True Eccle- visible Church.

siastical

shown to be

and Divine.

That ecclesiastical tradition which Vin

Tradition centius Lirinensis so much commends, did especially consist Apostolic in the confessions or registers of particular Churches. Now the unanimous consent of so many several Churches, as exhibited their confessions to the Nicene Council, being not dependent one of another, not overswayed by authority, nor misled by faction to frame the confessions of their faith by imitation, or according to some pattern set them, but voluntarily and freely exhibiting such confessions as had been framed and taught before these controversies arose, was a pregnant argument to any impartial understanding man, that this faith wherein they all agreed, had been delivered unto them by the Apostles and their followers, by the first planters of the Churches thus agreeing; a pregnant argument, likewise, that these first planters had been inspired and taught by one and the same Spirit. Each particular Church was a competent or authentic witness of every other Church's integrity and fidelity in servando depositum, in carefully preserving the truth committed to their special trust. On the contrary, in that Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, and other heretics, did obtrude such constructions of Scriptures upon their auditors as had nowhere been heard of before, but sprung up with themselves, or from the places where they lived, this was an argument more than probable, that if the Apostles had delivered the whole form of wholesome doctrine unto posterity, (a point questioned by no Church in those times) these men, or the particular Churches which abetted them, had not kept the doctrine delivered unto them by our SAVIOUR and His Apostles; but had corrupted or defiled it with the idle fancies of their own brains, or with the muddy conceit of their discontented passions.

To speak more briefly, though perhaps more fully: the unanimous consent of so many distinct visible Churches, as exhibited their several confessions, catechisms, or testimonies of their own and their forefathers' faith, unto the four first Ecumenical Councils, was an argument of the same force and efficacy, against Arius and other heretics, for whose conviction these councils were called, as the

general consent and practice of all nations in worshipping some Divine power or other, hath been in all ages, against the Atheists. Nothing, besides the ingrafted notion of a Deity or Divine power, could have inclined so many several nations, so much different in natural disposition, in civil discipline and education, to affect or practice the duty of adoration. Nothing besides the evidence of truth delivered unto the Christian world by CHRIST and His Apostles, could have kept so many several Churches, as communicated their confessions unto the councils of Nice and Ephesus, &c. in the unity of the same faith.

Howbeit this unanimous tradition ecclesiastic, was not in these times held for any proper part of the rule of faith, but alleged only as an inducement to incline the hearts of such as before acknowledged the written word for the only rule of faith, to believe that the interpretations or decisions of those councils, did contain the true sense and meaning of the rule acknowledged by all. So that the written tradition which Vincentius so much commends, was not by the Nicene Council used to any such purpose as the Romanists now use unwritten traditions. The only use of it was to direct the present Church in her examination of the Catholic truth, or points of faith. The chief authority which the visible Church then challenged, did consist in the unanimous consent of the ecclesiastic tradition, and that (as was said before) but an inducement to embrace the interpretations of the present Church, and reject the interpretations of upstart heretics.

But was it a received truth in these primitive times, or a truth acknowledged by Vincentius (the pretended patron of Roman Catholic tradition), that the joint consent of so many bishops, as were assembled in the first Council of Nice, or the joint confessions of so many several dioceses as were then delivered to that council, should unto the world's end continue an argument or inducement of like force or validity, as it then was, either for establishment of the canons which succeeding councils should make, or for condemning such opinions as with the consent of as many (or more) bishops, as were there assembled, should be con

demned for heresies? No, the same Vincentius hath given posterity a caveat, as full of wisdom as of religion; in some cases not to admit of his former admonition, concerning the trial of Catholic faith, either for refelling heresies, or for establishing the truth. The limitation of his former admonition is, in his own words, thus. As for ancient and inveterate heresies, they are not in anywise to be refuted by the former method, because continuance of time (after heresies be once set on foot) may afford heretics many opportunities of stealing truth out of the writings of the ancient, or for exchanging orthodoxal antiquity with profane novelties.

Now what opportunities of falsification did these eight hundred years last past afford, which the Roman Church was not always ready to take? The opportunities afforded by dissolution of the Roman empire and variance of Christian kings, first made the Roman Clergy such sacrilegious thieves, as Vincentius supposeth any opportunity may make heretics to be. And the Roman Church, being flesht with the spoil of CHRIST's flock and Christian Churches through the West, have not been wanting unto themselves in devising new opportunities in coining a new act of falsifying antiquity, of stealing the consent and suffrages of the Christian world, from orthodoxal and primitive truth. So that if this controversy may be examined and discussed by Vincentius's rules, since the first acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy, since the making of edicts for the acknowledging of it, since the exemption of clerks from royal or civil jurisdiction; all the written testimonies, or unwritten traditions, which the children of the Romish Church do or can rake together, are void in law, and void in conscience: there is not so much as one legal single testimony, but all are as a multitude of false and illegal witnesses, of parties or conspirators in their own cause.

But although heresies of long standing and continuance cannot be refuted, nor may not be assaulted, in Vincentius's judgment, by the former method, that is, by multitude of suffragants, or joint consent of several provinces, is there therefore no other means left to convince them, no way left to eschew them? Yes, we may "eschew them (saith he),

as already condemned by ancient and orthodoxal Councils; or we may convince them, so it be needful or expedient, by the sole authority of Scriptures." Now if the Scriptures be sufficient to convince heresies of long continuance or long standing, and to confute such heretics, as want neither wit, will, nor opportunity to falsify ancient records, and imprint traditions of their own coining with inscriptions of antiquity, I hope the same Scripture was (in Vincentius's judgment) a rule of faith neither incomplete for its quantity, nor insufficient for its quality: a rule every way competent for ending controversies in religion, without the assumption either of tradition or decrees of council, as any associates or homogeneal parts of the same rule.

Unto what use then did ecclesiastical tradition, or general Councils serve for quelling heresies? Ecclesiastical traditions or unanimous consent of particular Churches throughout several kingdoms or provinces in points of faith, was in ancient times, and yet may be an excellent means, by which the SPIRIT of GOD leads General Councils into the truth. And the Councils whose care and office it was to compare and examine traditions exhibited, were the sovereign and principal means, under the guidance of God's SPIRIT, by which as many as embraced the love of truth, were led into all those truths, which are at all times necessary to salvation, but were much questioned and obscured by the jugglings and falsifications of former heretics. Into the same truths which these Councils were then, we now are led, not by relying upon the sole authority of the Councils which the SPIRIT did lead, but by tracing their footsteps, and viewing the way by which the SPIRIT did lead them. And this was by necessary deductions or consequences, which reason, enlightened by the SPIRIT, and directed by the sweet disposition of Divine Providence, did teach them to make, and doth enable us to judge that they were truly made by them.-A Treatise of the Holy Catholic Faith and Church. 4to. 1627. Ch. xxi. xxii. pp. 180-194.

traditions.

MONTAGUE, BISHOP.

B. 1577. D. 1641.

Unwritten Where is it bidden in Scripture to baptize infants, or to administer to communicants in the LORD's Supper under both kinds? There are ever so many instances in sacred matters, instituted by GoD, committed to the Church, practised by the Church, of which, notwithstanding it may be declared, Scripture teacheth nothing such, Scripture does not preach these things.—Orig. Eccles. ii. 67, p. 396.

A profession of Faith.

The Church of England, at the Reformation,

parate from "univer

CHILLINGWORTH, PRIEST.

B. 1602. D. 1644.

I profess sincerely that I believe all those books of Scripture, which the Church of England accounts canonical, to be the infallible Word of GOD: I believe all things evidently contained in them; all things evidently, or even probably deducible from them; I acknowledge all that to be heresy, which by the act of parliament primo of Q. Eliz., is declared to be so, and only to be so; and though in such points which may be held diversely of divers men, salva fidei compage, I would not take any man's liberty from him, and humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me; yet thus much I can say (which I hope will satisfy any man of reason), that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation, either by the Catholic Church of all ages, or by the consent of Fathers, measured by Vincentius Lirinensis's rule, or is held necessary, either by the Catholic Church of this age, or by the consent of Protestants, or even by the Church of England, that, against the Socinians and all others whatsoever, I do verily believe and embrace.Works, 8vo. 1820. Vol. I. pp. 55, 56.

Your allegations out of Vincentius, Prosper, and Cyprian, are liable to these exceptions. The first and last are

did not se merely impertinent, neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present visible Church is a mark quity, and of heresy; and the former, speaking plainly of separation

sality, anti

consent."