Even this must be received 'cum grano salis.' To be sure, with the
licences of interpretation, which the Fathers of the first three or four
centuries allowed themselves, and with the 'arcana' of evolution by
word, letter, allegory, yea, punning, which they applied to detached
sentences or single phrases of Holy Writ, it would not be easy to
imagine a position which they could not 'shew in Scripture.' Let this be
elucidated by the texts even now cited by the Romish priests for the
truth of purgatory, indulgence, image-worship, invocation of dead men,
and the like. The assertion therefore must be thus qualified. The
ancient Fathers anathematized any doctrine not consentaneous with
Scripture and deducible from it, either 'pari ratione' or by
consequence; as when Scripture clearly commands an end, but leaves the
means to be determined according to the circumstances, as for example,
the frequent assembly of Christians. The appointment of a Sunday or
Lord's day is evidently the fittest and most effectual mean to this end;
but yet it was not practicable, that is the mean did not exist till the
Roman government became Christian. But as soon as this event took place,
the duty of keeping the Sunday holy is truly, though implicitly,
contained in the Apostolic text.


Ib. vi. 3. p. 392.


Again, with a negative argument, David is pressed concerning the
purpose he had to build a temple unto the Lord: 'Thus saith the
Lord, Thou shalt not build me a house to dwelt in. Wheresoever I have
walked with all Israel, spake I one word to any of the judges of
Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not
built me a house?'