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 never cast out any from the Church who practised as they did particularly that Polycarp coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus acted like Polycrates and would not be perswaded to comply with the custom of the Church of Rome in this particular yet they communicated and Received the Sacrament together departed in Peace without contention about this matter and both of them preserved peace with all the Churches which differed from them in this observation From all which it is evident that Irenaeus charged Victor as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lover of Contention a breaker of the Church's Peace one who denied Communion with and did attempt the rejection of the Asiatick Churches without cause and therefore must necessarily judge him to be the Schismatick and so he could not possibly conceive that by Victor's Excommunication the Asiaticks could be separated from the common Union but rather that the Pope and his Church if they concurred with him in the second Letter as in the first they did and as it was the custom of those times to do must be the Schismaticks And therefore whereas Pope Victor writ Letters to engage all Churches to break off Communion with the Asiaticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p. 193 194. Irenaeus writes Letters of the same import with this to Victor to the Bishops of most other Churches to engage them to preserve Peace and Communion with the Asiaticks So opposite is he in all things to the proceedings of the Pope and Church of Rome and yet in all this he is commended as a Man who in this matter acted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fittingly as a true Irenaeus or Peacemaker that is as one who answered his name by his endeavour to preserve the Church's Peace which Victor laboured to disturb And 't is observable that all the Churches of God complied with the Desire of Irenaeus for though they differed Eccl Hist l. 1. c. 8. saith Socrates about this Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet did they not separate from Communion one with another on that account Now the Inferences which naturally flow from this Relation in favour of the Protestants against the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy the necessity of Union to and Communion with the Church of Rome and other Articles of like nature I shall not farther insist upon only hence note First § 15 The falseness of the Rule forementioned which is the Ground and Foundation of the Guide of Controversies for here we find the Pope deciding of a Controversie E Cathedra and with his Roman Synod we also find that most other Bishops and Churches of the Christian World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass the same Judgment of the Controversie with the Pope and his Roman Council and yet by no means will they allow that they who were of another Judgment and acted contrary to their determination should be molested for it or treated otherwise than Christian Brethren 't is therefore imposible they should have held that all Christians were obliged either to adhere in any matter of dissent to the decision of the major part or to the decision of the Pope and Church of Rome for then they must have held the Asiaticks and others who agreed with them to be Schismaticks and to deserve exclusion from the Communion of the Church for acting in opposition to her Great and only Rule of Peace and Unity yea it is impossible that should have always been as he pretends an universal Rule of Church Practice according to which so many Churches do refuse to practise and yet are by their fellow Christians owned as Brethren and persons not to be molested upon that account Secondly Hence note How difficult a thing it is to know even in a matter of the constant practice of all Christians in the Second Century what the Tradition of the Apostles was a Tradition being pretended on one side to derive from Peter and to be Apostolical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Syn. Arim. p. 872. Ep. ad Pag. 933. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Tom. 6. Hom. 28. p. 379. l. 33. and yet all the Churches of Asia Syria Mesopotamia Cilicia saith Athanasius of Antioch saith Chrysostom having a contrary Tradition which say they derived from Philip and St. John and so undoubtedly was Apostolical and Canons as from these Apostles being produced on both sides if then they were so divided about Tradition when the Apostles was scarce cold in their Graves and that in matters of their daily practice what assurance can we have of any Traditions contested in this present Age If a Custom might then arise and be delivered to Posterity with great variety in the Lent Fast so that some Christians thought they were to keep it but One day some Two some more some Forty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Iren. apud Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. p. 192 193. and all this through the negligence of the then present Rulers of the Church how may the practice of the whole Church of Rome now vary from what it was in the beginning Or why should that be judged impossible with them which by their own confession hath actually happened for this last Seven hundred Years to the whole Eastern Church Or what certainty can be had of contested Traditions subject to such variety and change in a short time and in a matter of continual practice when we are distant from the Fountain of them One thousand six hundred Years A Second Instance of like nature is that of the dispute betwixt Pope Stephen and St. Cyprian touching the Rebaptizing of those Persons who only were Baptized by Hereticks as will be evident from these ensuing Observations viz. First That the Opinion of Pope Stephen was professedly this § 16 That whatsoever Hereticks did take upon them to Baptize the Persons so Baptized were to be admitted into Church Communion without farther Baptism so his Opinion is propounded in his own words by Cyprian viz. Si quis a quacunque N.B. Haerest venerit ad nos manus illi imponantur ad poenitentiam Ep. 74. p. 211. That from whatsoever Heresie a Person did return into the Church he was to be admitted only by imposition of Hands and not by Baptism Eusebius infroms us that the Controversie which arose betwixt them was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 2. Whether they who returned from any kind of Heresie were to be purged by Baptism or only by imposition of Hands with Prayer St. Cyprian adds De Marcionis Baptismo item Valentini Apelletis contendit filios deo nasci Ep. 74. p. 214. 73. p. 199 200. That he declared the Baptism of Valentinus Marcion and Apelles to be valid and beget Sons to God although it was the Baptism of Men who did Blaspheme the Father and the Son August de Haer. c. 11 22 23. vide Danaeum Ibid. which certainly they did for they asserted That there were two Gods and that
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
God or the great Power of God That even the Arians in the Fourth Century appealed to them for Confirmation of their Faith declaring that the Miracles of their (f) Philostorg l. 3. §. 4. p. 27. Theophilus were so great Confirmations of the Christian Faith as to constrain the Obstinacy of the Jews and silence all their Contradictions and that their (g) L. 2. §. 8. p. 14. Agapetus did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raise the Dead heal many that were sick and convert many to the Christian Faith. To these convincing Demonstrations of the Fallaciousness of this Argument when new Miracles come after a true Doctrine sufficiently confirmed by them already and contradict that very Doctrine or teach things contrary to Piety it may be useful to observe these things out of the Holy Fathers First That some of them do expresly say That Miracles had ceased in their Days and others That they were not necessary Tom. 5. Hom. 88 p. 606. St. Chrysostom hath a set Discourse upon this Subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why Miracles were ceased which had they then been common in the Christian World had been an idle Question To this Discourse he seemeth to have been necessitated by the Importunity of his Auditors who were still crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why are not Signs wrought now To this Enquiry he answers 1. That Signs were intended only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Confirmation of Unbelievers and that they were not needful for the Faithful and then concluding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this therefore is the Cause why Miracles are now ceased In his Thirty second Homily on Matthew he repeats the same things To. 2. p. 223. saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you seek for Signs such as the Apostles did you would see the Lepers cleansed the Devils cast out the Dead raised but this is the greatest Demonstration of our Generosity and Love to believe God without those Pledges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this and other Reasons God hath caused Miracles to cease Ibid. p. 650. In his Twenty forth Homily on St. John he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a tempting of God now to ask for Signs and this saith he I speak because there are now Men seeking them and saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why are not Miracles now done Whereas if thou art a faithful Man as thou oughtest to be and lovest Christ as thou oughtest to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast no need of Signs for these things are given for Unbelievers Secondly To. 5. Hom. 88. p. 606. To this Enquiry he answers by way of Distinction That though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or such Miracles as were the Objects of our Senses were then ceased yet God did still vouchsafe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his efficacious Workings on the Souls of Christians in their Baptismal Regeneration and in the Mystical Sacrifice This he explains more fully in his Sixth Tome and Sixty ninth Homily P. 713. for if any Man saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we see not now these Signs done nor have we such Power of working them To this saith he I answer That the Church is not wholly destitute of Miracles 1. Because a miraculous Change was wrought in Baptism by giving spiritual Life to a dead Soul. 2ly Because we enjoy the Mysteries and in them the Grace of the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Elements could not be made the mystical Body and Blood of Christ without the Grace of the Spirit Where by the way we learn that Chrysostom did not believe that the Sacrament contained Christ's natural Body but only his mystical Body which Phrase is often used by the Fathers with Relation to Christ's Word his Church his Sacrament but never is applied to his natural Body We also learn that Chrysostom knew nothing of the miraculous Conversion of the Bread into Christ's Body natural for should a Romanist go about to prove that Miracles were not ceased from the Consideration of what was done in the Sacrament would he not urge That the Bread was miraculously converted into Christ's Body that the Figure and Colour of the Elements did subsist without a Subject that Christ's whole natural Body was in less Space than the smallest Crumb of Bread yea that being only one it was entirely in many Thousand Places at one and the same time Seeing then Chrysostom upon the like Occasion gives not the least hint of any thing of this kind but only saith that the Bread and Wine are not made Christ's mystical Body and Blood without the Grace of the Spirit adding immediately for his last Instance of this Kind That Priests are not made Priests by Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the same Advent of the Holy Spirit upon them is it not reasonable to conceive that he knew and believed nothing of those great and many Miracles which are now thought to be performed in Celebration of the Mass Pope Gregory gives for the Substance the same Answer to this Objection or Enquiry For descanting on those Words These Signs shall follow them that believe Hom. 39. in Evang Ed. Par. 1523. f. 320. h. c. He saith Nunquid nam Fratres mei quia ista signa non facitis minime creditis What my Brethren will you not believe because you do not do now those Signs But these were necessary in the beginning of the Church for the encrease of Faith but now that it is planted and rooted they are not so whence St. Paul saith Signs are not for the Faithful but the Unbeliever Moreover the Holy Church doth that now spiritually which the Apostles did then corporally for her Priests by Exorcism cast evil Spirits out of the Minds of Men When the Faithful chant the Holy Mysteries and sing forth the Praises and the Power of God with all their Strength what do they do but speak with new Tongues Whilst they strengthen the Infirm in Spirit and hold up them that stumble what do they but lay their Hands upon the Sick that they may be healed Haec itaque signa Fratres Charissimi Auctore Deo si vultis vos facitis These Signs dear Brethren you may do if you please by God's help And this is all that they return to this Enquiry and Objection which makes it reasonable to conceive they were so far from thinking Miracles a necessary Mark and Concomitant of the true Church that they knew of none performed by her besides the spiritual Operations on the Soul of Men or if they did betrayed the Churches Cause by being so profoundly silent upon this Occasion and flying as their only Refuge to those intellectual Operations which doubtless were not the Signs and Miracles enquired after Thirdly Chrysostom adds that Miracles were profitably done then and now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 6. in 1. ad Cer. p. 276. they are as profitably not done for then the Apostles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laying the first Foundations of Christianity and so they needed Miracles to prove what they pretended to receive from God but as for us now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We introduce nothing of our selves but only speak those things which we received from them and we go not about to perswade Men by our own Reasonings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Holy Scriptures and afford Men assurance of the things that we say from the Miracles that were then done by those who did indite the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for this Cause Miracles are not now done Now this is the very Answer of the Protestants when by the Romanists they are called upon to shew their Miracles and it strikes Confusion upon this Pretence of that Church accusing them of new Doctrines if they have any which are now to be confirmed by Miracles 2ly The Fathers add that Miracles having thus ceased the Devil was to set up by them to draw Men off from the true Faith to Infidelity or to corrupt that Truth God had already stablished by sufficient Miracles Hom. in Matth. ad Huet p. 265. 266. Thus Origen declareth of the Man of Sin That he was to appear for the Deception of those that should perish with all Power Signs and lying Wonders and all deceivableness of Unrighteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immitating all the Miracles done for the confirmation of the Truth The Author of the imperfect Commentary on St. Matthew saith That at the beginning of Christianity true Prophets were known from false by this That the Signs done by the First were profitable those done by the other were unprofitable but seeing now the time will come ut etiam ex parte bona faciendorum Signorum Diabolo detur potestas Hom. 19 p. 75. That the Power of working good Signs shall be given to the Devil we must enquire whether the Sign be necessary or unnecessary as to the time for if Christ did his Miracles propter confirmationem infidelium for Confirmation of Unbelievers manifestum est quia modo cum nullus sit infidelis faciendorum miraculorum necessitas non est it is manifest that now that there is no Unbeliever amongst us there is no Necessity of doing Miracles And again Formerly saith he Christians did Miracles full not of Admiration only but Advantage and by these true Christians were known from false Hom. 49 p. 173. nunc autem signorum operatio omnino levata est magis autem apud eos invenitur qui falsi sunt Christiani fieri ficta But now the working of Miracles is wholly minished and the doing of feigned ones is chiefly found amongst false Christians as St. Peter in Clement saith Antichristo enim plena signorum faciendorum est danda potestas for the full Power of doing Miracles is to be given to Antichrist And a third time upon those Words False Christs and Prophets shall arise and work great Signs he Comments thus P. 178. They shall work not vain and unprofitable Signs as the Ministers of Satan were wont to do but great full and profitable Signs quae sancti facere solent which the Saints used to do for whilst saith he there was a calling Men from Infidelity to Faith the Servants of Christ did Miracles because these Testimonies were a sign of their divine Vocation that the Truth of their Doctrine might be commended by Miracles but this Calling ceasing the Seduction calling Men back from Faith to Infidelity will begin and then saith he tradenda sunt Seductionis adjutoria Diabolo id est potestas faciendorum signorum the Instruments of Seduction that is the Power of working Signs is to be given up to the Devil that by Signs and Prodigies he may commend his Lyes for Truth And therefore now we must not take notice of Mens Miracles but their Fruits a good Conversation Hom. 19. p. 74 77. and a true Confession and enquire si confessio ejus conveniat cum Scripturis if his Confession agree with the Scriptures for if so he is a good Christian otherwise he is a false one In Deut. q. 12. Quaecunquetalia fiunt ideo sunt approbanda quia in Catholica fiunt non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt de Vnit Eccl. c. 16. And in like manner Theodoret instructs us Not to regard the Miracles of Men when they teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things contrary to Godliness And St. Austin frequently appeals from them to the Scripture for finding out the true Church saying These Wonders do not manifest the Church is Catholick wherein they are performed but the Holy Scriptures let then the Donatists shew us their Scriptures for these are the Strength and Firmness of our Cause 3ly They teach that therefore God had forewarned us not to regard and not to be deceived by them or to look upon them as sufficient to establish any new Doctrine For saith St. Austin if some Miracles be wrought by Hereticks magis cavere debemus we ought to be the more cautious because our Lord Christ having said that there should come Deceivers who should work such Miracles as to deceive if it were possible Lib. de Vnit Eccl. c. 16. the very Elect he adds by way of vehement Commendation this Behold I have foretold you whence the Apostle admonishing us saith now the Spirit manifestly teacheth that in the later times some shall depart from the Faith giving heed to seducing Spirits doctrinis Daemoniorum and to Doctrines of Daemons The same St. Austin in his Thirteenth Treatise upon the Gospel of St. John brings in the Donatists objecting thus Pontius wrought a Miracle Donatus prayed and God answered him from Heaven And his Reply to it is this Contra istos To. 9. p. 122. ut sic loquar mirabilarios cautum me fecit Deus meus My God hath cautioned me against those Miracle-Mongers by saying in the later times false Prophets shall arise doing Signs and Wonders Behold I have foretold you therefore our Bridegroom hath warned us quia Miraculis decipi non debemus that we ought not to be deceived by Miracles And in his Second Book on the Sermon of our Lord upon the Mount he saith Our Lord hath admonished us not to be deceived with such things conceiving the invisible Wisdom to be there where we see a visible Miracle saying many shall say in that Day Lord have we not in thy Name cast out Devils and done many wondrous Works Let such a one read what the Magicians of Aegypt did against Moses To. 4. p. 1172 1173. or what our Lord saith of the false Prophets If any one shall say unto you here is Christ believe him not for many false Christs and false Prophets shall arise and do mighty Signs And yet that Miracles pretended to be done after these times are urged to countenance and have been used to introduce and promote Romish Doctrines and Practices is
did through Fear of running his Fate Paralip ad Abbat Vrsperg p. 448. Ed. Bas 1569. whence one of their Writers tells us they were wont to say Sic dicerem in Scholis sed tamen maneat inter nos diversum sentio Thus would I speak in the Schools but keep it secret I think otherwise Let us then seriously consider how much the Church of Rome for these Five last Centuries hath out-done all that ever Heathen or Arian Persecutors have attempted in her Severities towards those whom she is pleased to call Hereticks That 1. She hath taken the greatest Care for the Discovering and apprehending them authorizing by her papal Bulls Const Innocent 4. c. 19. Clem 4. Cons 13. l. 18. Concil To. 11. p. 606. imperial Constitutions her canon Law and her conciliar Definitions Inquisitors Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots c. to require the Magistrates Assistance in enquiring after and apprehending Hereticks and enabling these Inquisitors c. Consil Const Sess 45. Bin. To. 7. p. 1121. to tender a corporeal Oath to all suspect of Heresy that is of holding any thing in Contradiction to the Doctrine of the Roman Church to answer to such Questions as they shall propose for clearing of themselves and to condemn them as Hereticks if they do not thus purge themselves Decretal l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 5. Concil Lat. 4. Can. 3 That she gives them Power to require the Magistrates Assistance in enquiring after and apprehending Hereticks and to engage by Oath all Earls Barons Rectors and Consuls and the whole Neighbourhood efficaciously to assist the Church according to their Power in this Work and to endeavour to give Notice of such Persons and secure them 2ly Const Fred. 2. Concil T. 11. p 622. Ludov. 7. Ib. p. 423. Concil Lat. 4. Can. 3. lat 3. cap. 23. That she obliges all secular Powers to extirpate them and all their Favorites upon the pain of Excommunication loss of their Dominions and being deemed Favourers of Hereticks and doth encourage all Men to fight against and labour to destroy them by the Promise of Remission of Sins and a great Reward hereafter 3ly That she hath decreed Concil lat 3. c. 27. Quartum can 3. Constan Sess 45. Bin. T. 7. p. 1121. Const Freder 2. Concil T. 11. p. 619 621. Ludov 7. p. 423. That they shall suffer Excommunication with all the Consequences of it loss of Goods and when imprisoned any Punishment which doth not diminish their Members or endanger their Death and that after Sentence passed upon them they shall be punished with Death and want of Christian Burial 4ly That for the Execution of these Punishments Const Innocent 4. Clem. 4. Alex. 4. decretal l. 5. T. 2. c. 9 11. Concil Tolos c. 7. Albiens c. 7. Concil T. 11. p. 428 723. vide ibid. p 698 726 727. without Delay or Relaxation or enquiry into the Justice of them all Governours shall have a Copy of those Laws and shall abolish all that contradict them and at their Entrance on their Government shall swear to execute them and such as will not execute them or are remiss in doing it shall lose their Office have their Jurisdiction interdicted and be proceeded against as Favourers of Hereticks Again let us seriously consider farther 1. That it was in those Ages deemed Heresy to contradict the Doctrine of the Roman Church Sess 45. Edit 1499. or in the Language of the Council of Constance de fidei Articulis aliter sentire aut docere quam Sancta Romana Ecclesia Vniversalis praedicat to think or teach otherwise of the Articles of Faith than the Holy Roman or universal Church preacheth and observes 2ly That when Transubstantiation was established in the Fourth Council of Lateran then were also made the severe and sanguinary Decrees now mentioned against Hereticks to force Men against all the Evidence of Sense and Reason to profess that Article 3ly That the Council of Constance having established the Practice of Communion in one kind for a Law Sess 45. it concludes with a Decree enacting all the aforesaid Punishments against Hereticks viz. Against those who believe not the Supream Authority of the Pope over the Church the Infallibility of general Councils the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Lawfulness of Communion in one kind the necessity of auricular Confession the Power of the Pope to conferr Indulgences the lawfulness of venerating Reliques and the Images of Saints c. 4ly That in these persecuting Ages Men were afraid to profess what they believed or to oppose themselves against the Torrent of their Adversaries Libro sine Tirulo Epist 11. Epist de Egressu ex Babylone p. 177. thus Petrarch declares That he durst scarcely speak the Truth for fear of Enemies Clemangis That Men followed the erring Herd willingly embracing false things for true and desiring rather to be mad with the multitude than to be wise alone with danger and derision Erasmus confesseth That there were some things received in the Church quae magno Religionis Christianae bono mutarentur which to have changed would tend to the great good of the Church but being desired to put his helping Hand to the Work he saith per alios ego fieri malim quam per me I had rather others should do this than my self And that 1. Out of fear that by attempting it he might create a Tumult and Sedition in the Church which saith he I so much abhor ut veritas etiam displiceat seditiosa that even Truth purchased by Sedition is displeasing to me 2. Out of the sense of the great hazzard he should run and the little hopes he had of good success I should be more free saith he Apud Hottinger Hist Eccl. Sect. 16. Part. 2 p. 24 25 29 could I see hopes of success but dementiae est tibi perniciem accersire si nulli prosis it is madness to destroy my self when I cannot profit any by it I say whosoever weighs these things will be convinced that by these cruel methods great Errors might prevail without much contradiction and many Ancient but decryed Truths might lie concealed and stifled in the breasts of Learned Men expecting a more favourable opportunity to bring them forth For if the severity of Heathen and Arian Persecutions had such sad Effects upon so many in the most pious and learned Ages of the Church whilst they continued to be exercised these R. Cruelties being confessedly exercised for almost Five whole Centuries might easily engage the generality of Men in the more Ignorant and Vicious Ages of the Church to own the corrupt Doctrines and Practices her Governors had introduced or to abstain at least from making any free and publick opposition to them To conclude These being the chief Causes which naturally tend to the Introduction of new Practices and Doctrines viz. 1. False Rules and Measures used for Disquisition of the Truth from which it is not to be wonder'd that false Conclusions
their Synods and Confederacies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest ex Mat. lib. un cap. 12. Tom. 4. p. 366 367. but he forbids us to kill and cut them off Truth it self Answers to them saith St. Austin non esse tales auferendos de hac vita that such Men are not to be taken out of the World least whilst Men endeavour to kill the bad they also kill the good or such as perhaps would be such 2. They declared this practice was contrary to the true Religion and to the Judgment of the Doctors of the Catholick Church For our Religion saith Lactantius is to be defended L. 5. c. 20. non occidendo sed moriendo non saevitiâ sed patientiâ not by killing others but by dying for it so good men do defend it but wicked Men by Cruelty and Murther Apud Athanas Tom. 1. p. 724. The Synod of Alexandria declares That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bands and Slaughters were things alien from their Church Contra Crescon l. 3. cap. 50. When Cresconius had objected to the Orthodox that they were instrumental to procure the Death of the Three Donatists St. Austin answers That nullis tamen bonis in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ hoc placet si usque ad mortem in quenquam licet Haereticum saeviatur No good Man in the Catholick Church allowed of the punishment of Hereticks with Death haec omnia displicent nobis all these things displease us De fide oper cap. 4. we judge them not laudable but damnable And again They who being blinded with this Error endeavour before the time to separate the Tares ipsi potiùs a Christi unitate separantur are themselves rather separated from the unity of the Church He hath Four several Epistles writ to the Magistrates or Ministers of Justice on this Subject Ep. 107 158 159 160. Ep. 127 158 160. in which he earnestly requests ne occidantur that they might not be killed that the Sword of Justice might not spill their Blood beseeching them for the Name and for the Mercy of Christ Jesus ut hoc nec faciant nec sieri omnino permittant that they would neither do this thing nor permit it to be done by others Ep. 127. and telling them the Orthodox had rather die themselves than bring them to their Judicatories to be killed And this he doth intreat with so great importunity Ibib. 1. Because of the command of Christ which did oblige them to love their Enemies Ep. 158 159. 2. Because it was suitable to that meekness which Christianity required them to make known to all 3. Ep. 158 160. Ep. 127. Because it was against their Conscience to allow of such proceedings against Hereticks 4. Because this harsh proceeding would deterr the Catholicks from seeking the protection of the Magistrate against Hereticks 5. Because the Person who inflicts and the Church who permits these Punishments to be inflicted would both have cause to fear the Judgment of God for this Cruelty quod enim tu facis Ep. 160. Ep. 50. p. 220. Ecclesia facit propter quam facis cujus silius facis for what the Magistrate who was a Son of the Church did for her Sake that the Church did And this he tells us was the Judgment of a whole Council of his Brethren 3. This say they is alien from Catholicks and proper unto Hereticks and Heathens The Synod of Alexandria consisting of the Bishops of Aegypt Thebes Lybia and Pentapolis lament the practice of the Arians Apud Athanas Apol. ad Imperat p. 723. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who in their Epistle to the Emperors stirred them up to kill and inflict death on Athanasius and others For say they we conceive the Conscience of you Christians see that these things are not the works of the meanest Christians much less of them who seem to be Bishops and to teach others what is just We must fight against them saith Nazianzen with Reasons not with Arms Orat. 3. pro pace p. 220 221. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to lift up our Hands against them is wholly contrary to our Profession and must be left to them that hate us 4. When this was done by Instigation of any of the Clergy the Orthodox not only did condemn it but refused Communion with them that moved the Magistrate to do it Thus when Idacius and Ithacius two Bishops Sulpit. Hist 1. 2. §. 64. moved Maximus the Emperor to this severity against the Priscillians St. Martin not only reproved Ithacius but intreated Maximus ut sanguine infoelicium abstineret to abstain from their Blood and obtained a Promise from him nihil cruentum in reos constituendum that nothing Bloody should be decreed against them though afterwards saith Sulpitius this was done pessimo exemplo Dial. 3. §. 15. by a most vile Example The same Sulpitius informs us That this good Man was piously sollicitous to preserve the Hereticks from Death that for accomplishing this Work having for a while consented to hold Communion with Ithacius and his Party he afterwards was troubled at it and was by an Angel admonished that he had just Cause to be so and that he should reassume his Constancy ne jam non periculum gloriae sed salutis incurreret least he incurred the loss not only of his Honour but Salvation and that from that time he never would Communicate with the Ithacian Party 1 Baron ad A. 386. §. 27. Pope Syricius also and St. 2 Ep. 27. Ambrose refused Communion with them and the 3 Concil Taurin cap. 5. French Bishops refused Communion with Foelix as being made a Bishop by them 4 Bin. Not. in Concil Trevir A. D. 386. Theognostus also and other Bishops of the Catholick Communion did excommunicate Ithacius and his Companions on this account as sanguinary bloody and unworthy of the Priesthood And yet after so many 1 Concil Lat. 3um cap. 27. 4tum can 3. Constan Sess 45. Senon c. 2 3. Decrees of General Councils for the Extirpation of Hereticks the calling in of the Secular Arm against them and the animating of Princes and their Subjects 2 Concil Lat. 3. c. 27. 4tum Conc. Tom. 11. p. 149. Senon Tom. 12. p 368 369. app ad Con. Basil apud Bin. Tom. 8. p 200. p 267. to make War against them under the Banner of the Cross after Examples of burning Hereticks by their Authority and Instigation during their sitting after so many Constitutions of 3 Concil Tom. 11. p. 619 621. p. 423. part 2. p. 2101. Decretal l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Kings and Emperors confirmed by so many Popes to take them away by a damnable Death after so many Inquisitions set up for the destruction of them after so many Thousands of them burnt in Roman Catholick Dominions by virtue of the Sentence past upon them in Ecclesiastical Courts after so many great Massacres of them by Men of that Communion without
Doctrines of the Church of Rome are not received by Tradition from Father to Son since in this matter the Sons have generally entertained a Doctrine their Fathers either knew nothing of or plainly contradicted and that is now become pious and consonant to Ecclesiastical Worship which in St. Bernard's time was Ep. 174. praesumpta novitas Mater temeritatis soror superstitionis filia levitatis A bold Novelty the Mother of Rashness the Sister of Superstition the Daughter of Levity 5. Hence doth it follow that even by the Authority of the heads of the Vniversal Church men may be forbidden under pain of Damnation to Assert the Ancient Doctrine of the Church and may have liberty to contradict it Yea that in the judgment of a great R. Council received by the French as General and bearing that title in all Editions of the Councils that may be agreeable to the Catholick Faith to Reason and to Holy Scripture which is repugnant to the Ancient Doctrine of the Church Catholick for Eight whole Centuries 6. Hence is it manifest that the Trent Council hath given liberty to all her Members to hold that which is opposite to an universal constant unopposed Tradition of the Church for many Ages that is that she hath left them at their liberty to hold the Ancient Faith or hold the contrary 7. Hence it appears that in the Church of Rome Feasts may be instituted in which all men shall be exhorted to praise God for a thing which perhaps never was and of the truth of which none of her Members can be certain certitudine fidei with the certainty of Faith all of them being by this Church permitted to believe the contrary CHAP. III. Fifthly We distinguish betwixt Traditions which though not written in Scripture are left on Record in the Ecclesiastical writings of the first and purest Ages of the Church and such as are so purely Oral Traditions as that we find no footsteps of them in the Three first Centuries much less any assurance they had then any general Reception of the first kind is the Canon of Scripture of the Old Testament mentioned in our Sixth Article § 1. This is proved from the Jews § 2. From the Christians of the Second Century § 3. Of the Third Century § 4. From almost all the celebrated Writers of the Fourth Century § 5. Where also it is observed 1. That these Fathers profess to deliver that Catalogue of them which they had received from Tradition § 6. And that the Books which they rejected as Apocryphal were so reputed by the Church § 7. That the Catalogue they produced was that received not only by the Jews but Christians § 8. That they made it to prevent mistakes § 9. That they represent the Books contained in their Catalogue as the Fountain of Salvation the rest as insufficient to confirm Articles of Faith § 10. The same Tradition still continued to the Sixteenth Century § 11. What the Roman Doctors must do if they would shew a like Tradition for any of their Tenets § 12. The unreasonableness of their pretences to Tradition in this Article Ibid. The Attempts of Mr. M. and J. L. to prove their Canon from the Council of Carthage the Testimony of St. Austin the Decrees of Pope Innocent and Gelasius are Answered § 13. The Tradition touching the Books of the New Testament where it is proved 1. That the Four Evangelists the Acts the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul the First of Peter and of John were always owned as Canonical by all Orthodox Christians § 14. 2. That it cannot be necessary to Salvation to be assured that the Books formerly controverted belong to the Canon § 15. 3. That we cannot be assured of the true Canon of the New Testament from the Testimony of the Latin Church § 16. 4. That there is not the like necessity that the controverted Books should have been generally received from the beginning as that all necessary Articles of Christian Faith and Manners should be then generally received § 17. That we have cause sufficient to own as Canonical the Books once controverted is proved 1. in the General § 18. 2. In Particular touching the Apocalypse § 19. And the Epistle to the Hebrews § 20. Touching the Epistle of St. James the Second of Peter the Second and Third of John the Epistle of St. Jude § 21. No Orthodox Persons dobuted of them after the Fourth Century § 22. The Romanists cannot prove their Doctrines by any like Traditions and in particular not by such a Tradition as proves the Apocalypse Canonical § 23. The Objection of Mr. M. Answered § 24. AGain § 1 the word Tradition may be applied to signifie either such things as are not written in the Scripture Dist 5. though they are left on Record in the Ecclesiastical writings of the first and purest Ages Vocatur Doctrina non scripta non ea quae nusquam scripta est sed quae non est scripta a primo Autore Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto l. 4. c. 2. and from them handed down unto us in the writings of succeeding Ages or else to signifie such things as are said only to be delivered by word of Mouth but cannot by the Records of preceding Ages be proved to have been received as Doctrines generally maintained or practices always observed in the Church of Christ of the first sort is the Tradition of the Canon of Scripture of the Apostles Symbol as a perfect Summary of Doctrines necessary to be believed the Observation of the Lord's Day the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons by Bishops only and the like we having full and pregnant evidence from the first Records of Antiquity unto this present time of all these things and whatsoever can be proved by a like Tradition touching a necessary Article of Christian Faith we are all ready to receive but those pretended Traditions of the Roman Church which by no Records of Antiquity can be made appear to have been constantly received by the Church as Apostolical Traditions we have just Reason to reject as being without Ground so stiled For Instance First We receive the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old Testament mentioned in our Sixth Article because it is by written Tradition handed down unto us from the Jews from Christ and his Apostles and from their Successors in the Church and we reject the Canon of the Old Testament imposed upon us by the Fourth Session of the Trent Council partly because we find a clear Tradition both virtually by all who say the Canon of the Old Testament is only that we own and expresly by those who say the others which we stile Apocrypha belong not to the Canon And 1. § 2 We receive our Canon from the Ancient Jews to whom were committed the Oracles of God for their Josephus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 1. contra Apion
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
of them will be the Six thousandth Year so Irenaeus His Scholar Hyppolitus in the fore-cited passage saith the same thing Vide Sixt. Senen Bibl. Sanctae l. 5. annot 190. Lib. 7. c. 25. Eustathius in his Hexaemeron and the Author of the Question and Answers passing under the Name of Justin Martyr Lactantius Hilary and Jerom are all of the same mind and hence Lactantius took the confidence to say in his time It could not be above Two hundred Years before the World would have an end St. Cyprian De Exhort Mart. p. 168. That Sex millia annorum jam fere complentur the Six thousand Years are almost compleated And St. Jerom Ep. ad Gerontium de Monogamia Tom. 1. f. 33. b. when he heard of the taking of Rome by Alaricus the Goth crys out Qui tenebat de medio fit non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare He who hinder'd is taken out of the way and do we not consider that Antichrist is at hand And this Opinion Disert de Mart fortitud §. 21.24 as it is well noted by the Learned Mr. Dodwell they collected from the Prophetick writings and from the Phrase of the last Days so frequent in the Scripture and from those Expressions which mention our Lord's coming to destroy Jerusalem as at hand And yet we have already lived long enough to see the falseness of this Doctrine and so to be convinced that in these matters the Church Guides were not Infallible Interpreters of Scripture nor Aâ—thentick derivers of Tradition down to future Ages And which is in this matter more observable 2 Thes ij 6. the Apostle plainly had foretold them what it was that hindered this appearance of the Man of Sin and yet 't is manifest that they retained not what he told them Nor hath the Church of future Ages been able to inform us nor can our pretenders to Infallibility tell us with any certainty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 V. 6. what was the hindrance which St. Paul there meant and his Thessalonians then knew for that they did know it we are sure because it is written But what it was none of them knew because it was unwriten The Church that infallible Oracle and excellent keeper of Tradition hath lost this and many more Traditions that is discourses of our Lord and his Apostles by word of mouth because they were not written And therefore blessed be the goodness of that God who seeing what an unfaithful keeper of Traditions the Church was took order that what his wisdom saw necessary for us to know and practise should be written 2. Dist 7 In matters of Practice we distinguish betwixt such practices as have been generally received and owned without contest from the first and purest Ages of the Church as the Observation of the Lord's Day the Ordination of Presbyters by Bishops and such as have been matter of long contest and in which the Tradition pleaded by some hath been as evidently disowned by others as good Members of the Church as they and that we have no sufficient Reason to depend much on such pretences to Tradition will appear from the dispute betwixt Pope Victor and the Asiatick Bishops about the observation of the Easter Festival of which let it be Noted First § 9 That Pope Victor and the R. Church kept the Easter Festival on the Lord's Day only whereas the Asiaticks and some few Churches with them did celebrate that Festival on the Fourteenth Day of March on whatsoever Day of the Week that happend whence sometimes it fell out that some Christians were Feasting and rejoicing when others were observing their Lent Fast For this cause Synods met in divers places and particularly a R. Synod which decreed with Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all with one consent should keep the Easter Festival on the Lord's Day And consonant to this was the Practice and Judgment of many other Churches for that this Festival should be by them observed on the same day was determined by St. Irenaeus who presided in France by Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea by Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalâ—m and the Priests subject to them by the Bishops of Pontus in a Synod where Palma presided and by the Churches of the Province of Osdroena And the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. saith Eusebius was the Eunanimous determination of most other Bishops and Churches of the Christian World. And though the Asiatick Churches kept this Feast upon the Fourteenth Day of March yet was the contrary practice observed saith the same Eusebus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the whole World beside So that 't is evident the much major part of the Church concurred in practice with the Pope and judged it reasonable and expedient to observe this Festival upon the Lord's Day only And of this their determination they sent Letters to all the Churches round about and consequently to all the Asiatick Churches Secondly Observe That according to Eusebius § 10 they who kept this Feast upon the Lord's Day did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a Tradition Apostolical Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 5. c. 17. p. 258. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Bishops of Palestine spake much of the Tradition touching the Paschal Feast descending down unto them by succession from the Apostles The Constitutions stiled Apostolical command all Christians to take especial care that they observe the Paschal Feast only on the Lord's Day and forbid them to celebrate it any longer with the Jews And the Fifth and Sixty second of those Canons which pass under the same stile forbid all Bishops Priests or Deacons under the penalty of deposition to celebrate the Paschal Feast before the vernal Equinox or to Feast with the Jews Thirdly Observe That notwithstanding these Assertions § 11 the Evidence that they who did observe this Festival when the Jews celebrated their Paschal Feast followed the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles seems more strong and cogent For even Eusebius confesseth that they who celebrated this Festival with the Jews Lib. 5. cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. told the very names of the Apostles from whom they received this Tradition and of their Successors who handed down this practice to them declaring that it was thus celebrated before them by Philip and John the Apostles of our Lord by Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna Thraseas Bishop of Eumenia by Papirius Melito and Sagaris and by seven Bishops Predecessors to Polycrates who all observed it as they did All these who in the first or second Centuries did very laudably perform the office of a Bishop and who had many of them extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kept the Paschal Feast saith Polycrates upon the Fourteenth Day according to the Gospel in nothing varying from what they had received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the God of Israel was an evil God and not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and they denied the truth of our Saviour's Manhood and the Resurrection of the Flesh Secondly Observe That the Opinion of St. Cyprian and those who in Africa and elsewhere adhered to him Dicimus omnes omnino Haereticos Schismaticos c. Ep. 69. p. 180. was this That all Persons who only were Baptized by Hereticks were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism St Cyprian Bishop of Carthage thought Hist Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 3. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 221. Omnes Schismaticos Haereticos qui ad Ecclesiam conversi sunt Baptizari Apud Cypr. p. 231. saith Eusebius that being first purged from their Error they ought to be admitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no otherwise than by Baptism Not only the Cataphrygae saith Firmilian but caeteri quique Haeretici all other Hereticks whatsoever are deprived of the Power of Baptism In the Council of Carthage consisting of Eighty five Bishops assembled out of Africa Numidia and Mauritania Novatus a Thamugade defines according to the Testimony of the Scriptures and the Decree of our Collegs of Blessed Memory That all Schismaticks and Hereticks who are converted to the Church should be Baptized Januarius a Lambese saith According to the Authority of the Holy Scriptures I decree Haereticos omnes Baptizandos that all Hereticks shall be Baptized and so admitted into the Church Repudiandum esse omne omnino Baptisma quod sit extra Ecclesiam constitutum Firm. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 226. The Council of Iconium decreed That all Baptism was to be rejected that was celebrated out of the Church That of Synnada That no Baptism was to be found amongst Hereticks which were out of the Church Apud Haereticos nullum Baptisma reperiri and that therefore returning to the Church they ought to be Baptized in it Thirdly Observe That Pope Stephen § 17 in prosecution of this Quarrel or Dispute proceeded to a Separation of himself from and a refusal of Communion with his Brethren both in the Southern and the Eastern Churches who declared for the Baptism of Hereticks returning to the Bosom of the Church Pope Stephen saith Dionysius to Pope Xystus writ to me Apud Eusebium Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. as you do and for the same Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as one who would not communicate with Helin Firmilian or any of the Bishops of Cilicia Cappadocia Galatia or of the Neighbouring Regions because they Rebaptized Hereticks In many other Provinces saith Firmilian many things do vary Rumpens adversus vos pacem Ep. 75. apud Cypr. p. 228. but yet for these things they do not depart from the Peace and Vnity which yet Pope Stephen hath been bold to do breaking that Peace which all his Ancestors have preserved with you in mutual Love and Honour And turning his Discourse to him he speaks thus How great Sin hast thou heaped upon thy self quando te à tot gregibus scidisti by cutting off thy self from so many Flocks Siquidem ille est vere Schismaticus qui sea Communione Ecclesiasticae unitatis Apostatum fecerit Ibid. Sacerdotes Dei abstinendos putat Deceive not thy self for thou hast cut thy self off from them he being indeed the Schismatick who makes himself an Apostate from the Communion of Ecclesiastical Vnity and whilst thou thinkest thy self able to separate all from thee thou only hast separated thy self from all St. Cyprian saith Ep. 74. Pag. 214. That he had passed his Judgment for the Excommunication of the Priests of God who kept the Truth of Christ and the Unity of the Church St. Austin also doth affirm Stephanus non solum non rebaptizabat Haereticos verum etiam hoc facientes Excommunicandos fore decernebat Libr. de Baptismo contra Petil. cap. 14. pag. 504. That Pope Stephen judged they should be Excommunicated who endeavoured to pull down the Ancient Custom of receiving Hereticks without Baptism Fourthly Observe That after the Death of Stephen Pope Xystus his immediate Successor asserted the same Doctrine and was as vehement as he for the Exclusion of all those from Church Communion who did oppose it For Xystus with Philemon and Dionysius two Roman Presbyters wrote Letters to Dionysius of Alexandria declaring That they would not communicate with them who held that Hereticks were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism Apud Euseb Ibid. This will appear from the Letter of Dionysius to Pope Xystus where having told him that his Predecessor Pope Stephen had written to him that he would not Communicate with them for this very reason he adds That he had written formerly both to Philemon and Dionysius of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were before of the same judgment with Pope Stephen as they were now of the same mind with Xystus and who writ to him about the same things Whence it is evident that Xystus the succeeding Pope Philemon and Dionysius Presbyters of Rome persisted in this Resolution not to Communicate with those who held That Hereticks were to be received into the Church by Baptism and seeing Dionysius who was of the same judgment succeeded Xystus it follows that three Succeeding Popes had then defined that Article Fifthly § 18 Observe That the Opinion and Practice of the Africans and many Eastern Churches was asserted by very many Christian Doctors Churches and Councils It was the Opinion of Tertullian Sine dubio non habent De Baptism c. 15. Apud nos Haereticus etiam per Baptisma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur De pudicitia Cap. 19. that Hereticks had no Baptism and this saith he is without doubt It was the Doctrine of Agrippinus and of St. Cyprian in the same Century In Aegypt it was the Doctrine of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria In Asia of Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea In Cilicia of Helen Bishop of Tarsis In the Fourth Century it was the Doctrine of Optatus Lib. 4 5. who frequently asserts Apud ipsos non esse Sacramenta That the Hereticks had no Sacraments Orat. 3. Contr. Arian p. 413. Of Athanasius who declares the Arians Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wholly vain and unprofitable That the Baptism given by them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alien from the Truth though they used the name of the Father and the Son because they found them written Ibid. 13. for not he who simply calls him Lord gives true Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he who with the names holds the true Faith. Hence our Saviour gave not commission to Baptize any how but first to Teach that by teaching aright Faith might be obtained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. and with Faith might be added the Consecration of Baptism and of other Hereticks he faith
the Roman Church were in this case opposite to Scripture and the plainest Reason And as St. Basil doth to Amphilochius in the same case Can. 47. Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sunt ab origine tradita Ep. 75. p. 220. Though you and the Romans hold the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet ought our Sentence to take place And as Firmilian expresly doth That 't is usual with them of Rome to vary from Apostolical Tradition Could so many Fathers so many Churches so many Councils have not only practised in opposition to the Doctrines and Customs of that Church but also have condemned them in such opprobrious Terms as they have done Cyp. Ep. 69. p. 185. Ep. 73. p. 206 208 210. Ep. 74. p 212 c. pronouncing the Assertors of them Prevaricators in matters both of Faith and Truth Betrayers of the Church Enemies to Christians Friends and Abettors of Hereticks Men who did plead their Cause and partake with them in their Sins Men who did null evacuate destroy the Baptism of the Church and give up the Spouse of Christ to Adulterers Fifthly § 25 Hence it is manifest That in that Age they verily believed that what had passed for Apostolical Tradition in the Church of Rome and her Adherents might be no such matter that both that Church and her Abettors might impose upon their fellow Christians in pretending to it and that there lay no Obligation on other Churches to comply with them in such matters as they delivered for Apostolical Tradition For otherwise how could it happen that so many populous Churches so many Councils so many famous Bishops that Athanasius Optatus St. Basil Cyril of Jerusalem all great Assertors of true Apostolical Tradition should declare so plainly and expresly against this practice of the Church of Rome that Firmilian should declare Neminem tam stultum esse qui hoc credat Apostolos tradidisse Ep. 75. p. 219. Nemo infamare Apostolos debeat quasi illi Haereticorum Baptisinata probaverint Ep. 74. p. 211. No Man could be so Foolish as to believe the Apostles had delivered any such thing that St. Cyprian should say That this pretence of Romanists was manifestly false and tended to blaspheme the Reputation of the Blessed Apostles that the Africans should not only reject this pretended Apostolical Tradition in the opprobrious Terms forementioned but should declare so oft in Council that the contrary Doctrine descended from Evangelical Authority and Apostolical Tradition Vid. Supra and was confirmed by the Divine Law and the Holy Scriptures How lastly could it happen that all the other Churches excepting that of Rome were all at Peace and still maintained Communion with these Opposers and Traducers of this pretended Tradition and did not blame them in the least on this account but rather interceded with the Roman Bishop to lay aside his Fury and entertain Communion and Friendship with these Churches as they did Sixthly Hence it appears that in that Age they thought not Custom or Tradition though practised by the Church of Rome and by the major part of Christians any certain Rule of Manners but thought themselves obliged sometimes to vary from it and that they might have Truth and Reason and Scripture on their sides against it that it concerned them to examine then whether the Custom they were required to follow had its rise from Christ and his Apostles and could be proved from their Writings and if not to reject it For in this matter they declare Non esse consuetudine praescribendum Cypr. Ep. 71. p. 194. sed ratione vincendum Their Adversaries were not to prescribe to them from Custom but to convince them by reason St. Paul having taught every one not to adhere pertinaciously to what he had once imbibed Pag. 195. but willingly to embrace any thing which he found better or more profitable That 't was in vain when Men were overcome by reason Ep. 73. p. 203. to oppose Custom to it as if Custom were better than Truth and that were not rather to be followed which was revealed for the better by the Holy Spirit that Non semper errandum Ibid. p. 208. quia aliquando erratum est We must not always erre because we once have done so Ep. 74. p. 215. that Custom without Truth was only old Error and vainly was preferred before it that the Truth being manifested Concil Carth. apud Cypr. p. 236 240 241. Custom was to yield to it that no Man ought to preferr Custom to Reason and Truth that Christ being Truth we ought rather to follow that than Custom that it was obstinacy and presumption Cypr. Ep. 74. p. 212. humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere to preferr humane Tradition to divine Orders and not to consider that God is angry when humane Tradition evacuates divine Precepts that when it was said to them let nothing be innovated Ibid. p. 211. but that which was delivered be observed it was to be enquired unde est ista traditio whence is that Tradition Whether from the Authority of Christ and the Gospel the commands and Epistles of the Apostles and if in Evangelio praecipitur Ib. p. 215. aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actubus continetur it were commanded in the Gospel or contained in the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles then was it to be observed and that when Truth shook and staggered we were to have recourse to the Head and Original of Divine Tradition ad originem dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem to the Gospel and Apostolical Tradition Lastly Hence it is evident § 26 That in those early times Tradition Apostolical and from the beginning must falsly be pretended by Great Men and Churches even in a matter of continual practice and occurrence in the Church of God for here you see it was pretended for the Admission of Hereticks without Baptism by Pope Stephen and his Church and the fame Tradition Apostolical and from the beginning was pretended for the opposite Doctrine by Firmilian and St. Basil and their Party and yet the Church did in the following Ages declare against the Pretences of them both If then in these plain matters of Fact and of continual practice Tradition did so fail both the Pretenders to it must it not be more apt to fail in matters of meer Speculation If by Tradition these Churches could not truly tell what their Forefathers did how should they by it tell assuredly in all things what they held since that could only be made known unto them by their Words and Actions if actually they handed down unto posterity for a traditionary Practice that which was not truly so why might they not also hand that down to them as a traditionary Doctrine which was nothing less than so CHAP. V. Eightly We distinguish also betwixt Traditions which appear from Reason to be such as ought to be received and
the Apostles understood not or neglected if they did not fulfil them but hid some of the Light that is of the Word of God and Sacramenti Christi of the Doctrine of Christ. Whereas saith he it was incredibile vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae nobis edidiffe that eitheir the Apostles were ignorant of any thing they were to preach or that they did not perfectly reveal the Rule of Faith to all He also shews That the Church did not alter what she had received from the Apostles because the Rule of Faith was one and the same in all Churches of Christ they being all one Chap. 20. ejusdem Sacramenti una traditione by having the same Tradition of the same Rule of Faith and because they did in eadem fide conspirare agree in the same Faith this Rule this Creed mentioned Chapter the Thirteenth must therefore be according to Tertullian the fulness of the Apostles preaching the entire Rule of Faith they preached to all or else according to him the Apostles must be ignorant or unfaithful and his ensuing Argument That all succeeding Churches agreed in this Rule as in the Tessera Hospitalitatis the Signal of Friendship Ibid. that it was one and the same among them all and that they who were not by Original Apostolical Churches were yet Apostolical because they did conspire with them that were so in the Belief of this Faith is a farther demonstration that this Creed was the entire Faith delivered by the Apostles and taught by all Churches since otherwise Tertullian's Argument must be false for he expresly undertakes to prove that the Apostles delivered to the Churches the entire Rule of Faith and that the Churches did faithfully transmit to posterity the whole Faith they received from them and that because they all transmitted the Apostles Creed mentioned Chapter the Thirteenth had not then that contained the whole Christian Faith owned then by all the Orthodox as such Tertullian had given up the Cause unto the Hereticks for they might have replied upon him as do the Romanists to us that the Apostles delivered many other Traditions as necessary to be believed as those contained in the Creed and that these were the Doctrines which they owned and Tertullian rejected Hence then our Demonstration from these words of Tertullian is invincible All Christians conspired in this that this Rule of his contained the whole Faith received from the Apostles beyond which nothing was necessary to be believed whosoever could produce this Creed they received into Communion pro consanguinitate doctrinae because agreeing with them in the Faith and whosoever pretended to any Articles of Faith not mentioned in this Creed they confuted them by saying they had no such Article in the Creed and therefore the Apostles Chap. 32 33. nihil tale docuerunt taught no such thing and rejected them ob diversitatem Sacramenti as holding a Faith different from that of the Church Now how is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith The Errors of the Churches had there been any in delivering their entire Rule of Faith must needs have varied but that which amongst them all was one and the same must be a sure Tradition and then the Doctrines of the Roman Creed must be rejected as not taught by the Apostles and as different from the Churches Faith. Mr. M. Ibid. Lo here plain Protestantism in the highest point proved and approved by all Christians within Two hundred Years after Christ The same Doctrine is delivered Chapter the Nineteenth and the Twentieth Pag. 429 430. on which Mr. M. insists Sect. 20. Num. 4. for there he tells us That our Lord sent his Twelve Apostles eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgare to preach the same Doctrine of Faith to the Nations and so to plant Churches in every City from which other Churches received traducem fidei femina doctrinae the Tradition of their Faith and the Seeds of Doctrine and embracing of it became all Apostolical by receiving the same Rule of Faith. Hence therefore saith he we prescribe against the Hereticks Hinc igitur dirigimus praescriptionem Cap. 21. for if our Lord sent his Apostles to preach we must receive no other Preachers of the Faith than he appointed now what they preached ought not to be otherwise proved than by the same Churches which they planted eis praedicando tam vivâ quod aiunt voce quam per Epistolas postea by preaching to them by word of mouth and afterwards by their Epistles And if so 't is manifest saith he that Doctrine is to be accounted true which conspires with the Apostolical Churches whence Faith had its Original and that is to be rejected which contradicts that Faith it remains therefore uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cujus Regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur ex hoc ipso an caeterae de mendacio veniunt that we demonstrate whether our Doctrine the Rule of which we have laid down Chapter the Thirteenth derives from the Tradition of the Apostles and consequently whether all others be not false He therefore doth again declare That the Creed mentioned by him there is the entire Rule of Faith and that by which we may discern who hold the Truth and who teach Falshood And argues thus All the Apostolical Churches have delivered this Creed as that entire Doctrine which they received from the Apostles and all the Hereticks say the contrary therefore their Doctrine must be rejected and that of the Apostolick Churches be received as the Truth Mark here Pag. 429. to use the words of Mr. M. how the first ground on which we are to stand as upon a ground most advantageous for gaining the victory against Error and purchasing triumph to Truth is the Tradition of this Creed of the Apostles as the entire Rule of Faith for by that alone we assuredly know whether our Doctrine of which the Rule is given Chapter the Thirteenth came from Apostolical Tradition from this Rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles by word of Mouth and by their Writings and then by Tradition delivered down by successive practice of all Churches to which Churches Tertullian here expresly sends us will be discovered that only Tradition of the Rule of Faith in which totum Christianae fidei Sacramentum all the Mysteries of Christian Faith are contained And thus Tertullian goes on pressing his Adversary meerly by the Tradition of this Creed as the entire Rule of Faith and this way and only this way he prescribes that we ought to shew what Christ and his Apostles taught Fifthly § 9 Hence we return an Answer to that demand so often but so vainly made What Catalogue have you of Fundamental Articles of Faith For here is a Catalogue of them recommended to the whole World of Christians by so great Authority as may well be esteemed
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
the number of the Seven Sacraments in General I pass on to the Confessions that have been made concerning those five R. Sacraments in Particular which our Article denies to be Sacraments properly so called or of Divine Institution And First As for Confirmation Alexander of Hales § 12 as he is cited by many of the Schoolmen affirmed De hoc recitat Alexander part 4. q. 24. M. 1. Et post eum Sanctus Thomas tres opiniones una est quam tenet Alexander quod Sacramentum illud non est institutum neque a Christo neque ab Apostolis Sed dicit quod Confirmatio instituta est ab Ecclesia in Concilio Meldensi Unde dicit Alexander sine praejudicio dicendum est quod neque Dominus hoc Sacramentum instituit neque dispensavit Sed postquam Apostoli defecerunt institutum fuit hoc Sacramentum Spiritus Sancti instinctu in Concilio Meldens◠quantum ad formam verborum materiam elementarem cui etiam Spiritus Sanctus contulit virtutem sanctificandi Biel in 4. Sent. q. un D. Alii quod in Aurelianensi Concilio In 4. Sent. dist 7. Art. 1. Part. 3. q. 72. A. 1. ad primum Quod Dominus neque hoc Sacramentum instituit neque dispensavit That our Lord neither instituted nor dispensed this Sacrament nor was it instituted by his Disciples but as to the Form of Words and the Matter of it it was instituted by the Council of Meaux Soto informs us That others attributed the institution of it to the Council of Orleans Thomas Aquinas saith That touching this Sacrament there is a double Opinion quidam enim dixerunt for some have said that this Sacrament was neither instituted by Christ nor by his Apostles Sed postea processu temporis in quodam Concilio but afterwards in process of time in some Council To proceed to Auricular Confession two things have been defined by the R. Church concerning it § 13 1. That it is a Sacrament truly and properly so called Concil Trid. Sess 14. Can. 1. and of our Saviour's Institution 2. Ibid. Can. 6 7. That this Confession by divine Right is necessary to Salvation and that if any one shall say that it is not by divine Right necessary for the Remission of Sins in the Sacrament of Penance to confess all and singular mortal Sins though never so occult which can by diligent Meditation be brought to our Memory with the Circumstances which change the Kinds of them he is to be Anathema In Opposition to the first Assertion Maldonate the Jesuit confesseth Maldon Sum. q. 18. Art. 4. That sunt inter Catholicos qui putant nullum esse praeceptum divinum de confessione ut omnes Decretorum Doctores inter Scholasticos Scotus there are Catholicks who think there is no Divine Precept for Confession as all the Canonists and among the Schoolmen Scotus In hac re Haereticos nonnullos Catholicos errasse invenio Tom. 3. Disp 32. §. 2. Suarez declares That in this matter he found that not only Hereticks but some Catholiks had erred also it being the Opinion of some Catholicks Hoc Sacramentum non fuisse institutum neque a Christo neque ab Apostolis sed in Concilio Meldensi speciali spiritus Sancti instinctu That this Sacrament was neither instituted by Christ nor his Apostles but in the Council of Meaux by the special Instinct of the Holy Spirit Semeca De poen init dist 5. the Author of the Gloss having mentioned the Opinion of them who said That Confession was instituted in the New Testament by St. James saith Melius dicitur eam institutam fuisse à quadam universalis Ecclesiae Traditione It is better said that it was instituted by a certain Tradition of the universal Church than by the Authority of the New or Old Testament Super lib. 5. decret de poenit remiss c. 12. n. 18. Tom. 7. p. 228. Ed. Venet. 1617. This saith Panormitan the Gloss holds and consequently that the Greeks offend not by not using this Confession Confitentur enim soli Deo in secreto for they confess to God alone in secret because such a Tradition came not to them And this Opinion pleaseth me saith he very much Quia non est aliqua Autoritas aperta quae innuat Deum seu Christum apertè instituisse confessionem fiendam Sacerdoti for there is no clear Authority which plainly shews that God or Christ instituted Confession to be made to a Priest Lib. 3. de poenit cap. 1. Bellarmine informs us that about an Hundred Years before his time one Petrus Oxomensis Divinity Professor of the University of Salamanca held That Confession was not of Divine Right but grounded on some Statute of the universal Church Pag. 476. Rhenanus on the Argument of Tertullian's Book of Penitence saith That he speaks of publick Confession Qua majores nostros apparet aliquamdiu usos fuisse priusquam ista secreta nasceretur quâ hodie conscientiam nostram Sacerdoti detegimus usque ad circumstantiarum omnium minutias Which it is evident our Ancestors used for some time before that secret Confession began in which we open our Conscience to a Priest even to the discovery of the smallest Circumstances And having told us that there were among the Canonists qui institutam ab Ecclesia tradunt confessionem who say that Confession was instituted by the Church P. 477. and cited many Fathers who taught with Chrysostom Soli Deo confitendum esse That Confession was to be made to God alone he adds That for this Cause he mentioned all those Testimonies P. 478. that none might admire Tertullianum de clancularia ista admissorum confession nihil locutum quae quantum conjicimus penitusid temporis ignorabatur that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as far as we can gather was wholly unknown at that time Nor is it thus only with Tertullian They who lived saith he many Ages after him Admon de quibusdam Eccl. dogm p. 685. spake mostly of publick Penance Nam expresse de privata qui loquuntur inter veteres hand temere reperies for you will scarcely find any among the Ancients who speaks expresly of the private Confession Regaltius in his Preface on the same Book saith Occultorum poenitentia Quam postea Ecclesia saluberiter instituit Epitap Fabiol Ep. Tom. 1. f. 72. sicut castigatio Divinae Misericordiae reservata the confession of secret Sins and the castigation of them was then reserved to the Mercy of God. Erasmus in like manner saith Apparet Hieronymi tempore nondum institutam fuisse secretam admissorum confessionem it is evident that in the time of St. Jerom the secret Confession of Sins was not yet instituted To proceed to the Second Head touching the Necessity of this Confession Gratian discourses largely of it and having produced the Opinions of many on both sides concludes thus De poenit remiss
Latina Ecclesia Presbyteris licuisse uti conjugio That even in the Latin Church it was sometimes Lawful for Priests to use Matrimony Scotus confesseth that it is very true Sent. 4. dist 37. qu. 1. Art. 1. That Secundum consuetudinem primitivae Ecclesiae according to the Constitution of the primitive Church it was lawful to use Matrimony contracted before Orders Cap. 4. De invent rerum l. 5. c. 4. p. 344. Clictovaeus in his Discourse of the Celebacy of Priests and Polydore Virgil do with one Voice affirm That Pope Syricius who held that See A.D. 387. was the first who imposed the Law of Celebacy on the Clergy It remains saith Cassander That this Law should be relaxed to those who shall hereafter be ordained Et more veteris Ecclesiae Consult Art. 23. p. 199. huc usque Orientalium Ecclesiarum And that after the Custom of the Ancient Church and of the Eastern Churches to this Day Honest Husbands should be admitted to the Ministry of the Church and out of the Time of their Ministry should be allowed the use of their Wives according to the Canon of the Sixth General Synod Wicelius in his Via Regia Apud Calixt de conjug cler p. 457. declares that the Marriage of Priests was unforbidden In primitiva Christi Ecclesia tam Orientis quam Occidentis in the Primitive Church both of East and West and that it agrees not only with the Gospel but also cum Veterum Synodorum Constitutionibus cum exemplis Veteris Ecclesiae with the Constitutions of Ancient Synods with the Examples of the Ancient Church yea even with the Examples of the Church of Rome such as she was Five hundred Years ago CHAP. XI Answer is given to the Arguments of Mr. M. for the Infallibility of Tradition as v. g. 1. That the World had no other Rule for the first Two thousand Years § 1. Answered 1st by shewing that this proves not the thing in Question which is not Whether nothing can come down unto us by Tradition but Whether in long tract of time Men may not add to the Traditions which truly they received others which falsly they pretend to be such and Whether pretences to Tradition may not be justly scrupled when ancient Records not only do say nothing of but plainly contradict them Ibid. 2dly That this Argument contradicts the Tradition of the Jews touching the Precepts of Noah only imposed upon the World before and of the Christians generally teaching Men were then guided by the Law not of Tradition but of nature § 2. The Instances contained in this Argument considered § 3. 3dly It is proved that both the Antediluvians and they who lived after the Flood were very prone to Idolatry and that God therefore would not trust them with any positive Precepts but such as were Recorded in a written Law § 4. Mr. M ' s. Second Argument That for above Two thousand Years more from Moses to Christ 's time the Church was governed partly by Writing and partly by Tradition Answ 1. The contrary is proved both from the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament § 5. 2. That the Traditions which obtained in the Jewish Church were such as tended to the Evacuation of the Law of Moses the Introduction of vain Worship and the renouncing of the true Messiah § 6. This is farther demonstrated from the Scriptures of the New Testament and Josephus § 7. Mr. M's Third Argument That when the Scriptures were given to the Jewish Church all other Nations were guided only by Tradition and yet had many true Believers among them as Job c. Answ 1. That the Scripture manifestly declares that the Heathens generally were guilty of Idolatry and that God had given them a Law not of Tradition but of Nature § 8.2 That Job and his Friends believed in one God not by Tradition but the Light of Nature according to the Fathers § 9.3 That when Christianity appeared the great Plea of the Heathens for it was Tradition which they pleaded after the manner of the Romanists § 10. The Answer of the Christians to this Plea is a full Justification of the Protestants and a demonstration that they were not Roman Catholicks in this Matter § 11. For 1st They represent it as the greatest folly to preferr Custom before Reason 2ly They add That their Ancestors were prone to receive Fables and monstrous Opinions for Truths which also Romanists confess of the Writers of their Histories 3dly That this was the Rise of all their Errors that they followed their Fathers without consulting Truth 4thly That they who pleaded Antiquity were themselves the greatest Innovators 5thly That there was a time when the Heathen Religion was New Ibid. In defence of their own Proceedings they declare 1st That it is the property of wise Men not to be enslaved to their former Opinions 2dly That their Adversaries ought not to run them down with prescription or the belief of their Ancestors but fairly come to the Merits of the Cause § 12. 3dly That they ought not to be run down with multitude that being no mark of the true Religion 4thly That they ought not to be called to yield a blind assent to the dictates of other Men without using their own Judgments 5thly That their Separation from their fore-Fathers must be acknowledged Just and Righteous because they could shew wherein they had erred Lastly That their Religion was not New but only it was lately that they knew it to be the true and old Religion § 13. Obj. 4. That before the New Testament was written and divulged all Christians were governed by Tradition only § 14. Answ 1. That the Four Gospels which were always judged sufficiently to contain the Christian Doctrine were writ soon after the Preaching of the Gospel 2. That till then the Apostles Preached only out of the Old Testament and exhorted their Hearers to attend to it as their Rule Ibid. 3. That the Tradition of the Primitive Church declared it necessary that Scriptures should be written to be to us a Rule of Faith § 15. Mr. M ' s. Fourth Argument that the Traditions of the Church of Rome may be as fully proved as it can be proved to one that never saw London that there is such a City and that it is the Capital City of this Kingdom shewed to be highly vain § 16. HAving thus shewed the uncertainty of Tradition in many Cases and proved that the Doctrines of the Church of Rome have not descended by Tradition from the Apostles or the Primitive Church I now proceed to Answer what Mr. M. doth offer to prove the certainty of Oral Tradition in the General and of some Romish Doctrines in Particular And § 1 1. Mr. M. saith That all the Faith which true Believers had in those Two thousand Years before the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written Pag. 335. had no other Ground than the Revelation of God as proposed
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
entire System of the Christian Faith than by committing it to Writing that Piety should not permit even the Romans to rest satisfied without such written Monuments of what they had been taught or to conceive it was sufficient that they had received it by Tradition and that the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost instructed the Apostles to commit to writing that which they had Preached by Word of Mouth that so it might become to future Ages the Pillar and the Ground of Truth and a sufficient Antidote against the Heresies which afterwards prevailed in the Church Euseb H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 37. And that the zeal of the first Successors of Christian Faith imployed it self as much in leaving to their Converts throughout all the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Writings of the Holy Gospels as in preaching Christ unto them In Answer to Mr. M's Fourth Reason for the Infallibility of Tradition I grant P. 354. That a Tradition made as credible to any Man as it may be made credible to one who never saw London that there is such a City as London and that it is the head Town of England will be a good and a sufficient Proof that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are true and that upon such Evidence afforded it will be most unreasonable to question the Truth of them but then I think it is the vainest thing imaginable for any person to attempt to prove them from a like Tradition For doth Mr. M. know of any Man whoever doubted that there was such a City as London or that it was the head Town of England Did he ever read or hear of any large Discourses any Testimonies brought from ancient Records or Traditions from Divine Revelation or from Reason to prove there was or could be no such Capital City in England Can he produce as many Eye and Ear Witnesses that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are truly Apostolical as may be easily produced for such a City Let Mr. M. once prove that the Traditions of the Romish Church were always generally received by all Mankind and that none ever had the Confidence to Question the Truth of any of them Let him prove them from Myriads of Eye Witnesses who saw them writ by the Apostles or Primitive Professors of Christianity as plainly as ever any Man saw London or as many Ear Witnesses hearing the Apostles preaching these Traditions as ever heard this Capital City mentioned by those who saw it Let him prove them by as many persons who writ to the Apostles concerning these Traditions as have writ to London and by as many who resorted to the Apostles to learn these Traditions as have resorted to this City by as many Books describing these Traditions in the very Age in which they are supposed to have been delivered as there are Books which in this Age make mention of the City of London and by as many Canons of the Primitive Church relating to these Traditions as there are Statutes and Discourses relating to the City Trade and Government of London And I will then acknowledge That it is impudent impious and blasphemous Impiety to doubt the Truth of these Traditions Mr. M. indeed supposeth That it is as evidently credible that God hath revealed such and such Verities as it is credible by humane Tradition that there is such a City as London but this he never undertakes to prove as knowing that it was an easier matter to suppose it P. 355 356. And then he adds That the very self same Tradition tells me that the same God who revealed by his Apostles so many other Verities to his Church did also reveal by the same Apostles to the same Church that this Church was to be heard as the Mistress of Truth with whom he would ever be present suggesting to her all Truth and never permitting the Gates of Hell to prevail against her that he placed her as a Pillar and Ground of Truth giving her such Pastors as should secure her Children from being tossed to and fro with every Wind of Doctrine and consequently this same Tradition tells me God hath revealed this Verity of her being Infallible in proposing any Point for Divine Faith. Now Reply First Mr. M. is miserably out in this Discourse for not one of these Revelations here mentioned whatsoever is the import of them have descended to us by Oral Tradition but are all of them contained in Scripture as far as they are truly cited Secondly Whereas the Evidence that there is such a City as London is so great that never any Body could deny or question it that the Church is Infallible in propounding any Point of Faith not clearly revealed in the Holy Scripture or that there are indeed any such Points of Faith is at present and hath been formerly denied by many Myriads of learned and pious Men whose worldly Interest it is and was to believe that true which they deny to be so and whose rejoicement it would be to find it true and that none of the places here produced prove this Infallibility or by the Primitive Professors of Christianity were esteemed to prove it they have unanimously held and do at present hold Thirdly Ibid. Whereas he saith He did see with his Eyes that she viz. the Church of God did propose her Traditions for Verities received from God. Let it be noted That Mr. M. confounds the Church of Rome and the Church of God excluding all the Protestants the Greek Church and the Eastern Christians not subject to the Pope from that Church out of which there is no Salvation which I hope is not so evident as that there is such a City as London for it is not the whole Church but that of Rome which claims this Infallibility and on that account proposeth her Traditions for Verities received from God. Now then let us return to our Capital City of London and we shall find the whole Nation though of different Parties Interests and Judgments agreeing that there is in England such a Capital City as London but yet we find half the whole Christian World utterly denying many Traditions of the Church of Rome to be Verities received from God and in particular that of the Pope's Supremacy without which the Church of Rome neither doth nor can pretend to be the whole Church Catholick Now this denial of her pretended Traditions by so many Churches professing a like Veneration for those Traditions which are truly Primitive must prove as strongly that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are falsly so called as her Assertion can be supposed to prove them Divine Verities Again whereas there are no universally received Records which give us the least cause to doubt whether there be such a City as London c. the Records of the Scriptures Councils and Fathers of the Church cause many Myriads to believe the Doctrines and Practices peculiar to the Roman Church are so far from being Apostolical Traditions that they
his Days did universally hold any thing that was an Error nor shall you ever read of any Catholick who refused to conform himself to the Vniversal Belief and Practice which was current in the whole Church of their times Now to this I answer That the Vniversal Church may be considered Two ways 1. In a State of Vnity within her self so that her Members do universally agree in the same Doctrine and Practice few or none dissenting from the common Doctrine of the Church or in that State in which her Members are unhappily divided by reason of the different Sentiments of many great and famous Churches which yet exclude not either Party from being Members of the Church Catholick as she hath always been since the great Rupture betwixt the East and West and as the West hath often been divided by reason of the great and lasting Schismes which have happened betwixt contending Popes and Emperors and betwixt Popes and Councils contending for Superiority 2. I add That this Agreement of the present Vniversal Church may either be in Doctrines and Practices necessary to the Being of a Church or else in Doctrines and Practices unnecessary on which the Being or the Welfare of the Church doth not depend Having premised these Distinctions I answer First That in Doctrines and Practices truly necessary to the Being of a Church the Agreement of the Vniversal Church is a sufficient Evidence that all such Doctrines and Practices derived from the Apostles because they were as necessary to be held throughout all formen Ages as in this And therefore in such Doctrines as were rejected by the Vniversal Church as Heresies Austin saith truly That it was sufficient Cause to reject them because the Church held the contrary De Haer. c. 90. they being such as did Oppugnare Regulam veritatis oppose her Rule of Faith or Symbol universally received And that it was sufficient to perswade any Man he ought not Aliquid horum in fidem recipere to embrace any of the Doctrines of Hereticks as Articles of Faith because the Church who could not be deficient in any point of necessary Faith did not receive them This way of Arguing negatively we therefore with St. Austin do allow The Vniversal Church knows no such Doctrine ergo it is no Article I am obliged to receive as any part of Christian Faith. The Vniversal Church of Christ knows no such Practice therefore it is no Practice necessary to be done by Christians But Secondly In Reference to such Doctrines or Practices on which the Being and the Welfare of the Church doth not depend I say the Agreement of the present Church can be no certain Argument either of the Truth of the Doctrine or of the Derivation either of the Doctrine or Practice from Apostolical Tradition And this seems very suitable even to the Rule of Lirinensis who having advised us to embrace that Sence of Scripture and those Tenets which were Ecclesiastical and universally received he saith this is especially to be observed in iis duntaxat Common c. 41. quaestionibus quibus totius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur In those Questions only on which depend the Foundations of the Catholick Faith. And this is also evident from Scripture Reason and Tradition First From Scripture which plainly doth inform us that the Rulers of the Jewish Church had taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and such Traditions as made void the Law of God and by which they taught others to transgress it and by which they deserved the Title of blind Guides leading the Blind And these Traditions were received and observed by all the Jews Mark 7.3 Gal. 1.14 Traditions of the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Traditions received from their Fathers Customs which they who did not walk according to were thought to teach Apostasy from Moses Now if the whole Jewish Church of that Age might thus mistake in what she taught as Doctrines of the Scripture or Practices and Doctines received from Moses by Tradition why may not the Christian Church of this present Age or any other be subject to the like Mistakes in Doctrine or in Practice Again That the Doctrines of the Millenium of the Day of Judgment being nigh at hand of the Reservation of good Souls in some place different from the highest Heavens were very prevalent in the first Ages of the Church I have already proved Chap. 4. §. 1 2 3 4 5 6. though now they do as generally pass for Errors And the like may be easily proved of many Practices now wholly laid aside Quod autem instituitur praeter consuetudinem ut quasi observatio Sacramenti sit approbare non possum etiamsi multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo sed hoc nimis doleo quia tam multis praesumptionibus plena sunt omnia Epist ad Jan. 119. cap. 19. St. Austin in his Time complained That all things or places were filled with manifold Presumptions and that these Corruptions had so generally obtained that albeit he thought they ought to be redressed yet durst he not freely disprove them and if so many Superstitions were so publickly avowed and practised in his time and urged upon others by the greatest part of the Church and if so many Doctrines prevailed in the greatest part of the Church in former Ages which now pass for Errors why might they not generally do so What Reason can be given why the whole might not continue the true Church of Christ and hold these Doctrines and espouse these Practices as well as so great Parts of the Church continue true Parts of the Church and do so Thirdly It is evident from Church History that Doctrines and Practices have generally obtained in some Ages of the Church and passed for Apostolical Traditions which have in after Ages been discarded as v. g. First The Administration of the Eucharist to Infants and the principle upon which they did it viz. That without Baptism and the Supper of the Lord no Man could have Life eternal The Punick Christians saith St. Austin call Baptism Salvation To. 7. li. de pecc Merit Remiss c. 24. and the participation of Christs body Life Whence is this Nisi ex antiqua ut existimo Apostolica Traditione qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent but from an Ancient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition by which the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them That without Baptism and the Participation of the Lord's Supper no Man can attain to the Kingdom of God or to Life Eternal Whence he concludes That it is in vain to promise the Kingdom of God or Life Eternal to Children without both these Sacraments and that with the plainest Evidence provided that his Principle hold good Now of this Matter let it be considered That it was certainly the Practice of the whole Church of Christ for many Ages § 3