served by his Church It is plain enough to all that have the use of reason what that communion of the Church and the Society thereof is able to effect and hath effected in preserving the Rule of Christianity wherein the salvation of Christians consisteth free and intire from the infection of mens devices expresly or by consequence destructive to it as well as the conversation of Christians from unchristian manners But if the Church be trusted to exact the profession of Christianity of all that require by Baptisme to be admitted unto the Communion of the Church It must by consequence be intrusted to exact of them also the performance of that which they have professed that is undertaken to professe For the profession being the condition upon which they are admitted to the Communion of the Church the performance or at least a presumption of the performance must needs be the condition upon which they injoy it Upon this ground the Church becomes not onely a number of men but a Society Corporation and Communion of Christians in those Offices wherewith God hath declared that hee will be served by Christians For upon supposition of such a Declaration or such a Law of God it is that the Church becomes a Body or Corporation of all Christians though under several Common-wealths and Soveraignties of this world As there are in all States several by Corporations subsisting by some act or Law of the Soveraign Powers of the same For if God had not appoâ—â—ted what Offices hee will be served with by his people at their common Assemblies there could be no ground why the Church should be such a Society founded by God there being nothing appointed by God for the members of it to communicate in But were there nothing but the Sacrament of the Eucharist acknowledged to have been delivered by God to his people to be frequented and celebrated by them at their common Assemblies that alone would be enough to demonstrate the foundation and institution of the Communion and Corporation of the Church by God For of a truth the rest of those Offices wherewith God requires to be served by Christians are the same by which hee required to be served by his ancient people before Christianity setting aside that difference with the divers measure of the knowledge of God in this and in that estate must needs produce Though there is no serving of God by the blood of bulls and goats nor by other ceremonies and sacrifices of Moses Law under Christianity Yet were the praises of God the hearing of his Word read and the instructing and exhorting of his people in it and to it together with the sacrifice of Prayer frequented by Gods people under the Law as still God is served and is to be served with them under Christianity And upon this account I have truly said elswhere as I conceive it that the Corporation of the Church is founded upon the privilege which God hath granted all Christians of assembling themselves for the service of God though supposing that the Powers of the world should forbid them so to do For this privilege consists in nothing else but in that command which God hath given his Church of serving him with these Offices Whereupon it necessarily insues that notwithstanding whatsoever command of Secular Powers they are forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them that are not of the Church Seeing they cannot be commanded to serve God in the Communion of the Church but they must be forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them which are not of the Church And upon this ground stands all the Power which the Church can challenge in limiting the circumstances and conditions upon which men may communicate in these Offices Which as it may justly seem of it self inconsiderable to the world and the Powers that govern it So when those Powers take upon them to establish the exercise of it by their Lawes If they maintain not the Church in that Power which of right and of necessity it had from God before they professed to maintain Christianity they destroy indeed that which in word they professe But if they take upon them to maintain it in the right which originally it had to limit the said circumstances by such Rules as by the act of Secular Powers become Lawes to their people then must the Power of the Church become as considerable as it is indeed in all States and Common-wealths that retain the Christianity which they had from the beginning in this point This being the ground and this the mater of Ecclesiastical Lawes and the Sacrament of the Eucharist being that Office proper to Christianity in order to the Communion whereof all Lawes limiting the circumstances and conditions of the said Communion are devised and made It seems requisite to my designe in the first place to void those Controversies concerning the same which all men know how much they have contributed to the present divisions of the Church For the determination of them will be without doubt of great consequence to determine the true and right intent of those Lawes which serve onely to limit those circumstances which are onely the condition of communicating in this and those other Offices Concerning which there is no other controversie on foot to divide the Church but that which concerns the said circumstances Now what differences concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist are mater of division to the Church I may suppose all the world knows the opinion of Transubstantiation being so famous as it is Which importeth this That in celebrating this Sacrament upon pronouncing of the words with which our Lord delivered it to his Disciples This is my Body this is my Bloud the substance of the elements Bread and Wine ceaseth and is abolished the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ coming into their stead though under the species of Bread and Wine that is to say those accidents of them which our senses witnesse that they remain In opposition whereunto some have proceeded so farr as to teach that this Sacrament is no more than a meer sign and the celebration and communion thereof barely the renewing of our Christian profession of believing in Christ crucified whom it representeth importing no spiritual grace at all to be tendred by it from God Which may justly seem to be the opinion of the Socinians and properly to give the name of Sacramentaries to all that professe it For in reason and justice wee are to difference it from the opinion of those that hold it for a sign appointed by God to tender the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually to be received by it of as many as with a lively faith communicate in it Though these also cannot pretend to make it any more than a sign by virtue of that consecration which makes it a Sacrament Seeing it is the faith of him that receives it as they say which makes it the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually though truly
and really to him that so receives it There is besides another opinion extremely distant from this last in regard thaâ— whereas this ascribes the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist to the faith of them that receive it which is after the consecration of the Sacrament in as much as it is exercised in receiving the same the other extreme opinion that I speak of attibutes it to the hypostatical Union of the two natures in the person of Christ the consequence whereof they will have to be this That the perfections of the God-head are communicated to the humane nature in the person of Christ exalted to the Power of gathering and conducting his Church through this world to the world to come Because this Power being to be exercised in our nature requires and imports the attributes of the God-head to the executing and in the executing of it For seeing the Manhood of Christ cannot communicate with his God-head in giving this spiritual assistance to his Church but first it must be present and seeing this assistance is given by the Sacrament of the Eucharist of necessity they think the Body and Bloud of Christ must be present in the Eucharist to give this assistance by virtue of the hypostatical Union ordained for that purpose And so this opinion becomes extremely opposite to the last because it attributes the presence and so the receiving of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to that Faith which takes effect after that consecration which makes the Sacrament Whereas this attributes the same to the hypostatical Union of the Manhood with the God-head in Christ taking effect without exception after his exaltation to glory which it is manifest is so long since past and done before the celebration of it CHAP. II. That the natural substance of the Elements remains in the Sacrament That the Body and Bloud of Christ is neverthelesse present in the same when it is received not by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradiction nor improperty in the words of our Lord. THis being the question wherein I am now to give judgment and no more required of a Divine than to give such a meaning to those few Scriptures which depose in it as may no way contradict the Rule of Faith I shall without considering how to content those factions which these opinions have made content my self by delivering that opinion which I conceive best satisfies the plain words of the Scripture without trenching upon any ground of Christianity within which the meaning of the Scriptures is to remain I say then first that if wee will not offer open violence to the words of the Scripture and to all consideration of reason that may deserve to direct the meaning of it wee must grant in the first place That the bodily substance of Bread and Wine is not abolished nor ceaseth in this Sacrament by virtue of the consecration of it And of this I conceive the manifest words of the Scripture wheresoever there is mention of this Sacrament are evidence enough Mat. XXVI 26-29 And when they were eating Jesus took bread and having blessed brake and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat this is my Body And taking the cup hee gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink yee all of it For this is that bloud of mine of the New Testament which is shed for many unto remission of sins And I say unto you I will not drink from henceforth of this production of the vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome In S. Mark I can imagine no maâ—er of difference but this Mark XIV 24 25. This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many Verily I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the vine brings forth till I drink it new in the kingdome of God In S. Luke thus XXII 17-20 And taking the cup hee said Take this and divide it amongst you For I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the Vine brings forth till the kingdome of God come And hee took bread and having given thanks brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 23-32 For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus in the night that hee was betrayed took bread and having given thanks brake it saying Take eat this is my body which is broken for you This do in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud This do so often as yee drink it in remembrance of mee For so often as you eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread or drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ But let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Therefore many among you are sick and weak and many fall asleep For if wee did discern our selves wee should not be condemned But when wee are judged wee are chastised by the Lord that wee be not condemned with the world And again 1 Cor. X. 16 17 18. The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ For as the bread is one so wee many are one body For wee all partake of the same bread Had not a man as good bid the Scripture be silent for hee will believe what hee list notwithstanding the Scripture as set all this evidence upon the rack to make it deny that which it cries aloud For when S. Matthew tells us that our Lord took bread and having blessed brake and gave it saying This is my Body that hee took the cup and having given thanks gave it to them saying This is my Bloud Is it not as manifest that hee sayes This bread is my Body this wine is my Bloud as that hee sayes This is my Body this is my Bloud Unlesse wee think that This can demonstrate any thing but that which had been spoke of afore in the processe without giving any mark to know what it is that hee meant to demonstrate There is none of them that deny this but will be puzzled to say himself what hee would have the Disciples to whom this is said understand by This forbidding them to understand that which went before In S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paul the
difficulty is the same For is not This of which our Lord speaks the same that hee took If you say not so because hee gave thanks before hee said This is my Body This is my Bloud at least it must be that which hee broke after hee had given thanks and that of necessity is the same bread which hee took as the same wine For to imagine that This demonstrates bread and wine which when hee sayes is my Body and Bloud are then abolished to make room for the Body and Bloud is that which his affirmation is will by no means allow requiring that which it affirmeth to be verified for that time which it demonstrateth or presenteth to the understanding So that This must be the Body and Bloud of Christ at such time as it is This that is that Bread and that Wine which Gods word demonstrateth In fine whatsoever it is which This may be said to demonstrate besides Bread and Wine it will be unpossible to make appear that the Disciples understood that which the Scriptures whereby wee must learn what they understood expresse not But this is not all When S. Matthew sayes I will drink no more of this production of the Vine which S. Luke sayes that our Lord said before the consecration of the Sacrament either wee must say that hee repeated the same words which is nothing unlikely seeing the tender of the cup at which they were said is repeated by our Lord as it is agreed upon that the Jewes at the Supper of the Passeover did customarily repeat the same And this answer takes away all imputation of confusion from the text of S. Matthew But if any man stand upon it that these words were said onely before the consecration though they are repeated by S. Matthew after it at the delivering of the cup and therefore that it is not called wine which is in the cup after the consecration If hee consider how pertinently hee makes S. Matthew bring in this saying upon the delivery of the cup not supposing that to be wine which was in it hee will finde himself never a whit easied by that escape For how grosse were it for him to put these sayings together This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many to the remission of sins And I say unto you I will drink no more of this production of the Vine had hee not taken that which was in the cup for wine The same holds in the words of S. Mark having followed S. Matthew in this So when S. Paul makes our Lord say Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you is it not manifest that breaking is properly said of bread of a body of flesh not without some impropriety to be understood by that which is common to bread and to a body of flesh And would S. Paul have used a term which necessarily referrs him that hears it to bread were it not bread which our Lord brake after the consecration of the Sacrament in resemblance wherewith this body is said to be broken because it was wounded But when the same S. Paul speaking of that which they take which they eat which they drink which certainly they do after the consecration when it is the Sacrament saith So oft as yee eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ Is there then any reason left why wee should not believe bread to be bread and wine to be wine when the word of God sayes it but that whatsoever the word of God say wee are resolved of our prejudice And when hee saith again Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup speaketh hee of eating and drinking any thing else but that which all Christians receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist If any thing can possibly be more manifest than this it is that which hee addeth arguing that all Christians are one Body â—s the bread is one to wit which they eat because they all partake of onâ— bread And therefore when hee saith further The cup of blessing which weâ— blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ I will not insist upon this that it is called bread after the blessing though S. Matthew observeth that our Lord calleth it so after giving of thanks because the cup may be called the cup of blessing which wee blesse before the blessing be past and done But I say confidently that to make our Lord say that the bread is the communion of the Body and the cup that is the wine that is in the cup which is blessed for what else can be understood to be in the cup with correspondence to bread is the communion of the bloud of Christ is to make him say that which hee did not mean unlesse hee did mean that that is bread and wine whereby Christians communicate in the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But shall this evidence of the nature and substance of Bread and Wine remaining in the Sacrament of the Eucharist even when it is a Sacrament that is when it is received either deface or efface the evidence which the same Scriptures yield us of the truth of Christs body and blood brought forth and made to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by making it to be that Sacrament Surely wee must not suffer such a conceit to prossesse us unlesse wee will offer the same violence to the manifest and expresse words of the Scripture For of necessity when our Lord saith This is my body this is my blood either wee must make is to stand for signifieth and This is my body this is my bloud to be more than this is a sign of my body and bloud Or else the word is will inforce the elements to be called the body and bloud of Christ at that time and for that time when they are not yet received That is to say whether hee that receives them who think it for their advantage to maintain that This is my body and my bloud signifies no more but this is a sign of my body and bloud to advise how they can ground the true real participation of the body and bloud of Christ in by the Sacrament of the Eucharist upon the Scripture allowing no more than the signification of the body bloud of Christ by that Sacrament to be declared in those words of the Scripture that describe the institution of it For that a man receives the body and bloud of Christ spiritually through faith in receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is no more than hee does in not receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist if by the act of a living faith wee do eat the flesh of Christ and drink his
as our Lord was when hee spoke the words that I indeavor to clear When therefore the properties of the divine nature are attributed to the Manhood of our Lord supposing as all good Christians do that neither natures nor properties are confounded what can wee say but this That by such attributions as these in the Language of his Prophets the Apostles God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union of two natures in one person of our Lord And what shall wee then say when the name of Christs body and bloud is attributed to the bread and wine of the Eucharist but that God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union between the body and bloud of Christ and the said bread and wine whereby they become as truly the instrument of conveying Gods Spirit to them who receive as they ought as the same Spirit was alwaies in his natural body and bloud For it maters not that the union of the two natures is indissoluble that of Christs body and bloud onely in order to the use of the elements that is speaking properly from the consecration to the receiving The reason of both unions being the same that makes both supernatural to wit the will of God passed upon both and understood by the Scriptures to be passed upon both though to several effects and purposes Therefore I am no way singular in this sense All they of the Confession of Auspurg do maintain it before mee and think it enough to say that it is an unusual or extraordinary maner of speech when one thing is said to be another of a several kinde and nature but which the unusual and extraordinary case that is signified both expounds and justifies They indeed maintain another reason of this presence and therefore another maner of it For if by virtue of the hypostatical union the omnipresence of the God-head is communicated to the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist then is the flesh and bloud of Christ there not onely mystically but bodily But if supposing both the elements and the flesh and bloud of Christ bodily present it may neverthelesse truly be said This is my flesh This is my bloud How much more if as I say the elements onely be there bodily but the flesh and bloud of Christ onely mystically and spiritually And therefore I finde it reasonable for mee to argue that the sense of so many men both learned and others understanding the words of our Lord in this sense ought to convince any man that it is not against common sense and therefore tending so much to make good the words of our Lord and the holy Scripture it not to be let go I do not intend neverthelesse hereby to grant that the sense of these words This is my body this is my bloud for This is the signe of my body and bloud is a true sense because abundance of learned as well as ordinary people take it so to be But well and good that it might have been maintained to be the true sense of them had no more been expressed by the Scripture in that businesse For then I suppose the sense of the Church of which I say nothing as yâ—t could not have evidenced so much more as I have deduced by consequence from the rest of the Scripture But the mystical presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being further deduced from the Scripture by good consequence I conceive the common understanding of all those men who granting that do not grâ—nt the Elements to be abolished sufficient ground for mee that the signification of these words This is my body this is my bloud inforceth it not Whereas on the other side the substance of the Elements is not distinguishable by common sense from their accidents for whether the quantity and the mater be all one or not whether beside the mater and accidents which the quantity is invested with a substantial form berequisite is yet disputable among Philosophers And therefore no reason can presume that the Apostles to whom these words were spoken did understand This of which our Lord speaks to signifie the sensible accidents of bread an swine severed from the material substance of the same I may therefore very well undertake to say that this sense of the words is more proper than conceiving the substance of bread and wine to be abolished the effect of grace to the Church remaining the same For the property of speech is not to be judged by the signification of a single word but by the tenor of the speech wherein it stands and the intent of him that speaks declared by his actions and the viâ—ible circumstances of the same Now our Lord having taught those to whom this was spoken that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud is done by living faith must be supposed by appointing this Sacrament tendring his flesh to eat and his bloud to drink to limit and determine an office in the doing whereof his flesh and bloud is either eaten and drunk or crucified according to the premises If then the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud out of the Sacrament be meerly spiritual by living faith shall not the presence thereof in the Sacrament be according Shall it not be enough that they are mystically present in the Sacrament to be spiritually eaten by them that receive them with living faith to be crucified of them that do not Is it any way pertinent to the spiritual eating of them that they are bodily present Is it not far more proper to that which our Lord was about tending without question to the spiritual union which hee seeks with his Church that hee should be understood to promise the mystical than the bodily presence of them in the Sacrament which is nothing else than a Mystery by the proper signification and intent of it I grant an abatement of that which the terms of body and bloud were originally imposed to signifie being without question that which is visible and subject to sense But if the nature of the action which our Lord was about of the subject which his words expresse be such as requires this abatement then cannot the original sense of these words be so proper for this place as this abatement Here I will observe that the Council of Trent it self Sess XIII cap. I. speaketh so warily in this mater as not to exclude all maner of tropes from the right sense of these words saying Indignissimum sanè flagitium est ea à quibusdam contentiosis pravis hominibus ad sictitia imaginarios trapos quibus veritas caernis sanguinis Christi negatur contra universum Ecclesiâ— sensum detorqueri It is indeed a very great indignity that they are by some contentious and perverse persons wrested aside to contrived and imaginary tropes whereby the truth of Christs flesh and bloud is denied contrary to the whole sense of the Church They were wiser than to
Sacrament mystically I conceive I am excused of any further answer and am not obliged to declare the maner of that which must be mystical when I have said what I can say to declare it Onely I will take leave to tell him that hee will remain neverthelesse obliged to believe the truth both of the sign and of the thing signified and that by virtue of the Sacrament that is of the consecration that makes it a Sacrament not of the faith of him that receives it though I answer not all that hee demands upon the question What the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ in or with or under the Elements of the Eucharist signifies I would now consider wherein the Consecration of the Eucharist consists that I might thereupon inferre what kind of presence it inforceth But I hold it fit first to set aside those two opinions the one whereof I said ascribeth it to the Faith of them that receive being accidental to the Consecration and not included in it The other to the Hypostatical Union and that communication which it inferreth between the properties of the united natures That which I have already said I suppose is enough to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the same before any man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the soul which the eating and drinking Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by living Faith importeth Onely that I may once conclude how faith effecteth the Sacramental presence in the Elements as well as the spiritual in the Soul I will distinguish between the outward profession of Christianity which maketh us Members of Gods visible Church and the inward performance or faithful purpose of performing the same which makes a man of that number whom God owns for Heirs of his Kingdome whether you call that number an invisible Church or not And then I say that it is the visible profession of true Christianity which makes the Consecration of the Eucharist effectual to make the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But that it is the invisible faithfulnesse of the heart in making good or in resolving to make good the said profession which makes the receiving of it effectual to the spiritual eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud For supposing that God hath instituted and founded the Corporation of his Church upon the precept or the privilege of assembling to communicate in the offices of his service according to Christianity Whensoever this office is rendred to God out of that profession which makes men Members of Gods Church there the effect followes as sure as Christianity is true Where otherwise there can be no such assurance But if eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ in this Sacrament unworthily be the crucifying of Christ again rendring a man guilty of his body and bloud then is not his flesh and bloud spiritually eaten and drunk till living faith make them spiritually present to the Soul which the Consecration maketh Sacramentally present to the body And it is to be noted that no man â—â—n say that this Sacrament represents or tenders and exhibites unto him that receiveth the body and bloud of Christ as all must do that abhorre the irreverence to so great an Ordinance which the opinion that it is but a bare sign of Christ crucified necessarily ingendreth but hee must believe this Unlesse a man will say that that which is not present may be represented that is to say â—â—nâ—râ—d and exhibited presently down upon the place It is not therefore that living faith which hee that receiveth the Eucharist and is present at the consecrating of it may have and may not have that causeth the body and bloud of Christ to be Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But it is the profession of that common Christianity which makes men Members of Gods Church In the unity whereof wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated without enquiring whether those that are assembled be of the number of those to whom the Kingdome of Heaven belongs thou hast a Legal presumption even towards God that thou receivest the flesh and bloud of Christ in and with the Elements of bread and wine and shalt receive the same spiritually for the food of thy Soul supposing that thou receivest the same with living faith For one part of our common Christianity being this That our Lord Christ instituted this Sacrament with a promise to make by his Spirit the Elements of bread and wine Sacramentally his body and bloud so that his Spirit that made them so dwelling in them as in his natural body should feed them with Christs body and bloud that receive the Sacrament of them with living faith This institution being executed that is the Eucharist being consecrated according to it so sure as Christianity is true so sure the effect follows So that the faith which brings it to effect is the faith of them who believing Gods promises proceed to execute his Ordinances that they may obtain the same Whereas those that would have justifying faith to consist in believing a mans own Salvation or the decree of God perempâ—orily passed upon it and the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be appointed for a sign to confirm this faith which is nothing else but the revelation of this decree are not able to say how the signifying of the eating of Christs body and bloud conduces to such a revelation as this or why any such thing is done which conduceth not to the purpose Besides that having showed wherein justifying faith indeed consists I have by that means made it appear that the Sacramental nourishment of the Soul is the means of the spiritual nourishment of the Soul as well as the resemblance of it Here indeed it will be requisite to take notice of that which may be objected for an inconvenience That God should grant the operation of his Spirit to make the Elements Sacramentally the body and bloud of Christ upon the dead faith of them who receive it to their condemnation in the Sacrament and therefore cannot be said to eat the body and bloud of Christ which is onely the act of living faith without that abatement which the premises have established To wit in the Sacrament But all this if the effect of my saying be throughly considered will appear to be no inconvenience For that the body and bloud of Christ should be Sacramentally present in and under the Elements to be spiritually received of all that meet it with a living faith to condemn those for crucifying Christ again that receive it with a dead faith can it seem any way inconsequent to the Consecration thereof by virtue of the common faith of Christians professing that which is requisite to make true Christians whether by a living oâ— a dead faith Rather must wee be to seek for a reason why hee that â—ateth this bread and drinketh
for the rest of their Divines who are commonly called Ubiquitaries because they are supposed to teach That the oâ—ni-presence of Christs God-head is communicated to his flesh by virtue of the Hypostatical Union so that the body and bloud of Christ being every where present necessarily subsisteth in the dimensions of bread and wine in the Euchâ—rist This opinion I hold not my self any way obliged here to â—â—â—pute further than by barring it with this exception that it taketh away that supposition upon which the whole question concerning the consecration of the Eucharist â—â—â—ndeth To wit that seeing the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament cannot be attributed to the invisible faith of him that receives it is necessarily to be attributed to the viâ—â—ble faith of the Church that celebrateth For according to this oâ—inion it is manifest that the said presence can no way depend upon any thing done by the Church in celebrating the Eucharist being alâ—eady brought to passe and in being when the Church goes about it And this is all the argument that I will use against this conceit that all the premiâ—es require and so will also all that which followeth the presence of the body and bloud in the Eucharist to be of an other nature and otherwise effected â—â—an can be understood to belong to the Elements by virtue of the Hypostaâ—ical â—nion Though wee suppose that which cannot be granted that by virtue thereof â—hey are every where Which therefore whether their Divines do really belâ—eve or onely in words I will not here dispute Thus much I can say that by the agreement of the Churches pretending the Confession of Ausburg conâ—ernâ—ng the Articles once in difference among them contained in the Boâ—â— knoâ—n by the name of Liber Concordiae they are not tied to maintain so much For it is there openly protested not onely in the Preface but chiefly in the eighth Article concerning this point p. 769 787. that they do not believe the properties of the God-head to be transfuâ—ed into the Manhood nor that the Manhood of Christ is locally extended all over heaven and earth but that Christ by his Omnipotence is able to render his flesh and bloud present where hee please Especially where hee hath promised the presence thereof by inâ—â—ituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist And Chemnitius therefore one of the beâ—â— learned of their Divines in a Book writ on purpose to set forth the grounds of their opinion concerning the communication of attributes expresly â—onâ—â—neth himself to these terms as you may see cap. XXX p. 205 206. declaring his meaning by the comparison of iron red hot which though the fire be so in it that they are not discernable much lesse seperable and though they may do the act of both natures at once upon the same subject by burning and cutting the same thing remain notwithstanding distinct in their natures What then would they have Why this being set aside they say neverthelesse most truly that in the whole work of the Mediators office the divine nature communicateth with the humane Which understanding the necessities of Christs Members both intercedes with God for supply and supplies the same by the proper will of it which his divine will alwayes concurring brings to effect In which regard it is also most truly said that the properties of the God-head do communicate with the Manhood in regard of the concurrence of them to execute that which it resolveth being alwayes conformable to the will and decree of the God-head This indeed is no more than the faith of the Catholick Church importeth nor infeâ—â—â—th the Ubiquity or Omni-presence of Christs flesh as an indowment communicated to reside in it by virtue of the Hypostatical Union as thenceforth the proper subject of it But the concurrence of both natures to the effecting of those works wherein the Mediators Office is seen whereupon depends that honour and worship which the Mâ—nhood challenges in the person of Christ as inâ—eparable from the God-head to which originally that honour is due And therefore I shall never go about to return any maner of answer to any of thoâ—e Scriptures which have been alleged for it but onely this that they inferre nothing to the purpose in hand For if it could be said that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union that is by the will of God effecting it the immensity of the God-head were so transfused into the Manhood as to make it present wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated and so in the Elements of it then were this an answer to the difficulty in hand But such a one as would ingage him that affirms it in the Heresie of Eutyches But saying no more than this That the will of the man Christ concurres with his Divine Power to do all that his promises to his Church imports And that the effect of this Sacrament importing the presence of his flesh and bloud it is necessary that the will of the man Christ by the Divine Power concurring to the works of it should make the flesh and bloud of Christ present wheresoever his Ordinance requires they cannot say that Christs flesh is present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of the Hypostatical Union upon those grounds But that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union the will and promise of Christ is executed by the power of the God-head concurring with it and which it acteth with Which is to say that not immediately by the Hypostatical Union but by means of Christs promise which must come to effect by the power of the God-head which the humane will of Christ communicateth with And truly I conceive no man ever was so impertinent as not to suppose the Hypostatical Union when there was question how the promise of the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist should come to effect But that being supposed and not serving the turn alone it remains that wee judge it by the institution of the Eucharist and the promise which it contains that is to say by those Scriptures out of which the intent of them is to be had and not by the Hypostatical Union which being supposed the question remains neverthelesse And by the Hypostatical Union wee doubt not but our Lord Christ hath power to represent his body and bloud that is to make it present where hee please but that must be not meerly by virtue of the Hypostatical Union but by doing the same miracle which Transubstantiation imports though it be the Hypostatical Union that inableth our Lord Christ to do it For though there be a difference between the being of Christs flesh and bloud under the dimensions of the Elements the substance of them remaining being reduced by the power of God under those dimensions And the substance of them being abolished Yet I suppose all men of reason will say that the Hypostatical Union contributes no more to that than to this And therefore not doubting that the Sacramental presence of the body
no opinion on foot but that which hath taken possession by the authority of the School-Doctors that it is performed by the recital of these words This is my body This is my bloud in the Canon that is the Canonical or Regular Prayer for the Consecration of the Eucharist of the Masse For those that have set aside this Prayer and do not allow the opinion that these words are operative to the effecting of that which the institution of the Eucharist promises though they retain the recital of them in the action yet have not declared any common agreement wherein they intend to maintain the Consecration of the Eucharist to stand And is it not then free for mee to declare that I could never rest satisfied with this opinion of the School-Doctors as finding it to offer violence to common sense and the truest intention of that which wee may see done in consecrating the Eucharist For when our Lord takes the Elements in his hands and blesses them or gives God thanks over them then breaks the bread and delivering them bids his Disciples take and eat them because they are his body and bloud is it not manifest that they are so called in regard of something which hee had already done about them when delivering them hee calls them at that present time of delivering them that which hee could not call them afore his body and bloud No say they that is easily understood otherwise from the common customes which men use in civil conveyances Nothing being more usual by several customes of several nations then to convey the right and possession of house or land by delivering writings testifying certain deeds done to that effect to put in possession of a house by delivering the key or the post to be held or putting into the house by delivering a turf of the land to be conveyed to put into rightful possession of the same adding the like words to these Here is this house or this land take it for thine own But in vain Those that use this escape consider not that our Lord said these words Take eat drink this is my body this is my bloud when hee delivered them So that if by saying these words hee made them that which the words signifie then by delivering them hee made them that which they signifie For so the like words serve in delivering possession to expresse the intent of him that delivers it To which overt act of delivering the right of possession and the conveying of it is as much to be ascribed as to the words which animate it by expressing the intent of it Which if it be true then were the Elements which our Lord delivered to his Disciples consecrated by delivering them And therefore by consequence the Eucharist is never consecrated but by delivering of it Seeing of necessity the Eucharist is consecrated by the same means as the first which Christ communicated to his Disciples was consecrated But this can by no means stand with the intent of them that maintain this opinion supposing as they do that the Sacrament is consecrated before it be delivered to them that receive it And hence starts another argument For these words as they are used in consecrating the Eucharist are part of the rehersal of that which ouâ— Lord Christ did when hee consecrated that Eucharist which hee gave his Disciples And will any reason endure this that the Eucharist be thought to be consecrated by reciâ—ing what Christ said when hee delivered that Eucharist which hee had consecrated And not by doing what Christ commanded to be done when hee appointed it to be celebrated Certainly hee that sayes Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it saying Take eat this is my body sayes what Christ did and said before and when hee delivered it Hee that sayes further that hee said do this in remembrance of mee sayes that Christ instituted this Sacrament But to say that Christ instituted this Sacrament is not to consecrate that Sacrament which Christ instituted That is not done but by doing that which Christ is said to have done And is not Christ said to have blessed the Elements Is it not said that having taken and blessed and broken the bread delivering it to his Disciples hee affirmed it to be his body at the present when hee delivered it Can the becoming of it his body be imputed to the taking or breaking or delivering of it Doth it not remain then that it be imputed to the blessing of it Here finding it evident by comparing the Evangelists one with another and with S. Paul that blessing and giving of thanks in this case are both one and the same thing signified by two words I must needs inferre that blessing the Elements is nothing else but giving God thanks over them which at the present our Lord had in hand with intent to make them the Sacrament of his body and bloud The people of God in our Lords time were wont to take nothing for meat or for drink without first giving God thanks solemnly for it as they had it in hand You may see how scrupulous they were in this point by the title of Blessings the first of the Talmud where you have those forms of thanks-giving recorded and the circumstances at which they were to be used in receiving several kinds which were some of them doubtlesse more ancient than our Lords time A practice fitting for Christianity to continue setting aside that superstitious scrupulosity of forms and circumstances wherein the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees consisted Therefore S. Paul withstanding those Hereticks that taught to abstain from meats which God hath made to be participated with thanks-giving by the faithful and such as have known the truth 1 Tim. IV. 3 4 5. addes for his reason Because every creature of God is good and none to be rejected received with thanks-giving For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer The word of God inabling Christians to receive it with a good conscience so as they may expect Gods blessing which they have desired by their prayers For is it not manifest that having said that every creature is good which a Christian receives with thanks-giving when hee addes that it is sanctified by prayer grounded on Gods words hee includes in that thanksgiving which hee means prayer to God for a blessing upon it The creatures of God then are sanctified to the nourishment of our bodies by Thanks-gving with prayer for Gods blessing And shall wee think that that Thanks-giving wherewith they are sanctified to the nourishment of our Souls doth not include prayer to the effect intended that they may become the body and bloud of Christ which God by this Sacrament pretends to feed our Souls with And doth not the execution of our Saviours Institution when hee sayes Do this consist in giving God thanks for the redemption of Mankind with prayer that wee may be fed by the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist
fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi Which oblation thou O God wee pray thee vouchsafe to make in all respects blessed imputable accountable reasonable and acceptable That it may become to us the body and bloud of thy well-beloved Son our Lord Christ Jesus Then after the Institution Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae Majestatis tuae Ut quotquot ex hoc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpâ—erimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur Command them to be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel unto thine Altar that is above before thy divine Majesty that as many of us as shall receive the holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace These two parts of this Prayer are joyned into one in most of those Forms which I have named whether before the rehersal of the institution or after it Onely in those many Forms which the Maronites Missal containeth the rehersal of the institution comes immediately after the Peace Which was in the Apostles time that Kisse of Peace which they command going immediately before the Deacons warning to lift up hearts to the Consecrating of the Eucharist Though those words are not now found in any of these Syriack forms For after the institution is rehearsed it is easie to observe that there followes constantly though not immediately but interposing some other Prayers a Prayer to the same effect with these two But in two several formes For in all of them saving two or three which pray that the Elements may become the body and bloud of Christ to the Salvation of those that receive by the Holy Ghost coming down upon them Prayer is made that this body and this bloud of Christ may be to the Salvation of the Receivers Which may be understood to signifie the effect of both these Prayers in so few words But it may also be understood to signifie that whosoever framed them conceived the consecration to be made by the rehersal of the institution premised Which if I did believe I should not think them ancient but contrived at Rome where they are printed upon the doctrine of the School now in vogue For in all formes besides the effect of these prayers is to be found without excepting any of those which wee may have any confidence of that they are come intire to our hands I demand then whether I have reason to attribute the force of consecrating the Eucharist upon which the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ depends to the recital of what Christ said or did at his celebrating the Eucharist or instituting it for the future Or to the Prayer which all Christians have made and all either do make or should make to the expresse purpose of obtaining this Sacramental as well as spiritual presence Hear how Justine describes the action Apolog. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having done our Prayers wee salute one another with a kisse Then as I said that the Peace was next before the Consecration is offered to the cheif of the Brethren bread and a cup of water and wine mixed Which hee takes and sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and Holy Ghost Giving thanks at large that wee are vouchsafed these things at his hands To wit the means which God used to reclame Man-kind under the Law of nature and Moses and lastly the coming of Christ and his death and the institution of the Eucharist Who having finished his Thanks-giving and Prayers for the making of the Elements the body and bloud of Christ by the Holy Ghost all the people present follow with an acclamation saying Amen Afterwards hee calls the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The food which thanks hath been given for by the prayer of that word which came from him That is which our Lord Christ appointed the Eucharist to be consecrated with when hee commanded his Disciples to do that which hee had done So Origen in Mat. XV. calls the Eucharist Panem verbo Dei per obsecrationem sanctificatum Bread sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer And contra Celsum VIII Oblatos panes edimus corpus sanctum quoddam per preces factos Wee eat the bread that was offered made a kinde of holy body by prayer Not that which is grounded upon that Word of God by which his creatures are our nourishment as Justine saith afterwards that Christians blesse God by the Son and Holy Ghost for all the food they take but that Word of Christ whereby hee commanded to do that which hee had done S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag III. saith That the bread is no more common bread after the calling of the Holy Ghost upon it Because hee saith afterwards Cat. Myst V. that the Church prayes God to send the Holy Ghost upon the Elements to make them the body and bloud of Christ As I said So S. Basil calls the form of Consecration which I showed you hee affirms to come by Tradition from the Apostles as here I maintaiu it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of invocation To wit whereby wee call for the Holy Ghost to come upon the elements and consecrate them de Spiritu Sancto cap. XXVII S. Gregory Nyssene de vitâ Mosis saith the bread is sanctified by the Word of God which is his Son But to say further by what means hee adds in virtue of the blessing To wit which the Church consecrates the Eucharist with as our Lord did Optatus describes the Altars or Communion Tables which the Donatists broke For they were of wood not of stone Quo Deus omnipotens invocatus sit quo postulatus descendit Spiritus Sanctus On which almighty God was called to come down On which the Holy Ghost upon demand did come down S. Jerome describes the dignity of Priests Epist LXXXV Ad quorum preces corpus Christi sanguisque conficitur At whose prayers the Body and Bloud of Christ is made To wit by God And in Sophoniae III. Impiè agunt in legem putantes Eucharistiam imprecantis facere verba non vitam Et necessariam esse tantùm solennem Orationem non Sacerdotum merita They transgresse the Law of Christ thinking that the Eucharist is made by the words not the life of him that prayes over it And that only the customary prayer not the works of the Priest are requisite In fine as often as you reade mysticam precem or mysticam benedictionem when there is speech of the Eucharist in the Fathers be assured that which here I maintain is there understood True it is Irenaeus V. 2. affirmeth that the Bread and the Wine receiving or admitting the Word of God accipientia become the Eucharist of the Body and Bloud of Christ But what word this is hee
declares himself further when hee saith IV. 34. Panis percipiâ—ns invocationem Dei jam non communis est The bread that hath admitted the invocation of God is no more common bread To wit that word of instituion in virtue whereof the Church calleth upon God to make the elements his body and bloud Some of them say it is done by Gods word as the world was made by it But the world was made by the word of Gods command And in these words This is my body this is my bloud command there is none In these Do this in remembrance of mee there is a command which includes a warrant or promise Though the effect of it depend upon the execution of the command by the Church whereas immediately upon Gods word the world was made And this is that word S. Augustine meant when hee said Accedat verbum ad elementum sit Sacramentum The word being applyed to the element the Sacrament is made But this application is the execution of Christs Ordinance not saying that hee said This is my body this is my bloud For hee saith the body and bloud of Christ is onely that quod ex fructibus terrae susceptum ac prece mysticá consecratum rite sumimus Which wee duly receive being taken out of the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer which I speak of De Trinit III. 4. To the same purpose Epist LIX A saying or two of S. Chrysostomes indeed I remember that name those words speaking of the consecration as by which the flesh and bloud of Christ became present in the Eucharist In II ad Tim. Hom. II. that as the words which our Saviour then spoke are the same which the Priest now uses so is the Sacrament the same and consecrated by Christ as that was And Hom. de Judâ— hee saith to inferre the same The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest but the elements are consecrated by the Power and Grace of God This is saith hee my body By this word the bread and wine are consecrated Not by the rehearsing of these words but by virtue of his command Do this And by virtue of that blessing or thanksgiving upon which our Lord affirms the elements which hee had consecrated to be his body and bloud For the meaning may well be referred to the institution of Christ and the execution thereof by the Church which S. Chrysostom supposing may well say that upon this affirmative of our Lord This is my body this is my bloud depends the Consecration of the Eucharist Not as that which effecteth it but as that which evidenceth and assureth it in as much as it was said by our Lord Christ upon supposition of that blessing or prayer which hee appointeth it to be consecrated with So the Author de Caenâ Domini in S. Cyprian that since our Lord said Do this in remembrance of mee This is my body this is my bloud the bread and the cup being consecrated by these words become profitable to the salvation of man True it is indeed in as much as the appointment of our Lord Christ is not completely executed by consecrating the Eucharist but by respectively delivering and receiving it you may truly say that by virtue of these words Take eat this is my body this is my bloud that which every man receives becomes the body and bloud to him that receives it For as I have said that it becomes the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in order to our feasting upon it so is that which I receive completely and finally the body and bloud of Christ to mee when I receive it But this sense supposing it already to be the body and bloud of Christ to all that communicate in it according to Christs ordinance cannot be to the purpose of them that would have it become such to all that receive it by virtue of these words by which it becomes so finally to him that finally receives it An Objection indeed there is but which lies against the other opinion as much as against this out of S. Gregory Epist VII 64. Indict II. Orationem verò Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus quia mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent Et valdè mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Et ipsam traditionem quam Redempâ—or noster composuit super eâ—us corpus sanguinem taceremus But the Lords Prayer wee therefore say straight after the Prayer because the custome of the Apostles was to consecate the sacrifice of oblation with that alone And it seemed to mee very inconvenient that wee should say over the oblation the Prayer which a School Doctor had composed And silence the Tradition which our Redeemer composed over his body and bloud For if the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist by saying the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory here seems to affirm thâ—n can there be no Tradition of the Apostles whereby a certain Prayer is prescribed as that wherein the consecration of the Eucharist consisteth Therefore if it should appear that S. Gregory did indeed believe that the Apostles used the Lords Prayer in celebrating the Eucharist with an intent to consecrate the Sacrament by the same I confesse I should rather adhere to S. Basil affirming the Apostles to have delivered certain words that is the meaning of certain words to call upon God for the consecrating of the elements into the body and bloud with For in so doing I should not preferâ— S. Basil but the whole Church the practice whereof so general and so original as hath been declared could have no beginning but that which our common Christianity pretendeth from the Apostles before S. Gregory And truly that the Consecration should end with the Lords Prayer I do easily believe to come from the practice of the Apostles so ancient and so general I finde that custom which S. Gregory maintains Nor is it any more that S. Jerome hath said in his third book against the Pelagians though hee is sometimes alleged for that which S. Gregory saith Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater noster qui es in coelis So taught hee his Disciples that believers dare say every day at the sacrifice of his Body Our Father which art in heaven By â—nd by Paâ—em quotidianum sive super omnes substantias venturum Apostoli deprecantur ut digni sint assumptione Corporis Christi The Apostles pray for daily bread or above all substances to come that they may be worthy to receive the Body of Christ All this concerns the concluding of the Consecration with the Lords Prayer as it did alwaies conclude For â—â—r â—ight hee allegeth that as soon as a man is baptized coming to the Communion hee is to say Forgive us our Trespasses But before that form was made which
all Ecclesiastical Writers do with one mouth bear witnesse to the presence of the Body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist Neither will any one of them be found to asscribe it to any thing but the Consecration or that to any Faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it And upon this account when they speak of the Elements supposing the Consecration to have passed upon them they alwaies call them by the name not of their bodily substance but of the body and bloud of Christ which they are become Justine in the place afore quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wee take them not as common bread and drink but as our Saviour Jesus Christ being incarnate by the Word of God hath both flesh and bloud for our salvation so are wee taught that this food which thanks have been given for by the prayer of that Word which came from him by the change whereof are our bloud and flesh nourished is both the flesh and bloud of that incarnate Jesus Where by comparing the Eucharist with the flesh and bloud of Christ incarnate wherein divers of the Fathers have followed him hee justifies that reason of expounding This is my body this is my bloud which I have drawn from the communication of the properties of the several natures in our Lord Christ incarnate But chiefly you see the Elements are made the body and bloud of Christ by virtue of the Consecration as by the Incarnation humane flesh became the flesh and bloud of Christ So Irenâ—us IV. 34. Quemadmodum qui à terrâ— panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenà coelesti Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam â—am non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis â—â—bentia As the bread that comes from the earth receiving the invocation of God upon it is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the â—arâ—â—ly and the heavenly So also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of rising again For hee had argued afore that because our flesh is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ which if they were not in the Eucharist it could not be therefore they shall rise again By virtue therefore of the conâ—ecration they are there not by the faith of him thâ—t receives according to henaeus Tertul. de Resur cap. VIII Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatned with God Origen in diver loc Hom. V. is the â—â—rst that adviâ—es to say with the Cenâ—uâ—ion when thou receiveâ—â— the Eucharist Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof For then the Lord comes under thy roof saith Origen S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer having said that Christ is our bread makes that the daily bread which wee pray for to wit in the Eucharist And in his book de lapsis makes it to be invading and laying violent hands upon the body of Christ for them who had fallen away in persecution to presse upon the Communion without Penance going afore The Council of Nicâ—a in Gelasius Cyzicenus II. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us not basely consider the bread and the cup set before us but lifting up our mindes let us conceive by faith that there lies upon that holy Table the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world sacrificed without sacrificing by Priests And that wee receiving truly his precious body and bloud S. Hilary de Trin. VIII censuring the Arians who would have the Son to be one with the Father as wee are maintains that wee are not onely by obedience of will but naturally united to Christ because as hee truly took our nature so wee truly take the flesh of his body in the Sacrament Our Lord having said My flesh is truly meat and my bloud truly drink And Hee that cats my flesh and drink my bloud dwells in mee and I in him And much more to the same purpose which could signifie nothing did not our bodies feeding upon the Elements feed upon that which is truly the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament or mystically not by virtue of our feeding which follows but by virtue of the Consecration which goes before For this natural union of the body with that which feeds it serves S. Hilary for the argument of that unity which the Son hath with the Father by nature being the union of our flesh with the flesh of Christ by virtue of our flesh united to the Word incarnate S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag IV. V. argueth that Christ having said of the bread and of the cup This is my body this is my bloud who otherwhiles changed water into wine wee are not to doubt that wee receive his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine And therefore wee are not to look on them as plain bread and wine but as the body and bloud of Christ hee having declared it All this by Sanctification of the Holy Ghost according to the Prayer of the Church But I will go no further in rehâ—arsing the texts of the Fathers which are to be found in all books of Controversies concerning this for the examination of them requires a volume on purpose It shall be enough that they all acknowledg the Elements to be changed translated and turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud though as in a Sacrament that is mystically Yet therefore by virtue of the Consecration not of his faith that receives On the other side that this change is to be understood with that abatement which the nature and substance of the Elements requires supposing it to remain the same as it was I will first presume from those very Authors which I have quoted For would not Justine have us take that for bread which hee saith wee are not to take for common bread when hee saith further that our bodies are nourished by it which by the flesh of our Lord they are not Would not Irenaeus have us think the Bread to be the earthly thing as well as the Body the heavenly when hee saies the Eucharist consists of both Tertullian ad Vxorem II. 5. perswades his wife not to marry a Gentile when hee is dead because when hee perceives her to receive the Eucharist and knows it to be bread hee believes it not to be that which Christians call it Origen when hee tells upon Mat. XV. 11. that it was called the bread of our Lorâ— gives no man in his wits occasion to think that the Elements vanish When hee saith further that it is not the bread but that which was said upon it which profits him that worthily receives it hee would have us take it for what it was whatsoever it is become S. Cyprian saith
expresly that it was wine which our Lord calls his bloud And that the wine of the Chalice to wit already consecrated demonstrates his bloud In his Epistle against those who consecrated in water alone The Council of Nicaea calls it Bread which the eye of Faith discerns to be the Lamb of God S. Hilary will have us truly to receive the body and bloud of Christ as Justine saith that our bodies are nourished by it but hee adds in Sacramento to signifie the abatement which I speak of that is mystically and as in a Sacrament S. Cyril when hee saith wee are not to look upon the Elements as plain or bare or simple bread and wine saith that wee may look upon it as Bread and wine though that is not it which profits him that worthily receives it as Origen said There are a great many more that have named and described the Elements after consecration by the name of their nature and substance and say that the bread and the wine become and are the body and bloud of Christ Ignatius Epist ad Philadelph Irenâ—us V. 2. Clemens Strom. I. Paedag. II. 2. Tatian before Irenaeus in Diatessaron Constitutiones Apostol VIII 12. Tertullian de Oratione cap. VI. contra Marcionem IV. 40. III. 19. Gregory Nyssene de Baptismo Origen contra Celsum VIII Athanasius in Synopsi Eusebius in Parallelis Damasceni S. Cyril Catech. Mystag I. III. Macarius Hom. XXVII Gaudentius Brixiensis in Exodum Serm. II. S. Austine de Civitate Dei XVII 5. de diversis Serm. XLIV cap. XXVIII Sermone LXXXIIII Sermone LXXXVII Sermone ad Baptizatos S. Jer. in Esaiae LXVI lib. ult in Jeremiae XXXI lib. VI. Isidore de Offic. Eccles I. 18. In fine the Canon of the Masse it self prayes that the Holy Ghosts coming down may make this Bread and this Cup the Body and Bloud of Christ And certainly the Romane Masse expresses a manifest abatement of the common and usual sense of the body and bloud of Christ unto that sense which is proper to the intent and subject of them who speak of this Sacrament when the Church in the consecration prayes ut nobis corpus fiat Dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi That they may become the Body and bloud of thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Christ Jesus to us No man that understands Latine and sense will say it is the same thing for the Elements to become the body and bloud of Christ as to become the body and bloud of Christ to those that receive which imports no more than thaâ— which I have said And yet there is no more said in those Liturgies which pray that the Spirit of God may make them the flesh and bloud of Christ to this intent and effect that those which received them may be filled with the grace of his Spirit For the expression of this effect and intent limits the common signification of the words to that which is proper to this action of the Eucharist as I have delivered it In the words of S. Ambrose de iis qui initiantur myst cap. XI ante consecrationem alia species nominatur post consecrationem caro sanguis Christi appellatur Before the consecration it is named another kinde After the consecration it is called the flesh and bloud of Christ No man that understands Latine can conceive the word species to signifie the outward appearance but the substance and nature of those kindes For so wee call outlandish kindes spices not the appearance of their outward accidents And in the Romane Laws species an non are the kindes that are stored up for men cannot live upon the outward accidents of them Therefore when S. Austine saith That the Eucharist consists of two things visibili elementorum specie invisibili D. N. J. C. carne sanguine hee means that it consists of the nature and substance of the elements which is visible as of the body and bloud of our Lord Christ which are invisible Again when S. Ambrose sayes that they are called the Body and Bloud of Christ hee signifies that abatement in the property of his words that requires not the absence of the elements As when S. Austine sayes in Gratian de Consecratione distinct II. Can. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui est caro Christi suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cùm reverà sit Sacramentum corporis Christi That heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after the maner of it called the body of Christ whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of the body of Christ The same abatement it is that S. Cyril afore Catech. Myst IV. the Council of Nicâ—a Victor Antioch in Marci XIV 22. and Theodoret Dial. III. signifie when they will us not to consider the elements but the things which they signifie For does hee that wills us not to consider the bread and wine intend to say that there is no such thing there Or that our interest lies not in them but in the body and bloud of Christ which they â—ender us well and good So said Origen afore The same abatement is signified evidently by abundance of their sayings importing them to be called the body and bloud of Christ as types or antitypes for type and antitype differ not but as relative and correlative that is figures symboles images similitudes representations paterns pledges and riddles in fine as figures or sacraments of the same Not as if they contained not the thing signified which I have already settled but because the heavenly grace hinders not nor destroyes the earthly nature This language then is used by S. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XLII calling the Passeover a more obscure Type of a Type By Ephrem de inscrutabili naturâ Dei By Theodoret Dial. I. II. III. By the Constitutions of the Apostles V. 13. VI. 29. VII 26. By S. Basils Liturgy By Gregory Nazianzene again in Gorgoniam By Eusebius de demonstrat Evang. I. 10. V. 3. VIII 1. By S. Chrysostome in Mat. Homil. LXXXII By Palladius in the life of S. Chrysostome Chap. VII VIII IX By Victor in Marci XIV By Dionysius Eccles Hierarch cap. III. By Origen in Mat. Hom. XXXV By Pope Gelasius de duabus naturis Christi By S. Ambrose de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. IX de Sacramentis IV. 4. VI. 1. By Tertulliane contra Marc. III. 19. IV. 14 40. By S. Austine contra Adimantum cap. XII in Psalmum III. Epist CLXIII de Trinitate III. 4. By Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africk pro tribus capitulis IX ult And truly the ancient Christians when they made a scrâ—ple of receiving the Eucharist when they were to fast least they should break their fast by receiving it as wee understand by Tertullian de Oratione cap. XIV must needs understand the nature of bread and wine to remain unlesse they thought they could break their fast upon the accidents of them Nor would it have been a custome in some
comparison S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses in this case is sanctified by virtue of the Name of Christ remaining the same for sensible substance for I confidently maintain that the negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroyes the sense as the comparison justifies for who sayes that the oile of the Chrisme or the water of Baptisme is changed for substance but for force changed into a spiritual virtue So also the water both that is exâ—rcized and that which Baptisme is done with not onely retains the worse but also receiveth sanctification Theodoret Dial. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord would have those that receive the divine mysteries not regard the nature of the things they see but upon the change of their names believe the change which grace effecteth For hee who called his natural body corn and bread and again named himself the Vine honours the visible Symboles with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding his grace to it And Dial. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither do the mystical signes after consecration depart from their own nature but remain in the same substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched as afore The Pâ—eface to the Romane Edition of these Dialogues â—aith that Theodoret uses this language because the Church had as yet decreed nothing in this point An excuse much like the censure of the Epistles of Isidore of Pâ—lusium printed at Anwerpe which are licenced as containing nothing contrary to faith oâ— good manners For if the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith then may whosoever licenses books passe this censure because by the act of the Church making that Faith which was not so afore the dead might incurr the contrary censure But supposing that the Church is not able to do such an act that which was not contrary to the Faith when Theodoret writ it can never be contrary to it I will end with Facundus because the formal terms of my opinion are contained in his words Sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit As wee call the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup his body and bloud Not because the bread is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and bloud Whereupon our Lord himself also called the bread and cup which having blessed hee delivered to his disciples his body and bloud This is in few words the sense of the whole Church concerning this businesse Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna saith that the Gnosticks forbore the Eucharist because they believed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins which the Lord raised again by his goodnesse But why believed they not this because they would not believe Transubstantiation or because they would not believe that our Lord Christ had flesh Let Tertullianâ— speak contra Marc. IV. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterùm vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset That bread which hee took and distributed to his disciples hee made his body saying This is my body That is the figure of my body But the figure it had not been if the truth of his body were not Otherwise an empty thing such as an apparition is â—ad not been capable of a figure For as Maximus saith in the third of those Dialogues against the Marcionists that go under Origens name what body and bloud was that whereof hee ministred the bread and the cup for signs and images commanding the Disciples to renew the remembrance of them by the â—ame As for that which is alleged out of Irenaeus I. 9. of Marcus the Magician and Heretick Pro calice enim vino mixto â—ingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermâ—nem invocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit uâ— putetur ea Gratia ab eis quae sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare in illius caliâ—em l. illum per invocationem ejus Making as though hee would give thanks for the cup mixed with wine and inlarging the word of invocation by which I said the Eucharist is consecrated to much length hee makes it to appear purple and red That men may think that Grace drops the bloud thereof from the Powers over all into that cup by the means of his invocation For had Irenaeus said that this Magician turned the wine into the substance of bloud in truth or in appearance it might have been alleged that the Christians whose Sacrament this Magician counterfeited though other Gnosticks as Ignatius saith quite balked the Eucharist and used it not believed that to be bodily bloud which is in the chalice and that therefore hee did it But when hee saith onely that hee made it appear purple and red perhaps hee used white wine which by juggling hee made seem red However there is no appearance that because hee made that look red which was in the cup therefore those Christians whom hee labored thereby to seduce did believe the bodily substance of Christs bloud to be in the Eucharist in stead of the substance of wine and under the dimensions of it It remains that I take notice in as few words as is possible of those contentions that have passed about this presence and the dissiculties which Transubstanhath found in getting the footing which it hath in the Western Church The book which Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corby near Arniens writ under the Sons of Charles the Great to prove that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is that same which was born of the Virgin is yet extant Though the more curious finde no such thing as Transubstantiation in it but rather a conceit of the impanation of Christs body if such a hideous term may passe that is that the God-head of our Lord Christ being by the operation of the Holy Ghost united to the elements the body and bloud of Christ is by the same means united to the fame A conceit not farr wide of that which Rupertus Abbot of Duitsh near Cullen about the year MCX teacheth that the bread is assumed by the Word of God to be his body as that is his body which was formed of the flesh of the Virgin Nor is there in effect much difference between this conceit and that of Consubstantiation at least according to those that ground
can be produced to depose for the Sacrifice of the Eucharist than the sense of those Scriptures of the New Testament already handled which are in a maner all that have any mention of it will inferr and allow There is much noise made with the Priesthood of Melchisedeck of whom wee reade Gen. XIV 19 24. And Melchisedeck King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for hee was the Priest of the most High God And hee blessed him saying Blessed be Abraham of the most High God which owneth heaven and earth In reference whereunto the Psalmist speaking of Christ Psal CX 4. The Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck And the Apostle taking for granted that hee is a figure of Christ in the mystical sense Ebr. VII 13. argueth the voiding of the Levitical Law from the purpose of setting up another Priesthood declared by the Psalm But no where in all that Chapter which is all spent about the Exposition of it so much as intimateth the Priesthood of Christ to consist in any thing but in offering up to God in heaven his own body and bloud sacrificed upon the Crosse to make expiation for the sins of his people and to obtain of God that grace and assistance that comfort and deliverance which their necessities from time to time may require Be it granted neverthelesse that seeing of necessity Melchisedeck is the figure of Christ those things which Melchisedeck is related to have done are also necessarily figures of things done by our Lord Christ For otherwise were not the mystical sense of the Old Testament a laughing stock to unbelievers if it should hold in nothing but that which the Spirit of God hath expounded in the New Testament by our Lord and his Apostles I have therefore to the best advantage translated the words of Moses For not and hee was the Priest of the living God That whoso will may argue thereupon that his bringing forth bread and wine was an act of his Priesthood Which if I would deny no man can constrain mee by virtue of these words to acknowledg But I cannot therefore allow that Translation which sayes Obtulit panem vinum that as Priest hee offered bread and wine in sacrifice to God The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so evidently signifying protulit not obtulit hee brought forth not that hee offered that hee brought forth bread and wine to refrâ—sh Abraham â—nd his people returning weary from the slaughter of the Kings not that hee offered them in sacrifice to God as his Priest the mention of his Priesthood râ—ther advancing the reason why hee blessed them than why hee fed them As both Moses in the words next afore and the Apostle also Ebr. VII 1. intimateth or declareth the intent why hee brought them forth Though if I should grâ—nt that custome which was common to all Idolaters to have been in forâ—e under the Law of nature because wee see it retained and inâ—cted by the Law of Moses not to taste of any thing till some part of it had been dedicated to God in the nature of first-fruits to the sanctifying of the whole till when it was not to be touched I say though I should grant this for a reâ—son why hee may be thought to have offered bread and wine to God not why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated protulit hee brought forth no man would have cause to thank mee for any advantage from thence For still the correspondence between Melchisedeck â—nd our Lord Christ would lye in this that our Lord by appointing this Sacrâ—ment brings forth bread and wine to strengthen the peoâ—lâ— of Abraham in their warfare against the powers of darknesse as in the dayes of his flâ—sh hee fed those that attended upon his doctrine least they should faint in their travail Now this will first inferr that it is bread and wine which our Lord feeds us with in the Eucharist And again that it hath the virtue of sustaining us by being made the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament by virtue of the consecration past upon it Which is all that which I say to a hair that by being made a Sacrament it becomes the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be feasted upon by Christians In like maner be it granted that the words of the Prophet Malachy I. 11. From the rising of the Sun to his going down my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure meat offering For my name shall be great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts is a Prophesie of the institution of this Sacrâ—ment because it is contained in those kindes of breâ—d and wine which served for meat and drink offerings in the Law of Moses But this being granted what shall wee do with the incense and the meat offering which the Prophet speaks of unlâ—sse wee say that they signifie that which corresponds to the meâ—t and drink offerings of the Law and their incense under the Gospel And will not thâ—t prove to be the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which God under the Gospel is served with by all Nations Though those prayers and prâ—â—es of God being by the institution of the Eucharist limited and determined to be such as the celebration thereof requires it is no inconvenience nay it will be necessâ—ry to grant that the sacrifice thereof is fore-told by these words not signifying neverthelesse the nature of it to require any thing more thâ—n is exprâ—ssed by the premises Be the same therefore said if you please of all the Sacrifices of the Old Law of all the Prophesies in which the service to be rendred to God in the New Testament is described by the offering of Sacrifices As for the words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria John IV. 23. The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth For the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Though I grant as afore that this is fulfilled by the celebration of the Eucharist when once wee suppose our Lord to have limited the worship of God under the Gospel to the form of it yet there can be no consideration of a sacrifice signified by these words which neither suppose nor expresse the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse the Eucharist no way bearing the nature of a sacrifice but as it is the same with it But for the same reason and by the same correspondence between the sacrifices of the Law and that of Christs Crosse it may be evident that it is not nor can be any disparagement to the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ upon the Crosse to the full and perfect satisfaction and propitiation for the sins of the world which it hath made that the Eucharist should be
Christ but that they are thereby made fit to be offered and therefore there must be some other act whereby they are offered in Sacrifice And this they finde in the Canon of the Masse For having rehersed the Institution whereby the parties agree that consecration is done it follows Vnde memores Domine nos servi tui sed plebs tua sancta ejusdem Christi filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelis gloriosae ascensionis Offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam Panem sanctum vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris Et accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus os munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrisicium Patriarchae nostrî Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam Whereupon wee also thy servants O Lord and holy people mindefull as well of the blessed passion and resurrection from the dead as the glorious ascension into heaven of the same thy Son Christ our Lord Offer to thy excellent Majesty of thy own free gifts a pure sacrifice a holy sacrifice a spotlesse sacrifice the holy Bread of everlasting life and Cup of eternal salvation Vpon which vouchsafe to look with a gracious and clear countenance and accept them as thou deignedst to accept the gifts of thy just childe Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that holy sacrifice that spotlesse oblation which thy High Priest Melchisedech offered thee Then follows that which I quoted afore Supplices te rogamus Domine jube haec perferri And this they think to be the offering of the Sacrifice which the consecration exhibiteth onely to be offered at the elevation by these words But the common opinion is offended at this for placing the Sacrifice in that act of the Church which sayes Wee offer to thee in which there is onely a general reason of sacrificing by offering without changing that which is offered And therefore as offering is nothing but dedicating and presenting to the worship of God so that if the substance of the thing be changed in offering it then is it Sacrificing Supposing the substance of the Elements to cease and the body and bloud of Christ to succeed in this doing this opinion places the nature of the Sacrifice For the change of the Elements saith mine Author acknowledgeth Gods power and the dependance uâ—on him of his creature And the body of Christ being under the dimensions of the bread his bloud of the wine Christ is present as sacrificed his flesh and bloud being divided Wherefore that change whereby the Sacrifice is produced sufficeth to the offering of it which is produced as sacrificed The power of God being sufficiently testified by the change though in sacrificing living creatures it is testified by destroying them for Gods service And this hee thinks our Lord signifies when hee saith This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which shall be poured out for you For to whom but to God seeing hee saith not that is given you But for you And immediately hereupon there is no doubt but it hath the nature of a Sacrifice The offering whereof must consist in that action which is done in the person of Christ as the Consecration they agree is done by using the words of Christ And thus though this Sacrifice by typical and representative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which the parting of his body and bloud signifieth yet is it neverthelesse a true Sacrifice as the Sacrifices which figured Christ to come cease not therefore to be true Sacrifices And from this nature of a Sacrifice hee deriveth the reason why the Table is an Altar the Church a Temple the Minister Sacerdos or one that offereth Sacrifice I have made choice of this Authoâ— because I meet not this difference of opinion among them reported any where else That which I shall say to him will show what wee are to think of others For having maintained that the elements are really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament And that in virtue of the Consecration not by the faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth Namely that the Elements so consecrate are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in as much as the body and bloud of Christ crucified are contained in them not as in a bare sign which a man may take up at his pleasure but as in the means by which God hath promised his Spirit But not properly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that is a thing that consists in action and motion and succession and therefore once done can never be done again because it is a contradiction that that which is done should ever be undone It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is represented renewed revived and restored by it and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth Taking representing here not for barely signifying but for tendring and exhibiting thereby that which it signifieth On the other side I insist that if sacrificing signifie killing and destroying in the Sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse it is not enough to make the Eucharist properly a Sacrifice that the Elements are deputed to be worship of God by that change which Transubstantiation importeth and therefore much lesse not supposing any change in their bodily substance For this difference will abâ—te the property of a Sacrifice the truth of it remaining I grant that Gods Power is seen in this change according to the terms already settled For what Power but Gods can make good the promise of tendring the Body and Bloud of Christ as a visible mean to convey his Spirit And hee that goes about to make this change by consecrating the Eucharist must needs be understood to acknowledg this Power of Gods But this is not that acknowledgment which sacrificing importeth but that which every act of Religion implyeth Hee that Sacrificeth acknowledging that which hee sacrificeth with all that hee hath to God to testifie this acknowledgment abandoneth that which hee sacrificeth to be destroyed in testimony of it And therefore the Power of God is not testified in this change as the nature of a Sacrifice requires that it be testified For certainly hee intends not to abandon his interest in Christ that consecrates the Elements into his body and bloud And therefore the consideration of dedicating the Elements to the service of God in this Sacrament makes them properly oblations But the
worthy frequenting of this holy Sacrament that suffers As for the Church of England I referr my self to the very form of those Lawes according to which as many as have received Orders in it have promised to exercise the Ministery to which they were appointed by the same and that before God and his Church at so solemne an occasion that nothing can be thought obligatory to him that would transgresse it For the Offertory which the Church of England prescribeth if it signifie any thing signifieth the dedication of that which is offered as at large to the necessities of the Church so in particular to the celebration of the Eucharist then and there At the consecration the Church prayeth That wee receiving these thy creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Christs holy institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud And after the Communion Wee thy humble servants intirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully râ— accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving Most humbly beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ and through faith in his bloud wee and thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his death and passion All this having premiâ—ed prayer for all States of Christs Church Which whether it make not the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of the Consecration the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse propitiatory and impetratory for them who communicate in it by receiving the Elements whether or no by virtue of this Oblation propitiatory and impetratory for the necessities of the rest of the Church as well as the Congregation present I leave to men of reason but not to Puritanes to judge This I am sure the condition of the Gospel which is the fourth reason for which I have showed that the Eucharist is counted a Sacrifice in the sense of the Church is exactly expressed in the words that follow to the confusion of all Puritanes that would have us expect the blessings promised from such a kinde of faith which supposes it not neither implies â— And â—â—â—e wee offer and present to thee O Lord our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto thee humbly beseeching thee that all we which be partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction For the reason which obliges us to professe this at receiving the Eucharist which is the New-Testament in the blood of Christ is because the promises which the Gospel covenanteth for depend upon it as the condition which renders them due And upon these premises I may well conclude that all the reasons for which I have showed that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the sense of the Church are recapitulâ—ted and comprised in which followeth And though we be unworthy through our manifold sinnes to offer unto thee any sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service not waying our merits but pardoning our offences CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections WHen I proposed to write of the Laws of the Church that is to say of those controversies concerning the same which are the subject of division in mater of Christian amity to the English at this time I proposed my subject in aeqivocall terms till it be further distinguished that the Laws of the Church may be understood to be those which God hath given the Church to conduct the body of the Church in the exercise of their Christianity And they may be understood to be those which God hath inabled the Church to give themselves according to that which I showed from the beginning That Gods giving such Laws to Christians as are to be kept and exercised by the community of Christians at their respective Assemblies is a demonstration that God hath founded a Society or Corporation under the name of the Church And that supposing the Church to be such a Society or Corporation of necessity inferreth that it is inabled by Gods Law to give Laws unto it selfe in such maters as not being determined by Gods Law become necessary to be determined for preservation of the Body in unity and communion in the offices of Gods service The Laws therefore that God gives his Church are so farre the subject of this inquiry as may make it to appear what is left to the power and duty of the Church to determine And to this purpose it seemed requisite in the first place to determine what the rule of Faith containeth to be believed of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which is the ground of whatsoever can be pretended that he hath injoyned his Church as concerning the frequentation of it having determined the like afore not only concerning the Sacrament of Baptism but also concerning Penance in as much as they contain qualifications requisite by the Gospel to render the promises thereof due to particular Christians Whereas the Sacrament of the Eucharist being as I said afore the most eminent of those offices which God hath injoyned to be celebrated by the Assembles of his Church having first founded his Church upon the duty and the command or upon the charter or priviledge of holding those Assemblies even when the Powers of the world allow it not required a teaâ—y express to determine the true intent why it was instituted that it might the better appear in due time how those circumstances in the celebration of it which are a great part of the subject of that division which prevails among us in point of Christianity may best be determined to the intent of Gods Law And also that the true intent of other Powers given the Church evidently â—ending to the maintenance of Christianity and the purity thereof but alwaieâ— with a respect to the unity of the Church in the communion of those offices whereof this is the chief might the better be estimated by a right understanding of the end which they seek You have then the first that is the original and primitive and also if you demand that the prime and chief power of Gods Church consisting in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist Not in washing away the filth of the Body as S. Peter saith that is not in ministring the outward ceremony of washing the body with water or any part of it but in admitting and allowing that professinn of a good Conscience which qualifies a man to be a member of the Church For this allowance is no lesse then a declaration on the part of the Church that he who upon these times
easie to have derived the Title of the Church to Tithes in the nature of First-fruits and Oblations whereof they are but a kinde from the time and practice and constitution of the Apostles which the History of Tithes findes no evidence for till CCCC years after Christ But it would have spoiled the designe of the work if as it is commonly thought the designe was to destroy all title of divine right which the Church hath to that which is once consecrated to it I must touch some testimonies here because the mater is so questionable That of Basil shall clear mee in the first place that I bring in no new interpretation of the proceedings of the primitive Christians at Jerusalem Hee in Serm. de Instit Monachorum argueth against him that having made the profession of a Monk reserves to himself any thing either of his own will or of his worldly good from the example of Ananias and Sapphira who having consecrated their Land to God by professing to give the price of it to the Church detained part of the price and by detaining it drew upon themselves that judgment of God which wee know So also concerning the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 20 21 22. I will allege the passage of S. Ambrose or whosoever writ the Commentary under his name to show that I do no new thing when I argue that they suppose the right of the Church in First-fruits and Oblations Hos notat qui sic in Ecclesiam conveniebant ut munera sua offerentes advenientibus Presbyteris quia adhuc Rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus erant constituti totum sibi qui obtulerat vindicaret schismatis causâ Dissensiones enim inter eos Pseudo-apostoli seminaverant ità ut oblationes suas zelarentur cùm unâ atque eâdem prece omnium oblationes benedicerentur ut ii qui ut assolet fieri von obtulerant aut unde offerrent non habebant pudore correpti confunderentur non sumentes partem Et tam citò illud agebant ut supervenientes non inveniebant quod ederent Ideoque si sic inquit convenitis ut quisque suum sumat domi haec agenda non in Ecclesia nbi unitatis mysterii causâ convenitur non dissensionis Munus enim oblatum totius populi fit quia in uno pane omnes significantur 1 Cor. X. 17. per id enim quòd omnes unum sumus de uno pane sumere oportet Hee sets a mark upon those who so assembled in the Church that presenting their Oblations to the Priests that came first Governors not being yet placed in all Churches hee that offered took all for himself in regard of schism For the false Apostles had sowed dissentions among them so that being zealous of their own Oblations whereas the Oblations of all were blessed with one and the same Prayer they who as it is ordinary had not offered or had not whereof to offer were seized with shame and confounded not getting any share Therefore if so yee meet as every one to take his own these things saith hee are to be done at home not in the Church where the meeting is not for dissentions but for unities and the mysteries sake For the gift that is offered becomes all the peoples because by one bread all are signified For in as much as wee are all one wee are all to take of the same bread Here you have both the order of their Feasts of Love and the disorder which the Apostle corrects The Oblations of all the Congregation made an intertainment for all rich and poor They were all blessed at once by some of the Priests This blessing including in it the Consecration of the Eucharist For hee saith that they assembled for the Mysteries sake that is for the Sacrament alleging S. Pauls words spoken of the Eucharist That all are to take of the same bread because all are one Hereby they became the Churches goods to intertain the Body of it And they that challenged their Oblations for their own by complying with the Priests who consecrated them did it out of zeal to their own faction that they who were not of it might not partake of their Oblations as those whom they would not have to be of the Church What is then the difference between those of Jerusalem and these There men laid down estates at the Apostles feet to maintain this Communion daily through the year and continually As the Scriptures quoted out of the Acts do evidence that it was practised for the service of God in the Offices proper to Christianity Whereupon it is called the daily ministration Acts VI. 1. Here at Corinth the First-fruits of their goods which they offered from time to time as the maintenance of their Assemblies and Communion required served the turn For when Christianity was propagated it was not possible that all Christians should give that daily attendance upon the service of God for which those of Jerusalem are commended in the Acts. Therefore S. Chrysostome in ad Cor. Hom. XXVII excellently reasons That as at Corinth they did not contribute their estates as at Jerusalem So the reason was because this Communion was not continual but upon set dayes On which after the Communion of the Eucharist the Service being done they refreshed themselves altogether with a common internment I confesse hee saith that those at Jerusalem had all things common which is to be understood with that abatement which the premises require So farre as the maintenance of this Communion required and at the good will of those whose hearts God touched to do it For the rest that which I say is not mine but S. Chrysostomes In the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians you may see the disorder which hee labors to compose grew about who should consecrate the Eucharist and by consequence about disposing of the peoples Oblations p. 53 54. But Irenaeus alone is enough to serve my turn His words are these IV. 32. Sed discipulis suis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis non quasi indigenti sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint eum qui ex creaturâ panis est accepit gratias egit dicens Hoc est corpus meum Et calicem similiter qui est ex creaturâ secundùm nos suum sanguinem confessus est Et Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento And our Lord counsailing his Disciples to offer unto God First-fruits out of his creatures not as if hee wanted but that they might neither be fruitlesse nor thanklesse hee took that bread which was made of his creature and gave thanks saying This is my Body Likewise hee acknowledged the cup consisting of the creature which wee use to be his bloud Teaching the new oblation of the New Testament which the Church receiving
world And truly no more than this can be thought requisite to the purpose of the whole Prophesie of incouraging them to continue constant in the profession of Christianity notwithstanding all persecutions as foreknowing the issue Now hee that continues constant in Christianity and never knew this Prophesie shall want nothing necessary to his salvation though hee want so nething very effectual to the having of that which is necessary To wit of perseverance in Christianity The intent of this Prophesie being to perswade them to it Which is enough to show any man a difference between the right understanding of this Prophesie and any part of the Rule of Faith As for the custome of giving the Eucharist to Infants so soon as they were baptized I answer that the evidence which I will give you that it was never used out of an opinion of necessity to Salvation as the Baptisme of Infants was seemeth to be an exception sufficient against the universal use of it as supposed to come from the Apostles Hee that will shew mee any Writer of the Church by whose testimony it may be presumed that the Church did not baptize Infants out of an opinion that they could not be saved without it I speak not now of the truth of this opinion but onely of the point of fact whatsoever may be argued from thence by virtue of the premises I will yield him that the same Writer did believe that the giving of the Eucharist to Infants upon their Baptisme was commanded by the Apostles I acknowledge it is the opinion of Tertullian for which there is no mark upon him as ever a whit the lesse Catholick that it was not expedient to baptize Infants because of the danger of years under discretion to seduce them from the fulfilling of their profession before they could throughly understand what it imported But I deny that this was because he or any body then believed that they could go out of the world unbaptised and yet be saved For when the vigilance of Parents and the diligence of all might assure them not to fail of Baptism in case of necessity it is no marvail if the reason alledged might move men to defer it to the years of manhood beleeving no lesse the necessity of it Now in the writings of Fulgentius a worthy African Prelate there is extant a little piece in answer to a Letter of Ferrandus a Deacon of his it seems about a certain Moore who being converted and having divers times made profession of Christianity as the custome of the Church then required after that being taken sick was baptized without being able by speaking to make the like profession as the rule required all at their baptism to make Upon other considerations the Letter desires resolution of the salvation of this Moore But upon this also because he survived not to receive the Eucharist which is clearly answered in the affirmative upon as good reasons of Scripture as a good Christian can desire Which is without exception to show that they had not that opinion of the necessity of the Eucharist as of Baptism sufficient to argue a severall beginning of observing them both And truly seeing it is granted on all hands that it is no inconvenience in Christianity that the Church or any part of it mistake the true meaning of some Scriptures the alledging of our Lords words Vnless yee eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood yee have not life in you Joh. VI. 53. seems to argue that this came to be an order from some new act of the Church or part of it rather then that it was practised as coming from the Apostles Whereunto if we add that which here follows though it appear chiefly by S. Cyprian de lapsis to have been frequented in Africk though it were practised in the Western and Eastern Church yet perhaps it will appear to comeshort of S. Austins rule of discerning what comes from the Apostles as affording appearance that it was neither Original nor Catholick as for how prejudiciall this is not the place to determine it The words of Innocent I Pope out of which it is commonly taken for granted that this custome was in use at Rome are these Epist XCIII Apud Augustinum Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratiâ posse donari perfatuum est Nisi enim manducaverint carnem filii homins biberint sanguinem ejus non habebunt vitam in â—semetipsis But that which your brotherhood affirms that they publish that Infants may have the reward of eternal life given them even without the grace of baptism is very foolish For unlesse they eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood they have not life in themselves Where it is plain that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ which he makes necessary to salvation is that which consists in being baptized but of giving them the Eucharist not a word more then this The same fense concerning the eating of the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ in and by baptisme and that onely necessary to salvation S. Austine also most manifestly delivers in a passage alledged by Gratain de Consecrat dist 2 Cap. Quia passus est dominus out of a certain Homily de infantibus which Bede also hath in 1 ad Cor. X. Nulli est aliquatenus dubitandum unumquemque sidelium Corporis sanguinis Dominici tunc esse participem quando in baptismate membrum efficitur Christi nec alienari ab illius panis calicisque consortio etiamsi antequam panem illum comedat calicemque bibat de hoc seculo migraverit in unitate Corporis Christi constitutus No man is any way to doubt that every believer then becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ when he is made a member of Christ by baptism Nor does he become a stranger to the communion of that bread and cup though before eat that bread and drink that cup he goes out of the world estated in the unity of Christs body And thus he expounds also the eating of Christs flesh and drinking his blood de peccatorum meritis remis III. 4. And so he is likewise there to be understood Cap. XX. And to this purpose all those passages of his are in force whereby he requireth nothing but Baptisme to the salvation of Infants And in this sense Hypognost ad Art V. Quomodo vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqnâ spiritu non cibatis carne atque non potatis sanguine Christi qui fusus est in remissionem peccatorum Ecce non baptizatus vitali etiam cibo poculoque privatus dividitur à regno coelornm ubi fons viventium permanet Christus How do ye Pelagians promise little ones not born again of water and the spirit noâ— fed with the flesh nor drenched with the blood of
that to be true and by the consideration of it is induced to resolve and undertake the profession of Christianity hee it is that eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ till hee depart from the effect of it For no man can be thought to feed upon that which hee vomits up again Neither can there be found a more exact correspondence than that which is seen between the nourishment of the body in the strength whereof it moves and those reasons whereupon the minde frames the resolutions from which a mans conversation proceeds And because God hath promised to give the Holy Ghost to them that faithfully resolve this and that as many as have the Holy Ghost their mortal bodies shall by the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in them be raised to life everlasting Rom. VIII 11. therefore they that thus eat the body and bloud of Christ shall not dy but live unto everlasting This being the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by Faith and that when the Sacrament of the Eucharist is instituted the effect of it must needs be the same spiritual nourishment and sustenance of the soul but by a new means to wit the receiving of that Sacrament As the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ spiritually by faith presupposes the flesh of Christ crucified and his bloud poured forth so must the eating of it in the Sacrament presuppose the being of it in the Sacrament to wit by the being and becoming of it a Sacrament Unlesse a man can spiritually eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ in and by the Sacrament which is not in the Sacrament when hee eats and drinks it but by his eating and drinking of it comes to be there Hee therefore spiritually eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament who considering the profession Christ calls us to with that faith which supposes him to have signed his calling by finishing his course upon the Crosse resolves to undertake the same and in that resolution participates of the Eucharist But if the flesh and bloud of Christ be not there by the virtue of the consecration of the elements into the Sacrament then cannot the flesh of Christ and his bloud be said to be eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which are not in the Sacrament by being a Sacrament but in him that eats and drinks it For that which hee findes to eat and drink in the Sacrament cannot be said to be in the Sacrament because it is in him that spiritually eats and drinks it by faith Either therefore the flesh and bloud of Christ cannot be eaten and drunk in the Eucharist or it is necessarily in the Sacrament when it is eaten and drunk in it in which if it were not it could not be eaten and drunk in it This is further seen by the words of S. Paul when inferring his purpose to wit that Christians ought not to communicate in things sacrificed to Idols upon that which hee had premised The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ hee addeth 1 Cor. X. 18 20 21. Look upon Israel according to the flesh do not they which eat the Sacrifices partake with the Altar What say I then That an Idol is any thing Or that a thing sacrificed to an Idol is any thing Rather that what the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and I would not have you partake with Devils Yee cannot drink the cup of God and the cup of Devils Yee cannot partake of the Lords Table and the table of Devils These words manifestly suppose the Eucharist to be the communion of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse For as our Lord saith This cup is the New Testament in my bloud or my bloud of the New Testament so is it manifest that God in inacting his Covenant that is his Testament proceeds according as the custome was among the most ancient Nations of the world to solemnize the establishment thereof with sacrifice I have showed you before that the Law was covenanted for with sacrificing Holocausts and Peace-offerings the bloud whereof was sprinkled on all the People But the Elders in the name of the people feasted upon the remaines Exod. XXIV 5-11 And among the Sacrifices of the Law those sin-offerings wherein the Priests shared with the Altar in behalf of them whose sins they expiated by them and the peace-offerings wherein those that offered them as well as the Priests that offered them shared with the Altar had their effect by virtue of the Law and the Covenant which introduced it And therefore they contained a new act by which the Covenant was renewed as to the particular purpose of those Sacrifices and the effect of them in them for whom they were made Correspondently the Covenant of Grace being inacted by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as to Gods part that is to say so farr as to oblige God to grant remission of sins and life everlasting to all those that are baptized into the faithfull profession of Christianity is renewed in the Consecration and Communion of the Eucharist whereby that Sacrifice is renewed and revived unto the worlds end So that as those who eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar whether by the Priests or by themselves did feast with God whose Altar had received and consumed a part of those Sacrifices So those that communicate in the Eucharist do feast upon the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ on the Crosse which God is so well pleased with as to grant the Covenant of Grace and the publication thereof in consideration of it This being evidently that correspondence which the discourse of S. Paul requires remains manifestly proved by the same Though of a truth the words of our Lord when hee saith This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for you Or This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you cannot otherwise be understood than by taking This cup or This which our Lord speaks of to stand for the action of giving and receiving the Sacrament not for that which is given and received in it and by it For otherwise how should a Cup or that which is in it be a Testament But in as much as the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds upon supposition of the Covenant of Grace and therefore imports a profession both on Gods part and on his that receives it of performing the condition to which respectively they binde themselves by the same In that regard nothing can be more properly said than that God tenders by that Sacrament all that the Gospel promises and man by receiving it the Condition which God covenants for at his hands Which whether you call the New Covenant or the New Testament it maters not an heir upon condition of performing the will of the dead being in
the same state with him that contracteth upon articles But there is as much said when our Lord saith onely This is my body which is given for you if it be rightly understood that is supposing the body of Christ to have been given to be sacrificed for us upon the Crosse For hee that tenders this to eat thereby declares that hee incites to the profession of that Covenant which otherwise appears to have been inacted by that which hee tenders The same sense is contained in S. Pauls words 1 Cor. V. 8 9. Christ your Passeover is slain for you Let us therefore feast not with old loven nor with the leven of malice and deceit but with the unlevened bread of sincerity and truth For if wee consider the circumstance of time and place which our Lord took to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist just when the Paschal Lamb was eaten how shall wee deny the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to have been as presently received there as the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb was the subject and occasion of the Feast at which hee ordained it But the discourse by which the Apostle perswades Christians to separate themselves from the Jewes Ebr. XIII 10-16 is most pertinent to this purpose as that which is not to be understood otherwise Though when hee saith Wee have an Altar whereof those that serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat I allow that by an Altar hee means metonymically a Sacrifice For proving his intent by instancing in those Sacrifices for sin the bloud whereof was carried within the vail being by the Law appointed to be burnt without the Camp or City Jerusalem hee supposes them to figure our Lord Christ who suffered without Jerusalem Inferring thereupon that they ought to go forth of the communion of the Synagogue though they were to suffer persecution at the hands of their brethren for it But when hee proceedeth By him therefore let us offer to God the sacrifice of praise continually that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his Name And to do good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Either wee must conceive him to return to his purpose and to show what Sacrifice hee meant when hee said Wee have an Altar of which they that wait upon the Tabernacle have no right to eat Or wee can give no reason what hee meant to argue that the Jewes have no right to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse which Christians pretend not to eat of in any Sacrifice but in the Eucharist And surely if wee consider but the name of Eucharist wee cannot think it could have been more properly signified than by calling it the sacrifice of praise the fruit of the lips that confesse the Name of God For when hee proceeds to exhort not to forget communicating their goods do wee not know and have wee not made it to appear that this must be by their oblations to the Altar the first-fruits of their goods whereof the Eucharist being first consecrated the rest served the necessities of the Church Which as hath been showed was the original of all Consecrations and Dedications that have been made in Christianity If therefore the eating of the Sacrifice of the Crosse in the Sacrament of the Eucharist mean no more but the signifying and the figuring of that eating of the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is done by a lively Faith that is by every one that considers the death of Christ with that Faith which supposing all that the Gospel sayes of it to be true resolves faithfully to professe Christianity the question is why the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by God why in those elements and to what purpose seeing without Gods appointment men could have done it of themselves to the same effect But if it be manifest that by the Sacrament of the Eucharist God pretends to tender us the communion of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse then is there another presence of the body and bloud of our Lord in the Sacrament beside that spiritual presence in the soul which that living faith effecteth without the Sacrament as well as in the receiving of it Which kinde of presence you may if you please call the representation of the Sacrifice of Christ so as you understand the word representation to signifie not the figuring or resembling of that which is onely signified But as it signifies in the Romane Laws when a man is said repraesentare pecuniam who payes ready money Deriving the signification of it à re praesenti not from the preposition re Which will import not the presenting of that againe to a mans senses which once is past but the tendring of that to a mans possession which is tendred him upon the place That this is the intent of the Sacrament of the Eucharist one peremptory argument there remains in the words of S. Paul when hee sayes Whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ For neither can it be said that the Apostle by way of hyperbole calls the slighting of Gods ordinance which hee hath appointed to signifie Christs death the crucifying of our Lord again Because it is manifest that his menace is grounded upon a particular consideration of the nature of the crime not upon that which is seen in every sin Renouncing Christianity indeed is truly the crucifying of Christ again as the Apostle shewes Ebr. VI. 6. and unworthily receiving the Eucharist is by just construction the renouncing of Christianity because that is it which renews the bond of observing it But otherwise it were too cold an expression to make S. Paul call it the crucifying of Christ for that which is common to all sins Nor would it serve the turn For when it follows Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Unlesse a man discern the Lords Body where it is not of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be not made to be there by being discerned to be there It will now be objected that I hold things inconsistent and state such a sense of our Lords words as makes contradictories true For if bread and wine remaining bread and wine can be also the body and bloud of Christ that is unlesse granting them to be that which they are wee deny them to be that which is not that which wee grant them to be there will be no cause why wee should believe any thing to be that which it is more than that which it is not All difference being a sufficient ground of that contradiction which denies any thing to be that which differs from it that is which it is not The difficulty of answering this is the same which every man findes when hee is put to prove that which is most evident or to make that clear by words which all mens common sense admits Supposing
the bread and the wine to remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as sense informs and the word of God inforces if the same word of God assirm there to be also the body and bloud of Christ what remaineth but that bread and wine by nature and bodily substance be also the bodily flesh and bloud of Christ by mystical representation in that sense which I determined even now and by spiritual grace For what reason can be imagined why the material presence of bread and wine in bodily substance should hinder the mystical and spiritual presence of the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament whereby they are tendered of grace to them that receive Shall they be ever a whit the more present in this sense if the substance of bread and wine be abolished than if it be not Certainly unlesse wee believe the spiritual grace of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to possesse those dimensions which the Elements hold and if so then are they not there Sacramentally and mystically but bodily and materially wee can give no reason why the bodily presence of the Elements should hinder it So farr is this from being strange to the nature and custome of humane speech that supposing the invisible presence of one thing in another and with another which is visibly present it cannot otherwise be expressed than by saying this is that though every man know what distance there is between their natures The Dove in the which the Holy Ghost was seen to come down and rest upon our Lord the fiery Tongues in which the Holy Ghost rested upon the Apostles the fire and the whirlewinde in the which Gods Angels attend upon him and upon his commands in regard whereof it is said Psalm CIV 4. Hee maketh his Angels Spirits and his Ministers a flaming fire are they not as truly said to be the Holy Ghost or those Angels as the Holy Ghost or those Angels is said to come down to rest or to move because those things rest and come down or move whereas the Holy Ghost otherwise can neither rest nor come down nor those Angels move as the fire or the winde moves in which they are I know it may be said that neither the Dove nor those Tongues are called the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures Nor do I intend to build upon any supposition that they are This I say whosoever understands the capacity of words serving for instruments to signifie mens mindes may firmly conclude rhat they may as well be said to be the Holy Ghost as it may be said that the Holy Ghost came down because the Dove came down For can there be any occasion for a man of sense to conceive cloven Tongues of fire to be the Godhead of the Holy Ghost because they are called the Holy Ghost in regard they are used to demonstrate the presence of it when no man complains that any man of sense hath occasion to mistake the God-head to move because the Holy Ghost is said to come down in the bodily shape of a Dove I know it may be said and is said that in the Text of the Psalm that I quoted it is not to be translated winds but spirits or spiritual substances because the Apostle having alleged it to show the difference between them and our Lord Christ Ebr. I. 7 14. inferreth that they are ministring Spirits signifying thereby not winds but that which Christians signifie by the name of spiritual substances And I yield that they are so called not onely in the common language of Christians but in the Apostle also here and by our Lord speaking in the common phrase of Gods people when hee saith A spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see mee have Luke XXIV 39. upon occasion of that appearance of Gods majesty which is either presented to or described by the Prophets in the Old Testament with his Throne attended by Angels the visible signs of whose presence are whirlewind and fire So in the place quoted Psalm CIV 2. That puts on light for a robe stretches the heavens as a curtain laies the beams of his chambers in the waters makes the clouds his chariot and walks upon the wings of the winde Whereupon followes That makes his Angels Spirits or Winds and his Ministers a flame of fire which answers winds not spiritual substances Compare the description of Gods appearance Psal L. 3. Our God shall come and shall not keep silence a consuming fire shall go before him and be very tempestuous round about either with the visions of the Prophet Ezekiel I. and Daniel VII or with the description of the same laid down Psalm XVIII 10-14 and you will have reason to say as I do Especially when you reade Hee rode upon a Cherub and did fly hee came flying upon the wings of the wind where a Cherub in the first clause is the wind in the second The same sense being repeted according to the perpetual custome of the Psalms So when Angels appeared in the shape of men was it not true to say this is an Angel but wee must suppose the nature of man abolished If the Holy Ghost and Angels be of spiritual nature the flesh and the bloud of Christ bodily then are they at as great distance from the Dove from the Tongues from the Fire from the Wind from the men in which they appeared as the flesh and bloud of Christ from the elements of the Eucharist Nor is the mystical and Sacramental presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ever a whit more destructive to the bodily presence of the elements then the invisible presence of the Holy Ghost or Angels to the visible presence of those things in which they were Nay if I may without offense allege that which is most pertinent to this purpose not being usually alleged in it That maner of speech which all orthodoxe Christians use in calling the person of our Lord Christ either God or Man according to the nature which they intend chiefly to signifie or in ascribing the properties of each nature to the said person respectively to the subject of their speech hath no other ground than this which I speak of For all affirmatives Philosophers know signifie the subject that a man speaks of to be the very same thing with that which is attributed to it As when this wall is said to be white this wall is the same subject with this white Therefore when a thing is said to be that which in nature wee see it is not as when a mans picture is said to be hee the saying though extremely proper if you regard what use the elegance of speech requires is unproper to the right understanding of the nature of the things wee speak of though a man would not be so well understood commonly if hee should go about to explain his meaning by more or other words As I conceive I am not so well understood in writing thus
impose upon all their Divines a necessity to maintain that there is no trope in the words This is my cup of the New Testament which so many of their Predecessors had granted because it could not be denied Which being granted must needs take place in This is my body by necessary consequence And surely the common principles of Grammar and Rhetorick will inforce it when they inform us that tropes are used as cloaths are either for necessity because there are more things much more conceptions than words to signifie them For thereupon necessity constrains to turn a word to signifie that which it was not at first intended to signifie and that is a trope Or for ornament to expresse a mans mind with more elegance Compare then our ordinary way of expressing the conceptions of the mind by words which is common to all Languages which our ordinary way of expressing the objects thereof to our minds by the said conceptions If a word be diverted to signifie that conception which it was not first imposed to signifie because there was no other at hand imposed to signifie the present conceit Logick and Grammar will make this a Trope though Rhetorick do not because it was not used for ornament but for the necessary clothing of a mans mind in terms intelligible The trial whereof is if the subject you speak of cannot truly be said to be the thing which is attributed to it As the bread and wine which our Lord blessed cannot be said to be his body and bloud For if the subject mater signified by the Scripture elsewhere require that the body and bloud of Christ be thought present then is the property of the terms to be abated so as they may serve to signifie that presence Voiding all dispute concerning the signification of words which those that hold Transubstantiation could never nor never will agree upon among themselves because it stands upon terms of art the use whereof no mans conceit can over-rule that which the necessity of our common Faith requireth being once secured as here For the reason being rendred why the Eucharist was instituted and why it is to be frequented notwithstanding that the Body and Bloud of Christ may always be eaten and drunk by a living Faith to wit because the reviving of our Christianity by receiving the Sacrament reviveth the promise of Christs body and bloud being the means to convay his Spirit it will not concern the purpose thereof that it should be present by Transubstantiation abolishing the nature of the Elements For though it hath been boldly said by those who dispute controversies That the body of Christ is really and substantially resident in and united to our bodies That Grace and Charity cooled by sinne are inflamed in the Soul by the body of Christ immediately touching our bodies That the seed of our resurrection is thereby sowed in our mortal bodies First none of this is true unlesse you understand it with the same abatement That the body of Christ received in the Sacrament by the body of him whose Soul hath living Faith in Christ is the seed of the life of grace and glory both to his soul and body Because otherwise a dead faith should receive the same Secondly none of this would hold if Transubstantiation be true because rendring the body of Christ invisibly present no mans body whatsoever can immediately touch it And therefore it is no marvel that so many excellent School Doctors have acknowledged that setting the sense of the Church aside of which I will say what shall be requisite by and by Transubstantiation cannot be concluded from the Scriptures Whose judgements I carry along with mee for the complement of that prejudice which I advance toward the right understanding of the sense of the Church To wit that whatsoever the present Church may have determined the Catholick Church did never understand that which the Scripture necessarily signifieth not Now let us see what our Lord sayes to his Disciples being scandalized at those things which I showed you that hee taught them in the Synagogue at Capernaum of attaining everlasting life by eating his flesh John VI. 58-63 Is this it which scandalizeth you saith hee What then if you see the Son of man ascend where hee was afore It is the Spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak to you are Spirit and Life The spiritual sense in which hee commandeth them to eat and drink his flesh and bloud is grounded upon that difference between the promises of the Law and the Gospel which I settled in the beginning For by virtue thereof that Manna which maintained them in the Desert till they died is the figure of his body and bloud that maintains us not to dye Whereupon S. Paul saith 1 Cor. III. 6. The Spirit quickeneth but the Leter killeth Not onely because the Law covenants nor for the world to come But also because it was no further the means to procure that righteousnesse which giveth life then the Spirit of Christ was intimated and furnished under the dispensation of it Whereupon S. Paul argues that the Jews have as much need of Christ as the Gentiles because the Law is not able to bring corrupt nature to righteousnesse Wherefore the reason why they were scandalized at this doctrine of our Lords was not meerly because it was difficult to understand hee having so plentifully expressed his meaning and inculcated it by often beating the same discourse there and otherwise made the condition of his Gospel intelligible to his Disciples but because it was hard to undergo importing the taking up of his Crosse as I have said For it is evident by common experience in the world how men find or how they plead their minds to be obstructed in the understanding of those spiritual maters which if they should grant their understandings to be convinced of there were no plea left them why they should not conform their lives and conversations to that light which themselves confesse they have received So that the scandal was the same that the rich man in the Gospel took when hee was told that besides keeping Gods Commandments one thing was wanting to part with all hee had and take up Christs Crosse to wit for the observing of his Commandments And this scandal hee intends to take away when hee referres them to his ascension into Heaven because then and from thence they were to expect the Holy Ghost to inable them to do that which the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud signifieth spiritually And his words hee therefore calleth Spirit and Life because they are the means to bring unto the communion of his Spirit wherein spiritual and everlasting life consisteth So that the flesh of Christ being exalted to the right hand of God and his Spirit which first made it self an habitation in his flesh being sent down to make him an habitation in the hearts of his people those who upon faithful consideration of
his Crosse faithfully resolve to undertake it do by the Spirit eat his flesh and drink his bloud Therefore when in correspondence hereunto hee pretends to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist that they who eat his flesh and drink his bloud in that Sacrament may eat and drink the same spiritually as unlesse they crucifie him again they cannot chuse but do it behoves indeed that hee procure the flesh and bloud of Christ to be there by the operation of that Spirit which framed them for an habitation to it self in the womb of the Virgin that so the receiving of his flesh and bloud may be the means of conveying his Spirit But how is it requisite that they be there in bodily substance as if the mystical presence of them were not a sufficient means to convey his Spirit which we see is conveyed by the meer spiritual consideration and resolution of a lively and effectual faith S. Paul writes thus to the Corinthians I would not that you should be ignorant Brethren how that all our Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink For they drank of the spiritual rock that went with them Now that rock was Christ 1 Cor. X. 1 3 4. The meat and drink of the Fathers in the wilderness can no otherwise be understood to be spiritual then as I have proved the Law of Moses to be spiritual That is as intimating spiritual promises it intimates a contract for spiritual obedience So S. Pauls argument holds If they who were sustained by God in their travel to the Land of Promise not keeping their Covenant with God fell in the wildernesse Then shall it not serve our turn that being baptized wee are fed by the Eucharist to everlasting life if wee perform not that which by our Baptism wee undertake The Rock then and the Mâ—nnâ— were spiritual meat and drink because they signified the flesh and the bloud of Christ crucified for us Which who so believes as thereupon to undertake Christianity our Lord when hee had not yet instituted the Eucharist promiseth that hee shall be nourished by his flesh and bloud to life everlasting The effect of which promise all Christians find that by the assistance of his Spirit overcome the world in approving themselves Christians When our Lord annexed the promise of his Spirit to his Baptisme and Eucharist by instituting those Sacraments hee tied the spiritual eating and drinking of his body and bloud to the Sacramental in respect of all them whom the affirmative Precepts of using those Sacraments should oblige Christ then was the food and the drink of them who attained Salvation under Moses Law because by the faith of Christ to be crucified they were saved as wee by the faith of Christ crucified But to follow God in hope of Salvation by Christ to come is not the same as to undertake that Christianity which by his coming hee hath taught us The signs of good things to coâ—â—â—ed onely those that were led by the promise of them The rest found by them onely the nourishment of their bodies in their travel to the Land of promise But when our Lord having promised his flesh and bloud for food to those Souls that should conform themselves to his Crosse instituteth the Eucharist and confineth the spiritual eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud to it so far as the precept thereof obligeth Shall hee not be understood to promise his body and bloud by that Sacrament without which hee will not grant it to those that are tied to the Sacrament and neglect it The presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament is that which makes good the promise of his body and bloud made before the instituting of the Sacrament to them who are obliged to use the Sacrament by the institution of it CHAP. III. That the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist depends not upon the living Faith of him that receives but upon the true profession of Christianity in the Church that celebrates The Scriptures that are alleged for the dependence of it upon the communication of the properties They conclude not the sense of them by whom they are alleged How the Scripture confineth the flesh of Christ to the Heavens IF these things be true it will be requisite that wee acknowledge a change to be wrought in the Elements by the consecration of them into the Sacrament For how should they come to be that which they were not before to wit the body and bloud of Christ without any change And in regard of this change the Elements are no more called by the name of their nature and kind after the consecration but by the name of that which they are become Not as if the substance thereof were abolished but because it remains no more considerable to Christians who do not nor are to look upon this Sacrament with any account of what it may be to the nourishment of their bodies by the nature of the Elements but what it may be to the nourishment of their Souls by the Spirit of God assisting in and with his flesh mystically present in it But this change consisting in the assistance of the Holy Ghost which makes the Elements in which it dwells the body and bloud of Christ it is not necessary that wee acknowledge the bodily substance of them to be any way abolished Nay as I am perswaded that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist cannot be better expressed than by that term which the Council of Trent useth calling it a Sacrament and saying that the flesh and bloud of Christ is Sacramentally there So there is nothing more demonstrative to mee that no such thing as the abolishing of the Elements is revealed by the Scriptures than that the sense of them is so fully satisfied by this term So that the anathema which it decreeth against them that do not believe them to be abolished can by no means be grounded upon the Scriptures Nor do I think the term any lesse fit or serviceable because it serves them to signifie the Local presence of Christs body and bloud under the dimensions of the Elements the substance of them being gone For I shall not be obliged to grant that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood can properly be understood supposing the sign and the thing signified to be both the same subject the dimensions of the Elements being become the dimensions of Christs body and bloud and by the means of them all the bodily accidents of the Elements subsisting in the same And therefore the Sacramental presence of Christs body and bloud cannot properly be maintained unlesse acknowledging the true being and presence of the thing signified wee acknowledge also the sign to remain But if a man demand further how I understand the body and bloud of Christ to be present in or with or under the Elements when I say they are in and with and under them as in and with and under a
and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist is a very great miracle taking that to be miraculous which requires the infinite power of God to effect it not that which contains a visible effect thereof apt to bear witnesse to that truth which it is done to confirm I must remit you to that which hath been already said to judge whether the miracle consist in abolishing the substance of the Elements and substituting the body and bloud of Christ in their stead Or in placing the substance of Christs body and bloud under the same dimensions in which the substance of the Elements subsisteth Or rather then either of both that it be enough to ingage the infinite power of God that by his Spirit hee tendreth the flesh and bloud of Christ so Sacramentally present in the Elements that whoso receiveth them faithfully thereby communicates as truly in the Spirit of God according to his Spirit as according to his body hee communicates Sacramentally in his body and bloud Here is the place for mee to allege those Scriptures which inform us of the true nature and properties of the flesh and bloud of Christ remaining in his body even now that it is glorified For if in the proper dimensions thereof hee parted from his Disciples and went was carried or lifted and taken up into heaven Acts I. 2 9 10. 1 Pet. III. 22. Luke XXIV 50 51. Mark XVI 19. If in the same visible form and dimensions hee shall come again to judgement Acts I. 11. 1 Thes IV. 16. if the Heavens must receive him till that time for sure no man will be much tempted with that frivolous conceit that S. Peters words Acts III. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be construed whom it behoveth to contain the Heavens but whom it behoveth that the Heavens contain Unlesse it could appear how S. Peter should understand the body of Christ to contain the heavens not the heavens it sitting at Gods right han◠till his Enemies be made his foot-stool Psal CX 1. if to that purpose hee leave the world John XVI 28. no more to be in it XVII 11. so that wee shall have him no more with us Mat. XXVI 11. it behoveth us to understand how wee are informed that the promise of his body and bloud in the Eucharist imports an exception to so many declarations before wee believe it Indeed there is no place of Gods right hand by sitting down at which wee may say that our Lords body becomes confined to the said place But seeing the flesh of Christ is taken up into Heaven to sit down at Gods right hand Though by his sitting down at Gods right hand wee understand the man Christ to be put into the exercise of that divine power and command which his Mediators Office requires Yet his body wee must understand to be confined to that place where the Majesty of God appears to those that attend upon his Throne Neither shall the appearing of Christ to S. Paul Acts XXIII 11. be any exception to this appointment Hee that would insist indeed that the body of Christ stood over Paul in the Castle where then hee lodged must say that it left Heaven for that purpose For that is the miracle which the Text expresseth that hee was there whose ascent into Heaven it had reported afore But seeing the very body of Christ might in a vision of Prophesie appear to Paul in the Spirit without any contravention to that determination which the Scripture otherwise had expressed Were it not madnesse to go about to limit the sense and effect of it upon pretense of a promise altogether impertinent to the occasion in hand and every whit as properly to be understood without so limiting the sense of it This is all the argument that I pretend to maintain upon this consideration Knowing well enough that it is said indeed that the flesh of Christ remaining in Heaven in the proper dimensions thereof which the Exaltation allowes nothing hinders the same to be present under the dimensions of the Elements whether the substance of them be there which Consubstantiation allowes or whether they be abolished as Transubstantiation requires Which hee that would contradict must enter here into a Philosophical dispute whether or no the infinite power of God can bring to passe either or neither of these effects That is to say whether it imply a contradiction that the body and bloud of Christ which is as sure in Heaven as the faith of Christ is sure should at the same time be present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the dimensions of the Elements whether wee suppose the substance of them to be abolished or to remain present This dispute I am resolved not to touch at this time Partly for that reason which I have alleged upon other occasions Because I desire to discharge this Book being written in our mother tongue of all Philosophical disputes tending rather to puzzle than to edifie the main of those that speak English Partly for a reason peculiar to this point because it hath been argued that if wee deny Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation as contradictory to reason there can be no cause why wee should cleave to the Faith of the Trinity which every man sees to be no lesse contradictory to humane reason than either of both For though I do no ways admit this consequence because it is evident that the nature of bodily substance is far better comprehended by mans understanding than the incomprehensible nature of God which it is impossible to apprehend any thing of but under the resemblance of something belonging to sensible substance yet I am willing to go to issue without drawing this dispute into consequence referring to judgment whether the evidence for Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation be such as for the holy Trinity out of the Scriptures That is to say whether the presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist is so to be understood as to void the confining of them to those dimensions which the Scripture allowes them in Heaven And this as necessarily by the Scripture as the Scripture necessarily obligeth to believe the Holy Trinity When as it may be more properly to the nature of the businesse understood mystically as in a Sacrament intended to convey the communion of his Spirit In the mean time allowing any man that submits his reason to all that Christianity imports the sober use of it in disputing whether the presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist as Consubstantiation or as Transubstantiation requires be contradictory to the evidence of reason or not CHAP. IV. The opinion which maketh the Consecration to be done by rehearsing the operative words That our Lord consecrated by Thanksgiving The Form of it in all Liturgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is no Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements COming now to consider wherein the Consecration of the Eucharist consists I find
places to burn the remains of the Sacrament as Hesychiuâ— in Levit. VIII witnesseth or at Constantinople to give them to School-boies had they not conceived the change of the elements to be in order to the use of them and that this use and that which is done in order thereunto expireth when the occasion of giving them to those for whom the Church interideth them ceaseth And upon these premises I conclude that as it is by no means to be denied that the elements are really changed translated turned and converted into the body and bloud of Christ so that whoso receiveth them with a living faith is spiritually nourished by the same hee that with a dead faith is guilty of crucifying Christ Yet is not this change destructive to the bodily substance of the elements but cumulative of them with the spiritual grace of Christs body and bloud So that the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament turns to the nourishment of the body whether the body and bloud in the truth turn to the nourishment or the damnation of the soul And upon these terms if I reade in S. Cyril of Jerusalem where afore that the elements in the Eucharist are not bread and wine I should think my self very simple to imagine that therefore S. Cyril believed Transubstantiation Knowing as any man that pretends to understand the nature and use of language ought to know that any thing may be absolutely denied to be that which in some sort it is not when a man intends to contest that in some sort it is not For so S. Cyril saith that the elements are not bread and wine to signifie that they are not bare bread and wine but mystically the body and bloud of Christ that is as in the Sacrament of it And to speak properly whoso believes Transubstantiation ought not to believe that the elements are changed into the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist For wheresoever there is a change there something of the subject that is changed ought to remain though it be not sensible Whereas in Transubstantiation the whole subject of Christs body and bloud is imagined to be substitured in stead of bread and wine under their dimensions and accidents Which is the absolute ceasing of them to be and the beginning of the thing signified not absolutely to be but to be under those dimenâ—ions So that there remains no subject for that change which the Fathers understand the accidents remaining unchanged the substance of the terms having nothing common to bear the passion of that change which must be attributed to it But what can be said to them that affirm in expresse terms that the substance of the elements remains unchanged Who are so many as may very well serve to interrupt and defeat any pretense of Tradition for the ceasing of them For there can be no pretense that any thing should belong to the common Faith of the Church the contrary whereof it hath been free for men of note and rank in the Church to professe The Author de Sacramentis in S. Ambrose IV. 4. Si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut incipiant esse quae non â—rant quantò magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there is that force in the word of the Lord Jesus that those things should begin to be which were not How much more is it so operative that remaining what they were they be changed into what they were not Lanâ—ranck I see contra Berengarium hath questioned the reading of these words by saying that other Copies reade ut quae erant in aliud commutentur But I see also that hee had so little confidence in those Copies that â—ee held himself obliged to expound the other reading and say that they remain what they were in their accidents Which whether it serve the turn let common reason judge I see also that Guitmund Bishop of Aversa hath owned Berengarius his reading de Sacram. III. and therefore have no reason to distrust those who affirm that it is owned by Algerus Paschasius Berâ—ram Ives of Chartres Gratiane and P. Lombard in their quotations of it The words of S. Chrysostome Epistolâ ad Caesarium contra Apollin are these Sicut antetequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus divinâ autem sanctificante gratiâ mediante Sacerdote liberatus quidem est ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Demini corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso permansit divinâ mundante naturâ As before the bread be consecrated wee call it bread But when the grace of God hath sanctified by the means of the Priest it quitteth the name of bread and is held worthy of the title of the Lords Body though the nature of bread remain in it So also here the divine nature cleansing Cardinal Bellarmine de Euchar. 22. allegeth that there is no such Epistle of S. Chrysostomes neither is it found in his works P. Martyr reports it as hee found it in a written Copy of the Library at Florence And it is found in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in several pieces collected by Canisius What would it then avail that it were not S. Chrysostomes but some other ancient Church Writers For neither the mater of the comparison between the inâ—amation and the Eucharist nor the terms in which it is delivered will ever render it suspicious to any man that observes those conceptions and expressions of the Fathers which I have reported in the premises Gelasius de dâ—abus naturis in Christo Certè sacramenta quâ— sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est prâ—â—ter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae Et tamen esse non deâ—init substantia vel natura panis vini Certainly the mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ which wee receive is a thing divine Therefore by the means of them wee become also partakers of the divine nature And yet ceaseth not to be the naâ—uâ—e and substance of bread and wine By and by Sicut in hanc transeunt scilicet divinam Spiritu Sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suâ proprietate naturae As by the operation of the Holy Ghost they passe into this to wit a divine substance and yet remain in the property of their own nature Ephrem Patriarch of Antiochia in Photius Cod. CCXXIX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also the Body of Christ which believers receive neither departs from the sensible substance nor is divided from the intelligible grate And spiritual baptisme which becometh and is one whole preserves the property of the sensible substance the water I mean yet looses not that which it is become This coâ—parison makes mee adde here that passage of those extractions out of Theodotus which is found at the end of Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the bread of the Eucharist and the oile of the Chrâ—â—â—ne which
consideration of their being changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ represented sacrificed upon the Crosse makes them properly no Sacrifice In the former consideration being properly Oblations let them be improperly Sacrifices For in this sense in the Canon of the Masse Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas ac benedic as hâ—c dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata Wee therefore humbly beseech and desire thee most mercifull Father through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord to accept and blesse these gifts these presents these holy unstained Sacrifices And not onely here before the Consecration but just before the Lords Prayer and the Communion Per Christum Dominum nostrum Per quem haec omnia semper Domine bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis praestas nobis Through Christ our Lord Through whom thou O Lord alwaies createst sanctifiest quickenest and furnishest us with all these good things The repetition of which consideration shows that they are presented to God to be consecrated and made the Eucharist as Oblations out of believers goods According to the form used in divers Greek Liturgies from the words of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee give thee thire own of thine own But when our Lord sayes This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is poured out for you Will any man of sense understand That is now by that which here I do offered up to God for you and the bloud as poured forth Or rather this is that body and bloud that is given to be crucified and poured forth for you shortly upon the Crosse Let it therefore have the nature of a Sacrifice so soon as the Consecration is past It shall have that nature improperly so long as it is not the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Though truly so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth And accorâ—ing to this truth true Altars they are true Temples true Sacrifices though improperly where and by whom it is ministred But I will not therefore grant that this Sacrificing that is this consecrating the Elements into the Sacrifice is an action done in the person of Christ Though they are agreed that it is done by the rehersing of the words of Christ For the rehersing of Christs words is not an act done in the person of Christ Nor do I take upon mee his person whose words I recite And I have showed that the Consecration is done by the Prayers of the Church immediately though these Prayers are made in virtue of Christs order commanding to do what hee did and thereby promising that the Elements shall become that which hee saith those which hee conâ—ecrated are As for the other opinion which I am not to be the more in love with because I am not satisfied with this it is to be considered that the Elements are offered thrice in the Canon of the Masse The first is that offering which I rehersed last beginning Te igitur going before the Consecration as â—â— agree The second is that which this opinion intendeth agreeing with the other that the Consecration is past by rehersing the words of institution But mine opinion allows not this For I conceive the Consecration is yet in doing till that Prayer be past Vt quotquot ex hâc Altaris participatione Sacro-Sanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ repleamur That as many of us as shall have received the Holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace Which is the later of the two in which I conceive the Consecration to consist as in all other Liturgies in something correspondent to it And truly the very words of the second offering do bear that the Elements are by it offered to God not as consecrated but as to be consecrated supposing the blessing of them to be the consecrating of them as I proved afore Therefore the offering and the presenting of them to God as consecrated is that which is done by the Prayer which follows Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum And nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis whereby the several estates of Christs Church are recommended to God in virtue and consideration of Christs passion here represented and commemorated Not that I intend here to justifie that Prayer for the dead which this containeth but because referring that to consideration in due time all Liturgies have a place where according to S. Paul intercession is made for all States of Christs Church in consideration of the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse represented by this Sacrament And because this intercession is properly the offering up of the the said Sacrifice to God for their necessities And therefore this opinion saith well that the Consecration exhibiteth onely the Sacrifice to be offered up to God by the Prayers of the Church But not by the Prayer which desireth the blessing of the Elements wherein the consecating of them is contained which is that of the elevation in the Canon of the Masse but by those Prayers whereby the effects of Christs Crosse are prayed for in behalf of his Church According to which opinion the consecrating of the Elements will be the Sacrificing of Christ no further than as the body and bloud of Christ are thereby represented as Sacrificed But there will be no further cause of complaint in this then there is cause to complain that there is not such ground for division as the parties would have For though there be onely a general reason of offering no particular consideration of destroying seen in the act of the Church offering either the Elements to be consecrated or the consideration of Christs Crosse represented to render God propitious to his Church Yet are the consecrated Elements no lesse the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse than the presence of Christs body and bloud in them will allow though in order to that Evangelical banquet upon them at which and by which the Covenant of Grace is renewed For the Apostles having made the Eucharist a Sacrifice in this regard I must not count the making of it one offensive I say then that having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and bloud of Christ crucified or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ And the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth is also both propitiatory and impeâ—ratory by virtue of the consecration of it whereby it becometh the
wee have received from our Lord Christ and his Apostles But if from hence any man would inferr that seeing the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say the body and bloud of Christ crucified there present by virtue of the Consecration is a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice for the Congregation there present for their relations and for the Church therefore it is so whether they proceed to receive the Eucharist or not therefore it is so whether they proceed to offer up the Eucharist present by their prayers for the necessities of the Church or not therefore it is so whether they pray with the Church or noâ— the consequence will straight appear to fail because those reasons which make it such a Sacrifice make it so in order to the receiving or to the offering of it by the prayers of the Church in behalf of the Church It is well enough known what opinions and abuses in the use and concerning the virtue of Masses had vogue under the dark time of the School though noâ— authorized by the Catholick Church For in regard the Eucharist can pretend no virtue by the nature of the work impertinent to any spiritual effect but meerly by the institution of Christ the efficacy thereof ex opere operaâ—o according to the language of those dayes and by virtue of the very â—oâ—ke was so extended as to take effect without any good motion in them thâ—t celebrate it And the intent of the Priest whose act the consecration was tâ—ken to be was thought to extend it to whom and to what he pleased And â—â—â—â— so farre from requiring that any but the Priest should communicate that even at this day it is not thought necessary by the looser sort of that side that the people should understand what the Priest does or sayes much lâ—sse assâ—t him with their devotions the intent of the Priest which the Canon it selfe alwaies extends to all that are present serving to give it virtue On the other side how hath this been taken construed As if every Mass pretended to sacrifice Christ a new who by offering himselfe once hath perfited for ever those who are sanctified as saith the Apostle Heb. X. 14. And therefore as if every Mass did challenge the virtue of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross And it is true the properties and efâ—ect of things signified are in some certain sense truly attributed to the signs But he that inlarges his Language beyond that sense may give and he that understands not the limitations requisite may take offense when there is no need Otherwise the reasons of those limitations are evident enough to save any sober and charitable men either from inflanâ—ing or taking up offenses For common sense which tells all men that what is once done can never be done again obliges them to understand an abatement in the property of that Language which attributes the sacrificing of Christ to a Priest because once done upon the Crosse it can never be done agâ—in Neither can it be in reason supposed that he who inflames the improperty of his Language intends therefore to renounce the common faith concerning the redemption of man-kind by the sacrifice of the Cross But when all derive all virtue in the Mass from it to take such Language for equalling the Mass to it will require a great lust to maintain partiality in the Church And make but once the consecrating and offering of the Eucharist for the necessities of the whole Church by the prayers of those who celebrate it to be the act of the respective assembly by the ministry of him whom the Church deputes for the purpose it will easily appear what follows For the virtue thereof will still be ex opere operato in opposition to the Sacraments of the old Old Law The spirituall intent whereof not being discerned by all because not openly preached at that time the spirituall effect of them could not be attributed to the common work but to the particular intent of those that belonged to the Gospel under the Law which is a true ground of opposition between opus operatum and opus operantis The work meerly done and done by such a one Besides seeing the truth of Christs body and blood is eaten and drunk by living faith without the Sacrament He that believes that God instituted not the Sacrament to no purpose though he abhorre to think that the effect thereof can be had without any good motion must of necessity allow the devotion which a living faith is exercised with in assisting the celebration of it an effect by virtue of that work which without it it cannot challenge As for the effect of the Prayers which it is offered with it is not to be ascribed to the quality of the Priest and therefore in that regard also it may be ascribed to the work it selfe not to the quality of him that doth it But seeing the common obligation of all Christians extendeth their Prayers to all necessities of Christs Church it will not lye in the intent either of the Priest or of the whole assembly whose act more properly it is to make it more beneficial to particular Christians then it can be thought that God accepteth the charity and devotion of particular Christians more particularly for their particular relations As for the mater of private Masses and the assistance of the people with their devotion as well as presence of an unknown tongue in Gods service of the extending of the benefit thereof to the dead Thus much being said generally here I referre the rest to their own places In fine what other reason soever can be pretended by any that shall make it his interest to maintain not to excuse the abuses of the Church of Rome why the Eucharist should be counted such a Sacrifice if it be not contained in that which hath been said will easily be wiped off by that which hath been said Those Scriptures which wee ground our selves upon when wee make the Eucharist a Sacriâ—â—ce being the onely ground to determine though not the onely means to evidence for what reason and to what purpose it is to be counted such a Sacrifice For how much regard soever wee ought to have to the consent of the Church in this point as without doubt if in any then in this without doubt the agreement and correspondence visible to common sense betweâ—n the original practice and sense of the Church and that which hath been alleged out of the Scriptures will be evidence enough of the right reason or reasons for which the Eucharist is not or is to be esteemed a propitiatory Sacrifice There is no man can thrust his nose into the writings of the Fathers even of the first times but hee shall finde the Oblations of the faithfull that are once deputed to the celebration of the Eucharist called Sacrifices in that regard This consideration therefore is not owned by them that strive most to make the Eucharist properly a propitiatory Sacrifice
because though it have the stamp of primitive Christianity upon it yet it makes nothing to that purpose And yet the Mâ—sse is never celebrated but they heaâ— the Oblations of the faithfull called Sacrifices in the words quoted afore and that for the redemption of their souls for the hope of salvation for the discharge of their vowes All which understanding the renuing of the Covenant of grace by the Communion is properly true in order to it As for the sayings of the Fathers whereby the Eucharist is declared to be a Sacrifice in regard of the Consecâ—ation I do no way doubt that they are utterly innumerable For wheresoever the whole action including the propitiation which the Church intends to procure by it is called a Sacrifice which is most ordinary in the language of the Fathers there the Consecration cannot be excluded though referring it to the Communion not the Communion to it as some would have For if it be conâ—idered on the other side that they were all said at such time as the Communion was no lesse usual than the Consecration thereof that is to say when it was a strange thing to hear of the Eucharist celebrated and none but the Priest to receive it will not be strange that I demand it to be understood in order to the communion of the same Especially when the Liturgies themselves that is the form of Consecration used in the most eminent Churches from whom the lesse must necessarily be thought to have received their pattern do limit the being and presence of Christs body and bloud in the Elements to the benefit of them that shall communicate As it appears by the forms of Consecration that have been alleged And though the Fathers divers times â—all the celebrating of the Eucharist the death and passion of our Lord which it commemorates and the Sacrifice of his Crosse S. Cyprian Epist LXIII S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. LXXXIII in Aâ—la Hom. XXI in Epist ad Heb. Hom. XVII S. Austine in Psal XXI yet the addition of words which they use of reasonable and unbloudy oâ— commemorative of symbolical of signe and image are necessary evidence of an abarement in the property of the words according to their meaning Constitutiones Apost VI. 23. S. Cyprian Ep. LXIII Eâ—sebius demonst Evang. VIII 1. S. Ambrose de Oâ—â—ic I. 48. Macariuâ— Hom. XXVII S. Aâ—stine Quâ—st LXI ex LXXXIII contra Faâ—stum XX. 21. de Civ X. 5 20. XVII 17. Dionysius Hierar Eccles cap. III. and even the Canon of Mâ—â—sse calling it a Sacrifice of Praise for the redemption of souls that pay their vowes And therefore S. Ambrose de iâ—s qui initiantur mysteriis cap. VIII sayes that Christians then seeing the Altar prepared cried out Thou hast prepared â— Table before mee And in the Fathers that which is sometimes called an Altar is other while called a Table especially with the additions of mystical holy spiritual divine and others All abating the property of a Sacrifice or rather the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse when speech is of the Eucharist The words of S. Austine Epist XXIII are expresse Nonne semel immolaâ—us est Christus in sâ—ipsâ— Eâ—â—amen in Sacramento non solâ—m per omnes Paschâ— solemnitates sed omni dis populis imâ—olaâ—â—r nec utique menâ—itur qui interrogatus â—um respondet immâ—laâ—â—â— Was not Christ in person sacrificed once and yet in mystery not onely all the Easter Holidayes but every day is he sacrificed for the people Nor shall hee lye who being asked answers that hee is sacrificed That truth of a Sacrifice which serves but to â—â—vâ—â—â—lye makes not a proper Sacrifice And the words of S. Chrysostom in Epist ad Heb. Hâ—â— XVII are not to be oâ—itted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do wee noâ— offer every day Wee offer indeed but making commâ—moration of his death And this is one and not many How one and not many Because he was once offered not as that which was carried into the Holy of Holies That is the figure of this and this of that For wee offer alwaies the same not now one Lamb and another to morrow but alwaies the same Therefore the Sacrifice is one Otherwise by that reason being offered in many places there should be many Christs But by no means But there is one Christ every where here full and there full One Body As therefore being offered in many places hee is one Body and not many Bodies So is hee one Sacrifice Hee is our High Priest who offered the Sacrifice that cleanseth us The same wee also offer that then was offered that is invincible This is done in remembrance of that which was then done For dâ— this saith hee in remembâ—ance of mee Wee make no other Sacrifices as then the High Priest but the same alwaies or rather the remembrance of a Sacrifice Now that in the sense of the Catholick Church the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a Sacrifice propitiatory for the Church and impeâ—ratory of the necessities thereof in regard of those prayers wherewith it is offered and presented to God in virtue of the Sacrifice of the Crosse which it is mystically that is representeth and commemorateth a few words will serve to persuade him that knowes the practice and custom of the Church in all ages at the solemn and regular times and occasions of celebrating the Eucharist to make mention of all states and qualities belonging to the Church And not only so but upon occasions incident of going to God for the necessities either of the Church or of particular Christians to celebrate the Eucharist with an intent of presenting and offering the Crosse of Christ there present for their necessities You had afore out of Tertul de Cor. cap. V. Oblationes pro defunctâ—s pro natalitiis annuâ die facimus Wee make Oblations for the dead for the birth of Martyrs on the anniversary day And further de Exhor Castit XI speaking of him that had maried a second wife Neque enim pristinam poteris odisse cui etiam religiosiorem reservas affectionem ut jam receptâ— apud Dominum pro câ—jus spiritâ— postulas pro quâ Oblationes annuas â—eddiâ— Stabis ergo ad Dominum cum tot uxoribus quot in oratione commemoras Et offeres pro dâ—abus commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamiâ ordinatum aâ—t etiam de virginitate sancitum circundatum virginibus ac univiris Et ascendet sacrificiâ—m tuum liberâ fronte Et inter caeteras voluntates bonâ— mentis postulabis tibi uxori tuâ— castitatem For the former thou canst not hate for whom thou reservest a more religious affection as received already with the Lord for whose spirit thou makest request for whom thou rendrest yearly oblations Wilt thou then stand before the Lord with as many wives as in thy prayers thou mentionest And wilt thou offer for two And commend those two by a Priest ordained after one wife or confirmed of a virgine compassed
S. Peter and Iohn were wonne to Christianity according to the division which S. Paul hath recorded unto us Gal. II. 9. 10. whereupon we see him exercise the the office of an Apostle to the Churches of the Jews dispersions by his Epistle Iames I. 1. But let us proceed S. Paul and Barnabas ordained their Presbyters Church by Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. XIV 23. And appointed Titus to constitute Presbyters in Creete City by City Tit. I. 5. Be it granted because Epiphanius hath said it and it is a thing in it self reasonable that in some places the number of believers was so small that there needed but a Bishop to govern and a Deacon or Deacons to attend upon the execution of his orders That there should be Churches constituted by the name of such Churches in such Provinces and no more people any where signified would make them Churches that might be not that were Tertullians saying Ubi tres Ecclesia licet laici Where there be three though of the Laity there is a Church is not meant of such Churches But that three Christians or two in our Saviours terms Mat. XVIII 19. that meet to serve God are a Church because so assembled being of the Church At least in mother Churches of mother Cities where the Apostles made their chiefe residence because the harvest was there greatest and likewise their Ministers that there should be no more Christians then one Bishop could govern and teach during the Apostles time seems to me to cary no appearance of truth And to imagine that those who were designed for Pastors of Churches in being were alwaies resident in the mother Church though occasions whereof there is no rule might and must cause their presence there many times the reason of their office admits not But if we admit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie more then one in a City and a Church it seems not to be refutable that they were appropriate to those Churches The name of Presbyters of such and such Churches bâ—ing relative to the people of their respective Churches Further S. Paul sâ—nding to Ephesus called to him the Elders of the Church whom by and by he saith The Holy Ghost had placed Bishops over his flock to feed the Church of God Act. XX. 17. 28. Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of the article may referre us either to the whole Church or to that part of the Church which the speech most concerned or in fine to the very Church of Ephesus There is a conjecture that S. Paul makes them Bishops by saying that God had made them Bishops of his Church who were Presbyters when he sent for them But I allow not those of the Church of Rome that our Lord made the Bread and Wiâ—e of his last Supper his Body and Blood by saying This is my Body this is my Blood But by that which he did before he said it For the same reason therefore I cannot allow that S. Paul here makes them Bishops of Presbyters by saying God hath made you Bishops in his Church not declaring by any thing that he sayes or does any intent so to do thereby to be understood But I cannot but consider that Irâ—naeus III. 14. tells us that S. Paul at this time called together the Bishops and Presbyters Qui erant ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus Which were of Ephesus and other the next Citâ—â—s and S. Jerome ad Evagr. that he called together omnes illos apud quâ—s praedicaverat All those wiâ—h whom he had preached Which if we grant the article of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referrs us to that part of the Church that was concerned whereas the words as they lie as he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church referre us to the Church there mentioned of Ephesus When S. Paul addresses his Episâ—le to the Philippians together with the Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 2. when in his instructions to Timothy he passes immediately from Bishops to Deacons 1 Tim. III. 1-8 It is said that the Bishops of the next Cities together with their Deacons were present or ordinarily resident on the Capital City according to that which I said even now of Ephesus And it may be said that they were Bishops and Deacons at large in respect to the Church at large not applyed to the functions either of Bishop or Priests in this or that Church And truly I do remember the words of Clemens ad Corinth speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching therefore the Word by Cities and by Countries and Baptizing they made the first-fruits of them whom they had baptized Bishops and Deacons of those that should believe And that S. Paul addresses his Epistles to the Church that is at Corinth and to all that called on the name of the Lord in all Achaia 2 Cor. I. 1. So that they provided for the ordering of them that should become or were become Christians before they were yet cast into Churches And it is reasonable to think that those were ordained in the mother Cities and there stood upon their guard expecting opportunity of framing their flocks And that this was a cause why the titles of Bishops and Presbyters are promiscuously used and attributed But I cannot therefore yield that one Bishop with one or more Deacons could serve the Churches of Philippi Corinth or Ephesus Or that as yet no Governours were affected and applied to several Churches For when S. Paul directs Timothy to dispose of the stock of the Church for the Honour that is the maintenance of widows and Presbyters to receive accusations against Presbyters under two or three witnesses and to rebuke them that should offend before all 1 Tim. V. 2. 16-28 it seems not reasonable to imagine Timothy the Judge of the Biships of inferiour Churches as regularly every Bishop is of his own Presbyters that he should rebuke the Bishop of Forâ—iâ—e though inferiour Churches before the people of his Church of Ephesus that he should dispose of the stock of his Church at Ephesus upon Widows or Presbyters of other Churches then that at Ephesus But rather that the proceeding of Timothy is prescribed as a â—orm for the proceeding of others in their respective Churches Another opinion saith That the Deacons whom S. Paul puts next to Bishops are Presbyters called also Ministers of God and Christ as Timothy 1 Thes III. 2. S. Paul himself 2 Cor. II. 23. Ministers of the New Testament as S. Paul 2 Cor. III. 6. Ministers of the Gospel as S. Paul Ephe. III. 7. Ministers of Righteousness into whom the Ministers of Satan are transformed 2 Cor. XI 15. Ministers of the Church as S. Paul Col. I. 25. Observing that the vulgar Latine of S. Jerome translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. III. 8. Diaconos elsewhere in thirty places Ministros and concluding that these Deacons are the same with Presbyters under the Apostles and the Bishops their
in the judgement of many that think themselves the most refined Christians that they allow it not that common sense in managing the businesse of Christianity which they must needs allow Jews Pagans Mahometans in faithfully serving their own faithlesse suppositions and which all experience shows us that it serves all mankind to what purpose soever it is imployed and that notwithstanding so great a triall of it as the governing of so great a Body as the Church is in unity so farre and so long as this Unity hath prevailed it is therefore necessary to give a reason why the Church so used them Which supposing the premises it will be as easie as it is necessary for me to give and that more sufficient if I mistake not then can possibly be given not supposing the same For if the secret of the resurrection the general judgement and the World to come if the mystery of the Holy Triniâ—y consisting in the Word or Wisdome and Spirit of God if the inward and spiritual service of God in truth of heart be more clearly opened in them by the work of Providence dispensing the effect of Canonicall Scripture by the occurrences of time then in the Law and the Prophets themselves which I have showed both that so it is and why so it is from the ground of the difference between the Old and the New Testament then I suppose there is sufficient reason why those who admit the Old Testament to be made for common edification in the Church should not put any question concerning those Scriptures Those new lights among us who do not allow the Psalter to be pertinently and reasonably imployed for the publick service of God upon all occasions as the Church hath alwaies imployed it may assure us that they understand not why the Scriptures of the Old Testament are read in the Church because they understand not the correspondence between the Old and the New Testament in the understanding whereof the edification of the Church by the Scriptures of the Old Testament consisteth There may be offence taken at divers things in these Scriptures I deny not But there may be offence taken in like maner at divers things in the Canonicall Scriptures of the Old Testament The humility of Christians requires them edifying themselves in that which they understand in the Scriptures according to our common Christianity in the rest which they understand not to refer themselves to their Superiours The Church understood well enough this difference and this correspondence to be discovered by these writings as the time required when it appointed Learners to read them And though I stand not upon terms yet I conceive they are more properly called Ecclesiastical because the Church hath imployed them to be read in the Church then Apocryphal according to the use of that word in the Church to signifie such writings as the Church suspecteth and therefore alloweth not to be read whither in publick or in private Whereupon I conceive also that the term of Canonical Scripture hath and ought to have two senses one when we speak of the Jews Canon in the Old Testament another when we speak of the Canon of the Church For seeing the Tradition of the Synagogue is perfect evidence what Scriptures of the old Testament are to be received as inspired by God the word Canon in that case may well signifie the Rule of our Faith or maners But because the Church cannot pretend to create that evidence originally but onely to transmit what she receiveth from the Synagogue Pretending neverthelesse to give a Rule what shall be read for the edification of the Church the word Canon therefore in that case will signifie onely the list or Catalogue of Scriptures which the Church appoints to be read in the Church which seems to reconcile the diverse accounts extant in severall Records of the Church CHAP. XXIII The consideration of the Eucharist prescribed by Tradition for the mater of it Lords Prayer prescribed in all services The mater of Prayers for all estates prescribed The form of Baptism necessary to be prescribed The same reason holdeth in the forms of other Offices IN the next place I do maintain that the Order of celebrating the Eucharist and the Prayer which it was was from the beginning solemnized with were from the beginning prescribed the Church by unwritten custome that is by Tradition from the Apoâ—â—les containing though not so many words that it was not lawful to use more or lesse for these were always occasions for celebrating the Eucharist emergent which must be intimated in fewer or more words in the celebrating of it yet the mater and substance of the Consecration of it together with the mater and substance of the necessities of the Church for which it was offered that is to say for which the Church was and is to pray at the celebration of it as hoping to obtain them by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross which it representeth as received from the beginning was every were known to be the same This I inferr from that which I have said in the Book afore quoted of those Texts of S. Paul where those Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is consecrated with are called Eucharistia or Thanksgiving if not rather the thanksgiving because it was a certain form of Thanksgiving well known to all Christians by that name from whence the Sacrament â—o consecrated was also so called from the time that our Lord hâ—ing blessed or given thanks to the Father over the Elements had said This is my body this is my blood and order is given that at the celebration thereof Prayers be made for the necessities of the Church and of all people 1 Cor. XIV 25. 26. 1 Tiâ—â— II. 1-8 Together with those passages of primitive antiquity from whence it appeareth there that the form of consecrating the Eucharist used and known generally in the Church is called Eucharistia and that the custome of interceding for all the necessities of the Church and for the reducing of unbelievers to the same is and hath been taken up and ever frequented by the Church in obedience to and prosecution of the said precept of the Apostles This observation might perhaps be thought too obscure evidence â—o bring to light a point of this consequence were it not justified by all that I produced afore to show that the Eucharist is consecrated by the Prayers of the Church which celebrateth it upon the faith of our Lords institution and promise For the mater of these Prayers tending to a certain purpose that the Elements may become the Body and Blood of Christ and convay his Spirit to those who receive them with living faith the Consecration which is the effect of them requires that the form of them be prescript and certain though not in number of words yet in sense in tent and substance And this by the evidence there produced may appear to have been maintained from the beginning by Tradition in
requiring of those who acknowledge the same absolute conformity in things altogether needlesse to the unity of the Church the true end of all due Power in the Church For were conformity in this point necessary to the unity of the Church had the Power of the Church of Rome and of the Pope in behalf of it been such by virtue of the first instituting of it as might have required it why then was it not required from the beginning that the service of God through the whole Empire should be celebrated in Latine being the language which the mother Church of the mother City did use and farr more frequented then in Greece than now in the West which is forced to use it Seeing then it appeareth that there is nothing at all to be alleged for so great an inconvenience but that which I have alleged for it and which I acknowledge to be truly alleged and justly but not justly admitted it remaineth that the Church is provided by God of other Laws the observation whereof is and would be a cure to the danger alleged from the change of the publick service of God into the vulgar languages For this danger proceedeth from nothing but from the false pretense of absolute and infallible authority in the Church which is indeed limited by the truth of that Christianity whereupon the Church is grounded and for the maintenance whereof it subsisteth For though this pretense may be a mean to contain simple people in obedience to any thing which shall be imposed so long as they know not any thing better that they ought to have yet if conscience be once awaked with reasons convincing that the authority instituted by God in his Church is abused to the prejudice and hinderance of the salvation of Gods people it is no marvail either that they should neglect all their interest of this world to seek themselves redress or that they should mistake themselves in seeking it and think the redress to be the destroying of all authority in the Church So that the preventing of danger by the necessary reformation of abuses in Church maters must not be thought to consist in pretenses as inconsistent with the common good of the Churches as with the truth of Christianity But in submitting to those bounds which the grounds of Christianity evidently establisheth And which unlesse Christianity make people more untractable then all the rudenesse which they are born and bred with makes barbarous Nations and wilde Beasts the sense of those mischiefs which difference of Religion hath brought in and maintained in Christendome must needs have disposed them to imbrace and to cherish for the future avoiding of the same In the next place supposing the Eucharist as the rest of the service to be celebrated in a language vulgarly understood we are to debate whither the Eucharist require Communion or whether the private Masses now allowed and countenanced in the Church of Rome be of the institution of our Lord and his Apostles Nor shall I need to use many words to free the term of private Masses from the exception which is sometimes made That all Masses are publick actions of the Church repeating the Sacrifice of Christ crucified to the benefit of his Church For seeing the term of a private Mass signifieth a thing visible The celebration of that Eucharist whereof no body but the Priest that consecrates it doth communicate I ask no man leave to use the term signifying no more by it but putting the rest to debate whither as de facto in the Church of Rome so de jure according to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles the sacrifice of Christ crucified is and ought to be either repeated or represented and commended by celebrating the Eucharist so as no body but the Priest that consecrates to communicate or whether the institution of our Lord require that Christians communicate in the Eucharist which they celebrate A dispute wherein nothing that is said in the Scripture concerning the order and practice of our Lord and his Apostles can leave any doubt For though there may be mention of celebrating the Eucharist where there is no mention of communicating in it which is an argument meerly negative not from the Scripture but from this or that Scripture and of no consequence to say S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 14-17 1 Tim. II. 1-6 mentioneth the celebration of the Eucharist not mentioning any Communion therefore no body did communicate yet are we farr from the least inckling of any circumstance to show that there was this Sacrament celebrated when there was none but he that consecrated it to communicate Nay if we regard the institution Do this in remembrance of me referring as much to take eat and drinke as to the blessing or thanksgiving whereby I have showed that our Lord did consecrate If we regard S. Paul affirming that the bread which we bless and the cup which we drinke is the communion of the body and blood of Christ 1 Cor. X. 16. and reproving the Corinthians because the rich prevented the poor and suffered them not to communicate in their Oblations out of which the Eucharist was consecrated as I showed afore We shall be bold to conclude that so farr as appears by the Scripture all that did celebrate did communicate as all that assisted did celebrate if that be true which I proved afore that the Prayers of the Congregation is that which consecrates the Eucharist to wit supposing Gods Ordinance The same appears by Justine Martyr and other the ancientest Records of the Church that describe this office But I canot better express the sense of the Church in this point then by alleging the decretall Epistles of the Popes before Innocent the I. or his Predecessor Syricius which being forged by Isidore Mecater some DCC years after Christ as hath been discovered by men of much learning do notwithstanding contain this Rule that he who communicates not be not admitted to the service of the Church Which he that forged them would never have fathered upon the ancient Popes had it not been evident to all that were seen in the Canons of the Church that it was of old a mater of censure to be present at celebrating the Eucharist and not to communicate in it A thing evident enough by many Canons of Councils yet extant and foisted into those decretals to no other purpose but to make men believe in after ages that those Canons were made to prosecute and to bring to effect those things which the Popes had decreed afore as if their authority had been always the same as it was at the time of this forgery Now it is well enough known what pretenses have been made and what consequences drawn from the speculation of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross repeted or represented by this Sacrament to perswade Christendom that the benefit thereof in remission of sinnes and infusion of grace and all the effects of Christs Passion is derived upon Gods
be said that those ever concerned the salvation of a Jew more nearly than this earnest of our common salvation concerns that of a Christian And why the Synagogue should not have more power in those precepts than the Church in this nothing can be said But to the particulars Suppose some fansies may be possest with such an aversness to wine that no use of reason at years of discretion when they come to the Eucharist will prevail to admit that kinde without such alteration in them as the reverence due unto it can stand with for I have seen the case of one that never had tasted wine in all his life and yet by honest endeavors when hee first came to the Eucharist receives it in both kindes without any maner of offense doth it therefore fall under the power of the Church to prohibite it all people because there may fall a case wherein it shall be necessâ—ry to dispense with some though not comprehended in the case For there is nothing but the meer necessity of giving order in cases not expressed by the Law that gives the Church power to take order in such cases Therefore without those caâ—â—â— it hath none And so in the case of those Nations where wine will not keep yet the people are Christians For neither was the reason otherwise supposing that the ancients did reserve the Eucharist in one kinde onely for the absent or for the case of sudden death to those that were under Penance For this reservation was but from Communion to Communion which in those dayes was so frequent that he who caried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home drinking the Bloud at present might reasonably be said to communicate in both kinds Neither can that sacramental change which the consecration works in the elements be limited to the instant of the assembly though it take effect only in order to that CoÌ„munion unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth And so farr as I can understand the condition of the Church at that time in these cases there may have been as just cause to give it then in one kind in these cases as now to the abstemious or to those Nations where wine will not keep But shall this necessity be a colour for a Power in the Church to take away the birth-right of Christian people to that which their own prayers consecrate If the Power of the Church be infinite this colour need not If it he onely regular as I have showed all along that it is there can be no stronger rule than that of common reason which forbids servants to make bold with their Masters ordinances where no other act of his obliges For all necessity is the work of providence and excuses or if you will justifies where it constrains not where it constrains not The Greek Church hath an ancient custom not to consecrate the Eucharist in Leâ—t but upon Sabbaths and Lords days on the other five dayes of the week to communicate of that which was consecrated upon those dayes by the Council of Laodicea Can. XLIX And this Communion is prescribed by the Council in Trullo Can. LII But that they held the Communion to be completed by dipping the elements consecrated afore in wine with the Lords Prayer it will to him that shall peruse that which is found in Cassanders works pag. 1020 1027. Whereby you shall perceive also that the same was formerly done in the Church of Rome on good Friday on which days the same course was and is observed and that with an intent to consecrate it as the Eucharist is consecrated though at this day it is not so believed in the Church of Rome For the custom of the Church determining the intent of those Prayers whereby the Eucharist is consecrated to the elements in which it is communicated Because wine presently consecrated being in so small a quantity was not fit to be kept there is no reason why the Communion should not be complete Though how fit this custom is I dispute not But there is a new device of Concomitance just as old as the with-holding of the Cup from the people that you may be sure it would never have been pleaded but to maintain it for in the Greek Church that allows both kinds who ever heard of it It is said that the bloud in the body accompanieth the flesh neither can the Body of Christ as it is or as it was upon the Cross be eaten without the Bloud Seeing then that hee who receiveth the body must needs receive the bloud also what wrong is it for the people to be denied that which they have which they have received already And now you see to what purpose Trâ—nâ—â—â—sâ—â—ntiation serves To make it appear that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in both elements to no purpose seeing as much must needs be received in onâ—â—inâ—â—â— as in both And yet by your favor even Transubstantiation distinguisâ—â—th between the being of the flesh of Christ naturally in the body of Christ upon the Cross for so it was necessarily accompanied with the bloud of Christ not yet issued from it and between the flesh of Christ being sacramentally in the element consecrated into it And thus it cannot be otherwise accompanied with the bloud than because hee that consecrates is commanded to consecrate another kinde into the bloud And so hee that receives the body being commanded as much to receive the bloud the body may be said to be accompanied with the bloud But otherwise if hee receive not the bloud then is it not accompanied with the bloud as it ought to be For seeing the command is to receive as well as to consecrate several elements into the body and bloud of Christ it is manifest that the body and bloud of Christ are received as they are consecrated apart Under one element the body under another the bloud Indeed upon another ground which the Church of Rome will have no cause to own I do conceive it may well be said that the body is accompanied with the bloud to them that receive the Sacrament in one kinde in case it may or must be thought that they who in the Church of Rome thirst after the Eucharist in both kindes do receive the whole Grace of the Sacrament by the one kinde through the mercy of God giving more than hee promiseth in consideration that they come not short of the condition required by their own will or default Which is necessarily to be believed by all that believe the Church of Rome to remain a Church though corrupt and that salvation is to be had in it and by it Though whether this be so or not I say nothing here because it is the last point to be resolved out of the resolution of all that goes afore For since it is no Church unless the Grace of this Sacrament be convayed by the Sacrament ministred as the Church ministreth the same And seeing the precept of receiving the Eucharist
takes place The Councile then transgresseth the Power of the Church in erecting a Position of the Schoole and that in the proper sense of the terms not true into an article of the Faith But the Bull much more in requiring to sweare it And whether or no the decree of the Councile concerne the salvation of a single Christian being under it The swearing to it which the Bull injoyneth necessarily concerns the salvation of him who if he understand the businesse knowes it not to be true if he understand it not cannot sweare it But that the satisfaction of Penance is not to abolish the guilt of eternall death by changing the love of this world into the Love of God above all things but to redeem the debt of temporall punishment remaining when the sinne is remitted by the Sacrament or when it cannot be had by the meer desire of it as it is decreed Sess VI. cap. XIV this is necessarily prejudiciall to the Christianity of those who must needs be induced by it to think themselves restored to Gods grace without the meanes which his Gospel requireth For be Penance never so much a Sacrament if the Church suppose the Gospel the applying of the Keyes thereof cannot abate that condition which the Gospel requireth but is imployed to effect it Therefore absolution proceeds not but upon supposition that the change of a mans disposition is visible by the performing of his Penance If the case of necessity create an exception which the Church presumeth that God dispenseth in and therefore reconcileth all in the point of death by giving them the Eucharist It is not because there is ground of pardon in their being reconciled but in the procuring of their being qualified for it which must not have been presumed upon otherwise For the presumption of pardon not lying in the act of reconcilement by the power of the Keyes but in the ground of it upon the corrupt custome of absolving first and imposing Penance to be performed afterwards to decree this construction that it is not imposed for remission of sinne as conditionally depending on it but to pay the temporall punishment remaining when it is remitted was to heape abuses upon abuses For hence is come the change of attrition into contrition by the sentence of absolution in him in whom all the Penance that is in joyned pretends nothing else then to effect it So that pardon being held forth upon undue grounds the corruption of our nature must needs presume upon it when it is not effected How then shall a man sweare to admit this without consenting and concurring to the intangling of simple soules in the snares of their sinnes And this is therefore a point wherein the Christianity which the decree constituteth is necessarily defective as not providing for that which the Gospel maketh requisite to the remission of sinne but teaching to expect it from the act of declaring it by the Church without supposing the ground upon which the Gospel tendreth it If the decree of Transubstantiation could possibly be expounded to signify onely the Sacramentall presence of the body and bloud of Christ which I maintaine the consecration effecteth what would that serve the turne when it is further required that we hold him anathemâ— that believes the substance of the elements to remaine which being so manifestly justifyed by the Scriptures neither any Tradition of the Church nor any reason rendring the bodily presence of them inconsistent with the Sacramentall presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ excludeth Nor is it enough that Christian people frequent themselves and admit in others the use and effect of these offices which the Councile of Florence first decreed to make up the seven Sacraments unlesse they sweare to hold them for Sacraments without distinguishing either in that grace which the ceremony signifieth or in the force whereby they concurre to the obtaining of it Whereas the difference between our common Christianity and that which the Church is able to contribute towards the effect of it by any office which it is inabled to celebrate ought to distinguish the grace of the holy Ghost which Baptisme and the Eucharist immediately bestow by virtue of the Covenant of Grace which they inact and establish from that which any office of the Church by Gods promise to hear the prayers thereof is able to bring to passe Further seeing that by the Scriptures expounded according to the originall Tradition of the Church the soules of those that depart in grace are in an imperfect state of happinesse till the generall judgement according to the state in which they depart Neither can any prayers be made to redeem soules out of Purgatory paines to the sight of God which the decree of the Councile of Florence supposeth upon those termes Nor any assurance be had that the prayers which are made to the Saints do come to their knowledge And how then shall a good Christian swear to believe that Soules are helped out of Purgatory by the prayers of the living or that he is to pray to saints of whom he can by no meanes be assured that they hear his prayers Surely it cannot be imagined that the communion of the Eucharist in one kinde the making of these prayers to Saints which distinguish them not from God desiring of them those things which onely God can give the setting up of their images in Churches to be worshipped and prayed to in the house of Gods service the worshipping of images as the objects of that worship in respect of their principals which is not the worship of their principals the serving of God in an unknown Language the barring of Christian people from the Scriptures the maintaining of Masses where no body communicates scarce any body assisteth the opinion of applying the virtue of Christs death by them to those who neither communicate nor assist them with their devotions by virtue of the Sacrisice the tendring of pardon for sinne by Indulgences whereof there can be no effect but the releasing of Penance injoyned These and other customes of that Church which have the force and effect of Law which written lawes many times never attaine are so farre from being reasonable meanes to advance the service of God that to live under them and to yield conformity to them is a burthen unsufferable for a Christian to undergo to approve them by being reconciled to the Church that maintaines them a scandal incurable and irreparable But to swear further and to professe firmely to admit and imbrace them as contained within the title of constitutions and observations of that Church is a thing which to me it seems strange that it should ever be required of a Christian The effect of this Bull is of so high a nature in regard of those whom it concerns that never any Generall Councile pretended to produce the like That every man should owne the Lawes of the Society wherein he lives so farre as to live in conformity with them
our sinnes imputable to Christ nor his sufferings to us formally and personally but as the meritorious causes which satisfaction answerâ—â—h The effect of it the Covenant of Grace as well as helpe to perform it The Fathers saved by the Faith of Christ to come The Gospel a new Law The prâ—perâ—y of satisfaction and punishment in Christs sufferings Of the sense of the Catholick Church 245 CHAP. XXX God might have reconciled man to himselfe without the coming of Christ The promise of â—â—â— Gâ—spel dâ—pend as well upon his active as passive obedience Christ need 〈…〉 pâ—iâ—â—s that we might not The opinion that maketh justiâ—â—â—g 〈…〉 â—rust in God not true Yet not prejudicial to the Faith The dâ—câ—â—â— of the Council of Trent and the doctrine of the Schoole how it is not preâ—udicial to the Faith As also that of Socinus 254 CHAP. XXXI The state of the question concerning the perseverance of those that are once justified Of three senses one true one inconsistent wiâ—h the faith the third neither true nor yet destructive to the Faith Evidence from â—â—â— writings of the Apostles From the Old Testament The grace of Proâ—heâ—â—e when it presupposeth sanctifying grace Answer to some texts and of S. Pauls mâ—aâ—â—ng in the VII of the Romans Of the Polygamy of the Fathers What assurance of Grace Christians may have The Tradition of the Church 266 CHAP. XXXII How the fulfilling of Gods Law is possible how impossible for a Christian Of the difference between mortall and veniall sinne What love of God and of our neighbour was necessary under the Old Testament Whether the Sermon in the Mount correct the false interpretation of the â—ewes or inhanse the obligatin of the Law Of the difference between matter of Precept and matter of Counsail and the Perfection of Christians 285 CHAP. XXXIII Whether any workes of Christians be satisfactory for sinne and meritorious of heaven or not The recovery of Gods grace for a Christian fallen from it a worke of labour and time The necessity and essicacy of Penance to that purpose according to the Scriptures and the practice of the Church Merit by virtue of Gods promise necessary The Catholick Church agrees in it the present Church of Rome allowes merit of justice 300 The CONTENTS of the third Book CHAP. I. THe Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot page 1 CHAP. II. That the Natural substance of the Elements remaines in the Sacrament That the Body and Blood of Christ is neverthâ—lâ—sse present in the same when it is received noâ— by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Câ—â—sâ— necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradâ—ction nor improperty â—â— the words of our Lord. 3 CHAP. III. That the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist depends not upon the living 〈◊〉 of him that receives but upon the true profession of Christianity in the 〈◊〉 thâ—â— câ—lâ—brates The Scâ—iâ—tureâ— that are alleged for the dependence of 〈◊〉 the communication of the properties They conclude not the sense of them b◠〈◊〉 â—â—ey are alleged How the Scripture confineth the flesh of Christ to the 〈◊〉 16 CHAP. IV. The opinion which maketh the Consecration to be done by rehearsing the operative words That our Lord consecrated by Thanksgiving The Form of it in all Lâ—â—urgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is â—o Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements 23 CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises 38 CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections 53 CHAP. VII The ground of Baptizing Infants Originall sinne though not instituted till Christ rose again No other cure for it Infants of Christians may be Disciplâ—â— are holy The effect of Circumcision under the Law inferreth the effect of Baptism under the Gospel 58 CHAP. VIII What is alledged to impeach Tradition for Baptizing Infants Proves not that any could be saved regularly who dyed unbaptized but that baptizing at years was a strong means to make good Christians Why the Church now Baptize What becomes of Infants dying unbaptized unanswerable What those Infants get who dye baptized â—5 CHAP. IX What controversie the Reformation hath with the Church of Rome about Penance Inward repentance that is sincere obtaineth pardon alone Remission of 〈◊〉 by the Gospel onely The condition of it by the Ministry of the Church What the power of binding and loosing contains more then Preaching or taking away offences Sinne may be pardoned without the use of it Wherein the necessity of using it lyeth 73 CHAP. X. The Sâ—cts of the Montanists Novatians Donatists and Meletians evidence the cure of sinne by Penance to be a Tradition of the Apostles So doâ—h the agreement of primitive practice with their writings Indulgence of regular Penance from the Apostles Confession of secret sinnes in the primitive Church That no sinne can be cured withoâ—â— the Keyes of the Church there is no Tradition from the Apostles The necessity of confessing secret sinnes whereupon it stands 86 CHAP. IX Penance is not required to redeem the debt of temporall punishment when the sinne is pardoned What assuraâ—ce of forgivenesse the law of auricular Confession as it is used in the Church of Rome procureth Of injoyning Penance after absolution performed Setting aside abuses the Law is agreeable to Gods Of the order taken by the Church of England 98 CHAP. XI The Unction of the sick pretendeth onely boaily health upon supposition of the cure of sinne by the Keyes of the Church Objections answered The Tradition of the Church evidenceth the same 106 CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimoniall causes Mariage of one with one iâ—solubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church 114 CHAP. XIV Scripture alledged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectual S. Paul and our Lord speak both to one purpose according to S. Jerome and S. Austine The contrary opinion more reasonable and more general in the Church Why the Church may restrain the innocent party from marying again The
Apostles are certainly their act the declaration of the Church proceeding no further than the means provided by God for that purpose will inable the Church to discerne that this doth appear will have the force of a Law to oblige all Christians not to violate the communion of Christians upon pretense that it doth not appear So the rcason of believing and the evidence thereof are both antecedent to the foundation of the Church But the declaration of the Church obliging those that are within it not to violate communion upon pretense of contrary evidence that is the effect of that right and power which God giveth his Church But there are other acts which the Church will be as often necessitated to do as it becomes questionable in the Church how any of those Offices which God is served with by Christians is to be performed What times at what places what persons are to assemble themselves for that service as of it self it is not determined so were it never so particularly determined by the writings of the Apostles yet so long as the world is changeable and the condition of the Church by that reason not to be limited in that service by the same Rule alwaies the Society of the Church could not subsist without a Power to determine it The persons especially that communicate with the Church if you will have the Church a Society must be indowed with several qualities some of them inabling to communicate passively that is to joyn in the Offices of Gods service For till our time I think it was never quessioned among Christians whether the same persons might minister and he ministred to in the Offices of Christianity Then if some persons be to be set apart for that purpose of necessity it may become questionable by what acts the fame is lawfully done according to the will of God declared by his Apostles Further when it is determined who when where are the Offices of Christianity and the Assemblies of the Church to be celebrated the least circumstance of matter and form of solemnity and ceremony though it make no difference of saith yet is able to create a cause of separation of communion that shall be just on the one side Is it any great Power that is demanded for the Church by the Original constitution thereof when it is demanded that the Church have Power to regulate it self in things of this consequence Let mee be bold to say there is never a Company in London so contemptible that can stand without having the like excepting the determination of maters of Faith And therefore it is a small thing to demand that the Apostles for their time should be able to do it by Power from God so as to be heard in Christs stead Those that received Power from them according to the measure of that Power which they received though they pretend not their acts to be our Lord Christs as the Apostles yet within the bounds of that Office to which they are ordained they have power from God determining their persons though not justifying their acts Suppose then that our Lord Christ assume a Ceremony in use in the Synagogue at such time as hee preached of baptizing those that imbraced Moses Law being born of other Nations to signifie and to solemnize the admission of them that undertake Christianity to the privileges of his New people I suppose it is the act of our Lord that makes this a Law to his Church though it was the Power which God had provided to govern his ancient people that made it a Law to the Synagogue It is no more doubted among men of Learning that our Lord Christ at his last Supper made use of Ceremonies practised among the Jewes at their Passeover in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist the outward act whereof hee appointed to consist in those Ceremonies whereas the inward intent thereof was not known afore For whatsoever they knew of Christ they could not thereby know that hee would institute the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in those Elements In like maner it had been alwaies a custome of Superiors in the Synagogue according to that of the Apostle Ebr. VlI. 7. Without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater to blesse and to pray for interiors with laying hands upon them or lifting up hands over them So did the Priests so did the Prophets so Isaac Gen. XXVII 4 7 12 19 21 22. Jacob Gen. XLVIII 9 14 17. Aaron Levit. lX. 22. because a man cannot lay hands upon an Assembly all at once The Priests blessing therefore is called among the Jewes listing up of hands and many scrupulous observations there are among them in doing it Num. VI. 23 24 25. So our Lord in doing cures as Naaman thought Elisha would have done 2 Kings V. II. in blessing his Disciples Lue. XXIV 50. and divers the like If then the Apostles of our Lord frequented the same Ceremony in solemnizing Ordination as praying for the grace of the Holy Ghost upon those that received it and in other acts of publick effect in the Church it cannot be conceived that any thing but their owne act brought it in force though the practice of Gods ancient people gave them a precedent for it but it must be conceived that this argues a Society of the Church where such Ceremonies are instituted to celebrate such acts with as were to provide for the maintenance of it Here I must not forget the Law of Tithes and the Title by which they are challenged to be due to the Church For having made that this proved the Church a Corporation by the power of making Lawes within themselves of creating Governors and of Excommunicating If it be demanded where is the common stock and revenue of it seeing no Corporation can subsist without means to maintaine the attendance requisite to those things wherein it is to communicate it will be necessary to show that those who founded the Church have provided for this Tithes are commonly claimed by the Levitical Law And it is not easie to give a reason why other Lawes of the Church should not come in force or stand in force by the Law of Moses if it be once said that Tithes are due to the Church under the Gospel because they were as signed the Levitical Priesthood by the Law Truly it deserves consideration whether they that insist upon the Levitical Law in the claime of Tithes to the Church do not prejudice the cause which they pretend to maintaine For if they look into the tenor of the Law it will easily appear that Tithes of fruits of the earth are assigned the Priesthood by God in consideration of the Land of Promise which hee gave them And that therefore the practice of the Jewes at this very day is due and legal who pay no Tithes of those fruits because the service for which they are due is by the Law prohibited out of the Land of Promise Besides it is
it is said Be propitious to our sinnes Be not propitious to their sinnes without signâ—fying how or upon what consideration he becomes propitious The Apostle saies againe Ebr. IX 11. That Christ entered into the Holy of Holies not with the blood of goates and bullocks but with his own blood having found that is obtained everlasting ransome To wit by the sacrifice of the Crosse They say the indefinite tense signifies not alwaies the time past And I grant it is enough that the time which it signifies be past to him that speaks as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have so often in the Gospels he answered and said arguing no priority between answering and speaking But necessarily that our Saviour answered and said before the Evangelist related it for sometimes it concerns not which is first as whether our Lord first answered or first said So Heb. II. 10. When therefore the Apostle saies that Christ entered into the Holy of Holies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he might as easily have said Nor meant that he should or would finde ransome by delivering his brethren from sinne But that hee had found ransome by paying the price of theire sinne For deliverance from sinne is future in respect of the Apostle and the time when he writ Which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify Besides if there be question what but the nature of the thing signified can determine the order that is between them Now in our case ransome is ascribed alwaies to the sacrifice as I have shewed never to the sprinkling of the bloud before the Propitiatory So Heb. I. 3. when it is said Christ having made purgation of sinnes sate down at the right hand of God For if it be said that he made purgation of sin by that assurance of pardon which the appearance of his bloud before God gives Christians Manifest it is that what is attributed to the sprinkling of the bloud before the Propitiatory must be understood to be effected by virtue of the blood shed at the Altar The case is plaine Heb. XII 24 You are come to the bloud of sprinkling that speakes better things then that of Abel Abels bloud shed called for vengeance Therefore Christs bloud shed for remission of sinnes Herewith agreeth S. Paul Rom. III. 25. whom God hath proposed a Propitiatory through Faiâ—h in his bloud Late Writers so translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the notion of a place as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same â—orme For my part I rather follow Hesychiâ—â— or rather those that he followed who most certainly had regard to this text when they expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purging sacrifice or an Altar as the meanes to make God propitious Which is clear for our purpose But whether the place or the meanes why did God appear propitiou upon the Ark but because made propitious by that which it signified Christ incarnate and by the bloud of the sacrifice signifying the bloud of his Crosse Therefore they prayed towards the ark under the Law as under the Gospel towards the East and found God propitious because of the consideration in which they directed their prayers directed by out Lord John XVII 23-26 To which purpose we may observe the purging of the Altar Tabernacle and all within the vaile by the bloud of the sacrifices Levit. XVI 16 20 33. Ezek. XLIII 20 22 26. XLV 20. For what purging needed they but as they became polluted by the sinnes of the people As the Land which was holy being polluted by bloud shed must be cleansed by the bloud of him that shed it Num. XXXV 33 Therefore the Congregation became guilty when he that did a murther was not taken because the Land was promised to the Congregation and therefore an expiation is appointed Deut. XXâ— 1 10. In correspondence whereunto it must be granted that the world and the heavens being polluted with mans sinne which is that bondage of vanity and corruption under which S. Paul saith that the whole creature groaneth desiring to be delivered into that freedome which the resurrection shall restore Rom. VIII 19 22. were to be expiated by the sacrifice of Christs body brought in and his bloud sprinkled there Heb. IX 23. that in consideration of his obedience and sufferings God might be found propitious there So the everlasting intercession of Christ is grounded upon the everlasting ransome Ebr. VII 24. This Priest remaining for ever hath an everlasting Priesthood Wherefore he is able perfectly to save those that come to God by him all wayes living to interceds for them To wit by pleading his owne blood the ransome of all sinne This is the ground of all our prayers and the confidence which we may make them with in particular for the cleansing of sinne after reconcilement Of which S. Paul Rom. VIII 34. Christ it is that died or rather that is risen again who also is at the right hand of God making intercession for us And this is the necessity of Christs sufferings which the Apostle pleades Ebr. II. 14 18. that he might be sensible of ours For if the guilt be taken away by his intercession succeeding his sufferings then did he suffer that it might succeede And thus are our sinnes forgiven for his name or by his Name John II. 12. Which Sociâ—us will have to be Gods name as in the Old Testament Es XLIII 25. Psal XXV 11. LXXIX 9. CVI. 8. CXLIII 12 But if the name of God be in Christ under the â—ew Testament as in the Angel that represented God in the Old as I have showed then when we pray in christs name we pray in Gods name though in consideration of Christs merits Upon the premises depends the true meaning of all those Scriptures where Christ is said to have died for us and for our righteousnesse Not as if the preposition for could determine whether we are to understand the finall cause in respect of man to move him to accept of Christ or the impulsive cause in respect of God moving him to grant the Gospell For when S. John sayes that we ought to lay downe our lives for the breâ—hâ—en as Christ for us John III. 16. it is manifest that our life is no ransom for the brethren as Christs for us And when S. Peter saith He will lay down his life for Christ John XIII 37. 38. he meanes not to move God thereby to spare his Masters life And yet notwithstanding when Esau sold his birthright for a messe of potage Ebr. XII 16. he gave away his birth right in consideration of it And should God have taken S. Paules life upon condition of saving the Jews they must have been saved in consideration of his becoming anathema for them Rom. IX 3. And Caiaphas thought that Christ must be destroyed least the Romanes should think that they would rebell under him as theire true Prince and so it was necessary that Christ should dy for the people Johâ—
any now unlesse the signification thereof be fuâ—ther limited by other terms which being added to it every man will allow may determine a sense utterly prejudiciall to it True it is divers have observed that the word merâ—râ— in good Latine especially of those later ages in which the Fathers writ signifies no more then to attaine compasse or purchase Arguing from thence that the workes of Christians merit heaven in their sense and language no otherwise then because they are the meanes by which we attaine it So Cassander observes that S. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. I. 13. is by S. Cyprian translated misericordiam merui not intending to say that S. Paul deserved that mercy which he professes to have received of Grace But onely to signify that he found mercy and attained it But though I should grant that this word may signify no more in the language of the Fathers yet the Faith and the sense out of which it is evident that they spake will inforce that it doth signify as much as I say when they speak of our coming to heaven by our workes For having once resolved that the Covenant of Grace renders life everlasting due by Gods promise to those that lâ—ve as at their Baptisme they undertook though not for the worth of their workes yet by the mercy of God in Christ which moved him to tender such a promise he that sayes a man attaines heaven by the meanes of those workes which he lives in like a Christian sayes that those workes of his do merit heaven in the sense that I challenge For as for those that will have the workes of Christians to merit heaven of their own intrinsicke value Of those I have already said that I conceive they do prejudice the Christian â—aith in not allowing the necessity of Gods grace through Christ in accepting the condition which the Gospel requires for such a reward as the intrinsick value of it cannot deserve by Gods originall law For granting those helps of Gods grace in Christ being supernaturall and heavenly to hold proportion and correspondence with the reward of life everlasting which is the same Yet will it not follow that in all regards for the purpose in that the actions which they produce are momentany the reward everlasting which is the consideration S. Paul uses Rom. VIII 18. 1 Cor. VII 17 18. the correspondence will produce an equality of value And though the first principle of them be heavenly and supernaturall which is the help which God for Christs sake allowes yet seeing that it comes not immediately to effect but by the meanes of the faculties of mans soule infected with originall concupiscence it cannot be said that they can demand a reward correspondent to heavenly grace alone when earthly weakness concurres to imbase and allay the value of that which it produceth But as it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome in which that Order which maintainâ—s this extremity hath so great credit allowes this doctrine of merit to be taught yet can it not be said to injoine it Because there have not wanted to this day Doctors of esteem that have alwayes held otherwise Among whom I may very well name Sylvius now or lately Professor of Divinity at Doway who in his Commentaries upon the second part of Thomas Aquinas his Summe expounds that meritum de condigno which the Schoole attributes to the workes of Christians to be grounded in dignatione Dei because God vouchsafes and daignes to accept them whose they are as worthy of the reward expressing also the promise of the Gospell whereby this condescension of God is declared The Schoole Doctors found out the termes of meritum ex congruo ex condigno merit of congâ—uity and condignity Some of them because they thought That the workes of meer nature deserve supernaturall grace in regard that it is fit that God should reward him that doth his best with it That works done in the state of Grace are worth the Glory of the world to come But as the former part of the position which is planted upon these terms is rejected by many So they who onely acknowledge meritum congrui in workes done in the state of grace that is to say that it is fit for God to reward them with his kingdome say no more then that it was fit for God to promise such a reward Which whoso denieth must say that God hath promised that which it was unfit for him to promise And if the dignity of our works in respect of the reward may have this tolerable sense because God daignes and vouchsafes it The Councill of Trent which hath inacted no reason why they are to be counted merits can neither bear out these high opinions nor be said to prejudice the Faith in this point For The kingdom of God is not in word but in power if S. Paul say true And therefore though I affect not the terme of merit which divers of the Reformation do not reject Yet can I not think it so far from the truth so prejudiciall to the faith as the peevish opinions of those that allow not good workes necessary to salvation but as signes of Faith For that which necessarily comes in consideration with God in bestowing the reward which the condition he contracteth for must necessarily do though it cannot have the nature of merit because the Covenant it self is granted meerly of Grace in consideration of Christs death yet it is of necessity to be reduced to the nature and kind of the meritorious cause Nor can the glory of God or the merit of Christ be obscured by any consideration of our works that is grounded upon the merit of our Lord Christ and expresseth the tincture of his bloud The end of the Second Book Laus Deo OF THE LAWES OF The Church The Third BOOK CHAP. I. The Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods Service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot IF God had onely appointed the Profession of Christianity to be the condition qualifying for the world to come leaving to every mans judgment to determine what that Christianity is and wherein it consists which it is necessary to salvation hee professe and what that conversation is which his salvation requireth There had been no cause why I should go any further in this Dispute But having showed that God hath appointed the Sacrament of Baptisme to be a necessary means to salvation limiting thereby the profession of Christianity which hee requireth to be deposited and consigned in the hands of his Church whom hee hath trusted for the maintaining and propagating of it I have thereby showed that hee hath appointed all Christians to live in the Communion of the Church The effect of Baptisme being to admit unto full Communion in those Offices wherewith God is
bloud as understanding themselves aright all Christians must needs do Unlesse wee can maintain that wee receive the body and blood of Christ not onely when wee receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist but also by receiving it there is no cause why our Lord should say This is my body this is bloud when hee delivered onely the sign of it to good and bad and therefore not out of any consideration of the quality of them that received it And what a grosse thing were it to say that our Savior took such care to leave his Church by the act of his last will a legacy which imports no more than that which they might at all times bestow upon themselves And let mee know whether the Church could not devise signes enow to renew the memory of Christs death or if that be likewise included to expresse their profession also of dying with Christ by bearing his Crosse if our Lords intent had been no more than to appoint a Ceremony that might serve to commemorate our Lords death or to expresse our own profession of conformity to the same For certainly they who make no more of it whom I said wee may therefore properly call Sacramentaries cannot assign any further effect of Gods grace for which it may have been instituted and yet make it a meer sign of Christs death or of our own profession to dy with Christ or for Christ But if I allow them that make it more than such a sign to have departed from a pessilent conceit and utterly destructive to Christianity I cannot allow them to speak things consequent to their own position when they will not have these words to signifie that the elements are the body and bloud of Christ when they are received but become so upon being received with living faith which will allow no more of the body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament than out of it For the act of living faith importeth the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ no lesse without the Sacrament than in it Certainly it is no such abstruse consequence no such farr fetched argument to inferr If this is my body this is my bloud signifies no more than this is the sign of my body and bloud then is the Sacrament of the Eucharist a meer sign of the body and bloud of Christ without any promise of spiritual grace Seeing that being now a Sacrament by being become a Sacrament it is become no more than a sign of the body and bloud of Christ which though a living faith spiritually eateth and drinketh when it receives the Sacrament yet should it have done no lesse without receiving the same I will here allege the discourse of our Lord to them that followed him to Capernaum John VI. 26-63 upon occasion of having been fed by the miracle of five loaves and a few little fishes Supposing that which any man of common sense must grant that it signifies no more than they that heard it could understand by it and that the Sacrament of the Eucharist not being then ordained they could not understand that hee spake of it but ought to understand him to speak of believing the Gospel and becoming Christians under the allegory of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud But when the Eucharist was instituted the correspondence of the ceremony thereof with the allegory which here hee discourseth is evidence enough that as well the promise which hee tendreth as the duty which hee requireth have their effect and accomplishment in and by the receiving of it I must here call you to minde that which I said of the Sacrament of Baptisme that when our Lord discoursed with Nicodemus of regeneration by water and the Holy Ghost John III. not having yet instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor declared the promise of giving the Holy Ghost to them that should receive the same it must needs be thought that hee made way thereby to the introducing of that Ordinance the condition and promise whereof hee meant by the processe of his own and his Apostles doctrine further to limit and determine In like maner I must here insist and suppose that hee speaks not here immediately of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud in the Eucharist which his hearers could not then fore-tell that hee meant to ordain but that the action thereof being instituted with such correspondence to this discourse the intent of it may be and is to be argued from the same Now I have showed in due place that the sayings and doings of our Lord in the Gospel are mystical to signifie his kingdome of Glory to the which hee bringeth us through his kingdome of Grace So that when our Savior fed that great multitude with the loaves and the fishes which hee multiplied by miracle to the intent that they might not faint in following him and his doctrine it is manifest that hee intimateth thereby a promise of Grace to sustain us in our travail here till wee come to our Countrey of the Land of Promise When therefore hee proposeth the theme of this discourse saying Yee seek mee not because yee have seen miracles which serve to recommend my doctrine but because yee have eaten of the loaves and were filled Labor not for the meat that perisheth but for that which indures to life everlasting hee showes two things First that his flesh and bloud sustain us in our pilgrimage here because hee showes the Manna which the Fathers lived on in the Wildernesse to be a figure of it Secondly that they bring us to immortality and everlasting life in the world to come by expounding the figure to consist in this that as they were maintained by manna till they died so his new Israelites by his flesh and bloud by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud which hee was giving for the life of the world never to dye Now wherein the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud consisteth hee showes by his answer to their question upon this Warning them to work for the meat that lasts unto everlasting life which hee tenders and not for that which perisheth The question is What shall wee do to work Gods works And the answer The work of God is this to believe in him whom hee hath sent I have showed in due place that the condition which makes the promises of the Gospel due is oâ—r Christianity to wit to professe the faith of Christ faithfully that is not in vain Therefore when our Lord saith The work of God is this To believe on him whom hee hath sent hee means this fidelity in professing Christianity For indeed who can imagine otherwise that hee should call the act of believing in Christ that work of God which Christ came to teach Gods people Hee then that considers the death of Christ that is to say the crucifying of his flesh and the pouring out of his bloud with that faith which supposes all
this cup unmorthily should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ as not discerâ—ing it according to S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 27 28. unlesse wee suppose the same Sacramentally present by virtue of that true Christianity which the Church professing and celebrating the Sacrament tendâ—eth it for spiritual nourishment to a living faith for mater of damnation to a dead faith For if the profession of true Christianity be as of necessity it must be mater of condemnation to him that professeth it not truly that is to say who professing it doth not perform it shall not his assisting the celebration and consecration of the Eucharist produce the effect of rendring him condemned by himself eating the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament out of a profession of Christianity which spiritually hee despiseth for not fulfilling what hee professeth Or that living faith which concurreth to the same as a good Christian should do be left destitute of that grace which the tender of the Sacrament promiseth because the faith of those who joyn in the same action is undiscernable Certainly if the Sacramental presence of Christs body and bloud tendring the same spiritually be a blessing or a curse according to the faith which it meets with it can by no means seem unreasonable that it should be attributed to that profession of Christianity which makes it respectively a blessing or a curse according to the faith of them for whom it is intended As for that opinion that makes this presence to proceed from the Hypostatical Union passed so long before it stands upon those Scriptures which seem to signifie that those properties wherein the Majesty of Christs God-head consists are really communicated to this Manhood in the doing and for the effecting of those works wherein that assistance and grace and protection which hee hath promised his Church upon his Exaltation consisteth S. Paul writeth to the Colossians that It pleased that all fulnesse should dwell in Christ in whom dwelleth all the fulnesse of the God-head bodily as hee expresseth himself more at large Col. II. 9. that they by him might be filled and by him to reconcile all things tâ— himself making peace by the bloud of his Crosse by him I say whether things on earth or in the Heavens And you being once estranged and enemies in your mind through evil works yet now hath hee reconciled through the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and without spot and blamelesse before him Here it is plain enough that our Reconciliation is ascribed to the flesh of Christs body as to his bloud after in whom wee have Redemption even the remission of sins by his bloud Col. I. 14 19-92 to wit for the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in Christ When our Lord saith all things are delivered mee by my Father Mat. XI 27. in order to the revealing of his Gospel that is to the making of it effectual When hee saith All power in heaven and earth is given mee Mat. XXVIII 18. a question is made how given if a necessary conâ—equence of the Hypostatical Union I answer Because the exercise thereof was limited by the appointment of God and the purpose for which hee caused the Word to dwell in our flesh which though of force to do all things should not have had right in our flesh to execute that which God had not appointed And therefore is our Lord Christ justly said to receive that power of God which by degrees hee receiveth commission to exercise The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God I have showed that the Apostle makes an argument of divine power and authority dwelling in our flesh in the person of Christ Heb. I. 3. Acts II. 33. V. 31. Eph. I. 20-22 where S. Paul ascrbies the filling of the Church a work of God alone to it And as hee sits on Gods own Throne so he shall judge all as man saith our Lord John V. 21 22 23 26-30 and raise them up and quicken them to that purpose For the Throne of God on which Christ is set down is the Seat of his Judgement And therefore as I live saith the Lord God in the Prophet Es XLV 23. Christ in the Apostle Rom. XIV 11. to mee shall every knee â—ow and every tongue shall give glory tâ— God To the same purpose is all that you read of anointing our Lord Christ with the Holy Ghost given him by God without measure saith the Baptist John III. 34. if you understand it not of the habitual graces poured forth upon the Manhood of Christ from the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in it of the truth whereof neverthelesse there is no disputes but of the very Majesty of the God-head communicated unto it in the person of Christ as of a truth I have said that they are to be understood In fine not onely the â—erit but the applâ—cation thereof that is the effecting of the cleansing of our consciences from sin is ascribed unto the bloud of Christ Ebr. IX 14. 1 John I. 7. How or in what regard but because by the eternal Spirit hee offered up himself blamelesse to God as the Apostle saith In which regard onely it is that our nature in Christ is honoured with the worship due to God because being for ever inseparable from the God-head of the Word it is not to be appreheâ—ded or figured so much as in the imagination but as the flesh of the Word This is a brief of the Scriptures which they allege to inferre that seeing hee hath promised to feed his Church with his flesh and his bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which cannot be unlesse they be there And seeing the like works are performed and executed by the flesh that is the Manhood of Christ through the virtue of the God-head united unto it Therefore it is to be believed that by communication of the Majesty of the God-head to the flesh of Christ it becomes present wheresoever his promise and the comfort and strengthening of his Disciples which is the work of his Mediators Office whereunto by sitting down at Gods right hand heâ— is installed requires the presence of it If it be said that by this position the attributes and properties of the God-head are placed in the Manhood as their own proper Subject into which they are transferred by the operation of the God-head not devesting it self of them but communicating them to the Manhood to be thenceforth properties really residing in it and therefore truly to be attributed to it I must do them right and acknowledge that they utterly disclaim this to be their meaning Confessing thereby that if it were they could not avoid the imputation of Eutyches his Heresie condemned by the great Council of Chalcâ—don the confusion of the natures remaining unavoidable when the properties of the God-head being communicated to the Manhood in this sense can be no more said to remain the properties of it I undertake not thus much
Certainly the word Do this is that which the whole action is grounded upon as pretending to execute it and therefore the effect of it so far as consecrating the Eucharist is already come to passe when the Church may say This is our Lords Body this is his bloud as our Lord said This is my body this is my bloud But the strength of this resolution I confesse lies in the consent of the Church and those circumstances visible in the practice thereof which to them that observe them with reason are manifest evidences of this sense I have observed in a Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church p. 347-370 the passâ—ges of divers of the most ancient Writers of the Church in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving thanks is put for consecrating the Eucharist Unto which adde the words of Irenaeus in Eusebius Eccles Hist V. 20. concerning the then Bishop of Rome Anicetus when Polycarpus was there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hee gave way to Polycarpus to celebrate the Eucharist For seeing that this Sacrament that is the Elements consecrated are called the Eucharist all over the Church from this thanks-giving the act thereof passing upon them to give them by way of Metonymie this name What can be more reasonable than to grant that it is this act and not the rehersal of the words of the Gospel which relate what our Lord did and said in instituting as well as celebrating it by which the consecâ—ation is performed Though on the oâ—her side I insist that these words have alwayes been rehearsed by the Church in consecrating the Eucharist and ought still to be frequented and among them those which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body This is my bloud which now the whole School thinks to be the onely operâ—tive words in that change which the making of the Elemâ—nts to become the Sacrament imports I have also showed in the same place that S. Paul when hee saith 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. For if thou blesse by the Spirit hee that fills the place of an Idâ—ot or private perâ—on how shall hee say the Amen upon this thanks-giving For hee knoweth not what thou sayest For thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified by blessing and giving thanks means the consecrating of the Eucharist which thoâ—e that hâ—d the grâ—ce of Languages among the Corinthians undertook then to do in unknown tongues and are therefore reproved by the Apostle Because it may appear by the constant practice of the whole Church that it ended with an Amen of the people which S. Paul therefore calls the Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit that was used in that case And also that when hee writeth to Timothy I exhort therefore first of all to make supplications prayers intercessions thanks-givings for all men For Kings and all that are in eminence that wee may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all piety and gravity hee intends to châ—rge that at the celebration of the Eucharist which here hee calleth Thanks-givings prayers be made as for all states of men so especially for publick Powers and Princes Because S. Augustine S. Ambrose and the Author de Vocatione Gentium I. 12. do expresly testifie unto us that the custome which the Church then and always afore and since hath had to do this came from this Ordinance of S. Paul and containeth the fulfilling of it And because it is manifest by all the forms of Liturgie in all Churches that are yet extant and by the mention made of the maner of it upon occasion in the writings of the Fathers that the Eucharist was never to be celebrated without prayer for all states of Christs Church And this indeed is a great part of the evidence which I pretend There are extant yet in several Languages several Liturgies that is forms of that complete Service of God by Psalmes and Lessons and Sermons and Prayers the Crown whereof was the Eucharist as that of S. Mark of S. James of S. Peter S. Basil S. Chrysostome which are the forms that were used in their Churches of Alexandria Jerusalem Rome Caesarea Constantinople though not as they had from the beginning appointed but as Prelates of authority and credit had thought fit to adde to or take froâ— or châ—nge that which they from the beginning had appointed There is besides the Canon of the Roman Masse that is the Canonical or Regular Prayâ—r which the Eucharist is consecrated with which is the same in Latine with that of S. Peter in Greek upon the mater as of a truth the Greek is but the Translation of the Latine it seems for the use of these Greeks in Italy that follow the Church of Rome and that of S. Ambrose at Milane three translated out of Arâ—biâ—k by the Mâ—ronites at Rome the Ethiopick translated â—into Latine many Canons called by them Anaphora in the Maronites Missal lately printed at Rome in the Syriack one of the Christians of S. Thomas in the East-Indies in Latine In all these you shall observe a Prayer to begin where the Deacon formerly saying Sursum corda Lift up your hearts the people answered Habemus ad Dominum Wee lift them up unto the Lord. The subject of it is at least where any length is allowed it to praise God for creating the world and maintaining Man-kind through his providence with the fruits of the earth Then after acknowledgement of Adams Fall for using first those means of reclaiming Man-kind unto God which wee find by the Scriptures that it pleased God to use under the Law of Nature first by the Patriarches then under the Law of Moses by the Prophets then sending our Lord Christ to redeem the world Upon which occasion rehearsing how hee instituted the Eucharist at his last Supper prayer is made that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may sanctifie them to become the body and bloud of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with his Grace This being so visible in so many of these Liturgies shall wee say that all that followes after the Deacons warning let us give thanks makes up that which the ancient Church after S. Paul by a peculiar term of art as it were calls the Eucharist or Thanksgiving Or that the Sacrament which taketh the name from it is consecrated onely by rehearsing those words which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body this is my bloud Especially all reason in the world inforcing that the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being that which God promiseth upon the observation and performance of his institution and appointment cannot be ascribed to any thing else In the Latine Masse before the rehersal of the Institution they pray thus Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam ascriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis
S. Gregory saith Scholasticus composed whether hee mean a man of that name or as I conceive some Doctor that professed the Scriptures if S. Gregory should tell mee that some other form to the same effect was not in use I could not believe him believing the premises The substance and effect whereof under the name of Eucharistia or the Thanks-giving is that which the Church from the beginning consecrated the Eucharist with by the appointment of our Lord and according to the practice of his Apostles So Rabanus de Institutione Clericorum I. 32. affirms that the whole Church consecrates with Blessing and Thanksgiving the Apostles having taught them to do that which our Lord had done Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. XXII relates two several opinions concerning this businesse as it appears by his discourse Et relatio majorum est ità primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modò in Parasceve Paschae in quo die apud Romanos Missae non aguntur communicationem facere solemus Id est praemissâ— Oratione Dominicà sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepti commemoratione passionis adhibitâ eos Corpori Dominico communicâsse Sanguini quos ratio permittebat And there is a relation of our Predecessors that in the first times Masse was done as now on Good Friday on which day Masse is not said at Rome the communion is wont to be made That is that the Lords Prayer premised and the commemoration of his death applyed those whom reason allowed did communicate in the Body and Bloud of our Lord. The practice of the Church of Rome here mentioned is that which still continues not to consecrate the Eucharist either on Good Friday or the Saturday following For then Masse is said so late that it belongs to Easter day And on Maundy Thursday the Eucharist is consecrated and reserved to be received on Good Friday That any commemoration of Christs death is made at the receiving of it as Rabanus saith I finde not This is certain that no man imagines that the Eucharist is consecrated by any thing that is said or done at the receiving of it but at the Masse on the day before And this in the Greek Church is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Liturgy of the elements that were consecrated afore Which they use on other days besides Therefore this opinion that the Apostles should celebrate so would import that they celebrated the Eucharist without consecrating of it That is that they never appointed how it should be consecrated Which neither Rabanus nor any of these whose opinion he relates can maintain Nor supposing the premises is it tenable And therefore I take the true meaning of S. Gregories words to be laid down in another opinion related afore by Rabanus Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum cantilenarum consecrationum officio totum hoc Apostoli post eos proximi ut creditur orationibus commemoratione passionis dominica faciebant simpliciter That which wee act by an Office compounded of many and divers Prayers Psalms and Consecrations all that the Apostles and the next after them did plainly with prayers and the commemoration of our Lords passion as it is thought For the consecration may well be understood to be made plainly by prayer with commemoration of our Lords passion in opposition to that solemnity of Lessons Psalms and Prayers which at the more solemn occasions of the Church it was afterwards celebrated with Though wee suppose it to conclude alwaies with the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory requires And herewith the words of S. Gregory seeâ— to agree when hee â—aith Vt ad ipsam â—solummâ—do orationem To consecrate at or with it alone not by it alone But if this opinion cannot passe having indeed no constraining evidence but that S. Gregories words will needs require that they conâ—ecrated the Eucharist by the Lords Prayer alone I will will then â—ay that the Apostles understood the petition of our dayly bread as S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer doth To wit of the breâ—d and drink of the Eucharist daily celebrated and received For supposing this intent and meaning there is nothing pretended to be done by the consecration which that Petition signifieth not Praying that God will give us this day the dayly food of our â—ouls by the elements presently provided for that purpose And all this will no way prejudice that which hath been said of the mater and form of the consecration derived by Tradition from the Apostles to be frequented at more solemn occaâ—â—ons of Christian Assemblies For that Assembly which believing that Christians are justified by undertaking to professe the Faith and to live according to it and that our Lord hath left us his body and bloud of the Eucharist to convey the Holy Ghost to our â—ouls that they may be able to perform what they undertake should pray the Lords Prayer over the Elements proposed with that intent I cannot doubt of their receiving the Body and bloud of Christ Provided that where the occasion will bear more solemnity the Order of the Church received from the Apostles be not neglected Whereas supposing Christians to believe that they are justified by believing that they are justified or predestinate in consideration onely of Christs sufferings and that the Eucharist is instituted onely for a signe to confirm this Faith Though they should regularly use that form of consecration which I maintain to come by Tradition from the Apostles I would not therefore grant that they should either consecrate the Eucharist or could receive the Body and bloud of Christ by it Sacrilege they must commit in abusing Gods ordinances to that intent for which hee never appointed it but Sacrament there would be none further then their own imagination And upon these premises I am content to go to issue as concerning the sense of the Catholick Church in this point If it can any way be showed that the Church did ever pray that the flesh and bloud might be substituted instead of the elements under the accidents of them then I am content that this be counted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church onely pray that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the body and bloud of Christ so that they which received them may be filled with the grace of his Spirit Then is it not the sense of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may neverthelâ—sse become the Instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it no otherwise than his flesh and bloud conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is not here to be denied that
it not upon the Ubiquity of our Lords body but upon his will executed by celebrating the Sacrament or that of some later Greeks Damasc de â—ide Orthâ—d IV. 14. to contradict the Council of Constantinople against images under Copronymus which had recommended the Eucharist for the true image of our Lord maintaineth that it is not to be called noâ— is called in S. Basils Liturgy after the consecration the type figure image or antitype of the body and bloud of Christ Which neverthelesse Cardinal Bellarmine de Euchar. II. 15. judgeth not tenable The II Council of Nicaea that decreed for Images taking up this mans doctrine seemeth to have obliged those that follow to the same terms That is as hee there expresseth himself That God joyns his God-head to the elements to make them his body and bloud and that by the operation of the Holy Ghost which took him flesh of the Virgin so that they are no more two but one and the same Thus hee expresseth the change hee pretendeth which Transubstantiation admits not The Greeks at Venice in their answer to the first of XII questions proposed them by the Cardinal of Guise published by Lionclavavius will hereupon have neither the substance nor the accidents of the elements to remain the same as they were but to be transelemented say they into the divine substance It would be great skill to reconcile this with Transubstantiation But for the opposition made to Paschasius at the time the book of Bertram or Ratran yet extant the remembrance of John the Irish Scot one of the learned men of that time who is thought for the hatred of his opinion to have died by the hands of his Scholars the Monks of Malmesbury the opposition of Amalarius of Triers and Rabanus of Mence expressed by their sense in the works extant de Officiis Ecclesiasticis and de Institutione Clericorum are sufficient witnesses The recantation of Berengarius indited by Cardinal Humbertus at Rome MLIX comes not yet home to the businesse as it lies in the Canon Ego Berengarius For the Glosse of the Canon Law is fain to advise that if it be not well understood it creates as great an Heresie as that of Berengarius in that it sayes That the body and bloud of Christ are manâ—ged by the hands and broken by the teeth of believers not onely in the Sacrament but in the truth Which Mirandula in his Apology saith cannot be clearly understood but in the way of Damascenâ— and Paschasius And yet understanding the Sacrament to consist as well of the thing signified as of the signe though the body of Christ is not touched noâ— broke because the Sacrament is not the body of Christ according to the sensible substance which wee touch and break yet is it truly touched and truly broken as in the Sacrament because the Eucharist is truly the body and bloud of Christ as the Sacrament is and out ought to be truly that which it signifies and conveyes But as it is hereupon no mervail that hee was brought to a second recantation in a Council at Rome under Gregory VII so is that a preâ—â—mption that Transubstantiation was not yet formed And truely for England the Paschal Homily of Alfrick Archbishop of Canterbury together with those Extractions which you reade out of him in the annotations upon Bede p. 332-335 are sufficient evidence of a difference between the sense of that time and after that Lanfranck Berengarius his adversary was Archbishop of Canterbury And Pope Innocent III having inâ—erted the word Transubstantiation in the LXX Articles which hee proposed to the Council of Lateran in MCCXV what is the reason why they past not the Council as Mathew Paris with others testifie but that they were found burthensom And Gregory IX the nephew of Innocent cent having contrived these Articles into his decretals though under the name of the Council but of Innocent III in the General Council though the School Doctors depending on the Pope for the most part not on the Council were content to own them yet have wee no decree of any Council for them till that of MDLV under Leo X. For as for the institution of the Aâ—â—enians in the Council of Florence which though it use not the term of Transubstanciation seemeth to come up to the sense being advanced after the departure of the Greeks and not voted by the Council but onely published as the act of the Pope in the Council it cannot be called the decree of the Council though done in a publick Session of the Council in the great Church at Florence Certainly adding to the opinions of the School Doctors Scotus Durandus Ockam Cameracensis Bassolis and Gabriel besides those who living since Luther have acknowledged the same Caâ—etane Fisher Canus Suarez Vasquez and Bellarmine that it is not to be proved by expresse text of Scripture nor by reason grounded upon the same that which hath been alleged If this be not enough to evidence all interruption of Tradition which is pretended for Transubstantiation nothing is For that which Church Writers declare that they did not believe when they writ that they cannot declare that they received of their Predecessors for mater of faith And that which at any time was not mater of faith how farr soever the decree of the Church may oblige particular sons of the Church not to contradict it for the peace of the Church yet at no time can ever become of force to oblige a man to believe or to professe it for mater of faith CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises I Come now to the question of the Sacrifice the resolution whereof must needs proceed according to that which hath been determined in the point now dispatched For having showed the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist because it is appointed that in it the faithfull may feast upon the Sacrifice of the Crosse Wee have already showed by the Scriptures that it is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in the same sense and to the same effect as it containeth the body and bloud of Christ which it representeth that is mystically and spiritually and sacramentally that is as in and by a Sacrament tendereth and exhibiteth For seeing the Eucharist not onely tendereth the flesh and bloud of Christ but separated one from the other under and by several elements as his bloud was parted from his body by the â—â—olence of the Crosse it must of necessity be as well the Sacrifice as the Sacrament of Christ upon the Crosse And without all doubt it is against all the reason of the world to think that any more can be proved by any Scriptures of the Old Testament that are or
counted the Sacrifice of Christ crucified mystically and as in a Sacrament represented to feasted upon by his people The Apostle saith that Christ is gone into no holy place made with hands figurative of the true but into heaven it self to be presented before God for us Nor to offer himself many times as the High Priest goes once a year into the Holy places with that bloud which is not his own For then must hee many times have suffered since the foundation of the world But now once in the end of times is hee manifested by the sacrifice of himself to the voiding of sin And as it is appointed for men once to dye and after that judgment So Christ once offered to take away the sins of many shall appear the second time without sin to those that look for him to salvation Ebr. IX 24-28 But have I said any thing to cause any man to imagine that I suppose Christ to be crucified again as often as the Eucharist is celebrated Do I say those that celebrate it are those Jewes that crucified him once Or do I or can I imagine them to be Jewes at all that would have the sacrifice of our Lord Christ upon the Crosse repeated again and again as legal sacrifices are Certainly I will speak freely neither can they that hold Transubstantion be truly said to stand obliged to any such consequence so long as they acknowledg with all Christians that the Covenant of Grace is for once settled by the one Sacrifice of our Lord upon the Crosse Why because though they believe the natural flesh and bloud of Christ as crucified to be there yet not naturally but sacramentally that is in their sense under the accidents of bread and wine which is indeed and in the sense of the Church under the species or kinds which difference is so great an abatement of that common and usual sense in which all Christians understand that Christ was sacrificed upon the Crosse that all that know it to be their profession which all must know that will not speak of they know not what must acknowledg that the repeating of the Sacrifice of Christ crucified by the Eucharist is not the repeating of that Sacrifice by which mankinde was redeemed otherwise than as a Sacrament is said to be that whereof it is a Sacrament What ground and advantage this gives mee and any man of my opinion to argue from those things which themselves acknowledg that there is no cause why they should insist upon the abolishing of the substance of the Elements in the Eucharist I leave to them that shall think fit to consider the premises to judg But for mee who demand no more than this That in as much as the body and bloud of Christ is in the Eucharist in so much it is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse I cannot foresee what occasion slander can have to pick any such consequence out of my sayings Certainly the Sacrifices of the Old Law ceased not to be Sacrifices because they were figures and Prophesies of that one Sacrifice upon the Crosse which mankinde was redeemed with And why should the commemoration and representation in that sense of this word repraesentation which I determined afore of that one Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which mankinde was redeemed with be lesse properly a Sacrifice in dependance upon denomination from that one which the name of Sacrifice upon the Crosse was first used to signifie For all conceit of legal Sacrifice is quite shut out by supposing that Sacrifice past which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist represents and commemorates Whereas all Sacrifices of the Old Law are essentially at least to Christians figurative of the Sacrifice of Christ to come Indeed by that which I have said concerning the nature of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist as it is intended for Christians to feast upon it is evident that this commeâ—orative and representative Sacrifice is of the nature and kinde of Peace-Offerings which by the Law those that offered were to feast upon I will take the Cup of salvation and call upon the Name of the Lord. I will pay my vowes now in the presence of all his people Right dear in the sight of the Lord is the death of his Saints saith the Psalm CXVI 12 13. And that in answer to the question made What reward shall I give unto the Lord for all the benefits that hee hath done unto mee At feasting upon the parts or remains of Peace-Offerings the Master of the Sacrifice began the Cup of Thanksgiving for deliverance received in consideration whereof hee payes his vowes And the Sacrifices which hee payes are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacrifice of Thanks-giving for deliverance received Is not this the â—ame that Christians do in celebrating the Euâ—harist setting aside the difference between Jews and Christians Wherefore I have showed that it is celebrated and is to be celebrated with commemoration of and thanksgiving for the benefits of God especially that of Christ crucified Which thankâ—giving as it tends to the consecrating thereof so in as much as the consecration tends to the receiving of it another thanksgiving at the receiving of it becomes also due as at feasting upon Peace-Offerings And hereupon I have showed that it is called by the Apostle the sacrifice of Praise the fruit of our lips giving thanks to God And that hâ—ving showed that Jewes have no right to it as a Propitiatory Sacrifice that is not to it because not to the Propitiatory Sacrifice which it representeth But therefore that Christiâ—ns have right to feast upon it as the Jews upon their Peace-Offerings But if it be true as I have showed that the celebrâ—tion of the Eucharist is the renewing of the Covenant of Grace which supposeth propitâ—ation made for the sins of mankinde by that one sacrifice which it commemorâ—teth and representeth the celebration thereof being commanded as a condition to be performed on our part to qualifie us for the promise which it tendreth to those that are qualified as it requireth Shall it be a breaâ—h upon Christianity to say also that it is such a Sacrifice whereby wee make God propitious to us and obtain at his hands the blessings of Grace which the Covenant of Grace tendreth This indeed requireth yet further consideration for what reasons the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be accounted and called a Sacrifice that wee may be able to judge in what sense and for what reason it may be accounted Propitiatory and Impetratory without prejudice to Christianity First then let it be remembred that by the institution and ordinance of God those that dedicate themselves to the service of God in the faith of Christ by Baptism are to dedicate their goods to the maintenance of the Communion of the Church in the said service the chief Office whereof is the celebration of the Eucharist proper to Christianity as I showed a little afore Then be it observed that there were two
sorts of Oblations commanded by the Law and practised by Gods ancient people For First-fruits Tithes and accursed things that is things dedicated to God under a curse upon them that should convert them to any other use Leviâ— XXVIII were not dedicated to be spent upon the Altar in Sacrifices but to the maintenance of the Temple or of them that attended upon the service of it But seeing wee have now showed that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice it followeth that those Oblations which are dedâ—cated to God to be spent in the celâ—bration of the Eucharist in reference whereunto I have already showed that all Oblations of Christians are consecrated to God because dedicated to maintain the Communion of his Church whereof the Eucharist is that Office which is peculiar to Christianity are not barely consecrated to God but to the service of God by Sacrifice For those things which under the Law were consecrated to God to be sacrificed upon the Altar were not then first offered to God when they were killed and the parts of them burnt upon the Altar But from the time that they were declared Gods goods for that purpose as by the Law it self may appear in the precept of the second Tithe which for two years belonging to the poor the third year was to be spent in sacrificing at Jerusalem and so by Law and by no mans act consecrate to the Altar Deut. XIV 22-29 In as much then as I have showed that the Eucharist is a Sacriâ—iâ—e in so much and for that very reason that which Christians offer to God for the celebration of the Eucharist is no otherwise a Sacrifice than those things which were appropriated to the Altar under the Law were Sacrifices from the time that they were dedicated to that purpose Saving alwaies the difference between Sacrifices figurative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse such as Christianity supposeth all the Sacrifices of the Old Law to be and the commemoration and representation of the same past which I have showed that the Eucharist pretendeth And truly having showed that this representative and commemorative Sacrifice is of the nature and kinde of Peace-Offerings in as much as it is celebrated on purpose to communicate with the Altar in feasting upon it And knowing that every beast that was sacrificed for a Peace-Offering was attended with a Meat-Offering of floure and a Drink-Offering of wine which are the kindes in which the Eucharist is appointed to be celebrated I must needs say that those species set apart for the celebration of the Eucharist are as properly to be called Sacrifices of that nature which the Eucharist is of to wit commemorative and representative as the same are to be counted figurative under the Law from the time that they were deputed to that use This is then the first act of Oblation by the Church that is by any Christian that consecrates his goods not at large to the service of God but peculiarly to the service of God by Sacrifice in regard whereof the Elemenâ—s of the Eucharist before they be consecrated are truly counted Oblations or Sacrifices After the Consecration is past having showed you that S. Paul hath appointed that at the celebration of the Eucharist prayers supplications and intercessions be made for all estates of the world and of the Church And that the Jews have no right to the Eucharist according to the Epistle to the Hebrews because though Eucharistical yet it is of that kinde the bloud whereof is offered to God within the Vail with prayers for all estates of the world as Philo and Josephus inform us Seeing the same Apostle hath so plainly expounded us the accomplishment of that figure in the offering of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Father in the highest heavens to obtain the benefits of his passion for us And that the Eucharist is nothing else but the representation here upon earth of that which is done there These things I say considered necessarily it follows that whoso believes the prayers of the Church made in our Lords name do render God propitious to them for whom they are made and obtain for them the benefits of Christs death which hee that believes not is no Christian cannot question that those which are made by S. Pauls appointment at the celebration of the Eucharist offering up unto God the merits and sufferings of Christ there represented must be peculiarly and especially effectual to the same purposes And that the Eucharist may very properly be accounted a Sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory both in this regard because the offering of it up unto God with and by the said prayers doth render God propitious and obtain at his hands the benefits of Christs death which it representeth there can be no cause to refuse being no more than the simplicity of plain Christianity inforceth But whether the Eucharist as in regard of this Oblation so in regard of the Consecration may be called a propitiatory Sacrifice this I perceive is yet a question even among those of the Church of Rome For it is acknowledged that there is yet among them a party even since the Decree of the Council of Trent who acknowledging the nature of a Sacrifice propitiatory in the Eucharist in regard of the offering of it already consecrated according to the order of the Latine Masse to God for the necessities of the Church utterly deny any nature of such a Sacrifice in it by virtue of the Consecration otherwise True it is these men are looked upon as bordering upon Hereticks in regard they acknowledg no other nature of a Sacrifice but that which those who acknowledg no Transubstantiation may grant without prejudice to their positions And if my aim were onely to hold a mean opinion between â—wo extreams and not freely to declare what may be affirmed with truth it might seem very convenient to take up that position for which I may allege a party at present extant in the Communion of the Church of Rome But having resolved to set all regard of faction behinde the consideration of truth manifested by the Scriptures I stick not to yield and to maintain that the consecration of the Eucharist in order to the participation of it is indeed a Sacrifice whereby God is rendred propitious to and the benefits of Christs death obtained for them that worthily receive it But this perhaps neither in the sense nor to the interest of them who make it their businesse to maintain the present abuses of the Church of Rome by disguising the true intentions and expressions of the Catholick Church That I may be understood without prejudice in this point I will lay down the difference of opinion that remains in the Church of Rome â—â—nce the Council of Trent as I finde it reported by Jacobus Bayus de Eucharistiâ III. 15-18 Hee complains of an opinion that the nature of a Sacrifice is not seen in conâ—ecrating the Elements to become the body and bloud of
Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse For is it not all the reaâ—on in the world that if the Eucharist be the Sacrifice of Christ crucified the consecrating of the Eucharist that is the causing of the Elements to become this Sacrifice should be and be accounted and called the sacrificing of Christ And if the participation of the Eucharist be as I have showed it to be the renewing of the Covenant of Grace by virtue whereof the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse becomes propitiatory and impetratory in behalf of Christians shall not the Sacrifice of the Eucharist whereof they participate be counted propitiatory and impetratory by virtue of the consecration indeed though in order to the participation of it For if the profession of Christianity be the condition that renders God propitious to us and obtains for us the benefits of Christs passion And that the receiving of the Eucharist is the renewing of that profession by virtue whereof the Faults whereby wee have failed of that profession for that which is past are blotted out and wee for the future are qualified for the blessings which Christs passion tendereth Then is the Eucharist a Sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory by virtue of the Consecration though in order to the participation of it Which whether those that are so much for the Sacrifice in the Church of Rome rest conâ—ent with it or not seemeth to mee so natively proper to the simplicity and holinesse of Christianity that nothing can be held forth more pertinent to advance the zeal of frequenting together with the devotion and reverence of communicating in this most precious of Gods Ordinances to Christians For what can more oblige a Christian to the frequent and worthy communion of this Sacrament then to consider that by receiving it hee is re-estated in his right to those promises which the Gospel â—endreth provided that hee on his part re-establish in his own heart that resolution to Christianity by professing which hee was at the first estated in Gods Kingdom Hereupon arises a fourth reason why this Sacrament is a Sacrifice to wit of the bodies and souls of them who having consecrated their goods to God for the celebration of it do by receiving it professe to renew that consecration of themselves to the service of God according to the Law of Christ which their Baptism originally pretendeth For in as much as wee revive and renew the first profession of our Christianity in receiving the Eucharist wee do also by the same means offer up our bodies for a living Sacrifice holy and well pleasing to God which is our reasonable service of God as S. Paul commandeth Rom. XII 1. And by that which hath been said it is easie to resolve that which is further questioned in the School whether the breaking the pouring forth the taking and the consuming of the Elements by eating and drinking belong to the nature of the Sacrifice or not For I have already allowed the consecrating of the Elements apart to be a necessary ingredient of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist as necessary to represent the Sacrifice of the Crosse And if men did consider that the Eucharist had never been instituted but to be participated they would finde it impeâ—tinent to allege any reason why it should be a Sacrifice that â—endeth not to the participation of it There is then in the Masse a peculiar ceremony of breaking the Host into the Chalice not tending to the distributing of it but all the portions to be taken by the Priest Of this I speak not Otherwise breaking pouring forth distributing eating drinking are all parts of the Sacrifice as the whole action is that Sacrifice by which the Covenant of Gace is renewed restored and established against the interruption of our failleurs And now I confesse that all they who do not believe the promises of the Gospel to depend upon any condition to be performed by our free will qualifying us with a right title to them may very well say by consequence that it is a disparagement to the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to make the Eucharist a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice in behalf of the Church in that sense and to that effect as I have said But supposing that condition I challenge all the world to say wherein any such disparagement lies For let any man think either mee or the Doctors of the Church of Rome so mad as to ascribe that propitiation which is once made for the whole world by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the representation and commemoration of it by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist But in regard the Gospel requires a certain condition at thine hands which being not performed to thee Christ is neither born nor crucified nor â—â—en again as S. Prosper saith And that the communion of the Eucharist professeth the performance thereof and that truely if it be worthy so that the Propitiation wrought by Crosse thereby becomes effectually thine in that regard the Eucharist becomes to thee a propitiatory Sacrifice by virtue of the Consecration indeed which makes the Elements to become the body and bloud of Christ mystically as in a Sacrament but yet in order to the participation of iâ— And is not this the applying of the propitiation wrought by the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse when as by the Sacrament of the Eucharist a man becomes intitled to the benefit of it Nor let any man tell mee that this application is wrought by living faith as if that were evidence enough that not by the Sacrament of the Eucharist For if notwithstanding this faith the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to estate us in this right because there is no living faith without being baptized into Gods Church By the same reason supposing the frequentation of the Eucharist commanded for the dayly redressing and maintenance of the same title of necessity it follows that the application of that propitiation is to be ascribed to the Eucharist which is not applicable without it Again If S. Paul injoyn the Church to offer up their Prayers Supplications and Intercessions for all estates in the world at the celebration of the Eucharist as recommending them in the name of Christ there mystically present in the commemoration of his death upon the Crosse can it seem strange that the Prayers which are so powerfully presented by alleging an Intercession of such esteem should have a special virtue and take a special effect in making God propitious to his Church and all estates of the same and obtaining for them those benefits which Christs passion tenders And if so is not the Sacrament of the Eucharist a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice by virtue of the Consecration though in order to the Oblation and presentation of it by the prayers of the Church for the obtaining of their necessities What is there in all this that the tongue of slander can asperse with the imputation of Popery unlesse they will have Popery to be that Christianity which
is admitted to Baptism is likewise invested with a right and due title to the promises of the Gospel remission of sâ—nnes and everlasting life As it may appear to all that hâ—ve contracted with the Church of England in Gods name that continuing in that which they professed and undertook on ttheir part at their Baptism they are â—ssured of no lesse by the Church And therefore this is and ought to be accounted that power of the Keyes by which men are admitted to the House of God which is his Church as S. Paul saith At least that part of it that is seen and exercised in this first office that the Church can minister to a Christian And seeing no man can challenge the priviledge of that communion to which he is admitted upon condition of that profession which Baptism supposed unlesse he proceed to live according to it it cannot seem strange that the same should be thought to be exercised in the celebration of the Eucharist as it is done with a purpose to communicate the Sacrament thereof to those that receive I shall desire any man that counts this sâ—râ—nge to consider that which I quoted even now out of Epiphanius That the Patriarch of the Jews at Tiberias being baptized by the Bishop put a considerable sum of Gold into his hand saying Offer for me For it is written Whatsoever ye bind on â—atrh shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be losed in heaven For so it follows in Epiphanius And when S. Cyprian blames or forbids offering up the names or offering up the Eucharist in the names of those that had fallen away from the Church in time of persecution till they were reconciled to the Church by Penance doth he not exercise the power of the Keyes in his hands by denying the benefit of those Prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with to them who had forfeited their right to it by failing of that which by their baptism they undertook As on the other side whosoever the Eucharist is offered for that is whosoever hath a part in those Prayers which it is celebrated with is thereby declared loose by the Church upon supposition that he is indeed what he professes And whatsoever Canons of the Church there are of which there are not a few which take order that the offerings of such or such shall or shall not be received they all proceed upon this suppoâ—â—tion that by the power of the Keys they are to be allowed or refused their part of benefit in the Communion of the Eucharist and the effects of iâ— For not to speak of what is by the corruption of men but what ought to be by the appointment of God it is manifest that the admission of a man to the communion of the Eucharist is an allowance of his Christianity as conâ—ormable to that which Baptism professeth though in no sâ—ate of the Church it is a sufficient and reasonable presumption that a man is indeed and before God intitled to the promises of the Gospel that he is admitted to the communion of the Eucharist by the Church because whatsoever profession the Church can receive may be counâ—erfeit But so that it is to be indeavoured by all means possible for the Church to use that the right of communicating with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not allowed any man by the Church but upon such terms and according to such laws that a man being qualified according to them may be really and indeed qualified for those promises which the Gospell tendreth Which being supposed every Christian must of necessity acknowledge how great and eminent a power the Lord hath trusted his Church with in celebrating and giving of the Eucharist when he is convinced to believe that the body and blood of Christ is thereby tendred him though mystically and as in a Sacrament yet so truly that the spirit of Christ is no lesse really present with it to inable the souls of all them that receive it with sincere Christianity then the Sacrament is to their bodies or then the same spirit is present in the flesh and bloud of Christ naturally being in the heavens For suppose that by faith alone without receiving this Sacrament a man is assured of the spirit of Christ as by faith alone understanding faith alone as S. Paul meant it I shall show that he may be assured of it yet if he have determined a visible act to be done to the due performance whereof he hath annexed a promise of the participation of the Spirit of Christ by our Spirit no lesse then of the body â—nd blood of Christ Sacramentally present by our bodies And if he hath made the doing of this a part of the Christianity which under the title of Faith alone inâ—iâ—leth to promises of the Gospell for who can be said to professe Christianity that owneth not such an Ordinâ—nce upon such a promise Then hath he determined and limited the truth of that faith which onely justifieth us at the beginning of every mans Christianity to the Sacrament of Baptism but in the proceeding of the same to that of the Eucharist These being the first Powers of the Church and having resolved from the beginning that the power of the Church extends to the deterâ—ining or limiting of any thing requisite to the communion of the Church the determination or limitation wherof by such an act as ought to have the force of Law to them that are of the Church becomes requisite to the communion of Christians in the offices of Gods service in unity I cannot see any of the controversies whereby we stand now divided that can deserve a place in our consideration before that of the Baptism of Infants For as it is a dispute belonging to the first and originall power of the Church to consider whether it extend so farre as when it is acknowledged that there is no written Law of God to that purpose that it may and justly hath provided that all the Children of Christian Parents be baptized Infants so it will apear to concern their salvation more immediately then other Laws limiting the exercise of the Churches power or the circumstances of exercising those offices of God service which it tendeth to determine can be thought to do But Before I come to dispute this point I will here take notice once more of the Book called the Doctrine of Baptisms one of the fruits of this blessed Reformation commonly attributed to the Master of a Colledge in Cambridge proving by a studied dispute that it was never intended by our Lord Christ and his Apostles that Christians should be Baptized at all That John indeed was sent to baptize with water but that the Baptism of Christ is baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire And so long as the Ceremonies of the Law were not abolished in point of fact though become void in point of right so long also baptism by water was practised by the Apostles as
upon which the Holy Ghost which Christ promiseth upon his ascension is granted as I have showed then can it not be thought to have been in force from any other date then that of the promise This is the reason why I am to expect no thanks from the Anabaptists for granting that the Sacrament of Baptism was not in force when these words were said For the regeneration here required in them that shall come to the Kingdom of heaven being expressed here to be that which the Holy Ghost worketh and the sending of the Holy Ghost depending upon the profession of Christianity solemnly made by Baptism from the time that Christianity came in force Whatsoever Nicodemus understood by being born again of water and the Holy Ghost after the institution they cannot be understood to take effect without it There were then divers customes of baptizing in force among the Jews by virtue of the Law There was a custome to admit Proselytes into the Synagogues by circumcision by a sacrifice and by baptism And they that look upon this custome with judgement cannot doubt that our Saviour intending to prescribe a course for the bringing of true Proselytes which are Christians into the true Israel of God which is the Church made choice of the ceremony of Baptism because of the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel In fine John had taken it up for the fittest expression of that repentance and conversion from those evill wayes which he charged those that bore themselves high upon the priviledge of Gods people with which those whom he baptized were to professe This was enough to make Nicodemus understand by these words the declaration of a purpose to institute some such Ceremony as those which he knew to be in use But when he addeth the Holy Ghost as a promise annexed to it he sends us Johns Gospel to learn further what this promise requires And therefore I must resume here that which I observed afore that our Lord intending to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the eating of his body and blood mystically as in a Sacrament prepared his Disciples for it by discoursing to them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood by considering his doctrine and turning it to the nourishment of their souls by taking up his Cross and professing Christianity Joh. VI. For one egge is not liker another then the course he takes here to intimate what he intended to ordain for the qualifying of his Disciples to be capable of the Holy Ghost whereby he declareth a promise is to his proceeding in bringing in the other Sacrament If then our Anabaptists can show us a new Gospel to assure us of the gift of the Holy Ghost without Baptism then may they take upon them to assure us of the Kingdom of Heaven without it But if the Kingdom of Heaven depend upon the new birth of the Holy Ghost and there be no possible means to assure any man of this new birth without the Sacrament of Baptism either Infants must be baptized before they go out of the world or go out of the world without that assurance Here I professe it is all one to me as to this dispute whether those whom I dispute with believe Original sinne or not For if they believe it not I remit them to that which I have said in the second Book to maintain it If they believe it I remit them to all that I have said there to show that it is not cured by Predestination alone but by that condition which the Covenant of Grace requireth To this condition he that is predestinate is cured of it by his predestination which appointeth him the cure But not being predestinate to the cure cannot be presumed to be predestinate to the Kingdom which supposeth the cure That which is born of the flesh is flesh that which is born of the spirit is spirit saith our Lord. How shall that which is born flesh be born again spirit did our Lord promise it any man that should not first professe Christianity and be baptized He that stands upon that let him dispute with that which I have said in the second Book let him show me how the Gospel how Christianity can stand if the promises of it be assigned to Gods Grace and purpose immediately without supposing any condition qualifying for th◠same It is plain what will be said Infants are not capable of making this profession of knowing what it means of judging that it ought to be made Therefore not capable of Baptism or the promises depending upon it if in that consideration they depend upon it And truly set aside that consideration and I do not marvail that man cannot believe God should make the spirituall and everlasting promises of his Gospel to depend upon a little water and so many words as it is used with Besides that S. Peter finding it inconvenient to attribute such effects to laying down the filth of the flesh establisheth instead of it the profession of a good conscience to God as that to which he would have them ascribed They then that believe that God provided and procured the fall of Adam or foreseeing the means by which it would come to pass permitted it no purpose that all his posterity being liable to Originall sinne he might chuse whom he would save and whom he would damn for it without respect of any compliance with those terms of salvation which he should hold forth do not stand to their own opinion if they referre not the salvation of Infants to the meer appointment of God without respect to any thing that the Church may do in it But they that will not part with their Christianity for so gross a presumption as that is will take heed how they become murtherers of the Childrens souls first denying them that help to Gods Kingdom which is in their power to give and that of their own by breaking the unity of the Church rather then do that which the Church alwaies did do Indeed if there were any thing in the precept of Baptism to signifie that it is not to be given them who do not actually make profession of Christianity reason would that it should be obeyed referring our selves to God for the issue of those inconveniences which his commands breed though never so visible But what saith the Apostles commission Go make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you For I do except against the translation of it Go teach all Nations Beeing in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Syriack TALMED which can signifie nothing but make Disciples Now those that were first called Christians at Antioch Acts XI 26. were called Disciples afore and afterwards also almost throughout the Scripture which useth the name of Christians but seldome And is there not reason to take them for Disciples who being ingaged to Christianity by being baptized
and alwaies have maintained that which you see I dare not affirm but he dares namely that all Infants who dye unbaptized go into everlasting fire It is demanded in the second place what is that regeneration by the Holy Ghost and wherein it consists whereof Infants that are baptized can be thought capable For the wild conceits of those that imagine them to have faith in Christ which without actuall motion of the mind is not require miracles to be wrought of course by baptizing that the effect thereof may come to passe And if the state of Grace which the habituall grace of Gods spirit either supposeth or inferreth is not to be attained but by the resolution of imbracing the covenant of Grace as by all the premises it is not otherwise attended it will be every whit as hard to say what is that habituall Grace that is said to be poured into the souls of Infants that are baptized being nothing else but a facility in doing what the covenant of Grace requireth But if we conceive the regeneration of Infants that are baptized to consist in the habituall assistance of Gods spirit the effects whereof are to appear in making them able to perform that which their Christianity requires at their hands so soon as they shall understand themselves to be obliged by â—it we give reason enough of the effect of their Baptism whither they dye or live and yet become not liable to any inconvenience For supposing the assistance of Gods spirit assigned them by the promise of Baptism to take effect when their bodily instruments inable the soul to act as Christianity requireth if the soul by death come to be discharged of them can any thing be said why originall concupiscence which is the Law of the members should remain any more to impeach the subjection of all faculties to the law of Gods spirit Or will it be any thing strange that when they come to be taught Christianity the same spirit of God should be thought to â—way them to imbrace it of their own choice and not onely in compliance with the will of their Parents yet is this no more then the regeneration of Infants by water and the Holy Ghost importeth that the spirit of God should be habitually present to make those reasons which God hath given to convince the world that they ought to be Christians both discernable to the understanding and waying down the choice whereas those that are converted from being enemies to God that is to say at those yeâ—rs when no man can be converted to God that is not his enemy before though the spirit of God knock at their hearts without striving to cast out the strong man that is within doors and to make a dwelling for it selfe in the heart are possessed by a contrary principle till they yield Gods spirit that entertainment which God requireth If this habituall assistance of Gods spirit by the moral effect of Gods promise not by any natural change in the disposition of that minde which never used reaâ—on to make choice of it can be called habitual grace as for certain it is a grace of God in consideration of our Lord Christ and no lesse habitual then any quality which the soul of man or the faculties thereof can be indowed with I shall not need to quarel the decree of the Council of Vienna which hath determined the giâ—t of habitual grace to be the effect of Baptism in Infants Onely I exprâ—sse more distinctly and to the preventing of the inconveniences mentioned wherein it conâ—isteth But I shall inferre as a consequence of this resolution that we are not to look upon Christians that are baptized in their Infancy as thoâ—e who are all of them necessarily enimies to God before they â—e converted again to become true Christians For though that very age when they come first to years of discretion obliging them to act as Christians be liable to â—o many and so great temptations that few câ—n pass through it without falling away from the profession of Christians yet because it is not incredible that there are many cases in which the Ministry of education blessed by Gods providence as acted by his grace brings it to pass it is by no means to be supposed that all those who are baptized Infants are necessarily to passe through the state of Gods enemies And therefore that as many as come into that state do fall from the state of Gods grace into which they are baptized Which is none of the least demonstrations of that which hath been maintained in due place that the state of Gods grace is as well lost and forfeited as it is to be recovered again by Christians And upon this ground and to this purâ—ose it was that the ancient Church at such time as the solemnity of Baptizing became tied to Easter and Whitsuntide and the young were baptized with the old not absolutely Infants but according to the opinion of Gregory Nazianzene related afore at three or four years of age used to give them alâ—o the Eucharist as soon as they were baptized For the Eucharist being nothing but the confirming and seconding of the covenant of Baptism the reason why they were baptized inferred the giving of them the Eucharist Which reason being rendred by the supposed Dionysius in the end of his Book de Ecclesiasticâ Hierarchia where he tells us that litle ones received the Eucharist as soon as they were baptized as I do here that they might be alwaies from thence forwards in the state of Grace The Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ because the means to convey his Spirit may well be judged the means to secure and confirm that promise thereof which Baptism importeth Yet doth not this inferre that since it is become necessary for the Church to baptize all in the state of meere Infants it is not for the best to deferre the communion of the Eucharist till litle ones may know what they do though in my opinion it is deferred farre longer then it ought to be nothing but a disposition positively opposite to Christianity defeating the effect of it which may prevent the said disposition in innocents much lesse that this can be any just ground for division in the Church so that the division which shall be raised upon this ground necessarily renders those who are the cause of it Schismaticks In fine seeing it is excellently said by S. Gregory Nazianzene in sanctum Bapt. Orat. XLII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That we are to think the force of Baptizing to consist in the Covenant of a second life and purer conversation with God And that the Eucharist is nothing else but the seconding of this Covenant where Baptism in that regard is necessary to salvation there the Eucharist though not necessary as the ancient Church never held it cannot be unlawful Whether expedient or not he that contents himselfe with the practice of the Church for Unities sake will prove the best Christian I
so that the precept concerns the Church no more then that grace appears But that the effect of it reaches to all ages of the Church abating that which depended upon the miraculous graces proper to the Apostles time For suppose remission of sinne past warranted the sick by the Keyes of the Church that have passed upon him Yet all Christians are to assure themselves that their spirituall enemies are most busie about them in that extremity Whither out of despair to prevail if not then or out of hope then to prevail Their malice being heightned to the utmost attempt of casting him down by the extremity of that instance God forbid then that the Prayers of the Church should be counted unnecessary in such an instance though the remission of sinne be provided for otherwise For all obstructions to Gods grace requisite in so great weaknesse to overcome being the effect and consequence of sinne Neither can it be said that the Apostle attributeth the remission of sinne to the Unction by the promise which he annexeth to the injunction whereby he imployes the Keyes of the Church to that end Nor can it be indured in a Christian to count the removing of them unnecessary and superfluous especially the patient being so disposed and in such a capacity for the effect of them by submitting to the ministery of the Church for the remission of his sinne And therefore certainly as it is necessary to presume that the promise of bodily health is not absolute and generall but where it pleaseth God to give evidence of his presence in and to his Church by the effect of his temporall blessings So that health of mind necessary to resist the tempter with which Christianity obliges us to suppose that Christians prayed for with bodily health the Prayers of the Church are not effectuall to obtain but upon supposition of that disposition which the Church requireth and that procured by the Keyes of the Church supposing the party obliged to have recourse to the Church for it How well this opinion agreeth with the sense of the Catholick Church I have argument enough both in the sayings of the Fathers whereby they express the reason of anointing the sick and in the practice of the Church Origen Homil. II. in Levit. Est adhuc dura laboriosa per paenitentiam remissio peccatorum cum lavat peccator in lachrymis stratum suum fiunt ei lachrymae suae panes die ac nocte cum non erubescit sacerdoti domini judicare peccatum suum quaerere medicinam secundum eum qui ait Dixi pronunciabo adversum me iniquitatem meam domino tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei In quo impletur illud quod Apostolus dicit Si quis autem infirmatur vocet Presbyteros Ecclesiae imponant ei manus ungentes eum oleo in nomine domini oratio fidei salvabit infiâ—num si in peccatis fuerit remittentur ei There is yet a hard and painfull remission of sinnes by Penance when the sinner washeth his Couch with tears and his tears become his bread day and night and when he is not ashamed to declare his sinne o the Priest of God and seek his cure according to him that saith I said I will declare my sinne to the Lord against my selfe and thou forgavest the impiety of my heart Wherein is also fulfilled that which the Apostle saith But if a man be sick let him send for the Priests of the Church and let them lay hands on him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and if he be in sinne it shall be forgiven him Here he gives Priests the power of forgiving sinne from S. James S. Chrysostome de Sacerdotio â— II. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For not onely when they regenerate us by Baptism but afterwards also have they power to remit sinnes For is any man sick among you saith he let him call the Pastors of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of Lord. Shall we then ascribe the effects of this power to the bodily act of anointing with oyl or to their Prayers not supposing that disposition to be procured by their ministery which the promise of remission supposeth Neither of both will stand with the premises seeing the Prayers of the Church cannot be effectuall to them that submit hot to the Ministery of the Church when it becomes uecessary for the procuring of that disposition which qualifies for remission of sinne so that the sense of the ancient Church declared here by Origen and S. Chrysostome must be understood to proceed upon consideration of the power of the Keys exercised upon the sick person that receiveth the unction with prayers for his ghostly and bodily health S. Augustine de Tempore Serm. CCXV Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Et inde corpusculum suum ungat ut illud quod scriptum est impleatur in eo Infirmatur aliquis Videte fratres quia qui in infirmitate ad Ecclesiam accurrerit corporis sanitatem recipere peccatorum indulgentiam merebitur obtinere As oft as any infirmity comes let him that is sick receive the Body and Blood of Christ And then let him anoint his Body that that which is written may be fulfilled in him If any man be sick See brethren that he who shall have recourse to the Church in sickness shall be thought worthy to obtain both the recovery of bodily health and indulgence for his sinnes Now I ask whether the Rule of the Church will allow the communion of the Eucharist to him that hath not recourse to the Church for the cure of his sinne when he ought to have recourse to it For if we suppose the Eucharist to be given him upon confession of sinne then the reason which I pretend appears If without it is because nothing obliges him to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church at that time And so the prayers of the Church and the Eucharist and the unction are therefore effectual because the Church rightly supposeth him qualified for remission of sinnes without recourse to other means For daily sinnes and hourly are abolished by daily and hourly devotions with detestation of the same and yet more firmly abolished by partaking of these offices ministred by the Church Here I must give notice that I undertake not that this Sermon is S. Augustines own which I see is censured among those pieces that have crept under his name by mistake or by imposture For the stile also seemeth to make it some hundreds of years later then his time But I think it more advantage to my opinion that it held footing in the Church so long after S. Austin then that it appeareth to have been the sense of his time For the sense of the now Church of Rome that remission of sin
the carnal rest of the Jewes is a figure of the spiritual rest of Christians in grace here in glory in the world to come And therefore when he is afraid least he should have laboured in vain upon the Galatians IV. 10. because they observed days and moneths years when he teacheth the Colossians II. 16. not to be over-ruled in the mater of new Moons or Sabbath When he sheweth the Romanes XIV 5. that they who esteemed on one day before another were weak Christians He did not mean to remove the obligation of the seventh day upon the first but to show that Christians may as well think themselves bound in conscience to be circumcised as to be under the precept of the Sabbath And let me understand how we can be bound by the precept of the Sabbath and not be bound to that measure of rest which the precept of the Sabbath limiteth For the constitution which the Jews go by this day is so grounded in the Text that it is not possible to imagine that ever it was practised otherwise the leter of the Law manifestly distinguishing between worke and servile workâ— and permitting the dressing of meat upon the first and last dayes of the Passovâ—r Pentecost and the feast of Tabernacles but forbidding servile work that is to say such work as slâ—ves were imployed about for their Masters advantage but upon the Sabbath and day of atonement forbidding all work that is not onely servile work but the dressing of meat upon those days whereupon comes the express prohibition of kindling fire on the Sabbath not for the time that they lived in the wildernesse but as the Law expresseth in all their habitations Ex. XII 16. XXXV 30. XVI 23. Levit. XXIII 3. 7 8 21 25 28. Numb XXIX 1 7. And therefore Deut. XVI 8. where for brevities sake he saith of the Passover No worke shall be done in it The Greek adds out of Exodus and Leviticus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides what shall be dressed for meat And therefore when our Lord goes to dâ—ne with a Pharisee Luc. XIV 1. it is no marvail that he is invited upon a Festivall on which they hold themselves still bound to eat the best meat and drink the best wine and put on the clothes they have But he knew his entertainment must be upon meats dreâ—t the day before And therefore he not onely reproveth the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who for their own profit to draw their Oxe or their Ass out of the pit could bâ—lâ— it and in a charitable cause of healing a man stood upon it But further he showes it to be a meer positive precept of the Law when by the right of a Prophet he commandeth the lame man whom he had cured to cary away his bed upon the Sabbath Joh. V. 10. the Prophet of the old Law having forbidding to cary any burthen upon the Sabbath Jer. XVII 21. 22. And the reason my Father still worketh and so do I worke inâ—erreth that as the rest of God was not from bodily labour so neither is it the rest from bodily labour which he or his Gospel intendeth I conclude therefore that which will seem strange to unskilful people That the onely thing commanded by the leter of the fourth Commandement is to rest from bodily labour upon the seventh day of the week on which God rested from whence it is called the Sabbath But by the mysticall sense of it under the New Testament to rest from our own works of sinne here that we may attain to the rest of God in the world to come And I cannot see how a more evident argument can be expected for this then the extending of the precept to cattel and strangers not onely to children who otherwise are not under the precept For strangers in the Law that is those that worshipped the true God alone but were not circumcised who are therefore alwayes translated Conuerts in the Syriack to wit from Idols were onely tyed to seven precepts which all the Sons of Noe had received from him Whereof that of the Sabbath was none And therefore it is not they that are commanded to rest but Gods people are commanded that they shall not work as they are commanded that their Cattel shall not work I know there is a strong Argument against this in vulgar esteem which to me makes no difficulty at all that they are commanded to sanctifie or keep holy the Sabbath But he that admits the true difference between the Law and the Gospel must admit a legall as well as a spirituall holinesse And I would know what holinesse there is in offering a brute beast to God in sacrifice that is not in sitting still on the seventh day Both being stamped with Gods command and the rest of the Body signifying the rest of the soul from sinne which is very holy as the sacrifice is holy because it signifieth the holinesse of our Lord Christ or of them whom he sanctifieth The Apostle teacheth us thus to distinguish when he saith Heb. IX 11. If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of a red cow sprinkling the purified sanctifieth to the purity of the flesh For the holiness it procureth is but the capacity of free conversation amongst the people of the true God as to the leter of the Law And bodily rest upon the Sabbath is a full profession of the true God which made heaven and earth and brought his people out of Egypt I do not deny that the service of God was commanded by the Law upon the Sabbath But not by this precept You have an order for publick Assemblies on the Sabbath as well as on other Festivals Levit. XXIII you have an order for what sacrifices should be offered on each of them Num. XXVIII But had the Law gone no further then the fourth Commandment the Jews had not been tied to those precepts I acknowledge further that they were bound to serve God with other offices such as are common to them and us both upon the Sabbath as upon other Festivals when they had Synagogues or means to assemble themselves otherwise as Abenezra observes out of 2 King IV. 23. For had it not been the custome to resorâ— to the Prophets at the Festivals he would not have said Why wilt thou go to the Prophet It is neither new Moon nor Sabbath And the order for this which we see by the acts of the Apostles and the Gospels as well as by the Jews Constitutions no man will deny to have obliged them by virtue of the Law But not by the leter of it which had it been precisely followed the objection of Origen and other of the Fathers must have taken place and no man must have stirred out of the place where he should be found at the coming in of the Sabbath But in regard there was alwayes in that people a sense of that spiritual service of God which these carnal precepts tended to therefore was there provided a power
the Church according to the affirmation of S. Basil that this Prayer is a Tradition of the whole Church Many are the Lâ—â—urgies that is the formes of celebrating the Eucharist in the Eastern Churches under Constantinople Alexandria and Antiochia yet extant which show the substance of it after the Deacon had said Lift up your hearts the People answering Wee life them up to the Lord which evidently pointeth ouâ— that which S. Paul calls the Thanksgiving or Blessing wherein the Consecration of the Sacrament consisteth beginning there and ending with the Lords Prayer in all of them to be this Repeating the creation of all things and the fall of man to praise God that hee left him not helpless but called first the Fathers then gave the Law and when it appeared that all this would not serve to reclaim him to God sent his onely Son to redeem him by his Cross who instituted this remembrance of it Praising God therefore for all this but especially for the death and resurrection of Christ and praying that the Spirit promised may come upon the elements presently set forth and make them the Body and Bloud of Christ that they who receive them with living Faith may be filled with the Grace of it I acknowledg that the repetition of the creation and fall of man the calling of the Patriarchs and giving the Law is all silenced or left out in the Latine Canon that is that Canonical Prayer which this Sacrament is consecrated and communicated with neither can I say that it is extant in the Ambrosian or any form besides that may appear to have been anciently in use in any part of the Western Church Though I have reason enough to conceive that it was used from the beginning and afterwards cut off for the shortning of the service because of the great consent that is found among forms used in the Eastern parts and because wee see how the Psalms and Lessons retained in them are abridged of that length which by the Constitutions of the Apostles and other ancienter records of the Church may appear to have been used in former ages But there can be no reason to say that the leaving out of all this being so remote a ground of the present action makes any difference in the substance and effect of that prayer which it is done and performed with And the rest being the same in all forms that remain extant inables mee to conclude that the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is to be consecrated with were from the beginning prescribed not for so many words but for the substance of them not in writing but by silent custom and Tradition received by the Church from the Apostles and ought to continue the same to the end of the world in all Churches There is a little objection to be made against this from that which Walafridus Strabo and other Latine Writers concerning the Offices of the Church have reported from some passages of S. Jerome and S. Gregory the Great That S. Peter at the first did consecrate the Eucharist with the Lords Prayer onely Which if it all this falls to the ground and the form of consecrating the Eucharist hath proved so uniform meerly by the consent of after ages and will remain subject to be changed again seeing that the Lords Prayer may for the substance of it be rendred into other terms and conceptions as many wayes as a man pleases But there is I have showed you a mistake in the meaning of these passages intended onely in opposition to that variety of Psalms and Lessons and Hymns and Prayers which afterwards were brought in to make the celebration of the Sacrament more solemn in regard whereof they say that S. Peter consecrated onely with the Lords Prayer not with any of those additions for solemnities sake when hee consecrated by that Thanksgiving or Blessing which our Lord consecrated the Sacrament at his last Supper with adding onely in stead of all other solemnities the Lords Prayer which the Consecration is still concluded with in all ancient forms For when the Order and occasions of Assemblies were not setled but the Offices of Christianity were to be ministred upon such opportunities as they could finde out for themselves it is no mervail if S. Peter himself might be obliged to abare all but meerly what was requisite And truly I may here seasonably say that I conceive the Lords Prayer is justly called by Tertullian Oratio legitima or the Prayer which the Law that is the precept of our Lord in the Gospel When yee pray say thus prescribeth not as if hee would have them serve him with no other prayer but this But that they should alwayes use this as a set prayer whatever other occasions they might have of addressing themselves to God with other prayers For accordingly I do observe that in all prescribed forms upon what occasion soever not onely of celebrating the Eucharist which assemblies have therefore been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Missae in Latine from the dismission of them as in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the gathering of them whereas the Latine word Collectae which answers it is extended to other assemblies but other more dayly and hourly occasions according to the premises concerning Five hours of Prayer in the day in S. Cyprians time which since have come to seven that there is alwayes a room for the Lords Prayer as if the service of God were not lawfull according to the precept When yee pray say thus unless it be used Which is that which I shall advise them of who either exclude it as unlawfull or forbear it as offensive that they may consider how they count themselves members of Christs Church waiving that which the whole Church hath practiced in obedience to his precept for conformity with the enemies of his Church There is yet another sort of Prayers which are offered to God at the celebration of the Eucharist according to S. Pauls command for all estates and orders of men whether in the world or in the Church and for all their necessities in regard whereof I showed you afore that the Eucharist is counted a Sacrifice for the Church or rather for all mankinde As the High Priest when hee went into the Holy of Holies according to Philo prayed for the whole world representing the intercession of Christ for the same now at the right hand of God which the Church in his name by celebrating this Sacrament executeth and commemorateth upon earth And the form hereof I can easily say by the same reason is for mater and substance though not for so many words and for the conceptions it is expressed with prescribed according to S. Pauls command by the custom of the Church received by Tradition from the Apostles For when I have once named the necessities of all Orders and Estates without or within the Church in general supposing what Christianity requires Christians to pray for as well in behalf of
the enemies of Gods Church as of the members of it I conceive I have named the substance of these prayers the particulars whereof you may see in our English Litanies to be the same that the most ancient Writers of the Church witness to have been used after the exposition of the Scriptures whether they describe the celebration of the Eucharist as doth Justine Martyr or not as Tertullian And from hence I hope to resolve that question which I have proposed in another place and no man yet hath taken in hand to answer Why as well in the Ancient Latine as well as Eastern Liturgies as also by the testimonies of S. Austine and others it appeareth that these Prayers are twice repeated at the Eucharist The reason being this that first those who offered the creatures of which the Eucharist is consecrated and by which offering the assembly of the Church was maintained might testifie that they do it out of devotion to God hoping by so doing to obtain at his mercy not onely their own but the necessities of all other orders and estates by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross which at present they intend to commemorate and repete Which notwithstanding the elements being consecrated and the Body and Bloud of Christ once sacrificed on the Cross here and now represented they offer to him the same Prayers again presenting him as it were the same sacrifice here and now represented for the motive inducing him to grant the said necessities And therefore have reason to account this service the most eminent service that Christians can offer to God and those prayers the most effectual that they can address unto him as being proper to that Christianity in virtue whereof they hope to obtain their prayers and of nothing besides That which remains of this point is onely the consideration of those prayers which are made at those assemblies of the Church which pretend not to celebrate the Eucharist how they may appear to be prescribed by Christianity Where I shall need to say nothing of such Prayers as are to be made by Christian assemblies for the necessities of all Orders and Estates whether within or without the Church because I have already spoken of them when they are made upon occasion of celebrating the Eucharist The difference between that occasion and other occasions which the Church may have to frequent the same Prayers when the Eucharist is not celebrated inferring no difference in that which is prescribed to the Church or by the Church either in the mater or form of the same As for the Prayers which every assembly maketh for it self concerning the common necessities of all Christians as such which I conceive were first called Collecta because the assembly ended in them and was dismissed with them from gathering the same as the Mass hath the name in Latine Missa from dismissing it as I observed afore I shall need to say as little having showed by what authority all Christians are to be limited in such things as have been left unlimited by our Lord and his Apostles For the necessities of Christians as Christians become determinable if any thing cōcerning them become questionable by the same authority that governeth every Church upon such terms as it ought to govern the same But if any cause appear as many ages since there hath appeared necessity enough why particular Churches should be ruled in those forms by Synods that is by the common authority of more and greater Churches for maintaining unity in the whole which the form of Church Service may be a great means to violate as wee know by lamentable experience it remains that the same means be imployed for maintaining unity in this point which God hath provided for maintaining the same in all cases So that supposing that in process of time whether by direct or by indirect means the Church of Rome hath gained so much ground of the whole Western Church as to conform their Prayers and in a maner the whole Order of divine Service to the patern prescribed by it which I take to have been the case at the Reformation with all the Western Church it cannot be alleged for a sufficient cause of changing that the Church of Rome hath no right to require this conformity by Gods Law But the question must be whether the uniformity introduced by the same be so well or so ill for the prejudice or advancement of Christianity that it shall be requisite for the interest thereof to proceed to a change without the consent of the Church Which if it be true then whatsoever hath been objected to the Church of England upon this Title as agreeable to the form used by the Church of Rome not as disagreeable to Christianity is to be damned as ignorantly and maliciously objected for to make division in the Church without cause These same reasons will serve to resolve how necessary it is that those Prayers wherewith the rest of Ecclesiastical Offices Baptism Confirmation Penance the Visitation of the Sick and Mariages are celebrated be of a certain form and prescribed by the authority of the Church It were a thing strangely unreasonable for him that hath considered that which I have said in the second book how our Christianity and salvation is concerned in the Sacrament of Baptism and how much the disputes of Religion that divide the Western Church depend upon the knowledg of it to imagine that all those who must be admitted by the Church to the ministring of it can be able to express the true intent of it in such form of words as may be without offense and tend to the edification of Gods people in a thing so nearly concerning their Christianity Rather it may justly be questioned whether they that take upon them to baptize and consecrate the Eucharist not grounding themselves upon the authority of the Church supposing the Faith of the Church expressed in such a form as the Church prescribeth but their own sense concerning the ground and intent of those Sacraments Do any thing or nothing That is whether they do indeed minister the Sacrament of Baptism necessary to the salvation of all Christians or onely profane the Ordinance of God by professing an intention of doing that which is not indeed that Sacrament under pretense of celebrating it Whether they do indeed consecrate the elements to become sacramentally the Body and Bloud of Christ and so communicate the same to those which receive or onely profane those holy mysteries of Christianity and involve his people in the same guilt by pretending to celebrate so holy an Office and in effect doing nothing as not knowing what ought to be done nor submitting to those that do A consideration very necessary in regard of those who forsake the Baptism which they received in their infancy in the Church of England to be baptized again by new Dippers For it is true the Church hath admitted the Baptism of Hereticks for good but not of all
people by virtue of the meer act of assisting at the Sacrifice which hath been called opus operaetum or the very external work done without consideration without knowledge without any intention of doing that which he is to do in it that is of concurring every one for his share to the doing of the same Supposing alwayes that this Sacrifice consists in substituting the Body and Blood of Christ to be bodily present under the accidents of the elements the substance of them being abolished and ceasing to be there any more And not in offering and presenting the sacrifice of Christ crucified here now represented by this Sacrament unto God for obtaining the benefits of his passion in behalfe of his Church And this opinion I may safely say I know to be still maintained because I have heard it maintained though as I suppose by the more licentious and ignorant sort of Priests that it concerns not the people to consider to know to intend to joyn their devotions to the effecting of that which this Sacrament pretends But onely to mind their own Prayers assisting and accompanying that which the Priest doth with those affections which they came to Church with But can I therefore say that this is the doctrine of that Church because it allows such things to be taught and said without punishment or disgrace Surely he that peruses not onely the Testimonies which Doctor Field hath produced in the Appendix alleged afore to show that the true understanding of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was maintained in the Church even till the Reformation together with the opinions of many Divines of credit in that Church and instructions of Catechisms and devotions that have been published since the Council of Trent shall easily conclude that it is allowed though not injoyned by the Church to oppose this palliating of abuses in the Church by opinions so prejudiciall to Christianity And without doubt those who pretend no more then to excuse the Church in not reforming the abuse of private Masses by saying that the Church commands them not nor forbids any man to communicate at any time but rather exhorts them to it are farr from saying that the people are no further concerned in the Mass then to assist it with their bodily presence and the generall good intentions affections which they come to Church with imploying themselvs in the mean time at their own devotions Though it is much to be feared that this opinion is farr the more popular The opposition which the Reformation hath occasioned and the countenance given by the Sea of Rome to those who are the most zealous and extreme in opposing the Hereticks bearing down the indeavours of more conscientious Priests to maintain more Christian opinions in the minds of their people In the mean time it is visible that the resolution of this point dependeth upon the true reason of offering the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist Which I have showed to consist in presenting unto God the Sacrifice of Christ crucified represented here now by the elements sacramentally changed by the act of consecrating into the body and blood of Christ by those Prayers whereby the Congregation which celebrateth this Sacrament intercedeth with God for their own necessities and the necessities of his Church For if the virtue and efficacy of these Prayers be grounded upon nothing else then the fidelity of the Congregation in standing to the Covenant of Baptism as if Christianity be true it consists in nothing else and if the celebration of the Eucharist be the profession of fidelity and perseverance in it what remaineth but that the efficacy of the Sacrifice depend upon the receiving of the Eucharist unlesse the efficacy and virtue of Christian mens Prayers can depend upon their perseverance in that Covenant which they refuse to renew and to professe perseverance in it that profession being no lesse necessary then the inward intention of persevering in the same For the receiving of the Eucharist is no lesse expresly a renewing of the Covenant of Baptism then being baptized is entering into it So that whosoever refuses the Communion of the Eucharist in as much as he refuses it refuses to stand to the Covenant of his Baptisme whereby he expects the world to come I say not therefore that whosoever communicates not in the Eucharist so oft as he hath means and opportunity to do it renounces his Christianity either expresly or by construction and consequence For how many of us may be prevented with the guilt of sinne so deeply staining the conscience that they cannot satisfie themselves in the competence of that conversion to God which they have time and reason and opportunity to exercise before the opportunity of communicating how many have need of the authority of the Church and the power of the Keys not onely foâ— their satisfaction but for their direction in washing their wedding Garments white again How many are so distracted and oppressed with businesse of this world that they cannot upon all opportunities retire their thoughts to that attention and devotion which the office requires How many though free of business which Christianity injoyneth are intangled with the cares and pleasures of the world though not so farr as to depart from the state of Grace yet further then the renewing of the Covenant of Grace importeth Be it therefore granted that there is a great allowance to be made in exacting the Apostolical Rule for all that are present to communicate But be it likewise considered what a pitifull excuse it is in behalfe of the Church that it forbiddeth no man to communicate that is prepared as the rules thereof require subsisting for no other purpose but to procure the people thereof to be prepared for the service of God whereof the principal part is this office But when it is further allowed to be taught and said that it concerns not Gods people to assist the office of the Church with their actuall intentions and devotions but with their bodily presence and the generall affection which they bring with them to Church what reason can be alleged why they should go to Church to cary those affections to the Congregations which are exercised at home with their particular devotions to the same purpose Nay to what purpose subsisteth the Communion of the Church if it subsist not in order to the service of God in the publick Assembly of his people the chief office whereof is taught to be of that nature that the presence of a Christian is of no effect to the purpose of it Or what reason can be alleged why the parts of Christendom should not provide for themselves by restoring the primitive practice of Christianity without the consent of the whole forbidding them to provide for themselves but not providing for them in maters so grossely and palpably concerning our common Christianity But having cautioned that the service of God and the Eucharist be in a language
which it is ministred under such an unhallowed opinion as that In the meane time neither is the promise of Grace annexed to the solemnity thereof in which there hath succeeded so vast a change as I have signified by Gods choice of any visible creature in which it is exercised as in Baptisme and the Eucharist but by that common reason for which it is a solemnity fit for the Church to execute it with nor is the promise of grace annexed to the office of the Churth any otherwise then as it becomes the meanes to retrive the condition of baptisme qualifying for the promise by the Covenant of Grace In fine the name and notion of a Sacrament as it hath been duly used by the Church and writers allowed by the Church extendeth to all holy actions done by vertue of the Office which God hath trusted his Church with in hope of obtayning the grace which he promiseth Baptisme and the Eucharist are actions appointed by God in certaine creatures utterly impertinent to the effect of Grace setting aside his appointment But apt to signifie all the Grace which the Gospell promiseth by vertue of that correspondence which holds between things visible and sâ—nsible and things intelligible and invisible Both antecedent for their institution to the foundation of the Church the Society whereof subscribeth upon condition of the first and for communion in the second The rest are actions appointed to be solemnized in the Church by the Apostles not alwaies every where precisely with the same ceremonies but such as alwaies may reasonably serve to signifie the graces which it praies for on the behalfe of them who receive them The hope of that Grace being grounded upon Gods generall promise of hearing the prayers of his Church which the constitution thereof involveth Nor am I solicitous to make that construction which may satisfie the decrees of the Councils of Florence and Trent who have first taken upon them to decree under Anathama the conceite of the Schoole in reducing them to the number of seven But seeing the particulars so qualified by ancient writers in the Church and the number agreed upon by the Greeke Church as well as the Latines I have acknowledged that sense of their sayings which the primâ—ive order of the Chatholike Church inforceth For though I count it a great a buse to maintaine simple Christians in an opinion that the outward works of them not supposing the ground upon which the intent to which the disposition with which they are done secures the salvation of them to whom they are ministred Which opinion the formall ministring of them seemeth to maintaine Yet is it a far greater abuse to place the reformation of the Church in abolishing the solemnities rather then in reducing the right understanding of the ground and intent of those offices which they serve to solemnize CHAP. XXX To worship Christ in the Eucharist though believing transubstantiation is not Idolatry Ground for the honour of Saints and Martyrs The Saints and the Angels pray for us Three sorts of prayers to Saints The first agreeable with Christianity The last may be Idolatry The second a step to it Of the Reliques of the Saints Bodies What the second Commandement prohibiteth or alloweth The second Councile of Nicea doth not decree Idolatry And yet there is no decree in the Church for the worshiping of Images ANd now I come to that resolution which I have made way for by premising these conclusions for assumptions to inferr it onely by the way I have resolved against those prayers which the Church of Rome prescribeth to deliver the soules of the dead from Purgatory paines I say then first that the adoration of the Eucharist which the Church of Rome prescribeth is not necessarily Idolatry I say not what it may be accidentally by that intention which some men may conceale and may make it Idolatry as to God I speak upon supposition of that intention which the profession of the Church formeth and which alone is to my present purpose I suppose them to beleive that those creatures of God which are the elements of that sacrament are no more there after the consecration having ceased to be that there might be roome for the body and blood of our Lord to come into theire stead I suppose that the body and blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are and must be adored by a good Christian where the custome of the Church which a Christian is obliged to communicate with requires it For that which wee see is enough for to certifie us that peremptorily to refuse any custome of the Church is a step to division and the dissolution of it which is the greatest evill that can befall Christianity next to the peremptory profession of some thing contrary to that truth wherein christianity consists and which the being of the Church presupposeth But I suppose further that the body and blood of Christ is not adored nor to be adored by Christians neither for it self nor for any indowment residing in it which it may have received by being personally united with the God head of Christ But onely in consideration of the said God-head to which it remaines inseparably united wheresoever it becomes For by that meanes whosoever proposeth not to himselfe the consideration of the body and blood of Christ as it is of it selfe and in it self a meer creature which he that doth not on purpose cannot do cannot but consider it as he believs it to be being a Christian And considering it as it is honor it as it is inseperably united to the God-head in which by which it subsisteth in which therefore that honour resteth and to which it tendeth So the God-head of Christ is the thing that is honoured and the reason why it is honoured both The body and blood of Christ though it be necessarily honored because necessarily united to that which is honoured yet is it onely the thing that is honored and not the reason why it is honoured speaking of the honor proper to God alone I suppose further that it is the duty of e-every christian to honour our Lord Christ as God subsisting in humane flesh whether by professing him such or by praying to him as such or by using any bodily gesture which by the custome of them that frequent it may serve to signifie that indeed he takes him for such which gesture is outwardly that worship of the heart which inwardly commandes it This honour then being the duty of an affirmative precept which according to the received rule ties alwaies though it cannot tye a man to doe the duty alwaies because then he should doe nothing else What remaines but a just occasion to make it requisite and presently to take hold and oblige And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to expresse by the bodily act of adoration that inward honour which we alwaies cary towards our Lord Christ as
God Grant that there may be question whether it be a just occasion or not certainly supposing it come to a custom in the church presently to do that which is alwaies due to be done you suppose the question determined This is that which I stand upon the matter being such as it is supposing the custom of the church to have determined it it shal be so far from an act of Idolatry that it shal be the duty of a good Christian Therefore not supposing the Church to have determined it though for some occasions whereof more are possible then it is possible for me to imagine it may become offensive and not presently due yet can it never become an act of Idolatry so long as Christianity is that which it is and he that does it professes himselfe a Christian Here then you see I am utterly disobliged to dispute whether or no in the ancient Church Christians were exhorted and incouraged to and really did worship our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For having concluded my intent that it had not been Idolatry had it been done I might leave the consequence of it to debate But not to balk the freedom which hath caryed me to publish all this I doe believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient church which I maintaine from the beginning to have been the true church of Christ obliging all to conforme to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be don at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole Which if it were taken away that it might be done againe and ought not to be of it selfe alone any cause of distance For I doe acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of S. Ambrose de Spiritu Sancto III. 12. S. Austine in Psalme XCVIII and Epist CXX cap. XXVII S. Chrysostome Homil. XXIIII in 1. ad Corinth Theodoret Dial. II. S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. in S. Gorgoniam S. Jerom Epist ad Theophilum Epist Alexandriae Origen in diversa loca Evang. Hom. V. Where he teacheth to say at the receiving the sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roofe Which to say is to do that which I conclude Nor doe I need more to conclude it And what reason can I have not to conclude it Have I supposed the elements which are Gods creatures in which the Sacrament is celebrated to be abolished or any thing else concerning the flesh and bloud of Christ or the presence thereof in the Eucharist in giving a reason why the Church may doe it which the Church did not believe If I have I disclame it as soone as it may appeare to me for such Nay I doe expressely warne all opinions that they imagine not to themselves the Eucharist so meere and simple a signe of the thing fignified that the celebration thereof should not be a competent occasion for the executing of that worship which is alwaies due to our Lord Christ in carnate I confesse it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it selfe justifieth it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible kind nor the invisible Grace of Christs body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise In regard whereof the one going along with the other whatsoever be the distance of their nature both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the worke of God to which he is morally ingaged by the promise which the institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But I will not therefore warrant that they who maintain the worshipping of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe not understand the visible kind or as themselves thinke the visible propertyes thereof by that name Which if they shall declare themselves to understand then is the question far otherwise and to be resolved upon the same termes as the question concerning the worshiping of images shall by and by be resolved That though the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be the occasion to determine the circumstance of the worshipping of Christ yet is it selfe no way capable of any worship that may be counted religious because religion injoyneth it Cardinall Bellarmine de Euch. IV. 29. would have it said that the signe is worshipped materially but the body and blood of Christ formally in the Eucharist Which are termes that signifie nothing For it is impossible to distinguish in God the thing that is worshiped from the reason for which it is worshipped so that the thing may be understood without understanding it to be the reason why it is worshipped Therefore the signe in the Eucharist seemes onely to determine why that worship which is alwaies every where due is here now ten dred Indeed when the Councile of Trent pronounceth him anathema that believes not the elements to be abolished and cease to be in it being consecrated I cannot deny that their obliging all to believe that which no man can have that cause to believe for which he belives the Christian faith hath beene a very valuable reason though not the onely reason to move the Church of England to supersede that ceremony hardly in the minds of Christians so bred to it to be parted from it contenting it selfe to injoine the receiving of it kneeling which he that refuseth to do seems not to acknowledge the being of a sacrament requiring the tender of the thing signified by it and with it And I conceive further that the carying of the Sacrament in procession and upon such occasions as signifies no order towards the receiving of it nor any such intent upon supposition whereof the Sacrament is a Sacrament hath added much waight to that reason For if the use of the sacrament were the reason to make the occasion fit the abuse thereof must needs render it unfit But for that which remaines whether those who thinke the body and blood of Christ present instead of the elements which are there no more be Idolators for worshipping the elements which remain present where they think they are not is a question no way to be resolved till it be granted that supposing them present it is no Idolatry For if the fals opinion of their absence make men idolaters then are they not idolaters which have it not Consider then that were the body and blood of Christ so present as to be in stead of the substance of bread and wine the consideration in which any Christian holding what the church of Rome teaches should worship it would be no other then that for which it should be worshipped by
him who believes it not so present as in my opinion the ancient Church did believe Both must worship the body and blood of Christ because incarnate and therefore as the body and blood of Christ is inseparable from the consideration of his God-head which every Christian intends to worship And how can then a mans mistake in thinking the elements to be away which indeed are there make him guilty of honouring those creaturs as God which we know if he thought that they were there he must needs take for creatures and therefore could not honour for God I doe believe it hath been said by great Doctors of the Church of Rome that they must needs think themselves flat Idolaters if they could think that the elements are not abolished That showes what confidence they would have the world apprehend that they hold their opinion with But not that the consequence is true unlesse that which I have said be reprovable For what reason can be given why that bodily gesture which professedly signifieth the honour of God tendred to Christ spiritually present in the Eucharist should be Idolatry because the bread and wine are believed to remaine there Which according to their opinion supposing them to be abolished their accidents onely remaining is no idolatry but the worship of our Lord Christ for God In the next place as concerning prayer to Saints I must suppose that the termes of prayer invocation calling upon and whatsoever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unlesse we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifyng requests made to God and to man Which are not equivocall according to that equivocation which comes by meere chance but by that for which there is a reasonable ground in that eminence which out conceptions and therefore our words which signifie them expresse unto us For all the apprehensions that we have of God all things intelligible coming from things sensiâ—le we can have no proper conceite of Gods excellence and the eminence thereof above his creatures which necessarily appeares to us under attributes common to his creatures removing that imperfection which in them they are joyned with This is the reason why all signes of honour in word or deed may be equivocall when they need not be counted so being joyned with signes either of other words or deeds which may serve to determine the capacity of them Adoration worship respect reverence or howsoever you translate the Latine cultus are of this kind as I said afore Ingressus scenam populum saltator adorat coming upon the stage to dance he adores or worships the people or as an othersaies jactat basia he throwes them kisses He does reverence to the spectators by kissing his hand and saluting them with it So prayer invocation calling upon God is not so proper to God but that whether you will or not every petition to a Prince or a Court of justice is necessarily a prayer and he that makes it invocates or calls upon that Prince or that Court for favour or for justice Now the militant Church necessarily hath communion with the triumphant believing that all those who are departed in Gods Grace are at rest and secure of being parted from him for the future though those who have neglected the content of this world the most for his service and are in the best of those mansions which are provided for them till the day of judgement whom here we call properly Saints injoy the neerest accesse to his presence To dispute whether we are bonnd to honour them or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not Whether this honour be Religious or civill nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable and the cause of that equivocation the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signifie conceptions which came not from common sence If we call it Religion it is manifest that all religion is that reverence which the conscience of our obligation to God rendreth If civil the inconvenience is more grosse though lesse dangerous For how can we owe civill respect where there is no relation of members of the same city or Common wealth Plainely their excellence and the relation we have to them being intelligible onely by Christianity must borrowe a name from that which vulgar language attributes to God or to men our superiours I need say nothing in particular of Angels whom if we believe to be Gods ministers imployed instructing his children upon earth we must needs own their honour though the intercourse between us be invisible It were easy to pick up sayings of the Fathers by which religious honour is proper to Christ and others in which that honour that reverence which religion injoines is tendred Saints and Angels And all to be imputed to nothing but want of proper termes for that honour which religion injoyneth in respect of God and that relation which God hath setled betweene the Church militant and triumphant being reasonably called Religious provided that the distance be not confounded between the religious honour of God and that honour of the creature which the religious honour of God injoines being neither civill nor humane but such as a creature is capable of for religions sake and that relation which it setleth I must come to particulars that I may be understood He that could wish that the memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have beene Martyrs had they been called to it had not beene honoured as it is plaine they were honured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed For this honour depending on nothing but the assurance of their happinesse in them that remained alive was that which moved unbelievers to bethinke themselves of the reason they had to be Christians What were then those honours Reverence in preserving the remaines of their bodies and burying them celebrating the remembrance of their agonies every yeare assembling themselves at their monuments making the daies of their death Festivals the places of their buriall Churches building and consecrating Churches to the service of God in remembrance of them I will adde further for the custome seemeth to come from undefiled Christianity burying the remains of their bodies under the stones upon which the Eucharist was celebrated What was there in all this but Christianity That the circumstances of Gods service which no law of God had limited the time the place the occasion of assembling for the service of God alwaies acceptable to God should be determined by such glorious accidents for Christianity as the departure of those who had thus concluded their race What can be so properly counted the raigne of the Saints and Martyrs with Christ which S. Iohn foretelleth Apoc. XX. as this honour when it came to
not that which is invisible by their authority in point of right For want of this authority whatsoever is done by virtue of that usurpation being voide before God I will not examine whether the forme wherein they execute the Offices of the Church which they thinke fit to exercise agree with the ground and intent of the Church or not Only I charge a peculiar nullity in their consecrating the Eucharist by neglecting the Prayer for making the elements the body and blood of Christ without which the Church never thought it could consecrate the Eucharist Whether having departed from the Church Presbyteries and Congregations scorne to learne any part of their duty from the Church least that might seeme to weaken the ground of their departure Or whether they intend that the elements remaine meere signes to strengthen mens faith that they are of the number of the elect which they are before they be consecrated as much as afterwards The want of Consecration rendering it no Sacrament that is ministred the ministring of it upon a ground destructive to Christianity renders it much more On the other side the succession of Pastors from the Apostles or those who received their authority from the Apostles is taken for a sufficient presumption on behalfe of the Church of Rome that it is Catholick But I have showed that the Tradition of Faith and the authority of the Scriptures which containe it is more ancient then the being of the Church and presupposed to the same as a condition upon which it standeth That the authority of the Apostles and the Powers left by them in and with the Church the one is originally the effective cause the other immediately the Law by which it subsisteth and in which the government thereof consisteth That the Church hath Power in Lawes of lesse consequence though given the Church by the Apostles though recorded by the Scriptures where that change which succeeds in the state of Christendome renders them uselesse to preserve the unity of the Church presupposing the Faith in order to the publick service of God But neither can the Church have power in the faith to add to take away to change any thing in that profession of Christianity wherein the salvation of all Christians consisteth and which the being of the Church presupposeth Nor in that act of the Apostles authority whereby the unity of the Church was founded and setled Nor in that service of God for which it was provided There is therefore something else requisite to evidence the Church of Rome to be the true Church exclusive to the Reformation then the visible succession of Pastors though that by the premises be one of the Laws that concurre to make every Church a Catholicke Church The Faith upon which the powers constituted by the Apostles in which the forme of government by which the service of God for which it subsisteth If these be not maintained according to the Scriptures interpreted by the originall and Catholicke Tradition of the Church it is in vaine to alledge the personall succession of Pastors though that be one ingredient in the government of it without which neither could the Faith be preserved nor the service of God maintained though with it they might possibly faile of being preserved and maintained for a mark of the true Church The Preaching of that Word and that Ministring of the Sacraments understanding by that particular all the offices of Gods publicke service in the Church which the Tradition of the Whole limiteth the Scriptures interpreted thereby to teach is the onely marke as afore to make the Church visible To come then to our case Is it therefore become warrantable to communicate with the Church of Rome because it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries or Congregations This is indeed the rest of the difficulty which it is the whole businesse of this Book to resolve To which I must answer that absolutely the case is as it was though comparatively much otherwise For if the State of Religion be the same at Rome but in England farre worse then it was the condition upon which communion with the Church of Rome is obtained is never a whit more agreeable to Christianity then afore but it is become more pardonable for him that sees what he ought to avoide not to see what he ought to follow He that is admitted to communion with the Church of Rome by the Bull of profession of Faith inacted by Pius IV. Pope not by the Councile of Trent besides many particulars there added to the Creed which whether true or false according to the premises he sweares to as much as to his Creed at length professes to admit without doubting whatsoever else the sacred Canons and generall Councils especially the Synode of Trent hath delivered decreed and declared damning and rejecting as anathema whatsoever the Church damneth and rejecteth for heresie under anathema But whether the whole Church or the present Church the oath limiteth not Here is no formall and expresse profession that a man believes the present Church to be Infallible And therefore it was justly alledged in the first Booke that â—he Church hath never enjoyned the professing of it But here is a just ground for a reasonable Construction that it is hereby intended to be exacted because a man swears to admit the acts of Counciles as he does to admit his Creed and the holy Scriptures Nor can there be a more effectuall challenge of that priviledge then the use of it in the decree of the Councile that the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha be admitted with the like reverence as the unquestionable Canonicall Scriptures being all injoyned to be received as all of one rancke Which before the decree had never been injoyned to be received but with that difference which had alwaies been acknowledged in the Church For this act giving them the authority of prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not afore though it involve a nullity because that which was not inspired by God to him that writ it when he writ it can never have the authority of inspired by God because it can never become inspired by God Nor can become known that it was indeed inspired by God not having been so received from the begining without revelation anew to that purpose yet usurpeth Infallibility because it injoyneth that which no authority but that which immediate revelation createth can injoyne Further the decree of the Councile concerning justification involving a mistake in the terme and understanding by it the infusion of grace whereby the righteousnesse that dwelleth in a Christian is formally and properly that which settles him in the state of righteous before God not fundamentally and metonymically that which is required in him that is estated in the same by God in consideration of our Lord Christ Though I maintaine that this decree prejudiceth not the substance of Christianity Yet must it not be allowed to expresse the true reason by which it
to communicate All are bound to communicate once a year at Easter and before they do it to say they are sory for the sinnes they confesse undertaking the Penance which is injoyned not for cleansing the sinne but to remaine for Purgatory if they do it not here The like at the point of death with extreme unction over and above Within the compasse of this law Christians may fall into the hands of conscientious Curates and Confessors that shall not faile to instruct them wherein their Christianity and salvation consists and how they are to serve God in Spirit and in truth preferring the principall before the accessory rubbish of ceremonies and observations indifferent of themselves but which spend the strength of the seed and root of Christianity in leaves and chaff without fruit But they may also fall under such as shall direct them to look upon the virtue of the sacrifice that is repeated in the Masse and promise themselves the benefit thereof by the work done without their assistance To look upon their Penance onely as that which must be paid for in Purgatory if not done here To do as the Church does and to believe as it believes promising themselves salvation by being of communion therewith though it import no more then I have said Nay though they be directed such devotions as are common to God with his creature as spend the seed of Christianity in the chaffe of observations impertinent to the end of it On the other side departing thence to Congregations and Presbyteries what meanes of salvation shall a Christian have Two Sermons a Sunday and a prayer before and after each But whether it be the Word of God or his that Preaches whether Christianity allow to pray as he prayes or not no Rule to secure And whether Christian liberty allow that men be tied to serve God from Sunday to Sunday or not untill Gods spirit indite what every man shall say to God no way resolved A man may possibly light upon him that does not take justifying Faith to consist in beleeving that a man is of the elect for whome alone Christ died or that beleeving it presses the consequences which contradict his owne premises as if he did not But how easy is it to light upon him that drawes the true conclusion from the premises which he professeth and maketh meere Popery of the whole duty of a Christian Certainly the Church of Rome holdeth no error in the Faith any thing neare so pernicious as this That of transubstantiation is but a fleabite in comparison of it He who by reason of his education is afraide to thinke that the elements remaine is he therefore become incapable of the Spirit of God conveyed by the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Sacrament And certainely that is the prime Interest of our Christianity in it though the bodily presence of the elements is no way prejudiciall to the same But who so beleeveth he hath Gods Word for his salvation not supposing any condition requisite may think himselfe tied to live like a Christian but by no meanes but by holding contradictories at once Which though all men by consequence do because all erre Yet in matters of so high consequence to do it cannot be without prejudice to the work of Christianity and dangerous to the salvation it promiseth Nor can Baptisme or the Eucharist be Baptisme or the Eucharist but equivocally to them that allow the true consequence of this And shall any man perswade me that unlesse a man will sweare that which no man is able to show that a Christian may sweare he perishes without help for want of this communion so obtained Or on the other side that his salvation can be secured who to obtaine that meanes of salvation which Congregations or Presbyteries tender concurre to the open act of Schisme which they do So necessary is it for me to continue in the resolution of my nonage as being convinced upon a new inquiry that the meanes of salvation are more sufficient more agreeable for substance to the Scriptures expounded by the originall practice of the whole Church though perhaps not for forme in that meane then in either extreme This resolution then being thus grounded what alteration can the present calamity of the Church of England make in it to perswade a man to believe thosearticles which the Bull of Pius VI. addeth to the common faith to maintaine whatsoever is once grown a custome in the Church of Rome as for that service of God which it destroyeth Or on the other side to become a party to that expresse act of Schisme with misprision of Heresy involved in it which the erecting of Congregations and Presbyteries importeth Epiphanius mentioneth one Zachaeus in Syria that retired himself from communion with the Church to serve God alone If the force of the Sword destroy the opportunities and meanes of yeelding God that service which a mans Christianity professed upon mature choice requireth shall it be imputable to him that desiring to serve God with his Church he is excluded by them who ground their communion upon conditions which the common Christianity alloweth not Or to them by whom he is so excluded I can onely say to the scattered remaines of the Church of England whose communion I cherish because it standeth upon those termes which give me sufficient ground for the hope of Salvation which I have cherished from my cradle that the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England being no longer in force by the Power of this world are by consâ—quence no longer a sufficient Rule for the order of their communion in the offices of Gods service In which Order the visibility of every Church consisteth Not as if the nature of good and badde in the matter of them had suffered any change but because being the mean to preserve unity in the service of God upon those termes which the Law of the Land inforced they are no sufficient meane to preserve it upon those termes which onely our Christianity requireth To wit that it be distinct from Congregations and Presbyteries as well as from the Church of Rome Which in my opinion making it necessary to the salvation of every Christian to communicate with the Catholicke Church that is with a Church which ought to be a member of the whole Church is of great consequence For neither is it actually and properly a Church the order whereof in the service of God is not visible Nor is there sufficient meanes in that case for the effect of a Church and of that visible order in which the being of a Church consisteth towards the salvation of those who are of it or might be of it And this is that which must justify that which I have done in speaking out so farre what I conceive the Rule of Faith what the Lawes of the Catholick Church require to be provided for in every Church and every estate For if they be not wanting to themselves to their