is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
these things But that which is here to be enquired and examined is Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority to be administred in both kinds 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament against Christs Institution in both kinds of Bread and Wine is so plain from the words of its Institution that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup c. 1. Council of Trent And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church (e) Sacris c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum Dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum Dicens Accipite quod trado vasoulum Omnes ex eo bibite Sic Sacrificium istud instituit He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood saying Take this Cup which I deliver drink ye all of it Thus did he institute that Sacrifice These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup Matt. 26 27. Drink ye all of it And it may be further observed that those words in the Institution Do this in remembrance of me are a Precept which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words Do this to establish the whole Institution that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense ut hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur that we should do what our Lord did and should not depart from what Christ taught and did Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament For Do this c. in S. Luke and S. Paul comes in the place of take eat c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark and in these words of S. Paul Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me the words as oft as ye drink it do plainly import thus much that the Command do this in that place doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians that from hence (g) de Consecrat di 2. c. 7. Cum omne Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses which had in some places been entertained Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipt in the Cup upon this reason because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels concerning the Master of truth who when he commended to his Apostles his Body and his Blood Seorsum panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians where he useth this as an Argument to all particular Christians against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship 1 Cor. 10.21 ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned And the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. c. 2. owns that from the beginning of Christianity the Sacrament was given in both kinds But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance account neither the Institution of Christ nor the practice of the ancient Church to be in this case any necessary guide but they declare the custom then received to be changed upon just reasons 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ might be eluded and a Mist cast before the Sun divers Romanists and particularly (i) de Euchar l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants Bellarmine declare that Christs command drink ye all of it was given to the Apostles only and not to all Communicants To which I answer 1. That the Apostles at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament were not consecrating but communicating and therefore the Command given to them as receiving the Sacrament is a rule for Communicants Which binds all Communicants and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case between Priest and People but acknowledged as (k) Chrys Hom. 18. in 2 Epist ad Corinth S. Chrysostome expresseth it that the same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England which declare (l) Art 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike 2. That this device would serve as effectually if it were considerable to take away the Bread with the Cup from the people that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them 3. The Command of Christ with the reason annexed Matt. 26.27 28. Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins doth give sufficient light to discern to whom this Precept is designed to wit to all them who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament for the Remission of sins and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 26. plainly applys Christ's Command concerning the Cup to all who come to the Holy Communion in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution concerning the Cup he immediately says to the Corinthians For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup indefinitely to all who are to Communicate v. 28. Let a Man not only the Priest examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. 18. But here the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum salva illorum substantia statuere vel mutare to appoint and change things in dispensing the Sacraments still preserving their substance And they seem to intimate that the Communion in both kinds No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People is not of the substance of the Sacrament because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament according to his Institution The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature and therefore to change this
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
to be in many things blameable more than the Papists at this day as dissimulation infidelity and the like which were the faults by Leo charged on the Manichees but not by Gelasius charged on them he writes of but still in that fault for which Gelasius condemns them he writes against the Papists at this day are altogether guilty of it that is in dividing the Sacrament or not receiving both Bread and Wine which he saith cannot be without great Sacriledge Nor can any here make a third reply upon any rational ground that it then was Sacrilegious to have administred only in one kind because the known practice and Canons of the Roman Church required administration in both kinds But since it hath in after times declared this practice mutable and ordered the Communion to be given only in one kind it is not now sacrilegious For this answer will not agree with the intent of these words and the Doctrine formerly received in the Roman Church The reason why Gelasius declared it great sacriledge to take this Sacrament in one kind alone is intimated sufficiently in this Canon not to refer to the Churches Constitution but the Sacraments Institution in that he calls both species or kinds one and the same Mysterie and sayes this one and the same Mysterie cannot be divided without grand sacriledge which is to referr us to the nature of the thing it self and its Institution as being not mutable Yea further the ancient Tradition of the Roman Church held as a Point of Doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist ought to be administred according to what Christ instituted that is the Bread and Wine to be given to the Laity distinctly and separately because Christ gave them so then cannot this third Reply reconcile the present Doctrine of the Roman Church with what was formerly delivered To shew this I could produce many testimonies but shall only instance in Julius a Roman Bishop in a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt recorded also in Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Cum omne Where he declares that he had heard of some who contrary to the Divine Orders and Apostolical Institutions consecrated Milk instead of Wine others who deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped For it is read in the truth of the Gospel Jesus took Bread and the Cup and having blessed it gave it to his Disciples But for that they gave the Eucharist dipped to the people they have received no testimony produced out of the Gospel in which he commends to us his body and his blood for the commendation is rehearsed separately of the Bread and separately of the Cup. In which words he makes Christs Institution a Rule by which he condemns other practices different from it and from this Institution he requires that both the Bread and the Cup be separately given and this even with reference to the Laity or as he speaks to the people to whom it was delivered and by this Rule he condemned the giving the Bread dipped in Wine whereas both should be given asunder so doth Gelasius by the same condemn the receiving only in one kind when it should be received in both All this considered the former Tradition of the Roman Church may from this instance appear to condemn the late Tradition as sacrilegious and therefore I may conclude that the same Tradition hath not been alwayes kept to as may appear by preserved Monuments out of which instances may be easily multiplied An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority § 1. BVt saith he some may say all this is nature if the Objector means reason wrought upon by Motives laid by Gods special goodness to bring man to bliss I wonder what else is supernaturality But this point is out of my road otherwise than to shew how Christian Tradition is strengthened above the greatest humane testimony whatever by those Motives which we rightly call assistances of the Holy Ghost Not to examine his Notion of supernaturality and the assistances of the Holy Ghost because they concern not the Discourse in hand I shall only tell him what Protestants or any other men who are true to reason would say to this Discourse and that is that what he hath said hitherto is of so low natural evidence and so far from reason that in this way the Christian can have no more evidence of the truth of Christian Religion than an Heathen may have of the truth of Paganism nor is there any such certainty in Tradition concerning the main Body of Christs Doctrine as is comparable to many other matters of humane testimony § 2 3. He observes the Mahometans Tradition for Mahomets existence will convey the truth thereof to the Worlds end if followed and Protestants acknowledge it hath had the force hitherto to be followed And the Tradition in the Church for the main Body of Christs Doctrine far exceeds that of the Turks for Mahomets existence because supposing the quality of the testifiers equal much greater multitudes in divers Countreys were testifiers of Christs Doctrine being converted by powerful Miracles than the few witnesses of Mahomets existence it is easier for those few Syrians or Arabians to conspire to a lye than for these Christians nor can Christians be so easily mistaken concerning Christian Doctrine In answer to this I in the first place grant That there is an Historical Traditionary certainty amongst the Turks concerning the existence of Mahomet and it is very reasonable that rather more should be allowed to the Tradition of Christians than of Mahometans But that it may truly appear how far Tradition may be relyed on for the conveyance of truth we must distinctly consider the matters delivered Of which some things there are which are not probably capable of mistake nor liable to be perverted and to receive a mixture of much falshood and have this advantage that the delivery of them from one to another doth still continue and no interest perswades the generality of men to deny or indeavour the concealing of them Now all these properties agree to the assertion of Mahomets existence amongst the Turks to the delivery of the Being of a God among the Gentiles to Moses being the great Prophet among the Jews and to Jesus being the Christ and I may add S Peter and S. Paul c. being his Apostles among the Christians thus the fame of a good or true Writer may be continued amongst Historians and in these things and many other such like I will grant it is not only possible but probable that Tradition may convey a certainty But there are other things lyable to mistake whence in many matters of common fame sufficiently known to the first Relater by the misapprehension of them who hear the relation the ordinary report is oft-times false or else 2. They are subject to be perverted or are concealed and not delivered which hath been
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
shape to their souls but referr to them by expressing the resemblance of the bodies in which they once dwelt and to which they were and shall be again united though now separated from them And therefore this notion allows the Images of God in like manner as the Church of Rome sets up Images of Angels and Saints deceased not making any considerable difference betwixt these so far as concerns the representing every one of them by their Image and consequently must allow the worshipping every one of these Images with a proportionable honour in relation to the Beings represented by them 4. If this notion were of any weight the Jewish Church might then have been warranted in setting up Images of God and worshipping them also with respect to God provided they were not like him nor esteemed so to be And yet God plainly forbad their making any Image of him in the likeness of male or female or any other thing though he had sufficiently taught them and they well knew that the Deity was not in shape like to any of these And God declares his dislike against any such Images because they could frame nothing which they could liken to him which being a reason of perpetual and abiding truth doth concern the Christian state as well as the Jewish and the laying down this reason doth sufficiently declare against all such Images as are not like to him 13. Secondly Of the Romanists worshipping the Eucharist with Divine Worship I shall shew that the Romanists give proper Divine worship to that which is not God And here I shall particularly instance in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to which they profess to give that Latria or high worship which is due to the true God alone This is the plain Doctrine of the Council of Trent (q) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. fideles omnes Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic Sacramento deferre that all good Christians do give to this Sacrament that properly Divine worship which is due to the true God And in the beginning of that Session they strictly forbid all Christians thenceforward to believe otherwise and their sixth Anathema is against him who shall say that Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored with that which is the proper Divine worship In like manner it is expressed in the Roman Catechism published by the authority of Pius the Fifth (r) Catech. ad par de Euch. Sacr. in init huic Sacramento divinos honores tribuendos esse that Divine honour is to be given to this Sacrament And the words of Adoration in the Missal and the acts of adoration unto this Sacrament are accordingly to be understood to give Divine honour thereunto And Azorius is for giving this Divine worship even to the (Å¿) Instit Mor. part 2. l. 5. c. 16. species or appearances of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament But the Council of Trent seem not to extend it so far and the Roman Catechism declares that when they affirm this Sacrament is to be worshipped they understand this of the Body and Blood of Christ therein 14. We greatly reverence the holy Sacrament as an excellent institution of our Saviour but reserve the Divine honour to God alone for there is nothing which is not truly God be it otherwise never so sacred to which such worship may be given S. Paul was an eminent Apostle but with detestation disclaimed the receiving it Act. 14.13 14 15. The brazen Serpent under the Law was of Gods institution for the healing those Israelites who looked upon it but yet it was a great sin to worship it with Divine honour If the homage peculiarly due to a Prince be given to any other in his Dominions though it be to one he hath highly advanced he will account this a disparaging his dignity and practising Treason and Rebellion and God who is a jealous God will not give his worship to another But this practice of the Roman Church depends upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation This is grourded upon transubstantiation for if that substance which is in the Sacrament be no longer Bread and Wine but be changed into the substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ in union with his Divinity then and only then may Divine honour be given unto it And if it be in truth the very same glorified Christ who is at Gods right hand and nothing else then is that worship which is due to Christ the Son of God which is proper Divine Worship as much to be performed to this Sacrament as to him in Heaven since both is substantially one and the same thing wholly and intirely The (t) Sess 13. c. 1 4 5. Anath 1. 2. Council of Trent declares that by the consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a conversion of their whole substance into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ And they say the Body and Blood of Christ with his soul and Divinity and therefore whole Christ are contained in the Eucharist but the substance of the Bread and Wine remains not but only the species or appearance thereof and that this the Church calls Transubstantiation On this Doctrine it founds the Divine worship of the Sacrament and it anathematizeth him whosoever shall speak against this Transubstantiation and forbids all Christians that they shall not dare to believe or teach otherwise concerning the Eucharist than as this Council hath determined Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true the giving Divine worship to this Sacrament is but just but if this be false as the (u) Article 28. Church of England declares then is the giving Divine honour thereto certainly and greatly sinful and evil 15. It is acknowledged that this holy Sacrament administred according to Christs institution doth truly and really exhibite and communicate Christs Body and Blood with the benefits of his Sacrifice in an Heavenly Mystical and Sacramental way but the manner of this gracious presence it is needless curiously to enquire And though the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances yet are they greatly changed by their consecration from common Bread and Wine to contain under them such Spiritual and Divine Mysteries which is the effect of Divine power and grace Nor is it possible that these elements should tender to us Christ and the benefits of his Passion if this work had not been ordered by the power and authority of God in his Institutions who hath the disposal of this grace But that the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their substance and that they are not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ is generally asserted by all Protestants whilst the contrary is universally affirmed by the Romanists and is made one great branch of the true Catholick Faith and the new Roman Creed according to the famous Bull of Pius the Fourth which is so solemnly sworn unto Indeed there are such expressions frequently
being so inhumanly savage that in their private Religious Assemblies they murdered an Infant and sucked and drunk his blood it was among other things answered by (f) Tert. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian (g) In Octav. p. 100. Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix and (h) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians who were so far from taking any human blood that they carefully avoided all blood even of Beasts But this defence could not well have been made on this manner if they had accounted themselves to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist and not only such a mystical representation thereof as is not void of efficacy and reality And though I think it manifest that blood may lawfully be eaten and that the Apostolical prohibition thereof was but a provisional Decree for those times from the general declaration in the New Testament that nothing is unclean in it self from the liberty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles or was set before them when they were invited to eat with unbelievers asking no question for conscience sake and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law because it was given upon the altar to make an atonement for their souls Lev. 17.10 11 12 13 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus as it is from him mentioned by (i) Pamel in Apolog. Tertul n. 138. Pamelius it is now about five hundred years since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed which was publickly established under the time of Innocentius the Third above four hundred and fifty years since And that general prohibition of blood so long continued though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or not fairly reconcileable thereunto 19. Thirdly Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense Transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of sense Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable that this is that which assured and manifested the certainty of the mighty Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles yea of the birth of Christ of his converse with men in the world and of his being crucified risen again and ascended into Heaven Upon the evidence of sense Thomas was convincingly perswaded of Christs resurrection and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard Act. 4.20 And the certainty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christianity they founded upon the evidence of their senses in that it was what they had seen with their eyes and what they had heard and their hands had handled of the word of life 2 Pet. 1.16 17 18. 1 Joh. 1.1 And therefore the denying the evidence of sense would undermine Christianity and withal take away all possibility of certainty concerning the plain matters of fact in the world And there could be no assurance given that Christ taught any Doctrine nor could what he did teach be otherwise conveyed to us than by our eyes and ears unless men pretend to Enthusiasm And as that pretence is vain so if it were not no other men could be taught by such Enthusiasticks but by the exercise and use of their senses and upon supposition of the certainty thereof 20. But our eyes our taste our feeling and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated elements do all of them testifie that the Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances after their consecration But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to (k) Catech. aâ—â— arochos p. 218. Curandum est ut fidelium mentes quam maxime fieri potest à sensuum judicio abstrahantur take care that the minds of Christians should as much as is possible be drawn off from the judgement of their senses And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses must not believe that they do truly either read or see any such instruction as this directed to them And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied there will then be no certainty to the Communicants whether there be any Priest present to consecrate and consequently whether there be any words of consecration spoken or whether there be any elements to receive consecration And the senses of the Communicants do give a more joint testimony to the elements remaining in their proper substances than to these other instances 21. and is also opposite to reason Fourthly Transubstantiation is opposite to the principles of reason and understanding and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thousand yea many millions of places at the same time is sufficiently inconsistent with the nature of a body And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent agreeably to that Council declares that (l) Ibid. p. 223 225. Inquavis urriusque speciei parâ—icula totum Christum contineri under every least part either of the Bread or Wine whole Christ is contained even with his bones sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body as I above observed from the same Catechism 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse or any other brutish Animal or Insect do eat any part of the consecrated Host they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ This is acknowledged by (m) Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas and though the (n) Sent. l. 4. dist 13. A. Master of the Sentences would not admit this for truth but declared himself of the contrary opinion yet his Authority is here rejected and by the Censure of (o) Lib. 4. Art 9. the Divines of Paris this is reckoned among one of his errors But it is a thing dishonourable to the glorious Body of Christ to be eaten of Brutes and to pass into the draught and to be substantially present there where even the Romanists who assert that presence do not require Divine Worship to be given to it 3. And it is contradictory to assert that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone the accidents thereof do remain without any subject or matter being as the Roman Catechism saith (p) Catech. p. 219. 230. Edi. Lovan 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent and species sine aliqua re subjecta Thus for instance the extension that was in the Bread is supposed to remain when the substance of the Bread is gone and that extension which can be measured and felt is in its own
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
did own himself to be the most high God and as Irenaeus relates (y) Iren. adv Haeres l. 1. c. 20. that it was he who appeared as the Son amongst the Jews and descended as the Father in Samaria and came as the Holy Spirit in other Nations and they who were his followers both in Samaria Rome and other Nations did worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the chief God as (z) Justin Apol. 1. Justin Martyr affirms and (a) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr Eusebius from him Now if it should be supposed that the Gnosticks should own the true God and that there is no other God besides him and should therefore design to give Divine honour to him alone but should be perswaded that he was incarnate in Simon Magus and thereupon should worship him with Divine honour this could not excuse them herein from being Idolaters And whereas Montanus and the propagators of his Heresie did declare him to be the Paraclete as is oft expressed in Tertullian and is affirmed also by divers Catholick Writers as (b) Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. Eusebius (c) Basil ad Amphil. c. 1. Basil and others or as (d) de Consec dist 4. c. Hi vero Gregory expresseth it that he was the Holy Ghost if any of his followers professing Divine Worship to be due only to the True God and the three persons of the glorious Trinity should upon a presumptive delusion believe that the Holy Ghost was imbodied in Montanus and thereupon yield to him that Divine Worship which is due to the Holy Ghost this could not excuse them from Idolatry 29. Assert 2. All Idolatry is not equally heinous Assert 2. In Idolatry which is in its nature a great and grievous sin all the acts and kinds thereof in misplacing proper Divine Worship are not equally heinous and abominable There is a great difference from the temper of the persons whence acts proceding from sudden surprize from weakness of understanding or from great fear are not of so high a guilt as those which proceed from carelesness of duty neglect of instruction or contempt of God or wilful enmity against the true Religion There is also difference in the acts of worship which I mentioned n. 27. as also from the plyableness of temper to be drawn from them and the resolved obstinacy of persisting in them And there is a difference also with respect to the object to which Divine Worship is given whence the worshipping of Baal or the Gods of other Nations in opposition to the God of Israel was more heinous than the Idolatry of Jeroboams Calves because it included a professed departing from the true God and the worshipping of Simon Magus was the more abominable as including a following him and consequently rejecting the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But the Idolatry of the Calves was not of so high a nature nor did it utterly exclude the ten Tribes from all relation to the Church of God though even this would exclude those persons who designedly espoused it or who perversely or negligently joined in it from the blessing of God 30. Assert 3. All misplacing Divine honour upon an undue object which is Idolatry is a very great sin Assert 3. All sorts thereof are greatly evil To suppose that ignorance and mistake should be any sufficient plea or excuse is to reflect upon the goodness and wisdom of God as if even under the Christian revelation he had not sufficiently directed men in so important a duty as to know the object of Divine adoration or whom we are to worship And how little any misunderstanding upon the grounds laid down by the Romanists is like in this case to be available for their excuse I shall manifest by proposing another case which may well be esteemed parallel hereunto As our Saviour said concerning the Eucharistical Bread This is my Body so there is a greater plenty of expressions in the Scriptures which are as plausible to confer Divine honour upon pious Christians They are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature to be born of God The Remish Adoration of the Host parallel'd to be renewed after the Image of God and that God dwelleth in them and that Christ is formed in them and is in them and that they are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones and with respect to them he said to Saul why persecutest thou me and he will say to others I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat c. and the Spirit of God dwells in them Now if from such expressions as these any sort of men should give Divine Worship to every Saint in pursuance of that fond notion of some Fanatick heads that they are Godded with God and Christed with Christ and consequently to those in Heaven as well as to those on Earth and thereby multiply the objects of Divine Adoration really beyond all the Polytheism of the Gentiles I doubt not but they of the Church of Rome would account this abominable Idolatry Nor would they think it sufficient here to be pretended that these worshippers own only one true God and give Divine Worship to the Saints only because they believe them to receive a new Divine Nature in becoming Saints and to put on Christ and to be changed into the nature and substance of that one God and though this may seem as contrary to sense and reason as Transubstantiation doth they therefore believe it because God hath said it if their manifestly mistaken sense of Scripture be allowed and they can confidently rely on his word And if we compare these two together the grace of the Sacrament is very excellent but it is that which is to be communicated to the communion of Saints and conferred upon them But the nature of the pious Christian is so much advanced above that of the Sacramental elements that that must be confessed to be true which was affirmed by Bishop Bilson (e) Differ of Christ Subject Unchr Rebel Part. 4. p. 713. that Christian men are members of Christ the Bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the Bread he doth not he will raise them at the last day the Bread he will not they shall reign with him for ever the Bread shall not But these and such like words we mention not as having any low thoughts of the Holy Sacrament but as owning the truth of the Sacramental elements remaining in their created substances and even these we duly reverence as set apart to an holy use and purpose but we most highly value the great blessings of the Gospel and the spiritual presence of Christ which though it be tendred in the Sacramental elements yet being the invisible grace of the Sacrament is to be distinguished from the visible sign thereof To this we have our eye chiefly in the Sacrament according to that ancient admonition (f) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. sursum
being delivered For if any one of these be false as doubtless they are his demonstration falls with them But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration it may be observed that he who will suffer-himself to be perswaded by these vain reasonings may with as much reason be a Jew or a Pagan as a Papist The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses and Ezra here is an effect like this of the Papists perswasion therefore in no Age could it be changed but was ever delivered and therefore true if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible Amongst the Gentiles the Opinions of Jupiter Juno Mars c. being gods was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original for else they could never have believed them to have been gods Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers and the first Generations of mankind after Noah were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them since according to this Discourser no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false or in delivering for certain what it knew was not certain Yea since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general than the Popish Tradition that is it was received and delivered amongst more Nations and contradicted by fewer persons than the Romish Doctrines were and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists it must be also for the Gentiles Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point that there is one only God So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail I shall now in the close of this Discourse as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church which is in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is that the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate do receive only in one species to wit that of Bread and this they declare to be lawful and the contrary not to be necessary or commanded of God and to be ordered upon just causes to be a true receiving the Sacrament and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ and they condemn yea and Anathematize any who shall speak the contrary as may be seen Concil Constanc Ses 13. and Conc. Trid. Ses 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge that Christ did institute and the ancient Church administred this Sacrament under both kinds and therefore by their own acknowledgement they keep not in practice to what was delivered But the Question is Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine Now that I may lay a good foundatipn and such as no Romanist will reject to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome I shall apply my self not to any private Father though approved which possibly he will except against as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome as is still acknowledged to have been an approved Canon and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church which is this of Gelasius the First We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood who because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up must without doubt either receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot come without great Sacriledge This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum Gratian inserted it De Consecratione Dist 2. c. comperimus It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii Nor is it denied by any that I know And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy not Consecrating should receive in both kinds this old Tradition saies plainly that they who receive not both kinds must receive neither it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational to order that the Communion shall be only in one kind and the Council of Constance ubi supra condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time to receive only in that one kind but what ever the reason was he declared it could never be approved and its Principle was Superstition and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament without great Sacriledge Now though these words are very plain yet there are two waies the Papists make use of to pervert the sense of them which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers and so vindicate this testimony The first answer is that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity This is the interpretation in the Rubrick of Gratian and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine But 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius so as to include the Laity and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy and speaking of them whom he would have driven back or kept back from the Sacraments and of them who are taught the ordinary receivers are plainly included if not chiefly intended and finding fault with this that some abstained reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain 2. The restraining this to the Clergy is contrary to the History and general practice of those times it being certain and confessed that even in the Western Church not only till that time but for some hundreds of years after this Sacrament was administred to all in both kinds In this case to conclude that when some were found to abstain from one kind they must be supposed to be of the Clergy would be a vain surmise 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times which owned the Laity to have the same right to receive in both kinds with the Clergy Thus Chrysostome who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth There is saith he something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People to wit as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries for we have all alike right to partake of them Not as it was under the Old Testament the Priest did eat some things and the people other
things and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things of which the Priest did partake But it is not so now The same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup. So far S. Chrysostome 4. Though this interpretation restraining it to the Clergy contrary to Reason History and the Doctrine of that time should be allowed yet would not this be enough to reconcile it with the present Tradition which delivers that the Clergy also if they do not consecrate must not receive in both kinds 5. This first answer is acknowledged frivolous from some of the grounds above-mentioned and rejected by many of the more learned Papists and Baronius ad annum 496. n. 20. calls it frigidam solutionem a cold or dull solution but pretends to give a better which now follows The other Answer necessary to be examined is That this Canon refers to the Manichees and that it was only their receiving in one kind which Gelasius condemns as Sacriledge of whom it is thus written in Leo his fourth Sermon for Lent When they dare to be present at our Mysteries to conceal their Infidelity they so order themselves at the Communion of the Sacraments that sometimes they receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth that they may the more safely be concealed but they altogether decline to drink of the Blood of our Redemption which we therefore certifie your holiness that this sort of men may be known of us by these tokens and that when their Sacrilegious dissembling is discovered they being marked and detected may be driven by the Priestly Authority from the Saints society That to these the words of Gelasius refer is the answer of Baronius ad an 496. n. 21. Binnius in Vit. Gelasii and this also is approved by Bellarmine But 1. If Leo did discern this to be the practice of some Manichees fifty years before Gelasius his time this is no evidence that they were such of whom Gelasius writes had he intended the Manichees there can no reason be imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them but since he expressed this in a more general way that some were found there is no reason to restrain this to the Manichees 2. That expression that he knew not by what superstition they were bound up cannot fitly be applied to the Manichees For it was a matter not unknown but well known why the Manichees refused the Cup. Saint Austin about an hundred years before Gelasius sets down the reason of that Lib. 16. adversus Faust c. 3. They refused Wine and other things he saith not out of any strictness to subdue the body but as being unclean and called them filth and the gall of the people of darkness And lib. 20. c. 13. he saith the Manichees account it Sacriledge to tast Wine they own their God in the Grape but not in the Cup as if the treading or pressing did offend them So that it was known why the Manichees refused Wine upon all occasions Yea the very word of superstition suits not the Manichees refusal who were acted by gross Heresie and amongst other things they hereby maintained the distinction of things clean and unclean in their own nature whereas superstition rather intimates a design of reverence and veneration of the Sacrament but misplaced and not well guided 3. Nor can those words either let them receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole be applicable to the Manichees For if we consider the nature of Manicheism how great an Heresie it was that S. Austin in several places observes That they denied worship to the God of the Old Testament they blasphemed the Prophets they denied Christ to be born of the Virgin they did worship the Sun and own him to be God and many other gross things they held as the good and evil first Cause the denial of the Resurrection and the like that concerning such Hereticks Gelasius and the Roman Canons should appoint that they might be admitted to the partaking of the whole Sacrament no man who knows the discipline of those times can admit For no crime was owned greater than Heresie and that the Heresie of Manicheism was in the daies of Gelasius greatly abhorred by the Christians may appear in that after the death of Zeno the Emperour when Ariadne had declared Anastasius the Successor Euphemius the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to consent because he was a Manichee unless he should first under his hand-writing confirm the Faith of Chalcedon as is related by Theodorus Lector Collect. lib. 2. and not long after he shews how the Christians detested this Manichean Emperour because an Heretick which was in the very daies of this Gelasius Further when it is considered that this Gelasius the first Causa 24. Qu. 1. Acacius non est declares that whoever falls into any Heresie once condemned involves himself in that same condemnation It is not imaginable that he would allow the Eucharist to be given to a Manichee whom he must own as a condemned Heretick Nor could a Manichee be otherwise owned by Gelasius when in his time they stood condemned not only by the Civil Laws of Valentinian Gratian Theodosius and Honorius but also by a Roman Council in the daies of Pope Leo the Great in which as appears from Leo Serm. 5. de Jejuniis decim mens they determined that the Christians should wholly expel these accursed and contagious men from their friendship At which time Leo would not receive them who returned from Manicheism until they had first condemned the Manichees by open profession in the Church and by their subscriptions and at length had time injoined them for their penance as is observed by Baronius ad Ann. 444. n. 5. And can it then be imagined that when Gelasius had found such out he would give them liberty to be received to the Eucharist forthwith especially if it be observed that in another Canon of this same Gelasius Causa 24. Qu. 2. c. nec quisque He declares That they might not partake of the purity of the Lords Table with any Heretick which Table saith he our Ancestors did alwaies abundantly keep severed from all Heretical pollution Yea further can it be thought any way probable that when Leo in the above-mentioned words declares the Manichees to be in infidelity to receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth and sacrilegiously to dissemble in taking that and therefore to be rejected as contagious and accursed from all society of Christians yet Gelasius should judge these infidels thus sacrilegiously dissembling and unworthy yea accursed and condemned by former Councils fit for the highest Communion of Christians and allow them to receive the holy Eucharist Strangely wide must they needs be who would expound Gelasius by those words of Leo. 4. If notwithstanding all this those persons of which Gelasius writes had been Manichees this would indeed have shewed the persons in Gelasius his time who received only in one kind