it must be upon the terms of my position the practice of the Church giving bounds to the sense of the Scripture I can therefore safely agree with the Constitutions of the Apostles with S. Cyprian and Leo and whosoever else teaches that it is not safe for the people to assure their consciences upon the credit of their Pastors But it is because I suppose the Unity of the Church provided by God for a ground upon which the people may reasonably presume when they are to adhere to their Pastors when not To wit when they are owned not when they are disowned by the Unity of the Church For though this provision becomes uneffectual when this Unity is dissolved yet ought not that to be an argument that the goodnesse of God never made that provision which the malice of man may defeat But that whosoever concurrs to maintain the division concurrs to defeat that provision which God hath made As safely do I agree with all them who agree that whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scriptures For if it belong to the Rule of Faith it is intended by the Scriptures though that intent is evidenced by the Tradition of the Church If to the Lawes of the Church the authority of it comes from the Scriptures though the evidence of it may depend upon common sense which the practice of the Church may convince If over and above both it is not receivable if not contained in the Scriptures And in this regard whosoever maintains the whole Scripture to be the Rule of Faith is throughly justified by all those testimonies that have been alleged to that purpose For though it be not necessary to the salvation of all Christians to understand the meaning of all the Scriptures yet what Scripture soever a man attains to understand is as much a Rule to his Faith as that which a man cannot be saved if hee understand not the sense of it whether in and by the Scripture or without it And though a man may be obliged to believe that which is not in the Scripture to have been instituted by the Apostles yet is he not obliged to observe it but upon that reason which the Scripture delivereth And upon these terms is the whole Scripture a Rule of Faith from which as nothing is to be taken away so is nothing to be added to it as the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. II. Hom. XII requireth And the saying of S. Basil in Esa II. and Ascet Reg. I. condemning all that is done without Scripture takes place upon no other terms than these Not as Cartwright and our Puritanes after him imagine that a man is to have a text of Scripture specifying every thing which hee doth for his warrant For as it is in it self ridiculous to imagine that all cases which fall out can be ruled by expresse text of Scripture our Christianity being concerned infinite wayes of which it is evident that the Scripture had no occasion to speak So if the words of the Scripture be lodged in a heart where the work of them dwelleth not a thing which wee see too possible to come to passe it is the ready way to make the Word of God a color for all unrighteousnesse not onely to others but to the very heart of him who hath that cloke for it It is therefore enough that the reason of every thing which a Christian doth is to be derived from that doctrine which the Scripture declaeth And where a man proceedeth to do that for which hee hath not such a reason so grounded as reasonable men use to go by then cometh that to passe which S. Basil chargeth Ascet Reg. LXXX That What is not of faith is sin It is true according to that sense which hitherto I have used after many Church Writers the Rule of Faith extendeth not to all the Scriptures but onely to that which it is necessary to salvation to believe and to know Which every man knowes that all the Scripture is not For though it be necessary to salvation to believe that all the Scripture is true yet is it not necessary to salvation to know all that the Scripture containeth And the reason why I use it in this sense is to distinguish those things contained in the Scriptures which Tradition extendeth to from those to which it extendeth not For upon these terms is the sense of them limitable to the common Faith But I quarel not therefore the opinion of them that maintaine the whole Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith acknowledging that whatsoever it containeth is necessarily to be believed by all that come to understand it And whatsoever it containeth not though the Scripture alone obligeth not to believe the truth of it is not necessarily to be observed for any other reason but that which the Scripture declareth As for S. Basil making it apostasy to bring that which is not written into the Faith It is a thing well known that the Arians were charged by the Church for bringing in words that were not in the Scriptures saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was a time when Christ was not And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That hee was made of nothing On the other side after the Council of Nicaea the Arians charged the Church for bringing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance Where then lay the difference between the Inndelity of the Arians and the Faith of the Church Theodoret showes it Hist Eccles I. 8. out of Athanasius de Actis Concil Niceni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee They were condemned by written words piously understood But how appears this piety For I suppose the Arians would not have granted it Hee addeth that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been used by the Fathers which had it been inconsistent with the sense of the Church could not have been indured in a mater concerning the Rule of Faith whereas their terms were contrary to that which is found in the Scriptures Now S. Basil acknowledgeth that hee had elsewhere dealing with Hereticks used terms not found in the Scriptures to exclude their sense contrary to the Scriptures as you shall finde by the Authors alleged that the Council of Nicaea had done but to those who desired information with a single heart hee resolves to rest content with the Scriptures The terms whereof his meaning is that the Hereticks did not rest content with because they had a minde to depart from the Faith Upon the same terms Tertullian pronounces the Wo that belongs to them which adde to Gods Word upon Hermogenes because his error concerned the Article of our Creed that God made heaven and earth And S. Austine presumes the reason why there is no clear Scripture for the original of the soul to be because hee presumes that it concerns not the substance of Faith Besides these Observations some of those passages which are alleged may concern Christianity rather than the Scriptures
who will or can think it reasonable that the Church should be thought to avow all that hath been written by any of the Church and is come to the hands of posterity by whatsoever means Or who will think it strange that a Christian should not understand the Rule of his Christianity though the right understanding thereof should have been the condition requisite to the making of him a Christian If the profession made by the writing from which posterity hath it were evidently so notorious to the Church and the maintenance thereof so obstinate that the Church could not avoid taking notice of it and contradicting it without quitting the trust of the Rule of Faith deposited with it then and not otherwise I do admit that the contrary of that which is regularly and ordinarily taught by Church Writers is inconsistent with the Rule of Faith Besides this another presumption or prescription limiting the interpretation or Scriptures in such things as concern the Traditions of the Apostles wee may be confident to have gained from the Society of the Church demonstrated by the premises To wit that if any thing be questionable whether it come by Tradition from the Apostles or not there can no conclusion be made in the negative because it is not expressed in the Scriptures Here I desire all them that will not mistake mee to take notice that I intend not here to conclude or inferre what force those Traditions which I pretend may come from the Apostles though it be not certified by the Scriptures may have to oblige the Church which question I found it requisite to set aside once afore But that which here I affirme onely concerns the question of fact that it is not impossible to make evidence that some Orders or Rites and customes of the Church had their beginning of being brought in for Laws to the Church by the Apostles though not written in the Scriptures Confessing neverthelesse that the proving hereof which no reason can hinder mee to proceed with here will be a step to the resolving of that force which the Traditions of the Apostles whether written or not written in the Scriptures have and ought to have in obliging the Church at present when it shall appear to be common to written and unwritten Traditions to have their authority from the Apostles And the evidence of this prescription depends upon a more general one limiting the interpretation of Scripture in mater of this nature that is concerning the Laws of the Church how far they were intended by the Apostles to tye the Church not to exceed the practice of the Church succeeding the times of the Apostles The demonstration whereof consists in certain instances of things recorded by the Scriptures of the New Testament either evidencing onely mater of fact that is what was then done and therefore importing no precept what was to be done for the future or importing such precepts as no man will stand to be now in force It is manifest that the Scriptures report how the Disciples under the Apostles were wont to assemble themselves to serve God by the Offices of Christianity upon the first day of the week called vulgarly Sunday after the Resurrection of Christ John XX. 19 26. Acts. XX. 7. Con. XVI 2. Apoc. I. 10. Speaking of the banishment of S. John conforming himself to the times of the Church for the service of God and thereupon ravish'd in Spirit Which no man questions It is said indeed in this case as it is said by others in the question of Tithes that the first day of the week is commanded to be kept holy of Christians by the fourth Commandment But I demand of any man that can tell seven whether the first day of the week and the seventh day of the week be the same day of the week or not And if this be unquestionable I demand further whether the Jews were tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep the last day of the week or not Assuring my self that whosoever believes the Scriptures and reads the Commandement that obliges them to rest all that day in which God rested from making Heaven and Earth can no more doubt that they were bound to rest on Saturday than that God rested from making Heaven and Earth upon that day I demand then whether the same precept that obliged them to keep Saturday can oblige Christians to keep Sunday And do conclude that it can no more be said then that the same word signifies both the seventh and the first day So wide an error so small a mistake can cause when faction hath once swallowed it A man would think it a very easie mistake to understand the seventh day of the week which God commands to be hallowed as if it signified one of the seven and no more Which if it were true then were the Jews never tied to rest on the Saturday by Gods Law but might have chosen which day of seven they would have rested on notwithstanding that God rested on the Saturday which is to make the reason of the precept impertinent to the mater of it I intend not to deny that the reason and ground upon which the Christian Church came to be enjoyned to keep the first day of the week is drawn and to be drawn from the fourth Commandment But I say further that the reason and ground of a positive Law makes it not a Law but the act of him that hath power to give Law signifying that hee intends to inact it for a Law whether hee expresse the reason or not And thus I say as I have hitherto said concerning other Ordinances which have the force of Law to oblige the Church that they can no more stand by virtue of such Ordinances as I acknowledge to have been torrespondent to them under the Law of Moses than Christianity by the virtue of Judaisme or the Gospel by virtue of the Law which though it bear witnesse to the Gospel yet hee were a Madman that should say That hee who was bound to be circumcised by virtue of that circumcision should be bound to be baptized supposing him of the number of Christians who agree that Baptisme coming in force circumcision could no more continue in force And surely those simple people who of late times have taken upon them to keep the Saturday though it were in truth and effect no lesse than the renouncing of their Christianity yet in reason did no more then pursue the grounds which their Predecessors had laid and drawn the conclusion which necessarily followes upon their premises that if the fourth Commandment be in force then either the Saturday is to be kept or the Jews were never tied to keep it Besides this particular it is manifest that the Apostles observe the third and sixth and ninth hours of the day for the service of God Acts II. 15. III. 1. X. 3 9 30. And this according to an Order then in force among Gods people according to the Scriptures Psal LV. 18
is evident that hee allowes them that which the Apostles had forbidden because it is evident that this is one of those differences which Jews by the Law were bound to make If therefore there be this difference in the Scriptures it is manifest that the leter of them doth not determine what obliges So again the same Apostle 1 Cor. XI 1-16 disputeth at large that men ought not but women ought to cover their heads at praying or prophesying in the Church For the intent whereof though it hath been the subject of whole books in this age I conceive I need go no further than Tertullians book de Velandis Virginibus who living so much nearer the Apostles knew better the custoÌ„ms of their Churches than all the Criticks of this time Hee disputes the case in question then whether Virgins had a privilege not to vail their faces at Divine Service by arguing that they cannot be excepted from S. Pauls words and alleging the example of the Church of Corinth where at that very time the Virgins vailed their faces at Divine Service as other women did Which whether it tye the Church or not at this time it will scarce be granted by those who now practice it not And in another place 1 Tim. V. 3-6 hee showeth that there was then an Order of Widowes whose maintenance hee ordereth to come from the stock of the Church as likewise how they are to be qualified and how imployed Of which Order there is no where any step remaining in the Church at â—resent though nothing be more imperative than the Order concerning it So the precept of the Apostle serves not to oblige the Church at present though by Scripture And if I may use the argument ad hominem upon the supposition of those that I dispute with who intend not to take any thing for true which I prove not as debating the principles of Christian truth it is manifest that the Apostle James V. 14. appointeth that the sick be anointed with oil together with prayers as well for the recovery of their health as for the forgivenesse of their sins Which it is manifest that it cannot appear not to oblige the Church at this time by virtue of that Scripture which injoyneth it And therefore to say nothing at present whether it do indeed oblige the now Church or not those that believe it doth not oblige cannot be able to give a reason why it obligeth not by the Scripture alone And this is the argument whereby I prove that the interpretation of Scripture as concerning mater of Law to the Church or the means to be used in determining what obligeth what not cannot transgresse the tradition and practice of the Church Because that which is propounded in the Scriptures as meer mater of fact may oblige and that which is propounded as mater of precept creating right may not oblige the Scripture not determining whether it intend that obligation to be universal or not For having showed afore that the Church is a Society instituted by God to which these Rules are given as Laws to govern it in the exercise of those Offices wherein the Communion therâ—of consisteth all reasonable men must grant that as the intent and meaning of all Laws is to be gathered from the primitive and original practice of that Society for which they were made so is the reason of all Orders delivered to the Church by the Apostles and by consequence their intent how farr they were to oblige to be measured by the first and most ancient practice of the Church which first had them to use Whereunto let us adde these considerations That the Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles were of necessity in force before mention can be made of them in their writings That the writing of them is neither the reason why they oblige nor a thing thereunto requisite but meerly supervenient to the force of them And that there is sufficient evidence that those motives to believe which the Scripture recordeth but cannot evidence are neverthelesse true and that the truth of those motives cannot be evident but by the Society of the Church which the said Laws do maintain For upon these conâ—â—derations it will appear necessarily consequent that as there be Apostolical Traditions which the Scripture evidently witnesseth so evidence may be made of them without Scripture The Rule of S. Austine how to discern what Traditions do indeed come from the Apostles is well enough known to be this To wit that which is observed over all the Church though it cannot be discerned when where or by whom it came first in force that is in his times by the authority of what Synod it was settled that must be deemed and taken to come from the authority of the Apostles themselves I will not use the terms of Synod or Synods because I conceive the Church was from the beginning by virtue of the perpetual intelligence and correspondence settled and used between the parts of it a standing Synod even when there was no Assembly of persons authorized to consent in behalf of their respective Churches Such things as became requisite to be determined in any Church being thereby so communicated to the rest as the order taken in one either to be accepted by them or redressed Neither will I say that the Rule is so effectual as it is true For I cannot warrant how general the practice of every thing that may come in question can appear to have been over the whole Church nor whether it may appear to have begun from some act of the Church to be designed by some place or persons or not which in S. Austines time I doubt not might be made to appear and being made to appear would maintain the Rule to be true Nor have I need of any such Rule as may serve to discern whatsoever may become questionable whether it come from the Apostles themselves or not It shall suffice mee here to presume thus much that no man can prescribe against any Rule of the Church that it comes not from the Apostles because it is not recorded in the holy Scriptures And therefore that nothing hindereth competent evidence to be made of the authority of the Apostles in some Orders of the Church of which there is no mention in the Scriptures Correspondently to that which was settled afore concerning the Rule of Faith that no man can prescribe against any thing questionable that it is no part of it because it is not evident in Scripture or because such arguments may be made against it out of the Scriptures which every one whose salvation it concerns is not able evidently to assoile And all this being determined I intend neverthelesse that it still shall remain questionable how farr these Orders of the Apostles oblige the Church Because I intend not to prescribe from all this that those Orders which shall appear to have been brought in by the Apostles may not become uselesse to the Church CHAP.
Christ shed for reâ—â—ission of sins the life of the Kingdom of heaven See the unbaptized deprived also of the bread and cup of life is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven where Christ the well of life remains So it appears that the African Church had this custome but held it not necessary to salvation as Baptism But by Gennadius de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis Cap. LII It appears to have been a custome of the Church when Hereticks were reconciled to the Church by confirmation to give their little ones the Eucharist presently upon it And Ordo Romanus de Baptismo prescribes it after the solemn Baptism before Easter which the French Capitulary I. 161. and Alcuinus also de divinis officiis provideth for And in the Eastern Church Dionysius in the end of the booke de Hierarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ In the mean time it is to be considered that there being no order that all should be baptized Infants nor at what age Whereupon St. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XLII in Sanctum Bapt. advises at three or four years of age it cannot be said to have been a generall custome of the Church Nor that it could be originall from the Apostles because the solemn times of Baptisme at Easter and Whitsontide cannot be thought to have been settled till Christianity was grown very vulgar For as for those that were baptized upon particular occasions or in danger of death it cannot be thought that the Eucharist was celebrated for their purpose nor doth any example appear that it was ever brought them from the Church On the contrary when the times of Baptisme came to be disused because it was found to be for the best that all should be baptized Infants upon this occasion the receiving of the Eucharist came to be deferred as much longer then was fitting in my opinion then it was given too soon in S. Cyprians time according to the example related by him in his Book de Lapsis where the Child whom the Pagans had given bread dipped in the wine that had been consecrated to their Idols because too young to eat of the flesh of their sacrifices receives the Eucharist in the Church CHAP. XXIV Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable concerning the Scripture Upon what terms the Church may or is to determine controversies of Faith And what obligation that determination produceth Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church as the reasons of them continue or not Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist Penance under the Apostles and afterwards S. Pauls vail eating blood and things offered to Idols The power of the Church in limiting these Traditions I May now proceed I conceive to resolve generally upon what principles any thing questionable in Christianity is determinable and as franckly as briefly do affirm that there are but two sorts of means to resolve us in any thing of that nature Tradition and Argument Authority and Reason History and Logick For whatsoever any Artist or Divine hath said of the great use of the languages in discovering the true meaning of the Original Scriptures by the ancient Translations as well as the Originalls which I allow as much as they demand they must give me leave to observe that seeing all languages are certain Lawes of speaking which have the force of signifying by being delivered to posterity upon agreement of their Predeoessors all that helpe is duly ascribed to Tradition which we have from the Languages Indeed this is no Tradition of the Church no more then all History and Historicall truth concerning the times the places the persons mentioned in the Scripture concerning the Lawes the Customes the Fashions and orders practised by persons mentioned in the Scriptures in all particulars whereof the Scripture speaks which whether it be delivered by Christians or not Christians as far as the common reason of men alloweth or warranteth it for Historical truth is to be admitted into consequence in inquiring the meaning of the Scriptures and without it all pretense of Languages is pedantick and contemptible as that which gives the true reason to the Language of the Scripture whatsoever it import in vulgar use This helpe being applied to the Text of the Scripture it will be of consequence to confider the process of the discourse pursuing that which may appear to be intended not by any mans fancy but by those marks which cleared by the helps premised may appear to signifie it Which is the work of reason supposing the truth of the Scriptures And whereas other passages of Scripture either are clearer of themselves or being made clearer by using the same helps may seem to argue the meaning of that which is questioned whereas other parts of Christianity resolved afore may serve as principles to inferre by consequence of reason the truth of that which remains in doubt not to be impured therefore to reason but to the truth from which reason argues as believed and not seen this also is no lesss the work of reason supposing the truth of the Scriptures But whereas there be two sorts of things questionable in Christianity and all that is questionable meerly in point of truth hath relation to and dependance upon the rule of faith as consequent to it or consistent with it if we will have it true or otherwise if false I acknowledge in the first place that nothing of this nature can be questionable further then as some Scripture the meaning whereof is not evident createth the doubt And therefore that the determination of the meaning of that Scripture is the determination of the truth questionable For seeing the truth of Gods nature and counsails which Christianity revealeth are things which no Christian can pretend to have known otherwise then by revelation from God and that we have evidence that whatsoever we have by Scripture is revealed but by the Tradition of the Church no further then all the Church agreeth in it all that wherein it agreeeth being supposed to be in the Scripture and much more then that It followeth that nothing can be affirmed as consequent to or consistent with that which the tradition of the Church containeth but by the Scripture and from the Scripture So that I willingly admit whatsoever is alleadged from divers sayings of the Fathers that whatsoever is not proved out of the Scriptures is as easily rejected as it is affirmed limiting the meaning of it as I have said But whatsoever there is Scripture produced to prove seeing we have prescribed that nothing can be admitted for the true meaning of any Scripture that is against the Catholick Tradition of the Church it behoveth that evidence be made that what is pretended to be true hath been taught in the Church so expresly as may inferre the allowance of it and therefore is not against the rule of Faith But this being cleared so manifest as it is that the Church hath not the priviledge of infallibility in any express act which is not justifiable from the universall
it not upon the Ubiquity of our Lords body but upon his will executed by celebrating the Sacrament or that of some later Greeks Damasc de â—ide Orthâ—d IV. 14. to contradict the Council of Constantinople against images under Copronymus which had recommended the Eucharist for the true image of our Lord maintaineth that it is not to be called noâ— is called in S. Basils Liturgy after the consecration the type figure image or antitype of the body and bloud of Christ Which neverthelesse Cardinal Bellarmine de Euchar. II. 15. judgeth not tenable The II Council of Nicaea that decreed for Images taking up this mans doctrine seemeth to have obliged those that follow to the same terms That is as hee there expresseth himself That God joyns his God-head to the elements to make them his body and bloud and that by the operation of the Holy Ghost which took him flesh of the Virgin so that they are no more two but one and the same Thus hee expresseth the change hee pretendeth which Transubstantiation admits not The Greeks at Venice in their answer to the first of XII questions proposed them by the Cardinal of Guise published by Lionclavavius will hereupon have neither the substance nor the accidents of the elements to remain the same as they were but to be transelemented say they into the divine substance It would be great skill to reconcile this with Transubstantiation But for the opposition made to Paschasius at the time the book of Bertram or Ratran yet extant the remembrance of John the Irish Scot one of the learned men of that time who is thought for the hatred of his opinion to have died by the hands of his Scholars the Monks of Malmesbury the opposition of Amalarius of Triers and Rabanus of Mence expressed by their sense in the works extant de Officiis Ecclesiasticis and de Institutione Clericorum are sufficient witnesses The recantation of Berengarius indited by Cardinal Humbertus at Rome MLIX comes not yet home to the businesse as it lies in the Canon Ego Berengarius For the Glosse of the Canon Law is fain to advise that if it be not well understood it creates as great an Heresie as that of Berengarius in that it sayes That the body and bloud of Christ are manâ—ged by the hands and broken by the teeth of believers not onely in the Sacrament but in the truth Which Mirandula in his Apology saith cannot be clearly understood but in the way of Damascenâ— and Paschasius And yet understanding the Sacrament to consist as well of the thing signified as of the signe though the body of Christ is not touched noâ— broke because the Sacrament is not the body of Christ according to the sensible substance which wee touch and break yet is it truly touched and truly broken as in the Sacrament because the Eucharist is truly the body and bloud of Christ as the Sacrament is and out ought to be truly that which it signifies and conveyes But as it is hereupon no mervail that hee was brought to a second recantation in a Council at Rome under Gregory VII so is that a preâ—â—mption that Transubstantiation was not yet formed And truely for England the Paschal Homily of Alfrick Archbishop of Canterbury together with those Extractions which you reade out of him in the annotations upon Bede p. 332-335 are sufficient evidence of a difference between the sense of that time and after that Lanfranck Berengarius his adversary was Archbishop of Canterbury And Pope Innocent III having inâ—erted the word Transubstantiation in the LXX Articles which hee proposed to the Council of Lateran in MCCXV what is the reason why they past not the Council as Mathew Paris with others testifie but that they were found burthensom And Gregory IX the nephew of Innocent cent having contrived these Articles into his decretals though under the name of the Council but of Innocent III in the General Council though the School Doctors depending on the Pope for the most part not on the Council were content to own them yet have wee no decree of any Council for them till that of MDLV under Leo X. For as for the institution of the Aâ—â—enians in the Council of Florence which though it use not the term of Transubstanciation seemeth to come up to the sense being advanced after the departure of the Greeks and not voted by the Council but onely published as the act of the Pope in the Council it cannot be called the decree of the Council though done in a publick Session of the Council in the great Church at Florence Certainly adding to the opinions of the School Doctors Scotus Durandus Ockam Cameracensis Bassolis and Gabriel besides those who living since Luther have acknowledged the same Caâ—etane Fisher Canus Suarez Vasquez and Bellarmine that it is not to be proved by expresse text of Scripture nor by reason grounded upon the same that which hath been alleged If this be not enough to evidence all interruption of Tradition which is pretended for Transubstantiation nothing is For that which Church Writers declare that they did not believe when they writ that they cannot declare that they received of their Predecessors for mater of faith And that which at any time was not mater of faith how farr soever the decree of the Church may oblige particular sons of the Church not to contradict it for the peace of the Church yet at no time can ever become of force to oblige a man to believe or to professe it for mater of faith CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises I Come now to the question of the Sacrifice the resolution whereof must needs proceed according to that which hath been determined in the point now dispatched For having showed the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist because it is appointed that in it the faithfull may feast upon the Sacrifice of the Crosse Wee have already showed by the Scriptures that it is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in the same sense and to the same effect as it containeth the body and bloud of Christ which it representeth that is mystically and spiritually and sacramentally that is as in and by a Sacrament tendereth and exhibiteth For seeing the Eucharist not onely tendereth the flesh and bloud of Christ but separated one from the other under and by several elements as his bloud was parted from his body by the â—â—olence of the Crosse it must of necessity be as well the Sacrifice as the Sacrament of Christ upon the Crosse And without all doubt it is against all the reason of the world to think that any more can be proved by any Scriptures of the Old Testament that are or
mentioning the Devil and his Angels nor of that not mentioning the creation of Angels The knowledge then requisite to save a Christian containeth the Apostasy of the evil Angels whether it be in the Creed or not because neither the Creed as it is nor Baptisme in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost can be understood to have any sense without supposing it And therefore Irenaeus I. 2. could not deliver this Rule without mentioning the Devil and his Angels though I intend not thereupon to argue that it was contained in the words of the Creed at that time By S. Cyrils Catechises you shall understand that those who pretended to Baptisme at Easter were to be instructed in the sense and grounds of their Creed during the Lent And S. Augustine in his book de Catechizandis rudibus where hee acquaints his friend that had writ to him about something of that office with the form that hee was wont to use instructs him to begin with the beginning of Genesis and setting forth what course God had taken with mankinde before and under the Law to bring down his discourse to the coming of Christ and from thence to his second coming to Judgment Which is to the very same purpose onely taking opportunity to mixe the motives of Faith which the Old Testament containeth with the mater of Faith which the New Testament requireth Whatsoever then is said of the Rule of Faith in the writings of the Fathers is to be understood of the Creed Whereof though it be not maintained that the words which Pretenders were required to render by heart were the same yet the substance of it the reasons and grounds which make every point necessary to be believed were alwaies the same in all Churches and remaine unchangeable I would not have any hereupon to think that the mater of this Rule is not in my conceit contained in the Scriptures For I finde S. Cyril Catech. V. protesting that it containes nothing but that which concerned our salvation the most selected out of the Scriptures And therefore in other places he tenders his Scholars evidence out of the Scriptures and wishes them not to believe that whereof there is no such evidence And to the same effect Eucherius in Symb. Hom. I. Paschasius de Sp. S. in Praef. and after them Thomas Aquinas secunda II. Quest I. Art IX all agree that the form of the Creed was made up out of the Scriptures Giving such reasons as no reasonable Christian can refuse Not onely because all they whose salvation is concerned have not leisure to study the Scriptures but because they that have cannot easily or safely discern wherein the substance of Faith upon the profession whereof our salvation depends consisteth Supposing that they were able to discern between true and false in the meaning of the Scriptures To which I will adde onely that which Tâ—rtullian and others of the Fathers observe of the ancient Hereticks that their fashion was to take occasion upon one or two texts to overthrow and deny the main substance and scope of the whole Scriptures Which whether it be seen in the Sects of our time or not I will not say here because I will not take any thing for granted which I have not yet principles to prove but supposing it onely a thing possible I will think I give a sufficient reason why God should provide Tradition as well as Scripture to bound the sense of it As S. Cyril also cautioneth in the place aforenamed where hee so liberally acknowledgeth the Creed to be taken out of the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For saith hee the Faith was not framed as it pleased men but the most substantial maters collected out of the Scripture do make up one doctrine of the Faith For I beseech you what had they whosoever they were that first framed the Creed but Tradition whereby to distinguish that which is substantial from that which is not Heare Origen in the Preface to his books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm multi sum qui sentire se putent quae Christi sunt nonnulii eorum diversa à prioribus sentiant servetur verò Ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita usque ad praesens in Ecclesiis permanens Illa sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab Ecclesiasticâ discordat traditione Illud tamen scire opor tet quoniam sancti Apostoli fidem Christi praedicantes de quibusdam quidem quaecunque necessaria crediderunt omnibus credentibus etiam his qui erga inquisitionem divinae scientiae pigriores videbantur manifestissimê tradiderunt Rationem scilicet assertionis relinquentes eis inquirendam qui Spiritûs dona excellentia praecipuè sermonis sapientiae scientiae per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum percipere merebantur De aliis verò dixerunt quidem quia sint quomodo autem aut unde sint siluerunt profectò ut studiosiores quoque l. quique ex posteris suis amatores sapientiae scientiae exercitium habere possent in quo ingenii sui fructum ostendere valerent Hi videlicet qui dignos se capaces sapientiae praepararent Species verò eorum quae per praedicationem Apostolicam manifestè traduntur hae sunt There being many that think their sense to be Christian and yet the sense of some differs from their predecessors But that which the Church preaches as delivered by order of succession from the Apostles being preserved and remaining the same in the Churches That onely is to be believed for truth which nothing differs from the Tradition of the Church This notwithstanding wee must know That the holy Apostles preaching the Faith of Christ delivered some things as many as they held necessary most manifestly to all believers even those whom they found the duller in the search of divine knowledge Leaving the reason why they affirmed them to the search of those that goe to receive the eminent gifts of the Holy Ghost especially of utterance wisedom and knowledge by the Holy Ghost Of other things they said that they are but how or whereupon they are they said not Forsooth that the more studious of their Successors loving wisedom and knowledge might have some exercise wherein to show the fruit of their wit To wit those that should prepare themselves to be worthy and capable of wisedom Now the particulars of that which is manifestly delivered by the preaching of the Apostles are these Which hee proceedeth to set down But Vincentius Lerinensis hath writ a Discourse on purpose to show that this Rule of Faith being delivered by succession to the principal as S. Paul requires Timothy to do and by them to those that were baptized was the ground upon which all Heresies attempting upon the Faith were condemned So that so many Heresies as historical truth will evidence to have been excluded the Church from the Apostles time for mater of belief so many convictions of this Rule Which
the Synod of Antiochia mad when they writ the Leter which you may reade in Eusebius VII 30. in the name of the Churches represented by that Synod to the rest of the Churches in Christendome signifying the sentence of deposition pronounced against Samosatenus and requiring them to joyn with it If it be madnesse to think them so mad as to summon the rest of the Churches upon an obligation which they did not acknowledge what shall it be to think that this obligation was but imaginary or at least voluntarily contracted not inacted by the will of our Lord declared by his Apostles The Emperor Aurelian being appealed by the Council to cause Samosatenus to be put our of his Bishops house by force who maintained himself in it by force against the sentence of the Synod decreed that possession should be given to him whom the Christian Bishops of Italy and Rome should acknowledge for Bishop by writing to him under that title Certainly this Heathen Emperor in referring the execution of the Synods decree to the consent of those remarkable parts of the Church whereupon the consent of the rest might reasonably be presumed understood the constitution of the Church by his five senses better than those learned Christians of our time who argue seriously that this Paulus Samosatenus was not excommunicated by the Synod of Antiochia but by the Emperor Aurelian For this is the course by which all the acts of the whole Church ever came in force those parts of the Church which were not present at the doing of them concurring ex postfacto to inact them and the civil power to grant the execution of them by secular power Perhaps it will not be fit here to let passe that which Athanasius relates libro de sontentiâ Dionysii Alexandrini That this Dionysius writing against Sabellius gave occasion to the Bishops of Pentapolis who resorted to the Church of Alexandria as wee see by the VI Canon of Nicaea to suspect him of that which afterwards was the Heresie of Arius And that Dionysius of Rome being made acquainted by them with a mater of that consequence to the whole Church this Dionysius writ him an Apology on purpose to give satisfaction of his Faith wherein S. Athanasius hath great cause to triumph that the Heresie of Arius which arose afterwards is no lesse condemned than that of Sabellius presently on foot Grant wee that it was an office of Christian charity to tender this satisfaction where it was become so requisite The example of Samosatenus shows that their addresse tended to question if not to displace their Bishop by the authority of the rest of the Church ingaging the consent of his own had hee been discovered to harbor the contrary Heresie to that of Sabellius And indeed what was the rise of all those contentions about Arius that succeeded in the Church after the Council of Nicaea but this question whether Arius should be re-admitted one of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria or remaine excommunicate And those truly that do not believe there is any Church but a Congregation that assembles together for the service of God must needs think all Christendome stark mad for so many years together as they labored by so many Synods to attain an agreement through the Church in this and in the cause of Athanasius that depended upon it But those who believe the power of the Church to eschere to the State when it declares it selfe Christian must think the Emperors Constantius and Valens mad when they put themselves to that trouble and charâ—e of so many Synods to obtain that consent of the Church which in point of right their own power might have commanded without all that ado In the decrees of divers of those many Synods that were held about this businesse you shall finde that those Churches which the said decrees are sent to are charged not to write to the Bishops whom they depoâ—e That is to say Not to give them the stile of Bishops not to deal with them about any thing concerning the Church but to hold them as cut off from the Church Just as the Emperor Aurelian afore commanded possession to be delivered to him whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should write to as Bishop This little circumstance expresses the means by which the communion of the Church was maintained To wit by continual intercourse of leters and messengers from Churches to Churches whereby the one understood the proceedings of the other and being satisfied of the reason of them gave force and execution to them within their own Bodies And this course being visibly derived from the practice of the Apostles sufficeth to evidence the Unity of the Church established by the exercise of that communication which maintained it When wee see the Apostles from the Churches upon which they were for the time resident dare Leters to other Churches signifying the Communion of those Churches one with another by the communion of all with the Apostles who taught and brought into force the termes and conditions upon which they were to communicate one with another have wee not the pattern of that intercourse and communion between several Churches by which common sense showeth all them that look into the records of the Church that the Unity and Communion of the whole was continued to after ages The words of Tertullian de praescript haeret cap. XX. must not be omitted here Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima ex qua omnes Sic omnes prima Apostolicae duâ— unà omnes probant veritatem Dum est illis communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis Quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejusdem Sacramenti una traditio Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one primitive Church from the Apostles out of which all come So all are the primitive and Apostolical while all agree in proving the truth While they have the communication of peace the title of brotherhood the common mark of hospitality Which rights nothing but the same tradition of the same mystery ruleth It is to be known that among the Greeks and Romans if a man had made acquaintance and friendship in a forrain City the fashion was to leave a mark for a pledge of it with one another which was called tessexa upon recognisance whereof hee that should come to the place where the other dwelt was not onely to be intertained by him whereupon these friends are called hospites signifying both hosts and guests but also assiisted in any businesse which hee might have in that place Such a kinde of right as this Tertullian saith there was between Christians and Christians between Churches and Churches Hee that produced the cognisance of the Church from whence hee came found not onely accesse to the communion of the Church to which hee came but assistance in his necessities and business in the name of a Christian
Epist IX ad Probum Statuimus fide Catholica suffragante illud esse conjugium quod primitus erat divina gratia fundatum Conventumque secundaemulieris priore superstite nec divortio ejectâ nullo pacto posse esse legitimum We decree the Catholick faith voting for it that to be mariage which first was founded upon Gods grace that was first made according to Christianity and that the wedding of a second wife leaving the first can by no means be lawful Which exception could possibly signifie nothing if in no case not of adultery a second could be maried while the first is alive And in the West Chromatius of Aquileia in Mat. V. as well as in the East Asterius Homil. an liceat dimittere uxorem the first damns him that shall mary again excepting adultery The second would have his hearers perswaded that nothing but death or adultery dissolves mariage But do I therefore say that the Church cannot forbid the innocent party to mary again or is bound by Gods law to allow it All Ecclesiastical Law being nothing but the restraining of that which Gods Law hath left indefinite And the inconveniences being both visible and horrible I conceive I am duly informed that George late Arch-bishop of Canterbury was satisfied in the proceeding of the High Commission Court to tie them that are divorced from marying again upon experience of adultery designed upon collusion to free the parties from wedlock having been formerly tender in imposing that charge The Greek Church may beter avoid such inconveniences not being tied to any Law of the Land but the tempering of the Canons remaining in the Governors of the Church But they that would not have the Lawes of the Church and the justice of the Land became Stales and pandars to such vilanies must either make adultery death and so take away the dispute or revive publick Penance and so take away the infamy of his bed and the taint of his issue that shall be reconciled to an Adulteresse or lastly bear with that inconvenience which the casualties of the world may oblige any man to which is to propose the chastity of single life in stead of the chastity of wedlock when the security of a mans conscience and the offence of the Church allows it not But though this in regard of the intricacies of the question and the inconveniences evident to practice may remain in the power of the Church yet can it never come within the power of the Church to determine that it is prejudiciall to the Christian faith to do so as by Gods Law And the Church that erres not in prohibiting mariage upon divorce for adultery will erre in determining for mater of faith that Gods law prohibites it so long as such reasons from the Scriptures are not silenced by any Tradition of the whole Church It is easie to see by S. Augustine de adulterini conjugiis II. 5-12 that publick Penance was the means to restore an adulteresse to the same reputation among Christians which an adulteresse that turned Christian must needs recover among Christians And that is the reason why the Canon of Arles orders that young Christians be advised not to mary again that their wives may be recovered of their adultery by Penance and so their mariage re-estated I see also that Justiniane Nov. CXVII hath taken order that women excessive in incontinence be delivered to the Bishop of the City to be put into a Monastery there to do Penance during life And supposing adultery to be death according to Moses Law the inconvenience ceaseth If the Civil Law inable not the Church to avoid the scandall of this collusion it is no marvail that the Church is constrained to impose upon the innocent more then Gods law requires to avoid that scandall which Gods law makes the greater inconvenience And thus having showed you that S. Austines interpretation of fornication is not true I have into the bargain showed you that it cannot serve to prove divorce upon other causes besides adultery and so the insolubility of mariage excepting our Saviours exception is as firmly proved as the consent of the Church can prove any thing in Christianity I know Origen argues that poysoning killing children robbing the house may be as destructive to the Society of Wedlock as Adultery And he thereupon seems to inferre that our Saviour excepts adultery onely for instance intending all causes equally destructive to wedlock as Grotius who follows his sense seems to limit it But Origens opinion will not interrupt the Tradition of the Church unlesse it could appear to have come into practice sometime in some part of the Church Neither would it serve his turn that would have those divorces which the secular Power allowes to extend to marying again For Origen never intended that his own opinion should bind but that it is in the power of the Church to void mariages upon other causes For he saith he knew some Governours of Churches suffer a woman to mary her former husband living Praeter Scripturam besides the Scripture And that as Moses permitted divorce to avoid a greater mischiefe But I may question whether they thought that against the Scripture which Origen thought to be against the Scripture And in the mean time as I do not see what breach his report can make upon the Tradition of the Church so it is plain the Power of the Church and not the secular did that which he reports And truly what the testimony of S. Austine extending that Adultery upon which our Saviour grants divorce to all mortall sinne but confining him that is so divorced not to mary another can avail him that would intitle the secular Power to create causes of divorce to the effect of marying again let all reason and conscience judge I shall conclude my argument Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis An exception settles the rule in all that is not excepted Either our Saviour intended that who had put away a Yoke-fellow for adultery should mary again or not If so he hath forbidden marying again upon other causes If not much more For though upon adultery he hath forbidden to mary again And thus is the Power of the Church in Matrimoniall causes founded upon the Law which our Lord Christ hath confined all Christians to of marying one to one and indissolubly whither without exception or excepting adultery For seeing that of necessity many questions must arise upon the execution of such a Law and that Civil Power may as well be enemy to Christianity as not and that as well professing to maintain it as professing to persecute it to say that God hath left the Consciences of Christians to be secured by the Civil Power submitting to what it determines is to say that under the Gospell God hath not made the observing of his lawes the condition of obtaining his promises This is that power which Tertulliane in several places expresly voucheth de Pudicitiâ cap. IV. Penes nos speaking
against us This execution then is either upon refusing the termes of reconcilement or upon failing of that which we undertake by accepting them That is not upon those failleures which may consist with reconcilement as those who would have these words to signifie Purgatory imagine but which destroy it And therefore the limitation till thou hast paid the utmost farthing signifies as Mat. I. 15. He knew her not till she had brought fourth her first borne son though he never knew her That is to say his utmost farthing shall never be paid My opinion would allow me to accept of Tertullians and S. Cyprians sense of this text who do indeed acknowledge the voiding of those effects of sin which may remain upon those that depart in the state of Grace between death and the day of judgement to be the paying of this utmost farthing But I have shewed you why it agrees not with the intent of the words And if it did it were nothing to Purgatory because Tertullian expresseth it to be paid mâ—ra resurrectioniâ— by the delay of the resurrection that is not before tâ—e generall judgement whereby Purgatory is quite spoiled For pretending the expinting of veniall sin which consisteth with reconcilement together with satisfying the debt of temporall punishment reserved by God upon that sin which he remitteth it cannot be intended by him that gives warning of seeking reconcilement not of voiding the penalties which may remaine when it is obtained Where you may see by survaying the scriptures which have been debated that there is not the least pretense in them for paying this debt by induring the flames of Purgatory for that sin which is forgiven afore But that all satisfaction endeth in voiding the guilt of sin by appeasing the wrâ—th of God for it before wee goe hence There be other texts both of the old and New Testament that are usually alleaged in this dispute But because rather for show then substance I will rather presume that all reasonable men may see where the consequence failes then use so many words as it requires to show it He shall sit as a refiner that purifieth silver and â—â—all purifiâ— the Sons of Levi and purge them as Gold and silver that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in rightousnesse saith the Prophet Malachi III. 3. But manifestly speaking of the first coming of Christ and triall which the Gospel passes them through that turn Christians upon mature advice Whatsoever trial the second coming of Christ may bring with it correspondent to the first it will be nothing to Purgatory the day of judgement determining it As for thee also by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth the prisoners out of the pit where in was no water Saith the Prophet Zachary IX 11. speaking of the returne from the Captivity of Babylon and of the prince of Israel that should figure oâ—t our Lord Christ and rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth Whereby it appeareth that the spiritual sense of this Prophesy ending â—n the redemption of mankind by the death of Christ and his Kingdome by the preaching of his Gospel can by no meanes be extended to any delivering out of Purgatory and if it could must not be intended to take place before the second coming Which intent would also appear groundlesse in this Because I have showed that he did not deliver the soules of the Fathers out of the Devils hands at his first coming which this text is alleaged to prove no lesse then Purgatory For this will confine it to the delivery of mankind from sin by the death of our Lord Christ and his sufferings CHAP. XXVIII Ancient opinions in the Church of the place of soules before the day of judgement No Tradition that the Fathers were in the Verge of Hell under the Earth The reason of the difference in the expressions of the Fathers of the Church What Tradition of the Church for the place of Christs soule during his death The Saints soules in secret mansions according to the Tradition of the Church Prayer for the dead supposeth the same No Purgatory according to the Tradition of the Church LEt us now consider the Tradition of the Church in these particulars Justin the Martyr in his dispute with Trypho the Jew by the example of Samuel proveth that the soules of the Fathers and Prophets were in the hands of the Powers of darkenesse And that by the prayer of our Lord Psal XXII 21. wee are taught to pray at our departure that God would not give us up to them as he at his death commends his soule into his Fathers hands It â—s wel enough known that Clemens Alexandrinus believes that both our Lord his Apostles went into Hel to deliver from thence such soules as should admit that which he came to preach He followed in it the Apocryphall vision of Hermes then in request where this is still found libro III. similitud III. and what followers he hath in this opinion you may see by the late Lord Primate his answer to the Jesuites Challenge p. 274. S. Austine de Haer. LXXIX after Philastrius de Haer. LXXIV counts this opinion in the list of Heresies Yet doubted not that he did deliver thence whom he found fit Epist XCIX de Gen. ad Lit. XII 33 34. Nor S. Jerom that he did them good who were there though how it can not be said in Ephes IV. libro II. To the same purpose in IV. Dan. I. in III. Lament II. That this opinion had great vogue in the Church and must be counted in the number of Ecclesiasticall positions cannot be denyed That it is or ever was held as of the Rule of Faith it must Marcion was the fiâ—st that placed the Fathers soules in Hell that he might assigne heaven for the part of his Christ and his God as wee learne by Tertullian IV. 3 4. to wit to entertaine his disciples For this ingageth Tertullian to oppose the Gulfe and the rich mans lifting up his eyes in Hell for arguments that Abrahams bosome is no part of it but higher then Hell though not in heaven to refresh all believers Abr. children til the resurrection for he allowes paradise onely to Martyrs which he maketh also the place under the Alâ—ar where S. Iohn saw onely Martyrs soules though else where Apolog. cap XLVII and in his Poem de Judicio cap. VIII he assigneth it to incertaine the Saints soules without any difference alleaging a revelation to Perpetua a Montanist Virgine to that purpose de Resurr XLIII And therefore de Anima LV. makes that which he made before higher then hell but not in heaven a part of hell where our Lord visited the Fathers soules to wit the upper part of it being all contayned within the entrailes of the earth To the same purpose Iraeneus V. 31. saith it is manifest that the soules of Christians goe into an invisible place the English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉