entire System of the Christian Faith than by committing it to Writing that Piety should not permit even the Romans to rest satisfied without such written Monuments of what they had been taught or to conceive it was sufficient that they had received it by Tradition and that the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost instructed the Apostles to commit to writing that which they had Preached by Word of Mouth that so it might become to future Ages the Pillar and the Ground of Truth and a sufficient Antidote against the Heresies which afterwards prevailed in the Church Euseb H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 37. And that the zeal of the first Successors of Christian Faith imployed it self as much in leaving to their Converts throughout all the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Writings of the Holy Gospels as in preaching Christ unto them In Answer to Mr. M's Fourth Reason for the Infallibility of Tradition I grant P. 354. That a Tradition made as credible to any Man as it may be made credible to one who never saw London that there is such a City as London and that it is the head Town of England will be a good and a sufficient Proof that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are true and that upon such Evidence afforded it will be most unreasonable to question the Truth of them but then I think it is the vainest thing imaginable for any person to attempt to prove them from a like Tradition For doth Mr. M. know of any Man whoever doubted that there was such a City as London or that it was the head Town of England Did he ever read or hear of any large Discourses any Testimonies brought from ancient Records or Traditions from Divine Revelation or from Reason to prove there was or could be no such Capital City in England Can he produce as many Eye and Ear Witnesses that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are truly Apostolical as may be easily produced for such a City Let Mr. M. once prove that the Traditions of the Romish Church were always generally received by all Mankind and that none ever had the Confidence to Question the Truth of any of them Let him prove them from Myriads of Eye Witnesses who saw them writ by the Apostles or Primitive Professors of Christianity as plainly as ever any Man saw London or as many Ear Witnesses hearing the Apostles preaching these Traditions as ever heard this Capital City mentioned by those who saw it Let him prove them by as many persons who writ to the Apostles concerning these Traditions as have writ to London and by as many who resorted to the Apostles to learn these Traditions as have resorted to this City by as many Books describing these Traditions in the very Age in which they are supposed to have been delivered as there are Books which in this Age make mention of the City of London and by as many Canons of the Primitive Church relating to these Traditions as there are Statutes and Discourses relating to the City Trade and Government of London And I will then acknowledge That it is impudent impious and blasphemous Impiety to doubt the Truth of these Traditions Mr. M. indeed supposeth That it is as evidently credible that God hath revealed such and such Verities as it is credible by humane Tradition that there is such a City as London but this he never undertakes to prove as knowing that it was an easier matter to suppose it P. 355 356. And then he adds That the very self same Tradition tells me that the same God who revealed by his Apostles so many other Verities to his Church did also reveal by the same Apostles to the same Church that this Church was to be heard as the Mistress of Truth with whom he would ever be present suggesting to her all Truth and never permitting the Gates of Hell to prevail against her that he placed her as a Pillar and Ground of Truth giving her such Pastors as should secure her Children from being tossed to and fro with every Wind of Doctrine and consequently this same Tradition tells me God hath revealed this Verity of her being Infallible in proposing any Point for Divine Faith. Now Reply First Mr. M. is miserably out in this Discourse for not one of these Revelations here mentioned whatsoever is the import of them have descended to us by Oral Tradition but are all of them contained in Scripture as far as they are truly cited Secondly Whereas the Evidence that there is such a City as London is so great that never any Body could deny or question it that the Church is Infallible in propounding any Point of Faith not clearly revealed in the Holy Scripture or that there are indeed any such Points of Faith is at present and hath been formerly denied by many Myriads of learned and pious Men whose worldly Interest it is and was to believe that true which they deny to be so and whose rejoicement it would be to find it true and that none of the places here produced prove this Infallibility or by the Primitive Professors of Christianity were esteemed to prove it they have unanimously held and do at present hold Thirdly Ibid. Whereas he saith He did see with his Eyes that she viz. the Church of God did propose her Traditions for Verities received from God. Let it be noted That Mr. M. confounds the Church of Rome and the Church of God excluding all the Protestants the Greek Church and the Eastern Christians not subject to the Pope from that Church out of which there is no Salvation which I hope is not so evident as that there is such a City as London for it is not the whole Church but that of Rome which claims this Infallibility and on that account proposeth her Traditions for Verities received from God. Now then let us return to our Capital City of London and we shall find the whole Nation though of different Parties Interests and Judgments agreeing that there is in England such a Capital City as London but yet we find half the whole Christian World utterly denying many Traditions of the Church of Rome to be Verities received from God and in particular that of the Pope's Supremacy without which the Church of Rome neither doth nor can pretend to be the whole Church Catholick Now this denial of her pretended Traditions by so many Churches professing a like Veneration for those Traditions which are truly Primitive must prove as strongly that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are falsly so called as her Assertion can be supposed to prove them Divine Verities Again whereas there are no universally received Records which give us the least cause to doubt whether there be such a City as London c. the Records of the Scriptures Councils and Fathers of the Church cause many Myriads to believe the Doctrines and Practices peculiar to the Roman Church are so far from being Apostolical Traditions that they
and never cast out any from the Church who practised as they did particularly that Polycarp coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus acted like Polycrates and would not be perswaded to comply with the custom of the Church of Rome in this particular yet they communicated and Received the Sacrament together departed in Peace without contention about this matter and both of them preserved peace with all the Churches which differed from them in this observation From all which it is evident that Irenaeus charged Victor as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lover of Contention a breaker of the Church's Peace one who denied Communion with and did attempt the rejection of the Asiatick Churches without cause and therefore must necessarily judge him to be the Schismatick and so he could not possibly conceive that by Victor's Excommunication the Asiaticks could be separated from the common Union but rather that the Pope and his Church if they concurred with him in the second Letter as in the first they did and as it was the custom of those times to do must be the Schismaticks And therefore whereas Pope Victor writ Letters to engage all Churches to break off Communion with the Asiaticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p. 193 194. Irenaeus writes Letters of the same import with this to Victor to the Bishops of most other Churches to engage them to preserve Peace and Communion with the Asiaticks So opposite is he in all things to the proceedings of the Pope and Church of Rome and yet in all this he is commended as a Man who in this matter acted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fittingly as a true Irenaeus or Peacemaker that is as one who answered his name by his endeavour to preserve the Church's Peace which Victor laboured to disturb And 't is observable that all the Churches of God complied with the Desire of Irenaeus for though they differed Eccl Hist l. 1. c. 8. saith Socrates about this Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet did they not separate from Communion one with another on that account Now the Inferences which naturally flow from this Relation in favour of the Protestants against the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy the necessity of Union to and Communion with the Church of Rome and other Articles of like nature I shall not farther insist upon only hence note First § 15 The falseness of the Rule forementioned which is the Ground and Foundation of the Guide of Controversies for here we find the Pope deciding of a Controversie E Cathedra and with his Roman Synod we also find that most other Bishops and Churches of the Christian World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass the same Judgment of the Controversie with the Pope and his Roman Council and yet by no means will they allow that they who were of another Judgment and acted contrary to their determination should be molested for it or treated otherwise than Christian Brethren 't is therefore imposible they should have held that all Christians were obliged either to adhere in any matter of dissent to the decision of the major part or to the decision of the Pope and Church of Rome for then they must have held the Asiaticks and others who agreed with them to be Schismaticks and to deserve exclusion from the Communion of the Church for acting in opposition to her Great and only Rule of Peace and Unity yea it is impossible that should have always been as he pretends an universal Rule of Church Practice according to which so many Churches do refuse to practise and yet are by their fellow Christians owned as Brethren and persons not to be molested upon that account Secondly Hence note How difficult a thing it is to know even in a matter of the constant practice of all Christians in the Second Century what the Tradition of the Apostles was a Tradition being pretended on one side to derive from Peter and to be Apostolical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Syn. Arim. p. 872. Ep. ad Pag. 933. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Tom. 6. Hom. 28. p. 379. l. 33. and yet all the Churches of Asia Syria Mesopotamia Cilicia saith Athanasius of Antioch saith Chrysostom having a contrary Tradition which say they derived from Philip and St. John and so undoubtedly was Apostolical and Canons as from these Apostles being produced on both sides if then they were so divided about Tradition when the Apostles was scarce cold in their Graves and that in matters of their daily practice what assurance can we have of any Traditions contested in this present Age If a Custom might then arise and be delivered to Posterity with great variety in the Lent Fast so that some Christians thought they were to keep it but One day some Two some more some Forty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Iren. apud Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. p. 192 193. and all this through the negligence of the then present Rulers of the Church how may the practice of the whole Church of Rome now vary from what it was in the beginning Or why should that be judged impossible with them which by their own confession hath actually happened for this last Seven hundred Years to the whole Eastern Church Or what certainty can be had of contested Traditions subject to such variety and change in a short time and in a matter of continual practice when we are distant from the Fountain of them One thousand six hundred Years A Second Instance of like nature is that of the dispute betwixt Pope Stephen and St. Cyprian touching the Rebaptizing of those Persons who only were Baptized by Hereticks as will be evident from these ensuing Observations viz. First That the Opinion of Pope Stephen was professedly this § 16 That whatsoever Hereticks did take upon them to Baptize the Persons so Baptized were to be admitted into Church Communion without farther Baptism so his Opinion is propounded in his own words by Cyprian viz. Si quis a quacunque N.B. Haerest venerit ad nos manus illi imponantur ad poenitentiam Ep. 74. p. 211. That from whatsoever Heresie a Person did return into the Church he was to be admitted only by imposition of Hands and not by Baptism Eusebius infroms us that the Controversie which arose betwixt them was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 2. Whether they who returned from any kind of Heresie were to be purged by Baptism or only by imposition of Hands with Prayer St. Cyprian adds De Marcionis Baptismo item Valentini Apelletis contendit filios deo nasci Ep. 74. p. 214. 73. p. 199 200. That he declared the Baptism of Valentinus Marcion and Apelles to be valid and beget Sons to God although it was the Baptism of Men who did Blaspheme the Father and the Son August de Haer. c. 11 22 23. vide Danaeum Ibid. which certainly they did for they asserted That there were two Gods and that
the Apostles understood not or neglected if they did not fulfil them but hid some of the Light that is of the Word of God and Sacramenti Christi of the Doctrine of Christ. Whereas saith he it was incredibile vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae nobis edidiffe that eitheir the Apostles were ignorant of any thing they were to preach or that they did not perfectly reveal the Rule of Faith to all He also shews That the Church did not alter what she had received from the Apostles because the Rule of Faith was one and the same in all Churches of Christ they being all one Chap. 20. ejusdem Sacramenti una traditione by having the same Tradition of the same Rule of Faith and because they did in eadem fide conspirare agree in the same Faith this Rule this Creed mentioned Chapter the Thirteenth must therefore be according to Tertullian the fulness of the Apostles preaching the entire Rule of Faith they preached to all or else according to him the Apostles must be ignorant or unfaithful and his ensuing Argument That all succeeding Churches agreed in this Rule as in the Tessera Hospitalitatis the Signal of Friendship Ibid. that it was one and the same among them all and that they who were not by Original Apostolical Churches were yet Apostolical because they did conspire with them that were so in the Belief of this Faith is a farther demonstration that this Creed was the entire Faith delivered by the Apostles and taught by all Churches since otherwise Tertullian's Argument must be false for he expresly undertakes to prove that the Apostles delivered to the Churches the entire Rule of Faith and that the Churches did faithfully transmit to posterity the whole Faith they received from them and that because they all transmitted the Apostles Creed mentioned Chapter the Thirteenth had not then that contained the whole Christian Faith owned then by all the Orthodox as such Tertullian had given up the Cause unto the Hereticks for they might have replied upon him as do the Romanists to us that the Apostles delivered many other Traditions as necessary to be believed as those contained in the Creed and that these were the Doctrines which they owned and Tertullian rejected Hence then our Demonstration from these words of Tertullian is invincible All Christians conspired in this that this Rule of his contained the whole Faith received from the Apostles beyond which nothing was necessary to be believed whosoever could produce this Creed they received into Communion pro consanguinitate doctrinae because agreeing with them in the Faith and whosoever pretended to any Articles of Faith not mentioned in this Creed they confuted them by saying they had no such Article in the Creed and therefore the Apostles Chap. 32 33. nihil tale docuerunt taught no such thing and rejected them ob diversitatem Sacramenti as holding a Faith different from that of the Church Now how is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith The Errors of the Churches had there been any in delivering their entire Rule of Faith must needs have varied but that which amongst them all was one and the same must be a sure Tradition and then the Doctrines of the Roman Creed must be rejected as not taught by the Apostles and as different from the Churches Faith. Mr. M. Ibid. Lo here plain Protestantism in the highest point proved and approved by all Christians within Two hundred Years after Christ The same Doctrine is delivered Chapter the Nineteenth and the Twentieth Pag. 429 430. on which Mr. M. insists Sect. 20. Num. 4. for there he tells us That our Lord sent his Twelve Apostles eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgare to preach the same Doctrine of Faith to the Nations and so to plant Churches in every City from which other Churches received traducem fidei femina doctrinae the Tradition of their Faith and the Seeds of Doctrine and embracing of it became all Apostolical by receiving the same Rule of Faith. Hence therefore saith he we prescribe against the Hereticks Hinc igitur dirigimus praescriptionem Cap. 21. for if our Lord sent his Apostles to preach we must receive no other Preachers of the Faith than he appointed now what they preached ought not to be otherwise proved than by the same Churches which they planted eis praedicando tam vivâ quod aiunt voce quam per Epistolas postea by preaching to them by word of mouth and afterwards by their Epistles And if so 't is manifest saith he that Doctrine is to be accounted true which conspires with the Apostolical Churches whence Faith had its Original and that is to be rejected which contradicts that Faith it remains therefore uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cujus Regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur ex hoc ipso an caeterae de mendacio veniunt that we demonstrate whether our Doctrine the Rule of which we have laid down Chapter the Thirteenth derives from the Tradition of the Apostles and consequently whether all others be not false He therefore doth again declare That the Creed mentioned by him there is the entire Rule of Faith and that by which we may discern who hold the Truth and who teach Falshood And argues thus All the Apostolical Churches have delivered this Creed as that entire Doctrine which they received from the Apostles and all the Hereticks say the contrary therefore their Doctrine must be rejected and that of the Apostolick Churches be received as the Truth Mark here Pag. 429. to use the words of Mr. M. how the first ground on which we are to stand as upon a ground most advantageous for gaining the victory against Error and purchasing triumph to Truth is the Tradition of this Creed of the Apostles as the entire Rule of Faith for by that alone we assuredly know whether our Doctrine of which the Rule is given Chapter the Thirteenth came from Apostolical Tradition from this Rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles by word of Mouth and by their Writings and then by Tradition delivered down by successive practice of all Churches to which Churches Tertullian here expresly sends us will be discovered that only Tradition of the Rule of Faith in which totum Christianae fidei Sacramentum all the Mysteries of Christian Faith are contained And thus Tertullian goes on pressing his Adversary meerly by the Tradition of this Creed as the entire Rule of Faith and this way and only this way he prescribes that we ought to shew what Christ and his Apostles taught Fifthly § 9 Hence we return an Answer to that demand so often but so vainly made What Catalogue have you of Fundamental Articles of Faith For here is a Catalogue of them recommended to the whole World of Christians by so great Authority as may well be esteemed
should arise Or 2. True Rules misapplied and misconstrued and therefore actually false to them who thus mistake the Purpose of them 3. The Admiration of the Persons and the Reverence of the Authority of Men subject to like Mistakes and Errors with us 4. The Advantages we may obtain by the promoting of some Doctrines the Tendency they have to the gratifications of our Avarice our Pride and love of Empire and other sinful lusts 5. The Corruptions in our Manners which dispose and fit us for Delusions 6. That Ignorance and Negligence in reference to Sacred things which rendereth us an easy prey to the Deluders subtilty 7. Lastly The Force and Terror and Torments and Punishments which may be used to affright us into an outward and Hypocritical profession of what we do not from our hearts believe or a concealment of our inward Sentiments I Say these being the chief inducements to a change in Doctrine or in Practice and all these things so palpably and frequently concurring to the establishment of the New Doctrines and the supposed Traditions of the Church of Rome what wonder is it that they should so mightily obtain in the dark Ages of the World and by those methods carry all before them And truly 't is so evident that upon the concurrence of those circumstances the true Faith might decay and Error might be introduced in the Western Churches that the Historians Carol. Mag. Cent. 8. and Writers of those dark and evil Ages do confess it actually was so That the Priests brought into the Church such Doctrines as were never known to Christ and his Apostles Rolwink ad A. Christi 884. That this was tempus pessimum in quo defecit sanctus veritates diminutae sunt a filiis hominum the worst of times in which the Holy man failed and Truth was diminished from the sons of men Baron A. D. 912. Carthus fasciculo temporum ad A. 1000. That the Ancient Traditions were then proscribed That the Christian Faith extreamly did begin to fail and decline from its former vigor neither the Sacraments nor Ecclesiastical Rites being observed Apol. Clerus Leod. A.D. 1066 Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad A.D. 1237. p. 438. Alvar. Pelag. de planctu Eccl. l. 2. c. 5. Cent. 14. That the Holy Philosophy by the subtile interpretation of Sycophants began to be corrupted poluted violated with human Inventions and old wives Fables That the spark of Faith began to wax exceeding cold and was almost reduced to ashes so that it scarce did sparkle That the Church was eclipsed with the black mist of Ignorance Iniquity and Error That they did not only not receive sound Doctrine but bitterly persecuted all that resisted the madness of their wills Clemang de Egressu ex Bab. p. 177. Cent. 15. And that following the erring herd men willingly embraced false things for true That the variety of Pictures and Images occasioned Idolatry in the Simple That Apocryphal Scriptures Gerson de defect Eccles Virorum 30. idem de direct Cordis Consid 16. Hymns and Prayers were brought into the Church to the great hurt of Christian faith That there was much Superstition in the Worship of Saints and many Observations without all ground or reason Credulity in believing things concerning the Saints reported in the uncertain Legends of their Lives Ibid. Consid 29 30. dubious opinions of obtaining Pardon and Remission of Sins by saying so many Pater Nosters in such a Church before such an Image as if in the Scripture and Authentick Writings of Holy Men there were not sufficient directions for all Acts of Piety and Devotion without these fabulous and frivolous additaments That sundry lewd assertions Dial. Apol. Judicium de Can. Const prejudicial to the States of Kings and Princes could not be condemned in the Council of Constance though many great ones much urged their condemnation by reason of a mighty Faction which prevailed in it Ibid. That exorbitant Abuses and Errors which were crept into the Church found no amendment nor was a Reformation in things concerning Faith Card. Camer de Squal Ecoles p. 34. and Religion Doctrine and Manners to be expected till the Secular Powers took it in hand That Pagan Abuses and Diabolical Superstitions were so many at Rome that they could not well be imagined Cent. 16. That they were fallen with one consent from Religion to Superstition Bishop of Bitonto and Espencaeus Vide Supra from Faith to Infidelity from Christ to Antichrist That there was such a neglect of the Word as made it necessary that Faith should perish That the Faith and Religion Preached by Christ and settled afterwards by his Apostles and cultivated by their Epistles is so different a thing from that Christianity that is now professed and taught at Rome that if these Holy Men should be sent again by God into the world they would take more pains to confute this Gallimaufry than ever they did to preach down the Traditions of the Pharisees Machiavil Epist ad Zanob Buon Delmont before his works in English or the Fables and Idolatry of the Gentiles and would in probability suffer a New Martyrdom under the Vicar of Christ for the same Doctrine which once animated the Heathen Tyrants against them He that desires to read more of the Confessions made by the few comparatively learned of these Ages of the corruptions both in doctrine and manners and the prodigious ignorance which then obtained may find more than enough in a book Styled Catalogus testium veritatis and Morney 's Mystery of Iniquity OF TRADITION The State of the Question CHAP. I. 1. It is acknowledged that a Doctrine is neither more or less the Word of God for being written or unwritten § 1. 2dly It is proved That the assurance which we have that Scripture is the Word of God is greater than can be produced for any pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome The Grounds of this assurance are 1. The necessity that the Word of God should be preserved in some Records and the certainty we have that actually it was so 2. That the Records of the New Testament averr That they were written by the Servants and Apostles of our Lord whose Names they by a general and uncontrouled Tradition bear and so by Men assisted with the Holy Ghost and writing the Commandments of the Lord. 3. That the matter of them is worthy of the God of Heaven to reveal 4. That they were owned read and appealed to as such by all Christians 5. The Jews and Heathens made their Objections against Christianity out of them and attempted the ruine of the Christian Faith by destroying them and that none of these particulars agree to the Traditions of the Church of Rome rejected by us § 2. For farther Explication of the Question observe 2dly That our Dispute with the Church of Rome is chiefly about doctrinal and not historical Traditions § 3. The uncertainty 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
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
Traditions did we not find them thus handed down to us in these Writings so can we have no reason to receive the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome because they are not handed down unto us in this manner But saith Mr. M. Before we can know true Books § 24 and true Copies of Books from false P. 407 408. we must first know true Tradition from false that we assuredly may say these are the true Books of Scripture these are the true Copies of those Books because true Tradition commends them for such these be false Books or false Copies of true Books because the Tradition which commends these is false tell me the means by which infallibly the true Tradition in this point may be known from the false and that very means I will assign in other points to know true Tradition from false This Objection I retort thus Resp before we can know true Tradition from false we must know true Faith from false for true Tradition is only the Tradition of the Faithful that is of those who do entirely believe all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith and if I must first know this Faith before I can know true Tradition I cannot need Tradition to instruct me in the Christian Faith. Again tell me the means by which I may know true Faith antecedently to Tradition and the very same means will I assign to know the Faith of Protestants without it 2. This Argument in the Mouth of an unbelieving Jew that lived in the Days of Christ and his Apostles pleads as strongly for the vain Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees and the whole Jewish Nation rejected by our Lord and his Apostles as for the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome v. g. you send us to Moses and the Prophets to learn the true Messiah and from these Scriptures you attempt to prove your Jesus is the Messiah promised to the Jews but before you can know whether the Books you cite be the true Books of Moses and the Prophets and the Copies you have of them be true Copies you must know true Tradition from false tell me then the means by which infallibly the true Tradition in this Point may be known from the false and that very means will I assign to prove the Traditions of the Jewish Church rejected by your Lord and his Apostles to be true Whatsoever Answer Mr. M. can return to this Objection will be as applicable to his own 3. To this demand I answer That where the Tradition deriveth from the Fountain of Tradition and can be proved by written Testimonies to have done so And 2ly that where it is a Tradition not of a matter of Fact but Faith and passeth down without controul and contradiction of any that were then and after owned by other Churches as true Christian Brethren And 3ly where it can be proved irrational and absurd that the Tradition could have so long and generally obtained without just ground of being owned as such there the Tradition ought to be embraced as true When therefore Mr. M. hath proved the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome to have these Three Characters of true Tradition we shall have equal reason to admire his Parts as we have now to wonder at his Confidence but they who can believe Impossibilities may be allowed to undertake them CHAP. IV. Sixthly We distinguish betwixt Traditions touching purely Doctrinals or divine Revelations touching Articles of Faith and Matters of Practice in the first the Fathers have been subject to mistake in Doctrines not Fundamental as appears 1. From the Doctrine of the Mellennium delivered in the Second and Third Centuries as a Tradition received from Christ and his Apostles § 1. As a thing of which they were certain Ibid. 2. As a Doctrine proved from variety of Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament which could say they receive no other sence § 2.3 As a Doctrine denied only by Hereticks or such as were deceived by them § 3. It was embraced by the greatest number of Christians and Church Guides delivering it not as Doctors only but Testators § 4. Hence the uncertainty of such Traditions is demonstrated and the falshood of the pretended Tradition for Invocation of Saints § 5. 2ly A like mistake is proved from the general Doctrine of the Fathers of the four first Centuries that the Day of Judgment was nigh at hand § 6. And that the time of Antichrists coming was at hand § 7. That the World should end after Six thousand Years that is according to their computation Five hundred Years after our Saviour's Advent § 8. The Inferences hence Ibid. In matters of practice we distinguish Seventhly betwixt such as have been generally received without contest in the purest Ages of the Church and such as have been contested and disowned by Orthodox Churches or Members of the Church and that we cannot depend with certainty on the latter is proved 1. From the Contest betwixt P. Victor and the Asiaticks touching the Easter Festival in which it is observed 1. That the greatest part of the Christian World consented in judgment with Victor and his Synod § 9.2 That they who with him kept this Feast on the Lord's Day pleaded an Apostolical Tradition for that Practice § 10. 3. That they who kept it with the Jews pleaded the same Tradition and with greater Evidence § 11. 4. That when the Pope endeavoured by terrifying Letters to affright them from their practice all the Asiaticks and Neighbouring Provinces refused to hearken to him and condemned him for it § 12. 5. That hereupon Victor attempted to Excommunicate them and commanded others to have no Communion with them § 13. 6. That notwithstanding this injunction all the other Churches held Communion with them and sharply reprehended Victor as a disturber of the Church's Peace § 14. Inferences hence shewing the Falshood of the Fundamental Rule of the Guide of Controversies and the uncertainty of Tradition § 15. Which is farther proved from the Contest betwixt P. Stephen and St. Cyprian and the Asiaticks touching the Baptizing of Hereticks where 't is observed 1. That the Opinion of Stephen was for the Baptizing of no Hereticks no not those who were not Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost that of St. Cyprian for the Baptizing of all Hereticks and Schismaticks § 16. 2. That Pope Stephen proceeded to an Excommunication of his Brethren upon this account and a refusal of Communion with them and so did Pope Xystus and Dionysius after him whereas they of Africa judged no Man who differed from them § 17. 3. Observe that the Opinion of the Africans and other Eastern Churches was asserted by many Christian Doctors Churches and Councils and was of long continuance after this dispute § 18. 4. Observe that as Pope Stephen pretended to Apostolical and Original Tradition for his Opinion so did the contrary Party for their Opinion § 19. 5. That
such as want the Evidence of Reason to assure us of their Truth of the latter kind is the Tradition that Enoch and Elias are to appear as Christ's Fore-runners at the Day of Judgment § 1. This Tradition is very ancient and found no Contradiction in the Church § 2. It was also the general Tradition of the Jews that Elias was to come in Person before the first coming of their Messiah Ibid. And yet this is not countenanced but plainly is confuted by the Scriptures § 3. The promise in Malachy belongs not to Christ's Second but to his first Advent Ibid. The Elias there promised was not Elias in Person but John the Baptist § 4. The Objections against this Assertion answered Ibid. Two Corollaries 1. That Tradition is not always a sure Interpreter of Scripture 2. That Oral Tradition is not of absolute certainty in matters of Speculation § 5 6. The Tradition of the Superiority of Bishops over Presbbyters may be relied upon because it is strengthened by Reason § 7. So also is the Tradition of the true Copies of Scripture where note 1. That we cannot know the Scriptures are not corrupted from the Infallibility of the Jewish or the Christian Church § 8 9. But we may know from Reason grounded upon Scripture 1st That the Scriptures were committed pure to the Christian Church § 10. 2dly That the immediate succeeding Age could want no assurance of their Purity whilst the Autographae were extant § 11. 3dly That these Records being so generally dispersed could not be then corrupted § 11. 4ly That the whole Church would not and part of them could not corrupt them § 13. 5ly That the Providence of God would not permit them to be corrupted in Substantials § 14. No like proof can be given that the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome have been thus handed down unto us § 15. The Objection of Mr. Mumford is answered § 16. WE distinguish betwixt Traditions which can be made appear by Reason to be such as ought to be received Dist 8. and which we therefore think our selves obliged to receive and such as cannot by Reason be proved to have derived from the Apostles though they appeared very early in the Church Of the first Nature are the Traditions of the Canon of Scripture of the Copies handed down to us without Corruption in any necessary Articles of Christian Faith of the Observation of the Lord's Day c. Of the Second Order are the Traditions of the Millennary Doctrine of the Appearance of Enoch and Elias the Tisbite as the Forerunners of the Day of Judgment And of Traditions of this Nature we say we have no Ground sufficient to receive them as Articles of Christian Faith or Apostolical Traditions The Appearance of Enoch and Elias § 1 then to resist the Seduction of Antichrist and to be slain by him is delivered thus De Resur Carnis c. 22. Enoch and Helias are saith Tertullian Translated caeterum morituri reservantur ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguant but they are reserved to die and shed their Blood for the Extinction of Antichrist This saith Petrus Alexandrinus is In Chronico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Apoc. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Tradition of the Church That Enoch is to come in the last Days with Helias to resist Antichrist It is saith Aretas unanimously received by the Church from Tradition that Enoch and Elias the Tisbite are to come The Tradition of the Advent of the Tisbite is as old as Justin Martyr § 2 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 268. and hath been constantly believed in the Church from that time till the Reformation that of Enoch's coming with him is as old as Tertullian it generally obtained in the following Centuries and found no Contradiction from any of the Writers of those times and yet I find no ground at all for this Tradition concerning Enoch For the Two Witnesses in the Revelations are not described like Enoch and Elias but like Moses and Elias Rev. xi 6. it being said They have Power to shut Heaven that it Rain not in the Days of their Prophecy which Elijah did and have Power over Waters to turn them into Blood and to smite the Earth with all Plagues as often as they will which we know Moses did but there is nothing in the description of these Witnesses relating in the least to Enoch As for Elias let it be considered First That it was the general Tradition of the Jewish Nation that Elias the Tisbite was to come in Person as the Forerunner of the Messiah of the Jews that he in Person was to Anoint him and make him known unto the People that before the Advent of the Son of David Elias was to come to Preach concerning him This is the Import of the Question of St. Joh. i. 21. Matt. xvij 10. Mal. iv 5. John Art thou Elias and of the Saying of the Scribes Elias must first come and restore all things of the Interpretation of the Seventy Behold I send unto you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elias the Tisbite and of that Saying of the Son of Syrach Elias was ordained for reproofs in their times Ecclus xliij 10. to pacifie the wrath of the Lord's Judgment before it break into fury and to turn the Heart of the Father to the Son and to restore the Tribes of Jacob. And suitably to these Assertions Trypho the Jew declares That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. p. 268. all we Jews expect Elias to Anoint Christ at his coming Secondly Observe That it was the general Tradition of the Writers of the Christian Church even from the Second Century that Elias the Tisbite is to come in person before our Lord's Second Advent to prepare Men for it This Opinion of the coming of Elias In Tetull de resur carn c. 22. Not. in Orig. p. 41. c. 1. tradit tota Patrum antiquitas all the ancient Fathers have delivered saith De la Cerda Constans est patrum omniumque consensu receptissima Ecclesiae opinio It is the constant and most received Opinion of the Church and all the Fathers saith Huetius Constantissima semper fuit Christianorum opinio It was always the most constant Opinion of Christians In Mat. xi 14. That Elias was to come before the Day of Judgment saith Maldonate It is saith Mr. Mede well known Disc 25. p. 48. that all the Fathers were of this Opinion He is to come saith Petrus Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Tradition of the Church saith Arethas Caesariensis In Apoc. 11. According to the unanimously received Opinion of the Church And yet if we may credit either the Angel or our Blessed Lord § 3 the Prophecy on which the Jews built this Tradition was fulfilled in John the Baptist And if we may believe the Ancient Fathers they built their Tradition on those words of Christ Elias cometh first and restoreth
follows 1. § 5 That the renowned Scribes and Doctors of the Jewish Church were all mistaken in their Interpretation of this place of Malachy That they and the whole Jewish Church had entertained a false Tradition in a matter of so great Consequence as the Fore-runner of their true Messiah for they all had embraced it as a Tradition That Elias was to come in Person before the first Appearance of the true Messiah Trypho apud Justin M. p. 268. they all interpreted that place of Malachy to that effect and thence concluded as they still obstinately do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That because Elias is not yet come in Person their Messiah was not come And yet this general Tradition of the Jewish Church gives no Assurance of the Truth of this Assertion or if it doth it must be then confessed that their Messiah is not yet come 2. Hence also we may learn how vainly Men pretend to absolute Certainty on the account of Oral Tradition for that Tradition was received as much as highly reverenced and regarded by the Scribes and Pharisees as by the Romanists I hope will easily be granted when we consider how zealous they were for the Customs and Traditions of the Fathers How they advanced the Tradition of the Elders even to the dissolution and making void the Law of God. And how frequent are such Maxims as these among them Vid. Leight in Matth. 15.2 The Words of the Scribes are more worthy than the Words of the Law and more weighty than the Words of the Prophets That the Words of the Elders are more weighty than the Words of the Prophets That they came from the Mouth of Moses as well as the written Law. That the written Law is narrow but the Traditional is longer than the Earth and broader than the Sea. And yet these Patrons of Tradition had not only generally received such Traditions as made void the Law of God but also such Traditions touching their Messiah his Fore-runner his temporal Kingdom his glorious Reign on Earth c. as gave Occasion to their Rejecting of him when he came If then the Jewish Church might pretend to oral Tradition as much as that of Rome and yet receive such Falshoods as Tradition which did evacuate the Law of God and cause them to reject their Saviour why may not they of Rome receive such Falshoods for Tradition as do evacuate the Law of Christ If the People were deceived and abused by following their Traditions why may not others be equally deceived in following the supposed Traditions of the Church of Rome 3. § 6 Hence also it will follow That the Tradition of the Doctors of the Christian Church can be no certain Evidence in Matters of meer Speculation or of Interpretation of Scripture that what they thus deliver is the Truth for they have generally taught from the third Century That Enoch is to come in the last days to resist Antichrist and be slain by him without the least appearance of any Ground for this Tradition And they have taught more generally even from the Second Century That Elias the Tisbite is to come in Person before our Saviour's second Advent and grounded this their Doctrine upon the Words of Malachy and of St. Matthew against the plain Assertion of our Lord and the most clear convincing Evidence that John the Baptist and he only was that Elias which according to the Prophecy of Malachy was to come as the Fore-runner of our Saviour In a word the Tradition of the Millennium of the Appearance of Enoch and Elias seem to have had their Rise from the Jewish Converts zealous of the Tradition of their Fathers and from them not from the Apostles to have gain'd Reputation in the Christian Church And the Tradition of Prayers for the Dead seems to have had the same Original But now if a Tradition hath been very ancient § 7 and can by Reason be demonstrated to have derived from the Apostles or to be worthy of Acceptation upon rational Grounds then it is sit to be embraced as such For Instance First We have it from Tradition That presently after the Apostles times all Churches were governed by Bishops presiding over Presbyters and Deacons as their lawful Governors whence we inferr we have just Reason to believe this form of Government was Apostolical since otherwise the Government left in all Churches by the Apostles must in the immediate following Age have been not only changed but corrupted every where But that in the frame and Substance of the established Government of the Church a thing always in use and practice there should be so suddain a Change so universal a Corruption in so short a time and that all Christians without the least Opposition that we read of De praescript c. 28. should conspire in this Corruption is a thing morally impossible For as Tertullian argues in like Case Variasse debuerat Error doctrinae Ecclesiarum quod autem apud omnes unum est non est erratum sed traditum What all Christian Churches did so early agree in practising Vniformly came not by Error but Tradition Moreover it is clearly proved by the most learned Bishop of Chester L. 2. c. 13 prima Assertio p. 157 c. That the Writers of the Second Century distinctly mention the several Orders of Bishops and their inferior Presbyters in the same Church and thereby give us Reason to conclude that this Disparity was generally setled in that Age. Now how improbable it is that either such a Change as must be here supposed were this an Innovation should happen unadvisedly or thorough Negligence or that the whole Church should have conspired so early to swerve from the established Order by placing Bishops above Presbyters without Complaint or the Resistance of any single Person that we hear of will appear if we consider 1. The Subjects of this Constitution viz. The Persons appointed by the Apostles to govern and preside in every Church they being constant Objects of every Persons common Sence seen in every Assembly imploy'd in every ecclesiastical Affair publick and private in which all Christians Sick or Well Living or Dying were concerned we may reasonably conceive that which some of the Apostles to gain upon the Jews did observe the Christian Feast of Easter on the Fourteenth Day of the Moon others might have mistaken this compliance as if the Apostles had judged that the fittest time for Christians of succeeding Ages to observe it in or that when they heard of an Elias to come before the terrible Day of the Lord or of the Reign of Christ on Earth a Thousand Years represented to St. John in a Vision they might mistake the genuine import of those Scriptures and of others of like nature but in a matter of this kind which was the daily object of the Senses of all Christians we cannot easily conceive how they could possibly mistake and not perceive that such a change was made if really it
nor be esteemed so presently the Charter of the Christian Faith had they been so forgetful as not to make them known to them for whose Sakes they were written They were Books which pretended to a Commission from the Holy Jesus to give Rules of Life and Doctrine to the Christian Churches which none but the Apostles and Evangelists could do all others still pretending to deliver what they received from them Lastly They being written partly to confirm and to ascertain to us the Story of Christ's Birth Life Passion Resurrection and partly to engage us to believe that Jesus was the Christ partly to put an end to those Contentions and to rectify those Errors which had crept into the Church in the Apostles Days and which did need a speedly Reformation partly to give Instructions for the Bishops Priests and Deacons and Governours of the Church how to behave themselves in their Offices partly to justify themselves against false Brethren and deceitful Workers and to preserve their Proselytes from such as did pervert the Faith and partly to instruct them how to bear up in fiery Trials and to support their Souls under the Sufferings and Temptations to which Christianity exposed them and therefore on those Grounds which did require their quick Dispatch upon that Errand and to those Churches for whose use they did intend them it is evident the Apostles must design that early Notice should be given of them and so commit them to their new born Proselytes and Babes in Christ Accordingly the Tradition of the Church assures us that when the Apostles went to preach to the Gentiles they desired them to leave in Writing the things which they had taught Vid. c. 7. §. 1 2. and that in compliance with their Desires they writ their Gospels and having preached the Gospel to them Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Postea verè per voluntatem dei in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum Columnam fidei futurum They afterwards by the Will of God delivered to them the Gospel they had Preached in Writing to be the Pillar and the Ground of Faith hereafter St. Peter speaks of all the Epistles of St. Paul shewing that at least many of them were then written Euseb Eccl. Hift. l. 3. c. 3. and others of the Ancients that they were all Fourteen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noted by and manifest to all though some doubted whether he were indeed the Author of one of them 2. § 11 It is evident that the immediate succeeding Age could not be ignorant of what was thus delivered to the Church and was commended to them by the Apostles as the Pillar and the Ground of Faith De Praescript c. 36. especially if we consider that the Autographa were still extant saith Tertullian some of those Persons were still living to whom they were directed and with whom they were intrusted and all those Churches still continued flourishing to whom they were sent and to whom they were read in publick and by whom in private 3. § 12 Those Records being once so generally dispersed through places at so great a distance as they were in the Second Century so universally acknowledged and consented to by Men of curious Parts and different Perswasions and repugnant Judgments and great Aversions from each other preserved in their Originals to succeeding Ages multiplied into divers Versions copied out by Christians for their private and for publick use esteemed by them as digesta nostra their Digests saith (a) Adv. Marc. l. 4. c. 3. Tertullian as (b) Concil Carthag apud Cypr. p. 232. Optatus l. 1. libri divini Scripturae deificae say the Martyrs believed by all Christians to be divine saith (c) Euseb H. Eccl. l 6. c. 25.3.25 Orig. contr Cels l. 3. p. 138. Origen And as the Records of their Hopes and Fears and thereupon being so carefully (d) Euseb H. Eccl. l. 4 c. 26. Lib. 8 cap. 11 13. Euseb l. 6. c. 19 p. 222. Justin M. Ap. 2. p. 98. sought after so riveted in their Minds for many say the Ancients had them entirely in their Memory they being so constantly rehearsed in their Assemblies by Men whose work it was to Read and Preach and to exhort to the performance of those Duties they enjoin'd being so frequent in their Writings so often cited in their Confessions Comments Apologies and Epistles of the Christian Worthies Euseb l. 6. c. 19. p. 219. as also in the Objection of those Adversaries to whose view they still lay open It must be certain that they were handed down to the succeeding Generations pure and uncorrupt Indeed these things render us more secure of the Scriptures being preserved entire than any Man can be of the Statutes of the Land or of any Histories or Records whatsoever because the Evidence of it depends upon more Persons more Holy and so less subject to deceive more concerned that they should not be corrupted than that no other Records should and so we must renounce all certainty of any Records or grant the certainty that these are truly what they do pretend And 4. This Corruption of the Word of God § 13 or Substitution of any other Doctrine than that which it delivered could not be done by any part or Sect of Christians but they who had embraced the Faith and used the same Copies of the Word of God in other places of the Christian World must have found out the Cheat and therefore this corruption if at all effected must be the work of the whole World of Christians But can it be supposed that the immediate succeeding Ages should universally conspire to substitute their own Inventions for the Word of God and yet continue stedfast in and suffer so much for that Faith which denounced the severest Judgments against those which should do such things Or that a World of Men should with the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes avouch the Gospel and at the same time make an essential Change even in the Frame and Substance of its Doctrine whilst it yet daily sounded in their Ears employ'd their Tongues and by so doing make it ineffectual both to themselves and their Posterity Can it be reasonably thought that they should venture upon that which were the Gospel true or false must needs expose them to the greatest Evils whilst they continued Abettors of it Moreover had such a thing been done can we in reason think that of those many Thousands who in the Primitive Ages did renounce the Gospel that of those many wavering Spirits those excommunicate Members especially those Hereticks who upon other motives did renounce the greatest part of Scripture can it I say be thought that none of those should publish and disclose the Forgery or answer the Alligations made from Scripture by saying They were Citations of false and of corrupt Scriptures but that such apparent Forgeries should find a general Reception from all that looked into their Truth and be unquestionably received as genuine
of the Church of Rome and to believe them as true and uncorrupt as are the Copies of the Holy Scripture But saith Mr. M. § 16 Pag. 399. When we believe that the Copies which we have now of these Books be not forged nor corrupted Copies but truly agree with the Originals given out by the Apostles we trust to the Tradition of all the after Churches that have been in every Age from the Apostles to this very present Church for it is as much in the Power of the Church in any one of these Ages to have thrust a false Copy into their Hand instead of a true one as to thrust a false Tradition into the Mouth of every Catholick every where in place of a true one This Argument in the mouth of a Jew Reply First pleading for those Traditions which were rejected by our Lord and his Apostles runs to this effect It was as much in the power of the Jewish Church to have thrust a false Copy into the Hands of the Jews instead of a true one as to thrust a false Tradition into the Mouth of every Jew every where instead of a true one if therefore their received Traditions actually were false as your Christ and his Apostles taught you can have no assurance of the Copies on which you depend for proving your Jesus to be the true Messiah are not false We say it is not in the power of any of the latter Ages Secondly to corrupt the Originals without corrupting not only all the written Manuscripts but also all the Writings of that Christian Church in which those Scriptures have been cited and all the Commentaries on them and all the Translations of them into all Languages 'T is therefore evidently false That it is as much in the Power of the Church in any one Age to have thrust a false Copy into the Hand of all Christians instead of a true one as to deceive them with a false Tradition instead of a true one No Protestant ever asserted or imagined that the whole Church was either willing or able Thirdly in any point of Doctrine to change at once and in one Age the true Tradition for a false No they unanimously say These Tares were sown by the Enemy whilst Men slept that they came in by degrees and insensibly got Ground by little and little in one Age the Dispute was raised the Opinion broached by some Man of Vogue and Credit in the next it passed for probable in the following Age for an Ecclesiastical Doctrine and in the next advanced into an Article of Faith. Thus for Example Images for the first Three Centuries were disregarded by all Christians the first thing they taught their Proselytes was to contemn them In the Fourth and Fifth Centuries they crept into some few Churches by way of Ornament and symbolical Representation In the Sixth and Seventh Centuries they begun to be received for Instruction and historical Commemoration In the Eighth Century in Italy and in the East they advanced to the Veneration of them though this Novelty met with great opposition in the East till the Tenth Century and in the West till the Thirteenth Century Communion in one Kind came in among some Monks in the Eleventh Century by reason of their negligence and rudeness which made their Governors not trust them with the Cup least they should spill it In the Twelfth Century it began to take place in minoribus Ecclesiis in lesser Churches The Approbation of Thomas Aquinas made it still more prevail in the Thirteenth Century and in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century it was established for a Law. FINIS A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS PART II. Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Treatise of Traditions Part II. July 12. 1688. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sacr. Domest A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS PART II. Shewing the Novelty of the pretended Traditions of the Church of ROME as being I. Not mentioned by the Ancients of their Discourses of Traditions Apostolical truly so called or so esteemed by them Nor II. In their avowed Rule or Symbol of Faith. Nor III. In the Instructions given to the Clergy concerning all those things they were to teach the People Nor IV. In the Examination of a Bishop at his Ordination Nor V. In the Ancient Treatises designed to instruct Christians in all the Articles of their Faith. VI. From the Confessions of Romish Doctors WITH AN ANSWER to the Arguments of Mr. Mumford for Traditions And a Demonstration That the Heathens made the same Plea from Tradition as the Romanists do and that the Answer of the Fathers to it doth fully justifie the Protestants Jam primo quod in nos generali accusatione dirigitis divortium ab institutis majorum considerate etiam atque etiam ne vobiscum communicemus crimen istud ecce enim per omnia vitae ac disciplinae corruptam immo deletam in vobis antiquitatem recognosco Exclusa ubique antiquitas in negotiis in officiis totam auctoritatem majorum vestra auctoritas dejecti◠Tertullianus ad Nationes lib. 1. Cap. 10. LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan in Ave-Mary Lane MDCLXXXIX THE PREFACE The Contents Shewing First That the Lord's Day is mentioned in Scripture as a known Festival Day a Day which bore Christ's Name and on which Christians did assemble for Religious Worship 1. From those words Rev. 1.10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day § 1. 2. From 1 Cor. xvi 2. § 2. 3. From Act. xx 7. § 3. 4. From the unanimous and uncontroulled Testimony of the Fathers from the first and purest Ages of the Church § 4. And shewing Secondly That the Apostles were commissionated from the Lord Christ or were directed by his Spirit to appoint this a day of publick Worship in Honour of our Lord and in remembrance of his Resurrection § 5. The Romanists can shew no such Tradition for any of the contested Doctrines § 6. Mr. M's Argument retorted against the sufficiency of Tradition to establish this Doctrine by shewing that there is no Tradition for abstaining wholly from servile Work upon that Day but rather the contrary § 7. The not observing of this Day through ignorance of our Obligation so to do is not destructive of Salvation § 8. The Command for remembring the Seventh Day from the Creation to rest upon it from all manner of Work was Ceremonial and not Moral this proved 1st From Reason § 9. 2dly From the Words and Actions of our Saviour § 10. 3dly From Gal. iv 10 11. § 11. 4thly From Col. ij 14 16 17. § 12. 5thly From the unanimous assertion of the Fathers § 13. Mr. M's first Objection from God's Blessing and Hallowing this Day Answered § 14. His second Objection from those Words of Christ If thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments Answered § 15. His third Objection That Saint Paul frequented Synagogues on
the Lord's Day had been of the same nature we may suppose the Apostles would not have failed to inform the Christian Churches That this was their own Constitution not the Lord 's which since they did not we may presume that they in this as well as other things did only what they received from the Lord. And lastly the Apostle doth command the Christians to observe the Traditions which they had received 2 Thess 2.15 whether by Word or by Epistle and therefore must command them to observe that day which by Tradition from the Apostles was certainly delivered to them But against these Arguments it is Objected Object That we read in Scripture of many things ordained by the Apostles which are now laid aside viz. The Kiss of Charity the Love-Feast the Anointing with Oil the abstaining from things strangled and from blood and therefore cannot rationally conclude the Lord 's day ought to be observed perpetually and unalterably because it was ordained by those Apostles who were assisted by the Holy Ghost To this I Answer Answ That Apostolical Constitutions which concern the whole Church must be esteemed invariable and perpetual if they have these Conditions First That they were made upon such Grounds and Reasons as equally concern the whole Church of all Ages and there hath happened since no alteration of Circumstances which made it reasonable then to observe what now we have no Reason to perform v. g. The Anointing of the Sick was a Ceremony annexed to the extraordinary Gift of Healing which ceasing this Appendix of it ceased with it not by any repeal of the Church but by expiration as all the Constitutions of Saint Paul touching the use of Tongues did with the failure of that Gift The Law which obliged the Gentile to abstain from things Strangled and Blood was designed only to avoid offending the weak Jew there being therefore none such now nor any hopes remaining of their Conversion by this Abstinence that Law must cease not by a positive repeal but by cessation of the Cause or Reason of it according to those known Rules Sublatâ causâ tollitur effectus ratio legis est lex Take away the Cause and the Effect ceaseth Secondly When they are not about some lesser Ceremonies or Circumstances which in tract of time may become subject to abuse and hindrance to a greater good and for that reason may be dispensed with and abrogated by the Church by virtue of that general Rule of doing all things to Edification but about Matters of great Moment such as concern the Service of our Great Master and the time to be set apart for the performance of it For Instance touching the Kiss of Charity all that Saint Paul or Peter have delivered concerning it is this That some times or other Christians should testifie their mutual affection to each other by a Kiss and that this Kiss be not a wanton or dissembling one but an Holy one or a true Kiss of Charity and in this sence 't is still continued among Christians Moreover 't is of it self a thing indifferent and only good as 't is an indication of true Charity and therefore is equivalently continued by all Acts of Christian Charity The Love Feasts were designed for the Refreshment of the Poor by what the Rich brought to the Holy Sacrament to be eaten by them at that Feast of Love and since it after happened through the looseness of Christians that great Disorders were committed in those Feasts they being made occasions not of Divisions only but of Intemperance and Drunkenness they were universally disused in the Fourth Century and converted into a more unexceptionable Charity to be distributed among the Poor according to that never failing Rule That where the abuse is greater than the use of a Ceremony if the intended use may be obtained other wife Abusus tollit usum the abuse makes it reasonable to cease the usage of that Rite Thirdly If they have been universally neceived through the whole Christian World from the Apostles times unto our daies not that the neglect of this Observation by any Church in any Age or Ages could have rendered this Ordinance invalid or not obliging to Posterity but because the continuance of it from the time of its first Practice or Institution to this present moment is a just Presumption that all Christians have been always satisfied and well assured of their Obligation to comply with it and that no Christians can have any cause to vary from it Now all these three particulars here meet For 1. This Christian Festival hath always been observed in all place◠and throughout all Ages of the Church 2. It was observed by all Christians for these very Reasons 1st That as the Jews by Observation of the Sabbath professed to own the Lord of the Creation for their God and themselves to be his Servants so they by Observation of the Lord Christ might own him as their Lord and Master who was the Lord of the New Creation 2dly As they observed their Sabbath in Commemoration of the Blessings procured to them by the Creation so the Christians observed the day of our Lord's Resurrection in thankful Remembrance of the inestimable Blessings procured and consigned to them by it Non Dominicum diem timerent enim ne Christiani viderentur Now sure this solemn Act of owning Jesus for our Lord on which account Tertullian says The Heathens feared to observe the Lord's Day is a Duty of the highest moment and surely the Blessings partly purchased partly confirmed to us by our Lord's Resurrection must as well deserve a day to be employed in solemn and in grateful commemoration of them as the Mercies which the Creation did conferr upon Mankind and so this Constitution must be concerning Matters of great Moment And 3dly These are never failing Reasons and such as render it as necessary now to observe this day and will do so for ever and no Man ever can refuse the Observation of this day without being careless to own Christ for his Lord or to return Thanks for the Benefits of his Resurrection or without opposing yea condemning the Wisdom of the Apostles and the whole Christian World to this very day Moreover This Assertion is confirmed by the concurring suffrage of the Ancient Fathers for Justin M. Apol. 2. p. 99. speaking of the Observation of this day saith That our Lord arising from the dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taught these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De laudibus Constant p. 664. Eusebius saith That Christ hath prescribed to all the Inhabitants of the World by Sea and Land that coming together into one place they should celebrate as a Festival the Lord's day In time past saith Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sement p. 1060. the Sabbath was of great account which Solemnity the Lord translated to the Lord's day nor do we set light by it without his Authority In a word So Athanas Serm.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this behalf Moreover this expression was in use among the Jews of that Age as appears from that saying of the Book of Maccabees 2 Maccab. 15.18 The care they took for their Wives and Children c. was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in least account with them their principal fear being for the Holy Temple whence it appears that our Translation of this Phrase is very suitable to the Language of the Apostles and of the Age in which they lived and consequently to the true meaning of these Words 2dly The Apostle here makes no distinction of parts of the Sabbath to be retained and other parts to be abolished if therefore no Man should condemn us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not observing part of a Sabbath then no Man should condemn us for not observing the Rest enjoined on that day that being eminently part of the Sabbath 3dly If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word in part can only be referred to the Sacrifices offered on the Sabbath then must it only relate to the Sacrifices of the New Moons and other Feasts to which it more immediately is joined whereas it is acknowledged not only that the Sacrifices offered then but even the whole New Moons and Feasts were part of that hand-writing which was blotted out and shadows of things future and Solemnities for not observing any part of which the Christian was not to be censured or condemned and therefore this must be affirmed also of the whole Sabbath Festival 4thly There is not one Example in the whole sacred writ in which it can be shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie the Sacrifices offered on the Sabbath day in distinction from the other Duties of the Day whence evident it is That this Exposition of the words is groundless Besides had the Apostle intended by these words only to signifie That no Man should condemn the Christians for not offering Sacrifice on that day what Reason could there be why he should not have plainly said so rather than signifie his mind in Terms so much offensive to the Jews as seeming to declare the Abrogation of their whole Sabbath and to misguide the Christian into such an apprehension Surely had the Apostle embraced the Sabbatarian Doctrine he would not have afforded so great occasion to others to reject it But against this Argument the Sabbatarians thus Object That the Sabbath here mentioned is said to be a shadow of things future Object 1 but the Seventh day Sabbath was a sign of a thing past viz. of the Creation of the World. That the Sabbath was not as the Objection without Ground Answer affirms A Sign but a Feast Instituted in Commemoration of the Creation of the World proves not that it was not a shadow also of things future for the Passover was the memorial of God's Mercy in passing over the Houses of Israel when he smote the Aegyptians the Feast of Tabernacles was a memorial that their Fathers dwelt in Tents and Tabernacles Pentecost was a memorial of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai the Feast of unleavened Bread was celebrated in memory of their Passing out of Aegypt with their Dough unleavened and of their deliverance from the Afflictions they endured in Aegypt if therefore notwithstanding the Institution of these Feasts in memory of what was past it is acknowledged by all Christians that they were shadows of good things to come the Seventh day Sabbath may be both And whereas it is by the Sabbatarians said That the seventh day Sabbath seems not to be a shadow of any Blessing which we at present do enjoy by Christ it may be Answered 1. That this Expression of the Apostle doth not necessarily import that the things mentioned here were shadows which related to things future but only that comparatively to those future things which were to be prescribed and taught by Christ and his Religion they were shadows 2. This Objection seems to contradict the very Words of the Apostle Apostolo responde si potes qui vacationem istius diei umbram futuri esse tesâ—â—tur Contra Faustum l. and therefore what Saint Austin said to Faustus is very proper here Answer thou the Apostle if thou canst who witnesseth That resting on the Sabbath day was a shadow of that which was to come Even the Ancient Jews acknowledged That their Sabbath was a shadow of the Age of the Messiah this being their Assertion That the Sabbath was given as a Type of the Holam Habba or the Age to come by which they understand the Age of the Messiah whence in the Epistle to the Hebrews the World to come doth clearly signifie the Gospel Age and this they gathered from these Expressions of the Prophet Isaiah Ch. 66.23 which say That it shall come to pass that from one New Moon and from one Sabbath to another shall all flesh come to worship before the Lord which say the Jews is spoken of that Age to come which shall be all Sabbath In signo data sunt Judaeorum populo Iren. l. 4. c. 30. Ita Iren. l. 4. c. 30. Barnabas Ep. §. 15. Orig Hom. 23. in Numer f. 136. August l. 4. De Gen. ad lit c. 11. Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 4. p. 477. Orig. Hom. 23. in Num. f. 136. Machar Hom. 35. Greg. Nyssen Hom. 7. in Eccles Tom. 1. p. 440. Cyril Alex. in cap 6. Amosi p. 315. Sabbata perseverantiam totius diei erga deum deservitionis edocebant Iren. lib. 4. cap. 30. Just M. in Dial. cum Tryph. p. 229. c. Tertull. advers Jud. c. 4. And all the Ancient Fathers do with one Voice declare That the Jewish Sabbath was Typical and figured the Spiritual Rest which Righteous Persons should enjoy by Christ and their Spiritual Ceasing from the Works of Sin and that we always ought to be employed in God's Service Fourthly § 13 The Fathers with one Voice Assert That the Sabbath was ceremonial and that the Christians or at least the Gentile Converts were not obliged to observe it Justin M. Asserts That after the Appearing of the Son of God we have no need to observe the Sabbath Lib. 4. c. 30. Irenaeus That it doth not Justifie and that the Ancient Patriarchs pleased God without the Observation of it Adv. Jud. c. 4. Tertullian That the Observation of it was Temporary and that it was blotted out like as Circumcision and other Rites of the Old Law. The Council of Laodicea declares That Christians ought not to Rest on the Sabbath Can. 29. but work on it preferring before it the Lord's day Epiphanius saith That our Lord did his Miracles on the Sabbath and commanded the Impotent Man to take up his Bed on that day to insinuate that the Sabbath was to be dissolved Haer. 30. Ebion §. 32. vid. Haer. 66. c. 82. that hence the Apostles knew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Sabbath was dissolved that it was dissolved by the Coming of Christ the Great
laying this only in those places as the Foundation of the Faith and so going on to other Countries to convert them and surely then the Successors of the Apostles did not doubt but that these Gospels did with sufficient fulness and perspicuity contain the necessary Articles of Christian Faith. Thirdly Of St. Luke the Follower of St. Paul Lucas quod ab illo praedicabatur Evangelium in libro condidit l. 3. c. 1 Irenaeus informs us That he writ in a Book that Gospel which was preached by him he adds That St. Paul neglected not to teach the whole Counsel of God Cap. 14. and that St. Luke neglected not to write what St. Paul had taught and thence inferrs against the Hereticks that they could not pretend to know what was not taught by Paul or was not written by St. Luke Fourthly St. John saith the Tradition of the Ancients was importuned by all the Asiaticks and by the Embassies of many others to write his Gospel and his great care in Composing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 51. §. 6. Theoph. proem in Joh. say they was to speak of those necessary things which they had pretermitted who writ before him or of the Deity of Christ which Ebion Cerinthus and other Hereticks denied and the other Evangelists had not so fully spoken to The Martyrology of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus adds That the other Evangelists were brought to him Apud Phot. Cod. 254. p. 1403. containing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The salutary Passion the Miracles and Doctrines of our Lord and that he digested them in order and added his own to them Here then from this Tradion it is plain and obvious to observe First § 3 That it was constantly supposed and looked on by all Christians as a thing most certain that to preserve a Doctrine safe unto posterity to keep it sure and certain 't was not sufficient for them to hear it by the Ear or to receive it by Tradition though from the mouth of an Apostle but that 't was requisite in order to that end that what they heard should be committed to writing that so it might be both to them and others the Pillar and the Ground of Truth Why else do they declare that those things which are only spoken and not written quickly vanish and thence inferr That if the Evangelists intended the Salvation of Posterity they must have written what they preached Why do they say it was necessary for the Apostles when they were about to leave their Converts to commit what they taught in writing to them Why was it that they could not be contented Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the unwritten teaching of the divine Doctrine or in the Romish phrase with the infallible way of oral Tradition but did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desire with all earnestness St. Mark to give them a Digest or Memorial in writing of that Doctrine they had received by word of mouth And why was Peter so delighted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with this desire of the Christians which was a plain renouncing of oral Tradition and a preferring of the written word before it Secondly Hence it is obvious to observe That oral Tradition being thus subject to failure and miscarriage the Wisdom of our God and Saviour thought fit that what was preached by the Apostles should be committed unto writing that it might be unto posterity the Pillar and the Ground of Truth Hence Lib. 3. c. 1. saith Irenaeus they by the Will of God writ the Scriptures for this end They saith St. Austin writ what they knew by the dictates of their Head. He commanded the Apostles to write and what things should be written were chosen doubtless by the Holy Ghost whose Pen-men the Apostles were Proem in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the pleasure of Christ or his Apostles saith Theophylact that the Gospel should be writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christians being taught the Truth from them might neither be perverted by Heresies or corrupted in manners Thirdly Hence also it is evident That the things chosen by our Lord and his Apostles and by the Holy Spirit to be written were such as seemed to their Wisdom sufficient for the Salvation of Believers that they contained all which our Lord would have us read concerning what he did or said all that truth which was needful to preserve us from Heresie in Doctrine or Corruption in Manners the whole state or system of the Christian Faith which whosoever did retain could not want Faith even when he wanted Teachers all that St. Peter preached the Foundations of Faith the whole Council of God the salutary Doctrines of our Lord all that was necessary to be known 2. § 4 This will be still more evident from that unquestionable Tradition of the whole Church of Christ for many Centuries that the Apostles Creed as it was first delivered and as it was afterwards explained by that of Nice was a compleat and perfect Summary of all things simply necessary to be believed by Christians That the Apostles and first Preachers of the Christian Faith comprized the Fundamentals of their Doctrine in some Creed System or form of words we learn not only from the Tradition of the Church but also from many passages of Scripture which mention Luk. i. 4. Heb. v. 12. Heb. vi 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words of their Catechism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the elementary Principles of the Oracles of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of the beginning of Christ or the Foundation upon which Christians grew up unto perfection Rom. xij 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Analogy of Faith according to which all the Dispensers of the word must frame their Doctrine 1 Tim. iij. 15 16. 2 Tim. i. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of Godliness to be preserved in and by the Church the Pillar and the Ground of Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a form of sound words which was delivered to and must be held by all Christians in Faith and Love verse 14. or a brief Summary of the things which were to be believed by all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the good depositum or Summary of Christian Doctrine committed to the trust of others or agreed on by the Apostles to be taught by all 2 Tim. ij 2. and which also was by them to be committed to faithful Men able to instruct others in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jud. iij. Philip. i. 27. The Faith once and at once delivered to the Saints which they must hold in a good Conscience and earnestly contend for 2. § 5 That this Creed System or Summary of Faith was by the Apostles delivered to all Churches and was for substance that which is now called the Apostles Creed is also evident from the Tradition of the Church of Christ Irenaeus saith It is the Faith which the Church received
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
follows that the Supremacy of the Pope the Celibacy of Priests the Invocation of Saints the Veneration of Images and Reliques the true and proper Sacrifice of the Mass the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of Concomitance and Communion in one Kind of Purgatory Indulgences Reading the Service in a Tongue unknown the Seven Sacraments the Necessity of the Priests Intention to the validity of a Sacrament must be so far contained in the Nicene Creed as to be only Explications and Interpretations of the same Articles of Faith or it must be confessed that they are no necessary Articles of Christian Faith and since the Greeks did in that Council plead that nothing was to be added by any after-Councils to the Nicene Faith and the Latins in effect did own that nothing should be added to it but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 644 645. another Exposition suitable to the Truth contained in it which was not so much an Addition as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Explication of the same thing they both exclude the Addition of these Articles unless that can be proved which never can be rationally attempted That they are only Explications of the Nicene Faith as the Addition of Filioque to it was declared to be And since we Protestants do acquiesce in the Nicene Faith it follows by the concession of the Latins that in respect to us there was no need for after Councils to be concerned for any other Faith. 2dly The Fathers who made or who embraced this boundary of Christian Faith expresly add That there is no necessity of adding any thing unto it with respect to Hereticks because it is sufficient of it self for the aversion of all Heresies Thus in that great dispute which was between the Aâ—ians and the Orthodox about adding something to the Nicene Faith or making other Creeds besides it Epist ad Epict. Tom. 1. p. 581 582. Athanasius gives his Judgment That the vain talk of all the Hereticks that ever were was baffled and made to cease by the Faith confessed at Nice according to the Holy Scriptures and that this Faith was sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the overthrow of all Impiety and that no other Synod ought to be named in the Catholick Church but that for the Confusion of them it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mark of victory over all Heresie and especially over that of Arius And this demonstratively follows from their constant Doctrine that these Creeds fully do contain all Doctrines of Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians for seeing Heresie must be an Error of Faith in matters necessary to be believed because it otherwise could be no damnable Error there can be no Heresie which is not a denial of something necessary to be believed that therefore which sufficiently instructs me in all things necessary to be believed must also fortifie me sufficiently against all Heresie 3dly This unfolding making plain better interpreting the Faith being that which only can be done by farther Declaration of the Sence of some Article of Faith than formerly was made unto the Church it is already baffled by the Refutation of the former Plea and it is plainly inconsistent with the Pretences of our new Patrons of Tradition for either the Father taught the Son this better Interpretation and made plain this Sence of the Article or he did not if he did there was no need of doing this by any Council if he did not then it is evident that the Son if he believes this Sence and this Interpretation believes somewhat which he received not by Tradition from his Father and so it must be certain that he may believe another sence of that Article than his Father taught and so in any other Article viz. another sence of the Real Presence of the Pope's Supremacy c. Thirdly § 3 Hence it must follow That no Man who doth heartily believe these Creeds and the immediate Doctrines plainly contained in them or evidently deduced from them can deserve to be anathematized or be excluded from the Communion of Christians for not believing any other simple Article of Faith for then he must deserve to be excluded for a thing unnecessary to be believed by Christians He may indeed deserve to be excluded upon other Grounds from the external Communion of the Church as v. gr for irregularity of Life or violating the Church's Peace but cannot justly be excluded for want of Christian Faith. Fourthly § 4 Hence it must follow That all those Councils which have anathematized their fellow Christians for such Doctrines as are not in these Creeds nor can be evidently inferred from them have been so far from being Infallible that they have actually erred And all those Churches who have rejected others from Communion with them upon the same account have acted Schismatically because they excluded others from Communion without just Ground It being therefore manifest that the Church of Rome hath added to the Nicene Creed these following Articles I. That the Pope of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ II. That the Roman is the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches III. That to her therefore doth belong to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation of Scripture and that the Sence which she imposeth on them is to be received as true IV. That there be Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ and which conferr Grace viz. Baptism Confirmation the Eucharist Penance Extream Vnction Orders Matrimony V. That in the Mass a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice is offered for the Living and the Dead VI. That in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into Christ's Body and the whole Substance of Wine into his Blood and so the Body and the Blood of Christ is there substantially present together with his Soul and his Divinity VII That under one Species only whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is taken VIII That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls detained there are helped by the Prayers of the Faithful IX That the Saints reigning with Christ are to be Prayed to and their Reliques to be Venerated X. That the Images of Christ the Blessed Virgin and of other Saints are to be Honoured and to have due Veneration given to them XI That Christ left a Power of Indulgences to his Church and that their use is most wholesome to Christian People XII That all the Rites used by the Roman Church in Administration of her Sacraments are to be admitted And lastly That this is the true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved I say It being manifest that the Church of Rome hath added all these Articles of Faith unto the Creeds forementioned and by the Church declared to be a perfect digest of the Articles of Christian Faith it follows that they must all be evidently proved to be
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
1. p. 474. De Nat. Deor. l. 3. ab initio p. 243. those that were before us and were as they affirmed the Progeny of the Gods though they give no necessary Demonstration of what they say nor shall any Man's Reason be he never so learned saith Cicero move me from that Opinion of the Worship of the immortal Gods Quam a Majoribus accepi which I received from my Ancestors See here Popery in the Foundation of it borrowed from Heathanism see how exactly they comply in the same Plea. Moreover the Answer which the Christians then returned unto this Plea of Pagans from Tradition § 11 is a sufficient Justification of the Protestants against the same Pretences in the Mouths of Roman Catholicks and a full Evidence that they were not Assertors of the Roman Doctrine in this Matter For First They represent it as the great Folly of the Heathen World that they followed Custom against Reason objecting it to their Reproach that they did what they saw done not what their Reason told them should be done That among them Arnob. l. 7. p. 236. L. 2. c. 6. p. 172. Plus valet nullam habens consuetudo rationem Custom without Reason prevailed more than the weight of Things examined by the Nature of Truth What will you do saith Lactantius to them Majoresne potius quam Rationem sequaris Would you follow your Ancestors rather than Reason esteeming this the greatest of Absurdities He farther adds That they who were led like Beasts by others Et qui sine ullo judicio inventa Majorum probant sapientiam sibi adimunt and who did without Judgment approve of the Inventions of their Ancestors P. 173. deprived themselves of Wisdom Now if it be so great a Folly and Absurdity and such a brutish renouncing of all Wisdom to comply with Custom against Reason and without exercising of our Judgments must it not much more be so to comply with it against Scripture Reason and the whole Stream of Primitive Antiquity as we must do if we do yield a blind Submission to the Doctrines of the Roman Church Secondly They prove their Ancestors were not to be followed without the use of Reason and Discretion because they were so prone to receive Fables and even Monsters of Opinions P. 21. We are not to be drawn into Error by consenting to our Ancestors saith Octavius Majoribus enim nostris tam facilis in mendaciis fides fuerit ut temere crediderint etiam alia monstrosa mira miracula for our Ancestors were so easily imposed upon by Lyes that they believed rashly many other monstrous Wonders L. 1. p. 34. You plead Antiquity saith Arnobius as an Argument of Truth Quasi vero errorum Antiquitas plenissima Mater non fuerit as if Antiquity were not the pregnant Mother of Errors and as if she had not brought forth all those Things which in their ignominious Fables impute such filthy Characters to their Gods. De Civ Dei l. 22. c. 6. St. Austin also saith That Antiquitas recepit fabulas fictas nonnunquam incondite Antiquity received Fables feigned sometimes incongruously And is it not evident from the Confessions of the Romish Doctors and Historians that in the dark and ignorant Ages of the Church from the Tenth to the Fifteenth Century their Church abounded with idle Monks who made it their whole Business to fill Church History with lying Legends and Tales as Foolish and Ridiculous as those of Heathens Locor Theolog l 11. c. 6. p. 652. For Melchior Canus doth ingenuously confess Res Gestas Sanctorum falsis commentitiis fabulis contaminari That the Histories of the Saints were defiled with false and counterfeit Fables That most of their Writers have feigned so many things either in compliance with their Affections or on set purpose That he was not only ashamed P. 650. but even weary of them their whole Narration being invented either for gain or Error Ibid. p. 658. And speaking of their Golden Legend he saith Praefat. ante Homil. de fest Sanctorum In illo miraculorum monstra saepius quam vera miracula legas Royardus adds That such Writers weakened the truth it self Insertis passim fabulis ac meris nugamentis by the Fables and meer Fooleries they frequently inserted Cornelius Agrippa saith De vanit scient cap. 97. That lying piously they counterfeited Relicks framed Miracles Confinguntque vel plausibiles vel terribiles Fabulas and feigned plausible or terrible Tales In lib. Confess August Erasmus saith They studied to commend them whom they favoured Fabulis vanis miraculis fictis with vain Fables and feigned Miracles Cap. de Reliquiis l. 1. c. 11. p. 156. Lib. 5. p. 565. The like complaints you may read in Cassander's Consultation in Espencaeus's Commentary upon Timothy and in Lyranus on the Fourteenth Chapter of Daniel Aventinus informs us That in the days of Hildebrand many false Prophets Fabulis Miraculis à veritate plebem Christi avertunt did turn away the People from the Truth by Fables and Miracles Then saith he arose false Prophets false Apostles false Priests P. 591. Qui simulata Religione populum deceperunt magna signa prodigia ediderunt who deceived the People with feigned Religion and wrought great Signs and Wonders The Clergy of Liege add That then were those Stories feigned concerning Sylvester and Constantine no less ignorantly than impudently and falsly and many others which say they Christian Modesty will not permit us to tell then crept in the traffique of Holy Things Concil To. 2. Edit Colon. apud Quiritel p. 809. and the Holy Philosophy by the subtile interpretation of Sycophants began to be corrupted polluted and violated with humane Inventions and old Wives Fables John Gerson speaks thus Enquire if there be not Apocryphal Scriptures De Defect Viror Eccles Consid 16. c. Hymns and Prayers brought into the Church in process of time either of purpose or of ignorance to the great hurt of the Christian Faith. He also saith There is very much Superstition in the Worshipping of Saints innumerable Observations without all Ground or Reason vain credulity in believing things concerning the Saints reported in the uncertain Legends of their Lives Thirdly The Fathers tell them That this was the rise of all their Errors Minuc p. 26. Quod inconsulte gestiant parentibus obedire That they would without consulting follow their Fore-fathers Et fieri maluerunt alieni erroris accessio quam sibi credere and that they chose rather to follow the Errors of other Men than believe themselves Clem. Alex. Adm. p. 57. That they had never fallen into such impiety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if being carried away with Custom they had not shut their Eyes against Reason And it is also our perswasion that this adhering to the Customs of the present R. Church and to the Customs which crept in or advanced into Articles of her Faith
Matthew was writ saith the Tradition of the Fathers Theoph. proem in Matth. Athan. Synops p. 155. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eight Years after our Lords Ascension Mark writ his Gospel whilst St. Peter lived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ten Years after our Lords Assumption saith Theophylact. St. Luke writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fifteen Years after our Lords Ascension Proem in Luc. say Dorotheus and Theophylact. St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirty two Years after our Lords Ascension saith the same Theophylact. Chap. 7. §. 2. Now these Gospels as I before have proved were by the General Tradition of the whole Church of Christ esteemed sufficiently to contain that Christian Doctrine which the Apostles taught and purposely to have been written to preserve it entire to Posterity Secondly This Argument is wholly overthrown by this one Observation That the Apostles in their Preaching declare that they spake only what was written in the Books of the Old Testament or might be clearly gathered thence When they undertook to prove any Article of Christian Faith they proved it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament When they reasoned with others to bring them to the Faith they did it from the same Scriptures Acts 26.22 1 Cor. 15.2 3 4. saying none other Things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come When they would have their Proselytes confirmed in the Christian Faith 2 Pet. 1.19 they send them to this more sure Word of Prophecy encouraging them to take heed to it as to a Light that shineth in a dark Place And declaring that those very Scriptures which Timothy had known from a Child 2 Tim. 3.15 that is before one Book of the New Testament was written were able through Faith in Christ or the Belief that Jesus is the Messiah promised in them to make him Wise unto Salvation 16 17. That they were profitable for Doctrine and Instruction in Righteousness for Reproof for Correction that the Man of God may be perfect both as to his own Practice Obadiah paraph in locum and his teaching others throughly furnished to every good Work. If then before the Scriptures of the New Testament were written these inspired Persons taught their Converts out of the Old Testament and sent them thither to learn the Truth of what they said and bad them have Recourse unto those Writings as being able to make them Wise unto Salvation and as being more certain and more to be heeded than that Voice from Heaven of which they themselves testified Doubtless when they themselves by the same Spirit had indited the New Testament they must be more concerned that they should be guided by that written Word then also it is evident that they did not invite Men to believe meerly on the Authority or Oral Tradition of the then present Church nor practised any thing whence it might be concluded that after Ages by meer Tradition might be sufficiently instructed in the things which concerned their eternal Welfare Nay they sufficiently declared the contrary by chusing to adhere themselves and call on others to adhere to what was taught concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament when Tradition was so fresh their Authority so fully was confirmed by Miracles and they to whom they spake had the inspired Apostles in any matter of Dispute or Controversy to repair unto Thirdly St. Luke informs us § 15 that he received his Gospel by Tradition Luke 1.2 4. and that he had committed it to Writing that his Theophilus might know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Certainty of those Doctrines in which he had been formerly instructed clearly insinuating that he conceived the written Word a means of adding certainty to what was only taught by Word of Mouth Accordingly Eusebius informs us that he was necessitated to write his Gospel that he might give us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. a firm Account of those things which he had learned from his Conversation with St. Paul and with the rest of the Apostles Church History saith of St. Matthew Euseb ibid. That he was constrained to write his Gospel that by so doing he might supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the want of his own Presence with them and that when he was by Persecution separated from them Opus imperf in Matth. praefat his Converts might not want the Doctrine of Faith but wheresoever they were might retain Totius fidei statum the entire form of Faith. The san Tradition doth inform us See Chap. 7. §. 1 2. That the First Christian Converts when they had heard the Apostles preach the Christian Faith would not be satisfied with receiving it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Oral Teaching but earnestly requested to have it left in Writing with them That the believing Jews Petierunt Matthaeum ut omnium verborum operum Christi conscriberet eis historiam To write the History of all Christ's Words and Works that they might have a compleat System of their Faith. That the Romans earnestly desired Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leave in Writing a Memorial of the Doctrine delivered to them by word of Mouth and never would desist till they had obtained it and that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the light of Piety which would not suffer them to rest satisfied with the Oral Tradition of the Faith that by the same perswasion Hieron Prolog in Matth. Euseb H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his familiar Acquaintance of all the Bishops of Asia and the Ambassies of many Churches St. John who before had spent all his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Oral Preaching was at last moved to write his Gospel The same Tradition adds That the Apostles having preached the Gospel committed it to Writing to be the Pillar and the Ground of Faith to future Ages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Anchors and Foundations of our Faith Athan. Synops p. 61. Theophylact. proem in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That from these Scriptures being taught the truth we might not be drawn aside by the Falshoods of Heresies And lastly That if they had not left in Writing what they preached Orig. Dial. contr Marcion p. 59. they had preached Salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only to them who heard them Preach and should have had no care of Posterity because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things only orally delivered would quickly vanish there being no demonstration of their Truth Which words as they expresly do confute the certainty of Doctrines only delivered to Posterity by word of Mouth so the forementioned Traditions do sufficiently inform us what was the Judgment of the ancient Church in this Affair viz. That to ascertain those Christians who were taught the principles of their Religion it was necessary that should be written which they had been taught that they could not well otherwise supply their absence or leave to their Disciples an
Anathematized St. Austin Pope Innocent Pelagius and the whole Church of Christ for Six whole Centuries Thirdly Hence it is evident that the Practice of the Church in any Century is no true Ground for the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture seeing this Practice of communicating Infants was built upon the Mistake of the Church of the Ages mentioned touching the true Sence of those Words Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Fourthly Hence it is evident That if the present Church of any Age must be the infallible Judge of what is Tradition if what is generally received in any Age must be derived from the Apostles the Custom of giving the Sacrament to Children for the Remission of Sins and the obtaining Life must be an Apostolical Tradition it being generally received for Six Centuries and yet if the Church of Rome of the Three last Ages was the Judge of what deserved to be esteemed Tradition the self same Doctrine being then generally rejected by them could be no Apostolical Tradition Fifthly Hence Mr. M. may learn that his Proof of Prayer for the Dead and Infants Baptism from Tradition is not very weighty and convincing or if it be the Custom of communicating Infants must be Tradition Apostolical For changing only the Subject it will be easy to argue for it after the manner and in the Words of Mr. M. Let us take Two Traditions P. 401. the one confessed by you to be a true one the other indeed condemned by you but asserted by me to be no less true than the former because it is testified by as good a Tradition as the former and therefore either the former is not proved sufficiently by this Testimony or the latter is The First Tradition for Example sake is That of Baptizing Infants The Second That of the Communicating of Infants Of these Two I discourse thus Both these Points were recommended by the Apostles to the Primitive Church for divine Verities and Practices and so from hand to hand came most unquestionably delivered to the Twelfth Century Hence conformably to this Tradition P. 402. every where Christians baptized their little Children every where they gave them the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but yet the communicating of them was the more frequent Practice because Children were baptized but once in their Lives but being once baptized they frequently received the Holy Sacrament Well now let us suppose that both these Traditions be called in Question whether they be faithfully delivered as Sacraments to be received by Children or rather whether that of Communicating Infants were some humane Invention Soss 21. Can. 4. or as the Trent Council hath determined A thing unnecessary to be received by Infants till they come to Years of Discretion Let us see whether this Tradition condemned by that Council with an Anathema cannot defend it self from Forgery as well as any Scripture questioned of being true Scripture P. 403. For Example the Apocalypse which was rejected by divers Ancient Catholicks whereas the Communion of Infants was never rejected by any Ancient Catholicks at all nor by any of them said to be unnecessary Amongst ancient Hereticks the Pelagians indeed said That it was not necessary to communicate them for the Remission of Sins but this is noted in them as a peculiar Heresy of their own by Pope Innocent by Pelagius by the Council of Carthage and by St. Austin who pronounceth against them That Infants ought to be communicated for the Remission of Sins And the same St. Austin saith The Church doth necessarily do this by the Tradition P. 404. as he fupposeth Apostolical received from her Ancestors He held therefore such Communion of Infants suitable to the Doctrine of the Church and Tradition And this Tradition is that which I now stand upon which indeed did shine in the Practice of the Primitive Church You shall scarcely find a Liturgy or Service Book used in the ancient Church which is not Witness of this Tradition though these Books were found in every Parish of Christendom in which Divine Service was almost daily said P. 405. St. Cyprian mentions it as the Practice of his Times In both these Points it is a strong Argument and as strong for Communicating as for Baptizing of Infants That no time can be named in which those Customs began No man can be thought of who could by humane Means and such Means as should not make a mighty Noise amongst those great Reverencers of Tradition draw all the World in so short a time after the Apostles P. 406. to follow Customs as Apostolical which in that Age in which they were first vented were evidently by every Man not only known but clearly seen to be new hatch'd Novelties and not Ancient and Apostolical Traditions This Man who broached this false Doctrine should have been put into the Catalogues of Hereticks by Epiphanius and St. Austin whereas they did not only not put down any such Hereticks but one of them puts down Pelagius for one because he taught the contrary Now if you speak of this Custom going downward until the Age in which it began to be denied by Roman Catholicks the Custom of Communicating Infants hath come down with such a full Stream that it drew all Countries in many Ages with it insomuch that every where but among a few late born Romanists the Pontificals the Books of Sacraments the Liturgies Eastern and Western all the Ritualists all the Books of Ecclesiastical Discipline P. 407. and even the Canon Law bears witness of it There was not a Country which abounded not with such Monuments and such Records the very strongest Proofs of assured Antiquity and unquestionable Tradition Thus I hope I have made good that Tradition shining in perpetual Practice from St. Cyprian to Pope Paschal the Second is a sure Relater of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church touching Communicating Infants whence you may clearly see that the Trent Council hath manifestly erred in this Matter and consequently was not Infallible for if they could be actually false in a Point so universally current they might bear Witness in many other Matters to false Doctrine and deny due Approbation to the true P. 196. L. 1. contr Crescon c. 33. Sixthly Hence we may learn how failly Mr. M. citeth St. Austin to prove That nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonical Scriptures to prove that Infants ought to be baptized for is it possible That he who held it so manifest from Scripture that they ought to receive that Sacrament to which De peccat Merit l. 2. c. 27. saith he no Man hath right to come who is not first baptized should think there was no certain Proof from Scripture of their right to Baptism Moreover how often doth he prove their right to Baptism from that Passage of St. John Except he be born again of Water De peccat Merit l 1.
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. 〈◊〉
our selves Mr. Mumford shews that Prayer for the Dead is at least Object 6 as ancient as Tertullian and that from the Fourth Century P. 401-406 till the Reformation it generally obtained in the Church and is not this enough to prove it an Apostolical Tradition as St. Austin and some others represent it To this I have already returned one Answer by shewing Answer that Communicating Infants obtained in the same Century in which Tertullian lived Vide supra §. 6. and that from the Fourth to the Twelfth Century it was generally practised and held necessary for the Salvation of the Infant and yet the Trent Council hath declared That it was neither necessary nor Apostolical And there is one thing farther observable to compleat this Parallel That Pseudo-Dionysius in that very place where he discourses of Prayers for the Dead undertakes also to account for that other Custom Eccl. Hier. c. 7. §. 3. quae est de precib pro mortuis p. 417. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Administring not only Baptism but the most sacred Symbols of the Divine Communion to Children not capable of understanding Divine things That this was then done he saith expresly not only here P. 419. but in these following Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priest also delivers to the Child the Sacred Symbols which his Paraphrast varies thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pachymeres p. 436. The Infant also partakes of the Mysteries And these things saith he our Masters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have brought down to us from an ancient Tradition so that the Practice as it was as early so was Tradition equally pretended for it Secondly It hath been lately shewed by the Judicious a Answer to the Jes ch 7. Bishop Vsher the searned b De poenis satisf l. 5. Dall and by the Author of a late excellent Treatise of c Sect. 1. Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory That the Ancients prayed for the Dead upon these Five Accounts 1. Dall ibid. c. 7. As believing the Doctrine of the Millenium or the Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years 2. Dall ib. Ush p. 232 c. As supposing that in the general Conflagration of the World at the last Day all should pass through the Fire and feel the Torment of it more or less 3. Dall ibid. c. 3 4 5 6. Ush ibid. As thinking that the Souls of just Persons departed were not to be admitted into the highest Heavens or the Fruition of Gods immediate Presence till the Resurrection but were till then reserved in Abraham's Bosom 4. Dall ibid. c. 9. As thinking That the Sentence was not instantly pronounced at the Day of their Death but was reserved to that of Judgment when the Just should have a publick Absolution and the full Crown of Righteousness awarded to them 5. Dall ib. c. 12. As furmising That even wicked Persons by their Prayers Alms and Oblations might receive Aut plenam Remissionem aut tolerabiliorem damnationem either a full Remission or a more tolerable Damnation And indeed I think it very difficult to name one Ancient Author by whom these Prayers are mentioned who held not one or more of these Opinions which might give Rise unto this Custom that of the Millenium and of the non-Admission of Souls into the highest Heavens being almost generally received in the Second Century in which we hear nothing of Prayers for the Dead Now all these Opinions are generally condemned and discarded by the Church of Rome and if they may reject all the apparent Grounds recorded in the Ancients of this Practice and censure the chief Reasons upon which they did it why may not the Tradition also be rejected as being founded upon precarious Doctrines which they themselves deny to be Apostolical Thirdly I answer That if by praying for the Dead Mr. M. only means the using of such Prayers as St. Paul made for Onesimus viz. 2 Tim. 1.18 That God would Grant him Mercy at that Day viz. The Day of Judgment or such as our Church useth in her Liturgy That God would deliver iâ— in the Hour of Death and in the Day of Judgment and that all they who are departed in the true Faith of God's Holy Name may at the Day of Recompence have their perfect Consummation and Bliss both in Body and Soul. I say if he intends this only it is no more than we our selves do by our Practice and Subscriptions own The Doctrine we deny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defin concil Florent apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 851. p. 564. is that which is contained in the definition of the Florentive Council in these Words If those who have truly repented â—y in the Love of God before they have satisfied for their Sins of Commission and Omission by worthy Fruits of Penance their Souls are purged after Death by purgatory Punishments and that they may be relieved from those Punishments it is profitable for them to have the Aid of the 〈◊〉 viz. The Masses Prayers and Alms and other Acts of 〈◊〉 performed by the Faithful and that they being thus purged 〈◊〉 presently after received into Heaven and admitted to the immediate Vision of God. The Doctrine we deny is that which in the Trent Council is delivered â—â—â—us The Catholick Church instructed by the Holy Spirit 〈…〉 S. Courgils and in this General Synod taught from the Holy Scriptures Purgatorium esse animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragijs potissimum vero Altaris acceptabili Sacrificio juvari Sess 25. and the ancient Tradition 〈…〉 â—â—ry and that 〈…〉 by the 〈…〉 the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar which Sacrifico say they 〈…〉 the Tradition of the Apostles 〈…〉 the Sins Punishments Sed pro defunctis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis Sess 22. cap. 2. and Satisfactions of the Faithful living but also for the Dead is Christ not fully punged And therefore she defines That if any one say that after Justification the Fault of the Penitent is so remitted and the Guilt of eternal Punishment so blotted out Ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis exolvendae vel in hoc saeculo vel in futuro in purgatorio Sess 6. can 30. that there remains no Guilt of temporal Punishment to be suffered in this World or in the future in Purgatory before he can have admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven let him be Anathema Now to prove this Doctrine from the perpetual Tradition of the Church of Christ Mr. M. must not only prove the Antiquity of Prayer for the Dead which no body denies but 1. Apud Bin. Fom 7. p. 838. That some Soulsâ—â—dying in Christ or departing hence in the Love of God are detrained in Purgatory or as the Florentine Council doth exprels it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a place of Torments 2. That they are there detained to undergo some temporal Punishment for their Sins or to be fully purged from
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
to ground Faith upon For on this ground they proceeded in defining all the Books in our Canon to be Canonical Pope Innocent the First A. D. 402. St. Austin P. Gelasius A. D. 492. confirm the same Canon and the Sixth General Council celebrated A. D. 680. confirms the Council of Carthage and the true Canon is again set forth in the Council of Florence A. 1438. And after these Declarations of the Council of Carthage and Pope Innocent no one pertinaciously dissented from the Canon but such as Protestants themselves confess to be Hereticks J. L. adds That Gregory Nazianzen acknowledged them Canonical and St. Ambrose Lib. de Jacob vitâ beatâ and that since the Churches Declaration no Catholick ever doubted of them Now for Answer to these things let it be noted First That whereas they are pleased to say that it was till the time of the Third Council of Carthage that is till the Fifth Century doubtful and undetermined in the Church whether these Books were Canonical or not because the Church had not then declared them so they by just consequence must grant that the Apostles and all the Ancient Bishops of the Church for Four Centuries knew nothing of the Roman Canon for had they known the Books contested to be Canonical we cannot doubt but they would have delivered them to the Church as such as well as those which we receive and which saith Eusebius were received by the consent of all Lib. 4. c. 26. We therefore are contented to be no wiser than they were and rather chuse to hearken to that advice of Cyril of Jerusalem Read the Twenty two Books of the Old Testament and have nothing to do with the Apocrypha 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Apostles and ancient Bishops the Rulers of the Church who delivered these Twenty two Books as the Canon were wiser than those that came after them we therefore being Sons of the Church in compliance with his advice will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 break over the bounds which they have set us especially considering they so expresly have informed us that they delivered this Catalogue of the Twenty two Canonical Books of the Old Testament as they received them from Tradition Obs 1. That they made this Enumeration of them to prevent mistakes in this matter for the good of the Church and that Men might know out of what Fountains to draw the Water of Life and might clearly learn which were Canonical Obs 4. And as the Canon received and owned not only by the Jewish but the Christian Church Obs 3. Secondly The falshood of these bold Assertions hath been shewed sufficiently in what hath been discoursed upon this subject for had the Authority of the Books we stile Apocryphal been undetermined had the true Canon of the Books of the Old Testament been doubtful in the Church till the Fifth Century why did Athanasius think it necessary to advertise Christians that the Books which we reject were not Canonical St. Cyril That they were out of the Canon Nazianzen That they were not Genuine Ruffinus That our Ancestors held them not Canonical not sufficient to confirm Doctrines of Faith St. Jerom That the Church deemed them Apocryphal and received them not into the Canon Why do they add that these things we delivered to them by the Fathers and by them recorded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for more exactness sake and to prevent mistakes Had the Canon of the Books of the Old Testament been till then doubtful and undetermined in the Church why was the Canon produced by Melito Bishop of Sardis judged so exact a Canon of the Books of the Old Testament why do the Fathers of the four first Centuries with one accord declare that the number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament if Ruth were added to Judges and the Lamentations to Jeremiah Can. 59. were but Twenty two if reckoned separately Twenty four why is it that the Council of Laodicea having said that Christians in the Church ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only the Canonical Books of the Old and the New Testament reckons up the Cononical Books of the Old Testament as we do excluding all that we call Apocrypha as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 books not contained in the Canon Moreover this Canon was received into the Code of Canons of the Vniversal Church both by the East and West the Canons of this Council were confirmed by the fourth General Council of Chalcedon Can. 1. Can. 2. Novel 131. by the Sixth General Council of Trullo by the Imperial Law of the Emperor Justinian and so must give us the Sence and Definition of the whole Church touching this matter Thirdly If that may be doubtful and undetermined in the Church which is so positively asserted so expresly and frequently declared in a matter of Fact as this hath been for the first Four Centuries then I hope we may be permitted to pronounce all those New Articles which the Church of Rome hath added to the Creed doubtful and undetermined in the first Four Centuries at least till they can give us better proof that they were then received than hath been here produced for this Canon and then I think they will be no great Gainers by this false Assertion And sure I am they cannot here pretend Tradition handed down from Father to Son from all the Christians of one Age to all the Christians of the next unless it be asserted that all those Fathers and this whole Council spake these things in a flat opposition to what they had been taught by their Fore-fathers touching the Canonical Books of the Old Testament so that this instance is a full confutation of that idle Dream Fourthly Whereas these Authors have produced some few Testimonies from the Fifth Century in favour of their Canon Let it be noted first That J. L. hath been told already Answ p. 82 83. that neither Gregory nor St. Ambrose have any thing pertinent to his purpose in the places cited and this he by his silence seemeth to confess As for the pretended Definition of Pope Innocent the First made saith J. L. A. D. 370. Cap. 11. p. 22. Schol. Hist p. 118 180 188. though he was only made Bishop of Rome A. D. 402. Bishop Cousins hath proved it to be Spurious as he hath also fully proved the pretended Decree of the Council of Florence to be Bishop Pearson Vindiciae Epist Ignat. part 1. c. 4. a p. 44. ad p. 54. And another Bishop of our Church of unquestionable Credit among all learned Men hath proved beyond all possibility of Contradiction that the Decree ascribed to Gelasius is also Spurious so that we have nothing left to consider but the judgment of St. Austin the Council of Carthage and the pretended confirmation of it Now to these I say Fifthly That were these Testimonies exactly for the Canon of the Church of Rome yet here is neither a Decree of any General Council
Latina Ecclesia Presbyteris licuisse uti conjugio That even in the Latin Church it was sometimes Lawful for Priests to use Matrimony Scotus confesseth that it is very true Sent. 4. dist 37. qu. 1. Art. 1. That Secundum consuetudinem primitivae Ecclesiae according to the Constitution of the primitive Church it was lawful to use Matrimony contracted before Orders Cap. 4. De invent rerum l. 5. c. 4. p. 344. Clictovaeus in his Discourse of the Celebacy of Priests and Polydore Virgil do with one Voice affirm That Pope Syricius who held that See A.D. 387. was the first who imposed the Law of Celebacy on the Clergy It remains saith Cassander That this Law should be relaxed to those who shall hereafter be ordained Et more veteris Ecclesiae Consult Art. 23. p. 199. huc usque Orientalium Ecclesiarum And that after the Custom of the Ancient Church and of the Eastern Churches to this Day Honest Husbands should be admitted to the Ministry of the Church and out of the Time of their Ministry should be allowed the use of their Wives according to the Canon of the Sixth General Synod Wicelius in his Via Regia Apud Calixt de conjug cler p. 457. declares that the Marriage of Priests was unforbidden In primitiva Christi Ecclesia tam Orientis quam Occidentis in the Primitive Church both of East and West and that it agrees not only with the Gospel but also cum Veterum Synodorum Constitutionibus cum exemplis Veteris Ecclesiae with the Constitutions of Ancient Synods with the Examples of the Ancient Church yea even with the Examples of the Church of Rome such as she was Five hundred Years ago CHAP. XI Answer is given to the Arguments of Mr. M. for the Infallibility of Tradition as v. g. 1. That the World had no other Rule for the first Two thousand Years § 1. Answered 1st by shewing that this proves not the thing in Question which is not Whether nothing can come down unto us by Tradition but Whether in long tract of time Men may not add to the Traditions which truly they received others which falsly they pretend to be such and Whether pretences to Tradition may not be justly scrupled when ancient Records not only do say nothing of but plainly contradict them Ibid. 2dly That this Argument contradicts the Tradition of the Jews touching the Precepts of Noah only imposed upon the World before and of the Christians generally teaching Men were then guided by the Law not of Tradition but of nature § 2. The Instances contained in this Argument considered § 3. 3dly It is proved that both the Antediluvians and they who lived after the Flood were very prone to Idolatry and that God therefore would not trust them with any positive Precepts but such as were Recorded in a written Law § 4. Mr. M ' s. Second Argument That for above Two thousand Years more from Moses to Christ 's time the Church was governed partly by Writing and partly by Tradition Answ 1. The contrary is proved both from the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament § 5. 2. That the Traditions which obtained in the Jewish Church were such as tended to the Evacuation of the Law of Moses the Introduction of vain Worship and the renouncing of the true Messiah § 6. This is farther demonstrated from the Scriptures of the New Testament and Josephus § 7. Mr. M's Third Argument That when the Scriptures were given to the Jewish Church all other Nations were guided only by Tradition and yet had many true Believers among them as Job c. Answ 1. That the Scripture manifestly declares that the Heathens generally were guilty of Idolatry and that God had given them a Law not of Tradition but of Nature § 8.2 That Job and his Friends believed in one God not by Tradition but the Light of Nature according to the Fathers § 9.3 That when Christianity appeared the great Plea of the Heathens for it was Tradition which they pleaded after the manner of the Romanists § 10. The Answer of the Christians to this Plea is a full Justification of the Protestants and a demonstration that they were not Roman Catholicks in this Matter § 11. For 1st They represent it as the greatest folly to preferr Custom before Reason 2ly They add That their Ancestors were prone to receive Fables and monstrous Opinions for Truths which also Romanists confess of the Writers of their Histories 3dly That this was the Rise of all their Errors that they followed their Fathers without consulting Truth 4thly That they who pleaded Antiquity were themselves the greatest Innovators 5thly That there was a time when the Heathen Religion was New Ibid. In defence of their own Proceedings they declare 1st That it is the property of wise Men not to be enslaved to their former Opinions 2dly That their Adversaries ought not to run them down with prescription or the belief of their Ancestors but fairly come to the Merits of the Cause § 12. 3dly That they ought not to be run down with multitude that being no mark of the true Religion 4thly That they ought not to be called to yield a blind assent to the dictates of other Men without using their own Judgments 5thly That their Separation from their fore-Fathers must be acknowledged Just and Righteous because they could shew wherein they had erred Lastly That their Religion was not New but only it was lately that they knew it to be the true and old Religion § 13. Obj. 4. That before the New Testament was written and divulged all Christians were governed by Tradition only § 14. Answ 1. That the Four Gospels which were always judged sufficiently to contain the Christian Doctrine were writ soon after the Preaching of the Gospel 2. That till then the Apostles Preached only out of the Old Testament and exhorted their Hearers to attend to it as their Rule Ibid. 3. That the Tradition of the Primitive Church declared it necessary that Scriptures should be written to be to us a Rule of Faith § 15. Mr. M ' s. Fourth Argument that the Traditions of the Church of Rome may be as fully proved as it can be proved to one that never saw London that there is such a City and that it is the Capital City of this Kingdom shewed to be highly vain § 16. HAving thus shewed the uncertainty of Tradition in many Cases and proved that the Doctrines of the Church of Rome have not descended by Tradition from the Apostles or the Primitive Church I now proceed to Answer what Mr. M. doth offer to prove the certainty of Oral Tradition in the General and of some Romish Doctrines in Particular And § 1 1. Mr. M. saith That all the Faith which true Believers had in those Two thousand Years before the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written Pag. 335. had no other Ground than the Revelation of God as proposed
by the Tradition of the Church present to all Believers in every Age in which those Believers lived That the whole World was governed by Tradition only for the first Two thousand Years And he is so exact as to enumerate the very Tenets which they held by Tradition viz. The fall of Adam and their Conception in Original Sin. The means to be used to free themselves and their Children from it The immortality of the Soul and that the Rewards and Punishments of the next Life lasted for ever What Repentance they were to use That they were to stand fast to their Traditions and account it a damnable Sin to forsake them The Observation of the Sabbath the Precept of not eating Blood obliging all the World the distinction betwixt clean and unclean Meats and Beasts the Precept of Circumcision observed Four hundred Years by Abraham 's Posterity by Tradition the Covenant God made with Abraham that he should be the Father of many Nations Disc p. 91. and that the Messiah should be born of his Seed R. H. informs us of other Positive Divine Laws viz. Those of Sacrifice Firstlings Holocausts Peace-Offerings Birds in Sacrifice not divided mention of the Holy Times Places Persons Prophets of Tythes paid to the Priest Purifyings Cleansings changing their Garments Vows Prohibition of Polygamy contracting Marriages with Vnbelievers Excommunication And these Laws saith he we may presume were received from an external infallible Proponent and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiors and Teachers of these Laws in such a manner as those delivered since and for the certainty of their Religion there seems an Infallibility in these as necessary if not more for solving the great doubts arising therein before as after the times of a written Law. Such Arguments as this and those that follow are not worthy of any consideration by reason of their great impertinency were it not upon this account that it is easie to evince they are so far from being Arguments for that they are certain Demonstrations against the certainty and the Infallibility of the Traditions disputed betwixt us and the Church of Rome and plainly overthrow the Cause they were designed to maintain To make this evident let it be noted First That the Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome is not this Whether any thing may be derived down to Posterity by Tradition for this we have confessed in many Cases and where Tradition from the beginning can undoubtedly be had we own it But the Question is Whether they who own or have Tradition for their Rule may not add many things to that which truly was received by Tradition pretending falsly that they also were derived by Tradition to them For if this may be so the Church of Rome may also own at present Tradition for her Rule and yet with the like falshood may pretend that many Doctrines and Practices descended by a Primitive Tradition to her and the Traditions here enumerated may also truly bear that name and yet the very same persons may have handed down at the same time many other Practices and Doctrines under the same pretence which tended to corrupt the Faith and Manners of those very Ages Secondly The great Enquiry is Whether in tract of time viz. the space of Sixteen hundred Years such Doctrines and practices may not be admitted and owned as Primitive Traditions by a prevailing party of Gentiles Jews or Christians which were nothing less than so For if this hath been actually so before and after the writing of the Law of Moses and also since the publication of the Gospel then may the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in so long tract of time be thus admitted and yet be nothing less than Primitive Traditions And Thirdly Whether Pretences to Tradition may not justly be suspected when ancient Records which had equal reason to take notice of them and could not have condemned what the whole Church received as a Divine Verity not only do say nothing of but plainly contradict them Having premised these things I answer Fourthly § 2 That these great Pretenders to Tradition in this Assertion contradict both the Tradition of the Jews and of the Ancient Fathers The Tradition of the Jews Selden de jure Nat. l. 1. c. 8. p. 102. c. 10. p. 116. ad p. 126. who unanimously declare That the Law given to the World after the Fall of Adam was only that of the Precepts of Noah against Idolatry 2. Blasphemy 3. Murther 4. Vnlawful Copulation 5. Theft 6. The Law concerning Civil Government all which are Laws of Nature And 7. The Law forbidding to eat Blood. The Fathers also generally assert Vid. Seld. ib. l. 1. c. 8. p. 98 99. Apol. 2. p. 83. That before the written Law men lived according to the Law of Nature So Justin Martyr That God admonished them Per naturalia praecepta quae ab initio infixa dedit hominibus nihil plus ab iis exquisivit by the natural Precepts from the beginning implanted in their Hearts and required nothing more of them So Irenaeus That it was Reason L. 4. c. 28. or Philosophy which before the coming of our Saviour was necessary to make them Righteous and that it was their Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ Strom. 1. p 282. So Clemens of Alexandria That they were guided by the Law written In Naturalibus tabulis De Cor. Milit. c. 6 Adv. Jud. c. 2. in the Tables of their Heart which was the common Law of the World and that it was this Law of Nature which à Patribus custodiebatur was observed by the Fathers and by which Noah Abraham and Melchizedeck were Righteous Praepar Evang l. 7. c. 7. So Tertullian That before the written Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were adorned with the Virtue of Piety by right Reason so Eusebius That God led the Heathens to Piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Law of Nature Serm. 1. Contr. Graec. ad Sylberg p. 20. and of the Creation so Theodoret. Particularly they inform us That before Moses the Patriarchs observed not the Sabbath That without the Observation of it all the just Men forenamed viz. Adam Abel Enoch Lot Noah and Melchezedeck Dial. cum Tryph. p. 236.245 L. 4. cap. 30. Adv. Jud. c. 2. 4. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Praep. Evang l. 7. c. 6. Demonstr Ev. l. 1. c. 6. pleased God and after them Abraham and his Posterity till Moses so Justin Martyr That Abraham was justified Sine observatione Sabbathi without the Observation of the Sabbath so Irenaeus Non Sabbatizabant The Patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath saith Tertullian They took no care of Circumcision or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Observation of the Sabbaths saith Eusebius Secondly of Sacrifices they affirm that Abel Noah Qu. Resp ad Orthod qu. 83. Const Apost l 6. c 20 p. 284. and others offered them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Divine