Examination of those Plausible Appearances in the Romish Church, Chapter 22
CHAP: XXII. That there are changes which creepe on by little and little, and that it is hard, yea imposible to specifie alwaies the times, places, and authors of a change.
MOreover we must needs confesse that which experience dayly thrusteth into our senses, that there are alterations which cr…epe on and encrease by little and little, so that one cannot so distinctly perceiue them, that it should be possible for him precisely to quote the very instant of every degree, in this almost insensible progresse. Who could ever obserue when, where, by whom, by what degrees the Frēch tongue hath been chāged? Yet must he needs be accounted void of iudgement, who from this difficulty, yea impossibilitie, would conclude that there hath beene no change in it. What old man is there, able precisely to obserue the minute, houre, day, month, yea yeare, in which he beginnes to bee an old man, to change his complexion, to feele the decaying of his strength and faculties? yet for all that, he must needs be senselesse, who in his old age should deny so sensible an alteration.
Now to apply these considerations to the estate of the Christian Church. Who knoweth not that in the Primitiue Church, the aVid. sup. c. 17.errour of the Millenaries prevailed? Yet who is hee that can specifie by whom, where, when it began? Who can particularly tell when it ended, where, and by whom it was first condemned? VponUpon this who will inferre, that this errour hath beene alwa…es, that it is yet in the Church, or that it is not an errour, but an Apostolicall doctrine? It was also (as no man doubteth) an errour anciently received and approued by the Church, that the Sacrament of the bVid. iter. c. 17supper was to bee administred to little children. Who will tell vsus who was the first father of it? Where, and when it was brought in. Who will produce the records of an opposition made against it? Nay more, let any man tell when, and in what Councell such a doctrine was condemned? There is no man able to performe this, and shall we therefore say its a doctrine of the Apostles.
It was an errour of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, that cIren. cont. haeres. lib. 5. ad finē. Tertull. de an. cap. 5. Ambros. de hon. Mort. c. 10. Aug. in Enchir. ad Laur. c. 109.the soules of the Saints themselues entred not into the heavenly Paradise immediatly after their departure out of their bodies. Tertullian excepted only the soules of Martyrs. But who is able to name the author, time, or place of the nativity of this strange opinion? Yet it is most certaine, that this erronious doctrine, had its birth, growth, and period. It was an erroneous practise in the ancient church, to pray to God in the behalfe of the Patriarchs,dEpipha nhaer. 75 co…t. Arr. lib. 3. t…m. 1. Cypr. Epist 34. ex edit. Pamel. Prophets and for the whole company of the iust deceased, for the Martyrs themselues. Who is so versed in the knowledge of antiquity, that can distinctly set downe the time, place, and first inventer of that so strange a devotion; or the councell in which it was condemned, when, where it was first condemned? The difficulty, yea impossibility of rendring an exact account of such particularities, shall it be a sufficient ground to maintaine, that it alwaies was, and is still in the church.
There was a time when immediatly after Baptisme, eTertull. de coron. Mil. c. 4.the baptised partie was made to tast milke, & hony, when his whole body was to be fDionys. Areop. de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2. Clem const. Apost. lib. 7. c. 41. & 44.annointed with oile when they were gTertull. ib.to abstaine a whole weeke after from washing themselues. When they made vponupon a certaine day in the yeare offerings for the nativity, that is, for the memory of the day of the Martyres sufferings. When they thought it an impiety to fast betweene Easter and Whit…ontide, to worship kneeling. When hBasil. de spi… san. c. 27.they prayed not but towards the East.
When was it that these customes had their beginning? Or if they are Apostolicall, as it was sometimes thought when they were practised, how hauehave htey beene since altered? When began their change, by whom, in what place? If wee are not able to satisfie those, which should vrge vsus with all these queries, must we needs therefore be obstinate without reason, and peevi…hly deny the change of those rites? And seeing the change of them was made with reason, must wee not confesse that they were not of Apostolicall, that is, of divine institution?
It was an Apostolicall constitution, but which was to last no longer then the occasion of it,Act. 15.29. that the faithfull should abstaine from victualls sacrificed to Idols, from bloud, and that which was strangled. Wee see that this constitution hath expired, but if wee cannot assigne the time when it gaue vp the Ghost, or the Synode in which it was abrogated, shall wee therefore affirme that it continueth vntill now? In the meane time, it is as absurd to deny the originall of a thing, vnderunder pretence that t…e author, time, and place of it are vnknowne, as to deny the discontinuation and end of it, vnderunder colour, that it cannot be assigned by whom, where, and when it begunne to be discontinued. As if one should deny that he had ever beene the month, yeare, or perhaps age, of whose nativitie is vncertaine: or as if one should deny that he were dead, the yeare, or perhaps age, of whose decease is vnknowne vntounto him.
It is then an absurd cavill, to presse vsus to shew that no change hath happened in the Church, by quoting the time, by assigning the place, by naming the Authors of it. But we argue rationally, when wee proue by experience, that there hath beene a change: when we compare the doctrine of the Apostles with that which prevailed in the church afterwards, and cleerely manifest the strange diversity, & repugnancy there is betweene them. When we compare the state of the Romish Church, with that of the church in the first & purest ages, and make the diversitie betweene them visible and palpable? Although, this kinde of proofe being not easie, but to those who hauehave skill in the languages, we stand not chiefly vponupon it. And although it should faile vsus, which yet it doth not, yet therefore there should not be any prescription, or exception against Scripture. That which is come vp since, is new in respect of it, though ancient in respect of vsus. But here the question is not about the Antiquity of persons. To which we adde, that if there should bee any thing found as ancient as the Scripture, being not conformable vntounto it, if its antiquity commend it, its falsity condemneth it so much the more, as it is the nature of evill to be the more pernicious, the more ancient it is.