Paul 's Expression by commending themselves and their Doctrine to the Consciences of all Men. To shew the Prevalence of Men of Reputation in Matters of this Nature If as the Romanists do generally confess the Doctrine of the Millennium obtained almost generally in the Church from the Relation of one Papias a Man of very slender Intellectuals If as Eusebius informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 39. most of the Churchmen embraced that Sentiment by his Authority pleading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Antiquity of the Man If one Agrippinus as they also tell us could prevail over all Africa to receive Hereticks by Baptism If Origen could deserve to be condemned in the Fifth and the Sixth Synods as an Heretick and yet whilst he lived Hieron in Verbo Origenes Socrat Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 26. Hieron Prolog in l. 2. com in Micham Pamphil. Apol. Orig. praefat in libr. nom Hebr. T. 3. f. 12. could by his Learning and his Piety prevail to be had summo in honore in the highest Reputation to obtain after his Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great Glory throughout all the Christian World insomuch that he was very grateful cunctis prudentibus to all wise Men and did for many Years obtain the Title of Magister Ecclesiae The Master or Teacher of the Church If the Authority of Jerom could prevail to have his Translation of the Old Testament received against the Judgment of the Universal Church If one St. Austin could introduce into the Church the Belief of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin though none of the Fathers who had as good Opportunity to know and as much Reason to believe it spake one Tittle of it I say if all these things are so how can it be conceived a thing incredible That Popes Patriarchs and Councils and other Persons of great Authority and Vogue in their respective Ages should have had like Influence to introduce new Doctrines and Practices into the Church under pretence of Piety or the Authority of Scriptures or the Holy Fathers or some like plausible Account Theodor. Lector l. 2. p 566. Niceph. Hist Eccl. l. 15. c. 18. Why might not Petrus Gnaphaeus Patriarch of Antioch bring Invocation of Saints into the Prayers of the Church in the Fifth Century Pope Gregory introduce Purgatory in the Sixth Boniface the Third Paulus Diac. de Gest Longobard l. 4. c. 11. obtain from Phocas the Title of Caput omnium Ecclesiarum The Head of the Universal Church in the Seventh The Second Nicene Council introduce Image-Worship in the Eighth Paschasius give Rise to Transubstantiation in the Ninth Lombard and Hugo de S to Victore fix the Number of Seven Sacraments in the Twelfth And Pope Hadrian the Third introduce the Adoration of the Host in the Thirteenth Century Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 12. Soz. H. Eccl. l. 1. c. 23. If one Paphnutius could by his Reason and Authority prevail with the First Nicene Council to rescind their intended Decree touching the Celibacy of Priests If Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople could abolish the Custom of repairing to an established Penitentiary for the disclosing secret Sins and that with the ensuing Approbation of almost all the Catholick Bishops of the Church In a Word if so many Practices and Customs relating to the Discipline and to the Sacraments of the Church could be entirely altered and rejected in the following Ages as is here partly proved and by the Learned on both sides confessed why might not other Practices and Doctrines which obtained in the more pure and early Ages of the Church run the same Fate and by the same Authority and Methods be discarded For as it is judiciously observed by the Lord Faulkland when the Reasons offered for or against a Practice have in them some Appearance of Truth or Probability as they may have to many Persons though they be not valid when the Persons Authorizing or Approving them are of great Authority or Credit in the Church as they may be especially in darker Ages and yet be subject to great Errors and when the People upon whom these Doctrines or Practices are pressed have either a great Veneration and Esteem for those that press them or a great Dread of them then meet together most of those things which tend to work Perswasion or prevail for an Assent unto the Doctrine and a Compliance with the Practice recommended Seeing then Not. in Concil Clar. Can. 28. conc To. 10. p. 582. as Petrus de Marca doth inform us the Approbation of the half Communion by Thomas Aquinas made others certatim amplecti hanc sententiam to embrace greedily the same Opinion why might not others of as good Authority and Credit be instrumental to produce like Changes in other Constitutions of the Church Fourthly § 10 Old Doctrines and Practices might easily be changed and new obtain by reason of the corrupt Manners of the Clergy and by their Example of the People And that 1. Because such evil Practices deprive the Clergy of that Spiritual Wisdom and Divine Assistance which is their best Conducter into the Way of Truth and is their chief Preservative from dangerous Delusions and pernicious Errors Wisd 1.4 For as the Book of Wisdom saith Into a malicious Soul Wisdom will not enter nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto Sin. St. De Judicio dei To. 2. p. 393. Basil grievously laments the Discords and Contentions the perverse Doctrines and Opinions which had prevailed in his time amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers of the Church of God by which they verified the Prediction of St. Paul Acts 20.30 That from Christians themselves should proceed Men speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them And this he doth resolve into their Rejection of God their true and only King their Departure from the Laws of Christ and chusing rather to rule others in contradiction to the Commands of Christ than to be ruled by him By which things saith he they have render'd themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 394. unworthy of the Government of the Lord. Clemangis is still more express and Argumentative in this Particular Super Materia Conc. Gen. p. 71. For with them saith he is the Spirit those he directs and brings to a salutary End who have prepared for him within themselves an Habitation worthy of him and by good Works have render'd themselves worthy of his Inspiration and Visitation but how can he hear visit and enlighten them who are Adversaries to him and when they cannot do it in themselves endeavour to extinguish him in others and are inflamed not with the Fire of Love but with the Ardor of Ambition For with Hypocrites and self-Seekers the Holy Spirit is not wont to be present but to fly from them as his Enemies according to that saying of the Book of Wisdom the Holy Spirit of Discipline
any Censure past upon them by that Church or any refusal of Communion with them upon that account I say after all this surely it cannot be denied but that the Church of Rome is of a contrary Opinion in this matter to the Ancient Church of Christ that she cannot agreeably to her Decrees and Practice say That 't is unlawful to cut off the Heretick that it is a thing alien from the Church and from the meanest Christian that it is matter of Lamentation that any one should stir up King or Emperor to do it that Christ hath taught that such Men ought not to be taken away by Death that no good Catholicks allow it that they judge it Damnable that they who act thus against Hereticks are Disturbers of the Church's Peace and separate themselves from her Vnity that they may expect their Judge should require the Lives of these Hereticks at their Hands and should inflict his Judgments on them that if the Church permitteth any of her Sons to do this she is Guilty of the Fact or that such Persons who are Guilty of it or Instrumental to it are to be excluded from Catholick Communion that is she cannot say that she is now of the avowed Judgment of the Ancient Church of Christ in this Affair It were easie to give many other Instances in which the present practice of the Church of Rome § 8 is plainly opposite to that of the Church Catholick of old For It was the Custom of the Ancient Church to permit the People to carry home the Eucharist to their Houses and reserve it there to be received as they had occasion this saith St. Basil Ep. 289. Ad Ux. l. 2. c. 5. de orat c. 14. Cypr. de laps p. 132. was confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Custom of a long continuance of which Tertullian and Cyprian are Witnesses But now this surely would be esteemed a great Prophanation of the Holy Mystery by them who now will not permit the Laity even to touch the Sacrament with their Hands Anciently In Liturg. c. 26. saith Cassander the Prayer used at the Consecration of the Eucharist was read out with a loud Voice and so as that all the People might be able to hear it Vid. Treat of Latin Serv. c. 5. P. 75 76. and say Amen to it Justinian 's Novel commands all Christian Bishops subject to his Empire so to read it and that by virtue of an Apostolical command to do so Nor did any Christian that we read of in those Ages gainsay oppose or contradict either this Edict or the reason of it whereas now the Church of Rome commands that the words of Consecration should be pronounced voce submissa Concil Trid. Sess 22. can 9. with a low Voice and Anathematizeth all who condemn that Custom 3. The Fathers generally take notice of and lay great stress upon the breaking of the Bread distributed to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Philad §. 4. Fractus panis fit Eucharistia corporis Christi l. 5. c. 2. Caten in Matth. xxvi 28. One Loaf was broken for all saith Ignatius The broken Bread is made the Eucharist of the Body of Christ saith Irenaeus Christ saith Cyril of Alexandria gives us an example first to give Thanks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so to break the Bread and to distribute it Frangimus in Sanctificationem nostram We break it for our Sanctification Ep. Paschal 1. Hom. 24. in 1. ad Cor. p. 256. saith Theophilus of Alexandria In the Eucharist he suffers himself to be broken saith Chrysostom that he may fill all Ad distribuendum comminuitur It is broken in pieces that it may be distributed Ep. 59. qu. 5. saith St. Austin The Flesh of Christ in populi salutem partitur is divided for the Salvation of the People saith P. Gregory Dial. l. 4. c. 58. By taking a whole Loaf and breaking it and giving a part of it to his Disciples he signified without doubt quod nos in posterum facturos edocuit that which he taught us to do afterwards saith the Sixteenth Council of Toledo The Action of the Mass A.D. 693. c. 6. Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 1008. contr Graec. ibid. p. 971. saith Humbert is not compleat without the breaking of the Bread and the communication of it for our Lord gave a perfect commemoration to his Disciples pane fracto distributo by the Bread broken and distributed He blessed a whole Loaf and dristributed the broken particles of it to every one sicut Sancta R. Ecclesia usque nunc observat as the Holy Roman Church even now doth The Interpreter of the Roman Order saith Apud Cass Lit. c. 29. p. 67. Some of late times think it strange this Order enjoins the Bread to be broken as if they had not read that Christ brake it and gave it to his Disciples or that the Primitive Church continued in the Apostles Doctrine in communicatione fractionis panis and in the Communication of broken Bread. But though all the Evangelists take especial notice of this Action though St. Luke according to many Commentators thought it of so great moment as to express the whole Eucharist by breaking of Bread yet is this Action though of our Lord 's own practice and Institution wholly laid aside by the Roman Church which distributes whole Wafers and not broken Bread. But to omit innumerable Instances of this nature § 9 I shall conclude with that of the supposed Freedom of the Blessed Virgin from the guilt of Original Sin for it was doubtless the Tradition of the Vniversal Church from the Second to the Fourteenth Century that Christ alone was conceived without Sin and consequently that the Blessed Virgin was not so conceived For even A. D. 1368. it was determined by the Council of Vaur Concil Gallic edit Baluz c. 1. p. 140. That Baptism was the Remedy appointed for Original Sin contra vulnus originale sinc quo secundum sanctos in filiis hominum nemo unquam conceptus est praeter Christum without which according to the Holy Fathers no person besides Christ was ever conceived It were easie to prove this Assertion by plain Testimonies through every Century to this very Age but the full and numerous Confessions of the Romanists and their own Writings have rendered this Work needless For when the Feast of her Immaculate Conception was first introduced at Lyons Ep. 174. St. Bernard thus confutes it This is a new Festival quam ritus Ecclesiae nescit non probat ratio non commendat Antiqua Traditio which the Custom of the Church knoweth not Reason doth not prove and no Ancient Tradition doth commend Johannes Poza confesseth Elucidar Deipar l. 4. That Blandellus and Cajetan have produced against it the general Sayings of Irenaeus Origen St. Cyprian Theophilus Alexandrinus G. Nazianzen Nyssen and St. Basil St. Jerom and Fulgentius and in a manner all the Ancient
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
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
be sacred yea the whole Church preferred it before any other account of this Matter given by either Pope Council or Father For saith Cajetan as to this matter ad limam Hieronymi reducenda sunt verba tam Conciliorum quam Doctorum the words of Councils and Doctors must be reduced to the Rule of St. Jerom. So that those Books which he rejects are not to be esteemed Canonical as that word importeth Books sufficient ad firmandum ca quae sunt fidei to confirm Articles of Faith but only as it signifies Books useful and aedificationem Ecclesiae for the Edification of the Church and with this distinction you may reconcile the difference betwixt him and St. Austin and betwixt the Councils of Carthage and of Laodicea Alphonsus Tostatus saith Magis credendum est Hieronymo quam Augustino maxime ubi agitur de veteri Testamento St. Jerom is to be credited especially in things belonging to the Old Testament and Histories before St. Austin for in this thing he exceeded all the Doctors of the Church The same Tostatus saith Ista distinctio facta est ab Ecclesia Universali quae concorditer tenet istam distinctionem factam ab Hieronymo nam ista tenebatur a Judaeis fidelibus fult postea continuata in Ecclesia Defens Part. 2. c. 22. That the Vniversal Church with one accord holds the distinction made by St. Jerom for that was held by the Faithful Jews before Christs Advent and was afterwards continued in the Church and hence it came to pass that there was never any Bible found in those times which had before it the Canon of Carthage the Catalogue of St. Austin or the Epistle of Pope Innocent or the Decree of Pope Gelasius whereas in all Manuscript and Printed Bibles the Prologue of St. Jerom stiled Galeatus was placed before them by a common and universal consent of the Latin Church to be a sure Index and Discrimination of the Apocryphal and Ecclesiastical Books from the Canonical And this is the true Reason why many of the forecited Authors speaking of the Apocryphal Books mention sometimes but Five or Six viz. Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Judith Tobit and the Book of Maccabees to wit because St. Jerom in his Prologue upon the Book of Kings mentions them only though in his Preface to the Book of Jeremy he rejects Baruch and in his Preface upon Daniel he rejects the History of Susanna the Song of the Three Children and the Fables of Bell and the Dragon and so do they who Comment on these Books by his Example and with respect unto his Judgment So that from what hath been discoursed it is exceeding evident against the confident Assertions of Mr. M. and J. L. That after the Fifth Century it was the General Opinion of the Church till the Sixteenth Century that the Canonical Books were only Two or Four and Twenty and that those Books we stile Apocryphal did not belong unto the Canon and were not of validity sufficient to confirm Articles of Christian Faith. Concerning General Councils our Church asserts Two Things 1. Art. 21. That they may not be called together without the commandment and will of Princes 2. That they may erre and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Now touching the first Proposition That General Councils may not be called together without the Commandment and Will of Princes the Eastern Churches concurr in Judgment with us Sguropylus in his History of the Council of Florence saith That in their Synod held about the Vnion of the Eastern and the Western Churches they unanimously declared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 2. c. 8. That the Emperor according to his ancient Custom and Prerogative was to call Oecumenical Synods and no other was to do it And again The Emperor saith he Sect. 10. cap. 2. p 280. and the Greeks contended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was the Previlege of the Emperor to call the Synod and upon that account his Name was placed first in it as was manifest from the Acts of the Councils The ablest Writers of the West say the same thing Cardinal Cusanus declares We must say touching a General Council De Concord Cath. l. 2. c. 2. f. 39. That the Authority of it doth not so depend on him that calls it that if the Pope do not call it it should be no Council quia tunc non fuissent omnia octa universalia Concilia firma quoniam per Imperatores congregabantur for then none of the Eight General Councils would be firm they being all called by the Emperors from whom the Bishop of Rome as other Patriarchs received by Letters missive a publick warning to come or send unto the Councils And again From what hath been discoursed it appears Lib. 3 c. 13. Imperatores sanctos congregationes Synodales universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper fecisse That the Emperors did always call General Councils This saith he I have found to be true by perusing the Acts of all the General Councils to the Eighth inclusively And so I have read in the Gloss of Anastasius the Pope's Library-Keeper Quòd universales Synodos de omni terra Imperatores colligere soliti fuerunt That the Emperors were wont to Assemble General Councils Dum lego veteres Historias In reading of the ancient Histories I find not saith Aeneas Sylvius that Popes alone did call Councils Lib. 1. de Concil Basil p. 20. Lib. 3. Art. 1 q nor after in the time of Constantine and other Emperors quaesitus est magnopere Romani assensus Papae was the assent of the Pope of Rome much sought after Jacobatius informs us That à principio facultas congregandi concilia spectabat ad Imperatores the power of gathering Councils belonged to the Emperors from the beginning Lib. 1. c. 2. §. 2 3 4. Hist Eccles l. 5. in Prooem Richerius in his History of General Councils is very frequent in his full Assertions of this matter proving this clearly from those words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since that the Emperors became Christians the greatest Synods were and are held by their pleasure But it is needless to insist longer on this Head since Sancta Clara on this Article saith Pag. 294. Apol. 2. advers Ruff. f. 79. b. Where Erasinus saith Nota Lector olim Synodos Imperatorum jussu congregari solitas These words seem to be confirmed by the Authority of St. Jerom who rejects a Council with this Question Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jussit congregari What Emperor commanded the Assembling of that Synod As if he held the command of the Emperor to be necessary to that end sic observatum patet in omnibus fere conciliis veteribus and so 't is evident it was observed
And amongst these he reckons the Seven Catholick Epistles of the Apostles Pag. 59. comprised in one Volume which he calls the Sixth Volume of the New Testament Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul comprised in the Seventh Volume and in the Eighth the Revelation of St. John of which he testisieth that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 60. shewed and judged to be his by the Ancient and holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God And then concludes Pag. 61. These are the Canonical Books of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it were the first fruits Anchors and supports of our Faith. St. Cyril is another who professeth to write his Catalogue from the Church and to hand down the Canonical Books as she received them from the Apostles the Ancient Bishops and Governors of the Church and he among the Canonical Books of the New Testament reckons the Seven Catholick Epistles and Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul leaving out only the Apocalypse The Council of Laodicea reckons them exactly as St. Cyril doth leaving out with him the Apocalypse not that they question its Authority but because they reckon up only the Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought to be read in the Churches Cyril Catech. 4. p. 38. Concil Laod. Can. 60. among which the Apocalypse was not because it is so very Mystical and accordingly the Council concludes their Canon thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Books we have received from the Fathers to be read in the Church and yet they do command that nothing should be read there but Canonical Scripture Apud Hieron Tom. 4. f. 51. Ruffinus declares he reckoned the Volumes of the New Testament as they were delivered to the Church of Christ secundum majorum Traditionem and according to the Tradition of the Ancients and then he accounts Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul Seven Catholick Epistles and the Apocalypse saying Haec sunt quae patres intra Canonem concluserunt These are the Books which the Father 's put into the Canon Can. 27. The Council of Carthage undertaking to reckon up the Canonical Books of the New Testament enumerates Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul Two of Peter Three of John One of James and One of Jude and the Apocalypse of St. John as received from the Fathers St. Jerom reckons the Canonical Books of the New Testament after the same manner only saying That the Epistle to the Hebrews was by most shut out of the number of the Epistles written by St. Paul that is some in his time conceived St. Barnabas others St. Clemens either did interpret it from the Hebrew or write it either from the Mouth or from the Notions of St. Paul but then he adds Ep. Tom. 3. f. 13. That the whole Greek Church and some of the Latins did receive it That all the Eastern Churches and all the Churches which used the Greek Tongue did Anciently own it as the Epistle of St. Paul and that he also owned both that and the Apocalypse not respecting the Custom of his present Age but following the Authority of the Ancient Writers who cited Testimonies from both not as sometimes they are wont to do from Apocryphal Books but as from Canonical Scripture And good reason had he to say 1. § 19 Lib. 3. c. 24. That he received the Apocalypse on the Authority of the Ancients when Eusebius expresly declares That a judgment might easily be passed of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Testimony of the Ancients Athanasius that it was determined Synop. p. 60. and demonstrated to be his by the Ancient and Holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God. And indeed Ep. ad C. §. 34. Dial. cum Tryph p. 308. Pag. 373 477 128 347 376 480 486 500 503. Lib. 5. c. 30. p. 485. Pag. 201. 528. Tom. 5. in Joh. Hom. 7. in Jos pag. 269 270 411 510 c. De opere Elem p. 202. de bono pat p. 219. Hist Eccl. l. 4.24 Ibid. c. 26. Lib. 5. c. 18. p. 186. Lib. 7. c. 25. it is cited in the First Century by Clemens Romanus as a Prophetical Writing In the Second Century by Justin Martyr as a Book writ by John one of Christ's Twelve Apostles By Irenaeus in the same Century as the Revelation of John the Disciple of the Lord the Revelation of St. John and he declares it was written by him pene sub nostro saeculo almost in our Age at the end of the Reign of Domitian It is mentioned in the Third Century as holy Scripture and a Prophetick Vision by Clemens of Alexandria as the Revelation of that John who lay in the bosom of our Lord by Origen it is mentioned by Tertullian as the Prophecy the Revelation the Vision of the Apostle John in above Twenty places by St. Cyprian as that Revelation in which we hear our Saviour's Voice and in which he speaks to us Eusebius informs us That Melito Bishop of Sardis writ upon the Revelation of St. John that Theophilus Bishop of Antioch owned it and cited from it many Testimonies Now both these flourished in the middle of the Second Century That Hippolitus the Disciple of Irenaeus did the same And that Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria professed That he durst not reject it by reason of the multitude of Christians who had a veneration for it and that he owned it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the work of an holy Man inspired of God. And judge now whether he had not sufficient ground to say this matter might be decided by the Testimonies of the Ancients That this Book was refused by Marcion the Heretick Contra Marcion l. 4. c. 5. Haer. 51 54. Haer. 30. we learn from Tertullian that it was rejected by the Alogians and Theodosian Hereticks we learn from Epiphanius and St. Austin and that when some Orthodox Christians began to dislike the Doctrine of the Millennium they began also to dispute some the Author of this Book ascribing it to another John Presbyter at Ephesus and others the Authority of it because they could not answer the Testimony produced from the Twentieth Chapter in favour of the Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years But then their Arguments against it are only taken from some vain and weak Imaginations of their own Brains as v. g. That St. John here names himself which in his Gospel and Epistles he never doth by which Argument we must reject either the Lamentations or the Book of Jeremy 2. Because he doth not use the same Expressions here as he did there that is in a Prophetick Stile as in a Doctrinal on which account Ecclesiastes and the Canticles cannot be writ by the same Author And 3. Because he writes here better Greek than elsewhere which if so may be because he writes not to the Jews but to the Asiaticks or after he had more conversed with them who spake that Language in its Purity As for those who ascribe
all things which words do not establish but with the greatest Evidence destroy this vain Tradition And First That the words of Malachy Mal. iv 5 6. Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet c. cannot be understood of our Lord's Second Coming to pass Judgment on the World will be exceeding Evident from these considerations 1. That this Forerunner was to come the Lord there mentioned to follow before the Ruine of the Jewish Temple this is evident from these words Behold I will send my Messenger Mal. iij. 1 2. and he shall prepare my way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple For that the Messenger in this Third Chapter is the same with Elijah the Prophet in the Fourth Chapter will be apparent 1. From the Office of this Messenger which was to come before the Face of the Lord or to be his Forerunner as the Elijah mentioned Chapter the ourth was to be and as John Baptist was 2. From the Consideration of the work he was to do Mal. iij. 1. This Messenger being to prepare the way before him as the Elijah promised also was to do by turning the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just And as the Angel doth inform us that the Baptist should do for saith the Angel He shall go before him in the Spirit and Power of Elias to turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. 3. Luk. i. 17. From the consideration of the Day of his Coming mentioned Chapter the Third as a Day so dreadful that few could abide it or stand when he appeareth by reason of the Severity of the Judgments which should then befal them vers 2. And Chapter the Fourth as a Day great and terrible Since then the Lord here mentioned was to come suddenly seeing he was to come to hi◠Temple 't is certain that the Day of his coming was to be before the Temple was destroyed and therefore could not be the Day of Judgment 4. This will be further evident from the Consideration of the persons to whom this Messenger and this Elijah were both sent Chap. iij. 1. for the Messenger was sent to them who then sought for the Lord and delighted in the Messenger of the Covenant vers 3. vers 4. he was to be his Messenger who was to purifie the Sons of Levi to make the Offerings of Judah and Jesusalem pleasant to the Lord. He therefore was a Messenger peculiarly sent to them to reprove them for their Sins and to declare unto them such things as concerned them and not such things as were common to the whole World. Accordingly Elijah the Prophet was sent to them that fear'd his name Chap. iv v. 2. to them who were obliged to remember the Law of Moses vers 4. which he commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel This Day of Terror therefore must be chiefly that which did concern that Nation And lastly This Elias was to come to call Men to Conversion and Repentance for which was a fit Season at our Lord's first coming whereas at his second coming there will be no time for Repentance but for the Destribution of Rewards and Punishments He was to come to turn the Hearts of the Fathers c least God should smite the Earth Becherem i. e. the Inhabitants of Judah with Destruction so that the Ruine threatned here might be prevented by Repentance and Conversion whereas the general Day of Judgment cannot be thus prevented but will certainly come in the appointed time The only Objection that is considerable against this Assertion Object is That the Day spoken of Chapter iv vers 5. is represented as a dreadful Day which seemeth proper to the Day of Judgment whereas the Day of Christ's first coming is not so called but rather an Acceptable Day and a Day of Salvation To this I Answer Answ That the Day of our Lord's first coming considered as reaching to the Destruction of Jerusalem was indeed a very dreadful and terrible Day Thus in the Prophet Joel we read of a Day of the Lord described in the same Expressions Joel ij 31. The Sun shall be turned into Darkness and the Moon into Blood before the great and terrible Day of the Lord come and yet St. Peter speaking of what was done after our Lord's Ascention and citing these very words saith Acts ij 16. This was that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel Moreover our Blessed Lord speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the miseries that should befal that very Generation saith Luk. xxi 22. Mat. xxiv 21. These shall be the days of Vengeance such days of Tribulation as never were from the beginning of the World and never shall be afterwards Yea Vid Dr. Pocock in Mal. 3. v. 2. the Tradition of the Jews doth in their Talmud make mention of such great Afflictions which should happen in the days of their Messiah unto Israel that happy should he be who did not see them Which notwithstanding this day might well be stiled an Acceptable Day a Day of Salvation to them who received our Jesus as their Saviour believed in him and obeyed his Sayings according to the words of the Prophet Malachy Behold the Day cometh which shall burn as an Oven c. Mal. iv 1 2. but to you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his Wings Whence after this most terrible description our Lord speaks thus to his Disciples Luk. xxi 18 19. vers 28. Be not ye terrified when these things shall happen in Patience possess your Spirits for there shall not one Hair of your Heads perish when these things come to pass then look up and lift up your Heads for your Redemption draweth nigh Secondly That the Elias of whom the Prophet Malachy speaks § 4 was not the Tisbite or that it is not there asserted that he who in the Reign of Ahab was carried into Heaven should be in person sent as the Fore-runner of our Lord's second Advent will be evident from these Considerations 1. Because Elias the Tisbite came not upon the Errands mentioned there to prepare the way of the Lord or turn the Hearts of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just before the ruin of Jurusalem and the destruction of the Temple as the Elijah promised by the Prophet was to do and did 2. 'T is certain that the Messenger described by the Prophet as the Fore-runner of the Lord and of his Day was John the Baptist for so our Saviour doth expresly teach us saying This John is he of whom it is written Matth. xi 10. Luk. vij 27 28. Behold I send my Messeger before thy Face to prepare thy way before thee There hath not risen among Men a greater Prophet
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