say they in our writings (e) Aug. de Orig an l. 4. c. 1. l. de bono persev c. 21. many things quae possent justo judicio culpari which justly may be blamed so that we would have no man so to embrace all our Sayings as to follow them save only in those things in which they do perceive they have not erred if then their sayings be of any credit and Authority 't is evident from their assertions that they ought not to be admitted as the Rule of faith as being men subject unto like ignorance and errors with us and if their sayings be of no credit much less can they be own'd as the pillars and the ground of truth and yet I find this doctrine laid down expresly by a concealed Heretick Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople in his Epistle to Cyril where he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Sexto Ep. ad Cyrum episcop Concil To. 6. p. 918. the doctrines of the Fathers are a Law to the universal Church and that we are bound to follow them and to hold all that they have written to the least tittle and evident it is That even from the Fifth Century the sayings of the Fathers began to be had in great Reputation and about the Eighth to be as it were Authentick and Articles of Faith were canvassed and determined both in the Second Nicene Council and in that of Florence chiefly by the pretended Sayings of the Holy Fathers to whose Testimony you very rarely if at all shall find this just Exception made That they were Men of like Infirmities and subject to like Errors as we are One Athanasius or Basil one Nazianzen or Nyssen one Chrysostom and Theodoret in the Eastern Church one Hilary and Ambrose St. Austin Jerom and St. Gregory in the Western Churches have for these six last Centuries signified as much or more than a St. Peter or St. Paul an Apostle or Evangelist and a sed contra Augustinus or sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit through the whole Summs and the whole Body of the Schoolmen hath passed for the Decision of a Question touching Faith or Manners How easy was it then for Errors to come in under the Vmbrage of these venerable Names especially if we consider how many spurious Pieces had usurped their Names which the great Ignorance of latter Ages could not distinguish from their genuine Works how many of their genuine works were horribly corrupted and how fruitful many of those Fathers were in there inventions and how positive they sometimes are in delivering that as the doctrine of the whole Church which was nothing less For instance who that reads St. Austin disputing against the Pelagians could doubt if he believed him that the Doctrine of the Imputation of Original Sin was universally received by all Christians and that on this account the whole Church Baptized Infants and yet Petavius iuforms us Dogm Theol. To. 4. pt 2. l. 14. c. 2. Haeret. Fabul l. 5. c. 18. p. 292. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18. that the Greek Fathers scarcely spake any thing about it yea in that very Age Theodoret expresly denies it putting the Question thus If this be the only work of Baptism to cleanse from Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why do we Baptize Children who are not guilty of it and in his Comment on Rom. 5.13 He adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That every one dies for his own Sin and not for that of his Fore fathers Chrysostom on the same place saith In v. 19. To. 3. Hom. 10. p. 73. That for us to be mortal on the occasion of the Sin of Adam is no absurdity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but how can it be that by his Transgression another should become a Sinner for if he did not personally sin Cap. 1. neither could he deserve Punishment Gennadius in his Book of Ecclesiastical Doctrines which passeth still among the Works of St. Austin placeth this as one That that Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and Son. Michael Psellus on the contrary saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. Theol. c. 10. p. 157. the Holy Catholick Church teacheth that the Spirit proceedeth only from the Father L. 2. c. 1. but not from the Son. To omit many other Instances collected by the learned Dally in that elaborate Treatise of the Use of the Fathers which makes it needless to discourse further on this Head For if the true Fathers were not only subject to many and great Errors in their private Sentiments but also unto manifold Mistakes touching the Doctrine of the Catholick Church if many of their Works have been unhappily corrupted and many spurious Pieces have been imposed upon them so that instead of their Authority Men often have relyed on an Impostor an ignorant Monk or perhaps an Heretick how easy was it in the dark Ages of the Church for Errors to come in at this Door when too much Veneration was by all given to them and their Dictates passed for Oracles Again § 8 New Doctrines and Practices might obtain by flying from the Scriptures to Miracles and Visions for the Establishment of Doctrines and Opinions in the Church That a prevailing Power doth attend these miraculous Operations even when they are performed only by Satan and his Ministers we shall be fully convinced if we consider that our Lord foretold of the false Prophets and false Christs that should come after him they should work Signs and Miracles so great as to deceive Matth. 24.23 if it were posible the very Elect. St. 2 Thes 2.9 Paul that the Apostacy of the Great Antichrist and his Followers should be effected by the coming of Satan with all power Signs Rev. 13.13 14. and lying Wonders St. John of the Apocalyptick beast that he should do great Signs and deceive the Inhabitants of the Earth by the Signs given him to do that at the first appearance of Christianity the Heathens did oppose it from this topick viz. The Signs and Wonders which had been performed by their Heathen Deities saying Frustra tantum arrogas Christo In vain you arrogate so much to Christ for we have often known that other Gods have given Medicines to and healed the Infirmities of many so the Heathen in (a) Arnob. l. 1. p. 28. Arnobius so (b) Apud Orig. l. 8. p. 407 416 417. Celsus so (c) Apud Minut p. 7. Caelius and comparing the Miracles of Apollonius Tyanaeus and of Apuleus with those of Christ (d) Lact. l. 5 c. 3. Aug. Ep. 4. Hieronim apud Euseb p. 512. Quorum majora contendunt esse opera And contending they were greater than any done by him That (e) Acts 8.9 10. Just in Apol 2. p. 69. Cyril Hier. cat 6. p. 53 54 c. Simon Magus mightily prevailed by them and obtained almost where-ever he came to be worshipped as a
Paul 's Expression by commending themselves and their Doctrine to the Consciences of all Men. To shew the Prevalence of Men of Reputation in Matters of this Nature If as the Romanists do generally confess the Doctrine of the Millennium obtained almost generally in the Church from the Relation of one Papias a Man of very slender Intellectuals If as Eusebius informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 39. most of the Churchmen embraced that Sentiment by his Authority pleading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Antiquity of the Man If one Agrippinus as they also tell us could prevail over all Africa to receive Hereticks by Baptism If Origen could deserve to be condemned in the Fifth and the Sixth Synods as an Heretick and yet whilst he lived Hieron in Verbo Origenes Socrat Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 26. Hieron Prolog in l. 2. com in Micham Pamphil. Apol. Orig. praefat in libr. nom Hebr. T. 3. f. 12. could by his Learning and his Piety prevail to be had summo in honore in the highest Reputation to obtain after his Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great Glory throughout all the Christian World insomuch that he was very grateful cunctis prudentibus to all wise Men and did for many Years obtain the Title of Magister Ecclesiae The Master or Teacher of the Church If the Authority of Jerom could prevail to have his Translation of the Old Testament received against the Judgment of the Universal Church If one St. Austin could introduce into the Church the Belief of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin though none of the Fathers who had as good Opportunity to know and as much Reason to believe it spake one Tittle of it I say if all these things are so how can it be conceived a thing incredible That Popes Patriarchs and Councils and other Persons of great Authority and Vogue in their respective Ages should have had like Influence to introduce new Doctrines and Practices into the Church under pretence of Piety or the Authority of Scriptures or the Holy Fathers or some like plausible Account Theodor. Lector l. 2. p 566. Niceph. Hist Eccl. l. 15. c. 18. Why might not Petrus Gnaphaeus Patriarch of Antioch bring Invocation of Saints into the Prayers of the Church in the Fifth Century Pope Gregory introduce Purgatory in the Sixth Boniface the Third Paulus Diac. de Gest Longobard l. 4. c. 11. obtain from Phocas the Title of Caput omnium Ecclesiarum The Head of the Universal Church in the Seventh The Second Nicene Council introduce Image-Worship in the Eighth Paschasius give Rise to Transubstantiation in the Ninth Lombard and Hugo de S to Victore fix the Number of Seven Sacraments in the Twelfth And Pope Hadrian the Third introduce the Adoration of the Host in the Thirteenth Century Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 12. Soz. H. Eccl. l. 1. c. 23. If one Paphnutius could by his Reason and Authority prevail with the First Nicene Council to rescind their intended Decree touching the Celibacy of Priests If Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople could abolish the Custom of repairing to an established Penitentiary for the disclosing secret Sins and that with the ensuing Approbation of almost all the Catholick Bishops of the Church In a Word if so many Practices and Customs relating to the Discipline and to the Sacraments of the Church could be entirely altered and rejected in the following Ages as is here partly proved and by the Learned on both sides confessed why might not other Practices and Doctrines which obtained in the more pure and early Ages of the Church run the same Fate and by the same Authority and Methods be discarded For as it is judiciously observed by the Lord Faulkland when the Reasons offered for or against a Practice have in them some Appearance of Truth or Probability as they may have to many Persons though they be not valid when the Persons Authorizing or Approving them are of great Authority or Credit in the Church as they may be especially in darker Ages and yet be subject to great Errors and when the People upon whom these Doctrines or Practices are pressed have either a great Veneration and Esteem for those that press them or a great Dread of them then meet together most of those things which tend to work Perswasion or prevail for an Assent unto the Doctrine and a Compliance with the Practice recommended Seeing then Not. in Concil Clar. Can. 28. conc To. 10. p. 582. as Petrus de Marca doth inform us the Approbation of the half Communion by Thomas Aquinas made others certatim amplecti hanc sententiam to embrace greedily the same Opinion why might not others of as good Authority and Credit be instrumental to produce like Changes in other Constitutions of the Church Fourthly § 10 Old Doctrines and Practices might easily be changed and new obtain by reason of the corrupt Manners of the Clergy and by their Example of the People And that 1. Because such evil Practices deprive the Clergy of that Spiritual Wisdom and Divine Assistance which is their best Conducter into the Way of Truth and is their chief Preservative from dangerous Delusions and pernicious Errors Wisd 1.4 For as the Book of Wisdom saith Into a malicious Soul Wisdom will not enter nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto Sin. St. De Judicio dei To. 2. p. 393. Basil grievously laments the Discords and Contentions the perverse Doctrines and Opinions which had prevailed in his time amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers of the Church of God by which they verified the Prediction of St. Paul Acts 20.30 That from Christians themselves should proceed Men speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them And this he doth resolve into their Rejection of God their true and only King their Departure from the Laws of Christ and chusing rather to rule others in contradiction to the Commands of Christ than to be ruled by him By which things saith he they have render'd themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 394. unworthy of the Government of the Lord. Clemangis is still more express and Argumentative in this Particular Super Materia Conc. Gen. p. 71. For with them saith he is the Spirit those he directs and brings to a salutary End who have prepared for him within themselves an Habitation worthy of him and by good Works have render'd themselves worthy of his Inspiration and Visitation but how can he hear visit and enlighten them who are Adversaries to him and when they cannot do it in themselves endeavour to extinguish him in others and are inflamed not with the Fire of Love but with the Ardor of Ambition For with Hypocrites and self-Seekers the Holy Spirit is not wont to be present but to fly from them as his Enemies according to that saying of the Book of Wisdom the Holy Spirit of Discipline
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
Doctrines of the Church of Rome are not received by Tradition from Father to Son since in this matter the Sons have generally entertained a Doctrine their Fathers either knew nothing of or plainly contradicted and that is now become pious and consonant to Ecclesiastical Worship which in St. Bernard's time was Ep. 174. praesumpta novitas Mater temeritatis soror superstitionis filia levitatis A bold Novelty the Mother of Rashness the Sister of Superstition the Daughter of Levity 5. Hence doth it follow that even by the Authority of the heads of the Vniversal Church men may be forbidden under pain of Damnation to Assert the Ancient Doctrine of the Church and may have liberty to contradict it Yea that in the judgment of a great R. Council received by the French as General and bearing that title in all Editions of the Councils that may be agreeable to the Catholick Faith to Reason and to Holy Scripture which is repugnant to the Ancient Doctrine of the Church Catholick for Eight whole Centuries 6. Hence is it manifest that the Trent Council hath given liberty to all her Members to hold that which is opposite to an universal constant unopposed Tradition of the Church for many Ages that is that she hath left them at their liberty to hold the Ancient Faith or hold the contrary 7. Hence it appears that in the Church of Rome Feasts may be instituted in which all men shall be exhorted to praise God for a thing which perhaps never was and of the truth of which none of her Members can be certain certitudine fidei with the certainty of Faith all of them being by this Church permitted to believe the contrary CHAP. III. Fifthly We distinguish betwixt Traditions which though not written in Scripture are left on Record in the Ecclesiastical writings of the first and purest Ages of the Church and such as are so purely Oral Traditions as that we find no footsteps of them in the Three first Centuries much less any assurance they had then any general Reception of the first kind is the Canon of Scripture of the Old Testament mentioned in our Sixth Article § 1. This is proved from the Jews § 2. From the Christians of the Second Century § 3. Of the Third Century § 4. From almost all the celebrated Writers of the Fourth Century § 5. Where also it is observed 1. That these Fathers profess to deliver that Catalogue of them which they had received from Tradition § 6. And that the Books which they rejected as Apocryphal were so reputed by the Church § 7. That the Catalogue they produced was that received not only by the Jews but Christians § 8. That they made it to prevent mistakes § 9. That they represent the Books contained in their Catalogue as the Fountain of Salvation the rest as insufficient to confirm Articles of Faith § 10. The same Tradition still continued to the Sixteenth Century § 11. What the Roman Doctors must do if they would shew a like Tradition for any of their Tenets § 12. The unreasonableness of their pretences to Tradition in this Article Ibid. The Attempts of Mr. M. and J. L. to prove their Canon from the Council of Carthage the Testimony of St. Austin the Decrees of Pope Innocent and Gelasius are Answered § 13. The Tradition touching the Books of the New Testament where it is proved 1. That the Four Evangelists the Acts the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul the First of Peter and of John were always owned as Canonical by all Orthodox Christians § 14. 2. That it cannot be necessary to Salvation to be assured that the Books formerly controverted belong to the Canon § 15. 3. That we cannot be assured of the true Canon of the New Testament from the Testimony of the Latin Church § 16. 4. That there is not the like necessity that the controverted Books should have been generally received from the beginning as that all necessary Articles of Christian Faith and Manners should be then generally received § 17. That we have cause sufficient to own as Canonical the Books once controverted is proved 1. in the General § 18. 2. In Particular touching the Apocalypse § 19. And the Epistle to the Hebrews § 20. Touching the Epistle of St. James the Second of Peter the Second and Third of John the Epistle of St. Jude § 21. No Orthodox Persons dobuted of them after the Fourth Century § 22. The Romanists cannot prove their Doctrines by any like Traditions and in particular not by such a Tradition as proves the Apocalypse Canonical § 23. The Objection of Mr. M. Answered § 24. AGain § 1 the word Tradition may be applied to signifie either such things as are not written in the Scripture Dist 5. though they are left on Record in the Ecclesiastical writings of the first and purest Ages Vocatur Doctrina non scripta non ea quae nusquam scripta est sed quae non est scripta a primo Autore Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto l. 4. c. 2. and from them handed down unto us in the writings of succeeding Ages or else to signifie such things as are said only to be delivered by word of Mouth but cannot by the Records of preceding Ages be proved to have been received as Doctrines generally maintained or practices always observed in the Church of Christ of the first sort is the Tradition of the Canon of Scripture of the Apostles Symbol as a perfect Summary of Doctrines necessary to be believed the Observation of the Lord's Day the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons by Bishops only and the like we having full and pregnant evidence from the first Records of Antiquity unto this present time of all these things and whatsoever can be proved by a like Tradition touching a necessary Article of Christian Faith we are all ready to receive but those pretended Traditions of the Roman Church which by no Records of Antiquity can be made appear to have been constantly received by the Church as Apostolical Traditions we have just Reason to reject as being without Ground so stiled For Instance First We receive the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old Testament mentioned in our Sixth Article because it is by written Tradition handed down unto us from the Jews from Christ and his Apostles and from their Successors in the Church and we reject the Canon of the Old Testament imposed upon us by the Fourth Session of the Trent Council partly because we find a clear Tradition both virtually by all who say the Canon of the Old Testament is only that we own and expresly by those who say the others which we stile Apocrypha belong not to the Canon And 1. § 2 We receive our Canon from the Ancient Jews to whom were committed the Oracles of God for their Josephus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 1. contra Apion
libr. Regum Tom. 3. f. 6. a. say That the Canonical Books of the Old Testament are Twenty four which say they from St. Jerom St. John in his Revelations introduceth under the Name of the Twenty four Elders Dr. Cous p. 131 133. P. 147. P. 152. P. 164 178 196. so in the Sixth Century Primasius and Leontius in the Eighth Century Venerable Bede in the Ninth Century Ambrosius Ausbertus in the Twelfth Century Peter Abbot of Celle in the Fifteenth Century Thomas Anglicus and in the Sixteenth Frances Georgius Now manifest it is even from the very number here assigned of Twenty two or Twenty four Canonical Books that all these Authors must exclude those Books we call Apocrypha from the Canon and it is still more evident from their own Words in which they expresly say P. 133. These are the Books received the Books put into the Canon by the Church P. 151. P. 157 194. P. 197. the Books received by the Church and Canonized The whole Canon which the Church receives and which was handed down unto them by the Authority of the Ancients And of those which we stile Apocryphal they say Ibid. P. 151. These are the Books which are contradicted and not received by the Church The Books of the Old Testament which are not received by the Church P. 152 162 177. P. 158 159 163 169 175 The Books which are read indeed sed non scribuntur non habentur in Canone sed leguntur ut scripta patrum as are the Writings of the Fathers but are not put into the Canon non reputantur in Canone are not reputed to belong unto it The Books which the Church reads and permits for Devotion and the instruction of Manners but thinks not their Authority sufficient ad confirmandam Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum Authoritatem P. 166 173 176 191 193. to confirm the Authority of Ecclesiastical Doctrines The Books which are not to be received ad confirmandum aliquid in fide to confirm any Article of Faith. The Contents of which she obligeth no man to believe P. 189 190. nor doth she judge him guilty of disobedience or infidelity who receives them not Concerning which the Church receives the Testimony of St. Jerom as most Sacred P. 194. who did undoubtedly exclude them from the Canon To whom say they the Church Catholick is much indebted upon this account P. 199. and to whose sence the sayings both of Councils and Fathers are to be reduced Books with whose Authority no Man was pressed Books P. 202. P. 174 188. Lastly which were not genuine but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spurious and Apocryphal which the Christian Church doth not receive P. 166 201. pari Authoritate or pari veneratione with the like Authority or Veneration with which she doth receive the Holy Scriptures Now hence the Doctors of the Church of Rome may learn what it is they are to do § 12 if they would prove any of their Doctrines to have descended to them by a like Tradition with that of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament viz. they must prove they were owned in the New Testament were delivered as Traditions by the Apostles and all the Ancient Bishops and Governors of the Church They must produce express Testimonies of Christian Writers in all Ages asserting That the Church received such a Doctrine and that they in delivering of it followed the Tradition of the Church and their Fore-Fathers and saying That the contrary Doctrine was not received by the Church They must shew That even from the first Ages of the Church Christians were solicitous to enquire what were the Apostolical Traditions not left in writing to the Church that upon this enquiry they found that these Traditions were of such a certain number neither more nor less that they thought it necessary to preserve them by writing Catalogues of all such Traditions as were received or owned as such by Christians That this Catalogue of Traditions was delivered to them by the Primitive Fathers as they had been received by the whole Church and that they had received them from Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word That they took care to leave this Catalogue of Traditions because some persons dared to mix Apocryphal Traditions with Divine and that they made it out of necessity to prevent mistakes in this matter and for the Instruction of those who received the first Rudiments of the Faith that they might know out of what Fountains to draw the Waters of Tradition They must produce from the first Four Centuries Testimonies of this nature from Fathers living in most places where there were any Christians and Testimonies uncontrouled throughout those Centuries And seeing one of these Traditions viz. that which concerneth the Canonical Books of the Old Testament is expresly contrary to a Tradition delivered and handed down to us with all these circumstances they must prove that in this matter Tradition hath plainly delivered Contradictions throughout Four whole Centuries which being done we cannot chuse but think her Testimony is Infallible Hence also we may see what an unparallell'd confidence they shew when in their Disputations the Romanists are bold to say and lay the stress of their whole certainty of Faith upon this Proposition That they hold the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Saviour seeing it is as clear as the Sun that the Books of the Old Testament which they now hold for Sacred and Canonical were for Fifteen whole Centuries together declared not to belong unto the Canon but excluded from it by the Church And this will be still more apparent by considering what the Authors of the Question of Questions § 13 and of The Papist Misrepresented and Represented say touching this matter Mr. M. saith Sect. 19. n. 6. p. 410. That when it was grown doubtful in the Church whether such and such Books were part of the Canon of Scripture the Tradition which recommended these Books was examined in the Third Council of Carthage and there all the Books of the R. Canon were found to be recommended to the Church by a true and Authentical Tradition and therefore we embrace them as the Word of God. And again Sect. 3. n. 12. p. 84 85 86. As yet the Church of Christ had not defined which Books were God's true word which not wherefore then it was free to doubt of such Books us were not admitted by such a Tradition of the Church as was evidently so universal that it was clearly sufficient to ground an infallible belief but in the days of St. Austin the Third Council of Carthage A. 397. examined how sufficient the Tradition of the Church was which recommended these Books for Scripture about which there was so much doubt and contrariety of Opinion and they found all the Books contained in our Canon of which you account so many Apocryphal to have been recommended by a Tradition sufficient
this Revelation to an unknown Presbyter whose Name was John rather than to that Apostle who conversed so long among these Churches they may be easily confuted from this peculiar description of that John who was the Author of this Book Rev. i. 9. he being that John who was banished into the Isle of Patmos for the Word of God Vers 2. and the Testimony of the Truth and who bare record of the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ and of all things which he saw which are peculiar to this Apostle of our Lord. 2. § 20 St. Jerom also had good reason to own the Epistle to the Hebrews to be written or at the least composed or indited by St. Paul on the Authority of the Ancient Writers Apud Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 3. Sect. 12 17 36 43. L. 3 c. 38. Catalo Script verbo Paulus Pag. 247 439. Pag. 53 362 384 514 515 645. Lib. 3. p. 143. Lib. 7. p. 351. Philocal p 10 17. Dial. contra Marc. p. 114. Ep. ad Afric p 232. Seeing as Origen informs us the ancient Christians did not rashly when they delivered it as the Epistle of St. Paul and as Eusebius saith Saint Paul's Fourteen Epistles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 known and manifest to the whole Christian World. We find it very often cited by Clemens Romanus the Companion and co-worker of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth in which as Eusebius and St. Jerome Note he hath put many notions which are in that Epistle and used many Expressions word for word taken thence In the Second Century it is cited by Irenaeus as a Book written by the Spirit of God and in the close of that Century or the beginning of the next it is Six times cited by Clemens Alexandrinus under the Name of the Apostle Paul or of Divine Scripture Origen saith That the Apostle Paul writ Fourteen Epistles he cites it as the Epistle of St. Paul in his Third and Seventh Book against Celsus in his Philocalia in his Dialogue against Marcian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom in his Epistle to Africanus he undertakes to demonstrate that it was his against such as doubted of it and in his Fifth Tome upon John he declares That the things contained in it are admirable Vid. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. and no whit inserior to those which were confessedly writ by the Apostles and that whatsoever Church received it as such was upon that account to be commended That this is the Epistle of St. Paul was in the Fourth Century denyed by the Arians because they were not able to resist the Conviction it affords in the First Chapter of our Lord's Divinity On which account Theodoret speaks thus Proem in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They ought at least to revere the length of time in which the Children of the Church have read this Epistle in the Churches for from the time that the Churches of God have enjoyed the writings of the Apostles they have reaped the Benefit of this Epistle to the Hebrews or if this be not sufficient to perswade them they should hearken to Eusebius of whom they boast as of the Patron of their Doctrines for he confessed this was St. Paul's Epistle Proem in Ep. ad Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he declared that all the Ancients had the same Opinion of it That they of Rome and other Latins did for a while reject this Epistle will not much weaken this Tradition if we consider 1. That this Epistle was not writ to them but to the Hebrews who as we are informed by Eusebius Embraced it with delight 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. That it was rejected by them not that they had any thing to say against it but because they could not answer the Arguments which the Novatian Schismaticks among them produced from the Sixth and Tenth Chapter of this Epistle against receiving lapsed Penitents into the Church whence as Philastrius informs us they rejected it Haer. 88. as thinking it was depraved by the Hereticks or 3. Because it wants his Name which he concealed saith Jerom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catal. Script Eccl. verbo Paulus because his Name would render it less acceptable to the Hebrew Converts who were offended at his Doctrine of the Exemption of the Gentile Converts from Circumcision and the Observation of the Law saith Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proem in Ep. ad Hebr. because he was made an Apostle not of the Circumcision but of the Gentiles 4. Because it differs in stile from the rest of his Epistles as indeed it ought to do being writ to the Hebrews accustomed to the Hellenistick Stile but of this the Ancients give this double reason That it was writ by St. Paul in Hebrew translated by others into Greek or because St. Clemens Barnabas or St. Luke did Ibid. Apud Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. sententias Pauli proprio ornare sermone write down the the Sentences of Paul in their own Words saith Jerom and gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Phrase and the Contexture saith Origen to to the things spoken by St. Paul. The Second and Third Epistles of Saint John § 21 and that of Jude are so short that it is needless to insist upon it that the Second Epistle of Saint John is cited by Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus in the Second L. 1. c. 13. p. 94. Strom. 2. De carne Christi c. 24. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 24. Apud Cypr. p. 242. De cultu foeminar p. 151. by Tertullian Dionysius of Alexandria and the Council of Carthage in the Third Century and the Epistle of Jude under his Name by Tertullian Concerning the Epistle of St. James the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude let it be noted in the general that Eusebus informs us they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. Petrus duabus Epistolarum suarum personat tubis Jacobus quoque Judas f. 156. know to most of the Ancients That they are all expresly owned by Origen in his Seventh Honily upon Joshua Of the Epistle of Jude in particular St. Jerom saith That though it was rejected for a while because it cited a passage from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch Catal. Script Eccl. verbo Judas tamen authoritatem vetustate jam usu meruit inter sanctas Scripturas computatur it deserved Authority from its Antiquity and constant use in the Church and is reckoned among the holy Scriptures Sect. 10 12 17 30. Sess 5. The Catholick Epistle of James is cited by Clemens Romanus four several times by Ignatius in his Genuine Epistle to the Ephesians by Origen in his Thirteenth Homily upon Genesis Lib. 3. c. 25. Lib. 2. c. 22. Eusebius saith It was known to most and publickly read in
judgment adding that he therefore embraced this Doctrine Because he chose not to follow Men or their Doctrines Pag. 306. but God and telling Trypho That if the Jews had met with any who did not confess this Pag. 307. but blasphemed the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob he was not to esteem them Christians though they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For I and all Christians that are entirely Orthodox do know there will be a Resurrection of the Flesh and a thousand Years in Jerusalem built adorn'd and enlarged as the Prophets Ezekiel Esaias and others have confessed Now by comparing of these words with what before was spoken by him of the Gnosticks and the following branches of that Heresie the Marcionites the Valentinians Basilidians and Saturnilians p. 253. it will be evident that Justin M. speaks here especially of them For 1. There you will find him saying of those Hereticks That they taught Men to Blaspheme the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And here That some of them who did not own the Millennium were Men who dared to Blaspheme the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. 2. There you will find them expresly stiled the Marcionites Valentinians Basilidians and Saturnilians Here you will find them generally described by this character That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they say there is no Resurrection of the Dead but that as soon as they die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Souls were received into Heaven as Irenaeus before noted of those deniers of the Millennium and as is certainly true of all the Hereticks here mentioned Danaeus in Aug. de Haeres c. 22. f. 100. b. Dan. ibid. c. 4. f. 60. b. Ibid. cap. 11. f. 79. a. for the Marcionites denied the Resurrection of the Flesh and held That the Soul only should be saved Basilides denied The Resurrection of the Flesh The Saturnilians said That there would be no Resurrection of the Flesh because the Body would not be saved The Valentinians denied the Resurrection of the Flesh saying That our Souls only not our Bodies were redeemed by Christ Moreover he promises to write a Book against these Deniers of the Millennium which what it should be except his Book against Heresie in general or against Marcion in particular I would gladly know 3. There he declares that true Christians did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in nothing Communicate with these Men as knowing they were Atheists i. e. wicked ungodly and unjust and here he forbids Trypho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to account them Christians saying they no more deserved that Name than the Sadducees and other Hereticks amongst the Israelites deserved the Name of Jews Now let it be considered 1. § 4 That this Doctrine was owned in the first Ages of the Church by the greatest number of the Christian Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 H. Eccl. l. 3 c. 39. In Jer. 19. Proem in lib. 18. Com. in Esa as is confessed by Euscbius that by the confession of St. Jerom Multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum Martyrum ista dixerunt Many Ecclesiastical Men and Martyrs had asserted it before his time and that even in his days it was the Doctrine quam nostrorum plurima sequitur multitudo which a great multitude of Christians followed that it was received not only in the Eastern parts of the Church by Papias Justin Irenaeus Nepos Apollinaris Methodius but also in the West and South by Tertullian Cyprian Victorinus Lactantius and Severus and if we may credit Gelasius Cyzicenus by the first Nicene Council 2. That these Men taught this Doctrine not as Doctors only but as Witnesses of the Tradition which they had received from Christ and his Apostles and which was taught them by the Elders the Disciples of Christ which pass among the Romanists for Authentick marks of Apostolical Tradition 3. That they pretend to ground it upon numerous and manifest Testimonies both of the Old and New Testament and speak of them as Texts which could admit no other meaning and which they knew to have this meaning and then let any Romanist shew any thing of a like nature for any Article pretended by the Church of Rome to be derived from Tradition to them Now if the Scriptures thus Interpreted for these Two Centuries with so much confidence and assurance § 5 if a Tradition of this early date delivered by Men of such great Reputation from the Disciples of our Lord and from the Seniors of the Church may yet be Scriptures falsly Interpreted Traditions falsly said to be received from the Apostles or the Rulers of the Church Semijudaei Hier. in Esa 60. f. 100. b. Praefat. in lib. 18. f. 107. Ridiculi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in cap. 66. v. 22. and they who thus Interpreted them might be looked upon as Judaizing as Men whose God was their Belly as Men who loved their Belly and their Lusts and as Ridiculous which Epithetes St. Jerom freely doth bestow upon the Assertors of the Millennary Doctrine how much more reason must we have to doubt of those Interpretations of Scripture and those Traditions which are now represented as true Traditions and true Interpretations of the Scripture by the Roman Church If that which once passed for the Doctrine of all Christians that were Orthodox A. D. 373. n. 14. Vitanda est istiusmodi explanatio imo Haeresis In Jer. 19. f. 137. b. may pass in after Ages for Heresie as saith Baronius the Doctrine of the Millennium was pronounced by Damasus and as St. Jerom seems in his invective stile to call it and that which Hereticks then chiefly held must be now held of all who would not be accounted Hereticks sure what is Orthodox in one Age may become Heresie in the succeeding Ages or else the Church of Rome can be no certain judge either of what is Orthodox or Heretical Sure they may be ashamed to ask us any more how Errors could come into their Church and no beginning of them known till they can tell us the beginning of this Error And lastly if the Fathers of the purest Ages could be so easily cozened by Papias a Man of no Judgment in this Matter as some of them assert why might they not be cheated by such half witted Men in Twenty other Matters why not by Twenty other Men of as weak Parts And what assurance can we have of any other thing in which Tradition is pretended on the account of Testimonies less Primitive less plain less numerous than these were If they who had matters at Second-hand from the Apostles could be thus mistaken in a Tradition on which they founded their future Hopes and Expectations must they not much more be subject to like mistakes in matters of meer Speculation and Opinion Moreover hence we have a demonstration of the Falshood of the pretended Tradition of the Church of Rome touching the Invocation of Saints Sess 25. for that according to the Trent Council
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
de Resurrect Tom. 2 p. 277. Ambros Ep. 83. Psalm 118.24 the Fathers generally apply that Passage of the Psalmist This is the Day which the Lord hath made let us be glad and rejoice in it to the Lord's day as made or Instituted by the Lord and Consecrated or Sanctified by his Resurrection Others of them say That the Observation of the Lord's Day was an Apostolical Tradition and that they kept it as an Holy Day Hesuch in Levit c. 9. Leo. Ep. 11. Ed. Quesnel p. 436. Apostolorum sequentes traditionem following the Tradition of the Apostles The Apostles and Apostolical Men having decreed Dominicum diem religiosâ solennitate habendum That the Lord's day was Religiously to be celebrated And surely it is enough to satisfie all Conscientious Christians in the Observation of this Day that it was consecrated to the Service of our Lord either by Christ himself or his Apostles and as such hath been celebrated ever since by the perpetual practice of the whole Church Catholick especially if we consider what excellent Names these ancient Observers of it have ascribed unto it and what great Dignities they have put upon it calling it the Queen of Days the Princess and the Principal of Days a Royal Day higher than the highest the first Fruits of the Days whereas had they conceived it only an humane Ordinance it could not have deserved these Titles above other Daies ordained by the Church In fine how dangerous it is to say That the publick Exercise of Christian Religion should depend upon so weak a Foundation as humane Authority which may alter its own Constitutions and is subject to manifold Errors I leave to the prudent and judicious Reader to consider Let then the Romanists shew three Texts of Scripture expounded constantly in that sence by the whole Church § 6 which confirms any of their Doctrines let them shew us the Names of any of those Practices of theirs which we condemn in Scripture and the Fathers of the first Centuries let them give clear evidence from their Writings that such Practices were received in the Apostles daies throughout the Christian World no Church no Christian Writer ever excepting against them or mentioning them as newly introduced Customs let them shew us plain Expressions from them declaring that they were instituted either by Christ or his Apostles and that they practised them Illorum sequentes traditionem in compliance with their Tradition and then we shall no longer question or condemn them Having thus Answered Mr. M ' s. Argument against the sufficiency of the Scripture from this Head I retort it thus That is necessary to be done to Salvation § 7 which left undone Pag. 204. causeth Damnation but the observation of the Sunday commanding the abstaining from all servile Works if neglected or left undone brings Damnation therefore to observe in this manner the Sunday is a thing necessary to Salvation and yet this point is so far from being clearly put down in Tradition that standing meerly to the sole judgment of it we can clearly shew more Declarations for the lawfulness of working on the Sunday than for the unlawfulness thereof The Canon of the Council of Laodicea only saith Can. 29. That Christians shall rest on the Lord's Day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they can well knowing that it was not possible for many of them so to do some of them being Servants to Pagan Masters some condemned to labour in the Mines and toil in Gallies when their Lords required them and yet we find not in all Ecclesiastical History those Christians ever then refused to labour upon this account and therefore Balsamon upon this Canon saith That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did not enjoin this as a thing necessary but added If they could let them do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for if any one work on the Lord's day out of Poverty or any other necessity he will not be condemned And Zonaras on the same Canon adds That the Civil Law commands all without excuse to rest upon the Lord's day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excepting Husbandmen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it permits them to work on the Lord's day provided that they find no other day so fit foâ— their work That which he saith touching the Civil Law Cod. Just l. 2. Cod. de feriis is evident from that Law of Constantine where commanding all men to rest on the Lord's day he excepts Rural Labours in which delay may be very prejudicial to them Enchirid Tit. 4. which Law Hermenopulus gives us thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Lord's day and other Festivals let the Judges and others rest excepting only Husbandmen and none of the Fathers of the Church living in those daies or in the following Centuries reproved these Laws or spake any thing to signifie that they esteemed them Prophane Epitaph Paulae ad Eustoch f. 64. On the contrary Saint Jerom tells us That Paula with all the Virgins and Widows that lived at Bethlehem in a Cloyster with her repaired to the Church on the Lord's Day Aâ—que inde pariter revertentes instabant operi distributo and returning thence they all fell to their work and made Clothes for themselves or others And lastly § 8 let it be observed that though I verily believe this day to be of Divine Institution and jure positivo to be observed yet am I far from thinking that it is necessary to Salvation so to do and much less to abstain wholly from working that day or that if any Church should rather think it fit to keep another day in Honour of our Lord or that if any Christians should think as some of the Ancient Fathers seem to have done that under the Gospel Dispensation there was no difference of daies but that the Christian should observe every day as a Spiritual Sabbath they should be damned or even Unchurched for that Opinion And therefore this is like unto most other Instances urged by Mr. M. impertinent and such as reacheth not unto the Question viz. Whether the Scripture be deficient in any thing that 's necessary to be believed or practised to Salvation To proceed to the Second Question touching our Freedom from any Obligation to observe the Sabbath injoined in the Fourth Commandment I say that though Tradition seems not sufficiently to do it Scripture affords sufficient Evidence that the Observation of the Seventh day from the Creation was only a ceremonial Precept and therefore not obliging to the Christian that is the Observation of the Seventh day from the Creation as a day wholly to be set apart for rest from bodily Labour according to the Fourth Commandment was not enjoined by a Moral Law or by a Law commanding what is naturally good antecedently to the Command of the Lawgiver or which can be resolved into any Principle or Dictates of the Law of Nature imprinted in Mens Hearts at the Creation but that it was a Law which only
almost in all the ancient Councils As to the Second Part of this Article § 5 which teacheth That General Councils may Erre and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to God P. 295. the same Author there tells us That Communis est doctorum opinio Concilia etiam Generalia errare posse in rebus quae fidem aut mores ad salutem non necessarios concernunt It is the common Judgment of their Doctors that even general Councils may erre in Matters of Faith and Manners which are not necessary to Salvation And whereas our Church infers that therefore things ordained by them as necessary to Saelvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared nisi ostendi possint unless it can be shewed that they be taken out of Holy Scripture This Author saith these last Words of the Article Sententiam veterum omnium fere modernorum declarant declare that which was the Doctrine of the Ancients and of almost all the modern Doctors That in the time of Ocham the Church was divided in this Point some holding that a General Council Haeretica potest labe aspergi might be guilty of Heresy and much more of Error some That it could not thus be guilty and that the Doctrine of the Fallibility of General Councils was afterwards maintained by many eminent Doctors of the Church De formali objecto fidei Tr. 5. c. 19 20 21. is fully proved by Baronius against Turnbal so that I shall reserve the farther Prosecution of this Matter to its proper place viz. The Discussion of the Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils Our Church in her Twenty second Article asserts § 6 That the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly seigned and grounded upon no Warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God And that these Doctrines were not derived to them from Apostolical Tradition their own Writers do ingeniously confess For 1. Concerning Purgatory Alphonsus de Castro declares That in Veteribus de Purgatorio fere nulla De Haeres l. 8. Tit. de Indulg potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores mentio est In the Ancients and especially the Greek Writers there is scarce any mention of Purgatory whence it comes to pass Contr. Luther Artic. 18. that to this very day it is not received in the Greek Church Apud priscos amongst the Ancients saith our Fisher Bishop of Rochester It was not at all or very rarely mentioned nor is it to this Day believed by the Greek Church Let him who pleaseth read the Commentaries of the ancient Greeks and he will find I suppose that they speak not at all or very rarely of it Sed neque Latini simul omnes sed sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt Nor did the Latins altogether but leisurely perceive the Truth of this Matter And then he adds Cum igitur purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum universae Ecclesiae fuerit quis jam de Indulgentiis mirari potest quia in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerit earum usus Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known to and received by the Universal Church who can wonder that in the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences In Cath. Rom. pacif apud Forb consid Mod. p. 264. Father Barns acknowledgeth that the Punishment of Purgatory is a thing quae nec ex Scripturis nec Patribus nec Conciliis deduci potest firmiter which can neither be firmly proved from Scripture the Fathers or Councils And that Opposita sententia eis conformior videtur the contrary Sentence seems more agreeable to them Wicelius saith Meth. Concord Eccles c. 8. Tit. Funus Ibid. p. 259 260. That though there should be some places of Purgation to receive naked Souls yet doth it not become grave and wise Men so certainly to define those things which Scriptures have not expressed nec Antiquorum traditio nor the Tradition of the Ancients hath expounded Erasmus saith Operum Tom. 1. p. 685. q. There be many things about which not only contentious but even learned and pious Men did doubt of old as St. Austin with others doubted long about Purgatory That it was only a private Assertion and not an Article of Faith generally received in the Twelfth Century Chronic. l. 8. c. 26. is evident from these Words of Otho Frisingensis viz. That there is apud Inferos in the infernal Regions a Place of Purgatory wherein such as are to be saved are either troubled only with Darkness or decocted with the Fire of Expiation some affirm Nor can I tell what to make of that saying of Paschasius if it doth not shew that he believeth the contrary for saith he our Lord saith he that eateth my Flesh hath eternal Life ideo dicens habet quia mox anima carne soluta intrat in vitae promptuaria De Corp. Sang. Domini c. 19. ubi Sanctorum Animae requiescunt saying in the Present Tense he hath because the Soul being loosed from the Flesh presently enters into those Receptacles of Life where the Spirits of Saints do rest Secondly § 7 Concerning Pardons or Indulgences their Novelâ—y is still confessed more freely Inter omnes res de quibus in hoc opere disputamus nulla est quam minus aperte S. Literae prodiderunt de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint neque tamen hac occasione contemnendae sunt quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus quoniam multa sunt posterioribus nota quae vetusti illi Scriptores prorsus ignoraverunt nam de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis Scriptoribus mentio de Purgatorio fere nulla potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores qua de causa usque in hodiernum Diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis ut apud Priscos nulla sit de eis mentio praecipue quod tunc magis fervebat Christianorum charitas ut parum esset opus indulgentiis quapropter non est mentio ulla indulgentiarum De Haer. l. 8. Tit. de Indulgentiis De invent rer l. 8. c. 1. p. 325. Part. 1. Sum. Tit. 10. c. 3. In 4. Sentent dist 20. q. 3. h. Alphonsus Castro saith That among all the things of which he disputed in his Book against Heresies there was nothing of which the Scripture spake less plainly de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint and of which the Ancient Writers had said less Many saith Polydore Virgil from Roffensis may perhaps be moved not to trust to Indulgences quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur recentior admodum sero apud Christianos repertus because the use of them in the Church seems new and very lately received among Christians To whom I answer That
c. 30. L. 3. de Origin An. c. 11. Ep. 126. de Orig An. l. 1. c. 9. 3. c. 13. Congerit testimonia Scripturrrum l. 1. contr Petit. c. 27. and of the Spirit no Man can enter into the Kingdom of God How often doth he prove the Necessity of it from those Scriptures which conclude them guilty of Original Sin How often doth he from Scripture pronounce them damned without it How often doth he conclude it from the Annlogy it bears to Circumcision and bring Congeriem Scripturarum an Heap of Scriptures to confirm it And after all this can it be rationally thought he should expresly teach in contradiction to his own constant Doctrine That nothing could be certainly alledged from Scripture to prove that Infants ought to be baptized Nor is there any thing more evident than that Mr. M. C. 32 33. here wretchedly imposeth on his Reader for in the place cited by him in his first Book against Cresconius he speaks not of the Baptism of Infants but of Hereticks as will be evident to all that will inspect the place In his Fourth Book of Baptism against the Donatists C. 24. in the place cited he speaks of this Point indeed but so as to assert That if any one In hac re Authoritatem divinam quaerat enquire after Divine Authority in this matter he may find what the Baptism of Infants will avail them De Gen. ad lit l. 10. c. 23. Ex circumcisione carnis from the Circumcision used under the Old Law. In the other Passage cited by Mr. M. he saith indeed That the Custom of the Church in baptizing Infants was not to be credited Nisi Apostolica esset traditio if it were not an Apostolical Tradition but doth not in the least insinuate that the Apostles left not this Tradition in their Writings Lastly Hence it is evident that the Practice of the Church is no true Ground for the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture seeing this Practice was built upon the Churches Interpretation of John vj. 53 54 56. in a Sence which that Scripture doth not bear Secondly § 7 According to the current Interpretation of our Saviour's Words I say unto you Swear not at all received in the Second Third Fourth and Fifth Centuries it was absolutely unlawful for a Christian to swear at all To this Effect we have in the Second Century the express Testimony of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 36. D. Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56. p. 216. affirming that Christ commanded Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to swear at all but always to speak the Truth saying Swear not all c. Of Irenaeus who saith our Lord hath not only forbid us to swear falsly Sed nec jurare praecepit but hath commanded that we should not swear Clemens of Alexandria comparing the Christian Laws with those of Plato saith Strom. l. 5. p. 596. that of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Avoid swearing in any thing agrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our Lords Prohibition of an Oath And again Avoid saith he an Oath in Traffick Paedag. l. 3. c. 11. p. 255. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in other things for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his Name in vain And Basilides Euseb Hist Eccl l. 6. c. 5. who suffered under the Persecution of Severus being urged by some of his fellow Souldiers to swear he confidently affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not lawful for him to swear at all for he was a Christian In the Third Century Origen observes Tract 25. in Matth. F. 47. B. that when our Lord speaks of Swearing Matth. xxiij he speaks unto the Jews and that Alioquin manifeste superius vetuit omnino jurare he had before manifestly forbid to swear at all And again I think that he who would live according to the Gospel ought not to adjure another for that which our Lord speaketh in the Gospel Hom. 35. in Matth. F. 82. A. Swear not at all and this Adjure not at all is alike Si enim jurare non licet quantum ad evangelicum Christi mandatum verum est quia nec adjurare alterum licet for if by Christ's Evangelical Precept we must not swear at all it is as true that 't is not lawful to impose an Oath on others De Idol c. 11. I omit to speak of Perjury saith Tertullian Quando ne jurare quidem liceat seeing it is not lawful to swear at all Amongst the Heads belonging to the Religious Discipline of Christians which Cyprian collected for the Instruction of Quirinus the Twelfth is this Non jurandum That Christians must not swear which he proves from Matth. v. 34. And to encourage Christians against Death he tells them De Mortal Ed Ox. p. 157. That it will be to them a Deliverance from many Evils they will be tempted to in this Life For saith he Compeller is jurare quod non licet thou wilt be compelled to swear which is not a thing lawful to be done In the Fourth Century Lactantius teacheth Epit. cap. 6. p. 744. That he who is of God and a Follower of Truth will never swear falsly least he seem to deride God Sed ne jurabit quidem nor will he swear at all Eusebius Demonst Evang l. 1. c. 6. p. 23. Praep. Evang. l. 1. c 4. p. 12. comparing the Laws of Moses with those of Christ saith Moses commanded not to swear falsly Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to swear at all And speaking of the Advantages of Christianity he reckons this as one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they had learned from Christ not to swear at all St. Basil on that Passage of the Psalmist Who sweareth to his Neighbour In Ps 14. Tom. 1. p. 132 133. and deceives him not observes that here Permission is given to a perfect Man to swear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the Gospel it is entirely forbid Here it is said He that swears to his Neighbour and deceives him not there I say unto you Swear not at all In his Epistle to Amphilochius he declares Can. 29. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Oath is wholly forbidden Tom 2. p. 383. and much more an Oath to do Evil. In his Asceticks he instructs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to swear at all Tom. 3. Ep. 63. p. 97. nor to put his Money out to Vsury And speaking of Gregory Thaumaturgus he saith That he abstained from an Oath contenting himself with Yea and Nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of the Command of Christ Epiphanius expresly saith Haer. 19. Ossen §. 6. p. 44. That our Lord commanded not to swear by God himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor any other Oath it being of the Devil or at the least an evil thing to swear and that Christianity requires us Haer. 59. Cathar §. 7. p. 499. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 78. 〈◊〉
Author of the imperfect Work upon Matthew which passeth under the Name of Chrysostom speaking of the Times in which Heresy prevails Hom. 49. p 174. saith Then let them who are in Judaea fly to the Mountains that is Qui sunt Christiani conferant se ad Scripturas Let them who are Christians have Recourse to the Scriptures to the Writings of the Apostles and Prophets And why saith he doth Christ at this time command Omnes Christianos conferre se ad Scripturas all Christians to fly to the Scriptures Because saith he in this time since Heresy hath got the Churches there can be no Proof of true Christianity Neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fldei veritatem nisi scripturae divinae the Christians who are desirous to know the true Faith can have no other Refuge but the Holy Scriptures Before there were many Ways of shewing which was the Church of Christ but now if Men be willing to discern her Nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas the true Church of Christ can by no other way be known but only by the Scriptures for now all those things which are properly of Christ in truth these Heresies have in Schism they in like manner have Churches the Divine Scriptures Bishops the other Orders of the Clergy Baptism the Eucharist all other things and even Christ himself Now in the Confusion of so great Similitude he that is willing to know which is the true Church of Christ Unde cognoscat nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Whence can he know it but only by the Scriptures P. 175. Before it was known by Miracles who were true Christians and who false but now Signorum operatio omnino levata est the working of Miracles is intirely diminished and the working of feigned Miracles magis apud eos invenitur qui falsi sunt Christiani is chiefly found amongst those who are false Christians for the full Power of working Miracles is to be given to Antichrist The Church of Christ was formerly known by her Manners the Conversation of all or most of her Members being Holy but now Christians are like to or even worse than Hereticks He therefore who would know which is the true Church of Christ Unde cognoscat nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Whence can he know her but only by the Scriptures Whence our Lord knowing that there would be such a confusion of things in the last Days commands Ut Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas That Christians who are willing to remain firm in the true Faith should fly to nothing but the Scriptures The true Chrysostom gives exactly the same Advice in the like Case for to that Enquiry What shall we say to the Greeks Hom. 33. in Act. Tom. 4. p. 799. There comes one of them and saith I would be a Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I know not to whom I should join myself for there is much Contention Controversy and Tumult among you Christians What Opinion shall I chuse every one saith Truth is on my Side Whom shall I credit who know nothing of the Scriptures and hear them all pretending to them To this Inquiry Chrysostom answers This is much for us for did we say you must believe our Discourses thou had'st reason to be troubled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but since we say you must believe the Scriptures and they are plain and true 't is easy for you to pass your Judgment if any Man consents with them he is a Christian if he contradicts them he is far from this Rule Behold here the Heathen sent by St. Chrysostom to pass Judgment betwixt the Orthodox and all sorts of Hereticks from Scripture alone and told that it is easy for him so to do because the Scriptures are a plain Rule whereby to judge in Matters of this Nature But saith the Heathen one of you affirms That the Scripture saith thus the other That it speaketh otherwise interpreting it to another Sence But what of all this saith Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for hast thou not an Vnderstanding and a Judgment Where again the Heathen is supposed able by his own Judgment to discern who wrests who rightly doth interpret Scripture But how can I do this saith the Greek I know not how to judge of the Doctrines I come to be a Learner and you make me a Teacher If any one object thus saith Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we should ask him whether this be not Dissimulation and Pretence for if your Reason taught you to condemn Heathenism it may also teach you to judge betwixt us and Hereticks do not therefore dissemble or make Pretences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all things are easy Thou knowest what to do and leave undone do therefore what thou oughtest and with right Reason seek of God and he will fully reveal this to thee for he is no respecter of Persons it is not possible that he who heareth without Prejudice should not be perswaded P. 800. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as if there were a Rule to which all things were to be adapted it would be easy to perceive who takes wrong Measures so is it here To this Rule you see viz. the Holy Scriptures even the Heathen is sent as to that which is sufficient to direct him to Christian Truth when there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Controversy and Contention amongst Christians concerning it Lastly Commonit c. 6. Vincentius Lirinensis lays down the same Rule For if the Contagio◠saith he though new endeavour to infect the whole Church as in the case of the Arians then whosoever would discern the Catholick Faith from Heretical Pravity must be careful to adhere to Antiquity C. 3 4 8 25 33 39 41. viz. To that Sence of Scripture which it is manifest our Ancestors held and must believe that without Doubtfulness which all in like manner with one consent held writ and taught openly frequently and perseveringly he being only firm in Faith who determines Id solum sibi tenendum credendumque quicquid universaliter antiquitùs Ecclesiam Catholicam tenuisse cognoverit That alone is to be held and believed by him which he knows the Catholick Church anciently held But when Schisms and Heresies have grown ancient in the Church and the Poison of them hath spread largely which say we is the present Case of the Church then saith he Nullo modo oportet nos nisi aut Sola si opus est Scripturarum Auctoritate convincere we ought only if need be to convince them by the Authority of Scripture or to shun them as being condemned Cap. 41. Jam antiquitus by ancient general Councils of Catholick Priests and when our Adversaries assault us with either of these two Weapons they will find us ready and able to defend
only trifle with us or impose upon us when she makes Agreement either in Doctrine or Practice with Antiquity a Note or Character by which we may discern the true Church from all who falsly do pretend unto that glorious Title for how can this be done Yea how is it attempted to be done by Roman Catholicks but by producing the Testimonies of all former Ages for such a Doctrine or Practice as they at present do maintain If therefore a like Number of plain Testimonies produced by us in all the Instances forenamed for the Antiquity of our Doctrines and Practices be not a Proof sufficient on our side why should it be on theirs If notwithstanding all these Evidences we must believe the contrary to what they clearly do import to have been still the Doctrine and Practice of all Ages past because it is at present the Doctrine of the Church of Rome to what end do we read Antiquity What Service can it do us unless to make us Hereticks or Scepticks For of what can we be certain or assured by the reading of it if that may be false and heretical which through so many Ages is so plainly fully and frequently delivered as the clearest Truth To proceed then to my second Vndertaking viz. To shew how such a Change in Doctrine and in Practice might happen in the Western Church as well as in the East or other places First Corruptions in Doctrine or in Practice § 6 might have been introduced by mistaking of the Sense of Scripture This Account Origen gives of the diversity of Opinions and Sects which sprang up early among Christians and multiplied together with them In Celsum l. 3. p. 118. viz. That they had their Original from hence That Men did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diversly interpret those Scriptures which they all held to be Divine Vigilius ascribes these Sects L 2. contra Eutych and this diversity of Opinions to the same Original viz. That the Virtue of the heavenly Words was defiled vitio malae intelligentiae by a misunderstanding of them and by taking them non secundum qualitatem sui sensus not according to the tenor of their Sence as Truth required but by diverting them to other Matters To this the Fathers do ascribe not only the Miscarriage of Hereticks but even the Slips and Errors of those pious Persons who had gone before them which say they happened to them by reading of the Scriptures carelesly and not with so much Diligence and Circumspection as they should have used Thus Theodoret upon occasion of that Mistake of almost all the Fathers of the Four first Centuries imagining that the Sons of God which went in to the Daughters of Men were Angels saith Qu. 47. in Gen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was their careless reading of the holy Scriptures which made many thus to erre and all the Fathers with one Voice ascribe the Heresies of their times partly to their perverting and partly to their deserting of the Holy Scriptures and therefore for preventing of the like Mistakes they do not send them to an infallible Interpreter nor do they hence conclude him necessary as some others do but only do advise them to read the Scriptures with more Care Exactness and Scrutiny with Prayer Chrys Hom. 17. in Matth. p. 124. Basil Tom. 1. l. 2. de Bapt. q. 4. Orig. dial contr Marc. p. 70. Athan. de incar verbi T. 1. p. 110. Love and Desire of the Truth with a pure Soul and care to walk according to the Rules of Christian Vertue assuring those who do thus seek That according to our Lord's Promise Theodoret in 3. Rom. 8. they shall find the Truth Chrysost Hom. 35. in Joh. T. 2. P. 799. vid. T. 3. P. 1. Tom. 5. p. 829. it being not the Obscurity but the Ignorance of Scripture which makes men obnoxious to Heresies as shall by God's Assistance be fully proved elsewhere And whosoever doth consider that many of the Fathers came immediately from Heathenism to read the Scriptures That they insisted most on the Old Testament of which they did not understand the Language and of which they had only an imperfect or corrupt Translation and that they took the liberty to allegorize and to give mystical Interpretations of them as their luxuriant Phancies led them to it will not think it strange that so many extravagant Interpretations of the holy Scriptures should drop from their Pens Cypr. Ep. 63. p. 149. That they should tell us that Noah 's being drunk with Wine was Sacramentum figura Dominicae passionis A Sacrament and Figure of our Saviour's Passion That (a) Just M. Dial cum Tryph. p. 349. Clem. Alex. Strom. 6. p. 669. Orig. in Cels l. 5. p. 236. Com. in Joh. To. 2. Ed. Huet p. 48. Euseb demonstr l. 4. c. 9. p. 157. God not only permitted the Gentiles to worship the Sun Moon and Stars but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gave them the Sun Moon and Stars to be worshiped that they might not be wholly Atheists That when our Lord threatned to the disobedient Jews (b) Iren. l. 4. c. 23. Tertull adv Jud. c. 11 13. Cypr. adv Jud. l. 2. c. 20. Lactant. l. 4. c. 18. Epiphan Haer. 24. §. 9. Athanas de incarn verbi p. 47 90. Orat. 3. contr Arian p. 386. Ruffin apud Hieron T. 4. F. 49 Non video cur dubitare debeamus id illum de Christo scripsisse August contr Faust Manich. l. 16. c. 22.23 Deut. 28.66 thy Life shall hang in doubt before thee And thou shalt have no Assurance of thy Life he meant that Jesus Christ should be crucified before their Eyes That they should from those Words of the Psalmist Psal 45.1 (c) Quidam superstitiose magis quam vere ex persona patris arbitrantur intelligi Hieron ep ad Damasum Tom. 3. F. 45. B. Quidam ex persona patris dictum intelligi volunt Ep. ad Principium Virg. ibid. F. 37. A. viz. Alexander Episc Alex. Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1 c. 6. Athanas To. 1. p. 134 170. c. 427. D. 510. c. 517. D. 538 c. 549 550 565. D. Marcellus apud Epiph. Haer. 72. §. 2. My Heart hath indited a good Matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infer the eternal Generation of the Son That some of them so early Mal. 3.1 should imagine that the (d) Orig. in Joh. Tom. 5. ed. Huet p. 77. Cyril com in 1 Joh. 6. Baptist was an Angel not a Man because the Prophet Malachi said Behold I send my Angel before his Face And that when John the Baptist sent this (e) Manda mihi ad infernum descensurus sum utrum te Inferis debeam nunciare qui nunciavi superis Hieron in loc Ep. T. 3. F. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. com in Reg. p. 34. l. contr Marcion p. 37. Chrysost Hom. in Matth. 37. p. 247. Ruffin apud Hieron To. 4. p. 49. Theophyl in 11.
Matth. p. 58. in luc 7. p. 351. Nazianzen in Orat. Funebr Basil in hanc sententiam Meliori non inventa maxima pars Veterum Auctorum concesserunt Maldonate in Matth. xi 2. viz. Ambrosius Eusebius Emissenus Julianus Pomerius Venantius Gregorius Question to our Lord Matth. 11.3 Art thou he that shall come or look we for another they should thus interpret it That St. John being to go down to Hell or Hades should send to ask whether he should go before him thither and preach him there as he had done on Earth Matth. 16.23 That when Christ said to Peter Get thee behind me Satan thou art an Offence to me they out of a Reverence to St. Peter should make him say to (f) Multi putant quod non Petrus correptus est sed adversarius Spiritus qui haec dicere Apostolum suggerebat Hieron in Matth. xvj 23. Hilarius in locum Theophylact. in Marc. 8. p. 232. Peter only come thou after me and to the Devil Satan thou art an Offence unto me That when the same St. Peter denied his Master Matth. 26.72 saying I know not the Man they should excuse and bring him off with this quaint Equivocation (g) Scio quosdam pij affectus erga Petrum locum hunc ita interpretatos ut dicerent Petrum non Deum negasse sed hominem esse-sensum nescio hominem quia scio Deum Hieron in locum Vide Maldonatum ibid. Nescio hominem quia scio Deum I know not the Man for I know him to be God not considering with St. Jerom That by thus attempting to excuse the Disciple they gave the lye to his Master who had foretold his Denial That from those Words of Christ Joh. 8.44 (h) Vide Origen in Joh. Tom. 23. ed. Huet T. 2. p. 308. Huetii notas p. 34. Epiph. Haer. 40. n. 5 6. Haer. 38. §. 4 5. Ammon caten in c. 8. Joh. p. 238. Cyril Alex. in locum p 559. Author quaest V. N. Test apud August c. 90 98. Hieron in Isa c. 14 F. 36 e. The Devil is a Lyar and the Father of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they should conclude that the Devil had a Father and that he was either Cain or Judas That to avoid the vain Cavils of the Marcionites and Manichees they should say That (i) Iren. l. 3. c. 7. Tertul. l. 5. adv Marcion c. xj Chrysost Theod. Photius apud Oecum Theophylact in locum August contr Faust Manichaeum l. 22. c. 2. 9. the God of this World mentioned 2 Cor. iv 4. was not the Devil but the true God And from these Words of the Apostle (k) Illud dici potest quod Paulus non tam maledixerit eis quam oraverit pro illis ut eas partes corporis perderent per quas delinquere cogebantur Hieron in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Oecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in locum Gal. 5.12 I wish they were cut off that trouble you they should gather that the Apostle desired that the Abettors of the legal Ceremonies and Circumcision might be gelt To omit infinite Passages of the like Nature Nor can it reasonably be doubted that the Doctrine of the Millennium of the necessity of communicating Infants of the Appearance of Enoch and the Tisbite at our Lord's Second coming of the nearness of the End of the World of our Lord 's Preaching but one Year after his Baptism of the Angels conversing with Women had all their Rise from the mistaken Interpretations of the Holy Scripture why therefore might not the Mistake of that Passage of St. 1 Cor. 3.15 Paul They shall be saved but so as by Fire give the rise to Purgatory That of the same Apostle Magnum Sacramentum Eph. 5.32 This is a great Mystery but I speak of Christ and the Church advance Marriage into a Sacrament the mistake of that Promise of an happy Resurrection to the true Members of Christ's Church Matth. 16.18 The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it be made to countenance her Infallibility and so in other Cases of like Nature Sure I am that Communion in one Kind the Latin Service the Veneration of Images could never have obtained in the Church had not those Scriptures which so plainly do condemn them been miserably wrested by late Ages from their proper Sence and the received Interpretation which the whole Christian World had put upon them for Six hundred or a Thousand Years and why they might not as well wrest the Scriptures to establish some of their Doctrines as they have done it for the avoiding that Condemnation of them which is so clear in other Scriptures that he who runs may read it I am not able to discern Secondly § 7 Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice might easily prevail by altering or leaving of that Rule of Faith and Manners God had given them and acting by other Rules or Principles which in themselves are insufficient to establish any Article of Christian Faith for a false Rule must of necessity give false Directions both in Faith and Manners where the Principle is false the Conclusion from it must be so and where the Foundation is corrupted the Building cannot be firm now this we find done 1. By setting up the Fathers as the Rules of Faith the * Basil Ep. 62.67.70.349 Nazianz. Orat. 19 21 23 29. Pillars and the Grounds of Faith as some of them are often stiled This Method of proceeding as it is expresly contrary to our Lord 's Injunction to call no Man Father upon Earth in that presumptuous Sence in which the Jewish Rabbi's did affect that Title Matth. xxiij 6 10. John vj. 45. because one is our Father in Heaven and all that come to Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taught of God the Father and one is our Guide and Master Christ 1 Joh. ij 27. from whom we Christians have received an Unction and need not that any one should teach us but as that Spirit in the Word doth teach us all things So is it as repugnant to the Mind and the Prescriptions of those Holy Men who frequently declare That both they and their Brethren were subject to Error That Errarunt in fide tam Graeci quam Latini (a) Hieron Ep. ad Pam. Ocean To. 2 F. 69. Both the Greek and the Latin Fathers erred in the Faith That therefore others were (b) Aug. l. 11. Contr. Faust c. 5. at liberty when they read or heard them to approve what they liked and to reject what they conceived not to be right in them and warn us (c) Cyril Hieros Catech. 4. p. 30. not to believe what they say unless we find it demonstrated out of the Holy Scriptures To (d) Orig. Hom. 2. in Ezek. F. 135. B. observe diligently when the Pastor deceived them and when he spake things true and pious there being
it seems generally to have prevailed in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries yet doth it plainly seem to contradict the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures which teach That when the days of her Purification were accomplished Luk. ij 22 23 Puram aperiens vulvam according to the Law of Moses they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law of the Lord Every Male that openeth the Womb shall be called holy to the Lord. L. 4. c. 66. In partu suo nupsit ipsa patefacti corp lege Lib. de Carne Christi c. 23. vid. etiam c. 4. 20. Hom. 14. in Lucam Tom. 2. f. 101. According to the import of which Scripture Irenaeus doth expresly teach That our Lord at his Birth opened the Womb of the Virgin. Tertullian adds That she was a Virgin as not having known Man but was no Virgin quantum a partu at her teeming her Womb being then opened according to that saying Every Male that openeth the Womb c. Origen That Matris domini to tempore vulva reserata est quo partus editus the Womb of the Mother of our Lord was opened when she brought forth her Son. Clemens of Alexandria evidently shews that this was in his time only the saying of some Men attending to the Fable of the false Gospel of St. James That the Midwives after her delivery found by Inspection that she was a Virgin and that others held the contrary for saith he It seemed to many and yet seemeth that Mary was by the Birth of her Son a Woman properly delivered of a Child though she was not Strom. l. 7. p. 756. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Woman properly delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for some say that being inspected by the Midwives after the Birth of her Son she was found a Virgin. De Incarn l. 14 cap. 6. §. 1. He respects saith Petavius the Old Wife's Tale invented by some idle Trifler which we find in Suidas and in the Proto-Evangelium S. Jacobi which I could wish he had no otherwise related than by way of Contempt and Derision Thus we learn upon what Grounds this was believed by him against the Opinion of many others St. Basil grounds this Opinion upon another Story of like nature De human Christi Gener. Tom. 1. p. 509. The Story of Zacharias saith he proves that the Virgin Mary was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an entire Virgin for it is derived to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Tradition that Zacharias was slain between the Porch and the Altar for saying Qui hujusmodi Traditioni non credunt that Mary was a Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Birth of our Lord. Origen delivers the same thing in the like words In Matt. Hom. 26. f. 49. b. In Matth. 23.35 Venit ad nos Traditio quaedam Such a Tradition hath come down to us And Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have it from Tradition and yet Origen in the same place confesseth that this Tradition was not believed by others In locum and Jerom saith That it came Ex Apocryphorum Somniis From apocryphal Dreams and adds That Quia de scripturis non habet autoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur Because it hath no Authority from Scripture it is as easily condemned as approved of And thus we see the rise of this Tradition which afterwards prevailed over the Christian World. 3ly § 5 That our Lord lived above Fourty if not to Fifty Years Sicut Evangelium omues seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem Discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Joannem L. 2. c. 39. is the express Assertion of Irenaeus and for this he produceth the Testimony of the Gospel and of all the Elders of the Church who met S. John the beloved Disciple of our Lord in Asia and declared that he delivered to them the same thing yea saith he some of them saw not only John but the rest of the Apostles and heard the same things from them testantur de hujusmodi Relatione and testifie the truth of the Relation To say with Feuardentius upon the place that he might have had this from Papias is a very unlikely thing for he speaks not of the Testimony of one Man but of all the Seniors not of Men who had never seen the Apostles as Papias had not but of them who had he cites not Papias as in the Case of the Millennium he did here therefore is a solemn Declaration of a Tradition received from the Mouth of the Apostles and attested by all the Seniors and yet so far from being in the Gospel as is pretended that by the Gospel it may be evidently confuted so far from being owned as such in after Ages that upon a very slight Ground even the saying of the Prophet Isaiah Vid. Feuard in Iren. p. 46. 188. That Christ was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord many of the Fathers took up a contrary Opinion that our Lord Suffered in the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius and preached One Year only When Jesus came to his Baptism saith Clemens of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 1. p. 340. he was about Thirty Years old and that he was to Preach but One Year is thus written He sent me to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord this both the Prophet and the Gospel according to the plain meaning of the Words averr say some in Origen Hom. 32. in Luk. f. 111. That our Lord Preached the Gospel but one Year and that on this account it was said Cap. 8. that he was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L 1. c. 1. p. 16. Tertullian in his Book against the Jews saith That Christ suffered annos habens quasi triginta being about Thirty Years Old. Lactantius Africanus and others cited by Feuardentius say the same And yet this was no better than an Opinion first invented by the Gnosticks as we learn from Irenaeus and for which they produced the same Text and 't is as easily confuted by the Enumeration of the Passovers our Saviour Celebrated after his Baptism and before his Death Now if a Tradition could so generally obtain in the Fifth Century which had its rise from Fabulous Legends and Apocryphal Dreams against plain Words of Scripture and plain Assertions of the Fathers living in the former Centuries as that of our Lords coming out of the Womb of the Virgin without opening of it did why might not other Traditions pretended by some later Councils and the Church of Rome be of like nature Why may we not credit the Council of Frankford In lib. Carol. p. 3. c. 30. declaring that the Second Nicene Council for their pretended Tradition of Image-Worship had recourse ad Apocryphas quasdam risu dignas naenias to Apocryphal and Ridiculous Tales Comment
in 2. ad Tim. p. 155. Or Espencaeus a Romanist confessing that they defended it daemonum Spectris muliebribus Somniis with diabolical Apparitions and old Wife's Dreams especially when as he there saith this we see in the very Synod which approves and urgeth in confirmation of it the Tale of Constantine's Leprosy and of his Baptism by Pope Sylvester Def. Constant contr Baril c. 10 11. adversus Spalat c. 65. p. 458 459. and of the Images of Paul and Peter produced then to him the Tale of the Image sent to Agbarus of the Passion of the Image of Christ at Beryth and that infamous Tale of the old Fornicating Monk all confuted and exposed by Learned Crakanthorp and a late * Cap. 5. p. 22 23. excellent Discourse of the Second Nicene Council If Irenaeus could so early pretend to a Testimony of all the Elders of the Church of Asia for a matter of apparent falshood if others in the Second and Third Century could frame a contrary Doctrine from such a weak allusion to a Prophetick Saying I hope the saying of One or Two Doctors in the following Ages cannot be reasonably supposed to amount to any certain proof of the Traditions or Doctrines derived from the Apostles And if their Testimonies in such Cases in which they are most properly Testators or Relaters of Church History and of Traditions received from the Elders of the Church prove so uncertain and so alien from Truth less Credit must be given to them in those Articles of Faith or Doctrines of Manners in which they only give their Judgment without pretending to Apostolical Tradition for the Truth of what they say The Patrons of Oral Tradition confessing and declaring that they rely not on them as Doctors and Divines but as Witnesses of Tradition only Moreover it is the constant Opinion of the Fathers § 6 since the Fourth Century that our Saviour twice penetrated with his Body through the Doors where the Disciples were assembled Joh. 20.19 26. Vid Maldonat in locum because he came twice to them saith St. John The Doors being shut and stood in the midst of them Whereas 't is evident that this Phrase doth not inferr this Penetration any more than my saying I came into the College the Gates being shut imports that with my Body I pierced through the College Gates It doth not in the least inforce us to conclude that our Lord did not by his power open the Doors or come in any other way And whosoever seriously considers the circumstances of the Text will find good Reason to believe that Christ did not thus penetrate through the Doors as they imagined for the Apostle doth inform us ver 20. that Christ when he was come among them shewed them his Hands and his Feet he therefore purposely appeared to convince them that he was risen in the same Body in which he Suffered and which he laid down in the Sepulchre They saith St. Luke were troubled at his Appearance Luk. xxiv 38 39. and thought that they had seen a Spirit to remove which Imagination our Lord speaks to them thus Why are ye troubled and why do such Reasonings rise up in your Hearts see my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see I have St. John informs us that his second Appearance when the Doors were shut was designed particularly to convince St. Thomas of the same Truth and to confirm the Resurrection of his proper Body to him He speaks thus Reach hither thy Finger Joh. â—x 27. and behold my Hands and reach hither thy Hand and thrust it into my Side and be not faithless but believing whereas had Christ penetrated with his Body through the Doors at both these Appearances and so had entred in to them after the manner not of a Body but a Spirit he had done that which must have stagger'd their Faith at the same time that he designed to confirm them in it For notwithstanding any thing they seemed to see or feel they could not well believe he had true Flesh and Bones and was no Spirit had they believed and known he even then had thus penetrated through their Doors and therefore had done that which only Spirits and no true Flesh and Bones could do And if you here referr this Action with the Fathers to Christ's Almighty Power why might not his Disciples if they did the like mistrust that by the self-same power he who did this might make that Body which appeared to them seem to have Flesh and Bones and Prints of Wounds when it had not When our Roman Doctors shall have answered this Scruple Pseudo-Justin Nazianz. Chrysostom St. Jerom Austin Euthymius Apud Maldonatum in Matth. xxviij 2. I shall pay greater Reverence to the Authority of the Fathers of the Fourth and the ensuing Centuries touching this matter but till then I shall continue as much to Scruple Christ's penetration with his Body through the Doors as I do that other fine Invention of some of the same Fathers that our Lord's Body at his Resurrection penetrated through the Stone of the Sepulchre But besides all these Instances there are two celebrated in Church-History which are abundantly sufficient to discover the uncertainty of the pretences to Tradition in such Cases even according to the Judgment of most Learned Romanists The First is the known Story of the Phoenix § 7 that solitary Bird which hath no other of its Kind and which is propagated only by a Worm arising out of its burnt Ashes P. 34 35. De Resur Carn c. 13. Catech. 18. p. 213 214. Ancorat c. 85. as is related in the first Century by Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians which used to be publickly read in the Church By Tertullian in the Third Century In the Fourth Century by Cyril of Jerusalem who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens and many others did relate it and bids us not disbelive it Epiphanius not only introduceth it as a thing whose Fame had come to many of the Faithful but he triumphs over the Jews with this Question Physic c. 11. Why should you not believe our Lord's Resurrection in Three days 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when a Bird was restored to Life in Three Days St. Ambrose saith De fide Resur p. 39. vide etiam Hexam l. 5. c. 23. in Ps 118. p. 565. Hoc relatione crebra Scripturarum Authoritate cognovimus We know this by frequent Relation and by the Authority of the Scriptures which he saith as being of the number of those Fathers who applied that Saying of the Psalmist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Just shall flourish as a Palm-Tree Ps xcij. 12. to this Bird because the same Greek word signifies both a Palm-Tree and a Phoenix Dion p. 49. Renasci Constat apud Hieron Tom. 4. f. 47. b. L. 5. c. 7. p. 246. Carmen de
Phoen. Tom. 4. f. 54. Synesius saith That by the coming of this Bird the Aegyptians measured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circuit of their Times he coming as the Story saith once only in Five hundred Years Ruffinus in his Symbol mentions this as a thing certain The Constitutions stiled Apostolical The Verses which pass under the Name of Lactantius The Epistle under the Name of Jerome to Praesidius say the same thing And yet this Story is deservedly now rejected by the best Writers of the Church of Rome Const Apost Lact. ubi sup Epiph. Hieron ibid. And whosoever considers the Heathenism mixed with it viz. That this Bird comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Altar of the Sun and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray to the Sun and when she is to be consumed she goes to the Priest of Heliopolis and enters with him into the Temple that the new Bird which ariseth out of her Ashes Epiph. Phys c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saluteth the same Pagan Priest and taking up the Bones of her Consumed Parent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lays them upon the Altar of the Sun. I say Whosoever well considers of these things Not. in Clem. P. 90. will find sufficient cause to say with Cotelerius Mirum cunctis Christianis non suboluisse fraudem ob Paganismum fabellae permistum It is to be wondered that the Paganism mixed with this Fable discovered not the Cheat unto all Christians The Second is the Story of the Cells of the Septuagint § 8 in which they are said to have been severally placed when they Translated the Old-Testament from the Hebrew into Greek and yet to have performed this Translation all in the same words This Justin Martyr having related useth these words Exhort ad Graec. p. 13 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things we report to you Gentiles not as Fables or as seigned Stories but as a received Tradition delivered to us by the Inhabitants of the Place L. 3. c. 25. Irenaeus having told the same History concludes thus Firma est non ficta quae secundum nos est sides manifestam ostensionem habens ex his Scripturis Our Faith is firm and not seigned having manifest demonstration from these Scriptures Strom. 1. P. 342. Catech. 4. p. 37. De Mensur p. 160 161 163. Clemens Alexandrinus St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius among the Greek Fathers expresly affirm the same thing touching these Cells or their Interpretation of Scripture in the very same words though separated one from the other Tertullian speaks De sententiae Communione Apol. c. 18. Of this conspiring in their Sentiments as an Evidence of a divine Providence assisting them And St. De C.D. l. 18. c. 42 43. Austin is express both for their separate Interpretation and their exact Agreement in the words And all these Fathers hence conclude that this Interpretation was performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Spiritu codem assistente qui in Prophetis erat quando illa dixerunt by divine Power and Inspiration by the same Holy Spirit which enabled the Prophets to indite these Scriptures And they who do not speak expresly of these Circumstances do notwithstanding generally acknowledge that their Interpretation was Prophetical and Divine Eusebius saith Praepar Evan. L. 8. c. 1. That it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Interpretation ordered by God it was done by them saith St. Hilary Prolog in Psalm p. 635. Spirituali Coelesti scientia with Spiritual and Heavenly Knowledge Praefat. in Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without Divine Inspiration saith Theodoret and that by reason of the great Symphony which was in their Interpretations And yet these things delivered with so great consent of Ancient Fathers and contradicted only by Saint Jerom who upon that account hardly escaped their Censure are now rejected by the most learned Romanists as false and incredible De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 6. §. haec sententia For as for the Story of the Cells Bellarmine saith That the Jews might easily impose on Justin Martyr Fabulam à se confictam a Fable feigned by themselves and it might as easily happen that aliqui posteriores fidem habuerint Justino Notae in Epiph de Mens Pond p. 378. That some succeeding Fathers should give credit unto Justin That Story of the Cells saith Petavius aegre admodum fidem obtinet is scarcely credible Mr. Du Pin declares Nov. Biblioth part 1. dissert praelim p. 82 88. This is une fiction des Juifs to which the Fathers above-named yielded their assent F. Simon saith That all which the Fathers have said of the Seventy Interpreters excepting some few things seigned afterwards by the Jews were taken out of Aristaeus Disq Crit. c. 15. p. 109. whom all judicious Criticks now judge Spurious and having objected against himself Patrum omnium Autoritatem the Authority of all the Fathers he answers That we are not so much in this matter to consider Ibid. quid a Patribus dictum fuerit what the Fathers said as what Reasons they had to say so and that Jerom did not scruple to oppose himself contra communem Patrum sententiam against the common Opinion of the Fathers about the Cells to Laugh at Justin for it as a simple Man and to say roundly Nescio quis primus auctor Septuaginta Cellulas mendacio suo exstruxit I know not who was the first Author of the Lye. As for the Second Point touching their Inspiration Parum abfuit quin ab Ecclesia tanquam Novator ejiceretur C. 16. p. 129 130. or Divine Assistance in this work he confesseth that Vossius in that Assertion that they were thus inspired Sibi consentientes habet Patres omnes si unum exceperis Hieronymum Had all the Fathers on his side excepting Jerom and as for him he narrowly escaped being cast out of the Church as an Innovator for denying it and yet saith he the Judgment of St. Jerom and the Grave Authors of our Age is to be preferred C. 14. p. 115. for the Fathers being only skill'd in Greek and Latin de rebus sibi incognitis quidquam certi definire non potuerunt could say nothing certain of things unknown to themselves indeed saith he in matters of Faith the consent of the Doctors of the Church hath in it something of Divine C. 16. p. 130. at ille cordatus non est nec religiosus but he is not sincere or Religious who in things which are not of Faith fears to depart from the Sentence of the Fathers and had rather believe other Mens Writings than his own Eyes and Experience And he concludes with these remarkable Words C. 14. p. 116. Censurae Hieronymi Patronam se praebuit Ecclesia Romana dum relicta Septuaginta Interpretum Versione quae per tot annos universum orbem catholicum sola occupaverat Hieronymianam recens cusam
And amongst these he reckons the Seven Catholick Epistles of the Apostles Pag. 59. comprised in one Volume which he calls the Sixth Volume of the New Testament Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul comprised in the Seventh Volume and in the Eighth the Revelation of St. John of which he testisieth that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 60. shewed and judged to be his by the Ancient and holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God And then concludes Pag. 61. These are the Canonical Books of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it were the first fruits Anchors and supports of our Faith. St. Cyril is another who professeth to write his Catalogue from the Church and to hand down the Canonical Books as she received them from the Apostles the Ancient Bishops and Governors of the Church and he among the Canonical Books of the New Testament reckons the Seven Catholick Epistles and Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul leaving out only the Apocalypse The Council of Laodicea reckons them exactly as St. Cyril doth leaving out with him the Apocalypse not that they question its Authority but because they reckon up only the Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought to be read in the Churches Cyril Catech. 4. p. 38. Concil Laod. Can. 60. among which the Apocalypse was not because it is so very Mystical and accordingly the Council concludes their Canon thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Books we have received from the Fathers to be read in the Church and yet they do command that nothing should be read there but Canonical Scripture Apud Hieron Tom. 4. f. 51. Ruffinus declares he reckoned the Volumes of the New Testament as they were delivered to the Church of Christ secundum majorum Traditionem and according to the Tradition of the Ancients and then he accounts Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul Seven Catholick Epistles and the Apocalypse saying Haec sunt quae patres intra Canonem concluserunt These are the Books which the Father 's put into the Canon Can. 27. The Council of Carthage undertaking to reckon up the Canonical Books of the New Testament enumerates Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul Two of Peter Three of John One of James and One of Jude and the Apocalypse of St. John as received from the Fathers St. Jerom reckons the Canonical Books of the New Testament after the same manner only saying That the Epistle to the Hebrews was by most shut out of the number of the Epistles written by St. Paul that is some in his time conceived St. Barnabas others St. Clemens either did interpret it from the Hebrew or write it either from the Mouth or from the Notions of St. Paul but then he adds Ep. Tom. 3. f. 13. That the whole Greek Church and some of the Latins did receive it That all the Eastern Churches and all the Churches which used the Greek Tongue did Anciently own it as the Epistle of St. Paul and that he also owned both that and the Apocalypse not respecting the Custom of his present Age but following the Authority of the Ancient Writers who cited Testimonies from both not as sometimes they are wont to do from Apocryphal Books but as from Canonical Scripture And good reason had he to say 1. § 19 Lib. 3. c. 24. That he received the Apocalypse on the Authority of the Ancients when Eusebius expresly declares That a judgment might easily be passed of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Testimony of the Ancients Athanasius that it was determined Synop. p. 60. and demonstrated to be his by the Ancient and Holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God. And indeed Ep. ad C. §. 34. Dial. cum Tryph p. 308. Pag. 373 477 128 347 376 480 486 500 503. Lib. 5. c. 30. p. 485. Pag. 201. 528. Tom. 5. in Joh. Hom. 7. in Jos pag. 269 270 411 510 c. De opere Elem p. 202. de bono pat p. 219. Hist Eccl. l. 4.24 Ibid. c. 26. Lib. 5. c. 18. p. 186. Lib. 7. c. 25. it is cited in the First Century by Clemens Romanus as a Prophetical Writing In the Second Century by Justin Martyr as a Book writ by John one of Christ's Twelve Apostles By Irenaeus in the same Century as the Revelation of John the Disciple of the Lord the Revelation of St. John and he declares it was written by him pene sub nostro saeculo almost in our Age at the end of the Reign of Domitian It is mentioned in the Third Century as holy Scripture and a Prophetick Vision by Clemens of Alexandria as the Revelation of that John who lay in the bosom of our Lord by Origen it is mentioned by Tertullian as the Prophecy the Revelation the Vision of the Apostle John in above Twenty places by St. Cyprian as that Revelation in which we hear our Saviour's Voice and in which he speaks to us Eusebius informs us That Melito Bishop of Sardis writ upon the Revelation of St. John that Theophilus Bishop of Antioch owned it and cited from it many Testimonies Now both these flourished in the middle of the Second Century That Hippolitus the Disciple of Irenaeus did the same And that Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria professed That he durst not reject it by reason of the multitude of Christians who had a veneration for it and that he owned it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the work of an holy Man inspired of God. And judge now whether he had not sufficient ground to say this matter might be decided by the Testimonies of the Ancients That this Book was refused by Marcion the Heretick Contra Marcion l. 4. c. 5. Haer. 51 54. Haer. 30. we learn from Tertullian that it was rejected by the Alogians and Theodosian Hereticks we learn from Epiphanius and St. Austin and that when some Orthodox Christians began to dislike the Doctrine of the Millennium they began also to dispute some the Author of this Book ascribing it to another John Presbyter at Ephesus and others the Authority of it because they could not answer the Testimony produced from the Twentieth Chapter in favour of the Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years But then their Arguments against it are only taken from some vain and weak Imaginations of their own Brains as v. g. That St. John here names himself which in his Gospel and Epistles he never doth by which Argument we must reject either the Lamentations or the Book of Jeremy 2. Because he doth not use the same Expressions here as he did there that is in a Prophetick Stile as in a Doctrinal on which account Ecclesiastes and the Canticles cannot be writ by the same Author And 3. Because he writes here better Greek than elsewhere which if so may be because he writes not to the Jews but to the Asiaticks or after he had more conversed with them who spake that Language in its Purity As for those who ascribe
from the Deifying Scriptures from Evangelical Authority and Apostolical Tradition that they decreed for it according to the Testimony Authority and Commands of the Holy and Divine Scriptures Ninthly Observe That these Africans and Orientals differed from their Brethren without condemning or censuring of them or breaking of the Peace or Unity of the Church on this account or separating from Communion with those Christian Bishops who thought fit to do otherwise We saith St. * Propter Haereticos cum Collegis Coepiscopis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam concordiam dominicam pacem tenemus Ep. 73. p. 210. Cyprian as much as in us lies do not contend with our Colleages and Fellow Bishops about Hereticks we hold a sacred Concord and the Lord's Peace with them Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus nec legem damus Ep. 72. p. 198. we prescribe to no Body we prejudge no Man but leave every Bishop to the Liberty of his Will to do what he thinks best in this matter we force no Man Ep. 69. p. 188. we give Law to no Man. The Preface of the Council of Carthage assembled under Cyprian runs thus It remains that every one of us speak his judgment in this Matter judging no Man nor a jure communionis aliquem Apud Cypr. p. 229. si diversum senserit amoventes separating any Man from our Communion who thinketh otherwise St. Basil excellently declares himself in the matter of the Cathari that because there were different Opinions in the Church concerning the validity of their Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 1. the custom of every Region was to be followed And of the Encratites he saith that it was his Opinion that they ought to be Baptized but then he adds That if this would be any impediment to the Order of the Church in that Matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. the Custom which had obtained any where was to be observed This excellent Temper then prevailed in all the Churches of God for Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Pope Stephen saith That all the Churches notwithstanding this difference were at Peace and Concord and thence entreats him to consider the weight of the Affair he had begun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by refusing to Communicate with them who admitted Hereticks into the Church by Baptism praying him to disist from it and telling him that for his part he durst not provoke so many Churches Ibid. c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to strife and contention by subverting their Decrees The Council of Carthage Apud Cypr. p. 229. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit aut Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit Ibid. in reference to this Action of Pope Stephen speaks thus We pass our Sentence in this matter judging no Man or separating no Man from our Communion who thinks otherwise for none of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops nor endeavours by tyrannical Terror to compel his Colleages to a necessity of Obedience Ep. 74. p. 210 214. St. Cyprian accuses him of Pride or Vnadvisedness and acting as a Friend of Hereticks and an Enemy of Christians for thinking it fit to Excommunicate God's Priests on this account Firmilian declares That he acted inhumanely Per illius inhumanitatem effectum est c. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 225. Cum tot Episcopis per totum mundum diffensisse pacem cum singulis vario discordiae genere rumpentem modo cum orientalibus modo vobiscum qui in meridie Ep. 75. p. 228. by being at Dissention with so many Bishops throughout the World and breaking the Peace with every one of them by various kinds of Discord with those of the East by pronouncing them Excommunicate and with those of the South by not vouchsasing to speak with the Bishops sent to him nor permitting others to receive them into their Houses and by dividing the Fraternity for the sake of Heretieks which various kind of Discord had Valesius well observed he would not against so great evidence have denied that Stephen did as much as in him lay separate or in the Language of the Council of Carthage amovere a jure communionis expel from right of Communion those who differed from him it being hence evident that he Excommunicated the one and vouchsafed not to speak with the other Tenthly § 21 Whereas the Roman Doctors usually say that Stephen's traditum est prevailed against the opposite Opinion of the Eastern and the Southern Churches and that the case was after by the Church determined for Pope Stephen against Cyprian this is a great mistake for neither the Opinion of P. Stephen nor of St. Cyprian prevailed but they were both rejected by the Church of Christ and that which was the mean betwixt them was embraced For 1. Whereas Pope Stephen with his Church determined That no Hereticks should be Baptized from whatsoever Heresie they came into the Bosom of the Church or Contra Petil. de unico Baptismo c. 14. as St. Austin saith Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat He held that the Baptism of Christ was to be repeated on no Heretick whatsoever The Ninteenth Canon of the Nicene Council saith That if the Paulianists do fly into the Bosom of the Church we will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they by all means be Baptized again The Council of Laodicea commandeth Bishops and Presbyters to Baptize Can. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them who returned from the Heresie of the Cataphrygae or the Montanists Can. 7. The General Council of Constantinople speaks thus Them who come to us from Hereticks we admit after this manner the Arians Macedonians Sabbatians Novatians Quartodecimans the Cathari and Apollinarians without Baptism but the Eunomians the Montanists Sabellians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all other Hereticks we receive as Gentiles we Catechise them and for a long time make them hear the Scripture Can. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then we Baptize them The General Council in Trullo repeats the same Decree in the same words and then adds That we admit by Baptism likewise the Manichees Valentinians and Marcionites and other Hereticks of like nature Ad Amphil. Can. 47. St. Basil determines That the Encratitae the Saccaphori and the Apotactites were to be rebaptized Now all these Canons are approved by the following Synods Can. 1. that of the Second Nicene Council and the Eighth Council of Constantinople and so we cannot doubt but that they both believed and practised accordingly Since then we are assured from so many Testimonies that Pope Stephen would have all Hereticks whatsoever admitted at their return into the Church without Baptism and in particular from the Testimony of St. Ep. 74. p. 214. that he admitted of the Baptism of Marcion Valentinus and Apelles it
Whereas the Church declared against Pope Stephen That in this matter of the Rebaptizing Hereticks the various Customs which had obtained were to be permitted without breach of Communion and Christian Peace that the Custom of every Region was to be followed and the obtaining practice to be submitted to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Orders sake that it was to be done or left undone suitably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to what should generally be ordered concerning it Hence in all matters of this indifferency and obscurity Ad Amphil. can 1. De unit fidei c. 19. in which saith Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing plainly is declared we admit that saying of St. Austin That Hereticks must be received as the Church receives them there being as he adds no clear Example to be produced from Scripture either way and with him we acknowledge Contr. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. That the Truth of Scripture is held by us when we do that which doth please the Church because we know from Scripture that God is the God of Order not of Confusion and that in matters of this indifferency that of the Apostle 1 Cor. xiv 33. 1. Cor. xi 16. We have no such Custom neither the Churches of God must cut off farther matter of Contention but then in Articles of Christian Faith we with the same St. Austin say De peccat mer. remiss l. 2. c. 36. Credo quod hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima Authoritas fuisset si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non possit We believe that the Authority of the Divine Oracles would have been most clear had the matter been such of which we could not have been ignorant without loss of Salvation Moreover though St. Austin doth acknowledge that no Example could be produced from Scripture in this Case yet he pretendeth Scripture for the right and lawfulness of the said Practice For saith he That I may not seem De Bapt. contr Donatistas l. 10. c. 6. Tom. 7. p. 379. humanis Argumentis id agere to prove the Right of receiving Hereticks without Baptism only by humane Arguments ex Evangelio profero certa documenta I produce certain proofs out of the Gospel to shew how rightly this was determined by the Church And again having said Ibid. l. 4. c. 7. p. 419. We follow that which the Custom of the Church always held and a plenary Council hath confirmed he adds That bene perspectis ex utroque latere Scripturarum Testimoniis potest etiam dici quod veritas declaravit Tot tantisque S. Scripturarum testimoniis l. 5. c. 4. Divinarum Scripturarum d◠cumentis l. 6. c. 1. hoc sequimur weighing well the Testimonies of Scripture on both sides it may also be said that we follow that which Truth hath declared From whence and many other places of his works it is evident that even in hae obscurissima quaestione in this most obscure Question as he often stiles it he recurrs for matter of Right to Scripture and weighs it in the Balance of the Sanctuary Thirdly § 24 Hence it is evident beyond all doubt that the Church of that Age in which this Controversie happened knew nothing or at least believed nothing of the New Rule of R. H. That in Judges subordinate dissenting all Christians must adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity to the major part since all these Africans and Orientals not only take the liberty to dissent from what the Pope and all the Churches which adher'd to him held as Apostolical Tradition but also to condemn it as a thing contrary to the plain evidence of Scripture and to decree the contrary should be observed and practised For had such a Rule been then received and owned by the Church of Christ could all the Christian Churches besides that of Rome have still maintain'd Communion with those Southern and those Eastern Churches who did so resolutely oppose and flatly contradict this Rule Could they have thus condemned Pope Stephen of violating the Churches Peace and unity for acting consonantly to this Rule by renouncing Communion with them who were provided that this Rule be true manifest Schismaticks Could St. Denys of Alexandria have told the Pope he durst not by acting contrary to the Decrees made at Iconium and Synnada provoke those Churches to Contention if doing so had only been to act according to a Rule always received and owned by the Church of Christ Could St. Basil have judged it best for every one to follow herein the Custom of their own Country in opposition to this Rule Could Firmilian have charged the Pope with Schism Could Cyprian and the Council of Carthage have charged him with Tyranny for pressing a received Rule in the whole Church These sure are demonstrations that this pretended Rule is like the rest of Popish Doctrines a Rule with which the Ancient Church of Christ was not acquainted Fourthly Hence evident it is That all the Churches of that Age knew nothing of the Pope's Supremacy nothing of any Obligation laid upon them to conform to the Doctrines Decrees and Customs of the Roman Church and her adherents and lastly nothing of that pretended Law that Synods were not to assemble and make Canons without consulting of his Holiness Since all these Synods made these Canons either without his Knowledge or else in opposition to Unusquisque Episcoporum quod putat faciat c. Ep. 73. p. 210. and condemnation of the Decrees and Customs both of the Pope and Church of Rome and others told him They thought themselves obliged notwithstanding all his Threats to act according to their Sentence and durst not rescind it Had they believed the Pope's Supremacy in that Age would they have declared so freely as St. Cyprian doth Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit Apud Cypr. p. 229. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. p. 217 218 225 227 228. for the Liberty of every Bishop to act as he saw fit in this matter and said that he was only to give account to God of his proceedings Could they with the Council of Carthage have esteemed it such a tyrannical Matter for the Pope to act as Bishop of Bishops Could Firmilian have accused him so pertly of Inhumanity Insolence and Boldness in this Case Could he have judged him a downright Schismatick for acting as he did Could all the forementioned Bishops so freely have reproved him and dissented from him and judged it their Duty rather to adhere to the decisions of Provincial Synods than to his Determination Could they have thought themselves obliged to adhere to the Decrees Ubique a S. Scripturis declaratum est Baptisma Haereticorum non esse verum Ep. 7. the Doctrines or Customs of the Roman Church and yet declare as doth St. Cyprian and his Africans That the Decrees and Practice of
the Roman Church were in this case opposite to Scripture and the plainest Reason And as St. Basil doth to Amphilochius in the same case Can. 47. Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sunt ab origine tradita Ep. 75. p. 220. Though you and the Romans hold the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet ought our Sentence to take place And as Firmilian expresly doth That 't is usual with them of Rome to vary from Apostolical Tradition Could so many Fathers so many Churches so many Councils have not only practised in opposition to the Doctrines and Customs of that Church but also have condemned them in such opprobrious Terms as they have done Cyp. Ep. 69. p. 185. Ep. 73. p. 206 208 210. Ep. 74. p 212 c. pronouncing the Assertors of them Prevaricators in matters both of Faith and Truth Betrayers of the Church Enemies to Christians Friends and Abettors of Hereticks Men who did plead their Cause and partake with them in their Sins Men who did null evacuate destroy the Baptism of the Church and give up the Spouse of Christ to Adulterers Fifthly § 25 Hence it is manifest That in that Age they verily believed that what had passed for Apostolical Tradition in the Church of Rome and her Adherents might be no such matter that both that Church and her Abettors might impose upon their fellow Christians in pretending to it and that there lay no Obligation on other Churches to comply with them in such matters as they delivered for Apostolical Tradition For otherwise how could it happen that so many populous Churches so many Councils so many famous Bishops that Athanasius Optatus St. Basil Cyril of Jerusalem all great Assertors of true Apostolical Tradition should declare so plainly and expresly against this practice of the Church of Rome that Firmilian should declare Neminem tam stultum esse qui hoc credat Apostolos tradidisse Ep. 75. p. 219. Nemo infamare Apostolos debeat quasi illi Haereticorum Baptisinata probaverint Ep. 74. p. 211. No Man could be so Foolish as to believe the Apostles had delivered any such thing that St. Cyprian should say That this pretence of Romanists was manifestly false and tended to blaspheme the Reputation of the Blessed Apostles that the Africans should not only reject this pretended Apostolical Tradition in the opprobrious Terms forementioned but should declare so oft in Council that the contrary Doctrine descended from Evangelical Authority and Apostolical Tradition Vid. Supra and was confirmed by the Divine Law and the Holy Scriptures How lastly could it happen that all the other Churches excepting that of Rome were all at Peace and still maintained Communion with these Opposers and Traducers of this pretended Tradition and did not blame them in the least on this account but rather interceded with the Roman Bishop to lay aside his Fury and entertain Communion and Friendship with these Churches as they did Sixthly Hence it appears that in that Age they thought not Custom or Tradition though practised by the Church of Rome and by the major part of Christians any certain Rule of Manners but thought themselves obliged sometimes to vary from it and that they might have Truth and Reason and Scripture on their sides against it that it concerned them to examine then whether the Custom they were required to follow had its rise from Christ and his Apostles and could be proved from their Writings and if not to reject it For in this matter they declare Non esse consuetudine praescribendum Cypr. Ep. 71. p. 194. sed ratione vincendum Their Adversaries were not to prescribe to them from Custom but to convince them by reason St. Paul having taught every one not to adhere pertinaciously to what he had once imbibed Pag. 195. but willingly to embrace any thing which he found better or more profitable That 't was in vain when Men were overcome by reason Ep. 73. p. 203. to oppose Custom to it as if Custom were better than Truth and that were not rather to be followed which was revealed for the better by the Holy Spirit that Non semper errandum Ibid. p. 208. quia aliquando erratum est We must not always erre because we once have done so Ep. 74. p. 215. that Custom without Truth was only old Error and vainly was preferred before it that the Truth being manifested Concil Carth. apud Cypr. p. 236 240 241. Custom was to yield to it that no Man ought to preferr Custom to Reason and Truth that Christ being Truth we ought rather to follow that than Custom that it was obstinacy and presumption Cypr. Ep. 74. p. 212. humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere to preferr humane Tradition to divine Orders and not to consider that God is angry when humane Tradition evacuates divine Precepts that when it was said to them let nothing be innovated Ibid. p. 211. but that which was delivered be observed it was to be enquired unde est ista traditio whence is that Tradition Whether from the Authority of Christ and the Gospel the commands and Epistles of the Apostles and if in Evangelio praecipitur Ib. p. 215. aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actubus continetur it were commanded in the Gospel or contained in the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles then was it to be observed and that when Truth shook and staggered we were to have recourse to the Head and Original of Divine Tradition ad originem dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem to the Gospel and Apostolical Tradition Lastly Hence it is evident § 26 That in those early times Tradition Apostolical and from the beginning must falsly be pretended by Great Men and Churches even in a matter of continual practice and occurrence in the Church of God for here you see it was pretended for the Admission of Hereticks without Baptism by Pope Stephen and his Church and the fame Tradition Apostolical and from the beginning was pretended for the opposite Doctrine by Firmilian and St. Basil and their Party and yet the Church did in the following Ages declare against the Pretences of them both If then in these plain matters of Fact and of continual practice Tradition did so fail both the Pretenders to it must it not be more apt to fail in matters of meer Speculation If by Tradition these Churches could not truly tell what their Forefathers did how should they by it tell assuredly in all things what they held since that could only be made known unto them by their Words and Actions if actually they handed down unto posterity for a traditionary Practice that which was not truly so why might they not also hand that down to them as a traditionary Doctrine which was nothing less than so CHAP. V. Eightly We distinguish also betwixt Traditions which appear from Reason to be such as ought to be received and
to them the Doctrine of the Apostles pretending to have received it as it were by Tradition from the Apostles Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. When they had the boldness to affirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all the Ancients and even the Apostles taught the same things which they did and that what they delivered was afterwards corrupted by the Orthodox I say that in their Discourses against these Hereticks they should not once endeavour to stop their mouths by telling them what were indeed the Doctriens and Traditions received from the Apostles what were the things revealed to them by the Apostles but should still keep these necessary Traditions which the Church of Rome now teacheth as received from them secret not saying one word of them no not when they in confutation of these pretences of the Hereticks declare what was the Rule of Faith and the Tradition received from the Apostles and preserved by all the Apostolick Churches is so incredible as nothing can be more except this vain Imagination That these very Fathers should concurr with these Hereticks as do some others in this Assertion That saving Truth could not be known from Scripture by them who were ignorant of Tradition as being not delivered down to Posterity by writing but by word of Mouth and yet at the same time should say Lib. 3. c. 1. as Irenaeus doth in his Discourse against them That the Apostles first Preached the Gospel and after by the Will of God delivered it unto us in the Scriptures to be hereafter the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. And as Eusebius doth Lib. 5. c. 18. That the pretences of the Hereticks unto Tradition might be probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not the Holy Scriptures contradict them And as St. Jerom That those things which they feign to have received as Tradition In Hagg. c. 1. fol. 102. a. absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum percutit gladius Dei without the Authority and Testimonies of the Scripture the Sword of God doth smite for what is this but to talk like us Northern Hereticks for to quarrel with Men for appealing from Scriture as obscure and insufficient to decide our Controversies without the Suffrage of Oral Tradition to alledge Scripture as a sufficient evidence that others vainly did pretend unto it to reject what others do pretend to have received from Tradition because it wanteth the Authority and Testimony of the Holy Scriptures whatsoever it may pass for in these ancient Fathers is one of those very things for which we are proclaimed Hereticks In a word That there should be unwritten Traditions necessary to be believed unto Salvation and neither the Creed of the Greek nor of the Latin Church make the least mention of any of them That a Creed should be made perhaps at Gentilly in the Seventh Century and to obtain the better credit should be called the Creed of Athanasius That this Creed should inform us in the beginning That whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith threatning that he shall perish everlastingly who doth not keep this Faith entire and whole that therefore in the next words it should say and the Catholick Faith is this and should conclude in these Expressions This is the Catholick Faith and yet leave out almost as many necessary Articles of Christian Faith as it contained That the principal written Traditions which in comparison needed it not should be put together into a Creed but that the unwritten ones which needed it very much should be quite left out and never thought of to that purpose till about Fifteeen hundred Years after and that the Ancients Tertullian St. Basil Eusebius and others speaking expresly and professedly of Traditions not contained in Holy Scripture should reckon up many unnecessary things and never mention in their Catalogues one of these necessary Traditions That in their Treatises of Christian Faith and Christian Doctrine and of Ecclesiastical Opinions and their Instructions of the Catechized the Fathers should say nothing the Persons who were to be instructed in all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith should hear nothing of all these Articles and yet they should be throughout all Ages of the Christian World so necessary that no Salvation could be had without them these I confess are truly R. Catholick that is incredible Assertions and if we must give credit to them we must do it upon Tertullian's Ground Credo quia est impossibile Because it is impossible they should be true CHAP. VII The Novelty of the R. Doctrines farther proved First from the general Tradition of the Church that the Four Gospels and the Scriptures comprized all that was necessary to be believed or done by Christians this proved 1. in general § 1. 2. From the particular account Tradition gives us of the Writings of the Four Evangelists § 2. Inference this Tradition shews That to preserve a Doctrine safe to Posterity 't was not sufficient to receive it by Oral Tradition unless it were written § 3. Secondly This is proved from the general Tradition of the whole Church of Christ that the Apostles or the Nicene Symbol was a compleat summary of all things necessary to be believed by Christians § 4. Where it is shewed that the Apostles delivered to their Converts a System or a form of Words Ibid. That this form was delivered to all Churches and was for substance the same with that which afterwards was stiled the Apostles Creed § 5. That Christians were received into the Church by Baptism on the profession of this Faith § 6. That it was taught as the entire System of things necessary to be believed § 7. That it was esteemed a Test of Orthodoxy by which they prescribed to Hereticks § 8. That this whole Summary of Christian Faith was evidently contained in Scripture § 9. And that notwithstanding they unanimously stiled it a Tradition § 10. MOreover That the Articles of Faith owned by the Church of Rome and imposed upon all who hold Communion with her to be believed and owned as such under the penalty of Anathema to him who doth believe or say the contrary were not received from Christ or his Apostles either by unwritten Tradition or by traditional Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures or any portion of them to that sence from whence it may be certainly concluded that they were in the Scriptures mentioned or owned by the ancient Church as Articles of Christian Faith or as things necessary to be believed or practised by all Christians will be exceeding evident from these Considerations v. g. First § 1 From that plain and general Tradition of the Church of Christ that all which the Apostles preach'd and taught their Converts by word of mouth as either necessary to be believed or practised they afterwards at their desire committed unto writing and deliver'd to them in the Gospel and the Holy Scriptures This in the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. 4. in the institution of Faith delivered to the Church and that hanc tenentes regulam holding to this Rule how many and various soever were their Doctrines Ibid. c. 19. we might easily shew their deviation from the truth Cap. 3. In his Third Book he confutes them from the same Topick viz. this Tradition of the Rule of Faith visible in all Churches and preserved in all the Bishops of them succeeding the Apostles declaring That nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur in their account of the Tradition received from the Apostles and the Faith preached to Men they taught no such thing as the deliriums of these Hereticks And he informs us that Polycarp had converted many of these Hereticks to the Church by declaring this was the only Truth which he received from the Apostles And in his Fourth Chapter repeating again this Creed he saith It is that which even the Barbarians who had not the Scriptures preserving in their Hearts would stop their Ears against and sufficiently repel ea quae ab Haereticis adinventa sunt the Inventions of the Hereticks Tertullian also lays down this Creed as the Foundation of the Christian Faith and confutes all the Hereticks because their Doctrines were later than this Creed and were not contained in it He begins his Discourse of Prescription against the Hereticks with this Foundation Nobis nihil ex arbitrio nostro inducere licet cap. 6. That Christians could induce no new thing that they had the Apostles for the Authors of their Doctrines who themselves induced nothing of their own sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt but faithfully delivered to the Nations the Doctrine they received from Christ Cap. 8. And whereas the Hereticks objected that Saying of our Lord Seek and ye shall find and thence pretended that they by seeking had found their Doctrines in the Scripture though they pretended also to Tradition for them and especially for the interpretation of Scripture as Irenaeus hath informed us Unum utique certum aliquid institutum esse a Christo quod credere omnino debeant Nationes idcirco quaerere ut possint cum invenerint credere Cap. 9. to this Tertullian answers That true it was they were to search the Scriptures for their Rule of Faith and prove it thence but then they also were to believe that when they had found that there aliud non esse credendum ideoque nec requirendum that nothing more was to be believed and therefore nothing more was to be inquired after Cap. 8 9. besides those things which they believed were the matters of their Faith and that otherwise there would be no end of seeking nec statio credendi nor any boundary of Faith Let us seek therefore saith he Cap. 12 13. idque duntaxat quod salva regula fidei potest in quaestionem devenire but that only which may be inquired after so as that the Rule of Faith be safe Then he lays down the Creed as that Rule and declares Cap. 14. That knowing this we need seek no more because we know all that we need to know He adds that the Apostles receiving a command to teach and to baptize planted Churches in all Cities whence other Churches Semina Doctrinae mutuatae sunt Cap. 20. borrowed the Seeds of their Doctrine and that all these Churches were one first and Apostolical not by virtue of any Roman Unity but by the Union of Peace and brotherly Affection and per ejusdem Sacramenti unam traditionem by shewing the same Creed which when they journeyed to any other Church was Cap. 21. Contesseratio Hospitalitatis the League of Hospitality And then he adds Hins igitur dirigimus praescriptionem Hence therefore we direct our prescription i. e. From the very Faith and Symbol which the Apostles preaching to the Churches delivered to them in which Rule we find nothing of the New Doctrines of the Hereticks and so are sure they belong not to the Faith but are to be rejected ob diversitatem Sacramenti Cap. 33. as being different from our Creed And by these Examples we may learn by the way what Dionysius Bishop of Corinth did when as Eusebius informs us Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 23. He combating the Heresie of the Marcionites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stuck to the Canon of Truth viz. that he confuted them as doth Irenaeus and Tertullian by appealing to the Apostles Symbol or Rule of Faith left to the Churches Now here I appeal to any indifferent Reader whether the Arguments of Irenaeus and Tertullian against the Hereticks of their Times be not to this effect The Tradition of the Faith is manifect to all the World you may see and hear it in all Christian Churches where this Symbol is recited in which nihil tale docuerunt they taught nothing like to those New Heresies they therefore are to be rejected And I desire any Man to tell me whether this Argument be not stronger in the mouth of Protestants The Apostles Symbol the Rule of Faith here mentioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian contain nothing of the Romish Articles therefore they are to be rejected whether this be not our way of prescribing against the Church of Rome that her Creed as distinct from ours is new not a tittle of it not any thing like it was delivered in the Rule of Faith the Symbol the Tradition of Christian Doctrine taught say these men by Christ by his Apostles received from the beginning by all Apostolical Churches and for Ten Centuries at least declared to have been the whole and perfect Rule of Christian Faith and by our Catechism said to contain All the Articles of the Christian Faith. 6. § 9 Let it be noted that all these Fathers do unanimously teach That this whole Symbol Summary and Rule of Faith was most apparently contained in Scripture that it was gathered out of Scripture and when they taught it to their Catechists they proved every Article of it from the holy Scriptures Irenaeus saith expresly Lib. 3. c. 3. That they who would might learn the Apostolical Tradition of the Church ex ipsa Scriptura from the Scripture it self the Doctrine which the Apostles preached being afterwards delivered in the holy Scriptures to be the Pillar and the Ground of Faith. Apol. c. 47. Tertullian saith of it That it is antiquitas praestructa divinae literaturae antiquity built upon the divine Scriptures That as for this Rule of Faith we are to search the Scriptures for it De praescript c. 9. Cap. 15. and seek until we find it there That quaerendum est donec inveneris credendum ubi inveneris and that no man can speak of Matters of Faith nisi ex literis fidei but from the Holy Scriptures St. Cyril adds that it is the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confirmed by all the Scripture and
Tradition they followed them at that Weapon and by producing the Tradition of their Creed and Rule of Faith containing nothing of their New Doctrines they stopp'd their Mouths giving them nevertheless to understand Lib. 3. c. 1. That the Rule of Faith was by the Will of God not only preached to but afterwards delivered to them in the Scriptures to be the Pillar and the Ground of Truth and that the Parables which they by their ridiculous Interpretations adapted to their purposes Lib. 2. c. 46. were to be understood according to this Rule of Truth and according to those things which were perspicuously revealed in Scripture and that then they would not be Interpreted to a dangerous Sence From which things thus explained we learn 1. That no Man can discourse of Matters of Faith but from the Scriptures 2. That these Scriptures were written by the Will of God to be the Pillar and the Ground of Truth to following Ages 3. That if we do interpret the ambiguous Places of them by the plain and with Analogy to the Rule of Faith contained in the Creed we cannot dangerously erre Secondly § 6 Hence it is easie to demonstrate the certainty and full assurance which the Protestant hath for all his necessary Articles of Faith. He having for his Creeds which saith his Catechism contain all the Articles of Christian Faith all the same Grounds of assurance which any Roman Catholick or any Christian can pretend to viz. present acknowledged Profession and Tradition Oral of the present Church and 2ly of all the Churches of the Roman Communion and of all other Christian Churches 3ly The Profession and Oral Tradition of all Churches throught all Christian Ages Times and Places and even of all the Apostles who were saith this Tradition the Authors jointly of that Creed which bears their name 4ly The Writings of the Fathers and of General Councils who assure us that the Creeds they handed down unto us contained the Apostolical Faith the one and same Truth they had been taught the only the entire the perfect Faith of all Christians to which nothing was to be added as well as nothing to be taken from it Lastly the written word of God in which they say this whole Faith is expresly and in words contained in which it may be found and from which it may be proved to the capacity of the meanest Catechist Whereas nothing of this nature can be shewed in Confirmation of the Faith of Romanists Thirdly § 7 Hence also we may learn how Christianity was handed down the same for Substance and Essentials as it was from the beginning by Tradition as the Ancients understood the word viz. by the continual practice of the Church delivering the Summary and Rule of Faith which she received from the Apostles to all her Members to be learnt by heart or to be written not in Ink but in the fleshly Tables of their Hearts and then confirming all the Articles contained in it by the holy Scriptures See Ch. 7. §. 7 8 c. and sending her Members to it to learn the Truth of what the Church had taught them This is saith Irenaeus the Tradition which we have received from the Apostles the Summary of Faith the preaching of the Truth the immoveable Rule of Truth delivered to Christians at their Baptism and by which the Church enlightens all who come unto the Truth And this saith he the Apostles first preached and afterwards delivered in the Holy Scriptures and so they say all Fourthly § 8 Hence it is easie to discern how the R. Doctors impose upon their Readers when they urge the Sayings of Irenaeus and Tertullian for the establishing of their Traditions or the asserting such Traditions as the Rule of Faith which neither are contained in Scripture nor the Apostles Creed when it is evident beyond exception that the Tradition which they speak of is that of the Apostles Creed and of the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith contained in Scripture Q. of Questions p. 345. Thus Mr. M. triumphs in those words of Irenaeus What if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures must we not have followed that Order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose charge they left the Churches to be Govern'd To this Order of Tradition many Barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any Writings keeping diligently the ancient Tradition not Traditions as Mr. M. deceitfully Translates Now let it be observed That the Tradition here mentioned is only vetus Apostolorum Traditio Lib. 3. c. 4. the old Tradition of the Apostles the belief of one God maker of Heaven and Earth and so on to the end of the Apostles Creed and this will be the clearest Demonstration against the Roman Church imaginable for if we must have followed this Order of Tradition had we been distitute of Scripture we must have absolutely rejected all the Articles of Romish Faith. Mr. M. Ibid. That Irenaeus did believe that the Tradition left by the Apostles was a sufficient Ground of divine Faith is true L. 3. c. 3 4. but then it is as true that he believed that this Tradition was entirely contained in the Rule of Faith he there lays down that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same and only Truth which was delivered by the Apostles that it rendered them who believed this only Wise and acceptable to God and fully armed against all Heresies De praescrip c. 28. Tertullian doth indeed put the Question How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith. Among many events there is not every where one issue Q. of Quest p. 400. The Errors of the Churches must needs have varied but that which amongst many is found one is not mistaken but delivered Audeat ergo aliquis dicere eos errasse qui tradiderunt De praescrip c. 28 29. Dare then any one say they erred who delivered that one and the same thing But then this is so far from being plain Popery as Mr. M. vainly boasts that it effectually and at one blow Ibid. De Virg. Veland c. 1. De praescrip c. 13. destroys it for having laid down his own Rule immovable and admitting no Novelty no Addition and delivered this Rule in words at length ut hinc quid defendamus profiteamur as a profession of that entire Faith he undertook to defend against the Hereticks and beyond which nothing was needful to be known he proceeds to shew that the Apostles in delivering this as the entire Rule of Faith were not deficient in teaching any thing which was needful to be believed This he proves Chapter the Twenty-sixth because Christ commanded that what they heard in Secret they should publish in the Light and on the House top and that they should not hide the Light under a Bushel but set it on a Candlestick that it might shine to all in the House these Precepts either
be sacred yea the whole Church preferred it before any other account of this Matter given by either Pope Council or Father For saith Cajetan as to this matter ad limam Hieronymi reducenda sunt verba tam Conciliorum quam Doctorum the words of Councils and Doctors must be reduced to the Rule of St. Jerom. So that those Books which he rejects are not to be esteemed Canonical as that word importeth Books sufficient ad firmandum ca quae sunt fidei to confirm Articles of Faith but only as it signifies Books useful and aedificationem Ecclesiae for the Edification of the Church and with this distinction you may reconcile the difference betwixt him and St. Austin and betwixt the Councils of Carthage and of Laodicea Alphonsus Tostatus saith Magis credendum est Hieronymo quam Augustino maxime ubi agitur de veteri Testamento St. Jerom is to be credited especially in things belonging to the Old Testament and Histories before St. Austin for in this thing he exceeded all the Doctors of the Church The same Tostatus saith Ista distinctio facta est ab Ecclesia Universali quae concorditer tenet istam distinctionem factam ab Hieronymo nam ista tenebatur a Judaeis fidelibus fult postea continuata in Ecclesia Defens Part. 2. c. 22. That the Vniversal Church with one accord holds the distinction made by St. Jerom for that was held by the Faithful Jews before Christs Advent and was afterwards continued in the Church and hence it came to pass that there was never any Bible found in those times which had before it the Canon of Carthage the Catalogue of St. Austin or the Epistle of Pope Innocent or the Decree of Pope Gelasius whereas in all Manuscript and Printed Bibles the Prologue of St. Jerom stiled Galeatus was placed before them by a common and universal consent of the Latin Church to be a sure Index and Discrimination of the Apocryphal and Ecclesiastical Books from the Canonical And this is the true Reason why many of the forecited Authors speaking of the Apocryphal Books mention sometimes but Five or Six viz. Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Judith Tobit and the Book of Maccabees to wit because St. Jerom in his Prologue upon the Book of Kings mentions them only though in his Preface to the Book of Jeremy he rejects Baruch and in his Preface upon Daniel he rejects the History of Susanna the Song of the Three Children and the Fables of Bell and the Dragon and so do they who Comment on these Books by his Example and with respect unto his Judgment So that from what hath been discoursed it is exceeding evident against the confident Assertions of Mr. M. and J. L. That after the Fifth Century it was the General Opinion of the Church till the Sixteenth Century that the Canonical Books were only Two or Four and Twenty and that those Books we stile Apocryphal did not belong unto the Canon and were not of validity sufficient to confirm Articles of Christian Faith. Concerning General Councils our Church asserts Two Things 1. Art. 21. That they may not be called together without the commandment and will of Princes 2. That they may erre and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Now touching the first Proposition That General Councils may not be called together without the Commandment and Will of Princes the Eastern Churches concurr in Judgment with us Sguropylus in his History of the Council of Florence saith That in their Synod held about the Vnion of the Eastern and the Western Churches they unanimously declared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 2. c. 8. That the Emperor according to his ancient Custom and Prerogative was to call Oecumenical Synods and no other was to do it And again The Emperor saith he Sect. 10. cap. 2. p 280. and the Greeks contended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was the Previlege of the Emperor to call the Synod and upon that account his Name was placed first in it as was manifest from the Acts of the Councils The ablest Writers of the West say the same thing Cardinal Cusanus declares We must say touching a General Council De Concord Cath. l. 2. c. 2. f. 39. That the Authority of it doth not so depend on him that calls it that if the Pope do not call it it should be no Council quia tunc non fuissent omnia octa universalia Concilia firma quoniam per Imperatores congregabantur for then none of the Eight General Councils would be firm they being all called by the Emperors from whom the Bishop of Rome as other Patriarchs received by Letters missive a publick warning to come or send unto the Councils And again From what hath been discoursed it appears Lib. 3 c. 13. Imperatores sanctos congregationes Synodales universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper fecisse That the Emperors did always call General Councils This saith he I have found to be true by perusing the Acts of all the General Councils to the Eighth inclusively And so I have read in the Gloss of Anastasius the Pope's Library-Keeper Quòd universales Synodos de omni terra Imperatores colligere soliti fuerunt That the Emperors were wont to Assemble General Councils Dum lego veteres Historias In reading of the ancient Histories I find not saith Aeneas Sylvius that Popes alone did call Councils Lib. 1. de Concil Basil p. 20. Lib. 3. Art. 1 q nor after in the time of Constantine and other Emperors quaesitus est magnopere Romani assensus Papae was the assent of the Pope of Rome much sought after Jacobatius informs us That à principio facultas congregandi concilia spectabat ad Imperatores the power of gathering Councils belonged to the Emperors from the beginning Lib. 1. c. 2. §. 2 3 4. Hist Eccles l. 5. in Prooem Richerius in his History of General Councils is very frequent in his full Assertions of this matter proving this clearly from those words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since that the Emperors became Christians the greatest Synods were and are held by their pleasure But it is needless to insist longer on this Head since Sancta Clara on this Article saith Pag. 294. Apol. 2. advers Ruff. f. 79. b. Where Erasinus saith Nota Lector olim Synodos Imperatorum jussu congregari solitas These words seem to be confirmed by the Authority of St. Jerom who rejects a Council with this Question Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jussit congregari What Emperor commanded the Assembling of that Synod As if he held the command of the Emperor to be necessary to that end sic observatum patet in omnibus fere conciliis veteribus and so 't is evident it was observed
most Christian Churches Saint Jerom that in process of time it obtained Authority Estius notes That they who before doubted of it in the Fourth Century embraced the Opinion of them who received it Praefat. in Epist Jacobi and that from thence no Church no Ecclesiastical Writer is found who ever doubted of it but on the contrary all the Catalogues of the Books of Holy Scripture published by General or Provincial Councils Roman Bishops or other Orthodox Writers number it among Canonical Scriptures quae probatio ad certam fidem faciendam cuique Catholico sufficere debet which proof must give sufficient certainty of it to any Catholick The Second Epistle of St. Peter Pag. 58. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. p. 220. is cited by Origen against Marcian under the Name of Peter Firmilion saith That both Paul and Peter in suis Epistolis Haereticos execrati sunt ut eos evitemus monuerunt in their Epistles condemned Hereticks and admonished us to avoid them which is done by Saint Peter only in this Epistle Eusebius saith That it was commemorated by many and that they who did not reckon it Canonical yet held it very useful on which account Lib. 3. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was much studied with other Scriptures The same Eusebius informs us That his First Epistle was always owned by all Christians and thence we may have full assurance of the Truth of this Epistle for there are not saith the Reverend Doctor Hammond greater Evidences of any Epistles being written by the acknowledged Author of it than these Cap. 1. v. 1. The Title of Simon Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ The Voice which came from Heaven saying vers 17 18. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased we heard when we Peter and John and James were with him in the Holy Mount this second Epistle beloved I write unto you that you may be mindful of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour Cap. 3. v. 1 2. All which are certain Demonstrations That Simon Peter the Apostle of our Lord who was with him in Mount-Tabor and there heard the Voice forementioned and who writ the First Epistle to the Twelve Tribes dispersed writ this also Note Lastly That after the Fourth Century § 22 there appears not the least intimation that any of these Books were any longer doubted of by any Orthodox Professor of the Christian Faith they being all received and reckoned as Canonical by the Councils and Fathers who mentioned the Canon of the New Testament Now from these premisses there is just ground to make this Inference and Conclusion That seeing most of the Catalogues of the Fourth Century given by Councils or by Fathers and all the Catalogues of the Fifth Century unquestionably assure us that what was once controverted by some few was afterwards unanimously received by all the Church of God we are sufficiently assured of the true Canon of the Books of the New Testament The evidence now produced even of these controverted Books being sufficient both in the judgment of all Catholicks and of all Christians who on these grounds alone receive them as such to assure us that they are Canonical Scripture for by what reason can any Man evince that ought to be rejected from the Canon which always was received as Canonical by the greatest part of the Church Catholick and being accurately enquired into by those who once were Doubters found such an uncontroulled reception through the whole Church diffused as stifled through all future Ages the least appearance of a doubt Hence then the Roman § 23 Doctors may discern what it is they have to do if they do undertake to shew us such a Tradition for those Roman Doctrines we reject as hath been shew'd for the Controverted Books of the New Testament And 1. It must be owned by them that it cannot be necessary to Salvation to believe or have an absolute assurance that these are true and Apostolical Traditions and therefore Haec est fides extra quam salus esse non potest This is the Catholick Faith without which there is no Salvation must be excluded from the Roman Creed 2. It must be also owned that the pretented Traditions of the present R. Church were for some Centuries controverted and rejected by whole Churches Orthodox and Apostolical and which were as such owned and embraced by all Christians and that some of them were or at least might have been for the first Four Centuries disowned by the Church of Rome as was one of these controverted Books and consequently it must be owned that she could not then be received as Mater Magistra omnium Ecclesiarum the Mother and Mistress of all Churches 3. It must be proved that there was the same necessity that these controverted Books should be known and received from the beginning by all Christians as that the necessary Traditions and Articles of Christian Faith should be so 4. It must be proved that these Traditions were always owned and mentioned as Divine and Apostolical Traditions by many Orthodox Churches and Fathers and even when controverted were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acknowledged by most of the Church Guides To instance in the Apocalypse which Mr. M. on all occasions singles out as a Book whose Authenticalness cannot be better proved than their Traditions let him shew us any such Testimonies from the First Second and Third Centuries for the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome as we have shewed for the Apocalypse any one that saith of them as Denys of Alexandria doth of the Apocalypse That he durst not reject it by reason of the multitude of Christians who had a veneration for it let him produce the plain Testimonies of the Fathers that the Truth of these Traditions may be decided by the Testimonies of the Ancients that they owned them as Apostolical by virtue of their Testimony that the Ancient and Holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God gave Testimony to them and that they were the Traditions of holy Men inspired by God All these things have been said of the Apocalypse in the Four first Centuries and when Mr. M. can produce any thing of the like nature evidence and strength for any one of his Traditions we will own it as Divine and Apostolical Here then we see the greatest and the plainest difference betwixt the Traditions we receive and own and those pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome which we reject For 1. The Traditions we receive are Traditions handed down in writing to us throughout all Ages of the Church unto this present time the Traditions we reject are only presumptive Traditions such as the Church of Rome presumes to be so but yet they have no Footsteps in the Ancient Records of the Church of Christ which is a demonstration that they falsly do presume they are Traditions for as we could have no just reason to believe those which we own to be