Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	abraham_n	covenant_n	seal_n	6,171	5	9.8580	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85088	Two treatises The first, concerning reproaching & censure: the second, an answer to Mr Serjeant's Sure-footing. To which are annexed three sermons preached upon several occasions, and very useful for these times. By the late learned and reverend William Falkner, D.D.	Falkner, William, d. 1682.; Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.; Sturt, John, 1658-1730, engraver.	1684 (1684)	Wing F335B; ESTC R230997	434,176	626

Saints and the beloved City But such things cannot agree to the time of a thousand years after our Saviours second coming nor is there indeed any mention made in the foregoing Verses of Christs coming to Reign here upon Earth And therefore the Millenary Opinion was deservedly rejected and disclaimed by (e) Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. ult Eusebius as being against the true sense of the Prophetical Scriptures 4. But according to the Prophetick stile the living again of those who were dead yea so long dead that their bones were dry is an expression of a Church or State delivered out of affliction and calamity and advanced to a more prosperous and flourishing condition as is manifest from Ezek. 37.2 3 and v. 11 12 13 14. and Isai 26.19 and the continuing under a depressed state is expressed by being so dead as not to rise v. 14. And when the Church or the Saints of the most high are represented to possess the Dominion and Government of the World or that the Empire of the World should become Christian and the Rule and Government thereof be administred by them who professed Christianity this is signified by the Dominion of one like the Son of man and giving him a Kingdom Dan. 7.13 14. and the Saints of the most high possessing the Kingdom v. 18 22. and by being caught up to God and to his Throne Rev. 12.5 which are expressions of like import with that of reigning with Christ 5. But though this mistake of the Chiliasts had so far spread it self that it was entertained by many worthy men in the first ages of the Church I cannot think it to have had so universal a reception in that time as some very learned men are inclined to believe S. Hierome mentions Papias (f) de Script Eccl. in Pap. to be accounted to have given the first rise to this opinion and (g) Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius speaks to the same purpose who also observes him to have been a man of good note and esteem but of a mean judgment and that while he was inquisitive concerning whatsoever he could learn to have been spoken by the Apostles and some Apostolical men he being too credulous delivered some things as Doctrines and Parables spoken by our Saviour which were fabulous In (h) Just Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. Justin Martyr there are plain expressions that himself and many other Christians embraced this Opinion of the Chiliasts but still it appears that he granted other Christians not to own this assertion And when (i) Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionysius of Alexandria writing against the Book of Nepos an Egyptian Bishop which he had composed to maintain the opinion of the Chiliasts doth declare that this Opinion spread from Arsenoites had occasioned Schisms and defections in some whole Churches in those parts this is a plain evidence that the Churches of Egypt and those under Alexandria had remained free from receiving the error of the Chiliasts till the time of Nepos which was in the beginning of the third Century and divers of them also were soon reduced from it again by the labours and diligence of Dionysius as is expressed in the same place 6. But though this Opinion in its general consideration be an error manifest enough occasioned by the misunderstanding of the Prophetical expressions which suitably to the visions and representations they had of things is more Figurative and Emblematical than other parts of the Scriptures yet that which I chiefly aim at is a far worse superstructure which is built upon this foundation For there have been a furious and fierce sort of men who embracing this error have therewith espoused such pernicious Principles and Practices that the bare naming them is enough to shew them grossly inconsistent with Christianity whilst under a pretence of making way for Christs Kingdom they do in disorderly and unchristian methods set up themselves in opposition to other Governours These are of a seditious temper but are far from being governed by those Laws and Precepts of Christs Kingdom which injoin the necessity of peace and meekness and being subject These men when they think fit are for taking the Sword as was done by Venner and his Company to fight against the Government and Authority which they were bound to submit unto which besides the open Rebellion in resisting the higher Powers with a presumptuous and daring confidence Sect. III. shews such a cruel and bloody Spirit as is extremely contrary to the innocency gentleness and meekness of the Christian Religion These also were of that ambitious and haughty temper that whilst they made use of the name of Christ they attempted thereby to claim to themselves against all right the possession of Authority and rule opposing herein the order of the World the Ordinance of God and the Gospel rules of humility and obedience And this behaviour in all these particulars mentioned is so contrary to the plain Principles of humanity as well as of Christianity that it may be a convictive instance to let all men see into what strange and abominable miscarriages the prevalency of the wretched vanity of a wild Enthusiastick Spirit may misguide those men who are deluded thereby SECT III. Of Anabaptists 1. IN discoursing of those who are ordinarily among us called Anabaptists I shall take no notice of many evil Opinions and cruel Practices which those who go under that name have been guilty of especially in foregin Countries but shall confine my self wholly to the consideration of Anabaptism not in the strict notion of the word but as it is commonly understood amongst us And in this sense it especially includes Antipaedobaptism as denying Infant-Baptism and disowning the persons Baptized in their Infancy from being truly Baptized and thereby Members of the Church and asserting thereupon that it is necessary they should be re-baptized But the evil of this their opposition against the Baptism of Infants consisteth especially in three things 2. First In that the foundation of this Opinion is untrue and gives a false representation of the grace of God in the New Covenant For God by his grace doth receive Infants born in the Church to be under his Covenant and to partake of the benefits and blessings thereof and therefore they ought to be admitted to that Ordinance which is a Seal of that Covenant and contains a particular tender and application of the benefits thereof unto those who are duly qualified to receive them And since this Covenant owneth Infants to be Members of the Church of God they ought not to be debarred from the solemn admission thereunto When God made his Covenant with Abraham he extended it to him and to his Seed and whereas God then appointed Circumcision to be a token of this Covenant Gen. 17.11 and a Seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 he still commanded that all the Males in their infancy should be

Circumcised Gen. 17.12 which is a manifest evidence that they were interested in this Covenant made with Abraham And this precept of Circumcision concerning the Infant Males continued in force until the coming of our Saviour and thereby Infants born in the Jewish Church were owned and received to be members of that Church Now our Saviours coming was not to confine the Church to narrower limits but to extend and enlarge it 3. And it may not be amiss to observe that the Jews themselves did generally acknowledge that the priviledge of having such Children admitted into their Church in their infancy whose Parents were members thereof was not peculiar to that Nation alone but did also belong to those who from among the Gentiles became Proselytes to the Jewish Religion When they admitted the chief sort of Proselytes which were called the Proselytes of righteousness this was usually done (a) Seld. de Syned l. 3. c. 3. p. 34 37-40 Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.6 by Circumcision together with a kind of Baptism or washing them with respect to their uncleanness in their Gentilism and Sacrifice as Mr. Selden and Dr. Lightfoot and others have observed who also have manifested from the Jewish writers that they did usually admit Children even Infants with their Parents And if the Mother was admitted into the number of this sort of Proselytes when she was with Child that Child afterwards born was supposed not to need any other washing but if it was a Male was received only by Circumcision And it also appears by the testimonies produced by the latter of these Writers (b) Hor. Heb. ibid. that they ordinarily admitted the Infants of Gentiles to be Proselytes if they were taken into the care and education of Israelites and this was agreeable to what God had established concerning him who was born in Abraham's House or bought with money of any stranger not of his Seed 4. And that the New Testament doth particularly admit Infants into the Church of God and giveth them a right to partake of the benefits of his Covenant as well as the Old Testament did might be justly presumed because there is not any thing said or done by our Saviour which doth exclude them nor is there any thing declared by God whereby he expresseth his altering the terms of his Covenant so as in this particular to confine it into a less and straiter compass under the Gospel But besides this there are plain expressions in the New Testament that Infants are received as Members of the Church of God and interested in the promises of his Covenant under the Christian Dispensation Our Saviour saith of them that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mar. 10.14 and S. Peter perswades the Jews Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be baptized for the promise is to you and to your Children and the same thing may be inferred from other Texts of Scripture And these expressions especially considering what God had established and injoined in the time of the Old Testament do sufficiently declare this sense of the Gospel-Covenant that Children and Infants are included therein 5. And whereas the Judaizers did earnestly contend with the Apostles about the necessity of Circumcision and other Jewish Rites to be continued in the Church we read of no contest about the admission of their Children into the Church Had the Apostles and the Christian institution herein differed from the Rules received under the Old Testament in not admitting Children into the Church of God these men would no doubt as eagerly have contended with the Apostles about this thing as about the other since this was a branch of Gods ancient Covenant and such a branch as they could not but think to be of high concernment to themselves and their Posterity But the Christian Doctrine plainly acknowledgeth that Children were reputed holy if but one of their Parents were Christians or Believers 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore such Children which otherwise had been unclean were accounted to belong to the Church by vertue of that relation they had to such Believing Parents And when the Apostles are said to have Baptized persons and all theirs or all their Houshold upon the consideration now mentioned it is not to be doubted but Children and Infants were included in these expressions Act. 16.15 and v. 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 and also in that other precept of Baptizing all Nations and making them Disciples Mat. 28.19 And this will receive further confirmation from the ordinary and usual practice of the ancient Christian Church in Baptizing Infants which I shall by and by mention 6. Indeed under the Gospel it was necessary that adult persons both Jews and Gentiles should first be taught the Christian Doctrine and own their belief thereof and undertake the practice of repentance and obedience before they could be Baptized into the Christian Church But this gives no support to them who oppose the Baptism of Infants since even under the Old Testament such persons who being adult were received as Proselytes to the Jewish Church were first to be acquainted with the Law of God d and then to profess their owning and believing in the God of Israel (c) Selden ubi sup before they were admitted into that Church by Circumcision and other solemn Rites And this reasonable and necessary observation with respect to those who attained to years of discretion was well consistent with their Circumcising Infants and the Divine Law injoined that when strangers were desirous to embrace the Jewish Religion and were admitted thereto all their Males and therefore even those which were Infants must be Circumcised Exod. 12.48 7. And those words of S. Paul from which the favourers of Anabaptism have endeavoured to prove that under the New Testament none and therefore no Infants are interested in the Gospel-Covenant and Membership of the Christian Church by being born of Christian Parents are greatly mistaken S. Paul saith Rom. 9.6 They are not all Israel which are of Israel v. 7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called For 1. These words have no peculiar respect to the time and state of the New Testament but they give an account how the promise to the Seed of Abraham was to be understood from the very time in which it was made to Abraham And the Apostle here shews that this Promise and Covenant was particularly fixed upon Isaac and his Family v. 7. and then upon Jacob v. 13. and yet then Infants were constantly Circumcised 2. The true sense of these words is that the Promise and Covenant of God to and with Abraham and his Seed did not bind him to continue all the posterity of Ishmael or other Sons of Abraham nor yet the Posterity of Esau to be his peculiar Church and people though these were Circumcised and lineally descended from Abraham but had departed from the Religion Piety Faith and Obedience of their Father Abraham And from hence the Apostle proves that

real Holiness at all Is this a Representation of Religion like that made in the Scripture The Doctrine according to Godliness which requires the doing the Will of our Father which is in Heaven and declares that without Holiness no Man shall see God Or is this like the Primitive Spirit of Christianity where serious diligence in the Exercises of Contrition and Piety was thought requisite for receiving Absolution Shall these Men be accounted the Patrons of Good Works who against the Doctrine of St. James assert that Men may be saved without Works or any holy Action and who run up to the highest and most absurd Positions of Solifidianism even the Belief of the Non-necessity of holy Actions and Dispositions They have found a way if it be a safe one how Works of Iniquity tho they stand condemned by our Saviour may have an entrance into Heaven without true Conversion But such will find that De Poen c. 5. as Tertullian spake in a like Case Salvâ veniâ in Gehennam detrudentur notwithstanding their Pardon they will be cast down to Hell For if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in Darkness we lie and do not the Truth These Doctrines of Rome are fit for the Synagogue of Satan but no such unclean thing may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But whomsoever they follow let us follow St. Peter to be diligent that we may be found of him in Peace without spot and blameless I now come to discourse of the Persons to whom this Ministration is committed which I shall speak to in a fourfold Consideration 1. To us the Officers of the Gospel-Dispensation not to the false Apostles nor yet to the Jewish Priesthood The Ministry of the New Testament excelleth that of the Old even as the New Covenant and the Grace of the Gospel goeth beyond the Law as the Apostle discourseth largely in the third Chapter of this second Epistle to the Corinthians The Legal Dispensation in general was a Dispensation of Condemnation which pronounced a Curse upon Offenders but gave not Power and Grace to perform Obedience and the external Observations therein enjoined were a heavy Yoke And that Acceptance which holy Men had with God under the Law was not from the particular Jewish Covenant as such but chiefly from the Terms of Grace declared to Abraham who is called the Father of the Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who walk in the Steps of the Faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 Indeed they had then Sacrifices for Sin and a Way of Atonement but these things as they were strictly legal did only tend to obtain the Favour of God that the Offenders should not be cut off or be exposed to Temporal Judgments But it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should purge away Sins the Guilt of which their repeated Oblations did declare to continue And the Reverence to God and Obedience was in these Observations chiefly valuable But these Sacrifices as they fell under a more large Consideration were also Evidences of the Mercy of God in receiving Sinners and were Testimonies of God's particular Favour in being willing to bless that People if they would hear his Voice and obey him and did also adumbrate the Grace of the New Testament Rom. 3.21 which the Apostle tells us was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets But the Gospel-Ministration declareth Christ by his Mediation to have actually obtained and effected a compleat Way of Reconciliation and confirmed that Covenant which is established upon better Promises and is properly and eminently the Ministration of Righteousness proposing most excellent Blessings with a sure and plain way to obtain them and affording such Assistances as are needful And this Gospel-Reconciliation is so committed to the Ministry that they ministerially dispense the Blessings thereof by declaring its Doctrine by Benedictions and Absolutions and by dispensing the Sacramental Symbols of Divine Grace 2. To us with primary respect to St. Paul who wrote this Epistle and the other Apostles They were in a peculiar manner intrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation for they were the chief Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection and the principal Testifiers of the Christian Faith and received their Doctrine and Office immediatly from Christ They were the Foundations next to Christ himself of the Christian Church and the infallible Guides thereof and were furnished with singular Assistances and the Power of the Holy-Ghost And the Extent of their Authority was in some parts thereof unconfined and unlimited even St. Paul saith he received Grace and Apostleship for Obedience to the Faith Rom. 1.5 among all Nations including Rome also divers Years after St. Peter was said to be Bishop there The Apostles were the highest Officers of the Christian Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 under Christ himself and the Scriptures tell us God set therein first Apostles and therefore none above them Indeed St. Peter whom we highly honour as an eminent Apostle had a kind of Primacy of Order yielded to him but with no design to depress the other Apostles above whom he had no distinction of Office The Power of binding and loosing promised to St. Peter Mat. 16.19 was on like manner given to them all Mat. 18.18 And that ample Commission John 20.21 23. As my Father sent me so send I you Whos 's soever Sins ye remit c. doth give them all an equal Authority And tho St. Paul was last called we read that St. Peter gave to him the right-hand of Fellowship Gal. 2.9 2. Cor. 11.5 Chap. 12.11 and in two several places of this second Epistle to the Corinthians the Holy-Ghost tells us he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And tho there are many Privileges and Prerogatives reckoned up to St. Peter in which Subject many Romish Writers are very diligent the Prerogatives of St. Paul upon due consideration will either equal them or not be much inferior to them It was St. Paul not St. Peter who was taken up into the third Heaven who saw our Saviour after his Ascension into Glory who laboured more abundantly than they all who was miraculously called and was in a peculiar manner the Apostle of the Gentiles and who wrote a much greater part of the New Testament than any other of the Apostles did And for that late Notion That the Power of the Keys was given only to St. Peter in that he was appointed by Christ singly to declare the Gospel first to the Gentiles both this confined sense of the Power of the Keys and of its being peculiar to S. Peter is against the sense of Antiquity and also that which is particularly insisted on is a mistake For though God by a Vision directed St. Peter to open the Door to the Gentiles yet all the Apostles had before that time the Commission which he first made use of to go and teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 and

the same promise can be no security to the Jews or the Posterity of Jacob in their unbelief and disobedience but God can otherwise accomplish his promise made to the Seed of Abraham by accomplishing it to them who walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham 3. As this true sense is wholly alien from proving Infants not to be members of the Christian Church so the sense imposed upon them by the Anabaptists is neither agreeable to the words themselves and the scope of that place nor to such other expressions of the New Testament as I have above mentioned 8. Secondly This Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism is very uncharitable to Infants born in the Christian Church upon a double account For First The consequence of this Position will be to take away that great hope of Salvation which the true Principles of Christianity do afford concerning Christian Infants dying in their infancy I acknowledge that this consequence concerning all Infants is not owned by those who hold this erroneous opinion in denying Infant-Baptism who run into other errors to avoid this But yet this is deducible from their Assertion and therefore I charge this uncharitableness to be a proper consequent of this opinion For since Christians are Baptized into the Body or Church of Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 and are thereby entred as members thereof if Infants be denied to have any right to Baptism or to be capable of being Baptized they cannot then be owned to be members of the visible Church of Christ and parts of his Body And they who are supposed to be excluded from the visible Church by Gods special institution and to be thereby made uncapable of being received as members thereof cannot well be presumed to be admitted into membership with the invisible Church if we consider what God himself hath declared concerning the power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing upon Earth And those great priviledges of the New Covenant of which eternal Salvation is the chief belong to that Church which is the Body of Christ and to the lively members thereof For Christ is the Saviour of this body Eph. 5.23 And this Body which is his Church is that which he will present to himself having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing v. 27. And whereas Baptism is the laver of regeneration Tit. 3.5 if Infants are not capable of being partakers of that washing of water whereby the Church is cleansed and sanctified Eph. 5.26 and of the laver of regeneration and of regeneration it self also they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.3 5. 9. But this opinion is further uncharitable to Infants in denying to them such means of grace as the Gospel of our Saviour doth afford them and the Christian Church hath from the beginning alwayes acknowledged to belong to them All the Ordinances and special Institutions of Christ tend to the great advantage and good of them who do aright partake of them and are useful to their spiritual and eternal welfare and benefit and so particularly is Christian Baptism Of this I have particularly discoursed in (d) Libert Eccles B. 1. c. 5. Sect. 3.4.5 another place And as the Scriptures sufficiently express the great benefit of Baptism with respect to regeneration and remission of sins so whosoever hath a due reverence for our Lord and Saviour can by no means entertain such low thoughts of his Institutions as to think them of no considerable usefulness to them who duly receive them But this piece of uncharitableness to Infants is much worse and more hurtful and prejudicial to them than the former For the opinion from whence the former consequent was deduced being untrue the consequence it self is also false and so hath no real influence or effect upon the state of Infants nor are damaged thereby whereas they are truly prejudiced by being denied the means of grace 10. On this account the Chiristian Church in the first ages thereof and in a continued succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do S. Austin (e) de peccar Mer. remis l. 1. c. 26. declares this practice to have authoritatem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditam the Authority of the Vniversal Church without doubt delivered by the Lord and the Apostles and the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is called by S. Austin (f) Ep. 28. firmissima Ecclesiae fides a Doctrine of Faith most firmly and constantly believed in the Church And much to the same purpose is frequently expressed by S. Austin To this purpose the determination of (g) Ep. 59. ad Fidum S. Cyprian and an African Council with him is very manifest When Fidus had written to Cyprian his opinion that Infants ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day of their Birth or until the eighth day which was the time appointed for Circumcision though this opinion allowed and asserted Infant-Baptism S. Cyprian largely declares that not any one of this Council did agree to this opinion but every one of them judged Nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denegandam That the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no Child of man i. e. upon account of their age And he there shews that Infants from the time of their Birth are not to be prohibited Baptism And of how great consequence they in those early times judged Infant-Baptism is apparent from this expression relating thereto (h) ibid. quantum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdenda est as far as is in our power if it be possible no soul is to be lost The plain testimonies of Origen both upon Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans and of divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the universal reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this having been clearly and sufficiently evidenced by the Historical Theses of (i) Thes Theolog p. 429 c. Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who would have more large and ample proof hereof 11. But that learned man truly observes that there is something which may seem singular in some expressions of Tertullian and Nazianzen who though they deny not Infant-Baptism yet intimate the usefulness of deferring the Baptism of Infants and incline to perswade the same Now though any singular apprehension of one or two men is not to be laid in the balance against the general sense of the Church I shall however observe something further concerning the sense of both these ancient Writers Gr. Nazianzen doth indeed in his Oration (k) Orat. 40. p. 458. concerning Baptism advise that if Infants be in no danger of death their Baptism may be deferred till they be three years old or somewhat less or more that themselves may hear something of that Mystery and give answer But though he might proceed

c. 18. Cyril relates that when the Metropolitans and Bishops had disputed with Nestorius and had clearly shewed out of the Divine Scripture that he was God whom the Virgin bare according to the flesh and therefore evidently concluded him to err he was full of anger and exclaimed in his manner wretchedly against the truth So that it seems the Metropolitans and Bishops who opposed Nestorius made Scripture their Rule as the Protestants do but the Nestorians then were not for these written words as their Rule but for what is written in mens hearts in which the Nestorian assertion may claim some kindred with our Discourser To observe further what Rule of Faith was made use of against Nestorius we may understand it from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria who as he was the chief opposer of Nestorius so was he highly approved of by this Council of Ephesus for his appearing against Nestorius and also by Coelestine Bishop of Rome as appears in his Letters directed to him Tom. 1. Conc. Eph. c. 16. Cyril concerning the right Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria shews that his Book may be of use to reduce some from error and by various Arguments and demonstrations of the Divine Scriptures to strengthen them in the Faith who are nourished in the Doctrine of truth in that whole Book propounds Doctrines from the several Books of the New Testament against the Doctrine of Nestorius And I suppose it will be granted that that which in such a case of Heresie arising would stablish in the Faith and reduce to the Faith must be established upon and have evidence from the Rule of Faith In another Treatise of his to the same Empresses of the same subject he tells them The Scriptures are the Fountains which God spake of by his Prophet Isaiah saying Draw the waters out of the wells of salvation Wholesom Fountains we call the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and a little after The speeches of the Holy Fathers and their Sanctions wisely stir us up that we should observe diligently what is most agreeing to the holy Scriptures and should with a quick sense contemplate the truth hidden in the Divine letters The same Cyril in an Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople declared his expectation that Nestorius would have returned from his perverse opinions and would with reverence imbrace the Faith delivered by the holy Apostles and Evangelical Writers as also by the whole holy Scripture and sealed that it might receive no damage by the voices and oracles of the holy Prophets Is not this to make Scripture a Rule of Faith I might add much more from Cyril and what shall be spoken concerning Coelestine who wrote to the Ephesine Council and approved it will further shew the Rule of Faith at that time owned by the Roman Church Therefore I shall here only subjoin one testimony of the whole Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Coelestine Bishop of Rome Tom. 4. Conc. Eph. c. 17. wherein they related That the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius had been read in the Council which the holy Synod did approve by its judgement because it was in the whole agreeable to the Divine Scriptures and the Exposition of Faith which the holy Fathers put forth in the great Synod of Nice We here meet with their being guided by Scripture and the former decisions founded upon it but the Rule of Oral Tradition or any other unwritten Rule was to this Age a perfect stranger SECT VIII What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon HAving sufficiently evidenced the Rule of Faith at the time of the first General Council against Arius who denied the Eternal Divinity of the Son of God and of the second against Macedonius who denied the Lordship of the holy Spirit and of the third against Nestorius who divided Christ into two Persons I now shall briefly inquire what was owned as this Rule at the time of the fourth General Council against Eutyches who denied that Christ had two natures wherein Dioscorus was also condemned Now Eutyches was opposed by many Catholick Bishops and more especially was opposed and condemned by Pope Leo. But the Rule by which these Bishops as well as this General Council did condemn him was the holy Scriptures Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in an Epistle of his extant amongst Leo's Epistles Ep. 6. saies There were some who knew not the Divine readings dispraise the Fathers and desert the holy Scripture to their own perdition such an one saith he was Eutyches amongst us Amongst the Epistles of Leo Ep. 53. is extant an Epistle of Eusebius Bishop of Millain and the Council assembled with him wherein that Synod declares their assent to the Faith contained in Leo's Epistle sent to the East because the brightness of light and splendor of truth did shine in it by the assertions of the Prophets Evangelical Authorities and the testimonies of Apostolical Doctrine Leo himself by whose means the Council of Chalcedon was called in which the errors of Eutyches were more fully censured in his tenth Epistle writing of the Eutychians sayes That they fall into this folly because when they are hindred by any obscurity in attaining the knowledge of the truth they have not recourse to the Prophetical voices the Apostolical Letters and Evangelical Authorities but to themselves And a little after of Eutyches he speaketh thus That he knew not what he ought to think of the incarnation of the word of God nor was he willing to gain the light of understanding to labour in the holy Scriptures And in the same Epistle cites and urges many Scriptures against Eutyches with such expressions as these He might have subjected himself to the Evangelical Doctrine in Matthew speaking He might have desired instruction from the Apostolical Preaching reading in the Epistle to the Romans ch 1. He might have brought holy diligence to the Prophetical pages and have found the promise of God to Abraham c. with other Scriptures in the like manner produced These testimonies of Leo evidence that he owned the holy Scriptures to be the best way to come to Faith and be stablished in it and is not this to be a Rule of Faith Yea he further observes that the neglect of them were the cause of swerving from the Faith To come to the Council of Chalcedon it self In its second Action this tenth Epistle of Leo was read and they declared they all believed according to that Epistle At the same time was read the Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius which as it was read in and approved by the third General Council Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. ch 3. So being in Chalcedon read they declared They all believed as Cyril did in which Epistle he shews that we must not divide Christ into two Sons nor make an union of Persons for the Scripture saith The Word was made Flesh which is nothing else but he did