Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	consecration_n	9,959	5	11.0641	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34969	Exomologesis, or, A faithfull narration of the occaision and motives of the conversion unto Catholick unity of Hugh-Paulin de Cressy, lately Deane of Laghlin &c. in Ireland and Prebend of Windsore in England now a second time printed with additions and explications by the same author who now calls himself B. Serenus Cressy, religious priest of the holy order of S. Benedict in the convent of S. Gregory in Doway.	Cressy, Serenus, 1605-1674.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.; Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643. Discourse of infallibility.	1653 (1653)	Wing C6895; ESTC R29283	288,178	694

present age that so the former ages delivered to her What shall we say then when to the evident testimony of the present age for Catholike verities may be added a world of testimonies both of Scripture and antient writers beyond all comparison far more then for her enemies contradictory assertions even those enemies themselves being judges as will appeare undeniably to any man that will consult that one book of Brercley's Apology of Protestants for the Catholique church CHAP. II. Of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation Of the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and of Communion under one Species 1. THe six speciall controversies which I shall briefly consider shall be 1. Concerning the Eucharist and therein of the Reall Presence of Christs body by way of Transubstantiation as likewise Of the Adoration of our Lord present in the Sacrament and communion under one Species 2. Of Invocation of Saints 3. Of Veneration of Images 4. Of Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory 5. Of Indulgences 6. Of the Publike Service in Latin The reason why I make choice of these is both because these are the especiall controversies wherein there is a reall and manifest difference between Catholiques and Protestants who make these points the principall causes of their separation For as concerning the debates about Grace and Free-will Predestination and Justification as likewise the merits of good works though ignorant-popular-preaching Protestants make a great clamour about them yet I was most assured that there was indeed a reall agreement when they came to explaine themselves sensibly about them As for the controversie concerning the Pope I have spoken sufficiently in the 52. chapter at the latter end of the fourth conclusion 2. First therefore concerning the Reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist and that by way of Transubstantiation In discoursing upon which because my designe is not to write the controversie in generall but only in reference to the doctrine which following the church of England I was taught there it will be sufficient for me to signifie that by that church I was taught that in the blessed Sacrament the body and bloud of our Lord were really present exhibited and received by the Communicants really I say not onely as the objects of Faith or not onely as really exhibiting the effects of Christs suffering but as truly and properly as the Roman church professeth onely I was forbidden to say that there was any reall change made in the bread and Wine which remained after Consecration as they were before In a word I was taught to say what neither I nor any other was able to expresse save onely that the Romish doctrine was false which taught that that presence was made by a presence of Christs body under the Species which only remained of the visible elements 3. Now when I say that I was taught to expresse my belief thus by the church of England my intention is not that that church obligeth every one to believe thus For the truth is so a man will but renounce the two words of Transubstantion and Consubstantiation he may preserving the terme really interpret himself as if really signified only figuratively or as the object of the understanding as we see a world of writers allowed there to have expressed themselves Yea in the 28. and 29. Articles of that Church there are certain clauses which require only a figurative sense to be understood as when it is said The body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spirituall manner and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is Faith And again The wicked c. are in no wise partakers of Christ but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing Which clauses being allowed those Articles do admit yea require not only the Calvinistical but even the Zuinglian sense concerning that point Yet notwithstanding this whether the Calvinisticall party there had with their usuall importunity extorted the inserting of those clauses into the Articles I know not yet those that followed the Prelaticall Governing Faction never considered those expressions but without any Calvinisticall hypscrisie professed that they believed the Reall Presence as truly and really and properly as the Catholiques did And so King James commanded Monsieur Casaubon to signifie his sense to Cardinall Perron in the words of Doctor Andrews then Bishop of Ely 4. Now what other reason can be imagined should move the most learned and prudent part of the English Clergy to expresse themselves so neer the Catholique sense but only a conviction that besides the formall words of Scripture the Ecclesiasticall Tradition and generall doctrine of the Fathers enforced such a sense But by what mystery it came to passe that they should dispense with themselves for following Tradition no further but that under a pretence that the Sacrament was a mystery inexplicable they should forsake the same Tradition and Fathers who generally professe that that presence is made by a reall transmutation of the visible elements into the very Body and Blood of Christ this I confesse I could never comprehend 5. Now that such was the Traditionary doctrine of the Catholique church besides the testimony of the present age which will be of infinite weight to any one that duly considers it and to omit a world of quotations out of Councells and Fathers wherein expressions to prove the same are as full yea perhaps more rigid then the Decision of the Councell of Trent it selfe I became convinced from these considerations viz. 1. Because in all the antient Liturgies that ever I saw there are expresse mention of the verity and reality of this change and not any the least intimation of a figurative sense there are expresse prayers that God would by his omnipotent power cause the Bread and Wine to become the Body and Bloud of our Lord and not the least intimation that the way of communicating of these mysteries should be only by Faith or by the operation of the understanding 2. Because in the form of communicating both in the Easterne and Westerne churches which form or Canon S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Basile c. attribute to the Apostles themselves as authors there was required from the communicants a confession of their beliefe of the reality of this change or to expresse it in S. Ambrose his language de Sacr. l. 4. c. 3. The Priest viz. presenting to thee that which before consecration was bread saith unto thee This is the body of Christ and thou answerest Amen that is to say it is true That which the tongue confesseth let the heart believe 3. Because generally the Fathers when they speak of this argument have recourse to the omnipotence of the Word of Christ and to wonderfull operations exalted above all humane credibility as the cause of this change thereby leaving no doubt that they understood a

conversion not significative but reall true and substantiall 4. Because the same Fathers to make their auditours more capable of the mystery exemplifie in other kinds of changes or conversions as of the change of the Bread which Christ did eat into his owne flesh of the miraculous conversion of water into wine of Moyses rod into a serpent and the waters of Nile into blood Which language would be extremely ridiculous if they intended not a reall and substantial change 5. To prove that they understood not only a presence of Christ in the action of the Sacrament as some English Protestants explain themselves or a presence consistent with a Lutheranical coëxistence of the substance of bread and wine S. Ambrose will satisfie us who answering that very objection that the difficulties would be less if it were affirmed that the substance of bread and wine remained together with the body and blood of Christ after the consecration hath these words de Sacr. l. 4. To the first objection we must thus answer That in matters of faith a man ought not to make choice of that which is accompanied with less difficulties for otherwise we should affirm that in God there is one only hypostasis c. But he ought to affirm that which is most conformable to the testimonies of the holy Fathers and to the Tradition of the Church although never so many difficulties present themselves seeing that he ought to captivate his understanding under the obedience of Faith So likewise S. Ignatius quoted by Theodoret in Dialog 3. speaks of certain Heretikes who received not the Oblations and Eucharists because they believed not that the Eucharist was the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ. Which is a proof undeniable that the most primitive church taught this Catholike dgctrine of the reall Presence for if there had beene onely a spirituall presence what pretence could those Heretikes have to resuse them 6. Because both the antient Liturgies and Fathers of the church do testifie the generall custome of Gods people to adore Christ present upon the Altar after Consecration and this not onely in the time of administration but afterwards also as supposing that that which remained was and continued truly the body of Christ according to those words of S. Cyrill of Alexandria I know what they say namely That the mysticall benediction if any reliques remain of it to the next day is unprofitable to sanctification But they that say thus are mad For there is not another Christ made neither can his holy body be changed but the vertue of the benediction and the quickning Grace remains perpetually in it 7. Lastly because by this argument of the reall transmutation of the visible elements into the body of Christ the third Generall Councell of Ephesus and severall antient Fathers confuted the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches about the two natures of our Saviour as I mentioned occasionally before So that such a world of testimonies of Antiquity concurring the Tradition being so constant and uniform S. Leo the Great had just cause to say Ep. 23. In the church of God this is so consonantly witnessed by evemans mouth that the truth of the body and bloud of Christ is not even by the tongues of infants concealed among the Sacraments or Mysteries of the common Faith 6. An Universall Tradition therefore of the Reall Presence hath been so forcible and unconquerable as that it constrained even the English Protestants themselves to acknowledge it and that simply and unhypocritically How could I then defend my self from submitting and captivating my understanding to the same Tradition as constant for a reall change and conversion I must professe ingenuously that during the time of my being a Protestant the only or I am sure principall hinderance from an entire conformity to the Faith of Catholikes in this point was the inextricablenesse of those arguments which my reason suggested to me out of naturall Philosophy against it as how it could be possible that the same body could be in heaven and upon the Altar at the same time how accidents could remain without their proper subjects c. considering with all the small or rather no satisfaction which the Scholasticall subtilties gave me 7. But now if it be demanded what new Philosophy I have learned since I learned that the Catholique church was to be believed and obeyed and what preservative I have found against those former arguments of naturall reason I must answer freely and ingenuously that I have not learned to answer such arguments but to despise them and to say God forbid that vain Philosophy should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make a prey of me defrauding me of the most necessary communion with the church of Christ and most essentiall vertue of captivating my understanding to the obedience of all Evangelicall Mysteries I do therefore freely confesse my ignorance and inability to demonstrate how this particular Mystery can consist even with those rules of Philosphy which I my self receive But withall I must not conceale that when I was a Protestant also I did the same for other points as the Mystery of the blessed Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God c. And I did not find any scruple in those mysteries because I could not reconcile them with Aristotle or any other Patriarch of Heretiques as Tertullian calls the Philosophers 8. I will further add that that which gave me entire satisfaction and obliged me in conscience to silence and not to answer my reason when it would raise objections against Transubstantiation was that the same authority for whose sake I believed it taught me to believe it to be a mystery inexplicable and incomprehensible and that it was not lawfull so to examine it as that it should stand or fall according to the dictates of naturall reason Insomuch as S. Gregory called the Divine spoke like one that deserved that surname in the second Generall Councell of Constantinople That it was not permitted to the Maobites and Ammonites to enter into the church of God that is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Logicall and vainly curious and subtill discourses I refer the Reader to an abundant collection of the testimonies of Fathers forbidding this curiosity of examining the possibility of this mystery upon the grounds of naturall reason which are to be found in Cardinall Perrons Reply to King James Repl. lib. 4. cap. 1. 2. c. Therefore far be it from me to determine this Mystery by the subtill and too too curious disputations of the Schoolmen I do not envy them their leasure to employ their fancies about such matters within their owne walls but if they begin to passe for competent Judges of this Mystery I must prosesse that I disclaim them and I cannot without grief remember what dangerous use Protestants make of their vaine and sometimes ridiculous Philosophicall Questions about this Mystery who satisfie themselves that the Mystery it self is

not true because they find no satisfaction in the discourses and answers which the Schoole-writers endeavour to give to a thousand foolish objections which they conjute up out of Aristotles Philosophy against this Mystery to be adored and trembled at It is onely Scripture testimonies of Fa●hers Ecclesiasticall Tradition Generall Councells and the Profession of the present Catholique Church which are the proper Judges of this controversie and whose authority when it is employed as it ought will assert this divine truth of the Reality of Christs presence by way of conversion in the blessed Sacrament to the confusion of all Novelties and all Blasphemies of Heretiques The antient both Latin and Grecian Fathers who certainly were of wits as subtill and pierceing as any that have succeeded them yet never thought upon such nice enquiries as now every young Philosopher can prattle of and therefore I professe since I am far from finding any obligation at all lying upon me to the contrary yea since the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. c. I. hath defined this point in the language of Antiquity and not of the Schools saying that Christ is present in the Sacrament Sacramentaliter i. e. mysteriously inexplicably I will never endeavour to answer any Philosophicall arguments any other way then with such words as these of S. John Damascene The Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord but this after an unsearchable manner For of this matter we know no further but only that the word of God is true and efficacious and omnipotent Damasc. de Orthod Fide lib. 4. cap. 14. Of the Adoration of our Lord Jesus Christ present in the holy Eucharist 9● Let us now consider to what the church obliges all Catholiques in this point If any one saith the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 6. saith that Jesus Christ the only Son of God ought not to be adored with the exteriour worship of Latria it self in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that for that end it ought not to be proposed publikely to the people to be adored and that those who adore him are Idolaters let him be Ana●hema Which worship of Latria is not given to the outward Symbolls of the Eucharist but only to Jesus Christ himself there present A certaine degree of respect even by the confession of the Calvinists is due to all outward instruments of Religion as to Chalices to the books of Scripture to the water of Baptisme and to the Species of Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist And Catholiques allow no more But the true object which a Catholique adores with this sublime act of adoration or Latria is in the case in hand Jesus Christ himself who is to be adored every where wheresoever he is present and therefore likewise in the holy Eucharist in the which the Catholique church knows and acknowledgeth no other substance as the Calvinists desire to impose on them but only Jesus Christ. And if they be Idolaters for this the Lutherans are so too who teach the same doctrine though they expresse themselves in the point of the Reall Presence after another new-invented manner yet notwithstanding the Calvinists when their worldly interests obliged them could be content to comunicate with the Lutherans and could swallow their pretended Idolatry but out of fear and hatred of Catholique union make even the church her self a prejudice against her doctrine 10. For mine own part whilest I was a Protestant I professe I could never answer to mine own reason why we should condemn the worshipping of Christ whom we professed to be present in very truth without figures or fancies If he had not been there after a peculiar Sacramentall manner I might lawfully notwithstanding have worshipped him there because I may and ought to worship him every where as being God omnipresent yea though his humane nature be locally present only at the right hand of the Father in glory yet I may worship the man Jesus Christ every where because that person which is God and Man is every where present viz. according to his divine not humane nature and yet it seems when a new acc●ssion of another kind of Sacramentall truly reall presence is added to the former though I acknowledge this later presence to be as reall as the former I must be forbidden to expresse that I acknowledge and believe it any other way then by saying with my lips that I do so I must then deny unto him in that place at his owne table and altar and at that time whilest are celebrated those mysteries adorable even to Angells themselves that worship and respect which I would have given him at mine own table or whilest I was doing the ordinary works of my calling But it will be said perhaps you are not forbidden to worship him but you must not worship him as present there And why for Gods sake Bid me rather believe that he is not after an epseciall manner present But this is tyranny and injustice in the highest degree to command me to believe that he is as truly though after another manner present there as at the right hand of his Father and at the same time to command me by my works to belye my belief No no. Quàm magis ingenuè Peribonius How much more ingenuous are the Socinians then all other Sects for whereas the rest would gladly pretend Antiquity and take much unprofitable pains to make a Father now and then speak a word in their favour The Socinians instead of puzling themselves to untye cut asunder all such knots and difficulties they with an impudent resolutenesse break through all obstacles Let the antient church determine what it please and let the antient Fathers agree to speak as they have a mind if what is spoken and decreed either suit not with what they fancy that the Holy Ghost does mean or naturall reason being Judge ought to mean or if the Holy Ghost in their opinions hath been silent in it without more a●o they presently reject and condemn it upon which grounds they strein not to alter all the language almost of the church they know no such thing as a Sacrament they acknowledge no promises to nor no ●ffects of such ceremonious actions as the church and all Christians call Sacraments they scoffe at the Reall Presence and abominate the adoration of Christ in his Mysteries Let S. Ambrose de Sp. 5. l. 3. say By his footstool is meant the earth and by the earth the body of Christ which every day we adore in the mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus Let S. Augustine in Psa. 48. say For he took earth from earth both because be conversed here in very flesh and gave us likewise very flesh to eat for our salvation Now no man eats that flesh but that he adores it first And thus a way is found how the Lords footstoole is adored And again Epist 120. expounding that of the Psalmist All

accuse her of Schisme for not separating from her selfe and and the whole world and for not being able to hinder them from committing that most sacrilegious crime and they impute Heresie to her for being constant in maintaining the decisions of all Councells and the profession of all churches and ages 4. But before I examine the vanity of these imputations by stating those six particular controversies I shall desire our English Protestants to meditate sadly upon two subjects especially The first is Which way they can imagine it to be possible that an errour should imperceptibly creep into the belief and practise of the whole church even setting aside the security we have against any such mischiefe by the meanes of Christs promises For was it not true which antiquity testifies yea and S. Paul himself expressely that the Apostles and Apostolicall men were instant in season and out of season to make known to the primitive Christians and to inculcate diligently and laboriously into their minds the whole sum of Christian doctrine not forbearing both publiquely and from house to house to reveal to them the whole will of God not suppressing any thing that was profitable Act 20. 20. 27. And this so fully and effectually as that if an Angell from heaven could be supposed to teach any thing not only contrary but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. besides that which they had taught he was to be accursed Galat. 1. 8. Then do not the Fathers tell us and what proof can Protestants produce to make them appear to be lyars when they tell us that at least for five hundred years all caution imagineable was used to prevent and exclude any novelties that any Heretiques yea or any Christians though as learned as Origen or as holy as S. Cyprian should attempt to introduce May we not adde hereto that whatsoever novelties of the least moment should be obtruded by any would discover themselves to be novelties by thwarting the publique profession and practised devotions of the church as S. Cyprians Rebaptization would oblige all men to practise that which they had alwayes forborne and the Arian and Pelagian c. impieties would constrain the church to alter the formes of prayers to the Sonne of God and for Gods Grace to cure the impotence and perversenesse of nature acknowledged in the daily publique confessions Upon which grounds S. Cyril against Nestorius and S. Leo against Eutyches disprove the errours and impieties of their Heresies by producing the profession and practise of the church in administring the holy Eucharist whereby she restified her beliefe of a reall presence of the very body and bloud of Christ there which could not consist with their Novelties So that upon the same ground if Invocation of Saints Prayer and offering the most holy Sacrifice for remission of sinnes to the dead Veneration of Images c. had been novelties would not such practises have more directly thwarted the publique devotions of the church then the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches How was it possible then that such doctrines should have been taught by any particular Father as confessedly they have been and not any one appeare that should discover and protest against such innovations what charme was there in these doctrines above all others to cast the church into a sleep that she should not perceive them or to silence the Fathers that against their custome in all other innovations they should not open their mouths against them And much more how was it possible that the publique Liturgies and devotions of the church should come to be changed by admitting such pretended novelties and superstitions and yet no signes or footsteps be left that such a wonderfull change ha's been made not one writer to be found that can tell us of any one that opposed it 5. The second thing that I desire them to consider is That since it is at this day and ha's been for many ages the universall belief of the church that all such pretended Novelties were indeed Catholique and Apostolique Traditions what arguments Protestants can reasonably esteeme sufficient to disprove this beliefe and to dispossesse the church of her renure Will the silence of one or two Fathers think they be of force enough to such a purpose If so I doubt whether the church would then be able to maintaine any one Article of Faith Would a few seeming difficulties and obscure seemingly opposite quotations out of some writings of a few Fathers serve their turn It did not so in the cause of the Arians of the Pelagians of the Novatians c. and why only in the present controversies Will quotations of Scripture decide the questions against the present church Indeed if it could be imagineable that the whole Catholique church could at the same time and with the same hand deliver us Scripture and doctrines contrary to expresse Scripture if she could be supposed either so foolish as not to see that which no body could be ignorant of or so wicked as clearly seeing what God said to command us not to believe him but rather the quite contrary then she might deserve to be stiled Schismaticall because she continues in such a wicked unity and Hereticall because she would not submit her judgement and aushority to the passions and lust of an Apostate Monke But even Protestants themselves will absolve her from such a high degree of guilt as to contradict expresse and formall Scripture And as for Texts of Scripture either obscure or ambiguous or ●ationally admitting severall interpretations though to some prejudicate ears they may seem to sound otherwise then the church teaches in all reason and honesty the churches interpretation of them ought to prevail against any private mans I am sure all sorts of Sects will either submit their judgements to the sense of their particular churches or at least will conceal their opinions when they cannot submit them this civility and duty teaches all men But as for the children of the Catholike church they have an obligation binding them in conscience to trust the same church for the sense of Scripture especially in points which she sayes are of Universall Tradition which they have trusted for the Scripture it selfe and therefore S. Augustine said well and like a perfectly good Christian and Catholique The words of Scripture are so to be understood as the world hath believed them which that it should believe the Scripture hath foretold And surely he that will duely consider of what weight the universal testimony of a whole age of the church is to prove a Tradition will never think that a few objections or obscure passages either in Scriptures or two or three Fathers who are apt to speak unwarily when the matter is not in controversie should decide the cause against it especially considering that it is almost impossible to receive absolute satisfaction of the doctrine of former ages any other way or at least any other way so well as by the universall agreement of the

the rich of the earth have eaten and worshipped And they also saith he are brought to the table of Christ and partake of his body and bloud but they adore him only they are not satisfied because they doe not imitate him Let S. Chrysostome in 1. Cor. say This body the wise men worshipped in the manger c. Let us at least imitate those barbarous men we who are the Citizens of heaven Thou seest him not in a manger but upon the Altar not a woman holding him in her armes but the Priest himself present and the Spirit abundantly powred upon the sacrifice presented there Lastly let Theodorct Dial 2. say The mysticall Symbolls are understood which are celebrated and believed and adored likewise as being the very things which they are believed to be What is all this to a Socinian though all antiquity agree in the like language and not one Father explicitly dissent from it But as for Protestants not having the confidence to renounce the Fathers authority they make it their task to prove out of such places that the Fathers intended by such speeches that it was Idolatry to worship Christ present on the Altar But Nobis non licet esse tam disertis Of Communion under one Species 11. This is not a matter of doctrine but meer practise The church sayes not it is unlawfull to take it in both kinds but onely that upon reasons sufficiently prevailing with her she thinks fit in the ordinary practise it should be so administred The Governours Ecclesiasticall therefore are to be answerable for it But to demonstrate that even those who is their private opinion think it were better it should be administred in both kinds yet ought not upon pretence thereof to break forth into a sacrilegious separation I will only recommend these few considerations to our English Protestants viz. 1. That there is no explicit command in Scripture that the Sacrament should be communicated under both Species If they urge the example of our Saviour and the manner how he administred it they know that they themselves allow authority to the church to alter formes not essentiall to the Sacraments and accordingly practise both the form in Baptism and the holy Eucharist otherwise then they were first instituted 2. That it is evident and no ingenuous Protestant will deny it but that even in the Primitive churches it was an ordinary practise in severall occasions to receive it only in one kind 3. That not one proof can be shewed that the sick ever received the cup. 4. That notwithstanding in the opinion of Antiquity those who received it so were believed to have enjoyed the whole benefit and vertue of the Sacrament 5. That the Greek church though she gives it ordinarily in publique in both Species yet neither in private nor to the sick no nor as it is said in Lent Neither doth she make that difference any ground of her separation from the Roman church 6. That Protestants confesse that those who have a naturall antipathy against wine may receive the body alone and may notwithstanding assure themselves that they want no fruit or effect of the holy Eucharist Upon which grounds if they would duely consider what a horrible crime Schisme is they would no doubt believe that this were not a sufficient excuse for them 12. The only proof that I will give of the opinion and allowed practise of antiquity in this point shall be to set down here in English the 289. Epistle of S. Basile ad Caesariam Patriciam a memorable monument of the usage of private communicating of the holy Eucharist and that only under one Species among the antient Christians His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is And truly every day to communicate and participate the holy body and blood of Christ is a good and profitable thing seeing he himself hath said in expresse words He that shall eat my flesh and drink my blood hath eternall life Now who does doubt but that daily to participate of life is no other thing but daily to live Therefore it is that we our selues do communicate four times every week to wit on our Lords day on the fourth day on the sixth day and on the Sabbath day And moreover upon other dayes if the memory of any Martyr be celebrated Now it would be superfluous for me to demonstrate that that custome is not to be condemned by which Christians were necessitated in the times of persecution in the absence of the Priest or Ministsr to receive the Communion privately with his own hands since an inveterate practise hath effectually confirmed it For all those who lived Monastically in the Deserts where there was no Priest reserving the Communion in their Cells received it of themselves In Alexandria likewise and in AEgypt each one of the common sort of people for the most part hath the Commnnion reserved in his own house For the Priest having once offered the Sacrifice and distributed it he that receives it entire all together and afterward daily communicates of it ought to believe that he communicates and receives the very same which the Priest gave him For likewise in the Church it self the Priest delivers a part of the Sacrifice and the Communicant receives it with an entire power to dispose of it and so with his own hands lists it to his own mouth Now it is the very same in power or vertue whether any one shall receive one only portion from the Priest or many portions together Hithert● S. Basil. CHAP. III. Of Invocation of Saints Of Veneration of Images Of Prayers and Offerings for the Dead and Purgatory Of Indulgences And of publike service in the Latin tongue With what charity and modesty the doctrines of the church are to be examined 1. COncerning Invocation of Saints to shew the opinion of the antient church about it it may suffice to take notice that for denying the lawfullnesse of it Uigilantius was accounted an Heretique as Dr. Fulke the Centuriators Osiander c. acknowledge out of S. Hierome I am sure S. Ambrose sayes in the very language of the Councell of Trent We ought to pray unto the Angells in our owne behalf who have been given for guards unto us we ought to pray unto the Martyrs whose bo●●dies remaining among us seem to be as it were a gage and hostage of their protection And S. Augustine in Psal. 85. in the language of the Church Litanies All Martyrs intercede for us adding To the end that they may rejoyce in our behalf who pray for us And Theodoret l. 8. de Martyr gives the very sense of the present church in this point We do not adore the Saints as Gods but we pray unto them as divine men that they would intercede for us A Tradition this was of the antient Jewish church also as those words of Josophus witnesse The pure souls which hear those that call upon them obtain in heaven a most holy place And the