unmeasurable rage of ungodly persecutors yea so obscur'd that the members thereof shall not know one another This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Austins days is just like theirs who would persuade us that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholick and Apostolick Church because St. Paul 1600 years ago saith their Faith was commended throughout the World Rom. 1. ver 8. so was their Obedience also Rom. 16.19 But doth the Apostle say they should continue in that Faith more than Obedience unto the end of the World or that their Church alone should never corrupt the Faith or apostatize in any degree from it Tim. 4.1 He seemeth to say otherwise when he thus writeth to the Roman Church Rom. 8.18 19 20 21 22. Boast not against the branches thou bearest not the root but the root thee Because of unbelief they i. e. the Jewish Church were broken off and thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but fear for if God spar'd not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee And as to Christian Obedience De Pontif. in lib. 1. in Praefat. Genebrard Chronol lib. 4. seculo 10. Baronius in Ann. 912. num 8. in ann 985. num 1. it 's granted by Bellarmin Genebrard and others that some Popes have been so scandalously wicked that they were rather Apostatical than Apostolical and scarcely deserved to have their names register'd in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as professed the Protestant Religion before the Reformation As for the second Question wherein satisfaction is desir'd to answer Roman Catholicks when they demand the names of some Professors of the Protestant Religion before the Reformation it being to them strange that if Protestancy be from the Apostles and hath been in all Ages they can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since To this I reply first That altho the Apostles were not call'd by the name of Protestants as neither were they by the name of Catholicks or Papists yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learn'd the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckon'd up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation That there are seven Sacraments properly so call'd Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Angels Worshiping Images and Reliques Indulgences the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass Communion in one kind c. All which are either not mention'd in the Apostles Writings or contradicted and condemn'd by them Secondly I answer That the Ancient Fathers and Councils for 4 or 500 years at least I might say more after Christ were not in the points above-mention'd of Pope Pius his Faith but either say nothing of them or testifie against them or at least speak doubtfully of them whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant not Popish Religion This I shall shew from their Writings Yea thirdly That some of the New Articles of Faith before named cannot be prov'd to be any part of the ancient Catholick belief by the Authority of any eminent Writers for above 1000 years after Christ particularly in the points of seven Sacraments Purgatory Indulgences Communion in one kind and some others Lastly That there is scarcely any point especially of them before rehears'd condemn'd by us in the present Roman Church but we are able to produce multitudes of eminent Writers and some of their own Communion who complain of them or protest against them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther To perform my promise I shall now prove 1. Assertion First That the Articles of the present Roman-Catholick Faith recited by Pope Pius and added by him to the Nicene Creed are either not mention'd at all in the Apostles Writings or refuted and condemn'd by them Seven Sacraments not taught by the Apostles First For their seven Sacraments The Apostles no where teach us to acknowledge seven Sacraments or that Matrimony Orders Extream Unction Confirmation Confession are such and as Bellarmin affirms Nec plura nec pauciora De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost Ambros Austin c. only such Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own flowing as the antient Fathers speak out of Christ's side whence came forth Water and Bloud which are answerable to the two only Jewish Sacraments Circumcision and the Passover as we read 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. More we find not It 's true St. Paul discoursing of the Conjugal Union betwixt Christ and his Church termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 5.32 a great Mystery The vulgar Latine translation renders it ambiguously and improperly magnum Sacramentum a great Sacrament Hence the Romish Church will needs have Matrimonv instituted by God in Paradise to be a proper Christian Sacrament but St. Paul declareth he meant no such matter In locum for as Cardinal Cajetan observes he immediately addeth But I speak of Christ and the Church St James also mentions Anointing the sick with Oil James 5.14 but that was in order to the miraculous gift of healing the Body as we may gather from Mar. So Cajetan expoundeth that place 6.13 It had no spiritual effect on the Soul as all Sacraments properly so call'd have and must have as is granted The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God not Oil ver 15. Nor Transubst Secondly The Apostles did not teach Transubstantiation Durand Biel Scotus Cameracensis Cajetan grant it canbe not evidently proved from the Scripture See below Matth. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Card. Contarenus de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Canus loc Theol. l. 3. c 3. Fisher cont Luther c. 10. say the same 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Verse 29. The Church is called Christs Body is it therefore his Natural Body in a literal sense 1 Cor. 10. John 15.1 Did Christ eat his own Body when the Sacrament was administred and taken by him So Chrysostom Hom 40 in Jean 3. or that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are annihilated or turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood Yea St. Paul expresly declares the contrary for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration The Bread that we break but Christ first blessed and afterwards brake it is it not the communion of the Body of Christ The Cup of Blessing we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ So that Bread and the Cup i. e. by a Figure or Metonymy as all must grant the Wine in the Cup remain in the Communion as means whereby we obtain the communion of Christ's Body and
Blood. In the next Chapter in 3 Verses together he calleth it Bread. May not we call it so or was it not what St. Paul call'd it But he calleth it the Lord's Body True. Yet not in a literal but Sacramental sense even as the Cup which to be sure is not transubstantiated is term'd his Blood or the New Testament and Covenant in his Blood as the Lamb was call'd the Passover Circumcision the Covenant Baptism the Laver of Regeneration in which nevertheless Romanists do not believe any Transubstantiation This Bread we doubt not is in deed Christ Body as that Rock in the Wilderness was Christ as Christ was the true Vine or true living Bread which no sober man will interpret in a literal proper and substantial but in a Sacramental symbolical or typical sense Nor Purgatory Thirdly According to the doctrine of the holy Scripture there neither is nor can be Purgatory Polydore Virgil de Invent l. 1. c. 1. Biel in Can. Missae lect 57. Alphonsus de Castro lib. 8. tit Indulgent Valentia de Indulg grant that Purgatory is not to be found in Scripture nor Indulgences 1 Thess 4.14 This I prove from Rev. 14.13 Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord for they rest from their labours How do men who die in a state of grace and so in Christ the Lord rest from their labours if as soon as they die they are tormented or as the Roman phrase is labour none know how long in the fire of Purgatory It 's confess'd by our Adversaries that all impenitent and wicked men who being void of grace die not in the Lord go to Hell not Purgatory How do righteous and good men enter into peace and rest according to Isa 57.20 if after death they enter into fiery torments St. Paul saith it generally of all Believers in Christ not Martyrs only as some would evade that they sleep in Jesus and would not have us to sorrow excessively for them How do they as it were sleep in Christ's bosom Why should we not mourn exceedingly for them if they probably lie in flames of fiâ—e under unspeakable torments not much inferiour to them of Hell as is granted excepting only the duration or continuance Add John 52.4 He that believeth shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death to life But he that cometh unto Purgatory cometh into condemnation Possibly it will be objected that Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3.12 Patres aliqui per ignem non intelligunt ignem Purgatorii sed Divini Judicii quomodo loquitur Paulus 1 Cor. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg cap. 1. Augustin de fide operibus c. 15. Ad Dulcitium qu. 1. Bellarmin de Purgator lib. 1. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Chrysostom expounds it Tom. 5. Hom. 28. p. 467. Ad Dulcitium qu. 1. plainly delivereth the doctrine of Purgatory The fire shall try every mans work he shall be saved yet so as by fire But how can it be a plain place for Purgatory when Origen and Augustine yea Bellarmine himself confess it 's a most obscure one and therefore very unfit to ground an Article of Faith upon St. Paul's whole discourse in that Chapter is Metaphorical and allusive as those words especially evidence v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were by fire or as by fire i. e. with much danger and difficulty like one who runs through the fire to save his life That the place proveth not the Roman doctrine of Purgatory is manifest by this argument urg'd by * Saint Augustine The fire St. Paul mentioneth shall try every man's work The fire of Purgatory as they themselves grant tryeth not every mans work Ignis probationis non purgationis Aug. de fide operibus c. 15. Non est plenè remissa culpa quamdiu peccator est reus solvendae poenae Ceanus loc Theolog. lib. 12. pag. 435. Exemplo reatu eximitur poena Tert. de Baptismo cap 5. So Theodoret Theophylact and Anselm approved by Bellarmin lib. 1. de Purgator c. 5. pag. 586. Malachi 3. c. v. 3. for it tryeth only such mens works as die under the guilt of venial sins or such mortal ones as are forgiven but are not fully satisfied for and therefore which is a contradiction are still to be punish'd Therefore St. Paul's fire cannot be the fire of Purgatory into which the best and worst sort of men come not at all Again It 's one thing to try mens works whether they be good or bad and another to punish and by punishing to purge away the guilt of such as are bad In all probability St. Paul by the fire in that Text figuratively expressed the severe judgment of Christ at the last day The day shall declare it Then indeed our Saviour like a Goldsmith or Refiner shall exactly try every mans work c. then such as retain the foundation i. e. true faith in Christ and build upon it wood hay stubble i. e. erroneous opinions and fond imaginations of which this Purgatory doctrine is one instance shall be saved yet so as by fire i. e. with much danger undergoing a strict scrutiny Nor Prayers to Saints or Angels Psalm 50. De Sanct. Beat. l 1. c. 19. Becanus in Euchirid c. 7. Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disput 2. art 7. Vide Sixtum Senens Biblioth lib. 6. Annotat 345. Enchiridion in 1 Tim. 2. disput 7. art 22. qu. 1. art 10. Col. 2.18 Rom. 10.14 Fourthly The Scripture no where commands adviseth or encourageth us to pray to Saints or Angels but to God only Call upon me in the time of trouble c. When ye pray say Our Father c. In the Old Testament Bellarmine grants there is no mention of Invocation of Saints because the Patriarchs Prophets and Saints were in Limbo not admitted to see God of which opinion as to Christians were many of the ancient Fathers altho the Papists now reject it as an Error In the New at least if we except that most abstruse Book the Revelation Eccius Salmeron Bannes and others confess that it hath no footsteps Yea Saint Paul expresly condemns worshiping Angels out of a voluntary humility after the vain Philosophy of the Platonists who yet did not worship them as Gods any more than Papists but only as Messengers or Mediators betwixt God and men Elsewhere he asketh the Roman Church which she should remember How shall they call on him i. e. lawfully on whom they have not believed But we believe in God only not in any Saint or Angel. How shall we then call on them I might add that the Church of Rome hath no certainty even of humane Faith that the Saints in Heaven know our wants or hear our Prayers for they know not on what ground to settle this belief Some flying to extraordinary Revelations some to the brittle and voluntary Glass of the Trinity some to the reports of Angels intruding into the things they have not seen nor
from that Bread as they are by Romanists from that Cup unless they have a special Licence from the Church But concerning the judgment and practice of Primitive times we shall say more by and by I might add more instances but these may suffice to make good my first Assertion that the present Roman Faith or Religion is not grounded on the holy Scriptures Assert 2 The sence of Antiquity concerning the Points in Dispute The second thing I am oblig'd to shew is That the Points above-mention'd are no parts of the true antient Catholick Faith or were so esteem'd by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ but rather condemn'd and rejected by them Art. 1 Concerning the seven Sacraments I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments The antient Fathers when they treat of the Sacraments of the Church in the strict and proper sense of the word for it is equivocal mention two onely V. Augustin de Symbolo Ambros de Sacram. Card. Richelieu hence grants there are properly but two Examen Pacific Epist 118. ad Januar. V. Ambros de Sacram. Incarnation V. Cyprian de ablution pedùm Aug. de bono Conjug 1.18 lib. 1. cont Faust c. 14. Bernard de coena Domini viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These Justin Martyr in the end of his 2d Apology where he describeth the publick service of the Church on the Lord's days takes notice of and none of the other five Chrysostom Cyril and Theophylact on John 19. As also Ambrose Austin and Damascen write that the Water and Bloud that came out of our Saviours side signify'd the Sacraments of the Church viz. the Water Baptism and the Bloud the Eucharist Irenaeus no where mentions any more Sacraments than these two Saint Austin saith Christ hath left us a very few Sacraments numero paucissima Baptism and the Eucharist 'T is true The Fathers sometimes term Confirmation Orders c. Sacraments but then they use the word in a more large sense as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity Incarnation c. Sacraments i. e. Mysteries Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet the sign of the Cross yea Polygamy are sometimes honour'd by Cyprian Augustin Bernard with the name of Sacraments i. e. sacred or mystical Signs In which sense there may be not onely seven but seventeen Sacraments But to avoid falling into a Logomachia or strife about words it is agreed as Bellarmin himself grants that the essential note of a proper Sacrament is to communicate justifying Grace De Sacram l. 1. c. 11. Costerus Enchir p. 340. Peter Lombard and Durandus say Matrimony confers not Grace See Cassandr Art 14. Do holy Orders communicate justifying Grace or Matrimony either If the latter I wonder why they should prohibit it the Clergy If the former surely there would not be found sons of Eli or Belial in their Church who know not the Lord. But enough of this at present Art. 2 Concerning Transubstant Secondly The Ancient Fathers did not believe or teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Alphonsus de Castro de Haeres lib. 8. saith the same It was first taught by Paschasius anno 818. See Bellarmin de Script i.e. that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine cease to be and are turn'd into the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he now hath being at the right hand of God. * Ad Philadelphin Ignatius saith that in the holy Eucharist one and the same Bread is administred to all Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration and saith our flesh and bloud are nourished by them In Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 12. Bellar. min lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. ad finem V. Bonavent l. 4. Sent. Dist 12. art 3. qu. 1. I adjoin But mere Accidents cannot nourish our bodies Therefore the true substance of Bread and Wine still remain Our Adversaries dare not affirm that our bodies are nourish'd by some substance He addeth a little after that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be receiv'd at their own Houses Irenaeus declareth that the Eucharist consists of two things one terrestrial viz. the Elements of Bread and Wine the other Celestial viz. Christ's Body and Bloud Iren. Lib. 4. adv Haer. c. 34. Ex duabus rebus constat terrena caelesti Clemens Alex. Paed. l. 1. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man in a symbolical or figurative sense and disputing against the Encratites who condemn'd all use of Wine he confutes them from the Example of our Saviour who drank in the holy Eucharist of the fruit of the Vine An evident proof that Clemens did not believe any transubstantiation of the substance of the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ Tertullian disputing against Marcion who held that Christ had not a real but phantastick body onely as Romanists speak of the Sacramental Elements which seem only to be what in truth they are not draws an argument from the Eucharist saying A figure of a Body argues a true Body in another place Christ represented by Bread his Body But Christ taking Bread made it his Body In Marcion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane Ad Marcion lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum hoc est figura corporis mei V. lib. 3. in Marcion c. 19. corporis sui figuram pani dedisse saying This is my Body i.e. the figure of my Body So Tertullian understood it Marcion might easily have retorted this Argument if the substance of Bread remained not in the Sacrament by saying As the Bread in the Sacrament seems to be Bread but is not truly and really so in like manner Christ's body appear'd to to be a true humane Body but was not really what it seem'd Origen in his third Dialogue against Marcion uses the same argument V. Hom. 9. Si secundum literam sequaris occidit haec litera Hom. 7. In cap. 17. Matth. Juxta id quod habet materiale Haec de Typico Symbolicoque corpore and in his seventh Homily on Levit. he saith In the Gospel there is the Letter which killeth him who understandeth not spiritually If according to the letter you take those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Occidet haec litera this letter or literal sense will kill ye And in another place he is not affraid to affirm that the consecrated Elements according to what is material in them go into the belly and so into the draught which it were horrid blasphemy to affirm of Christs natural Body But he ascribes it to his sacramental typical or symbolical Body as he there calls it Cyprian disputing against
the Mass therefore Christ is not properly sacrific'd Mark what an absurdity in the Apostles judgment would follow thereupon If Christ should be offer'd by himself or others often more than once ver 26. then must he have often suffered But Christ hath suffer'd once and cannot suffer again Therefore he is not offer'd again by himself or by any Priest in the Mass as a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead which our Adversaries affirm Yea if Christ were truly and properly sacrific'd in the Mass he must necessarily suffer death a thousand times over for sacrificing any living thing and such is Christ to God Ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut plane destruatur ipsa etiam substantia consumatur Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. implieth killing and taking away the life of what is sacrificed as the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth But I hope Romanists will not say they kill Christ in the Mass if they deny it then Christ is not there properly sacrific'd if they should attempt it the thing is impossible for Christ being now impassible and in a glorify'd State can die no more as we read Rom. 6.9 When then they distingush of sacrificing Christ in a bloudy and unbloudy manner and say they offer up and sacrifice him incruentè without bloudshed they yield the cause for all proper sacrificing implieth destruction as Bellarmine grants De Missa lib. 10. cap. ul or if it be a living thing the shedding the bloud is killing of what is sacrificed for without shedding of bloud there is no remission If by their sacrificing Christ in the Mass they meant only a representation to God or men of Christ's bloudy sacrifice of the Cross or a commemoration of his death termed 1 Cor. 11.26 a shewing and setting it forth visibly and sacramentally by eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup we should not oppose them but Representation or Commemoration of Christ's death is one thing and proper Sacrificing his Body and Bloud really corporally and carnally as it was on the Cross is quite another As for Bellarmin's Reply that Christ is sacrific'd not under the likeness of a living thing but of Bread which hath no life and therefore there is no necessity he should be slain or kill'd in the Mass it signifies nothing For I ask Is the likeness of Bread onely offer'd up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice or Christ himself his Body and Bloud Bellarmine placeth the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Priests manducation or eating and consumption not of the substance of Christ's Body but the Accidents or Appearance of Bread only de missa l. 1. c. â—â—â— But a true Sacrifice requireth a consumption of its substance as is above by him granted Ergo. who is a living Person yea liveth for ever If Bread onely 't is blasphemous to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for sin If Christ himself who is a living Person be truly and properly sacrific'd he must be truly and properly slain As for their usual pretence that Masses apply to us the Vertue and Merits of Christ's Passion I answer That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is abundantly sufficient thereunto and peculiarly instituted to that very purpose for the bread that we break is it not the Communion or communication of the Body of Christ and the Cup of blessing that we bless the Communion of the Bloud of Christ And what is the Communion or communication of Christ's Body and Bloud broken and shed for the remission of our sins but the communication or application of the Merits of both unto us in order thereunto So that the reiteration of Christs sacrifice of himself on the Cross is altogether unnecessary Nor Communion in one kind only As to the ninth Article of Pope Pius his Creed That is is not necessary to receive both Bread and Cup in the Holy Sacrament of Christ's Body and Bloud it is so plainly and almost palpably contrary to the institution example and command of Christ himself as also the Apostolical tradition of St. Paul that 't is a wonder how any Christians dare own any such Doctrine Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me so our Lord at the first institution of it Saint Paul repeats this Institution to the Corinthians commending it to the observation of the whole Church Laity as well as Clergy joineth eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup together four several times in four Verses 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28 29. Layeth down an express Apostolical Canon Let a man examine himself c. What man An Apostle only or a consecrating Priest No. But any ordinary Christian capable of this Sacrament Well What is then to be done Let him eat of that bread as it is his necessary and indispensable duty to do but is that all No. For he addeth And let him whether Layman or Clerick whether Consecrator or not also drink of that Cup. For as often as ye Christians in general eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew forth as is your duty to do and which otherwise you do not the Lords death till he come Doth it not look like Antichristianism for Christ's Vicar to presume to alter Panis vinum ad essentiam sacramenti pertinent Bellarmin de Euchar lib. 40. cap. 60. v. Concil Trident. Panis vinum non tam essentiales quam integrales hujus sacramenti partes videntur Bellarmin de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 22. Sine vino igitur sacramentum non integrè administratur mutilate or in any substantial part as the Cup in the Eucharist is acknowledg'd to be to abrogate his Lords Instituion and Command How dare any Christian divide asunder what Christ and Saint Paul have join'd together The receiving the Cup is as necessary to any Christian Clerick or Laick as the sacred Bread. By the same reason the Church of Rome forbids the Laity one they may both for both are equally commanded both are as necessary as either The Romish pretended Power to dispense with the Laws of God and to alter the institutions of Christ is alone a sufficient argument to discover how little they regard the Apostolical Doctrine or Primitive practice of the Church from which as we see they have manifestly departed In a word If the Pope and his Councils have power to alter and dispense with yea countermand Christ's express Laws and Institutions Sir Edward Sandys Europae Speculum but it is made as a learned Traveller observes a mere piece of humane Policy to be fram'd alter'd and modell'd at the wills and pleasures of men which directly tends to promote Atheism for which crime Italians are notorious Thus I hope I have made it evident to any unprejudic'd Person that the 9 Articles above-mention'd which Pope Pius not 200 years ago added to the old Nicene Creed as parts of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith without which no
the Aquarii who would not use Wine but Water onely in the holy Eucharist Epist 63. Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur argueth in this manner Where there is no Wine in the Cup the bloud of Christ cannot be express'd for we see the bloud to be shown ostendi in the Wine And in his Comment upon the Lords Prayer he applies those words Give us this day our daily bread to the sacramental bread The same Cyprian declares in his Sermon of the Lords Supper what manner of body is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist when he saith Veracissimum sanctissimum creat corpus suum sanctificat De coena Dom. Who continually even to this present day doth create sanctifie and bless his Body distributing the same to godly Receivers Now it 's undeniable that Christ's very own proper body is not continually created sanctified or blessed The words of Athanasius are very remarkable Our Lord distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh Ad Serapion De Spir. S. In cap. 6. Joann V. Câ—prian de coena Dom. August de verbâ—s Apost Serm. 2. Tom. 10. spiritualiter intelligenda sunt nisi manducaveritis carnem c. Aug. Tract 27. in Joan. ubi plura that we might learn that the words he spake John 6. were not carnal but spiritual For to how many men was his body enough to eat that it should become the food of the whole World But therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven that he might draw us off from a corporal sense and thenceforward should understand his Flesh he spake of as heavenly and spiritual Food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words I speak to you are spirit and life as if he had said my Body which is shown and given for the World is given for food that it may be spiritually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicated to every one Cyril of Hierusalem saith under the Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bread Mystagog lib. 4. where he granteth that in John 6 c. Except ye eat is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually Christs Body is given thee and under the Type of Wine his Bloud Nazianzen termeth the Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes of Christs Body and Bloud In like manner Dionysius Areopag and Basil in his Liturgy But I must not forget Gregory Nyssen As saith he In Laudem Gorgoniae Orat. in Baptis the Altar is by Nature a common Stone but being consecrated to God's service is made an Holy Table and as the Eucharistical Bread is at first common Bread but when the Mystery i.e. Mystical Prayer of consecration hath sanctify'd it is called and is the Body of Christ As the Priest to day a common man by benediction is made a Teacher of Piety and nothing changed in body hath his soul transform'd by invisible Grace so the Water in Baptism when it 's nothing else but water by the heavenly blessing of Grace reneweth a man. Where it 's evident Gregory Nyssen alloweth no other Transubstantiation in the Eucharist than in Baptism the Ordination of a Priest or the Consecration of an Altar Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius which is to be seen in the Florentine Library * Which is published since this Author wrote See the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Ch. of E. in answer to the Bishop of Meaux in Append. It is quoted by Damascen contra Acephalos Etiamsi Natura panis permansit Hom. 11. in Math. V. Athanas ad Serap de SS Comment in 1 Cor. 10. V. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. Sicut mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ità etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis De Sacramentis lib 4. cap. 5. Haec oblatio est figura corporis sanguinis Domini Ibid. Fide tangitur Christus non corpore as Peter Martyr a Florentine witnesseth as also in the University-Library at Oxford writeth after this manner Before the bread be sanctify'd we call it Bread but the divine Grace sanctifying it we call it the Lords Body altho the nature of bread remain These words directly overthrow Transubstantiation In another place the same Father discourses after this manner If it be so dangerous to apply to private uses these hallowed Vessels in the which is not the very true body of Christ but onely the Mystery of his Body is contain'd c. much more our bodies to sin Adding That we ought to climb up into Heaven when we receive the Communion if we would have the fruition of Christ's Body yea rather above the Heavens for saith he in another place Wheresoever the carcass is there will the Eagles be gather'd together The Lord is the Carcass because of his death and this is a Table for mounting Eagles not for pratling Jays I shall now add the words of St. Ambrose who discoursing of our Saviour's celebrating the holy Sacrament with his Disciples breaking bread and giving it to them saying Take eat this is my body c. adds As ye have received the similitude of my death so drink also the similitude of my precious bloud This oblation is the figure of the Body and Bloud of the Lord. In another place Christ is touch'd by Faith not bodily Let us now hear Theodoret's testimony Our Saviour saith he In Lucam lib. 6. cap. 8. So Saint Jerom in Psal 50. Dei tui corpus sanguinem mente continge cordis manu suscipe in the institution of the Eucharist chang'd the names not natures of things and applied that to his body which belonged to the symbol or sign of it and to the sign what appertain'd to his body which he did that such as partake of the divine Mysteries should not be attent on the nature of those things they see but by the change of names should believe that mutation which is made by Grace For he that is Christ that called what is by nature a Body Wheat or Bread the same honoured the signs or symbols with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing their Nature Dial. 1.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but adding Grace to Nature And when the Eutychian Heretick would hence draw an argument that as the signs of Christs Body and Bloud are one thing before Consecration another after it so our Lord's body after it's Union to his divine Person ceased to be in substance what it appeared and was chang'd into the divine Nature of the Godhead Theodoret replieth upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are taken in your own Net for the Mystical signs after Consecration recede not from their former nature but remain in their former substance form and appearance Mark. He saith not onely in their former form and appearance but in their substance also This is an irrefragable testimony against the Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation I will add the words of Gelasius who was as some say Bishop of Rome but however one that liv'd towards the latter end of the fifth Century
A Brief EXAMINATION Of the present Roman Catholick Faith Contained in Pope PIUS HIS New Creed BY The Scriptures Antient Fathers and their own Modern Writers in Answer to a Letter desiring satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion in all Ages especially before Luther's time Imprimatur Octob. 26. 1688. Guil. Needham London Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 1689. Pope Pius his CREED OR THE Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith. V. Bullam Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei sub finem Concilii Tridentini THAT the Profession of one and the same Faith may be uniformly exhibited to all and its certain form may be known to all we have caused it to be published strictly commanding that the Profession of Faith be made after this form and no other I N. do with firm Faith believe and profess all and singular things contained in the Creeds to wit Nicene c. which the Roman Church useth namely I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible c. The Apostolick and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observances and Constitutions of that Church I firmly admit and embrace I do also confess that there be truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Extreme Vnction Orders Marriage c. And that they confer Grace All things which concerning Original Sin and Justification were defined in the 4th Council of Trent I embrace and receive Also I confess that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and that in the Holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and bloud of our Lord and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into his Body and of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calleth Transubstantiation I confess also that under one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and the Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful And likewise that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed to and that their Reliques are to be worshipped And most firmly I avouch that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them due honour and veneration is to be given Also that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and I affirm the use thereof to be most wholesome to Christs people That the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches I acknowledge and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ And all other things likewise do I undoubtingly receive and confess which are delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils and especially the Holy Council of Trent And withal I condemn and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto and that I will be careful this true Catholick Faith out of the which no man can be saved which at this time I willingly profess be constantly with Gods help retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp and by those that are under me holden taught and preached to the uttermost of my power I the said N. promise vow and swear So God me help and his Holy Gospels A Brief EXAMINATION OF THE Present Roman Catholick Faith c. SIR I Received your Letter wherein you desire I would give you satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Religion and Church in the Ages before Luther In order thereunto I send you these Lines requesting you as you love and value the safety of your own Soul laying aside the blind belief of the Roman Infallibility which renders all Discoursing or Writing vain and unprofitable to read them seriously and impartially You begin thus I find your Divines asserting that the Church hath been hidden and invisible How Protestant Writers are to be understood when they argue against the perpetual Visibility of the Church To which I answer That the Church hath been for some time hidden i. e. obscured so that it was not conspicuous or easily discernable by all Christians much less Heathens is a truth so manifest that our Adversaries themselves grant it as I shall shew afterward That the Catholick Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresie or Persecution or that in any Age all outward profession of the Truth though sometime more secret and private was wholly hidden and utterly invisible in the eyes of all men we affirm not Cardinal Bellarmine himself notes Multi ex nostris tempus terunt dum probant Ecclesiam non posse absolutè desicere nam Fleretici id concedunt De Eccles Militan lib. 3. cap. 13. that many of his Church have taken much needless pains in proving against us the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church which as he confesses we never denied We only say that any particular Church even that of Rome may utterly fail But you add I find your Divines saying otherwise for Bishop Juel Apol. p. 7. writeth That Luther's preaching was the very first appearing of the Gospel And pag. 8. That Forty years and upward i. e. at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius the truth was unknown and unheard of and that they came first to the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel Let Bishop Juel answer for himself Defence of the Apol. pag. 82. Ye say we confess our Church began only about Forty years since No Mr. Harding we confess it not and you your self well know we confess it not Our Doctrine is the Old and yours is the New. We say our Doctrine and the order of our Churches is older than yours by Five hundred years And he not only saith it but unanswerably proves it by the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers Hence that Book is appointed to be had in all our Churches so great a respect have we for Primitive Antiquity and so far are we from imagining the Gospel or the Truth we profess to be no older than Luther or Zuinglius But Mr. White in his Defence of the Way to the Church Pag. 355 356. saith Popery was such a Leprosie spreading so universally over the Church that there was no visible Company of People appearing to the World viz. in the Ages next before Luther free from it True he saith so but he explains his meaning in the same place for he acknowledgeth the Churches of Greece Aethiopia Armenia to have been and still to be true visible Christian Churches yea that the Church of Rome is a part of the Visible Church of God wherein our Ancestors possessed the true Faith as to the Fundamental Articles necessary
His words are plain in his Book against Eutyches and Nestorius Lib. de duabus Christi Naturis The Sacraments we receive of Christs body and bloud are divine things by which we are made partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not And indeed the Image of the body and bloud of Christ in the sacramental participation is celebrated Tamen non definit esse substantia vel Natura panis vini Imago similitudo c. In ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus Permanent tamen in sua proprietate We must therefore think that of Christ our Lord which we profess celebrate and take in his Image i.e. the Sacramental signs of his Body and Bloud that as these by the operation of the Holy Ghost pass into a divine substance and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature so that great mystery of the Incarnation whose Vertue they represent shew one whole true Christ consisting of two Natures properly remaining The same is affirmed by the Patriarch Ephraim in Photii Bibliotheca Cod. 229. I purposely conclude with Saint Augustin Tract 25. in Joan. Basil in Psal 33. saith the same Lib. 3. de Doctrin Christ cap 16. Flagitium jubere videtur Nolite parare fauces sed Cor. Nos non tangimus Christum sed credimus Augustin Serm. 33. in Lucam Devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu side digerendus Tertul. de Resur who hath with the consent of the more Ancient Fathers deliver'd several things which utterly overthrow the present Roman Article of Faith Transubstantiation As first That Christ's Body or Flesh is not to be eaten in a proper carnal oral but figurative and spiritual sense not by the mouth of the body but by Faith the mouth of the Soul. For having laid it down as a general Rule that whensoever the Scripture seems to command any thing wicked or flagitious we must understand it as a figurative and improper form of speech he instanceth in those words Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. Figura est ergo It is therefore saith he a figure requiring us to communicate in Christ's Passion sweetly and profitably remembring that his flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us The same is affirm'd by Cyprian de coena Domini As often as we do this in remembrance of him we whet not our teeth to bite but with a sincere Faith we break the holy Bread. Which is saith he Cibus non dentis aut ventris sed mentis meat not of the mouth or teeth but mind In like manner Cyril Catec Mystag 4. Ambrose de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 4. Idem Serm. 58. in Lucae cap. 10. v. 24. Besides others of the Fathers I shall not now mention Secondly He expresly affirmeth that wicked men in the Sacrament do not eat Christ's body or drink his bloud Tract 26. in Joan. Cyprian de coena saith the same Compare Aug. De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Of the Lord's Table saith he some receive to life others to damnation but the thing whereof it is a Sacrament every man receives to life none to death To eat that meat and to drink that drink our Saviour explaineth when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me whence he that dwelleth not in Christ proculdubio questionless neither eats nor drinks spiritually altho he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and bloud but rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation because being unclean he presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ Whosoever eateth me shall live by me In another place Non dicitur qui manducat dignè sed qui manducat me Cajetan in locum He that is at discord with Christ or an enemy to Christ neither eateth his body nor drinketh his bloud altho he daily receive indifferently as if there were no difference betwixt that bread and common bread the Sacrament of so great a thing to the punishment of his own presumption Which is no more than what Origen had written long before him on Matth. 15. where he saith Sentent 339. Qui discordat à Christo non corpus ejus manducat c. V. Ambrose de tis qui myster initiantur cap. 9. If it were possible for any wicked man persevering such to eat the Word made flesh seeing he is the living bread it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this bread shall live for ever St. Hierom in Jerem. lib. 4. cap. 22. and also cap. 66. in Esai affirms the same saying That Hereticks do not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament because then they should have everlasting life Thirdly Saint Augustin expresly affirmeth In signis diversis cadem fides Aug. Tract 45. in Joan. ubi plura legas Lib. 20. cont Faustum c. 21. that our Fathers the Patriarchs and Prophets under the Law did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink with us under the Gospel i.e. Christ for they drank of that Rock which follow'd them and that Rock St. Paul says was Christ Tract 26. on John. Contr. Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. Whence it undeniably follows that the eating of Christ's flesh in an oral carnal manner is not necessary to salvation which before Christ's Incarnation was impossible as it is now unprofitable Fourthly Saint Augustin Epist ad Dardanum writeth Epist 57. Tolie à Corporibus locorum spatia nusquam erunt Christus ubique per id quod Deus est in coeâ—o autem per id quod homo est c. that Christ's body being a true humane body necessarily taketh up a space answerable to its quantity and saith That to deny a body to take up space is to deny it to be a true body And adds That the body of Christ is not every-where but in a certain determinate place Whereby he utterly overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the possibility of eating and chewing or which is all one the swallowing down whole Christ's body that it should be in a thousand places at once and should be contain'd whole under the least piece of Wafer Which is in effect to revive the Heresie of Marcion and the Manichees who denyed the verity of Christ's Body turning it into a Phantasm Non hee corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum vobis commendavi c. Compare Cyprian de unctione Chrismatis Christus tradidit Discipulis figuram corporis sui Augustin in Psalm 3. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum commendavi vobis quod spiritualiter intellectum vivificabitvos Epist 23. Sprite or Spirit But I cannot omit his words upon the 98th Psalm where he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to his Apostles Ye shall not eat this body ye see nor drink that bloud that my Crucifiers shall
shed I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation Our Adversaries answer That they did eat the very same body which they did see but not codem modo not in a mortal visible but in an invisible immortal and impassible manner Which Answer signifies nothing For altho not in the same manner yet they grant the very same body was really and substantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table and that not in a spiritual and Sacramental but in a corporal carnal and substantial sense which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith Ye shall not eat the body ye see c. Again I would gladly be resolv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal If as mortal and passible then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner as it was there present and seen by them if as immortal how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension I will onely add that I be not too tedious his words in his Epistle to Boniface If Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments Ex hac similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Compare Quaest in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scriptum est septem spicae septem anni sunt Non enim dixit septem annos significant they would be no Sacraments From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent As then secundùm quendam modum after some manner the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident that the present Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not but refuted and condemn'd it I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers that Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body flesh and bloud of Christ yea as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare That they are changed De coena Domini De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies yet in Nature that they remain what they were and are changed into another thing To all which in brief I answer That we question not the truth of him that said This is my Body We unfeignedly grant it is so secundum quendam modum as Augustin above Epist 23. in a true and sacramental tho not literal and proper sense We undoubtedly believe on Saint Paul's infallible Authority that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ he saith not as Saint Augustin somewhere observes it signify'd Christ but it was Christ yet no man is so simple as to understand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense Furthermore Petra erat Christus Non dixit Petra significat Christum c. Quaestiones in Levitic l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew yet in Nature taking the word Nature in a general sense as when we say a man becoming more kind and civil he is grown better natur'd In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sacrament wherein we have Communion with or real tho spitual communication of the body and bloud of Christ In like manner we subscribe to that of Ambrose That they remain what they are i.e. as to substance which directly overthrows Transubstantiation and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality When in and by the Resurrection a natural mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one we all grant the nature of it is changed yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil Ephes That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us But this is impertinently alledg'd for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants and to them onely who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh In a word As the Fathers say Christ's Body is in us V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin Tract 1. in Epist Joann Sicut Christus in nobis hic ita nos ibi in illo sumus so that our bodies are in him not onely by Faith and Charity but in very deed And if it be so that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's substance why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his Lastly They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Populum Antiochen Hom. 45. in Joann Hom. 24. in 1. Epist ad Corinth Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament we see touch and eat Christ's body that our tongues are made red with his bloud even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament viz. his body to be broken with our teeth Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Think it not In like manner Cyril of Jerus Mystag But such Hyperbolical expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken as our Adversaries well know in a strict literal and dogmatical sense No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold that Christ's body is corporally pressed pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there incruentè in an unbloudy manner insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation tho drawn up by the Pope viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth must be cautiously understood not of Christ's Body but of the outward Species or Elements onely Autor Glossae in Decret lest we fall into a worse Errour than that he retracted Secondly I answer That the Fathers use the like Rhetocal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism
Cap 19. Passio Domini in qua tingimur Mystag 4. In Sacramentis non quid sint sed quid ostendant attenditur quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Aug. cont Max. l. 3. c. 22. Ne quis attendat in eis quod sunt c. de Doctr. Christ c. 7. Hom. 16. in Sacram. Euchar. Tom. 6. wherein neither we nor our Adversaries admit of any Transubstantiation Thus Tertullian in his Book of Baptism saith that thereby we are dyed in the passion or bloud of our Lord. In like manner Cyril of Hierusalem after he had instructed Christians not to look upon the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament as mere Bread and Wine whatever sense suggesteth but as the body and bloud of Christ affirmeth the same of the Water in Baptism that it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere or bare Water and the same he saith of the Oil in Chrism though neither of them are substantially chang'd into the very bloud of Christ Many more instances might be added but these may suffice I will onely take notice of a Similitude used by St. Chrysostom in which Bellarmin triumphs 'T is this As saith he Wax set on fire loseth its substance being turn'd into fire so by consecration the substance of the bread is chang'd into the flesh of Christ To which and the like expressions quoted out of the Fathers In Epiphanium pag. 244. pag. 288. I shall answer in the words of Petavius the Jesuit There are many things saith he in the Holy Fathers especially in Chrysostom scatter'd here and there in their Homilies which if you would reduce to the rule of exact Truth they will seem altogether void of good sense Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Biblioth Annotat 152. Another of their own Church ingenuously aknowledgeth that Preachers such as the Fathers were in their Homilies and popular Discourses often speak things by an Hyperbole being carried away affectuum impetu orationis cursu with the heat of their affections which often saith he befell Chrysostom Yea Rhetoricati sumus ali quid declamationibus dedimus Saint Hierom confesses of himself We have play'd the Rhetoricians in a Declamatory way To close this Similitudes are the weakest kind of Arguments Neither may our Adversaries in prudence urge this similitude of fired Wax too vehemently against us If so they must necessarily grant that not onely the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament ceaseth to be but the very outward accidents also For when Wax is fired not onely the substance but the very accidents are disserent from what they were before And so much at present for Transubstantiation I pass to the next Article Purgatory 3. Art. Concerning Purgatory The Antient Fathers for five hundred years after Christ did not hold the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory as an Article of Faith yea some of them expresly contradict it I will begin with the Greek Fathers Clemens Romanus and Ignatius in their genuine Writings take no notice at all of it Justin Martyr denies it We believe saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ☜ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man after his departure hence goeth according to his works either into everlasting punishment or life And immediately addeth Men would avoid sin if they consider'd that they must go without Repentance into eternal punishment by fire But of enduring temporal punishment for sin by fire not a word is to be found in all his Writings Quest 75. Amongst the Questions and Answers which are printed with his Works it is thus resolved After the departure of Souls out of their Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently they are by Angels carried to places fit for them the Souls of the just to Paradise of the unjust to Hell in which places they are kept until the Resurrection Here no notice is taken of Purgatory or any middle or third place out of which Souls may be deliver'd by Prayers Masses Indulgences c. It 's true this Writer is much younger than Justin Martyr but it maketh the more against our Adversaries for it sheweth that long after his death this Article of Roman Faith was not Catholick or universally received In Irenaeus as Erasmus also hath observ'd who was very well seen in his Writings there is no mention of Purgatory but in the close of his last Book there is somewhat contradicting it for without any distinction of Persons or sins mortal or venial he declares his opinion that the Souls of all Christ's Disciples go to one invisible place Origen Hom. 18. in Jeremiam pag. 163. edit Huet Dum hic sumus remedium non postea Vita Constant lib. 4.63 hades there remaining till the Resurrection as Tertullian Origen Lactanctius Ambrose and other of the Fathers held which is inconsistent with Purgatory as invocation of dead Saints also and contradicted by the Romanists Eusebius Caesariensis hath written several Volumes in all which as Scultetus hath noted there is not the least mention of Purgatory It 's true he relates how the people pray'd for the Soul of Constantine But Constantine as he assures us in the next Chapter went not to Purgatory but was taken up to his God and joined his divine part his Soul to God yea a little before his death he himself as Eusebius reports used these words Now I know my self to be happy to be now accounted worthy of eternal life Prayer then for the dead doth not necessarily infer Purgatory De Praep. Evang. lib. 11. c. 20. lib. 13. I grant he reporteth Plato's opinion concerning purgation of a middle sort of men by temporal punishments after death But adds that Plato through ignorance of the Scripture erred in many things I pass to Athanasius in all whose Writings tho many and large I can find no mention of this Article of Faith Purgatory and am the more confirm'd it cannot be found in regard Bellarmin quotes nothing out of him or Eusebius against us Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration in Caesarium Oratio 10. delivers himself thus I am mov'd by the sayings of the Wise that every Soul that is belov'd of God as the Souls sent by Romanists to Purgatory are acknowledg'd to be presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the loosing from the body and departure hence that which darkned the mind being either purged or cast from it or done away in what sort I cannot well express whence it's evident he believed not they were purged by fire as Romanists peremptorily affirm beginneth sensibly to discern that good which remaineth for it to be filled with wonderful delight and to leap for joy But this wonderful delight and joy cannot consist with Purgatory torments or the fear of them Nazianzen then was no Papist in this point On those words Orat. de Paschate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye shall carry out nothing until the morning c. He saith Beyond or after this night i. e. after death there
13. Epist 39. Lib. 7. Epist 30. ad Eulogium he rejects the name given to himself this name of Singularity or consented to use it as Popes now do And who is he who contrary to the Gospel and the Decrees of the Canons presumeth to take upon him this foolish and proud Name Did ever any Protestant inveigh more bitterly against the Popes Universal Episcopacy I would gladly know whether both parts of a contradiction can be true Whether the antient or modern Roman Bishops or both be infallible Do not the modern Popes assume and earnestly contend for this foolish proud and Antichristian Name And lest we should imagine that Pope Gregory condemn'd this Name in other Patriarchs only not as to himself he addeth in the before-mentioned Epistle to Mauritius the Emperour Gracious Lord Nunquid hac in re propriam causam defendo c. Do I in this speak for my self or plead my own cause and not rather the cause of the whole Church Where note he acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his Lord and to whose judgment he is willing to refer the whole cause Did Pope Gregory make the Emperour supreme Judge in an Article of Faith Let Papists judge Notwithstanding all this zeal his successor Boniface soon after Ann. 607. as Sigebert Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus and other Historians testifie Epist 32. ad Maurit lib. 2. Epist 61. ad Maur. Beda de aetate Anastas vita Bonifacii 3. Ad. Chron. l. 1. In Praefat. Reipub. Eccl. by the favour of that execrable Regicide Phocas obtained this proud foolish and prophane Title and the present Pope not onely owneth the Name but contrary to the judgment of his Predecessors who are supposed to have been infallible executeth an Universal jurisdiction over all Princes Bishops Churches as far as he is able to the diminution yea almost abrogation of their due Rights Priviledges and Authority as Marcus Antonius de Dominis Arch-bishop of Spalato justly complained So much for the Popes Supremacy Art. 7 Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass The next Article is the proper and real Sacrificing Christ his very Body and Bloud in the Mass by the Priest as a Propitiation for the sins both of quick and dead This Error in all probability arose from want of a discreet understanding of some Rhetorical or Hyperbolical expressions used by the Antient Fathers in their popular Sermons and Discourses concerning the Sacrament of Christ's death and Passion Christus in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc Mysterio moritur Greg. M. de Concil Dist 2. Quid sit But that it was no part of their Faith to believe that Christ is really and properly sacrificed in the Mass we shall evidently prove out of their own Writings I shall begin with Justin Martyr Apol. ad Antonin who discoursing of the Holy Eucharist sheweth how the Christians then used to offer Bread and Wine to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minister who receiving them offereth up to God not Christ himself but Glory Thanks and Praise for those his gifts i. e. Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mal. 1.11 which relates to all Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Wine which after the Ministers Prayers and Thanksgivings are distributed to every one that is present Where note First They termed Bread and Wine after the Ministers Prayers or Consecration Secondly Both Bread and Wine were given to all present not Bread onely much less neither one nor the other as in Private Masses But of sacrificing or offering up Christ himself to God he hath not a word in that place The same Father in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew P. 201. treateth at large concerning the abrogation of the Jewish Sacrifices and coming to mention the Christian Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Dialog pag. 270. which Malachy foretold should be offered up to God by the Gentiles in every place he interprets it as Tertullian Eusebius and the rest of the Fathers do of Prayers and Praises Which saith he I account the onely perfect sacrifices pleasing to God. Which Spiritual Sacrifices a little after he opposeth to all the Sacrifices Offerings and Oblations of the Law. Surely had Saint Justin believed that in the Eucharist Christ himself his Body and Bloud were by the Priest really and properly sacrificed to God he would no doubt have made mention of this Christian Sacrifice far exceeding in virtue and value no onely all Jewish Offerings but the Prayers and Thanksgivings of all Christians at least he would never have affirmed that the latter were in his opinion the onely perfect Sacrifices under the Gospel pleasing to God. But he is altogether silent as to any such Sacrifice yea contrarily in that very place he addeth That these onely Sacrifices to wit Prayers and Praises Christians have learned to make and that in or at the commemoration or remembrance of their alimony both wet and dry i. e. the Eucharistical Bread and Wine in which they remember the Passion of Christ Where it is remarkable that Justin Martyr instead of proper sacrificing of Christ in the Holy Eucharist mentions onely the Commemoration or Memorial of his Passion and that the Prayers and Thanksgivings attending it for it 's called the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the onely Sacrifices Christians had learned in that most solemn Office of Religion to offer up to God. So much for Justin I pass on to St. Irenaeus who acknowledgeth that Christ teaching his Disciples to offer to God First-fruits of his Creatures Lib. 4. c. 32.32 34. lest they should seem ungrateful took that Bread which is of the creature or Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possibly was the word and gave thanks and said This is my Body In like manner the Cup of Wine which is of the creature i. e. the Vine confessing it to be his Bloud and taught the Oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the World to him who granteth to us the First-fruits of his Gifts in the New Testament Here we find an Oblation but not a Sacrifice which two De Missa l. 1. c 2. as Bellarmine observeth are different things much less a sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud Irenaeus plainly sheweth what kind of Oblation he meant when he declareth it to be not of Christ the Creator but of Gods creatures to wit Bread and Wine which the Church offers to God. De Euchar. lib 10. c. 27. V. Litur Chrysost Bellarmine grants this First as an expression of honour love and gratitude to him for his creatures bountifully bestowed on us for our sustenance Secondly That out of a part of them to wit Bread and Wine set on Gods Table or Altar by the prayers of the Priest they might become sacramentally and mystically his Body and Bloud Thirdly That out of the remains the poor might be relieved These Oblations Saint Cyprian after him calleth in an improper
sense Sacrifices In Dominicum sine sacrificio venis Dost thou come Serm. de Eleemosyna V. Canonem Missae and D. Field in Append p. 212. speaking to a rich Widow to Church without a Sacrifice i. e. Oblation These Oblations of Bread and Wine offered up to God in a way of grateful acknowledgment of his mercies out of which the sacramental Elements were of old taken are the Oblation of the New Testament taught by Christ and observed by the Primitive Christians That this was his true sense and meaning appeareth plainly from the next Chapter Cap. 33. where having quoted the Prophecy of Malachy concerning the pure Incense and Offering of the Gentiles a place urged by our Adversaries for their Mass-Sacrifice Sacrifice he expounds it according to Revel 8.3 Cap. 34. of the Prayers of Saints and in the next Chapter discoursing of this Oblation which our Saviour taught to be offered in all places throughout the World which is accounted by God a pure Sacrifice he applieth to it those words If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar c. Matth. 5. which Gift was never understood by any of Christs Body and Bloud which according to our Romanists own Doctrine none but Priests not private Christians offer at Gods Altar To this he subjoineth the words of God by Moses Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty i.e. without an Oblation For gifts saith he Cap. 34. testifie love and honour of the Person to whom they are presented Then he addeth In regard the Church offereth with Simplicity her Oblation is justly accounted by God a pure Sacrifice as Saint Paul writeth to the Philippians of their Oblations i.e. Psal 4.18 Alms sent to him terming them an Offering pleasing to God For it becometh us saith Irenaeus to make an Oblation to God and in all things to be found grateful unto the Creator offering primitias creaturarum ejus not his Son but the first-fruits of his Creatures The Synagogue of the Jews offereth not thus ☜ in regard they have not received the word Christ by whom it is to be offered to God in which respect it is termed a New Oblation of the Church However then our Adversaries boast much of Irenaeus as owning their Sacrifice of the Mass it is evident to any who will weigh the whole Context of his Discourse that he saith nothing in the least of sacrificing Christ in the Sacrament but of Oblations and Alms which are still used in our Churches at the Offertory when the Eucharist is celebrated Let us now proceed to Tertullian Lib. 3. cap 22. Gloriae Relatio Benedictio Laus Hymni Lib. 4. c. 1. Simplex Oratio de Conscientia pura Purâ prece who against Marcion expounds Malachy's clean or pure Sacrifice of giving Glory Blessing and Praise to God and in another place of Simple or pure Prayer from a pure Conscience Lib. 4. in Marc. c. 1. In like manner ad Scapulam written in defence of the Christians who were accused because they did not offer up as the Gentiles any Sacrifice for the life of the Emperour He answereth We do sacrifice for the Emperour but as God hath commanded purâ prece with pure Prayer Why doth he not say which Bellarmine granteth de Missa l. 2. c. 6. might lawfully have been done we offer up for him a most perfect and venerable Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of the Son of God. V. Tertul. adv Judaeos c. 5. Strom. 7. p. 717. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It seemeth he was ignorant of this Mass Sacrifice Clemens Alexand. discoursing much about Heathenish and Jewish Sacrifices addeth We Christians honour God with our Prayers and this most excellent Sacrifice we present unto him And a little after The Sacrifice of the Christian Church is speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 breathed out from holy Souls I will add Lactantius Instit lib. 6. cap. ult Summus colendi Dei ritus c. The highest rite or office of worship to God is praise from the mouth of a righteous Man. Would he or Clemens have advanced Prayer or Praise above the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass Epist 63. had they believed it But I must not forget Saint Cyprian ad Luc. where he saith Christ offered himself to God a Sacrifice Add Cyprian de Vnctione Chrismatis In mensa Panem Vinum in cruce militibus Corpus vulnerandum tradit Vino Christi sanguis oftenditur Aqua sola Christi sanguinem non potest exprimere Cypr. Epist 17. V. Lactant. Instit p. 1. c. 1. and commanded the Eucharist to be celebrated in commemoration or remembrance of him It is the Passion of our Lord which is the Sacrifice we offer wherefore as often as we offer the Cup in remembrance of the Lord and his Passion we ought to do what he did before us Which last words confute the Romish Half-communion Surely if the Passion of Christ on the Cross be the Sacrifice we offer to God evident it is that it can be offered only by way of commemoration or remembrance for Christ suffered but once on the Cross which was performed above 1600 years ago How can that very Passion be really and properly reiterated or acted over again unless by way of representation and commemoration But if the Sacrifice of the Mass be onely a representation or commemoration of Christs Passion then it cannot be a proper Sacrifice but improper and by similitude onely as the Picture of the Passion of a Martyr is not really and properly the Passion it self I come now to Eusebius the learned Bishop of Cesarea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. de Demonstr Evang c. 10. V. Euseb de Laudib Constantini pag. 488. who teacheth us that the Sacrifice of Christ himself was prefigured by all the Jewish Sacrifices of which Christians make in the Eucharist a continual remembrance as he often repeateth it But concerning sacrificing Christ again and again by the Priest we find not a word Yea in the same place he saith That Christians offer up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the memory or memorial of Christs sacrifice on the Cross instead of a sacrifice to God which Memorial saith we celebrate signis quibusdam by certain signs to wit Bread and Wine on the Holy Table wherein we offer up to God unbloudy and rational Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incorporeal and without bloud by his most eminent High-Priest Jesus Christ i. e. Prayers and Praises He saith not We offer Jesus Christ the High-Priest but we offer up other Sacrifices by him Neither by incorporeal and unbloudy Sacrifices in the plural could he intend offering up Christs Body and Bloud for how possibly can Christs Body be incorporeal or his bloud without bloud A little after he explaineth more fully what he meaneth by those Rational Incorporeal or spiritual Sacrifices to wit the sacrifices of Prayer and Praise to which purpose he quoteth the words of David
Psalm 50. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. and those of Malachy above-mentioned concerning pure Incense i. e. Prayer and a pure Offering i. e. saith he A broken and contrite heart He concludeth in these words We sacrifice and offer Incense sometimes by celebrating the memory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that great Sacrifice to wit of Christ on the Cross by those sacramental Mysteries which he hath delivered to us giving thanks to God for our Redemption and offering Hymns and Praises to him The same do Protestants otherwise by consecrating and devoting our selves to God and dedicating Soul and Body to his High-Priest the Word Ye see here how many sorts of Christian Sacrifices Eusebius reckons up Prayers Praises consecrating our souls and bodies to God celebrating the memory of his Sacrifice on the Cross but concerning sacrificing of Christ himself in and by the sacramental Mysteries we find nothing Can this now be a point of Catholick Faith of which Eusebius and all the antient Fathers were ignorant Lib. 5. c. 3. The same Eusebius in another place discourseth concerning Christs Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck His words are In like manner first our Saviour then the Priests of or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood by Bread and Wine V. Tertul. cont Judaeos Ambross de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. do obscurely represent the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice For first Melchizedeck as he said a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protulit as the vulgar translation rendreth it brought forth to Abraham Bread and Wine but offered obtulit no corporal Sacrifices The truth is the Mass Priests if Transubstantiation be admitted offer neither Bread nor Wine which they tell us are changed into Christs Body and Bloud which are corporal things But the Christian Priesthood saith Eusebius is spiritual so therefore are their Sacrifices also Secondly All that Eusebtus saith of the Executors of this spiritual Priesthood is that after Christs Example by Bread and Wine which he supposeth to remain in their substance they obscurely represent Christs Body and Bloud Doth this imply that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and bloud of Christ or that representing Christs body and bloud in the Holy Sacrament rendreth them a Sacrifice or implieth any offering them up as a propitiatory Victim for the sins both of quick and dead Certainly did this sacrificing Christ by or under Bread and Wine at all appertain to the Christian Priesthood Eusebius no doubt would have it being so eminent and wonderful an action made at least some little mention of it But how could he mention that which it appeareth he was wholly ignorant of to wit the sacrificing Christ by Priests in the Holy Eucharist Athanasius in a few words giveth the Sacrifice of the Mass a deadly blow Orat. 3. in Arian The Sacrifice of our Saviour once offered perfects all and remaineth firm all times Aaron had Successors our Lord had none Saint Chrysostome adv Judaeos Hom. 36. expounds Malachy's Pure Offering of Prayer and Hom. in Psalm 95. reckoning up about ten sorts of Sacrifices in the Christian Church as Martyrdom Prayer Alms c. he taketh no notice of the Sacrifice of all Sacrifices to wit of Christ in the Mass But that noted place Hom. 17. on the Hebrews must not be omitted where having first said Heb. 10.10 that Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice who offer'd himself to God once for all for us he raiseth an Objection against what he had said from Saint Paul What then do we Priests Do not we daily offer He answereth We do indeed offer but it is making a remembrance of his death V. Basil M. in Cap. 1. Esaiae we do it in commemoration of what is already done we do offer the same Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather correcting himself that he might speak more properly and exactly We celebrate or operate the remembrance of a Sacrifice i. e. of Christ on the Cross commemorantes memoriam facientes as the Roman Missal it self speaketh Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same as if he had translated Saint Chrysostome Cap. 10. Do not we daily offer Yes We offer memoriam facientes making in and by the Eucharist a memorial of his death We offer him Christ magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Rather or more properly we make a remembrance of a Sacrifice Lib. 4. de Sacra c. 6. In another place he sets down the antient forms of Consecration Wherefore being mindful of his Passion i. e. V. Canonem Missae Rom. Christ on the Cross we offer to thee this Sacrifice this bread Bread not the very Body of Christ in a carnal and corporeal sense The like words we find in Saint Chrysostomes and the Gregorian Liturgies I will now add Epiphanius who saith as Athanasius above Haer. 55. Christ hath no Successour in his Priesthood that he is both Priest and Sacrifice in regard none can properly sacrifice him but himself which he did once for all on the Cross And Haer. 42. Christ by his Sacrifice hath taken away the use of all Sacrifices i. e. properly so called under thâ—â—ospel In like manner Saint Cyril of Alexandria againâ—â— Julian the Apostate who objected that the Christians had no Sacrifice Lib. 9. cont Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For answer he asserts not any external visible and corporeal one but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual and spiritual Worship for saith he a most immaterial and spiritual Sacrifice becometh God who is in his nature pure and immaterial I will end with Saint Austin who in his 20th Book against â—â—â—stus thus writeth Christians celebrate the memory of this finished Sacrifice to wit Ch. 18. of Christ on the Cross by the Holy Oblation or Sacrament i. e. of Bread and Wine and by participation of the body and bloud of Christ not by immolation but participation of them not by reiteration of Christs Sacrifice which is finished consummatum est but commemoration of it And Chap. 21. he hath these words Lib 20. contr Faust c. 21. The like he hath de fide ad Petrum Diacon c. 19. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice of Christ before his Incarnation was promised or represented by the similitude of Levitical Sacrifices In the Passion of Christ it was performed per ipsam veritatem by the very truth of the thing it self After his Ascension it is celebrated per sacramentum memoriae by a Sacrament of memory or commemoration not by a true proper Sacrifice of Christ per ipsam veritatem and immolation of his very body and bloud as Romanists affirm In his Epistle to Boniface he expresseth it more clearly Is not Christ immolated or offer'd up once in semetipso Quod natum est ex Virgine nobis quotidie nascitur crucifigitur Hieron in Psal
hasten to my fourth and last Assertion which was this That there is scarcely any point in Controversie betwixt us and the Papists especially of them before-mentioned made by Pope Pius and the late Tridentine Council Articles of Faith but we are able to produce many eminent Writers and some of their own Church who condemn them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther appeared in the World. So that what Doctrines and practices the Reformed Protestant Churches rejected and condemned were not the generally received and unanimously avowed Opinions and observances of the Roman much less Catholick Church but onely of a powerful and predominant Party in it The Numbâ—r of Sacraments I will first begin with their Doctrine of seven Sacraments The Canonists as Panormitan and the Glosse on Dist 5. de Poenitentia V. Rhe … num 〈◊〉 in Tertul. de Poenitent Loc. Commun lib. â— c. 4. 5. In qu. Gent. Diâ—t 26. qu. 3. say That Penance was not ordained as the Trent Council grants all true Sacraments are a Sacrament by Christ but is an Institution of the Church onely Canus affirmeth it 's uncertain whether it giveth Grace or no. Durandus holds 4. Dist 26. qu. 3. That Matrimony is no Sacrament univocally and properly so called conferring Grace Hugo de S. Victore denieth that extreme Unction is a Sacrament Holcot quoted by Cassander Consult art 13. saith Confirmation is no Sacrament De Sacrum Euchar. Part. 4. qu. 5. Mem. 2. Naucler Vol. 2. Bessarion the Cardinal owneth onely two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Alexander Halensis is of opinion that there are onely four Sacraments of the Gospel See Dr. Field of the Church In Append. p. 332. and Bishop Mortons Appeal p. 337. The Waldenses held but two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper as Protestants do Transubstantiation Secondly As for their new Article of Transubstantiation Petrus de Alliaco a Cardinal ingenuously acknowledgeth Dist 11. qu. 6. Art. 2. add Cameracensis 4. Gent. qu. 6. Art. 2. Occam in 4. Gent. 2.5 De Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23 quaest 3. Lib. 4. Dist 11. qu. 23. Art. 1. that the Opinion which supposeth the substance of Bread to remain still after Consecration which was Luther's Opinion is possible neither is it contrary to reason or Scripture Nay saith he it is easier to conceive and more reasonable than that which holdeth that the substance doth leave the accidents and of this Opinion no inconvenience doth seem to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches i. e. his Roman Churches determination Scotus quoted by Bellarmine saith that before the Lateran Council it was no point of Faith. To be sure P. Lombard the Father of the Schoolmen believed it not For he saith if it be demanded what manner of conversion of the Elements into Christs body and bloud is made by Consecration whether formal or substantial De Verit. Corp. Sang. D. in Euchar. p. 46. I am not able to define Tunstal Bishop of Durham in Queen Maries days declares that before the Council of Lateran no man was bound to believe Transubstantiation it being free for all men till that time to follow their own conjecture as to the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament Hence he only required the Confession of a Real presence which we grant and no more Yea he used to say That if he had been at Pope Innocent's Elbow when he decreed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith he could he thought have offered him such reasons as should have dissuaded him from it In Can. Missae Lect. 41. Biel affirmeth that Transubstantiation is a very new Opinion and lately brought into the Church and was believed onely or principally on the Authority of Pope Innocent and the Infallibility of the Church you must suppose Roman which expounds the Scripture by the same Spirit which delivered the Faith to us To which Durand agreeth 4 Dist 11. qu. 1. Num. 9. It is rashness saith he to think the body of Christ by his divine Power cannot be in the Sacrament unless the bread be converted into it He adds that the Opinion of Transubstantiation held by Lutherans is liable to fewer difficulties but it must not be holden since the Church of Rome hath determined the contrary which is presumed not to err in such matters Yet see how doubtfully he speaketh of their Churches Infallibility V. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. In 4 Sent. qu. 6. Scotus in 4. Dist 11. qu. 3. on whose Authority onely he owneth Transubstantiation not at all from any cogent authority of Reason or Scripture which he saith cannot be found In like manner Cameracensis professeth he saw not how Transubstantiation could be proved evidently either out of Scripture or any determination of the Universal or Catholick Church making it a matter of Opinion not Faith and inclining rather as Alliaco to Consubstantiation Aquinas himself acknowledgeth that some Catholicks quidam Catholici thought that one body could not possibly be present in two places locally but sacramentally only which overthroweth Transubstantiation Ferus is very moderate in this point Seeing saith he it 's certain that Christs body is in the Sacrament what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or not Tom. 3. Disp 46. c. 3. Cardinal Cajetan himself quoted by Suarez confesseth that those words so urged by Romanists in this Point This is my Body Supra in Part. 3. summ qu. 75. art 14. secluding the Authority of the Church are not sufficient to confirm Transubstantiation Of the same Opinion was Scotus The same Cajetan noteth that many in truth deny what the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth So if I be not much mistaken doth Cardinal Bellarmine who instead of a substantial change or conversion of the Bread into Christs Body maintains onely a Translocation adduction or succession of Christs Body into the room and place of it which as easie to discern is no Transubstantiation of the bread into Christs Body properly so called Johannes Scotus Erigena about the year 800. wrote against Transubstantiation proving out of the Scriptures and antient Fathers that the Bread and Wine are not properly but figuratively and sacramentally Christs body and bloud This Book is still extant and no wonder condemned by the Infallible Index Expurgatorius Aelfricus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury set out Anno 996. in the Saxon Tongue his Homilies wherein he affirms that the bread is not Christs Body corporaliter corporally but spiritually spiritualiter With which perfectly agreeth the Paschal Saxon Homily of Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury appointed publickly to be read to the People in England on Easter day before the Communion still extant in Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Oxford and the private Library of Bennet College in Cambridge To which place I gratefully acknowledge I owe the foundation of that small knowledge I have in Divinity Panis ille est corpus Christi figurate
salvation is to be had or expected are errors and corruptions of it contrary to the doctrine that the holy Apostles have deliver'd to them and us in their Writings So that I may justly ask them Where was your Creed and Church before Pope Pius who was hardly so old as Luther I might add several other Doctrines and Practices as contrary to Scripture if I understand any thing in it as Darkness is to Light particularly Concerning some practices in the Roman Church which are against Scripture As 1. Service in an unknown Tongue that unreasonable service of God in a Tongue the people do not-understand Can any thing be more plainly contradictory to the whole fourteenth Chapter of 1 Cor. Doth not Saint Paul there condemn all Speaking whether in Sermons Prayers or Thanksgivings in the Church in an unknown Tongue ver 2. Unknown not to God who knows all things even Sermons in Latin Greek or any Tongue else but to Men. He prefers Prophecying i.e. Preaching or expounding the Scripture before Tongues i. e. strange and not understood by the Hearers for this very reason because he that speaketh in an unknown Tongue speaketh to God not unto men for no man understandeth him howbeit in the Spirit i.e. by a miraculous gift of the Spirit Ver. 3. as the gift of Tongues was he speaketh mysteries i. e. profound and admirable Truths But he that prophesieth or preacheth in a known Tongue speaketh unto men to Edification Exhortation and Comfort He that speaketh in an unknown Tongue edifieth himself Ver. 4. not the Church But Saint Paul would have the whole Church edifi'd or profited by whatever is spoken Hence he commands ver 26. all things to be done to edification and forbids any one to use his miraculous gift of Tongues in the Church unless he interpret what he saith or another for him that so the Church may receive Edifying i.e. spiritual profit being built up in their most holy Faith. Is it not as clear as the day at Noon that according to St. Paul's doctrine there is no profit or edification redounding to the People by whatsoever is spoken in the Church in an unknown Tongue Neither doth he in that Chapter speak only of Sermons Papists themselves are not so absurd as to preach in Latin to their people or private Conferences as Bellarmine would evade he speaketh generally of whatever is spoken in the Church it must be in a Tongue known to the people that so the people may be profited by it in regard else they are not edify'd or profited at all Neither doth he speak of Sermons only but Prayers and Thanksgivings hence ver 15 16. I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also So that in St. Paul's judgment it 's necessary to pray and sing Praises Psalm 47.7 as David saith with understanding Then he adds Else when thou shalt bless God with the Spirit i.e. by an extraordinary gift of strange Tongues bestow'd by the Spirit on many in those days how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen to thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest Where two things are as plain as if they had been written with a Sun-beam First That St. Paul in that Chapter discourseth not of Sermons or Conferences onely but Prayers and Hymns Secondly Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Hieron in Epist ad Galatas lib. 2. in praefat That the unlearned cannot as they ought say Amen to Prayers or Hymns of Thanksgiving they understand not We use as the ancient Church did to say Amen to Prayers not to Sermons or Conferences So that Saint Paul expresly condemns Prayers in an unknown Tongue used at this day by the Roman Church in her Latin Service And there is ground to think this is one reason why they suffer not the Laity to read the Scriptures lest they should by them discern this amongst other of their palpable erroneous and corrupt practices This may be a second instance that the Romish Religion is not Apostolical Denying the use of the Scripture to the Laity V. Claudium Espenceum in Titum cap. 2. For what can be more contrary to our Saviour's command John 5.39 Search the Scriptures c And that of Saint Paul Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom and spiritual understanding Yea to the very end of Gods giving the Scriptures than to forbid the generality of the people to read them lest they should by it become Hereticks i.e. Protestants Did Saint Paul write his Epistles to the learned or Clergy only at Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. and not to the whole Church Yea doth he not adjure them at Thessalonica to cause his Epistle to be read 1 Thess 5.27 not onely to the Rulers or Elders of the Church but to all the holy Brethren or Saints Might they hear what was written to them but not read it Were they not Greeks and did not Saint Paul write unto them in their own vulgar Tongue To what end if not that they should read it Otherwise surely he would have written to them in Hebrew or Syriack for he had the gift of many Tongues But say some Politicians The common people are apt to mistake and to wrest the Scriptures to Heresies and their own destruction To which I answer First Plus inde ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti quam utilitatis oriri c. Index libror. prohib Reg. 1. If the Scriptures be so apt to be misunderstood and do more hurt than good why should we look upon them as a singular blessing of God to his Church Secondly Do onely unlearn'd men wrest the Scriptures We know the old Hereticks as Arius Nestorius Pelagius c. were neither unlearn'd nor Laicks Thirdly Why did St. Paul if the Scripture be so dangerous to the common people command his Epistle to be read to all the holy Brethren Might they not mistake his true meaning by hearing it read as well as reading it Lastly I answer The Church of God is not to be govern'd by the late Policies of men but by the Laws of Christ and the example of the Primitive Church who altho many damnable Heresies arose in those Ages Cyril contra Julian lib. 6. and were colourably maintain'd by the Scripture Hom. 2. in Matth. Chrysost Hom. 3. in Lazarum Hom. 9. in Coloss Hieron Epist ad Eustochium Salvinam Celantiam in Epitaphio Paulae as Julian the Apostate objected yet never forbad any man to read the Scripture but exhorted and encourag'd the Laity even Women to do it A Licence to read the Scriptures would have been looked upon in those days as a prodigious Novelty Because many people receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood unworthily to their own damnation may therefore the Laity be wholly and generally kept as well