« AnteriorContinuar »
1291b Letter, written An. 414, they were both doubted of in some parts of the Catholick Churcb, above Threescore and Ten Tears after Constantine's Death.
To the 4th. Besides that, Tertullian speaks not of all the Books in Question ; Originals, that were extant in the 2d Century, might be lost in the 4th ; either by the Course of Time, or by the Edict of Dioclesian, An. 303 (for the Burning of the Scriptures) mošt severely executed.
To the 5th. Monsr. Du Pin, in the Preli. minary Dissertation to his Ecclesiastical HiStory, done into English by a Protestant Hand, says, Sect. 6. p. 50. concerning the Revelation, or the Apocalypse ; It was rejected by Caius, an ancient Priest of Rome, who attributed it to the Heretick Cerinthus, as Exifebius testifies in the 3d Book of his History, Chap. 28. &c.
St. Dionysius of Alexandria observes, that several Perfons disown'd and confuted the Apocalypse, as a Book full of Fictions and Falsities, but that many others approv'd of it. St. Jerome tells us, in his 129th Epistle, thac in his Time the greater Part of the Greek Churches did not receive this Book, no more than the Latins did the Epistle to the Hebrews; but that he receiv'd both. Amphilochius also observes, that in his Time [ IV. Cent.] fome receiv'd it, but that there were great Numbers that re
jected it; and indeed it is not to be found in the Catalogue of the Council of Laodia cea, nor in that of St. Cyril; but it has been fince acknowledged by the Greek and Latin Churches, 06. Thus Du Pin. And fonce the Catholick Church has receiv'd it, it ought to be own’d by all of equal Authority with the Gospels themselves. Not that Shë made it be a part of God's Holy Word's for this it always was, being written at first by Din vine Inspiration : But that we had not been * fure of this Inspiration, had not Sbe'attested it after the Apollles Time..
As for Quotations, the Reader may depend upon it, that I have used all the Exact nefs, my Circumftances would permit. The greatest Part of them being the Notesy I had formerly taken from the Originals themselves with utmost Dis ligence
. I hope the Intelligent Reader will find, I have not mistaken their Sense. That he the more easily be Judge in the Cafe ; I have taken Care (whenever it seem'd Material) to transcribe in the Margin, the Words of the Authors at Length, and commonly with Directions both to the Chapter and Page of the Edition I used. Tet in Greek Fathers (because some Rea
(*) Ce n'eft pas, que l'Evangile tire en foi fon Authori. taté de l'Eglise : il l'a de Dicu mêmé, qui l'a repedé et inspiré. Mais on n'est seur de cette Revelation, que par i Auchorité de l'Eglise, qui nous apprend que c'est ce même Evangile qui a ete écrite par les Apôtres, Monst. Du Pin, Difert. Prelim. L. 2. Cb. 1. S. .
ders,who perfectly understand the Latin Tongue, cannot distinguish fo exactly the true Senje of the Greek) when the Latin Transation-varies not from the Original, I was often willing to use it. Some perhaps may esteem all this a needless Labour. But my Thoughts are so very different, that, if all late Writers had made it their Business to let their Reader's see the true Sense and Design of the Holy Fathers, I am per Juaded the greatest Part of our Controversies. would have been at an End long since. However, this has swell's my Answer to a much greater Compass, than I defign'd. It is there fore divided into Three Parts. The Firft is, of Mr. L's Book in General. The Second, of the Church, The Third, of Supremacy, Transubstantiation and other particular Controversies.
The READER, before he perufes the Book, is desir’d to correct, or, at least, to mark the Principal Errata, which are fes down after the Contents
Did Pius v. break the Communion ? "
- CH A P. H.
Of our Meo of Sense not Believing the Scrip-
iture : So
in an unknown Tongue ! Idei