A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS.  
PART I.   

Imprimatur, Liber cui titulus [A Treatise of Traditions. Part I.]  
June 5. 1688. Guil. Needham, R R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sacr. Domest.   

A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS.  
PART I.  
Where it is proved, That we have Evidence sufficient from TRADITION;  

I. That the Scriptures are the Word of God.  
II. That the Church of England owns the true Canon of the Books of the Old Testament.  
III. That the Copies of the Scripture have not been corrupted.  
iv That the Romanists have no such Evidence for their Traditions.  
V That the Testimony of the present Church of Rome can be no sure Evidence of Apostolical Tradition.  
VI What Traditions may securely be relied upon, and what not.   
LONDON, Printed by J. Leake, for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan in Ave-Mary Lane, MDCLXXXVIII.   

THE PREFACE.  
The Contents.  
This Proposition, That the Doctrines and pretended Traditions of the Western Church could not be introduced by her Members in following Ages, but must be derived to them from the Fountain of Tradition, is proved false, 1. By plain Instances of matters of Fact, §. 1. 2ly. From the false Doctrines and Traditions which generally obtained in the Jewish Church, §. 2. 3ly. From the Prediction of a general Defection from the Faith in the times of Antichrist, §. 3. 4ly. Because this Assertion doth oblige us to account the Fathers of the primitive Ages either Knaves or Fools, §. 4. 5ly. Because it renders all our Search into Antiquity, not only superfluous but dangerous, §. 5. Corruptions in Doctrine or Practice might take their Rise, 1st. From Mistakes touching the Sense of Scripture, §. 6. 2ly. By leaving of the Scripture and setting up the Fathers as the Rule of Faith, §. 7. 3ly. By flying to Miracles and Visions for the establishment of Doctrines and Opinions, §. 8. 4ly. By reason of the great Authority and Reputation of those Men who first began, or else gave Countenance unto them, §. 9 5ly. By reason of the corrupt Manners of the Clergy, §. 10. 6ly. By reason of the great Ignorance both of the Clergy and the People, §. 11. 7ly. By reason of the Violence and Persecution used to force Men to a Compliance with the prevailing Doctrines, or a concealment of their Sentiments to the contrary, §. 12. This Corruption confessed by the Writers of the dark Ages of the Church, §. 13.  
THAT which the Romanists of late have chief urged in favour of their present Doctrines and Traditions, is, That the Traditions which they now embrace as such, the Doctrines which they own as Articles of Christian Faith, could never have obtained such Credit in the Church, or been so generally received throughout the Western Churches as they were before the Reformation, had they not been from the Beginning handed down to them as Apostolical Traditions and Doctrines received by the Universal Church of Christ.  
Now the Vanity and Falsehood of this Presumption is here showed by many Instances of plain matter of Fact, §. 1 demonstrating that what they of Rome at present hold for Apostolical Tradition, or as an Article of Christian Faith, was generally rejected in former Ages by the whole Church of Christ, or at the least by the prevailing, and the major part of her Church Guides: And whereas it is represented by them as a thing impossible, That the Western Church, or the prevailing Body of it, should in one Age embrace what they in the foregoing did reject; or in this Age reject, what in the former they embraced, Examples are produced here, demonstrating that this hath actually happened in the Instance of eating things strangled, and Blood, 
Chap. 2. §. 6.  which the whole Western Church abominated in the Eleventh Century, and yet did practise in the Twelfth and following Ages. In the Instance of the immaculate Conception denied by the Western Church till the Thirteenth Century, 
Ibid. §. 9  and almost generally received in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. In the Instance of the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament in which the Learned of the Western Church accorded with us in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, 
Chap. 3. §. 2.11.  and yet did Anathematise our Doctrine in the Sixteenth. In the Instance of the Angels falling in love with Women, 
Chap. 12. §. 8.  asserted generally in the first Four Centuries, and rejected in the Fifth, to omit many other Instances sufficient to convince us that what the Romanists so confidently offer to prove their Church, could not be guilty of such Innovations, is only like to the Attempt of Zeno to prove, against plain matter of Fact, that there could be no Motion.  
But for the farther manifestation of the Vanity of this new way of Arguing a facto ad jus, from what they do at present practice and believe, to what they ought to do and practise, or from their present Faith, to an Assurance that the same Faith was always held in all preceding Ages of the Church: I shall,  
First, Show the evil and pernicious Consequences of this way of arguing.  
Secondly, I shall point out the Ways and Methods by which these Doctrines and Practices might have prevailed in the Church, and yet be nothing less than Apostolical, or truly Primitive.  
The evil Consequences of this way of Arguing, are,  
First, §. 2 That it gives the Jews a great Advantage against the Truth, and certainty of Christian Faith; for they might have then argued, and still may, with as much Plausibility against our Lord 's Disciples, and the first Christian Converts, from this very Topick, as do the Romanists against the Protestants.  
For might they not say of the very Doctrines and Traditions which they had generally received at our Saviour 's Advent, and which he did so peremptorily condemn, and caution his Disciples to beware of, That they received them from their Forefathers, who received them from theirs, and who must either have joined in mistaking their Ancestors, or in intending to deceive their Posterity, of which two things neither is credible? Might not they say, That the Traditions which they had then embraced, were derived from Moses, and that their Forefathers handed them down from him to them, and that the then present general Reception of them was a sufficient Evidence that they were not Inventions of that, or any of the preceding Ages, but Doctrines and Practices derived to them from the first Fountain of Tradition? Might they not have asked in what Year and Age those false Traditions and Doctrines entered first among them, and whether than their whole Church must not have conspired to tell a lie? Might they not have bid them consider the Notoriousness of the Lie, and the Damage ensuing from it to themselves and their dearest Pledges, and how rare a thing it is to find a Man, much less a considerable Number of them, who would venture upon such a Wickedness? Might they not have added, that their Church and People were scattered about, almost through every Nation under Heaven, 
Act. 2.5.  and all received the same Traditions and Doctrines which were condemned by our Lord and his Disciples, and that it was incredible that Churches so dispersed through many Countries and Nations should agree together to affirm a Falsehood for a Truth? Now to this way of Arguing, I desire to know what Answer can be given, but by showing by what ways such Opinions actually might have spread among them, though not originally received, and proving from their own Scriptures and Writers, That these Opinions were not always held among them; and if this way be good when used by Christians against them, it must be as good when used by Protestants against Papists, if this Plea be sophistical, when put into the Mouth of an unbelieving Jew, it must be as sophistical when it proceedeth from the Mouth of Papists.  
I have not been so fortunate as to meet with any direct Answer to this Argument, only to the Argument urged from the actual Condemnation of our Lord as an Impostor by the Sanhedrim, That no Submission, no blind Obedience, could be due to the Church Guides, then ruling in the Jewish Church. The Guide of Controversies, 
Disc. of the necessity of Ch. Guides, c. 3. §. 25. p. 17. Confer avec M. Claude, p. 183, 184, 185.  and the Bishop of Meaux, thus answer, That the Messiah coming with Miracles, and manifested by the other Two Persons of the Trinity; by the Father, with a Voice from Heaven commanding to hear him, and by the Holy Ghost seen descending on him, as also by the Baptist, was now from henceforth to be received as the supreme Legislator, and nothing to be admitted from others, or from the Sanhedrim itself, contradictory to what he taught; which high Court therefore now, for the Accomplishment of his necessary Sufferings, was permitted by God to be the greatest Enemy of Truth, and guided therein, not by Gods, but a Satanical Spirit, of whose Doctrines therefore our Lord often warned the People to beware. The Bishop of Meaux, adds nothing considerable to this Answer, and is plainly baffled by his learned Adversary Mr. Claude, to whose Works I remit the Reader. Now,  
First, Is it not wonderful to see how these Men say and unsay, pronounce a thing impossible in one Case, and in another, like unto it, confess it actually done? We show them, That in the Jewish Church such false Traditions had generally prevailed, as tended to evacuate the Law of God, render his Worship vain, and to engage them to reject the true Messiah; and yet they were received as Doctrines of their great Prophet Moses, handed down to them by oral Tradition, that infallible Preserver of Truth: True, say they, the Church Guides were then permitted by God to be the greatest Enemies of Truth, and guided therein, not by Gods, but a Satanical Spirit; add now to this, That the Doctrines and Traditions of these Men found general Reception in the Jewish Church: And will it not hence follow, That Doctrines taught, Traditions introduced by the greatest Enemies of Truth, and by Men acted, not by the Spirit of God, but that of Satan, may generally prevail to be received as true Doctrines and Traditions, derived from prophetical Authority, and fit to be assented to, received and practised by all?  
Secondly, Did these Traditions and false Doctrines, against which our Saviour cautioned them, begin then only to spring up among them when our Saviour appeared with his Miracles, when, at his Baptism the Holy Ghost descended visibly upon him, and God gave Testimony to him by a Voice from Heaven? If so, you see that even the whole Jewish Church, though scattered throughout the World, might all at once embrace Traditions of such evil and pernicious Consequences, though they before had never heard one tittle of them; and so not only in the Compass of one Age, but of Three Years at farthest, new and pernicious Doctrines might generally obtain in the whole Jewish Church; and why not also in the Western Churches within the compass of Eight hundred Years?  
But that these Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees, these Traditions which they had received touching Christ's temporal Kingdom, and touching the personal Appearance of the Tisbite to be his Forerunner, and touching the Expositions of the Law condemned by Christ, were not of so late Date as our Lord's Baptism and Entrance upon his prophetic Office, is evident beyond Dispute, from what I have discoursed already from Josephus, 
Ch. 11. §. 7.  asserting that they were received from the most ancient Jews, from Epiphanius, that they derived them from Moses, from the mention of them in our Saviour 's time, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act. xxviij. 17. Gal. i 14.  Customs and Traditions received from their Fathers, and from the great Incredibility, that these things should so generally obtain to be received as Traditions in so short a time. Besides, we know the Expectation of their temporal King had alarmed all the East before; and their Tradition, that Elias the Tisbite should come in Person to anoint him, and be his Forerunner, must be as old as the Translation of the Septuagint: These Doctrines and Traditions must be therefore taught whilst these Church Guides and Rulers were infallible in the Interpretation of the Scriptures, and were true Judges of what they had received by Tradition, if ever they were so; or rather it must be apparent that they were not so; because they generally had prevailed upon the People to receive Doctrines and Traditions of such fatal and pernicious Consequences, and therefore all the specious Harangues the Papists make concerning the Impossibility that false Traditions and corrupt Doctrines should prevail amongst them, must be as plausible, when uttered by the Jew against the Christian, as by the Papist against Protestants. For, v. g. where, may they say, will you produce the Men of former Ages who taxed the Jewish Church with such corrupt Traditions as your Jesus taxed them with, or bid Men beware of the Doctrine of them who sat in Moses Chair, or of those Scribes and Pharisees who had obtained so great Credit on the Account of Piety and Learning? Do not you Christians own that we were once a right Vine, the true and only Church of God, till the Appearance and Baptism of your Jesus? Who therefore can believe that God would suffer such dangerous Doctrines to prevail in his own Church, and raise up no Church Guides, except the Sadducees, to contradict them, until your Jesus and his Disciples undertook to be Reformers of it? Where then had God a true Church in the World, if not among the People of the Jews? What other Church could Christ and his Disciples mention besides that whose Governors he taxed with voiding the Commandments of God, and rendering his Worship vain, because of some Traditions which they had received from their Forefathers? If then God suffered his Church to be all overrun with such a fatal Leprosy, where was the watchful Eye of Providence? Yea, where the Care or Conscience of those Guides of Souls he had set over them? Did all our Pastors fall asleep at once, or could they all conspire to deceive Posterity?  
Thirdly, R. H. The Guide of Controversies cannot be ignorant, That, as he says, God then permitted the Sanhedrim to be the greatest Enemies of Truth for the Accomplishment of the Prophecies of the Old Testament; so do we also say, That God permitted these pernicious Doctrines to obtain in the Church of Rome for the Accomplishment of those Prophecies of the New Testament touching a great, and almost general Apostasy, which was to happen in the Days of the great Antichrist, and in the time when all Tongues and Nations were to worship the Beast.  
Now hence ariseth a Second Demonstration of the Falsehood of this vain Presumption, §. 3 That no such Change can happen in the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Christ, as we pretend to, for the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures, the Doctrine of the Fathers, and the Confessions of many learned Catholics, assure us, that this shall actually happen in the times of Antichrist, and what will then become of all the pretended Demonstrations, That this cannot happen, or can never happen. And,  
First, 
Rev. xj. 7-xij. 6.  The Scripture speaks expressly of the Slaughter of the Two Witnesses, the Flight of the Women into the Desert, and of the Worship which the whole World shall pay unto the Beast: Where note, That the Witnesses which represent the Church, or her true Pastors, are but Two, and they at last are slain, and that the Dominion of Antichrist is represented as over all Kingdoms, Tongues and Nations; and he is said to cause the Earth, 
Chap. xiij. 7, v. 16.  and him that dwells therein, to worship him, and both small and great, rich and poor, bond and free, to receive his Mark.  
The Fathers also assert that the Apostasy will then be so great, 
Basil Ep. 71. p. 115.  That the Lord will seem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wholly to have left his Churches; That there shall be then, Totius mundi seductio, 
Hippol. de Consume. mundi, p. 4.  a Seduction of the whole World; That, Cuncti accident, 
P. 41.  atque adorabunt eum, all shall come and worship the Beast; That the Saints shall hid themselves, 
P. 43, 49, 59  in montibus, speluncis & cavernis Terrae, in the mountains, dens and caverns of the Earth; That all shall fall off from God, and believe that Impostor; That there shall be nec oblatio, 
P. 48.  nec suffitus, nec cultus Deo gratus, neither Oblation, nor Incense, nor any Worship acceptable to God; no Eucharist, no Liturgy, no singing of Psalms, or reading of the Scripture; That there shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Theodor. Tom 3. Ep. 63. p. 937. Hieron. in Sophon. c. 2. f. 97. F.  a general Apostasy; That, Regnante Antichristo redigenda sit Ecclesia in solitudinem, in the Reign of Antichrist the Church will be brought to Solitude, so that Christ coming shall scarce find Faith upon the Earth: That in the time of Antichrist, ecclesia non apparebit, 
Aust. Ep. 80. ad Hesyc. p. 364.  the Church shall not appear, being eclipsed by the Persecutions of ungodly Men: That Men shall ask whether the Gospel doth any where continue upon Earth, 
Ephr. Syr. de consume. S●eculi & Antichristo Col. An. 1603. p. 219.  responsumque iri, nusquam, and it shall be answered, no where. And in this Assertion the Fathers are generally followed by the Romish Doctors; 
De Pontif. Rom. l. 3. c. 7. §. denique.  let one Bellarmine speak for them all, saying that Daniel plainly saith, That in the times of Antichrist, by reason of the Severity of Persecutions, the public and daily Sacrifice of the Church shall cease, ubi omnium consensu loquitur de tempore Antichristi, where by the consent of all he speaketh of the time of Antichrist. This being then so clear a Revelation, or Prediction of the Holy Ghost, and our great Prophet, must some time or other happen, or both our Saviour and the Holy Spirit must be charged with lying Prophecies: And being so unanimously, and without control delivered by the Holy Fathers, the constant Tradition, and the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ throughout all those Ages, must be a constant Refutation of this idle Dream, and their Pretences to Tradition must evidently be confuted by Tradition.  
Thirdly, §. 4 This Method and Proceeding of the Romanists, for finding out, and judging of primitive Doctrines and Traditions, were it admitted, would force us to condemn the Writers of the Church from the beginning to the Tenth, Twelfth or Fourteenth Centuries, as the worst of Fools or Knaves; for seeing it is manifest from their plain Words, produced in great Plenty throughout those Ages, that they speak as plainly in Condemnation of the Latin Service, Communion in one Kind, the Veneration of Images, the Seven Sacraments, the Trent Canon of the Books of the Old Testament, and of many other Articles of Romish Faith, which they pretend to have received from Tradition, as any Protestant can do; either they must have spoken all these things unwittingly, for want of knowledge of what the Church maintained to the contrary throughout those Ages, and then it cannot be avoided, but they must pass for the most ignorant of Men, and such as did not know the necessary Articles of Christian Faith received in their Times; or else they must have taught and conveyed to Posterity those things against their Knowledge, and the conviction of their Consciences, and then it cannot be denied, but that they were the worst of Knaves; and whichsoever of these things be said, it cannot be denied, but they, of all Men, were the most unfit to convey down Tradition to Posterity. For to render any Person a credible Testator, or Witness of the Church's Faith and Practice, Two things seem absolutely necessary. 1. That he should have sufficient Knowledge of the Truth of what he testifies. And, 2ly. That he should have Honesty sufficient to assure us that he would not wittingly deceive us in his Testimony; for if we have just Reason to suspect either his want of Knowledge or Sincerity, we must have reason to suspect his Testimony: So that if either such Simplicity and Folly, or such apparent Knavery, as hath been mentioned, can justly be imputed to the Authors of the Testimonies cited against the Doctrines fornamed of the Church of Rome, it is extremely manifest we have just Reason to suspect the Truth of all they might deliver to future Ages, either as Doctrines or Practices received from their Predecessors.  
Fourthly, §. 5 This Method of proceeding must render it a vain and fruitless thing to search into Antiquity to find what was the Doctrine of preceding Ages, 
Sexta nota est conspiratio in doctrina cum ecclesia antiqua. De notis Eccles. cap. 9 Bellarm. de eccls. milit. l. 4 c. 9  and consequently it must assure us that the Church of Rome doth only trifle with us, or impose upon us when she makes Agreement either in Doctrine or Practice with Antiquity, a Note or Character by which we may discern the true Church from all who falsely do pretend unto that glorious Title; for how can this be done? Yea how is it attempted to be done by Roman Catholics, but by producing the Testimonies of all former Ages for such a Doctrine or Practice as they at present do maintain? If therefore a like Number of plain Testimonies produced by us, in all the Instances forenamed, for the Antiquity of our Doctrines and Practices, be not a Proof sufficient on our side, why should it be on theirs? If notwithstanding all these Evidences, we must believe the contrary to what they clearly do import, to have been still the Doctrine and Practice of all Ages past, because it is at present the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, to what end do we read Antiquity? What Service can it do us, unless to make us Heretics or Sceptics? For of what can we be certain or assured by the reading of it, if that may be false and heretical, which through so many Ages is so plainly, fully, and frequently delivered as the clearest Truth?  
To proceed then to my second Undertaking, viz. To show how such a Change in Doctrine and in Practice might happen in the Western Church as well as in the East, or other places.  
First, Corruptions in Doctrine, or in Practice, §. 6 might have been introduced by mistaking of the Sense of Scripture: This Account Origen gives of the diversity of Opinions and Sects which sprang up early among Christians, and multiplied together with them, 
In Celsum l. 3. p. 118.  viz. That they had their Original from hence, That Men did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, diversely interpret those Scriptures which they all held to be Divine. Vigilius ascribes these Sects, 
L 2. contra Eutych.  and this diversity of Opinions to the same Original, viz. That the Virtue of the heavenly Words was defiled, vitio malae intelligentiae, by a misunderstanding of them, and by taking them, non secundum qualitatem sui sensus, not according to the tenor of their Sense, as Truth required, but by diverting them to other Matters. To this the Fathers do ascribe not only the Miscarriage of Heretics, but even the Slips and Errors of those pious Persons who had gone before them, which, say they, happened to them by reading of the Scriptures carelessly, and not with so much Diligence and Circumspection as they should have used. Thus Theodoret, upon occasion of that Mistake of almost all the Fathers of the Four first Centuries, imagining that the Sons of God which went in to the Daughters of Men, were Angels, saith, 
Qu. 47. in Gen.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it was their careless reading of the holy Scriptures which made many thus to err; and all the Fathers, with one Voice, ascribe the Heresies of their times, partly to their perverting, and partly to their deserting of the Holy Scriptures; and therefore for preventing of the like Mistakes, they do not send them to an infallible Interpreter, nor do they hence conclude him necessary, as some others do, but only do advise them to read the Scriptures with more Care, Exactness and Scrutiny, with Prayer, 
Chrys. Hom. 17. in Matth. p. 124. Basil. Tom. 1. l. 2. de Bapt. q. 4. Orig. dial. contr. Marc. p. 70. Athan. de incar. verbi. T. 1. p. 110.  Love and Desire of the Truth, with a pure Soul, and care to walk according to the Rules of Christian Virtue, assuring those who do thus seek, That according to our Lord's Promise, 
Theodoret in 3. Rom. 8.  they shall find the Truth, 
Chrysost. Hom. 35. in Joh. T. 2. P. 799. vid. T. 3. P. 1. Tom. 5. p. 829.  it being not the Obscurity, but the Ignorance of Scripture, which makes men obnoxious to Heresies, as shall, by God's Assistance be fully proved elsewhere.  
And whosoever doth consider that many of the Fathers came immediately from Heathenism to read the Scriptures, That they insisted most on the Old Testament, of which they did not understand the Language, and of which they had only an imperfect, or corrupt Translation, and that they took the liberty to allegorise, and to give mystical Interpretations of them, as their luxuriant Fancies led them to it, will not think it strange that so many extravagant Interpretations of the holy Scriptures should drop from their Pens; 
Cypr. Ep. 63. p. 149.  That they should tell us that Noah 's being drunk with Wine was, Sacramentum & figura Dominicae passionis, A Sacrament and Figure of our Saviour's Passion; That 
(a) Just. M. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. Clem. Alex. Strom. 6. p. 669. Orig. in Cells. l. 5. p. 236. Com. in Joh. To. 2. Ed. Huet. p. 48. Euseb. demonstr. l. 4. c. 9 p. 157.  God not only permitted the Gentiles to worship the Sun, Moon and Stars, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gave them the Sun, Moon and Stars to be worshipped, that they might not be wholly Atheists; That when our Lord threatened to the disobedient Jews, 
(b) Iren. l. 4. c. 23. Tertull adv. Jud. c. 11, & 13. Cypr. adv. Jud. l. 2. c. 20. Lactant. l. 4. c. 18. Epiphan. Haer. 24. §. 9 Athanas. de incarn. verbi p. 47, & 90. Orat. 3. contr. Arian p. 386. Ruffin. apud Hieron. T. 4. F. 49 Non video cur dubitare debeamus id illum de Christo scripsisse. August. contr. Faust. Manich. l. 16. c. 22.23. Deut. 28.66.  thy Life shall hang in doubt before thee— And thou shalt have no Assurance of thy Life, he meant that Jesus Christ should be crucified before their Eyes; That they should from those Words of the Psalmist, 
Psal. 45.1.  
(c) Quidam superstitiose magis quam vere ex persona patris arbitrantur intelligi; Hieron. ep. ad. Damasum Tom. 3. F. 45. B. Quidam ex persona patris dictum intelligi volunt; Ep. ad Principium Virg. ibid. F. 37. A. viz. Alexander Episc. Alex. Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1 c. 6. Athanas. To. 1. p. 134, 170. c. 427. D. 510. c. 517. D. 538 c. 549, 550, 565. D. Marcellus apud Epiph. Haer. 72. §. 2.  My Heart hath indicted a good Matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, infer the eternal Generation of the Son; That some of them, so early, 
Mal. 3.1.  should imagine that the 
(d) Orig. in Joh. Tom. 5. ed. Huet. p. 77. Cyril come. in 1 Joh. 6.  Baptist was an Angel, not a Man, because the Prophet Malachi said, Behold I send my Angel before his Face: And that when John the Baptist sent this 
(e) Manda mihi, ad infernum descensurus sum, utrum te Inferis debeam nunciare, qui nunciavi superis; Hieron. in loc. & Ep. T. 3. F. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Orig. come. in Reg. p. 34. & l. contr. Martion. p. 37. Chrysost. Hom. in Matth. 37. p. 247. Ruffin. apud Hieron. To. 4. p. 49. Theophyl. in 11. Matth. p. 58. & in luc. 7. p. 351. Nazianzen in Orat. Funebr. Basil. in hanc sententiam, Meliori non inventa, maxima pars Veterum Auctorum concesserunt. Maldonate in Matth. xi. 2. viz. Ambrose, Eusebius Emissenus, Julianus Pomerius, Venantius, Gregorius.  Question to our Lord, 
Matth. 11.3.  Art thou he that shall come, or look we for another, they should thus interpret it, That St. John being to go down to Hell, or Hades, should send to ask whether he should go before him thither, and preach him there, as he had done on Earth; 
Matth. 16.23.  That when Christ said to Peter, Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an Offence to me, they, out of a Reverence to St. Peter, should make him say to 
(f) Multi putant quod non Petrus correptus est; sed adversarius Spiritus qui haec dicere Apostolum suggerebat; Hieron. in Matth. xuj. 23. Hilarius in locum. Theophylact. in Marc. 8. p. 232.  Peter only, come thou after me, and to the Devil, Satan, thou art an Offence unto me; That when the same St. Peter denied his Master, 
Matth. 26.72.  saying, I know not the Man, they should excuse and bring him off with this acquaint Equivocation, 
(g) Scio quosdam pij affectus erga Petrum, locum hunc ita interpretatos, ut dicerent Petrum non Deum negasse, sed hominem, & esse-sensum, nescio hominem, quia scio Deum, Hieron. in locum. Vide Maldonatum ibid.  Nescio hominem, quia scio Deum, I know not the Man, for I know him to be God, not considering with St. Jerom, That by thus attempting to excuse the Disciple, they gave the lie to his Master, who had foretold his Denial; That from those Words of Christ, 
Joh. 8.44.  
(h) Vide Origen. in Joh. Tom. 23. ed. Huet. T. 2. p. 308. & Huetii notas p. 34. Epiph. Haer. 40. n. 5, 6. & Haer. 38. §. 4, 5. Ammon. caten. in c. 8. Joh. p. 238. Cyril. Alex. in locum p 559. Author quaest V &. N. Test. apud August. c. 90, 98. Hieron. in Isa. c. 14 F. 36 e.  The Devil is a Liar and the Father of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they should conclude that the Devil had a Father, and that he was either Cain or Judas; That to avoid the vain Cavils of the Marcionites and Manichees, they should say, That 
(i) Iren. l. 3. c. 7. Tertul. l. 5. adv. Martion. c. xj. Chrysost. Theod. Photius apud Oecum. & Theophylact in locum. August. contr. Faust. Manichaeum l. 22. c. 2. & 9  the God of this World, mentioned 2 Cor. iv. 4. was not the Devil, but the true God: And from these Words of the Apostle 
(k) Illud dici potest— quod Paulus non tam maledixerit eyes, quam oraverit pro illis ut eas partes corporis perderent, per quas delinquere cogebantur. Hieron. in locum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theodoret. & Oecum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theoph. in locum. Gal. 5.12.  I wish they were cut off that trouble you, they should gather that the Apostle desired that the Abettors of the legal Ceremonies and Circumcision might be gelt: To omit infinite Passages of the like Nature.  
Nor can it reasonably be doubted that the Doctrine of the Millennium, of the necessity of communicating Infants, of the Appearance of Enoch and the Tisbite at our Lord's Second coming, of the nearness of the End of the World, of our Lord's Preaching but one Year after his Baptism, of the Angels conversing with Women, had all their Rise from the mistaken Interpretations of the Holy Scripture; why therefore might not the Mistake of that Passage of St. 
1 Cor. 3.15.  Paul, They shall be saved, but so as by Fire, give the rise to Purgatory? That of the same Apostle, 
Magnum Sacramentum, Eph. 5.32.  This is a great Mystery, but I speak of Christ, and the Church, advance Marriage into a Sacrament; the mistake of that Promise of an happy Resurrection to the true Members of Christ's Church, 
Matth. 16.18.  The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, be made to countenance her Infallibility, and so in other Cases of like Nature? Sure I am, that Communion in one Kind, the Latin Service, the Veneration of Images, could never have obtained in the Church, had not those Scriptures, which so plainly do condemn them, been miserably wrested by late Ages from their proper Sense, and the received Interpretation which the whole Christian World had put upon them for Six hundred, or a Thousand Years, and why they might not as well wrest the Scriptures to establish some of their Doctrines, as they have done it for the avoiding that Condemnation of them, which is so clear in other Scriptures, that he who runs may read it, I am not able to discern.  
Secondly, §. 7 Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice might easily prevail by altering, or leaving of that Rule of Faith and Manners God had given them, and acting by other Rules or Principles, which in themselves are insufficient to establish any Article of Christian Faith, for a false Rule must of necessity give false Directions, both in Faith and Manners; where the Principle is false the Conclusion from it must be so, and where the Foundation is corrupted the Building cannot be firm; now this we find done,  
1. By setting up the Fathers as the Rules of Faith, the 
* Basil. Ep. 62.67.70.349. Nazianz. Orat. 19, 21, 23, 29.  Pillars and the Grounds of Faith, as some of them are often styled. This Method of proceeding, as it is expressly contrary to our Lord 's Injunction, to call no Man Father upon Earth, in that presumptuous Sense in which the Jewish Rabbi's did affect that Title, 
Matth. twenty-three. 6, 10. John vj. 45.  because one is our Father in Heaven, and all that come to Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taught of God the Father; and one is our Guide and Master, Christ, 
1 Joh. ij. 27.  from whom we Christians have received an Unction, and need not that any one should teach us, but as that Spirit (in the Word) doth teach us all things. So is it as repugnant to the Mind and the Prescriptions of those Holy Men, who frequently declare, That both they and their Brethren were subject to Error, That, Errarunt in fide tam Graeci, quam Latini, 
(a) Hieron. Ep. ad Pam. & Ocean. To. 2 F. 69.  Both the Greek and the Latin Fathers erred in the Faith; That therefore others were 
(b) Aug. l. 11. Contr. Faust. c. 5.  at liberty when they read or heard them, to approve what they liked, and to reject what they conceived not to be right in them; and warn us 
(c) Cyril. Hieros'. Catech. 4. p. 30.  not to believe what they say, unless we find it demonstrated out of the Holy Scriptures; To 
(d) Orig. Hom. 2. in Ezek. F. 135. B.  observe diligently when the Pastor deceived them, and when he spoke things true and pious, there being, say they, in our writings 
(e) Aug. de Orig an. l. 4. c. 1. & l. de bono persev. c. 21.  many things, quae possent justo judicio culpari, which justly may be blamed, so that we would have no man so to embrace all our Say as to follow them, save only in those things in which they do perceive they have not erred; if then their say be of any credit, and Authority, 'tis evident, from their assertions, that they ought not to be admitted as the Rule of faith, as being men subject unto like ignorance, and errors with us, and if their say be of no credit, much less can they be owned as the pillars, and the ground of truth, and yet I find this doctrine laid down expressly by a concealed Heretic, Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Epistle to Cyril, where he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Concil. Sexto Ep. ad Cyrum episcop. Concil. To. 6. p. 918.  the doctrines of the Fathers are a Law to the universal Church, and that we are bound to follow them, and to hold all that they have written to the least tittle; and evident it is, That even from the Fifth Century, the say of the Fathers began to be had in great Reputation, and about the Eighth, to be as it were Authentic; and Articles of Faith were canvassed, and determined both in the Second Nicene Council, and in that of Florence, chief by the pretended Sayings of the Holy Fathers, to whose Testimony you very rarely, if at all, shall find this just Exception made, That they were Men of like Infirmities, and subject to like Errors as we are. One Athanasius or Basil, one Nazianzen or Nyssen, one Chrysostom, and Theodoret in the Eastern Church; one Hilary, and Ambrose, St. Austin, Jerom, and St. Gregory in the Western Churches have for these six last Centuries signified as much, or more, than a St. Peter, or St. Paul, an Apostle or Evangelist; and a sed contra Augustinus, or sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, through the whole Sums and the whole Body of the Schoolmen hath passed for the Decision of a Question touching Faith, or Manners. How easy was it then for Errors to come in under the umbrage of these venerable Names; especially if we consider how many spurious Pieces had usurped their Names, which the great Ignorance of latter Ages could not distinguish from their genuine Works; how many of their genuine works were horribly corrupted, and how fruitful many of those Fathers were in there inventions, and how positive they sometimes are in delivering that as the doctrine of the whole Church which was nothing less. For instance who that reads St. Austin disputing against the Pelagians could doubt, if he believed him, that the Doctrine of the Imputation of Original Sin was universally received by all Christians, and that on this account the whole Church Baptised Infants; and yet Petavius iuforms us, 
Dogm. Theol. To. 4. pt. 2. l. 14. c. 2. Haeret. Fabul. l. 5. c. 18. p. 292. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18.  that the Greek Fathers scarcely spoke any thing about it; yea in that very Age Theodoret expressly denies it, putting the Question thus, If this be the only work of Baptism to cleanse from Sin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; why do we Baptise Children who are not guilty of it? and in his Comment on Rom. 5.13. He adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That every one dies for his own Sin, and not for that of his Fore fathers. Chrysostom on the same place saith, 
In v. 19 To. 3. Hom. 10. p. 73.  That for us to be mortal on the occasion of the Sin of Adam, is no absurdity; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but how can it be, that by his Transgression another should become a Sinner; for if he did not personally sin, 
Cap. 1.  neither could he deserve Punishment. Gennadius in his Book of Ecclesiastical Doctrines, which passeth still among the Works of St. Austin, placeth this as one, That that Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and Son. Michael Psellus on the contrary saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cap. Theol. c. 10. p. 157.  the Holy Catholic Church teacheth that the Spirit proceedeth only from the Father, 
L. 2. c. 1.  but not from the Son. To omit many other Instances collected by the learned Dally in that elaborate Treatise of the Use of the Fathers, which makes it needless to discourse further on this Head: For if the true Fathers were not only subject to many and great Errors in their private Sentiments, but also unto manifold Mistakes touching the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; if many of their Works have been unhappily corrupted, and many spurious Pieces have been imposed upon them; so that, instead of their Authority, Men often have relied on an Impostor, an ignorant Monk, or perhaps an Heretic, how easy was it in the dark Ages of the Church for Errors to come in at this Door, when too much Veneration was by all given to them, and their Dictates passed for Oracles?  
Again, §. 8 New Doctrines and Practices might obtain, by flying from the Scriptures to Miracles and Visions, for the Establishment of Doctrines and Opinions in the Church; That a prevailing Power doth attend these miraculous Operations, even when they are performed only by Satan and his Ministers, we shall be fully convinced if we consider that our Lord foretold of the false Prophets, and false Christ's that should come after him; they should work Signs and Miracles, so great as to deceive, 
Matth. 24.23.  if it were possible, the very Elect. St. 
2 Thes. 2.9.  Paul that the Apostasy of the Great Antichrist, and his Followers, should be effected by the coming of Satan with all power, Signs, 
Rev. 13.13, 14.  and lying Wonders. St. John of the Apocalyptick beast, that he should do great Signs, and deceive the Inhabitants of the Earth by the Signs given him to do; that at the first appearance of Christianity the Heathens did oppose it from this topic, viz. The Signs and Wonders which had been performed by their Heathen Deities, saying, Frustra tantum arrogas Christo, In vain you arrogate so much to Christ, for we have often known that other Gods have given Medicines to, and healed the Infirmities of many; so the Heathen in 
(a) Arnob. l. 1. p. 28.  Arnobius, so 
(b) Apud Orig. l. 8. p. 407, 416, 417.  Celsus, so 
(c) Apud Minute. p. 7.  Caelius; and comparing the Miracles of Apollonius Tyanaeus, and of Apuleus with those of Christ 
(d) Lact. l. 5 c. 3. Aug. Ep. 4. Hieronim. apud Euseb. p. 512. , Quorum majora contendunt esse opera, And contending they were greater than any done by him: That 
(e) Acts 8.9, 10. Just. in Apol 2. p. 69. Cyril. Hier. cat. 6. p. 53, 54, etc.  Simon Magus mightily prevailed by them, and obtained almost, wherever he came, to be worshipped as a God, or the great Power of God: That even the Arians in the Fourth Century appealed to them for Confirmation of their Faith, declaring that the Miracles of their 
(f) Philostorg. l. 3. §. 4. p. 27.  Theophilus were so great Confirmations of the Christian Faith, as to constrain the Obstinacy of the Jews, and silence all their Contradictions; and that their 
(g) L. 2. §. 8. p. 14.  Agapetus did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, raise the Dead, heal many that were sick, and convert many to the Christian Faith. To these convincing Demonstrations of the Fallaciousness of this Argument, when new Miracles come after a true Doctrine sufficiently confirmed by them already, and contradict that very Doctrine, or teach things contrary to Piety, it may be useful to observe these things out of the Holy Fathers.  
First, That some of them do expressly say, That Miracles had ceased in their Days; and others, That they were not necessary. 
Tom. 5. Hom. 88 p. 606.  St. Chrysostom hath a set Discourse upon this Subject, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, why Miracles were ceased, which had they then been common in the Christian World, had been an idle Question. To this Discourse he seemeth to have been necessitated by the Importunity of his Auditors, who were still crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Why are not Signs wrought now? To this Enquiry he answers, 1. That Signs were intended only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Confirmation of Unbelievers, and that they were not needful for the Faithful; and then concluding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this therefore is the Cause why Miracles are now ceased. In his Thirty second Homily on Matthew he repeats the same things, 
To. 2. p. 223.  saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But you seek for Signs, such as the Apostles did, you would see the Lepers cleansed, the Devils cast out, the Dead raised; but this is the greatest Demonstration of our Generosity and Love, to believe God without those Pledges, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this and other Reasons, God hath caused Miracles to cease. 
Ibid. p. 650.  In his Twenty forth Homily on St. John, he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is a tempting of God now to ask for Signs; and this, saith he, I speak, because there are now Men seeking them, and saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Why are not Miracles now done? Whereas if thou art a faithful Man, as thou oughtest to be, and lovest Christ, as thou oughtest to do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou hast no need of Signs, for these things are given for Unbelievers.  
Secondly, 
To. 5. Hom. 88 p. 606.  To this Enquiry he answers by way of Distinction, That though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or such Miracles as were the Objects of our Senses were then ceased, yet God did still vouchsafe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his efficacious Workings on the Souls of Christians, in their Baptismal Regeneration, and in the Mystical Sacrifice. This he explains more fully in his Sixth Tome and Sixty ninth Homily; 
P. 713.  for if any Man saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but we see not now these Signs done, nor have we such Power of working them. To this, saith he, I answer, That the Church is not wholly destitute of Miracles, 1. Because a miraculous Change was wrought in Baptism, by giving spiritual Life to a dead Soul. 2ly. Because we enjoy the Mysteries, and in them the Grace of the Spirit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Elements could not be made the mystical Body and Blood of Christ without the Grace of the Spirit. Where, by the way, we learn that Chrysostom did not believe that the Sacrament contained Christ's natural Body, but only his mystical Body, which Phrase is often used by the Fathers, with Relation to Christ's Word, his Church, his Sacrament, but never is applied to his natural Body: We also learn that Chrysostom knew nothing of the miraculous Conversion of the Bread into Christ's Body natural; for should a Romanist go about to prove that Miracles were not ceased, from the Consideration of what was done in the Sacrament, would he not urge, That the Bread was miraculously converted into Christ's Body, that the Figure and Colour of the Elements did subsist without a Subject, that Christ's whole natural Body was in less Space than the smallest Crumb of Bread; yea, that being only one, it was entirely in many Thousand Places at one and the same time: Seeing then Chrysostom, upon the like Occasion, gives not the least hint of any thing of this kind, but only saith that the Bread and Wine are not made Christ's mystical Body and Blood without the Grace of the Spirit; adding immediately, for his last Instance of this Kind, That Priests are not made Priests by Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the same Advent of the Holy Spirit upon them, is it not reasonable to conceive, that he knew and believed nothing of those great and many Miracles, which are now thought to be performed in Celebration of the Mass? Pope Gregory gives for the Substance, the same Answer to this Objection or Enquiry: For descanting on those Words, These Signs shall follow them that believe, 
Hom. 39 in Evang. Ed. Par. 1523. f. 320. h.  etc. He saith, Nunquid nam Fratres mei, quia ista signa non facitis, minime creditis, What my Brethren, will you not believe because you do not do now those Signs? But these were necessary in the beginning of the Church, for the increase of Faith, but now that it is planted and rooted, they are not so; whence St. Paul saith, Signs are not for the Faithful, but the Unbeliever. Moreover the Holy Church doth that now spiritually which the Apostles did then corporally; for her Priests by Exorcism cast evil Spirits out of the Minds of Men: When the Faithful chant the Holy Mysteries, and sing forth the Praises and the Power of God with all their Strength, what do they do, but speak with new Tongues? Whilst they strengthen the Infirm in Spirit, and hold up them that stumble, what do they but lay their Hands upon the Sick that they may be healed? Haec itaque signa, Fratres Charissimi, Auctore Deo, si vultis vos facitis; These Signs, dear Brethren, you may do, if you please, by God's help. And this is all that they return to this Enquiry and Objection, which makes it reasonable to conceive they were so far from thinking Miracles a necessary Mark and Concomitant of the true Church, that they knew of none performed by her, besides the spiritual Operations on the Soul of Men, or if they did, betrayed the Church's Cause by being so profoundly silent upon this Occasion, and flying, as their only Refuge, to those intellectual Operations, which doubtless were not the Signs and Miracles enquired after.  
Thirdly, Chrysostom adds that Miracles were profitably done then, and now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hom. 6. in 1. ad Cer. p. 276.  they are as profitably not done, for then the Apostles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, laying the first Foundations of Christianity, and so they needed Miracles to prove what they pretended to receive from God; but as for us now, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We introduce nothing of ourselves, but only speak those things which we received from them, and we go not about to persuade Men by our own Reasonings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but from the Holy Scriptures, and afford Men assurance of the things that we say, from the Miracles that were then done by those who did indite the Scriptures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for this Cause Miracles are not now done. Now this is the very Answer of the Protestants, when, by the Romanists, they are called upon to show their Miracles, and it strikes Confusion upon this Pretence of that Church, accusing them of new Doctrines, if they have any which are now to be confirmed by Miracles.  
2ly. The Fathers add that Miracles having thus ceased, the Devil was to set up by them to draw Men off from the true Faith to Infidelity, or to corrupt that Truth God had already established by sufficient Miracles. 
Hom. in Matth. ad Huet. p. 265. 266.  Thus Origen declareth of the Man of Sin, That he was to appear for the Deception of those that should perish, with all Power, Signs and lying Wonders, and all deceivableness of Unrighteousness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imitating all the Miracles done for the confirmation of the Truth. The Author of the imperfect Commentary on St. Matthew, saith, That at the beginning of Christianity true Prophets were known from false by this, That the Signs done by the First were profitable, those done by the other were unprofitable; but seeing now the time will come, ut etiam ex parte bona faciendorum Signorum Diabolo detur potestas, 
Hom. 19 p. 75.  That the Power of working good Signs shall be given to the Devil, we must inquire whether the Sign be necessary, or unnecessary, as to the time; for if Christ did his Miracles, propter confirmationem infidelium, for Confirmation of Unbelievers, manifestum est quia modo, cum nullus sit infidelis, faciendorum miraculorum necessitas non est, it is manifest that, now that there is no Unbeliever amongst us, there is no Necessity of doing Miracles. And again, Formerly, saith he, Christians did Miracles full, not of Admiration only, but Advantage; and by these true Christians were known from false; 
Hom. 49 p. 173.  nunc autem signorum operatio omnino levata est, magis autem & apud eos invenitur qui falsi sunt Christiani, fieri ficta, But now the working of Miracles is wholly minished, and the doing of feigned ones is chief found amongst false Christians; as St. Peter in Clement saith, Antichristo enim plena signorum faciendorum est danda potestas, for the full Power of doing Miracles is to be given to Antichrist. And a third time upon those Words, False Christ's and Prophets shall arise, and work great Signs, he Comments thus, 
P. 178.  They shall work not vain and unprofitable Signs, as the Ministers of Satan were wont to do, but great, full and profitable Signs, quae sancti facere solent, which the Saints used to do; for whilst, saith he, there was a calling Men from Infidelity to Faith, the Servants of Christ did Miracles because these Testimonies were a sign of their divine Vocation, that the Truth of their Doctrine might be commended by Miracles; but this Calling ceasing, the Seduction calling Men back from Faith to Infidelity, will begin; and then, saith he, tradenda sunt Seductionis adjutoria Diabolo, id est, potestas faciendorum signorum, the Instruments of Seduction, that is, the Power of working Signs, is to be given up to the Devil, that by Signs and Prodigies he may commend his Lies for Truth. And therefore now we must not take notice of men's Miracles, but their Fruits, a good Conversation, 
Hom. 19 p. 74, 77.  and a true Confession, and inquire si confessio ejus conveniat cum Scriptures, if his Confession agree with the Scriptures; for if so, he is a good Christian, otherwise he is a false one. 
In Deut. q. 12. Quaecunquetalia fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda quia in Catholica fiunt, non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt? de. Vnit. Eccl. c. 16.  And in like manner Theodoret instructs us, Not to regard the Miracles of Men, when they teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things contrary to Godliness: And St. Austin frequently appeals from them to the Scripture for finding out the true Church, saying, These Wonders do not manifest the Church is Catholic wherein they are performed, but the Holy Scriptures; let then the Donatists show us their Scriptures, for these are the Strength and Firmness of our Cause.  
3ly. They teach that therefore God had forewarned us not to regard, and not to be deceived by them, or to look upon them as sufficient to establish any new Doctrine: For, saith St. Austin, if some Miracles be wrought by Heretics, magis cavere debemus, we ought to be the more cautious, because our Lord Christ having said, that there should come Deceivers who should work such Miracles as to deceive, if it were possible, 
Lib. de Vnit. Eccl. c. 16.  the very Elect, he adds, by way of vehement Commendation, this, Behold I have foretold you, whence the Apostle admonishing us saith, now the Spirit manifestly teacheth, that in the later times some shall departed from the Faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits, & doctrinis Daemoniorum, and to Doctrines of Daemons. The same St. Austin in his Thirteenth Treatise upon the Gospel of St. John, brings in the Donatists objecting thus, Pontius wrought a Miracle, Donatus prayed, and God answered him from Heaven: And his Reply to it is this, Contra istos, 
To. 9 p. 122.  ut sic loquar, mirabilarios cautum me fecit Deus meus, My God hath cautioned me against those Miracle-Mongers, by saying in the later times false Prophets shall arise, doing Signs and Wonders.— Behold I have foretold you, therefore our Bridegroom hath warned us, quia & Miraculis decipi non debemus, that we ought not to be deceived by Miracles. And in his Second Book on the Sermon of our Lord upon the Mount, he saith, Our Lord hath admonished us not to be deceived with such things; conceiving the invisible Wisdom to be there, where we see a visible Miracle; saying, many shall say in that Day, Lord, have we not in thy Name cast out Devils, and done many wondrous Works: Let such a one read what the Magicians of Egypt did against Moses, 
To. 4. p. 1172, 1173.  or what our Lord saith of the false Prophets; If any one shall say unto you, here is Christ, believe him not; for many false Christ's and false Prophets shall arise, and do mighty Signs.  
And yet that Miracles pretended to be done after these times, are urged to countenance, and have been used to introduce and promote Romish Doctrines and Practices, is evident from History, and the Confessions of the Romish Doctors: 
Come in Dan. 14.  That as Lyranus saith, In Ecclesia aliquando sit deceptio populi in Miraculis factis a Sacerdotibus, The Priests of that Church sometimes deceived the People with Miracles, 

Non obscurum est quot opiniones invectae sunt in Orbem per homines ad suum quaestum callidos confictorum miraculorum praesidio. p. 188.  
Cap. 11. §. 11. De purge. l. 1. c. 11. quarta Ratio.  
De Sanctorum Beat. l. 1. c. 19 accedant l. 2. c. 12. Argument. quartum.  
De Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 8. postremum de poenit. l. 3. c. 12. quarta Ratio.   done by them for temporal Advantage. That according to the Passage cited by the Lord Faulkland from Erasmus, or Sr. Thomas Moor, many Opinions have been brought into the World by Men cunning to promote their Profit by the means of feigned Miracles, I have already proved from the Testimonies of Romish Writers: That by such Miracles they do endeavour to confirm their Doctrines, we need no other Witness than their Bellarmine, who proves Purgatory from the Apparition of Souls, declaring they were in that Place: That Saints are to be invoked, and Images to be worshipped, from the Miracles performed upon the Invocation of the First, and the Worship of the Second: The corporeal Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament, and the jus divinum of Auricular Confession, from the same Topick.  
And yet some of their Writers have seen just Reason to confess, that some of the Miracles produced to confirm these Articles, 
In sum. part. 4. qu. 11. Art 4. §. 3.  were either humane or diabolical Impostures. Thus Alexander of Hales saith, That Flesh appeared in the Sacrament, interdum humana procuratione, interdum operatione Diabolica, sometimes by humane Procurement, and sometimes by Procurement of the Devil. 
In Can. Miss. lect. 49. f. 127. b.  And Gabriel Biel doth acknowledge that Miracles are done to Men who run to Images, sometimes by the Operation of Devils, to deceive those inordinate Worshippers, God permitting it, and their Infidelity exacting it. And the same Verdict, may, with great Reason, be passed upon all the rest, they appearing in the World, not only after that time when the Fathers tell us Miracles were ceased, or not to be regarded, and when they said the Power of working Miracles was to be given up to Satan, but also after that the Goths, the Vandals, Longobards, Franks and Saxons, and other barbarous Nations had overrun the West, and brought in a Deluge of most horrid Ignorance, this dark and dubious Conjuncture was the very Season when these Romish Miracles began to swarm and fly abroad: Then do we hear from Pope Gregory, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and others, of the Apparitions of sad Souls, to acquaint others with their sad Condition underneath, craving for Help from the Prayers, Pilgrimages and Masses of the Living; a Charity which neither Moses nor the Prophets, Jesus Christ, or his Apostles ever thought fit to mention or prescribe: Then do we hear from the Second Nicene Council, from Gregory of Tours, and other later Writers, of Images bleeding, smiling, or mourning, as Occasion required: Then do we read in Paulus Diaconus, Paschasius, and other Patrons of Transubstantiation, of Flesh and Blood, and of a little Child, appearing in the consecrated Elements.  
Now had such Miracles been truly wrought by divine Power and Assistance, upon these Occasions, they would have more especially been then performed, when the Gift of Miracles continued in the Church, and was confessedly common among Christians, and done for Confirmation of the Faith, and for Conviction of the unbeliever, they being then more necessary for those great Ends for which they were at first designed; nor would the Writers of the first Four Ages have been less careful to mention, and appeal unto them, than are the Romanists at present, whose Histories are stuffed up with them; especially they would have mentioned them in those Discourses and Apologies, which were designed on purpose to confirm the Christian Faith from the miraculous Operations done by Christians, they being not less zealous to promote the Glory of their Lord, the Interests of Christianity, the Credit of their Institutions, and the true Honour of their Saints, than Romish Priests: Whereas, from the beginning of Christianity to the Days of Constantine, we do not find in all the genuine Records of Antiquity, one tittle of this Nature. They are indeed very copious in relating the miraculous Cures and Operations then performed 
(a) Clem. Recogn. l. 5. §. 36. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 13 p. 34. Iren. l. 2. c. 57  by Imposition of Hands, 
(b) Tertull. ad Scap. c. 4.  by anointing of the Sick with Oil, 
(c) Just. M. Apol. 1. p. 45. Dial. 247. Iren. l. 2. c. 56, 57 Orig. in Cells. l. 1. p. 7, 20.  by Prayer and invocation of the Name of Jesus, 
(d) Just. M. Dial. p. 302. Orig. l. 7. p. 334. Lact. l. 4. c. 27.  by adjuration of evil Spirits by his Name; but of miraculous Apparitions of Souls from Purgatory, of Flesh and Blood appearing visibly in the Eucharist, of Miracles performed at the Adoration of Images, or at auricular Confession, they speak not one Word, these being Miracles designed for other Ends, and reserved for times more worthy of them.  
Thirdly, Errors in Doctrine, or in Practice, Sect. 9 might exceedingly prevail by reason of the great Authority, the Vogue and Reputation of those Men, who either first began, or else gave Countenance to them, when begun by others: St. Paul well understood what an Inlet to Schisms, Contentions and Divisions it would be, for Men to cry up Paul, Apollo, Cephas, 
1 Cor. i 12. iv. 6.  and to be puffed up for one against another, and therefore he endeavours to prevent that Evil in the Church of Corinth; and in most of his Epistles he is constrained to magnify his Office, 
2 Cor. c. 10, 11, 12.  and to commend himself in opposition to those false Apostles, and deceitful Workers, who made it their Business to depress his Authority, and to procure Credit and Admiration to themselves: It was the great Opinion which the Jews had, both of the Scribes and Pharisees, which caused them so readily to embrace, and superstitiously to Reverence, and stiffly to retain those Superstitions and Traditions by which they rendered vain God's: Worship, and made void his Law. 
Vide Cap. 11. §. 7.  They, saith Josephus, had the popular Applause, as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most worthy of Credit in the People's Judgement, and the best Interpreters of their Laws. 
Mr. Wake's Second Def. Part 1. p. 81.  And we at present see how great a Grief it is to some, that our Ministers are in the best Sense popular, by living so as to deserve the good Opinion, and preaching so as to deserve Attention from the People, and gaining Reputation to their Doctrine by their Sincerity, as well as Learning; or in St. Paul 's Expression, by commending themselves and their Doctrine to the Consciences of all Men. To show the Prevalence of Men of Reputation in Matters of this Nature: If, as the Romanists do generally confess, the Doctrine of the Millennium obtained almost generally in the Church from the Relation of one Papias, a Man of very slender Intellectuals: If, as Eusebius informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 39  most of the Churchmen embraced that Sentiment by his Authority, pleading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the great Antiquity of the Man: If one Agrippinus, as they also tell us, could prevail over all Africa to receive Heretics by Baptism: If Origen could deserve to be condemned in the Fifth and the Sixth Synods, as an Heretic, and yet, whilst he lived, 
Hieron. in Verbo Origenes. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 26. Hieron. Prologue. in l. 2. come. in Micham. Pamphil. Apol. Orig. praefat. in libr. nom. Hebr. T. 3. f. 12.  could by his Learning and his Piety prevail to be had summo in honore, in the highest Reputation, to obtain after his Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, great Glory throughout all the Christian World, insomuch that he was very grateful, cunctis prudentibus, to all wise Men; and did for many Years obtain the Title of Magister Ecclesiae, The Master or Teacher of the Church: If the Authority of Jerom could prevail to have his Translation of the Old Testament received against the Judgement of the Universal Church: If one St. Austin could introduce into the Church the Belief of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin, though none of the Fathers, who had as good Opportunity to know, and as much Reason to believe it, spoke one Tittle of it: I say, if all these things are so, how can it be conceived a thing incredible, That Popes, Patriarches and Councils, and other Persons of great Authority and Vogue in their respective Ages, should have had like Influence to introduce new Doctrines and Practices into the Church, under pretence of Piety, or the Authority of Scriptures, or the Holy Fathers, or some like plausible Account. 
Theodor. Lector. l. 2. p 566. Niceph. Hist. Eccl. l. 15. c. 18.  Why might not Petrus Gnaphaeus, Patriarch of Antioch, bring Invocation of Saints into the Prayers of the Church in the Fifth Century; Pope Gregory introduce Purgatory in the Sixth; Boniface the Third, 
Paulus Diac. de Gest. Longobard. l. 4. c. 11.  obtain from Phocas the Title of, Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, The Head of the Universal Church, in the Seventh; The Second Nicene Council introduce Image-Worship in the Eighth; Paschasius give Rise to Transubstantiation in the Ninth; Lombard, and Hugo de S to Victore fix the Number of Seven Sacraments in the Twelfth; And Pope Hadrian the Third, introduce the Adoration of the Host in the Thirteenth Century.  
Again, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 12. Soz. H. Eccl. l. 1. c. 23.  If one Paphnutius could by his Reason and Authority, prevail with the First Nicene Council to rescind their intended Decree touching the Celibacy of Priests; If Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, could abolish the Custom of repairing to an established Penitentiary for the disclosing secret Sins, and that with the ensuing Approbation of almost all the Catholic Bishops of the Church: In a Word, if so many Practices and Customs, relating to the Discipline, and to the Sacraments of the Church, could be entirely altered and rejected in the following Ages, as is here partly proved, and by the Learned on both sides confessed, why might not other Practices and Doctrines, which obtained in the more pure and early Ages of the Church, run the same Fate, and by the same Authority and Methods be discarded? For, as it is judiciously observed by the Lord Faulkland, when the Reasons offered for or against a Practice, have in them some Appearance of Truth or Probability, as they may have to many Persons, though they be not valid, when the Persons Authorising or Approving them are of great Authority or Credit in the Church, as they may be, especially in darker Ages, and yet be subject to great Errors; and when the People, upon whom these Doctrines or Practices are pressed, have either a great Veneration and Esteem for those that press them, or a great Dread of them, then meet together most of those things which tend to work Persuasion, or prevail for an Assent unto the Doctrine, and a Compliance with the Practice recommended. Seeing then, 
Not. in Concil. Clar. Can. 28. conc. To. 10. p. 582.  as Petrus de Marca doth inform us, the Approbation of the half Communion by Thomas Aquinas, made others, certatim, amplecti hanc sententiam, to embrace greedily the same Opinion, why might not others of as good Authority and Credit be instrumental to produce like Changes in other Constitutions of the Church?  
Fourthly, §. 10 Old Doctrines and Practices might easily be changed, and new obtain, by reason of the corrupt Manners of the Clergy, and by their Example, of the People: And that,  
1. Because such evil Practices deprive the Clergy of that Spiritual Wisdom and Divine Assistance, which is their best Conductor into the Way of Truth, and is their chief Preservative from dangerous Delusions and pernicious Errors. 
Wisd. 1.4.  For as the Book of Wisdom saith, Into a malicious Soul Wisdom will not enter, nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto Sin. St. 
De Judicio dei To. 2. p. 393.  Basil grievously laments the Discords and Contentions, the perverse Doctrines and Opinions which had prevailed in his time amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Rulers of the Church of God, by which they verified the Prediction of St. Paul, 
Acts 20.30.  That from Christians themselves should proceed Men speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them. And this he doth resolve into their Rejection of God, their true and only King; their Departure from the Laws of Christ, and choosing rather to rule others, in contradiction to the Commands of Christ, than to be ruled by him: By which things, saith he, they have rendered themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
P. 394.  unworthy of the Government of the Lord. Clemangis is still more express and Argumentative in this Particular, 
Super Materia Conc. Gen. p. 71.  For with them, saith he, is the Spirit; those he directs and brings to a salutary End, who have prepared for him, within themselves, an Habitation worthy of him; and by good Works have rendered themselves worthy of his Inspiration and Visitation; but how can he hear, visit and enlighten them who are Adversaries to him, and when they cannot do it in themselves endeavour to extinguish him in others, and are inflamed, not with the Fire of Love, but with the Ardour of Ambition? For with Hypocrites and self-Seekers the Holy Spirit is not wont to be present, but to fly from them as his Enemies, according to that saying of the Book of Wisdom, the Holy Spirit of Discipline will flee Deceit, 
Wisd. 1.5.  and from Thoughts that are without Understanding, and will not abide when Unrighteousness cometh in. Now, saith he, 
P. 72.  if according to the Testimony of the Lord, the Holy Spirit rests only upon the Humble and the Meek, the Man who trembles at God's Word, Et secundum mores hodiernos pauci admodum tales verisimiliter in conciliis sunt, and according to the Manners of our Times, 'tis very likely that few such are in our Councils; but of carnal, worldly, ambitious and contentious Men, and of Men having that Knowledge which puffeth up, turba solet adesse copiosa, the Number usually is very great; what necessity is there to believe that the Holy Spirit doth prevail in those Councils, and move the Minds of them who always do resist, and do oppose his Motions to those things which are most sound and salutary? 
P. 73.  If it be not from humane Infirmity, but from the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, that Councils cannot be deceived, who can be sure this Holy Spirit will be present with the major part of an Assembly of such Men, they being, though in Profession Christians, ye in reality Men of the World, who, 
Joh. 14.17.  saith St. John, cannot receive the Spirit of Truth.  
2ly. Because such corrupt Manners do provoke God in his righteous Judgement to give Men up to strong Delusions, and to permit the great Deceiver to prevail upon them, according to that Expression of St. Paul, That evil Men and Seducers will grow worse and worse, 
2 Tim. 3.13.  deceiving and being deceived: Thus of the Times of Antichrist he hath foretold, 
2 Thess. 2.9, 10.  That because Men received not the Truth in the Love of it, therefore God should send among them strong Delusions, that they should believe a Lye. And this Account St. Basil also gives of the forementioned Miscarriages of the Church Governors of his Time, 
Ibid. p. 394.  viz. That they befell them because being corrupt and abominable in their do, they had deserved the Punishment which the Apostle speaks of, saying, because they liked not to retain God in their Knowledge, therefore he gave them up to a reprobate Sense, and which our Lord inflicted on the wicked Jews, to whom he therefore spoke in Parables, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they might not perceive the Divine Mysteries of the Gospel, because they first had shut their Eyes, made their Ears heavy, and their foolish Heart was waxed gross; that is; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That by way of Punishment they might be subject unto Blindness in greater Matters. Clemangis in this also follows the Sentiments of St. Basil, For after he had abundantly declared the great Corruptions of their Manners who usually then met in Councils, he puts this Question, 
Ibid. p. 73.  Quis certo possit scire an major pars concilij sit digna decipi? who therefore can know surely whether the major Part of a Council be not worthy to be deceived?  
3ly. men's evil Lives, had they no other Tempter, do naturally incline them to cast off those Principles and Practices which contradict, and do condemn their Actions, and hinder their Pursuit and free Enjoyment of their sensual Appetites; this they must be inclined to do, partly to free themselves from the continual Gripe of an evil and condemning Conscience; For, as Theodoret observes, They who have put away the upright Conscience, do afterwards cast off the Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they cannot bear the Accusations of a guilty Conscience: And partly, that they may exert more freely that natural Opposition that is in them to that Law of Holiness and Light, by which their Actions are reproved, according to that saying of our Lord, Every one that doth Evil hateth the Light, 
John 3.20.  neither cometh he unto the Light, lest his Deeds should be reproved: 'Tis this Corruption of Manners which seemeth to have turned all the Severities of ancient Penance, and all the wholesome Methods of Church Discipline into Formalities and Superstition; into fruitless Pilgrimages, the going barefoot, the carrying wax Tapers, the mumbling over a few Pater Noster's, Ave Maria's, or penitential Psalms, which either the penitent doth not, or at the least, is not obliged to attend to, and which have very little Tendency to the Conversion and Reformation of a Sinner, but rather do encourage him to sin at such an easy rate.  
'Tis this hath introduced so many easy Ways of Pardon and Justification, 
Attritio ex turpitudinis peccati Consideratione, vel ex Gehennae & poenarum metu communiter concipitur. Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 4. Et eum ad gratiam dei in Sacramento poenitentiae impetrandam dispoint Ibid. vid. Catechism. Rom. Part. 2. c. 5. §. 37, 38.  without the bringing forth Fruits meet for Repentance, and taught even Councils to determine that Attrition, or Sorrow out of apprehension of the Foulness of Sin, or the fear of Punishment, will dispose Men to obtain the Favour of God in the Sacrament of Penance: So that if the vilest Wretch, when going out of that World, in which he hath lived most lewdly all his Life, be afraid of Punishment for his Enormities, or apprehensive of the Foulness of them, as the more wicked he hath been the likelier he is, and the greater Reason he still hath to be; provided he be absolved by a Priest, he must go out of the World in the Favour of God, and in a justified Estate. And if so, what necessity is there of adding to our Faith Virtue, and of patiented Continuance in well doing, that we may seek for Honour and Immortality, or of following after Holiness and Purity of Life, that we may see God?  
Moreover Men by their wicked Conversations will be disposed to introduce, and cherish such Doctrines as best comply with their impure Inclinations, that they may have the greater Freedom in the Pursuit of their Ambition, Covetousness, and all their other sensual Appetities, and may the better gratify those Inclinations: And here we have a wide Door open, at which the Innovations of the Church of Rome might enter, seeing most of them have an apparent Tendance to the gratification of Pride, and love of Empire, of Covetousness and Ambition, of Ease and Freedom from restraint in the ecclesiastics and Church Governors, and give them Opportunity to Lord it over men's Consciences, to engross the Wealth and the Conveniences of the World, to live at ease, and to be  by any but themselves. For do not the Doctrines of Purgatory, Pardons, and Indulgences, directly tend to make them Masters of men's eternal, and by that of their temporal Estates? Is not the Treasury of the Saints, and of our Saviour 's Merits, a way of driving Trade for the enriching their own Treasuries? Do not their Masses and Oblations of true propitiatory Sacrifices for the Dead, tend to engage all dying Persons to sacrifice their Estates unto them, and leave them lumping Sums of Money for that end? Are not their Priests well paid for saying private Masses? Do they not get well by the Shrines, the Images, the Relics of the Saints they keep, and show to others, and the Oblations offered by the People! And must not therefore all these Doctrines be very grateful to Men of covetous and greedy Minds? Must not such Persons strongly be inclined to broach, abet, and to promote them?  
Do not the Doctrines of the Pope's Supremacy, of the Priest's Power to make his God, of the necessity of Priestly Absolution, and Confession to him, and of entire Obedience due to their Injunctions, plainly tend to advance their Power and Reputation, and to engage all Men to have them in the greatest Reverence? Do not the Doctrines of the Necessity of the Priest's Intention to the Validity of a Sacrament, of auricular Confession in order to Absolution, and of the Power of this Absolution to procure Pardon for the Person who is only attrite, tend most apparently to make the People think that their Salvation doth entirely depend on them, and so create as great an Awe within them of such Priests, as either the Hopes of their Salvation, or the fear of everlasting Misery is able to produce?  
Lastly, Doth not the Doctrine of Infallibility give them full Opportunity to lord it over all men's Consciences and keep them in an absolute Subjection to their Wills? And can they not upon the pretence of being the sole Judges of the Sense of Scripture, and of authentical Traditions, obtrude upon the World whatsoever Doctrines will best suit with their Designs and Interests? And must not Men be forced to submit to their Decisions, and blindly follow their Directions, as agreeable to Sacred Writ, whilst it is kept with so great Care from their Perusal? He must be blind who sees not that all those Doctrines must be very acceptable to Men of Pride, and covetous Desires, and who affect Dominion and Empire over the Consciences of others. Let us see then whether from the Eighth Century, when the Veneration of Images was first established, to the Sixteen, in which the Trent Council confirmed all these Doctrines, we have not too much Reason to suspect the generality, or the prevailing part of their Church Guides, were Men strongly addicted to those corrupt Affections which render them unworthy of the Assistance of the Holy Spirit, worthy to be given up to Delusions, and very much disposed to broach, maintain, and to establish such Doctrines as directly tend to gratify their Ambition and their Avarice.  
Whether such Changes might not reasonably be expected in the Eighth Century, 
Carol. Magn. Praefat. ad libr. de imag.  when the Second Nicene Council met, seeing the Priests than had laid aside all sound and wholesome Doctrine, transgressed the Commandments of the Fathers, and brought into the Church such Doctrines as were never known to Christ, or his Apostles.  
In the Ninth Century, when Paschasius began to vent the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; seeing then they buried in Contempt and Oblivion the Word of God, 
Paulus Diac.  made the Temple a Den of Thiefs, and instead of sweet Melody, 
Luitpert. Arch. Mogunt. Epist. ad Ludou. Regem Germ.  sounded forth Blasphemy against God himself; and the Captains and Rulers of the People endeavoured to prefer humane to divine things; and the Governors of the Church having left the way of Salvation, ran headlong, opening the Pit of Perdition to those that followed them.  
In the Tenth Century, when as Baronius complains, 
Ad A. D. 912. Art 8.  the Canons were silent, the Decrees of Popes suppressed, the ancient Traditions proscribed, Lust armed with the secular Power, challenged all things to itself, when Christ was fast asleep in the Ship, and, which seemed worse, all snorted with him, and there were no Disciples to awaken their sleepy Lord with their Cries.  
In the Eleventh Century, when the Councils held at Rome, Varseilles, and Tours, condemned Berengarius, 
Ad An. 1001. Art 1. & 7.  and decreed for the corporeal Presence of our Lord's Body in the Sacrament; This being, saith Baronius, styled that Iron Age in which Iniquity abounded, and many discoursed, and believed that Antichrist was come, and the Corruption of Manners, which then was very great, especially among the Ecclesiastics, might easily persuade Men that it would be so. When, saith the same Baronius, unhappy Brambles, Thorns, and Nettles, which grew out of the Stench of the Flesh, and the Dung of Corruption, had wonderfully filled the Field of the Church, 
Ad An. 1049. Art 10.  for all Flesh had corrupted their Ways, so that not only the Flood seemed unsufficient to wash away this Filth, but those horrid Wickednesses seemed to call for that Fire which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha, When, saith Hugo Flaviniacensis, almost all the Clergy, rather sought their own than the Things of Jesus Christ, 
Concil. T. 10. p. 375.  and chose rather to adhere to the Discipleship of Simon than keep the Poverty of Christ, 
Apol. An. 1066. apud Morn. Mist. iniq. pag. 245.  in the Unity of the Faith. When, say the Clergy of Liege, corrupt Manners, through Ambition and Avarice, prevailed— Religion was dissembled, and a Show of Piety brought in. When the Traffic of Holy Things crept in, and the Holy Philosophy, by the subtle Interpretation of Sycophants, began to be corrupted, polluted, violated with humane Inventions, and old Wives Fables.  
In the Twelfth Century, when first we hear of the fixed Number of Seven Sacraments, which, in another Sense, were till then Mysteries. Since then the Popes, Cardinals, and Prelates, were all the Day intent on Evil, and ever occupied, without Satiety, in the Works of Iniquity; they made Port-sale of things sacred, and laboured with all their Might that they might not descend to Hell alone: The Clergy neglected God's Service, were Slaves to filthy Lucre, defiled their Priesthood by Uncleanness, 
De praedest. & lib. Arbitr. l. 2. versus finem. Serm. 6. in Ps. 90. p. 73. c.  seduced the People by Hypocrisy, and laid Snares by all manner of ways to ruin them, saith Honorius Augustodunensis, than the Offices of Ecclesiastical Dignity were turned into filthy Lucre, and a Work of Darkness; nor was the Welfare of Souls, but the Luxury of Riches sought after in performance of them, and the whole Race of Christians, from the least to the greatest, seemed to have conspired against God; so that from the Sole of the Foot to the Crown of the Head there was no Soundness in them; nor could Men say, As is the People so is the Priest, 
Serm. 1. de conv. B. Pauli. F. 2. d.  for the People were not so bad as the Priest, Saith St. Bernard.  
In the Thirteenth Century, when Transubstantiation was established in the Fourth Council of Lateran. Since than Simony was committed without Shame, 
In Hen. 3. A. 1237. p. 438.  the Church's Liberty decayed, Charity expired, Religion was trod under Foot, and the Daughter of Zion was made like a brazen faced Whore, that hath no Shame, saith Matthew Paris: Then the Pride, Haughtiness, Perfidiousness, Fraud, Wickedness, Luxury, Avarice of the Clergy was not to be endured, they being worse than Turks, Saracens, Tartars and Jews, 
Apud Aventin. l. 7. p. 720, 721.  and did more offend against Christian Simplicity than they, saith Meinardus.  
In the Fourteenth Century, 
De planctu Eccl. l 2. c. 15.  when Alvarus Pelagius complained of the Popes, That many of them came into their Sees by Simony, that they were exceedingly Covetous, that they savoured of the things of the Flesh, but were very careless of the good of Souls. 
C. 16.  Of the Cardinals, That by their pernicious Examples they were commonly the Odour of Death unto Death, that many of them were unworthily promoted, and that they were insatiable Thirsters after Benefices. 
C. 20.  Of the Bishops, That they were notoriously guilty of Simony, Fraud, Uncleanness, Pride, Envy, Covetousness, That the Prelates of the Church were an Army of Devils, Companions of Thiefs, 
C. 5.  and did nothing but for Gifts and Rewards. Of the Priests, 
C. 27.  That they were commonly promoted by Simony, lived incontinently, and committed Fornication with the Women that came to Confession. Of the Clergy in general, 
C. 28.  That they entered into Orders not out of Love to God, but temporal Advantage; that Drunkenness, Gluttony, and Incontineney, were their common Vices; that many of them were Sodomites; that they gave ill Example to the Laity, and commonly were worse than they.  
In the Fifteenth Century, when the Cup was taken away from the Laity by the Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil, and Purgatory was established in the Council of Florence. 
Ep. Synod. de Con. Author Super Papam Bin. To. 8 p. 124. Bin. To. 9 p. 10.  Since then all Ecclesiastical and Christian Discipline was in a manner extinguished in every Place, saith the Council of Basil, Then Oppression, Rapine, Adultery, and Incest, and all pestilent Vices did confound all sacred and profane things, saith Aegidius in the Fifth Council of Lateran, to omit the Treatises written in this Age by Clemangis, of the corrupt State of the Church, by Gerson of the Defect of worthy Persons; and by the Cardinal of Cambray, of the Filthiness of the Church of Rome.  
In the Sixteenth Century, in which the Council of Trent was held, when amongst the Primates of Religion there was either none, or very little Service of God, no good Life, no Shame, no Modesty: Justice declined into Hatred or Favour; Piety was turned into Superstition, and by all Orders of Men Sin was openly committed, and very often, the Virtue of an honest Man was made his Crime, 
Orat. ad Leon. 10. in Concil. Lat.  saith Picus Mirandula. When all Flesh had corrupted their Ways, and were become Citizens, not of Rome, but of Babylon, saith Staphilaeus: 
Orat. hab. ad Auditores Rotae. Concil. To. 14. p. 993, 994.  When the Bishop of Bitonto in the Trent Council cries out, with what Monsters of Filthiness, what Sinks of Uncleanness, what pestiferous Contagion is not both Priest and People defiled? Begin at the Sanctuary of God, and see if there be any Shamefacedness, any Charity, any Hope or Help of honest Life, if there be not unbridled Lust, notorious Boldness, incredible Wickedness, that the more powerful proceeded from the Worship of God to Impiety, from the Defence of the Church to the Excision of it, and fell with one Consent from Religion to Superstition, from Faith to Infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, from God to Epicurism.  
I say, in Ages, and in times, in which such Floods of all Impiety had overwhelmed the Clergy, such Pride, Ambition, Covetousness, and Luxury reigned uncontrolledly among them; 'tis easy to discern how Practices and Doctrines, so well comporting with their vicious Inclinations, might easily be introduced by them, and difficult to believe it could be otherwise: For if in the Fourth Century so great Defection was caused by the wicked Arians, notwithstanding all the Opposition which the virtuous and learned Bishops made against them; if then by reason of the abounding of Iniquity, the Orthodox declared their Expectations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of an entire Apostasy: 
Theodoret Ep. 63. Epist. 10.  If St. Basil 's Complaint, That the Office of the Bishop was sunk down, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to miserable Men, Servants of Servants, who reproached the Name of Bishop, was attended with another that concerned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the corruption of the Faith. If Isidore Peleusiota 's, 
Epist. l. 3. Epist. 223, 259, 408, 410.  sad and manifold Complaints of the Tyranny, Soul-Murther, Luxury, Covetousness, the Ignorance, the Enmity to Virtue, which reigned in the Clergy of his Age, concludes in this, These are the Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by whom the Affairs of the Church are turned topsy turvey. If when Theodoret, 
Ep. 134, 135, 142.  saith the Clergy, did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, labour under a general Impiety, he also speaks more fully of their Declension from the Faith, and their establishing a new Heresy; what might not be expected in these last and worst of Ages, which were the very Sinks of Wickedness, the non ultra of Impiety? Sure if ever Religion was, or can be made to trucle unto Interest, and Faith to Faction, and Government to degenerate into Empire and Tyranny, it must be in those Ages, when Men were so unworthy of the Assistance or Direction of the Holy Spirit, and were so worthy to be given up unto the Spirit of Delusion.  
Fifthly, These novel Practices and Doctrines might easily prevail, by reason of the gross Ignorance and Negligence of Christian Knowledge, both in the Clergy and the People: For who sees not that Ignorance in the Clergy must render them unable to discern betwixt Truth and Falsehood; to choose the Good, and refuse the Evil, and make it easy to impose upon them in those Matters by any specious Pretences whatsoever? Thus when the Prophets erred in Vision, 
Esa. 28.7, 15.  and stumbled in Judgement, than was it that they made Lies their Refuge, and under Falsehood hid themselves: When the Watchmen of Israel were all blind, and could not understand, than did the People become a Seed of Adulterers, 
Esa. 56.10.57.3, 4.  inflaming themselves under every green Tree, with Idols. When the Priests said not where is the Lord, and they that handled the Law knew him not, 
Jer. 2.8, 13.  then did the People commit two Evils, forsaking the Fountain of living Waters, and hewing them out Cisterns which can hold no Waters: When the Pastors were become brutish and knew not the Lord, 
Jer. 10.21.  than was it that their Flocks were scattered: When the Scribes and Pharisees had got the Government of Religion, and religious things into their Hands, 
Matth. 15.14.  our Saviour informs us that the blind led the Blind, and both were in the greatest Danger of falling down into the Ditch; That the Key of Knowledge was then taken away, and the People left as Sheep without a Shepherd, 
Luke 11.52. Mark 6.34.  and then did vain Traditions, and corrupt Interpretations of the Scriptures mightily prevail.  
St. Basil in his Epistle to Gregory the Divine, tells him there was little Help to be expected from the Pride of the Western Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who neither knew the Truth, nor will endure to learn it, but being prepossessed with Lies and false Suspicions, they do now, as they did before, in the Case of Marcellus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contending with those who show them the Truth, and stablishing Heresy by themselves: And again, I would write, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to their Head, but only enigmatically touching Ecclesiastical Affairs, 
Ep. 10. p. 54.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for they neither know the Truth of our Affairs, nor do they take the Way to learn it. And agreeably to this Complaint we find the Arians in the Council of Ariminum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 16.  deceiving the Western Bishops, because of their Simpleness; and the Historians telling us, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were bubbled by them into a Subscription. Sozomen informs us of the Three hundred Western Bishops met at Milan, 
Hist. Eccles. l 4. c. 9  that they consented to the Deposition of Athanasius, through Fear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Fraud, or Ignorance of what they were about. And in the general Theodoret informs us that the Arians made it their Business, 
Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to gull the Western Bishops by reason of their Simplicity. Again, That Ignorance in the People, renders them easy to receive any thing which is imposed upon them as Matter of Revelation or Devotion, or under the venerable Name of a Tradition of the Church, a Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, or a Definition of a Council, will be evident, if we consider that being once bereft of the Assistance of the Holy Scriptures, they have no Principle left them by which they can examine, no Judgement to discern the Truth, or Falsehood of any thing which comes proposed to them under these specious Colours, and so they are not qualified to judge of, or in Capacity to discover the Cheats thus put upon them. Accordingly we find, that in the Times of Ignorance, the People were carried away after dumb Idols, 
1 Cor. 12.2.  even as they were led, and were cajoled into the most superstitious, vile, unnatural and cruel Practices, under the semblance of paying their religious Worship to their Heathen Deities.  
Now of the prodigious Ignorance of those Ages in which most of the Romish Doctrines were introduced, or else conciliarly were established, and so advanced from Opinions and Practices permitted in some places, to Articles of Faith and Rules of Manners, we cannot reasonably doubt, when we find the Second Nicene Council making a Canon, That he who was promoted to a Bishopric should be well acquainted with his Psalter, that so he might be able to instruct his Clergy in it, and that the Metropolitan should strictly examine whether he were sufficient to read the Canons, 
Conc. Nic. 2. Can. 2.  the Gospel, the Epistle, and the rest of the Scriptures discreetly, and not imperfectly; 
Cent. 9  when the Enquiry made by the Bishops in their Visitations was,  
1. 
Regino de Eccl. Discipl. p. 28, 29.  Whether the Priest did, pleniter intelligere, fully understand the Exposition of the Creed and the Lords Prayer.  
2. Si bene intelligat, Whether he well understood the Prayers, the Preface, and the Canon of the Mass.  
Si Epistolam & Evangelium bene legere possit, Whether he could well read the Epistle and Gospel: And when Baluzius saith, ea erat saeculi istius infelicitas, 
Not. in Regin. p. 540.  ut necesse erat Presbyteros ab Episcopis interrogari utrum bene legere possent, the Infelicity of that Age made it necessary for the Bishop to ask whether the Priests knew how to read well; and that this happened not only to the inferior Clergy, sed etiam in illis interdum qui ad summum Sacerdotium eligebantur, but sometimes also to them who were chosen to the Office of Bishops, as Carolus Calvus, and the Bishops of the Council of Valence complain; when good Learning perished almost throughout Europe, 
Cent. 11. p. 152. Cent. 12.  Barbarity prevailing every where, saith Balaeus: When all the Priests had abandoned the Scriptures, appointed for Man's Salvation, and were blind Guides, 
De Praedest. & lib. Arbitrio. l. 2.  going before the Blind to Perdition, saith Honorius Augustodunensis: When the Bishops, Priests, and Ministers of the Church were ignorant almost of all things, and the Waldenses carried the Vogue among the People by their Learning, and were admitted by the Priests to preach publicly, 
In Collect. de urb. Tolos. Cent. 13.  not that they approved their Opinions, but because they were inferior to them in Learning, saith Jacobus de Riberia: When he that had learned nothing became a Teacher of others, and though he were like the sounding Brass, and tinkling Cymbal, usurped the Office of a Teacher, being an unprofitable Trunk, and a dumb Idol, and they who were ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, usurped that Burden of Dignity which they could not bear, saith Petrus Blesensis: 
Ep. 23.  When there neither appeared Piety or Learning in the Clergy, saith William, Bishop of Paris: 
Lib. de Collat. benefic. Cent. 14.  When the Pope appointed to almost all ecclesiastical Dignities, Men ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, Idiots, and Unlearned, who knew not the Language of the People over whom they presided: 
Defensor pacis l. 2. c. 24. p. 354, 355, 356.  When not one among Ten of the Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Patriarches of Provinces, were sufficiently instructed in Divinity, saith Marsilius of Milan: When the Church was eclipsed with the black Mist of Ignorance: 
De planctu Eccl. l. 2. cap. 5. & 20. Cent. 15.  When the Bishops ordained Men whom they knew to be unlearned, and unfit, and being Idiots suffered themselves to be made Bishops, saith Alvarus: When it often happened through the Defect, Negligence, and deceit of them, to whom, by the Bishops, 
A. D. 1473. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 1053. cap. 3.  was committed the Examination of Persons to be ordained, that Men Unlearned, and altogether Ignorant, were presented as fit to the Bishops, and so ordained by them, saith the Council of Toledo: When such Men were admitted to the Priesthood, and other Holy Orders, as were Idiots, Unlearned, and scarce able to read though way wardly, and without Understanding, not knowing when they read or prayed, whether they blessed God or blasphemed him: When the Church was stocked with ignorant and wicked Men, 
De corrupto statu Eccl. c. 11, 12, 13, 25.  and no Man learned in the Scriptures was advanced to great Dignities: When the Parish-Priests could not read, and scarce knew A from B, and knew not the Words, much less the Things they read, saith Clemangis: 
Declarat. de defect. virorum Eccles. q. 1. vid. etiam q. 22, 74. Cent. 16.  When Bishops of good Life and Doctrine were not chosen any where, but carnal Men, and ignorant of spiritual Things, saith Gerson: When ignorance of Tongues, and all parts of good Language, and neglect of the Study of Scriptures, 
Epist. ad Leo 10th.  were the Vices of the Age, saith Mirandula: When every where there was so great a Neglect of the Word, as made it necessary that Faith should Perish, 
In 2. Ep. ad Tim. c. 3. p. 116.  saith Espencaeus: When neither Greek nor Hebrew, the only Languages in which the Scriptures were indicted, were understood by the Divines, and the Disputers of Four Centuries, 
Loc. come. l. 2. c. 13.  saith Canus: When it was the Custom of the Age to make Priests and Bishops out of the most unlearned and irreligious Persons, and the Bishops generally were more ignorant of the Scriptures than the People, saith Duarenus: 
De Sacr. Eccl. Ministr. & Benef. l. 1. c. 11 q. P. 153, 168. Hist. of the Trent Council p. 784.  When the Bishops assembled in the Trent Council had but little Understanding in Religion: When few of them had any Knowledge in Theology, saith F. Paul: When the prevailing part were both unlearned and simple, saith Dudithius.  
If therefore false Traditions might so easily prevail, 
Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24.  even in the first and purest Ages of the Church, as Irenaeus doth inform us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by reason of the Simplicity and Ignorance of the Governors, how much more might they carry all before them in those times of Egyptian Darkness? If two or three hundred Bishops, in the more learned Ages of the Church, could be so tamely bubbled by a few cunning Arians, how easy might it be for Men of Credit, in the thick Darkness of those times, to lead the Blind into the Pit of Error? 
Act. 2. p. 102.  If the pretended Donation of Constantine, though so gross a Cheat, 
Dist. 96. c. 14. Const. Imperator.  could obtain so long and generally, as to be urged in the Second Nicene Council, and put into the Decretals? If the decretal Epistles, now generally acknowledged to be Forgeries, were received as genuine for Eight hundred Years, 
Sess. 45. & Sess. 8.  insomuch that the General Council of Constance condemneth them as Heretics who reject them, why might not many other spurious Pieces, as useful to promote Popish Doctrines, as these were to establish the Pope's Supremacy and the Veneration of Images, prevail as generally in those darker Ages? If the Credit of one Marianus Scotus made the whole West, even for Five Centuries, believe the Story of Pope Joan, which cast so great an Infamy on St. Peter 's Chair, why might not other things, in favour of the Church of Rome, 
Manual. c. 11. n. 22.  obtain an equal Credit by like Means? If, as Navarre declares, throughout the whole Church of Christ, Multos passim invenias nihil magis & explicit de hisce (Symboli Articulis quos Ecclesia solemnizat) credere, quam Ethnicum philosophum, you may find every where many who explicitly believe nothing more of the Articles of the Creed, than a Heathen Philosopher, must not such Men be ready to receive any thing suggested as an Article of Faith? Is it to be expected, that they should rise up with great Zeal in opposition to new Doctrines, or convey them by oral Tradition to Posterity? Lastly, If Doctrines of Faith, and Rules of Manners be to be decided, even in General Councils, by Scripture and Tradition, is it impossible for Men so ignorant, and void of any Knowledge of what the Scriptures, or Tradition teach, should pass wrong Judgement in these Matters?  
Sixthly, New Doctrines and Practices might easily prevail, and silence all that Opposition which was, or would have otherwise been made against them, when Force and Violence was used to promote them, and to suppress the contrary Doctrines and Traditions: For though Force can do nothing to the Conviction of the Conscience, or to clear up the Understanding; nor can the Fire or the Faggot give new Light unto it, yet have those things a very powerful Influence upon the Fearful, the Lovers of the World, and of the Comforts of it, to engage them outwardly and hypocritically to profess what they do not believe, and to deny, conceal, or not profess what really they do believe; hence doth the Scripture so often teach us, that when Persecution did arise for the Truth's Sake, 
Matth. 13.21.  the stony Ground would be offended, that because Trouble would abound, the Love of many would wax cold. 
Matth. 24.12.  Hence the Apostles were so solicitous to arm their Proselytes against these fiery Trials, so frequent in their Exhortations to Patience and Perseverance, 
Hebr. 11. 32-36. 1 Thess. 3.3, 5.  so desirous to know the Constancy of their Faith, so careful that they might not be moved by their Afflictions: Hence also, under the Heathen Persecutions, we find such sad and numerous Examples of Apostasy. St. Cyprian complains, that by the Fury of the Decian Persecution Christianity was much weakened, 
Ep. 11. p. 23, 26. Ep. 10. p. 22.  that they were very few who then stood firm, but they who languished were very numerous, 
De lapsis §. 3. & §. 5. p. 123, 124. ed. Oxon.  that the Church then with Tears lamented the Fall of very many, that there was then a manifold Decay of that once numerous People which professed the Christian Faith; yea, that even at the first Onset of the threatening Enemy the greatest Number of the Brethren betrayed their Faith. Dionysius of Alexandria informs us, That when the Edict of the Emperor came forth, all the Christians were wonderfully terrified; that presently through this Fear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many of the most celebrated Christians came in to the impure and profane Sacrifices, some being called by Name, some brought thither by their Friends, some by their Office, or the Example of others; some of them so pale and trembling, as if they had not come to sacrifice but to be sacrificed; some came boldly, denying they had ever been Christians; some fled, and others being caught, clapped into Prisons and into Irons, 
Apud. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 41.  presently abjured the Faith; others, as soon as they were brought before the Judges: And, Lastly, others when they had suffered Torment valiantly for a while, at length grew weary and renounced. In the Persecution under Dioclesian, 
Ibid. l. 8. c. 3.  Eusebius saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Myriad out of Fear fell presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the first Assault; and what then may not be expected of this Nature in the declining Ages of the Church, when that strict Discipline and self-denial, which prepared the Christians of that Age for Sufferings, was laid aside: That Love of God, which then was fervent, waxed very cold; and that Iniquity, which renders it impossible Men should be willing to departed this World, and to appear before their righteous Judge, so much abounded.  
This was the Method which the Arians used for Propagation of their Heresy. 
Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 27 p. 118.  For Socrates informs us, that in the Reign of Constantius the Persecution fell upon the Orthodox, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through all the Cities of the East, that they were banished from their Churches, and were afflicted with all kinds of Torments, and that the Force then used was no less than formerly was exercised by Heathen Emperors to compel Christians to worship Idols. And when after the Death of Constantine, the Empire of the West fell into his Hands, he used the like Severity there also. Now the direful Effects of this Persecution appeared not only in the Fall of the great Hosius, 
Ib. c. 31. p. 127.  who by this Violence was constrained to subscribe the Decrees of the Council of Sirmium, but even in the generality of the Church Governors; 
Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. Soz. l. 4. c. 9  for when Constantius, the more effectually to move Pope Liberius to consent to the Condemnation of Athanasius, tells him, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole Empire had condemned him as a wicked Man, Liberius answers that they had done this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Sozom. ibid.  out of Fear of him, and the Dishonour which he threatened to them, and the same Motive, after a little Exile, prevailed with him also. Moreover a great part of the Bishops who met at Ariminum declared for the Nicene Faith, as being that which they could not alter unless they would prove themselves spurious Children, and Accusers of the Fathers; and yet they being carried thence to Nica in Thracia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15, 16, 18.  they being terrified, consented to expunge the Words of Substance and Consubstantial, and only to assert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Christ was like in Substance to the Father, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some out of Fear, and others out of Ignorance, subscribed. St. Hilary informs us, 
Fragm. p. 482.  that the Bishops met at Ariminum, being tired out with long Delays, & minis imperatoris perterriti, damnarunt integram fidem quam antea defendebant, & susceperunt perfidiam quam antea damnaverant, and terrified with the Threats of the Emperor, condemned that Faith they had before defended, and received that Falsehood which they had before condemned. Sozomen also tells us of Three hundred Western Bishops met at Milan, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hist. Eccles. l. 4. cap. 9  either out of Fear, or Fraud, or Ignorance, consented to the Deposition of Athanasius. And this doubtless, 
Commonit. c. 6.  gave Oceasion to Vincentius Lirinensis to say that, cuncti prope Latini Sermonis Episcopi, 
Epist. ad Pam. adv Error. Joh. Hieros. F. 59  almost all the Western Bishops were by Fraud or Force deceived, and that the Poison of Arianism, pene orbem totum contaminaverat, had defiled almost the whole World; to Jerom to complain, that it had possessed all the East, and that the whole World, Arianum, se esse miratus est, admired that it was become Arian 〈◊〉 to Nazionzen to confess that, 
Orat. in Athan. quae est Or. 21. p. 387.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except a very few, which either because of their Virtue resisted, or for their Obscurity were contemned, all obeyed the times, some being Ringleaders in the Impiety, some being circumvented by Fear or Gain, Flattery or Ignorance. And to omit the Complaint of Theodoret, 
Ep. 142.  That in the Ephesine Council, styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most of the Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were moved to consent by Force, and by their Subscriptions confirmed a new Heresy: 
Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 17.  To omit the Persecution of Valens, which expelled, saith Socrates, almost all the Bishops of the East out of their Sees, and where the Bishops were not valiant, had such ill Influence upon the People, that they all turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Lib. 6. c. 21.  from their former Sentiments to Arianism: to omit I say, these Instances,  
It is a wonder to conceive what Force the Edicts of Basiliscus had to engage the Patriarches, and Bishops of that Age to renounce, and Anathematise the General Council of Chalcedon. Basiliscus in his Encyclical Epistle commands all Bishops to be content with the Nicene Faith, and to Anathematise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Evagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. p. 336, 487.  all things done and spoken in the Synod of Chalcedon about the Definition of Faith, or Exposition of the Symbols; to subscribe to his Epistle, and wholly to reject the Council of Chalcedon; threatening Deposition to the Bishops and Clergy who should refuse Obedience to his Commands; 
Ibid. c. 5. p. 338.  whereupon Five hundred Bishops presently subscribe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, condemning the Epistle of Pope Leo, and the Synod of Chalcedon. Among them were the Bishops of Asia, professing to the Emperor, 
Ibid.  that they subscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with all Readiness and Gladness; and yet, quickly after the Death of Basiliscus, they beg Pardon for so doing of Acacius, alleging that they subscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid. cap. 9  not willingly, but of Necessity, consenting by their Words and Writings, but not with their Hearts.  
And as this Force and Violence hath had this fatal Influence on many to deny the Truth, and to embrace, or at the least profess the contrary, so hath it as effectually prevailed on others to conceal the Truth, or not appear in its Defence, when they were inwardly convinced of it, lest they should pull a Storm upon their Heads, and should expose themselves unto the Censures of prevailing Persons, and to the Fury of their Enemies. Thus Sozomen informs us, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 10.  that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for fear of the Emperor Constantius, both the East and West seemed to agree in the Faith. Theodoret informs that there were some in his time who held the Truth of Apostolical Doctrine, 
Ep. 135.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but, fearing the Power of their Governors, they durst not publish it, they sigh, and groan for the increase of Evils, but yet they are carried away with the Authors of them. Thus, saith he, I believe it is with thee, O Bishop Romulus, thou art sound in the Faith, but only out of Fear thou servest the Times.  
Isidore Peleusiota, also tells us, that there were some who lived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. 5. Ep. &. Ep. 126.  according to the Apostolic Rule, but they durst not open their Mouths, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being afraid of the Multitude of the Wicked. 
Monotessaron p. 309.  Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, saith, sunt nonnulli, imo forsitan multi, there are some, yea, perhaps many, who are of the same Opinion with Berengarius, and yet condemn him with the Church; which, without doubt, they did through Fear of running his Fate; 
Paralip. ad Abbat. Vrsperg. p. 448. Ed. Bas. 1569.  whence one of their Writers tells us they were wont to say, Sic dicerem in Scholis, sed tamen maneat inter nos, diversum sentio, Thus would I speak in the Schools, but, keep it secret, I think otherwise.  
Let us then seriously consider how much the Church of Rome, for these Five last Centuries, hath outdone all that ever Heathen or Arian Persecutors have attempted in her Severities towards those whom she is pleased to call Heretics. That,  
1. She hath taken the greatest Care for the Discovering and apprehending them, authorising by her papal Bulls, 
Const. Innocent. 4. c. 19 Clem 4. Cons. 13. l. 18. Concil. To. 11. p. 606.  imperial Constitutions, her canon Law, and her conciliar Definitions, Inquisitors, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, etc. to require the Magistrates Assistance in enquiring after, and apprehending Heretics, and enabling these Inquisitors, etc. 
Consil. Const. Sess. 45. Bin. To. 7. p. 1121.  to tender a corporeal Oath to all suspect of Heresy, that is, of holding any thing in Contradiction to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, to answer to such Questions as they shall propose, for clearing of themselves, and to condemn them as Heretics, if they do not thus purge themselves: 
Decretal. l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 5. Concil. Lat. 4. Can. 3  That she gives them Power to require the Magistrates Assistance in enquiring after, and apprehending Heretics, and to engage by Oath all Earls, Barons, Rectors and Consuls, and the whole Neighbourhood efficaciously to assist the Church according to their Power in this Work, and to endeavour to give Notice of such Persons and secure them.  
2ly. 
Const. Fred. 2. Concil. T. 11. p 622. Ludou. 7. Ib. p. 423. Concil. Lat. 4. Can. 3. lat. 3. cap. 23.  That she obliges all secular Powers to extirpate them, and all their Favourites, upon the pain of Excommunication, loss of their Dominions, and being deemed Favourers of Heretics, and doth encourage all Men to fight against, and labour to destroy them, by the Promise of Remission of Sins, and a great Reward hereafter.  
3ly. That she hath decreed, 
Concil. lat. 3. c. 27. Quartum can. 3. Constan. Sess. 45. Bin. T. 7. p. 1121. Const. Freder. 2. Concil. T. 11. p. 619, 621. Ludov. 7. p. 423.  That they shall suffer Excommunication, with all the Consequences of it, loss of Goods, and when imprisoned, any Punishment which doth not diminish their Members, or endanger their Death, and that after Sentence passed upon them, they shall be punished with Death, and want of Christian Burial.  
4ly. That for the Execution of these Punishments, 
Const. Innocent. 4. Clem. 4. Alex. 4. decretal. l. 5. T. 2. c. 9, 11. Concil. Tolos. c. 7. Albiens. c. 7. Concil. T. 11. p. 428, 723. vide ibid. p 698, 726, 727.  without Delay or Relaxation, or enquiry into the Justice of them, all Governors shall have a Copy of those Laws, and shall abolish all that contradict them, and at their Entrance on their Government, shall swear to execute them; and such as will not execute them, or are remiss in doing it, shall lose their Office, have their Jurisdiction interdicted, and be proceeded against as Favourers of Heretics.  
Again let us seriously consider farther.  
1. That it was in those Ages deemed Heresy, to contradict the Doctrine of the Roman Church; 
Sess. 45. Edit. 1499.  or in the Language of the Council of Constance, de fidei Articulis aliter sentire aut docere quam Sancta Romana Ecclesia & Vniversalis praedicat, to think or teach otherwise of the Articles of Faith than the Holy Roman or universal Church preacheth and observes.  
2ly. That when Transubstantiation was established in the Fourth Council of Lateran, then were also made the severe and sanguinary Decrees now mentioned against Heretics, to force Men against all the Evidence of Sense and Reason to profess that Article.  
3ly. That the Council of Constance having established the Practice of Communion in one kind for a Law, 
Sess. 45.  it concludes with a Decree, enacting all the aforesaid Punishments against Heretics, viz. Against those who believe not the Supreme Authority of the Pope over the Church, the Infallibility of general Councils, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Lawfulness of Communion in one kind, the necessity of auricular Confession, the Power of the Pope to confer Indulgences, the lawfulness of venerating Relics, and the Images of Saints, etc.  
4ly. That in these persecuting Ages Men were afraid to profess what they believed, or to oppose themselves against the Torrent of their Adversaries; 
Libro sine Tirulo Epist. 11. Epist. de Egressu ex Babylone p. 177.  thus Petrarch declares, That he durst scarcely speak the Truth for fear of Enemies: Clemangis, That Men followed the erring Herd, willingly embracing false things for true, and desiring rather to be mad with the multitude, than to be wise alone with danger and derision. Erasmus confesseth, That there were some things received in the Church, quae magno Religionis Christianae bono mutarentur, which to have changed would tend to the great good of the Church; but being desired to put his helping Hand to the Work, he saith, per alios ego fieri malim, quam per me; I had rather others should do this than myself: And that, 1. Out of fear that by attempting it he might create a Tumult and Sedition in the Church, which, saith he, I so much abhor, ut veritas etiam displiceat seditiosa, that even Truth purchased by Sedition is displeasing to me. 2. Out of the sense of the great hazard he should run, and the little hopes he had of good success: I should be more free, saith he, 
Apud Hottinger. Hist. Eccl. Sect. 16. Part. 2 p. 24, 25, 29  could I see hopes of success; but, dementiae est tibi perniciem accersire si nulli prosis, it is madness to destroy myself, when I cannot profit any by it.  
I say whosoever weighs these things will be convinced, that by these cruel methods great Errors might prevail without much contradiction; and many Ancient, but decried Truths might lie concealed, and stifled in the breasts of Learned Men, expecting a more favourable opportunity to bring them forth. For if the severity of Heathen and Arian Persecutions had such sad Effects upon so many in the most pious and learned Ages of the Church, whilst they continued to be exercised; these R. Cruelties being confessedly exercised for almost Five whole Centuries, might easily engage the generality of Men, in the more Ignorant and Vicious Ages of the Church, to own the corrupt Doctrines and Practices her Governors had introduced, or to abstain at least from making any free and public opposition to them.  
To conclude: These being the chief Causes which naturally tend to the Introduction of new Practices and Doctrines, viz. 1. False Rules and Measures used for Disquisition of the Truth; from which it is not to be wondered that false Conclusions should arise: Or 2. True Rules misapplied and misconstrued, and therefore actually false to them who thus mistake the Purpose of them. 3. The Admiration of the Persons, and the Reverence of the Authority of Men subject to like Mistakes and Errors with us. 4. The Advantages we may obtain by the promoting of some Doctrines, the Tendency they have to the gratifications of our Avarice, our Pride and love of Empire and other sinful lusts. 5. The Corruptions in our Manners which dispose and fit us for Delusions. 6. That Ignorance and Negligence in reference to Sacred things which rendereth us an easy prey to the Deluders subtlety. 7. Lastly, The Force, and Terror, and Torments, and Punishments which may be used to affright us into an outward, and Hypocritical profession of what we do not from our hearts believe, or a concealment of our inward Sentiments; I Say, these being the chief inducements to a change in Doctrine, or in Practice, and all these things so palpably, and frequently concurring to the establishment of the New Doctrines, and the supposed Traditions of the Church of Rome, what wonder is it that they should so mightily obtain in the dark Ages of the World, and by those methods carry all before them?  
And truly 'tis so evident that upon the concurrence of those circumstances, the true Faith might decay; and Error might be introduced in the Western Churches, that the Historians, 
Carol. Mag. Cent. 8.  and Writers of those dark and evil Ages do confess it actually was so: That the Priests brought into the Church such Doctrines as were never known to Christ and his Apostles; 
Rolwink. ad A. Christi 884.  That this was tempus pessimum, in quo defecit sanctus, & veritates diminutae sunt a filiis hominum, the worst of times, in which the Holy man failed, and Truth was diminished from the sons of men; 
Baron. A. D. 912. Carthus. fasciculo temporum ad A. 1000  That the Ancient Traditions were then proscribed; That the Christian Faith extremely did begin to fail, and decline from its former vigour; neither the Sacraments nor Ecclesiastical Rites being observed; 
Apol. Clerus Leod. A.D. 1066 Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad A.D. 1237. p. 438. Alvar. Pelag. de. planctu Eccl. l. 2. c. 5. Cent. 14.  That the Holy Philosophy by the subtle interpretation of Sycophants began to be corrupted, polluted, violated with human Inventions, and old wives Fables; That the spark of Faith began to wax exceeding cold, and was almost reduced to ashes, so that it scarce did sparkle; That the Church was eclipsed with the black mist of Ignorance, Iniquity and Error; That they did not only not receive sound Doctrine, but bitterly persecuted all that resisted the madness of their wills; 
Clemang. de Egressu ex Bab. p. 177. Cent. 15.  And that following the erring herd, men willingly embraced false things for true; That the variety of Pictures and Images occasioned Idolatry in the Simple; That Apocryphal Scriptures, 
Gerson de defect. Eccles. Virorum 30. idem de direct. Cordis. Consid. 16.  Hymns and Prayers were brought into the Church to the great hurt of Christian faith; That there was much Superstition in the Worship of Saints, and many Observations without all ground or reason; Credulity in believing things concerning the Saints reported in the uncertain Legends of their Lives, 
Ibid. Consid. 29, 30.  dubious opinions of obtaining Pardon, and Remission of Sins by saying so many Pater Nosters in such a Church before such an Image, as if in the Scripture, and Authentic Writings of Holy Men, there were not sufficient directions for all Acts of Piety, and Devotion, without these fabulous and frivolous additaments; That sundry lewd assertions, 
Dial. Apol. Judicium de Can. Const.  prejudicial to the States of Kings and Princes, could not be condemned in the Council of Constance, though many great ones much urged their condemnation, by reason of a mighty Faction which prevailed in it; 
Ibid.  That exorbitant Abuses and Errors which were crept into the Church found no amendment, nor was a Reformation in things concerning Faith, 
Card. Camer. de Squall. Ecoles'. p. 34.  and Religion, Doctrine, and Manners to be expected till the Secular Powers took it in hand; That Pagan Abuses, and Diabolical Superstitions were so many at Rome that they could not well be imagined; 
Cent. 16.  That they were fallen with one consent from Religion to Superstition, 
Bishop of Bitonto and Espencaeus Vide Supra.  from Faith to Infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist; That there was such a neglect of the Word, as made it necessary that Faith should perish; That the Faith and Religion Preached by Christ, and settled afterwards by his Apostles and cultivated by their Epistles, is so different a thing from that Christianity that is now professed, and taught at Rome, that if these Holy Men should be sent again by God into the world, they would take more pains to confute this Gallimaufry, than ever they did to preach down the Traditions of the Pharisees, 
Machiavil Epist. ad Zanob. Buon Delmont before his works in English.  or the Fables, and Idolatry of the Gentiles, and would in probability suffer a New Martyrdom under the Vicar of Christ for the same Doctrine which once animated the Heathen Tyrants against them. He that desires to read more of the Confessions made by the few comparatively learned of these Ages of the corruptions both in doctrine and manners, and the prodigious ignorance which then obtained, may find more than enough in a book Styled, Catalogus testium veritatis, and Morney 's Mystery of Iniquity.   

OF TRADITION. The State of the Question.  

CHAP. I.  
1. It is acknowledged, that a Doctrine is neither more or less the Word of God for being written or unwritten, §. 1. 2dly. It is proved, That the assurance which we have that Scripture is the Word of God, is greater than can be produced for any pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome. The Grounds of this assurance are, 1. The necessity that the Word of God should be preserved in some Records, and the certainty we have that actually it was so. 2. That the Records of the New Testament aver, That they were written by the Servants and Apostles of our Lord, whose Names they by a general and uncontrolled Tradition bear, and so by Men assisted with the Holy Ghost, and writing the Commandments of the Lord. 3. That the matter of them is worthy of the God of Heaven to reveal. 4. That they were owned, read, and appealed to as such by all Christians. 5. The Jews and Heathens made their Objections against Christianity out of them, and attempted the ruin of the Christian Faith by destroying them; and that none of these particulars agree to the Traditions of the Church of Rome rejected by us, §. 2. For farther Explication of the Question observe, 2dly. That our Dispute with the Church of Rome is chief about doctrinal, and not historical Traditions, §. 3. The uncertainty of historical Traditions, showed, 1. In the Instance of our Lord's Birth, Clauso utero, §. 4. Of his Age, §. 5. Of the penetration of his Body through the Doors and the Stone of the Sepulchre, §. 6. Of the Story of the Phoenix, §. 7. And of the Cells of the Seventy Interpreters, §. 8. Observe 3dly. That we contend not with the Church of Rome touching Ecclesiastical Traditions concerning Ceremonials and unnecessary Observations, but only touching necessary Rules of Faith and Manners, §. 9  
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 spoke 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 Catholic 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 equalise 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, 
Dust. 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, and were as Certain as Universal, 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 Universal 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 Usher 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 descent from Catholics 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 styles them vain; you therefore must have equal Reason to receive those Traditions which condemn your Jesus, and show 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. Judas, 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 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 Abridgement 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 Vtero; 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 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 expressly 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, etc. 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 shows that this was in his time only the saying of some Men, attending to the Fable of the false Gospel of St. James, That the Midwives after her delivery found by Inspection, that she was a Virgin, and that others held the contrary; for, saith he, It seemed to many, and yet seemeth, that Mary was by the Birth of her Son a Woman properly delivered of a Child, though she was not, 
Strom. l. 7. p. 756.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Woman properly delivered; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for some say that being inspected by the Midwives after the Birth of her Son, she was found a Virgin. 
De Incarn. l. 14 cap. 6. §. 1.  He respects, saith Petavius, the Old Wife's Tale, invented by some idle Trifler, which we find in Suidas, and in the Protoevangelium 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 Forty 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 testify the truth of the Relation.  
To say with Fevardentius upon the place, that he might have had this from Papias, is a very unlikely thing, for he speaks not of the Testimony of one Man, but of all the Seniors; not of Men who had never seen the Apostles, as Papias had not, but of them who had; he citys 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. Fevard. 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 aver, 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 Fevardentius, say the same. And yet this was no better than an Opinion first invented by the Gnostics, 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 Father's living in the former Centuries, as that of our Lords coming out of the Womb of the Virgin without opening of it did, why might not other Traditions pretended by some later Councils and the Church of Rome be of like nature? Why may we not credit the Council of Frankford, 
In lib. Carol. p. 3. c. 30.  declaring that the Second Nicene Council for their pretended Tradition of Image-Worship, had recourse, ad Apocryphas quasdam & risu dignas naenias, to Apocryphal and Ridiculous Tales. 
Comment. in 2. ad Tim. p. 155.  Or Espencaeus a Romanist, confessing, that they defended it, daemonum Spectris & muliebribus Somniis, with diabolical Apparitions and old Wife's Dreams; especially when, as he there saith, this we see in the very Synod, which approves and urgeth in confirmation of it, the Tale of Constantine's Leprosy, and of his Baptism by Pope Sylvester, 
Def. Constant. contr. Baril. c. 10, 11. adversus Spalat. c. 65. p. 458, 459.  and of the Images of Paul and Peter produced then to him; the Tale of the Image sent to Agbarus, of the Passion of the Image of Christ at Beryth, and that infamous Tale of the old Fornicating Monk, all confuted and exposed by Learned Crakanthorp, and a late 
* Cap. 5. p. 22, 23.  excellent Discourse of the Second Nicene Council.  
If Irenaeus could so early pretend to a Testimony of all the Elders of the Church of Asia, for a matter of apparent falsehood, if others in the Second and Third Century could frame a contrary Doctrine, from such a weak allusion to a Prophetic 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 Judgement, 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 infer 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 enforce us to conclude, that our Lord did not by his power open the Doors, or come in any other way.  
And whosoever seriously considers the circumstances of the Text, will find good Reason to believe, that Christ did not thus penetrate through the Doors as they imagined, for the Apostle doth inform us, ver. 20. that Christ when he was come among them shown 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 myself, 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 entered in to them after the manner, not of a Body, but a Spirit, he had done that which must have staggered 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 refer this Action with the Fathers to Christ's Almighty Power, why might not his Disciples, if they did the like, mistrust that by the selfsame power, he, who did this, might make that Body which appeared to them, seem to have Flesh and Bones, and Prints of Wounds, when it had not?  
When our Roman Doctors shall have answered this Scruple, 
Pseudo-Justin, Nazianz. Chrysostom, St. Jerom, Austin, Euthymius. Apud Maldonatum in Matth. xxviij. 2.  I shall pay greater Reverence to the Authority of the Fathers of the Fourth and the ensuing Centuries touching this matter, but till then I shall continue as much to Scruple Christ's penetration with his Body through the Doors, as I do that other fine Invention of some of the same Fathers, that our Lord's Body at his Resurrection, penetrated through the Stone of the Sepulchre.  
But besides all these Instances there are two celebrated in Church-History, which are abundantly sufficient to discover the uncertainty of the pretences to Tradition in such Cases, even according to the Judgement 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  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 publicly 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 Palmtree, 
Ps. xcij 12.  to this Bird, because the same Greek word signifies both a Palmtree 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 Egyptians 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 styled Apostolical,— The Verses which pass under the Name of Lactantius,— The Epistle under the Name of Jerome to Praesidius say the same thing. And yet this Story is deservedly now rejected by the best Writers of the Church of Rome. 
Const. Apost. & Lact. ubi sup. Epiph. & Hieron. ibid.  And whosoever considers the Heathenism mixed with it; viz. That this Bird comes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Altar of the Sun, and doth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pray to the Sun; and when she is to be consumed, she goes to the Priest of Heliopolis, and enters with him into the Temple; that the new Bird which ariseth out of her Ashes, 
Epiph. Phys. c. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saluteth the same Pagan Priest, and taking up the Bones of her Consumed Parent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lays them upon the Altar of the Sun.  
I say, Whosoever well considers of these things, 
Not. in Clem. P. 90.  will find sufficient cause to say with Cotelerius, Mirum cunctis Christianis non suboluisse fraudem ob Paganismum fabellae permistum, It is to be wondered that the Paganism mixed with this Fable, discovered not the Cheat unto all Christians.  
The Second is the Story of the Cells of the Septuagint, §. 8 in which they are said to have been severally placed when they Translated the Old-Testament from the Hebrew into Greek, and yet to have performed this Translation all in the same words. This Justin Martyr having related, useth these words, 
Exhort. ad Graec. p. 13, 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; These things we report to you Gentiles not as Fables, or as feigned 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 Scriptures, Our Faith is firm, and not feigned, 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, expressly 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 expressly 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, 
Prologue. 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, 
Nou. Biblioth. part. 1. dissert. praelim. p. 82, 88  This is une fiction des Juifs, to which the Father's  yielded their assent. F. Simon saith, That all which the Fathers have said of the Seventy Interpreters, excepting some few things feigned afterwards by the Jews, were taken out of Aristaeus, 
Disq. Crit. c. 15. p. 109.  whom all judicious Critics 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 Judgement of St. Jerom, and the Grave Authors of our Age is to be preferred; 
C. 14. p. 115.  for the Father's being only skilled in Greek and Latin, de rebus sibi incognitis quidquam certi definire non potuerunt, could say nothing certain of things unknown to themselves; indeed, saith he, in matters of Faith, the consent of the Doctors of the Church hath in it something of Divine; 
C. 16. p. 130.  at ille cordatus non est, nec religiosus, but he is not sincere or Religious, who in things which are not of Faith, fears to departed from the Sentence of the Fathers, and had rather believe other men's 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 Catholic, 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 gainsaid 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 patronised by the Church of Rome, against the constant Judgement of the whole Catholic 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 Judgement? Must she not have rejected the Sentence of the whole Church Catholic 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 Baptised Persons, the Words used at the Consecration of that, and of the other Sacrament, the Kiss of Charity, the Lent Fast, the Worship of God towards the East, Prayer standing on the Lord's Day, etc. 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; Upon 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 prescript. c. 15. Cap. 38. Adu. 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 Universal 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 perperam fiebat; That which was ill done, aught 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 quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scriptures 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.  
Fourthly, For Explication of the Question observe, That the Tradition we admit is the Tradition of all past Ages, and not that of the present Church, and much less of the Church of Rome, §. 1. This also is the Tradition pleaded by Origen, St. Basil and St. Austin, and which 'tis suitable to Reason to allow, Ibid. The Testimony of the present Church of Rome, and her Adherents, can be no sure Evidence of true Apostolical Tradition, 1. Because she actually hath imposed false Doctrines and Practices as Apostolical Tradition. 2. Because she hath no better Right to testify in this Matter than the Eastern Churches, §. 2.3. Because her present Testimony contradicts the Testimony of the whole Church in general, and of the Roman Church in particular, in former Ages, §. 3. 1. Touching the number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament. 2. Of the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 3. Of the number of the Sacraments. 4. Of Concomitance. 5. Of pronouncing part of the Mass in a low Voice. 6. Of the Veneration of Images. 7. Of Communion in one Kind. 8. Of her Twelve new Articles. 9 Of the no necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants, Ibid. 4. Because this Doctrine makes Scripture, Reason and Antiquity not only useless but pernicious to us, §. 4. More Instances of the Contradiction betwixt the Decrees of the Ancient Catholic Church, and of the present Church of Rome, 1st. In the Decree of the Trent Council, touching the Freedom of the Blessed Virgin from Actual Sin, §. 5. 2dly. In the permission that Church gives to eat things Strangled and Blood, §. 6. In punishing Men with Death for their Religion, §. 7. In not breaking the Bread they distribute; not permitting the Communicants to carry it home; not Consecrating it with a loud Voice, §. 8. In the Matter of the Immaculate Conception, though not conciliarly defined, §. 9 Seven Corollaries from this Instance, §. 10.  
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 practise 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 Catholic 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 Church's Business being to Believe, to Preach and Testify, 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 Catholic Doctrine which was held in all places, all times, and 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 gins 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 Apostolic 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 Catholic Church. The Oriental Patriarches in the Council of Florence allow, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hist. Concil. Flor. §. 3. c. 3.  that others should be their Vicars, and that they would assent to what was done in that Council, provided that they acted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Traditions of the Holy Ecumenical Synods, and the Holy Doctors of the Church, and that nothing were added to, or taken from, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or was innovated in the Faith.  
The Legates of Iberia in the same Council speak thus to the Pope, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 
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 Ecumenical 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 show 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 Landmarks 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 Catholic 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, than 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 Catholic 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 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 Catholic 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 uncanonical.  
2. 
Ibid. Sess. 4.  She holds at present, That it is a Tradition preserved by continual Succession in the Church Catholic, 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 Catholic 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 Seru. 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 Catholic 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. Seru. c. 16. p. 69.  proceeded, ex Apostolica Doctrina & Traditione, from the Apostolical Tradition and Discipline, whereas it 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 Catholic and Apostolic 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 Judgement of the Church, to declare and teach, That Laics, and Clerks not consecrating, are not obliged to receive the Sacrament in both Kind's, whereas it hath been proved that for a Thousand Years the contrary was both the Judgement 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 comprised 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 Catholic 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, than 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 show them throughout 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 overrule 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 Judgement 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 Judgement 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 signify that the Blessed Virgin was guilty of some Fault or Error. And though some have endeavoured, saith Petavius, to mollify the Say 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 Say do so expressly import the signification of some guilt, that they cannot be wrested to another sense; and that they had good reason to 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 expressly 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 scandalised, and, saith he, can we think that the Apostles being Scandalised, 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 Marry also at that time was scandalised. 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 herself, 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 upon this account, That Christ was to taste Death for all, to be the propitiation for the World, and to justify all Men by his Blood. 
In Psalm. 118.  St. Hilary declares, That at the Day of Judgement 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 Judgement, 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 mere 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 despising 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 happened so unexpectedly, 

Tom 4. p. 1064, 1065, 1066.  
Vid. eundem orat. in occursum Domini, p. 391.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 1064.   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did likely scandalise her, and put her somewhat besides herself into indecent Passions; For doubt not, saith he, but she had some such reasonings within herself as these, I conceived him who is now laughed at on the Cross, perhaps he was deceived in saying he was the true Son of God. He saying I am the Life, how should he then be Crucified? How was he taken in the Snares of his Murderers? 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 Lord's Passion, seeing St. Peter, who was preferred before the rest of the Apostles, was scandalised 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 spoke unto her thus, A Sword shall pass through thy own Soul, to signify 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 Sense 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 itself, let him be deposed; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for this the Law hath forbidden; if he be a Layman, 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 forbade 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, lest 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 eaten 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 instructs his Catecumen, That the Apostles and James the Bishop of Jerusalem had writ a Catholic 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 choked 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 Judgement 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 itself, 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 vl 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 itself, 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 itself, 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. Balls. 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 shows 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, than 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 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 Heretics, to punish any man with death for his Religion or his Heresy, 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 Heretic. 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 itself 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, lest 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 Judgement of the Doctors of the Catholic 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 Murder. 
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, That nullis tamen bonis, in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, hoc placet, si usque ad mortem in quenquam, licet Haereticum, saeviatur; No good Man in the Catholic Church allowed of the punishment of Heretics 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 entreat 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 proceed against Heretics. 4. Because this harsh proceeding would deter the Catholics from seeking the protection of the Magistrate against Heretics. 5. Because the Person who inflicts, and the Church who permits these Punishments to be inflicted, would both have cause to fear the Judgement 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 Judgement of a whole Council of his Brethren.  
3. This, say they, is alien from Catholics, and proper unto Heretics and Heathens. The Synod of Alexandria consisting of the Bishops of Egypt, 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 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 entreated 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 solicitous to preserve the Heretics 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, lest 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 Catholic 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 Heretics, 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 Heretics 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 destruction of them; after so many Thousands of them burnt in Roman Catholic Dominions, by virtue of the Sentence passed upon them in Ecclesiastical Courts; after so many great Massacres of them, by Men of that Communion, without any Censure passed 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 Heretic; 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 Catholics allow it; that they judge it Damnable; that they who act thus against Heretics are Disturbers of the Church's Peace, and separate themselves from her Unity; that they may expect their Judge should require the Lives of these Heretics at their Hands, and should inflict his Judgements 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 Catholic Communion; that is, she cannot say that she is now of the avowed Judgement of the Ancient Church of Christ in this Affair.  
It were easy to give many other Instances in which the present practice of the Church of Rome, §. 8 is plainly opposite to that of the Church Catholic 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 Profanation 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 Seru. c. 5. P. 75, 76.  and say Amen to it. Justinian 's Novel commands all Christian Bishops, subject to his Empire, so to read it, and that by virtue of an Apostolical command to do so: Nor did any Christian, that we read of in those Ages, gainsay, oppose, or contradict either this Edict, or the reason of it; whereas now the Church of Rome commands, that the words of Consecration should be pronounced, voce submissa, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. can. 9  with a low Voice, and Anathematizeth all who condemn that Custom.  
3. The Fathers generally take notice of, and lay great stress upon the breaking of the Bread distributed to the People; 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ep. ad Philad. §. 4.  
Fractus panis fit Eucharistia corporis Christi, l. 5. c. 2.  
Caten. in Matth. xxvi. 28.   One Loaf was broken for all, saith Ignatius: The broken Bread is made the Eucharist of the Body of Christ, saith Irenaeus. Christ, saith Cyril of Alexandria, gives us an example first to give Thanks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so to break the Bread, and to distribute it. Frangimus in Sanctificationem nostram, We break it for our Sanctification, 
Ep. Paschal. 1. Hom. 24. in 1. ad Cor. p. 256.  saith Theophilus of Alexandria. In the Eucharist he suffers himself to be broken, saith Chrysostom, that he may fill all. Ad distribuendum comminuitur, It is broken in pieces that it may be distributed, 
Ep. 59 qu. 5.  saith St. Austin. The Flesh of Christ, in populi salutem partitur, is divided for the Salvation of the People, saith P. Gregory. 
Dial. l. 4. c. 58.  By taking a whole Loaf, and breaking it, and giving a part of it to his Disciples, he signified without doubt, quod nos in posterum facturos edocuit, that which he taught us to do afterwards, saith the Sixteenth Council of Toledo. The Action of the Mass, 
A.D. 693. c. 6. Apud Baron. Tom. 11. p. 1008. & contr. Graec. ibid. p. 971.  saith Humbert, is not complete 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 broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, or that the Primitive Church continued in the Apostles Doctrine, & in communicatione fractionis panis, and in the Communication of broken Bread. But though all the Evangelists take especial notice of this Action, though St. Luke, according to many Commentators, thought it of so great moment, as to express the whole Eucharist by breaking of Bread, yet is this Action, though of our Lord's own practice and Institution, wholly laid aside by the Roman Church, which distributes whole Wafers, and not broken Bread.  
But to omit innumerable Instances of this nature, §. 9 I shall conclude with that of the supposed Freedom of the Blessed Virgin from the guilt of Original Sin; for it was doubtless the Tradition of the Universal 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, since 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 easy 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 Lions, 
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 Say 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 Schoolmen, 
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, 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. come. 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 citys them from the Fourth to the Thirteenth Century. 
Disp. 51. in Epist. ad Rom.  Cajetan brings for it Fifteen Fathers in his Judgement irrefragable; others produce 200. Blandellus almost 300, saith Salmeron. 
Dogm. Theolog. Tom 4. part. 2. l. 14. cap. 2.  Petavius gins 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 Judgement 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 public Profession; so that a Holiday was, by solemn and public 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 inclined to this Opinion, because it had, communem consensum omnium sidelium, Sect. 10 the common consent of all the Faithful, upon whose concurrent Judgement it behoves us, saith Paulinus Nolanus, to depend, quia in omnem fidelem Spiritus Dei spirat, because the Spirit of God breathes 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 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 Catholic Doctrine. In which last words he speaks agreeably to the judgement of their Doctors; for though the Council of Basil expressly 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 Catholic 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 public Sermons, Lectures, Conclusions, and any public 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 than 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, expressly 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 Vulgar, but the Doctors and Divines, and all Catholics 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 Universal 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 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Universal 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 judgement 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 Catholic Faith, to Reason, and to Holy Scripture, which is repugnant to the Ancient Doctrine of the Church Catholic, for Eight whole Centuries.  
6. Hence is it manifest, that the Trent Council hath given liberty to all her Members to hold that which is opposite to an universal, constant, unopposed Tradition of the Church for many Ages; that is, that she hath left them at their liberty to hold the Ancient Faith, or hold the contrary.  
7. Hence it appears, that in the Church of Rome Feasts may be instituted in which all men shall be exhorted to praise God for a thing which perhaps never was; and of the truth of which none of her Members can be certain, certitudine fidei; with the certainty of Faith, all of them being by this Church permitted to believe the contrary.   

CHAP. III.  
Fifthly, We distinguish betwixt Traditions, which, though not written in Scripture, are left on Record in the Ecclesiastical writings of the first and purest Ages of the Church, and such as are so purely Oral Traditions, as that we find no footsteps of them in the Three first Centuries, much less any assurance they had then any general Reception; of the first kind is the Canon of Scripture of the Old Testament mentioned in our Sixth Article, §. 1. This is proved from the Jews, §. 2. From the Christians of the Second Century, §. 3. Of the Third Century, §. 4. From almost all the celebrated Writers of the Fourth Century, §. 5. Where also it is observed, 1. That these Fathers profess to deliver that Catalogue of them, which they had received from Tradition, §. 6. And that the Books which they rejected as Apocryphal were so reputed by the Church, §. 7. That the Catalogue they produced was that received not only by the Jews but Christians, §. 8. That they made it to prevent mistakes, §. 9 That they represent the Books contained in their Catalogue as the Fountain of Salvation, the rest as insufficient to confirm Articles of Faith, §. 10. The same Tradition still continued to the Sixteenth Century, §. 11. What the Roman Doctors must do if they would show a like Tradition for any of their Tenets, §. 12. The unreasonableness of their pretences to Tradition in this Article, Ibid. The Attempts of Mr. M. and J. L. to prove their Canon from the Council of Carthage; the Testimony of St. Austin, the Decrees of Pope Innocent and Gelasius are Answered, §. 13. The Tradition touching the Books of the New Testament, where it is proved, 1. That the Four Evangelists, the Acts, the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the First of Peter and of John were always owned as Canonical by all Orthodox Christians, §. 14. 2. That it cannot be necessary to Salvation to be assured that the Books formerly controverted belong to the Canon, §. 15. 3. That we cannot be assured of the true Canon of the New Testament from the Testimony of the Latin Church, §. 16. 4. That there is not the like necessity that the controverted Books should have been generally received from the beginning, as that all necessary Articles of Christian Faith and Manners, should be then generally received, §. 17. That we have cause sufficient to own as Canonical the Books once controverted is proved, 1. in the General, §. 18. 2. In Particular, touching the Apocalypse, §. 19 And the Epistle to the Hebrews, §. 20. Touching the Epistle of St. James, the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of John, the Epistle of St. Judas, §. 21. No Orthodox Persons dobuted of them after the Fourth Century, §. 22. The Romanists cannot prove their Doctrines by any like Traditions, and in particular not by such a Tradition as proves the Apocalypse Canonical, §. 23. The Objection of Mr. M. Answered, §. 24.  
AGain, §. 1 the word Tradition may be applied to signify 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 signify 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 styled. For Instance,  
First, We receive the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old Testament mentioned in our Sixth Article, because it is by written Tradition handed down unto us from the Jews, from Christ and his Apostles, and from their Successors in the Church, and we reject the Canon of the Old Testament imposed upon us by the Fourth Session of the Trent Council, partly because we find a clear Tradition both virtually by all who say the Canon of the Old Testament is only that we own, and expressly by those who say the others which we style 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 styled 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, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ibid.  and learning thence the exact number of them, he sent their Names to Onesimus, numbering 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 owned, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  and that he thought it necessary to preserve this Catalogue of them in writing to Posterity. Here than we find upon the first enquiry, after the Death of the Apostles, a Catalogue exactly form from the East, and from Jerusalem, agreeing with the Judgement of the whole Church of God, and as exactly with the judgement 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 concurs 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, styled, 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 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 Judgement; 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 expressly of the same Judgement.  
Ruffinus having numbered the Books of the Old Testament as we do, adds, That in these Books the Fathers did comprise tha● number of the Books of the Old Testament.  
St. Hilary saith, 
Prologue. 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 complete 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 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 Ecumenical Synod, and give us the concurring judgement 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 learned 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, 
Prologue. 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 publicly 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 comprised 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 spoke 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 Catechised 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, 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 style 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 Heretics, saith Athanasius, as of Dead persons, 
Apud Balsam. p. 920, 921.  and of ourselves, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as having the Holy Scriptures for Life, and because I fear lest some harmless Men, through their Simplicity and Ignorance, may be deceived by the subtle 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 entreat you to bear with me, if, by way of remembrance, I writ 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 learn which they are. These, saith Ruffinus, are the Traditions of the Father's 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 signify 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 spoke when he said to the Pharisees, You err, 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 thyself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 St. Paul 's,) saith, I entreat 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 inquire 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, etc. 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 Palestine, 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 Poitiers in France, Jerom, who lived in Rome, France, Dalmatia, Syria, Palestine, who traveled into Cyprus, Egypt, 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 expressly exclude; or at least omit all, or most of all those Books which we style 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 expressly 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 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, numbering 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 Ambrose 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 expressly 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 Canonised. 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 style Apocryphal they say, 
Ibid. P. 151.  These are the Books which are contradicted, and not received by the Church. The Books of the Old Testament which are not received by the Church; 
P. 152, 162, 177. P. 158, 159, 163, 169, 175  The Books which are read indeed, sed non scribuntur, non habentur in Canone, sed leguntur, ut scripta patrum, as are the Writings of the Fathers, but are not put into the Canon; non reputantur in Canone, are not reputed to belong unto it. The Books which the Church reads, and permits for Devotion, and the instruction of Manners, but thinks not their Authority sufficient, ad confirmandam Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum Authoritatem, 
P. 166, 173, 176, 191, 193.  to confirm the Authority of Ecclesiastical Doctrines. The Books which are not to be received ad confirmandum aliquid in fide, to confirm any Article of Faith. The Contents of which she obligeth no man to believe, 
P. 189, 190.  nor doth she judge him guilty of disobedience or infidelity who receives them not. Concerning which the Church receives the Testimony of St. Jerom, as most Sacred, 
P. 194.  who did undoubtedly exclude them from the Canon. To whom, say they, the Church Catholic is much indebted upon this account, 
P. 199.  and to whose sense the say 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 Forefathers; and saying, That the contrary Doctrine was not received by the Church. They must show, That, even from the first Ages of the Church, Christians were solicitous to inquire what were the Apostolical Traditions not left in writing to the Church; that upon this enquiry they found that these Traditions were of such a certain number, neither more, nor less; that they thought it necessary to preserve them by writing Catalogues of all such Traditions, as were received, or owned as such by Christians. That this Catalogue of Traditions was delivered to them by the Primitive Fathers, as they had been received by the whole Church, and that they had received them from Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word. That they took care to leave this Catalogue of Traditions, because some persons dared to mix Apocryphal Traditions with Divine, and that they made it out of necessity to prevent mistakes in this matter, and for the Instruction of those who received the first Rudiments of the Faith, that they might know out of what Fountains to draw the Waters of Tradition. They must produce from the first Four Centuries Testimonies of this nature, from Father's living in most places where there were any Christians, and Testimonies uncontrolled throughout those Centuries.  
And seeing one of these Traditions, viz. that which concerneth the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, is expressly 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 choose but think her Testimony is Infallible.  
Hence also we may see what an unparallelled confidence they show, when in their Disputations the Romanists are bold to say, and lay the stress of their whole certainty of Faith upon this Proposition, That they hold the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday, and so up to the time of our Saviour; seeing it is as clear as the Sun, that the Books of the Old Testament, which they now hold for Sacred and Canonical, were for Fifteen whole Centuries together, declared not to belong unto the Canon, but excluded from it by the Church.  
And this will be still more apparent by considering what the Authors of the Question of Questions, §. 13 and of The Papist Misrepresented, and Represented say, touching this matter. Mr. M. saith, 
Sect. 19 n. 6. p. 410.  That when it was grown doubtful in the Church, whether such and such Books were part of the Canon of Scripture, the Tradition which recommended these Books was examined in the Third Council of Carthage, and there all the Books of the R. Canon were found to be recommended to the Church by a true, and Authentical Tradition, and therefore we embrace them as the Word of God.  
And again, 
Sect. 3. n. 12. p. 84, 85, 86.  As yet the Church of Christ had not defined which Books were God's true word, which not; wherefore then it was free to doubt of such Books us were not admitted by such a Tradition of the Church as was evidently so universal, that it was clearly sufficient to ground an infallible belief; but in the days of St. Austin the Third Council of Carthage, A. 397. examined how sufficient the Tradition of the Church was which recommended these Books for Scripture, about which there was so much doubt and contrariety of Opinion; and they found all the Books contained in our Canon (of which you account so many Apocryphal) to have been recommended by a Tradition sufficient to ground Faith upon. For on this ground they proceeded in defining all the Books in our Canon to be Canonical. Pope Innocent the First, A. D. 402. St. Austin, P. Gelasius A. D. 492. confirm the same Canon, and the Sixth General Council celebrated A. D. 680. confirms the Council of Carthage, and the true Canon is again set forth in the Council of Florence A. 1438. And after these Declarations of the Council of Carthage and Pope Innocent, no one pertinaciously dissented from the Canon, but such as Protestants themselves confess to be Heretics.  
J. L. adds, That Gregory Nazianzen acknowledged them Canonical, and St. Ambrose, Lib. de Jacob & vitâ beatâ, and that since the Church's Declaration no Catholic 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 choose 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 expressly have informed us, that they delivered this Catalogue of the Twenty two Canonical Books of the Old Testament, as they received them from Tradition, Obs. 1. That they made this Enumeration of them to prevent mistakes in this matter, for the good of the Church, and that Men might know out of what Fountains to draw the Water of Life, and might clearly learn which were Canonical, Obs. 4. And as the Canon received, and owned not only by the Jewish, but the Christian Church, Obs. 3.  
Secondly, The falsehood of these bold Assertions hath been showed sufficiently in what hath been discoursed upon this subject; for had the Authority of the Books we style 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 Universal 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 Sense 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 expressly and frequently declared in a matter of Fact, as this hath been for the first Four Centuries, than 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 spoke these things in a flat opposition to what they had been taught by their Forefathers 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. Scholar 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 judgement 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 Universal 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 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 traveled 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 Canonised 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 style the Books there mentioned Canonical, but this may only, be in that large Sense 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 styled 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 Sense, 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 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 sense, 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 Catholic 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. 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 Latino's 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 than 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 Judgement alone can give us no assurance of the Books of the New Testament, because through two whole Centuries she actually erred in her Judgement of them. Hence also I infer, 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 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 show, 
De prescript. c. 36.  as saith Tertullian, Authenticas literas corum, the Authentic Letters of those Apostles, which indicted them, and could testify to those who doubted, as St. Austin saith, 
De Doctrine. 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;  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, etc. 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 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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.  showed and judged to be his by the Ancient, and holy Fathers led by the Spirit of God: And then concludes, 
Pag. 61.  These are the Canonical Books of the New Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as it were the first fruits, Anchors and supports of our Faith. St. Cyril is another who professeth to write his Catalogue from the Church, and to hand down the Canonical Books as she received them from the Apostles, the Ancient Bishops, and Governors of the Church; and he among the Canonical Books of the New Testament reckons the Seven Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Judas, 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 than 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 expressly declares, That a judgement 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, etc. 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 Prophetic 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 Hippolytus, 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 Martion the Heretic, 
Contra Martion. l. 4. c. 5. Haer. 51, 54. Haer. 30.  we learn from Tertullian; that it was rejected by the Alogians and Theodosian Heretics, we learn from Epiphanius and St. Austin; and that when some Orthodox Christians began to dislike the Doctrine of the Millennium, they began also to dispute, some the Author of this Book, ascribing it to another John, Presbyter at Ephesus; and others the Authority of it, because they could not answer the Testimony produced from the Twentieth Chapter, in favour of the Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years. But then their Arguments against it are only taken from some vain, and weak Imaginations of their own Brains, as, v. g. That St. John here names himself, which in his Gospel and Epistles he never doth; by which Argument we must reject either the Lamentations, or the Book of Jeremy. 2. Because he doth not use the same Expressions here, as he did there, that is, in a Prophetic Style 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 asiatics; or after he had more conversed with them who spoke 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, 
Verse 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 indicted 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 citys it as the Epistle of St. Paul in his Third and Seventh Book against Celsus, in his Philocalia, in his Dialogue, against Marcian, in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, in his Epistle to Africanus he undertakes to demonstrate, that it was his against such as doubted of it; and in his Fifth Tome upon John, he declares, That the things contained in it are admirable, 
Vid. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 25.  and no whit inserior to those which were confessedly writ by the Apostles, and that whatsoever Church received it as such, was upon that account to be commended. That this is the Epistle of St. Paul was in the Fourth Century denied 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 persuade 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 Schismatics 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 Heretics; or, 3. Because it wants his Name, which he concealed saith Jerom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Catal. Script. Eccl. verbo Paulus.  because his Name would render it less acceptable to the Hebrew Converts who were offended at his Doctrine of the Exemption of the Gentile Converts from Circumcision, and the Observation of the Law, saith Theodoret, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Proem. in Ep. ad Hebr.  because he was made an Apostle, not of the Circumcision, but of the Gentiles. 4. Because it differs in stile from the rest of his Epistles, as indeed it ought to do, being writ to the Hebrews, accustomed to the Hellenistick Style; 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, writ 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 Judas 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 Judas under his Name by Tertullian.  
Concerning the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of St. Judas, 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 expressly owned by Origen in his Seventh Honily upon Joshua. Of the Epistle of Judas 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 Catholic 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 publicly 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 ad certam fidem faciendam cuique Catholico sufficere debet, which proof must give sufficient certainty of it to any Catholic.  
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 Heretics, 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 writ 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 premises there is just ground to make this Inference, and Conclusion, That seeing most of the Catalogues of the Fourth Century given by Councils or by Fathers, and all the Catalogues of the Fifth Century, unquestionably assure us, that what was once controverted by some few, was afterwards unanimously received by all the Church of God, we are sufficiently assured of the true Canon of the Books of the New Testament. The evidence now produced, even of these controverted Books; being sufficient both in the judgement of all Catholics, 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 Catholic, 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 than the Roman. § 23 Doctors. may discern what it is they have to do, if they do undertake to show us such a Tradition for those Roman Doctrines we reject, as hath been showed 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 Catholic Faith, without which there is no Salvation, must be excluded from the Roman Creed.  
2. It must be also owned, that the pretended Traditions of the present R. Church were for some Centuries controverted, and rejected by whole Churches, Orthodox and Apostolical, and which were as such owned, and embraced by all Christians; and that some of them were, or at least might have been, for the first Four Centuries, disowned by the Church of Rome, as was one of these controverted Books; and consequently it must be owned, that she could not then be received as Mater & Magistra omnium Ecclesiarum; the Mother, and Mistress of all Churches.  
3. It must be proved, that there was the same necessity that these controverted Books should be known, and received from the beginning by all Christians, as that the necessary Traditions, and Articles of Christian Faith should be so.  
4. It must be proved, that these Traditions were always owned, and mentioned as Divine, and Apostolical Traditions, by many Orthodox Churches and Fathers; and even when controverted, were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, acknowledged by most of the Church Guides. To instance in the Apocalypse, which Mr. M. on all occasions singles out as a Book whose Authenticalness cannot be better proved, than their Traditions, let him show us any such Testimonies from the First, Second and Third Centuries, for the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome, as we have showed 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 than 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 falsely do presume they are Traditions; for as we could have no just reason to believe those which we own to be Traditions, did we not find them thus handed down to us in these Writings; so can we have no reason to receive the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome, because they are not handed down unto us in this manner.  
But saith Mr. M. Before we can know true Books, §. 24 and true Copies of Books from false, 
P. 407, 408.  we must first know true Tradition from false, that we assuredly may say, these are the true Books of Scripture, these are the true Copies of those Books, because true Tradition commends them for such; these be false Books, or false Copies of true Books, because the Tradition which commends these is false; tell me the means by which infallibly the true Tradition in this point may be known from the false, and that very means I will assign in other points to know true Tradition from false.  
This Objection I retort thus, Resp. before we can know true Tradition from false, we must know true Faith from false; for true Tradition is only the Tradition of the Faithful, that is, of those who do entirely believe all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith, and if I must first know this Faith, before I can know true Tradition, I cannot need Tradition to instruct me in the Christian Faith. Again, tell me the means by which I may know true Faith antecedently to Tradition, and the very same means will I assign to know the Faith of Protestants without it.  
2. This Argument in the Mouth of an unbelieving Jew that lived in the Days of Christ and his Apostles pleads as strongly for the vain Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, and the whole Jewish Nation, rejected by our Lord and his Apostles; as for the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome, v. g. you send us to Moses and the Prophets to learn the true Messiah, and from these Scriptures you attempt to prove your Jesus is the Messiah promised to the Jews, but before you can know whether the Books you cite be the true Books of Moses and the Prophets, and the Copies you have of them be true Copies, you must know true Tradition from false; tell me then the means by which infallibly the true Tradition in this Point may be known from the false, and that very means will I assign to prove the Traditions of the Jewish Church, rejected by your Lord, and his Apostles to be true. Whatsoever Answer Mr. M. can return to this Objection, will be as applicable to his own.  
3. To this demand I answer, That where the Tradition deriveth from the Fountain of Tradition, and can be proved by written Testimonies to have done so: And, 2ly. that where it is a Tradition not of a matter of Fact, but Faith, and passeth down without control, and contradiction of any that were then and after owned by other Churches as true Christian Brethren. And, 3ly. where it can be proved irrational and absurd, that the Tradition could have so long and generally obtained without just ground of being owned as such, there the Tradition ought to be embraced as true.  
When therefore Mr. M. hath proved the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome to have these Three Characters of true Tradition, we shall have equal reason to admire his Parts, as we have now to wonder at his Confidence; but they who can believe Impossibilities, may be allowed to undertake them.   

CHAP. IU.  
Sixthly, We distinguish betwixt Traditions touching purely Doctrinals, or divine Revelations, touching Articles of Faith and Matters of Practice; in the first, the Fathers have been subject to mistake in Doctrines not Fundamental, as appears, 1. From the Doctrine of the Mellennium delivered in the Second and Third Centuries, as a Tradition received from Christ and his Apostles, §. 1. As a thing of which they were certain, Ibid. 2. As a Doctrine proved from variety of Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, which could, say they, receive no other sense, §. 2.3. As a Doctrine denied only by Heretics, or such as were deceived by them, §. 3. It was embraced by the greatest number of Christians and Church Guides, delivering it not as Doctors only but Testators, §. 4. Hence the uncertainty of such Traditions is demonstrated, and the falsehood of the pretended Tradition for Invocation of Saints, §. 5. 2ly. A like mistake is proved from the general Doctrine of the Fathers of the four first Centuries that the Day of Judgement was nigh at hand, §. 6. And that the time of Antichrists coming was at hand, §. 7. That the World should end after Six thousand Years, that is, according to their computation, Five hundred Years after our Saviour's Advent, §. 8. The Inferences hence, Ibid. In matters of practice we distinguish, Seventhly, betwixt such as have been generally received without contest in the purest Ages of the Church, and such as have been contested and disowned by Orthodox Churches or Members of the Church; and that we cannot depend with certainty on the latter is proved, 1. From the Contest betwixt P. Victor and the asiatics, touching the Easter Festival, in which it is observed, 1. That the greatest part of the Christian World, consented in judgement with Victor and his Synod, §. 9.2. That they who with him kept this Feast on the Lord's Day, pleaded an Apostolical Tradition for that Practice, §. 10. 3. That they who kept it with the Jews pleaded the same Tradition, and with greater Evidence, §. 11. 4. That when the Pope endeavoured by terrifying Letters to affright them from their practice, all the asiatics and Neighbouring Provinces refused to hearken to him, and condemned him for it, §. 12. 5. That hereupon Victor attempted to Excommunicate them, and commanded others to have no Communion with them, §. 13. 6. That notwithstanding this injunction, all the other Churches held Communion with them, and sharply reprehended Victor as a disturber of the Church's Peace, §. 14. Inferences hence showing the Falsehood of the Fundamental Rule of the Guide of Controversies, and the uncertainty of Tradition, §. 15. Which is farther proved from the Contest betwixt P. Stephen and St. Cyprian, and the asiatics, touching the Baptising of Heretics; where 'tis observed, 1. That the Opinion of Stephen was for the Baptising of no Heretics, no not those who were not Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that of St. Cyprian for the Baptising of all Heretics and Schismatics, §. 16. 2. That Pope Stephen proceeded to an Excommunication of his Brethren upon this account, and a refusal of Communion with them, and so did Pope Xystus and Dionysius after him; whereas they of Africa judged no Man who differed from them, §. 17. 3. Observe, that the Opinion of the Africans and other Eastern Churches was asserted by many Christian Doctors, Churches and Councils, and was of long continuance after this dispute, §. 18. 4. Observe, that as Pope Stephen pretended to Apostolical and Original Tradition for his Opinion, so did the contrary Party for their Opinion, §. 19 5. That the Africans passed a severe Judgement on the Assertors of the contrary Opinion, though they refused not Communion with them, §. 20. 6. That neither Stephen 's Opinion nor Saint Cyprian 's prevailed, but the Church went a middle Way betwixt both, §. 21. Inferences, 1. Hence it appears, that the Doctors of the Western Churches are no good Judges of the Practices of the East, §. 22. 2. That in Matters of this obscurity the Custom of each Church, is to be followed without breach of Peace, §. 23. 3. That in those Ages, they knew nothing of the Pope's Supremacy, or the Rule of the Guide of Controversies, §. 24. 4. That they belived what passed for Apostolical Tradition in the Church of Rome might be no such thing, §. 25. And, Lastly, That even in those early times Tradition Apostolical must falsely be pretended by great and many Churches, §. 26.  
FUrthermore we distinguish betwixt Traditions touching Points purely Doctrinal, 
Dist. 6th.  or Divine Revelations which concern matters of mere Belief, as the Doctrine of the Millennium, of the time of the Day of Judgement, 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, etc. 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 Catholics; 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 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 itself. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 remembered. 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, remembered 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. Adu. Martion. 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 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, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 signify 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 Controversy 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 Say 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 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 styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
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 controversy, 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 expressly of it; and indeed he seems to do it so expressly, 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 expressly teach, §. 3 That this Doctrine of the Millennium was denied chief by Heretics 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 men's Opinions were perverted by the Speeches of the Heretics, 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 senses (of this matter.) For the Heretics 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 Patriarches and Prophets? Answers thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have before confessed unto thee that I and many others are of this judgement; 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: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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, adorned 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 Gnostics, and the following branches of that Heresy 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 Heretics, 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 expressly styled 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 Heretics 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 Heresy in general, or against Martion 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 Heretics 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 Authentic 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 show 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 falsely Interpreted, Traditions falsely said to be received from the Apostles, or the Rulers of the Church; 
Semijudaei. Hier. in Esa. 60. f. 100 b. Praefat. in lib. 18. f. 107. Ridiculi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in cap. 66. v. 22.  and they who thus Interpreted them might be looked upon as Judaizing, as Men whose God was their Belly, as Men who loved their Belly, and their Lusts, and as Ridiculous; which Epithets 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 Heresy, 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 Heretics then chief held, must be now held of all who would not be accounted Heretics; sure what is Orthodox in one Age, may become Heresy 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 Judgement 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 mere Speculation and Opinion?  
Moreover, hence we have a demonstration of the Falsehood 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 Beatific Vision; whereas both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus assert, this Doctrine was proper to the formentioned Heretics; 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, Defence. 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 Judgement 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, said & 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 spoke thus of the Day of Judgement. We pray, saith the same Tertullian, for the Emperors, 
Vim maximam universo 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 shows 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.  Christ's coming would soon draw nigh. In his Epistle to Caecilius 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 desired 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 
* 
Petau. in Epiph. Haer. 66. n. 50.  
Fevardentius 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 fullness of time was come, In the last Days he spoke 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 whole Six thousand Years of the world's 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 expressly 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, etc. 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 Hippolytus in the forecited 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 completed. 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, cries out, Qui tenebat de medio fit, & non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare? He who hindered 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 Prophetic 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 Authentic 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 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 Asiatic 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 asiatics, and some few Churches with them, did celebrate that Festival on the Fourteenth Day of March, on whatsoever Day of the Week that happened; 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 Judgement of many other Churches; for that this Festival should be by them observed on the same day, was determined 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 Asiatic 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 Asiatic 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 spoke much of the Tradition touching the Paschal Feast descending down unto them by succession from the Apostles. The Constitutions styled Apostolical command all Christians to take especial care that they observe the Paschal Feast only on the Lord's Day, and forbidden them to celebrate it any longer with the Jews. And the Fifth and Sixty second of those Canons which pass under the same stile, forbidden 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 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 citys 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 Asiatic Bishops, and endeavouring in it to terrify 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 Asiatic 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 stiffly 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 Universal 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 Asiatic Churches, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hieron. in verbo Victor.  and the Neighbouring Provinces, he tried, saith Eusebius, to separate them from the common Unity, 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 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 asiatics, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they return him a contrary Exhortation, with equal vehemence requesting him to mind the things which did belong unto the Peace, the Unity, 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 Unity. 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 asiatics, 
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 persuaded 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 Asiatic Churches without cause; and therefore must necessarily judge him to be the Schismatic, and so he could not possibly conceive, that by Victor's Excommunication the asiatics 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 Schismatics. And therefore whereas Pope Victor writ Letters to engage all Churches to break off Communion with the asiatics, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 asiatics. So opposite is he in all things to the proceed of the Pope and Church of Rome; and yet in all this, he is commended as a Man who in this matter acted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fittingly, as a true Irenaeus or Peacemaker, that is, as one who answered his name by his endeavour to preserve the Church's Peace, which Victor laboured to disturb. And '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 Controversy, E Cathedra, and with his Roman Synod; we also find that most other Bishops and Churches of the Christian World, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pass the same Judgement of the Controversy with the Pope and his Roman Council; and yet by no means will they allow that they who were of another Judgement, and acted contrary to their determination, should be molested for it, or treated otherwise than Christian Brethren, 'tis therefore impossible 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 than they must have held the asiatics, and others who agreed with them to be Schismatics, and to deserve exclusion from the Communion of the Church, for acting in opposition to her Great and only Rule of Peace and Unity; yea, it is impossible that should have always been, as he pretends, an universal Rule of Church Practice, according to which so many Churches do refuse to practise, and yet are by their fellow Christians owned as Brethren, and persons not to be molested upon that account.  
Secondly, Hence note, How difficult a thing it is to know, even in a matter of the constant practice of all Christians in the Second Century, what the Tradition of the Apostles was; a Tradition being pretended on one side to derive from Peter and to be Apostolical, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Syn. Arim. p. 872. Ep. ad Pag. 933. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Tom. 6. Hom. 28. p. 379. l. 33.  and yet all the Churches of Asia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, saith Athanasius; of Antioch, saith Chrysostom, having a contrary Tradition which, say they, derived from Philip and St. John, and so undoubtedly was Apostolical, and Canons as from these Apostles being produced on both sides; if then they were so divided about Tradition when the Apostles was scarce cold in their Graves, and that in matters of their daily practice; what assurance can we have of any Traditions contested in this present Age? If a Custom might then arise, and be delivered to Posterity with great variety in the Lent Fast, so that some Christians thought they were to keep it but One day, some Two, some more, some Forty, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 Rebaptising of those Persons who only were Baptised by Heretics, as will be evident from these ensuing Observations, viz.  
First, That the Opinion of Pope Stephen was professedly this, §. 16 That whatsoever Heretics did take upon them to Baptise, the Persons so Baptised 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 Heresy a Person did return into the Church, he was to be admitted only by imposition of Hands, and not by Baptism. Eusebius infroms us, that the Controversy which arose betwixt them was this, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 2.  Whether they who returned from any kind of Heresy 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, Martion 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, etc. Ep. 69. p. 180.  was this, That all Persons, who only were Baptised by Heretics, 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 Heretics 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 Schismatics and Heretics, who are converted to the Church, should be Baptised. Januarius a Lambese saith, According to the Authority of the Holy Scriptures I decree, Haereticos omnes Baptizandos, that all Heretics shall be Baptised, 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 Heretics which were out of the Church, 
Apud Haereticos nullum Baptisma reperiri.  and that therefore returning to the Church, they ought to be Baptised 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 Heretics 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 Rebaptised Heretics. 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 departed from the Peace and Unity, 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 thyself, quando te à tot gregibus scidisti, by cutting off thyself from so many Flocks? 

Siquidem ille est vere Schismaticus qui sea Communione Ecclesiasticae unitatis Apostatum fecerit. Ibid.  
Sacerdotes Dei abstinendos putat.   Deceive not thyself, for thou hast cut thyself off from them, he being indeed the Schismatic who makes himself an Apostate from the Communion of Ecclesiastical Unity, and whilst thou thinkest thyself able to separate all from thee, thou only hast separated thyself from all. St. Cyprian saith, 
Ep. 74. Pag. 214.  That he had passed his Judgement 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 Heretics 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 Heretics were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism. 
Apud Euseb. Ibid.  This will appear from the Letter of Dionysius to Pope Xystus, where having told him, that his Predecessor Pope Stephen had written to him, that he would not Communicate with them for this very reason; he adds, That he had written formerly both to Philemon and Dionysius of Rome, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who were before of the same judgement 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 Heretics were to be received into the Church by Baptism; and seeing Dionysius, who was of the same judgement, 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 Heretics 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 Egypt 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 Heretics 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, giveth true Baptism; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but he who, with the names, holds the true Faith. Hence our Saviour gave not commission to Baptise 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 Heretics he faith, That he who was sprinkled by them was rather defiled than washed. It was confirmed by Four African Councils, one under 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 Heretics are rebaptized; because their Baptism is no Baptism. St. Basil saith, That they received not such Heretics 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 Heretics, because there is no Communion betwixt Christ and Belial; and the Forty seventh determines, That the Bishop shall be deposed, who neglects to Baptise them who have been defiled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the wicked; that is, saith Zonaras, by the Heretics, their Baptism being represented in the forecited Constitutions, as a Pollution, not a washing of the Baptised 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; 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 forbade the Baptising of those who return to the Church from Heresy, & 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 itself from the Apostles. Our Assertion, That they who only were Baptised by Heretics, should be Baptised 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 Heretics have been since Baptised 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 preceding 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 expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it seemed good to them who were from the beginning wholly to null the Baptism of Heretics.  
Eightly, §. 20 Observe what these Africans and Orientals judged of the contrary Opinion, that Heretics 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 style 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 Heretics, 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 Heretics, and did Communicate with them; that they did Communicate with other men's Sins; that they were Patrons of Heretics; 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 Heretics, we hold a sacred Concord, and the Lord's Peace with them, 
Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus nec legem damus. Ep. 72. p. 198.  we prescribe to no Body, we prejudge no Man, but leave every Bishop to the Liberty of his Will, to do what he thinks best in this matter; we force no Man, 
Ep. 69. p. 188.  we give Law to no Man. The Preface of the Council of Carthage assembled under Cyprian runs thus, It remains that every one of us speak his judgement 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 Baptised; 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 Heretics into the Church by Baptism, praying him to desist from it, and telling him, that for his part he durst not provoke so many Churches, 
Ibid. c. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to strife and contention, by subverting their Decrees. The Council of Carthage, 

Apud Cypr. p. 229.  
Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit, aut Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. Ibid.   in reference to this Action of Pope Stephen, speaks thus, We pass our Sentence in this matter, judging no Man, or separating no Man from our Communion who thinks otherwise; for none of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, nor endeavours by tyrannical Terror to compel his Colleages to a necessity of Obedience. 
Ep. 74. p. 210, 214.  St. Cyprian accuses him of Pride, or Vnadvisedness, and acting as a Friend of Heretics, 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, etc. 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 Dissension 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 vouchsafing to speak with the Bishops sent to him, nor permitting others to receive them into their Houses, and by dividing the Fraternity for the sake of Heretieks; which various kind of Discord had Valesius well observed, he would not against so great evidence have denied that Stephen did as much as in him lay separate, or in the Language of the Council of Carthage, amovere a jure communionis, expel from right of Communion, those who differed from him; it being hence evident, that he Excommunicated the one, and vouchsafed not to speak with the other.  
Tenthly, §. 21 Whereas the Roman Doctors usually say that Stephen's traditum est prevailed against the opposite Opinion of the Eastern and the Southern Churches, and that the case was after by the Church determined for Pope Stephen against Cyprian, this is a great mistake; for neither the Opinion of P. Stephen, nor of St. Cyprian prevailed, but they were both rejected by the Church of Christ, and that which was the mean betwixt them was embraced. For,  
1. Whereas Pope Stephen with his Church determined, That no Heretics should be Baptised from whatsoever Heresy they came into the Bosom of the Church, or, 
Contra Petil. de unico Baptismo, c. 14.  as St. Austin saith, Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat, He held that the Baptism of Christ was to be repeated on no Heretic whatsoever. The Ninteenth Canon of the Nicene Council saith, That if the Paulianists do fly into the Bosom of the Church, we will, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they by all means be Baptised again. The Council of Laodicea commandeth Bishops and Presbyters to Baptise, 
Can. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them who returned from the Heresy of the Cataphrygae, or the Montanists. 
Can. 7.  The General Council of Constantinople speaks thus, Them who come to us from Heretics we admit after this manner, the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimans, the Cathari and Apollinarians without Baptism, but the Eunomians, the Montanists, Sabellians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all other Heretics, we receive as Gentiles, we Catechise them, and for a long time make them hear the Scripture, 
Can. 95.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then we Baptise them. The General Council in Trullo repeats the same Decree in the same words, and then adds, That we admit by Baptism likewise the Manichees, Valentinians and Marcionites, and other Heretics of like nature. 
Ad Amphil. Can. 47.  St. Basil determines, That the Encratitae, the Saccaphori, and the Apotactites were to be rebaptised. Now all these Canons are approved by the following Synods, 
Can. 1.  that of the Second Nicene Council, and the Eighth Council of Constantinople; and so we cannot doubt, but that they both believed and practised accordingly. Since than we are assured from so many Testimonies, that Pope Stephen would have all Heretics whatsoever admitted, at their return into the Church without Baptism, and in particular from the Testimony of St. 
Ep. 74. p. 214.  that he admitted of the Baptism of Martion, Valentinus and Apelles, it is exceeding evident that his Opinion was by the Church of God condemned both in General and in Particular.  
Moreover, it was the Judgement of Pope Stephen, That the Baptism of Heretics, though administered only in the name of Christ, and not of the whole Sacred Trinity, was valid, and not to be reiterated when they returned into the Bosom of the Church. This is apparent from these words of Cyprian, No Man, to circumvent the Christian Truth, should oppose the Name of Christ, and say, in nomine Jesu Christi ubicunque, quomodocunque Baptizati gratiam Baptismi sunt consecuti, 
Ep. 73. p. 205.  that wheresoever, howsoever Men are Baptised in the Name of Christ, they obtain the Grace of Baptism. And again, Since after the Resurrection the Apostles being sent by our Lord to the Gentiles, are commanded to Baptise them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; how do some say, That out of the Church, yea against the Church, a Gentile may obtain Remission of Sins; 
Ibid. p. 206.  modo in nomine Jesu Christi ubicunque, & quomodocunque, Baptizatum, wheresoever, and howsoever he be Baptised provided it be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, when Christ himself commands the Gentiles to be Baptised, in plena, & adunata Trinitate, into the whole and united Trinity? If then that be the Truth which usually is affirmed, that the Ancients did admit the Baptism of those Heretics, who Baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and nulled their Baptism who Baptised not into the Sacred Trinity, then must they plainly have condemned the Doctrine of Pope Stephen and his Abettors. But though some of the Ancients seem to speak after this manner, and to assert this Doctrine, as is evident from the Apology made for the Baptism of the Novatians in St. Cyprian, That they did, 
Ep. 69. p. 183.  eandem legem tenere quam Catholica Ecclesia teneat, eodem Symbolo, quo & nos, Baptizare, eundem nosse deum patrem, eundem filium Christum, eundem Spiritum Sanctum, use the same Symbol with Catholics in Baptism, and Baptised into the same Sacred Trinity: And from the Canon of the first Council of Arles which Decrees, That they should be admitted by Imposition of Hands only, who were Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; yet the Opinion of the Ancient Church seems rather to have been this, that their Baptism alone was to be admitted, who both Baptised into, and believed aright touching the Sacred Trinity, as the Novatians did. This St. Basil doth expressly teach, saying, 
Ad Amphil. can. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Ancients judged that Baptism valid which in nothing differed from the Faith. And therefore having told us, That the Baptism of the Encratitae, the Saccophori and Apotactites was rejected by the Church, he adds, And let them not say, we are Baptised into the Father, 
Can. 47.  Son and Holy Ghost, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who make God the Author of Evil. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 3. contr. Arian. p. 413.  And Athanasius condemns the Baptism of the Arians, though they named the Father and Son, because they saw them in the Form of Baptism delivered in the Scripture, seeing they did not conceive aright of them, nor retain the right Faith; adding, That as the Manichees, the Phrygae, the Samosatenians pronounced the right Names, and yet were Heretics, so the Arians, though they recited the Names and Words of Baptism, deluded them who received Baptism from them. Again, St. Cyprian and his party in Africa held the Baptism, not only of Heretics but Schismatics to be void, and in particular of the Novatians; his words are these, 
Ep. 69. p. 180.  Dicimus omnes omnino Haereticos & Schismaticos nihil habere potestatis ac juris, propter quod Novatianus nec debet, nec potest excipi, We say that no Heretic or Schismatic hath any power, or right to Baptise, and therefore Novatian should not, and cannot be excepted. And again, 
Ibid. p. 183.  Audet quisquam dicere aquam Baptismi salutarem communem cum Schismaticis esse posse, 
Ep. 72. p. 196.  Dares any one say, That Schismatics can have the salutary Water of Baptism? The same he Asserts in several other places, and the Fathers of the Council held under him, do often say, Baptisma quod dant Haeretici & Schismatici non est verum, 
Pag. 231. ter. 232. bis. 236. bis.  that the Baptism of Heretics and Schismatics is not true; and that both returning to the Church were to be admitted by Baptism, Now in this indeed he differed from the received Opinion of the Church, 
〈◊〉 Amphil. can. 1.  to whom it seemed good, saith Basil, to reject the Baptism of Heretics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but to receive that of Schismatics. 2dly, Whereas St. Cyprian and his party held the Baptism of all Heretics to be void; we find the Church did afterwards judge that some Heretics should be admitted into the Church by Baptism, and that others should be received only by Imposition of Hands. 'Tis therefore evident, That the Church equally disallowed both their Assertions, and decided the Controversy against them both, and did as much condemn Pope Stephen's Traditum est as St. Cyprian's Scriptum est, the Pope's Appeal to Tradition, as the Bishop of Carthag's to Scripture.  
Now the Corollaries which naturally do result from these Ten Observations are as follow:  
First, §. 22 Hence we learn, That the Latins, though comparatively Ancient, are not much to be relied upon in giving an account of matters in which their Church is concerned, and in which they differed from the Eastern Churches. For, to omit St. 
Come. c. 9  Austin, the Account Vincentius Lirinensis gives of this matter, is as full of Errors as of Sentences; for he averrs that Agrippinus was the first of ¹ all Men, who, against the ² Divine Canon, against the ³ Rule of the Universal Church, against the ⁴ Sense of all his own fellow Priests, against the ⁵ Customs and ⁶ Institutions of the Ancients, Rebaptizandum esse censebat, judged for Rebaptisation, and that ⁷ all men disclaimed the novelty of the thing, and ⁸ all the Priests every were resisted it, but above all Pope Stephen, who said, Nihil innovandum, nisi quod traditum est, Nothing must be innovated but that which was delivered us to be retained; that, retenta est igitur Antiquitas, explosa novitas, hereupon Antiquity was retained, and novelty exploded. In which few words are no less than Eight gross mistakes, as will appear by comparing these words with the Testimonies above cited. 
In Ep. 70. p. ●89.  And as it is truly observed by the Oxford Commentator upon Cyprian, That the Eastern Writers were, in rebus Occidentalium Hospites, Strangers in things which concerned the West, so is it as true, that the Western Writers were many of them Strangers to the true State of Matters in the East.  
Secondly, §. 23 Whereas the Church declared against Pope Stephen, That in this matter of the Rebaptising Heretics, the various Customs which had obtained were to be permitted without breach of Communion, and Christian Peace; that the Custom of every Region was to be followed, and the obtaining practice to be submitted to, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Orders sake; that it was to be done, or left undone suitably, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to what should generally be ordered concerning it. Hence in all matters of this indifferency and obscurity, 
Ad Amphil. can. 1. De unit. fidei, c. 19  in which, saith Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing plainly is declared, we admit that saying of St. Austin, That Heretics must be received as the Church receives them, there being, as he adds, no clear Example to be produced from Scripture either way; and with him we acknowledge, 
Contr. Crescon. l. 1. c. 33.  That the Truth of Scripture is held by us, when we do that which doth please the Church; because we know from Scripture that God is the God of Order, not of Confusion, and that in matters of this indifferency, that of the Apostle, 
1 Cor. xiv. 33. 1. Cor. xi. 16.  We have no such Custom neither the Churches of God, must cut off farther matter of Contention; but then in Articles of Christian Faith, we with the same St. Austin say, 
De peccat. mer. & remiss. l. 2. c. 36.  Credo quod hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima Authoritas fuisset, si homo illud, sine dispendio salutis, ignorare non possit, We believe that the Authority of the Divine Oracles would have been most clear, had the matter been such of which we could not have been ignorant without loss of Salvation.  
Moreover, though St. Austin doth acknowledge that no Example could be produced from Scripture in this Case, yet he pretendeth Scripture for the right and lawfulness of the said Practice: For, saith he, That I may not seem, 
De Bapt. contr. Donatistas', l. 10. c. 6. Tom. 7. p. 379.  humanis Argumentis id agere, to prove the Right of receiving Heretics without Baptism, only by humane Arguments, ex Evangelio profero certa documenta, I produce certain proofs out of the Gospel, to show how rightly this was determined by the Church. And again, having said, 
Ibid. l. 4. c. 7. p. 419.  We follow that which the Custom of the Church always held, and a plenary Council hath confirmed; he adds, That bene perspectis ex utroque latere Scripturarum Testimoniis, potest etiam dici, quod veritas declaravit, 
Tot tantisque S. Scripturarum testimoniis, l. 5. c. 4. Divinarum Scripturarum d● cumentis, l. 6. c. 1.  hoc sequimur, weighing well the Testimonies of Scripture on both sides, it may also be said, that we follow that which Truth hath declared. From whence, and many other places of his works, it is evident, that even in, hae obscurissima quaestione, in this most obscure Question, as he often styles it, he recurrs for matter of Right to Scripture, and weighs it in the Balance of the Sanctuary.  
Thirdly, §. 24 Hence it is evident, beyond all doubt, that the Church of that Age in which this Controversy happened, knew nothing, or at least believed nothing of the New Rule of R. H. That in Judges subordinate dissenting, all Christians must adhere to the Superior, in those of the same Order, and Dignity to the major part; since all these Africans, and Orientals not only take the liberty to descent from what the Pope, and all the Churches which adhered to him, held as Apostolical Tradition; but also to condemn it as a thing contrary to the plain evidence of Scripture, and to decree the contrary should be observed and practised. For had such a Rule been then received, and owned by the Church of Christ, could all the Christian Churches, besides that of Rome, have still maintained Communion with those Southern, and those Eastern Churches who did so resolutely oppose, and flatly contradict this Rule? Can they have thus condemned Pope Stephen of violating the Church's Peace and unity, for acting consonantly to this Rule by renouncing Communion with them who were, provided that this Rule be true, manifest Schismatics? Can St. Denys of Alexandria have told the Pope he durst not, by acting contrary to the Decrees made at Iconium and Synnada, provoke those Churches to Contention, if doing so had only been to act according to a Rule always received, and owned by the Church of Christ? Can St. Basil have judged it best for every one to follow herein the Custom of their own Country in opposition to this Rule? Can Firmilian have charged the Pope with Schism? Can Cyprian, and the Council of Carthage have charged him with Tyranny for pressing a received Rule in the whole Church? These sure are demonstrations that this pretended Rule is like the rest of Popish Doctrines; a Rule with which the Ancient Church of Christ was not acquainted.  
Fourthly, Hence evident it is, That all the Churches of that Age knew nothing of the Pope's Supremacy, nothing of any Obligation laid upon them to conform to the Doctrines, Decrees and Customs of the Roman Church and her adherents; and lastly nothing of that pretended Law that Synods were not to assemble, and make Canons without consulting of his Holiness. Since all these Synods made these Canons, either without his Knowledge, or else in opposition to, 
Unusquisque Episcoporum quod putat faciat, etc. Ep. 73. p. 210.  and condemnation of the Decrees and Customs both of the Pope and Church of Rome; and others told him, They thought themselves obliged, notwithstanding all his Threats, to act according to their Sentence, and durst not rescind it. Had they believed the Pope's Supremacy in that Age, would they have declared so freely as St. Cyprian doth, 
Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. Apud Cypr. p. 229. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. p. 217, 218, 225, 227, 228.  for the Liberty of every Bishop to act as he saw fit in this matter, and said, that he was only to give account to God of his proceed? Can they with the Council of Carthage have esteemed it such a tyrannical Matter for the Pope to act as Bishop of Bishops? Can Firmilian have accused him so pertly of Inhumanity, Insolence and Boldness in this Case? Can he have judged him a downright Schismatic for acting as he did? Can all the forementioned Bishops so freely have reproved him, and dissented from him, and judged it their Duty rather to adhere to the decisions of Provincial Synods, than to his Determination?  
Can they have thought themselves obliged to adhere to the Decrees, 
Ubique a S. Scriptures declaratum est Baptisma Haereticorum non esse verum, Ep. 7.  the Doctrines or Customs of the Roman Church, and yet declare, as doth St. Cyprian and his Africans, That the Decrees and Practice of the Roman Church were in this case opposite to Scripture and the plainest Reason. And, as St. Basil doth to Amphilochius in the same case, 

Can. 47.  
Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sunt ab origine tradita, Ep. 75. p. 220.   Though you and the Romans hold the contrary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet ought our Sentence to take place, And, as Firmilian expressly doth, That 'tis usual with them of Rome to vary from Apostolical Tradition? Can so many Fathers, so many Churches, so many Councils have not only practised in opposition to the Doctrines and Customs of that Church, but also have condemned them in such opprobrious Terms as they have done, 
Cyp. Ep. 69. p. 185. Ep. 73. p. 206, 208, 210. Ep. 74. p 212, etc.  pronouncing the Assertors of them Prevaricators in matters both of Faith and Truth, Betrayers of the Church, Enemies to Christians, Friends and Abettors of Heretics, Men who did plead their Cause, and partake with them in their Sins, Men who did null, evacuate, destroy the Baptism of the Church, and give up the Spouse of Christ to Adulterers.  
Fifthly, §. 25 Hence it is manifest, That in that Age they verily believed, that what had passed for Apostolical Tradition in the Church of Rome, and her Adherents, might be no such matter; that both that Church and her Abettors might impose upon their fellow Christians, in pretending to it; and that there lay no Obligation on other Churches to comply with them in such matters as they delivered for Apostolical Tradition. For otherwise how could it happen that so many populous Churches, so many Councils, so many famous Bishops; that Athanasius, Optatus, St. Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, all great Assertors of true Apostolical Tradition, should declare so plainly and expressly against this practice of the Church of Rome; that Firmilian should declare, 

Neminem tam stultum esse qui hoc credat Apostolos tradidisse, Ep. 75. p. 219.  
Nemo infamare Apostolos debeat quasi illi Haereticorum Baptisinata probaverint, Ep. 74. p. 211.   No Man could be so Foolish as to believe the Apostles had delivered any such thing; that St. Cyprian should say, That this pretence of Romanists was manifestly false, and tended to blaspheme the Reputation of the Blessed Apostles; that the Africans should not only reject this pretended Apostolical Tradition in the opprobrious Terms forementioned, but should declare so oft in Council that the contrary Doctrine descended from Evangelical Authority and Apostolical Tradition, 
Vid. Supra.  and was confirmed by the Divine Law, and the Holy Scriptures? How, lastly, could it happen that all the other Churches, excepting that of Rome, were all at Peace, and still maintained Communion with these Opposers, and Traducers of this pretended Tradition, and did not blame them in the least on this account, but rather interceded with the Roman Bishop to lay aside his Fury, and entertain Communion and Friendship with these Churches as they did?  
Sixthly, Hence it appears that in that Age they thought not Custom or Tradition, though practised by the Church of Rome, and by the major part of Christians, any certain Rule of Manners, but thought themselves obliged sometimes to vary from it, and that they might have Truth, and Reason, and Scripture on their sides against it; that it concerned them to examine then whether the Custom they were required to follow, had its rise from Christ and his Apostles, and could be proved from their Writings, and if not to reject it. For in this matter they declare, Non esse consuetudine praescribendum, 
Cypr. Ep. 71. p. 194.  sed ratione vincendum, Their Adversaries were not to prescribe to them from Custom, but to convince them by reason, St. Paul having taught every one not to adhere pertinaciously to what he had once imbibed, 
Pag. 195.  but willingly to embrace any thing which he found better, or more profitable. That 'twas in vain, when Men were overcome by reason, 
Ep. 73. p. 203.  to oppose Custom to it, as if Custom were better than Truth, and that were not rather to be followed which was revealed for the better by the Holy Spirit; that, Non semper errandum, 
Ibid. p. 208.  quia aliquando erratum est, We must not always err because we once have done so; 
Ep. 74. p. 215.  that Custom without Truth was only old Error, and vainly was preferred before it; that the Truth being manifested, 
Concil. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 236, 240, 241.  Custom was to yield to it; that no Man ought to prefer Custom to Reason and Truth; that Christ being Truth, we ought rather to follow that than Custom; that it was obstinacy and presumption, 
Cypr. Ep. 74. p. 212.  humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere, to prefer humane Tradition to divine Orders, and not to consider that God is angry when humane Tradition evacuates divine Precepts; that when it was said to them, let nothing be innovated, 
Ibid. p. 211.  but that which was delivered be observed; it was to be enquired, unde est ista traditio, whence is that Tradition? Whether from the Authority of Christ and the Gospel, the commands and Epistles of the Apostles; and if, in Evangelio praecipitur, 
Ib. p. 215.  aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actubus continetur, it were commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Acts, or Epistles of the Apostles, than was it to be observed, and that when Truth shook and staggered, we were to have recourse to the Head and Original of Divine Tradition, ad originem dominicam & Evangelicam & Apostolicam Traditionem, to the Gospel, and Apostolical Tradition.  
Lastly, Hence it is evident, §. 26 That in those early times Tradition Apostolical, and from the beginning, must falsely be pretended by Great Men and Churches, even in a matter of continual practice and occurrence in the Church of God; for here you see it was pretended for the Admission of Heretics without Baptism by Pope Stephen and his Church, and the fame Tradition Apostolical, and from the beginning was pretended for the opposite Doctrine by Firmilian and St. Basil, and their Party; and yet the Church did in the following Ages declare against the Pretences of them both. If then in these plain matters of Fact, and of continual practice, Tradition did so fail both the Pretenders to it, must it not be more apt to fail in matters of mere Speculation: If by Tradition these Churches could not truly tell what their Forefathers did, how should they by it tell assuredly in all things what they held, since that could only be made known unto them by their Words and Actions? if actually they handed down unto posterity for a traditionary Practice, that which was not truly so, why might they not also hand that down to them as a traditionary Doctrine, which was nothing less than so?   

CHAP. V.  
Eightly, We distinguish also betwixt Traditions which appear from Reason to be such as ought to be received, and such as want the Evidence of Reason to assure us of their Truth; of the latter kind is the Tradition that Enoch and Elias are to appear as Christ's Forerunners at the Day of Judgement, §. 1. This Tradition is very ancient, and found no Contradiction in the Church, §. 2. It was also the general Tradition of the Jews, that Elias was to come in Person before the first coming of their Messiah, Ibid. And yet this is not countenanced, but plainly is confuted by the Scriptures, §. 3. The promise in Malachy belongs not to Christ's Second, but to his first Advent, Ibid. The Elias there promised was not Elias in Person, but John the Baptist, §. 4. The Objections against this Assertion answered, Ibid. Two Corollaries, 1. That Tradition is not always a sure Interpreter of Scripture. 2. That Oral Tradition is not of absolute certainty in matters of Speculation, §. 5, 6. The Tradition of the Superiority of Bishops over Presbbyters may be relied upon, because it is strengthened by Reason, §. 7. So also is the Tradition of the true Copies of Scripture; where note, 1. That we cannot know the Scriptures are not corrupted from the Infallibility of the Jewish or the Christian Church, §. 8, 9 But we may know from Reason grounded upon Scripture, 1st. That the Scriptures were committed pure to the Christian Church, §. 10. 2dly. That the immediate succeeding Age could want no assurance of their Purity, whilst the Autographae were extant, §. 11. 3dly. That these Records being so generally dispersed, could not be then corrupted, §. 11. 4ly. That the whole Church would not, and part of them could not corrupt them, §. 13. 5ly. That the Providence of God would not permit them to be corrupted in Substantials, §. 14. No like proof can be given, that the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome have been thus handed down unto us, §. 15. The Objection of Mr. Mumford is answered, §. 16.  
WE distinguish betwixt Traditions which can be made appear by Reason to be such as ought to be received, 
Dist. 8.  and which we therefore think ourselves obliged to receive, and such as cannot by Reason be proved to have derived from the Apostles, though they appeared very early in the Church. Of the first Nature are the Traditions of the Canon of Scripture, of the Copies handed down to us without Corruption, in any necessary Articles of Christian Faith; of the Observation of the Lord's Day, etc. Of the Second Order are the Traditions of the Millennary Doctrine; of the Appearance of Enoch and Elias the Tisbite, as the Forerunners of the Day of Judgement. And of Traditions of this Nature we say we have no Ground sufficient to receive them as Articles of Christian Faith, or Apostolical Traditions.  
The Appearance of Enoch and Elias, §. 1 then to resist the Seduction of Antichrist, and to be slain by him, is delivered thus, 
De Resur. Carnis, c. 22.  Enoch and Helias are, saith Tertullian, Translated, caeterum morituri reservantur ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguant, but they are reserved to die, and shed their Blood for the Extinction of Antichrist.  
This, saith Petrus Alexandrinus, is, 

In Chronico.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In Apoc. 11.   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Tradition of the Church, That Enoch is to come in the last Days with Helias to resist Antichrist. It is, saith Aretas, unanimously received by the Church from Tradition, that Enoch and Elias the Tisbite are to come.  
The Tradition of the Advent of the Tisbite is as old as Justin Martyr, §. 2 
Dial. cum Tryph. p. 268.  and hath been constantly believed in the Church from that time till the Reformation; that of Enoch's coming with him, is as old as Tertullian, it generally obtained in the following Centuries, and found no Contradiction from any of the Writers of those times; and yet I find no ground at all for this Tradition concerning Enoch: For the Two Witnesses in the Revelations are not described like Enoch and Elias, but like Moses and Elias, 
Rev. xi. 6.  it being said, They have Power to shut Heaven, that it Rain not in the Days of their Prophecy, which Elijah did, and have Power over Waters to turn them into Blood, and to smite the Earth with all Plagues as often as they will, which we know Moses did; but there is nothing in the description of these Witnesses, relating in the least to Enoch.  
As for Elias let it be considered.  
First, That it was the general Tradition of the Jewish Nation, that Elias the Tisbite was to come in Person, as the Forerunner of the Messiah of the Jews, that he in Person was to Anoint him, and make him known unto the People, that before the Advent of the Son of David, Elias was to come to Preach concerning him. This is the Import of the Question of St. 
Joh. i. 21. Matt. xvij. 10. Mal. iv. 5.  John, Art thou Elias? and of the Saying of the Scribes, Elias must first come and restore all things; of the Interpretation of the Seventy, Behold I send unto you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elias the Tisbite;— and of that Saying of the Son of Syrach, Elias was ordained for reproofs in their times, 
Ecclus. xliij. 10.  to pacify the wrath of the Lord's Judgement before it break into fury, and to turn the Heart of the Father to the Son, and to restore the Tribes of Jacob. And suitably to these Assertions Trypho the Jew declares, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Dial. p. 268.  all we Jews expect Elias to Anoint Christ at his coming.  
Secondly, Observe, That it was the general Tradition of the Writers of the Christian Church, even from the Second Century, that Elias the Tisbite is to come in person before our Lord's Second Advent, to prepare Men for it. This Opinion of the coming of Elias, 
In Tetull. de resur. carn. c. 22. Not. in Orig. p. 41. c. 1.  tradit tota Patrum antiquitas, all the ancient Fathers have delivered, saith De la Cerda. Constans est patrum, omniumque consensu receptissima Ecclesiae opinio, It is the constant and most received Opinion of the Church, and all the Fathers, saith Huetius. Constantissima semper fuit Christianorum opinio, It was always the most constant Opinion of Christians, 
In Mat. xi. 14.  That Elias was to come before the Day of Judgement, saith Maldonate. It is, saith Mr. Mede, well known, 
Disc. 25. p. 48.  that all the Fathers were of this Opinion. He is to come, saith Petrus Alexandrinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Tradition of the Church; saith Arethas Caesariensis, 
In Apoc. 11.  According to the unanimously received Opinion of the Church.  
And yet if we may credit either the Angel or our Blessed Lord, §. 3 the Prophecy on which the Jews built this Tradition was fulfilled in John the Baptist: And if we may believe the Ancient Fathers, they built their Tradition on those words of Christ, Elias cometh first, and restoreth all things, which words do not establish, but with the greatest Evidence destroy this vain Tradition. And,  
First, That the words of Malachy, 
Mal. iv. 5, 6.  Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet, &c. cannot be understood of our Lord's Second Coming to pass Judgement on the World, will be exceeding Evident from these considerations, 1. That this Forerunner was to come, the Lord, there mentioned, to follow, before the Ruin of the Jewish Temple; this is evident from these words, Behold I will send my Messenger, 
Mal. iij. 1, 2.  and he shall prepare my way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his Temple: For that the Messenger in this Third Chapter, is the same with Elijah the Prophet in the Fourth Chapter, will be apparent, 1. From the Office of this Messenger, which was to come before the Face of the Lord, or to be his Forerunner; as the Elijah mentioned Chapter the ourth was to be, and as John Baptist was. 2. From the Consideration of the work he was to do, 
Mal. iij. 1.  This Messenger being to prepare the way before him, as the Elijah promised also was to do, by turning the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just. And as the Angel doth inform us that the Baptist should do, for saith the Angel, He shall go before him in the Spirit and Power of Elias, to turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just, to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. 3. 
Luk. i. 17.  From the consideration of the Day of his Coming mentioned Chapter the Third, as a Day so dreadful that few could abide it, or stand when he appeareth, by reason of the Severity of the Judgements which should then befall them. 
vers. 2.  And Chapter the Fourth, as a Day great and terrible. Since then the Lord here mentioned was to come suddenly, seeing he was to come to hi● Temple; 'tis certain that the Day of his coming was to be before the Temple was destroyed, and therefore could not be the Day of Judgement. 4. This will be further evident from the Consideration of the persons to whom this Messenger and this Elijah were both sent, 
Chap. iij. 1.  for the Messenger was sent to them who then sought for the Lord, and delighted in the Messenger of the Covenant; 
vers. 3. vers. 4.  he was to be his Messenger who was to purify the Sons of Levi, to make the Offerings of Judah and Jesusalem pleasant to the Lord. He therefore was a Messenger peculiarly sent to them, to reprove them for their Sins, and to declare unto them such things as concerned them, and not such things as were common to the whole World. Accordingly Elijah the Prophet was sent to them that feared his name, 
Chap. iv. v. 2.  to them who were obliged to remember the Law of Moses, 
vers. 4.  which he commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel.  
This Day of Terror therefore must be chief that which did concern that Nation. And lastly, This Elias was to come to call Men to Conversion and Repentance, for which was a fit Season at our Lord's first coming, whereas at his second coming, there will be no time for Repentance, but for the Destribution of Rewards and Punishments. He was to come to turn the Hearts of the Fathers, &c, lest God should smite the Earth, Becherem, i. e. the Inhabitants of Judah with Destruction, so that the Ruin threatened here, might be prevented by Repentance and Conversion; whereas the general Day of Judgement cannot be thus prevented, but will certainly come in the appointed time.  
The only Objection that is considerable against this Assertion, Object. is, That the Day spoken of, Chapter iv. vers. 5. is represented as a dreadful Day, which seemeth proper to the Day of Judgement, whereas the Day of Christ's first coming is not so called, but rather an Acceptable Day, and a Day of Salvation.  
To this I Answer, Answ. That the Day of our Lord's first coming considered, as reaching to the Destruction of Jerusalem was indeed a very dreadful and terrible Day. Thus in the Prophet Joel we read of a Day of the Lord described in the same Expressions, 
Joel ij. 31.  The Sun shall be turned into Darkness, and the Moon into Blood, before the great and terrible Day of the Lord come; and yet St. Peter, speaking of what was done after our Lord's Ascension, and citing these very words, saith, 
Acts ij. 16.  This was that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel. Moreover our Blessed Lord speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the miseries that should befall that very Generation, saith, 
Luk. xxi. 22. Mat. xxiv. 21.  These shall be the days of Vengeance, such days of Tribulation as never were from the beginning of the World, and never shall be afterwards. Yea, 
Vid Dr. Pocock in Mal. 3. v. 2.  the Tradition of the Jews doth in their Talmud make mention of such great Afflictions which should happen in the days of their Messiah unto Israel, that happy should he be who did not see them. Which, notwithstanding, this day might well be styled an Acceptable Day, a Day of Salvation to them who received our Jesus as their Saviour, believed in him, and obeyed his Say, according to the words of the Prophet Malachy, Behold the Day cometh which shall burn as an Oven, etc. 
Mal. iv. 1, 2.  but to you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his Wings. Whence, after this most terrible description our Lord speaks thus to his Disciples, 
Luk. xxi. 18, 19 vers. 28.  Be not ye terrified when these things shall happen, in Patience possess your Spirits, for there shall not one Hair of your Heads perish; when these things come to pass, then look up, and lift up your Heads, for your Redemption draweth nigh.  
Secondly, That the Elias of whom the Prophet Malachy speaks, §. 4 was not the Tisbite, or, that it is not there asserted, that he, who in the Reign of Ahab, was carried into Heaven, should be in person, sent as the Forerunner of our Lord's second Advent, will be evident from these Considerations:  
1. Because Elias the Tisbite came not upon the Errands mentioned there, to prepare the way of the Lord, or turn the Hearts of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just, before the ruin of Jurusalem, and the destruction of the Temple, as the Elijah promised by the Prophet was to do, and did.  
2. 'Tis certain that the Messenger described by the Prophet as the Forerunner of the Lord, and of his Day, was John the Baptist; for so our Saviour doth expressly teach us, saying, This John is he of whom it is written, 
Matth. xi. 10. Luk. seven. 27, 28.  Behold I send my Messeger before thy Face to prepare thy way before thee. There hath not risen among Men a greater Prophet than this John. Since then it is already proved that Elijah the Prophet in Malachy is the same person with the Messenger here mentioned, it follows that he can beno other than the Baptist.  
3. Our Lord himself declares expressly, that John the Baptist was that Elias who was for to come; for, when descending from the Mount, 
Matth. xvij. 9  he saith to his Disciples, Tell no Man of the Vision, till the Son of Man is risen from the dead; they thinking, suitably to their Tradition, that this Elias, who appeared in the Mount, was visibly to appear among them to Anoint the Messiah in the sight of all the People, and order all things belonging to his Advent, ask this Question, Seeing, according to the Doctrine of the Scribes, 
vers. 10.  Elias must first come, and do these things, why is it thou forbiddest us to speak of his Appearance? To this Enquiry our Saviour Answers, that it is very true there is a promise of an Elias to come, and restore all things. 
vers. 11.  But I say unto you, the Elias promised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath come already, and the Scribes knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. 
vers. 12, 13.  And then it follows, that his Disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist. They therefore understood what the Fathers did not, and others will not learn from Christ's plain words, that John the Baptist was the Elias promised, as the Forerunner of the great and terrible Day of the Lord; whence it doth plainly follow, that they who do not think John Baptist, and he only, was the Elias mentioned by the Prophet, must mistake; for our Lord plainly saying, That that Elias of whom the Scribes made mention as the Forerunner of his Advent, was already come, and giving them no intimation that any other was to be expected after the coming of this one, there can be no pretence from the Tradition of the Scribes, or from the Saying of the Prophet to expect any other. Moreover our Lord, as if he had foreseen, and had designed to confute this Jewish Fable, speaks still more plainly, thus, 
Matth. xi. 14.  All the Prophets and the Law Prophesied until John, and if you will receive, i. e. attend to, and believe it, this is that Elias which was for to come; by which words he most plainly teacheth that that Elias of whom the Prophets spoke as of one for to come, 
Vid. Pocock in locum.  was come already, and makes it manifest, that all that was in Malachy, or any other Prophet spoken of Elias, 
Luk. i. 16.  was made good in the Baptist, who came in the Power and Spirit of Elias, and was to be understood of him alone, as muchas if he had in express words asserted, that he only was the Elias that was to come, and they were not, by virtue of any Prophecy, to look for or expect another. For thus our Saviour speaks, The Prophet Malachy saith, 
Matth. xi. 10.  Behold I send my Messenger before my Face; now, I assure you, the Baptist is the very Person of whom this is written. The same Prophet saith, Behold I will send you Elias the Prophet, etc. whence your Scribes teach you to expect the personal Appearance of Elias the Tisbite, as the Forerunner of your Messiah; but if you will receive the true Interpretation of those words from me, St. 
verse 14.  John the Baptist is that Elias, which according to that Prophecy was to be his Forerunner.  
But against this plain Assertion of our Lord it is objected, Object. That in the Translation of the Seventy the words run thus, Behold I will send you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elias the Tisbite, which denotes Elias in person, and cannot be applied to St. John the Baptist.  
To this I answer, That this Argument is of no force, Answ. because it is founded not on the Original, but only on a Translation which is not Authentic. 2. From this Translation it may be probably collected that this Imagination of the Appearance of the Tisbite, obtained among the Jews; but hence it will not follow that it was true, any more than that the Doctrine of the Millennium, and of Christ's Temporal Kingdom must be true, because they where received by that Nation as such. 3. 
Pocock, p. 99  By the same Reason and Figurative way of speaking, the Baptist may as well be called Elijah the Tisbite as Elijah the Prophet; that only showing the Country of that Prophet, as the other doth his Office; so that if the Baptist deserved to be called Elijah the Prophet, because he came in the Spirit and Power of Elijah, he must deserve to be called Elijah the Tisbite on the same account, seeing Elijah the Prophet was Elijah the Tisbite.  
It further is Objected, Object. 2 That John expressly denies that he was Elias, for when the Jews from Jerusalem, and the Priests and Levites sent to him saying, Art thou Elias? He said, 
John i. 21.  I am not.  
If this Objection be of any force, Answ. it will also prove that John the Baptist was no Prophet; for to the following Enquiry, Art thou a Prophet? he still answers, No; whereas our Saviour attested, That he was a Prophet, yea, and more than a Prophet, 
Matth. xi. 9  and all the People so accounted of him: 
Dr. Pocock, Ibid.  His meaning therefore only is, I am not that Elias in person whom you expect, nor am I such a Prophet, as in the days of the Messiah you expect to rise from the Dead. And thus Expositors tell us, he chose to answer out of Modesty, that he might not commend, or bear witness of himself, thinking it more convenient that Christ should thus bear witness of him, than that he should ascribe so great a Dignity to himself.  
Thirdly, Object. 3 It is Objected, That after St. John was Beheaded, our Saviour saith, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things, now how, say they, can this be spoken as a thing future of John Baptist then? This therefore must be understood of some other Elias to come hereafter. This is the Ground on which this Doctrine is established by Justin M. 
Dial. cum Tryph. p. 268.  That our Lord taught it, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Elias shall come. And in this he is followed by Theodoret, and many of the Ancients.  
After that our Lord had uttered these words, Answ. not in the future, 
Matth. xvij. 11. Mark ix. 11.  as the vulgar reads them, but in the present Tense, Elias cometh, or Elias coming first restoreth all things. He adds immediately of the same Elias, 
Matth. xvij. 12.  of whom he had said, He cometh, or he shall come first; that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is now come, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he indeed was come. And again, if you will receive it, this Baptist is the Elias, 
Matth xi 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is for to come; and when he had said these words, than his Disciples understood that he spoke of John the Baptist, that he meant him and no other, when he speak of an Elias who was for to come.  
So that the meaning of our Lord's words is plainly this, true it is, as the Scribes say, Elias is to come before the Messiah, and it is also true, that John is that Elias which was, when Malachy spoke those words, to come afterwards, but was not yet to come when our Saviour spoke of him, but as he saith expressly, Was already come, though they who said Elias must first come, knew him not when he was come. And truly had our Lord spoken of one Elias, viz. John the Baptist, and the Prophet Malachy of another; had Christ spoken of an Elias to come at his first Advent, and the Prophet and the Scribes of one to come at his second Advent, He had not answered his Disciples Question, but deluded them. And that the Elias here spoken of was to appear at our Lord's first coming, is apparent from the Enquiry of the Disciples; Why, say the Scribes, Elias must first come, before the Son of Man; for the Tradition of the Scribes was, that Elias was to Anoint the Messiah, and make him known unto the People.  
And 'tis as evident from our Lord's answer, Elias cometh first, i. e. before my Resurrection of which I now speak; from this place therefore it never can be proved, that any other, under that Character, is to appear before his second coming.  
It further is Objected, Object. That the Elias mentioned by Malachy, was, To turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and was, according to our Saviour's acknowledgement, to restore, or set all things in Order, which seemeth not to have been done by the Ministry of the Baptist, who continued but a short time, and did no such things as these words seem to imply; it remains therefore, that these words should be fulfilled by an Elias, who shall be the Forerunner of Christ's second Advent.  
To this I Answer, Answ. That all who will not give the Lie unto the Angel sent to Zachary, must be obliged to confess the Baptist did fulfil the Prophecy of Malachy; for of the Baptist he thus speaks, He shall be great before the Lord, 
Luk. i. 15, 16, 17.  and many of the Sons of Israel shall he turn unto the Lord, for he shall go before him in the Spirit and Power of Elias, to turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just, to make ready a People prepared for the Lord: If then John Baptist did not fulfil the words spoken by the Angel, we must confess the Angel was deceived, and Zachary deserved not the punishment he suffered for disbelieving of his Testimony. But if he did fulfil these Say of the Angel, he also must fulfil the words contained in the Prophet Malachy, because the Angel speaketh in the very words of Malachy.  
Again, our Saviour acknowledging that an Elias was to come before him, and restore all things, adds, that he who was to come to restore all things, was already come, and was the Baptist. He therefore must have restored all things, or it must be confessed he did not execute his Office, or fulsil what was written of him. Moreover, the Holy Ghost, by the Mouth of Zachary, speaks thus concerning John, 
Luk. i. 76.  And thou Child shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the Lord to prepare his way, which is the very thing the Prophet Malachy declares to be the Office of his Messenger. And whosoever shall consider what in the Gospel is said of John the Baptist, and shall compare those things with what the Prophet Malachy, and even the Scribes averred, that the Elias promised should do, will easily perceive all that was said or Prophesied concerning Elias, was so punctually fulfilled by the Baptist, as to cut off all further expectation of the completion of this Prophecy by any personal Appearance of Elias before our Saviour's second Advent. For the Prophet saith, Behold I will send Elias, and the Gospel saith, There was a Man sent from God whose Name was John; and that this John was that Elias which was for to come. 
Vid. Pocock, p. 105.  The Prophet saith of his Elias, That he was to come before the Great and Terrible day of the Lord. And in the Gospel, John is said to come when the Day of Wrath was coming, when the Axe was laid to the Root of the Trees, 
Matth. xxiv. 2.  and every Tree that brought not forth good Fruit was to be hewn down, and cast into the Fire, when he was now appearing, 
Mat. twenty-three. 38.  whose Fan was in his Hand to purge his Flour, and gather the Wheat into his Barn, and to burn up the Chaff with unquenchable Fire. He came at the time, when, saith our Saviour, 
Luk. nineteen. 43.  their House was to be left unto them desolate; when the desolation of their City, 
Luk. nineteen. 43, 44.  Nation and Temple was irreversably at hand,— when the Enemies of Jerusalem were to cast a Trench about her, and lay her even with the Ground, and her Children within her. Here it is said, That this Elijah should turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, etc. That he should Preach to Young and Old Conversion and Repentance; and in the Gospel it is said of John, That he should turn many of the Children of Israel to the Lord their God, that he should turn the Hearts of the Fathers to their Children, and of the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just, 
Luk. iij. 3. Matth. iij. 5, 6.  that he preached to all the Baptism of Repentance, and that with such success and good effect, that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the Regions round about Jordan went out to him, and were Baptised of him, confessing their Sins; that all the People, 
Luk. seven. 29. Matth. iij. 7. Luk. iij. 13, 14.  and the Publicans justified God, being Baptised of John. So effectual was his Ministry, that many of the Scribes and Pharises came to his Baptism, and even the Soldiers and the Publicans to be instructed by him. 
Vid. Dr. Pocock, p. 105.  He prevailed generally with the Jews to unite in one common Baptism, that of Repentance, and whereas the Tradition of the Scribes taught, That Elias was to Anoint the Messiah, and make him known to the People; John did Baptise him, and declare unto the People that he was the Lamb of God, 
John i. 29. Matth. iij. 16.  and at his Baptism by St. John he was anointed by the Holy Ghost.  
What therefore better can agree, than the Prophecy in Malachy, and the matter of Fact in the Gospel?  
What can be further requisite to show that the Person who is characterized thus by the Prophet, and who so punctually answered to that Character in the Gospel, is one and the same Person, and that no other ought to be expected by virtue of this Prophecy?  
Now hence it follows, 1. §. 5 That the renowned Scribes and Doctors of the Jewish Church were all mistaken in their Interpretation of this place of Malachy, That they and the whole Jewish Church had entertained a false Tradition, in a matter of so great Consequence as the Forerunner of their true Messiah, for they all had embraced it as a Tradition, That Elias was to come in Person before the first Appearance of the true Messiah; 
Trypho apud Justin. M. p. 268.  they all interpreted that place of Malachy to that effect, and thence concluded, as they still obstinately do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That because Elias is not yet come in Person, their Messiah was not come. And yet this general Tradition of the Jewish Church gives no Assurance of the Truth of this Assertion, or if it doth, it must be then confessed that their Messiah is not yet come. 2. Hence also we may learn how vainly Men pretend to absolute Certainty on the account of Oral Tradition; for that Tradition was received as much, as highly reverenced, and regarded by the Scribes and Pharisees, as by the Romanists, I hope will easily be granted, when we consider how zealous they were for the Customs and Traditions of the Fathers: How they advanced the Tradition of the Elders, even to the dissolution and making void the Law of God. And how frequent are such Maxims as these among them, 
Vid. Leight. in Matth. 15.2.  The Words of the Scribes are more worthy than the Words of the Law, and more weighty than the Words of the Prophets.— That the Words of the Elders are more weighty than the Words of the Prophets.— That they came from the Mouth of Moses, as well as the written Law.— That the written Law is narrow, but the Traditional is longer than the Earth, and broader than the Sea.  
And yet these Patrons of Tradition had not only generally received such Traditions as made void the Law of God, but also such Traditions touching their Messiah, his Forerunner, his temporal Kingdom, his glorious Reign on Earth, etc. as gave Occasion to their Rejecting of him when he came: If then the Jewish Church might pretend to oral Tradition as much as that of Rome, and yet receive such Falsehoods as Tradition, which did evacuate the Law of God, and cause them to reject their Saviour, why may not they of Rome receive such Falsehoods for Tradition as do evacuate the Law of Christ? If the People were deceived and abused by following their Traditions, why may not others be equally deceived in following the supposed Traditions of the Church of Rome?  
3. §. 6 Hence also it will follow, That the Tradition of the Doctors of the Christian Church can be no certain Evidence in Matters of mere Speculation, or of Interpretation of Scripture, that what they thus deliver is the Truth; for they have generally taught from the third Century, That Enoch is to come in the last days to resist Antichrist, and be slain by him, without the least appearance of any Ground for this Tradition. And they have taught more generally, even from the Second Century, That Elias the Tisbite is to come in Person before our Saviour's second Advent, and grounded this their Doctrine upon the Words of Malachy and of St. Matthew, against the plain Assertion of our Lord, and the most clear convincing Evidence that John the Baptist, and he only, was that Elias, which, according to the Prophecy of Malachy was to come as the Forerunner of our Saviour. In a word, the Tradition of the Millennium, of the Appearance of Enoch and Elias, seem to have had their Rise from the Jewish Converts, zealous of the Tradition of their Fathers, and from them, not from the Apostles, to have gained Reputation in the Christian Church. And the Tradition of Prayers for the Dead seems to have had the same Original.  
But now if a Tradition hath been very ancient, §. 7 and can, by Reason, be demonstrated to have derived from the Apostles, or to be worthy of Acceptation upon rational Grounds, than it is sit to be embraced as such. For Instance,  
First, We have it from Tradition, That presently after the Apostles times all Churches were governed by Bishops, presiding over Presbyters and Deacons, as their lawful Governors; whence we infer we have just Reason to believe this form of Government was Apostolical, since otherwise the Government left in all Churches by the Apostles, must, in the immediate following Age, have been not only changed, but corrupted every where. But that in the frame and Substance of the established Government of the Church, a thing always in use and practice, there should be so sudden a Change, so universal a Corruption, in so short a time; and that all Christians, without the least Opposition that we read of, 
De prescript. c. 28.  should conspire in this Corruption, is a thing morally impossible: For, as Tertullian argues in like Case, Variasse debuerat Error doctrinae Ecclesiarum; quod autem apud omnes unum est, non est erratum, sed traditum: What all Christian Churches did so early agree in practising Vniformly, came not by Error, but Tradition.  
Moreover it is clearly proved by the most learned Bishop of Chester, 
L. 2. c. 13 prima Assertio. p. 157, etc.  That the Writers of the Second Century distinctly mention the several Orders of Bishops, and their inferior Presbyters in the same Church, and thereby give us Reason to conclude that this Disparity was generally settled in that Age. Now how improbable it is, that either such a Change, as must be here supposed, were this an Innovation, should happen unadvisedly, or through Negligence, or that the whole Church should have conspired so early to swerve from the established Order, by placing Bishops above Presbyters without Complaint, or the Resistance of any single Person that we hear of, will appear, if we consider,  
1. The Subjects of this Constitution, viz. The Persons appointed by the Apostles to govern and preside in every Church, they being constant Objects of every Persons common Sense, seen in every Assembly, employed in every ecclesiastical Affair, public and private, in which all Christians, Sick or Well, Living or Dying, were concerned, we may reasonably conceive that which some of the Apostles, to gain upon the Jews, did observe the Christian Feast of Easter on the Fourteenth Day of the Moon, others might have mistaken this compliance, as if the Apostles had judged that the fittest time for Christians of succeeding Ages to observe it in, or that when they heard of an Elias to come before the terrible Day of the Lord, or of the Reign of Christ on Earth a Thousand Years, represented to St. John in a Vision; they might mistake the genuine import of those Scriptures, and of others of like nature; but in a matter of this kind, which was the daily object of the Senses of all Christians, we cannot easily conceive how they could possibly mistake, and not perceive that such a change was made, if really it was done.  
2. We shall be more convinced that this was not performed by Conspiracy, or by a joint consent of Christians to make so great an alteration in that form of Government which the Apostles had established, if we consider,  
1. The general agreement of all Churches in this matter, since not one single Church or Corner of the world can be produced in which this Government did not obtain. For how can we imagine that in a time when no General Council, could meet to appoint it, and when there was no Christian Prince to set it forward on a political Account, and when, by reason of the heat of Persecution, and the distance of Christian Churches, there was so little commerce, and intercourse between them, from the Churches of Armenia and Persia in the East, to those of Spain in the West; from the African Churches in the South, to our British Churches in the North, this constitution should have been universally received and submitted to, if it had not been established by the Apostles, or the first Founders of those Churches?  
2. If we consider how much it did concern all Christians that such an Innovation should not obtain among them, and tamely be submitted to. For all the people were obliged to know the Governors to whom they were by Scripture commanded to submit, and so they could not yield to this supposed Innovation without the greatest danger to their Souls: The Presbyters, if they had by the Apostles been advanced to the highest Power, would not so meekly have submitted to an Authority usurped over them, but either out of a just Zeal for asserting their Freedom, or out of Indignation at the insolence of the usurping Bishops, or out of an unwillingness to submit and obey, which is natural to most Men, they would have asserted their Equality.  
3. This will be farther evident if we consider that even the persons thus exalted could have then no motive or temptation to accept of this advancement; for Men do not usually desire a change but upon prospect of some ease or temporal Advantage, much less when they perceive the Change is only like to add to their trouble, and increase their danger, now this was really the case of the first Christian Bishops, they being still exposed to the sharpest fury of their Persecutors, and commonly begun with first in any storm that was raised against the Church; their Labours also were very great, for the care of the Flock lay on them, and they were unwearied in the discharge of their Pastoral Care; can we then reasonably think that they should be so fond of so much toil and peril, as to violate the Institution of the Blessed Jesus or his Apostles to obtain it.  
Let any reasonable Person duly weigh these things, and ask his Conscience, whether it can be really persuaded that such an early Innovation could generally have prevailed in the Church of God.  
Such also is the Evidence that we pretended to, §. 8 touching the Canon of Scripture, and that those Books have not been so corrupted or depraved as not to be sufficient Rules of Christian Faith or Manners: Concerning this matter let it be considered,  
First, That we have the true Canon of the Old Testament, and that the Books of the Old Testament are not corrupted, we cannot know from the Infallibility of the Jewish Church or her Traditions; for when she handed down these Scriptures to the Christians, as the pure word of their inspired Prophets, she was not Infallible, but actually had renounced her true Messiah, and judged him an Impostor, and had embraced such false Traditions as did engage her so to do. So that if, 
Chap. 14. p. 29.  according to the Author of Popery Misrepresented, As the Jews received the Books of the Old Testament from the (Jewish) Church, (and the Christians also) so also were they to receive from her the sense of them; the Jews, if not the Christians also, were obliged to reject our Saviour, as an Impostor, and one who taught and acted contrary to their Law, and their Traditions.  
Secondly, §. 9 That the Books of the New Testament are not corrupted or forged, we cannot know from the Infallibility of the Christian Church.  
The Reason is because the Infallibility of the Church is so far from being a proof of Scriptures incorruption, that no proof can be pretended for it but uncorrupted places of Scripture. For if any man should attempt to prove the Scriptures uncorrupted, because that Church says so, which is Infallible, I would demand of him, seeing the Infallibility of the Church is not self-evident, and seeing Infallibility is a Prerogative which no Man can pretend to but from God's Assistance, and therefore no Man can be sure of that Assistance but from God's free Promise, how shall I be assured of her Infallibility? If he say from Scripture, promising it unto her, I would ask how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are not corrupted in those places; and if to this it be answered, From the Church's Infallibility, is it not evident that he runs in a Circle, proving the Scripture's incorruption by the Church's Infallibility, and the Church's Infallibility by the Scripture's incorruption. Moreover, this is further evident from the Tradition, Practice, and Acknowledgement of the whole Church of Christ, for to inform us in any controverted Text, which is the Reading to be owned as true; her Doctors never have sent us to Oral Tradition, or the infallible Assistance of the Church, but always to the readings of former Ancient Authors, and to the Inspection of ancient Manuscripts and Versions, and have declared what in itself is manifest, and owned by all that ever treated on this Subject, That there is no other way whereby we can attain to any knowledge or assurance in this matter. Thus Sixtus Quintus in his Preface to his Bible, 
In hac Germani Textus pervestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum esse certius ac firmius Argumentum quam Antiquorum probatorum codicum Latinorum fidem.  tells us, That in Pervestigation of the true and genuine Text, it was perspicuous to all Men, that there was no Argument more firm and certain, than the Faith of ancient Latin Books.  
Let any Man peruse all Commentators, Ancient and Modern, of what Persuasion soever, and he will be convinced of their unanimous concurrence in this Assertion. Thus St. Austin tells us, That the Latins have need of Two other Tongues, for obtaining the knowledge of the Divine Scriptures, viz. 
De Doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 11. de Civ. Dei, l. 15. c. 13.  the Hebrew and the Greek, Ut ad exemplaria praecedentia recurratur, si quam dubitationem attulerit Latinorum Interpretum infinita varietas, That if any doubt should arise from the great variety of Latin Versions, they might recur to the Greek or Hebrew Originals; That the Latin Versions of the Old Testament, where it is necessary, 
Chap. 14, 15.  Graecorum Authoritate emendandi sunt, are to be corrected by the Authority of the Greek. And that their Versions of the New Testament, where they vary, Graecis cedere oportere non dubium est, must yield to the Greek Copies, is without doubt. St. Jerom in his Epistle to Lucinius saith, 
Ep. Tom. 1. f. 69. b.  That he had Translated most of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew, and that he had Translated the New according to the Authority of the Greek: Ut enim veterum librorum fides de Hebraeis voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum Graeci sermonis normam desiderat, For as the Truth of the Books of the Old Testament is to be examined by the Hebrew, so is the Truth of the Books of the New Testament, to be examined by the Rule of the Greek. In his Epistle to Sunia and Fretela, he tells them, 
Tom. 3. f. 28. a.  That as in the New Testament, if at any time a Question arise among the Latins, and there is a diversity among the Copies; recurrimus ad fontem Graeci sermonis, we recur to the Greek, the Original Language, in which the New Testament was writ; so in the Old Testament, if there be a diversity between the Greek and Latin Copies, ad Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem, 
Ep. Tom. 3. f. 10. b.  we recur to the Hebrew Verity. In his Epistle to Damasus, he saith, That he had, at his command, Translated the Four Evangelists, codicum Graecorum emendatâ collatione, mending the former Versions by the Collation of the Greek Copies; it being the desire of Damasus, that, because the Latin Copies differed, he would show, quae sunt illa quae cum Graeca consentiunt veritate, which best agreed with the true Copies of the Greek; and indeed, saith he, If we must trust to the Latin Copies, let them, who think so, say to which, for they are almost all different one from the other; surely the Scripture of the New Testament, being writ in Greek, when that differs in the Latin Tongue, uno de fonte quaerendum, we must have recourse to the Fountain. Now by the way, they who speak so expressly of the Hebrew and the Greek Verity, by which the truth of the Latin Copies is to be examined, show that the Decree of Trent, that the vulgar Latin, 
Sess. 4.  pro Authentica haberetur, should in all Readins, Disputations, Preach and Expositions, be received as authentic; and that no Man should dare, under any pretence to reject it, agrees with Antiquity after their usual manner, by way of Opposition and flat Contradiction to it, though in this matter, I confess, they are the more excusable; seeing, as Espenceus saith, 
In 1 Tim. c. 3.  it rendered any of the Latins suspicious to know Greek, and it was almost Heretical to know the Hebrew Tongue. And as Melchior Chanus doth inform us, The Schoolmen for Four hundred Years, 
Loc. Com. l. 2. c. 12. p. 108.  retained only the Latin Edition, quip linguae Graecae & Hebraicae non. habuerunt peritiam, because they had no skill in Greek or Hebrew.  
Thirdly, §. 10 That the Books of the New Testament have been handed down unto us uncorrupted in the necessaries and substantials of Christian Faith and Manners, we conclude from Reason grounded upon matter of Fact, delivered and testified by the Doctors of the Universal Church, and we receive them as such from the rational Evidence which Tradition affords in this Case. Whence we collect,  
1. That the Apostles and Holy Spirit which did assist them in inditing of this Canon for the Church's use, could not be wanting in causing them to be transmitted to those Christians, for whose use they were indicted, because they could not be wanting to pursue the end for which they were indicted.  
Besides that they were actually thus committed to them is the Tradition of the whole Christian World, which owned and cited, read and received them for such from the Apostles Days, as is apparent from the Epistles of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and others, who were contemporary with the Apostles; and from the works of Justin M. Irenaeus, and many others of the Second Century. They were read also by the Jews as Trypho doth confess, and by the very Heathens at the invitation of the Christians: For our Doctrines and Writings, saith Justin M. 
Apol. 1. p. 52. Apol. 2. p. 7.  are such, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as all Men are permitted to read; and if you will vouchsafe to look into them you may learn these things, for we do not only read them ourselves, 
Ibid. p. 82.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but we bring them to you to peruse, knowing that they will be acceptable to all that read them. 
Apol. c. 31.  We ourselves do not suppress them, saith Tertullian, and many Accidents do put them into the Hands of Strangers. They were attested to by the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians, who rather chose to suffer Death than to deliver up these Books, which Sufferings they could have no Temptation to endure besides their full Conviction, that they were, as they always styled them, 
Passio S. Felicis saepius.  Deifici libri, Scripturae deificae, Books which instructed them to lead a Divine Life, and which their Persecutors could have had no Temptation to suppress and burn, had they not known them to have been the Records of the Christian Faith, with which their Faith must live or perish. Moreover, they contained things of the highest moment, and which it was their chiefest interest to be well assured of, they being the sole Ground and matter of their support under their sharpest Trials, and of their future Hopes; and therefore Writings they were concerned to get, and hear, and read, and keep.  
Add to this, that they very early were translated into other Languages, into the Syriack by apostolical Men, saith the Tradition of the Eastern Churches; by Men of great Antiquity, who lived before the Canon was established, as is apparent from their neglecting to translate the controverted Books of the New Testament into the Latin and other Languages, 
Praeleg. in Bibl. polyglot. 13. p. 91.  saith Bishop Walton. From the Beginning, as we may rationally conjecture, seeing the Church of Rome, and other Churches, which understood not Greek, were founded in the Apostles Days, or quickly after; nor could it rationally be supposed that they were without the Scriptures long: Especially if we consider, That it was part of their Lord's day Exercise, saith Justin Martyr, 
Apol. 2. p. 98.  to read the Writings of the Apostles: As for the Books themselves, we find them mostly written to whole Churches, Nations, 
1 Cor. i 1. 2 Pet. i. 1.  or the whole World of Christians, To all that called upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who could not easily have received them, had the Apostles, by whom they were at first converted, given no sufficient indication of them. They were Books which could not have been spread abroad, as they were, in the Apostles Names, whilst they were living, unless the Apostles had indicted them, nor be esteemed so presently the Charter of the Christian Faith, had they been so forgetful as not to make them known to them, for whose Sakes they were written. They were Books which pretended to a Commission from the Holy Jesus to give Rules of Life and Doctrine to the Christian Churches, which none but the Apostles and Evangelists could do, all others still pretending to deliver what they received from them.  
Lastly, They being written partly to confirm, and to ascertain to us the Story of Christ's Birth, Life, Passion, Resurrection, and partly to engage us to believe that Jesus was the Christ, partly to put an end to those Contentions, and to rectify those Errors which had crept into the Church in the Apostles Days, and which did need a speedly Reformation, partly to give Instructions for the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and Governors of the Church how to behave themselves in their Offices, partly to justify themselves against false Brethren and deceitful Workers, and to preserve their Proselytes from such as did pervert the Faith, and partly to instruct them how to bear up in fiery Trials, and to support their Souls under the Sufferings and Temptations to which Christianity exposed them, and therefore on those Grounds which did require their quick Dispatch upon that Errand, and to those Churches, for whose use they did intent them, it is evident the Apostles must design that early Notice should be given of them, and so commit them to their new born Proselytes and Babes in Christ. Accordingly the Tradition of the Church assures us that when the Apostles went to preach to the Gentiles they desired them to leave in Writing the things which they had taught, 
Vid. c. 7. §. 1, 2.  and that in compliance with their Desires they writ their Gospels; and having preached the Gospel to them, 
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.  Postea verè per voluntatem dei in scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & Columnam fidei futurum, They afterwards, by the Will of God delivered to them the Gospel they had Preached in Writing, to be the Pillar, and the Ground of Faith hereafter. St. Peter speaks of all the Epistles of St. Paul, showing that at least many of them were then written, 
Euseb. Eccl. Hift. l. 3. c. 3.  and others of the Ancients, that they were all Fourteen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, noted by, and manifest to all, though some doubted whether he were indeed the Author of one of them.  
2. §. 11 It is evident, that the immediate succeeding Age could not be ignorant of what was thus delivered to the Church, and was commended to them by the Apostles, as the Pillar and the Ground of Faith, 
De Prescript. c. 36.  especially if we consider that the Autographa were still extant, saith Tertullian, some of those Persons were still living to whom they were directed, and with whom they were entrusted, and all those Churches still continued flourishing to whom they were sent, and to whom they were read in public, and by whom in private.  
3. §. 12 Those Records being once so generally dispersed through places at so great a distance, as they were in the Second Century, so universally acknowledged, and consented to by Men of curious Parts, and different Persuasions, and repugnant Judgements, and great Aversions from each other, preserved in their Originals to succeeding Ages, multiplied into divers Versions, copied out by Christians for their private, and for public use, esteemed by them as digesta nostra, their Digests, saith 
(a) Adu. Marc. l. 4. c. 3.  Tertullian, as 
(b) Concil. Carthag. apud Cypr. p. 232. Optatus, l. 1.  libri divini, Scripturae deificae, say the Martyrs, believed by all Christians to be divine saith 
(c) Euseb. H. Eccl. l 6. c. 25.3.25. Orig. contr. Cells. l. 3. p. 138.  Origen. And as the Records of their Hopes and Fears, and thereupon being so carefully 
(d) Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 4 c. 26. Lib. 8 cap. 11, 13. Euseb. l. 6. c. 19 p. 222. Justin. M. Ap. 2. p. 98.  sought after, so riveted in their Minds, for many say the Ancients had them entirely in their Memory, they being so constantly rehearsed in their Assemblies by Men whose work it was to Read and Preach, and to exhort to the performance of those Duties they enjoined, being so frequent in their Writings, so often cited in their Confessions, Comments, Apologies, and Epistles of the Christian Worthies, 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 19 p. 219.  as also in the Objection of those Adversaries, to whose view they still lay open.  
It must be certain that they were handed down to the succeeding Generations pure and uncorrupt.  
Indeed these things render us more secure of the Scriptures, being preserved entire, than any Man can be of the Statutes of the Land, or of any Histories or Records whatsoever, because the Evidence of it depends upon more Persons, more Holy, and so less subject to deceive; more concerned that they should not be corrupted, than that no other Records should, and so we must renounce all certainty of any Records, or grant the certainty that these are truly what they do pretend. And,  
4. This Corruption of the Word of God, §. 13 or Substitution of any other Doctrine than that which it delivered, could not be done by any part or Sect of Christians, but they who had embraced the Faith, and used the same Copies of the Word of God in other places of the Christian World, must have found out the Cheat; and therefore this corruption, if at all effected, must be the work of the whole World of Christians: But can it be supposed that the immediate succeeding Ages should universally conspire to substitute their own Inventions for the Word of God, and yet continue steadfast in, and suffer so much for that Faith which denounced the severest Judgements against those which should do such things? Or that a World of Men should with the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes avouch the Gospel, and at the same time make an essential Change even in the Frame and Substance of its Doctrine, whilst it yet daily sounded in their Ears, employed their Tongues, and by so doing make it ineffectual both to themselves and their Posterity? Can it be reasonably thought that they should venture upon that which were the Gospel, true or false, must needs expose them to the greatest Evils whilst they continued Abettors of it? Moreover, had such a thing been done, can we in reason think that of those many Thousands, who in the Primitive Ages did renounce the Gospel, that of those many wavering Spirits, those excommunicate Members, especially those Heretics, who upon other motives did renounce the greatest part of Scripture; can it, I say, be thought that none of those should publish and disclose the Forgery, or answer the Allegations made from Scripture, by saying, They were Citations of false and of corrupt Scriptures, but that such apparent Forgeries should find a general Reception from all that looked into their Truth, and be unquestionably received as genuine by Jew and Gentile, Heretic and Orthodox, even in those times in which, and in those places where they first appeared, and by those Persons who immediately before received others as the true and genuine Copies of the Word of God.  
Lastly, §. 14 That these Records of the Will of God have not been so corrupted as to cease to be a certain Rule of Faith and Manners, we argue from the Providence of God, inducing us to judge that the Books thus delivered to us by the Church as genuine, are truly so; for nothing seems more inconsistent with divine Wisdom and Goodness, than to inspire his Servants to write the Scripture as a Rule of Faith and Manners for all future Ages, and to require the Belief of the Doctrines, the practice of the Rules of Life plainly contained in it, and yet to suffer this divinely inspired Rule to be insensibly corrupted in things necessary to Faith or Practice; who can imagine that God who sent his Son out of his Bosom to declare this Doctrine, and his Apostles, by the Assistance of the Holy Spirit to indite and preach it, and by so many Miracles confirm it to the World; should suffer any wicked Persons to corrupt and alter any of those terms on which the Happiness and Welfare of Mankind depended.  
This sure can be conceived Rational by none, but such as think it not absurd to say, That God repent of his good Will and Kindness to Mankind, in the vouchsafing of the Gospel to them.  
That he so far maligned the good of future Generations, that he suffered wicked Men to rob them of all the benefit intended to them by this Declaration of his Will. For since those very Scriptures which have been received for the Word of God, and used by the Church as such from the first Ages of it, pretend to be the terms of our Salvation, Scriptures indicted by Men commissionated from Christ, and such as did avouch themselves Apostles by the Will of God, and his Command, for the delivery of the Faith of God's Elect, and for the knowledge of the Truth which is after Godliness, in hopes of Life eternal; they must be what they do pretend to be, the Word of God, or Providence must have permitted such a Forgery, as rendereth it impossible for us to perform our Duty, in order to Salvation; for if the Scripture of the New Testament should be corrupted in any essential requisite of Faith or Manners, it must cease to make us wise unto Salvation, and so God must have lost the end which he intended in inditing of it. Again, when we consider that in the Jewish Church the Scriptures were, until the coming of Christ in very corrupt Times, and amongst very corrupt Persons, preserved so entire, that Christ sends the Jews to them to learn Religion, declares, that they have Moses and the Prophets; and both our Lord and his Disciples confuted and instructed the Scribes, and Pharisees, and Jews out of them, without the least intimation of any corruption that had happened to them; we have still greater reason to judge the New Testament sincere, since we cannot rationally suppose Providence less careful of the New Testament than of the Old.  
If against this Argument it be Objected, Object. that we find by the Citations of the Ancients, and by Old Manuscripts, that there was a difference betwixt their Copies of the Scripture, and those we now use.  
I answer, 1. That this is no certain Argument of any such difference, seeing the Citation of the Ancients might differ thus by the failure of their Memory, it being frequently their Custom to cite the Scriptures from their Memory without inspection of the Book; moreover we find by Ocular Demonstration, that these various Lectures make no considerable variation in matters of Faith or Manners, or if one Text which asserts a substantial Doctrine be variously read, so that the matter is thence dubious, there are others which assert it without that Variety.  
If then no Writing whilst the Apostles lived could pass for Apostolical, and yet destroy or contradict the Faith they taught;— if their immediate Successors could not be ignorant of what the Apostles committed to them to be read and taught, us the Records of their Faith and Doctrine; nor would they be induced to deliver that for such which they believed not to be so, if neither they could universally conspire to effect this thing; nor can it rationally be thought that Providence would suffer them to do so: 'Tis morally impossible these Writings should be forged or corrupted in matters of Concern or Moment.  
If therefore Mr. §. 15 M. will make good his Assertion, that they have the same means to show that their Traditions are true, that is truly descended from the Apostles; that we have to show the Copies of the Scripture which we use are not corrupted in substantials; he must first own what we have proved of these Copies to be true of his Traditions, viz. That they cannot be proved to be true from the Infallibility of the Church, and that in any doubt concerning the Truth of them, we must have recourse to the Original and Fountain of Tradition, not to the Judgement of the present Age, as in the proof of the true Copies, all Parties are agreed, that we must have recourse to Ancient Manuscripts, And to the Fountains of the Greek and Hebrew.  
Secondly, He must show what we have done touching the Scriptures concerning his pretended Traditions, viz. That these Traditions were owned, cited, read and received as Apostolical Traditions from the Apostles Days, that Jews and Heathens were acquainted with them, that they were attested to by the Sufferings of the Primitive Martyrs, that they were such as the Apostles desired to leave in writing, and which they did so leave according to the Will of God, and consequently were not oral Traditions, that they were universally acknowledged, and consented to by Men of different persuasions, preserved in their Originals to succeeding Ages, transcribed by Christians for their private and their public use, esteemed by them as their Digests, and as deifying Traditions, believed by all Christians to be divine, and as the Records of their Hopes and Fears, that they were carefully sought after, and riveted in their minds, and constantly rehearsed in their Assemblies, by Men whose work it was to read, and preach them, and to exhort to the performance of those Duties they enjoined; that they were frequent in the Writings, and often cited in the Confessions and Apologies, the Comments, Homilies, Discourses and Epistles of the Ancient Worthies, as also in the Objections of their Adversaries to whose view they still lay open.  
And lastly, he must prove they were Traditions which the good Providence of God was as much concerned to keep entire and uncorrupt, as to preserve those Scriptures so, which by the Will of God were written, to be the Pillar and Foundation of the Christian Faith; and when we see this task performed, we shall be more inclined to admit of the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome, and to believe them as true and uncorrupt as are the Copies of the Holy Scripture.  
But saith Mr. M. §. 16 
Pag. 399.  When we believe that the Copies which we have now of these Books be not forged nor corrupted Copies, but truly agree with the Originals given out by the Apostles, we trust to the Tradition of all the after Churches that have been in every Age from the Apostles to this very present Church; for it is as much in the Power of the Church in any one of these Ages, to have thrust a false Copy into their Hand instead of a true one, as to thrust a false Tradition into the Mouth of every Catholic every where in place of a true one.  
This Argument in the mouth of a Jew, Reply 
First.  pleading for those Traditions which were rejected by our Lord and his Apostles, runs to this effect:  
It was as much in the power of the Jewish Church, to have thrust a false Copy into the Hands of the Jews instead of a true one, as to thrust a false Tradition into the Mouth of every Jew every where, instead of a true one; if therefore their received Traditions actually were false, as your Christ and his Apostles taught, you can have no assurance of the Copies, on which you depend for proving your Jesus to be the true Messiah, are not false.  
We say it is not in the power of any of the latter Ages, 
Secondly,  to corrupt the Originals without corrupting not only all the written Manuscripts, but also all the Writings of that Christian Church in which those Scriptures have been cited, and all the Commentaries on them, and all the Translations of them into all Languages.  
'Tis therefore evidently false, That it is as much in the Power of the Church in any one Age to have thrust a false Copy into the Hand of all Christians instead of a true one, as to deceive them with a false Tradition instead of a true one.  
No Protestant ever asserted or imagined that the whole Church was either willing or able, 
Thirdly,  in any point of Doctrine, to change at once, and in one Age, the true Tradition for a false. No, they unanimously say, These Tares were sown by the Enemy whilst Men slept, that they came in by degrees, and insensibly got Ground by little and little; in one Age the Dispute was raised, the Opinion broached by some Man of Vogue and Credit, in the next it passed for probable, in the following Age for an Ecclesiastical Doctrine, and in the next advanced into an Article of Faith. Thus for Example:  
Images for the first Three Centuries were disregarded by all Christians, the first thing they taught their Proselytes, was to contemn them.  
In the Fourth and Fifth Centuries they crept into some few Churches by way of Ornament, and symbolical Representation.  
In the Sixth and Seventh Centuries they begun to be received for Instruction and historical Commemoration.  
In the Eighth Century in Italy and in the East, they advanced to the Veneration of them, though this Novelty met with great opposition in the East till the Tenth Century, and in the West till the Thirteenth Century.  
Communion in one Kind came in among some Monks in the Eleventh Century by reason of their negligence and rudeness, which made their Governors not trust them with the Cup lest they should spill it.  
In the Twelfth Century it began to take place in minoribus Ecclesiis, in lesser Churches.  
The Approbation of Thomas Aquinas made it still more prevail in the Thirteenth Century, and in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century it was established for a Law.   
FINIS.   

A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS.  
PART II.   

Imprimatur  
Liber cui Titulus [A Treatise of Traditions. Part II.]  
July 12. 1688. Guil. Needham, RR. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sacr. Domest.   

A TREATISE OF TRADITIONS.  
PART II.  
Showing the Novelty of the pretended Traditions of the Church of ROME; as being, 

I. Not mentioned by the Ancients of their Discourses of Traditions Apostolical, truly so called, or so esteemed by them. Nor,  
II. In their avowed Rule, or Symbol of Faith. Nor,  
III. In the Instructions given to the Clergy, concerning all those things they were to teach the People. Nor,  
iv In the Examination of a Bishop at his Ordination. Nor,  
V In the Ancient Treatises designed to instruct Christians in all the Articles of their Faith.  
VI From the Confessions of Romish Doctors.    
WITH AN ANSWER to the Arguments of Mr. Mumford for Traditions.  
And a Demonstration, That the Heathens made the same Plea from Tradition as the Romanists do; and that the Answer of the Fathers to it doth fully justify the Protestants.  Jam primo quod in nos generali accusatione dirigitis divortium ab institutis majorum, considerate etiam atque etiam ne vobiscum communicemus crimen istud; ecce enim per omnia vitae ac disciplinae corruptam, immo deletam in vobis antiquitatem recognosco— Exclusa ubique antiquitas, in negotiis, in officiis, totam auctoritatem majorum vestra auctoritas dejecti●. Tertullianus ad Nationes, lib. 1. Cap. 10. 
LONDON, Printed by J. Leake, for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan in Ave-Mary Lane, MDCLXXXIX.   

THE PREFACE.  
The Contents.  
Showing, First, That the Lord's Day is mentioned in Scripture, as a known Festival Day, a Day which bore Christ's Name, and on which Christians did assemble for Religious Worship, 1. From those words, Rev. 1.10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, §. 1. 2. From 1 Cor. xuj. 2. §. 2. 3. From Act. xx. 7. §. 3. 4. From the unanimous and uncontroulled Testimony of the Fathers from the first and purest Ages of the Church, §. 4. And showing, Secondly, That the Apostles were commissionated from the Lord Christ, or were directed by his Spirit to appoint this a day of public Worship in Honour of our Lord, and in remembrance of his Resurrection, §. 5. The Romanists can show no such Tradition for any of the contested Doctrines, §. 6. Mr. M's. Argument retorted against the sufficiency of Tradition to establish this Doctrine, by showing that there is no Tradition for abstaining wholly from servile Work upon that Day, but rather the contrary, §. 7. The not observing of this Day through ignorance of our Obligation so to do, is not destructive of Salvation, §. 8. The Command for remembering the Seventh Day from the Creation to rest upon it from all manner of Work, was Ceremonial and not Moral; this proved, 1st. From Reason, §. 9 2dly. From the Words and Actions of our Saviour, §. 10. 3dly. From Gal. iv. 10, 11. §. 11. 4thly. From Col. ij. 14, 16, 17. §. 12. 5thly. From the unanimous assertion of the Fathers, §. 13. Mr. M's. first Objection from God's Blessing and Hallowing this Day Answered, §. 14. His second Objection from those Words of Christ, If thou wilt enter into Life, keep the Commandments, Answered, §. 15. His third Objection, That Saint Paul frequented Synagogues on the Sabbath Day, Answered, §. 16. His fourth Objection, That in Christ Jesus nothing avails but keeping the Commandments of God, Answered, §. 17. His fifth Objection from the Words of Christ, Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath day, Answered, §. 18.  
IN this Discourse I have endeavoured to show in what Sense we admit of Tradition as a sufficient Evidence of the Truth of what we do believe, or practise: And have demonstrated, That in those things which we receive upon her Testimony the Romanists cannot pretend unto a like Tradition for any of their Doctrines. Two things they farther do object against us as instances of things necessary to be believed, which yet, say they, have no Foundation in the Holy Scriptures, and therefore must be believed only on the account of Tradition, or the Authority of the Church; viz.  
First, The Observation of the Lord's Day, and the liberty we take in working on the Sabbath, and not observing it as a day set apart unto the Service of the Creator of the World.  
Secondly, The Baptism of Infants, of which, what Mr. M. offers is sufficiently considered in the following Treatise, and the practice hath of late been fully justified from Scripture and Tradition, jointly, by Three learned Treatises, to which I shall refer the Reader. 
Mr. Walker's Modest Plea for Infant's Baptism. The Case of Infant's Baptism. Dr. Still. Rational Account. Part. 1. cap. 4.  Touching the first particular, I shall Discourse at present in this Preface, and show in opposition to Mr. Mumford, that we have sufficient Ground from Scripture for observing the Lord's Day, and not observing of the Sabbath Day; and that, as far as we depend upon Tradition in these Points, the Romanists can show no like Tradition for their Tenets. To begin with the first of these particulars; That the Lord's Day is by all Christians to be observed as a Religious Festival, will be made good from these Considerations.  
First, That it is mentioned in the Scripture as a known Festival Day, a Day which bore Christ 's Name, a Day on which the Christians did assemble for the performance of Sacred and Religious Worship.  
Secondly, That it was perpetually and universally observed as such by the Catholic Church including the times of the Apostles. And,  
First, That it is mentioned in Scripture as a known Festival Day, a Day which bore Christ's Name, a Day on which the Christians did assemble for the performance of Religious Worship, will appear,  
1st. From that Expression of St. John, §. 2 
Rev. i 10.  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day: For explication of which words observe, first, That the Name Lord in the New Testament doth ordinarily signify the Lord Christ; for God the Father having committed all Authority into his Hands, he by so doing made him, as Saint Peter saith, both Lord and Christ; 
Act. ij 36.  and therefore by this name he is distinguished from God the Father in these words, 
1 Cor. viij. 6.  There is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. And again, 
1 Cor. xij. 5, 6.  There are differences of Administrations, but the same Lord, diversities of Operations, but the same God: Wherefore by the Lord's Day here mentioned, we cannot reasonably understand the Jewish Sabbath, that being not the Day of the Lord Christ, or a Day instituted in Memorial of him, but a Day sanctified to Jehovah, who is in the New Testament styled God the Father, or absolutely God; and by that phrase distinguished from the Lord Christ. Moreover, the Sabbath is in Scripture sometime said to be a Day Holy to the Lord; but it is never styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord's Day, either in Scripture, or in the Records of the three first Centuries; and therefore we can have no reason to believe Saint John intended the Jewish Sabbath by that Phrase.  
2dly. Whereas Saint John, to denote the time when he received his Vision, saith, It was on the Lord's Day: It follows that this Day must be a Day well known; otherwise he could not by this note sufficiently declare the Time when he received his Vision: Since then the first Day of the Week, and that alone was by the Christians of the first Ages styled the Lord's Day, and known to them familiarly by that Name, it is rational to conclude, That the Apostle by this Phrase did understand the first Day of the Week. For Confirmation of this Argument, it is observable, that some Copies read that Passage of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Cor. xuj. 2.  On the first Day of the Week, being the Lord's Day, let every one lay by in store. Ignatius, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ep. ad Manes. Et ad Trallian. §. 9  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 23.  
Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 4. c. 26.   who lived Thirty Years in the Apostles Days, speaks thus, That Christians must no longer Sabbatise, but keep the Lord's Day, in which our Life sprang up by him. Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, who flourished in the second Century, writes thus, This day being the Lord's Day, we keep it Holy. Melito Bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the same Century, composed a Book, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Lord's Day, and another of the Paschal Solemnity, clearly distinguishing the one from the other. 
Justin M. Qu. & Resp. Qu. 115.  Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, in his Book of the Paschal Solemnity, declares, That Christians did not on the Lord's Day, which was a Symbol of their Resurrection, bend the Knee. Clemens of Alexandria calls the Eighth day, 
Contra Cells. l. 8. p. 392. De Cor. Mil. c. 3. Cyp. Ep. 38. Ed. Ox. p. 75.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord's day. Origen among the Christian Festivals enumerates the Lord's day, the Easter and the Pentecostal Festival. Tertullian saith, Dominico die jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare, We judge it wickedness to kneel on the Lord's day; and then he adds, That on the Easter and the Penticostal Festival we enjoy the same freedom. And indeed the thing was so notorious even to the Heathen World, that it was usual with them to put this Question to the Martyrs, Dominicum servasti, Hast thou observed the Lord's day? To which their usual Answer was, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum, I am a Christian and cannot cease to do it. And that, Dominicum agere, which is sometimes the Phrase, imports, not to celebrate the Lord's Supper, but to observe the Lord's day, is evident from Clemens of Alexandria, 
Strom. 7. p. 744.  who tells us, That the true Gnostick doth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make that day truly the Lord's day, by casting away every evil thought, and celebrating the Resurrection of Christ.  
Now from these Passages it is clear, That the Easter Festival could not be here intended by Saint John, that being never styled by the Ancients absolutely the Lord's day, but always either, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Great Lord's day, or, the Paschal Lord's day; and being constantly in those first Ages distinguished from, and in their enumeration of their Festivals opposed to the Lord's day. Moreover the Easter Feast seemeth not to have been so Ancient as the Apostles Vision; for than it would have been observed uniformly as the Lord 's day was, whereas the Eastern and the Western Churches differed much about it; and that very difference demonstrates that the Lord 's day was the more ancient, because the Question was, Whether the Eastern Festival should be kept on the Lord's day only, or on the day of the Fullmoon, as by the Jews it was, on what day of the Week soever that did happen.  
And whereas Mr. M. asks, 
P. 207.  How prove you that it was not Christmas or Ascention day? I Answer, 1st. That we have no Evidence from Antiquity, that either of these Festivals were then observed, much less, that they were then known to the Christian World under that Appellation. 2dly. The common Consent of all Interpreters, and the perpetual Practice of the Church in all Ages from Saint John to Ignatius his Scholar, and so downwards to this day, do give the name of the Lord's day to Sunday, and to no other Festival of the Church, Weekly or Annual, sufficiently instructs us what Saint John understood by the Lord's day.  
3dly. Observe, That whatsoever in the Scripture hath the Lord's Name and Subscription on it, as the Lord's Temple, the Lord's Offerings, the Lord's People, the Lord's Priests, was consecrated to the Service of Jehovah the Lord of the Old Creation; wherefore the day which had so early the Name and Superscription of the Lord Christ upon it must be supposed to be Holy to the Lord of the New Creation, and consecrated to his Service: For as the Jewish Sabbath being called the Lord 's Sabbath, or the Sabbath of Jehovah, was by that Title known to be a day Sanctified to Jehovah, as Creator, so this day being called the Lord 's day, is by this Note as certainly known to be a day consecrated to the Service of the Lord Christ. And as the Lord 's Supper is styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Supper of the Lord; the Sacramental Table, 
1 Cor. xi. 20. x. 21.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Table of the Lord; the Sacramental Wine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Cup of the Lord, either because the Sacrament was instituted immediately by the Lord Christ, to be observed to his Second Coming. Or, Secondly, Because it was appointed for the remembrance of the Lord 's Death and Passion till that time, even so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord's day, must be so called for one of these two Reasons, or for both, viz. Because it was enjoined by Christ, or by Directions given to his Apostles to command the Observation of it as a Day to be devoted to the Service of our Lord Christ, or because it was by the Apostles so observed in memory of our Lord's Resurrection, and was from them received as a day to be observed for all future Generations of the Church And that this day was certainly observed by the Apostles, and by the Christians who lived in their days, in Honour of our Lord, is evident from what hath been already proved: For if it were then known to Christians by the Name of the Lord's day, and if so be the Lord's day, must import a day that is consecrated to the Service of the Lord, 'tis clear, that they must then observe it as such, or act against the knowledge of their Duty; if when Saint John received this Vision, it were known to be a day devoted to the Service of the Lord Christ, it must be known to be thus consecrated to his Service by some who had Authority sufficient so to do; that is, at least by those Apostles and Rulers, to whom Christ had committed the Guidance of his Church, and the determination of that outward Worship he required from his Disciples: What they thus consecrated to his Service, must be devoted either by virtue of their positive Institution, or by their practice only; if by virtue of their Institution, then is it granted that this day is of Divine and Apostolical Institution; if by their Practice only, yet is it granted that this day was constantly observed by those Apostles who were assisted in their Actions by the Holy Ghost; that 'twas by their Example commended to the practice of all Christians; and therefore be alone can alter this Apostolical Tradition, who better knows the mind of Christ, than they did, and is more able to discern what Service is well pleasing to him than they were.  
Secondly, §. 2 This Practice will sufficiently appear from other Scriptures, which either presuppose, or else directly show this was a day observed in the Apostles time. Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, writeth thus, Now concerning the Collection for the Saints, as I have ordained for the Churches of Galatia, 
1 Cor. xuj. 1, 2.  so do ye, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon the first day of the week, let every man lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gathering when I come. Where observe,  
First, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth certainly signify the first day of the Week, the day of our Lord's Resurrection from the dead; for the Four Evangelists do with one Voice aver, That our Lord Jesus did arise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first day of the week: 
Matth. 28.1. Mark 16.2. Luke 24.1. John 20.1.  Nor can this reasonably be doubted by any who believe the Scriptures. Moreover Saint Mark doth clearly so interpret the Phrase; for the Sabbath being over, saith he, Marry Magdalene, and others, came, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, early the first day of the week, and found Christ risen; and v. 9 he adds, That Christ was risen early, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, by the consent of all Interpreters, upon the first day of the week. Saint Luke observes, 
Luke 23.56  That. they rested on the Sabbath day according to the Commandment, and then adds, That they came unto the Sepulchre, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on the first day of the week.  
Secondly, This may be Argued from the succeeding Practice of the Church, which, in compliance with this Precept, still offered their Alms upon this Day; for Justin M. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apol. 2. p. 98, 99  who flourished in the next Age to the Apostles, tells the Heathen Emperor in his Apology, That 'twas the Custom of Christians to meet on the Lord's day to Pray, to hear the Word, to receive the Sacrament; and then, saith he, they who are rich, and willing, give what they think fit; and what is thus collected, is laid up in the hands of the Precedent, who distributes it to Orphans, and Widows, and other Christians, 
Locuples & dives es, & dominicum observare te credis qui corbonam omnino non respicis? De opere & eleemos. p. 203.  as their Wants require. Saint Cyprian also taxeth the Omission of this Duty on the Lord's day as a Fault in Rich, and able Persons, saying, Thou art Wealthy and Rich, and thinkest thou that thou observest the Lord's day, who dost not at all respect the poor Man's Box?  
Thirdly, All the Ancient Commentators on this Place, both Greek and Latin, unanimously interpret this of the Lord 's day. Ambrose and Primasius among the Latins; Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact among the Greeks.  
Secondly, Observe, that no good Reason can be given why the Apostle should limit the Collections of the Churches of Corinth, and Galatia, to the first day of the week, but this; That this day was appointed for the Worship of our Lord, and so more fit for the performance of those Duties which concerned his distressed Members in those Times, for as the works of Charity and Mercy are proper Duties of this day, so doth this day contain a special motive in it to enlarge their Charley, it being the day in which they were begotten to a lively Hope, through the Resurrection of our Saviour, and in which they constantly in those times participated of his precious Body and Blood; and therefore having then received spiritual Things so plentifully from Christ must be more ready to impart of their temporals to his needy Servants.  
Thirdly, Observe, that should the Text be rendered thus, Let every one lay up against the first day of the week, there would be some good reason for that Precept; provided that it were a day appointed for the Service of Christ, and the Assemblies of all Christian People, for meeting thus together on that day, they might then bring to the Assembly what they had treasured up against that time, and then put it into the public Bank, as the Custom was in the first Ages of the Church; and that they did so here at Corinth, seems highly probable from the design of the Apostles Precept; for he exhorts them to have their Charity ready, that there might be no need of a Collection when he came; whereas, if they had kept their Charity in their own hands, and not put it into the public Stock, there would still have been need of a Collection at his coming. 2dly. The Apostle might command to lay it up against that day, to be then offered to the Lord, because our Charity to his distressed Members is an Odour of a sweet smelling Savour, 
Philip. 4.18. Act. 10.4.  a Sacrifice wellpleasing to God, a Duty fitly joined with our Prayers, that so they may come up together as a memorial before God. Since therefore, whether we translate the word's, upon the first day of the week, or against the first day of the week, no reason doth appear, why Saint Paul should pitch upon that day, had it not been the day of their assembling together, the day on which they met to serve the Lord Christ; we ought in reason to conclude it was so: And if for the performance of this Work of Charity on the Lord's day, Saint Paul thought fit to give his, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or special Order, can we suppose the day itself should be observed without appointment of the said Apostle, or others of like power with him, especially, if we consider that Clemens the Contemporary of the Apostles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. ad. Cor. §. 40.  doth inform us, That our Lord commanded our Oblations and Liturgies should be performed at times appointed, and not disorderly, but at those very times and seasons which he had ordained; and thence concludes, That they who offer their Oblations in those appointed Seasons, are blessed, and acceptable to God, and that because they act agreeably to the Commandments of their Lord; for if Christ himself gave Laws for the time when, and the persons by whom he would have divine Offices performed, as Clemens here doth plainly teach, there is little doubt to be made but the Lord's day was his own Ordinance; and if, as he there adds, These things were defined by his Sovereign Counsel, that all things being done religiously according to his good Pleasure, might be acceptable in his sight, it follows that this time could not Religiously have been set apart for his Service, or have been acceptable to him, had it not been appointed by the Counsel of his Will; so that, although this Text doth not expressly command that the first Day of the Week should be observed as the Christians weekly Festival, yet if we join with it the uniform Practice of the Primitive Church then, and ever since, they jointly prove that the first day of the Week was the weekly Festival of Christians at that time, and strongly do imply, or suppose that before this Apostolical Ordinance for these Collections on this Day, there was another for the observation of the day itself; for how could it have happened that all the Apostolical Churches throughout the World should from the beginning have accorded to make this day a weekly Festival, unless they had been directed thus to do by the Apostles themselves, by whom they were at first converted to the Christian Faith, and with that Faith received this Institution?  
3dly. We have another Scripture, Act. xx. 7. §. 3 which fairly seemeth to conclude, that the Apostles and the Christian Church did then observe this day, and meet for the performance of Religious Worship on it; for there it is expressly said, That upon the first day of the Week, when the Disciples came together to break Bread, Paul preached unto them, Where Note,  
1. That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first day of the week, was certainly the Lord's day, as hath already been made manifest.  
2. Observe, That on this day the Disciples were not summoned extraordinarily to come together, that Saint Paul did not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, call them together, as he did the Assembly of the Elders of the Church, v. 17. but the Disciples were themselves, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, met in their Synaxis, or Assembly; the Text informs us, That Saint Paul carried with them seven days, and in none of them have we any mention of an Assembly to this purpose, but only on the first day of the week.  
3. Observe, That they than met together to break Bread, which Phrase doth signify the sacred Action performed in celebration of the Holy Sacrament, which 'twas the Custom of the Primitive Christians to receive in all their Church- Assemblies on the Lord's day; 
1 Cor. xi.  this the Apostle intimates when he complains of his Corinthians, That they came together for the worse, because when they came together in the Church, there were Divisions among them, so that they did not eat together of the Table of the lord Now thus to come together in one place, saith he, is not to eat the Lord's Supper, i. e. it is not so to do it, as the sacred Action ought to be performed; this therefore, when they came together in the Church they did, and therefore what is coming together, v. 17. coming to the Church, v. 18. coming to one place, v. 19 is coming together to eat, v. 33. Accordingly it was the Custom of the Church from the Apostles times thus to communicate upon the Lord's day. Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperor Trajan, 
Soliti sunt stato die ante lucem convenire, etc. Ep. l. 10. Ep. 97.  tells him, That he found nothing to allege against the Christians, but their Obstinacy in their Superstition, and that is was their Custom to meet together on a set day before it was light, and to bind themselves by the Sacrament to do no evil. Now this Epistle was writ only Six Years after the Death of the Evangelist Saint John. And Justin M. who wrote but Fifty Years after his death, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apol. 2. p. 98, 99  thus speaks, On Sunday all the Christians in the City or Country meet together, because that is the day of our Lord's Resurrection, and then we have read unto us the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles; this done, the Precedent makes an Oration to the Assembly, to exhort them to imitate and do the things they heard; then we all join in Prayer, and after that we celebrate the Sacrament, and they that are willing and able, give their Alms, etc.  
Fourthly, §. 4 This may be further proved from the Church's Testimony, and from the plain Expressions of the Fathers, who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church: For to this Effect;  
Century the first, besides the words of Clemens Romanus, already mentioned, the Apostle Barnabas saith of the Apostles and Christians in the General, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Sect. 15.  We keep the eighth day a Festival, in which our Jesus risen from the dead.  
Century the Second, I have produced the plain Testimonies of Ignatius, Justin M. Irenaeus, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito Sardensis.  
Century the Third, I have produced already the Testimony of Clemens of Alexandria, to which add that of Tertullian, who saith in his Apology, Diem folis laetitiae indulgemus, 
Cap. 16.  Sunday is the Festival of us Christians. And in his Book Ad Nationes, That they did rejoice upon that day, 
 Christianorum deum aestimant quod innotuerit nos die solis, etc. Lib. 1. cap. 13.  and that this was a thing so well known to the Heathens, that hence they took occasion to conjecture, That the Sun was the God of Christians; 

Neque enim Resurrectio Domini semel in anno & non semper post septem dies celebratur. In Esa. Hom. 6.  
Hom. 7. in Exod. fol. 41.  
Ep. 38. Ed. Ox. p. 75.   that of Origen, That the Resurrection of our Lord is not celebrated annually only, but every seventh day; which therefore, in opposition to the Jews, he calls, Dominica nostra, The Christian's Lord's day. And that of Cyprian, That Aurelius, Dominico legit, reads on t●● Lord's day.  
Centuny the Fourth, Epiphanus informs us, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Expos. fid. cap. 22.  That the Holy Catholic Church keeps every Lord's day as a Festival. In a word, no Church, no single Writer ever represented this as a new, or introduced Practice, but do continually speak of it as the constant Practice of the Christian Church. We never read that any of the converted Jews, though they retained the Jewish Sabbath, ever disputed the Observation of the first day of the week in honour of our Lord: And therefore, as the Reverend Bishop Bramhal truly saith, 
Pag. 918.  To question now whether there was a formal precept for that which all the Christian World hath obeyed ever since Christ's time, and shall obey until his Second Coming, is a strange degree of Folly. And that this may be farther evident, I add this second Proposition:  
That the Apostles had Commission from the Lord Christ, §. 5 
Prop. 2.  or were directed by his Spirit to ordain and choose this day, to be employed in the public Exercise of Christian piety, and in remembrance of the Resurrection of our Lord. For,  
First, Christ did Commission his Apostles to teach the Churches all his Doctrine, and to deliver them all his Commands and Orders, which concerned their Duty and his Service; for thus he delivers his Commission to them; All Authority is committed to me in Heaven and Earth, 
Matth. 28.18.  Go therefore, and disciple all Nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you: 
John 20.21.  He also saith unto them, That as my Father sent me, so send I you; and surely the Father sent him, who was Lord of the Sabbath, with full Commission to change and alter it, and substitute another day in lieu thereof. Accordingly the Apostles exercised this Power, they founded Churches, they delivered to them the Doctrines and Commands of Christ, they settled Church Officers, Orders and Discipline; and surely than they had Commission also to settle the time to be appointed for the Service of their Lord and Master. When therefore they began to practise the Observation of the first day of the Week, they only did what their Commission from the Lord impowered them to do.  
Secondly, That the Apostles were directed by the Holy Ghost to set apart this day for Holy Worship, or to appoint Church- Meetings on this Day; and therefore that this was done by a Divine Authority appears from this, That their Determinations touching smaller Matters, and which were only ●porary, are by themselves ascribed to the Holy Ghost; thus, when Saint Paul gives his advice, in respect of the present necessity, touching a single Life, though he confesseth he had not express from Christ touching that matter, yet he ascribes this Counsel to the Holy Ghost, 
1 Cor. 7.40.  For I think, saith he, I have the Spirit of Christ. Again, the same Apostle speaking of the Directions which he gave concerning their Church- Meetings, and their Behaviour in them, saith, 
1 Cor. 14.37.  If any man think himself to be a Prophet, or Spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I writ unto you are the Commandments of the lord The same must therefore be much more acknowledged of things of so high a nature as that is which they delivered to be observed by the Universal Church, they being equally Appointed, and Authorized to instruct them in Discipline and in Matters of Divine Worship, as in matters of Doctrine, and as well by Word as by Epistle, and therefore as well in the Observation of the time appointed for the Worship of their Lord, as in the due Regulation of it when they came together. The same Saint Paul professeth, 
1 Cor. 11.23  That. he had received from the Lord what he delivered to the Church of Corinth, touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and when he speaks of one particular concerning which he had no precept from Christ, he saith expressly, This speak I, not the Lord; 
1 Cor. 7.12.  if then the practice touching the Observation of the Lord's Day, had been of the same nature, we may suppose the Apostles would not have failed to inform the Christian Churches, That this was their own Constitution, not the Lord 's, which since they did not, we may presume that they in this, as well as other things, did only what they received from the lord And lastly the Apostle doth command the Christians to observe the Traditions which they had received, 
2 Thess. 2.15.  whether by Word, or by Epistle, and therefore must command them to observe that day which by Tradition from the Apostles was certainly delivered to them.  
But against these Arguments it is Objected, Object. That we read in Scripture of many things ordained by the Apostles, which are now laid aside, viz. The Kiss of Charity, the Love-Feast, the Anointing with Oil, the abstaining from things strangled, and from blood, and therefore cannot rationally conclude the Lord 's day ought to be observed perpetually and unalterably, because it was ordained by those Apostles who were assisted by the Holy Ghost.  
To this I Answer, Answ. That Apostolical Constitutions which concern the whole Church must be esteemed invariable and perpetual, if they have these Conditions:  
First, That they were made upon such Grounds and Reasons as equally concern the whole Church of all Ages, and there hath happened since no alteration of Circumstances, which made it reasonable then to observe, what now we have no Reason to perform: v. g. The Anointing of the Sick was a Ceremony annexed to the extraordinary Gift of Healing, which ceasing, this Appendix of it ceased with it, not by any repeal of the Church, but by expiration; as all the Constitutions of Saint Paul, touching the use of Tongues, did with the failure of that Gift. The Law which obliged the Gentile to abstain from things Strangled, and Blood, was designed only to avoid offending the weak Jew; there being therefore none such now, nor any hopes remaining of their Conversion by this Abstinence, that Law must cease, not by a positive repeal, but by cessation of the Cause, or Reason of it, according to those known Rules, Sublatâ causâ tollitur effectus, & ratio legis est lex, Take away the Cause, and the Effect ceaseth.  
Secondly, When they are not about some lesser Ceremonies or Circumstances, which in tract of time may become subject to abuse and hindrance, to a greater good; and for that reason may be dispensed with, and abrogated by the Church, by virtue of that general Rule of doing all things to Edification, but about Matters of great Moment, such as concern the Service of our Great Master, and the time to be set apart for the performance of it. For Instance, touching the Kiss of Charity, all that Saint Paul or Peter have delivered concerning it is this, That some times or other Christians should testify their mutual affection to each other by a Kiss; and that this Kiss be not a wanton or dissembling one, but an Holy one, or a true Kiss of Charity, and in this sense 'tis still continued among Christians: Moreover 'tis of itself a thing indifferent, and only good as 'tis an indication of true Charity, and therefore is equivalently continued by all Acts of Christian Charity. The Love Feasts were designed for the Refreshment of the Poor, by what the Rich brought to the Holy Sacrament to be eaten by them at that Feast of Love; and since it after happened through the looseness of Christians, that great Disorders were committed in those Feasts, they being made occasions not of Divisions only, but of Intemperance and Drunkenness, they were universally disused in the Fourth Century, and converted into a more unexceptionable Charity to be distributed among the Poor; according to that never failing Rule, That where the abuse is greater than the use of a Ceremony, if the intended use may be obtained other wife, Abusus tollit usum, the abuse makes it reasonable to cease the usage of that Rite.  
Thirdly, If they have been universally neceived through the whole Christian World, from the Apostles times unto our days; not that the neglect of this Observation, by any Church in any Age or Ages, could have rendered this Ordinance invalid, or not obliging to Posterity, but because the continuance of it from the time of its first Practice or Institution to this present moment, is a just Presumption that all Christians have been always satisfied, and well assured of their Obligation to comply with it, and that no Christians can have any cause to vary from it. Now all these three particulars here meet: For, 1. This Christian Festival hath always been observed in all place●, and throughout all Ages of the Church. 2. It was observed by all Christians for these very Reasons, 1st. That as the Jews, by Observation of the Sabbath, professed to own the Lord of the Creation for their God, and themselves to be his Servants; so they by Observation of the Lord Christ might own him as their Lord and Master, who was the Lord of the New Creation. 2dly. As they observed their Sabbath, in Commemoration of the Blessings procured to them by the Creation, so the Christians observed the day of our Lord's Resurrection, in thankful Remembrance of the inestimable Blessings procured and consigned to them by it. 
Non Dominicum diem timerent enim ne Christiani viderentur.  Now sure this solemn Act of owning Jesus for our Lord, on which account Tertullian says, The Heathens feared to observe the Lord's Day, is a Duty of the highest moment; and surely the Blessings partly purchased, partly confirmed to us by our Lord's Resurrection, must as well deserve a day to be employed in solemn and in grateful commemoration of them, as the Mercies which the Creation did confer upon Mankind; and so this Constitution must be concerning Matters of great Moment. And, 3dly. These are never failing Reasons, and such as render it as necessary now to observe this day, and will do so for ever; and no Man ever can refuse the Observation of this day without being careless to own Christ for his Lord, or to return Thanks for the Benefits of his Resurrection, or without opposing, yea condemning the Wisdom of the Apostles, and the whole Christian World to this very day.  
Moreover, This Assertion is confirmed by the concurring suffrage of the Ancient Fathers; for Justin M. 
Apol. 2. p. 99  speaking of the Observation of this day, saith, That our Lord arising from the dead, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taught these things. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De laudibus Constant. p. 664.  Eusebius saith, That Christ hath prescribed to all the Inhabitants of the World, by Sea and Land, that coming together into one place, they should celebrate as a Festival the Lord's day. In time past, saith Athanasius, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Cement. p. 1060.  the Sabbath was of great account, which Solemnity the Lord translated to the Lord's day, nor do we set light by it without his Authority. In a word, 

So Athanas. Serm. de Resurrect. Tom. 2 p. 277. Ambros. Ep. 83.  
Psalm. 118.24.   the Fathers generally apply that Passage of the Psalmist, This is the Day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoice in it, to the Lord's day, as made or Instituted by the Lord, and Consecrated or Sanctified by his Resurrection. Others of them say, That the Observation of the Lord's Day was an Apostolical Tradition, and that they kept it as an Holy Day, 
Hesuch. in Levit. c. 9 Leo. Ep. 11. Ed. Quesnel. p. 436.  Apostolorum sequentes traditionem, following the Tradition of the Apostles. The Apostles, and Apostolical Men having decreed, Dominicum diem religiosâ solennitate habendum, That the Lord's day was Religiously to be celebrated.  
And surely it is enough to satisfy all Conscientious Christians in the Observation of this Day, that it was consecrated to the Service of our Lord, either by Christ himself, or his Apostles, and as such hath been celebrated ever since by the perpetual practice of the whole Church Catholic, especially if we consider what excellent Names these ancient Observers of it have ascribed unto it, and what great Dignities they have put upon it, calling it the Queen of Days, the Princess and the Principal of Days, a Royal Day, higher than the highest, the first Fruits of the Days, whereas had they conceived it only an humane Ordinance, it could not have deserved these Titles above other Days ordained by the Church. In fine, how dangerous it is to say, That the public Exercise of Christian Religion should depend upon so weak a Foundation as humane Authority, which may alter its own Constitutions, and is subject to manifold Errors, I leave to the prudent and judicious Reader to consider.  
Let then the Romanists show three Texts of Scripture expounded constantly in that sense by the whole Church, §. 6 which confirms any of their Doctrines; let them show us the Names of any of those Practices of theirs which we condemn, in Scripture, and the Fathers of the first Centuries; let them give clear evidence from their Writings, that such Practices were received in the Apostles days throughout the Christian World, no Church, no Christian Writer ever excepting against them, or mentioning them as newly introduced Customs; let them show us plain Expressions from them declaring that they were instituted either by Christ or his Apostles, and that they practised them, Illorum sequentes traditionem, in compliance with their Tradition, and then we shall no longer question or condemn them.  
Having thus Answered Mr. M ' s. Argument against the sufficiency of the Scripture from this Head, I retort it thus.  
That is necessary to be done to Salvation, §. 7 which left undone, 
Pag. 204.  causeth Damnation; but the observation of the Sunday (commanding the abstaining from all servile Works) if neglected, or left undone, brings Damnation; therefore to observe in this manner the Sunday, is a thing necessary to Salvation; and yet this point is so far from being clearly put down in Tradition, that standing merely to the sole judgement of it, we can clearly show more Declarations for the lawfulness of working on the Sunday, than for the unlawfulness thereof. The Canon of the Council of Laodicea only saith, 
Can. 29.  That Christians shall rest on the Lord's Day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if they can, well knowing that it was not possible for many of them so to do, some of them being Servants to Pagan Masters, some condemned to labour in the Mines, and toil in Galleys when their Lords required them, and yet we find not in all Ecclesiastical History those Christians ever then refused to labour upon this account; and therefore Balsamon upon this Canon saith, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they did not enjoin this as a thing necessary; but added, If they could, let them do it; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for if any one work on the Lord's day out of Poverty, or any other necessity, he will not be condemned. And Zonaras on the same Canon adds, That the Civil Law commands all without excuse to rest upon the Lord's day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, excepting Husbandmen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it permits them to work on the Lord's day, provided that they find no other day so fit fo● their work. That which he saith touching the Civil Law, 
Cod. Just. l. 2. Cod. de feriis.  is evident from that Law of Constantine where commanding all men to rest on the Lord's day; he excepts Rural Labours, in which delay may be very prejudicial to them; 
Enchirid Tit. 4.  which Law Hermenopulus gives us thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, On the Lord's day and other Festivals, let the Judges and others rest, excepting only Husbandmen; and none of the Fathers of the Church living in those days, or in the following Centuries reproved these Laws, or spoke any thing to signify that they esteemed them Profane: 
Epitaph. Paulae ad Eustoch. f. 64.  On the contrary Saint Jerom tells us, That Paula, with all the Virgins and Widows that lived at Bethlehem in a Cloister with her, repaired to the Church on the Lord's Day, A●que inde pariter revertentes instabant operi distributo, and returning thence, they all fell to their work, and made Clothes for themselves, or others.  
And lastly, §. 8 let it be observed, that though I verily believe this day to be of Divine Institution, and, jure positivo, to be observed, yet am I far from thinking that it is necessary to Salvation so to do, and much less to abstain wholly from working that day, or that if any Church should rather think it fit to keep another day in Honour of our Lord, or that if any Christians should think, as some of the Ancient Fathers seem to have done, that under the Gospel Dispensation there was no difference of days; but that the Christian should observe every day as a Spiritual Sabbath, they should be damned, or even Unchurched for that Opinion. And therefore this is like unto most other Instances urged by Mr. M. impertinent, and such as reacheth not unto the Question, viz. Whether the Scripture be deficient in any thing that's necessary to be believed, or practised to Salvation.  
To proceed to the Second Question touching our Freedom from any Obligation to observe the Sabbath enjoined in the Fourth Commandment: I say, that though Tradition seems not sufficiently to do it, Scripture affords sufficient Evidence, that the Observation of the Seventh day from the Creation was only a ceremonial Precept, and therefore not obliging to the Christian; that is, the Observation of the Seventh day from the Creation, as a day wholly to be set apart for rest from bodily Labour, according to the Fourth Commandment, was not enjoined by a Moral Law, or by a Law commanding what is naturally good antecedently to the Command of the Lawgiver; or which can be resolved into any Principle, or Dictates of the Law of Nature, imprinted in men's Hearts at the Creation, but that it was a Law which only did oblige the Jews and Jewish Proselytes to rest from Labour on that day, laying no Obligation on the Christian so to do. And,  
First, §. 9 That this Command to observe the Seventh day from the Creation could be no Moral Precept, obliging all Mankind, is evident, 1. From the Reasons there assigned of it; Because God having made the World in six days, rested the seventh, and that therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it. Now, evident it is, that no Man by the Light of Nature could discern that God employed six days in the Creation of the World, or that he rested on the seventh day only from his Labour; no humane Reason could, with any certainty infer, That because he rested from his Labour on this day, we should rest also on it; and so no Man, without a Revelation, could be acquainted with these Grounds for Observation of this day. Moreover no Man by the Light of Nature could know that Time ought rather to be computed by Weeks, or by the Number Seven, than any other Number, and much less that one day in seven precisely, rather than in ten, should be dedicated to God's Service; this being neither a principle evident in itself, nor derivable from any thing that is so, and much less that the last of seven days should be kept holy, rather than the first, or any other of the seven, no day being more holy than another by inherent Sanctity, but only by God's free and arbitrary injunction to apply it, or consecrate it to Religious Uses. And sure God, notwithstanding the Creation of the World in six days, had he so pleased, might have designed any of those days for his Religious Worship. 4thly. Such Precepts as are purely Moral, and are injunctions of things good antecedently to the command, can in no time or case be violated or transgressed; whereas our Lord expressly hath declared, That this Law touching the Sabbath, in many cases, might be violated. And therefore Chrysostom observes, That of those natural Laws, Thou shalt not Kill, or commit Adultery, etc. God gave no Reason, because the Light of Nature taught them; but when it pleased him to prescribe the Observation of the Sabbath day according to the Fourth Commandment, he adds these Reasons, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stat. Orat. 12. Tom. 6. Ed. Savil. p. 542. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. in Ez. 30.  because he rested on the seventh day from all his Work, and because thou wast a Bondman in the Land of Egypt, as knowing this Commandment was not primogeneal, nor made known to us by the dictate of our Consciences, but was temporary and particular, i. e. given only to the Jewish Nation, according to those Words of Moses, I have given you the Sabbath, Exod. xuj. 19  
Secondly, §. 10 This clearly doth appear from that Defence our Saviour made of his Disciples, when they were censured by the Pharisees for violating the Sabbath by plucking Ears of Corn, 
Matth. xij.  and rubbing them; for our Lord justifies their Action, 1. by the Example of David and his Men, 
vers. 3.  Who being hungry eaten the show Bread, which by the Law of Moses was to be eaten only by the Priest: Now in all Arguments, à pari, or taken from Example, the Ground, or the Foundation of them must be this, In paribus par ratio, the Reason is the same where the Case is so. And so in Arguments drawn from such Actions, the Cases must be still alike in all considerable Circumstances, and so it will be in the Example here produced, provided that the rest enjoined in the Fourth Commandment be Ceremonial, for then the Case runs thus, I and my Men, and David and his Men being both hungry, did that which was forbidden by a Ceremonial Law of Moses; if therefore David and his Men were blameless, I and my Disciples must be so: But if the Rest enjoined by the Fourth Commandment had been Moral, 'tis evident the Cases could not be alike, since David and his Men did only violate a Ceremonial Precept; but Christ's Disciples did transgress a Moral Precept. So that we stand obliged to confess the Rest enjoined by the Fourth Commandment was Ceremonial, or that our Saviour 's Argument was unconcluding and unsound, which it is Blasphemy to assert.  
Again our Saviour Argues, That his Disciples were not to be accused of doing evil, Verse. 7 though they did not observe the Rest required on the Sabbath day, because God had declared he will have mercy, and not Sacrifice; that is, he will have works of Mercy, which are Moral Duties, to be preferred before Sacrifices, which are but Ceremonials, the feeding of the hungry Body must therefore be compared to works of Mercy, the violating the Rest prescribed by the Fourth Commandment is that which is compared to Offering Sacrifice: Since then the Law concerning Sacrifices most certainly was Ceremonial, the Law concerning the Sabbatick Rest must be so also.  
Secondly, §. 11 This may be fairly gathered from these Words of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians, Argum. 2 
Gal. 4.10, 11.  You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I may have laboured among you in vain. Whereobserve,  
First, That the days, and months, the times and years here mentioned are only Jewish days and times, as will appear first from the scope of the Apostles, which is to show the Christian Gentiles were exempt from any Obligation to observe the Law of Moses, for this being the chief design of that Epistle, the days forbidden here must be the days and times commanded by the Law of Moses. 2dly. By Observation of those days and times, etc. they are here said to be willing to return again to the service of weak and beggarly Elements. Now these Elements to which they are said to have been in Bondage are the Mosaic Ceremonies, v. 3, and 4. For we, saith he, when we were Children were in Bondage to the Elements of the World, but when the fullness of time was come, God sent to redeem those that were under the Law, from any farther Bondage to it.  
Secondly, Observe, That the Months, Times and Years here mentioned, do comprehend all other Jewish Festivals besides the Sabbath, for the Months signify their New Noons; the Times, the set times of going up to Jerusalem; the Years, their solemn Anniversary Feasts, which constantly returned at such a time of Year, or after such a period of Years; and therefore the Days here mentioned can only signify the Sabbath Days observed by the Jews, and so Saint Jerom and Saint Chrysostom interpret the Place.  
Thirdly, Observe, That the Jewish Sabbath, or the Day of Rest, appointed by the Fourth Commandment, is certainly the seventh day from the Creation, as is evident, 1. From the Reason there assigned, You shall keep the Sabbath, for in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and rested the seventh day. 2. That was the day which the Lord Blessed and Sanctified; if therefore that be abrogated, and not to be observed by Christians, the day of Rest enjoined in the Fourth Commandment must be abolished, which was the thing to be proved.  
Thirdly, §. 12 This will be still more evident from those words of the same Apostle to the Colossians, affirming, Argum. 3 
2 Coloss. xiv. 16, 17.  That. Christ had blotted out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was contrary to us, and had taken it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross; and making thence this Inference, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the New Moons, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Where Note,  
1st. That the hand-writing of Ordinances respecteth Ceremonial Orders, for of them only can it be truly said, That they were against us, and were contrary to us, as being Yokes of Bondage, and Burdens grievous to be born; that they were blotted out, and canceled, and nailed to the Cross of Christ, and that they were shadows of, or shadows in respect of things to come.  
2dly. When it is said, Let no Man judge you in respect of these things, the meaning clearly is, Let no Man censure or condemn the Christian for not observing these New Moons, Feasts or Sabbaths. Hence than these Arguments result.  
First, No Man ought to condemn the Christian for not observing of the Jewish Sabbath, because that Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of ceremonial Ordinances, which was against them; therefore the Jewish Sabbath was a ceremonial Ordinance; therefore 'tis blotted out; therefore the Christian is not obliged to observe it: That which is joined with Meats and Drinks, and with New Moons, which are things confessedly Ceremonial, no difference at all being observed by the Apostle, as to their being named hand-writings, things canceled, shadows, or the like, that must be ceremonial; that which is a shadow of, or in respect of things to come, of which Christ by his Advent exhibited the Body, that must be ceremonial, that must be canceled, and abolished by Christ; therefore the Jewish Sabbath must be abolished, as being only ceremonial. The Answers which the Sabbatarians return to this last Argument are these;  
1st. Answer 1 That the Apostle meaneth here by Sabbaths, not the weekly Sabbath of the Jews; but the first, and last days of the great Jewish Feasts, which were by them observed as Sabbaths, and are in Scripture sometimes styled by that Name.  
1. Reply. The Apostle having said before, Let no Man condemn you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for not observing of the Jewish Festivals, or any part thereof, cannot be rationally supposed in the word Sabbaths following, to forbid only the same thing.  
2. In the New Testament the word Sabbath, or Sabbaths, is used above sixty times, and in Fifty six of those places, it doth unquestionably signify the Jewish weekly Sabbath, and in the other places the whole week: sigh then the Sabbath in the New Testament is never used for the first and last days of the Jewish Feasts, but ordinarily is there used for their weekly Sabbath, we ought in reason to conclude it here importeth the same thing which it is used to signify where it is mentioned in other places by the Holy Ghost, and not conceive it here importeth that which it is never used to signify in the New Testament; that is, we ought to judge is signifies the seventh day Sabbath, and not the solemn days of the great Jewish Feasts.  
3.  the word Sabbath in the Old Testament is mentioned in conjunction with New Moons, or Jewish Feasts, it doth import the seventh day Sabbath distinctly and separately from all others, as will appear from the perusal of all the places where these things are jointly mentioned, as, v. g. 2 Kings iv. 23. Esa. i. 13. Esa. lxvi. 23. Lament. ij. 6. Ezek. xlv. 17. Ezek. xlvi. 1. Hos. ij. 11. Amos viij. 5. Being then here mentioned together with New Moons and Jewish Feasts, 'tis reasonable to conceive it signifies the same thing.  
4. The Sabbath day in the Old Testament is often contradistinguished to all other solemn Feasts, and more particularly to New Moons, and anniversary Feasts; and therefore being here mentioned with them, we may presume it cannot signify them, or any portion of them, but rather that it doth import that Jewish Sabbath, which in other places is put in opposition to them; as for Example, 1 Chron. twenty-three. 31. 2 Chron. ij. 4. xxxi. 3. Neh. x. 32, 33. And lastly Moses, having reckoned up the solemn Feasts, Leviticus the 23: he adds v. 37, 38. These are the Feasts of the Lord which you shall proclaim besides the Sabbath of the Lord; seeing then the word Sabbath wherever it is used in conjunction with New Moons or Feasts in the whole Book of God, doth always signify the Jewish weekly Sabbath we cannot doubt but in conjunction with them, here it signifies the same; seeing the word is often put in opposition to New Moons and solemn Feasts indefinitely taken, what reason have we to conceive that in this place it should be taken for any part or portion of them.  
Some Sabbatarians tell us, Answ 2 That by. Sabbath here the Apostle understandeth not the weekly, but the yearly Sabbaths, viz. the seven Years Sabbath, and the Sabbath of the Year of Jubilee.  
But the same Observations do confute this Gloss; Reply. for seeing the word Sabbath in the whole New Testament doth never signify the yearly Sabbath, but still the seventh day Sabbath, or the whole week; since the word Sabbath, when it is joined with New Moons and Feasts, as here it is, doth always signify the seventh day Sabbath, this Sabbatarian Gloss must be repugnant to that Sense in which the word is used by the Holy Ghost, and therefore contrary to those Rules by which we are obliged to expound the Scripture.  
'Tis Thirdly Answered, Answ. 3 That the Apostle saith not, as the words are rendered, Let no Man judge you in respect of a Feast; but as they ought to be rendered, Let no Man judge you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in part of a Feast, New Moon, or Sabbath; whence they conclude, that he intends not the whole Sabbath, but that part of it which consisted in offering Sacrifices, and this he calls a shadow, or a hand-writing of Ordinances.  
This Quarrel at the Translation of these Words is groundless; Reply. for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth as truly signify on the account, or on behalf or in respect, as it doth signify in part; as when the same Apostle saith, 
2 Cor. 3.10.  That which was made glorious, had no glory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this respect, by reason of the Glory that excelleth. 
2 Cor. 9.3.  And again, I have sent the Brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on this behalf. 
1 Pet. 4.16.  And when Saint Peter saith, If any Man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this behalf. Moreover this expression was in use among the Jews of that Age, as appears from that saying of the Book of Maccabees, 
2 Maccab. 15.18.  The care they took for their Wives and Children, etc. was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in least account with them, their principal fear being for the Holy Temple; whence it appears, that our Translation of this Phrase is very suitable to the Language of the Apostles, and of the Age in which they lived, and consequently to the true meaning of these Words.  
2dly. The Apostle here makes no distinction of parts of the Sabbath to be retained, and other parts to be abolished; if therefore no Man should condemn us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for not observing part of a Sabbath, than no Man should condemn us for not observing the Rest enjoined on that day, that being eminently part of the Sabbath.  
3dly. If, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word, in part, can only be referred to the Sacrifices offered on the Sabbath, then must it only relate to the Sacrifices of the New Moons, and other Feasts, to which it more immediately is joined; whereas it is acknowledged, not only that the Sacrifices offered then, but even the whole New Moons and Feasts were part of that hand-writing which was blotted out, and shadows of things future, and Solemnities, for not observing any part of which the Christian was not to be censured or condemned, and therefore this must be affirmed also of the whole Sabbath Festival.  
4thly. There is not one Example in the whole sacred writ, in which it can be showed, that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify the Sacrifices offered on the Sabbath day, in distinction from the other Duties of the Day; whence evident it is, That this Exposition of the words is groundless. Besides, had the Apostle intended by these words only to signify, That no Man should condemn the Christians for not offering Sacrifice on that day; what Reason could there be, why he should not have plainly said so, rather than signify his mind in Terms so much offensive to the Jews, as seeming to declare the Abrogation of their whole Sabbath, and to misguide the Christian into such an apprehension? Surely, had the Apostle embraced the Sabbatarian Doctrine, he would not have afforded so great occasion to others to reject it. But against this Argument the Sabbatarians thus Object;  
That the Sabbath here mentioned is said to be a shadow of things future, Object. 1 but the Seventh day Sabbath was a sign of a thing past, viz. of the Creation of the World.  
That the Sabbath was (not as the Objection, without Ground, Answer. affirms, A Sign, but) a Feast Instituted in Commemoration of the Creation of the World, proves not that it was not a shadow also of things future; for the Passover was the memorial of God's Mercy in passing over the Houses of Israel, when he smote the Egyptians; the Feast of Tabernacles was a memorial that their Fathers dwelled in Tents and Tabernacles; Pentecost was a memorial of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai; the Feast of unleavened Bread was celebrated in memory of their Passing out of Egypt with their Dough unleavened, and of their deliverance from the Afflictions they endured in Egypt; if therefore, notwithstanding the Institution of these Feasts in memory of what was past, it is acknowledged by all Christians, that they were shadows of good things to come, the Seventh day Sabbath may be both.  
And whereas it is by the Sabbatarians said, That the seventh day Sabbath seems not to be a shadow of any Blessing which we at present do enjoy by Christ, it may be Answered,  
1. That this Expression of the Apostle doth not necessarily import, that the things mentioned here were shadows which related to things future, but only that comparatively to those future things which were to be prescribed and taught by Christ and his Religion, they were shadows.  
2. This Objection seems to contradict the very Words of the Apostle, 
Apostolo respond si potes, qui vacationem istius diei umbram futuri esse tes●●tur. Contra Faustum l.  and therefore what Saint Austin said to Faustus is very proper here; Answer thou the Apostle, if thou canst, who witnesseth, That resting on the Sabbath day was a shadow of that which was to come. Even the Ancient Jews acknowledged, That their Sabbath was a shadow of the Age of the Messiah; this being their Assertion, That the Sabbath was given as a Type of the Holam Habba, or the Age to come, by which they understand the Age of the Messiah; (whence in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the World to come doth clearly signify the Gospel Age,) and this they gathered from these Expressions of the Prophet Isaiah, 
Ch. 66.23.  which say, That it shall come to pass that from one New Moon, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before the Lord; which, say the Jews, is spoken of that Age to come, which shall be all Sabbath. 
In signo data sunt Judaeorum populo, Iren. l. 4. c. 30. Ita Iren. l. 4. c. 30. Barnabas, Ep. §. 15. Orig. Hom. 23. in Numer. f. 136. August. l. 4. De Gen. ad lit. c. 11. Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 4. p. 477. Orig. Hom. 23. in Num. f. 136. Machar. Hom. 35. Greg. Nyssen. Hom. 7. in Eccles. Tom. 1. p. 440. Cyril. Alex. in cap 6. Amosi p. 315. Sabbata perseverantiam totius diei erga deum deservitionis edocebant, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 30. Just. M. in Dial. cum Tryph. p. 229. c. Tertull. advers. Jud. c. 4.  And all the Ancient Fathers do with one Voice declare, That the Jewish Sabbath was Typical, and figured the Spiritual Rest which Righteous Persons should enjoy by Christ, and their Spiritual Ceasing from the Works of Sin, and that we always ought to be employed in God's Service.  
Fourthly, §. 13 The Fathers with one Voice Assert, That the Sabbath was ceremonial, and that the Christians, or at least the Gentile Converts, were not obliged to observe it. Justin M. Asserts, That after the Appearing of the Son of God we have no need to observe the Sabbath. 
Lib. 4. c. 30.  Irenaeus, That it doth not Justify, and that the Ancient Patriarches pleased God without the Observation of it. 
Adu. Jud. c. 4.  Tertullian, That the Observation of it was Temporary, and that it was blotted out like as Circumcision, and other Rites of the Old Law. The Council of Laodicea declares, That Christians ought not to Rest on the Sabbath, 
Can. 29.  but work on it, preferring before it the Lord's day. Epiphanius saith, That our Lord did his Miracles on the Sabbath, and commanded the Impotent Man to take up his Bed on that day, to insinuate that the Sabbath was to be dissolved; 
Haer. 30. Ebion. §. 32. vid. Haer. 66. c. 82.  that hence the Apostles knew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Sabbath was dissolved; that it was dissolved by the Coming of Christ the Great Sabbath, who gives us Rest from our Sins. 
Catech 4. p. 38.  Saint Cyril of Jerusalem tells his Catechist, That all Observation of Sabbaths is to be rejected. It would be endless to recite all that the Fathers say upon this Subject; but if we do consider how constantly the Fathers teach, That the Patriarches and pious Men, before the promulgation of the Law of Moses observed not the Sabbath, how generally they teach that it was a shadow of good things to come by Christ, and that our Saviour both by his Miracles performed upon that day, and by his Contests with the ●harisees, designed to insinuate the dissolution of it, we can no longer doubt the Judgement of the Ancients in this Matter.  
To proceed then to Answer the Objections of the Sabbatarians. §. 14  
First, Mr. M. Objects, Object 1 That. God Blessed the Seventh day and Sanctified it, because in that, and not in any other, 
§. 9 p. 205.  he had rested from all his Work, Gen. 2. And then inquires, How comes this Blessing given to no other day among the Seven, but given to the Seventh day, only to be lost? who took away the Sanctification of it given by God himself, and given for a Reason which is as obliging now, as ever?  
To this I Answer, Answ. That to Bless and Sanctify the Seventh day doth only signify to set apart that day for his peculiar Worship, or as the Badge and Sign by which the People, who owned Jehovah for their God, should be distinguished from all other People, and by which He should also be disting vished from all other Gods, by a Work peculiar to himself; for it being the Custom of all Nations and of all Religions, to set apart some day or time as Sacred for the Worship of their Gods, and in that time to Solemnize their Worship by the Commemoration, or the imitation of some peculiar Actions for which they were Honoured; God would have this to be the Sign of His peenliar People, the Resting on the Sabbath day, in Token that they owned him as the Creator of the World by imitation of the Rest he took when he had made it: This God himself declares by saying, 
Exod. 31.15, 16.  The Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe it through their Generations for a perpetual Covenant. It is a sign betwixt me and the Children of Israel for ever; for in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and on the seventh day he Rested; that is, Now that the Seed of Abraham are come to be my People in Covenant, they shall keep the Seventh day as a Sign that they are Consecrated to the Service of the Creator of the World, and that they own him as their God. 
Ezek. 20.12.  Hence are these Sabbaths said to be given to be a sign betwixt God and them, that they might know he was the Lord that sanctified them: and God commands them to observe them, 
Exod. 31.13.  that they might know he was the Lord that sanctified them; that is, did consecrate and separate them from all other Nations, to be his own peculiar People. Hence also was it that till God had made of Abraham a great Nation, till he had freed this Nation from that Bondage they were under to the Egyptians, who would not let them rest from Work, and chosen them to be his own peculiar People: He laid not this injunction on them, for even the very Sabbath day before that mentioned by Moses to be observed by them as a day of Rest, 
Exod. 16.1. Neh. 9.14.  they marched a wearisome Journey, and came at Night to the Wilderness of Sin; and therefore Nehemiah saith, That God made known to them his Holy Sabbath by the hand of Moses his Servant; that is, than did he set a part that day to be a day to be observed by them in Honour of him. Accordingly the Christian Fathers generally teach, That none of the Patriarches did keep the Sabbath, nor do we find from Adam to Joseph the least mention of the Observation of it, though we find frequent mention of all other Acts and Requisits of their Religious Worship, of their Groves and Oratories, their Priests and Altars, their Sacrifices and Oblations, Prayers, Vows, Thanksgivings, and, after Abraham, of their Circumcision; the Book of Genesis is partly spent in giving an account of the Travels of these Patriarches from one place to another, and yet it addeth not one word of their resting any where, because it was the Sabbath day. Now doth it not seem strange that such a solemn Command should have been given to Adam and all Mankind, as some conceive it was, and not the least Print or Token of the Observation of it to be found for Two thousand Years?  
And whereas some Object those Words of Moses, Object. This is that which the Lord hath said, 
Exod. 16.23.  To morrow is the Rest of the Holy Sabbath to the Lord, and thence Collect, that God had before Moses given a Command touching the Observation of that day;  
It may be Answered, That the word is, is wanting in the Hebrew, and so the Words may thus be rendered, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow shall be the Rest of the Holy Sabbath to the Lord; and so they will accord exactly with those other Scriptures, which tell us, That the Sabbath was made known to the Jews, not by Abraham or Joseph, but by the Hands of Moses; 
Ezek. 20.10, 12.  that God caused them to go forth out of the Land of Egypt, and (then) gave them his Sabbaths to be a sign between him and them; whereas the Sign of the Covenant between him and Abraham was only that of Circumcision. Now from all these Considerations it seems evident that the import of those Words of Moses in Genesis the Second, Wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it, is only this, God made the World in Six days, and rested the Seventh, which was the Reason that when he chose to himself a peculiar People, he made that the day they were to set apart for his Service that so they might acknowledge him, whom they served, to be the Creator of the World.  
And Because on the same Day God overthrew Pharaoh and his Host in the Red Sea, 
See Mr. Mede, Disc. 15. p. 56.  and by that Action completed his Deliverance of his People from Egyptian Bondage, therefore he gives that as a farther Reason of the Observance of that Day, 
Deut. 5.15.  saying, Remember that thou wast a Servant in the Land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. Hence therefore,  
1. We see sufficient cause why this Command should be inserted into the Decalogue with as much Ceremony and Solemnity as the others were, although it were not Moral, as to the Nature of it, it being so far Moral with respect unto the end of its Observance, viz. The owning the Creator of Heaven and Earth, as their peculiar God, in opposition to all Heathen Deities; that upon this depended the performance of all the other Duties, which belong to the First Table. For 'twas this Institution which continually brought this Fundamental Article to their Remembrance, that the God they Worshipped was the Creator of the World; they could not ask themselves why they thus rested, but this must come into their Minds; this could not come into their Minds but they must be inclined to despise all the old Heathen Deities, the Sun, Moon and Stars, and the whole Earth, as being all the Creatures of their Great Jehovah: Wherefore this Precept having such strict Affinity with the other Three, which were unquestionably intended to remove the Kind's, the Objects, the Signs, and Instruments of Idolatry, and keep them close to the sole Worship of the True Jehovah, might very well find place among the Precepts of the Decalogue.  
2. Hence also may we see sufficient Reason for the strict Charge God gave for Observation of the Sabbath; for the severest Punishments which he inflicted on the Violators of it, and for the Promises he made of signal Blessings to the Observers of it, viz. Because the Observation of this day tended so fully to establish the great Foundation of the Law of Moses, That Jehovah the Creator of the World was their God in Covenant; and because it was a most effectual Bar against the Old Idolatry of the World, which chief did consist in Worshipping the whole, or else some parts of Heaven and Earth, on which account we find God often mentioning these things together, the keeping of the Sabbath, and the fleeing from Idolatry, 
Levit. 19.3, 4.  as in these words, Ye shall keep my Sabbath, I am the Lord your God, turn you not to Idols, nor make to yourselves molten Gods, 
Levit. 26.1, 2.  I am the Lord your God. And in these following, You shall make no Idols, nor graven Images, nor shall you set up an Image of Stone in the Land to bow down unto it; for I am the Lord your God, ye shall keep my Sabbaths. Lastly, Because the Violation of this Law was a virtual denial of the Creation of the World, and consequently of that God who made it, and gave them this Temptation to Worship the Heavenly Being's, that they were eternal. Accordingly we find the Jews usually committing both these Sins at once, Idolatry, to wit, and violation of the Sabbath, as in those Words, They polluted my Sabbaths, 
Ezek. 20.16.  for their Hearts went after their Idols; and in those of the Author of the Book of Maccabees, Many of the Israelites consented to the Religion of Antiochus, 
1 Mac. 1.43.  and sacrified unto Idols, and profaned the Sabbath. Since then the Observation of this Day was of so great moment for preservation of them from that Idolatry to which they were so prone, and the neglect of it put them in so great danger of returning to it. Surely we may discern sufficient Reason of the Severities and Promises forenamed, and of the frequent Charges given for the strict Observance of it.  
3. Hence also may we see the plainest Reason for the non-Obligation of the seventh day Sabbath now, Because that Reason of the Institution of it, which concerned their Freedom from Egyptian Bondage, was peculiar to the Jews, and therefore never could concern the Christian. The other Reason Assigned by God that it might be a Sign between God and them, that they were his peculiar People, and that he was the Lord that sanctified them, must also cease upon their ceasing to be his peculiar People, and to have any more Relation to him as their God in Covenant. Yea seeing God hath now cast off that very People to whom he gave the Sabbath for a Sign, and as Josephus truly saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Law peculiar to that Nation, and that dispensation, it seems to be a kind of Judaisme, and as it were a virtual revolting to the Mosaic Dispensation to be still, out of Conscience, Observers of the Rest which was peculiar to that Law and Nation.  
If it be here enquired, Object. whether the Reason of the Observation of the Seventh day assigned in the Fourth Commandment, viz. Because God rested on that day, doth not remain and equally concern all Christians:  
I Answer, No. For, 1. Answ. it seems a vulgar Error to conceive that God did chief and primarily command the Jews to rest upon the Seventh day in imitation of his Rest, there being nothing moral, or nothing in the Light of Nature which could induce them to imitate him in this matter any more than in the Work of the Six days preceding, in which God worked; which was so far from laying any necessary Obligation on them to work upon those days, that God himself established many other Festivals as a perpetual Ordinance, in which they were obliged to cease from Labour on those Days on which he Worked. Wherefore the great design of God, in requiring them to Rest upon that day, as he did, was this, that by so doing they might acknowledge, as by a Sign and Pledge, That they did Worship and own him as their God in Covenant, who was the sole Creator of the World, according to these Words of God to Moses, Speak thou unto the Children of Israel, saying, 
Ex. 31.13.14.  Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign betwixt me and you throughout your Generations, that you may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. You shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is Holy unto you. Wherefore the Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their Generations, for a perpetual Covenant. It is a sign between me and the Children of Israel for ever, for in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and on the seventh day he Rested. Now hence it follows, That God neither did, nor could, agreeably to his Design, Command the Gentiles then, or before, to observe the seventh day in imitation of his Resting; for then the doing this by his own Nation could be no sign betwixt him and the Jews, that they were his peculiar People, because it was, according to this Supposition, the common duty of all other Nations. The Gentile Christians therefore never were obliged to observe this rest by virtue of the fourth Commandment, and being also not obliged to it by any Precept Evangelical, it cannot be in them any act of Christian Obedience, but rather must be deemed the Fruit of Jewish Superstition, so to do.  
Secondly, Answ. 2 I add that the injunction of this Rest upon a reason which remains, and which doth in the General concern all Christians, will not infer the Obligation of the Christian to observe the Rest commanded for that Reason, it being very common in the Law of Moses to require the Observation of Ceremonial Precepts for Reasons which remain, and which do equally concern all Christians, 
Leu. 19.10. vers. 30. vers. 37.  v. g. Thou shalt not glean thy Vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every Grape of thy Vineyard, but thou shalt leave them for the Poor. I am the Lord, thou shalt Reverence my Sanctuary, I am the Lord. You shall observe all my Statutes, and all my Judgements, and do them, I am the lord Now God is still the Lord of Christians, but hence it will not follow that they are obliged to observe these Ceremonial Precepts, enjoined for Reasons still remaining, and equally concerning Christians; it therefore cannot rationally be concluded, that Christians are obliged to observe the Rest enjoined in the Fourth Commandment, because it is commanded for a Reason that doth still remain.  
4. Hence we may easily discern the Reason why the Christians still observed one day in Seven, and also why they chose to observe the first day of the Week, and not the last. For when Christianity began, it had two sorts of Adversaries to encounter, viz. The unbelieving Jews, and the Idolatrous Gentiles; and therefore as a Testimony against the Heathens, who worshipped false Gods; that is, the Gods who made not Heaven and Earth, they chose one day in seven to signify they worshipped the true God, and the Creator of all things.  
But then they chose the first of these seven days, to testify, against the Jews, that they worshipped this God, not now as one in Covenant with the Jews, or as their Redeemer out of Egypt, but as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through him our most loving Father, and to own themselves the Servants of that God who on the morning of that day vanquished Satan the Spiritual Pharaoh, and redeemed us from our Spiritual thraldom, by raising Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead, begetting us instead of an Earthly Canaan, to an Inheritance incorruptible in the Heavens; 
Dr. Spencer de Legibus Hebr. Mr. Mede Disc. 15.  this account of this change of the day I have borrowed from two very Learned and Ingenious men, and for the further illustration and confirmation of it, let it be observed,  
1. That the Jews never worshipped God, or put up their addresses to him under the name of Father, as we Christians by our Lord are taught, and commanded to do in these words, When you pray say, Our Father; this being as the Apostle hath observed, the peculiar privilege of Christians above the Jews, 
Rom. 8.15.  that we have not received, as they, the spirit of bondage unto fear, but the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father. They were, it is confessed, Children also, 
Gal. 4.1, 4.  but nothing differing from servants, as being Children in their Minority, and so in bondage to the Rudiments of the world; whereas we having received, through faith in Christ Jesus, the Adoption of Sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba Father. It is the saying of the Jews, that a servant cannot say unto his Lord Abba; this being a word proper to a Son, and only used by natural, or adopted Sons; we being therefore all the Children of God, and his adopted Sons through faith in Christ Jesus, 
Joh. 1.12. Gal. 3.26.  we have through him received this privilege to address ourselves unto him by the name of Abba, or our Father; and yet more certainly is it peculiar to the Christian to own him as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is his usual name in the New Testament, and to address unto him in, and by that Name.  
2ly. Observe that the Resurrection of our Lord Christ is generally ascribed in the New Testament to God the Father; and when our Lord declares that he had power to lay down his life, 
Joh. 10.18.  and take it up again, he adds immediately, This Commandment have I received of my Father. Hence doth the Holy Ghost assure us, that God the Father said unto him, Thou art my Son, 
Act. 13.33.  this day have I begotten thee; for this as well as other reasons, that he had raised him from the dead, and that He was declared to be the Son of God with power, 
Rom. 1.4.  by his raising him from the dead.  
3ly. Observe that our Lord's Resurrection is represented as the Great foundation of all the mercies derived to us from our Saviour, as being that by which they were completed, or confirmed to us. 
1 Pet. 3 21.  Our Baptism doth save us, saith St. Peter, through the Resurrection of Christ Jesus. Our freedom from condemnation is ascribed rather unto his Resurrection, than his death; as in that question, 
Rom. 8.34.  Who is he that condemns us? it is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again. Our Justification is ascribed to it: 
Rom. 4.25.  For Christ was delivered for our offences, and risen again for our justification. From it derives our hope of Glory, 
1 Pet. 1.3.  for we are begotten to a lively hope, through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus from the dead, of an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, reserved in the Heavens for us. In a word, 'tis the foundation of our whole faith, 
1 Cor. 15.14.  for if Christ be not risen, than our faith is vain.  
Since then these blessings, so far exceeding those of the Creation, or of the Jews deliverance from Egypt, were procured to us by the Resurrection of our Lord, 
Ephes. 1.19.  which was effected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the operation of the strength of the power of God the Father, since he became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through him our Father, by raising him from the Dead, there seems great reason why this day should be appointed as the day in which the Christian should acknowledge himself a Worshipper of God his Father through our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Moreover this day being peculiarly styled the Lordsday, it is highly probable it was observed by Christians primarily in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through him, to the Glory of God the Father, to whom our prayers, our praises, and spiritual sacrifices are offered on that day through Christ.  
And for Illustration of this matter let it be observed,  
1. That the times of the Messiah were still represented by the Jews under the Notion of Holam Habba, or the world to come; and the work of the Messiah as a new Creation, or a Creation of new Heavens, and a new Earth. The Lord God shall slay ye, and call his servants by another name: 
Isa. 65.15, 17. Isa. 66.22. — For behold I create new Heavens, and a new Earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into my mind. Accordingly, 
Heb. 2.5.  the Author to the Hebrews styles this new Dispensation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the world to come; and they who then enjoyed the Gift of Miracles, or other extraordinary operations are said to have tasted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the powers of the world to come. 
Heb. 6.5.  And the Renovation of Christians by this Dispensation, is represented as a new Creation, wrought by Christ; 
Ephes. 2.10.  for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus to good words. He hath abolished the Law of Commandments, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ver. 15.  that he might create those two, the Jew, and Gentile, into one new man in himself; so that now if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a new Creation, 
2 Cor. 5.17.  old things are passed away, that all things might become new in him; for in Christ Jesus nothing availeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Gal. 6.15.  but this new Creation.  
2ly. Observe that this new World, and new Creation, 
Hieron. & Theodoret in Isa. 9.6. Euseb. dem. Evan. l. 7 p. 336  as it was made by Christ, so is it immediately subjected to him. He by the Septuagint was styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the Age to come; to him, and not unto the Angels, 
Heb. 2.5. Ver. 8, 9  hath God subjected this world to come. He hath crowned him with Glory and Honour, and set him over the works of his own hands, and hath put all things in subjection under his feet, 
Joh. 5.23. Phil. 2.10, 11.  declaring that he will have all men honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; and determining that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess that Jesus was the Lord, to the Glory of God the Father. Moreover this power he received at the Resurrection, having then, 
Mat. 28.18.  as he saith, all power both in Heaven and Earth committed to him; being then, saith the Apostle Peter, made both Lord and Christ, 
Act. 2.36.  and exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour; whence he is said to be the first born from the dead, 
Col. 1.10.  that he might be in all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the preeminent.  
3ly, Observe that Christians are represented in the New Testament as those who do succeed the Jews in all their Covenant-Relations; 
Rom. 11.19.  They being broken off from the true Olive, and we grafted in; and being therefore a chosen Generation, a peculiar people, a Royal Priesthood, an Holy Nation to show forth the virtues of him who called us from darkness to light, 
1 Pet. 2 9  and from the power of Satan unto God. This Covenant-Relation they enjoy by virtue of that Jesus who is the Mediator of a better Covenant; and who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us, 
Tit. 2.14.  and purify us to himself a peculiar people. In fine, the virtues for which we are to celebrate his Praises, are our Redemption by him from the wrath to come, from the curse of the Law, from the power of Satan, from the dominion of sin, our Adoption, our receiving of the spirit, by which we are enabled to cry Abba Father, and as a consequent of that, our being heirs of Glory; and all these mercies, as I have observed already, were confirmed by, and were completed to us at his Resurrection.  
If then in this Oeconomy there be a new world, and a new Creation, a new Lord to whom this world is subject, and who is to be honoured and worshipped, as the former was, tho' to the honour of the former; if there be a new Covenant established in his blood, and by which he hath purified to himself a peculiar people; if to this Lord all power both in Heaven and Earth is given by the Creator of the World, unto this very end that all men might thus honour him; if this Lord hath procured for us a Redemption from the power of Sin and Satan, much more valuable than the Redemption of the Jewish Nation from Egyptian thraldom; if by his Resurrection we are all begotten to the lively hope of a much better Canaan; is there not cause sufficient for the Translation of the Day appointed for the celebration of the mercies of the old Creation, and of deliverance from the Jewish thraldom, and the agnizing of the Author of it as the Lord that sanctified them, to a day appointed for Celebration of the new Creation, and the deliverance accomplished by it, and the acknowledging the Author of it as the Christians Lord? Is there not cause sufficient why Christians should observe the day on which their Lord did triumph over their spiritual Pharaoh, redeemed them from spiritual thraldom, begot them to a lively hope of a Spiritual Canaan, ●nd by the observation of it should profess that they are Christians, and 〈◊〉 that Jesus who is Lord of all things? Can we refuse to give this honour to the Son, who is by God's appointment to be honoured as the Father, and whom we do thus worship to the Glory of God the Father?  
Mr. M. in behalf of the Sabbatarians Objects, 
§ 15. Obj. 2. §. 9 p. 207, 208. Mat. 19.17, 18. Mark 10.19. Luk. 18.20.  That ou● Lord said to one enquiring of him, What good thing shall I do to have eternal life, if thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments; and when he still enquired of him which Commandments, did clearly explicate himself to mean all the Commandments of the Decalogue given by Moses; whence he insers, That the Author of our new Law with his own mouth required no less the keeping of this Commandment of the Saturday Sabbath, as necessary for our entrance into life everlasting, than the keeping any other Commandment.  
Answ. 1. This Assertion is expressly false, and manifestly contradicts the Text, for in none of these Evangelists doth our Lord mention the Commandments of the first Table, of which that of the Sabbath is one, but only doth enumerate those which belonged to the second.  
2ly. His Inference is also-false, for Christ there speaks not of what was necessary to Salvation to be observed by the Christian after his Resurrection, but of what was necessary then to be observed by the Jew, speaking there to a Jewish Governor, who was acquainted already with the Law of which he spoke, and had observed it from his Youth.  
Mr. M. Objects, That St. Paul preached every Saturday, 
§. 16. Obj. 3. Act. 18. p 209.  for he disputed in the Synagogue every Sabbath.  
Answ. 1. To this I answer first, That this Apostle hath declared that the seventh-day Sabbath was part of that hand-writing of Ordinances which Christ took away, and was a shadow of good things, exhibited by Christ, and so he plainly did discharge the Christian from observation of the Rest required by the fourth Commandment on the Sabbath- day.  
2ly. That He, or any of his Brethren preached the Gospel in the Jewish Synagogues upon that day, can be no evidence that they esteemed the Rest required on that day obliging to the Christian, but only that they prudentially complied with Jews and Proselytes in coming to their Assemblies on that day, that so they might have more familiar access unto them, and better opportunity to instruct them in the Christian faith; and therefore in pursuance of the same good end, St. Paul, who was most free and vehement in declaring his and our freedom from the legal Ceremonies, saith, notwithstanding that to the Jew he became as a Jew, 
1 Cor. 9.20.  that he might gain the Jews; to them that were under the Law as under the Law, that he might gain them that were under the Law; and therefore his example in these cases will as much prove that we are to observe the Law of Moses, and the Jewish Customs, as that we are obliged to keep the Jewish Sabbath.  
Mr. M. farther adds, 
§. 17. Obj. 4. p 210. 1 Cor. 7.19.  That St. Paul tells us that in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Uncircumcision, but the keeping of the Commandments of God, of which the Sanctification of the seventh day was one.  
Answ. To which I answer that here he plainly begs the Question, which is only this, Whether the Saturday under the Christian Oeconomy, be still, by God's Commandment, to be observed as a day of Rest; and contradicts the plainest declaration of our Lord, and the whole Christian Church, that it was Ceremonial, a shadow of things to come, a temporary precept, which laid no obligation on the Christian.  
Mr. M. closeth with the common Sabbatarian Objection, 
§. 18. Obj. 5. p. 211.  That Christ foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem, which was to happen forty years after his Resurrection, when all the Ceremonial Laws belonging to the Jews were abrogated, bids his Disciples pray their flight might not be in the Winter, or on the Sabbath-day, 
Mat. 24.20.  that they might avoid the profanation of that day; whereas if that Commandment had been Ceremonial, and then abrogated, they might have fled upon that day as well as upon any other, and could not by so doing have profaned it.  
Answ. 1. To this I Answer, first, That these words of Christ cannot be rationally deemed to import that he advised them to pray their flight might not be on the Sabbath, because he thought such flying then a sinful action, or a profanation of that day, seeing he so expressly hath declared the contrary, 
Mark 3.4.  saying, that it was lawful to save life upon the Sabbath-day, and that in all such cases God would have mercy and not Sacrifice; 
Mat. 12.7.  that the Rest of that day might be violated to preserve the life of a Beast, and much more to preserve the life of man; that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and therefore man might wave the Rest required on that day when it was for his good to do so. Having then so oft, and so expressly taught his Disciples that it was lawful to fly for saving of their lives upon that day, he could not use these words to intimate the contrary.  
2ly. Tho' it were lawful, even when the Fourth Commandment was still in force, to flee upon that day from danger, and travel upon case of urgent necessity; yet many of the Jews thought otherwise, esteeming this an intolerable profanation of the Sabbath, persecuting, and condemning our Lord for teaching the contrary. If therefore his Disciples, or other Christians, should have been compelled to flee upon that day they might have been molested, and persecuted by their own Superstitious Nation, and so had cause to pray their flight might not be on the Sabbath-day. And,  
3ly. The believing Jews adhered stiffly to the observance of the Jewish Rites (and consequently to the observance of the Rest commanded on the Jewish Sabbath) till the destruction of Jerusalem, and thought themselves obliged so to do, and therefore Christ might well advise them, knowing that they would still retain these apprehensions, to pray their flight might not fall out upon that day. And tho' it cannot be expected that we should know the Reasons of all his actions, yet might he still permit the Christians to continue under this apprehension of their obligation to observe the Law of Moses, that so the unbelieving Jews might be the less offended at them, and so might be more ready to embrace the Christian faith; and because he knew the time would shortly come when the Temple should be destroyed, and they should thereby be convinced that the Rites confined to that Temple were abolished.   

OF TRADITION.  

CHAP. VI  
That there is no Evidence of Traditions for the Doctrines of the Church of Rome is proved; 1. Because there is no mention of them in the ancient Councils, the Codex canonum Ecclesiae universalis, the Discourses of the Ancients Church Government and Discipline, or in their Rituals, §. 1. 2. Because we find no mention of their Articles of Faith in the Creeds, Enchriidions, Compendiums of Christian Doctrine, and Ecclesiastical Opinions, or in the catechistical Discourses of the ancient Fathers, §. 2. 3. Because the Fathers of the first Ages were very careful and concerned to preserve the Traditions of the Apostles truly so called, and so esteemed by them, and had occasion to mention them, by reason of the pretences of the Heretics of their Times to Tradition, and yet they have not been concerned to preserve the pretended traditionary Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, § 3.  
HANING thus Stated the Question in these propositions, I come now to show, that there is no Evidence of Tradition for any, much less for all those Doctrines of the Church of Rome, which she hath put into her Creed, and hath required all her Clorgy to believe and teach, as that true Catholic Faith without which no Man can be saved.  
For, First, §. 1 Had they this Evidence concerning the Exercise of the papal Jurisdiction over all Christians, the practice of auricular Confession and Indulgences, of Prayer to Saints and Angels, of Veneration of Images, of performing the public Services of Prayer, sing, Reading in a Tongue not understood by the People; I say, had they that evidence of Apostolical Tradition for these things, it would be as notorious, that these Doctrines were handed down by the Catholic Church throughout all Ages to this present, as it is of other matters of continual practice, viz. The Lord's Day Assemblies, the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons by Bishops, the Government of the Church by them, the Observation of the Easter Festival, Baptising by Trine Immersion, the mixture of Wine with Water in the Sacrament, etc. For all these matters are therefore evident in the Tradition of the Church, because, being continually practised by her Members, they had continual occasion to speak of them in their Discourses of Church Government, and Church Assemblies, and of the Sacraments of the Church, and made numerous Constitutions about them; they all appear in their most ancient Rituals, in the Accounts they give us of their Assemblies, and of their practice when Assembled, and in their ancient Councils, the Primitive Writers mention them upon all Occasions; they draw Arguments and Conclusions from them, and show the Reasons why such establishments were made by the Apostles. The like we see now practised in the Roman Church, touching the Novelties now mentioned; since they have obtained in that Church, we find them got into their Rituals, and Books of S. Offices: Their Councils do consult about them, make Canons and Decrees in favour of them. Having then so frequent mention of these matters in the Councils, Liturgies, the Canons and the Constitutions of the Western Church in these last Ages, why is it we have nothing of them in the Canons or Constitutions Apostolical, or in the Code of Canons of the universal Church, or of the Church of afric, where we have so frequent mention of all the other received Practices and Customs of the Church, when Tertullian sets himself on purpose to enumerate those things which had obtained in the Church, 
De Cor. c. 3.  Traditionis titulo, & consuetudinis patrocinio, under the specious Titles of Custom and Tradition, why is it that he doth not mention one of these Romish Practices? 
De Sp. Sancto, c. 25, 27.  When St. Basil, if that be his Work which bears his Name, doth professedly discourse of the, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unwritten Customs which had obtained in the Church, why is he wholly silent as to all these practices, if equally owned by the Church as Apostolical? Surely these things give us just reason to suspect, that they were not acquainted with them, and knew nothing of them.  
Again, had they the Evidence of Tradition, §. 2 that those points of Faith which in their Councils have been established, and imposed upon us under an Anathema, were handed down unto them from our Lord's Apostles; had the Apostles and their Successors still taught all Christians the Doctrine of Concomitance, and the sufficiency of one Species to make an entire Sacrament, and to convey the whole benefit of the Sacrament; Of the necessity of the intention of the Priest to make a Sacrament; Of the number of the Sacraments, that they are neither more nor less than Seven; Of Marriage, that it is a Sacrament properly so called, and that by virtue of our Lord's Institution; Of the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ; Of the Oblation of a true propitiatory Sacrifice for the Dead and Living in the Mass; Of a Purgatory, or place in which the Souls of Pious Men do suffer Punishment, and from which, being afterwards relieved by the Prayers and good Works of the Faithful upon Earth, they go to Heaven before the Day of Judgement: had they informed all Christians, That a Power of Indulgences is left by Christ unto his Church; That Saints departed are to be Invoked, and Images to be Venerated; That the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and, That the Pope is the Vicar of our Lord Jesus upon Earth, and that without the Belief of this Faith Salvation cannot be obtained, and consequently never was obtained by any Christian. I say, had all these Articles descended to them from the Apostles through all Ages of the Christian Church, they must be as notorious as any which have thus descended, and which we can run up from Age to Age till we come to the Apostles. For Instance, they must have been as obvious to be found in all the Writings of the Fathers, as the Tradition of the Apostles Creed, the Canon of the Scripture, the Writing of the Four Evangelists, etc. They also must have been as diligently taught, as frequently inculcated as those things were, as being no less necessary to Salvation, than any Doctrine contained in the Scriptures, or in the Creed of the Apostles. We must have met with them in all their Summaries of Christian Doctrine, of Ecclesiastical Doctrines, and their Discourses writ on purpose to instruct others in the Articles of Christian Faith, they would have been inserted into their Creeds, as other necessary Articles were, taught their Catechumen, required of their Clergy at their admission to Holy Orders, sent by their Patriarches and Bishops in their circular Letters, included in the Paschal Cycles, as were the Rule of Faith, the Christian Symbol; and yet by diligent perusual of all these, we can find no such matter in the Creeds, Enchiridions, Compendiums of Christian Doctrine, the catechistical Discourses, the Treatises of Faith, and ecclesiastical Doctrines, so frequent in the Writings of the five first Centuries; and therefore have good reason to believe they were not then received or owned as Articles of Christian Faith.  
The Wisdom of the present Church of Rome yields a strong confirmation of this Argument, for since their latter Councils have defined these Articles, we find them Inserted into her Creed, and her Trent Catechism, contained in all the Writings of her Doctors, touching the Articles of Christian Faith, and of ecclesiastical Tradition, required to be believed, professed, and taught by all her Clergy. What therefore shall we think of all the Fathers of the five first Centuries, was it out of want of love to Souls, or care of their instruction, in the necessary Articles of Christian Faith, that they were wholly silent in these matters? Why then may we not fear that they neglected to hand down unto Posterity other necessary Articles of Christian Faith? Or was it out of ignorance that they were then necessary, how then came Romanists to know by Tradition, that they are necessary now? Or, if they wanted neither knowledge to discern all necessary Articles of Christian Faith, nor will, nor care to teach all they conceived to be such, must it not follow, that those Articles which in their numerous Discourses and Instructions on these Subjects, are not so much as touched upon, were not then owned as necessary Articles of the Christian Faith, and therefore ought not now to be imposed or received as such?  
Add to this, §. 3 that the Fathers of the first Ages were very careful, and concerned to preserve the Traditions of the Apostles, truly so called, or so esteemed by them, and to commit them unto writing to be the Testimonies of their Faith against the importunity of Heretics, to whom it was peculiar, for the three first Centurtes to refuse trial by the Scriptures only, and to pretend unto some secret Traditions not contained in the Scriptures. For the Great Ignatius going to his Martyrdom, confirmed the Churches he arrived at with his Discourses, requesting them in the first place to avoid the Heresies which were then springing up. He exhorted them also, 
Lib. 3. c. 35.  saith Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to stand firm to the Tradition of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, for the greater certainty, he, having testified concerning it, thought necessary to leave in writing, and so indicted his Epistles. Papias, 
Ibid c. 38.  often naming the Apostles, saith the same. Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, puts down their Traditions. And Polycarp, saith Irenaeus, not only testified what was the truth which he received from the Apostles, and by that testimony converted many of the Heretics, but he also writ an Epistle to the Philippians, from which they, who are willing and desirous of their own Salvation, may learn, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Lib. 3. c. 3.  the Character of his Faith, and the Declaration of the Truth, so plain and simple was the Faith of those first Ages, that the whole Faith and Truth of Christ was thought to be contained there, where is not the least intimation of one Article of the Romish Faith. The Faith received from the Apostles, saith Irenaeus, the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, keeps with the greatest care, and preaches, and teaches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Lib. 1. c. 23.  and by Tradition hands it down, as he himself there doth, by giving us a written Copy of all the Articles of Faith received by the universal Church from the Apostles, beyond which the most learned Bishop taught nothing, as being not above his Master; nor did the meanest Christian believe less, the Faith, and Tradition of it being one and the same in all places. Now, not to insist upon the inference which plainly follows hence, that none of the R. Articles could be then esteemed Articles of Faith received from the Apostles Tradition, there being nothing at all of them in the Epistles of Ignatius writ on purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for confirmation of the Christian Churches in the Tradition of the Apostles, against the Heretics, or in that of Polycarp, though, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most sufficient for declaration of the Truth; nor in Irenaeus, when purposely laying down for confutation of the Heretics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Lib. 1. c. 1. p. 42.  The Faith Preached by the Church, 
Cap. 2.  the exposition of the Truth, which the Church having received from the Apostles, keeps, and of those things belonging, ad Fidem & Traditiones, 
Cap. 3.  to Faith and Traditions, in which the Christian Church unanimously doth consent, I say, not to insist at present on so plain an inference. Nothing can be more natural than to collect, that had they known of any other Articles of Faith, delivered to them from the Apostles only by word of Mouth, they would have taken at least equal care for the propagation of them also to posterity. Inasmuch therefore as the common Sense of Mankind agrees to this, That Records are a more certain means of conveying Truth to posterity, than Report, and Men would be more apt to believe that the Apostles said what themselves wrote, than that they said what they did not write, and what only comes down by hearsay from them; surely the Fathers of the Church, had they known of these Supernumerary Traditions of the Roman Church, in compliance with the Example and Advice of St. Ignatius, would have committed them to writing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the better security of them, and would have thought that very fit which he declared to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very necessary, for conservation of Apostolical Tradition. Surely they would have taken all the care imaginable, that these unwritten Doctrines might not lose their credit by being long unwritten, for they were not ignorant of that great truth of Origen, 
Dial. contra Martion. p. 59  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That which only is delivered by word of Mouth quickly vanisheth, as having no certainty. They therefore, had they known of such Traditions necessary to be believed, would not have left it to an half witted Papias, to run up and down to gather up these Hearsays from them who had conversed with the Apostles, and to digest them in a Book of which they were so careless as to preserve us nothing, but, 
Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 38.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some idle Fables which he related, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as coming to him from unwritten Tradition, and by which he deceived, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most of the Church Guides; but would of purpose have written Books to secure the conveyance of them to posterity, and to prevent the future Cheats, that such bold and half witted Men might have put upon them, with false pretensions to Antiquity or to Tradition. Even Eutropius, the Heathen, 
Dial. contra Martion p. 59  could argue against Martion, That it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exceeding Foolish to conceive those who were sent to preach the Gospel should do it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without committing what they Preached to writing; for it is probable, saith he, that they preached or declared this Salvation to them only who heard them, and had no care the Knowledge of it should descend to Posterity; as had they only preached, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without writing, they must have done. And may not we in like manner argue against these latter Marcionites, That had the Fathers of the Age following the Apostles observed and known, that some points of necessary Faith had not been touched in any of their Writings, it is highly probable, that they by handing of them down in writing, would have taken care the knowledge of them should descend unto posterity, and would have formally, and with one voice declared, that whereas the inspired Preachers, and Publishers of their Religion had committed to Writing some Articles of the Christian Faith, but had not in those writings expressed others which were of equal necessity to be believed; it is therefore, to prevent all false pretenders to these Traditions Apostolical, declared, defined, and made known to future Ages, that these, and these alone are Doctrines of this kind, delivered orally by the Apostles to the Church to be preserved and taught to future Generations. When even in the first Ages of the Church they had to do with Heretics, who, when their Doctriens were confuted out of Scripture, 
Cum enim ex Scripturia arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sunt ex Authoritate, & quia varie sunt dictae, & quia non posset ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem. Iren. l. 3. c. 2.  as are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, instead of answering the Arguments produced by the Fathers of the Church from Scripture, accused the Scriptures of Obscurity, and Insufficiency, saying, That they were spoken variously, or so as to admit of divers Senses, and that from them the Truth could not be known by them who were ignorant of Tradition, non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem, this Truth being delivered, not by writing but by word of Mouth. When these Heretics pleaded for their Doctrines not found in Scripture, Apostolos non omnia omnibus revelâsse, 
Tertull. de prescript. c. 25.  quaedam enim palam & universis, quaedam secreto, & paucis demandâsse, That the Apostles revealed not all things to all Men, but some things they delivered openly, and to all, some things secretly, and to few. 
Hieron. in Es. 19 fol. 40. b.  When they vaunted that they were, Filii sapientum qui ab initio Doctrinam nobis Apostolicam tradiderunt, The Sons of the wise Men, who from the beginning delivered to them the Doctrine of the Apostles, pretending to have received it as it were by Tradition from the Apostles. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 28.  When they had the boldness to affirm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That all the Ancients, and even the Apostles taught the same things which they did, and that what they delivered was afterwards corrupted by the Orthodox. I say, that in their Discourses against these Heretics, they should not once endeavour to stop their mouths by telling them what were indeed the Doctriens and Traditions received from the Apostles, what were the things revealed to them by the Apostles, but should still keep these necessary Traditions, which the Church of Rome now teacheth, as received from them, secret, not saying one word of them, no not when they, in confutation of these pretences of the Heretics, declare what was the Rule of Faith, and the Tradition received from the Apostles, and preserved by all the Apostolic Churches, is so incredible, as nothing can be more, except this vain Imagination, That these very Fathers should concur with these Heretics, as do some others in this Assertion, That saving Truth could not be known from Scripture by them who were ignorant of Tradition, as being not delivered down to Posterity by writing, but by word of Mouth, and yet at the same time should say, 
Lib. 3. c. 1.  as Irenaeus doth in his Discourse against them. That the Apostles first Preached the Gospel, and after by the Will of God delivered it unto us in the Scriptures, to be hereafter the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. And as Eusebius doth, 
Lib. 5. c. 18.  That the pretences of the Heretics unto Tradition might be probable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did not the Holy Scriptures contradict them. And as St. Jerom, That those things which they feign to have received as Tradition, 
In Hagg. c. 1. fol. 102. a.  absque authoritate, & testimoniis Scripturarum, percutit gladius Dei, without the Authority, and Testimonies of the Scripture, the Sword of God doth smite; for what is this but to talk like us Northern Heretics, for to quarrel with Men for appealing from scripture, as obscure, and insufficient to decide our Controversies without the Suffrage of Oral Tradition, to allege Scripture as a sufficient evidence, that others vainly did pretend unto it, to reject what others do pretend to have received from Tradition, because it wanteth the Authority and Testimony of the Holy Scriptures, whatsoever it may pass for in these ancient Fathers, is one of those very things for which we are proclaimed Heretics.  
In a word, That there should be unwritten Traditions necessary to be believed unto Salvation, and neither the Creed of the Greek, nor of the Latin Church make the least mention of any of them. That a Creed should be made perhaps at Gentilly in the Seventh Century, and to obtain the better credit should be called the Creed of Athanasius. That this Creed should inform us in the beginning, That whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith, threatening that he shall perish everlastingly who doth not keep this Faith entire, and whole; that therefore in the next words it should say, and the Catholic Faith is this, and should conclude in these Expressions, This is the Catholic Faith; and yet leave out almost as many necessary Articles of Christian Faith, as it contained.  
That the principal written Traditions which in comparison needed it not, should be put together into a Creed, but that the unwritten ones, which needed it very much, should be quite left out, and never thought of to that purpose, till about fifteen hundred Years after; and that the Ancients, Tertullian, St. Basil, Eusebius, and others, speaking expressly, and professedly of Traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, should reckon up many unnecessary things, and never mention in their Catalogues one of these necessary Traditions. That in their Treatises of Christian Faith and Christian Doctrine, and of Ecclesiastical Opinions, and their Instructions of the Catechised; the Fathers should say nothing, the Persons who were to be instructed in all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith, should hear nothing of all these Articles, and yet they should be throughout all Ages of the Christian World so necessary that no Salvation could be had without them; these, I confess, are truly R. Catholic, that is, incredible Assertions; and if we must give credit to them, we must do it upon Tertullian's Ground, 
Credo, quia est impossibile.  Because it is impossible they should be true.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Novelty of the R. Doctrines farther proved, First, from the general Tradition of the Church; that the Four Gospels and the Scriptures comprised all that was necessary to be believed or done by Christians; this proved, 1. in general, §. 1. 2. From the particular account Tradition gives us of the Writings of the Four Evangelists, §. 2. Inference; this Tradition shows, That to preserve a Doctrine safe to Posterity, 'twas not sufficient to receive it by Oral Tradition, unless it were written, §. 3. Secondly, This is proved from the general Tradition of the whole Church of Christ; that the Apostles, or the Nicene Symbol was a complete summary of all things necessary to be believed by Christians, §. 4. Where it is showed, that the Apostles delivered to their Converts a System, or a form of Words, Ibid. That this form was delivered to all Churches, and was for substance the same with that, which afterwards was styled the Apostles Creed, §. 5. That Christians were received into the Church by Baptism on the profession of this Faith, §. 6. That it was taught as the entire System of things necessary to be believed, §. 7. That it was esteemed a Test of Orthodoxy, by which they prescribed to Heretics, §. 8. That this whole Summary of Christian Faith was evidently contained in Scripture, §. 9 And that notwithstanding they unanimously styled it a Tradition, §. 10.  
MOreover, That the Articles of Faith owned by the Church of Rome, and imposed upon all who hold Communion with her to be believed, and owned as such, under the penalty of Anathema to him who doth believe, or say the contrary, were not received from Christ, or his Apostles either by unwritten Tradition, or by traditional Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or any portion of them, to that sense from whence it may be certainly concluded, that they were in the Scriptures mentioned, or owned by the ancient Church as Articles of Christian Faith, or as things necessary to be believed, or practised by all Christians, will be exceeding evident from these Considerations, v. g.  
First, §. 1 From that plain and general Tradition of the Church of Christ, that all which the Apostles preached, and taught their Converts by word of mouth, as either necessary to be believed or practised, they afterwards, at their desire, committed unto writing, and delivered to them in the Gospel, and the Holy Scriptures. This, in the general, 
Postea per dei voluntatem in Scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1.  the Fathers do expressly say, declaring, That the Apostles first preached the Gospel, and afterwards, by the Will of God, delivered the same Gospel which they preached to us in the Scripture, to be for future Ages the Pillar and the Ground of Truth.  
The Marcionites owned the Writings of St. Paul, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dial. contra Martion, p. 59 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  but rejected the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. John. Against them therefore Origen doth in the person of Eutropius dispute after this manner, Did these Apostles preach the Gospel with writing, or without writing what they preached? Marc. Without writing. Eutrop. Is it probable they preached Salvation only to them that heard them, and had no regard to them that were to come after, as must be supposed if they writ not that Doctrine of Salvation which they preached, for those things which are spoken, and not written, do presently vanish?  
St. Austin is express for the same Doctrine, for having told us, That our Lord Jesus, according to the saying of St. John, Did many things which were not written. He adds, 
Tr. 49. in Joh. Tom. 9 p. 355.  Electa sunt autem quae scriberentur ea quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur, That they chose out of them those things to be written which they conceived sufficient for the Salvation of Believers. 
Quicquid enim ille de suis factis & dictis nos legero voluit, hoc scribendum illis, tamquam suis manibus, imperavit. De consensu Evangelist. lib. 1. cap. 35.  Again, He, saith the same St. Austin, who sent the Prophets before his descent, sent also the Apostles after his Ascension, of all whom he was the Head, wherefore it must not be said that he writ nothing, seeing his Members writ that which they knew by the Dictates of their Head, for whatsoever he would have us read concerning what he did, or said, he commanded his Apostles, as being his amanuensis to write down. Now seeing all they were to teach was only his Say and Commands, they who stood thus engaged to write all that he would have us read of his Say, must write all that was needful to be known in order to men's Salvation; for all this, sure, the Saviour of the World would have us read; all this 'twas therefore necessary for them to write that we might read.  
Because that Heresies would afterwards break in upon the Church, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Proem. in Matth.  and the Manners of Christians would be corrupted, saith Theophylact, it pleased the Apostles to write the Gospels, that from thence being taught the Truth, we might not be perverted by the Falsehood of Heresy, nor be corrupted in our Manners. Now sure what is sufficient to preserve us from Heresy in Doctrine, and from Corruption in Manners, must plainly and fully contain all things necessary to be believed, that we may not be Heretics, and to be done, that we may not be wicked.  
To proceed to the particular accounts the Ancients give us of the inditing of every Gospel in particular. §. 2  
Eusebius informs us of St. Matthew, that the Tradition was, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24.  That he was necessitated to write; for having first preached to the Hebrews, as he was about to go to others, commiting his Gospel to writing in his own Language, he supplied by writing their want of his Presence from whom he went. St. Chrysostom saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Matth. Hom. 1. pag. 3.  They had it by Tradition, that the believing Jews desired St. Matthew to leave those things in writing which he had delivered by word of mouth to them, and that in compliance with this request he writ his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue. 
Sicut referunt Matthaeum conscribere Evangelium causa compulit talis, cum facta fuisset in Pal. persecutio— ut carentes forte doctoribus fidei, non carerent doctrina, petierunt Matthaeum ut omnium verborum & operum Christi conscriberet eis Historiam, ut ubicunque essent futuri totius secum haberent sidei statum. Praefat.  The Author of the imperfect Comment on St. Matthew, who passeth under the same name, delivereth the Tradition thus, That St. Matthew was compelled to write his Gospel upon this account, That when a grievous Persecution arose in Palaestin, so that they were in danger to be separated from each other; that wanting Teachers, they might not want the Doctrine of Faith, they desired Matthew to write for them the History of all the Words and Works of Christ, that so, wherever they should be hereafter, they might have with them, totius fidei statum, the whole form of Faith.  
The Tradition concerning the Gospel of St. Mark runs thus, That when the Hearers of St. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15.  Peter, had been illuminated by his Doctrine. They were so affected with it, as not to be contented with hearing of it all at once, or with the unwritten Teaching, or oral Tradition of the heavenly Word; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  but with all manner of Exhortations did entreat St. Mark, the Follower of St. Peter, that he would leave them in writing a digest or memorial of the Doctrine delivered to them by word of Mouth, and that they never ceased till they had obtained their requests; and that thus they were the causes of writing the Gospel of St. Mark,  
This Eusebius relates from the Tradition of Clemens of Alexandria, and Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis. The words of Clemens he gives thus, Clemens in the same Book puts down the Tradition of the ancient Presbyters, touching the Order of the Gospels, which is to this effect,— Peter preaching the Word publicly at Rome, and speaking the Gospel by the Spirit, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14.  many that were present entreated Mark to write what he spoke, as being one who had long followed him, and remembered the things spoken, and that thereupon Mark having writ the Gospel, gave it to those who desired it. And of the same Mark, Papias, saith Euscbius, relates, That he took especial care to say nothing that was false, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. 3. c. 38.  to leave nothing out of his Gospel he had heard from Peter.  
Moreover Eusebius farther informs us, from the same Authors, that St. Mark going afterwards to Alexandria, preached there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 16.  the Gospel which he had written. And that the first Successors of the Apostles leaving their Countries, did the work of Evangelists to them who had not as yet heard of the Christian Faith, to whom they preached Christ, and delivered the Writings of the Holy Evangelists, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 3. c. 37.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, laying this only in those places as the Foundation of the Faith, and so going on to other Countries to convert them; and surely then the Successors of the Apostles did not doubt, but that these Gospels did, with sufficient fullness and perspicuity, contain the necessary Articles of Christian Faith.  
Thirdly, Of St. Luke, the Follower of St. Paul, 
Lucas quod ab illo praedicabatur Evangelium in libro condidit. l. 3. c. 1  Irenaeus informs us, That he writ in a Book that Gospel which was preached by him, he adds, That St. Paul neglected not to teach the whole Counsel of God, 
Cap. 14.  and that St. Luke neglected not to write what St. Paul had taught; and thence infers against the Heretics, that they could not pretend to know what was not taught by Paul, or was not written by St. Luke.  
Fourthly, St. John, saith the Tradition of the Ancients, was importuned by all the asiatics, and by the Embassies of many others, to write his Gospel, and his great care in Composing it, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 51. §. 6. Theoph. proem. in Joh.  say they, was to speak of those necessary things which they had pretermitted who writ before him; or of the Deity of Christ, which Ebion, Cerinthus, and other Heretics denied, and the other Evangelists had not so fully spoken to. The Martyrology of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus adds, That the other Evangelists were brought to him, 
Apud Phot. Cod. 254. p. 1403.  containing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The salutary Passion, the Miracles and Doctrines of our Lord, and that he digested them in order, and added his own to them. Here then from this Tradion it is plain and obvious to observe.  
First, §. 3 That it was constantly supposed, and looked on by all Christians, as a thing most certain, that to preserve a Doctrine safe unto posterity, to keep it sure and certain, 'twas not sufficient for them to hear it by the Ear, or to receive it by Tradition, though from the mouth of an Apostle, but that 'twas requisite in order to that end, that what they heard should be committed to writing, that so it might be both to them and others, the Pillar and the Ground of Truth. Why else do they declare, that those things which are only spoken, and not written, quickly vanish, and thence infer, That if the Evangelists intended the Salvation of Posterity, they must have written what they preached? Why do they say, it was necessary for the Apostles when they were about to leave their Converts to commit what they taught in writing to them? Why was it that they could not be contented, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the unwritten teaching of the divine Doctrine, or in the Romish phrase, with the infallible way of oral Tradition, but did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, desire with all earnestness St. Mark to give them a Digest or Memorial in writing of that Doctrine they had received by word of mouth? And why was Peter so delighted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with this desire of the Christians, which was a plain renouncing of oral Tradition, and a preferring of the written word before it.  
Secondly, Hence it is obvious to observe, That oral Tradition being thus subject to failure and miscarriage, the Wisdom of our God and Saviour thought fit, that what was preached by the Apostles should be committed unto writing, that it might be unto posterity the Pillar and the Ground of Truth. Hence, 
Lib. 3. c. 1.  saith Irenaeus, they by the Will of God writ the Scriptures for this end. They saith St. Austin, writ what they knew by the dictates of their Head. He commanded the Apostles to write, and what things should be written, were chosen, doubtless, by the Holy Ghost, whose Penmen the Apostles were. 
Proem. in Matth.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It was the pleasure of Christ, or his Apostles, saith Theophylact, that the Gospel should be writ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Christians being taught the Truth from them, might neither be perverted by Heresies, or corrupted in manners.  
Thirdly, Hence also it is evident, That the things chosen by our Lord and his Apostles, and by the Holy Spirit to be written, were such as seemed to their Wisdom sufficient for the Salvation of Believers, that they contained all which our Lord would have us read concerning what he did, or said, all that truth which was needful to preserve us from Heresy in Doctrine, or Corruption in Manners, the whole state or system of the Christian Faith, which whosoever did retain could not want Faith, even when he wanted Teachers, all that St. Peter preached; the Foundations of Faith; the whole Council of God; the salutary Doctrines of our Lord; all that was necessary to be known.  
2. §. 4 This will be still more evident from that unquestionable Tradition of the whole Church of Christ for many Centuries, that the Apostles Creed, as it was first delivered, and as it was afterwards explained by that of Nice, was a complete and perfect Summary of all things simply necessary to be believed by Christians.  
That the Apostles and first Preachers of the Christian Faith, comprised the Fundamentals of their Doctrine in some Creed, System, or form of words we learn not only from the Tradition of the Church, but also from many passages of Scripture, which mention, 
Luk. i. 4. Heb. v. 12. Heb. vi. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the words of their Catechism; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the elementary Principles of the Oracles of God; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word of the beginning of Christ, or the Foundation upon which Christians grew up unto perfection; 
Rom. xij. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Analogy of Faith, according to which all the Dispenser's of the word must frame their Doctrine; 
1 Tim. iij. 15, 16. 2 Tim. i. 13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mystery of Godliness to be preserved in, and by the Church, the Pillar and the Ground of Truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a form of sound words which was delivered to, and must be held by all Christians in Faith and Love; 
verse 14.  or a brief Summary of the things which were to be believed by all; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the good depositum, or Summary of Christian Doctrine, committed to the trust of others, or agreed on by the Apostles to be taught by all, 
2 Tim. ij. 2.  and which also was by them to be committed to faithful Men, able to instruct others in it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Jud. iij. Philip. i 27.  The Faith once, and at once, delivered to the Saints, which they must hold in a good Conscience, and earnestly contend for.  
2. §. 5 That this Creed, System, or Summary of Faith, was by the Apostles delivered to all Churches, and was for substance that which is now called the Apostles Creed, is also evident from the Tradition of the Church of Christ. Irenaeus saith, It is the Faith which the Church received, 
Lib. 1. c. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Apostles and their Disciples. The true and lifegiving Faith, quam ab Apostolis Ecclesia percepit, & distribuit filiis suis, 
Lib. 3. c. 1. Apol. c. 47.  which the Church received from the Apostles, and distributes to her Sons. It, saith Tertullian, is the Rule of Truth, quae venit à Christo transmissa per comites ejus, which came from Christ, and was by his Companions handed down to us. 
De praescrip. Cap. 9 Cap. 14. Cap. 21. Epist. ad Jou. Tom. p. 246, 247. Pag. 501. Epist. 81.  The Institution of Christ, which all Nation ought to believe: Regula à Christo instituta, The Rule prescribed by Christ; and which the Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ. This, saith Athanasius, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Divine and Apostolical Faith, which was preached from the beginning. It is, saith Cyril of Jerusalem, the Tradition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Holy and Apostolic Faith. Is is, saith Ambrose, the Symbol of the Faith of the Apostles, which Symbol the Church of Rome keeps undefiled. Ruffinus in his Exposition of this Symbol, saith, 
Apud Hieron. Tom. 4. f. 46.  That their Ancestors left to them this Tradition, that the Apostles being to departed one from the other, did first agree upon this as the Rule of what they afterwards should preach; and determined, hanc credentibus dandam esse regulam, this should be given as a Rule to Believers, and as an Index of their Faith, by which he should be known, qui Christum vere secundùm Apostolicas regulas praedicaret, who preached Christ truly according to the Rules of the Apostles. It is, saith Austin, 
De Temp. Serm. 181. To. 10. p. 984.  certa Regula Fidei, the sure Rule of Faith, which the Apostles delivered. And then he proceeds almost in the very words of Ruffinus, 
De Off. Eccles. l. 2. c. 22.  to declare, That this was the Tradition of the Ancients. Isidore Hispalensis saith, Tali ratione institutum majores nostri dixerunt, Our Ancestors have said, that the Apostles Creed was instituted after this manner; and then he goes on in the very words of Ruffinus to the end of that Chapter. 
De instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 27. l. 2. c. 56.  Rabanus Maurus also hath transcribed the same words, and in them brought down the Tradition to the Ninth Century. And to return to the Age following Ruffinus, Pope Leo tells us, 
Ep. 96.  This is the short and perfect Confession of the Symbol which is signed with the twelve Sentences of the Apostles. 
Praefat. ad Expos. Symb. Apost. Apud Ivon. decret. part. 1. c. 35, 36.  Venantius Fortunatus in the Sixth Century informs us, That this is the Symbol which they among themselves wholesomely made by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It is, saith venerable Bede, the Symbol of Faith delivered by the Apostles.  
3. It is also evident from Tradition, §. 6 that Christians were received into the Church by Baptism on the profession of this Faith, or that this only was the Faith which they required them to believe and to profess at Baptism. Justin Martyr saith only in the general, That as many as believed, 
Apol. 2. p. 93.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the things which were said, and taught by Christians were true, were admitted by Baptism among the number of Christians. But Irenaeus, his Cotemporary, 
L. 1. c. 1. p. 40.  gives us the Creed delivered by the Apostles, and says it was the undeclinable Rule of Truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Christian received by Baptism, and the preaching of that Truth by which, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church illuminates all that are willing to come to the knowledge of the Truth. 
L. 7. c. 40, 41.  The Apostolical Constitutions tell the Priest what the Catechist, who is to be Baptised, must renounce, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the things which cencern his being Listed among Christians. Now they are these, I rank myself among the Soldiers of Christ, and I believe I am Baptised into the one unbegotten only true God, etc. And after he hath made profession of this Creed, he is to be Anointed, and Baptised. 
Can. 46.  The Council of Laodicea saith, That they who are to be Baptised must first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, learn the Faith, and recite it to the Bishop, or his Presbyter. The Seventy eighth Canon of the Sixth General Council saith the same thing. Now what it is to learn the Faith, we know from all the Fathers of those times, who do with one consent inform us, that the Catechists were prepared for Baptism by being taught the Creed, the Symbol, or the Rule of Faith, delivered and taught by the Apostles, and afterwards explained by that of Nice, or of Constantinople, and that they were Baptised into the profession of this Creed. 
Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 18.  Sozomen and Gelasius inform us that a plain Layman, and Confessor undertook to confute a Philosopher in the Council of Nice. 
Gelas. Cyz. l. 2. c. 13.  And that he did this by repeating of his Creed, saying to the Philosopher, There is one God, who having made all things, sustained them by his Word and holy Spirit. This word, O Philosopher, we adore, knowing him to be the Son of God, and believing that for our Redemption he was incarnate of a Virgin, and was born, and was made Man, and that by his Death and Passion on the Cross, he delivered us from eternal condemnation, and by his Resurrection he purchased for us Life eternal, whom, being ascended into Heaven, we hope that he will come again to be judge of all our Actions. And that the Philosopher answering, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Syn. Const. sub Menna Act 5. Bin. Tom. 4. P. 78, 82.  He believed this, the Confessor bid him then follow him to the Church to be Baptised, at which, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Nicene Synod rejoiced. From both which Instances we learn, what was the Symbol into which Christians were Baptised, when that Council met, and which they owned as sufficient for that end. Eusebius Caesariensis speaks thus of his own Creed, approved by the Nicene Council, As we have received from the Bishops that were before us, 
Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. p 24.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both when we were Catechised, and when we received Baptism; and as we have learned from the Scriptures, and as we have both believed and taught when we were made Priests and Bishops, so believing at present we declare this our Faith unto you. The Council of Constantinpole confirms the Nicene Confession of Faith, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Theodor. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9  being most ancient, and annexed to Baptism. 
Con. Constant. sub Menna Act. 5. Bin. Tom. 4. p. 78, 87, 85. & 91, 96.  The Synod of Jerusalem says it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Holy Symbol into which we were Baptised and do Baptise. The Synod at Tyre saith the same thing. The Council of Constantinople under Menna styles it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The holy Symbol into which we were all Baptised. Basilicus and Maurus in two several Edicts confirmed the same Nicene Creed with these words, 
Evagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4, 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it was the Creed into which they, and all the Believers before them were Baptised. St. Jerom writing against the Luciferians, calls the Apostles Creed the Faith of the Church, which Lucifer, se die Baptismatis servanturum promiserat, had promised to keep at the day of his Baptism. Theodoret saith, 
Ep. 145. Tom. 3. p. 1023.  We require those who come every Year to Baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to learn the Faith expounded at Nice. 
Ep. 97. ad Mon. Palaest. c. 8. p. 637.  Pope Leo saith of it, That it is the Confession, which pronouncing before many Witnesses, Sacramentum Baptismi suscipimus, we receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and that it was the Symbol, 
Ep. 24. ad Flau. c. 1. & 2.  quod per totum mundum omnium regenerandorum voce depromitur, which was pronounced by all that were Baptised throughout the World. After this time we find one of these two Symbols required to be rehearsed in the baptismal Offices, either by those who came to be Baptised, or by their Sureties, 
Pag. 39  as is evident from the Ordo Romanus, were it is required to be pronounced at Baptism in Greek and Latin. 
De Eccles. Off. l. 2. c. 21, 22.  From the Treatise of Isidore Hispalensis, where it is called the Symbol, quod competentes recipiunt, which they who were prepared for Baptism received and learned. 
Lib. 1. c. 27.  From the Treatise of Rabanus Maurus of the Institution of the Clergy, which saith, That before the Catechumen was brought to Baptism, Apostolicae fidei ei ostenditur Symbolum, the Apostles Symbol was showed to him, and he was asked whether he believed it. From the Degrees of Ivo, which say, 
Part. 81.— 90. etc. 223.  That Baptizandis traditur salutare symbolum, the wholesome Symbol is delivered to those that are to be Baptised. 
De consecr. Dist. 4. c. 155, 156, 158, etc.  From the Canon Law compiled by Gratian, were we find many Canons to the same effect. And lastly from the form of Baptism still retained in the Roman Church.  
4. §. 7 The same Tradition teacheth, That the Creed used in the Church till the Nicene Council, and that of Nice, as the true Explication of it, were by the whole Church of Christ, for many Centuries, esteemed and embraced, and taught to others as the whole system of all things necessary to be believed by Christians in order to Salvation, or as a perfect Summary or Rule of the mere Articles of Christian Faith.  
Irenaeus in the second Century, having cited the Creed of the whole Church, which, with unanimous consent, she preached, taught and delivered, 
L. 1. c. 1. p. 42.  as having but one Mouth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the truth preached by the Church, and which the Church dispersed through the World, 
Cap. 2.  
Cap. 4.  received from the Apostles and their Disciples, the one and the same Faith which the Church retained throughout the whole World. The Tradition of the Apostles manifested in the whole World, 
Lib. 3. cap. 3. Ibid. p. 234.  and to be seen in every Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the one and only truth which she received from the Apostles and delivered to others. I say, he speaking of this Creed, this Faith, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this preaching of the truth, declares, That he, who, among the Governors of the Church, was the most able Speaker could say no other things; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 1. cap. 2.  for none of them was above his Master, nor could he who was infirm in Speech, lessen the Tradition, for the Faith being one and the same; neither did he who was most able to speak of it exceed, nor he who spoke least of it diminish it. And as a farther Witness of this matter, he brings in Polycarp attesting, 
Lib. 3. c. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That he received this truth from the Apostles, and this only.  
Tertullian producing a like Creed of his times, 
De praescrip. Haer. cap. 37.  which he declares to be that Rule which the Church received from the Apostles, 
De Resur. Car. cap. 18.  and the Apostles from Christ, the unum apud omnes edictum Dei, the one Edict of God, which hangs up among all Christians; that is, saith Rigaltius on the place, The Symbol of the Christian Faith. 
De Virg. Veland. cap. 1.  I say, having produced this Creed, he styles it, Regulam fidei unam omnino, solam immobilem, & irreformabilem, That Rule which is entirely one, and which alone is unmoveable, and not to be reform; that is, which admits not, novitatem correctionis, of any new Correction, as other things belonging to the Church's Discipline might do. This Rule, saith he, we, having once believed, 
De praescrip. Haer. c. 8.  nihil desideramus ultra credere, hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus, desire to believe nothing more, for this we first believe that we ought to be believe nothing more; that knowing this, 
Cap. 14.  there is no need of seeking after other things, quia quod debeas nosti, because, in it, we know all that we ought to know; the only Article to be believed besides it being this, aliud non esse credendum, 
Cap. 9  
Cap. 14.  that nothing else is to be believed; this being regula fidei quae salvum facit, the Rule of Faith which brings Salvation.  
Origen in his Book of Principles lays down this Rule; Let the ecclesiastical Preaching delivered by order of Succession from the Apostles, and to this present time continuing in the Churches, 
Proem. in libr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  be observed. Adding, That we ought to know this, that the Holy Apostles preaching the Faith of Christ, did manifestly deliver even to those who were most slow in Inquisition of divine Knowledge, quaecunque necessaria crediderunt omnibus credentibus, all things which they believed necessary for all Believers; and then he runs over the Articles of the Apostles Creed, as they were then received in the Church of God, and saith, These are the form of those things, quae per praedicationem Apostolicam manifeste traduntur, which are manifestly delivered by the Preaching of the Apostles.  
St. Cyril calls this Creed, 
Catech. 4. p. 24.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The teaching of the Faith, and the instruction of the Catechist in the Doctrines of the Church. Adding, That the Church had in few words comprised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Catech. 5. p. 44.  the whole Doctrine of Faith, and advising his Catechist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to keep the Faith alone, delivered to him by the Church. It is, saith Hilary, 
Ad. Const. Aug. p. 342. 343.  the safest course to retain that first and only Evangelical Faith confessed in Baptism, and to innovate nothing in it. And this he affirms in opposition to the New Creeds so frequent in his Days. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 52. init. Ep. ad Epictet. Tom. 1. p. 582. a. Epist. ad Afric. Episc. p. 932.  The Creed of Nice, saith Nazianzen, is a short Boundary and Rule of Christian Wisdom. It is, saith Athanasius, sufficient for the destruction of all Impiety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for the confirmation of the true Faith in Christ, for the destruction of every wicked Heresy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for confirmation of the ecclesiastical Doctrine. The Synod held at Sardis defined, That nothing farther should be written of the Faith, but that all Men should rest contented with the Faith confessed at Nice, 
Athanas. Ep. ad Antioch. p. 576.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was in nothing defective; and because if any other Faith should be composed, that might be looked upon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as imperfect.  
St. 
De tempore Serm. 115, 119, 131,  Austin saith, That the Catholic Faith is made known to the Faithful in the Creed; that this Creed is, Comprehensio fidei nostrae atque perfectio, The comprehension and perfection of our Faith; that it is, Plenitudo credentium, totum continens compendio brevitatis, & confirmans onnes perfectione credendi, The fullness of Believers, comprising the whole of their Faith in a compendious brevity, 
Ep. 84. Tom. 3. p. 961.  and confirming all in perfect Faith. Theodoret writes to the Bishops of Cilicia, that they would require their People tokeep the Nicene Faith entire and undefiled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as compendiously teaching the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine. Damasus closeth his Symbol, which for substance is the same with that of Nice, 
Apud Hieron. Tom. 4. f. 44.  in these expressions, Haec crede, haec retine, believe and retain these things. Subject thy Soul to this Faith, and thou shalt obtain Life, and a reward from Christ; which shows he thought this Faith sufficient for that end. 
Ibid. f. 46.  Ruffinus informs us, that according to the request of Pope Laurence, he was to compose something, de fide secundum Symboli traditionem, of the Faith delivered in the Symbol: And of this he declares, That it was, norma praedicationis, the Rule of the Apostles preaching, the Rule which they composed, credentibus dandam, to be delivered to Believers, fidei suae indicium, the index of their Faith. Petrus Chrysologus saith, 
Serm. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61.  That it is salutis symbolum, vitae symbolum, forma fidei, credulitatis norma, fides quam credimus & docemus, the symbol of Life and Salvation, 
Ep. 27. ad Pulcher. c. 4. p. 492.  the Rule of Faith, the Faith which we believe and teach. Pope Leo, That it is a short, & perfecta confessio, and perfect Confession of the Catholic Faith. The Great Council of Chalcedon saith of the Faith of Nice, 
Act. 5. in fine.  That it sufficeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the perfect knowledge and confirmation of Piety. 
Theodor. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15.  The Synod of Ariminum, That it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an exact Rule of Faith; that of Sardis, That nothing was to be added to it, 
Apud Athanas. Ep. ad Antioch. P. 576. Id. de Synod. Arim. & Selsach. p. 876, 878.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because nothing was wanting to it; that of Sirmium adds, That there was no need of running to Synods; that of Nice, Having done all things for the Catholic Church, a Synod to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all Men assented, and all Men judged it sufficient.  
The Ordo Romanus, or old Roman Liturgy saith, 
Apud Hittorp. p. 38, 39  This is that Faith, qua credentes justificati sumus, by which believing we are justified; salutaris sides, the saving Faith, which the Holy Spirit dictated to the Masters of the Church. The sum of our Faith, which, as they had received, so they delivered it unto them. Isidore Hispalensis saith of the Apostles Creed, 
De Eccl. Officiis. l. 2. c. 22.  That they appointed it to be given to Believers as a Rule, that it contained few words, but in them were contained omnia Sacramenta, all the Articles of Faith; that they who could not read the Scriptures, retaining in their Heart these things, might have sufficient and saving knowledge, that it contains the Confession of the Trinity and the Unity of the Church, 
Orig. l. 6. c 19  & omne Christiani dogmatis Sacramentum, and the whole Christian Doctrine; that this Symbol of Faith and the Lord's Prayer, 
Sentent. l. 1. c. 21.  parvulis Ecclesiae sufficit ad coelorum regna capessenda, sufficed to bring the little ones of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven. 
De Eccles. Off. l. 1. c. 16.  And of the Nicene Creed he adds, That it speaks, de omni parte fidei, of every part of Faith.  
Rabanus Maurus, in his Book of the Institution of the Clergy, 
Lib. 2. c. 56.  transcribes the forecited words of Isidore. Regino in the same Century saith, That all who come to Penance, 
De Eccl. Discipl. l. 1 c. 272.  or to receive the Sacrament, must be able to recite the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer; for in the one is contained the Christian Faith, in the other we are taught what we are to pray for; and that no Man in these matters must pretend the slowness of his Understanding, or defect of Memory, for these things are so short, as that the dullest Man may learn them, and yet they are, tam magna, ut qui eorum scientiam pleniter capere potuer it sufficere ea sibi credatur in salutem, so great that whosoever fully understands them will find them sufficient for his Salvation.  
Moreover, Ruffinus, Isidore, and Rabanus Maurus do inform us, that the Apostles made this the sign by which he should be known who preached Christ truly, secundum Apostolicas literas, according to the directions of the Apostles, from those deceitful Workers who did not preach him, integris traditionum lineis, according to the integrity of Tradition. Accordingly,  
5. Observe, §. 8 That these Fathers do constantly assert this Symbol to be a Test of Orthodoxy, and that by which they did prescribe against all Heretics, proving their Doctrines to be new, and such as ought to be rejected, as being not contained in this Symbol, or this Rule of Faith. Irenaeus in his Book against Heresies declares, 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  that it is, sola vera & vivifica fides, the only true and lifegiving Faith, which the Church received from the Apostles, and distributes to her Children. That even, without arguing, we might exactly discern the firmness of the Truth preached by the Church, 
Lib. 1. c. 1.  and the falseness of the Heretical persuasions, there being nothing of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cap. 4.  in the institution of Faith delivered to the Church, and that, hanc tenentes regulam, holding to this Rule, how many and various soever were their Doctrines, 
Ibid. c. 19  we might easily show their deviation from the truth. 
Cap. 3.  In his Third Book he confutes them from the same Topick, viz. this Tradition of the Rule of Faith, visible in all Churches, and preserved in all the Bishops of them succeeding the Apostles, declaring, That nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur, in their account of the Tradition received from the Apostles, and the Faith preached to Men, they taught no such thing as the deliriums of these Heretics. And he informs us, that Polycarp had converted many of these Heretics to the Church, by declaring this was the only Truth which he received from the Apostles: And in his Fourth Chapter, repeating again this Creed, he saith, It is that which even the Barbarians, who had not the Scriptures, preserving in their Hearts, would stop their Ears against, and sufficiently repel, ea quae ab Haereticis adinventa sunt, the Inventions of the Heretics.  
Tertullian also lays down this Creed as the Foundation of the Christian Faith, and confutes all the Heretics, because their Doctrines were later than this Creed, and were not contained in it. He gins his Discourse of Prescription against the Heretics with this Foundation, 
Nobis nihil ex arbitrio nostro inducere licet. cap. 6.  That Christians could induce no new thing, that they had the Apostles for the Authors of their Doctrines, who themselves induced nothing of their own, sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt, but faithfully delivered to the Nations the Doctrine they received from Christ. 
Cap. 8.  And whereas the Heretics objected that Saying of our Lord, Seek and ye shall find, and thence pretended that they, by seeking, had found their Doctrines in the Scripture, though they pretended also to Tradition for them, and especially for the interpretation of Scripture, as Irenaeus hath informed us; 
Unum utique & certum aliquid institutum esse a Christo quod credere omnino debeant Nationes & idcirco quaerere ut possint cum invenerint credere. Cap. 9  to this Tertullian answers, That true it was they were to search the Scriptures for their Rule of Faith, and prove it thence, but then they also were to believe, that when they had found that there, aliud non esse credendum ideoque, nec requirendum, that nothing more was to be believed, and therefore nothing more was to be inquired after, 
Cap. 8, 9  besides those things which they believed were the matters of their Faith, and that otherwise there would be no end of seeking, nec statio credendi, nor any boundary of Faith; Let us seek therefore, saith he, 
Cap. 12, 13.  idque duntaxat quod salva regula fidei potest in quaestionem devenire, but that only which may be inquired after, so as that the Rule of Faith be safe. Then he lays down the Creed as that Rule, and declares, 
Cap. 14.  That knowing this we need seek no more, because we know all that we need to know. He adds, that the Apostles receiving a command to teach, and to baptise, planted Churches in all Cities, whence other Churches, Semina Doctrinae mutuatae sunt, 
Cap. 20.  borrowed the Seeds of their Doctrine, and that all these Churches were one, first, and Apostolical, not by virtue of any Roman Unity, but by the Union of Peace, and brotherly Affection; and, per ejusdem Sacramenti unam traditionem, by showing the same Creed, which when they journeyed to any other Church, was, 
Cap. 21.  Contesseratio Hospitalitatis, the League of Hospitality. And then he adds, Hins igitur dirigimus praescriptionem, Hence therefore we direct our prescription, i. e. From the very Faith and Symbol which the Apostles preaching to the Churches delivered to them, in which Rule we find nothing of the New Doctrines of the Heretics, and so are sure they belong not to the Faith, but are to be rejected, ob diversitatem Sacramenti, 
Cap. 33.  as being different from our Creed.  
And by these Examples we may learn by the way what Dionysius Bishop of Corinth did, when, as Eusebius informs us, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 23.  He combating the Heresy of the Marcionites, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stuck to the Canon of Truth; viz. that he confuted them, as doth Irenaeus and Tertullian, by appealing to the Apostles Symbol, or Rule of Faith left to the Churches.  
Now here I appeal to any indifferent Reader, whether the Arguments of Irenaeus and Tertullian against the Heretics of their Times be not to this effect. The Tradition of the Faith is manifect to all the World, you may see, and hear it in all Christian Churches where this Symbol is recited, in which, nihil tale docuerunt, they taught nothing like to those New Heresies; they therefore are to be rejected. And I desire any Man to tell me whether this Argument be not stronger in the mouth of Protestants. The Apostles Symbol, the Rule of Faith here mentioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian, contain nothing of the Romish Articles, therefore they are to be rejected; whether this be not our way of prescribing against the Church of Rome, that her Creed, as distinct from ours, is new, not a tittle of it, not any thing like it was delivered in the Rule of Faith, the Symbol, the Tradition of Christian Doctrine, taught, say these men, by Christ, by his Apostles, received from the beginning by all Apostolical Churches, and for Ten Centuries at least declared to have been the whole, and perfect Rule of Christian Faith; and by our Catechism said to contain, All the Articles of the Christian Faith.  
6. §. 9 Let it be noted, that all these Fathers do unanimously teach, That this whole Symbol, Summary, and Rule of Faith was most apparently contained in Scripture, that it was gathered out of Scripture, and when they taught it to their Catechists they proved every Article of it from the holy Scriptures. Irenaeus saith expressly, 
Lib. 3. c. 3.  That they who would might learn the Apostolical Tradition of the Church, ex ipsa Scriptura, from the Scripture itself; the Doctrine which the Apostles preached, being afterwards delivered in the holy Scriptures, to be the Pillar and the Ground of Faith. 
Apol. c. 47.  Tertullian saith of it, That it is antiquitas praestructa divinae literaturae, antiquity built upon the divine Scriptures. That as for this Rule of Faith, we are to search the Scriptures for it, 
De prescript. c. 9 Cap. 15.  and seek until we find it there; That, quaerendum est donec inveneris & credendum ubi inveneris, and that no man can speak of Matters of Faith, nisi ex literis fidei, but from the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril adds, that it is the Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confirmed by all the Scripture, and gathered out of them, and that he would, 
Catech. 4. p. 44, 45. Pag. 30.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Holy Scriptures give them the proof of every Article of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For, saith he, we must not deliver one tittle of the Mysteries of Faith, without proof from the holy Scriptures; nor would I have you to believe me barely saying these things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if you receive not a demonstration of them from the Holy Scriptures; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the safety or security of our Faith is not to be had, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but from the demonstrations of the holy Scriptures. Athanasius saith, It is a vain thing for men to run about, pretending to desire Synods for the Faith; 
De Syn. Arim. & Seleuc. p. 873.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the holy Scripture is more sufficient than all Synods; but if they must have Synods, that of Nice is sufficient, so that he who sincerely reads their Writings, may by them learn, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Religion towards Christ which is declared in the holy Scriptures. And elsewhere he adds, That the Faith of Nice was confessed, 
Ep. ad Epictet. p. 582.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the holy Scriptures. Ruffinus confesseth, That the Articles of the Creed ought to be proved, 
Apud Hieron. To. 4. f. 48. b. Hom. 1. de Symb.  evidentibus divinae Scripturae testimoniis, by evident Texts of Scripture. Eucherius Lugdunensis saith, That the Apostles Creed was gathered, ex diversis voluminibus Scripturarum, out of divers Volumes of the Scripture. Isidore Hispalensis, 
De Eccl. Off. l. 2. c. 22. De instit. Cler. l. 2. c. 56.  and Rabanus Maurus, That the Apostles briefly did collect it from the holy Scriptures: That they who could not read the Scriptures, retaining these things in their Hearts, might have knowledge sufficient to Salvation. And,  
Lastly, It is observable, §. 10 That although they conspired to declare that this Creed, and Rule of Faith was entirely contained in, and gathered from the Scriptures, yet did they as unanimously concur to call it a Tradition delivered viva voce, or by word of Mouth, and written not in Paper, but on the Tables of the Christian's heart, because they generally required all that were to be Baptised to commit it to their Memory. The Barbarians, saith Irenaeus, keeping diligently this Old Tradition, 
Lib. 3. cap. 4.  have this Doctrine written without Paper and Ink, by the Spirit in their Hearts. This the Apostles preached, saith Tertullian, 
De prescript. c. 21.  tam viuâ voce, quam per Epistolas postea, as well by oral Tradition, as afterwards by their Epistles. It is the Rule, saith Cyril, 
Catech. 4 p 44.  which you must studiously keep, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not writing it in Paper, but keeping the remembrance of it in your Heart, 
Symb apud Hieron. To 4. p 46 vide Crysol. Serm. 62.  and in your Meditation. Our Fathers left it by Tradition, saith Ruffinus, that these things were required to be written, not in Paper, said in credentium cordibus, but in the Hearts of Believers. It is the Symbol, saith the Ordo Romanus, which is not to be written in any matter subject to corruption, 
Orig. l. 6. c. 19  sed paginis vestri cordis, but in the pages of your Hearts; in tabulis cordis carnalibus, in the fleshly Tables of the heart, says Isidore Hispalensis, Rabanus Maurus, and innumerable others. 
Concil. Brac. 2. can. 1.  Hence, as the Councils of Laodicea, Trullo, and of Braga have determined, it was to be learned by all that came to be Baptised, before the great Solemnity of Easter; and they required a public Repetition of it by the People as oft as they received the Holy Sacrament: 
Concil. Mo. gunt. c. 45. Catech 5. p. 45. 2 Thess. ij. 14.  And lastly hence St. Cyril doth press upon his Catechist, the keeping of it in his Memory from that of the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hold the Traditions which you have been taught.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The Corollaries from these propositions touching the Creed are these, 1. That these Symbols must contain all that the Apostles delivered as simply necessary to be believed of all Christians, and all that the whole Catholic Church judged needful to be held in point of Faith, §. 1. 2ly. That these Creeds must be a perfect digest of all things necessary to be believed now, and throughout all succeeding Ages of the World, §. 2. 3ly. That no Man who doth hearty believe these Creeds and the immediate Doctrines plainly contained in them, or evidently deduced from them can deserve to be Anathematised, or to be excluded from the Communion of Christians, for not believing any other simple Article of Faith, §. 3. 4ly. That all those Councils which have Anathematised their fellow Christians for such Doctrines as are not in these Creeds, nor can be evidently inferred from any thing contained in them have actually erred, §. 4. 5ly. That all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith are fully and perspicuously contained in Scripture according to the Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ, §. 5. Mr. M. 's Objection from Tertullian answered and retorted, Ibid. 6ly. That the Faith of Protestants in all their necessary Articles is most certain, §. 6. 7ly. That in this Sense the Faith was handed down to us by Tradition, viz. That this Creed which contains all the Essentials of it, hath been thus handed down by it, though by the same Tradition it was declared to be also fully contained in the Scripture, §. 7. 8ly. That the Romanists impose upon us when they argue for Traditions neither contained in Scripture nor the Creed, from the Say of Irenaeus and Tertullian, and other Fathers, which evidently relate to the Tradition of the Creed, §. 8. 9ly. That here is a full Answer to the Catalogue of Fundamental Articles of Faith so oft demanded, §. 9 And to that other Question, Where was your Religion before Luther? §. 10. The Reason why we still judge the Church of Rome a true Church, §. 11.  
NOW the Consequences which naturally result from this Tradition, are sufficient to confirm the most important Arncles of the Faith of Protestants, to clear up the most considerable Objections which are made against it, and to confute, and wholly over throw the Doctrines of the Romish Church. For,  
First, If, according to the Second Observation, §. 1 the Apostles delivered that which we call the Apostles Creed, or something like it to all Churches, if all the Christian Churches received such standing Rule of Faith from the Apostles and their Successors; if, according to the Third Observation, all Christians were received into the Church by Baptism, upon profession of this Faith, and were admitted to the participation of the Eucharist upon the like profession; if, according to the Fourth Observation, the Fathers of the Church have always owned these Creeds as perfect digests of all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith; if, according to the Fifth Observation, these Symbols were always owned as a sufficient Test of Orthodoxy; and it was thought a clear and a convincing proof, that the additional Doctrines of all kind of Heretics, were on this sole account to be rejected, because they were not mentioned or contained in this Creed. I say, if all these things are so, than it demonstratively follows, both from the nature of the thing, and the Tradition of the Church of all these Ages, that in these Symbols were contained all that the Apostles delivered as simply necessary to be believed of all Christians, and all that the whole Catholic Church judged needful to be held in point of Faith. For is it reasonable to think that the Apostles, the Apostolic Churches, or the four first General Councils were so forgetful as to omit any fundamental point in that Creed, which they delivered to be believed by all Christians as the Rule of Faith? What account can be given why any such summary of Faith should be made at all by the Apostles, or their Successors, but for this end, that in them all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith might be comprised; if a Creed were suitably to this Tradition, delivered by the Apostles to the Church, either we must think these Apostles unfaithful in their Work, or the Creed an unfaithful account of their Doctrine; or that all which they esteemed simply necessary to be believed is comprised in it; for to imagine otherwise is in effect to say this is not the Apostles Creed, but a part of it; but the Apostles, and the Church of the succeeding Ages giving it that name, seem plainly to inform us that the sum, and substance of their credenda was comprised in it. To deny this is in effect to say they dealt deceitfully, and were a snare to Christians in composing of it; for to call it a Creed, and to leave out of it that which was necessarily to be believed, what had it been but to deceive the World, it being in effect to think that they had given us a Symbol which was indeed no Symbol, as being no distinctive mark betwixt the sound Believer and the Heretic, or one that errs in Fundamentals, which yet the notion of the word Symbol doth import, and which the Ancients tell us this Apostolic Symbol was designed to be. In fine, it is to believe that the Compilers of this Creed would put in some things unnecessary to be believed in themselves, only as being circumstances of things necessary, as that our Saviour's Crucifixion happened under Pontius Pilate, his Resurrection was on the Third Day, and yet would leave out some things which were simply to be believed of all Christians. Moreover could the Apostles agree upon this as the Rule of what they afterwards should preach, and as a Rule to be given to Believers, if it contained not the whole Council of God in things simply necessary to be believed; if so, it follows, that either they observed not their own Rule in Preaching of the Gospel, or if they did, they kept back from the knowledge of the Faithful something necessary to be believed unto Salvation. It is well known that in the Notion of the Fathers, a Rule importeth fullness and perfection, even such a fullness, say Varinus and St. Basil, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Contr. Eunom. l. 1. p. 701.  by no means doth admit of any Diminution or Addition; that it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a boundary of what is right, wanting nothing. So Theodoret, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact. 
In Philip. iij. 16.  And could the Fathers then so constantly have styled any of these Creeds the Rule of Faith, had they conceived them deficient in any necessary Points of Christian Doctrine? Can they have styled either of them a perfect Confession, comprising the whole Doctrine of Faith, the whole of Christian Doctrine, the comprehension and perfection of the Christian Faith, a comprisal of all the Articles of Faith, a Symbol that speaks of every part of Faith, the Faith sufficient for Salvation, the Lifegiving, the saving Faith, the saving Knowledge, the only Truth which they received from the Apostles, the only Rule which admits of no Correction, no Addition, and no Diminution, the only Faith delivered by the Church to be kept by her Children? Can they have told us, that the most Learned could believe no more, and the meanest Christian did believe no less; that they need know no more, that they desired to believe no more, that they believed this first, that nothing more was to be believed, that in it nothing was to be innovated? Can they have said expressly, that the Apostles delivered in it whatsoever they thought necessary for all Believers, and that they indicted it to be a mark by which he should be known, who preached Christ truly according to the Rules of the Apostles; and by producing of which it might be known, saith Ruffinus, whether he were an Enemy or a Companion? And lastly, could their Great and General Councils have defined so often, That it should be lawful for no Man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Concil. Ephes. Can. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to introduce, writ, or compose another Faith besides that which was defined by the Nicene Council. These are the words of the Third General Council, where presided that Cyril of Alexandria, who, in his letter to John of Antioch, saith, We by no means permit the Faith defined, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Symbol of Faith made by the Holy Fathers met at Nice, to be shaken by any; nor do we suffer ourselves or others to change one word, or transgress one Syllable of what is there contained. This Epistle, saith Mark Bishop of Ephesus, 
Apud Concil. Florent. Sess. 5.  was read, and approved by the Fourth General Council, which also decreed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it should be lawful for no Man to add any thing to this Symbol, or take any thing from it, or to change it at all, or transform it into another Symbol. 
Theodoret. H. Eccl. l. 2. c. 18.  Athanasius speaking of the Synod of Ariminum, saith, That the Orthodox and true Servants of the Lord defined, that Men should be contented with that Faith alone which was held at Nice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and mind, and seek for nothing more, or less, and that they deposed them who taught the contrary. And again, 
Ibid. Syn. Constant. Sub Menna Act. 5. p. 87. apud Bin. T. 4.  That they should, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seek for nothing more than what was confessed by the Fathers at Nice. In the Fifth General Synod, John, Patriarch of Constantinople saith, We have taken care, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the foundation of Faith might remain inviolate according to the Tradition of the Holy Fathers. And this determination they declared was made,  
1st. 
Apud Concil. Flor. Sess. 5. Bin. Concil. Tom. 8. p. 591. Ibid. Athan. Epist. ad Afric. Episc. p. 932. Orat. de Diu. Christi p. 165. Syn. Sard. apud Athan. Ep. ad Afric. Episc. p. 941.  Because this venerable Symbol, saith the General Council of Chalcedon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sufficeth to the perfect knowledge of the Truth; and as the Bishop of Ephesus well notes upon that place, It is manifest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing is wanting to what is perfect; they also said, there was no need of adding any thing to it, because it was sufficient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Subversion of every wicked Heresy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to overthrow all the most ungodly Heresies, and that it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Inscription as upon a Pillar against all Heresies.  
2dly. Because they would not alter the Tradition they had received from their Forefathers. We, saith Cyril in the General Council of Ephesus, have taken this care that nothing should be added to, 
Apud Concil. Flor Sess. 5. Bin. Ibid. p. 589.  or altered in the Nicene Symbol, as being mindful of him, that said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Remove not the ancient Bounds which thy Fathers have set.  
3dly. Because they would not give occasion to any to suspect their Faith imperfect, or that any Article of Faith was wanting in the Creeds already made. Thus the Synod of Sardis decreed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Apud Athan. Ep. ad Antioch. p. 576.  That nothing more should be written touching the Faith, but that all should rest satisfied with the Faith confessed by the Nicene Fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was deficient in nothing; and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, least that of Nice should be esteemed imperfect, and a pretence should be given to as many as will to write, and define touching the Faith. 
Theodoret H. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15.  The Orthodox Fathers in the Council of Ariminum professed, That they were Children of the Nicene Fathers, but if, say they, we should dare to take away any thing from what they have written, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or add any thing to it, we should be spurious Children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being Accusers of what they did, who delivered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an exact Rule of Faith. And again, they declare it, 
Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a dangerous thing to add any thing, or take any thing from the Nicene Creed, because if either of these things should be done, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Enemies would have liberty to do what they would. 
Pag. 951.  And Athanasius in his Epistle to John and Antiochus his Presbyters, commands them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to reject them who would say more or less than was contained in that Creed. 
Apud Concil. Flor. Sess 8. Bin. Ibid. p. 627.  And the Bishop of Ephesus well argues, That we can suffer nothing by keeping to the same Faith which the divine Fathers confessed and believed, since none but mad Men can accuse it of imperfection.  
Secondly, §. 2 Hence it demonstratively follows that these Creeds must be a perfect digest of all things necessary to be believed now, and throughout all succeeding Ages of the World; for how can it be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the Apostles, and the Christians of the Four first Centuries had? May the Churches of after-Ages make the narrow way to Life more narrow than our Saviour, his Apostles and the Fathers left it? When the whole Church hath so expressly taught that this Faith was sufficient for the perfect knowledge of the Truth, that in it nothing was deficient, may others yet come after them, and by adding as many more Articles, no way pretending to be explications of the former Faith, remove the ancient Bounds which our Fathers have set? Yea when the Apostles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. xx. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 20.  who profess that they revealed the whole Council of God unto the Churches, and kept back nothing needful for Salvation, delivered this as the only Rule of Faith, and their Successors handed it down unto posterity, as that to which nothing was to be added, beyond which nothing was to be believed as an Article of Faith, shall after Ages come, and add as many more Articles, as necessary to be believed unto Salvation, as those which they delivered, and damn all those who do refuse to own them as such? Moreover, what reason can any Man give why any person should not be saved now by the same Faith which was sufficient for Salvation in the days of the Apostles, and the first four Centuries? Are we wiser than they? or are our Doctors more Learned, or more Faithful? Is there another Covenant made with the Church since their Days? Are other terms of Salvation since made? or is God less merciful to us than he was to them? Is not the famous Rule of Lirinensis this, Quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper, That which was always and every where believed of all, that is the Rule of Faith? And must it not hence follow, that there can be no New Article, no Declaration obliging us to believe any thing which was not always matter of the Christian Faith?  
If you would palliate the matter by this specious pretence, That though the Church can make no Articles of Faith which never were revealed by the Apostles, she may declare those that want sufficient Declaration; is it not Nonsense to say, What always was believed wanteth sufficient Declaration? that is, it wanteth what is necessary to render it an Article of Faith, or a thing fit to be believed. Did the Apostles know that Article which you say wants sufficient Declaration, to be a necessary Article of Faith, or no? Did the Compilers of the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed? did all those Ages who asserted the perfection of these Creeds, as to all matters of the Christian Faith know it, or no? If not, then must they teach they knew not what, or their Successors, without a new Revelation, could not know it: if they did know it, and declare it, What farther Declaration could it need, unless the Church, after that Declaration, lost a necessary Article of Faith delivered to her? If they knew it, but did not declare it, they must be charged with concealing some necessary part of the Gospel; or if it were unnecessary, why may not others still conceal it, and not afflict and clog the Faith of Christians with unnecessary things?  
If you say with the Latins in the Council of Florence, 
Apud Bin. Concil. To. 8. p. 649.  that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If all Men would acquiesce in the Faith defined, there would be no need to be concerned for any other, besides that of Nice; but by reason of men's deviation from the Right Line, to buy, and crooked, false, and erroneous ways, it is necessary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to unfold and interpret better the same Faith, and to make plain the way of Truth.  
To this I reply, That here the Cause is given up to Protestants, for hence it follows, that the Supremacy of the Pope, the Celibacy of Priests, the Invocation of Saints, the Veneration of Images and Relics, the true and proper Sacrifice of the Mass, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, of Concomitance, and Communion in one Kind, of Purgatory, Indulgences, Reading the Service in a Tongue unknown, the Seven Sacraments, the Necessity of the Priest's Intention to the validity of a Sacrament, must be so far contained in the Nicene Creed, as to be only Explications and Interpretations of the same Articles of Faith; or it must be confessed that they are no necessary Articles of Christian Faith, and since the Greeks did in that Council plead that nothing was to be added by any after-Councils to the Nicene Faith, and the Latins in effect did own, that nothing should be added to it, but only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
P. 644, 645.  another Exposition suitable to the Truth contained in it, which was not so much an Addition, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Explication of the same thing; they both exclude the Addition of these Articles, unless that can be proved, which never can be rationally attempted, That they are only Explications of the Nicene Faith, as the Addition of Filioque to it was declared to be. And since we Protestants do acquiesce in the Nicene Faith, it follows by the concession of the Latins, that in respect to us, there was no need for after- Councils to be concerned for any other Faith.  
2dly. The Fathers who made, or who embraced this boundary of Christian Faith expressly add, That there is no necessity of adding any thing unto it with respect to Heretics, because it is sufficient of itself, for the aversion of all Heresies. Thus in that great dispute which was between the Aliens and the Orthodox, about adding something to the Nicene Faith, or making other Creeds besides it, 
Epist. ad Epict. Tom. 1. p. 581, 582.  Athanasius gives his Judgement, That the vain talk of all the Heretics that ever were, was baffled, and made to cease by the Faith confessed at Nice, according to the Holy Scriptures, and that this Faith was sufficient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the overthrow of all Impiety, and that no other Synod ought to be named in the Catholic Church, but that, for the Confusion of them, it being, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mark of victory over all Heresy, and especially over that of Arius. And this demonstratively follows from their constant Doctrine, that these Creeds fully do contain all Doctrines of Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians, for seeing Heresy must be an Error of Faith in matters necessary to be believed, because it otherwise could be no damnable Error, there can be no Heresy which is not a denial of something necessary to be believed, that therefore which sufficiently instructs me in all things necessary to be believed must also fortify me sufficiently against all Heresy.  
3dly. This unfolding, making plain, better interpreting the Faith, being that which only can be done by farther Declaration of the Sense of some Article of Faith than formerly was made unto the Church, it is already baffled by the Refutation of the former Plea; and it is plainly inconsistent with the Pretences of our new Patrons of Tradition, for either the Father taught the Son this better Interpretation, and made plain this Sense of the Article, or he did not, if he did, there was no need of doing this by any Council, if he did not, than it is evident that the Son, if he believes this Sense, and this Interpretation, believes somewhat which he received not by Tradition from his Father, and so it must be certain that he may believe another sense of that Article, than his Father taught, and so in any other Article, viz. another sense of the Real Presence, of the Pope's Supremacy, etc.  
Thirdly, §. 3 Hence it must follow, That no Man who doth hearty believe these Creeds, and the immediate Doctrines plainly contained in them, or evidently deduced from them, can deserve to be anathematised, or be excluded from the Communion of Christians, for not believing any other simple Article of Faith, for than he must deserve to be excluded for a thing unnecessary to be believed by Christians. He may indeed deserve to be excluded upon other Grounds from the external Communion of the Church, as, v. gr. for irregularity of Life, or violating the Church's Peace, but cannot justly be excluded for want of Christian Faith.  
Fourthly, §. 4 Hence it must follow, That all those Councils which have anathematised their fellow Christians for such Doctrines as are not in these Creeds, nor can be evidently inferred from them, have been so far from being Infallible, that they have actually erred. And all those Churches who have rejected others from Communion with them upon the same account, have acted Schismatically, because they excluded others from Communion without just Ground. It being therefore manifest that the Church of Rome hath added to the Nicene Creed these following Articles:  
I. That the Pope of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ.  
II. That the Roman is the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches.  
III. That to her therefore doth belong to judge of the true Sense, and Interpretation of Scripture, and that the Sense which she imposeth on them is to be received as true.  
iv That there be Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ, and which confer Grace, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, Matrimony.  
V That in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice is offered for the Living and the Dead.  
VI That in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into Christ's Body, and the whole Substance of Wine into his Blood, and so the Body and the Blood of Christ is there substantially present, together with his Soul and his Divinity.  
VII. That under one Species only whole and entire Christ, and a true Sacrament is taken.  
VIII. That there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls detained there are helped by the Prayers of the Faithful.  
IX. That the Saints reigning with Christ are to be Prayed to, and their Relics to be Venerated.  
X. That the Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and of other Saints are to be Honoured, and to have due Veneration given to them.  
XI. That Christ left a Power of Indulgences to his Church, and that their use is most wholesome to Christian People.  
XII. That all the Rites used by the Roman Church in Administration of her Sacraments are to be admitted.  
And lastly, That this is the true Catholic Faith, without which no Man can be saved. I say, It being manifest that the Church of Rome hath added all these Articles of Faith unto the Creeds forementioned, and by the Church declared to be a perfect digest of the Articles of Christian Faith; it follows that they must all be evidently proved to be contained in the Apostles, or the Nicene Creed, or that the Church of Rome must be Schismatical, in excluding from her Communion those who do not believe, or yield assent unto them.  
And thus, I hope, I have sufficiently showed how this Tradition overthrows, and fully doth confute the New Doctrines of the Church of Rome. It now remains to show how it confirms the Cause of Protestants, and clears up the Objections which are made against it. Now;  
First, §. 5 Seeing, according to this Tradition, these Symbols, as they are a perfect Summary of Christian Faith, so are they fully and perspicuously contained in Scripture; hence it demonstratively follows, that according to the Doctrine and Tradition of the whole Church of Christ, the sum of all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith, must fully and perspicuously be contained in Holy Scripture, and may be proved thence to the satisfaction of the meanest Catechist. And consequently, the Holy Scripture was by them esteemed a full and perspicuous Rule of Faith, according to our Sixth Note, in reference to all things necessary to be believed, which is the Fundamental Article of Protestants.  
But doth not Tertullian speak in General, Object. NB. of never disputing with Heretics out of Scriptures only, 
Q. of Quest. p. 258, 259.  because this Scripture combat availeth for nothing but to the making either one's Stomach, or ones Brains to turn,— and conclude generally, We must not therefore appeal to Scriptures, nor in our combat rely upon them, in which either no Victory is to be obtained, or a very uncertain one.  
Tertullian here proposeth this Objection, Answ. That the Heretics spoke of the Scriptures, 
V c. 7. §. 8.  and persuaded their Doctrines from the Scriptures, and this he is so far from reprehending, that he holds it a thing absolutely necessary to be done by all who would discourse of divine Matters; It being impossible, saith he, aliunde de rebus fidei loqui, 
De prescript. cap. 15.  quàm ex literis fidei, to speak of Matters of Faith, but from the Scriptures. And therefore he not only owns that the Rule of Faith he pleaded for was first delivered by word of Mouth, and after by the Writings of the Apostles; but also to that Objection of the Heretics, Seek and ye shall find, 
Cap. 9  he answers by granting, that the Scriptures are to be searched and sought into, for finding out the Truth contained in the Rule of Faith, and that then nothing more respecting Faith is needful to be sought, because they had found what they sought for; then he proceeds to show, non admittendos eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem, that the Heretics were not to be admitted to dispute from Scriptures; and that, non sit cum illo disputandum, he was not to be disputed with from Scripture, for these following Reasons.  
1. Because, ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas, those Heretics received not some Scriptures, viz. 
Iren. l. 1. c. 26.  the Ebionites and Encratites rejected all St. Paul's Epistles, and embraced only the Gospel of the nazarenes. 
L. 3. c. 11. p. 258, 259.  Cerinthus allowed only the Gospel of St. Mark. Valentinus only that of St. John, Martion only that of Luke, Ebion only that of Matthew.  
2. Because, si quas recipit non recipit integras, those Scriptures which they owned, they received not entire, but with additions and detractions, as their cause required, cutting off from them what most clearly made against then Heresies. Thus of the Marcionites, and the Lucianists, and the Valentinians; Origen confesseth, That they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Contra Celsum l. 2. p. 77.  change and pervert the Gospel.  
3. Because, if they admitted any Scriptures entire, yet they corrupted them, per diversas expositiones, by adulterating the Sense of them, and miserably distorting them, to the upholding of their idle Dreams; for, saith Irenaeus, they said their Doctrines were not perspicuously revealed in Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. 1. c. 1. p. 14.  but by our Lord were mystically couched in Parables, even so mystically, that, as you may see from the first, to the Nineteenth Chapter of the First Book of Irenaeus, it is enough to turn a Man's Stomach to read such Fooleries; as, v. gr. They prove their thirty Aeones, because our Saviour was Baptised when he was Thirty Years Old, and from the Parable of the Labourers sent into the Vineyard, some at the 1st, 3d, 6th, 9th, 11th. 
C. 1. p. 10.  hour of the Day, which numbers put together make up Thirty. Thus, saith Irenaeus, they endeavoured to adapt some of our Lord's Parables, 
Pag. 32.  and some Prophetical Expressions to their Doctrines, that they might not seem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any Testimony from Scripture; but then, saith he, they miserably pervert the Order, and the Series of Holy Scripture, and deal with it as if one should take the Image of a King excellently made in Jewels, and should deform it into the Face of a Dog or a Woolf. They pretended also that some of their Doctrines were received, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from unwritten Traditions; 
C. 1. p. 32.  and to prove them they produced a multitude, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Apocryphal and adulterated Scriptures which they had feigned, 
Lib. 1. c. 17.  pretending for their recourse unto Tradition this Accusation of the Holy Scriptures, 
Lib. 3. c. 2.  That they were not right, nor of Authority sufficient, because they were spoken variously, and that from them the Truth could not be found out by such as were ignorant of Tradition, non enim per literas traditum illum, sed per vivam vocem, it being not delivered in writing, but by Oral Tradition; that is, they were plain Papists as to this pretence. Against such Men as these, saith Tertullian, the most skilful in the Scriptures will dispute in vain from Scripture, cum nolunt agnoscere ea per quae revincuntur, his nituntur quae falso composuerunt, & quae de ambiguitate coeperunt, since they will not own that for Scripture by which they are refuted, they will insist upon their Apocryphal Writings, and those things which they ambiguously have conceived. Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est, and therefore we are not to provoke them to dispute out of Scriptures, nor place our combat in those things in which no victory is to be obtained, or a very uncertain one. Let now any indifferent Reader judge whether Tertullian speaks in general against disputing with Heretics out of Scripture, as Mr. M. here confidently saith; and not only of disputing against hanc Haeresin, that very Heresy which had these Arts to delude what was brought against them from Scripture, and appealed from it, with the Papists, to Oral Tradition.  
And yet against these slippery Men, Irenaeus, and other of the Father's first argued from Scriptures, & cum ex Scripturis arguebantur, and when they had baffled them there, and made them fly, as Romanists now do, unto Tradition, they followed them at that Weapon; and by producing the Tradition of their Creed and Rule of Faith, containing nothing of their New Doctrines, they stopped their Mouths, giving them nevertheless to understand, 
Lib. 3. c. 1.  That the Rule of Faith was by the Will of God not only preached to, but afterwards delivered to them in the Scriptures, to be the Pillar and the Ground of Truth, and that the Parables which they by their ridiculous Interpretations adapted to their purposes, 
Lib. 2. c. 46.  were to be understood according to this Rule of Truth, and according to those things which were perspicuously revealed in Scripture, and that then they would not be Interpreted to a dangerous Sense. From which things thus explained we learn,  
1. That no Man can discourse of Matters of Faith but from the Scriptures.  
2. That these Scriptures were written by the Will of God to be the Pillar and the Ground of Truth to following Ages.  
3. That if we do interpret the ambiguous Places of them by the plain, and with Analogy to the Rule of Faith contained in the Creed, we cannot dangerously err.  
Secondly, §. 6 Hence it is easy to demonstrate the certainty and full assurance which the Protestant hath for all his necessary Articles of Faith. He having for his Creeds, which, saith his Catechism, contain all the Articles of Christian Faith, all the same Grounds of assurance which any Roman Catholic, or any Christian can pretend to, viz. present acknowledged Profession, and Tradition Oral of the present Church; and, 2ly. of all the Churches of the Roman Communion, and of all other Christian Churches. 3ly. The Profession and Oral Tradition of all Churches through all Christian Ages, Times and Places, and even of all the Apostles, who were, saith this Tradition, the Authors jointly of that Creed which bears their name. 4ly. The Writings of the Fathers and of General Councils, who assure us that the Creeds they handed down unto us, contained the Apostolical Faith, the one and same Truth, they had been taught, the only, the entire, the perfect Faith of all Christians, to which nothing was to be added, as well as nothing to be taken from it. Lastly, the written word of God in which they say this whole Faith is expressly, and in words contained, in which it may be found, and from which it may be proved to the capacity of the meanest Catechist. Whereas nothing of this nature can be showed in Confirmation of the Faith of Romanists.  
Thirdly, §. 7 Hence also we may learn how Christianity was handed down the same for Substance and Essentials, as it was from the beginning by Tradition, as the Ancients understood the word, viz. by the continual practice of the Church delivering the Summary and Rule of Faith, which she received from the Apostles to all her Members to be learned by heart, or to be written not in Ink, but in the fleshly Tables of their Hearts, and then confirming all the Articles contained in it by the holy Scriptures, 
See Ch. 7. §. 7, 8, etc.  and sending her Members to it to learn the Truth of what the Church had taught them. This is, saith Irenaeus, the Tradition which we have received from the Apostles, the Summary of Faith, the preaching of the Truth, the  Rule of Truth, delivered to Christians at their Baptism, and by which the Church enlightens all who come unto the Truth. And this, saith he, the Apostles first preached, and afterwards delivered in the Holy Scriptures, and so they say all.  
Fourthly, §. 8 Hence it is easy to discern how the R. Doctors impose upon their Readers, when they urge the Say of Irenaeus and Tertullian for the establishing of their Traditions, or the asserting such Traditions as the Rule of Faith, which neither are contained in Scripture, nor the Apostles Creed, when it is evident beyond exception that the Tradition which they speak of is that of the Apostles Creed, and of the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith contained in Scripture. 
Q. of Questions p. 345.  Thus Mr. M. triumphs in those words of Irenaeus, What if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, must we not have followed that Order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose charge they left the Churches to be Governed? To this Order of Tradition many Barbarous Nations do assent, who have believed in Christ without any Writings, keeping diligently the ancient Tradition, (not Traditions, as Mr. M. deceitfully Translates.) Now let it be observed, That the Tradition here mentioned is only, vetus Apostolorum Traditio, 
Lib. 3. c. 4.  the old Tradition of the Apostles, the belief of one God, maker of Heaven and Earth, and so on to the end of the Apostles Creed; and this will be the clearest Demonstration against the Roman Church imaginable, for if we must have followed this Order of Tradition, had we been destitute of Scripture, we must have absolutely rejected all the Articles of Romish Faith. 
Mr. M. Ibid.  That Irenaeus did believe that the Tradition left by the Apostles, was a sufficient Ground of divine Faith, is true; 
L. 3. c. 3, 4.  but than it is as true that he believed that this Tradition was entirely contained in the Rule of Faith he there lays down, that it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same, and only Truth, which was delivered by the Apostles; that it rendered them who believed this only, Wise, and acceptable to God, and fully armed against all Heresies. 
De praescrip. c. 28.  Tertullian doth indeed put the Question, How is it likely that so many, and so great Churches, should err in one Faith. Among many events there is not every where one issue, 
Q. of Quest. p. 400.  The Errors of the Churches must needs have varied, but that which amongst many, is found one, is not mistaken, but delivered. Audeat ergo aliquis dicere eos errasse qui tradiderunt? 
De praescrip. c. 28, 29.  Dare then any one say they erred who delivered that one and the same thing? But then this is so far from being plain Popery, as Mr. M. vainly boasts, that it effectually, and at one blow, 
Ibid. De Virg. Veland. c. 1. De praescrip. c. 13.  destroys it; for having laid down his own Rule, immovable, and admitting no Novelty, no Addition, and delivered this Rule in words at length, ut hinc quid defendamus profiteamur, as a profession of that entire Faith he undertook to defend against the Heretics, and beyond which nothing was needful to be known; he proceeds to show that the Apostles in delivering this, as the entire Rule of Faith, were not deficient in teaching any thing which was needful to be believed. This he proves Chapter the Twenty-sixth, because Christ commanded that what they heard in Secret they should publish in the Light, and on the House top, and that they should not hid the Light under a Bushel, but set it on a Candlestick, that it might shine to all in the House; these Precepts either the Apostles understood not or neglected, if they did not fulfil them, but hide some of the Light, that is, of the Word of God, and, Sacramenti Christi, of the Doctrine of Christ. Whereas, saith he, it was, incredibile vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis, vel non omnem ordinem Regulae nobis edidiffe, that either the Apostles were ignorant of any thing they were to preach, or that they did not perfectly reveal the Rule of Faith to all. He also shows, That the Church did not alter what she had received from the Apostles; because the Rule of Faith was one and the same in all Churches of Christ, they being all one, 
Chap. 20.  ejusdem Sacramenti una traditione, by having the same Tradition of the same Rule of Faith; and because they did, in eadem fide conspirare, agree in the same Faith, this Rule, this Creed, mentioned Chapter the Thirteenth, must therefore be according to Tertullian, the fullness of the Apostles preaching, the entire Rule of Faith they preached to all; or else, according to him, the Apostles must be ignorant or unfaithful, and his ensuing Argument, That all succeeding Churches agreed in this Rule as in the Tessera Hospitalitatis, the Signal of Friendship, 
Ibid.  that it was one and the same among them all, and that they who were not by Original Apostolical Churches, were yet Apostolical, because they did conspire with them that were so in the Belief of this Faith, is a farther demonstration, that this Creed was the entire Faith delivered by the Apostles, and taught by all Churches; since otherwise, Tertullian's Argument must be false; for he expressly undertakes to prove that the Apostles delivered to the Churches the entire Rule of Faith, and that the Churches did faithfully transmit to posterity the whole Faith they received from them; and that because they all transmitted the Apostles Creed, mentioned Chapter the Thirteenth, had not then that contained the whole Christian Faith, owned then by all the Orthodox as such, Tertullian had given up the Cause unto the Heretics; for they might have replied upon him, as do the Romanists to us, that the Apostles delivered many other Traditions, as necessary to be believed as those contained in the Creed; and that these were the Doctrines which they owned, and Tertullian rejected. Hence than our Demonstration from these words of Tertullian is invincible; All Christians conspired in this, that this Rule of his contained the whole Faith received from the Apostles, beyond which nothing was necessary to be believed; whosoever could produce this Creed they received into Communion, pro consanguinitate doctrinae, because agreeing with them in the Faith; and whosoever pretended to any Articles of Faith, not mentioned in this Creed, they confuted them, by saying, they had no such Article in the Creed, and therefore the Apostles, 
Chap. 32, 33.  nihil tale docuerunt, taught no such thing, and rejected them, ob diversitatem Sacramenti, as holding a Faith different from that of the Church. Now how is it likely that so many, and so great Churches should err in one Faith? The Errors of the Churches, had there been any, in delivering their entire Rule of Faith, must needs have varied, but that which amongst them all was one and the same, must be a sure Tradition; and then the Doctrines of the Roman Creed must be rejected as not taught by the Apostles, and as different from the Churches Faith. 
Mr. M. Ibid.  Lo here [plain Protestantism] in the highest point, proved and approved by all Christians within Two hundred Years after Christ.  
The same Doctrine is delivered Chapter the Nineteenth and the Twentieth, 
Pag. 429, 430.  on which Mr. M. insists, Sect. 20. Num. 4. for there he tells us, That our Lord sent his Twelve Apostles, eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgare, to preach the same Doctrine of Faith to the Nations, and so to plant Churches in every City, from which other Churches received, traducem fidei, & femina doctrinae, the Tradition of their Faith, and the Seeds of Doctrine; and embracing of it, became all Apostolical, by receiving the same Rule of Faith. Hence therefore, saith he, we prescribe against the Heretics; 
Hinc igitur dirigimus praescriptionem. Cap. 21.  for if our Lord sent his Apostles to preach, we must receive no other Preachers of the Faith, than he appointed; now what they preached, ought not to be otherwise proved, than by the same Churches which they planted, eye praedicando, tam viuâ quod aiunt voce, quam per Epistolas postea, by preaching to them by word of mouth, and afterwards by their Epistles: And if so, 'tis manifest, saith he, that Doctrine is to be accounted true which conspires with the Apostolical Churches, whence Faith had its Original, and that is to be rejected which contradicts that Faith; it remains therefore, uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cujus Regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur, & ex hoc ipso an caeterae de mendacio veniunt, that we demonstrate whether our Doctrine, the Rule of which we have laid down, Chapter the Thirteenth, derives from the Tradition of the Apostles, and consequently whether all others be not false. He therefore doth again declare, That the Creed mentioned by him there, is the entire Rule of Faith, and that by which we may discern who hold the Truth, and who teach Falsehood: And argues thus, All the Apostolical Churches have delivered this Creed as that entire Doctrine which they received from the Apostles, and all the Heretics say the contrary, therefore their Doctrine must be rejected, and that of the Apostolic Churches be received as the Truth. Mark here, 
Pag. 429.  to use the words of Mr. M. how the first ground on which we are to stand, as upon a ground most advantageous for gaining the victory against Error, and purchasing triumph to Truth, is the Tradition of this Creed of the Apostles, as the entire Rule of Faith, for by that alone we assuredly know whether our Doctrine, of which the Rule is given, Chapter the Thirteenth, came from Apostolical Tradition, from this Rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles by word of Mouth, and by their Writings, and then by Tradition delivered down by successive practice of all Churches, to which Churches Tertullian here expressly sends us, will be discovered that only Tradition of the Rule of Faith, in which totum Christianae fidei Sacramentum, all the Mysteries of Christian Faith are contained. And thus Tertullian goes on pressing his Adversary merely by the Tradition of this Creed, as the entire Rule of Faith; and this way, and only this way he prescribes, that we ought to show what Christ and his Apostles taught.  
Fifthly, §. 9 Hence we return an Answer to that demand so often but so vainly made, What Catalogue have you of Fundamental Articles of Faith? For here is a Catalogue of them recommended to the whole World of Christians by so great Authority as may well be esteemed sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of this inquiry; here being Symbols delivered as the entire Summary of Articles of Christian Faith by the Consent of the Apostles, the four first General Councils, received by all Orthodox Christians of all Places, and Ages as such, for at least Six hundred Years; here is, as Irenaeus saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Tertullian, Regula immobilis, & irreformabilis, as the Greeks in the Council of Florence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Rule invariable, unmovable, unchangeable, not to be shaken, or reform; a Rule, which say the Fathers, 
Concil. Hor. Apud Bin. Sesse. 5. Tom. 8. p. 590.  admits of no diminution or addition, this being, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a secondary Foundation of Faith after the Symbol; that it was not to be changed in the least, saith the Bishop of Ephesus. Whereas the Catalogue of Fundamentals in the Roman Church is still variable and increasing, every new General Council having it in their power by defining any new Thing disputed in the Schools, to advance it into a New Article of Faith.  
Sixthly, §. 10 Hence also we return a satisfactory Answer to that Question so captiously put unto us, Where was your Church before Luther? by saying that our Church was in all places of the World where these ancient Foundations were retained, and not subverted by introducing Doctrines plainly opposite unto them, our Church exactly is the same with that in Irenaeus and Tertullian's days, and could undoubtedly have had with them free Communion by virtue of her Symbol, yea, if that which always was professed to be the entire Summary of Faith be sufficient, when owned, and Baptised into, to render us of the same Church with them who so professed, they may here find our Church where they will scarce find their own in all the Ages from the Apostles to the Tenth Century, in the West, and till the Reformation in the East. For though our first Reformers in the Church of England differed a little from the Greek and Eastern Churches in some Rites and Practices, yet were we one in Faith; and so, as far as it is needful for Sister Churches to be, of one Church. 
Concil. Flor. apud Bin. To. 8. Sess. 5.  For they maintained stiffly in the Council of Florence that the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed contained all the Articles of Christian Faith necessary to be believed, or which were to be imposed on Christians, and that it was lawful for no Man to add to, or take from it, or to propose another Faith; 
Sess. 5. p. 586. Pag. 580.  that this was the Catholic Faith which ought to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one, and the same among all Christians, that in this Symbol of Faith nothing was by the Fathers permitted, nothing put defectively, nothing that wanted Correction or Addition. 

Censura Orient. Eccles. Edit. per Stanisl. Socolovium. c. 1.  
Atque hic quidem est ille verae & incorruptae fidei thesaurus, ab ipso spiritu sancto, ne quid ex eo aut auferatur, aut aliquid alienum & adulterinum illi addatur, sancte obsignatus; haec est illa divina, sanctissima, perfecta ac universalis per orbem terrarum confusi populi Christiani tessera; haec est illa communis confessio omnium sanctorum patrum; hic est certissimus universae Christianae fidei limbs, quem in utrisque manibus complectentes, quem ubique magna libertate & alacritate confitentes velut quoddam coeleste, integrum, & incorruptum, nullaque parte contaminatum sanctorum, divino numine afflatorum, hominum depositum ad extremum usque finem vitae nostrae conservabimus. Censur. Orient. Eccl. Edit. per Stanislaum Socolovium. Cap. 1. Apud Bin. Ibid. p. 580, 577.   In their Censure of the Germane Churches they set down the Constantinopolitan Creed, as that Treasure of the true incorrupted Faith, sacredly sealed by the Holy Ghost, that nothing should be taken from it, nothing alien or adulterine added to it, as that Divine, most Holy, Perfect, and universal Tessera of the Christian People diffused over all the World, the most common Confession of all the Holy Fathers, the most certain boundary of the whole Christian Faith; and they declare, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this was the chief cause of the Schism betwixt them and the Western Churches, that the Romans had added to the Nicene Creed; there therefore was at that time no real difference betwixt them and us in the Symbol of our Faith, and therefore nothing which could hinder our Affection to Her, or Hers to us as a Sister Church, with which was maintained, and aught to be maintained the Union of Peace and Charity, by reason of this universal Tessera of Christian People, owned by both parties as the perfect Summary of their Faith.  
Lastly, §. 11 Hence you may see why the Divines of the Church of England acknowledge the Church of Rome still to continue a true Church, and those in Communion with her, as true parts of the Catholic Church visible, though far from being only so, because they are Baptised into this Faith alone, and it is delivered to them even by the Church of Rome as the whole Catholic Faith, the whole Faith necessary to Salvation. For through the wonderful Providence of God it hath so happened, 
Part. 1. c. 2. p. 13.  that the Trent Catechism hath declared suitably to the Tradition of the Ancients, that the Apostles made the Symbol, which now bears their Name, to be a form of Christian Faith to those whom they should call, ad fidei unitatem, to the Unity of Faith, and to be a mark of distinction betwixt false Brethren, and those who, verè Christo militiae Sacramento se obligarent, truly did oblige themselves to Christ by the Sacrament of their Warfare. And the Trent Council in prejudice to all her following Decrees hath also taught, That Symbolum Apostolorum est principium illud in quo omnes qui fidem Christi profitentur necessario conveniunt, ac Fundamentum Ecclesiae firmum ac unicum, 
Sess. 3. p. 7.  the Symbol of the Apostles is that Principle in which all who profess the Faith do necessarily agree, and it is the firm and only Foundation of the Church. And at their Baptism of Infants and Adult Persons, the Questions and Answers run thus; 
Ritual. Rom. de Bapt. parvul. p. 13. de Baptismo Adult. p. 28.  Pr. What askest thou of the Church of God? to which the Adult Person, or the Godfather of the Infant replies, I desire Faith. Pr. What will Faith procure for thee? Godf. Life eternal: And yet the Godfather of the Child, or the Elect with the Adult Baptised, when they come to repeat this Faith, only recite the Apostles Creed, and so they still retain the Ancient and Apostolic way of admitting Members into the Church, as to matters of Faith required of them to be believed.   

CHAP. IX.  
The Novelty of the Romish Doctrines proved farther, First, from the Instructions given by the Church-Rulers to their Clergy, what they should teach the People, in which they profess that they comprised the whole Faith and all things necessary to be believed, taught and done, and yet make not the least mention of the Romish Doctrines, §. 1. Secondly, From the Examination of a Bishop at his Ordination, who though he was not examined touching one of the Roman Articles, yet was he upon his belief of other Articles approved as one fully instructed in the Documents of Christian Faith, §. 2. The full agreement of the Eastern Churches with the West in this Matter, §. 3. Thirdly, From the Ancient way of confuting Heretics, by producing the Apostles and the Nicene Creed, and declaring touching other Doctrines not contained in them, that they are of Curiosity, not of Faith, §. 4. Fourthly, From the ancient Treatises written on purpose to instruct Christians in the Articles of Christian Faith, which contain none of these New Articles, §. 5.  
A Farther Demonstration that the pretended Traditions of the Church of Rome were not received anciently as Articles of Christian Faith, or as things necessary to be believed or practised by all Christians, may be taken from the instructions given to the Clergy concerning what they were to teach the People committed to their Charge. For amongst these things we find all the positive Articles of the Faith of Protestants, the whole Symbol of the ancient Church, our whole Duty towards God and to our Neighbour, all that we are to believe, and pray, and hope for, but not one tittle of Romish Faith. In their Instructions, quid sit a Presbyteris praedicandum, what the Priests are to teach the People, The 
(a) L. 1. c. 82.  Capitular of Charles the Great, 
(b) De Discipl. Eccl. l 1. c. 102.  Regino, and 
(c) Decret. part 6. 155.— 161.  Ivo tell us from the Councils of Rouën and Challon,  
1. That they are to preach to all in General, §. 1 That they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God Omnipotent who made all things; and that the Deity, Essence and Majesty of the Three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is one.  
2. That the Son of God was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, for the Salvation of Mankind; that he suffered, was buried, risen again the Third Day, ascended into Heaven, and is to come in the end of the World to judge all Men according to their Works; that the Wicked, with the Devil, shall be sent into eternal Fire, and the Just, with Christ, shall possess everlasting Life.  
3. That all Men shall rise again in their own Flesh.  
4. He is to teach them for what Crimes Men shall be deputed with the Devil, 
Gal. v. 19, 20, 21.  which the Apostle thus Enumerates; Fornication, Uncleanness, Lasciviousness, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Hatred, Variance, Emulations, Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Heresies, Envyings, Murders, Drunkenness, Revellings, and such like. They who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, and therefore let all these things with all care be prohibited.  
5. He is to teach of the Love of God, and our Neighbour, of Faith and Hope in God, of Humility, Patience, Chastity, Kindness, Mercy, of Alms, Confession, and Forgiving our Brethren from the Heart; for he that doth these, and the like things, shall inherit the Kingdom of God.  
Moreover they tell us from the Councils of Gangra, Reims and Challon, that every Priest must teach all his Parochians, Symbolum, & orationem Dominicam, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, and cause them to repeat them when they come to Confession at Lent, and not administer the Sacrament to them till they can rehearse them, because none can be saved without the knowledge of them; in uno enim sides & credulitas Christiana continetur; for in the one is contained the Faith of Christians, 
Ivo Ibid. c. 158.  in the other is expressed what we are to ask of God; and these things are so great, that he who can fully understand them, sufficere sibi credatur ad salutem aeternam, understands what is believed sufficient to eternal Salvation. And secondly, Because in the Lord's Prayer are comprised all things necessary for humane Life; and in the Apostles Symbol, 
Cap. 159.  sides ex integro comprehenditur, the Catholic Faith is entirely contained, and by learning it they would rightly learn, sidem Catholicam, the Catholic Faith.  
Hence than the Argument runs thus, If the Faith of Christians was equally contained in many other Doctrines, why did not the Church equally require her Clergy to teach them also to the People? Why do these Councils say, That her Eaith, her Catholic Faith is entirely contained in this Creed of the Apostles, and that the belief of these things is sufficient for the Salvation of him who fully understands them? Sure there is some great Reason of that signal difference betwixt the Church of those Ages, which say, the Apostles Creed alone is that Faith without which, nemo salvus esse potest, no man can be saved; and the present R. Church, which saith of all her new Articles added to the Creed, Haec est vera fides Catholica extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, 
Ab illis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit teneri, doceri, & praedicari quantum in me erit curaturum. Bull. Pij 4ti.  This is the true Catholic Faith, without which no Man can be saved, betwixt that Church which only instructs her Priests to teach the Apostles Creed, and that which maketh all her Clergy swear to hold all the Articles contained in the Creed of Pius the Fourth. And also to take care that they be held, taught, and preached by all who do belong to their Care.  
3dly, §. 2 That none of the Doctrines contained in the New Creed of Pius the Fourth, and added to the Nicene Creed, are ancient Articles of Faith, will farther be made evident from the Examination which the ancient Canons of the Church required of him who was to be ordained Bishop: 
Can. 1. Concil. Tom. 2. p. 1199.  For by the Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage he was first to be examined, si fidei documenta verbis simplicibus asserat, Whether in plain words he asserted the Doctrines of Faith, that is, Whether he held the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be one God, and the whole Trinity to be Coessential, Consubstantial, Coeternal, and Co-omnipotent; whether he held that every Person in the Trinity was perfect God; and that neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, but the Son only was incarnate, as being, as to his Divinity the Son of the Father, and as to his Humanity, the Son of an humane Mother, true God of his Father, and true Man of his Mother, receiving true Flesh from his Mother, and having an humane rational Soul, so that both Natures were in him; that is, he was God and Man, one Person, one Son, one Christ, one Lord, Creator of all things which are; and with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, the Author, Lord, and Ruler of all Creatures; who suffered truly in the Flesh, died a true bodily death, risen again with a true Resurrection of his Plesh, and a true resuming of his Soul, in which he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. It also is to be enquired of him, Whether he believes one and the same God to be the Author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law, Prophets and Apostles, and that the Devil was not made wicked by Nature, but by his own Will; whether he believes the Resurrection of that Flesh which dies, and not another; whether he believes a future judgement, and, that every one shall receive according to the things which they have done in the Flesh, Punishments or Glory; whether he doth not disapprove of Marriage, nor condemn Second Marriages, nor condemn eating of Flesh; whether he Communicates with reconciled Penitents, and believes that all Sins both Original and Actual, are remitted in Baptism, and that no Man can be saved out of the Catholic Church. Cum in his omnibus examinatus inventus fuer it plene instructus, When by Examination, he is found fully instructed in all these things, let him be ordained Bishop, etc. These were all the Doctrines of Faith required to be known, or held by the Bishop in the 4th. Century. And this continued to be the Rule of his Examination, and the whole Faith required to be professed by him at his Ordination till the Thirteenth Century, as you may learn from the, 
Pag. 97, 98.  interrogatio de credulitate Episcopi, question touching the Faith of a Bishop in the Ordo Romanus, which form of Examination they profess to have received from the ancient Institution of the Holy Fathers, and especially from the Council of Carthage. From the Council of Nantes, Can. 11. and from Regino in the Ninth Century, 
De Disc. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 443.  who transcribe this Canon of the Council of Carthage, as containing the form, qualiter Episcopus ordinandus examinabitur, How a Bishop, that is to be ordained, shall be examined. 
Decret. part. 5. c. 62 l. 1. c. 8. Dist. 23. c. 2.  As also doth Ivo in the Eleventh, Barchardus in the Twelfth, and Gratian in the Thirteenth Century. These therefore from the Fourth to the Thirteenth Century were reputed all the Articles of Christian Faith, in which it was thought necessary that a Bishop should be instructed, and if he did assert these things, he was thought fully instructed in the Documents of Christian Faith.  
And to show the Concord of the Eastern with the Western Churches in these matters, §. 3 let it be considered, that Theodoret having given an account of Heretical Fables in Four Books, he proceeds, 
Cap. 4. p. 262.  Book the Fifth, to Discourse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Doctrines of the Church, and to lay before us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Evangelical Doctrine, that by comparing it with that of the Heretics, we may discern the difference betwixt Light and Darkness, perfect Health, and mortal Sickness; and then he proceeds to give us all the Doctrines contained in this Form of Examination, but not one of the Articles which they of Rome have added to the Nicene Creed. In his First Chapter he speaks of God the Father, the Creator of all things, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Second, Of his only begotten Son, coessential and coeternal with the Father. In the Third, Of the Holy Spirit, of the same Nature and Substance with them both. In the Fourth, Of the Creation of all things by the Father, with the Son, and Holy Ghost. In the Eighth, Of the Devil asserting that he had not his wickedness from his Creator, but his own perverse will. In the Eleventh, Of the Incarnation of our Lord, that he took flesh of the Virgin Mary, had a reasonable Soul united to it, and so became God and Man in one Person. That he took a true Body, chap. 12. A true Soul, ch. 13. A perfect humane Nature, ch. 14. That he raised up the same Flesh in which he suffered, ch. 15. That the same God was Author of the Old and New Testament, ch. 17. That Baptism procures the Remission of all our old Sins, ch. 18. That there would be a Resurrection of that very Body which was corrupted and dissolved, ch. 19 And a future Judgement, where every one shall receive according to what he hath done in the Body, ch. 20. That this shall be at our Lord's Second coming to judge the quick and the dead, ch. 22. That Matrimony was to be allowed, ch. 25. yea Second Marriages, ch. 26. That the wounds received after Baptism might be healed, ch. 28. That the Church forbids not the use of Flesh, ch. 29. And here concluding his Discourse concerning Ecclesiastical Doctrines, respecting Faith and Manners, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, These are the Doctrines of the Holy Spirit which we must always follow, preserving this Rule of them immovable. And that you may be sure that Scripture was the Church's Rule, that taught her all these things, he doth not only call these Doctrines, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Doctrines of the Gospel, and often say in his Discourse upon them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
P. 249, 250, 259, 262, 275, 304.  These things we have been taught by the Holy Scriptures; the Holy Scripture is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Teacher of these things; but concludes his Discourse of the Doctrinals of the Church, thus, 
P. 304.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, These Doctrines the Church hath received from divine Men, the Prophets, and Apostles, and their Successors, these than were in his Age reputed all the Doctrines of Christian Faith, and they were all conceived clearly to be contained in, and proved from the Holy Scriptures; their Faith then did not differ in one Article from that of Protestants, nor did they differ from them in assigning Scripture as the Rule of Faith.  
And 4ly. §. 4 This will be farther evident from the consideration of the most Eminent Fathers of the Church, who have employed their Time and Labour in refuting Heretics. For they still lay down the Apostles, or the Nicene Creed, as the Foundation of their Faith, and the entire belief of Christians; and speak of other Doctrines as such in which they were at liberty to exercise their parts and curiosity, but were by no means to obtrude them as Articles of Christian Faith. Thus Irenaeus having given us the Faith which the Apostles delivered to the Church, 
Lib. 1. cap. 4.  and which she did, through the whole World profess without Addition or Diminution, he proceeds to show, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church retaining one and the same Faith throughout the World, they exercised their knowledge about other matters, to explain the dispensation of God towards Men, his long suffering both towards Men, and fallen Angels, to inquire why one and the same God made some things Temporal, others Eternal, some Heavenly, and some Earthly things? why, being invisible, he appeared to the Prophets in divers Shapes? why many Covenants were made with Man, and what was the Character of every Covenant? why God concluded all Men under Unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all? why the Word of God was made Flesh, and suffered? why Christ came only in the last times, and of the end of all things, and of things to come, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to explicate other things mentioned in the Scripture: But notwithstanding all these Inquiries, the Church's Faith was still the same, as being comprised in the forementioned Articles of the Apostles Creed. Tertullian having laid down the same Rule in his Prescription against Heretics, 
Cap. 13, 14.  he reduceth all inquiries beyond this Rule, libidini curiositatis, to the lust of Curiosity, and saith, That we may better be ignorant in other things, than Curiously concerned to know them; whereas had there been as many more Articles of Christian Faith delivered by the Apostles, and as necessary to be believed by all Christians, as those which were contained in their Creed, and Rule of Faith, what ignorance, or what unfaithfulness to Souls must they be guilty of who mention none of all these necessaries, but virtually, and in effect exclude them all from being so, by thus declaring that all beyond this Rule did only serve to exercise our Wit, our Curiosity, our Knowledge concerning profound Mysteries, which were no part of Faith, and of which, without detriment to the Christian Faith, we might be ignorant.  
Epiphanius having discoursed at large of all the Heresies of his time, he closes his Discourse with an exposition of the Catholic Faith, in which he speaks, Of one God over all, §. 3. Of the Consubstantial Trinity, by which all things were created, §. 14. Of the Birth of Christ of the Virgin Mary, from whom he received a true Body and true Flesh. Of his humane Soul, and of the imion of both to his Divinity, §. 15. Of his Sufferings on the Cross in his humane Nature; of his descent into Hell; of his Resurrection; of his Ascension into Heaven, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, §. 17. Of the Resurrection of the same Body that died; of the future Recompense according to what we have done in the Flesh; of the Damnation of the Wicked, and the future Happiness of the Just, §. 18. This, saith he, is the Faith of the Church; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, §. 19 Vid. etiam, §, 25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these are the things which the one Catholic Church holds touching the Faith, §. 21. These things we have discoursed with as much brevity as we could, of the Consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the incarnation of Christ, and of his final coming, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and of the other Articles of Faith. These therefore in his time comprised all the Articles of the Christian Faith, the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, and therefore the New Roman Articles could be no parts of Christian Faith, no Doctrines of the Church Catholic when Epiphanius flourished in it. And upon account of this Symbol of Faith it is that he calls the Church, and the way of Truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Haer. 59 §. 12, 13.  The King's Highway, and calls them the Servants of God, who do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, know this firm Rule or Canon, and walk in this way of Truth.  
5ly. §. 5 This will abundantly appear from an impartial reflection on those Treatises which have been written by the Ancient Fathers, at the request or the desire of others, to be instructed in the Articles of Christian Faith. Thus when the Emperor Jovianus desired to learn of Athanasius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Faith of the Catholic Church, Athanasius tells him expressly, 
To. 1. p. 245.  That it was that Faith which was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confessed by the Nicene Fathers; and that he might the better know it, he sets down their Creed at length, telling him moreover, like a true Protestant, That the true and pious Faith in Christ was manifest to all, 
Pag. 246.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being known, and read from the Holy Scriptures.  
When some Monks had desired St. Basil to send to them, 
De vera & pia fide p. 385. a.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a written confessionof the holy Faith. In answer to this demand St. Basil lays down this as his Foundation, That it is the property of a Faithful Minister to preserve those things, 
Ibid. B.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pure, sincere, and unadulterated, which are committed to him by his Good Lord, to be distributed to his fellow Servants. I therefore, saith he, according to the Will of God, will lay before you those things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I have learned from the divinely inspired Scripture. This Fundamental position, that it is the property of a Faithful Steward to deliver nothing to his fellow Servants, as part of Holy Faith, but what he hath learned from the Holy Scripture, he confirms in these words; 
Ibid. C.D.  For if our Lord himself, in whom were hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge— said thus, He (the Father) gave me a Commandment what I should say and speak; and again, The things which I speak, as the Father hath told me, so I speak. And if the Holy Spirit spoke nothing of himself, but only spoke those things which he had heard from him, how much more is it as well safe as pious for us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do, and mind the same thing in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Indeed, 
Ibid. E.  saith he, when I conflict with Heretics, whose Footsteps I must follow, I am compelled sometimes to use, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Expressions not found in Scripture, though neither are they alien from the pious sense of Scripture, 
P. 386. a.  but now I have thought it most convenient to the common Scope of us, and you, to fulfil your command in the simplicity of the sound Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by saying those things which I have been taught from the divinely inspired Scripture, abstaining from those Names and Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are not to be found expressly in the Holy Scripture. For, saith he, if the Lord be Faithful in all his words, if all his Commandments are Faithful, and established for ever, and done in Truth and Righteousness. 
Ibid. c.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is a manifest falling from the Faith, and a manifestation 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.— And the Apostle by an Example taken from Men, viz. That if it be but a Man's Testament, yet if it be confirmed, no Man rejects, or adds any thing unto it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid. d.  most vehemently forbids that any thing should be added to, or taken from the divinely inspired Scriptures. And therefore, though we have used other words in our controversial Discourses against Heretics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid. e.  yet now, that a Confession of the sound Faith, and simple manifestation of it lies before us, we will temper our stile accordingly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Pag. 387. c.  explaining it more simply and properly, and doing only that which may instruct you, according to that saying of the Apostle, To give a reason of your Faith. Now, 
Pag 389. b. c.  saith he, in doing this we neither have ability nor leisure to collect all that is said in Scripture of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but we hope, saith he, to satisfy your Consciences as to the manifestation of our knowledge in the holy Scriptures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and your full assurance of Faith, by those few things we shall select out of the Holy Scriptures. And after this long Protestant Preface comes a Creed owned by all Protestants in these words, 
P. 389. d. e.  We believe therefore, and confess one only true, and Good God, and Father Almighty, of whom are all things, the God and Father of our Lord and God Jesus Christ: And we believe one only begotten Son of God, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the only true (God,) by whom all things both visible and invisible were made, and by whom all things consist, who in the beginning was with God, and was God, and after was according to the Scriptures seen on Earth, and conversed with Men, who being in the Form of God, coveted not to be (in the World) like to God, but emptied himself, and taking upon him the Form of a Servant, by his Nativity of a Virgin, and being found in fashion as a Man, he fulfilled all things which were written of, and concerning him, according to the command of the Father, being Obedient even to Death, the Death of the Cross, and being raised again the Third Day from the Dead, according to the Scriptures, 
P. 390. a.  he was seen by his holy Disciples, and the rest, as it is written; and he ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth at the Right-hand of the Father, from whence he comes at the end of the World to raise up all, and to give to every one according to his Work, when the Righteous shall be taken up into Life Eternal, and the Kingdom of Heaven, but the wicked shall be condemned to everlasting Punishment, where their Worm dieth not, and the Fire is not quenched; and we believe one Holy Ghost and Comforter, by whom we are sealed unto the Day of Redemption, the Spirit of Truth and of Adoption, in whom we cry Abba Father, who distributeth and worketh in us the Gifts given of God to every one to profit withal, as he willeth, who teacheth and brings to our Remembrance all things which he hath heard from the Son. The Good Spirit who Guides us into all Truth, and confirmeth all Believers in true and exact Knowledge, in pious Worship, and spiritual Adoration, and in the true Confession of God the Father, his only Son our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, and of himself: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This we think, this is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Rule of Holy Men. 
P. 392.  And I beseech you, laying aside all curious Questions, 
P. 391.  and indecent strifes about words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to rest contented with the things spoken by Holy Men, and by the Lord himself; and to withdraw yourselves from them that are alien from the Evangelical and Apostolical Faith, the Apostle having said, That if an Angel from Heaven preach to you any other Doctrine, besides that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed; and having warned you to withdraw from every one who walks disorderly, and not according to the Tradition which you have received from us. So that, according to St. Basil, this Creed is the Tradition received from the Apostles, the Evangelical and Apostolical Faith, the Rule of Faith, to which nothing is to be superadded, besides which nothing to be preached as any portion of the Rule of Faith, and this whole Faith expressly is contained in Scripture, and is delivered in the words of Scripture.  
Laurentius sends an Epistle to St. Austin to know of him, Quid sequendum maximè, 
Enchir. c. 4.  quid propter diversas principaliter Haereses, sit fugiendum? What was chief to be followed, and what, by reason of the diversity of Heresies, was principally to be avoided, quod certum, propriumque fidei Catholicae fundamentum, what was the sure, and proper Foundation of the Christian Faith? In Answer to this Enquiry he receives a Treatise from St. 
Cap. 3.  Austin containing 122. Chapters, in which he undertakes to teach him, what he was to believe, to love, and hope for, and in the general he tells him, 
Cap. 6.  that it is easy to instruct him in these three particulars, nam ecce tibi Symbolum & dominica oratio, in his duobus tria illa intuere, 
Cap. 7.  for behold the Symbol and the Lord's Prayer, in these two see these three things, Faith believes, Hope and Charity prays; and then he goes on to a particular Discourse on all these Heads, not speaking throughout all those numerous Chapters of one Article of the Romish Faith, excepting only when Chapter the 69. he speaks of Purgatory Fire, as of a doubtful and uncertain thing; and Chapter 109. he utterly confounds it, by laying down for certain, That during the time betwixt the Death of Christians and the last Resurrection of their Bodies, their Souls are kept in hidden Receptacles, as they, by reason of the Actions done in their Life time, became worthy of Rest or Misery.  
One thing there is still more considerable, that when the Arian Heresy sprung up, and even in the time, and at the Session of the Nicene Council, this was still produced as the Faith of the Apostolic Church, the Rule of Faith, the Faith which they had learned from the Scriptures and had received at Baptism, and on account of which they challenged to be owned as Orthodox by all their Christian Brethren. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle to his Namesake of Constantinople recites his Creed with this Preface, 
Apud Theodor. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so we believe, as it seemed good to the Apostolic Church, viz. We believe in one only unbegotten Father,— and in one Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten Son.— Besides this pious Faith of the Father, and the Son, We confess, as the Holy Scriptures teach us, one Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier of Holy Men under the Old Testament, and of the divine Teachers of the New, and one only Catholic and Apostolic Church inexpugnable by the World, and triumphing over all the wicked Insurrections of the Heterodox; after this we confess the Resurrection of the Dead, of which our Lord Jesus Christ was the first fruits, who indeed, and not in appearance only, took his Body from the God-bearing Virgin, and who, in the end of the Ages, conversing among Men for the abolishing of Sin, was Crucified, and dying— rose again from the Dead, ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth at the Right-hand of Majesty. These things we teach and preach. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, These are the Doctrines of the Church received from the Apostles. Whereas, had the Apostles delivered any other Doctrines of Faith, 'tis evident, these were but some of them, and therefore that those others ought to have been mentioned by one who says these things on purpose to declare his Orthodoxy, and satisfy all other Christians, that he entirely embraced the true Christian Faith.  
Gennadius hath a Treatise in which he doth designedly discourse of Ecclesiastical Doctrines, omitting nothing, that I can remember, which then obtained in the Latin Church, and yet in that whole Treatise he hath not given the least hint of one of the New Articles contained in the Creed of Pius the Fourth; but, on the contrary, he in the General declares, That the Faith received in Baptism is, 
Cap. 52.  fides Ecclesiae, the Church's Faith. And whereas in the Church of Rome auricular and secret Confession is made necessary to the Receiving of the Sacrament. He, 
Horror prius publica poenitentia satisfacere, Cap. 53.  speaking not one word of that, doth say expressly, If any Person, after Baptism, hath committed mortal Sins, I exhort him first to make satisfaction by public Penance, and so being reconciled by the Judgement of the Priest to Communicate; if he would not receive the Sacrament to his own Condemnation. And whereas they now teach, That pious Souls go hence to Purgatory, 
Omnium sanctorum animae cum Christo sunt, & exeuntes de corpore ad Christum vadunt, c. 78.  to suffer for their Venial Sins, he positively declares, That since the Ascension of our Lord into Heaven, the Souls of all Saints are with Christ, and departing from the Body, go to Christ. Moreover he declares, That a Clerk is not to be Ordained who hath had Two Wives after Baptism, 
Cap. 72.  or who hath had one who was a Concubine, and not a Matron, or who was married to a Widow, to one Divorced, or a Whore, or who hath Maimed himself, or received Usury; but he saith not one word of not receiving him to Ordination who is not a Virgin, or doth not promise to contain, or who is not Divorced from his Matron. 'Tis therefore evident, that then none of these New Articles had obtained in the Latin Church.   

CHAP. X.  
That Romanists have in the General confessed the Novelty of many of their Doctrines, §. 1. And in particular, 1st. Of the Integrity and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, as to all necessary Articles of Christian Faith, §. 2. 2dly. Of their Canon of the Old Testament, §. 3. As is proved from the Sixth to the Sixteenth Century, Ibid. 3dly. Of the Right of Princes to call General Councils, §. 4. 4thly. Of the Fallibility of Councils, §. 5. Of Purgatory, §. 6. Of Indulgences, §. 7. Of the Veneration of Images, §. 8. Of Invocation of Saints, §. 9 Of Latin Service, §. 10. Of the Seven Sacraments in general, §. 11. Of the Sacrament of Confirmation, §. 12. Of auricular Confession, §. 13. Of Extreme Unction, §. 14. Of Marriage, §. 15. Of Transubstantiation, §. 16. Of Communion in one Kind, §. 17. Of the true propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, §. 18. Of the Celibacy of Priests, §. 19  
TO these clear Evidences of the Novelty of the pretended Apostolical Traditions of the Church of Rome, I proceed now to add the plain, and the ingenuous Confession of some of the most able and learned Members of that Church, who either in the General have owned that many of these Traditions were not Apostolical and Primitive, or handed down to them throughout all Ages of the Church of Christ, or in particular confess that many of those Doctrines which by that Church are now imposed as Articles of Christian Faith, either began to be asserted, or imposed in after-Ages, or were disputed and questioned, denied or condemned, or at the least not mentioned in some of the preceding Ages of the Church. And,  
First, §. 1 In the General this hath been tacitly confessed by the Learned and Ingenuous Author of the Nouvelle Bibliotheque, or the New Library of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the first three Centuries. For when he gives us the Abridgement of the Doctrine of those Ages, he mentions not among them any, or scarcely any of the present and contested Doctrines of the Church of Rome. (He saith indeed, Ils n' ont point douté que l' Eucharistie ne fut le Corpse, & le sang de J. C. They doubted not that the Eucharist was the Body and the Blood of Christ, and they called it by that Name. But he durst not say as in his Abridgement of the Doctrine of the Fourth Century, 
To. 2. p. 949, 950.  he doth, Ils ont ensign clairement que le pain & le vin de l'Eucharistie étoient changez au Corpse, & au Sang de Jesus Christ; They clearly taught that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, much less that they believed that this was such a change as did annihilate the substance of the Bread and Wine.) He therefore in effect confesseth, that during these Three Ages he could find no Footsteps of the R. Doctrines. The Author of the Book styled Onus Ecclesiae saith, the Doctrines of the Wicklevists were these,  
1. That the Pope was not Superior to other Bishops.  
2. That there was no Purgatory Fire.  
3. That it was a vain thing to Pray for the Dead.  
4. That auricular Confession was not necessary.  
5. That the Communion was to be received in both Kind's.  
And these, 
Quae plerique Scholastici secuti sunt, cap. 18. §. 7.  saith he, are Sophisms, which most of the Schoolmen delighting in logical Tattle, and loving strange Opinions, followed. He further adds, that Huss and Jerom of Prague held, That the universal Church consisted not in Rome, or in the Pope, but in the body of the Elect, 
An haec, vel alia eorum dogmata fuerint novae vanitatis vel Evangelicae Antiquitatis, nescio, Ibid.  and that Men might be saved who were not subject to the Church of Rome; concluding thus, Whether these, or other of their Doctrines were new Vanities, or of Evangelical Antiquity, 
Epist. l. 6. p. 245.  I know not. Erasmus in his Epistle to Martin Luther gives him to understand, That there were in England Men of the greatest Note who esteemed very well of his Writings, 
Ut quisque vir est optimus ita illius Scriptis minime offendi, Ep. l. 12. p. 400.  and Men at Loven, who bore the same Affection to them. In his Epistle Cardinali Moguntino, This, saith he, I observe, that the better any Man is, the less he is offended with Luther 's Writings. In his Letter to Cardinal Campejus, he speaks thus, 
Videham ut quisque esset integerrimis moribus & Evangelicae puritati proximus, ita minime infensum Luthero. Lib. 14. p. 446.  I heard excellent Men of approved Doctrine and Religion, rejoice that they met with that Man's Books; and I saw, that as any man was more upright in his Life, or nearer to Evangelical purity, he was the less offended with Luther. And in the same Epistle he adds, 
Pag. 448.  that he conceived it not convenient presently to be incensed against a Man with whose Writings so many excellent Governors, so many Learned and pious Men were delighted. 
L. 15. p. 492.  In his Epistle to Godeschallus, he saith, That he did not defend him even then, cum non decessent maximi Theologi qui non vererentur affirmare nihil esse in Luthero, quin per probatos Authores posset defendi, when the greatest Divines were not afraid to affirm, that there was nothing in Luther which might not be defended by approved Authors. And lastly he himself declares, 
Hausit pleraque ex veteribus. Epist. l. 14. p. 447.  That Luther gathered most of his Tenets from the Ancients, and that had he named the Ancients from whom he had them, he would have avoided much of that envy which then lay upon him.  
To proceed to the particular Controversies in the Order in which they are mentioned in the Articles of Religion subscribed by our Clergy.  
Holy Scripture, saith our Sixth Article, §. 2 containeth all things necessary to Salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. So that besides the same, 
Art 21.  the Church ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.  
Agreeably to this Article the Bishop of Rhodes disputing with the Greeks in the Council of Florence speaks thus in the behalf of the Western Bishops, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Bin. Tom. 8. Concil. Florent. Sess. 7. p. 609.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.   I desire you Greeks to satisfy me in this Question, Doth not the Gospel perfectly contain the Doctrine of Christian Faith? Surely, saith he, the Reverence you bear to it will not permit you to affirm that the Faith is not perfectly contained there. And that is true, and not denied by us, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  which the Bishop of Ephesus said, That the Fathers had enclosed the Gospel and the Holy Scripture, so that it should by no means be lawful to add to them. And whereas the the Bishop of Ephesus had said, That the Evangelists did not forbid that any thing should be added to what they had written, This, saith he, with his leave, cannot be said of Holy Scripture, for the Apostle Paul saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gal. i 9  If any Man preach any thing besides what you have received, let him be Anathema. And St. John in the end of his Revelations saith, If any one add to these things, God shall add to him the Plagues which are written in this Book. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. Sess. 8. p. 630.  Nicenus also on the part of the Greeks saith, We draw all divine Doctrines from the Fountains of the Holy Scriptures, which are the principles and the foundations of our Faith, to which nothing ever was, or ever shall be added by us or any other Christian. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Flor. Sess. 25. p. 783.  Time was, saith the Archbishop of Nice in his Oration made at that time and place, when the Church, the Spouse of God, was without spot or wrinkle, viz. when we made more account of the simple and not curious Faith delivered as it lay in the Gospel, and regarding that superfluous and talkative Divinity which is the fruit of our own Reasonings, less than the Sacred Oracles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we attend only to what was written, delighting in the things spoken by the Holy Spirit, and being compacted in one by them. So that it seems by these plain words, that both the East and West were then of the same Judgement with the Church of England in this Article.  
It is declared, saith John Gerson, by the Authority of Dionysius, 
Declaratur ex Authoritate Dionysii dicentis nihil audendum dicere de divinis, nisi quae nobis a Scriptura S. tradita sunt, quoniam Scriptura nobis tradita est tanquam Regula sufficiens & infallibilis pro regimine totius Ecclesiastici corporis. Lib. de Exam. Doctr. secunda parte princip. consid. 1.  That we must not dare to say any thing of Divine Things, but that which is delivered to us from the Holy Scriptures, of which the Reason is, That the Scripture is delivered to us as a Rule sufficient, and infallible for the Government of the whole Ecclesiastical Body, and Members of it to the End of the World.  
The Holy Scripture, saith Gabriel Biel, is, according to B. Gregory, 
In Can. Miss. Lect. 71. f. 200. Edit. 1510.  as the Mouth of God, quia per eam loquitur Deus omnia quae vult a nobis fieri, because by it God speaketh all things which he would have done by us.  
Gregory the Great, saith Molinaeus, asserts, 
Asserit Haereseos labe inquinatos qui extra S. Scripturas aliquid docent aut proferunt, etc. Lib. de Concil. Trid. §. 17.  That they are infected with the filth of Heresy who teach or produce any thing beyond the Holy Scriptures; I mean in those things which appertain to the Substance of Faith and Doctrine.  
The Sorbon Doctor, who set forth the French Testament printed at Mons, A. D. 1672. informs us, 
preface 1, 2.  That St. Austin considered the Holy Scripture as the Treasure of Divinity, and as the Source of all those Truths which a Man ought to know, for the Edification of himself, or the Instruction of others. And speaking of the mixture of profound places with those which are proportioned to the capacity of the most simple, he saith, That which ought to comfort us in this obscurity is, that according to St. Augustin, the Holy Scripture proposeth to us all that is necessary for the conduct of our Life in a manner easy and intelligible, that it explicates and clears up itself by speaking that clearly in some places which it saith obscurely in others.  
The Guide of Controversies saith, 
Guid. Disc. 2. §. 40. n. 2.  That as for the sufficiency or the entireness of the Scriptures, for the containing of all those Points of Faith which are simply necessary of all Persons, to be believed for attaining Salvation, Catholics deny it not. And for this he citys, among many other R. Doctors, this saying of Aquinas, In doctrina Christi, 
22. qu. 1. Art 9  & Apostolorum (he means Scripta) veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata, In the (written) Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, the Truth of Faith is sufficiently explained. In the same Article our Church having reckoned up the Books of the Old Testament which she esteemed Canonical, 
Art 6.  and which by both Churches are received as such, she adds the other Books, as Hierom saith, The Church doth read for Example of Life, and Instruction of Manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine. Such are these following.  

The Third Book of Esdras.  
The Fourth Book of Esdras.  
The Book of Tobias.  
The Book of Judith.  
The rest of the Book of Esther.  
The Book of Wisdom.  
Jesus the Son of Syrach.  
Baruch the Prophet.  
The Song of the Three Children.  
The Story of Susanna.  
Of Bell and the Dragon.  
The Prayer of Manasses.  
The First Book of Maccabees.  
The Second Book of Maccabees.   
Of all which (excepting only the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses) the Council of Trent saith, Whosoever shall not receive them as Sacred and Canonical, 
Sess. 4.  let him be Anathema. And yet this Determination is so apparently repugnant to the Doctrine of the Ancient Church, that Mr. Du Pin, a Doctor of the Faculty of Divinity in Paris, and his Majesty's Professor Royal in Philosophy, hath entirely given up this Cause unto the Protestants. For,  
1. Whereas it is confessed by all the Learned of both Churches, that we in this distinction betwixt Books of the Old Testament Canonical and Apocryphal, or not Canonical, exactly follow the Canon and the Judgement of the Jews, 
Tom. 1. dissert. praelim. p. 51.  from whom the Christians received the Books of the Old Testament. He also saith, The Christian Antiquity, for the Books of the Old Testament, hath followed the Canon of the Jews, that no others were cited in the New Testament, but those which belonged to the Canon of the Jews. That the first Catalogues of Canonical Books made by Ecclesiastical Authors, both Greek and Latin, comprehend not others in the Canon. 
P. 612, 613.  In his Abridgement of the Doctrine of the Three first Centuries, he saith expressly, That the Christians of those times owned no other Canonical Books of the Old Testament, but those which belonged to the Canon of the Hebrews; and that they sometimes cited the Apocryphal Books, but never put them in the number of Canonical Books.  
And whereas Mr. M. and J. L. have had the confidence to say, 
Mr. M. p. 85, 86.  That after the Declarations of the Council of Carthage, Pope Innocent, and Gelasius, etc. no one ever pertinaciously dissented from it, but such as Protestants themselves do confess to be Heretics, 
J.L. c. xi. p. 23.  until the days of Luther. Or that no Catholic after the Church's Declaration in the Year 419. ever doubted of them. 
Qui depuis les decisions des Conciles de Carthage, & de Rome, & la Declaration d'Innocent I n'ont compte, que vingt deux, ou vingt quatre liures Canoniques de l'Ancien Testament. Tom. 1. Diss. praelim. p. 60.  Mr. Du Pin having produced the express words of Gregory the Great, after that time to the contrary, adds, in flat contradiction to them, these ensuing words; We ought to make the same reflection on all the other Ecclesiastical Authors, Greek and Latin, which we have produced, who, After the Decisions of the Council of Carthage, and of Rome, and the Declaration of Innocent the First, have counted only Two, or Four and twenty Books of the Old Testament; which makes it evident that these Definitions were not yet followed by all Authors, and by all Churches, till such time as this Matter was fully determined by the definition of the Council of Trent.  
And indeed, §. 3 the Truth of this Confession is as clear as the Light: For as Mr. M. and J. L. confess, 
Vid c. 3. §. 13. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei. c. 20. S. ad alterum.  That the Canon of Scripture was not defined till the Fifth Century: As Bellarmine acknowledgeth, That Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Ruffinus, in expounding the Canon of the Old Testament, followed the Hebrews, not the Greeks: 
De locis Theol. l. 2. c. 11. Sect. Quid Ecclesi●sticum.  As Canus excuseth Ruffinus for rejecting with us the Apocrypha, because he did it, in eo tempore quo res nondum erat definita, when this thing was not defined; on which account, saith he, we also do excuse the rest; and so all these men virtually confess, that there was no Tradition of the Church against us during those Ages. So in the following Centuries, even till the time that the Trent Council met, approved Authors do declare the Doctrine of the Church to have been still according to the Doctrine of this Article, and contrary to the Definition of the Trent Council. For,  
In the Western Church Primasius a Bishop of the African Church, saith, 
Cent. 6. In Apocalyps. cap. 4.  The Books of the Old Testament of Canonical Authority which we receive, N. B. are , which St. John insinuated by the  Wings.  
Leontius Bizantinus having said, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Sectis, Act. 2.  Let us reckon up the Books received by the Church, he adds, That the Books of the Old Testament are Twentytwo, and concludes thus, These are the Books Canonised in the Church,— of which they that belong to the Old Testament are all received by the Hebrews.  
In the Ninth Century Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
Cent. 9  undertakes to reckon up the divine Scriptures, which were received and Canonised in the Church, and of these in the Old Testament he numbers only Twentytwo as we do, 
Canon. Scrip. Chron. p. ult. Quibuscontradicitur & non recipiuntur ab Ecclesia. Bibl. H. Eccl. & de vitis Pontif.  and among the Books contradicted, and not received in the Church, he puts the Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Susanna and Tobit. Anastasius the Keeper of the Library of the Church of Rome, among the Books which are contradicted, and not received by the Church, reckons the Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Susanna, Judith and Tobit.  
In the Twelfth Century Peter Mauricius, 
Cent. 12.  Abbot of Clugny in his Epistle against the Petrobusians tells them, they ought of necessity to receive the whole Canon which is received by the Church; and then having reckoned up the Canonical Books of the Old Testament as we do, he adds, That after these Authentic Books of the Holy Scripture, 
Restant post hos Authenti●os sex non reticendi libri sapientia, etc. Pag. 25. c. de Author. Vet. Test.  there be Six not to be concealed, viz. the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and both the Books of Maccabees. Hugo de Sancto Victore saith, 

Sunt praeterea alii quidem libri, ut sapientia Solomonis, etc. Qui leguntur quidem, sed non scribuntur in Canone de scriptures & scriptoribus Sacris Cap 6 Prologue in l. de Sacram c 7 And the division he says is made, Authoritate universalis Eccl. Didasc. l. 4. c. 1.2.  
Richardus de Sancto Victore excerpt. l. 2. c. 9   That all the Books of the Old Testament are Twentytwo; and that there are besides other Books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jesus the Son of Syrach, Judith, Tobias and the Books of Maccabees, sed non scribuntur in Canone, but they are not written in the Canon; and this he very frequently repeats. Richardus de Sancto Victore saith in like manner, That the Books of the Old Testament are Twentytwo, alii non habentur in Canone, others are not put into the Canon, though they are read by us, as are the Writings of the Fathers, and these Books are Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees.  
John Beleth having reckoned up the Books of the Old Testament, and told us they were Twentytwo, he after saith expressly, 
De div. Officiis c. 60, 62.  That Tobit, the Maccabees, Philo, and the Son of Syrach, were Apocrypha, and that, hos quatuor quidem non recipit Ecclesia, the Church receiveth not these four.  
John of Salisbury in Answer to the Question put to him, 
Ep. 172. Edit. Paris. 1611. p. 279.  Quem credam numerum esse librorum V. & N. Testamenti? What he believed to be the number of the Books of the Old and the New Testament? 
P. 281.  saith, That following, Catholicae Ecclesiae Doctorem Hieronymum, St. Jerom as the most approved Doctor of the Catholic Church in this matter, he undoubtedly believed them to be Twentytwo. And then of the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees he saith, Non reputantur in Canone, They are not reckoned in the Canon; and having added to this account the number of the Books of the New Testament, he concludes of them both thus, Et hunc quidem numerum esse librorum qui in S. Scripturarum Canonem admittuntur, celebris apud Ecclesiam, 
P. 282.  & indubitata traditio est, And that this is the number of the Books which are admitted into the Canon of the Holy Scriptures, is what the celebrated and undoubted Tradition of the Church declares.  
The Ordinary Gloss received in this, 
Cent. 13. De libris Bibliae Canonicis & non Canonicis.  and in the following Ages, with the general Approbation of the Schools, and all the Doctors of the Western Church declareth, 1. That the Canonical Books of the Old Testament are only Twentytwo; and having reckoned them up in this order, viz. Five Books of Moses, Eight of the Prophets, and Nine Hagiographa; he adds, That quicquid extra hos est, ut dicit Hieronymus, inter Apocrypha est ponendum, What Books soever there be, besides, relating to the Old Testament, they ought, according to St. Jerom, to be put among the Apocrypha; particularly before the Books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees, he saith, Here gins a Book qui non est in Canone, or, qui non est de Canone, 
Ibid.  which belongs not to the Canon. And again, Isti sunt libri qui non sunt in Canone, These are the Books which are not in the Canon, and which the Church admits as good and useful, but not as Canonical. He also giveth his Advertisement, 
Ibid.  That the Chapters added to Esther and to Daniel, are not in the Canon; so that in all things he perfectly accordeth with the Church of England. 2. As for those Books which are not Canonical he informs us, That Ecclesia eos legit & permittit, the Church reads, and permits them to be read by the Faithful for Devotion, and Information of Manners, but she doth not think their Authority sufficient to prove what is doubtful, or matter of dispute, or to confirm Ecclesiastical Doctrines. And this, 3. because there is as much difference betwixt Books Canonical and not Canonical, as betwixt what is certain and what is dubious, betwixt Books written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and Books indicted they knew not when or by whom. And, 4. He professes to have made this distinction, and exact numeration of the Books which did, and which did not belong unto the Canon, because there were many, who, because they did not spend much time in studying the Scriptures, existimabant omnes libros qui in Biblia continentur pari veneratione esse reverendos, thought (with the Trent Council) all the Books contained in the Bible were to be received with a like Veneration, not knowing how to distinguish betwixt Books Canonical and not Canonical.  
In the Fourteenth Century Brito a Friar Minorite put forth his Exposition of the Prologues of St. Jerom upon the Bible, which were usually joined to the Ordinary Gloss, and are still extant in the Works of Nicholas Lyra; and in his Exposition of the Prologue upon Joshua, he informs us, That according to the Hebrews, the Books of the Old Testament are divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; the Law containing Five Books, the Prophets Eight, and the Hagiographa Nine; that the Books of Judith, the Maccabees, of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, the Third and Fourth of Esdras, and the Book of Tobit. Apocryphi dicuntur, 
Quia vero de veritate istorum librorum non dubitatur, ab Ecclesia recipiuntur.  are called Apooruphal, because the Authors of them are not known, though they are received of the Church, as not doubting the truth of them. In his Exposition on the Prologue upon Kings, he tells us, That the Prologue of St. Jerom was useful, ut sciamus librorum Canonis, & Apocryphorum distinctionem, that we might (by it) know the distinction betwixt the Canonical and Apocryphal Books, and that it defends the Holy Scripture against them who introduce the Apocryphal Books for Hagiographa, or sacred Writings. And in his Exposition upon his Prologue before Daniel, he saith, Continet liber iste Apocrypham partem, Historiam Susannae, Hymnum puerorum, & Belis Draconisque fabulas. This Book containeth something Apocryphal, viz. The History of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the Fables of Bell and the Dragon. Now this being a work of so great Credit, as to be joined to the Gloss, and commonly received, as Lyra saith, must give us the prevailing Judgement of that Age.  
Nicholas Lyra in his Preface upon Tobit saith, That by the favour of God, he, having writ, super libros S. Scripturae Canonicos, on the Canonical Books of Scripture, from Genesis to the Revelations, intended by the same Grace of God, super alios scribere qui non sunt Canonici, to write upon others which were not Canonical, and which are only received in the Church for Instruction of Manners, not being by her thought sufficient to confirm doubtful Matters. Now these, saith he, according to St. Jerom in his Prologue on the Kings, are Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, Baruch, and the Second of Esdras, as he saith in his Prologues to those Books. In the beginning of his Notes upon Esra he renews all this, saying, That he intended, though Commenting upon the Historical Books of the Old Testament, to pass by the History of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, quia non sunt de Canone apud Hebraeos nec apud Christianos, because they neither are esteemed Canonical by Jews nor Christians; yea St. Jerom saith in his Prologue, That inter Apocrypha cantantur, the Church Chants them among the Apocrypha; I therefore, saith he, first intent to write on the whole Canonical Scripture, and then, super istos, & alios qui communiter ponuntur in bibliis, quamvis non sint de Canone, upon those, and other Books which are commonly put in our Bibles, though they belong not to the Canon. Moreover the Third and Fourth of Esdras he passeth over without Notes for the same Reason. On the Thirteenth of Daniel he Notes thus, The History of Susanna ought to be put, inter libros Bibliae non Canonicos, among the Books of the Bible which are not Canonical; and in his Notes on the Fourteenth Chapter he saith of the History of Bell and the Dragon, ponitur inter Scripturas non Canonicas, it is put among those Scriptures which are not Canonical, after the History of Susanna. Now had not Lyra mentioned the Judgement of the Church touching these Books, yet these Expressions in Comments of so great Credit in the Church sufficiently show, that this was then a Doctrine well received in the Church of Rome.  
Antoninus Florentinus in his Historical Sums acknowledgeth only Twentytwo Canonical Books of the Old Testament, 
Cent. 15. Sum. Hist. part. 1. Tit. 3. c. 4. etc. 6. §. 12.  saying in General of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, that Ecclesia recipit, the Church receives them as true and profitable, though not as of force in matters of Faith, 
Unde forte habent Authoritatem talem qualem habent dicta istorum doctorum approbata ab Ecclesia. Sum. Theol. part. 3. Tit. 18. c. 6. §. 2.  and in particular of Ecclesiasticus, that it is, receptus ab Ecclesia ad legendum, non tamen Authenticus est ad probandum ea quae veniunt in contentionem fidei, received by the Church to be read, but is not Authentical to prove things doubtful in the Faith.  
Alphonsus Tostatus saith of the Six debated Books, 
Praefat. in Matth. qu. 2.  That they are not put into the Canon by the Church, nor doth she regularly command them to be read, or to be received, or judge them disobedient who do not receive them. For, Ecclesia non est certa de Auctoribus eorum, the Church is not certain of the Authors of them; yea she knoweth not, an spiritu sancto inspirati, whether they were indicted by Men inspired of the Holy Spirit, and so she obliges no Man, ad necessariò credendum id quod ibi habetur, to yield necessary assent to what they do contain. 
Enarrat. praefat. in l. paralip. q. 7.  And elsewhere, Though, saith he, these Apocryphal Books be joined with others of the Bible, and read in the Church, none of them is of such Authority, ut ex eo Ecclesia arguat ad probandam aliquam veritatem, & quantum ad hoc non recipit eos, that the Church proves any truth out of them, for as to that she doth not receive them.  
Dionysius Carthusianus saith, 
Praefat. in Gen. Art 4.  The Books of the Old Testament are Twentytwo, as saith St. Jerom in his Prologue before the Kings, and having reckoned them up, Five Legal, Eight Historical, Nine Hagiographa, he adds, Hos libros vocant Canonicos, alios vero Apocryphos, These Books are called, (by Divines) Canonical, the rest Apocryphal.  
In the Sixteenth Century Franciscus Ximenius reckons those Books of the Old Testament which were extant only in Greek, 
Cent. 16.  as, 
Bibl. Complut. Praef. ad Lect.  Libri extra Canonem, quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Books out of the Canon, which the Church receives rather for Edification of the People, than for confirmation of Ecclesiastical Doctrines. Erasmus having numbered the Canonical Books of the Old Testament as we do, 
In expos Symb. Apost. & Decal. Catech. 4. vers. finem. Ed. Antver. 1533.  concludes thus, Intra hunc numerum conclusit priscorum Authoritas Vet. Test. volumina, The Authority of the Ancients comprised the Volumes of the Old Testament, of whose Truth it was not lawful to doubt, within this number. Johannes Ferus having told us that the Apocryphal Books were Nine, 
In exam. Ordinand.  he adds, That, olim in Ecclesia Apocryphi publicè non recitabantur, nec quisquam Authoritate eorum premebatur, anciently the Apocryphal Books were not read publicly, nor was any Man pressed with their Authority.  
Sebastian Munster in his Preface to the Old Testament, and in the Chapter of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament numbers them exactly as we do, and then he saith, Intra hunc numerum concluserunt & Hebraei, & prisci Christiani volumina veteris Testamenti, Both the Hebrews and the ancient Christians comprised the Volumes of the Old Testament within this number; but now the other (which he reckons as we do, excepting only the Song of the Three Children) are received, in usum Ecclesiasticum, into the use of the Church.  
Moreover, from the Ninth Century, in which the Ordinary Gloss upon the Bible was begun by Strabus, to the Sixteenth, they did not only number the Canonical and reject the Apocryphal Books, as we do, but they did it chief for the very reason that is assigned in our Article, viz. among others the Authority of St. Jerom, 
Card. Cajetan. Praefat. super Josuam ad Clem. 7.  declaring, That, Sancto Hieronymo universa Ecclesia Latina plurimum debet— propter discretos ab eodem libros Canonicos à non Canonicis, The universal Church is very much beholding to St. Jerom, not only because he noted what Parts where added to the Books of the Old Testament, or were but doubtful Appendices, but also for separating the Canonical from the uncanonical Books. That the Church received those Books which he received, and rejected those which he rejected. That, 

Consonat Hieronymus cousin maxima habetur fides in Ecclesia— is inquam Hieronymus in Prologo Galeato inter Canonicos libros V Testamenti hosce duntaxat enumerat.— Firmiter tamen haerendum credo sententiae Hieronymi Cujus Autoritas me movit, ne multo altius quam a suo tempore de librorum horum ordine disputarem, cum & illis floruerit temporibus quae doctis hominibus abundabant, & multa ex Gestis veterum Theologorum legerit, quae nunc periere: peritissimus quoque suit & Graecae & Hebraicae literaturae, & demum ejus testimonium ab Ecclesia pro sanctissimo habeatur. Picus Mirand. de fide & ordinc. credendi, Theorem. 5.  
Com. in libr. Hist. V Test.  
In primum cap. Matth. ad v. 12.   Testimonium Hieronymi quoad hoc ut Sacrosanctum habetur in Ecclesiâ, as to this Matter, the Church held his Testimony to be sacred; yea the whole Church preferred it before any other account of this Matter, given by either Pope, Council or Father. For, saith Cajetan, as to this matter, ad limam Hieronymi reducenda sunt verba tam Conciliorum, quam Doctorum, the words of Councils and Doctors must be reduced to the Rule of St. Jerom. So that those Books which he rejects, are not to be esteemed Canonical, as that word importeth, Books sufficient, ad firmandum ca quae sunt fidei, to confirm Articles of Faith, but only as it signifies Books useful, and aedificationem Ecclesiae, for the Edification of the Church; and with this distinction you may reconcile the difference betwixt him and St. Austin, and betwixt the Councils of Carthage and of Laodicea. Alphonsus Tostatus saith, Magis credendum est Hieronymo quam Augustino, maxim ubi agitur de veteri Testamento, St. Jerom is to be credited, especially in things belonging to the Old Testament and Histories, before St. Austin, for in this thing he exceeded all the Doctors of the Church.  
The same Tostatus saith, 
Ista distinctio facta est ab Ecclesia Universali quae concorditer tenet istam distinctionem factam ab Hieronymo, nam ista tenebatur a Judaeis fidelibus, & fult postea continuata in Ecclesia. Defence. Part. 2. c. 22.  That the Universal Church with one accord holds the distinction made by St. Jerom, for that was held by the Faithful Jews before Christ's Advent, and was afterwards continued in the Church; and hence it came to pass that there was never any Bible found in those times which had before it the Canon of Carthage, the Catalogue of St. Austin, or the Epistle of Pope Innocent, or the Decree of Pope Gelasius, whereas in all Manuscript and Printed Bibles the Prologue of St. Jerom, styled Galeatus, was placed before them, by a common and universal consent of the Latin Church, to be a sure Index and Discrimination of the Apocryphal and Ecclesiastical Books from the Canonical. And this is the true Reason why many of the forecited Authors speaking of the Apocryphal Books, mention sometimes but Five or Six, viz. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit and the Book of Maccabees, to wit, because St. Jerom in his Prologue upon the Book of King's mentions them only, though in his Preface to the Book of Jeremy he rejects Baruch, and in his Preface upon Daniel he rejects the History of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the Fables of Bell and the Dragon; and so do they who Comment on these Books, by his Example, and with respect unto his Judgement. So that from what hath been discoursed, it is exceeding evident against the confident Assertions of Mr. M. and J. L. That after the Fifth Century it was the General Opinion of the Church, till the Sixteenth Century, that the Canonical Books were only Two, or Four and Twenty, and that those Books we style Apocryphal, did not belong unto the Canon, and were not of validity sufficient to confirm Articles of Christian Faith.  
Concerning General Councils our Church asserts Two Things,  
1. 
Art 21.  That they may not be called together without the commandment and will of Princes.  
2. That they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God; wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength, nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.  
Now touching the first Proposition, That General Councils may not be called together without the Commandment and Will of Princes, the Eastern Churches concur in Judgement with us. Sguropylus in his History of the Council of Florence saith, That in their Synod held about the Union of the Eastern, and the Western Churches they unanimously declared, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Sect. 2. c. 8.  That the Emperor, according to his ancient Custom and Prerogative, was to call Ecumenical Synods, and no other was to do it. And again, The Emperor, saith he, 
Sect. 10. cap. 2. p 280.  and the Greeks contended, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it was the Previlege of the Emperor to call the Synod; and, upon that account his Name was placed first in it, as was manifest from the Acts of the Councils.  
The ablest Writers of the West say the same thing. Cardinal Cusanus declares, We must say, touching a General Council, 
De Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 2. f. 39  That the Authority of it doth not so depend on him that calls it, that if the Pope do not call it, it should be no Council, quia tunc non fuissent omnia octa universalia Concilia firma, quoniam per Imperatores congregabantur, for than none of the Eight General Councils would be firm, they being all called by the Emperors from whom the Bishop of Rome, as other Patriarches, received by Letters missive a public warning to come, or send unto the Councils. And again, From what hath been discoursed it appears, 
Lib. 3 c. 13.  Imperatores sanctos congregationes Synodales universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper fecisse, That the Emperors did always call General Councils. This, saith he, I have found to be true by perusing the Acts of all the General Councils to the Eighth inclusively. And so I have read in the Gloss of Anastasius, the Pope's Library-Keeper, Quòd universales Synodos de omni terra Imperatores colligere soliti fuerunt, That the Emperors were wont to Assemble General Councils. Dum lego veteres Historias, In reading of the ancient Histories, I find not, saith Aeneas Silvius, that Popes alone did call Councils, 
Lib. 1. de Concil. Basil. p. 20. Lib. 3. Art 1 q:  nor after in the time of Constantine, and other Emperors, quaesitus est magnopere Romani assensus Papae, was the assent of the Pope of Rome much sought after. Jacobatius informs us, That à principio facultas congregandi concilia spectabat ad Imperatores, the power of gathering Councils belonged to the Emperors from the beginning. 
Lib. 1. c. 2. §. 2, 3, 4. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. in Prooem.  Richerius in his History of General Councils is very frequent in his full Assertions of this matter, proving this clearly from those words of Socrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Since that the Emperors became Christians the greatest Synods were, and are held by their pleasure. But it is needless to insist longer on this Head since Sancta Clara on this Article saith, 
Pag. 294. Apol. 2. advers. Ruff. f. 79. b. Where Erasinus saith, Nota, Lector, olim Synodos Imperatorum jussu congregari solitas.  These words seem to be confirmed by the Authority of St. Jerom who rejects a Council, with this Question, Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jussit congregari? What Emperor commanded the Assembling of that Synod? As if he held the command of the Emperor to be necessary to that end; & sic observatum patet in omnibus fere conciliis veteribus, and so 'tis evident it was observed almost in all the ancient Councils.  
As to the Second Part of this Article, §. 5 which teacheth, That General Councils may Err, and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to God; 
P. 295.  the same Author there tells us, That Communis est doctorum opinio Concilia, etiam Generalia errare posse in rebus quae fidem, aut mores ad salutem non necessarios, concernunt: It is the common Judgement of their Doctors, that even general Councils may err in Matters of Faith, and Manners which are not necessary to Salvation: And whereas our Church infers, that therefore things ordained by them as necessary to Saelvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared, nisi ostendi possint, unless it can be showed, that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. This Author saith, these last Words of the Article, Sententiam veterum, & omnium fere modernorum declarant, declare that which was the Doctrine of the Ancients, and of almost all the modern Doctors. That in the time of Ocham the Church was divided in this Point; some holding, that a General Council, Haeretica potest labe aspergi, might be guilty of Heresy, and much more of Error; some, That it could not thus be guilty, and that the Doctrine of the Fallibility of General Councils was afterwards maintained by many eminent Doctors of the Church, 
De formali objecto fidei, Tr. 5. c. 19, 20, 21.  is fully proved by Baronius against Turnbal; so that I shall reserve the farther Prosecution of this Matter to its proper place, viz. The Discussion of the Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils.  
Our Church in her Twenty second Article asserts, §. 6 That the Romish Doctrine, concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly feigned, and grounded upon no Warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God: And that these Doctrines were not derived to them from Apostolical Tradition, their own Writers do ingeniously confess. For,  
1. Concerning Purgatory, Alphonsus de Castro, declares, That in Veteribus de Purgatorio fere nulla, 
De Haeres. l. 8. Tit. de Indulg.  potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores, mentio est: In the Ancients, and especially the Greek Writers, there is scarce any mention of Purgatory; whence it comes to pass, 
Contr. Luther. Artic. 18.  that to this very day it is not received in the Greek Church. Apud priscos, amongst the Ancients, saith our Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, It was not at all; or very rarely mentioned; nor is it, to this Day, believed by the Greek Church. Let him who pleaseth, read the Commentaries of the ancient Greeks, and he will find, I suppose, that they speak not at all, or very rarely, of it: Sed neque Latini simul omnes, sed sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt; Nor did the Latins altogether, but leisurely perceive the Truth of this Matter: And then he adds, Cum igitur purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum universae. Ecclesiae fuerit, quis jam de Indulgentiis mirari potest, quia in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerit earum usus? Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known to, and received by the Universal Church, who can wonder, that in the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences? 
In Cath. Rom. pacif. apud Forb. consid. Mod. p. 264.  Father Barns acknowledgeth that the Punishment of Purgatory is a thing, quae nec ex Scriptures, nec Patribus, nec Conciliis deduci potest firmiter; which can neither be firmly proved from Scripture, the Fathers, or Councils: And that, Opposita sententia eis conformior videtur; the contrary Sentence seems more agreeable to them. Wicelius saith, 
Meth. Concord. Eccles. c. 8. Tit. Funus, Ibid. p. 259, 260.  That though there should be some places of Purgation to receive naked Souls, yet doth it not become grave and wise Men, so certainly to define those things which Scriptures have not expressed; nec Antiquorum traditio, nor the Tradition of the Ancients hath expounded. Erasmus saith, 
Operum Tom. 1. p. 685. q.  There be many things, about which, not only, contentious, but even learned and pious Men did doubt of old; as St. Austin, with others, doubted long about Purgatory. That it was only a private Assertion, and not an Article of Faith, generally received in the Twelfth Century, 
Chronic. l. 8. c. 26.  is evident from these Words of Otho Frisingensis, viz. That there is, apud Inferos, in the infernal Regions, a Place of Purgatory, wherein such as are to be saved, are either troubled only with Darkness, or decocted with the Fire of Expiation, some affirm. Nor can I tell what to make of that saying of Paschasius, if it doth not show that he believeth the contrary; for, saith he, our Lord saith, he that eateth my Flesh— hath eternal Life; ideo dicens habet, quia mox anima carne soluta intrat in vitae promptuaria, 
De Corp. & Sang. Domini, c. 19  ubi Sanctorum Animae requiescunt, saying in the Present Tense, he hath, because the Soul being loosed from the Flesh, presently enters into those Receptacles of Life, where the Spirits of Saints do rest.  
Secondly, § 7 Concerning Pardons, or Indulgences, their Novel●y is still confessed more freely. 

Inter omnes res de quibus in hoc opere disputamus, nulla est quam minus aperte S. Literae prodiderunt, & de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint; neque tamen hac occasione contemnendae sunt quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus, quoniam multa sunt posterioribus nota quae vetusti illi Scriptores prorsus ignoraverunt, nam de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis Scriptoribus mentio— de Purgatorio fere nulla, potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores; qua de causa usque in hodiernum Diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum— Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis, ut apud Priscos nulla sit de eis mentio, praecipue quod tunc magis fervebat Christianorum charitas, ut parum esset opus indulgentiis?— quapropter non est mentio ulla indulgentiarum. De Haer. l. 8. Tit. de Indulgentiis.  
De invent rer. l. 8. c. 1. p. 325.  
Part. 1. Sum. Tit. 10. c. 3.  
In 4. Sentent. dist. 20. q. 3. h.   Alphonsus Castro saith, That among all the things, of which he disputed in his Book against Heresies, there was nothing of which the Scripture spoke less plainly, & de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint, and of which the Ancient Writers had said less. Many, saith Polydore Virgil, from Roffensis, may, perhaps, be moved not to trust to Indulgences, quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur recentior, & admodum sero apud Christianos repertus, because the use of them in the Church seems new, and very lately received among Christians: To whom I answer,— That whilst there was no Regard to Purgatory, no Man looked after Indulgences, which depend upon it: Coeperunt igitur Indulgentiae postquam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum est; Indulgences therefore began after Men had for some time trembled at the Torments of Purgatory. Concerning Indulgences, saith Antoninus Florentinus, We have nothing expressly in the Sacred Scripture,— Nec etiam ex dictis antiquorum Doctorum, sed modernorum, nor from the Say of the Ancient Doctors, but of the Modern (only.) Of Indulgences, saith Durand, few things can be said with any certainty, because neither doth the Scripture speak expressly of them.— Sancti etiam Ambrose, Hilarius, Augustinus, Hieronymus minime loquuntur de Indulgentiis: And St. Ambrose, Hilary, Austin and Jerom, do in no wise speak of them. Indeed I find not any of these Authors who pretend to derive them higher than the Stations of Gregory the Great, who lived in the Sixth Century.  
Concerning the Worship or Veneration of Images, § 8 it hath been fully proved in a late Treatise of the Fallibility of the Church of Rome touching this Article.  
First. That when the Second Nicene Council taught, That the Worship or Veneration of Images was to be received as a Tradition of the Apostles, 
P. 4, 5, 6.  and the Primitive Church, this Assertion in the Eighth and the Ninth Centuries was rejected as a plain Falsehood; and on the contrary it was declared, That they who endeavoured to introduce this practice, brought into the Church New and unusual Customs, without, and against the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and execrated by the Church of God, and condemned by the Tradition of their Ancestors.  
Secondly. 
P. 61. §. 6.  That from the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century this Doctrine of the Veneration and Worship of Images was rejected by very eminent Persons of the Western Church.  
Thirdly. That many learned Persons of the Church of Rome ingenuously have confessed, 
P. 70. §. 3.  either that in the Primitive Church they had no Images, and did not regard them, or that they paid no Veneration to them, but rather disapproved, and condemned it; 
Church Govern. part. 5. §. 117.  to which I add these words of our late Oxford Writer, viz. Thus much is granted, that Images, and so the Veneration, or Worship of them were very seldom (if at all) used in the Christian Church for some of the first Centuries.  
Concerning Invocation of departed Saints Altissiodorensis saith, §. 9 That multi dicunt, 

In Sum. part. 4. l. 3. tr. 7. c. de Orat. q. 7.  
Ergo non vident quorum sunt orationes quas vident, ergo inutile est orare ipsos— Propter istas rationes & consimiles dicunt multi, 
Opinio Commun is.  quod nec nos oramus sanctos nec ipsi orant pro nobis nisi improprie. Altissiod. Sum. l. 3. Tract. 8. c. 5. qu. 6. & ult.  
In Can. Miss. Lect. 30.  
Vid. Bishop Usher 's Answer to the Jesuit, pag. 452.   many do say we pray not to them, but improperly, to wit, because, Oramus Deum ut Sanctorum merita nos juvent, we pray to God that the Merits of the Saints may help us; and in the Margin he saith, that this was a common Opinion in his time. And Gabriel Biel having propounded the Arguments against the Invocation of them, adds, That by these and the like Reasons not only the Heretics of old, but, nonnulli nostro tempore Christiani decipiuntur, some Christians of our times are deceived. John Sharpe informs us, That à quibusdam famosis verisimiliter aestimatur quod istiusmodi orationes in Eoclesia Dei superfluunt, it was thought by some eminent Men that such Prayers were superfluous in the Church of God. Eckius saith, 
Enchir. c. 15.  That if the Apostles and Evangelists had taught that the Saints should be Worshipped, it would have been objected to them as arrogance, acsi ipsi post mortem gloriam istam quaesivissent, as if they had sought for that Honour after their Death. And Cardinal Perron ingenuously doth confess, 
Replic. l. 5. c. 19  That in the Writings of the Authors that approach nearest to the Age of the Apostles, one shall find no Footsteps of the Custom of invoking Saints.  
Moreover, §. 10 It is a thing, saith our Twenty-fourth Article, plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the People, and that this was the Custom of the Primitive Church, 
Treat. of Latin Service, c. 1. §. 2.  hath in a late Treatise on this Subject been fully proved from the Confessions of the Romanists. That they esteemed it necessary so to officiate is proved by the Testimonies of the Western Church till the Thirteenth Century, 
Chap. 2. Chap. 5. §. 3.  and from the Romish Commentators on the Fourteenth Chapter to the Romans. To all which add the Confession of Lindanus, 
Panopl. l. 4. c. 78.  That quae nunc passim cantantur non tam ad populi intelligentiam erudiendum, quod priscos ubique spectasse, indubitatum; The things which are now every where sung in the Roman Church, do not so much tend to instruct the People, though without doubt that was the thing the Ancients every where respected.  
The Church of England in her Twenty-fifth Article affirms, §. 11  
1. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.  
2. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel,— nor have they the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God.  
Accordingly Johannes a Munster in Vortilage confesseth, 
Et in margin haec habet: Saeculum duodecimum duo tantum agnovit Sacramenta. Nobilis discurs. prop. 3.  That Theophylact, Duo tantum agnovit Sacramenta, acknowledged only two Sacraments. There is no Controversy, saith Cassander, but that there are two Sacraments in which principally consisteth our Salvation; whence it is, that among the more ancient Writers the Sacraments properly so called are sometimes reckoned two, sometimes three, when Confirmation by Chrism is added to Baptism; and sometimes four, when the Body and Blood of Christ are reckoned as two Sacraments; (in which Sense that from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century they were reckoned only four, 
Pref. to the Treat. of Latin Seru.  hath been fully proved elsewhere) of the other Sacraments we read not that the Ancients comprehended them in any certain number, 
Consult. Cass. Art 13. p. 106, 107.  nec temere quenquam reperias ante P. Lombardum qui certum aliquem & definitum Sacramentorum numerum statuerunt, nor will you hardly find any one before Peter Lombard who assigned any certain and determinate number of the Sacraments. From this Confession of the Novelty of the number of the Seven Sacraments in General, I pass on to the Confessions that have been made concerning those five R. Sacraments in Particular, which our Article denies to be Sacraments properly so called, or of Divine Institution. And,  
First, As for Confirmation, Alexander of Hales, §. 12 as he is cited by many of the Schoolmen, affirmed, 
De hoc recitat Alexander part. 4. q. 24. M. 1. Et post eum Sanctus Thomas tres opiniones: una est quam tenet Alexander, quod Sacramentum illud non est institutum neque a Christo neque ab Apostolis— Sed dicit quod Confirmatio instituta est ab Ecclesia in Concilio Meldensi. Unde dicit Alexander sine praejudicio dicendum est, quod neque Dominus hoc Sacramentum instituit neque dispensavit.— Sed postquam Apostoli defecerunt institutum fuit hoc Sacramentum Spiritus Sancti instinctu in Concilio Meldens●, quantum ad formam verborum, & materiam elementarem, cui etiam Spiritus Sanctus contulit virtutem sanctificandi. Biel in 4. Sent. q. un. D. Alii quod in Aurelianensi Concilio, In 4. Sent. didst. 7. Art 1. Part. 3. q. 72. A. 1. ad primum.  Quod Dominus neque hoc Sacramentum instituit, neque dispensavit, That our Lord neither instituted nor dispensed this Sacrament, nor was it instituted by his Disciples; but as to the Form of Words, and the Matter of it, it was instituted by the Council of Meaux. Soto informs us, That others attributed the institution of it to the Council of Orleans. Thomas Aquinas saith, That touching this Sacrament there is a double Opinion, quidam enim dixerunt, for some have said that this Sacrament was neither instituted by Christ, nor by his Apostles, Sed postea processu temporis in quodam Concilio, but afterwards, in process of time, in some Council.  
To proceed to Auricular Confession two things have been defined by the R. Church concerning it. §. 13  
1. That it is a Sacrament truly and properly so called, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. Can. 1.  and of our Saviour's Institution.  
2. 
Ibid. Can. 6, 7.  That this Confession by divine Right is necessary to Salvation, and that if any one shall say that it is not by divine Right necessary for the Remission of Sins in the Sacrament of Penance to confess all and singular mortal Sins, though never so occult, which can by diligent Meditation be brought to our Memory, with the Circumstances which change the Kind's of them, he is to be Anathema.  
In Opposition to the first Assertion Maldonate the Jesuit confesseth, 
Maldon. Sum. q. 18. Art 4.  That sunt inter Catholicos qui putant nullum esse praeceptum divinum de confession, ut omnes Decretorum Doctores, & inter Scholasticos Scotus, there are Catholics who think there is no Divine Precept for Confession, as all the Canonists, and among the Schoolmen Scotus. 
In hac re & Haereticos & nonnullos Catholicos errasse invenio. Tom. 3. Disp. 32. §. 2.  Suarez declares, That in this matter he found that not only Heretics but some Catholics had erred also, it being the Opinion of some Catholics, Hoc Sacramentum non fuisse institutum neque a Christo neque ab Apostolis, said in Concilio Meldensi speciali spiritus Sancti instinctu, That this Sacrament was neither instituted by Christ nor his Apostles, but in the Council of Meaux by the special Instinct of the Holy Spirit.  
Semeca, 
De poen. init. dist. 5.  the Author of the Gloss, having mentioned the Opinion of them who said, That Confession was instituted in the New Testament by St. James, saith, Melius dicitur eam institutam fuisse à quadam universalis Ecclesiae Traditione, It is better said, that it was instituted by a certain Tradition of the universal Church, than by the Authority of the New or Old Testament. 
Super lib. 5. decret. de poenit. & remiss. c. 12. n. 18. Tom. 7. p. 228. Ed. Venet. 1617.  This, saith Panormitan the Gloss holds, and consequently that the Greeks offend not by not using this Confession, Confitentur enim soli Deo in secreto, for they confess to God alone in secret, because such a Tradition came not to them. And this Opinion pleaseth me, saith he, very much, Quia non est aliqua Autoritas aperta quae innuat Deum, seu Christum apertè instituisse confessionem fiendam Sacerdoti, for there is no clear Authority which plainly shows, that God or Christ instituted Confession to be made to a Priest. 
Lib. 3. de poenit. cap. 1.  Bellarmine informs us, that about an Hundred Years before his time one Petrus Oxomensis, Divinity Professor of the University of Salamanca, held, That Confession was not of Divine Right, but grounded on some Statute of the universal Church. 
Pag. 476.  Rhenanus on the Argument of Tertullian's Book of Penitence, saith, That he speaks of public Confession, Qua majores nostros apparet aliquamdiu usos fuisse, priusquam ista secreta nasceretur quâ hodie conscientiam nostram Sacerdoti detegimus usque ad circumstantiarum omnium minutias, Which it is evident our Ancestors used for some time before that secret Confession began, in which we open our Conscience to a Priest, even to the discovery of the smallest Circumstances: And having told us that there were among the Canonists, qui institutam ab Ecclesia tradunt confessionem, who say that Confession was instituted by the Church; 
P. 477.  and cited many Fathers, who taught with Chrysostom, Soli Deo confitendum esse, That Confession was to be made to God alone; he adds, That for this Cause he mentioned all those Testimonies, 
P. 478  that none might admire, Tertullianum de clancularia ista admissorum confession nihil locutum, quae quantum conjicimus, penitusid temporis ignorabatur, that Tertullian spoke nothing of that secret Confession, which, as far as we can gather, was wholly unknown at that time. Nor is it thus only with Tertullian; They who lived, saith he, many Ages after him, 
Admon. de quibusdam Eccl. dogm. p. 685.  spoke mostly of public Penance, Name express de privata qui loquuntur inter veteres haud temere reperies, for you will scarcely find any among the Ancients, who speaks expressly of the private Confession. Regaltius, in his Preface on the same Book, saith, Occultorum poenitentia, 
Quam postea Ecclesia saluberiter instituit. Epitap. Fabiol. Ep. Tom. 1. f. 72.  sicut & castigatio Divinae Misericordiae reservata, the confession of secret Sins, and the castigation of them, was then reserved to the Mercy of God. Erasmus, in like manner, saith, Apparet Hieronymi tempore nondum institutam fuisse secretam admissorum confessionem, it is evident that in the time of St. Jerom, the secret Confession of Sins was not yet instituted.  
To proceed to the Second Head, touching the Necessity of this Confession, Gratian discourses largely of it; and having produced the Opinions of many on both sides, concludes thus, 
De poenit. & remiss. dist. 1. cap. 89.  Cui●harum (sententiarum) adhaerendum sit Lectoris Judicio reservatur, utraque enim fautores habet Sapientes & Religiosos, The Reader is left to his Judgement to embrace which of these Opinions he pleases: For both of them are favoured by wise and religious Men. Lombard in the Discussion of this Question, 
Lib. 4. Dist. 17. p. 780.  doth acknowledge, that in his time, quibusdam visum est sufficere si●●oli Deo fiat confessio, it seemed to some sufficient, if the Confession were made to God alone, without the sacerdotal Judgement, and Confession to the Church: Which Testimonies gave Occasion to Thomas Aquinas to say, Magister, 
In 4. Sent. Dist. 17.  & Gratianus hoc pro opinione ponunt, the Master of the Sentences, and Gratian, speak of this as an Opinion; but after the Determination of the Church, under Innocent the Third, it is to be reputed Heresy. St. Chrysostom asserts, saith Rhenanus, That Confession is to be made to God alone; docet idem Ambrose, & alii veteres, and that Ambrose and others of the Ancients, teach the same. Antoninus Florentinus, being convinced by the clear Say of Cassian, 
In Chron. p. 2. c. 2. Tit. 15. §. 19  the Scholar of St. Chrysostom to that effect, saith, Tempore Johannis Cassiani erat in opinion talis materia, viz. Si est necessaria confessio fienda Sacerdoti, In the time of John Cassian, it was only matter of Opinion, whether Confessions were to be made to a Priest or not.  
Of the Sacrament of extreme Unction, § 14 Suarez. informs us, That, 
In tertiam part. Th. Tom. 4. disp. 39 §. 2.  inter Catholicos nonnulli negarunt hoc Sacramentum à Christo institutum, some Catholics denied that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ, viz. Hugo de Sancto Victore, Lombard, Alexander Halensis, and Altissiodore: Whence, saith he, it plainly follows, that it is no true Sacrament. Mr. Du Pin speaking of the Discipline of the first Three Centuries, 
Nouvel. Bibl. Tom. 1. p. 618.  saith, That the Church in those times hath not spoken at all of the Anointing of the Sick, mentioned by St. James; peut être parce qu' elle étoit assez rare en ce temps, perhaps because it was very rare in those times.  
Of Marriage, 
In 1 Cor. 7. v. 39  Erasmus saith, Haud scio an hoc Sacramentum septimum à Veteribus fuit cognitum, I scarce know whether this Seventh Sacrament was known to the Ancients, since Dionysius numbering them by Name, and explicating their Effects, Rites, and Ceremonies, makes no mention of Matrimony. Secondly, Whereas the Greeks and Latins have in so many Volumes treated of Matrimony, nullus est locus unde liqueat illos Conjugium inter septem Sacramenta numerare, there is no place whence it appears that they numbered Marriage among the Seven Sacraments: And having added other Considerations from the Fathers, he concludes thus; Verum cur haec recenseo, cum Durandus fateatur Matrimonium à Recentioribus Theologis denique numerari coeptum inter ea quae proprie dicuntur Ecclesiae Sacramenta; But why do I recount these things, since Durand confesseth that Matrimony began lately to be numbered, by the young Divines, 
Consult. Art 13. p. 108.  amongst the proper Sacraments of the Church. By the Confession of Cassander, Peter Lombard denied, Gratiam in eo conferri, that Grace was conferred by it; and Durandus did the same, whence he concludes, Non esse Sacramentum proprie & strict dictum, That it is no Sacrament properly, and strictly so called: And he had good Reason to declare this of them both; for the Master of the Sentences saith, 
Lib. 4. dist. 2. lit. A.  That of Sacraments some afford a Remedy against Sin, Et Gratiam adjutricem conferunt, and afford assisting Grace, as Baptism; others, Remedium tantum sunt, are only a Remedy, as Marriage; and others, Gratia & Virtute nos fulciunt, do strengthen us with Grace and Virtue, as the Eucharist and Orders: From which Division and exclusive Particle Durandus well concludes, That he is one of them who exclude Matrimony from conferring Grace. Antoninus Florentinus confesseth, That the Canonists do say, and the Master of the Sentences seems to say, 
Part. 3. Tit. 14. §. 3.  That Matrimonium large dicitur Sacramentum, in quantum scilicet est Signum Sacratissimae Rei, sed non confertur in eo Gratia, sicut in aliis, That Matrimony is largely called a Sacrament, because it is a Sign of a most sacred thing, but yet Grace is not conferred by it as in other Sacraments. Durandus himself not only doth declare expressly, That Matrimony neither conferrs Grace on him that hath it not, nor augments it in him that hath Grace; but of the Civilians in General he saith, They held that Matrimony did not confer Grace, whence he concludes, That this Opinion is neither contrary to the Doctrine of the Church in General, nor of the Roman Church in Particular. Whence he himself concludes, That Matrimony is largely, 
In 4. Sent. didst, 26. §. ad Tertiam.  and not univocally styled a Sacrament. Aquinas upon the Sentences informs us, that in his time, There was a threefold Opinion about this Matter, Quidam enim dixerunt quod Matrimonium est nullo modo causa Gratiae, sed est tantum signum, for some held that Matrimony was only a sign, but in no wise a cause of Grace; but, saith he, were this so, there would be no cause to number this among the Sacraments of the New Law, others held that it conferred Grace to recede from Evil, rendering the conjugal Act lawful, which, saith he, is not enough; others, that it conferrs assisting Grace, Et hoc probabilius est, and this, saith he, is most probable; whence evident it is, that this was then only a probable Opinion. Bonaventure saith, 
In 4. Sent. dist. 26. qu. 2.  To this Objection some Answer, Quòd illud Sacramentum nullam dat Gratiam, That the Sacrament of Matrimony conferrs no Grace. The Gloss upon Gratian saith, 
Decretal. l. 5. Tit. 3. de Simon. c. 9  It is no Sin to give or receive Money for Matrimony, seeing, though it be a Sacrament, Per ipsum tamen Gratia non confertur, yet no Grace is conferred by it: And again, In hoc Sacramento non confertur Gratia Spiritus Sancti sicut in aliis, 
Decret. Caus. 32. qu. 2. c. ●onorantur.  In this Sacrament the Grace of the Holy Ghost is not conferred as it is in others. And yet in opposition to all these Declarations the Trent Council hath defined, That if any one saith that Matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the New Law, 
Sess. 24. de Sacr. Matrim. Can. 1.  instituted by Christ,— Neque Gratiam confer, or that it doth not confer Grace, he shall be Anathema.  
In our Twenty eighth Article it is declared, §. 16 That Transubstantiation, or the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; And that it cannot be proved from the perpetual Tradition of the Church is plainly and frequently confessed by R. Doctors.  
For when Paschase, and others, broached that Opinion That the Sacrament was that very Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary. 
Ed. Colon. 1551. p. 195.  Bertram expressly teacheth, That in saying this, Sanctorum Scripta patrum contraire comprobantur, they are proved to contradict the Say of the Holy Fathers. Durandus of Troarn saith, 
Apud Larroq. Hist. of the Sacrament, p. 454. Ed. Ang. De Euch. l 3. c. 23. §. unum tamen.  That in the Ninth Century several opposed the Opinions of Paschase as Novelties, which till then had not been heard of in the Church. Bellarmine also confesseth, That Scotus held that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council, and they had reason so to say, since he affirms, (1.) That the Church declared under Innocent the Third that this Sense was, De veritate fidei, a Truth belonging to the Faith; 
In quart. Sent. distin. xi. q. 3. lit. g. Colloq. Fontibell. p. 16.  and, (2.) That it was to be believed to be, De substantia fidei, & hoc post istam declarationem solennem factam ab Ecclesia, of the Substance of the Faith, after that solemn Declaration made by the Church. And Cardinal Perron acknowledgeth, That the Opinion of Scotus was in this Sense true, That before that Council Transubstantiation was not formally an Article of Faith, that is, as to the formality of public Profession, and as to any prohibition rendering him inexcusable who was ignorant of it. 
In 4. Sent. dist. xi. q. 3. disp. 42. §. 1.  Yribarn saith expressly, That in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in Corpus Christi converti, In the Primitive Church the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ was no Article of Faith. Alphonsus de Castro confesseth, 
Adu. Haer. l. 8. tit. de indulg.  That of the Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christ's Body, Rara est in Antiquis Scriptoribus mentio, the Ancients seldom do make mention. 
Modest. disc. de Jes. Angl. p. 13. Annot. in 1 Cor. seven.  And our English Jesuits acknowledge, That the Fathers did not meddle with the matter of Transubstantiation. Erasmus saith, That in synaxi Transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia, it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation, and that for a long time it was sufficient to believe that the true Body of Christ was present, whether under the consecrated Bread or any way whatsoever. Bernard Gilpin in the Life of Bishop Tonstal saith, 
P. 40, 46. v. P. 33, 42, 48.  That he had often heard that Bishop say, that Innocent the Third did rashly in making Transubstantiation an Article of Faith, when before it was free to think so, or otherwise; yea that he knew not what he did when he made it an Article of Faith. Holcot informs us, That paucis tamen persuasum est Corpus Christi esse realiter in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis & vini, 
Sent. l. 4. qu. 3. lit. c.  Few Men were persuaded that the Body of Christ was really in the Sacrament of the Altar under the Species of Bread and Wine; 
In 4. Sent. dist● xi. q. 3. b.  and Scotus tells us, That to say that such things appertain unto the Faith, is an occasion of turning all honest Men, and almost all that follow natural Reason from the Faith, and of hindering their conversion to the Faith, and that a profane Man, or one that follows natural Reason would think this Doctrine a greater inconvenience, than all the Articles of the Incarnation; and, saith he, Mirum videtur quare in uno Articulo qui non est principalis Articulus fidei, debeat talis intellectus asseri propter quem fides pateat contemptui omnium sequentium rationem, it seems worthy of Admiration why such a Sense should be asserted in one Article which is no principal Article of Faith, as rendereth the Faith Contemptible to all who follow Reason.  
Our Thirtieth Article affirms, §. 17 That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-People, for both parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance, and Commandment, aught to be ministered to Christian Men alike; and that this was the Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ to the Twelfth Century hath been demonstrated in a Treatise written upon that Subject: Cassander also clearly testifies, That the Oriental Church doth to this Day, and that the Roman Church did for a Thousand Years, 
In Art 22.  in the ordinary and solemn Administration of this Sacrament, give both Kind's to all the Faithful, and that they were induced to do so, Instituto & exemplo Christi, by the Example and Institution of our Lord; and that therefore it was no rash thing, that all the best Catholics who were conversant in the reading of the Divine and Ecclesiastical Writers, and were moved by the Reasons there mentioned, were extremely desirous of the Cup, and did vehemently contend that this salutary Sacrament of the Blood of Christ, 
Epist. 19  together with the Sacrament of his Body, Juxta veterem, & multis saeculis perpetuatam universalis Ecclesiae consuetudinem in usum reducatur, should be reduced to use according to the ancient Custom of the universal Church continued through many Ages. The same Cassander saith, Antiquioribus saeculis ad plenam, legitimam, & solennem Communionem, utriusque Sacramenti, Corporis & Sanguinis Domini, participationem necessariam fuisse, That in former Ages the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, was necessary to a full, lawful, and solemn Communion. John Barus declares, 
Cath. Rom. Pacif. Sect. 7. apud Forbes. Consid. Modest. p. 429.  That Communion in both Kind's, is, Scriptures, Patribus, & universalis Ecclesiae consuetudini conformior, more conform to Scriptures, to the Fathers, and to the Custom of the universal Church. And George Wicelius saith, That the Church of Rome did ill in intermitting the use of the Cup in public Celebration of the Sacrament; adding, That Ejus rei cum nube quadam certissimorum Testium septi sumus, 
In via Regia. Apud Forbes. Consid. Modest. p. 427.  plerophoriam amplectimur omni secluso dubio, being compassed with a Cloud of most certain Witnesses touching this matter, we have that full assurance of it which excludes all doubt. And even Thomas Aquinas teacheth, 
In Cap. 11. Ep. 1. ad Cor. lect. 5. q.  That although whole Christ be under either Species, yet is he not in vain tendered under both Species, Quia hic est vetus usus hujus Sacramenti, ut seorsim exhibeatur fidelibus Corpus Christi in cibum & Sanguis in potum; because this is the ancient use of this Sacrament, That the Body of Christ should separately be given to the Faithful for meat, and the Blood for drink.  
In our Thirty-first Article, §. 18 it is said, That the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, That the Priest did offer Christ for the Quick and the Dead, to have Remission of Pain or Gild, were blasphemous Fables, and dangerous Deceits. Now of this Sacrifice the Trent Council teacheth,  
1. 
Corpus & Sanguinem suum sub Speciebus panis & vini Deo patri obtulit, Sess. 22. cap. 1.  That Christ offered his Body and Blood, under the Species of Bread and Wine, to God the Father.  
2. That the same Christ, in this Divine Sacrifice, 
Idem ille Christus incruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruente obtulit. c. 2. Una enim eademque est hostia, idem nunc offertur Sacerdotum ministerio qui seipsum tunc in carne obtulit. Ibid. Can. 1. Can. 3. P. 510.  is unbloodily offered, who bloodily once offered himself upon the Altar of the Cross.  
3. That therefore the Holy Synod teacheth that this Sacrifice is truly propitiatory, because one and the same Host is now offered by the Ministry of the Priests, who then offered himself upon the Cross.  
4. That therefore, if any Person saith, That in the Mass there is not offered to God, Verum & proprium Sacrificium, a true and proper Sacrifice; or that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving; aut nuda commemoratio Sacrificii in cruse peracti, or a naked commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the Cross, and not a propitiatory Sacrifice, let him be accursed.  
Now, as to the first of these Particulars, the Author of the History of the Trent Council doth inform us, That almost an equal Number of the Divines there, denied that Christ, in the Institution of this Supper, offered himself; for if so, the Oblation of the Cross, say they, would have been superfluous, because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper, which went before: They alleged also, That neither the Scripture, nor the Canon of the Mass, nor any Council, ever said, that Christ offered himself in the Supper; saying, 
P. 536.  That it was not a time to ground one's self upon things uncertain, and upon New Opinions, never heard nor thought of by Antiquity; and that when i● was decreed that Christ did offer himself, Twenty three Bishops did contradict it. He adds, That the Bishop of Veglia said, 
P. 519.  That he that maintaineth a propitiatory Sacrifice in the Supper, must needs confess, that by it we are redeemed, and not by his Death, which is contrary to Scripture, and to Christian Doctrine: And, That the Bishop persuaded so many, that it was almost the common Opinion not to make mention of the propitiatory Sacrifice offered by Christ in the Supper. Now by the Confutation of this First Proposition, the Second and the Third must be entirely confuted.  
As for the Third and Fourth, the same Bishop teacheth, 
Ibid.  that one propitiatory Sacrifice being offered, if it be sufficient to expiate, no other is offered but only for Thanksgiving. And suitable to this Assertion it is determined by Peter Lombard, in Answer to that Question, Si quod gerit Sacerdos proprie dicatur Sacrificium vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie immoletur, 
Sent. l. 4. dist. 12. lit. G.  vel semel tantum immolatus sit, Whether the Action of the Priest may properly be called a Sacrifice, or whether Christ be offered daily, or was once only offered: I say, in answer to this Question, it is determined by him, That what is offered and consecrated by a Priest is called a Sacrifice and Oblation, Quia memoria est, & representatio veri Sacrificii, & Sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis, because it is the Memorial and Representation of the true Sacrifice and Holy Immolation, which was made upon the Altar of the Cross: And that Christ is daily offered in the Sacrament, Quia in Sacramento recordatio fit illius quod semel factum est, because in the Sacrament is made a Remembrance of that which was once done; and that what we do is, recordatio Sacrificii, a Remembrance of that Sacrifice. Aquinas saith, That the Celebration of this Sacrament is styled an Offering of Christ, for Two Reasons; First, Because, as Austin to Simplicius saith, Images are wont to be called by the Names of those Things of which they are Images; 
In Sum. part. 3. q. 83. Art 1.  Celebratio autem hujus Sacramenti imago quaedam est representativa passionis Christi, quae est vera ejus immolatio, and the Celebration of this Sacrament is an Image, representing the Passion of Christ, which is the true Oblation. Secondly, As to the Effect of this Passion; to wit, because by this Passion we are made Partakers of the Fruit of the Lord's Passion. 
In cap. 1. Es. P. 34.  Arias Montanus saith, Non Sacrificium illud offerimus, sed illud ipsum Christi representamus, We do not offer that same Sacrifice of Christ, but we represent it. 
In Hebr. 10.  We must affirm, saith Lyranus, That there is no Reiteration of the Sacrifice of the Altar there, but a daily Commemoration of that one Sacrifice which was offered on the Cross.  
Our Thirty-second Article Asserts, §. 19 That it is lawful for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to marry at their own Discretion. Accordingly Vdalricus, Bishop of Ausburg, the First of that Name, in his Epistle to Pope Nicholas the First, tells him, That the First Council of Nice approved the Sentence of Paphnutius, 
Apud Calixt. de conjug. Cleric. p. 445, 446.  discarding the Imposition of this Law upon the Clergy, and left this Matter, Uniuscujusque voluntati, to every Man's Will; adding that the Law of Celibacy, which Pope Nicholas then endeavoured to impose upon the Clergy, was Communi omnium sapientum judicio violentia, in the common Judgement of all Wise Men, 
Dist. 31.  a Violence. Gratian confesseth that there was a time, Cum nondum erat institutum, when it was not enjoined that Priests should contain: Yea, saith he, from the Authority of Pelagius the First, it is apparent that Priests, 
Dist. 28. c. 13.  Deacons and Subdeacons', Licite matrimonio uti possunt, may lawfully use Matrimony: And to the Canons of the Councils of Neocaesarea and Ancyra, which approved of their Marriage, he answers, First, That they were made, Cum nondum erat introducta continentia Ministrorum Altaris, when the Continency of the Ministers of the Altar was not yet introduced. Secondly, That they were made in the East, and that, Orientalis Eccesia non suscepit votum Castitatis, the Eastern Church received not the Vow of Chastity: 
Cap. 13.  and in his Fifty-eighth Distinction he expressly saith, Sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem ubique licita erant conjugia, That before the Prohibition it was every where lawful for Priests to marry; and in the Oriental Church it is lawful for them at present so to do; where the Gloss observes, That it is plain that Gratian was of this Opinion, Aliquando in Latina Ecclesia Presbyteris licuisse uti conjugio, That even in the Latin Church it was sometimes Lawful for Priests to use Matrimony. Scotus confesseth that it is very true, 
Sent. 4. dist. 37. qu. 1. Art 1.  That Secundum consuetudinem primitivae Ecclesiae, according to the Constitution of the primitive Church, it was lawful to use Matrimony contracted before Orders. 
Cap. 4. De invent. rerum l. 5. c. 4. p. 344.  Clictovaeus in his Discourse of the Celibacy of Priests, and Polydore Virgil, do with one Voice affirm, That Pope Syricius, who held that See A.D. 387. was the first who imposed the Law of Celibacy on the Clergy. It remains, saith Cassander, That this Law should be relaxed to those who shall hereafter be ordained; Et more veteris Ecclesiae, 
Consult. Art 23. p. 199.  & huc usque Orientalium Ecclesiarum, And that after the Custom of the Ancient Church, and of the Eastern Churches to this Day, Honest Husbands should be admitted to the Ministry of the Church, and out of the Time of their Ministry, should be allowed the use of their Wives, according to the Canon of the Sixth General Synod. Wicelius in his Via Regia, 
Apud Calixt. de conjug. cler. p. 457.  declares that the Marriage of Priests was unforbidden, In primitiva Christi Ecclesia tam Orientis quam Occidentis, in the Primitive Church both of East and West; and that it agrees not only with the Gospel, but also, cum Veterum Synodorum Constitutionibus, cum exemplis Veteris Ecclesiae, with the Constitutions of Ancient Synods, with the Examples of the Ancient Church; yea even with the Examples of the Church of Rome, such as she was Five hundred Years ago.   

CHAP. XI.  
Answer is given to the Arguments of Mr. M. for the Infallibility of Tradition, as, v. g. 1. That the World had no other Rule for the first Two thousand Years, §. 1. Answered, 1st. by showing that this proves not the thing in Question, which is not, Whether nothing can come down unto us by Tradition; but, Whether in long tract of time, Men may not add to the Traditions which truly they received, others which falsely they pretend to be such; and, Whether pretences to Tradition may not be justly scrupled, when ancient Records not only do say nothing of, but plainly contradict them, Ibid. 2dly. That this Argument contradicts the Tradition of the Jews, touching the Precepts of Noah only imposed upon the World before, and of the Christians generally teaching Men were then guided by the Law, not of Tradition, but of nature, §. 2. The Instances contained in this Argument considered, §. 3. 3dly. It is proved that both the Antediluvians and they who lived after the Flood were very prone to Idolatry; and that God therefore would not trust them with any positive Precepts, but such as were Recorded in a written Law, §. 4. Mr. M ' s. Second Argument, That for above Two thousand Years more from Moses to Christ 's time the Church was governed partly by Writing, and partly by Tradition. Answ. 1. The contrary is proved both from the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, §. 5. 2. That the Traditions which obtained in the Jewish Church were such as tended to the Evacuation of the Law of Moses the Introduction of vain Worship, and the renouncing of the true Messiah, §. 6. This is farther demonstrated from the Scriptures of the New Testament and Josephus, §. 7. Mr. M's. Third Argument, That when the Scriptures were given to the Jewish Church, all other Nations were guided only by Tradition, and yet had many true Believers among them, as Job, etc. Answ. 1. That the Scripture manifestly declares, that the Heathens generally were guilty of Idolatry, and that God had given them a Law, not of Tradition, but of Nature, §. 8.2. That Job and his Friends believed in one God, not by Tradition, but the Light of Nature, according to the Fathers, §. 9.3. That when Christianity appeared, the great Plea of the Heathens for it was Tradition which they pleaded after the manner of the Romanists, §. 10. The Answer of the Christians to this Plea is a full Justification of the Protestants, and a demonstration that they were not Roman Catholics in this Matter, §. 11. For, 1st. They represent it as the greatest folly to prefer Custom before Reason. 2ly. They add, That their Ancestors were prone to receive Fables, and monstrous Opinions for Truths, which also Romanists confess of the Writers of their Histories. 3dly, That this was the Rise of all their Errors, that they followed their Fathers without consulting Truth. 4thly. That they who pleaded Antiquity were themselves the greatest Innovators. 5thly. That there was a time when the Heathen Religion was New, Ibid. In defence of their own Proceed they declare, 1st. That it is the property of wise Men not to be enslaved to their former Opinions. 2dly. That their Adversaries ought not to run them down with prescription or the belief of their Ancestors, but fairly come to the Merits of the Cause, §. 12. 3dly. That they ought not to be run down with multitude, that being no mark of the true Religion. 4thly. That they ought not to be called to yield a blind assent to the dictates of other Men, without using their own Judgements. 5thly. That their Separation from their forefather's must be acknowledged Just and Righteous, because they could show wherein they had erred. Lastly, That their Religion was not New, but only it was lately that they knew it to be the true and old Religion, §. 13. Obj. 4. That before the New Testament was written and divulged all Christians were governed by Tradition only, §. 14. Answ. 1. That the Four Gospels which were always judged sufficiently to contain the Christian Doctrine, were writ soon after the Preaching of the Gospel. 2. That till then the Apostles Preached only out of the Old Testament, and exhorted their Hearers to attend to it as their Rule, Ibid. 3. That the Tradition of the Primitive Church declared it necessary that Scriptures should be written to be to us a Rule of Faith, §. 15. Mr. M ' s. Fourth Argument, that the Traditions of the Church of Rome may be as fully proved, as it can be proved to one that never saw London, that there is such a City, and that it is the Capital City of this Kingdom, shown to be highly vain, §. 16.  
HAving thus shown the uncertainty of Tradition in many Cases, and proved that the Doctrines of the Church of Rome have not descended by Tradition from the Apostles, or the Primitive Church, I now proceed to Answer what Mr. M. doth offer to prove the certainty of Oral Tradition in the General, and of some Romish Doctrines in Particular,  
And, §. 1 1. Mr. M. saith, That all the Faith which true Believers had in those Two thousand Years before the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written, 
Pag. 335.  had no other Ground than the Revelation of God, as proposed by the Tradition of the Church present, to all Believers in every Age in which those Believers lived. That the whole World was governed by Tradition only for the first Two thousand Years. And he is so exact as to enumerate the very Tenets which they held by Tradition, viz. The fall of Adam, and their Conception in Original Sin. The means to be used to free themselves and their Children from it.  
The immortality of the Soul, and that the Rewards and Punishments of the next Life lasted for ever.  
What Repentance they were to use.  
That they were to stand fast to their Traditions, and account it a damnable Sin to forsake them.  
The Observation of the Sabbath, the Precept of not eating Blood obliging all the World, the distinction betwixt clean and unclean Meats, and Beasts; the Precept of Circumcision observed Four hundred Years by Abraham 's Posterity by Tradition; the Covenant God made with Abraham, that he should be the Father of many Nations, 
Disc. p. 91.  and that the Messiah should be born of his Seed.  
R. H. informs us of other Positive Divine Laws; viz. Those of Sacrifice, Firstlings, Holocausts, Peace-Offerings, Birds in Sacrifice not divided, mention of the Holy Times, Places, Persons, Prophets, of Tithes paid to the Priest, Purifying, Cleansing, changing their Garments, Vows, Prohibition of Polygamy, contracting Marriages with unbelievers, Excommunication. And these Laws, saith he, we may presume were received from an external infallible Proponent, and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiors, and Teachers of these Laws in such a manner as those delivered since; and for the certainty of their Religion there seems an Infallibility in these, as necessary, if not more, for solving the great doubts arising therein before, as after the times of a written Law.  
Such Arguments as this, and those that follow, are not worthy of any consideration by reason of their great impertinency, were it not upon this account, that it is easy to evince they are so far from being Arguments; for, that they are certain Demonstrations against the certainty, and the Infallibility of the Traditions disputed betwixt us and the Church of Rome, and plainly overthrow the Cause they were designed to maintain. To make this evident, let it be noted,  
First, That the Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome is not this, Whether any thing may be derived down to Posterity by Tradition, for this we have confessed in many Cases, and where Tradition from the beginning can undoubtedly be had, we own it. But the Question is, Whether they who own, or have Tradition for their Rule, may not add many things to that which truly was received by Tradition pretending falsely that they also were derived by Tradition to them: For if this may be so, the Church of Rome may also own at present Tradition for her Rule, and yet with the like falsehood may pretend that many Doctrines and Practices descended by a Primitive Tradition to her; and the Traditions here enumerated may also truly bear that name, and yet the very same persons may have handed down at the same time many other Practices and Doctrines under the same pretence, which tended to corrupt the Faith and Manners of those very Ages.  
Secondly, The great Enquiry is, Whether in tract of time, viz. the space of Sixteen hundred Years, such Doctrines, and practices may not be admitted and owned as Primitive Traditions by a prevailing party of Gentiles, Jews or Christians, which were nothing less than so. For if this hath been actually so before, and after the writing of the Law of Moses, and also since the publication of the Gospel, then may the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in so long tract of time, be thus admitted, and yet be nothing less than Primitive Traditions.  
And, Thirdly, Whether Pretences to Tradition may not justly be suspected, when ancient Records, which had equal reason to take notice of them, and could not have condemned what the whole Church received as a Divine Verity, not only do say nothing of, but plainly contradict them. Having premised these things, I answer;  
Fourthly, §. 2 That these great Pretenders to Tradition, in this Assertion contradict both the Tradition of the Jews, and of the Ancient Fathers.  
The Tradition of the Jews, 
Selden. de jure Nat. l. 1. c. 8. p. 102. etc. 10. p. 116. ad p. 126.  who unanimously declare, That the Law given to the World after the Fall of Adam, was only that of the Precepts of Noah against Idolatry. 2. Blasphemy. 3. Murder. 4. Unlawful Copulation. 5. Theft. 6. The Law concerning Civil Government; all which are Laws of Nature: And 7. The Law forbidding to eat Blood.  
The Fathers also generally assert, 
Vid. Seld. ib. l. 1. c. 8. p. 98, 99 Apol. 2. p. 83.  That before the written Law men lived according to the Law of Nature: So Justin Martyr, That God admonished them, Per naturalia praecepta quae ab initio infixa dedit hominibus— & nihil plus ab iis exquisivit, by the natural Precepts from the beginning implanted in their Hearts, and required nothing more of them: So Irenaeus, That it was Reason, 
L. 4. c. 28.  or Philosophy, which before the coming of our Saviour was necessary to make them Righteous, and that it was their Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ: 
Strom. 1. p 282.  So Clemens of Alexandria, That they were guided by the Law written, In Naturalibus tabulis, 
De Cor. Milit. c. 6 Adu. Jud. c. 2.  in the Tables of their Heart, which was the common Law of the World; and that it was this Law of Nature which, à Patribus custodiebatur, was observed by the Fathers, and by which Noah, Abraham and Melchizedeck were Righteous: 
Praepar. Evang. l. 7. c. 7.  So Tertullian, That before the written Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were adorned with the Virtue of Piety by right Reason, so Eusebius: That God led the Heathens to Piety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Law of Nature, 
Serm. 1. Contr. Graec. ad Sylberg p. 20.  and of the Creation; so Theodoret. Particularly they inform us, That before Moses the Patriarches observed not the Sabbath; That without the Observation of it, all the just Men forenamed, viz. Adam, Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah and Melchezedeck, 
Dial. cum Tryph. p. 236.245. L. 4. cap. 30. Adu. Jud. c. 2. 4. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Praep. Evang. l. 7. c. 6. Demonstr. Eu. l. 1. c. 6.  pleased God; and after them Abraham and his Posterity till Moses; so Justin Martyr. That Abraham was justified, Sine observatione Sabbathi, without the Observation of the Sabbath; so Irenaeus. Non Sabbatizabant, The Patriarches did not keep the Sabbath, saith Tertullian. They took no care of Circumcision or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Observation of the Sabbaths, saith Eusebius.  
Secondly of Sacrifices, they affirm that Abel, Noah, 
Qu. & Resp. ad Orthod. qu. 83. Const. Apost. l 6. c 20 p. 284.  and others offered them not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Divine Command, but being moved to it by the Light of Nature; by which, although they could not judge them necessary, yet might they think them apt Testimonies of their Acknowledgement of God's Goodness to them, and of their gratitude to him.  
Now either in these Traditions the Fathers were mistaken, or they were not; if in these things, delivered by them so unanimously, they were mistaken, this is a farther Argument of the uncertainty of Tradition; if they were not mistaken, than the Patriarches before, and since the Flood, till Moses, in their Religious Service, were not led by Tradition, much less by that alone; but rather guided by the Light of Nature.  
And to this, Holy Scripture seems plainly to accord, declaring, That the Heathens had no positive Laws; that the, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Knowledge of God was so revealed, 
Rom. 1.19, 20.  by the Light of Nature, to them; That they became inexcusable, in that they did not glorify him as God; That the Ungodliness and Unrighteousness of Men, was so revealed by the Light of Nature to them, that they knew, that they, who did the evil Actions mentioned in the First of Romans, were, by God's righteous Judgement, worthy of Death; and that they were condemned in their own Consciences when they committed Sin; 
V 32.  and were obnoxious to Tribulation, 
Rom. 2.15.  Wrath and Anguish from God's Justice, for so doing; though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Iniquity was by no positive Law forbidden. 
V 9, 12. V 15. Rom. 12.17. Rom. 2.10, 15.  That they had the Work of the Law written in their Hearts, directing them to what was good; teaching them what was honest in the Sight of all Men, testifying to them, that they did well in the Observance of those things; and promising Glory, Honour, and Peace to them who did them. That albeit they were Gentiles, 
V 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having no Law positive, or written, to direct them; yet were they, by this Light of Nature, a Law unto themselves, and did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, keep the righteous Precepts of the Law. Now is it likely, 
V 26.  if God had given to the heathen World so many positive Laws, as are here mentioned: And if they had been then so to be guided by Tradition, and bound under the pain of Damnation to receive such Traditions, as the positive Laws of God, and to convey them still as such to Posterity, they should be represented still as without Law?  
As for the Instances here mentioned, §. 3 and not yet considered, some of them vainly are affirmed to be Traditions, as V G. The Doctrine of Original Sin imputed, and the Means to be delivered from it, The Eternity of Rewards and Punishments, The Prohibition of Polygamy, Birds in Sacrifice not divided, Cleansing and changing of their Garments; Some of them might be learned by the Light of Nature, as far as it was needful they should know them; as, What Repentance they were to use, viz. That which consisted in ceasing to do Evil, That the Soul had a Subsistence when separated from the Body; That they who would not submit to the Laws of their Society, should be excluded from it, or not admitted to the Privileges of that Society, which is Excommunication; That it was fit to have Times and Places set apart for God's Worship, and to tender to him the First Fruits and Tithes of our Increase, to make and pay our Vows to God, not to marry with Idolaters.  
Some of them being Matters of continual Practice, might very easily be preserved by Tradition to Posterity, as v. g. Circumcision, not eating of Blood, Oblation of First Fruits, paying of Tithes, (though it is certain that they had then no Law for Tithes, or offering of First Fruits) the Distinction betwixt Clean and  Meats and Beasts.  
And lastly, most of those things which R. H. reckons up as positive Divine Laws, are by the learned Dr. Spencer proved to be Customs received from the Gentiles into the Family of Abraham, and taken up as things consonant to Reason, though not commanded by it.  
It is true also as R. H. observes, That Abraham obeyed the Voice of God, and kept his Charge, his Commandments, or moral Precepts, 
Gen. 26.5.  his Statutes, touching the Service of the True God, the Circumcision of his Family, and his Laws, or Judgements touching the doing Justice and Judgement; and that he taught his Children so to do, according as God himself had foretold of him, 
Gen. 18.19.  saying, I know Abraham, that he will command his Sons, and his House after him, to keep the Way of Jehovah, to do Justice and Judgement: But than it is as true, 
In locum.  that Chrysostom refers this Praise of Abraham to his Obedience to God's Voice, in leaving of his Father's House, 
Custodia viae domini dictitur tempore Abrahae id quod cuique ex officio praestandum erat. Seld. de jure Nat. l. 1. c. 8. p. 100  going he knew not whither, and sojourning in a strange Land, in offering his Son Isaac, and in casting forth his Son Ishmael; and not to his observance of any positive and ceremonial Precepts delivered to him by Tradition. The things which he conceives he was to teach his Children, excepting Circumcision, were likewise not of this nature, but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do no Injury, to prefer nothing before Justice, things taught them by the light of Nature.  
Moreover it well deserves to be observed, §. 4 That when it pleased God, that these, and many other Precepts of like nature, should be observed by the Jews, knowing how little Tradition was to be trusted, and how quickly the Progeny of Adam, and of Noah had deviated from it in the highest Matters, he very exactly prescribes these things in Writings still to be perused by, or read unto his People, that they might learn to do the things he had commanded. The Apostolical Constitutions teach, That when Men had corrupted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Lib. 8. c. 12.  the Law of Nature, God gave the Jews the written Law. St. Chrysostom informs us, That God gave not his Law in writing to Noah, Abraham and Job, but finding their Minds pure, gave them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Grace of his Holy Spirit instead of Books; but when the People of the Jews fell into the Gulf of Wickedness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
In Matth. p. 1.  than was it necessary for them to have the Tables, and the written Law to keep them in remembrance of their Duty. Theophylact in like manner saith, 
Proem. in Matth.  That when Men became unworthy to be taught, and guided by the Holy Spirit, than God, the lover of Mankind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, gave them the Scriptures, that by them they might be made mindful of his Will: Declaring that they knew nothing of the derivation of God's positive Worship by Tradition only, but thought it necessary that it should be made known unto them either by Writing, or the immediate dictates of the Holy Spirit dwelling in their Hearts. They also add that this written Law was given, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Constit. Apost. ibid. p. 349.  to supply the defects of the Law of ●●ature, by that God who would not suffer them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be seduced; clearly insinuating, that Tradition, without this written Law, was not sufficient to supply the defects of that of Nature, or to preserve them from Error. As will be farther evident if we consider,  
That both the Antediluvians, and they who lived after the Flood, and before the Writing of the Law of Moses, had generally corrupted their ways, and deviated from that Tradition which they undoubtedly received from Adam, and from Noah, touching the Worship of the true and only God. For even whilst Adam was alive, 
In Gen. 4.26.  and had not passed half his days, Men began, saith the Chaldee Paraphrast, to profane the Name of the Lord, 
Ainsw. in Gen. 4. v. 26.  by ceasing to pray to him. The Hebrew Doctors tell us, That in the Days of Enosh, the Sons of Adam erred with great Error, and the Counsel of the Wise Men of that Age became Brutish, and their Error was this, They said forasmuch as God hath Created these Stars and Spheres to govern the World, and set them on high, and imparted honour to them, and they are Ministers that Minister before him, it is meet that Men should Laud and Glorify, and give them Honour, for this is the Will of God, that we magnify and honour whomsoever he magnifies and honoureth.— When this thing was come up into their Hearts, they began to build Temples to Stars, and to offer Sacrifice to them, and to Laud and Glorify them with Words, and to Worship before them, that they might in their evil Opinion obtain favour of the Creator, and this was the Root of Idolatry. 
Ibid.  And hence in the ancient Commentaries of the Hebrews the Age of Enosh is represented as a wicked Age. In the time of Enoch, and before the death of Adam, wickedness had mightily prevailed even among the Sons of God, or Members of the Church; for Enoch is mentioned as the only Man who adhered perfectly to God, and of him it is said, 
Wisd. 4.10. Vers. 11, 14.  That he lived among Sinners, and that God took him away from among the wicked, lest their evil Example should corrupt his Righteous Soul. After his Assumption we find that Men had generally declined to iniquity, that all Flesh had corrupted their Ways, 
Gen. 6.12.  excepting Noah and his Family, that they had forsaken God, and given up themselves to Idolatry, saying to God, 
Job 22.17.  Depart from us, and what can the Almighty do for us?  
About an Hundred Years after the Flood they set themselves with one Consent to build the Tower of Babel in opposition to God, and in which, say the Hebrews, 
Ainsw. ibid.  they designed an Idol Temple. Nahor and Tharah the Progenitors of Abraham were Idolaters, 
Gen. 31.30, 53.  and after the Call of Abraham they continued so to be. In the Family of Isaac, Esau and his Wives were a bitterness of Spirit to Isaac and Rebecca, because they served God with strange Service, saith the Jerusalem Tergum; that is, with Idolatry. In the Family of Jacob, 
Gen. 31.22. Gen. 35.2  Rebecca. steals her Father's Images: In his House were worshippers of strange Gods and Retainers of Idols. When the Israelites lived in Egypt, they so complied with their Rites, 
Praepar. Evang. l. 7. c. 28.  saith Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to forget the Piety of their Forefathers. They learned in Egypt, 
Serm. 2. adv. Graec. p. 492.  saith Theodoret, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to worship many Gods with them. They committed Whoredom in Egypt, saith Ezekiel, 
Ezek 23. 2-19.  they multiplied the Whoredoms they had committed in the Land of Egypt. Whence Joshua speaks thus unto them, 
Josh. 24.14.  Put away the Gods which your Fathers served in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt, Here then is Evidence sufficient,  
First, That the first Ages of the World were not abandoned only to the uncertainty of Tradition, but were guided partly by the Light of Nature, and partly by immediate Revelation; Tradition being by Divine Wisdom judged a more imperfect Guide, than the dim Light of Nature.  
Secondly, That when it pleased God to give his People Positive and ceremonial Laws, he would by no means leave them to the uncertainty of Tradition, but commanded that they should be written in a Book, for a Memorial to, and for a Testimony against them, and should thence be read by, and to them, that they, and the Generations to come might learn them. And,  
Thirdly, That the Service of the one true God received by Tradition from Adam, Enoch and others before the Flood, from Noah, Melchizedeck, Abraham, and the Patriarches after the Flood, was presently corrupted, and utterly defaced by Idolatry, to let us see how insufficient mere Tradition is, since even in the Days and Lives of them who lived so long, and who delivered this Fundamental Article of Worshipping the one true God unto their Offspring, they saw them running headlong to Idolatry, and adding many corrupt Inventions, and vain Imaginations of their own unto that Worship they had received by Tradition from them.  
Secondly, §. 5 Object. 2 Mr. M. adds, That for above Two thousand Years more, 
P. 415. P. 231.  from Moses until Christ's time, the Church was governed partly by Writing, and partly by Tradition. For the Jews had at least two undeniable Traditions. For they knew only by Tradition what remedy was to be used to free their Female Children from Original Sin, as also to free their Male Children, in danger of Death, before the Eighth Day. This Remedy they knew and observed, and were bound to know and observe, and yet they infallibly knew it without having any Scripture expressing to them the knowledge of this Remedy, or of their Obligation to use it; or that it was so necessary for the Salvation of their Children, whom they did believe to be in Original Sin, and by that debarred from Salvation, unless some Remedy were applied. Some Remedy surely was as necessary for the Female, as Circumcision for the Male. Show me this Remedy in Scripture.  
2. They truly believed some of those bloody Sacrifices to have been appointed to them by God for the expiation of their Sins, but they could not believe truly that these Sacrifices could expiate their Sins by their own Virtue; they believing then that these Sacrifices had their expiative Virtue from the Merits of Christ. Show me any Text in which this was then written.  
1. Reply. That the Jewish Church until Christ's time was governed partly by Tradition, or that Tradition was their partial Rule of Faith, in reference to any necessary Doctrines or Rules of Manners, will appear a vain Imagination if we consider that, in the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, they are still sent unto the written Word to learn their Duty, but never to Tradition; the Prophets do exhort them for their direction to repair to the Law, 
Esai. 8.20.34.16. Mal. 4.4.  and to the Testimonies, to the Book of the Lord. To remember the Law of Moses which he commanded them in Horeb, for all Israel, with the Statutes and Judgements, as their only certain Rule and Direction. Now that the ordinary Succession of Prophets was to cease from the Days of Malachy to the Times of Christ, whereas had Oral Tradition also been their Rule, the Prophets must have had like reason to call upon them to remember that.  
Moreover God only calls upon them by Moses, To do all the Words of this Law which are written in this Book, and promiseth his Favour and Acceptance of them upon that account, saying, If thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, 
Deut. 30.9, 10. Vers. 15.  to keep his Commandments and Statutes, which are written in this Book of the Law, I will rejoice over thee for Good. See I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil. And David speaketh thus unto King Solomon, 
1 Kings 2.3.  Keep the Charge of the Lord thy God to walk in his ways, to keep his Statutes, and his Commandments, and his Judgements, and his Testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that thou mayst prosper in all that thou dost, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself. If then the Observation of what was written in the Law of Moses was sufficient to procure Life, Favour, Prosperity, and Acceptance with God, surely this written Law must be a perfect Rule, and must sufficiently contain all that was needful to be believed, or done unto those ends. Hence is the King commanded to write him a Copy of this Law in a Book, that he might learn to fear the Lord God, 
Deut. 17.18, 19  and to keep all the words of this Law, and these Statutes to do them; and to perform the words of the Covenant which are written in this Book, 
2 Chron. 34.31.  is to keep God's Commandments, his Testimonies, and his Statutes with all the Soul, and with all the Heart. Whereas had Oral Tradition been any part of their Rule, they must have been obliged equally to observe what was delivered by it, and all God's Statutes, and Commandments could not be written in this Book, as it is so expressly and frequently declared that they were.  
Our Saviour in like manner bids them Search the Scriptures, 
Joh. 3.39.  because they thought in them they had eternal Life, in which apprehension, had they been deceived, as they must have been provided that there was another Law of Oral Tradition given to lead them unto Life eternal, our Saviour doubtless would have informed them of this dangerous Error, which yet he was so far from doing, that when a Lawyer puts the Question to him, What shall I do that I may inherit eternal Life? 
Luk. 10.25, 26.  he Answers, What is written in the Law, how readest thou? This do, and thou shalt live. 
Luk. 16.29.  And sends the Jews to Moses and the Prophets, that by hearing them they might avoid the coming to the Place of Torments; but neither he nor his Disciples do ever send them to Tradition, or speak one word in approbation of it, which is sufficient Evidence, that they knew nothing of this Rule of Mr. M.  
2dly. §. 6 The Traditions concerning Doctrines generally believed, and Practices needful to be performed among them, after the Law was written by Moses, and after God had given them a Charge, upon the ceasing of the Succession of his Prophets, to remember and stick close unto it, I say, the Traditions which obtained in the Jewish Church, as far as we have any certain intimation of them, were such as tended to the evacuating of the Law of Moses, to the renouncing of the true Messiah, and to the introduction of vain Worship, and superstitious Observances, whence it demonstratively appears that Oral Tradition was not then a certain Rule, nor could the Jewish Nation be obliged by divine Precept to receive it as such. To make this Evident; consider,  
1. That our Saviour often sends the Jews to Scripture, to Moses and the Prophets, but never to Tradition.  
2. That he still represents the great Asserters of Tradition in the Jewish Nation, 
Matth. 15.14.23.16, 17, 19 Mat. 15.10, 11.  to wit, their Elders, Scribes and Pharisees, as blind Guides, leading of the Blind, as Fools and Blind; confuteth their Traditions, though generally received, before all the People; 
Mark 7. Mat. 12.7. Matth. 15.13.  justifies his Disciples in the neglect and violation of them; pronounces them Plants which his Father had not planted, and therefore such as should be rooted up.  
3dly. He plainly tells them, That by these Traditions they did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, transgress, make void, 
Mark. 7.10.  and null the Commandment of God. He shows this by plain Instances in their evacuating the Fifth Commandment by their Traditions, in observing and enjoining such Traditions touching the Observation of the Sabbatick Rest, 
Matth. 12.7. Matth. 12.12. Luk. 6.9. Mark 3.5. Luke 13.15. Matth. 23.16-— 23.  as contradicted that great Law of God, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, and made it unlawful to do good, and preserve Life upon that day, and which sufficiently demonstrated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the blindness of their Minds, and their Hypocrisy, and in absolving them from their Oaths out of an ignorance so Gross, as knew not they were virtually made to God. He also charges them that by thus teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, 
Matth. 15.9.  they rendered God's Worship vain.  
4thly. It is extremely evident that by virtue of some of these Traditions, they rejected the true Messiah, and stood obliged by them so to do.  
For, First, It is most certain that the Jews had a Tradition generally received among them, That their Messiah should be a Temporal Prince; that at his Coming he should restore the Kingdom to Israel; he should subdue the Nations under them, and should erect a Temporal Dominion in the Jewish Nation over all their Enemies. Trypho the Jew declares to Justin M. That, 
Dial. p. 249.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Scriptures do compel us to expect a great and glorious Messiah, who shall receive, as the Son of Man, from the ancient of Days, an everlasting Kingdom; 
In Celsum. l. 2. p. 78.  not such a mean despised one as was your Jesus. The Jews, saith Origen, say, That their Prophets represent their Messiah to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a great Person, and a Potentate, and Lord of the whole Earth, and of all the Heathens, and their Armies. 
De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 31.  Josephus confesseth there was an obscure Oracle found in their S. Books, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That about that time one of Judea should govern the World. Suetonius and Tacitus say, 
In Vespas. c 4. Hist l. 5.  That it was in the whole East, Vetus & constans opinio, ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur, an old, and constant Opinion, that some out of Judaea should obtain the Government of the World; and that this Prophecy was contained, Antiquis Sacerdotum literis, in the ancient Writings of the Priests. All the Disciples of our Lord did constantly expect this Temporal Kingdom, till by the Holy Ghost's descent upon them, they were informed better, witness their Contests, 
Matth. 18.1.  Who should be the greatest in this Kingdom? and the desire of the Sons of Zebedee, to sit one at his Right-hand, 
Matth. 20.21.  and the other at his Left in it. And when they were assembled after his Resurrection, 
Act. 1.6.  this was their Enquiry, Lord wilt thou now restore the Kingdom to Israel? It is therefore certain that this was the Tradition of the whole Jewish Church received from their Wise Men, and grounded on the Scriptures of the Prophets, as they did interpret them.  
Secondly, It was also a Tradition which generally obtained among the Jews, That their Elias, who was called the Tisbite, was to appear in Person at the Advent of the true Messiah, 
Justin M. Dial. p. 268.  and to anoint him to his Office. All we, saith Trypho, expect that Christ should be anointed by Elias who is for to come, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and because Elias is not come, I think that our Messiah is not come. Thus was that place of Malachy translated by the Seventy Interpreters long before our Saviour's coming, 
Mal. 4.5.  behold I send unto you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elias the Tisbite, before the great and glorious Day of the Lord come. Accordingly the Scribes, or the Expounders of the Law, 
Mark 9.11.  did with one Voice declare, it was necessary that Elias should come first.  
Thirdly, It was the general Tradition of the Jews, That the Law of Moses should be perpetually obliging to them, and be observed even in the Days of the Messiah. On this Presumption certainly it was, that Christ's Disciples, after his Resurrection were strict Observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time, and so were also the Generality of the Jewish Converts. St. Peter was so nice in Observation of it, as that till he was informed better by a Vision, he thought such Meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law, so that he being in this Vision bid to slay and eat, cries out, as a Man tempted to an unlawful Act, 
Acts 10.14.  Not so Lord, for I have never eaten any thing that is unclean. Whence Origen well notes, 
L. 2. Contr. Cells. p. 56, 57  That he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a long time kept the Jewish Customs, according to the Law of Moses; and that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, living according to the Tradition of the Jews, he contemned those who were not of the Jews, and even, when by this Vision he was prevailed upon to go unto Cornelius, he gins his Speech to him thus, 
Acts 10.28.  You know that it is an unlawful thing, for a Man that is a Jew, to keep Company, or come in to one of another Nation; 
Acts 11.2.  and when he had done it, his Brethren call him to an Account, and contend with him for it. 
Acts 21.20.  St. James gives an Account to Paul of the great Zeal that all the Jewish Converts had to the Law of Moses in these Words, Thou seest Brother, how many Thousand Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. He farther tells him, how much they were offended with him, because they heard, that he had taught, that they were not obliged to Obedience to the Constitutions and Customs of the Jewish Law. And lastly, doth exhort him to do what might be proper to cause them to believe, That he also walked orderly, and kept the Law. St. Jerome and Sulpitius inform us, 
Chron. Euseb. l. 2. c. 45.  That Fifteen of the first Bishops of Jerusalem, with their Flocks, were all Observers of the Law of Moses; and Origen, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid. p. 56.  they of the Jews who believed in Jesus, left not their own Law. Moreover, by the Unbelieving Jews, nothing was more abhorred than the Thoughts of changing their Mosaic Customs: Their Accusation against Stephen was this, that he had said, 
Acts 6.14.  That the Messiah should change the Customs which Moses had delivered to them; and this was, in the Judgement of the Highpriest, the Elders, and the Scribes, sufficient to prove him guilty of that capital Offence of Blasphemy. On this Account they bring St. Paul before the Judgment-Seat of Gallio, because, say they, he persuaded Men to Worship God, 
Acts 18. 1●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against, or otherwise than was commanded by the Law of Moses. And when he maketh his Apology unto the Jews of Rome, for bearing of his Chain, he doth it in these Words, I have done nothing contrary to the Law, 
Acts 28.17.  or to the Customs of my Country. 
Deut. 29.29. Levit. 3.17. Exod. 12.17.  Now this Opinion they grounded chief upon those Places which seem to speak of the Perpetuity of those Statutes, and say they shall be Ordinances to them for ever; and consequently seem to infer a Declaration, from the Mouth of God, that they should not be altered.  
Lo here Three plain Traditions of the whole Jewish Church, Two of which plainly tended to oblige them to renounce the true Messiah, and the Third to blend Judaisme with Christianity, and to refuse to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles; here therefore is a Threefold Demonstration, not only of the Uncertainty, but of the Falsehood of the Traditions, which obtained in the whole Church of God.  
For farther Demonstration of this Matter, §. 7 let it be considered,  
First, That the Traditions we have mentioned, were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Traditions of the Elders, 
Mark 7.3. Acts 28.17. Gal. 1.14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Customs and Traditions of their Fathers; they were the Traditions of them who sat in the Chair of Moses, of the Interpreters of Scripture, the Guides of the common People, they were the Traditions of those Men who generally had obtained the Reputation of the greatest Knowledge and Exactness in the Law, who did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 12. Arch. l. 17. c. 3.  most exactly interpret the Laws, and declare the things belonging to them, and who were by the Jews esteemed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more Pious than the rest; so that if these were Foolish and Blind Guides, they had no other to conduct them, except those two pernicious Guides of Heretics, the Scripture, and the use of Reason.  
Secondly, Observe that these Traditions were not taught only in our Saviour's Age, but long before, they being Customs and Traditions of their Forefathers. The Asserters of them, saith Josephus, 
Antiq. l. 18. c. 2.  were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most ancient of their Countrymen. Epiphanius informs us, That they pretended to derive some of these, 
Malmon. port. Mosis, p. 36, 37, 38.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Traditions, down from Moses; and their own Writers do expressly teach, That they were Traditions received from the Mouth of Moses. They therefore must be taught whilst these Church Guides, and Rulers were infallible, and the true Judges of Tradition, if ever they were so; and if the Jewish Doctors might so generally mistake in Fathering these Traditions upon Moses, why may not others do the like in Fathering theirs on the Apostles?  
Thirdly, Observe that the Jewish Worship and Religion was then thought partly to consist in them, and partly in the written Law; 
Gal. 1.14.  for St. Paul tells us, That he profited much, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Jews Religion, being zealous for the Traditions received from his Forefathers. And besides his being a strict observer of the Law, he adds in the same place, That he was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of that Sect of Pharisees, which joined Traditions to the Law of Moses, 
Antiq. Judaic. l. 18. c. 2.  of whom Josephus saith, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatsoever was Divine, whether respecting Prayers, or the performance of things Sacred, were done according to their Expositions or Traditions. Moreover these Traditions were, saith our Saviour, taught for Doctrines; they were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, belonging to their Laws, saith Josephus, the neglect of the Observance of them, was looked on as an high Transgression, they being, say their own Records, equal to, if not more weighty than the Law. The Jews were therefore in this Matter true Roman Catholics, receiving these Traditions as part of their Rule of Faith, Pari pietatis affectu, with like affection as the written Word.  
And, Lastly, These Traditions were generally received by the Jewish Nation, no Man gainsaying the Observance of them, but some few Sadduces, who in reality were Heretics, and by the Jews reputed Schismatics. 
Cap. 7. v. 3. Antiq. Judaic. l. 13 c. 18.  For the Pharisees and all the Jews held the Tradition of the Elders, saith St. Mark, Josephus informs us, That the Pharisees had, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the multitude on their side, That they were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Persons which seemed to the People most worthy of Credit, and the best Interpreters of their Laws. They were the Men, saith Christ, who sat in Moses' Chair; and their very Question, 
Mark 7.5.  Why walk not thy Disciples according to the Tradition of the Elders? insinuates that it was a new, and a strange thing among them to find any one of Reputation who transgressed their Traditions: Let then the Roman Doctors tell us how vain, and false Traditions might thus generally obtain among the Jews, and pretend to be derived from Moses, and even to be part of the Instructions he received from God, when they were nothing less, and we will tell them how the like Traditions might by them be received as Apostolical, or let them say why we must be esteemed Heretics and Schismatics, for rejecting such Traditions as our Dear Lord's Disciples, with his own approbation, did reject, and which he taught even the Common People to contemn.  
And now to Answer directly to his Instances, First, To that of Original Sin. We call upon him to prove, 1. That they had any knowledge of the Imputation of it; 
Dogm. Theol. Tom. 4. part. 2. l. 14. c. 2.  and well we may, when his own Petavius confesseth, That the Greek Church hath spoke very rarely of it. Secondly, We desire him to prove, that Circumcision was necessary for the Salvation of the Male, and his Justification from Original Sin; this is another School Notion with which the ancient Church of God was not acquainted, yea which they most expressly do gainsay, they having solemnly declared that Abraham received it for a Sign, but 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Just. M. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 241.  not for Justification, 
(b) Non in salutis praerogativam. Tert. adv. Judaeos c 2, 3.  not for Salvation, 
(c) Non quasi consummatricem justiciae. Iren. l. 4. c. 30.  not for the Consummation of Righteousness, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. Hom. 39 in Gen. p. 321, 322.  not for the Freedom of the Soul, for it availeth nothing for the advantage of the Soul; and that because it was administered to Children, who could receive no Spiritual advantage, and no Justification by it, that it hath 
(e) Pseud. Ambros. in 4. ad Rom.  nothing of Dignity in it, but is barely a Sign. And had it been prescribed, as the Schoolmen dream, for a Remedy against Original Sin, what Remedy had they for it before the Institution of the Ceremony of Circumcision? Were all their Children damned in Egypt, or in the Wilderness, because they were not Circumcised?  
To his Second Instance of the Relation which their Sacrifices had to the Expiation to be made by the Death of Christ, I Answer, 1st. That it appears not that they had any knowledge of this Mystery; and 2dly. That if this was a Tradition at any time made known to them, it is a demonstration, that Tradition is no sure preserver of things most needful to be known; it being certain, that before our Saviour's time they had quite lost this Notion, for they believed not that their Messiah, the Son of David, was to die, much less that he should shed his Blood as a propitiatory Sacrifice for their Sins, they had learned out of the Law interpreted by the Scribes, 
Joh. 12.34. Mark 9.32. Luk. 9.45.18.34.  That Christ abided for ever, and therefore wondered to hear our Saviour speak of his being lifted up; and when his own Disciples heard him speak of his being delivered up to Death, they understood not that Saying.  
3. §. 8 Mr. M. farther adds, That the Scriptures written by Moses were given only to the Church of Israel, Obj. 3d. 
P. 337.  all other Nations, as they had then several true Believers among them, when Abraham was separated from them, so there is not the least mention of their Total decay of Belief after that separation. All they then still believed upon Tradition, and so true Faith might be preserved among many who never heard of Scripture till Christ's time. 
P. 338.  That Job and his Friends lived not among the Progeny of Abraham, and yet Job was most eminent in Virtue, and true Faith, and his Friends believed in one God, held the Resurrection of the Flesh, and that God should judge all Men according to their Works, and divers other Points, relying still only upon Tradition.  
Whereas Mr. M. declares: 
Repl. 1.  That there is not the least mention of the Total decay of the belief of other Nations, when they were separated from Abraham; and when the Scriptures were given by Moses to the Jews, it it already proved, that Abraham at his Separation left his Kindred under Idolatry. And as for all the Nations round about the Jews, and even under the whole Heavens; Moses informs us, 
Deut. 4.19. Ps. 135.15. Ps. 96.5.  That they worshipped the Host of Heaven: The Psalmist, That their God's were Silver and Gold, the works of men's hands. That all the Gods of the Nations were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Daemons, or wicked Spirits. In the New Testament we are taught, That God suffered all Nations, in time past, 
Acts 14.16. 1 Cor. 1.21. Rom. 1.21. Gal. 4.8.  to walk after their own ways; That they knew not God, nor did they glorify him as God, That they became vain in their Imaginations, and their foolish Hearts were darkened, That they served them who by nature were no Gods; yea even in the time of Moses, the Gods of the People round about the Jews, whether nigh unto them, 
Deut. 13.17.  or far from them, from the one end of the Earth unto the other end thereof, were other Gods; and yet 'tis certain, That their Ancestors must have, some time or other, received from their Forefathers the Worship of the true and only God; which therefore is a Demonstration of the uncertainty of Doctrines received only by Tradition, and that Men are exceeding apt to corrupt what they do thus receive: Moreover the Scripture, in plain Opposition to Mr. M. declares, That God made known his Godhead, and eternal Power, to the Heathens, 
Rom. 1.19, 20.  not by Tradition, but by the visible things of the Creation, that he left not himself without a Witness; not by giving them Traditions, 
Acts 14.17.  but in affording to them fruitful Seasons; That they had a Law, not of Traditions, written in their Memories, but of Nature, 
Rom. 2.14, 15, 16.  written in their Hearts, by which they did pass Sentence of Approbation or Condemnation of their Actions, and by which they were to be judged at the last Day. That as for their Traditions, 
Coloss. 2.8.  they were vain Deceits, and the Traditions of Men, 
1 Pet. 1.18.  Traditions received from their Fathers, which rendered their Conversation vain; so far were these inspired Persons from believing that true Faith was preserved among the Heathen by Tradition.  
Secondly, That Job and his Friends believed in one God, etc. §. 9 not by Tradition, but by the Light of Nature, 
Chrysost. Caten. in Job. p. 2.  the Fathers do inform us, saying that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he by Nature did the things required by the Law, using his untaught Knowledge. And that the Notions by which he was directed were, 
Ibid. p. 391.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, congenial to his Nature, and such as God had planted in his Mind. And whereas Mr. M. aslerts, That he believed the Resurrection of the Flesh, of which he could not be informed by the Light of Nature: I answer, This cannot be proved from those Words of Job, For I know that my Redeemer liveth, 
Job 19.25, 26.  etc. seeing the Import of them may be only this; I know that my Redeemer, who always liveth, can hereafter deliver me out of this miserable Condition, and though the Worms which have eaten my Skin, should proceed to consume my Flesh, yet I feel my Soul inspired with a comfortable Belief, that before I die, I shall see myself restored by the Mercy of God to an happy Estate; and in this Uncertainty the Ancients leave this Passage, saying, That he may be conceived here to assert that God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cat. p. 341.  will raise him out of the Earth by a Resurrection; or that delivering him from his Disease, he will again renew his Skin corrupted with it, and that this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deliverance from his Troubles, might be called a Resurrection.  
Thirdly, §. 10 When Christianity was first preached to the Heathen World, and Christians called upon the Heathens to turn from their dumb Idols to the living God, and from their vain Customs received by Tradition from their Fathers, to the pure and spiritual Worship of the Deity; the Heathens pleaded for their Superstitions and Idolatries by the very same Arguments which Mr. M. and others of his Party, use for the Defence of their own Superstitions, against the Protestant Religion; saying, That it was the Religion delivered to them from their Fathers, their Divines and Guides, on whose Discretion and Judgement it became them to depend: That it became them to receive, as true, what was thus handed down unto them from their Ancestors, and that Men ought not to be permitted to examine it by their own private Reason, but to believe it upon so long and General Tradition, though they saw no Reason for it: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 57  Clemens Alexandrinus, tells us their Plea was this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not reasonable that we should change the Customs delivered to us from our Fathers. Tertullian saith, 
Apol. c. 6.  That this was their Apology for their Worship, That they did, Fidelissime tueri a patribus traditum, most faithfully adhere to the Tradition of their Fathers. 
Praepar. Evang. l. 1. c 10. p. 40.  Eusebius saith, That the Heathen Worship still obtained, upon the Score of keeping, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Depositum committed to them, and handed down by their Forefathers through many Ages, and that they looked upon it as Irreligious, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. 1. c. 2. p. 5.  to relinquish the Customs delivered to them from their Fathers, and to desert those Gods which were received, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Beginning, both by the Greeks and the Barbarians. This, saith he, was with them a fixed Rule, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That every Man ought to worship according to the Custom of their Country, to walk by, and follow the Piety of his Forefathers, and to adhere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Customs and Determinations which had obtained of old. Thus in Pseudo-Clemens, 
Recogn. l. 5. c. 30.  they conclude it Impious to prevaricate in the Religion delivered to them from their Ancestors, and not to worship those Gods, Quae nobis tradita sunt a Majoribus nostris, which were delivered to us by the Tradition of our Ancestors. If you ask them a Reason of their Persuasion, saith Lactantius, they can give you none, 
L. 5. c. 19 p. 517.  Sed ad Majorum judicium confugiunt, but they fly to the judgement of their Ancestors, saying they were wise Men, they knew what was best. They persevere, saith he, pertinaciously to descend their Religions, as being, a Majoribus traditae, delivered by their Ancestors, not considering the Quality of them, Sed ex hoc probatas, & veras esse confidunt, quod eas Veteres tradiderunt, tantaque est Authoritas vetustatis, ut in eam inquirere scoelus esse dicatur, but being confident that they were true, and to be approved, because their Ancestors delivered them; and so great with them, is the Authority of Antiquity, that they esteem it a Wickedness to inquire into it; embracing that as a known Truth, which they had thus received. We must believe, saith Plato, 
Apud Theodoret. Serm. 1. p. 474. De Nat. Deor. l. 3. ab initio p. 243.  those that were before us, and were, as they affirmed, the Progeny of the Gods, though they give no necessary Demonstration of what they say; nor shall any Man's Reason, be he never so learned, saith Cicero, move me from that Opinion of the Worship of the immortal Gods, Quam a Majoribus accepi, which I received from my Ancestors. See here Popery, in the Foundation of it, borrowed from Heathanism; see how exactly they comply in the same Plea.  
Moreover the Answer which the Christians then returned unto this Plea of Pagans from Tradition, §. 11 is a sufficient Justification of the Protestants against the same Pretences in the Mouths of Roman Catholics, and a full Evidence, that they were not Assertors of the Roman Doctrine in this Matter. For,  
First, They represent it as the great Folly of the Heathen World, that they followed Custom against Reason, objecting it to their Reproach, that they did what they saw done, not what their Reason told them should be done: That among them, 
Arnob. l. 7. p. 236. L. 2. c. 6. p. 172.  Plus valet nullam habens consuetudo rationem, Custom without Reason prevailed more, than the weight of Things examined by the Nature of Truth. What will you do, saith Lactantius to them, Majoresne potius quam Rationem sequaris? Would you follow your Ancestors rather than Reason? esteeming this the greatest of Absurdities. He farther adds, That they who were led, like Beasts, by others, Et qui sine ullo judicio inventa Majorum probant, sapientiam sibi adimunt, and who did without Judgement approve of the Inventions of their Ancestors; 
P. 173.  deprived themselves of Wisdom. Now if it be so great a Folly and Absurdity, and such a brutish renouncing of all Wisdom, to comply with Custom against Reason; and without exercising of our Judgements; must it not much more be so to comply with it against Scripture, Reason, and the whole Stream of Primitive Antiquity, as we must do, if we do yield a blind Submission to the Doctrines of the Roman Church?  
Secondly, They prove their Ancestors were not to be followed without the use of Reason and Discretion, because they were so prone to receive Fables, and even Monsters of Opinions: 
P. 21.  We are not to be drawn into Error by consenting to our Ancestors, saith Octavius, Majoribus enim nostris tam facilis in mendaciis fides fuerit, ut temere crediderint etiam alia monstrosa mira miracula, for our Ancestors were so easily imposed upon by Lies, that they believed rashly many other monstrous Wonders. 
L. 1. p. 34.  You plead Antiquity, saith Arnobius, as an Argument of Truth, Quasi vero errorum Antiquitas plenissima Mater non fuerit, as if Antiquity were not the pregnant Mother of Errors, and as if she had not brought forth all those Things, which in their ignominious Fables impute such filthy Characters to their Gods. 
De Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 6.  St. Austin also saith, That, Antiquitas recepit fabulas fictas nonnunquam incondite, Antiquity received Fables feigned, sometimes incongruously: And is it not evident from the Confessions of the Romish Doctors, and Historians, that in the dark and ignorant Ages of the Church from the Tenth to the Fifteenth Century, their Church abounded with idle Monks who made it their whole Business to fill Church History with lying Legends and Tales, as Foolish and Ridiculous as those of Heathens. 
Locor. Theolog l 11. c. 6. p. 652.  For Melchior Canus doth ingenuously confess, Res Gestas Sanctorum falsis & commentitiis fabulis contaminari, That the Histories of the Saints were defiled with false and counterfeit Fables. That most of their Writers have feigned so many things, either in compliance with their Affections, or on set purpose; That he was not only ashamed, 
P. 650.  but even weary of them, their whole Narration being invented either for gain, or Error. 
Ibid. p. 658.  And speaking of their Golden Legend, he saith, 
Praefat. ante Homil. de fest. Sanctorum.  In illo miraculorum monstra saepius quam vera miracula legas. Royardus adds, That such Writers weakened the truth itself, Insertis passim fabulis ac meris nugamentis, by the Fables and mere Fooleries they frequently inserted. Cornelius Agrippa saith, 
De vanit. scient. cap. 97.  That lying piously they counterfeited Relics, framed Miracles, Confinguntque vel plausibiles, vel terribiles Fabulas, and feigned plausible, or terrible Tales. 
In lib. Confess. August.  Erasmus saith, They studied to commend them whom they favoured, Fabulis vanis; & miraculis fictis, with vain Fables, and feigned Miracles. 
Cap. de Reliquiis, l. 1. c. 11. p. 156. Lib. 5. p. 565.  The like complaints you may read in Cassander's Consultation, in Espencaeus' Commentary upon Timothy, and in Lyranus on the Fourteenth Chapter of Daniel. Aventinus informs us, That in the days of Hildebrand many false Prophets, Fabulis, & Miraculis à veritate plebem Christi avertunt, did turn away the People from the Truth by Fables and Miracles. Then, saith he, arose false Prophets, false Apostles, false Priests, 
P. 591.  Qui simulata Religione populum deceperunt, magna signa, & prodigia ediderunt, who deceived the People with feigned Religion, and wrought great Signs and Wonders. The Clergy of Liege add, That then were those Stories feigned concerning Sylvester and Constantine no less ignorantly than impudently and falsely, and many others, which, say they, Christian Modesty will not permit us to tell, then crept in the traffic of Holy Things, 
Concil. To. 2. Edit. Colon. apud Quiritel. p. 809.  and the Holy Philosophy, by the subtle interpretation of Sycophants, began to be corrupted, polluted, and violated with humane Inventions, and old Wives Fables. John Gerson speaks thus, Inquire if there be not Apocryphal Scriptures, 
De Defect. Viror. Eccles. Consid. 16. etc.  Hymns, and Prayers brought into the Church in process of time either of purpose, or of ignorance, to the great hurt of the Christian Faith. He also saith, There is very much Superstition in the Worshipping of Saints, innumerable Observations without all Ground or Reason, vain credulity in believing things concerning the Saints reported in the uncertain Legends of their Lives.  
Thirdly, The Fathers tell them, That this was the rise of all their Errors, 
Minuc. p. 26.  Quod inconsulte gestiant parentibus obedire, That they would without consulting follow their Forefathers; Et fieri maluerunt alieni erroris accessio quam sibi credere, and that they chose rather to follow the Errors of other Men, than believe themselves. 
Clem. Alex. Adm. p. 57  That they had never fallen into such impiety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if being carried away with Custom, they had not shut their Eyes against Reason. And it is also our persuasion that this adhering to the Customs of the present R. Church, and to the Customs which crept in, or advanced into Articles of her Faith, in the dark Ages of the Western Church, gave the Rise to her Errors. We therefore do exhort them in the Words of Justin Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cohort. ad Graec. p. 15.  Not without trial to assent to the Errors of their Forefathers, nor presently to think that true, which they mistaking, delivered to them for Tradition.  
Fourthly, They retorted the Objection, saying, That if it were a Fault, 
Arnob. p. 91.  A veteribus institutis in alias res novas migrare, to quit their ancient Institutions for things new, it was as well their fault as ours. That whereas they objected to the Christians, Divortium ab institutis majorum, 
Tert. ad Nation. cap. 10.  their departure from the Institutions of their Ancestors, they communicated with them in the same Crime. For, Exclusa a vobis Antiquitas, you, though you plead Antiquity, against us, have yourselves cast it off. Totam Authoritatem majorum vestra Authoritas dejecit, Your own Authority hath destroyed, or overthrown the whole Authority of the Ancients; and we see (even whilst you urge it against us) Per omnia corruptam, imo deletam in vobis Antiquitatem, Antiquity wholly corrupted, and even extinguished amongst you, which is the constant Plea of Protestants, that they desert the Roman Church only as far as she hath palpably deserted the pure and Ancient Church of Christ, they separate from her only in those things in which she hath most plainly separated from the Faith, and Discipline of ancient Rome, and the whole Church of Christ; and this hath been so demonstratively proved in the Article of the true Canon of Scripture by Bishop Cousins, of the Pope's Supremacy by Doctor Barrow, in the Articles of Service in Latin, Veneration of Images, Communion in one Kind, the Seven Sacraments, in Three late Treatises designed to prove the Fallibility of Romish Councils by their actually false Decrees; that none of the Disputers of the Church of Rome have dared yet to meddle with them, and thereby give us good Assurance, who know they want not will to do it, that they cannot Answer them. The like hath excellently been performed in all the other controverted Articles, if not to the Conviction, yet to the Silencing of our Adversaries.  
Fifthly, They constantly tell the Heathens, That there was a time when their Religion was New, and when their Gods began to be so; that this being so, 
Arnob. l. 2. p. 92, 93.  Cum de novitate loquimini Religionum nostrarum, vestrae vobis in mentem non veniunt, when they spoke of the Novelty of the Christian Faith, they forgot the Novelty of their own Religion; our Religion, say you, 
P. 94.  was not Four hundred Years ago; and your Gods, say we, were not Two thousand Years ago: Now is it not shameful and impudent in you, Quod agere te videas, in eo alterum reprehendere, to reprehend another for what you do yourselves, and to object that as a Crime to others, which may be retorted on yourselves? Since than we as constantly affirm, and have as fully proved, That there was a time when the Religion of the Church of Rome was new in the contested Articles; That Christianity had gone through several Centuries before any of them were received as Articles of Christian Faith; That many of them have been introduced since the Ninth Century; may we not also add, that therefore Romanists forget their own Religion, when they Charge ours with Novelty, and reprehend that in us which they themselves are truly guilty of?  
Sixthly, §. 12 In defence of their Proceed against this Objection they declare, That it was the property of Wise Men, 
Theodo. Serm. 1. contr. Graec p. 477.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be enslaved to their former Opinions, nor to be bound to follow the Customs of their Fathers, but to seek the Truth wheresoever they could find it. That every Man ought, in those things especially which concern the manner of his living, to trust to his own judgement, and rather to depend on his own Senses in seeking out the truth, than, as if he himself were bereft of Reason, 
Lact. l. 2. c. 7. P. 273.  Credentem alienis erroribus decipi, to be deceived by giving credit to the Errors of others, God having given reason to him sufficient to find out the Truth. 
Athan. contr. Gent. p. 32, 33.  And speaking of the way of Truth, they tell them, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there needs no-nothing but ourselves to come to an exact knowledge and comprehension of it. If you ask them by what internal Principle we may arrive at this knowledge, they Answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it is every Man's Soul, and the faculty of Reason in it. If you inquire by what external Directions this Mind must be assisted, 
Ibid. p. 1.  they reply, They must, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, find the Truth from the Divine Oracles, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are of themselves sufficient for the Declaration of the Truth, and that even an Heathen Macarius might learn it there. Now this is plainly sending us to our private Reason, and Apprehension of the Sense of Scriptures to find out the Truth, and to assure us, That it is an act of Wisdom in us, not to be enslaved to our former Opinions, nor bound up by the Customs of our Forefathers, from searching after Truth wheresoever we can find it.  
Seventhly, They add, That the Heathens ought not to prejudge and run them down with this Prescription, or by objecting to them their revolt, A Religione majorum, from the Religion of their Ancestors, but fairly aught to come unto the merits of the Cause: 
Lib. 2. p. 90.  Causam convenit ut inspiciatis, non factum, nec quid reliquimus opponere, sed secuti quid simus potissimum contueri, You are not, saith Arnobius, to condemn us for the Fact, without enquiring whether we had not a just Cause for doing it, nor object to us what we have left, without considering what we have embraced in lieu of it; for what hinders, why as others who invented Falsehoods delivered them to Posterity; Sic nos qui verum invenimus posteris meliora tradamus, so we who have found the Truth may deliver better things to Posterity? Which Passages are a full Answer to all the French Rhetoric touching the Prejugez legitimes comre les Calvinistes.  
Eighthly, In particular against this manner of prejudging, §. 13 which is now become almost the only Refuge of the Romanists; they say,  
1st. That they ought not to be run down with multitude, that Religion could not be proved true because it had many Followers, or false, because it had but few Assertors; 
Arnob. l. 3. ab initio.  and that even the Christian Religion could neither be proved nor disproved upon this account, and that this vain pretence of Heathens had already been answered by the Christians, mille modis, a thousand ways, and refuted by most cogent Reasons: And indeed among the Relics of Antiquity ascribed by some to Athanasius, by others to Theodoret, to Maximus, to Etherius, we have one brief, but full Discourse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against them who judge of Truth only by multitude. 
Athanas. Tom. 2. p. 293. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;  Where the Author first tells us, that he is to combat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against a false Assertion; that the Authors of it are Objects of Pity or Commiseration; that they fled to this miserable Refuge only for want of Reason on their side, and even confessed their being vanquished; that multitude was proper to fright a Man, but by no means to persuade him; that in the concernments of this World we do not much regard it; and much less should we be moved by it in heavenly Matters, to recede from the Testimonies of the Scriptures, and the agreeing Sentiments of the Ancients; that our Lord had told us, That many are called, but few chosen; That straight was the Gate which leadeth unto Life, and few there be that find it; And that every wise Man would rather be of the number of those few, 
P. 291.  than of that number which goes in the broad way: For had any Man lived in the days of Stephen, would he not rather have been of his side alone, than of the side of the multitude which risen up against him. Had not Phineas boldly opposed himself to the prevailing multitude, the Plague had not ceased, nor had the rest been saved; Was it not better to fly with Noah to the Ark, than with the multitude to perish in the deluge? to go alone with Lot from Sodom, than with the multitude to perish there? We indeed venerate the multitude, but than it is a multitude, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which flies not examination, but which affordeth demonstration.  
2dly. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Apud. Athanas. To. 2. p. 325.  They add, That they ought not to be called upon to yield a blind assent to the Dictates of other Men, without using their own Judgements to consider and inquire, What is possible, what is suitable, or unsuitable, what acceptable to God, what is congruous to Nature, what consonant to Truth, what accords with the Mystery, what is agreeable to piety. They have accordingly left us a Discourse in opposition to those Men who required them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, simply to believe their Dictates, without considering what was fit or unfit to be embraced, informing us, That this was of many, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pag. 326.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, horrible Doctrines, the worst, which Satan had invented to lead Men into dangerous Deceits: That it was the Doctrine of Men who imperiously commanded all Men to follow their Dictates, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to believe without Reason, and called that Faith which was an assent without trial to things unstable and undemonstrated; That it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rise of Error, and of all Evils, the Doctrine of all Heretics, who declined the Examination, that they might avoid the consutation of their Doctrines; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That according to it no Man could find the way of Truth, or avoid the precipice of Error; That according to it we being asked to yield assent to the unproved Doctrines of Heretics and Heathens; should consent to do so: 
P. 327.  Whereas if we examine what we are required to believe, we shall have full assurance of the Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither believing without reason, nor speaking without Faith.  
Ninthly, They say that it must be acknowledged that they had rationally cast off the Customs and Traditions of their Forefathers, because they could discover wherein they had generally erred: 
Praepar. Evang. l. 4. c. 4.  For thus Eusebius speaks, If we can show that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all the Heathens and Barbarians which were before our Saviour's time, did not know the true God, but either worshipped those which were no Gods, or evil Spirits, it must be then confessed that we acted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a true and righteous Judgement when we became, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Revolters from the Superstition of our Forefathers; If therefore we not only can, but actually have showed in the forementioned particulars, that the Church of Rome hath generally erred; then must it also be acknowledged, that our Separation from her was the result of Truth and Righteousness.  
Tenthly, They lastly say, 
Arnob. l. 2. P. 95.  That their Religion must be Ancient because it consisted in the Worship of the Supreme God, Quo non est antiquius quicquam, than whom nothing is more Ancient: And in like manner we declare our positive Religion must be Ancient, because it consists of the Articles delivered in the Scriptures of the New Testament, and in the Symbol of the Apostles, and taught by the Four first Centuries; we therefore in like manner do conclude with them, as to all the positive Articles of our Religion, Non ergo quod sequimur novum est, sed nos sero addicimus quidnam sequi oporteat, That what we follow is not New, though 'twas but lately that we learned that it was that, and that alone we ought to follow.  
Now by impartial consideration of these particulars, I leave any Man of Reason to judge whose Religion is most suitable in the general Grounds of it, to the Sentiments of Antiquity, whether we Protestants plead any thing against those of Rome, which the ancient Christians did not also plead against the Heathens, and whether the most plausible Objections of the Romanists against us be not fully answered by what these Fathers say in the defence of common Christianity against the Heretics and Heathens.  
4thly. Mr. M. adds, Object. 4 That all those who had been instructed by the Apostles before Scripture was written, 
P. 322, 340.  converted and instructed Thousands who never had heard any Apostle preach, and all these believed on the Authority of the then present Church: 
P. 415.  That from the preaching of Christ unto the finishing of the Canon, and the divulging of the same in such Languages as all Nations understood, very many Years passed, and all the true Believers in Christ's Church were governed by Tradition only.  
R. H. doth also tell us, That God, besides, 
Guide of Controv. Disc. 2. ch. 5. §. 44.  and before the New Testament Scriptures, left these Doctrines sufficiently revealed to the then appointed Ecclesiastical Guides, from whom both the present People, and the future Successors of those Guides both were, and might rationally know they were to learn them, and so, had there been no Scriptures, might to this Day, by mere Tradition have learned them sufficiently for their Salvation.  
First, Reply 1 To this I answer, That Mr. M. is much out when he talks of Seventy or Eighty Years before those Scriptures were written, which were to be the future Rule of Christians; for the Gospel of St. Matthew was writ, saith the Tradition of the Fathers, 
Theoph. proem. in Matth. Athan. Synops. p. 155.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eight Years after our Lord's Ascension. Mark writ his Gospel whilst St. Peter lived, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ten Years after our Lord's Assumption, saith Theophylact. St. Luke writ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fifteen Years after our Lord's Ascension, 
Proem. in Luc.  say Dorotheus and Theophylact. St. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thirty two Years after our Lord's Ascension, saith the same Theophylact. 
Chap. 7. §. 2.  Now these Gospels, as I before have proved, were by the General Tradition of the whole Church of Christ, esteemed sufficiently to contain that Christian Doctrine which the Apostles taught, and purposely to have been written to preserve it entire to Posterity.  
Secondly, This Argument is wholly overthrown by this one Observation, That the Apostles in their Preaching declare, that they spoke only what was written in the Books of the Old Testament, or might be clearly gathered thence: When they undertook to prove any Article of Christian Faith, they proved it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament: When they reasoned with others, to bring them to the Faith, they did it from the same Scriptures, 
Acts 26.22. 1 Cor. 15.2, 3, 4.  saying none other Things than those which the Prophets, and Moses did say should come: When they would have their Proselytes confirmed in the Christian Faith, 
2 Pet. 1.19.  they send them to this more sure Word of Prophecy, encouraging them to take heed to it, as to a Light that shineth in a dark Place: And declaring that those very Scriptures, which Timothy had known from a Child, 
2 Tim. 3.15.  that is, before one Book of the New Testament was written, were able, through Faith in Christ, or the Belief that Jesus is the Messiah promised in them, to make him Wise unto Salvation: 
16, 17.  That they were profitable for Doctrine and Instruction in Righteousness, for Reproof, for Correction, that the Man of God may be perfect (both as to his own Practice, 
Obadiah paraph. in locum.  and his teaching others) throughly furnished to every good Work.  
If then, before the Scriptures of the New Testament were written, these inspired Persons taught their Converts out of the Old Testament, and sent them thither to learn the Truth of what they said; and bade them have Recourse unto those Writings, as being able to make them Wise unto Salvation, and as being more certain, and more to be heeded, than that Voice from Heaven, of which they themselves testified: Doubtless, when they themselves, by the same Spirit, had indicted the New Testament, they must be more concerned that they should be guided by that written Word; then also it is evident, that they did not invite Men to believe merely on the Authority, or Oral Tradition, of the then present Church, nor practised any thing whence it might be concluded, that after Ages, by mere Tradition might be sufficiently instructed in the things which concerned their eternal Welfare. Nay they sufficiently declared the contrary, by choosing to adhere themselves, and call on others to adhere to what was taught concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament, when Tradition was so fresh, their Authority so fully was confirmed by Miracles, and they to whom they spoke had the inspired Apostles in any matter of Dispute or Controversy to repair unto.  
Thirdly, St. Luke informs us, §. 15 that he received his Gospel by Tradition, 
Luke 1.2, 4.  and that he had committed it to Writing that his Theophilus might know, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Certainty of those Doctrines, in which he had been formerly instructed; clearly insinuating, that he conceived the written Word a means of adding certainty to what was only taught by Word of Mouth. Accordingly Eusebius informs us, that he was necessitated to write his Gospel, that he might give us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24.  a firm Account of those things which he had learned from his Conversation with St. Paul, and with the rest of the Apostles. Church History saith of St. Matthew, 
Euseb. ibid.  That he was constrained to write his Gospel, that by so doing he might supply, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the want of his own Presence with them; and that when he was by Persecution separated from them, 
Opus imperf. in Matth. praefat.  his Converts might not want the Doctrine of Faith, but wheresoever they were, might retain, Totius fidei statum, the entire form of Faith. The sand. Tradition doth inform us, 
See Chap. 7. §. 1, 2.  That the First Christian Converts, when they had heard the Apostles preach the Christian Faith, would not be satisfied with receiving it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Oral Teaching, but earnestly requested to have it left in Writing with them. That the believing Jews, Petierunt Matthaeum ut omnium verborum & operum Christi conscriberet eis historiam, To write the History of all Christ's Words and Works, that they might have a complete System of their Faith. That the Romans earnestly desired Mark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to leave in Writing a Memorial of the Doctrine delivered to them by word of Mouth, and never would desist till they had obtained it; and that it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the light of Piety, which would not suffer them to rest satisfied with the Oral Tradition of the Faith; that by the same persuasion, 
Hieron. Prologue. in Matth. Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of his familiar Acquaintance, of all the Bishops of Asia, and the Ambassies of many Churches. St. John, who before had spent all his time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Oral Preaching, was at last moved to write his Gospel. The same Tradition adds, That the Apostles having preached the Gospel, committed it to Writing to be the Pillar and the Ground of Faith to future Ages, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Anchors and Foundations of our Faith, 
Athan. Synops. p. 61. Theophylact. proem. in Mat.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That from these Scriptures being taught the truth, we might not be drawn aside by the Falsehoods of Heresies. And lastly, That if they had not left in Writing what they preached, 
Orig. Dial. contr. Martion. p. 59  they had preached Salvation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only to them who heard them Preach, and should have had no care of Posterity, because, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things only orally delivered would quickly vanish, there being no demonstration of their Truth. Which words, as they expressly do confute the certainty of Doctrines only delivered to Posterity by word of Mouth; so the forementioned Traditions do sufficiently inform us, what was the Judgement of the ancient Church in this Affair, viz. That to ascertain those Christians who were taught the principles of their Religion, it was necessary that should be written which they had been taught; that they could not well otherwise supply their absence, or leave to their Disciples an entire System of the Christian Faith, than by committing it to Writing; that Piety should not permit even the Romans to rest satisfied without such written Monuments of what they had been taught, or to conceive it was sufficient that they had received it by Tradition, and that the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost instructed the Apostles to commit to writing that which they had Preached by Word of Mouth, that so it might become to future Ages the Pillar and the Ground of Truth, and a sufficient Antidote against the Heresies which afterwards prevailed in the Church. 
Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 37.  And that the zeal of the first Successors of Christian Faith employed itself as much in leaving to their Converts throughout all the World, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Writings of the Holy Gospels, as in preaching Christ unto them.  
In Answer to Mr. M's. Fourth Reason for the Infallibility of Tradition, I grant, 
P. 354.  That a Tradition made as credible to any Man, as it may be made credible to one who never saw London, that there is such a City as London, and that it is the head Town of England, will be a good and a sufficient Proof, that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are true, and that upon such Evidence afforded, it will be most unreasonable to question the Truth of them; but then I think it is the vainest thing imaginable for any person to attempt to prove them from a like Tradition.  
For doth Mr. M. know of any Man whoever doubted that there was such a City as London, or that it was the head Town of England? Did he ever read or hear of any large Discourses, any Testimonies brought from ancient Records, or Traditions, from Divine Revelation, or from Reason, to prove there was or could be no such Capital City in England? Can he produce as many Eye and Ear Witnesses that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are truly Apostolical, as may be easily produced for such a City? Let Mr. M. once prove that the Traditions of the Romish Church were always generally received by all Mankind, and that none ever had the Confidence to Question the Truth of any of them: Let him prove them from Myriad of Eye Witnesses, who saw them writ by the Apostles, or Primitive Professors of Christianity, as plainly as ever any Man saw London; or as many Ear Witnesses hearing the Apostles preaching these Traditions, as ever heard this Capital City mentioned by those who saw it: Let him prove them by as many persons who writ to the Apostles concerning these Traditions, as have writ to London, and by as many who resorted to the Apostles to learn these Traditions, as have resorted to this City; by as many Books describing these Traditions in the very Age in which they are supposed to have been delivered, as there are Books which in this Age make mention of the City of London, and by as many Canons of the Primitive Church relating to these Traditions, as there are Statutes and Discourses relating to the City, Trade, and Government of London. And I will then acknowledge, That it is impudent, impious and blasphemous Impiety to doubt the Truth of these Traditions.  
Mr. M. indeed supposeth, That it is as evidently credible that God hath revealed such and such Verities, as it is credible by humane Tradition, that there is such a City as London; but this he never undertakes to prove, as knowing that it was an easier matter to suppose it: 
P. 355, 356.  And then he adds, That the very self same Tradition tells me that the same God who revealed by his Apostles so many other Verities to his Church, did also reveal by the same Apostles, to the same Church; that this Church was to be heard as the Mistress of Truth, with whom he would ever be present, suggesting to her all Truth, and never permitting the Gates of Hell to prevail against her, that he placed her as a Pillar and Ground of Truth, giving her such Pastors as should secure her Children from being tossed to and fro with every Wind of Doctrine, and consequently this same Tradition tells me, God hath revealed this Verity of her being Infallible, in proposing any Point for Divine Faith.  
Now, Reply. First, Mr. M. is miserably out in this Discourse, for not one of these Revelations here mentioned, whatsoever is the import of them, have descended to us by Oral Tradition, but are all of them contained in Scripture as far as they are truly cited.  
Secondly, Whereas the Evidence that there is such a City as London, is so great, that never any Body could deny, or question it; that the Church is Infallible in propounding any Point of Faith, not clearly revealed in the Holy Scripture, or that there are indeed any such Points of Faith, is at present, and hath been formerly denied by many Myriads of learned and pious Men, whose worldly Interest it is, and was to believe that true which they deny to be so, and whose rejoicement it would be to find it true, and that none of the places here produced prove this Infallibility, or by the Primitive Professors of Christianity were esteemed to prove it, they have unanimously held, and do at present hold.  
Thirdly, 
Ibid.  Whereas he saith, He did see with his Eyes that she (viz. the Church of God) did propose her Traditions for Verities received from God. Let it be noted, That Mr. M. confounds the Church of Rome and the Church of God, excluding all the Protestants, the Greek Church, and the Eastern Christians, not subject to the Pope, from that Church, out of which there is no Salvation, (which, I hope, is not so evident, as that there is such a City as London,) for it is not the whole Church, but that of Rome, which claims this Infallibility, and on that account proposeth her Traditions for Verities received from God. Now then let us return to our Capital City of London, and we shall find the whole Nation, though of different Parties, Interests, and Judgements, agreeing that there is in England such a Capital City as London, but yet we find half the whole Christian World utterly denying many Traditions of the Church of Rome, to be Verities received from God, and in particular that of the Pope's Supremacy, without which the Church of Rome neither doth nor can pretend to be the whole Church Catholic. Now this denial of her pretended Traditions by so many Churches, professing a like Veneration for those Traditions which are truly Primitive, must prove as strongly, that the Traditions of the Church of Rome are falsely so called, as her Assertion can be supposed to prove them Divine Verities.  
Again, whereas there are not universally received Records which give us the least cause to doubt whether there be such a City as London, etc. the Records of the Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers of the Church, cause many Myriad to believe the Doctrines and Practices peculiar to the Roman Church, are so far from being Apostolical Traditions, that they are plainly opposite to the Doctrines, Practices, and Traditions formerly received, and approved in the Church of Christ; and this they do believe so firmly, that they rather choose to suffer loss of Life, and all the Comforts of it, than own these Doctrines of the Church of Rome, as Apostolical Traditions.  
Moreover, whereas it is no Man's Interest to make the World believe there was such a City as London, if there was no such place in being, it is the Interest of the whole Church of Rome to set up this pretence to Infallibility in the General, that finding it disclaimed by other Churches, she with some Colour may pretend unto it; and 'tis the Interest of the Roman Clergy, as much to stickle for the Truth of her pretended Traditions, as it was the Interest of Demetrius, and his Fellow Artists, to avouch to the Ephesians, They might be truly Gods which were made by Hands; and that the Image of Diana truly fell down from Jupiter, since otherwise their Craft would be set at nought. And as it was the Interest of the Master of the Pythonisse to be angry with St. Paul for casting out the Evil Spirit from her, because thereby his Hopes of Gain was gone; For if Men will not receive their Traditions as the Truths of God, they cannot Lord it over their Consciences, nor drain their Purses, nor give Laws at pleasure to the Christian World, but must be put to the hard task of proving what they would have us take upon their Words.  
And, Fourthly, Whereas he that doubteth whether there be such a City as London, may repair unto it to be convinced by ocular demonstration, whither shall he repair who doubteth of the Truth of the Traditions of the Church of Rome for Satisfaction in that Matter? Will you send him to Scripture? You have already told him he cannot know what is Scripture, what Copies, and what Texts are uncorrupted, what Translation of it is Authentic, but by the Church; and also, that when he knows all this, he cannot understand the meaning of the Scriptures in places disputable, and variously sensed, as you know those are by which you prove both the Church's Infallibility, and the Pretences of the Roman Church to be Infallible.  
Will you send him with Mr. 
P. 360.  M. To the unanimous Consent and Tradition of our Church; that is, the Church of Rome, what is this, but to bid him believe that Self-evident which he thinks evidently false, to believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible in her Traditions, and then he will not doubt of her Infallibility, or to turn Roman Catholic, and then he will no longer be a Protestant? Will you add with him, That what is proposed by the Tradition of such a Church is evidently credible, 
Ibid.  and sufficient to beget an infallible assent? Is it not then matter of Amazement, that so many Millions of Persons throughout the World endowed with intellectuals as piercing, and accomplished with all Abilities which their Adversaries can boast of, yea who many of them have strong temporal motives to incline them to embrace the Romish Traditions, and all the miseries which Papal Tyranny can inflict to awaken them into a serious consideration of all the Evidence that can be offered for them, and who are Men seriously industrious to attain Salvation, and Men who know they must perish everlastingly if they resist the Truth clearly propounded to them: I say, is it not matter of Amazement that so many persons, so qualified, should, from Generation to Generation, so unanimously reject what is evidently credible, and able to beget within them an infallible assent; yea, that they should dispute, and write many Books against it, though they could never do so, but they must contradict what is self-Evident? What is this, but in effect to say, All Protestants always were, are, and must be, whilst they continue Protestants, resolved to be damned, and as obstinate as the very Devil in doing what they know must tend to their eternal Condemnation? Will you send him to the Universal Church; either by it you mean only the R. Church, and her Adherents, or you do not; if you do, you again send him to the Church of Rome; if you do not, you must renounce that Article of Faith, which all your Clergy stand by Oath obliged to defend, viz. the Roman Catholic Church, and with it your Pretences to Infallibility on the account of any of these Promises, which do confessedly belong only unto the Universal Church of Christ.   

CHAP. XII.  
Mr. M ' s. Fifth Assertion, That all Catholics ever held that for true which was owned by the Universal Church of their times, and rejected the contrary as an Error, answered by way of Concession, §. 1. First, That this is absolutely true in reference to Doctrines and Practices, truly necessary to the Being of a Church. But, Secondly, That this is with Lirinensis to be restrained to the Fundamentals of Faith, is proved, 1st. from Scripture, 2dly. from Reason, §. 2. Thirdly, From Instances; as, First, That of the Administration of the Sacrament to Infants, which they generally practised both in the Eastern and the Western Churches, §. 3. They declared this Practice to be necessary, §. 4. That they speak not this of such a participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, as may be had in Baptism, but plainly of the Puriticipation of the Eucharist, §. 5. Inferences hence, 1. To prove the Definition of the Trent Council, touching this Matter actually False. 2ly. That the Practice or Doctrine of the Church in any Age, is no true Evidence of Tradition, or the right Interpretation of Holy Scripture. 3ly. That Mr. M ' s. Argument, for Prayer for the Dead, from Tradition, is not convincing, §. 6. 2. From the Opinion of the Fathers, That it was not lawful for a Christian to swear at all, §. 7. 3ly. From their Opinion, That good Angels were transported with the Love of Women, and got Giants of them, §. 8. 4ly. From their Opinion, That it was unlawful for any Clergyman to engage himself in Secular Affairs, §. 9 Or to go from one Church or Diocese to another, §. 10. 3ly. When whole Churches and Nations differ, and Heresies prevail, the Fathers say we are, for finding out the Truth, to have Recourse only to Scripture, and to primitive Tradition, §. 11. A full Answer to Mr. M ' s. Argument for Tradition, from the Ancient Custom of praying for the Dead; showing on what Accounts the Ancients did it, what Reason we have not to do it; That the Prayers for them, used by the Church of Rome, are Novelties, and that those used by the Ancients, were perfectly destructive of the Roman Purgatory, §. 12.  
MR. §. 1 M. saith, That whatsoever was held by the Universal Church, 
P. 367, 368.  was without farther Question held for true, and the contrary to it was ever rejected as an Error.— Neither will you ever find a Catholic who ever had the Boldness to say that the Church of his Days did universally hold any thing that was an Error; nor shall you ever read of any Catholic who refused to conform himself to the Universal Belief and Practice which was current in the whole Church of their times.  
Now to this I answer, That the Universal Church may be considered Two ways. 1. In a State of Unity within herself, so that her Members do universally agree in the same Doctrine and Practice, few or none dissenting from the common Doctrine of the Church; or in that State in which her Members are unhappily divided, by reason of the different Sentiments of many great and famous Churches, which yet exclude not either Party from being Members of the Church Catholic, as she hath always been since the great Rupture betwixt the East and West; and as the West hath often been divided, by reason of the great and lasting Schisms which have happened betwixt contending Popes and Emperors, and betwixt Popes and Councils, contending for Superiority.  
2. I add, That this Agreement of the present Universal Church, may either be in Doctrines and Practices necessary to the Being of a Church; or else in Doctrines and Practices unnecessary, on which the Being or the Welfare of the Church doth not depend: Having premised these Distinctions, I answer;  
First, That in Doctrines and Practices truly necessary to the Being of a Church, the Agreement of the Universal Church is a sufficient Evidence that all such Doctrines and Practices derived from the Apostles; because they were as necessary to be held throughout all foremen Ages, as in this. And therefore in such Doctrines as were rejected by the Universal Church as Heresies, Austin saith truly, That it was sufficient Cause to reject them, because the Church held the contrary; 
De Haer. c. 90.  they being such as did, Oppugnare Regulam veritatis, oppose her Rule of Faith, or Symbol, universally received: And that it was sufficient to persuade any Man he ought not, Aliquid horum in fidem recipere, to embrace any of the Doctrines of Heretics as Articles of Faith; because the Church, who could not be deficient in any point of necessary Faith, did not receive them. This way of Arguing negatively, we therefore, with St. Austin, do allow, The Universal Church knows no such Doctrine; ergo, it is no Article I am obliged to receive as any part of Christian Faith. The Universal Church of Christ knows no such Practice, therefore it is no Practice necessary to be done by Christians.  
But, Secondly, In Reference to such Doctrines, or Practices, on which the Being and the Welfare of the Church doth not depend: I say, the Agreement of the present Church can be no certain Argument, either of the Truth of the Doctrine, or of the Derivation, either of the Doctrine or Practice, from Apostolical Tradition. And this seems very suitable, even to the Rule of Lirinensis, who having advised us to embrace that Sense of Scripture, and those Tenets which were Ecclesiastical and universally received, he saith, this is especially to be observed, in iis, duntaxat, 
Common. c. 41.  quaestionibus quibus totius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur, In those Questions only, on which depend the Foundations of the Catholic Faith. And this is also evident from Scripture, Reason, and Tradition.  
First, From Scripture, which plainly doth inform us, that the Rulers of the Jewish Church had taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, and such Traditions as made void the Law of God, and by which they taught others to transgress it, and by which they deserved the Title of blind Guides leading the Blind: And these Traditions were received and observed by all the Jews, 
Mark 7.3. Gal. 1.14  Traditions. of the Elders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Traditions received from their Fathers; Customs which they who did not walk according to, were thought to teach Apostasy from Moses. Now if the whole Jewish Church of that Age might thus mistake in what she taught as Doctrines of the Scripture, or Practices, and Doctines received from Moses by Tradition, why may not the Christian Church of this present Age, or any other, be subject to the like Mistakes in Doctrine or in Practice?  
Again, That the Doctrines of the Millenium, of the Day of Judgement, being nigh at hand; of the Reservation of good Souls in some place different from the highest Heavens, were very prevalent in the first Ages of the Church, I have already proved, 
Chap. 4. §. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.  though now they do as generally pass for Errors: And the like may be easily proved of many Practices now wholly laid aside. 
Quod autem instituitur praeter consuetudinem, ut quasi observatio Sacramenti sit, approbare non possum, etiamsi multa hujusmodi, propter nonnullarum, vel sanctarum, vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda, liberius improbare non audeo, sed hoc nimis doleo, quia tam multis praesumptionibus plena sunt omnia. Epist. ad Jan. 119. cap. 19  St. Austin in his Time complained, That all things or places were filled with manifold Presumptions, and that these Corruptions had so generally obtained, that albeit he thought they ought to be redressed, yet durst he not freely disprove them; and if so many Superstitions were so publicly avowed and practised in his time, and urged upon others by the greatest part of the Church; and if so many Doctrines prevailed in the greatest part of the Church in former Ages, which now pass for Errors, why might they not generally do so? What Reason can be given why the whole might not continue the true Church of Christ, and hold these Doctrines, and espouse these Practices, as well as so great Parts of the Church continue true Parts of the Church, and do so?  
Thirdly, It is evident from Church History, that Doctrines and Practices have generally obtained in some Ages of the Church, and passed for Apostolical Traditions, which have in after Ages been discarded, as, v. g.  
First, The Administration of the Eucharist to Infants, and the principle upon which they did it, viz. That without Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, no Man could have Life eternal. The Punic Christians, saith St. Austin, call Baptism Salvation, 
To. 7. li. de pecc. Merit. & Remiss. c. 24.  and the participation of Christ's body, Life. Whence is this, Nisi ex antiqua, ut existimo, & Apostolica Traditione, qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent, but from an Ancient, and as I suppose, Apostolical Tradition, by which the Churches of Christ have this deeply settled in them, That without Baptism, and the Participation of the Lord's Supper, no Man can attain to the Kingdom of God, or to Life Eternal: Whence he concludes, That it is in vain to promise the Kingdom of God, or Life Eternal, to Children, without both these Sacraments; and that with the plainest Evidence, provided that his Principle hold good. Now of this Matter let it be considered:  
That it was certainly the Practice of the whole Church of Christ for many Ages, § 3 as appears touching the Greek Church and their Dependants from the continuance of this Practice to this very Day, 
Notandum quod ex hoc quod dicitur hic, nisi manducaveritis, etc. dicunt Graeci, quod hoc Sacramentum est tantae necessitatis quod pueris debet dari, sicut baptismus, Nichol de Lyra in Joh. 6.  touching the Eastern Churches from their continuance of it by Tradition, even since their Separation from other Churches in the Fifth and the Sixth Centuries; for it is practised still by the Cophti, or Egyptian Christians, 
Brierw. p. 157. p. 165, 173. 178.  by the Habassines, by the Armenians, and by the Maronites, saith Brierwood.  
Moreover in the Third Century, 
De laps. p. 132.  Cyprian speaks of it as a Thing then in use, witness that Story he relates of the Child, who, through the Wickedness of the Nurse, having tasted of the Idol Sacrifice, when the Deacon came to give it the Cup, turned away its Face, and shut its Mouth, and when the Deacon forced the Wine into its Mouth, presently threw it out again; and Witness the Apology he thus makes for such Children, We did not on our own Accord make haste to the profane Contagions, Derelicto cibo, & poculo domini, 
Ibid. p. 125.  leaving the Food, and the Cup of the Lord, 'twas the Perfidiousness of others that destroyed us; and he seems to assert the Necessity of it from the Sixth of John, 
Cap. 25, 26.  in the Third Book of Testimonies to Quirinus.  
In the First Form of Liturgy we meet with in the Church of Christ, 
Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 13.  we find this Practice prescribed to be used in Christian Churches, Let the Bishop communicate, and after him the Priests, the Deacons, Subdeacons', the Readers, Singers, and Ascheticks, the Deaconesses, Virgins, Widows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then Children. 
Hier. Eccles. c. 7. p. 360, 361.  Dionysius also saith, That Children, in his time, were made Partakers of the Holy Mysteries.  
In the Sixth Age we find this was still the received Custom of the Western Church from the Gregorian Office, which takes care that Baptised Infants, 
Ad Sabb. Pasch. p. 73.  Non ablactarentur antequam communicent, should not suck before they had communicated.  
The Practice of the Western Parts in the Seventh Century is Evident from the Council of Toledo which decrees, 
Concil. Tom. 6. p. 552.  That they shall not be punished, Qui tempore Infantiae Eucharistiam receptam rejiciunt, who in time of their Infancy vomit up the Eucharist. In the Eighth Century we are informed by Charles the Great, 
Car. Mag. de Imag. l. 2. c. 27.  That this was then the General Custom of the Church of God. For against the Doctrine of the Second Nicene Council, and of the Roman Church pronouncing Anathema to those who did not Worship Images, he, and his Council of Three hundred Bishops argue thus, That then, Infants Baptismatis unda loti, & Corporis Dominici edulio, & Sanguinis haustu satiati, pereunt, Infants who have been Baptised, and have received the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood, must perish. In the Ninth Century it was a known Constitution of the Western Church, That the Priest should always have the Eucharist ready, that, if any little Child be infirm, he might give him the Communion, and the Child might not die without it; which Constitution is extant in the Capitular of Charles the Great, 
L. 1. c. 161. Cap. 7. L. 1. c. 69.  in Walter Aurelianensis, in Regino de Ecclesiasticis disciplinis, in Ivo Decret. part. 2. cap. 20. in Burchardus l. 5. c. 10. and so undoubtedly obtained till the Twelfth Century. 
Not. in Reg. p. 551, 552. Not. ad librum Sacrament p. 298.  In the Old Pontificials of the Eighth or Ninth Century, saith Baluzius, there is a Rubric requiring the Bishop or the Priest to give the Communion to the new baptised Infant. And this continued, saith Menardus, till the time of Paschal the Second. And Hugo de Sancto Victore saith, That if it can be done without peril, 
De Ceremon. Eccl. l. 1. c. 20. Sive de Sacram. l. 1. c 20.  Juxta primam Ecclesiae institutionem, Sacramentum Eucharistiae in specie Sanguinis tradendum est pueris, according to the Primitive Institution of the Church, the Sacrament of the Eucharist must be delivered to Children in the Species of Blood. Now by these Testimonies we learn how neatly the Trent Council minceth this Matter, 
Sess. 21. c. 4.  when they say, That, Antiquitas eum morem in quibusdam locis, aliquando servavit, Antiquity did in some Places, for some time, observe this Custom. More ingenuous is Cardinal Bona, 
Rerum Litur. l. 2. c. 19 p. 877, 878, 879— 882.  who confesseth it was an ancient Custom, That, Quicunque Baptizabantur, sive adulti, sive Infants, sacra statim Communione reficerentur, whatsoever Infants were Baptised they should presently be refreshed with the Holy Communion; and proves this Custom from the Third to the Twelfth Century. And Baluzius admires, 
Not. in Regin. p. 552.  That any one should say, Universalem Ecclesiam nunquam recepisse hunc morem sine nota novitatis, that the universal Church never received this Custom without a Note of the Novelty of it.  
Secondly, They declared in the General from these Words, §. 4 That this Sacrament was as necessary for all as Baptism, and that where they could be had, they were both necessary to Salvation. St. Basil saith, 
Tom. 1. p. 580. Tom. 2. p. 431.  That the Baptised Person ought to be nourished with the Food of eternal Life; and that the Communication of the Body and the Blood of Christ is necessary to eternal Life; and proves both these Assertions from this Passage of St. John. Amphilochius in his Life, saith, 
In vita Basil. c. 17. p. 221.  It is impossible that any Man should enter into the Kingdom of God, unless he be regenerate by Baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and partake of the Lifegiving Mysteries of the Body, and the Blood of Christ. St. Chrysostom declares, That none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven if he be not Baptised with Water and the Holy Ghost, 
Hom. 3. de Sacerdotio Tom. 6. p. 16. l. 38. Tom. 2. p. 748.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and if he do not eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood. And upon that passage of St. John, Christ shows, saith he, that this is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ep. l. 2. 2. Ep. 52.  very necessary, and aught always to be done. These, saith Isidore Pelusiota, are the divine Mysteries, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without which none can obtain the heavenly Rewards, as is apparent from the Divine Oracles, John iij. 3. vi. 53. 
In Cap. 6 Joh. l. 4. p. 361.  They are void of Life, saith St. Cyril of Alexandria, who receive not the Son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the participation of the Eucharist. 
Tom. 2. p. 92, 96.  Hincmarus Remensis saith, These are the Sacraments of the Church, Sine quibus ad vitam, quae vera vita est, non intratur, without which we cannot enter into true Life. Albinus in his Book of Divine Offices, 

Cap. de celebr. Miss. p. 88  
Cap. 26. De instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.   and Amalarius in his Third Book of Ecclesiastical Offices, do in like manner say, That sine his Sacramentis nemo intrat in vitam aeternam, without these Sacraments none enter into Life eternal. Rabanus Maurus saith, Men may have temporal Life without this Food, and drink, Aeternam omnino non possunt, eternal, 
Apud Baron. Tom. 10. p. 1007.  they can never have. Christ testified with an Oath, Saith Humbert, That without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had, saying, Verily except you eat, etc. By which Testimonies we may see what Reason Austin had to say this was a Doctrine deeply settled in the Churches of Christ, and thence to infer, that Infants, ordinarily, could not have Life without participation of the Eucharist, they speaking thus without exception of any Persons, or of any case, but that of sudden Death, in which case also some of them allow that Salvation may be had without actual Baptism.  
3. They apply this general Doctrine to the Case of Infants, and say the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received by them for Remission of Sins, or that they may obtain Life, both which are necessary causes of the Administration of it. In the Fourth Century Theodorus Antiochenus writ a Book against some Heretics in the Western Church, 
Apud Phot. Cod. 177. p. 396.  who asserted, That Man doth Sin by Nature, and not by Choice. And who, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Confirmation of their Opinion, urged, That Infants were baptised and received, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins. 
P. 400.  In Answer to these Men, saith Photius, Theodorus broached a new, and strange Opinion of Remission of Sins, perhaps not willingly, but that he might satisfy their inquiry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; why do Infants partake of the immaculate Mysteries? Why are they Baptised, if they sin not by Nature? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for these Sacraments are given for Remission of Sins: Whence it appears, that the Custom of giving the Eucharist to Infants was then generally practised, and allowed of both in the Western and the Eastern Churches: In the Western, because these Western Heretics do from this approved Custom argue against the Doctrine of the Church; in the East, because Theodorus of Antioch thought himself obliged to own the Practice; nor is any question made, whether the thing ought to be done, but it is plainly owned, that it was done, and that for the Remission of Sins, and therefore for a necessary Reason.  
Against the Pelagians, who denied that Infants were guilty of Original Sin, and that they were obnoxious to Death eternal, the Father's dispute from this very Custom, and the Foundation of it, on the words of the Evangelist; saying, That according to the Practice of the Church the Blood which was shed for the Remission of Sins, was ministered to them, and therefore they had Sin to be remitted; and that our Lord had said, Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall have no Life in you; and therefore Infants wanted these things in order to their having Life, and were partakers of them that they might obtain it. The places in St. Austin to this effect are innumerable. For why, saith he, 
Contr. Julian. Tom. 7. l. 2. c. 30.  is that Blood ministered to the Infant to drink, which was shed for the Remission of Sins, that he may have Life, if by reason of no Original Sin, he be obnoxious to Death? Christ, saith he, is the Saviour of Infants, 
Ibid. l. 1. p. 949.  and unleus they redeemed by him, they will utterly perish, seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life; this St. John thought and believed, learned and taught. When Christ saith, Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, you have no Life in you; can I say the Child shall have Life, who ends his Life without that Sacrament? 
Hypognost. c. 5. Tom. 7. p. 1405.  And again, He having said, Unless you eat, etc. and, He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life; how is it that you (Pelagians) promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit, not fed with the Flesh of Christ, nor having drunk his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins? Behold, he that is not Baptised, and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread, is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven. And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words, he more expressly tells us, saying, 
Tom. 7. de peccat. merit. & remiss. l. 1. c. 19 p. 666.  Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism, N. B. but of the Sacrament of his holy Table, to which none cometh who is not rightly Baptised. Except you eat and drink, etc. What do we farther seek for? dares any body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children? or that they can have life in them without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ? But he that saith this, doth not attend, That if that Sentence comprehends not all, so that they cannot have Life without the Body, and the Blood of Christ, those of riper Years are not obliged to regard it. From these, and many other Passages of a like Nature, his Conclusion is this, 

Lib. 1. de peccat. merit. remiss. c. 24. p. 670.  
Nec pro eis fusus est sanguis, qui fusus esse in remissionem legitur peccatorum. Apud Aug. Ep. 90. Apud August. Ep. 92.   If then so many Divine Testimonies accord in saying, That neither Salvation, nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism, and the Body and Blood of our Lord, they are in vain promised to Children without them. The Council of Carthage, in their Epistle to Pope Innocent the First, complain that the Pelagians durst assert, That little Children needed not Baptism, Propter salutem, that they might have Life, and that the Blood shed for the Remission of Sins was not shed for them. The Council of Mela, in their Letter to him, complain that they asserted, Pueros quoque parvulos, si nullis innoventur Christianae gratia Sacramentis, habituros vitam aeternam, That Infants might have Life eternal, though they were not renewed by the Christian Sacraments. 
Ibid. Ep. 93. p. 424.  To these complaints Pope Innocent returns this Answer, Whereas your Brotherhoods assert that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism, this is a very fond Opinion: Nisi enim manducaverint, for unless they eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they have no Life in them; and they who would give them this, Sine regeneratione, without Baptismal Regeneration, seem to void Baptism itself, by saying they have that which is believed to be conferred upon them only by Baptism; where the Note in the Margin is, Etiam R. Ecclesia credidit Eucharistiam parvulis necessariam, Even the Roman Church believed that the Eucharist was necessary for little Children. Behold, saith Austin, 
Contr. duas Epist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Lib. 1. Contr. Jul. cap. 4. Ep. ad paulinum  Pope. Innocent saith, that little ones cannot have Life without Baptism, and the participation of the Body, and the Blood of Christ. And again, Pope Innocent determined, that Infants could not have Life unless they did eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. And a Third time, If the Pelagians will yield to the Apostles See, or rather to their Lord and Master, saying, Except we eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, which the unhaptized Person cannot do, we shall not have Life, they will at last confess that unbaptized Persons cannot have it.  
In the Sixth Century, 
Hom. 7. B. P. Tom. 7. p. 279.  Caesarius Arelatensis urges this very Text of Scripture, Except you eat, etc. as a most solid Testimony against the Blasphemies of Pelagius, That Baptism was not to be administered to Children, Propter vitam, for the obtaining Life: For, saith he, these Words of our Saviour, Non habebitis vitam in vobis, you shall have no Life in you, do give us clearly to understand, that every Soul that is void of Baptism wants both Life and Glory. Now, since that Passage of our Lord, was never by the Ancients thought to have Relation to Baptism, but always to the Eucharist, it is apparent that this Argument is of no Force at all, or that it is the same with that which is so often urged by St. Austin, That none can have Eternal Life who doth not participate of Christ's Body and Blood; and none can do that who is not baptised. 
Ep. Univers. Episc. per Nicaenum Concil. To. 4. p. 1177, 1178.  Against the Pelagians, saith Pope Gelasius, our Lord pronounceth, That he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drinks his Blood, hath no Life in him: Where we see none exempt; nor dares any say, That an Infant can obtain eternal Life without this Sacrament: Nevertheless, that the Providence of God might cut off all the Wickedness of the Pelagians, it is not only said, Unless a Man be born again of Water, etc. but also, Unless he eat,— and drink, etc. And that this is spoken of Eternal Life, none can doubt; because many who receive not this Sacrament, have this present Life.  
This Argument, you see, is generally urged by all that writ against the Pelagians; nor do we find that the Pelagians did in the least except against the Practice, as either Novel, or not Catholic, but only did content themselves to say, that Infants did receive these Sacraments, not to obtain Life, but the Kingdom of Heaven.  
And here it is to be admired, §. 5 that Men of Sense and Ingenuity, should say St. Austin, and these Fathers, spoke all this of such a Participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, as is had in Baptism, and not of the Participation of it by receiving of the Holy Eucharist: When,  
First, The Proof they bring of the manducation, and drinking, required of Children, that they may have Life, is from John vj. 53. which from St. Austin's Days, to the Twelfth Century, hath always been understood of the Eucharist, but never of the Sacrament of Baptism. So generally the forecited Fathers.  
Secondly, They bring distinct Proofs to evince that Infants are to participate of both Sacraments; the Third of John to prove they ought to be baptised; the Sixth of John to prove they ought to receive the Holy Eucharist●. So St. Austin, so Isidore Pelusiota, so Pope Gelasius, in the Places cited.  
Thirdly. They speak of the Mysteries in the Plural Number, as of things necessary to be received for the Remission of their Sins, and the obtaining Life Eternal: So Theodorus, Amphilochius, St. Chrysostom, Isidore Pelusiota, St. Austin, Hincmarus Rhemensis, Photius, Albinus, Amalarius.  
Fourthly, They speak first of the Sacrament of Baptism, and after of the Supper of the Lord, declaring of them distributively, That Infants cannot have Life, Sine Baptismo Christi, & sine participatione Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, without Christ's Baptism, and the Participation of his Body and Blood: So Pope Innocent. Sine Baptismo, & Corpore & Sanguine Christi, without Baptism, and the Body and the Blood of Christ: So St. Austin.  
Fifthly, They spoke of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by way of Distinction from that of Baptism, 
Non de Sacramento S. lavacri, sed de Sacramento mensae suae. l. 1. de peccat. Merit. c. 19, 20. Ep. 107. p. 499. Quod nisi Baptizati non utique possunt. Ep. 106. p. 487.  saying, Let us hear our Lord, not speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism, but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table: So St. Austin.  
Sixthly, They speak of that eating and drinking of this, Quod per corpus geritur, which is done by the Body, Per ora, by the Mouths: So St. Austin. Which Children have a right to, by being first Baptised; and of that Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ, Quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus, accedit, to which none comes, who is not rightly baptised.  
Lastly, Sometimes they speak of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table; of that Sacrament emphatically, and of that Blood which the Child must drink. Now hence it follows,  
First, §. 6 That the Trent Council hath manifestly erred, when it declared of all the Fathers in General, who held this Opinion, 
Sess. 21. c. 4.  Sine controversia oredendum est eos nulla salutis necessitate id fecisse, That without Controversy we must believe, that they did not this from an Opinion of the Necessity of it to Salvation; this being an Untruth so manifest, 
In. John 6.  that Maldonate, in direct Opposition to this Couneil, saith, that St. Austin and Pope Innocent were by this Passage of the Sixth of John induced to believe, Infants etiam baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperent salvos esse non posse, that even baptised Infants could not be saved, unless they received the Eucharist; and that from that place they conceived the Eucharist was necessary for Infants to Salvation, and that St. Austin mentioned this not as his private Opinion, Sed ut fidei, & totius Ecclesiae dogma, but as a Doctrine of Faith received by the whole Church; adding, 
Tom. 1. part. 4. p. 624.  as also Binius doth, That this Doctrine flourished in the Church about Six hundred Years.  
Secondly, Hence it appears, that the same Council, by pronouncing an Anathema against all who shall dare to say, 
Sess. 21. Can. 4.  That it is necessary for Children, before they come to Years of Discretion, to receive the Sacrament, hath virtually Anathematised St. Austin, Pope Innocent, Pelagius, and the whole Church of Christ, for Six whole Centuries.  
Thirdly, Hence it is evident that the Practice of the Church in any Century, is no true Ground for the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture; seeing this Practice of communicating Infants was built upon the Mistake of the Church of the Ages mentioned touching the true Sense of those Words, Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you.  
Fourthly, Hence it is evident, That if the present Church of any Age must be the infallible Judge of what is Tradition; if what is generally received in any Age must be derived from the Apostles, the Custom of giving the Sacrament to Children for the Remission of Sins, and the obtaining Life, must be an Apostolical Tradition, it being generally received for Six Centuries; and yet if the Church of Rome, of the Three last Ages, was the Judge of what deserved to be esteemed Tradition, the self same Doctrine being then generally rejected by them, could be no Apostolical Tradition.  
Fifthly, Hence Mr. M. may learn, that his Proof of Prayer for the Dead, and Infant's Baptism from Tradition, is not very weighty and convincing; or if it be, the Custom of communicating Infants must be Tradition Apostolical. For changing only the Subject, it will be easy to argue for it after the manner, and in the Words of Mr. M. Let us take Two Traditions, 
P. 401.  the one confessed by you to be a true one, the other indeed condemned by you, but asserted by me to be no less true than the former, because it is testified by as good a Tradition as the former, and therefore either the former is not proved sufficiently by this Testimony, or the latter is. The First Tradition, for Example sake, is, That of Baptising Infants: The Second, That of the Communicating of Infants. Of these Two I discourse thus; Both these Points were recommended by the Apostles to the Primitive Church, for divine Verities and Practices; and so from hand to hand came most unquestionably delivered to the Twelfth Century. Hence conformably to this Tradition, 
P. 402.  every where Christians baptised their little Children; every where they gave them the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; but yet the communicating of them was the more frequent Practice; because Children were baptised but once in their Lives, but being once baptised, they frequently received the Holy Sacrament. Well now, let us suppose, that both these Traditions be called in Question, whether they be faithfully delivered as Sacraments to be received by Children; or rather whether that of Communicating Infants were some humane Invention; 
Soss. 21. Can. 4.  or as the Trent Council hath determined, A thing unnecessary to be received by Infants till they come to Years of Discretion: Let us see whether this Tradition condemned by that Council with an Anathema, cannot defend itself from Forgery as well as any Scripture questioned of being true Scripture. 
P. 403.  For Example, the Apocalypse, which was rejected by divers Ancient Catholics, whereas the Communion of Infants was never rejected by any Ancient Catholics at all, nor by any of them said to be unnecessary. Amongst ancient Heretics, the Pelagians, indeed, said, That it was not necessary to communicate them for the Remission of Sins; but this is noted in them as a peculiar Heresy of their own, by Pope Innocent, by Pelagius, by the Council of Carthage, and by St. Austin, who pronounceth against them, That Infants ought to be communicated for the Remission of Sins: And the same St. Austin saith, The Church doth necessarily do this by the Tradition, 
P. 404.  as he fupposeth, Apostolical, received from her Ancestors. He held therefore such Communion of Infants, suitable to the Doctrine of the Church, and Tradition. And this Tradition is that which I now stand upon, which indeed did shine in the Practice of the Primitive Church. You shall scarcely find a Liturgy or Service Book used in the ancient Church; which is not Witness of this Tradition, though these Books were found in every Parish of Christendom, in which Divine Service was almost daily said. 
P. 405.  St. Cyprian mentions it as the Practice of his Times: In both these Points it is a strong Argument, and as strong for Communicating, as for Baptising of Infants; That no time can be named in which those Customs began. No man can be thought of, who could by humane Means, and such Means as should not make a mighty Noise amongst those great Reverencers of Tradition, draw all the World, in so short a time after the Apostles, 
P. 406.  to follow Customs as Apostolical, which, in that Age, in which they were first vented, were evidently, by every Man, not only known, but clearly seen to be new hatched Novelties, and not Ancient and Apostolical Traditions. This Man, who broached this false Doctrine, should have been put into the Catalogues of Heretics by Epiphanius, and St. Austin; whereas they did not only, not put down any such Heretics, but one of them puts down Pelagius for one, because he taught the contrary. Now if you speak of this Custom going downward, until the Age in which it began to be denied by Roman Catholics, the Custom of Communicating Infants hath come down with such a full Stream, that it drew all Countries, in many Ages, with it; insomuch, that every where, but among a few late born Romanists, the Pontificals, the Books of Sacraments, the Liturgies, Eastern and Western, all the Ritualists, all the Books of Ecclesiastical Discipline, 
P. 407.  and even the Canon Law bears witness of it. There was not a Country which abounded not with such Monuments, and such Records; the very strongest Proofs of assured Antiquity, and unquestionable Tradition.  
Thus, I hope, I have made good that Tradition, shining in perpetual Practice from St. Cyprian to Pope Paschal the Second, is a sure Relater of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church, touching Communicating Infants; whence you may clearly see, that the Trent Council hath manifestly erred in this Matter, and consequently was not Infallible; for if they could be actually false, in a Point so universally current, they might bear Witness in many other Matters to false Doctrine, and deny due Approbation to the true. 
P. 196. L. 1. contr. Crescon. c. 33.   
Sixthly, Hence we may learn how failly Mr. M. citeth St. Austin, to prove, That nothing for certain can be alleged out of Canonical Scriptures to prove that Infants ought to be baptised; for is it possible, That he, who held it so manifest from Scripture, that they ought to receive that Sacrament to which, 
De peccat. Merit. l. 2. c. 27.  saith he, no Man hath right to come who is not first baptised, should think there was no certain Proof from Scripture of their right to Baptism? Moreover, how often doth he prove their right to Baptism from that Passage of St. John, Except he be born again of Water, 
De peccat. Merit. l 1. c. 30. L. 3. de Origin. An. c. 11. Ep. 126. de Orig. An. l. 1. c. 9 3. c. 13. Congerit testimonia Scripturrrum l. 1. contr. Petit. c. 27.  and of the Spirit, no Man can enter into the Kingdom of God? How often doth he prove the Necessity of it from those Scriptures which conclude them guilty of Original Sin? How often doth he from Scripture pronounce them damned without it? How often doth he conclude it from the Annlogy it bears to Circumcision, and bring, Congeriem Scripturarum, an Heap of Scriptures to confirm it? And after all this can it be rationally thought, he should expressly teach, in contradiction to his own constant Doctrine, That nothing could be certainly alleged from Scripture to prove that Infants ought to be baptised? Nor is there any thing more evident, than that Mr. M. 
C. 32, 33.  here wretchedly imposeth on his Reader; for in the place cited by him in his first Book against Cresconius, he speaks not of the Baptism of Infants, but of Heretics, as will be evident to all that will inspect the place. In his Fourth Book of Baptism against the Donatists, 
C. 24.  in the place cited, he speaks of this Point indeed; but so, as to assert, That if any one, In hac re Authoritatem divinam quaerat, inquire after Divine Authority in this matter, he may find what the Baptism of Infants will avail them, 
De Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c. 23.  Ex circumcisione carnis, from the Circumcision used under the Old Law. In the other Passage cited by Mr. M. he saith, indeed, That the Custom of the Church in baptising Infants was not to be credited, Nisi Apostolica esset traditio, if it were not an Apostolical Tradition; but doth not in the least insinuate that the Apostles left not this Tradition in their Writings.  
Lastly, Hence it is evident that the Practice of the Church is no true Ground for the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture, seeing this Practice was built upon the Church's Interpretation of John vj. 53, 54, 56. in a Sense which that Scripture doth not bear.  
Secondly, §. 7 According to the current Interpretation of our Saviour's Words, I say unto you, Swear not at all, received in the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Centuries, it was absolutely unlawful for a Christian to swear at all. To this Effect we have, in the Second Century the express Testimony of Justin Martyr, 
Apol. 2. p. 36. D. Adu. Haer. l. 2. c. 56. p. 216.  affirming, that Christ commanded Christians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to swear at all, but always to speak the Truth, saying, Swear not all, etc. Of Irenaeus, who saith, our Lord hath not only forbid us to swear falsely, Sed nec jurare praecepit, but hath commanded that we should not swear. Clemens of Alexandria, comparing the Christian Laws with those of Plato, saith, 
Strom. l. 5. p. 596.  that of Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Avoid swearing in any thing, agrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to our Lord's Prohibition of an Oath. And again; Avoid, saith he, an Oath in Traffic, 
Paedag. l. 3. c. 11. p. 255.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in other things; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his Name in vain. And Basilides, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 5.  who suffered under the Persecution of Severus, being urged by some of his fellow Soldiers to swear, he confidently affirmed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It was not lawful for him to swear at all, for he was a Christian.  
In the Third Century Origen observes, 
Tract. 25. in Matth. F. 47. B.  that when our Lord speaks of Swearing, Matth. twenty-three. he speaks unto the Jews, and that, Alioquin manifeste superius vetuit omnino jurare, he had before manifestly forbidden to swear at all. And again; I think, that he who would live according to the Gospel, ought not to adjure another; for that which our Lord speaketh in the Gospel, 
Hom. 35. in Matth. F. 82. A.  Swear not at all; and this, Adjure not at all, is alike; Si enim jurare non licet, quantum ad evangelicum Christi mandatum, verum est, quia nec adjurare alterum licet, for if by Christ's Evangelical Precept, we must not swear at all, it is as true, that 'tis not lawful to impose an Oath on others. 
De Idol. c. 11.  I omit to speak of Perjury, saith Tertullian, Quando ne jurare quidem liceat, seeing it is not lawful to swear at all. Amongst the Heads belonging to the Religious Discipline of Christians, which Cyprian collected for the Instruction of Quirinus, the Twelfth is this, Non jurandum, That Christians must not swear; which he proves from Matth. v. 34. And to encourage Christians against Death, he tells them, 
De Mortal. Ed, Ox. p. 157.  That it will be to them a Deliverance from many Evils they will be tempted to in this Life; For, saith he, Compeller is jurare, quod non licet, thou wilt be compelled to swear, which is not a thing lawful to be done.  
In the Fourth Century Lactantius teacheth, 
Epit. cap. 6. p. 744.  That he who is of God, and a Follower of Truth, will never swear falsely, lest he seem to deride God, Sed ne jurabit quidem, nor will he swear at all. Eusebius, 
Demonst. Evang. l. 1. c. 6. p. 23. Praep. Evang. l. 1. c 4. p. 12.  comparing the Laws of Moses with those of Christ, saith, Moses commanded not to swear falsely; Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to swear at all: And speaking of the Advantages of Christianity, he reckons this as one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That they had learned from Christ not to swear at all. St. Basil, on that Passage of the Psalmist; Who sweareth to his Neighbour, 
In Ps. 14. Tom. 1. p. 132, 133.  and deceives him not, observes that here Permission is given to a perfect Man to swear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in the Gospel it is entirely forbid. Here it is said, He that swears to his Neighbour, and deceives him not; there, I say unto you, Swear not at all. In his Epistle to Amphilochius he declares, 
Can. 29.  That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Oath is wholly forbidden; 
Tom 2. p. 383.  and much more an Oath to do Evil. In his Asceticks he instructs us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not to swear at all, 
Tom. 3. Ep. 63. p. 97.  nor to put his Money out to Usury. And speaking of Gregory Thaumaturgus; he saith, That he abstained from an Oath, contenting himself with Yea, and Nay, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by reason of the Command of Christ. Epiphanius expressly saith, 
Haer. 19 Ossen. §. 6. p. 44.  That our Lord commanded not to swear by God himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor any other Oath; it being of the Devil; or at the least an evil thing to swear; and that Christianity requires us, 
Haer. 59 Catarrh. §. 7. p. 499. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 78.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not to swear, either in Falsehood, or in Truth, but only to say yea, yea, and nay, nay. Gregory Nazianzen observes that an Oath is forbidden, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only to us Christians.  
In the Fifth Century St. Chrysostom is very copious on this Subject: 
In Matth. 5.34.  For he informs us, that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but speak the Truth when thou swearest; but Christ commanded not to swear at all. 2. That to keep us farther from swearing by God, he saith, Swear not by Heaven, which is his Throne. 3. That Christ, by saying, What is more than this cometh of Evil, meaneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, swearing, not forswearing; for it is a thing confessed, and no Man needs to learn it, That false swearing is of Evil; nor is it only more than yea and nay, but contrary to them. 4. That though swearing was allowed by the Law, yet was it evil; because it was allowed only by reason, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Weakness of them who received the Law, to keep them from swearing by Idols: And, 5. That though then it were not evil, yet now is it evil, and very evil, after so much Philosophy. 6. That we must not pretend that we swear truly, 
Hom. 15. in Gen. p 96.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it is not lawful to swear true or false; let us therefore keep our Mouths pure from Oaths. 7. That if we reverence nothing else, we should reverence that Gospel we hold forth, when we bid Men swear; for opening it you will find, 
Tom. 6. Statu. ar. Orat. 15. p. 565.  saith he, Swear not at all; and dost thou make that Law an Oath, which forbiddeth thee to swear? When therefore thou art about to adjure any one, restrain thyself, 
P. 566.  and say to him who is about to swear; What shall I do! God hath forbid me to adjure, he now restrains me; and this will be sufficient for the Honour of the Lawgiver, for thy Security, and to affright him who is about to Swear.  
We find, saith Theodoret, in the Laws of the Gospel, 
Qu. 37. in Geu. p. 31.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Swearer, though he swears true, to be of the Portion of the Devil. He swears himself, That he would not the Death of a Sinner, 
Ep. 78. p. 949. Tom. 4. Dial. 1. p. 23. Fab. Haer. l. 5. c. 16. Adu. Graecos Serm. 9 p. 621.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who forbids others to swear. And again; He that forbids others to swear, interposeth an Oath. The Old Law, saith the same Theodoret, forbids Perjury, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the New forbids an Oath. Our Lord, making Laws about Oaths, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wholly forbids them.  
If thou art a Christian, saith Isidore Pelusiota, 
L. 1. Ep. 155.  and under the good Pastor, obey his Voice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commanding thee not to swear at all; and if we must not swear, neither must we exact an Oath. God, saith St. Jerom, permitted the Jews, as being Children, to swear, as he permitted them to offer Sacrifice; not that they did well in it, 
In Matth. 5.  but that it was better to swear by God than Idols, Evangelica autem veritas non recipit juramentum, but the Evangelical Truth permits not an Oath. 
In Zach. 8. f. 115. b.  And again, Our Lord commandeth in the Gospel, Ut non juretis penitus, That you swear not at all.  
Jussit salvator noster ut Christiani homines non jurarent, 
De Gubern. dei l. 3. p. 88 Act. Concil. Const. Act. 1. Tom. 2. p. 129.  Our Lord, saith Salvian, commanded that Christian Men should not swear. And the Council of Constantinople, under the Patriarch Flavianus, adds, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are commanded by our Saviour Christ not to swear.  
Now here I ask, Whether all these plain Testimonies be sufficient to prove, that it was once the Doctrine of this whole Church of Christ, That swearing was wholly unlawful, and forbidden by those Words of Christ, on which they bottom this Assertion? If this be granted; then, seeing it is evident that the present Church holds, and by her Practice doth approve the contrary Doctrine, it must be granted that her present Belief, or Practice, can be no just Evidence, or Proof of what was the Belief and Practice of all the former Ages. But if these Testimonies give not sufficient Evidence, that this was then their Faith, and the received Interpretation of the Text; then let the Romanists permit us to deny their Doctrines and Traditions, till they have proved them to be primitive, by more clear, numerous, and early Testimonies, and we ask no more: For than they vainly must attempt to prove that any Text in Controversy betwixt us and them, hath, by Tradition, been interpreted against the Protestants; it being certain, that no such Testimonies can be produced for that Sense of any Scripture which we Protestants reject; and if the Fathers, after so many plain and frequent Attestations, might practise and believe the contrary, to the plain import of their Words in this particular, why not in other Matters also? And to what purpose is it to confirm a Doctrine, or bottom an Assertion upon Two or Three Citations from those Fathers who are not to be credited, it seems, in what may be confirmed from Fifty of their plainest Testimonies, and by the Suffrage of a General Council.  
Thirdly, 
Apol. 1. p. 55. & p. 44.  It was the current Doctrine of the Fathers for Three whole Centuries, That the good Angels were transported with the Love of Women, and begat Children of them, which are those we now call Daemons, or evil Spirits. These are the very Words of Justin Martyr, who flourished in the Second Century. 
Adu. Haer. l. 4. c. 70. p. 412. Paedag. l. 3. c. 2. Strom. l. 3. p. 450. l. 5. p. 550.  Irenaeus, who flourished in the same Century, saith, That, Angeli transgressores commixti fuerunt eyes, the Angels which transgressed mixed with them. And Clemens of Alexandria thrice informs us, that they fell from Heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through Incontinence and Love of Women.  
In the Third Century Athenagoras informs us, 
Legat. pro. Christianis p. 27, 28.  That some of the Angels, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lusting after Virgins; and being overcome of the Flesh, begat Giants of them; and that these Angels, and the Souls of these Giants are the Daemons which wander about the World. And in saying this, I speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing, saith he, without Testimony; but only expound, 
De Virg. vel. c. 7. de cult. faem. l. 1. c. 2. de Idol. cap. 9  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is mentioned by the Prophets. Tertullian saith, That they rushed down from Heaven, Ad Filias hominum, to the Daughters of Men; and thence he calls them Desertors of God, and, Amatores Faeminarum, lovers of Women. St. Cyprian twice informs us, 

De Idol. van. p. 13. de Habit. virg. p. 99 ed. Oxon.  
P. 29.  
Apud phot. cod. 234.   That they fell from their heavenly Vigour, Ad terrena contagia devoluti, being debased to earthly Contagions. They fell, saith Minutius, Terrenis cupiditatibus degravati, being depressed by earthly Lust. Methodius, That they conversed with the Daughters of Men, being taken with the Love of Flesh.  
In the Fourth Century, Lactantius saith, 
L. 2. c. 14. p. 216, 217.  That the Devil tempted them to Vice, Et Mulierum congressibus inquinavit, and defiled them by Converse with Women; and so being excluded from Heaven they became his Ministers, and they who were begotten by them became terrestrial Daemons. 
De praep. Evang. l 5. c. 4. de Noah & Arca, c. 4.  Hi sunt immundi Spiritus malorum quae geruntur Auctores, These, saith he, are the unclean Spirits, which are the Authors of all Evil. The same Assertions may be found in Eusebius, in St. Ambrose, in Epiphanius, 
Num. 21. L. 4 c. 26. Hist. l. 1. c. 3.  or some Author cited by him in his Sixty fourth Heresy; by Pseudo Clemens in his Recognitions, and by Sulpitius Severus. Petavius, in his Notes upon Epiphanius, saith, Fuit haec vetustissimorum Patrum fere omnium Sententia filios illos Dei qui Gen. 6. silias hominum adamasse dicuntur, Angelos fuisse, This was the Opinion of almost all the most Ancient Fathers, That the Sons of God, who are said in Genesis the Sixth, to have loved the Daughters of Men, were Angels. Vetus fuit multorum & gravissimorum Authorum opinio, It was the ancient Opinion of many and very grave Authors, saith Fevardentius on the forecited place of Irenaeus: And yet,  
First, It deserves to be considered, 
De C.D. l. 15. cap. 23.  That they grounded this whole Fancy and Exposition, partly upon that spurious Book of Enoch; which, saith St. Austin, Continet istas gigantum fabulas, contains those Fables of the Giants; and where, 
In Joh. To 8. Ed. Huet p. 132. d.  saith Origen, it is said, That Jared was begotten in the Days, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Descent of the Sons of God upon the Daughters of Men; and partly upon the concurring Tradition of the Jews, who had entertained the same Notion and Exposition of the Place, as we may learn from their own Josephus and Philo, 
Antiq. l 1. c. 4. p. 8. Philo de Gigant. p. 284, 285.  who from the said Traditions tell us, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many Angels of God, conversing with Women, begot insolent Children, and Despisers of everything that was good, as trusting to their own Strength.  
Secondly, Consider that in the very next Century, this Fancy was run down, in Terms very opprobrious, and much reflecting upon the Ignorance and Oscitancy of the former Fathers: That which makes most Men thus Ignorant, saith Theodoret, 
Quaest. 47. in Gen.  on the place, is their careless reading of the Scriptures. And there he also represents the Authors of the former Opinion, 
In locum.  as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Men very stupid, and such as had a Knock in their Cradles. Chrysostom adds, That they who affirm that these things were spoken, not of Men, but Angels, were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speakers of Blasphemy; and then he proceeds, 
Edit. Sichardi p. 52, 53.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to overturn, or to confute the Fables of these Men. And in the very next Century, Philastrius Brixiensis, put this very Doctrine into the Catalogue of his Heresies, saying, Alia est Haeresis, quae de gigantibus adserit, quod Angeli miscuerunt se cum faeminis ante diluvium, & inde esse natos gigantes, There is another Heresy, which asserts, touching the Giants, That Angels, before the Flood, conversed with Women, and that of them were these Giants begotten. If then the Jewish Church received by Tradition, a Doctrine so contrary to the very Nature of Angels, and consequently to Truth itself: If the Fathers of the first four Centuries were so easily imposed upon by their Traditions, and their spurious Books, as to embrace the same Opinion, not only against Reason; but, as Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, and Austin have demonstrated, against the Evidence of that very Text on which they grounded their Opinion; which so expressly saith, The Wickedness, not of the Angels, or their Offspring, but, of Men was great, and that all Flesh had corrupted their Ways; and that God therefore had determined to punish, not Daemons, or the Ghosts of Giants, but, the whole Earth, by bringing of a Flood upon them: If they, I say, could read so carelessly this Chapter, as generally to interpret one Verse of it in Opposition to the plain Import of the whole: If, last, an Exposition so long, and generally received, till the beginning of the Fifth Century, could, in that very Century, by, by the greatest Fathers of the Church, utterly rejected as Fabulous, Blasphemous, Heretical, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and guilty of the utmost Folly, then must it be extremely evident,  
1. That Tradition, in this matter, could be no certain Rule unto the Jewish Church, and therefore could not be Infallible.  
2. That the Fathers of the Christian Church have been imposed upon for some whole Centuries, in this Affair, by spurious Authors, and by Jewish Fables; and therefore they and the Fathers, of any other Age, must also be supposed subject to the like Mistakes in other Matters of like Nature.  
3. That they were prone, on these Accounts, to interpret Scriptures contrary to the plain Import of them, and so cannot be owned as the Authentic Interpreters of Holy Writ.  
4. Hence also it is clear, that what hath generally been received, without any apparent Opposition in one Age, may, in the very next Age, be as generally rejected with the greatest Scorn and Ignominy, and pass for Blasphemy and Heresy.  
Fourthly, §. 9 It anciently was held Unlawful for any Clergyman to engage himself in Secular Affairs. For amongst the Sins which provoked God to Anger, St. Cyprian reckons this, 
De lapsis p. 123.  Episcopos procuratores rerum secularium fieri, That Bishops became Proctors in secular Affairs. The Sixth Canon of the Apostles decrees, That a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon shall be deposed, if he take upon him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worldly Cares. The General Council of Chalcedon, forbids all Bishops, Clerks, 
Can. 3.  or Monks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to intermeddle with worldly Businesses. 
Can. 11.  The Second General Council of Constantinople having said, That the sacred Canons deposed those Presbyters, or Deacons who took upon them secular Governments, or Cares, ratifies the said Canons; declaring, That if any of them did thus employ himself, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Concil. Trull. Can. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Conc. Nic. 2. can. 1.  he should be expelled from the Clergy; for according to the most true Words of our Saviour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, No Man can serve Two Masters; and yet what Church at present doth observe these Canons, though they were all confirmed, and even ascribed to the Holy Spirit, by the general Council held in Trullo, and by the Second Nicene Council; or who now thinks himself obliged by that Text to do so?  
Fifthly, Who knows not that anciently it was esteemed, §. 10 by the whole Church a thing unlawful for a Bishop, Presbyter, or any of the Clergy, to go from one Church or Diocese to another? The first Nicene Council declares, That some, 
Can. 15.  who before their sitting had done this, did it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against the Canon; and decrees, That for the future, neither Bishop, Priest, or Deacon shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, go from City to City. 
Can 21.  The Council of Antioch, approved by the whole Church, renews the same Decree. The Council of Sardica represents the Attempt of such a Change as, 
Can. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a most pernicious Custom to be pulled up by the Roots; and as a Wickedness which deserved, 
Translationes ab Ecclesia ad Majores apud Hilar. Frag. p. 437. Can. 1. Apud Athanas. Apol. p. 744. Ep. 84. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be severely punished; and therefore they declare, That they who made such Changes should be excluded, even from Lay-Communion; and they object these Translations to the Arians as their great Crime. The General Council of Chalcedon confirms all the Canons made touching this Matter by these Councils. Pope Julius, not only condemns this Transmigration, but saith, That he who practiseth it doth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, despise the Station God hath given him. Pope Leo adds, That he who doth so, shall not only be expelled from the Chair he had invaded, Sed carebit & propria, but shall be deprived of his own. Pope Damasus declares, That he will have no Communion with such Persons.  
Moreover this Practice they condemn as Spiritual Adultery, declaring, That the Church to which the Bishop, or the Priest is chosen, is his Wife; which therefore he cannot dismiss, and take another, without Adultery. Thus the Synod of Alexandria accuse Eusebius of Nicomedia for going from Berytus to that City, as having forfeited his Bishopric, and committed Adultery against the Import of that Precept, 
Apud Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 727.  Art thou bound to Wife, seek not to be loosed; which if it be said of a Woman, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; how much more of a Church, of the same Bishopric to which one being tied ought not to seek another? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Apud Binium Tom. 4. p. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 15.  That he may not be found also an Adulterer, according to the Holy Scriptures. In the Synod under Mennas, it was also laid to the Charge of Anthimus, That, having been Bishop of Trabisond, he did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adulterously snatch that of Constantinople against the Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons. 
Apud. Regin. de Eccles. discipl. l. 1. c. 250.  Pope Calixtus from the same Scripture, determines, That if a Bishop, or Priest leave his Church or Parish, which is his Wife bound to him whilst he lives, he commits Spiritual Adultery.  
And suitably to the Determinations of so many Councils, they who refused to be thus promoted, were highly commended, as observing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 3. c. 61.  the Commands of God, and the Canons of the Apostles, and the Church. Thus, when upon the Deposition of Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, they would have preferred Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, to that See, he refused the Offer, 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 19  because, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Law of the Church forbade it; and this Fact Constantine commended, as acceptable to God: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Euseb. ibid.  and agreeable to the Tradition of the Church.  
But they who did transgress this Canon were removed from that See they were translated to, though never so well deserving of the Church. Thus Gregory Nazianzen, though removed from Sasima to Constantinople by the Emperor; though he had laboured so much in that Church to convert the Heathens he found there, and hinder the Endeavours of the Heretics; yet the General Council of Constantinople, observing, saith Sozomen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 7.  the Laws of the Fathers, and the Ecclesiastical Order, took his Bishopric from him, no ways regarding the great Merits of the Person. But who now, in the Church of Christ, regards these Canons of so many General Councils, or looks upon it as a Crime to admit of, or even sue for a Translation from a less Bishopric to a greater?  
It were easy to show the like Difference betwixt the Practice and Judgement of the present Church, and that of former Ages, touching the corporal and pecuniary Punishments of Men for difference in Religion, which they of former Ages most plainly disapproved of, touching the Suffrage of the People being requisite to the Election of their Bishop, which they expressly did assert, disowning such pretended Bishops as wanted the Consent and Suffrage of the People; to omit many other Instances which might be easily produced, to show that Doctrines and Practices have passed for currant, and even Apostolical, in former Ages, which are now utterly rejected, and disapproved of in this present Age.  
But, Lastly, though when the whole Church is unanimous, §. 11 and all her Members do agree in the asserting any Doctrine as an Article of Christian Faith, necessary to be owned by all Christians; the Plea from the concurring Judgement of the Church is highly plausible, and never aught, without the clearest Evidence of Reason, or of Scripture to be gainsaid, nor hath the Church of England ever disowned any such Doctrine; yet when whole Churches, or Nations are divided in their Sentiments, concerning any Doctrine, and Number may be pleaded by both Parties; then, say we with the Fathers, That we must have Recourse unto the Scriptures. This is, at present, visibly the State, and the Condition of the Church of Christ; she agrees now in nothing but the Apostles, and the Nicene Creed; there is East against West, and West against East; Protestant against Papist, and Papist against Protestant. Now, in this case, the ancient Fathers of the Church declare it is our only safe and prudent Course, to fly, as doth the Church of England, to the Holy Scriptures, and to primitive Antiquity; and say, That a Necessity is laid upon us so to do. Thus Hippolytus, or whosoever is the Author of that Book which bears his Name, having given an Account of the Prevalence which Antichrist shall have, clearly insinuates, That the best Preservative against him is, 
P. 60.  Scripturas audire, to hear the Scriptures; and that Christ will pronounce them Blessed who have done so: And that they who do not, Diligenter legere Scriptures, 
P. 13.  diligently read the Scriptures, shall run up and down, saying, Where is Christ? and shall not find him. The Author of the imperfect Work upon Matthew, which passeth under the Name of Chrysostom, speaking of the Times in which Heresy prevails, 
Hom. 49. p 174.  saith, Then let them who are in Judaea fly to the Mountains; that is, Qui sunt Christiani conferant se ad Scripturas, Let them who are Christians have Recourse to the Scriptures, to the Writings of the Apostles and Prophets. And why, saith he, doth Christ at this time command, Omnes Christianos confer se ad Scripturas, all Christians to fly to the Scriptures. Because, saith he, in this time, since Heresy hath got the Churches, there can be no Proof of true Christianity, Neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fldei veritatem, nisi scripturae divinae; the Christians, who are desirous to know the true Faith, can have no other Refuge but the Holy Scriptures. Before there were many Ways of showing which was the Church of Christ; but now, if Men be willing to discern her, Nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas; the true Church of Christ can by no other way be known, but only by the Scriptures; for now, all those things, which are properly of Christ in truth, these Heresies have in Schism; they, in like manner, have Churches, the Divine Scriptures, Bishops, the other Orders of the Clergy, Baptism, the Eucharist; all other things, and even Christ himself: Now in the Confusion of so great Similitude; he that is willing to know which is the true Church of Christ, Unde cognoscat nisi tantummodo per Scripturas? Whence can he know it but only by the Scriptures? 
P. 175.  Before it was known by Miracles who were true Christians, and who false; but now, Signorum operatio omnino levata est, the working of Miracles is entirely diminished; and the working of feigned Miracles, magis apud eos invenitur qui falsi sunt Christiani, is chief found amongst those who are false Christians; for the full Power of working Miracles is to be given to Antichrist. The Church of Christ was formerly known by her Manners, the Conversation of all, or most of her Members being Holy; but now Christians are like to, or even worse than Heretics. He therefore who would know which is the true Church of Christ; Unde cognoscat nisi tantummodo per Scripturas? Whence can he know her but only by the Scriptures? Whence, our Lord, knowing that there would be such a confusion of things in the last Days, commands, Ut Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae, ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas, That Christians, who are willing to remain firm in the true Faith, should fly to nothing but the Scriptures.  
The true Chrysostom gives exactly the same Advice in the like Case; for to that Enquiry, What shall we say to the Greeks? 
Hom. 33. in Act. Tom. 4. p. 799.  There comes one of them, and saith, I would be a Christian, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but I know not to whom I should join myself, for there is much Contention, Controversy, and Tumult among you Christians; What Opinion shall I choose? every one saith, Truth is on my Side; Whom shall I credit, who know nothing of the Scriptures, and hear them all pretending to them? To this Inquiry Chrysostom answers, This is much for us; for did we say you must believe our Discourses, thou hadst reason to be troubled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but since we say you must believe the Scriptures, and they are plain, and true, 'tis easy for you to pass your Judgement; if any Man consents with them, he is a Christian; if he contradicts them, he is far from this Rule. Behold here the Heathen, sent by St. Chrysostom to pass Judgement betwixt the Orthodox, and all sorts of Heretics, from Scripture alone; and told, that it is easy for him so to do, because the Scriptures are a plain Rule, whereby to judge in Matters of this Nature: But, saith the Heathen, one of you affirms, That the Scripture saith thus; the other, That it speaketh otherwise; interpreting it to another Sense. But what of all this, saith Chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for hast thou not an Understanding, and a Judgement? Where again the Heathen is supposed able, by his own Judgement, to discern who wrists, who rightly doth interpret Scripture. But how can I do this, saith the Greek? I know not how to judge of the Doctrines; I come to be a Learner, and you make me a Teacher: If any one object thus, saith Chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we should ask him whether this be not Dissimulation and Pretence; for if your Reason taught you to condemn Heathenism, it may also teach you to judge betwixt us and Heretics; do not therefore dissemble or make Pretences, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for all things are easy. Thou knowest what to do, and leave undone, do therefore what thou oughtest, and with right Reason seek of God, and he will fully reveal this to thee, for he is no respecter of Persons; it is not possible that he who heareth without Prejudice should not be persuaded, 
P. 800.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for as if there were a Rule to which all things were to be adapted, it would be easy to perceive who takes wrong Measures; so is it here: To this Rule you see, viz. the Holy Scriptures, even the Heathen is sent, as to that which is sufficient to direct him to Christian Truth, when there is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, much Controversy, and Contention amongst Christians concerning it.  
Lastly, 
Commonit. c. 6.  Vincentius Lirinensis lays down the same Rule; For if the Contagion, saith he, though new, endeavour to infect the whole Church, as in the case of the Arians; then, whosoever would discern the Catholic Faith from Heretical Pravity, must be careful to adhere to Antiquity, 
C. 3, 4, 8, 25, 33, 39, 41.  viz. To that Sense of Scripture, which it is manifest our Ancestors held, and must believe that without Doubtfulness, which all in like manner, with one consent, held, writ, and taught, openly, frequently, and perseveringly, he being only firm in Faith, who determines, Id solum sibi tenendum, credendumque, quicquid universaliter antiquitùs Ecclesiam Catholicam tenuisse cognoverit, That alone is to be held, and believed by him, which he knows the Catholic Church anciently held. But when Schisms and Heresies have grown ancient in the Church, and the Poison of them hath spread largely (which, say we, is the present Case of the Church) then, saith he, Nullo modo oportet nos, nisi aut Sola, si opus est, Scripturarum Auctoritate, convincere, we ought only, if need be, to convince them by the Authority of Scripture, or to shun them, as being condemned, 
Cap. 41.  Jam antiquitus, by ancient general Councils of Catholic Priests; and when our Adversaries assault us with either of these two Weapons, they will find us ready, and able to defend ourselves.  
Mr. Mumford shows, that Prayer for the Dead, is at least, Object. 6 as ancient as Tertullian; and that from the Fourth Century, 
P. 401-406.  till the Reformation, it generally obtained in the Church; and is not this enough to prove it an Apostolical Tradition, as St. Austin, and some others represent it.  
To this I have already returned one Answer, by showing, Answer. that Communicating Infants obtained in the same Century in which Tertullian lived; 
Vide supra §. 6.  and that from the Fourth to the Twelfth Century, it was generally practised, and held necessary for the Salvation of the Infant; and yet the Trent Council hath declared, That it was neither necessary, nor Apostolical. And there is one thing farther observable, to complete this Parallel, That Pseudo-Dionysius, in that very place where he discourses of Prayers for the Dead, undertakes also to account for that other Custom, 
Eccl. Hier. c. 7. §. 3. quae est de precib. pro mortuis. p. 417.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Administering, not only Baptism, but the most sacred Symbols of the Divine Communion to Children, not capable of understanding Divine things. That this was then done, he saith expressly, not only here, 
P. 419.  but in these following Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Priest also delivers to the Child the Sacred Symbols, which his Paraphrast varies thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Pachymeres p. 436.  The Infant also partakes of the Mysteries. And these things, saith he, our Masters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have brought down to us from an ancient Tradition; so that the Practice, as it was as early, so was Tradition equally pretended for it.  
Secondly, It hath been lately showed by the Judicious 
(a) Answer to the Jes. ch. 7.  Bishop Usher, the searned 
(b) De poenis & satisf. l. 5.  dal. and by the Author of a late excellent Treatise of 
(c) Sect. 1.  Prayer for the Dead, and Purgatory; That the Ancients prayed for the Dead upon these Five Accounts.  
1. 
dal. ibid. c. 7.  As believing the Doctrine of the Millenium, or the Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years.  
2. 
dal. ib. Ush. p. 232, etc.  As supposing, that in the general Conflagration of the World, at the last Day, all should pass through the Fire, and feel the Torment of it more or less.  
3. 
dal. ibid. c. 3, 4, 5, 6. Ush. ibid.  As thinking that the Souls of just Persons departed, were not to be admitted into the highest Heavens, or the Fruition of God's immediate Presence till the Resurrection, but were till then reserved in Abraham's Bosom.  
4. 
dal. ibid. c. 9  As thinking, That the Sentence was not instantly pronounced at the Day of their Death, but was reserved to that of Judgement, when the Just should have a public Absolution, and the full Crown of Righteousness awarded to them.  
5. 
dal. ib. c. 12.  As furmising, That even wicked Persons, by their Prayers, Alms, and Oblations, might receive, Aut plenam Remissionem, aut tolerabiliorem damnationem, either a full Remission, or a more tolerable Damnation. And indeed, I think it very difficult to name one Ancient Author, by whom these Prayers are mentioned, who held not one or more of these Opinions, which might give Rise unto this Custom; that of the Millenium, and of the non-Admission of Souls into the highest Heavens, being almost generally received in the Second Century, in which we hear nothing of Prayers for the Dead.  
Now all these Opinions are generally condemned, and discarded by the Church of Rome, and if they may reject all the apparent Grounds, recorded in the Ancients of this Practice, and censure the chief Reasons upon which they did it, why may not the Tradition also be rejected, as being founded upon precarious Doctrines, which they themselves deny to be Apostolical?  
Thirdly, I answer, That if by praying for the Dead, Mr. M. only means, the using of such Prayers as St. Paul made for Onesimus, viz. 
2 Tim. 1.18.  That God would Grant him Mercy at that Day, viz. The Day of Judgement; or such as our Church useth in her Liturgy, That God would deliver i● in the Hour of Death, and in the Day of Judgement; and that all they who are departed in the true Faith of God's Holy Name, may, at the Day of Recompense, have their perfect Consummation and Bliss, both in Body and Soul. I say, if he intends this only, it is no more than we ourselves do by our Practice and Subscriptions own.  
The Doctrine we deny, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, defin. council. Florent apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 851. & p. 564.  is that which is contained in the definition of the Florentive Council, in these Words; If those who have truly repent ●y in the Love of God, before they have satisfied for their Sins of Commission and Omission, by worthy Fruits of Penance, their Souls are purged after Death by purgatory Punishments; and that they may be relieved from those Punishments, it is profitable for them to have the Aid of the 〈◊〉, viz. The Masses, Prayers, and Alms, and other Acts of 〈◊〉, performed by the Faithful; and that they being thus purged, 〈◊〉 presently after received into Heaven, and admitted to the immediate Vision of God.  
The Doctrine we deny, is that which in the Trent Council is delivered ●●●us: The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, 〈…〉, S. Courgils', and in this General Synod, taught from the Holy Scriptures, 
Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragijs, potissimum vero Altaris acceptabili Sacrificio, juvari, Sess. 25.  and the ancient Tradition 〈…〉 ●●ry, and that 〈…〉 by the 〈…〉 the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; which Sacrifico, say they, 〈…〉 the Tradition of the Apostles, 〈…〉 the Sins, Punishments, 
Sed & pro defunctis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis, Sess. 22. cap. 2.  and Satisfactions of the Faithful living, but also for the Dead is Christ not fully punged. And therefore she defines, That if any one say that, after Justification, the Fault of the Penitent is so remitted, and the Gild of eternal Punishment so blotted out, 
Ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis exolvendae vel in hoc saeculo vel in futuro in purgatorio, Sess 6. can. 30.  that there remains no Gild of temporal Punishment to be suffered in this World, or in the future, in Purgatory, before he can have admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven, let him be Anathema. Now to prove this Doctrine from the perpetual Tradition of the Church of Christ, Mr. M. must not only prove the Antiquity of Prayer for the Dead, which no body denies; but,  
1. 
Apud. Bin. From. 7. p. 838.  That some Souls●●dying in Christ, or departing hence in the Love of God, are detrained in Purgatory; or, as the Florentine Council doth exprels it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a place of Torments.  
2. That they are there detained to undergo some temporal Punishment for their Sins, or to be fully purged from them after Death 〈◊〉 purgatory Torments.  
3. The● by the Prayers, Alms, and Masses performed by the Living, they are relieved from those Punishments, and are advanced from Purgatory to Heaven, from Torment to the Vision of God before the Resurrection of the Body, and the Day of Judgement: And when Mr. M. will undertake to prove these things, Ex antiqua Patrum traditione, from the Tradition of the Fathers of the first Five Centuries, or from the Tradition of the Apostles, he will justify the Decrees of these Councils, and confute the Protestants. But this, if he be well acquainted with the Writings and Customs of the Ancient Church, he must know to be a vain Attempt; it being evident that they knew nothing of these Doctrines; yea, that they often spoke things, as expressly contrary to every one of these Particulars, as Light is opposita to Darkness: For,  
4. Even from the Proyers 〈…〉 and from the Sentiments of those that 〈…〉 most certain Demonstrations, 〈…〉 received in the Ancient Church of 〈…〉  
It is the Observation of St. 〈…〉 That even their Funeral Hymns taught them to believe that the faithful, immediately after Death were Happy, 
Hom. 14. in 1. ep. ad Tim. p. 309.  That they returned then unto their Rest, and were delivered from all their Labours: We send out, saith he, the Departed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with Hymns; then is there Joy and Gladness, every one praying thus to die, 
Hom. 14. in 1. Ep. ad Tim. p. 309.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cease from their Labours, and Conflicts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be delivered from all dreadful things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to see Christ. 
Hom. 4. in Epist. ad Hebr. p. 453, 454.  And inveighing against the 〈◊〉 Custom of Lamenting the Faithful at their Death, he 〈…〉 do the burning Lamps import, is it not that 〈…〉 Champions? What mean the Hymns, do we 〈…〉 and give Thanks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 he hath crowned the Departed, that he 〈…〉 Labours; that freeing him from 〈…〉 Are not these the Import of 〈…〉 are the Actions of Men rejoicing. 〈…〉 Return unto thy Rest, O my Soul, for the 〈…〉 ously with thee: I will fear no Evil, for 〈…〉 art my Refuge from the Trouble that compasse● 〈…〉 what these Psalms import: But thou wilt not do 〈…〉 with Grief: Dost thou say, Return unto thy Rest, O my Soul, and weepest? Are not these things seen, and Hypocrisy; for if thou really believest what thou sayest, thou weepest superfluously; if thou dost not, Why dost thou sing, why dost thou suffer what is done, and dost not drive away the Singers? And again, 
Tom. 5. Hom. 61. p. 420, 421. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.  Let the manner of his Interment shame thee: Psalms, and Thanksgivings, and the Catalogue of his Progenitors, are things done, not that tho● mayst weep, but mayst give Thanks for them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being ●alled to greater Honour; and consider to whom they 〈…〉 that place where is Peter and Paul, and the 〈…〉 saith he, if an Heathen 〈…〉 wouldst not 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Rest. And, lastly, 〈…〉 who are gone before 〈…〉 Hymns, signifying our 〈…〉 Lamps and Incense we attend th●● 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 being delivered from this Life of Darkness, they are the to the true Light. 
Tom. 6. Hom. 116. p. 944.   
The Prayers used for the Dead in the Apostolical Constitutions, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 8. c. 41. Wisd. 3.1.  i. e. the most ancient of that kind, which are extant, suppose the Souls, for which they prayed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, resting in Christ, and in the Hands of God; so that no Torment can touch them; and yet their Prayer for them is, That God would forgive them all their voluntary, and involuntary Sins; That he would place over them kind Angel●, which should conduct them into the Regions of 〈…〉 Bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and 〈…〉 beginning, have pleased God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and 〈…〉 there is neither Sorrow, Grief, nor Sigh, but 〈…〉 the Region of pious Souls free from 〈…〉.  
Pseudo 〈…〉 Discourse touching those things which are performed about the Dead, 
De Hier. Eccl. c. 7. p. 405, 406, 407. Pachym. p. 427.  declareth, That the 〈…〉 to the Term of their Life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈…〉 their sacred Conflicts; and that being arrived 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they sleep in Joy, that being come to the end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of this present life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are filled with divine Pleasure, as well knowing they for ever shall enjoy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the good things they possess. 
P. 407, 408. Pachymeres, p. 428.  That the Relations of the Faithful do pronounce him blessed, as being come desirably, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to his triumphant End; that they bring him to the Priest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to the conferring of his Crown, and therefore pour out Psalms of thanksgiving to the Author of his Victory. That others, tho' unfit to be partakers of the Holy Communion, are admitted to these Funeral Solemnities; 
P. 410.411.  that seeing him who died piously in the Liturgick Offices, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, declared to be one who indeed enjoys Communion with the Saints, who have been from the beginning 〈…〉 the same End. 
P. 416. Pachym. p. 434.  That 〈…〉 the Combatant is 〈…〉 they bury his Body 〈…〉 Soul; 
Pachym. Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 joys its good things, 〈…〉 bly deposited?  
And then he tells us, That 〈…〉 the Priest made for him, 
P. 411.  was, That the Divine 〈…〉 would forgive him all his Sins committed through humane infirmity, and would place him in Light, and in the Region of the Living, in the Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Place from which is banished all Grief, Sorrow and Sighing. For Explication of which Prayer, He, and his Paraphrast there Note.  
First, That these things, thus prayed for, are, 
Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The plain and the most blessed Rewards of Holy Men.  
Secondly, That 〈…〉, 
Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈…〉 of Rest which receive Pious 〈…〉.  
Thirdly, 〈…〉 for us by a Kingdom, 〈…〉 of Darkness, 〈…〉 Sighing, signify, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 things ●y others to he suffered in the future Life, That accordingly 〈…〉 Patriarches, and all the Saints, are 〈…〉 and that the Metaphor seems to be taken from 〈…〉 Bosoms of the Sea, to which those who 〈…〉, that they may be at Rest; for as it is with them, so they who are in this Life tossed with Tempests, 
Pachymeres p. 430.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than rest in those Bosoms of the Patriarches, as in an Haven.  
Moreover, to this Question or Objection, Why should the Priest pray God to pardon the Sins of the Dead, and to give him a portion in Light with Divine Spirits, since every one receives from divine Justice, a retribution according to what he hath done in this present life; for the dead person having completed all the Actions of his Life, 
P. 412.  what can the Prayer of the Priest do to procure him a place of Rest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides that of which he was worthy and which was consonant to his Actions done in this 〈…〉.  
Now 〈…〉, 
P. 414, 415.  That the 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈…〉 from the Scriptures, 〈…〉 the Spots contracted 〈…〉, He asks that those things 〈…〉 Retributions may be given to such as 〈…〉 the Promises of God to be infallible; and 〈◊〉 which is asked, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Holy Institution, shall entirely happen to those who are made perfect, according to the divine Life; that he desires only the things which are acceptable to God, 
Pachymeres. p. 434.  and, 〈…〉 will most certainly be given as being just and 〈◊〉 by God.  
Here than we see expressly that 〈◊〉 the judgement of the Church, and those renowned Fathers, who composed and used these Prayers,  
1st. That they conceived that the 〈◊〉, for whom they put them up, did 〈…〉 ●ease from their Labours and their 〈…〉 were delivered not only from 〈…〉 fear of all things dread 〈…〉 where no Torm●● 〈…〉 Sorrow, and Grief, 〈…〉  
2dly, 〈…〉 were with God, and 〈…〉 to greater 〈…〉 where blessed 〈…〉; to the true Light; 〈…〉 stepped for Joy; were filled 〈…〉 of good Things; were come to a 〈…〉; to the Bellowship of all Saints; to the Haven of Rest: And that the purposes of their Prayers for them were to assure them, from the Institution, and Promises of God of the Enjoyment of these things; whence it is evident, that Ease and Freedom from all pain is not more opposite to intense Torments 〈◊〉 a place of Happiness, Rest, Joy and Pleasure, to that of the extremest Misery, than were Prayers for the Dead unto the Romish Purgatory. Now if such Prayers as these of the Ancient Church, excinsive of the Pains of Purgatory, and made expressly for the exemption of all pious 〈◊〉 from Grief and Torment, and 〈…〉 Happiness after Death will 〈…〉 quickly put an end 〈…〉 suppose the 〈…〉, and suffering 〈…〉 Gild is pardo●● 〈…〉 Church of God was 〈…〉, so can we see no reason 〈…〉 most cogent Reason to the contrary, 〈…〉  
Fifthly, Were pious Souls detamed in 〈◊〉 a miserable State, and subject to intense Torments, perhaps of many Years duration; and could the Prayers, the Alms, the Masses of good 〈…〉 them ease under, or a more speedy, 〈…〉 miserable plight, and their advant 〈…〉 must be the most meritorious 〈…〉 to be still praying, still mu●● 〈…〉 for the deliverance of these 〈…〉 and therefore doubtle 〈…〉 in the New 〈…〉 minutest 〈…〉 and and 〈…〉 relieve them 〈…〉 functions of 〈…〉 Wi●●on 〈…〉 〈◊〉 most 〈…〉 rity to the 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 Alms, much 〈…〉 off●r the 〈…〉 livery of them from that place of forment; not giving the least hint of any benefit which would accrue to us, or them, by doing so; nor one Example of any pious Person, who ever put up a Prayer for them; nor any Intimation of then sad Estate, and how much it deserv●● our Pity and 〈◊〉 (but leaving it to these poor 〈…〉 they had been shrewdly 〈…〉 after-Ages back to 〈…〉 plight, and 〈…〉 to John Gerard 〈…〉 
See Bish. Ush. of Purg. p. 174.  and 〈…〉 the silly 〈…〉 ●●lumption, .  
〈…〉 of Charity, 〈…〉 our Lord in 〈…〉 with a chief 〈…〉 that he will say unto us, 
Matth. xxv. 35, 36.  Come ye bless●●, 〈…〉 and thirsty, and you gave me meat and drink; nak●●, and you clothed me; sick, and you visited me; in prison, and you ministered to me. Since then the Souls in Purgatory are all the living Members of Christ's Body; seeing they there are in a State more worthy of our Pity, than the most sick, afflicted, or needy of Christ's Members upon Earth; and 'twould be greater Charity, if we were able, to relieve them then, than 〈◊〉 any Miseries, they here endure, how came 〈…〉 add, I was in the infernal 〈…〉 tormented with the paint 〈…〉 Release? 
Hebr. xiij. 12.  Remember 〈…〉 bound with 〈…〉 the Body 〈…〉 this our 〈…〉 they endure 〈…〉 to sympathise 〈…〉 Alms, and by 〈…〉 this affli 〈…〉 it is such as we also 〈…〉 never call upon 〈…〉 are in Ron● in Rurgatory, those 〈…〉 in a far more afflicted State, as knowing, If he believed the Doctrine of Purgatory, it would be so with us, 
Jam. v. 14, 15.  when separated from the Body? St. James exhorts the sick to send for the Rulers of the Church; that they may pray over them; adding, for their Encouragement to do so, That the Prayer of 〈◊〉 shall save the sick; and that if he hath committed Sins, the● shall be forgiven him; and that the effectual fervent Prayer of 〈◊〉 Righteous Man 〈…〉 but, if their Prayers would avail also for the 〈…〉 of those Sins for which he was fry in 〈…〉 as careful to 〈…〉 Why left he 〈…〉 to desire the like Prays 〈…〉 that place of Torment 〈…〉 ragements 〈…〉 these good 〈…〉 not their Priests pray 〈…〉tory? Do they not represent this 〈…〉 stian Charity?;;;; Are they not still 〈…〉 it? What therefore can we think of the 〈…〉 Can we imagine that Roman Catholics have more ●●ction for distressed Souls than our Compassionate Highpriest, and all his Blessed Apostles? Or, rather must we not conceive this Silence of our Lord and his Apostles, in that which fills up almost every part of R. Charity and Devotion, a demonstration that Christ and his Apostles knew nothing of their Doctrine, nor of the benefit of Prayers for Souls in Purgatory?   
FINIS.