our sinnes imputable to Christ nor his sufferings to us formally and personally but as the meritorious causes which satisfaction answerâ—â—h The effect of it the Covenant of Grace as well as helpe to perform it The Fathers saved by the Faith of Christ to come The Gospel a new Law The prâ—perâ—y of satisfaction and punishment in Christs sufferings Of the sense of the Catholick Church 245 CHAP. XXX God might have reconciled man to himselfe without the coming of Christ The promise of â—â—â— Gâ—spel dâ—pend as well upon his active as passive obedience Christ need 〈…〉 pâ—iâ—â—s that we might not The opinion that maketh justiâ—â—â—g 〈…〉 â—rust in God not true Yet not prejudicial to the Faith The dâ—câ—â—â— of the Council of Trent and the doctrine of the Schoole how it is not preâ—udicial to the Faith As also that of Socinus 254 CHAP. XXXI The state of the question concerning the perseverance of those that are once justified Of three senses one true one inconsistent wiâ—h the faith the third neither true nor yet destructive to the Faith Evidence from â—â—â— writings of the Apostles From the Old Testament The grace of Proâ—heâ—â—e when it presupposeth sanctifying grace Answer to some texts and of S. Pauls mâ—aâ—â—ng in the VII of the Romans Of the Polygamy of the Fathers What assurance of Grace Christians may have The Tradition of the Church 266 CHAP. XXXII How the fulfilling of Gods Law is possible how impossible for a Christian Of the difference between mortall and veniall sinne What love of God and of our neighbour was necessary under the Old Testament Whether the Sermon in the Mount correct the false interpretation of the â—ewes or inhanse the obligatin of the Law Of the difference between matter of Precept and matter of Counsail and the Perfection of Christians 285 CHAP. XXXIII Whether any workes of Christians be satisfactory for sinne and meritorious of heaven or not The recovery of Gods grace for a Christian fallen from it a worke of labour and time The necessity and essicacy of Penance to that purpose according to the Scriptures and the practice of the Church Merit by virtue of Gods promise necessary The Catholick Church agrees in it the present Church of Rome allowes merit of justice 300 The CONTENTS of the third Book CHAP. I. THe Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot page 1 CHAP. II. That the Natural substance of the Elements remaines in the Sacrament That the Body and Blood of Christ is neverthâ—lâ—sse present in the same when it is received noâ— by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Câ—â—sâ— necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradâ—ction nor improperty â—â— the words of our Lord. 3 CHAP. III. That the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist depends not upon the living 〈◊〉 of him that receives but upon the true profession of Christianity in the 〈◊〉 thâ—â— câ—lâ—brates The Scâ—iâ—tureâ— that are alleged for the dependence of 〈◊〉 the communication of the properties They conclude not the sense of them b◠〈◊〉 â—â—ey are alleged How the Scripture confineth the flesh of Christ to the 〈◊〉 16 CHAP. IV. The opinion which maketh the Consecration to be done by rehearsing the operative words That our Lord consecrated by Thanksgiving The Form of it in all Lâ—â—urgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is â—o Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements 23 CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises 38 CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections 53 CHAP. VII The ground of Baptizing Infants Originall sinne though not instituted till Christ rose again No other cure for it Infants of Christians may be Disciplâ—â— are holy The effect of Circumcision under the Law inferreth the effect of Baptism under the Gospel 58 CHAP. VIII What is alledged to impeach Tradition for Baptizing Infants Proves not that any could be saved regularly who dyed unbaptized but that baptizing at years was a strong means to make good Christians Why the Church now Baptize What becomes of Infants dying unbaptized unanswerable What those Infants get who dye baptized â—5 CHAP. IX What controversie the Reformation hath with the Church of Rome about Penance Inward repentance that is sincere obtaineth pardon alone Remission of 〈◊〉 by the Gospel onely The condition of it by the Ministry of the Church What the power of binding and loosing contains more then Preaching or taking away offences Sinne may be pardoned without the use of it Wherein the necessity of using it lyeth 73 CHAP. X. The Sâ—cts of the Montanists Novatians Donatists and Meletians evidence the cure of sinne by Penance to be a Tradition of the Apostles So doâ—h the agreement of primitive practice with their writings Indulgence of regular Penance from the Apostles Confession of secret sinnes in the primitive Church That no sinne can be cured withoâ—â— the Keyes of the Church there is no Tradition from the Apostles The necessity of confessing secret sinnes whereupon it stands 86 CHAP. IX Penance is not required to redeem the debt of temporall punishment when the sinne is pardoned What assuraâ—ce of forgivenesse the law of auricular Confession as it is used in the Church of Rome procureth Of injoyning Penance after absolution performed Setting aside abuses the Law is agreeable to Gods Of the order taken by the Church of England 98 CHAP. XI The Unction of the sick pretendeth onely boaily health upon supposition of the cure of sinne by the Keyes of the Church Objections answered The Tradition of the Church evidenceth the same 106 CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimoniall causes Mariage of one with one iâ—solubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church 114 CHAP. XIV Scripture alledged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectual S. Paul and our Lord speak both to one purpose according to S. Jerome and S. Austine The contrary opinion more reasonable and more general in the Church Why the Church may restrain the innocent party from marying again The
served by his Church It is plain enough to all that have the use of reason what that communion of the Church and the Society thereof is able to effect and hath effected in preserving the Rule of Christianity wherein the salvation of Christians consisteth free and intire from the infection of mens devices expresly or by consequence destructive to it as well as the conversation of Christians from unchristian manners But if the Church be trusted to exact the profession of Christianity of all that require by Baptisme to be admitted unto the Communion of the Church It must by consequence be intrusted to exact of them also the performance of that which they have professed that is undertaken to professe For the profession being the condition upon which they are admitted to the Communion of the Church the performance or at least a presumption of the performance must needs be the condition upon which they injoy it Upon this ground the Church becomes not onely a number of men but a Society Corporation and Communion of Christians in those Offices wherewith God hath declared that hee will be served by Christians For upon supposition of such a Declaration or such a Law of God it is that the Church becomes a Body or Corporation of all Christians though under several Common-wealths and Soveraignties of this world As there are in all States several by Corporations subsisting by some act or Law of the Soveraign Powers of the same For if God had not appoâ—â—ted what Offices hee will be served with by his people at their common Assemblies there could be no ground why the Church should be such a Society founded by God there being nothing appointed by God for the members of it to communicate in But were there nothing but the Sacrament of the Eucharist acknowledged to have been delivered by God to his people to be frequented and celebrated by them at their common Assemblies that alone would be enough to demonstrate the foundation and institution of the Communion and Corporation of the Church by God For of a truth the rest of those Offices wherewith God requires to be served by Christians are the same by which hee required to be served by his ancient people before Christianity setting aside that difference with the divers measure of the knowledge of God in this and in that estate must needs produce Though there is no serving of God by the blood of bulls and goats nor by other ceremonies and sacrifices of Moses Law under Christianity Yet were the praises of God the hearing of his Word read and the instructing and exhorting of his people in it and to it together with the sacrifice of Prayer frequented by Gods people under the Law as still God is served and is to be served with them under Christianity And upon this account I have truly said elswhere as I conceive it that the Corporation of the Church is founded upon the privilege which God hath granted all Christians of assembling themselves for the service of God though supposing that the Powers of the world should forbid them so to do For this privilege consists in nothing else but in that command which God hath given his Church of serving him with these Offices Whereupon it necessarily insues that notwithstanding whatsoever command of Secular Powers they are forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them that are not of the Church Seeing they cannot be commanded to serve God in the Communion of the Church but they must be forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them which are not of the Church And upon this ground stands all the Power which the Church can challenge in limiting the circumstances and conditions upon which men may communicate in these Offices Which as it may justly seem of it self inconsiderable to the world and the Powers that govern it So when those Powers take upon them to establish the exercise of it by their Lawes If they maintain not the Church in that Power which of right and of necessity it had from God before they professed to maintain Christianity they destroy indeed that which in word they professe But if they take upon them to maintain it in the right which originally it had to limit the said circumstances by such Rules as by the act of Secular Powers become Lawes to their people then must the Power of the Church become as considerable as it is indeed in all States and Common-wealths that retain the Christianity which they had from the beginning in this point This being the ground and this the mater of Ecclesiastical Lawes and the Sacrament of the Eucharist being that Office proper to Christianity in order to the Communion whereof all Lawes limiting the circumstances and conditions of the said Communion are devised and made It seems requisite to my designe in the first place to void those Controversies concerning the same which all men know how much they have contributed to the present divisions of the Church For the determination of them will be without doubt of great consequence to determine the true and right intent of those Lawes which serve onely to limit those circumstances which are onely the condition of communicating in this and those other Offices Concerning which there is no other controversie on foot to divide the Church but that which concerns the said circumstances Now what differences concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist are mater of division to the Church I may suppose all the world knows the opinion of Transubstantiation being so famous as it is Which importeth this That in celebrating this Sacrament upon pronouncing of the words with which our Lord delivered it to his Disciples This is my Body this is my Bloud the substance of the elements Bread and Wine ceaseth and is abolished the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ coming into their stead though under the species of Bread and Wine that is to say those accidents of them which our senses witnesse that they remain In opposition whereunto some have proceeded so farr as to teach that this Sacrament is no more than a meer sign and the celebration and communion thereof barely the renewing of our Christian profession of believing in Christ crucified whom it representeth importing no spiritual grace at all to be tendred by it from God Which may justly seem to be the opinion of the Socinians and properly to give the name of Sacramentaries to all that professe it For in reason and justice wee are to difference it from the opinion of those that hold it for a sign appointed by God to tender the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually to be received by it of as many as with a lively faith communicate in it Though these also cannot pretend to make it any more than a sign by virtue of that consecration which makes it a Sacrament Seeing it is the faith of him that receives it as they say which makes it the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually though truly
and really to him that so receives it There is besides another opinion extremely distant from this last in regard thaâ— whereas this ascribes the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist to the faith of them that receive it which is after the consecration of the Sacrament in as much as it is exercised in receiving the same the other extreme opinion that I speak of attibutes it to the hypostatical Union of the two natures in the person of Christ the consequence whereof they will have to be this That the perfections of the God-head are communicated to the humane nature in the person of Christ exalted to the Power of gathering and conducting his Church through this world to the world to come Because this Power being to be exercised in our nature requires and imports the attributes of the God-head to the executing and in the executing of it For seeing the Manhood of Christ cannot communicate with his God-head in giving this spiritual assistance to his Church but first it must be present and seeing this assistance is given by the Sacrament of the Eucharist of necessity they think the Body and Bloud of Christ must be present in the Eucharist to give this assistance by virtue of the hypostatical Union ordained for that purpose And so this opinion becomes extremely opposite to the last because it attributes the presence and so the receiving of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to that Faith which takes effect after that consecration which makes the Sacrament Whereas this attributes the same to the hypostatical Union of the Manhood with the God-head in Christ taking effect without exception after his exaltation to glory which it is manifest is so long since past and done before the celebration of it CHAP. II. That the natural substance of the Elements remains in the Sacrament That the Body and Bloud of Christ is neverthelesse present in the same when it is received not by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradiction nor improperty in the words of our Lord. THis being the question wherein I am now to give judgment and no more required of a Divine than to give such a meaning to those few Scriptures which depose in it as may no way contradict the Rule of Faith I shall without considering how to content those factions which these opinions have made content my self by delivering that opinion which I conceive best satisfies the plain words of the Scripture without trenching upon any ground of Christianity within which the meaning of the Scriptures is to remain I say then first that if wee will not offer open violence to the words of the Scripture and to all consideration of reason that may deserve to direct the meaning of it wee must grant in the first place That the bodily substance of Bread and Wine is not abolished nor ceaseth in this Sacrament by virtue of the consecration of it And of this I conceive the manifest words of the Scripture wheresoever there is mention of this Sacrament are evidence enough Mat. XXVI 26-29 And when they were eating Jesus took bread and having blessed brake and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat this is my Body And taking the cup hee gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink yee all of it For this is that bloud of mine of the New Testament which is shed for many unto remission of sins And I say unto you I will not drink from henceforth of this production of the vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome In S. Mark I can imagine no maâ—er of difference but this Mark XIV 24 25. This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many Verily I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the vine brings forth till I drink it new in the kingdome of God In S. Luke thus XXII 17-20 And taking the cup hee said Take this and divide it amongst you For I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the Vine brings forth till the kingdome of God come And hee took bread and having given thanks brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 23-32 For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus in the night that hee was betrayed took bread and having given thanks brake it saying Take eat this is my body which is broken for you This do in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud This do so often as yee drink it in remembrance of mee For so often as you eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread or drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ But let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Therefore many among you are sick and weak and many fall asleep For if wee did discern our selves wee should not be condemned But when wee are judged wee are chastised by the Lord that wee be not condemned with the world And again 1 Cor. X. 16 17 18. The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ For as the bread is one so wee many are one body For wee all partake of the same bread Had not a man as good bid the Scripture be silent for hee will believe what hee list notwithstanding the Scripture as set all this evidence upon the rack to make it deny that which it cries aloud For when S. Matthew tells us that our Lord took bread and having blessed brake and gave it saying This is my Body that hee took the cup and having given thanks gave it to them saying This is my Bloud Is it not as manifest that hee sayes This bread is my Body this wine is my Bloud as that hee sayes This is my Body this is my Bloud Unlesse wee think that This can demonstrate any thing but that which had been spoke of afore in the processe without giving any mark to know what it is that hee meant to demonstrate There is none of them that deny this but will be puzzled to say himself what hee would have the Disciples to whom this is said understand by This forbidding them to understand that which went before In S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paul the
difficulty is the same For is not This of which our Lord speaks the same that hee took If you say not so because hee gave thanks before hee said This is my Body This is my Bloud at least it must be that which hee broke after hee had given thanks and that of necessity is the same bread which hee took as the same wine For to imagine that This demonstrates bread and wine which when hee sayes is my Body and Bloud are then abolished to make room for the Body and Bloud is that which his affirmation is will by no means allow requiring that which it affirmeth to be verified for that time which it demonstrateth or presenteth to the understanding So that This must be the Body and Bloud of Christ at such time as it is This that is that Bread and that Wine which Gods word demonstrateth In fine whatsoever it is which This may be said to demonstrate besides Bread and Wine it will be unpossible to make appear that the Disciples understood that which the Scriptures whereby wee must learn what they understood expresse not But this is not all When S. Matthew sayes I will drink no more of this production of the Vine which S. Luke sayes that our Lord said before the consecration of the Sacrament either wee must say that hee repeated the same words which is nothing unlikely seeing the tender of the cup at which they were said is repeated by our Lord as it is agreed upon that the Jewes at the Supper of the Passeover did customarily repeat the same And this answer takes away all imputation of confusion from the text of S. Matthew But if any man stand upon it that these words were said onely before the consecration though they are repeated by S. Matthew after it at the delivering of the cup and therefore that it is not called wine which is in the cup after the consecration If hee consider how pertinently hee makes S. Matthew bring in this saying upon the delivery of the cup not supposing that to be wine which was in it hee will finde himself never a whit easied by that escape For how grosse were it for him to put these sayings together This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many to the remission of sins And I say unto you I will drink no more of this production of the Vine had hee not taken that which was in the cup for wine The same holds in the words of S. Mark having followed S. Matthew in this So when S. Paul makes our Lord say Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you is it not manifest that breaking is properly said of bread of a body of flesh not without some impropriety to be understood by that which is common to bread and to a body of flesh And would S. Paul have used a term which necessarily referrs him that hears it to bread were it not bread which our Lord brake after the consecration of the Sacrament in resemblance wherewith this body is said to be broken because it was wounded But when the same S. Paul speaking of that which they take which they eat which they drink which certainly they do after the consecration when it is the Sacrament saith So oft as yee eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ Is there then any reason left why wee should not believe bread to be bread and wine to be wine when the word of God sayes it but that whatsoever the word of God say wee are resolved of our prejudice And when hee saith again Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup speaketh hee of eating and drinking any thing else but that which all Christians receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist If any thing can possibly be more manifest than this it is that which hee addeth arguing that all Christians are one Body â—s the bread is one to wit which they eat because they all partake of onâ— bread And therefore when hee saith further The cup of blessing which weâ— blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ I will not insist upon this that it is called bread after the blessing though S. Matthew observeth that our Lord calleth it so after giving of thanks because the cup may be called the cup of blessing which wee blesse before the blessing be past and done But I say confidently that to make our Lord say that the bread is the communion of the Body and the cup that is the wine that is in the cup which is blessed for what else can be understood to be in the cup with correspondence to bread is the communion of the bloud of Christ is to make him say that which hee did not mean unlesse hee did mean that that is bread and wine whereby Christians communicate in the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But shall this evidence of the nature and substance of Bread and Wine remaining in the Sacrament of the Eucharist even when it is a Sacrament that is when it is received either deface or efface the evidence which the same Scriptures yield us of the truth of Christs body and blood brought forth and made to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by making it to be that Sacrament Surely wee must not suffer such a conceit to prossesse us unlesse wee will offer the same violence to the manifest and expresse words of the Scripture For of necessity when our Lord saith This is my body this is my blood either wee must make is to stand for signifieth and This is my body this is my bloud to be more than this is a sign of my body and bloud Or else the word is will inforce the elements to be called the body and bloud of Christ at that time and for that time when they are not yet received That is to say whether hee that receives them who think it for their advantage to maintain that This is my body and my bloud signifies no more but this is a sign of my body and bloud to advise how they can ground the true real participation of the body and bloud of Christ in by the Sacrament of the Eucharist upon the Scripture allowing no more than the signification of the body bloud of Christ by that Sacrament to be declared in those words of the Scripture that describe the institution of it For that a man receives the body and bloud of Christ spiritually through faith in receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is no more than hee does in not receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist if by the act of a living faith wee do eat the flesh of Christ and drink his
bloud as understanding themselves aright all Christians must needs do Unlesse wee can maintain that wee receive the body and blood of Christ not onely when wee receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist but also by receiving it there is no cause why our Lord should say This is my body this is bloud when hee delivered onely the sign of it to good and bad and therefore not out of any consideration of the quality of them that received it And what a grosse thing were it to say that our Savior took such care to leave his Church by the act of his last will a legacy which imports no more than that which they might at all times bestow upon themselves And let mee know whether the Church could not devise signes enow to renew the memory of Christs death or if that be likewise included to expresse their profession also of dying with Christ by bearing his Crosse if our Lords intent had been no more than to appoint a Ceremony that might serve to commemorate our Lords death or to expresse our own profession of conformity to the same For certainly they who make no more of it whom I said wee may therefore properly call Sacramentaries cannot assign any further effect of Gods grace for which it may have been instituted and yet make it a meer sign of Christs death or of our own profession to dy with Christ or for Christ But if I allow them that make it more than such a sign to have departed from a pessilent conceit and utterly destructive to Christianity I cannot allow them to speak things consequent to their own position when they will not have these words to signifie that the elements are the body and bloud of Christ when they are received but become so upon being received with living faith which will allow no more of the body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament than out of it For the act of living faith importeth the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ no lesse without the Sacrament than in it Certainly it is no such abstruse consequence no such farr fetched argument to inferr If this is my body this is my bloud signifies no more than this is the sign of my body and bloud then is the Sacrament of the Eucharist a meer sign of the body and bloud of Christ without any promise of spiritual grace Seeing that being now a Sacrament by being become a Sacrament it is become no more than a sign of the body and bloud of Christ which though a living faith spiritually eateth and drinketh when it receives the Sacrament yet should it have done no lesse without receiving the same I will here allege the discourse of our Lord to them that followed him to Capernaum John VI. 26-63 upon occasion of having been fed by the miracle of five loaves and a few little fishes Supposing that which any man of common sense must grant that it signifies no more than they that heard it could understand by it and that the Sacrament of the Eucharist not being then ordained they could not understand that hee spake of it but ought to understand him to speak of believing the Gospel and becoming Christians under the allegory of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud But when the Eucharist was instituted the correspondence of the ceremony thereof with the allegory which here hee discourseth is evidence enough that as well the promise which hee tendreth as the duty which hee requireth have their effect and accomplishment in and by the receiving of it I must here call you to minde that which I said of the Sacrament of Baptisme that when our Lord discoursed with Nicodemus of regeneration by water and the Holy Ghost John III. not having yet instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor declared the promise of giving the Holy Ghost to them that should receive the same it must needs be thought that hee made way thereby to the introducing of that Ordinance the condition and promise whereof hee meant by the processe of his own and his Apostles doctrine further to limit and determine In like maner I must here insist and suppose that hee speaks not here immediately of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud in the Eucharist which his hearers could not then fore-tell that hee meant to ordain but that the action thereof being instituted with such correspondence to this discourse the intent of it may be and is to be argued from the same Now I have showed in due place that the sayings and doings of our Lord in the Gospel are mystical to signifie his kingdome of Glory to the which hee bringeth us through his kingdome of Grace So that when our Savior fed that great multitude with the loaves and the fishes which hee multiplied by miracle to the intent that they might not faint in following him and his doctrine it is manifest that hee intimateth thereby a promise of Grace to sustain us in our travail here till wee come to our Countrey of the Land of Promise When therefore hee proposeth the theme of this discourse saying Yee seek mee not because yee have seen miracles which serve to recommend my doctrine but because yee have eaten of the loaves and were filled Labor not for the meat that perisheth but for that which indures to life everlasting hee showes two things First that his flesh and bloud sustain us in our pilgrimage here because hee showes the Manna which the Fathers lived on in the Wildernesse to be a figure of it Secondly that they bring us to immortality and everlasting life in the world to come by expounding the figure to consist in this that as they were maintained by manna till they died so his new Israelites by his flesh and bloud by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud which hee was giving for the life of the world never to dye Now wherein the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud consisteth hee showes by his answer to their question upon this Warning them to work for the meat that lasts unto everlasting life which hee tenders and not for that which perisheth The question is What shall wee do to work Gods works And the answer The work of God is this to believe in him whom hee hath sent I have showed in due place that the condition which makes the promises of the Gospel due is oâ—r Christianity to wit to professe the faith of Christ faithfully that is not in vain Therefore when our Lord saith The work of God is this To believe on him whom hee hath sent hee means this fidelity in professing Christianity For indeed who can imagine otherwise that hee should call the act of believing in Christ that work of God which Christ came to teach Gods people Hee then that considers the death of Christ that is to say the crucifying of his flesh and the pouring out of his bloud with that faith which supposes all
the bread and the wine to remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as sense informs and the word of God inforces if the same word of God assirm there to be also the body and bloud of Christ what remaineth but that bread and wine by nature and bodily substance be also the bodily flesh and bloud of Christ by mystical representation in that sense which I determined even now and by spiritual grace For what reason can be imagined why the material presence of bread and wine in bodily substance should hinder the mystical and spiritual presence of the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament whereby they are tendered of grace to them that receive Shall they be ever a whit the more present in this sense if the substance of bread and wine be abolished than if it be not Certainly unlesse wee believe the spiritual grace of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to possesse those dimensions which the Elements hold and if so then are they not there Sacramentally and mystically but bodily and materially wee can give no reason why the bodily presence of the Elements should hinder it So farr is this from being strange to the nature and custome of humane speech that supposing the invisible presence of one thing in another and with another which is visibly present it cannot otherwise be expressed than by saying this is that though every man know what distance there is between their natures The Dove in the which the Holy Ghost was seen to come down and rest upon our Lord the fiery Tongues in which the Holy Ghost rested upon the Apostles the fire and the whirlewinde in the which Gods Angels attend upon him and upon his commands in regard whereof it is said Psalm CIV 4. Hee maketh his Angels Spirits and his Ministers a flaming fire are they not as truly said to be the Holy Ghost or those Angels as the Holy Ghost or those Angels is said to come down to rest or to move because those things rest and come down or move whereas the Holy Ghost otherwise can neither rest nor come down nor those Angels move as the fire or the winde moves in which they are I know it may be said that neither the Dove nor those Tongues are called the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures Nor do I intend to build upon any supposition that they are This I say whosoever understands the capacity of words serving for instruments to signifie mens mindes may firmly conclude rhat they may as well be said to be the Holy Ghost as it may be said that the Holy Ghost came down because the Dove came down For can there be any occasion for a man of sense to conceive cloven Tongues of fire to be the Godhead of the Holy Ghost because they are called the Holy Ghost in regard they are used to demonstrate the presence of it when no man complains that any man of sense hath occasion to mistake the God-head to move because the Holy Ghost is said to come down in the bodily shape of a Dove I know it may be said and is said that in the Text of the Psalm that I quoted it is not to be translated winds but spirits or spiritual substances because the Apostle having alleged it to show the difference between them and our Lord Christ Ebr. I. 7 14. inferreth that they are ministring Spirits signifying thereby not winds but that which Christians signifie by the name of spiritual substances And I yield that they are so called not onely in the common language of Christians but in the Apostle also here and by our Lord speaking in the common phrase of Gods people when hee saith A spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see mee have Luke XXIV 39. upon occasion of that appearance of Gods majesty which is either presented to or described by the Prophets in the Old Testament with his Throne attended by Angels the visible signs of whose presence are whirlewind and fire So in the place quoted Psalm CIV 2. That puts on light for a robe stretches the heavens as a curtain laies the beams of his chambers in the waters makes the clouds his chariot and walks upon the wings of the winde Whereupon followes That makes his Angels Spirits or Winds and his Ministers a flame of fire which answers winds not spiritual substances Compare the description of Gods appearance Psal L. 3. Our God shall come and shall not keep silence a consuming fire shall go before him and be very tempestuous round about either with the visions of the Prophet Ezekiel I. and Daniel VII or with the description of the same laid down Psalm XVIII 10-14 and you will have reason to say as I do Especially when you reade Hee rode upon a Cherub and did fly hee came flying upon the wings of the wind where a Cherub in the first clause is the wind in the second The same sense being repeted according to the perpetual custome of the Psalms So when Angels appeared in the shape of men was it not true to say this is an Angel but wee must suppose the nature of man abolished If the Holy Ghost and Angels be of spiritual nature the flesh and the bloud of Christ bodily then are they at as great distance from the Dove from the Tongues from the Fire from the Wind from the men in which they appeared as the flesh and bloud of Christ from the elements of the Eucharist Nor is the mystical and Sacramental presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ever a whit more destructive to the bodily presence of the elements then the invisible presence of the Holy Ghost or Angels to the visible presence of those things in which they were Nay if I may without offense allege that which is most pertinent to this purpose not being usually alleged in it That maner of speech which all orthodoxe Christians use in calling the person of our Lord Christ either God or Man according to the nature which they intend chiefly to signifie or in ascribing the properties of each nature to the said person respectively to the subject of their speech hath no other ground than this which I speak of For all affirmatives Philosophers know signifie the subject that a man speaks of to be the very same thing with that which is attributed to it As when this wall is said to be white this wall is the same subject with this white Therefore when a thing is said to be that which in nature wee see it is not as when a mans picture is said to be hee the saying though extremely proper if you regard what use the elegance of speech requires is unproper to the right understanding of the nature of the things wee speak of though a man would not be so well understood commonly if hee should go about to explain his meaning by more or other words As I conceive I am not so well understood in writing thus
impose upon all their Divines a necessity to maintain that there is no trope in the words This is my cup of the New Testament which so many of their Predecessors had granted because it could not be denied Which being granted must needs take place in This is my body by necessary consequence And surely the common principles of Grammar and Rhetorick will inforce it when they inform us that tropes are used as cloaths are either for necessity because there are more things much more conceptions than words to signifie them For thereupon necessity constrains to turn a word to signifie that which it was not at first intended to signifie and that is a trope Or for ornament to expresse a mans mind with more elegance Compare then our ordinary way of expressing the conceptions of the mind by words which is common to all Languages which our ordinary way of expressing the objects thereof to our minds by the said conceptions If a word be diverted to signifie that conception which it was not first imposed to signifie because there was no other at hand imposed to signifie the present conceit Logick and Grammar will make this a Trope though Rhetorick do not because it was not used for ornament but for the necessary clothing of a mans mind in terms intelligible The trial whereof is if the subject you speak of cannot truly be said to be the thing which is attributed to it As the bread and wine which our Lord blessed cannot be said to be his body and bloud For if the subject mater signified by the Scripture elsewhere require that the body and bloud of Christ be thought present then is the property of the terms to be abated so as they may serve to signifie that presence Voiding all dispute concerning the signification of words which those that hold Transubstantiation could never nor never will agree upon among themselves because it stands upon terms of art the use whereof no mans conceit can over-rule that which the necessity of our common Faith requireth being once secured as here For the reason being rendred why the Eucharist was instituted and why it is to be frequented notwithstanding that the Body and Bloud of Christ may always be eaten and drunk by a living Faith to wit because the reviving of our Christianity by receiving the Sacrament reviveth the promise of Christs body and bloud being the means to convay his Spirit it will not concern the purpose thereof that it should be present by Transubstantiation abolishing the nature of the Elements For though it hath been boldly said by those who dispute controversies That the body of Christ is really and substantially resident in and united to our bodies That Grace and Charity cooled by sinne are inflamed in the Soul by the body of Christ immediately touching our bodies That the seed of our resurrection is thereby sowed in our mortal bodies First none of this is true unlesse you understand it with the same abatement That the body of Christ received in the Sacrament by the body of him whose Soul hath living Faith in Christ is the seed of the life of grace and glory both to his soul and body Because otherwise a dead faith should receive the same Secondly none of this would hold if Transubstantiation be true because rendring the body of Christ invisibly present no mans body whatsoever can immediately touch it And therefore it is no marvel that so many excellent School Doctors have acknowledged that setting the sense of the Church aside of which I will say what shall be requisite by and by Transubstantiation cannot be concluded from the Scriptures Whose judgements I carry along with mee for the complement of that prejudice which I advance toward the right understanding of the sense of the Church To wit that whatsoever the present Church may have determined the Catholick Church did never understand that which the Scripture necessarily signifieth not Now let us see what our Lord sayes to his Disciples being scandalized at those things which I showed you that hee taught them in the Synagogue at Capernaum of attaining everlasting life by eating his flesh John VI. 58-63 Is this it which scandalizeth you saith hee What then if you see the Son of man ascend where hee was afore It is the Spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak to you are Spirit and Life The spiritual sense in which hee commandeth them to eat and drink his flesh and bloud is grounded upon that difference between the promises of the Law and the Gospel which I settled in the beginning For by virtue thereof that Manna which maintained them in the Desert till they died is the figure of his body and bloud that maintains us not to dye Whereupon S. Paul saith 1 Cor. III. 6. The Spirit quickeneth but the Leter killeth Not onely because the Law covenants nor for the world to come But also because it was no further the means to procure that righteousnesse which giveth life then the Spirit of Christ was intimated and furnished under the dispensation of it Whereupon S. Paul argues that the Jews have as much need of Christ as the Gentiles because the Law is not able to bring corrupt nature to righteousnesse Wherefore the reason why they were scandalized at this doctrine of our Lords was not meerly because it was difficult to understand hee having so plentifully expressed his meaning and inculcated it by often beating the same discourse there and otherwise made the condition of his Gospel intelligible to his Disciples but because it was hard to undergo importing the taking up of his Crosse as I have said For it is evident by common experience in the world how men find or how they plead their minds to be obstructed in the understanding of those spiritual maters which if they should grant their understandings to be convinced of there were no plea left them why they should not conform their lives and conversations to that light which themselves confesse they have received So that the scandal was the same that the rich man in the Gospel took when hee was told that besides keeping Gods Commandments one thing was wanting to part with all hee had and take up Christs Crosse to wit for the observing of his Commandments And this scandal hee intends to take away when hee referres them to his ascension into Heaven because then and from thence they were to expect the Holy Ghost to inable them to do that which the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud signifieth spiritually And his words hee therefore calleth Spirit and Life because they are the means to bring unto the communion of his Spirit wherein spiritual and everlasting life consisteth So that the flesh of Christ being exalted to the right hand of God and his Spirit which first made it self an habitation in his flesh being sent down to make him an habitation in the hearts of his people those who upon faithful consideration of
his Crosse faithfully resolve to undertake it do by the Spirit eat his flesh and drink his bloud Therefore when in correspondence hereunto hee pretends to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist that they who eat his flesh and drink his bloud in that Sacrament may eat and drink the same spiritually as unlesse they crucifie him again they cannot chuse but do it behoves indeed that hee procure the flesh and bloud of Christ to be there by the operation of that Spirit which framed them for an habitation to it self in the womb of the Virgin that so the receiving of his flesh and bloud may be the means of conveying his Spirit But how is it requisite that they be there in bodily substance as if the mystical presence of them were not a sufficient means to convey his Spirit which we see is conveyed by the meer spiritual consideration and resolution of a lively and effectual faith S. Paul writes thus to the Corinthians I would not that you should be ignorant Brethren how that all our Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink For they drank of the spiritual rock that went with them Now that rock was Christ 1 Cor. X. 1 3 4. The meat and drink of the Fathers in the wilderness can no otherwise be understood to be spiritual then as I have proved the Law of Moses to be spiritual That is as intimating spiritual promises it intimates a contract for spiritual obedience So S. Pauls argument holds If they who were sustained by God in their travel to the Land of Promise not keeping their Covenant with God fell in the wildernesse Then shall it not serve our turn that being baptized wee are fed by the Eucharist to everlasting life if wee perform not that which by our Baptism wee undertake The Rock then and the Mâ—nnâ— were spiritual meat and drink because they signified the flesh and the bloud of Christ crucified for us Which who so believes as thereupon to undertake Christianity our Lord when hee had not yet instituted the Eucharist promiseth that hee shall be nourished by his flesh and bloud to life everlasting The effect of which promise all Christians find that by the assistance of his Spirit overcome the world in approving themselves Christians When our Lord annexed the promise of his Spirit to his Baptisme and Eucharist by instituting those Sacraments hee tied the spiritual eating and drinking of his body and bloud to the Sacramental in respect of all them whom the affirmative Precepts of using those Sacraments should oblige Christ then was the food and the drink of them who attained Salvation under Moses Law because by the faith of Christ to be crucified they were saved as wee by the faith of Christ crucified But to follow God in hope of Salvation by Christ to come is not the same as to undertake that Christianity which by his coming hee hath taught us The signs of good things to coâ—â—â—ed onely those that were led by the promise of them The rest found by them onely the nourishment of their bodies in their travel to the Land of promise But when our Lord having promised his flesh and bloud for food to those Souls that should conform themselves to his Crosse instituteth the Eucharist and confineth the spiritual eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud to it so far as the precept thereof obligeth Shall hee not be understood to promise his body and bloud by that Sacrament without which hee will not grant it to those that are tied to the Sacrament and neglect it The presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament is that which makes good the promise of his body and bloud made before the instituting of the Sacrament to them who are obliged to use the Sacrament by the institution of it CHAP. III. That the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist depends not upon the living Faith of him that receives but upon the true profession of Christianity in the Church that celebrates The Scriptures that are alleged for the dependence of it upon the communication of the properties They conclude not the sense of them by whom they are alleged How the Scripture confineth the flesh of Christ to the Heavens IF these things be true it will be requisite that wee acknowledge a change to be wrought in the Elements by the consecration of them into the Sacrament For how should they come to be that which they were not before to wit the body and bloud of Christ without any change And in regard of this change the Elements are no more called by the name of their nature and kind after the consecration but by the name of that which they are become Not as if the substance thereof were abolished but because it remains no more considerable to Christians who do not nor are to look upon this Sacrament with any account of what it may be to the nourishment of their bodies by the nature of the Elements but what it may be to the nourishment of their Souls by the Spirit of God assisting in and with his flesh mystically present in it But this change consisting in the assistance of the Holy Ghost which makes the Elements in which it dwells the body and bloud of Christ it is not necessary that wee acknowledge the bodily substance of them to be any way abolished Nay as I am perswaded that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist cannot be better expressed than by that term which the Council of Trent useth calling it a Sacrament and saying that the flesh and bloud of Christ is Sacramentally there So there is nothing more demonstrative to mee that no such thing as the abolishing of the Elements is revealed by the Scriptures than that the sense of them is so fully satisfied by this term So that the anathema which it decreeth against them that do not believe them to be abolished can by no means be grounded upon the Scriptures Nor do I think the term any lesse fit or serviceable because it serves them to signifie the Local presence of Christs body and bloud under the dimensions of the Elements the substance of them being gone For I shall not be obliged to grant that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood can properly be understood supposing the sign and the thing signified to be both the same subject the dimensions of the Elements being become the dimensions of Christs body and bloud and by the means of them all the bodily accidents of the Elements subsisting in the same And therefore the Sacramental presence of Christs body and bloud cannot properly be maintained unlesse acknowledging the true being and presence of the thing signified wee acknowledge also the sign to remain But if a man demand further how I understand the body and bloud of Christ to be present in or with or under the Elements when I say they are in and with and under them as in and with and under a
Sacrament mystically I conceive I am excused of any further answer and am not obliged to declare the maner of that which must be mystical when I have said what I can say to declare it Onely I will take leave to tell him that hee will remain neverthelesse obliged to believe the truth both of the sign and of the thing signified and that by virtue of the Sacrament that is of the consecration that makes it a Sacrament not of the faith of him that receives it though I answer not all that hee demands upon the question What the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ in or with or under the Elements of the Eucharist signifies I would now consider wherein the Consecration of the Eucharist consists that I might thereupon inferre what kind of presence it inforceth But I hold it fit first to set aside those two opinions the one whereof I said ascribeth it to the Faith of them that receive being accidental to the Consecration and not included in it The other to the Hypostatical Union and that communication which it inferreth between the properties of the united natures That which I have already said I suppose is enough to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the same before any man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the soul which the eating and drinking Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by living Faith importeth Onely that I may once conclude how faith effecteth the Sacramental presence in the Elements as well as the spiritual in the Soul I will distinguish between the outward profession of Christianity which maketh us Members of Gods visible Church and the inward performance or faithful purpose of performing the same which makes a man of that number whom God owns for Heirs of his Kingdome whether you call that number an invisible Church or not And then I say that it is the visible profession of true Christianity which makes the Consecration of the Eucharist effectual to make the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But that it is the invisible faithfulnesse of the heart in making good or in resolving to make good the said profession which makes the receiving of it effectual to the spiritual eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud For supposing that God hath instituted and founded the Corporation of his Church upon the precept or the privilege of assembling to communicate in the offices of his service according to Christianity Whensoever this office is rendred to God out of that profession which makes men Members of Gods Church there the effect followes as sure as Christianity is true Where otherwise there can be no such assurance But if eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ in this Sacrament unworthily be the crucifying of Christ again rendring a man guilty of his body and bloud then is not his flesh and bloud spiritually eaten and drunk till living faith make them spiritually present to the Soul which the Consecration maketh Sacramentally present to the body And it is to be noted that no man â—â—n say that this Sacrament represents or tenders and exhibites unto him that receiveth the body and bloud of Christ as all must do that abhorre the irreverence to so great an Ordinance which the opinion that it is but a bare sign of Christ crucified necessarily ingendreth but hee must believe this Unlesse a man will say that that which is not present may be represented that is to say â—â—nâ—râ—d and exhibited presently down upon the place It is not therefore that living faith which hee that receiveth the Eucharist and is present at the consecrating of it may have and may not have that causeth the body and bloud of Christ to be Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But it is the profession of that common Christianity which makes men Members of Gods Church In the unity whereof wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated without enquiring whether those that are assembled be of the number of those to whom the Kingdome of Heaven belongs thou hast a Legal presumption even towards God that thou receivest the flesh and bloud of Christ in and with the Elements of bread and wine and shalt receive the same spiritually for the food of thy Soul supposing that thou receivest the same with living faith For one part of our common Christianity being this That our Lord Christ instituted this Sacrament with a promise to make by his Spirit the Elements of bread and wine Sacramentally his body and bloud so that his Spirit that made them so dwelling in them as in his natural body should feed them with Christs body and bloud that receive the Sacrament of them with living faith This institution being executed that is the Eucharist being consecrated according to it so sure as Christianity is true so sure the effect follows So that the faith which brings it to effect is the faith of them who believing Gods promises proceed to execute his Ordinances that they may obtain the same Whereas those that would have justifying faith to consist in believing a mans own Salvation or the decree of God perempâ—orily passed upon it and the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be appointed for a sign to confirm this faith which is nothing else but the revelation of this decree are not able to say how the signifying of the eating of Christs body and bloud conduces to such a revelation as this or why any such thing is done which conduceth not to the purpose Besides that having showed wherein justifying faith indeed consists I have by that means made it appear that the Sacramental nourishment of the Soul is the means of the spiritual nourishment of the Soul as well as the resemblance of it Here indeed it will be requisite to take notice of that which may be objected for an inconvenience That God should grant the operation of his Spirit to make the Elements Sacramentally the body and bloud of Christ upon the dead faith of them who receive it to their condemnation in the Sacrament and therefore cannot be said to eat the body and bloud of Christ which is onely the act of living faith without that abatement which the premises have established To wit in the Sacrament But all this if the effect of my saying be throughly considered will appear to be no inconvenience For that the body and bloud of Christ should be Sacramentally present in and under the Elements to be spiritually received of all that meet it with a living faith to condemn those for crucifying Christ again that receive it with a dead faith can it seem any way inconsequent to the Consecration thereof by virtue of the common faith of Christians professing that which is requisite to make true Christians whether by a living oâ— a dead faith Rather must wee be to seek for a reason why hee that â—ateth this bread and drinketh
Certainly the word Do this is that which the whole action is grounded upon as pretending to execute it and therefore the effect of it so far as consecrating the Eucharist is already come to passe when the Church may say This is our Lords Body this is his bloud as our Lord said This is my body this is my bloud But the strength of this resolution I confesse lies in the consent of the Church and those circumstances visible in the practice thereof which to them that observe them with reason are manifest evidences of this sense I have observed in a Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church p. 347-370 the passâ—ges of divers of the most ancient Writers of the Church in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving thanks is put for consecrating the Eucharist Unto which adde the words of Irenaeus in Eusebius Eccles Hist V. 20. concerning the then Bishop of Rome Anicetus when Polycarpus was there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hee gave way to Polycarpus to celebrate the Eucharist For seeing that this Sacrament that is the Elements consecrated are called the Eucharist all over the Church from this thanks-giving the act thereof passing upon them to give them by way of Metonymie this name What can be more reasonable than to grant that it is this act and not the rehersal of the words of the Gospel which relate what our Lord did and said in instituting as well as celebrating it by which the consecâ—ation is performed Though on the oâ—her side I insist that these words have alwayes been rehearsed by the Church in consecrating the Eucharist and ought still to be frequented and among them those which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body This is my bloud which now the whole School thinks to be the onely operâ—tive words in that change which the making of the Elemâ—nts to become the Sacrament imports I have also showed in the same place that S. Paul when hee saith 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. For if thou blesse by the Spirit hee that fills the place of an Idâ—ot or private perâ—on how shall hee say the Amen upon this thanks-giving For hee knoweth not what thou sayest For thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified by blessing and giving thanks means the consecrating of the Eucharist which thoâ—e that hâ—d the grâ—ce of Languages among the Corinthians undertook then to do in unknown tongues and are therefore reproved by the Apostle Because it may appear by the constant practice of the whole Church that it ended with an Amen of the people which S. Paul therefore calls the Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit that was used in that case And also that when hee writeth to Timothy I exhort therefore first of all to make supplications prayers intercessions thanks-givings for all men For Kings and all that are in eminence that wee may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all piety and gravity hee intends to châ—rge that at the celebration of the Eucharist which here hee calleth Thanks-givings prayers be made as for all states of men so especially for publick Powers and Princes Because S. Augustine S. Ambrose and the Author de Vocatione Gentium I. 12. do expresly testifie unto us that the custome which the Church then and always afore and since hath had to do this came from this Ordinance of S. Paul and containeth the fulfilling of it And because it is manifest by all the forms of Liturgie in all Churches that are yet extant and by the mention made of the maner of it upon occasion in the writings of the Fathers that the Eucharist was never to be celebrated without prayer for all states of Christs Church And this indeed is a great part of the evidence which I pretend There are extant yet in several Languages several Liturgies that is forms of that complete Service of God by Psalmes and Lessons and Sermons and Prayers the Crown whereof was the Eucharist as that of S. Mark of S. James of S. Peter S. Basil S. Chrysostome which are the forms that were used in their Churches of Alexandria Jerusalem Rome Caesarea Constantinople though not as they had from the beginning appointed but as Prelates of authority and credit had thought fit to adde to or take froâ— or châ—nge that which they from the beginning had appointed There is besides the Canon of the Roman Masse that is the Canonical or Regular Prayâ—r which the Eucharist is consecrated with which is the same in Latine with that of S. Peter in Greek upon the mater as of a truth the Greek is but the Translation of the Latine it seems for the use of these Greeks in Italy that follow the Church of Rome and that of S. Ambrose at Milane three translated out of Arâ—biâ—k by the Mâ—ronites at Rome the Ethiopick translated â—into Latine many Canons called by them Anaphora in the Maronites Missal lately printed at Rome in the Syriack one of the Christians of S. Thomas in the East-Indies in Latine In all these you shall observe a Prayer to begin where the Deacon formerly saying Sursum corda Lift up your hearts the people answered Habemus ad Dominum Wee lift them up unto the Lord. The subject of it is at least where any length is allowed it to praise God for creating the world and maintaining Man-kind through his providence with the fruits of the earth Then after acknowledgement of Adams Fall for using first those means of reclaiming Man-kind unto God which wee find by the Scriptures that it pleased God to use under the Law of Nature first by the Patriarches then under the Law of Moses by the Prophets then sending our Lord Christ to redeem the world Upon which occasion rehearsing how hee instituted the Eucharist at his last Supper prayer is made that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may sanctifie them to become the body and bloud of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with his Grace This being so visible in so many of these Liturgies shall wee say that all that followes after the Deacons warning let us give thanks makes up that which the ancient Church after S. Paul by a peculiar term of art as it were calls the Eucharist or Thanksgiving Or that the Sacrament which taketh the name from it is consecrated onely by rehearsing those words which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body this is my bloud Especially all reason in the world inforcing that the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being that which God promiseth upon the observation and performance of his institution and appointment cannot be ascribed to any thing else In the Latine Masse before the rehersal of the Institution they pray thus Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam ascriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis
declares himself further when hee saith IV. 34. Panis percipiâ—ns invocationem Dei jam non communis est The bread that hath admitted the invocation of God is no more common bread To wit that word of instituion in virtue whereof the Church calleth upon God to make the elements his body and bloud Some of them say it is done by Gods word as the world was made by it But the world was made by the word of Gods command And in these words This is my body this is my bloud command there is none In these Do this in remembrance of mee there is a command which includes a warrant or promise Though the effect of it depend upon the execution of the command by the Church whereas immediately upon Gods word the world was made And this is that word S. Augustine meant when hee said Accedat verbum ad elementum sit Sacramentum The word being applyed to the element the Sacrament is made But this application is the execution of Christs Ordinance not saying that hee said This is my body this is my bloud For hee saith the body and bloud of Christ is onely that quod ex fructibus terrae susceptum ac prece mysticá consecratum rite sumimus Which wee duly receive being taken out of the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer which I speak of De Trinit III. 4. To the same purpose Epist LIX A saying or two of S. Chrysostomes indeed I remember that name those words speaking of the consecration as by which the flesh and bloud of Christ became present in the Eucharist In II ad Tim. Hom. II. that as the words which our Saviour then spoke are the same which the Priest now uses so is the Sacrament the same and consecrated by Christ as that was And Hom. de Judâ— hee saith to inferre the same The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest but the elements are consecrated by the Power and Grace of God This is saith hee my body By this word the bread and wine are consecrated Not by the rehearsing of these words but by virtue of his command Do this And by virtue of that blessing or thanksgiving upon which our Lord affirms the elements which hee had consecrated to be his body and bloud For the meaning may well be referred to the institution of Christ and the execution thereof by the Church which S. Chrysostom supposing may well say that upon this affirmative of our Lord This is my body this is my bloud depends the Consecration of the Eucharist Not as that which effecteth it but as that which evidenceth and assureth it in as much as it was said by our Lord Christ upon supposition of that blessing or prayer which hee appointeth it to be consecrated with So the Author de Caenâ Domini in S. Cyprian that since our Lord said Do this in remembrance of mee This is my body this is my bloud the bread and the cup being consecrated by these words become profitable to the salvation of man True it is indeed in as much as the appointment of our Lord Christ is not completely executed by consecrating the Eucharist but by respectively delivering and receiving it you may truly say that by virtue of these words Take eat this is my body this is my bloud that which every man receives becomes the body and bloud to him that receives it For as I have said that it becomes the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in order to our feasting upon it so is that which I receive completely and finally the body and bloud of Christ to mee when I receive it But this sense supposing it already to be the body and bloud of Christ to all that communicate in it according to Christs ordinance cannot be to the purpose of them that would have it become such to all that receive it by virtue of these words by which it becomes so finally to him that finally receives it An Objection indeed there is but which lies against the other opinion as much as against this out of S. Gregory Epist VII 64. Indict II. Orationem verò Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus quia mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent Et valdè mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Et ipsam traditionem quam Redempâ—or noster composuit super eâ—us corpus sanguinem taceremus But the Lords Prayer wee therefore say straight after the Prayer because the custome of the Apostles was to consecate the sacrifice of oblation with that alone And it seemed to mee very inconvenient that wee should say over the oblation the Prayer which a School Doctor had composed And silence the Tradition which our Redeemer composed over his body and bloud For if the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist by saying the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory here seems to affirm thâ—n can there be no Tradition of the Apostles whereby a certain Prayer is prescribed as that wherein the consecration of the Eucharist consisteth Therefore if it should appear that S. Gregory did indeed believe that the Apostles used the Lords Prayer in celebrating the Eucharist with an intent to consecrate the Sacrament by the same I confesse I should rather adhere to S. Basil affirming the Apostles to have delivered certain words that is the meaning of certain words to call upon God for the consecrating of the elements into the body and bloud with For in so doing I should not preferâ— S. Basil but the whole Church the practice whereof so general and so original as hath been declared could have no beginning but that which our common Christianity pretendeth from the Apostles before S. Gregory And truly that the Consecration should end with the Lords Prayer I do easily believe to come from the practice of the Apostles so ancient and so general I finde that custom which S. Gregory maintains Nor is it any more that S. Jerome hath said in his third book against the Pelagians though hee is sometimes alleged for that which S. Gregory saith Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater noster qui es in coelis So taught hee his Disciples that believers dare say every day at the sacrifice of his Body Our Father which art in heaven By â—nd by Paâ—em quotidianum sive super omnes substantias venturum Apostoli deprecantur ut digni sint assumptione Corporis Christi The Apostles pray for daily bread or above all substances to come that they may be worthy to receive the Body of Christ All this concerns the concluding of the Consecration with the Lords Prayer as it did alwaies conclude For â—â—r â—ight hee allegeth that as soon as a man is baptized coming to the Communion hee is to say Forgive us our Trespasses But before that form was made which
S. Gregory saith Scholasticus composed whether hee mean a man of that name or as I conceive some Doctor that professed the Scriptures if S. Gregory should tell mee that some other form to the same effect was not in use I could not believe him believing the premises The substance and effect whereof under the name of Eucharistia or the Thanks-giving is that which the Church from the beginning consecrated the Eucharist with by the appointment of our Lord and according to the practice of his Apostles So Rabanus de Institutione Clericorum I. 32. affirms that the whole Church consecrates with Blessing and Thanksgiving the Apostles having taught them to do that which our Lord had done Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. XXII relates two several opinions concerning this businesse as it appears by his discourse Et relatio majorum est ità primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modò in Parasceve Paschae in quo die apud Romanos Missae non aguntur communicationem facere solemus Id est praemissâ— Oratione Dominicà sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepti commemoratione passionis adhibitâ eos Corpori Dominico communicâsse Sanguini quos ratio permittebat And there is a relation of our Predecessors that in the first times Masse was done as now on Good Friday on which day Masse is not said at Rome the communion is wont to be made That is that the Lords Prayer premised and the commemoration of his death applyed those whom reason allowed did communicate in the Body and Bloud of our Lord. The practice of the Church of Rome here mentioned is that which still continues not to consecrate the Eucharist either on Good Friday or the Saturday following For then Masse is said so late that it belongs to Easter day And on Maundy Thursday the Eucharist is consecrated and reserved to be received on Good Friday That any commemoration of Christs death is made at the receiving of it as Rabanus saith I finde not This is certain that no man imagines that the Eucharist is consecrated by any thing that is said or done at the receiving of it but at the Masse on the day before And this in the Greek Church is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Liturgy of the elements that were consecrated afore Which they use on other days besides Therefore this opinion that the Apostles should celebrate so would import that they celebrated the Eucharist without consecrating of it That is that they never appointed how it should be consecrated Which neither Rabanus nor any of these whose opinion he relates can maintain Nor supposing the premises is it tenable And therefore I take the true meaning of S. Gregories words to be laid down in another opinion related afore by Rabanus Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum cantilenarum consecrationum officio totum hoc Apostoli post eos proximi ut creditur orationibus commemoratione passionis dominica faciebant simpliciter That which wee act by an Office compounded of many and divers Prayers Psalms and Consecrations all that the Apostles and the next after them did plainly with prayers and the commemoration of our Lords passion as it is thought For the consecration may well be understood to be made plainly by prayer with commemoration of our Lords passion in opposition to that solemnity of Lessons Psalms and Prayers which at the more solemn occasions of the Church it was afterwards celebrated with Though wee suppose it to conclude alwaies with the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory requires And herewith the words of S. Gregory seeâ— to agree when hee â—aith Vt ad ipsam â—solummâ—do orationem To consecrate at or with it alone not by it alone But if this opinion cannot passe having indeed no constraining evidence but that S. Gregories words will needs require that they conâ—ecrated the Eucharist by the Lords Prayer alone I will will then â—ay that the Apostles understood the petition of our dayly bread as S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer doth To wit of the breâ—d and drink of the Eucharist daily celebrated and received For supposing this intent and meaning there is nothing pretended to be done by the consecration which that Petition signifieth not Praying that God will give us this day the dayly food of our â—ouls by the elements presently provided for that purpose And all this will no way prejudice that which hath been said of the mater and form of the consecration derived by Tradition from the Apostles to be frequented at more solemn occaâ—â—ons of Christian Assemblies For that Assembly which believing that Christians are justified by undertaking to professe the Faith and to live according to it and that our Lord hath left us his body and bloud of the Eucharist to convey the Holy Ghost to our â—ouls that they may be able to perform what they undertake should pray the Lords Prayer over the Elements proposed with that intent I cannot doubt of their receiving the Body and bloud of Christ Provided that where the occasion will bear more solemnity the Order of the Church received from the Apostles be not neglected Whereas supposing Christians to believe that they are justified by believing that they are justified or predestinate in consideration onely of Christs sufferings and that the Eucharist is instituted onely for a signe to confirm this Faith Though they should regularly use that form of consecration which I maintain to come by Tradition from the Apostles I would not therefore grant that they should either consecrate the Eucharist or could receive the Body and bloud of Christ by it Sacrilege they must commit in abusing Gods ordinances to that intent for which hee never appointed it but Sacrament there would be none further then their own imagination And upon these premises I am content to go to issue as concerning the sense of the Catholick Church in this point If it can any way be showed that the Church did ever pray that the flesh and bloud might be substituted instead of the elements under the accidents of them then I am content that this be counted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church onely pray that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the body and bloud of Christ so that they which received them may be filled with the grace of his Spirit Then is it not the sense of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may neverthelâ—sse become the Instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it no otherwise than his flesh and bloud conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is not here to be denied that
all Ecclesiastical Writers do with one mouth bear witnesse to the presence of the Body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist Neither will any one of them be found to asscribe it to any thing but the Consecration or that to any Faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it And upon this account when they speak of the Elements supposing the Consecration to have passed upon them they alwaies call them by the name not of their bodily substance but of the body and bloud of Christ which they are become Justine in the place afore quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wee take them not as common bread and drink but as our Saviour Jesus Christ being incarnate by the Word of God hath both flesh and bloud for our salvation so are wee taught that this food which thanks have been given for by the prayer of that Word which came from him by the change whereof are our bloud and flesh nourished is both the flesh and bloud of that incarnate Jesus Where by comparing the Eucharist with the flesh and bloud of Christ incarnate wherein divers of the Fathers have followed him hee justifies that reason of expounding This is my body this is my bloud which I have drawn from the communication of the properties of the several natures in our Lord Christ incarnate But chiefly you see the Elements are made the body and bloud of Christ by virtue of the Consecration as by the Incarnation humane flesh became the flesh and bloud of Christ So Irenâ—us IV. 34. Quemadmodum qui à terrâ— panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenà coelesti Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam â—am non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis â—â—bentia As the bread that comes from the earth receiving the invocation of God upon it is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the â—arâ—â—ly and the heavenly So also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of rising again For hee had argued afore that because our flesh is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ which if they were not in the Eucharist it could not be therefore they shall rise again By virtue therefore of the conâ—ecration they are there not by the faith of him thâ—t receives according to henaeus Tertul. de Resur cap. VIII Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatned with God Origen in diver loc Hom. V. is the â—â—rst that adviâ—es to say with the Cenâ—uâ—ion when thou receiveâ—â— the Eucharist Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof For then the Lord comes under thy roof saith Origen S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer having said that Christ is our bread makes that the daily bread which wee pray for to wit in the Eucharist And in his book de lapsis makes it to be invading and laying violent hands upon the body of Christ for them who had fallen away in persecution to presse upon the Communion without Penance going afore The Council of Nicâ—a in Gelasius Cyzicenus II. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us not basely consider the bread and the cup set before us but lifting up our mindes let us conceive by faith that there lies upon that holy Table the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world sacrificed without sacrificing by Priests And that wee receiving truly his precious body and bloud S. Hilary de Trin. VIII censuring the Arians who would have the Son to be one with the Father as wee are maintains that wee are not onely by obedience of will but naturally united to Christ because as hee truly took our nature so wee truly take the flesh of his body in the Sacrament Our Lord having said My flesh is truly meat and my bloud truly drink And Hee that cats my flesh and drink my bloud dwells in mee and I in him And much more to the same purpose which could signifie nothing did not our bodies feeding upon the Elements feed upon that which is truly the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament or mystically not by virtue of our feeding which follows but by virtue of the Consecration which goes before For this natural union of the body with that which feeds it serves S. Hilary for the argument of that unity which the Son hath with the Father by nature being the union of our flesh with the flesh of Christ by virtue of our flesh united to the Word incarnate S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag IV. V. argueth that Christ having said of the bread and of the cup This is my body this is my bloud who otherwhiles changed water into wine wee are not to doubt that wee receive his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine And therefore wee are not to look on them as plain bread and wine but as the body and bloud of Christ hee having declared it All this by Sanctification of the Holy Ghost according to the Prayer of the Church But I will go no further in rehâ—arsing the texts of the Fathers which are to be found in all books of Controversies concerning this for the examination of them requires a volume on purpose It shall be enough that they all acknowledg the Elements to be changed translated and turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud though as in a Sacrament that is mystically Yet therefore by virtue of the Consecration not of his faith that receives On the other side that this change is to be understood with that abatement which the nature and substance of the Elements requires supposing it to remain the same as it was I will first presume from those very Authors which I have quoted For would not Justine have us take that for bread which hee saith wee are not to take for common bread when hee saith further that our bodies are nourished by it which by the flesh of our Lord they are not Would not Irenaeus have us think the Bread to be the earthly thing as well as the Body the heavenly when hee saies the Eucharist consists of both Tertullian ad Vxorem II. 5. perswades his wife not to marry a Gentile when hee is dead because when hee perceives her to receive the Eucharist and knows it to be bread hee believes it not to be that which Christians call it Origen when hee tells upon Mat. XV. 11. that it was called the bread of our Lorâ— gives no man in his wits occasion to think that the Elements vanish When hee saith further that it is not the bread but that which was said upon it which profits him that worthily receives it hee would have us take it for what it was whatsoever it is become S. Cyprian saith
places to burn the remains of the Sacrament as Hesychiuâ— in Levit. VIII witnesseth or at Constantinople to give them to School-boies had they not conceived the change of the elements to be in order to the use of them and that this use and that which is done in order thereunto expireth when the occasion of giving them to those for whom the Church interideth them ceaseth And upon these premises I conclude that as it is by no means to be denied that the elements are really changed translated turned and converted into the body and bloud of Christ so that whoso receiveth them with a living faith is spiritually nourished by the same hee that with a dead faith is guilty of crucifying Christ Yet is not this change destructive to the bodily substance of the elements but cumulative of them with the spiritual grace of Christs body and bloud So that the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament turns to the nourishment of the body whether the body and bloud in the truth turn to the nourishment or the damnation of the soul And upon these terms if I reade in S. Cyril of Jerusalem where afore that the elements in the Eucharist are not bread and wine I should think my self very simple to imagine that therefore S. Cyril believed Transubstantiation Knowing as any man that pretends to understand the nature and use of language ought to know that any thing may be absolutely denied to be that which in some sort it is not when a man intends to contest that in some sort it is not For so S. Cyril saith that the elements are not bread and wine to signifie that they are not bare bread and wine but mystically the body and bloud of Christ that is as in the Sacrament of it And to speak properly whoso believes Transubstantiation ought not to believe that the elements are changed into the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist For wheresoever there is a change there something of the subject that is changed ought to remain though it be not sensible Whereas in Transubstantiation the whole subject of Christs body and bloud is imagined to be substitured in stead of bread and wine under their dimensions and accidents Which is the absolute ceasing of them to be and the beginning of the thing signified not absolutely to be but to be under those dimenâ—ions So that there remains no subject for that change which the Fathers understand the accidents remaining unchanged the substance of the terms having nothing common to bear the passion of that change which must be attributed to it But what can be said to them that affirm in expresse terms that the substance of the elements remains unchanged Who are so many as may very well serve to interrupt and defeat any pretense of Tradition for the ceasing of them For there can be no pretense that any thing should belong to the common Faith of the Church the contrary whereof it hath been free for men of note and rank in the Church to professe The Author de Sacramentis in S. Ambrose IV. 4. Si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut incipiant esse quae non â—rant quantò magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there is that force in the word of the Lord Jesus that those things should begin to be which were not How much more is it so operative that remaining what they were they be changed into what they were not Lanâ—ranck I see contra Berengarium hath questioned the reading of these words by saying that other Copies reade ut quae erant in aliud commutentur But I see also that hee had so little confidence in those Copies that â—ee held himself obliged to expound the other reading and say that they remain what they were in their accidents Which whether it serve the turn let common reason judge I see also that Guitmund Bishop of Aversa hath owned Berengarius his reading de Sacram. III. and therefore have no reason to distrust those who affirm that it is owned by Algerus Paschasius Berâ—ram Ives of Chartres Gratiane and P. Lombard in their quotations of it The words of S. Chrysostome Epistolâ ad Caesarium contra Apollin are these Sicut antetequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus divinâ autem sanctificante gratiâ mediante Sacerdote liberatus quidem est ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Demini corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso permansit divinâ mundante naturâ As before the bread be consecrated wee call it bread But when the grace of God hath sanctified by the means of the Priest it quitteth the name of bread and is held worthy of the title of the Lords Body though the nature of bread remain in it So also here the divine nature cleansing Cardinal Bellarmine de Euchar. 22. allegeth that there is no such Epistle of S. Chrysostomes neither is it found in his works P. Martyr reports it as hee found it in a written Copy of the Library at Florence And it is found in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in several pieces collected by Canisius What would it then avail that it were not S. Chrysostomes but some other ancient Church Writers For neither the mater of the comparison between the inâ—amation and the Eucharist nor the terms in which it is delivered will ever render it suspicious to any man that observes those conceptions and expressions of the Fathers which I have reported in the premises Gelasius de dâ—abus naturis in Christo Certè sacramenta quâ— sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est prâ—â—ter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae Et tamen esse non deâ—init substantia vel natura panis vini Certainly the mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ which wee receive is a thing divine Therefore by the means of them wee become also partakers of the divine nature And yet ceaseth not to be the naâ—uâ—e and substance of bread and wine By and by Sicut in hanc transeunt scilicet divinam Spiritu Sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suâ proprietate naturae As by the operation of the Holy Ghost they passe into this to wit a divine substance and yet remain in the property of their own nature Ephrem Patriarch of Antiochia in Photius Cod. CCXXIX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also the Body of Christ which believers receive neither departs from the sensible substance nor is divided from the intelligible grate And spiritual baptisme which becometh and is one whole preserves the property of the sensible substance the water I mean yet looses not that which it is become This coâ—parison makes mee adde here that passage of those extractions out of Theodotus which is found at the end of Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the bread of the Eucharist and the oile of the Chrâ—â—â—ne which
comparison S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses in this case is sanctified by virtue of the Name of Christ remaining the same for sensible substance for I confidently maintain that the negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroyes the sense as the comparison justifies for who sayes that the oile of the Chrisme or the water of Baptisme is changed for substance but for force changed into a spiritual virtue So also the water both that is exâ—rcized and that which Baptisme is done with not onely retains the worse but also receiveth sanctification Theodoret Dial. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord would have those that receive the divine mysteries not regard the nature of the things they see but upon the change of their names believe the change which grace effecteth For hee who called his natural body corn and bread and again named himself the Vine honours the visible Symboles with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding his grace to it And Dial. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither do the mystical signes after consecration depart from their own nature but remain in the same substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched as afore The Pâ—eface to the Romane Edition of these Dialogues â—aith that Theodoret uses this language because the Church had as yet decreed nothing in this point An excuse much like the censure of the Epistles of Isidore of Pâ—lusium printed at Anwerpe which are licenced as containing nothing contrary to faith oâ— good manners For if the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith then may whosoever licenses books passe this censure because by the act of the Church making that Faith which was not so afore the dead might incurr the contrary censure But supposing that the Church is not able to do such an act that which was not contrary to the Faith when Theodoret writ it can never be contrary to it I will end with Facundus because the formal terms of my opinion are contained in his words Sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit As wee call the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup his body and bloud Not because the bread is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and bloud Whereupon our Lord himself also called the bread and cup which having blessed hee delivered to his disciples his body and bloud This is in few words the sense of the whole Church concerning this businesse Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna saith that the Gnosticks forbore the Eucharist because they believed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins which the Lord raised again by his goodnesse But why believed they not this because they would not believe Transubstantiation or because they would not believe that our Lord Christ had flesh Let Tertullianâ— speak contra Marc. IV. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterùm vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset That bread which hee took and distributed to his disciples hee made his body saying This is my body That is the figure of my body But the figure it had not been if the truth of his body were not Otherwise an empty thing such as an apparition is â—ad not been capable of a figure For as Maximus saith in the third of those Dialogues against the Marcionists that go under Origens name what body and bloud was that whereof hee ministred the bread and the cup for signs and images commanding the Disciples to renew the remembrance of them by the â—ame As for that which is alleged out of Irenaeus I. 9. of Marcus the Magician and Heretick Pro calice enim vino mixto â—ingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermâ—nem invocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit uâ— putetur ea Gratia ab eis quae sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare in illius caliâ—em l. illum per invocationem ejus Making as though hee would give thanks for the cup mixed with wine and inlarging the word of invocation by which I said the Eucharist is consecrated to much length hee makes it to appear purple and red That men may think that Grace drops the bloud thereof from the Powers over all into that cup by the means of his invocation For had Irenaeus said that this Magician turned the wine into the substance of bloud in truth or in appearance it might have been alleged that the Christians whose Sacrament this Magician counterfeited though other Gnosticks as Ignatius saith quite balked the Eucharist and used it not believed that to be bodily bloud which is in the chalice and that therefore hee did it But when hee saith onely that hee made it appear purple and red perhaps hee used white wine which by juggling hee made seem red However there is no appearance that because hee made that look red which was in the cup therefore those Christians whom hee labored thereby to seduce did believe the bodily substance of Christs bloud to be in the Eucharist in stead of the substance of wine and under the dimensions of it It remains that I take notice in as few words as is possible of those contentions that have passed about this presence and the dissiculties which Transubstanhath found in getting the footing which it hath in the Western Church The book which Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corby near Arniens writ under the Sons of Charles the Great to prove that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is that same which was born of the Virgin is yet extant Though the more curious finde no such thing as Transubstantiation in it but rather a conceit of the impanation of Christs body if such a hideous term may passe that is that the God-head of our Lord Christ being by the operation of the Holy Ghost united to the elements the body and bloud of Christ is by the same means united to the fame A conceit not farr wide of that which Rupertus Abbot of Duitsh near Cullen about the year MCX teacheth that the bread is assumed by the Word of God to be his body as that is his body which was formed of the flesh of the Virgin Nor is there in effect much difference between this conceit and that of Consubstantiation at least according to those that ground
it not upon the Ubiquity of our Lords body but upon his will executed by celebrating the Sacrament or that of some later Greeks Damasc de â—ide Orthâ—d IV. 14. to contradict the Council of Constantinople against images under Copronymus which had recommended the Eucharist for the true image of our Lord maintaineth that it is not to be called noâ— is called in S. Basils Liturgy after the consecration the type figure image or antitype of the body and bloud of Christ Which neverthelesse Cardinal Bellarmine de Euchar. II. 15. judgeth not tenable The II Council of Nicaea that decreed for Images taking up this mans doctrine seemeth to have obliged those that follow to the same terms That is as hee there expresseth himself That God joyns his God-head to the elements to make them his body and bloud and that by the operation of the Holy Ghost which took him flesh of the Virgin so that they are no more two but one and the same Thus hee expresseth the change hee pretendeth which Transubstantiation admits not The Greeks at Venice in their answer to the first of XII questions proposed them by the Cardinal of Guise published by Lionclavavius will hereupon have neither the substance nor the accidents of the elements to remain the same as they were but to be transelemented say they into the divine substance It would be great skill to reconcile this with Transubstantiation But for the opposition made to Paschasius at the time the book of Bertram or Ratran yet extant the remembrance of John the Irish Scot one of the learned men of that time who is thought for the hatred of his opinion to have died by the hands of his Scholars the Monks of Malmesbury the opposition of Amalarius of Triers and Rabanus of Mence expressed by their sense in the works extant de Officiis Ecclesiasticis and de Institutione Clericorum are sufficient witnesses The recantation of Berengarius indited by Cardinal Humbertus at Rome MLIX comes not yet home to the businesse as it lies in the Canon Ego Berengarius For the Glosse of the Canon Law is fain to advise that if it be not well understood it creates as great an Heresie as that of Berengarius in that it sayes That the body and bloud of Christ are manâ—ged by the hands and broken by the teeth of believers not onely in the Sacrament but in the truth Which Mirandula in his Apology saith cannot be clearly understood but in the way of Damascenâ— and Paschasius And yet understanding the Sacrament to consist as well of the thing signified as of the signe though the body of Christ is not touched noâ— broke because the Sacrament is not the body of Christ according to the sensible substance which wee touch and break yet is it truly touched and truly broken as in the Sacrament because the Eucharist is truly the body and bloud of Christ as the Sacrament is and out ought to be truly that which it signifies and conveyes But as it is hereupon no mervail that hee was brought to a second recantation in a Council at Rome under Gregory VII so is that a preâ—â—mption that Transubstantiation was not yet formed And truely for England the Paschal Homily of Alfrick Archbishop of Canterbury together with those Extractions which you reade out of him in the annotations upon Bede p. 332-335 are sufficient evidence of a difference between the sense of that time and after that Lanfranck Berengarius his adversary was Archbishop of Canterbury And Pope Innocent III having inâ—erted the word Transubstantiation in the LXX Articles which hee proposed to the Council of Lateran in MCCXV what is the reason why they past not the Council as Mathew Paris with others testifie but that they were found burthensom And Gregory IX the nephew of Innocent cent having contrived these Articles into his decretals though under the name of the Council but of Innocent III in the General Council though the School Doctors depending on the Pope for the most part not on the Council were content to own them yet have wee no decree of any Council for them till that of MDLV under Leo X. For as for the institution of the Aâ—â—enians in the Council of Florence which though it use not the term of Transubstanciation seemeth to come up to the sense being advanced after the departure of the Greeks and not voted by the Council but onely published as the act of the Pope in the Council it cannot be called the decree of the Council though done in a publick Session of the Council in the great Church at Florence Certainly adding to the opinions of the School Doctors Scotus Durandus Ockam Cameracensis Bassolis and Gabriel besides those who living since Luther have acknowledged the same Caâ—etane Fisher Canus Suarez Vasquez and Bellarmine that it is not to be proved by expresse text of Scripture nor by reason grounded upon the same that which hath been alleged If this be not enough to evidence all interruption of Tradition which is pretended for Transubstantiation nothing is For that which Church Writers declare that they did not believe when they writ that they cannot declare that they received of their Predecessors for mater of faith And that which at any time was not mater of faith how farr soever the decree of the Church may oblige particular sons of the Church not to contradict it for the peace of the Church yet at no time can ever become of force to oblige a man to believe or to professe it for mater of faith CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises I Come now to the question of the Sacrifice the resolution whereof must needs proceed according to that which hath been determined in the point now dispatched For having showed the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist because it is appointed that in it the faithfull may feast upon the Sacrifice of the Crosse Wee have already showed by the Scriptures that it is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in the same sense and to the same effect as it containeth the body and bloud of Christ which it representeth that is mystically and spiritually and sacramentally that is as in and by a Sacrament tendereth and exhibiteth For seeing the Eucharist not onely tendereth the flesh and bloud of Christ but separated one from the other under and by several elements as his bloud was parted from his body by the â—â—olence of the Crosse it must of necessity be as well the Sacrifice as the Sacrament of Christ upon the Crosse And without all doubt it is against all the reason of the world to think that any more can be proved by any Scriptures of the Old Testament that are or
Christ but that they are thereby made fit to be offered and therefore there must be some other act whereby they are offered in Sacrifice And this they finde in the Canon of the Masse For having rehersed the Institution whereby the parties agree that consecration is done it follows Vnde memores Domine nos servi tui sed plebs tua sancta ejusdem Christi filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelis gloriosae ascensionis Offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam Panem sanctum vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris Et accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus os munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrisicium Patriarchae nostrî Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam Whereupon wee also thy servants O Lord and holy people mindefull as well of the blessed passion and resurrection from the dead as the glorious ascension into heaven of the same thy Son Christ our Lord Offer to thy excellent Majesty of thy own free gifts a pure sacrifice a holy sacrifice a spotlesse sacrifice the holy Bread of everlasting life and Cup of eternal salvation Vpon which vouchsafe to look with a gracious and clear countenance and accept them as thou deignedst to accept the gifts of thy just childe Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that holy sacrifice that spotlesse oblation which thy High Priest Melchisedech offered thee Then follows that which I quoted afore Supplices te rogamus Domine jube haec perferri And this they think to be the offering of the Sacrifice which the consecration exhibiteth onely to be offered at the elevation by these words But the common opinion is offended at this for placing the Sacrifice in that act of the Church which sayes Wee offer to thee in which there is onely a general reason of sacrificing by offering without changing that which is offered And therefore as offering is nothing but dedicating and presenting to the worship of God so that if the substance of the thing be changed in offering it then is it Sacrificing Supposing the substance of the Elements to cease and the body and bloud of Christ to succeed in this doing this opinion places the nature of the Sacrifice For the change of the Elements saith mine Author acknowledgeth Gods power and the dependance uâ—on him of his creature And the body of Christ being under the dimensions of the bread his bloud of the wine Christ is present as sacrificed his flesh and bloud being divided Wherefore that change whereby the Sacrifice is produced sufficeth to the offering of it which is produced as sacrificed The power of God being sufficiently testified by the change though in sacrificing living creatures it is testified by destroying them for Gods service And this hee thinks our Lord signifies when hee saith This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which shall be poured out for you For to whom but to God seeing hee saith not that is given you But for you And immediately hereupon there is no doubt but it hath the nature of a Sacrifice The offering whereof must consist in that action which is done in the person of Christ as the Consecration they agree is done by using the words of Christ And thus though this Sacrifice by typical and representative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which the parting of his body and bloud signifieth yet is it neverthelesse a true Sacrifice as the Sacrifices which figured Christ to come cease not therefore to be true Sacrifices And from this nature of a Sacrifice hee deriveth the reason why the Table is an Altar the Church a Temple the Minister Sacerdos or one that offereth Sacrifice I have made choice of this Authoâ— because I meet not this difference of opinion among them reported any where else That which I shall say to him will show what wee are to think of others For having maintained that the elements are really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament And that in virtue of the Consecration not by the faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth Namely that the Elements so consecrate are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in as much as the body and bloud of Christ crucified are contained in them not as in a bare sign which a man may take up at his pleasure but as in the means by which God hath promised his Spirit But not properly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that is a thing that consists in action and motion and succession and therefore once done can never be done again because it is a contradiction that that which is done should ever be undone It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is represented renewed revived and restored by it and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth Taking representing here not for barely signifying but for tendring and exhibiting thereby that which it signifieth On the other side I insist that if sacrificing signifie killing and destroying in the Sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse it is not enough to make the Eucharist properly a Sacrifice that the Elements are deputed to be worship of God by that change which Transubstantiation importeth and therefore much lesse not supposing any change in their bodily substance For this difference will abâ—te the property of a Sacrifice the truth of it remaining I grant that Gods Power is seen in this change according to the terms already settled For what Power but Gods can make good the promise of tendring the Body and Bloud of Christ as a visible mean to convey his Spirit And hee that goes about to make this change by consecrating the Eucharist must needs be understood to acknowledg this Power of Gods But this is not that acknowledgment which sacrificing importeth but that which every act of Religion implyeth Hee that Sacrificeth acknowledging that which hee sacrificeth with all that hee hath to God to testifie this acknowledgment abandoneth that which hee sacrificeth to be destroyed in testimony of it And therefore the Power of God is not testified in this change as the nature of a Sacrifice requires that it be testified For certainly hee intends not to abandon his interest in Christ that consecrates the Elements into his body and bloud And therefore the consideration of dedicating the Elements to the service of God in this Sacrament makes them properly oblations But the
is admitted to Baptism is likewise invested with a right and due title to the promises of the Gospel remission of sâ—nnes and everlasting life As it may appear to all that hâ—ve contracted with the Church of England in Gods name that continuing in that which they professed and undertook on ttheir part at their Baptism they are â—ssured of no lesse by the Church And therefore this is and ought to be accounted that power of the Keyes by which men are admitted to the House of God which is his Church as S. Paul saith At least that part of it that is seen and exercised in this first office that the Church can minister to a Christian And seeing no man can challenge the priviledge of that communion to which he is admitted upon condition of that profession which Baptism supposed unlesse he proceed to live according to it it cannot seem strange that the same should be thought to be exercised in the celebration of the Eucharist as it is done with a purpose to communicate the Sacrament thereof to those that receive I shall desire any man that counts this sâ—râ—nge to consider that which I quoted even now out of Epiphanius That the Patriarch of the Jews at Tiberias being baptized by the Bishop put a considerable sum of Gold into his hand saying Offer for me For it is written Whatsoever ye bind on â—atrh shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be losed in heaven For so it follows in Epiphanius And when S. Cyprian blames or forbids offering up the names or offering up the Eucharist in the names of those that had fallen away from the Church in time of persecution till they were reconciled to the Church by Penance doth he not exercise the power of the Keyes in his hands by denying the benefit of those Prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with to them who had forfeited their right to it by failing of that which by their baptism they undertook As on the other side whosoever the Eucharist is offered for that is whosoever hath a part in those Prayers which it is celebrated with is thereby declared loose by the Church upon supposition that he is indeed what he professes And whatsoever Canons of the Church there are of which there are not a few which take order that the offerings of such or such shall or shall not be received they all proceed upon this suppoâ—â—tion that by the power of the Keys they are to be allowed or refused their part of benefit in the Communion of the Eucharist and the effects of iâ— For not to speak of what is by the corruption of men but what ought to be by the appointment of God it is manifest that the admission of a man to the communion of the Eucharist is an allowance of his Christianity as conâ—ormable to that which Baptism professeth though in no sâ—ate of the Church it is a sufficient and reasonable presumption that a man is indeed and before God intitled to the promises of the Gospel that he is admitted to the communion of the Eucharist by the Church because whatsoever profession the Church can receive may be counâ—erfeit But so that it is to be indeavoured by all means possible for the Church to use that the right of communicating with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not allowed any man by the Church but upon such terms and according to such laws that a man being qualified according to them may be really and indeed qualified for those promises which the Gospell tendreth Which being supposed every Christian must of necessity acknowledge how great and eminent a power the Lord hath trusted his Church with in celebrating and giving of the Eucharist when he is convinced to believe that the body and blood of Christ is thereby tendred him though mystically and as in a Sacrament yet so truly that the spirit of Christ is no lesse really present with it to inable the souls of all them that receive it with sincere Christianity then the Sacrament is to their bodies or then the same spirit is present in the flesh and bloud of Christ naturally being in the heavens For suppose that by faith alone without receiving this Sacrament a man is assured of the spirit of Christ as by faith alone understanding faith alone as S. Paul meant it I shall show that he may be assured of it yet if he have determined a visible act to be done to the due performance whereof he hath annexed a promise of the participation of the Spirit of Christ by our Spirit no lesse then of the body â—nd blood of Christ Sacramentally present by our bodies And if he hath made the doing of this a part of the Christianity which under the title of Faith alone inâ—iâ—leth to promises of the Gospell for who can be said to professe Christianity that owneth not such an Ordinâ—nce upon such a promise Then hath he determined and limited the truth of that faith which onely justifieth us at the beginning of every mans Christianity to the Sacrament of Baptism but in the proceeding of the same to that of the Eucharist These being the first Powers of the Church and having resolved from the beginning that the power of the Church extends to the deterâ—ining or limiting of any thing requisite to the communion of the Church the determination or limitation wherof by such an act as ought to have the force of Law to them that are of the Church becomes requisite to the communion of Christians in the offices of Gods service in unity I cannot see any of the controversies whereby we stand now divided that can deserve a place in our consideration before that of the Baptism of Infants For as it is a dispute belonging to the first and originall power of the Church to consider whether it extend so farre as when it is acknowledged that there is no written Law of God to that purpose that it may and justly hath provided that all the Children of Christian Parents be baptized Infants so it will apear to concern their salvation more immediately then other Laws limiting the exercise of the Churches power or the circumstances of exercising those offices of God service which it tendeth to determine can be thought to do But Before I come to dispute this point I will here take notice once more of the Book called the Doctrine of Baptisms one of the fruits of this blessed Reformation commonly attributed to the Master of a Colledge in Cambridge proving by a studied dispute that it was never intended by our Lord Christ and his Apostles that Christians should be Baptized at all That John indeed was sent to baptize with water but that the Baptism of Christ is baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire And so long as the Ceremonies of the Law were not abolished in point of fact though become void in point of right so long also baptism by water was practised by the Apostles as
which it is ministred under such an unhallowed opinion as that In the meane time neither is the promise of Grace annexed to the solemnity thereof in which there hath succeeded so vast a change as I have signified by Gods choice of any visible creature in which it is exercised as in Baptisme and the Eucharist but by that common reason for which it is a solemnity fit for the Church to execute it with nor is the promise of grace annexed to the office of the Churth any otherwise then as it becomes the meanes to retrive the condition of baptisme qualifying for the promise by the Covenant of Grace In fine the name and notion of a Sacrament as it hath been duly used by the Church and writers allowed by the Church extendeth to all holy actions done by vertue of the Office which God hath trusted his Church with in hope of obtayning the grace which he promiseth Baptisme and the Eucharist are actions appointed by God in certaine creatures utterly impertinent to the effect of Grace setting aside his appointment But apt to signifie all the Grace which the Gospell promiseth by vertue of that correspondence which holds between things visible and sâ—nsible and things intelligible and invisible Both antecedent for their institution to the foundation of the Church the Society whereof subscribeth upon condition of the first and for communion in the second The rest are actions appointed to be solemnized in the Church by the Apostles not alwaies every where precisely with the same ceremonies but such as alwaies may reasonably serve to signifie the graces which it praies for on the behalfe of them who receive them The hope of that Grace being grounded upon Gods generall promise of hearing the prayers of his Church which the constitution thereof involveth Nor am I solicitous to make that construction which may satisfie the decrees of the Councils of Florence and Trent who have first taken upon them to decree under Anathama the conceite of the Schoole in reducing them to the number of seven But seeing the particulars so qualified by ancient writers in the Church and the number agreed upon by the Greeke Church as well as the Latines I have acknowledged that sense of their sayings which the primâ—ive order of the Chatholike Church inforceth For though I count it a great a buse to maintaine simple Christians in an opinion that the outward works of them not supposing the ground upon which the intent to which the disposition with which they are done secures the salvation of them to whom they are ministred Which opinion the formall ministring of them seemeth to maintaine Yet is it a far greater abuse to place the reformation of the Church in abolishing the solemnities rather then in reducing the right understanding of the ground and intent of those offices which they serve to solemnize CHAP. XXX To worship Christ in the Eucharist though believing transubstantiation is not Idolatry Ground for the honour of Saints and Martyrs The Saints and the Angels pray for us Three sorts of prayers to Saints The first agreeable with Christianity The last may be Idolatry The second a step to it Of the Reliques of the Saints Bodies What the second Commandement prohibiteth or alloweth The second Councile of Nicea doth not decree Idolatry And yet there is no decree in the Church for the worshiping of Images ANd now I come to that resolution which I have made way for by premising these conclusions for assumptions to inferr it onely by the way I have resolved against those prayers which the Church of Rome prescribeth to deliver the soules of the dead from Purgatory paines I say then first that the adoration of the Eucharist which the Church of Rome prescribeth is not necessarily Idolatry I say not what it may be accidentally by that intention which some men may conceale and may make it Idolatry as to God I speak upon supposition of that intention which the profession of the Church formeth and which alone is to my present purpose I suppose them to beleive that those creatures of God which are the elements of that sacrament are no more there after the consecration having ceased to be that there might be roome for the body and blood of our Lord to come into theire stead I suppose that the body and blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are and must be adored by a good Christian where the custome of the Church which a Christian is obliged to communicate with requires it For that which wee see is enough for to certifie us that peremptorily to refuse any custome of the Church is a step to division and the dissolution of it which is the greatest evill that can befall Christianity next to the peremptory profession of some thing contrary to that truth wherein christianity consists and which the being of the Church presupposeth But I suppose further that the body and blood of Christ is not adored nor to be adored by Christians neither for it self nor for any indowment residing in it which it may have received by being personally united with the God head of Christ But onely in consideration of the said God-head to which it remaines inseparably united wheresoever it becomes For by that meanes whosoever proposeth not to himselfe the consideration of the body and blood of Christ as it is of it selfe and in it self a meer creature which he that doth not on purpose cannot do cannot but consider it as he believs it to be being a Christian And considering it as it is honor it as it is inseperably united to the God-head in which by which it subsisteth in which therefore that honour resteth and to which it tendeth So the God-head of Christ is the thing that is honoured and the reason why it is honoured both The body and blood of Christ though it be necessarily honored because necessarily united to that which is honoured yet is it onely the thing that is honored and not the reason why it is honoured speaking of the honor proper to God alone I suppose further that it is the duty of e-every christian to honour our Lord Christ as God subsisting in humane flesh whether by professing him such or by praying to him as such or by using any bodily gesture which by the custome of them that frequent it may serve to signifie that indeed he takes him for such which gesture is outwardly that worship of the heart which inwardly commandes it This honour then being the duty of an affirmative precept which according to the received rule ties alwaies though it cannot tye a man to doe the duty alwaies because then he should doe nothing else What remaines but a just occasion to make it requisite and presently to take hold and oblige And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to expresse by the bodily act of adoration that inward honour which we alwaies cary towards our Lord Christ as
world And truly no more than this can be thought requisite to the purpose of the whole Prophesie of incouraging them to continue constant in the profession of Christianity notwithstanding all persecutions as foreknowing the issue Now hee that continues constant in Christianity and never knew this Prophesie shall want nothing necessary to his salvation though hee want so nething very effectual to the having of that which is necessary To wit of perseverance in Christianity The intent of this Prophesie being to perswade them to it Which is enough to show any man a difference between the right understanding of this Prophesie and any part of the Rule of Faith As for the custome of giving the Eucharist to Infants so soon as they were baptized I answer that the evidence which I will give you that it was never used out of an opinion of necessity to Salvation as the Baptisme of Infants was seemeth to be an exception sufficient against the universal use of it as supposed to come from the Apostles Hee that will shew mee any Writer of the Church by whose testimony it may be presumed that the Church did not baptize Infants out of an opinion that they could not be saved without it I speak not now of the truth of this opinion but onely of the point of fact whatsoever may be argued from thence by virtue of the premises I will yield him that the same Writer did believe that the giving of the Eucharist to Infants upon their Baptisme was commanded by the Apostles I acknowledge it is the opinion of Tertullian for which there is no mark upon him as ever a whit the lesse Catholick that it was not expedient to baptize Infants because of the danger of years under discretion to seduce them from the fulfilling of their profession before they could throughly understand what it imported But I deny that this was because he or any body then believed that they could go out of the world unbaptised and yet be saved For when the vigilance of Parents and the diligence of all might assure them not to fail of Baptism in case of necessity it is no marvail if the reason alledged might move men to defer it to the years of manhood beleeving no lesse the necessity of it Now in the writings of Fulgentius a worthy African Prelate there is extant a little piece in answer to a Letter of Ferrandus a Deacon of his it seems about a certain Moore who being converted and having divers times made profession of Christianity as the custome of the Church then required after that being taken sick was baptized without being able by speaking to make the like profession as the rule required all at their baptism to make Upon other considerations the Letter desires resolution of the salvation of this Moore But upon this also because he survived not to receive the Eucharist which is clearly answered in the affirmative upon as good reasons of Scripture as a good Christian can desire Which is without exception to show that they had not that opinion of the necessity of the Eucharist as of Baptism sufficient to argue a severall beginning of observing them both And truly seeing it is granted on all hands that it is no inconvenience in Christianity that the Church or any part of it mistake the true meaning of some Scriptures the alledging of our Lords words Vnless yee eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood yee have not life in you Joh. VI. 53. seems to argue that this came to be an order from some new act of the Church or part of it rather then that it was practised as coming from the Apostles Whereunto if we add that which here follows though it appear chiefly by S. Cyprian de lapsis to have been frequented in Africk though it were practised in the Western and Eastern Church yet perhaps it will appear to comeshort of S. Austins rule of discerning what comes from the Apostles as affording appearance that it was neither Original nor Catholick as for how prejudiciall this is not the place to determine it The words of Innocent I Pope out of which it is commonly taken for granted that this custome was in use at Rome are these Epist XCIII Apud Augustinum Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratiâ posse donari perfatuum est Nisi enim manducaverint carnem filii homins biberint sanguinem ejus non habebunt vitam in â—semetipsis But that which your brotherhood affirms that they publish that Infants may have the reward of eternal life given them even without the grace of baptism is very foolish For unlesse they eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood they have not life in themselves Where it is plain that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ which he makes necessary to salvation is that which consists in being baptized but of giving them the Eucharist not a word more then this The same fense concerning the eating of the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ in and by baptisme and that onely necessary to salvation S. Austine also most manifestly delivers in a passage alledged by Gratain de Consecrat dist 2 Cap. Quia passus est dominus out of a certain Homily de infantibus which Bede also hath in 1 ad Cor. X. Nulli est aliquatenus dubitandum unumquemque sidelium Corporis sanguinis Dominici tunc esse participem quando in baptismate membrum efficitur Christi nec alienari ab illius panis calicisque consortio etiamsi antequam panem illum comedat calicemque bibat de hoc seculo migraverit in unitate Corporis Christi constitutus No man is any way to doubt that every believer then becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ when he is made a member of Christ by baptism Nor does he become a stranger to the communion of that bread and cup though before eat that bread and drink that cup he goes out of the world estated in the unity of Christs body And thus he expounds also the eating of Christs flesh and drinking his blood de peccatorum meritis remis III. 4. And so he is likewise there to be understood Cap. XX. And to this purpose all those passages of his are in force whereby he requireth nothing but Baptisme to the salvation of Infants And in this sense Hypognost ad Art V. Quomodo vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqnâ spiritu non cibatis carne atque non potatis sanguine Christi qui fusus est in remissionem peccatorum Ecce non baptizatus vitali etiam cibo poculoque privatus dividitur à regno coelornm ubi fons viventium permanet Christus How do ye Pelagians promise little ones not born again of water and the spirit noâ— fed with the flesh nor drenched with the blood of
State of reconcilement which is our right to life But so that if the State be from Christ as S. Paul saith we have received reconcilement by Christ then is the right to it in consideration of Christ when he saith that being enemies we were reconciled to God by his death Saint Paul againe arguing how God hath abolished the difference betweene Jew and Gentile by the Law pursues it thus Eph. II. 15. 16. That he might make up both into one new man through himselfe making peace And reconcile both in one body to God by the Crosse slaying the enmity by it Here Socinus will have us to construe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but absolutely to the behoofe and glory of God Which had a Schooleboy doâ—e he should have been whipt for seeking something out of the text to governe that case which he hath a verbe in the text to govern Therefore the Gentiles are indeed reconciled to the Jewes according to S. Paule But why because both to God And therefore the reason is the same in the reconcilement oâ— men and Angels Col. I. 19 22. For in him he pleased that all fullnesse should dwell And by him to reconcile all to himselfe pacifying through him by the bloud of his Crosse whether the things that are on earth or that are in heaven And you being once estranged and enemies in your mind through evil workes now hath he reconciled by the body of his flesh through death Especially comparing this with the purpose of God which he declareth Eph. I. 10. For the ordering of the fullnesse of time to recollect all in Christ whether thinges in heaven or on earth For that which here he termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to recollect unto Christ that is by Christ to reduce to the originall state of dependence upon God is in part the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reconcile to himself afore But wholy agrees not in as much as this particularly concerns the case of mankind whose sinne required reconcilement that they might be reduced to God in one body with the holy angels that had no sinne All this the Apostle meant to expresse at once and yet imply what was particular to man besides that which belonged to the Angels And we must either admit reconcilement between Men and Angels because both reduced to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of Christ mention had been made afore Col. â— 20. as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. I. 4. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 1 Pet. I. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes I. 5. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. VIII 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or show how the Angels are reduced to God by the death and bloud-shed of Christ his Crosse It remaines that I say something of the effect of all this in cleansing and purging of sin and in making propitiation and attonement for it Of which you have the words of the Apostle 1 John I. 7. If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne Where cleansing of sinne by Christs bloud supposing the condition of Christianity it is manifest that the effect of Christs bloud in cleansing of sinne is not to bring us to Christianity Againe 1 John II. 1 2 If any man sinne we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sinnes and not for ours onely but for the sinnes of the whole world Saith Socinus Jesus Christ the righteous that is Jesus Christ the faithfull 1 John I. 9. If we confesse our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive our sinnes and cleanse us from all unrighteousnesse That so he may be thought to expiate our sinnes by testifying the Covenant which ingages Gods faith So farre he goes for an interpretation that destroyes the virtue of Christs intercession founded upon his innocence 1 Peter I. 19. Isaiah LIII 7 9. For if Christ be an effectuall advocate because he suffered innocently for Gods will then not onely because he hath obliged God by dealing in his Name to make good what he hath promised us Whereas if his bloud be a propitiation for the sinnes of Christians that are not any more to be moved to receive the faith as well as for the sinnes of the rest of the World that are it must be the same consideration of Christs obedience that moves the goodnesse of God to send the Gospel to the World and to make it good to Christians And what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meanes is seen by the Latine hilaris according to Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chearfull in countenance And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chearfully mâ—râ—ly So the condition of Christianity being supposed in these words also the consideration of Christs bloud makes the face of God chearfull to a Christian that sinneth Here they alledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. II. 17. to signify expiating sinnes and that must presently be by bringing men to be Christians But there is in diverse speeches of this subject that figure which Servius so often observes in Virgil calling it Hypallage As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. I. 3. It is not the sinne that is cleansed but man from sinne And yet the Apostle saies of Christ who having made purgation of sinnes So neither are sins ransomed but men from sinne and yet he saith againe Heb. IX 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the ransoming of the sinnes that were under the former Covenant And this is the true sense of Dan. IV. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redeem thy sinnes For though a man ransomes not his sinnes yet he ransomes himself from his sinnes by repentance as I said afore So seeing propitiation tends to make God propitious of angry It is manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for variety or brevity or elegance of Language stands for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Hebrew verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is alledged to be the Greek in the signification of expiating a man of sin which the sacrifice of Christ does say they by perswading him to be a Christian sometimes it is said of the Priest making propitiation for the sanctuary or the Altar with the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for the people with the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Levit. XVI 33. And then out of that which hath been said it may appear how the sacrifice is the consideration whereupon it is made But if it be said of God as Jer XVIII 23 Ps LXXIX 9. with the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seems to expresse God propitious to sin when
that to be true and by the consideration of it is induced to resolve and undertake the profession of Christianity hee it is that eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ till hee depart from the effect of it For no man can be thought to feed upon that which hee vomits up again Neither can there be found a more exact correspondence than that which is seen between the nourishment of the body in the strength whereof it moves and those reasons whereupon the minde frames the resolutions from which a mans conversation proceeds And because God hath promised to give the Holy Ghost to them that faithfully resolve this and that as many as have the Holy Ghost their mortal bodies shall by the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in them be raised to life everlasting Rom. VIII 11. therefore they that thus eat the body and bloud of Christ shall not dy but live unto everlasting This being the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by Faith and that when the Sacrament of the Eucharist is instituted the effect of it must needs be the same spiritual nourishment and sustenance of the soul but by a new means to wit the receiving of that Sacrament As the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ spiritually by faith presupposes the flesh of Christ crucified and his bloud poured forth so must the eating of it in the Sacrament presuppose the being of it in the Sacrament to wit by the being and becoming of it a Sacrament Unlesse a man can spiritually eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ in and by the Sacrament which is not in the Sacrament when hee eats and drinks it but by his eating and drinking of it comes to be there Hee therefore spiritually eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament who considering the profession Christ calls us to with that faith which supposes him to have signed his calling by finishing his course upon the Crosse resolves to undertake the same and in that resolution participates of the Eucharist But if the flesh and bloud of Christ be not there by the virtue of the consecration of the elements into the Sacrament then cannot the flesh of Christ and his bloud be said to be eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which are not in the Sacrament by being a Sacrament but in him that eats and drinks it For that which hee findes to eat and drink in the Sacrament cannot be said to be in the Sacrament because it is in him that spiritually eats and drinks it by faith Either therefore the flesh and bloud of Christ cannot be eaten and drunk in the Eucharist or it is necessarily in the Sacrament when it is eaten and drunk in it in which if it were not it could not be eaten and drunk in it This is further seen by the words of S. Paul when inferring his purpose to wit that Christians ought not to communicate in things sacrificed to Idols upon that which hee had premised The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ hee addeth 1 Cor. X. 18 20 21. Look upon Israel according to the flesh do not they which eat the Sacrifices partake with the Altar What say I then That an Idol is any thing Or that a thing sacrificed to an Idol is any thing Rather that what the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and I would not have you partake with Devils Yee cannot drink the cup of God and the cup of Devils Yee cannot partake of the Lords Table and the table of Devils These words manifestly suppose the Eucharist to be the communion of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse For as our Lord saith This cup is the New Testament in my bloud or my bloud of the New Testament so is it manifest that God in inacting his Covenant that is his Testament proceeds according as the custome was among the most ancient Nations of the world to solemnize the establishment thereof with sacrifice I have showed you before that the Law was covenanted for with sacrificing Holocausts and Peace-offerings the bloud whereof was sprinkled on all the People But the Elders in the name of the people feasted upon the remaines Exod. XXIV 5-11 And among the Sacrifices of the Law those sin-offerings wherein the Priests shared with the Altar in behalf of them whose sins they expiated by them and the peace-offerings wherein those that offered them as well as the Priests that offered them shared with the Altar had their effect by virtue of the Law and the Covenant which introduced it And therefore they contained a new act by which the Covenant was renewed as to the particular purpose of those Sacrifices and the effect of them in them for whom they were made Correspondently the Covenant of Grace being inacted by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as to Gods part that is to say so farr as to oblige God to grant remission of sins and life everlasting to all those that are baptized into the faithfull profession of Christianity is renewed in the Consecration and Communion of the Eucharist whereby that Sacrifice is renewed and revived unto the worlds end So that as those who eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar whether by the Priests or by themselves did feast with God whose Altar had received and consumed a part of those Sacrifices So those that communicate in the Eucharist do feast upon the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ on the Crosse which God is so well pleased with as to grant the Covenant of Grace and the publication thereof in consideration of it This being evidently that correspondence which the discourse of S. Paul requires remains manifestly proved by the same Though of a truth the words of our Lord when hee saith This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for you Or This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you cannot otherwise be understood than by taking This cup or This which our Lord speaks of to stand for the action of giving and receiving the Sacrament not for that which is given and received in it and by it For otherwise how should a Cup or that which is in it be a Testament But in as much as the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds upon supposition of the Covenant of Grace and therefore imports a profession both on Gods part and on his that receives it of performing the condition to which respectively they binde themselves by the same In that regard nothing can be more properly said than that God tenders by that Sacrament all that the Gospel promises and man by receiving it the Condition which God covenants for at his hands Which whether you call the New Covenant or the New Testament it maters not an heir upon condition of performing the will of the dead being in
as our Lord was when hee spoke the words that I indeavor to clear When therefore the properties of the divine nature are attributed to the Manhood of our Lord supposing as all good Christians do that neither natures nor properties are confounded what can wee say but this That by such attributions as these in the Language of his Prophets the Apostles God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union of two natures in one person of our Lord And what shall wee then say when the name of Christs body and bloud is attributed to the bread and wine of the Eucharist but that God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union between the body and bloud of Christ and the said bread and wine whereby they become as truly the instrument of conveying Gods Spirit to them who receive as they ought as the same Spirit was alwaies in his natural body and bloud For it maters not that the union of the two natures is indissoluble that of Christs body and bloud onely in order to the use of the elements that is speaking properly from the consecration to the receiving The reason of both unions being the same that makes both supernatural to wit the will of God passed upon both and understood by the Scriptures to be passed upon both though to several effects and purposes Therefore I am no way singular in this sense All they of the Confession of Auspurg do maintain it before mee and think it enough to say that it is an unusual or extraordinary maner of speech when one thing is said to be another of a several kinde and nature but which the unusual and extraordinary case that is signified both expounds and justifies They indeed maintain another reason of this presence and therefore another maner of it For if by virtue of the hypostatical union the omnipresence of the God-head is communicated to the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist then is the flesh and bloud of Christ there not onely mystically but bodily But if supposing both the elements and the flesh and bloud of Christ bodily present it may neverthelesse truly be said This is my flesh This is my bloud How much more if as I say the elements onely be there bodily but the flesh and bloud of Christ onely mystically and spiritually And therefore I finde it reasonable for mee to argue that the sense of so many men both learned and others understanding the words of our Lord in this sense ought to convince any man that it is not against common sense and therefore tending so much to make good the words of our Lord and the holy Scripture it not to be let go I do not intend neverthelesse hereby to grant that the sense of these words This is my body this is my bloud for This is the signe of my body and bloud is a true sense because abundance of learned as well as ordinary people take it so to be But well and good that it might have been maintained to be the true sense of them had no more been expressed by the Scripture in that businesse For then I suppose the sense of the Church of which I say nothing as yâ—t could not have evidenced so much more as I have deduced by consequence from the rest of the Scripture But the mystical presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being further deduced from the Scripture by good consequence I conceive the common understanding of all those men who granting that do not grâ—nt the Elements to be abolished sufficient ground for mee that the signification of these words This is my body this is my bloud inforceth it not Whereas on the other side the substance of the Elements is not distinguishable by common sense from their accidents for whether the quantity and the mater be all one or not whether beside the mater and accidents which the quantity is invested with a substantial form berequisite is yet disputable among Philosophers And therefore no reason can presume that the Apostles to whom these words were spoken did understand This of which our Lord speaks to signifie the sensible accidents of bread an swine severed from the material substance of the same I may therefore very well undertake to say that this sense of the words is more proper than conceiving the substance of bread and wine to be abolished the effect of grace to the Church remaining the same For the property of speech is not to be judged by the signification of a single word but by the tenor of the speech wherein it stands and the intent of him that speaks declared by his actions and the viâ—ible circumstances of the same Now our Lord having taught those to whom this was spoken that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud is done by living faith must be supposed by appointing this Sacrament tendring his flesh to eat and his bloud to drink to limit and determine an office in the doing whereof his flesh and bloud is either eaten and drunk or crucified according to the premises If then the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud out of the Sacrament be meerly spiritual by living faith shall not the presence thereof in the Sacrament be according Shall it not be enough that they are mystically present in the Sacrament to be spiritually eaten by them that receive them with living faith to be crucified of them that do not Is it any way pertinent to the spiritual eating of them that they are bodily present Is it not far more proper to that which our Lord was about tending without question to the spiritual union which hee seeks with his Church that hee should be understood to promise the mystical than the bodily presence of them in the Sacrament which is nothing else than a Mystery by the proper signification and intent of it I grant an abatement of that which the terms of body and bloud were originally imposed to signifie being without question that which is visible and subject to sense But if the nature of the action which our Lord was about of the subject which his words expresse be such as requires this abatement then cannot the original sense of these words be so proper for this place as this abatement Here I will observe that the Council of Trent it self Sess XIII cap. I. speaketh so warily in this mater as not to exclude all maner of tropes from the right sense of these words saying Indignissimum sanè flagitium est ea à quibusdam contentiosis pravis hominibus ad sictitia imaginarios trapos quibus veritas caernis sanguinis Christi negatur contra universum Ecclesiâ— sensum detorqueri It is indeed a very great indignity that they are by some contentious and perverse persons wrested aside to contrived and imaginary tropes whereby the truth of Christs flesh and bloud is denied contrary to the whole sense of the Church They were wiser than to
this cup unmorthily should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ as not discerâ—ing it according to S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 27 28. unlesse wee suppose the same Sacramentally present by virtue of that true Christianity which the Church professing and celebrating the Sacrament tendâ—eth it for spiritual nourishment to a living faith for mater of damnation to a dead faith For if the profession of true Christianity be as of necessity it must be mater of condemnation to him that professeth it not truly that is to say who professing it doth not perform it shall not his assisting the celebration and consecration of the Eucharist produce the effect of rendring him condemned by himself eating the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament out of a profession of Christianity which spiritually hee despiseth for not fulfilling what hee professeth Or that living faith which concurreth to the same as a good Christian should do be left destitute of that grace which the tender of the Sacrament promiseth because the faith of those who joyn in the same action is undiscernable Certainly if the Sacramental presence of Christs body and bloud tendring the same spiritually be a blessing or a curse according to the faith which it meets with it can by no means seem unreasonable that it should be attributed to that profession of Christianity which makes it respectively a blessing or a curse according to the faith of them for whom it is intended As for that opinion that makes this presence to proceed from the Hypostatical Union passed so long before it stands upon those Scriptures which seem to signifie that those properties wherein the Majesty of Christs God-head consists are really communicated to this Manhood in the doing and for the effecting of those works wherein that assistance and grace and protection which hee hath promised his Church upon his Exaltation consisteth S. Paul writeth to the Colossians that It pleased that all fulnesse should dwell in Christ in whom dwelleth all the fulnesse of the God-head bodily as hee expresseth himself more at large Col. II. 9. that they by him might be filled and by him to reconcile all things tâ— himself making peace by the bloud of his Crosse by him I say whether things on earth or in the Heavens And you being once estranged and enemies in your mind through evil works yet now hath hee reconciled through the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and without spot and blamelesse before him Here it is plain enough that our Reconciliation is ascribed to the flesh of Christs body as to his bloud after in whom wee have Redemption even the remission of sins by his bloud Col. I. 14 19-92 to wit for the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in Christ When our Lord saith all things are delivered mee by my Father Mat. XI 27. in order to the revealing of his Gospel that is to the making of it effectual When hee saith All power in heaven and earth is given mee Mat. XXVIII 18. a question is made how given if a necessary conâ—equence of the Hypostatical Union I answer Because the exercise thereof was limited by the appointment of God and the purpose for which hee caused the Word to dwell in our flesh which though of force to do all things should not have had right in our flesh to execute that which God had not appointed And therefore is our Lord Christ justly said to receive that power of God which by degrees hee receiveth commission to exercise The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God I have showed that the Apostle makes an argument of divine power and authority dwelling in our flesh in the person of Christ Heb. I. 3. Acts II. 33. V. 31. Eph. I. 20-22 where S. Paul ascrbies the filling of the Church a work of God alone to it And as hee sits on Gods own Throne so he shall judge all as man saith our Lord John V. 21 22 23 26-30 and raise them up and quicken them to that purpose For the Throne of God on which Christ is set down is the Seat of his Judgement And therefore as I live saith the Lord God in the Prophet Es XLV 23. Christ in the Apostle Rom. XIV 11. to mee shall every knee â—ow and every tongue shall give glory tâ— God To the same purpose is all that you read of anointing our Lord Christ with the Holy Ghost given him by God without measure saith the Baptist John III. 34. if you understand it not of the habitual graces poured forth upon the Manhood of Christ from the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in it of the truth whereof neverthelesse there is no disputes but of the very Majesty of the God-head communicated unto it in the person of Christ as of a truth I have said that they are to be understood In fine not onely the â—erit but the applâ—cation thereof that is the effecting of the cleansing of our consciences from sin is ascribed unto the bloud of Christ Ebr. IX 14. 1 John I. 7. How or in what regard but because by the eternal Spirit hee offered up himself blamelesse to God as the Apostle saith In which regard onely it is that our nature in Christ is honoured with the worship due to God because being for ever inseparable from the God-head of the Word it is not to be appreheâ—ded or figured so much as in the imagination but as the flesh of the Word This is a brief of the Scriptures which they allege to inferre that seeing hee hath promised to feed his Church with his flesh and his bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which cannot be unlesse they be there And seeing the like works are performed and executed by the flesh that is the Manhood of Christ through the virtue of the God-head united unto it Therefore it is to be believed that by communication of the Majesty of the God-head to the flesh of Christ it becomes present wheresoever his promise and the comfort and strengthening of his Disciples which is the work of his Mediators Office whereunto by sitting down at Gods right hand heâ— is installed requires the presence of it If it be said that by this position the attributes and properties of the God-head are placed in the Manhood as their own proper Subject into which they are transferred by the operation of the God-head not devesting it self of them but communicating them to the Manhood to be thenceforth properties really residing in it and therefore truly to be attributed to it I must do them right and acknowledge that they utterly disclaim this to be their meaning Confessing thereby that if it were they could not avoid the imputation of Eutyches his Heresie condemned by the great Council of Chalcâ—don the confusion of the natures remaining unavoidable when the properties of the God-head being communicated to the Manhood in this sense can be no more said to remain the properties of it I undertake not thus much
and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist is a very great miracle taking that to be miraculous which requires the infinite power of God to effect it not that which contains a visible effect thereof apt to bear witnesse to that truth which it is done to confirm I must remit you to that which hath been already said to judge whether the miracle consist in abolishing the substance of the Elements and substituting the body and bloud of Christ in their stead Or in placing the substance of Christs body and bloud under the same dimensions in which the substance of the Elements subsisteth Or rather then either of both that it be enough to ingage the infinite power of God that by his Spirit hee tendreth the flesh and bloud of Christ so Sacramentally present in the Elements that whoso receiveth them faithfully thereby communicates as truly in the Spirit of God according to his Spirit as according to his body hee communicates Sacramentally in his body and bloud Here is the place for mee to allege those Scriptures which inform us of the true nature and properties of the flesh and bloud of Christ remaining in his body even now that it is glorified For if in the proper dimensions thereof hee parted from his Disciples and went was carried or lifted and taken up into heaven Acts I. 2 9 10. 1 Pet. III. 22. Luke XXIV 50 51. Mark XVI 19. If in the same visible form and dimensions hee shall come again to judgement Acts I. 11. 1 Thes IV. 16. if the Heavens must receive him till that time for sure no man will be much tempted with that frivolous conceit that S. Peters words Acts III. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be construed whom it behoveth to contain the Heavens but whom it behoveth that the Heavens contain Unlesse it could appear how S. Peter should understand the body of Christ to contain the heavens not the heavens it sitting at Gods right han◠till his Enemies be made his foot-stool Psal CX 1. if to that purpose hee leave the world John XVI 28. no more to be in it XVII 11. so that wee shall have him no more with us Mat. XXVI 11. it behoveth us to understand how wee are informed that the promise of his body and bloud in the Eucharist imports an exception to so many declarations before wee believe it Indeed there is no place of Gods right hand by sitting down at which wee may say that our Lords body becomes confined to the said place But seeing the flesh of Christ is taken up into Heaven to sit down at Gods right hand Though by his sitting down at Gods right hand wee understand the man Christ to be put into the exercise of that divine power and command which his Mediators Office requires Yet his body wee must understand to be confined to that place where the Majesty of God appears to those that attend upon his Throne Neither shall the appearing of Christ to S. Paul Acts XXIII 11. be any exception to this appointment Hee that would insist indeed that the body of Christ stood over Paul in the Castle where then hee lodged must say that it left Heaven for that purpose For that is the miracle which the Text expresseth that hee was there whose ascent into Heaven it had reported afore But seeing the very body of Christ might in a vision of Prophesie appear to Paul in the Spirit without any contravention to that determination which the Scripture otherwise had expressed Were it not madnesse to go about to limit the sense and effect of it upon pretense of a promise altogether impertinent to the occasion in hand and every whit as properly to be understood without so limiting the sense of it This is all the argument that I pretend to maintain upon this consideration Knowing well enough that it is said indeed that the flesh of Christ remaining in Heaven in the proper dimensions thereof which the Exaltation allowes nothing hinders the same to be present under the dimensions of the Elements whether the substance of them be there which Consubstantiation allowes or whether they be abolished as Transubstantiation requires Which hee that would contradict must enter here into a Philosophical dispute whether or no the infinite power of God can bring to passe either or neither of these effects That is to say whether it imply a contradiction that the body and bloud of Christ which is as sure in Heaven as the faith of Christ is sure should at the same time be present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the dimensions of the Elements whether wee suppose the substance of them to be abolished or to remain present This dispute I am resolved not to touch at this time Partly for that reason which I have alleged upon other occasions Because I desire to discharge this Book being written in our mother tongue of all Philosophical disputes tending rather to puzzle than to edifie the main of those that speak English Partly for a reason peculiar to this point because it hath been argued that if wee deny Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation as contradictory to reason there can be no cause why wee should cleave to the Faith of the Trinity which every man sees to be no lesse contradictory to humane reason than either of both For though I do no ways admit this consequence because it is evident that the nature of bodily substance is far better comprehended by mans understanding than the incomprehensible nature of God which it is impossible to apprehend any thing of but under the resemblance of something belonging to sensible substance yet I am willing to go to issue without drawing this dispute into consequence referring to judgment whether the evidence for Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation be such as for the holy Trinity out of the Scriptures That is to say whether the presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist is so to be understood as to void the confining of them to those dimensions which the Scripture allowes them in Heaven And this as necessarily by the Scripture as the Scripture necessarily obligeth to believe the Holy Trinity When as it may be more properly to the nature of the businesse understood mystically as in a Sacrament intended to convey the communion of his Spirit In the mean time allowing any man that submits his reason to all that Christianity imports the sober use of it in disputing whether the presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist as Consubstantiation or as Transubstantiation requires be contradictory to the evidence of reason or not CHAP. IV. The opinion which maketh the Consecration to be done by rehearsing the operative words That our Lord consecrated by Thanksgiving The Form of it in all Liturgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is no Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements COming now to consider wherein the Consecration of the Eucharist consists I find
no opinion on foot but that which hath taken possession by the authority of the School-Doctors that it is performed by the recital of these words This is my body This is my bloud in the Canon that is the Canonical or Regular Prayer for the Consecration of the Eucharist of the Masse For those that have set aside this Prayer and do not allow the opinion that these words are operative to the effecting of that which the institution of the Eucharist promises though they retain the recital of them in the action yet have not declared any common agreement wherein they intend to maintain the Consecration of the Eucharist to stand And is it not then free for mee to declare that I could never rest satisfied with this opinion of the School-Doctors as finding it to offer violence to common sense and the truest intention of that which wee may see done in consecrating the Eucharist For when our Lord takes the Elements in his hands and blesses them or gives God thanks over them then breaks the bread and delivering them bids his Disciples take and eat them because they are his body and bloud is it not manifest that they are so called in regard of something which hee had already done about them when delivering them hee calls them at that present time of delivering them that which hee could not call them afore his body and bloud No say they that is easily understood otherwise from the common customes which men use in civil conveyances Nothing being more usual by several customes of several nations then to convey the right and possession of house or land by delivering writings testifying certain deeds done to that effect to put in possession of a house by delivering the key or the post to be held or putting into the house by delivering a turf of the land to be conveyed to put into rightful possession of the same adding the like words to these Here is this house or this land take it for thine own But in vain Those that use this escape consider not that our Lord said these words Take eat drink this is my body this is my bloud when hee delivered them So that if by saying these words hee made them that which the words signifie then by delivering them hee made them that which they signifie For so the like words serve in delivering possession to expresse the intent of him that delivers it To which overt act of delivering the right of possession and the conveying of it is as much to be ascribed as to the words which animate it by expressing the intent of it Which if it be true then were the Elements which our Lord delivered to his Disciples consecrated by delivering them And therefore by consequence the Eucharist is never consecrated but by delivering of it Seeing of necessity the Eucharist is consecrated by the same means as the first which Christ communicated to his Disciples was consecrated But this can by no means stand with the intent of them that maintain this opinion supposing as they do that the Sacrament is consecrated before it be delivered to them that receive it And hence starts another argument For these words as they are used in consecrating the Eucharist are part of the rehersal of that which ouâ— Lord Christ did when hee consecrated that Eucharist which hee gave his Disciples And will any reason endure this that the Eucharist be thought to be consecrated by reciâ—ing what Christ said when hee delivered that Eucharist which hee had consecrated And not by doing what Christ commanded to be done when hee appointed it to be celebrated Certainly hee that sayes Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it saying Take eat this is my body sayes what Christ did and said before and when hee delivered it Hee that sayes further that hee said do this in remembrance of mee sayes that Christ instituted this Sacrament But to say that Christ instituted this Sacrament is not to consecrate that Sacrament which Christ instituted That is not done but by doing that which Christ is said to have done And is not Christ said to have blessed the Elements Is it not said that having taken and blessed and broken the bread delivering it to his Disciples hee affirmed it to be his body at the present when hee delivered it Can the becoming of it his body be imputed to the taking or breaking or delivering of it Doth it not remain then that it be imputed to the blessing of it Here finding it evident by comparing the Evangelists one with another and with S. Paul that blessing and giving of thanks in this case are both one and the same thing signified by two words I must needs inferre that blessing the Elements is nothing else but giving God thanks over them which at the present our Lord had in hand with intent to make them the Sacrament of his body and bloud The people of God in our Lords time were wont to take nothing for meat or for drink without first giving God thanks solemnly for it as they had it in hand You may see how scrupulous they were in this point by the title of Blessings the first of the Talmud where you have those forms of thanks-giving recorded and the circumstances at which they were to be used in receiving several kinds which were some of them doubtlesse more ancient than our Lords time A practice fitting for Christianity to continue setting aside that superstitious scrupulosity of forms and circumstances wherein the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees consisted Therefore S. Paul withstanding those Hereticks that taught to abstain from meats which God hath made to be participated with thanks-giving by the faithful and such as have known the truth 1 Tim. IV. 3 4 5. addes for his reason Because every creature of God is good and none to be rejected received with thanks-giving For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer The word of God inabling Christians to receive it with a good conscience so as they may expect Gods blessing which they have desired by their prayers For is it not manifest that having said that every creature is good which a Christian receives with thanks-giving when hee addes that it is sanctified by prayer grounded on Gods words hee includes in that thanksgiving which hee means prayer to God for a blessing upon it The creatures of God then are sanctified to the nourishment of our bodies by Thanks-gving with prayer for Gods blessing And shall wee think that that Thanks-giving wherewith they are sanctified to the nourishment of our Souls doth not include prayer to the effect intended that they may become the body and bloud of Christ which God by this Sacrament pretends to feed our Souls with And doth not the execution of our Saviours Institution when hee sayes Do this consist in giving God thanks for the redemption of Mankind with prayer that wee may be fed by the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist
fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi Which oblation thou O God wee pray thee vouchsafe to make in all respects blessed imputable accountable reasonable and acceptable That it may become to us the body and bloud of thy well-beloved Son our Lord Christ Jesus Then after the Institution Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae Majestatis tuae Ut quotquot ex hoc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpâ—erimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur Command them to be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel unto thine Altar that is above before thy divine Majesty that as many of us as shall receive the holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace These two parts of this Prayer are joyned into one in most of those Forms which I have named whether before the rehersal of the institution or after it Onely in those many Forms which the Maronites Missal containeth the rehersal of the institution comes immediately after the Peace Which was in the Apostles time that Kisse of Peace which they command going immediately before the Deacons warning to lift up hearts to the Consecrating of the Eucharist Though those words are not now found in any of these Syriack forms For after the institution is rehearsed it is easie to observe that there followes constantly though not immediately but interposing some other Prayers a Prayer to the same effect with these two But in two several formes For in all of them saving two or three which pray that the Elements may become the body and bloud of Christ to the Salvation of those that receive by the Holy Ghost coming down upon them Prayer is made that this body and this bloud of Christ may be to the Salvation of the Receivers Which may be understood to signifie the effect of both these Prayers in so few words But it may also be understood to signifie that whosoever framed them conceived the consecration to be made by the rehersal of the institution premised Which if I did believe I should not think them ancient but contrived at Rome where they are printed upon the doctrine of the School now in vogue For in all formes besides the effect of these prayers is to be found without excepting any of those which wee may have any confidence of that they are come intire to our hands I demand then whether I have reason to attribute the force of consecrating the Eucharist upon which the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ depends to the recital of what Christ said or did at his celebrating the Eucharist or instituting it for the future Or to the Prayer which all Christians have made and all either do make or should make to the expresse purpose of obtaining this Sacramental as well as spiritual presence Hear how Justine describes the action Apolog. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having done our Prayers wee salute one another with a kisse Then as I said that the Peace was next before the Consecration is offered to the cheif of the Brethren bread and a cup of water and wine mixed Which hee takes and sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and Holy Ghost Giving thanks at large that wee are vouchsafed these things at his hands To wit the means which God used to reclame Man-kind under the Law of nature and Moses and lastly the coming of Christ and his death and the institution of the Eucharist Who having finished his Thanks-giving and Prayers for the making of the Elements the body and bloud of Christ by the Holy Ghost all the people present follow with an acclamation saying Amen Afterwards hee calls the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The food which thanks hath been given for by the prayer of that word which came from him That is which our Lord Christ appointed the Eucharist to be consecrated with when hee commanded his Disciples to do that which hee had done So Origen in Mat. XV. calls the Eucharist Panem verbo Dei per obsecrationem sanctificatum Bread sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer And contra Celsum VIII Oblatos panes edimus corpus sanctum quoddam per preces factos Wee eat the bread that was offered made a kinde of holy body by prayer Not that which is grounded upon that Word of God by which his creatures are our nourishment as Justine saith afterwards that Christians blesse God by the Son and Holy Ghost for all the food they take but that Word of Christ whereby hee commanded to do that which hee had done S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag III. saith That the bread is no more common bread after the calling of the Holy Ghost upon it Because hee saith afterwards Cat. Myst V. that the Church prayes God to send the Holy Ghost upon the Elements to make them the body and bloud of Christ As I said So S. Basil calls the form of Consecration which I showed you hee affirms to come by Tradition from the Apostles as here I maintaiu it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of invocation To wit whereby wee call for the Holy Ghost to come upon the elements and consecrate them de Spiritu Sancto cap. XXVII S. Gregory Nyssene de vitâ Mosis saith the bread is sanctified by the Word of God which is his Son But to say further by what means hee adds in virtue of the blessing To wit which the Church consecrates the Eucharist with as our Lord did Optatus describes the Altars or Communion Tables which the Donatists broke For they were of wood not of stone Quo Deus omnipotens invocatus sit quo postulatus descendit Spiritus Sanctus On which almighty God was called to come down On which the Holy Ghost upon demand did come down S. Jerome describes the dignity of Priests Epist LXXXV Ad quorum preces corpus Christi sanguisque conficitur At whose prayers the Body and Bloud of Christ is made To wit by God And in Sophoniae III. Impiè agunt in legem putantes Eucharistiam imprecantis facere verba non vitam Et necessariam esse tantùm solennem Orationem non Sacerdotum merita They transgresse the Law of Christ thinking that the Eucharist is made by the words not the life of him that prayes over it And that only the customary prayer not the works of the Priest are requisite In fine as often as you reade mysticam precem or mysticam benedictionem when there is speech of the Eucharist in the Fathers be assured that which here I maintain is there understood True it is Irenaeus V. 2. affirmeth that the Bread and the Wine receiving or admitting the Word of God accipientia become the Eucharist of the Body and Bloud of Christ But what word this is hee
expresly that it was wine which our Lord calls his bloud And that the wine of the Chalice to wit already consecrated demonstrates his bloud In his Epistle against those who consecrated in water alone The Council of Nicaea calls it Bread which the eye of Faith discerns to be the Lamb of God S. Hilary will have us truly to receive the body and bloud of Christ as Justine saith that our bodies are nourished by it but hee adds in Sacramento to signifie the abatement which I speak of that is mystically and as in a Sacrament S. Cyril when hee saith wee are not to look upon the Elements as plain or bare or simple bread and wine saith that wee may look upon it as Bread and wine though that is not it which profits him that worthily receives it as Origen said There are a great many more that have named and described the Elements after consecration by the name of their nature and substance and say that the bread and the wine become and are the body and bloud of Christ Ignatius Epist ad Philadelph Irenâ—us V. 2. Clemens Strom. I. Paedag. II. 2. Tatian before Irenaeus in Diatessaron Constitutiones Apostol VIII 12. Tertullian de Oratione cap. VI. contra Marcionem IV. 40. III. 19. Gregory Nyssene de Baptismo Origen contra Celsum VIII Athanasius in Synopsi Eusebius in Parallelis Damasceni S. Cyril Catech. Mystag I. III. Macarius Hom. XXVII Gaudentius Brixiensis in Exodum Serm. II. S. Austine de Civitate Dei XVII 5. de diversis Serm. XLIV cap. XXVIII Sermone LXXXIIII Sermone LXXXVII Sermone ad Baptizatos S. Jer. in Esaiae LXVI lib. ult in Jeremiae XXXI lib. VI. Isidore de Offic. Eccles I. 18. In fine the Canon of the Masse it self prayes that the Holy Ghosts coming down may make this Bread and this Cup the Body and Bloud of Christ And certainly the Romane Masse expresses a manifest abatement of the common and usual sense of the body and bloud of Christ unto that sense which is proper to the intent and subject of them who speak of this Sacrament when the Church in the consecration prayes ut nobis corpus fiat Dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi That they may become the Body and bloud of thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Christ Jesus to us No man that understands Latine and sense will say it is the same thing for the Elements to become the body and bloud of Christ as to become the body and bloud of Christ to those that receive which imports no more than thaâ— which I have said And yet there is no more said in those Liturgies which pray that the Spirit of God may make them the flesh and bloud of Christ to this intent and effect that those which received them may be filled with the grace of his Spirit For the expression of this effect and intent limits the common signification of the words to that which is proper to this action of the Eucharist as I have delivered it In the words of S. Ambrose de iis qui initiantur myst cap. XI ante consecrationem alia species nominatur post consecrationem caro sanguis Christi appellatur Before the consecration it is named another kinde After the consecration it is called the flesh and bloud of Christ No man that understands Latine can conceive the word species to signifie the outward appearance but the substance and nature of those kindes For so wee call outlandish kindes spices not the appearance of their outward accidents And in the Romane Laws species an non are the kindes that are stored up for men cannot live upon the outward accidents of them Therefore when S. Austine saith That the Eucharist consists of two things visibili elementorum specie invisibili D. N. J. C. carne sanguine hee means that it consists of the nature and substance of the elements which is visible as of the body and bloud of our Lord Christ which are invisible Again when S. Ambrose sayes that they are called the Body and Bloud of Christ hee signifies that abatement in the property of his words that requires not the absence of the elements As when S. Austine sayes in Gratian de Consecratione distinct II. Can. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui est caro Christi suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cùm reverà sit Sacramentum corporis Christi That heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after the maner of it called the body of Christ whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of the body of Christ The same abatement it is that S. Cyril afore Catech. Myst IV. the Council of Nicâ—a Victor Antioch in Marci XIV 22. and Theodoret Dial. III. signifie when they will us not to consider the elements but the things which they signifie For does hee that wills us not to consider the bread and wine intend to say that there is no such thing there Or that our interest lies not in them but in the body and bloud of Christ which they â—ender us well and good So said Origen afore The same abatement is signified evidently by abundance of their sayings importing them to be called the body and bloud of Christ as types or antitypes for type and antitype differ not but as relative and correlative that is figures symboles images similitudes representations paterns pledges and riddles in fine as figures or sacraments of the same Not as if they contained not the thing signified which I have already settled but because the heavenly grace hinders not nor destroyes the earthly nature This language then is used by S. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XLII calling the Passeover a more obscure Type of a Type By Ephrem de inscrutabili naturâ Dei By Theodoret Dial. I. II. III. By the Constitutions of the Apostles V. 13. VI. 29. VII 26. By S. Basils Liturgy By Gregory Nazianzene again in Gorgoniam By Eusebius de demonstrat Evang. I. 10. V. 3. VIII 1. By S. Chrysostome in Mat. Homil. LXXXII By Palladius in the life of S. Chrysostome Chap. VII VIII IX By Victor in Marci XIV By Dionysius Eccles Hierarch cap. III. By Origen in Mat. Hom. XXXV By Pope Gelasius de duabus naturis Christi By S. Ambrose de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. IX de Sacramentis IV. 4. VI. 1. By Tertulliane contra Marc. III. 19. IV. 14 40. By S. Austine contra Adimantum cap. XII in Psalmum III. Epist CLXIII de Trinitate III. 4. By Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africk pro tribus capitulis IX ult And truly the ancient Christians when they made a scrâ—ple of receiving the Eucharist when they were to fast least they should break their fast by receiving it as wee understand by Tertullian de Oratione cap. XIV must needs understand the nature of bread and wine to remain unlesse they thought they could break their fast upon the accidents of them Nor would it have been a custome in some
consideration of their being changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ represented sacrificed upon the Crosse makes them properly no Sacrifice In the former consideration being properly Oblations let them be improperly Sacrifices For in this sense in the Canon of the Masse Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas ac benedic as hâ—c dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata Wee therefore humbly beseech and desire thee most mercifull Father through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord to accept and blesse these gifts these presents these holy unstained Sacrifices And not onely here before the Consecration but just before the Lords Prayer and the Communion Per Christum Dominum nostrum Per quem haec omnia semper Domine bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis praestas nobis Through Christ our Lord Through whom thou O Lord alwaies createst sanctifiest quickenest and furnishest us with all these good things The repetition of which consideration shows that they are presented to God to be consecrated and made the Eucharist as Oblations out of believers goods According to the form used in divers Greek Liturgies from the words of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee give thee thire own of thine own But when our Lord sayes This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is poured out for you Will any man of sense understand That is now by that which here I do offered up to God for you and the bloud as poured forth Or rather this is that body and bloud that is given to be crucified and poured forth for you shortly upon the Crosse Let it therefore have the nature of a Sacrifice so soon as the Consecration is past It shall have that nature improperly so long as it is not the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Though truly so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth And accorâ—ing to this truth true Altars they are true Temples true Sacrifices though improperly where and by whom it is ministred But I will not therefore grant that this Sacrificing that is this consecrating the Elements into the Sacrifice is an action done in the person of Christ Though they are agreed that it is done by the rehersing of the words of Christ For the rehersing of Christs words is not an act done in the person of Christ Nor do I take upon mee his person whose words I recite And I have showed that the Consecration is done by the Prayers of the Church immediately though these Prayers are made in virtue of Christs order commanding to do what hee did and thereby promising that the Elements shall become that which hee saith those which hee conâ—ecrated are As for the other opinion which I am not to be the more in love with because I am not satisfied with this it is to be considered that the Elements are offered thrice in the Canon of the Masse The first is that offering which I rehersed last beginning Te igitur going before the Consecration as â—â— agree The second is that which this opinion intendeth agreeing with the other that the Consecration is past by rehersing the words of institution But mine opinion allows not this For I conceive the Consecration is yet in doing till that Prayer be past Vt quotquot ex hâc Altaris participatione Sacro-Sanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ repleamur That as many of us as shall have received the Holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace Which is the later of the two in which I conceive the Consecration to consist as in all other Liturgies in something correspondent to it And truly the very words of the second offering do bear that the Elements are by it offered to God not as consecrated but as to be consecrated supposing the blessing of them to be the consecrating of them as I proved afore Therefore the offering and the presenting of them to God as consecrated is that which is done by the Prayer which follows Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum And nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis whereby the several estates of Christs Church are recommended to God in virtue and consideration of Christs passion here represented and commemorated Not that I intend here to justifie that Prayer for the dead which this containeth but because referring that to consideration in due time all Liturgies have a place where according to S. Paul intercession is made for all States of Christs Church in consideration of the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse represented by this Sacrament And because this intercession is properly the offering up of the the said Sacrifice to God for their necessities And therefore this opinion saith well that the Consecration exhibiteth onely the Sacrifice to be offered up to God by the Prayers of the Church But not by the Prayer which desireth the blessing of the Elements wherein the consecating of them is contained which is that of the elevation in the Canon of the Masse but by those Prayers whereby the effects of Christs Crosse are prayed for in behalf of his Church According to which opinion the consecrating of the Elements will be the Sacrificing of Christ no further than as the body and bloud of Christ are thereby represented as Sacrificed But there will be no further cause of complaint in this then there is cause to complain that there is not such ground for division as the parties would have For though there be onely a general reason of offering no particular consideration of destroying seen in the act of the Church offering either the Elements to be consecrated or the consideration of Christs Crosse represented to render God propitious to his Church Yet are the consecrated Elements no lesse the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse than the presence of Christs body and bloud in them will allow though in order to that Evangelical banquet upon them at which and by which the Covenant of Grace is renewed For the Apostles having made the Eucharist a Sacrifice in this regard I must not count the making of it one offensive I say then that having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and bloud of Christ crucified or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ And the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth is also both propitiatory and impeâ—ratory by virtue of the consecration of it whereby it becometh the
so that the precept concerns the Church no more then that grace appears But that the effect of it reaches to all ages of the Church abating that which depended upon the miraculous graces proper to the Apostles time For suppose remission of sinne past warranted the sick by the Keyes of the Church that have passed upon him Yet all Christians are to assure themselves that their spirituall enemies are most busie about them in that extremity Whither out of despair to prevail if not then or out of hope then to prevail Their malice being heightned to the utmost attempt of casting him down by the extremity of that instance God forbid then that the Prayers of the Church should be counted unnecessary in such an instance though the remission of sinne be provided for otherwise For all obstructions to Gods grace requisite in so great weaknesse to overcome being the effect and consequence of sinne Neither can it be said that the Apostle attributeth the remission of sinne to the Unction by the promise which he annexeth to the injunction whereby he imployes the Keyes of the Church to that end Nor can it be indured in a Christian to count the removing of them unnecessary and superfluous especially the patient being so disposed and in such a capacity for the effect of them by submitting to the ministery of the Church for the remission of his sinne And therefore certainly as it is necessary to presume that the promise of bodily health is not absolute and generall but where it pleaseth God to give evidence of his presence in and to his Church by the effect of his temporall blessings So that health of mind necessary to resist the tempter with which Christianity obliges us to suppose that Christians prayed for with bodily health the Prayers of the Church are not effectuall to obtain but upon supposition of that disposition which the Church requireth and that procured by the Keyes of the Church supposing the party obliged to have recourse to the Church for it How well this opinion agreeth with the sense of the Catholick Church I have argument enough both in the sayings of the Fathers whereby they express the reason of anointing the sick and in the practice of the Church Origen Homil. II. in Levit. Est adhuc dura laboriosa per paenitentiam remissio peccatorum cum lavat peccator in lachrymis stratum suum fiunt ei lachrymae suae panes die ac nocte cum non erubescit sacerdoti domini judicare peccatum suum quaerere medicinam secundum eum qui ait Dixi pronunciabo adversum me iniquitatem meam domino tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei In quo impletur illud quod Apostolus dicit Si quis autem infirmatur vocet Presbyteros Ecclesiae imponant ei manus ungentes eum oleo in nomine domini oratio fidei salvabit infiâ—num si in peccatis fuerit remittentur ei There is yet a hard and painfull remission of sinnes by Penance when the sinner washeth his Couch with tears and his tears become his bread day and night and when he is not ashamed to declare his sinne o the Priest of God and seek his cure according to him that saith I said I will declare my sinne to the Lord against my selfe and thou forgavest the impiety of my heart Wherein is also fulfilled that which the Apostle saith But if a man be sick let him send for the Priests of the Church and let them lay hands on him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and if he be in sinne it shall be forgiven him Here he gives Priests the power of forgiving sinne from S. James S. Chrysostome de Sacerdotio â— II. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For not onely when they regenerate us by Baptism but afterwards also have they power to remit sinnes For is any man sick among you saith he let him call the Pastors of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of Lord. Shall we then ascribe the effects of this power to the bodily act of anointing with oyl or to their Prayers not supposing that disposition to be procured by their ministery which the promise of remission supposeth Neither of both will stand with the premises seeing the Prayers of the Church cannot be effectuall to them that submit hot to the Ministery of the Church when it becomes uecessary for the procuring of that disposition which qualifies for remission of sinne so that the sense of the ancient Church declared here by Origen and S. Chrysostome must be understood to proceed upon consideration of the power of the Keys exercised upon the sick person that receiveth the unction with prayers for his ghostly and bodily health S. Augustine de Tempore Serm. CCXV Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Et inde corpusculum suum ungat ut illud quod scriptum est impleatur in eo Infirmatur aliquis Videte fratres quia qui in infirmitate ad Ecclesiam accurrerit corporis sanitatem recipere peccatorum indulgentiam merebitur obtinere As oft as any infirmity comes let him that is sick receive the Body and Blood of Christ And then let him anoint his Body that that which is written may be fulfilled in him If any man be sick See brethren that he who shall have recourse to the Church in sickness shall be thought worthy to obtain both the recovery of bodily health and indulgence for his sinnes Now I ask whether the Rule of the Church will allow the communion of the Eucharist to him that hath not recourse to the Church for the cure of his sinne when he ought to have recourse to it For if we suppose the Eucharist to be given him upon confession of sinne then the reason which I pretend appears If without it is because nothing obliges him to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church at that time And so the prayers of the Church and the Eucharist and the unction are therefore effectual because the Church rightly supposeth him qualified for remission of sinnes without recourse to other means For daily sinnes and hourly are abolished by daily and hourly devotions with detestation of the same and yet more firmly abolished by partaking of these offices ministred by the Church Here I must give notice that I undertake not that this Sermon is S. Augustines own which I see is censured among those pieces that have crept under his name by mistake or by imposture For the stile also seemeth to make it some hundreds of years later then his time But I think it more advantage to my opinion that it held footing in the Church so long after S. Austin then that it appeareth to have been the sense of his time For the sense of the now Church of Rome that remission of sin
S. Peter and Iohn were wonne to Christianity according to the division which S. Paul hath recorded unto us Gal. II. 9. 10. whereupon we see him exercise the the office of an Apostle to the Churches of the Jews dispersions by his Epistle Iames I. 1. But let us proceed S. Paul and Barnabas ordained their Presbyters Church by Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. XIV 23. And appointed Titus to constitute Presbyters in Creete City by City Tit. I. 5. Be it granted because Epiphanius hath said it and it is a thing in it self reasonable that in some places the number of believers was so small that there needed but a Bishop to govern and a Deacon or Deacons to attend upon the execution of his orders That there should be Churches constituted by the name of such Churches in such Provinces and no more people any where signified would make them Churches that might be not that were Tertullians saying Ubi tres Ecclesia licet laici Where there be three though of the Laity there is a Church is not meant of such Churches But that three Christians or two in our Saviours terms Mat. XVIII 19. that meet to serve God are a Church because so assembled being of the Church At least in mother Churches of mother Cities where the Apostles made their chiefe residence because the harvest was there greatest and likewise their Ministers that there should be no more Christians then one Bishop could govern and teach during the Apostles time seems to me to cary no appearance of truth And to imagine that those who were designed for Pastors of Churches in being were alwaies resident in the mother Church though occasions whereof there is no rule might and must cause their presence there many times the reason of their office admits not But if we admit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie more then one in a City and a Church it seems not to be refutable that they were appropriate to those Churches The name of Presbyters of such and such Churches bâ—ing relative to the people of their respective Churches Further S. Paul sâ—nding to Ephesus called to him the Elders of the Church whom by and by he saith The Holy Ghost had placed Bishops over his flock to feed the Church of God Act. XX. 17. 28. Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of the article may referre us either to the whole Church or to that part of the Church which the speech most concerned or in fine to the very Church of Ephesus There is a conjecture that S. Paul makes them Bishops by saying that God had made them Bishops of his Church who were Presbyters when he sent for them But I allow not those of the Church of Rome that our Lord made the Bread and Wiâ—e of his last Supper his Body and Blood by saying This is my Body this is my Blood But by that which he did before he said it For the same reason therefore I cannot allow that S. Paul here makes them Bishops of Presbyters by saying God hath made you Bishops in his Church not declaring by any thing that he sayes or does any intent so to do thereby to be understood But I cannot but consider that Irâ—naeus III. 14. tells us that S. Paul at this time called together the Bishops and Presbyters Qui erant ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus Which were of Ephesus and other the next Citâ—â—s and S. Jerome ad Evagr. that he called together omnes illos apud quâ—s praedicaverat All those wiâ—h whom he had preached Which if we grant the article of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referrs us to that part of the Church that was concerned whereas the words as they lie as he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church referre us to the Church there mentioned of Ephesus When S. Paul addresses his Episâ—le to the Philippians together with the Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 2. when in his instructions to Timothy he passes immediately from Bishops to Deacons 1 Tim. III. 1-8 It is said that the Bishops of the next Cities together with their Deacons were present or ordinarily resident on the Capital City according to that which I said even now of Ephesus And it may be said that they were Bishops and Deacons at large in respect to the Church at large not applyed to the functions either of Bishop or Priests in this or that Church And truly I do remember the words of Clemens ad Corinth speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching therefore the Word by Cities and by Countries and Baptizing they made the first-fruits of them whom they had baptized Bishops and Deacons of those that should believe And that S. Paul addresses his Epistles to the Church that is at Corinth and to all that called on the name of the Lord in all Achaia 2 Cor. I. 1. So that they provided for the ordering of them that should become or were become Christians before they were yet cast into Churches And it is reasonable to think that those were ordained in the mother Cities and there stood upon their guard expecting opportunity of framing their flocks And that this was a cause why the titles of Bishops and Presbyters are promiscuously used and attributed But I cannot therefore yield that one Bishop with one or more Deacons could serve the Churches of Philippi Corinth or Ephesus Or that as yet no Governours were affected and applied to several Churches For when S. Paul directs Timothy to dispose of the stock of the Church for the Honour that is the maintenance of widows and Presbyters to receive accusations against Presbyters under two or three witnesses and to rebuke them that should offend before all 1 Tim. V. 2. 16-28 it seems not reasonable to imagine Timothy the Judge of the Biships of inferiour Churches as regularly every Bishop is of his own Presbyters that he should rebuke the Bishop of Forâ—iâ—e though inferiour Churches before the people of his Church of Ephesus that he should dispose of the stock of his Church at Ephesus upon Widows or Presbyters of other Churches then that at Ephesus But rather that the proceeding of Timothy is prescribed as a â—orm for the proceeding of others in their respective Churches Another opinion saith That the Deacons whom S. Paul puts next to Bishops are Presbyters called also Ministers of God and Christ as Timothy 1 Thes III. 2. S. Paul himself 2 Cor. II. 23. Ministers of the New Testament as S. Paul 2 Cor. III. 6. Ministers of the Gospel as S. Paul Ephe. III. 7. Ministers of Righteousness into whom the Ministers of Satan are transformed 2 Cor. XI 15. Ministers of the Church as S. Paul Col. I. 25. Observing that the vulgar Latine of S. Jerome translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. III. 8. Diaconos elsewhere in thirty places Ministros and concluding that these Deacons are the same with Presbyters under the Apostles and the Bishops their
be said that those ever concerned the salvation of a Jew more nearly than this earnest of our common salvation concerns that of a Christian And why the Synagogue should not have more power in those precepts than the Church in this nothing can be said But to the particulars Suppose some fansies may be possest with such an aversness to wine that no use of reason at years of discretion when they come to the Eucharist will prevail to admit that kinde without such alteration in them as the reverence due unto it can stand with for I have seen the case of one that never had tasted wine in all his life and yet by honest endeavors when hee first came to the Eucharist receives it in both kindes without any maner of offense doth it therefore fall under the power of the Church to prohibite it all people because there may fall a case wherein it shall be necessâ—ry to dispense with some though not comprehended in the case For there is nothing but the meer necessity of giving order in cases not expressed by the Law that gives the Church power to take order in such cases Therefore without those caâ—â—â— it hath none And so in the case of those Nations where wine will not keep yet the people are Christians For neither was the reason otherwise supposing that the ancients did reserve the Eucharist in one kinde onely for the absent or for the case of sudden death to those that were under Penance For this reservation was but from Communion to Communion which in those dayes was so frequent that he who caried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home drinking the Bloud at present might reasonably be said to communicate in both kinds Neither can that sacramental change which the consecration works in the elements be limited to the instant of the assembly though it take effect only in order to that CoÌ„munion unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth And so farr as I can understand the condition of the Church at that time in these cases there may have been as just cause to give it then in one kind in these cases as now to the abstemious or to those Nations where wine will not keep But shall this necessity be a colour for a Power in the Church to take away the birth-right of Christian people to that which their own prayers consecrate If the Power of the Church be infinite this colour need not If it he onely regular as I have showed all along that it is there can be no stronger rule than that of common reason which forbids servants to make bold with their Masters ordinances where no other act of his obliges For all necessity is the work of providence and excuses or if you will justifies where it constrains not where it constrains not The Greek Church hath an ancient custom not to consecrate the Eucharist in Leâ—t but upon Sabbaths and Lords days on the other five dayes of the week to communicate of that which was consecrated upon those dayes by the Council of Laodicea Can. XLIX And this Communion is prescribed by the Council in Trullo Can. LII But that they held the Communion to be completed by dipping the elements consecrated afore in wine with the Lords Prayer it will to him that shall peruse that which is found in Cassanders works pag. 1020 1027. Whereby you shall perceive also that the same was formerly done in the Church of Rome on good Friday on which days the same course was and is observed and that with an intent to consecrate it as the Eucharist is consecrated though at this day it is not so believed in the Church of Rome For the custom of the Church determining the intent of those Prayers whereby the Eucharist is consecrated to the elements in which it is communicated Because wine presently consecrated being in so small a quantity was not fit to be kept there is no reason why the Communion should not be complete Though how fit this custom is I dispute not But there is a new device of Concomitance just as old as the with-holding of the Cup from the people that you may be sure it would never have been pleaded but to maintain it for in the Greek Church that allows both kinds who ever heard of it It is said that the bloud in the body accompanieth the flesh neither can the Body of Christ as it is or as it was upon the Cross be eaten without the Bloud Seeing then that hee who receiveth the body must needs receive the bloud also what wrong is it for the people to be denied that which they have which they have received already And now you see to what purpose Trâ—nâ—â—â—sâ—â—ntiation serves To make it appear that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in both elements to no purpose seeing as much must needs be received in onâ—â—inâ—â—â— as in both And yet by your favor even Transubstantiation distinguisâ—â—th between the being of the flesh of Christ naturally in the body of Christ upon the Cross for so it was necessarily accompanied with the bloud of Christ not yet issued from it and between the flesh of Christ being sacramentally in the element consecrated into it And thus it cannot be otherwise accompanied with the bloud than because hee that consecrates is commanded to consecrate another kinde into the bloud And so hee that receives the body being commanded as much to receive the bloud the body may be said to be accompanied with the bloud But otherwise if hee receive not the bloud then is it not accompanied with the bloud as it ought to be For seeing the command is to receive as well as to consecrate several elements into the body and bloud of Christ it is manifest that the body and bloud of Christ are received as they are consecrated apart Under one element the body under another the bloud Indeed upon another ground which the Church of Rome will have no cause to own I do conceive it may well be said that the body is accompanied with the bloud to them that receive the Sacrament in one kinde in case it may or must be thought that they who in the Church of Rome thirst after the Eucharist in both kindes do receive the whole Grace of the Sacrament by the one kinde through the mercy of God giving more than hee promiseth in consideration that they come not short of the condition required by their own will or default Which is necessarily to be believed by all that believe the Church of Rome to remain a Church though corrupt and that salvation is to be had in it and by it Though whether this be so or not I say nothing here because it is the last point to be resolved out of the resolution of all that goes afore For since it is no Church unless the Grace of this Sacrament be convayed by the Sacrament ministred as the Church ministreth the same And seeing the precept of receiving the Eucharist
be counted Sacraments for the same reason and in the same nature and kind for which any thing else is or can be counted a Sacrament No not though they may all in their proper sense be truly called Sacraments of the Church because the dispensing of them all is trusted with the Church For Baptisme by the premises enters a man into the Covenant of Grace as the visible solemnity whereby it is contracted with the Church in behalfe of God which unlesse in case of peremptory necessity cannot be invisibly contracted So it intitleth to all the promises which the Gospel pretendeth And so also doth the Eucharist being the visible ceremony which God hath appointed for the renewing of it and of our profession to stand in it and to expect the promises which the Gospel pretendeth upon supposition of the condition which it requireth not otherwise And truly the flesh and bloud of Christ mystically received by our bodies necessarily importeth his spirit received by our soules supposing them qualified as the Gospel requireth and in and by the Spirit whatsoever is requisite to inable a Christian to performe his race here or to assure him of his reward in the world to come And yet the necessity thereof not so undispensable but that supposing a man cannot obtaine the communion thereof from the Church but by violating that Christianity which it sealeth neither can a man obtaine it by the Sacrament nor without the Sacrament need he faile of it that is standing to his Christianity as well in all other things as in not transgressing his Christianity for communion in the Eucharist with the Church And this is the case of those which are unjustly excommunicate Seeing in matters indifferent he that yeilds not to the Church that is to them who have the just power to conclude the Church when they judge it for the common good for him to do that which otherwise he is not obliged to do must needs seem justly excommunicable So these two Sacraments have the promise of grace absolutely so called that is of all the grace which the Gospel promiseth which it is to be acknowledged and maintained that no other of those actions that are or may be called Sacraments of the Church doth or can doe upon the like terms as they doe For of a truth it is granted that both these Sacraments are actions and consist in the action whereby they are either prepared or used though with so much difference between the two For Baptisme is of necessity an action that passes with the doing of it Whereas in the Eucharist there is one thing done in the preparing another in the using of it insomuch that the effect of consecrating it which I suppose here to be signified in the Scriptures as well as the most ancient of the Fathers by the name of Eucharistia or Thanksgiving remaines upon the thing consecrated so that the bread and the wine over which God was praised and thanked are metonymically called the Eucharist And yet in regard the consecration in reason tends to the use of receiving it and that the Church is not trusted or inabled to do it with effect but to that intent the totall of both is necessarily understood by the name of that Sacrament For supposing the ancient Church might have cause to allow the use of receiving this Sacrament to them who were not present in body though in spirit at the celebrating of it which I for my part in point of charity find my self bound to suppose even when I am not able to alledge any reason why my self would have done the same in the same case So long as by reasonable construction which the practice of the Church alloweth or groundeth the consecration tendeth to the use of receiving it is reasonably called the Sacrament or the Eucharist in order to that use If it be consecrated to any other intent either expressed or inforced by construction of reason upon the practise of the Church such practice bordering upon sacriledge in the abuse of the Sacrament the Church hath nothing to do to answer for it Nor is it my meaning that the Sacrament of Baptisme or the Eucharist doth or can consist in the outward action of washing of the body or of praying over the elements and reciting the Institution of our Lord. It is true the very bodily action were able in a great part to interpret the intent of doing it to those who are already Christians and know what Christianity requireth But seeing that can never be enough much lesse allwayes It is necessary that the intent be declared by certain words signifiying it But these words with the bodily action which they interpret will by this discourse concurre to make but one part of the Sacrament which containing the solemnizing of the Covenant of Grace will necessarily containe that which all this signifieth of invisible and spirituall grace conveighed to those who are qualified for it by that which is said and done in virtue of Gods promise He that will speak properly of these two Sacraments must make the matter of them to consist in one of these two parts The form of them being not the signification which is the same in all ceremonies but the promise which tieth to them the whole effect of the Covenant of Grace to which purpose it were well if the world would understand them to be seals of it This createth a vast difference between these two and any of the rest which are called Sacraments Which whether the Councile of Trent sufficiently expresse by providing an Anathema for those who shall say that the seven Sacraments are so equall one to the other that none is more worthy then another Sess VII Can. III. or not let them look to it I dispute not Thus much we see a difference is hereby acknowledged But the difference is vast in this regard that whereas both these Sacraments take effect in consideration of every particular mans Christianity and the promises annexed to that end the rest all of them take effect in consideration of the Communion of the Church and that which it is able to contribute towards the effect of Grace Which necessarily consists in that which the Church is able to contribute toward the effecting of that disposition which qualifieth for it So whereas these two immediately bring forth Gods grace as instruments of his promise by his appointment the rest must obtaine it by the meanes of Gods Church and the blessing annexed to communion with it He that believeth not Gods Church in the nature of a Society grounded upon profession of the true faith and consisting in that communion which separateth it not from the whole may promise himself the benefit of his Baptisme and of the Eucharist whomsoever he communicateth with professing himself a Christiane He who believeth every Church to be a part of the whole Church as he must acknowledge it requisite to the effect of Baptisme and the Eucharist that they be ministred neither
him who believes it not so present as in my opinion the ancient Church did believe Both must worship the body and blood of Christ because incarnate and therefore as the body and blood of Christ is inseparable from the consideration of his God-head which every Christian intends to worship And how can then a mans mistake in thinking the elements to be away which indeed are there make him guilty of honouring those creaturs as God which we know if he thought that they were there he must needs take for creatures and therefore could not honour for God I doe believe it hath been said by great Doctors of the Church of Rome that they must needs think themselves flat Idolaters if they could think that the elements are not abolished That showes what confidence they would have the world apprehend that they hold their opinion with But not that the consequence is true unlesse that which I have said be reprovable For what reason can be given why that bodily gesture which professedly signifieth the honour of God tendred to Christ spiritually present in the Eucharist should be Idolatry because the bread and wine are believed to remaine there Which according to their opinion supposing them to be abolished their accidents onely remaining is no idolatry but the worship of our Lord Christ for God In the next place as concerning prayer to Saints I must suppose that the termes of prayer invocation calling upon and whatsoever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unlesse we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifyng requests made to God and to man Which are not equivocall according to that equivocation which comes by meere chance but by that for which there is a reasonable ground in that eminence which out conceptions and therefore our words which signifie them expresse unto us For all the apprehensions that we have of God all things intelligible coming from things sensiâ—le we can have no proper conceite of Gods excellence and the eminence thereof above his creatures which necessarily appeares to us under attributes common to his creatures removing that imperfection which in them they are joyned with This is the reason why all signes of honour in word or deed may be equivocall when they need not be counted so being joyned with signes either of other words or deeds which may serve to determine the capacity of them Adoration worship respect reverence or howsoever you translate the Latine cultus are of this kind as I said afore Ingressus scenam populum saltator adorat coming upon the stage to dance he adores or worships the people or as an othersaies jactat basia he throwes them kisses He does reverence to the spectators by kissing his hand and saluting them with it So prayer invocation calling upon God is not so proper to God but that whether you will or not every petition to a Prince or a Court of justice is necessarily a prayer and he that makes it invocates or calls upon that Prince or that Court for favour or for justice Now the militant Church necessarily hath communion with the triumphant believing that all those who are departed in Gods Grace are at rest and secure of being parted from him for the future though those who have neglected the content of this world the most for his service and are in the best of those mansions which are provided for them till the day of judgement whom here we call properly Saints injoy the neerest accesse to his presence To dispute whether we are bonnd to honour them or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not Whether this honour be Religious or civill nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable and the cause of that equivocation the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signifie conceptions which came not from common sence If we call it Religion it is manifest that all religion is that reverence which the conscience of our obligation to God rendreth If civil the inconvenience is more grosse though lesse dangerous For how can we owe civill respect where there is no relation of members of the same city or Common wealth Plainely their excellence and the relation we have to them being intelligible onely by Christianity must borrowe a name from that which vulgar language attributes to God or to men our superiours I need say nothing in particular of Angels whom if we believe to be Gods ministers imployed instructing his children upon earth we must needs own their honour though the intercourse between us be invisible It were easy to pick up sayings of the Fathers by which religious honour is proper to Christ and others in which that honour that reverence which religion injoines is tendred Saints and Angels And all to be imputed to nothing but want of proper termes for that honour which religion injoyneth in respect of God and that relation which God hath setled betweene the Church militant and triumphant being reasonably called Religious provided that the distance be not confounded between the religious honour of God and that honour of the creature which the religious honour of God injoines being neither civill nor humane but such as a creature is capable of for religions sake and that relation which it setleth I must come to particulars that I may be understood He that could wish that the memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have beene Martyrs had they been called to it had not beene honoured as it is plaine they were honured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed For this honour depending on nothing but the assurance of their happinesse in them that remained alive was that which moved unbelievers to bethinke themselves of the reason they had to be Christians What were then those honours Reverence in preserving the remaines of their bodies and burying them celebrating the remembrance of their agonies every yeare assembling themselves at their monuments making the daies of their death Festivals the places of their buriall Churches building and consecrating Churches to the service of God in remembrance of them I will adde further for the custome seemeth to come from undefiled Christianity burying the remains of their bodies under the stones upon which the Eucharist was celebrated What was there in all this but Christianity That the circumstances of Gods service which no law of God had limited the time the place the occasion of assembling for the service of God alwaies acceptable to God should be determined by such glorious accidents for Christianity as the departure of those who had thus concluded their race What can be so properly counted the raigne of the Saints and Martyrs with Christ which S. Iohn foretelleth Apoc. XX. as this honour when it came to