Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	church_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	15,184	5	9.5685	5	true

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

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

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

elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council he would not erect a Council of the Church Catholick but a Coventicle of Schismaticks Secondly That by Virtue of these Decrees (c) Sess 29. p. 83. p. 101. Martin the Fifth was chosen Pope and John the Twenty third and Benedict the Thirteenth were deposed and that after the Death of Martin the Fifth Eugenius the Fourth was chosen Pope by virtue of the same Decrees So that if they were not valid these neither could be true Popes nor the Cardinals Arch-Bishops or other Clerks promoted by them could have good Titles to these Promotions Thirdly That (d) Sess 30. p. 84. v. p. 138 139 178. if the Pope had the Authority over general Councils which these Decrees denied to belong to him the Pope might without Resistance at his Pleasure corrupt all Christianity and being accused by a Council of Heresy or any other Crime might presently dissolve the Council to escape being judged by them Fourthly That (e) Decret 5. Concl. p. 117. no skilful Person ever doubted of this Article That the Pope was subject to the Judgment of Universal Councils in things which concern the Faith. That (f) P. 153 155 180. the Universal Church and Christian Religion acquiesced in this Article of Faith Firmiter credens non posse fieri dissolutionem Synodi sine consensu ejus Firmly believing that a Dissolution of the Council could not be made without its Consent (g) P. 149. That it was by all confessed Fifthly That (h) P. 136 139. if these Decrees were not to be admitted it must follow that all these Councils had actually erred and that they who were Members of them were schismaticks and that the Church which judged that they could not be dissolved without their own Consent hath also erred Now I say were these truly Articles of Faith or not If they were why are they not received by the Church of Rome Yea why are they rejected by the greatest part of (o) Concilii Basiliensis nihil est ratum probatum nisi quaedam dispositiones Bell. de Concil l. 1. c. 7. Romish Doctors Why were they practically condemned by the Council of Florence assembling in opposition to one of these Articles And why is not that Council held by the Church of Rome Schismatical as it must have been if the fore-mentioned Decrees be true Why were they dogmatically Condemned in the Fifth Council of Lateran If they were not Articles of Faith why were they owned as such by so many Councils so many Nations so many Universities Why doth the General Council of Basil so frequently insist upon this plea in defence of them P. 89. that they were determinations Vniversae Ecclesiae of the Universal Church that they had been declared in many Councils P. 153. atque per Vniversalem Ecclesiam approhatae and approved by the Universal Church That tota Ecclesia P. 155. populus Christianus the whole Church and all Christian People had acquiesced in them That they were Declarations of the Catholick Faith P. 180. quas universa tenuit Ecclesia which the Universal Church held May we not here turn allt he Arguments of the Romanists upon them by which they do endeavour to shew that 't is in us unreasonable absurd and insolent to condemn the Decrees of their supposed General Councils and of these two in particular decreeing for the Substraction of the Cup May we not complain of them in the words of the Council of Basil that refusing to follow P. 117. as an infallible Rule the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in things respecting Faith judicium proprium in adversum obduratis animis sequi volunt they chuse on the contrary with obdurate minds to follow their Private Judgment May we not ask them in the words of the same Council Whether they dare condemn all the Cardinals Patriarchs Bishops the Emperor the Kings the Princes and others who by themselves or others were present in this Council denique Ecclesiam per orbem dispersam hoc Concilium approbantem P. 149. and lastly the Church dispersed throughout the World approving this Council May we not argue thus with them If those Declarations of Faith and Divine Right which have so oft and solemnly been made by the Universal Church and by General Councils declared consistorially to be lawful by the Popes themselves P. 179. even at the very time that they made them Si post haec omnia If I say after all these things these Declarations may be rejected and trampled upon as being erroneous must not the whole Church be accused of Error and the Declarations of General Councils touching matters of Faith be henceforth disbelieved Yea lastly may we not conclude with R. H. in a like case (p) Rat. account Disc 1. ch 6. §. 59. p. 58. That if the Decrees of so many Synods viz. at Pisa Constance Sens Basil Bourges so often weighing the Adversaries Reasons and Evidneces was not sufficient for setling such a point at least as to the obedience of future silence and non-contradiction and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her Peace what can hereafter be sufficient or can we ever hope that any Controversie shall be finally determined or ended by a future Council if this of the Superiority of a General Council above a Pope c. is not by these forepast Can there be any Ground here to question the integrity or lawful proceedings of so many Councils all concurring in the same Judgment in this matter or could there be any new Light in this Point attainable by private Doctors or by following Councils of the Church of Rome of which those Councils were not capable or had no notice of whatsoever R. H. elsewhere speaks of (q) Disc 1. c. 3. §. 37 38. p. 26. A moral certainty that so many and such persons as meet in their supposed General Councils could not conspire to falsifie the Truth That (r) Disc 3. §. 44. p. 28. none can be supposed fit to judge of them That (s) P. 143 179. Men vainly pretend to be certain of what such Councils and a major part of the Church having the same means of certainty judge false or that their private Judgments can have clear Scripture or Tradition which they could not discern I say All these things in this instance do so visibly recoil upon them that it is needless to insist upon it Lastly Two things I desire may be considered and attended to in perusing this Discourse The First is That though the Ancients alledged here directly oppose the Doctrines and Determinations of these Councils and the Practice of the Church of Rome established by them yet do I not for that Reason only conclude her guilty of Sin and Error in denying the Cup to the Laity for I am far from holding every thing taught or practised by the Ancients

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.

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