shape to their souls but referr to them by expressing the resemblance of the bodies in which they once dwelt and to which they were and shall be again united though now separated from them And therefore this notion allows the Images of God in like manner as the Church of Rome sets up Images of Angels and Saints deceased not making any considerable difference betwixt these so far as concerns the representing every one of them by their Image and consequently must allow the worshipping every one of these Images with a proportionable honour in relation to the Beings represented by them 4. If this notion were of any weight the Jewish Church might then have been warranted in setting up Images of God and worshipping them also with respect to God provided they were not like him nor esteemed so to be And yet God plainly forbad their making any Image of him in the likeness of male or female or any other thing though he had sufficiently taught them and they well knew that the Deity was not in shape like to any of these And God declares his dislike against any such Images because they could frame nothing which they could liken to him which being a reason of perpetual and abiding truth doth concern the Christian state as well as the Jewish and the laying down this reason doth sufficiently declare against all such Images as are not like to him 13. Secondly Of the Romanists worshipping the Eucharist with Divine Worship I shall shew that the Romanists give proper Divine worship to that which is not God And here I shall particularly instance in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to which they profess to give that Latria or high worship which is due to the true God alone This is the plain Doctrine of the Council of Trent (q) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. fideles omnes Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic Sacramento deferre that all good Christians do give to this Sacrament that properly Divine worship which is due to the true God And in the beginning of that Session they strictly forbid all Christians thenceforward to believe otherwise and their sixth Anathema is against him who shall say that Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored with that which is the proper Divine worship In like manner it is expressed in the Roman Catechism published by the authority of Pius the Fifth (r) Catech. ad par de Euch. Sacr. in init huic Sacramento divinos honores tribuendos esse that Divine honour is to be given to this Sacrament And the words of Adoration in the Missal and the acts of adoration unto this Sacrament are accordingly to be understood to give Divine honour thereunto And Azorius is for giving this Divine worship even to the (Å¿) Instit Mor. part 2. l. 5. c. 16. species or appearances of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament But the Council of Trent seem not to extend it so far and the Roman Catechism declares that when they affirm this Sacrament is to be worshipped they understand this of the Body and Blood of Christ therein 14. We greatly reverence the holy Sacrament as an excellent institution of our Saviour but reserve the Divine honour to God alone for there is nothing which is not truly God be it otherwise never so sacred to which such worship may be given S. Paul was an eminent Apostle but with detestation disclaimed the receiving it Act. 14.13 14 15. The brazen Serpent under the Law was of Gods institution for the healing those Israelites who looked upon it but yet it was a great sin to worship it with Divine honour If the homage peculiarly due to a Prince be given to any other in his Dominions though it be to one he hath highly advanced he will account this a disparaging his dignity and practising Treason and Rebellion and God who is a jealous God will not give his worship to another But this practice of the Roman Church depends upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation This is grourded upon transubstantiation for if that substance which is in the Sacrament be no longer Bread and Wine but be changed into the substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ in union with his Divinity then and only then may Divine honour be given unto it And if it be in truth the very same glorified Christ who is at Gods right hand and nothing else then is that worship which is due to Christ the Son of God which is proper Divine Worship as much to be performed to this Sacrament as to him in Heaven since both is substantially one and the same thing wholly and intirely The (t) Sess 13. c. 1 4 5. Anath 1. 2. Council of Trent declares that by the consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a conversion of their whole substance into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ And they say the Body and Blood of Christ with his soul and Divinity and therefore whole Christ are contained in the Eucharist but the substance of the Bread and Wine remains not but only the species or appearance thereof and that this the Church calls Transubstantiation On this Doctrine it founds the Divine worship of the Sacrament and it anathematizeth him whosoever shall speak against this Transubstantiation and forbids all Christians that they shall not dare to believe or teach otherwise concerning the Eucharist than as this Council hath determined Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true the giving Divine worship to this Sacrament is but just but if this be false as the (u) Article 28. Church of England declares then is the giving Divine honour thereto certainly and greatly sinful and evil 15. It is acknowledged that this holy Sacrament administred according to Christs institution doth truly and really exhibite and communicate Christs Body and Blood with the benefits of his Sacrifice in an Heavenly Mystical and Sacramental way but the manner of this gracious presence it is needless curiously to enquire And though the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances yet are they greatly changed by their consecration from common Bread and Wine to contain under them such Spiritual and Divine Mysteries which is the effect of Divine power and grace Nor is it possible that these elements should tender to us Christ and the benefits of his Passion if this work had not been ordered by the power and authority of God in his Institutions who hath the disposal of this grace But that the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their substance and that they are not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ is generally asserted by all Protestants whilst the contrary is universally affirmed by the Romanists and is made one great branch of the true Catholick Faith and the new Roman Creed according to the famous Bull of Pius the Fourth which is so solemnly sworn unto Indeed there are such expressions frequently
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
these things But that which is here to be enquired and examined is Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority to be administred in both kinds 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament against Christs Institution in both kinds of Bread and Wine is so plain from the words of its Institution that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup c. 1. Council of Trent And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church (e) Sacris c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum Dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum Dicens Accipite quod trado vasoulum Omnes ex eo bibite Sic Sacrificium istud instituit He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood saying Take this Cup which I deliver drink ye all of it Thus did he institute that Sacrifice These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup Matt. 26 27. Drink ye all of it And it may be further observed that those words in the Institution Do this in remembrance of me are a Precept which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words Do this to establish the whole Institution that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense ut hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur that we should do what our Lord did and should not depart from what Christ taught and did Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament For Do this c. in S. Luke and S. Paul comes in the place of take eat c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark and in these words of S. Paul Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me the words as oft as ye drink it do plainly import thus much that the Command do this in that place doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians that from hence (g) de Consecrat di 2. c. 7. Cum omne Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses which had in some places been entertained Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipt in the Cup upon this reason because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels concerning the Master of truth who when he commended to his Apostles his Body and his Blood Seorsum panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians where he useth this as an Argument to all particular Christians against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship 1 Cor. 10.21 ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned And the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. c. 2. owns that from the beginning of Christianity the Sacrament was given in both kinds But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance account neither the Institution of Christ nor the practice of the ancient Church to be in this case any necessary guide but they declare the custom then received to be changed upon just reasons 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ might be eluded and a Mist cast before the Sun divers Romanists and particularly (i) de Euchar l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants Bellarmine declare that Christs command drink ye all of it was given to the Apostles only and not to all Communicants To which I answer 1. That the Apostles at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament were not consecrating but communicating and therefore the Command given to them as receiving the Sacrament is a rule for Communicants Which binds all Communicants and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case between Priest and People but acknowledged as (k) Chrys Hom. 18. in 2 Epist ad Corinth S. Chrysostome expresseth it that the same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England which declare (l) Art 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike 2. That this device would serve as effectually if it were considerable to take away the Bread with the Cup from the people that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them 3. The Command of Christ with the reason annexed Matt. 26.27 28. Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins doth give sufficient light to discern to whom this Precept is designed to wit to all them who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament for the Remission of sins and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 26. plainly applys Christ's Command concerning the Cup to all who come to the Holy Communion in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution concerning the Cup he immediately says to the Corinthians For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup indefinitely to all who are to Communicate v. 28. Let a Man not only the Priest examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. 18. But here the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum salva illorum substantia statuere vel mutare to appoint and change things in dispensing the Sacraments still preserving their substance And they seem to intimate that the Communion in both kinds No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People is not of the substance of the Sacrament because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament according to his Institution The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature and therefore to change this
is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
to be in many things blameable more than the Papists at this day as dissimulation infidelity and the like which were the faults by Leo charged on the Manichees but not by Gelasius charged on them he writes of but still in that fault for which Gelasius condemns them he writes against the Papists at this day are altogether guilty of it that is in dividing the Sacrament or not receiving both Bread and Wine which he saith cannot be without great Sacriledge Nor can any here make a third reply upon any rational ground that it then was Sacrilegious to have administred only in one kind because the known practice and Canons of the Roman Church required administration in both kinds But since it hath in after times declared this practice mutable and ordered the Communion to be given only in one kind it is not now sacrilegious For this answer will not agree with the intent of these words and the Doctrine formerly received in the Roman Church The reason why Gelasius declared it great sacriledge to take this Sacrament in one kind alone is intimated sufficiently in this Canon not to refer to the Churches Constitution but the Sacraments Institution in that he calls both species or kinds one and the same Mysterie and sayes this one and the same Mysterie cannot be divided without grand sacriledge which is to referr us to the nature of the thing it self and its Institution as being not mutable Yea further the ancient Tradition of the Roman Church held as a Point of Doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist ought to be administred according to what Christ instituted that is the Bread and Wine to be given to the Laity distinctly and separately because Christ gave them so then cannot this third Reply reconcile the present Doctrine of the Roman Church with what was formerly delivered To shew this I could produce many testimonies but shall only instance in Julius a Roman Bishop in a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt recorded also in Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Cum omne Where he declares that he had heard of some who contrary to the Divine Orders and Apostolical Institutions consecrated Milk instead of Wine others who deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped For it is read in the truth of the Gospel Jesus took Bread and the Cup and having blessed it gave it to his Disciples But for that they gave the Eucharist dipped to the people they have received no testimony produced out of the Gospel in which he commends to us his body and his blood for the commendation is rehearsed separately of the Bread and separately of the Cup. In which words he makes Christs Institution a Rule by which he condemns other practices different from it and from this Institution he requires that both the Bread and the Cup be separately given and this even with reference to the Laity or as he speaks to the people to whom it was delivered and by this Rule he condemned the giving the Bread dipped in Wine whereas both should be given asunder so doth Gelasius by the same condemn the receiving only in one kind when it should be received in both All this considered the former Tradition of the Roman Church may from this instance appear to condemn the late Tradition as sacrilegious and therefore I may conclude that the same Tradition hath not been alwayes kept to as may appear by preserved Monuments out of which instances may be easily multiplied An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority § 1. BVt saith he some may say all this is nature if the Objector means reason wrought upon by Motives laid by Gods special goodness to bring man to bliss I wonder what else is supernaturality But this point is out of my road otherwise than to shew how Christian Tradition is strengthened above the greatest humane testimony whatever by those Motives which we rightly call assistances of the Holy Ghost Not to examine his Notion of supernaturality and the assistances of the Holy Ghost because they concern not the Discourse in hand I shall only tell him what Protestants or any other men who are true to reason would say to this Discourse and that is that what he hath said hitherto is of so low natural evidence and so far from reason that in this way the Christian can have no more evidence of the truth of Christian Religion than an Heathen may have of the truth of Paganism nor is there any such certainty in Tradition concerning the main Body of Christs Doctrine as is comparable to many other matters of humane testimony § 2 3. He observes the Mahometans Tradition for Mahomets existence will convey the truth thereof to the Worlds end if followed and Protestants acknowledge it hath had the force hitherto to be followed And the Tradition in the Church for the main Body of Christs Doctrine far exceeds that of the Turks for Mahomets existence because supposing the quality of the testifiers equal much greater multitudes in divers Countreys were testifiers of Christs Doctrine being converted by powerful Miracles than the few witnesses of Mahomets existence it is easier for those few Syrians or Arabians to conspire to a lye than for these Christians nor can Christians be so easily mistaken concerning Christian Doctrine In answer to this I in the first place grant That there is an Historical Traditionary certainty amongst the Turks concerning the existence of Mahomet and it is very reasonable that rather more should be allowed to the Tradition of Christians than of Mahometans But that it may truly appear how far Tradition may be relyed on for the conveyance of truth we must distinctly consider the matters delivered Of which some things there are which are not probably capable of mistake nor liable to be perverted and to receive a mixture of much falshood and have this advantage that the delivery of them from one to another doth still continue and no interest perswades the generality of men to deny or indeavour the concealing of them Now all these properties agree to the assertion of Mahomets existence amongst the Turks to the delivery of the Being of a God among the Gentiles to Moses being the great Prophet among the Jews and to Jesus being the Christ and I may add S Peter and S. Paul c. being his Apostles among the Christians thus the fame of a good or true Writer may be continued amongst Historians and in these things and many other such like I will grant it is not only possible but probable that Tradition may convey a certainty But there are other things lyable to mistake whence in many matters of common fame sufficiently known to the first Relater by the misapprehension of them who hear the relation the ordinary report is oft-times false or else 2. They are subject to be perverted or are concealed and not delivered which hath been
the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill For the performing the duty which relates to this precept according to the extent which the Doctrine of our Saviour gives it requires an innocent calm and meek temper and behaviour towards all men so as not to admit any causless anger nor any passionate and contumelious expressions Mat. 5.21 22. But to all this this sin is directly opposite And besides this we may further discover how much this command is transgressed by rash censures and calumnies if we either consider the effects they produce or the cause from whence they proceed 10. The effects of reproach Calumny is cruel are frequently of different kinds If we reflect upon the more immediate result thereof the Sword of the tongue oft wounds deep and keen words pierce even to the inward part of man and his very heart The sence of which made (f) Naz. Ep. 191. Nazianzen perswade them who reproach others to lay down their arms their slings and spears even their tongues by which they do mischief to one another and are applauded and these are more ready at hand than other weapons And there is indeed so much of cruelty and real hurt in calumny and reproach that our Saviour accounts this a way of persecution and observes that thereby the Prophets were persecuted for righteousness sake Mat. 5.10 11 12. 11. But when evil speaking is directed against Governours Contumelious expressions against Governours oft beget tumults and blood-shed it too often becomes the parent of violence cruelty and inhumanity by giving birth to tumults and Seditions They who reflect upon the last Age may discern how by this method we became engaged in such a bloody Civil War as cut off and destroyed many thousands of men Thus as S. James observes Chap. 3.6 The tongue defiles the whole body and sets on fire the course of nature It puts mens heads and hearts upon contriving and acting fierce and furious enterprises it makes their hands forward and their feet swift to shed blood and if not timely prevented it kindleth those heats which bring all things into a flame And I heartily wish it were an hard and difficult task to find out instances to verifie the complaints of Lipsius concerning calumny He declares (g) Lipsius in Orat. de Calumnia Doletis haerere in Reip. visceribus discordiarum tela calumnia injecit ardere tot annos facem bellorum civilium calumnia accendit c. that it divides intimate friends and sets them at distance Are any grieved to see feuds and discords and weapons of death stick fast in the bowels of the Common-wealth it is calumny darted them thither and fixed them there Do any reflect with sadness upon the flames of Civil Wars continuing to burn for so many years it is calumny that kindled them And as he goes on this is that which sets Princes and people at distance from each other and engageth one man against another And indeed almost all the tumults Seditions and Rebellions which have been so destructive and pernicious to the World have had their original from hence 12. How he that hates his Brother is a murderer And if we reflect on the cause from whence evil speaking and reproaching doth arise this is a want of love as I above noted and a prevalency of ill will and hatred But S. John assures us 1 Joh. 3.15 he that hateth his Brother is a murderer And in truth though there may be several reasons which may restrain him from any such acts of violence as to commit murder yet he harbours much of the same inward temper with an open murderer For he that hates his Brother so far as concerns his Brother himself and unless he thinks he may make use of him to serve some other ends wisheth him out of the way and would chuse and be pleased to have him out of the world And this is that very same wicked temper of mind which spirits a murderer Wherefore this sin which so defiles the heart and stains the World with blood is a sin of a scarlet dye 13. Fourthly This sin offends against those precepts which forbid bearing false witness slandering and speaking evil all which enjoin the right government of the tongue in what it speaks of others (h) Phil. de Decal p. 768. Philo observes that under the ninth Commandment is included 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. It ordinarily transgresseth the bounds of truth not to calumniate or defame which is to be extended not only to matters of publick justice but even to rules of private conversation But a reproachful tongue both offends against charity and is generally further guilty of not making conscience to keep to the strict rules of truth And as Tertullian speaks in refelling the slanders spread abroad among the Pagans against the Christians report and fame thus raised and divulged is (i) Tertul. Apol. c. 7. plurimùm mendax quae nè tunc quidem quando aliquid veri affert sine mendacii vitio est detrahens adjiciens demutans de veritate for the most part false and is not even then when it contains somewhat of truth free from the fault of lying taking something from or adding to or making some alteration concerning the truth And this sin of lying deserves to be accounted the more hateful and evil and to be abhorred as abominable because it is part of the character of the wicked one that he is a lyar from the beginning and a deceiver whereas it is one of the excellent titles of our Saviour that he is the faithful witness and also he is the Amen and the truth And this sin hath much of the Diabolical nature and practice in it the evil one doing much mischief by false suggestions 14. Fifthly 5. It offendeth against justice Reproaching others is a great violation of Justice He that speaketh evil of dignities is ranked among the unjust by S. Peter 2 Pet. 2.9 10. And calumny in general is very injurious both to the person reproached and to those also to whom such reproaches are uttered To wrong a man in his reputation and good name is an injury in several respects much worse than the wronging him in his goods and possessions and hath been so esteemed amongst men Partly on this account it was the (k) Saâ—â— c. â—â— n. 1. general determination of the Jewish Rabbins that though actions of trespass or violence against the estates of men might be heard and punished by their lesser consistory of three yet matters of slander and defamation came not under their cognisance but were to be determined by a greater Consistory of twenty three being things of an higher nature which required a more weighty consideration and sometimes a capital punishment 15. For a mans reputation hath a more immediate respect to his person and the true worth of the man than his possessions have and to have his good name impaired deprives him of a great part of
2. c. 4. Bellarmine was so apprehensive of the force and reasonableness of this consideration with respect to the Mass and the frequent repetition thereof that he thought it necessary to assert that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not of infinite value for saith he si missae valor infinitus esset frustra multae missae if the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass was infinite it would be in vain that there should be many Masses But he might also have discerned that upon the same reason he would be obliged to acknowledge in derogation from the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and in opposition to the testimony of the Scriptures that that offering of the Sacrifice of Christ which he himself made in our nature was but of a finite value and not compleat so as thereby to perfect for ever them who are sanctified because if this had been effected by that one offering it would be in vain to have repeated offerings of that Sacrifice 23. But others of their Writers entertain different notions and opinions from this and conclude (u) Barrad Concord Evangel Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. that the merits of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be infinite because they are the same merits with those of the Sacrifice upon the Cross And this must needs be so according to the Council of Trent which declares (w) Sess 22. c. 2. it to be the very same Sacrifice which is now offered by the Priest and which was then offered upon the Cross and differeth only in the manner of offering and then its merit and vertue must be the same Now this conception of the value of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in asserting it to be so compleatly propitiatory doth not only derogate from the Sacrifice of Christ which himself offered upon the Cross but in truth it makes it so void as to take away any necessity thereof For since our Lord instituted and makes them void and consecrated the Eucharist before his death if he had therein offered himself a compleat expiatory Sacrifice then the work of redemption and expiation must have been fully performed before that great work of his passion upon the Cross and consequently his death upon the Cross as a Sacrifice must be in vain This was (x) Hist Conc. Trident. p. 443 451. again and again urged in the Council of Trent by some whose apprehensions were not agreeable to what that Council determined Nor can it be otherwise solidly answered than by acknowledging that our Lord when he instituted and celebrated the Eucharist did not in that action properly offer himself a propitiatory Sacrifice And whereas in the Institution of the Eucharist our Saviour spake of his blood which is shed not only divers particular Writers of the Romanists own the expression of the present tense to denote what was future but soon to be accomplished but even the Vulgar Latin both in S. Matthew and S. Luke expresseth it effundetur shall be shed to which agreeth the expressing the same in the Canon of the Mass The like may be observed concerning the phrase of his Body being given or broken which the Vulgar Latin also in the words of the institution 1 Cor. 11.24 renders tradetur shall be given Nor is it either pious or reasonable to think that the Eucharist celebrated by an ordinary Priest must be more properly and fully an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice than that which was celebrated by Christ himself in the first institution of it when his act then was made the Rule to guide theirs by his giving this commandment Do this in remembrance of me 24. Cons 2. Cons 2. The body of Christ is not now capable of being Sacrificed A proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood is not now capable of being offered in the Eucharist Indeed that Sacrament beareth a particular respect to the death of Christ to his Body as broken and his Blood as shed and therein his death is shewed forth 1 Cor. 11.26 But after his resurrection he dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 And therefore his Body as having been once really dead and his Blood as once shed may be commemorated and represented in the Eucharist But there is now no exhibiting his Body and Blood in that Sacrament really dead which cannot be and so properly offered a Sacrifice to God And the defenders of the Romish Sacrifice seem here to be put to a great loss 25. In (y) de Missa l. 1. c. 2. Bellarmin's definition of a Sacrifice the last clause thereof declares that the thing sacrificed ritu mystico consecratur transmutatur is by a mystical right consecrated and changed And explaining the former of these he saith it must ex prophana fieri sacra of a prophane thing be made sacred and that Sacrificare is Sacrum facere But though the elements of the Eucharist before the consecration may be called profane things or not sacred and so may be consecrated by the Priest the glorious body of Christ is capable of no such thing And explaining the latter clause he saith it must be changed so ut destruatur that it may be destroyed or that desinat esse quod ante erat that it may cease to be what it was before and this is as far from agreeing with the uncorruptible body of Christ as the other and therefore the Cardinal in making and explicating this definition seems to have laid aside or else to have forgotten the interest he was to maintain 26. And (z) Conc. Evang. To ◠l. 3. c. 6. Barradius acutely tells us that immolatio oblatio and consumptio staying offering and consuming are the things essential to a Sacrifice and he undertakes so great an adventure as to shew how all of them even the first and the last may be affirmed concerning the body of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass He saith that as a lamb is slain when the blood is separated from the body by a knife Christ is here slain when vi consecration is sanguis Christi à Corpore Christi separatur by force of the Consecration the blood of Christ is separated from the body of Christ Now it is a thing very hard to be conceived how such a real division and actual shedding of blood should be suffered by the incorruptible and glorious body of Christ and it is yet more difficult to conceive how this can be reconciled with the Council of Trent which declares that after the Consecration (a) Sess 21. c. 3. in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sub singulis speciebus totum atque integrum Christum sumi all and whole Christ is by the Communicants received under each of the species which could not be done unless whole Christ was there and they anathematize him who shall say the contrary which I suppose this Author was not aware of 27. With like nicety and trifling he further says (b) Barrad ibid. the Body
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
being so inhumanly savage that in their private Religious Assemblies they murdered an Infant and sucked and drunk his blood it was among other things answered by (f) Tert. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian (g) In Octav. p. 100. Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix and (h) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians who were so far from taking any human blood that they carefully avoided all blood even of Beasts But this defence could not well have been made on this manner if they had accounted themselves to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist and not only such a mystical representation thereof as is not void of efficacy and reality And though I think it manifest that blood may lawfully be eaten and that the Apostolical prohibition thereof was but a provisional Decree for those times from the general declaration in the New Testament that nothing is unclean in it self from the liberty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles or was set before them when they were invited to eat with unbelievers asking no question for conscience sake and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law because it was given upon the altar to make an atonement for their souls Lev. 17.10 11 12 13 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus as it is from him mentioned by (i) Pamel in Apolog. Tertul n. 138. Pamelius it is now about five hundred years since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed which was publickly established under the time of Innocentius the Third above four hundred and fifty years since And that general prohibition of blood so long continued though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or not fairly reconcileable thereunto 19. Thirdly Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense Transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of sense Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable that this is that which assured and manifested the certainty of the mighty Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles yea of the birth of Christ of his converse with men in the world and of his being crucified risen again and ascended into Heaven Upon the evidence of sense Thomas was convincingly perswaded of Christs resurrection and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard Act. 4.20 And the certainty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christianity they founded upon the evidence of their senses in that it was what they had seen with their eyes and what they had heard and their hands had handled of the word of life 2 Pet. 1.16 17 18. 1 Joh. 1.1 And therefore the denying the evidence of sense would undermine Christianity and withal take away all possibility of certainty concerning the plain matters of fact in the world And there could be no assurance given that Christ taught any Doctrine nor could what he did teach be otherwise conveyed to us than by our eyes and ears unless men pretend to Enthusiasm And as that pretence is vain so if it were not no other men could be taught by such Enthusiasticks but by the exercise and use of their senses and upon supposition of the certainty thereof 20. But our eyes our taste our feeling and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated elements do all of them testifie that the Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances after their consecration But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to (k) Catech. aâ—â— arochos p. 218. Curandum est ut fidelium mentes quam maxime fieri potest à sensuum judicio abstrahantur take care that the minds of Christians should as much as is possible be drawn off from the judgement of their senses And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses must not believe that they do truly either read or see any such instruction as this directed to them And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied there will then be no certainty to the Communicants whether there be any Priest present to consecrate and consequently whether there be any words of consecration spoken or whether there be any elements to receive consecration And the senses of the Communicants do give a more joint testimony to the elements remaining in their proper substances than to these other instances 21. and is also opposite to reason Fourthly Transubstantiation is opposite to the principles of reason and understanding and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thousand yea many millions of places at the same time is sufficiently inconsistent with the nature of a body And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent agreeably to that Council declares that (l) Ibid. p. 223 225. Inquavis urriusque speciei parâ—icula totum Christum contineri under every least part either of the Bread or Wine whole Christ is contained even with his bones sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body as I above observed from the same Catechism 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse or any other brutish Animal or Insect do eat any part of the consecrated Host they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ This is acknowledged by (m) Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas and though the (n) Sent. l. 4. dist 13. A. Master of the Sentences would not admit this for truth but declared himself of the contrary opinion yet his Authority is here rejected and by the Censure of (o) Lib. 4. Art 9. the Divines of Paris this is reckoned among one of his errors But it is a thing dishonourable to the glorious Body of Christ to be eaten of Brutes and to pass into the draught and to be substantially present there where even the Romanists who assert that presence do not require Divine Worship to be given to it 3. And it is contradictory to assert that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone the accidents thereof do remain without any subject or matter being as the Roman Catechism saith (p) Catech. p. 219. 230. Edi. Lovan 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent and species sine aliqua re subjecta Thus for instance the extension that was in the Bread is supposed to remain when the substance of the Bread is gone and that extension which can be measured and felt is in its own
the Papists do call the Godhead by And concerning the eternal generation of the Son of God it is there said Thou art one with the Papists in thy Doctrine in this thing who in one of their Creeds do affirm That Christ is God begotten before all Worlds when he was begotten as to his Sonship and Manhood and in time brought forth and manifest amongst the Sons of men Thus the most excellent truths may be misrepresented under odious names and by erroneous persons be called Popish 7. Secondly Their disparaging the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion The Scriptures contain the Prophetical and Apostolical Doctrine and this Doctrine is so certain and full that if an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel S. Paul denounceth him to be accursed But their denying the Scriptures to be the word of God though they admit them to contain truth and their setting up the Light within them as their great Rule both which are done frequently in their Writings and Conferences is that which tends to undermine the Authority of the Divine Writings and to substitute another rule which is very defective various and uncertain and of dangerous consequence For if we consider men as they truly are the Light within them is the light of Reason and natural Conscience with those improvements of knowledge and understanding which the Christian Revelation hath made in the minde and sentiments of men Now though this be very considerable and needful to be attended to yet to make this and not the Holy Scripture the main Rule and Guide in matters of Christian Faith and life is to prefer the light of Nature with the advantages it hath from Christian converse and Oral Tradition or the delivery of truth from one to another according to the thoughts opinions and judgements of men though mixed with many errors and much uncertainty before the infallible and unerring direction of the Holy Spirit in the Divine Scriptures And while the Scribes and Pharisees disparaged the Scriptures in preferring the Traditions of their Elders and the Romish Church doth much to the same purpose this Position of this Novel Sect is rather more unaccountable than either of those other practices For though they established mistaken false and erroneous Rules yet the things dictated thereby were approved by the joint consideration of many select men whom they esteemed men of greatest understanding while this way directs every man how corrupt and erroneous soever his mind may be to set up his own thoughts and apprehensions to be a sufficient Rule and Guide And this must suppose every mans own conceptions to be infallible though they be never so contrary to one another or to the Divine Revelation 8. But if we consider the followers of this Sect according to the pretences of many of them the Light within them must have chief respect to some Enthusiastick motions and impulses Such things were pretended to by the * Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 10. Messalians and other Hereticks of old But besides what may be said against such pretences in general the manifest falshood of them is in these particular cases apparent from the plain errors they assert contrary to the sure Doctrine of Christianity And to set up any Enthusiastick rule of Religion includeth a disparaging the Revelation of Christ and his Apostles which is the right instruction in the true Christian Religion and this is ordinarily also blasphemous against God in falsly making him the author of such errors by vainly pretending inspiration which are evidently contrary to what he hath truly revealed by Christ and his Gospel 9. Thirdly Their disowning Christs special Institutions to wit the establishing the Communion of his true Catholick Church and his Ministry and the Holy Sacraments Their disregard to the Communion of the Christian Church and their frequent reproaches against it and the Ministers thereof are very notorious But I shall here chiefly insist on what concerns the Sacraments which Holy institutions they generally disuse and against the use of these their Teachers have both spoken and written Now this is a thing so evil and of such dangerous consequence that besides the disobedience to what our Lord hath constituted and commanded by his plain precepts they hereby reject those things which the Gospel appoints to be eminent means of Communion and Union with the Church and Body of Christ Such things are both the Sacraments both that of Baptism and that of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 12.13 chap. 10.16 17. And this Union and Communion according to the ordinary method of the Gospel Dispensation is necessary to Membership with the Catholick Church And the disowning and rejecting these things is the refusing the means of grace which God hath appointed for the conveying the blessings of his Covenant and particularly the remission of sins to such persons who by performing the other conditions of the Covenant are duly qualified for the receiving the same in the use of these administrations Act. 22.16 Mat. 26.28 Our Lord appointed Baptism to be a part of the condition of obtaining salvation Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved And the ancient Christians had such an high esteem thereof that Tertullian begins his Book de Baptismo on this manner Foelix Sacramentum aquae quia ablutis delictis pristinae caecitatis in vitam aeternam liberamur Happy Sacrament of Baptism because the faults of our former blindness being washed away we are set free unto eternal life And our Lord hath declared that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood we have no life in us Joh. 6.53 and hath appointed the Holy Communion to be an eminent and peculiar way of eating his Body and drinking his Blood And what then can be said for them who grossly neglect and especially for them who declare against and totally reject these Sacred Institutions And if under the Old Testament God was so highly displeased with him who neglected Circumcision as to denounce him to be cut off from his people Gen. 17.14 and declared that they who attended not on the Passeover should bear their sin Num. 9.13 he cannot be pleased with the violating those Institutions which are of an higher nature being established by the Son of God himself under the Gospel 10. Fourthly The Doctrine of perfection as held by them who declare themselves throughly free from sin For this undermines all penitential exercises which take in the great part of the true Christian life and makes void confession of sin and sorrow for it together with prayer and application to the Sacrifice of Christ for remission and a diligent care of amendment We acknowledge and assert that every pious Christian doth overcome the power of sin so that he doth not serve it but lives in the practice of good Conscience towards God and man This is such a life that the Holy Scriptures speak much of the excellency and real holiness and purity thereof
and its freedom from sin And the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers give large and high commendations thereof Polycarp saith (n) Ep. ad Philip. p. 16. that he who hath charity is free from all sin which hath some affinity with those words of the Apostle Rom. 13.8 he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law And Origen speaks of the Christian man as being pure from sin (o) Cont. Cels l. 3. p. 148 149. and having left off to sin which is of like nature with not continuing any longer therein Rom. 6.2 as having departed from a vicious wicked and impure life And the Christian life is a perfect life as it greatly outdoth the practice of evil men and is in it self excellent and contains a resemblance of God Mat. 5 44-48 and as it is guided by the fear of God and directed to the eschewing evil and doing what is just and good Job 1.1 Psal 37.37 11. And every true Christian doth and must perform all the necessary conditions in the Gospel-Covenant for acceptance with God and obtaining Salvation or otherwise he can never be saved And the practice of Faith and true holiness the subduing lusts and evil affections and being renewed after God is included in these conditions But the terms and conditions of the Gospel-Covenant are not the same thing but must be differently considered from the rules of duty which the Gospel injoins For a constant practice of every duty towards God and man and a careful performance of every moral precept without any transgression thereof is injoined more highly under the Gospel than ever it was before But the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant are upon more mild and gentle terms of grace than were contained under the foregoing Dispensations for they admit and approve true uprightness and sincerity of obedience though there may some failings and imperfections attend it and they allow of repentance and promise mercy and pardon to those offenders who are truly penitent So that the rules of duty considered in their large extent do so far shew what we are obliged to perform that whensoever we fail in the least part thereof we thereupon need the benefit of the pardoning mercy of God and the atonement and expiation of our Saviour to which when we discern our failing in the exercise of self-reflexion we are to apply our selves according to the directions of the Gospel with a pious and penitent behaviour But the great and necessary conditions of the Gospel and the Covenant of grace contain those things which are of such indispensable necessity to be performed and observed by us that the mercy of God will never accept of those who neglect them nor will it pardon the omission thereof Such conditions under the Gospel Revelation are the embracing the Christian Faith the diligent exercise of a holy life and under the sense of our failings an humble address to God through Christ for his mercy pardon and supplies of further grace with penitential exercises 12. And in the best of men who exercise themselves diligently in piety and the discharge of a good conscience there may be many things wherein they fail and come short of the exact performance of what they ought to do And therefore our Saviour taught his Disciples ordinarily to pray forgive us our Trespasses and appointed that petition to be part of that prayer which he directed and commanded them to use Upon which words of the Lords Prayer (p) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. S. Cyprian observes how every one is hereby taught and instructed that he offends every day when he is commanded daily to pray for the pardon of his sins And he observes also how constant a need every person hath of seeking for and obtaining pardon for his failings in that upon this account our Lord urgeth the necessity of our constant care of forgiving others because otherwise our heavenly Father will not forgive us and therefore he gives this as a rule to be always practised whensoever we pray Mark 11.25 When ye stand praying forgive if ye have ought against any that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive you your trespasses And from the consideration of the Lords Prayer (q) Aug. Ep. 89. S. Austin well observes that if the Christian state here were so far perfect as to be free from all offences our Saviour would never have taught such a Prayer to his Church to be constantly used by his Disciples when they pray and even by the Apostles themselves And in the Institution of the Lords Supper our Saviour tendred the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be received by Christians in the continued administration of that Ordinance for the remission of sins All which doth manifest that Christian life and Gospel-obedience which is accepted upon the conditions of the Covenant of grace is not an absolute sinless obedience though it doth include a real purity of heart and integrity of conversation And the pious Christian is sometimes called perfect with respect to that excellency to which he hath attained Phil. 3.15 16. and yet at the said time in a different sense is not acknowledged to be perfect Phil. 3.12 by reason of the defects which are still remaining Hence the Holy Scriptures oft speak to this purpose that in many things we offend all and that there is no man that lives and sins not and that if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 13. And we further assert and acknowledge that in the Christian state there is also a perfection by way of comparison in them who have arrived to greater degrees and a more eminent height and growth in Christian graces and vertues than others and this excellent state is very desirable and ought to be diligently endeavoured by every pious man But no such persons either will or can truly say that henceforth they have no need of any interest in the mercy of God for the forgiving their failings or in the benefits of Christ's Merits and Sacrifice for obtaining thereby pardon and remission But (r) Ep. ad Eph. p. 18. Philad p. 41. Ed. Vos Ignatius when ready to lay down his life by Martyrdom acknowledged his imperfection And (Å¿) Paed. l. 1. c. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus describes the Christian that his failings must be as little as is possible and he must strive against all disorders of affections and disown all customs of sin and it is an excellent thing to be free from all fault but this is the state of God The imperfections of such men as Asa and Job and others who are called perfect are noted in the Scripture And that same Epistle in which S. John speaks so much of him that is born of God that he sins not as having rejected a vicious and evil life and being set free from the service thereof he also declares against him who saith he hath no sin 1 Joh. 1.8 directs confession of sin v. 9. and speaking concerning
being delivered For if any one of these be false as doubtless they are his demonstration falls with them But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration it may be observed that he who will suffer-himself to be perswaded by these vain reasonings may with as much reason be a Jew or a Pagan as a Papist The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses and Ezra here is an effect like this of the Papists perswasion therefore in no Age could it be changed but was ever delivered and therefore true if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible Amongst the Gentiles the Opinions of Jupiter Juno Mars c. being gods was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original for else they could never have believed them to have been gods Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers and the first Generations of mankind after Noah were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them since according to this Discourser no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false or in delivering for certain what it knew was not certain Yea since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general than the Popish Tradition that is it was received and delivered amongst more Nations and contradicted by fewer persons than the Romish Doctrines were and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists it must be also for the Gentiles Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point that there is one only God So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail I shall now in the close of this Discourse as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church which is in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is that the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate do receive only in one species to wit that of Bread and this they declare to be lawful and the contrary not to be necessary or commanded of God and to be ordered upon just causes to be a true receiving the Sacrament and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ and they condemn yea and Anathematize any who shall speak the contrary as may be seen Concil Constanc Ses 13. and Conc. Trid. Ses 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge that Christ did institute and the ancient Church administred this Sacrament under both kinds and therefore by their own acknowledgement they keep not in practice to what was delivered But the Question is Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine Now that I may lay a good foundatipn and such as no Romanist will reject to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome I shall apply my self not to any private Father though approved which possibly he will except against as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome as is still acknowledged to have been an approved Canon and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church which is this of Gelasius the First We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood who because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up must without doubt either receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot come without great Sacriledge This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum Gratian inserted it De Consecratione Dist 2. c. comperimus It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii Nor is it denied by any that I know And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy not Consecrating should receive in both kinds this old Tradition saies plainly that they who receive not both kinds must receive neither it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational to order that the Communion shall be only in one kind and the Council of Constance ubi supra condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time to receive only in that one kind but what ever the reason was he declared it could never be approved and its Principle was Superstition and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament without great Sacriledge Now though these words are very plain yet there are two waies the Papists make use of to pervert the sense of them which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers and so vindicate this testimony The first answer is that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity This is the interpretation in the Rubrick of Gratian and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine But 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius so as to include the Laity and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy and speaking of them whom he would have driven back or kept back from the Sacraments and of them who are taught the ordinary receivers are plainly included if not chiefly intended and finding fault with this that some abstained reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain 2. The restraining this to the Clergy is contrary to the History and general practice of those times it being certain and confessed that even in the Western Church not only till that time but for some hundreds of years after this Sacrament was administred to all in both kinds In this case to conclude that when some were found to abstain from one kind they must be supposed to be of the Clergy would be a vain surmise 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times which owned the Laity to have the same right to receive in both kinds with the Clergy Thus Chrysostome who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth There is saith he something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People to wit as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries for we have all alike right to partake of them Not as it was under the Old Testament the Priest did eat some things and the people other
things and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things of which the Priest did partake But it is not so now The same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup. So far S. Chrysostome 4. Though this interpretation restraining it to the Clergy contrary to Reason History and the Doctrine of that time should be allowed yet would not this be enough to reconcile it with the present Tradition which delivers that the Clergy also if they do not consecrate must not receive in both kinds 5. This first answer is acknowledged frivolous from some of the grounds above-mentioned and rejected by many of the more learned Papists and Baronius ad annum 496. n. 20. calls it frigidam solutionem a cold or dull solution but pretends to give a better which now follows The other Answer necessary to be examined is That this Canon refers to the Manichees and that it was only their receiving in one kind which Gelasius condemns as Sacriledge of whom it is thus written in Leo his fourth Sermon for Lent When they dare to be present at our Mysteries to conceal their Infidelity they so order themselves at the Communion of the Sacraments that sometimes they receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth that they may the more safely be concealed but they altogether decline to drink of the Blood of our Redemption which we therefore certifie your holiness that this sort of men may be known of us by these tokens and that when their Sacrilegious dissembling is discovered they being marked and detected may be driven by the Priestly Authority from the Saints society That to these the words of Gelasius refer is the answer of Baronius ad an 496. n. 21. Binnius in Vit. Gelasii and this also is approved by Bellarmine But 1. If Leo did discern this to be the practice of some Manichees fifty years before Gelasius his time this is no evidence that they were such of whom Gelasius writes had he intended the Manichees there can no reason be imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them but since he expressed this in a more general way that some were found there is no reason to restrain this to the Manichees 2. That expression that he knew not by what superstition they were bound up cannot fitly be applied to the Manichees For it was a matter not unknown but well known why the Manichees refused the Cup. Saint Austin about an hundred years before Gelasius sets down the reason of that Lib. 16. adversus Faust c. 3. They refused Wine and other things he saith not out of any strictness to subdue the body but as being unclean and called them filth and the gall of the people of darkness And lib. 20. c. 13. he saith the Manichees account it Sacriledge to tast Wine they own their God in the Grape but not in the Cup as if the treading or pressing did offend them So that it was known why the Manichees refused Wine upon all occasions Yea the very word of superstition suits not the Manichees refusal who were acted by gross Heresie and amongst other things they hereby maintained the distinction of things clean and unclean in their own nature whereas superstition rather intimates a design of reverence and veneration of the Sacrament but misplaced and not well guided 3. Nor can those words either let them receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole be applicable to the Manichees For if we consider the nature of Manicheism how great an Heresie it was that S. Austin in several places observes That they denied worship to the God of the Old Testament they blasphemed the Prophets they denied Christ to be born of the Virgin they did worship the Sun and own him to be God and many other gross things they held as the good and evil first Cause the denial of the Resurrection and the like that concerning such Hereticks Gelasius and the Roman Canons should appoint that they might be admitted to the partaking of the whole Sacrament no man who knows the discipline of those times can admit For no crime was owned greater than Heresie and that the Heresie of Manicheism was in the daies of Gelasius greatly abhorred by the Christians may appear in that after the death of Zeno the Emperour when Ariadne had declared Anastasius the Successor Euphemius the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to consent because he was a Manichee unless he should first under his hand-writing confirm the Faith of Chalcedon as is related by Theodorus Lector Collect. lib. 2. and not long after he shews how the Christians detested this Manichean Emperour because an Heretick which was in the very daies of this Gelasius Further when it is considered that this Gelasius the first Causa 24. Qu. 1. Acacius non est declares that whoever falls into any Heresie once condemned involves himself in that same condemnation It is not imaginable that he would allow the Eucharist to be given to a Manichee whom he must own as a condemned Heretick Nor could a Manichee be otherwise owned by Gelasius when in his time they stood condemned not only by the Civil Laws of Valentinian Gratian Theodosius and Honorius but also by a Roman Council in the daies of Pope Leo the Great in which as appears from Leo Serm. 5. de Jejuniis decim mens they determined that the Christians should wholly expel these accursed and contagious men from their friendship At which time Leo would not receive them who returned from Manicheism until they had first condemned the Manichees by open profession in the Church and by their subscriptions and at length had time injoined them for their penance as is observed by Baronius ad Ann. 444. n. 5. And can it then be imagined that when Gelasius had found such out he would give them liberty to be received to the Eucharist forthwith especially if it be observed that in another Canon of this same Gelasius Causa 24. Qu. 2. c. nec quisque He declares That they might not partake of the purity of the Lords Table with any Heretick which Table saith he our Ancestors did alwaies abundantly keep severed from all Heretical pollution Yea further can it be thought any way probable that when Leo in the above-mentioned words declares the Manichees to be in infidelity to receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth and sacrilegiously to dissemble in taking that and therefore to be rejected as contagious and accursed from all society of Christians yet Gelasius should judge these infidels thus sacrilegiously dissembling and unworthy yea accursed and condemned by former Councils fit for the highest Communion of Christians and allow them to receive the holy Eucharist Strangely wide must they needs be who would expound Gelasius by those words of Leo. 4. If notwithstanding all this those persons of which Gelasius writes had been Manichees this would indeed have shewed the persons in Gelasius his time who received only in one kind
Offices it is the Ministry of Reconciliation II. The Persons to whom this Ministry is committed that is to Vs III. The Divine Authority by which it is founded I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry And because it is an holy Function committed to some particular Persons by God himself the main Business thereof cannot consist in speaking or doing such Things as may be said or done by other Men but in the discharge of a special Office And an Office tho it requireth Abilities in them who undertake it yet is chiefly conveyed by Commission and Authority It is possible that Corah or some other of his Company might be as well acquainted with the Rites of Sacrificing and the way of ordering the Incense as Aaron and his Sons were but if they not being called of God thereto will invade the Priesthood they must bear their Sin Wherefore I design to discourse here of the chief and proper Charge and Business of the Gospel-Ministry which must include the Dignity thereof And here I shall shew 1. What is contained in it in four Heads 2. What must be rejected from it 1. As God's Officers they are to prepare Persons for receiving the Blessings of the Gospel And because the Wrath of God will come on the Children of Disobedience and the way to be happy is by the Faith of Christ and becoming holy and good the Officers of the Christian Church by a peculiar Authority are publickly to declare the Doctrines of Faith and the great Certainty and Evidence thereof to make Men well-grounded Christians and the Directions and Rules of holy Life together with the great Motives which tend to persuade the practice of them They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teachers and the Instruction of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears as anciently as from Justin Martyr to be one part of their publick Performances in the Church Just Mart. Apol. 2. And the Practice hereof is commended in the Scriptures and the ancient Writers as early as Ignatius exhorting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist ad Polycarp to exhort and persuade all Men for their Salvation And these Instructions are to be accounted of greater moment because delivered by those to whom God hath granted his Commission as the declaring the Law or giving a Charge by a Judg or particular Officer is more than the Discourse of a private Person The Flock of Christ ought to have such a respect to the Shepherds he hath appointed as to think it their Duty to be taught and guided by them Since our Saviour declared not only concerning his Apostles but even of the Seventy Mat. 10.40 He who heareth you heareth me and more generally with a Note of Remark concerning all those who are sent by him Luke 16.16 Joh. 13.20 that he who receiveth them receiveth him To this Head also belongeth another part of Ministerial Power in preparing Men for God's Blessing which was more remarkably exercised under the vigour of Primitive Discipline in enjoining particular Rules for and examining the Probation-State of the Catechumeni who from Paganism embraced Christianity and of them who for their Offences came under the then severe Discipline of Penitents This Authority the Apostle made use of in this Epistle concerning the Incestuous Corinthian 2 Cor. 2.6 7. declaring his Grief and Punishment to have been sufficient and this was Baron an 57.1 58.36 Illyr Praefat. ad Ep. Pauli as both Baronius and Illyricus think in the next Year after the Sentence of his Excommunication was inflicted And besides the present Interest of Ministerial Power with respect to Rules of open Discipline it is of great use for them who have exposed their Souls to great Dangers and also for disquieted Minds in such Cases as press their Consciences to take the particular Counsel of their Guides whom God hath appointed to watch for their Souls Heb. 13.17 Which might be a great Help to secure some from their growing Perplexities and others from running on in Viciousness or turning aside unto Delusions 2. This Function contains an Authority from God to receive Persons under the Terms of Reconciliation and to bless them in God's Name As they are Stewards of the Mysteries of God they have a peculiar Right to dispense to his People his holy Sacraments as signal Pledges of his Grace and Favour Hereupon they who receive Baptism at their hands being duly qualified for it receive thereby Remission of Sins become Members of Christ and Heirs of Salvation And as St. Paul was directed to be baptized and wash away his Sins so the Christian Church hath generally acknowledged Baptism to be Acts 22.16 Clem. Alex. Paed. l. 1. c. 6. as Clemens Alexandrinus expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Laver to make us clean from our Sins And the ordinary dispensing Baptism is a proper Act of the Ministerial Power both in that Christ gave commission to his Apostles to baptize and especially because this is a particular Exercise of the Keys in receiving Members into the Church of Christ and is also the dispensing the Symbol of Remission of Sins which is included under that Commission of Christ Whose soever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them John 20.23 In the Holy Communion also the pious and penitent Christian receiveth at the hands of him who by his Office dispenseth it the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ and a Testimony of God's Favour and Blessing And because this Sacrament is the Application of Christ's Sacrifice offered for the Remission of Sins a devout humble and penitent Person doth hereby receive Pardon to which purpose St. Ambrose Qui manducaverit hoc corpus De Sacrament l. 4. c. 5 6. fiet ei remissio peccatorum And again Debeo illum Sanguinem semper accipere ut semper mihi peceata dimittantur Which Words speak the receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrament to include Remission of Sins And the dispensing and consecrating this holy Sacrament must needs be proper to the special Officers of the Christian Church since no Man without God's particular Authority can dispense and consecrate the Pledges of his Grace and of Remission of Sins as tendred from him The pronouncing Absolution by them to whom the Gospel giveth this Authority doth also from God tender and apply Remission of Sins to the Pious and Contrite by virtue of our Saviour's Words Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted but by no means to the Disobedient and Neglectful The Augustine Confession declareth Absolution to be highly esteemed quia est Vox Dei mandato Dei pronunciatur Conf. August cap. de Confes as being the Voice of God and pronounced by his Command In like manner the giving a Benediction or Blessing by them whether generally in the Publick Service or more particularly in some special Offices is an Application of the Blessing of God by his Authority unto the pious Christian Numb 6.27 but not to