The first rule is that of Tertullian (de
Praescript, c. 22.), “Quod apud inultos unum invenitur, non est erratum,
sed traditum. That which amongst many is found one, is no error, but handed
down.” In other words, tradition, time out of mind. “And let any one dare,” says
he, “affirm that they were in an error who begun this tradition.”
The second rule for finding out
apostolical traditions, is given by St. Augustin, (L. 2, Bapt. c. 7 ; L. 4,
c. 23, and L. 5, c. 23,) which is this: “Whatever is found to have been
held by the universal church over the whole world, and not to have had its
beginning from any ordinance of bishops or councils, but to have been prior to
any such ordinance, that is to be esteemed a tradition of those by whom the
church was first established, that is, of the apostles of Christ.” By this
rule this great doctor of the church proves against the Donatists, that baptism
given by heretics ought not to be reiterated, because of the ancient custom of
the church, which received their baptism; and by this very same rule,
Catholics, with the highest degree of evidence, and the utmost force, maintain
the doctrines and practices of the church, which modern sects have protested
against, to be indeed apostolical traditions, by reason of the long possession
they have obtained throughout all Christendom. A possession have not acquired
any ordinances of councils, but have had before any such ordinances, and which
they quietly enjoyed, long before it was contradicted by any man, which was
certainly the case of sacrifice of mass, of prayers for the dead, of the
invocation of saints, &c. These are all certainly apostolical traditions.
Now the apostles delivered nothing but true doctrines, to be handed down from
age to age.
The third rule is that of St. Irenae, in
his third book against heresies, chap. iv. And of Tertullian, in his book of
prescriptions, chap. xxxii and xxxvii viz.: That to discern what traditions are
apostolical, and what not, we must have recourse to the churches founded by the
apostles, and learn from them what the apostles taught. For as by their
testimony we know what scriptures are apostolical, and what not, so by their
testimony we are to know what traditions are to be esteemed apostolical, which
have been delivered as such by the churches founded by the apostles, amongst
which the greatest and most ancient, according to Irenaeus in the same place,
is that of Rome, founded by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; to
which church, by reason of its more powerful principality, “all must have
recourse, and in which the apostolical tradition has always been preserved by
those that are in everyplace.” “A happy church,” says
Tertullian, chap, xxxvi., “its condition to which the apostles bequeathed
their whole doctrine with their blood.” This rule is certainly
well-grounded; because, as our Lord by himself, and by his holy Spirit,
certainly taught his apostles all truth, so his apostles, by his commission,
certainly delivered all that he taught to the churches which they founded. So
that these are certainly the best qualified to be witnesses of what the
apostles taught which are the things we call apostolical traditions. By the
application of this rule to our modern controversies, the first religion must
certainly gain her cause against all sects; because, notorious to all the
world, that when the present differences in religion first began, all
apostolical churches, with one accord, received, held, and maintained those
doctrines and practices for apostolical traditions, which are now rejected and
impugned by the pretenders to reformation.
Against these rules our adversaries
object, that all the churches founded by the apostles, and in a word, all
Christendom, quickly forsook or corrupted the doctrine of the apostles, and
went astray into error, superstition, and idolatry; and therefore there was a
necessity for their reformation, which, if we will believe them, was nothing
else but bringing back again the primitive doctrines which had possession of
the church before she was corrupted with popery.
This impious pretence, upon which the
whole reformation is grounded, is demonstratively confuted by all those texts
of scripture which assure us that the church founded by Christ should never be
corrupted by damnable errors. It is also infinitely injurious to Christ, giving
Satan so early a victory over his kingdom. Yet the reformers pretend that the
whole church of God of the New Testament, “Laity and clergy, learned and
unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women and children of whole
Christendom, were at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices
the most detested by God and damnable to man, and that for the space of eight
hundred years and more.” (Hom. of peril of idolatry, part iii)
But for the more fully confuting this
groundless system, which pretends that the primitive Christians were
Protestants, till their successors introduced popery; and to demonstrate the
perpetual succession of the Catholic doctrine from the apostles, I shall borrow
the words of a modern writer upon this subject, which seem to me to put the
matter out of dispute. “If the faithful in the first centuries were
Protestants, when and how did their posterity become papists.” (for papists
they certainly were, when Luther undertook to reform the church's doctrine, anno
1517, and had been so for many hundred years.) In what year of our Lord did
this popery first creep into the church? Who was the first author of it? In
what place was it first broached? What opposition did it meet with at its first
appearance from the zeal of the pastors of the church? What disturbances did it
cause? What books were written on this occasion, what councils held? &c. Or
was this the only change in religion, the only heresy, which crept into the
world without author, without date, without disturbance, without resistance; so
that the whole world, by a strange revolution, from Protestant became papist,
though no one knows how, nor when?
“We can trace up protestancy to the very
year in which it was first broached, viz. 1517, we can name the day when their
first preacher laid the foundations of their religions, (by his first sermon at
Wittenburg against indulgences,) at which time we could have said to them with
truth, your profession had no being yesterday. We can tell the author, the
place, the first and chief abettors of their doctrine; the disturbances it
caused; the resistance which it met with; the books written on both sides,
&c. We can do the same with regard to Arianism, and all other heresies or
innovations in religion. Let them name the pope or bishop of Rome for these
1847 years that brought into the church a religion different from that in which
his immediate predecessor both lived and died. Which, as they certainly cannot
do, is a plain demonstration the faith of the church was never changed.
“I would here ask of these gentlemen, who
would persuade us that Protestancy was the religion of the first ages, and
that there was a time when the whole church was Protestant, whether these
ancient Protestants, at the first appearance of popery, all unanimously agreed
to embrace it; or whether a great part of them stuck out, and remained steady
to their ancient faith? If a great part of them stuck out, and continued steady
to the Protestant religion, what disputes did diversity of sentiments produce?
What books were written for and against, as always happens on such occasions?
If all at once were bewitched into an unanimous agreement in popery.”
I know our adversaries will say that
popery, as they call it, was not all brought into the church at one time, but
by degrees; that prayers for the dead were introduced in one century;
invocation of saints in another, and so of the rest.
But this reply does not at all lessen the
force of our argument; as may be easily made appear in the aforesaid instances
of prayers for the dead, and invocation of saints. Prayers for the dead are
laid aside in all the reformed churches, as vain and superstitious; though they
cannot but acknowledge, that they were maintained and practised by the
universal church. And Arius, as we learn from St. Epiphanius, Haer. 75,
and St. Augustine, Her. 27, was in the fourth century ranked amongst the
heretics, for presuming to say, that the prayers and alms of the living did the
dead no good. Now, if there ever was a time when the primitive Christians were
Protestants in this particular, so as to be convinced that prayers for the dead
were vain and superstitious; if this, I say, was the notion of the Christians
of the first and second century, how was it possible that their immediate successors
in the third century, should so unanimously embrace this practice; should
reckon it amongst their most ancient traditions? (Tertullian de corona
militis, c. 3.) “And the first man that offered to oppose it in the
following age, should upon that account be condemned as an heretic; especially
since our adversaries must acknowledge, that in the third and fourth century
the church was well stocked with prelates, both learned and zealous against all
novelties, that would never have sat still and tamely suffered the faith to be
corrupted by any man.”
In like manner as to the invocation of
saints, which many Protestants accuse of downright idolatry; it is confessed by
their best divines to have been the doctrine and practice of the fathers, at
least in the fourth century and downwards. It is confessed, says Mr. Thorndike,
in Epil. P. 3, p. 358, that the lights both of the Greek and Latin
church, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory Nyssene, St. Ambrose, St.
Jerome, St. Augustin, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Cyril of
Alexandria, St. Theodoret, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory the Great, St. Leo, and
all after that time, have held the invocation of saints, and desired their
assistance. Now if there ever was a time, in which the primitive Christians
were protestant as to this article, and in which they believed as Protestants
now do, that the invocation of saints was superstition and idolatry, how was it
possible, that all on a sudden, the whole current of the fathers in those times
of learning, zeal, and piety, should all run into this practice without
resistance from any one, but such as were condemned heretics, Eunomeus,
Vigilantius and Faustus? Certainly these great lights of antiquity were better
qualified to know what was the doctrine of their immediate predecessors, than
modern Protestants at the distance of more than fourteen hundred years can
pretend to be; and it is not less certain, that they were not capable of taking
up any practice, if they had known that their forefathers abhorred it as
superstition and idolatry. The like may be said with regard to all the other
points of modern controversy, in which the adversaries of the church charge her
with having altered and corrupted the ancient faith. And indeed a person must
be a stranger to church history, (in which we see by so many instances, how
tenacious the generality of Christians have been in every age, of the faith in
which they were brought up; and what disturbances have been caused, as often as
the least point of the church's doctrine has been called in question,) that can
imagine that all or any one of the articles of the primitive faith could ever
be altered, without great opposition and disturbance; much less so insensibly,
as that nobody should be able to tell how, when, or by whom the alteration was
made.
No comments:
Post a Comment