live in the Fellowship of the Apostles which is the Second Character in my Text. The third is the Participation of the same Sacraments One only is mentioned in my Text that is the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper For being already baptized they had no more occasion for Baptism But that being spoken of before ver 41. I therefore mention both these Sacraments The use of both these in the Apostles times was a Character and Token of the Christian Church Thus St. Paul 1 Cor. xii 13. mentions both these Sacraments as the Instruments and Means by which we are united to Christ. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body and we have all been made to drink into one Spirit Both these Sacraments they received of Christs own Institution who required them to be used in all Ages of the Church to be administred to all it's Members by every Church And that in the same manner as they were instituted by Christ I mean as to all the Essential parts of the Sacraments However Ceremonies or Rites may be varied yet in their Essential parts they are of perpetual Obligation For Baptism when it was instituted by our Saviour for the Admission of Members into his Church he said thus to his Apostles Go make Disciples that is Christians of all Nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And thus doing Lo I am with you till the end of the World And for the Lords Supper he â—dministred it himself to his Disciples who were then not in Orders for it was before his Death and he did not ordain them till after his Resurrection And administring the Sacrament to them who were not in Orders He took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat this is my Body and what follows He gave them the Cup in like manner saying Drink ye all of it This is my Blood or this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Accordingly it was done in the Church in the Apostles times The Apostle calls it the Bread and the Cup which they received in the Sacrament never otherwise though Spiritually and Sacramentally the Body and Blood of Christ yet Bread and Wine in its Natural and Bodily substance He says The Cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ And the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ No doubt we have the Mind of Christ in these words It is properly the Communion of His Body and Blood which we receive in this Sacrament And according to his Law they are conveyed to us under the Elements of Bread and Wine For so the Apostle tells us that even after Consecration It is Bread which we break it is Bread which we partake It is Bread that we eat in this Sacrament Which last thing he says three times together in three Verses In like manner it was properly Wine which remained in the Cup even after Consecration So it was called by our Saviour the fruit of the Vine and this Fruit even the same of which he had said This is my Blood And as he said to his Apostles being Laymen Drink ye all of it and as St. Mark observes They all drank of it so did all other in those times as well Laity as Clergy 1 Cor. xii 13. We are all made to drink into one Spirit 'T is observable the whole Sacrament there is called drinking as here the whole Sacrament is called Breaking of Bread And the Sacrament being thus instituted by Christ being thus administred by his Apostles and being thus received in his Church was to continue till Christs coming again So the Apostle saith expresly 1 Cor. xi 26. So that here 's a third Character of an Apostolic Church to continue the use of those Sacraments which they used and that in all the Essentials of them according to Christ's own Institution A fourth Character in this Text is Prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural Number that is not one or two but many and oft And it appears they were publick Prayers by what follows ver 46. They continued daily with one accord in the Temple There the Apostles used to meet after Christ's Ascension into Heaven They were continually in the Temple praising and blessing God They were constantly there in the times of Devotion as may appear from Acts iii. 1. and other places They continued this Practice as long as the Iews would suffer them till they drove them away from their Temple and Synagogues After which these first Christians had Assemblies elsewhere as we read Acts xviii 17. In which Assemblies what they prayed and what they did besides praying we have no particular account in Holy Scripture But we have in those Writers that lived within the Age of the Apostles That is in an Epistle of the Younger Pliny to Trajan and in St. Iustin Martyr's second Apology There we find in Pliny that they did Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum in vicem They spoke Verses answering one another by turns as we speak the Reading Psalms I know not how he could better express it And saith Iustin Martyr they read Lessons out of the Apostles and out of the Prophets And when the Reader had done the Bishop Preached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either the Bishop or the chief Minister Then they rose up all together and prayed They had saith Iustin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Prayers Those are his Words In which they prayed for themselves and for their Princes and for all others that were living with them They prayed only to God saith Iustin Martyr twice This together with the Administration of the Sacraments and their gatherings for the poor is all the Account they give us of their Meetings Which account being given much within fifty years of the Apostles times we may reasonably conclude it was the manner of their Prayers the use whereof was the fourth Character in our Description of the Apostolick Church Besides these you see my Text hath given us no other and therefore whosoever would make sure of such a Church he may do well to judg of it by these Characters being all that the Apostles have given us But if these were the Notes of a true Church in the Apostles times what mean they of the Now Roman Church to require any other Or what would they have that cannot content themselves with these Sure their hearts misgive them that these are not for their turn Either they have them not or others have them as well as they And therefore they choose rather to insist upon those which they can hope to appropriate to their own Faction It is not worth the while in this Place to reckon up the fifteen Notes of a true Church which Bellarmin gives us All which are
known in all Countrys where the Scripture was written And they writ it for every one to read as it appears in plain words in their writings And the Ancient Fathers required all men to read it all the Laity even the meanest of the Laity they Condemned the neglect of it they commended them that read it day and night There is nothing more frequent in the writings of the Ancient Fathers Yet now it is found out that the Laity may hurt themselves with reading it How so It will make them Hereitics One would little expect it that had read what the Fathers say of this matter But now it is Heresie to disbelieve the Roman Church And no doubt to read the Scripture will bring men to this But whose fault is it Surely theirs that instead of reforming their Church have rather chosen to silence the Scriptures Which being done in favour of their Doctrines it appears that they themselves I mean the governours of their Church have been sensible that some at least of their Doctrines are not the Doctrines of the Apostles In the next place for the Apostles Fellowship which I have interpreted to be Union under lawful Pastors and Governors They can by no means allow this Character to our Church or to any that submits not to their Universal Pastor Which title they appropriate to the Bishop of Rome and him they swear in their forementioned profession of Faith to be the Vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter the Apostle And to shew how far they dare go against evidence they swear also that his Roman Church is not only Mistress but also the Mother of all Churches Not to say in how many things he that will be Supream Pastor invades the just rights of other Pastors who are all in the judgment of Primitive times the Successors of the Apostles of Christ Or how little he hath to shew for his claim to a succession in that Power from St. Peter either in Scripture Story or in the writings of the Primitive Church I shall only desire you to consider these beginnings of Christianity in my Text. When the whole Church was comprehended in three or four thousand believers and they were all together with the Apostles at this time in Ierusalem It is certain that then there was no Bishop nor no Christian at Rome So that then for the Bishop or Church of Rome to be any thing which they swear they are in those Articles of their Faith was surely no part of the Apostles Doctrine Nor did the Fellowship of the Apostles consist in subjection to St. Peter Though he was the first in Order yet that he had Authority over the rest there is no ground to assert There is much evidence against it as I have shewn from sundry places of Scripture Nor granting this to St. Peter which they can never prove can they bring down a title from him to the Roman Bishop He hath a better pretence to succeed the Roman Emperors in Monarchy than he hath to succeed any of the Apostles And indeed that was the design as they know that are skild in the writers of antient times Rome seemed a place designd for Empire and when the Emperors faild then the Bishops set up in their stead What the Emperors could not hold by Arms the Bishops would fetch in by Religion And so they obtrude upon all Christians in truth a Secular Monarchy instead of that which my Text calls the Fellowship of the Apostles Thirdly for the two Sacraments of the Apostles they tell us of seven which were instituted by our Lord Iesus Christ. In this Chapter we read of Baptism p. 41. and we read of breaking of Bread in my Text. Here are two but where are the other five They were not thought of at that time for ought that appears to us in Scripture Nay it doth not appear in a thousand years after It was eleven hundred years after when Peter Lombard wrote his Book of the Sentences before which they cannot find the least mention of that number of Sacraments But to speak of no more than that mentioned in my Text. Where is the breaking of bread As they receive it in the Roman Church there is neither breaking nor bread in their Sacrament Where is the Communion of Christs Body and Blood Their daily Worship is the Mass. But their Mass is no Communion The Priest only Consecrates and eats while all the people stand by and adore Was there ever such a thing heard of in the Primitive times In those times none were suffered to be present but only such as received And if any were present they were punishable if they did not receive What could they have thought of such a Sacrament as is now the daily Worship of the Roman Church Sure enough in the Apostles Church as oft as they met to Worship God they All did eat of that one bread 1 Cor. x. 17. And they All were made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. xii 13. And whereas of this last our Saviour having said to his Disciples who were then Lay-men Drink ye all of it St. Mark takes particular notice that they all drank of it which practice we see was followed in the Apostolic Church The Roman Church will let her Laity drink none of it None of the Cup of blessing which we bless But the Cup of Unblessed Wine the Ablution as they call it A trick which they brought up in those corrupt ignorant times I know not why if not on purpose to deceive the people that they may not miss the Wine though they have none of the Blessing So far they are removed from the Original Church in her Sacraments Lastly for the Worship of God here called the Apostles Prayers There are many things in the Roman Church whereof some were forbidden by the Apostles and others cannot consist with their Doctrine The chief part of her Worship is the Sacrifice of the Mass and that is declared in the Creed before-mentioned to be a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead This horrible affront of Christs Sacrifice and abuse of his Sacrament together was brought in upon the back of that Doctrine of the Corporeal Presence When according to that Doctrine the Priest hath made Christ Next he is to kill him or do somthing as bad for they pretend to sacrifice him to God How this is done the Divines of that Church are not yet agreed It were well if at least they could tell Why they do it For they had need for such a Sacrifice to have a clear Institution from God But they cannot pretend to that There is nothing clearly for it in all the Texts that they bring out of Scripture This they were told aloud at the Council of Trent and others since have acknowledged it They
12 13. We have been all made to drink So Justin M. Apol. 2. p. 97. E. and 98. E. declares the manner of those times that every one of the people that were present at the Sacrament did receive it in both kinds d It appears that this manner was continued in following Ages it does not appear that it was changed in any Church till that Doctrine came in which requires men to disbelieve their Senses This being hard to do in that part of the Sacrament the Cup was taken away by degrees in these Western Churches The first that writ for this use as far as I can find was Gislebertus that lived about the year eleven hundred Aquinas that lived about one hundred and fifty years after says that then this new manner was providently observed in some Churches Summ. Part. III. q. 80. art 12. in Corp. After one hundred and fifty years more was the Council of Constance which enjoin'd it to all and that with a bold non obstante to all that Christ had said or done to the contrary For thus the Decree Sess. 13. Concil Ed. Labb Tom. XII 100. B C. Though Christ administred this Sacrament to his Disciples in both kinds of bread and wine yet Notwithstanding this the approved Custom of the Church is otherwise And though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was then received by the faithful in both kinds Yet this Custom was brought up with good reason for the avoiding of some Perils and Scandals c. It seems they were such as Christ did not foresee or the Antient Church did not find for otherwise this had not been then to do a It makes the Sacrifice of Christ as much lower in value as it is oftener offered than the Levitical Sacrifices For the reason of their being often offered was because of their insufficiency to take away sin Heb. x. 11. Had Christs Sacrifice been like theirs he must often have suffered Heb. ix 25 26. He must have oftentimes offered the same Sacrifice Heb. x. 11. As they say he doth at every Mass in the Roman Church But this he needed not Christs Once was enough Heb. vii 27. and ix 12 26 28. and x. 10. He offered one Sacrifice for sin for ever Heb. x. 12. and by that one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctified V. 14. So that there is no more offering for sin V. 18. No more true proper propitiatory Sacrifice a The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was Ordained for the remembrance and representation of the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ to be offered or made by every believer He takes eats drinks he Does this in remembrance of Christ. Luk. xxii 19. and so doing he sheweth forth the death of Christ 1 Cor. xi 26. and applieth to himself Christs body broken and his blood shed for us There goes with it an Eucharistical Sacrifice that is before the Sacrament an Oblation solemnly presented to God in and after it a Spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving an offering of our selves souls and bodies For this every Christian is a Priest 1 Pet. ii 5. The manner of it is thus described in the old Roman Missal set forth by Pamelius After the reading of the Gospel the Offertory is sung and the Oblations are offered by the people out of which Bread and Wine are set upon the Altar to be Consecrated and the Prayer is said over the Oblations After this the Priest began the Canon of the Mass and said the Commemoration in these words Remember Lord all here present who offer to thee this Sacrifice of praise for themselves and all theirs Menardi Sacr. Gregor p. 2. In those times men saw the Oblations to which those words did refer But afterward when there was no more such offering and no more breaking of Bread but a Wafer to be offered by the Priest for the People then the Antient form was improper and therefore they altered it thus Remember Lord all here present for whom We offer to thee c. So it stands now in the Roman Missal Where all the other Prayers which were designed for the Eucharist are misapplied to the new Propitiatory Sacrifice And yet still they continue these following words of the Prayer after the Diptychs through our Lord Jesus Christ By whom thou O Lord Createst all these things always good c. and givest them to us This they say over the Wafer and Wine after Consecration Of the Creatures of Bread and Wine See the end of Page 47. b Bell. de Missà Lib. l. Cap 2. Secundò saith All things whatsoever that are called Sacrifices in Scripture were of necessity to be destroyed and that by Killing them if they were living things if without life by Burning them c. a Bell. de Missà Lib. I. Cap. 27. the whole Chapter Whether by 〈…〉 c. b 1562. Jul. 24. Padre Paâ—lâ— saith Ataiâ—e Cardinal Palavicino saith Fâ—rerâ— shewed that the Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be prâ—ved from Scripture alone without Tradition particularly that it cannot be prâ—ved from Christ words at the last Supper but by the uniform exposition of the Fathers He adds that They did not so understand it as if their sense were of Faith The truth is the Ancient Fathers did not so understand our Saviours words nor perhaps did many of the Trent Fathers themselves For when the question was put whether Christ at the last Supper offered himself for a Propitiatory Sacrifice it held both the Divines and Bishops in long Dispute saith Card. Pallavicino XVII 13. 11 c. It was alledged on the one hand that if that at the last Supper was a true Propitiatory Sacrifice then that upon the Cross could be only in remembrance of this and on the other hand if it was not such a Sacrifice then there was no such Sacrifice Instituted by Christ for the words of Institution Hoc Facite could refer to nothing else but to what was done then and there I have shewed that they refer to those words Take Eat Drink and were spoken to the Disciples as Communicants and no otherwise After much time and heat at last the Doctrine was set down in these words that at the last Supper Christ offered himself for a Sacrifice without saying whether Propitiatory or Eucharistical But neither did this satisfie saith Cardinal Pallavicino XVIII 9. 3. c Suarez in tertiam Aquin. disp 41. art I. Secundò potest saith in the New Testament there are no convincing testimonies to prove that there is a true proper Sacrifice under the Gospel d None before Iustin Martyr speaks of Sacrifice among Christians unless Clemens Remanus in his Epist. ad Cor. §. 36. Where he calls Christ the High Priest of our offerings But he speaks only of the Sacrifice of praise and contrite hearts Ibid. and §. 52. But for Iustin in his Book against Tryphon p. 344. c. He proves that we are all a Holy Priesthood because God accepts none but Priests and yet all
that offer the Sacrifices which Christ delivered in the Eucharist or blessing of Bread and Wine are accepted of God And whereas the Jews say that since they have no temple now their Prayers are their Sacrifice So saith he I say that Prayers and Thanksgivings offered by them that are Worthy are the Only perfect Sacrifices and acceptable to God For Christians have learnt to offer these things Only and that even in commemoration of that food in which there is a remembrance of the Passion of Christ. The next Father was Irenaeus who writing adversus Haereses Lib IV. Cap. 32. and 34. sheweth that in the Oblation at the Eucharist those things which were offered to God according to the custom of those times were no other than his own Creatures of Bread and Wine See the end of Page 45. And concludes that our Altar is in Heaven for thither it is that we send up our Prayers and Oblations Which last words being taken into the Canon of the Roman Mass remain there for a Testimony against their new Doctrine e Euseb. demonstr Evang. Lib. I. Cap. 10. Edit Paris 1628. p. 38. C. Christ offered to God that eminent Sacrifice for the Salvation of us all and delivered to us a memorial to offer to God Continually instead of a Sacrifice Again p. 39. A. We are taught to celebrate the memorial of that Sacrifice of Christ on a Table by the Symbols of his body and blood He goes on thus to the end of that Chapter Austin Epist. 23. Tom. II. p. 93. B. Towards Easter we say to morrow is the Lords Passion though it was many years ago that he suffered and that Passion was but Once So on Easter-day we say to day the Lord arose though so many years are passed since his Resurrection Why is no man such a foâ—l to say we lie when we speak thus But because we name these days upon the account of their Likeness to those days in which these things were done Was not Christ but once Offered in Himself and yet in the Sacrament he is Sacrificed by the People not every Easter but every Communion day and it is no lie if being asked one should answer that Christ is Sacrificed Chrysost. in Hebr. S. 17. p. 523. 15. We offer not another Sacrifice as the High Priest did among the Jews but we offer always the same Nay rather we make a Remembrance of the Sacrifice f Pet. Lombard Sent. Lib. IV. dist 12. Puts the question Whether that which the Priest doth is called properly a Sacrifice He answers that which is Offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a Sacrifice and Oblattion because it is a Remembrance and Representation of the True Sacrifice on the Cross. Gratian de Consecr II. dist 2. c. 48 51 53 54. is plain for the Sacrifice but seems to be against the True Proper Propitiatâ—ry a See Euseb demonst Evang. lib. 1. c. 10. p. 39 40. Where he explains it also of a Contrite heart and of Praises and Prayers So in his Eccles. Hist. l. x. c. 4. p. 386. D. and life of Constantin lib. iv c. 45. a Chrysost. in 2 Corin. v. 18. p. 647. 2. In these things there is no difference between the Priest and the Lay-man b To allay a Storm to cure Cattel c. See the Roman Missal c Conc. Triden Sess. XXII Cap. 2. It is one and the same Sacrifice with that which Christ offered on the Cross and differs only in the Way of offering it a Rev. xix to St. â—word â—aith of the Angel with whom he spâ—ke I fell down so Worship him and 〈◊〉 said to me See thou do it not I am thy fellow Servant c. Worship God Again Rev. xxii S. 9. The Apostle was like to have committed the same Error taking the Angel for Christ whom he represented and in whose name he spoke verse 13. and 16. Till he was better informed by the Angel himself For saith Athanasius cont Arianos Orat. 3. p. 394. B. Angels know that they are not of them that are to be Worshipped but if them that are to Worship the Lord. The like is said by St. Austin de vera Relig. c. 55. Tom. l. p. 717. C. b Coloss. ii 1S Let no man beguile you of your Reward in a voluntary humility Worshipping of Angels intending into things he hath not 〈◊〉 Whether is was that Superstition of the Essens mentioned by Iâ—sepâ—us de bell Jud. xi 7. Or whether that of Simon Magus serving Angels which was accounted a sort of Idolatry and condemned by St. Peter the Apostle as Tertullian saith de praefer haeret c. 33. p. 245. B. Chrysâ—st in Coloss. S. 1. p. 90. 9. Saith it was the chief design of that Epistle to beat down the Error of them that made addresses to God by the Angels Ibid. S. 5. p. 114. 14. He saith it was the Devil that put it in their heads Ibid. S. 6. p. 123. 27. They said We must come to God by his Angels and not immediately by Christ for that is a thing too high for us This Error saith Theodoret in his Comment on that Text continued long among the People of Colossae and of the adjacent Countries And for this cause a Council met at Laâ—dicet a City about twenty miles from Colossae made a Law against Praying to Angels It is the 35. Canon of that Council that no Christian so all leave the Church and go and name Angels that is call upon them in Prayer as all the Scholiasts understand it with Theodoret above-mentioned To do which thing the Council saith is Secret Idolatry a charge that so nearly touches them in the Roman Church that to avoid it they have made no Conscience of turning the word Angelos into Angulos and the Sense of the Canon into Nonsense in their Latin Editions of that Council a They hold that all that died before Christ were in Limbus Patrum till his Resurrection and therefore could not hear the Prayers of the Living This is observed by Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat. l. 19. Item Exod. Who therefore as he pretends not to bring any Text out of the New Testament So might have spared those which he brings out of the Old Testament to prove the Invocation of Saints in Heaven which is the thing in Question b Card. Pâ—rron Replique V. 12. Granteth that for Prayer to Saints there is no Precept nor any formal Example in Scripture c Ibid. V. 19. p. 871. He also granteth that in the Authors who lived next the times of the Apostles There is not to be found any Footstep of this But he comforts himself that in them there is nothing repugnant but all favourable to it Of which see more in the next note d For Scripture 1 Kings viii 39. Thou Only knowest the hearts of all men Psal. lxv 2. Thou that hearest Prayer to thee shall All flesh come Mat. iv 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him Only shalt thou serve