Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A65719
|
A treatise of traditions ...
|
Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing W1740_pt1; Wing W1742_pt2; ESTC R234356
|
361,286
|
418
|
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
by the Tradition of the Church present to all Believers in every Age in which those Believers lived That the whole World was governed by Tradition only for the first Two thousand Years And he is so exact as to enumerate the very Tenets which they held by Tradition viz. The fall of Adam and their Conception in Original Sin. The means to be used to free themselves and their Children from it The immortality of the Soul and that the Rewards and Punishments of the next Life lasted for ever What Repentance they were to use That they were to stand fast to their Traditions and account it a damnable Sin to forsake them The Observation of the Sabbath the Precept of not eating Blood obliging all the World the distinction betwixt clean and unclean Meats and Beasts the Precept of Circumcision observed Four hundred Years by Abraham 's Posterity by Tradition the Covenant God made with Abraham that he should be the Father of many Nations Disc p. 91. and that the Messiah should be born of his Seed R. H. informs us of other Positive Divine Laws viz. Those of Sacrifice Firstlings Holocausts Peace-Offerings Birds in Sacrifice not divided mention of the Holy Times Places Persons Prophets of Tythes paid to the Priest Purifyings Cleansings changing their Garments Vows Prohibition of Polygamy contracting Marriages with Vnbelievers Excommunication And these Laws saith he we may presume were received from an external infallible Proponent and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiors and Teachers of these Laws in such a manner as those delivered since and for the certainty of their Religion there seems an Infallibility in these as necessary if not more for solving the great doubts arising therein before as after the times of a written Law. Such Arguments as this and those that follow are not worthy of any consideration by reason of their great impertinency were it not upon this account that it is easie to evince they are so far from being Arguments for that they are certain Demonstrations against the certainty and the Infallibility of the Traditions disputed betwixt us and the Church of Rome and plainly overthrow the Cause they were designed to maintain To make this evident let it be noted First That the Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome is not this Whether any thing may be derived down to Posterity by Tradition for this we have confessed in many Cases and where Tradition from the beginning can undoubtedly be had we own it But the Question is Whether they who own or have Tradition for their Rule may not add many things to that which truly was received by Tradition pretending falsly that they also were derived by Tradition to them For if this may be so the Church of Rome may also own at present Tradition for her Rule and yet with the like falshood may pretend that many Doctrines and Practices descended by a Primitive Tradition to her and the Traditions here enumerated may also truly bear that name and yet the very same persons may have handed down at the same time many other Practices and Doctrines under the same pretence which tended to corrupt the Faith and Manners of those very Ages Secondly The great Enquiry is Whether in tract of time viz. the space of Sixteen hundred Years such Doctrines and practices may not be admitted and owned as Primitive Traditions by a prevailing party of Gentiles Jews or Christians which were nothing less than so For if this hath been actually so before and after the writing of the Law of Moses and also since the publication of the Gospel then may the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in so long tract of time be thus admitted and yet be nothing less than Primitive Traditions And Thirdly Whether Pretences to Tradition may not justly be suspected when ancient Records which had equal reason to take notice of them and could not have condemned what the whole Church received as a Divine Verity not only do say nothing of but plainly contradict them Having premised these things I answer Fourthly § 2 That these great Pretenders to Tradition in this Assertion contradict both the Tradition of the Jews and of the Ancient Fathers The Tradition of the Jews Selden de jure Nat. l. 1. c. 8. p. 102. c. 10. p. 116. ad p. 126. who unanimously declare That the Law given to the World after the Fall of Adam was only that of the Precepts of Noah against Idolatry 2. Blasphemy 3. Murther 4. Vnlawful Copulation 5. Theft 6. The Law concerning Civil Government all which are Laws of Nature And 7. The Law forbidding to eat Blood. The Fathers also generally assert Vid. Seld. ib. l. 1. c. 8. p. 98 99. Apol. 2. p. 83. That before the written Law men lived according to the Law of Nature So Justin Martyr That God admonished them Per naturalia praecepta quae ab initio infixa dedit hominibus nihil plus ab iis exquisivit by the natural Precepts from the beginning implanted in their Hearts and required nothing more of them So Irenaeus That it was Reason L. 4. c. 28. or Philosophy which before the coming of our Saviour was necessary to make them Righteous and that it was their Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ Strom. 1. p 282. So Clemens of Alexandria That they were guided by the Law written In Naturalibus tabulis De Cor. Milit. c. 6 Adv. Jud. c. 2. in the Tables of their Heart which was the common Law of the World and that it was this Law of Nature which à Patribus custodiebatur was observed by the Fathers and by which Noah Abraham and Melchizedeck were Righteous Praepar Evang l. 7. c. 7. So Tertullian That before the written Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were adorned with the Virtue of Piety by right Reason so Eusebius That God led the Heathens to Piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Law of Nature Serm. 1. Contr. Graec. ad Sylberg p. 20. and of the Creation so Theodoret. Particularly they inform us That before Moses the Patriarchs observed not the Sabbath That without the Observation of it all the just Men forenamed viz. Adam Abel Enoch Lot Noah and Melchezedeck Dial. cum Tryph. p. 236.245 L. 4. cap. 30. Adv. Jud. c. 2. 4. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Praep. Evang l. 7. c. 6. Demonstr Ev. l. 1. c. 6. pleased God and after them Abraham and his Posterity till Moses so Justin Martyr That Abraham was justified Sine observatione Sabbathi without the Observation of the Sabbath so Irenaeus Non Sabbatizabant The Patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath saith Tertullian They took no care of Circumcision or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Observation of the Sabbaths saith Eusebius Secondly of Sacrifices they affirm that Abel Noah Qu. Resp ad Orthod qu. 83. Const Apost l 6. c 20 p. 284. and others offered them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Divine