Apostles unless it had been also delivered in writing and unless those writings had been brought down to our Hands And blessed be God! there was such a Delivery in the Books of the New Testament In which Books the Apostles bearing witness as they do to the Scriptures of the Old Testament that they were Written by Divine Inspiration and that they are able to make us wise to Salvation through Faith in Iesus Christ and delivering the Faith in Iesus Christ as they do in their own writings to the end that all men may believe on him to Eternal life Therefore in these Books of the Old and New Testament together we have a Standard of the Apostles Doctrine and we have not the like for any other than what is written in these Books Here is all that we can surely call the Doctrine of the Apostles unless we know more than the Fathers of the Primitive Church They through whose hands this Doctrine must pass before it could come into ours knew nothing but what they had in the Scriptures This was constantly their Standard and Rule of all things in the words of St. Chrysostom Who says again All things that are necessary are plain and manifest in the Scriptures So St. Austin says All things that belong to Faith or Life are to be found in plain places of Scripture St. Basil saith Believe those things that are written inquire not into things that are not written St. Ierom Non credimus quia non legimus we believe no more than we â—ead In like manner say many other of the Fathers And though they did sometimes quote the Apostles Traditions for Ritual things yet in matters of Faith if they prove any thing from Tradition it is either the Written Tradition of Scripture of if Unwritten 't is no other than the Creed as it were easie to shew in many Instances And withal they believed there was nothing in the Creed but what they could prove from the Scriptures and they did prove it from the Scriptures upon occasion in every Particular So that in their Judgment it is not only a sufficient but the only Measure of the Doctrin of the Apostles And by this we may judg as to matter of Doctrin who are and who are not Members of the Apostolical Church The next Character is this that they continued in the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fellowship a word that has diverse senses in Scripture In this place it seems to be the same as Society They were in the Apostles Society or Communion Now to continue in their Society considering what they were men deputed by Christ for the Government of his Church it could be no other than to continue as Members of that Body which Christ put under their Government But how can any be so now they being dead so many Ages since and their Government so long since expired with them No their Government is not expired though they are For it was to continue till the end of the World So that according to the common saying among the Jews Whosoever one sends being as himself So our Saviour having sent the Apostles saith Whosoever receives you receives me In like manner whosoever were sent by the Apostles were as themselves And whosoever continued in their Fellowship were in the Fellowship of the Apostles Now their Government is declared to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishopric And in this Office they were equal among themselves as our Saviour describes them sitting on twelve Thrones and judging the twelve Tribes of Israel It is observable that this was after his Promise to St. Peter Mat. xvi 16 c. Which Promise I consider by the way because 't is so much pressed by the Romanists to prove a Power which Christ had given St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles If Christ had truly given it we must then have considered whether St. Peter left any Successors in that Power And if so why not St. Iohn the Apostle by Survivance why not the Bishop of the undoubted Mother-Church at Ierusalem Why not the Bishop of some other City where the Scripture has assured us that St. Peter Preacht rather than of Rome where if he did preach we have not a word of it in Scripture These and sundry more such Questions would have risen upon that Hypothesis of such a Power given to S. Peter But it is out of Question that the Apostles never so understood those words of Christ. They knew of no Power that was promised to St. Peter more than to themselves in that Text. For after this they were at strife among themselves who should be chief After this they disputed it again and again and Christ chid them every time but never told them I have promised it to Peter Nay it appears that Christ did not intend it by his open Declarations to the contrary That it should not be among them as in Secular Kingdoms and Monarchies It appears more plainly in the fulfilling of his Promise For he both ordained the rest with S. Peter without any Difference And when they all together had received the Holy Ghost in this Chapter St. Peter stood up with the eleven ver 14. And upon him and them Christ built his Church even all these who continued not only in his but in the Fellowship of all the Apostles Now if all the Apostles were equal in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Government then it is certain that their Successors must be so in like manner Though one must have Precedence before other for Order's sake as St. Peter had usually among the Apostles when they were together And though one may be above others in the same National Church as all Primats are by Human Laws Yet none by the Law of God hath Authority over others I say none among their Successors any more than among the Apostles themselves So St. Cyprian declares oftentimes in his Writings Not to mention the like as I might from many other of the Fathers Now the Bishops in after times in their several Churches were undoubtedly held to be the Successors of the Apostles We have as great a consent among the Antients for this as we have for the Observation of the Lord's Day And it is evident from the Primitive Writers that they lookt upon Communion with their Bishops as Communion with the very Apostles They held it the Duty of every Christian to obey them in Spiritual things They held it the Duty of every Bishop to govern and feed his own Flock To attend to that only and not to usurp upon his Brethren But all as occasion served to do all good Offices one for another and to join their endeavours for the common Concernments of the Church And for them so to govern the Church and for the People to live under their Government in Spiritual things This was to
a Figure of his Body Which last words were in the Canon of the Mass till it was altered in favour to this new Opinion v. Gratian Decr. de Consecr Dist. 2. c. 55. b Rabanus in his Canonical Epistle published by Baluz with his Regino p. 517. hath these words Some of late not holding aright of the Sacrament have said that the Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary c. is the same which is received at the Altar Against which Error we have written to Egilus Abbas But that Book is lost and in this as Baluz shews those last words were rased out of the Manuscript c Bertramus or Ratrannus Corbeiensis in his Book written against it by order of Carolus Calvus and transcribed in great part into our Saxon Homily Which Book is mentioned as his by the nameless writer in defence of Paschasius and by Sigebert de Script Eccl. c. 96. Iohannes Scotus Professor at Oxford in King Alfrid's time in his Book against it that was burnt 200 years after when this Innovation had prevailed But none of these Books were censured in that Age when they were written d Anno 1059. The Pope and his Roman Council put these words into the mouth of Berengar that not the Sacrament but the very body of Christ is broken and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful Which the Glosse there saith was a greater Heresie then Berengar's unless their words be taken in a sound sense that is otherwise than they signifie Decr. de Consecr dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius a About the year 1150 the Master of the Sentences l. 4. dist 11. saith Whether the change be Formal or Substantial or of some other kind I am not able to define Only I know it is not Formal But Anno 1215. Pope Innocet defined it to be of no other kind but Substantial Conc. Lateran IV. c. 1. b Of secret sins no Confession is necessary but to God only Chrysost. Edit Savil. Tom. I. p. 708. 11. IV. p. 589. 40. V. p. 258. 6. p. 262. 44. c Gratian. Decret de Poenit. Dist. 1. c. 89. Quibus Autoritatibus having brought Arguments for and against it thus Concludes Which side is in the right I leave the Reader to judge for on both sides there are wise and Religious men The Master of the Sentences lib. 4. dist 17. Though himself was for Confession yet saith Learned men differ about it for so the Doctors seem to vary and deliver things near contrary to one another about it So that yet it was disputable in those times d Conc. Lateran IV. Can. 21. e Gloss. in Decr. de poenit Dist 1. c. 37. Allii è contr saith Here follow Allegations to prove that one of Age is not forgiven sin without Confession Which is false a Conc. Trident. Sess. 14. Can. 6 7 8. After which in the Roman Edition of the Canon Law there were notes put upon those places above-mentioned Where Gratian doubted whether Confession were necessary they say It is most certain and to be held for most certain that Confession is necessary And where Semeca had said It is false they say Nay it is most true b The Second Commandment which forbids bowing down defore any Image or Likeness though it does not appear in the Roman Decalogue was held by the Fathers to be a Law of Perpetual Obligation So Irenaeus adv Heres l. II. c. 6. l. IV. c. 31. Clemens Alex. Admon ad Gentes Edit Leyd 1616. p. 31. 12. Strom. V. Ib. p. 408. 22. Tertull. de Idololatria c. 4. p. 105. D. Idem adv Marcion l. II. c. 22. p. 470. A. B. Idem in Scorpiac c. 2. p. 617. C. D. Cyprian de Exhort Mart. p. 283. Idem in Testim ad Quirinum l. III. c. 59. p. 345. Augustin Epist. 119. c. 11. Tom. II. col 569. A. c The English and French and Germans of that Age called it Pseudosynodum the Mock-Synod of Nice or rather of Constantinople because it began and ended in that City Concil Edit Labb Tom. VII p. 37. D. 592. B. Hincmar Opusc. 33. c. 20. Edit Sirmondi Tom. II. p. 457. Ado Vienn aet VI. Edit Paris 1512. fol. 181. Annal. Fuld V. opera Alcuini in fine d Of which there is nothing left but what is repeated out of it in the second Nicen Council Act. 6. Edit Labb Tom. VII col 392. E. e Ib. col 1057. E. a Baron Anno 843. num 16. saith Till that year the Nicen Council had not prevailed in the Eastern Church b Witness the Book of Charles the Great and that of the Synod of Paris under Ludovicus Pius and that of Agobard Bishop of Lions against the Worship of Images as it was then in the Roman Church c For their Carved Images of Saints Goar in Eucholog p. 28. saith The Greeks abhor Carved Images as Idols of which they do not stick to sing in Davids words They have mouths and speak not And for picturing God the second Nicen Council condemns it by approving the Epistle of St. German which calleth the Image of God an Idol Concil Edit Labb Tom. VII col 301. E. and 304. A. d Lud. Vives in his notes on Aug. de Civitate Dei l. VIII c. 27. Tom. V. col 494. B. saith In many Catholics I do not see what difference there is between their opinion of the Saints and the Heathens opinion of their Gods Polydor. Virg. de Invent. l. VI. c. 13. saith Men are come to that pitch of madness that this part of Piety differeth little from Impiety For very many trust more in their Images then in Christ or the Saints to whom they are dedicated The like complaints have many other of their Writers Bellarmin de cultu Imag. II. 22. Edit Venet. Tom. 1599 II. col 836. E. saith That they who hold that some Images are to be worshipped with Latria are forced to use most subtle distinctions which they themselves scarce understand much less the ignorant People And yet this which he so censures is the constant judgment of Divines and seems to be the meaning of the Council of Trent saith Azorius Institut Moral l. 9. c. 6. a Some held that all go immediately after Death to Heaven or Hell Others that none go to either but that all are kept in secret Receptacles till the general Resurrection Some that the Martyrs go to Heaven and the Damned Souls to Hell but all the rest are kept there in expectation and suspense till the Day of Iudgment Some held that there shall be a first Resurrection of the Righteous of whom some shall rise sooner some later in the thousand years of Christs Reign upon Earth And that the delay of that Resurrection shall be the Punishment of their Sins Others held that their sins shall be purged away by that fire that shall burn the World at the last Day And that they shall burn a longer or less while and with more or less
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