body and into Christs blood which were exislent before So that whereas he infers so bold are Protestants in restraining the omnipotency of God to defend their own groundless phantasies pa. 207. We may more justly say so bold are Romanists in obliging Gods omnipotency without any signification of his will to work miracles to make good their phansies yea such miracles as they can give no examples or instances for nor any indication in the story that he did or would engage his omnipotency to work such a miraculous chang The Instances he brings for like manner of speech His pretended Instances for the word This to denote a thing future wherein the word this speaks the thing not present but about to be come not home to the purpose as This is my commandment that ye love This is a circle when but part of it drawn and this is fire speaking of flax kindled as those words are pronounced p. 208 209. The first instance is of words to be spoken as the subject of this and do to any mans apprehension refer necessarily to the future or that which follows in speech but the case is quite different when there is a visible substance as bread taken and held up while the pronoun demonstrative this is pronounced and must in any mans apprehension point it out The other two instances are of successive Mutations and visible Of which after begun it is intelligible if said this is a Circle For he that hears the words and sees the thing knows what it means but the change or mutation they suppose made and signified by these words this is my body is instantaneous and invisible which is not begun when the words are begun but accomplisht in a moment when they are fully spoken and cannot have truth in proper speech till then nor that truth be understood till the supposed change become visible or be expresly affirmed to be done If they can shew this of their change they contend for by those words then we shall understand and believe it true and then we wall admit the sense he gives of the words pa. 211. This which I am to give you and which ye are presently to eate is my body but till he can shew us express declaration of such a change or evidence of sight for it he must give us leave to think the sense Saint Paul puts upon those words This is my body by saying The bread that is this bread which we break is the Communion of my body far better and sitter to rest on Whereas pa. 213. he commends the ingenuous profession Ingenuity of Protestants in this point and good disposition of the Protestant that acknowledging bread remaining yet believes it to be the body of Christ because he has said this is my body though he cannot comprehend how this may be it is the profession of all true Protestants And there would be no question made of the Presence if the Romanists would be so ingenuous as to rest satisfied in it and not so contend about the Mode their conceit of transubstantiation as I noted at the beginning of this discourse and would have the Reader note diligently that notwithstanding the former objections for the remaining of Bread in substance yet are they not brought to exclude or prove any thing against the true presence but the Romish conceited presence of Christs body The next objection or argument of the Protestants is from Do this in remembrance of me of which I must say Remembrance of Christ made in the Sacrament excludes not a real presence this argument is not to be pressed against the true presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament from the importance of the word remembrance which is of things past not present but first it more directy concludes against their propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass which they pretend to be the very same with that sacrifice on the Cross we say as some Fathers do that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice a shewing a commemoration an application of that facrifice of our Saviours therefore not the same Secondly though by the importance of the word remembrance it conclude not against a true presence as I said yet may it against their manner of presence by Transubstantiation because that takes away the presence of substantial bread that is of the Sacramental Element which is the necessary subject upon which passes what is done in the Sacrament for the shewing of the Lords death and for the commemorating of his body broken his blood shed upon the Cross which the very body and blood of Christ put in the place of the substantial Elements cannot supply therefore he thinks himself concerned pa. 224 to 229. to shew how the same thing may in diverse respects be a remembrance of it self Therefore to omit his Cavilling or trifling pa. 220 221. that what our Saviour did could not then be a Remembrance for that is of things past and Christ himself was present and his passion was to come To which we briefly say and he cannot deny it that our Saviour in his first institution did mean and appoint this Sacrament for a Remembrance of Him and therefore said do this in Remembrance of me and for that first time it was enough to be the shewing or representation of his death and for ever after both representation and remembrance of it but both then and after the exhibition and communication of his body and blood to all purposes of the Sacrament The Paschal Lamb or blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was a remembrance of the Angels passing over and for that called the Passover and for that purpose instituted as appears Exod. 12. Yet primâ vice at that first time it was not in proper force of the Word a Remembrance for it was done before the Angel passed over But we need not spend time about this The same body not a Remembrance or Sacrament of it self see how he endeavours to shew the same thing may be in diverse respects a Remembrance of it self viz. by doing some action bring to remembrance something he had done himself This is true and so our Saviour shall be seen of them that pierced him Zach. and therein shall be a remembrance of what was done to him but this nor any other instance brought can make it good in the Sacrament for here we affirm nothing can be a Sacramental remembrance of it self because that confounds the essential parts of a Sacrament making the same thing the Sign and the thing Sgnified Visible corporeal and invisible incorporeal The Apostle saith plainly So oft as ye eat this bread ye shew the Lords death therefore they are forced to say and use such speeches as this Author doth pa. 211. lin ult the body of Christ made a Sacrament and so the same thing must be a Sacrament of it self which comes in with the former absurdity a sacramental representation and remembrance of it self and yet altogether invisible
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial pa. 185. His Argument for Purgatory punishment This is great boldness whether we look at the comparison of the things or the difficulty of the undertaking but he learnt this from his Master the * Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 15. Cardinal who was not ashamed to say it and Mr. Spencer is not afraid to follow him let him say and undertake what he will His pretended Demonstration proceeds thus Purgatory is the place where temporal punishments are suffered by just persons after death which they deserved in their life now if any justified soul be liable to suffer such after death then there is a place where they must suffer them To prove them liable to such punishments he endeavours to shew that justified persons yet living after remission of their sins and consequently of eternal Torment are liable to some temporal punishment pa. 185 186. This proposition is too infirm to make a demonstration or proof of Purgatory for we may ask if upon remission of sin consequently there be a remission of eternal why not consequently of temporal punishment he dare not say that temporal punishment is not remitted when sin is forgiven and therefore saith liable to some temporal punishments and pa. 187. he saith God retains part of the punishment he means to be satisfied or payed by us which will be found true only when it pleases God to reserve some and inflict it yet not as satisfactory punishment but for other purposes as we shall see Again we may ask though it be true that remission of sin be consequently the remission of eternal punishment and that so me living are after remission of their sin temporally afflicted with respect to that sin yet how will this consequently fall upon just persons dead To make good the proposition that just men living are liable to some temporal punishment he brings the example of David punished with the death of his child * 2 Sam. 12.13 14. Of punish ment reserved and inflicted after forgiveness of sin and of Adam who after his sin forgiven was notwithstanding liable to death as all just persons are for the same reason pa. 186. His alledging the example of Adams sin punishmed by death is altogether impertinent to the question and Mr. Spencer surely knew it well enough for his question is not concerned in the punishments immediately upon Original sin which cleaves universally to our nature and from which no just persons whatsoever though they have fully satisfied as they suppose for temporal punishments are free but the question is concerned only in the temporal punishment due to actual sins committed after baptisme for to these only belongs the doctrine of satisfaction as he knows their Trent Council has defined for mortality and bodily infirmities following the natural state are not matter for satisfactions or indulgences to work on as the Romanists will grant Let us therefore examine his other example of David whether it will prove his Proposition We say just persons after the remission of their sins are not liable to temporal punishment Ordinarie ordinarily and of course that is God does not alwayes reserve some temporal punishment or part of the temporal punishment due to their sin and to be inflicted or satisfied for by themselves but does reserve such punishments to be inflicted when and as he thinks fit Again when he does reserve and inflict them it is not in ordine justitiae in order to his justice requiring punishment as satisfactory to it which he must suppose when he saith if not suffered here it must be else where But Almighty God inflicts such punishments for other reasons and purposes as for correction and amendment of persons so fuffering or at least for admonition to others as when the person suffering dyes or is taken away by the punishment So that such punishments after sin forgiven are not properly satisfactory as the Romanists must and do suppose but Castigatory at least admonitory to others We grant such punishments are inflicted Other reasons of punishment besides satisfaction and that with relation to and by occasion of sin as Davids was not out of vindicative justice requiring satisfaction as they must suppose but for other reasons of Correction or admonition as was said and as appears by the reason the Lord gives of Davids punishment Howbeit that is notwithstanding that thy sin is taken away and the punishment due unto it because thou hast by this deed or sin given great occasion to the enemies of the lord to blaspheme which also gives us another reason of Gods some time punishing such persons that he may shew he does not approve sin in his children but that it is displeasing to him as is said 2 Sam. 11. ult but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord Now that God Almighty does not ordinarily and alwayes reserve such punishment after forgiveness appears 1. Because he has no where declared that such punishments are reserved or do remain after forgiveness to be satisfied for by us but every where has declared he is well satisfied with the fruits of repentance that is if the person to whom he forgives sin carefully avoids the like sin and performs the contrary duties 2. because he has set out his forgiveness as perfect and full a pardoning of the whole debt of which the temporal punishment due to sin is part and in this point of forgiving he would have us imitate him Be mercifull as he is merciful Luc. 3. Another reason of our denying satisfactory punishment inflicted after forgiveness of the sin is because that forgiveness is imparted for the satisfaction of Christ which was full and all-sufficient payed by him for the whole debt or punishment due to sin for he bore our griefs and our chastisement Isa 53.4 5. even all that sin made us liable to whether eternal or temporal And yet is the Cardinal so bold as by distinguishing of satisfaction for sin to give us part with and under Christ in the work saying that our Saviour satisfied immediately i. e. Bel. l. 4. de poenit c. 15. porro Immediatè pro culpa reatu mortis aeternae mediaâ—e pro poena etiam temporali quatenus gratiam praebet per quamipsi nos Domino satisfacimus by himself for the fault and for the guilt of eternal death and mediately for the temporal punishment also in as much as he affords us grace whereby we our selves satisfy the Lord. Had he said our Saviour satisfied for the Temporal punishment also so that it is either wholly remitted to the Righteous or if any be inflicted grace is given to bear it and the affliction sanctified to their advantage even death it self with all other corporal infirmities and afflictions whatsoever Had he spoke to this purpose it had been wholsome doctrine Thus for his Antecedent or Proposition That Reservation of punishment whether it can hold after death as concerning just persons living liable
Dust thou art because made of Dust and the serpent call'd a Rod because made of Aarons Rod and the wine call'd water Jo. 2.9 because made of water so the body of our Lord by S. Paul call'd bread because made of it yet dare not stand to it when we reply The former things are call'd so because of the same matter remaining in the thing made which was in that of which it is made but not so in this making of Christs body which was but once made and that of the seed or blood of the blessed Virgin Mr. Spencer being put to speak to this point goes backward and forward he acknowledges p. 266. by reason of the subject which remains common to both in philosophy call'd Materia prima the first matter Adam was called Dust and the Serpent a Rod and acknowledges p. 269. that our Saviours body cannot be said to be so made of bread and therefore must acknowledge those former usual instances to be impertinent This is backward Now see how he strives forward to maintain the speech made of bread The body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same Accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it begins to be as one may say ex nocte fit Dies the day is made of the night so ex pane fit corpus Christi Christs body is made of bread as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and therefore might be called bread after consecration p. 269. Therefore it might be called Wherefore because forsooth it is made of it as the day of the night but he should have said as the day is called night because it succeeds end comes in place of it as the body of Christ according to their Tenet doth instead or place of the bread and he might have bethought himself whether ever any man call'd Day Night or whether this be not translocation or succession rather then Transubstantiation and whether for such a supposed translocation the body of Christ can be called bread as we see S. Paul often asserting bread after Consecration He has some streins of invention in the pages following as this That the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread he means by way of nourishment from the bread our Saviour did eat but not knowing how to make use of this impertinency in this question he lets it fall But the compleat reason of Catholicks saith he why S Paul calls the Sacrament bread after the consecration Their pretended Reason why S. Paul calls it Bread so oft is because the flesh of Christ into which the bread is changed is put under the species of bread which gives occasion of giving it the same denomination it had before p. 272. What had before that denomination of bread the species or the flesh of Christ neither surely such careless expressions he every where takes hold of when they fall from his Adversary and can spend whole pages against them But this compleat reason was no reason to S. Paul neither did it give him any occasion of giving it still the same denomination of bread for then he had joyned with the report of sense against faith and had deceived them in bidding them eat that bread if nothing but species of bread remained For albeit things set out to sight only may bear the names of the things they are like yet not when proposed for use which requires the substance of the things as eating does you may say of things painted this is bread these are grapes but if you say of them take and eat this is bread these are grapes you mock those that you invite to eat Which shews also the impertinency of Bellarmines instance of the brazen serpent bearing the denomination of serpent from the outward likeness to enforce this compleat reason for that serpent was only for sight to be looked on not for stinging But this is all the reason the Romanists can give and these poor species the form colour smell appearance of bread must help them at every turn they must stand for substance when there is occasion must be the visible part or signe of the Sacrament must be broken eaten nourish what not As for those sayings I am the Vine I am the Door I need not follow him in examining the differences he seeks out between them and this is my body but thus far they be appliable to our purpose that they were figurative speeches yet was our Saviour truly so that is what a Door or Vine is in their kinde and uses such was our Saviour spiritually indeed and in truth So what the bread and wine is to the corporal effects being eaten and drunk that the body and blood of our Saviour taken by faith is spiritually Omnem essectum quem materialis cibus potus quoad vi tam agunt corporalem hoc idem quoad vitam spiritualem hoc Sacramentum operatur Concil Floren. and to the spiritual effect it is the very expression of their Council of Flerence and as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are really offered and given so is the body and blood of our Saviour in the Sacrament really and to all the purposes of the Sacrament given and communicated to them that have faith to receive it for this the Sacramental bread after consecration is called and made to us the body of Christ or as St. Paul expresses it is the communication of his body Upon occasion of shewing difference between Christs saying my flesh is bread and his saying this is my body he has something which may seem in part to make reply to that which was presently delivered Bread saith he of the first saying cannot signifie true and material bread bu in the other by my body is signified the real natural body of Christ 281. What does he infer That by bread in the Protestant doctrine is signified real material bread which cannot be his body p. 282. We grant that when our Saviour said this is my body he meant his true natural body which was broken and given for us but why cannot it be said truly of real and material bread after consecration this bread is my body It cannot indeed be properly said so but may after the use of Sacramental speeches as when said that rock was Christ by rock is meant the real and natural rock out of which the water flowed and by partaking thereof they were really made partakers of the spiritual drink much more in the Sacrament of the New Testament the Bread may be truly called the body of Christ because in the due partaking thereof we are made partakers not only of the spiritual effects of Christs death but also of his very body and blood bringing along with it those spiritual effects and graces which is that St. Paul saith the bread is the communion or communication of the body of Christ the manner we know not as we said above of
wishes intercessions Thus they prayed at the Burial or carrying out of the Dead and did it as we saw above for the reasons there mentioned viz. the instruction of the living and confirming of their hope and demonstration of their affection and the like And upon the like respects they yearly repeated the like prayers as we hinted above out of the Cardinal acknowledging as much Lastly it was a private opinion but notorious and held by many That the Damned had benefit or ease by the Prayers of the Church a private opinion or misapplication That they which died in their sins without true faith and repentance might at length be recovered out of their Pains or at least have them mitigated And to these the Prayers for the Dead which begged forgiveness ease or release were I do not say referred by the Church but applied or rather misapplied by many Origen gave occasion first to this Error for he held that All should at length come out of their Torments and his Error was as Vincentius notes a great temptation to the Church by reason of the wit and parts of the Author Aug. Enchirid cap. III. Frustra quamplurimi aeternam damnatorum poenam miserantur affectu and St. Aug. tels us in several places that many were of this merciful opinion Very many saith he do commiserate through humane affection the eternal sufferings of the damned and do not believe it will be so c. Of these also in other places especially in his work Of the City of God l. 21. c. 17 18 19 20. where he reckons five latitudes in the extent of that Opinion refuting them all Greg. Nyssen seems to be deeply tainted with that merciful opinion and is noted for it by the Greeks in their Apology against the Romish Purgatory made and given out in the time of the Council of Florence for that * Nyssen in orat Deus omnia in ommbus Idem in orat le Mor. tuâ—s pag 1067. Mixtam clementi sententiam Father seems plainly to assert the restoring of all men to salvation and in another place speaks of the purging of some and their turning to God after death who were impure in their lives And that place of St. Hierom upon Isa 66. ult which the Cardinal misapplies to Purgatory for it plainly speaks of wicked Christians does shew some tincture of that merciful opinion Now it is plain that Chrysostoâ—e applies the Prayers and oblations made for the Dead to such sinners And I should choose rather to silence those errors and mistakes of some ancient Fathers did not the importunity of the Romanists force us to shew the misapplication of them to Purgatory I shall insist therefore in some passages of St. Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Jo. Hom. 21. in Act. Serm. 3. in Philip. The sinners he speaks of to be prayed for are in several Homilies towards the End of them thus set forth by him One saith he that daily offended God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that lived every day to his own pleasure One that died in his riches and never used them to the benesit of his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupted and lost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of whom he saith Hom. 32. in Mat. If God had seen he would have changed he would not have cut him off before his Repentance Such as these the Romanists will not say that they go to Purgatory but to Hell yet of these he saith Let us mourn for such a one but that avails not Let us help him as we can How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by prayers and alms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things must be done which may bring some comfort and ease to him To this tenour he speaks in all the places above cited but especially in Hom. 21. upon the Acts Shall we not try saith he of one that lived to himself and the Devil to rescue him from the dangers and evils he is encompassed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is a way if we will to make his punishment lighter and this by making prayer for him and almsdeeds and these saith he so much the more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was guilty of the more sins And this he takes to be doctrine sutable to the loving kindness of God towards man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though we be not vertuous our selves yet let us get friends that will do this for us when we are gone Then presently follows * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblations are not in vain nor Supplications nor Almsdeeds All these things the Spirit has ordained willing or commanding that we should help one another Then he mentions the Offering of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith It is not the Minister simply or only that praies so for those that are faln asleep in Christ It is not he only that sends forth that voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Spirit He indeed holds the Offering or Sacrifice in his hands c. And so goes on expressing the honour to be then remembred and the power and efficacy of Christs death then represented Where we may observe that this saying of his The Spirit has ordained all these things which the Romanists do much urge as if their prayers and offerings for souls in Purgatory were by an Ordinance of the Spirit relates to the help of one another by Prayers Oblations and Almsdeeds which in general is true so far as we are capable to be helped by them But if it be particularly applied to the helping of such sinners as before he had spoken of it makes nothing for the Romanists for they will not allow that the Prayers and Oblations of the Living do avail or help such as died in their sins but if it be applied to the Prayers and Offerings in the Eucharist as he seems here to intend it it makes nothing still for them or against us for we allow that Ancient practice of remembring there and praying as they did for those that sleep in Christ The intent and purpose of those prayers he expresses in the close of his speech that they and we saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may obtain the good things promised through the Grace and merciful loving kindness of our Saviour Christ A place parallel to the former he hath in his third Hom. on the Epist to the Philip. where speaking of Prayers and Oblations with respect to the Dead These things Chrys in Phil. hom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he were not in vain ordained by the Apostles that a remembrance be made of those that are dead in the most reverend and holy Mysteries For when all the people stand and the company of Priests with their hands stretch'd out toward heaven and the great sacrifice lies