and to deny Luk. 22. 20. V. 17. their senses when he saith This is my Body And as reasonles and frivolous are their Answers to St. Augustine who 1 Cor. 11. 27. affirms it to be a Prophane and blasphemous sense to understand Christ of Aug. de Doctrina Christ his proper Body and to eat it For can any thing be more Elusorie and ridiculous than to Scholie on him with a That is As meat is bought and sold in the Shambles Nam Sacramentum Alâ—ptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus et quando circumeisus est et quando baptizatus est et potest Sacramentum adoptionis Adoptio â—uncupari sicut Sacramentum coâ—poris et sanguints jus quod est in pane poculo consecrate Corpus jus sanguinem diciâ—us Non quod proprie corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguinis Sed quod in se Mysterium coâ—poris ejus et sanguinis ejus contineant Hinc ipse Dominus Benedictum panâ—m Calicem quem Discipulis tradidit corpuaae sanguinem ejus voâ—â—vit Quocirea sicut Christi fideles sacramentum Corporis sanguinis ejus accipientes Corpus et sanguinem ejus recte dicuntur accipere c. Facundus Hâ—rmianensts Pro. 3. Capitulis Lib. 10. Cap. 5. But if it be possible to express any thing more clearly Facundus Hermianensis and that as set forth by Syrmondus doth both expound St. Austins meaning and our Saviour Christs yet more irrefragably writing against the Eutichians in these words For Christ vouchsafed to take on him the Sacrament of Adoption both at his Circumcision and at his Baptism and the Sacrament of Adoption may he called Adoption as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Bread and Cup Consecrated we call his Body and Blood not that properly his body is Bread or his Blood the Cup but that they contain in then the Mystery of the Body and Blood of him Whence our Lord himself called the Blessed Bread and Cup which he delivered to his Disciples his Body and his Blood Wherefore as Christian believers taking the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of him are said truly to take the Body and Blood of Christ So Christ when he took the Sacrament of Adoption of Children might truly he said to take the Adoption of Children Thus he and Syrmondus in his notes upon this place doth confess these to be very harsh expressions like unto some of St. Austins there mentioned And to our urging the name fruit of the Vine given to the Consecrated substance and thence concluding that the real nature of Wine remains they answer that it is not unusual to give the name to a thing as a little before it was or seems to be Which we deny not And by the parity of reason return upon them to their loss For we know it is not unusual for a thing to be called by the name not which is proper to its nature but which it represents And to the eye of Faith the consecrated Elements Heb. 5. are the Body and Blood of Christ and so may not unaptly be so called by those whose senses are exercised as the Apostle speaks to discern both good and evil though in nature they be farr otherwise Some indeed as I conceive have been but too free of the Figures in this question supposing that the very word Est or Is must not be taken in its proper sense but stand for as much as Significat Signifies but this is without ground in Grammar or Divinity For he that saith as St. Paul 2 Tim. 4. 17. is interpreted to speak Nero is a Lion doth not lay the agreement upon Est or Is but upon the subject Nero For the Verb Substantive is equally indifferent to Comparative and Proper Speeches and continues so applied to any thing The Signification or Similitude lies in the two Terms Nero and a Lion and Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Christ Now there being no difference between a Similitude and a Metaphor but that the one is at large and in many words what the other is in one To say Christ is a Lamb or This which is bread is Christ is no more than to say Christ is as a Lamb and Bread is as Christs Body For the many agreements between the natural and Spiritual senses The one and that principal is that of Sacrifice which ought here to be briefly explained CHAP. XLIV Of the Sacrifice of the Altar What is a Sacrifice Conditions necessary to a Sacrament How and in what sense there is a Sacrifice in the Eucharist GREAT contentions have been about the Sacrifice of the Altar and perhaps though with just Cause yet not so great as is generally believed For these two Terms do much illustrate one the other For neither is the Altar upon which Christians offer properly an Altar any more then as is said before the Lords-Day now observed is properly a Sabbath nor is the Sacrifice thereon performed properly a Sacrifice Some will have that only truly called a Sacrifice which consisted of living Creaturs slain and offered to God Dixerunt aliqui quia Sacrificium non est nisi de Animalibus et erraverunt in hoc c. Guliel Parisien de Legib. Cap. 3. and to this sence do I most incline For there must be in all things some one thing which is as a Rule and Law and gives denomination to others according as they agree with it Now if all offerings to God as fine Flower and fruits of the Earth be called a Sacrifice in an equal sence to the most proper then have we no Rule to go by in Judging of Sacrifices And therefore Gulielmus Parisiensis who rejecteth the former acceptation because we Read in Leviticus 20. of a Sacrifice of fine Flower and Exodus 31. Sweet Smell seemeth himselfe to erre as he saith others do in the Notion of a Sacrifice For either these things and such-like were more properly called Oblations than Sacrifices or when they were called Sacrifices they were so called because of the Proper bloudy Sacrifice as the principal thing to which they were adjuncts Five things are said to be required to constitute a Sacrifice 1 A Proper Lessius de Ju. Just it Minister who is the Priest Heb. 5. Secondly the Matter must be sensible 3. The form of that matter must be changed and that after the nature of it Thirdly It must be directed and devoted to a Good end God And fiftly It must be offered in a proper place But not all these are certain and constantly true For Cain and Abel and Noah and Abraham and the rest under the Law offered proper Sacrifices but that they had peculiar Temples or Altars is not true For until that injuction of God in Deuteronomie Take heed to thy selfe that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in Deut. 12. 13. 14. every place that thou seest But in the place which the Lord shall
when it retains its nature not otherwise but cannot determine possibly when the nature first begins to change to a destruction What infinite and grievous suspitions and scruples must evermore afflict the minds of Communicants upon conceit that the matter they so receive may have suffered such strange kind and degrees of composition that the nature of Wine is really lost and an artificial liquor not much to the eye or vulgar taste discernible taken in its stead to the nulling of the effects of the Sacrament and much worse where such a specifical Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body and Blood is maintained and received with answerable Faith and worship The distinction of Material and Formal Idolatry of which we may hereafter speak little redressing that monstrous evil And if we are not so indispensably and absolutely tied to the natures of things in this Action much less ought there to be such warm and uncharitable contentions about the condition form or qualities of those Elements which in no manner change the nature of them as Leavening or Unleavening or forming the bread after the common use or in such manner as may be thought least subject to prophanation in making the Bread into several Cakes or Wafers which though it nulleth not the Sacrament yet it corrupteth the Institution and End both in some measure For First it is certain Christ celebrated on solid usual bread and why should we upon private imaginations next to vain Superstition introduce another order than Christ pitched on and amend by fine contrivances what he but rudely laid down as we irreverently must suppose Again It doth seem more than an indifferent Ceremonie which according to St. Paul and after him the Fathers signified the Unity of Christ and his Members and of his members one with another by that one Sacramental Body visibly representing and exhibiting invisibly Christ in that One Bread And lastly That Ceremony of breaking Bread so much practised by Primitive Christians even in this Sacrament and thereby expressing Christs own proper Body broken for our sins a very Fruitful Reasonable and significant Action is altogether laid aside to the great injury of Christs institution and Christians edification Surely if any thing this is to make our selves wiser than Christ and to be subtiller and more zealous for his Majesty than he would have us which cannot be wiped off by that common refuge and reserve at pinching objections viz The Power of the Church For the Church has no Right what ever Power it may have to make alterations at pleasure upon no better grounds than were at the first known and neglected in Sacramental things though the nature of the Sacrament may remain inviolate For seeing the Sacramental Signs were ordained by Christ to call to remembrance the particulars as well as general of Christs Passion and the manner as well as the thing it self to the intent that the more deep and lively impression might be made thereof in our Souls to pare off out of presumption of the Churches Power and more reverent ministration and participation thereof the Ceremonies so immediately and significantly expressing the End of it and used by Christ himself and for ought doth appear for several Ages after is to invade the Rights and call in question the Wisdom of Christ himself And surely then The Breaking of Bread signifying the violence offered to Christs Body and the Powring out the Wine intimating the shedding of his Blood for us nothing can be more useful and therefore to abrogate these and invent and impose others upon pretences not unknown but rejected at the first Institution argues more superstitious presumption than sober Devotion CHAP. XLII Of the things signified in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ How they are present in the Eucharist Sacrament ally Present a vain invention All Presence either Corporal or Spiritual Of the Real Presence of the Signs ' and things signified The Real Presence of the Signs necessarily inferr the Presence of the Substance of Bread and Wine Signs and thing signified always distinct BUT thus far of the Signs The things internal and signified are yet of greater importance to our Faith and worship viz. the Body and Blood of Christ The several Disputes about which we shall reduce to these two General Heads briefly to be explained First the manner of Existence of them in the Eucharist And next the manner of Participation which two do mutually illustrate one another For as to the Real Presence it self I find no such real difference which may deserve discussion For surely If Christ or his Body and Blood be at all Present in this Sacrament they are really present For imaginary fictitious presence is no better than a Mockery unworthy of any Philosopher to admit and much more Divine Whatsoever is Really is or not all according to this account And therefore to say We All agree in the thing though we differ in the Manner of Christs Presence is to say no more and to draw no neerer at all to the composing of this difference than we may have any common Philosopher to joyn with us upon this granted that Christ is Present there for that must needs be really So that no Christian can deny the Real Presence absolutely but must presently interpret himself in some peculiar sense to himself And they that do so are wont to begin with a distinction of Sacramental and Corporal or as some Natural Presence For Sacramental Presence it being not at all heard of or known in Logick or Nature nor to be explained by any thing parallel to it out of this Mystery it self who can be the better for it Who can understand what is meant by it before he be resolved of the thing most of all question'd viz What is Sacramental Presence For unless we be cut off here and must not at all enquire What it is to be Sacramentally Present but take the notion at a venture and presume we know what in truth we do not we shall be as hard put to it as before For Sacramentally to be present doth not at all express the manner unless as some seem to mean by it such a Mystical presence that we know not what to make of and in this acceptation every unknown thing should create a new kind of being but imply all senses possible to a Sacrament So that if a man holds Christs body to be in the Sacrament Bodily and naturally this is certainly a Sacramentally and If he holds it to be there Spiritually it is likewise Sacramentally and so whatever other way we can reasonably conceive to be in the Sacrament it must be Sacramentally Sacramental Presence being as is said no one kind of Presence but common to all possible to the Eucharist if not to nature it self It will be more needful to distinguish between Christs Corporal Presence and Christ Corporally Present and there is good ground for to do so For if Presence be as Thomas
Divine power should be of the nature of Substance but such confusion and havock in nature to bring in an unnatural Dogm is no ways to be admitted not out of any defect in the Divine Power but an incapacity of the Creature to be so order'd against its nature And as this Condition of Species subsisting or existing separately of themselves is contrary to their nature So the significativeness of these Species is contrary to Christs Intention and Institution which were to make a representation of his death and passion by Bread and Wine and not by the Similitudes of Bread and Wine And this is to be noted That when the Ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin do affirm that Christs Body or Blood are present under the Species and Forms of Bread and Wine they do not mean such Species as the Schools of Aristotle have introduced for I find not that they took any notice of them distinct from the subject to which they relate but they took them in a more plain sense for the thing it self so affected and formed and Under the Species signified with them as much as Under the Kinds of Bread and Wine Christs Body was present And they never destroyed the Sacrament it self to give an extraordinary Being to the Body of Christ therein CHAP. XLIII The principal Reasons for Transubstantiation answered AND If this be once made good That there is a Proper Sacrament remaining after Consecration it will be much less difficulty to agree upon the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament For the doubt will not be so much about the Concomitance and co-existence of it with the Sacramental Signs as Whether that which we See with our eys and touch and taste be properly and not denominatively and Figuratively only the Body of Christ And in effect Whether it be the very Sacrament it self or whether only in the Sacrament The Doctrine of the Church of Rome determines not only that There it is but directly and expresly This it is and this we deny as that which indeed must include such a Transubstantiation as is by them affirmed and the chiefest grounds whereof we are now to examine And First from Scripture they are wont to argue and that from the Old Bellarm Lib. 1. Cap. 3. De Sacram. Eucharist Testament where are recorded many Types and Figures of Christ and particularly his Passion which were no less if not much more clear than the representations in the Eucharist if Christ himself be not there otherwise than Figuratively For the Paschal Lamb slain seems to represent Christs Passion more Lively and expresly than the Sacramental Elements Therefore if that the Sacraments of the Gospel might exceed them of the Law it is necessary that what was done there Figuratively only should be properly and really performed in our Sacraments Answ But first supposing Transubstantiation is Christ more clearly in the Sacrament than if there were no such thing Or can the Sacrament of the Gospel be said to be more clear for this when in truth it is more Mystical and abstrufe But though it be not more clear to the sense or Reason yet it is in it self more really present For otherwise the Legal Sacrament must have been only a Figure of this Figure of Christs Body and not of the Bertramus Body it self But the answer of Bertram to this about eight hundred years ago is sufficient to this purpose that both the Paschal Lamb and the Sacramental Elements both Figured and represented Christs body The former Christs Body future and its Passion and the other Instant as at the Institution or Part and compleated So that in truth a great preheminence there is in the Sacraments of the New Testament above them of the Old which is the thing contended for But Christ was really received in both The next Argument taken from Christs words in the sixth of John where he saith amongst many other things I am the Bread of Life And again Verily Joh. 6. 48. 53. 54. Verily Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you For my Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed Is answer'd two ways First from a consent on both sides by some of the Learnedest That Christ spake not of a Sacramental Eating and Drinking of him but Ordinary in receiving him by Faith preached But because as many on both sides affirm that he pointed at the Eucharist in these words therefore I think it most reasonable and equal to take in both senses and that Christ intended the receiving of him by Faith in the word preached and in the Eucharist too And though Christs Flesh be meat indeed and his Blood drink indeed it doth not follow at all that it is properly so For things Metaphorically such are really though not Properly And Christ doth not say Caro mea est verus cibus or Sanguis meus verus est potus i. e. My Flesh is true meat or Proper My Blood is true Drink but My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed that is verily and really And besides the difference before intimated between these expressions and that at the Celebration of the Eucharist when he calls the Bread his Body is very great especially with the precise stickers to the Letter For according to these Christ Transubstantiated Bread into his Body but here according to the same Rule of interpretation he should convert his Body into Bread the words being alike operative But if Christ did at no time make a Transubstantiation of his Flesh or body into bread though he affirmed his Body to be bread What reason is there we should believe upon no better grounds than he affirming bread to be his Body should thereby change it into his proper Body A Third principal Argument is taken from the words of Christ at the Celebration viz This is my Body and This is my Blood And upon the proper acceptation of these words they make no doubt to put to silence all seeming oppositions and contradictions and impossibilities in nature For be it say they how it will Christ saying it who is truth it self no doubt is to be made of it For as they teach the vulgar to speak If Christ should say that this stone were his Body we ought to believe it All which is granted But we must distinguish as all sober men do between Loquela and Sermo He that rehearses a certain number of Articulate words doth Loqui or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he only who doth deliver the word conceived in his mind which is his meaning at his mouth doth Sermocinari or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now if it can be proved by any certain Circumstance that Christ meant these words in a proper sense and not improper in which he delivered no small part of his doctrine in the Gospel we have done the Controversy is at an end we are to lay our hands on our mouths and
Sanctified by the word and â— Tim. 4. 5. Prayer But the word and Sanctification there are no preaching or consecration but only signify that God by the Gospel which is his word proper removed the sentence of uncleannesse from things so judged to be under the Law and set them as free as other reputed Clean But prayer's proper Act and Office it is to bring down a special Benediction upon Sacramental and Familiar food On the other side the difference being so vast and Sacred between Common Creatures of bread and Wine and the Sacramental it was lookt upon as a thing of greatest use and concernment to all believers to know whether such consecration was performed or not But where the form was so loose and indetermined as it must needs be consisting in the various and Prolix office belonging thereunto how could it possible be diserned when the Host was consecrated and whether seeing neither the whole Canon could be said thereunto absolutely necessary nor could it be assigned what part thereof essentially and essectually performed he Consecration Hereupon the Latine Church hath taken upon them to define the Conversion of the Elements into Christ for that they make Consecration to a very few precise words used by Christ at the First Institution of his Holy Supper viz This is my Body and This is my Blood And I have not found how the Arguments on either side can be well answered while the Opinion of trans-elementation or such supposed conversion stands Good and is accepted but otherwise it is no hard matter to answer Both. For supposing not a change of the proper natures and substances of the Elements into the Body of Christ naturall What inconvenience would it be to be undetermined by a certain number of words when the mystical change was wrought granting that this change Relative is made by the word and Prayer as the change of water in baptism is made not by any special number or form of words but by the Office whether longer or shorter And therefore the necessitie of putting the whole virtue in those few words recited was received presently upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation which is an argument that the Greek Church never admitted it in the Latin sense however I know they would not in their Councels contend with them about that but kept themselves to the tradition of their Predecessors who restrained not the Consecration to such number of words but must have with the like prudence and necessity have done so had they so apparently and expresly received such a simple conversion as being true all Christians ought to be so punctually assured of and venerate that nothing in their Creed could be more necessary and not contented themselves with the Relative change only of the things themselves which precisely to know stood them not so much in hand seeing the Reverence given to the Visible objects could not exceed that communicable to Creatures It may be granted therefore that the words of Christ are so necessary that Consecration cannot rightly be performed without them but yet denied to be so operative that upon the plain recitation of them they should presently effect that great alteration of them as the Story I make no doubt feigned to beget belief of this new opinion implieth telling us That certain Shepheards while it was the custom to pronounce the Canon of the Mass openly having learned it Henorius in Gemma Animae 1. 103. and recited it over their bread and wine which they had before them in the field as they were at their ordinary Meal the bread was turned visibly into Christs body and the Wine into his Blood and that the Shepheards were struck dead from heaven Whereupon it was decreed in a Synod that from thence forward no man should rehearse the said Canon Audibly or out of Sacred Places or without Book or without Holy Vestments or without an Altar A tale as likely to be true as the thing they would prove by it And so let them pass together while we proceed to the CHAP. XLVI Of the Participation of this Sacrament in both Kinds The vanity of Papists allegations to the Contrary No Sacramental Receiving of Christ in One kind only How Antiquity is to be understood mentioning the receiving of one Element only The pretended inconveniences of partaking in both kinds insufficient Of Adoration of the Eucharist SECOND Thing formally necessary to this Sacrament which is Celebration in both Kinds or Bread and Wine In treating whereof we must do so much Justice to the Cause as to acknowledge a reasonable distinction between the Sacrament it self and the Communicants in it To the former I suppose it is agreed that indispensably both Elements are necessary and Essential and that there can be no Sacrament without them both whatever solemnity may be acted to the eye or ear For the Sacrament noâ— being a thing of natural force or vertue but instituted the very formality of the Institution consisting in the joint concurrence of both Elements the Removing of One is the Adulteration of the Whole and destruction neither can that be said to be a Sacrament of Christs Institution but if at all of mans devising Neither do I see how the argument should not hold in the Participation of that Sacrament as well as Consecration viz that as consecration in one Kind only maketh not a Sacrament so communication in one Kind where both are in being should be receiving the Sacrament For the natures of things as Aristotle hath it are like numbers which with the addition or Substraction of one change their kind We do not make Bread of the Nature of Wine or on the contrary but we make them both equally of the nature of that Sacrament which by Christs own Institution was an Aggregate thing constituted of both and therefore to withdraw or deny one is in effect to deny both And the Evasion to salve this is both ridiculous and prophane which saith The blood is contained in the Body of Christ and therefore in taking one both are received But 't is nothing so For the Blood of Christ in the Sacrament is no more contained in the Body than the Body in the blood And besides we say that he who not at all receives the Cup cannot at all receive the signified body of Christ but only the signifying Again How can this assertion consist with the opinion of an Incruent Sacrifice For either the Sacramental Body of Christ hath Blood in it or it hath not If it hath then is it a Bloody and not Incruent Sacrifice For I think there is no ground for a man to say a Sacrifice was called Bloody or Cruent because only Blood was shed before it was Sacrificed and not because even at that time it contained blood in it For Cruent and Incruent are the same in the Law from whence the Gospel borrows this Phrase as Animate and Inanimate Sacrifices If it hath not how can it be said to have the blood
to P. 14â— which they have no just title themselves being out of Christ This is gross enough and dangerous 19. In the Article of our Creed Sitting at the right hand P. 174. of God signifieth the inferiority of the Mediator in respect of the Father This wants a lusty grain of Salt 20. The vow of single Life is a snare or as the noose in the On Gal. 1. v. 7. haltar to strangle the Soul 21. The third Succession is of Doctrine alone and thus our Ministers succeed the Apostles and this is sufficient It is sufficient for the Peoples not Gods Ministers 22. If in Turkie or America or elsewhere the Gospel should be Id Gal p. 196 197. received by the counsel and perswasion of private persons they shall not need to send into Europe for Consecrated Ministers but they have power to choose their own Ministers from within themselves Because where God giveth the word he giveth the power also 23. The Child of God falling into persecution and denying Id. Gal. 1. v. 22. Christ is not guilty to condemnation because c. 24. If as Eusebius saith in his Chronicle Peter sate Bishop of Rome twenty five years then Peter lived in breach of the express commandment of God for so long time because the Jews were his special charge Absurd and untrue 25. We are born Christians if our Parents believe and not P. 235. made so in Baptism 26. The Sacraments are said to apply Christ in that P. 242. they serve to confirm Faith whose office it is to apply c. 27. All the works of Regenerate men are sinful and in the P. 381. rigor of justice deserve damnation Well therefore may he say this of unregenerate men but neither is it true so far of one or other but the not doing of such good works is much more damnable It is true properly that they do not of themselves save but not so that they damn 28. There be three parts of Penance Contrition of heart Id. Papist cannot go beyond a reprobate p. 396. Confession of the mouth Satisfaction in the deed All these three Judas performed 29. As long as a man hath his Conscience to accuse him of Ibid. sin before God he is in a state of Damnation as St. John saith 1 Ep. 2. 10. St. John saith not so 30. The Church of Rome teacheth that Original Sin is done Ib. p. 397. Advertisement to the Roman Church p. 622. Vol. 1. away in Baptism This is called a damnable Error as if only the Ch. of Rome held so and it were not unanimously held by the Fathers 31. That we believe the Catholick Church it follows that the Catholick Church is invisible 32. We esteem of Repentance only as a fruit of Faith and Reform Catholick p. 615. the effect or efficacy of it is to testifie the Remission of our sins and our reconciliation before God 33. There is a twofold conversion Passive and Active Ib. p. 613. 614. Passive is an Action of God whereby he converteth man being yet unconverted These are the Heterodox Dogmes which Mr. Perkins suckt in from Calvins Divinity upon whose sleeve he seem'd to have pin'd his faith notwithstanding Scripture is so vehemently pretended which will warrant none of them And by these credulously assented to and preached contrary to the mind of our Church by vulgar and lazie Divines who would take no care or pains to look into the Scriptures or the Doctrine of the Ancient Church but through such mens Spectacles have diversity of opinions been bred in the common peoples mind to their dislike of their Governours and at last such a rupture as hath wasted and almost consumed us But here I am to give the curious Reader notice least I may seem to mis-report any thing quoted out of Mr. Perkins according to the pages that upon examining them and comparing them on this occasion I find what I took no notice of at first reading of his Works that I followed two several Editions of his Works in Folio the one of the year 1626 and the other of the year 1631 which not having by me I could not rectifie but doubt not but they are to be found in one of them And now because I perceive the Papists triumph when they can find such blemishes in our Church and charge it with all these and such like which they may find among dissenters I shall set down likewise their principal accusations as I find them collected and summ'd up by Fitz-Simons Henricus Fitzsimon Brittannomachia minist l. 2 c. 3. and the rather because he professes to have taken them out of a much more wise and learned Adversary to us then himself Alanus Copus otherwise called Nicolas Harpsfield and they are these following 1. The first Error he layes to our charge is that we hold There are only two Sacraments This we stand to as commonly explained by our Church 2. Infants belong to the people of God before they are Baptized This indeed is the opinion of Sectaries which Perkins before cited might have led them into but not of our Church nor the Ancient Church as may appear most evidently from the testimony of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Haerer Fab. l. 5. c. 28. Theodoret who in the behalf of the Catholick Church absolutely disowns unbaptized persons as Sons of God though they believed and embraced the Catholick Doctrine telling us that the Church would by no means suffer such to say the Lords Prayer accounting it an horrible thing for any to call God Father before he was baptized speaking thus This Prayer we teach not such who are not initiated but such as are partakers of that Mystery For none that are not initiated into that Mystery dares say Our Father which art in Heaven c. not having received that Grace of Adoption 3. The true Body of Christ is not in the Eucharist nor any thing but the substance of Bread Sure this fierce Accuser forgets himself Do we not also hold the substance of Wine remains in the Eucharist as well as that of bread Nay do we not profess * Christs Church Câ—techism Body and Bloud are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper And can they there be received unless they be there but the art of such rampant ignorant and malicious Factors for the Roman Church ever consisted principally in wilful bungling and by false stating of the differences between us and them to beguile the weak and unwary 4. That the Communion under both kinds is necessary It is as necessary under both as under one The contrary is the Sacrilegious Error of the Romanists 5. A Priest may not communicate alone Another grievous Error that we cannot indure Non-sense nor to see Christs institution bafled by such a ridiculous Communion unknown to Antiquity 6. It is unlawful to reserve or elevate the Eucharist Not simply as the Ancient Church did
of Christ and his Members The Church of Christ taken specially for the Elect who shall infallibly be saved never visible But taken for true Professours of the Faith must alwayes be visible though not conspicuous in comparison of other Religions or Heresies Chap. XXVIII Of the outward and visible Form of Christs Church Christ ordained One particularly What that was in the Apostles dayes and immediately after The vanity of such places of Scripture as are pretended against the Paternal Government of the Church Chap. XXIX Of the necessity of holding visible communion with Christs Church Knowledge of that visible Church necessary to that communion Of the Notes to discern the true Church how far necessary Of the nature or condition of such Notes in general Chap. XXX Of the Notes of the true Church in particular Of Antiquity Succession Unity Universality Sanctity How far they are Notes of the true Church Chap. XXXI Of the Power and Acts of the Church Where they are properly posited Of the fountain of the Power derived to the Church Neither Prince nor People Author of the Churches Power But Christ the true Head of the Church The manner how Christs Church was founded Four Conclusions upon the Premisses 1. That there was alwayes distinction of persons in the Church of Christ 2. The Church was alwayes administer'd principally by the Clergy 3. The Rites generally received in the Church necessary to the conferring Clerical power and office 4. All are Usurpers of Ecclesiastical power who have not thus received it In what sense Kings may be said to be Heads of the Church Chap. XXXII Of the exercise of political power of the Church in Excommunication The Grounds and Reasons of Excommunication More things than what is of Faith matter sufficient of Excommunication Two Objections answered Obedience due to commands not concerning Faith immediately Lay-men though Princes cannot Excommunicate Mr. Selden refuted Chap. XXXIII Of the second branch of Ecclesiastical Power which is Mystical or Sacramental Hence of the Nature of Sacraments in general Of the vertue of the Sacraments Of the sign and thing signified That they are alwayes necessarily distinct Intention how necessary to a Sacrament Sacraments effectual to Grace Chap. XXXIV Of the distinction of Sacraments into Legal and Evangelical Of the Covenants necessary to Sacraments The true difference between the Old and New Covenant The Agreement between Christ and Moses The Agreements and Differences between the Law and the Gospel Chap. XXXV Considerations on the Sacraments of the Law of Moses Of Circumcision Of the Reason Nature and Ends of it Of the Passover the Reason why it was instituted It s use Chap. XXXVI Of the Evangelical Sacraments Of the various application of the name Sacrament Two Sacraments univocally so called under the Gospel only The others equivocally Five conditions of a Sacrament Of the reputed Sacraments of Orders Matrimony and Extream Unction in particular Chap. XXXVII Of Confirmation What it is The Reasons of it The proper Minister of it Of Unction threefold in Confirmation Of Sacramental Repentance and Penance The effects thereof Chap. XXXVIII Of the proper Affections of Repentance Compunction Attrition and Contrition Attrition is an Evangelical Grace as well as Contrition Of Confession its Nature Grounds and Uses How it is abused The Reasons against it answered Chap. XXXIX Of Satisfaction an act of Repentance Several kinds of Satisfaction How Satisfaction upon Repentance agrees with Christs Satisfaction for us How Satisfaction of injuries necessary Against Indulgences and Purgatory Chap. XL. Of Baptism The Authour Form Matter and Manner of Administration of it The general necessity of it The efficacie in five things Of Rebaptization that it is a prophanation but no evacuation of the former Of the Character in Baptism Chap. XLI Of the second principal Sacrament of the Gospel the Eucharist Its names Its parts Internal and External It s Matter Eread and Wine and the necessity of them Of Leavened and Unleavened Bread Of breaking the Bread in the Sacrament Chap. XLII Of the things signified in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ How they are present in the Eucharist How they are received by Communicants Sacramentally present a vain invention All Presence either Corporal or Spiritual Of the real Presence of the signs and things signified The real Presence of the signs necessarily infer the Presence of the Substance of Bread and Wine Signs and things signified alwayes distinct Chap. XLIII The principal Reasons for Transubstantiation answered Chap. XLIV Of the Sacrifice of the Altar What is a Sacrifice Conditions necessary to a Sacrament How and in what sense there is a Sacrifice in the Eucharist Chap. XLV Of the form of consecrating the Elements Wherein it consisteth Whether only Recitative or Supplicatory Chap. XLVI Of the participation of this Sacrament in both kinds The vanity of Papists allegations to the contrary No Sacramental receiving of Christ in one kind only How Antiquity is to be understood mentioning the receiving of one Element only The pretended inconveniences of partaking in both kinds insufficient Of adoration of the Eucharist Chap. XLVII The Conclusion of the Treatise of the subject of Christian Faith the Church by the treating of Schism contrary to the visible Church Departure from the Faith real Schism not formally as to the outward Form Of the state of Separation or Schism Of Separation of Persons Co-ordinate and Subordinate Of Formal and Virtual Schism All Heresie virtually Schism not formally Separation from an Heretical Society no Schism From Societies not heretical Schism Heretical Doctrine or Discipline justifie Separation How Separation from a true Church is Schism and how not In what sense we call the Roman Church a true Church Some Instances of heretical Errors in the Roman Church Of the guilt of Schism Of the notorious guilt of English Sectaries The folly of their vindications That th Case of them and us is altogether different from that of us and the Church of Rome Not lawful to separate from the Universal Church The Contents of the Second Book of the First Part. Chap. 1. OF the formal Object of Christian Faith Christ An Entrance to the treating of the Objects of Faith in particular Chap. II. Of the special consideration of God as the object of Christian Faith in the Unity of the Divine Nature and Trinity of Persons in that Chap. III. Of the Unity of the Divine Nature as to the simplicity of it And how the Attributes of God are consistent with that simplicity Chap. IV. Of the Unity of the Divine Nature as to number and how the Trinity of Persons may consist with the Unity and Simplicity of the Deity Of the proper notions pertaining to the Mystery of the Trinity viz. Essence Substance Nature Person The distinction of the Persons in the Trinity Four enquiries moved How far the Gentiles and Jews understood the Trinity The Proof of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the New Testament and the explication of
thus spoken of the Political Power of the Church which we so call because it imitates that which is so more properly called in directing the visible Body of the Church to its proper end as the Pilot doth the ship to its proper Haven and hath both Visible Acts and Effects We are now to treat of that Power We in distinction to that other do call Mystical because the End and Effect thereof is not outward or visible but inward spiritual and Mysterious and therefore also call it Sacramental Sacrament and Mystery being the same in the Original Phrase of the New Testament For to the Church as they are more peculiarly called who are Officers in the same doth it of Right appertain to celebrate these Mysteries Wherefore first we shall speak of the Sacraments in General as the manner is and then in Particular The word Sacrament is rather of Gentile than Christian original there being no word in the New Testament proper to it but the vulgar Translation Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae invisibilis forma ita ut ejus similitudinemgerat et causa existat Gulielmus Antissiodorensis Sum. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. thinking fit to render Mystery Sacrament in Latin the Antienter Latin Church hath made use of it to express certain Mysterious Rites of sacred and necessary use in the Church of God about which word so long since received no contention ought to be had The Nature Number Minister and Use of them deserving principal enquiry A Sacrament is defin'd as is commonly known by St. Augustine a Visible sign of an Invisible Grace which being taken rigorously seemeth not to comprehend the whole nature of it therefore Antissiodorensis would have its defect supplied thus A Sacrament is a visible form of an Invisible Grace whereof it is also the Cause But considering the many and sharp disputes upon this subject I suppose it may be more fully described to be A visible sign ordained by God to produce an invisible effect of Grace in the soul of Man This definition may be collected from the several parts of it contained in the word of God as first from St. Paul to the Romans speaking of Circumcision a prime Sacrament given by God to Abraham and his seed And he received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness Rom. 4. 11. of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised For there are three special properties of a Sacrament commonly acknowledged To Signifie To Seal To Effect Grace but in strickness of speech these make but two Acts. For either a Thing doth barely signify and declare another or it concurreth to the being of another where things are Related one to another For seals are no more than signs binding more firmly to the fulfilling of the contents of an Instrument or Conveyance For as in such Cases the Free good will of the Donour is the only cause of an inheritance given the Instrument of Conveyance consisting of so many words are the signs of the inward will the seals are but signs of the signs of words that is an assurance that what was signified in the said Instrument should hold good And the Actual Delivery of this is the immediate Cause of entring into possession or enjoyment of this Gift In like manner The word of God promising his Graces to us signifies the will of God to that end The Sacraments superadded do likewise sensibly signifie unto us the earnest God is in when he made promises unto us as Seals And the actual exhibiting of these signs or seals on Gods Part by his Proxy or Ministers and the due receiving of them on our Part do put us into a fruition of those things which were so signified and promised First then They must be a sign that is a Representation of a thing and not the thing it self and that to add to our knowledge and Faith for if there were no agreement between the thing signifying and the thing signified the word of God alone had sufficed to that end Secondly they must be ordained of God For if no man in common justice can give away another mans estate but the true owner of it how should it be possible or equal or credible that any other besides God himself the Owner of his graces should by instruments of his own forging convey such heavenly benefits to mankind which properly belong to God This were supream folly and presumption to attempt Or can any man know Gods mind or methods of working before he hath revealed them Therefore it is said that God gave Abraham the Sign and Seal of Circumcision Thirdly they must rather be ordained Arbitrarily of God and by special Institution then Naturally least the Free Grace of God therein contained should suffer and the effect be ascribed rather to natural than supernatural Causes For though the cutting off of the foreskin of the flesh by explication intimate the cutting off of the filth of the Soul yet naturally it could not be so well understood And God might if he had pleased ordained the cutting off of the tip of the ear to serve the same ends And so in baptism Water doth naturally cleanse bodily filthiness but without notice given of Gods will and grace it could never have been believed possible to affect the soul and purify it Fourthly as there must be some agreement between the thing signifying and signified there must also be a real difference in their nature For nothing in nature or reason can signify it self because nothing can be clearer than it self For when a thing is obvious to our senses or otherwise apparent Sicut Signum et res ipsa aliquando possint esse diversa ita saepenumero et in multis eadem esse possunt Tunstal 9. de Eucharistia fol 16. we do not say we have a sign of such a thing but the thing it self Yet this most certain Rule is sought to be bafled and overthrown by Cavillers who would bring in their false doctrine of the Eucharist and would shew from bread on a Stall or Cloath which signifies bread and Cloath as well as is bread and Cloath that the same body of Christ may be a sign of it self But their attempts in their Instance fail them because that Bread which is exposed to be sold or that Cloath is not a sign of it self viz. That it is cloath or bread but is so only but it is only a sign that either it is to be sold which is quite another thing from Cloath it self or it is a sign of other cloath which doth not appear And so the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a sign of that Body which doth appear but of that which doth not appear And therefore a Fifth condition of a Sacrament is That it should visibly signify something invisible and spiritual Lastly that Sacraments are to be not only significant or which comes to the same Sealing but efficacious in themselves upon the souls of men which may deserve further explication
well as Southern Scaliger exercit 292. ¶ 4. people who have no such Grain amongst them as we have mentioned For 't is very hard to acknowledg an ordinary necessity of this blessed Sacrament Plerosque nos vidimus frumenti usum et vini penitus ignorantes Ammian Marcellinus Lib 14. Cap. 12. to the having life spiritual in us to the comfort of our souls to the strengthening of our Faith to the resisting the temptations of the Devil and in fine to the salvation of our souls and yet supposing what St. Paul testifieth that God would have all men to be saved there should be a natural incapacity of the means of the ordinary means of Salvation And considering withal that Bread may be easily taken not for that only which is made of our common Corn but for that also which supplies the 1 Tim. 2. 4. use and fulfils the natural ends of Bread and bears sufficient proportion to the agreements between the Natural and Spiritual Bread as St. Paul hath stated it We being many are one bread for we are all partakers of that 1 Cor. 10. 17. onebread In the first he compares the conjunction of Christians in this communion with the union of the many several grains into one bread And so though the parts constituting one Loaf be more distinct than they which may concurr to the compounding one body of this Supplemental bread yet are the Parts distinguishable so far as to truly denominate that body a Compound In the latter Analogy of St. Pauls saying We are all Ejusmodi esse debet Eucharistiae ut multa in unum redigantur Aug. Tract 26. in Joann partakers of that one Bread that is as we all in the Communion partake of one Loaf outwardly so we inwardly all partake of that one Bread of God that came down from heaven Christ Jesus no less in some other one body than in proper bread I say not absolutely determining that so actually it is but that the Representation makes no such difference but so it may be And this methinks they should be most inclinable to who religiously observe the mixing of water in the other Element Wine which otherwise must needs infinitely and inextricably perplex the minds of the Consecrater and Communicant both For it being not at all determined in nature what the Schools in general determine viz that so much water may be mixed with wine till it ceaseth to be truly wine and yet the Element capable of effectual consecration I say it being not determinable in nature by the acutest judgement precisely what quantity of water destroyeth a quantity of wine it may so fall out that by the undue mixture of water the wine ceases to be wine and then what becomes of that Sacrament which they say essentially and indispensably requires wine It is very hard and presumptious to affirm that none but natural no artificial water drawn from distillations have any efficacy in baptism especially if they have a cleansing nature with them as all or most in some degree have seeing they may signify the same for which Natural water was ordained For otherwise we may say that Hot water being in some sense artificial was not in any case to be used to such ends And distilled waters are certainly not absolutely made for then there might be more reason to exclude it but is that Elemental water of which the natural Body doth consist though not distilling naturally but praeternaturally from the body out of which it is forced and retaining more mixture than the common sort doth And so may we affirm much more of Bread that the commonly known Bread is that which should be preferred without all doubt yea not without greatest scruple should be neglected but when that which is in place and common use amongst some Nations seems to them more natural and ours more unnatural and artificial doth there not appear great reason to admit that Or can we imagine that Christ whom we find the least superstitions or scrupulous of all men of his age in things not directly limited by a Law but of themselves indifferent would not have followed the customs and opinions of men in such Regions had he conversed with them Is it not a reason rendred by the Ancients and that a very sufficient too against the Perpetuity and Universality of the Jews worship Eusebius Demonst Evang 1. that all Nations could not possibly be concerned in it or obliged by it because of an incapacity they were in by the extreme distance from Jerusalem the place of principal worship to fulfil the Laws and Precepts of it And will not it or at least may it not be alledged as strongly against the proper Catholickness of Christian Religion that the Laws thereof and that one of the most solemnand necessary cannot be observed by all Nations It will be said That such things as are so necessarly required may be imported from other places Very true And surely where it may it ought But to make any Countrey which Gods Providence extendeth it self to of it self uncapable of receiving as good Christians as any place in the World or to make the Religion of Christians to depend on Merchandizing necessarily is more than in modesty can be said or by reason maintained Neither doth the condemnation of the Heresie of the Aquarii of old or such as solemnized this Sacrament with water alone condemn absolutely the use of all other Liquors besides Wine in it because they condemned the use of all besides Water in that Sacrament contrary to Christs Institution Christ without doubt celebrated with proper wholesome Wine of the fruit of the Vine And this argues sufficiently that the like is to be used and none other where it is attainable And the argument of the Schoolmen which say That neither Sider nor Perry nor liquor pressed out of Raisins nor Vinegar nor such like are apt matter for consecration because they are not proper Wine may be allowed taking apt for proper and convenient but scarce if taken for Possible as if they were not susceptible of Sacramental consecration where they are in common use And though Vinegar seems to draw neerest to the nature of Wine and in that respect more apt than other Liquors yet in this it is more unapt because it is the drink of no people And yet Alexander Alensis granteth that in some Regions they consecrate altogether of Vinegar because to them Wine in its pure nature cannot be brought This they understand rather of Wine degenerated of it self into such an acidity or sowrness than of that which is studiously made so But if nothing which art hath counterfeited and adulterated can be received as the matter of this Sacrament how many Sacraments in Christendom would be absolutely void and Communicants deluded of their expectations And seeing in the corruptions of Wine by other ingredients as well as Water the Casuists determine that it ceases then only to be capable of this sacred use
defines it 1. Qu. 8. Ar. 1. 2. The communication of one thing with another so many waies as a Body imparts it self to another so many may it be said to be Present to it And these ways are commonly resolved to be two First by immediate contact and conjunction Secondly by a Virtual or Effectual communication with it the Substance it self continuing remote So that though Christs body should be determined to one certain place in Heaven yet may it by its vertue communicate it self to us in the Sacrament and be said to be Present really though not Corporally after the manner of bodies in their natural state by contiguity And what we now say of the Subject of this Sacrament will hold no less in the Case of Participation of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist For as Christs Body may be said to be really though not Corporally Present and immediately So may it be said to be received Really and not Phantastically only though not Corporally after the manner that other bodies are received For they that affirm that Christs body is Corporally Sacramentally received do say if not what they know not themselves yet what no body but themselves can apprehend For either these terms are really distinct or Not. If they be not then are they either superfluous or at most explicatory one of another but this latter cannot be said because Sacramentally is more obscure than Corporally and Corporally signifies a much grosser degree of Presence than the Framers of this distinction will admit to agree with these Divine Mysteries If they be distinct whence shall we fetch the nature of this Sacramental Presence whenas there is nothing to be found in Nature to resemble or explain it but it must be described by it self And Sacramentally Present is no more than to be present in the Sacrament But what it is to be present in the Sacrament or how a thing may be said to be present in the Sacrament otherwise than in other Cases we shall ever be to seek and consequently never learn Therefore we must be constrained at length to reduce this large and unintelligible Presence Sacramental to one of the two old sorts of the Presence of Influence only or Presence of Substance it self or Suppositum So that either the Influence only of Christs Body and Blood should be found in the Eucharist and the vertue of them be therein communicated unto us or the very natural Substance also We have hitherto spoken of the Presence it self precisely taken from its Causes and manner external For according to Philosophers there is a Modus Essentialis and a Modus Accidentalis The Essential manner is simply to be after the intrinsique natureof a thing as the intrinsique nature and manner of a Body is to be Corporally and of a Spirit to be Spiritually that is As a Body and as a Spirit But as a Body ordinarily and naturally palpable and visible may remain a true real Body and yet not be seen or felt so may a Spirit remain a Spirit in substance and yet appear as a Body So that it is possible Christs Body may be present corporally in the essentials and formal nature of a Body and yet not appear in the accidental or separable formalities of a Body which are actually to be seen and felt at a competent distance These I call accidental because they may be wanting as well by reason of the defect of the senses which should perceive them as of the sensiblenes of such objects For a Divine power may take away the one as well as the other by impeding the sense though seeing the very nature and essence of a Body consisteth in being extended and quantitative it cannot be conceived how a Divine Power can divide them which mutually constitute one another though it may render them imperceptible to outward sense And so Christs Body may be in the Eucharist so far corporally as to have all real and essential modifications of a Body but not so Corporally as to appear in the proper forms of a Body But granting or supposing rather that Christs Body were in this Latter sense present in the Sacrament there appears no great reason why this should be called a Sacramental Presence more than that presence when he was with his Disciples at Supper and as the Scripture saith Vanished out of their sight Luk. 24. 31. that is as the word and sense import not translating his Body suddainly to another place but disappearing in that place or ceasing to be seen by them answerable to the contrary power shewn in his sudden appearing without any previous Act and standing in the midst of them before they V. 36. could be aware of it or suppose any such thing which was occasion of their great Affrightment and amazement supposing him to be a Spirit 37. But it is one thing to be Possibly and another Actually so to be And yet farther Actually for Christs Body and Blood so to be present and to be so Present as there should remain nothing substantial or material besides them and the Signs to be changed into the things signified by them absolutely and totally the shew or Accident only excepted So that the Question is double First Whether those Substances of Bread and Wine remain after consecration really the same they were before or be totally abolished Secondly It is inquired not so much whether Christs Body and Blood be really present in the Sacrament but whether it be really the Sacrament it self as it must necessarily be if so be that they be in such manner really present as there remains no other substance besides them For the former of these the knowledge of the Real Presence of Signs Bread and Wine do exceedingly conduce to the understanding of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under or through those Signs And it should seem that the Roman Advocates of the New sense of a Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood proceed not in the proper and natural method rightly to found their Doctrine For as according to them there must be in order of nature though not of time a Desition or abolition of the Elemental substances before there can succeed those Divine substances so should they have first by sound and sufficient arguments proved the destruction of the preceeding Bodies and then have inferred the succeeding But on the contrary They first presume on the Second upon what grounds we shall hereafter see viz That Christs Body is so really subsisting there and then conclude that the Elements are not there subsistent For he that holds that the Sacramental Signs do not exclude the Body and Blood of Christ doth likewise hold that the Body and Blood of Christ are not inconsistent with the Real Presence of the Elements It must not be denied that those texts of Scripture which are commonly alleadged to Parallel Christs words and consequently to give a more favourable sense than that of Transubstantiation do not exactly
fit the Case For when the Scripture saith Christ is a Door or Christ is a Vine or a Lamb it is not the same formally as to say that a Lamb is Christ or a Door or a Vine is Christ Yet if that rigour must be observed in Scripture Propositions to have them true that without a Trope or Figure they must be understood otherwise we must be reproached to deny Scripture the foresaid speeches must as necessarily inferr a Transubstantiation of Christ into the Nature of a Door or Vine or Lamb as his bare words at the Celebration do inferr a Transubstantiation of the Elements into his Nature And no apparence of disparity can be here shown if so be Christs Literal meaning must be here urged as they do Now That the Signs which were before are Really Present in the Sacrament after Consecration doth appear from the most-Essential thing to a Sacrament A Sacrament we have defined to be a Visible Sign with Austin and infinite others I say a Visible and Real Sign and not Visibly Apparently or Seemingly a Sign or a Sign of a Sign as the deluding Specieses remaining after supposed Transubstantiation are said to be And it is an Impossible thing as is before shewed in the general treating of Sacraments that the Sign should be the thing signified For if some Sign could be the thing signified then something signified should be a Sign and so both wayes the Relate and Cor-relate should be the same too and two should be one and one should be two and if this may be what may not be or at least said to be For as to the instances given That in some Cases a thing may be a Sign and the thing signified it hath been showed how defective they are in that they are a Sign of the same nature perhaps or rather some qualification of it and not of the same thing numerically as the individual Sign in the Lords Supper is believed to be of that it is Therefore from hence they are put to their choice Whether of the two they will suffer the loss of the Sacrament or the absence of Christs Body in their sense For not only the nature of the thing now expressed require Sacramental Signs as well as the thing signified but the manifold Autorities of the Ancientest of the Greek and Latin Fathers have for this reason called the Sacramental Elements Signs Figures Representations Types Antitypes of Christs Body and Blood as might at large be shewed our Adversaries not denying it But what answer do they make to them The Modern Greeks as Cardinal Bessario who is herein followed by some more modern than himself Latinizing answer confessing that the Fathers Bessario Do Eucharist Sacramento often so speak but say they they speak only of the Bread and Wine before Consecration and not after Here is some wit in this shuffle and evasion but no truth at all For before Dedication and Consecration they are not Signs or Figures or Antitypes at all They have no more relation to the Body and Blood of Christ than the like Elements at our Common tables and therefore they must be understood to speak of them after Consecration But the Answer of the Scholastical managers of this controversy in the Latin Church shows less modesty and no more truth For Aūg. in Psal 3. they say St. Austin who calls the consecrated Elements a Figure of Christs Body spake not of every empty Figure but of a Figure of a thing really present All this we grant willingly viz that the Signs Sacramental are not Signs of things future or Absent This is nothing at all to the purpose And the Second answer is notoriously and boldly false saying That St. Austin might there speak as Manichee who denied the Real Body Contra Adamant C. 12. of Christ For it was in confutation of Manicheans And of Tertullians words who likewise calls the consecrate Elements Signs they make non-sense joyning head and tail together that they may really signifie nothing least they should signify that for which we alleadg them Tertullian saies Hoc est Corpus meum Id est Figura Corporis mei Figura Corporis mei saies one after his greater Doctors is referred not unto Corpus meum as an Fisher Jes explication thereof but unto Hoc in this manner Hoc id est Figura Corporis mei est Corpus meum i. e. This that is the Figure of my Body is my Body If it be not sufficient conviction of their Errour and confusion that they are driven to such unnatural tossing of mens words against common sense and Grammar and having so done to affect nothing but what is directly false or unintelligible as this Scholie is making the Figure and the Body the very same thing I confess I have nothing to say For this is the subject we have at present in hand That the Sign and thing signified must by eternal necessity be distinct but this opinion of Transubstantiation destroys this and destroying this destroys the Sacrament For whereas they say That the remaining Species supply the place of the Substance abolished and are Signs This cannot consist with the impossibility of such Accidents without a subject in that contrary to their definition they should stick and not stick to a thing in that they are Accidents their nature requires that they should have a subject and the nature of this mutation requires they should have none And where as they argue That what any Creature can do the Creatour can much more do and therefore if the Creature can sustain Accidents the Creatour God Almighty can I answer If the Creature could sustain Accidents without a subject then doubtless could God the Creatour but doth it follow that because the Creature can be a subject to them therefore the Creatour can also All that a Creature can Do the Creatour can do but all that the Creature can Suffer I trow the Creatour cannot But to be the subject to Accidents is a Passion and imperfection and no Action and therefore nothing can be concluded from hence Therefore they proceed one strain higher not doubting to say That what the Creature can do by its Passive Capacity the Creatour can do by his Active which if it did not imply a contradiction in nature itself I should easily grant but this it doth For first it is to make an Accident a Substance For t is the nature of a Substance to subsist of it self without the aid or support of any other thing distinct from it Not that the Secondary being can subsist without the First God himself but without any thing Created And therefore seeing that Substance it self cannot continue in its Being without Gods omnipotent hand supporting it this doth equalize the nature of Accidents to that of Substance in that it supposeth that Accidents by a divine power may subsist of themselves as well as Substance For substance cannot subsist at all without a Divine power and thus Accidents by a
choose c. it was free for the servants of God to offer their Sacrifice upon any place they Jacobus Bolduc de Ecclesia ante Legem Lib. 11. should think fit and make Altars at their pleasures though I am not ignorant that mystical Bolducius is of another mind without solid grounds But afterward the Altar as Christ intimateth in the Gospel Sanctified the Gift so far that it was not accepted but upon that which Mat. 23. 19. God had ordained for Sacrifices or offerings to him The case is not altogether so now under the Gospel that Christians should be absolutely confined to the Publique Altars as they may be called appointed to the Eucharist For we do not read that ever the Apostles so Celebrated but have great presumptions to the Contrary Nor doth it in like manner appear in the Gospel that those places on which they did Celebrate were preserved from all Secular uses as we do in the Law that Altars there were Yet so much ought all who are good Christans condescend to the immemoriall practise of the Church separating all such sacred things from common and vulgar uses and requiring to celebrate upon the Reputed and appointed Altar that I make question whether any Sacrifice not so offered through contempt or sullenness can be either so acceptable to God or profitable to our selves as in the other received way And there want not as learned men who denie that Consumption is necessary to a true Sacrifice And I am sure the Roman Cause so requires unless in this state they will make Christ passible and Corruptible though I know they have many a Sorry shift to evade this too Now for brevity sake to omit many things incident to this dispute and to apply the Notion of Sacrifice to the Actions in the Eucharist If we take Sacrifice in Melancthons sense from which Calvin doth not much vary Melanct. Loc. Com Calv. Instit Lib. 4. C. 73. For every act and thing devoted to God whereby we give him honour there are Sacrifices enough to be found in the Eucharist And there are many known senses of Sacrifice given to God admitted by Protestants But passing all them over the Question here must be stated concerning this Sacrifice as it was concerning the Body of Christ Not whether there Really it is but whether it really and properly be Predicated of the matter of the Sacrament and that in as proper a sense as Christs Body was offered upon the Cross This we deny acknowledging only these three things which fully satisfie the expressions of the Ancient calling the Host an Incruent Sacrifice First because here we call to remembrance Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse according as he Instituted and required that at our hands saying Do this in remembrance of me Secondly as it is a Sacrifice Luk. 22. 19. Rememorative so is it a Sacrifice Representative Insinuating and signifying unto as the death and Passion of Christ and not as common signes and advertences only to bring to mind or as Gulielmus Parisiensis hath it like a String tyed about the singer to put a man in remembrance and no more but also to informe the Iudgment and confirm and encrease the Faith of the Receiver Thirdly it is a Sacrifice Representative to God as well as to Man For though nothing can lie hid from him or be forgotten by him yet taking things as he hath been pleased to express them unto us after the manner of Men he by the offering of this Sacrifice and the devout worship there performed to God is moved to behold consider and accept the true Sacrifice which Christ made for us in offering himselfe for us As it was by Gods own appointment in the Rainbow put for a signe between him and Man of the Covenant for not drowning the earth And the Gen. 4. 16. bow saith the Scripture shall be in the cloud and I will look upon it that I may remember the everlasting Covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth In like manner and much more effectually may we say that the Action of the Eucharist presents to God the Sacrifice of Christs death and mediation made by him for mankind especially those that are immediately concerned in that Sacrament from which Metonymical Sacrifice what Great and rich benefits may we not expect Thus is the Host a Sacrifice but not essentially as the sacrifices of the Law or Christs offering himself but Analogically and Metonymically by vertue of the Sacrifice of Christ and through whose vertue the benefits of Christs death and Passion are made over unto the worthy Communicats agreably to Christs Institution and the Title given it by the Ancient and Holy Fathers CHAP. XLV Of the form of Consecrating the Elements wherein it consisteth Whether only Recitative or Supplicative AND to this duly communicating is necessarily required the proper Form of this Sacrament Which Form consisteth in two things principally The Proper Actions of the Minister of it and the Receiver of it The Action of the Minister or Priest consisteth in the due consecration and Dedication of those Elements designed for that end For as Augustin the father hath it The word coming to the Creature maketh it a Sacrament it gives being to it as such which before was but common bread and wine And that this is done by the Recitation of the historie of Christs Celebration and Institution of them all at first and Invocation of God upon the Elements is certain but it is not so certain what special form of words is only and absolutely required to this purpose nor whether they are only Recitative pronouncing the words of Christ at the Institution of this Sacrament as This is my Body Christoph de Cap. Fontium de Theolog. Scholast Reformat and so over the Cup This is my Blood or whether they must be also Supplicative The Greek Church and some of the Learnedest of the Roman hold the Latter to be necessarie and the Former insufficient The most common Opinion of the Western Church is That the Consecration by way of decencie and solemnitie ought to consist of Benedictions and Invocations of God but that essentially is required nothing more than the recitation of Christs words over the Elements for the real Consecration of them And each side doth rather well prove their own practise than answer the difficulties opposed to each other For as the Greeks well say There is no great probability that an historical narration of what was done by Christ should of it selfe be effectuall to the Conversion of the Elements from their Common use and nature to the divine For it is only expected from him that rehearseth what another said or did that he be a faithful reporter and not that he should effectually thereby make a thing true But on the otherside Prayer is not so much Indicative as Imperative and Impetrative We read indeed in St Paul to Timothie of things that are
of Christ also Must not they be necessitated here to slee to an unknown Concomitance the one of the other and not a coexistence And if thus the blood hath the flesh of Christ concomitantly as well as the â—lesh the blood and so for this reason might the Cup be received without the Bread But we positively deny both such Carnal Capernaitical Coexistence as is here presumed and such necessary Concomitance too that with the receiving of one alone the other should be necessarily taken also but hold rather where both are not Present both are absent and no Sacramental Receiving of Christ can possibly be hoped for And though I have been long of this opinion before I found any authority express to this purpose besides the very intrinsique nature of the Sacrament it self now touched Yet am I not alone For thus speaks a Reverent and Learned Father of our Church In all compounded things the moiety of the matter is the moiety of substance Bishop Whites Reply to c. pag. 483. And whatsoever Jesuited Romanists teach I see not how their Laicks can truly say that they have at any time in all their Lives been partakers of this Sacrament for if half a man be not a man then likewise half a Communion is not a Communion But were there more colour for nothing of reality do we find in their Offers to vindicate themselves in what is said for the possibility of a Sacrament in one Kind received What can be said for their gross abuse of their and our Lords Institution and their Relinquishing the unanimous practice of the Catholick Church for so many Ages together Did not Christ equally institute both Did he not equally communicate both to his Disciples Or supposing that they were then all Priests which may be well doubted of seeing they were not compleatly consecrated then by the descent of the Holy Ghost nor commissioned to Go teach and Baptise all nations until after this doth this give any likelihood that therefore it is the sole Right for Priests to receive in both Kinds Did Christ any where make two Institutions One For Priests and another for Laicks If but one Who should presume to alteâ— or adulterate his Prescriptions He said Drink ye all of Mat. 26. 27. this which is more than we find he said of the Bread And the shift is sad and pitiful which some who have nothing better to say yet must say something adde that Christ said This do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of 1 Cor. 11. 25. Fisher against White me As if he excepted sometimes from drinking when he commanded to eat Ridiculous The meaning of Christ being as plain as any thing need be that there should so often be had a devout remembrance of him as we communicate and not imply as is most boldly insinuated that sometimes we may not communicate in the Sacramental bloud of Christ For it followeth As Often as ye eat this bread and drink this cupp ye do shew the Lords death 1 Cor. 11. 26. till he come Never are they separated in the Scripture No ground at all for the omitting of one rather than the other The Church hath power to denie one as much as the other The Church hath no power to denie either or any thing else of such divine Institution The Church of God for above 1200 years did constantly and universally practise both And until the Council of Constance about the year 1415 many in the Roman Church so received but then it was violently taken away But to this very day all Churches not subdued to the Roman continue the Ancient form And do a companie of paltry reasons drawn from possible inconveniences in Lay-mens taking the Cup countervail so great a cloud of witnesses and so strong arguments to the contrary What if sometimes the Ancients did permitt the exportation of the one without the other to such as were sick or unable to receive in Publique Does this come home to the Case which requireth that the Publique Ministration should be changed also And how doth it appear I am sure not by their demonstrations that such Persons so receiving in half were ever reputed to have Sacramentally received Christ Nay not half of the Autorities or Instances commonâ—y given of such Communications do concern this subject for most are to be understood of the Panis Benedictus or the Bread blessed by the â—riâ—â—â— upon 〈◊〉 offering of it by the People which was not all consecrated Sacramentally and so given unto Christians to be imparted to such as were of the same Communion in token that they were in Communion with them though absent This I grant was sometimes performed by the sending to such the Consecrated Element of Bread in the Eucharist Not with an opinion of the Fathers of the Church however possibly same vulgar and ignorant Christians might have too high a conceit of it that such receiving was tantamount to the receiving in both Kinds Sacramentally But to their inconveniences which are many of them more fit to make sport than to sway in so grave a Controversie we shall only reply that all they can alleadg was no newes to their and our Predecessours and yet never could it enter into their hearts to attempt so monstâ—ous a change upon such frivolous pretences But the truth is the Errour of transubstantiation being throughly received occasioned this by way of common prudence as well as Christian devotion For it being firmly and clearly believed the Consecrated Elements became Christs Bodie and Blood forsaking wholely their own Nature Common Reason required that all possible respect and Care should be taken as far as the wit of man could reach that no detriment or indignity should be done to them and that then became indecent and prophane which before was not To have the Least Crum fall aside must be accounted a grand prophanation though in voluntary and therefore humane wit invented Wafers and preferred them before bread according as Christ used it In breaking of the Host some possible waste might happen therefore though Christ and following Christians communicated of 1 Cor. 10. 17. one Bread according to St Paul For we are one Bread and one bodie and we are all partakers of one Bread undoubtedly literally meaning the participation by many of the same Loaf in the Sacrament now superstition hath better instructed us than the holy Spirit St Paul and there must be no more breaking of bread amongst Christians of which the Scripture speakes so often though I confess not alwayes meaning the Eucharist but yet that too many times and which is so lively and proper a Ceremony and signification of Christs passion lest somewhat should fall out amiss toward the supposed Body of Christ in their sense To give Respect to use reverence to it to take all convenient and devout Care about it is verie reasonable and pious for the Relation it hath to Christ and his Proper Bodie and the Virtue to
Heaven and Hell But we deny not that the Ancients prayed for the Dead nor do we dissent much from them in that pious act our selves however there are quarrellers amongst us well known by their other affected and morose follies who oppose it because they have no express Scripture for it but we deny they ever prayed for the pardon of their sins or ease of torments so anciently but for an happy rest and restauration in a Resurrection So that we peremptorily deny and well may notwithstanding all proofs brought to the contrary that Prayer for the Dead necessarily infers Roman Purgatory And for the Consequence of this Opinion of Roman Purgatory Indulgences it is so rank a Corruption such a novel and impudent invention as the Church of Rome under that defection it now is never did so great a miracle as to get it any place in sober and knowing mens minds both thing it self and the abuse of it being such as alone may suffice to disgrace the Authours of it and make their pretenses to infallibility alwaies false very ridiculous We know indeed that scarce any thing was of ancienter use in the Church then some Indulgences but no more like these than Earth is like Purgatory Indulgences were made by such who were in autority in the Church towards Penitents who had their Penances allotted them for scandalous Crimes committed against the Faith and Church which Penances were often relaxed and mittigated by the favour and indulgences of the Fathers of the Church good cause appearing for to do so But that ever it was in the power of the Church to give ease to such as were punished in that other Life to come was never heard of for above a thousand years after Christ Alphonsus de Castro is worth the Alphonsus de Castro lib. 8. Adv. Haer. de Indulg reading upon this who is positive for Indulgences but going about to prove them prepares his Reader with a long Preface for such a short Discourse telling him that He ought not to expect for all points of Faith Antiquity or express Scripture For many things are known to the moderner which those ancient Writers were altogether ignorant of For seldome any mention is made in ancient Writers of the transubstantiation of the Bread into Christs Body of the Spirits proceeding from the Son much rarer of Purgatory almost none at all especially among Greek Writers for which reason Purgatory is not believed of the Greek to this day c. The ancient Church caused men to satisfie in this life and would leave nothing to be punished in the Life to come and therefore there is no mention of Indulgences Thus he But adds Amongst the Romans the use of them is said to be very ancient as may in some manner be collected from their stations And it is reported of Gregory the First of whom we even now spake that he granted some in his dayes It is said and reported by where and by whom he could not tell us But he tells us indeed how Innocent the Third that great Innovator and Corrupter of the Church constituted it in the Latherane Council and the Council of Constance after that much which was not before the Year 1200. Judge we from hence what great account is to be made of the many sayings of the Fathers pretended to approve this devise And judge we farther what great Reason or Scripture there is for the Popish faction to derogate so far as they do from the efficacy of Gods Holy Spirit of Grace in the repenting sinner though straitened of time in the exercise and demonstration of his true Conversion and from the fullness of Christs mediation and merits which are ordained for the remission of all sins upon true Repentance For the bloud of Christ cleanseth from all sin saith St. John and so say they understood as in this Life and the Life to come but St. John nor any other holy Writer of Scripture gives us the least intimation of any other season of pardon then that of this Life Therefore here to end this First Part with the end of Man in this world seeing Gods Promises are so liberally revealed unto penitent sinners in this Life without exceptions of matter time or place of venial or mortal sins Seeing Christs merits are absolutely sufficient to acquit the sinner and no limitation is to be found upon Faith and Repentance in Scripture Seeing lastly that Gods Spirit of Grace is of vertue sufficient to sanctifie to the washing away of all filthiness both of flesh and spirit and this life is only mentioned in Scripture for the exerting of this work and perfecting this cure of the soul Let us rather thankfully embrace so great salvation and work it out for St. Paul supposes we may with fear and trembling in this life that so as St. Peter hath 2 Pet. 1. 11. it An entrance may be ministred abundantly unto us into the everlasting Kingdem of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ The End of the First Part. THE Second Part OF THE INTRODUCTION To the Knowledge of the True Catholick Religion CHAP. I. Of the worship of God wherein the Second Part of Christian Religion consists Of the Necessity of worshipping God It is natural to worship God Socinus holding the contrary confuted Of the Name of Religion the Nature of religious worship wherein it consisteth REligion we have defined to be A due Recognition and Retribution made by the Creature to God the Fountain of all Being communicating himself freely to inferiour Beings And this description we have in substance given us by David in his last and most serious charge to Solomon his Son saying And thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of 1 Chron. 28. 9. thy Fathers and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind c. From whence we take the ground of our distinction of Religion into two Parts The true knowledge of God which is attained by the Doctrine of Faith revealed in Gods holy Word and the worship of him there in likewise contained Of the former having already spoken we now proceed more briefly to treat of the second The worship of God And that God is to be worshipped is such an inseparable notion from the acknowledgment of God as nothing can follow more necessarily then that doth from this And it were more reasonable though that be brutish for to deny God absolutely then to deny him worship and service And therefore Seneca saith well The first worshipping of God is to believe there is a God The next to yield to him his Majesty to yield him Sen. Epist 95. his Goodness to understand that he or they governs the world And afterward He sufficiently worships God who imitates him And Tully The Cicero de Natura Deor. lib. 2. worship of God ought to be most excellent and pure and holy and full of piety so that we may constantly worship him with a pure intire and uncorrupt mind and voice
most sincerely to worship only that true God though possibly they should err in the object yet the crime of Idolatry cannot cleave unto them and especially when we hear them so solemnly and zealously protest against worshipping any Creature what ever we can possibly instance in as God The vanity of this protestation we may have occasion to discover by and by Now we call in question the foundation of all and that is their distinction of Formal and Material Idolatry upon this fourfold account First that if it were reasonable it were notwithstanding altogether superfluous For what more can be honestly implied hereby than was of old in that distinction of Ignorantia facti and Juris Ignorance of the thing done and Ignorance of the Law against which this fact is committed Ignorance that such a Law there is which prohibits divine or supream worship to be given to the Creature no man can plead but Ignorance of actual Idolatry in such kind of worship as by error and false supposition is committed a man may possibly alledge and that colourably Now what can they make Formal Idolatry but such a Divine Worship as is given to that which is not God knowingly and willingly And what else do they mean by Material Idolatry but Divine Worship falsely applied to that which by nature is not capable of it as not God though it be really believed to be God And what is this else but Ignorance of the fact And if so what makes this new Invented distinction here of Formal and Material Idolatry Secondly this distinction is very rudely and ignorantly made against the Rules of Logick I know there is nothing more ordinary than to distinguish a thing and consider it Materially and Formally but there never was received any such division as good which made Matter and Form of the same thing distinct Kinds or made Parts several Species A man may be considered according to his Matter or according to his Form but who ever went about to divide human nature or humanity into a Formal Man and a Material Man Or to take an instance nearer to our purpose of Adultery A man may consider it in its Formality and Materiality but no advised man can divide Adultery into Formal and Material For the general Rule makes against all such attempts which tells us that nothing can be or subsist without its form so that either there is no Adultery or Idolatry at all or it must be as well Formal as Material unless we would be so vain and ridiculous to call them Formal as we sometimes do a Formal Man when he is phantastical and affected or we should use the term Formal for that which doth appear in all its outward formalities as we before distinguished Schisme into Formal and Real or Material or Vertual and Formal And in this sense the contrary sense is much more true For in exhibiting outward worship in Divine manner unto that which is not God all the formalities of Idolatry do appear what ever the intention which doth not appear may be It will here doubtless be said that in that common case put by Casuists of a Man who companies with a woman in a conjugal way stedfastly and unfainedly believing that she is his own lawful wife doth commit material adultery but not formal and so in Idolatry as the case may be put But I make no doubt to affirm that such an Act of Adultery so far as it is Adultery and such Idolatry so far as it is Idolatry are both Formal as well as Material and the only difference between them and those they call Formal consists only in Ignorance or knowledge of the Fact done For either such Acts are sins or not sins If not sins then neither Formal nor Material Adultery or Idolatry if they be sins to what can they be reduced but to Adultery and Idolatry And that when they have the most favourable circumstances they are sinful Parisiensis thus clearly determines If a Si quis mulierem cagnoscat non suam pro uxore vel adoret Luciferum c. Gulielm Parisiensis de Leg. c. 21. man knows a woman not his own for his own wife or worships Lucifer instead of Christ he sins because God would have turn'd away his heart from such a great Evil if his sins hindered not which he had before committed Thus he So that the issue of this question comes truly to that which some Romanists acknowledge that all Idolatry derives it self originally from the understanding though it be an Act of the will principally and that it is because a man knows not actually what he does when he commits Idolatry For surely unless to grant something to quarrellers which prejudices little our Cause we except some prodigious persons and desperate no man worships what he is perswaded is not God with supream worship and so consequently no man commits wilful Idolatry And therefore the only equal way of estimating the Criminalness of Idolatry is from the measure of knowledge in man and the means of discerning an Increated from a Created Object of Worship It is therefore to very little purpose that the Arch-bishop of spalato and after him Forbes Bishop of Edinburge and after them other very learned men of these present days alledge in excuse of Papists from Idolatry in the Mass when they accept of their detestation of worshiping Bread or any thing Created but only God For 't is no demonstration or proof at all that they do not do it because they say they do not do it For here are two contrary suppositions made by contrary Parties The one holds that the natural bodies of the Eucharistical Elements are not present nor have any being the other holds that they are there as really as ever Again both agree that they worship that which is there what ever it be therefore deny they it a thousand times they have nothing to save themselves from the actual adoration of those Creatures but a supposition that they are not there but our opinion affirming positively that there they are no man of us can hold opinion that they worship not the Creature and Maimonides More Neboc Part. 1. c. 71. so are not Idolatrous For as Maimonides quotes Themistius the Philosopher speaking well Natura rerum nonsequitur opiniones hominum sed opiniones hominum debent sequi naturam rerum The Nature of things do not follow the perswasions of men but the perswasions or opinions of men ought to follow Nature That is not only Idolatry which men are perswaded is Idolatry but that which in it self is so though men be perswaded of the contrary yea though they mean nothing less then to commit Idolatry as will appear from Tannerus in this his explication of Idolatry Adamus Tanâ—erus Theologiae Scâ—olast Tom. 3. Disput 5. Qâ—aest 7. Dub. 1. num 2. He is judged saith he to give Divine Worship to the Creature who directly and expresly or indirectly and implicitely intendeth to beget
such opinion of it as in truth agrees only to God He directly intends who really supposes falsly any Creature to be God and intends to worship it as God or certainly he who otherwise out of perverted affection desires to worship that which he well knows to be a Creature as God He intends indirectly who no ways intending directly to honour a Creature as God yet outwardly notwithstanding this doth bestow divine honor on the Creature as God So that in the judgment of sober men he may be thought to account the Creature for God as if any man through fear of death should sacrifice to Idols Therefore if actually a man worships that which is not God his intention to worship only the true God can relieve him no farther than his opinion and intention to accompany with his own wife excuses him from Casual Adultery in lying with another woman and that is but little unless circumstances be such as may render the ignorance of the Fact invincible as they say or unavoidable And the intention and opinion if they be against ordinary presumptions to the contrary do not excuse Now to apply it to the last Case of Christ corporally present in the Sacrament This is agreed upon by us that what Christ saith to be so is infallibly true seem it never so contrary to our outward senses But seeing the words of Christ according to the like expressions in Holy Writ where things that bear Analogy with one another are said positively to be one another as where St. Paul saith Believers are Christs bone and Christs flesh which is not true in the natural sense but Metaphorical for otherwise unbelievers might be said so to be which St. Paul never intended do not necessarily infer that sense and all the ends imaginable are attainable no less by the spiritual sense and metaphorical acceptation of the words than by the more gross and natural And lastly to suppose what is said above concerning this subject testimony of senses bear witness to the contrary as much after Consecration as before the upshot of the business will be this Whether there remains any such infallible inducements to produce an opinion of such a thing there being whether such gounds unresistible there be for to found such an intention that may excuse from errour And therefore I absolutely deny Spalatoe's opinion saying I answer I acknowledge no Idolatrous De Republ. Eccl. Lib. 7. cap II. num 2. crime in the adoration of the Eucharist so long as the intention is directed aright For they who teach that Bread to be no longer bread but the body of Christ c. For if they knew that the Body of Christ did not lye hid under the Species and his blood under those of Wine they would not so worship This I say satisfies not because they have no sufficient grounds that so it is or so Christs words are to be understood Secondly and as to this point principally because Idolatry is primarily a defect and errour in the understanding as their own men confess and only secondarily and by consequence in the will or purpose which altogether overthrows the moderate sense of Forbes likewise to Forbes ubi supra p. 439. say no more For as for that other evasion and purgation whereby they would fetch off Papists from Idâ—latrous worship in the Eucharist because there can be no doubt made but Christ may be adored as Austins known words are in the Eucharist with all outward and bodily as well as mental worship is much less to the purpose For This quite changes the question which is wholly about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the ancients call them the objects appearing whether they be Christ and to be worshipped as Christ For Christ in the Sacrament we may worship without exceptions of any divine or corporal manner Christ's body and blood are really present in the Eucharist we grant and in a more eminent manner then in other places or divine ordinances but when we hear him say The faithful receive the body and blood of Christ in Forbes ibid. themselves corporally but yet after a spiritual miraculous and imperceptible manner we grant the manner to be wonderful and imperceptible but we cannot grant it to be Corporally and Spiritually in the same respect without a contradiction For What is corporally to receive a thing but modo corporali after a corporal manner and therefore to correct as it were that Expression with that which follows viz. Modo tamen spirituali yet after a spiritual manner is quite to destroy what he seem'd to say before For Nothing can be received Corporally after a spiritual manner And it is much more intelligible than that of the Romanists which saith That the Body of Christ may be received spiritually and bodily For the body according to them is taken into the mouth and so bodily received by the wicked and unbelievers and it is by the faithful besides received by Faith spiritually which may stand together But to suppose any spiritual way to explicatory of the corporal way of receiving Christ is to suppose contradictions But this belongs to another place Let us now touch the third exception I make against the distinction of Material and Formal Idolatry taken from the Novelty of it and singularity as never heard of before late dayes when extremities put mens wits to study for new forms of Speech to dress up the new body of Divinity framed to themselves Why did not the Heathen come off so For surely they might Why did not this enter into the head of the ancienter School-men who I dare say make no mention of it How comes it about that the aneient Fathers and Councils knew no other Idolatry than that which even moderner Papists approve of when the soberer mode is on them viz. The worshipping as God that which is not God without any notice taken of Material and Formal worship contenting themselves with the general distinction of Ignorance of the Law and Ignorance of the Fact or wilful Ignorance and unwilling Or vincible and invincible Surely this implies somewhat singular in this case which they either are ashamed to express or can not which latter is my case For I confess I see no reason why we may not distinguish two sorts of Heresie as well two sorts of Schism two sorts of Adulterie two sorts of Drunkenness and Murder Material and Formal as of Idolatry And yet we hear little or no mention of this distinction but only as it is applyed to Idolatry which besides what is abovesaid renders it more suspected and the coyners and users of it Fourthly and lastly The dangerousness of this distinction and apparent damage it doth to Christian Religion declares it to be wicked and intollerable while it both opens a way to all carelessness in worshipping we know not how nor what contrary to our Faith and then when we may receive competent information of our error and should repent it lulls us asleep