return to the Church How then do's this heresie so universally resisted destroy the Infallibility of the Church 64. The Donatists were but a poor crew in Africa condemned first by Melchiades Pope in a Council at Rome and then by two hundred Bishops some say six hundred at Arles in France against which heresie S. Austin fought gallantly with the Sword of the unwritten word laying this principle that Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur What is not clearly contained in Scripture or instituted by Councils and yet is held by the whole Church is to be believed to have been delivered by the Apostles 65. The Arians 't is true spread for a while by power and violence but were condemn'd by the first Council of Nice and by Iulius Pope in a Roman Council and by the Council of Sardica in Thracia and of Arimini in Italy and in many other Provinciall Councils Neither did that herefie ever reach to the breast of Pope Liberius as I have shewed before At Sirmium 't is true being call'd thither after two yeares banishment he subscribed to the first Confession of Faith in all respects Orthodox except that the word Homoousion was left out as being new and not found in Scripture 66. Of the Millenaries there were two sorts the one held that Christ should reign after the Resurrection for a thousand yeares upon earth in all carnall pleasures of this opinion was Cerinthus and his followers and this is likely to have been condemn'd with the heresie of the Apollinarists in a Roman Council under Pope Damasus as Baronius records An. 373. against which Doctrine Dennis Bishop of Alexandria writ long before in confutation of Nepos a Bishop of AEgypt The others addicted those thousand yeares to chaste and spirituall delights and of this thought were some of the ancient Fathers but not the whole Church For many saith S. Iustin who are of the pure and pious sense of Christians doe not acknowledge that Doctrine 67. These Fathers were drawn to that opinion by Papias Bishop of Hieropolis who as Eusebius recounts said he had it from Aristion and Iohn Priests Auditors of the Apostles A doctrine unknown and rather fabulous saith Ensebius But for my part I think he took the spirituall and mysticall Trâ—…dition of the Apostles mâ—…terially according to the Letter and could not discern what they spoke in figures to sucking Children and little ones Who also by the small works he writ appeares to have been of a mean and lesse capable wit However this Chillianisme as it was never defined by any Generall Council or particular Synod or any Roman Bishop So with Cornelius à Lapide upon the twentieth of the Apocalyps I dare not say 't is an Heresie because I have neither clear Scripture nor Decrees of Councils by which it is condemn'd as Hereticall The same saith S. Hierome upon Ieremy lib. 4. Neither doe we find it in the Catalogues of old Heresies set down by S. Austin Philastrius Isidor or Guido Carmelita 'T is in Epiphanius but as relating to Cerinthus of a carnall reign 68. Communion of Infants was never held absolutely necessary by the whole Church For the ancient Fathers unanimously taught that Baptisme takes away all sin Baptisme saith S. Basil is the the death of sin the regeneration of the Soul the reconciliation of the Kingdome of Heaven Nay Orosius in his Apology S. Prosper in his ninth Answer to the French Objections and S. Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum all three Disciples of St. Austin undoubtedly maintain that Baptisme gives salvation and life everlasting Hold most firmly saith S. Fulgentius that holy Baptisme sufficeth little ones to salvation as long as their age is not capable of reason Where it is to be noted that when Infant-Communion was in use they were first Baptized then Confirmed and lastly received the holy Holy Eucharist as is gathered out of the Laoâ—…icean Counciâ—… held some time before the Council of Nice and confirmed by the Synod of Trull Inunctos etiam sacro Chrismate Divino Sacramento communicare convenit And yet both the Elibertin Council under Pope Sylvester Can. 77. and S. Hierome against the Luciferans affirm that a man dying before confirmation is saved and consequently before Communion Finally as the learned Authour of the Systeme observes neither in any of the British or English Councils nor in S. Gregory's instructions given to S. Austin the Monk is there any mention of this matter 69. As for S. Austin he often attributes a total remission of sins to Baptisme affirming exexpressely that Children when they die are either saved by Baptisme or damn'd for Original sinne Hoc Catholica fides novit This Catholick Faith knoweth And again in his 59. Epistle Infants by the Sacrament of Christian grace without doubt appertain to life everlasting and the Kingdome of Heaven Therefore that so great a Doctor may not contradict himself I say with Cardinal Peròn his meaning to be that Infants must either receive actually or in voto by vow of the Church implicitely containedin Baptisme For by Baptisme the Child is inserted into the mystical Body of Christ which mystical Body is represented by the holy Eucharist Now because Christ our Saviour said that without the eating of his flesh life is not to be had hence the Saint proves against the Pelagians thâ—… absolute necessity of Baptisme not only to enter into the Kingdome of Heaven as they granted but also to life everlasting which they deny'd For without Baptisme none can eat Christs flesh either really as in persons of due age or in voto as in Children This to have been S. Austin's mind is clearly gathered out of these ensuing words which venerable Bede upon the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. and Hugo Victorinus Lib. 2. de Sacramentis cap. 20. attributes to S. Austin None must any wise doubt that every one of the faithful is then made partaker of the Body and Bloud of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ or that he is estranged from the Communion of that bread although before he eates that bread and drinks that Cup he departs this life in the union of Christs Body 7. The â—…ame may be said of Pope Innocent the first who in his Epistle to the Fathers of the Melevitan Council rather insinuates that Baptisme it self is the eating of Christs Body Neither do's Maldonat say that Infant-communion was either believed necessary or practised by the whole Church but onely that S. Austin held it as of Faith and as the Tenet of the whole Church Nor do's Maldonat deny that this very thought concerning Faith and the whole Church was St. Austin's private opinion 71. Whence it followes that albeit the practice in some parts of the Church might have lasted six hundred yeares yet neither in the whole Church nor
But the first is true because the submission of Berengarius satisfied the Roman Council of 113. Bishops without Transubstantiation Therefore the Second A masculine proofe That in the time of Nicholas the second Transubstantiation was not hammer'd out as it is now believed we easily grant because it is as ancient as the time of Christs last Supper But that Pope Nicholas did not understand the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a meere forgery indeed without a syllable of proofe Berengarius was held an Heretick for denying not the word but what is signified by Transubstantiation in that quality written against by the prime Divines of those dayes In so much that Fox confesseth that about the year of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted heresy and in that number was put one Berengarius who lived about the year 1060. that is 200. years before the Council of Lateran And Ioachim Camerarius in his Book Intituled Historiae Narratio pag. 161. Transubstantionis dogma de evanescentia panis post annum 850. tanquam in quieta posessione mansit usque ad Berengarii tempora annum Christi 1050. The doctrine of Transubstantiation of the vanishing of the Bread after the year 850. remained as it were in quiet possession untill the time of Berengarius and the â—…ear of Christ 1050 80. This Berengarius twice recanted his errour first in a Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second anno Dom. 1059. in which recantation there is not a word of Consubstantiation for there he acknowledgeth that after Consecration the Bread and Wine are not only a Sacrament in regard of the species remaining but also the true Body and Bloud of Christ our Saviour into which the substance of Bread and Wine is changed for the substance of Bread and Wine remaining cannot identically be affirmed of the Body and Bloud of Christ. 81. This to have been Berengarius his meaning is evident by the words of his second recantation under Pope Gregory the seventh Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor panem vinum quae ponuntur in Altari per mysterium sacrae Orationis verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram propriam vivificam carnem sanguinem Iesu Christi Domini nostri post Consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi quod natum est de Virgine c. I Berengarius do believe with my heart and onfesse with my mouth that the Bread and Wine that are put upon the Altar by the Mystery of the holy prayer the words of our Redeemer are substantially converted into the true proper and vivifying Flesh and Bloud of Iesus Christ our Lord and that after Consecration are the true Body of Christ that was borne of the Virgin 82. Note that he sayes the Bread and Wine are substantially converted into the true Body and Bloud of Christ which Conversion the Council of Lateran 136. years after exprest by the word Transubstantiation So false it is that the Doctrine it self began only then The Council of Lateran was the greatest that ever was held in the Church of God whereat were besides the Pope the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Ierusalem in person the two of Alexandria and Antioch by their Substitutes the first being hindered by sicknesse the second by the Turk 70. Metropolitans or Primates 400. Bishops 800. Abbots Priors The Embassadours of the two Emperours of the East and West and of the Kings of England France Arragon and Huâ—… 83. Now that so many â—…ed grave and judicious men of several Nations from all parts of the Church should unanimously conspire to forge a Novelty no man contradicting nay that after the Canons of this Council publish'd all Christians in the world should come to their respective Churches and fall down to adore upon their knees what they before believed to be only Bread and Wine and a meer figure of Christs Body and Bloud as Protestants do is a most desperate phansie 84. Truly the ancient Fathers sayings in this matter are so plain using the words Transmutation Transelementation Transfaction Creation and the like that divers Learned Protestants themselves cited in the Protestants Apology confesse a far greater antiquity of Transubstantiation then the Council of Lateran There you shall read that Gregory the great and Austin brought into England Transubstantiation that Chrysostome doth seem to confirm Transubstantiation that Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation that in Cyprian there are many things that seem to affirm Transubstantiation that Damascen taught Transubstantiation The reason is clear because those expressions of the Fathers import some reall change not in the species or outward accidents of the Bread and Wine which still remain and appear the same therefore in the inward substance rightly termed Transubstantiation Those words of Berengarius in your Margin taken out of Floriacensis if truly cited speak no intrinsecall impâ—…ession upon Christs Body but onely an extrinsecall denomination derived from the outward formes of Bread as S. Chrysostome exprest himself Thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him So Abraham was truly said to see touch and entertain Angels for the shape they appear'd in Against the denying the Cup to the Laiety The sixteenth Demonstration 85. Whatsoever our Saviour Christ in the institution of the Eucharist commanded all his Apostles to doe was likewise a command to all Christians But our Saviour commanded all his Apostles to drink of that Cup he had newly Consecrated Therefore to drink of that Cup newly Consecrated was a command to all Christians Therefore the withdrawing the Cup from the Laiety neither was nor could be from the beginning 86. The Argument to conclude must run thus and yet it halts extreamly of one Leg for our Lord by those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drink you all of it intended onely that all the twelve Apostles then present should drink of that individuall Cup he had blessed without powring in and consecrating more Wine This intention of Christ is manifest for he said not onely drink you all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but having consecrated the Cup he said Drink ye all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it Secondly out of St. Mark who addes and they all drank of it Could all present and future Christians drink of that individuall Cup Thirdly out of St. Luke Take this divide it amongst your selves Were all Christians commanded to take that very Cup and divide it amongst themselves Fourthly Christ said to his Apostles take eat and divide Were all Christians commanded to take both kindes with their own hands as Priests doe 87. True it is that St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. mentions both kinds and exhorts to receive not unworthily but commands not both kinds nay rather insinuates an indifferency when he maketh this inference wherefore whosoever shall eat of this Bread or drink this Cup of our Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord.
So that to receive either unworthily is to be guilty of both because in either you receive both Hence the Apostle addes presently He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himself not discerning our Lords Body Why but because that in receiving the Body under the form of Bread alone you receive also the Blood which is not separated from Christs living Body It was therefore so from the beginning For Christ our Lord Ioan. 6. five times promiseth life everlasting to the Bread of life not mentioning the Cup in those Texts Himself according to divers Fathers gave the Sacrament in one kind to the two Disciples in Emaus The Apostles practis'd the same in breaking Bread without naming the Cup and in your principles a negative argument from Scripture is valid The Primitive Church communicated the Sick under the form of Bread alone S. Ambrose dying received in one kind The Eremits carried the Sacrament to the Desart in clean Corporalls or Linnen called Dominicalia there to receive it fasting the Christians of AEgypt kept it in their Houses Satyrus Saint Ambrose his Brother took an Hoste with him in a Box about his neck to receive it at Sea To sucking Children the Cup was onely given in S. Cyprian's dayes And in the Greek Church they were wont to consecrate the Eucharist onely upon Saturdayes and Sundayes to be received the other dayes in the week during Lent Now in those hot Countreys the consecrated Wine could not be kept so long And it is most evident from Antiquity that the Eucharist was kept under the form of Bread to be distributed as occasion served Insomuch that we find amongst the Lawes of Charles the great 800. yeares ago Presbyter semper Eucharistiam habeat paratam c. Let the Priest alwayes have the Eucharist ready that if any be sick or a Child infirm he may give them the Sacrament that they may not die without Communion Well then seeing neither Christ our Lord in the Institution of the Eucharist nor S. Paul in declaring it excepted any sort of persons as Sick Ermits Children Sea-passengers or Christians in persecution yet the Church from all antiquity had power to administer it to such in one kinde and it was ever thought sufficient to salvation that is a whole Sacrament not a Half-Communion as you tearm it You must then either demonstrate out of Scripture the Churches restraint to these alone or confesse her practice towards all to be justifiable Finally Luther himself confesseth that Christus hac de re nihil unquam praecepit Christ never commanded any thing in this matter And Melanchthon held it a thing indifferent Against restraining the holy Scriptures from the common people The seventeenth Demonstration Page 26. 88. If Hebrew to the Iewes was the mother tongue and in that 't was read weekly before the people If the new Testament was first written in Greek because a tongue most known to the Eastern world and if after some hundreds of years it was translated into a few other tongues for the use of the common people then the restraining it from the common people was not from the beginning But the Antecedent supposition is true Therefore the Consequent 89. Yea but in our Saviours time Syriack was and had been 14. Generations before the mother tongue of the Iewes who lost the Hebrew in the long captivity of Babylon in so much that Esdras reading the Law to them was forced to use interpreters The New Testament was in Greck and as S. Ierome sayes read only in Greek all the East over though most of the Eastern Nations had a different Language as it appears by the Acts of the Apostles Ch. 2. How have we heard each man in our own language wherein we were born Parthians and Medians and Elamites and those that inhabit Mesopotamia Iewry and Capadocia Pontus and Asia Phrygia and Phamphilia Egypt and the parts of Lybia that is about Cyrene and strangers of Rome Iewes also and Proselytes Cretensians and Arabians We have heard them speak in our own tongue 90. Moreover S. Matthew writ his Gospel for the Iewes in Hebrew or in Greek not Syriack their vulgar tongue nor is it known that ever the old Testament was by order of the Iewish Church turn'd into Syriack S. Mark writ in Greek at Rome and for the Romans whose vulgar language was Latin so did S. Paul his Epistle to the Romans in Greek also to the Galathians and yet their vulgar was a kind of German Language they have a proper tongue almost the same as those of Trevers saith S. Hierome upon that Epistle lib. 2. in his Preface And if the new Testament 400. years after was translated into some very few other tongues what is that to the beginning were not the common people from the beginning restrained from it at least those 400. years and in those Nations where Hebrew Greek or Latine were not the vulgar tongues And was it then translated by order of the Churches into Hebrew Greek or Latine or put into the hands of the common people as of necessary use or commanded to be read in those new traductions upon that score 91. Neither is it true that the Roman Church keeps the Scripture from the People 'T is at this day extant in all vulgar Languages of Europe and permitted to be read by the Layety with leave of their Pastours who are to judge into whose hands the sword of the Scripture which is the woâ—…d of God is fit to be put Which rule had it been observed in England when after fifteen hundred years the Bible except perhaps the Psalmes was under Henry the 8th translated into English out of Latine so many mad Sects would never have risen in it Against publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue The eighteenth Demonstration Page 27. 92. What is scandalously opposite to the plain sense of Scripture was not from the beginning But the use of publick Prayers in a tongue unknown to the common people is scandalously opposite to the plaine sense of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. Therefore the use of publick Prayers in a tongue unknown to the Common people was not from the beginning 93. The Minor is undenyable because you asâ—…rt it but not a word of proofe which to make good you must demonstrate first that the Apostle by preferring the gift of prophecy before unknown tongues in the Church the only intent of that Chapter speakes of tongues in the publick service and administration of Sacraments proper to Pastours and not rather and solely of tongues in mutual conferences when the first Christians met for edification to communicate with one another their miraculous gifts as inspired Canticles Prophecies Tongues and other graces imparted above Nature both to men and women in those dayes In which assemblies the Corinthians seem to have committed some disorders turning Gods gifts especially that of tongues which was the least