it is to no more purpose to shew us the word Tradition in other places of St. Paul's Writings particularly in the third Chapter of the same Epistle v. 6. where by Tradition St Chrysâ—ston understands the Apostles Example which he had given them and so it follows v. 7. For your selves know how you ought to follow us c or it may refer to the commandment he had given them in his former Epistle 4. 11. which the Reader may be pleased to compare with this but cannot with any colour be expounded to signifie any Doctrine of Faith about which the Roman Church now contends with us For it is plain it hath respect to their good manners and orderly living for the information of which we need go no where but to the holy Scriptures wherein we are taught full enough how we ought to walk and please GOD in all things The same may be said of that place 1 Cor. 11. 2. Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the Traditions or Ordinances as we render it or Precepts as the vulgar Latine it self hath it as I have delivered them unto you For we are so observant of what he hath delivered that we are confident if Saint Paul were now alive and in this Church he would praise us as he doth the Corinthians for keeping the Traditions as be delivered them and on the contrary reprove and condemn the Roman Church for not keeping them as they were first delivered And we have good ground for this confidence there being an instance in that very Chapter which demonstrates our fidelity in preserving the very first Traditions and their unfaithfulness in letting them go For he tells us v. 23. that he had delivered to them what he had received of the Lord and that which he received and delivered was about the whole Communion as you may read there and in the following verses 24 25. in both kinds the Cup as well as the Bread Thus he saith the Lord appointed it and thus he delivered it and this Tradition we keep intire as he received it of the Lord and delivered it to his Church in this Epistle which is a part of the holy Scripture whereas they do not keep it but have broken this Divine Tradition and give the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood otherwise than St. Paul delivered keeping the Cup from the People By which I desire all that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity to judge which Church keeps closest to the Apostolical Tradition foâ— so St. Paul calls this Doctrine of the Communion in both kinds that which he delivered or left as a Tradition with them they that stick to what is unquestionably the Apostolical Doctrine or they that leave it to follow those Doctrines or Presumptions rather which at the best are very dubious and uncertain And farther I desire all that read this Paper to consider whither it be reasonable to think that those Riâ—es which have no Authority in the holy Scripture but were instituted perhaps by the Apostles have been kept pure and uncorrupâ—ed according to their first intention when these sacred Rites for instance the holy Eâ—charist are not preserved intire which are manifestly ordained in the holy Writings And so much may serve for the first thing for it would be too long to explain all the rest of the places of holy Scripâ—ure which they are wont to alledge though the word Tradition be not mentioned in them to give a colour to their present pretences how pertinently may be judged by these places now considered II. Secondly then That Word of God which was once unwritten being now written we acknowledge our selves to be much indebted to the Church of God in all foregoing Ages which hath preserved the Scriptures and delivered them down to us as his Word which we ought to do unto those that shall succeed us as our Church teacheth us in its Twentieth Article where the Church is affirmed to be a Witness and a keeper of holy Writ This Tradition we own it being universal continued uninterrupted and undenied Though in truth this is Tradition in another sense of the word not signifying the Doctrine delivered unto us but the manner and means of its delivery And therefore if any Member of our Church be pressed by those of the Romish Perswasion with this Argument for their present Traditions that Scripture it self is come to us by Tradition let them answer thus Very right it is so and we thank God for it therefore let this be no part of our dispute it being a thing presupposed in all Discourses about Religion a thing agreed among all Christian people that we read the Word of GOD when we read the holy Scriptures Which being delivered to us and accepted by us as his Word we see no necessity of any other Tradition or Doctrine which is not to be found there or cannot be proved from thence for they tell us they are able to make even the men of God wise unto Salvation And if they press you again and say How do you know that some Books are Canonical and others not is it not by a constant Tradition Answer them again in this manner Yes this is true also and would to GOD you would stand to this universal Tradition and receive no other Books but what have been so delivered But know withal that this universal Tradition of the Books of Scripture unto which you have added several Apocryphal Writings which have not been constantly delivered as tâ—â—se we receive is no part of the Tradition or Doctrine delivered That is no Doctrine distinct from the Scriptures but only the instrument or means of conveying that Doctrine unto us In short it is the fidelity of the Church with whom the Canon of Scripture was deposed but is no more a Doctrine not written in the Scripture then the Tradition or delivery of the Code or Book of the Civil Law is any Opinion or Law not written in that Code And we are more assured of the fidelity of the Church herein then the Civilians can be assured of the Faithfulness of their Predecessours in preserving and delivering the Books of their Law to them because these holy Books were alwayes kept with a greater care then any other Books whatsoever and in the acceptance of them also we find there was a great caution used that they might not be deceived all Christians looking upon them to be of such importance that all Religion they thought was concerned in them Of which this is an Argument that they who sought to destroy the Christian Religion in the Primitive times sought nothing more then to destroy the Bible Which they were wont to demand of those who were suspected to be Christians to be delivered up to them that they might burn it And according as men behaved themselves in this trial so they were reputed to be Christians or not Christians And the Traditours as they were called that is they who delivered
Christâ— All which and innumerable more like expressions in scripture every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signify and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so then to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him Gen. 21. 26. Sayes the seven good kine are seven years and the seven good ears of corn are seven years that is they signified or represented seven years of plenty And so Pharaoh understood Him and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions nor do I believe that any sensible man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour this is my Body would upon râ—ading of the institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be mean'd by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Bloud and this which you see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and give away himsel from himself with his own hands Or whither we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as n Dialog cum Justin â—â—rtyr tells us tuto to pascha ho Soter hemon kai he kata phyge hemon this Passover is our Saviour and our refugeâ— not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed Tryph. p. 297. Edit Paris 1639. either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the World And nothing is more common in all Languages then to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign as the delivery of a Deed or writing under hand and Seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere wax and parchment but the conveyance of a real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material houses and land themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and man are given to the Sgns or Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are sâ—id to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we are said to Communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us that is of the real benefites of his death and passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which We break is it not the communion of the body of Christ But still it is bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one bread The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body .. And the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the consecration of the Elements still calls them the bread and the Cup in three verses together As often as eat this bread and drink this Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said this is my blood of the new Testament immediately adds * Mat. 36. 29. but I say unto you I will not hencefoorth drink of this fruit of the Vine untill I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom that is not till after his Resurrection which was the first step of his exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father when the Scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his Disciples But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is that after the consecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Disciples to drink of it he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which he had now drank with them till after his Resurrection From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine real wine which our Saviour drank of and communicated to his Disciples in the Sacrament Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of Christ because it was his body and his bloud shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his naturall body broken and his bloud shed these words this is my body which is broken and this is my bloud which is shed could not be true because this Body was then whole and unbroken and his bloud not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacramen to be unleses they will say that propitiation was made before Christ suffer'd And is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not onely plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his body broken and his bloud shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be That they should not tell him we see this to be
for one If says he the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime or commanding us to do good it is not fiugurate but if it seem to command any heynous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he sayes this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that * Gen. 49. 11. Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words †Dialog 1. as we call the mysticall fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the Vine viz of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not literally and properly but only figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour chaâ—â—ed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or sign and to the symbol or sign the name of his Body thus when he had called himself the Viâ—e he called the symbol his bloud so that in the same sense that he called himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the symbol of his bloud his bloud For sayes he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who called that which by nature is a body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the symbols with the name of his body and bloud not Changing nature but adding grace to nature Whence you see he sayes expresly that when he called the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine his body and bloud he made no change in the nature of the things only added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a spiritual and supernatural vertue and efficacy The secound is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholick under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretick under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was changed into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutyches he illustrates the matter by this similitude As sayes he the symbols of the Lords body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the Invocation are changed and become another thing so the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what sayes the Catholick Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Hereticks Thou art sayes he caught in thy own net because the mystical symbols after consecration doe not pass out of their own nature For they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not only deny the outward figure and appearance of the symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychans * biblioth Patr. Toâ— 4. surely sayes heâ— the Sacrament which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubstantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons reasons thus * Facund p. 144 edit Paris 1676. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cap is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread sayes he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all
be omitted nor would have been so by the Primitive Christians had they had the same Opinion of it that the Papists have now 2. From the oldest Liturgies and the Eucharistick Forms in them it appears that there was no such Adoration to the Sacrament till of late for in none of them is there any such mention either by the Priest or the People as in the Roman Missal and Ritual nor any such Forms of Prayer to it as in their Breviary Cassander * Cassandri Lyturgic has collected together most of the old Liturgies and Endeavours as far as he can to shew their agreement with that of the Roman Church but neither in the old Greek nor in the old Latin ones is there any instance to be produced of the Priests or the Peoples adoring the Sacrament as soon as he had consecrated it but this was perfectly added and brought in a new into the Roman Lyturgy after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was establish'd in that Church which has altered not only in the first and best times of the Church but for above a thousand years after Christ Boileau finding this tho' a negative Argument press very hard upon them and sure it cannot but satisfie any reasonable man that there is no Direction in the ancient Lyturgies for adoring the Sacrament and it is very hard to require us to produce a Rubrick against it when no body thought of that which after-Superstition brought in He would fain therefore find something in an old Liturgy that should look like that of their own and no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn Office of the Christian worship the blessed Sacrament and therefore out of the Liturgy called St. Chrisostomes which he owns to be two hundred years later then St. Chrysostome he produces a place * Boil l. 2. p. 74. â—x Chrysost Liturg-Eita proskynei ho hiereus kaiâ—ho â—iaconos en ho eÌ„sti â—opoÌ„ kai ho â—aos homoios pantâ—s met eulabeias proskynusin wherein it is said That the Priest and the Deacon worship in the place they are in and likewise the pâ—â—ple but do they worship the Sacrament Is that or only God and Christ the object of their worship there Is there any such thing to determine this as they have taken care there should be in their Missal where it is expresly several times they shall worship the Sacrament * Sacramentum Adorare Rom. missal coopertâ— calice Sacramentum adâ—rare genuflexus Sacramentum adorare but here in St. Chrysos Liturgy 't is God who is to be worship'd God be merciful to me a Sinner * Ho Theos hilastheti moi hamartoloÌ„ Chrysos Liturg. but in the Roman 't is the Sacrament is prayed to * Stans oculis ad sacramentum intentis precart and they would reckon and account it as true Irreligion not to worship and pray to that as not to Worship God and Christ So the Lyturgy that goes under the name of St. James the Worship is only before the Holy Table †Proskynusin emprosthentes hagias tâ—apezet Lyturg. S. Jacobt as it is in the Church of England and I hope Boileau will not pretend that this is to the Holy Table it self If what ever we worship before is the very object of our Worship then the Priest is so as well as the Table but it neither he nor the Table nor the Sacrament but only Christ himself to whom this worship is or ought to be given at the Celebration of the Eucharist and therefore this Adoration was as well before as after the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements and so could not be supposed to be given to them 3. There were several very ancient Customs relating to the Sacrament which are no wayes consistent with the Opinion the Papists have of it now and with the worship of it as a God It was very old and very usual for Christians to reserve and keep by them some of the Elements the Bread especially which they had received at the Sacrament as is evident from Tertullian †De Orat. c. 14. Accepto corpore Domini reservato and from St. Cyprian †De Lapsis who reports a very strange thing that happened to a Woman and also to a Man who had unduely gone to the sacrament and brought some part of it home with them I shall not inquire whither this Custome had not something of superstition in it whither in those times of Danger and Peâ—secution it were not of use but had the Church then thought of it â—as the Papists do now they would not have suffered private Christians to have done this nay they would not have suffered them hardly to have touch'd and handled that which they had believed to be a God no more then the Church of Rome will now which is so far from allowing this private Reservation of the Elements that out of profound Veneration as they pretend to them they wholly deny one part of them the Cup to the Laity and the other part the Bread they will not as the primitive Church put into their hands but the Priest must inject it into their Mouths The sending the Eucharist not only to the sick and infirm and to the Penitents who were this way to be admitted to the Communion of the Church in articulo mortis as is plain from the known story of Serapion ‡ Euseb Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 34. but the Bishops of several Churches sending it to one another as a token and pledge of their Communion with each other and * Iren. apud Euseb l. 5. c 24. it being sent also to private Christians who lived remote in the Country and private places which custom was abolish'd by the Council of Laodicea these all shew that tho' the Christians alwayes thought the sacrament a symbol of Love and Friendship and communion with the Church so that by partaking of this one Bread they were all made as St. Paul sayes One Bread and one Body yet they could not think this to be a God or the very natural Body of their Saviour which they sent thus commonly up and down without that Pomp and solemnity that is now used in the Church of Rome and without which I own it is not fit a Deity should be treated But above all what can they think of those who anciently used to burn the Elements that remained after the Communion as Hesychius †In Levit. 8. 32. testifies was the custom of the Church of Hierusalem according to the Law of Moses in Leviticus of burning what remain'd of the Flesh of the sacrifice that was not eaten but how ever this was done out of some respect that what was thus sacred might not otherwise be profaned yet they could not sure account that to be a God or to be the very natural and substantial Body of Christ which they thus burnt and threw into
possible then it is certainly the most phantastick Food and the most phantastick way of eating it that can be imagined then there must be a new way of eating which is not eating and a new way for a Body to be present and yet not present as a Body and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding which is no understanding that can understand or believe all this But farther ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host to keep the Body of Christ confined to it and inclosed in it as a Prisoner till the Species corrupt and so the prison is as it were opened and the Body let loose and when that is gone whither ye think it be the Species or the substance of Bread that corrupts I would gladly know and surely then when the Body is gone there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents without a Subject if it be Bread what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh and from Flesh to Bread again and this latter without any words from the Priest but since Christs body must be so permanently in the Host not only in the act and use of the Sacrament but at all other times ye are then forced to own that as it is eaten in the Communion as well by those who have no faith as by the most faithfull Christians so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host taking it no doubt heretically for meer Bread that yet they truly take the Body of Christ and eat it after some manner or other but whither it bea ster a natural manner in them or no I donâ—t know how you have resolved but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous question b An mus vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. see Burchard de correct Miss upon these Questions De vino in calice congelatâ— de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine de vomitu post receptionem Sacramenti Quandâ— cadit corpus Christi Quando cadit sanguis Christi fol. 51. 52. in the Affirmative Whither if a Mouse or a Hog or a Dog eat the Host they do partake of Christs Body Or as Thomas Aquinas your most Angelick Doctor sayes consequently to this Opinion of yours c Aliter derogaret veritati corporis Christi p. 3. qu. 79. It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christs presence in it So that wherever the Species are there is alwayes Christs body and whatever happens to them happens to that also If they fall to the ground Christs body does so to and so if they lie in a hollow Tooth or hang but in the least crum or drop upon a Communicants beard there according to their principles they and the body must be worship'd with Latria and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body that has got to them the adorable Object still goes with the species till they be corrupted and whither the species be corrupted or no if they be poysoned as they have sometimes been or whither Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poyson I can't tell but when the Species are in the pix he is as fast there as he ever was in his Sepulcher and to all appearance as dead and senseless and if the Species be burnt or Gnawn or vomited out of the Stomack before they are corrupted all these misfortunes belong as truly to Christs body as to them and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious body then ever were offered to it in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth when it was spit upon and Scourged and Pierced and Crucified by the Jews But Good God! that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his body by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities That Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World by such an extravagant Doctrine and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idolatry as this is God almighty open all our Eyes that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind and darkness of understanding and to the belief of Lies as most Idolaters generally were but may it please him who is the God of Truth to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived in this or any other matter in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church which is much better then cursing and Anathematizing its Adversaries I hope as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it FINIS A DISCOURSE AGAINST Purgatory EDINBVRGH Re-Printed by John Reid Anno DOM. 1686. A DISCOURSE AGAINST PURGATORY AMONG all the Errours of the Church of Rome the Superstructures she hath made of hay and stubble upon the substantial Doctrine of Christianity this Fable of Purgatory is one of the most notorious invented on purpose to encrease the treasury of the Church by putting the grossest abuses upon the ignorant and unwary People over whom she hath got such an absolute dominion as that she can make them believe what she pleases and then can impose her additions to the word of God as infallible decrees How easily are the multitude led into by-paths when that light of Scripture is taken away from their eyes which God revealed on purpose that by the search thereof they might find Eternal Life For the Scriptures are the most full and complete systeme of God's Laws the most sufficient and certain means of Man's Salvation I cannot then but wonder how it came to pass that this middle state called Purgatory hanging thus between Heaven and Hell was not known to the Pen-men of God's word or if it were known that they should either be so envious of the Churches happiness or so forgetfull of the work they took in hand which was to write the whole Gospel of Christ as not so much as one of them should give us notice of this place But this new Doctrine with many others was introduced when the World was in the dark for in the ninth and tenth Centuries such a General ignorance and stupidity had seized the minds of Men that scarce any one knew what the Doctrine of Christ was when the World was thus stupid and Superstitious Men were inclined to believe strange things upon this fair opportunity some cunning Men drew the simple People into the belief of the most absurd Doctrines under the notion of being great and profound Mysteries the gallantry of Faith they imagined was mightily shewn in swallowing down-right Contradictions when this breach was once made â—pon the minds of Men then any errour might enter though as senseless and ridiculous as Purgatory it self Which Opinion I will first shew to have no foundation in the Canonical Scripture Secondly for what
time to tell us that the matter so pretended to be instituted is no less then absosolutely necessary to the Salvation of Sinners 2. The second of these will easily be resolved by considering what we observed before from the Sess 14. C. 3. Council of Trent viz. that this Sacrament of Penance consists of Matter and Form the Form is the Priests Absolution but the Matter or Materials of this Sacrament are Contrition Confession to a Priest and Satisfaction or Performance of the Penance enjoyn'd by him now it is evident that not only Auricular Confession of which we have spoken hitherto but also Contrition and Satisfaction are wholly omitted and past over in silence by the Evangelist in this passage of Scripture from whence they fetch their Sacrament of Penance and is it not a wonderfully strange thing that our Savionr should be supposed to institut a Sacrament without any Materials of it at all Surely therefore this must be either a very Spiritual Sacrament or none at all Let us guess at the probability of this in proportion to either of the other undoubted Sacraments Suppose our Saviour instead of that accurat form in which he instituted the Eucharist had only said I would have you my Disciples and all that shall believe on my Name to keep a Memorial of me when I am gone Or suppose he said onely as he doth John 6. 55. My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed would any one have concluded here that our Saviour in so saying had appointed Bread and Wine to be consecrated to be received in such a manner and in a word that he had without more ado instituted such a Sacrament as we usually celebrate No certainly and therefore we see our Saviour is the most express and particular therein that can be for he takes Bread blesses it breakes it gives it to them saying Take eat this is my Body c. and after Supper he takes the Cup blesses it gives it to them saying Drink ye all of this for this is the New Testament in my Blood c. and then adds Do this in remembrance of Me. Now who is there that observes this accuracy of our Saviour in the Eucharist can imagine that he should intend to institute a Sacrament of Penance and that as necessary to Salvation in the Opinion of the Romanists as the other only with this Form of words Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. and without the least mention of Confession Contrition or any other Material or necessary Part or Circumstance of it 2. But in the third and last place let us suppose that our Saviour had in the Text before us instituted Penance and had appointed particularly all those things which they call the Material parts of it as it is evident he hath not yet even then and upon that Supposition Penance would not have proved to be a Sacrament properly so called I confess according to a loose acceptation of the word Sacrament something may be said for it for so there are many things have had the name of Sacrament applyed to them Tertullian somewhere calls Elisha's Ax the Sacrament of Wood and in his Book against Marcion he stiles the whole Christian Religion a Sacrament St. Austin in several places calls Bread Fish the Rock and the Mystery of Number Sacraments for he hath given us a general Rule in his Fifth Epistle viz. That all signs when they belong to divine things are called Sacramentâ— And in consideration hereof it is acknowledged by Cassander that the Number of Sacraments was indefinite in the Church of Rome it self until the times of Peter Lombard But all this notwithstanding and properly speaking this Rite of Penance taking it altogether and even supposing whatsoever the Romanists can suppose to belong to it cannot be reputed a Sacrament according to the allowed definitions of a Sacrament delivered by their own Divines Some of them define a Sacrament thus a Hugo de S. Vict. lib. de Sacram. Sacramentum est corporale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum ex similitudine repraesentans ex institutione significans ex Sanctificatione continens invisibilem gratiam And the b Magist Sent. lib. 4. dist 1. Master of the sentences himself describes it somewhat more brieflie but to the same effect in these words Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma ejusdem gratiae imaginem gerens causa existens both which definitions are acknowledged and applauded by the Jesuite c Becanus Tract 2. de Sacramentis Becanus And the plain truth is a Sacrament cannot be better exprest in so few words then it is by St. d Aug. c. Faust Lib. 19. c. 16. Austin when he calls it verbum visibile a visible Word or Gospel For it pleased the Divine Wisdom and Goodness by this institution of Sacraments to condescend to our weakness and thereby to give us sensible Tokens or Pleges of what he had promised in his Written word to the intent that our dulness might be relieved and our Faith assisted forasmuch as herein our Eyes and other senses as well as our Ears are made Witnesses of his gracious intentions Thus by Baptismal washâ—ng he gives us a sensible token and representation of our regeneration and the washing away of our sins by the Blood of Christ and by the participation of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper we have a Token and Symbol of our Union with Christ our Friendship with God and communion with each other But now it is manifest there is no such thing as this in their Sacrament of Penance as even Bellarmine himself confesses For they do not say or mean that the Absolution of the Priest is a Token or Emblem of God's forgiveness but that the Priest actually pardons in God's stead by Vertue of a Power delegated to him So that according to them here must be a Sacrament not only without any material parts instituted but also without any thing Figurative Symbolical or Significative which seems to be as expresly contrary to their own Doctrine in the aforesaid definitions as to the truth it self Nay farther to evince the difference of this Rite of Penance from all other proper Sacraments it deserves observation that whereas in those other acknowledged Sacraments the Priest in God's Name delivers to us the Pledges and Symbols of Divine Grace Here in this of Penance we must bring all the material parts and Pledges our selves and present them to God or to the Priest in his stead My meaning is that whereas for instance in Baptism the Priest applies to us the Symbol of Water and in the Eucharist delivers to us the consecrated Elements in token of the Divine Grace contrary-wise here in Penance we must on our parts bring with us contrition confession and satisfaction too in which respect we may be rather said to give Pledges to God then he to us which is widely different from the Nature of other
Militant in general but in particular for those whose persons and conditions were well known to them on Earth and these are cunningly shufled in by the Romish Doctors as proofs for invocation of them with a design to impose on the unwary vulgar who are supposed not to take notice of the difference but 't is a wonder if they should not for 't is wide enough betwixt their Praying for us and our Praying to them Neither is this the only instance wherein those cunning Sophisters play this game First alter the Nature of the Question and then where they have no Adversary to Triumph in demonstrating the truth of it If the Question be whither the Bishop of Rome be the Supreme head of the Church and has an absolute Jurisdiction and Monarchy over all other Bishops and Churches they shall bring Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 15. 16. you a number of Testimonies out of both Greek and Latin Fathers to prove St Peter had a Primacy of Honour and Authority If the be Question be whither the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament be Substantially turned into the body Bellar. de Euchar l. 2 and blood of Christ they shall write a whole Volum to prove the Truth and Reality of Christ's presence in it which we own as well as they but after a Spiritual manner not corporally and by the way of Transubstantiation If the Question be about Purgatory a place prepared for the Purification of those Souls that depart hence not quite cleansed they shall alledge you Fathers and those St. Ambr. Hil. Orig. Hierom. c. not a few of unquestionable name to prove the utter Consumption of all things by Fire at the end of the World So here when the Question is whither we ought to Pray to Saints departed they bring innumerable Fathers to prove that the Saints departed do Pray for us hence we hear of that of St. Ignatius My spirit salutes you not only Epist ad Tral now but also when I enjoy God and of St. Chrysostom in his Oration to those that were to be Baptized Remember me when that Kingdom receives you 4. They produce the sayings and practices of some few in the Church for the general and allowed Doctrine and Practice of the whole Church If the story should be true that Justina a Christian Virgin did in great distress jointly supplicate the blessed Virgin with God and Christ does it follow that it was the practice of all to do so It cannot be denied but that many of the Fathers let slip in the heat of their Affection and Oration many unwary speeches to this purpose and that many otherwise good Men were guilty of this excess of Devotion to the Martyrs the many miracles God was pleased to work at the Memorials of the Martyrs for the Honour and Confirmation of the Faith reasonably begat a custom amongst Christians to resort to those places and there to offer their Prayers to God and thinking it may be they could not easily honour those too much whom God was pleased after so wonderful a manner to declare his esteem of from Praying to God at their Tombs they began to Pray to them themselves But now We are to distinguish betwixt the speeches of some particular Fathers and the general Doctrine of the Church betwixt what they express in Rhetorical strains to move affection and what they lay down in plain terms to inform the judgement betwixt what comes from them in the heat of their Discourses and popular Orations and what in cool and deliberate debates they set down for the truth of Christ it 's generally confest that the Fathers of times hyperbolize particularly S. Chrysostom and we must not take their flights of Fancy for the Doctrine of the Church We are to distinguish also betwixt what the Church did teach and allow and what she only tolerated and was forced to bear with the Bishops and Governours of the Church being many times engaged in weightier mattersin defending the Christian cause again Heathens and Hereticks were not alwayes at leisure to reform abuses and irregular practices but were forced too often to connive at those Faults which they had not time and opportunity to redress St. Austine complains much of this piece S. Aust de morib Eccles c. 31. tom 1 Epis 119. ad Janu. approbare non possum liberius improbare non andeo of superstition in his dayes that it had got such an head that the good Father wanted power to give a check to it I can no way allow them sayes he and yet I dare not freely reprove them lest I either offend some good Men or provocke some turbulenâ— spirits 5. They cite the practice of the Ancients Praying to God that for the Intercession of those Holy Men that had died in the Lord he would grant them their requests as a good proof for direct Praying to them The Ancients generally believing that the Saints and Martyrs in the future state did continually Pray to God in behalf of the Church Militant on Earth and some that their Souls were present at their Shrines and Tombs and did joyn their Intercessions with those Prayers of the Christians that were there offered up to God were wont in their addresses to mention the Martyrs and to beg the effects of their Intercessions that God would be moved by their supplications as well as their own to grant a supply of their wants and necessities but this is no more Praying to them then Moses may be said to Pray to Abraham Isaac and Jacob when he besought God to remember them in behalf of the People of Israel then we may be said to Pray for help to that part of the Church of Christ that is at a great distance from us when we desire God to hear the Prayers of his Church Catholick disperst throughout the whole World in the behalf of all Christian people that in all places call upon him Thus it 's said by the Historian that the Emperor Theodâ—sius Ruâ—â—in Hist l. 2. c. 33. when Eugeniâ— and his Complâ—ces raised that dangerous Rebellion against him repaired With his Clergy and Laity to the Oraâ—ories and Chapples and Sanctorum intercessione there lyâ—â—g Prostrate before the Tombs and Monuments of the Aposties and Marâ—yrs begged aâ—d and succour by intercession of the Saints He did not pray to any Saintâ—r Saints he did not beg help of them but supposing they Prayed with him and for him he prayed unto God that he would send him help for the sake of their Inâ—eâ—cession in his behalf This is also the meaning of those expressions in St. Austin that They ought to commend themselves to the Prayers of the Martyrs and frequent Aug. de Cur. promort c. 4. their tombs with a Religious Solemnity that they may become partakers of their Meâ—its and be helpt by their Prayers that is not by praying to them bâ—â— holding as was then commonly believed that when Christians came to
Angels or Saints departed said God at any time Sit thou on my right hand to make intercession for Men Of which of them has he at any time affirmed as he has done of Christ He is able to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him seeing he ever lives to make Intercession for Men That if any Man Sin he is an Advocate with the Father for him Or whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in his name it shall be given you Certainly they who will have Angels and Saints Mediatours betwixt God and Men ought to produce a Commission signed by God or his Son Jesus to constitute them such but this they are no more able to do then they are to make a grant of such Power and Honour themselves to them It 's true the Blessed Spirits above are said to stand about the Throne of God and the Holy Angels to behold his Face and as the Honour of a Prince is encreased by the number of his Attendants so is our Lords exaltation rendered the more Glorious by those ten thousand times ten thousand that Minister unto him but yet it 's never said They sit at Gods right Hand or live for ever to make Intercession for us and having no such delegation of Power from God for this office the Honour and Worship that belongs to it can't be given to them without manifest Wrong and Sacriledge to Christ who has The Holy Angels are Gods ministring Spirits and the Spirits of Just-Men departed his Glorified Saints but God hath made Jesus the Lord and Christ and put all things in Heaven and Earth in Subjection under his feet of him only hath he said Let all the Angels Honour him and all the Saints fall down before him and all Men Honour the Son even as they Honour the John 5. 23 Father Amen To Conclude WEre we certain that the Saints departed do now reign in Heaven and enjoy the Beatifick Vision and that it was lawful to Invocate such as are undoubtely Saints as the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles Yet methinks a wary Man should be shy and not over-forward to exhibit that honour to all whom the Pope hath Cannoniz'd I cannot for my heart but think that the Prelates and Bishops in King Henry the Eighth's time had as much reason to Unsaint Thomas Becket for being a Rebel against his Prince as Pope Alexander the Third had to Canonize him for being a Biggot for the Church What can a sober Christian think of the Saintship of some who never had any being in the World and of others who never had any goodness many of their Saints are meer Names without Persons and many meer Persons without Holiness nay I am very confident that the greatest Incendiaries and Disturbers of the Peace of the World do as well deserve it as that famous Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh Inumerable might be instanc'd in whose Saintship justly falls under great Suspicion but 't is enough that some Romanists themselves and those of no little Authority in their Church have granted that the Popes canonizations are doubtful and subject to error If then at any Billar de beat sanct l. 1. c. 7. 8. time his Infallibility should chance to mistake as I am pretty sure he has more then once done the Members of that Church are in a sweet case and are not only in danger of Invocating Saints but Devils also which is Idolatry with a witness and by their own Confession FINIS A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION EDINBVRGH Re-printed by John Reid Anno DOM 1686. A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION COncerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Vs and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-Bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to be put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a Man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Bloud And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do see why any man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of scripture and all the sense and Reason of Mankind It is a most self-evident Falshood and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true then Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-catholick Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other society of Christians to be any part of it so Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this be true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Errour and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less
penalties then of temporal death and Eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these deluded souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrine and to lay open the monstruous absurdity of it And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tollerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this Doctrine but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine Which must be one or more of these five Either 1. The Authority of scripture Or 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an belief of of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an evidence that they alwayes understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my body in this sense Or 3ly The authority of the present Church to make and declare new articles of Faith Or 4ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5 ly To magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1. They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative exressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the new Testament in my Bloud which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words be literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the bloud of Christ but into the new Testament or new Covenant in his bloud Besides that his bloud is said then to be shed and his body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writters of the Church of Rome in this Controversie a de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine b in 3. dis 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2. Suarez and c in 3. part dis 150. Qu. 75. art 2. c. 15. Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Scholman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge d in sent l. 4. dist 11. qu. 1. n. 15 Durandus to have said as much e in 4. sent Q. 5. quod 4. q. 3. Ocham another famous schoolman sayes expresly that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after the consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture f in 4 sent Q 6. art 2. Petrus ab Alliaâ—â— Cardinal of Cambray say plainly that the Doctrine of the substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more free from absurdity more rational and no wayes repugnant to the authority of scripture nay more that for the other Doctrine viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in scripture g in canon Miss Lect. 40. Gabriel Biel another Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the scripture a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation in to some other Revelation besides scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal h in Aquin 3. part Qu. 74 art 1. Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the authority of the Church nay he goes farther that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my body in a proper and not a metaphorical sense but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope i Aegid â—â—nink de sacrâ—â—â— Q. 75. art 1. n. 13. Pius V. Cardinal k de sacram l. 2. c. 3. Contarenus and l Loc. Theolog l. 3. c. 3. Melchior Canus one of the best most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr m contra captiv Babylon c. 10 n. 2. Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviours words in the sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whither we consider the like expressions in scripture where our Saviour sayes he is the door and the true Viue which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said this is my true Body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that Rock which followed them and that Rock was
Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy body to be distinct from both we see thy body not broken and thy bloud not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my body and this is my bloud in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew 2ly That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Christian Church which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did alwayes understand and interpret our Saviour's words in this sense To manifest the groundlesness of this pretence I shall 1. shew by plain testimony of the Fathers in several Ages that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church 2. I shall shew the time and occasion of its coming in and by what degrees it grew up and was established in the Roman Church 3. I shall answer their great pretended Demonstration that this alwayes was and must have been the constant belief of the Christian Church 1. I shall shew by plain Testimonies of the Fathers in several Ages for above five hundred years after Christ that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church I deny not but that the Fathers do and that with great reason very much magnify the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this Sacrament and frequently speak of a great supernatural change made by the divine benediction which we also readily acknowledge They say indeed that the Elements of bread and Wine do by the divine blessing become to us the body and bloud of Christ But they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the Signs that the bread and Wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance and that they are turn'd into the substance of our bodies that the body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural body but the sign and figure of it not that body which was crucified nor that bloud which was shed upon the Cross and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of man and drinking his â—loud literally all which are directly opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it I will select but some few Testimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose I begin with Justin Martyr who sayes expresly that * Apol. 2. p. 98. Edit Paris 1636. our bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the Eucharist But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Christ for no man will say that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies The Second is * Lib. 4. c. 34. Irenoeus who speaking of this Sacrament sayes that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread but the Eucharist or Sacrament consisting of two thingâ— the one earthly the other heavenly He sayes it is no longer common bread but after invocation or consecration it becomes the Sacrament that is bread sanctified consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly the earthly thing is bread and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it And * lib. 5. c. 2. elsewhere he hath this passage when therefore the cup that is mix'd that is of Wine and Water and the bread that is broken receives the word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consists But if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our bodies it must be bread and wine and not the natural body and bloud of Christ There is another remarkable Testimony of Irenoeus which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain yet hath been preserv'd by * Comment in 1 Pet. c. 3. Oecumenius and it is this when sayes he the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni that is such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians these Servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them except only that they had heard from their Masters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Christ they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh declar'd as much to those that questioned them The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Christâ—â—ns discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it to whom Blandina boldly answered How would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten By which it appears that this which they would have charged upon Christians as if they had literally eatten the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament was a false accusation which these Martyrs denied saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all The next is â—ertullian who proves against Marcion the Heretick that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phaâ—â—asm and appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body otherwise the Sacrament would be an image of an image His words are these * Advers Marcionem l. 4. p. 571. Edit Rigalt Paris 1634 the bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own body saying this is my body that is the image or figure of my body But it could not have been the figure of his body if there had not been a true and real body And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this Argument That if we question our senses we may doubt whither our Blessed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard and saw and touched * Lib. de Anima p. 319. He might sayes he be deceived in the voice from heaven in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial and in the taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud So that it seems we are to tâ—ust ouâ— senses even in the matter of the Sacrament and if that be true the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly false Origen in his * Edit Huetii Comment on Matth. 15 speaking of the Sacrament hath this passage That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the
dâ—aught which none surely will say of the Body of CHRIST And afterwards he adds by way of explication it is not the matter of the bread but the word which is spoken over it which profiteâ—h him that worthily eateth the Lord and this he sayes he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body So that the matter of bread remaine hâ—m the Sacrament and this Origen calls the typical and symbolical body of CHRIST and it is not the natural body of Christ which is there eatâ—en for the food eaten in the Sacrament as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught This testimony is so very plain in the cause that Sextus Senensis suspects â—his place of Origen was depraved by the Heâ—eticks Cardinal Pâ—rron is contented to allow it to be Origens but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Heresie by some of the Fathers and sayes he talks like a Heretick in this place So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us The same Father in his * cap. 10. Homilies upon Leviticâ—s spâ—â—ks â—hus There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually understand these things which are said for if we take according to the Letter that which is said EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOUD this Letter kills And this is also a killing Testimony and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way by saying he talks like a Heretick St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle * Ep. 63. to Cecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it and his main argument against them is this that the bloud of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickened cannot seem to be in the cup when there is no Wine in the cup by which the Bloud of Christ is represented And afterwards he sayes that contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine water was in some places offered or given in the Lords cup which sayes he alone cannot express or represent the bloud of Christ. And lastly he tels us that by water the people is understood by Wine the bloud of Christ is shewn or represented but when in the cup water is mingled with wine the people is united to Christ. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental cup is no otherwise chang'd into the bloud of Christ then the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ. I omit many others and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Christ And I the rather insist upon his Testimony because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church and he also calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and sign of Christs body and bloud In his book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expression * Aug Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit basil 1569 our Lord did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body And in his explication of the third Psalm speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last supper in which sayes he ‡ enarrat in Psal Tom. 8. p. 16. he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body Language which would now be censur'd for Heresie in the Church of Rome Indeed he was never accus'd of Heresie as cardinal Perron sayes Origen was but he talks as like one as Origen himself And in his comment on the 98 Psalm speaking of the offence which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud c. He brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them †Id. tom 7. p. 1105. ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat his body which ye see and to drink that bloud which shall he shed by those that shall crucify me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood will give you life What more opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Christ which they saw nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the Cross but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven in his Comment upon these words me ye have not alwayes * Id. Tract 50. in Johan He speaks sayes he of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his Disciples fourty dayes he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here In his 23. Epistle †Id. Tom. 2. p. 93. if the Sacraments sayes he had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all but from this resemblance they take for the most part the name of the things which they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christs body and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Christ so the Sacrament of faith meaning Baptism is faith Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Cannon Law †De consecr dist 2. Hoc est the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly whence it is said that after a manner but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified So that the meaning is it is called the body of Christ that is it signifies the body of Christ And if this be St. Austin's meaning I am sure no Protestant can speake more plainly against Transubstantiation And in the ancient Canon of the Mass before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine it is expresly call'd a sacrament a sign an Image and a figure of Christ's body To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by * De consecrat dist 2. sect Vtrum Gratian that as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd It is in his Treatise * Lib. 3. Tom. 3. p. 53. de Doctrina christiaua where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this
denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the christian church And thâ—s likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman church a In Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Q. 3. Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not alwayes thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And b In sent l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination oblidged men to believe it c de Euchar. l. 1. p. 146. Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And d In 1. Epist ad corinth c. 7. citan te etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and then whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And e De Haeres l. 8. Alphonsus a castro sayes plainly that concerning the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the Corporal presence of Christ was first started started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christs body and bloud but is properlie his body and bloud So that the corporal Body of Christ in the sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion nor have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * De Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz. of denying Transubstantiation in his catalogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dipute against those who denied Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless amongst the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But ‡ Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by himself viz the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VII Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greek so in the Latine or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument * Descriptor Eccles Bellarmine in those words this Author was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist And †In vita Paschasii Sirmoâ—dus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholick church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he only first explained the sense of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-biship of Meâ—tz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschusius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ‡ Epist. ad Heribaldum c. 33. Some sayes he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the cross and rose from the dead which errour sayes he we have opposed with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally received Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemned this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not only in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most prenicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had raised a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compelled to recant it by pope Nicholas
and the Council at Rome in these words * Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. Lanfranc de corp sang Domini c. 5. Guitmund de sacram l. i. Alger de sacram l. 1. c. 19. that the bread and wine which are set upon the Altar after the consecration are not only the Sacrament but the true body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and are sensibly not onlie in the Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithful But it seems the Pope and his Council were not then skilful enough to express themselves rightly in his matter for the Gloss upon the Canon Law sayes expresly †Gloss Decret de conse crat dist 2. in cap. Ege Berengarius that unless we understand these words of BERENGARIVS that is in truth of the Pope and his Council in a sound sense we shall fall into a greater Heresie then that of BERENGARIVS for we do not make parts of the body of Christ The meaning of which Gloss â— cannot imagine unless it be this that the Body of Christ though it be in truth broken yet it is not broken into parts for we do not make parts of the body of Christ but into wholes Now this new way of breaking a Body not into parts but into wholes which in good earnest is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though to them that are able to believe Transubstantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be sound sense yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid non-sense About XX years after in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VII Began to be sensible of this absurdity and therefore in another council at Rome made Berengarius to recant in another * Waldnes Tom. 2. c. 1â— Form viz. that the bread and wine which are placed upon the Altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and after consecration are the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the cross and sits on the right hand of the Father So that from the first starting of this Doctrine in the second council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII till the council under Pope Gregory the VII th in the year MLXXIX it was almost three hundred years that this Doctrine was contested and before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and establish'd in the Church of Rome Here then is a plain account of the first rise of this Doctrine and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of Faith I come now in the Third place to answer the great pretended Demonstration of the impossibility that this Doctrine if it had been new should ever have come in in any Age and been received in the Church and con-consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the Church in all Ages For if it had not alwayes been the Doctrine of the Church when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bustle about it and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it But we can shew no such time when first it came in and when any such opposition was made to it and therefore it was alwayes the Doctrine of the Church This Demonstration Monsieur Arnauld a very learned Man in France pretends to be unanswerable whither it be so or not I shall briefly examine And First We do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this Doctrine about the beginning of the ninth Age though it did not take firm root nor was fully setled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh And this was the most likely time of all other from the begining of Christianity for so gâ—oss an Errour to appear it being by the confession and consent of their own Historians the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Christian Church both for Ignorance and Superstition and Vice It came in together with Idolatry and was made use of to support it A fit prop and companion for it And indeed what tares might not the Enemy have sown in so dark and long a Night when so considerable a part of the Christian World was lull'd a sleep in profound Ignorance and Superstition And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himself gives in the Parable of the Tares of the springing up of Errours and Corruptions in the Field of the Church * Matth. 13 24. While the men sleept the Enemy did his work in the Night so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came but being sure they were there and that they were not sown at first they concluded the Enemy had done it Secondliâ— I have shewn likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this Errour at its first coming in The general Ignorance and gross Superstition of that Age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in Religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament and that seemed any way to countenance the worship of Images for which at that time they were zealously concern'd But notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the People the most eminent for piety and learning in that Time made great resistance against it I have already named Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mentz who oppos'd it as an Errour lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons To whom I may add Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerres in France Io. Scotus Erigena and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Beriram who at the same time were imployed by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppose this growing Errour and wrote learnedly against it And these were the eminent men for learning in that time And because Monsieur Arnauld will not be satisfied unless there some stir and bustle about it Bertram in his Preface to his book tells us that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of Christs bodie and bloud were divided by no small Schism Thirdlie Though for a more clear satisfactory answer to this pretended Demonstration I have been contented to unty this knot yet I could without all these pains have cut it For suppose this Doctrine had silently come in and without opposition so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first Rise yet if it be evident from Records of former Ages for above 500. years together that this was not the ancient belief of the Church and plain also that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman Church though we could
they saw them were deceived then there might be no Miracles wrought and consequently it may justly be doubted whither that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian Religion would be strong enough to prove it supposing Transubstantiation to be a part of it Because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false as he hath that the Christian Religion is true Suppose then Transubstantiation to be part of the Christian Doctrine it must have the same confirmation with the whole and that is Miracles But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falsehood of the Doctrine that is the clear evidence of his senses For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ there is only the evidence of sense and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ but bread So that here would arise a new Controversie whither a man should rather believe his senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or bearing witness to a Miracle wrought to confirm that Doctrine there being the very same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine which there is for the truth of the Miracle And then the Argument for Transubstantiation and 〈◊〉 Objection against it would just balance one another and consequeâ—â—ly Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle because thâ— would be to prove to a man by some thing that he sees that he dâ— not see what he sees And if there were no other evidence that Trâ—â—substantiation is no part of the Christian Doctrine this would â—â— sufficient that what proves the one doth as much overthâ—â—â— the other and that Miracles which are certainly the best and higâ—â— external proof of Christianity are the worst proof in the world of Trâ—â—substantiation unless a man can renounce his senses at the same tâ—â— that he relies upon them For a man cannot believe a Miracle withoâ—â— relying upon sense nor Transubstantiation without renouncing it Sâ— that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the Doctriâ—â— of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation because they draw sâ—veral ways and are ready to strangle one another because thâ— main evidence of the Christian Doctrine which is Miracles is resâ—â—ved into the certainty of sense but this evidence is clear and poiâ—â— blank against Transubstantiation 4. And Lastly I would ask what we are to think of the Argumeâ—â— which our Saviour used to convince his Disciples after his Resurrectâ—on that his Body was really risen and that they were not deluded by â— Ghost or Apparition Is it a necessary and conclusive Argâ—ment or not * Luke 24. 3â— 39. And he said unto them why are yâ—â— troubled and why do thoughts arise in your heartsâ— Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self â—â—â— a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me hâ—â— But now if we suppose with the Church of Rome the Doctrine oâ— Transubstantiation to be true and that he had instructed his Disâ—ciples in it just before his death strange thoughts might justly havâ— risen in their hearts and they might have said to him Lord it iâ— but a few dayes ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses but directly contrary to what we saw viz. That the bread whicâ— thou gavest us in the Sacrament though we saw it and handled iâ— and tasted it to be bread yet was not bread but thine own natural body and now thou appealest to our senses to prove that thiâ— is thy body which we now see If seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to ouâ— senses then we were deceived before in the Sacrament and if they be not then we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones just as in the Sacrament that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread Now upon this supposition it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughâ—â— â—f the Disciples For if the Argument which our Saviour used did â—â—rtainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his â—â—dy his very natural flesh and bones 〈◊〉 because they saw and â—andled them which it were impious to deny is would as strongâ—â— prove that what they saw and received before in the Sacrament was â—ot the natural body and bloud of Christ but real bread and wine â—nd consequently that according to our Saviours arguing after his â—esurrection they had no reason to believe Transubstantiation before â—or that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his â—ody after his Resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread â—nd wine after consecration But our Saviours Argument was most â—â—fallibly good and true and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstanâ—â—ation is undoubtedly false Upon the whole matter I shall only say this that some other â—oints between us and the Church of Rome are managed with some â—ind of witâ— and subtilty but this of Transubstantiation is carâ—ied out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of Manâ—ind And of this the more discerning persons of that Church are of â—ate grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this â—odious and ridiculous Doctrine But the Council of Trent hath fastâ—ned it to their Religion and made it a necessary and essential Point of their Belief and they cannot now part with it if they would it is like a Mill-stone hung about the neck of Popery which will sink it at the last And though some of their greatest Wits as Cardinal Perron and of late Monsieur Arnauld have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight that no humane authority or witâ— are able to support it It will make the very Pillars of St. Peter's crack and requires more Volumes to make it good then would fill the Vatican And now I would apply my self to the poor deluded People of that Church if they were either permitted by their Priests or durst venture without their leave to look into their Religion and to examine the Doctrines of it Consider and shew your selves men Do not suffer your selves any longer to be led blindfold and by an implicit Faith in your Priests into the belief of nonsense and contradiction Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Reliques but let not the Authority of any Priest or Church perswade you out of your senses
Doctrine of the Church of Rome as Apelles did with Antigonus his face they must draw but one part half of it that so they may Artificially conceal it as deformed and its blind side That all these do so I shall shew by stating the controversie carefully and truely which is the chiefest thing in this dispute for they love to hide their own Doctrines as much as they can and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door to slip out at privately and upon occasion The Council of Trent has in this as in other things used art and not spoke out in one place as it does in another that so we mistake half its words for its full meaning as Bellarmine and others were willing to do or at least to have others do so In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only sayes a Council Trident. Can. 6. De Euchor si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christam Vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum Anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria in the holie Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be accursed Who will not say in those general words that Christ is to be adored with outward and inward Worship both not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but of Baptism too and in every Christian Office and in every Prayer and solemn Invocation of him either publick or private But they mean a great deal more then all this by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament and in as plain words they say b Ib. 13. Sess c. 5. That the Sacrament it self is to be adored that whatever it be which is something besides Christ even according to them which is placed in the Patin and upon the Altar which the Priest holds in his hands and lifts up to be seen this very thing is to be adored There is no doubt sayes the Council c Ib. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in catholica Ecclesia semper recepto lâ—triae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhibeant neque enim minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Dâ—mino ut sumatur institutum but that all faithful Christians according to the custom alwayes received in the Catholick Church ought to give Supreme and Soveraign Worship which is due to God himself to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it for it is nevertheless to be adored tho' it was instituted of Christ to be received That which is to be received which is to be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest for since they have made a God of the Sacrament they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it nor take it into their hands and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament this is now to serve for another use to be adored as a God and it would be as true Heresie in the church of Rome not to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored as not to say that Christ himself is to be adored But what according to them is this Sacrament It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine and the natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration which they call Sacramentum for Christs body without those Species and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine would not according to them be a Sacrament they being the outward and visible part are according to their School-men properly and strictly called the Lombard sent l. 4. dist 10. Sacramentum and the other the res Sacramenti and to this external part of the Sacrament as well as to the internal they give Latreia and Adoration to those remaining Species which be they what they will are but creatures religious Worship is given together with Christs Body and they withh that are the whole formal Object of their Adoration Non solum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adorari sayes Suarez a In Th. Quaest 9. disp quia est unum constans ex Christo Speciebus Not only Christ but the whole visible Sacrament which must be something besides Christs invisible Body is to be adored with one and the same Worship because it is one thing or one Object consisting of Christ and the Species So another of their learned men b Henriquez Moral l. 8. c. 32. Speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist because of Christ whom they contain Now Christ whom they contain must be something else then the Species that contain him Let him be present never so truely and substantially in the Sacrament or under the species he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present and as subtil as they are and as thin and subtil as these species are they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them and they can never be left out but must be part of the whole which is to be adored totum illud quod simul adoratur as Bellarmine calls it must include these de Euch. l 4. c. 30. as well as Christs Body Adorationem sayes Bellarmine a Bellarmine de Euch l. 4. c. 29. ad Sybola etiam panis vini peâ—â—nere ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent Adoration belongs even to the Symbols of Bread and Wine as they are apprehended to be one with with Christ whom they contain and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him and may be Worship'd together with Christ as T. G. b owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary and are the very term of Adoration as Gregory de Valentia c Cathol no Idolaters p. 268. sayes who farther adds that they who think this worship d De Idol l. 2. c. 5. does not at all belong to the Species in that heretically oppose the perpetual custome and sence of the Church Qui censeunt nullo mâ—do ad Species ipsias eam Venerationem pertinere in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum sensum Ecclesiae de Veneratione Sacram. ad Artic. Tom. 5. Indeed they say That these species or Accidents are not be Worship'd for themselves or upon their own account but because Christ is present in them and under them and so they may be Worshipp'd as T. G. sayes d Ib. with Christ in like manner as his Garments were Worship'd together with him upon Earth which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine
they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is alwayes present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear wiâ—ness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errours in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after consecration but only the Flesh and blood of Christ corporally present under the species and accidents of bread and wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with CHRIST as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with Latreia or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Vails and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of CHRIST for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho' it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whither it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance God we know is present in all his Creatures but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them unless where he makes a sensible Manifestation of himself and appears by his Shechinah or his Glory as to Moses in the burning Bush and to others in like manner and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God which appears without any Alteration just as it was before it was made such and especially to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do that Christ is present in it not only in the action and solemn Celebration but extra usum as they speak and permanenter even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over that he should continue there as a praesens Numen as Boileau expresly calls it a de Eucharistiae Adorat p. 140. and be shewed and carried about and honoured as such and dwell in the species as long as they continue as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh before that was crucified this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament but not so as the Papists believe nor so as to be worshipped I mean the Lutherans But to bring the matter to a closer issue the Papists themselves are forced to confess that if the Bread remain after consecration and be still Bread and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that they are then Idolaters So Fisher against Oecolampadius l. 1. c. 2. In express words So Coster in his Intali errore atque Idololotria qualis in or be terrarum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam aut alterius materiae imaginem quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii quam eorum qui frustum panis coster Ench. c. â— S. 10. Longe potiori ratione excusandi essent infideles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt Ib. Euchiridion de Euch c. 8. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacrament then they are left in such an Errour and Idolatry as was never seen or heard for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable who Worshipp a golden or silver statue for God or any other Image or even a red cloth as the Laplanders are said to do or living Animals as the Egyptians then of those who worship a piece of bread And Again Those Infidel Idolaters would be more excusable who worship'd their statues To whom I shall add Bellarmine a Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum Idololatriam appellant ejusmodi Adorationem neque id mirum videri debet cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse praâ—sentem panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. who sayes It does not seem strange that they call the Adoration of the sacrament Idolatry who do not believe that Christ is there truly present but that the bread is still true bread If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host and the Elements in the Eucharist are not substantially changed into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ then it is confest Idolatry and it is not strange according to Bellarmine that it should be so and then sure it will be true Artolatreia or Bread worship too if that be Bread which they worship and be not the natural Body of CHRIST that which is there present that they adore and if that be only Bread then they adore Bread And here I should enter that controversie which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errours about the Eucharist the making both a God of it and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament which CHRIST intended it and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation but a great man has spared me this trouble by his late excellent Discourse against it to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present controversie and shall take it for
granted as any one must who reads that that unless in Boileau's Phrase a Homo opiniosus cui tenacit as Error is sensum communem abstulit Boil p. 159. he be such a Bigot whose tenaciousness of his Errour has quite bereaved him of common sense which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends that Doctrine is false and therefore that the charge of Idolatry in this matter is by their own confession true But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them who out of very just and reasonable Fears and suspicions that Transubstantiation should not prove true and that they may happen to be mistaken in that have thought of another way to cover and excuse their Idolatry and that is not from the Truth but meerly from the Belief of Transubstantiation As long say they as we believe Transubstantiation to be true and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs body and blood and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account tho' we should be mistaken in this our belief yet as long as we think that Christ is there present and design only to Worship him and not the bread which we believe to â—e done away this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry To which because it is the greatest and the best Plea they have and they that make it have some misgivings I doubt not that Transubstantiation will not hold I shall therefore give a full Answer to it in the following Particulars 1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken belief and a false supposal of the mind which being gross and unreasonable will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it there were never any Idolaters but might plead the excuse of a mistake and that not much more culpable and notorious one would think then the mistake of those who think a bit of Bread or a wafer is turn'd by a few words into a God They all thought however blindly and foolishly that whatever it was they worship'd ought to be worship'd upon some account or other that it was a true and fit Object and that Adoration rightly belong'd to it Idolatry tho' it be a great sin and a great injury and affront to God yet arises not so much from the malice of the will as the blindness and darkness of the understanding there were hardly ever any such Idolaters as maliciously and designedly intended to affront the true God by worshipping false Gods or Creatures as if a subject should pass by his Prince out of ill will and of purpose to affront and defie him and give the Reverence and Homage that was due to him to a Rebel or fellow Subject standing by him but they did this because they mistook the person and thought this to be the Prince that was not or that he was there where he was not or that that which was there ought to be worship'd for his sake still falsly supposing that they ought to worship that wrong Object which they took to be right or in that false manner which they took to be true for if a mistake will excuse it will excuse in one as well as another 2. Tho' they do not only think and believe that which they worship to be a true Divine Object but it really be so in it self and that which they have in their Thoughts and intentions to worship be right yet they may still be guilty of Idolatry for so were the Jews in the Idolatry of the golden Calf whereby they intended not to throw off the worship of the true GOD the God of Israel who brought them out of â—e land of Egypt for they appointed the Feast Exod. 32. 4. 5. to him under that Title and under the Name of Jehâ—vah at the same time and so in the Idolatry of the Calves set up by Jeroboam they were not designed to draw off the peopâ—e from 1 K. 12. 27. 28. worshipping the same God who was worship'd at Hierusalem but only to do it in another place and after another manner but still as T. G. a Cath. no Idol p. 330. sayes of the Roman Idolaters so it may be said of these Jewish That what they had in their Minds and Intentions to Worship was the true God and what ever was the material object of their Worship he was the formal for they did no more think the Gold then the Papists think the bread to be God So the Maniâ—hees in their Idolatry which St. Austin often mentions b Contra Faustum Manicheum l. 1. c. 3 Tom. 1. de Genesi contra Manich. l. 2. c. 25. Tom. 3. Epist 74. ad Deuterium Solem etiam Lunam adorant colant of adoring the Sun and Moon the Object which they had in their Minds and Thoughts and Purposes to Worship was CHRIST as much as the Papists have in the Eucharist I would only ask if a persons having a right Object in his mind in his thoughts and purposes to adore which T. G. c catholiks no Idolaters p. 329. 330. so often pretends would excuse him from Idolatry then suppose a person should before consecration worship the Sacramental Elements to prevent which they generally keep them from being seen yet in the Thoughts and Intentions and purposes of his mind design to worship CHRIST then supposed tho' falsly to be there as they worship him afterwards whither this would be Idolatry in him or no If not then they may worship the unconsecrated Elements as well as consecrated even whilst they believe they are Bread if it be then having a right Object in our Thoughts and Purposes and Intentions will not excuse from Idolatry 3. Whatever was the material Object of Idolatrous worship it was nor worship'd for it self no more then the Bread or its Accidents are by the Papists in the Eucharist but as they say of the Host because they believed that the true Object of worship was really present in it or in an extraordinary manner united to it a Deos velect is sedibus propriis non recusare nec fugere habitacula inire terrena quinimo jure dedicationis impulsos simulahcrorum coalescere inunctioni Arnob. contra gent. l. 6. so did the Gentiles who thought the Gods themselves or at least a Divine Power was brought into their Images by their consecrations and that it resided and dwelt there and they worshipped their Images only upon this account b Deos per simulachra Veneramur Ib. Now if they had tâ—ought this of the true God himself that it was he and noâ— any false God that was thus present in their Images this would have been nevertheless Idolatry Thus the Manichees who worship'd the Sun did not worship it for it self but because they believed CHRIST had placed his Tabernacle in the Sun so the more Philosophical Idolaters among the Heathens who worship'd the several Things of Nature as parts they thought of the Great See Voss de
Idolol l. â— c. 1. and Omnipresent God they did not worship them purely for themselves but as God was in them and they were as St. Austin speaks Aut partes ejus aut membra ejus aut aliquid substantiae ipâ—ius c August l. 24. contra Faustum Either parts of him or Members of him or something of his substance as the Papists believe the Sacrament to be his body Thus they Deified the things of Nature tho' they thought there was but one Supreme GOD whom they worship'd in them as â—usebius sayes of them they believe a that c Hena gar onia theon pantoiais dymamesi ta panta plerun kai dia panta diekein kai iu ton dia ton dedelomenon sebein Euseb Praepar Evangel l. 3. c. 13. one GOD fills all things with his various power and pervades all things and that he is to be worshipped in and by all visible things but yet they denied that those visible things were to be worship'd for them selves but for the sake of God and those invisible powers of God whichwere in them as appears from the same place b Me ta horamena samata heliu kai selenes kai astron medege ta aistheta mere tu kosmu phesusi the opoiein alla tas en tutois aoratus dunameis autu de tu epi pasin They do not they say make Gods of the visible bodies of the Sun Moon and Stars or the other sensible parts of the World but they worship those invisible powers that are in them of that God who is GOD over all Nay the Egyptians themselves did not as Celsus pleads even for those Idolaters worship their bruit Animals but only as they were Symbols of God c einai auta kai theu symbola Orig. contra cels l. 3. 4. Yet notwithstanding this Plea of Idolaters they may justly be charged with worshipping those material Objects which they say as the Papists when we charge them with Bread-worship that they do not worship So the Egyptians might be charged with brut-worship the Heathens with the worship of the Sun and Moon and the Scripture d Isa 44. 17. expresly Reproaches and Accuses the Idolaters with worshipping a Stock or Stone or a piece of Wood tho' it was the constant Plea and pretence of the Heathens that they did no more worship those material Objects then the Papists do Bread e Non ego illum lapidem colo nec illud simulachrum quod est sine sensu Aug. in Psal 69. I do not Worship the sensless Stone or Image which has Eyes and sees not Ears and hears not sayes the Heathen in St. Austin and in Arnobius We do not worship the Brass or the Gold or Silver or any of the matter of which our Images are made a Nos neque aera neque auri argentique materias neque alias quibus signa Conficiunt eas esse per se Religiosa decernimus numina sed eos in his colimus eosque veneramur quos dedicatio infert Sacra Arnobius contra Gentes and in St. Austin again Do ye think we or our Forefathers were such Fools as to take those for Gods b Vsque adeone Majores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est ut Does No they would disown it as much as Boileau does With his who shall say we adore the bread or Wine c Quis nos adorare panem vinum Boileau p. 160. or T. G's pretending that we run upon that false ground that Catholicks believe the bread to be God And yet I see not why there may not be good reason to charge the one as well as the other 5. If those other Idolaters had been so foolish and absurd as to believe and think that those things which they worship'd were their very Gods themselves substantially present and that the visible substance of their Idols had been converted and turned into the substance of their Gods this would have made their Idolatry only more horribly sottish and ridiculous but would not in the least have made it more excusable If the Jews had thought that by the powerful words of Consecration pronounced by Aaron their High Priest the Calf had been turned into the very substance of GOD and that tho' the Figure and Shape of the Calf had remained and the Accidents and Species of Gold which appeared to their sight yet that the substance of it had been perfectly done away and that only God himself had been there under those appearing Species of a golden Calf would this have mended the matter or better excused their Idolatry because they had been so extremely sottish That they conceived the Gold not to be there at all but in the place thereof the only true and eternal God and so altho' the Object or rather subject materially present in such a case would have been the golden Calf yet their Act of Adoration would not have been terminated formally upon that but only upou God as T. G. sayes of the bread p. 339. Or if the Manichees had thought the Body of the Sun had been converted into the glorious Body of JESUS CHRIST would this have signified any thing to bring them off if their mistake had been as T G. sayes p. 327. Theirs is concerning the Bread that they believed the Sun not to be there at all and therefore what they would have in their minds would not or could not be the Sun but the only true and eternal Son of God Indeed they had as it appears from St. Austin a Eum sc Christum naâ—im quandam esse dicitis eum triangulum esse perhibetis id est per quandam triangulam caeli Fenestram lucem istam mundo terrisque radiare August contra Faustum Manichaeum l. 30. c. 6. Nescio quam navim per foramem Triangulum micantem atque lucentem quam confictam cogitatis adoretis Ibid. some such absurd Imagination they did think that it was not the material Sun which appeared to their senses but a certain Navis which was the substance of CHRIST that did radiate through the triangular Fenestra in the Heavens to the World and to the Earth These wretched Figments of theirs whereby they made the Father of the Light that was inaccessible and placed CHRIST in the Sun and Moon and the Holy Ghost in the Air b Trinitati loca tria datis patri unumâ— e. lumen in accessibile filio duo Solem Lunam spiritui sancto rursus unum Aris hunc omuem ambitum Ibid c. 7. and called these the Seals of their substance c Sedes ejusdem substantiae dicatis Ibid. c. 8. these made them indeed as he sayes worship only the Figments of their own crazy heads and things thâ—t were not d In iis non quod sunt sed quod vobis dementissime fingit is adoratis Ib. c. 9. Vos auâ—em colitis ea quae nec dii nec aliquid sunt quoniam prorsus nulla sunt Ib. c. 9. but yet this
him but not the least tittle of their adoring it so farr from it that they were not in a posture of Adoration which they should have been in if they had inwardly adored it which makes this not only a Negative Argument as Boileau Å¿ De Adorat Euch. l. 2. c. 1. would have it but a positive one To take off this argument from the not mention of any such command or practice of Adoration to the Sacrament in the Gospel he sayes Neither is the Adoration of Christ prescribed in express words t Nullo ex iis loco conceptis verbis praescriptam fuisse Adorationem sc Christi p. 27. nor that of the Holy Ghost either commanded or performed * Nâ—llibi praeceptam ejus Adorationem aut confestim peractam conceptis intelligamus p. 98. But I hope all those places of Scripture that so fully tell us that both Christ and the Holy Ghost are God do sufficiently command us to worship them by bidding us worship God and if it had told us that the sacrament is as much God as they it had then commanded us to adore it There are sufficient instances of Christs being adored when he appeared upon Earth and had the other Divine persons assumed a bodily shape those who had seen and known it would have particularly adored it and so would the Apostles no doubt have done the Sacrament if they had thought that when it was before them an object of worship St. Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians of 1 Cor. 11. c. their very great Irreverence in receiving the Lords Supper had very good occasion to have put them in mind of adoring it had that been their Duty this then would have been a proper means to have brought them to the highest reverence of it but he never intimates any thing of worshipping it when he delivers to them the full account of its institution and its design nor never reproves them among all their other unworthy abuses of it for their not adoring it and 't is a very strange fetch in Boileau †Ib. p. 103. l. 2. that he would draw St. Pauls command of examining our selves before we eat to mean our adoring when or what we eat and that not discerning the Lords body and being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ is the not worshipping the sacrament which he never so much as touches upon among all â—heir other fauls Are there not many other wayes of abusing â—he sacrament besides the not worshipping it this is like his â—irst Argument out of Ignatius his Epistles ‡ l. 1. c. 2. synepheren de antois agapan Ep. ad smyr at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere debere praeter solum Deum that because he sayes the â—acrament ought to be loved thereâ—ore he meant that it ought to be â—dored At which rate I should â—e afraid to love this Gentleman â—however taking he was lest I should consequently adore him â—or because I am not to abuse him therefore it would follow that I must worship him 2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church as I shall shew 1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians 2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms 3. From some very ancient Customs 1. Those most ancient Writers 1. Justin Martyr 2. The Author 1. Justin Marty 2 Apologversus finem Apostol constitutit l. 8. c. 11 12. 13 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol Cateches mystagog c. 5. of the Apostolick Constitutions And 3. St. Cyril of Hierusalem who acquaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist which was generally then one constant part of their publick worship they give no account of any Adoration to the sacrament or to the consecrated Elements tho' they are particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use the Kiss of Charity in token of their mutual Love and Reconciliation this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament y allelous philemati aspazometha epâ—ita prosphoretai artos Justin Martyr Apol. 2. In St. Cyril's time z Catech mystagog 5. Aposstol constit l. 8. c. 11. the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon and the Priests washing their hands in it to denote that purity with which they were to compass Gods Altar and then the Deacon spoke * Pâ—terion Kramaâ—â—â— Just Martyr to the people to give the holy Kiss then Bread was brought to the Bishop or Priest and ‡ Oi kalumenoi par hemâ—â— diaconoi â—idoasin ekaste paron to metalabein apo tu eucharistethentos artu kai oinu kai hydatos kai tois ou parusin apopherusin Just Martyr Ib. Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries and after Prayers and Thanksgiving by the Priest to which the people too joyned their Amen * The Deacons gave every one present of the blessed Bread and Wine a Water and to those that were not present they carried it home this says Justin Martyr we account not Common Bread or common ‡ Eucharistetheisan trophen ex hes haima kai sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon Ib. Drink but the Body and Blood of Christ the blessed food by which our flesh and blood is nourished that is turned into it which could not be said of Christs natural Body nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that or to any of the blessed Elements The others are longer and much later and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgiving that were then used by the church of the sursum corda lift up your heart which St. * cyril Hierosol mystagog cat 5. cyril sayes followed after the Kiss of charity of the sancta sanctis things holy belong to those that are holy then they describe how they came to communicate how they held their hand * Me tetamenois tois toÌ„n cheiroÌ„n karpois mede dieremenois tois daktylois alla ten aristeran Ib. when they received the Elements how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and manner of receiving the sacrament no account is there of their adoring it which surely there would have been had there been any such in the Primitive church as now is in the Roman We own indeed as Boileau objects to us f L. 2. P. 106. that from these it appears that some things were then in use which we observe not now neither do the Church of Rome all of them for they are not essential but indifferent matters as mixing Water with Wine the Priest's washing the Kiss of Charity and sending the Sacrament to the absent but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion but adoration to the Sacrament if it be ever a Duty is alwayeâ— so and never ought upon any account to
the wisest Men. How must a Jew or a Turk who are great enemies to all Idolatry be prejudiced against Christianity when he sees those who profess it fall down and worship a Wafer and make on Idol of a bit of Bread When he lives in those places where he sees it carried about with Candles and Torches before it in most Solemn and Pompous Processions and all persons as it goes by falling upon their Knees and saying their Prayers and using all acts of Devotion to it would he not wonder what strange and new God that no History ever mentioned the Christians adored Mankind indeed when very ignorant used to worship a great many creatures that were very useful to them and when they were very hungry if they lighted upon Bread it was no great wonder but sure it can be no more fit to be worship'd by those who better know God then any of his other creatures or any of the most dumâ— and senseless and pitiful Images for which the Christians so often and so justly laught at the Idolatrous Heathens especially those of them who were so foolish and such true belly-Gods as to eat and feed upon what they worship'd and Deâ—fied This the first and most learned Christians charged as the highest degree of folly in the Egyptians to eat the same Animals whom they worship'd * Sebein kai ethein ti proskynumenon Orig. contra celsum l. 4. Thyels proba ton to de auto kai proskyneis Tatian Orat. contra Graec. Apim bovem adoratis pascitis Minut. Octav. p. 94. And a wise Heathen could not think any would be so mad as to think that to be a God with which he was fed ‡ Ecquem tam amentem esse putas us illud quo vescatur Deum esse credat Tully de natura Deorum It was the ingenious Opinion of a very learned Father that God made the difference between the clean and unclean Beast to prevent this Egyptian and Brutish folly in the Israelites who lived among them because sayes he by their abominating the unclean they would not Deifie them and by eating the clean they would be secured from ever worshipping them for it must be the extreamest madness to worship what they eat * Dia touto ta men acatharta toÌ„n zoon legei ta de cathara bina ta menhos acatharta bdeluomenoi me theopoi osi ta de me proskyosin esthiomena ' Abelterias gar eshates to esthi omenon proskynein Theodoret. in Quaest in Genes How did the Ancient Apologists for Christianity with great wit and smartness ridicule the other Idols of the Heathens as being the works at first of the carver or the Painter and particularly for being such Gods as were baked at first in the Furnace * Incoctos fornacibus figulinis Arnob. contra Gent. l. 6. of the Potter and it had been much the same had it been in the Oven of the Baker for being Gods of Brass or of Silver †Deus aereus vel argenteus Minut. Octav. p. 74. And yet they counted the Silver or the brass no more a God ‡ Nos neque aeris neque auri argentique materias Arnob. ut supra â—hen others do the Bread as I have shewn above How at other times did they think fit to expose their impotent and senseless Deities because they could not preserve themselves from Thieves ◠‡ Deos vestros plerumque in praedam furibus cedere Lectant Institut l. 2. c. 4. nor yet from rotteness but the Worms would still gnaw and the Vermine deface them and the Bitds would defile them with their excrements even in their own Temples * Quanto verius de Diis vestris animalia muta naturaliter judicant mures hirundines milvi non sentire â—os sciunt redunt insultant insident ac nisi abigatis in ipso Dei vestri ore nidificant Arancae vero facieâ— ejus intexunt Minut. Octav. p. 75. And could not this be said of a breaden Deity is not that as subject to all these mischances and therefore as liable to all those Reproaches Will not a Mouse or Rat run away with it Tho' if it do so they have taken care if they can catch the sacrilegious Thief to have the Sacrament drawn out of its entrails and religiously disposed of †Antonin de deâ—ect Miss in Bishop Jewels reply but however if no such misfortune come to it it will in a little time if it be kept prove sowre and grow mouldy and when it does so what should then thrust out the Deity and bring in again the substance of the Bread that was quite gone before is an unaccountable Miracle and that which is taken of it into our Bodies is not lâ—ke one would think to have any better or more becoming treatment there then by the other wayes so that upon all these accounts this which is worshipped by Christians is in as ill condition as that which was worshipped by Heathens and those witty Adversaries Celsus and Porphyry and Julian would have thrown all that the Christians had said against the Heathen Idols back upon themselves and have improved them with as great Advantage and retorted them with as much force had the Christians in those times worship'd the Host or the Sacramental Elements as the Papists do now and 't is more then a presumption no less than a Demonstration that the Christians did not because none of these things that were so obnoxious and so obvious were ever in the least mentioned by the Heathens or made matter of Reflection upon them when they pickt up all other things let them be true or false that they could make any use of to object against them But the Primitive Christians gave them no such occasion which was the only Reason they did not take it As soon as the Church of Rome did so by seâ—ing up the worship of the Host Averroes the Arabian Philosopher in the †Apud Dionys carthus in 4. dist Nullam se sectam christiana deteriorem â—â—t ineptiorem reperire 13th Century gave this character of Christians that he had found no sect more foolish or worse then they in all his Travels and Observations upon this very account For they eat Quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant the God whom they worship and ‡ a later Historian and Traveller tells us that 't is a common Reproach in the Mouths of the Turks and Mahumetans * Bullaeus Gultius in Itin. Mange Deiu to call the Christians Devourers of their God and a Jew in a Book Printed at Amsterdam in the year 1662 among others Questions put to Christians asks this shrewd one If the Host be a God why does it corrupt and grow covered with Mold and why is it gnawn by Mice or other Animals †Si Hostia Deus est cur situ obducta corrumpitur cur a gliribus muribus corroditur Lib. quaest Resp The only
way the Papists have to bring themselves off from these manifest Absurdities is only a running farther into greater and their little Shifts and Evasions are so thin and Subtill Sophistry or rather such gross and thick falshoods that it could not be imagined that the Heathen Adversaries could ever know them and therefore be so civil as Boileau would make them * Cap. 10. l. 2. de aaor Euch. as not to lay those charges upon them as others do nor can any reasonable and impartial man ever believe them for they are plainly these two That they doe not worship what all the World sees they worship And that they doe not eat what they take into their Mouths and swallow down Which is in plain words an open Confession that they are ashamed to own what they plainly do We do not worship the Bread say they for that we believe is done away and is turned into the naturall Body of Christ and so we cannot be charged with Bread-worship But do ye not worship that which ye see and which ye have before you and which is carried about And would not any man that sees what that is think ye worship Bread or Wafer And could you ever perswade him that it was any thing else And if notwithstanding what you think of it against all Sense and Reason it be still Bread then I hope it is Bread that ye worship and till others think as wildely as ye do ye must give them leave to think and charge you thus But if it were true that ye did not worship the Bread yet ye must and do own that ye worship the Species of the Bread and how ye should do that without being guilty of another very gross Absurdity ye do not know your selves for ye must make them so united to Christ as to make one suppositum and so one Object of Worship as his Humanity and God-Head are and then according to this way of yours Christ may as well be said to be Impanated and United to Bread or its Species as some of you have taught * Belarm de Ruperto Abbate Tuitiensi l. 3. de Euch. c. 11 that the Bread in the Eucharist is assumed by the Logos as the humane Nature was But not to mention these which wheresoever ye turn ye stare ye full in the face and should make ye blush one would think had ye not put off all shame as well as all sense in this matter grant ye what ye would have that it is not Bread but the substantial Body Flesh and Blood of a man that is in the Host will this help much to mend the matter or to lessen the Absurdity and not rather increase and swell it For besides the incredible wonder that a bit of Bread should by a few words of every common Priest be turned immediately into the true and perfect Body of a man nay into ten thousand Bodies at the same time which is a greater Miracle then ever was done in the World and is as great almost as creating the World it self out of nothing and if it were true would make the Priest a God certainly and not a man and much rather to be worship'd then a bit of Bread as Lactantins sayes of the Heathen Idols He that made them ought rather to be worship'd then they * Meliorem esse qui fecit quam illa quae facta sunt si haec adoranda sunt artificem a quo facta sunt ipsum quoque multo potiori jure adorandum esse Lactant. Instit l. 2. c. 2 Besides this it seems it is the whole Body of a man then which is eaten and swallowed down instead of Bread for sure the same thing is not one thing when it is worship'd and another thing when it is eaten and then how barbarous and inhumane as well as absurd and ridiculous must this appear to any man that is not used to swallow the most substantial Nonsense as well as the whole Body of a man for a Morsel and then all the former Absurdities which I mentioned do return again of the Eating that which we worship which the Apologists thought so wild and extravagant in the Egyptian God-eaters Well then there is no other way but to say we don't eat him as we eat other food †Boil c. 10. l. 2. Comestionem substantiae corporis Christi non esse natur alem so might the Egyptians have said too if they had pleased tho how they can otherwise eat him 't is hard to understand but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating unless they will at the same time say They do not eat him truly and naturally and yet do eat him so and they are so used to Contradictions in this point that I don't know whither they will make any more bones of this then of the rest or of the substantial Body of a man himself when they have got so large a Faith or rather so large a Swallow But how is it that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner and yet it is a carnal Body that ye so much contend for and that ye really and truly eat and 't is a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into and sometimes a very soul and wicked one And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very body of Christ as well as the most faithfull But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth nor chew him in our Mouths as our other Food nor digest him in our Stomachs nor cast him out into the draught if ye do not as ye pretend being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it and yet a very great many among you have owned all that z Retract Bereng sub Nicol. 2 in Concil Rom. Verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Sic Gualt Abbaud apud Boil p. 177. as not knowing how it could be otherwise and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacramental Christs presence may not be so too which is the Heresie on the other side a Iste in omnibus veritatem subtrahit dum asserit omnia fieri sc fractionem attritâ—onem corporis Christi in Eucharistia non substantia sed in specie visibili forma panis Sacramento tantum Gualter adversus Abailard apud Boil 179. and ye seem to make strange Monsters of your selves that have spiritual Teeth and can spiritually and not naturally eat a natural and a carnal body and if ye do not thus eat it as ye eat other meat when ye take it into your Mouths and into your Stomacks and do every thing to it that you do to your other food which is as like eating as it were very true and natural eating and if it be not Bread which is thus eaten when it is just as like other Bread as is
that any other speculative scientifical Doctrine doth little or nothing conduce to a happy and blessed life but that on This our everlasting happiness doth depend and that we cannot reject This without certain Ruine Therefore we ought to take head that cunning Men do not deceive us that we do not hearken to the teachers of New Doctrineâ— which have no foundation in the Scripture their pretences to infallibility and demonstration in matters of Faith are false and unreasonable for they assume these great and unwarrantable privileges only to deceive the Ignorant and to obtrude fictitious articles of Faith upon Mankind Wherefore all that now remains is to make some short Reflections upon the Authours of Purgatory and other new-invented Doctrinâ—â— in the Church of Rome First They may be charged for imposing upon our belief things contrary to reason self-inconsistent and incongruous of this I will give but one instance which is their asserting that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is changed into the real and substantial Body and Blood of Christ For this is the hardest thing that ever was put upon men in any Religion because they cannot admit it unless their reason be laid aside as no competent Judge in the matter unless also they give the lye to the report of their senses And if they do this how shall we think that GOD made our Faculties true which if he did not do we are absolutely discharged from all duty to him because we have no faculty that can resolve us that this is of GOD for if our reason must not be trusted we must cease to be Men if our senses are not to be believed the chiefest proof of Christians falls to the ground which was the sight of those who saw our Saviour after he was risen from the Dead Now if I may not believe the reason of my â—â—nd in conjunction with three or four of my senses how shâ—ll I know 〈…〉 that any thing is this or that therefore I say that this Doctrine is a gross invention of Men contrary both to reason and sense Secondly The Truths they do acknowledge are made void by subtile distinctions or equivocations as for example their Doctrine of Probability and of directing the intention if a Man can find any Doctour among them that held such an opinion it makes that Doctrine probable and there is nothing so contrary to the rules of Vertue and Conscience but what some Romish Casuistical Doctour hath resolved to be good and practicable just as Tully sayes there is nothing so absurd or ridiculous which some Philosopher or other hath not maintained and asserted So by directing their intention they may declare that which is false and deny that which is true because they intend the credit of their Church and Religion this mere intention shall excuse them from the guilt of downright falshood and lying They are so well practised in equivocations that you cannot confide in any words they speak they are so ambiguous and of such doubtfull meaning in their evasions their Speech shall bear a double sense whereas no Man ought to use wit and parts to impose upon another or to make a Man believe That which he doth not mean For the Christian Law is plain and obvious void of all ambiguity or ensnaring speeches free from all Sophistications and windings of Language never flies to words of a dubious or uncertain signification but plainly declares the truth to Men therefore these practices are contrary to that simplicity and plain heartedness which ought to be in the conversation of every Christian Thirdly They super-add to Religion things altogether unlikely to be true and dishonorable to GOD which will appear in these following particulars I. The use of Images in the Worship of God an Idolatry they are too guilty of otherwise they would never leave out the second Commandment and divide the Tenth into two to conceal iâ— from the People We find better Doctrine then this among the Philosopeers who say God is to be Worshipped by Purity of Mind for this is a rational service and a worshâ—p most suitable to an immaâ—erial Beeing it being the use of that in us which is the highest and noblest of our Faculties II. The veneration of Reliques a very vain and foolâ—sh thing for there can be no certainty at this distance of time what they are and if they were indeed what they are taken for what veneration is or can be due to them For inanimate â—hings are far inâ—eriour to those that have life and for the living to worshâ—p things that are dead is unaccountable and irrational III. The Invocation or worship of Angels and Saints our Fellâ—w creatures particularly of the Virgin Mary to whom they make more Prayers then to our Saviâ—uâ— himself alâ—hâ—ugh her Name be not mentioned in aâ—l the Epâ—stles of the Apostles altâ—ough Christ himself as foreseeing the degeneracy of the Church in this thing did ever restrain all exâ—ravagant imaginations of honour due to her yet the adoration of her is the most considerable part of their Religion But why should a Man so prostâ—ue himself as to Worship those I am sure God would not have me Worship for he would not have us adore any Creature as the Apostle argues Col. 2. 18. It is but a shew of humility to worship Angels who are placed in the highest order of Creatures and if they are not to be Worshipped sure none below them are and God hath declared there is but one supreme self-existent Beeing and one Mediatour between God and Man the Man Jesus Christ IV. They withhold the use of Scripture from the People because they say Knowledge of the very Oracles of God will make them contentious and disobedient to Authority if this be true then the blame of all this must be laid upon our blessed Saviour for revealing such a Doctrine to the World as this is and thereby we should condemn the Apostles for making known such a Doctrine to Men in a Tongue they understand but I suppose the Papists are not willing to lay all the miscarriages of the World upon Christ and his Apostles Although Men may abuse the Knowledge of the Scripture yet the abuse of a thing that is usefull was never accounted a sufficient reason for the taking it away therefore Men are not to be hindred from the Know-of the Scriptures for fear they should become proud or rebellious for this would be as if one should put out a Man's Eyes that he might the better follow him or that he might not loose his way for there is nothing in the whole Doctrine of out blessed Saviour which is unfite for any Man to know but what is plainly designed to promote holiness and the practice of a good life the Romanists do indeed pretend that the unity and peace of the Church cannot be maintained unless the People be kept in ignorance then the mischief will be that for the end of keeping Peace and Unity in the Church
the Fire So great an honour and regard had the Primitive Church for the Sacrament that as they accounted it the highest Mystery and solemnest part of their Worship so they would not admit any of the Penitents who had been guilty of any great and notorious sin nâ—â— the Catechumeni nor the Possest and Energumeni so much as to the sight of it the eposia and the Participation of this Mystery used alwayes in those times to go together as Cassander * Consult de Circumgest Sacram. owns and Albaspinaeus †L'ancienna Police de l'Eglise sur l'administration dâ— l'Eucharistie liure prem c. 15. 16. 17. proves in his Book of the Eucharist And therefore as it is plainly contrary to the Primitive practice to carry the Sacrament up and down and expose it to the Eyes of all Persons so the reason of doing it that it may be worship'd by all and that those who do not partake of it may yet adore it was it is plain never thought of in the primitive Church for then they would have seen and worshipped it tho' they had not thought fit that they should have partaken of it But he that will see how widely the Church of Rome differs from the ancient Church in this and other matters relating to the Eucharist let â—im read the learned Dallee his two Books of the Object of religious worship I shall now give an Answer to the Authorities which they produce out of the Fathers and which Monsieur Boileau has he tells us been a whole year a gleaning out of them ‡ Annuae vellicationis litirariae ratiocinium reddo Praef. ad Lect. Boileau de Adorat Euchar. if he has not rather pickt from the sheaves of Bellarmine and Perrone But all their Evidences out of Antiquity as they are produced by him and bound up together in one Bundle in his Book I shall Examine and Answer too I doubt not in a much less time They are the only Argument he preâ—â—nds to for this Adoration and when Scripture and all other Reasons fail them as they generally do then they fly to the Fathers as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the open Field fly to the Woods or the Mountains where they know but very few can â—ollow them I take it to be sufficient that in any necessary Article of Faith or Essential part of Christian worship which this of the Sacrament must be if it be any part at all it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us or that the Scripture is silent and speaks of no more then what we own and admit In other external and indifferent Matters relating meerly to the circumstances of worship the Church may for outward Order and Decency appoint what the Scripture does not But as to what we are to believe and what we are to worship the most positive Argument from any humane Authority is of no weight where there is but a Negative from Scripture But we have such a due regard to Antiquity and are sâ— well assured of our cause were it to be tryed only by that and not by Scripture which the Church of Rome generally deâ—â—â—s to that we shall not fear to allow â—â—em to bâ—ing all the Fathers they can for ther Witnesses in this matter and we shall not in the least decline their Testimony Boileau Musters up a great many some of which are wholly impertinent and insignisicant to the matter in hand and none of them speak home to the business he brings them for He was to prove that they Taught that the Sacrament was to be adored as it is in the Church of Rome but they only Teach as we do That it is to be had in great reverence and respect as all other things relating to the Divine worship that it is to be received with great Devotion both of body and soul and in such a Posture as is to exprese this A Posture of Adoration that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this Office especially as well as he is in all other Offices of our Religion that his Body and his Flesh which is united to his Divinity and which he offered up to his Father as a sacrifice for all Mankind and by which we are Redeemed and which we do spiritually partake of in the Sacrament that this is to be adored by us but not as being corporally present there or that the Sacrament is to be worship'd with that or for the sake of that or that which the Priest holds up in his Hands or lyes upon the Altar is to be the Object of our Adoration but only Christ and his blessed Body which is in Heaven To these four Heads I shall reduce the Authorities which Boileau produces for the Adoration of the Host and which seem to speak any thing to his purpose and no wonder that among so many Devout Persons that speak as great things as can be of the Sacrament and used and perswaded the greatest Devotion as is certainly our Duty in the receiving it there should be something that may seem to look that way to those who are very willing it should or that may by a little stretching be drawn farther then their true and genuine meaning which was not to Worship the Sacrament it self or the consecrated Elements but either 1. To Worship Christ who is to be adored by us in all places and at all times but especially in the places set apart for his worship and at those times we are performing them in the Church and upon the Altar in Mysteriis as St. Ambrose speaks * Despir St. l. 3. c. 12. in the Mystesteries both of Baptism and the Lords Supper and in all the Offices of Christian Worship as Nazianzen †Orat. 11. de de Gorgon ToÌ„ thysiasterioÌ„ prâ—spiptei me ta tes pisteoÌ„s kai ton ep ' autoÌ„ timon non anakalumene said of his sister Gorgonia that she called upon him who is honoured upon the Altar That Christ is to be honoured upon the Altar where we see the great and honourable work of mans Redemption as 't was performed by his Death represented to us is not at all strange if it had been another and more full word that he was to be worship'd there 't is no more then what is very allowable tho' it had not been in a Rhetorical Oration 't is no more then to say That the God of Israel was worship'd upon the Jewish Altar or upon this Mountain For 't is plain she did not mean to worshâ—p the Sacrament as if that were Christ or God for she made an ointment of it and mixt it with her tears and anointed her Body with it as a Medicine to recover her Health which she did miraculously upon it Now sure 't is a very strange thing that she should use that as a Plaister which she thought to be a God but she still took for Bread and Wine that had extradinary Vertue in it and
it is so called there by Nazianzen the Antitypes ‡ Eipou ti â—oÌ„n antitypon tu timu somatos kai haimatos he cheir â—thefaurisan Ib. of Christs Body and Blood which shews they were not thought to be the substance of it and she had all these about her and in her own keeping as many private Christians had in those times and there was no Host then upon the Altar when she worshipped Christ upon it for it was in the night †Nuktos aorian teresasa Ib. she went thus to the Church So St. Chrysostom * Vid. Boileau c. 7. l. 1. ex Chrysost in all the places quoted out of him only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Savior and our coming to the Sacrament with all humility and Reverence like humble supplicants upon ouâ— knees and with Tears in our Eyes and all Expressions of sorrow for our sins and Love and Honour to our Saviour whom we are to meet there and whom we do as it were †Horas enthysiasterio Chry. in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c. see upon upon the Altar which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him That we do not truly see him upon the Altar the Papists must own tho' they believe him there but not so as to be visible to our senses and he is no more to be truly adored as corporally present then he is visibly present St. Ambrose ‡ In sermone 56. Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo sayes of St. Stephen that â—e being on Earth touched Christ in Heaven just as St. Chrysostom sayes Thou seest him on the Altar and as he and any one that will not resolve to strain an easie figurative Expression must mean not by a bodily touch or sight but by Faith * Non corporalia tactu sed fide and by that we own that we see Christ there and that he is there present 2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ which tho' considered without his Divinity it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria sayes †In actis concil Ephes Hos anthropon proskyneistai te ktisei latreuein yet as it is alwayes united to his Divinity 't is a true object of worship and ought to be so to us who are to expect Salvation by it even from the Blood and the Body ‡ Proskynete esti sorz syntoÌ„ logoÌ„ TheoÌ„ kathos apotheosen auten Chrysost Hom. 108. and Flesh of Christ and therefore as we inwardly trust in it so we ought to adore it as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion tho' that be in Heaven yet we are to worship it upon Earth and especially when it is brought to our minds and thought by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it the blessed Sacrament there and in Baptism especially when we put on Christ and have his Death and Rising again represented to us and have such great benefits of his Death and Incarnation bestowed upon us in these Mysteries we are as St. Ambrose * Caro Christi quam hodie in Mysteriis adoramus Ambros l. 3. de sp fanct c. 12. apud Boil p. 32. sayes to Adore the Body and the Flesh of Christ to which we immediately and particularly owe them and which we may truly call our Saviour St. Ambrose and St. Austin * August Enar. in Ps 98. his Scholar after him supposing that there was a great difficulty in that passage of the Psalms worship his footstool for so it is in the Latin * Adorate scabellum pedum ejus without the Preposition at his footstool they laboured to reconcile this with that command of Worshipping and serving God alone and to give an account how the Earth which was Gods footstool could be worshipt and the way they take was this to make Christs Flesh which he took of the Earth to be meant by that Earth which was Gods footstool ‡ Invenio quomodo sine Impietate adoretur terra scabellum pedum ejus suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit August Ib. and this say they we ought to worship his Apostles did so whilst he was upon Earth and we do so now whilst he is in Heaven We worship the Flesh of CHRIST which was crucified for us and by the benefit of which we hope for Pardon and Salvation we worship that tho' it be now in Heaven we worship it in the solemn Offices of our Religion * Ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit nemâ— autem ill â—m carnem mâ—nducat nisi prius adoraverit Aug. Ib. that Flesh which he gave to be eaten by us for our Salvation that we worship for none eates that Flesh but he first worships Worships that if they please tho' St. Austin do not expresly say that but we will own and we will be always ready to Worship the Flesh of Christ by which we are saved and we will do this especially at the Sacrament and that more truly and properly then they themselves will own that we eat and manducate it as St. Austin sayes not with ouâ— Teeth as we do the Bread but eat it and worship it too as it is Heaven St. Hierome †Epist ad Marcel Ibant Christiani Hierosolymam ut Christum in illis adorarent locis in quibus primum Evangelium de patibulo coruscaverat says of some devout Christians That they went to Hierusalem that they might adore Christ in those places where the Gospel first shone from the cross They went that they might adore Christ in those places not that they believed him to be corporally present in those places much less that they worship'd the places themselves but they made a more lively impression of Christ upon them and made them remember him with more Passion and Devotion and so does the blessed Sacrament upon us and we therefore worship Christ whom we believe to be in Heaven in the Sacrament as they worship'd him in those places where they were especially put in mind of him Thus St. Hierome sayes He worshipped Christ in the Grave and that Paula worshipped him in the stall * Ad Paul Eustoch and so we may be said to worship him on the cross or on the Altar or in the Sacrament and yet not to worship the Cross or the Altar or the Sacrament it self 3. Other places out of the Fathers brought by him for the Adoration of the Host mean only that the Sacrament is to be had in great reverence and esteem by us as all things sacred and set a part to religious uses are that a singular Veneration is due to the Eucharist as St. Austin says ‡ Eucharistiae deberi singularem venerationem Epist 118. c. 3. and as is to Baptism also of which he uses