Scribler who now appears supposes he hath solved that argument as easily as Sampson broke the withes wherewith Delilah had tied him Judg. 16.9 Yet I hope to make him sensible of his mistake SECT I. The Popish Figment of Transubstantiation briefly Confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter PAssing by his undervaluing and approbrious words I first take notice that p. 112. he says I bring only a Philosophical Argument to prove that these words This is my Body are to be taken in a Figurative sense But if he be pleased to review what I said he will find I brought an Argument from a Scripture-Medium and confirmed the sence of Protestants with the testimony of Austin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and Tertull. contra Iud. cap. 40. None of which this vain-glorious disputant adventures to examine I was so far from looking upon that Argument which I brought as the only supporter of our Doctrine that I advertised Mr. Dempster Pap. 7. pag. 127. of armies of Arguments brought by Whittaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. to prove the same conclusion Doth not the senses of all men in the world find real bread after consecration Did ever God deceive the senses of all men through so many ages If the Argument from senses were fallacious when the Organ and Medium are rightly disposed and the object within coâ—venient distance how did Christ use it Luk. 24.38 39. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Doth not consecrated Bread and Wine nourish Bodies as other Bread and Wine Do they not putrifie and turn to worms when long kept Have not persons been poysoned thereby Will either meer accidents or the true glorified body of Jesus do so Was it ever heard that the blessing and consecration of a thing did destroy or annihilate it What have Romanists here to consecrate but Bread and Wine The glorified Body of our Lord Jesus Christ I hope is above their consecration and doth the benediction of the Bread make it cease to be Doth not two things verbum and elementum as Austin well observed Trac 80. in Joh. A visible element and an audible word concur to make up a Sacrament If the substance of Bread and Wine cease where have they a remaining element which hath a Sacramental Analogy with the Body and Blood of Jesus Will they say that a specter of meer accidents without a subject are an element with such an Analogical resemblance Is not the end of a Sacrament to confirm us by things visible in the faith of invisible my steries Is not the figment of transubstantiation a thing so incredible to reason that it tends rather to shake faith than to confirm it is it credible if Christ had meant by these words that the Bread was Transubstantiated into his Body that the Disciples who were scrupulous about far less matters would not have moved one scruple concerning this stupendious mysterie Are not figurative expressions very frequent in Sacramental purposes as Gen. 17.10 Circumcision is my Covenant Exod. 12.11 The Lamb is the Passcover 1 Cor. 10.3 the Rock is Christ Doth not Romanists acknowledge multitude of figurative expressions in the justification of the Supper As when the said 1 Cor. 11.24 This is my Body which is broken was it then broken Was there not there Enallage temporis So in Verse 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood are there not more figures than one Is not the cup put for that which was contained in the cup Can either the cup or that which was in the cup be called the New Testament without a Trope Why then judge they it so piacular a crime to expound these words in the same institution This is my body figuratively Is it not often called bread after the consecration as 1 Cor. 10.16 1 Cor. 11.26 27. Let a man Examine himself and so let him Eat of this Bread Can they reconcile these expressions with their notion of Transubstantiation without making all these figurative Think they it not a Cyclopick-like practice to devour the living body of a Man much more of their Saviour Must not the Heavens receive Christ till he come again Act. 3.21 Are we not prohibited to believe these who say loe here is Christ or there or in secret Chambers Math. 24.23.25 Do not the principles of Romanists in this thing expose them to perpetual hazard of Idolatry not only through the uncertainty of the Priests intention upon which according to them depends the consecration but also through many other contingencies such as the Priests erring in the pronunciation of the words whereof the people can never have certainty they being but secretly whispered and though heard doth every one understand Latin Heard he never of the Priest who having many Wafers to consecrate said Haec sunt corpora mea What should I blot Paper with the absurdities which many have deduced from the replication of Christ's body in many thousand not contiguous places the penetration of all the parts of the body of Jesus in every point and the existence of accidents without a subject Doth not Renatus Des Cartes and many great Philosophers question if there be such accidents in the world as the Schools did commonly teach about the time of the Lateran Council Is it not a goodly article of Faith which is calculated to the variable and problematick Hypotheses of Philosophers which may have the vogue in one age and may perhaps with more reason be exploded in another Must Religion stand and fall with the Sect of Peripateticks Is it not the height of Impudence to say that the words of the Institution are clear for their Transubstantiated presence seeing Scotus their subtle Doctor confesses that had nor the Church interposed her definition no man could have from them concluded Transubstantiation It 's not the perspicuity of Scripture according to Scotus that made the mysterie of Transubstantiation clear but the Lateran definition and yet it s questioned also if in that Lateran Council it were defined Are we the first who held the sence of these words figurative Did not Austin positively say as much contra Adimant cap. 12. Is not Theod. very express Dial. 1. Dominus imposuit signo nomen corperis And a little after our Saviour saith he exchanged names corpori suo imposuit nomen signi signo imposuit nomen corporis sui ita qui se vitem ipse vocabit vocabit signum sanguinem suum and again he honoured saith he visible Symbols with the Names of his body and blood Non naturam mutando sed gratiam naturae adjiciendo not by changing their Nature or substance but by adding grace thereto What need I more may not their own Canon Law stop their mouths dist 2. de consecrat Can. hoc est and the gloss thereupon where it is
Transubstantiated presence so as the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed a specter of accidents without a Subject remaining and the body and blood of Christ being substituted under the accidents In this we and not Romanists are consonant to the Faith of the Ancient Church Hence Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. the bread after consecration is not now common bread but an Eucharist consisting of two things the terren and the heavenly Then in the Eucharist two things are exhibited to believers the terren viz Bread and Wine and the Heavenly the body and blood of Christ And therefore the usual Objection which the Pamphleter takes out of the same cap. of Irenaeus where the Father concluds against Hereticks that Jesus is the Son of the maker of the World because that bread upon which thanks is given is the body of the Lord and that cup his blood makes nothing for Transubstantiation Nay it distroys it Bread cannot be the body of Christ nor the cup his blood in a proper sense but in a figurative and the force of Irenaeus argument appears to be this he that instituted the creatures of God as sacred and exhibitive Symbols of his body and blood must be the Son of God Christ did so Ergo c. Tertullian is no less luculent lib. 4. Cont. Marcio cap. 40. expresly calling the Bread a figure of his body and then drawes an argument against Marcion and other Hereticks to prove that Christ had a true and real body because it could not be the figure of his body if he had not a true body But if Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation were true Tertull could never have used a more unhappy argument against Marcion for if there be no real bread in the Sacrament but a Phantasm of accidents without a subject this had rather given advantage to Marcion who affirmed Christ to have a Phantastical body Here I cannot but notice the prevarication of the Pamphleter he mentions only these words of Tertull the Bread taken and distributed he made his body and then crys out what more cleer for Transubstantiation But had he not mutilated Tertullians words it would have appeared nothing could be more clear to overturn Transubstantiation for presently Tertull thus explains himself hoc est figura corporis mei that is this is the figure of my Body Yea Beatus Rhenanus in admon de Tertul. dogm reckons this as one of Tertullians sentiments that the body of Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist By this also may be cleared what the Phamphleter objects out of Ignatius Epist ad Smyrnenses that the Saturnian Hereticks did not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours Flesh For as Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Num. 151. well observes though the Eucharist be not properly the Flesh of Christ yet being a Symbol of his Flesh it receives the denomination of the thing signified and strongly proves that Christ hath real Flesh and a proper humane nature which those Hereticks denyed They therefore seeing the strength of this Argument rejected the Eucharist I add another testimony of Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 17. the senses saith he are not deceived about their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yeelded to Hereticks making but a Phantasm of Christ c. But according to the tenet of Transubstantiators the senses of all the World are ludified with Tertullian accords Cyprian who Epist 76. calls the Bread the body of Christ and the Wine his blood which were a manifest falshood if not figuratively understood So likewise Origen in Math. 15. that which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer according to the material part of it goes into the belly and is sent into the draught I desire to know by a Romanist what is this material part of the Sacrament which goes into the draught if the substance of bread do not remain when therefore Origen saith we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord in the place objected by the Pamphleter he can only be understood of a Symbolical and Mystical Eating and Drinking With those Fathers of the first three ages these of following times do agree as appears by Theod. dial 1. where he says that by the blessing of consecration the nature of the elements is not changed but grace added unto nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but abide in their proper nature shape and figure so much is affirmed by Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis Christi contra Eutych Nestor in bib pat tom 5. part 3. So also Augustin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and the Author of the Books de sacramentis going under the name of Ambrose lib. 4. cap. 4. ut sint quae erant in aliud convertantur that they may be what they were and be converted into another thing If they remain what they were then sure their conversion into another thing must be only Symbolical A volume would hardly contain the testimonies of this nature which may be heaped up Scarce doth any testimony remain objected by the adversary which we have not cleared on the by as we were bringing testimonies for the truth His spurious testimonies I value not and such is not only that from Deny's lib. de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. but also that from Cyprian de caena domini as is demonstrated by Criticks and yet neither of them make for Transubstantiation Not the first or the Pseudo Deny's exclamation O divinissimum sacramentum whither it be taken with Dr. Morton as a Rhetorical apostrophe or with Spalat as an invocation of Christ himself who is the thing signified in the Sacrament Nor the other ascribed to Cyprian wherein the Elements are said to be changed not in shape but in nature for nature is not taken for substance else this should be repugnant to the true Cyprian but for the condition of these Elements as when we say that things are of different nature some common and prophane others holy and Divine in this sense the Elements after consecration are changed in their nature beginning then to be of holy use and Divine vertue albeit Learned Salmasius in Simplicio Verino Pag. 78. suspects that testimony to be vitiated and that it ought to be read nec specic nec natuna neither changed in shape nor in nature Romanists have committed many such parricids on the writings of Fathers so that here also I may conclude with a fourth demonstration of Romish Novelty That the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ are substituted in their place was no essential of Faith in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT V. A fifth instance of Novelty concerning Purgatory examined and Retorted THe Pamphleter in his fifth Instance saith that Protestants deny Purgatory and Prayers for the dead Where Sophistically he throwes two Popish errors together Well he knew
reciprocal properties of Water but after that the Word was made Flesh the Eternal increated Word of God remained the Word as being immutable and the Flesh or his Humane Nature remained Flesh And therefore he desired the Disciples to touch and feel him that he had flesh and bonet Luke 24.39 Were it proper here for me to digress to a confutation of the rest of those Hereticks mentioned by the Pamphleter it were as easie to shew their inferences to be ludibrious and inconsequential without the assistance of any infallible visible Judge which the Pamphleter and all the Romish Party will not be able to do concerning the Protestant Religion Sure he must be either a man of strong fancy or cauterized Conscience who is bold to say that there cannot be so clear Scripture brought against the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament he means their Popish Transubstantiated Presence as the old condemned Hereticks brought against the Incarnation of Christ Nay he shall find in its proper place that their Dream of Transubstantiation may be confuted not only by other luculent Scriptures but also by these words of Christ This is my Body which they apprehend do most favour their Cause and which the Pamphleter says are spoken by the four Evangelists and by the Apostle S. Paul but it seems he is better acquainted with his Mass-book than with the four Evangelists for one of them namely S. John has not those words where also my argument against M. Demster to this purpose shall be vindicated from all his frothy Cavils I know Fathers of old did prove the reality of Christs Humane Nature against Marcionites from his Symbolical Presence in the Sacrament for if Sacramental Bread and Wine be Types Symbols and Figures of his Body and Blood as they are termed by Fathers then surely he had a real Body and real Blood But does it from this follow that they believed a Transubstantiated Presence Nay on the contrary in as much as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are called by them Types Figures and Symbols of his Body and Blood it appears they held them not to be his very Body and Blood And here by the way I must advise him not to expose his ignorance to such publick view as here he doth by citing S. Chrysost Hom. 6. as if Chrysost had written Homilies but upon one place of Scripture such Lax Citation will make people suspect that Jesuits are not so well versed in the Fathers as they would make the world believe From pag. 65. he takes a deal of pains to transcribe long Citations out of D. Jeremy Taylor his liberty of Prophecying Sect. 4. and he joyns with him Osiander against Melancton It might be enough to tell him that the first Learned Author was sensible his Book deserved an Apology it was as fitly entituled A liberty of Prophecying as the Pamphleters Book Scolding without Scholarship As the one discovered more scolding than either sobriety or Scholarship so the other took more liberty than himself did afterwards allow Quisque suos patimur manes It appears by the Preface to his Polemicks that in the mentioned Treatise he disputed the more sceptically to make his Adversaries less confident of their Opinions and consequently more tender to himself and others of his perswasion Whether the end proposed will legitimate the mean Casuists may determine A further Answer to D. Taylours Testimony I leave to be got from D. Shirman for to him also this testimony of D. Taylor was objected by F. Johnson cap. 4. num 23. only I add that D. Taylor notwithstanding all his sceptical discourse in that Treatise demonstrates Sect. 1. the Scirpture to be clear in Fundamentals which he supposes to be comprised in the Apostolick Creed and he brings Sect. 6 7. sufficient evidence against the Romish Infallibility both of Pope and Council How solidly doth the same D. Taylor in his Tractate of the Real Presence of Christ in the holy Sacrament by conferring of Scriptures confute their imaginary transubstantiated Presence in the Sacrament What should I mention the wounds he hath given to their whole Cause in his disswasives I am little concerned in the testimony alledged from Osiander against Melancton for it 's but too well known that Andreas Osiander of whom I suppose the Pamphleter speaks did unhappily ingage himself in some Paradoxal Dâ—bates with his own Brethren Neither can his own Son Lucas Osiander in Epit. Hist Eccles Cent. 16. pag. 554. deny it And what if his over-eager pursuit of those Paradoxal Notions did drive him upon some unadvised expressions concerning the interpretation of holy Scriptures can the Pamphleter maintain all the expressions which have dropt from those of their own Party I doubt if he can name one Controversie betwixt them and us concerning which they are not subdivided among themselves how then can he rationally demand of me to defend every thing that hath fallen from the Pen of a Paradoxal Lutheran whose Heterodoxies have been noted by those of his own Party Did I not signifie in my tenth Paper against M. Demster pag. 218 219. that it's the Reformed Religion agreed upon by the Protestant Churches in the harmony of their conressions which I defend and hope to make good not only against such a Scribler as this Pamphleter but also against the whole Conclave of Rome His digression concerning a private spirit from pag. 69. to 72. being wholly impertinent I judge unworthy of an Answer How oft have Protestants declared to the world they build not their Faith on private Enthusiasms or secret objective Revelations This they leave to Quakers and to the Romish infallible visible Judge who having no external infallible Rule to walk by must proceed upon these But the Rule of our Faith is the publick external testimony of the Spirit in the Scriptures If under a pretence of excluding a private spirit he excludes a discretive judgment he excludes the use of Reason which Faith always presupposes or if he exclude the necessity of the Spirits assistance by way of an efficient cause for assenting to Divine Truths recorded in Scripture he turns Pelagian and contradicts his own Authors who are constrained to acknowledge it As for any further use of a private spirit I had almost said of a Familiar when he hath cleared his Popes and infallible Judges of it we shall be near a settlement as to that thing An excellent and large account of the testimony of the Spirit what it is and how far it is necessary to the belief of the Scriptures as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of
confuted by our controversists When I consider the deceitful pretexts of Antiquity whereby Romanists do Varnish over their inventions my heart cannot but bleed for the people who are implicitely given up to such notorious Cheats It s pure compassion to misled Souls which drawes this freedom from me and not any choler or prejudice against persons A Second APPENDIX to CHAP. VII The Pamphleters impertinent Citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of Heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discused THe Pamphleter Pag. 156. pitches on Justin Martyr as if from him he could prove the present Romish Religion yet cannot find a vestige in him of their infallible visible Judge of their Popes supremacy of their adoration of Images or Relicts of the half communion of their Purgatory canonical Authority of Apocryphal Books c. Indeed Justin gives an account of the Christian Religion in his days in opposition both to Heathens and Jews Seeing therefore the Pamphleter hath pitched upon him particularly I appeale not only such an ignorant Plagiary as this person but all the industrious Antiquaries of the Romish Party to try if in Justin Martyr the complex of the present Tridentin Faith can be found If they can demonstrate it I faith fully promise to turn a Herauld of their Religion If not which themselves know to be impossible for them to do let them cease to abuse simple Souls as if their Religion were the Religion of Justin Martyr and of Ancient Fathers But hath the Pamphleter made any new discoveries from Justin Martyr Not at all Only he has filched four trivial objections from Bell. which conclude nothing against Protestants The First is concerning free-will All that Justin Martyr says as to this we do admit for he neither asserts that man does that which is spiritually good without grace nor that the efficacy of grace does depend on mans will Of this I have spoken sufficiently cap. 7. in the examination of the Pamphleters eighth Instance The second is concerning merit but Justin only asserts their is a reward for the Righteous from which an argment to proper merit is wholly inconsequent seeing their is a reward of grace as well as of debt Concerning this also see what hath been said cap. 7. Instance 9. The third is of the efficacy of Baptism concerning which we likewise grant Sacraments to be exhibitive signs and seals but Justin hath nothing of the Popish opus operatum The fourth is of the Eucharist concerning which we likewise admit all that Justin Martyr says viz. that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are not common bread and wine being consecrated by Divine institution and so may be truly called the body and blood of Christ as signs usually receive the denomination of the thing signified But does Justin Martyr say as Romanists that the substance of bread and wine is destroyed and the physical body and blood of Christ substituted under those accidents of bread and wine The fiction of Transubstantiation was not hatched in Justin Martyrs days Thus the Pamphleters boasts concerning Justin Martyr have soon evanished into Froath Yet though Justin had dogmatized in all these particulars as do Romanists it would not follow that he had approven the whole System of the present Romish Faith In which many more errors are engrossed Pag. 158.159 he patches up again a Catalogue of Heresies which he charges on Protestants wherein he discovers so much ignorance unfaithfullness and indiscretion that I shall pass them with an overly touch And first he charges us with the error of Simon Magus saying that men are not saved by good works apud Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. Answer Simon Magus denyed the necessity of good works which we constantly affirm only we deny good works to be properly meritorious of eternal Life which was never condemned as Heresy by any but late Romanists Secondly he charges us as saying with Cerimhus that Children may be saved without Baptism apud Epiph. haeres 8. But Epiph. in haeres 8. hath no such thing for there he treats de Epicur Indeed haeres 28. he treats of the Cerinthians but is so far from imputing that error to them that when any of their number dyed they Baptized a living person for the dead Justifying that practise from 1 Cor. 15.29 There be other Hereticks who deny Baptism to be a standing ordinance of Christ as Manichees Seleucians and Henricians apud Aug. haeres 16. haeres 59. with whom Socinians and Quakers joyn issue who are all condemned by Protestants as may be seen in Voss de Bapt. disp 7. Thes 4. 5. Had the Ancient Church held Baptism absolutely necessary to Salvation would they have delayed it so long would they in many places limited it to Easter and Pentecost could it be but in the intervals many behoved to dye without Baptism See Socrates Hist Eccles lib. 5.21 Would the Church have exposed them to such necessity of perishing Eternally yea many Popish Authors deny the absolute necessity of it of whom Dr. Morton giveth a large account appeal lib. 2. cap. 13. Sect. 5. Thirdly says he with Plotinians we affirm that God hath commanded somethings impossible apud Epiph. But tells not where I find one Plotinus noted by a Castro de haeres lib. 14. tit virginitas for Heterodoxy concerning the state of virginity but as to a possibility of keeping the commands of God he speaks nothing of him In what sense God commands things impossible I have expounded cap. 7. in the examination of the Pamphleters Instance 10. and shew the conformity of our Doctrine herein with the Ancient Church and the oposite Doctrine of Romanists to be Pelagianism Fourthly he says with Manichees apud Aug. lib. 2. cont Faustum Manichaeum we pull down Altars Answ the Altars against which Fauâ—us exclaimes are Communion Tables which we allow But St. Austin takes occasion thereby to clear two truths which Romanists oppose one that they in the Holy Communion celebrate no proper Sacrifice sed memoriam peracti Sacrificii Another that they worship departed Saints only with that worship of Love and Society quo coluntur in hoc vita sancti Homines wherewith Saints in this Life are Honoured Fifthly he says with Donatists we hold the Baptism of Christ and John were the same in Aug. lib. 2. cont lit Petil. cap. 32. and 34. Answ Petilian said John only gave water Christ the Spirit and the Holy Ghost fire he denyed that by Johns Baptism the Holy Ghost was given at all the contrary whereof is maintained by Protestants It was really exhibitive of grace though the grace was not Originally from John What sixthly he objects of our denying with the Aerians the Fasts of the Church and Prayers for the dead he had said before Sect. 5. Pag. 99. and accordingly was confuted cap. 4. Sect. 2. Sevently he says we with Julian forbid the use of Images and sign of the cross apud Sozom. lib. 5. cap. 20. and Euseb lib. 7. cap.
speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8.38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10.47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16.33 The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus ita persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3.15 There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1.2.3.4.5 Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James Had it been so Is it credible that neither Ignatius nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen nor Cyprian would once have made mention of the word Mass but for this impudent falshood the Cardinal is sufficiently chastised by Causabon Exercit. 16. an 34. Num. 39. The first notice that the same learned Causabon and after him D. Will. Forbes lib. 3. de Sacrif Missae cap. 1. do observe of it was about 250 years after Christ in an Epistle of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Lupicinus and yet both of them doubt if this Epistle be genuine and therefore I said that hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of Ancients of these Ages But it s not names we stand upon and therfore I affirm that though Fathers did offen use the word Sacrifice concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet they meant only an eucharistick and commemorable Sacrifice not proper and expiatory This has been largly demonstrated by many I will hint at a few considerations which I hope may Satisfie those that are not obstinately wilfull to adhere to a preconceived opinion And 1. the Fathers said that they did
Sacrifice to God bread and win in the Eucharist so Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. Cyprian Serm. de opere Fleemosyuis and epist 63. and Austin epist 122. yea and the compyler of a part of the Missal for it s like a beggars cloak patched up at Severall times Seems to have been of the same opinion for before the Consecration it s said suscipe pater hanc Immaculatam hostium but then by the Romanists own confession there is nothing but bread and wine Now sure it is bread and wine can be no propitiatory Sacrifice to expiate the sins of the Elect Ergo all these must be understood to speak of an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice Secondly the Fathers doe clearly expound themselves to mean nothing else Chrysostom who as often terms the Sacrament of the Supper a Sacrifice as any expounds his meaning most clearly Hom. 17. in Heb. we offer up saith he The same Sacrifice which Christ offered then he Subjoyns by way of Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather the remembrance thereof So Euseb lib. 1. de demonstrat cap. 10. he has commanded us to offer-unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Memoriall instead of a Sacrifice and Austin lib. 20. Cond Faust Manich. cals it Sacramentum memoriae a Sacrament of remembrance Theoret Clemens Basil and Greg. Nazianzen call the eucharist Simbols and tips of the Sacrifice of Christ on the crosse The Chuch Theodoret in Ps 109. offers to God the Simbols of Christs body and blood These Fathers indeed excepting Clemens are posterior to the 3d Century but their faith is consonant to the faith of the Church in former ages Hence Iustin Martir in dial cum Triph. Pap. 101. edit Comelin Christ commanded us to offer the bread of the Eucharist in recordationem passionis in remembrance of his Passion and Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. makes this disparity betwixt the Jewish and Christian Sacrifice Species tantum mutata est the change is only in the out ward formes but sure the Jewish Sacrifices were not the real Sacrifice of Christ but representations thereof consequently Irenaeus looked on the eucharist only as a representative Sacrifice Thirdly as the Eucharist so also Baptism was called by the Fathers a Sacrifice the most of the Fathers plerique antiquorum if we may credit Melchior Canu lib. 12. loc com c. 13. p. 680. expound that of the Apostle Heb. 10. There remains no more Sacrifice for sin of Baptism But Romanists will confess Baptism is no proper Sacrifice why then do they not say the same of the Eucharist Fourthly as fathers say that Christ is Sacrificed in the eucharist so are they found saying that he dyes and Suffers in that Sacrament Hence Greg. is cited in the Canon law by Gratian de consecrat dist 2. cap. 73. quid sit affirming that Jesus dyes in the mistery of the eucharist Will any Romanist say Christ properly dies or Suffers either in Baptism or in the Eucharist Nay says the Gloss upon the last cited place he is said to die quia mors ejus passio repraesentantur why then do they not say the same concerning his Sacrifice And indeed if he be properly Sacrificed then must he also properly die and Suffer Fiftly when Julian the Apostate did object that Christians had no proper Sacrifices Cyril lib. 9. cont Jul. did admit they had only Spiritual Sacrifices which he would never have yielded if he had been of the Tridentin faith that there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass Sixly this truth is so luculent that it hath extorted confessions from eminent Doctors of the Romish Church that the Sacrament of the Supper is called a Sacrifice because in it the Sacrifice of Christ on the crosse is commemorated so Lombard lib. 4. sent dist 12. Aquinas part 3. quest 83. art 1. Liranus in heb 10. Pichenel dissert de Missa Barnesius in Catholico Romano Pontif. sect 7. to whom D. William Forbes de Missa cap. 1. adds Wicelius Ferus and divers others Seventhly and lastly Romanists are so divided among themselves touching this matter that Malderus Bishop of Antwerp as cited by D. Will. Forbes pag. 452. relates nine several opinions of Romanists all which Malderus refutes not excepting the opinion of Bellarmin himself And yet says mine Author who is known to have been no rigid Adversary of Romanists his own opinion was nihilo melior no whit sounder then the rest By these considerations I hope the discreet Reader may be satisfied that though Fathers used the word Sacrifice yet they meant only an Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice To the Testimonies therefore objected by the Pamphleter I answer in two words viz. That the first three namely from the Liturgy of James Andrews Book of the Passion Clements Epistle 3. as also that from Hippolitus de Antichristo are censured as spurious see Cocus in Censur pag. 9. 21. 53. and 65. And Rivet Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 3.4 and 8. lib. 2. cap. 11. Yea the faith of James Liturgie is questioned by Bell. de script Eccles an 34. and lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 3. Andrews Book by Barronius Tom. 1. an 44. Num. 42.43 and an 69. Num. 34. And Clements Epistles both by Bell. de script Eccles an 92. and Barron Tom. 2. an 102. Num. 6.7 Secondly that the rest of the testimonies from Ignatius Irenaeus Tertul. c. are only to be understood of Eucharistick commemorative and Symbolick Sacrifices which might be confirmed by particular arguments from the several Authors but I hope the premised considerations may suffice Only lest any should imagine that the word Mass was known in the days of Ignatius that which the Pamphleter renders out of him to celebrate a Mass in Ignatius Greek Epist ad Smyrn is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies only to celebrate a banquet I may therefore here shut up with a new demonstration of Popish Novelty That there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass was no essential of the Ancient Catholick Religion But that there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass is an assential in the present Romish Religion Ergo. There is an other essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Ancient Catholick Religion SECT IV. A fourth Instance of Novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his fourth Instance saith that Protestants deny the real presence and Transubstantiation And toward the close of this fourth Instance Pag. 145. he would sneakingly insinuate that their half Communions which are so palpable an innovation that their own Authors cannot deny it had been approven by the Ancient Church To this last I shall have a more fit occasion to speak in the first appendix to this Sect. 7. And therefore at the time shall only examin that of Transubstantiation We deny not the real presence nay we affirm that Christ is really exhibited to believers in the use of the Sacrament That which we deny is a
Gratian de consecrat dist 2. cap. comperimus made that decree ut integra recipiant aut ab integris arceantur Who please may find an army of Testimonies to this purpose in Chamier tom 4. lib. 8. cap. 9. What need I more the thing being acknowledged by adversaries themselves As Alphonsus a Castro de haeres tit Eucharistia haeres 12. Cassander in Consult art 22. Barnes in Cathol Rom. Pacifico Sect. 7. Picherel de Missa cap. 4. Yea Cassander saith this was not only the way of the Catholick Church to give it under both kinds but also the Roman above the space of a 1000 Years This is another of the Romish Novelties I had objected to Mr. Dempster Pap. 8. Pag. 170. and yet remains unanswered Only this Pamphleter Pag. 147. when he had been speaking of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament sneakingly insinuates some insignificant whispers to fetch some colour from antiquity for their multilation of the Sacrament because anciently it s said to be given to Infants and to the Sick and to have been carried to private Houses yea over Sea and for this last he cites Euseb lib. 5. Hist without designation of any Chapter But all these Instances which he hath taken out of H. T 's Manual art 12. are either fals◠or impartinent For first some of these things are dissallowed by the present Romish Church viz. the giving of the Eucharist to Infants by the Council of Trent sess 21. can 3. and the sending it to absents is prohibited by the Council of Caesar August can 3. about the Year 381 and by the first Council of Toledo can 14. Anno 400. as is acknowledged by Durantus de rit Eccles lib. 1. cap. 16. Secondly the Question betwixt Romanists and us is about the publick and ordinary celebration of the Sacrament to adult persons wherein the present Romish Church commands it to be given under on species viz of bread but all the Instances yea and all that ever I could read brought by any Romanist are of some extraordinary cases of Sickness Absence Persecution c. But none of the publick ordinary celebration of the Sacrament How far in extraordinary cases Protestants have yeelded Dr. Will. Forbes lib. 2. de commun sub utraque specie cap. 1. hath given an account from Bucer Dr. Andrews Casaubon and Spalat Thirdly the present Romish Church proceed further and prohibit the giving of the cup to the people under pain of Excommunication as I shew from Caranza but no Romanist ever undertook to shew a president for such a prohibition from Antiquity Fourthly its falsely affirmed by the Pamphleter that Denys Cyprian Tertul. and Euseb say that when the Eucharist was given to Infants Sick or absent persons restriction was made to one kind only far less to the species of Bread alone That it was given to Infants under both kinds Chamier tom 4. lib. 9. cap. 3. proves from Austin Epist 107. Cyprian and Genadius Yea Bell. does not alledge that the bread only was given to Infants but the Cup. The truth is they should have had neither but furely they got both As for the Sick and absent Justin Martyr apol 2. testifies that both the Bread and Wine were carried to them and Hierom Epist 4. says of Exuperius that he carried not only Corpus Christi in canistro vimineo but also sanguinem in vitro that is Christs blood in a Glass Creg Nazianz. orat 11. reports that his Sister Gorgonia preserved the Symbols both of Christs body and blood and therefore it was too great presumption in the Pamphleter to say that this could not be done but under one kind I know not what he means by his citation from Euseb lib. 5. unless he point at the case of Serapion but then he should have said lib. 6. nor does it make any thing for him for the Bread was dipt into the Wine and so put into Serapions mouth Dr. Francis White in his reply to Jesuit Fisher point 7. Pag. 503. brings in the Council of Tours Burchardus and Jvo giving this Reason of that kind of practice ut veraciter presbiter dicere possit corpus sanguis domini Jesu Christi tibi profit ad vitam aeternam If any ask what then the communion of Laicks is whereof Ancients as Cyprian the Councils of Sardica and Eliberis c. make mention Answ It was no communion under one kind as Bell. falsly and without any ground would have it and so much Lorinus the Jesuit in Act. 2. and Durantus de ritib. Eccles lib. 2. cap. 55. are constrained to acknowledge for certain it is that the people got the Sacrament in those days under both kinds and besides It s clear that Ministers because of Mal-behaviour were then restricted to the communion of Laicks But in the Roman Church priests themselves when they do not consecrate how unblameably so ever they walk receive but under one kind The truth therefore is as our Learned Chamier tom 4. lib. 9. cap. 3. doth solidly prove from Cyprian Balsamon c. that phrase was taken from the degrees of Church Censurs upon office beaters in the Church for sometime they were both deposed from their office and Excommunicated from the Church and consequently might not partake of the Eucharist at other time they were only deposed ab officio and so not reckoned among the Clergy yet not Excommunicated and so were admitted ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commmunicate with the people of God With this distinction from those of the Clergy saith Durantus loc cit that they received the Sacrament extra cancellos non in sacratiori loco Instance fifth the present Roman Church allows of private communions wherein the priest alone partakes of the consecrated elements and none else and anathematizes them who judge that practice unlawful so the Council of Trent sess 22. can 8. but this is certainly repugnant to the institution of Christ and to the practice of the Ancient Church as is demonstrated largly by Chamier tom 4. lib. 7. cap. 17.18.19 from the Ancient Liturgies Canons and Councils and suffrages of Fathers yea this matter is so clear that their own Authors cannot but acknowledge it as Cassander in Consult art 24. where also he cites Odo Cameracensis Walafridus Strabo Micrologus Hoffmeisterus c. testifying the same Sure either these solitary Masses were not in use at the compounding of the Roman Missal or their Missal is in many things ridiculous as when the priest saith dominus vobiscum sursum corda gratias agamus domino Deo nostro habete vinculum pacis quod sumpsimus Domine all which expressions and many more import that there were more present to partake of the Sacrament then the Priest Must not Romanists be destitute of Patrociny from Antiquity when Bell. lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. Sect. 3. Probatur confesses nusquam expresse legimus à veteribus oblatum sacrificium sine communione alicujus vel aliquorum praeter Sacerdotom Joannes Hoffmeisterus
14. who may not here see this Pamphleter Scratches up his Citations implicitly from others for Euseb neither does nor could relate such a thing of Julian being dead before Julian came to the Empire Yea Julian was so far from being an enemy to Image worship that Spondan ad annum 362. n. 6. shews how Julian endeavoured to engage Christians to worship the Images of his Heathenish Idols And Nazianz. orat 3. calls him Idolianum As for us we do not simply condemn the use of Images and Crosses but adoration of them as hath been cleared up cap. 7. Instance 7. But of adoration of Images ther 's not a vestige in these places cited only Sozomen relates that Julian pulled down that statue at Caesarea which was said to be Christs and set up his own in place of it which was stricken from Heaven with Thunder The Apostat having erected his own statue in spite against Christ and cap. 5. when Julian had commanded to reedify the Temple of Jerusalem there came fire out of the Earth and consumed the Builders and it s said the figurs of Crosses and Stars appeared upon their Cloaths But of adoration of Images or of Crosses nothing is said Nay it s insinuated that some in those times doubted the truth of the Relation What eightly is objected to us from Hierome concerning the Heresies of Jovinian and Vigilantius was objected before Sect. 5. pag. 100. and discussed cap. 4. Sect. 2. Ninthly he says that with Pelagians we brag of assurance of Salvation apud Hierom. lib. 3. cont Pelag. We do not brag of it we only say through grace it may be attained yet make it not absolutely necessary to Salvation neither was this ever condemned as a Pelagian error That which St. Hierom. refutes in the place cited as Chamier shews lib. 3. cap. 20. Sect. 4. Is the sinless perfection in time which Papists and Quakers following Pelagians do maintain yea not only Ancient Fathers but also diverse Popish Authors assent to us in the matter of assurance as St. Ambrose Catharinus Marcus Marinarius c. Tenthly he says with Jovinians we maintain that they who have received grace in Baptism cannot finally fall away apud August But the Heresy where with St. August in haeres 82. which I think the Pamphleter would have cited charges Jovinian was that he affirmed that after Baptism men could not sin Which none of us affirm an immunity from final Apostacy and a total immunity from sin are very different things Eleventhly he says that with Vigilantius we hold Church men ought to marry apud Hierom. cont Vigil we say no such thing we only say its lawful for them but not that they are bound to do it is there not a difference betwixt Licere and Oportere Twelfthly He charges us with the madness of the Anthropemorphits saying that the body of Christ remaines not in the Eucharist if it be keept till the morrow apud Cyrill ad Collosyrium To this objection of Breerlys it was long ago replyed by Dr. Marten appeal lib. 5. cap. 8. and lib. 2. cap. 3. that Romanists do more resemble the madness of the Anthropomcrphits by picturing and worshiping God the Father in the likeness of an old man and that Protestants do not altogether condemn all reservations of the Eucharist especially these in the Ancient Church in order to eating and participation in case of absence from the congregation thorow sickness and persecution and in such reservations for Sacramental use the consecrated elements remaine to be the body and blood of Christ Symbolically which is all that Cyril intended for then the Sacramental action is continued But the Popish reservations for circumgestation procession and adoration is a manifest innovation without any vestige of Antiquity Ancients were wont to give the remainders of the Eucharist to Children or School Boys to be eaten says Niceph. Hist. lib. 17. cap. 25. and Euag. Hist lib. 4. cap. 35. which was an evidence they looked not on them as a Sacrament when the Sacramental use ceased else they would not have given these elements to Children who could not discern the Lords body I only add that these reservations used by Ancients are now abrogated in the Romish Church as is acknowledged by Durant de ritibus lib. 1. cap. 16. Thirtenthly What he objects of Pelagians concerning Baptism of Eunomians concerning justification by Faith alone and of Arrians concerning Tradition was objected Pag. 100. and was accordingly discussed cap. 4. Sect. 2. Fourtenthly He shuts us all with three testimonies concerning the infallibility of the Church of Rome The two first are from St. Cyprian and St. Iren. which he oft repeats in his Pamphlet That of Iren. I examined cap. 7. Instance 1. I shall now therefore only take notice of that from Cyp. and of the other from the Council of Chalcedon Who would not admire the impudency of this Pamphleter there being no more luculent witnesses against the infallibility and supremacy of the Pope then St. Cyp. and the Council of Chalcedon He represents Cyprians testimony thus Epist 55. to Peters Chaire and the principal Church infidelity or false Doctrine cannot have access To which it s answered 1. That if an argument hold from that testimony of St. Cyp. for papal infallibility it will likewise conclude all the beleeving Romans to be infallible for their Cyprian says ad Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante landara est perfidia non potest habere accessum that perfidy can have no access to beleeving Romans But secondly who warranted the Pamphleter to render perfidia by infidelity or false Doctrine As of St. Cyprian were only speaking of errors in dogmatical points where as certainly Cyprians words relate also if not principally to questions of fact for he subjoyns aequum justum est ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi crimen admissum est It s just that every mans cause be heard in that place where the crime was committed so that the perfidy of which Cyprian speaks may be expounded of unfaithfulness in judging of crimes and in examining of such questions of Fact I suppose Romanists will grant Popes may erre yea Cyprian a little after pleads the Authority of the African Bishops to be no less then of the Italian Bishops for judging in such cases Thirdly does not Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeium accuse Pope Stephanus not only of error but as mantaining causam haereticorum the cause of Hereticks against the Church Unless therefore St. Cyprian be made to contradict himself he cannot here assert the infallibility of the Romish Church Fourthly and lastly these words non potest haebere accessum cannot have access must not be strained as excluding a possibility of erring Non potest being frequently taken for that which could not readily or easily be as matters then stood Examples might be brought from Sacred and prophane Writings yea and from Cyprian himself Luk. 11.7 when the man said I cannot rise he meant not impossibility of