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
A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS PART I. Imprimatur Liber cui titulus A Treatise of Traditions Part I. June 5. 1688. Guil. Needham R R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sacr. Domest A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS PART I. Where it is proved That we have Evidence sufficient from TRADITION I. That the Scriptures are the Word of God. II. That the Church of England owns the true Canon of the Books of the Old Testament III. That the Copies of the Scripture have not been corrupted IV. That the Romanists have no such Evidence for their Traditions V. That the Testimony of the present Church of Rome can be no sure Evidence of Apostolical Tradition VI. What Traditions may securely be relyed upon and what not LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan in Ave-Mary Lane MDCLXXXVIII THE PREFACE The Contents This Proposition That the Doctrines and pretended Traditions of the Western Church could not be introduced by her Members in following Ages but must be derived to them from the Fountain of Tradition is proved false 1. By plain Instances of matters of Fact § 1. 2ly From the false Doctrines and Traditions which generally obtained in the Jewish Church § 2. 3ly From the Prediction of a general Defection from the Faith in the times of Antichrist § 3. 4ly Because this Assertion doth oblige us to account the Fathers of the primitive Ages either Knaves or Fools § 4. 5ly Because it renders all our Search into Antiquity not only superfluous but dangerous § 5. Corruptions in Doctrine or Practice might take their Rise 1st From Mistakes touching the Sence of Scripture § 6. 2ly By leaving of the Scripture and setting up the Fathers as the Rule of Faith § 7. 3ly By flying to Miracles and Visions for the establishment of Doctrines and Opinions § 8. 4ly By reason of the great Authority and Reputation of those Men who first began or else gave Countenance unto them § 9. 5ly By reason of the corrupt Manners of the Clergy § 10. 6ly By reason of the great Ignorance both of the Clergy and the People § 11. 7ly By reason of the Violence and Persecution used to force Men to a Compliance with the prevailing Doctrines or a concealment of their Sentiments to the contrary § 12. This Corruption confessed by the Writers of the dark Ages of the Church § 13. THAT which the Romanists of late have chiefly urged in favour of their present Doctrines and Traditions is That the Traditions which they now embrace as such the Doctrines which they own as Articles of Christian Faith could never have obtained such Credit in the Church or been so generally received throughout the Western Churches as they were before the Reformation had they not been from the Beginning handed down to them as Apostolical Traditions and Doctrines received by the Universal Church of Christ Now the Vanity and Falshood of this Presumption is here shewed by many Instances of plain matter of Fact § 1 demonstrating that what they of Rome at present hold for Apostolical Tradition or as an Article of Christian Faith was generally rejected in former Ages by the whole Church of Christ or at the least by the prevailing and the major part of her Church Guides And whereas it is represented by them as a thing impossible That the Western Church or the prevailing Body of it should in one Age imbrace what they in the foregoing did reject or in this Age reject what in the former they embraced Examples are produced here demonstrating that this hath actually happened in the Instance of eating things strangled and Blood Chap. 2. §. 6. which the whole Western Church abominated in the Eleventh Century and yet did practise in the Twelfth and following Ages In the Instance of the immaculate Conception denyed by the Western Church till the Thirteenth Century Ibid. §. 9. and almost generally received in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries In the Instance of the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament in which the Learned of the Western Church accorded with us in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries Chap. 3. §. 2.11 and yet did Anathematize our Doctrine in the Sixteenth In the Instance of the Angels falling in love with Women Chap. 12. §. 8. asserted generally in the first Four Centuries and rejected in the Fifth to omit many other Instances sufficient to convince us that what the Romanists so confidently offer to prove their Church could not be guilty of such Innovations is only like to the Attempt of Zeno to prove against plain matter of Fact that there could be no Motion But for the farther manifestation of the Vanity of this new way of Arguing a facto ad jus from what they do at present practise and believe to what they ought to do and practise or from their present Faith to an Assurance that the same Faith was always held in all preceeding Ages of the Church I shall First Shew the evil and pernicious Consequences of this way of arguing Secondly I shall point out the Ways and Methods by which these Doctrines and Practices might have prevailed in the Church and yet be nothing less than Apostolical or truly Primitive The evil Consequences of this way of Arguing are First § 2 That it gives the Jews a great Advantage against the Truth and certainty of Christian Faith for they might have then argued and still may with as much Plausibility against our Lord 's Disciples and the first Christian Converts from this very Topick as do the Romanists against the Protestants For might they not say of the very Doctrines and Traditions which they had generally received at our Saviour 's Advent and which he did so peremptorily condemn and caution his Disciples to beware of That they received them from their Fore-Fathers who received them from theirs and who must either have joined in mistaking their Ancestors or in intending to deceive their Posterity of which two things neither is credible Might not they say That the Traditions which they had then embraced were derived from Moses and that their Fore-Fathers handed them down from him to them and that the then present general Reception of them was a sufficient Evidence that they were not Inventions of that or any of the preceeding Ages but Doctrines and Practices derived to them from the first Fountain of Tradition Might they not have asked in what Year and Age those false Traditions and Doctrines entered first among them and whether then their whole Church must not have conspired to tell a lye Might they not have bid them consider the Notoriousness of the Lye and the Damage ensuing from it to themselves and their dearest Pledges and how rare a thing it is to find a Man much less a considerable Number of them who would venture upon such a Wickedness Might they not have added that their Church and People were scattered about almost through every Nation
those Guides of Souls he had set over them Did all our Pastors fall asleep at once or could they all conspire to deceive Posterity Thirdly R. H. The Guide of Controversies cannot be ignorant That as he says God then permitted the Sanhedrim to be the greatest Enemies of Truth for the Accomplishment of the Prophecies of the Old Testament so do we also say That God permitted these pernicious Doctrines to obtain in the Church of Rome for the Accomplishment of those Prophecies of the New Testament touching a great and almost general Apostacy which was to happen in the Days of the great Antichrist and in the time when all Tongues and Nations were to worship the Beast Now hence ariseth a Second Demonstration of the Falshood of this vain Presumption § 3 That no such Change can happen in the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Christ as we pretend to for the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Confessions of many learned Catholicks assure us that this shall actually happen in the times of Antichrist and what will then become of all the pretended Demonstrations That this cannot happen or can never happen And First Rev. xj 7-xij 6. The Scripture speaks expresly of the Slaughter of the Two Witnesses the Flight of the Women into the Desart and of the Worship which the whole World shall pay unto the Beast Where note That the Witnesses which represent the Church or her true Pastors are but Two and they at last are slain and that the Dominion of Antichrist is represented as over all Kingdoms Tongues and Nations and he is said to cause the Earth Chap. xiij 7 v. 16. and him that dwells therein to worship him and both small and great rich and poor bond and free to receive his Mark. The Fathers also assert that the Apostacy will then be so great Basil Ep. 71. p. 115. That the Lord will seem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wholly to have left his Churches That there shall be then Totius mundi seductio Hippol. de Consum mundi p. 4. a Seduction of the whole World That Cuncti accedent P. 41. atque adorabunt eum all shall come and worship the Beast That the Saints shall hide themselves P. 43 49 59. in montibus speluncis cavernis Terrae in the mountains dens and caverns of the Earth That all shall fall off from God and believe that Impostor That there shall be nec oblatio P. 48. nec suffitus nec cultus Deo gratus neither Oblation nor Incense nor any Worship acceptable to God no Eucharist no Liturgy no singing of Psalms or reading of the Scripture That there shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Tom 3. Ep. 63. p. 937. Hieron in Sophon c. 2. f. 97. F. a general Apostacy That Regnante Antichristo redigenda sit Ecclesia in solitudinem in the Reign of Antichrist the Church will be brought to Solitude so that Christ coming shall scarce find Faith upon the Earth That in the time of Antichrist ecclesia non apparebit Aust Ep. 80. ad Hesyc p. 364. the Church shall not appear being eclipsed by the Persecutions of ungodly Men That Men shall ask whether the Gospel doth any where continue upon Earth Ephr. Syr. de consum Sâ—eculi Antichristo Col. An. 1603. p. 219. responsumque iri nusquam and it shall be answered no where And in this Assertion the Fathers are generally followed by the Romish Doctors De Pontif. Rom. l. 3. c. 7. §. denique let one Bellarmine speak for them all saying that Daniel plainly saith That in the times of Antichrist by reason of the Severity of Persecutions the publick and daily Sacrifice of the Church shall cease ubi omnium consensu loquitur de tempore Antichristi where by the consent of all he speaketh of the time of Antichrist This being then so clear a Revelation or Prediction of the Holy Ghost and our great Prophet must some time or other happen or both our Saviour and the Holy Spirit must be charged with lying Prophecies And being so unanimously and without controll delivered by the Holy Fathers the constant Tradition and the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ throughout all those Ages must be a constant Refutation of this idle Dream and their Pretences to Tradition must evidently be confuted by Tradition Thirdly § 4 This Method and Proceeding of the Romanists for finding out and judging of primitive Doctrines and Traditions were it admitted would force us to condemn the Writers of the Church from the beginning to the Tenth Twelfth or Fourteenth Centuries as the worst of Fools or Knaves for seeing it is manifest from their plain Words produced in great Plenty throughout those Ages that they speak as plainly in Condemnation of the Latin Service Communion in one Kind the Veneration of Images the Seven Sacraments the Trent Canon of the Books of the Old Testament and of many other Articles of Romish Faith which they pretend to have received from Tradition as any Protestant can do either they must have spoken all these things unwittingly for want of knowledge of what the Church maintained to the contrary throughout those Ages and then it cannot be avoided but they must pass for the most ignorant of Men and such as did not know the necessary Articles of Christian Faith received in their Times or else they must have taught and conveyed to Posterity those things against their Knowledge and the conviction of their Consciences and then it cannot be denied but that they were the worst of Knaves and whichsoever of these things be said it cannot be denied but they of all Men were the most unfit to convey down Tradition to Posterity For to render any Person a credible Testator or Witness of the Churches Faith and Practice Two things seem absolutely necessary 1. That he should have sufficient Knowledge of the Truth of what he testifies And 2ly That he should have Honesty sufficient to assure us that he would not wittingly deceive us in his Testimony for if we have just Reason to suspect either his want of Knowledge or Sincerity we must have reason to suspect his Testimony So that if either such Simplicity and Folly or such apparent Knavery as hath been mentioned can justly be imputed to the Authors of the Testimonies cited against the Doctrines fornamed of the Church of Rome it is extreamly manifest we have just Reason to suspect the Truth of all they might deliver to future Ages either as Doctrines or Practices received from their Predecessors Fourthly § 5 This Method of proceeding must render it a vain and fruitless thing to search into Antiquity to find what was the Doctrine of preceeding Ages Sexta nota est conspiratio in doctrina cum ecclesia antiqua De notis Eccles cap. 9. Bellarm. de eccl milit l. 4 c. 9. and consequently it must assure us that the Church of Rome doth
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
in the Church and then this Council reckons up the Canonical Books as we do leaving out of their account those which we call Apocryphal Now this Canon being received into the Codex Canonum-Ecclesiae universalis or the Code of the Canons received by the whole Church it must have the force of an Oecumenical Synod and give us the concurring judgment of the whole Church of God on our side And yet for farther confirmation of this matter let these few things be noted First That these Fathers generally say § 6 they deliver these Catalogues as they received them by Tradition and as they were delivered to them by the Fathers and as they were received by the whole Church of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanasius in his Pascal Epistle speaks thus Because some dare to mix Apocryphal Books with the divine Scriptures of which we are fully assured from the Tradition of them to the Fathers by them who were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word It seemed good to me being exhorted to it by the Orthodox Brethren and having learnt them from the beginning in order to declare which are the Canonical Books delivered as such by Tradition and believed to be of divine Inspiration St. Hilary saith Prolog Expla in Psalmos That they were thus computed secundum Traditiones veterum according to the Traditions of the Ancients These saith St. Cyril are the Books you learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church and which we read publickly in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. 4. p. 37. The Apostles and the ancient Bishops and Governors of the Church who delivered these as the Canonical Books were much wiser than you thou therefore being a Son of the Church do not transgress her Laws or go beyond her Rules Quae secundum majorum Traditionem Ecclesiis Christitradita What are the Volumes of the Old and the New Testament which according to the Tradition of the Ancients are believed to be inspired by the Holy Ghost and delivered to the Churches of Christ It seems convenient saith Russinus here evidently to declare as we have received them from the Monuments of the Fathers and having reckoned up the Books of the Old Testament proceeding to the Books of the New Testament he adds Haec nobis a patribus tradita sunt Apud Hieron Tom. 4. f. 51. a. These are the Books which the Father 's comprized in the Canon these things are delivered to us by the Fathers Note § 7 Secondly That of the Books which we reject and call Apocryphal they also teach that as such they were rejected by the Church that though the Church permitted them to be read yet did she not receive them into the Catalogue of the Holy Scriptures or use them to confirm any Article of Christian Faith and that they spake of them as Books without the Canon Thus Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle saith That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for more exactness sake Apud Balsam p. 921. I add this necessary advertisement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That besides these Books of the Old and New Testament now mentioned as divine Scripture there be other Books which are not put into the Canon which are yet appointed by the Fathers to be read to those who first come to be Catechized in the way of Piety to wit The Wisdom of Solomon the Wisdom of Syrach and Esther and Judith and Tobias and the Book called the Doctrine of the Apostles and Pastor these are read and not to be despised the others are put into the Canon Tom 2. p. 58 59. The very same words he repeats in his Compendium of the Holy Scripture where also afterwards he reckons the Four Books of Macchabees and the History of Susanna among the Books contradicted Baruch and the additions to Daniel among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament Catech. 4. p. 38. St. Cyril having cited the Canon we receive as that which was delivered to the Church by the Apostles and ancient Governors of the Church adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all the rest which are extro-canonical be placed in a second Order Gregory Nazianzen having given an account of Twenty two Books of the Old Testament saith You have them all Ubi Supra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that all besides them are not Genuine After his Catalogue delivered from the Tradition of the Fathers Sunt alii libri non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati Quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesia voluerunt non tamen proferriad authoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam Apud Hieron Tom. 4. f. 51. Ruffinus saith You must know that there be other Books which are not Canonical but called by our Ancestors Ecclesiastical as the Wisdom of Solomon the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach Tobit Judith and the Books of Macchabees which they were willing to have read in the Church but not to have produced to confirm Doctrines of Faith the rest they called Apocryphal and would not have read in the Church These things are delivered to us by the Fathers Praefat. in librum Regum Tom 3. f. 6. St. Jerom saith he made his Catalogue ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum that we might know that all besides these Twenty two are to be deemed Apocryphal He adds Praef. in Esdr Neh. ibid. f. 7 8. That the Books which are not received by the Hebrews are to be rejected by us Christians and that the Church indeed Reads them but receives them not into the Canons Note Thirdly § 8 That they declare not only that these are the Books received into the Canon by the Jews but by the Christians also that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synops Tom. 2. p. 55. the entire Scripture of us Christians saith Athanasius All the Books delivered by the Apostles and ancient Governors of the Church and by the Church to others saith St. Cyril Ubi Supra All the Books delivered to the Church of Christ saith Ruffinus That as for others which we stile Apocryphal Ecclesia nescit Apocrypha Tom. 3. f. 7. a. f. 9. a. the Church owns them not Ecclesia inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit The Church receives them not among the Canonical Scriptures saith St. Jerom. Note Fourthly § 9 That they declare that they made this Enumeration of these Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of necessity to prevent mistakes in this Matter and for the good of the Church and that Men might know out of what Fountains they were to draw the Waters of Life Having made mention of the Hereticks saith Athanasius as of Dead persons Apud Balsam p. 920 921. and of our selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having the Holy Scriptures for Life and because I fear least some harmless Men through their Simplicity and Ignorance may be deceived by
the subtile Craftiness of Men and being deceived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the ambiguity of the word true Books which signifies either only such as are read in the Church or such as also are put into the Canon may begin to be conversant in others therefore I intreat you to bear with me if by way of remembrance I write of those things which you know already because of the necessity of so doing and the Benefit of it to the Church Amphilochius and Nazianzen say Ubi Supra It behoves the Christian to learn this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Book is not safe which has the venerable Name of Scripture for some are False and Adulterate some of a middle Nature and some Canonical and therefore say they will we number every one of the inspired Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you may clearly learn which they are These saith Ruffinus are the Traditions of the Fathers touching the Canonical Books Ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi Ecclesiae ac fidei Elementa suscipiunt ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi dei haurienda sunt pocula Apud Hieron Tom. 4. f. 51. those are the Books which are read in the Church though not Canonical nor sufficient to confirm any Doctrine of Faith and the other are Apocryphal Scriptures which she would not have read and these things I thought fit in this place to signifie for the instruction of those who receive the first Rudiments of Faith Ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum Tom. 3. f 6. a. that they may know out of what Fountains they must receive the word of God. This Catalogue I have made saith Jerom that you may be able to know that the rest are Apocryphal Note § 10 Fithly That they represent these as the Fountains of Salvation which are diligently to be read and studied by all and as for the rest some of them say that though they were read in the Church not for confirmation of Faith but instruction of Manners yet private Persons should not read them Thus Athanasius having given us the Protestants Canon both of the Old and New Testament he adds These are the Fountains of Salvation so that he who thirsteth let him be satiated with the Oracles contained in them Apud Balsam p. 922. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these alone is contained the Doctrine of Godliness let no Man add any thing to them nor take any thing from them of these our Lord spake when he said to the Pharisees You erre not knowing the Scriptures and when he exhorted the Jews to search the Scriptures P. 36 37. Learn of the Church saith Cyril to his Catechumen which are the Books of the Old and the New Testament and read none of the Apocrypha for why shouldst thou trouble thy self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about controverted Books who knowest not those which are by all acknowledged read these Twenty two Books of the Old Testament study them only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and have nothing to do with the Apocrypha and having given us the same Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament excepting only the Revelations he saith Whatsoever is not read in the Church do not thou read St. Jerom in his Epistle to Paulinus having reckoned up the Books of the Old and the New Testament as we do saving that he saith The Epistle to the Hebrews is by many not reckoned as St. Paul 's saith I intreat thee dear Brother Tom. 3. f. 3. b. to be conversant among these to meditate of them nihil aliud nosse nihil quaerere to know to enquire after nothing else In his Epistle to Laeta touching the Education of her Daughter he gives this Admonition let her shun all Apocryphal Books Caveat omnia Apocrypha c. Tom. 1. f. 21. and if at any time she will read them not for the truth of Doctrine but for Reverence of the Signs let her know they are not their Books whose Titles they bear that there be many ill things in them that it requireth great Wisdom to seek Gold among Dirt. Thus have we in one Century Eusebius of Caesarea the Metropolis of Palaestine Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem § 11 Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium the Metropolis of Lycaonia Nazianzen and St. Basil in Cappadocia Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Ruffinus Priest of Aquileia in Italy Hilary of Poictiers in France Jerom who lived in Rome France Dalmatia Syria Palaestine who travelled into Cyprus Aegypt Alexandria conversed with all the learned Persons of his Age and lastly the Council of Laodicea received generally through the Christian World deposing their plain Testimonies for the Canon of the Old Testament received by Protestants and as unanimously condemning that of the Trent Council since owned by the Church of Rome And confident I am that the greatest searchers into Ecclesiastical Antiquity cannot produce one Council nor one Testimony of any Father throughout these Four Centuries who purposely treating of or declaring the exact number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament doth not either expresly exclude or at least omit all or most of all those Books which we stile Apocryphal and which by the New Canon made at Trent Sess 4. are pronounced Canonical and that with an Anathema to every Christian who pro sacris Canonicis non susceperit receives them not as Sacred and Canonical And if all this be not sufficient whosoever will peruse Doctor Cousin's Canon of Scripture will find the same Tradition still continued to future Ages And that the number of the Books of the Old Testament were either expresly or equivalently declared to be those and those only which we receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 4. in Gen. p. 20. For Century the Fifth St. Chrysostom lays it down as a thing confessed by lla that all the divine Books of the Old Testament were from the beginning writ in the Hebrew Tongue Theodoret twice mentions the sacred and saving Scriptures of the Old Testament In Cant. Cantic p. 985 1077. Cous p. 132. P. 142. P. 145. P. 151 152. P. 154. P. 158 159 161 163. without addition of one of the Apocryphal The number of them is declared to be Twenty two Century the Sixth by Anastasius in the Seventh Century by Isidore in the Eighth Century by Damasus in the Ninth Century by Nicephorus and Agobardus in the Eleventh Century by Giselbertus in the Twelfth Century by Hugo de Sancto Victore Richardus de Sancto Victore by Petrus Comestor John Belith and by John of Salisbury P. 166. P. 174 178. P. 179 188 192 197. in the Thirteenth Century by the Ordinary Gloss in the Fourteenth Century by Nicephorus Calistus and Joannes Armachanus in the Fifteenth Century by Thomas Waldensis Dionysius Carthusianus and Erasmus Others numbring Ruth and Lamentations as Two Books distinct from Judges and Jeremy Prol. Gal. in
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
being not writ by Paul. Now who they were who in this Century did upon this account reject it we learn more plainly from the Writers of the following Century For Eusebius informs us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. even in his time some of the Romans did reject it as being none of the Apostles Upon which place Valesius notes That it was the Custom of Eusebius to call all the Latins Romans and observes that Ruffinus thus Interprets this very passage Scio apud Latinos de ea quae ad Hebraeos inscribitur haberi dubitationem L. 3. c. 3. I know that the Latins doubt of the Epistle to the Hebrews The same Eusebius informs us Ep. ad Dard. Ep. Tom. 3. f. 24. a. that others did reject it with the Roman Church St. Jerom frequently affirms That eam Latina consuetudo non recipit the Latin Church did not receive it among the Canonical Scriptures Here then we see that they rejected for Two Centuries what afterwards they did unanimously receive as part of the Canon of the New Testament and so her Judgment alone can give us no assurance of the Books of the New Testament because through two whole Centuries she actually erred in her Judgment of them Hence also I inferr that the Church of Christ knew of no Obligation laid upon her in a division of Church Rulers touching any matter Exhort ad Martyr p. 232. to adhere to the Pope and Church of Rome and those which sided with them For in this very Case Origen in the Third Century offers to demonstrate against her that this was truly the Epistle of St. Paul And Jerom bluntly says Although the Latins do reject it yet do I receive it Tom. 3. f. 24. with the Greeks nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem sed veterum Scriptorum authoritatem sequens not following the Custom of this time among the Latins but the Authority of ancient Writers Fourthly I add § 17 That there is not the like necessity that any of these controverted Books should be received from the beginning by all Christians as Canonical as that the necessary Articles of Christian Faith and Manners should be received by all Christians For 1. The necessary Articles of Christian Faith and Rules of Christian Life were preached universally to all and so there was no time when any Christian could be ignorant of them without his own fault but the Epistles controverted were only sent to private Christians as the Second and Third Epistles of St. John or to the Churches of the Jews and therefore might with reason for some time be doubted of by other Churches of the Gentiles this being not a weakening but confirmation of our Faith that the first Christians were so careful to see sufficient Evidence before they would receive even the least Epistle into the Canon of the Scripture 2. No Christian Church could need to be told by any other what were the necessary Articles of Christian Faith or Rules of Life since they must always know the Christian Faith and be obliged to practise the Rules of Christian Piety and must be taught them by their Church Guides but 't is not thus with reference to these Epistles for being writ to a particular Society of Christians it was sufficient that this Society could shew De praescript c. 36. as saith Tertullian Authenticas literas corum the Authentick Letters of those Apostles which indited them and could testifie to those who doubted as St. Austin saith De Doctrin Christian l. 2. c. 8. quod ab ipsis Epistolas accipere meruerunt that they received these Epistles from them and read and owned them as their genuine Works when-ever this was done they who before did question them must have sufficient ground to own them as parts of the true Canon and till they had this Evidence they reasonably might continue to doubt of them 3. It is evident from the second Observation that the assured knowledge that these Epistles are Canonical cannot be necessary to Salvation the necessary Doctrines of Christian Faith being according to the general Tradition of the whole Church of Christ Chap. 7. §. 4 5 6 c. Ibid. § 2 3. comprised in the Apostles Creed and all the necessary Rules of Christian Piety being according to the same Tradition fully comprised in the Four Evangelists whereas the actual knowledge of all necessary Articles of Christian Faith and Rules of Christian Conversation must be always necessary there being no possibility of knowing or of doing acceptably the Will of God without them It will not therefore follow because such matters of Fact may for a time be doubtful in the Church matters of Faith may be so that because Churches may be Orthodox and reject some part of the Canon for a Season they may be Orthodox though they reject some necessary Article of Christian Faith. The Romanist I hope will not admit of these Conclusions The Greek Church might reject the Apocalypse and yet be Orthodox ergo she might reject the Trinity and yet be Orthodox The Latin Churches for a Season might reject the Epistle to the Hebrews without blame ergo they might reject the Resurrection of the Body without blame The whole Church did not formerly receive those Books into the Canon of the New Testament she now receives Ergo the whole Church did not formerly embrace those Articles of Faith which now she holds and yet all these conclusions are as good as those the Roman Doctors usually make for receiving all the Articles of Faith imposed at present by the Church of Rome as the Conditions of Communion upon her Testimony that they are such because we do receive the Canon of the New Testament from the Tradition of the Church Fifthly We shall see cause sufficient to embrace as certain § 18 and unquestionable that Canon of the New Testament we now receive notwithstanding any doubts some of the Ancients had touching some lesser portions of it if we consider 1. That most of the Fathers of the Fourth Century who give us Catalogues of the Scripture Canon and they especially who tell us they in making of it followed the suffrage of the Church and the Tradition of the Fathers do accord in giving of that very Catalogue we now receive and owning all those Catholick Epistles which were sometime controverted thus for instance Apud Balsamon p. 922. Athanasius reckoneth the Books of the New Testament as we do numbering as appertaining to the Canon Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul Seven Catholick Epistles and the Apocalypse and saying These are the Fountains of Salvation let no man add unto them or take from them And yet he doth profess to reckon them as they delivered them who were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word and as they by Tradition came down to him In his Synopsis he undertakes to reckon up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Canonical Books of the New Testament defined to be such
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
this Revelation to an unknown Presbyter whose Name was John rather than to that Apostle who conversed so long among these Churches they may be easily confuted from this peculiar description of that John who was the Author of this Book Rev. i. 9. he being that John who was banished into the Isle of Patmos for the Word of God Vers 2. and the Testimony of the Truth and who bare record of the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ and of all things which he saw which are peculiar to this Apostle of our Lord. 2. § 20 St. Jerom also had good reason to own the Epistle to the Hebrews to be written or at the least composed or indited by St. Paul on the Authority of the Ancient Writers Apud Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 3. Sect. 12 17 36 43. L. 3 c. 38. Catalo Script verbo Paulus Pag. 247 439. Pag. 53 362 384 514 515 645. Lib. 3. p. 143. Lib. 7. p. 351. Philocal p 10 17. Dial. contra Marc. p. 114. Ep. ad Afric p 232. Seeing as Origen informs us the ancient Christians did not rashly when they delivered it as the Epistle of St. Paul and as Eusebius saith Saint Paul's Fourteen Epistles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 known and manifest to the whole Christian World. We find it very often cited by Clemens Romanus the Companion and co-worker of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth in which as Eusebius and St. Jerome Note he hath put many notions which are in that Epistle and used many Expressions word for word taken thence In the Second Century it is cited by Irenaeus as a Book written by the Spirit of God and in the close of that Century or the beginning of the next it is Six times cited by Clemens Alexandrinus under the Name of the Apostle Paul or of Divine Scripture Origen saith That the Apostle Paul writ Fourteen Epistles he cites it as the Epistle of St. Paul in his Third and Seventh Book against Celsus in his Philocalia in his Dialogue against Marcian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom in his Epistle to Africanus he undertakes to demonstrate that it was his against such as doubted of it and in his Fifth Tome upon John he declares That the things contained in it are admirable Vid. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. and no whit inserior to those which were confessedly writ by the Apostles and that whatsoever Church received it as such was upon that account to be commended That this is the Epistle of St. Paul was in the Fourth Century denyed by the Arians because they were not able to resist the Conviction it affords in the First Chapter of our Lord's Divinity On which account Theodoret speaks thus Proem in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They ought at least to revere the length of time in which the Children of the Church have read this Epistle in the Churches for from the time that the Churches of God have enjoyed the writings of the Apostles they have reaped the Benefit of this Epistle to the Hebrews or if this be not sufficient to perswade them they should hearken to Eusebius of whom they boast as of the Patron of their Doctrines for he confessed this was St. Paul's Epistle Proem in Ep. ad Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he declared that all the Ancients had the same Opinion of it That they of Rome and other Latins did for a while reject this Epistle will not much weaken this Tradition if we consider 1. That this Epistle was not writ to them but to the Hebrews who as we are informed by Eusebius Embraced it with delight 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. That it was rejected by them not that they had any thing to say against it but because they could not answer the Arguments which the Novatian Schismaticks among them produced from the Sixth and Tenth Chapter of this Epistle against receiving lapsed Penitents into the Church whence as Philastrius informs us they rejected it Haer. 88. as thinking it was depraved by the Hereticks or 3. Because it wants his Name which he concealed saith Jerom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catal. Script Eccl. verbo Paulus because his Name would render it less acceptable to the Hebrew Converts who were offended at his Doctrine of the Exemption of the Gentile Converts from Circumcision and the Observation of the Law saith Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proem in Ep. ad Hebr. because he was made an Apostle not of the Circumcision but of the Gentiles 4. Because it differs in stile from the rest of his Epistles as indeed it ought to do being writ to the Hebrews accustomed to the Hellenistick Stile but of this the Ancients give this double reason That it was writ by St. Paul in Hebrew translated by others into Greek or because St. Clemens Barnabas or St. Luke did Ibid. Apud Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. sententias Pauli proprio ornare sermone write down the the Sentences of Paul in their own Words saith Jerom and gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Phrase and the Contexture saith Origen to to the things spoken by St. Paul. The Second and Third Epistles of Saint John § 21 and that of Jude are so short that it is needless to insist upon it that the Second Epistle of Saint John is cited by Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus in the Second L. 1. c. 13. p. 94. Strom. 2. De carne Christi c. 24. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 24. Apud Cypr. p. 242. De cultu foeminar p. 151. by Tertullian Dionysius of Alexandria and the Council of Carthage in the Third Century and the Epistle of Jude under his Name by Tertullian Concerning the Epistle of St. James the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude let it be noted in the general that Eusebus informs us they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. Petrus duabus Epistolarum suarum personat tubis Jacobus quoque Judas f. 156. know to most of the Ancients That they are all expresly owned by Origen in his Seventh Honily upon Joshua Of the Epistle of Jude in particular St. Jerom saith That though it was rejected for a while because it cited a passage from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch Catal. Script Eccl. verbo Judas tamen authoritatem vetustate jam usu meruit inter sanctas Scripturas computatur it deserved Authority from its Antiquity and constant use in the Church and is reckoned among the holy Scriptures Sect. 10 12 17 30. Sess 5. The Catholick Epistle of James is cited by Clemens Romanus four several times by Ignatius in his Genuine Epistle to the Ephesians by Origen in his Thirteenth Homily upon Genesis Lib. 3. c. 25. Lib. 2. c. 22. Eusebius saith It was known to most and publickly read in
by Jew and Gentile Heretick and Orthodox even in those times in which and in those places where they first appeared and by those Persons who immediately before received others as the true and genuine Copies of the Word of God. Lastly § 14 That these Records of the Will of God have not been so corrupted as to cease to be a certain Rule of Faith and Manners we argue from the Providence of God inducing us to judge that the Books thus delivered to us by the Church as genuine are truly so for nothing seems more inconsistent with divine Wisdom and Goodness than to inspire his Servants to write the Scripture as a Rule of Faith and Manners for all future Ages and to require the Belief of the Doctrines the practice of the Rules of Life plainly contained in it and yet to suffer this divinely inspired Rule to be insensibly corrupted in things necessary to Faith or Practice who can imagine that God who sent his Son out of his Bosom to declare this Doctrine and his Apostles by the Assistance of the Holy Spirit to indite and preach it and by so many Miracles confirm it to the World should suffer any wicked Persons to corrupt and alter any of those terms on which the Happiness and Welfare of Mankind depended This sure can be conceived Rational by none but such as think it not absurd to say That God repented of his good Will and Kindness to Mankind in the vouchsafing of the Gospel to them That he so far maligned the good of future Generations that he suffered wicked Men to rob them of all the benefit intended to them by this Declaration of his Will. For since those very Scriptures which have been received for the Word of God and used by the Church as such from the first Ages of it pretend to be the terms of our Salvation Scriptures indited by Men commissionated from Christ and such as did avouch themselves Apostles by the Will of God and his Command for the delivery of the Faith of Gods Elect and for the knowledge of the Truth which is after Godliness in hopes of Life eternal they must be what they do pretend to be the Word of God or Providence must have permitted such a Forgery as rendereth it impossible for us to perform our Duty in order to Salvation for if the Scripture of the New Testament should be corrupted in any essential requisite of Faith or Manners it must cease to make us wise unto Salvation and so God must have lost the end which he intended in inditing of it Again when we consider that in the Jewish Church the Scriptures were until the coming of Christ in very corrupt Times and amongst very corrupt Persons preserved so entire that Christ sends the Jews to them to learn Religion declares that they have Moses and the Prophets and both our Lord and his Disciples confuted and instructed the Scribes and Pharisees and Jews out of them without the least intimation of any corruption that had happened to them we have still greater reason to judge the New Testament sincere since we cannot rationally suppose Providence less careful of the New Testament than of the Old. If against this Argument it be Objected Object that we find by the Citations of the Ancients and by Old Manuscripts that there was a difference betwixt their Copies of the Scripture and those we now use I answer 1. That this is no certain Argument of any such difference seeing the Citation of the Ancients might differ thus by the failure of their Memory it being frequently their Custom to cite the Scriptures from their Memory without inspection of the Book moreover we find by Ocular Demonstration that these various Lectures make no considerable variation in matters of Faith or Manners or if one Text which asserts a substantial Doctrine be variously read so that the matter is thence dubious there are others which assert it without that Variety If then no Writing whilst the Apostles lived could pass for Apostolical and yet destroy or contradict the Faith they taught if their immediate Successors could not be ignorant of what the Apostles committed to them to be read and taught us the Records of their Faith and Doctrine nor would they be induced to deliver that for such which they believed not to be so if neither they could universally conspire to effect this thing nor can it rationally be thought that Providence would suffer them to do so 'T is morally impossible these Writings should be forged or corrupted in matters of Concern or Moment If therefore Mr. § 15 M. will make good his Assertion that they have the same means to shew that their Traditions are true that is truly descended from the Apostles that we have to shew the Copies of the Scripture which we use are not corrupted in substantials he must first own what we have proved of these Copies to be true of his Traditions viz. That they cannot be proved to be true from the Infallibility of the Church and that in any doubt concerning the Truth of them we must have recourse to the Original and Fountain of Tradition not to the Judgment of the present Age as in the proof of the true Copies all Parties are agreed that we must have recourse to Ancient Manuscripts And to the Fountains of the Greek and Hebrew Secondly He must shew what we have done touching the Scriptures concerning his pretended Traditions viz. That these Traditions were owned cited read and received as Apostolical Traditions from the Apostles Days that Jews and Heathens were acquainted with them that they were attested to by the Sufferings of the Primitive Martyrs that they were such as the Apostles desired to leave in writing and which they did so leave according to the Will of God and consequently were not oral Traditions that they were universally acknowledged and consented to by Men of different perswasions preserved in their Originals to succeeding Ages transcribed by Christians for their private and their publick use esteemed by them as their Digests and as deifying Traditions believed by all Christians to be divine and as the Records of their Hopes and Fears that they were carefully sought after and riveted in their minds and constantly rehearsed in their Assemblies by Men whose work it was to read and preach them and to exhort to the performance of those Duties they enjoined that they were frequent in the Writings and often cited in the Confessions and Apologies the Comments Homilies Discourses and Epistles of the Ancient Worthies as also in the Objections of their Adversaries to whose view they still lay open And lastly he must prove they were Traditions which the good Providence of God was as much concerned to keep entire and uncorrupt as to preserve those Scriptures so which by the Will of God were written to be the Pillar and Foundation of the Christian Faith and when we see this task performed we shall be more enclined to admit of the pretended Traditions
be observed by Christians the day of Rest enjoined in the Fourth Commandment must be abolished which was the thing to be proved Thirdly § 12 This will be still more evident from those words of the same Apostle to the Colossians affirming Argum. 3 2 Coloss xiv 16 17. That Christ had blotted out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was contrary to us and had taken it out of the way nailing it to his Cross and making thence this Inference Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an holy day or of the New Moons or of the Sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ Where Note 1st That the hand-writing of Ordinances respecteth Ceremonial Orders for of them only can it be truly said That they were against us and were contrary to us as being Yokes of Bondage and Burthens grievous to be born that they were blotted out and cancelled and nailed to the Cross of Christ and that they were shadows of or shadows in respect of things to come 2dly When it is said Let no Man judge you in respect of these things the meaning clearly is Let no Man censure or condemn the Christian for not observing these New Moons Feasts or Sabbaths Hence then these Arguments result First No Man ought to condemn the Christian for not observing of the Jewish Sabbath because that Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of ceremonial Ordinances which was against them therefore the Jewish Sabbath was a ceremonial Ordinance therefore 't is blotted out therefore the Christian is not obliged to observe it That which is joined with Meats and Drinks and with New Moons which are things confessedly Ceremonial no difference at all being observed by the Apostle as to their being named hand-writings things cancelled shadows or the like that must be ceremonial that which is a shadow of or in respect of things to come of which Christ by his Advent exhibited the Body that must be ceremonial that must be cancelled and abolished by Christ therefore the Jewish Sabbath must be abolished as being only ceremonial The Answers which the Sabbatarians return to this last Argument are these 1st Answer 1 That the Apostle meaneth here by Sabbaths not the weekly Sabbath of the Jews but the first and last days of the great Jewish Feasts which were by them observed as Sabbaths and are in Scripture sometimes stiled by that Name 1. Reply The Apostle having said before Let no Man condemn you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not observing of the Jewish Festivals or any part thereof cannot be rationally supposed in the word Sabbaths following to forbid only the same thing 2. In the New Testament the word Sabbath or Sabbaths is used above sixty times and in Fifty six of those places it doth unquestionably signifie the Jewish weekly Sabbath and in the other places the whole week sith then the Sabbath in the New Testament is never used for the first and last days of the Jewish Feasts but ordinarily is there used for their weekly Sabbath we ought in reason to conclude it here importeth the same thing which it is used to signifie where it is mentioned in other places by the Holy Ghost and not conceive it here importeth that which it is never used to signifie in the New Testament that is we ought to judge is signifies the seventh day Sabbath and not the solemn days of the great Jewish Feasts 3. Where-ever the word Sabbath in the Old Testament is mentioned in conjunction with New Moons or Jewish Feasts it doth import the seventh day Sabbath distinctly and separately from all others as will appear from the perusal of all the places where these things are jointly mentioned as v. g. 2 Kings iv 23. Esa i. 13. Esa lxvi 23. Lament ij 6. Ezek. xlv 17. Ezek. xlvi 1. Hos ij 11. Amos viij 5. Being then here mentioned together with New Moons and Jewish Feasts 't is reasonable to conceive it signifies the same thing 4. The Sabbath day in the Old Testament is often contradistinguished to all other solemn Feasts and more particularly to New Moons and anniversary Feasts and therefore being here mentioned with them we may presume it cannot signifie them or any portion of them but rather that it doth import that Jewish Sabbath which in other places is put in opposition to them as for Example 1 Chron. xxiij 31. 2 Chron. ij 4. xxxi 3. Neh. x. 32 33. And lastly Moses having reckoned up the solemn Feasts Leviticus the 23 he adds v. 37 38. These are the Feasts of the Lord which you shall proclaim besides the Sabbath of the Lord seeing then the word Sabbath where-ever it is used in conjunction with New Moons or Feasts in the whole Book of God doth always signifie the Jewish weekly Sabbath we cannot doubt but in conjunction with them here it signifies the same seeing the word is often put in opposition to New Moons and solemn Feasts indefinitely taken what reason have we to conceive that in this place it should be taken for any part or portion of them Some Sabbatarians tell us Answ 2 That by Sabbath here the Apostle understandeth not the weekly but the yearly Sabbaths viz. the seven Years Sabbath and the Sabbath of the Year of Jubilee But the same Observations do confute this Gloss Reply for seeing the word Sabbath in the whole New Testament doth never signifie the yearly Sabbath but still the seventh day Sabbath or the whole week since the word Sabbath when it is joined with New Moons and Feasts as here it is doth always fignifie the seventh day Sabbath this Sabbatarian Gloss must be repugnant to that Sence in which the word is used by the Holy Ghost and therefore contrary to those Rules by which we are obliged to expound the Scripture 'T is Thirdly Answered Answ 3 That the Apostle saith not as the words are rendered Let no Man judge you in respect of a Feast but as they ought to be rendered Let no Man judge you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in part of a Feast New Moon or Sabbath whence they conclude that he intends not the whole Sabbath but that part of it which consisted in offering Sacrifices and this he calls a shadow or a hand-writing of Ordinances This Quarrel at the Translation of these Words is groundless Reply for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as truly signifie on the account or on behalf or in respect as it doth signifie in part as when the same Apostle saith 2 Cor. 3.10 That which was made glorious had no glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this respect by reason of the Glory that excelleth 2 Cor. 9.3 And again I have sent the Brethren least our boasting of you should be in vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on this behalf 1 Pet. 4.16 And when Saint Peter saith If any Man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed but let him glorifie God 〈◊〉
its Observance viz. The owning the Creator of Heaven and Earth as their peculiar God in opposition to all Heathen Deities that upon this depended the performance of all the other Duties which belong to the First Table For 't was this Institution which continually brought this Fundamental Article to their Remembrance that the God they Worshipped was the Creator of the World they could not ask themselves why they thus rested but this must come into their Minds this could not come into their Minds but they must be inclined to despise all the old Heathen Deities the Sun Moon and Stars and the whole Earth as being all the Creatures of their Great Jehovah Wherefore this Precept having such strict Affinity with the other Three which were unquestionably intended to remove the Kinds the Objects the Signs and Instruments of Idolatry and keep them close to the sole Worship of the True Jehovah might very well find place among the Precepts of the Decalogue 2. Hence also may we see sufficient Reason for the strict Charge God gave for Observation of the Sabbath for the severest Punishments which he inflicted on the Violaters of it and for the Promises he made of signal Blessings to the Observers of it viz. Because the Observation of this day tended so fully to establish the great Foundation of the Law of Moses That Jehovah the Creator of the World was their God in Covenant and because it was a most effectual Bar against the Old Idolatry of the World which chiefly did consist in Worshipping the whole or else some parts of Heaven and Earth on which account we find God often mentioning these things together the keeping of the Sabbath and the fleeing from Idolatry Levit. 19.3 4. as in these words Ye shall keep my Sabbath I am the Lord your God turn you not to Idols nor make to your selves molten Gods Levit. 26.1 2. I am the Lord your God. And in these following You shall make no Idols nor graven Images nor shall you set up an Image of Stone in the Land to bow down unto it for I am the Lord your God ye shall keep my Sabbaths Lastly Because the Violation of this Law was a virtual denial of the Creation of the World and consequently of that God who made it and gave them this Temptation to Worship the Heavenly Beings that they were eternal Accordingly we find the Jews usually committing both these Sins at once Idolatry to wit and violation of the Sabbath as in those Words They polluted my Sabbaths Ezek. 20.16 for their Hearts went after their Idols and in those of the Author of the Book of Maccabees Many of the Israelites consented to the Religion of Antiochus 1 Mac. 1.43 and sacrified unto Idols and prophaned the Sabbath Since then the Observation of this Day was of so great moment for preservation of them from that Idolatry to which they were so prone and the neglect of it put them in so great danger of returning to it Surely we may discern sufficient Reason of the Severities and Promises forenamed and of the frequent Charges given for the strict Observance of it 3. Hence also may we see the plainest Reason for the non-Obligation of the seventh day Sabbath now Because that Reason of the Institution of it which concerned their Freedom from Aegyptian Bondage was peculiar to the Jews and therefore never could concern the Christian The other Reason Assigned by God that it might be a Sign between God and them that they were his peculiar People and that he was the Lord that sanctified them must also cease upon their ceasing to be his peculiar People and to have any more Relation to him as their God in Covenant Yea seeing God hath now cast off that very People to whom he gave the Sabbath for a Sign and as Josephus truly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law peculiar to that Nation and that dispensation it seems to be a kind of Judaism and as it were a virtual revolting to the Mosaick Dispensation to be still out of Conscience Observers of the Rest which was peculiar to that Law and Nation If it be here enquired Object whether the Reason of the Observation of the Seventh day assigned in the Fourth Commandment viz. Because God rested on that day doth not remain and equally concern all Christians I Answer No. For 1. Answ it seems a vulgar Error to conceive that God did chiefly and primarily command the Jews to rest upon the Seventh day in imitation of his Rest there being nothing moral or nothing in the Light of Nature which could induce them to imitate him in this matter any more than in the Work of the Six days preceeding in which God worked which was so far from laying any necessary Obligation on them to work upon those days that God himself established many other Festivals as a perpetual Ordinance in which they were obliged to cease from Labour on those Days on which he Worked Wherefore the great design of God in requiring them to Rest upon that day as he did was this that by so doing they might acknowledge as by a Sign and Pledge That they did Worship and own him as their God in Covenant who was the sole Creator of the World according to these Words of God to Moses Speak thou unto the Children of Israel saying Ex. 31.13.14 Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep for it is a sign betwixt me and you throughout your Generations that you may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctifie you You shall keep the Sabbath therefore for it is Holy unto you Wherefore the Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their Generations for a perpetual Covenant It is a sign between me and the Children of Israel for ever for in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth and on the seventh day he Rested Now hence it follows That God neither did nor could agreeably to his Design Command the Gentiles then or before to observe the seventh day in imitation of his Resting for then the doing this by his own Nation could be no sign betwixt him and the Jews that they were his peculiar People because it was according to this Supposition the common duty of all other Nations The Gentile Christians therefore never were obliged to observe this rest by virtue of the fourth Commandment and being also not obliged to it by any Precept Evangelical it cannot be in them any act of Christian Obedience but rather must be deemed the Fruit of Jewish Superstition so to do Secondly Answ 2 I add that the injunction of this Rest upon a reason which remains and which doth in the General concern all Christians will not inferr the Obligation of the Christian to observe the Rest commanded for that Reason it being very common in the Law of Moses to require the Observation of Ceremonial Precepts for Reasons which remain and which do equally concern all Christians Lev.
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
be sacred yea the whole Church preferred it before any other account of this Matter given by either Pope Council or Father For saith Cajetan as to this matter ad limam Hieronymi reducenda sunt verba tam Conciliorum quam Doctorum the words of Councils and Doctors must be reduced to the Rule of St. Jerom. So that those Books which he rejects are not to be esteemed Canonical as that word importeth Books sufficient ad firmandum ca quae sunt fidei to confirm Articles of Faith but only as it signifies Books useful and aedificationem Ecclesiae for the Edification of the Church and with this distinction you may reconcile the difference betwixt him and St. Austin and betwixt the Councils of Carthage and of Laodicea Alphonsus Tostatus saith Magis credendum est Hieronymo quam Augustino maxime ubi agitur de veteri Testamento St. Jerom is to be credited especially in things belonging to the Old Testament and Histories before St. Austin for in this thing he exceeded all the Doctors of the Church The same Tostatus saith Ista distinctio facta est ab Ecclesia Universali quae concorditer tenet istam distinctionem factam ab Hieronymo nam ista tenebatur a Judaeis fidelibus fult postea continuata in Ecclesia Defens Part. 2. c. 22. That the Vniversal Church with one accord holds the distinction made by St. Jerom for that was held by the Faithful Jews before Christs Advent and was afterwards continued in the Church and hence it came to pass that there was never any Bible found in those times which had before it the Canon of Carthage the Catalogue of St. Austin or the Epistle of Pope Innocent or the Decree of Pope Gelasius whereas in all Manuscript and Printed Bibles the Prologue of St. Jerom stiled Galeatus was placed before them by a common and universal consent of the Latin Church to be a sure Index and Discrimination of the Apocryphal and Ecclesiastical Books from the Canonical And this is the true Reason why many of the forecited Authors speaking of the Apocryphal Books mention sometimes but Five or Six viz. Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Judith Tobit and the Book of Maccabees to wit because St. Jerom in his Prologue upon the Book of Kings mentions them only though in his Preface to the Book of Jeremy he rejects Baruch and in his Preface upon Daniel he rejects the History of Susanna the Song of the Three Children and the Fables of Bell and the Dragon and so do they who Comment on these Books by his Example and with respect unto his Judgment So that from what hath been discoursed it is exceeding evident against the confident Assertions of Mr. M. and J. L. That after the Fifth Century it was the General Opinion of the Church till the Sixteenth Century that the Canonical Books were only Two or Four and Twenty and that those Books we stile Apocryphal did not belong unto the Canon and were not of validity sufficient to confirm Articles of Christian Faith. Concerning General Councils our Church asserts Two Things 1. Art. 21. That they may not be called together without the commandment and will of Princes 2. That they may erre and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Now touching the first Proposition That General Councils may not be called together without the Commandment and Will of Princes the Eastern Churches concurr in Judgment with us Sguropylus in his History of the Council of Florence saith That in their Synod held about the Vnion of the Eastern and the Western Churches they unanimously declared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 2. c. 8. That the Emperor according to his ancient Custom and Prerogative was to call Oecumenical Synods and no other was to do it And again The Emperor saith he Sect. 10. cap. 2. p 280. and the Greeks contended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was the Previlege of the Emperor to call the Synod and upon that account his Name was placed first in it as was manifest from the Acts of the Councils The ablest Writers of the West say the same thing Cardinal Cusanus declares We must say touching a General Council De Concord Cath. l. 2. c. 2. f. 39. That the Authority of it doth not so depend on him that calls it that if the Pope do not call it it should be no Council quia tunc non fuissent omnia octa universalia Concilia firma quoniam per Imperatores congregabantur for then none of the Eight General Councils would be firm they being all called by the Emperors from whom the Bishop of Rome as other Patriarchs received by Letters missive a publick warning to come or send unto the Councils And again From what hath been discoursed it appears Lib. 3 c. 13. Imperatores sanctos congregationes Synodales universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper fecisse That the Emperors did always call General Councils This saith he I have found to be true by perusing the Acts of all the General Councils to the Eighth inclusively And so I have read in the Gloss of Anastasius the Pope's Library-Keeper Quòd universales Synodos de omni terra Imperatores colligere soliti fuerunt That the Emperors were wont to Assemble General Councils Dum lego veteres Historias In reading of the ancient Histories I find not saith Aeneas Sylvius that Popes alone did call Councils Lib. 1. de Concil Basil p. 20. Lib. 3. Art. 1 q nor after in the time of Constantine and other Emperors quaesitus est magnopere Romani assensus Papae was the assent of the Pope of Rome much sought after Jacobatius informs us That à principio facultas congregandi concilia spectabat ad Imperatores the power of gathering Councils belonged to the Emperors from the beginning Lib. 1. c. 2. §. 2 3 4. Hist Eccles l. 5. in Prooem Richerius in his History of General Councils is very frequent in his full Assertions of this matter proving this clearly from those words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since that the Emperors became Christians the greatest Synods were and are held by their pleasure But it is needless to insist longer on this Head since Sancta Clara on this Article saith Pag. 294. Apol. 2. advers Ruff. f. 79. b. Where Erasinus saith Nota Lector olim Synodos Imperatorum jussu congregari solitas These words seem to be confirmed by the Authority of St. Jerom who rejects a Council with this Question Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jussit congregari What Emperor commanded the Assembling of that Synod As if he held the command of the Emperor to be necessary to that end sic observatum patet in omnibus fere conciliis veteribus and so 't is evident it was observed
but never to Tradition the Prophets do exhort them for their direction to repair to the Law Esai 8.20.34.16 Mal. 4.4 and to the Testimonies to the Book of the Lord. To remember the Law of Moses which he commanded them in Horeb for all Israel with the Statutes and Judgments as their only certain Rule and Direction Now that the ordinary Succession of Prophets was to cease from the Days of Malachy to the Times of Christ whereas had Oral Tradition also been their Rule the Prophets must have had like reason to call upon them to remember that Moreover God only calls upon them by Moses To do all the Words of this Law which are written in this Book and promiseth his Favour and Acceptance of them upon that account saying If thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God Deut. 30.9 10. Vers 15. to keep his Commandments and Statutes which are written in this Book of the Law I will rejoice over thee for Good. See I have set before thee this day life and good and death and evil And David speaketh thus unto King Solomon 1 Kings 2.3 Keep the Charge of the Lord thy God to walk in his ways to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgments and his Testimonies as it is written in the Law of Moses that thou maist prosper in all that thou dost and whithersoever thou turnest thy self If then the Observation of what was written in the Law of Moses was sufficient to procure Life Favour Prosperity and Acceptance with God surely this written Law must be a perfect Rule and must sufficiently contain all that was needful to be believed or done unto those ends Hence is the King commanded to write him a Copy of this Law in a Book that he might learn to fear the Lord God Deut. 17.18 19. and to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them and to perform the words of the Covenant which are written in this Book 2 Chron. 34.31 is to keep God's Commandments his Testimonies and his Statutes with all the Soul and with all the Heart Whereas had Oral Tradition been any part of their Rule they must have been obliged equally to observe what was delivered by it and all God's Statutes and Commandments could not be written in this Book as it is so expresly and frequently declared that they were Our Saviour in like manner bids them Search the Scriptures Joh. 3.39 because they thought in them they had eternal Life in which apprehension had they been deceived as they must have been provided that there was another Law of Oral Tradition given to lead them unto Life eternal our Saviour doubtless would have informed them of this dangerous Error which yet he was so far from doing that when a Lawyer puts the Question to him What shall I do that I may inherit eternal Life Luk. 10.25 26. he Answers What is written in the Law how readest thou This do and thou shalt live Luk. 16.29 And sends the Jews to Moses and the Prophets that by hearing them they might avoid the coming to the Place of Torments but neither he nor his Disciples do ever send them to Tradition or speak one word in approbation of it which is sufficient Evidence that they knew nothing of this Rule of Mr. M. 2dly § 6 The Traditions concerning Doctrines generally believed and Practices needful to be performed among them after the Law was written by Moses and after God had given them a Charge upon the ceasing of the Succession of his Prophets to remember and stick close unto it I say the Traditions which obtained in the Jewish Church as far as we have any certain intimation of them were such as tended to the evacuating of the Law of Moses to the renouncing of the true Messiah and to the introduction of vain Worship and superstitious Observances whence it demonstratively appears that Oral Tradition was not then a certain Rule nor could the Jewish Nation be obliged by divine Precept to receive it as such To make this Evident consider 1. That our Saviour often sends the Jews to Scripture to Moses and the Prophets but never to Tradition 2. That he still represents the great Asserters of Tradition in the Jewish Nation Matth. 15.14.23.16 17 19. Mat. 15.10 11. to wit their Elders Scribes and Pharisees as blind Guides leading of the Blind as Fools and Blind confuteth their Traditions though generally received before all the People Mark 7. Mat. 12.7 Matth. 15.13 justifies his Disciples in the neglect and violation of them pronounces them Plants which his Father had not planted and therefore such as should be rooted up 3dly He plainly tells them That by these Traditions they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgress make void Mark. 7.10 and null the Commandment of God. He shews this by plain Instances in their evacuating the Fifth Commandment by their Traditions in observing and enjoining such Traditions touching the Observation of the Sabbatick Rest Matth. 12.7 Matth. 12.12 Luk. 6.9 Mark 3.5 Luke 13.15 Matth. 23.16 23. as contradicted that great Law of God I will have mercy and not sacrifice and made it unlawful to do good and preserve Life upon that day and which sufficiently demonstrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blindness of their Minds and their Hypocrisie and in absolving them from their Oaths out of an ignorance so Gross as knew not they were virtually made to God. He also charges them that by thus teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men Matth. 15.9 they rendered God's Worship vain 4thly It is extreamly evident that by virtue of some of these Traditions they rejected the true Messiah and stood obliged by them so to do For First It is most certain that the Jews had a Tradition generally received among them That their Messiah should be a Temporal Prince that at his Coming he should restore the Kingdom to Israel he should subdue the Nations under them and should erect a Temporal Dominion in the Jewish Nation over all their Enemies Trypho the Jew declares to Justin M. That Dial. p. 249. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scriptures do compel us to expect a great and glorious Messiah who shall receive as the Son of Man from the ancient of Days an everlasting Kingdom In Celsum l. 2. p. 78. not such a mean despised one as was your Jesus The Jews saith Origen say That their Prophets represent their Messiah to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great Person and a Potentate and Lord of the whole Earth and of all the Heathens and their Armies De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 31. Josephus confesseth there was an obscure Oracle found in their S. Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That about that time one of Judea should govern the World. Suetonius and Tacitus say In Vespas c 4. Hist l. 5. That it was in the whole East Vetus constans opinio ut
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
Holy Spirit dwelling in their Hearts They also add that this written Law was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constit Apost ibid. p. 349. to supply the defects of the Law of â—â—ature by that God who would not suffer them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be seduced clearly insinuating that Tradition without this written Law was not sufficient to supply the defects of that of Nature or to preserve them from Error As will be farther evident if we consider That both the Antediluvians and they who lived after the Flood and before the Writing of the Law of Moses had generally corrupted their ways and deviated from that Tradition which they undoubtedly received from Adam and from Noah touching the Worship of the true and only God. For even whilst Adam was alive In Gen. 4.26 and had not passed half his days Men began saith the Chaldee Paraphrast to prophane the Name of the Lord Ainsw in Gen. 4. v. 26. by ceasing to pray to him The Hebrew Doctors tell us That in the Days of Enosh the Sons of Adam erred with great Error and the Counsel of the Wise Men of that Age became Brutish and their Error was this They said forasmuch as God hath Created these Stars and Spheres to govern the World and set them on high and imparted honour to them and they are Ministers that Minister before him it is meet that Men should Laud and Glorifie and give them Honour for this is the Will of God that we magnifie and honour whomsoever he magnifies and honoureth When this thing was come up into their Hearts they began to build Temples to Stars and to offer Sacrifice to them and to Laud and Glorifie them with Words and to Worship before them that they might in their evil Opinion obtain favour of the Creator and this was the Root of Idolatry Ibid. And hence in the ancient Commentaries of the Hebrews the Age of Enosh is represented as a wicked Age. In the time of Enoch and before the death of Adam wickedness had mightily prevailed even among the Sons of God or Members of the Church for Enoch is mentioned as the only Man who adhered perfectly to God and of him it is said Wisd 4.10 Vers 11 14. That he lived among Sinners and that God took him away from among the wicked least their evil Example should corrupt his Righteous Soul. After his Assumption we find that Men had generally declined to iniquity that all Flesh had corrupted their Ways Gen. 6.12 excepting Noah and his Family that they had forsaken God and given up themselves to Idolatry saying to God Job 22.17 Depart from us and what can the Almighty do for us About an Hundred Years after the Flood they set themselves with one Consent to build the Tower of Babel in opposition to God and in which say the Hebrews Ainsw ibid. they designed an Idol Temple Nahor and Tharah the Progenitors of Abraham were Idolaters Gen. 31.30 53. and after the Call of Abraham they continued so to be In the Family of Isaac Esau and his Wives were a bitterness of Spirit to Isaac and Rebecca because they served God with strange Service saith the Jerusalem Tergum that is with Idolatry In the Family of Jacob Gen. 31.22 Gen. 35.2 Rebecca steals her Fathers Images In his House were worshippers of strange Gods and Retainers of Idols When the Israelites lived in Aegypt they so complied with their Rites Praepar Evang. l. 7. c. 28. saith Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to forget the Piety of their Fore-fathers They learned in Aegypt Serm. 2. adv Graec. p. 492. saith Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship many Gods with them They committed Whoredom in Aegypt saith Ezekiel Ezek 23 2-19 they multiplied the Whoredoms they had committed in the Land of Aegypt Whence Joshua speaks thus unto them Josh 24.14 Put away the Gods which your Fathers served in Mesopotamia and in Aegypt Here then is Evidence sufficient First That the first Ages of the World were not abandoned only to the uncertainty of Tradition but were guided partly by the Light of Nature and partly by immediate Revelation Tradition being by Divine Wisdom judged a more imperfect Guide than the dim Light of Nature Secondly That when it pleased God to give his People Positive and ceremonial Laws he would by no means leave them to the uncertainty of Tradition but commanded that they should be written in a Book for a Memorial to and for a Testimony against them and should thence be read by and to them that they and the Generations to come might learn them And Thirdly That the Service of the one true God received by Tradition from Adam Enoch and others before the Flood from Noah Melchizedeck Abraham and the Patriarchs after the Flood was presently corrupted and utterly defaced by Idolatry to let us see how insufficient meer Tradition is since even in the Days and Lives of them who lived so long and who delivered this Fundamental Article of Worshipping the one true God unto their Off-spring they saw them running headlong to Idolatry and adding many corrupt Inventions and vain Imaginations of their own unto that Worship they had received by Tradition from them Secondly § 5 Object 2 Mr. M. adds That for above Two thousand Years more P. 415. P. 231. from Moses until Christ's time the Church was governed partly by Writing and partly by Tradition For the Jews had at least two undeniable Traditions For they knew only by Tradition what remedy was to be used to free their Female Children from Original Sin as also to free their Male Children in danger of Death before the Eighth Day This Remedy they knew and observed and were bound to know and observe and yet they infallibly knew it without having any Scripture expressing to them the knowledge of this Remedy or of their Obligation to use it or that it was so necessary for the Salvation of their Children whom they did believe to be in Original Sin and by that debarred from Salvation unless some Remedy were applyed Some Remedy surely was as necessary for the Female as Circumcision for the Male. Shew me this Remedy in Scripture 2. They truly believed some of those bloody Sacrifices to have been appointed to them by God for the expiation of their Sins but they could not believe truly that these Sacrifices could expiate their Sins by their own Virtue they believing then that these Sacrifices had their expiative Virtue from the Merits of Christ Shew me any Text in which this was then written 1. Reply That the Jewish Church until Christ's time was governed partly by Tradition or that Tradition was their partial Rule of Faith in reference to any necessary Doctrines or Rules of Manners will appear a vain Imagination if we consider that in the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament they are still sent unto the written Word to learn their Duty