God or the great Power of God That even the Arians in the Fourth Century appealed to them for Confirmation of their Faith declaring that the Miracles of their (f) Philostorg l. 3. §. 4. p. 27. Theophilus were so great Confirmations of the Christian Faith as to constrain the Obstinacy of the Jews and silence all their Contradictions and that their (g) L. 2. §. 8. p. 14. Agapetus did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raise the Dead heal many that were sick and convert many to the Christian Faith. To these convincing Demonstrations of the Fallaciousness of this Argument when new Miracles come after a true Doctrine sufficiently confirmed by them already and contradict that very Doctrine or teach things contrary to Piety it may be useful to observe these things out of the Holy Fathers First That some of them do expresly say That Miracles had ceased in their Days and others That they were not necessary Tom. 5. Hom. 88 p. 606. St. Chrysostom hath a set Discourse upon this Subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why Miracles were ceased which had they then been common in the Christian World had been an idle Question To this Discourse he seemeth to have been necessitated by the Importunity of his Auditors who were still crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why are not Signs wrought now To this Enquiry he answers 1. That Signs were intended only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Confirmation of Unbelievers and that they were not needful for the Faithful and then concluding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this therefore is the Cause why Miracles are now ceased In his Thirty second Homily on Matthew he repeats the same things To. 2. p. 223. saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you seek for Signs such as the Apostles did you would see the Lepers cleansed the Devils cast out the Dead raised but this is the greatest Demonstration of our Generosity and Love to believe God without those Pledges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this and other Reasons God hath caused Miracles to cease Ibid. p. 650. In his Twenty forth Homily on St. John he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a tempting of God now to ask for Signs and this saith he I speak because there are now Men seeking them and saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why are not Miracles now done Whereas if thou art a faithful Man as thou oughtest to be and lovest Christ as thou oughtest to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast no need of Signs for these things are given for Unbelievers Secondly To. 5. Hom. 88. p. 606. To this Enquiry he answers by way of Distinction That though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or such Miracles as were the Objects of our Senses were then ceased yet God did still vouchsafe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his efficacious Workings on the Souls of Christians in their Baptismal Regeneration and in the Mystical Sacrifice This he explains more fully in his Sixth Tome and Sixty ninth Homily P. 713. for if any Man saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we see not now these Signs done nor have we such Power of working them To this saith he I answer That the Church is not wholly destitute of Miracles 1. Because a miraculous Change was wrought in Baptism by giving spiritual Life to a dead Soul. 2ly Because we enjoy the Mysteries and in them the Grace of the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Elements could not be made the mystical Body and Blood of Christ without the Grace of the Spirit Where by the way we learn that Chrysostom did not believe that the Sacrament contained Christ's natural Body but only his mystical Body which Phrase is often used by the Fathers with Relation to Christ's Word his Church his Sacrament but never is applied to his natural Body We also learn that Chrysostom knew nothing of the miraculous Conversion of the Bread into Christ's Body natural for should a Romanist go about to prove that Miracles were not ceased from the Consideration of what was done in the Sacrament would he not urge That the Bread was miraculously converted into Christ's Body that the Figure and Colour of the Elements did subsist without a Subject that Christ's whole natural Body was in less Space than the smallest Crumb of Bread yea that being only one it was entirely in many Thousand Places at one and the same time Seeing then Chrysostom upon the like Occasion gives not the least hint of any thing of this kind but only saith that the Bread and Wine are not made Christ's mystical Body and Blood without the Grace of the Spirit adding immediately for his last Instance of this Kind That Priests are not made Priests by Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the same Advent of the Holy Spirit upon them is it not reasonable to conceive that he knew and believed nothing of those great and many Miracles which are now thought to be performed in Celebration of the Mass Pope Gregory gives for the Substance the same Answer to this Objection or Enquiry For descanting on those Words These Signs shall follow them that believe Hom. 39. in Evang Ed. Par. 1523. f. 320. h. c. He saith Nunquid nam Fratres mei quia ista signa non facitis minime creditis What my Brethren will you not believe because you do not do now those Signs But these were necessary in the beginning of the Church for the encrease of Faith but now that it is planted and rooted they are not so whence St. Paul saith Signs are not for the Faithful but the Unbeliever Moreover the Holy Church doth that now spiritually which the Apostles did then corporally for her Priests by Exorcism cast evil Spirits out of the Minds of Men When the Faithful chant the Holy Mysteries and sing forth the Praises and the Power of God with all their Strength what do they do but speak with new Tongues Whilst they strengthen the Infirm in Spirit and hold up them that stumble what do they but lay their Hands upon the Sick that they may be healed Haec itaque signa Fratres Charissimi Auctore Deo si vultis vos facitis These Signs dear Brethren you may do if you please by God's help And this is all that they return to this Enquiry and Objection which makes it reasonable to conceive they were so far from thinking Miracles a necessary Mark and Concomitant of the true Church that they knew of none performed by her besides the spiritual Operations on the Soul of Men or if they did betrayed the Churches Cause by being so profoundly silent upon this Occasion and flying as their only Refuge to those intellectual Operations which doubtless were not the Signs and Miracles enquired after Thirdly Chrysostom adds that Miracles were profitably done then and now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 6. in 1. ad Cer. p. 276. they are as profitably not done for then the Apostles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
follows that the Supremacy of the Pope the Celibacy of Priests the Invocation of Saints the Veneration of Images and Reliques the true and proper Sacrifice of the Mass the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of Concomitance and Communion in one Kind of Purgatory Indulgences Reading the Service in a Tongue unknown the Seven Sacraments the Necessity of the Priests Intention to the validity of a Sacrament must be so far contained in the Nicene Creed as to be only Explications and Interpretations of the same Articles of Faith or it must be confessed that they are no necessary Articles of Christian Faith and since the Greeks did in that Council plead that nothing was to be added by any after-Councils to the Nicene Faith and the Latins in effect did own that nothing should be added to it but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 644 645. another Exposition suitable to the Truth contained in it which was not so much an Addition as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Explication of the same thing they both exclude the Addition of these Articles unless that can be proved which never can be rationally attempted That they are only Explications of the Nicene Faith as the Addition of Filioque to it was declared to be And since we Protestants do acquiesce in the Nicene Faith it follows by the concession of the Latins that in respect to us there was no need for after Councils to be concerned for any other Faith. 2dly The Fathers who made or who embraced this boundary of Christian Faith expresly add That there is no necessity of adding any thing unto it with respect to Hereticks because it is sufficient of it self for the aversion of all Heresies Thus in that great dispute which was between the Aâ—ians and the Orthodox about adding something to the Nicene Faith or making other Creeds besides it Epist ad Epict. Tom. 1. p. 581 582. Athanasius gives his Judgment That the vain talk of all the Hereticks that ever were was baffled and made to cease by the Faith confessed at Nice according to the Holy Scriptures and that this Faith was sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the overthrow of all Impiety and that no other Synod ought to be named in the Catholick Church but that for the Confusion of them it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mark of victory over all Heresie and especially over that of Arius And this demonstratively follows from their constant Doctrine that these Creeds fully do contain all Doctrines of Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians for seeing Heresie must be an Error of Faith in matters necessary to be believed because it otherwise could be no damnable Error there can be no Heresie which is not a denial of something necessary to be believed that therefore which sufficiently instructs me in all things necessary to be believed must also fortifie me sufficiently against all Heresie 3dly This unfolding making plain better interpreting the Faith being that which only can be done by farther Declaration of the Sence of some Article of Faith than formerly was made unto the Church it is already baffled by the Refutation of the former Plea and it is plainly inconsistent with the Pretences of our new Patrons of Tradition for either the Father taught the Son this better Interpretation and made plain this Sence of the Article or he did not if he did there was no need of doing this by any Council if he did not then it is evident that the Son if he believes this Sence and this Interpretation believes somewhat which he received not by Tradition from his Father and so it must be certain that he may believe another sence of that Article than his Father taught and so in any other Article viz. another sence of the Real Presence of the Pope's Supremacy c. Thirdly § 3 Hence it must follow That no Man who doth heartily believe these Creeds and the immediate Doctrines plainly contained in them or evidently deduced from them can deserve to be anathematized or be excluded from the Communion of Christians for not believing any other simple Article of Faith for then he must deserve to be excluded for a thing unnecessary to be believed by Christians He may indeed deserve to be excluded upon other Grounds from the external Communion of the Church as v. gr for irregularity of Life or violating the Church's Peace but cannot justly be excluded for want of Christian Faith. Fourthly § 4 Hence it must follow That all those Councils which have anathematized their fellow Christians for such Doctrines as are not in these Creeds nor can be evidently inferred from them have been so far from being Infallible that they have actually erred And all those Churches who have rejected others from Communion with them upon the same account have acted Schismatically because they excluded others from Communion without just Ground It being therefore manifest that the Church of Rome hath added to the Nicene Creed these following Articles I. That the Pope of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ II. That the Roman is the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches III. That to her therefore doth belong to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation of Scripture and that the Sence which she imposeth on them is to be received as true IV. That there be Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ and which conferr Grace viz. Baptism Confirmation the Eucharist Penance Extream Vnction Orders Matrimony V. That in the Mass a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice is offered for the Living and the Dead VI. That in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into Christ's Body and the whole Substance of Wine into his Blood and so the Body and the Blood of Christ is there substantially present together with his Soul and his Divinity VII That under one Species only whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is taken VIII That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls detained there are helped by the Prayers of the Faithful IX That the Saints reigning with Christ are to be Prayed to and their Reliques to be Venerated X. That the Images of Christ the Blessed Virgin and of other Saints are to be Honoured and to have due Veneration given to them XI That Christ left a Power of Indulgences to his Church and that their use is most wholesome to Christian People XII That all the Rites used by the Roman Church in Administration of her Sacraments are to be admitted And lastly That this is the true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved I say It being manifest that the Church of Rome hath added all these Articles of Faith unto the Creeds forementioned and by the Church declared to be a perfect digest of the Articles of Christian Faith it follows that they must all be evidently proved to be
be proved by Holy Writ And that it cannot be proved from the perpetual Tradition of the Church is plainly and frequently confessed by R. Doctors For when Paschase and others broached that Opinion That the Sacrament was that very Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary Ed. Colon. 1551. p. 195. Bertram expresly teacheth That in saying this Sanctorum Scripta patrum contraire comprobantur they are proved to contradict the Sayings of the Holy Fathers Durandus of Troarn saith Apud Larroq Hist of the Sacrament p. 454. Ed. Ang. De Euch. l 3. c. 23. §. unum tamen That in the Ninth Century several opposed the Opinions of Paschase as Novelties which till then had not been heard of in the Church Bellarmine also confesseth That Scotus held that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council and they had reason so to say since he affirms 1. That the Church declared under Innocent the Third that this Sence was De veritate fidei a Truth belonging to the Faith In quart Sent. distin xi q. 3. lit g. Colloq Fontibell p. 16. and 2. That it was to be believed to be De substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationem solennem factam ab Ecclesia of the Substance of the Faith after that solemn Declaration made by the Church And Cardinal Perron acknowledgeth That the Opinion of Scotus was in this Sence true That before that Council Transubstantiation was not formally an Article of Faith that is as to the formality of publick Profession and as to any prohibition rendring him inexcusable who was ignorant of it In 4. Sent. dist xi q. 3. disp 42. §. 1. Yribarn saith expresly That in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in Corpus Christi converti In the Primitive Church the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ was no Article of Faith. Alphonsus de Castro confesseth Adv. Haer. l. 8. tit de indulg That of the Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christ's Body Rara est in Antiquis Scriptoribus mentio the Ancients seldom do make mention Modest disc de Jes Angl. p. 13. Annot. in 1 Cor. vij And our English Jesuits acknowledge That the Fathers did not meddle with the matter of Transubstantiation Erasmus saith That in synaxi Transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation and that for a long time it was sufficient to believe that the true Body of Christ was present whether under the consecrated Bread or any way whatsoever Bernard Gilpin in the Life of Bishop Tonstal saith P. 40 46. v. P. 33 42 48. That he had often heard that Bishop say that Innocent the Third did rashly in making Transubstantiation an Article of Faith when before it was free to think so or otherwise yea that he knew not what he did when he made it an Article of Faith. Holcot informs us That paucis tamen persuasum est Corpus Christi esse realiter in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis vini Sent. l. 4. qu. 3. lit c. Few Men were perswaded that the Body of Christ was really in the Sacrament of the Altar under the Species of Bread and Wine In 4. Sent. dist◠xi q. 3. b. and Scotus tells us That to say that such things appertain unto the Faith is an occasion of turning all honest Men and almost all that follow natural Reason from the Faith and of hindering their conversion to the Faith and that a prophane Man or one that follows natural Reason would think this Doctrine a greater inconvenience than all the Articles of the Incarnation and saith he Mirum videtur quare in uno Articulo qui non est principalis Articulus fidei debeat talis intellectus asseri propter quem fides pateat contemptui omnium sequentium rationem it seems worthy of Admiration why such a Sence should be asserted in one Article which is no principal Article of Faith as rendreth the Faith Contemptible to all who follow Reason Our Thirtieth Article affirms § 17 That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-People for both parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to Christian Men alike and that this was the Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ to the Twelfth Century hath been demonstrated in a Treatise written upon that Subject Cassander also clearly testifies That the Oriental Church doth to this Day and that the Roman Church did for a Thousand Years In Art. 22. in the ordinary and solemn Administration of this Sacrament give both Kinds to all the Faithful and that they were induced to do so Instituto exemplo Christi by the Example and Institution of our Lord and that therefore it was no rash thing that all the best Catholicks who were conversant in the reading of the Divine and Ecclesiastical Writers and were moved by the Reasons there mentioned were extreamly desirous of the Cup and did vehemently contend that this salutary Sacrament of the Blood of Christ Epist 19. together with the Sacrament of his Body Juxta veterem multis saeculis perpetuatam universalis Ecclesiae consuetudinem in usum reducatur should be reduced to use according to the ancient Custom of the universal Church continued through many Ages The same Cassander saith Antiquioribus saeculis ad plenam legitimam solennem Communionem utriusque Sacramenti Corporis Sanguinis Domini participationem necessariam fuisse That in former Ages the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ was necessary to a full lawful and solemn Communion John Barus declares Cath. Rom. Pacif. Sect. 7. apud Forbes Consid Modest p. 429. That Communion in both Kinds is Scripturis Patribus universalis Ecclesiae consuetudini conformior more conform to Scriptures to the Fathers and to the Custom of the universal Church And George Wicelius saith That the Church of Rome did ill in intermitting the use of the Cup in publick Celebration of the Sacrament adding That Ejus rei cum nube quadam certissimorum Testium septi sumus In via Regia Apud Forbes Consid Modest p. 427. plerophoriam amplectimur omni secluso dubio being compassed with a Cloud of most certain Witnesses touching this matter we have that full assurance of it which excludes all doubt And even Thomas Aquinas teacheth In Cap. 11. Ep. 1. ad Cor. lect 5. q. That although whole Christ be under either Species yet is he not in vain tendered under both Species Quia hic est vetus usus hujus Sacramenti ut seorsim exhibeatur fidelibus Corpus Christi in cibum Sanguis in potum because this is the ancient use of this Sacrament That the Body of Christ should separately be given to the Faithful for meat and the Blood for drink In our Thirty-first Article §
Remensis saith These are the Sacraments of the Church Sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur without which we cannot enter into true Life Albinus in his Book of Divine Offices Cap. de celebr Miss p. 88. Cap. 26. De instit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. and Amalarius in his Third Book of Ecclesiastical Offices do in like manner say That sine his Sacramentis nemo intrat in vitam aeternam without these Sacraments none enter into Life eternal Rabanus Maurus saith Men may have temporal Life without this Food and drink Aeternam omnino non possunt eternal Apud Baron Tom. 10. p. 1007. they can never have Christ testified with an Oath Saith Humbert That without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had saying Verily except you eat c. By which Testimonies we may see what Reason Austin had to say this was a Doctrine deeply settled in the Churches of Christ and thence to inferr that Infants ordinarily could not have Life without participation of the Eucharist they speaking thus without exception of any Persons or of any case but that of sudden Death in which case also some of them allow that Salvation may be had without actual Baptism 3. They apply this general Doctrine to the Case of Infants and say the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received by them for Remission of Sins or that they may obtain Life both which are necessary causes of the Administration of it In the Fourth Century Theodorus Antiochenus writ a Book against some Hereticks in the Western Church Apud Phot. Cod. 177. p. 396. who asserted That Man doth Sin by Nature and not by Choice And who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Confirmation of their Opinion urged That Infants were baptized and received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins P. 400. In Answer to these Men saith Photius Theodorus broached a new and strange Opinion of Remission of Sins perhaps not willingly but that he might satisfie their inquiry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why do Infants partake of the immaculate Mysteries Why are they Baptized if they sin not by Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these Sacraments are given for Remission of Sins Whence it appears that the Custom of giving the Eucharist to Infants was then generally practised and allowed of both in the Western and the Eastern Churches In the Western because these Western Hereticks do from this approved Custom argue against the Doctrine of the Church in the East because Theodorus of Antioch thought himself obliged to own the Practice nor is any question made whether the thing ought to be done but it is plainly owned that it was done and that for the Remission of Sins and therefore for a necessary Reason Against the Pelagians who denied that Infants were guilty of Original Sin and that they were obnoxious to Death eternal the Fathers dispute from this very Custom and the Foundation of it on the words of the Evangelist saying That according to the Practice of the Church the Blood which was shed for the Remission of Sins was ministred to them and therefore they had Sin to be remitted and that our Lord had said Vnless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you and therefore Infants wanted these things in order to their having Life and were partakers of them that they might obtain it The places in St. Austin to this effect are innumerable For why saith he Contr. Julian Tom. 7. l. 2. c. 30. is that Blood ministred to the Infant to drink which was shed for the Remission of Sins that he may have Life if by reason of no Original Sin he be obnoxious to Death Christ saith he is the Saviour of Infants Ibid. l. 1. p. 949. and unlevs they redeemed by him they will utterly perish seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life this St. John thought and believed learned and taught When Christ saith Vnless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you can I say the Child shall have Life who ends his Life without that Sacrament Hypognost c. 5. Tom. 7. p. 1405. And again He having said Vnless you eat c. and He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life how is it that you Pelagians promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit not fed with the Flesh of Christ nor having drunk his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins Behold he that is not Baptized and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words he more expresly tells us saying Tom. 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 1. c. 19. p. 666. Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism N. B. but of the Sacrament of his holy Table to which none cometh who is not rightly Baptized Except you eat and drink c. What do we farther seek for dares any body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children or that they can have life in them without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ But he that saith this doth not attend That if that Sentence comprehends not all so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ those of riper Years are not obliged to regard it From these and many other Passages of a like Nature his Conclusion is this Lib. 1. de peccat merit remiss c. 24. p. 670. Nec pro eis fusus est sanguis qui fusus esse in remissionem legitur peccatorum Apud Aug. Ep. 90. Apud August Ep. 92. If then so many Divine Testimonies accord in saying That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord they are in vain promised to Children without them The Council of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Innocent the First complain that the Pelagians durst assert That little Children needed not Baptism Propter salutem that they might have Life and that the Blood shed for the Remission of Sins was not shed for them The Council of Mela in their Letter to him complain that they asserted Pueros quoque parvulos si nullis innoventur Christianae gratia Sacramentis habituros vitam aeternam That Infants might have Life eternal though they were not renewed by the Christian Sacraments Ibid. Ep. 93. p. 424. To these complaints Pope Innocent returns this Answer Whereas your Brotherhoods assert that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond Opinion Nisi enim manducaverint for unless they eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no Life in them
Chalcedon Can 1. Can. 2. and afterwards by that in Trullo and therefore was allowed by the whole Church of God. St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs his Catecumen That the Apostles and James the Bishop of Jerusalem had writ a Catholick Epistle to the Gentiles to teach them to abstain from things offered to Idols things strangled and from Blood and then he adds Catech. 4. p. 34. c. de cibis That they who licked up the Blood of Beast and spared not to eat things strangled were like to wild Beasts and Dogs these saith he are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Institutions touching Meats which it behoves you to observe In the Fifth Century St. Jerom declares In Ezek. 45. p. 245. That according to the Letter the Decree contained in the Fifteenth of the Acts obligeth every Christian not to eat the Flesh of any dead Sheep or Cattle quorum nequaquam sanguis effusus est whose Blood is not poured forth And Chrysostom on the place saith These Constitutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they concern the Body yet are they necessary to be kept In the Sixth Century the Second Council of Orleans declares A. D. 536. can 20. That they who eat of that which is choaked by any Disease or Chance or killed by the bitings of Beasts shall be excluded from the Communion of the Church and if any person after this diligent Sanction Can. 22. doth not observe these things reos se divinitatis pariter fraternitatis judicio futuros esse cognoscant let them know they shall be guilty both in the Judgment of God and of the Brotherhood In the Seventh Century this was Decreed by the Sixth General Council held in Trullo in these words Can. 67. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Scripture hath commanded us to abstain from Blood things strangled and from Fornication he therefore who attempts to eat the Blood of any Creature any way if he be a Clerk let him be deposed Cap. 18 19. if he be a Lay-man let him be Excommunicated In the Penitential of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury we have this Rule prescribed Hast thou eaten that which died of it self or was torn by Beasts thou must do penance Forty Days if thou hast eaten Blood thou must do likewise Now of this Theodorus Rabanus doth inform us Ep. ad Humbert apud Regin de discip Eccl. l. 2. c. 200. That he was fully instructed in the Customs both of the Eastern and the Western Churches and that he could be ignorant of nothing which was then observed by the Greeks or Romans and therefore we may rationally conclude that what he thus prescribed was only that which was observed both in the East and Western Churches In the Eigth Century Gregory the Third who was made Pope A. Can. poenit c. 30. D. 731. puts this among his penitential Canons That he who hath eaten that which died of it self if he did this ignorantly shall do Penance Twenty Days if knowingly Forty Days And Bede informs us That he who comes to penance must be asked Can. de diversis causis c. 14. Whether he had eaten that which died of it self or was torn by Beasts and if so he must do Penance Forty Days and the like must be done by him who hath eaten Blood. Novel 58. Bals in Syn. Trull can 67. Leo the Emperor made a Law to punish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who did eat any kind of Blood. In the Ninth Century Regino doth not only produce out of the Penitentials the same Canons against eating things strangled and Blood De discipl Eccles l. 2. c. 369 373. De discipl Eccles l. 2. c. 374. but adds moreover that admonendi sunt fideles ut nullus praesumat sanguinem manducare the Faithful are to be admonished that none of them do presume to eat Blood for this was forbidden in the beginning when first God gave Men liberty to eat Flesh and it is also forbidden in the New Testament where things strangled and Blood are compared with Fornication and Idolatry to teach us quantum piaculum sit sanguinem comedere what an heinous thing it is to eat Blood. In the Eleventh Century Humbertus plainly shews that this was then esteemed unlawful both in the Eastern and the Western Churches Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 986. For we saith he of the West do not defend against you Greeks the eating of things strangled and Blood Antiquam enim consuetudinem seu traditionem Majorum retinentes nos quoque haec abominamur For retaining the ancient Custom or Tradition of our Ancestors we also do abominate these things imposing grievous Penance upon them who do this without great peril of Life and this we do especially quia antiquas consuetudines traditiones Majorum quae non sunt contra fidem leges Apostolicas arbitramur because we judge the Ancient Customs and Traditions of our Ancestors which are not opposite to the Faith to be Apostolical Laws And yet when Transubstantiation was once fully established in the West as it was in the Twelfth and the beginning of the Thirteenth Centuries then they perceived they could no longer with any truth assert as did the Ancient Fathers that they did ab humano sanguine cavere abstain from eating humane Blood but believing they did eat Blood with the Flesh in the Sacrament they gave all Men liberty to do it elsewhere Whence Balsamon in the Twelfth Century speaks thus In Can. 67. Concil Trull 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latins do indifferently eat things strangled and if in this instance that which in the Eleventh Century was by the Western Churches held in abomination and worthy of most grievous Penances as being opposite both to the Laws of the Apostles and the Traditions of the Ancients might in the next Century be generally allowed and practised as a thing indifferent why might not a like change happen in the same Church in a like space of time touching the Doctrine of the corporeal Presence or any other Article of Christian Faith. Thirdly § 7 The Ancient Church unanimously and constantly declared it was a thing plainly repugnant to Scripture and to true Religion and proper unto Hereticks to punish any man with death for his Religion or his Heresie and she refused Communion with them that did so And 1. They declared this practice opposite to our Lord's precept Not to gather up the Tares by themselves Matth. xiij 29 30. but let them both grow together till the Harvest He introduceth his Servants saying Wilt thou that we pluck up the Tares that he might tell them saith St. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Locum that it was unlawful to cut them off He forbids Wars and Blood and Slaughters to be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is not lawful to cut off the Heretick Christ here forbids not to stop their Mouths restrain and hinder their boldness of Discourse dissolve
and they who would give them this Sine regeneratione without Baptismal Regeneration seem to void Baptism it self by saying they have that which is believed to be conferred upon them only by Baptism where the Note in the Margin is Etiam R. Ecclesia credidit Eucharistiam parvulis necessariam Even the Roman Church believed that the Eucharist was necessary for little Children Behold saith Austin Contr. duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Lib. 1. Contr. Jul. cap. 4. Ep. ad paulinum Pope Innocent saith that little ones cannot have Life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ And again Pope Innocent determined that Infants could not have Life unless they did eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. And a Third time If the Pelagians will yield to the Apostles See or rather to their Lord and Master saying Except we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which the unhaptized Person cannot do we shall not have Life they will at last confess that unbaptized Persons cannot have it In the Sixth Century Hom. 7. B. P. Tom. 7. p. 279. Caesarius Arelatensis urges this very Text of Scripture Except you eat c. as a most solid Testimony against the Blasphemies of Pelagius That Baptism was not to be administred to Children Propter vitam for the obtaining Life For saith he these Words of our Saviour Non habebitis vitam in vobis you shall have no Life in you do give us clearly to understand that every Soul that is void of Baptism wants both Life and Glory Now since that Passage of our Lord was never by the Ancients thought to have Relation to Baptism but always to the Eucharist it is apparent that this Argument is of no Force at all or that it is the same with that which is so often urged by St. Austin That none can have Eternal Life who doth not participate of Christ's Body and Blood and none can do that who is not baptized Ep. Univers Episc per Nicaenum Concil To. 4. p. 1177 1178. Against the Pelagians saith Pope Gelasius our Lord pronounceth That he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him Where we see none exempt nor dares any say That an Infant can obtain eternal Life without this Sacrament Nevertheless that the Providence of God might cut off all the Wickedness of the Pelagians it is not only said Vnless a Man be born again of Water c. but also Vnless he eat and drink c. And that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life This Argument you see is generally urged by all that write against the Pelagians nor do we find that the Pelagians did in the least except against the Practice as either Novel or not Catholick but only did content themselves to say that Infants did receive these Sacraments not to obtain Life but the Kingdom of Heaven And here it is to be admired § 5 that Men of Sense and Ingenuity should say St. Austin and these Fathers spake all this of such a Participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as is had in Baptism and not of the Participation of it by receiving of the Holy Eucharist When First The Proof they bring of the manducation and drinking required of Children that they may have Life is from John vj. 53. which from St. Austin's Days to the Twelfth Century hath always been understood of the Eucharist but never of the Sacrament of Baptism So generally the forecited Fathers Secondly They bring distinct Proofs to evince that Infants are to participate of both Sacraments the Third of John to prove they ought to be baptized the Sixth of John to prove they ought to receive the Holy Eucharist◠So St. Austin so Isidore Pelusiota so Pope Gelasius in the Places cited Thirdly They speak of the Mysteries in the Plural Number as of things necessary to be received for the Remission of their Sins and the obtaining Life Eternal So Theodorus Amphilochius St. Chrysostom Isidore Pelusiota St. Austin Hincmarus Rhemensis Photius Albinus Amalarius Fourthly They speak first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord declaring of them distributively That Infants cannot have Life Sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi without Christ's Baptism and the Participation of his Body and Blood So Pope Innocent Sine Baptismo Corpore Sanguine Christi without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of Christ So St. Austin Fifthly They spake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by way of Distinction from that of Baptism Non de Sacramento S. lavacri sed de Sacramento mensae suae l. 1. de peccat Merit c. 19 20. Ep. 107. p. 499. Quod nisi Baptizati non utique possunt Ep. 106. p. 487. saying Let us hear our Lord not speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table So St. Austin Sixthly They speak of that eating and drinking of this Quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body Per ora by the Mouths So St. Austin Which Children have a right to by being first Baptized and of that Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ Quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit to which none comes who is not rightly baptized Lastly Sometimes they speak of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table of that Sacrament emphatically and of that Blood which the Child must drink Now hence it follows First § 6 That the Trent Council hath manifestly erred when it declared of all the Fathers in General who held this Opinion Sess 21. c. 4. Sine controversia oredendum est eos nulla salutis necessitate id fecisse That without Controversy we must believe that they did not this from an Opinion of the Necessity of it to Salvation this being an Untruth so manifest In. John 6. that Maldonate in direct Opposition to this Couneil saith that St. Austin and Pope Innocent were by this Passage of the Sixth of John induced to believe Infantes etiam baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperent salvos esse non posse that even baptized Infants could not be saved unless they received the Eucharist and that from that place they conceived the Eucharist was necessary for Infants to Salvation and that St. Austin mentioned this not as his private Opinion Sed ut fidei totius Ecclesiae dogma but as a Doctrine of Faith received by the whole Church adding Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. as also Binius doth That this Doctrine flourished in the Church about Six hundred Years Secondly Hence it appears that the same Council by pronouncing an Anathema against all who shall dare to say Sess 21. Can. 4. That it is necessary for Children before they come to Years of Discretion to receive the Sacrament hath virtually