world And truly no more than this can be thought requisite to the purpose of the whole Prophesie of incouraging them to continue constant in the profession of Christianity notwithstanding all persecutions as foreknowing the issue Now hee that continues constant in Christianity and never knew this Prophesie shall want nothing necessary to his salvation though hee want so nething very effectual to the having of that which is necessary To wit of perseverance in Christianity The intent of this Prophesie being to perswade them to it Which is enough to show any man a difference between the right understanding of this Prophesie and any part of the Rule of Faith As for the custome of giving the Eucharist to Infants so soon as they were baptized I answer that the evidence which I will give you that it was never used out of an opinion of necessity to Salvation as the Baptisme of Infants was seemeth to be an exception sufficient against the universal use of it as supposed to come from the Apostles Hee that will shew mee any Writer of the Church by whose testimony it may be presumed that the Church did not baptize Infants out of an opinion that they could not be saved without it I speak not now of the truth of this opinion but onely of the point of fact whatsoever may be argued from thence by virtue of the premises I will yield him that the same Writer did believe that the giving of the Eucharist to Infants upon their Baptisme was commanded by the Apostles I acknowledge it is the opinion of Tertullian for which there is no mark upon him as ever a whit the lesse Catholick that it was not expedient to baptize Infants because of the danger of years under discretion to seduce them from the fulfilling of their profession before they could throughly understand what it imported But I deny that this was because he or any body then believed that they could go out of the world unbaptised and yet be saved For when the vigilance of Parents and the diligence of all might assure them not to fail of Baptism in case of necessity it is no marvail if the reason alledged might move men to defer it to the years of manhood beleeving no lesse the necessity of it Now in the writings of Fulgentius a worthy African Prelate there is extant a little piece in answer to a Letter of Ferrandus a Deacon of his it seems about a certain Moore who being converted and having divers times made profession of Christianity as the custome of the Church then required after that being taken sick was baptized without being able by speaking to make the like profession as the rule required all at their baptism to make Upon other considerations the Letter desires resolution of the salvation of this Moore But upon this also because he survived not to receive the Eucharist which is clearly answered in the affirmative upon as good reasons of Scripture as a good Christian can desire Which is without exception to show that they had not that opinion of the necessity of the Eucharist as of Baptism sufficient to argue a severall beginning of observing them both And truly seeing it is granted on all hands that it is no inconvenience in Christianity that the Church or any part of it mistake the true meaning of some Scriptures the alledging of our Lords words Vnless yee eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood yee have not life in you Joh. VI. 53. seems to argue that this came to be an order from some new act of the Church or part of it rather then that it was practised as coming from the Apostles Whereunto if we add that which here follows though it appear chiefly by S. Cyprian de lapsis to have been frequented in Africk though it were practised in the Western and Eastern Church yet perhaps it will appear to comeshort of S. Austins rule of discerning what comes from the Apostles as affording appearance that it was neither Original nor Catholick as for how prejudiciall this is not the place to determine it The words of Innocent I Pope out of which it is commonly taken for granted that this custome was in use at Rome are these Epist XCIII Apud Augustinum Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratiâ posse donari perfatuum est Nisi enim manducaverint carnem filii homins biberint sanguinem ejus non habebunt vitam in â—semetipsis But that which your brotherhood affirms that they publish that Infants may have the reward of eternal life given them even without the grace of baptism is very foolish For unlesse they eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood they have not life in themselves Where it is plain that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ which he makes necessary to salvation is that which consists in being baptized but of giving them the Eucharist not a word more then this The same fense concerning the eating of the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ in and by baptisme and that onely necessary to salvation S. Austine also most manifestly delivers in a passage alledged by Gratain de Consecrat dist 2 Cap. Quia passus est dominus out of a certain Homily de infantibus which Bede also hath in 1 ad Cor. X. Nulli est aliquatenus dubitandum unumquemque sidelium Corporis sanguinis Dominici tunc esse participem quando in baptismate membrum efficitur Christi nec alienari ab illius panis calicisque consortio etiamsi antequam panem illum comedat calicemque bibat de hoc seculo migraverit in unitate Corporis Christi constitutus No man is any way to doubt that every believer then becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ when he is made a member of Christ by baptism Nor does he become a stranger to the communion of that bread and cup though before eat that bread and drink that cup he goes out of the world estated in the unity of Christs body And thus he expounds also the eating of Christs flesh and drinking his blood de peccatorum meritis remis III. 4. And so he is likewise there to be understood Cap. XX. And to this purpose all those passages of his are in force whereby he requireth nothing but Baptisme to the salvation of Infants And in this sense Hypognost ad Art V. Quomodo vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqnâ spiritu non cibatis carne atque non potatis sanguine Christi qui fusus est in remissionem peccatorum Ecce non baptizatus vitali etiam cibo poculoque privatus dividitur à regno coelornm ubi fons viventium permanet Christus How do ye Pelagians promise little ones not born again of water and the spirit noâ— fed with the flesh nor drenched with the blood of
and really to him that so receives it There is besides another opinion extremely distant from this last in regard thaâ— whereas this ascribes the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist to the faith of them that receive it which is after the consecration of the Sacrament in as much as it is exercised in receiving the same the other extreme opinion that I speak of attibutes it to the hypostatical Union of the two natures in the person of Christ the consequence whereof they will have to be this That the perfections of the God-head are communicated to the humane nature in the person of Christ exalted to the Power of gathering and conducting his Church through this world to the world to come Because this Power being to be exercised in our nature requires and imports the attributes of the God-head to the executing and in the executing of it For seeing the Manhood of Christ cannot communicate with his God-head in giving this spiritual assistance to his Church but first it must be present and seeing this assistance is given by the Sacrament of the Eucharist of necessity they think the Body and Bloud of Christ must be present in the Eucharist to give this assistance by virtue of the hypostatical Union ordained for that purpose And so this opinion becomes extremely opposite to the last because it attributes the presence and so the receiving of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to that Faith which takes effect after that consecration which makes the Sacrament Whereas this attributes the same to the hypostatical Union of the Manhood with the God-head in Christ taking effect without exception after his exaltation to glory which it is manifest is so long since past and done before the celebration of it CHAP. II. That the natural substance of the Elements remains in the Sacrament That the Body and Bloud of Christ is neverthelesse present in the same when it is received not by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradiction nor improperty in the words of our Lord. THis being the question wherein I am now to give judgment and no more required of a Divine than to give such a meaning to those few Scriptures which depose in it as may no way contradict the Rule of Faith I shall without considering how to content those factions which these opinions have made content my self by delivering that opinion which I conceive best satisfies the plain words of the Scripture without trenching upon any ground of Christianity within which the meaning of the Scriptures is to remain I say then first that if wee will not offer open violence to the words of the Scripture and to all consideration of reason that may deserve to direct the meaning of it wee must grant in the first place That the bodily substance of Bread and Wine is not abolished nor ceaseth in this Sacrament by virtue of the consecration of it And of this I conceive the manifest words of the Scripture wheresoever there is mention of this Sacrament are evidence enough Mat. XXVI 26-29 And when they were eating Jesus took bread and having blessed brake and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat this is my Body And taking the cup hee gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink yee all of it For this is that bloud of mine of the New Testament which is shed for many unto remission of sins And I say unto you I will not drink from henceforth of this production of the vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome In S. Mark I can imagine no maâ—er of difference but this Mark XIV 24 25. This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many Verily I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the vine brings forth till I drink it new in the kingdome of God In S. Luke thus XXII 17-20 And taking the cup hee said Take this and divide it amongst you For I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the Vine brings forth till the kingdome of God come And hee took bread and having given thanks brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 23-32 For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus in the night that hee was betrayed took bread and having given thanks brake it saying Take eat this is my body which is broken for you This do in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud This do so often as yee drink it in remembrance of mee For so often as you eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread or drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ But let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Therefore many among you are sick and weak and many fall asleep For if wee did discern our selves wee should not be condemned But when wee are judged wee are chastised by the Lord that wee be not condemned with the world And again 1 Cor. X. 16 17 18. The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ For as the bread is one so wee many are one body For wee all partake of the same bread Had not a man as good bid the Scripture be silent for hee will believe what hee list notwithstanding the Scripture as set all this evidence upon the rack to make it deny that which it cries aloud For when S. Matthew tells us that our Lord took bread and having blessed brake and gave it saying This is my Body that hee took the cup and having given thanks gave it to them saying This is my Bloud Is it not as manifest that hee sayes This bread is my Body this wine is my Bloud as that hee sayes This is my Body this is my Bloud Unlesse wee think that This can demonstrate any thing but that which had been spoke of afore in the processe without giving any mark to know what it is that hee meant to demonstrate There is none of them that deny this but will be puzzled to say himself what hee would have the Disciples to whom this is said understand by This forbidding them to understand that which went before In S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paul the
difficulty is the same For is not This of which our Lord speaks the same that hee took If you say not so because hee gave thanks before hee said This is my Body This is my Bloud at least it must be that which hee broke after hee had given thanks and that of necessity is the same bread which hee took as the same wine For to imagine that This demonstrates bread and wine which when hee sayes is my Body and Bloud are then abolished to make room for the Body and Bloud is that which his affirmation is will by no means allow requiring that which it affirmeth to be verified for that time which it demonstrateth or presenteth to the understanding So that This must be the Body and Bloud of Christ at such time as it is This that is that Bread and that Wine which Gods word demonstrateth In fine whatsoever it is which This may be said to demonstrate besides Bread and Wine it will be unpossible to make appear that the Disciples understood that which the Scriptures whereby wee must learn what they understood expresse not But this is not all When S. Matthew sayes I will drink no more of this production of the Vine which S. Luke sayes that our Lord said before the consecration of the Sacrament either wee must say that hee repeated the same words which is nothing unlikely seeing the tender of the cup at which they were said is repeated by our Lord as it is agreed upon that the Jewes at the Supper of the Passeover did customarily repeat the same And this answer takes away all imputation of confusion from the text of S. Matthew But if any man stand upon it that these words were said onely before the consecration though they are repeated by S. Matthew after it at the delivering of the cup and therefore that it is not called wine which is in the cup after the consecration If hee consider how pertinently hee makes S. Matthew bring in this saying upon the delivery of the cup not supposing that to be wine which was in it hee will finde himself never a whit easied by that escape For how grosse were it for him to put these sayings together This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many to the remission of sins And I say unto you I will drink no more of this production of the Vine had hee not taken that which was in the cup for wine The same holds in the words of S. Mark having followed S. Matthew in this So when S. Paul makes our Lord say Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you is it not manifest that breaking is properly said of bread of a body of flesh not without some impropriety to be understood by that which is common to bread and to a body of flesh And would S. Paul have used a term which necessarily referrs him that hears it to bread were it not bread which our Lord brake after the consecration of the Sacrament in resemblance wherewith this body is said to be broken because it was wounded But when the same S. Paul speaking of that which they take which they eat which they drink which certainly they do after the consecration when it is the Sacrament saith So oft as yee eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ Is there then any reason left why wee should not believe bread to be bread and wine to be wine when the word of God sayes it but that whatsoever the word of God say wee are resolved of our prejudice And when hee saith again Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup speaketh hee of eating and drinking any thing else but that which all Christians receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist If any thing can possibly be more manifest than this it is that which hee addeth arguing that all Christians are one Body â—s the bread is one to wit which they eat because they all partake of onâ— bread And therefore when hee saith further The cup of blessing which weâ— blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ I will not insist upon this that it is called bread after the blessing though S. Matthew observeth that our Lord calleth it so after giving of thanks because the cup may be called the cup of blessing which wee blesse before the blessing be past and done But I say confidently that to make our Lord say that the bread is the communion of the Body and the cup that is the wine that is in the cup which is blessed for what else can be understood to be in the cup with correspondence to bread is the communion of the bloud of Christ is to make him say that which hee did not mean unlesse hee did mean that that is bread and wine whereby Christians communicate in the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But shall this evidence of the nature and substance of Bread and Wine remaining in the Sacrament of the Eucharist even when it is a Sacrament that is when it is received either deface or efface the evidence which the same Scriptures yield us of the truth of Christs body and blood brought forth and made to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by making it to be that Sacrament Surely wee must not suffer such a conceit to prossesse us unlesse wee will offer the same violence to the manifest and expresse words of the Scripture For of necessity when our Lord saith This is my body this is my blood either wee must make is to stand for signifieth and This is my body this is my bloud to be more than this is a sign of my body and bloud Or else the word is will inforce the elements to be called the body and bloud of Christ at that time and for that time when they are not yet received That is to say whether hee that receives them who think it for their advantage to maintain that This is my body and my bloud signifies no more but this is a sign of my body and bloud to advise how they can ground the true real participation of the body and bloud of Christ in by the Sacrament of the Eucharist upon the Scripture allowing no more than the signification of the body bloud of Christ by that Sacrament to be declared in those words of the Scripture that describe the institution of it For that a man receives the body and bloud of Christ spiritually through faith in receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is no more than hee does in not receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist if by the act of a living faith wee do eat the flesh of Christ and drink his
that to be true and by the consideration of it is induced to resolve and undertake the profession of Christianity hee it is that eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ till hee depart from the effect of it For no man can be thought to feed upon that which hee vomits up again Neither can there be found a more exact correspondence than that which is seen between the nourishment of the body in the strength whereof it moves and those reasons whereupon the minde frames the resolutions from which a mans conversation proceeds And because God hath promised to give the Holy Ghost to them that faithfully resolve this and that as many as have the Holy Ghost their mortal bodies shall by the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in them be raised to life everlasting Rom. VIII 11. therefore they that thus eat the body and bloud of Christ shall not dy but live unto everlasting This being the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by Faith and that when the Sacrament of the Eucharist is instituted the effect of it must needs be the same spiritual nourishment and sustenance of the soul but by a new means to wit the receiving of that Sacrament As the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ spiritually by faith presupposes the flesh of Christ crucified and his bloud poured forth so must the eating of it in the Sacrament presuppose the being of it in the Sacrament to wit by the being and becoming of it a Sacrament Unlesse a man can spiritually eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ in and by the Sacrament which is not in the Sacrament when hee eats and drinks it but by his eating and drinking of it comes to be there Hee therefore spiritually eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament who considering the profession Christ calls us to with that faith which supposes him to have signed his calling by finishing his course upon the Crosse resolves to undertake the same and in that resolution participates of the Eucharist But if the flesh and bloud of Christ be not there by the virtue of the consecration of the elements into the Sacrament then cannot the flesh of Christ and his bloud be said to be eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which are not in the Sacrament by being a Sacrament but in him that eats and drinks it For that which hee findes to eat and drink in the Sacrament cannot be said to be in the Sacrament because it is in him that spiritually eats and drinks it by faith Either therefore the flesh and bloud of Christ cannot be eaten and drunk in the Eucharist or it is necessarily in the Sacrament when it is eaten and drunk in it in which if it were not it could not be eaten and drunk in it This is further seen by the words of S. Paul when inferring his purpose to wit that Christians ought not to communicate in things sacrificed to Idols upon that which hee had premised The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ hee addeth 1 Cor. X. 18 20 21. Look upon Israel according to the flesh do not they which eat the Sacrifices partake with the Altar What say I then That an Idol is any thing Or that a thing sacrificed to an Idol is any thing Rather that what the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and I would not have you partake with Devils Yee cannot drink the cup of God and the cup of Devils Yee cannot partake of the Lords Table and the table of Devils These words manifestly suppose the Eucharist to be the communion of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse For as our Lord saith This cup is the New Testament in my bloud or my bloud of the New Testament so is it manifest that God in inacting his Covenant that is his Testament proceeds according as the custome was among the most ancient Nations of the world to solemnize the establishment thereof with sacrifice I have showed you before that the Law was covenanted for with sacrificing Holocausts and Peace-offerings the bloud whereof was sprinkled on all the People But the Elders in the name of the people feasted upon the remaines Exod. XXIV 5-11 And among the Sacrifices of the Law those sin-offerings wherein the Priests shared with the Altar in behalf of them whose sins they expiated by them and the peace-offerings wherein those that offered them as well as the Priests that offered them shared with the Altar had their effect by virtue of the Law and the Covenant which introduced it And therefore they contained a new act by which the Covenant was renewed as to the particular purpose of those Sacrifices and the effect of them in them for whom they were made Correspondently the Covenant of Grace being inacted by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as to Gods part that is to say so farr as to oblige God to grant remission of sins and life everlasting to all those that are baptized into the faithfull profession of Christianity is renewed in the Consecration and Communion of the Eucharist whereby that Sacrifice is renewed and revived unto the worlds end So that as those who eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar whether by the Priests or by themselves did feast with God whose Altar had received and consumed a part of those Sacrifices So those that communicate in the Eucharist do feast upon the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ on the Crosse which God is so well pleased with as to grant the Covenant of Grace and the publication thereof in consideration of it This being evidently that correspondence which the discourse of S. Paul requires remains manifestly proved by the same Though of a truth the words of our Lord when hee saith This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for you Or This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you cannot otherwise be understood than by taking This cup or This which our Lord speaks of to stand for the action of giving and receiving the Sacrament not for that which is given and received in it and by it For otherwise how should a Cup or that which is in it be a Testament But in as much as the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds upon supposition of the Covenant of Grace and therefore imports a profession both on Gods part and on his that receives it of performing the condition to which respectively they binde themselves by the same In that regard nothing can be more properly said than that God tenders by that Sacrament all that the Gospel promises and man by receiving it the Condition which God covenants for at his hands Which whether you call the New Covenant or the New Testament it maters not an heir upon condition of performing the will of the dead being in
all Ecclesiastical Writers do with one mouth bear witnesse to the presence of the Body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist Neither will any one of them be found to asscribe it to any thing but the Consecration or that to any Faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it And upon this account when they speak of the Elements supposing the Consecration to have passed upon them they alwaies call them by the name not of their bodily substance but of the body and bloud of Christ which they are become Justine in the place afore quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wee take them not as common bread and drink but as our Saviour Jesus Christ being incarnate by the Word of God hath both flesh and bloud for our salvation so are wee taught that this food which thanks have been given for by the prayer of that Word which came from him by the change whereof are our bloud and flesh nourished is both the flesh and bloud of that incarnate Jesus Where by comparing the Eucharist with the flesh and bloud of Christ incarnate wherein divers of the Fathers have followed him hee justifies that reason of expounding This is my body this is my bloud which I have drawn from the communication of the properties of the several natures in our Lord Christ incarnate But chiefly you see the Elements are made the body and bloud of Christ by virtue of the Consecration as by the Incarnation humane flesh became the flesh and bloud of Christ So Irenâ—us IV. 34. Quemadmodum qui à terrâ— panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenà coelesti Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam â—am non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis â—â—bentia As the bread that comes from the earth receiving the invocation of God upon it is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the â—arâ—â—ly and the heavenly So also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of rising again For hee had argued afore that because our flesh is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ which if they were not in the Eucharist it could not be therefore they shall rise again By virtue therefore of the conâ—ecration they are there not by the faith of him thâ—t receives according to henaeus Tertul. de Resur cap. VIII Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatned with God Origen in diver loc Hom. V. is the â—â—rst that adviâ—es to say with the Cenâ—uâ—ion when thou receiveâ—â— the Eucharist Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof For then the Lord comes under thy roof saith Origen S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer having said that Christ is our bread makes that the daily bread which wee pray for to wit in the Eucharist And in his book de lapsis makes it to be invading and laying violent hands upon the body of Christ for them who had fallen away in persecution to presse upon the Communion without Penance going afore The Council of Nicâ—a in Gelasius Cyzicenus II. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us not basely consider the bread and the cup set before us but lifting up our mindes let us conceive by faith that there lies upon that holy Table the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world sacrificed without sacrificing by Priests And that wee receiving truly his precious body and bloud S. Hilary de Trin. VIII censuring the Arians who would have the Son to be one with the Father as wee are maintains that wee are not onely by obedience of will but naturally united to Christ because as hee truly took our nature so wee truly take the flesh of his body in the Sacrament Our Lord having said My flesh is truly meat and my bloud truly drink And Hee that cats my flesh and drink my bloud dwells in mee and I in him And much more to the same purpose which could signifie nothing did not our bodies feeding upon the Elements feed upon that which is truly the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament or mystically not by virtue of our feeding which follows but by virtue of the Consecration which goes before For this natural union of the body with that which feeds it serves S. Hilary for the argument of that unity which the Son hath with the Father by nature being the union of our flesh with the flesh of Christ by virtue of our flesh united to the Word incarnate S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag IV. V. argueth that Christ having said of the bread and of the cup This is my body this is my bloud who otherwhiles changed water into wine wee are not to doubt that wee receive his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine And therefore wee are not to look on them as plain bread and wine but as the body and bloud of Christ hee having declared it All this by Sanctification of the Holy Ghost according to the Prayer of the Church But I will go no further in rehâ—arsing the texts of the Fathers which are to be found in all books of Controversies concerning this for the examination of them requires a volume on purpose It shall be enough that they all acknowledg the Elements to be changed translated and turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud though as in a Sacrament that is mystically Yet therefore by virtue of the Consecration not of his faith that receives On the other side that this change is to be understood with that abatement which the nature and substance of the Elements requires supposing it to remain the same as it was I will first presume from those very Authors which I have quoted For would not Justine have us take that for bread which hee saith wee are not to take for common bread when hee saith further that our bodies are nourished by it which by the flesh of our Lord they are not Would not Irenaeus have us think the Bread to be the earthly thing as well as the Body the heavenly when hee saies the Eucharist consists of both Tertullian ad Vxorem II. 5. perswades his wife not to marry a Gentile when hee is dead because when hee perceives her to receive the Eucharist and knows it to be bread hee believes it not to be that which Christians call it Origen when hee tells upon Mat. XV. 11. that it was called the bread of our Lorâ— gives no man in his wits occasion to think that the Elements vanish When hee saith further that it is not the bread but that which was said upon it which profits him that worthily receives it hee would have us take it for what it was whatsoever it is become S. Cyprian saith
requiring of those who acknowledge the same absolute conformity in things altogether needlesse to the unity of the Church the true end of all due Power in the Church For were conformity in this point necessary to the unity of the Church had the Power of the Church of Rome and of the Pope in behalf of it been such by virtue of the first instituting of it as might have required it why then was it not required from the beginning that the service of God through the whole Empire should be celebrated in Latine being the language which the mother Church of the mother City did use and farr more frequented then in Greece than now in the West which is forced to use it Seeing then it appeareth that there is nothing at all to be alleged for so great an inconvenience but that which I have alleged for it and which I acknowledge to be truly alleged and justly but not justly admitted it remaineth that the Church is provided by God of other Laws the observation whereof is and would be a cure to the danger alleged from the change of the publick service of God into the vulgar languages For this danger proceedeth from nothing but from the false pretense of absolute and infallible authority in the Church which is indeed limited by the truth of that Christianity whereupon the Church is grounded and for the maintenance whereof it subsisteth For though this pretense may be a mean to contain simple people in obedience to any thing which shall be imposed so long as they know not any thing better that they ought to have yet if conscience be once awaked with reasons convincing that the authority instituted by God in his Church is abused to the prejudice and hinderance of the salvation of Gods people it is no marvail either that they should neglect all their interest of this world to seek themselves redress or that they should mistake themselves in seeking it and think the redress to be the destroying of all authority in the Church So that the preventing of danger by the necessary reformation of abuses in Church maters must not be thought to consist in pretenses as inconsistent with the common good of the Churches as with the truth of Christianity But in submitting to those bounds which the grounds of Christianity evidently establisheth And which unlesse Christianity make people more untractable then all the rudenesse which they are born and bred with makes barbarous Nations and wilde Beasts the sense of those mischiefs which difference of Religion hath brought in and maintained in Christendome must needs have disposed them to imbrace and to cherish for the future avoiding of the same In the next place supposing the Eucharist as the rest of the service to be celebrated in a language vulgarly understood we are to debate whither the Eucharist require Communion or whether the private Masses now allowed and countenanced in the Church of Rome be of the institution of our Lord and his Apostles Nor shall I need to use many words to free the term of private Masses from the exception which is sometimes made That all Masses are publick actions of the Church repeating the Sacrifice of Christ crucified to the benefit of his Church For seeing the term of a private Mass signifieth a thing visible The celebration of that Eucharist whereof no body but the Priest that consecrates it doth communicate I ask no man leave to use the term signifying no more by it but putting the rest to debate whither as de facto in the Church of Rome so de jure according to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles the sacrifice of Christ crucified is and ought to be either repeated or represented and commended by celebrating the Eucharist so as no body but the Priest that consecrates to communicate or whether the institution of our Lord require that Christians communicate in the Eucharist which they celebrate A dispute wherein nothing that is said in the Scripture concerning the order and practice of our Lord and his Apostles can leave any doubt For though there may be mention of celebrating the Eucharist where there is no mention of communicating in it which is an argument meerly negative not from the Scripture but from this or that Scripture and of no consequence to say S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 14-17 1 Tim. II. 1-6 mentioneth the celebration of the Eucharist not mentioning any Communion therefore no body did communicate yet are we farr from the least inckling of any circumstance to show that there was this Sacrament celebrated when there was none but he that consecrated it to communicate Nay if we regard the institution Do this in remembrance of me referring as much to take eat and drinke as to the blessing or thanksgiving whereby I have showed that our Lord did consecrate If we regard S. Paul affirming that the bread which we bless and the cup which we drinke is the communion of the body and blood of Christ 1 Cor. X. 16. and reproving the Corinthians because the rich prevented the poor and suffered them not to communicate in their Oblations out of which the Eucharist was consecrated as I showed afore We shall be bold to conclude that so farr as appears by the Scripture all that did celebrate did communicate as all that assisted did celebrate if that be true which I proved afore that the Prayers of the Congregation is that which consecrates the Eucharist to wit supposing Gods Ordinance The same appears by Justine Martyr and other the ancientest Records of the Church that describe this office But I canot better express the sense of the Church in this point then by alleging the decretall Epistles of the Popes before Innocent the I. or his Predecessor Syricius which being forged by Isidore Mecater some DCC years after Christ as hath been discovered by men of much learning do notwithstanding contain this Rule that he who communicates not be not admitted to the service of the Church Which he that forged them would never have fathered upon the ancient Popes had it not been evident to all that were seen in the Canons of the Church that it was of old a mater of censure to be present at celebrating the Eucharist and not to communicate in it A thing evident enough by many Canons of Councils yet extant and foisted into those decretals to no other purpose but to make men believe in after ages that those Canons were made to prosecute and to bring to effect those things which the Popes had decreed afore as if their authority had been always the same as it was at the time of this forgery Now it is well enough known what pretenses have been made and what consequences drawn from the speculation of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross repeted or represented by this Sacrament to perswade Christendom that the benefit thereof in remission of sinnes and infusion of grace and all the effects of Christs Passion is derived upon Gods
easie to have derived the Title of the Church to Tithes in the nature of First-fruits and Oblations whereof they are but a kinde from the time and practice and constitution of the Apostles which the History of Tithes findes no evidence for till CCCC years after Christ But it would have spoiled the designe of the work if as it is commonly thought the designe was to destroy all title of divine right which the Church hath to that which is once consecrated to it I must touch some testimonies here because the mater is so questionable That of Basil shall clear mee in the first place that I bring in no new interpretation of the proceedings of the primitive Christians at Jerusalem Hee in Serm. de Instit Monachorum argueth against him that having made the profession of a Monk reserves to himself any thing either of his own will or of his worldly good from the example of Ananias and Sapphira who having consecrated their Land to God by professing to give the price of it to the Church detained part of the price and by detaining it drew upon themselves that judgment of God which wee know So also concerning the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 20 21 22. I will allege the passage of S. Ambrose or whosoever writ the Commentary under his name to show that I do no new thing when I argue that they suppose the right of the Church in First-fruits and Oblations Hos notat qui sic in Ecclesiam conveniebant ut munera sua offerentes advenientibus Presbyteris quia adhuc Rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus erant constituti totum sibi qui obtulerat vindicaret schismatis causâ Dissensiones enim inter eos Pseudo-apostoli seminaverant ità ut oblationes suas zelarentur cùm unâ atque eâdem prece omnium oblationes benedicerentur ut ii qui ut assolet fieri von obtulerant aut unde offerrent non habebant pudore correpti confunderentur non sumentes partem Et tam citò illud agebant ut supervenientes non inveniebant quod ederent Ideoque si sic inquit convenitis ut quisque suum sumat domi haec agenda non in Ecclesia nbi unitatis mysterii causâ convenitur non dissensionis Munus enim oblatum totius populi fit quia in uno pane omnes significantur 1 Cor. X. 17. per id enim quòd omnes unum sumus de uno pane sumere oportet Hee sets a mark upon those who so assembled in the Church that presenting their Oblations to the Priests that came first Governors not being yet placed in all Churches hee that offered took all for himself in regard of schism For the false Apostles had sowed dissentions among them so that being zealous of their own Oblations whereas the Oblations of all were blessed with one and the same Prayer they who as it is ordinary had not offered or had not whereof to offer were seized with shame and confounded not getting any share Therefore if so yee meet as every one to take his own these things saith hee are to be done at home not in the Church where the meeting is not for dissentions but for unities and the mysteries sake For the gift that is offered becomes all the peoples because by one bread all are signified For in as much as wee are all one wee are all to take of the same bread Here you have both the order of their Feasts of Love and the disorder which the Apostle corrects The Oblations of all the Congregation made an intertainment for all rich and poor They were all blessed at once by some of the Priests This blessing including in it the Consecration of the Eucharist For hee saith that they assembled for the Mysteries sake that is for the Sacrament alleging S. Pauls words spoken of the Eucharist That all are to take of the same bread because all are one Hereby they became the Churches goods to intertain the Body of it And they that challenged their Oblations for their own by complying with the Priests who consecrated them did it out of zeal to their own faction that they who were not of it might not partake of their Oblations as those whom they would not have to be of the Church What is then the difference between those of Jerusalem and these There men laid down estates at the Apostles feet to maintain this Communion daily through the year and continually As the Scriptures quoted out of the Acts do evidence that it was practised for the service of God in the Offices proper to Christianity Whereupon it is called the daily ministration Acts VI. 1. Here at Corinth the First-fruits of their goods which they offered from time to time as the maintenance of their Assemblies and Communion required served the turn For when Christianity was propagated it was not possible that all Christians should give that daily attendance upon the service of God for which those of Jerusalem are commended in the Acts. Therefore S. Chrysostome in ad Cor. Hom. XXVII excellently reasons That as at Corinth they did not contribute their estates as at Jerusalem So the reason was because this Communion was not continual but upon set dayes On which after the Communion of the Eucharist the Service being done they refreshed themselves altogether with a common internment I confesse hee saith that those at Jerusalem had all things common which is to be understood with that abatement which the premises require So farre as the maintenance of this Communion required and at the good will of those whose hearts God touched to do it For the rest that which I say is not mine but S. Chrysostomes In the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians you may see the disorder which hee labors to compose grew about who should consecrate the Eucharist and by consequence about disposing of the peoples Oblations p. 53 54. But Irenaeus alone is enough to serve my turn His words are these IV. 32. Sed discipulis suis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis non quasi indigenti sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint eum qui ex creaturâ panis est accepit gratias egit dicens Hoc est corpus meum Et calicem similiter qui est ex creaturâ secundùm nos suum sanguinem confessus est Et Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento And our Lord counsailing his Disciples to offer unto God First-fruits out of his creatures not as if hee wanted but that they might neither be fruitlesse nor thanklesse hee took that bread which was made of his creature and gave thanks saying This is my Body Likewise hee acknowledged the cup consisting of the creature which wee use to be his bloud Teaching the new oblation of the New Testament which the Church receiving
declares himself further when hee saith IV. 34. Panis percipiâ—ns invocationem Dei jam non communis est The bread that hath admitted the invocation of God is no more common bread To wit that word of instituion in virtue whereof the Church calleth upon God to make the elements his body and bloud Some of them say it is done by Gods word as the world was made by it But the world was made by the word of Gods command And in these words This is my body this is my bloud command there is none In these Do this in remembrance of mee there is a command which includes a warrant or promise Though the effect of it depend upon the execution of the command by the Church whereas immediately upon Gods word the world was made And this is that word S. Augustine meant when hee said Accedat verbum ad elementum sit Sacramentum The word being applyed to the element the Sacrament is made But this application is the execution of Christs Ordinance not saying that hee said This is my body this is my bloud For hee saith the body and bloud of Christ is onely that quod ex fructibus terrae susceptum ac prece mysticá consecratum rite sumimus Which wee duly receive being taken out of the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer which I speak of De Trinit III. 4. To the same purpose Epist LIX A saying or two of S. Chrysostomes indeed I remember that name those words speaking of the consecration as by which the flesh and bloud of Christ became present in the Eucharist In II ad Tim. Hom. II. that as the words which our Saviour then spoke are the same which the Priest now uses so is the Sacrament the same and consecrated by Christ as that was And Hom. de Judâ— hee saith to inferre the same The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest but the elements are consecrated by the Power and Grace of God This is saith hee my body By this word the bread and wine are consecrated Not by the rehearsing of these words but by virtue of his command Do this And by virtue of that blessing or thanksgiving upon which our Lord affirms the elements which hee had consecrated to be his body and bloud For the meaning may well be referred to the institution of Christ and the execution thereof by the Church which S. Chrysostom supposing may well say that upon this affirmative of our Lord This is my body this is my bloud depends the Consecration of the Eucharist Not as that which effecteth it but as that which evidenceth and assureth it in as much as it was said by our Lord Christ upon supposition of that blessing or prayer which hee appointeth it to be consecrated with So the Author de Caenâ Domini in S. Cyprian that since our Lord said Do this in remembrance of mee This is my body this is my bloud the bread and the cup being consecrated by these words become profitable to the salvation of man True it is indeed in as much as the appointment of our Lord Christ is not completely executed by consecrating the Eucharist but by respectively delivering and receiving it you may truly say that by virtue of these words Take eat this is my body this is my bloud that which every man receives becomes the body and bloud to him that receives it For as I have said that it becomes the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in order to our feasting upon it so is that which I receive completely and finally the body and bloud of Christ to mee when I receive it But this sense supposing it already to be the body and bloud of Christ to all that communicate in it according to Christs ordinance cannot be to the purpose of them that would have it become such to all that receive it by virtue of these words by which it becomes so finally to him that finally receives it An Objection indeed there is but which lies against the other opinion as much as against this out of S. Gregory Epist VII 64. Indict II. Orationem verò Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus quia mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent Et valdè mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Et ipsam traditionem quam Redempâ—or noster composuit super eâ—us corpus sanguinem taceremus But the Lords Prayer wee therefore say straight after the Prayer because the custome of the Apostles was to consecate the sacrifice of oblation with that alone And it seemed to mee very inconvenient that wee should say over the oblation the Prayer which a School Doctor had composed And silence the Tradition which our Redeemer composed over his body and bloud For if the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist by saying the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory here seems to affirm thâ—n can there be no Tradition of the Apostles whereby a certain Prayer is prescribed as that wherein the consecration of the Eucharist consisteth Therefore if it should appear that S. Gregory did indeed believe that the Apostles used the Lords Prayer in celebrating the Eucharist with an intent to consecrate the Sacrament by the same I confesse I should rather adhere to S. Basil affirming the Apostles to have delivered certain words that is the meaning of certain words to call upon God for the consecrating of the elements into the body and bloud with For in so doing I should not preferâ— S. Basil but the whole Church the practice whereof so general and so original as hath been declared could have no beginning but that which our common Christianity pretendeth from the Apostles before S. Gregory And truly that the Consecration should end with the Lords Prayer I do easily believe to come from the practice of the Apostles so ancient and so general I finde that custom which S. Gregory maintains Nor is it any more that S. Jerome hath said in his third book against the Pelagians though hee is sometimes alleged for that which S. Gregory saith Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater noster qui es in coelis So taught hee his Disciples that believers dare say every day at the sacrifice of his Body Our Father which art in heaven By â—nd by Paâ—em quotidianum sive super omnes substantias venturum Apostoli deprecantur ut digni sint assumptione Corporis Christi The Apostles pray for daily bread or above all substances to come that they may be worthy to receive the Body of Christ All this concerns the concluding of the Consecration with the Lords Prayer as it did alwaies conclude For â—â—r â—ight hee allegeth that as soon as a man is baptized coming to the Communion hee is to say Forgive us our Trespasses But before that form was made which
comparison S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses in this case is sanctified by virtue of the Name of Christ remaining the same for sensible substance for I confidently maintain that the negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroyes the sense as the comparison justifies for who sayes that the oile of the Chrisme or the water of Baptisme is changed for substance but for force changed into a spiritual virtue So also the water both that is exâ—rcized and that which Baptisme is done with not onely retains the worse but also receiveth sanctification Theodoret Dial. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord would have those that receive the divine mysteries not regard the nature of the things they see but upon the change of their names believe the change which grace effecteth For hee who called his natural body corn and bread and again named himself the Vine honours the visible Symboles with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding his grace to it And Dial. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither do the mystical signes after consecration depart from their own nature but remain in the same substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched as afore The Pâ—eface to the Romane Edition of these Dialogues â—aith that Theodoret uses this language because the Church had as yet decreed nothing in this point An excuse much like the censure of the Epistles of Isidore of Pâ—lusium printed at Anwerpe which are licenced as containing nothing contrary to faith oâ— good manners For if the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith then may whosoever licenses books passe this censure because by the act of the Church making that Faith which was not so afore the dead might incurr the contrary censure But supposing that the Church is not able to do such an act that which was not contrary to the Faith when Theodoret writ it can never be contrary to it I will end with Facundus because the formal terms of my opinion are contained in his words Sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit As wee call the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup his body and bloud Not because the bread is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and bloud Whereupon our Lord himself also called the bread and cup which having blessed hee delivered to his disciples his body and bloud This is in few words the sense of the whole Church concerning this businesse Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna saith that the Gnosticks forbore the Eucharist because they believed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins which the Lord raised again by his goodnesse But why believed they not this because they would not believe Transubstantiation or because they would not believe that our Lord Christ had flesh Let Tertullianâ— speak contra Marc. IV. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterùm vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset That bread which hee took and distributed to his disciples hee made his body saying This is my body That is the figure of my body But the figure it had not been if the truth of his body were not Otherwise an empty thing such as an apparition is â—ad not been capable of a figure For as Maximus saith in the third of those Dialogues against the Marcionists that go under Origens name what body and bloud was that whereof hee ministred the bread and the cup for signs and images commanding the Disciples to renew the remembrance of them by the â—ame As for that which is alleged out of Irenaeus I. 9. of Marcus the Magician and Heretick Pro calice enim vino mixto â—ingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermâ—nem invocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit uâ— putetur ea Gratia ab eis quae sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare in illius caliâ—em l. illum per invocationem ejus Making as though hee would give thanks for the cup mixed with wine and inlarging the word of invocation by which I said the Eucharist is consecrated to much length hee makes it to appear purple and red That men may think that Grace drops the bloud thereof from the Powers over all into that cup by the means of his invocation For had Irenaeus said that this Magician turned the wine into the substance of bloud in truth or in appearance it might have been alleged that the Christians whose Sacrament this Magician counterfeited though other Gnosticks as Ignatius saith quite balked the Eucharist and used it not believed that to be bodily bloud which is in the chalice and that therefore hee did it But when hee saith onely that hee made it appear purple and red perhaps hee used white wine which by juggling hee made seem red However there is no appearance that because hee made that look red which was in the cup therefore those Christians whom hee labored thereby to seduce did believe the bodily substance of Christs bloud to be in the Eucharist in stead of the substance of wine and under the dimensions of it It remains that I take notice in as few words as is possible of those contentions that have passed about this presence and the dissiculties which Transubstanhath found in getting the footing which it hath in the Western Church The book which Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corby near Arniens writ under the Sons of Charles the Great to prove that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is that same which was born of the Virgin is yet extant Though the more curious finde no such thing as Transubstantiation in it but rather a conceit of the impanation of Christs body if such a hideous term may passe that is that the God-head of our Lord Christ being by the operation of the Holy Ghost united to the elements the body and bloud of Christ is by the same means united to the fame A conceit not farr wide of that which Rupertus Abbot of Duitsh near Cullen about the year MCX teacheth that the bread is assumed by the Word of God to be his body as that is his body which was formed of the flesh of the Virgin Nor is there in effect much difference between this conceit and that of Consubstantiation at least according to those that ground
served by his Church It is plain enough to all that have the use of reason what that communion of the Church and the Society thereof is able to effect and hath effected in preserving the Rule of Christianity wherein the salvation of Christians consisteth free and intire from the infection of mens devices expresly or by consequence destructive to it as well as the conversation of Christians from unchristian manners But if the Church be trusted to exact the profession of Christianity of all that require by Baptisme to be admitted unto the Communion of the Church It must by consequence be intrusted to exact of them also the performance of that which they have professed that is undertaken to professe For the profession being the condition upon which they are admitted to the Communion of the Church the performance or at least a presumption of the performance must needs be the condition upon which they injoy it Upon this ground the Church becomes not onely a number of men but a Society Corporation and Communion of Christians in those Offices wherewith God hath declared that hee will be served by Christians For upon supposition of such a Declaration or such a Law of God it is that the Church becomes a Body or Corporation of all Christians though under several Common-wealths and Soveraignties of this world As there are in all States several by Corporations subsisting by some act or Law of the Soveraign Powers of the same For if God had not appoâ—â—ted what Offices hee will be served with by his people at their common Assemblies there could be no ground why the Church should be such a Society founded by God there being nothing appointed by God for the members of it to communicate in But were there nothing but the Sacrament of the Eucharist acknowledged to have been delivered by God to his people to be frequented and celebrated by them at their common Assemblies that alone would be enough to demonstrate the foundation and institution of the Communion and Corporation of the Church by God For of a truth the rest of those Offices wherewith God requires to be served by Christians are the same by which hee required to be served by his ancient people before Christianity setting aside that difference with the divers measure of the knowledge of God in this and in that estate must needs produce Though there is no serving of God by the blood of bulls and goats nor by other ceremonies and sacrifices of Moses Law under Christianity Yet were the praises of God the hearing of his Word read and the instructing and exhorting of his people in it and to it together with the sacrifice of Prayer frequented by Gods people under the Law as still God is served and is to be served with them under Christianity And upon this account I have truly said elswhere as I conceive it that the Corporation of the Church is founded upon the privilege which God hath granted all Christians of assembling themselves for the service of God though supposing that the Powers of the world should forbid them so to do For this privilege consists in nothing else but in that command which God hath given his Church of serving him with these Offices Whereupon it necessarily insues that notwithstanding whatsoever command of Secular Powers they are forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them that are not of the Church Seeing they cannot be commanded to serve God in the Communion of the Church but they must be forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them which are not of the Church And upon this ground stands all the Power which the Church can challenge in limiting the circumstances and conditions upon which men may communicate in these Offices Which as it may justly seem of it self inconsiderable to the world and the Powers that govern it So when those Powers take upon them to establish the exercise of it by their Lawes If they maintain not the Church in that Power which of right and of necessity it had from God before they professed to maintain Christianity they destroy indeed that which in word they professe But if they take upon them to maintain it in the right which originally it had to limit the said circumstances by such Rules as by the act of Secular Powers become Lawes to their people then must the Power of the Church become as considerable as it is indeed in all States and Common-wealths that retain the Christianity which they had from the beginning in this point This being the ground and this the mater of Ecclesiastical Lawes and the Sacrament of the Eucharist being that Office proper to Christianity in order to the Communion whereof all Lawes limiting the circumstances and conditions of the said Communion are devised and made It seems requisite to my designe in the first place to void those Controversies concerning the same which all men know how much they have contributed to the present divisions of the Church For the determination of them will be without doubt of great consequence to determine the true and right intent of those Lawes which serve onely to limit those circumstances which are onely the condition of communicating in this and those other Offices Concerning which there is no other controversie on foot to divide the Church but that which concerns the said circumstances Now what differences concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist are mater of division to the Church I may suppose all the world knows the opinion of Transubstantiation being so famous as it is Which importeth this That in celebrating this Sacrament upon pronouncing of the words with which our Lord delivered it to his Disciples This is my Body this is my Bloud the substance of the elements Bread and Wine ceaseth and is abolished the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ coming into their stead though under the species of Bread and Wine that is to say those accidents of them which our senses witnesse that they remain In opposition whereunto some have proceeded so farr as to teach that this Sacrament is no more than a meer sign and the celebration and communion thereof barely the renewing of our Christian profession of believing in Christ crucified whom it representeth importing no spiritual grace at all to be tendred by it from God Which may justly seem to be the opinion of the Socinians and properly to give the name of Sacramentaries to all that professe it For in reason and justice wee are to difference it from the opinion of those that hold it for a sign appointed by God to tender the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually to be received by it of as many as with a lively faith communicate in it Though these also cannot pretend to make it any more than a sign by virtue of that consecration which makes it a Sacrament Seeing it is the faith of him that receives it as they say which makes it the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually though truly
the same state with him that contracteth upon articles But there is as much said when our Lord saith onely This is my body which is given for you if it be rightly understood that is supposing the body of Christ to have been given to be sacrificed for us upon the Crosse For hee that tenders this to eat thereby declares that hee incites to the profession of that Covenant which otherwise appears to have been inacted by that which hee tenders The same sense is contained in S. Pauls words 1 Cor. V. 8 9. Christ your Passeover is slain for you Let us therefore feast not with old loven nor with the leven of malice and deceit but with the unlevened bread of sincerity and truth For if wee consider the circumstance of time and place which our Lord took to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist just when the Paschal Lamb was eaten how shall wee deny the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to have been as presently received there as the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb was the subject and occasion of the Feast at which hee ordained it But the discourse by which the Apostle perswades Christians to separate themselves from the Jewes Ebr. XIII 10-16 is most pertinent to this purpose as that which is not to be understood otherwise Though when hee saith Wee have an Altar whereof those that serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat I allow that by an Altar hee means metonymically a Sacrifice For proving his intent by instancing in those Sacrifices for sin the bloud whereof was carried within the vail being by the Law appointed to be burnt without the Camp or City Jerusalem hee supposes them to figure our Lord Christ who suffered without Jerusalem Inferring thereupon that they ought to go forth of the communion of the Synagogue though they were to suffer persecution at the hands of their brethren for it But when hee proceedeth By him therefore let us offer to God the sacrifice of praise continually that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his Name And to do good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Either wee must conceive him to return to his purpose and to show what Sacrifice hee meant when hee said Wee have an Altar of which they that wait upon the Tabernacle have no right to eat Or wee can give no reason what hee meant to argue that the Jewes have no right to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse which Christians pretend not to eat of in any Sacrifice but in the Eucharist And surely if wee consider but the name of Eucharist wee cannot think it could have been more properly signified than by calling it the sacrifice of praise the fruit of the lips that confesse the Name of God For when hee proceeds to exhort not to forget communicating their goods do wee not know and have wee not made it to appear that this must be by their oblations to the Altar the first-fruits of their goods whereof the Eucharist being first consecrated the rest served the necessities of the Church Which as hath been showed was the original of all Consecrations and Dedications that have been made in Christianity If therefore the eating of the Sacrifice of the Crosse in the Sacrament of the Eucharist mean no more but the signifying and the figuring of that eating of the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is done by a lively Faith that is by every one that considers the death of Christ with that Faith which supposing all that the Gospel sayes of it to be true resolves faithfully to professe Christianity the question is why the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by God why in those elements and to what purpose seeing without Gods appointment men could have done it of themselves to the same effect But if it be manifest that by the Sacrament of the Eucharist God pretends to tender us the communion of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse then is there another presence of the body and bloud of our Lord in the Sacrament beside that spiritual presence in the soul which that living faith effecteth without the Sacrament as well as in the receiving of it Which kinde of presence you may if you please call the representation of the Sacrifice of Christ so as you understand the word representation to signifie not the figuring or resembling of that which is onely signified But as it signifies in the Romane Laws when a man is said repraesentare pecuniam who payes ready money Deriving the signification of it à re praesenti not from the preposition re Which will import not the presenting of that againe to a mans senses which once is past but the tendring of that to a mans possession which is tendred him upon the place That this is the intent of the Sacrament of the Eucharist one peremptory argument there remains in the words of S. Paul when hee sayes Whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ For neither can it be said that the Apostle by way of hyperbole calls the slighting of Gods ordinance which hee hath appointed to signifie Christs death the crucifying of our Lord again Because it is manifest that his menace is grounded upon a particular consideration of the nature of the crime not upon that which is seen in every sin Renouncing Christianity indeed is truly the crucifying of Christ again as the Apostle shewes Ebr. VI. 6. and unworthily receiving the Eucharist is by just construction the renouncing of Christianity because that is it which renews the bond of observing it But otherwise it were too cold an expression to make S. Paul call it the crucifying of Christ for that which is common to all sins Nor would it serve the turn For when it follows Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Unlesse a man discern the Lords Body where it is not of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be not made to be there by being discerned to be there It will now be objected that I hold things inconsistent and state such a sense of our Lords words as makes contradictories true For if bread and wine remaining bread and wine can be also the body and bloud of Christ that is unlesse granting them to be that which they are wee deny them to be that which is not that which wee grant them to be there will be no cause why wee should believe any thing to be that which it is more than that which it is not All difference being a sufficient ground of that contradiction which denies any thing to be that which differs from it that is which it is not The difficulty of answering this is the same which every man findes when hee is put to prove that which is most evident or to make that clear by words which all mens common sense admits Supposing
the bread and the wine to remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as sense informs and the word of God inforces if the same word of God assirm there to be also the body and bloud of Christ what remaineth but that bread and wine by nature and bodily substance be also the bodily flesh and bloud of Christ by mystical representation in that sense which I determined even now and by spiritual grace For what reason can be imagined why the material presence of bread and wine in bodily substance should hinder the mystical and spiritual presence of the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament whereby they are tendered of grace to them that receive Shall they be ever a whit the more present in this sense if the substance of bread and wine be abolished than if it be not Certainly unlesse wee believe the spiritual grace of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to possesse those dimensions which the Elements hold and if so then are they not there Sacramentally and mystically but bodily and materially wee can give no reason why the bodily presence of the Elements should hinder it So farr is this from being strange to the nature and custome of humane speech that supposing the invisible presence of one thing in another and with another which is visibly present it cannot otherwise be expressed than by saying this is that though every man know what distance there is between their natures The Dove in the which the Holy Ghost was seen to come down and rest upon our Lord the fiery Tongues in which the Holy Ghost rested upon the Apostles the fire and the whirlewinde in the which Gods Angels attend upon him and upon his commands in regard whereof it is said Psalm CIV 4. Hee maketh his Angels Spirits and his Ministers a flaming fire are they not as truly said to be the Holy Ghost or those Angels as the Holy Ghost or those Angels is said to come down to rest or to move because those things rest and come down or move whereas the Holy Ghost otherwise can neither rest nor come down nor those Angels move as the fire or the winde moves in which they are I know it may be said that neither the Dove nor those Tongues are called the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures Nor do I intend to build upon any supposition that they are This I say whosoever understands the capacity of words serving for instruments to signifie mens mindes may firmly conclude rhat they may as well be said to be the Holy Ghost as it may be said that the Holy Ghost came down because the Dove came down For can there be any occasion for a man of sense to conceive cloven Tongues of fire to be the Godhead of the Holy Ghost because they are called the Holy Ghost in regard they are used to demonstrate the presence of it when no man complains that any man of sense hath occasion to mistake the God-head to move because the Holy Ghost is said to come down in the bodily shape of a Dove I know it may be said and is said that in the Text of the Psalm that I quoted it is not to be translated winds but spirits or spiritual substances because the Apostle having alleged it to show the difference between them and our Lord Christ Ebr. I. 7 14. inferreth that they are ministring Spirits signifying thereby not winds but that which Christians signifie by the name of spiritual substances And I yield that they are so called not onely in the common language of Christians but in the Apostle also here and by our Lord speaking in the common phrase of Gods people when hee saith A spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see mee have Luke XXIV 39. upon occasion of that appearance of Gods majesty which is either presented to or described by the Prophets in the Old Testament with his Throne attended by Angels the visible signs of whose presence are whirlewind and fire So in the place quoted Psalm CIV 2. That puts on light for a robe stretches the heavens as a curtain laies the beams of his chambers in the waters makes the clouds his chariot and walks upon the wings of the winde Whereupon followes That makes his Angels Spirits or Winds and his Ministers a flame of fire which answers winds not spiritual substances Compare the description of Gods appearance Psal L. 3. Our God shall come and shall not keep silence a consuming fire shall go before him and be very tempestuous round about either with the visions of the Prophet Ezekiel I. and Daniel VII or with the description of the same laid down Psalm XVIII 10-14 and you will have reason to say as I do Especially when you reade Hee rode upon a Cherub and did fly hee came flying upon the wings of the wind where a Cherub in the first clause is the wind in the second The same sense being repeted according to the perpetual custome of the Psalms So when Angels appeared in the shape of men was it not true to say this is an Angel but wee must suppose the nature of man abolished If the Holy Ghost and Angels be of spiritual nature the flesh and the bloud of Christ bodily then are they at as great distance from the Dove from the Tongues from the Fire from the Wind from the men in which they appeared as the flesh and bloud of Christ from the elements of the Eucharist Nor is the mystical and Sacramental presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ever a whit more destructive to the bodily presence of the elements then the invisible presence of the Holy Ghost or Angels to the visible presence of those things in which they were Nay if I may without offense allege that which is most pertinent to this purpose not being usually alleged in it That maner of speech which all orthodoxe Christians use in calling the person of our Lord Christ either God or Man according to the nature which they intend chiefly to signifie or in ascribing the properties of each nature to the said person respectively to the subject of their speech hath no other ground than this which I speak of For all affirmatives Philosophers know signifie the subject that a man speaks of to be the very same thing with that which is attributed to it As when this wall is said to be white this wall is the same subject with this white Therefore when a thing is said to be that which in nature wee see it is not as when a mans picture is said to be hee the saying though extremely proper if you regard what use the elegance of speech requires is unproper to the right understanding of the nature of the things wee speak of though a man would not be so well understood commonly if hee should go about to explain his meaning by more or other words As I conceive I am not so well understood in writing thus
as our Lord was when hee spoke the words that I indeavor to clear When therefore the properties of the divine nature are attributed to the Manhood of our Lord supposing as all good Christians do that neither natures nor properties are confounded what can wee say but this That by such attributions as these in the Language of his Prophets the Apostles God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union of two natures in one person of our Lord And what shall wee then say when the name of Christs body and bloud is attributed to the bread and wine of the Eucharist but that God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union between the body and bloud of Christ and the said bread and wine whereby they become as truly the instrument of conveying Gods Spirit to them who receive as they ought as the same Spirit was alwaies in his natural body and bloud For it maters not that the union of the two natures is indissoluble that of Christs body and bloud onely in order to the use of the elements that is speaking properly from the consecration to the receiving The reason of both unions being the same that makes both supernatural to wit the will of God passed upon both and understood by the Scriptures to be passed upon both though to several effects and purposes Therefore I am no way singular in this sense All they of the Confession of Auspurg do maintain it before mee and think it enough to say that it is an unusual or extraordinary maner of speech when one thing is said to be another of a several kinde and nature but which the unusual and extraordinary case that is signified both expounds and justifies They indeed maintain another reason of this presence and therefore another maner of it For if by virtue of the hypostatical union the omnipresence of the God-head is communicated to the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist then is the flesh and bloud of Christ there not onely mystically but bodily But if supposing both the elements and the flesh and bloud of Christ bodily present it may neverthelesse truly be said This is my flesh This is my bloud How much more if as I say the elements onely be there bodily but the flesh and bloud of Christ onely mystically and spiritually And therefore I finde it reasonable for mee to argue that the sense of so many men both learned and others understanding the words of our Lord in this sense ought to convince any man that it is not against common sense and therefore tending so much to make good the words of our Lord and the holy Scripture it not to be let go I do not intend neverthelesse hereby to grant that the sense of these words This is my body this is my bloud for This is the signe of my body and bloud is a true sense because abundance of learned as well as ordinary people take it so to be But well and good that it might have been maintained to be the true sense of them had no more been expressed by the Scripture in that businesse For then I suppose the sense of the Church of which I say nothing as yâ—t could not have evidenced so much more as I have deduced by consequence from the rest of the Scripture But the mystical presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being further deduced from the Scripture by good consequence I conceive the common understanding of all those men who granting that do not grâ—nt the Elements to be abolished sufficient ground for mee that the signification of these words This is my body this is my bloud inforceth it not Whereas on the other side the substance of the Elements is not distinguishable by common sense from their accidents for whether the quantity and the mater be all one or not whether beside the mater and accidents which the quantity is invested with a substantial form berequisite is yet disputable among Philosophers And therefore no reason can presume that the Apostles to whom these words were spoken did understand This of which our Lord speaks to signifie the sensible accidents of bread an swine severed from the material substance of the same I may therefore very well undertake to say that this sense of the words is more proper than conceiving the substance of bread and wine to be abolished the effect of grace to the Church remaining the same For the property of speech is not to be judged by the signification of a single word but by the tenor of the speech wherein it stands and the intent of him that speaks declared by his actions and the viâ—ible circumstances of the same Now our Lord having taught those to whom this was spoken that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud is done by living faith must be supposed by appointing this Sacrament tendring his flesh to eat and his bloud to drink to limit and determine an office in the doing whereof his flesh and bloud is either eaten and drunk or crucified according to the premises If then the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud out of the Sacrament be meerly spiritual by living faith shall not the presence thereof in the Sacrament be according Shall it not be enough that they are mystically present in the Sacrament to be spiritually eaten by them that receive them with living faith to be crucified of them that do not Is it any way pertinent to the spiritual eating of them that they are bodily present Is it not far more proper to that which our Lord was about tending without question to the spiritual union which hee seeks with his Church that hee should be understood to promise the mystical than the bodily presence of them in the Sacrament which is nothing else than a Mystery by the proper signification and intent of it I grant an abatement of that which the terms of body and bloud were originally imposed to signifie being without question that which is visible and subject to sense But if the nature of the action which our Lord was about of the subject which his words expresse be such as requires this abatement then cannot the original sense of these words be so proper for this place as this abatement Here I will observe that the Council of Trent it self Sess XIII cap. I. speaketh so warily in this mater as not to exclude all maner of tropes from the right sense of these words saying Indignissimum sanè flagitium est ea à quibusdam contentiosis pravis hominibus ad sictitia imaginarios trapos quibus veritas caernis sanguinis Christi negatur contra universum Ecclesiâ— sensum detorqueri It is indeed a very great indignity that they are by some contentious and perverse persons wrested aside to contrived and imaginary tropes whereby the truth of Christs flesh and bloud is denied contrary to the whole sense of the Church They were wiser than to
impose upon all their Divines a necessity to maintain that there is no trope in the words This is my cup of the New Testament which so many of their Predecessors had granted because it could not be denied Which being granted must needs take place in This is my body by necessary consequence And surely the common principles of Grammar and Rhetorick will inforce it when they inform us that tropes are used as cloaths are either for necessity because there are more things much more conceptions than words to signifie them For thereupon necessity constrains to turn a word to signifie that which it was not at first intended to signifie and that is a trope Or for ornament to expresse a mans mind with more elegance Compare then our ordinary way of expressing the conceptions of the mind by words which is common to all Languages which our ordinary way of expressing the objects thereof to our minds by the said conceptions If a word be diverted to signifie that conception which it was not first imposed to signifie because there was no other at hand imposed to signifie the present conceit Logick and Grammar will make this a Trope though Rhetorick do not because it was not used for ornament but for the necessary clothing of a mans mind in terms intelligible The trial whereof is if the subject you speak of cannot truly be said to be the thing which is attributed to it As the bread and wine which our Lord blessed cannot be said to be his body and bloud For if the subject mater signified by the Scripture elsewhere require that the body and bloud of Christ be thought present then is the property of the terms to be abated so as they may serve to signifie that presence Voiding all dispute concerning the signification of words which those that hold Transubstantiation could never nor never will agree upon among themselves because it stands upon terms of art the use whereof no mans conceit can over-rule that which the necessity of our common Faith requireth being once secured as here For the reason being rendred why the Eucharist was instituted and why it is to be frequented notwithstanding that the Body and Bloud of Christ may always be eaten and drunk by a living Faith to wit because the reviving of our Christianity by receiving the Sacrament reviveth the promise of Christs body and bloud being the means to convay his Spirit it will not concern the purpose thereof that it should be present by Transubstantiation abolishing the nature of the Elements For though it hath been boldly said by those who dispute controversies That the body of Christ is really and substantially resident in and united to our bodies That Grace and Charity cooled by sinne are inflamed in the Soul by the body of Christ immediately touching our bodies That the seed of our resurrection is thereby sowed in our mortal bodies First none of this is true unlesse you understand it with the same abatement That the body of Christ received in the Sacrament by the body of him whose Soul hath living Faith in Christ is the seed of the life of grace and glory both to his soul and body Because otherwise a dead faith should receive the same Secondly none of this would hold if Transubstantiation be true because rendring the body of Christ invisibly present no mans body whatsoever can immediately touch it And therefore it is no marvel that so many excellent School Doctors have acknowledged that setting the sense of the Church aside of which I will say what shall be requisite by and by Transubstantiation cannot be concluded from the Scriptures Whose judgements I carry along with mee for the complement of that prejudice which I advance toward the right understanding of the sense of the Church To wit that whatsoever the present Church may have determined the Catholick Church did never understand that which the Scripture necessarily signifieth not Now let us see what our Lord sayes to his Disciples being scandalized at those things which I showed you that hee taught them in the Synagogue at Capernaum of attaining everlasting life by eating his flesh John VI. 58-63 Is this it which scandalizeth you saith hee What then if you see the Son of man ascend where hee was afore It is the Spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak to you are Spirit and Life The spiritual sense in which hee commandeth them to eat and drink his flesh and bloud is grounded upon that difference between the promises of the Law and the Gospel which I settled in the beginning For by virtue thereof that Manna which maintained them in the Desert till they died is the figure of his body and bloud that maintains us not to dye Whereupon S. Paul saith 1 Cor. III. 6. The Spirit quickeneth but the Leter killeth Not onely because the Law covenants nor for the world to come But also because it was no further the means to procure that righteousnesse which giveth life then the Spirit of Christ was intimated and furnished under the dispensation of it Whereupon S. Paul argues that the Jews have as much need of Christ as the Gentiles because the Law is not able to bring corrupt nature to righteousnesse Wherefore the reason why they were scandalized at this doctrine of our Lords was not meerly because it was difficult to understand hee having so plentifully expressed his meaning and inculcated it by often beating the same discourse there and otherwise made the condition of his Gospel intelligible to his Disciples but because it was hard to undergo importing the taking up of his Crosse as I have said For it is evident by common experience in the world how men find or how they plead their minds to be obstructed in the understanding of those spiritual maters which if they should grant their understandings to be convinced of there were no plea left them why they should not conform their lives and conversations to that light which themselves confesse they have received So that the scandal was the same that the rich man in the Gospel took when hee was told that besides keeping Gods Commandments one thing was wanting to part with all hee had and take up Christs Crosse to wit for the observing of his Commandments And this scandal hee intends to take away when hee referres them to his ascension into Heaven because then and from thence they were to expect the Holy Ghost to inable them to do that which the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud signifieth spiritually And his words hee therefore calleth Spirit and Life because they are the means to bring unto the communion of his Spirit wherein spiritual and everlasting life consisteth So that the flesh of Christ being exalted to the right hand of God and his Spirit which first made it self an habitation in his flesh being sent down to make him an habitation in the hearts of his people those who upon faithful consideration of
Sacrament mystically I conceive I am excused of any further answer and am not obliged to declare the maner of that which must be mystical when I have said what I can say to declare it Onely I will take leave to tell him that hee will remain neverthelesse obliged to believe the truth both of the sign and of the thing signified and that by virtue of the Sacrament that is of the consecration that makes it a Sacrament not of the faith of him that receives it though I answer not all that hee demands upon the question What the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ in or with or under the Elements of the Eucharist signifies I would now consider wherein the Consecration of the Eucharist consists that I might thereupon inferre what kind of presence it inforceth But I hold it fit first to set aside those two opinions the one whereof I said ascribeth it to the Faith of them that receive being accidental to the Consecration and not included in it The other to the Hypostatical Union and that communication which it inferreth between the properties of the united natures That which I have already said I suppose is enough to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the same before any man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the soul which the eating and drinking Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by living Faith importeth Onely that I may once conclude how faith effecteth the Sacramental presence in the Elements as well as the spiritual in the Soul I will distinguish between the outward profession of Christianity which maketh us Members of Gods visible Church and the inward performance or faithful purpose of performing the same which makes a man of that number whom God owns for Heirs of his Kingdome whether you call that number an invisible Church or not And then I say that it is the visible profession of true Christianity which makes the Consecration of the Eucharist effectual to make the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But that it is the invisible faithfulnesse of the heart in making good or in resolving to make good the said profession which makes the receiving of it effectual to the spiritual eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud For supposing that God hath instituted and founded the Corporation of his Church upon the precept or the privilege of assembling to communicate in the offices of his service according to Christianity Whensoever this office is rendred to God out of that profession which makes men Members of Gods Church there the effect followes as sure as Christianity is true Where otherwise there can be no such assurance But if eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ in this Sacrament unworthily be the crucifying of Christ again rendring a man guilty of his body and bloud then is not his flesh and bloud spiritually eaten and drunk till living faith make them spiritually present to the Soul which the Consecration maketh Sacramentally present to the body And it is to be noted that no man â—â—n say that this Sacrament represents or tenders and exhibites unto him that receiveth the body and bloud of Christ as all must do that abhorre the irreverence to so great an Ordinance which the opinion that it is but a bare sign of Christ crucified necessarily ingendreth but hee must believe this Unlesse a man will say that that which is not present may be represented that is to say â—â—nâ—râ—d and exhibited presently down upon the place It is not therefore that living faith which hee that receiveth the Eucharist and is present at the consecrating of it may have and may not have that causeth the body and bloud of Christ to be Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But it is the profession of that common Christianity which makes men Members of Gods Church In the unity whereof wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated without enquiring whether those that are assembled be of the number of those to whom the Kingdome of Heaven belongs thou hast a Legal presumption even towards God that thou receivest the flesh and bloud of Christ in and with the Elements of bread and wine and shalt receive the same spiritually for the food of thy Soul supposing that thou receivest the same with living faith For one part of our common Christianity being this That our Lord Christ instituted this Sacrament with a promise to make by his Spirit the Elements of bread and wine Sacramentally his body and bloud so that his Spirit that made them so dwelling in them as in his natural body should feed them with Christs body and bloud that receive the Sacrament of them with living faith This institution being executed that is the Eucharist being consecrated according to it so sure as Christianity is true so sure the effect follows So that the faith which brings it to effect is the faith of them who believing Gods promises proceed to execute his Ordinances that they may obtain the same Whereas those that would have justifying faith to consist in believing a mans own Salvation or the decree of God perempâ—orily passed upon it and the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be appointed for a sign to confirm this faith which is nothing else but the revelation of this decree are not able to say how the signifying of the eating of Christs body and bloud conduces to such a revelation as this or why any such thing is done which conduceth not to the purpose Besides that having showed wherein justifying faith indeed consists I have by that means made it appear that the Sacramental nourishment of the Soul is the means of the spiritual nourishment of the Soul as well as the resemblance of it Here indeed it will be requisite to take notice of that which may be objected for an inconvenience That God should grant the operation of his Spirit to make the Elements Sacramentally the body and bloud of Christ upon the dead faith of them who receive it to their condemnation in the Sacrament and therefore cannot be said to eat the body and bloud of Christ which is onely the act of living faith without that abatement which the premises have established To wit in the Sacrament But all this if the effect of my saying be throughly considered will appear to be no inconvenience For that the body and bloud of Christ should be Sacramentally present in and under the Elements to be spiritually received of all that meet it with a living faith to condemn those for crucifying Christ again that receive it with a dead faith can it seem any way inconsequent to the Consecration thereof by virtue of the common faith of Christians professing that which is requisite to make true Christians whether by a living oâ— a dead faith Rather must wee be to seek for a reason why hee that â—ateth this bread and drinketh
for the rest of their Divines who are commonly called Ubiquitaries because they are supposed to teach That the oâ—ni-presence of Christs God-head is communicated to his flesh by virtue of the Hypostatical Union so that the body and bloud of Christ being every where present necessarily subsisteth in the dimensions of bread and wine in the Euchâ—rist This opinion I hold not my self any way obliged here to â—â—â—pute further than by barring it with this exception that it taketh away that supposition upon which the whole question concerning the consecration of the Eucharist â—â—â—ndeth To wit that seeing the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament cannot be attributed to the invisible faith of him that receives it is necessarily to be attributed to the viâ—â—ble faith of the Church that celebrateth For according to this oâ—inion it is manifest that the said presence can no way depend upon any thing done by the Church in celebrating the Eucharist being alâ—eady brought to passe and in being when the Church goes about it And this is all the argument that I will use against this conceit that all the premiâ—es require and so will also all that which followeth the presence of the body and bloud in the Eucharist to be of an other nature and otherwise effected â—â—an can be understood to belong to the Elements by virtue of the Hypostaâ—ical â—nion Though wee suppose that which cannot be granted that by virtue thereof â—hey are every where Which therefore whether their Divines do really belâ—eve or onely in words I will not here dispute Thus much I can say that by the agreement of the Churches pretending the Confession of Ausburg conâ—ernâ—ng the Articles once in difference among them contained in the Boâ—â— knoâ—n by the name of Liber Concordiae they are not tied to maintain so much For it is there openly protested not onely in the Preface but chiefly in the eighth Article concerning this point p. 769 787. that they do not believe the properties of the God-head to be transfuâ—ed into the Manhood nor that the Manhood of Christ is locally extended all over heaven and earth but that Christ by his Omnipotence is able to render his flesh and bloud present where hee please Especially where hee hath promised the presence thereof by inâ—â—ituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist And Chemnitius therefore one of the beâ—â— learned of their Divines in a Book writ on purpose to set forth the grounds of their opinion concerning the communication of attributes expresly â—onâ—â—neth himself to these terms as you may see cap. XXX p. 205 206. declaring his meaning by the comparison of iron red hot which though the fire be so in it that they are not discernable much lesse seperable and though they may do the act of both natures at once upon the same subject by burning and cutting the same thing remain notwithstanding distinct in their natures What then would they have Why this being set aside they say neverthelesse most truly that in the whole work of the Mediators office the divine nature communicateth with the humane Which understanding the necessities of Christs Members both intercedes with God for supply and supplies the same by the proper will of it which his divine will alwayes concurring brings to effect In which regard it is also most truly said that the properties of the God-head do communicate with the Manhood in regard of the concurrence of them to execute that which it resolveth being alwayes conformable to the will and decree of the God-head This indeed is no more than the faith of the Catholick Church importeth nor infeâ—â—â—th the Ubiquity or Omni-presence of Christs flesh as an indowment communicated to reside in it by virtue of the Hypostatical Union as thenceforth the proper subject of it But the concurrence of both natures to the effecting of those works wherein the Mediators Office is seen whereupon depends that honour and worship which the Mâ—nhood challenges in the person of Christ as inâ—eparable from the God-head to which originally that honour is due And therefore I shall never go about to return any maner of answer to any of thoâ—e Scriptures which have been alleged for it but onely this that they inferre nothing to the purpose in hand For if it could be said that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union that is by the will of God effecting it the immensity of the God-head were so transfused into the Manhood as to make it present wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated and so in the Elements of it then were this an answer to the difficulty in hand But such a one as would ingage him that affirms it in the Heresie of Eutyches But saying no more than this That the will of the man Christ concurres with his Divine Power to do all that his promises to his Church imports And that the effect of this Sacrament importing the presence of his flesh and bloud it is necessary that the will of the man Christ by the Divine Power concurring to the works of it should make the flesh and bloud of Christ present wheresoever his Ordinance requires they cannot say that Christs flesh is present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of the Hypostatical Union upon those grounds But that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union the will and promise of Christ is executed by the power of the God-head concurring with it and which it acteth with Which is to say that not immediately by the Hypostatical Union but by means of Christs promise which must come to effect by the power of the God-head which the humane will of Christ communicateth with And truly I conceive no man ever was so impertinent as not to suppose the Hypostatical Union when there was question how the promise of the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist should come to effect But that being supposed and not serving the turn alone it remains that wee judge it by the institution of the Eucharist and the promise which it contains that is to say by those Scriptures out of which the intent of them is to be had and not by the Hypostatical Union which being supposed the question remains neverthelesse And by the Hypostatical Union wee doubt not but our Lord Christ hath power to represent his body and bloud that is to make it present where hee please but that must be not meerly by virtue of the Hypostatical Union but by doing the same miracle which Transubstantiation imports though it be the Hypostatical Union that inableth our Lord Christ to do it For though there be a difference between the being of Christs flesh and bloud under the dimensions of the Elements the substance of them remaining being reduced by the power of God under those dimensions And the substance of them being abolished Yet I suppose all men of reason will say that the Hypostatical Union contributes no more to that than to this And therefore not doubting that the Sacramental presence of the body
no opinion on foot but that which hath taken possession by the authority of the School-Doctors that it is performed by the recital of these words This is my body This is my bloud in the Canon that is the Canonical or Regular Prayer for the Consecration of the Eucharist of the Masse For those that have set aside this Prayer and do not allow the opinion that these words are operative to the effecting of that which the institution of the Eucharist promises though they retain the recital of them in the action yet have not declared any common agreement wherein they intend to maintain the Consecration of the Eucharist to stand And is it not then free for mee to declare that I could never rest satisfied with this opinion of the School-Doctors as finding it to offer violence to common sense and the truest intention of that which wee may see done in consecrating the Eucharist For when our Lord takes the Elements in his hands and blesses them or gives God thanks over them then breaks the bread and delivering them bids his Disciples take and eat them because they are his body and bloud is it not manifest that they are so called in regard of something which hee had already done about them when delivering them hee calls them at that present time of delivering them that which hee could not call them afore his body and bloud No say they that is easily understood otherwise from the common customes which men use in civil conveyances Nothing being more usual by several customes of several nations then to convey the right and possession of house or land by delivering writings testifying certain deeds done to that effect to put in possession of a house by delivering the key or the post to be held or putting into the house by delivering a turf of the land to be conveyed to put into rightful possession of the same adding the like words to these Here is this house or this land take it for thine own But in vain Those that use this escape consider not that our Lord said these words Take eat drink this is my body this is my bloud when hee delivered them So that if by saying these words hee made them that which the words signifie then by delivering them hee made them that which they signifie For so the like words serve in delivering possession to expresse the intent of him that delivers it To which overt act of delivering the right of possession and the conveying of it is as much to be ascribed as to the words which animate it by expressing the intent of it Which if it be true then were the Elements which our Lord delivered to his Disciples consecrated by delivering them And therefore by consequence the Eucharist is never consecrated but by delivering of it Seeing of necessity the Eucharist is consecrated by the same means as the first which Christ communicated to his Disciples was consecrated But this can by no means stand with the intent of them that maintain this opinion supposing as they do that the Sacrament is consecrated before it be delivered to them that receive it And hence starts another argument For these words as they are used in consecrating the Eucharist are part of the rehersal of that which ouâ— Lord Christ did when hee consecrated that Eucharist which hee gave his Disciples And will any reason endure this that the Eucharist be thought to be consecrated by reciâ—ing what Christ said when hee delivered that Eucharist which hee had consecrated And not by doing what Christ commanded to be done when hee appointed it to be celebrated Certainly hee that sayes Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it saying Take eat this is my body sayes what Christ did and said before and when hee delivered it Hee that sayes further that hee said do this in remembrance of mee sayes that Christ instituted this Sacrament But to say that Christ instituted this Sacrament is not to consecrate that Sacrament which Christ instituted That is not done but by doing that which Christ is said to have done And is not Christ said to have blessed the Elements Is it not said that having taken and blessed and broken the bread delivering it to his Disciples hee affirmed it to be his body at the present when hee delivered it Can the becoming of it his body be imputed to the taking or breaking or delivering of it Doth it not remain then that it be imputed to the blessing of it Here finding it evident by comparing the Evangelists one with another and with S. Paul that blessing and giving of thanks in this case are both one and the same thing signified by two words I must needs inferre that blessing the Elements is nothing else but giving God thanks over them which at the present our Lord had in hand with intent to make them the Sacrament of his body and bloud The people of God in our Lords time were wont to take nothing for meat or for drink without first giving God thanks solemnly for it as they had it in hand You may see how scrupulous they were in this point by the title of Blessings the first of the Talmud where you have those forms of thanks-giving recorded and the circumstances at which they were to be used in receiving several kinds which were some of them doubtlesse more ancient than our Lords time A practice fitting for Christianity to continue setting aside that superstitious scrupulosity of forms and circumstances wherein the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees consisted Therefore S. Paul withstanding those Hereticks that taught to abstain from meats which God hath made to be participated with thanks-giving by the faithful and such as have known the truth 1 Tim. IV. 3 4 5. addes for his reason Because every creature of God is good and none to be rejected received with thanks-giving For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer The word of God inabling Christians to receive it with a good conscience so as they may expect Gods blessing which they have desired by their prayers For is it not manifest that having said that every creature is good which a Christian receives with thanks-giving when hee addes that it is sanctified by prayer grounded on Gods words hee includes in that thanksgiving which hee means prayer to God for a blessing upon it The creatures of God then are sanctified to the nourishment of our bodies by Thanks-gving with prayer for Gods blessing And shall wee think that that Thanks-giving wherewith they are sanctified to the nourishment of our Souls doth not include prayer to the effect intended that they may become the body and bloud of Christ which God by this Sacrament pretends to feed our Souls with And doth not the execution of our Saviours Institution when hee sayes Do this consist in giving God thanks for the redemption of Mankind with prayer that wee may be fed by the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist
fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi Which oblation thou O God wee pray thee vouchsafe to make in all respects blessed imputable accountable reasonable and acceptable That it may become to us the body and bloud of thy well-beloved Son our Lord Christ Jesus Then after the Institution Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae Majestatis tuae Ut quotquot ex hoc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpâ—erimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur Command them to be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel unto thine Altar that is above before thy divine Majesty that as many of us as shall receive the holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace These two parts of this Prayer are joyned into one in most of those Forms which I have named whether before the rehersal of the institution or after it Onely in those many Forms which the Maronites Missal containeth the rehersal of the institution comes immediately after the Peace Which was in the Apostles time that Kisse of Peace which they command going immediately before the Deacons warning to lift up hearts to the Consecrating of the Eucharist Though those words are not now found in any of these Syriack forms For after the institution is rehearsed it is easie to observe that there followes constantly though not immediately but interposing some other Prayers a Prayer to the same effect with these two But in two several formes For in all of them saving two or three which pray that the Elements may become the body and bloud of Christ to the Salvation of those that receive by the Holy Ghost coming down upon them Prayer is made that this body and this bloud of Christ may be to the Salvation of the Receivers Which may be understood to signifie the effect of both these Prayers in so few words But it may also be understood to signifie that whosoever framed them conceived the consecration to be made by the rehersal of the institution premised Which if I did believe I should not think them ancient but contrived at Rome where they are printed upon the doctrine of the School now in vogue For in all formes besides the effect of these prayers is to be found without excepting any of those which wee may have any confidence of that they are come intire to our hands I demand then whether I have reason to attribute the force of consecrating the Eucharist upon which the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ depends to the recital of what Christ said or did at his celebrating the Eucharist or instituting it for the future Or to the Prayer which all Christians have made and all either do make or should make to the expresse purpose of obtaining this Sacramental as well as spiritual presence Hear how Justine describes the action Apolog. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having done our Prayers wee salute one another with a kisse Then as I said that the Peace was next before the Consecration is offered to the cheif of the Brethren bread and a cup of water and wine mixed Which hee takes and sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and Holy Ghost Giving thanks at large that wee are vouchsafed these things at his hands To wit the means which God used to reclame Man-kind under the Law of nature and Moses and lastly the coming of Christ and his death and the institution of the Eucharist Who having finished his Thanks-giving and Prayers for the making of the Elements the body and bloud of Christ by the Holy Ghost all the people present follow with an acclamation saying Amen Afterwards hee calls the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The food which thanks hath been given for by the prayer of that word which came from him That is which our Lord Christ appointed the Eucharist to be consecrated with when hee commanded his Disciples to do that which hee had done So Origen in Mat. XV. calls the Eucharist Panem verbo Dei per obsecrationem sanctificatum Bread sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer And contra Celsum VIII Oblatos panes edimus corpus sanctum quoddam per preces factos Wee eat the bread that was offered made a kinde of holy body by prayer Not that which is grounded upon that Word of God by which his creatures are our nourishment as Justine saith afterwards that Christians blesse God by the Son and Holy Ghost for all the food they take but that Word of Christ whereby hee commanded to do that which hee had done S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag III. saith That the bread is no more common bread after the calling of the Holy Ghost upon it Because hee saith afterwards Cat. Myst V. that the Church prayes God to send the Holy Ghost upon the Elements to make them the body and bloud of Christ As I said So S. Basil calls the form of Consecration which I showed you hee affirms to come by Tradition from the Apostles as here I maintaiu it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of invocation To wit whereby wee call for the Holy Ghost to come upon the elements and consecrate them de Spiritu Sancto cap. XXVII S. Gregory Nyssene de vitâ Mosis saith the bread is sanctified by the Word of God which is his Son But to say further by what means hee adds in virtue of the blessing To wit which the Church consecrates the Eucharist with as our Lord did Optatus describes the Altars or Communion Tables which the Donatists broke For they were of wood not of stone Quo Deus omnipotens invocatus sit quo postulatus descendit Spiritus Sanctus On which almighty God was called to come down On which the Holy Ghost upon demand did come down S. Jerome describes the dignity of Priests Epist LXXXV Ad quorum preces corpus Christi sanguisque conficitur At whose prayers the Body and Bloud of Christ is made To wit by God And in Sophoniae III. Impiè agunt in legem putantes Eucharistiam imprecantis facere verba non vitam Et necessariam esse tantùm solennem Orationem non Sacerdotum merita They transgresse the Law of Christ thinking that the Eucharist is made by the words not the life of him that prayes over it And that only the customary prayer not the works of the Priest are requisite In fine as often as you reade mysticam precem or mysticam benedictionem when there is speech of the Eucharist in the Fathers be assured that which here I maintain is there understood True it is Irenaeus V. 2. affirmeth that the Bread and the Wine receiving or admitting the Word of God accipientia become the Eucharist of the Body and Bloud of Christ But what word this is hee
expresly that it was wine which our Lord calls his bloud And that the wine of the Chalice to wit already consecrated demonstrates his bloud In his Epistle against those who consecrated in water alone The Council of Nicaea calls it Bread which the eye of Faith discerns to be the Lamb of God S. Hilary will have us truly to receive the body and bloud of Christ as Justine saith that our bodies are nourished by it but hee adds in Sacramento to signifie the abatement which I speak of that is mystically and as in a Sacrament S. Cyril when hee saith wee are not to look upon the Elements as plain or bare or simple bread and wine saith that wee may look upon it as Bread and wine though that is not it which profits him that worthily receives it as Origen said There are a great many more that have named and described the Elements after consecration by the name of their nature and substance and say that the bread and the wine become and are the body and bloud of Christ Ignatius Epist ad Philadelph Irenâ—us V. 2. Clemens Strom. I. Paedag. II. 2. Tatian before Irenaeus in Diatessaron Constitutiones Apostol VIII 12. Tertullian de Oratione cap. VI. contra Marcionem IV. 40. III. 19. Gregory Nyssene de Baptismo Origen contra Celsum VIII Athanasius in Synopsi Eusebius in Parallelis Damasceni S. Cyril Catech. Mystag I. III. Macarius Hom. XXVII Gaudentius Brixiensis in Exodum Serm. II. S. Austine de Civitate Dei XVII 5. de diversis Serm. XLIV cap. XXVIII Sermone LXXXIIII Sermone LXXXVII Sermone ad Baptizatos S. Jer. in Esaiae LXVI lib. ult in Jeremiae XXXI lib. VI. Isidore de Offic. Eccles I. 18. In fine the Canon of the Masse it self prayes that the Holy Ghosts coming down may make this Bread and this Cup the Body and Bloud of Christ And certainly the Romane Masse expresses a manifest abatement of the common and usual sense of the body and bloud of Christ unto that sense which is proper to the intent and subject of them who speak of this Sacrament when the Church in the consecration prayes ut nobis corpus fiat Dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi That they may become the Body and bloud of thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Christ Jesus to us No man that understands Latine and sense will say it is the same thing for the Elements to become the body and bloud of Christ as to become the body and bloud of Christ to those that receive which imports no more than thaâ— which I have said And yet there is no more said in those Liturgies which pray that the Spirit of God may make them the flesh and bloud of Christ to this intent and effect that those which received them may be filled with the grace of his Spirit For the expression of this effect and intent limits the common signification of the words to that which is proper to this action of the Eucharist as I have delivered it In the words of S. Ambrose de iis qui initiantur myst cap. XI ante consecrationem alia species nominatur post consecrationem caro sanguis Christi appellatur Before the consecration it is named another kinde After the consecration it is called the flesh and bloud of Christ No man that understands Latine can conceive the word species to signifie the outward appearance but the substance and nature of those kindes For so wee call outlandish kindes spices not the appearance of their outward accidents And in the Romane Laws species an non are the kindes that are stored up for men cannot live upon the outward accidents of them Therefore when S. Austine saith That the Eucharist consists of two things visibili elementorum specie invisibili D. N. J. C. carne sanguine hee means that it consists of the nature and substance of the elements which is visible as of the body and bloud of our Lord Christ which are invisible Again when S. Ambrose sayes that they are called the Body and Bloud of Christ hee signifies that abatement in the property of his words that requires not the absence of the elements As when S. Austine sayes in Gratian de Consecratione distinct II. Can. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui est caro Christi suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cùm reverà sit Sacramentum corporis Christi That heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after the maner of it called the body of Christ whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of the body of Christ The same abatement it is that S. Cyril afore Catech. Myst IV. the Council of Nicâ—a Victor Antioch in Marci XIV 22. and Theodoret Dial. III. signifie when they will us not to consider the elements but the things which they signifie For does hee that wills us not to consider the bread and wine intend to say that there is no such thing there Or that our interest lies not in them but in the body and bloud of Christ which they â—ender us well and good So said Origen afore The same abatement is signified evidently by abundance of their sayings importing them to be called the body and bloud of Christ as types or antitypes for type and antitype differ not but as relative and correlative that is figures symboles images similitudes representations paterns pledges and riddles in fine as figures or sacraments of the same Not as if they contained not the thing signified which I have already settled but because the heavenly grace hinders not nor destroyes the earthly nature This language then is used by S. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XLII calling the Passeover a more obscure Type of a Type By Ephrem de inscrutabili naturâ Dei By Theodoret Dial. I. II. III. By the Constitutions of the Apostles V. 13. VI. 29. VII 26. By S. Basils Liturgy By Gregory Nazianzene again in Gorgoniam By Eusebius de demonstrat Evang. I. 10. V. 3. VIII 1. By S. Chrysostome in Mat. Homil. LXXXII By Palladius in the life of S. Chrysostome Chap. VII VIII IX By Victor in Marci XIV By Dionysius Eccles Hierarch cap. III. By Origen in Mat. Hom. XXXV By Pope Gelasius de duabus naturis Christi By S. Ambrose de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. IX de Sacramentis IV. 4. VI. 1. By Tertulliane contra Marc. III. 19. IV. 14 40. By S. Austine contra Adimantum cap. XII in Psalmum III. Epist CLXIII de Trinitate III. 4. By Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africk pro tribus capitulis IX ult And truly the ancient Christians when they made a scrâ—ple of receiving the Eucharist when they were to fast least they should break their fast by receiving it as wee understand by Tertullian de Oratione cap. XIV must needs understand the nature of bread and wine to remain unlesse they thought they could break their fast upon the accidents of them Nor would it have been a custome in some
places to burn the remains of the Sacrament as Hesychiuâ— in Levit. VIII witnesseth or at Constantinople to give them to School-boies had they not conceived the change of the elements to be in order to the use of them and that this use and that which is done in order thereunto expireth when the occasion of giving them to those for whom the Church interideth them ceaseth And upon these premises I conclude that as it is by no means to be denied that the elements are really changed translated turned and converted into the body and bloud of Christ so that whoso receiveth them with a living faith is spiritually nourished by the same hee that with a dead faith is guilty of crucifying Christ Yet is not this change destructive to the bodily substance of the elements but cumulative of them with the spiritual grace of Christs body and bloud So that the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament turns to the nourishment of the body whether the body and bloud in the truth turn to the nourishment or the damnation of the soul And upon these terms if I reade in S. Cyril of Jerusalem where afore that the elements in the Eucharist are not bread and wine I should think my self very simple to imagine that therefore S. Cyril believed Transubstantiation Knowing as any man that pretends to understand the nature and use of language ought to know that any thing may be absolutely denied to be that which in some sort it is not when a man intends to contest that in some sort it is not For so S. Cyril saith that the elements are not bread and wine to signifie that they are not bare bread and wine but mystically the body and bloud of Christ that is as in the Sacrament of it And to speak properly whoso believes Transubstantiation ought not to believe that the elements are changed into the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist For wheresoever there is a change there something of the subject that is changed ought to remain though it be not sensible Whereas in Transubstantiation the whole subject of Christs body and bloud is imagined to be substitured in stead of bread and wine under their dimensions and accidents Which is the absolute ceasing of them to be and the beginning of the thing signified not absolutely to be but to be under those dimenâ—ions So that there remains no subject for that change which the Fathers understand the accidents remaining unchanged the substance of the terms having nothing common to bear the passion of that change which must be attributed to it But what can be said to them that affirm in expresse terms that the substance of the elements remains unchanged Who are so many as may very well serve to interrupt and defeat any pretense of Tradition for the ceasing of them For there can be no pretense that any thing should belong to the common Faith of the Church the contrary whereof it hath been free for men of note and rank in the Church to professe The Author de Sacramentis in S. Ambrose IV. 4. Si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut incipiant esse quae non â—rant quantò magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there is that force in the word of the Lord Jesus that those things should begin to be which were not How much more is it so operative that remaining what they were they be changed into what they were not Lanâ—ranck I see contra Berengarium hath questioned the reading of these words by saying that other Copies reade ut quae erant in aliud commutentur But I see also that hee had so little confidence in those Copies that â—ee held himself obliged to expound the other reading and say that they remain what they were in their accidents Which whether it serve the turn let common reason judge I see also that Guitmund Bishop of Aversa hath owned Berengarius his reading de Sacram. III. and therefore have no reason to distrust those who affirm that it is owned by Algerus Paschasius Berâ—ram Ives of Chartres Gratiane and P. Lombard in their quotations of it The words of S. Chrysostome Epistolâ ad Caesarium contra Apollin are these Sicut antetequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus divinâ autem sanctificante gratiâ mediante Sacerdote liberatus quidem est ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Demini corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso permansit divinâ mundante naturâ As before the bread be consecrated wee call it bread But when the grace of God hath sanctified by the means of the Priest it quitteth the name of bread and is held worthy of the title of the Lords Body though the nature of bread remain in it So also here the divine nature cleansing Cardinal Bellarmine de Euchar. 22. allegeth that there is no such Epistle of S. Chrysostomes neither is it found in his works P. Martyr reports it as hee found it in a written Copy of the Library at Florence And it is found in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in several pieces collected by Canisius What would it then avail that it were not S. Chrysostomes but some other ancient Church Writers For neither the mater of the comparison between the inâ—amation and the Eucharist nor the terms in which it is delivered will ever render it suspicious to any man that observes those conceptions and expressions of the Fathers which I have reported in the premises Gelasius de dâ—abus naturis in Christo Certè sacramenta quâ— sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est prâ—â—ter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae Et tamen esse non deâ—init substantia vel natura panis vini Certainly the mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ which wee receive is a thing divine Therefore by the means of them wee become also partakers of the divine nature And yet ceaseth not to be the naâ—uâ—e and substance of bread and wine By and by Sicut in hanc transeunt scilicet divinam Spiritu Sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suâ proprietate naturae As by the operation of the Holy Ghost they passe into this to wit a divine substance and yet remain in the property of their own nature Ephrem Patriarch of Antiochia in Photius Cod. CCXXIX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also the Body of Christ which believers receive neither departs from the sensible substance nor is divided from the intelligible grate And spiritual baptisme which becometh and is one whole preserves the property of the sensible substance the water I mean yet looses not that which it is become This coâ—parison makes mee adde here that passage of those extractions out of Theodotus which is found at the end of Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the bread of the Eucharist and the oile of the Chrâ—â—â—ne which
can be produced to depose for the Sacrifice of the Eucharist than the sense of those Scriptures of the New Testament already handled which are in a maner all that have any mention of it will inferr and allow There is much noise made with the Priesthood of Melchisedeck of whom wee reade Gen. XIV 19 24. And Melchisedeck King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for hee was the Priest of the most High God And hee blessed him saying Blessed be Abraham of the most High God which owneth heaven and earth In reference whereunto the Psalmist speaking of Christ Psal CX 4. The Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck And the Apostle taking for granted that hee is a figure of Christ in the mystical sense Ebr. VII 13. argueth the voiding of the Levitical Law from the purpose of setting up another Priesthood declared by the Psalm But no where in all that Chapter which is all spent about the Exposition of it so much as intimateth the Priesthood of Christ to consist in any thing but in offering up to God in heaven his own body and bloud sacrificed upon the Crosse to make expiation for the sins of his people and to obtain of God that grace and assistance that comfort and deliverance which their necessities from time to time may require Be it granted neverthelesse that seeing of necessity Melchisedeck is the figure of Christ those things which Melchisedeck is related to have done are also necessarily figures of things done by our Lord Christ For otherwise were not the mystical sense of the Old Testament a laughing stock to unbelievers if it should hold in nothing but that which the Spirit of God hath expounded in the New Testament by our Lord and his Apostles I have therefore to the best advantage translated the words of Moses For not and hee was the Priest of the living God That whoso will may argue thereupon that his bringing forth bread and wine was an act of his Priesthood Which if I would deny no man can constrain mee by virtue of these words to acknowledg But I cannot therefore allow that Translation which sayes Obtulit panem vinum that as Priest hee offered bread and wine in sacrifice to God The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so evidently signifying protulit not obtulit hee brought forth not that hee offered that hee brought forth bread and wine to refrâ—sh Abraham â—nd his people returning weary from the slaughter of the Kings not that hee offered them in sacrifice to God as his Priest the mention of his Priesthood râ—ther advancing the reason why hee blessed them than why hee fed them As both Moses in the words next afore and the Apostle also Ebr. VII 1. intimateth or declareth the intent why hee brought them forth Though if I should grâ—nt that custome which was common to all Idolaters to have been in forâ—e under the Law of nature because wee see it retained and inâ—cted by the Law of Moses not to taste of any thing till some part of it had been dedicated to God in the nature of first-fruits to the sanctifying of the whole till when it was not to be touched I say though I should grant this for a reâ—son why hee may be thought to have offered bread and wine to God not why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated protulit hee brought forth no man would have cause to thank mee for any advantage from thence For still the correspondence between Melchisedeck â—nd our Lord Christ would lye in this that our Lord by appointing this Sacrâ—ment brings forth bread and wine to strengthen the peoâ—lâ— of Abraham in their warfare against the powers of darknesse as in the dayes of his flâ—sh hee fed those that attended upon his doctrine least they should faint in their travail Now this will first inferr that it is bread and wine which our Lord feeds us with in the Eucharist And again that it hath the virtue of sustaining us by being made the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament by virtue of the consecration past upon it Which is all that which I say to a hair that by being made a Sacrament it becomes the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be feasted upon by Christians In like maner be it granted that the words of the Prophet Malachy I. 11. From the rising of the Sun to his going down my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure meat offering For my name shall be great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts is a Prophesie of the institution of this Sacrâ—ment because it is contained in those kindes of breâ—d and wine which served for meat and drink offerings in the Law of Moses But this being granted what shall wee do with the incense and the meat offering which the Prophet speaks of unlâ—sse wee say that they signifie that which corresponds to the meâ—t and drink offerings of the Law and their incense under the Gospel And will not thâ—t prove to be the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which God under the Gospel is served with by all Nations Though those prayers and prâ—â—es of God being by the institution of the Eucharist limited and determined to be such as the celebration thereof requires it is no inconvenience nay it will be necessâ—ry to grant that the sacrifice thereof is fore-told by these words not signifying neverthelesse the nature of it to require any thing more thâ—n is exprâ—ssed by the premises Be the same therefore said if you please of all the Sacrifices of the Old Law of all the Prophesies in which the service to be rendred to God in the New Testament is described by the offering of Sacrifices As for the words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria John IV. 23. The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth For the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Though I grant as afore that this is fulfilled by the celebration of the Eucharist when once wee suppose our Lord to have limited the worship of God under the Gospel to the form of it yet there can be no consideration of a sacrifice signified by these words which neither suppose nor expresse the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse the Eucharist no way bearing the nature of a sacrifice but as it is the same with it But for the same reason and by the same correspondence between the sacrifices of the Law and that of Christs Crosse it may be evident that it is not nor can be any disparagement to the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ upon the Crosse to the full and perfect satisfaction and propitiation for the sins of the world which it hath made that the Eucharist should be
Christ but that they are thereby made fit to be offered and therefore there must be some other act whereby they are offered in Sacrifice And this they finde in the Canon of the Masse For having rehersed the Institution whereby the parties agree that consecration is done it follows Vnde memores Domine nos servi tui sed plebs tua sancta ejusdem Christi filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelis gloriosae ascensionis Offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam Panem sanctum vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris Et accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus os munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrisicium Patriarchae nostrî Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam Whereupon wee also thy servants O Lord and holy people mindefull as well of the blessed passion and resurrection from the dead as the glorious ascension into heaven of the same thy Son Christ our Lord Offer to thy excellent Majesty of thy own free gifts a pure sacrifice a holy sacrifice a spotlesse sacrifice the holy Bread of everlasting life and Cup of eternal salvation Vpon which vouchsafe to look with a gracious and clear countenance and accept them as thou deignedst to accept the gifts of thy just childe Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that holy sacrifice that spotlesse oblation which thy High Priest Melchisedech offered thee Then follows that which I quoted afore Supplices te rogamus Domine jube haec perferri And this they think to be the offering of the Sacrifice which the consecration exhibiteth onely to be offered at the elevation by these words But the common opinion is offended at this for placing the Sacrifice in that act of the Church which sayes Wee offer to thee in which there is onely a general reason of sacrificing by offering without changing that which is offered And therefore as offering is nothing but dedicating and presenting to the worship of God so that if the substance of the thing be changed in offering it then is it Sacrificing Supposing the substance of the Elements to cease and the body and bloud of Christ to succeed in this doing this opinion places the nature of the Sacrifice For the change of the Elements saith mine Author acknowledgeth Gods power and the dependance uâ—on him of his creature And the body of Christ being under the dimensions of the bread his bloud of the wine Christ is present as sacrificed his flesh and bloud being divided Wherefore that change whereby the Sacrifice is produced sufficeth to the offering of it which is produced as sacrificed The power of God being sufficiently testified by the change though in sacrificing living creatures it is testified by destroying them for Gods service And this hee thinks our Lord signifies when hee saith This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which shall be poured out for you For to whom but to God seeing hee saith not that is given you But for you And immediately hereupon there is no doubt but it hath the nature of a Sacrifice The offering whereof must consist in that action which is done in the person of Christ as the Consecration they agree is done by using the words of Christ And thus though this Sacrifice by typical and representative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which the parting of his body and bloud signifieth yet is it neverthelesse a true Sacrifice as the Sacrifices which figured Christ to come cease not therefore to be true Sacrifices And from this nature of a Sacrifice hee deriveth the reason why the Table is an Altar the Church a Temple the Minister Sacerdos or one that offereth Sacrifice I have made choice of this Authoâ— because I meet not this difference of opinion among them reported any where else That which I shall say to him will show what wee are to think of others For having maintained that the elements are really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament And that in virtue of the Consecration not by the faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth Namely that the Elements so consecrate are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in as much as the body and bloud of Christ crucified are contained in them not as in a bare sign which a man may take up at his pleasure but as in the means by which God hath promised his Spirit But not properly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that is a thing that consists in action and motion and succession and therefore once done can never be done again because it is a contradiction that that which is done should ever be undone It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is represented renewed revived and restored by it and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth Taking representing here not for barely signifying but for tendring and exhibiting thereby that which it signifieth On the other side I insist that if sacrificing signifie killing and destroying in the Sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse it is not enough to make the Eucharist properly a Sacrifice that the Elements are deputed to be worship of God by that change which Transubstantiation importeth and therefore much lesse not supposing any change in their bodily substance For this difference will abâ—te the property of a Sacrifice the truth of it remaining I grant that Gods Power is seen in this change according to the terms already settled For what Power but Gods can make good the promise of tendring the Body and Bloud of Christ as a visible mean to convey his Spirit And hee that goes about to make this change by consecrating the Eucharist must needs be understood to acknowledg this Power of Gods But this is not that acknowledgment which sacrificing importeth but that which every act of Religion implyeth Hee that Sacrificeth acknowledging that which hee sacrificeth with all that hee hath to God to testifie this acknowledgment abandoneth that which hee sacrificeth to be destroyed in testimony of it And therefore the Power of God is not testified in this change as the nature of a Sacrifice requires that it be testified For certainly hee intends not to abandon his interest in Christ that consecrates the Elements into his body and bloud And therefore the consideration of dedicating the Elements to the service of God in this Sacrament makes them properly oblations But the
worthy frequenting of this holy Sacrament that suffers As for the Church of England I referr my self to the very form of those Lawes according to which as many as have received Orders in it have promised to exercise the Ministery to which they were appointed by the same and that before God and his Church at so solemne an occasion that nothing can be thought obligatory to him that would transgresse it For the Offertory which the Church of England prescribeth if it signifie any thing signifieth the dedication of that which is offered as at large to the necessities of the Church so in particular to the celebration of the Eucharist then and there At the consecration the Church prayeth That wee receiving these thy creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Christs holy institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud And after the Communion Wee thy humble servants intirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully râ— accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving Most humbly beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ and through faith in his bloud wee and thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his death and passion All this having premiâ—ed prayer for all States of Christs Church Which whether it make not the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of the Consecration the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse propitiatory and impetratory for them who communicate in it by receiving the Elements whether or no by virtue of this Oblation propitiatory and impetratory for the necessities of the rest of the Church as well as the Congregation present I leave to men of reason but not to Puritanes to judge This I am sure the condition of the Gospel which is the fourth reason for which I have showed that the Eucharist is counted a Sacrifice in the sense of the Church is exactly expressed in the words that follow to the confusion of all Puritanes that would have us expect the blessings promised from such a kinde of faith which supposes it not neither implies â— And â—â—â—e wee offer and present to thee O Lord our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto thee humbly beseeching thee that all we which be partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction For the reason which obliges us to professe this at receiving the Eucharist which is the New-Testament in the blood of Christ is because the promises which the Gospel covenanteth for depend upon it as the condition which renders them due And upon these premises I may well conclude that all the reasons for which I have showed that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the sense of the Church are recapitulâ—ted and comprised in which followeth And though we be unworthy through our manifold sinnes to offer unto thee any sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service not waying our merits but pardoning our offences CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections WHen I proposed to write of the Laws of the Church that is to say of those controversies concerning the same which are the subject of division in mater of Christian amity to the English at this time I proposed my subject in aeqivocall terms till it be further distinguished that the Laws of the Church may be understood to be those which God hath given the Church to conduct the body of the Church in the exercise of their Christianity And they may be understood to be those which God hath inabled the Church to give themselves according to that which I showed from the beginning That Gods giving such Laws to Christians as are to be kept and exercised by the community of Christians at their respective Assemblies is a demonstration that God hath founded a Society or Corporation under the name of the Church And that supposing the Church to be such a Society or Corporation of necessity inferreth that it is inabled by Gods Law to give Laws unto it selfe in such maters as not being determined by Gods Law become necessary to be determined for preservation of the Body in unity and communion in the offices of Gods service The Laws therefore that God gives his Church are so farre the subject of this inquiry as may make it to appear what is left to the power and duty of the Church to determine And to this purpose it seemed requisite in the first place to determine what the rule of Faith containeth to be believed of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which is the ground of whatsoever can be pretended that he hath injoyned his Church as concerning the frequentation of it having determined the like afore not only concerning the Sacrament of Baptism but also concerning Penance in as much as they contain qualifications requisite by the Gospel to render the promises thereof due to particular Christians Whereas the Sacrament of the Eucharist being as I said afore the most eminent of those offices which God hath injoyned to be celebrated by the Assembles of his Church having first founded his Church upon the duty and the command or upon the charter or priviledge of holding those Assemblies even when the Powers of the world allow it not required a teaâ—y express to determine the true intent why it was instituted that it might the better appear in due time how those circumstances in the celebration of it which are a great part of the subject of that division which prevails among us in point of Christianity may best be determined to the intent of Gods Law And also that the true intent of other Powers given the Church evidently â—ending to the maintenance of Christianity and the purity thereof but alwaieâ— with a respect to the unity of the Church in the communion of those offices whereof this is the chief might the better be estimated by a right understanding of the end which they seek You have then the first that is the original and primitive and also if you demand that the prime and chief power of Gods Church consisting in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist Not in washing away the filth of the Body as S. Peter saith that is not in ministring the outward ceremony of washing the body with water or any part of it but in admitting and allowing that professinn of a good Conscience which qualifies a man to be a member of the Church For this allowance is no lesse then a declaration on the part of the Church that he who upon these times
S. Peter and Iohn were wonne to Christianity according to the division which S. Paul hath recorded unto us Gal. II. 9. 10. whereupon we see him exercise the the office of an Apostle to the Churches of the Jews dispersions by his Epistle Iames I. 1. But let us proceed S. Paul and Barnabas ordained their Presbyters Church by Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. XIV 23. And appointed Titus to constitute Presbyters in Creete City by City Tit. I. 5. Be it granted because Epiphanius hath said it and it is a thing in it self reasonable that in some places the number of believers was so small that there needed but a Bishop to govern and a Deacon or Deacons to attend upon the execution of his orders That there should be Churches constituted by the name of such Churches in such Provinces and no more people any where signified would make them Churches that might be not that were Tertullians saying Ubi tres Ecclesia licet laici Where there be three though of the Laity there is a Church is not meant of such Churches But that three Christians or two in our Saviours terms Mat. XVIII 19. that meet to serve God are a Church because so assembled being of the Church At least in mother Churches of mother Cities where the Apostles made their chiefe residence because the harvest was there greatest and likewise their Ministers that there should be no more Christians then one Bishop could govern and teach during the Apostles time seems to me to cary no appearance of truth And to imagine that those who were designed for Pastors of Churches in being were alwaies resident in the mother Church though occasions whereof there is no rule might and must cause their presence there many times the reason of their office admits not But if we admit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie more then one in a City and a Church it seems not to be refutable that they were appropriate to those Churches The name of Presbyters of such and such Churches bâ—ing relative to the people of their respective Churches Further S. Paul sâ—nding to Ephesus called to him the Elders of the Church whom by and by he saith The Holy Ghost had placed Bishops over his flock to feed the Church of God Act. XX. 17. 28. Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of the article may referre us either to the whole Church or to that part of the Church which the speech most concerned or in fine to the very Church of Ephesus There is a conjecture that S. Paul makes them Bishops by saying that God had made them Bishops of his Church who were Presbyters when he sent for them But I allow not those of the Church of Rome that our Lord made the Bread and Wiâ—e of his last Supper his Body and Blood by saying This is my Body this is my Blood But by that which he did before he said it For the same reason therefore I cannot allow that S. Paul here makes them Bishops of Presbyters by saying God hath made you Bishops in his Church not declaring by any thing that he sayes or does any intent so to do thereby to be understood But I cannot but consider that Irâ—naeus III. 14. tells us that S. Paul at this time called together the Bishops and Presbyters Qui erant ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus Which were of Ephesus and other the next Citâ—â—s and S. Jerome ad Evagr. that he called together omnes illos apud quâ—s praedicaverat All those wiâ—h whom he had preached Which if we grant the article of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referrs us to that part of the Church that was concerned whereas the words as they lie as he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church referre us to the Church there mentioned of Ephesus When S. Paul addresses his Episâ—le to the Philippians together with the Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 2. when in his instructions to Timothy he passes immediately from Bishops to Deacons 1 Tim. III. 1-8 It is said that the Bishops of the next Cities together with their Deacons were present or ordinarily resident on the Capital City according to that which I said even now of Ephesus And it may be said that they were Bishops and Deacons at large in respect to the Church at large not applyed to the functions either of Bishop or Priests in this or that Church And truly I do remember the words of Clemens ad Corinth speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching therefore the Word by Cities and by Countries and Baptizing they made the first-fruits of them whom they had baptized Bishops and Deacons of those that should believe And that S. Paul addresses his Epistles to the Church that is at Corinth and to all that called on the name of the Lord in all Achaia 2 Cor. I. 1. So that they provided for the ordering of them that should become or were become Christians before they were yet cast into Churches And it is reasonable to think that those were ordained in the mother Cities and there stood upon their guard expecting opportunity of framing their flocks And that this was a cause why the titles of Bishops and Presbyters are promiscuously used and attributed But I cannot therefore yield that one Bishop with one or more Deacons could serve the Churches of Philippi Corinth or Ephesus Or that as yet no Governours were affected and applied to several Churches For when S. Paul directs Timothy to dispose of the stock of the Church for the Honour that is the maintenance of widows and Presbyters to receive accusations against Presbyters under two or three witnesses and to rebuke them that should offend before all 1 Tim. V. 2. 16-28 it seems not reasonable to imagine Timothy the Judge of the Biships of inferiour Churches as regularly every Bishop is of his own Presbyters that he should rebuke the Bishop of Forâ—iâ—e though inferiour Churches before the people of his Church of Ephesus that he should dispose of the stock of his Church at Ephesus upon Widows or Presbyters of other Churches then that at Ephesus But rather that the proceeding of Timothy is prescribed as a â—orm for the proceeding of others in their respective Churches Another opinion saith That the Deacons whom S. Paul puts next to Bishops are Presbyters called also Ministers of God and Christ as Timothy 1 Thes III. 2. S. Paul himself 2 Cor. II. 23. Ministers of the New Testament as S. Paul 2 Cor. III. 6. Ministers of the Gospel as S. Paul Ephe. III. 7. Ministers of Righteousness into whom the Ministers of Satan are transformed 2 Cor. XI 15. Ministers of the Church as S. Paul Col. I. 25. Observing that the vulgar Latine of S. Jerome translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. III. 8. Diaconos elsewhere in thirty places Ministros and concluding that these Deacons are the same with Presbyters under the Apostles and the Bishops their
this cup unmorthily should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ as not discerâ—ing it according to S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 27 28. unlesse wee suppose the same Sacramentally present by virtue of that true Christianity which the Church professing and celebrating the Sacrament tendâ—eth it for spiritual nourishment to a living faith for mater of damnation to a dead faith For if the profession of true Christianity be as of necessity it must be mater of condemnation to him that professeth it not truly that is to say who professing it doth not perform it shall not his assisting the celebration and consecration of the Eucharist produce the effect of rendring him condemned by himself eating the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament out of a profession of Christianity which spiritually hee despiseth for not fulfilling what hee professeth Or that living faith which concurreth to the same as a good Christian should do be left destitute of that grace which the tender of the Sacrament promiseth because the faith of those who joyn in the same action is undiscernable Certainly if the Sacramental presence of Christs body and bloud tendring the same spiritually be a blessing or a curse according to the faith which it meets with it can by no means seem unreasonable that it should be attributed to that profession of Christianity which makes it respectively a blessing or a curse according to the faith of them for whom it is intended As for that opinion that makes this presence to proceed from the Hypostatical Union passed so long before it stands upon those Scriptures which seem to signifie that those properties wherein the Majesty of Christs God-head consists are really communicated to this Manhood in the doing and for the effecting of those works wherein that assistance and grace and protection which hee hath promised his Church upon his Exaltation consisteth S. Paul writeth to the Colossians that It pleased that all fulnesse should dwell in Christ in whom dwelleth all the fulnesse of the God-head bodily as hee expresseth himself more at large Col. II. 9. that they by him might be filled and by him to reconcile all things tâ— himself making peace by the bloud of his Crosse by him I say whether things on earth or in the Heavens And you being once estranged and enemies in your mind through evil works yet now hath hee reconciled through the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and without spot and blamelesse before him Here it is plain enough that our Reconciliation is ascribed to the flesh of Christs body as to his bloud after in whom wee have Redemption even the remission of sins by his bloud Col. I. 14 19-92 to wit for the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in Christ When our Lord saith all things are delivered mee by my Father Mat. XI 27. in order to the revealing of his Gospel that is to the making of it effectual When hee saith All power in heaven and earth is given mee Mat. XXVIII 18. a question is made how given if a necessary conâ—equence of the Hypostatical Union I answer Because the exercise thereof was limited by the appointment of God and the purpose for which hee caused the Word to dwell in our flesh which though of force to do all things should not have had right in our flesh to execute that which God had not appointed And therefore is our Lord Christ justly said to receive that power of God which by degrees hee receiveth commission to exercise The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God I have showed that the Apostle makes an argument of divine power and authority dwelling in our flesh in the person of Christ Heb. I. 3. Acts II. 33. V. 31. Eph. I. 20-22 where S. Paul ascrbies the filling of the Church a work of God alone to it And as hee sits on Gods own Throne so he shall judge all as man saith our Lord John V. 21 22 23 26-30 and raise them up and quicken them to that purpose For the Throne of God on which Christ is set down is the Seat of his Judgement And therefore as I live saith the Lord God in the Prophet Es XLV 23. Christ in the Apostle Rom. XIV 11. to mee shall every knee â—ow and every tongue shall give glory tâ— God To the same purpose is all that you read of anointing our Lord Christ with the Holy Ghost given him by God without measure saith the Baptist John III. 34. if you understand it not of the habitual graces poured forth upon the Manhood of Christ from the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in it of the truth whereof neverthelesse there is no disputes but of the very Majesty of the God-head communicated unto it in the person of Christ as of a truth I have said that they are to be understood In fine not onely the â—erit but the applâ—cation thereof that is the effecting of the cleansing of our consciences from sin is ascribed unto the bloud of Christ Ebr. IX 14. 1 John I. 7. How or in what regard but because by the eternal Spirit hee offered up himself blamelesse to God as the Apostle saith In which regard onely it is that our nature in Christ is honoured with the worship due to God because being for ever inseparable from the God-head of the Word it is not to be appreheâ—ded or figured so much as in the imagination but as the flesh of the Word This is a brief of the Scriptures which they allege to inferre that seeing hee hath promised to feed his Church with his flesh and his bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which cannot be unlesse they be there And seeing the like works are performed and executed by the flesh that is the Manhood of Christ through the virtue of the God-head united unto it Therefore it is to be believed that by communication of the Majesty of the God-head to the flesh of Christ it becomes present wheresoever his promise and the comfort and strengthening of his Disciples which is the work of his Mediators Office whereunto by sitting down at Gods right hand heâ— is installed requires the presence of it If it be said that by this position the attributes and properties of the God-head are placed in the Manhood as their own proper Subject into which they are transferred by the operation of the God-head not devesting it self of them but communicating them to the Manhood to be thenceforth properties really residing in it and therefore truly to be attributed to it I must do them right and acknowledge that they utterly disclaim this to be their meaning Confessing thereby that if it were they could not avoid the imputation of Eutyches his Heresie condemned by the great Council of Chalcâ—don the confusion of the natures remaining unavoidable when the properties of the God-head being communicated to the Manhood in this sense can be no more said to remain the properties of it I undertake not thus much
God Grant that there may be question whether it be a just occasion or not certainly supposing it come to a custom in the church presently to do that which is alwaies due to be done you suppose the question determined This is that which I stand upon the matter being such as it is supposing the custom of the church to have determined it it shal be so far from an act of Idolatry that it shal be the duty of a good Christian Therefore not supposing the Church to have determined it though for some occasions whereof more are possible then it is possible for me to imagine it may become offensive and not presently due yet can it never become an act of Idolatry so long as Christianity is that which it is and he that does it professes himselfe a Christian Here then you see I am utterly disobliged to dispute whether or no in the ancient Church Christians were exhorted and incouraged to and really did worship our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For having concluded my intent that it had not been Idolatry had it been done I might leave the consequence of it to debate But not to balk the freedom which hath caryed me to publish all this I doe believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient church which I maintaine from the beginning to have been the true church of Christ obliging all to conforme to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be don at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole Which if it were taken away that it might be done againe and ought not to be of it selfe alone any cause of distance For I doe acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of S. Ambrose de Spiritu Sancto III. 12. S. Austine in Psalme XCVIII and Epist CXX cap. XXVII S. Chrysostome Homil. XXIIII in 1. ad Corinth Theodoret Dial. II. S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. in S. Gorgoniam S. Jerom Epist ad Theophilum Epist Alexandriae Origen in diversa loca Evang. Hom. V. Where he teacheth to say at the receiving the sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roofe Which to say is to do that which I conclude Nor doe I need more to conclude it And what reason can I have not to conclude it Have I supposed the elements which are Gods creatures in which the Sacrament is celebrated to be abolished or any thing else concerning the flesh and bloud of Christ or the presence thereof in the Eucharist in giving a reason why the Church may doe it which the Church did not believe If I have I disclame it as soone as it may appeare to me for such Nay I doe expressely warne all opinions that they imagine not to themselves the Eucharist so meere and simple a signe of the thing fignified that the celebration thereof should not be a competent occasion for the executing of that worship which is alwaies due to our Lord Christ in carnate I confesse it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it selfe justifieth it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible kind nor the invisible Grace of Christs body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise In regard whereof the one going along with the other whatsoever be the distance of their nature both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the worke of God to which he is morally ingaged by the promise which the institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But I will not therefore warrant that they who maintain the worshipping of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe not understand the visible kind or as themselves thinke the visible propertyes thereof by that name Which if they shall declare themselves to understand then is the question far otherwise and to be resolved upon the same termes as the question concerning the worshiping of images shall by and by be resolved That though the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be the occasion to determine the circumstance of the worshipping of Christ yet is it selfe no way capable of any worship that may be counted religious because religion injoyneth it Cardinall Bellarmine de Euch. IV. 29. would have it said that the signe is worshipped materially but the body and blood of Christ formally in the Eucharist Which are termes that signifie nothing For it is impossible to distinguish in God the thing that is worshiped from the reason for which it is worshipped so that the thing may be understood without understanding it to be the reason why it is worshipped Therefore the signe in the Eucharist seemes onely to determine why that worship which is alwaies every where due is here now ten dred Indeed when the Councile of Trent pronounceth him anathema that believes not the elements to be abolished and cease to be in it being consecrated I cannot deny that their obliging all to believe that which no man can have that cause to believe for which he belives the Christian faith hath beene a very valuable reason though not the onely reason to move the Church of England to supersede that ceremony hardly in the minds of Christians so bred to it to be parted from it contenting it selfe to injoine the receiving of it kneeling which he that refuseth to do seems not to acknowledge the being of a sacrament requiring the tender of the thing signified by it and with it And I conceive further that the carying of the Sacrament in procession and upon such occasions as signifies no order towards the receiving of it nor any such intent upon supposition whereof the Sacrament is a Sacrament hath added much waight to that reason For if the use of the sacrament were the reason to make the occasion fit the abuse thereof must needs render it unfit But for that which remaines whether those who thinke the body and blood of Christ present instead of the elements which are there no more be Idolators for worshipping the elements which remain present where they think they are not is a question no way to be resolved till it be granted that supposing them present it is no Idolatry For if the fals opinion of their absence make men idolaters then are they not idolaters which have it not Consider then that were the body and blood of Christ so present as to be in stead of the substance of bread and wine the consideration in which any Christian holding what the church of Rome teaches should worship it would be no other then that for which it should be worshipped by
him who believes it not so present as in my opinion the ancient Church did believe Both must worship the body and blood of Christ because incarnate and therefore as the body and blood of Christ is inseparable from the consideration of his God-head which every Christian intends to worship And how can then a mans mistake in thinking the elements to be away which indeed are there make him guilty of honouring those creaturs as God which we know if he thought that they were there he must needs take for creatures and therefore could not honour for God I doe believe it hath been said by great Doctors of the Church of Rome that they must needs think themselves flat Idolaters if they could think that the elements are not abolished That showes what confidence they would have the world apprehend that they hold their opinion with But not that the consequence is true unlesse that which I have said be reprovable For what reason can be given why that bodily gesture which professedly signifieth the honour of God tendred to Christ spiritually present in the Eucharist should be Idolatry because the bread and wine are believed to remaine there Which according to their opinion supposing them to be abolished their accidents onely remaining is no idolatry but the worship of our Lord Christ for God In the next place as concerning prayer to Saints I must suppose that the termes of prayer invocation calling upon and whatsoever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unlesse we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifyng requests made to God and to man Which are not equivocall according to that equivocation which comes by meere chance but by that for which there is a reasonable ground in that eminence which out conceptions and therefore our words which signifie them expresse unto us For all the apprehensions that we have of God all things intelligible coming from things sensiâ—le we can have no proper conceite of Gods excellence and the eminence thereof above his creatures which necessarily appeares to us under attributes common to his creatures removing that imperfection which in them they are joyned with This is the reason why all signes of honour in word or deed may be equivocall when they need not be counted so being joyned with signes either of other words or deeds which may serve to determine the capacity of them Adoration worship respect reverence or howsoever you translate the Latine cultus are of this kind as I said afore Ingressus scenam populum saltator adorat coming upon the stage to dance he adores or worships the people or as an othersaies jactat basia he throwes them kisses He does reverence to the spectators by kissing his hand and saluting them with it So prayer invocation calling upon God is not so proper to God but that whether you will or not every petition to a Prince or a Court of justice is necessarily a prayer and he that makes it invocates or calls upon that Prince or that Court for favour or for justice Now the militant Church necessarily hath communion with the triumphant believing that all those who are departed in Gods Grace are at rest and secure of being parted from him for the future though those who have neglected the content of this world the most for his service and are in the best of those mansions which are provided for them till the day of judgement whom here we call properly Saints injoy the neerest accesse to his presence To dispute whether we are bonnd to honour them or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not Whether this honour be Religious or civill nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable and the cause of that equivocation the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signifie conceptions which came not from common sence If we call it Religion it is manifest that all religion is that reverence which the conscience of our obligation to God rendreth If civil the inconvenience is more grosse though lesse dangerous For how can we owe civill respect where there is no relation of members of the same city or Common wealth Plainely their excellence and the relation we have to them being intelligible onely by Christianity must borrowe a name from that which vulgar language attributes to God or to men our superiours I need say nothing in particular of Angels whom if we believe to be Gods ministers imployed instructing his children upon earth we must needs own their honour though the intercourse between us be invisible It were easy to pick up sayings of the Fathers by which religious honour is proper to Christ and others in which that honour that reverence which religion injoines is tendred Saints and Angels And all to be imputed to nothing but want of proper termes for that honour which religion injoyneth in respect of God and that relation which God hath setled betweene the Church militant and triumphant being reasonably called Religious provided that the distance be not confounded between the religious honour of God and that honour of the creature which the religious honour of God injoines being neither civill nor humane but such as a creature is capable of for religions sake and that relation which it setleth I must come to particulars that I may be understood He that could wish that the memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have beene Martyrs had they been called to it had not beene honoured as it is plaine they were honured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed For this honour depending on nothing but the assurance of their happinesse in them that remained alive was that which moved unbelievers to bethinke themselves of the reason they had to be Christians What were then those honours Reverence in preserving the remaines of their bodies and burying them celebrating the remembrance of their agonies every yeare assembling themselves at their monuments making the daies of their death Festivals the places of their buriall Churches building and consecrating Churches to the service of God in remembrance of them I will adde further for the custome seemeth to come from undefiled Christianity burying the remains of their bodies under the stones upon which the Eucharist was celebrated What was there in all this but Christianity That the circumstances of Gods service which no law of God had limited the time the place the occasion of assembling for the service of God alwaies acceptable to God should be determined by such glorious accidents for Christianity as the departure of those who had thus concluded their race What can be so properly counted the raigne of the Saints and Martyrs with Christ which S. Iohn foretelleth Apoc. XX. as this honour when it came to