CHAP. I.

FOR the right stating of this Question, let it be con­sidered,

1. §. 1 That we acknowledge, That a Doctrine is neither more or less the Word of God for being written or unwritten, for that Word which our Saviour spake unto the Jews, was for a time unwritten, and yet was nevertheless the Word of God, because not written: We also say there is no reason to dispute, Whether the written or unwritten Word of God, when equally known to be so, is most to be relied on: For the Word of God being therefore believed, because known to us to be the Word of God, must equally be believed in that Case, whether it be written or unwritten. Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. We do not therefore quarrel with the Church of Rome for saying, ‘That the Traditions which proceeded from the Mouth of Christ, or his Apostles speaking by the Holy Spirit, and preserved by a continual Succession in the Catholick Church, are with the same Reverence and pious Affection to be received as what they writ.’ But only desire them to prove the things which they affirm, and we deny to have been thus delivered, and then we promise to receive them as the Truths of Christ. And because Mr. M. hath the Con­fidence to say, P. 397, 398. ‘That our Ministers usually so confound the Busi­ness, that they make their Auditors even to startle when they tell them that we hold Tradition equal to Scripture, whereas if they meant to deal really they should say what the Truth is, that we do indeed equalize Tradition to Scripture, and that we have all reason to do so.’ To let him see how little reason he had to accuse us of corrupt Dealing in this Matter, I will faithfully tran­scribe the Assertions of our most able Writers touching this Point. Sect. 16. n. 20. Archbishop Laud declares, That the Voice and Tradition of that Church which included in it Apostles, Disciples, and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven, was Divine; and the Word of God from them is of like validity written or delivered. Bishop Taylor owns, Duct. Dubit. §. 2. c. 3. p. 484. That Tradition would be of the same use as Scripture is, if the Tradition were from Christ and his Apostles, [Page 3]and were as Certain as Ʋniversal, as Credible as that is by which we are told that Scripture is the Word of God.

We willingly grant, saith Mr. Chillingworth, Chap. 3. §. 45. vid. Chap. 2. §. 53, 88. the Church to be as Infallible in her Traditions as the Scripture is, if they be as Ʋniversal as the Tradition of the undoubted Books of Scripture is. And again, The Tradition of the Church you say must teach us what is Scripture, and we are willing to believe it; Answer to the Jes. p. 35. Rat. p. 168, 210, 216. and now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from Age to Age, and from Hand to Hand any Interpretation of any Scripture, we are ready to embrace that also.

So also Bishop Ʋsher and Doctor Stillingfleet in his Rational Ac­count frequently. And therefore R. H. Guid. Disc. 3. c. 11. p. 157. who was better ac­quainted with our Writings than Mr. M. declares, ‘That Protestants acknowledge a sufficient certainty of the Tra­dition concerning Scripture, and consequently concerning all the Articles of Christian Faith that are built on Scripture, upon which ground also they freely grant, N. B. That if any other point wherein they dissent from Catholicks can be proved by as Universal a Tradition as that of the Scriptures, they will subscribe to it.’ We therefore manifestly do agree with Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theophylact, when they say, That the things delivered by the Mouth of the Apostles, Oecum. in 2. Thess. ij. 15. Chrysost. ibid. & Theophy­lact. and by their Writings are, [...], both worthy of Observa­tion. That, [...], both equally deserve to be credited, when we have equal certainty of both, and therefore these passages are vainly cited against us by Mr. M. Let him once prove that the same Tradition tells us, That the Apostles delivered the Points in Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome as Divine Verities by word of Mouth only, and we are all his Humble Servants.

But alas he knows how vain and how impossible an attempt this would be, §. 2 and therefore thinks it better boldly to assert what he can never prove, by saying, P. 399. That our best and only assurance that the Scripture is the Word of God, is that all the Christian world saith so; but the same Tradition which tells us this tells us also, that the Apostles delivered these, and these Points to us as Divine Verities by word of Mouth; viz. All the Traditions received as Apo­stolical in the Roman Church. Now to reflect a little on this false Assertion, and to expose this way of Arguing.

1. Put it into the Mouth of a Jew, and it thus pleads for those Traditions which our Lord condemned, and by which they condemned him. The best and only Assurance which you Jewish Christians can have, that the Scripture of the Old Testa­ment is the Word of God, is that all the Jews say so; but the same Tradition which tells us this, tells us also, That Moses and the Pro­phets delivered these, and these Points to us as Divine Verities by word of Mouth, which your Jesus rejected as vain Worship, and as the Doctrines of Men; 1 Pet. 1.18. and your St. Peter mentions, as Traditions received from our Fathers; though he stiles them vain; you therefore must have equal Reason to receive those Traditions which condemn your Jesus, and shew he could not be the true Messiah, as to own those Scriptures of the Old Testament, which, say you, Prophesied of him.

2. Though we grant the Attestation of the whole Christian World to be a very good assurance of any necessary Article of Christian Faith, yet have we more assurance that the Scriptures are the Word of God than so. As,

1. The necessity that the Christian Revelation should be pre­served in some Records, and the assurance that we have that it hath been preserved to us in no other. The necessity, I say, that the Christian Revelation should be preserved in some Records, for if St. Paul thought it necessary to write to the Church of Rome, Rom. xv. 15. 2 Cor. i. 13. to put them in remembrance of the Grace given to him, as also to send in writing to his Corinthians the things which they already read and did acknowledge; and to write the same things which he had taught to his Philippians. Phil. iij. 1: If St. Peter thought it needful to write unto the Jewish Converts, to testify to them, 1 Pet. v. 12. 2 Pet. iij. 1. 1 Jo. v. 13. that was the true Grace of God in which they stood, and to stir up their sincere minds by way of Remembrance. St. John, that they might know they had eternal Life, and might believe in the Son of God. Ver. 3. St. Jude, to mind them of the Common Salva­tion. If the Evangelist closeth his Gospel with these words, — These things were written that you might believe, Joh. xx. 31. and believing might have Life through his Name; surely these persons would not but think it necessary that the essential Doctrines of Chri­stianity should be written? And who can think the Holy Spirit of God would have assisted them to indite these Gospels and Epistles, had he conceived it needless that they should be written?

2. We have the plain Assertions of the Authors of the New Testament, that they were written by the Servants and the Apostles of the Lord, by Men who declared that the things they writ were the Commandments of the Lord; 1 Cor. xiv. 37. 1 Pet. i. 18. by Men who preached the Gospel to them by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, and proved the Truth of what they said by mighty Signs and Miracles, owned even by Jews and Heathens, as well as by their Christian Converts.

3. We find the matter of them worthy of the God of Heaven to reveal.

4. We find them generally received as such by those who bore the Name of Christians, however differing in other matters; read daily in their Assemblies, cited in all their Homilies and Sermons, called their Digests, and their God-making Books, by appealing to which they confirmed their Doctrines, and confuted their Adversaries, and which they offered to be perused to the very Heathens: And hence we have just reason to presume, that they had Cause sufficient to believe them such.

5. We also have the concurrent Testimony of Jews and Heathens citing them as such, and thence making Objections against the Christian Faith, and attempting to wrest them out of the Hands of Christians, that so Christianity might be de­stroyed out of the World.

And lastly, We have good reason to suppose that Providence of God which was so highly interested in propagation of the Christian Faith, and making of it known unto the World, would not permit false Records of that Faith to be so early and generally imposed upon the Christian World.

Let us then see it proved by Mr. M. that the matter of those Roman Traditions contained in their new Creed, is worthy the God of Heaven to reveal, and that we have like reason to suppose his Providence concerned about them; let us see plain Assertions of the like Primitive Authority, that they were de­livered by Men assisted by the Holy Ghost, and equal Miracles performed in confirmation of that Assertion; let us see a like necessity that Christian Revelations should be handed down by word of Mouth; a like general Reception of these Traditions throughout all Ages, a like appearance of them in the Chri­stian Writings, or Citation of them by Jews or Heathens, and [Page 6]when this Evidence hath been produced by Mr. M. we shall be ready to Embrace and own them also as the unwritten Word of God.

But whosoever undertakes this Task will find some of these things imply a contradiction, viz. That an Oral Tradition should be necessary to be Recorded, or daily read in the As­semblies of Christians.

That it is upon the Matter confessed by Du Pin in his A­bridgment of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Three first Centuries, P. 605.613. that scarcely any mention of these supposed Tra­ditions can be found in the Homilies or Writings of those Ages.

Moreover we find not in those Primitive Ages any mention of the Divine Original of these Traditions, any appeal to them as such, any confirmation of Christian Doctrine, or confuta­tion of their Adversaries by them, nor any thing objected from them either by Jew or Gentile against the Christian Faith, tho' since the time that we confess they came into the Church, both Jew and Gentiles have been very forward to object, as against other things, so especially against Transubstantiation, and the Veneration of Images, and the Adoration of the Host.

Lastly, there appears no such real Excellency in them, no such tendency to the advancement of true Holiness and Good­ness as may convince us they are things worthy of the God of Heaven to reveal, and which his Providence should be concerned to preserve, and propagate throughout all Ages.

Moreover we distinguish betwixt Historical Traditions of the Primitive and succeeding Churches, §. 3 Dist. 2. such as are the Tradition con­cerning the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, the Birth of our Lord, or his coming forth out of her Womb, Clauso Ʋtero; his coming to his Disciples the Doors being shut; his Age; the time of his preaching upon Earth and the like, and Traditions touching Articles of Faith, and Doctrines to be believed in Order to our being either sound Believers or good Christians.

Touching the first we say;

1. That we have no occasion to dispute with them about some of these things; and therefore what St. Basil saith of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, [That though it would not be offensive unto Piety to say, That afterwards she did the works of Matrimony, her Virginity being only necessary till the Birth of [Page 7]Christ, yet the Mystery being not concerned in it, we leave it unre­garded and unsearched into.] We say of other matters of this nature, [...], De humana Christi Gener. Tom. 1. p. 509. In Matth. Ed. Huet. p. 223. we think it best not to search curiously into them; though that of Origen, [...], They who say these things would preserve the perpetual Virginity of Mary, seems to insinuate that this was once but the Opinion of some Men. And they who were most zealous for it, as was St. Jerom against Helvidius, Ut haec quae scripta sunt non negamus, ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus, natum deum esse de virgine credi­mus quia legimus, Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus, Tom. 2. f. 6. a. do it upon this Ground, because the contrary is not written, for thus he speaks, As we deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those things which are not written; we believe our Lord to be Born of a Virgin, because we read it; we believe not that Ma­ry was Married after her delivery, because we read it not.

2dly. We add, That as for the pretended Tradition, §. 4 that our Lord came out of the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, without opening of it, though it seems generally to have prevailed in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, yet doth it plainly seem to contradict the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures, which teach, That when the days of her Purification were accomplished, Luk. ij. 22, 23, Puram aperi­ens vulvam. according to the Law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the Law of the Lord, Every Male that openeth the Womb shall be called holy to the Lord. L. 4. c. 66. In partu suo nup­sit ipsa patefa­cti corp. lege. Lib. de Carne Christi c. 23. vid. etiam c. 4. & 20. Hom. 14. in Lucam Tom. 2. f. 101.

According to the import of which Scripture, Irenaeus doth expresly teach, That our Lord at his Birth opened the Womb of the Virgin.

Tertullian adds, That she was a Virgin as not having known Man, but was no Virgin, quantum a partu, at her teeming, her Womb being then opened, according to that saying, Every Male that openeth the Womb, &c. Origen, That Matris domini to tempore vulva reserata est quo partus editus, the Womb of the Mother of our Lord was opened when she brought forth her Son. Clemens of Alex­andria evidently shews that this was in his time only the saying of some Men, attending to the Fable of the false Gospel of St. James, That the Midwives after her delivery found by Inspection, that she was a Virgin, and that others held the contrary; for, saith he, It seemed to many, and yet seemeth, that Mary was by [Page 8]the Birth of her Son a Woman properly delivered of a Child, though she was not, Strom. l. 7. p. 756. [...], a Woman properly delivered; [...]; for some say that being inspected by the Midwives after the Birth of her Son, she was found a Virgin. De Incarn. l. 14 cap. 6. §. 1. He respects, saith Petavius, the Old Wife's Tale, in­vented by some idle Trifler, which we find in Suidas, and in the Proto-Evangelium S. Jacobi, which I could wish he had no other­wise related than by way of Contempt and Derision. Thus we learn upon what Grounds this was believed by him against the Opinion of many others. St. Basil grounds this Opinion upon another Story of like nature: De human. Christi Gener. Tom. 1. p. 509. The Story of Zacharias, saith he, proves that the Virgin Mary was, [...], an entire Virgin; for it is derived to us, [...], from Tradition, that Zacharias was slain between the Porch and the Altar for say­ing, Qui hujusmodi Traditioni non credunt. that Mary was a Virgin, [...], after the Birth of our Lord.

Origen delivers the same thing in the like words, In Matt. Hom. 26. f. 49. b. In Matth. 23.35. Venit ad nos Traditio quaedam, Such a Tradition hath come down to us. And Theophylact, [...], We have it from Tradition; and yet Origen in the same place confesseth that this Tradition was not believed by others; In locum. and Jerom saith, That it came, Ex Apocryphorum Somniis, From apocryphal Dreams; and adds, That Quia de scripturis non habet autoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur, Because it hath no Authority from Scripture, it is as easily condemned as approved of.

And thus we see the rise of this Tradition, which afterwards prevailed over the Christian World.

3ly. §. 5 That our Lord lived above Fourty if not to Fifty Years, Sicut Evangelium & om­ues seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem Disci­pulum Domini, convenerunt, id ipsum tradidisse eis Jo­annem. L. 2. c. 39. is the express Assertion of Irenaeus, and for this he produceth the Testimony of the Go­spel, and of all the Elders of the Church, who met S. John the beloved Disciple of our Lord, in Asia, and declared that he delivered to them the same thing, yea, saith he, some of them saw not only John, but the rest of the Apostles, and heard the same things from them, & testantur de hujusmodi Relatione, and testifie the truth of the Relation.

To say with Feuardentius upon the place, that he might have had this from Papias, is a very unlikely thing, for he [Page 9]speaks not of the Testimony of one Man, but of all the Seniors; not of Men who had never seen the Apostles, as Papias had not, but of them who had; he cites not Papias, as in the Case of the Millennium he did; here therefore is a solemn Declaration of a Tradition received from the Mouth of the Apostles, and at­tested by all the Seniors, and yet so far from being in the Gospel, as is pretended, that by the Gospel it may be evident­ly confuted; so far from being owned as such in after Ages, that upon a very slight Ground, even the saying of the Pro­phet Isaiah, Vid. Feuard. in Iren. p. 46. & 188. That Christ was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord; many of the Fathers took up a contrary Opinion, that our Lord Suffered in the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius, and preached One Year only. When Jesus came to his Baptism, saith Clemens of Alexandria, [...]. Strom. 1. p. 340. he was about Thirty Years old, and that he was to Preach but One Year, is thus written, He sent me to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord; this both the Pro­phet and the Gospel, according to the plain meaning of the Words averr, say some in Origen, Hom. 32. in Luk. f. 111. That our Lord Preached the Gospel but one Year, and that on this account it was said, Cap. 8. that he was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord. [...]. L 1. c. 1. p. 16. Tertullian in his Book against the Jews saith, That Christ suffered, annos habens quasi triginta, being about Thirty Years Old.

Lactantius, Africanus, and others, cited by Feuardentius, say the same. And yet this was no better than an Opinion first invented by the Gnosticks, as we learn from Irenaeus, and for which they produced the same Text; and 'tis as easily con­futed by the Enumeration of the Passovers our Saviour Cele­brated after his Baptism and before his Death.

Now if a Tradition could so generally obtain in the Fifth Century which had its rise from Fabulous Legends, and Apo­cryphal Dreams, against plain Words of Scripture, and plain Assertions of the Fathers living in the former Centuries, as that of our Lords coming out of the Womb of the Virgin without opening of it did, why might not other Traditions pretended by some later Councils and the Church of Rome be of like nature? Why may we not credit the Council of Frankford, In lib. Carol. p. 3. c. 30. declaring that the Second Nicene Council for their pretended [Page 10]Tradition of Image-Worship, had recourse, ad Apocryphas quasdam & risu dignas naenias, to Apocryphal and Ridiculous Tales. Comment. in 2. ad Tim. p. 155. Or Espencaeus a Romanist, confessing, that they defended it, daemonum Spectris & muliebribus Somniis, with diabolical Apparitions and old Wife's Dreams; especially when, as he there saith, this we see in the very Synod, which approves and urgeth in confirmation of it, the Tale of Constantine's Leprosy, and of his Baptism by Pope Sylvester, Def. Constant. contr. Baril. c. 10, 11. adver­sus Spalat. c. 65. p. 458, 459. and of the Images of Paul and Peter produced then to him; the Tale of the Image sent to Agbarus, of the Passion of the Image of Christ at Beryth, and that infamous Tale of the old Fornicating Monk, all con­futed and exposed by Learned Crakanthorp, and a late Cap. 5. p. 22, 23. excel­lent Discourse of the Second Nicene Council.

If Irenaeus could so early pretend to a Testimony of all the Elders of the Church of Asia, for a matter of apparent falshood, if others in the Second and Third Century could frame a contrary Doctrine, from such a weak allusion to a Prophetick Saying, I hope the saying of One or Two Doctors in the following Ages, cannot be reasonably supposed to a­mount to any certain proof of the Traditions or Doctrines derived from the Apostles. And if their Testimonies in such Cases in which they are most properly Testators, or Relaters of Church History and of Traditions received from the Elders of the Church, prove so uncertain, and so alien from Truth, less Credit must be given to them in those Articles of Faith, or Doctrines of Manners, in which they only give their Judg­ment, without pretending to Apostolical Tradition for the Truth of what they say: The Patrons of Oral Tradition confessing and declaring that they rely not on them as Doctors and Divines, but as Witnesses of Tradition only.

Moreover it is the constant Opinion of the Fathers, §. 6 since the Fourth Century that our Saviour twice penetrated with his Body through the Doors where the Disciples were assembled, Joh. 20.19, 26. Vid, Maldo­nat, in locum. be­cause he came twice to them, saith St. John, The Doors being shut, and stood in the midst of them.

Whereas 'tis evident that this Phrase doth not inferr this Penetration, any more than my saying, I came into the College the Gates being shut, imports, that with my Body I pierced through the College Gates. It doth not in the least inforce us [Page 11]to conclude, that our Lord did not by his power open the Doors, or come in any other way.

And whosoever seriously considers the circumstances of the Text, will find good Reason to believe, that Christ did not thus penetrate through the Doors as they imagined, for the Apostle doth inform us, ver. 20. that Christ when he was come among them shewed them his Hands and his Feet; he therefore purposely appeared to convince them that he was risen in the same Body in which he Suffered, and which he laid down in the Sepulchre. They, saith St. Luke, were troubled at his Appearance, Luk. xxiv. 38, 39. and thought that they had seen a Spirit; to remove which Ima­gination, our Lord speaks to them thus, Why are ye troubled, and why do such Reasonings rise up in your Hearts, see my Hands and my Feet, that it is I my self, handle me, and see, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as you see I have. St. John in­forms us, that his second Appearance, when the Doors were shut, was designed particularly to convince St. Thomas of the same Truth, and to confirm the Resurrection of his proper Body to him. He speaks thus, Reach hither thy Finger, Joh. [...]x. 27. and be­hold my Hands, and reach hither thy Hand, and thrust it into my Side, and be not faithless but believing; whereas had Christ pene­trated with his Body through the Doors at both these Ap­pearances, and so had entred in to them after the manner, not of a Body, but a Spirit, he had done that which must have stagger'd their Faith at the same time that he designed to con­firm them in it. For, notwithstanding any thing they seemed to see or feel, they could not well believe he had true Flesh and Bones, and was no Spirit, had they believed and known, he even then had thus penetrated through their Doors, and therefore had done that which only Spirits, and no true Flesh and Bones could do. And if you here referr this Action with the Fathers to Christ's Almighty Power, why might not his Disciples, if they did the like, mistrust that by the self-same power, he, who did this, might make that Body which ap­peared to them, seem to have Flesh and Bones, and Prints of Wounds, when it had not?

When our Roman Doctors shall have answered this Scruple, Pseudo-Justin, Nazianz. Chrysostom, St. Jerom, Au­stin, Euthymius. Apud Maldo­natum in Matth. xxviij. 2. I shall pay greater Reverence to the Authority of the Fathers of the Fourth and the ensuing Centuries touching this matter, but [Page 12]till then I shall continue as much to Scruple Christ's penetration with his Body through the Doors, as I do that other fine In­vention of some of the same Fathers, that our Lord's Body at his Resurrection, penetrated through the Stone of the Sepulchre.

But besides all these Instances there are two celebrated in Church-History, which are abundantly sufficient to discover the uncertainty of the pretences to Tradition in such Cases, even according to the Judgment of most Learned Romanists.

The First is the known Story of the Phoenix, §. 7 that solitary Bird, which hath no other of its Kind, and which is propagated only by a Worm arising out of its burnt Ashes, P. 34, 35. De Resur. Carn. c. 13. Catech. 18. p. 213, 214. Ancorat. c. 85. as is related in the first Century by Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Co­rinthians, which used to be publickly read in the Church. By Tertullian in the Third Century. In the Fourth Century by Cyril of Jerusalem, who saith, [...], Clemens and many others did relate it, and bids us not disbelive it. Epiphanius not only introduceth it as a thing whose Fame had come to many of the Faithful, but he triumphs over the Jews with this Question, Physic. c. 11. Why should you not believe our Lord's Resurrection in Three days, [...], when a Bird was restored to Life in Three Days? St. Am­brose saith, De fide Resur. p. 39. vide etiam Hexam. l. 5. c. 23. & in Ps. 118. p. 565. Hoc relatione crebra, & Scripturarum Authoritate cognovimus, We know this by frequent Relation, and by the Authority of the Scriptures, which he saith, as being of the number of those Fathers, who applied that Saying of the Psalmist, [...], The Just shall flourish as a Palm-Tree, Ps. xcij. 12. to this Bird, because the same Greek word signifies both a Palm-Tree and a Phoenix. Dion. p. 49. Renasci Con­stat, apud Hi­eron. Tom. 4. f. 47. b. L. 5. c. 7. p. 246. Carmen de Phoen. Tom. 4. f. 54. Synesius saith, That by the coming of this Bird, the Aegyptians measured, [...], the Circuit of their Times, he coming, as the Story saith, once only in Five hundred Years. Ruffinus in his Symbol mentions this as a thing certain.

The Constitutions stiled Apostolical, — The Verses which pass under the Name of Lactantius, — The Epistle under the Name of Jerome to Praesidius say the same thing. And yet this Story is deservedly now rejected by the best Writers of the Church of Rome. Const. Apost. & Lact. ubi sup. Epiph. & Hie­ron. ibid. And whosoever considers the Heathenism mixed with it; viz. That this Bird comes, [...], to the Altar of the Sun, and doth, [...], [Page 13] pray to the Sun; and when she is to be consumed, she goes to the Priest of Heliopolis, and enters with him into the Temple; that the new Bird which ariseth out of her Ashes, Epiph. Phys. c. 11. [...], saluteth the same Pagan Priest, and taking up the Bones of her Consumed Parent, [...], lays them upon the Altar of the Sun.

I say, Whosoever well considers of these things, Not. in Clem. P. 90. will find sufficient cause to say with Cotelerius, Mirum cunctis Christianis non suboluisse fraudem ob Paganismum fabellae permistum, It is to be wondered that the Paganism mixed with this Fable, discovered not the Cheat unto all Christians.

The Second is the Story of the Cells of the Septuagint, §. 8 in which they are said to have been severally placed when they Translated the Old-Testament from the Hebrew into Greek, and yet to have performed this Translation all in the same words. This Justin Martyr having related, useth these words, Exhort. ad Graec. p. 13, 14. [...]; These things we report to you Gentiles not as Fables, or as seigned Stories, but as a received Tradition, delivered to us by the Inhabitants of the Place. L. 3. c. 25. Irenaeus having told the same History, concludes thus, Firma est, & non ficta quae secundum nos est sides, manifestam ostensionem habens ex his Scripturis, Our Faith is firm, and not seigned, having manifest demonstration from these Scriptures. Strom. 1. P. 342. Catech. 4. p. 37. De Men­sur. p. 160, 161, 163.

Clemens Alexandrinus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius among the Greek Fathers, expresly affirm the same thing touch­ing these Cells, or their Interpretation of Scripture, in the very same words, though separated one from the other. Ter­tullian speaks, De sententiae Communione, Apol. c. 18. Of this conspiring in their Sentiments, as an Evidence of a divine Providence assisting them. And St. De C.D. l. 18. c. 42, 43. Austin is express both for their separate Interpreta­tion, and their exact Agreement in the words. And all these Fathers hence conclude, that this Interpretation was perform­ed, [...], Ibid. Spiritu codem assistente qui in Prophetis erat quando illa dixerunt, by divine Power and Inspiration, by the same Holy Spirit which enabled the Prophets to indite these Scriptures. And they who do not speak expresly of these Circumstances, do notwithstanding ge­nerally acknowledge that their Interpretation was Prophetical and Divine.

Eusebius saith, Praepar. Evan. L. 8. c. 1. That it was, [...], an Interpretation ordered by God; it was done by them, saith St. Hilary, Prolog. in Psalm. p. 635. Spirituali & Coelesti scientia, with Spiritual and Heaven­ly Knowledge, Praefat. in Psalm. — [...], not without Divine In­spiration, saith Theodoret, and that by reason of the great Symphony, which was in their Interpretations.

And yet these things delivered with so great consent of An­cient Fathers, and contradicted only by Saint Jerom, who upon that account hardly escaped their Censure, are now rejected by the most learned Romanists as false and incredible. De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 6. §. haec sententia. For, as for the Story of the Cells, Bellarmine saith, That the Jews might easily impose on Justin Martyr, Fabulam à se confictam, a Fable feigned by themselves; and it might as easily happen, that aliqui posteriores fidem habuerint Justino, Notae in E­piph. de Mens. & Pond. p. 378. That some succeeding Fathers should give credit unto Justin: That Story of the Cells, saith Peta­vius, aegre admodum fidem obtinet, is scarcely credible. Mr. Du Pin declares, Nov. Biblioth. part. 1. dissert. praelim. p. 82, 88. This is une fiction des Juifs, to which the Fa­thers above-named yielded their assent. F. Simon saith, That all which the Fathers have said of the Seventy Interpreters, excepting some few things seigned afterwards by the Jews, were taken out of Aristaeus, Disq. Crit. c. 15. p. 109. whom all judicious Criticks now judge Spurious; and having objected against himself, Patrum omnium Autoritatem the Authority of all the Fathers, he answers, That we are not so much in this matter to consider, Ibid. quid a Patribus dictum fuerit, what the Fathers said, as what Reasons they had to say so; and that Jerom did not scruple to oppose himself, contra commu­nem Patrum sententiam, against the common Opinion of the Fathers about the Cells, to Laugh at Justin for it, as a simple Man, and to say roundly, Nescio quis primus auctor Septuaginta Cellulas mendacio suo exstruxit, I know not who was the first Author of the Lye.

As for the Second Point touching their Inspiration, Parum abfuit quin ab Ecclesia tanquam Nova­tor ejiceretur. C. 16. p. 129, 130. or Divine Assistance in this work; he confesseth that Vossius in that As­sertion, that they were thus inspired, Sibi consentientes habet Patres omnes, si unum exceperis Hieronymum, Had all the Fathers on his side, excepting Jerom, and as for him, he narrowly escaped being cast out of the Church as an Innovator for denying it; and yet, saith he, the Judgment of St. Jerom, and the Grave Authors of our Age is to be preferred; C. 14. p. 115. for the Fathers being only skill'd in Greek and Latin, de rebus sibi incognitis quidquam certi definire [Page 15]non potuerunt, could say nothing certain of things unknown to themselves; indeed, saith he, in matters of Faith, the consent of the Doctors of the Church hath in it something of Divine; C. 16. p. 130. at ille cordatus non est, nec religiosus, but he is not sincere or Reli­gious, who in things which are not of Faith, fears to depart from the Sentence of the Fathers, and had rather believe other Mens Writings, than his own Eyes and Experience. And he concludes with these remarkable Words, C. 14. p. 116. Censurae Hieronymi Patronam se praebuit Ecclesia Romana, dum relicta Septuaginta Interpretum Versione, quae per tot annos universum orbem catholicum sola oc­cupaverat, Hieronymianam, recens cusam ad Judaeorum codices, amplexata est; The Church of Rome hath given Patronage to the Censure of Jerom, by leaving the Version of the Septuagint which had obtained in the whole Church Catholick, and Embracing the Version of Jerom made new according to the Books of the Jews.

If then the Heathenish Story of the Phoenix could obtain such Credit among the Primitive Fathers, as to be gain-said by none but Maximus: If the Jewish Fiction of the Cells obtained still greater Credit, being only questioned by St. Jerom, what Security can we have that other Stories of like Nature are of unquestionable Credit? If the sole Assertion of St. Jerom is patronized by the Church of Rome, against the constant Judgment of the whole Catholick World, if his Translation from the Hebrew, which when he made it first was generally Condemned and Censured, and for which some charged him with Heresy, and all with Innovation, Ruffinus ei notam Haere­seos impingebat. Erasm. Arg. Apol. Hierom. adv. Ruff. Ep. Tom. 2. f. 82. b. is now made Canonical, must not the Church of Rome have changed her Judgment? Must she not have rejected the Sentence of the whole Church Catholick of the Five first Ages, and given us just Reason to use the same Liberty, if we were minded so to do, in any other Instance of like Nature.

For further Explication of this Question, §. 9 let it be observed that we contend not with the Church of Rome about Ecclesiasti­cal Traditions, touching Ceremonials, Qu. 4. Dist. 3. unnecessary Observations and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, such as are the Cross in Bap­tism, Trine Immersion, the Renunciation of Satan and his Pomps, the Unction of the Baptized Persons, the Words used at the Consecration of that, and of the other Sacrament, the [Page 16] Kiss of Charity, the Lent Fast, the Worship of God towards the East, Prayer standing on the Lord's Day, &c. but only touching necessary Rules of Faith and Manners. In matters of the first kind we say in the words imposed upon St. De Spiritu Sancto, c. 27. Basil, That the Practice of the Church is sufficient, though we cannot tell [...], from what Scripture we derive these practices; but in Matters of Faith, we say with the true St. Basil, De vera & pia fide, p. 386. treating upon the Articles of Christian Faith: That it is the property of a faithful Steward to deliver nothing to his fellow Servants, as part of holy Faith, but what is committed to him by his good Lord: i. e. what he hath learned from the Holy Scri­ptures. That it is a manifest falling from the Faith, and an ar­gument of Pride either to reject any thing that is written, or to su­perinduce any thing that is not written; our Lord having said, My Sheep hear my Voice. Vid. Chap. 10. That the Apostle vehemently forbids, that any thing should be added to, §. 5 or taken from the divinely inspired Scriptures which are Christ's Will and Testament.

Of matters of the first kind we say with Tertullian, De Cor. Milit. cap. 2. that they are such as we think fit to be received and observed in any Church which shall enjoin them, sine ullius scripturae instrumento, solius traditionis titulo, & exinde consuetudinis patrocinio; Ʋpon the sole account of Tradition and Custom, though Scripture hath said nothing of them. In matters of the second kind we say with the same Tertullian, L. de prae­script. c. 15. Cap. 38. Adv. Hermog. c. 22. Ep. 118. ad Jan. cap. 5. p. 558. None can discourse of the things of Faith but from the Holy Scriptures; That none can have the Integrity of Doctrine without the integrity of those Instruments; that what the Scriptures are, we are; and that we adore the fullness of the Scri­ptures. If the Question were of the first, as v. g. Whether on Holy Thursday we should offer in the Morning, and after Supper too, or fast the Evening, and then offer; we answer to that Question with St. Austin; Si quid horum totum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia; If the whole Church doth any thing of this nature, it is insolent madness to dispute whether it ought to be done; for this is to dispute and trouble the Church, about a thing of nought, and so to discover an unpeaceable, and ungovernable temper of mind. Or if the Question were, Whether the Sacra­ment is to be received fasting, or not, we think it fit to be con­cluded by the practice of the Ʋniversal Church, Ep. 118. ad Jan. c. 6. p. 559. not contradict­ed by our Lord's Precepts, nor repugnant to Faith, or Man­ners. For in such cases St. Austin saith, Emendari oportet quod [Page 17]perperam fiebat; That which was ill done, ought to be amended; Cap. 5. ibid. and that none should vary from our Lord's Command. But if the Question be of Articles of Faith, and necessary Rules of Man­ners, we say with the same St. Austin, De Bono Vid. cap. 1. Tom. 4. p. 1018. Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than that we read in the Apostle; for the Holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine, lest we should attempt to known more; and again, If any one, I will not say if we, Sive de Christo, five de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacun (que) alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, si Ange­lus de coelo vobis annunci­averit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus & evan­gelicis accepistis, Anathema sit. De lit. Petil l. 3. c. 6. (no way to be compared to him who said, Though we,) but if an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you, either concerning Christ or his Church, or any other thing which belongs to our Faith, or Life, besides what you have received in the Legal, and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be accursed. In a word, the Kiss of Charity, the Office of the Diaconess, the breaking of the Bread distributed, and Baptism by immersion, [...]. Cap. 20. which are all Cere­monies, and Constitutions mentioned in Holy Scripture; Prayer standing on the Lord's Day, commanded by the first General Council of Nice, Prayer to­wards the East, the Consecration of one Loaf for all the Com­municants, carrying home the Eucharist, to omit many things of a like nature, were all of them Customs received generally in the next Age to the Apostles, and yet now generally disused by the present Church of Rome, which therefore cannot justly blame others for disuse of any Customs of like nature.

CHAP. II.

MOreover, §. 1 for farther Explication of this Question, let it be noted, Dist. 4. That by the word Tradition, when we allow what can be proved by it, to be in Matters of Faith a Doctrine, or a Revelation derived from the Apostles, in matters of Government, of Discipline, or practice an Apostolical Ordi­nance or Institution; we mean not the Tradition of the present Church, and much less the Tradition of the Church of Rome, and her Adherents, Charity Maint. ch. 2. §. 14. but we mean with Mr. Knot, Such a Tra­dition which involves an evidence of Fact, and from Hand to Hand, from Age to Age, bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles, Id quod in Ecclesia Univer­sa, & omnibus retro tempo­ribus, servatum est, merito ab Apostolis creditur institu­tum. De verbo Dei non scri­pto, l. 4 c. 9. and our Saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments, by which they proved their Doctrine to be true, or such a Practice as the Church hath observed in all past Ages, according to the Third Rule of Bellar­mine, for the discerning Apostolical Traditions, and such an Article of Faith as all the Doctors of the Church, by common consent, have always testified to have descended from Apostolical Tradition.

Such is the Tradition which St. Basil insists upon for the use of the Words, [...], with the Spirit, in the Doxology of the Church, viz. That [...], L. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 29. which was customarily used in the Churches from the first Preaching of the Gospel to that very time; and of such Traditions we say with him, Ibid. That it is [...], suitable to the Apostles Doctrine to continue in them. Praefat. in libr. [...]. Such is the Tradition of which Origen speaks when he saith, That only is to be believed as Truth, which in nothing disagreeth from the Tradition Ecclesiastical, that is, The, praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, & usque ad praesens in Ecclesiis permanens, preaching delivered down by order of Suc­cession from the Apostles, and to this present time continued in the Churches. This is the Tradition of which St. Cap. 8. Austin speaks in his Book De utilitate credendi, viz. of the Tradition, quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit, Cap. 10. which came down from Christ by his Apostles to that present time, which, à Majori­bus nostris tradita ad nos usque servata est, being delivered by our Ancestors, hath been preserved to our times, and which is, Cap. 14. ce­lebritate, consensione, vetustate roborata, strengthened with a general Fame, Consent and Antiquity. And this is also the Au­thority he meaneth when he saith, I should not have believed the Gospel, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae moveret Authoritas, unless the Authority of the Catholick Church had moved me. For he in­forms us, That he speaks of that Authority which was, Contr. Epist. Man. quam vocant Funda­ment. c. 4. Mira­culis inchoata, vetustate firmata, begun by Miracles and confirmed by Antiquity: And this must of necessity be meant by that Tra­dition which is the Foundation of an Article of Faith, for Faith must be a matter of Divine Revelation, and therefore must proceed from Christ or his Apostles, from whom alone all Revelations of the Christian Faith have issued, the Churches Business being to Believe, to Preach and Testifie, not to en­large or shorten, to alter or diversisie the Faith by them de­livered to her, and what they taught her as a thing necessary to be believed, or practised by all Christians, must conse­quently be so believed, taught and practised through all future Ages, provided that they walk according to their Rule. Common. c. [...]. Hence saith Vincentius Lirinensis, Hoc est vere, proprieque Ca­tholicum, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, That is truly Catholick Doctrine which was held in all places, all times, and [Page 20]by all Persons. Sess. 4. And accordingly the Trent Council, and the Roman Doctors pretend to have received those Doctrines in which they differ from us, partly from Scripture, and partly from Tradition, derived from the Apostles to their days.

But here begins the difference betwixt us, §. 2 (1.) That they will have the Testimony of the present Church to be an ‘Evidence sufficient of the Tradition of the Church of for­mer Ages, and will maintain this way of Arguing to be good. The present Church of Rome, and they who hold Communion with her, deliver such and such Doctrines as Traditions received from the Apostles, and handed down from them thoughout all Ages, and by all true Chri­stian Churches to this present Age, and therefore they un­doubtedly are such.’

We on the contrary say, That we have clear unquestionable Evidence from Scripture and Church-History, that many of the Doctrines imposed upon us by the Church of Rome as Apostolick Doctrines and Traditions, were not received, but rather were condemned and abhorred by the former Ages of the Church of Christ in general, and in particular by that of Rome, and this hath been already proved in the instance of their Latin Service, the Veneration of Images, and Communion in one Kind; whence it demonstratively follows, that this proposition is contrary to plain matter of Fact.

Again, What better reason can be given for this Conse­quence, viz. The present Church of Rome, with her Adherents, deliver such a Doctrine for Apostolical Tradition, and therefore so it is, than of this other which plainly contradicts it, The Greek and Eastern Churches with their Adherents, teach such and such Doctrines opposite to the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome, as Doctrines delivered to them from the Apostles, and from the former Ages of the Church of Christ, and therefore they are truly such: For these Churches never pretended to have made any Reformation, but that they, since the days of the Apostles, have kept safe and sound, as Barlaam saith, [...], the Traditions of the Catholick Church. The Oriental Patriarchs in the Council of Florence allow, [...]. Hist. Concil. Flor. §. 3. c. 3. that others should be their Vicars, and that they would assent to [Page 21]what was done in that Council, provided that they acted, [...], according to the Traditions of the Holy Oecu­menical Synods, and the Holy Doctors of the Church, and that nothing were added to, or taken from, [...], or was innovated in the Faith.

The Legats of Iberia in the same Council speak thus to the Pope, [...], &c. Hist. Concil. Flor. S. 9. c. 12. Our Church preserveth whatsoever she hath received from the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Tradition of the Holy Apostles, and the Oecumenical Synods and the Holy Doctors of the Church; [...]; and she hath not at all deviated from their Do­ctrine, nor added to, or taken away any thing from it. The Greeks in the Florentine Council shew their zeal, Sess. 5. apud Bin. Tom. 8. p. 589. that nothing should be added to, or taken from the Faith, because they were not to change the Old Land-marks which their Fathers had set. P. 596. And they approve that Decree of the Second Ni­cene Council, [...], If any Man make void any Ecclesiastical Tra­dition, written or unwritten, let him be Anathema: Such Reason had Barlaam to say, That among them, [...], nothing (by them) was more esteemed than the Tradition of the Catholick Church.

Thirdly, If the belief, §. 3 and declaration of the present Church of Rome, and her adherents be a sufficient Evidence of the Tradition of all former Ages, and what she now averrs to be Tradition Apostolical, must always have been so, and what she now denies to be Tradition, must never have been so, then ma­ny things must be derived from Primitive, and Apostolical Tra­dition, and yet must not be so; for the Church of Rome can­not be more infallible in declaring, in this present Age, what is Tradition, than she was in all past Ages, they being once the present Age. And yet it is exceeding certain, that the present Church of Rome, with her Adherents, holds many things to be Traditions Apostolical which in the former Ages were by her, and by the whole Church Catholick declared to be no such mat­ter, and that she holdeth many things to be no Traditions truly Primitive and Apostolical, which she, and others, who consented with her, formerly declared to be true Primitive [Page 22]and Apostolical Traditions, as will be evident by these ensu­ing Instances.

1. She holds at present all the Books of the Old Testament, enumerated in the Fourth Session of the Trent Council, to have been handed down as Canonical Scriptures, continuâ Successione in Catholica Ecclesia, by continual Succession of the Catholick Church; whereas, I shall hereafter prove, that for the Four first Centuries, and from the Sixth to the Fourteenth she and all other Churches held some of them to be Apocryphal or Ʋncanonical.

2. Ibid. Sess. 4. She holds at present, That it is a Tradition preserved by continual Succession in the Church Catholick, that the Canonical Epistles of St. Paul are Quatuordecem, Fourteen, and that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical, See Chap. 3. Sect. 16. whereas formerly she, and other Western Churches, agreeing with her in that matter, did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews as Canonical, and con­sequently could not believe that the Church Catholick did by continual Succession hold, that the number of St. Paul's Canonical Epistles were Fourteen.

3. Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1. She pretends at present, Apostolicis Traditionibus, atque aliorum consiliorum, & patrum consensui inhaerendo, Adhering to Apostolical Tradition, and the Consent of Fathers and of Councils, to define, That the Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ Jesus, and truly and properly so called, are neither more nor less than Seven; Treat. of Latin Serv. praef. p. 5, 6, 7, 8. Sess. 13. cap. 3. and yet it hath been lately proved, that from the days of Gregory the Great, or from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century she declared the contrary.

4. She holds at present, That semper haec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit, This was the Faith perpetually received in the Church, that, by virtue of Concomitance, the Body of Christ in the Sacra­ment is under the Species of Wine, and his Blood under the Species of Bread, and his Soul under both; and that this is the Doctrine, quam semper Catholica Ecclesia retinuit, which the Catholick Church being taught by Christ and his Apostles, Treat. of Com. in one Kind, c. 7. §. 5, 6, 7. and the Holy Spirit hath always retained; and yet it hath been fully proved, that to the Tenth Century she taught the contrary.

5. She holds at present, That the Roman Institution, to pronounce some things in the Mass with a low, and others with a loud voice, Ibid. c. 5. §. 1. Tr. of Lat. Serv. c. 16. p. 69. proceeded, ex Apostolica Doctrina & Traditi­one, from the Apostolical Tradition and Discipline, whereas it [Page 23]hath been proved that formerly she taught the contrary.

6. It is the present Tradition of the Romish Church, Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. and her Adherents, That the Veneration, and Honorary Worship of Images is suitable to the Tradition, Catholicae & Apostolicae Ec­clesiae, of the Catholick and Apostolick Church, Treat. of the Veneration of Images. whereas this hath been proved contrary to the Ancient Tradition of the whole Church of Christ in general, and of that of Rome in particular.

7. The present Church of Rome pretends, following ipsius Ecclesiae judicium & consuetudinem, Sess. 21. c. 1. the Custom and Judgment of the Church, to declare and teach, That Laicks, and Clerks not consecrating, are not obliged to receive the Sacrament in both Kinds, whereas it hath been proved that for a Thousand Years the contrary was both the Judgment and Custom of the whole Church in general, Treat. of Com. in one Kind. and of that of Rome in particular.

8. The present Church of Rome declares, touching her new Creed, containing Twelve New Articles, neither comprized in, nor deducible from the Apostles or the Nicene Creed, that it contains, Ch. 7. §. 4.10. veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, the true Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved, whereas it is here proved, that the whole Church of Christ in general, and in particular the Roman Church, believed that the Apostles and the Nicene Creed contained all the Articles of the Christian Faith.

9. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. can. 4. The present Roman Church pronounceth an Anathema on those who say the Eucharist is necessary to Children before they come to Years of Discretion, that is on Pope Innocent, Chap. 12. Sect. 3, 4, 5. Pope Pelagius, and the whole Church of Christ for Six hundred Years.

And truly if the Tradition or the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome, §. 4 must be the Rule by which alone we are to judge of the Tradition, Practice, and Doctrines of the whole Church of Christ throughout all Ages; if we lie under any Obligation to determine thus, That this is the Practice, the Tradition, the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, therefore this was the Doctrine, the Practice, the Tradition of all former Ages of the Christian Church, then all the Reason God hath given us, and all the Learning which we can, with all our indu­stry acquire from Scripture, and all the Testimonies of the Fa­thers and Church Writers, could we shew them throughout [Page 24]Fifteen Centuries, Canon of Script. as Dr. Cousins hath done, declaring them­selves fully in opposition to the Church of Rome: I say, if the Declarations of the Church of Rome must wholly over-rule us in these matters, all the knowledge we can acquire from Scripture, Reason, or the Fathers, is not worth one Straw; we may even burn all our Books of Antiquity, our Fathers, and Church History, yea, and our Bibles too, and lay aside our useless Reason; for whatsoever service these things may do to Holy Church, they can do none to us. The reading of these Authors, the use of Reason to discern betwixt good and evil, right and wrong, true and false in Christian Practices and Doctrines, must be the most pernicious things in which we can be exercised; for, sure I am, no Man of honest Con­science and sound Judgment can read the Scriptures and the Fathers carefully, but he must very strongly be tempted by his Reason to suspect, and must in many things seem abso­lutely certain, that Apostolical Tradition cannot be known by the Tradition of the present Church of Rome, yea that many of her present Traditions, Doctrines and Practices, are evidently and unquestionably repugnant to the Traditions, Practices, and Doctrines of the Apostles, and the whole Church of Christ, for Six, Eight, Ten, Twelve or Fourteen Centuries.

To add some farther Instances to these, §. 5 I have already mentioned, Sess. 6. can. 23. Ecclesia tenet de Beata Virgine quod ex speciali Dei privilegio in tota vita peccata omnia etiam venialia vitaverit, The Church of Rome now holds, saith the Trent Council, that the Blessed Virgin was, through her whole Life, free from venial Sin; and yet such is the Evidence of Truth to the contrary, that many Doctors of the Roman Church are even forced to confess, that this Determination is contrary to the common Judgment of the Fathers. In John ij. Maldonate speaks thus, Among the Ancient Fa­thers I find very few who either do not openly say, or obscurely sig­nifie that the Blessed Virgin was guilty of some Fault or Error. And though some have endeavoured, saith Petavius, to mollifie the Sayings of the Fathers, De Incar. l. 14. c. 1. sect. 7. yet their endeavour is vain; Nam adeo disertam continent cujusque modi delicti significationem, ut aliorsum detorqueri se minime patiuntur, For their Sayings do so expresly import the signification of some guilt, that they cannot be wrested to another sence; and that they had good reason to [Page 25]make these Confessions, will be apparent from these Citations following.

Our Lord, saith Irenaeus, L. 3. c. 18. p. 277. repellens ejus intempestivam festi­nationem, repelling her unseasonable hastiness, said to her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?

In the Third Century Tertullian expresly charges her with incredulity, for he declares, L. de came Christi cap. 7. That our Lord Christ therefore denied his Mother and his Brethren, saying, Who is my Mother and my Brethren? because his Brethren did not believe in him, and because Mater non adhaesit illi, his Mother did not cleave unto him. In this place, saith he, appears incredulitas eorum, the unbe­lief of them, that when he was Preaching the Word of Life, and healing of Diseases and Sins, his Relations stood without, and were so far from harkening to him, that they did rather interrupt, and call him from so good a Work; and will Apelles say, That Christ unworthily used these words, Ad percutiendam infidelitatem foris stantium? To smite the incredulity of them who stood without? Origen, upon Luke, asks what that Sword was which Simeon foretold of, saying, it should pass through her Heart, and answers, that it is manifestly written, Hom. 17. s. 102. b. That in the time of our Lord's Passion all the Apostles should be scandalized, and, saith he, can we think that the Apostles being Scandalized, Mater Domini a scandalo fuerit immunis, the Mother of our Lord could be free from Scandal? If she suffered no Scandal, Jesus did not suffer, pro peccatis ejus, for her Sins; but if all sinned and fell short of the Glory of God, being justified freely by his Grace, utique & Maria illo tempore scandalizata est, then doubtless Mary also at that time was scandalized. And this is that which Simeon here Prophesieth, saying, Tuam ipsius animam pertransibit infidelitatis gladius, & ambiguitatis mucrone serieris, the Sword of Infidelity shall pass through thy own Soul, and thou shalt be smitten with the Sword of doubtfulness.

In the Fourth Century St. Basil saith, That Simeon here prophesieth, [...], of Mary her self, thus, Tom. 3. Ep. 317. p. 310. 311. [...], There shall be some fluctuation even in thy Soul, [...], some doubting touching the Lord, this is the Sword, ‘but after this Scandal which shall happen to Mary and the Disciples of our Lord, he presently will minister a Medicine and confirm their Hearts in the Faith of Christ.’ Moveover he makes this Scandal of the Blessed Virgin neces­sary [Page 26]upon this account, That Christ was to taste Death for all, to be the propitiation for the World, and to justifie all Men by his Blood. In Psalm. 118. St. Hilary declares, That at the Day of Judgment that incessant Fire is to be endured in, quo subeunda sunt gravia illa expiandae a peccatis animae supplicia, in which are to be suffered those heavy Punishments designed for the expiating of the Soul from Sin; and that then the Sword shall go through the Soul of Mary, and if, saith he, even Dei virgo illa in judicii severitatem ven­tura est, that Virgin-Mother of God must come into the Severity of Judgment, who dares wish to be judged by God.

In the Fifth Century St. Chrysostom informs us, That both our Lord's Brethren, In Matt. Hom. 27. p. 191. [...]. Hom. 44. p. 287. and his Mother, [...], laboured under some humane in­firmity being desirous of vain Glory, that she was guilty of vain Glory, that both She and his Bre­thren were guilty, [...], of an excessive Love of Honour, and that therefore our Lord blamed them; and that be­cause they came to him as a meer Man, and out of vain Glory, [...], he casts out the Disease, not reproaching, but correcting them, and that he gave her a reproof very becoming him, P. 639. [...], and profitable to her. In his Twenty first Homily on St. John he charges her with being guilty of hindering the things of God, and interrupting of her Son in Spiritual things; Consider, saith he, what a thing it was for her, when the People stood about him, and were desirous to hear him, and his Instructions were propounded to them, [...]. Ibid. for her to come to draw him from his Exhortations, to speak in private with him; and not so much as to vouchsafe to come in to him, therefore he saith, who is my Mother not dispising her that begat him, but doing her much profit, and not permitting her to think so meanly of him.

Cyril of Alexandria saith, That the Passion of our Lord which happen'd so unexpectedly, Tom 4. p. 1064, 1065, 1066. Vid. eundem orat. in occur­sum Domini, p. 391. [...], p. 1064. [...], did likely scandalize her, and put her somewhat besides her self into indecent Passions; For doubt not, saith he, but she had some such reasonings within her self as these, I con­ceived him who is now laugh'd at on the Cross, perhaps he was deceived in saying he was the true Son of God. ‘He saying I am the Life, how should he then be Crucified? [Page 27]How was he taken in the Snares of his Murtherers? How is it that he prevailed not against the Machinations of his Persecutors? Why doth not he who restored Lazarus to Life, and filled all Judaea with his Miracles descend now from the Cross? 'Tis very probable that the Women kind, being ignorant of the Mystery, might fall into such appre­hensions as these were. We speak not these things out of vain Conjectures, as it may seem to some, but we are moved to suspect these things of the Mother of our Lord by what is written, for that sharp brunt of Passion, which cast her mind into absurd Imaginations, is that which Simeon calls a Sword. Nor, saith he, is it to be wondered, [...], P. 1065. if a Woman should thus slide, at the apprehension of our Lords Passion, seeing St. Peter, who was preferred before the rest of the Apostles, was scandalized at it.’ And lastly he de­clares, P. 1066. That ‘Christ did therefore commit her to the care of the Evangelist St. John, because he saw that she had fallen by scandal at his Passion, and was filled with disorder in her Apprehensions, that he might rightly declare unto her the profoundness of the Mystery.’

The Author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament which passeth under the Name of Austin, saith, Qu. 73. ‘That Si­meon spake unto her thus, A Sword shall pass through thy own Soul, to signifie this to her, that even she, in morte Domini dubitaret, should doubt when she saw the Death of Christ, though she should be confirmed by his Resurrection.’

Here therefore is a Tradition of the Church built upon the received Sence of Scripture for three whole Centuries, no Father contradicting in the least what was so fully and perspicuously delivered in those Ages; and yet if we must credit the present Church of Rome, the contrary to this Tradition, and to this received Interpretation of those Scriptures, on which they grounded this Tradition, must be an Article of Faith received throughout all Ages of the Church.

Again, the Decree of the Apostles, §. 6 which commands the Gentiles to abstain from things strangled, and from Blood, Act. 15. was con­ceived by the generality of Christians for a Thousand Years to be obliging to all Christians.

The Canon of the Apostles saith, Can, 63. That if any Bishop, Presby­ter or Deacon, or any other of the Clergy, [...], doth eat Flesh with the Life-Blood in it, or what is killed by a Beast, or dieth of it self, let him be deposed; [...]; for this the Law hath forbidden; if he be a Lay-man, let him be separated from Communion.

In the Second Century the Christians were accused of eating Infants, and Feasting upon humane Flesh and Blood; now to this Accusation the constant Answer of the Christians was that of Blandina in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. p. 159. How should they eat such things, [...], who do not think it lawful to eat the Blood of Beasts? Paedag. l. 2. c. 1. p. 149. And Clemens of Alexandria declares, That God forbad things strangled or dying of themselves, [...], L. 3. c. 3. p. 228. for it is not lawful to touch them, and that it is not lawful for Men, [...], to touch Blood.

In the Third Century, to the like Accusation of the Heathens, Tertullian returns this Answer, Apol. c. 9. That they might be ashamed to object to them the eating humane Blood, qui nec Animalium qui­dem sanguinem in Epulis esculentis habemus, who used not to eat the Blood of Beasts, least they should be defiled with any Blood received into their Bowels. P. 34. Octavius saith, We Christians are so far from eating humane Blood, ut nec edulium pecorum san­guinem in cibis noverimus, Contra Cel­sum l. 8. p. 396, 397. that we eat not the Blood of Beasts; we are forbid to eat things strangled, [...], The Blood being not separated from them, saith Origen, that we may not be fed with the Food of Daemons; and hence we learn the rea­son of the precept, [...], concerning absti­nence from Blood.

In the Fourth Century was held the Council of Gangra against the Eustathians, (some of whom held cibos carnium tanquam illi­citos repudiandos esse, that Flesh was to be refused as unlawful) where they pronounce Anathema to any person who condemns those that eat Flesh, Can. 2. [...], ex­cepting only such as ate Blood, or things offered to Idols, or strangled; from which Exception it is evident, that they held it sit to condemn them who did taste of Blood, or of things strangled. Now this Canon is in the Code of the Universal Church, and is one of them which were Confirmed in the General Council of Chalcedon, Can, 1. Can. 2. and afterwards by that in Trullo, and therefore was allowed by the whole Church of God. St. Cyril of Je­rusalem [Page 29]instructs his Catecumen, That the Apostles and James the Bishop of Jerusalem had writ a Catholick Epistle to the Gentiles, to teach them to abstain from things offered to Idols, things strangled, and from Blood, and then he adds, Catech. 4. p. 34. c. de cibis. That they who licked up the Blood of Beast, and spared not to eat things strangled, were like to wild Beasts and Dogs; these, saith he, are the, [...], Institutions touching Meats, which it behoves you to observe.

In the Fifth Century St. Jerom declares, In Ezek. 45. p. 245. That according to the Letter, the Decree contained in the Fifteenth of the Acts obligeth every Christian not to eat the Flesh of any dead Sheep or Cattle, quorum nequaquam sanguis effusus est, whose Blood is not poured forth. And Chrysostom on the place saith, These Constitutions, [...], though they concern the Body, yet are they necessary to be kept.

In the Sixth Century the Second Council of Orleans declares, A. D. 536. can. 20. That they who eat of that which is choaked by any Disease or Chance, or killed by the bitings of Beasts, shall be excluded from the Commu­nion of the Church, and if any person, after this diligent Sanction, Can. 22. doth not observe these things, reos se divinitatis pariter & frater­nitatis judicio futuros esse cognoscant, let them know they shall be guilty both in the Judgment of God, and of the Brotherhood.

In the Seventh Century this was Decreed by the Sixth Gene­ral Council held in Trullo in these words, Can. 67. [...], The Holy Scripture hath com­manded us to abstain from Blood, things strangled, and from For­nication; he therefore who attempts to eat the Blood of any Crea­ture any way, if he be a Clerk, let him be deposed; Cap. 18, 19. if he be a Lay­man, let him be Excommunicated. In the Penitential of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury, we have this Rule prescribed, Hast thou eaten that which died of it self, or was torn by Beasts, thou must do penance Forty Days; if thou hast eaten Blood, thou must do likewise. Now of this Theodorus, Rabanus doth inform us, Ep. ad Hum­bert apud Re­gin. de discip. Eccl. l. 2. c. 200. That he was fully instructed in the Customs both of the Eastern and the Western Churches, and that he could be ignorant of nothing which was then observed by the Greeks or Romans, and therefore we may rationally conclude, that what he thus prescribed, was only that which was observed both in the East and Western Churches.

In the Eigth Century Gregory the Third, who was made Pope A. Can. poenit. c. 30. D. 731. puts this among his penitential Canons, That he who hath eaten that which died of it self, if he did this ignorantly, shall do Penance Twenty Days; if knowingly, Forty Days. And Bede informs us, That he who comes to penance must be asked, Can. de diver­sis causis, c. 14. Whether he had eaten that which died of it self, or was torn by Beasts; and if so, he must do Penance Forty Days; and the like must be done by him who hath eaten Blood. Novel. 58. Bals. in Syn. Trull. can. 67. Leo the Emperor made a Law to punish, [...], those who did eat any kind of Blood.

In the Ninth Century Regino doth not only produce out of the Penitentials the same Canons against eating things strangled and Blood, De discipl. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 369, 373. De discipl. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 374. but adds moreover, that admonendi sunt fideles, ut nullus praesumat sanguinem manducare, the Faithful are to be ad­monished that none of them do presume to eat Blood, for this was forbidden in the beginning, when first God gave Men liberty to eat Flesh, and it is also forbidden in the New Testament, where things strangled and Blood, are compared with Fornication and Ido­latry, to teach us, quantum piaculum sit sanguinem comedere, what an heinous thing it is to eat Blood.

In the Eleventh Century Humbertus plainly shews that this was then esteemed unlawful both in the Eastern and the We­stern Churches; Apud Baron. Tom. 11. p. 986. For we, saith he of the West, do not defend against you Greeks, the eating of things strangled and Blood, An­tiquam enim consuetudinem, seu traditionem Majorum reti­nentes, nos quoque haec abominamur, For retaining the ancient Custom or Tradition of our Ancestors, we also do abominate these things, imposing grievous Penance upon them who do this without great peril of Life; and this we do especially, quia antiquas consuetudines, & traditiones Majorum, quae non sunt contra fidem, leges Apostolicas arbitramur, because we judge the Ancient Customs and Traditions of our Ancestors, which are not opposite to the Faith, to be Apostolical Laws. And yet when Tran­substantiation was once fully established in the West, as it was in the Twelfth and the beginning of the Thirteenth Centuries, then they perceived they could no longer, with any truth, assert, as did the Ancient Fathers, that they did, ab humano sanguine cavere, abstain from eating humane Blood, but believing they did eat Blood with the Flesh in the Sacrament, they gave all Men liberty to do it elsewhere. Whence Balsamon in the [Page 31]Twelfth Century speaks thus, In Can. 67. Concil. Trull. [...] The Latins do indifferently eat things strangled, and if in this instance that which in the Eleventh Century was by the Western Churches held in abomination, and worthy of most grievous Penances, as being opposite both to the Laws of the Apostles, and the Traditions of the Ancients, might in the next Century be gene­rally allowed and practised as a thing indifferent, why might not a like change happen in the same Church in a like space of time, touching the Doctrine of the corporeal Presence, or any other Article of Christian Faith.

Thirdly, §. 7 The Ancient Church unanimously and constantly de­clared it was a thing plainly repugnant to Scripture, and to true Religion, and proper unto Hereticks, to punish any man with death for his Religion or his Heresie, and she refused Communion with them that did so. And,

1. They declared this practice opposite to our Lord's pre­cept, Not to gather up the Tares by themselves, Matth. xiij. 29, 30. but let them both grow together till the Harvest. He introduceth his Servants, say­ing, Wilt thou that we pluck up the Tares, that he might tell them, saith St. Chrysostom, [...], In Locum. that it was unlawful to cut them off. He forbids Wars and Blood, and Slaughters to be made, [...], for it is not lawful to cut off the Heretick. Christ here forbids not to stop their Mouths, restrain, and hinder their boldness of Discourse, dissolve their Synods and Con­federacies, [...], Quaest. ex Mat. lib. un. cap. 12. Tom. 4. p. 366, 367. but he forbids us to kill and cut them off. Truth it self Answers to them, saith St. Austin, non esse tales auferendos de hac vita, that such Men are not to be taken out of the World, least whilst Men endeavour to kill the bad, they also kill the good, or such as perhaps would be such.

2. They declared this practice was contrary to the true Religion, and to the Judgment of the Doctors of the Catholick Church. For our Religion, saith Lactantius, is to be defended, L. 5. c. 20. non occidendo, sed moriendo; non saevitiâ, sed patientiâ, not by killing others, but by dying for it; so good men do defend it, but wicked Men by Cruelty and Murther. Apud Athanas. Tom. 1. p. 724. The Synod of Alexandria declares, That [...], Bands and Slaughters were things alien from their Church. Contra Cre­scon. l. 3. cap. 50. When Cre­sconius had objected to the Orthodox that they were instrumental to procure the Death of the Three Donatists, St. Austin an­swers, [Page 32]That nullis tamen bonis, in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, hoc placet, si usque ad mortem in quenquam, licet Haereticum, saeviatur; No good Man in the Catholick Church allowed of the punishment of He­reticks with Death; haec omnia displicent nobis, all these things displease us, De fide & o­per. cap. 4. we judge them not laudable but damnable. And again, They, who being blinded with this Error, endeavour before the time to separate the Tares, ipsi potiùs a Christi unitate separantur, are themselves rather separated from the unity of the Church. He hath Four several Epistles writ to the Magistrates or Ministers of Justice on this Subject, Ep. 107, 158, 159, 160. Ep. 127, 158, 160. in which he earnestly requests, ne occidantur, that they might not be killed, that the Sword of Ju­stice might not spill their Blood; beseeching them for the Name, and for the Mercy of Christ Jesus, ut hoc nec faciant, nec sieri omnino permittant, that they would neither do this thing, nor permit it to be done by others; Ep. 127. and telling them, the Or­thodox had rather die themselves, than bring them to their Judicato­ries to be killed. And this he doth intreat with so great im­portunity, Ibib. 1. Because of the command of Christ which did oblige them to love their Enemies. Ep. 158, 159. 2. Because it was suitable to that meekness which Christianity required them to make known to all. 3. Ep. 158, 160. Ep. 127. Because it was against their Conscience to allow of such proceed­ings against Hereticks. 4. Because this harsh proceeding would deterr the Catholicks from seeking the protection of the Magistrate against Hereticks. 5. Because the Person who inflicts, and the Church who permits these Punishments to be inflicted, would both have cause to fear the Judgment of God for this Cruelty, quod enim tu facis, Ep. 160. Ep. 50. p. 220. Ecclesia facit, propter quam facis, & cujus silius facis, for what the Magistrate, who was a Son of the Church, did for her Sake, that the Church did. And this he tells us was the Judgment of a whole Council of his Brethren.

3. This, say they, is alien from Catholicks, and proper unto Hereticks and Heathens. The Synod of Alexandria consisting of the Bishops of Aegypt, Thebes, Lybia and Pentapolis, lament the practice of the Arians, Apud Athanas. Apol. ad Im­perat. p. 723. [...], who in their Epistle to the Emperors stirred them up to kill and inflict death on Athanasius and others; For, say they, we conceive the Conscience of you Christians, see that these things are not the works of the meanest Christians, much less of them who seem to be Bishops, and to teach others what is just. We must fight against them, saith Nazianzen, with Reasons, not with [Page 33]Arms; Orat. 3. pro pace, p. 220, 221. [...]; for to lift up our Hands against them, is wholly contrary to our Profession, and must be left to them that hate us.

4. When this was done by Instigation of any of the Clergy, the Orthodox not only did condemn it, but refused Commu­nion with them that moved the Magistrate to do it. Thus when Idacius and Ithacius, two Bishops, Sulpit. Hist. 1. 2. §. 64. moved Maximus the Emperor to this severity against the Priscillians, St. Martin not only reproved Ithacius, but intreated Maximus, ut sanguine infoelicium abstineret, to abstain from their Blood, and obtained a Promise from him, nihil cruentum in reos constituendum, that nothing Bloody should be decreed against them; though afterwards, saith Sulpitius, this was done, pessimo exemplo, Dial. 3. §. 15. by a most vile Ex­ample. The same Sulpitius informs us, That this good Man was piously sollicitous to preserve the Hereticks from Death; that for accomplishing this Work, having for a while con­sented to hold Communion with Ithacius, and his Party, he afterwards was troubled at it, and was by an Angel admo­nished that he had just Cause to be so, and that he should reassume his Constancy, ne jam non periculum gloriae, sed salutis incurreret, least he incurred the loss, not only of his Honour, but Salvation; and that, from that time he never would Communicate with the Ithacian Party. 1 Baron. ad A. 386. §. 27. Pope Syricius also, and St. 2 Ep. 27. Ambrose refused Commu­nion with them; and the 3 Concil. Taurin. cap. 5. French Bishops re­fused Communion with Foelix, as being made a Bishop by them. 4 Bin. Not. in Concil. Trevir. A. D. 386. Theognostus also, and other Bishops of the Catholick Communion, did excom­municate Ithacius, and his Companions on this account, as san­guinary, bloody and unworthy of the Priesthood. And yet after so many 1 Concil. Lat. 3um. cap. 27. 4tum. can. 3. Constan. Sess. 45. Senon. c. 2, 3. Decrees of General Councils, for the Ex­tirpation of Hereticks, the calling in of the Secular Arm against them, and the animating of Princes and their Subjects, 2 Concil. Lat. 3. c. 27. 4tum. Conc. Tom. 11. p. 149. Senon. Tom. 12. p 368, 369. app. ad Con. Basil. apud Bin. Tom. 8. p 200. p 267. to make War against them under the Banner of the Cross; after Examples of burning Hereticks by their Authority and Instiga­tion, during their sitting, after so many Con­stitutions of 3 Concil. Tom. 11. p. 619, 621. p. 423. part. 2. p. 2101. Decretal. l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Kings and Emperors, confirmed by so many Popes, to take them away by a damnable Death; after so many Inquisitions set up for the [Page 34]destruction of them; after so many Thousands of them burnt in Roman Catholick Dominions, by virtue of the Sentence past upon them in Ecclesiastical Courts; after so many great Massa­cres of them, by Men of that Communion, without 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 'tis 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 Ʋnity; 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 [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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 Ʋniversal 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 Fathers, exempting Christ alone from, and consequently concluding the Virgin Mary under Original Sin; which Argu­ment must needs conclude, if the Virgin Mary be not Christ. Cardinal Turrecremata affirms, De Consecrat. dist. 4 firmis­sime, n. 11. That all the Doctors in a manner maintain the contrary to the Immaculate Conception, and that he had gathered together the Testimonies of One hundred to that Effect, noting the very places and words wherein they affirm it. Dominicus Bannes saith, Part. 1. qu. 1. Art. 8. dub. 5. It is the general Opinion of the Holy Fa­thers, that she was conceived in Sin. Becanus acknowledgeth, That the ancient School-men, L. de Incarn. Christi, cap. 28. qu. 1. n. 1. who were before Scotus, held the Opinion of the Latin Fathers, viz. That the Blessed, Virgin was conceived in Original Sin. Estius saith, It was the common, and almost unanimous Opinion of the Schools; for Thomas Bonaven­ture, [Page 37]caeterique omnes hanc quaestionis partem, In Sent. l. 3. dist. 3. Sect. 3. sine ambigui­tate, amplectuntur, and all the rest held it without doubting. Canus declares, Loc. com. l. 7. c. 1. p. 412. That Sancti omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidere, uno ore asseverarunt B. Virginem in peccato originali conceptam, all the Holy Fathers, who had occasion to speak of this matter, do with one Voice assert, that the Blessed Virgin was con­ceived in Original Sin; and then he cites them from the Fourth to the Thirteenth Century. Disp. 51. in E­pist. ad Rom. Cajetan brings for it Fifteen Fathers in his Judgment irrefragable; others produce 200. Blandellus almost 300, saith Salmeron. Dogm. Theo­log. Tom 4. part. 2. l. 14. cap. 2. Petavius begins this Dispute with this Observation, that Graeci originalis fere criminis raram, nec disertam mentionem scriptis suis attigerunt, the Greek Fathers scarce ever speak plainly of Original Sin; Sect. 1. Sect. 2, — 7. and therefore undertakes on­ly to tell us the Judgment of the Latin Fathers in this matter, which he does by producing them from St. Austin to St. Ber­nard, that is, from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century, plainly asserting, That the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin. But, saith he, quamvis antiquioribus opinio illa placuit, Sect. 8 though this Opinion pleased the Ancients, yet afterwards most Chri­stians turned to the contrary Opinion, and by the tacit and pious Con­sent of most, it so prevailed, as to break forth into a publick Profession; so that a Holy-Day was, by solemn and publick Rite, appointed, per totam Ecclesiam, by the whole Church, for celebration of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, viz. the Eight of De­cember, which Sixtus the Fourth confirmed by his Authority, and Apostolical Decree, A. D. 1476, in which, universos Christi fideles invitat, ut omnipotenti Deo, de Immaculatae Virginis mira Conceptione gratias, & laudes referant, he invites all Christians to give Thanks and Praises to Almighty God, for the Immaculate Virgin's wonderful Conception, appointing a Mass, and proper Canonical Office for it, with the same Indulgences which Urban the Fourth had given to the Observers of the Feast of Cor­pus Christi. He adds, That he was the more enclined to this Opinion, because it had, communem consensum omnium sidelium, Sect. 10 the common consent of all the Faithful, upon whose concurrent Judg­ment it behoves us, saith Paulinus Nolanus, to depend, quia in omnem fidelem Spiritus Dei spirat, because the Spirit of God breaths upon all the Faithful. And lastly he concludes, That after this manner, Sect. 11 Credendus est Deus Christianis integrum illum immaculatae Virginis Conceptum revelasse, it is to be believed that [Page 38]God hath revealed to Christians, this pure Conception of the imma­culate Virgin; that is, he hath inspired into them the Knowledge, and given them [...], the full assurance of it, though it hath not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine. In which last words he speaks agreeably to the judgment of their Doctors; for though the Council of Basil expresly decreed, Sess. 36. That the Doctrine of the immaculate Conception should be held and embraced, tanquam pia, & consona cultui Ecclesiastico, fidei Catholicae, rectae ra­tioni, & sacrae Scripturae, as Pious, and consonant to Ecclesiasti­cal Worship, the Catholick Faith, right Reason, and the Holy Scriptures; though the University of Paris, as Salmeron informs us, admits none to their Degrees who do not take an Oath to defend it: Apud Concil. Trid. p. 19. Though the Bull of Paul the V. forbids any one in publick Sermons, Lectures, Conclusions, and any publick Acts whatsoever, to affirm, that the Blessed Virgin was Conceived in Original Sin. And the Bull of Gregory the XV. to assert it in any private Conference, or Writing; yet the Bulls of Sixtus the IV. and Pius the V. having given liberty to all Men to hold or maintain either part; Sess. 5. the Trent Council hath decreed for the observation of the said Constitution made by Sixtus.

Hence then we learn, §. 10

1. That a Doctrine never heard of in precedent Ages, yea fully contradicted, and declared against by Eight whole Cen­turies, may become afterwards the Doctrine of all, or almost all the Faithful. De gestis Scot. l. 3. c. 12. For Joannes Major doth inform us, That Richardus de Sancto Victore, who flourished in the middle of the Twelfth Century, was omnium expresse primus (qui) Christi­feram Virginem Originalis noxae expertem tenuit, expresly the first, who held the Virgin Mary free from Original Sin: And in the Thirteenth Century, In Sent. 3. dist. 3. p. 1. A. 1. q. 1. In tertiam D. Th. dist. 117. p. 148. P. 57. Bonaventure saith, That almost all held the contrary. But now, saith Vasquez, not only the unskillful Ʋulgar, but the Doctors and Divines, and all Catholicks with one consent, fight for the immaculate Conception. Now, saith Petavi­us, it hath obtained, Consensum omnium fidelium, The consent of all the Faithful. Now, saith Waddingus, it is manifest, that the oppugners of it do, sentire aliter quam universa docet Eccle­sia, differ from the Doctrine of the Ʋniversal Church. Whence,

2. It follows, that it is so far from being impossible, that it is actually certain, That what was never heard of, yea what [Page 39]was generally contradicted in the former Ages of the Church, may afterwards be owned by the general consent of learned, and unlearned Romanists; in spite of all the Treatises of the per­petuity of the Faith, and of the lawful prejudices against the Cal­vinists.

3. Hence it is evident, that the Church of Rome doth not in all things follow the Doctrine of the Ancient Catholick Church; for if so, then would not they have given liberty to all their Members to oppose a Doctrine generally Believed, and Taught in the whole Catholick Church, and more assuredly in the whole Western Church, for Eight whole Centuries.

4. Hence it appears, that all the 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 Ʋniversal 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.

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 [Page 42]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, Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 10. We have only Twenty two Books which deserve belief among us, and then he reckons them up as doth our Article, adding that the Books written from the time of Artaxerxes to their days, were, [...], not so worthy to be credited.

From Christ and his Apostles; Luk. xxiv. 27. for the Gospel of St. Luke in­forms us, That Christ beginning from Moses expounded to two of his Disciples in all the Scriptures the things concerning him, and also, that all things concerning him were written in the Law of Moses, vers. 44. and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, that is, in those Books which by the Jews are stiled Hagiographa. The Apo­stles in their Epistles teach, 2 Tim. iij. 15. That all Scripture is of Divine In­spiration, and that Timothy from a Child had known them; and yet he doubtless only knew the Canon then received by the Jews; 2 Pet. i. 21. they add, That the whole Scripture was a word of Prophecy, [...], A­pud Euseb. l. 3. c. 10. Genebrard. Chron. ad An. 3640. Jansen. ad cap. 48. Ecclus. the Prophecy of Men moved by the Holy Ghost. Now Josephus doth inform us, That after the Days of Artaxerxes the Jews had no certain Succession of Prophets, and it is confessed by many Romanists, That from Malachy to John they had no Prophets.

In the Second Century Onesimus requesteth of Melito, §. 3 [...]. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. cap. 26. [...], Ibid. Bishop of Sardis, a perfect Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament; whereupon this Bi­shop, being to take a Journey into the East, went to the place where those things were done and preached, [...], &c. ibid. and learning thence the exact number of them, he sent their Names to Onesimus, numbring them just as our Sixth Article doth. And of this Catalogue Eusebius saith, That it contained all the Books of the Old Testament which the Church [Page 43]owned, [...]. Ibid. and that he thought it necessary to preserve this Catalogue of them in writing to Posterity. Here then we find upon the first enquiry, after the Death of the Apostles, a Catalogue exactly formed from the East, and from Jerusalem, agreeing with the Judgment of the whole Church of God, and as exactly with the judgment of the Church of England.

In the Third Century Origen informs us, §. 4 That we must not be ignorant, [...], In Psal. 1. Ed. Huet. T. 1. p. 40, 41. that the Canonical Books of the Old Testament are Twenty two, according to the number of the Jewish Letters; and then he reckons them exactly as we do, adding, That as these Letters are an Introduction to knowledge, and divine Wisdom; so these Twenty two Books, are an Introduction to the Wisdom of God; this, saith he, is the Tradition of the Jews.

The Tradition of the Church in the Fourth Century una­nimously concurrs with the Article of the Church of England in all the Catalogues then given of the Books of the Old Testament. §. 5

Eusebius of Caesarea, the Metropolis of Palestine, who not only hath preserved the Catalogues of Melito and Origen, but also doth approve them, and saith, They were the Books of the Old Testament received by the consent of all, and of which he thought necessary to preserve the Catalogue in writing to posterity, L. 4. c. 6. elsewhere saith, That he is not able exactly to reckon the Go­vernors of the Tribe of Judah that ruled the Jewish Nation after Zorobabel, Demonst. E­vang. l. 8. c. 2. p. 368. [...], because that from his time, to that of our Sa­viour's, there was no divine Book written.

Athanasius in his Festival Epistle gives the same Catalogue which we receive, and having finished it he saith, Ad Ruffinum, Tom. 2. p. 39. [...], In these are comprehended the Books of the Old Testament. The same Archbishop of Alexandria in his Book, stiled, a Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures, tells us the number of the Books of the Old Testament are Twenty two, Ibid. p. 58. and he there reckons them up according to our Article.

St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem speaks to his Catechumen, thus, Know thou studiously, [...], from the Church, the Books of the Old Testament; read the divine Scriptures, the Twenty [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44]two Books of the Old Testament, interpreted by the Seventy In­terpreters, Catech. 4. cap. [...], p. 36, 37. [...], and by all confessed to be divine. Meditate upon these Twenty two Books of the Old Testa­ment, and be careful to remember them, as I name them; and then he reckons them up exactly as we do.

Epiphanius Bishop of Salamine in the Island of Cyprus, in his Book of Weights and Measures, Tom. 2. p. 161, 162. doth in like manner inform us, That the number, [...], of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament is Twenty two; and then he reckons them up, as our Article doth.

St. Cap. 3. Basil Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in his Philocalia, puts this Question, [...]; Why are the divine Books Twenty two? and answers it as Origen had done be­fore him.

Gregory Nazianzen in his Treatise upon this very subject of the true genuine Books of Scripture, Concil. Oxon. Tom. 2. part. 1. p. 179. declares, That the Histo­rical Books of the Old Testament are Twelve, and the Metrical are Five, and the Prophetical Five; and then he names them all according to our Article.

Amphilochius in his Canonical Epistle to Selcucus gives us the same account of them, Apud Balsa­mon, p. 1083. with this only difference, that the Book of Esther is said to be not so generally received for Ca­nonical as the rest.

St. Jerom in several places of his works is so clearly for us, that our Article is founded on his Judgment; who often tells us, That the Canonical Books of the Old Testament are Twenty two, or, if you will reckon Ruth and the Lamentations, as distinct Books, Tom. 3. f. 6. a. Ibid. f. 3. a. T. 1. f. 41. a. Apud Hieron. Tom. 4. f. 51. they are Four and twenty. In his Preface to the Book of Kings, in his Epistle to Paulinus, to Laeta, and in divers places of his other works, he is expresly of the same Judgment.

Ruffinus having numbered the Books of the Old Testament as we do, adds, That in these Books the Fathers did comprize tha [...] number of the Books of the Old Testament.

St. Hilary saith, Prolog. Expla. in Psalmos. That the number of the Books of the Old Te­stament are Twenty two, according to the number of the Hebrew Letters; and having reckoned them up as we do, saith, These compleat the number of the Twenty two Books.

The Council of Laodicea Decrees, Can. 59. That only the Canonical Books shall be read in the Church; and then this Council reckons up the Canonical Books as we do, leaving out of their account [Page 45]those which we call Apocryphal. Now this Canon being receiv­ed into the Codex Canonum-Ecclesiae universalis, or the Code of the Canons received by the whole Church, it must have the force of an Oecumenical Synod, and give us the concurring judgment of the whole Church of God on our side. And, yet for far­ther confirmation of this matter, let these few things be noted.

First, That these Fathers generally say, §. 6 they deliver these Catalogues as they received them by Tradition, and as they were delivered to them by the Fathers, and as they were received by the whole Church of Christ. [...]. Atha­nasius in his Pascal Epistle speaks thus, Because some dare to mix Apocryphal Books with the di­vine Scriptures, of which we are fully assured from the Tradition of them to the Fathers, by them who were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word. It seemed good to me, being exhorted to it by the Orthodox Brethren, and having learnt them from the beginning, in order to declare which are the Canonical Books delivered as such by Tradition, and believed to be of divine Inspiration. St. Hilary saith, Prolog. Expla. in Psalmos. That they were thus com­puted, secundum Traditiones veterum, according to the Traditions of the Ancients. These, saith St. Cyril, are the Books you learn, [...], from the Church, and which we read publickly in the Church. [...]. Catech. 4. p. 37. The Apostles and the ancient Bishops, and Governors of the Church who delivered these, as the Canonical Books, were much wiser than you; thou therefore being a Son of the Church, do not transgress her Laws, or go beyond her Rules. Quae secundum majorum Traditionem Ecclesiis Christi­tradita. What are the Volumes of the Old and the New Testament, which, according to the Tradi­tion of the Ancients, are believed to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and delivered to the Churches of Christ. It seems convenient, saith Russinus, here evidently to declare, as we have received them from the Monuments of the Fathers; and having reckoned up the Books of the Old Testa­ment, proceeding to the Books of the New Te­stament, he adds, Haec nobis a patribus tra­dita sunt. Apud Hieron. Tom. 4. f. 51. a. These are the Books which the Fa­thers comprized in the Canon, these things are deliver­ed to us by the Fathers.

Note, §. 7 Secondly, That of the Books which we reject, and call Apocryphal, they also teach that as such they were reject­ed by the Church, that though the Church permitted them to be read, yet did she not receive them into the Catalogue of the Holy Scriptures, or use them to confirm any Article of Christian Faith, and that they spake of them as Books without the Ca­non. Thus Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle, saith, That [...], for more exactness sake, Apud Balsam. p. 921. I add this necessary advertise­ment, [...], That besides these Books of the Old and New Testament, now mentioned as divine Scripture, there be other Books which are not put into the Canon, which are yet appointed by the Fathers to be read to those who first come to be Catechized in the way of Piety, to wit, The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Syrach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Book called the Doctrine of the Apostles and Pastor, these are read, and not to be despised, the others are put into the Canon. Tom 2. p. 58, 59. The very same words he repeats in his Compendium of the Holy Scripture; where also afterwards he reckons the Four Books of Macchabees, and the History of Susanna among the Books contradicted; Baruch and the additions to Daniel among the [...], or the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testa­ment. Catech. 4. p. 38. St. Cyril having cited the Canon we receive, as that which was delivered to the Church by the Apostles, and an­cient Governors of the Church, adds, [...], Let all the rest which are extro-canonical, be placed in a second Order. Gregory Nazianzen, having given an account of Twenty two Books of the Old Testament, saith, You have them all, Ubi Supra. [...], and that, all besides them are not Genuine. After his Catalogue delivered from the Tradition of the Fathers, Sunt alii libri non Cano­nici, sed Ecclesiastici a majo­ribus appellati.—Quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesia volu­erunt, non tamen proferriad authoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Apud Hieron. Tom. 4. f. 51. Ruffinus saith, You must know that there be other Books which are not Canonical, but called by our Ancestors Ecclesiasti­cal, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, Tobit, Judith, and the Books of Macchabees, which they were willing to have read in the Church, but not to have produced to confirm Do­ctrines of Faith; the rest they called Apocryphal, and would not have read in the Church. These things are delivered to us by the Fathers. Praefat. in li­brum Regum. Tom 3. f. 6. St. Jerom saith, he made his Catalogue, ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponen­dum, [Page 47] that we might know that all besides these Twenty two are to be deemed Apocryphal. He adds, Praef. in Esdr. & Neh. ibid. f. 7, 8. That the Books which are not received by the Hebrews, are to be rejected by us Christians; and that the Church indeed Reads them, but receives them not into the Canons.

Note, Thirdly, §. 8 That they declare not only that these are the Books received into the Canon by the Jews, but by the Christians also; that they are, [...], Synops. Tom. 2. p. 55. the entire Scripture of us Christians, saith Athanasius. All the Books delivered by the Apostles, and ancient Governors of the Church, and by the Church to others, saith St. Cyril. Ubi Supra. All the Books deliver­ed to the Church of Christ, saith Ruffinus. That as for others, which we stile Apocryphal, Ecclesia nescit Apocrypha, Tom. 3. f. 7. a. f. 9. a. the Church owns them not: Ecclesia inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit, The Church receives them not among the Canonical Scri­ptures, saith St. Jerom.

Note, Fourthly, §. 9 That they declare that they made this Enumeration of these Books, [...], out of necessity to prevent mistakes in this Matter, and for the good of the Church, and that Men might know out of what Fountains they were to draw the Waters of Life. Having made mention of the Hereticks, saith Athanasius, as of Dead persons, Apud Balsam. p. 920, 921. and of our selves, [...], as having the Holy Scriptures for Life, and because I fear least some harmless Men, through their Simplicity and Ignorance, may be deceived by the subtile Craftiness of Men, and being deceived, [...], by the ambiguity of the word true Books, (which signifies either only such as are read in the Church, or such as also are put into the Canon) may begin to be con­versant in others; therefore I intreat you to bear with me, if, by way of remembrance, I write of those things which you know already, because of the necessity of so doing, and the Benefit of it to the Church. Amphilochius and Nazianzen say, Ubi Supra. It behoves the Christian to learn this, that, [...], every Book is not safe, which has the venerable Name of Scripture; for some are False and Adulterate, some of a middle Nature, and some Canonical; and therefore, say they, will we number every one of the inspired Books, [...], that you may clearly [Page 48]learn which they are. These, saith Ruffinus, are the Traditions of the Fathers touching the Canonical Books; Ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi Ecclesiae ac fidei Elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi dei haurienda sunt po­cula. Apud Hieron. Tom. 4. f. 51. those are the Books which are read in the Church, though not Canonical, nor sufficient to confirm any Do­ctrine of Faith, and the other are Apocryphal Scriptures, which she would not have read, and these things I thought fit in this place to signifie for the instruction of those who receive the first Rudiments of Faith, Ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est inter Apocry­pha esse ponendum. Tom. 3. f 6. a. that they may know out of what Fountains they must receive the word of God. This Catalogue I have made, saith Jerom, that you may be able to know that the rest are Apocryphal.

Note, §. 10 Fithly, That they represent these as the Fountains of Salvation, which are diligently to be read and studied by all, and as for the rest, some of them say, that though they were read in the Church, not for confirmation of Faith, but instruction of Manners; yet private Persons should not read them. Thus Athanasius having given us the Protestants Canon, both of the Old and New Testament, he adds, These are the Fountains of Salvation, so that he who thirsteth, let him be satiated with the Oracles contained in them; Apud Balsam. p. 922. [...]; in these alone is contained the Doctrine of Godliness, let no Man add any thing to them, nor take any thing from them; of these our Lord spake when he said to the Pharisees, You erre, not knowing the Scriptures, and when he exhorted the Jews to search the Scriptures. P. 36, 37. Learn of the Church, saith Cyril to his Cate­chumen, which are the Books of the Old and the New Testament, and read none of the Apocrypha, for why shouldst thou trouble thy self, [...], about controverted Books, who knowest not those which are by all acknowledged; read these Twenty two Books of the Old Testament, study them only, [...], and have nothing to do with the Apocrypha; and having given us the same Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, excepting only the Revelations, he saith, Whatsoever is not read in the Church do not thou read.

St. Jerom in his Epistle to Paulinus, having reckoned up the Books of the Old and the New Testament, as we do (saving that he saith, The Epistle to the Hebrews is by many not reckoned as [Page 49]St. Paul's,) saith, I intreat thee, dear Brother, Tom. 3. f. 3. b. to be conversant among these, to meditate of them, nihil aliud nosse, nihil quae­rere, to know, to enquire after nothing else. In his Epistle to Laeta, touching the Education of her Daughter, he gives this Admonition: let her shun all Apocryphal Books, Caveat omnia Apocrypha, &c. Tom. 1. f. 21. and if at any time she will read them, not for the truth of Doctrine, but for Re­verence of the Signs, let her know they are not their Books whose Titles they bear, that there be many ill things in them, that it requir­eth great Wisdom to seek Gold among Dirt.

Thus have we in one Century Eusebius of Caesarea the Metro­polis of Palaestine, Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, §. 11 Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium the Metropolis of Lycaonia, Nazianzen and St. Ba­sil in Cappadocia, Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Ruffinus Priest of Aquileia in Italy, Hilary of Poictiers in France, Jerom, who lived in Rome, France, Dalmatia, Syria, Palaestine, who travelled into Cyprus, Aegypt, Alexandria, conversed with all the learned Persons of his Age; and lastly the Council of La­odicea, received generally through the Christian World, de­posing their plain Testimonies for the Canon of the Old Testa­ment received by Protestants, and as unanimously condemning that of the Trent Council, since owned by the Church of Rome. And confident I am that the greatest searchers into Ecclesiasti­cal Antiquity cannot produce one Council, nor one Testimony of any Father throughout these Four Centuries, who purposely treating of, or declaring the exact number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, doth not either expresly exclude; or at least omit all, or most of all those Books which we stile Apocryphal, and which by the New Canon made at Trent, Sess. 4. are pronounced Canonical, and that with an Anathema to every Christian who, pro sacris & Canonicis non susceperit, receives them not as Sacred and Canonical. And if all this be not suffi­cient, whosoever will peruse Doctor Cousin's Canon of Scri­pture, will find the same Tradition still continued to future Ages.

And that the number of the Books of the Old Testament were either expresly or equivalently declared to be those, and those only which we receive. [...]. Hom. 4. in Gen. p. 20. For Century the Fifth, St. Chrysostom lays it down as a thing con­fessed by lla, that all the divine Books of the Old [Page 50]Testament were from the beginning writ in the Hebrew Tongue. Theodoret twice mentions the sacred and saving Scriptures of the Old Testament, In Cant. Can­tic. p. 985, 1077. Cous. p. 132. P. 142. P. 145. P. 151, 152. P. 154. P. 158, 159, 161, 163. without addition of one of the Apocryphal: The number of them is declared to be Twenty two. Century the Sixth, by Anastasius; in the Seventh Century by Isidore; in the Eighth Century by Damasus; in the Ninth Century by Nicephorus and Agobardus; in the Eleventh Century by Gisel­bertus; in the Twelfth Century by Hugo de Sancto Victore, Richardus de Sancto Victore, by Petrus Comestor, John Belith, and by John of Salisbury; P. 166. P. 174, 178. P. 179, 188, 192, 197. in the Thirteenth Century by the Ordinary Gloss; in the Fourteenth Century by Nicephorus, Ca­listus, and Joannes Armachanus; in the Fifteenth Century by Thomas Waldensis, Dionysius Carthusianus, and Erasmus.

Others, numbring Ruth and Lamentations as Two Books, distinct from Judges and Jeremy, Prol. Gal. in 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, [Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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, [Page 54]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 Ʋniversal 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, nor a Decree received into the Code of Canons by the Ʋniversal Church, as was the contrary Decree of the Council of Laodicea; nor were the men that made it likely to judge better what were the Books of the Old Testament re­ceived as Canonical, than all the Writers now produced for our [Page 56] Canon; they whom we have produced, as our Witnesses, be­ing either men who lived upon, or near the place where the Canon of the Old Testament was published and known, or tra­velled many of them thither, and one of them on purpose to learn exactly the number of those Books: And surely it is too ridiculous to imagine that it should in the Fifth Century be better known in Africa what Books of the Old Testament were Canonical than at Jerusalem, Caesarea, Alexandria, or any of the Eastern Churches. Moreover, This Canon of the Council of Carthage in the Roman Code, lately set forth by Paschasius Quesnel, hath only Tobit and Judith, and two Books of Esdras of all the Apocryphal Books now Canonized at Rome, nor in the Collection of Cresconius, Can. 299. an African Bishop, is there any mention of the Books of Macchabees or Baruch, nor in the Edition of it by Balsamon, so that this cannot be a proof that the Trent Canon was received then. And lastly, 'tis true they stile the Books there mentioned Canonical, but this may only, be in that large Sence in which those Books were sometimes called so which were read in the Church, though they were not sufficient to confirm matters of Faith, as may be argued from the Reason which they give us, why they stiled them Canonical, [...]. Bal­sam. in can. 27. Concil. Carthag. viz. [...], Be­cause we have from the Fathers received these Books to be read in the Church; and from the Gloss of Balsamon upon it, who to know what Books were Canonical in the strict Sence, sends us to the Council of Laodicea, Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Amphilochius, who all declared against the Apocrypha, and to the last Canon of the Apostles which leaves out most of them.

And whereas it is added, that the Canons of the Council of Carthage were established in the Sixth General Council held in Trullo; let it be noted,

First, That at other times the Romanists will by no means admit this Council, Can. 36. Can. 13. Can. 55. because it equals the Bishop of Constantinople with him of Rome, forbids Priests to be separated from their Wives, condemns the received Customs of the Church of Rome, and prescribes contrary Laws to her; but now, be­cause they hope their Forlorn Cause may have some small [Page 57]advantage by it, they give it the Title of a General Council. Note,

2. [...], — [...]. Can. 2. That this Synod in the same Canon in which it confirms the Council of Carthage, con­firms also the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, together with the Canonical Epistles of Athanasius, Nazianzen and Amphilochius, which number the Canonical Books of the Old Testament as we do, rejecting the rest with us as Apocryphal; when therefore the Fathers in the Synod confirm the Canons of the Council of Car­thage, they must either contradict themselves by contradicting the Council of Laodicea, and these Canonical Epistles now men­tioned, and by them equally confirmed, or else they must believe that this Canon of the Council of Carthage, did not de­clare these controverted Books to be properly Canonical, or divine Scripture, but only in that larger sence, in which that Name was given to Ecclesiastical Books, thought worthy to be read in the Church.

Fifthly, Whereas Mr. M. and J. L. farther assert, That after these Books were declared Canonical by Pope Innocent, and the Council of Carthage, all cited these Books as Scripture, none pertinaciously dissented from this Decree, no Catholick ever doubted of them; we are bound to thank them for their kindness to us in these words, in which they plainly have renounced their Title to almost all the best Writers of the Christian World, who, as the Reverend Dr. Cousins hath demonstrated through every Century, till the very Year of the Session of the Trent Council, not only doubted of, but plainly did reject these Books as uncanonical in the strict acceptation of the Word, declaring that they read and cited them indeed as Books con­taining good instruction, but not as properly Canonical, or as sufficient to confirm any Article of Christian Faith.

Lastly, The Testimony of St. Austin in his Book of Christian Doctrine, is so inconsistent with his other works, and so fully answered by the Reverend Dr. Consins, Can. 7. that it is needless to say any thing distinctly to it.

To proceed therefore to the Books of the New Testament, §. 14 observe,

First, That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, [...], Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 25. l. 6. c. 25. the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the First Epistle of St. Peter, and the First of St. John, were always, [...], confessed by all true Christians to be sacred Books of the New Testa­ment, and their Authority was never questioned by any person of the whole Church of God. Now sure we have unquestionable certainty of such Books as have been hand­ed down to us by the Tradition of all Ages of the Church, in­serted into all her Catalogues, cited by all her Writers as Books of a Divine Authority, and of which never any doubt was made by any Member of the Church of God.

Secondly, §. 15 Observe, That it cannot be necessary to Salvation to have an absolute assurance of those Books of the new Te­stament, which have been formerly Controverted by whole Churches, as well as private Doctors of the Church; for ei­ther these Churches had sufficient certainty, that the Books which they rejected were Canonical, or they had not; if they had, how could they be true Churches who rejected part of their Rule of Faith, when known to be so? If they had not, it seems not necessary that we at present should be certain of them; for why may not we go to Heaven without this assu­rance, as well as they of former Ages?

Thirdly, §. 16 There can be no assurance of the true Canon of the Books of the New Testament from the Testimony of the Romish or the Latin Church in any Age, because she in some Ages hath rejected from the Canon that Epistle to the Hebrews, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. which she now receives. It was rejected in the Third Century by Cajus Presbyter of Rome; by Tertullian in the same Century, who also in his Book, Cap. 20. de pudicitia, insinuates, that it was not received as Canonical by some other Churches. Origen in his Epistle to Africanus having cited a passage from the Eleventh Chapter of this Epistle, adds, That it is probable, some being pressed with it, Pag. 232. may, [...], embrace the Sentence of them who reject this Epistle, as being not writ by Paul. Now who they were, who in this Century did upon this account reject it, we learn more plainly from the Writers of the following Century. [Page 59]For Eusebius informs us, that, [...], Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. even in his time some of the Romans did reject it, as being none of the Apostles. Upon which place Valesius notes, That it was the Custom of Eusebius to call all the Latins, Romans, and observes, that Ruffinus thus Inter­prets this very passage, Scio apud Latinos de ea quae ad Hebraeos inscribitur haberi dubitationem, L. 3. c. 3. I know that the Latins doubt of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The same Eusebius informs us, Ep. ad Dard. Ep. Tom. 3. f. 24. a. that others did reject it with the Roman Church. St. Jerom frequent­ly affirms, That eam Latina consuetudo non recipit, the Latin Church did not receive it among the Canonical Scriptures. Here then we see that they rejected for Two Centuries, what after­wards they did unanimously receive as part of the Canon of the New Testament; and so her Judgment alone can give us no assurance of the Books of the New Testament, because through two whole Centuries she actually erred in her Judg­ment of them. Hence also I inferr, that the Church of Christ knew of no Obligation laid upon her, in a division of Church Rulers, touching any matter, Exhort. ad Martyr. p. 232. to adhere to the Pope and Church of Rome, and those which sided with them. For in this very Case Origen in the Third Century offers to demonstrate against her, that this was truly the Epistle of St. Paul, And Jerom bluntly says, Although the Latins do reject it, yet do I receive it, Tom. 3. f. 24. (with the Greeks) nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum Scriptorum authoritatem sequens, not following the Custom of this time, (among the Latins) but the Authority of an­cient Writers.

Fourthly, I add, §. 17 That there is not the like necessity that any of these controverted Books should be received from the beginning by all Christians as Canonical, as that the necessary Articles of Christian Faith and Manners, should be received by all Christians. For, 1. The necessary Articles of Christian Faith, and Rules of Christian Life were preached universally to all; and so there was no time when any Christian could be ignorant of them without his own fault, but the Epistles controverted were only sent to private Christians, as the Second and Third Epistles of St. John; or to the Churches of the Jews, and therefore might with reason for some time be doubted of by other Churches of the Gentiles, this being not a weakening, but confirmation of [Page 60]our Faith, that the first Christians were so careful to see suffi­cient Evidence before they would receive even the least Epistle into the Canon of the Scripture. 2. No Christian Church could need to be told by any other what were the necessary Articles of Christian Faith, or Rules of Life, since they must always know the Christian Faith, and be obliged to practise the Rules of Christian Piety, and must be taught them by their Church Guides; but 'tis not thus with reference to these Epistles, for being writ to a particular Society of Christians, it was suf­ficient that this Society could shew, De praescript. c. 36. as saith Tertullian, Au­thenticas literas corum, the Authentick Letters of those Apostles, which indited them, and could testifie to those who doubted, as St. Austin saith, De Doctrin. Christian. l. 2. c. 8. quod ab ipsis Epistolas accipere meruerunt, that they received these Epistles from them, and read, and owned them as their genuine Works; when-ever this was done, they, who before did question them, must have sufficient ground to own them as parts of the true Canon, and till they had this Evidence, they reasonably might continue to doubt of them. 3. It is evident from the second Observation, that the assured knowledge that these Epistles are Canonical, cannot be necessary to Salvation, the necessary Doctrines of Christian Faith being according to the general Tradition of the whole Church of Christ, Chap. 7. §. 4, 5, 6, &c. Ibid. §, 2, 3. comprised in the Apostles Creed, and all the necessary Rules of Christian Piety, being according to the same Tra­dition, fully comprised in the Four Evangelists; whereas the actual knowledge of all necessary Articles of Christian Faith, and Rules of Christian Conversation, must be always necessary, there being no possibility of knowing, or of doing acceptably the Will of God without them. It will not therefore fol­low, because such matters of Fact may for a time be doubt­ful in the Church, matters of Faith may be so, that because Churches may be Orthodox and reject some part of the Canon for a Season, they may be Orthodox, though they reject some necessary Article of Christian Faith. The Romanist I hope will not admit of these Conclusions. The Greek Church might re­ject the Apocalypse, and yet be Orthodox, ergo, she might re­ject the Trinity, and yet be Orthodox. The Latin Churches for a Season might reject the Epistle to the Hebrews without blame, ergo, they might reject the Resurrection of the Body without blame. The whole Church did not formerly receive those Books [Page 61]into the Canon of the New Testament, she now receives; Ergo the whole Church did not formerly embrace those Articles of Faith which now she holds; and yet all these conclusions are as good as those the Roman Doctors usually make for receiving all the Articles of Faith imposed, at present, by the Church of Rome, as the Conditions of Communion, upon her Testi­mony that they are such; because we do receive the Canon of the New Testament, from the Tradition of the Church.

Fifthly, We shall see cause sufficient to embrace as certain, §. 18 and unquestionable, that Canon of the New Testament we now receive, notwithstanding any doubts some of the Ancients had, touching some lesser portions of it, if we consider,

1. That most of the Fathers of the Fourth Century, who give us Catalogues of the Scripture Canon, and they especially who tell us, they, in making of it, followed the suffrage of the Church, and the Tradition of the Fathers, do accord in giving of that very Catalogue we now receive, and owning all those Catholick Epistles which were sometime controverted; thus, for instance, Apud Balsa­mon, p. 922. Athanasius reckoneth the Books of the New Testament as we do, numbering, as appertaining to the Canon, Fourteen Epistles of. St. Paul, Seven Catholick Epistles, and the Apocalypse; and saying, These are the Fountains of Salvation, let no man add unto them, or take from them. And yet he doth pro­fess to reckon them as they delivered them who were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word, and as they by Tradition came down to him. In his Synopsis he undertakes to reckon up [...], the Canonical Books of the New Testament, defined to be such. 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 [Page 62]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 Fathers 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. [Page 64]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 this Revelation to an unknown Presbyter whose Name was John, rather than to that Apostle who conversed so long among these Churches, they may be easily confuted from this peculiar de­scription of that John who was the Author of this Book, Rev. i. 9. he being that John who was banished into the Isle of Patmos for the Word of God, Vers 2. and the Testimony of the Truth, and who bare re­cord of the Word of God, and the Testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things which he saw, which are peculiar to this Apostle of our Lord.

2. §. 20 St. Jerom also had good reason to own the Epistle to the Hebrews to be written, or at the least composed, or indited by St. Paul on the Authority of the Ancient Writers. Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 3. Sect. 12, 17, 36, 43. L. 3 c. 38. Catalo. Script. verbo Paulus. Pag. 247, 439. Pag. 53, 362, 384, 514, 515, 645. Lib. 3. p. 143. Lib. 7. p. 351. Philocal. p 10, 17. Dial. contra Marc. p. 114. Ep. ad Afric. p 232. Seeing, as Origen informs us, the ancient Christians did not rashly, when they delivered it as the Epistle of St. Paul; and as Eusebius saith, Saint Paul's Fourteen Epistles were, [...], known, and manifest to the whole Christian World. We find it very often cited by Clemens Romanus the Companion, and co-worker of St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, in which, as Eusebius and St. Jerome Note, he hath put many notions which are in that Epistle, and used many Expressions word for word taken thence. In the Second Century it is cited by Irenaeus as a Book written by the Spirit of God, and in the close of that Century, or the beginning of the next, it is Six times cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, under the Name of the Apostle Paul, or of Divine Scripture. Origen saith, That the Apostle Paul writ Four­teen Epistles; he cites it as the Epistle of St. Paul in his Third and Seventh Book against Celsus, in his Philocalia, in his Dia­logue, against Marcian, in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, in his Epistle to Africanus he undertakes to demonstrate, that it was [Page 65]his against such as doubted of it; and in his Fifth Tome upon John, he declares, That the things contained in it are admira­ble, Vid. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. and no whit inserior to those which were confessedly writ by the Apostles, and that whatsoever Church received it as such, was upon that account to be commended. That this is the Epistle of St. Paul was in the Fourth Century denyed by the Arians, be­cause they were not able to resist the Conviction it affords in the First Chapter of our Lord's Divinity. On which account Theodoret speaks thus, Proem. in Hebr. [...]. They ought at least to revere the length of time in which the Chil­dren of the Church have read this Epistle in the Churches; for from the time that the Churches of God have enjoyed the writings of the Apo­stles, they have reaped the Benefit of this Epistle to the Hebrews; or if this be not sufficient to perswade them, they should hearken to Eusebius of whom they boast, as of the Patron of their Doctrines, for he confessed this was St. Paul's Epistle; Proem. in Ep. ad Hebr. [...], and he declared that all the Ancients had the same Opinion of it.

That they of Rome, and other Latins did for a while reject this Epistle, will not much weaken this Tradition, if we con­sider, 1. That this Epistle was not writ to them, but to the Hebrews, who, as we are informed by Eusebius, Embraced it with delight. 2. [...]. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. That it was rejected by them, not that they had any thing to say a­gainst it, but because they could not answer the Arguments which the Novatian Schismaticks among them produced from the Sixth and Tenth Chapter of this Epistle, against receiving lapsed Penitents into the Church; whence, as Philastrius informs us, they rejected it, Haer. 88. as thinking it was depraved by the Hereticks; or, 3. Because it wants his Name, which he concealed saith Jerom, [...], Catal. Script. Eccl. verbo Paulus. be­cause his Name would render it less acceptable to the Hebrew Converts who were offended at his Doctrine of the Exemption of the Gentile Converts from Circumcision, and the Observati­on of the Law, saith Theodoret, [...], Proem. in Ep. ad Hebr. because he was made an Apostle, not of the Circumcision, but of the Gentiles. 4. Because it differs in stile from the rest of his Epistles, as indeed it [Page 66]ought to do, being writ to the Hebrews, accustomed to the Hellenistick Stile; but of this the Ancients give this double reason, That it was writ by St. Paul in Hebrew, translated by others into Greek; or because St. Clemens, Barnabas, or St. Luke did, Ibid. Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. sententias Pauli proprio ornare sermone, write down the the Sentences of Paul in their own Words, saith Jerom, and gave [...], the Phrase, and the Contexture, saith Origen, to to the things spoken by St. Paul.

The Second and Third Epistles of Saint John, §. 21 and that of Jude are so short, that it is needless to insist upon it; that the Second Epistle of Saint John is cited by Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus in the Second; L. 1. c. 13. p. 94. Strom. 2. De carne Christi, c. 24. Eu­seb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 24. Apud Cypr. p. 242. De cultu foeminar. p. 151. by Tertullian, Dionysius of Alexandria, and the Coun­cil of Carthage in the Third Century, and the Epistle of Jude under his Name by Tertullian.

Concerning the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of St. Jude, let it be noted in the general that Eusebus informs us, they were, [...], Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. Petrus duabus Epistola­rum suarum personat tubis, Jacobus quoque & Judas, f. 156. know to most of the Ancients. That they are all expresly owned by Origen in his Seventh Honily upon Joshua. Of the Epistle of Jude in particular St. Jerom saith, That though it was rejected for a while, because it cited a passage from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, Catal. Script. Eccl. verbo Judas. tamen authoritatem vetustate jam, & usu meruit, & inter sanctas Scripturas computatur, it deserved Authority from its Antiqui­ty, and constant use in the Church, and is reckoned among the holy Scriptures. Sect. 10, 12, 17, 30. Sess. 5. The Catholick Epistle of James is cited by Clemens Romanus four several times, by Ignatius in his Genuine Epistle to the Ephesians, by Origen in his Thirteenth Homily upon Ge­nesis. Lib. 3. c. 25. Lib. 2. c. 22. Eusebius saith, It was known to most; and publickly read in 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 [Page 67]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 [Page 68]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, [Page 69]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, [Page 70]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 [Page 71]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.

FUrthermore we distinguish betwixt Traditions touching Points purely Doctrinal, Dist. 6th. or Divine Revelations which concern matters of meer Belief, as the Doctrine of the Millen­nium, of the time of the Day of Judgment, of Antichrist, and what did hinder his Appearance, and the like, and Traditions touching points of Practice, such as were the Observation of the Lord's Day, the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons by Bishops, &c. Touching the first kind we say, That it is no sufficient evidence that they were Doctrines received from the Apostles, that they have been asserted by after-Ages to be such, it being evident both from Church History, and the Confessions both of Pro­testants and Papists; that in these matters the Fathers have been subject to mistakes in Doctrines not belonging to the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith; but touching matters of Practice we say, That we are ready to receive all such Tradi­tions as have that Evidence, that they were generally practised from the first and purest Ages of the Church, which we are able to produce for observation of the first Day of the Week, the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons by Bishops, and the like. To give some Instances of the first kind.

First, The Doctrine of the Millennium, §. 1 or the Reign of Saints on Earth a Thousand Years, is now rejected by all Ro­man Catholicks; and by the greatest part of Protestants, and yet it passed amongst the best of Christians for Two hundred and Fifty Years for a Tradition Apostolical, and as such is de­livered by many Fathers of the Second and Third Century, who speak of it as the Tradition of our Lord and his Apostles, and of all the Ancients that lived before them, who tell us the very words in which it was delivered, the Scriptures which were then so Interpreted, and say, that it was held by all [Page 74] Christians that were, [...], exactly Orthodox.

And, 1. this is delivered by the Fathers of the Second and Third Centuries as a Tradition received from the Mouth of Christ and his Apostles. [...]. L. 3. c. 39. Eusebius confesseth, That Papias de­clared it to be the Doctrine of our Saviour handed down to him by unwritten Tradition. Lib. 5. c. 33. Euseb. H. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 39. Now of this Papias, Irenaeus saith, That he was an Hearer of St. John, the Author of the Revelations. He himself professeth, that he only followed, [...], them who taught the Truth, and who related, [...], the Commands given by Christ himself, and coming from the Truth it self. [...]. Ibid. That he received, [...], the words of the Apostles from those who followed them, or conversed with them, and only writ the things he had well learned, and well remembred. Eusebius moreover adds, That his Relation, touching the Tradition of the Millennium, prevailed, [...], with most of the Clergy that lived after him to entertain it. [...], Di­al. cum Tryph. p. 308. Justin Martyr speak­ing of the same Doctrine, premiseth, That he chose not to follow the Doctrines of Men, but of God, and the Doctrines delivered by him; and then he adds, That there was a Man among them named John, one of Christ's Twelve Apostles, who in his Revelations had foretold that the Faithful should reign with Christ a Thousand Years in Jerusalem, Lib. 5. cap. 33. and that our Lord Christ said the same thing. Presbyteri meminerunt qui Joannem Discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab illo quemadmodum de tempori­bus illis docebat Dominus, Ibid. Irenaeus adds, That the Seniors who saw St. John, the Disciple of the Lord, remembred how they had heard him say, that he had heard our Lord Christ teach this Doctrine; and then he doth repeat the very words in which Christ taught thus, and tells us that he had them also from Papias the Friend of Polycarp, Cap. 36. Hanc esse ad ordinationem & dispositionem eorum qui salvuntur dicunt Presbyteri Apostolorum Discipuli, ibid. adding, That this, according to the Seniors the Disciples of the Apostles, is the Ordinance and the appointment concerning those that shall be saved, and that our Lord taught this when he promised to drink New Wine with his Disciples in the Kingdom of God; Hanc & Ezechiel novit, & Apostolus Joannes vidit, & qui apud fidem nostram est novae Prophetiae sermo testa­tur. Adv. Marcion. l. 3. c. 24. and St. Paul when he said, That the Creature should be freed from the Bondage of Corruption, into the liberty of the Sons of God. As for the Kingdom promised [Page 75]to us after the Resurrection for a Thousand Years, Ezechiel knew it, saith Tertullian, the Apostle John saw it, and the new Word of Prophecy, which we believe, gives Testimony of it. And if Ge­lasius Cyzicenus may be credited, this was the Doctrine deliver­ed by the Nicene Council in these words, We expect new Heavens and new Earth, [...], &c. Hist. Concil. Nic. l. 2. c. 30. according to the Scriptures, at the Appearance of the Kingdom of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ; and then, as Daniel saith, the Saints of the most High shall re­ceive a Kingdom, and the Earth shall be pure and holy, which David by the Eye of Faith foreseeing, [...]— [...], Ibid. [...]. saith, I believe to see the Goodness of the Lord in the Land of the Living; and the Son of David, Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. These things we have established from the Ecclesiastical Con­stitutions, most diligently framed by the Holy Fa­thers.

2. They speak of this, not as a probable Opi­nion, but as a thing which they were certainly assured of. We know, saith Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Trypk. p. 307. the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the Thousand Years in Jerusalem. Predicta benedictio sine contradictione ad tempora regni pertinet. Lib. 5. c. 33. Manifestissime, cap. 34. The Benediction doth without contradi­ction belong to the times of the Kingdom, saith Ire­naeus. And again, These promises do most manifestly signifie the Banquet of the Creature, which God hath promised to give them in the Kingdom of the just. And a third time, Sine Contro­versia dicta sunt, c. 35. These and other things are without Controversie spoken as things which are to happen in the Resurrection of the Just.

3. They confidently cite, §. 2 as plain Assertors of this Do­ctrine, the Prophets of the Old Testament, [...], p. 307. Lib. 5. c. 34. Lib. 7. c. 26. and the Sayings of our Lord and his Apostles in the New. This Thousand Years, saith Justin Martyr, the Prophets, Esaias and Ezekiel, and others do confess. Esaias manifestly declares, saith Irenaeus, that there shall be such joy in the Resurrection of the Just; Ezekiel saith the same thing, and so doth Daniel. The Testimony of the Pro­phets touching this matter are so many, saith Lactantius, that it would be infinite to collect them. Propter hoc beatus dicebat miles, l. 5. c. 32. That our Lord referred to it when he promised that the meek should inherit the Earth, is the Assertion of Irenaeus, and the forementioned Testimony of [Page 76]the Nicene Council; and also when he said Thou shalt be recom­pensed at the Resurrection of the Just, Cap. 33. saith the same Irenaeus; and when he promised to them who left Lands, Houses, Parents, Brethren, and Children for his sake, That they should have an hundred fold now in this life; Lib. 5. c. 33. Ibid. so Irenaeus and St. Cyprian, when he said to his Disciples, I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine, till I drink it new, with you in my Father's Kingdom. When to that Question of St. Peter's, Ex occasione hujus senten­tiae quidam introducunt mille annos post resurre­ctionem. Hie­rom. in Matth. 19.28. Peter's, We have left all and fol­lowed thee, what shall we have? he answers, [...], In the new, and Second State, the Resurrection of the Just, when the Son of Man sitteth on the Throne of his Glory; you also shall sit upon Twelve Thrones judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel: And when, having corrected their mistakes about this matter, he adds, Ye are they who have continued with me in my Temptation, and I appoint to you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed to me; that you may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdom: this, saith Justin Martyr, Pag. 312. is the [...], The Mystery of our Regeneration.

They cite to the same purpose that testimony of St. Paul, Rom. 8.21. saying, That the creature shall be delivered from the bondage of Corruption into the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God; which Li­berty is in the next Verse stiled [...], Iren. l. 5.32, 34. the Redem­ption of the Body, from that Death to which it was subject through the disobedience of Adam; and with which will be also a Re­demption of the creature from that Curse which the Earth suf­fered for his sake. [...]. p. 308. Pag. 307. Lib. 5. c. 35. They cite, to the same purpose that passage of St. Peter, who saith, One day is with the Lord as a thousand years; and a thousand years as one day; and this we know, saith Justin M. that these words do relate to the Millennium. Again when Esaias saith, We look for new Heavens, and new Earth; hemeans, saith Justin M. the Promise of the Millennium. These things, saith Irenaeus, are without controversie, spoken of the Re­surrection, in quâ regnabunt justi in terrà; in which the Just shall reign on Earth.

Lastly, As for the Author of the Revelations, they all with one consent declare he speaks expresly of it; and indeed he seems to do it so expresly, that when in the Third Century some Christians began to dislike this Opinion, they began also to question the Authority of this Book which never was before doubted of by any Christian.

Fourthly, Observe, that these Fathers do expresly teach, §. 3 That this Doctrine of the Millennium was deni­ed chiefly by Hereticks and such as were de­ceived by them; Quoniam transferuntur quorundam sententiae ab Haereticis sermonibus. Lib. 5. c. 32. Haeretici enim despicientes psalmationem Dei, & non suscipientes salutem carnis suae. Lib. 5 c. 31. thus Irenaeus in the Preface of his Discourse upon this Subject saith, he found it necessary to speak of it, Because some Mens Opi­nions were perverted by the Speeches of the Hereticks, and they understood not the appointment of God, and the Mystery of the Resurrection of the Just, and of the Kingdom. And again, he saith, That some of those who are thought to have believed aright do go beyond the order of the promotion of the Just, and know not the methods of their training up, or being exercised to incorruption, having in them­selves Heretical sences (of this matter.) For the Hereticks de­spising the formation of God, ( i. e. the Body framed by him) and not receiving the Salvation of their Flesh, (or not believing that it shall be saved) say, That as soon as they are dead they transcend the Heavens, and the Maker of them, and go to that Mother or Father which they have feigned to themselves; they therefore who reject, as much as in them lies, all Resurrection of the Flesh, what wonder is it if they know not the order of the Resur­rection; which order, with the method by which we are ex­ercised to incorruption, and the enjoyment of God he after­wards declares to be this, Cap. 32. That our first Resurrection is principi­um incorruptelae per quod Regnum qui digni fuerint assuescunt capere deum, the beginning of incorruption, by living in which King­dom they who are worthy so to do, by little and little do accustom themselves to enjoy God. Cap. 35. And that the Just Man thus raised verè praemeditabitur incorruptelam, & augebitur, & vigebit in Regni temporibus, ut fiat capax Gloriae Patris; shall truly ex­ercise, or fit himself for incorruptibility, and increase, and flourish in the times of that Kingdom, Cap. 36. that he may be made capable of the Glory of the Father. And a third time, That Man being renewed, & vigente ad incorruptelam, ut non possit jam veterascere; and making such progress to incorruption, that he cannot now wax Old; tunc qui digni fuerint coelorum conversatione illuc transibunt, id est, in Coelos; then they who are worthy shall ascend to Heaven.

Justin M. being asked by Trypho, whether he believed That Jerusalem should be rebuilt, Pag. 306. and the Christians should be gathered together there with Christ, and the Patriarchs and Prophets? An­swers [Page 78]thus, [...], I have before confessed unto thee that I and many others are of this judgment; adding that he there­fore embraced this Doctrine, Because he chose not to follow Men or their Doctrines, Pag. 306. but God; and telling Trypho, That if the Jews had met with any who did not confess this, Pag. 307. but blasphem­ed the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he was not to esteem them Christians though they were [...], called Christi­ans: [...], &c. For I, and all Christians that are entirely Orthodox do know there will be a Resurrection of the Flesh, and a thousand Years in Jerusalem, built, adorn'd and enlarged, as the Prophets Ezekiel, Esaias, and others have confessed. Now by comparing of these words with what before was spoken by him of the Gnosticks, and the following branches of that Heresie the Marcionites, the Valentinians, Basili­dians and Saturnilians, p. 253. it will be evident that Justin M. speaks here especially of them. For,

1. There you will find him saying of those Hereticks, That they taught Men to Blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And here, That some of them who did not own the Millen­nium were Men who dared to Blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

2. There you will find them expresly stiled the Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilidians and Saturnilians: Here you will find them generally described by this character, That [...], they say there is no Resurrection of the Dead; but that as soon as they die, [...], their Souls were received into Heaven, as Irenaeus before noted of those deniers of the Millennium, and as is certainly true of all the Hereticks here mentioned; Danaeus in Aug. de Hae­res. c. 22. f. 100. b. Dan. ibid. c. 4. f. 60. b. Ibid. cap. 11. f. 79. a. for the Marcionites denied the Resurrection of the Flesh, and held, That the Soul only should be saved. Basilides denied The Resurrection of the Flesh. The Saturnilians said, That there would be no Resurrection of the Flesh; because the Body would not be saved. The Valentinians denied the Resurrection of the Flesh, saying, That our Souls only, not our Bodies were redeemed by Christ. Moreover he promises to write a Book against these Deniers of the Millennium, which what it should be, except his Book against Heresie in general, or against Marcion in particular, I would gladly know.

3. There he declares, that true Christians did [...], in nothing Communicate with these Men, as knowing they were Atheists, ( i. e. wicked) ungodly and unjust; and here he forbids Trypho, [...], to account them Christians; saying, they no more deserved that Name, than the Sadducees, and other Hereticks amongst the Israelites deserved the Name of Jews. Now let it be considered,

1. §. 4 That this Doctrine was owned in the first Ages of the Church, by the greatest number of the Christian Clergy, [...]. H. Eccl. l. 3 c. 39. In Jer. 19. Proem. in lib. 18. Com. in Esa. as is confessed by Euscbius, that by the confession of St. Jerom, Multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum, & Martyrum, ista dixerunt; Many Ecclesiastical Men, and Martyrs had asserted it before his time; and that even in his days it was the Doctrine, quam no­strorum plurima sequitur multitudo; which a great multitude of Christians followed; that it was received not only in the Eastern parts of the Church by Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Ne­pos, Apollinaris, Methodius, but also in the West and South by Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus, Lactantius and Severus, and, if we may credit Gelasius Cyzicenus, by the first Nicene Coun­cil.

2. That these Men taught this Doctrine, not as Doctors on­ly, but as Witnesses of the Tradition which they had received from Christ and his Apostles, and which was taught them by the Elders the Disciples of Christ, which pass among the Ro­manists for Authentick marks of Apostolical Tradition.

3. That they pretend to ground it upon numerous and ma­nifest Testimonies both of the Old and New Testament, and speak of them as Texts which could admit no other meaning, and which they knew to have this meaning; and then let any Romanist shew any thing of a like nature for any Article pre­tended by the Church of Rome to be derived from Tradition to them.

Now if the Scriptures thus Interpreted for these Two Cen­turies with so much confidence and assurance; §. 5 if a Tradition of this early date, delivered by Men of such great Reputation, from the Disciples of our Lord, and from the Seniors of the Church, may yet be Scriptures falsly Interpreted, Traditions falsly said to be received from the Apostles, or the Rulers of [Page 80]the Church; Semijudaei. Hier. in Esa. 60. f. 100. b. Praefat. in lib. 18. f. 107. Ridiculi [...] in cap. 66. v. 22. and they who thus Interpreted them might be looked upon as Judaizing, as Men whose God was their Belly, as Men who loved their Belly, and their Lusts, and as Ridiculous; which Epithetes St. Jerom freely doth bestow upon the Assertors of the Millennary Doctrine, how much more reason must we have to doubt of those Interpretations of Scripture, and those Tradi­tions which are now represented as true Traditions and true Interpretations of the Scripture by the Roman Church. If that which once passed for the Doctrine of all Christians that were Orthodox, A. D. 373. n. 14. Vitanda est istiusmodi ex­planatio, imo Haeresis. In Jer. 19. f. 137. b. may pass in after Ages for Heresie, as saith Baro­nius; the Doctrine of the Millennium was pronounced by Da­masus, and as St. Jerom seems in his invective stile to call it; and that which Hereticks then chiefly held, must be now held of all who would not be accounted Hereticks; sure what is Orthodox in one Age, may become Heresie in the succeeding Ages, or else the Church of Rome can be no certain judge either of what is Orthodox or Heretical. Sure they may be ashamed to ask us any more how Errors could come into their Church, and no beginning of them known, till they can tell us the be­ginning of this Error. And lastly, if the Fathers of the purest Ages could be so easily cozened by Papias, a Man of no Judg­ment in this Matter, as some of them assert, why might they not be cheated by such half witted Men in Twenty other Matters, why not by Twenty other Men of as weak Parts? And what assurance can we have of any other thing in which Tradition is pretended on the account of Testimonies less Pri­mitive, less plain, less numerous than these were? If they who had matters at Second-hand from the Apostles could be thus mistaken in a Tradition on which they founded their future Hopes and Expectations, must they not much more be sub­ject to like mistakes, in matters of meer Speculation and Opinion?

Moreover, hence we have a demonstration of the Falshood of the pretended Tradition of the Church of Rome, touching the Invocation of Saints; Sess. 25. for that, according to the Trent Coun­cil, depends upon this Supposition; That as to their Souls they are at present, una cum Christo regnantes, & aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentes, now reigning with Christ, and enjoying eternal fe­licity in Heaven, and so admitted already to the Beatifick Vision; [Page 81]whereas both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus assert, this Doctrine was proper to the formentioned Hereticks; they were the Men who said, that when Men died, Pag. 307. [...], that, Iren. l. 5. c. 31. simulatque mortui fuerint dicunt se super­gredi coelos, & ire ad eum qui ab ipsis affingitur patrem, their Souls went directly to Heaven, and passed above the material Hea­vens to the Father. These Fathers also add, That men were first to reign with Christ on Earth, Tertullian, Origen, Am­brose, Clem. Romanus, Chry­softom, Theodoret, Oecu­menius, Theophylact, St. Bernard, Stapleton, Defens. Eccl. Author. lib. 1. c. 2. Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Aretas, Euthy­mius, Fr. Pegna. direct. in­quis. part. 2. c. 21. and so to accustom and fit themselves to reign with Him in Heaven, to receive first their Bodies, & sic venire in conspectum Dei, and so to be admitted into the Presence of God; and that this was the Doctrine of most of the Ancients, is confirmed by their own Writers; how therefore could they have any received Tradition, that the Saints were to be invoked, as reigning now with Christ, and be­ing admitted into Heaven, and enjoying the Vision of God?

Moreover, §. 6 it was the Doctrine of the four Ages next to the Apostles, or of the four first Centures, that the Day of Judgment was near at Hand, and that the World should only last till the destruction of the Roman Empire. Lib. 1. vis. 3. Thus Hermas to that Que­stion, Whether the consummation of all things were at hand? §. 8 Answers, That the end should be when the Tower was Built and perfected, sed & cito consummabitur, and that this would quickly be. In proximo est Adventus Domini, The coming of our Lord draws nigh, saith Tertullian; De Spectac. c. 30. upon which place De la Cerde notes, That all the Fathers spake thus of the Day of Judgment. We pray, saith the same Tertullian, for the Emperors, Vim maxi­mam vniverso orbi imminen­tem. Apol. c. 32. and for the State, i. e. continuance of the Empire, because we know the con­flagration of the World, which is now imminent, and the close of it which threatneth the worst of Evils, is retarded by the continu­ance of the Roman Empire. And again, we pray for the Emperor, Cap. 39. pro statu saeculi, pro rerum queite, pro mora finis, for the continuance of the Age, for the quiet posture of Affairs, and the delay of the end of the World; which shews they thought it was then near. And a third time, Ad Scap. c. 2. We wish well to the Roman Em­pire, for while the World continueth it shall stand. St. Cyprian tells Pope Cornelius, That Christi cito approquinquabit adventus, Ep. 57. Ed. Ox. Ep. 63. p. 157. Christs coming would soon draw nigh. In his Epistle to Caecilius [Page 82]he declares, that secundus ejus adventus nobis ap­propinquat, Quoniam in fine atque con­summatione mundi Antichri­sti tempus infestum appro­pinquare nunc coepit. Prae­fat. de Exhort. Martyr. his second coming to us was near: and in his Book of Exhortation to Martyrdom, he gives this account of his Writing, viz. That he did it because now in the end of the World the time of Antichrist began to approach, and Fortu­natus, had defired him to write something to strengthen the Bre­thren.

It also was the general Opinion of the Church, §. 7 that Anti­christ was to come at the close of the World; and it was also generally believed, that Antichrist was at hand. Tertullian declares, De fuga in persecut. c. 12. [...]. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. Ep. 59. p. 139. Ep. 58. p. 120. Scire debetis, & pro certo credere & tenere, occasum faeculi, atque Antichristi tem­pus appropinquasse. Ibid. Antichristum jam instare, that Antichrist was even then ready to appear. Judas a Christian Writer, That he was to come in the time of the Emperor Severus: St. Cyprian saith, That he was now appearing, that his Advent was at hand, that Christians ought to know, and certainly believe and hold, that the Day of Trouble men­tioned Matthew the 24th. began to fall upon their Heads, that the end of the World, and the time of Antichrist drew near.

It also was the general Opinion of the Fathers that our Lord was born in the Year of the World 5500, §. 8 and that the World should end, or be renewed in the Year 6000. That our Lord was Born in the Year 5500, or 5508, or 5509, as the Greeks commonly compute, Apud Phot. Cod. 202. p. 525. you may learn from Hippolytus, who as Pho­tius notes, placed the coming of Antichrist, [...], Five hundred Years after Christ, because then the Six thousand years from the Creation of the World being expired, the World would end. The Fa­thers who were of this Opinion were very many, and * Petav. in Epiph. Haer. 66. n. 50. Feuardentius in Iren. l. 5. c. 28. magni nominis, of great repute, say Peta­vius and Sixtus Senensis, l. 5. Annot. 190.

And they pretended to derive this from plain Texts of Scripture, [...] Pseudo Just. q. 71. Ambros. in Gal. 4.4. Oe­cum. in 1 Joh. 2.18. Hier. in Mich. 4. Epiph. Haer. 66. §. 50. such, as When the fulness of time was come, In the last Days he spake to us by his Son, On whom the ends of the Ages are come, Now is the last hour; which, saith St. Jerom, if you divide the [Page 83]whole Six thousand Years of the worlds duration into Twelve parts, according to the Twelve hours of the Day, must be the last Five hun­dred Years of them.

It also was a Doctrine almost generally received among the most Ancient Fathers that the World should end, or be re­newed after 6000 years. [...] Sect. 15. This Barnabas expresly teacheth in his Epistle, saying, Attend my Children what he saith, that ex­pression, he finished in Six Days, signifies this, That God will finish all things in Six thousand Years; for, that a Day with him is a Thousands Years, he himself testifieth, saying, A Day shall be as a Thousand Years. Wherefore Children, in Six days, that is, in Six thousand years, shall all things be Consummated. In as many Days as the World was made, Quotquot enim diebus hic factus est mundus tot & mil­lenis annis consummatur: si enim dies Domini quase mille anni, &c. lib. 5. c. 28. in so many Thousand Years it is consummated; for if, as the Pro­phecy saith, the Day of the Lord is as a Thousand Years; and in six Days were all things made which were made, it is manifest, that the consummation of them will be the Six thousandth Year: so Irenaeus. His Scholar Hyppolitus in the fore-cited passage saith the same thing. Vide Sixt. Se­nen. Bibl. San­ctae l. 5. annot. 190. Lib. 7. c. 25. Eustathius in his Hexaemeron, and the Author of the Question and Answers, passing under the Name of Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Hilary and Jerom are all of the same mind; and hence Lactantius took the confidence to say in his time, It could not be above Two hun­dred Years before the World would have an end. St. Cyprian, De Exhort. Mart. p. 168. That Sex millia annorum jam fere complentur, the Six thousand Years are almost compleated. And St. Jerom, Ep. ad Geron­tium de Mo­nogamia, Tom. 1. f. 33. b. when he heard of the taking of Rome by Alaricus the Goth, crys out, Qui tenebat de medio fit, & non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare? He who hinder'd is taken out of the way, and do we not consider that Anti­christ is at hand? And this Opinion, Disert. de Mart fortitud. §. 21.24. as it is well noted by the Learned Mr. Dodwell, they collected from the Prophetick writ­ings, and from the Phrase of the last Days, so frequent in the Scripture, and from those Expressions which mention our Lord's coming to destroy Jerusalem as at hand. And yet we have al­ready lived long enough to see the falseness of this Doctrine, and so to be convinced that in these matters the Church Guides were not Infallible Interpreters of Scripture, nor A [...]thentick derivers of Tradition down to future Ages. And which is in this matter more observable, 2 Thes. ij. 6. the Apostle plainly had foretold them what it was that hindered this appearance of the Man of [Page 84]Sin, and yet 'tis manifest, that they retained not what he told them: Nor hath the Church of future Ages been able to inform us; nor can our pretenders to Infallibility tell us, with any certainty, [...]. V. 6. what was the hindrance which St. Paul there meant, and his Thessalonians then knew; for that they did know it we are sure, because it is written, But what it was none of them knew, because it was unwriten. The Church, that infallible Oracle, and excellent keeper of Tradition, hath lost this and many more Traditions; that is, discourses of our Lord and his Apostles by word of mouth, because they were not written. And therefore blessed be the goodness of that God, who, seeing what an unfaithful keeper of Traditions the Church was, took order that what his wisdom saw ne­cessary for us to know and practise, should be written.

2. Dist. 7 In matters of Practice, we distinguish betwixt such practices as have been generally received, and owned without contest from the first, and purest Ages of the Church, as the Observa­tion of the Lord's Day, the Ordination of Presbyters by Bishops, and such as have been matter of long contest, and in which the Tradition pleaded by some, hath been as evidently disown­ed by others as good Members of the Church as they; and that we have no sufficient Reason to depend much on such pretences to Tradition will appear from the dispute betwixt Pope Victor and the Asiatick Bishops, about the observation of the Easter Festival; of which let it be Noted,

First, §. 9 That Pope Victor and the R. Church kept the Easter Festi­val on the Lord's Day only; whereas the Asiaticks, and some few Churches with them, did celebrate that Festival on the Fourteenth Day of March, on whatsoever Day of the Week that happend; whence sometimes it fell out that some Chri­stians were Feasting, and rejoicing when others were obser­ving their Lent Fast. For this cause Synods met in divers pla­ces, and particularly a R. Synod which decreed with Victor, [...]. That all with one consent should keep the Easter Festival on the Lord's Day. And con­sonant to this was the Practice and Judgment of many other Churches; for that this Festival should be by them observed on the same day, was de­termined [Page 85]by St. Irenaeus, who presided in France; by Theophilus, Bishop of Caesarea; by Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusal [...]m, and the Priests subject to them; by the Bishops of Pontus, in a Synod where Palma presided, and by the Churches of the Province of Osdroena. And the same, [...]. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. saith Eu­sebius, was the Eunanimous determination of most other Bishops and Churches of the Christian World. And though the Asiatick Churches kept this Feast upon the Fourteenth Day of March; yet was the contrary practice observed, saith the same Eusebus, [...], through the whole World beside. So that 'tis evident the much major part of the Church concurred in practice with the Pope, and judged it reasonable and expedient to observe this Festival upon the Lord's Day only. And of this their determination, they sent Letters to all the Churches round about, and con­sequently to all the Asiatick Churches.

Secondly, Observe, That, according to Eusebius, §. 10 they who kept this Feast upon the Lord's Day did it [...], from a Tradition Apostolical. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 23. [...]. Ibid. c. 25. [...]. Lib. 5. c. 17. p. 258. [...]. And the Bishops of Palestine spake much of the Tradition touching the Paschal Feast descending down unto them by succession from the Apostles. The Constitutions stiled Apostolical command all Chri­stians to take especial care that they observe the Paschal Feast only on the Lord's Day, and forbid them to celebrate it any longer with the Jews. And the Fifth and Sixty second of those Canons which pass under the same stile, forbid all Bi­shops, Priests or Deacons under the penalty of de­position to celebrate the Paschal Feast before the vernal Equinox, or to Feast with the Jews.

Thirdly, Observe, That notwithstanding these Assertions, §. 11 the Evidence that they who did observe this Festival when the Jews celebrated their Paschal Feast followed the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles, seems more strong and cogent. For even Eusebius confesseth, that they who celebrated this [Page 86]Festival with the Jews, Lib. 5. cap. 24. [...]. Ibid. told the very names of the Apostles from whom they received this Tra­dition, and of their Successors, who handed down this practice to them, declaring that it was thus celebrated before them by Philip, and John the Apostles of our Lord, by Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, Thraseas Bishop of Eumenia, by Papirius, Melito and Sagaris, and by seven Bishops, Predecessors to Polycrates, who all observed it as they did. All these who in the first or second Cen­turies did very laudably perform the office of a Bishop, and who had, many of them, extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, [...], kept the Pas­chal Feast, saith Polycrates, upon the Fourteenth Day, according to the Gospel, in nothing varying from what they had received. [...]. Ibid. p. 193. Moreover Irenaeus adds, That Polycarp who conversed with the Apostle John and the o­ther Apostles, always observed the same Rite. Since therefore he was, Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 36. saith Eusebius, [...], a Man familiar with the Apostles, and made Bishop of Smyrna by the Servants and Eye-witnesses of our Lord; [...]. Ibid. it is more than probable that he derived this Custom from St. John, and from those Eye-witnesses of Christ, from whom he received his Office. Epiphanius not only doth informs us, That all Christi­ans did celebrate the Paschal Feast with the Jews whilst the Bishops of Jerusalem were of the Circumcision, that is, for One hundred and thirty Years, Haer. 70. §. 9. but also saith, That, [...], the whole world ought then to follow their Example, and celebrate the Feast with them; and, to this Effect, he often cites a Canon of the Apo­stles, requiring them to keep it when their Brethren of the Circumcision did so.

Fourthly, §. 12 Observe, That Pope Victor writ a Letter to Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus upon this Subject, [...]. Euseb. ibid. c. 24 p. 192. desiring him to call a Synod of the Asia­tick Bishops, and endeavouring in it to terrifie them by his Threats, to a compliance with his Cu­stom, and the determination of his Roman Synods.

Fifthly, Observe, [...]. Ibid, pag. 191. That Polycrates having re­ceived this Letter, writes back to Victor and the Church of Rome after this manner, That they had a contrary Tradition from which they never did nor would recede, that he was not at all moved with their Threats, as knowing it was better to obey God than Man; that he had, [...]. p. 192. according to their desire called together his fellow Bi­shops, and found them all, [...], of the same mind with him, and all consenting to his Letter.

Whence note, That all the Asiatick Bishops and Churches, [...]. Ibid. and the neighbouring Provinces, did judge the Pope and Church of Rome guilty of doing themselves, and of imposing upon others, that which was contrary to Apostolical Tradition, and to that Obedience they owed to God, and do not only refuse compliance with their Determinations and Customs, but also add, That they regard not what they threaten. They therefore then knew nothing of the Pope's Superiority over them, or his Supremacy over the whole Church, or of any Obligation lying on them, to comply with the Constitutions of that Church; nor did they think it such a dreadful thing, as is now imagined, to be separated from their Communion. Yea since they do so stifly refuse compliance with that Determination of the Pope, in which he had the suffrage and concurrence of most other Churches, it is demonstratively evident that they knew no­thing of R. H.'s feigned Rule of Ʋniversal Church Practice, Disc. 2. c. 3. §. 23. That in Judges subordinate dissenting, all Christians must adhere to the Superior, in those of the same Order and Dignity, to the major part, for this Rule, had they known it, must have convinced or confounded them.

Sixthly, Observe, §. 13 That Pope Victor having re­ceived this Letter from the Asiatick Churches, [...]. Hieron. in verbo Victor. and the Neighbouring Provinces, he tried, saith Euse­bius, to separate them from the common Ʋnity, and writ invective Letters against them to other Churches, declaring that all the Brethren of those Churches were by him wholly separated from Communion, or Men not at all to be Communicated with; and, [...], commanding them to have no fellowship with them. He tried to do this by these means, saith [Page 88] Eusebius; he therefore did not think it in his power to se­parate them from the common Unity without the consent of other Churches, nor was his act esteemed then sufficient for this work.

Seventhly, Observe, That Victor in this angry mood doth not attempt to Excommunicate them [...], as men disobedi­ent to the commands of his Holiness, or the decisions of the Church of Rome; but only [...], as Men of Heterodox Opinions; on which account it did belong to any Church, as well as that of Rome, to move for their exclusion from Commu­nion: Pope Victor therefore was not then acquainted with that Arcanum of the Romish See, that she had power over all other Churches, and that whosoever did not comply with the in­junctions of his Holiness, deserved the censure of Excommuni­cation for his disobedience, nor did the Churches of those times believe any such matter. For,

Eighthly, §. 14 When Victor sent his invective Letters to other Churches, exhorting, or requiring them to renounce Commu­nion with these Asiaticks, [...]. Ibid. [...], they return him a contrary Exhortation, with equal vehemence requesting him to mind the things which did belong unto the Peace, the Ʋnity, and Love which ought to be preserved among Brethren. They there­fore clearly do insinuate, that he did not mind the Peace, and Unity of the Church, i. e. he was Schismatical in that Action, and could they then conceive he was the Head, and his Church the principle of Ʋnity. They also writ back Letters in which they did [...], Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 24. sharply reprehend him upon this account; they therefore did not think themselves, and others obliged to submit to the decisions of the Pope, and his Coun­cil, unless perhaps they thought themselves obliged by their Example to do things opposite unto the Peace and Union of the Church of Christ, and to that Charity which was to be preserved among Christian Brethren. St. Jerom not only Notes, that the other Bishops did not consent to Victor's Excommunicati­on; In qua sen­tentia his qui discrepabunt ab illis Victori non dederunt manus. Ibid. Haec posui ut ingenium & Authoritatem viri demonstra­rem. In verbo Polycrates. but commends Polycrates as a Brave Stout Man in this affair.

Ninthly, Observe, That Iraeneus in his Letter, [...]. Lib. 5. c. 24. writ to Victor, in the name of all the Brethren un­der his jurisdiction in France, that he should not reject whole Churches of God, observing their Ancient Tradition, saith Eusebius; their Apostoli­cal Tradition, saith Nicephorus. Niceph. l. 4. c. 37. In pursuance of which design he minds the Pope, that long before there were, and still continued other differences in the Church, touching the observation of the Lent Fast; and that notwithstand­ing, they who thus differed, all preserved Peace, and were at pre­sent all in Peace one with the other. He adds, That his predecessors in the See of Rome, who observed the Feast as he did, [...], nevertheless kept Peace with them who observed the Feast after the manner of the Asiaticks, Eusebius Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. P. 198. 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, [Page 90]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 'tis 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, 'tis 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; [Page 91]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 [Page 92]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 God of Is­rael was an evil God, and not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and they denied the truth of our Saviour's Manhood, and the Resurrection of the Flesh.

Secondly, Observe, That the Opinion of St. Cyprian, and those who in Africa and elsewhere adhered to him, Dicimus omnes omnino Haereticos & Schismaticos, &c. Ep. 69. p. 180. was this, That all Persons, who only were Baptized by Hereticks, were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism. St Cyprian Bishop of Carthage thought, Hist. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 3. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 221. Omnes Schismaticos & Haereticos qui ad Ecclesiam conversi sunt Baptizari. Apud Cypr. p. 231. saith Eusebius, that being first purged from their Error, they ought to be admitted, [...], no otherwise than by Baptism. Not only the Cataphrygae, saith Firmilian, but, caeteri quique Haeretici, all other Hereticks whatsoever are deprived of the Power of Baptism. In the Council of Carthage consisting of Eighty five Bishops assembled out of Africa, Numidia and Mauritania, Novatus a Thamugade defines according to the Testimony of the Scriptures, and the Decree of our Collegs of Blessed Memory, That all Schismaticks and Hereticks, who are converted to the Church, should be Bap­tized. Januarius a Lambese saith, According to the Authority of the Holy Scriptures I decree, Haereticos omnes Baptizandos, that all Hereticks shall be Baptized, and so admit­ted into the Church. Repudiandum esse omne omnino Baptisma quod sit extra Ecclesiam constitutum. Firm. apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 226. The Council of Iconium de­creed, That all Baptism was to be rejected that was celebrated out of the Church. That of Synnada, That no Baptism was to be found amongst Hereticks which were out of the Church, Apud Haereticos nullum Baptisma reperiri. and that therefore returning to the Church, they ought to be Bap­tized in it.

Thirdly, Observe, That Pope Stephen, §. 17 in prosecution of this Quarrel or Dispute, proceeded to a Separation of himself from, and a refusal of Communion with his Brethren, both in the Southern and the Eastern Churches, who declared for the Baptism of Hereticks returning to the Bosom of the Church. Pope Stephen, saith Dionysius to Pope Xystus, writ to me, Apud Eusebi­um Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. as you do, and for the same Cause, [...], as one who would not communicate with Helin, Firmilian, or any of the Bi­shops of Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, or of the Neighbouring Regions, because they Rebaptized Hereticks. In many other Pro­vinces, saith Firmilian, many things do vary, Rumpens ad­versus vos pa­cem, Ep. 75. apud Cypr. p. 228. but yet for these things they do not depart from the Peace and Ʋnity, which yet Pope Stephen hath been bold to do, breaking that Peace which all his An­cestors have preserved with you in mutual Love and Honour. And turning his Discourse to him he speaks thus, How great Sin hast thou heaped upon thy self, quando te à tot gregibus scidisti, by cutting off thy self from so many Flocks? Siquidem ille est vere Schismaticus qui sea Commu­nione Ecclesiasticae unitatis Apostatum fecerit. Ibid. Sacerdotes Dei abstinen­dos putat. Deceive not thy self, for thou hast cut thy self off from them, he being indeed the Schismatick who makes himself an Apostate from the Communion of Ecclesiastical Ʋnity, and whilst thou thinkest thy self able to separate all from thee, thou only hast separated thy self from all. St. Cyprian saith, Ep. 74. Pag. 214. That he had passed his Judg­ment for the Excommunication of the Priests of God, who kept the Truth of Christ, and the Unity of the Church. St. Austin also doth affirm, Stephanus non solum non re­baptizabat Haereticos, ve­rum etiam hoc facientes Excommunicandos fore decernebat. Libr. de Baptismo contra Petil. cap. 14. pag. 504. That Pope Stephen judged they should be Excommunicated who endeavoured to pull down the Ancient Cu­stom of receiving Hereticks without Baptism.

Fourthly, Observe, That after the Death of Stephen, Pope Xystus, his immediate Successor, asserted the same Doctrine, and was as vehement as he for the Exclusion of all those from Church Communion who did oppose it. For Xystus with Philemon and Dionysius two Roman Presbyters, wrote Letters to Dionysius of Alexandria, declaring, That they would not com­municate with them, who held that Hereticks were to be ad­mitted into the Church by Baptism. Apud Euseb. Ibid. This will appear from the Letter of Dionysius to Pope Xystus, where having told him, [Page 94]that his Predecessor Pope Stephen had written to him, that he would not Communicate with them for this very reason; he adds, That he had written formerly both to Philemon and Dionysius of Rome, [...]. Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. [...], who were before of the same judg­ment with Pope Stephen, as they were now of the same mind with Xystus, and who writ to him about the same things. Whence it is evident, that Xystus the succeeding Pope, Philemon and Dionysius, Presbyters of Rome, persisted in this Resolution not to Communicate with those who held, That Hereticks were to be received into the Church by Baptism; and seeing Di­onysius, who was of the same judgment, succeeded Xystus, it follows, that three Succeeding Popes had then defined that Article.

Fifthly, §. 18 Observe, That the Opinion and Practice of the A­fricans, and many Eastern Churches was asserted by very many Christian Doctors, Churches and Councils. It was the Opinion of Tertullian, Sine dubio non habent. De Baptism. c. 15. Apud nos — Haereticus etiam per Baptis­ma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur. De pu­dicitia, Cap. 19. that Hereticks had no Baptism, and this saith he is without doubt. It was the Doctrine of A­grippinus, and of St. Cyprian in the same Century. In Aegypt it was the Doctrine of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria: In Asia of Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea: In Cilicia, of Helen Bishop of Tarsis. In the Fourth Century it was the Doctrine of Optatus, Lib. 4, & 5. who frequently as­serts, Apud ipsos non esse Sacramenta; That the Hereticks had no Sacraments. Orat. 3. Contr. Arian. p. 413. Of Athanasius, who declares the Arians Baptism, [...], wholly vain and unprofitable. That the Baptism given by them was, [...], alien from the Truth; though they used the name of the Father and the Son, because they found them written; Ibid. 13. for not he who simply calls him Lord, gives true Baptism; [...], [...]. but he who, with the names, holds the true Faith. Hence our Saviour gave not commission to Baptize any how; but first to Teach, that by teaching aright, Faith might be obtained, [...], [...]. Ibid. and with Faith might be added the Consecration of Baptism; and of other Hereticks he faith, That he who was sprinkled by them was rather defiled than washed. It was confirmed by Four African Councils, one un­der [Page 95] Agrippinus, Cypr. Ep. 71. p. 196. Plurimi Co­episcopi. Ibid. p. 193. Ep. 73. p. 198. consisting of the Bishops of Africa and of Nu­midia; one at Carthage, under St. Cyprian; another under the same St. Cyprian, of Seventy one Bishops, Anno. Dom. 256. and lastly, by a Synod of Eighty seven Bishops, convened from Africa, Numidia and Mauritania. It was confirmed by a Council of Fifty Bishops, met at Iconium, August. contra Crescon. Gram. l. 3. c. 3. Quod totum nos jampri­dem in Iconio confirmavimus tenendum firmiter, & vindi­candum. Ep. 75. apud Cypr. p. 221. Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. Ibid. c. 7. where also were present the Bishops of Galatia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, and the neighbouring Provinces; and where it was decreed, saith Firmilian, That this Doctrine should be firmly held, and vindicated; it was confirmed by a Synod held at the same time at Synnada in Phrygia; it was determined, saith Dionysius of Alexandria, [...], in the greatest Synods of Bishops, and by many Synods besides those now mentioned of Iconium and Syn­nada. It was observed, saith the forementioned Dionysius, [...], in the most populous Churches. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of it as of the practice of the Church in his time; saying, there is one Baptism, Praefat. p. 4. [...]. Ad Am­phil. Can. 47. Lib. 6. c. 15. [...], for only Hereticks are re-baptized; because their Ba­ptism is no Baptism. St. Basil saith, That they received not such Hereticks without Baptism, as the Encratites, the Saccophori and Apotactites. The Constitutions of the Apostles declare the same thing, their Forty sixth Canon commands, That the Bishops, Presbyters or Deacon should be deposed, [...]. who admits the Baptism of Hereticks, because there is no Communion betwixt Christ and Belial; and the Forty seventh determines, That the Bishop shall be deposed, who neglects to Baptize them who have been defiled, [...], by the wicked; that is, saith Zonaras, by the Hereticks, their Baptism being represented in the fore­cited Constitutions, as a Pollution, not a washing of the Bap­tized person. In a word, Vallesius confesseth, Not. in Euseb, l. 7. c. 5. p. 141. that it appear­eth from the Council of Arles, That the Africans retained their Custom till the time of Constantine. And from the Epistle of St. Basil to Amphilochius, That the Cappadocians, and other Orien­tals, retained their Custom till the Council of Constantinople.

Sixthly, Observe, §. 19 That for the Confirmation of his Do­ctrine Pope Stephen pretended to a Tradition from the beginning; [Page 96]a Tradition derived from the Apostles. Lib. 7. c. 3. That, saith Eusebius, which moved Stephen to be so stiff in this Opinion was, that he conceived nothing was to be done by innovation, [...], against the Tradition which had prevail­ed from the beginning, Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est; let nothing be innovated, but that observed which was delivered was his plea, Ep. 74. p. 210. saith Cyprian. And again, Quod accepimus ab Apostolis hoc sequimur; Ep. 73. p. 204. their saying was, What we have recei­ved from the Apostles, that we follow. Stephen asserteth, saith Firmilian, Ep. 75. p. 219. That the Apostles forbad the Baptizing of those who return to the Church from Heresie, & hoc custodiendum posteris tradiderint, and delivered this to be observed by Posterity.

Seventhly, Observe, That the Asserters of the contrary Opi­nion pretended also to Tradition, and some of them to a Tra­dition from the beginning, and which derived it self from the Apostles. Our Assertion, That they who only were Baptized by Hereticks, should be Baptized when they return to the Church, Ep. 70. p. 189. is, saith St. Cyprian, no new Opinion, but long ago esta­blished by our Predecessors; and accordingly observed by us. And again, it is many Years, and a long Age since many Bishops, Ep. 73. p. 199. Non novam sententiam neque nunc fundatam asse­rimus, sed quae olim ab Anti­quioribus accuratissime & di­ligentissime fuit examinata. Concil. Oxon. Tom. 1. p. 366. Apud. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. meeting under Agrippinus, establish­ed the same Practice, and many thousand Hereticks have been since Baptized in our Provinces. This Practice, saith the Carthaginian Synod, is that quod semper, fortiter, stabiliterque tenuimus, which we have always stoutly and firmly held. It is not the Africans alone, saith Dionysius of Alex­andria, who have now introduced this Custom, but it was practised [...], long before, by the preceed­ing Bishops in most populous Churches, and established in the Synods of Iconium and Synnada, [...], and in many others, whom I dare not provoke to Contention by subverting their Decrees; it being written thou shalt not remove the bounds which thy Fathers have placed of old time. We, saith Firmilian, to the Truth join Cu­stom; and to the Custom of the Romans, we oppose the Custom of the Truth; Ep. 75. apud Cypr. p. 226. Ab initio hoc tenentes, quod à Christo & ab Apo­stolo traditum est; Holding that from the beginning which was delivered by Christ and his Apostle. Nor do we remember, that this Custom had a beginning among us. Can. 1. St. Basil saith expresly, [...], it seemed [Page 97]good to them who were from the beginning wholly to null the Bap­tism of Hereticks.

Eightly, §. 20 Observe what these Africans and Orientals judged of the contrary Opinion, that Hereticks were to be received in­to the Bosom of the Church without Baptism; Cyp. Ep. 69. ad Mag. p. 185. Cypr. Ep. 73. p. 207, 210. Conc. Carth. p. 234, 239. they stile the Assertors of it, Praevaricatores fidei & veritatis, atque Ecclesiae proditores, Men who betrayed the Church, and did prevaricate in matters which belonged to Faith and Truth; Suffragatores & Fau­tores Haereticorum, Men who did cherish and abett Hereticks, were Friends to them, and Enemies to Christians. They add, That they who allowed their Baptism did null and evacuate that of the Church, and destroyed their own; Concil. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 230, 234, 237, 238, 239, 240. that they made themselves par­takers with blaspheming Hereticks, and did Communicate with them; that they did Communicate with other Mens Sins; that they were Patrons of Hereticks; did plead their Cause against the Church of Christ; that they defiled Christians, betrayed the Faith and Truth, gave up the Spouse of Christ to Adulterers, and did act the Judas to her.

As for their own Doctrine they confidently say, Concil. Carth. Ibid. p. 230, 231, 232, 241. Cypr. Ep. 73. p. 205. 74. p. 214. That it was Catholicae Ecclesiae Canon. Syn. Carthag. apud Balsam. pag. 588. That it was every where declared in the Holy Scriptures, that it was proved by the Divine Law, from the Deifying Scriptures, from Evangelical Authority, and Apostolical Tradition; that they decreed for it according to the Testimony, Authority, and Commands of the Holy and Divine Scriptures.

Ninthly, Observe, That these Africans and Orientals differed from their Brethren without condemning or censuring of them, or breaking of the Peace or Unity of the Church on this account, or separating from Communion with those Christian Bishops who thought fit to do otherwise. We, saith St. Propter Haereticos cum Collegis. & Coepiscopis no­stris non contendimus, cum quibus divinam concordiam & dominicam pacem tene­mus. Ep. 73. p. 210. Cyprian, as much as in us lies, do not contend with our Colleages and Fel­low Bishops about Hereticks, we hold a sacred Con­cord, and the Lord's Peace with them, Qua in re nec nos vim cui­quam facimus nec legem da­mus. Ep. 72. p. 198. we prescribe to no Body, we prejudge no Man, but leave every Bi­shop to the Liberty of his Will, to do what he thinks best in this matter; we force no Man, Ep. 69. p. 188. we give Law to no Man. The Preface of the Council of Car­thage [Page 98]assembled under Cyprian runs thus, It remains that every one of us speak his judgment in this Matter, judging no Man, nor a jure communionis aliquem, Apud Cypr. p. 229. si diversum senserit amoventes, separating any Man from our Communion who thinketh otherwise. St. Basil excellently declares himself in the matter of the Ca­thari, that because there were different Opinions in the Church concerning the validity of their Baptism; [...], Can. 1. the custom of every Region was to be followed. And of the Encratites he saith, that it was his Opinion that they ought to be Baptized; but then he adds, That if this would be any impediment to the Order of the Church in that Matter; [...], [...]. Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. the Custom which had obtained any where was to be observed. This excellent Temper then prevailed in all the Churches of God; for Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epi­stle to Pope Stephen, saith, That all the Churches, notwithstanding this difference, were at Peace and Concord, and thence entreats him to consider the weight of the Affair he had begun, [...], by refusing to Communicate with them who ad­mitted Hereticks into the Church by Baptism, praying him to disist from it, and telling him, that for his part he durst not provoke so many Churches, Ibid. c. 7. [...], to strife and contention, by subverting their Decrees. The Coun­cil of Carthage, Apud Cypr. p. 229. Neque enim quisquam no­strum Episcopum se Episco­porum constituit, aut Tyran­nico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. Ibid. in reference to this Action of Pope Stephen, speaks thus, We pass our Sentence in this matter, judging no Man, or separating no Man from our Communion who thinks otherwise; for none of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, nor en­deavours by tyrannical Terror to compel his Colleages to a necessity of Obedience. Ep. 74. p. 210, 214. St. Cyprian accuses him of Pride, or Ʋnadvisedness, and acting as a Friend of Hereticks, and an Enemy of Christians, for thinking it fit to Excommunicate God's Priests on this account. Firmilian declares, That he acted inhumanely, Per illius inhumanitatem effectum est, &c. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. pag. 225. Cum tot Episcopis per to­tum mundum diffensisse, pa­cem cum singulis vario dis­cordiae, genere rumpentem, modo cum orientalibus, mo­do vobiscum qui in meridie. Ep. 75. p. 228. by being at Dissention with so many Bishops throughout the World, and breaking the Peace with every one of them by various kinds of Discord, with those of the East (by pro­nouncing them Excommunicate) and with those of the South, by not vouchsasing to speak with the Bishops sent to him, nor permitting others to receive them into their Houses, and by dividing the Fra­ternity [Page 99]for the sake of Heretieks; which various kind of Discord had Valesius well observed, he would not against so great evi­dence have denied that Stephen did as much as in him lay se­parate, or in the Language of the Council of Carthage, amo­vere a jure communionis, expel from right of Communion, those who differed from him; it being hence evident, that he Excom­municated the one, and vouchsafed not to speak with the other.