in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
G. 26. For he saith Christ took the Cup and gave it to them saying Drink you all of this this what This in the Cup why so for this is my Blood and then immediately follows But I say unto you I wil not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine untill the day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom Now then this fruit of the Vine Saint Matthew speaks of is this that the Disciples are bid to drink of as even the series of the words shew Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood but I will not drink of this 2. The fruit of the Vine must necessarily demonstrate some Wine so St. Marks fruit of the Vine must also have reference to some Cup demonstrated by him But they mention no other Cup besides this Sacramental therefore they must necessarily speak of this and so much for his Major Now I deny his Minor which must be proved thus That which S. Luke mentioned before any Consecration began Immediately after the Cup confessedly belonging to the Passover must belong to it But these words St. Luke thus mentions Now I retort upon his Major thus That which Saint Matthew and Saint Mark mentioned not till after Consecration and immediately after the Sacramental Cup must belong to it But this sentence is thus mentioned by them I know he will tell us the disparity is in this that St. Luke promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the other Evangelist did not Answer Grotius will tell him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only sigillatim as you may see Acts 4.18.23 which Interpretation must take place here it appearing sufficiently that he frequently for the Coherence of things joyns those passages which were separated in order of time * As the same Grotius in his Comment doth evince Vide Grot. in locum and therefore this reason of disparity is taken away Thus I have confuted his Confidence Sect. 14 Now though I dare not be Confident I think it very probable Vide Jansonium in locum that St Luke also speaks of the Consecrated Cup as Saint Augustine would have it by preoccupation that so this saying parallel to that of eating no more of the Passover might be joyned together For Matthew and Mark speak of four things belonging to this Sacramental Cup 1. Giving of Thanks 2. Distribution of it 3. The asserting of it to be his Blood 4. His protestation of not drinking of it any more Now Saint Luke speaks onely of the third of these If you will not allow the other verse to refer to the Sacred Cup. But if this be granted then are all these actions mentioned in S. Luke directly as in the other Evangelists Now then the interpretation makes all Harmonious between the Evangelists whereas he bids defiance to S. Mark and especially to S. Matthew who as I have prov'd must necessarily be understood of the Eucharistical Cup. But our Author hath another answer Sect. 15 if this fail viz. that were it so that the wine after Consecration were call'd the fruit of the Vine Mr. C. p. 133. yet this doth not argue against a change of it's nature for Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent was call'd a Rod still because it had been one Exod. 7.12 And John 2.9 't is said of the Master of the feast shat he tasted the water that was made wine Now to this I return 1. That the cases are no way parallel for first in these instances the matter remain'd the form only being chang'd it being proper conversion but in the Eucharist the Trent Council hath defin'd that the substance of Bread remains not and so there is not so much Reason why it should have the same name 2. These might well be call'd so because the Serpent was made out of a Rod tanquam ex causâ materiali and the wine out of water but you dare not say that the Blood of Christ is so made out of wine 3. There were Circumstances annex'd in these Cases which did obviate all possibility of Fallacy The Serpent is call'd a Rod but such a one as devour'd the other Rods the wine mention'd by S. John is call'd Water but 't is Water made Wine as if I should say panis transubstantiatus which phrase you would not much dislike you will say this Wine is call'd the Blood of Christ Ans Well but whether Spiritually or Corporally is not said 2. We answer that if this be a sufficient reason why the Blood of Christ should be call'd the fruit of the vine though it be not really so then may this be a sufficient reason why the bread may be call'd the body of Christ though it be not so See Paraeus de Reg. phrasium Sacrament In Cor. 11. v. 23. because Sacramental signs have often the names of the things signified by them The sequel is evident from the parity of Reason the same foundation of Each being the Analogous phrase of Scripture and in the great hold of Transubstantiation must be quitted But 3. He saith he will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which Argues that before viz. In other pasovers Or at least in this He had drank of it before now that which he had drank of before this being the first institution of the Sacramental Cup must be really the fruit of the Vine Well then that which he saith he will drink of no more must be the same also From what hath been said we may see sufficiently the weakness of his argument hence for transubstantiation Sect. 16 which runs thus Our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup but he did not drink of the fruit of the vine because he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo the Consecrated Cup was not the fruit of the Vine For not to tell him See Beza in locum Heins In Mat. c. 21 v. 41 c. the Syriack Copies leave out the two verses in which the stress of all this Argument lies nor yet to mind him of Beza's transposition of the verses a * thing sufficiently probable 1. How will he prove that our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup will he run to Matt. 26 Alas He hath told us that it Concerns not this Cup will he cite universal tradition Let him shew it and at the same time he will shew that he interprets Saint Matth. contrary to them seeing they that affirm it gather it from his words 2. Why may not his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thus interpreted I will not drink any more viz. after the solemnity ended Have we not S. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bear us out in 't and Saint Mark 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also may very well be borrowed from the 16 vers in Saint Luke It being very ordinary for Sacred Writers to leave a particle to be understood from the words foregoing or consequent And if this interpretation stand it can only be
from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy not of the people This one would think were a strange shift and yet 't is such a one as they are forced to fly unto But First Let it be considered how unlikely 't is that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament of so different natures and yet speak nothing of the use or the reason the benefit or the necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the mysterie nor distinguish the rite or the words but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world Secondly If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite spoken before the institution of the Chalice then doth not hoc facite signifie offerte sacrificium as the Trent Council that infallible interpreter of Scripture would have it and consequently cannot make them Priests that is in their language Sacrificers For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice Thirdly If the Apostles were thus made Priests and drank of the Chalice under that capacity then seeing this is a Command as we presently shall evince it ought to be followed at least so far and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice which because they do not in the Church of Rome it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients Thirdly Sect. 11 I say that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated This will sufficiently be made out if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements and that not temporary but reaching even to us Now the Trent Council tells us that hoe facite c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him Yea the Apostle Intimates to us that this is a standing Institution in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till â—e come Now it is evident that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ in that it is said Take eat this is my Body this do this which I bid you do what was that eat his Body But it is more clear concerning the Cup of which it is said this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse where the Apostle infers that we do this in remembrance of Christ because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lords deâ—th till he come Clearly intimating that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup Wherefore this being a Command it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 12 Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute In 1 Cor. 11. Quest 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given St. Augustine saith Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it By whom sure by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup Hom 4. de quadr practised by the Manichees sacrilegious simulation and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints Yea when at the general Council of Calcedon Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba Bishop of Edessa that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine and that corrupt and sowre provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people that Bishop was severely taxed Whereby it appears that at the time of this Councill the Administring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it De Consecrat dist 2. comperimus c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable as you find them in Gratian We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood which because they do out of I know not what superstition we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them In Psa 6. poen because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge Thus a Pope è Cathedra And Saint Gregory cries out Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed De C rp Sang. Domini c. 15. 19. by the perception of which the Church his Body pascitur potatur I will conclude with Paschasius who tells us That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated And expounding the words of Christ saith He alone it is that breaks this Bread and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers saying Take drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander and * De Eccles l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius Papists and to Doctor Featly who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions We pass on now to the Fourth Section Sect. 13 wherein we are told Mâ— C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind in the fore-mentioned cases did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one onely But First How came he acquainted with their Mind Hath hiâ— Guardian Angel told him so Secondly In the fore-mentioned cases which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind if there be any such we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both yea from spiritual Communion as corâ—oreal or by the Elements when this latter way cannot be had but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent But he tells us farther Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread Ibid. and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh c. Now not to require a proof of him that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected and
divided drops of species should be let us come to his proofs Sect. 15 And First He summons in Saint Ambrose to tell us that Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body that is the representation of the Body â—f Christ Next the Council of Ephesus to inform us that we participate the flesh of Christ not as common but as truly quickening flesh That is which by our spiritual reception of it is made quickening to us And Thirdly Saint Austine This he did saith he quodammodo con 2. in Ps 33. And this quodammodo is non rei virtute sed significante mysterio cp 23. ad Bonif. l. 12. in Joan. c. 32. to teach us that Christ was carried in his own hands that is Christ real and corporeal diâ— carry these Elements which represented him in his hand Ergo in every divided particle of the species of Bread is the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ A Consequence very irrational and absurd Nor will the testimony of Saint Cyrill be able to conclude the business for if he argue from these words The four parts of the world have divided amongst themselves his flesh without dividing of it I Answer he adds The Paschal Lamb was found amongst all the Israelites divided and yet undivided And will our Author thence argue that he esteemed each part of the Paschal Lamb to be the whole or that he that received the least particle thereof received the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he argue from the following words for the onely begotten not passing into as he rendreth it but being distributed to them all and sanctifying each of their Souls and Bodies by his own flesh is in all of them whole and entire being every where one for as Saint Paul teacheth he is not divided I say if hence he argue I answer that he is in all of them whole and entire as being truly God and truly though mystically united to them For having sanctified them by his flesh spiritually received he is spiritually made one with them as the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 10.17 And thus have we dispatch'd his pretences for concomitance his fifth and sixth Sections are built upon the third and fourth and therefore must fall with them C. 13. S. 4. I pass on therefore to urge an Argument against concomitance And 1. Sect. 16 I will take for granted what our Author affords me viz. that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Christs Sacrifice Mr. C. p. 146. of his former immolation and the realâ— shedding of his Blood do this in remembrance of me being sufficient warrant for his assertion 2. I suppose that in this Sacrament the shedding of Christs blood is by the Symbols represented For 1. Why else have we the Wine separated from the bread 2. How is it a representation of Christs Sacrifice upon the cross that being a Sacrifice in which his Sacred blood was shed 3. How do we by partaking of his blood shew forth his death but by shewing that his blood was separated from his body 4. I suppose that Christs blood is represented by the wine consecrated not antecedently to the consecration else may it represent it in the Cellar as well as in the Church 5. I suppose that shedding of Christs Blood is the separating it from the body or at least from the veins and consequently the representation of it as shed is the representation of it as severed from the veins but now it is impossible that such a representation should be made to an assertor of concomitance seeing he is bound to believe that where one single drop of blood is resident there also must the Sacred body of Christ reside entirely and consequently it is impossible that concomitance should be a truth 2. Sect. 17 If there be such a necessary concomitance then must each part exhibit whole and entire Christ and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part must be the depriving them of whole Christ as offered to them for the remission their sins and Sanctification Now then in doing so either you deprive them of some benefit or not if the first then are you Sacrilegious in depriving the people of some benefit from those Sacred mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably to the Institution of S. Paul received from Christ and the common practice of the Church for a thousand years Secondly Then must you grant that by communicating in both kinds more of Christ is received contrary to your fourth Section if the latter then not to speak of the superfluity of Christs instituion First you must assert that albeit a man receive entire Christ and that worthily and have the pardon of his sins and the benefits of the new Covenant sealed to him yet may he be never the better And secondly You will be troubled to give a reason why the Conficient should be obliged by you to drink the Chalice and not excused by concomitance Thirdly Sect. 18 If they who receive the body by concomitance receive the blood then they who consecrate the body by reason of concomitance do also consecrate the blood the parity of Reason being most notorious and consequently no Reason can be assigned why Christ in his Institution should be thought to oblige us to the Consecration in both kinds rather then the Reception in both kinds and therefore seeing the Trent Council saith peremptorily De Missa Sess sexta c. 10. that Christ commanded the Apostles and their Successors to offer in both kinds why should she not also say that he commanded them and their Successors to distribute in both kinds But were this salve good Sect. 19 yet would it not free them from the imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from the delivering of half Christ for seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently that he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently hath an half Sacrament these and many other things may be alledged against this half Communion which I suppose will a little exercise their Reason in the Answer of them and therefore our Author did well to take Sanctuary in the infallibility of the Church and then proceed to give some account of the Reasons that induced her to this grand Sacriledge And 1. He tells us Sect. 20 that it was done by reason of the wonderful increase of the Communicants and decay of their devotion whence very great danger of irreverence and effusion of the precious blood of our Lord was like to follow if not thus prevented Now 1. Not to tell him that this excuse hath been by the Primitive Church rejected as Superstitious lay aside that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation and what great harm will it be if casually and by no fault of ours or wilfull contempt some of the Wine should be spilt 2. With what conscience can they pretend their Reverence to the Sacrament for this when our Authour supposes there
Orthodox Fathers so stifly plead against it in the Council of Ariminum as such why did they not assent to the Arian Bishops or the Emperour who required no more See Soz. ubi suâ—ra Sulpâ—c Sâ—â— l. 2. c. 55. ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crat Seriptum quod unius est substantiae illi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est similis substantiae scriptum esse diccebant concedeates sim litudinem dum adimerent unitatem yea why did the Orthodox Fathers condemn and censure them as Arrians who subscribed to the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia but the contrary is evident for seeing nullum simile est idem he that saith that our Saviour is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot say that he is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Next for the Doctrine of the Millenaries he saith Sect. 22 'T is great irreverence in the Doctor to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers Answ Were there but two that asserted it might you not have found in the renounced Dally Papias Justine Irenaeus Mr. C s 18. In his Letters to Mr. Eâ—â—wich to Dr. Twâ—ss Tertullian Ambrose Lactantius Victorinus Amphilochius to whom Mr. Mede will add St. Cyprian yea and to boot will shew that it was favoured even by the General Council of Nice and at last St. Jerome albeit a profest enemy of the opinion will add that multi Ecclefiasticorum virorum martyrum ista dixerunt and then might you not have multiplied your two into two hundred 2. He Answers That albeit Justin Martyr saith That all that are purely Orthodox held this Millenium yet he thereby shews that his own opinion was not Universally embraced by the Church I pray you Sir what Topicks do you use to draw this sequel out of Justins words especially when they run thus Indeed I acknowledge there are some who are not pure and pious Christians who thus think but they are only in name Christians but indeed Atheists and arch-Hereticks and anon bids Trypho not look upon such as Christians and then adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I and all throughly Orthodox Christians not only in name we believe the resurrection and the Millenium so that he excludes out of the roll of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that believed not the Millenium L. 3 Cont. Marc. c. 24. Tertullian likewise brings it in with a Confitemur we Christians confess c. As for the double Millenary that our Author speaks of 't is very unserviceable to him seeing not one of these Fathers except Lactantius whom yet Mr. Mede excuseth are suspected of it His last refuge therefore is that it was never condemned by the Church Answ This is not to the purpose for seeing it is manifest that it was received by the Church of God for above two hundred years without any manner of contradiction either you must grant the Church fallible as the Doctor thence argues or else speak out and say That 't is still to be embraced and believed as the Primitive Church esteemed and then your Church must have erred in not believing but contradicting it as we see now they do Lastly Touching the communicating of Infants Sect. 23 a custome saith Maldonate received as necessary by the Church till six hundred years he tells us that St. Augustine c. held a necessity that Infants should communicate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptisme which Answer may be confuted out of twenty passages of Saint Augustine For 1. He speaks expresly of the Sacrament in his Tract against Pelagius and Bonifacius where comparing the Pelagians to the Manichees Both of them saith he are unwilling to have Infants freed by the flesh and blood of Christ the first by denying that Christ took flesh the second by saying there is no evil in them from which by the Sacrament of Christs body and blood they should be freed And again having urged the necessity of Baptisme to Salvation he adds When Christ saith If you eat not my flesh you shall not have life in you should I say that an Infant should have life L. 3. Cont. Julian c. 1. Dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine islo sacramento finisset hans vitam C. 12. L. 5. who ends his life without that Sacrament Yea 2. He speaks of their receiving the Sacrament after Baptisme and therefore cannot be thought to speak of such a Spiritual participation of it as might there be had Thus in his Book against Julian Where will you put Infants for they shall want eternal life although baptized because they have not partaken of the bread c. and so in his Hypognosticks where in the Margent you find Eucharistia infantibus sub utraque specie fit to admonish our Authour of what we meet with in his Parenthesis but most irrefragably in his book de Peccati meritis L. 1. c. 20. and that in a place which our Author refers me to for the contrary Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized Quo nemo â—â—te nisi Baptizatus aâ—cedit and then citing the place Vnless you eat my flesh c he adds Dare any say that the sentence belongs not to children but that they may without the participation of the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves and tells us we may as well conclude that it belongs not to the adult which testimony doth conclude most evidently the business for these words quò nemo accedit nisi Baptizatus cannot possibly be understood of any Spiritual participation of the Sacrament at all L. 10. much less of such an one as may be had in the use of Baptism Yea 3. He speaks of Baptisme and the Eucharist as equally necessary presseth them both with like Scriptures and then what ground can there be to understand the one Spiritually the other Sacramentally Thus when he writes in his Book against two Epistles of Pelagius You give to them that are not baptized a place in Heaven nor do you attend what is written He that is not baptized shall be damned nor do you understand that those cannot have life who are expertes corporis sanguinis Christi ipso dicente Nisi manducaveritis c. and in his 107. Epistle he saith That Infants shall receive according to what they have done in their body when by the hearts and mouths of them that hear them they believed or not at which time they were baptized or not did eat the flesh of Christ or not and drink his blood or not I say when these things are so conjoyned in the Series of his discourse without the least intimation of a diverse sense what reason can we have so to interpret them nor do the places he refers to conclude that St. Augustine meant the contrary
forth of this Index in Possevine among other European Libraries deny it and for a taste of the Author Harken to his notable Hyperbole that the wood of the Cross is so multiplied that all the world is full of it Thirdly Sect. 7 Next for the Council of Nice he tells us p. 466. out of Cardinal Baronius that they are held a meer forgery The true Nicene Acts saith he except some fragments raked at second hand out of several Authors are sufficiently known to be all lost as being made away and having suffred shipwrack in the Arrian tempests And again whereas all ages have been most eager in the pursuit of so noble a Monument never a man could hitherto find it and concludes that now no hope remains of so fertile a vintage Nay when hard search was made for a new Nicene Canon pretended by the Bishop of Rome in defence of his supremacy and by St. Augustine himself and many Learned Bishops more messengers were dispatch'd into Greece and Egypt where the first and best Copies were News was return'd both from Atticus of Constantinople and Cyrill of Alexandria that no more of that Council could be found save onely twenty Canons Fourthly Sect. 8 As for Nyssen his Catech. Orat. he tell us first that some in their Editions leave it cut as knowing it saith the Bishop of Spalat to be corrupted So Siphanius his Basil Ed. Anno Domini 1571. others that let it pass tell us that this 37. Chap. here cited is not frequently to be found in Ancient manuscripts and that the Book is tainted with the opinions of Origen foysted into it So the Author of the Paris Edition 1573. Thirdly that it mentions Severus an Eutychian a full 100 years later then Cyrill Fourthly that it speaks contrary to Nyssen himself and Fifthly that it holds no correspondence with all that Theodoret cites thence And lastly refers us to twelve Arguments of Spalatensis against this and the following Chapter Fifthly Sect. 9 Cyrills Epistle ad Calosyr is not extant among his works and whether Cyrill of Alexandria wrote it is very uncertain And albeit I can no where come to a perusal of it yet it is capable of this sence Christ is not altered viz. the Sacrament representing Christ is not alter'd neither is his Body that is the Symbols of his body changed by being kept till another day but the virtue of Benediction and quickning grace perpetually remains in it for what is it that is blessed sure not the Body of Christ that being not present till after the benediction even when hoc est corpus meum is pronounced and therefore 't is the Eucharistical bread which he calls Christ And yet were all these Authors true they might be answered by telling our adversaries they might as well have cited our Common Prayer Book which calls the Bread Sect. 10 the Body of our Lord Christ and the Wine his Blood shed for us For we acknowledge it is so viz. Sacramentally and Representatively but not by any substantial Mutation The rest of the Fathers are quoted for adoration of the Eucharist Sect. 11 and there are but two Sentences that can seem to incline to Transubstantiation The first is that of Saint Chrysostome to wit The most pretious thing in Heaven I will shew thee plac'd upon Earth 1 Cor. 10. Hom. 24. But this may be fairly interpreted thus That it is placed upon Earth in its representation in those Elements which convey the Virtue of his Body to us and therefore deservedly are called his Body Let Chrysostome interpret himself who in his Epistle ad Caesar contra Haeres Apollinar cited by Damascen and the Collector of the Sentences of the Fathers against the Severians set forth by Turrian hath these words Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from that Name and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it And yet I must not forget to tell you p. 130. that whereas our Adversary renders a Clause of Saint Chrysostomes sentence Thou not onely seest the body it self Saint Chrysostome hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou dost not indced see the very same body not properly the same that the Magi saw But thou knowest both the Virtue and the whole Dispensation and art ignorant of nothing that was done being accurately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taught all these things in the Mysteries and so the place makes more against then for him The same Answer may be returned to that of Ambrose Sect. 12 That the same flesh is in the Mysteries which the Apostles worshipped in our Lord Christ De Spir. viz. 't is in the Mystery representatively See Bishop Taylor of real Pres p 384. 't is here in Imagine as St. Ambrose elsewhere But in heaven in Veritate the Truth the substance is there Thus l. 4. De sacram C. 5. He calls it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and c. 4. tells us It is a wonderful power of God which makes that the Bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing and then again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet are changed into another and so that which was bread before Consecration now is the Body of Christ which words because they could not answer they corrupted And thus having return'd an Answer to his Arguments we come now to vindicate our own The Learned Doctor had framed an Argument thus Sect. 13 That which remained the fruit of the Vine was not Transubstantiated But the Wine in which Christ Celebrated the Sacrament remained after Consecration the fruit of the Vine To this our Adversary answers 1. Mr. C. 132. S. 12. I confidently pronounce it evident that these * Matt. 26.29 words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice nor had they any regard to the Sacrament And why so I pray you Because Saint Luke mentions them after the eating of the Paschal Supper and antecedently to the Mystical Consecration of his blessed Body and Blood who saith he will write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans A great reason of Confidence indeed put it into Syllogivm and it runs thus That which hath reference to the Passeover and the drinking of the Cup which was annexed to it hath not Reference to the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord But these words have reference to the former Now all their who tell us that Christ spake the sentence twice will deny his Major seeing the words might have reference to both according to their various times of utterance Now that this Interpretation must take place against our adversary I will prove because he grants it doth refer to the Pass-over in Saint Luke And evidently it refers to the Consecrated Cup in Saint Matthew
succeed theirs and must it be therefore carnal as well as this service of the Jewes If this Argument be good our sacrifice succeeds a proper sacrifice and therefore it is so must not this also be esteemed so Our sacrifice succeeded a bloodysacrifice and therefore it is such our sacrifice succeeded a sacrifice of bruit beasts and therefore it is such Our second Consideration is that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice symbollically as representing applying and some way impetrating for us all the benefits of Christs real sacrifice on the Cross For seeing the signes are often put for the things signified Chrysost H. 27. in Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb dem Evan l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide For. Cons mod p. 451. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquire the names of what they represent and bring to our remembrance Yea seeing the Apostle tells the Galathians that Christ was crucified amongst them because his sufferings on the Crofs were most lively represented to them by his preaching why may not we on the same account call the Eucharist in this sense a sacrisice as being that in which Christs sufferings are far more lively and accurately set forth Yea a perfect remembrance of a sacrifice as the Fathers call it yea secondly we allow it to be a sacrifice in this sence as exhibi ting to us all the benefits of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross for we all allow that what ever Christ dying and shedding his blood for us procured is not only represented there but applyed to the faithful and exhibited to his faith And here come in the residue of his citations and 1. That of Ignatius is Spurious Epist ad Smyrn S. 2 p. 144. you may find the words upon which the force of the argument depends written in Red Letters in the Edition of Bishop Vsher Secondly As to that of S. Cyprian In his Epis to Caecil not Cyril as Mr. C. who was more a Priest of the most high God then our Lord who offered a sacrifice to God the Father and offered the very same that Melchisedec offered that is bread and wine to wit his own body and blood which it could not be otherwise then figuratively or significatively and commanded the same viz. bread and wine to be afterward done in memory of him that Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer as he sees Christ himself offered viz. bread and wine as the Ancient Church was wont to do and this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did when at the Institution of this holy Rite Mr. Mede ib. he took the Bread and Cup into his hands and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed who after his example first offered the bread and wine unto God to agnize him Lord Paramount of the Creature and then received them from him again in a banquet as the Symbols of the body and blood of his Son now the words thus expounded have nothing in them Son now the pertinent to your purpose nothing to prove any sacrifice of Christs body much less to prove a true and proper sacrifice which that S. Cyprian never dream'd of we may be sufficiently assured from this Epistle to Caecilius whose words are these because saith he we make mention of Christs passion in all our sacrifices for the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice we offer we ought to do no other thing then what Christ did If the passion of Christ be the Sacrifice we offer how is the Eucharist properly so seeing the Scripture tells us that Christ ought to suffer only once and his glorious body is now impatible how doth he really suffer and if not then is there only a remembrance of his passion made and therefore his passion that is the Commemoration of it must sure be call'd the sacrifice offered by the Church Ubi supra and especially in his first Chap. of the same 2. part where Bellar. Arg. hence is abundantly refuted Mr. C. p. 145. And as Bochartus hath it how impertient is it to alledge a passage where it is said that Christ offered the same which Melchisedech offered which was undoubtedly true bread and wine without any transubstantiation to prove that Christ was sacrificed under the Species of bread and wine Lastly The eighteenth Canon of the Nicene Council tells us that it is a thing which neither Canon nor custome hath delivered that those who have no power of offering viz. the Symbols in commemoration of Christs sacrifice made upon the Cross should give the Body of Christ that is these Symbols of his body to those who offer Ans What of all this Is there any thing in this passage to evince a true and proper sacrifice of Christs body and blood Secondly Eusebius who was present at this Council can tell us what kind of sacrifice the Church then offered Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For thus he speaks Christ offered an excellent sacrifice for the salvation of us all delivering to us the memory thereof to be presented to God in lieu of a sacrifice And towards the end of that chapter we sacrifice the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us by Christ Secondly Gelasius from whose Authority you have this Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Premire partie Chapitre 10. tells us moreover that the Nicene Fathers said the Lamb of God was here sacrificed by the Priest without a sacrifice that is Representatively so for so the Grecians call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy things not offered as you may see evinced by Bochartus de la Messe where the interpretation of Cardinal Perron is abundantly refuted and it is made good that the words were not intended to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Cardinal contends but only sans estre Sacrifie which is the proper and natural signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly and lastly we allow it to be a propitiatory sacrifice for as much as by the right participation of it we enjoy remission of sins not as if we thought there was any force in those mysteries to satisfie Gods justice but because hereby we have sealed to us that remission which was purchased by the sacrifice of the Cross And this affords us an Answer to that of S. Chrysostome Hom. 21. Mr. C. p. 145. that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for remission of sins for the Priest that offers for the multitude for the procuring plenty which indeed it was esteemed partly upon this account that so many petitions were put up to God at the solemnity for this oblation of prayer was made through Jesus Christ commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine and it was the custome of the Antients upon the consecration of the dona Mede ib. to be the Body and Blood of Christ to offer to the Divine
Majesty as it were over the Lamb of God then lying upon the table their supplications and prayers for the whole State of Christs Church and all sorts and degrees therein thus the Authour of the Mystagogical Catechis Lib. 5. upon these propitiatory hosts we beseech God for the common peace of the Church the tranquillity of the world for Kings Souldiers Companions the afflicted in fine for all that stand in need of help Christ Sac. S. 3. See more of this in the Ingenious Master Mede and partly because it was such a commemoration of Christs sufferings as conveyed unto us an interest in what he hath suffered for us which therefore we are enabled to plead for our selves and others but that Saint Chrysost never esteemed it a proper Sacrament is apparent from these words of his 17. Hom. on the Heb. What do we not continually offer Yes saith he we offer but only by a commemoration of his Christs death there is but one host not many how so because it was offered once and that host viz. once offered was carried up into the holy of holies this that we celebrate is the figure of that former and that the truth of this And a little after he is our high Priest who offers that sacrifice which cleanseth us which we now offer and which then was offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor possibly can be consumed this is done in a remembrance of that which was then done according to that of Our Saviour do this in remembrance of me we do not offer another sacrifice as the Jewish Priests but continually the same or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice what can be more express then this And indeed our Authour saith the same thing S. 4. p. 146. his words are these Ordinarily the conception of a sacrifice is supposed to import an immolation shedding of blood and killing and no such matter appearing here but only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs Blood therefore we Sectaries will not allow it the name of sacrifice Now not to note that if this be the ordinary conception of a sacrifice that then the Fathers must be granted in this matter to have spoken contrary to the ordinary sence which the word beareth and to that which it is supposed commonly to import 1 hence it is clear that he holds the celebration of the Eucharist to be only a commemoration of a sacrifice which we will endeavour to evince from his own words only premizing that Christs sacrifice was a reall immolation and shedding of his blood thus where there is only a commemoration of the reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood there is only the commemoration of Christs sacrifice offered on the Cross but here that is in the celebration of the Mass there is only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood and therefore a commemoration only of his sacrifice S. 6. p. 148. nor is it any thing to the purpose which he adds that it is in the most proper rigorous sence an oblation of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in heaven For to let pass the question sufficiently handled already whether the very same body and blood which Christ offered on the Cross be present in the Sacrament or only the Symbols of it either he terms this a proper oblation because in the Sacrament somewhat is properly tendred or presented unto God and thus we all acknowledge a proper oblation in the Sacrament for there we shew forth the Lords death by presenting before him the sacrifice of atonement that Christ hath made commemorating the pains that he endured entreating God that we may all enjoy the purchase of his blood and reap the benefit of his passion reached forth unto us in the Symbol and that for the sake of the Bloody sacrifice of his Son in which by the faithful receiving of the elements we are interested he will turn away all his anger from us Or Secondly as this word is taken in a stricter sence to signifie a sacrifice of inanimate things as fruits incense c. and thus it is distinguished from a sacrifice of an animate being which was accompanied with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an effusion of blood to which it is requisite Clopen Scb. Suc. ab initio if properly and strictly such ut vel incendio vel alio convenienti riâ—u sacro per sacerdotis ministerium destruatur that it be destroyed by fire or any other convenient Rite by the ministery of a Priest and if this be his sense of an oblation we deny that there is any such destruction or consumption of the reall body and blood of the Lord in the holy Sacrament and shall now consider it Fourthly Sect. 7 Therefore that this is no true and proper sacrifice appears 1. because to a proper sacrifice is requisite that the thing sacrificed suffer some Physical mutation but here is no Physical mutation of the thing sacrificed the Major is proved by Bell from the perpetuall use of Scripture when speaking of a proper sacrifice for what ever in Scripture is properly so call'd was necessarily to suffer such a mutation if it had life by the deprivation of it if it were an inanimate and solid being as Frankincense Salt c. by combustion if liquid as wine blood and water by effusion Levit. 1.2 Secondly He proves it because all the Sacraments did prefigure the death of Christ their death or mutation being Typical of his with Bellarmine consents Cardinal Alanus De Eucha sacrif l. 2. c. 3. who tells us that unless the intervention of some mutation be allowed to the nature of a sacrifice we must acknowledge that first-fruits Tythes the first-born religious persons and innumerable other things which in the Law were consecrated to God must be called sacrifices there being no difference in them from true and proper sacrifices imaginable but this that these gifts thus consecrated remain entire but the things which are sacrificed do not but suffer as it were a change into another species being either kill'd roasted bruised or boiled or by some other action of the Priest consumed But now there is no real mutation here of the thing sacrificed for the thing sacrificed is the very same body and blood which our Lord offered upon the Cross as our Author tells us P. 148. and p. 135. We acknowledge an oral manducation but without any suffering or change in the divine body it self and the victim saith he suffers nothing But should he eat his words as he doth his God I will thus force him to confesse the truth If the body of Christ suffer any mutation when sacrificed then either as to its real being in Heaven or its Sacramental but neither can with reason be affirmed Not the first for Christs natural body is now impassible not the second for then would the body of Christ lose its being in
the Sacrament which first is contrary to what * P. 131. he himself produceth from Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyrium And secondly were it so either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten or before or after viz. when the species of bread cease to remain If this last then is it sacrificed in the belly not on the Altar if when it is eaten 't is sacrificed in the mouth if before then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ Secondly if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale and ceaseth to be present under these species then by parity of reason God himself and his Angels may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation when he ceaseth to be where he was by the destruction of that wherein he was or the annihilation of the same Secondly If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice then neither do his Ministers but the first is so the sequel is evident because that which is delivered to us to be done was receiv'd from Christ for seeing it is deliver'd by the Evangelists and Saint Paul and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed that he received it of Christ and delivered no other thing If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice neither did he deliver it to us from Christ but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice Hist Conc. Trent for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper which went before Besides the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memorial of that which he offered on the Cross now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past and therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross but shewed what we were afterwards to do And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter and onely desire Mr. C. in case he reply to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church and wherein they differ from us and what are the requisites of a sacrifice that so we may know what we are to dispute against CHAP. XIIII Why Master C. omits the dispute touching the Books stiled Apocryphal Sect. 1. His way of reasoning weak Sect. 2. 3 4 5 6. The Primitive Fathers against the veneration of Images Sect. 7. All their pretences evacuated by the Fathers Sect. 8. The Honour given to Images is called worship by the Romanists themselves Sect. 9. To worship false Gods not necessary to Idolatry Sect. 10. Vulgar Papists give divine honour to Images Sect. 11. Papists pray to them Sect. 12. Master Cs. Argument for veneration of Images Answ Sect. 13. An Argument against it Sect. 14. His Story further requited Sect. 15. WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith onely this That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles the Invocation of Saints the worship of Images yea saith he many humane writings the Apocryphal Books and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images he takes advantage of these few words to transcribe the whole dispute over-looking that which more copiously is insisted on to wit the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly stile Apocryphal Doctor John Reynolds and Bishop Cousens which sure was onely upon this account because it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men even from Christ time to the Sessiâ—n of this worthy Conventicle we call upon him for answer to them in his next Well but we will be content to undergo this trouble also and that the rather because this peice is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it although it be fraught if I mistake not with inconsiderable Sophismes Sect. 2 First if then he catechizes us thus Should you see the Picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross Mr. C. p. could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he had done and suffered for you Answer Your own Gerson will tell us another story compertum est c. It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turn'd from holy cogitations and pure affections to carnal filthy wicked and impure yea execrably blasphemous but to let this passe Secondly I see a Crucifix almost every day in our Colledge windows and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect to the members of our Colledges whether they do not often look upon their windowes without such remembrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured as may make them spiritual or compell them into a fit of devotion yea the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies notwithstanding the loud cries of the Phanaticks that they are scandalous and dangerous is evidently this because she knows they have an historical use and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them Thirdly The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London Spanish Inquisition Irish Rebellions Popish Cruelties to the Waldenses and Albingenses yea the picture of Hell and the Devil are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remembrances and doing so may not I adresse my self with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants and pray heartily to be freed from the torments of Hell and tyranny of Satan Is not there as much reason for my devotion here as at the sight of an Image yea the very names of Peter and Paul Heaven and Hell are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts and therefore when I read in a play Heavens bless c. must I turn to my devotions I might be endlesse in such instances Again he tells us Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and Bradshaw should we have the Bible and Pantagruel they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts almost impossible to be avoided Answer First Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us Secondly When he walks along London streets and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due subjection and reverence And should he have Faux in his
an Argument from the Anathemaes annexed to the decrees of Councils which have been sufficiently refuted already and therefore I pass to the second part of my Proposition to shew that these Doctrines c. were not received by us in the time of Pope Gregory or esteemed matters of Faith For 1. Sect. 11 Wee have already evinced the contrary of the Popes supremacy and proved that in two Brittish Councils it was Synodically rejected and it is confirmed by Bishop Bramhal in his tract of Schism and his Reply to the Bishop of Calcedon and by Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography beyond all possibility of contradiction 2. The denial of the infallibility of the Church of Rome appears sufficiently from that stiff opposition which was made by the Brittish Picts and Irish against the Church of Rome touching the Celibration of Easter of which the Reverend Primate enlargeth in his religion of the ancient Irish Bishop Usher from p. 92. to p. 116. and their aversness from communion with those of the Roman party which he relateth p. 108 109 110. where among other things you have these verses made by one of the chief of their wise men Woe bee to him that doth not keep From Romish Wolves his sheep with staff and weapon strong 3. As for Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead let it bee observed that the Prayers and oblations mentioned are expresly noted to have been made for such whose souls were supposed at the same instant to rest in bliss See Bishop Usher p. 27 28. And again in his answer to the Jesuit p. 189. Bed l. 3. Hist Eccl. c. 2. hee gives these instances The Brothren of the Church of Hexham in the anniversary commemoration of the Oâ—its of Oswald King of Northumberland used to keep their vigils for the health of his soul and having spent the night in praising God with Psalms to offer for him in the morning Id. l. 4. cap. 23. the sacrifice of the sacred oblation as Beda writeth who tells us yet withall that he râ—igned with God in Heaven and by his prayers hee procured many miracles to bee wrought on Earth So likewise doth the same Bede report Bed l. 4. Hist cap. 23. that when it was discovered by two several visions that Hilda the Abbess of Streansheal or Whitby in York-shire was carried up by the Angels into Heaven they which heard thereof presently caused prayers to be said for her soul And Osbenn relateth the like of Dunstan that being at Bath and beholding in such another vision the soul of one that had been his Scholler at Glassenbury to be carried up into the Palace of Heaven hee straightway commended the same into the hands of the Divine piety Divinae pietatis and intreated the Lords of the place where he was to do so likewise 4. As touching the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the same was taught then which we teach now as you may see in the Homily of Elfrick approved by divers Bishops in their Synods and appointed to be read in the Church upon Easter-day before the receiving of the Communion This Book is subscribed by the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York Hom. in Dâ—e Sancti paschat p. 17. and thirteen other Bishops and the words of it are There is great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is hallowed Howsel The body truely that Christ suffered in was born of the fleâ—sh of Mary with blood with bones with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul-living And his Ghostly body which we call the Howsel is gathered of many corns without blood and bone without limb without soul And therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood 5. From hence it follows undeniably that they rejected your proper sacrifice of the Mass 6. And for communion in one kinde it was decreed in a Synod under Cuthbert in the year 747. Can. 23. That Layicks should be admonished to communicate more often lest they should want the food and drink of salvation Pagit Christianography part 3. Our Lord saying except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of Man you shall have no life in you From whence it is evident that they thought it necessary for Layicks to participate of both the Elements 7. That the Layicks were permitted yea commanded to read the Scriptures appears from what Bede reports of Bishop Aidan That all such as went in his company Lib. 3. c. 5. whither Clerks or Layicks were tyed to exercise themselves either in reading of the Scriptures or learning of Psalms That they had their service in their own tongue I have but little evidence neither have you more to the contrary Bishop Jewels reply pag. 190. But the best I yet find given of it is this that Theodore the seventh Arch-Bishop after Austin brought the Latin service into England That they rejected Image Worship is evident from this that our learned men opposed the second Nicene Council's determination concerning Images and when the acts of that Council were sent into Brittain by Charls King of France Alcuine wrote an Epistle against it substantially grounded upon the authority of the holy Scripture which Epistle with the said Book with our Kings and Princes hands was brought to the King of France See Pagit part 3. p. 41. ex Hoveden aliis That they rejected invocation of Saints Holinshed's Hist ad An. 1100. p. 27. is proved from the History of King William the second who protested openly that he believed that no Saint could profit any man in the Lords sight and therefore neither would hee nor any man See other evidences in Pagit pt 3. p. 83. that was wise as he affirmeth make intercession either to Peter or any other Saint for help Till the year 1100. it was not prohibited to the Clergy to marry saith Henry of Huntington At which time Anselm endeavoured to put the Popes Letters in execution but at last after the pressures tyranny and arts of an hundred and thirty years continuance for it began in 970 and was not finished till 1100. as Polydore Virgil computes it the Clergy were driven from their chast Wives and betook themselves to Concubines whom they changed or multiplyed without disturbance And this tyranny was exercised by Pope Calixtus the second Whereupon our Simon of Durham made these Verses not very good though very true O bone Calixte nuno omnis Clerus odit te Nam olim presbyteri solent Uxoribus uti Id praevertisti quondam cum papafuisti Which Prideaux in his History hath bettered by his translation The Clergy now the good Calixtus hate For heretofore each one might have his mate But since thou gotten hast the papal Throne They must keep Punks or learn to lig alone By which you may see that it was not Calixtus the First who lived Anno Dom. 221 that enjoyned Celibacy as our Authour