dat virtute benedictionis in illud transelement at â eorum quae apparent naturâ Lastly that I may not forget my own design which is not here to prove Catholik faith but only to take a little view of this Disswasive from it those words of S. Cyril in his Mystagogica quarta Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem bunc qui videtur â nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensu gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi c. I say these and such like words of ancient Christian Divines many hundreds of years before the Councel of Lateran speak as much the thing meant by Transubstantiation as any Doctour can express it now though these may know more of the word than they And indeed the definition of the Catholik Councel makes no alteration at all in the practice of Catholik faith which so considers their Lords presence in the Eucharist that it never heeds the Quomodo or concomitances the adoration love and devotion being still and ever in all things the very same If Christ our Lord should appear to two Christians now as he did once to S. Paul in a splendour of light and a voice out of that shining brightnes should issue so efficacious that they should both of them be fully perswaded in their hearts to worship him whom they beleeved both of them there present I suppose these two would equally do well and equally do the same thing although one of them should haply think ther was no other thing there but his Lord in an appearance of light and the other should not think at all of the light whether it were a substance or only an appearance of it But if a third man should deny the real presence of our Lord in that light he would for certain be of another faith So it is here Protestants who deny the real presence are of another beleef from Catholiks who acknowledg it but Catholiks who equally adore it are all of one beleef though perhaps not one of a million ever thinks of Transubstantiation O but Christ might be present in the Eucharist although Transubstantiation were not He might so and Christ likewise may be owned for God though Consubstantiation were never thought of Both there and here somthing is explicately spoken which was latitant in the former practice and beleef and he that can may understand it But the millions that never heard of it so long as they beleev and worship their Crucified Redeemer as they ought in the Eucharist are never the worse Had it not been for hereticks neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation had been ever heard of and yet the practice and faith of Catholik Christians the same it is The holy Fathers which your Disswader cites against this particle of Catholik beleef som say nothing at all there concerning that thing som speak what he cites in another manner som teach quite contrary But this I intend not now to insist upon Only thus much in general and I pray you Sir mark it well Those ancient Fathers who say somtimes that the words of our Lord are to be understood spiritually not carnally and that those symbols are a figure of his body agree with all Catholiks that are now in the world no less in the meaning of those their words than others wherin they manifestly assert the real presence in this Sacrament For all Catholiks say that our Lord is not to be so understood that his holy body in the Eucharist is to be fed upon in a carnal way as though it should be divided into gobbets and so digested by the stomack into flesh and blood as other meats are but that as that holy body now glorified is becom a spiritual body as good S. Paul speaks totally spiritual and divine and not now subject to any condition or laws of material corruptible bodies here on earth so is it spiritually to be taken as the food not of a mortal body but the immortal spirit So likewise do all Catholiks acknowledg and beleev that the symbols after the powerfull blessing of Christs consecration do so becom his sacred body by conversion mutation or transelementation as the same Fathers speak that outward appearance which remains of them is not now any more a figure of bread and wine as it was before but of our Lords precious body and blood which have succeeded in their place So that those very words of the ancient Fathers wherin they say that the elements are now becom a figure of Christs body and blood do prove not only a real presence but a transelementation too or Transubstantiation which your Disswader judges to sound somwhat more For every material body I pray you Sir mark this well I say every material body here on earth as a tree a man or beast or other thing exhibits to the eye ear taste or other sences an outward species of that which it is And the substance ever goes along in nature with that appearance it exhibits unless the power of God should interpose and make it otherwise Thus when I have bread before me or milk for example that I see taken from the cow I see it and feel it and tast it to be such as it shows it self and such it is as it shows it self to be Thus it is in all nature But we are not say those good holy Fathers to think so here For though here be the colour and touch and tast of bread yet after this strange and powerful conversion made by Gods omnipotent words it is no more bread you see it is not natural bread you touch it is not material bread you tast but the blessed body of your Redeemer which is touched seen and tasted under those remaining appearances which are no more now the figure of bread which they were before but the figure of our Lords body under the species appearance or representation of bread now wonderfully concealed And thus much is manifestly and clearly exprest by all those holy Fathers Hoc sciens faith great St. Cyril of Jerusalem pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed est Corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensu gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi And this speak all holy Fathers both Greek and Latin It would be endles to bring their testimonies By these few words if Sir you have heeded them well you will presently conceiv the meaning of that speech of Tertullian in his third book against Marcion 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
communicated in one kind who understood Christianity as well surely as we do now abov a thousand years after them St. Cyprian likewise in his book de lapsis has much to the same purpos giving us also to understand by his testimony that those ancient Christians for fear of death and the grievances of persecution had usually the Sacrament kept by them in a Repository or Ark in their houses which with all devout reverence when they were necessitated to it they put with their own hands into their mouths and participated on such like occasion although by general custom it used to be put into their mouths by the hands of Priests And he relates amongst other things a frightful story of a certain woman who for fear or other weaknes had complied to the idol sacrifices and when she came home to repent and humble her self in her Oratory and by holy communion both to expiate that her transgression and strengthen her against the like temptation as soon as she had opened her Ciborium or Pixis wherein the body of her Lord and Redeemer was kept a terrible flash of fire issuing thence upon her did so affright her that she durst not touch it Quandam saith he mulierem sacrificiis idolorum contaminatam cum Repositorium seu Arcam suam in quâ sanctum Domini posuer at manibus pollutis tentasset aperire ignis efflans eam terrait nec tangere erat ausa This and much more might be brought to witnes that primitive Christians thought themselves completly communicated in one kind and this very kind that is now in use amongst Catholiks But I must come to your Doctour Half-Communion saith he is another Popish novelty wherby they deprive the people of Christs blood Sir if they eat in memory that Christ died for them which they do and which in all Protestancy makes a perfect communion how are they deprived of his blood Can they beleev his death and passion without faith of his blood shed for them But they ought to have wine as well as bread So they have as much as the Disswader and his Church allows their people wherby they may seed upon Christ who shed his blood for us in their heart by faith with thanksgiving and which as your Disswader here speaks may make Christs body and blood present to them by sacramental consequence And how is it then a half-communion O but the wine is not the blood of Christ. Not carnally as your Disswader speaks of his Sacrament but it is so by sacramental conseqence It is as much then as yours the blood of Christ. And how is it then a half-communion and yours a whole one O but their bread is beleeved to be the body of Christ. So it is but yours is not And therfor if theirs be but a half-communion yours is none at all But how good Doctour Disswasive is half-communion either new Popery or old Popery or any Popery at all Roman Catholiks or Papists use no such word nor do they own any such thing as Half-Communion They beleev and call it a whole Communion Is it lawful for you to forge a Popery of your own and then put it upon them who neither in thought word or any of their writings profess any such thing But is not Communion in one kind all one with Half-Communion No Sir it is not all one It differs as much as half and whole And that I think is somthing It is a whole Communion Sir both in the tenour of their beleef and according to that of yours And why then should you call it a half-communion According to theirs whole Christ is equally present under either of those figures or appearances and therfor according to their faith it is a whole Communion And according to yours it is no less When you your selves give the bread to your people and say Take this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed upon him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving you do not intend I suppose nor do the people mean to feed only upon one half of him Why then would your Disswader injuriously misname that a half-communion which in all opinions is a whole one Neither Catholiks nor Protestants feed upon the signs but thing signified This difference too there is that Catholiks have all the mystery of the passion represented to them in their sacrifice and the presence of the whole Lord in their Communion But Protestants have no such thing although the mystery be preacht to them And therfor is the Catholik not a half but whole Communion and that of the Protestants may well be doubted whether it be any Communion at all though it be a whole Sermon For how can any one discern the Lords body there where in reality it is not If your Disswader had a candour becoming a gentleman he would neither falsifie the wayes nor misname the practice of any Religion But be it as it is Since Papists as he will have them called have equally used the Communion in the liquid kind alone as this in only the other why should he call one of them more than the other by the name of Popery And why is not Communion in both kinds which he acknowledges to have been more in use amongst them and proves it by the testimony of their own popish doctours be rather Popery than either of the other O but this half-communion began but in the Councel of Constance I have sufficiently shown you Sir that the custom was in the world before the City of Constance knew what Christianity were And even this Councel of Constance is perverted by the Disswader too as if he had sworn to act nothing sincerely That busines in the Councel was thus Petrus Dresdensis and other associates of Huz had taught publickly and with much scandal that the Eucharist is necessarily to be given to lay-people after supper and in both kinds This doctrin and practice of theirs was censured by the Councel which at one and the same time declared those two circumstances of communicating in both kinds and after supper not to be of necessary obligation because the Canons and approved ancient custom of the Church had never looked upon those two circumstances as of necessity to be observed But what does your Disswader here First he sets down the Councels resolution in direct opposition to Christ. Whereas Christ instituted c. yet we command contrary c. as though the Councel had absolutely annulled Christs institution which notwithstanding they acknowledg and allow for good and only declare the two said circumstances in that institution of our Lord not to be of that necessity as the substance of the institution it self giving for their reason for it which your Disswader thinks not good to take notice of that the Canons and ancient custom of the Church had sufficiently made manifest that those two circumstances of communicating at night and in both kinds were not necessary by allowing the contrary practice in primitive times
die tempore per omnem orbem observetur juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes Papa Sylvester tu dirigas Conc. 1. Arelatense can 1. Thus the Century writers Constantinus diem festum admodum solennem ad celebrandam dedicationem templi indixit Cent. 4. coll 452. Templorum recens extâ—â—ctorum consecrationes exornationes superbas aliaque superstitiosa quorum maximam partem Constantinus excegitavit in multas ecclesias propagavit coll 497. Chrisâ—â—anos in templis nondam consecratis non convenisse clarè indâ—â—at Athanasius coll 408. Accensiones candelarum interdiu in templis Constantinus instituit coll 497. Plane simili superstitione Constantinus reliquias quasdam de cruce ab Helenâ repert â Consantinopoliâ—â—â— dicitur transtulisse ut esset ejus urbis conservatrix coll 1529. Caeperunt hoc â—oeculo primùm sub Constantino loca terrae sanctae c. in pretio haberi c. Helena mater imperatoris multer superstitiosa illuc profecta est adorandi causà coll 457. Secunda Synodus celebrata est Constantini imperatoris Sylvestri tempore c. ubi can 2. dicitur Assumi aliquem ad sacerdotium in vinculo conjugii constitutum nisi fuerit promissa conversio non oportet coll 704. Fuisse etiam ante Constantinum virgines seu mulieres continentes â—astitatem perpetuam professas ex libro quarto Fusebii de vita Constantini apparet ubi magnopere approbasse disciplinam ejusmodi imperatorem Constantinum affirmat adeo ut frequenter corum contubernium adierit Helenam vero Constantini matrem Hierosolymis virgines Deo sacras reperisse Socrates testatur quarum professionem usque adeo probarit ut ministram illis sese praebuerit coll 467. Monachi per Syriam Palestinam Bythiniam reliqua Asiae loca sub Constantino magno coll 1294. Notum est quam reverentiam observantiam episcopis habuerit Constantinus in Synodo Nicaena ubi nec consedere prius quam episcopi annuissent voluit coll 460. Ad poenitentiam admoneri homines spem verò remissionis non à sacerdotibus sed ab ipso Deo expectare c. Cùm haec dixisset Acesius subjunxit imperator Pâ—ne scalam ô Acesi solus ascende in coelum coll 653. Turba frequens preces cum fictu pro anima imperatoris fudit coll 454. Thus Frigivillaeus Gauvius Constantinus tâ—â—buit Romano episcopo primatum aâ—te omnes And again Ex eo apparet satale suisse ut Constantinus daret potestatem bestiae quam statim â—ulius exercuit Nam etiam Constantinus magnus ferebat arma draconis in insignis suis c. ita ut ipse sit draco qui dedit potestatem bestiae typus draconis serpentis antiqui Apoc. 13. qui bestiae poâ—estatem dedit These words are in his Palma p. 34. And the same Centurists learned and indastrious Protestants do manifesty acknowledg although they also dislike it even in that fourth age above thirteen hundred years ago when the Christian Church first lift up her head in the world all in a manner practices beleef and rites yet held in the Roman Church and utterly now abolisht by the Protestant reformation as then in vogue amongst the prelates and people of those times for example the Primacy of the byshop of Rome deduced by divine right from that of S. Peter coll 515. 551. 556. 458. the single life of Priests 616. 486. the sumptuousnes of consecrating Churches and celebrating Masses in hallowed places 497. the rites used in ordination of deacons subdeacons acolytes exorcists readers door-keepers and in the unction and consecration of Priests 873 874. 435. ecclesiastical vestments the alb the stole Dalmatick cope mytre 504. 876. 835. saying of prayers upon little stones or beads coll 1329. worshipping and estimation of the Cross 302. praying towards the East 432. canonical hours 433. mattins in the night 459. solemn funeral rites and prayer for the souls of the deceased 453 454 455. Priests blessing of the bride and bridegroom after marriage 453. prohibition of marriage as well as eating of flesh in Lent 453. 441. consecration of monks and monastertes 466. vowed chastity poverty and abstinence anchorets hermits their cells and austerity of life 470. 488. 300 301. 471. 474. Images in the Church and candles there burning in the day time 409 410. solemn translation of Saints relicks and placing them under the altar with pilgrimages to them wherat sick persons were miraculously cured 456 457. 602. consecration of baptismal water and confirmation by a byslop with chrysme 415. 420. 865. sign of the cross in baptisme and exorcismes 421. 417. Free-will interiour justification and merit of good works 291 292 293. confesston of sins to a priest pennance and absolution with imposition of hands 425. 834. unwritten traditions 299. invocation of Saints 295. Purgatory 304. altars consecrated with the sign of the cross and chrisme called the seat of Christs body and blood 409. real presence and transubstantiation 209. 985. the reservation of that sacrament and offering it up a sacrifice to God propitiatory both for the living and dead 427. 430. 985. challice coverings and holy vessels which lay people might not touch 490. 835. mixtur of water with wine in the chalice in time of consecration 480. In a word all things which the Roman Catholik Church now beleevs and practises contrary to themselves are acknowledged by those learned Protestants in that fourth age to be so spread over the face of Christianity that many others of the same beleef with them have not feared to say that the Church in those dayes when she first lift up her head in the world was Antichristian and Papistical Popery then is no such novelty as Dr. Taylor imagines or would have us at least imagin it to be The Disswasives second Chapter That the Church of Rome uses doctrins and practices that are directly or by consequent impions and give warranty to a wicked life IS declared in 12. Sections For the Roman doctrin teaches saith he that a sinner is not bound presently to repent and that contrition is of it self of no value Sect. 1. Teaches also a confession that is frivolous and either of ill or no consequence sect 2. Teaches a pennance that is ineffective sect 3. Teaches Indulgences of no use sect 4. Teaches other afsertions attending hereon both fals and wicked as that a habit of sin is no sin and that one sin is venial another mortal sect 5. Teaches that a probable opinion may safely be followed sect 6. Teaches fond battologies and prayers without attention sect 7. Teaches prayer to dead men sect 8. Teaches fond and wicked exorisations and incantations sect 9. Teaches new Sacraments without warrant sect 10. Teaches image-worship against good life and vertue sect 11. Lastly teaches the abuse of faith hope and charity And so is demonstrated your Disswaders second plea against Papists But to answer all this in a word The Roman Church or Catholik faith teaches none of this His third Chapter That the Roman Church teaches doctrins destructive of Christian society and monarchy IS shown in three sections First she teaches it is lawful to lye and speak falsities Secondly she does intollerable prejudice to government by exemption of Clergy Thirdly subjects Princes to the Pope and separateth
bring for Purgatory but those also which Mr. Whitby has against it we may see manifestly that our Protestant Church hath much swerved from the ancient primitive practice of former Christians For Protestants have neither priests nor altars nor offerings nor sacrifice nor satisfactions nor expiations for the dead which those authorities speak of Ch. 11. from page 188. to 203. The real presence under the elements of the Eucharist Mr. Whitby here will not by any means endure And he hath one shield of a word which consists of almost as many syllables as Ajax his buckler of bulls hides to repell all autorities that may witness it Representatively that is the word Thou seest saith St. Chrisostom upon the altar the very body which the wise-men saw and worshipped Representatively saith Whitby Again The most precious thing in heaven I will shew thee upon earth saith the same father It is shewed represent atively saith Whitby it is seen representatively I dare not adore the earth saith St. Augustin and yet I have learned how the earth is to be adored becaus flesh is of the earth and our Lord gave us his flesh to eat which no man eats except he first adore It is Christ saith Whitby who is adored representatively And if any words will not bear that distinction then are they all spurious Nay if any should say expresly that not only Cbrist in heaven but his very Sacrament is worshipped this man will tells us presently who hath as many shifts in readiness where one will not serv his turn as Achelous had to slip out of the hands of Hercules that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and adoro have other significations But he has poor man no very good memory For after he had in this one chapter spent many of his pages to show that the real presence was not the former faith of Christians and that they never adored the Eucharist he lets fall a word by chance in the very close which spoils all by giving us to understand that this was so universal a beleef and practis among Christians that it came even to the notice of Infidels and that it was withall of so great concernment amongst beleevers that it expressed their whole religion as the abridgment of their faith and great capital work of their devotion Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis It was the speech of Avicen saith Whitby although I think it was Averroes who well enough understood both of them the natur of Cbristian religion not only by what they saw themselves but what they had read from more ancient writers both Christian pagan and Mahometan up and down the world concerning the religion of Christians Since the Christians worship that which they eat saith that Infidel let my soul be with Philosophers Ch. 12. from page 203. to 218. Labours much for the general use of the Cup in all Communions But neither does Mr. Whitby nor can he distinguish as appears by his discours wherein he sayes that otherwise ther would not be a representation of Christs death which is the wisest word he speaks in all this whole chapter I say he knows not and cannot distinguish that ther is in that one Eucharistian liturgy a double action the one of sanctifying and offering to God the other of giving or communicating to the people In the sanctifying and offering of the sacred simbols does only the sacrifice which is a representation of Christs death consist But the communicating of these symbols to the people is only a consequent of the former and no formal representation of our Lords death at all But he does not know and you need not heed what he sayes The concomitance of our Lords body and blood where ever it be in any one or other of the species or symbols which may enough justifie communion in one kinde he tells you very roundly it is a figment But if he had heeded the very practis of his own Church which indeed he never does he would have forborn those words For when the Protestant minister gives the people first the bread and sayes Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and seed upon him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving Do not the ministers words there imply a concomitance before the cup come even as perfect a concomitance as you Sir can plead for I think they do For surely they intend not to feed only upon one half of him Chap. 13. from page 218 to 230. Declares that alms-deeds and preaching of the Gospel is a sacrifice But the Eucharist he will not allow to be any true sacrifice at all Although to put by your arguments and solid reasonings for it he grants it may be called a Symbolical sacrifice And so he has caught hold of another distinction which runs quite through this matter or rather put the same distinction into other characters And if any ancient writers as ther are enough do give testimony that our Lords body and blood in the Eucharist is offered immolated and sacrificed on Christian altars by the priest for our attonement It is to be understood faith Whitby to be offered symbolically immolated symbolically sacrificed symbolically figuratively significatively representatively And though you beat his head never so much with your autorities and reasons so long as symbolically remains there you do but beat the air But where are any alters in our English Churches or any sacrifices offered or immolated theron And how comes it to pass that all these hundred years of our separation from Roman unity our people have never been told that they have priests still amongst them and altars and sacrifice although they be but symbolical ones symbolical sacrifice symbolical altars and symbolical priests For sacrifice is the very form and essence of all religion And they that know so much would have been much satisfied to hear that they have yet a sacrifice at least a symbolical sacrifice amongst them I will be bold to say that not one man of a million has ever heard of any such thing in an English pulpit or ever read it in a catechism The minister of the word and word of the minister that is all we ever hear of But it is thought perhaps that symbolical Priest would make but a jarring sound like two voices in a defective octave which have a semblance and shadow of a perfect concord but coming short of it produce the harshest and worst of discords in our car That our Lords death upon the Cross was a true and real sacrifice to God for mankinde all Catholiks know well enough and our Ministers need not put them in minde of that which already they beleev But as the sacrifices of the old law were instituted by almighty God to be often iterated before the passion of the great Messias for a continual exercise of religion in order to his future death So did the same Lord for the very same purpos of religious exercise
times are some of them for urgent reasons altered They did fast on Wednesdayes and not Saturdayes in many places now on Saturdayes not Wednesdayes Christians did stand at their Liturgy all Paschall time now they kneel Little children were in old time communicated after Baptisme in many places of the Catholik world now no where Absolution is now given upon an humble confession and a promis either exprest or tacite of performing the due pennance but it could not be in ancient times obtained till the pennance was fulfilled Priests may be consecrated now at twenty five years old in former times not till thirty Many holy dayes were then kept which now cannot Many now which could not then Communion was oftner in som ages than it is now There is a reason for all these changes of disciplin and custom But the substance of Religion remains ever the same about Fasts Liturgy Baptism Pennance Confession Priesthood Feasts Communion and such like things though som circumstance may change So concerning this point of the Eucharist the substance of Religion is that in memory of our blessed Lords Passion a benediction or consecration of bread and wine be made in the Church of God by his Priests for ever until our Lords second coming to the end that the Church his spouse may ever have his body with her to feed upon This I say is the substance of religion in this point But som circumstances such as may will change For example Priests rarely celebrated in som times of the Church but yet when any Mass or Messach was kept by any one of them all the other Priests and Clergy men that were near would assuredly be present at it and hear and pray and meditate with other people in most humble and fervent manner as became all good Christians to do but now in this last age they go generally every one to the Altar daily Which custom is the better I will not here determin But I am sure that great S. Francis commanded all his children to hear Mass once a day both Priests and others but forbad those that were Priests every day to celebrate and I think he had the Spirit of God in him In old times all Christian Priests had their head covered at the Altar with an Amictus or amice of pure linnen now they generally let it fall into their neck and their heads are utterly bare And time will come that they will put it upon their heads again So likewise for good and just reasons were catholik people in som times and places communicated in the one kind and som time in the other and som time and place in both But they were never debard Communion nor was ever the Sacrifice of the Altar stopped Nor is it so indifferent a circumstance to consecrate or celebrate in one kind as it is in one kind to communicate For Communion respects the thing contained the body and blood of Christ which was ever beleeved to be equally present in either kind But the sacrisice or consecration in one kind would not figure our Lords death and passion and the effusion of his blood as it ought to do But this great Christian work of sacrificing which is essential Religion and the very characteristical badg of Christianity becaus our Protestant Reformers cast it off they talk ever since only of Communion of lay-people as though the sacred benediction or consecration and oblation which indeed is the Christian sacrifice according to the rite and figure of Melchisedek recounted admired and worshipped by all primitive Christians were instituted only for that end Wheras indeed Christ our Lords institution touches immediately the figuration only of his death and passion which is completly don in the sacrifice consummated by the Priest although the peoples communion unto whose comfort and benefit all that work of consecration is exercised in the Church ought to follow by sequel when it is necessary or expedient Now the ancient primitive Church so firmly beleeved that the blessed body and blood and whole humanity and divinity of Christ were so present to those sacred symbols after the benediction or consecration of them by their Priests in Christs name and vertue tho it be unconceivable and wholly ineffable unto us that if a man with an indifferent and unprejudiced eye will but look back upon antiquity he may plainly see that in all ages it was indifferent to Christians though not to consecrate yet to communicate either in one kind or both For the younger people and such as were sick were generally communicated only in the liquid kind and others though som also received in both when solemn Communion was made yet that in the very primitive times they thought it all one to receiv either in both or one S. Cyprian S. Blsil and Tertullian very ancient Priests and Fathers do abundantly witness For Tertullian in his book de oratione describing the Christian wayes of old Usque adeo accepto corpore saith he stationem liceret solvere that is when they had communicated the body of their Lord no mention made of the chalice they brake up their station and had their Ite missa est to be gon as it is now even at this day among Catholiks And as for S. Basil he in his epistle to Caesarea Patricia tells at large how Christians in those dayes communicated four times a week and oftner if a Martyrs feast chanced to fall in the week and how that if persecution happened so violent that a Priest could not be had to give the people Communion they were forced with their own hands to touch that sacred body which was consecrated and kept in ciborium's boxes or pixis for them And this the peoples irreverence of touching the sacred body good S. Basil labours to excuse both by the urgency of their devotion and need and also by the example of the Hermits who leading a monastical life for want of Priests at that time among them kept the sacred Communion in their cells and received it with their own hands touching it contrary to the general custom when devotion and piety required as also by that of the Christians in Alexandria and Egypt who in such times of persecution and danger would have the sacred Communion at home in their own houses lest upon any necessity they should chance to dye without it and lastly by the very custom of Priests in the Church who then so delivered the host to communicants that when it was put by the Priests into their mouths they touched som part of it who received it with their own hands All this S. Basil there discourses more at large which agree well to the consecrated bread thus touched by the people in time of necessity thus put into their mouths by the help of the Priests and their own hands thus kept at home in times of persecution thus reserved in pixes or little arks but not at all to the chalice And all those devout Christians thought themselves sufficiently
that every other Church saith Irenaeus comply with the Roman by reason of her greater principality First becaus he sayes it is necessary secondly that every Church thirdly for the Roman Church's more potent principality to comply with her the Centurists are much displeased at it and censure it for a very corrupt speech And indeed the papal power and jurisdiction was so eminent in all ages that Philip Nicolai in his comment de regno Christi refers the beginning of it to the infirmity of the Apostles and byshops succeeding them For there speaking of the origin and increas of papal power Primatus affectatio saith he communis suit infirmit as apostolorum ac etiam primorum urbis episcoporum Finally in the first age that St. Peter had a primacy above the other apostles is acknowledged by Calvin The twelve apostles had one among them to govern the rest by Musculus The celestial spirits are not equal the apostles themselves were not equal Peter is found in many places to have been chief amongst the rest which we deny not by Mr. Whitgift Amongst the Apostles themselves ther was one chief and by Dr. Covel who in his examinations teaches at large against the Puritans both that there was one appointed over the rest amongst the apostles to keep them in unity and that that government was not to ceas with the apostles but ever to continue in the Church and that it is the only way to prevent dissention and suppress heresies and that otherwise the Church would be in a far wors case than the meanest Commonwealth nay almost than a den of thieves But the Centurists like not this and therfor do they in their 4 Cent. reprehend many of the Fathers for entituling Peter the head of the apostles and the byshop of byshops So indeed Optatus calls him apostolorum caput and therfor Cephas Origen apostolorum principem Cyril of Jerusalem principem caput caeterorum Cyril of Alexandria Pastorem caput ecclesiae Arnobius Episcoporum episcopum the Councel of Chalcedon Petram verticem ecclesiae Cathobais Thus much for that point which by all this is proved to be far from any novelty As for Saints invocation and the antiquity of that beleef and custom it is acknowledged by the Centurists Chemnitius our Dr. Whitgift and Fulk Dr. Whitgift in his defence hath these words Almost all the byshops and writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrins of Free-will of merit of invocation of Saints and such like Fulk in his rejoynder to Brittow I confess saith he that Ambrose Austin and Jerom held invocation of Saints to be lawful and in his book against the Rhemish Testament In Nazianzen Basil and Chrysostom I confess faith he is mention of invocation of Saints and again that Theodoret also speaketh of prayers to martyrs and again in the same book that Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of S. Peter for him and again that many ancient fathers held that Saints departed pray for us Chemnitius in his examen acknowledges as much of S. Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen Theodoret S. Jerom and even S. Austin himself The Centurists charge the same upon S. Cyprian who is ancienter than S. Austin and again upon Origen who was ancienter than Cyprian adding that there are manifest steps of Saints invocation in the doctors of that ancient age So this is no novelty then Lastly as for the Sacrifice of Mass and Altars which as Dr. Reynolds sayes well in his conference with Hart are linked together Peter Martyr in his common places reproveth Peter of Alexandria for attributing more as he speaks to the outward altar than to the living temples of Christ and he checks Optatus also for saying what is the altar even the seat of the body and blood of Christ such sayings as these saith Peter Martyr edified not the people and lastly all the fathers in general he finds sault with for their abusing so frequently the name Altar which indeed is spoken of even by S Ignatius the Apostles undoubted schollar who is therfor carped at by Cartwright Calvin Fulk and Field acknowledg that most ancient fathers S. Athanasius Ambrose Austin Arnobius talked much of the Christian Sacrifice and Altar and Priests who offer and pour out daily on the holy table adding that the fathers without doubt received that their doctrin from the Jews and Gentiles whom therin they imitated The Centuriators in 3. Cent. Hame Cyprian as superstitious in that point and in their 2 Cent. say that S. Irenaeus and Ignatius though disciples of the apostles were dangerously erroneous in that account Sebastianus Francus in his epistle de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis ecclesiasticis affirms that presently after the apostles times the supper of our Lord was turned into a sacrifice Andreas Chrastovius in his book de opificio missae charges the most ancient fathers with using a propitiatory sacrifice And our own Ascham in his Apologet. pro coena Domini is found to acknowledg that sacrifice for the dead and living is so ancient in the Christian Church that no beginning of it can be found although he thinks also with Calvin that it was derived whensoever it first began from the custom either of the Jews or Gentiles or both thus bespattering with his rash pen the very first sproutings of Christianity in the world However it is in the mean time no novelty at least And let any one in any age of Christianity look all over the Christian world on any of those who prosess that name whether they kept communion with the Roman Church or brake by schisme from it or perhaps never heard of it as they say the Church in Ethiopia did not and he shall find that they all had this Christian sacrifice amongst them as the great capital work of their Religion The Grecians under their Patriarch of Constantinople even still after their schisme have their Priests celebrating in all their ancient robes this their sacred liturgy to this day in the learned greek tongue all over the world where they live and may serv God not only in Greece Epirus Macedon and islands of the Egoean sea but in many parts of Natolia Circassia Russia Thrace Bulgaria Rascia Servia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia Dalmatia Croatia Thracia and up as far North as Trebisond The Assyrians or Melchites who are under the Archbyshop of Damascus whom they intitle Patriarch of Antioch The Georgians that dwell between the Euxin and Caspian sea under their Metropolitan who resides in the monastery of S. Catherin in Mount Sinai The Circassians that live between them and the river Tanais The Muscovites or Russians under the primate of Mosco The Nestorians dispersed up and down in Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia Media even to Cataia and India under their Patriarch residing either in Muzal or the monastery of S. Ermes fast by it The Indians or Christians of S. Thomas about the cities of Coulan and Maliapar Angamal