore it must be true: which is no other than Chillingworth's universal Tradition, confirming the truth of the Scriptures, and deriving our Faith from thence, which if Papists do relinquish and adhere to the Popes resolutions, whether they be with Scripture or without, they do expresly declare themselves Papists or Disciples of the Pope, not Christians, that is, Disciples of Christ. I conclude therefore that H. T. and such as hold with him according to the Principle he here sets down are not Believers in Christ, whose Doctrine is delivered in the Scripture, but in men whether Popes, or Councils, or the universal Church, or any other who delivers to him that oral Tradition, which is his Rule, as being evident of it self, and admits no other proof, though I have shewed it to be uncertain, yea, not so much as pro∣bable. I go on to the next Article.