Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	believe_v	church_n	tradition_n	5,645	5	9.4779	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96332	A demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her councils have erred by shewing, that the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their decrees touching communion in one kind, contradicted the received doctrine of the Church of Christ. With an appendix, in answer to the XXI. chapter of the author of A papist misrepresented, and represented.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1688 (1688)	Wing W1721A; ESTC R226161	116,790	130

Lateranensi ultimo Bellar. de Concil l. 1. c 7. de Concil partim Reprobatis and of no Authority Why are they stiled Concilia Reprobata Reprobated Councils by the greatest Part of Roman Catholicks in reference to some of these things which they profess to have decided under this Majestick Character Why is it yet left free for any Romanist to reject their Authority and Decrees in many Matters Moreover if they were true General Councils representing the whole Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost either such Councils must have erred in what they have decreed as matter of Faith and therefore cannot be Infallible and then the whole Church Representative and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost may erre in matters of Faith or if they did not erre it must be matter of Faith That a General Council is superior to the Pope Secondly That General Councils may infallibly determine matters of Faith without him yea against him Thirdly That the pertiancious Resisters of this Doctrine were Hereticks and therefore that Eugenius the 4th Julius the 2d Leo the 10th and the 5th Lateran Council were Heretical If they did not know the Truth of what they thus assert how shall private Persons be able to discern what such Assemblies and so many Universities and Churches throughout the World consenting with them and owning them as such could not discern That is how shall they know when Councils are truly General when they truly represent the Church Catholick and they are assisted by the Holy Ghost Was not this one of their Decrees That for the future Quilibet in R. Pontificem eligendus Every one that was to be chosen Pope should in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Heart and Mouth Profess to God Almighty and to blessed Peter firmy to believe and hold as long as he lived the holy Catholick Faith according to the Traditions of the Apostles the general Councils and in particular of the general Councils of Lateran Lyons Vienna Constance and Basil and to keep that Faith to a tittle unchanged (a) Consil Const Sess 39. Basil Sess 23.37 Et usque ad animam sanguinem confirmare defensare praedicare And to preach confirm and defend it with their Life and Blood Did not the following Popes till after the Time of Eugenius the 4th make this Profession Yea were not the Inquisitors of Hereticks obliged by the Council of Constance to enquire of any who lay under Suspicion of Heresy (b) Vtrum credaet teneat asserat quod quodlibet Concilium Generale etiam Constantinense Vniversalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item utrum credat quod illud quod Sacrum Concilium Constantienense Vniversalem Ecclesiam Repraesentans approbavit approbat in favorem fidei salutem animarum quod hoc est abuniversis Christi fidelibus approbandum tenendum Et quòd condemnavit condemnat esse fidei bonis moribus contrarium hoc ab eisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Sess 45. apud Binium Tom. 7. p. 1124. Whether he believed held and asserted That every general Council and particularly that of Constance represents the Universal Church and whether he believed that what that Council representing the whole Church approved in favour of Faith and the welfare of Souls was to be approved by all the Faithful and what it condemned as contrary to Faith and good Manners was as such to be condemned And after this Profession of these Popes this Inquisition made by all concerned to find out and prosecute Persons suspected of Heresy could they be doubtful whether these Councils were truly General or no Would they condemn Men of Heresy for not believing these Articles if they themselves did not believe them What Hppes can private Persons have that they shall surely know when Councils represent the Church and are accepted by it if the Agreement of so many Nations so many Universities so many Cardinals Arch-Bishops Bishops Divines and Doctors the Profession of so many Popes the Practice of so many Inquisitors do not prove that these Councils were once accepted by the Church Again Was there any Scripture or Tradition of the Church which plainly taught the contrary if not there can be none now and so no Man can hve just Cause from Scripture or Tradition to doubt the Infallibility of these Councils That they represented the whole Church and were assisted by the Holy Ghost That they were above the Pope and Representatives of the Church Catholick without Dependance on him If either plain Scripture or Tradition contradicted these their Assertions and Determinations then must these great Assemblies and all the Universities Nations and Churches which owned them as true general Councils be accounted ignorant of what plain Scripture or Tradition delivered touching a Matter of Faith of so great Import to the Vnion the Peace and Reformation of the Church and why then may not others be ignorant of other Matters plain in Scripture or Tradition without Peril why may we not suppose or at the least suspect That other Councils less numerous have been so Again These Councils of Constance and Basil have declared and decreed That (a) Concil Basil Sess 2. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 22. Sess 18. p. 55. general Councils have Authority immediately from Christ which every one of whatsoever State or Dignity though it be Papal is obliged to obey in things pertaining to Faith the Extirpation of the said Schism and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members That the Pope himself is bound to stand to the Declaration and Definition of these Councils Whatsoever Christian saith the (b) Sess 45. Council of Constance refuseth to profess That he believes asserts and holds this he shall be proceeded against as one suspected of Heresy This saith the Council of Basil is (c) Sess 33. p. 95. Veritas fidei Catholicae A Truth belonging to the Catholick Faith and whosoever pertinaciously resists it censendus est Haereticus Is to be deemed an Heretick It is an Article of Faith which cannot be neglected say they Sine interitu saluts Without the Loss of Salvation They also decreed That it was not in the Power of the Pope to dissolve prorogue or transfer a general Council to another place without the Consent of the said Council And this Decree is also stiled (a) Ibid. Sess 33. p. 59. Sess 38. p. 101. An Article of Faith which he who pertinaciously doth resist is to be deemed an Heretick They also urge in Confirmation of these Decrees 1. That they were established by Martin the Fifth confirming the Decrees of the Council of Constance and by Eugenius the Fourth confirming that of Basil and particularly that of the Eighth Session That (b) P. 33. during that Council there could be no general Council assembled elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council assembled

A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE Church of Rome AND HER COUNCILS HAVE ERRED BY SHEWING That the COUNCILS of Constance Basil and Trent have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ WITH AN APPENDIX In ANSWER to The XXI Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black-Swan in Ave-Mary-Lane MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Apr. 11. 1688. Guil. Needham THE PREFACE TO THE READER The Contents of the Preface This Discourse plainly overthrows all the Foundations of the Romish Faith shewing 1. That the Romish Councils and the Church of Rome cannot be the sole authentick Interpreters of Scripture or the true Judges of Tradition § 1. 2ly That they were not assisted by the Holy Ghost in making this Decree touching Communion in one King § 2. 3ly That the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent were not true General Councils or that such Councils must be subject unto Error § 3. 4ly That there is no Certainty of the Romish Faith by oral Tradition § 4. 5ly That these Councils ridiculously do assert That they made their Decrees touching Communion in one King consulting the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People § 5. 6ly That the Decrees of the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil concerning the Superiority of a Genral Council over the Pope and their Authority to decree matters of Faith without him must be allowed to be valid or we can have no Assurance of the Validity and Infallibility of any of their Councils § 6. BY way of Preface to this Discourse I shall endeavour briefly and plainly to demonstrate 1. That it plainly overthroweth all the Certainty of the Romish Faith and that if they have made these Definitions and Decrees in opposition to the plain Sence of Scripture and the Interpretations of it by the Holy Fathers and to the full Tradition of the Church in former Ages these their received Councils cannot be by Gods Appointment the Judges of our Controversies the authentick Interpreters of Scripture or assisted by the Holy Ghost in making these Decisions nor can they be Assertors of or Adherers to primitive Tradition but rather plain Desertors of it And First Whereas they challenge as their undoubted Right Authority to be the sole authentick Interpreters of the Sence of Scripture and the true Judges of the Tradition of the Church of Christ Hence we may learn what excellent Interpreters they are of Scripture and Tradition For whereas the Trent Council hath in General defined that it belongeth to the Church alone (a) Sess 4. Judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Sanctarum Scripturarum To judge of the true sence and meaning of the Holy Scriptures And particularly That being taught by the Holy Spirit (b) Sess 21. c. 1. Atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta And following the Judgment and Custom of the Church she made the forementioned Decrees touching Communion in one Kind Secondly Whereas the Council of Constance saith That they made their Decrees concerning the same Matter (c) Sess 13. Plurium doctorum tam divini quam humani juris deliberatione praehabitâ After mature Deliberation had with many Doctors skilful both in divine and humane Laws And lastly whereas the Council of Basil hath declared That they determined the same Matter (d) Sess 30. Post diligentem perscrutationem divinarum Scripturarum sacrorumque Canonum doctrinarum à Sanctis patribus Doctoribus traditarum in hac Synodo longis temporibus habitam After a diligent Search made in this Synod for a long time of holy Scriptures of the sacred Canons and of the Doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers I say Whereas they do expresly and confidently pretend these things I think it will be evident from this Discourse That in those Matters they plainly have decreed against the clear and formerly received Sence of Scriptures against the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and by the sacred Canons and against the Judgment and Custom of the Church of God in former Ages So that if it belong unto the Church alone to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of the Holy Scriptures these Councils and those Churches which have embraced their Interpretations of the Scriptures concerned in this Dispute could not be the Church Representative or Catholick but falsly did and do pretend to these Titles If it belong unto the Church to teach us what is Tradition they who assert these things as suitable to the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and to the Judgment of the Church cannot deserve that Title § 2 Again Thirdly Whereas the Trent Council saith That in making these Decrees she was (e) Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto qui est Spiritus sapientiae intellectus Spiritus consilii pietatis edocta Sess 21. c. 1. Ibid. Instructed by the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Wisdom and of Understanding of Counsel and of Pieyt whereas the Council of Constance and of Basil in making their Decrees touching this Article Declare they were a Holy General Synod in Spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata Met rightly together in the holy Ghost Hence it is evident that 1. They falsly pretended to the Assistance of the Holy Spirit who being the spirit of Truth the Inditer of the Sacred Scripture would not assist them to determine contrary to the Truth delivered there and being also the Spirit promised to assist his Church and guide her true and living Members into all saving Truth could not assist them to Decree against the Practice and the Judgment of the Church of Christ for a Thousand years 2. Hence also it must follow that these Councils tho as to these Definitions they are own'd as truly General by the whole Church of Rome were not true General Councils or that true General Councils confirmed by the Pope and owned by the whole Church of Rome may erre in Matters of Faith in the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in their Judgment of Tradition 3. And whereas our late Roman Disputants have laid the whole Certainty of their Faith upon the Infallibility of oral Tradition §. 4. Mr. G. Mr. M. delivering to them the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Saviour it must be as evident they have no Certainty of Roman Faith as it is evident from this and other late Treatises That they have varied from the Tradition of the Church in the Practice of latin Service the Veneration of Images and the Substraction of the Cup and we desire nothing more of the most wavering Persons than that they would not go over to that Church till they see greater Evidence that they have never varied from what was once taught and delivered in the Church of Christ than these Discourses offer to evince that they have actually done it § 5 4. Moreover hence we

other things upon the Altar besides Bread Wine and Water give this as a sufficient reason for so doing That these things were not agreeable unto that institution which was to be revered by Men and Angels from which it was by no means lawfull to depart and to which Christians were obliged to adhere and surely they who so Religiously condemned and strenuously opposed themselves against the Custom of iminction and of offering Milk and Honey because of the Repugnancy which these things bore unto the manner of and the Rule observed in our Lord's Institution of this Sacrament would have been filled with holy indignation had they known of any who wholly did with-hold from or deny the Cup unto the People Sure they who taught that to do these things against the Divine Orders and Apostolical Constitution was to be guilty of a manifest Error and of Schismatical Ambition could not have passed a milder Censure on the substraction of the Cup from all the Laity They who declared that to do these things was to act contrary to the Evangelical Doctrine and Ecclesiastical Custom or the Practice of the Church would have declared with a greater zeal against the defalcation of that Cup of which our Lord said in the Institution Drink ye all of this of which all the Apostles drank and which was in complyance with this Institution and this Example confessedly received by all Christians in the first Ages of the Church They who would not allow intinction to be sufficient for a compleat and full Communion of the People or for a Supplement of the Communion would much less have allowed that the Communion was intire and full when nothing but the Bread was given to them They who declared that nothing could be offered to justifie this variation from our Lord's Institution could much less think that any thing would justifie this greater variation from it They who affirm it could not be that any one should commend this Mystery of Faith more conveniently or truly than that Jesus to whom the most perfect knowledge of any Man being compared is the highest ignorance and that the Tradition of our Lord is to be kept and not receded from on the account of any humane or novel Institution could not imagine the Councils either of Trent or Constance could have any power given by the Author of that Institution to make a Law for the omitting one part of it with a (z) Concil Const Sess 13. non obstante to our Lord's Institution and to the practice of the Church They lastly who assert It is judicial obstinacy to preferr Custom before Truth must have abhorred that plea for half Communion used by the Council of Constance that it was a Custom reasonably introduced by the Church and by the Holy Fathers and had been long observed and therefore was to be retained as a Law. Again They who condemn the offering Milk and Honey on the Altar as being besides the Institution of our Lord and for this reason do forbid and punish it would more assuredly have condemned and punished that defalcation of the Cup which is confessedly contrary to the Institution They who took care that in this matter things should be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the lord delivered them would never have allowed that this Sacrament should be administred otherwise than he had Instituted it to be received And lastly they who argued That nothing else was to be offered because nothing else was mentioned in the Gospel would never have endured that what was mentioned in the Gospel as offered and distributed to all should not only be omitted but forbidden under the severest Penalties § 4 4ly Some varied from the practice of the Church from the beginning used with respect to the Cup and that Two Ways 1. By using in this Sacrament Wine not mixed with Water this neglect the Ancient Fathers and Councils do with one voice condemn as varying from the Institution of our Lord and from the practice of the Church and solemnly decree that in conformity to both the Wine they offered and distributed should be continually mixed with Water The Constitutions of St. clemens say That (a) L. 8. c. 12. P. 351. our Lord mixed the Cup with Wine and Water and sanctifying it he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it and that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his Order or Institution they offered to him this Bread and this Cup. And this they did saith Cotelerius against Two Heresies that of the Monophysites and the Armenians who used only Wine in the Mysteries The (b) Can. 37. African Council saith that nothing is to be offered in the Sacraments but Bread merum aqua mixtum and Wine mixed with Water as our Lord delivered Pope Julius saith That (c) Calix dominicus juxta Canonum praecepta vino aqua permixtus debet offerri non enim potest Calix domini esse aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi utrumque misceatur Apud Ivon Decret part 2. c. xi the Cup of our Lord according to the commands of the Canons ought to be offered with Wine mixed with Water and that the Cup of the Lord cannot be Wine or Water alone but that both must be mixed The Councils of (d) Concil Wormatense apud eundem Cap. 12. Concil To. 2. p. 526. Worms and (e) Calix dominicus juxta quod quidam Doctor edisserit vino aqua permixtus debet offerri Concil Brac. 4. Concil To. 6. p. 563. Braga condemn the neglect of mixing Water in the very words of Pope Julius The General Council held in Trullo saith the same thing condemning the Armenians who celebrated the Eucharist with Wine not mixed with Water as acting against the Tradition of the Apostles and Decreeing That the Bishop or the Priest who did thus celebrate the Mysteries should be deposed (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 32. as imperfectly shewing forth the Mystery and innovating in things delivered Isidore saith That Wine alone cannot be offered in the Sacrifice of the Cup and that (g) Quando autem miscetur utrumque tunc spirituale Sacrificium perficitur Lib. 1. c. 18. the spiritual Sacrifice is then perfected when they are both mixed This mixture some of them held necessary because our Saviour's side being pierced with a Launce not only Blood but Water also issued thence for which cause saith (h) In Can. 32. Concil Trull Zonarus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was necessarily determined by the Church that in the holy Mysteries Wine should be mixed with Water That Wine and Water ought thus to be mixed saith (i) Quia utrumque ex latere ejus in sua passione profluxisse legitur Apud Ivon decret Part. 2. c. 15. Pope Alexander We have received from the Fathers and even reason teacheth because both flowed from our Saviour's Side in his Passion (k) 1 Cap. de celebr Miss p. 88. c. 10. 2 L. 1. c. 10.

30. Trid. Sess 43. cap. 3. these Councils jointly have determined That by force of that natural Connexion and Concomitance which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body Christ's Body is entire under the Species of Wine and his Blood under the Species of Bread it being firmly to be believed and in no wise doubted that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the Species of Bread as under that of Wine and not the Flesh only under the Species of Bread nor the Blood only under the Species of Wine This whosoever shall deny let him be Anathema saith the Trent Council whosoever being learned will not declare upon Oath that he believeth and asserts this Doctrine of Concomitance he must suffer as an (a) Sess 13. can 1. Partinaciter dicentes oppositum tanquam haeresin sunt arcendi puniendi Sess 45. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1124. Heretick saith the Council of Constance And yet this Doctrine which cannot be denied without incurring an Anathema nor disbelieved without the Crime of Heresie is in it self absurd and plainly contrary to Scripture and to Reason and that it was unquestionably unknown to all the Ancient Fathers and the whole Church of Christ is very easie to demonstrate That this Doctrine is absurd that it doth not expound but rather doth expose our Saviour's Institution to the derision of Men of Reason and Consideration will be evident from these following Arguments For § 1 1. This Novelty apparently destroys the energy of the words used in the Institution of this Sacred Ordinance in which our Lord when he had given his Body broken to his own Disciples and they had actually received it saith of the following Cup Drink ye all of this Matth. xxvi 27 28. for this is the blood of the New-Testament shed for you Whereas if he knew any thing of this Concomitance he must know also they had received this blood of the New-Testament already and therefore might have spared his Cup and Reason both This do as oft as you drink it came too late for they had done what he commanded in effect before he bid them do it Sess 13. c. 3. Tantundem sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque continetur as much is contained under either Species as under both saith the Trent Council i. e. whole and entire Christ his Body Blood his Soul and his Divinity and so as much as is delivered in and as much Grace conveighed by the Reception of one Species as both For I suppose that by participation of Christ in this entire manner we have entirely the Grace of the Sacrament Why therefore did our Lord institute the other Species so perfectly unnecessary to conveigh any thing of Christ or of his Grace unto us Why did he bless the Cup and blessing said with like Solemnity and with express injunction Drink ye all of this Or why did he permit his Church for a whole Thousand Years to give his Members a thing which might be oft of a pernicious influence to them who did receive it unworthily but could be of no spiritual advantage to them who did receive it worthily since after we have taken worthily the consecrated Body we have taken as much as when we have received the Blood also Mr. Condom sets down this as their Principle Treat of Communion in both Kinds p. 327. That he who hath received the Bread of Life has no need of receiving the sacred Blood seeing he has received together with the Bread of Life the whole Substance of the Sacrament and together with that Substance the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist Now from this Principle it follows with the clearest evidence that it was needless for our Saviour to have said to his Disciples after they had received the Bread of Life Drink ye all of this Cup. That his Institution of the Cup to be received after the Bread of Life was a needless Institution that the Church was imployed in a needless Action for a Thousand Years when she distributed the Cup to all Believers That when our Saviour said Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins he gave a needless reason of a needless Action exhorting them to do what they had wholly done already to the end here assigned by him of the drinking of it And can that Principle be true which casts such horrid Imputations on the Commands the Institution and the Reason of that Institution assigned by our Blessed Lord and on the constant Practice of the whole Church of Christ And indeed this new Capricio of Concomitance cannot well be thought of by a Roman Doctor but presently this Question stares him in the Face To what purpose then was the Institution of both Species they being conscious to themselves that the very natural and obvious Conclusion from it would be this That our Lord's Institution of both Species was to no purpose they therefore have invented a new Reason of the necessity of Consecrating both the Species apart Mr. Condom ibid. p. 179 180. viz. That the Separation once made upon the Cross of our Lord's Body and Blood might never cease to appear on the Holy Table Now is it not wonderful that Christ should stablish a continual representation of the separation of his Blood from his Body by Species which he commands us to believe contain his Body and his Blood united What a pretty Mystery do these Men make of the sacred Institution of our Lord. Bread and Wine never cease to appear unto our Senses and yet we must not believe this Appearance but by Faith believe there is no such thing the same Faith teacheth me that our Lord's Body and Blood are united there and yet I must believe our Lord designed the continual representation of them there as separate where Faith informs me there is no such thing Secondly This Doctrine of Concomitance seems even to ridicule our Saviour's words and make them run to this effect I say unto you This is my Body broken not by way of representation only but substantially so and yet I know my Body neither is substantially broken in this Sacrament nor can it ever be so I bid you take this Cup and to encourage you to do so I say This is my Blood shed or separated from my Body and yet I know that there is always in this Sacrament such a Concomitance as renders it impossible my Blood should be thus separated as I say it is But notwithstanding I institute a Mystery which by some broken Accidents of Bread annihilated or some few colours or bare Species of Wine without a subject shall give some faint resemblance of my Body broken and my Blood shed for you This is my broken Body that is under these broken Accidents of Bread lyeth my Body whole and united to my Blood and therefore not my Body broken for you This is my Blood shed

all Crimes objected to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we partake of humane flesh it is not possible we should be guilty of so vile a thing Amongst us there is no eating of Man's flesh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contr. Graec. p. 162. Tatian you are false witnesses who say this of us No Man saith Legat. p. 38. Athenagoras who is not mad can charge us with this thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we may not eat humane flesh It is the Calumny of the Devil saith P. 32. Minutius You may be ashamed to object it to us Christians saith Apol. cap. 9. Tertullian whereas had they received this as an Article of Christian Faith that they did daily eat the Flesh of the Man Christ and thought that this Discourse not only taught but even obliged them so to do I know not with what Truth or what Sincerity they could without all limitation or exception not only have denied but even detested the doing so But that which puts it without dubt that Christians in the Primitive Ages had no apprehension that Christ by this Discourse had taught them that his proper flesh and Blood was to be eaten in the Sacrament is the memorable History of Sanctus and Blandina two Christian Martyrs written by Iraenene Bishop of Lions and preserved to us in In 1 Pet. ii 12. p. 149. g. a. Oecumenius thus That the Heathens having apprehended the Servants of Christians Catechized and using force with them that from them they might learn something secret the Servants having nothing to say that might be pleasing to their Tormentors in as much as they had heard from their Masters that the Holy Sacrament was the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they thinking that it had indeed been flesh and blood told this to the Inquisitors who apprehending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Christians had done that very thing gave notice of it to other Heathens and they endeavoured by torments to force the May tyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it to whom Blandina readily and boldly answered saying How should they endure these things who so fast as not to enjoy lawful Flesh This I say is a clear indication that the Ancient Christians did not believe that in this Sacrament they did eat Christ's proper flesh and blood or that our Lord did here require them to do so for if they had thus thought how could Irenaeus have represented it as a plain mistake both in these Servants and these Heathens to think the Sacrament was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really Christ's flesh and blood and that the Christians by receiving of it did really eat Flesh and Blood How could he have introduced Blandina refuting this Imagination had it been the Sentiment of the then Church of Christ since by so doing she must have rejected one great Article of Christian Faith How lastly could Oecumenius have inserted these words into his Commentary without endeavouring to sweeten and explain and reconcile them to the Doctrine of the proper Manducation of Christ's Flesh and Blood. Again since that this Doctrine came into the world that is since it was broached first by Paschasius in the Ninth Century the Assertors of it give two Reasons why though we corporally eat that very Flesh which suffered on the Cross and drink that very Blood which was then shed corporeally yet is that Flesh and Blood concealed from our outward Senses under the shape of Bread and Wine The first is this C. 13. Al. 36. Vt ridiculum nullum fiat Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus that we might not be ridiculous to the Pagans by eating humane Flesh and drinking the Blood of a slain Man for this saith he would make our Religion execrable and cause them to condemn the Christians as the vilest of Men And again should the shape of Flesh appear it would be C. 37. Perfidis execratio execrable to the Heathens 'T is thus concealed saith Alger l. 2. c. 3. f. 15. b. Algerus Ne infidelibus pateat eorum Blasphemiis vilescat Least it should appear to Infidels and lie open to their Blasphemies and least they should judge us inhumane and cruel as being eaters and drinkers of humane Flesh and Blood. Secondly Least Christians perceiving things raw and bloody should be filled with horrour saith P. 133. b. Lanfrank least if the Faithful should perceive the Colour and the taste of Flesh and Blood humana pietas abhorreret humane piety should abhorr the Action saith L. 2. c. 3. Algerus Should it appear thus saith P. 224. Hugo Lingonenesis Rarius in terris esset qui hoc non abhorreret There would be scarce a Man on Earth that would not abhorr it It would saith P. 215. h. Petrus Cluniacensis Fidem laedere vel ad scandalum quorumlibet possit corda movere Be prejudicial to the Faith and scandalize the Minds of all Men. The profit of the receiving the Sacrament would be hindred saith Impediretur perceptionis ejus commoditas pro humani corporis comedendi horrore injecto L. 1. c. 7. l. 1. c. 16. algerus by the horror of eating humane flesh quoniam Christum vorari dentibus fas non est for it is not lawful to devour Christ with the Teeth Now let us in the fear of God consider whether that Sence of Scripture is to be received which makes that certainly to be believed by the eye of Faith which if it werre perceived by the Eye of Sense would render our Religion Ridiculous and execrable to the Pagan World which did we see our selves but ready to perform what actually we do we should utterly abhorr to do and should be horribly scandalized at our own Actions which did Men see us do they could not but esteem us cruel and inhumane Since that the Heathens have understood this is become an Article of Christian Faith do they not open their Mouths in Blasphemies against us as freely as if they saw us eat and drink Glorist's flesh and blood corporeally Did not Apud Dionys Carth. in Sent. 4. Dist 10. Art. 1. Averroes declare in the 12th Century He found no Sect more foolish than the Christians because they ate the very God they worshipped Doth not Apud Hotting Hist Eccl. Saec. 16. Part. 2. p. 160. Achmed Ben Edris say We use Christ worse than did the Jews because it is more Savage to eat his flesh and drink his blood than only to procure his Death Do not the Monsieur la Boulay Voyag part 1. c. 10. p. 21. Mahometans point at us saying There goes a God-eater And doth not then this their Doctrine render their Religion as plainly Execrable and Ridiculous to the Heathen world as if they saw them eat of humane flesh and drink of humane blood 3. The 53. v. affords two further Arguments in Refutation of the corporeal sence of these Expressions 1. That it follows plainly from it that the Thief upon the Cross and all the pious and

Nicene Council and of the Roman Church pronouncing Anathema to those who did not worship Images he and his Council of 300 Bishops argue thus that then Infantes Car. Mag. de Imaginib l. 2. c. 27. Baptismatis unda loti corporis dominici edulio sanguinis haustu satiati pereunt Infants who have been Baptized and have received the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood must perish In the 9th Century we are told by Apud Menardum Not. in Greg. Sacr. p. 107. Jesse Bishop of Amiens That the Infant was confirmed by the Body and Blood of Christ that he might be his Member By Corpore sanguine Dominico omne praecedens Sacramentm in eo confirmatur quia haec ideo accipere debet c. De Inslit Cleric l. 1. cap. 29. Rabanus Maurus who saith That the precedent Sacrament of Baptism is confirmed in the Baptized Porson by the Body and Blood of our Lord for he therefore ought to receive these things that he may be his Member who died and rose again for us and may deserve to have God dwelling in him For he who is Truth it self saith He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood abides in me and I in him and also Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you By De Ord. Baptiz c. 18. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans That when any one is new born by Water and the Spirit he is nourished with the body of our Lord and drinks his Blood. By the old Statim autem confirmetur infans communicetur ab Episcopo ita dicente Corpus Sanguis Domini c. Baluz Not. in Reg. p. 551. Roman Pontisicial which saith That the Infant being Baptized he is presently confirmed and communicated by the Bishop saying The Body and the Blood of Christ c. In the 10th Century we are informed of the continuance of the same Custom from a Pontificial written about the year 980 saith Baluzius where it is commanded Statim enim confirmari oportet Chrismate poftea communicari si Episcopus deest communicetur 2 Presbytero dicante Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam Bal. not in Reg. p. 552. That the Baptized Infant should presently be Confirmed and Communicated by the Bishop or in his absence by the Priest saying The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee in Life eternal In the 14th Century we find the same Custom in Ne lactentur antequam communicent De Sabb. Pasch p. 64. Alcuin from the very same words which saith he were then used at the Communicating of the Infant after Baptism And in the Three and thirtieth Epistle of Lanfranck we find these words Credimus enim generaliter expedire omnes omnibus aetatibus tam viventes quam morientes dominici corporis sanguinis perceptionese munire Apud Baluz ibid. p. 657. We believe that it is generally very expedient for all Persons of all Ages living and dying to arm themselves with the Reception of our Lord's body and his blood Whence faith Nor. ad librum Sacram p. 298. Baluzius we gather That in his time is was the Custom to give to Children the Communion of the Lord's Body and his Blood. And Hugh Menard doth ingenuously confess That the Custom of giving the body of Christ to Children continued till the time of Paschal the Second and that they gave it to them then dipp'd in the Wine by reason of the wekness of their Age. That this was the Opinion of the Greek Church even almost to our present Age we learn from L. 3. de S. Euch. cap 40. Arcadius whose words are these They judge the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be required of necessity to Salvation both to Adult and Infants so teach Simeon Thessalonicensis Nicholaus Cabasilas and Gabriel Philadelphiensis who all say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion is therefore necessary because the Lord hath said If you do not eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no life in you We Baptize Infants saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. cum Virtum E. 1. c. 9. p. 85. Jeremiah their Patriarch and afterwards we give them the Communion for according to St. Basil he that is regenerated wants still spiritual Food and our Lord hath said Vnless you eat c. Eccl. ord c. 9. p. 98. Metrophanes Critopulus adds That their Infants are Baptized and that then they afterwards partake as oft as their Parents will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of both Species at the Lord's Table The Georgians Circassians and Mengrelians are of the same Religion with the Greek Church in all things and therefore must be sof the same Opinion in this Matter The Armenians minister the sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants in both kinds So do the Habassines saith Viagg de Aethiop c. 22. Alvarez and the Maronites saith P. 178. Brierwood And here let it be noted that not the latter Grecians only but the Ancient Fathers did generally hold that this was necessary to be done by virtue of that Precept Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you shall have no Life in you from whence it is extreamly evident that neither in the Fifth Age when Infants were by virtue of this Text admitted to the Sacrament nor in the following Ages of the Church could it be an established Custom to give to Children the Cup only Lastly That neither Leo nor Gelasius gave any new Precept to the Church touching this Matter §. 7. Chap. 5. §. 2. is partly evident from what hath been already said nor are there any Footsteps of this new imaginary Law to be found in their Decrees For the words of Leo only command That when the sacrilegious dissembling of the Manichees was discovered they should be driven by the Priests Authority from the Society of the Saints And the words of Gelasius do only say That they who in the Region of Squillaci were bound up by a Superstition unknown to him from receiving the Cup should either receive the whole sacrament or be kept back from the whole Where now I pray you is any appearance of this new pretended Law or First Ecclesiastical Precept That all the Faithful should from henceforth be obliged to receive under both Species unless those words of Gelasius import that the Receiving of the Bread without the Cup is not Receiving an entire Sacrament or unless his following Reason That the division of one and the same Mystery cannot happen without Sacrilege be a general Rule concerning all the Faithful But to dispute no longer in a case so plain both Leo and Gelasius sufficiently inform us of the practice of their times for Leo doth not only say That De pass domini Serm. 14. p. 284. participatio Corporis sanguinis Christi this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ is that by which the New Creature is fed and inebriated from the Lord himself That Ep.