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
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
as a false Prophet For their Talmud declares that a false Prophet was not to be put to death in any other City but in Jerusalem and there he must die (i) Tr. Sanhedr c. 10. at the time of their solemn Feasts that all Israel may hear and fear 8. And after all these things suffered by our Lord among the Jews it might be easie to shew that the Gentiles besides their persecutions and verbal slanders against Christianity used various real expressions of great disrespect and dishonour towards the Author of our holy Religion and our Religion which was established by him Thus in the time of the Emperour Adrian the Temple of Adonis the Image of Jupiter and the Statue of Venus were erected in the places of our Lords birth his passion and resurrection as (k) An. Eccl. An. 137. n. 5 6 7. An. 326. n. 28. Baronius hath observed from S. Hierome and Paulinus But these and such other things are much less to be wondred at among the Ethnicks and Pagans and therefore I shall wave any further prosecution of them and return to the consideration of the Jews behaviour toward the holy Jesus 9. and with various insulting words of fury Besides such actions of the Jews as I above mentioned there were some verbal expressions whereby they reviled him which spake their mere fury Such was their opprobrious insulting over him in his bitter sufferings In yielding themselves to the rage of their passions they came to that high degree of expressing their enmity against him and contempt of him that they were not satisfied with his suffering a cruel death but beyond all that bloody hands could act against him they endeavour that their keen tongues might pierce him to the heart Hence they reviled this great Prophet requiring him when they smote him to prophesie who it was that smote him They derided the King of Kings when they arrayed him in a scarlet robe putting a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his right hand bowing the knee in mockery and saying Hail King of the Jews And they despised the Saviour of the World and the great high Priest when in derision towards him upon the Cross they cryed out Save thy self and us Here we may stand amazed to observe how when great uncharitableness hath possessed the heart and is let loose in the reproaches of the tongue it becomes cruel and fierce and contrary to God and goodness and is apt to be carried on to acts even of savageness and inhumanity But because these things may seem to be done in a time when they were in a paroxysm of fury when they vented an unusual inordinate heat of rage I shall consider what accusations their reproachful tongues laid to the charge of our Saviour for the most part when they were in somewhat a cooler temper and concerning which they offered some things as a popular proof or at least a specious pretence plausibly to insinuate into the vulgar that there was somewhat of truth in what they said 10. First He was accused Our Lord and the best men have been accused 1. Of want of piety and Religion of not having any true piety towards God He came into the world to do the will of his Father and was a perfect example of all holy obedience He sought not his own glory but the glory of him that sent him and God himself owned him to be his well beloved Son in whom he was well pleased And yet so maliciously unreasonable was their censoriousness that the Jews charged him with being so much an enemy to God as to debase his honour undermine his authority and speak unworthily of his Majesty To this purpose that they might render him particularly hateful to the Jewish Nation they decipher him as an enemy to the divine law The Jews had deservedly an high honour for Moses and the law which was delivered by him and had a mighty zeal to preserve the reputation of them They honoured Moses as the most excellent person who was in an eminent manner (l) Phil. de Vit. Mosis l. 3. a King a Law-giver a Priest and a Prophet and most excellently discharged all those Offices And they had so great a reverence and veneration for their law that Philo the Jew as his words are produced by (m) Eus praep Ev. l. 8. c. 6. Eusebius out of a Book of his which he Entituled his Hypotheticks declares that the Jews would rather chuse to die a thousand times than to admit of any thing contrary to the law and the same (n) Phil. de legat ad Caium p. 1022. Author speaks to the same purpose elsewhere But the holy Jesus who gave the highest honour to the law by fulfilling it and to Moses by accomplishing his Prophecies was accused as an opposer of Moses and the law and to this purpose was at several times charged with breaking the Sabbath and the Pharisees declared that he was not of God because he kept not the Sabbath day Joh. 9.16 And he who had that great regard to the Worship of God and honour for his Temple that the zeal of Gods house did eat him up was reported to be so averse from the worship of God and Religion that he was for destroying the place of Gods Worship and Service even before he had put an end to the legal Sacrifices by his perfect oblation 11. And he was oft times accused of that impious crime of Blasphemy even by those very men who were themselves guilty of Blasphemy against God and the Holy Ghost This is esteemed an execrable offence among all men who have any veneration for the Divine Majesty of God And among the Jews it was accounted so abominable that the blasphemer must die and be stoned by all the people and the (o) Tr. Sanh c. 7. §. 5. judge who gave Sentence against him was to rend his cloaths and the same was to be done also by the witness who heard the words of blasphemy as a testimony of indignation And this the High Priest did at the words of the blessed Jesus Mat. 26.65 he rent his cloaths saying he hath spoken blasphemy Yea even among the Gentiles a blasphemer of the Deity was thought worthy of death and at Ephesus according to the observation of (p) An. Eccles an 254. n. 24 25. Baronius out of Philostratus was to be stoned But the imputing such a thing as this to the holy Jesus whose Life and Doctrine was wholly ordered to promote his Fathers honour is as if a Prince's best and most faithful Subjects should be so misrepresented as to be accounted the most disloyal villanous and treacherous rebels and the people thereupon should be stirred up to set themselves against them who are their strength and upholders 12. Non-compliance with rigid mistaken notions doth sometimes occasion the charge of impiety And though the purity of his life did infinitely outdo any of theirs and was without any stain
from God to reform what was amiss and to bring the world to embrace what was true and good And therefore it was necessary for him in the discharge of his Office freely to declare against the evil practices of all men whomsoever and to discover the dangerous and hurtful errors of them who really were blind guides and to shew the insufficiency of such rules o practice as made Religion a mere outward formal thing and gratified the hypocrisie of evil men and in a like case it is well becoming any good man to do the like And be cause the unbelieving Jews with their Scribes and Pharisees opposed the truth which he convincingly declared and maliciously set themselves against him and against the evidence of the mighty Miracles wrought by him it was necessary that he should use such expressions as should declare the great evil of their wicked obstinate and perverse temper and the mischief they would bring upon them who followed them And this he did sometimes in metaphorical and representative expressions as of Wolves Serpents Vipers which was a way of speaking oft used by the Prophets and amongst the Jews very frequently in their Writings And that such words were not accounted by them as phrases of reviling so much as of expressive significancy may appear from the language of the Scripture in many places and particularly from the blessings of Jacob Gen. 49. Where the phrases of Woolf Serpent Ass and Lion's whelp are manifestly so used 11. To this purpose our Lord might well send a message to Herod under the name of that Fox as an expression of just reproof according to the customary way of speaking among the Jews to him a subtil and cunning man who had the guilt of blood to answer for Besides other actions of cruelty he had beheaded John the Baptist which act as it was greatly condemned by the Jews towards so good a man as (n) Ant. Jud. l. 18. c. 7. Josephus relateth so himself was sometimes stricken with terrible and astonishing thoughts thereof Luk. 9.7 And that same Herod who (o) ibid. had Herodias his Brothers Wife and (p) ibid. slew the Baptist continued Tetrarch of Galilee several years after our Saviours death even till the first year of Caligula as is declared by (q) ibid. l. 18. c. 8 9. Josephus and then was banished To him our Lord directed this message who also by reason of his complyance in the death of our Saviour might in a Prophetick manner be stiled a bloody man 12. Thirdly A just declaring against the faults of others The third Rule is Charity of which there is neglect must be tempered with charity If this arise from malice or be managed for the doing an unkindness or the venting hatred or ill will or in way of Revenge or retaliation it then serveth the lusts of men and is mischievous and therefore can be no good and lawful action but the speaking truth from such a disposition or to such ends is an evil action In such a case what (r) Chrysost Hom. 2. de Prophet obscuritate S. Chrysostome resolved must be admitted for truth that he who speaks evil of his Neighbour is in the way of ruine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether what he speaks be false or whether it be true There was truth as it might be understood in what Shimei said when cursing David he called him a bloody man 2 Sam. 16.7 8. but the expression was evil because of the malice which accompanied it Now uncharitableness appears in the speaking evil of others in any of these four Cases 13. First 1. when what is amiss is spoken of with delight Where the speaker mentions the miscarriage of others with a inward delight or pleasure in the relating it But of this act of uncharitableness in being pleased with that which is hurtful to men pleasing to Satan and offensive to God I spake something in the (ſ) Chap. 3. former Part and therefore shall only mention it here 14. Secondly 2. when praying for offenders is neglected When he who is ready to speak against another who doth amiss is neglectful of praying unto God for him When Samuel declared to Israel that their wickedness was great yet he said God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you 1 Sam. 12.17.23 And Moses prayed for Israel to turn away Gods wrath And it is to be a rule of Christian practice 1 Jo. 5.16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death he shall ask and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death 15. Thirdly 3. when there is an uncharitable interpretation When the worst constructions are put upon the words or actions of others This I mentioned in the former Part and therefore shall say little to it here Where this temper prevails the most innocent persons may thereby be charged with guilt Even our Lord himself from a sinister interpretation of his free converse was proclaimed a glutton and a drunkard And though there was truth in the information of Doeg which he gave to Saul concerning Ahimelech or at least in a great part thereof That he enquired of the Lord for David and gave him victuals and gave him the sword of Goliah 1 Sam. 22.10 Yet this being expressed in compliance with the suspicions of Saul and though David pretended to be employed by Saul as an intimation that the Priests had conspired with David against him on which account Doeg was ready to slay them in this sense it was both mischievous and false Psal 52. 16. Fourthly 4. when any ill intention When any thing is spoken against others with a pure intention to prejudice or procure hurt to the persons of whom they speak A bad design meerly to do hurt as to blast anothers credit and expose him to scorn or hatred and to render him contemptible do very ill become him who pretends to goodness The end hath here a considerable influence upon the action He that censureth the miscarriages of others in a prudent reproof to the person himself for his amendment acts the part of a faithful friend while flattery in this case is a kind of hatred Lev. 19.17 Or if this be done to another person as a warning to him who is in danger to be ensnared by or suffer mischief from him this is also an act of kindness to prevent the doing or suffering evil and of this nature is the exposing the mistakes of men to put a stop to the progress of their errors And these are the two cases mentioned by (d) Basil Regul Brev. Resp 25. S. Basil in which he alloweth of the speaking evil of others when it is done for reclaiming the offender or preserving others And it is also lawful and good to declare against the evil and wicked actions of men out of just indignation and in order to the due punishment of them as the Levite did
an act of detestation of sin in which he hath no thought of his future course of life But this notion of Contrition I shall not pursue nor yet those others in their Casuistical Writers whereby they very rarely allow such affirmative precepts as that great one of loving God to oblige us to exercise any act of love to him which is much consequent upon their usual assertions concerning Attrition For my intention is to wave many things declared by considerable Doctors and mainly to insist on those which have the publick allowance and establishment of the Church 10. Secondly Another obstacle to a pious life 2. Of their prohibiting the common use of the Scriptures which I shall consider is the debarring the people of the best guide and help to piety which is the use of the Holy Scriptures The Divine Scriptures are by the Fathers oft called the Letters and Messages which God sends to men to invite them to him and guide them in their way and then surely they to whom and for whom they are sent ought to know and read them both out of Reverence to God and out of respect to themselves (n) de Tempore Serm. 112. S. Austin observes this double benefit in reading the holy Scriptures that they teach us knowledge and right understanding and that they carry men off from the vanities of the world unto the love of God and observes how greatly efficacious they are to the promoting piety in very great numbers and that they were designed for our Salvation 11. The Scriptures greatly promote piety These Scriptures were written by the inspiration of God and contain the sure rule for Faith and Life and were so accounted of in the ancient Church Herein is comprized the Will and Counsel of God declared by the Holy Ghost himself And the precepts and holy rules there proposed the promises declared the threatnings denounced the judgements executed on the disobedient and the blessings bestowed on the obedient are great incitements to piety and are of the greater force and weight as they are contained in the Scriptures because the Divine Authority goes along with every one of them And the end for which they were written is for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 And the punishments there recorded which were inflicted on evil doers were for ensamples and written for our admonition 1 Cor. 10.11 These holy Books the Primitive Christians were not denied the use of and they so highly esteemed this priviledge that rather than they would deliver up these Books to their persecutors the best Christians chose to undergo the utmost torments and sufferings and of such (o) Baron Annal. Ecc. An. 302. n. 22. Baronius observes that there was numerus prope infinitus eorum qui ne codices sacros traderent lubentissimo animo mortem oppetiverunt almost an infinite number of those who with the greatest readiness of mind chose death rather than to deliver up the Holy Books And they who did deliver them were accounted grievous offenders and called Traditores the name given to Judas who betrayed our Lord and of these as (p) Advers Parm. l. 1. Optatus saith there were many of all ranks both Laicks and Clergy 12. The use of the Scriptures is of such excellent advantage to promote piety and the happiness of men that the Psalmist under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit declares the blessed and good man to delight himself in the law of the Lord and to meditate therein day and night Psal 1.2 And this makes him so to increase and be fruitful in good works that v. 3. he is resembled to a tree planted by the rivers of water which brings forth his fruit in due season And the excellent use of this Divine Law is described Psal 19 7-11 in converting the soul making wise the simple and other great benefits Yea they are of such manifold and compleat use for the good of man that the Apostle declares them able to make one wise unto Salvation and to be profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to every good work 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. And they have that mighty efficacy to prevail on the hearts and consciences of men that our Lord acquaints us that they who would not hear Moses and the Prophets would not be perswaded though one arose from the dead Luke 16.31 13. But the Romish Church prohibits the use of the Scripture to the generality of their Communion as is manifest from the Index of prohibited Books (q) Conc. Trident Sess ult prope sin which was ordered by the Council of Trent and was compleated about the end of that Council but the confirmation thereof was referred to the Pope by the Decree of that Council and it was approved by the Authority of Pius the Fourth In this (r) Indic Reg. 4. How far vulgar Translations are prohibited in the Roman Church Index it is declared That since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the Vulgar Tongue be permitted generally without distinction there would thence from the rashness of men more hurt arise than advantage in this matter it must be left to the judgement of the Bishop or Inquisitor that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor he may grant to them the reading of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue translated by Catholick Authors whom they shall understand may receive by such reading not hurt but increase of faith and piety which faculty they should have in writing But whosoever without such a faculty shall presume to read or to have them may not obtain the absolution of their sins unless they first deliver their Bibles to the Ordinary And then follows the penalty of the Bookseller who shall sell or otherwise procure such Bibles to them who have not a faculty And from this Index the substantial part of this rule is expressed in (Å¿) Panstrat Cath. Tom. 1. l. 10. c. 1. Chamier and somewhat more at large in the Book of t Jacobus Ledesima the Jesuit (e) Ledes c. 15. De scripturis divinis quavis lingua non legendis and is mentioned in some English Writers It is therefore condemned as a very heinous and mortal crime without all these cautions to have or read a Bible in the Vulgar tongue though it be in a version of their own And if it be considered how liable to censure and dislike the use of such Bibles are in the Romish Communion as their own Writers declare it may thence be concluded that many zealous Papists will be backward to desire any such thing which others must not expect to obtain And upon further consideration of what difficulties may be expected in the gaining this faculty and the procuring the consent of those by whose authority and with whose advice it must be obtained any reasonable man
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.
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
of the Apostles and Evangelists the common delivery by word of mouth which Theophilus had heard of concerning matter of Christian Religion was not so certain as the Evangelical writing and therefore this Gospel was written that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things S. John would not have written his Gospel to this end that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God Joh. 20.31 if he did not think this writing should direct and rule our Faith S. Paul would not have told his Philippians Phil. 3.1 To write the same things for you is safe unless notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth they stood in need of this advantage of the Apostles writing for their safety and establishment nor yet would this be safe for them unless this writing was sufficient to effect this establishment which could not be unless it was a Rule of Faith Yea that the writing of Scripture was the way by which the spirit of God intended to preserve the Doctrine of Faith in after times when the Apostles were deceased S. Peter declares 2 Pet. 1.12 I will not be negligent to put you alwaies in remembrance of these things though you know them v. 15. I will indeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth signifies to make a short comprisal of things for the help of memory Now if this was the design of S. Peters Epistle it will necessarily follow that the preserving Christian Doctrine in memory is best secured by the Written Word of God otherwise possibly they could not have been able to have these things in remembrance And lest if this Apostle had said no more of this subject any might have objected that he endeavoured they might be able to have these things in remembrance by Tradition he himself directly shews that this is the advantage of his writing and the end of both his Epistles 2 Pet. 3.1 This second Epistle beloved I write unto you in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance So that notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth he thought writing necessary to keep these things in their remembrance And Jesus himself said to the Jews If you believe not Moses writings how shall you believe my words John 5.47 SECT II. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith NExt his search after Scriptures this Author pretends to give the Judgement of some few Councils which he asserts to own Oral Tradition for the Rule of their Faith I might here mind him that others of his Church have delivered that Councils owned Scripture as their Rule Nicol. de Cusa a Cardinal of the Roman Church lib. 2. de Concordant Cath c. 6. sayes That the manner of the General Councils was to have the holy Gospels placed in the middle where they were assembled And a little after he adds Matters of Faith were first treated of The Synod decreed according to the testimonies of the Scriptures But to examine his Testimonies The first is from the Synod of Lateran which was no ancient Synod being above six hundred and forty years after Christ They say We all confirm unanimously and consonantly consonanter not consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the holy Fathers adding nothing to those things which were delivered by them and we believe so as the Fathers have believed we preach so as they have taught These words are delivered indeed by that Synod but if that Synod be enquired into this will make little for Oral Tradition This Synod of Lateran was held under Pope Martin against the Monothelites in which were read the Testimonies of several Fathers S. Ambrose Austin Basil Cyrill Hippolytus Epiphanius Chrysostom Justine Athanasius Hilary Nyssen Nazianzen Leo and others with reference to whose words the Synod added We all confirm c. Where it is observable they proceeded upon the written Testimonies read out of the Fathers to determine what was the Doctrine of the Fathers and this is no way of Oral Tradition nor any thing rejected but highly approved by Protestants Yea here the Bishop of Rome and his Roman Council own that as Catholick Doctrine which was delivered in the Writings of the Fathers and eminent Writers in other Churches which is not this Discoursers way And it is further observable that these sayings of the Fathers no way appear to be the Rule of their Faith but are owned by them as Truths unto which they all agree whence these words Dogmata patrum omnes firmamus we all confirm their Doctrines cannot signifie that they make these their Rule but that they consent with them in the things alledged and confirm their saying to be truth And this Protestants will do as well as the Synod of Lateran But that we may enquire what appears to have been the Rule of this Synod it is observable that none of the Fathers Testimonies here cited against the Monothelites who denyed two wills in Christ refer to any Oral Tradition but very many to several grounds of Scripture For instance Leo Bishop of Rome is by Pope Martin produced in the opening that Synod that Christ said According to the form of God I and my Father are one but according to the form of a servant I came not to do my own will but his who sent me where he plainly manifests two wills Again from Leo He who was incarnate for us by his uncreated will and operation of his Divinity of his will wrought Miracles whence he testifies saying As the Father raiseth the dead and quickens them so the Son quickneth whom he will by his created will and operation he who is God above nature as man willingly underwent hunger thirst reproach sorrow and fear and this again the Evangelist testifies saying he went into an house and would have none know but could not lye hid and again They went through Galilee and he would not that any should know And again he would go into Galilee also they gave him Wine mingled with Gall and when he had tasted thereof he would not drink So S. Austin Ambrose Cyril c. in their testimonies read in this Council to prove the humane will of Christ urge farther If it be possible let this cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt My soul is sorrowful to death Now is my soul troubled And Deus-dedit Bishop of Sardinia declared in this Council that the testimony of Cyrill of urging those Texts was for the perfect refuting those Hereticks S. Austin is likewise produced thus glossing concerning Christs Humane Nature If we say he was not sorry when the Gospel saith My soul is exceeding sorrowful if we say he did not eat when the Gospel saith he did eat the worm of rottenness creepeth in and there will be nothing left sound then his body was not real nor his flesh real but
makes use of to express the Discords and Rents in the Church of Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all of them enumerated in his Epistle to the Galatians tho there they be rendred by other English Words Gal. 5.20 among those Works of the Flesh concerning which we are told with earnestness of expression that they that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God And I think it considerable to be further observed that even in such Persons who are of a better Spirit and who in the main close with the other Duties and Rules of Christianity their miscarriage in this particular in not holding the Peace and Unity of the Church will lessen and abate the degrees of that future Glorious Reward which they would otherwise receive And this I think is sufficiently declared by St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians when he had rebuked the Corinthians for their Divisions one being of Paul and another of Apollo 1 Cor. 3.1 2 3 4. he still keeping his Eye upon and having an aim at these Divisions as appears from that third and the former part of the fourth Chapter tells them concerning them who hold to that only foundation which the Apostles laid If any shall build thereupon that which will not abide the Trial if his work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire v. 15. That is if any such person shall be engaged in Divisions in the Church or in any other unwarrantable Action or Doctrine it shall go the worse with him and be hereafter to his loss and though he escape Misery and obtain Life it shall be with the greater hazard danger and difficulty And therefore he who would seek his own greatest Good must carefully avoid this miscarriage Secondly Consider how extreamly opposite and contrary divisions in the Church are to Christ himself He is one Lord and Head he hath by one Spirit and in one Baptism established his Church to be one Body in one and the same Faith and Doctrine and upon the same Hope of their Calling and under the same Only God and Father of all And all these things S. Paul urgeth as containing in them special Obligations for Christian Unity Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And besides all the Precepts of his Doctrine let us seriously observe how much our dying Saviour did earnestly and again desire and pray that all his Disciples might be one John 17.11 21 23. And this he twice expresseth in his Prayer to be desired to this end that the World might believe that thou hast sent me Now if it would be an unworthy thing for any person against all reason and duty to oppose the Dying Request of the best Friend he ever had in the World it must needs be unaccountable to act against that which was even at the point of Death so affectionately and importunately desired by our Lord and Saviour Was this aimed at by our Lord as an useful means to bring over the World to believe in him and will any who have any Honour for Christ or Love for Men be so uncharitable as to be engaged in any such Works as tend to keep off Men from Christianity and from obtaining Salvation by Jesus Christ But this is sufficiently intimated by our Saviour to be the sad effect of the Divisions in his Church To all this I shall further add that it is related by Crusius Turcograec lib. 3. part 1. p. 234. that it is the daily Prayer of the Turks that Christians may not be at Vnity And they who are of the Church of Rome express their delight and satisfaction in our Disagreements Baronius Annal. Eccles An. 344. n. 9. makes use of this as a considerable Argument against the truth of the Protestant Doctrine and Salmeron Tom. 9. Tr. 16. n. 1. declares that this is that which giveth them expectations of prevailing against us And now shall any who own themselves the true followers of Christ so undertake to contradict the dying Request of their Saviour as in the mean time to chuse that which complieth with and gratifieth the Desires both of the professed Enemies of his Religion and of those also who strangely corrupt and pervert his Doctrine and Gospel But after all this or whatsoever else may be spoken to this purpose there are two sorts of Men who I doubt are not like to be perswaded 1. I fear there are some fierce Men who are so far from having hearts inclined to do this Duty that they have not Patience to hear it but rather to turn angry and to cry out as the Lawyer did to our Saviour Thus saying thou reproachest us also But it will become them and others too to bethink themselves of the sad danger of all those persons who will not hearken but stop their Ears to such plain Duties as those of Peace and Unity are But these Truths must be spoken whether they will hear or whether they will forbear 2. And others there are who will acknowledg in general the Truth of all I have said of the great Sin and Evil of Schisms and Divisions And though they be engaged in the dividing Parties will plead their own Innocence and charge the fault of these Divisions wholly upon the order and constitution of our Church and not upon themselves Now here much might be said to shew that the Worship and Service of God in our Church is agreeable to the true Christian Rule and that on the other hand there are many things unaccountable yea and unlawful which are embraced without scruple by Dissenters and contended for by the dividing Parties But this would be too long for me to insist upon in my present Discourse Wherefore instead thereof I shall mention a sensible and ocular Demonstration that it is not the Constitution of our Church but the ill temper of dividing Spirits that is the true cause of our Divisions And that is this That when this Constitution was thrown aside between thirty and forty years since the Rents and Divisions of the Church were not by this means removed but to the grief of good Men they were greatly encreased thereby and the Spirits of many Men in this particular have been the worse ever since Let all of us therefore take heed to our selves that we keep in the paths of Peace and Vnity and let us mourn and pray for others who neglect them II. A second thing to be done in our turning to God is the forsaking all Viciousness and Debauchery and becoming Serious and Sober Vice defiles and debaseth the nature of Man It is so much against Reason and Conscience and is so far condemned by the common sense of Mankind that it generally passeth for a disparagement in the World And Viciousness is so much against the interest of Men and the good of the World that thereupon it is prohibited and punished by the Laws even of Barbarous Nations This is