the Sabbath Day Answered § 16. His fourth Objection That in Christ Jesus nothing avails but keeping the Commandments of God Answered § 17. His fifth Objection from the Words of Christ Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath day Answered § 18. IN this Discourse I have endeavoured to shew in what Sence we admit of Tradition as a sufficient Evidence of the Truth of what we do believe or practise And have demonstrated That in those things which we receive upon her Testimony the Romanists cannot pretend unto a like Tradition for any of their Doctrines Two things they farther do object against us as instances of things necessary to be believed which yet say they have no Foundation in the Holy Scriptures and therefore must be believed only on the account of Tradition or the Authority of the Church viz. First The Observation of the Lord's Day and the liberty we take in working on the Sabbath and not observing it as a day set apart unto the Service of the Creator of the World. Secondly The Baptism of Infants of which what Mr. M. offers is sufficiently considered in the following Treatise and the practice hath of late been fully justified from Scripture and Tradition jointly by Three learned Treatises to which I shall referr the Reader Mr. Walker's Modest Plea for Infants Baptism The Case of Infants Baptism Dr. Still Rational Account Part. 1. cap. 4. Touching the first particular I shall Discourse at present in this Preface and shew in opposition to Mr. Mumford that we have sufficient Ground from Scripture for observing the Lord's Day and not observing of the Sabbath Day and that as far as we depend upon Tradition in these Points the Romanists can shew no like Tradition for their Tenets To begin with the first of these particulars That the Lord's Day is by all Christians to be observed as a Religious Festival will be made good from these Considerations First That it is mentioned in the Scripture as a known Festival Day a Day which bore Christ 's Name a Day on which the Christians did assemble for the performance of Sacred and Religious Worship Secondly That it was perpetually and universally observed as such by the Catholick Church including the times of the Apostles And First That it is mentioned in Scripture as a known Festival Day a Day which bore Christ's Name a Day on which the Christians did assemble for the performance of Religious Worship will appear 1st From that Expression of St. John § 2 Rev. i. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day For explication of which words observe first That the Name Lord in the New Testament doth ordinarily signifie the Lord Christ for God the Father having committed all Authority into his Hands he by so doing made him as Saint Peter saith both Lord and Christ Act. ij 36. and therefore by this name he is distinguished from God the Father in these words 1 Cor. viij 6. There is one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things And again 1 Cor. xij 5 6. There are differences of Administrations but the same Lord diversities of Operations but the same God Wherefore by the Lord's Day here mentioned we cannot reasonably understand the Jewish Sabbath that being not the Day of the Lord Christ or a Day instituted in Memorial of him but a Day sanctified to Jehovah who is in the New Testament stiled God the Father or absolutely God and by that phrase distinguished from the Lord Christ Moreover the Sabbath is in Scripture sometime said to be a Day Holy to the Lord but it is never stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's Day either in Scripture or in the Records of the three first Centuries and therefore we can have no reason to believe Saint John intended the Jewish Sabbath by that Phrase 2dly Whereas Saint John to denote the time when he received his Vision saith It was on the Lord's Day It follows that this Day must be a Day well known otherwise he could not by this note sufficiently declare the Time when he received his Vision Since then the first Day of the Week and that alone was by the Christians of the first Ages stiled the Lord's Day and known to them familiarly by that Name it is rational to conclude That the Apostle by this Phrase did understand the first Day of the Week For Confirmation of this Argument it is observable that some Copies read that Passage of Saint Paul to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. xvi 2. On the first Day of the Week being the Lord's Day let every one lay by in store Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Manes Et ad Trallian §. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 23. Euseb H. Eccl. l. 4. c. 26. who lived Thirty Years in the Apostles Days speaks thus That Christians must no longer Sabbatize but keep the Lord's Day in which our Life sprang up by him Dionysius Bishop of Corinth who flourished in the second Century writes thus This day being the Lord's Day we keep it Holy. Melito Bishop of Sardis who flourished in the same Century composed a Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Lord's Day and another of the Paschal Solemnity clearly distinguishing the one from the other Justin M. Qu. Resp Qu. 115. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in his Book of the Paschal Solemnity declares That Christians did not on the Lord's Day which was a Symbol of their Resurrection bend the Knee Clemens of Alexandria calls the Eighth day Contra Cels l. 8. p. 392. De Cor. Mil. c. 3. Cyp. Ep. 38. Ed. Ox. p. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's day Origen among the Christian Festivals enumerates the Lord's day the Easter and the Pentecostal Festival Tertullian saith Dominico die jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare We judge it wickedness to kneel on the Lord's day and then he adds That on the Easter and the Penticostal Festival we enjoy the same freedom And indeed the thing was so notorious even to the Heathen World that it was usual with them to put this Question to the Martyrs Dominicum servasti Hast thou observed the Lord's day To which their usual Answer was Christianus sum intermittere non possum I am a Christian and cannot cease to do it And that Dominicum agere which is sometimes the Phrase imports not to celebrate the Lord's Supper but to observe the Lord's day is evident from Clemens of Alexandria Strom. 7. p. 744. who tells us That the true Gnostick doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make that day truly the Lord's day by casting away every evil thought and celebrating the Resurrection of Christ Now from these Passages it is clear That the Easter Festival could not be here intended by Saint John that being never stiled by the Ancients absolutely the Lord's day but always
either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Great Lord's day or the Paschal Lord's day and being constantly in those first Ages distinguished from and in their enumeration of their Festivals opposed to the Lord's day Moreover the Easter Feast seemeth not to have been so Ancient as the Apostles Vision for then it would have been observed uniformly as the Lord 's day was whereas the Eastern and the Western Churches differed much about it and that very difference demonstrates that the Lord 's day was the more ancient because the Question was Whether the Eastern Festival should be kept on the Lord's day only or on the day of the Full-Moon as by the Jews it was on what day of the Week soever that did happen And whereas Mr. M. asks P. 207. How prove you that it was not Christmas or Ascention day I Answer 1st That we have no Evidence from Antiquity that either of these Festivals were then observed much less that they were then known to the Christian World under that Appellation 2dly The common Consent of all Interpreters and the perpetual Practice of the Church in all Ages from Saint John to Ignatius his Scholar and so downwards to this day do give the name of the Lord's day to Sunday and to no other Festival of the Church Weekly or Annual sufficiently instructs us what Saint John understood by the Lord's day 3dly Observe That whatsoever in the Scripture hath the Lord's Name and Subscription on it as the Lord's Temple the Lord's Offerings the Lord's People the Lord's Priests was consecrated to the Service of Jehovah the Lord of the Old Creation wherefore the day which had so early the Name and Superscription of the Lord Christ upon it must be supposed to be Holy to the Lord of the New Creation and consecrated to his Service For as the Jewish Sabbath being called the Lord 's Sabbath or the Sabbath of Jehovah was by that Title known to be a day Sanctified to Jehovah as Creator so this day being called the Lord 's day is by this Note as certainly known to be a day consecrated to the Service of the Lord Christ And as the Lord 's Supper is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supper of the Lord the Sacramental Table 1 Cor. xi 20. x. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Table of the Lord the Sacramental Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of the Lord either because the Sacrament was instituted immediately by the Lord Christ to be observed to his Second Coming Or Secondly Because it was appointed for the remembrance of the Lord 's Death and Passion till that time even so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's day must be so called for one of these two Reasons or for both viz. Because it was enjoined by Christ or by Directions given to his Apostles to command the Observation of it as a Day to be devoted to the Service of our Lord Christ or because it was by the Apostles so observed in memory of our Lords Resurrection and was from them received as a day to be observed for all future Generations of the Church And that this day was certainly observed by the Apostles and by the Christians who lived in their daies in Honour of our Lord is evident from what hath been already proved For if it were then known to Christians by the Name of the Lord's day and if so be the Lord's day must import a day that is consecrated to the Service of the Lord 't is clear that they must then observe it as such or act against the knowledge of their Duty if when Saint John received this Vision it were known to be a day devoted to the Service of the Lord Christ it must be known to be thus consecrated to his Service by some who had Authority sufficient so to do that is at least by those Apostles and Rulers to whom Christ had committed the Guidance of his Church and the determination of that outward Worship he required from his Disciples What they thus consecrated to his Service must be devoted either by virtue of their positive Institution or by their practice only if by virtue of their Institution then is it granted that this day is of Divine and Apostolical Institution if by their Practice only yet is it granted that this day was constantly observed by those Apostles who were assisted in their Actions by the Holy Ghost that 't was by their Example commended to the practice of all Christians and therefore be alone can alter this Apostolical Tradition who better knows the mind of Christ than they did and is more able to discern what Service is well pleasing to him than they were Secondly § 2 This Practice will sufficiently appear from other Scriptures which either presuppose or else directly shew this was a day observed in the Apostles time Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth writeth thus Now concerning the Collection for the Saints as I have ordained for the Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. xvi 1 2. so do ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the first day of the week let every man lay by him in store as God hath prospered him that there be no gathering when I come Where observe First That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth certainly signifie the first day of the Week the day of our Lord's Resurrection from the dead for the Four Evangelists do with one Voice averr That our Lord Jesus did arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first day of the week Matth. 28.1 Mark 16.2 Luke 24.1 John 20.1 Nor can this reasonably be doubted by any who believe the Scriptures Moreover Saint Mark doth clearly so interpret the Phrase for the Sabbath being over saith he Mary Magdalene and others came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 early the first day of the week and found Christ risen and v. 9. he adds That Christ was risen early 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by the consent of all Interpreters upon the first day of the week Saint Luke observes Luke 23.56 That they rested on the Sabbath day according to the Commandment and then adds That they came unto the Sepulchre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the first day of the week Secondly This may be Argued from the succeeding Practice of the Church which in compliance with this Precept still offer'd their Alms upon this Day for Justin M. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol 2. p. 98 99. who flourished in the next Age to the Apostles tells the Heathen Emperor in his Apology That 't was the Custom of Christians to meet on the Lord's day to Pray to hear the Word to receive the Sacrament and then saith he they who are rich and willing give what they think fit and what is thus collected is laid up in the hands of the President who distributes it to Orphans and Widows and other Christians Locuples dives es dominicum observare te credis qui
together in the Church they did and therefore what is coming together v. 17. coming to the Church v. 18. coming to one place v. 19. is coming together to eat v. 33. Accordingly it was the Custom of the Church from the Apostles times thus to communicate upon the Lord's day Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperor Trajan Soliti sunt stato die ante lucem convenire c. Ep. l. 10. Ep. 97. tells him That he found nothing to alledge against the Christians but their Obstinacy in their Superstition and that is was their Custom to meet together on a set day before it was light and to bind themselves by the Sacrament to do no evil Now this Epistle was writ only Six Years after the Death of the Evangelist Saint John. And Justin M. who wrote but Fifty Years after his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 2. p. 98 99. thus speaks On Sunday all the Christians in the City or Country meet together because that is the day of our Lord's Resurrection and then we have read unto us the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles this done the President makes an Oration to the Assembly to exhort them to imitate and do the things they heard then we all join in Prayer and after that we celebrate the Sacrament and they that are willing and able give their Alms c. Fourthly § 4 This may be further proved from the Church's Testimony and from the plain Expressions of the Fathers who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church For to this Effect Century the first besides the words of Clemens Romanus already mentioned the Apostle Barnabas saith of the Apostles and Christians in the General 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 15. We keep the eighth day a Festival in which our Jesus rose from the dead Century the Second I have produced the plain Testimonies of Ignatius Justin M. Irenaeus Dionysius of Corinth Melito Sardensis Century the Third I have produced already the Testimony of Clemens of Alexandria to which add that of Tertullian who saith in his Apology Diem folis laetitiae indulgemus Cap. 16. Sunday is the Festival of us Christians And in his Book Ad Nationes That they did rejoice upon that day Solem Christianorum deum aestimant quod innotuerit nos die solis c. Lib. 1. cap. 13. and that this was a thing so well known to the Heathens that hence they took occasion to conjecture That the Sun was the God of Christians Neque enim Resurrectio Domini semel in anno non semper post septem dies celebratur In Esa Hom. 6. Hom. 7. in Exod. fol. 41. Ep. 38. Ed. Ox. p. 75. that of Origen That the Resurection of our Lord is not celebrated annually only but every seventh day which therefore in opposition to the Jews he calls Dominica nostra The Christians Lord's day And that of Cyprian That Aurelius Dominico legit reads on tâ—â— Lord's day Centuny the Fourth Epiphanus informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expos fid cap. 22. That the Holy Catholick Church keeps every Lord's day as a Festival In a word no Church no single Writer ever represented this as a new or introduced Practice but do continually speak of it as the constant Practice of the Christian Church We never read that any of the converted Jews though they retained the Jewish Sabbath ever disputed the Observation of the first day of the week in honour of our Lord And therefore as the Reverend Bishop Bramhal truly saith Pag. 918. To question now whether there was a formal precept for that which all the Christian World hath obeyed ever since Christ's time and shall obey until his Second Coming is a strange degree of Folly. And that this may be farther evident I add this second Proposition That the Apostles had Commission from the Lord Christ § 5 Prop. 2. or were directed by his Spirit to ordain and chuse this day to be employed in the publick Exercise of Christian piety and in remembrance of the Resurrection of our Lord. For First Christ did Commission his Apostles to teach the Churches all his Doctrine and to deliver them all his Commands and Orders which concerned their Duty and his Service for thus he delivers his Commission to them All Authority is committed to me in Heaven and Earth Matth. 28.18 Go therefore and disciple all Nations teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you John 20.21 He also saith unto them That as my Father sent me so send I you and surely the Father sent him who was Lord of the Sabbath with full Commission to change and alter it and substitute another day in lieu thereof Accordingly the Apostles exercised this Power they founded Churches they delivered to them the Doctrines and Commands of Christ they setled Church Officers Orders and Discipline and surely then they had Commission also to settle the time to be appointed for the Service of their Lord and Master When therefore they began to practise the Observation of the first day of the Week they only did what their Commission from the Lord impowered them to do Secondly That the Apostles were directed by the Holy Ghost to set apart this day for Holy Worship or to appoint Church Meetings on this Day and therefore that this was done by a Divine Authority appears from this That their Determinations touching smaller Matters and which were only â—porary are by themselves ascribed to the Holy Ghost thus when Saint Paul gives his advice in respect of the present necessity touching a single Life though he confesseth he had no express from Christ touching that matter yet he ascribes this Counsel to the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 7.40 For I think saith he I have the Spirit of Christ Again the same Apostle speaking of the Directions which he gave concerning their Church Meetings and their Behaviour in them saith 1 Cor. 14.37 If any man think himself to be a Prophet or Spiritual let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. The same must therefore be much more acknowledged of things of so high a nature as that is which they delivered to be observed by the Universal Church they being equally Appointed and Authorized to instruct them in Discipline and in Matters of Divine Worship as in matters of Doctrine and as well by Word as by Epistle and therefore as well in the Observation of the time appointed for the Worship of their Lord as in the due Regulation of it when they came together The same Saint Paul professeth 1 Cor. 11.23 That he had received from the Lord what he delivered to the Church of Corinth touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and when he speaks of one particular concerning which he had no precept from Christ he saith expresly This speak I not the Lord 1 Cor. 7.12 if then the practice touching the Observation of the Lord's Day had
all things which words do not establish but with the greatest Evidence destroy this vain Tradition And First That the words of Malachy Mal. iv 5 6. Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet c. cannot be understood of our Lord's Second Coming to pass Judgment on the World will be exceeding Evident from these considerations 1. That this Forerunner was to come the Lord there mentioned to follow before the Ruine of the Jewish Temple this is evident from these words Behold I will send my Messenger Mal. iij. 1 2. and he shall prepare my way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple For that the Messenger in this Third Chapter is the same with Elijah the Prophet in the Fourth Chapter will be apparent 1. From the Office of this Messenger which was to come before the Face of the Lord or to be his Forerunner as the Elijah mentioned Chapter the ourth was to be and as John Baptist was 2. From the Consideration of the work he was to do Mal. iij. 1. This Messenger being to prepare the way before him as the Elijah promised also was to do by turning the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just And as the Angel doth inform us that the Baptist should do for saith the Angel He shall go before him in the Spirit and Power of Elias to turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. 3. Luk. i. 17. From the consideration of the Day of his Coming mentioned Chapter the Third as a Day so dreadful that few could abide it or stand when he appeareth by reason of the Severity of the Judgments which should then befal them vers 2. And Chapter the Fourth as a Day great and terrible Since then the Lord here mentioned was to come suddenly seeing he was to come to hi◠Temple 't is certain that the Day of his coming was to be before the Temple was destroyed and therefore could not be the Day of Judgment 4. This will be further evident from the Consideration of the persons to whom this Messenger and this Elijah were both sent Chap. iij. 1. for the Messenger was sent to them who then sought for the Lord and delighted in the Messenger of the Covenant vers 3. vers 4. he was to be his Messenger who was to purifie the Sons of Levi to make the Offerings of Judah and Jesusalem pleasant to the Lord. He therefore was a Messenger peculiarly sent to them to reprove them for their Sins and to declare unto them such things as concerned them and not such things as were common to the whole World. Accordingly Elijah the Prophet was sent to them that fear'd his name Chap. iv v. 2. to them who were obliged to remember the Law of Moses vers 4. which he commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel This Day of Terror therefore must be chiefly that which did concern that Nation And lastly This Elias was to come to call Men to Conversion and Repentance for which was a fit Season at our Lord's first coming whereas at his second coming there will be no time for Repentance but for the Destribution of Rewards and Punishments He was to come to turn the Hearts of the Fathers c least God should smite the Earth Becherem i. e. the Inhabitants of Judah with Destruction so that the Ruine threatned here might be prevented by Repentance and Conversion whereas the general Day of Judgment cannot be thus prevented but will certainly come in the appointed time The only Objection that is considerable against this Assertion Object is That the Day spoken of Chapter iv vers 5. is represented as a dreadful Day which seemeth proper to the Day of Judgment whereas the Day of Christ's first coming is not so called but rather an Acceptable Day and a Day of Salvation To this I Answer Answ That the Day of our Lord's first coming considered as reaching to the Destruction of Jerusalem was indeed a very dreadful and terrible Day Thus in the Prophet Joel we read of a Day of the Lord described in the same Expressions Joel ij 31. The Sun shall be turned into Darkness and the Moon into Blood before the great and terrible Day of the Lord come and yet St. Peter speaking of what was done after our Lord's Ascention and citing these very words saith Acts ij 16. This was that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel Moreover our Blessed Lord speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the miseries that should befal that very Generation saith Luk. xxi 22. Mat. xxiv 21. These shall be the days of Vengeance such days of Tribulation as never were from the beginning of the World and never shall be afterwards Yea Vid Dr. Pocock in Mal. 3. v. 2. the Tradition of the Jews doth in their Talmud make mention of such great Afflictions which should happen in the days of their Messiah unto Israel that happy should he be who did not see them Which notwithstanding this day might well be stiled an Acceptable Day a Day of Salvation to them who received our Jesus as their Saviour believed in him and obeyed his Sayings according to the words of the Prophet Malachy Behold the Day cometh which shall burn as an Oven c. Mal. iv 1 2. but to you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his Wings Whence after this most terrible description our Lord speaks thus to his Disciples Luk. xxi 18 19. vers 28. Be not ye terrified when these things shall happen in Patience possess your Spirits for there shall not one Hair of your Heads perish when these things come to pass then look up and lift up your Heads for your Redemption draweth nigh Secondly That the Elias of whom the Prophet Malachy speaks § 4 was not the Tisbite or that it is not there asserted that he who in the Reign of Ahab was carried into Heaven should be in person sent as the Fore-runner of our Lord's second Advent will be evident from these Considerations 1. Because Elias the Tisbite came not upon the Errands mentioned there to prepare the way of the Lord or turn the Hearts of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just before the ruin of Jurusalem and the destruction of the Temple as the Elijah promised by the Prophet was to do and did 2. 'T is certain that the Messenger described by the Prophet as the Fore-runner of the Lord and of his Day was John the Baptist for so our Saviour doth expresly teach us saying This John is he of whom it is written Matth. xi 10. Luk. vij 27 28. Behold I send my Messeger before thy Face to prepare thy way before thee There hath not risen among Men a greater Prophet
whilst there was no Regard to Purgatory no Man looked after Indulgences which depend upon it Coeperunt igitur Indulgentiae postquam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum est Indulgences therefore began after Men had for some time trembled at the Torments of Purgatory Concerning Indulgences saith Antoninus Florentinus We have nothing expresly in the Sacred Scripture Nec etiam ex dictis antiquorum Doctorum sed modernorum nor from the Sayings of the Ancient Doctors but of the Modern only Of Indulgences saith Durand few things can be said with any certainty because neither doth the Scripture speak expresly of them Sancti etiam Ambrosius Hilarius Augustinus Hieronymus minime loquuntur de Indulgentiis And St. Ambrose Hilary Austin and Jerom do in no wise speak of them Indeed I find not any of these Authors who pretend to derive them higher than the Stations of Gregory the Great who lived in the Sixth Century Concerning the Worship or Veneration of Images § 8 it hath been fully proved in a late Treatise of the Fallibility of the Church of Rome touching this Article First That when the Second Nicene Council taught That the Worship or Veneration of Images was to be received as a Tradition of the Apostles P. 4 5 6. and the Primitive Church this Assertion in the Eighth and the Ninth Centuries was rejected as a plain Falshood and on the contrary it was declared That they who endeavoured to introduce this practice brought into the Church New and unusual Customs without and against the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and execrated by the Church of God and condemned by the Tradition of their Ancestors Secondly P. 61. §. 6. That from the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century this Doctrine of the Veneration and Worship of Images was rejected by very eminent Persons of the Western Church Thirdly That many learned Persons of the Church of Rome ingenuously have confessed P. 70. §. 3. either that in the Primitive Church they had no Images and did not regard them or that they paid no Veneration to them but rather disapproved and condemned it Church Govern. part 5. §. 117. to which I add these words of our late Oxford Writer viz. Thus much is granted that Images and so the Veneration or Worship of them were very seldom if at all used in the Christian Church for some of the first Centuries Concerning Invocation of departed Saints Altissiodorensis saith § 9 That multi dicunt In Sum. part 4. l. 3. tr 7. c. de Orat. q. 7. Ergo non vident quorum sunt orationes quas vident ergo inutile est orare ipsos Propter istas rationes consimiles dicunt multi Opinio Commun is quod nec nos oramus sanctos nec ipsi orant pro nobis nisi improprie Altissiod Sum. l. 3. Tract 8. c. 5. qu. 6. ult In Can. Miss Lect. 30. Vid. Bishop Usher 's Answer to the Jesuit pag. 452. many do say we pray not to them but improperly to wit because Oramus Deum ut Sanctorum merita nos juvent we pray to God that the Merits of the Saints may help us and in the Margent he saith that this was a common Opinion in his time And Gabriel Biel having propounded the Arguments against the Invocation of them adds That by these and the like Reasons not only the Hereticks of old but nonnulli nostro tempore Christiani decipiuntur some Christians of our times are deceived John Sharpe informs us That à quibusdam famosis verisimiliter aestimatur quod istiusmodi orationes in Eoclesia Dei superfluunt it was thought by some eminent Men that such Prayers were superfluous in the Church of God. Eckius saith Enchir. c. 15. That if the Apostles and Evangelists had taught that the Saints should be Worshipped it would have been objected to them as arrogance acsi ipsi post mortem gloriam istam quaesivissent as if they had sought for that Honour after their Death And Cardinal Perron ingenuously doth confess Replic l. 5. c. 19. That in the Writings of the Authors that approach nearest to the Age of the Apostles one shall find no Footsteps of the Custom of invoking Saints Moreover § 10 It is a thing saith our Twenty-fourth Article plainly repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayer in the Church or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the People and that this was the Custom of the Primitive Church Treat of Latin Service c. 1. §. 2. hath in a late Treatise on this Subject been fully proved from the Confessions of the Romanists That they esteemed it necessary so to officiate is proved by the Testimonies of the Western Church till the Thirteenth Century Chap. 2. Chap. 5. §. 3. and from the Romish Commentators on the Fourteenth Chapter to the Romans To all which add the Confession of Lindanus Panopl l. 4. c. 78. That quae nunc passim cantantur non tam ad populi intelligentiam erudiendum quod priscos ubique spectasse indubitatum The things which are now every where sung in the Roman Church do not so much tend to instruct the People though without doubt that was the thing the Ancients every where respected The Church of England in her Twenty-fifth Article affirms § 11 1. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. 2. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extream Vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel nor have they the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper for that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God. Accordingly Johannes a Munster in Vortilage confesseth Et in margine haec habet Saeculum duodecimum duo tantum agnovit Sacramenta Nobilis discurs prop. 3. That Theophylact Duo tantum agnovit Sacramenta acknowledged only two Sacraments There is no Controversie saith Cassander but that there are two Sacraments in which principally consisteth our Salvation whence it is that among the more ancient Writers the Sacraments properly so called are sometimes reckoned two sometimes three when Confirmation by Chrism is added to Baptism and sometimes four when the Body and Blood of Christ are reckoned as two Sacraments in which Sence that from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century they were reckoned only four Pref. to the Treat of Latin Serv. hath been fully proved elsewhere of the other Sacraments we read not that the Ancients comprehended them in any certain number Consult Cass Art. 13. p. 106 107. nec temere quenquam reperias ante P. Lombardum qui certum aliquem definitum Sacramentorum numerum statuerunt nor will you hardly find any one before Peter Lombard who assigned any certain and determinate number of the Sacraments From this Confession of the Novelty of
it seems generally to have prevailed in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries yet doth it plainly seem to contradict the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures which teach That when the days of her Purification were accomplished Luk. ij 22 23 Puram aperiens vulvam according to the Law of Moses they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law of the Lord Every Male that openeth the Womb shall be called holy to the Lord. L. 4. c. 66. In partu suo nupsit ipsa patefacti corp lege Lib. de Carne Christi c. 23. vid. etiam c. 4. 20. Hom. 14. in Lucam Tom. 2. f. 101. According to the import of which Scripture Irenaeus doth expresly teach That our Lord at his Birth opened the Womb of the Virgin. Tertullian adds That she was a Virgin as not having known Man but was no Virgin quantum a partu at her teeming her Womb being then opened according to that saying Every Male that openeth the Womb c. Origen That Matris domini to tempore vulva reserata est quo partus editus the Womb of the Mother of our Lord was opened when she brought forth her Son. Clemens of Alexandria evidently shews that this was in his time only the saying of some Men attending to the Fable of the false Gospel of St. James That the Midwives after her delivery found by Inspection that she was a Virgin and that others held the contrary for saith he It seemed to many and yet seemeth that Mary was by the Birth of her Son a Woman properly delivered of a Child though she was not Strom. l. 7. p. 756. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Woman properly delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for some say that being inspected by the Midwives after the Birth of her Son she was found a Virgin. De Incarn l. 14 cap. 6. §. 1. He respects saith Petavius the Old Wife's Tale invented by some idle Trifler which we find in Suidas and in the Proto-Evangelium S. Jacobi which I could wish he had no otherwise related than by way of Contempt and Derision Thus we learn upon what Grounds this was believed by him against the Opinion of many others St. Basil grounds this Opinion upon another Story of like nature De human Christi Gener. Tom. 1. p. 509. The Story of Zacharias saith he proves that the Virgin Mary was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an entire Virgin for it is derived to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Tradition that Zacharias was slain between the Porch and the Altar for saying Qui hujusmodi Traditioni non credunt that Mary was a Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Birth of our Lord. Origen delivers the same thing in the like words In Matt. Hom. 26. f. 49. b. In Matth. 23.35 Venit ad nos Traditio quaedam Such a Tradition hath come down to us And Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have it from Tradition and yet Origen in the same place confesseth that this Tradition was not believed by others In locum and Jerom saith That it came Ex Apocryphorum Somniis From apocryphal Dreams and adds That Quia de scripturis non habet autoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur Because it hath no Authority from Scripture it is as easily condemned as approved of And thus we see the rise of this Tradition which afterwards prevailed over the Christian World. 3ly § 5 That our Lord lived above Fourty if not to Fifty Years Sicut Evangelium omues seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem Discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Joannem L. 2. c. 39. is the express Assertion of Irenaeus and for this he produceth the Testimony of the Gospel and of all the Elders of the Church who met S. John the beloved Disciple of our Lord in Asia and declared that he delivered to them the same thing yea saith he some of them saw not only John but the rest of the Apostles and heard the same things from them testantur de hujusmodi Relatione and testifie the truth of the Relation To say with Feuardentius upon the place that he might have had this from Papias is a very unlikely thing for he speaks not of the Testimony of one Man but of all the Seniors not of Men who had never seen the Apostles as Papias had not but of them who had he cites not Papias as in the Case of the Millennium he did here therefore is a solemn Declaration of a Tradition received from the Mouth of the Apostles and attested by all the Seniors and yet so far from being in the Gospel as is pretended that by the Gospel it may be evidently confuted so far from being owned as such in after Ages that upon a very slight Ground even the saying of the Prophet Isaiah Vid. Feuard in Iren. p. 46. 188. That Christ was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord many of the Fathers took up a contrary Opinion that our Lord Suffered in the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius and preached One Year only When Jesus came to his Baptism saith Clemens of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 1. p. 340. he was about Thirty Years old and that he was to Preach but One Year is thus written He sent me to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord this both the Prophet and the Gospel according to the plain meaning of the Words averr say some in Origen Hom. 32. in Luk. f. 111. That our Lord Preached the Gospel but one Year and that on this account it was said Cap. 8. that he was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L 1. c. 1. p. 16. Tertullian in his Book against the Jews saith That Christ suffered annos habens quasi triginta being about Thirty Years Old. Lactantius Africanus and others cited by Feuardentius say the same And yet this was no better than an Opinion first invented by the Gnosticks as we learn from Irenaeus and for which they produced the same Text and 't is as easily confuted by the Enumeration of the Passovers our Saviour Celebrated after his Baptism and before his Death Now if a Tradition could so generally obtain in the Fifth Century which had its rise from Fabulous Legends and Apocryphal Dreams against plain Words of Scripture and plain Assertions of the Fathers living in the former Centuries as that of our Lords coming out of the Womb of the Virgin without opening of it did why might not other Traditions pretended by some later Councils and the Church of Rome be of like nature Why may we not credit the Council of Frankford In lib. Carol. p. 3. c. 30. declaring that the Second Nicene Council for their pretended Tradition of Image-Worship had recourse ad Apocryphas quasdam risu dignas naenias to Apocryphal and Ridiculous Tales Comment
Virgin-Mother of God must come into the Severity of Judgment who dares wish to be judged by God. In the Fifth Century St. Chrysostom informs us That both our Lord's Brethren In Matt. Hom. 27. p. 191. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 44. p. 287. and his Mother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laboured under some humane infirmity being desirous of vain Glory that she was guilty of vain Glory that both She and his Brethren were guilty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of an excessive Love of Honour and that therefore our Lord blamed them and that because they came to him as a meer Man and out of vain Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he casts out the Disease not reproaching but correcting them and that he gave her a reproof very becoming him P. 639. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and profitable to her In his Twenty first Homily on St. John he charges her with being guilty of hindering the things of God and interrupting of her Son in Spiritual things Consider saith he what a thing it was for her when the People stood about him and were desirous to hear him and his Instructions were propounded to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. for her to come to draw him from his Exhortations to speak in private with him and not so much as to vouchsafe to come in to him therefore he saith who is my Mother not dispising her that begat him but doing her much profit and not permitting her to think so meanly of him Cyril of Alexandria saith That the Passion of our Lord which happen'd so unexpectedly Tom 4. p. 1064 1065 1066. Vid. eundem orat in occursum Domini p. 391. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1064. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did likely scandalize her and put her somewhat besides her self into indecent Passions For doubt not saith he but she had some such reasonings within her self as these I conceived him who is now laugh'd at on the Cross perhaps he was deceived in saying he was the true Son of God. He saying I am the Life how should he then be Crucified How was he taken in the Snares of his Murtherers How is it that he prevailed not against the Machinations of his Persecutors Why doth not he who restored Lazarus to Life and filled all Judaea with his Miracles descend now from the Cross 'T is very probable that the Women kind being ignorant of the Mystery might fall into such apprehensions as these were We speak not these things out of vain Conjectures as it may seem to some but we are moved to suspect these things of the Mother of our Lord by what is written for that sharp brunt of Passion which cast her mind into absurd Imaginations is that which Simeon calls a Sword. Nor saith he is it to be wondered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 1065. if a Woman should thus slide at the apprehension of our Lords Passion seeing St. Peter who was preferred before the rest of the Apostles was scandalized at it And lastly he declares P. 1066. That Christ did therefore commit her to the care of the Evangelist St. John because he saw that she had fallen by scandal at his Passion and was filled with disorder in her Apprehensions that he might rightly declare unto her the profoundness of the Mystery The Author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament which passeth under the Name of Austin saith Qu. 73. That Simeon spake unto her thus A Sword shall pass through thy own Soul to signifie this to her that even she in morte Domini dubitaret should doubt when she saw the Death of Christ though she should be confirmed by his Resurrection Here therefore is a Tradition of the Church built upon the received Sence of Scripture for three whole Centuries no Father contradicting in the least what was so fully and perspicuously delivered in those Ages and yet if we must credit the present Church of Rome the contrary to this Tradition and to this received Interpretation of those Scriptures on which they grounded this Tradition must be an Article of Faith received throughout all Ages of the Church Again the Decree of the Apostles § 6 which commands the Gentiles to abstain from things strangled and from Blood Act. 15. was conceived by the generality of Christians for a Thousand Years to be obliging to all Christians The Canon of the Apostles saith Can 63. That if any Bishop Presbyter or Deacon or any other of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth eat Flesh with the Life-Blood in it or what is killed by a Beast or dieth of it self let him be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this the Law hath forbidden if he be a Lay-man let him be separated from Communion In the Second Century the Christians were accused of eating Infants and Feasting upon humane Flesh and Blood now to this Accusation the constant Answer of the Christians was that of Blandina in Eusebius Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. p. 159. How should they eat such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who do not think it lawful to eat the Blood of Beasts Paedag. l. 2. c. 1. p. 149. And Clemens of Alexandria declares That God forbad things strangled or dying of themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 3. c. 3. p. 228. for it is not lawful to touch them and that it is not lawful for Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to touch Blood. In the Third Century to the like Accusation of the Heathens Tertullian returns this Answer Apol. c. 9. That they might be ashamed to object to them the eating humane Blood qui nec Animalium quidem sanguinem in Epulis esculentis habemus who used not to eat the Blood of Beasts least they should be defiled with any Blood received into their Bowels P. 34. Octavius saith We Christians are so far from eating humane Blood ut nec edulium pecorum sanguinem in cibis noverimus Contra Celsum l. 8. p. 396 397. that we eat not the Blood of Beasts we are forbid to eat things strangled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Blood being not separated from them saith Origen that we may not be fed with the Food of Daemons and hence we learn the reason of the precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning abstinence from Blood. In the Fourth Century was held the Council of Gangra against the Eustathians some of whom held cibos carnium tanquam illicitos repudiandos esse that Flesh was to be refused as unlawful where they pronounce Anathema to any person who condemns those that eat Flesh Can. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excepting only such as ate Blood or things offered to Idols or strangled from which Exception it is evident that they held it sit to condemn them who did taste of Blood or of things strangled Now this Canon is in the Code of the Universal Church and is one of them which were Confirmed in the General Council of
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
Disciples understood that he spake of John the Baptist that he meant him and no other when he speak of an Elias who was for to come So that the meaning of our Lord's words is plainly this true it is as the Scribes say Elias is to come before the Messiah and it is also true that John is that Elias which was when Malachy spake those words to come afterwards but was not yet to come when our Saviour spake of him but as he saith expresly Was already come though they who said Elias must first come knew him not when he was come And truly had our Lord spoken of one Elias viz. John the Baptist and the Prophet Malachy of another had Christ spoken of an Elias to come at his first Advent and the Prophet and the Scribes of one to come at his second Advent He had not answered his Disciples Question but deluded them And that the Elias here spoken of was to appear at our Lord's first coming is apparent from the Enquiry of the Disciples Why say the Scribes Elias must first come before the Son of Man for the Tradition of the Scribes was that Elias was to Anoint the Messiah and make him known unto the People And 't is as evident from our Lord's answer Elias cometh first i. e. before my Resurrection of which I now speak from this place therefore it never can be proved that any other under that Character is to appear before his second coming It further is Objected Object That the Elias mentioned by Malachy was To turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children and was according to our Saviour's acknowledgment to restore or set all things in Order which seemeth not to have been done by the Ministry of the Baptist who continued but a short time and did no such things as these words seem to imply it remains therefore that these words should be fulfilled by an Elias who shall be the Fore-runner of Christ's second Advent To this I Answer Answ That all who will not give the Lye unto the Angel sent to Zachary must be obliged to confess the Baptist did fulfil the Prophecy of Malachy for of the Baptist he thus speaks He shall be great before the Lord Luk. i. 15 16 17. and many of the Sons of Israel shall he turn unto the Lord for he shall go before him in the Spirit and Power of Elias to turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children and the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just to make ready a People prepared for the Lord If then John Baptist did not fulfil the words spoken by the Angel we must confess the Angel was deceived and Zachary deserved not the punishment he suffered for disbelieving of his Testimony But if he did fulfil these Sayings of the Angel he also must fulfil the words contained in the Prophet Malachy because the Angel speaketh in the very words of Malachy Again our Saviour acknowledging that an Elias was to come before him and restore all things adds that he who was to come to restore all things was already come and was the Baptist He therefore must have restored all things or it must be confessed he did not execute his Office or fulsil what was written of him Moreover the Holy Ghost by the Mouth of Zachary speaks thus concerning John Luk. i. 76. And thou Child shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest for thou shalt go before the Lord to prepare his way which is the very thing the Prophet Malachy declares to be the Office of his Messenger And whosoever shall consider what in the Gospel is said of John the Baptist and shall compare those things with what the Prophet Malachy and even the Scribes averr'd that the Elias promised should do will easily perceive all that was said or Prophesied concerning Elias was so punctually fulfilled by the Baptist as to cut off all further expectation of the completion of this Prophecy by any personal Appearance of Elias before our Saviour's second Advent For the Prophet saith Behold I will send Elias and the Gospel saith There was a Man sent from God whose Name was John and that this John was that Elias which was for to come Vid. Pocock p. 105. The Prophet saith of his Elias That he was to come before the Great and Terrible day of the Lord. And in the Gospel John is said to come when the Day of Wrath was coming when the Axe was laid to the Root of the Trees Matth. xxiv 2. and every Tree that brought not forth good Fruit was to be hewen down and cast into the Fire when he was now appearing Mat. xxiij 38. whose Fan was in his Hand to purge his Flour and gather the Wheat into his Barn and to burn up the Chaff with unquenchable Fire He came at the time when saith our Saviour Luk. xix 43. their House was to be left unto them desolate when the desolation of their City Luk. xix 43 44. Nation and Temple was irreversably at hand when the Enemies of Jerusalem were to cast a Trench about her and lay her even with the Ground and her Children within her Here it is said That this Elijah should turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children c. That he should Preach to Young and Old Conversion and Repentance and in the Gospel it is said of John That he should turn many of the Children of Israel to the Lord their God that he should turn the Hearts of the Fathers to their Children and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just Luk. iij. 3. Matth. iij. 5 6. that he preach'd to all the Baptism of Repentance and that with such success and good effect that Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan went out to him and were Baptized of him confessing their Sins that all the People Luk. vij 29. Matth. iij. 7. Luk. iij. 13 14. and the Publicans justified God being Baptized of John. So effectual was his Ministry that many of the Scribes and Pharises came to his Baptism and even the Souldiers and the Publicans to be instructed by him Vid. Dr. Pocock p. 105. He prevailed generally with the Jews to unite in one common Baptism that of Repentance and whereas the Tradition of the Scribes taught That Elias was to Anoint the Messiah and make him known to the People John did Baptize him and declare unto the People that he was the Lamb of God John i. 29. Matth. iij. 16. and at his Baptism by St. John he was anointed by the Holy Ghost What therefore better can agree than the Prophecy in Malachy and the matter of Fact in the Gospel What can be further requisite to shew that the Person who is characterized thus by the Prophet and who so punctually answered to that Character in the Gospel is one and the same Person and that no other ought to be expected by virtue of this Prophecy Now hence it
the Greek And that their Versions of the New Testament where they vary Graecis cedere oportere non dubium est must yield to the Greek Copies is without doubt St. Jerom in his Epistle to Lucinius saith Ep. Tom. 1. f. 69. b. That he had Translated most of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew and that he had Translated the New according to the Authority of the Greek Ut enim veterum librorum fides de Hebraeis voluminibus examinanda est ita novorum Graeci sermonis normam desiderat For as the Truth of the Books of the Old Testament is to be examined by the Hebrew so is the Truth of the Books of the New Testament to be examined by the Rule of the Greek In his Epistle to Sunia and Fretela he tells them Tom. 3. f. 28. a. That as in the New Testament if at any time a Question arise among the Latins and there is a diversity among the Copies recurrimus ad fontem Graeci sermonis we recurr to the Greek the Original Language in which the New Testament was writ so in the Old Testament if there be a diversity between the Greek and Latin Copies ad Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem Ep. Tom. 3. f. 10. b. we recurr to the Hebrew Verity In his Epistle to Damasus he saith That he had at his command Translated the Four Evangelists codicum Graecorum emendatâ collatione mending the former Versions by the Collation of the Greek Copies it being the desire of Damasus that because the Latin Copies differed he would shew quae sunt illa quae cum Graeca consentiunt veritate which best agreed with the true Copies of the Greek and indeed saith he If we must trust to the Latin Copies let them who think so say to which for they are almost all different one from the other surely the Scripture of the New Testament being writ in Greek when that differs in the Latin Tongue uno de fonte quaerendum we must have recourse to the Fountain Now by the way they who speak so expresly of the Hebrew and the Greek Verity by which the truth of the Latin Copies is to be examined shew that the Decree of Trent that the vulgar Latin Sess 4. pro Authentica haberetur should in all Readings Disputations Preachings and Expositions be received as authentick and that no Man should dare under any pretence to reject it agrees with Antiquity after their usual manner by way of Opposition and flat Contradiction to it though in this matter I confess they are the more excusable seeing as Espenceus saith In 1 Tim. c. 3. it rendred any of the Latins suspicious to know Greek and it was almost Heretical to know the Hebrew Tongue And as Melchior Chanus doth inform us The School-men for Four hundred Years Loc. Com. l. 2. c. 12. p. 108. retained only the Latin Edition quippe linguae Graecae Hebraicae non habuerunt peritiam because they had no skill in Greek or Hebrew Thirdly § 10 That the Books of the New Testament have been handed down unto us uncorrupted in the necessaries and substantials of Christian Faith and Manners we conclude from Reason grounded upon matter of Fact delivered and testified by the Doctors of the Vniversal Church and we receive them as such from the rational Evidence which Tradition affords in this Case Whence we collect 1. That the Apostles and Holy Spirit which did assist them in inditing of this Canon for the Church's use could not be wanting in causing them to be transmitted to those Christians for whose use they were indited because they could not be wanting to pursue the end for which they were endited Besides that they were actually thus committed to them is the Tradition of the whole Christian World which owned and cited read and received them for such from the Apostles Days as is apparent from the Epistles of Clement Polycarp Ignatius and others who were contemporary with the Apostles and from the works of Justin M. Irenaeus and many others of the Second Century They were read also by the Jews as Trypho doth confess and by the very Heathens at the invitation of the Christians For our Doctrines and Writings saith Justin M. Apol. 1. p. 52. Apol. 2. p. 7. are such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as all Men are permitted to read and if you will vouchsafe to look into them you may learn these things for we do not only read them our selves Ibid. p. 82. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we bring them to you to peruse knowing that they will be acceptable to all that read them Apol. c. 31. We our selves do not suppress them saith Tertullian and many Accidents do put them into the Hands of Strangers They were attested to by the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians who rather chose to suffer Death than to deliver up these Books which Sufferings they could have no Temptation to endure besides their full Conviction that they were as they always stiled them Passio S. Felicis saepius Deifici libri Scripturae deificae Books which instructed them to lead a Divine Life and which their Persecutors could have had no Temptation to suppress and burn had they not known them to have been the Records of the Christian Faith with which their Faith must live or perish Moreover they contained things of the highest moment and which it was their chiefest interest to be well assured of they being the sole Ground and matter of their support under their sharpest Trials and of their future Hopes and therefore Writings they were concerned to get and hear and read and keep Add to this that they very early were translated into other Languages into the Syriack by apostolical Men saith the Tradition of the Eastern Churches by Men of great Antiquity who lived before the Canon was established as is apparent from their neglecting to translate the controverted Books of the New Testament into the Latin and other Languages Praeleg in Bibl. polyglott 13. p. 91. saith Bishop Walton From the Beginning as we may rationally conjecture seeing the Church of Rome and other Churches which understood not Greek were founded in the Apostles Days or quickly after nor could it rationally be supposed that they were without the Scriptures long Especially if we consider That it was part of their Lord's day Exercise saith Justin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 98. to read the Writings of the Apostles As for the Books themselves we find them mostly written to whole Churches Nations 1 Cor. i. 1. 2 Pet. i. 1. or the whole World of Christians To all that called upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place who could not easily have received them had the Apostles by whom they were at first converted given no sufficient indication of them They were Books which could not have been spread abroad as they were in the Apostles Names whilst they were living unless the Apostles had endited them
corbonam omnino non respicis De opere eleemos p. 203. as their Wants require Saint Cyprian also taxeth the Omission of this Duty on the Lord's day as a Fault in Rich and able Persons saying Thou art Wealthy and Rich and thinkest thou that thou observest the Lord's day who dost not at all respect the poor Man's Box Thirdly All the Ancient Commentators on this Place both Greek and Latin unanimously interpret this of the Lord 's day Ambrose and Primasius among the Latins Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact among the Greeks Secondly Observe that no good Reason can be given why the Apostle should limit the Collections of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia to the first day of the week but this That this day was appointed for the Worship of our Lord and so more fit for the performance of those Duties which concerned his distressed Members in those Times for as the works of Charity and Mercy are proper Duties of this day so doth this day contain a special motive in it to enlarge their Charley it being the day in which they were begotten to a lively Hope through the Resurrection of our Saviour and in which they constantly in those times participated of his precious Body and Blood and therefore having then received spiritual Things so plentifully from Christ must be more ready to impart of their temporals to his needy Servants Thirdly Observe that should the Text be rendered thus Let every one lay up against the first day of the week there would be some good reason for that Precept provided that it were a day appointed for the Service of Christ and the Assemblies of all Christian People for meeting thus together on that day they might then bring to the Assembly what they had treasured up against that time and then put it into the publick Bank as the Custom was in the first Ages of the Church and that they did so here at Corinth seems highly probable from the design of the Apostles Precept for he exhorts them to have their Charity ready that there might be no need of a Collection when he came whereas if they had kept their Charity in their own hands and not put it into the publick Stock there would still have been need of a Collection at his coming 2dly The Apostle might command to lay it up against that day to be then offered to the Lord because our Charity to his distressed Members is an Odor of a sweet smelling Savour Philip. 4.18 Act. 10.4 a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God a Duty fitly joined with our Prayers that so they may come up together as a memorial before God. Since therefore whether we translate the word 's upon the first day of the week or against the first day of the week no reason doth appear why Saint Paul should pitch upon that day had it not been the day of their assembling together the day on which they met to serve the Lord Christ we ought in reason to conclude it was so And if for the performance of this Work of Charity on the Lord's day Saint Paul thought fit to give his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or special Order can we suppose the day it self should be observed without appointment of the said Apostle or others of like power with him especially if we consider that Clemens the Contemporary of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Cor. §. 40. doth inform us That our Lord commanded our Oblations and Liturgies should be performed at times appointed and not disorderly but at those very times and seasons which he had ordained and thence concludes That they who offer their Oblations in those appointed Seasons are blessed and acceptable to God and that because they act agreeably to the Commandments of their Lord for if Christ himself gave Laws for the time when and the persons by whom he would have divine Offices performed as Clemens here doth plainly teach there is little doubt to be made but the Lord's day was his own Ordinance and if as he there adds These things were defined by his Sovereign Counsel that all things being done religiously according to his good Pleasure might be acceptable in his sight it follows that this time could not Religiously have been set apart for his Service or have been acceptable to him had it not been appointed by the Counsel of his Will so that although this Text doth not expresly command that the first Day of the Week should be observed as the Christians weekly Festival yet if we join with it the uniform Practice of the Primitive Church then and ever since they jointly prove that the first day of the Week was the weekly Festival of Christians at that time and strongly do imply or suppose that before this Apostolical Ordinance for these Collections on this Day there was another for the observation of the day it self for how could it have happened that all the Apostolical Churches throughout the World should from the beginning have accorded to make this day a weekly Festival unless they had been directed thus to do by the Apostles themselves by whom they were at first converted to the Christian Faith and with that Faith received this Institution 3dly We have another Scripture Act. xx 7. § 3 which fairly seemeth to conclude that the Apostles and the Christian Church did then observe this day and meet for the performance of Religious Worship on it for there it is expresly said That upon the first day of the Week when the Disciples came together to break Bread Paul preached unto them Where Note 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first day of the week was certainly the Lord's day as hath already been made manifest 2. Observe That on this day the Disciples were not summoned extraordinarily to come together that Saint Paul did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 call them together as he did the Assembly of the Elders of the Church v. 17. but the Disciples were themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 met in their Synaxis or Assembly the Text informs us That Saint Paul carried with them seven days and in none of them have we any mention of an Assembly to this purpose but only on the first day of the week 3. Observe That they then met together to break Bread which Phrase doth signifie the sacred Action performed in celebration of the Holy Sacrament which 't was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to receive in all their Church Assemblies on the Lord's day 1 Cor. xi this the Apostle intimates when he complains of his Corinthians That they came together for the worse because when they came together in the Church there were Divisions among them so that they did not eat together of the Table of the Lord. Now thus to come together in one place saith he is not to eat the Lord's Supper i. e. it is not so to do it as the sacred Action ought to be performed this therefore when they came
obtained in that Church we find them got into their Rituals and Books of S. Offices Their Councils do consult about them make Canons and Decrees in favour of them Having then so frequent mention of these matters in the Councils Liturgies the Canons and the Constitutions of the Western Church in these last Ages why is it we have nothing of them in the Canons or Constitutions Apostolical or in the Code of Canons of the universal Church or of the Church of Africk where we have so frequent mention of all the other received Practices and Customs of the Church when Tertullian sets himself on purpose to enumerate those things which had obtained in the Church De Cor. c. 3. Traditionis titulo consuetudinis patrocinio under the specious Titles of Custom and Tradition why is it that he doth not mention one of these Romish Practices De Sp. Sancto c. 25 27. When St. Basil if that be his Work which bears his Name doth professedly discourse of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten Customs which had obtained in the Church why is he wholly silent as to all these practices if equally owned by the Church as Apostolical Surely these things give us just reason to suspect that they were not acquainted with them and knew nothing of them Again had they the Evidence of Tradition § 2 that those points of Faith which in their Councils have been established and imposed upon us under an Anathema were handed down unto them from our Lord's Apostles had the Apostles and their Successors still taught all Christians the Doctrine of Concomitance and the sufficiency of one Species to make an entire Sacrament and to conveigh the whole benefit of the Sacrament Of the necessity of the intention of the Priest to make a Sacrament Of the number of the Sacraments that they are neither more nor less than Seven Of Marriage that it is a Sacrament properly so called and that by virtue of our Lord's Institution Of the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Of the Oblation of a true propitiatory Sacrifice for the Dead and Living in the Mass Of a Purgatory or place in which the Souls of Pious Men do suffer Punishment and from which being afterwards relieved by the Prayers and good Works of the Faithful upon Earth they go to Heaven before the Day of Judgment had they informed all Christians That a Power of Indulgences is left by Christ unto his Church That Saints departed are to be Invoked and Images to be Venerated That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and That the Pope is the Vicar of our Lord Jesus upon Earth and that without the Belief of this Faith Salvation cannot be obtained and consequently never was obtained by any Christian I say had all these Articles descended to them from the Apostles through all Ages of the Christian Church they must be as notorious as any which have thus descended and which we can run up from Age to Age till we come to the Apostles For Instance they must have been as obvious to be found in all the Writings of the Fathers as the Tradition of the Apostles Creed the Canon of the Scripture the Writing of the Four Evangelists c. They also must have been as diligently taught as frequently inculcated as those things were as being no less necessary to Salvation than any Doctrine contained in the Scriptures or in the Creed of the Apostles We must have met with them in all their Summaries of Christian Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Doctrines and their Discourses writ on purpose to instruct others in the Articles of Christian Faith they would have been inserted into their Creeds as other necessary Articles were taught their Catechumens required of their Clergy at their admission to Holy Orders sent by their Patriarchs and Bishops in their circular Letters included in the Paschal Cycles as were the Rule of Faith the Christian Symbol and yet by diligent perusual of all these we can find no such matter in the Creeds Enchiridions Compendiums of Christian Doctrine the catechistical Discourses the Treatises of Faith and ecclesiastical Doctrines so frequent in the Writings of the five first Centuries and therefore have good reason to believe they were not then received or owned as Articles of Christian Faith. The Wisdom of the present Church of Rome yields a strong confirmation of this Argument for since their latter Councils have defined these Articles we find them Inserted into her Creed and her Trent Catechism contained in all the Writings of her Doctors touching the Articles of Christian Faith and of ecclesiastical Tradition required to be believed professed and taught by all her Clergy What therefore shall we think of all the Fathers of the five first Centuries was it out of want of love to Souls or care of their instruction in the necessary Articles of Christian Faith that they were wholly silent in these matters Why then may we not fear that they neglected to hand down unto Posterity other necessary Articles of Christian Faith Or was it out of ignorance that they were then necessary how then came Romanists to know by Tradition that they are necessary now Or if they wanted neither knowledge to discern all necessary Articles of Christian Faith nor will nor care to teach all they conceived to be such must it not follow that those Articles which in their numerous Discourses and Instructions on these Subjects are not so much as touched upon were not then owned as necessary Articles of the Christian Faith and therefore ought not now to be imposed or received as such Add to this § 3 that the Fathers of the first Ages were very careful and concerned to preserve the Traditions of the Apostles truly so called or so esteemed by them and to commit them unto writing to be the Testimonies of their Faith against the importunity of Hereticks to whom it was peculiar for the three first Centurtes to refuse tryal by the Scriptures only and to pretend unto some secret Traditions not contained in the Scriptures For the Great Ignatius going to his Martyrdom confirmed the Churches he arrived at with his Discourses requesting them in the first place to avoid the Heresies which were then springing up He exhorted them also Lib. 3. c. 35. saith Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stand firm to the Tradition of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the greater certainty he having testified concerning it thought necessary to leave in writing and so endited his Epistles Papias Ibid c. 38. often naming the Apostles saith the same Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puts down their Traditions And Polycarp saith Irenaeus not only testified what was the truth which he received from the Apostles and by that testimony converted many of the Hereticks but he also writ an Epistle to the Philippians from which they who are willing and desirous of
but never to Tradition the Prophets do exhort them for their direction to repair to the Law Esai 8.20.34.16 Mal. 4.4 and to the Testimonies to the Book of the Lord. To remember the Law of Moses which he commanded them in Horeb for all Israel with the Statutes and Judgments as their only certain Rule and Direction Now that the ordinary Succession of Prophets was to cease from the Days of Malachy to the Times of Christ whereas had Oral Tradition also been their Rule the Prophets must have had like reason to call upon them to remember that Moreover God only calls upon them by Moses To do all the Words of this Law which are written in this Book and promiseth his Favour and Acceptance of them upon that account saying If thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God Deut. 30.9 10. Vers 15. to keep his Commandments and Statutes which are written in this Book of the Law I will rejoice over thee for Good. See I have set before thee this day life and good and death and evil And David speaketh thus unto King Solomon 1 Kings 2.3 Keep the Charge of the Lord thy God to walk in his ways to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgments and his Testimonies as it is written in the Law of Moses that thou maist prosper in all that thou dost and whithersoever thou turnest thy self If then the Observation of what was written in the Law of Moses was sufficient to procure Life Favour Prosperity and Acceptance with God surely this written Law must be a perfect Rule and must sufficiently contain all that was needful to be believed or done unto those ends Hence is the King commanded to write him a Copy of this Law in a Book that he might learn to fear the Lord God Deut. 17.18 19. and to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them and to perform the words of the Covenant which are written in this Book 2 Chron. 34.31 is to keep God's Commandments his Testimonies and his Statutes with all the Soul and with all the Heart Whereas had Oral Tradition been any part of their Rule they must have been obliged equally to observe what was delivered by it and all God's Statutes and Commandments could not be written in this Book as it is so expresly and frequently declared that they were Our Saviour in like manner bids them Search the Scriptures Joh. 3.39 because they thought in them they had eternal Life in which apprehension had they been deceived as they must have been provided that there was another Law of Oral Tradition given to lead them unto Life eternal our Saviour doubtless would have informed them of this dangerous Error which yet he was so far from doing that when a Lawyer puts the Question to him What shall I do that I may inherit eternal Life Luk. 10.25 26. he Answers What is written in the Law how readest thou This do and thou shalt live Luk. 16.29 And sends the Jews to Moses and the Prophets that by hearing them they might avoid the coming to the Place of Torments but neither he nor his Disciples do ever send them to Tradition or speak one word in approbation of it which is sufficient Evidence that they knew nothing of this Rule of Mr. M. 2dly § 6 The Traditions concerning Doctrines generally believed and Practices needful to be performed among them after the Law was written by Moses and after God had given them a Charge upon the ceasing of the Succession of his Prophets to remember and stick close unto it I say the Traditions which obtained in the Jewish Church as far as we have any certain intimation of them were such as tended to the evacuating of the Law of Moses to the renouncing of the true Messiah and to the introduction of vain Worship and superstitious Observances whence it demonstratively appears that Oral Tradition was not then a certain Rule nor could the Jewish Nation be obliged by divine Precept to receive it as such To make this Evident consider 1. That our Saviour often sends the Jews to Scripture to Moses and the Prophets but never to Tradition 2. That he still represents the great Asserters of Tradition in the Jewish Nation Matth. 15.14.23.16 17 19. Mat. 15.10 11. to wit their Elders Scribes and Pharisees as blind Guides leading of the Blind as Fools and Blind confuteth their Traditions though generally received before all the People Mark 7. Mat. 12.7 Matth. 15.13 justifies his Disciples in the neglect and violation of them pronounces them Plants which his Father had not planted and therefore such as should be rooted up 3dly He plainly tells them That by these Traditions they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgress make void Mark. 7.10 and null the Commandment of God. He shews this by plain Instances in their evacuating the Fifth Commandment by their Traditions in observing and enjoining such Traditions touching the Observation of the Sabbatick Rest Matth. 12.7 Matth. 12.12 Luk. 6.9 Mark 3.5 Luke 13.15 Matth. 23.16 23. as contradicted that great Law of God I will have mercy and not sacrifice and made it unlawful to do good and preserve Life upon that day and which sufficiently demonstrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blindness of their Minds and their Hypocrisie and in absolving them from their Oaths out of an ignorance so Gross as knew not they were virtually made to God. He also charges them that by thus teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men Matth. 15.9 they rendered God's Worship vain 4thly It is extreamly evident that by virtue of some of these Traditions they rejected the true Messiah and stood obliged by them so to do For First It is most certain that the Jews had a Tradition generally received among them That their Messiah should be a Temporal Prince that at his Coming he should restore the Kingdom to Israel he should subdue the Nations under them and should erect a Temporal Dominion in the Jewish Nation over all their Enemies Trypho the Jew declares to Justin M. That Dial. p. 249. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scriptures do compel us to expect a great and glorious Messiah who shall receive as the Son of Man from the ancient of Days an everlasting Kingdom In Celsum l. 2. p. 78. not such a mean despised one as was your Jesus The Jews saith Origen say That their Prophets represent their Messiah to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great Person and a Potentate and Lord of the whole Earth and of all the Heathens and their Armies De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 31. Josephus confesseth there was an obscure Oracle found in their S. Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That about that time one of Judea should govern the World. Suetonius and Tacitus say In Vespas c 4. Hist l. 5. That it was in the whole East Vetus constans opinio ut
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
and they who would give them this Sine regeneratione without Baptismal Regeneration seem to void Baptism it self by saying they have that which is believed to be conferred upon them only by Baptism where the Note in the Margin is Etiam R. Ecclesia credidit Eucharistiam parvulis necessariam Even the Roman Church believed that the Eucharist was necessary for little Children Behold saith Austin Contr. duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Lib. 1. Contr. Jul. cap. 4. Ep. ad paulinum Pope Innocent saith that little ones cannot have Life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ And again Pope Innocent determined that Infants could not have Life unless they did eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. And a Third time If the Pelagians will yield to the Apostles See or rather to their Lord and Master saying Except we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which the unhaptized Person cannot do we shall not have Life they will at last confess that unbaptized Persons cannot have it In the Sixth Century Hom. 7. B. P. Tom. 7. p. 279. Caesarius Arelatensis urges this very Text of Scripture Except you eat c. as a most solid Testimony against the Blasphemies of Pelagius That Baptism was not to be administred to Children Propter vitam for the obtaining Life For saith he these Words of our Saviour Non habebitis vitam in vobis you shall have no Life in you do give us clearly to understand that every Soul that is void of Baptism wants both Life and Glory Now since that Passage of our Lord was never by the Ancients thought to have Relation to Baptism but always to the Eucharist it is apparent that this Argument is of no Force at all or that it is the same with that which is so often urged by St. Austin That none can have Eternal Life who doth not participate of Christ's Body and Blood and none can do that who is not baptized Ep. Univers Episc per Nicaenum Concil To. 4. p. 1177 1178. Against the Pelagians saith Pope Gelasius our Lord pronounceth That he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him Where we see none exempt nor dares any say That an Infant can obtain eternal Life without this Sacrament Nevertheless that the Providence of God might cut off all the Wickedness of the Pelagians it is not only said Vnless a Man be born again of Water c. but also Vnless he eat and drink c. And that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life This Argument you see is generally urged by all that write against the Pelagians nor do we find that the Pelagians did in the least except against the Practice as either Novel or not Catholick but only did content themselves to say that Infants did receive these Sacraments not to obtain Life but the Kingdom of Heaven And here it is to be admired § 5 that Men of Sense and Ingenuity should say St. Austin and these Fathers spake all this of such a Participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as is had in Baptism and not of the Participation of it by receiving of the Holy Eucharist When First The Proof they bring of the manducation and drinking required of Children that they may have Life is from John vj. 53. which from St. Austin's Days to the Twelfth Century hath always been understood of the Eucharist but never of the Sacrament of Baptism So generally the forecited Fathers Secondly They bring distinct Proofs to evince that Infants are to participate of both Sacraments the Third of John to prove they ought to be baptized the Sixth of John to prove they ought to receive the Holy Eucharist◠So St. Austin so Isidore Pelusiota so Pope Gelasius in the Places cited Thirdly They speak of the Mysteries in the Plural Number as of things necessary to be received for the Remission of their Sins and the obtaining Life Eternal So Theodorus Amphilochius St. Chrysostom Isidore Pelusiota St. Austin Hincmarus Rhemensis Photius Albinus Amalarius Fourthly They speak first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord declaring of them distributively That Infants cannot have Life Sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi without Christ's Baptism and the Participation of his Body and Blood So Pope Innocent Sine Baptismo Corpore Sanguine Christi without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of Christ So St. Austin Fifthly They spake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by way of Distinction from that of Baptism Non de Sacramento S. lavacri sed de Sacramento mensae suae l. 1. de peccat Merit c. 19 20. Ep. 107. p. 499. Quod nisi Baptizati non utique possunt Ep. 106. p. 487. saying Let us hear our Lord not speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table So St. Austin Sixthly They speak of that eating and drinking of this Quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body Per ora by the Mouths So St. Austin Which Children have a right to by being first Baptized and of that Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ Quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit to which none comes who is not rightly baptized Lastly Sometimes they speak of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table of that Sacrament emphatically and of that Blood which the Child must drink Now hence it follows First § 6 That the Trent Council hath manifestly erred when it declared of all the Fathers in General who held this Opinion Sess 21. c. 4. Sine controversia oredendum est eos nulla salutis necessitate id fecisse That without Controversy we must believe that they did not this from an Opinion of the Necessity of it to Salvation this being an Untruth so manifest In. John 6. that Maldonate in direct Opposition to this Couneil saith that St. Austin and Pope Innocent were by this Passage of the Sixth of John induced to believe Infantes etiam baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperent salvos esse non posse that even baptized Infants could not be saved unless they received the Eucharist and that from that place they conceived the Eucharist was necessary for Infants to Salvation and that St. Austin mentioned this not as his private Opinion Sed ut fidei totius Ecclesiae dogma but as a Doctrine of Faith received by the whole Church adding Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. as also Binius doth That this Doctrine flourished in the Church about Six hundred Years Secondly Hence it appears that the same Council by pronouncing an Anathema against all who shall dare to say Sess 21. Can. 4. That it is necessary for Children before they come to Years of Discretion to receive the Sacrament hath virtually