Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	7,578	5	11.1962	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41614	A papist mis-represented and represented, or, A twofold character of popery the one containing a sum of the superstitions, idolatries, cruelties, treacheries, and wicked principles of the popery which hath disturb'd this nation above an hundred and fifty years, fill'd it with fears and jealousies, and deserves the hatred of all good Christians : the other laying open that popery which the papists own and profess, with the chief articles of their faith, and some of the principle grounds and reasons, which hold them in that religion / by J.L. one of the Church of Rome ; to which is added, a book entituled, The doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, truly represented, in answer to the aforesaid book by a Prote	Gother, John, d. 1704.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1686 (1686)	Wing G1336; ESTC R21204	180,124	215

the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case from some parallel Instances as he thinks 1. He believes Iesus Christ made his Words good pronounced at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful Words changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests This is a very easie way of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation And from no better Ground to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock a Vine a Door because the words are every jot as clear and then call in Gods Omnipotency which is as effectual to make them good I confess these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation that if I had never heard of it I should never have thought of it from these or any other words of Scripture i.e. not barely considering the sound of words but the Eastern Idioms of speaking the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body without any Objection made against it by his Disciples the Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh and withal if these words be literally and strictly understood they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words and the strict Rules of Interpretation Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd for then all that can be infer'd from these words is that when Christ spake these words The Bread was his Body But either Christ meant the Bread by This or he did not if he did the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal sense if he did not then by vertue of these words the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant when Christ said This is my Body This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation But several Divines of the Church of Rome understood themselves better and have confessed that this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words as it were easie to shew if it had not been lately done already It is enough here to observe that Vasquez confesseth it of Scotus Durandus Paludanus Ockam Cameracensis and himself yields that they do not and cannot signifie expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can This is my Body literally signifie this is changed into my Body If that Proposition were literally true This is my Body it overthrows the Change For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already 2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency can make his words good We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency but we may their familiar way of making use of it to help them out when Sense and Reason fail them And therefore Cajetan well said We ought not to dispute about Gods Absolute Power in the Doctrine of the Sacraments being things of such constant use and that it is a foolish thing to attribute to the Sacrament all that God can do But we must consider what he saith against Sense and Reason For the believing this Mystery he does not at all think it meet for any Christian to appeal from Christs Words to his own Senses or Reason for the examining the Truth of what he hath said but rather to submit his Senses and Reason to Christ's Words in the obsequiousness of Faith What! whether we know this to be the meaning of Christ's Words or not And thus we shall be bound to submit to every absurd Interpretation of Scripture because we must not use our Senses or Reason for examining the Truth of what is said there Can any thing be plainer said in Scripture than that God hath Eyes and Ears and Hands Must now every Man yield to this in the obsequiousness of Faith without examining it by Principles of common Reason And we think we are therefore bound to put another Sense upon those Expressions because they imply a Repugnancy to the Divine Perfections Why not then where something is implied which is repugnant to the Nature of Christ's Body as well as to our Senses But the Question about judging in this matter by our Senses is not as our Author is willing to suppose viz. Whether our Senses are to be believed against a clear and express Divine Revelation but whether the Judgment of our Senses and Reason is not to be made use of for finding out the true sense of this Revelation And we think there is great reason for it 1. Because we have no more certain way of judging the Substance of a Body than by our Senses We do not say our Senses go beyond the Accidents but we say our Senses by those Accidents do assure us of the bodily Substance or else it were impossible for us to know there is any such thing in the world 2. Because Christ did himself appeal to the Judgment of his Disciples Senses concerning the Truth of his own Body after the Resurrection Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Now we think we have reason to allow the same Criterion which Christ himself did about the very same Body Unless he had then told his Disciples that there was to be another supernatural manner of Existence of the same Body concerning which their Senses were not to be Judges 3. Some of the most important Articles of the Christian Faith do suppose the Judgment of our Senses to be true As about the Truth of Christ's Body whether he had really a Body or only the outward Accidents and Appearance of a Body if he had not he did not really suffer upon the Cross and so the Sacrifice of Propitiation there offered up to the Father for the sins of mankind is lost There was a great Controversy in St. Iohn's time and afterwards Whether Christ had any real Body Those who denied it brought Revelation for it those who asserted it proved it by their Senses as S. Iohn himself That which we have seen and heard and our hands have handled c. He doth not tell men they must submit their Sense and Reason to the pretence of Revelation but they ought to

but even the Wollenbergii lately confess that the abuses therein have not only been offensive to us but to themselves too But what saith our Representer to them He believes it damnable to think there 's any Divinity in the Reliques of Saints or to adore them with Divine Honour But what is this adoring them with Divine Honour A true Representer ought to have told us what he meant by it when the whole Controversie depends upon it Is it only saying Mass to Reliques or believing them to be Gods Is there no giving Divine Honour by Prostration burning of Incense c. Nothing in expecting help from them Yes If it be from any hidden Power of their own But here is a very hard Question If a Man doth not believe it to be an intrinsick Power in the Reliques may a Man safely go to them Opis impetrandae causâ as the Council of Trent saith in hopes of Relief from them Is it not possible for the Devil to appear with Samuel's true Body and make use of the Relique of a Saint to a very bad end Then say I no Reliques can secure Men against the Imposture of Evil Spirits who by God's Permission may do strange things with the very Reliques of Saints But God hath visibly worked by them saith our Author by making them Instruments of many Miracles and it is as easie for him to do it now This is the force of all he saith To which I answer 1. It is a very bold thing to call in God's Omnipotency where God himself hath never declared he will use his Power for it is under his own Command and not ours But there is no Reason to deduce the Consequence of using it now because he hath done it formerly And that they may not think this is cavilling in us I desire them to read Pere Anna●'s Answer to the Jansenists pretended Miracle at Port Poyal viz. of the Cure wrought by one of our Saviour's Thorns There he gives another account of such Miracles than would be taken from us But where he saith It is as much for the Honour of God's Name to work such Miracles now their own Authors will tell him the contrary and that there is no such Reason now as in former times when Religion was to be confirmed by them and when Martyrs suffered upon the sole account of the Truth of it and therefore their Reputation had a greater Influence upon converting the unbelieving World 2. Suppose it be granted yet it proves not any Religious Worship to be given to them For I shall seriously ask an important Question Whether they do really believe any greater Miracles have ever been done by Reliques than were done by the Brazen Serpent And yet although that was set up by God's own Appointment when it began to be worshorshipped after an undue manner it was thought fit by Hezekiah to be broken in pieces What now was the undue Worship they gave to it Did they believe the Serpent which could neither move nor understand was it self a God But they did burn Incense to it And did that make a God of it Suppose Men burn Incense to Reliques What then are they made Gods presently Suppose they do not but place them upon Altars carry them in Procession fall down before them with intention to shew the Honour they do them are not these as much as burning a little Incense which could not signify so much Honour as the other do and it is hard then to make the one unlawful and not the other V. Of the EUCHARIST HE believes it lawful to commit Idolatry and makes it his daily practice to Worship and adore a Breaden God giving Divine Honour to those poor empty Elements of Bread and Wine Of these he asks Pardon for his sins of these he desires Grace and Salvation these he acknowledges to have been his Redeemer and Saviour and hopes for no good but what is to come to him by means of these household Goods And then for his Apology he alledges such gross contradictions contrary to all sense and reason that whosoever will be a Papist must be no Man Fondly believing that what he adores is no Bread or Wine but Christ really present under those appearances and thus makes as many Christs as many Redeemers as there are Churches Altars or Priests When according to Gods Infallible Word there is but one Christ and He not on Earth but at the right hand of his Father in Heaven HE believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship or Adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine He worships only one God who made Heaven and Earth and his only Son Jesus Christ our Redeemer who being in all things equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency he believes made his words good pronounc'd at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful Words chang'd into his own Body and Blood the Species or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests That it really contains the Body of Christ which was deliver'd for us and his Blood which was shed for the remission of sins Which being there united with the Divinity he confesses Whole Christ to be present And him he adores and acknowledges his Redeemer and not any Bread or Wine And for the believing of this Mystery he does not at all think it meet for any Christian to appeal from Christ's Words to his own Senses or Reason for the examining the truth of what he has said but rather to submit his Senses and Reason to Christ's Words in the obsequiousness of Faith And that being a Son of Abraham 't is more becoming him to believe as Abraham did promptly with a Faith superiour to all Sense or Reason and whither these could never lead him With this Faith it is he believes every Mystery of his Religion the Trinity Incarnation c. With this Faith he believes that what descended upon our Saviour at his Baptism in Iordan was really the Holy Ghost though Senses or Reason could discover it to be nothing but a Dove With this Faith he believes That the Man that Ioshua saw standing over against him with his Sword drawn Iosh. 5.13 and the three Men that Abraham entertain'd in the Plains of Mambre Gen. 18. were really and substantially no Men and that notwithstanding all the information and evidence of Sense from their Colour Features Proportion Talking Eating and many others of their being Men yet without any discredit to his Senses he really believes they were no such thing because God's Word has assured him of the contrary And with this Faith he believes Christ's Body and Blood to be really present in the Blessed Sacrament though to all appearance there 's nothing more than Bread and Wine Thus not at all

hearkning to his Senses in a matter where God speaks he unfeignedly confesses That he that made the World of nothing by his sole word That cured Diseases by his Word That raised the Dead by his Word That expell'd Devils That commanded the Winds and Seas That multiplied Bread That changed Water into Wine by his Word and Sinners into Just Men cannot want Power to change Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood by his sole Word And this without danger of multiplying his Body of making as many Christs as Altars or leaving the right hand of his Father But only by giving to his Body a supernatural manner of Existence by which being left without extension of parts and rendred independent of place it may be one and the same in many places at once and whole in every part of the Symbols and not obnoxious to any corporeal Contingencies And this kind of Existence is no more than what in a manner he bestows upon every Glorified Body Than what his own Body had when born without the least violation of his Mothers Virginal Integrity When he arose from the Dead out of the Sepulchre without removing the Stone When he entred amongst his Disciples the Doors being shot And though he cannot understand how this is done yet he undoubtedly believes That God is able to do more than He is able to understand V. Of the Eucharist THere are two material Points under this Head which are to be examined because he endeavours to set them off with all the advantage he can viz. Adoration of the Host and Transubstan●iation I. Of the Adoration of the Host. 1. The Question is far enough from being Whether it be lawful to commit Idolatry as our Representer puts it For the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes it lawful to commit Idolatry and to clear this our Author gravely saith He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry pag. 9. As though any Men ever owned it to be lawful Which is as if the Question were Whether such a Man committed Adultery and he should think to clear himself by saying he believed it unlawful to commit Adultery 2. The Question is not Whether Christ may be lawfully adored by us in the Celebration of the Eucharist which we are so far from denying that our Church requires our receiving it in the posture of Adoration 3. The true Question is Whether the Body of Christ being supposed to be present in the Host by Transubstantiation be a sufficient ground to give the same Adoration to the Host which they would do to the Person of Christ. And that this is the true state of the Question will appear by these things 1. The Council of Trent first defined Transubstantiation and from thence inferrred Adoration of the Host as is most evident to any one that will read the fourth and fifth Decrees of the Thirteenth Session Nullus itaque dub●tandi locus c. i.e. If Transubstantiation be true then Adoration follows It 's true the sixth Canon only speaks of Christ being there worshipped but that ought to be compared with the first second and fourth Canons where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is fully set down as the Foundation of that Adoration 2. The Adoration is not fixed on the Person of Christ as separate from the Host but as making one Object of Worship together with it And so the Council of Trent declares in the sixth Decree when it saith The Sacrament is nevertheless to be adored because it was instituted to be received This cannot be otherwise understood than as relating to the Sacrament and so that whatever it be must be granted to be the Object of Adoration By the Sacrament saith Cardinal Pallavicini is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ and the Accidents The Worship then being confessed to be Adoration which is due to God alone and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object the Question now is Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament doth justifie that Adoration Our Author saith He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine Then I say by his own confession if it be only Bread he commits Idolatry for the Adoration he cannot deny But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions which to the People sound very well but have no sincere meaning for what is it he understands by his Breaden God If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread we do not charge him with it but if it be what we believe it to be the Substance of Bread but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it All that can excuse them is the Supposition and whether that will or not is now to be consider'd 1. If it be not true themselves grant it to be Idolatry The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher and Costerus are so well known to this purpose that I shall not repeat them And Catharinus a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host although the Person through a Mistake believes it consecrated And he quotes Saint Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion and gives this Reason for it Because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament but as he is under the Species and therefore if he be not so present a Creature hath Divine Worship given it As those were guilty of Idolatry who worshipped any Creatures of old supposing God to be there as that he was the Soul of the World They were not excused saith he that they thought they worshipped but one God because they worshipped him as present in such a manner as he was not And this Book of hi● he saith in the Review of it was seen and approved by the Pope's Order by their Divines at Paris 2. If the Bread were taken to be God our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry for that were to worship a Breaden God Yet here would be a Mistake and a gross one yet this Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry as he confesses Why then should the other Mistake excuse them when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there but the Body of Christ to be under the Species Yes say they then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship But when the Bread is supposed to be God it must be supposed not to be a Creature There is no Answer to be given in this Case but that the Bread really is a Creature whatsoever they imagined and if this Mistake did not excuse neither can the other II. Of Transubstantiation Three things our Author goes upon with respect to this 1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it 2. He shews the possibility of it from Gods Omnipotency 3. He argues against

Merits and P●ssion of Christ he c●n Merit Salvation by his own good Works or make condign satisfaction for the guilt of his sins or the pains Eternal due to them R. Amen VIII Cursed is he that contemns the Word of God or hides it from the People on design to keep them from the knowledge of their Duty and to preserve them in Ignorance and Error R. Amen IX Cursed is he that undervalues the Word of God or that forsaking Scripture chuses rather to follow Humane Traditions than it R. Amen X. Cursed is he that leaves the Commandments of God to observe the constitutions of Men. R. Amen XI Cursed is he that omits any of the Ten Commandments or keeps the people from the knowledge of any one of them to the end they may not have occasion of discovering the Truth R. Amen XII Cursed is he that Preaches to the People in unknown Tongues such as they understand not or uses any other means to keep them in Ignorance R. Amen XIII Cursed is he that believes that the Pope can give to any upon any account whatsoever Dispensation to lie or swear falsly or that 't is lawful for any at the last hour to protest himself Innocent in case he be Guilty R. Amen XIV Cursed is he that encourages sins or teaches Men to defer the amendment of their Lives or presumption of their Death-bed-Repentance R. Amen XV. Cursed is he that teaches Men that they may be lawfully drunk on a Friday or any other Fasting-day tho they must not taste the least bit of Flesh. R. Amen XVI Cursed is he who places Religion in nothing but a pompous shew consisting only in Ceremonies and which teaches not the People to serve God in Spirit and Truth R. Amen XVII Cursed is he who loves or promotes Cruelty that teaches People to be bloody-minded and to lay aside the meekness of Iesus Christ. R. Amen XVIII Cursed is he who teaches it lawful to do any wicked thing tho it be for the Interest and Good of Mother-Church or that any Evil Action may be done that Good may come on it R. Amen XIX Cursed are we if amongst all those wicked Principles and damnable Doctrines commonly laid at our doors any one of them be the Faith of our Church And cursed are we if we do not as heartily detest all those hellish Pract●ces as they that so vehemently urge them against us R. Amen XX. Cursed are we if in an answering and saying Amen to any of these Curses we use any Equivocations Mental Reservations or do not ass●nt to them in the common and obvious Sense of the Words R. Amen And can the Papists then thus seriously and without check of Conscience say Amen to all these Curses Yes they can and are ready to it whensoever and and as often as it shall be requir'd of them And what then is to be said of those who either by Word or Writing charge these Doctrines upon the Faith of the Church of Rome Is a lying Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets Are they all gone aside Do they b●ck b●te with their Tongue do Evil to their Neighbour and take up Reproach against th●ir Neighbour I 'll say no such thing but leave the impartial Considerer to judge One thing I can safely affirm That the Papists are foully Mis represented and shew in publick as much unlike what they are as the Christians were of old by the Gentiles that they lie under a great Calumny and severely smart in good Name Persons and Estates for such things which they as much and as heartily detest as those who accuse them But the Comfort is Christ has said to his Followers Ye shall be hated of all men Matth. 10.22 and Saint Paul We are made a Spectacle unto the World and we don't doubt that who bears this with Patience shall for every loss here and content receive a hundred fold in Heaven For base things of the World and things which are despi●ed hath God chosen ● Corinth 1.28 An Answer to the Conclusion HAving thus gone through the several Heads which our Author complains have been so much Mirsrepresented it is now fit to consider what he saith in his Conclusion which he makes to answer his Introduction by renewing therein his doleful Complaints of their being Misrepresented just as Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians were I hope the former Discourse hath shewed their Doctrines and Practices are not so very like those of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians that their Cases should be made so parallel but as in his Conclusion he hath summed up the substance of his Representations so I shall therein follow his Method only with this difference that I shall in one Column set down his own Representations of Popery and in the other the Reasons in short why we cannot embrace them Wherein Popery consists as represented by this Author 1. IN using all external Acts of Adoration before Images as Kneeling Praying lifting up the Eyes burning Candles Incense c. Not merely to worship the Objects before them but to worship the Images themselves on the account of the Objects represented by them or in his own Words Because the Honour that is exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent 2. In joining the Saints in Heaven together with Christ in Intercession for us and making Prayers on Earth to them on that Account 3. In allowing more Supplications to be used to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ For he denies it to be an idle Superstition to repeat Ten Ave Maria's for one Pater-Noster 4. In giving religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Such as placing them upon Altars burning Wax Candles before them carrying them in Processions to be seen touched or humbly kissed by the People which are the known allowed Practices in the Church of Rome 5. In adoring Christ as present in the Eucharist on the account of the Substance of Bread and Wine being changed into that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cróss 6. In believing the Substance of Bread and Wine by the Words of Consecration to be changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of Bread and Wine remaining as before 7. In making good Works to be truly meritorious of Eternal Life 8. In making Confession of our Sins to a Priest in order to Absolution 9. In the use of Indulgences for taking away the Temporal Punishments of sin remaining due after the Guilt is remitted 10. In supposing the Penitent Sinner may in some measure satisfie by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the Temporal Pain which by order of God's Iustice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the Eternal Pain are remitted 11. In thinking the Scripture not fit to be read generally by all without Licence or in the Vulgar Tongue 12. In allowing the Books of Tobit Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Maccabees to be Canonical 13. In preferring the Vulgar Latin Edition

whom he had made Priests just before yet he gave no command that it should be so receiv'd by all the faithful But left this indifferent as is evident from his own words where he attributes the obtaining life everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to the receiving under both kinds sometimes under one as when he says If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever He that eats Me even he shall live by me He that eats of this bread shall live for ever John 6. v. 51 57 58. And a curious Reader may find as many Texts for thus Receiving under one kind as for the other And St. Augustine was so f●r of this Opinion that he says that Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only viz. to those two going to Emaus Luk. c. last 30. And that the Apostles afterwards did often practise the like when they assembled to break bread Acts 2. c. Which places Ile and other Fathers explicate of the Sacrament Aug. l. 49. de Cons. Evang And that this was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children to the Sick and that Men on a Iourney used so to carry it with them is attested by all antient Writers and modern Historians Nay he finds that this was the practice of the Church to Communicate under one kind only or else under both as every one thought good especially in all Private Communions for the first four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept of Receiving under both kinds was given to the Fait●ful by Pope Leo I. in the year 443. and Confirm'd by Pope Gelasius in 490. not for the correcting any Abuse that had crept into the Church but for the discovering the Manichees who being of opinion that Christ had no true Blood and that Wine was the Gall of the Devil us'd to lurk among the Christians and receiving under the form of Bread only as the rest did remain'd und●stinguish'd till by this Obligation of all Receiving the Cup which they judg'd unlawful and abominab●e they were all detected And now if a thing till that time Indifferent was for these Motives determin'd by an Ecclesiastical Precept and so observ'd for many hundred years without scruple or questioning the Authority why should he doubt to submit to the same Authority when upon different Motives and Circumstances they issue forth another Precept Few doubt of this in the matter of Eating of strangled Meats and Blood which thô forbid by the Apostles Acts 15. and so unlawful is now by another Order and upon other circumstances become a thing Indifferent and like other things And why then should he scruple in this especially since there 's no Injury done nor he defrauded of any thing For believing the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament he cons●quently believes whole and living Iesus to be entirely contain'd under either Species And that receiving under one kind he is truly partaker of the whole Sacrament and not depriv'd of other the Body or Blood of Christ. XXI Of Communion in one kind FOR our better proceeding in this Controversie I shall set down the State of it as clearly as I can 1. The Question is not Whether the first Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ were in one kind or two for all confess it was under both kinds 2. It is not Whether both kinds are not still necessary for the due Celebration of it for it is granted that both kinds are necessary to be upon the Altar or else there could be no compleat Sacrifice 3. It is not Whether the People may be wholly excluded from both kinds and so the Sacrifice only remain for they grant that the People are bound to communicate in one kind 4. It is not concerning any peculiar and extraordinary Cases where no Wine is to be had or there be a particular Aversion to it or any such thing where positive Institutions may be reasonably presumed to have no force But concerning the publick and solemn Celebration and participation of it in the Christian Church 5. It is not concerning the meer disuse or neglect of it But concerning the lawfulness of Excluding the People from both Kinds by the Churches Prohibition notwithstanding the Institution of it by Christ in both kinds with a Command to keep up the Celebration of it to his Second Coming Here now consists the point in Controversie Whether the Church being obliged to keep up the Institution in both kinds be not equally obliged to distribute both as our Saviour did to as many as partake of it Our Author not denying the Institution or the continuance of it saith Our Saviour left it indifferent to receive it in one kind or both And that is the point to be examined 1. He saith Christ delivered it to his Apostles who only were then present and whom he made Priests just before yet he gave no command that it should be so received by all the Faithful But were not the Apostles all the Faithful then present I pray in what capacity did they then receive it As Priests How did they receive the Bread before the hoc facite As Priests or as faithful It is ridiculous to suppose the hoc facite changed their capacity and if ●t did it only relates to consecrating and not to receiving but if Christ gave it only to the Apostles as Priests then for all that I can see the People are not at all concerned in one kind or other but it was intended only for Priests If the people be concerned how came they to be so Where is there any command but what refers to the first Institution And it had been more plausible according to this Answer to exclude the People wholly than to admit them to one kind and to debar them the other 2. Christ attributes the obtaining Life Everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to receiving under both kinds sometimes under one John 6.51 57 58. He could not easily have thought of any thing more against himself for our Saviour there makes it as necessary to drink his Blood as to eat his Flesh Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you If this be understood of the Sacrament as he saith How is it possible for him to make the Cup indifferent Unless it be indifferent whether the People be saved or not 3. Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only Luke 24.30 But is he sure Christ did then administer the Sacrament to them Or that if he did the Cup was not implied since breaking of Bread when taken for an ordinary Meal in Scripture doth not exclude drinking at it But S. Augustin he saith l. 49. de Consensu Evangel understands that place of the Sacrament If he doth it cannot be where he saith for

S. Augustin wrote but Four Books of that Subject but l. 3.25 he doth say something towards it yet S. Augustin in another place supposes that these Disciples did both eat and drink The Disciples did not know him but in the breaking of Bread and truly he that doth not eat and drink Iudgment to himself doth in the breaking of Bread own Christ. Whe●e it is plain that he applies both to the breaking of Bread here spoken of 4. He saith it was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children the Sick and to Men in a Iourney I would he had produced his Authorities to prove these things for I can bring several to prove the direct contrary as to Children and sick P●rsons and Travellers and not only ancient Writers but the most Learned of their own Church And therefore I cannot but wonder to find him saying This was attested by all ancient Writers and modern Historians But I have ever found those have been most mistaken who produce all Writers and Historians when it may be there is not one that speaks home to the business At least we have here none mentioned and therefore none to examine and it would be too hard a task to search All. 5. He adds to this extravagancy in saying That Receiving in one or both kinds was indifferent for the ●irst four hundred years when the contrary is so manifest that the most ingenious of their own Writers confess it If any Persons did carry home one kind which is very questionable for Baronius and Albaspinaeus say they carried both kinds to receive it in times of Persecution at what season they thought fit afterwards This ought not to be set up against the general and constant Rule of the Church which is attested not only by Cassander and such like but even by Salmero Ruardus Tapperus and Lindanus who make no scruple of saying the publick Celebration in the Primitive Church was in both kinds But then how is it possible for us to judge better what they thought themselves bound to do than what they constantly observed in all their publick Celebrations The Church is not accountable for the particular Fancies or S●perstitions of Men but what was observed in all publ●ck Offices we have reason to think the Church thought it self obliged so to do out of regard to the Institution of Christ. And to shew how Un●versal this Observation was in the Church those who give account of the Eastern Church say That the Greeks Nestorians Armenians Maronites Cophtites and Abyssins do all observe it still viz. That the publ●ck Communicants do partake of both kinds And not one of all these Churches but think themselves bound to observe it out of regard to the Institution of Christ and why then should any think the Pr●m●tive Church thought it indifferent 6. The first Precept of receiving under both kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo A. D. 443. and confirmed by G●l●sius A. D. 490. This is a great mistake for Leo gave no Precept ab●ut it but only told the People how they might certainly discover the Manichees for they would conform in other things but they would not taste of the Wine which argued that all other Communicants did then partake in both kinds Gelasius not only confirms the Custom then used but he saith That it is Sacriledge to divide that Holy Mystery And sur●ly he did not account Sacriledge an indifferent thing 7. Lastly he saith That those who receive in one kind are truly Partakers of the whole Sacrament This is a new way of Concomitancy we used to hear of Whole Christ under either Species and that Whole Christ was therefore received but how comes it to be the whole Sacrament which consists of two distinct Parts And if it be a Sacrifice the Blood must be separated from the Body else the Blood of Christ is not considered as sh●d and so the Notion of the Sacrifice will be lost Which is our next Head XXII Of the MASS HE believes an insufficiency in the Sacrifice made by Christ upon the Cross and that his Death will little avail us in order to our Redemption unless we by daily Sacrificing him to his Father perfect what he began and therefore little taking notice of St. Paul 's Words to the Hebrews Chap. 10.14 where he says that Christ our High-Priest by one Oblat●on hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified He thinks he shall never be sanctified but by the Offering made by his Mass Priest upon their Altars when they say Mass and thus wholly relying upon this Superstition an Invention of some crafty P●pe for the deceiving W●dows and Credul●us Women he is taught to neglect the Passi●n of Christ and to put no hopes in his Merits and the work of our Redemption HE believes that the Sacrifice made by Christ upon the Cross was altogether sufficient That by it he Sav'd and Redeem'd us paying the Debt of Sin and satisfying the Infinite Iustice of his Father That by it he procur'd means for our Salvation which means are Faith and Good Works and most honourable to God is the Offering a Sacrifice And as Christ's Worshipping of God Christ's Fasting Christ's Praying and suffering for us does not hinder or evacuate our Worshipping of God our Fasting our Suffering our Praying for our selves So neither did his Sacrifice hinder or evacuate all Sacrifices for ever But as he instituted ●asting Praying and suffering for his Followers th●t by so doing they might apply what he did to themselves so a●so he instituted a Sacrifice that by it they might apply the merits of his Sacrifice and make it beneficial to their Souls So that though he firmly believes that Christ offered Sacrifice for our Redemption and by one only Offering spoken of by St. Paul perfected by way of Redemption the Sanctification of all those that are sanctified yet he also believes that to receive the ben●fit of this Offering we must also do our parts by our Good Works concurring with Christ so becoming Labourers together with God 1 Cor. 3.9 and in some manner purifying our own selves 1 John 3.3 and therefore not omit the best of all Works which is Sacrifice proper to none but God Which our Saviour Iesus Christ instituted at ●is last Supper when leaving unto us his Body and Blood under two distinct Species of Bread and Wine he bequeath'd as a Legacy to his Apostles not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice A Commemorative Sacrifice lively Representing in an unbloody manner the bloody Sacrifice which was offered for us upon the Cross and by a distinction of the Symbols distinctly shewing his Death Christ's until he come This he gave in charge to his Apostles as to the first and chief Priests of the New Testament and to their Successors to Offer commanding them to do the same thing he had there done at his last Supper in commemoration of him And this is the Oblation or

Sacrifice of the Mass which has been observ'd perform'd frequented by the Faithful in all Ag●s attested by the General Consent of ancient Canons universal Tradition Councils and the pract●ce of the whole Church mention'd and allow'd of by all the Fathers Greek and Latin and never call'd into question but of l●te Years being that pure Offering which Malachy Prophecying of Christ foretold should be offer'd among the Gentiles in every place Mal. 1.11 as it is understood by several Fathers and particularly S. Cypr. l. 1. c. 18. advers Iud. S. Ierom S. Theodoret S. Cyril in their Commentaries upon this Text S. Augustine l. 18. c. 15. de Civit. S. Chrysost. in Psal. 95. and others Of the MASS UNder this Head which is thought of so great cons●quence in the Roman Church I expected a fuller Representation than I here find as about the Opus Operatum i. e. how far the meer Act is effectual About their Solitary Masses when no Person receives but the Priest about the People having so little to do or understand in all the other parts of the Mass About the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass how useful and important they are About reconciling the present Canon of the Mass with the present Practises About offering up Masses for the honour of Saints All which we find in the Council of Trent but are omitted by our Representer Who speaks of the Mass as tho there were no Controversie about it but only concerning the Sacrifice there supposed to be offered up and which he is far from true Representing For the Council of Trent not only affirms a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice to be there offered up for the quick and dead but denounces Anathema's against those that deny it So that the Question is not Whether the Eucharist may not in the sense of Antiquity be allowed to be a Commemorative Sacrifice as it takes in the whole Action but whether in the Mass there be such a Representation made to God of Christ's Sacrifice as to be it self a true and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Q●ick and the Dead Now all that our Representer saith to the purpose is 1. That Christ bequeathed his Body and Blood at his last Supper under the species of Bread and Wine not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice I had thought it had been more proper to have offered a Sacrifice than to have bequeathed it And this ought to have been proved as the Foundation of this Sacrifice viz. That Christ did at his last Supper offer up his Body and Blood as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God And then what need his suffering on the Cross 2. He gave this in charge to his Apostles as the first and chief Priests of the New-Testament and to their Successors to offer But Where When and How For we read nothing at all of it in Scripture Christ indeed did bid them do the same thing he had there done in his last Supper But did he the offer up himself or not If not How can the Sacrifice be drawn from his Action If he did it is impossible to prove the necessi●y of his dying afterwards 3. This Sacrifice was never questioned till of late years We say it was never determined to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice till of late We do not deny the Fathers interpreting Mal. 1.11 of an Offering under the Gospel but they generally understand it of Spiritual and Eucharistical Sacr●fices and although some of them by way of Accommodation do apply it to the Eucharist yet not one of them doth make it a Propitiatory Sacrifice which was the thing to be proved For we have no mind to dispute about Metaphorical Sacrifices when the Council of Trent so positively decrees it to be a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice XXIII Of Purgatory HE believes contrary to all Reason the Word of God and all Antiquity that besides Heaven and Hell there is a third place which his Church is pleas'd to call Purgatory a place intended purely for those of his Communion wh●re they may easily have admittance after this Life without danger of falling into Hell for that though Hell was designed first for the punishment of Sinners yet that now since the blessed discovery of Purgatory Hell may easily be skip'd over and an eternal Damnation avoided for an exchange of some short Penalty undergone in this Pope's Prison where he never need fear to be detained long for that if he has but a friend left behind him that will but say a few Hail-Maries for his Soul or in his Testament did but remember to order a small sum to be presented to some M●ss Priest he never need doubt of being soon releas'd for that a Golden K●y will as infallibly open the Gates of Purgatory as of any other Prison wha●soever HE believes it damnable to admit of any thing for Faith that is contrary to Reason the Word of God and all Antiquity and that the Being of a Third Place call'd Purgatory is so far from being contrary to all or any of these that it is attested confirm'd and establish'd by them all 'T is expresly in the 2 d. of the Maccabees c 12. where Money was sent to Hierusalem that Sacrifices might be offered for the slain And ' ●is recommended as a Holy Cogitation to Pray for the Dead Now though these Books are not thought Canonical by some yet St. Augustine held them as such and says they are so received by the Church l. 18. de Civit. But whether so or no one thing is allow'd by all viz. That they contain nothing contrary to Faith and that they were cited by the Antient Fathers for the Confutation of Errors forming of good Manners and the explication of the Christian Doctrine Thus were they us'd by Origen for Condemnation of the Valentinian Hereticks Orig. in cap 5. Ep. ad Rom. thus by St. Cyprian Lib. de Exhor Mart. c. 11. thus by Euseb. Caesariensis Lib. Praepar Evang. 11. c. 15. thus by St. Greg. Naz. Ambros. c. And he is in a manner certain that the Books would never have been put to this Use by these Holy and Learned F●thers they would never with such confidence have produc'd their Authority nor would they have been read by the Church in those Golden times had this Doctrine of a Third Place and of Prayers for the Dead which they maintain been any idle Superstition a meer Dream contrary to Reason the Word of God and Antiquity or had it been any Error at all The being also of a Third Place is plainly intimated by our Saviour Matth. 12.32 where he says Whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World neither in the World to come By which words Christ evidently supposes that though these shall not yet some sins are forgiven in the World to come which since it cannot be in Heaven where no sin enters nor in Hell whence there is no Redemption it must necess●rily be

relate to their deliverance out of a state of Punishment before the Day of Judgment For whatever state Souls were then supposed to be in before the great Day if there could be no deliverance till the Day of Judgment it signifies nothing to the present Question As to the Vision of Perpetua concerning her Brother Dinocrates who died at Seven Years old being baptized it is hardly reconcilable to their own Doctrine to suppose such a Soul in Purgatory I will not deny that Perpetua did think she saw him in a worse Condition and thought likewise that by her Prayers she brought him into a better for she saw him playing like little Children and then she awaked and concluded that she had given him ease but is it indeed come to this that such a Doctrine as Purgatory must be bu●lt on such a Foundation as this I do not call in question the Acts of Perpetua nor her sincerity in relating her Dream but must the Church build her Doctrines upon the Dreams or Visions of young Ladies tho very devout for Ubia Perpetua was then but Twenty Two as she saith her self But none are to be blamed who m●ke use of the best supports their Cause will afford It is time now to see what strength of Reason he offers for Purgatory 1. He saith When a Sinner is reconciled to God tho the Eternal Punishment due to his Sins is always remitted yet there sometimes remains a temporal Penalty to be undergone as in the case of the Israelites and David But doth it hence follow that there is a Temporal Penalty that must be undergone either here or hereafter without which there will be no need of Purgatory Who denies that God in this Life for example sake may punish those whose Sins he hath promised to remit as to another World This is therefore a very slender Foundation 2. There are some sins of their own nature light and venial I will not dispute that but s●ppose there be must men go then into Purgatory for meer Venial Sins What a strange Doctrine doth this appear to any m●n's Reason That God should forgive the greater sins and req●ire so severe a Punishment for sins in their own nature venial i. e. so inconsider●ble in their own Opinion that no man is bound to confess them which do not interrupt a State of Grace which require only an implicite detestation of them which do not deserve eternal Punishment which may be remitted by Holy Water or a Bishop's Bl●ssing as their Divines agree 3. That to all Sins some penalty is due to the Iustice of God And what follows from hence but the necessity of Christ's Satisfaction But how doth it ●ppear that after the Expiation of Sin by Christ and the rem●ssion of eternal Punishment there st●ll remains a necessity of farther satisfaction for such a temporal penalty in another World 4. That generally speaking few men depart out of this Life but either with the guilt of venial sins or obnoxious to some Temporal punishment No doubt all men are obnoxious by their sins to the punishment of another World but that is not the point but whether God hath declared That altho he remits the eternal Punishment he will not the temporal and altho he will forgive thousands of pounds he will not the pence and farthings we owe to him But if Mortal sins be remitted as to the guilt and Venial do not hinder a st●te of Grace what room is there for Vindictive Justice in Purgatory Yet this is the Doctrine which so much weight is laid upon that Bellarmine saith They must go directly to Hell who do not believe purgatory If this be true why was it not put into the Representation that we might understand the danger of not believing so credible so reasonable a Doctrine as this But we believe it to be a much more dangerous thing to condemn others for not believing a Doctrine which hath so very slender a pretence either to Scripture or Reason XXIV Of Praying in an Unknown Tongue HE it counsell'd by his Church to be present at Sermons but never permitted to hear any he is able to understand they being all deliver'd in an unknown Tongue He is taught to Pray but it must be in Latin He is commanded to assist at the Church Service and to hear Mass but it must be without understanding a word it being all perform'd in a Language of which he is altogether Ignorant And thus is miserably depriv'd of all the comfortable Benefits of Christianity Hearing but without Understanding Praying but without reaping Fruit assisting at Publick Assemblies but like a Stock or a Stone without feeling or any the least sense of Devotion HE is counsell'd by his Church to be present at Sermons such as he is able to understand they b●ing always deliver'd in the Vulgar Language of every Country In France French in Spain Spanish in Italy Italian in England if permitted English they being purely intended for the good Instruction of the Congregation present He is taught to Pray and alw●ys provided of such Books of Devotion as he is capable of understanding every Nation being well furnished with such helps extant in the Language proper to the Country He is commanded to assist at the Church-Service and to hear Mass and in this he is instructed not to understand the Words but to know what is done For the Mass being a Sacrifice wherein is daily commemorated the Death and Passion of Christ by an Oblation made by the Priest of the Body and Blood of the Imm●culate Lamb under the Symbols of Bread and Wine according to his own Institution 't is not the busines of the Congregation present to imploy their Ears in attending to the Words but their Hearts in contemplation of the Divine Mysteries by raising up fervent affections of Love Thanksgiving Compassion Hope Sorrow for sins Resolutions of amendment c. That thus having their Heart and Intention united with the Priests they may be partakers of his Prayers and of the Sacrifice he is then offering than which he believes nothing is more acceptable to God or beneficial to true Believers And for the raising of these affections in his Soul and filling his Heart with the extasies of Love and Devotion he thinks in this case there 's little need of Words a true Faith without these is all-sufficient Who could but have burst forth into Tears of Love and Thanksgiving if he had been present while our Saviour was tyed to Pillar Scourg'd and Tormented though he open'd not his mouth to the By-standers nor spake a word who would have needed a Sermon to have been fill'd with Grief and Compassion if he had seen his Saviour expos'd to the scorn of the Iews when he was made a bloody spectacle by Pilate with Ecce homo Lo the Man Who could have stood cold and senseless upon Mount Calvary under the Cross when his Redeemer was hanging on it though he had heard or not