under Heaven Act. 2.5 and all received the same Traditions and Doctrines which were condemned by our Lord and his Disciples and that it was incredible that Churches so dispersed through many Countries and Nations should agree together to affirm a Falshood for a Truth Now to this way of Arguing I desire to know what Answer can be given but by shewing by what ways such Opinions actually might have spread among them though not originally received and proving from their own Scriptures and Writers That these Opinions were not always held among them and if this way be good when used by Christians against them it must be as good when used by Protestants against Papists if this Plea be sophistical when put into the Mouth of an unbelieving Jew it must be as sophistical when it proceedeth from the Mouth of Papists I have not been so fortunate as to meet with any direct Answer to this Argument only to the Argument urged from the actual Condemnation of our Lord as an Impostor by the Sanhedrim That no Submission no blind Obedience could be due to the Church Guides then ruling in the Jewish Church The Guide of Controversies Disc of the necessity of Ch. Guides c. 3. §. 25. p. 17. Confer avec M. Claude p. 183 184 185. and the Bishop of Meaux thus answer That the Messias coming with Miracles and manifested by the other Two Persons of the Trinity by the Father with a Voice from Heaven commanding to hear him and by the Holy Ghost seen descending on him as also by the Baptist was now from henceforth to be received as the supreme Legislator and nothing to be admitted from others or from the Sanhedrim it self contradictory to what he taught which high Court therefore now for the Accomplishment of his necessary Sufferings was permitted by God to be the greatest Enemy of Truth and guided therein not by Gods but a Satanical Spirit of whose Doctrines therefore our Lord often warned the People to beware The Bishop of Meaux adds nothing considerable to this Answer and is plainly baffled by his learned Adversary Mr. Claude to whose Works I remit the Reader Now First Is it not wonderful to see how these Men say and unsay pronounce a thing impossible in one Case and in another like unto it confess it actually done We shew them That in the Jewish Church such false Traditions had generally prevail'd as tended to evacuate the Law of God render his Worship vain and to engage them to reject the true Messiah and yet they were received as Doctrines of their great Prophet Moses handed down to them by oral Tradition that infallible Preserver of Truth True say they the Church Guides were then permitted by God to be the greatest Enemies of Truth and guided therein not by Gods but a Satanical Spirit add now to this That the Doctrines and Traditions of these Men found general Reception in the Jewish Church And will it not hence follow That Doctrines taught Traditions introduced by the greatest Enemies of Truth and by Men acted not by the Spirit of God but that of Satan may generally prevail to be received as true Doctrines and Traditions derived from prophetical Authority and fit to be assented to received and practised by all Secondly Did these Traditions and false Doctrines against which our Saviour cautioned them begin then only to spring up among them when our Saviour appeared with his Miracles when at his Baptism the Holy Ghost descended visibly upon him and God gave Testimony to him by a Voice from Heaven If so you see that even the whole Jewish Church though scattered throughout the World might all at once embrace Traditions of such evil and pernicious Consequences though they before had never heard one tittle of them and so not only in the Compass of one Age but of Three Years at farthest new and pernicious Doctrines might generally obtain in the whole Jewish Church and why not also in the Western Churches within the compass of Eight hundred Years But that these Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees these Traditions which they had received touching Christ's temporal Kingdom and touching the personal Appearance of the Tisbite to be his Fore-runner and touching the Expositions of the Law condemned by Christ were not of so late Date as our Lord's Baptism and Entrance upon his prophetick Office is evident beyond Dispute from what I have discoursed already from Josephus Ch. 11. §. 7. asserting that they were received from the most ancient Jews from Epiphanius that they derived them from Moses from the mention of them in our Saviour 's time as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. xxviij 17. Gal. i. 14. Customs and Traditions received from their Fathers and from the great Incredibility that these things should so generally obtain to be received as Traditions in so short a time Besides we know the Expectation of their temporal King had alarm'd all the East before and their Tradition that Elias the Tisbite should come in Person to anoint him and be his Fore-runner must be as old as the Translation of the Septuagint These Doctrines and Traditions must be therefore taught whilst these Church Guides and Rulers were infallible in the Interpretation of the Scriptures and were true Judges of what they had received by Tradition if ever they were so or rather it must be apparent that they were not so because they generally had prevailed upon the People to receive Doctrines and Traditions of such fatal and pernicious Consequences and therefore all the specious Harangues the Papists make concerning the Impossibility that false Traditions and corrupt Doctrines should prevail amongst them must be as plausible when uttered by the Jew against the Christian as by the Papist against Protestants For v. g. where may they say will you produce the Men of former Ages who taxed the Jewish Church with such corrupt Traditions as your Jesus taxed them with or bid Men beware of the Doctrine of them who sate in Moses Chair or of those Scribes and Pharisees who had obtained so great Credit on the Account of Piety and Learning Do not you Christians own that we were once a right Vine the true and only Church of God till the Appearance and Baptism of your Jesus Who therefore can believe that God would suffer such dangerous Doctrines to prevail in his own Church and raise up no Church Guides except the Sadducees to contradict them until your Jesus and his Disciples undertook to be Reformers of it Where then had God a true Church in the World if not among the People of the Jews What other Church could Christ and his Disciples mention besides that whose Governors he taxed with voiding the Commandments of God and rendring his Worship vain because of some Traditions which they had received from their Fore-Fathers If then God suffered his Church to be all over-run with such a fatal Leprosy where was the watchful Eye of Providence Yea where the Care or Conscience of
libr. Regum Tom. 3. f. 6. a. say That the Canonical Books of the Old Testament are Twenty four which say they from St. Jerom St. John in his Revelations introduceth under the Name of the Twenty four Elders Dr. Cous p. 131 133. P. 147. P. 152. P. 164 178 196. so in the Sixth Century Primasius and Leontius in the Eighth Century Venerable Bede in the Ninth Century Ambrosius Ausbertus in the Twelfth Century Peter Abbot of Celle in the Fifteenth Century Thomas Anglicus and in the Sixteenth Frances Georgius Now manifest it is even from the very number here assigned of Twenty two or Twenty four Canonical Books that all these Authors must exclude those Books we call Apocrypha from the Canon and it is still more evident from their own Words in which they expresly say P. 133. These are the Books received the Books put into the Canon by the Church P. 151. P. 157 194. P. 197. the Books received by the Church and Canonized The whole Canon which the Church receives and which was handed down unto them by the Authority of the Ancients And of those which we stile Apocryphal they say Ibid. P. 151. These are the Books which are contradicted and not received by the Church The Books of the Old Testament which are not received by the Church P. 152 162 177. P. 158 159 163 169 175 The Books which are read indeed sed non scribuntur non habentur in Canone sed leguntur ut scripta patrum as are the Writings of the Fathers but are not put into the Canon non reputantur in Canone are not reputed to belong unto it The Books which the Church reads and permits for Devotion and the instruction of Manners but thinks not their Authority sufficient ad confirmandam Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum Authoritatem P. 166 173 176 191 193. to confirm the Authority of Ecclesiastical Doctrines The Books which are not to be received ad confirmandum aliquid in fide to confirm any Article of Faith. The Contents of which she obligeth no man to believe P. 189 190. nor doth she judge him guilty of disobedience or infidelity who receives them not Concerning which the Church receives the Testimony of St. Jerom as most Sacred P. 194. who did undoubtedly exclude them from the Canon To whom say they the Church Catholick is much indebted upon this account P. 199. and to whose sence the sayings both of Councils and Fathers are to be reduced Books with whose Authority no Man was pressed Books P. 202. P. 174 188. Lastly which were not genuine but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spurious and Apocryphal which the Christian Church doth not receive P. 166 201. pari Authoritate or pari veneratione with the like Authority or Veneration with which she doth receive the Holy Scriptures Now hence the Doctors of the Church of Rome may learn what it is they are to do § 12 if they would prove any of their Doctrines to have descended to them by a like Tradition with that of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament viz. they must prove they were owned in the New Testament were delivered as Traditions by the Apostles and all the Ancient Bishops and Governors of the Church They must produce express Testimonies of Christian Writers in all Ages asserting That the Church received such a Doctrine and that they in delivering of it followed the Tradition of the Church and their Fore-Fathers and saying That the contrary Doctrine was not received by the Church They must shew That even from the first Ages of the Church Christians were solicitous to enquire what were the Apostolical Traditions not left in writing to the Church that upon this enquiry they found that these Traditions were of such a certain number neither more nor less that they thought it necessary to preserve them by writing Catalogues of all such Traditions as were received or owned as such by Christians That this Catalogue of Traditions was delivered to them by the Primitive Fathers as they had been received by the whole Church and that they had received them from Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word That they took care to leave this Catalogue of Traditions because some persons dared to mix Apocryphal Traditions with Divine and that they made it out of necessity to prevent mistakes in this matter and for the Instruction of those who received the first Rudiments of the Faith that they might know out of what Fountains to draw the Waters of Tradition They must produce from the first Four Centuries Testimonies of this nature from Fathers living in most places where there were any Christians and Testimonies uncontrouled throughout those Centuries And seeing one of these Traditions viz. that which concerneth the Canonical Books of the Old Testament is expresly contrary to a Tradition delivered and handed down to us with all these circumstances they must prove that in this matter Tradition hath plainly delivered Contradictions throughout Four whole Centuries which being done we cannot chuse but think her Testimony is Infallible Hence also we may see what an unparallell'd confidence they shew when in their Disputations the Romanists are bold to say and lay the stress of their whole certainty of Faith upon this Proposition That they hold the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Saviour seeing it is as clear as the Sun that the Books of the Old Testament which they now hold for Sacred and Canonical were for Fifteen whole Centuries together declared not to belong unto the Canon but excluded from it by the Church And this will be still more apparent by considering what the Authors of the Question of Questions § 13 and of The Papist Misrepresented and Represented say touching this matter Mr. M. saith Sect. 19. n. 6. p. 410. That when it was grown doubtful in the Church whether such and such Books were part of the Canon of Scripture the Tradition which recommended these Books was examined in the Third Council of Carthage and there all the Books of the R. Canon were found to be recommended to the Church by a true and Authentical Tradition and therefore we embrace them as the Word of God. And again Sect. 3. n. 12. p. 84 85 86. As yet the Church of Christ had not defined which Books were God's true word which not wherefore then it was free to doubt of such Books us were not admitted by such a Tradition of the Church as was evidently so universal that it was clearly sufficient to ground an infallible belief but in the days of St. Austin the Third Council of Carthage A. 397. examined how sufficient the Tradition of the Church was which recommended these Books for Scripture about which there was so much doubt and contrariety of Opinion and they found all the Books contained in our Canon of which you account so many Apocryphal to have been recommended by a Tradition sufficient
Matthew was writ saith the Tradition of the Fathers Theoph. proem in Matth. Athan. Synops p. 155. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eight Years after our Lords Ascension Mark writ his Gospel whilst St. Peter lived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ten Years after our Lords Assumption saith Theophylact. St. Luke writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fifteen Years after our Lords Ascension Proem in Luc. say Dorotheus and Theophylact. St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirty two Years after our Lords Ascension saith the same Theophylact. Chap. 7. §. 2. Now these Gospels as I before have proved were by the General Tradition of the whole Church of Christ esteemed sufficiently to contain that Christian Doctrine which the Apostles taught and purposely to have been written to preserve it entire to Posterity Secondly This Argument is wholly overthrown by this one Observation That the Apostles in their Preaching declare that they spake only what was written in the Books of the Old Testament or might be clearly gathered thence When they undertook to prove any Article of Christian Faith they proved it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament When they reasoned with others to bring them to the Faith they did it from the same Scriptures Acts 26.22 1 Cor. 15.2 3 4. saying none other Things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come When they would have their Proselytes confirmed in the Christian Faith 2 Pet. 1.19 they send them to this more sure Word of Prophecy encouraging them to take heed to it as to a Light that shineth in a dark Place And declaring that those very Scriptures which Timothy had known from a Child 2 Tim. 3.15 that is before one Book of the New Testament was written were able through Faith in Christ or the Belief that Jesus is the Messiah promised in them to make him Wise unto Salvation 16 17. That they were profitable for Doctrine and Instruction in Righteousness for Reproof for Correction that the Man of God may be perfect both as to his own Practice Obadiah paraph in locum and his teaching others throughly furnished to every good Work. If then before the Scriptures of the New Testament were written these inspired Persons taught their Converts out of the Old Testament and sent them thither to learn the Truth of what they said and bad them have Recourse unto those Writings as being able to make them Wise unto Salvation and as being more certain and more to be heeded than that Voice from Heaven of which they themselves testified Doubtless when they themselves by the same Spirit had indited the New Testament they must be more concerned that they should be guided by that written Word then also it is evident that they did not invite Men to believe meerly on the Authority or Oral Tradition of the then present Church nor practised any thing whence it might be concluded that after Ages by meer Tradition might be sufficiently instructed in the things which concerned their eternal Welfare Nay they sufficiently declared the contrary by chusing to adhere themselves and call on others to adhere to what was taught concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament when Tradition was so fresh their Authority so fully was confirmed by Miracles and they to whom they spake had the inspired Apostles in any matter of Dispute or Controversy to repair unto Thirdly St. Luke informs us § 15 that he received his Gospel by Tradition Luke 1.2 4. and that he had committed it to Writing that his Theophilus might know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Certainty of those Doctrines in which he had been formerly instructed clearly insinuating that he conceived the written Word a means of adding certainty to what was only taught by Word of Mouth Accordingly Eusebius informs us that he was necessitated to write his Gospel that he might give us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. a firm Account of those things which he had learned from his Conversation with St. Paul and with the rest of the Apostles Church History saith of St. Matthew Euseb ibid. That he was constrained to write his Gospel that by so doing he might supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the want of his own Presence with them and that when he was by Persecution separated from them Opus imperf in Matth. praefat his Converts might not want the Doctrine of Faith but wheresoever they were might retain Totius fidei statum the entire form of Faith. The san Tradition doth inform us See Chap. 7. §. 1 2. That the First Christian Converts when they had heard the Apostles preach the Christian Faith would not be satisfied with receiving it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Oral Teaching but earnestly requested to have it left in Writing with them That the believing Jews Petierunt Matthaeum ut omnium verborum operum Christi conscriberet eis historiam To write the History of all Christ's Words and Works that they might have a compleat System of their Faith. That the Romans earnestly desired Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leave in Writing a Memorial of the Doctrine delivered to them by word of Mouth and never would desist till they had obtained it and that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the light of Piety which would not suffer them to rest satisfied with the Oral Tradition of the Faith that by the same perswasion Hieron Prolog in Matth. Euseb H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his familiar Acquaintance of all the Bishops of Asia and the Ambassies of many Churches St. John who before had spent all his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Oral Preaching was at last moved to write his Gospel The same Tradition adds That the Apostles having preached the Gospel committed it to Writing to be the Pillar and the Ground of Faith to future Ages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Anchors and Foundations of our Faith Athan. Synops p. 61. Theophylact. proem in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That from these Scriptures being taught the truth we might not be drawn aside by the Falshoods of Heresies And lastly That if they had not left in Writing what they preached Orig. Dial. contr Marcion p. 59. they had preached Salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only to them who heard them Preach and should have had no care of Posterity because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things only orally delivered would quickly vanish there being no demonstration of their Truth Which words as they expresly do confute the certainty of Doctrines only delivered to Posterity by word of Mouth so the forementioned Traditions do sufficiently inform us what was the Judgment of the ancient Church in this Affair viz. That to ascertain those Christians who were taught the principles of their Religion it was necessary that should be written which they had been taught that they could not well otherwise supply their absence or leave to their Disciples an
evident from History and the Confessions of the Romish Doctors Com in Dan. 14. That as Lyranus saith In Ecclesia aliquando sit deceptio populi in Miraculis factis a Sacerdotibus The Priests of that Church sometimes deceived the People with Miracles Non obscurum est quot opiniones invectae sunt in Orbem per homines ad suum quaestum callidos confictorum miraculorum praesidio p. 188. Cap. 11. §. 11. De purg l. 1. c. 11. quarta Ratio De Sanctorum Beat. l. 1. c. 19. accedant l. 2. c. 12. Argument quartum De Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 8. postremum de poenit l. 3. c. 12. quarta Ratio done by them for temporal Advantage That according to the Passage cited by the Lord Faulkland from Erasmus or Sr. Thomas Moor many Opinions have been brought into the World by Men cunning to promote their Profit by the means of feigned Miracles I have already proved from the Testimonies of Romish Writers That by such Miracles they do endeavour to confirm their Doctrines we need no other Witness than their Bellarmine who proves Purgatory from the Apparition of Souls declaring they were in that Place That Saints are to be invoked and Images to be worshipped from the Miracles performed upon the Invocation of the First and the Worship of the Second The corporeal Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament and the jus divinum of Auricular Confession from the same Topick And yet some of their Writers have seen just Reason to confess that some of the Miracles produced to confirm these Articles In sum part 4. qu. 11. Art. 4. §. 3. were either humane or diabolical Impostures Thus Alexander of Hales saith That Flesh appeared in the Sacrament interdum humana procuratione interdum operatione Diabolica sometimes by humane Procurement and sometimes by Procurement of the Devil In Can. Miss lect 49. f. 127. b. And Gabriel Biel doth acknowledge that Miracles are done to Men who run to Images sometimes by the Operation of Devils to deceive those inordinate Worshippers God permitting it and their Infidelity exacting it And the same Verdict may with great Reason be passed upon all the rest they appearing in the World not only after that time when the Fathers tell us Miracles were ceased or not to be regarded and when they said the Power of working Miracles was to be given up to Satan but also after that the Goths the Vandals Longobards Franks and Saxons and other barbarous Nations had over-run the West and brought in a Deluge of most horrid Ignorance this dark and dubious Conjuncture was the very Season when these Romish Miracles began to swarm and fly abroad Then do we hear from Pope Gregory Gregory of Tours Bede and others of the Apparitions of sad Souls to acquaint others with their sad Condition underneath craving for Help from the Prayers Pilgrimages and Masses of the Living a Charity which neither Moses nor the Prophets Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever thought fit to mention or prescribe Then do we hear from the Second Nicene Council from Gregory of Tours and other later Writers of Images bleeding smiling or mourning as Occasion required Then do we read in Paulus Diaconus Paschasius and other Patrons of Transubstantiation of Flesh and Blood and of a little Child appearing in the consecrated Elements Now had such Miracles been truly wrought by divine Power and Assistance upon these Occasions they would have more especially been then performed when the Gift of Miracles continued in the Church and was confessedly common among Christians and done for Confirmation of the Faith and for Conviction of the Vnbeliever they being then more necessary for those great Ends for which they were at first designed nor would the Writers of the first Four Ages have been less careful to mention and appeal unto them than are the Romanists at present whose Histories are stuffed up with them especially they would have mentioned them in those Discourses and Apologies which were design'd on purpose to confirm the Christian Faith from the miraculous Operations done by Christians they being not less zealous to promote the Glory of their Lord the Interests of Christianity the Credit of their Institutions and the true Honour of their Saints than Romish Priests Whereas from the beginning of Christianity to the Days of Constantine we do not find in all the genuine Records of Antiquity one tittle of this Nature They are indeed very copious in relating the miraculous Cures and Operations then performed (a) Clem. Recogn l. 5. §. 36. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 13 p. 34. Iren. l. 2. c. 57. by Imposition of Hands (b) Tertull. ad Scap. c. 4. by anointing of the Sick with Oil (c) Just M. Apol. 1. p. 45. Dial. 247. Iren. l. 2. c. 56 57. Orig. in Cels l. 1. p. 7 20. by Prayer and invocation of the Name of Jesus (d) Just M. Dial. p. 302. Orig. l. 7. p. 334. Lact. l. 4. c. 27. by adjuration of evil Spirits by his Name but of miraculous Apparitions of Souls from Purgatory of Flesh and Blood appearing visibly in the Eucharist of Miracles performed at the Adoration of Images or at auricular Confession they speak not one Word these being Miracles designed for other Ends and reserved for times more worthy of them Thirdly Errors in Doctrine or in Practice Sect. 9 might exceedingly prevail by reason of the great Authority the Vogue and Reputation of those Men who either first began or else gave Countenance to them when begun by others St. Paul well understood what an Inlet to Schisms Contentions and Divisions it would be for Men to cry up Paul Apollo Cephas 1 Cor. i. 12. iv 6. and to be puffed up for one against another and therefore he endeavours to prevent that Evil in the Church of Corinth and in most of his Epistles he is constrained to magnify his Office 2 Cor. c. 10 11 12. and to commend himself in opposition to those false Apostles and deceitful Workers who made it their Business to depress his Authority and to procure Credit and Admiration to themselves It was the great Opinion which the Jews had both of the Scribes and Pharisees which caused them so readily to embrace and superstitiously to Reverence and stiffly to retain those Superstitions and Traditions by which they render'd vain God's Worship and made void his Law. Vide Cap. 11. §. 7. They saith Josephus had the popular Applause as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most worthy of Credit in the Peoples Judgment and the best Interpreters of their Laws Mr. Wake 's Second Def. Part 1. p. 81. And we at present see how great a Grief it is to some that our Ministers are in the best Sence popular by living so as to deserve the good Opinion and preaching so as to deserve Attention from the People and gaining Reputation to their Doctrine by their Sincerity as well as Learning or in St.
she actually hath imposed false Doctrines and Practices as Apostolical Tradition 2. Because she hath no better Right to testifie in this Matter than the Eastern Churches § 2.3 Because her present Testimony contradicts the Testimony of the whole Church in general and of the Roman Church in particular in former Ages § 3. 1. Touching the number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament 2. Of the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews 3. Of the number of the Sacraments 4. Of Concomitance 5. Of pronouncing part of the Mass in a low Voice 6. Of the Veneration of Images 7. Of Communion in one Kind 8. Of her Twelve new Articles 9. Of the no necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants Ibid. 4. Because this Doctrine makes Scripture Reason and Antiquity not only useless but pernicious to us § 4. More Instances of the Contradiction betwixt the Decrees of the Ancient Catholick Church and of the present Church of Rome 1st In the Decree of the Trent Council touching the Freedom of the Blessed Virgin from Actual Sin § 5. 2dly In the permission that Church gives to eat things Strangled and Blood § 6. In punishing Men with Death for their Religion § 7. In not breaking the Bread they distribute not permitting the Communicants to carry it home not Consecrating it with a loud Voice § 8. In the Matter of the Immaculate Conception though not conciliarly defined § 9. Seven Corollaries from this Instance § 10. MOreover § 1 for farther Explication of this Question let it be noted Dist 4. That by the word Tradition when we allow what can be proved by it to be in Matters of Faith a Doctrine or a Revelation derived from the Apostles in matters of Government of Discipline or practice an Apostolical Ordinance or Institution we mean not the Tradition of the present Church and much less the Tradition of the Church of Rome and her Adherents Charity Maint ch 2. §. 14. but we mean with Mr. Knot Such a Tradition which involves an evidence of Fact and from Hand to Hand from Age to Age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles Id quod in Ecclesia Universa omnibus retro temporibus servatum est merito ab Apostolis creditur institutum De verbo Dei non scripto l. 4 c. 9. and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments by which they proved their Doctrine to be true or such a Practice as the Church hath observed in all past Ages according to the Third Rule of Bellarmine for the discerning Apostolical Traditions and such an Article of Faith as all the Doctors of the Church by common consent have always testified to have descended from Apostolical Tradition Such is the Tradition which St. Basil insists upon for the use of the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Spirit in the Doxology of the Church viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. de Spiritu Sancto c. 29. which was customarily used in the Churches from the first Preaching of the Gospel to that very time and of such Traditions we say with him Ibid. That it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suitable to the Apostles Doctrine to continue in them Praefat. in libr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such is the Tradition of which Origen speaks when he saith That only is to be believed as Truth which in nothing disagreeth from the Tradition Ecclesiastical that is The praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita usque ad praesens in Ecclesiis permanens preaching delivered down by order of Succession from the Apostles and to this present time continued in the Churches This is the Tradition of which St. Cap. 8. Austin speaks in his Book De utilitate credendi viz. of the Tradition quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit Cap. 10. which came down from Christ by his Apostles to that present time which à Majoribus nostris tradita ad nos usque servata est being delivered by our Ancestors hath been preserved to our times and which is Cap. 14. celebritate consensione vetustate roborata strengthened with a general Fame Consent and Antiquity And this is also the Authority he meaneth when he saith I should not have believed the Gospel nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae moveret Authoritas unless the Authority of the Catholick Church had moved me For he informs us That he speaks of that Authority which was Contr. Epist Man. quam vocant Fundament c. 4. Miraculis inchoata vetustate firmata begun by Miracles and confirmed by Antiquity And this must of necessity be meant by that Tradition which is the Foundation of an Article of Faith for Faith must be a matter of Divine Revelation and therefore must proceed from Christ or his Apostles from whom alone all Revelations of the Christian Faith have issued the Churches Business being to Believe to Preach and Testifie not to enlarge or shorten to alter or diversisie the Faith by them delivered to her and what they taught her as a thing necessary to be believed or practised by all Christians must consequently be so believed taught and practised through all future Ages provided that they walk according to their Rule Common c. ◠Hence saith Vincentius Lirinensis Hoc est vere proprieque Catholicum quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus That is truly Catholick Doctrine which was held in all places all times and by all Persons Sess 4. And accordingly the Trent Council and the Roman Doctors pretend to have received those Doctrines in which they differ from us partly from Scripture and partly from Tradition derived from the Apostles to their days But here begins the difference betwixt us § 2 1. That they will have the Testimony of the present Church to be an Evidence sufficient of the Tradition of the Church of former Ages and will maintain this way of Arguing to be good The present Church of Rome and they who hold Communion with her deliver such and such Doctrines as Traditions received from the Apostles and handed down from them thoughout all Ages and by all true Christian Churches to this present Age and therefore they undoubtedly are such We on the contrary say That we have clear unquestionable Evidence from Scripture and Church-History that many of the Doctrines imposed upon us by the Church of Rome as Apostolick Doctrines and Traditions were not received but rather were condemned and abhorred by the former Ages of the Church of Christ in general and in particular by that of Rome and this hath been already proved in the instance of their Latin Service the Veneration of Images and Communion in one Kind whence it demonstratively follows that this proposition is contrary to plain matter of Fact. Again What better reason can be given for this Consequence viz. The present Church of Rome with her Adherents deliver
to ground Faith upon For on this ground they proceeded in defining all the Books in our Canon to be Canonical Pope Innocent the First A. D. 402. St. Austin P. Gelasius A. D. 492. confirm the same Canon and the Sixth General Council celebrated A. D. 680. confirms the Council of Carthage and the true Canon is again set forth in the Council of Florence A. 1438. And after these Declarations of the Council of Carthage and Pope Innocent no one pertinaciously dissented from the Canon but such as Protestants themselves confess to be Hereticks J. L. adds That Gregory Nazianzen acknowledged them Canonical and St. Ambrose Lib. de Jacob vitâ beatâ and that since the Churches Declaration no Catholick ever doubted of them Now for Answer to these things let it be noted First That whereas they are pleased to say that it was till the time of the Third Council of Carthage that is till the Fifth Century doubtful and undetermined in the Church whether these Books were Canonical or not because the Church had not then declared them so they by just consequence must grant that the Apostles and all the Ancient Bishops of the Church for Four Centuries knew nothing of the Roman Canon for had they known the Books contested to be Canonical we cannot doubt but they would have delivered them to the Church as such as well as those which we receive and which saith Eusebius were received by the consent of all Lib. 4. c. 26. We therefore are contented to be no wiser than they were and rather chuse to hearken to that advice of Cyril of Jerusalem Read the Twenty two Books of the Old Testament and have nothing to do with the Apocrypha 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Apostles and ancient Bishops the Rulers of the Church who delivered these Twenty two Books as the Canon were wiser than those that came after them we therefore being Sons of the Church in compliance with his advice will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 break over the bounds which they have set us especially considering they so expresly have informed us that they delivered this Catalogue of the Twenty two Canonical Books of the Old Testament as they received them from Tradition Obs 1. That they made this Enumeration of them to prevent mistakes in this matter for the good of the Church and that Men might know out of what Fountains to draw the Water of Life and might clearly learn which were Canonical Obs 4. And as the Canon received and owned not only by the Jewish but the Christian Church Obs 3. Secondly The falshood of these bold Assertions hath been shewed sufficiently in what hath been discoursed upon this subject for had the Authority of the Books we stile Apocryphal been undetermined had the true Canon of the Books of the Old Testament been doubtful in the Church till the Fifth Century why did Athanasius think it necessary to advertise Christians that the Books which we reject were not Canonical St. Cyril That they were out of the Canon Nazianzen That they were not Genuine Ruffinus That our Ancestors held them not Canonical not sufficient to confirm Doctrines of Faith St. Jerom That the Church deemed them Apocryphal and received them not into the Canon Why do they add that these things we delivered to them by the Fathers and by them recorded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for more exactness sake and to prevent mistakes Had the Canon of the Books of the Old Testament been till then doubtful and undetermined in the Church why was the Canon produced by Melito Bishop of Sardis judged so exact a Canon of the Books of the Old Testament why do the Fathers of the four first Centuries with one accord declare that the number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament if Ruth were added to Judges and the Lamentations to Jeremiah Can. 59. were but Twenty two if reckoned separately Twenty four why is it that the Council of Laodicea having said that Christians in the Church ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only the Canonical Books of the Old and the New Testament reckons up the Cononical Books of the Old Testament as we do excluding all that we call Apocrypha as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 books not contained in the Canon Moreover this Canon was received into the Code of Canons of the Vniversal Church both by the East and West the Canons of this Council were confirmed by the fourth General Council of Chalcedon Can. 1. Can. 2. Novel 131. by the Sixth General Council of Trullo by the Imperial Law of the Emperor Justinian and so must give us the Sence and Definition of the whole Church touching this matter Thirdly If that may be doubtful and undetermined in the Church which is so positively asserted so expresly and frequently declared in a matter of Fact as this hath been for the first Four Centuries then I hope we may be permitted to pronounce all those New Articles which the Church of Rome hath added to the Creed doubtful and undetermined in the first Four Centuries at least till they can give us better proof that they were then received than hath been here produced for this Canon and then I think they will be no great Gainers by this false Assertion And sure I am they cannot here pretend Tradition handed down from Father to Son from all the Christians of one Age to all the Christians of the next unless it be asserted that all those Fathers and this whole Council spake these things in a flat opposition to what they had been taught by their Fore-fathers touching the Canonical Books of the Old Testament so that this instance is a full confutation of that idle Dream Fourthly Whereas these Authors have produced some few Testimonies from the Fifth Century in favour of their Canon Let it be noted first That J. L. hath been told already Answ p. 82 83. that neither Gregory nor St. Ambrose have any thing pertinent to his purpose in the places cited and this he by his silence seemeth to confess As for the pretended Definition of Pope Innocent the First made saith J. L. A. D. 370. Cap. 11. p. 22. Schol. Hist p. 118 180 188. though he was only made Bishop of Rome A. D. 402. Bishop Cousins hath proved it to be Spurious as he hath also fully proved the pretended Decree of the Council of Florence to be Bishop Pearson Vindiciae Epist Ignat. part 1. c. 4. a p. 44. ad p. 54. And another Bishop of our Church of unquestionable Credit among all learned Men hath proved beyond all possibility of Contradiction that the Decree ascribed to Gelasius is also Spurious so that we have nothing left to consider but the judgment of St. Austin the Council of Carthage and the pretended confirmation of it Now to these I say Fifthly That were these Testimonies exactly for the Canon of the Church of Rome yet here is neither a Decree of any General Council
nor a Decree received into the Code of Canons by the Vniversal Church as was the contrary Decree of the Council of Laodicea nor were the men that made it likely to judge better what were the Books of the Old Testament received as Canonical than all the Writers now produced for our Canon they whom we have produced as our Witnesses being either men who lived upon or near the place where the Canon of the Old Testament was published and known or travelled many of them thither and one of them on purpose to learn exactly the number of those Books And surely it is too ridiculous to imagine that it should in the Fifth Century be better known in Africa what Books of the Old Testament were Canonical than at Jerusalem Caesarea Alexandria or any of the Eastern Churches Moreover This Canon of the Council of Carthage in the Roman Code lately set forth by Paschasius Quesnel hath only Tobit and Judith and two Books of Esdras of all the Apocryphal Books now Canonized at Rome nor in the Collection of Cresconius Can. 299. an African Bishop is there any mention of the Books of Macchabees or Baruch nor in the Edition of it by Balsamon so that this cannot be a proof that the Trent Canon was received then And lastly 't is true they stile the Books there mentioned Canonical but this may only be in that large Sence in which those Books were sometimes called so which were read in the Church though they were not sufficient to confirm matters of Faith as may be argued from the Reason which they give us why they stiled them Canonical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Balsam in can 27. Concil Carthag viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because we have from the Fathers received these Books to be read in the Church and from the Gloss of Balsamon upon it who to know what Books were Canonical in the strict Sence sends us to the Council of Laodicea Athanasius Nazianzen and Amphilochius who all declared against the Apocrypha and to the last Canon of the Apostles which leaves out most of them And whereas it is added that the Canons of the Council of Carthage were established in the Sixth General Council held in Trullo let it be noted First That at other times the Romanists will by no means admit this Council Can. 36. Can. 13. Can. 55. because it equals the Bishop of Constantinople with him of Rome forbids Priests to be separated from their Wives condemns the received Customs of the Church of Rome and prescribes contrary Laws to her but now because they hope their Forlorn Cause may have some small advantage by it they give it the Title of a General Council Note 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 2. That this Synod in the same Canon in which it confirms the Council of Carthage confirms also the Canons of the Council of Laodicea together with the Canonical Epistles of Athanasius Nazianzen and Amphilochius which number the Canonical Books of the Old Testament as we do rejecting the rest with us as Apocryphal when therefore the Fathers in the Synod confirm the Canons of the Council of Carthage they must either contradict themselves by contradicting the Council of Laodicea and these Canonical Epistles now mentioned and by them equally confirmed or else they must believe that this Canon of the Council of Carthage did not declare these controverted Books to be properly Canonical or divine Scripture but only in that larger sence in which that Name was given to Ecclesiastical Books thought worthy to be read in the Church Fifthly Whereas Mr. M. and J. L. farther assert That after these Books were declared Canonical by Pope Innocent and the Council of Carthage all cited these Books as Scripture none pertinaciously dissented from this Decree no Catholick ever doubted of them we are bound to thank them for their kindness to us in these words in which they plainly have renounced their Title to almost all the best Writers of the Christian World who as the Reverend Dr. Cousins hath demonstrated through every Century till the very Year of the Session of the Trent Council not only doubted of but plainly did reject these Books as uncanonical in the strict acceptation of the Word declaring that they read and cited them indeed as Books containing good instruction but not as properly Canonical or as sufficient to confirm any Article of Christian Faith. Lastly The Testimony of St. Austin in his Book of Christian Doctrine is so inconsistent with his other works and so fully answered by the Reverend Dr. Consins Can. 7. that it is needless to say any thing distinctly to it To proceed therefore to the Books of the New Testament § 14 observe First That the four Gospels the Acts of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 25. l. 6. c. 25. the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul the First Epistle of St. Peter and the First of St. John were always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed by all true Christians to be sacred Books of the New Testament and their Authority was never questioned by any person of the whole Church of God. Now sure we have unquestionable certainty of such Books as have been handed down to us by the Tradition of all Ages of the Church inserted into all her Catalogues cited by all her Writers as Books of a Divine Authority and of which never any doubt was made by any Member of the Church of God. Secondly § 15 Observe That it cannot be necessary to Salvation to have an absolute assurance of those Books of the new Testament which have been formerly Controverted by whole Churches as well as private Doctors of the Church for either these Churches had sufficient certainty that the Books which they rejected were Canonical or they had not if they had how could they be true Churches who rejected part of their Rule of Faith when known to be so If they had not it seems not necessary that we at present should be certain of them for why may not we go to Heaven without this assurance as well as they of former Ages Thirdly § 16 There can be no assurance of the true Canon of the Books of the New Testament from the Testimony of the Romish or the Latin Church in any Age because she in some Ages hath rejected from the Canon that Epistle to the Hebrews Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. which she now receives It was rejected in the Third Century by Cajus Presbyter of Rome by Tertullian in the same Century who also in his Book Cap. 20. de pudicitia insinuates that it was not received as Canonical by some other Churches Origen in his Epistle to Africanus having cited a passage from the Eleventh Chapter of this Epistle adds That it is probable some being pressed with it Pag. 232. may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 embrace the Sentence of them who reject this Epistle as
And amongst these he reckons the Seven Catholick Epistles of the Apostles Pag. 59. comprised in one Volume which he calls the Sixth Volume of the New Testament Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul comprised in the Seventh Volume and in the Eighth the Revelation of St. John of which he testisieth that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 60. shewed and judged to be his by the Ancient and holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God And then concludes Pag. 61. These are the Canonical Books of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it were the first fruits Anchors and supports of our Faith. St. Cyril is another who professeth to write his Catalogue from the Church and to hand down the Canonical Books as she received them from the Apostles the Ancient Bishops and Governors of the Church and he among the Canonical Books of the New Testament reckons the Seven Catholick Epistles and Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul leaving out only the Apocalypse The Council of Laodicea reckons them exactly as St. Cyril doth leaving out with him the Apocalypse not that they question its Authority but because they reckon up only the Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought to be read in the Churches Cyril Catech. 4. p. 38. Concil Laod. Can. 60. among which the Apocalypse was not because it is so very Mystical and accordingly the Council concludes their Canon thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Books we have received from the Fathers to be read in the Church and yet they do command that nothing should be read there but Canonical Scripture Apud Hieron Tom. 4. f. 51. Ruffinus declares he reckoned the Volumes of the New Testament as they were delivered to the Church of Christ secundum majorum Traditionem and according to the Tradition of the Ancients and then he accounts Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul Seven Catholick Epistles and the Apocalypse saying Haec sunt quae patres intra Canonem concluserunt These are the Books which the Father 's put into the Canon Can. 27. The Council of Carthage undertaking to reckon up the Canonical Books of the New Testament enumerates Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul Two of Peter Three of John One of James and One of Jude and the Apocalypse of St. John as received from the Fathers St. Jerom reckons the Canonical Books of the New Testament after the same manner only saying That the Epistle to the Hebrews was by most shut out of the number of the Epistles written by St. Paul that is some in his time conceived St. Barnabas others St. Clemens either did interpret it from the Hebrew or write it either from the Mouth or from the Notions of St. Paul but then he adds Ep. Tom. 3. f. 13. That the whole Greek Church and some of the Latins did receive it That all the Eastern Churches and all the Churches which used the Greek Tongue did Anciently own it as the Epistle of St. Paul and that he also owned both that and the Apocalypse not respecting the Custom of his present Age but following the Authority of the Ancient Writers who cited Testimonies from both not as sometimes they are wont to do from Apocryphal Books but as from Canonical Scripture And good reason had he to say 1. § 19 Lib. 3. c. 24. That he received the Apocalypse on the Authority of the Ancients when Eusebius expresly declares That a judgment might easily be passed of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Testimony of the Ancients Athanasius that it was determined Synop. p. 60. and demonstrated to be his by the Ancient and Holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God. And indeed Ep. ad C. §. 34. Dial. cum Tryph p. 308. Pag. 373 477 128 347 376 480 486 500 503. Lib. 5. c. 30. p. 485. Pag. 201. 528. Tom. 5. in Joh. Hom. 7. in Jos pag. 269 270 411 510 c. De opere Elem p. 202. de bono pat p. 219. Hist Eccl. l. 4.24 Ibid. c. 26. Lib. 5. c. 18. p. 186. Lib. 7. c. 25. it is cited in the First Century by Clemens Romanus as a Prophetical Writing In the Second Century by Justin Martyr as a Book writ by John one of Christ's Twelve Apostles By Irenaeus in the same Century as the Revelation of John the Disciple of the Lord the Revelation of St. John and he declares it was written by him pene sub nostro saeculo almost in our Age at the end of the Reign of Domitian It is mentioned in the Third Century as holy Scripture and a Prophetick Vision by Clemens of Alexandria as the Revelation of that John who lay in the bosom of our Lord by Origen it is mentioned by Tertullian as the Prophecy the Revelation the Vision of the Apostle John in above Twenty places by St. Cyprian as that Revelation in which we hear our Saviour's Voice and in which he speaks to us Eusebius informs us That Melito Bishop of Sardis writ upon the Revelation of St. John that Theophilus Bishop of Antioch owned it and cited from it many Testimonies Now both these flourished in the middle of the Second Century That Hippolitus the Disciple of Irenaeus did the same And that Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria professed That he durst not reject it by reason of the multitude of Christians who had a veneration for it and that he owned it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the work of an holy Man inspired of God. And judge now whether he had not sufficient ground to say this matter might be decided by the Testimonies of the Ancients That this Book was refused by Marcion the Heretick Contra Marcion l. 4. c. 5. Haer. 51 54. Haer. 30. we learn from Tertullian that it was rejected by the Alogians and Theodosian Hereticks we learn from Epiphanius and St. Austin and that when some Orthodox Christians began to dislike the Doctrine of the Millennium they began also to dispute some the Author of this Book ascribing it to another John Presbyter at Ephesus and others the Authority of it because they could not answer the Testimony produced from the Twentieth Chapter in favour of the Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years But then their Arguments against it are only taken from some vain and weak Imaginations of their own Brains as v. g. That St. John here names himself which in his Gospel and Epistles he never doth by which Argument we must reject either the Lamentations or the Book of Jeremy 2. Because he doth not use the same Expressions here as he did there that is in a Prophetick Stile as in a Doctrinal on which account Ecclesiastes and the Canticles cannot be writ by the same Author And 3. Because he writes here better Greek than elsewhere which if so may be because he writes not to the Jews but to the Asiaticks or after he had more conversed with them who spake that Language in its Purity As for those who ascribe
say they in our writings (e) Aug. de Orig an l. 4. c. 1. l. de bono persev c. 21. many things quae possent justo judicio culpari which justly may be blamed so that we would have no man so to embrace all our Sayings as to follow them save only in those things in which they do perceive they have not erred if then their sayings be of any credit and Authority 't is evident from their assertions that they ought not to be admitted as the Rule of faith as being men subject unto like ignorance and errors with us and if their sayings be of no credit much less can they be own'd as the pillars and the ground of truth and yet I find this doctrine laid down expresly by a concealed Heretick Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople in his Epistle to Cyril where he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Sexto Ep. ad Cyrum episcop Concil To. 6. p. 918. the doctrines of the Fathers are a Law to the universal Church and that we are bound to follow them and to hold all that they have written to the least tittle and evident it is That even from the Fifth Century the sayings of the Fathers began to be had in great Reputation and about the Eighth to be as it were Authentick and Articles of Faith were canvassed and determined both in the Second Nicene Council and in that of Florence chiefly by the pretended Sayings of the Holy Fathers to whose Testimony you very rarely if at all shall find this just Exception made That they were Men of like Infirmities and subject to like Errors as we are One Athanasius or Basil one Nazianzen or Nyssen one Chrysostom and Theodoret in the Eastern Church one Hilary and Ambrose St. Austin Jerom and St. Gregory in the Western Churches have for these six last Centuries signified as much or more than a St. Peter or St. Paul an Apostle or Evangelist and a sed contra Augustinus or sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit through the whole Summs and the whole Body of the Schoolmen hath passed for the Decision of a Question touching Faith or Manners How easy was it then for Errors to come in under the Vmbrage of these venerable Names especially if we consider how many spurious Pieces had usurped their Names which the great Ignorance of latter Ages could not distinguish from their genuine Works how many of their genuine works were horribly corrupted and how fruitful many of those Fathers were in there inventions and how positive they sometimes are in delivering that as the doctrine of the whole Church which was nothing less For instance who that reads St. Austin disputing against the Pelagians could doubt if he believed him that the Doctrine of the Imputation of Original Sin was universally received by all Christians and that on this account the whole Church Baptized Infants and yet Petavius iuforms us Dogm Theol. To. 4. pt 2. l. 14. c. 2. Haeret. Fabul l. 5. c. 18. p. 292. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18. that the Greek Fathers scarcely spake any thing about it yea in that very Age Theodoret expresly denies it putting the Question thus If this be the only work of Baptism to cleanse from Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why do we Baptize Children who are not guilty of it and in his Comment on Rom. 5.13 He adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That every one dies for his own Sin and not for that of his Fore fathers Chrysostom on the same place saith In v. 19. To. 3. Hom. 10. p. 73. That for us to be mortal on the occasion of the Sin of Adam is no absurdity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but how can it be that by his Transgression another should become a Sinner for if he did not personally sin Cap. 1. neither could he deserve Punishment Gennadius in his Book of Ecclesiastical Doctrines which passeth still among the Works of St. Austin placeth this as one That that Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and Son. Michael Psellus on the contrary saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. Theol. c. 10. p. 157. the Holy Catholick Church teacheth that the Spirit proceedeth only from the Father L. 2. c. 1. but not from the Son. To omit many other Instances collected by the learned Dally in that elaborate Treatise of the Use of the Fathers which makes it needless to discourse further on this Head For if the true Fathers were not only subject to many and great Errors in their private Sentiments but also unto manifold Mistakes touching the Doctrine of the Catholick Church if many of their Works have been unhappily corrupted and many spurious Pieces have been imposed upon them so that instead of their Authority Men often have relyed on an Impostor an ignorant Monk or perhaps an Heretick how easy was it in the dark Ages of the Church for Errors to come in at this Door when too much Veneration was by all given to them and their Dictates passed for Oracles Again § 8 New Doctrines and Practices might obtain by flying from the Scriptures to Miracles and Visions for the Establishment of Doctrines and Opinions in the Church That a prevailing Power doth attend these miraculous Operations even when they are performed only by Satan and his Ministers we shall be fully convinced if we consider that our Lord foretold of the false Prophets and false Christs that should come after him they should work Signs and Miracles so great as to deceive Matth. 24.23 if it were posible the very Elect. St. 2 Thes 2.9 Paul that the Apostacy of the Great Antichrist and his Followers should be effected by the coming of Satan with all power Signs Rev. 13.13 14. and lying Wonders St. John of the Apocalyptick beast that he should do great Signs and deceive the Inhabitants of the Earth by the Signs given him to do that at the first appearance of Christianity the Heathens did oppose it from this topick viz. The Signs and Wonders which had been performed by their Heathen Deities saying Frustra tantum arrogas Christo In vain you arrogate so much to Christ for we have often known that other Gods have given Medicines to and healed the Infirmities of many so the Heathen in (a) Arnob. l. 1. p. 28. Arnobius so (b) Apud Orig. l. 8. p. 407 416 417. Celsus so (c) Apud Minut p. 7. Caelius and comparing the Miracles of Apollonius Tyanaeus and of Apuleus with those of Christ (d) Lact. l. 5 c. 3. Aug. Ep. 4. Hieronim apud Euseb p. 512. Quorum majora contendunt esse opera And contending they were greater than any done by him That (e) Acts 8.9 10. Just in Apol 2. p. 69. Cyril Hier. cat 6. p. 53 54 c. Simon Magus mightily prevailed by them and obtained almost where-ever he came to be worshipped as a
Paul 's Expression by commending themselves and their Doctrine to the Consciences of all Men. To shew the Prevalence of Men of Reputation in Matters of this Nature If as the Romanists do generally confess the Doctrine of the Millennium obtained almost generally in the Church from the Relation of one Papias a Man of very slender Intellectuals If as Eusebius informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 39. most of the Churchmen embraced that Sentiment by his Authority pleading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Antiquity of the Man If one Agrippinus as they also tell us could prevail over all Africa to receive Hereticks by Baptism If Origen could deserve to be condemned in the Fifth and the Sixth Synods as an Heretick and yet whilst he lived Hieron in Verbo Origenes Socrat Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 26. Hieron Prolog in l. 2. com in Micham Pamphil. Apol. Orig. praefat in libr. nom Hebr. T. 3. f. 12. could by his Learning and his Piety prevail to be had summo in honore in the highest Reputation to obtain after his Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great Glory throughout all the Christian World insomuch that he was very grateful cunctis prudentibus to all wise Men and did for many Years obtain the Title of Magister Ecclesiae The Master or Teacher of the Church If the Authority of Jerom could prevail to have his Translation of the Old Testament received against the Judgment of the Universal Church If one St. Austin could introduce into the Church the Belief of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin though none of the Fathers who had as good Opportunity to know and as much Reason to believe it spake one Tittle of it I say if all these things are so how can it be conceived a thing incredible That Popes Patriarchs and Councils and other Persons of great Authority and Vogue in their respective Ages should have had like Influence to introduce new Doctrines and Practices into the Church under pretence of Piety or the Authority of Scriptures or the Holy Fathers or some like plausible Account Theodor. Lector l. 2. p 566. Niceph. Hist Eccl. l. 15. c. 18. Why might not Petrus Gnaphaeus Patriarch of Antioch bring Invocation of Saints into the Prayers of the Church in the Fifth Century Pope Gregory introduce Purgatory in the Sixth Boniface the Third Paulus Diac. de Gest Longobard l. 4. c. 11. obtain from Phocas the Title of Caput omnium Ecclesiarum The Head of the Universal Church in the Seventh The Second Nicene Council introduce Image-Worship in the Eighth Paschasius give Rise to Transubstantiation in the Ninth Lombard and Hugo de S to Victore fix the Number of Seven Sacraments in the Twelfth And Pope Hadrian the Third introduce the Adoration of the Host in the Thirteenth Century Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 12. Soz. H. Eccl. l. 1. c. 23. If one Paphnutius could by his Reason and Authority prevail with the First Nicene Council to rescind their intended Decree touching the Celibacy of Priests If Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople could abolish the Custom of repairing to an established Penitentiary for the disclosing secret Sins and that with the ensuing Approbation of almost all the Catholick Bishops of the Church In a Word if so many Practices and Customs relating to the Discipline and to the Sacraments of the Church could be entirely altered and rejected in the following Ages as is here partly proved and by the Learned on both sides confessed why might not other Practices and Doctrines which obtained in the more pure and early Ages of the Church run the same Fate and by the same Authority and Methods be discarded For as it is judiciously observed by the Lord Faulkland when the Reasons offered for or against a Practice have in them some Appearance of Truth or Probability as they may have to many Persons though they be not valid when the Persons Authorizing or Approving them are of great Authority or Credit in the Church as they may be especially in darker Ages and yet be subject to great Errors and when the People upon whom these Doctrines or Practices are pressed have either a great Veneration and Esteem for those that press them or a great Dread of them then meet together most of those things which tend to work Perswasion or prevail for an Assent unto the Doctrine and a Compliance with the Practice recommended Seeing then Not. in Concil Clar. Can. 28. conc To. 10. p. 582. as Petrus de Marca doth inform us the Approbation of the half Communion by Thomas Aquinas made others certatim amplecti hanc sententiam to embrace greedily the same Opinion why might not others of as good Authority and Credit be instrumental to produce like Changes in other Constitutions of the Church Fourthly § 10 Old Doctrines and Practices might easily be changed and new obtain by reason of the corrupt Manners of the Clergy and by their Example of the People And that 1. Because such evil Practices deprive the Clergy of that Spiritual Wisdom and Divine Assistance which is their best Conducter into the Way of Truth and is their chief Preservative from dangerous Delusions and pernicious Errors Wisd 1.4 For as the Book of Wisdom saith Into a malicious Soul Wisdom will not enter nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto Sin. St. De Judicio dei To. 2. p. 393. Basil grievously laments the Discords and Contentions the perverse Doctrines and Opinions which had prevailed in his time amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers of the Church of God by which they verified the Prediction of St. Paul Acts 20.30 That from Christians themselves should proceed Men speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them And this he doth resolve into their Rejection of God their true and only King their Departure from the Laws of Christ and chusing rather to rule others in contradiction to the Commands of Christ than to be ruled by him By which things saith he they have render'd themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 394. unworthy of the Government of the Lord. Clemangis is still more express and Argumentative in this Particular Super Materia Conc. Gen. p. 71. For with them saith he is the Spirit those he directs and brings to a salutary End who have prepared for him within themselves an Habitation worthy of him and by good Works have render'd themselves worthy of his Inspiration and Visitation but how can he hear visit and enlighten them who are Adversaries to him and when they cannot do it in themselves endeavour to extinguish him in others and are inflamed not with the Fire of Love but with the Ardor of Ambition For with Hypocrites and self-Seekers the Holy Spirit is not wont to be present but to fly from them as his Enemies according to that saying of the Book of Wisdom the Holy Spirit of Discipline
to his Corinthians the things which they already read and did acknowledge and to write the same things which he had taught to his Philippians Phil. iij. 1 If St. Peter thought it needful to write unto the Jewish Converts to testify to them 1 Pet. v. 12. 2 Pet. iij. 1. 1 Jo. v. 13. that was the true Grace of God in which they stood and to stir up their sincere minds by way of Remembrance St. John that they might know they had eternal Life and might believe in the Son of God. Ver. 3. St. Jude to mind them of the Common Salvation If the Evangelist closeth his Gospel with these words These things were written that you might believe Joh. xx 31. and believing might have Life through his Name surely these persons would not but think it necessary that the essential Doctrines of Christianity should be written And who can think the Holy Spirit of God would have assisted them to indite these Gospels and Epistles had he conceived it needless that they should be written 2. We have the plain Assertions of the Authors of the New Testament that they were written by the Servants and the Apostles of the Lord by Men who declared that the things they writ were the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. xiv 37. 1 Pet. i. 18. by Men who preached the Gospel to them by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven and proved the Truth of what they said by mighty Signs and Miracles owned even by Jews and Heathens as well as by their Christian Converts 3. We find the matter of them worthy of the God of Heaven to reveal 4. We find them generally received as such by those who bore the Name of Christians however differing in other matters read daily in their Assemblies cited in all their Homilies and Sermons called their Digests and their God-making Books by appealing to which they confirmed their Doctrines and confuted their Adversaries and which they offered to be perused to the very Heathens And hence we have just reason to presume that they had Cause sufficient to believe them such 5. We also have the concurrent Testimony of Jews and Heathens citing them as such and thence making Objections against the Christian Faith and attempting to wrest them out of the Hands of Christians that so Christianity might be destroyed out of the World. And lastly We have good reason to suppose that Providence of God which was so highly interested in propagation of the Christian Faith and making of it known unto the World would not permit false Records of that Faith to be so early and generally imposed upon the Christian World. Let us then see it proved by Mr. M. that the matter of those Roman Traditions contained in their new Creed is worthy the God of Heaven to reveal and that we have like reason to suppose his Providence concerned about them let us see plain Assertions of the like Primitive Authority that they were delivered by Men assisted by the Holy Ghost and equal Miracles performed in confirmation of that Assertion let us see a like necessity that Christian Revelations should be handed down by word of Mouth a like general Reception of these Traditions throughout all Ages a like appearance of them in the Christian Writings or Citation of them by Jews or Heathens and when this Evidence hath been produced by Mr. M. we shall be ready to Embrace and own them also as the unwritten Word of God. But whosoever undertakes this Task will find some of these things imply a contradiction viz. That an Oral Tradition should be necessary to be Recorded or daily read in the Assemblies of Christians That it is upon the Matter confessed by Du Pin in his Abridgment of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Three first Centuries P. 605.613 that scarcely any mention of these supposed Traditions can be found in the Homilies or Writings of those Ages Moreover we find not in those Primitive Ages any mention of the Divine Original of these Traditions any appeal to them as such any confirmation of Christian Doctrine or confutation of their Adversaries by them nor any thing objected from them either by Jew or Gentile against the Christian Faith tho' since the time that we confess they came into the Church both Jew and Gentiles have been very forward to object as against other things so especially against Transubstantiation and the Veneration of Images and the Adoration of the Host. Lastly there appears no such real Excellency in them no such tendency to the advancement of true Holiness and Goodness as may convince us they are things worthy of the God of Heaven to reveal and which his Providence should be concerned to preserve and propagate throughout all Ages Moreover we distinguish betwixt Historical Traditions of the Primitive and succeeding Churches § 3 Dist 2. such as are the Tradition concerning the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin the Birth of our Lord or his coming forth out of her Womb Clauso Vtero his coming to his Disciples the Doors being shut his Age the time of his preaching upon Earth and the like and Traditions touching Articles of Faith and Doctrines to be believed in Order to our being either sound Believers or good Christians Touching the first we say 1. That we have no occasion to dispute with them about some of these things and therefore what St. Basil saith of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin That though it would not be offensive unto Piety to say That afterwards she did the works of Matrimony her Virginity being only necessary till the Birth of Christ yet the Mystery being not concerned in it we leave it unregarded and unsearched into We say of other matters of this nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De humana Christi Gener. Tom. 1. p. 509. In Matth. Ed. Huet p. 223. we think it best not to search curiously into them though that of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who say these things would preserve the perpetual Virginity of Mary seems to insinuate that this was once but the Opinion of some Men. And they who were most zealous for it as was St. Jerom against Helvidius Ut haec quae scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus natum deum esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus Tom. 2. f. 6. a. do it upon this Ground because the contrary is not written for thus he speaks As we deny not those things which are written so we refuse those things which are not written we believe our Lord to be Born of a Virgin because we read it we believe not that Mary was Married after her delivery because we read it not 2dly We add That as for the pretended Tradition § 4 that our Lord came out of the Womb of the Blessed Virgin without opening of it though
it seems generally to have prevailed in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries yet doth it plainly seem to contradict the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures which teach That when the days of her Purification were accomplished Luk. ij 22 23 Puram aperiens vulvam according to the Law of Moses they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law of the Lord Every Male that openeth the Womb shall be called holy to the Lord. L. 4. c. 66. In partu suo nupsit ipsa patefacti corp lege Lib. de Carne Christi c. 23. vid. etiam c. 4. 20. Hom. 14. in Lucam Tom. 2. f. 101. According to the import of which Scripture Irenaeus doth expresly teach That our Lord at his Birth opened the Womb of the Virgin. Tertullian adds That she was a Virgin as not having known Man but was no Virgin quantum a partu at her teeming her Womb being then opened according to that saying Every Male that openeth the Womb c. Origen That Matris domini to tempore vulva reserata est quo partus editus the Womb of the Mother of our Lord was opened when she brought forth her Son. Clemens of Alexandria evidently shews that this was in his time only the saying of some Men attending to the Fable of the false Gospel of St. James That the Midwives after her delivery found by Inspection that she was a Virgin and that others held the contrary for saith he It seemed to many and yet seemeth that Mary was by the Birth of her Son a Woman properly delivered of a Child though she was not Strom. l. 7. p. 756. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Woman properly delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for some say that being inspected by the Midwives after the Birth of her Son she was found a Virgin. De Incarn l. 14 cap. 6. §. 1. He respects saith Petavius the Old Wife's Tale invented by some idle Trifler which we find in Suidas and in the Proto-Evangelium S. Jacobi which I could wish he had no otherwise related than by way of Contempt and Derision Thus we learn upon what Grounds this was believed by him against the Opinion of many others St. Basil grounds this Opinion upon another Story of like nature De human Christi Gener. Tom. 1. p. 509. The Story of Zacharias saith he proves that the Virgin Mary was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an entire Virgin for it is derived to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Tradition that Zacharias was slain between the Porch and the Altar for saying Qui hujusmodi Traditioni non credunt that Mary was a Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Birth of our Lord. Origen delivers the same thing in the like words In Matt. Hom. 26. f. 49. b. In Matth. 23.35 Venit ad nos Traditio quaedam Such a Tradition hath come down to us And Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have it from Tradition and yet Origen in the same place confesseth that this Tradition was not believed by others In locum and Jerom saith That it came Ex Apocryphorum Somniis From apocryphal Dreams and adds That Quia de scripturis non habet autoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur Because it hath no Authority from Scripture it is as easily condemned as approved of And thus we see the rise of this Tradition which afterwards prevailed over the Christian World. 3ly § 5 That our Lord lived above Fourty if not to Fifty Years Sicut Evangelium omues seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem Discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Joannem L. 2. c. 39. is the express Assertion of Irenaeus and for this he produceth the Testimony of the Gospel and of all the Elders of the Church who met S. John the beloved Disciple of our Lord in Asia and declared that he delivered to them the same thing yea saith he some of them saw not only John but the rest of the Apostles and heard the same things from them testantur de hujusmodi Relatione and testifie the truth of the Relation To say with Feuardentius upon the place that he might have had this from Papias is a very unlikely thing for he speaks not of the Testimony of one Man but of all the Seniors not of Men who had never seen the Apostles as Papias had not but of them who had he cites not Papias as in the Case of the Millennium he did here therefore is a solemn Declaration of a Tradition received from the Mouth of the Apostles and attested by all the Seniors and yet so far from being in the Gospel as is pretended that by the Gospel it may be evidently confuted so far from being owned as such in after Ages that upon a very slight Ground even the saying of the Prophet Isaiah Vid. Feuard in Iren. p. 46. 188. That Christ was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord many of the Fathers took up a contrary Opinion that our Lord Suffered in the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius and preached One Year only When Jesus came to his Baptism saith Clemens of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 1. p. 340. he was about Thirty Years old and that he was to Preach but One Year is thus written He sent me to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord this both the Prophet and the Gospel according to the plain meaning of the Words averr say some in Origen Hom. 32. in Luk. f. 111. That our Lord Preached the Gospel but one Year and that on this account it was said Cap. 8. that he was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L 1. c. 1. p. 16. Tertullian in his Book against the Jews saith That Christ suffered annos habens quasi triginta being about Thirty Years Old. Lactantius Africanus and others cited by Feuardentius say the same And yet this was no better than an Opinion first invented by the Gnosticks as we learn from Irenaeus and for which they produced the same Text and 't is as easily confuted by the Enumeration of the Passovers our Saviour Celebrated after his Baptism and before his Death Now if a Tradition could so generally obtain in the Fifth Century which had its rise from Fabulous Legends and Apocryphal Dreams against plain Words of Scripture and plain Assertions of the Fathers living in the former Centuries as that of our Lords coming out of the Womb of the Virgin without opening of it did why might not other Traditions pretended by some later Councils and the Church of Rome be of like nature Why may we not credit the Council of Frankford In lib. Carol. p. 3. c. 30. declaring that the Second Nicene Council for their pretended Tradition of Image-Worship had recourse ad Apocryphas quasdam risu dignas naenias to Apocryphal and Ridiculous Tales Comment
Fathers exempting Christ alone from and consequently concluding the Virgin Mary under Original Sin which Argument must needs conclude if the Virgin Mary be not Christ Cardinal Turrecremata affirms De Consecrat dist 4 firmissime n. 11. That all the Doctors in a manner maintain the contrary to the Immaculate Conception and that he had gathered together the Testimonies of One hundred to that Effect noting the very places and words wherein they affirm it Dominicus Bannes saith Part. 1. qu. 1. Art. 8. dub 5. It is the general Opinion of the Holy Fathers that she was conceived in Sin. Becanus acknowledgeth That the ancient School-men L. de Incarn Christi cap. 28. qu. 1. n. 1. who were before Scotus held the Opinion of the Latin Fathers viz. That the Blessed Virgin was conceived in Original Sin. Estius saith It was the common and almost unanimous Opinion of the Schools for Thomas Bonaventure caeterique omnes hanc quaestionis partem In Sent. l. 3. dist 3. Sect. 3. sine ambiguitate amplectuntur and all the rest held it without doubting Canus declares Loc. com l. 7. c. 1. p. 412. That Sancti omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidere uno ore asseverarunt B. Virginem in peccato originali conceptam all the Holy Fathers who had occasion to speak of this matter do with one Voice assert that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in Original Sin and then he cites them from the Fourth to the Thirteenth Century Disp 51. in Epist ad Rom. Cajetan brings for it Fifteen Fathers in his Judgment irrefragable others produce 200. Blandellus almost 300 saith Salmeron Dogm Theolog Tom 4. part 2. l. 14. cap. 2. Petavius begins this Dispute with this Observation that Graeci originalis fere criminis raram nec disertam mentionem scriptis suis attigerunt the Greek Fathers scarce ever speak plainly of Original Sin Sect. 1. Sect. 2 7. and therefore undertakes only to tell us the Judgment of the Latin Fathers in this matter which he does by producing them from St. Austin to St. Bernard that is from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century plainly asserting That the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin. But saith he quamvis antiquioribus opinio illa placuit Sect. 8 though this Opinion pleased the Ancients yet afterwards most Christians turned to the contrary Opinion and by the tacit and pious Consent of most it so prevailed as to break forth into a publick Profession so that a Holy-Day was by solemn and publick Rite appointed per totam Ecclesiam by the whole Church for celebration of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin viz. the Eight of December which Sixtus the Fourth confirmed by his Authority and Apostolical Decree A. D. 1476 in which universos Christi fideles invitat ut omnipotenti Deo de Immaculatae Virginis mira Conceptione gratias laudes referant he invites all Christians to give Thanks and Praises to Almighty God for the Immaculate Virgin 's wonderful Conception appointing a Mass and proper Canonical Office for it with the same Indulgences which Urban the Fourth had given to the Observers of the Feast of Corpus Christi He adds That he was the more enclined to this Opinion because it had communem consensum omnium sidelium Sect. 10 the common consent of all the Faithful upon whose concurrent Judgment it behoves us saith Paulinus Nolanus to depend quia in omnem fidelem Spiritus Dei spirat because the Spirit of God breaths upon all the Faithful And lastly he concludes That after this manner Sect. 11 Credendus est Deus Christianis integrum illum immaculatae Virginis Conceptum revelasse it is to be believed that God hath revealed to Christians this pure Conception of the immaculate Virgin that is he hath inspired into them the Knowledge and given them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the full assurance of it though it hath not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine In which last words he speaks agreeably to the judgment of their Doctors for though the Council of Basil expresly decreed Sess 36. That the Doctrine of the immaculate Conception should be held and embraced tanquam pia consona cultui Ecclesiastico fidei Catholicae rectae rationi sacrae Scripturae as Pious and consonant to Ecclesiastical Worship the Catholick Faith right Reason and the Holy Scriptures though the University of Paris as Salmeron informs us admits none to their Degrees who do not take an Oath to defend it Apud Concil Trid. p. 19. Though the Bull of Paul the V. forbids any one in publick Sermons Lectures Conclusions and any publick Acts whatsoever to affirm that the Blessed Virgin was Conceived in Original Sin. And the Bull of Gregory the XV. to assert it in any private Conference or Writing yet the Bulls of Sixtus the IV. and Pius the V. having given liberty to all Men to hold or maintain either part Sess 5. the Trent Council hath decreed for the observation of the said Constitution made by Sixtus Hence then we learn § 10 1. That a Doctrine never heard of in precedent Ages yea fully contradicted and declared against by Eight whole Centuries may become afterwards the Doctrine of all or almost all the Faithful De gestis Scot. l. 3. c. 12. For Joannes Major doth inform us That Richardus de Sancto Victore who flourished in the middle of the Twelfth Century was omnium expresse primus qui Christiferam Virginem Originalis noxae expertem tenuit expresly the first who held the Virgin Mary free from Original Sin And in the Thirteenth Century In Sent. 3. dist 3. p. 1. A. 1. q. 1. In tertiam D. Th. dist 117. p. 148. P. 57. Bonaventure saith That almost all held the contrary But now saith Vasquez not only the unskillful Vulgar but the Doctors and Divines and all Catholicks with one consent fight for the immaculate Conception Now saith Petavius it hath obtained Consensum omnium fidelium The consent of all the Faithful Now saith Waddingus it is manifest that the oppugners of it do sentire aliter quam universa docet Ecclesia differ from the Doctrine of the Vniversal Church Whence 2. It follows that it is so far from being impossible that it is actually certain That what was never heard of yea what was generally contradicted in the former Ages of the Church may afterwards be owned by the general consent of learned and unlearned Romanists in spite of all the Treatises of the perpetuity of the Faith and of the lawful prejudices against the Calvinists 3. Hence it is evident that the Church of Rome doth not in all things follow the Doctrine of the Ancient Catholick Church for if so then would not they have given liberty to all their Members to oppose a Doctrine generally Believed and Taught in the whole Catholick Church and more assuredly in the whole Western Church for Eight whole Centuries 4. Hence it appears that all the
most Christian Churches Saint Jerom that in process of time it obtained Authority Estius notes That they who before doubted of it in the Fourth Century embraced the Opinion of them who received it Praefat. in Epist Jacobi and that from thence no Church no Ecclesiastical Writer is found who ever doubted of it but on the contrary all the Catalogues of the Books of Holy Scripture published by General or Provincial Councils Roman Bishops or other Orthodox Writers number it among Canonical Scriptures quae probatio ad certam fidem faciendam cuique Catholico sufficere debet which proof must give sufficient certainty of it to any Catholick The Second Epistle of St. Peter Pag. 58. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. p. 220. is cited by Origen against Marcian under the Name of Peter Firmilion saith That both Paul and Peter in suis Epistolis Haereticos execrati sunt ut eos evitemus monuerunt in their Epistles condemned Hereticks and admonished us to avoid them which is done by Saint Peter only in this Epistle Eusebius saith That it was commemorated by many and that they who did not reckon it Canonical yet held it very useful on which account Lib. 3. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was much studied with other Scriptures The same Eusebius informs us That his First Epistle was always owned by all Christians and thence we may have full assurance of the Truth of this Epistle for there are not saith the Reverend Doctor Hammond greater Evidences of any Epistles being written by the acknowledged Author of it than these Cap. 1. v. 1. The Title of Simon Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ The Voice which came from Heaven saying vers 17 18. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased we heard when we Peter and John and James were with him in the Holy Mount this second Epistle beloved I write unto you that you may be mindful of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour Cap. 3. v. 1 2. All which are certain Demonstrations That Simon Peter the Apostle of our Lord who was with him in Mount-Tabor and there heard the Voice forementioned and who writ the First Epistle to the Twelve Tribes dispersed writ this also Note Lastly That after the Fourth Century § 22 there appears not the least intimation that any of these Books were any longer doubted of by any Orthodox Professor of the Christian Faith they being all received and reckoned as Canonical by the Councils and Fathers who mentioned the Canon of the New Testament Now from these premisses there is just ground to make this Inference and Conclusion That seeing most of the Catalogues of the Fourth Century given by Councils or by Fathers and all the Catalogues of the Fifth Century unquestionably assure us that what was once controverted by some few was afterwards unanimously received by all the Church of God we are sufficiently assured of the true Canon of the Books of the New Testament The evidence now produced even of these controverted Books being sufficient both in the judgment of all Catholicks and of all Christians who on these grounds alone receive them as such to assure us that they are Canonical Scripture for by what reason can any Man evince that ought to be rejected from the Canon which always was received as Canonical by the greatest part of the Church Catholick and being accurately enquired into by those who once were Doubters found such an uncontroulled reception through the whole Church diffused as stifled through all future Ages the least appearance of a doubt Hence then the Roman § 23 Doctors may discern what it is they have to do if they do undertake to shew us such a Tradition for those Roman Doctrines we reject as hath been shew'd for the Controverted Books of the New Testament And 1. It must be owned by them that it cannot be necessary to Salvation to believe or have an absolute assurance that these are true and Apostolical Traditions and therefore Haec est fides extra quam salus esse non potest This is the Catholick Faith without which there is no Salvation must be excluded from the Roman Creed 2. It must be also owned that the pretented Traditions of the present R. Church were for some Centuries controverted and rejected by whole Churches Orthodox and Apostolical and which were as such owned and embraced by all Christians and that some of them were or at least might have been for the first Four Centuries disowned by the Church of Rome as was one of these controverted Books and consequently it must be owned that she could not then be received as Mater Magistra omnium Ecclesiarum the Mother and Mistress of all Churches 3. It must be proved that there was the same necessity that these controverted Books should be known and received from the beginning by all Christians as that the necessary Traditions and Articles of Christian Faith should be so 4. It must be proved that these Traditions were always owned and mentioned as Divine and Apostolical Traditions by many Orthodox Churches and Fathers and even when controverted were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acknowledged by most of the Church Guides To instance in the Apocalypse which Mr. M. on all occasions singles out as a Book whose Authenticalness cannot be better proved than their Traditions let him shew us any such Testimonies from the First Second and Third Centuries for the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome as we have shewed for the Apocalypse any one that saith of them as Denys of Alexandria doth of the Apocalypse That he durst not reject it by reason of the multitude of Christians who had a veneration for it let him produce the plain Testimonies of the Fathers that the Truth of these Traditions may be decided by the Testimonies of the Ancients that they owned them as Apostolical by virtue of their Testimony that the Ancient and Holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God gave Testimony to them and that they were the Traditions of holy Men inspired by God All these things have been said of the Apocalypse in the Four first Centuries and when Mr. M. can produce any thing of the like nature evidence and strength for any one of his Traditions we will own it as Divine and Apostolical Here then we see the greatest and the plainest difference betwixt the Traditions we receive and own and those pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome which we reject For 1. The Traditions we receive are Traditions handed down in writing to us throughout all Ages of the Church unto this present time the Traditions we reject are only presumptive Traditions such as the Church of Rome presumes to be so but yet they have no Footsteps in the Ancient Records of the Church of Christ which is a demonstration that they falsly do presume they are Traditions for as we could have no just reason to believe those which we own to be
the God of Israel was an evil God and not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and they denied the truth of our Saviour's Manhood and the Resurrection of the Flesh Secondly Observe That the Opinion of St. Cyprian and those who in Africa and elsewhere adhered to him Dicimus omnes omnino Haereticos Schismaticos c. Ep. 69. p. 180. was this That all Persons who only were Baptized by Hereticks were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism St Cyprian Bishop of Carthage thought Hist Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 3. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 221. Omnes Schismaticos Haereticos qui ad Ecclesiam conversi sunt Baptizari Apud Cypr. p. 231. saith Eusebius that being first purged from their Error they ought to be admitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no otherwise than by Baptism Not only the Cataphrygae saith Firmilian but caeteri quique Haeretici all other Hereticks whatsoever are deprived of the Power of Baptism In the Council of Carthage consisting of Eighty five Bishops assembled out of Africa Numidia and Mauritania Novatus a Thamugade defines according to the Testimony of the Scriptures and the Decree of our Collegs of Blessed Memory That all Schismaticks and Hereticks who are converted to the Church should be Baptized Januarius a Lambese saith According to the Authority of the Holy Scriptures I decree Haereticos omnes Baptizandos that all Hereticks shall be Baptized and so admitted into the Church Repudiandum esse omne omnino Baptisma quod sit extra Ecclesiam constitutum Firm. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 226. The Council of Iconium decreed That all Baptism was to be rejected that was celebrated out of the Church That of Synnada That no Baptism was to be found amongst Hereticks which were out of the Church Apud Haereticos nullum Baptisma reperiri and that therefore returning to the Church they ought to be Baptized in it Thirdly Observe That Pope Stephen § 17 in prosecution of this Quarrel or Dispute proceeded to a Separation of himself from and a refusal of Communion with his Brethren both in the Southern and the Eastern Churches who declared for the Baptism of Hereticks returning to the Bosom of the Church Pope Stephen saith Dionysius to Pope Xystus writ to me Apud Eusebium Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. as you do and for the same Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as one who would not communicate with Helin Firmilian or any of the Bishops of Cilicia Cappadocia Galatia or of the Neighbouring Regions because they Rebaptized Hereticks In many other Provinces saith Firmilian many things do vary Rumpens adversus vos pacem Ep. 75. apud Cypr. p. 228. but yet for these things they do not depart from the Peace and Vnity which yet Pope Stephen hath been bold to do breaking that Peace which all his Ancestors have preserved with you in mutual Love and Honour And turning his Discourse to him he speaks thus How great Sin hast thou heaped upon thy self quando te à tot gregibus scidisti by cutting off thy self from so many Flocks Siquidem ille est vere Schismaticus qui sea Communione Ecclesiasticae unitatis Apostatum fecerit Ibid. Sacerdotes Dei abstinendos putat Deceive not thy self for thou hast cut thy self off from them he being indeed the Schismatick who makes himself an Apostate from the Communion of Ecclesiastical Vnity and whilst thou thinkest thy self able to separate all from thee thou only hast separated thy self from all St. Cyprian saith Ep. 74. Pag. 214. That he had passed his Judgment for the Excommunication of the Priests of God who kept the Truth of Christ and the Unity of the Church St. Austin also doth affirm Stephanus non solum non rebaptizabat Haereticos verum etiam hoc facientes Excommunicandos fore decernebat Libr. de Baptismo contra Petil. cap. 14. pag. 504. That Pope Stephen judged they should be Excommunicated who endeavoured to pull down the Ancient Custom of receiving Hereticks without Baptism Fourthly Observe That after the Death of Stephen Pope Xystus his immediate Successor asserted the same Doctrine and was as vehement as he for the Exclusion of all those from Church Communion who did oppose it For Xystus with Philemon and Dionysius two Roman Presbyters wrote Letters to Dionysius of Alexandria declaring That they would not communicate with them who held that Hereticks were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism Apud Euseb Ibid. This will appear from the Letter of Dionysius to Pope Xystus where having told him that his Predecessor Pope Stephen had written to him that he would not Communicate with them for this very reason he adds That he had written formerly both to Philemon and Dionysius of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were before of the same judgment with Pope Stephen as they were now of the same mind with Xystus and who writ to him about the same things Whence it is evident that Xystus the succeeding Pope Philemon and Dionysius Presbyters of Rome persisted in this Resolution not to Communicate with those who held That Hereticks were to be received into the Church by Baptism and seeing Dionysius who was of the same judgment succeeded Xystus it follows that three Succeeding Popes had then defined that Article Fifthly § 18 Observe That the Opinion and Practice of the Africans and many Eastern Churches was asserted by very many Christian Doctors Churches and Councils It was the Opinion of Tertullian Sine dubio non habent De Baptism c. 15. Apud nos Haereticus etiam per Baptisma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur De pudicitia Cap. 19. that Hereticks had no Baptism and this saith he is without doubt It was the Doctrine of Agrippinus and of St. Cyprian in the same Century In Aegypt it was the Doctrine of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria In Asia of Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea In Cilicia of Helen Bishop of Tarsis In the Fourth Century it was the Doctrine of Optatus Lib. 4 5. who frequently asserts Apud ipsos non esse Sacramenta That the Hereticks had no Sacraments Orat. 3. Contr. Arian p. 413. Of Athanasius who declares the Arians Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wholly vain and unprofitable That the Baptism given by them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alien from the Truth though they used the name of the Father and the Son because they found them written Ibid. 13. for not he who simply calls him Lord gives true Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he who with the names holds the true Faith. Hence our Saviour gave not commission to Baptize any how but first to Teach that by teaching aright Faith might be obtained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. and with Faith might be added the Consecration of Baptism and of other Hereticks he faith
from the Deifying Scriptures from Evangelical Authority and Apostolical Tradition that they decreed for it according to the Testimony Authority and Commands of the Holy and Divine Scriptures Ninthly Observe That these Africans and Orientals differed from their Brethren without condemning or censuring of them or breaking of the Peace or Unity of the Church on this account or separating from Communion with those Christian Bishops who thought fit to do otherwise We saith St. * Propter Haereticos cum Collegis Coepiscopis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam concordiam dominicam pacem tenemus Ep. 73. p. 210. Cyprian as much as in us lies do not contend with our Colleages and Fellow Bishops about Hereticks we hold a sacred Concord and the Lord's Peace with them Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus nec legem damus Ep. 72. p. 198. we prescribe to no Body we prejudge no Man but leave every Bishop to the Liberty of his Will to do what he thinks best in this matter we force no Man Ep. 69. p. 188. we give Law to no Man. The Preface of the Council of Carthage assembled under Cyprian runs thus It remains that every one of us speak his judgment in this Matter judging no Man nor a jure communionis aliquem Apud Cypr. p. 229. si diversum senserit amoventes separating any Man from our Communion who thinketh otherwise St. Basil excellently declares himself in the matter of the Cathari that because there were different Opinions in the Church concerning the validity of their Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 1. the custom of every Region was to be followed And of the Encratites he saith that it was his Opinion that they ought to be Baptized but then he adds That if this would be any impediment to the Order of the Church in that Matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. the Custom which had obtained any where was to be observed This excellent Temper then prevailed in all the Churches of God for Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Pope Stephen saith That all the Churches notwithstanding this difference were at Peace and Concord and thence entreats him to consider the weight of the Affair he had begun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by refusing to Communicate with them who admitted Hereticks into the Church by Baptism praying him to disist from it and telling him that for his part he durst not provoke so many Churches Ibid. c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to strife and contention by subverting their Decrees The Council of Carthage Apud Cypr. p. 229. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit aut Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit Ibid. in reference to this Action of Pope Stephen speaks thus We pass our Sentence in this matter judging no Man or separating no Man from our Communion who thinks otherwise for none of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops nor endeavours by tyrannical Terror to compel his Colleages to a necessity of Obedience Ep. 74. p. 210 214. St. Cyprian accuses him of Pride or Vnadvisedness and acting as a Friend of Hereticks and an Enemy of Christians for thinking it fit to Excommunicate God's Priests on this account Firmilian declares That he acted inhumanely Per illius inhumanitatem effectum est c. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 225. Cum tot Episcopis per totum mundum diffensisse pacem cum singulis vario discordiae genere rumpentem modo cum orientalibus modo vobiscum qui in meridie Ep. 75. p. 228. by being at Dissention with so many Bishops throughout the World and breaking the Peace with every one of them by various kinds of Discord with those of the East by pronouncing them Excommunicate and with those of the South by not vouchsasing to speak with the Bishops sent to him nor permitting others to receive them into their Houses and by dividing the Fraternity for the sake of Heretieks which various kind of Discord had Valesius well observed he would not against so great evidence have denied that Stephen did as much as in him lay separate or in the Language of the Council of Carthage amovere a jure communionis expel from right of Communion those who differed from him it being hence evident that he Excommunicated the one and vouchsafed not to speak with the other Tenthly § 21 Whereas the Roman Doctors usually say that Stephen's traditum est prevailed against the opposite Opinion of the Eastern and the Southern Churches and that the case was after by the Church determined for Pope Stephen against Cyprian this is a great mistake for neither the Opinion of P. Stephen nor of St. Cyprian prevailed but they were both rejected by the Church of Christ and that which was the mean betwixt them was embraced For 1. Whereas Pope Stephen with his Church determined That no Hereticks should be Baptized from whatsoever Heresie they came into the Bosom of the Church or Contra Petil. de unico Baptismo c. 14. as St. Austin saith Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat He held that the Baptism of Christ was to be repeated on no Heretick whatsoever The Ninteenth Canon of the Nicene Council saith That if the Paulianists do fly into the Bosom of the Church we will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they by all means be Baptized again The Council of Laodicea commandeth Bishops and Presbyters to Baptize Can. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them who returned from the Heresie of the Cataphrygae or the Montanists Can. 7. The General Council of Constantinople speaks thus Them who come to us from Hereticks we admit after this manner the Arians Macedonians Sabbatians Novatians Quartodecimans the Cathari and Apollinarians without Baptism but the Eunomians the Montanists Sabellians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all other Hereticks we receive as Gentiles we Catechise them and for a long time make them hear the Scripture Can. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then we Baptize them The General Council in Trullo repeats the same Decree in the same words and then adds That we admit by Baptism likewise the Manichees Valentinians and Marcionites and other Hereticks of like nature Ad Amphil. Can. 47. St. Basil determines That the Encratitae the Saccaphori and the Apotactites were to be rebaptized Now all these Canons are approved by the following Synods Can. 1. that of the Second Nicene Council and the Eighth Council of Constantinople and so we cannot doubt but that they both believed and practised accordingly Since then we are assured from so many Testimonies that Pope Stephen would have all Hereticks whatsoever admitted at their return into the Church without Baptism and in particular from the Testimony of St. Ep. 74. p. 214. that he admitted of the Baptism of Marcion Valentinus and Apelles it
the Roman Church were in this case opposite to Scripture and the plainest Reason And as St. Basil doth to Amphilochius in the same case Can. 47. Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sunt ab origine tradita Ep. 75. p. 220. Though you and the Romans hold the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet ought our Sentence to take place And as Firmilian expresly doth That 't is usual with them of Rome to vary from Apostolical Tradition Could so many Fathers so many Churches so many Councils have not only practised in opposition to the Doctrines and Customs of that Church but also have condemned them in such opprobrious Terms as they have done Cyp. Ep. 69. p. 185. Ep. 73. p. 206 208 210. Ep. 74. p 212 c. pronouncing the Assertors of them Prevaricators in matters both of Faith and Truth Betrayers of the Church Enemies to Christians Friends and Abettors of Hereticks Men who did plead their Cause and partake with them in their Sins Men who did null evacuate destroy the Baptism of the Church and give up the Spouse of Christ to Adulterers Fifthly § 25 Hence it is manifest That in that Age they verily believed that what had passed for Apostolical Tradition in the Church of Rome and her Adherents might be no such matter that both that Church and her Abettors might impose upon their fellow Christians in pretending to it and that there lay no Obligation on other Churches to comply with them in such matters as they delivered for Apostolical Tradition For otherwise how could it happen that so many populous Churches so many Councils so many famous Bishops that Athanasius Optatus St. Basil Cyril of Jerusalem all great Assertors of true Apostolical Tradition should declare so plainly and expresly against this practice of the Church of Rome that Firmilian should declare Neminem tam stultum esse qui hoc credat Apostolos tradidisse Ep. 75. p. 219. Nemo infamare Apostolos debeat quasi illi Haereticorum Baptisinata probaverint Ep. 74. p. 211. No Man could be so Foolish as to believe the Apostles had delivered any such thing that St. Cyprian should say That this pretence of Romanists was manifestly false and tended to blaspheme the Reputation of the Blessed Apostles that the Africans should not only reject this pretended Apostolical Tradition in the opprobrious Terms forementioned but should declare so oft in Council that the contrary Doctrine descended from Evangelical Authority and Apostolical Tradition Vid. Supra and was confirmed by the Divine Law and the Holy Scriptures How lastly could it happen that all the other Churches excepting that of Rome were all at Peace and still maintained Communion with these Opposers and Traducers of this pretended Tradition and did not blame them in the least on this account but rather interceded with the Roman Bishop to lay aside his Fury and entertain Communion and Friendship with these Churches as they did Sixthly Hence it appears that in that Age they thought not Custom or Tradition though practised by the Church of Rome and by the major part of Christians any certain Rule of Manners but thought themselves obliged sometimes to vary from it and that they might have Truth and Reason and Scripture on their sides against it that it concerned them to examine then whether the Custom they were required to follow had its rise from Christ and his Apostles and could be proved from their Writings and if not to reject it For in this matter they declare Non esse consuetudine praescribendum Cypr. Ep. 71. p. 194. sed ratione vincendum Their Adversaries were not to prescribe to them from Custom but to convince them by reason St. Paul having taught every one not to adhere pertinaciously to what he had once imbibed Pag. 195. but willingly to embrace any thing which he found better or more profitable That 't was in vain when Men were overcome by reason Ep. 73. p. 203. to oppose Custom to it as if Custom were better than Truth and that were not rather to be followed which was revealed for the better by the Holy Spirit that Non semper errandum Ibid. p. 208. quia aliquando erratum est We must not always erre because we once have done so Ep. 74. p. 215. that Custom without Truth was only old Error and vainly was preferred before it that the Truth being manifested Concil Carth. apud Cypr. p. 236 240 241. Custom was to yield to it that no Man ought to preferr Custom to Reason and Truth that Christ being Truth we ought rather to follow that than Custom that it was obstinacy and presumption Cypr. Ep. 74. p. 212. humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere to preferr humane Tradition to divine Orders and not to consider that God is angry when humane Tradition evacuates divine Precepts that when it was said to them let nothing be innovated Ibid. p. 211. but that which was delivered be observed it was to be enquired unde est ista traditio whence is that Tradition Whether from the Authority of Christ and the Gospel the commands and Epistles of the Apostles and if in Evangelio praecipitur Ib. p. 215. aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actubus continetur it were commanded in the Gospel or contained in the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles then was it to be observed and that when Truth shook and staggered we were to have recourse to the Head and Original of Divine Tradition ad originem dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem to the Gospel and Apostolical Tradition Lastly Hence it is evident § 26 That in those early times Tradition Apostolical and from the beginning must falsly be pretended by Great Men and Churches even in a matter of continual practice and occurrence in the Church of God for here you see it was pretended for the Admission of Hereticks without Baptism by Pope Stephen and his Church and the fame Tradition Apostolical and from the beginning was pretended for the opposite Doctrine by Firmilian and St. Basil and their Party and yet the Church did in the following Ages declare against the Pretences of them both If then in these plain matters of Fact and of continual practice Tradition did so fail both the Pretenders to it must it not be more apt to fail in matters of meer Speculation If by Tradition these Churches could not truly tell what their Forefathers did how should they by it tell assuredly in all things what they held since that could only be made known unto them by their Words and Actions if actually they handed down unto posterity for a traditionary Practice that which was not truly so why might they not also hand that down to them as a traditionary Doctrine which was nothing less than so CHAP. V. Eightly We distinguish also betwixt Traditions which appear from Reason to be such as ought to be received and
together in the Church they did and therefore what is coming together v. 17. coming to the Church v. 18. coming to one place v. 19. is coming together to eat v. 33. Accordingly it was the Custom of the Church from the Apostles times thus to communicate upon the Lord's day Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperor Trajan Soliti sunt stato die ante lucem convenire c. Ep. l. 10. Ep. 97. tells him That he found nothing to alledge against the Christians but their Obstinacy in their Superstition and that is was their Custom to meet together on a set day before it was light and to bind themselves by the Sacrament to do no evil Now this Epistle was writ only Six Years after the Death of the Evangelist Saint John. And Justin M. who wrote but Fifty Years after his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 2. p. 98 99. thus speaks On Sunday all the Christians in the City or Country meet together because that is the day of our Lord's Resurrection and then we have read unto us the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles this done the President makes an Oration to the Assembly to exhort them to imitate and do the things they heard then we all join in Prayer and after that we celebrate the Sacrament and they that are willing and able give their Alms c. Fourthly § 4 This may be further proved from the Church's Testimony and from the plain Expressions of the Fathers who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church For to this Effect Century the first besides the words of Clemens Romanus already mentioned the Apostle Barnabas saith of the Apostles and Christians in the General 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 15. We keep the eighth day a Festival in which our Jesus rose from the dead Century the Second I have produced the plain Testimonies of Ignatius Justin M. Irenaeus Dionysius of Corinth Melito Sardensis Century the Third I have produced already the Testimony of Clemens of Alexandria to which add that of Tertullian who saith in his Apology Diem folis laetitiae indulgemus Cap. 16. Sunday is the Festival of us Christians And in his Book Ad Nationes That they did rejoice upon that day Solem Christianorum deum aestimant quod innotuerit nos die solis c. Lib. 1. cap. 13. and that this was a thing so well known to the Heathens that hence they took occasion to conjecture That the Sun was the God of Christians Neque enim Resurrectio Domini semel in anno non semper post septem dies celebratur In Esa Hom. 6. Hom. 7. in Exod. fol. 41. Ep. 38. Ed. Ox. p. 75. that of Origen That the Resurection of our Lord is not celebrated annually only but every seventh day which therefore in opposition to the Jews he calls Dominica nostra The Christians Lord's day And that of Cyprian That Aurelius Dominico legit reads on tâ—â— Lord's day Centuny the Fourth Epiphanus informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expos fid cap. 22. That the Holy Catholick Church keeps every Lord's day as a Festival In a word no Church no single Writer ever represented this as a new or introduced Practice but do continually speak of it as the constant Practice of the Christian Church We never read that any of the converted Jews though they retained the Jewish Sabbath ever disputed the Observation of the first day of the week in honour of our Lord And therefore as the Reverend Bishop Bramhal truly saith Pag. 918. To question now whether there was a formal precept for that which all the Christian World hath obeyed ever since Christ's time and shall obey until his Second Coming is a strange degree of Folly. And that this may be farther evident I add this second Proposition That the Apostles had Commission from the Lord Christ § 5 Prop. 2. or were directed by his Spirit to ordain and chuse this day to be employed in the publick Exercise of Christian piety and in remembrance of the Resurrection of our Lord. For First Christ did Commission his Apostles to teach the Churches all his Doctrine and to deliver them all his Commands and Orders which concerned their Duty and his Service for thus he delivers his Commission to them All Authority is committed to me in Heaven and Earth Matth. 28.18 Go therefore and disciple all Nations teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you John 20.21 He also saith unto them That as my Father sent me so send I you and surely the Father sent him who was Lord of the Sabbath with full Commission to change and alter it and substitute another day in lieu thereof Accordingly the Apostles exercised this Power they founded Churches they delivered to them the Doctrines and Commands of Christ they setled Church Officers Orders and Discipline and surely then they had Commission also to settle the time to be appointed for the Service of their Lord and Master When therefore they began to practise the Observation of the first day of the Week they only did what their Commission from the Lord impowered them to do Secondly That the Apostles were directed by the Holy Ghost to set apart this day for Holy Worship or to appoint Church Meetings on this Day and therefore that this was done by a Divine Authority appears from this That their Determinations touching smaller Matters and which were only â—porary are by themselves ascribed to the Holy Ghost thus when Saint Paul gives his advice in respect of the present necessity touching a single Life though he confesseth he had no express from Christ touching that matter yet he ascribes this Counsel to the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 7.40 For I think saith he I have the Spirit of Christ Again the same Apostle speaking of the Directions which he gave concerning their Church Meetings and their Behaviour in them saith 1 Cor. 14.37 If any man think himself to be a Prophet or Spiritual let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. The same must therefore be much more acknowledged of things of so high a nature as that is which they delivered to be observed by the Universal Church they being equally Appointed and Authorized to instruct them in Discipline and in Matters of Divine Worship as in matters of Doctrine and as well by Word as by Epistle and therefore as well in the Observation of the time appointed for the Worship of their Lord as in the due Regulation of it when they came together The same Saint Paul professeth 1 Cor. 11.23 That he had received from the Lord what he delivered to the Church of Corinth touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and when he speaks of one particular concerning which he had no precept from Christ he saith expresly This speak I not the Lord 1 Cor. 7.12 if then the practice touching the Observation of
de Resurrect Tom. 2 p. 277. Ambros Ep. 83. Psalm 118.24 the Fathers generally apply that Passage of the Psalmist This is the Day which the Lord hath made let us be glad and rejoice in it to the Lord's day as made or Instituted by the Lord and Consecrated or Sanctified by his Resurrection Others of them say That the Observation of the Lord's Day was an Apostolical Tradition and that they kept it as an Holy Day Hesuch in Levit c. 9. Leo. Ep. 11. Ed. Quesnel p. 436. Apostolorum sequentes traditionem following the Tradition of the Apostles The Apostles and Apostolical Men having decreed Dominicum diem religiosâ solennitate habendum That the Lord's day was Religiously to be celebrated And surely it is enough to satisfie all Conscientious Christians in the Observation of this Day that it was consecrated to the Service of our Lord either by Christ himself or his Apostles and as such hath been celebrated ever since by the perpetual practice of the whole Church Catholick especially if we consider what excellent Names these ancient Observers of it have ascribed unto it and what great Dignities they have put upon it calling it the Queen of Days the Princess and the Principal of Days a Royal Day higher than the highest the first Fruits of the Days whereas had they conceived it only an humane Ordinance it could not have deserved these Titles above other Daies ordained by the Church In fine how dangerous it is to say That the publick Exercise of Christian Religion should depend upon so weak a Foundation as humane Authority which may alter its own Constitutions and is subject to manifold Errors I leave to the prudent and judicious Reader to consider Let then the Romanists shew three Texts of Scripture expounded constantly in that sence by the whole Church § 6 which confirms any of their Doctrines let them shew us the Names of any of those Practices of theirs which we condemn in Scripture and the Fathers of the first Centuries let them give clear evidence from their Writings that such Practices were received in the Apostles daies throughout the Christian World no Church no Christian Writer ever excepting against them or mentioning them as newly introduced Customs let them shew us plain Expressions from them declaring that they were instituted either by Christ or his Apostles and that they practised them Illorum sequentes traditionem in compliance with their Tradition and then we shall no longer question or condemn them Having thus Answered Mr. M ' s. Argument against the sufficiency of the Scripture from this Head I retort it thus That is necessary to be done to Salvation § 7 which left undone Pag. 204. causeth Damnation but the observation of the Sunday commanding the abstaining from all servile Works if neglected or left undone brings Damnation therefore to observe in this manner the Sunday is a thing necessary to Salvation and yet this point is so far from being clearly put down in Tradition that standing meerly to the sole judgment of it we can clearly shew more Declarations for the lawfulness of working on the Sunday than for the unlawfulness thereof The Canon of the Council of Laodicea only saith Can. 29. That Christians shall rest on the Lord's Day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they can well knowing that it was not possible for many of them so to do some of them being Servants to Pagan Masters some condemned to labour in the Mines and toil in Gallies when their Lords required them and yet we find not in all Ecclesiastical History those Christians ever then refused to labour upon this account and therefore Balsamon upon this Canon saith That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did not enjoin this as a thing necessary but added If they could let them do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for if any one work on the Lord's day out of Poverty or any other necessity he will not be condemned And Zonaras on the same Canon adds That the Civil Law commands all without excuse to rest upon the Lord's day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excepting Husbandmen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it permits them to work on the Lord's day provided that they find no other day so fit foâ— their work That which he saith touching the Civil Law Cod. Just l. 2. Cod. de feriis is evident from that Law of Constantine where commanding all men to rest on the Lord's day he excepts Rural Labours in which delay may be very prejudicial to them Enchirid Tit. 4. which Law Hermenopulus gives us thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Lord's day and other Festivals let the Judges and others rest excepting only Husbandmen and none of the Fathers of the Church living in those daies or in the following Centuries reproved these Laws or spake any thing to signifie that they esteemed them Prophane Epitaph Paulae ad Eustoch f. 64. On the contrary Saint Jerom tells us That Paula with all the Virgins and Widows that lived at Bethlehem in a Cloyster with her repaired to the Church on the Lord's Day Aâ—que inde pariter revertentes instabant operi distributo and returning thence they all fell to their work and made Clothes for themselves or others And lastly § 8 let it be observed that though I verily believe this day to be of Divine Institution and jure positivo to be observed yet am I far from thinking that it is necessary to Salvation so to do and much less to abstain wholly from working that day or that if any Church should rather think it fit to keep another day in Honour of our Lord or that if any Christians should think as some of the Ancient Fathers seem to have done that under the Gospel Dispensation there was no difference of daies but that the Christian should observe every day as a Spiritual Sabbath they should be damned or even Unchurched for that Opinion And therefore this is like unto most other Instances urged by Mr. M. impertinent and such as reacheth not unto the Question viz. Whether the Scripture be deficient in any thing that 's necessary to be believed or practised to Salvation To proceed to the Second Question touching our Freedom from any Obligation to observe the Sabbath injoined in the Fourth Commandment I say that though Tradition seems not sufficiently to do it Scripture affords sufficient Evidence that the Observation of the Seventh day from the Creation was only a ceremonial Precept and therefore not obliging to the Christian that is the Observation of the Seventh day from the Creation as a day wholly to be set apart for rest from bodily Labour according to the Fourth Commandment was not enjoined by a Moral Law or by a Law commanding what is naturally good antecedently to the Command of the Lawgiver or which can be resolved into any Principle or Dictates of the Law of Nature imprinted in Mens Hearts at the Creation but that it was a Law which only
to them the Doctrine of the Apostles pretending to have received it as it were by Tradition from the Apostles Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. When they had the boldness to affirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all the Ancients and even the Apostles taught the same things which they did and that what they delivered was afterwards corrupted by the Orthodox I say that in their Discourses against these Hereticks they should not once endeavour to stop their mouths by telling them what were indeed the Doctriens and Traditions received from the Apostles what were the things revealed to them by the Apostles but should still keep these necessary Traditions which the Church of Rome now teacheth as received from them secret not saying one word of them no not when they in confutation of these pretences of the Hereticks declare what was the Rule of Faith and the Tradition received from the Apostles and preserved by all the Apostolick Churches is so incredible as nothing can be more except this vain Imagination That these very Fathers should concurr with these Hereticks as do some others in this Assertion That saving Truth could not be known from Scripture by them who were ignorant of Tradition as being not delivered down to Posterity by writing but by word of Mouth and yet at the same time should say Lib. 3. c. 1. as Irenaeus doth in his Discourse against them That the Apostles first Preached the Gospel and after by the Will of God delivered it unto us in the Scriptures to be hereafter the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. And as Eusebius doth Lib. 5. c. 18. That the pretences of the Hereticks unto Tradition might be probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not the Holy Scriptures contradict them And as St. Jerom That those things which they feign to have received as Tradition In Hagg. c. 1. fol. 102. a. absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum percutit gladius Dei without the Authority and Testimonies of the Scripture the Sword of God doth smite for what is this but to talk like us Northern Hereticks for to quarrel with Men for appealing from Scriture as obscure and insufficient to decide our Controversies without the Suffrage of Oral Tradition to alledge Scripture as a sufficient evidence that others vainly did pretend unto it to reject what others do pretend to have received from Tradition because it wanteth the Authority and Testimony of the Holy Scriptures whatsoever it may pass for in these ancient Fathers is one of those very things for which we are proclaimed Hereticks In a word That there should be unwritten Traditions necessary to be believed unto Salvation and neither the Creed of the Greek nor of the Latin Church make the least mention of any of them That a Creed should be made perhaps at Gentilly in the Seventh Century and to obtain the better credit should be called the Creed of Athanasius That this Creed should inform us in the beginning That whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith threatning that he shall perish everlastingly who doth not keep this Faith entire and whole that therefore in the next words it should say and the Catholick Faith is this and should conclude in these Expressions This is the Catholick Faith and yet leave out almost as many necessary Articles of Christian Faith as it contained That the principal written Traditions which in comparison needed it not should be put together into a Creed but that the unwritten ones which needed it very much should be quite left out and never thought of to that purpose till about Fifteeen hundred Years after and that the Ancients Tertullian St. Basil Eusebius and others speaking expresly and professedly of Traditions not contained in Holy Scripture should reckon up many unnecessary things and never mention in their Catalogues one of these necessary Traditions That in their Treatises of Christian Faith and Christian Doctrine and of Ecclesiastical Opinions and their Instructions of the Catechized the Fathers should say nothing the Persons who were to be instructed in all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith should hear nothing of all these Articles and yet they should be throughout all Ages of the Christian World so necessary that no Salvation could be had without them these I confess are truly R. Catholick that is incredible Assertions and if we must give credit to them we must do it upon Tertullian's Ground Credo quia est impossibile Because it is impossible they should be true CHAP. VII The Novelty of the R. Doctrines farther proved First from the general Tradition of the Church that the Four Gospels and the Scriptures comprized all that was necessary to be believed or done by Christians this proved 1. in general § 1. 2. From the particular account Tradition gives us of the Writings of the Four Evangelists § 2. Inference this Tradition shews That to preserve a Doctrine safe to Posterity 't was not sufficient to receive it by Oral Tradition unless it were written § 3. Secondly This is proved from the general Tradition of the whole Church of Christ that the Apostles or the Nicene Symbol was a compleat summary of all things necessary to be believed by Christians § 4. Where it is shewed that the Apostles delivered to their Converts a System or a form of Words Ibid. That this form was delivered to all Churches and was for substance the same with that which afterwards was stiled the Apostles Creed § 5. That Christians were received into the Church by Baptism on the profession of this Faith § 6. That it was taught as the entire System of things necessary to be believed § 7. That it was esteemed a Test of Orthodoxy by which they prescribed to Hereticks § 8. That this whole Summary of Christian Faith was evidently contained in Scripture § 9. And that notwithstanding they unanimously stiled it a Tradition § 10. MOreover That the Articles of Faith owned by the Church of Rome and imposed upon all who hold Communion with her to be believed and owned as such under the penalty of Anathema to him who doth believe or say the contrary were not received from Christ or his Apostles either by unwritten Tradition or by traditional Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures or any portion of them to that sence from whence it may be certainly concluded that they were in the Scriptures mentioned or owned by the ancient Church as Articles of Christian Faith or as things necessary to be believed or practised by all Christians will be exceeding evident from these Considerations v. g. First § 1 From that plain and general Tradition of the Church of Christ that all which the Apostles preach'd and taught their Converts by word of mouth as either necessary to be believed or practised they afterwards at their desire committed unto writing and deliver'd to them in the Gospel and the Holy Scriptures This in the
contained in the Apostles or the Nicene Creed or that the Church of Rome must be Schismatical in excluding from her Communion those who do not believe or yield assent unto them And thus I hope I have sufficiently shewed how this Tradition overthrows and fully doth confute the New Doctrines of the Church of Rome It now remains to shew how it confirms the Cause of Protestants and clears up the Objections which are made against it Now First § 5 Seeing according to this Tradition these Symbols as they are a perfect Summary of Christian Faith so are they fully and perspicuously contained in Scripture hence it demonstratively follows that according to the Doctrine and Tradition of the whole Church of Christ the summ of all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith must fully and perspicuously be contained in Holy Scripture and may be proved thence to the satisfaction of the meanest Catechist And consequently the Holy Scripture was by them esteemed a full and perspicuous Rule of Faith according to our Sixth Note in reference to all things necessary to be believed which is the Fundamental Article of Protestants But doth not Tertullian speak in General Object NB. of never disputing with Hereticks out of Scriptures only Q. of Quest p. 258 259. because this Scripture combate availeth for nothing but to the making either ones Stomach or ones Brains to turn and conclude generally We must not therefore appeal to Scriptures nor in our combate rely upon them in which either no Victory is to be obtained or a very uncertain one Tertullian here proposeth this Objection Answ That the Hereticks spake of the Scriptures V. c. 7. §. 8. and perswaded their Doctrines from the Scriptures and this he is so far from reprehending that he holds it a thing absolutely necessary to be done by all who would discourse of divine Matters It being impossible saith he aliunde de rebus fidei loqui De praescript cap. 15. quà m ex literis fidei to speak of Matters of Faith but from the Scriptures And therefore he not only owns that the Rule of Faith he pleaded for was first delivered by word of Mouth and after by the Writings of the Apostles but also to that Objection of the Hereticks Seek and ye shall find Cap. 9. he answers by granting that the Scriptures are to be searched and sought into for finding out the Truth contained in the Rule of Faith and that then nothing more respecting Faith is needful to be sought because they had found what they sought for then he proceeds to shew non admittendos eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem that the Hereticks were not to be admitted to dispute from Scriptures and that non sit cum illo disputandum he was not to be disputed with from Scripture for these following Reasons 1. Because ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas those Hereticks received not some Scriptures viz. Iren. l. 1. c. 26. the Ebionites and Encratites rejected all St. Paul's Epistles and embraced only the Gospel of the Nazarens L. 3. c. 11. p. 258 259. Cerinthus allowed only the Gospel of St. Mark. Valentinus only that of St. John Marcion only that of Luke Ebion only that of Matthew 2. Because si quas recipit non recipit integras those Scriptures which they owned they received not entire but with additions and detractions as their cause required cutting off from them what most clearly made against then Heresies Thus of the Marcionites and the Lucianists and the Valentinians Origen confesseth That they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contra Celsum l. 2. p. 77. change and pervert the Gospel 3. Because if they admitted any Scriptures entire yet they corrupted them per diversas expositiones by adulterating the Sence of them and miserably distorting them to the upholding of their idle Dreams for saith Irenaeus they said their Doctrines were not perspicuously revealed in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 1. c. 1. p. 14. but by our Lord were mystically couched in Parables even so mystically that as you may see from the first to the Nineteenth Chapter of the First Book of Irenaeus it is enough to turn a Man's Stomach to read such Fooleries as v. gr They prove their thirty Aeones because our Saviour was Baptized when he was Thirty Years Old and from the Parable of the Labourers sent into the Vineyard some at the 1st 3d 6th 9th 11th C. 1. p. 10. hour of the Day which numbers put together make up Thirty Thus saith Irenaeus they endeavoured to adapt some of our Lord's Parables Pag. 32. and some Prophetical Expressions to their Doctrines that they might not seem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Testimony from Scripture but then saith he they miserably pervert the Order and the Series of Holy Scripture and deal with it as if one should take the Image of a King excellently made in Jewels and should deform it into the Face of a Dog or a Woolf. They pretended also that some of their Doctrines were received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from unwritten Traditions C. 1. p. 32. and to prove them they produced a multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Apocryphal and adulterated Scriptures which they had feigned Lib. 1. c. 17. pretending for their recourse unto Tradition this Accusation of the Holy Scriptures Lib. 3. c. 2. That they were not right nor of Authority sufficient because they were spoken variously and that from them the Truth could not be found out by such as were ignorant of Tradition non enim per literas traditum illum sed per vivam vocem it being not delivered in writing but by Oral Tradition that is they were plain Papists as to this pretence Against such Men as these saith Tertullian the most skilful in the Scriptures will dispute in vain from Scripture cum nolunt agnoscere ea per quae revincuntur his nituntur quae falso composuerunt quae de ambiguitate coeperunt since they will not own that for Scripture by which they are refuted they will insist upon their Apocryphal Writings and those things which they ambiguously have conceived Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est and therefore we are not to provoke them to dispute out of Scriptures nor place our combate in those things in which no victory is to be obtained or a very uncertain one Let now any indifferent Reader judge whether Tertullian speaks in general against disputing with Hereticks out of Scripture as Mr. M. here confidently saith and not only of disputing against hanc Haeresin that very Heresie which had these Arts to delude what was brought against them from Scripture and appealed from it with the Papists to Oral Tradition And yet against these slippery Men Irenaeus and other of the Fathers first argued from Scriptures cum ex Scripturis arguebantur and when they had baffled them there and made them fly as Romanists now do unto
to Cardinal Campejus he speaks thus Videham ut quisque esset integerrimis moribus Evangelicae puritati proximus ita minime infensum Luthero Lib. 14. p. 446. I heard excellent Men of approved Doctrine and Religion rejoice that they met with that Man's Books and I saw that as any man was more upright in his Life or nearer to Evangelical purity he was the less offended with Luther And in the same Epistle he adds Pag. 448. that he conceived it not convenient presently to be incensed against a Man with whose Writings so many excellent Governors so many Learned and pious Men were delighted L. 15. p. 492. In his Epistle to Godeschallus he saith That he did not defend him even then cum non decessent maximi Theologi qui non vererentur affirmare nihil esse in Luthero quin per probatos Authores posset defendi when the greatest Divines were not afraid to affirm that there was nothing in Luther which might not be defended by approved Authors And lastly he himself declares Hausit pleraque ex veteribus Epist l. 14. p. 447. That Luther gathered most of his Tenets from the Ancients and that had he named the Ancients from whom he had them he would have avoided much of that envy which then lay upon him To proceed to the particular Controversies in the Order in which they are mentioned in the Articles of Religion subscribed by our Clergy Holy Scripture saith our Sixth Article § 2 containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that besides the same Art. 21. the Church ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation Agreeably to this Article the Bishop of Rhodes disputing with the Greeks in the Council of Florence speaks thus in the behalf of the Western Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bin. Tom. 8. Concil Florent Sess 7. p. 609. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I desire you Greeks to satisfie me in this Question Doth not the Gospel perfectly contain the Doctrine of Christian Faith Surely saith he the Reverence you bear to it will not permit you to affirm that the Faith is not perfectly contained there And that is true and not denied by us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. which the Bishop of Ephesus said That the Fathers had inclosed the Gospel and the Holy Scripture so that it should by no means be lawful to add to them And whereas the the Bishop of Ephesus had said That the Evangelists did not forbid that any thing should be added to what they had written This saith he with his leave cannot be said of Holy Scripture for the Apostle Paul saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. i. 9. If any Man preach any thing besides what you have received let him be Anathema And St. John in the end of his Revelations saith If any one add to these things God shall add to him the Plagues which are written in this Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Sess 8. p. 630. Nicenus also on the part of the Greeks saith We draw all divine Doctrines from the Fountains of the Holy Scriptures which are the principles and the foundations of our Faith to which nothing ever was or ever shall be added by us or any other Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Flor. Sess 25. p. 783. Time was saith the Archbishop of Nice in his Oration made at that time and place when the Church the Spouse of God was without spot or wrinkle viz. when we made more account of the simple and not curious Faith delivered as it lay in the Gospel and regarding that superfluous and talkative Divinity which is the fruit of our own Reasonings less than the Sacred Oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we attend only to what was written delighting in the things spoken by the Holy Spirit and being compacted in one by them So that it seems by these plain words that both the East and West were then of the same Judgment with the Church of England in this Article It is declared saith John Gerson by the Authority of Dionysius Declaratur ex Authoritate Dionysii dicentis nihil audendum dicere de divinis nisi quae nobis a Scriptura S. tradita sunt quoniam Scriptura nobis tradita est tanquam Regula sufficiens infallibilis pro regimine totius Ecclesiastici corporis Lib. de Exam. Doctr. secunda parte princip consid 1. That we must not dare to say any thing of Divine Things but that which is delivered to us from the Holy Scriptures of which the Reason is That the Scripture is delivered to us as a Rule sufficient and infallible for the Government of the whole Ecclesiastical Body and Members of it to the End of the World. The Holy Scripture saith Gabriel Biel is according to B. Gregory In Can. Miss Lect. 71. f. 200. Edit 1510. as the Mouth of God quia per eam loquitur Deus omnia quae vult a nobis fieri because by it God speaketh all things which he would have done by us Gregory the Great saith Molinaeus asserts Asserit Haereseos labe inquinatos qui extra S. Scripturas aliquid docent aut proferunt c. Lib. de Concil Trid. §. 17. That they are infected with the filth of Heresie who teach or produce any thing beyond the Holy Scriptures I mean in those things which appertain to the Substance of Faith and Doctrine The Sorbon Doctor who set forth the French Testament printed at Mons A. D. 1672. informs us Praeface 1 2. That St. Austin considered the Holy Scripture as the Treasure of Divinity and as the Source of all those Truths which a Man ought to know for the Edification of himself or the Instruction of others And speaking of the mixture of profound places with those which are proportioned to the capacity of the most simple he saith That which ought to comfort us in this obscurity is that according to St. Augustin the Holy Scripture proposeth to us all that is necessary for the conduct of our Life in a manner easie and intelligible that it explicates and clears up it self by speaking that clearly in some places which it saith obscurely in others The Guide of Controversies saith Guid. Disc 2. §. 40. n. 2. That as for the sufficiency or the entireness of the Scriptures for the containing of all those Points of Faith which are simply necessary of all Persons to be believed for attaining Salvation Catholicks deny it not And for this he cites among many other R. Doctors this saying of Aquinas In doctrina Christi 22. qu. 1. Art. 9. Apostolorum he means Scripta veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata In the written Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the
Truth of Faith is sufficiently explained In the same Article our Church having reckoned up the Books of the Old Testament which she esteemed Canonical Art. 6. and which by both Churches are recieved as such she adds the other Books as Hierom saith The Church doth read for Example of Life and Instruction of Manners but yet doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine Such are these following The Third Book of Esdras The Fourth Book of Esdras The Book of Tobias The Book of Judith The rest of the Book of Esther The Book of Wisdom Jesus the Son of Syrach Baruch the Prophet The Song of the Three Children The Story of Susanna Of Bell and the Dragon The Prayer of Manasses The First Book of Maccabees The Second Book of Maccabees Of all which excepting only the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses the Council of Trent saith Whosoever shall not receive them as Sacred and Canonical Sess 4. let him be Anathema And yet this Determination is so apparently repugnant to the Doctrine of the Ancient Church that Mr. Du Pin a Doctor of the Faculty of Divinity in Paris and his Majesty's Professor Royal in Philosophy hath entirely given up this Cause unto the Protestants For 1. Whereas it is confessed by all the Learned of both Churches that we in this distinction betwixt Books of the Old Testament Canonical and Apocryphal or not Canonical exactly follow the Canon and the Judgment of the Jews Tom. 1. dissert praelim p. 51. from whom the Christians received the Books of the Old Testament He also saith The Christian Antiquity for the Books of the Old Testament hath followed the Canon of the Jews that no others were cited in the New Testament but those which belonged to the Canon of the Jews That the first Catalogues of Canonical Books made by Ecclesiastical Authors both Greek and Latin comprehend no others in the Canon P. 612 613. In his Abridgment of the Doctrine of the Three first Centuries he saith expresly That the Christians of those times owned no other Canonical Books of the Old Testament but those which belonged to the Canon of the Hebrews and that they sometimes cited the Apocryphal Books but never put them in the number of Canonical Books And whereas Mr. M. and J. L. have had the confidence to say Mr. M. p. 85 86. That after the Declarations of the Council of Carthage Pope Innocent and Gelasius c. no one ever pertinaciously dissented from it but such as Protestants themselves do confess to be Hereticks J.L. c. xi p. 23. until the days of Luther Or that no Catholick after the Church's Declaration in the Year 419. ever doubted of them Qui depuis les decisions des Conciles de Carthage de Rome la Declaration d'Innocent I. n'ont compte que vingt deux ou vingt quatre livres Canoniques de l'Ancien Testament Tom. 1. Diss praelim p. 60. Mr. Du Pin having produced the express words of Gregory the Great after that time to the contrary adds in flat contradiction to them these ensuing words We ought to make the same reflection on all the other Ecclesiastical Authors Greek and Latin which we have produced who After the Decisions of the Council of Carthage and of Rome and the Declaration of Innocent the First have counted only Two or Four and twenty Books of the Old Testament which makes it evident that these Definitions were not yet followed by all Authors and by all Churches till such time as this Matter was fully determined by the definition of the Council of Trent And indeed § 3 the Truth of this Confession is as clear as the Light For as Mr. M. and J. L. confess Vid c. 3. §. 13. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei. c. 20. S. ad alterum That the Canon of Scripture was not defined till the Fifth Century As Bellarmine acknowledgeth That Melito Epiphanius Hilarius Hieronymus Ruffinus in expounding the Canon of the Old Testament followed the Hebrews not the Greeks De locis Theol. l. 2. c. 11. Sect. Quid Ecclesiâ—sticum As Canus excuseth Ruffinus for rejecting with us the Apocrypha because he did it in eo tempore quo res nondum erat definita when this thing was not defined on which account saith he we also do excuse the rest and so all these men virtually confess that there was no Tradition of the Church against us during those Ages So in the following Centuries even till the time that the Trent Council met approved Authors do declare the Doctrine of the Church to have been still according to the Doctrine of this Article and contrary to the Definition of the Trent Council For In the Western Church Primasius a Bishop of the African Church saith Cent. 6. In Apocalyps cap. 4. The Books of the Old Testament of Canonical Authority which we receive N. B. are Twenty-four which St. John insinuated by the Twenty-four Wings Leontius Bizantinus having said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sectis Act. 2. Let us reckon up the Books received by the Church he adds That the Books of the Old Testament are Twenty-two and concludes thus These are the Books Canonized in the Church of which they that belong to the Old Testament are all received by the Hebrews In the Ninth Century Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople Cent. 9. undertakes to reckon up the divine Scriptures which were received and Canonized in the Church and of these in the Old Testament he numbers only Twenty-two as we do Canon Scrip. Chron. p. ult Quibuscontradicitur non recipiuntur ab Ecclesia Bibl. H. Eccl. de vitis Pontif. and among the Books contradicted and not received in the Church he puts the Maccabees Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Esther Judith Susanna and Tobit Anastasius the Keeper of the Library of the Church of Rome among the Books which are contradicted and not received by the Church reckons the Maccabees Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Susanna Judith and Tobit In the Twelfth Century Peter Mauricius Cent. 12. Abbot of Clugny in his Epistle against the Petrobusians tells them they ought of necessity to receive the whole Canon which is received by the Church and then having reckoned up the Canonical Books of the Old Testament as we do he adds That after these Authentick Books of the Holy Scripture Restant post hos Authentiâ—os sex non reticendi libri sapientia c. Pag. 25. c. de Autor Vet. Test there be Six not to be concealed viz. the Books of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and both the Books of Maccabees Hugo de Sancto Victore saith Sunt praeterea alii quidem libri ut sapientia Solomonis c. Qui leguntur quidem sed non scribuntur in Canone de scripturis scriptoribus Sacris Cap 6 Prolog in l. de Sacram c 7 And the division he says is made Authoritate universalis Eccl. Didasc l. 4. c. 1.2 Richardus
de Sancto Victore excerpt l. 2. c. 9. That all the Books of the Old Testament are Twenty-two and that there are besides other Books as the Wisdom of Solomon the Book of Jesus the Son of Syrach Judith Tobias and the Books of Mâ—câ—abees sed non scribuntur in Canone but they are not written in the Canon and this he very frequently repeats Richardus de Sancto Victore saith in like manner That the Books of the Old Testament are Twenty-two alii non habentur in Canone others are not put into the Canon though they are read by us as are the Writings of the Fathers and these Books are Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and the Maccabees John Beleth having reckoned up the Books of the Old Testament and told us they were Twenty-two he after saith expresly De div Officiis c. 60 62. That Tobit the Maccabees Philo and the Son of Syrach were Apocrypha and that hos quatuor quidem non recipit Ecclesia the Church receiveth not these four John of Salisbury in Answer to the Question put to him Ep. 172. Edit Paris 1611. p. 279. Quem credam numerum esse librorum V. N. Testamenti What he believed to be the number of the Books of the Old and the New Testament P. 281. saith That following Catholicae Ecclesiae Doctorem Hieronymum St. Jerom as the most approved Doctor of the Catholick Church in this matter he undoubtedly believed them to be Twenty-two And then of the Books of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Judith Tobias and the Maccabees he saith Non reputantur in Canone They are not reckoned in the Canon and having added to this account the number of the Books of the New Testament he concludes of them both thus Et hunc quidem numerum esse librorum qui in S. Scripturarum Canonem admittuntur celebris apud Ecclesiam P. 282. indubitata traditio est And that this is the number of the Books which are admitted into the Canon of the Holy Scriptures is what the celebrated and undoubted Tradition of the Church declares The Ordinary Gloss received in this Cent. 13. De libris Bibliae Canonicis non Canonicis and in the following Ages with the general Approbation of the Schools and all the Doctors of the Western Church declareth 1. That the Canonical Books of the Old Testament are only Twenty-two and having reckoned them up in this order viz. Five Books of Moses Eight of the Prophets and Nine Hagiographa he adds That quicquid extra hos est ut dicit Hieronymus inter Apocrypha est ponendum What Books soever there be besides relating to the Old Testament they ought according to St. Jerom to be put among the Apocrypha particularly before the Books of Tobit Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees he saith Here begins a Book qui non est in Canone or qui non est de Canone Ibid. which belongs not to the Canon And again Isti sunt libri qui non sunt in Canone These are the Books which are not in the Canon and which the Church admits as good and useful but not as Canonical He also giveth his Advertisement Ibid. That the Chapters added to Esther and to Daniel are not in the Canon so that in all things he perfectly accordeth with the Church of England 2. As for those Books which are not Canonical he informs us That Ecclesia eos legit permittit the Church reads and permits them to be read by the Faithful for Devotion and Information of Manners but she doth not think their Authority sufficient to prove what is doubtful or matter of dispute or to confirm Ecclesiastical Doctrines And this 3. because there is as much difference betwixt Books Canonical and not Canonical as betwixt what is certain and what is dubious betwixt Books written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost and Books indited they knew not when or by whom And 4. He professes to have made this distinction and exact numeration of the Books which did and which did not belong unto the Canon because there were many who because they did not spend much time in studying the Scriptures existimabant omnes libros qui in Biblia continentur pari veneratione esse reverendos thought with the Trent Council all the Books contained in the Bible were to be received with a like Veneration not knowing how to distinguish betwixt Books Canonical and not Canonical In the Fourteenth Century Brito a Friar Minorite put forth his Exposition of the Prologues of St. Jerom upon the Bible which were usually joined to the Ordinary Gloss and are still extant in the Works of Nicholas Lyra and in his Exposition of the Prologue upon Joshua he informs us That according to the Hebrews the Books of the Old Testament are divided into the Law the Prophets and the Hagiographa the Law containing Five Books the Prophets Eight and the Hagiographa Nine that the Books of Judith the Maccabees of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus the Third and Fourth of Esdras and the Book of Tobit Apocryphi dicuntur Quia vero de veritate istorum librorum non dubitatur ab Ecclesia recipiuntur are called Apoorvphal because the Authors of them are not known though they are received of the Church as not doubting the truth of them In his Exposition on the Prologue upon Kings he tells us That the Prologue of St. Jerom was useful ut sciamus librorum Canonis Apocryphorum distinctionem that we might by it know the distinction betwixt the Canonical and Apocryphal Books and that it defends the Holy Scripture against them who introduce the Apocryphal Books for Hagiographa or sacred Writings And in his Exposition upon his Prologue before Daniel he saith Continet liber iste Apocrypham partem Historiam Susannae Hymnum puerorum Belis Draconisque fabulas This Book containeth something Apocryphal viz. The History of Susanna the Song of the Three Children and the Fables of Bell and the Dragon Now this being a work of so great Credit as to be joined to the Gloss and commonly received as Lyra saith must give us the prevailing Judgment of that Age. Nicholas Lyra in his Preface upon Tobit saith That by the favour of God he having writ super libros S. Scripturae Canonicos on the Canonical Books of Scripture from Genesis to the Revelations intended by the same Grace of God super alios scribere qui non sunt Canonici to write upon others which were not Canonical and which are only received in the Church for Instruction of Manners not being by her thought sufficient to confirm doubtful Matters Now these saith he according to St. Jerom in his Prologue on the Kings are Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Judith Tobias and the Maccabees Baruch and the Second of Esdras as he saith in his Prologues to those Books In the beginning of his Notes upon Esra he renews all this saying That he intended though Commenting upon the Historical Books of the Old
Testament to pass by the History of Tobit Judith and the Maccabees quia non sunt de Canone apud Hebraeos nec apud Christianos because they neither are esteemed Canonical by Jews nor Christians yea St. Jerom saith in his Prologue That inter Apocrypha cantantur the Church Chants them among the Apocrypha I therefore saith he first intend to write on the whole Canonical Scripture and then super istos alios qui communiter ponuntur in bibliis quamvis non sint de Canone upon those and other Books which are commonly put in our Bibles though they belong not to the Canon Moreover the Third and Fourth of Esdras he passeth over without Notes for the same Reason On the Thirteenth of Daniel he Notes thus The History of Susanna ought to be put inter libros Bibliae non Canonicos among the Books of the Bible which are not Canonical and in his Notes on the Fourteenth Chapter he saith of the History of Bell and the Dragon ponitur inter Scripturas non Canonicas it is put among those Scriptures which are not Canonical after the History of Susanna Now had not Lyra mentioned the Judgment of the Church touching these Books yet these Expressions in Comments of so great Credit in the Church sufficiently shew that this was then a Doctrine well received in the Church of Rome Antoninus Florentinus in his Historical Summs acknowledgeth only Twenty-two Canonical Books of the Old Testament Cent. 15. Sum. Hist part 1. Tit. 3. c. 4. c. 6. §. 12. saying in General of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and the Maccabees that Ecclesia recipit the Church receives them as true and profitable though not as of force in matters of Faith Unde forte habent Authoritatem talem qualem habent dicta istorum doctorum approbata ab Ecclesia Sum. Theol. part 3. Tit. 18. c. 6. §. 2. and in particular of Ecclesiasticus that it is receptus ab Ecclesia ad legendum non tamen Authenticus est ad probandum ea quae veniunt in contentionem fidei received by the Church to be read but is not Authentical to prove things doubtful in the Faith. Alphonsus Tostatus saith of the Six debated Books Praefat. in Matth. qu. 2. That they are not put into the Canon by the Church nor doth she regularly command them to be read or to be received or judge them disobedient who do not receive them For Ecclesia non est certa de Auctoribus eorum the Church is not certain of the Authors of them yea she knoweth not an spiritu sancto inspirati whether they were indited by Men inspired of the Holy Spirit and so she obliges no Man ad necessariò credendum id quod ibi habetur to yield necessary assent to what they do contain Enarrat praefat in l. paralip q. 7. And elsewhere Though saith he these Apocryphal Books be joined with others of the Bible and read in the Church none of them is of such Authority ut ex eo Ecclesia arguat ad probandam aliquam veritatem quantum ad hoc non recipit eos that the Church proves any truth out of them for as to that she doth not receive them Dionysius Carthusianus saith Praefat. in Gen. Art. 4. The Books of the Old Testament are Twenty-two as saith St. Jerom in his Prologue before the Kings and having reckoned them up Five Legal Eight Historical Nine Hagiographa he adds Hos libros vocant Canonicos alios vero Apocryphos These Books are called by Divines Canonical the rest Apocryphal In the Sixteenth Century Franciscus Ximenius reckons those Books of the Old Testament which were extant only in Greek Cent. 16. as Bibl. Complut Praef. ad Lect. Libri extra Canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit Books out of the Canon which the Church receives rather for Edification of the People than for confirmation of Ecclesiastical Doctrines Erasmus having numbered the Canonical Books of the Old Testament as we do In expos Symb. Apost Decal Catech. 4. vers finem Ed. Antver 1533. concludes thus Intra hunc numerum conclusit priscorum Authoritas Vet. Test volumina The Authority of the Ancients comprized the Volumes of the Old Testament of whose Truth it was not lawful to doubt within this number Johannes Ferus having told us that the Apocryphal Books were Nine In exam Ordinand he adds That olim in Ecclesia Apocryphi publicè non recitabantur nec quisquam Authoritate eorum premebatur anciently the Apocryphal Books were not read publickly nor was any Man pressed with their Authority Sebastian Munster in his Preface to the Old Testament and in the Chapter of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament numbers them exactly as we do and then he saith Intra hunc numerum concluserunt Hebraei prisci Christiani volumina veteris Testamenti Both the Hebrews and the ancient Christians comprized the Volumes of the Old Testament within this number but now the other which he reckons as we do excepting only the Song of the Three Children are received in usum Ecclesiasticum into the use of the Church Moreover from the Ninth Century in which the Ordinary Gloss upon the Bible was begun by Strabus to the Sixteenth they did not only number the Canonical and reject the Apocryphal Books as we do but they did it chiefly for the very reason that is assigned in our Article viz. among others the Authority of St. Jerom Card. Cajetan Praefat. super Josuam ad Clem. 7. declaring That Sancto Hieronymo universa Ecclesia Latina plurimum debet propter discretos ab eodem libros Canonicos à non Canonicis The universal Church is very much beholding to St. Jerom not only because he noted what Parts where added to the Books of the Old Testament or were but doubtful Appendixes but also for separating the Canonical from the uncanonical Books That the Church received those Books which he received and rejected those which he rejected That Consonat Hieronymus cus maxima habetur fides in Ecclesia is inquam Hieronymus in Prologo Galeato inter Canonicos libros V. Testamenti hosce duntaxat enumerat Firmiter tamen haerendum credo sententiae Hieronymi Cujus Autoritas me movit ne multo altius quam a suo tempore de librorum horum ordine disputarem cum illis floruerit temporibus quae doctis hominibus abundabant multa ex Gestis veterum Theologorum legerit quae nunc periere peritissimus quoque suit Graecae Hebraicae literaturae demum ejus testimonium ab Ecclesia pro sanctissimo habeatur Picus Mirand de fide ordinc credendi Theorem 5. Com. in libr. Hist V. Test In primum cap. Matth. ad v. 12. Testimonium Hieronymi quoad hoc ut Sacrosanctum habetur in Ecclesiâ as to this Matter the Church held his Testimony to
almost in all the ancient Councils As to the Second Part of this Article § 5 which teacheth That General Councils may Erre and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to God P. 295. the same Author there tells us That Communis est doctorum opinio Concilia etiam Generalia errare posse in rebus quae fidem aut mores ad salutem non necessarios concernunt It is the common Judgment of their Doctors that even general Councils may erre in Matters of Faith and Manners which are not necessary to Salvation And whereas our Church infers that therefore things ordained by them as necessary to Saelvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared nisi ostendi possint unless it can be shewed that they be taken out of Holy Scripture This Author saith these last Words of the Article Sententiam veterum omnium fere modernorum declarant declare that which was the Doctrine of the Ancients and of almost all the modern Doctors That in the time of Ocham the Church was divided in this Point some holding that a General Council Haeretica potest labe aspergi might be guilty of Heresy and much more of Error some That it could not thus be guilty and that the Doctrine of the Fallibility of General Councils was afterwards maintained by many eminent Doctors of the Church De formali objecto fidei Tr. 5. c. 19 20 21. is fully proved by Baronius against Turnbal so that I shall reserve the farther Prosecution of this Matter to its proper place viz. The Discussion of the Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils Our Church in her Twenty second Article asserts § 6 That the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly seigned and grounded upon no Warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God And that these Doctrines were not derived to them from Apostolical Tradition their own Writers do ingeniously confess For 1. Concerning Purgatory Alphonsus de Castro declares That in Veteribus de Purgatorio fere nulla De Haeres l. 8. Tit. de Indulg potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores mentio est In the Ancients and especially the Greek Writers there is scarce any mention of Purgatory whence it comes to pass Contr. Luther Artic. 18. that to this very day it is not received in the Greek Church Apud priscos amongst the Ancients saith our Fisher Bishop of Rochester It was not at all or very rarely mentioned nor is it to this Day believed by the Greek Church Let him who pleaseth read the Commentaries of the ancient Greeks and he will find I suppose that they speak not at all or very rarely of it Sed neque Latini simul omnes sed sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt Nor did the Latins altogether but leisurely perceive the Truth of this Matter And then he adds Cum igitur purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum universae Ecclesiae fuerit quis jam de Indulgentiis mirari potest quia in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerit earum usus Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known to and received by the Universal Church who can wonder that in the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences In Cath. Rom. pacif apud Forb consid Mod. p. 264. Father Barns acknowledgeth that the Punishment of Purgatory is a thing quae nec ex Scripturis nec Patribus nec Conciliis deduci potest firmiter which can neither be firmly proved from Scripture the Fathers or Councils And that Opposita sententia eis conformior videtur the contrary Sentence seems more agreeable to them Wicelius saith Meth. Concord Eccles c. 8. Tit. Funus Ibid. p. 259 260. That though there should be some places of Purgation to receive naked Souls yet doth it not become grave and wise Men so certainly to define those things which Scriptures have not expressed nec Antiquorum traditio nor the Tradition of the Ancients hath expounded Erasmus saith Operum Tom. 1. p. 685. q. There be many things about which not only contentious but even learned and pious Men did doubt of old as St. Austin with others doubted long about Purgatory That it was only a private Assertion and not an Article of Faith generally received in the Twelfth Century Chronic. l. 8. c. 26. is evident from these Words of Otho Frisingensis viz. That there is apud Inferos in the infernal Regions a Place of Purgatory wherein such as are to be saved are either troubled only with Darkness or decocted with the Fire of Expiation some affirm Nor can I tell what to make of that saying of Paschasius if it doth not shew that he believeth the contrary for saith he our Lord saith he that eateth my Flesh hath eternal Life ideo dicens habet quia mox anima carne soluta intrat in vitae promptuaria De Corp. Sang. Domini c. 19. ubi Sanctorum Animae requiescunt saying in the Present Tense he hath because the Soul being loosed from the Flesh presently enters into those Receptacles of Life where the Spirits of Saints do rest Secondly § 7 Concerning Pardons or Indulgences their Novelâ—y is still confessed more freely Inter omnes res de quibus in hoc opere disputamus nulla est quam minus aperte S. Literae prodiderunt de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint neque tamen hac occasione contemnendae sunt quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus quoniam multa sunt posterioribus nota quae vetusti illi Scriptores prorsus ignoraverunt nam de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis Scriptoribus mentio de Purgatorio fere nulla potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores qua de causa usque in hodiernum Diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis ut apud Priscos nulla sit de eis mentio praecipue quod tunc magis fervebat Christianorum charitas ut parum esset opus indulgentiis quapropter non est mentio ulla indulgentiarum De Haer. l. 8. Tit. de Indulgentiis De invent rer l. 8. c. 1. p. 325. Part. 1. Sum. Tit. 10. c. 3. In 4. Sentent dist 20. q. 3. h. Alphonsus Castro saith That among all the things of which he disputed in his Book against Heresies there was nothing of which the Scripture spake less plainly de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint and of which the Ancient Writers had said less Many saith Polydore Virgil from Roffensis may perhaps be moved not to trust to Indulgences quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur recentior admodum sero apud Christianos repertus because the use of them in the Church seems new and very lately received among Christians To whom I answer That
the number of the Seven Sacraments in General I pass on to the Confessions that have been made concerning those five R. Sacraments in Particular which our Article denies to be Sacraments properly so called or of Divine Institution And First As for Confirmation Alexander of Hales § 12 as he is cited by many of the Schoolmen affirmed De hoc recitat Alexander part 4. q. 24. M. 1. Et post eum Sanctus Thomas tres opiniones una est quam tenet Alexander quod Sacramentum illud non est institutum neque a Christo neque ab Apostolis Sed dicit quod Confirmatio instituta est ab Ecclesia in Concilio Meldensi Unde dicit Alexander sine praejudicio dicendum est quod neque Dominus hoc Sacramentum instituit neque dispensavit Sed postquam Apostoli defecerunt institutum fuit hoc Sacramentum Spiritus Sancti instinctu in Concilio Meldens◠quantum ad formam verborum materiam elementarem cui etiam Spiritus Sanctus contulit virtutem sanctificandi Biel in 4. Sent. q. un D. Alii quod in Aurelianensi Concilio In 4. Sent. dist 7. Art. 1. Part. 3. q. 72. A. 1. ad primum Quod Dominus neque hoc Sacramentum instituit neque dispensavit That our Lord neither instituted nor dispensed this Sacrament nor was it instituted by his Disciples but as to the Form of Words and the Matter of it it was instituted by the Council of Meaux Soto informs us That others attributed the institution of it to the Council of Orleans Thomas Aquinas saith That touching this Sacrament there is a double Opinion quidam enim dixerunt for some have said that this Sacrament was neither instituted by Christ nor by his Apostles Sed postea processu temporis in quodam Concilio but afterwards in process of time in some Council To proceed to Auricular Confession two things have been defined by the R. Church concerning it § 13 1. That it is a Sacrament truly and properly so called Concil Trid. Sess 14. Can. 1. and of our Saviour's Institution 2. Ibid. Can. 6 7. That this Confession by divine Right is necessary to Salvation and that if any one shall say that it is not by divine Right necessary for the Remission of Sins in the Sacrament of Penance to confess all and singular mortal Sins though never so occult which can by diligent Meditation be brought to our Memory with the Circumstances which change the Kinds of them he is to be Anathema In Opposition to the first Assertion Maldonate the Jesuit confesseth Maldon Sum. q. 18. Art. 4. That sunt inter Catholicos qui putant nullum esse praeceptum divinum de confessione ut omnes Decretorum Doctores inter Scholasticos Scotus there are Catholicks who think there is no Divine Precept for Confession as all the Canonists and among the Schoolmen Scotus In hac re Haereticos nonnullos Catholicos errasse invenio Tom. 3. Disp 32. §. 2. Suarez declares That in this matter he found that not only Hereticks but some Catholiks had erred also it being the Opinion of some Catholicks Hoc Sacramentum non fuisse institutum neque a Christo neque ab Apostolis sed in Concilio Meldensi speciali spiritus Sancti instinctu That this Sacrament was neither instituted by Christ nor his Apostles but in the Council of Meaux by the special Instinct of the Holy Spirit Semeca De poen init dist 5. the Author of the Gloss having mentioned the Opinion of them who said That Confession was instituted in the New Testament by St. James saith Melius dicitur eam institutam fuisse à quadam universalis Ecclesiae Traditione It is better said that it was instituted by a certain Tradition of the universal Church than by the Authority of the New or Old Testament Super lib. 5. decret de poenit remiss c. 12. n. 18. Tom. 7. p. 228. Ed. Venet. 1617. This saith Panormitan the Gloss holds and consequently that the Greeks offend not by not using this Confession Confitentur enim soli Deo in secreto for they confess to God alone in secret because such a Tradition came not to them And this Opinion pleaseth me saith he very much Quia non est aliqua Autoritas aperta quae innuat Deum seu Christum apertè instituisse confessionem fiendam Sacerdoti for there is no clear Authority which plainly shews that God or Christ instituted Confession to be made to a Priest Lib. 3. de poenit cap. 1. Bellarmine informs us that about an Hundred Years before his time one Petrus Oxomensis Divinity Professor of the University of Salamanca held That Confession was not of Divine Right but grounded on some Statute of the universal Church Pag. 476. Rhenanus on the Argument of Tertullian's Book of Penitence saith That he speaks of publick Confession Qua majores nostros apparet aliquamdiu usos fuisse priusquam ista secreta nasceretur quâ hodie conscientiam nostram Sacerdoti detegimus usque ad circumstantiarum omnium minutias Which it is evident our Ancestors used for some time before that secret Confession began in which we open our Conscience to a Priest even to the discovery of the smallest Circumstances And having told us that there were among the Canonists qui institutam ab Ecclesia tradunt confessionem who say that Confession was instituted by the Church P. 477. and cited many Fathers who taught with Chrysostom Soli Deo confitendum esse That Confession was to be made to God alone he adds That for this Cause he mentioned all those Testimonies P. 478. that none might admire Tertullianum de clancularia ista admissorum confession nihil locutum quae quantum conjicimus penitusid temporis ignorabatur that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as far as we can gather was wholly unknown at that time Nor is it thus only with Tertullian They who lived saith he many Ages after him Admon de quibusdam Eccl. dogm p. 685. spake mostly of publick Penance Nam expresse de privata qui loquuntur inter veteres hand temere reperies for you will scarcely find any among the Ancients who speaks expresly of the private Confession Regaltius in his Preface on the same Book saith Occultorum poenitentia Quam postea Ecclesia saluberiter instituit Epitap Fabiol Ep. Tom. 1. f. 72. sicut castigatio Divinae Misericordiae reservata the confession of secret Sins and the castigation of them was then reserved to the Mercy of God. Erasmus in like manner saith Apparet Hieronymi tempore nondum institutam fuisse secretam admissorum confessionem it is evident that in the time of St. Jerom the secret Confession of Sins was not yet instituted To proceed to the Second Head touching the Necessity of this Confession Gratian discourses largely of it and having produced the Opinions of many on both sides concludes thus De poenit remiss
of Antiquity ascribed by some to Athanasius by others to Theodoret to Maximus to Etherius we have one brief but full Discourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them who judge of Truth only by multitude Athanas Tom. 2. p. 293. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Author first tells us that he is to combat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against a false Assertion that the Authors of it are Objects of Pity or Commiseration that they fled to this miserable Refuge only for want of Reason on their side and even confessed their being vanquished that multitude was proper to fright a Man but by no means to perswade him that in the concernments of this World we do not much regard it and much less should we be moved by it in heavenly Matters to recede from the Testimonies of the Scriptures and the agreeing Sentiments of the Ancients that our Lord had told us That many are called but few chosen That streight was the Gate which leadeth unto Life and few there be that find it And that every wise Man would rather be of the number of those few P. 291. than of that number which goes in the broad way For had any Man lived in the days of Stephen would he not rather have been of his side alone than of the side of the multitude which rose up against him Had not Phineas boldly opposed himself to the prevailing multitude the Plague had not ceased nor had the rest been saved Was it not better to fly with Noah to the Ark than with the multitude to perish in the deluge to go alone with Lot from Sodom than with the multitude to perish there We indeed venerate the multitude but then it is a multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which flies not examination but which affordeth demonstration 2dly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Athanas To. 2. p. 325. They add That they ought not to be called upon to yield a blind assent to the Dictates of other Men without using their own Judgments to consider and enquire What is possible what is suitable or unsuitable what acceptable to God what is congruous to Nature what consonant to Truth what accords with the Mystery what is agreeable to piety They have accordingly left us a Discourse in opposition to those Men who required them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply to believe their Dictates without considering what was fit or unfit to be embraced informing us That this was of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 326. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 horrible Doctrines the worst which Satan had invented to lead Men into dangerous Deceits That it was the Doctrine of Men who imperiously commanded all Men to follow their Dictates and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to believe without Reason and called that Faith which was an assent without trial to things unstable and undemonstrated That it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rise of Error and of all Evils the Doctrine of all Hereticks who declined the Examination that they might avoid the consutation of their Doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to it no Man could find the way of Truth or avoid the precipice of Error That according to it we being asked to yield assent to the unproved Doctrines of Hereticks and Heathens should consent to do so P. 327. Whereas if we examine what we are required to believe we shall have full assurance of the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither believing without reason nor speaking without Faith. Ninthly They say that it must be acknowledged that they had rationally cast off the Customs and Traditions of their Fore-fathers because they could discover wherein they had generally erred Praepar Evang l. 4. c. 4. For thus Eusebius speaks If we can shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Heathens and Barbarians which were before our Saviours time did not know the true God but either worshipped those which were no Gods or evil Spirits it must be then confessed that we acted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a true and righteous Judgment when we became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revolters from the Superstition of our Fore-fathers If therefore we not only can but actually have shewed in the forementioned particulars that the Church of Rome hath generally erred then must it also be acknowledged that our Separation from her was the result of Truth and Righteousness Tenthly They lastly say Arnob. l. 2. P. 95. That their Religion must be Ancient because it consisted in the Worship of the Supream God Quo non est antiquius quicquam than whom nothing is more Ancient And in like manner we declare our positive Religion must be Ancient because it consists of the Articles delivered in the Scriptures of the New Testament and in the Symbol of the Apostles and taught by the Four first Centuries we therefore in like manner do conclude with them as to all the positive Articles of our Religion Non ergo quod sequimur novum est sed nos sero addicimus quidnam sequi oporteat That what we follow is not New though 't was but lately that we learned that it was that and that alone we ought to follow Now by impartial consideration of these particulars I leave any Man of Reason to judge whose Religion is most suitable in the general Grounds of it to the Sentiments of Antiquity whether we Protestants plead any thing against those of Rome which the ancient Christians did not also plead against the Heathens and whether the most plausible Objections of the Romanists against us be not fully answered by what these Fathers say in the defence of common Christianity against the Hereticks and Heathens 4thly Mr. M. adds Object 4 That all those who had been instructed by the Apostles before Scripture was written P. 322 340. converted and instructed Thousands who never had heard any Apostle preach and all these believed on the Authority of the then present Church P. 415. That from the preaching of Christ unto the finishing of the Canon and the divulging of the same in such Languages as all Nations understood very many Years passed and all the true Believers in Christ's Church were governed by Tradition only R. H. doth also tell us That God besides Guide of Controv Disc 2. ch 5. §. 44. and before the New Testament Scriptures left these Doctrines sufficiently revealed to the then appointed Ecclesiastical Guides from whom both the present People and the future Successors of those Guides both were and might rationally know they were to learn them and so had there been no Scriptures might to this Day by meer Tradition have learn'd them sufficiently for their Salvation First Reply 1 To this I answer That Mr. M. is much out when he talks of Seventy or Eighty Years before those Scriptures were written which were to be the future Rule of Christians for the Gospel of St.
Author of the imperfect Work upon Matthew which passeth under the Name of Chrysostom speaking of the Times in which Heresy prevails Hom. 49. p 174. saith Then let them who are in Judaea fly to the Mountains that is Qui sunt Christiani conferant se ad Scripturas Let them who are Christians have Recourse to the Scriptures to the Writings of the Apostles and Prophets And why saith he doth Christ at this time command Omnes Christianos conferre se ad Scripturas all Christians to fly to the Scriptures Because saith he in this time since Heresy hath got the Churches there can be no Proof of true Christianity Neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fldei veritatem nisi scripturae divinae the Christians who are desirous to know the true Faith can have no other Refuge but the Holy Scriptures Before there were many Ways of shewing which was the Church of Christ but now if Men be willing to discern her Nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas the true Church of Christ can by no other way be known but only by the Scriptures for now all those things which are properly of Christ in truth these Heresies have in Schism they in like manner have Churches the Divine Scriptures Bishops the other Orders of the Clergy Baptism the Eucharist all other things and even Christ himself Now in the Confusion of so great Similitude he that is willing to know which is the true Church of Christ Unde cognoscat nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Whence can he know it but only by the Scriptures P. 175. Before it was known by Miracles who were true Christians and who false but now Signorum operatio omnino levata est the working of Miracles is intirely diminished and the working of feigned Miracles magis apud eos invenitur qui falsi sunt Christiani is chiefly found amongst those who are false Christians for the full Power of working Miracles is to be given to Antichrist The Church of Christ was formerly known by her Manners the Conversation of all or most of her Members being Holy but now Christians are like to or even worse than Hereticks He therefore who would know which is the true Church of Christ Unde cognoscat nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Whence can he know her but only by the Scriptures Whence our Lord knowing that there would be such a confusion of things in the last Days commands Ut Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas That Christians who are willing to remain firm in the true Faith should fly to nothing but the Scriptures The true Chrysostom gives exactly the same Advice in the like Case for to that Enquiry What shall we say to the Greeks Hom. 33. in Act. Tom. 4. p. 799. There comes one of them and saith I would be a Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I know not to whom I should join myself for there is much Contention Controversy and Tumult among you Christians What Opinion shall I chuse every one saith Truth is on my Side Whom shall I credit who know nothing of the Scriptures and hear them all pretending to them To this Inquiry Chrysostom answers This is much for us for did we say you must believe our Discourses thou had'st reason to be troubled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but since we say you must believe the Scriptures and they are plain and true 't is easy for you to pass your Judgment if any Man consents with them he is a Christian if he contradicts them he is far from this Rule Behold here the Heathen sent by St. Chrysostom to pass Judgment betwixt the Orthodox and all sorts of Hereticks from Scripture alone and told that it is easy for him so to do because the Scriptures are a plain Rule whereby to judge in Matters of this Nature But saith the Heathen one of you affirms That the Scripture saith thus the other That it speaketh otherwise interpreting it to another Sence But what of all this saith Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for hast thou not an Vnderstanding and a Judgment Where again the Heathen is supposed able by his own Judgment to discern who wrests who rightly doth interpret Scripture But how can I do this saith the Greek I know not how to judge of the Doctrines I come to be a Learner and you make me a Teacher If any one object thus saith Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we should ask him whether this be not Dissimulation and Pretence for if your Reason taught you to condemn Heathenism it may also teach you to judge betwixt us and Hereticks do not therefore dissemble or make Pretences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all things are easy Thou knowest what to do and leave undone do therefore what thou oughtest and with right Reason seek of God and he will fully reveal this to thee for he is no respecter of Persons it is not possible that he who heareth without Prejudice should not be perswaded P. 800. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as if there were a Rule to which all things were to be adapted it would be easy to perceive who takes wrong Measures so is it here To this Rule you see viz. the Holy Scriptures even the Heathen is sent as to that which is sufficient to direct him to Christian Truth when there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Controversy and Contention amongst Christians concerning it Lastly Commonit c. 6. Vincentius Lirinensis lays down the same Rule For if the Contagio◠saith he though new endeavour to infect the whole Church as in the case of the Arians then whosoever would discern the Catholick Faith from Heretical Pravity must be careful to adhere to Antiquity C. 3 4 8 25 33 39 41. viz. To that Sence of Scripture which it is manifest our Ancestors held and must believe that without Doubtfulness which all in like manner with one consent held writ and taught openly frequently and perseveringly he being only firm in Faith who determines Id solum sibi tenendum credendumque quicquid universaliter antiquitùs Ecclesiam Catholicam tenuisse cognoverit That alone is to be held and believed by him which he knows the Catholick Church anciently held But when Schisms and Heresies have grown ancient in the Church and the Poison of them hath spread largely which say we is the present Case of the Church then saith he Nullo modo oportet nos nisi aut Sola si opus est Scripturarum Auctoritate convincere we ought only if need be to convince them by the Authority of Scripture or to shun them as being condemned Cap. 41. Jam antiquitus by ancient general Councils of Catholick Priests and when our Adversaries assault us with either of these two Weapons they will find us ready and able to defend