that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper which I am sure is the very same with the Doctrine of the Council of Trent her verily and indeed being the self same thing with that Council's verè realiter Yet if you shou'd ask any of her Divines whether the Body and Blood of Christ be verily and indeed in the Sacrament They will answer you no If you ask them further how can you then verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament if it be not there Some will answer you that tho' his Body and Blood be not there yet when you take the Bread and Wine you take at the same Time the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but this is such a Riddle as passes my Skill to unfold Others say that by an Act of Faith you do verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ when you receive the Elements But if you urge the Difficulty farther and tell them that to receive the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith is no more to receive it verily and indeed than to receive an Idea or Representation of a Thing to which you give assent is to receive the thing it self Or suppose it were you still admit of Christ's Body his being in several places at once which is the Inconvenience you wou'd fain avoid by rejecting the Real Presence in the Sacrament for if one in London and another in York shou'd at the same Time which is very possible verily and indeed take the Body and Blood of Christ then surely the Body of Christ must needs be in two different places at once if you urge I say the Difficulty thus far you are like to get no Answer which either you or any Body else can understand So that tho' the Church of England has in other things many signal Advantages of the Lutherans and Calvinists yet in this she is neither so Reasonable as they nor so consistent with her self nor yet with common Sense Now to establish the Roman Catholic's Belief on this Subject and to shew the Unreasonableness of the said Opinions tho' of this last there is little need their own Author's having in a great measure by their manifest Contradictions and Absurdities already done it to my Hand I shall endeavour to prove as clear and as brief as I can 1. That the Words of Scripture on which Transubstantiation is grounded are to be understood in a litteral Sense 2. That such a Sense does necessarily infer Transubstantiation And 3. That from the Begining all the Orthodox Christians in the World were of that Belief I begin with the first The Words on which Transubstantiation is grounded are these This is my Body which a given for you Luke 22.19 Now that these Words are to be taken in a litteral Sense nothing can be more plain both from Christ's Promise of giving his Body as we read St. John Chap. 6. from St. Paul's Sense of these Words in his Epistle to the Corinthians and from the very Sense which the Words themselves must necessarily bear From Christ's Promise I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever And the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World Joa 6.51 Christ promises to give his Disciples a certain kind of Bread which they were not as yet acquainted with And to let them understand what sort of Bread it was he tells them that it is his Flesh The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh This so unusual a thing as eating human Flesh cou'd not but startle them however they cou'd not doubt but he meant to do as he spoke since he affirm'd that the Bâ—ead he wou'd give them was his Flesh And therefore they strove among themselves saying how can this Man give us his Flesh to eat But how dâ—es Christ here disabuse them Does he say his Words are not to be taken lirerally Does he tell them they must understand him in a Figurative Sense No He is so far from it that with a repeated Oath He confirms them in the Sense they understood his Words Verily verily says He I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye shall have no Life in you When Christ said I am the Door I am the true Vine c. His Disciples were nothing offended at these Expressions because they knew them to be Metaphors and figurative Sayings commonly us'd but here you see they are amaz'd and confounded Had Christ only said I will give you heavenly Bread or I will give you my Body perhaps they might have taken this in a figurative Sense too But when He assures them that the Bread He wou'd give them is his Fâ—esh and protests with a repeated Oath that except they eat his Flesh and drink his Blood they shall have no Life in them he must surely renounce his Reason who does not see that he spoke and meant literally In a word if those Words be not understood in a literal Sense it is utterly impossible to know how any Phrase may be literally meant the Words is my Flesh being by Christ affirm'd of the Bread for no other End and his confirming with an Oath that it was so for no other Reason than to perswade them that he meant as he spoke This is no less manifest from St. Paul's Sense of the said Words The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 Here the Apostle agreeably to what Christ said puts the Question as if the Corinthians doubted it is not the Cup of Blessing which we bless the Communion of the Blood of Christ c. Now what is it to communicate or partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Surely it is to eat and drink of his Body and Blood as to communicate or partake of Bread and Wine is to eat of the Bread and drink of the Wine Again Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examin himself and so let him eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the Lord's Body Cap. 11.27 28 29. This surely is too severe a Sentence if St. Paul understood Christ's Words in a figurative Sense If that Bread and that Cup be only a Type and Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whosoever abuses or takes them unworthily ought in Reason to be somewhâ—t less guilty than if he had in reality abus'd his Body and
Blood But the Apostle declares that such a one shou'd be guilty of no less than the Body and Blood of Christ which surely is to be guilty of the greatest Crime that can be imagin'd When a Man murders or spills the Blood of an other he is but guilty of his Blood This is the common Language of Mankind and no Man in his Wâ—its did ever so much as imagin that a Man who shou'd abuse the Figure or Picture of another shou'd be therefore guilty of his Body or Blood Seeing then St. Paul affirms that those who abuse or take unworthily that Sacred Bread and Cup are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ it is a perfect Demonstration that he did not believe them to be a Type or Figure but his Real Flesh and Blood The Jews crucified Christ spilt his Blood and abus'd his Body yet the Scripture says no where that they were in that particular guilty of more than of the Blood of Christ and of more I cannot tell how they cou'd For neither human nor Angelical Wit can invent a heavier Charge With what propriety of Speech then nay with what Reason can it be affirm'd that Men shou'd be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as were the Jews for doing no more than taking unworthily the Type or Figure of his Body and Blood In a word no Man can be guilty of the Blood of another unless he spills his Blood or takes away his Life but St. Paul here affirms that whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and shall besides eat and drink Damnation to himself Consequently he believ'd and was perswaded that this Sacred Bread and Cup were the True and Real Flesh and Blood of Christ And this is so plain from his last Words that I wonder any Man in his Senses can entertain the least doubt concerning it For he concludes that the Reason why they do eat and drink Damnation to themselves is because they do not discern that that spiritual Food which they abuse is the Lord's Body non dijudicans Corpus Domini This is yet more plain from the Sense which the Words of the Institution must necessarily bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my Body which is given for you Luke 22.19 The Evangelist tells us a little before these words that Christ took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and to let them understand what sort of Bread it was or rather what he intended to make it he says that it is his Body and to take away all occasion of doubt whether he had meant his true and Real Body or else the Figure of it he adds which is given for you so that they who believ'd the Omnipotent Power of Christ cou'd no more doubt but that that which he tender'd them was the Body which was to be given for them Now if that Body which was given for them be the True and Real Body of Jesus Christ we are sure that the Body which Christ gave his Disciples was his true and Real Body For he says it is that Body which is given for us this is my Body which is given for you But all the World as well Protestants as Catholics agree that it was the true and real Body of Christ which was given and suffer'd upon the Cross for us It is then a Demonstration that what Christ tender'd to his Apostles was his true and real Body consequently his Words must necessarily be taken in a literal Sense Had Christ only said to what he held in his Hand this is my Body perhaps such a proposition to one who never heard any thing of the matter before might seem Figurative but when he adds these other Words which is given for you he takes away all occasion of doubt and determins the Understanding to a literal Sense The first part of the Phrase this is my Body is indifferent of it self and may be capable of either Sense but add the rest to it which is given for you and the Sense is plainly determin'd So that Christ's Words can no more allow of a figurative Sense than if a Man had said this is my Arm which sticks to my Shoulder he can be understood to mean any thing else but his true and real Arm. In a Word these Gentlemen who are resolv'd to deny things so evident wou'd in my opinion be less obnoxious to Censure and more excusable in human Appearance if they had either question'd the Truth of these Texts or like the Socinians denied the Omnipotence of Jesus Christ to effect this Miracle than thus to subvert the very Foundation of human Reason 2. Christ's Words understood in a literal Sense must necessarily imply Transubstaâ—tiation that is a Change of one substance into an other For Christ having said of the Bread this is my Body which is given for you And it being visible to our Senses that there is no Alteration or Change in the Accidents or outward Forms It is impossible to understand those words in a literal Sense but we must at the same Time necessarily conclude that there must be a Change in the Substance For the Bread consisting of Substance and Accidents only we cannot believe the veracity of Jesus Christ when he affirms of the Bread that it is his Body nor his Omnipotent Power to effect by his Word what he says unless we likewise believe that the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ but it is evident to our Senses that there is no change as to the Accidents Consequently the change must be in the Substance Besides it is impossible to verifie those Words of Christ in a literal Sense without a substantial Change For the Greek Demonstrative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Hoc or the English This cannot with any propriety of Speech be refer'd to the Accidents of the thing whereof it is affirm'd but must necessarily be refer'd to the thing it self which surely is the Substance and not the Accidents So that the Sense of these Words This is my Body must necessarily be this substance Cloathed with these Accidents is my Body and then if we believe those Words we must consequently believe that that Substance is his Body and then this necessarily implies Transubstantiation Hence it is evident that those Words cannot with any colour of Reason be understood in a Sense of Consubstantiation as the Lutherans wou'd have it For the demonstrative Hoc This as aforesaid denoting the Substance affirm'd by Christ to be his Body common Sense shews it wou'd be absurd to interpret these Words this is my Body so as to mean that Christ's Body is there together with the Substance of the Bread as the Lutherans grosly maintain whereas if Christ had so meant he wou'd most certainly have said here is my Body and not this is my Body But this is so publickly exploded by all the Rest
be ador'd For he took Earth of Earth because flesh is of Earth and he took Flesh of Mary's Flesh and because he here walk'd in that Flesh and gave us that flesh to eat for our Salvation But no Man eats it except he first adores it It is found how such a Footstool of the Lord may be ador'd and we do not only not sin in adoring it but we shou'd sin if we do not adore it Enar. in Psal 98. Here St. Austin says that Christ gave us that Flesh to eat in which He walk'd here on Earth and that we are so far from sin in adoring that Flesh that we sin if we do not adore it Christ walk'd here in the flesh and he gave us that flesh to eat and we shall sin if we do not adore that flesh says this Father What flesh did Christ here walk in Was it in the Sign or Figure of His Flesh No sure 't was in his real Flesh 'T is evident then that Christ gave us his Real Flesh in this Father's sense Here St. Austin speaks plainly and familiarly to the common People here is no Dispute in the Case no Advantage to be taken of a Sophistical Heretic no fear of expounding the Mystery to the full Consequently he spoke his mind plainly In a word he must have lost his Reason who does not see that it is from such Passages as this where the Fathers speak to their Flock and expound the Scriptures and the Mysteries of our Religion that we are to Learn what they hold concerning any Point of Faith and not from some Abstruse and dark Expressions cull'd out of their Disputes with Hereties where the Fathers purposely design to conceal the depth of this Mystery when ever they must mention it But the truth of the matter is the Doctor 's Cause wou'd afford him no better Arguments and rather than fail he was resolv'd to catch at any thing 3. Theodoret and Gelasius their Words are likewise to be understood of the Accidents or outward Forms of the Sacrament That these Fathers gave the Name of substance and nature to the Accidents will appear if we consider the Equivocation of the Word Symbol here mention'd by Theodoret This Word is somtimes taken for the Bread and Wine it self before Consecration and somtimes but most properly for the External Form and Appearance of Bread and Wine which remain after Consecration Eranistes or the Eutychian Heretic took it in the first sense and therefore affirm'd that as the Symbols after Consecration are chang'd into an other thing so the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is chang'd into the Divine Substance This he said of the Sacrament because he was so taught and because he knew there was no difference between him and the Orthodoxus on that Subject But what does the Orthodoxus to take advantage by that similitude Why he takes the Word Symbol in its more proper meaning namely for the Accidents or outward Forms and tells the Heretic he is caught in his own Net because says he the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled as before Now that by the Mystical Symbols he meant the Accidents methinks 't is plain for the Reason he gives why these Symbols are not chang'd is because they may be seen and handled as before But this proves plainly that he must have meant the Accidents since only Accidents can be seen and felt Nor does it move me that he seems to give partly for his Reason that the Substance of the Symbols remain for that is said gratis and cou'd never be prov'd if he had meant the real Substance of the Bread Besides there is nothing more common in human Language than to give the Denomination of Substance to meer Accidents as we usually say the Substance of his Discourse was this the Substance of what he said c. tho' all Discourses and Sayings are pure Accidents And however this Solution at first sight may seem strange yet whoever will take the pains to examin well the Sayings of both these Disputants and believes they were in their Wits he cannot possibly deny what I say to be True The one positively affirms of the Symbols that they are chang'd into an other thing the other as stifly maintains that they do not change at all I ask now whether these Symbols are Objects of Sense or not If you say they are I ask again whether two Men in their Wits and Senses can be so mistaken in a plain Object of Sense as to affirm contradictory things of it at once For instance Can two Men be so mistaken about a white Wall which they plainly see as that one shou'd affirm it is white and the other that it is not 'T is plain they cannot 'T is then manifest that if the Symbols be Objects of Sense Eranistes and Orthodoxus did not both consider them as such otherwise they must have lost their Reason to affirm such contradictory things of them at once 'T is then evident that Eranistes who affirm'd the Symbols were chang'd did not consider them as they are Objects of Sense otherwise he must have spoken contrary to the Evidence of his own Senses Consequently his meaning was that the Change happen'd in the Substance of the Bread and not in the Accidents 'T is no less evident on the other hand that Orthodoxus consider'd the Symbols as Objects of Sense else he cou'd with no Colour of Reason affirm that they did not pass out of their Nature Substance c. For let us suppose with the Doctor that he meant the real Substance of the Symbols or Bread and Wine How does he prove that there is no real Change in them Because the Mystical Symbols says he do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance c. this is only said but wants to be be prov'd Well! How does he prove it Because continues he they may be seen and handled as before Why this the Heretic Eranistes acknowledges and yet he affirms that the Symbols are chang'd And which is more he therefore believes that it is the real Substance of the Symbols and not the Accidents that are chang'd because the Accidents may be seen and handled as before And now wou'd it not be a very pleasant way to perswade him that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was not chang'd for that very Reason for which he believ'd it was Or let us suppose that they both consider'd the Symbols as the true and real Substance of the Bread and Wine and not as Accidents or Objects of our Senses Well! What follows The Heretic Eraâ—istes affirms that the Symbols in this Sense were chang'd â—ho ' he saw with his Eyes the Accidents were noâ— and then how cou'd the Orthodoxus convince him by his own Words or tell him he was caught in his own Net unless he cou'd
not rather be surpris'd at the Rashness of the Priest than admire the Mercy of God in this Affair if the Practice and Discipline of the Church had not authoriz'd such a Communion Nay that Eusebius who was so Nice and Severe in his Remarks and Censures upon the least Slips and Mistakes of other Clergymen shou'd be silent in a bus'ness of this Weight is sure what no Man can Reasonably suppose This the Protestants cou'd not but see and therefore the most Ingenuous among them as Bishop Jewel * Answ to Hard. Mr. Smith †Epist de Eccles grac. hod stat pag. 107. and others have freely confess'd that the Communion here mention'd was given only in one kind But others who resolve to say any thing rather than acknowledge the Truth wou'd maintain that that Liquor wherein the Boy was order'd to moisten the Piece of the sacred Bread was the consecrated Wine whereas it is plain from the Words of the Letter the Priest gave him no Liquor at all but order'd him to steep the sacred Bread in any Liquor he cou'd find at Home Besides suppose he had dipt the Bread in the sacred Wine and gave it so to the sick Man no Protestant who understands the Principles of his Religion will say that this is to eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ For Protestants hold that it is therefore necessary to eat and drink the Elements apart because in so doing they shew the Death of our Lord whose Body was Broken and separated from his Blood But this Evasion is so Vain and Groundless that it merits no farther Confutation An other Instance of this Communion is that of St. Ambrose We have this Great Bishop's Life written by Paulinus his own Deacon who was present at his Death and dedicated his Life to St. Austin at whose Request he wrote it so that his Authority is beyond all Exception This Deacon tells us that St. Honoratus Bishop of Verceil who came to visit St. Ambrose as he lay on his Death Bed Heard in the dead of the Night a Voice say to him thrice Arise delay not for he is going to depart He came down adds Paulinus gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint no sooner receiv'd it * Eoque reverentissimé accepto when he gave up the Ghost Here the Body of our Lord is given to St. Ambrose but no mention of his Blood Here 't is said he no sooner receiv'd it when he gave up the Ghost The word It is remarkable for being of the Singular Number and denoting only one thing it cannot be understood but of the Body to which it refers whereas if Paulinus had meant that he had receiv'd the Body and Blood under both Species he shou'd have spoken in the Plural Number and said he no sooner receiv'd them when he gave up the Ghost Well what say our Adversaries to a Decision so plain For something must be said Some say St. Ambrose receiv'd the Communion as well as he cou'd being prevented by a sudden Death before he cou'd receive the Sacred Cup. Vain fancy As if the Divine Power which sent a Voice from Heaven to order the Communion to be given to him cou'd not keep him alive 'till he had receiv'd the Sacrament Intirely Others not satisfied with this Answer say St. Ambrose receiv'd both kinds tho' one only is express'd by the Grammatical Figure Synecdoche where a part is taken for the whole But this is as groundless as the former For besides that the precise and express Terms in which that Phrase is conceiv'd will admit of no figurative Sense such Grammatical Figures are not us'd by any Ecclesiastical Writers when they speak of the Communion nor did any Protestant ever yet instance in one single Passage wherein it is so taken which is an Evident Argument that they had none to Instance in I might farther instance in the Council of Carthage in the Communion of St. Basil but let this suffice for the Communion of the sick for I wou'd not be tedious The same Practice we find observ'd in the Communion of Infants and little Children only with this difference that whereas the Communion was given to the Sick under the Species of Bread here it is given under the Species Wine And the Reason of this Difference I conceive was this In the Begining whilst the Church groan'd under the Tyranny and Persecution of the Pagan Emperors and their Magistrats the Bishops and Priests being forc'd to wander from place to place when they light upon any Christians with little Children or new-born Infants being uncertain whether they shou'd ever return that way again they us'd to administer the Sacraments to them the Bishops the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and the Eucharist and the Priests the First and the Last And because the new-born Babes were not capable of receiving any thing that was sollid they gave them always the Eucharist under the Form of Wine And this Custome thus settled in the first Persecutions continu'd in the Church until the latter end of the Tenth Century yet all this while it never enter'd into any Man's Head to say that this was an Imperfect much less a Sacrilegious Communion The first Instance we find of this Communion is in St. Cyprian's Time about the Year of our Lord 240. This holy Martyr tells us what happen'd in his own Presence to a little Girl Trat de Lapsis who had eaten a little of the Bread that was offer'd to the Idols Her Mother knowing nothing of what She had taken carry'd her as the custom was to the place where the Christians were assembl'd During the the time of Prayer adds this Father this Child was troubled and disorder'd as if for want of Words which her tender Age was not capable of she wou'd by this means declare the Misfortune which befell her After the usual solemnity the Deacon who presented the sacred Cup to the Faithful continues St. Cyprian coming to the rank where this Child was she turn'd her face aside not being able to bear the presence of such a Majesty She shut her Mouth she refus'd the Cup. But being compell'd to swallow some drops of the Pretious Blood she was not able pursues this Father to hold it in her sullied Entrals but violently gave it up so great is the Power and Majesty of our Lord. Here is a fact so plain that nothing can be adedd to it all the Circumstances of it are attended with such Marks of a Communion in one kind that nothing but meer Prejudice or rather Blindness can make any Man doubt it I know some Protestants have been so vain as to pretend that this Child did receive the Body of Christ before the Deacon came with the sacred Cup but this is so contrary to St. Cyprian's Design in relating this surprising Story that I wonder any Man in his Senses shou'd imagin it What a Child that eat of the Sacrifice of Devils is troubled and
confounded by the Instinct 〈◊〉 doubt of the Holy-Ghost for Reason she was not capable of because she was to partake of the Cup of our Lord And wou'd she not think you be in the same Trouble and Confusion were she to receive the Lord's Body At the presence of the sacred Cup she turns her face aside and shuts her mouth and that by divine instinct for Reason she had not her sullied Entrals are not able to bear the Majesty of our Lord in his Blood but are forc'd to give it up And wou'd She have done less at the Presence and Participation of the same Lord's Body Is the Majesty or Power of the Lord's Body less than that of His Blood that it shou'd not cause the like Disorder At the receiving of the Lord's Blood here are a great many surprising Accidents and why not the like at the Receipt of His Body Truly the Reason is plain because in very deed She neither did nor was to receive the Lord's Body otherwise than in the sacred Cup. This Practice of giving the Commmunion to Children under the Species of Wine was not confin'd to the three first Ages but is still in force in the Greek and continu'd in the Latin Church to the 12th Century Touching the Greek Church Allatius †Trat de Cons utr Eccles Annotat. ad Com. orient a R. Catholic and Mr. Smith * Epist de Eccles graec hod statu p. 104. ed. 1. a Church of England Divine tells us Children are still communicated in that Church under the Species of Wine As to the General Practice of the whole Church Jobius a Learned Author of the sixth Century gives us this Account of it â—ib Pho. Cod. 222. lib. 3. de Verb. Incaâ—n cap. 18. where he speaks of the Three Sacraments confer'd upon little Children all at once We are says he first Baptiz'd then we are Anointed that is Confirm'd afterward the precious Blood is given to us * Erud Theo. l. 3. c. 20. Hugo de Sancto Victore a Learned Writer of the 11th Century and much commended by St. Bernard says expresly that the Practice of the Church was to give the Children after Baptism the Sacrament under the Form of Wine only and teaches afterward that the Body and Blood of Christ are wholely and intirely receiv'd in either kind Thus much concerning the Communion of Infants As to the Domestic or Private Communion For the three first Centuries whilst the Fervour of the Primitive Devotion lasted and the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Fathers speak was reeking Hot The Christians who being led like Sheep to the Slaughter considering the Sacred Eucharist as the best and most efficacious Armour and Support to enable them to bear up against the Fiery Tryals they must undergo were very careful when they met on great Festivals at their pious Assemblies to carry home every Man and Woman as much of Sacred Food as wou'd suffice to take some part of it every day that being thereby united to Jesus Christ they might be the better prepar'd for the Assaults of their Violent Persecutors And because these Holy Assemblies cou'd not be very frequent in the Rage of Persecutions nor the dispers'd Christians who liv'd far off come easily to them and that the Species of the Sacred Wine was apt to be soon alter'd especially in so small a quantity as they must have taken it and besides subject to other Accidents which in those troublesome Times they cou'd not well prevent they were content to carry along with them the Sacred Body of our Lord under the Form of Bread only being perswaded that when they eat of this Bread they were Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and of the Grace and Sanctification thereunto annex'd And here I shou'd tire the Readers Patience shou'd I bring all that can be said in Confirmation of this Truth but I shall instance only in some few of the best and most approv'd Authors for I perceive I have been longer upon this Subject than I design'd Tertullian a Learned Author of the second Century speaks thus of the Private Communion in the Book which he wrote to his Wife to diswade her from marrying after his Death Thy Husband says he will not know that which thou takest before all other meat and if he shou'd he will think it is Bread and not what it is call'd that is the Body of Christ Here Tertullian tells us that his Wife after the manner of other Christian Women us'd to take a certain Thing before she tasted any other Food and that her future Husband whom he supposes a Pagan if he shou'd know it wou'd think it to be Bread because it was so in Appearance tho' in Reality it was the Body of Christ but under the Form of Bread and no other The great St. Basil a Greek Father of the fourth Century Epist 289. delivers this Practice more at large in his Letter to Cesaria who it seems wou'd know whether it was lawful to receive the Communion otherwise than by the Hands of a Priest or Deacon To which He answers thus As to this that it is not grievous to take the Communion with one's own Hands when there is no Priest nor Deacon present being forc'd thereunto in Time of Persecution 't is needless to tell you because it has been confirm'd by long Vse and Custom For all those who lead solitary Lives in Desarts where no Priests are keep the Communion in their Houses and communicate themselves Besides in Alexandria and in Egypt all the People do commonly keep the Communion at home for when the Priest consecrates the Host and distributes it we may reasonably believe they partake of it and carry it with them I need not go about to prove that this Communion was nothing else but the Sacred Bread for 't is plain St. Basil speaks only of that which is touch'd with the hand Besides 't is certain he cou'd not mean the Sacred Cup when he speaks of the Communion in the Desarts it being evident that the Species of Wine cou'd not be preserv'd for any time in so small a Quantity as they must have taken it St. Ambrose gives us much such an other Account of this Communion He tells us how his Brother Satyrus was miraculously say'd from drowning de Obit Satyr by the Faith he had in the Sacred Host For being in a Storm where all were given for lost he begg'd of one of the Christians who were aboard to give him a piece of the Sacred Bread which he had and having by the Earnestness of his Prayers obtain'd that Favour he wrapt this Divine Sacrament saith St. Ambrose in a Cloath and ty'd it about his Neck for being a Cathecumen only he wou'd not eat it cast himself into the Sea and God to recompense the Greatness of his Faith brought him safe from that boisterous Element Here you see the Christians agreeably to what St. Basil saith us'd to carry
England Divines do profess to receive So that it cannot be enough admir'd what shou'd induce them to reject the Invocation of Saints I shou'd never end if I shou'd bring all the Sayings of the Fathers on this Subject St. Austin has a long Discourse upon it against Faustus the Manichean where He gives at large the Reasons why the Catholic Church gives due Honour to the Martyrs and desires the Assistance of their Prayers And St. Jerom wrote a Book against Vigilantius upon this Subject and calls him Heretic for denying the Lawfulness of praying to Saints I shall therefore conclude with this Reflection that it is not reasonable to believe nay 't is incredible that these Holy Fathers who took so much pains to propagate the Faith and Gospel of Jesus Christ who wrote so many Learned and Voluminous Works which breath so much Piety and Christian Devotion spent all their Lives in Holy and Religious Exercises consecrated their Time and Labour to the Service of the True and Living God and were ready to lay down their Lives for the Truth of the Doctrine which they taught and practis'd if Occasion requir'd shou'd at the same Time write and practice a Doctrine which derogates from the Honour and Mediatorship of Jesus Christ it being their chief Study and Care to inculcate to the World that He was the only Lord and Mediator in whose Name and no other Salvation was to be had But if the Doctor shou'd say as many of his Brethren have that all these Holy Fathers err'd and consequently did not understand the Doctrine they labour'd so earnestly to Propagate I answer him as St. Austin did a certain Man to whom I fear the Doctor was in some Things but too near akin Mallem cum eis errare quam tecum consentire I had rather err with the Fathers than agree with Him Thus I have endeavour'd as plainly and briefly as I cou'd to shew how Reasonable how Harmless how Inoffensive the Invocation of Saints is and how agreeable to the Practice of the Holy Fathers and the Primitive Church I now proceed Lastly to return a brief Answer to what Dr. Tillotson thought fit to bring against this Point Here I wou'd not be understood as if I meant to answer all the little Objections and pretty quâ—rks of Wit which he endeavours to improve with all his Art and Eloquence in order no doubt to catch the well-meaning but weaker sort of People with this Fig-leaf Cover which yet all sober thinking Men may easily see thro' My Design is to answer only such Objections as have any real or apparent Difficulties being convinc'd that things naked or so thinly cover'd need no Reading upon His first Objection is taken out of St. Paul Colos 2.18 Vol. â— edit post obit pag. 43 44 45 19. Where the Apostle says Let no Man beguile you of your Reward in a voluntary Humility and worshiping of Angels not holding the Head By which Words says the Doctor St. Paul intimates that for Christians to address themselves to God by any other Mediator than Jesus Christ only was a Defection from the Head This He says is Theodoret's Interpretation of that Passage in his Comment upon it and the third Chapter ver 17. of the same Epistle and to enforce this Interpretation he cites a Canon of the Council of Laodicea which says That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and go away from it and to invocate Angels and to make Conventicles all which are forbidden if therefore any be found giving himself to this secret Idolatry let him be Anathema because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and is gone over to Idolatry After which Words the Dr. breaks out into this Exclamation What shall be said to them who do not only secretly and in their Private Devotions but in the public Assemblies of Christians and in the most public Offices of their Church invocate Angels and pray to them Before I answer this Objection it won't be amiss to clear the Equivocation which in most controversial Disputes commonly attends these two words Worship and Invocation I worship is render'd in Latin colo or adoro in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in these three Languages 't is us'd in Scripture and in common Discourse not only to signifie the supream Worship and Honour we pay to Almighty God but also for all sort of Respect and Reverence done to Kings Princes and Persons of Condition Of this we have innumerable Examples in Scripture and not only so but the very Word which we use to signifie the supream Worship due to God alone is sometimes applied to human Affairs For as we say colere Deum to worship God colere Parentes to honour our Parents colere Vineam colere Agrum Hortum c. to till the Vineyard to till the Ground c. Yet no Man ever said that we rob God of his due Honour by using the same Expression to signifie the Respect we pay some Creatures which we use when we express the Honour due only to Him because the different Ideas or Notions we have of God and these Creatures sufficiently determin our meaning tho' the want of Words or rather the Conveniency of delivering our Thoughts in fewer Words oblige us to make use of the same Term to express these different Services In like Manner the Word Invocation is us'd in Scripture not only to signifie our calling upon God as our Sovereign Lord and Maker but is also us'd and applied in several places to ordinary Men. For instance Isaiah says Seven Women shall take hold of one Man saying we will eat our own Bread and wear our own Apparel only let thy Name be invocated upon us to take away our Reproach Tantum invocetur Nomen tuum super nos Cap. 4.1 So that if we do not attend to the Subject Matter to which these Words are applied the Scripture will afford us sufficient Grounds for Worshipping and invocating not only God Angels and Saints but even common ordinary Men. To worship and invocate then must necessarily mean to exhibit a Service and Duty to those whom we worship and call upon according to the Notion or Idea we have of their Excellency and Perfection and of the Power and Ability we conceive in them to help and assist us And then to Worship God and invocate Him must mean to pay Him the Supream Honor and Respect which is due only to the Great Creator and Redeemer of the World and to beg Mercy and Forgiveness of Him as the Source and Fountain of all Goodness but to Worship and Invocate the Angels and Saints must mean no more than to shew them that respect and honor which is due to the Friends and Courtiers of our Sovereign Lord and to ask their Help and Assistance in those things which we conceive they are able to do that is to pray for us and to recommend us to their