in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
one and carry them to those that be absent And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears and so received it 2. See Dr. Taylor duc dub B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice but desiring more frequently to communicate they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels and when they had a mind to it in that imperfect manner Can. 3. did celebrate the Lords Supper But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ which saith If any man receive the Sacrament and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church let him be accursed for ever 3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity Justin Martyr who was before Tertullian tells us P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ had so commanded them S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption Hom. 16. on Numb or by humane Tradition to alter them And Origen saith speaking of the Sacrament the Christian people embrace him who saith Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you Now he that saith so surely must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life Fourthly and lastly Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversie produce your Fathers in the next and confirm it from their words The next supposed Evidence he brings is Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind Now here again We answer as before 1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely and that they mention but one kind doth prove no more the thing in contest then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup or if he did participate discern'd it 2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacriledge p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian from Saint Anstin Ep. 107. To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier and by Gennadius 3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice and so ministred the Sacrament but this is an Evidence that they thought not the bread alone sufficient 4. We acknowledge also that upon occasion of this use Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 p. 426. Can. de Consecrat dist 2d some fell in love with the trick and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself declaring it to be against the Divine Order and Apostolical Constitutions and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Custome of the Church and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara and all set right again according to the perpetual custome of the Church and the institution of our blessed Lord and their pretence which was lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice laid aside as trifling and superstitious His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind Now to this we say that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons And upon that occasion also it was abused and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse Next we say his proofs are not concluding indeed Euseb l. 6. tells us That the old mans mouth was dry and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it but thence to argue that the old man received no Wine is a strange and contradictory inference 3. We say and that out of the same Authors by him cited that such did communicate in both kinds This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries they should obtain their desires If in health they had been humble suiters for it Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr who in the place forecited saith That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent amongst whom were necessarily the sick Lastly Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice adding this reason that the Priest might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life ' wherein they intimate that it was necessary to the truth of these words and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament that the sick person should participate of both the Elements and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance the onely salvo imaginable for this your sacriledge Fourthly Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea Ibid. Now First He should have made this good by testimony and not have produced it back'd with no authority especially when Secondly 'T is manifest
them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy not of the people This one would think were a strange shift and yet 't is such a one as they are forced to fly unto But First Let it be considered how unlikely 't is that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament of so different natures and yet speak nothing of the use or the reason the benefit or the necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the mysterie nor distinguish the rite or the words but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world Secondly If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite spoken before the institution of the Chalice then doth not hoc facite signifie offerte sacrificium as the Trent Council that infallible interpreter of Scripture would have it and consequently cannot make them Priests that is in their language Sacrificers For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice Thirdly If the Apostles were thus made Priests and drank of the Chalice under that capacity then seeing this is a Command as we presently shall evince it ought to be followed at least so far and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice which because they do not in the Church of Rome it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients Thirdly Sect. 11 I say that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated This will sufficiently be made out if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements and that not temporary but reaching even to us Now the Trent Council tells us that hoe facite c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him Yea the Apostle Intimates to us that this is a standing Institution in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till â—e come Now it is evident that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ in that it is said Take eat this is my Body this do this which I bid you do what was that eat his Body But it is more clear concerning the Cup of which it is said this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse where the Apostle infers that we do this in remembrance of Christ because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lords deâ—th till he come Clearly intimating that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup Wherefore this being a Command it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 12 Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute In 1 Cor. 11. Quest 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given St. Augustine saith Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it By whom sure by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup Hom 4. de quadr practised by the Manichees sacrilegious simulation and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints Yea when at the general Council of Calcedon Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba Bishop of Edessa that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine and that corrupt and sowre provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people that Bishop was severely taxed Whereby it appears that at the time of this Councill the Administring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it De Consecrat dist 2. comperimus c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable as you find them in Gratian We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood which because they do out of I know not what superstition we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them In Psa 6. poen because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge Thus a Pope è Cathedra And Saint Gregory cries out Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed De C rp Sang. Domini c. 15. 19. by the perception of which the Church his Body pascitur potatur I will conclude with Paschasius who tells us That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated And expounding the words of Christ saith He alone it is that breaks this Bread and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers saying Take drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander and * De Eccles l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius Papists and to Doctor Featly who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions We pass on now to the Fourth Section Sect. 13 wherein we are told Mâ— C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind in the fore-mentioned cases did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one onely But First How came he acquainted with their Mind Hath hiâ— Guardian Angel told him so Secondly In the fore-mentioned cases which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind if there be any such we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both yea from spiritual Communion as corâ—oreal or by the Elements when this latter way cannot be had but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent But he tells us farther Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread Ibid. and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh c. Now not to require a proof of him that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected and
4. c. 32. De Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. Mr C. p. 114. 1. Irenaeus saith That these first fruits are the Offerings of the Vniverse S. * l. 4. c. 32. Dee Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. M. C. p. 114.1 Cyprian checks the rich widow for approaching the Lords Table without her Corban without a Sacrifice yea eating of the sacrifice the poor man bronght And in St. Austins phrase the Alms of pious Matrons are Oblations And of this sacrifice doth Irenaeus speak in the Sentence urged by Mr. C. to evince this proper sacrifice when he tells us That our Saviour giving counfel to his Disciples to offer the first fruits to God of his creatures not as if he wanted any thing but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful took the creature of bread and gave thanks saying this is my Body Qui est ex ea creatura quae est secunâ—um nos and the Câ—p likewise which consists of a creature which is usual amongst us he confessed to be his blood and brought a new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers through all the world unto that God who gives us nourishment to wit the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament of which the Prophet Malachy speaks cap. 1. vers 11. where it is manifestly declared that the former people of the Jewes have ceased to offer unto God and in all places a pure sacrifice is now offered to him Where first not to deal rigidly with him in telling him that Irenaeus doth not determine whether this Oblation be Eucharistical or Ilastical or if Ilastical whether properly or rather metonimycally so I confidently affirm that the Sacrifice here mentioned can not be the sacrifice of the Mass or of Christs Body and Bloud the reasons are 1. From these words Chap. 34. The Oblation of the Church which the Lord taught us to be offered in the whole world is reputed a pure sacrifice before God and acceptable to him not because God wants our gift or sacrifice but because he that offereth is glorified thereby if his gift be accepted When therefore thou offerest this gift at the Altar Matt. 5.24 25. Go first and be reconciled to thy brother then come and offer it You must therefore offer to God the first fruits of his creatures Deut. 16.26 as Moses said Thou shalt not appear empty before God Now had he spoken of the sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood would he have told us that it is reputed apure sacrifice not is so when to be and to be reputed are disparates But secondly the Oblation which he speaks of is that which all Christians offer not the Priest onely as is evident from the two places cited when thou offerest thy gift And thou shalt not appear empty before God Seeing therefore that the first fruits of the creature to be offered to God here are not the Body and Blood of Christ and Irenaeus tells us that he speaks of this Oblation which the Church offers throughout all the world neither can that be such 3. You have a further Evidence in that it is said We offer this sacrifice to God not that he wants it but that we should not be unfruitful For that this passage must refer to Almes not to Christs Body Let Irenaeus himself assure us who in this 34. Chapter tells us that God wants not any thing of ours but yet 't is needful we offer somewhat to him for as Solomon saith Pro. 19.17 He that hath mercy on the poor lendeth to the Lord and that God which wants nothing yet takes our good works as done to him that he may give us a reward of his good things for them as our Lord saith Come you blessed of my Father c. for I was an hungry and you gave me to eat I Mat. 24.25 and a little after he tells us that God will have these things done by us that we may not be unfruitful so that evidently this refers to Almes and the Oblations at the Eucharist not of the Eucharist and therefore the same words in this Sentence touching the same matter must in all reason be esteemed to refer unto them also Again in the same Chapter he addes The Sacrifice doth not sanctifie the man but the conscience of him that offers being pure doth sancâ—ifie the Sacrifice Seeing therefore with simplicity or sincerity The Church doth offer the Sacrifice is justly reputed pure by God And hence it is that Saint Paul calls them an Odour of sweetness an Offering acceptable and well pleasing unto God For we must offer unto God Thus the Church offers to him the first Fruits and that of his Creatures and a little after we offer sanctifying the Creature Now first can it be tollerably said we sanctifie the sacrifice of Christs body and that it sanctifieth not us That this sacrifice is reputed pure before God from our sincerity in offering That the Apostle in the place now cited speaks of the Body of Christ not Alms And consequently can the Offering of the first Fruits of his Creatures be any other Seeing therefore this Offering of the New Testament which the Church offers is expresly said to be primitias suorum munerum the first fruits of her gifts offered to him that affords us sustenance is it not rationally inferred that it refers also to these Almes and Oblations made at the Sacrament not to any Oblation of the Sacrament well then 2. Mr. Mede's Christian Sicrifice In short in the Primitive times the Church of God was wont to offer very freely of what God afforded them and amongst the rest they offered Bread and Wine to him that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief Minister of the Brethren who took it and gave thanks and glory to the Lord of the whole world then made a large and prolix thanksgiving to him that had made them worthy of such gifts and the rest of the Offerings were distributed either to serve the necessities of the poor or for other uses of the Church as you may find in Justin Martyr Apol. 2. and Irenaeus every where And to this it is that he here refers when he tells us that our Lord instituting this Sacrament taught us a new Oblation of the New Testament I confess Bellarmine here objecteth that Irenaeus speaks of such a sacrifice as was to succeed the sacrifices made in the Jewish Paedagogy Now such were not the sacrifices of Almes Prayers Thanksgivings and therefore Irenaeus cannot be supposed to speak of them But first Irenaeus doth no where say that the sacrifice he speakes of succeeds those of the Jewish Laws but onely that they have ceased to Offer and in their places we now do 2. See this Argument shamtfully balfled in Mat. Boehart traitte du sacrifice de la Mâ—sse seconde partiè Chapitre 5. Will it hence follow that we must offer a proper sacrifice as they did Doth not our service
Majesty as it were over the Lamb of God then lying upon the table their supplications and prayers for the whole State of Christs Church and all sorts and degrees therein thus the Authour of the Mystagogical Catechis Lib. 5. upon these propitiatory hosts we beseech God for the common peace of the Church the tranquillity of the world for Kings Souldiers Companions the afflicted in fine for all that stand in need of help Christ Sac. S. 3. See more of this in the Ingenious Master Mede and partly because it was such a commemoration of Christs sufferings as conveyed unto us an interest in what he hath suffered for us which therefore we are enabled to plead for our selves and others but that Saint Chrysost never esteemed it a proper Sacrament is apparent from these words of his 17. Hom. on the Heb. What do we not continually offer Yes saith he we offer but only by a commemoration of his Christs death there is but one host not many how so because it was offered once and that host viz. once offered was carried up into the holy of holies this that we celebrate is the figure of that former and that the truth of this And a little after he is our high Priest who offers that sacrifice which cleanseth us which we now offer and which then was offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor possibly can be consumed this is done in a remembrance of that which was then done according to that of Our Saviour do this in remembrance of me we do not offer another sacrifice as the Jewish Priests but continually the same or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice what can be more express then this And indeed our Authour saith the same thing S. 4. p. 146. his words are these Ordinarily the conception of a sacrifice is supposed to import an immolation shedding of blood and killing and no such matter appearing here but only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs Blood therefore we Sectaries will not allow it the name of sacrifice Now not to note that if this be the ordinary conception of a sacrifice that then the Fathers must be granted in this matter to have spoken contrary to the ordinary sence which the word beareth and to that which it is supposed commonly to import 1 hence it is clear that he holds the celebration of the Eucharist to be only a commemoration of a sacrifice which we will endeavour to evince from his own words only premizing that Christs sacrifice was a reall immolation and shedding of his blood thus where there is only a commemoration of the reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood there is only the commemoration of Christs sacrifice offered on the Cross but here that is in the celebration of the Mass there is only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood and therefore a commemoration only of his sacrifice S. 6. p. 148. nor is it any thing to the purpose which he adds that it is in the most proper rigorous sence an oblation of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in heaven For to let pass the question sufficiently handled already whether the very same body and blood which Christ offered on the Cross be present in the Sacrament or only the Symbols of it either he terms this a proper oblation because in the Sacrament somewhat is properly tendred or presented unto God and thus we all acknowledge a proper oblation in the Sacrament for there we shew forth the Lords death by presenting before him the sacrifice of atonement that Christ hath made commemorating the pains that he endured entreating God that we may all enjoy the purchase of his blood and reap the benefit of his passion reached forth unto us in the Symbol and that for the sake of the Bloody sacrifice of his Son in which by the faithful receiving of the elements we are interested he will turn away all his anger from us Or Secondly as this word is taken in a stricter sence to signifie a sacrifice of inanimate things as fruits incense c. and thus it is distinguished from a sacrifice of an animate being which was accompanied with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an effusion of blood to which it is requisite Clopen Scb. Suc. ab initio if properly and strictly such ut vel incendio vel alio convenienti riâ—u sacro per sacerdotis ministerium destruatur that it be destroyed by fire or any other convenient Rite by the ministery of a Priest and if this be his sense of an oblation we deny that there is any such destruction or consumption of the reall body and blood of the Lord in the holy Sacrament and shall now consider it Fourthly Sect. 7 Therefore that this is no true and proper sacrifice appears 1. because to a proper sacrifice is requisite that the thing sacrificed suffer some Physical mutation but here is no Physical mutation of the thing sacrificed the Major is proved by Bell from the perpetuall use of Scripture when speaking of a proper sacrifice for what ever in Scripture is properly so call'd was necessarily to suffer such a mutation if it had life by the deprivation of it if it were an inanimate and solid being as Frankincense Salt c. by combustion if liquid as wine blood and water by effusion Levit. 1.2 Secondly He proves it because all the Sacraments did prefigure the death of Christ their death or mutation being Typical of his with Bellarmine consents Cardinal Alanus De Eucha sacrif l. 2. c. 3. who tells us that unless the intervention of some mutation be allowed to the nature of a sacrifice we must acknowledge that first-fruits Tythes the first-born religious persons and innumerable other things which in the Law were consecrated to God must be called sacrifices there being no difference in them from true and proper sacrifices imaginable but this that these gifts thus consecrated remain entire but the things which are sacrificed do not but suffer as it were a change into another species being either kill'd roasted bruised or boiled or by some other action of the Priest consumed But now there is no real mutation here of the thing sacrificed for the thing sacrificed is the very same body and blood which our Lord offered upon the Cross as our Author tells us P. 148. and p. 135. We acknowledge an oral manducation but without any suffering or change in the divine body it self and the victim saith he suffers nothing But should he eat his words as he doth his God I will thus force him to confesse the truth If the body of Christ suffer any mutation when sacrificed then either as to its real being in Heaven or its Sacramental but neither can with reason be affirmed Not the first for Christs natural body is now impassible not the second for then would the body of Christ lose its being in
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
Orthodox Fathers so stifly plead against it in the Council of Ariminum as such why did they not assent to the Arian Bishops or the Emperour who required no more See Soz. ubi suâ—ra Sulpâ—c Sâ—â— l. 2. c. 55. ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crat Seriptum quod unius est substantiae illi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est similis substantiae scriptum esse diccebant concedeates sim litudinem dum adimerent unitatem yea why did the Orthodox Fathers condemn and censure them as Arrians who subscribed to the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia but the contrary is evident for seeing nullum simile est idem he that saith that our Saviour is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot say that he is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Next for the Doctrine of the Millenaries he saith Sect. 22 'T is great irreverence in the Doctor to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers Answ Were there but two that asserted it might you not have found in the renounced Dally Papias Justine Irenaeus Mr. C s 18. In his Letters to Mr. Eâ—â—wich to Dr. Twâ—ss Tertullian Ambrose Lactantius Victorinus Amphilochius to whom Mr. Mede will add St. Cyprian yea and to boot will shew that it was favoured even by the General Council of Nice and at last St. Jerome albeit a profest enemy of the opinion will add that multi Ecclefiasticorum virorum martyrum ista dixerunt and then might you not have multiplied your two into two hundred 2. He Answers That albeit Justin Martyr saith That all that are purely Orthodox held this Millenium yet he thereby shews that his own opinion was not Universally embraced by the Church I pray you Sir what Topicks do you use to draw this sequel out of Justins words especially when they run thus Indeed I acknowledge there are some who are not pure and pious Christians who thus think but they are only in name Christians but indeed Atheists and arch-Hereticks and anon bids Trypho not look upon such as Christians and then adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I and all throughly Orthodox Christians not only in name we believe the resurrection and the Millenium so that he excludes out of the roll of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that believed not the Millenium L. 3 Cont. Marc. c. 24. Tertullian likewise brings it in with a Confitemur we Christians confess c. As for the double Millenary that our Author speaks of 't is very unserviceable to him seeing not one of these Fathers except Lactantius whom yet Mr. Mede excuseth are suspected of it His last refuge therefore is that it was never condemned by the Church Answ This is not to the purpose for seeing it is manifest that it was received by the Church of God for above two hundred years without any manner of contradiction either you must grant the Church fallible as the Doctor thence argues or else speak out and say That 't is still to be embraced and believed as the Primitive Church esteemed and then your Church must have erred in not believing but contradicting it as we see now they do Lastly Touching the communicating of Infants Sect. 23 a custome saith Maldonate received as necessary by the Church till six hundred years he tells us that St. Augustine c. held a necessity that Infants should communicate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptisme which Answer may be confuted out of twenty passages of Saint Augustine For 1. He speaks expresly of the Sacrament in his Tract against Pelagius and Bonifacius where comparing the Pelagians to the Manichees Both of them saith he are unwilling to have Infants freed by the flesh and blood of Christ the first by denying that Christ took flesh the second by saying there is no evil in them from which by the Sacrament of Christs body and blood they should be freed And again having urged the necessity of Baptisme to Salvation he adds When Christ saith If you eat not my flesh you shall not have life in you should I say that an Infant should have life L. 3. Cont. Julian c. 1. Dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine islo sacramento finisset hans vitam C. 12. L. 5. who ends his life without that Sacrament Yea 2. He speaks of their receiving the Sacrament after Baptisme and therefore cannot be thought to speak of such a Spiritual participation of it as might there be had Thus in his Book against Julian Where will you put Infants for they shall want eternal life although baptized because they have not partaken of the bread c. and so in his Hypognosticks where in the Margent you find Eucharistia infantibus sub utraque specie fit to admonish our Authour of what we meet with in his Parenthesis but most irrefragably in his book de Peccati meritis L. 1. c. 20. and that in a place which our Author refers me to for the contrary Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized Quo nemo â—â—te nisi Baptizatus aâ—cedit and then citing the place Vnless you eat my flesh c he adds Dare any say that the sentence belongs not to children but that they may without the participation of the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves and tells us we may as well conclude that it belongs not to the adult which testimony doth conclude most evidently the business for these words quò nemo accedit nisi Baptizatus cannot possibly be understood of any Spiritual participation of the Sacrament at all L. 10. much less of such an one as may be had in the use of Baptism Yea 3. He speaks of Baptisme and the Eucharist as equally necessary presseth them both with like Scriptures and then what ground can there be to understand the one Spiritually the other Sacramentally Thus when he writes in his Book against two Epistles of Pelagius You give to them that are not baptized a place in Heaven nor do you attend what is written He that is not baptized shall be damned nor do you understand that those cannot have life who are expertes corporis sanguinis Christi ipso dicente Nisi manducaveritis c. and in his 107. Epistle he saith That Infants shall receive according to what they have done in their body when by the hearts and mouths of them that hear them they believed or not at which time they were baptized or not did eat the flesh of Christ or not and drink his blood or not I say when these things are so conjoyned in the Series of his discourse without the least intimation of a diverse sense what reason can we have so to interpret them nor do the places he refers to conclude that St. Augustine meant the contrary
from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
divided drops of species should be let us come to his proofs Sect. 15 And First He summons in Saint Ambrose to tell us that Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body that is the representation of the Body â—f Christ Next the Council of Ephesus to inform us that we participate the flesh of Christ not as common but as truly quickening flesh That is which by our spiritual reception of it is made quickening to us And Thirdly Saint Austine This he did saith he quodammodo con 2. in Ps 33. And this quodammodo is non rei virtute sed significante mysterio cp 23. ad Bonif. l. 12. in Joan. c. 32. to teach us that Christ was carried in his own hands that is Christ real and corporeal diâ— carry these Elements which represented him in his hand Ergo in every divided particle of the species of Bread is the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ A Consequence very irrational and absurd Nor will the testimony of Saint Cyrill be able to conclude the business for if he argue from these words The four parts of the world have divided amongst themselves his flesh without dividing of it I Answer he adds The Paschal Lamb was found amongst all the Israelites divided and yet undivided And will our Author thence argue that he esteemed each part of the Paschal Lamb to be the whole or that he that received the least particle thereof received the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he argue from the following words for the onely begotten not passing into as he rendreth it but being distributed to them all and sanctifying each of their Souls and Bodies by his own flesh is in all of them whole and entire being every where one for as Saint Paul teacheth he is not divided I say if hence he argue I answer that he is in all of them whole and entire as being truly God and truly though mystically united to them For having sanctified them by his flesh spiritually received he is spiritually made one with them as the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 10.17 And thus have we dispatch'd his pretences for concomitance his fifth and sixth Sections are built upon the third and fourth and therefore must fall with them C. 13. S. 4. I pass on therefore to urge an Argument against concomitance And 1. Sect. 16 I will take for granted what our Author affords me viz. that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Christs Sacrifice Mr. C. p. 146. of his former immolation and the realâ— shedding of his Blood do this in remembrance of me being sufficient warrant for his assertion 2. I suppose that in this Sacrament the shedding of Christs blood is by the Symbols represented For 1. Why else have we the Wine separated from the bread 2. How is it a representation of Christs Sacrifice upon the cross that being a Sacrifice in which his Sacred blood was shed 3. How do we by partaking of his blood shew forth his death but by shewing that his blood was separated from his body 4. I suppose that Christs blood is represented by the wine consecrated not antecedently to the consecration else may it represent it in the Cellar as well as in the Church 5. I suppose that shedding of Christs Blood is the separating it from the body or at least from the veins and consequently the representation of it as shed is the representation of it as severed from the veins but now it is impossible that such a representation should be made to an assertor of concomitance seeing he is bound to believe that where one single drop of blood is resident there also must the Sacred body of Christ reside entirely and consequently it is impossible that concomitance should be a truth 2. Sect. 17 If there be such a necessary concomitance then must each part exhibit whole and entire Christ and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part must be the depriving them of whole Christ as offered to them for the remission their sins and Sanctification Now then in doing so either you deprive them of some benefit or not if the first then are you Sacrilegious in depriving the people of some benefit from those Sacred mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably to the Institution of S. Paul received from Christ and the common practice of the Church for a thousand years Secondly Then must you grant that by communicating in both kinds more of Christ is received contrary to your fourth Section if the latter then not to speak of the superfluity of Christs instituion First you must assert that albeit a man receive entire Christ and that worthily and have the pardon of his sins and the benefits of the new Covenant sealed to him yet may he be never the better And secondly You will be troubled to give a reason why the Conficient should be obliged by you to drink the Chalice and not excused by concomitance Thirdly Sect. 18 If they who receive the body by concomitance receive the blood then they who consecrate the body by reason of concomitance do also consecrate the blood the parity of Reason being most notorious and consequently no Reason can be assigned why Christ in his Institution should be thought to oblige us to the Consecration in both kinds rather then the Reception in both kinds and therefore seeing the Trent Council saith peremptorily De Missa Sess sexta c. 10. that Christ commanded the Apostles and their Successors to offer in both kinds why should she not also say that he commanded them and their Successors to distribute in both kinds But were this salve good Sect. 19 yet would it not free them from the imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from the delivering of half Christ for seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently that he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently hath an half Sacrament these and many other things may be alledged against this half Communion which I suppose will a little exercise their Reason in the Answer of them and therefore our Author did well to take Sanctuary in the infallibility of the Church and then proceed to give some account of the Reasons that induced her to this grand Sacriledge And 1. He tells us Sect. 20 that it was done by reason of the wonderful increase of the Communicants and decay of their devotion whence very great danger of irreverence and effusion of the precious blood of our Lord was like to follow if not thus prevented Now 1. Not to tell him that this excuse hath been by the Primitive Church rejected as Superstitious lay aside that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation and what great harm will it be if casually and by no fault of ours or wilfull contempt some of the Wine should be spilt 2. With what conscience can they pretend their Reverence to the Sacrament for this when our Authour supposes there