Remensis saith These are the Sacraments of the Church Sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur without which we cannot enter into true Life Albinus in his Book of Divine Offices Cap. de celebr Miss p. 88. Cap. 26. De instit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. and Amalarius in his Third Book of Ecclesiastical Offices do in like manner say That sine his Sacramentis nemo intrat in vitam aeternam without these Sacraments none enter into Life eternal Rabanus Maurus saith Men may have temporal Life without this Food and drink Aeternam omnino non possunt eternal Apud Baron Tom. 10. p. 1007. they can never have Christ testified with an Oath Saith Humbert That without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had saying Verily except you eat c. By which Testimonies we may see what Reason Austin had to say this was a Doctrine deeply settled in the Churches of Christ and thence to inferr that Infants ordinarily could not have Life without participation of the Eucharist they speaking thus without exception of any Persons or of any case but that of sudden Death in which case also some of them allow that Salvation may be had without actual Baptism 3. They apply this general Doctrine to the Case of Infants and say the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received by them for Remission of Sins or that they may obtain Life both which are necessary causes of the Administration of it In the Fourth Century Theodorus Antiochenus writ a Book against some Hereticks in the Western Church Apud Phot. Cod. 177. p. 396. who asserted That Man doth Sin by Nature and not by Choice And who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Confirmation of their Opinion urged That Infants were baptized and received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins P. 400. In Answer to these Men saith Photius Theodorus broached a new and strange Opinion of Remission of Sins perhaps not willingly but that he might satisfie their inquiry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why do Infants partake of the immaculate Mysteries Why are they Baptized if they sin not by Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these Sacraments are given for Remission of Sins Whence it appears that the Custom of giving the Eucharist to Infants was then generally practised and allowed of both in the Western and the Eastern Churches In the Western because these Western Hereticks do from this approved Custom argue against the Doctrine of the Church in the East because Theodorus of Antioch thought himself obliged to own the Practice nor is any question made whether the thing ought to be done but it is plainly owned that it was done and that for the Remission of Sins and therefore for a necessary Reason Against the Pelagians who denied that Infants were guilty of Original Sin and that they were obnoxious to Death eternal the Fathers dispute from this very Custom and the Foundation of it on the words of the Evangelist saying That according to the Practice of the Church the Blood which was shed for the Remission of Sins was ministred to them and therefore they had Sin to be remitted and that our Lord had said Vnless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you and therefore Infants wanted these things in order to their having Life and were partakers of them that they might obtain it The places in St. Austin to this effect are innumerable For why saith he Contr. Julian Tom. 7. l. 2. c. 30. is that Blood ministred to the Infant to drink which was shed for the Remission of Sins that he may have Life if by reason of no Original Sin he be obnoxious to Death Christ saith he is the Saviour of Infants Ibid. l. 1. p. 949. and unlevs they redeemed by him they will utterly perish seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life this St. John thought and believed learned and taught When Christ saith Vnless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you can I say the Child shall have Life who ends his Life without that Sacrament Hypognost c. 5. Tom. 7. p. 1405. And again He having said Vnless you eat c. and He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life how is it that you Pelagians promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit not fed with the Flesh of Christ nor having drunk his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins Behold he that is not Baptized and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words he more expresly tells us saying Tom. 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 1. c. 19. p. 666. Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism N. B. but of the Sacrament of his holy Table to which none cometh who is not rightly Baptized Except you eat and drink c. What do we farther seek for dares any body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children or that they can have life in them without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ But he that saith this doth not attend That if that Sentence comprehends not all so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ those of riper Years are not obliged to regard it From these and many other Passages of a like Nature his Conclusion is this Lib. 1. de peccat merit remiss c. 24. p. 670. Nec pro eis fusus est sanguis qui fusus esse in remissionem legitur peccatorum Apud Aug. Ep. 90. Apud August Ep. 92. If then so many Divine Testimonies accord in saying That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord they are in vain promised to Children without them The Council of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Innocent the First complain that the Pelagians durst assert That little Children needed not Baptism Propter salutem that they might have Life and that the Blood shed for the Remission of Sins was not shed for them The Council of Mela in their Letter to him complain that they asserted Pueros quoque parvulos si nullis innoventur Christianae gratia Sacramentis habituros vitam aeternam That Infants might have Life eternal though they were not renewed by the Christian Sacraments Ibid. Ep. 93. p. 424. To these complaints Pope Innocent returns this Answer Whereas your Brotherhoods assert that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond Opinion Nisi enim manducaverint for unless they eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no Life in them
and they who would give them this Sine regeneratione without Baptismal Regeneration seem to void Baptism it self by saying they have that which is believed to be conferred upon them only by Baptism where the Note in the Margin is Etiam R. Ecclesia credidit Eucharistiam parvulis necessariam Even the Roman Church believed that the Eucharist was necessary for little Children Behold saith Austin Contr. duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Lib. 1. Contr. Jul. cap. 4. Ep. ad paulinum Pope Innocent saith that little ones cannot have Life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ And again Pope Innocent determined that Infants could not have Life unless they did eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. And a Third time If the Pelagians will yield to the Apostles See or rather to their Lord and Master saying Except we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which the unhaptized Person cannot do we shall not have Life they will at last confess that unbaptized Persons cannot have it In the Sixth Century Hom. 7. B. P. Tom. 7. p. 279. Caesarius Arelatensis urges this very Text of Scripture Except you eat c. as a most solid Testimony against the Blasphemies of Pelagius That Baptism was not to be administred to Children Propter vitam for the obtaining Life For saith he these Words of our Saviour Non habebitis vitam in vobis you shall have no Life in you do give us clearly to understand that every Soul that is void of Baptism wants both Life and Glory Now since that Passage of our Lord was never by the Ancients thought to have Relation to Baptism but always to the Eucharist it is apparent that this Argument is of no Force at all or that it is the same with that which is so often urged by St. Austin That none can have Eternal Life who doth not participate of Christ's Body and Blood and none can do that who is not baptized Ep. Univers Episc per Nicaenum Concil To. 4. p. 1177 1178. Against the Pelagians saith Pope Gelasius our Lord pronounceth That he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him Where we see none exempt nor dares any say That an Infant can obtain eternal Life without this Sacrament Nevertheless that the Providence of God might cut off all the Wickedness of the Pelagians it is not only said Vnless a Man be born again of Water c. but also Vnless he eat and drink c. And that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life This Argument you see is generally urged by all that write against the Pelagians nor do we find that the Pelagians did in the least except against the Practice as either Novel or not Catholick but only did content themselves to say that Infants did receive these Sacraments not to obtain Life but the Kingdom of Heaven And here it is to be admired § 5 that Men of Sense and Ingenuity should say St. Austin and these Fathers spake all this of such a Participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as is had in Baptism and not of the Participation of it by receiving of the Holy Eucharist When First The Proof they bring of the manducation and drinking required of Children that they may have Life is from John vj. 53. which from St. Austin's Days to the Twelfth Century hath always been understood of the Eucharist but never of the Sacrament of Baptism So generally the forecited Fathers Secondly They bring distinct Proofs to evince that Infants are to participate of both Sacraments the Third of John to prove they ought to be baptized the Sixth of John to prove they ought to receive the Holy Eucharist◠So St. Austin so Isidore Pelusiota so Pope Gelasius in the Places cited Thirdly They speak of the Mysteries in the Plural Number as of things necessary to be received for the Remission of their Sins and the obtaining Life Eternal So Theodorus Amphilochius St. Chrysostom Isidore Pelusiota St. Austin Hincmarus Rhemensis Photius Albinus Amalarius Fourthly They speak first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord declaring of them distributively That Infants cannot have Life Sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi without Christ's Baptism and the Participation of his Body and Blood So Pope Innocent Sine Baptismo Corpore Sanguine Christi without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of Christ So St. Austin Fifthly They spake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by way of Distinction from that of Baptism Non de Sacramento S. lavacri sed de Sacramento mensae suae l. 1. de peccat Merit c. 19 20. Ep. 107. p. 499. Quod nisi Baptizati non utique possunt Ep. 106. p. 487. saying Let us hear our Lord not speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table So St. Austin Sixthly They speak of that eating and drinking of this Quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body Per ora by the Mouths So St. Austin Which Children have a right to by being first Baptized and of that Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ Quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit to which none comes who is not rightly baptized Lastly Sometimes they speak of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table of that Sacrament emphatically and of that Blood which the Child must drink Now hence it follows First § 6 That the Trent Council hath manifestly erred when it declared of all the Fathers in General who held this Opinion Sess 21. c. 4. Sine controversia oredendum est eos nulla salutis necessitate id fecisse That without Controversy we must believe that they did not this from an Opinion of the Necessity of it to Salvation this being an Untruth so manifest In. John 6. that Maldonate in direct Opposition to this Couneil saith that St. Austin and Pope Innocent were by this Passage of the Sixth of John induced to believe Infantes etiam baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperent salvos esse non posse that even baptized Infants could not be saved unless they received the Eucharist and that from that place they conceived the Eucharist was necessary for Infants to Salvation and that St. Austin mentioned this not as his private Opinion Sed ut fidei totius Ecclesiae dogma but as a Doctrine of Faith received by the whole Church adding Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. as also Binius doth That this Doctrine flourished in the Church about Six hundred Years Secondly Hence it appears that the same Council by pronouncing an Anathema against all who shall dare to say Sess 21. Can. 4. That it is necessary for Children before they come to Years of Discretion to receive the Sacrament hath virtually
it seems generally to have prevailed in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries yet doth it plainly seem to contradict the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures which teach That when the days of her Purification were accomplished Luk. ij 22 23 Puram aperiens vulvam according to the Law of Moses they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law of the Lord Every Male that openeth the Womb shall be called holy to the Lord. L. 4. c. 66. In partu suo nupsit ipsa patefacti corp lege Lib. de Carne Christi c. 23. vid. etiam c. 4. 20. Hom. 14. in Lucam Tom. 2. f. 101. According to the import of which Scripture Irenaeus doth expresly teach That our Lord at his Birth opened the Womb of the Virgin. Tertullian adds That she was a Virgin as not having known Man but was no Virgin quantum a partu at her teeming her Womb being then opened according to that saying Every Male that openeth the Womb c. Origen That Matris domini to tempore vulva reserata est quo partus editus the Womb of the Mother of our Lord was opened when she brought forth her Son. Clemens of Alexandria evidently shews that this was in his time only the saying of some Men attending to the Fable of the false Gospel of St. James That the Midwives after her delivery found by Inspection that she was a Virgin and that others held the contrary for saith he It seemed to many and yet seemeth that Mary was by the Birth of her Son a Woman properly delivered of a Child though she was not Strom. l. 7. p. 756. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Woman properly delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for some say that being inspected by the Midwives after the Birth of her Son she was found a Virgin. De Incarn l. 14 cap. 6. §. 1. He respects saith Petavius the Old Wife's Tale invented by some idle Trifler which we find in Suidas and in the Proto-Evangelium S. Jacobi which I could wish he had no otherwise related than by way of Contempt and Derision Thus we learn upon what Grounds this was believed by him against the Opinion of many others St. Basil grounds this Opinion upon another Story of like nature De human Christi Gener. Tom. 1. p. 509. The Story of Zacharias saith he proves that the Virgin Mary was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an entire Virgin for it is derived to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Tradition that Zacharias was slain between the Porch and the Altar for saying Qui hujusmodi Traditioni non credunt that Mary was a Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Birth of our Lord. Origen delivers the same thing in the like words In Matt. Hom. 26. f. 49. b. In Matth. 23.35 Venit ad nos Traditio quaedam Such a Tradition hath come down to us And Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have it from Tradition and yet Origen in the same place confesseth that this Tradition was not believed by others In locum and Jerom saith That it came Ex Apocryphorum Somniis From apocryphal Dreams and adds That Quia de scripturis non habet autoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur Because it hath no Authority from Scripture it is as easily condemned as approved of And thus we see the rise of this Tradition which afterwards prevailed over the Christian World. 3ly § 5 That our Lord lived above Fourty if not to Fifty Years Sicut Evangelium omues seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem Discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Joannem L. 2. c. 39. is the express Assertion of Irenaeus and for this he produceth the Testimony of the Gospel and of all the Elders of the Church who met S. John the beloved Disciple of our Lord in Asia and declared that he delivered to them the same thing yea saith he some of them saw not only John but the rest of the Apostles and heard the same things from them testantur de hujusmodi Relatione and testifie the truth of the Relation To say with Feuardentius upon the place that he might have had this from Papias is a very unlikely thing for he speaks not of the Testimony of one Man but of all the Seniors not of Men who had never seen the Apostles as Papias had not but of them who had he cites not Papias as in the Case of the Millennium he did here therefore is a solemn Declaration of a Tradition received from the Mouth of the Apostles and attested by all the Seniors and yet so far from being in the Gospel as is pretended that by the Gospel it may be evidently confuted so far from being owned as such in after Ages that upon a very slight Ground even the saying of the Prophet Isaiah Vid. Feuard in Iren. p. 46. 188. That Christ was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord many of the Fathers took up a contrary Opinion that our Lord Suffered in the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius and preached One Year only When Jesus came to his Baptism saith Clemens of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 1. p. 340. he was about Thirty Years old and that he was to Preach but One Year is thus written He sent me to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord this both the Prophet and the Gospel according to the plain meaning of the Words averr say some in Origen Hom. 32. in Luk. f. 111. That our Lord Preached the Gospel but one Year and that on this account it was said Cap. 8. that he was sent to Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L 1. c. 1. p. 16. Tertullian in his Book against the Jews saith That Christ suffered annos habens quasi triginta being about Thirty Years Old. Lactantius Africanus and others cited by Feuardentius say the same And yet this was no better than an Opinion first invented by the Gnosticks as we learn from Irenaeus and for which they produced the same Text and 't is as easily confuted by the Enumeration of the Passovers our Saviour Celebrated after his Baptism and before his Death Now if a Tradition could so generally obtain in the Fifth Century which had its rise from Fabulous Legends and Apocryphal Dreams against plain Words of Scripture and plain Assertions of the Fathers living in the former Centuries as that of our Lords coming out of the Womb of the Virgin without opening of it did why might not other Traditions pretended by some later Councils and the Church of Rome be of like nature Why may we not credit the Council of Frankford In lib. Carol. p. 3. c. 30. declaring that the Second Nicene Council for their pretended Tradition of Image-Worship had recourse ad Apocryphas quasdam risu dignas naenias to Apocryphal and Ridiculous Tales Comment
Chalcedon Can 1. Can. 2. and afterwards by that in Trullo and therefore was allowed by the whole Church of God. St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs his Catecumen That the Apostles and James the Bishop of Jerusalem had writ a Catholick Epistle to the Gentiles to teach them to abstain from things offered to Idols things strangled and from Blood and then he adds Catech. 4. p. 34. c. de cibis That they who licked up the Blood of Beast and spared not to eat things strangled were like to wild Beasts and Dogs these saith he are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Institutions touching Meats which it behoves you to observe In the Fifth Century St. Jerom declares In Ezek. 45. p. 245. That according to the Letter the Decree contained in the Fifteenth of the Acts obligeth every Christian not to eat the Flesh of any dead Sheep or Cattle quorum nequaquam sanguis effusus est whose Blood is not poured forth And Chrysostom on the place saith These Constitutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they concern the Body yet are they necessary to be kept In the Sixth Century the Second Council of Orleans declares A. D. 536. can 20. That they who eat of that which is choaked by any Disease or Chance or killed by the bitings of Beasts shall be excluded from the Communion of the Church and if any person after this diligent Sanction Can. 22. doth not observe these things reos se divinitatis pariter fraternitatis judicio futuros esse cognoscant let them know they shall be guilty both in the Judgment of God and of the Brotherhood In the Seventh Century this was Decreed by the Sixth General Council held in Trullo in these words Can. 67. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Scripture hath commanded us to abstain from Blood things strangled and from Fornication he therefore who attempts to eat the Blood of any Creature any way if he be a Clerk let him be deposed Cap. 18 19. if he be a Lay-man let him be Excommunicated In the Penitential of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury we have this Rule prescribed Hast thou eaten that which died of it self or was torn by Beasts thou must do penance Forty Days if thou hast eaten Blood thou must do likewise Now of this Theodorus Rabanus doth inform us Ep. ad Humbert apud Regin de discip Eccl. l. 2. c. 200. That he was fully instructed in the Customs both of the Eastern and the Western Churches and that he could be ignorant of nothing which was then observed by the Greeks or Romans and therefore we may rationally conclude that what he thus prescribed was only that which was observed both in the East and Western Churches In the Eigth Century Gregory the Third who was made Pope A. Can. poenit c. 30. D. 731. puts this among his penitential Canons That he who hath eaten that which died of it self if he did this ignorantly shall do Penance Twenty Days if knowingly Forty Days And Bede informs us That he who comes to penance must be asked Can. de diversis causis c. 14. Whether he had eaten that which died of it self or was torn by Beasts and if so he must do Penance Forty Days and the like must be done by him who hath eaten Blood. Novel 58. Bals in Syn. Trull can 67. Leo the Emperor made a Law to punish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who did eat any kind of Blood. In the Ninth Century Regino doth not only produce out of the Penitentials the same Canons against eating things strangled and Blood De discipl Eccles l. 2. c. 369 373. De discipl Eccles l. 2. c. 374. but adds moreover that admonendi sunt fideles ut nullus praesumat sanguinem manducare the Faithful are to be admonished that none of them do presume to eat Blood for this was forbidden in the beginning when first God gave Men liberty to eat Flesh and it is also forbidden in the New Testament where things strangled and Blood are compared with Fornication and Idolatry to teach us quantum piaculum sit sanguinem comedere what an heinous thing it is to eat Blood. In the Eleventh Century Humbertus plainly shews that this was then esteemed unlawful both in the Eastern and the Western Churches Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 986. For we saith he of the West do not defend against you Greeks the eating of things strangled and Blood Antiquam enim consuetudinem seu traditionem Majorum retinentes nos quoque haec abominamur For retaining the ancient Custom or Tradition of our Ancestors we also do abominate these things imposing grievous Penance upon them who do this without great peril of Life and this we do especially quia antiquas consuetudines traditiones Majorum quae non sunt contra fidem leges Apostolicas arbitramur because we judge the Ancient Customs and Traditions of our Ancestors which are not opposite to the Faith to be Apostolical Laws And yet when Transubstantiation was once fully established in the West as it was in the Twelfth and the beginning of the Thirteenth Centuries then they perceived they could no longer with any truth assert as did the Ancient Fathers that they did ab humano sanguine cavere abstain from eating humane Blood but believing they did eat Blood with the Flesh in the Sacrament they gave all Men liberty to do it elsewhere Whence Balsamon in the Twelfth Century speaks thus In Can. 67. Concil Trull 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latins do indifferently eat things strangled and if in this instance that which in the Eleventh Century was by the Western Churches held in abomination and worthy of most grievous Penances as being opposite both to the Laws of the Apostles and the Traditions of the Ancients might in the next Century be generally allowed and practised as a thing indifferent why might not a like change happen in the same Church in a like space of time touching the Doctrine of the corporeal Presence or any other Article of Christian Faith. Thirdly § 7 The Ancient Church unanimously and constantly declared it was a thing plainly repugnant to Scripture and to true Religion and proper unto Hereticks to punish any man with death for his Religion or his Heresie and she refused Communion with them that did so And 1. They declared this practice opposite to our Lord's precept Not to gather up the Tares by themselves Matth. xiij 29 30. but let them both grow together till the Harvest He introduceth his Servants saying Wilt thou that we pluck up the Tares that he might tell them saith St. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Locum that it was unlawful to cut them off He forbids Wars and Blood and Slaughters to be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is not lawful to cut off the Heretick Christ here forbids not to stop their Mouths restrain and hinder their boldness of Discourse dissolve
either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Great Lord's day or the Paschal Lord's day and being constantly in those first Ages distinguished from and in their enumeration of their Festivals opposed to the Lord's day Moreover the Easter Feast seemeth not to have been so Ancient as the Apostles Vision for then it would have been observed uniformly as the Lord 's day was whereas the Eastern and the Western Churches differed much about it and that very difference demonstrates that the Lord 's day was the more ancient because the Question was Whether the Eastern Festival should be kept on the Lord's day only or on the day of the Full-Moon as by the Jews it was on what day of the Week soever that did happen And whereas Mr. M. asks P. 207. How prove you that it was not Christmas or Ascention day I Answer 1st That we have no Evidence from Antiquity that either of these Festivals were then observed much less that they were then known to the Christian World under that Appellation 2dly The common Consent of all Interpreters and the perpetual Practice of the Church in all Ages from Saint John to Ignatius his Scholar and so downwards to this day do give the name of the Lord's day to Sunday and to no other Festival of the Church Weekly or Annual sufficiently instructs us what Saint John understood by the Lord's day 3dly Observe That whatsoever in the Scripture hath the Lord's Name and Subscription on it as the Lord's Temple the Lord's Offerings the Lord's People the Lord's Priests was consecrated to the Service of Jehovah the Lord of the Old Creation wherefore the day which had so early the Name and Superscription of the Lord Christ upon it must be supposed to be Holy to the Lord of the New Creation and consecrated to his Service For as the Jewish Sabbath being called the Lord 's Sabbath or the Sabbath of Jehovah was by that Title known to be a day Sanctified to Jehovah as Creator so this day being called the Lord 's day is by this Note as certainly known to be a day consecrated to the Service of the Lord Christ And as the Lord 's Supper is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supper of the Lord the Sacramental Table 1 Cor. xi 20. x. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Table of the Lord the Sacramental Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of the Lord either because the Sacrament was instituted immediately by the Lord Christ to be observed to his Second Coming Or Secondly Because it was appointed for the remembrance of the Lord 's Death and Passion till that time even so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's day must be so called for one of these two Reasons or for both viz. Because it was enjoined by Christ or by Directions given to his Apostles to command the Observation of it as a Day to be devoted to the Service of our Lord Christ or because it was by the Apostles so observed in memory of our Lords Resurrection and was from them received as a day to be observed for all future Generations of the Church And that this day was certainly observed by the Apostles and by the Christians who lived in their daies in Honour of our Lord is evident from what hath been already proved For if it were then known to Christians by the Name of the Lord's day and if so be the Lord's day must import a day that is consecrated to the Service of the Lord 't is clear that they must then observe it as such or act against the knowledge of their Duty if when Saint John received this Vision it were known to be a day devoted to the Service of the Lord Christ it must be known to be thus consecrated to his Service by some who had Authority sufficient so to do that is at least by those Apostles and Rulers to whom Christ had committed the Guidance of his Church and the determination of that outward Worship he required from his Disciples What they thus consecrated to his Service must be devoted either by virtue of their positive Institution or by their practice only if by virtue of their Institution then is it granted that this day is of Divine and Apostolical Institution if by their Practice only yet is it granted that this day was constantly observed by those Apostles who were assisted in their Actions by the Holy Ghost that 't was by their Example commended to the practice of all Christians and therefore be alone can alter this Apostolical Tradition who better knows the mind of Christ than they did and is more able to discern what Service is well pleasing to him than they were Secondly § 2 This Practice will sufficiently appear from other Scriptures which either presuppose or else directly shew this was a day observed in the Apostles time Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth writeth thus Now concerning the Collection for the Saints as I have ordained for the Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. xvi 1 2. so do ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the first day of the week let every man lay by him in store as God hath prospered him that there be no gathering when I come Where observe First That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth certainly signifie the first day of the Week the day of our Lord's Resurrection from the dead for the Four Evangelists do with one Voice averr That our Lord Jesus did arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first day of the week Matth. 28.1 Mark 16.2 Luke 24.1 John 20.1 Nor can this reasonably be doubted by any who believe the Scriptures Moreover Saint Mark doth clearly so interpret the Phrase for the Sabbath being over saith he Mary Magdalene and others came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 early the first day of the week and found Christ risen and v. 9. he adds That Christ was risen early 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by the consent of all Interpreters upon the first day of the week Saint Luke observes Luke 23.56 That they rested on the Sabbath day according to the Commandment and then adds That they came unto the Sepulchre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the first day of the week Secondly This may be Argued from the succeeding Practice of the Church which in compliance with this Precept still offer'd their Alms upon this Day for Justin M. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol 2. p. 98 99. who flourished in the next Age to the Apostles tells the Heathen Emperor in his Apology That 't was the Custom of Christians to meet on the Lord's day to Pray to hear the Word to receive the Sacrament and then saith he they who are rich and willing give what they think fit and what is thus collected is laid up in the hands of the President who distributes it to Orphans and Widows and other Christians Locuples dives es dominicum observare te credis qui
corbonam omnino non respicis De opere eleemos p. 203. as their Wants require Saint Cyprian also taxeth the Omission of this Duty on the Lord's day as a Fault in Rich and able Persons saying Thou art Wealthy and Rich and thinkest thou that thou observest the Lord's day who dost not at all respect the poor Man's Box Thirdly All the Ancient Commentators on this Place both Greek and Latin unanimously interpret this of the Lord 's day Ambrose and Primasius among the Latins Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact among the Greeks Secondly Observe that no good Reason can be given why the Apostle should limit the Collections of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia to the first day of the week but this That this day was appointed for the Worship of our Lord and so more fit for the performance of those Duties which concerned his distressed Members in those Times for as the works of Charity and Mercy are proper Duties of this day so doth this day contain a special motive in it to enlarge their Charley it being the day in which they were begotten to a lively Hope through the Resurrection of our Saviour and in which they constantly in those times participated of his precious Body and Blood and therefore having then received spiritual Things so plentifully from Christ must be more ready to impart of their temporals to his needy Servants Thirdly Observe that should the Text be rendered thus Let every one lay up against the first day of the week there would be some good reason for that Precept provided that it were a day appointed for the Service of Christ and the Assemblies of all Christian People for meeting thus together on that day they might then bring to the Assembly what they had treasured up against that time and then put it into the publick Bank as the Custom was in the first Ages of the Church and that they did so here at Corinth seems highly probable from the design of the Apostles Precept for he exhorts them to have their Charity ready that there might be no need of a Collection when he came whereas if they had kept their Charity in their own hands and not put it into the publick Stock there would still have been need of a Collection at his coming 2dly The Apostle might command to lay it up against that day to be then offered to the Lord because our Charity to his distressed Members is an Odor of a sweet smelling Savour Philip. 4.18 Act. 10.4 a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God a Duty fitly joined with our Prayers that so they may come up together as a memorial before God. Since therefore whether we translate the word 's upon the first day of the week or against the first day of the week no reason doth appear why Saint Paul should pitch upon that day had it not been the day of their assembling together the day on which they met to serve the Lord Christ we ought in reason to conclude it was so And if for the performance of this Work of Charity on the Lord's day Saint Paul thought fit to give his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or special Order can we suppose the day it self should be observed without appointment of the said Apostle or others of like power with him especially if we consider that Clemens the Contemporary of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Cor. §. 40. doth inform us That our Lord commanded our Oblations and Liturgies should be performed at times appointed and not disorderly but at those very times and seasons which he had ordained and thence concludes That they who offer their Oblations in those appointed Seasons are blessed and acceptable to God and that because they act agreeably to the Commandments of their Lord for if Christ himself gave Laws for the time when and the persons by whom he would have divine Offices performed as Clemens here doth plainly teach there is little doubt to be made but the Lord's day was his own Ordinance and if as he there adds These things were defined by his Sovereign Counsel that all things being done religiously according to his good Pleasure might be acceptable in his sight it follows that this time could not Religiously have been set apart for his Service or have been acceptable to him had it not been appointed by the Counsel of his Will so that although this Text doth not expresly command that the first Day of the Week should be observed as the Christians weekly Festival yet if we join with it the uniform Practice of the Primitive Church then and ever since they jointly prove that the first day of the Week was the weekly Festival of Christians at that time and strongly do imply or suppose that before this Apostolical Ordinance for these Collections on this Day there was another for the observation of the day it self for how could it have happened that all the Apostolical Churches throughout the World should from the beginning have accorded to make this day a weekly Festival unless they had been directed thus to do by the Apostles themselves by whom they were at first converted to the Christian Faith and with that Faith received this Institution 3dly We have another Scripture Act. xx 7. § 3 which fairly seemeth to conclude that the Apostles and the Christian Church did then observe this day and meet for the performance of Religious Worship on it for there it is expresly said That upon the first day of the Week when the Disciples came together to break Bread Paul preached unto them Where Note 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first day of the week was certainly the Lord's day as hath already been made manifest 2. Observe That on this day the Disciples were not summoned extraordinarily to come together that Saint Paul did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 call them together as he did the Assembly of the Elders of the Church v. 17. but the Disciples were themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 met in their Synaxis or Assembly the Text informs us That Saint Paul carried with them seven days and in none of them have we any mention of an Assembly to this purpose but only on the first day of the week 3. Observe That they then met together to break Bread which Phrase doth signifie the sacred Action performed in celebration of the Holy Sacrament which 't was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to receive in all their Church Assemblies on the Lord's day 1 Cor. xi this the Apostle intimates when he complains of his Corinthians That they came together for the worse because when they came together in the Church there were Divisions among them so that they did not eat together of the Table of the Lord. Now thus to come together in one place saith he is not to eat the Lord's Supper i. e. it is not so to do it as the sacred Action ought to be performed this therefore when they came
together in the Church they did and therefore what is coming together v. 17. coming to the Church v. 18. coming to one place v. 19. is coming together to eat v. 33. Accordingly it was the Custom of the Church from the Apostles times thus to communicate upon the Lord's day Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperor Trajan Soliti sunt stato die ante lucem convenire c. Ep. l. 10. Ep. 97. tells him That he found nothing to alledge against the Christians but their Obstinacy in their Superstition and that is was their Custom to meet together on a set day before it was light and to bind themselves by the Sacrament to do no evil Now this Epistle was writ only Six Years after the Death of the Evangelist Saint John. And Justin M. who wrote but Fifty Years after his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 2. p. 98 99. thus speaks On Sunday all the Christians in the City or Country meet together because that is the day of our Lord's Resurrection and then we have read unto us the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles this done the President makes an Oration to the Assembly to exhort them to imitate and do the things they heard then we all join in Prayer and after that we celebrate the Sacrament and they that are willing and able give their Alms c. Fourthly § 4 This may be further proved from the Church's Testimony and from the plain Expressions of the Fathers who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church For to this Effect Century the first besides the words of Clemens Romanus already mentioned the Apostle Barnabas saith of the Apostles and Christians in the General 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 15. We keep the eighth day a Festival in which our Jesus rose from the dead Century the Second I have produced the plain Testimonies of Ignatius Justin M. Irenaeus Dionysius of Corinth Melito Sardensis Century the Third I have produced already the Testimony of Clemens of Alexandria to which add that of Tertullian who saith in his Apology Diem folis laetitiae indulgemus Cap. 16. Sunday is the Festival of us Christians And in his Book Ad Nationes That they did rejoice upon that day Solem Christianorum deum aestimant quod innotuerit nos die solis c. Lib. 1. cap. 13. and that this was a thing so well known to the Heathens that hence they took occasion to conjecture That the Sun was the God of Christians Neque enim Resurrectio Domini semel in anno non semper post septem dies celebratur In Esa Hom. 6. Hom. 7. in Exod. fol. 41. Ep. 38. Ed. Ox. p. 75. that of Origen That the Resurection of our Lord is not celebrated annually only but every seventh day which therefore in opposition to the Jews he calls Dominica nostra The Christians Lord's day And that of Cyprian That Aurelius Dominico legit reads on tâ—â— Lord's day Centuny the Fourth Epiphanus informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expos fid cap. 22. That the Holy Catholick Church keeps every Lord's day as a Festival In a word no Church no single Writer ever represented this as a new or introduced Practice but do continually speak of it as the constant Practice of the Christian Church We never read that any of the converted Jews though they retained the Jewish Sabbath ever disputed the Observation of the first day of the week in honour of our Lord And therefore as the Reverend Bishop Bramhal truly saith Pag. 918. To question now whether there was a formal precept for that which all the Christian World hath obeyed ever since Christ's time and shall obey until his Second Coming is a strange degree of Folly. And that this may be farther evident I add this second Proposition That the Apostles had Commission from the Lord Christ § 5 Prop. 2. or were directed by his Spirit to ordain and chuse this day to be employed in the publick Exercise of Christian piety and in remembrance of the Resurrection of our Lord. For First Christ did Commission his Apostles to teach the Churches all his Doctrine and to deliver them all his Commands and Orders which concerned their Duty and his Service for thus he delivers his Commission to them All Authority is committed to me in Heaven and Earth Matth. 28.18 Go therefore and disciple all Nations teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you John 20.21 He also saith unto them That as my Father sent me so send I you and surely the Father sent him who was Lord of the Sabbath with full Commission to change and alter it and substitute another day in lieu thereof Accordingly the Apostles exercised this Power they founded Churches they delivered to them the Doctrines and Commands of Christ they setled Church Officers Orders and Discipline and surely then they had Commission also to settle the time to be appointed for the Service of their Lord and Master When therefore they began to practise the Observation of the first day of the Week they only did what their Commission from the Lord impowered them to do Secondly That the Apostles were directed by the Holy Ghost to set apart this day for Holy Worship or to appoint Church Meetings on this Day and therefore that this was done by a Divine Authority appears from this That their Determinations touching smaller Matters and which were only â—porary are by themselves ascribed to the Holy Ghost thus when Saint Paul gives his advice in respect of the present necessity touching a single Life though he confesseth he had no express from Christ touching that matter yet he ascribes this Counsel to the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 7.40 For I think saith he I have the Spirit of Christ Again the same Apostle speaking of the Directions which he gave concerning their Church Meetings and their Behaviour in them saith 1 Cor. 14.37 If any man think himself to be a Prophet or Spiritual let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. The same must therefore be much more acknowledged of things of so high a nature as that is which they delivered to be observed by the Universal Church they being equally Appointed and Authorized to instruct them in Discipline and in Matters of Divine Worship as in matters of Doctrine and as well by Word as by Epistle and therefore as well in the Observation of the time appointed for the Worship of their Lord as in the due Regulation of it when they came together The same Saint Paul professeth 1 Cor. 11.23 That he had received from the Lord what he delivered to the Church of Corinth touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and when he speaks of one particular concerning which he had no precept from Christ he saith expresly This speak I not the Lord 1 Cor. 7.12 if then the practice touching the Observation of
did oblige the Jews and Jewish Proselytes to rest from Labour on that day laying no Obligation on the Christian so to do And First § 9 That this Command to observe the Seventh day from the Creation could be no Moral Precept obliging all Mankind is evident 1. From the Reasons there assigned of it Because God having made the World in six days rested the seventh and that therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it Now evident it is that no Man by the Light of Nature could discern that God imployed six days in the Creation of the World or that he rested on the seventh day only from his Labour no humane Reason could with any certainty inferr That because he rested from his Labour on this day we should rest also on it and so no Man without a Revelation could be acquainted with these Grounds for Observation of this day Moreover no Man by the Light of Nature could know that Time ought rather to be computed by Weeks or by the Number Seven than any other Number and much less that one day in seven precisely rather than in ten should be dedicated to God's Service this being neither a principle evident in it self nor derivable from any thing that is so and much less that the last of seven days should be kept holy rather than the first or any other of the seven no day being more holy than another by inherent Sanctity but only by God's free and arbitrary injunction to apply it or consecrate it to Religious Vses And sure God notwithstanding the Creation of the World in six days had he so pleased might have designed any of those days for his Religious Worship 4thly Such Precepts as are purely Moral and are injunctions of things good antecedently to the command can in no time or case be violated or transgressed whereas our Lord expresly hath declared That this Law touching the Sabbath in many cases might be violated And therefore Chrysostom observes That of those natural Laws Thou shalt not Kill or commit Adultery c. God gave no Reason because the Light of Nature taught them but when it pleased him to prescribe the Observation of the Sabbath day according to the Fourth Commandment he adds these Reasons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stat. Orat. 12. Tom. 6. Ed. Savil. p. 542. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. in Ez. 30. because he rested on the seventh day from all his Work and because thou wast a Bondman in the Land of Aegypt as knowing this Commandment was not primogeneal nor made known to us by the dictate of our Consciences but was temporary and particular i. e. given only to the Jewish Nation according to those Words of Moses I have given you the Sabbath Exod. xvi 19. Secondly § 10 This clearly doth appear from that Defence our Saviour made of his Disciples when they were censured by the Pharisees for violating the Sabbath by plucking Ears of Corn Matth. xij and rubbing them for our Lord justifies their Action 1. by the Example of David and his Men vers 3. Who being hungry ate the shew Bread which by the Law of Moses was to be eaten only by the Priest Now in all Arguments à pari or taken from Example the Ground or the Foundation of them must be this In paribus par ratio the Reason is the same where the Case is so And so in Arguments drawn from such Actions the Cases must be still alike in all considerable Circumstances and so it will be in the Example here produced provided that the rest enjoined in the Fourth Commandment be Ceremonial for then the Case runs thus I and my Men and David and his Men being both hungry did that which was forbidden by a Ceremonial Law of Moses if therefore David and his Men were blameless I and my Disciples must be so But if the Rest enjoined by the Fourth Commandment had been Moral 't is evident the Cases could not be alike since David and his Men did only violate a Ceremonial Precept but Christ's Disciples did transgress a Moral Precept So that we stand obliged to confess the Rest enjoined by the Fourth Commandment was Ceremonial or that our Saviour 's Argument was unconcluding and unsound which it is Blasphemy to assert Again our Saviour Argues That his Disciples were not to be accused of doing evil Vers 7 though they did not observe the Rest required on the Sabbath day because God had declared he will have mercy and not Sacrifice that is he will have works of Mercy which are Moral Duties to be preferred before Sacrifices which are but Ceremonials the feeding of the hungry Body must therefore be compared to works of Mercy the violating the Rest prescribed by the Fourth Commandment is that which is compared to Offering Sacrifice Since then the Law concerning Sacrifices most certainly was Ceremonial the Law concerning the Sabbatick Rest must be so also Secondly § 11 This may be fairly gathered from these Words of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians Argum. 2 Gal. 4.10 11. You observe days and months and times and years I am afraid of you least I may have laboured among you in vain Whereobserve First That the days and months the times and years here mentioned are only Jewish days and times as will appear first from the scope of the Apostles which is to shew the Christian Gentiles were exempt from any Obligation to observe the Law of Moses for this being the chief design of that Epistle the days forbidden here must be the days and times commanded by the Law of Moses 2dly By Observation of those days and times c. they are here said to be willing to return again to the service of weak and beggarly Elements Now these Elements to which they are said to have been in Bondage are the Mosaick Ceremonies v. 3 and 4. For we saith he when we were Children were in Bondage to the Elements of the World but when the fulness of time was come God sent to redeem those that were under the Law from any farther Bondage to it Secondly Observe That the Months Times and Years here mentioned do comprehend all other Jewish Festivals besides the Sabbath for the Months signifie their New Noons the Times the set times of going up to Jerusalem the Years their solemn Anniversary Feasts which constantly returned at such a time of Year or after such a period of Years and therefore the Days here mentioned can only signifie the Sabbath Days observed by the Jews and so Saint Jerom and Saint Chrysostom interpret the Place Thirdly Observe That the Jewish Sabbath or the Day of Rest appointed by the Fourth Commandment is certainly the seventh day from the Creation as is evident 1. From the Reason there assigned You shall keep the Sabbath for in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth and rested the seventh day 2. That was the day which the Lord Blessed and Sanctified if therefore that be abrogated and not to
almost in all the ancient Councils As to the Second Part of this Article § 5 which teacheth That General Councils may Erre and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to God P. 295. the same Author there tells us That Communis est doctorum opinio Concilia etiam Generalia errare posse in rebus quae fidem aut mores ad salutem non necessarios concernunt It is the common Judgment of their Doctors that even general Councils may erre in Matters of Faith and Manners which are not necessary to Salvation And whereas our Church infers that therefore things ordained by them as necessary to Saelvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared nisi ostendi possint unless it can be shewed that they be taken out of Holy Scripture This Author saith these last Words of the Article Sententiam veterum omnium fere modernorum declarant declare that which was the Doctrine of the Ancients and of almost all the modern Doctors That in the time of Ocham the Church was divided in this Point some holding that a General Council Haeretica potest labe aspergi might be guilty of Heresy and much more of Error some That it could not thus be guilty and that the Doctrine of the Fallibility of General Councils was afterwards maintained by many eminent Doctors of the Church De formali objecto fidei Tr. 5. c. 19 20 21. is fully proved by Baronius against Turnbal so that I shall reserve the farther Prosecution of this Matter to its proper place viz. The Discussion of the Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils Our Church in her Twenty second Article asserts § 6 That the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly seigned and grounded upon no Warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God And that these Doctrines were not derived to them from Apostolical Tradition their own Writers do ingeniously confess For 1. Concerning Purgatory Alphonsus de Castro declares That in Veteribus de Purgatorio fere nulla De Haeres l. 8. Tit. de Indulg potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores mentio est In the Ancients and especially the Greek Writers there is scarce any mention of Purgatory whence it comes to pass Contr. Luther Artic. 18. that to this very day it is not received in the Greek Church Apud priscos amongst the Ancients saith our Fisher Bishop of Rochester It was not at all or very rarely mentioned nor is it to this Day believed by the Greek Church Let him who pleaseth read the Commentaries of the ancient Greeks and he will find I suppose that they speak not at all or very rarely of it Sed neque Latini simul omnes sed sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt Nor did the Latins altogether but leisurely perceive the Truth of this Matter And then he adds Cum igitur purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum universae Ecclesiae fuerit quis jam de Indulgentiis mirari potest quia in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerit earum usus Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known to and received by the Universal Church who can wonder that in the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences In Cath. Rom. pacif apud Forb consid Mod. p. 264. Father Barns acknowledgeth that the Punishment of Purgatory is a thing quae nec ex Scripturis nec Patribus nec Conciliis deduci potest firmiter which can neither be firmly proved from Scripture the Fathers or Councils And that Opposita sententia eis conformior videtur the contrary Sentence seems more agreeable to them Wicelius saith Meth. Concord Eccles c. 8. Tit. Funus Ibid. p. 259 260. That though there should be some places of Purgation to receive naked Souls yet doth it not become grave and wise Men so certainly to define those things which Scriptures have not expressed nec Antiquorum traditio nor the Tradition of the Ancients hath expounded Erasmus saith Operum Tom. 1. p. 685. q. There be many things about which not only contentious but even learned and pious Men did doubt of old as St. Austin with others doubted long about Purgatory That it was only a private Assertion and not an Article of Faith generally received in the Twelfth Century Chronic. l. 8. c. 26. is evident from these Words of Otho Frisingensis viz. That there is apud Inferos in the infernal Regions a Place of Purgatory wherein such as are to be saved are either troubled only with Darkness or decocted with the Fire of Expiation some affirm Nor can I tell what to make of that saying of Paschasius if it doth not shew that he believeth the contrary for saith he our Lord saith he that eateth my Flesh hath eternal Life ideo dicens habet quia mox anima carne soluta intrat in vitae promptuaria De Corp. Sang. Domini c. 19. ubi Sanctorum Animae requiescunt saying in the Present Tense he hath because the Soul being loosed from the Flesh presently enters into those Receptacles of Life where the Spirits of Saints do rest Secondly § 7 Concerning Pardons or Indulgences their Novelâ—y is still confessed more freely Inter omnes res de quibus in hoc opere disputamus nulla est quam minus aperte S. Literae prodiderunt de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint neque tamen hac occasione contemnendae sunt quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus quoniam multa sunt posterioribus nota quae vetusti illi Scriptores prorsus ignoraverunt nam de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis Scriptoribus mentio de Purgatorio fere nulla potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores qua de causa usque in hodiernum Diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis ut apud Priscos nulla sit de eis mentio praecipue quod tunc magis fervebat Christianorum charitas ut parum esset opus indulgentiis quapropter non est mentio ulla indulgentiarum De Haer. l. 8. Tit. de Indulgentiis De invent rer l. 8. c. 1. p. 325. Part. 1. Sum. Tit. 10. c. 3. In 4. Sentent dist 20. q. 3. h. Alphonsus Castro saith That among all the things of which he disputed in his Book against Heresies there was nothing of which the Scripture spake less plainly de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint and of which the Ancient Writers had said less Many saith Polydore Virgil from Roffensis may perhaps be moved not to trust to Indulgences quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur recentior admodum sero apud Christianos repertus because the use of them in the Church seems new and very lately received among Christians To whom I answer That
but never to Tradition the Prophets do exhort them for their direction to repair to the Law Esai 8.20.34.16 Mal. 4.4 and to the Testimonies to the Book of the Lord. To remember the Law of Moses which he commanded them in Horeb for all Israel with the Statutes and Judgments as their only certain Rule and Direction Now that the ordinary Succession of Prophets was to cease from the Days of Malachy to the Times of Christ whereas had Oral Tradition also been their Rule the Prophets must have had like reason to call upon them to remember that Moreover God only calls upon them by Moses To do all the Words of this Law which are written in this Book and promiseth his Favour and Acceptance of them upon that account saying If thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God Deut. 30.9 10. Vers 15. to keep his Commandments and Statutes which are written in this Book of the Law I will rejoice over thee for Good. See I have set before thee this day life and good and death and evil And David speaketh thus unto King Solomon 1 Kings 2.3 Keep the Charge of the Lord thy God to walk in his ways to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgments and his Testimonies as it is written in the Law of Moses that thou maist prosper in all that thou dost and whithersoever thou turnest thy self If then the Observation of what was written in the Law of Moses was sufficient to procure Life Favour Prosperity and Acceptance with God surely this written Law must be a perfect Rule and must sufficiently contain all that was needful to be believed or done unto those ends Hence is the King commanded to write him a Copy of this Law in a Book that he might learn to fear the Lord God Deut. 17.18 19. and to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them and to perform the words of the Covenant which are written in this Book 2 Chron. 34.31 is to keep God's Commandments his Testimonies and his Statutes with all the Soul and with all the Heart Whereas had Oral Tradition been any part of their Rule they must have been obliged equally to observe what was delivered by it and all God's Statutes and Commandments could not be written in this Book as it is so expresly and frequently declared that they were Our Saviour in like manner bids them Search the Scriptures Joh. 3.39 because they thought in them they had eternal Life in which apprehension had they been deceived as they must have been provided that there was another Law of Oral Tradition given to lead them unto Life eternal our Saviour doubtless would have informed them of this dangerous Error which yet he was so far from doing that when a Lawyer puts the Question to him What shall I do that I may inherit eternal Life Luk. 10.25 26. he Answers What is written in the Law how readest thou This do and thou shalt live Luk. 16.29 And sends the Jews to Moses and the Prophets that by hearing them they might avoid the coming to the Place of Torments but neither he nor his Disciples do ever send them to Tradition or speak one word in approbation of it which is sufficient Evidence that they knew nothing of this Rule of Mr. M. 2dly § 6 The Traditions concerning Doctrines generally believed and Practices needful to be performed among them after the Law was written by Moses and after God had given them a Charge upon the ceasing of the Succession of his Prophets to remember and stick close unto it I say the Traditions which obtained in the Jewish Church as far as we have any certain intimation of them were such as tended to the evacuating of the Law of Moses to the renouncing of the true Messiah and to the introduction of vain Worship and superstitious Observances whence it demonstratively appears that Oral Tradition was not then a certain Rule nor could the Jewish Nation be obliged by divine Precept to receive it as such To make this Evident consider 1. That our Saviour often sends the Jews to Scripture to Moses and the Prophets but never to Tradition 2. That he still represents the great Asserters of Tradition in the Jewish Nation Matth. 15.14.23.16 17 19. Mat. 15.10 11. to wit their Elders Scribes and Pharisees as blind Guides leading of the Blind as Fools and Blind confuteth their Traditions though generally received before all the People Mark 7. Mat. 12.7 Matth. 15.13 justifies his Disciples in the neglect and violation of them pronounces them Plants which his Father had not planted and therefore such as should be rooted up 3dly He plainly tells them That by these Traditions they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgress make void Mark. 7.10 and null the Commandment of God. He shews this by plain Instances in their evacuating the Fifth Commandment by their Traditions in observing and enjoining such Traditions touching the Observation of the Sabbatick Rest Matth. 12.7 Matth. 12.12 Luk. 6.9 Mark 3.5 Luke 13.15 Matth. 23.16 23. as contradicted that great Law of God I will have mercy and not sacrifice and made it unlawful to do good and preserve Life upon that day and which sufficiently demonstrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blindness of their Minds and their Hypocrisie and in absolving them from their Oaths out of an ignorance so Gross as knew not they were virtually made to God. He also charges them that by thus teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men Matth. 15.9 they rendered God's Worship vain 4thly It is extreamly evident that by virtue of some of these Traditions they rejected the true Messiah and stood obliged by them so to do For First It is most certain that the Jews had a Tradition generally received among them That their Messiah should be a Temporal Prince that at his Coming he should restore the Kingdom to Israel he should subdue the Nations under them and should erect a Temporal Dominion in the Jewish Nation over all their Enemies Trypho the Jew declares to Justin M. That Dial. p. 249. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scriptures do compel us to expect a great and glorious Messiah who shall receive as the Son of Man from the ancient of Days an everlasting Kingdom In Celsum l. 2. p. 78. not such a mean despised one as was your Jesus The Jews saith Origen say That their Prophets represent their Messiah to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great Person and a Potentate and Lord of the whole Earth and of all the Heathens and their Armies De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 31. Josephus confesseth there was an obscure Oracle found in their S. Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That about that time one of Judea should govern the World. Suetonius and Tacitus say In Vespas c 4. Hist l. 5. That it was in the whole East Vetus constans opinio ut
eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur an old and constant Opinion that some out of Judaea should obtain the Government of the World and that this Prophesie was contained Antiquis Sacerdotum literis in the ancient Writings of the Priests All the Disciples of our Lord did constantly expect this Temporal Kingdom till by the Holy Ghost's descent upon them they were informed better witness their Contests Matth. 18.1 Who should be the greatest in this Kingdom and the desire of the Sons of Zebedee to sit one at his Right-hand Matth. 20.21 and the other at his Left in it And when they were assembled after his Resurrection Act. 1.6 this was their Enquiry Lord wilt thou now restore the Kingdom to Israel It is therefore certain that this was the Tradition of the whole Jewish Church received from their Wise Men and grounded on the Scriptures of the Prophets as they did interpret them Secondly It was also a Tradition which generally obtained among the Jews That their Elias who was called the Tisbite was to appear in Person at the Advent of the true Messiah Justin M. Dial p. 268. and to anoint him to his Office. All we saith Trypho expect that Christ should be anointed by Elias who is for to come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because Elias is not come I think that our Messiah is not come Thus was that place of Malachy translated by the Seventy Interpreters long before our Saviour's coming Mal. 4.5 behold I send unto you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elias the Tisbite before the great and glorious Day of the Lord come Accordingly the Scribes or the Expounders of the Law Mark 9.11 did with one Voice declare it was necessary that Elias should come first Thirdly It was the general Tradition of the Jews That the Law of Moses should be perpetually obliging to them and be observed even in the Days of the Messiah On this Presumption certainly it was that Christ's Disciples after his Resurrection were strict Observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time and so were also the Generality of the Jewish Converts St. Peter was so nice in Observation of it as that till he was informed better by a Vision he thought such Meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law so that he being in this Vision bid to slay and eat crys out as a Man tempted to an unlawful Act Acts 10.14 Not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is unclean Whence Origen well notes L. 2. Contr. Cels p. 56 57. That he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a long time kept the Jewish Customs according to the Law of Moses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 living according to the Tradition of the Jews he contemned those who were not of the Jews and even when by this Vision he was prevailed upon to go unto Cornelius he begins his Speech to him thus Acts 10.28 You know that it is an unlawful thing for a Man that is a Jew to keep Company or come in to one of another Nation Acts 11.2 and when he had done it his Brethren call him to an Account and contend with him for it Acts 21.20 St. James gives an Account to Paul of the great Zeal that all the Jewish Converts had to the Law of Moses in these Words Thou seest Brother how many Thousand Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law. He farther tells him how much they were offended with him because they heard that he had taught that they were not obliged to Obedience to the Constitutions and Customs of the Jewish Law. And lastly doth exhort him to do what might be proper to cause them to believe That he also walked orderly and kept the Law. St. Jerome and Sulpitius inform us Chron. Euseb l. 2. c. 45. That Fifteen of the first Bishops of Jerusalem with their Flocks were all Observers of the Law of Moses and Origen That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p. 56. they of the Jews who believed in Jesus left not their own Law. Moreover by the Unbelieving Jews nothing was more abhorred than the Thoughts of changing their Mosaick Customs Their Accusation against Stephen was this that he had said Acts 6.14 That the Messiah should change the Customs which Moses had delivered to them and this was in the Judgment of the High-Priest the Elders and the Scribes sufficient to prove him guilty of that capital Offence of Blasphemy On this Account they bring St. Paul before the Judgment-Seat of Gallio because say they he perswaded Men to Worship God Acts 18 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against or otherwise than was commanded by the Law of Moses And when he maketh his Apology unto the Jews of Rome for bearing of his Chain he doth it in these Words I have done nothing contrary to the Law Acts 28.17 or to the Customs of my Country Deut. 29.29 Levit. 3.17 Exod. 12.17 Now this Opinion they grounded chiefly upon those Places which seem to speak of the Perpetuity of those Statutes and say they shall be Ordinances to them for ever and consequently seem to inferr a Declaration from the Mouth of God that they should not be altered Lo here Three plain Traditions of the whole Jewish Church Two of which plainly tended to oblige them to renounce the true Messiah and the Third to blend Judaism with Christianity and to refuse to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles here therefore is a Threefold Demonstration not only of the Uncertainty but of the Falshood of the Traditions which obtained in the whole Church of God. For farther Demonstration of this Matter § 7 let it be considered First That the Traditions we have mentioned were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Traditions of the Elders Mark 7.3 Acts 28.17 Gal. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Customs and Traditions of their Fathers they were the Traditions of them who sate in the Chair of Moses of the Interpreters of Scripture the Guides of the common People they were the Traditions of those Men who generally had obtained the Reputation of the greatest Knowledge and Exactness in the Law who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 12. Arch. l. 17. c. 3. most exactly interpret the Laws and declare the things belonging to them and who were by the Jews esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more Pious than the rest so that if these were Foolish and Blind Guides they had no other to conduct them except those two pernicious Guides of Hereticks the Scripture and the use of Reason Secondly Observe that these Traditions were not taught only in our Saviour's Age but long before they being Customs and Traditions of their Fore-fathers The Asserters of them saith Josephus Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most ancient of their Countrymen Epiphanius informs us That they pretended to