Sidor som bilder

Ephrem, S. (35) Epiphanius, S. (36) Gregory Chap. 3. Nazianzen, S. (37) Ferom, S. (38) Auguftin, Quest.6, and (39) Eufebius in the fourth and fifth. S. (40) Philastrius judges it to be Herefy. So does (41) Theodoret, and S. (42) Fulgentius.

Sixthly, The Apocalypfe, the Epiftle to the Hebrews, the 2d Epiftle of S. Peter, the Second and third of S. John, the Epiftle of S. James, aud that of S. Jude are now reckon'd among the undoubted and Canonical Books of the New Teftament, and are included in the Terms of Catholick Communion. But in the third and fourth Century they were not. For, as Dr. Walton fays: (43) Concerning the Apocalypfe, and fome other Parts of the New Testament, there was a Doubt FOR SOME AGES: till at length, rather by a tacit Confent of the whole Church, than by any exprefs Decree, all the Books, as they are read at prefent, were receiv'd and approv'd. Thus this learned Divine of the Church of England, in the Difputations, before his Polyglot. See the Rule of "Faith, an. 1721, p. 109. 110. 111. 112. So that Proteftants are as fure, that new Terms of Communion do not render the Catholick Church Unorthodox

(35) Hær. 77. §. 36. (36) Orat. li. lii. (37) In Jerem. xix pag. 311. in Ezech. xxxviii. pag. 514. Tom. 5. (38) De Civit. Dei. Lib. xx. Cap. vii. Et Lib. de Hæref. Cap. viii. (39) Lib. iii. Hift. Cap. xxxix. pag. 112. (40) Hær. 59. (41) Lib. iii. hær. Fab. Cap. vi. (42) Lib. con. Pintam Arianum Cap. ii. (43) Sed de Apocalypfi, aliifq; quibusdam partibus Novi Teftamenti, per quædam fæcula dubitatum erat: Donec tandem tacito totius Ecclefiæ confenfu, potius quam expreffo aliquo decreto, omnes libri, prout hodie leguuntur, recepti & approbati funt. Cap.iv. §. 6. pag. 31.

Chap. 3. orthodox, as they are that all the Books, contain'd in their Bible, are a Rule of Faith.

Quest. 6.

Laftly, The Catholick Church cannot be Unorthodox, but either by erring against the Faith, or by making unreasonable Terms of Communion. If fo, fhe is neither Unorthodox, by new Definitions of the primitive Faith, nor by making new and neceffary Terms of Communion against new Herefies. For new Herefies, as the Council of Calcedon long fince obferv'd, require new Cautions, and Provifions, which before were of no Ufe.


invented Errors require new Declarations of Faith. And if Men would have us content with the old ones: (44) let them preach this to Hereticks, fays the Council, that they may not burt the Faithful, not to the Paftors, that they may not help them. For Laws are defign'd to reftrain Delinquents, not to curb the Power of the Fudge. New Antidotes therefore against new Errors, cannot caft a Blemish on the Catholick Church, unless felf-preservation make her Unorthodox. And after all, what Contradiction can be more glaring, than an Unorthodox Catholick Church?


(44) Τοῖς αιρετικοῖς τ ο νομοθετιτο τιπρόταγμα, ἐκεί μας παῦσαι τῆς ἀδικίας, μὴ τὸς ποιμένας τῆς ἀντιλήψεως. Πᾶς γαρ νόμΘ- τοῖς πονηροῖς ἀπαγορέυει τήν ἁμαρτίαν, κ τὸς κατὰς ἀπείργει τὴς ἐξεσίας. In Allocut. Concilii ad Amper. Tom. 4. Conc. p. 826. D. Vide etiam pag. 819 E.

Chap. 3.

Seventh QUESTION. Queft.7.

What Rule does the Catholick Church follow in her Definitions of Faith?


ER Rule of Faith is Scripture,

Hand Apoftolical Tradition. For



[ocr errors]

First, This Tradition is recommended by the Holy Scripture itself. Therefore, Brethren, ftand fast, fays S. (1) Paul, and hold the Traditions, which have been taught, WHETHER BY WORD, or by our Epiftle. See also 2 Thef. iii. v. 6. 2 Tim. i. v. 13, 14. 2 Tim. ii. v. 2; and 1 Cor. xi. v. 2, where the Proteftant Bible has Ordinances, instead of (2) Traditions. For that, which the Apostles deliver'd to the Catholick Church by their Tongues, was as much the word of God, as that which they deliver'd to her by their Pens. And the Scripture no where tells us, that whatever the Apoftles taught, was committed to Writing.

Secondly, The Original and Traditionary Senfe of the New Testament is a confiderable Part of the Christian Revelation: Which Senfe, at this Distance of Time, cannot be known by Reading the Bible.

For the Holy Scripture has two Senses; the one feeming, the other real. The real and true Senfe of the New Teftament is the Original Sense of it; that is, it is the Senfe, in which it was writ, or the Sense which was intended by the Sacred Pen-men.


(1) 2 Thef. ii. v. 15. (2) Και καθώς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε, 1 Cor. xi. v. 20

Chap. 3. This is alfo the Traditionary Senfe of the Queft.7. New Teftament; or the Senfe, in which it has been understood, from the Beginning, by Apoftolical Tradition. For of all the Disciples, only two were infpir'd to write, S. Mark and S. Luke. And of the 13 Apostles [I include S. Paul] only fix were Writers. S. Andrew, S. James Son of Zebedæus, S. Philip, S. Bartholomew, S. Thomas, S. Simon and S. Mathias writ nothing. But, in declaring the true Senfe of the Bible, and in delivering it to Pofterity by word of Mouth, that is, in Apoftolical and Oral Tradition, all the Apostles had a fhare.

By this the first Christians knew, what Books of the Old and New Teftament were infpir'd. For Christians did not receive the Old Teftament from the Synagogue, but from the Apostles, and by a Revelation made to the Apostles.

By this Oral and Apostolical Tradition the firft Chriftians knew the true Sense both of the Old and of the New Teftament.

But how did they know it in regard to the New?

First, by the general Syftem of Christian Doctrine: Which Syftem was the Chriftian Rule of Faith, before any part of the New Teftament was writ. This System or Rule of Faith, is that great and facred (3) Depofitum, which S. Paul recommended fo earnestly to his Disciple S. Timothy, then Bishop of Ephefus. And by this Rule the first Christians knew,

(3) Thy magnara Junny quλakov, 1 Tim. vi. v. 20. mu καλὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον, 2 Tim, i, v 14

knew, whether the Son and the Holy Spirit Chap. 3. are Creatures, or not; and whether divine Queft.7. Worship ought to be given alfo to them, or to the Father only: Whether Infants ought to be baptiz'd or not: Whether washing literally one another's Feet, is a Gofpel Precept, or not: Whether the ten Commandments (which were given to the Jews) oblige Chriftians any farther, than as they are moral Precepts of the Law of Nature; fo that whatever they contain, of Rites and Ceremonies, ceases: Whether Chriftians are bound to keep Saturday holy, which was the Day appointed by the ten Commandments; and whether it be lawful for them to make or to keep an Ivory or painted Crucifix, and, at the Sight of it, to bow to Chrift whom it reprefents, as Proteftants bow at the Name of Jefus, as they bow to the Altar, and to the Chair of State whether Christ instituted no Signs of Grace, but only two; or whether Ordination, the Sacerdotal Abfolution &c. are not effectual Signs of Grace whether Chrift ought to be ador❜d in the Bleffed Sacrament or not; and whether (if the Words of Confecration be literally true) that, which feems to be Bread and Wine, is not, after Confecration, the true Body and Blood of Chrift: Whether Charity, or the Concern, which the Saints upon Earth had for our Salvation, ceafes by Death; or they still defire it [which we call Praying for it] as much as they did, whilft they were Mortals; and whether it be a Sin, to defire of God, that we may have a fhare in their Prayers: Whether Christians ought to pray for the Rest and Relief of their Brethren departed, or not;


« FöregåendeFortsätt »