on the diseased Christians if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind what reason have we to esteem this so Besides is not a Miracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a sign sure I am the Scripture often calls it so and is not every sign declared by St. * Signum est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 1. Austin to be something sensible whereby we do perceive what is not sensible what therefore is no object of the sence can be no sign or Miracle Secondly we cannot possibly obtain a greater evidence that any Revelation is Divine than is the evidence of sence whence it doth follow that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our sences as T. G. asserts for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophesies they delivered the Doctrine they taught and that by sence should any of them be questioned must not we recur unto the sences of the Primitive Christians to confirm them and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith and our Traditions must we not be surer of the proof than of the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sense than that of Faith which deriveth from it if not why Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed who believe and have not seen 20 Joh. 29 than Thomas who first saw and felt and then believed is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts of a Plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to encrease it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferior to that of sence It is not possible we should have greater reason to believe a Revelation or any matter of our Faith than to believe our sences as T. G. suggests hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words this is my body are contained in Scripture or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christs Body than that assurance which the sences of all Christians do afford us that it remaineth Bread And Thirdly hence it follows that we can have no greater reason to profess the Christian Faith than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation Answer 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said this is his Body and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so although it be against the sence and reason of mankind that he should do it This will oblige us also to believe that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incarnation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock which ministred water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness for of that it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.4 or that Rock was Christ 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit We unbelieving Protestants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood yet the Sacrament should be his very Flesh and Blood but as for you you know the danger of not believing God more than your sences and your reasons and therefore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter 3. This will oblige us to be Anthropomorphites and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and ineffectual for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God but also doth in very many places attribute unto him the parts and members of an humane body what then will you oppose against them sence and reason T. G. will give this answer for them that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their sences or their reason Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture which seems to contradict their Doctrine alas that which is often stiled Bread must not be thought to be so because Christ hath once said it is his body and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred God makes or searcheth God loves or seeks the Spirit 4 Joh. 24. should carry it against so many which more expresly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body or shall we fly unto Tradition alas is it not that which is derived from the sences of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites must not their eyes and tast and smell and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Fourthly This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah for all his Miracles were only motives to believe that Law should be abolished which God hath often said should last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for ever Doth nor he tell them that the things he had revealed belonged to them and to their Children for ever Deut. 29.29 Exod. 12.17 that they might do all the things of this Law Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations 23 Lev. 14 And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not alwayes signifie an infinite duration but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sence and reason Will not this answer justifie the Protestants when they produce so many instances to shew that when a thing in Scripture is stiled this or that the meaning only is that it doth signifie what it is said to be for to omit those passages so often cited 40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38 39.
Spiritus morâ—norum August in Psal 108. Enar. 1. p. 276 A. whether at all or how far or after what manner the Spirits of the dead could know the things that are done here is a great question And the like doubt we find in Nazianzen in his Rhetorical Apostrophe's for in his invective against Julian he speaks thus (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2. Ed. Eton. Hear O thou soul of great Constantius if thou hast any understanding of these things and as many souls of the Kings before him as loved Christ Where the Greek Scholiast upon that Parenthesis nutteth this Note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He speaketh according to the manner of Isocrates meaning if thou hast any power to hear the things that are here And therein he saith rightly for Isocrates useth the same form of speech both in his Evagoras and in his Aegineticus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If they which be dead have sense of the things which are done here The like limitation is used by the same Nazianzen toward the end of the funeral Oration which he made upon his Sister Gorgonia where he speaketh thus unto her (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazian Orat. 2. in Gorgon If thou hast any care of the things done by us and holy souls receive this honour from God that they have any feeling of such things as these receive this Oration of ours instead of many and before many funeral obsequies Whence it is evident that the Foundation of this Doctrine was doubted by them And then it follows that the thing it self was in those times only a doubtful or a disputable point and therefore that it was not delivered to them by tradition or confirmed by Scripture and cannot be required as the Condition of Communion without Schisme 2. Hence we have just reason to suspect that in those other passages we meet with of like Nature these words If thou hast any sense or apprehension of these things when they are not expressed may very well be understood and that this is the genuine import of their Rhetorical Petitions § 4. Observe that the afore mentioned Fathers did often speak to their deceased Friends in such a manner as if they did suppose them present although they did not think them so to be thus * Tom. 1. p. 314. B. Nazianzen when ready to conclude his Funeral Oration upon his Father speaketh thus What saist thou Father is this sufficient And †l. 1. contra Julian c. 6. Austin speaks to Chrysostom who had been dead some years before Enter St. John enter and sit together with thy brethren And ‖ Tom. 1. in Psal 50. p. 703. l. 27. Chrysostom to David thus What is it thou desirest David thy sins are pardoned what wouldst thou more Oh David go give God thanks and ever glorifie him And again why art thou troubled David let me know This * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 19. ed. Eton. Nazianzen doth acknowledge to be the meaning of his addresses to Constantius when he believed he did enjoy the vision of God for thus he speaks What was the matter oh divinest King and greatest lover of our Lord for I am moved to find fault as if thou wast here present and didst hear me though I do know thee to be now with God and in possession of his Glory And this way of speaking they borrowed from the Heathen Orators and Poets whom we find speaking thus O M. Drusius I appeal to thee O †Audisne haec Amâ—â—hiarie sub terram abdite Tuscul Qu. l. 2 p. 147. Amphiarius who art now buried in the Earth hearest thou this ‖ Quid dicemâ—â— Câ—eanthe num in illa re mali nihil fuisse Tusc Quaest l. 3. p. 163. Ed. Paris 1555. What shall we say Cleanthes is this a wicked thing § 5. The very same Authors do many of them make the like Apostrophe's to insensate Creatures and use Expressions which contain as formal and direct petitions as any which are used in the places cited by the Roman Doctors St. * Nazianz. Orat. Decima quarta p. 214. Nazianzen invokes peace thus Oh friendly Peace who art that good which all men praise but few observe where hast thou so long left us and when wilst thou return unto us And unto Easter he speaks thus †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O at 42. p. 696. Oh great and holy Passover who art the reconciliation of both the Worlds For I will speak to thee as unto one endued with life In his invective against Julian he speaks thus Hear O Heavens and perceive O Earth Hear all ye Nations perceive all you that dwell upon the Earth For to you all I speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1. Hear you who live at present and hereafter shall be born St. Ambrose speaks unto the Water thus * Ambros l. 10. in Luc. c. 22. Oh Water which hast obtained to be the Sacrament of Christ which washest all things and art not washed thy self thou dost begin the first and dost compleat the perfect Mysteries In the like manner we find * De Vir. Constantim l. 5 Eusebius calling upon Piety and †Optat. l. 6. p 98. Optatus upon Water and this they did agreeably to the Example of the ‖ Vos vos Albani â—umuli atque luci vos inquam iâ—ploro aâ—qu obtestor vosque A â—banorum obruâ—ae arae c. Orat. pro Milone p. 558. Ed. Pâ—ris Orator who doth implore and doth beseech the broken Altars of the Albans and puts up his Petition to their Tombs and Gâ—oveâ— and to the frequent custome of the sacred Writers who cry out * Isa 1.2 Hear O Heaven and perceive oh Earth Hear ye O Mountains the Lords controversie and ye strong Foundations of the Earth †Micah 6.2 Praise the Lord from the Earth ye Dragons and all Deeps ‖ Psal 148.7 8 9. Fire and hail snow and vapor stormy wind fulfilling his word Mountains and all Hills fruitful Trees and all Cedars Which form of Compellation is still retained in our Liturgy And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that the Jews of old did and English Protestants do at present properly invoke and intercede to those insensate Creatures Lastly we find in Lipoman one speaking to the girdle of the Blessed Virgin in this manner O venerable girdle make us Heirs of eternal and blessed Life and preserve us in this our present life from perdition O undefiled Girdle preserve thy people from pollution If this and such like speeches of the Church of Rome must be acknowledged to be figurative why may we not assert the same of such Expressions of the Fathers as are used to those Saints departed of whom they do assert that what is spoken to them because they do not hear it is as if it had been spoken to insensate Creatures 6. Observe Sect. 6. there is great difference
That when the Encratitae held it unlawful to drink Wine the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument That Christ himself drank Wine and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine saith Chrysostom that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresie for because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water declaring that when he delivered the Mysteries he delivered Wine and that when he rose and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries he used Wine he saith I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine Now the Vine produceth Wine not Water Chrysost Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris 1641. Be ye sure saith Clemens to the Encratitae he also did drink Wine for he blessed Wine when he said take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine he shewed again saying to his Disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom h Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa paenè â—mnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta lignis â—guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradicationis quae jam per Donm â—â—strum Jesu dâ—clatate est Contr. Adiman Coy 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem filâ—s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres nec tamen ait Petra significabat Châ—istum â—sed ait Petra erat Christus quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur spiritualem illam vocat Ib. Cap. 12. Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine this Argument would have been frivolous and vain Had not they held as the Church of England their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ Secondly The Manichees to prove the contradiction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour that none was able to cause the Soul to perish that of Moses that the Blood was the Soul To this St. Austin answers those words may be expounded thus the Blood is that is it signifies the Soul this he confirms 1. by this general assertion that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching which is now declared by Christ and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly converted into what they signified Seconly this he illustrates by a double instance †So is Blood the Soul as the Rock was Christ they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ he said not the Rock signified Christ but the Rock was Christ 2. I may expound it thus saith he * Blood is the Soul that is it signifies the Soul because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body since then as the Rock is Christ and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what thâ—â— Typified in the New so is the Bread Christs Boâ—â— It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgment it is Christs Body not by conversion into Christs real Body but by signification of it k Nam ex â—o quod sâ—riptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse possum interpretaâ—i preceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret sui corporis bl yea by such signification as excludes Christs body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread for else the Manichees might have replyed upon St. Austin and given him the baffle thus as the sign not only signified Christs real Body but contained it too so must the Blood not only signifie but really contain the Soul Therefore it is apparent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants Thirdly The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christs humane nature was absorpt and changed into the Deity this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only but others that it was thus changed at his Conception whence they affirm that whilst he lived on Earth he had the form and shape of man but not his proper nature For Illustration and Confirmation of these Heresies they urge †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84 85. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures had they been really changed into Christs Flesh and Blood no greater Confirmation of their Heresie no fitter illustration of their Tenet could be well imagined for thus the similitude would run First That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread and not the real substance even so in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh but not the very nature Secondly Even as in the Eucharist the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs ascension the humane nature is absorpt and converted into the Deity What is it therefore that the Fathers answer do they confess the thing and say Transubstantiation was the Tradition of the Church and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures but that no like Tradition nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's principles No they expresly say and that in words as plain full as any Protestant could use that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justisie * Certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumus Ut sicut in hance scilicet in divinam transeant Sacramenta Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis effâ—eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich
the Creator to the Creature and the like and are sufficiently warded against the force of this assault by being told that Antichrist must be ushered in with Signs and lying Wonders 2 Thess 2.9 Secondly What Austin saith unto the Donatists we also say unto the Church of Rome Shew us your Scriptures for this Invocation haec sunt causae nostrae firmamenta The third Particular contained in this Answer is That the Holy Spirit hath forewarned us that in the latter times this Doctrine of Damons should prevail which Doctrine both the ingenious Mr. Mede and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adv Antidico marionitas Haer. 78. §. 23. A. Epiphanius do well interpret to be the Doctrine of worshipping the Spirits of dead Men and by the pertinency of this Sense unto St. Austins present subject we have good reason to conjecture that he approved their Opinion St. Austins second Answer to this Objection is as followeth †Porrò si aliquis in Hereticorum memoriis orans exauditur non pro merito loci sed pro merito desiderii sui recipit sive matum sive bonum nonne legimus ab ipso domino Deo nonnullos exauditos in excelsis montium Judaeae quae tamen excelsa ità displicebant Deo ut Reges qui ea non everterent crâ—lparentur qui everterent laudarentur unde intelligitur magis valere peâ—entiâ— assectium â—u â—m petitioâ—is locum ib. p. 116. Col. 2. K. L Moreover if any person praying in the memorials of Hereticks be heard it is not for the merit of the place but of his own desire that he receiveth any good Do we not read that God himself hearkned to many of those Jews who prayed in the high places although those places so displeased him that he rebuked those Kings that suffered them Whence we may understand that the affection of the Supplicant is more prevailing then the place of Prayer And accordingly we say That if any person praying to these Saints was heard it was not for the merit of this prayer considered as directed to the Saints but for the affection of his heart and as it will not follow that it was lawful for the Jew to pray in those high places or for the Christian to pray in the memorials of Hereticks because that they who prayed there were sometimes heard So neither doth it follow that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints departed because of some few instances that they who have thus prayed have received the desired Blessing Thirdly saith St. Austin ‖ De visis autem fallacibus legunt quae scriâ—ta sunt quia ipse Satanas se transfigurat tanquam Angelum lucis quia multos seduxerunt somnia sua Audiant etiam quae narrant pagani de Templis Diis suis mirabiliâ—er vel facta vel visa tamen dii Gentium Baemonia Exaudiuntur ergo multi multis modis non solum Christâ—â—ani Catholici sed Pagant Judaei Haeretici variis errorâ—lus superstiâ—ionibus dediti exaudiuntur autem vel ab spiritibus seductoribus qui tamen nihil faciunt nisi permitâ—antur Deo subliâ—iter aâ—que ineffabiliter judieante quid cuique tribuendum sit sive ab ipso Deo vel ad poenam malitiae vel ad solatium miseriae vel ad monitionem quaerendae salutis aeternae ib f. B. Col. 2. L.M. Let them hear what the Pagans tell of the Wonders done by their Gods and at their Temples and yet the Gods of the Heathens are but Daemons and therefore many not only Catholicks but Pagans Jewes and Hereticks may many wayes be heard either by those seducing Spirits which yet do nothing but with Gods permission or else by God himself either for castigation of their wickedness or comfort of their misery or in admonition of them to pursue eternal safety Which Answer also doth suggest these things 1. That the Argument is vain because it will serve the Paegan as well as it well serve the Donatist or Roman Catholick and proves as much their Invocation of Daemons to be lawful as the invocation of the Saints departed which is now practised in the Church of Rome For as (a) Quibusdam signis miraculis oraculis fidem divinitatis operatur Apol. c. 21. §. 8. Tertullian saith by Signs and Miracles and Oracles they obtained to be reputed Gods (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—om 6. p 375 l. 20. They often by their skill have cured diseases and restored to health those that were sick what should we partake therefore with them in their iniquity God forbid So Chrysostome (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Praepar Evang. l. 5. c. 2. The wicked Daemons saith Eusebius counterfeited by working many Miracles the Souls of them that were deceased and thence they were thought worthy to be celebrated with greater service (d) Frustra tantum arrogas Christo cum saepe alios sciamus scierimus Deos laborantibus plurimis dedisse medicinas multorum hominum morbos valetudiâ—ésque curasse Arnobius l. 1. p. 28. In vain say they you arrogate so much to Christ for we have often known that other Gods have given Medicines to and healed the infirmities of many Moreover these benefits they still pretended to receive by vertue of those Supplications which they offer'd to them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Orig. l 8. p. 407. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 416. How many saith Celsus being troubled that they had no children have by them enjoyed their wishes How many being maimed in their body's have been healed by them Hence saith (f) Daut cautelam periculi mâ—rbâ—s medelam spem afflictis opeâ—â— mâ—seris sâ—latium calamitatibus laboribus levameâ—um Minur p. 7. Cecilius they give us caution in dangers and medicine in diseases hope to the afflicted help to the miserable comfort in calamities ease from labours 2. This Argument is vain because it serves the Heretick as well as Catholick For what can be more glorious then what Philostorgius records of (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philost Hist Eccl. l 2. §. 8. p. 14. Agapetus one of his fellow Hereticks That he wrought many miracles he raised the dead and healed many that were sick and converted many to the Christian Faith And of Theophilus another of his brother Arrians * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem l. 3. § 4. p. 27. That his wonders were so great and such convincing demonstrations of the Christian Faith as to constrain the obstinacy of the Jews and Silence all their contradictions Lastly Hence we may learn that although Austin should have related some few instances of persons healed by Supplications tendered to the Saints we cannot thence infer as T. G. doth that by so doing he commends them or doth relate them as patterns for our imitation CHAP. VIII The Contents The Judgment of the Fathers proved to be the same with that of Protestants because they do assert
from page 478 to page 496. Where also you may find them teaching that the Dominion of the blessed Virgin is equal to the Dominion of her Son that all power in Heaven and Earth was given to her that she is constituted over every Creature and whosoever boweth his knee unto Jesus doth fall down also and supplicate unto his Mother so that the glory of the Son may be judged not so much to be common with the Mother Ibid. as to be the very same That the mighty God did as far as he might make his Mother partner of his Divine Majesty and power giving unto her of old the Soveraignty both of Coelestial things and Mortal p. 478. That in the redundance of effusion of Grace upon the Creatures the Lords power and will is so accommodated unto her that she may seem to be the first in that both Diadem and Tribunal p. 481. And that all things are subject to the command of the Virgin even God himself p. 482. They also teach that by sinning after Baptisme men seem to have contemned and despised the Passion of Christ That so no Sinner doth deserve that Christ should any more make Intercession for him to the Father without whose Intercession none can be delivered either from Eternal Punishment or the temporal nor from the fault which he hath voluntarily committed And therefore that it was necessary that Christ should constitute his well-beloved Mother a Mediatrix betwixt us and him And so in this our Pilgrimage there is no other refuge left unto us in our tribulations and adversities but to have recourse unto the Virgin Mary our Mediatrix that she would appease the wrath of her Son Ibid. That as he is ascended into Heaven to appear in the sight of God for men Heb. 9.24 So she ought to ascend thither to appear in the sight of her Son for sinners that so mankind might have alwayes before the face of God a help like unto Christ for the procuring of his Salvation And that she is that throne of Grace p. 484. whereof the Apostle specketh Heb. 4.16 Let us go boldly unto the Throne of Grace that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in the time of need That she comes before the Throne of Grace not entreating but commanding p. 486. In the Psalter of our Lady we have these Addresses Blessed are they whose hearts do love thee Ps 31. O Virgin Mary their sinns by thee shall be mercifully washed away Have mercy upon me O Lady Ps 50. who art called the Mother of Mercy and according to the bowels of thy Mercies cleanse me from all mine Iniquities Save me Lady by thy name Ps 53. Ps 71. and deliver me from mine unrighteousness Give the King thy judgement O God and thy mercy to the Queen his Mother Oh come let us sing unto our Lady Ps .. 94. Cant ad Virg. M. post Psal Let us make a joyful noise to Mary our Queen that brings Salvation Oh our Omnipotent Lady thou art my Salvation thou hast freed me condemned to death thou art the beginning and the finisher of my Salvation There you may find them teaching that by her Ps 118. Ps 41. Ps 136. De Arcan Ca. thol verit l. 7. c. 10. White p. 357. Sinns are purged by her true satisfaction is made for sinns the Death and Passion of Christ and of the blessed Virgin saith Petrus Galatinus conduced to the redemption of Mankind The Stellarium Coronae beatae Mariae saith she bought us and as Christ Redeemed Mankind by his Flesh and Blood so she redeemed the same with her Soul These Doctrines and many other of the same Blasphemous stamp are taught and held by many Doctors of the Roman Church these books and doctrines are written and licensed by that Church and so have Catholick permission no censure ever passed upon them no Expurgatory Index hath cleansed them from these horrid Blasphemies but it is still left free for any of the Doctors of that Communion to maintain and propagate them and for any of the members of that Church to practise sutably to these conceptions To ascribe all this power and Authority to the Blessed Virgin and all this vertue to her Death to give her the praises of it and accordingly to trust in her to pray unto her for the blessings she hath purchased and for the distribution of those Favours which naturally do result from this advancement and when they address themselves unto her to use the most extravagant expressions contained in the Ladys Psalter and in other books of the like nature with it Whence it will follow 1 That any person who acts according to these Doctrines and puts up these Petitions doth not deviate from that Tradition which the Catholick conceives to be his only rule of Faith id est a person may be guilty of horrid Blasphemy and Idolatry and notwithstanding be a good Roman Catholick 2. It follows that no man ought to be condemned for writing or asserting any of these Tenets or for using any of the formes contained in those books for Oral Tradition cannot be conceived to condemn what is allowed and practised without censure in the Church of Rome 3. Hence evident it is that private Catholicks may unavoidably be subject to these evil practises for seeing in these matters they cannot have the judgement of the Church and must not be permitted to act according to their private judgements what remains but that they follow the judgement of their Priest which as we have seen is often impious and Blasphemous 4. Hence evident it is that neither these opinions nor practises can ever be condemned by the Church of Rome for to make the contrary Tenets pass into Tradition or to make them Articles of Faith is to empower the Church to coyn new Articles and to pretend Tradition where it is not to be had So that all these Blesphemous and Idolatrous Devotions must be as lasting as the Church of Rome Secondly I have observed this method in my whole discourse 1. To confirm the propositions which I have laid down by Scripture and by reason and then to introduce the Judgement of the Fathers Whereas T. G. is very sparing both as to Scripture and Reason and doth endeavor to supply his want of Reason and of Scripture by some impertinent citations from the Fathers This I conceive to be a very weak and disingenious way of arguing for if the Testimonies of some few Fathers be not sufficient to confirm an Article of Faith and to give us the true sense of any text of Scripture he must confess that what he thus discourseth is weak and infufficient to prove what he hath undertaken to demonstrate but if he shall assert this method to be good and cogent then it will clearly follow 1. That the Doctrine of the Trent Council must be false for they have certainly decreed that Doctrine which was asserted by Pope
Rhenanus and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis â—s ulentis habemus and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants they to evince the impudence and falseness of that charge did constantly return this answer d Nobis homicidium nec videre sas nec audire tantumque abhumano sanguine cayâ—mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minuâ— par 34. cum notis Ouzel porro quale est ut quos sanguinempecoris horâ—ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis Tertul. Apol. c. 9. vid. Eusib Hist Eccl. l. 5. c 1. That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men whereas had they conceived that by partaking of the consecrated Cup they drank of humane Blood this answer could not have excused them nor could it with sincerity be urged by them since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts they daily fed upon his Blood who was the Man Christ Jesus and to depose a Priest from eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Flesh that contains the Blood as the fore-mentioned Canon doth would in effect be to depose him for pertaking of the Holy Sacrament that being most emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Flesh with Blood according to the Roman Doctrine And therefore this opinion that it was lawfull for Christians to eat Blood found little or no countenance in the Church of Christ till the time of Berengarius when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge besides the ancient Fathers objected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing e Quod Saturni filiâ—dignum est mali nexâ—â— hominis â—angâ—inâ—â— gâ—natur ipsoâ—â— credo decuâ—sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere Comitialem morbum hominis sanguine id est â—orbo graviore sanare Minuc p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo ejusmodiâ—t agâ—es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit est apud Herodotum opiâ—â—â— defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foederà comparasse nescio quid sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9. That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood and used that barbarous custom as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood to the performance of all works of Piety as Pliny saith they did by the participation of the Holy Sacrament Had they thus used humane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls and of their Bodies too as f Erat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat Sed quia intus sani palpeoris cohaerentibus non patebant medicum eos ferro aperire voluine neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Cataplasmare cum jam puer quinque aut fere ampliuâ— esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August l. 3. Sec. adv Julian Op. S. 164. they did use the Holy Sacrament what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and arguments and what could lay upon them an imputation of greater impudence and folly then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised Besides this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernitious Spirits because g Hodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. a draught of humane Blood or the Oblation of the Blood of Man was deemed an acceptable service to them and that which would appease their anger and because their Priests were Consecrated by drinking humane Blood Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice and if both Priest and People did as often drink it as they did celebrate the Sacrament what could these charges be but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh Arg. 2. §. 2. and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross he had delivered that which could not have been thought of and much less practised without the greatest horrour For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh he had enjoyned them to do that which is repugnant unto humane nature and hath been constantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens a barbarous and inhumane thing Hence that expression of our Saviour Christ That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh was by the unbelieving Jew rejected as a thing impossible Joh. 6.52 how can this Man say they give us his Flesh to Eat And if they deemed it a thing impossible that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one mans Flesh well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so Nay when his own Disciples heard it verse 60. they presently cried out This is an hard saying who can hear it they judged it so absurd a Proposition and were so highly scandalized at it that notwithstanding all the conviction they received from their Eyes and other senses that he was the true Messiah they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to reject him verst 66. for from that very time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him So that our Blessed Saviour to obviate and to remove this Scandal doth in the judgment of the Fathers presently expound himself in a Spiritual sence and doth assert that this corporal eating was unprofitable and not the thing he did exhort them to for thus Eusebius doth paraphrase his words g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 3. Eccles Theol. contra Marcell Ancyr M. S. Bibl. Oxon. do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagin that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and h See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites p 48 49 50 51. Life This also is the Exposition of Tertullian Origen St. Augustin Athanasius to omit divers others And of this Exposition they give this account i August de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15 16. that those expressions taken literally command what is an impious and k Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quaedicuntur adverterit si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam c. occidit haec litera Origen in Lev. c. 10. Hom 7.
p. 87. wicked think and are a killing Letter and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sence And we are informed by l Horum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati ca autem immanitas coepit a Simone Mago ut Narrat Clem. de rebus geftis Petri qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis ipsius sanguinem c. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst in haec verba Minuc infans farre contectus ut decipiat incautos apponitur Wowerius out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians Quintilians and others who mixt the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread had its first rise from Simon Magus misunderstanding those very words of John except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. Now if this oral manducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repugnant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it can we suppose it would pass down so glib not only with the Jewish but all the Gentile converts and yet we do not find that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians that they were Canibals on this account or that they did devour humane Flesh When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradition and so received by the Church of Christ could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a killing Letter and the injunction of the greatest wickedness could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood or could those Hereticks have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christs Blood But then if we conceive this person we thus devour to be also God and therefore look upon this action as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devouring of our God and Maker it is so full of horrour scandal and amazament that nothing can be more for what this Doctrine doth assert was in the judgment of the a Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse de natura Deorum C. 3. Orator such an incredible madness as humane nature never could be guilty of And Averroes upon this single score pronounceth that b Qui dicit se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire cujus sectatores suum quem colunt Deum denibus discerpunt devorant Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973. among all Religious Sects the Christians were the worst and most ridiculous because that God they Worshipped they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahumetan can cast upon us we are by them reproached as d Christianos atrociores esse in Christum quam Judaeos ait Akmed Ben. Edris Mahummed hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse illos vero carnem ejus edere sanguinem bibere quod ipsa expeperientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat V. Hotting Apol. de Luch §. 14. p. 220. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devourers of our God and they are wont to say that by thus eating of his Flesh we use him worse then did the Jews that Crucified him The ancient Fathers do agree in these with Cicero and Averroes and say with them That to adore what we do eat is the extreamest sottishness and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions and of the Gods they Worshiped that what they Worshiped they did also Sacrifice and that they did devour him whom they adored as Tatian and Minutius suggest And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations Theodoret also doth affirm That e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest 55. in Genesin God foreseeing Men would fall to such extremity of madness as to Worship Beasts the better to restrain that Wickedness did suffer us to eat them which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry because saith he it is the evtreamest of all folly to Worship what we Eat He again adds That f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. God divided Beasts into clean and unclean that Men abhorring what they judged unclean and eating what they called clean might Worship neither for can any Man of sense saith he f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. conceive that to be God which he abominates as unclean or which he offers to the true God and himself doth Eat Thirdly he adds That God enjoyned the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Creatures which the Aegyptians Worshiped as Gods Serm. 7. de Sacrif To. 4. P. 585. that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice and not be guilty of such extream stupidity and folly as to conceive them to be Gods Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ it must have given greater scandal and been a fitter matter of reproach to Christians then was the scandal of the Cross and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal as that other of the Cross The Jews and Heathens who cast this always in their Dish That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross would not have stuck to load them with this more hainous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore at least when this was frequently objected to them as the extreamest madness they must have presently retorted That you Christians confessedly do the same your God is also deemed your Sacrifice and you do first adore and then devour him The ancient Fathers of the Church who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they payed unto a Crucified Saviour would surely have afforded some Apology for that which in the Judgment of Heathens Turks and Christians seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find that Christs Disciples or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal since no malitious Jew or subtile Gentile did in the least accuse the Christians of what they all conceived a crime so monstrous although they were not wanting to seek occasions of reproach against them and to divulge false stories of them and were particularly upbraided with doing what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them must be the Christians constant practice Lastly Seeing the
ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
tenuisti Idem Tract 50. in Joh. T. eod p. 358 371. thou hast Christ present by faith and in the sign by the Sacrament of Baptism and the meat and drink of the Altar According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples me you shall not have alwayes how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there †send thy faith and thou dost hold him To conclude the Fathers po expresly say that Christ pronounced of the Bread this is my body and of the Wine this is my Blood which say the R. Doctors had our Lord affirmed we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically For proof hereof B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. § 6 behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierom Ambrose Agustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore thirteen to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech 1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57 The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body The second Christ to have called Bread his body Third that Christs speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that that which he brake was Bread The fifth 2. Christus panem corpuâ— suum appellat Tertullianus adv Judeos that it was Bread which he brake The sixth that it was Bread of the Lord not Bread the Lord. The seventh that the words my Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread this is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds 3 Nec matteria panis est sed super illum dâ—ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat 15. illustrates the matter thus So saith he did Christ call his Body Bread as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat except the grain of Wheat die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the consecrated Bread this is my 4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris Hieron Ep. ad Helvid Qu. 2. 5. Panem fractum tradidit disâ—lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc c. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacrament cap. 5. 6. Judas manducavit panem Domini c. Augustinus Tract 59. in Joh. Cyril Hieros 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 4 p 528. 8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum c. Cyril Alez Catech. 4 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8. 10. Gaudent tract de rat sacra Body The eleventh 11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that he blessed Wine when he said drink and the last the Bread strengthning mans Body was therefore called the Body of Christ To these citations add that of Cyprian and †Theophilus the Lord calleth Bread his Body which is made up of many grains 12. Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian or †Ammonius having taken the Bread then afterward the cup of Wine and testified it to be his Body and Blood 13. Panis quia confirmat corpus ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur I st dor l. 1. de officiis cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death That also of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1 T. 4 p 17 Theodoret that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body and that which was mixt his blood And as if this was beyond all dispute he puts this question to the Heretique * ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑΠId. ibid. knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body and makes him answer yea I know it By all which passages a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said this Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood b In Evan l 1 p 152 L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit c. Ammon Harmon Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body to be Metaphorical and figurative as any Protestant now doth note also by the way that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor for saying they believe Bread to be God for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable to no exception since they import this only that the Romanist believes that to be a God which we believe is Bread and to one of that perswasion the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith but to proceed To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils The first is that of Carthage held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops whereof St. Austin and Aurelius were two which thus decrees that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. Eccles Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. as also the Lord commanded it that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water The second is that of Trull whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water because Bread is the figure of the Lords body and the Wine a figure of his blood c In Can. 40. Concil Carthag p. 426 427. Zonaras saith the same In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Image of Christ and the true Image of his natural body and the Image of his flesh given by God And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day before they did receive the Sacrament where we have these words viz. * Aeifrick Saxon Homily v.