a banquet I may therefore here shut up with a new demonstration of Popish Novelty That there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass was no essential of the Ancient Catholick Religion But that there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass is an assential in the present Romish Religion Ergo. There is an other essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Ancient Catholick Religion SECT IV. A fourth Instance of Novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his fourth Instance saith that Protestants deny the real presence and Transubstantiation And toward the close of this fourth Instance Pag. 145. he would sneakingly insinuate that their half Communions which are so palpable an innovation that their own Authors cannot deny it had been approven by the Ancient Church To this last I shall have a more fit occasion to speak in the first appendix to this Sect. 7. And therefore at the time shall only examin that of Transubstantiation We deny not the real presence nay we affirm that Christ is really exhibited to believers in the use of the Sacrament That which we deny is a Transubstantiated presence so as the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed a specter of accidents without a Subject remaining and the body and blood of Christ being substituted under the accidents In this we and not Romanists are consonant to the Faith of the Ancient Church Hence Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. the bread after consecration is not now common brâ—ad but an Eucharist consisting of two things the terren and the heavenly Then in the Eucharist two things are exhibited to believers the terren viz Bread and Wine and the Heavenly the body and blood of Christ And therefore the usual Objection which the Pamphleter takes out of the same cap. of Irenaeus where the Father concluds against Hereticks that Jesus is the Son of the maker of the World because that bread upon which thanks is given is the body of the Lord and that cup his blood makes nothing for Transubstantiation Nay it distroys it Bread cannot be the body of Christ nor the cup his blood in a proper sense but in a figurative and the force of Irenaeus argument appears to be this he that instituted the creatures of God as sacred and exhibitive Symbols of his body and blood must be the Son of God Christ did so Ergo c. Tertullian is no less luculent lib. 4. Cont. Marcio cap. 40. expresly calling the Bread a figure of his body and then drawes an argument against Marcion and other Hereticks to prove that Christ had a true and real body because it could not be the figure of his body if he had not a true body But if Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation were true Tertull could never have used a more unhappy argument against Marcion for if there be no real bread in the Sacrament but a Phantasm of accidents without a subject this had rather given advantage to Marcion who affirmed Christ to have a Phantastical body Here I cannot but notice the prevarication of the Pamphleter he mentions only these words of Tertull the Bread taken and distributed he made his body and then crys out what more cleer for Transubstantiation But had he not mutilated Tertullians words it would have appeared nothing could be more clear to overturn Transubstantiation for presently Tertull thus explains himself hoc est figur a corporis mei that is this is the figure of my Body Yea Beatus Rhenanus in admon de Tertul. dogm reckons this as one of Tertullians sentiments that the body of Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist By this also may be cleared what the Phamphleter objects out of Ignatius Epist ad Smyrnenses that the Saturnian Hereticks did not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours Flesh For as Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Num. 151. well observes though the Eucharist be not properly the Flesh of Christ yet being a Symbol of his Flesh it receives the denomination of the thing signified and strongly proves that Christ hath real Flesh and a proper humane nature which those Hereticks denyed They therefore seeing the strength of this Argument rejected the Eucharist I add another testimony of Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 17. the senses saith he are not deceived about their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yeelded to Hereticks making but a Phantasm of Christ c. But according to the tenet of Transubstantiators the senses of all the World are ludified with Tertullian accords Cyprian who Epist 76. calls the Bread the body of Christ and the Wine his blood which were a manifest falshood if not figuratively understood So likewise Origen in Math. 15. that which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer according to the material part of it goes into the belly and is sent into the draught I desire to know by a Romanist what is this material part of the Sacrament which goes into the draught if the substance of bread do not remain when therefore Origen saith we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord in the place objected by the Pamphleter he can only be understood of a Symbolical and Mystical Eating and Drinking With those Fathers of the first three ages these of following times do agree as appears by Theod dial 1. where he says that by the blessing of consecration the nature of the elements is not changed but grace added unto nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but abide in their proper nature shape and figure so much is affirmed by Gelasius lib. de duabus natu is Christi contra Eutych Nestor in bib pat tom 5. part 3. So also Augustin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and the Author of the Books de sacramentis going under the name of Ambrose lib. 4. cap. 4. ut sint quae er ant in aliud convertantur that they may be what they were and be converted into another thing If they remain what they were then sure their conversion into another thing must be only Symbolical A volume would hardly contain the testimonies of this nature which may be heaped up Scarce doth any testimony remain objected by the adversary which we have not cleared on the by as we were bringing testimonies for the truth His spurious testimonies I value not and such is not only that from Deny's lib. de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. but also that from Cyprian de caena domini as is demonstrated by Criticks and yet neither of them make for Transubstantiation Not the first or the Pseudo Deny's exclamation O divinissimum sacramentum whither it be taken with Dr. Morton as a Rhetorical apostrophe or with Spalat as an invocation of Christ himself who is the thing signified in the Sacrament Nor the other ascribed to Cyprian wherein the Elements are said to be changed not in shape but in nature for nature is not taken for
against Mr. Dempster pag. 126 c. finding him to be of aâ—tergiversing humour so that albeit he was oft cavilling about the ambiguity of Scripture yet would he neither argue against the perspicuity of Scripture nor answer arguments brought for it I could judge no means so probable to convince him of his Errour as to pitch upon some Scriptures which Romanists say do most favour them and to demonstrate that these are clear for us I did begin with that Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and offered to do the like p. 129. with other controverted Scriptures such as Luke 22. 32. Mat. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Joh. 21. 16. But though we exchanged divers papers thereafter Mr. Dempster had never the confidence once to examin that argument against Transubstantiation far less to fall upon other places The Scribler who now appears supposes he hath solved that argument as easily as Sampson broke the withes wherewith Deliah had tied him Judg. 16.9 Yet I hope to make him sensible of his mistake SECT I. The Popish Figment of Transubstantiation briefly Confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter PAssing by his undervaluing and approbrious words I first take notice that p. 112. he says I bring only a Philosophical Argument to prove that these wâ—rds This is my Body are to be taken in a Figurative sense But if he be pleased to review what I said he will find I brought an Argument from a Scripture-Medium and confirmed the sence of Protestants with the testimony of Austin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and Tertull. contra Iud. cap. 40. None of which this vain-glorious disputant adventures to examine I was so far from looking upon that Argument which I brought as the only supporter of our Doctrine that I advertised Mr. Dâ—mpster Pap. 7. pag. 127. of armies of Arguments brought by Whittaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. to prove the same conclusion Doth not the senses of all men in the world find real bread after consecration Did ever God deceive the senses of all men through so many ages If the Argument from senses were fallacious when the Organ and Medium are rightly disposed and the object within convenient distance how did Christ use it Luk. 24. 38 39. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Doth not consecrated Bread and Wine nourish Bodies as other Bread and Wine Do they not putrifie and turn to worms when long kept Have not persons been poysoned thereby Will either meer accidents or the true glorified body of Jesus do so Was it ever heard that the blessing and consecration of a thing did destroy or annihilate it What have Romanists here to consecrate but Bread and Wine The glorified Body of our Lord Jesus Christ I hope is above their consecration and doth the benediction of the Bread make it cease to be Doth not two things verbum and elementum as Austin well observed Trac 80. in Joh. A visible element and an audible word concur to make up a Sacrament If the substance of Bread and Wine cease where have they a remaining element which hath a Sacramental Analogy with the Body and Blood of Jesus Will they say that a specter of meer accidents without a subject are an element with such an Analogical resemblance Is not the end of a Sacrament to confirm us by things visible in the faith of invisible mysteries Is not the figment of transubstantiation a thing so incredible to reason that it tends rather to shake faith than to confirm it is it credible if Christ had meant by these words that the Bread was Transubstantiated into his Body that the Disciples who were scrupulous about far less matters would not have moved one scruple concerning this stupendious mysterie Are not figurative expressions very frequent in Sacramental purposes as Gen. 17. 10. Circumcision is my Covenant Exod. 12. 11. The Lamb is the Passeover 1 Cor. 10. 3. the Rock is Christ Doth not Romanists acknowledge multitude of figurative expressions in the justification of the Supper As when the said 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken was it then broken Was there not there Enallage temporis So in Verse 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood are there not more figures than one Is not the cup put for that which was contained in the cup Can either the cup or that which was in the cup be called the New Testament without a Trope Why then judge they it so piacular a crime to expound these words in the same institution This is my body figuratively Is it not often called bread after the consecration as 1 Cor. 10. 16. 1 Cor. 11. 26 27. Let a man Examine himself and so let him Eat of this Bread Can they reconcile these expressions with their notion of Transubstantiation without making all these figurative Think they it not a Cyclopick-like practice to devour the living body of a Man much more of their Saviour Must not the Heavens receive Christ till he come again Act. 3. 21. Are we not prohibited to believe these who say loe here is Christ or there or in secret Chambers Math. 24. 23. 25. Do not the principles of Romanists in this thing expose them to perpetual hazard of Idolatry not only through the uncertainty of the Priests intention upon which according to them depends the consecration but also through many other contingencies such as the Priests erring in the pronunciation of the words whereof the people can never have certainty they being but secretly whispered and though heard doth every one understand Latin Heard he never of the Priest who having many Wafers to consecrate said Haec sunt corpora mea What should I blot Paper with the absurdities which many have deduced from the replication of Christ's body in many thousand not contiguous places the â—enetration of all the parts of the body of Jesus in every point and the existence of accidents without a subject Doth not Renatus Des Cartes and many great Philosophers question if there be such accidents in the world as the Schools did commonly teach about the time of the Lateran Council Is it not a goodly article of Faith which is calculated to the variable and problematick Hypotheses of Philosophers which may have the vogue in one age and may perhaps with more reason be exploded in another Must Religion stand and fall with the Sect of Peripateticks Is it not the height of Impudence to say that the words of the Institution are clear for their Transubstantiated presence seeing Scotus their subtle Doctor confesses that had not the Church interposed her definition no man could have from them concluded Transubstantiation It 's not the perspicuity of Scripture according to Scotus that made the mysterie of Transubstantiation clear but the Lateran definition and
Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8. 38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10. 47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16. 33. The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus it a persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3. 15. There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James