general Postea per dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. the Fathers do expresly say declaring That the Apostles first preached the Gospel and afterwards by the Will of God delivered the same Gospel which they preached to us in the Scripture to be for future Ages the Pillar and the Ground of Truth The Marcionites owned the Writings of St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. contra Marcion p. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. but rejected the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. John. Against them therefore Origen doth in the person of Eutropius dispute after this manner Did these Apostles preach the Gospel with writing or without writing what they preached Marc. Without writing Eutrop. Is it probable they preached Salvation only to them that heard them and had no regard to them that were to come after as must be supposed if they writ not that Doctrine of Salvation which they preached for those things which are spoken and not written do presently vanish St. Austin is express for the same Doctrine for having told us That our Lord Jesus according to the saying of St. John Did many things which were not written He adds Tr. 49. in Joh. Tom. 9. p. 355. Electa sunt autem quae scriberentur ea quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur That they chose out of them those things to be written which they conceived sufficient for the Salvation of Believers Quicquid enim ille de suis factis dictis nos legero voluit hoc scribendum illis tamquam suis manibus imperavit De consensu Evangelist lib. 1. cap. 35. Again He saith the same St. Austin who sent the Prophets before his descent sent also the Apostles after his Ascention of all whom he was the Head wherefore it must not be said that he writ nothing seeing his Members writ that which they knew by the Dictates of their Head for whatsoever he would have us read concerning what he did or said he commanded his Apostles as being his Amanuenses to write down Now seeing all they were to teach was only his Sayings and Commands they who stood thus engaged to write all that he would have us read of his Sayings must write all that was needful to be known in order to Mens Salvation for all this sure the Saviour of the World would have us read all this 't was therefore necessary for them to write that we might read Because that Heresies would afterwards break in upon the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Proem in Matth. and the Manners of Christians would be corrupted saith Theophylact it pleased the Apostles to write the Gospels that from thence being taught the Truth we might not be perverted by the Falshood of Heresie nor be corrupted in our Manners Now sure what is sufficient to preserve us from Heresie in Doctrine and from Corruption in Manners must plainly and fully contain all things necessary to be believed that we may not be Hereticks and to be done that we may not be wicked To proceed to the particular accounts the Ancients give us of the inditing of every Gospel in particular § 2 Eusebius informs us of St. Matthew that the Tradition was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. That he was necessitated to write for having first preached to the Hebrews as he was about to go to others commiting his Gospel to writing in his own Language he supplied by writing their want of his Presence from whom he went. St. Chrysostom saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Matth. Hom. 1. pag. 3. They had it by Tradition that the believing Jews desired St. Matthew to leave those things in writing which he had delivered by word of mouth to them and that in compliance with this request he writ his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue Sicut referunt Matthaeum conscribere Evangelium causa compulit talis cum facta fuisset in Pal. persecutio ut carentes forte doctoribus fidei non carerent doctrina petierunt Matthaeum ut omnium verborum operum Christi conscriberet eis Historiam ut ubicunque essent futuri totius secum haberent sidei statum Praefat. The Author of the imperfect Comment on St. Matthew who passeth under the same name delivereth the Tradition thus That St. Matthew was compelled to write his Gospel upon this account That when a grievous Persecution arose in Palaestin so that they were in danger to be separated from each other that wanting Teachers they might not want the Doctrine of Faith they desired Matthew to write for them the History of all the Words and Works of Christ that so wherever they should be hereafter they might have with them totius fidei statum the whole form of Faith. The Tradition concerning the Gospel of St. Mark runs thus That when the Hearers of St. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 15. Peter had been illuminated by his Doctrine They were so affected with it as not to be contented with hearing of it all at once or with the unwritten Teaching or oral Tradition of the heavenly Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. but with all manner of Exhortations did entreat St. Mark the Follower of St. Peter that he would leave them in writing a digest or memorial of the Doctrine delivered to them by word of Mouth and that they never ceased till they had obtained their requests and that thus they were the causes of writing the Gospel of St. Mark This Eusebius relates from the Tradition of Clemens of Alexandria and Papias Bishop of Hierapolis The words of Clemens he gives thus Clemens in the same Book puts down the Tradition of the ancient Presbyters touching the Order of the Gospels which is to this effect Peter preaching the Word publickly at Rome and speaking the Gospel by the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. many that were present intreated Mark to write what he spake as being one who had long followed him and remembred the things spoken and that thereupon Mark having writ the Gospel gave it to those who desired it And of the same Mark Papias saith Euscbius relates That he took especial care to say nothing that was false and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 3. c. 38. to leave nothing out of his Gospel he had heard from Peter Moreover Eusebius farther informs us from the same Authors that St. Mark going afterwards to Alexandria preached there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 16. the Gospel which he had written And that the first Successors of the Apostles leaving their Countries did the work of Evangelists to them who had not as yet heard of the Christian Faith to whom they preached Christ and delivered the Writings of the Holy Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 3. c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
Anathematized St. Austin Pope Innocent Pelagius and the whole Church of Christ for Six whole Centuries Thirdly Hence it is evident that the Practice of the Church in any Century is no true Ground for the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture seeing this Practice of communicating Infants was built upon the Mistake of the Church of the Ages mentioned touching the true Sence of those Words Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Fourthly Hence it is evident That if the present Church of any Age must be the infallible Judge of what is Tradition if what is generally received in any Age must be derived from the Apostles the Custom of giving the Sacrament to Children for the Remission of Sins and the obtaining Life must be an Apostolical Tradition it being generally received for Six Centuries and yet if the Church of Rome of the Three last Ages was the Judge of what deserved to be esteemed Tradition the self same Doctrine being then generally rejected by them could be no Apostolical Tradition Fifthly Hence Mr. M. may learn that his Proof of Prayer for the Dead and Infants Baptism from Tradition is not very weighty and convincing or if it be the Custom of communicating Infants must be Tradition Apostolical For changing only the Subject it will be easy to argue for it after the manner and in the Words of Mr. M. Let us take Two Traditions P. 401. the one confessed by you to be a true one the other indeed condemned by you but asserted by me to be no less true than the former because it is testified by as good a Tradition as the former and therefore either the former is not proved sufficiently by this Testimony or the latter is The First Tradition for Example sake is That of Baptizing Infants The Second That of the Communicating of Infants Of these Two I discourse thus Both these Points were recommended by the Apostles to the Primitive Church for divine Verities and Practices and so from hand to hand came most unquestionably delivered to the Twelfth Century Hence conformably to this Tradition P. 402. every where Christians baptized their little Children every where they gave them the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but yet the communicating of them was the more frequent Practice because Children were baptized but once in their Lives but being once baptized they frequently received the Holy Sacrament Well now let us suppose that both these Traditions be called in Question whether they be faithfully delivered as Sacraments to be received by Children or rather whether that of Communicating Infants were some humane Invention Soss 21. Can. 4. or as the Trent Council hath determined A thing unnecessary to be received by Infants till they come to Years of Discretion Let us see whether this Tradition condemned by that Council with an Anathema cannot defend it self from Forgery as well as any Scripture questioned of being true Scripture P. 403. For Example the Apocalypse which was rejected by divers Ancient Catholicks whereas the Communion of Infants was never rejected by any Ancient Catholicks at all nor by any of them said to be unnecessary Amongst ancient Hereticks the Pelagians indeed said That it was not necessary to communicate them for the Remission of Sins but this is noted in them as a peculiar Heresy of their own by Pope Innocent by Pelagius by the Council of Carthage and by St. Austin who pronounceth against them That Infants ought to be communicated for the Remission of Sins And the same St. Austin saith The Church doth necessarily do this by the Tradition P. 404. as he fupposeth Apostolical received from her Ancestors He held therefore such Communion of Infants suitable to the Doctrine of the Church and Tradition And this Tradition is that which I now stand upon which indeed did shine in the Practice of the Primitive Church You shall scarcely find a Liturgy or Service Book used in the ancient Church which is not Witness of this Tradition though these Books were found in every Parish of Christendom in which Divine Service was almost daily said P. 405. St. Cyprian mentions it as the Practice of his Times In both these Points it is a strong Argument and as strong for Communicating as for Baptizing of Infants That no time can be named in which those Customs began No man can be thought of who could by humane Means and such Means as should not make a mighty Noise amongst those great Reverencers of Tradition draw all the World in so short a time after the Apostles P. 406. to follow Customs as Apostolical which in that Age in which they were first vented were evidently by every Man not only known but clearly seen to be new hatch'd Novelties and not Ancient and Apostolical Traditions This Man who broached this false Doctrine should have been put into the Catalogues of Hereticks by Epiphanius and St. Austin whereas they did not only not put down any such Hereticks but one of them puts down Pelagius for one because he taught the contrary Now if you speak of this Custom going downward until the Age in which it began to be denied by Roman Catholicks the Custom of Communicating Infants hath come down with such a full Stream that it drew all Countries in many Ages with it insomuch that every where but among a few late born Romanists the Pontificals the Books of Sacraments the Liturgies Eastern and Western all the Ritualists all the Books of Ecclesiastical Discipline P. 407. and even the Canon Law bears witness of it There was not a Country which abounded not with such Monuments and such Records the very strongest Proofs of assured Antiquity and unquestionable Tradition Thus I hope I have made good that Tradition shining in perpetual Practice from St. Cyprian to Pope Paschal the Second is a sure Relater of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church touching Communicating Infants whence you may clearly see that the Trent Council hath manifestly erred in this Matter and consequently was not Infallible for if they could be actually false in a Point so universally current they might bear Witness in many other Matters to false Doctrine and deny due Approbation to the true P. 196. L. 1. contr Crescon c. 33. Sixthly Hence we may learn how failly Mr. M. citeth St. Austin to prove That nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonical Scriptures to prove that Infants ought to be baptized for is it possible That he who held it so manifest from Scripture that they ought to receive that Sacrament to which De peccat Merit l. 2. c. 27. saith he no Man hath right to come who is not first baptized should think there was no certain Proof from Scripture of their right to Baptism Moreover how often doth he prove their right to Baptism from that Passage of St. John Except he be born again of Water De peccat Merit l 1.