Saints with God in their vows as at entrance into some religious orders I vow to God and the blessed Virgin in their Praises that Psalm or Hymn venite adoremus Psal 99. is in some of their books thrice broken by Ave Maries inserted Bellar. and Valentia close some of their books thus Laus Deo Beatae Virgini praise to God and the blessed Virgin and as I remember in the Lyons Edition Bellarm. closes his book de cultu Sanctorum thus Laus Deo Virginique Mariae Jesu item Christo praise be to God and to the blessed Virgin Mary also to Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God the like is done by Valentia at the end of some of his books Now what is this but to set her if not in equal rank with God yet surely as high as the Collyridians did And what can this import but religion in the first sense A presumptuous entrenching on what is due to God Fourthly when they divide worship into Latria and Dulia it is not a Division of the word worship at large as when it is divided into religious and civil but it is a division of religious worship given by them with this distinction to God and the creature in the way and exercise of their religion also the word service implied in Dulia being not a civil service with them necessarily implies a religious service such as God forbids to be given to creatures also when they affirm the same worship given to the Image of Christ as to Christ is it not religious in the high sense The defenders of this take ground from their known Church Hymn Hail O Cross our only hope c. as the * Bel. l. de Imag. c. 19. fundamenâ— Cardinal acknowledges and would shift it off by many figures in the speech Lastly when they pray to God which they grant is the exercise of religion in the strict sense they acknowledge they do it by the mediation of Saints and Angels prayed unto for that purpose and what is this else but a performing of the creature-worship out of the virtue of religion and in way of religious offices or devotions in and together with and in order to a worshipping of God at the same time begging of God the gift of mercy and begging the Saints mediation for presenting that prayer or joyning his intercession with it As for his large and lax sense of religious for that which proceeds from and belongs to religion Religious in their large sense not excuse their creature-worship it is so general that it brings in all the duties of the second table as that act of mercy he instanced in out of Ja. 1. ult And here by that and his other instance out of Lev. 7.6 we might expect if he will have this creature-worship any way belong to religion he should have showen it commanded by God as those two particulars were which he brought as instances but it is the profession of this Author in the name of his Church that it is not commanded but commended as good and profitable i. e. as invented and taken up of themselves and pertaining to and proceeding from religion i. e. the religion of the Romish Church far from being Catholick in this point indeed if we speak of a worship due to Saints and Angels that is an acknowledgement and honour we owe them answerable to the worth and excellency in them it is a duty or thing commanded and so religious in that large sense by the fifth commandment yea and tends finally to Gods honour as the Author of all gifts and excellencies in the creature And we are ready to express this inward acknowledgment or honour and do it sufficiently by celebrating their memories by thanksgiving to God for them by proposing their vertuous examples for imitation but as for the worship they perform and plead for whatever inward acknowledgment they pretend to have commensurate to the worth of those glorious creatures yet such are the acts they express it by as do plainly shew it a worship neither commanded nor commended nor consistent with that worship which we finde commanded those acts and acknowledgments of honour and subjection which God requires in his worship Lastly the examples he brings out of Scripture for countenancing his worship who sees not how far they fall short of what he should prove They are of Lots bowing to the Angels that came unto him and of the Shunamite worshipping Elisha and the Captain of fifty Elias p. 25. and this he will have religious worship because of their Authorities derived and acknowledged only from faith and religion Be it so and that they had a motive for that worship more then meerly â—ivil we need not fear if it be call'd religious in so large and remiss a sense viz. such a religious worship or reverence as is given to holy men living But I would ask this Author if it would not be held abominable in the Church of Rome to give unto any holy men living the worship and service they do to Saints departed as to erect Altars Temples to them fall down before their Images burn incense to them make vows and prayers to them at any distance and in the same forms and in the same place and time where and when they do to God Well leaving this for him to think of Mr. Spencers mincing of the matter hear how he concludes this discourse pag. 27. where to the praise of his ingenuity but prejudice of his undertaking he saith If any wilfully deny all kind of religious worship in how large a sense soever to be lawfully exhibited to any save God alone so long as he yields the thing it self that is to exhibit reverence and worship to persons and things in acknowledgment of the supernatural gifts and graces and blessings of God wherewith they are enriched let him call that worship Christian or pious or an extraordinary rank of civil worship I shall not contend about the name when the thing is done This is fair if he deal plainly and do not expect by seeming to be content with the thing we yield such a thing as they make of this worship for we are ready to yield the thing that is due that is a reverence and honour commensurate to their excellency as much or more then was given to holy men living and to do it by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bowing or prostration where it can be done to an Angel if visibly appearing to us as to Lot And as for the Saints departed they are not by reason of their absence capable of that which was given to holy men living but we are willing to express the honour we owe them as we can by commemorating and praising their vertues propounding their examples for imitation And if we must properly speak what the worship is which they exhibit to the Saints departed Superstition it must be call'd superstition which as the notation of the word shews is a
Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing †Valen disput 6. in 3. Tho. punct 1. Sect. 19. Christum illa accidentia in Eucharistia vere proprie formaliter inter se uniri Greg. de Val. proves Christ and those Accidents to be truly properly formally united From hence as I said many inconveniences follow for what happens to the species must also to the body and blood of Christ Thirdly if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament we may well put the question how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament as to the outward part of it without the substances of bread and wine or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question and the three last But the disparity is evident for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane by reason of the hypostatical union which joyns the humane nature to the divine But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour to supply all and the Romish writers by that strict union which they suppose to be between his body and the Species make it subject to many inconveniences To the question how can the same body be in several places at once Same body in several places he returns this question as satisfactory how can the Soul or an Angel or God be at the same time in many places But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer Nor is it true which he here must suppose that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other or an Angel in distant places at once therefore they are forced to take in Gods property of being present in many places l 3. c 4. de Enchar quomdo Deus est in Loco Mr. Spencer learnt it of the Cardinal affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is To that of Penetration of parts if our Saviours body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host Penetration of Dimensions he answers by our Saviours body passing through the doors and through his mothers womb both being shut But it s no where said they remained absolutely shut * in 4. sent dist in 44. qu. 6. Durand shews how with more reason it may be said our Saviour came in the doors opening to him unperceived by his Disciples for it is not said saith he that he came in per januas clausas but januis clausis not through the shut doors but the doors being shut And for his passage through his Mothers womb it being shut the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity and much to this purpose Durand shews in the place above cited may be said of our Saviours coming out of the womb citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg. Another objection p. 308. If our Saviours flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament Our Saviours body exposed to indignities then may Catts and Rats eat it This objection is not carefully expressed for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy which binds his body and blood to the species and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them But see how he would answer it by the like as he supposes If the flesh and blood of Christ saith he were really in the Passion then might dogs eat his blood that was shed As if it were alike what was done to his passible body appointed then to suffer and done now to his glorious body All the disgraces and indignities that were done or could happen unto him then were agreeable to the work he came about viz. to redeem us by suffering and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities as they do by uniting it so to the species does not beseem Christians The next objection or question If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament Multiplying of miracles need lessy Why are none of them seen He answers by another question If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour why were none of them seen p. 309. But great disparity here for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working but for our believing it the word doth sufficiently attest it and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw his glory c. Nothing like in the sacrament notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments requires all be done to the sense for confirmation and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence CHAP. VIII Against Communion in one kinde THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome delivered in the Council of Trent and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer carries its Condemnation in the forehead The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point acknowledging that our Saviour instituted and administred in both kinds and that the use of both kinds was frequent might have said Constant in the beginning of Christian Religion might have said for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice and to plead for it an authority in the Church about the Sacraments to make a change Salvâ substantia that is the substance being preserved entire where again it speaks its own condemnation for how can the substance be preserved when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people He calls
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
free promise and liberality Seeing then the matter stands clean otherwise between God and man as appears by the former concessions of free grace for the performance of free acceptation of it unto reward of free and liberal promise in appointing the reward the service or work cannot be truly meritorious And certainly these considerations did and still do cause diverse in the Church of Rome to decline this truly meritorious Against merit of condignity in goodworks or merit of Condignity as we may gather by the * Bel. l. 5. de justific c. 16. sect quod attinet Cardinal acknowledging it of Tho. Waldens And of P. Brugens who would have them call'd meritorious not ex condigno of condignity but ex gratia Dei tantum only of the grace of God which is the ancient notion of the word meriting as it signifies the obtaining of the reward through the grace and liberal promise of God and speaking of Durand he saith that the same arguments that fight against the Hereticks fought against his judgment in this point Bel. de Just l. 5. c. 17. sect Alâ—j contra Also of Scotus and other Schoolmen and of Viega that they held good works meritorious only ratione pacti in regard of Gods compact and promise not ratione operis for the worthof the work which falls in with the former so that the Cardinal finds only this difference between the Lutheran doctrine and theirs They hold good works verè bona non peccata truly good and not sins which the Lutherans did not That we grant them truly good and not sins was said above But this satisfies not the Cardinal and therefore chap. 18. endeavours to prove them meritorious ex condigno not only ratione promissionis because of the promise assuring the reward but ratione operis because of the worth of the work it self and fears not to affirm that God is made our Debtor Non sola pro missione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficitur Debitor Bel. ibid cap. 18. not only by virtue of his promise but also by reasonof our work This I note to shew how the reason of verè mereri truly to merit does force from the Cardinal who strives to defend it such affirmations and from others who did not see how merit could be properly between God and man such concessions and yeilding up of the Cause For this being agreed according to former Concessions First What is required to make a work truly meritorious and then what man receives of Gods free grace to enable him for working and how man stands indebted to God the controversy is at an end all their proofs fall short as not ad idem to the point all our proofs from Scripture stand good against merit properly taken and the mistakes Mr. Spencer would fasten on us appear frivolous as we shall now see The first place he sets down as alledged by us is Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of t his present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory Nothing here saith he against merit Why so because Goodworks produce eternal life but not ex condigno as a grain of mustard-seed is not to be compared with the great bulk it bears yet it produces it so do sufferings the fair tree of life as Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4.17 This flourish of a similitude in transferring things Physical to Moral neither proves nor answers any thing Controversal Again it comes not home speaking only to the word Compared whereas the force is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not worthy which in comparing things Moral as the work and the reward is mainly considerable so is here a great deal of difference between Physical or Natural productions and Moral For we grant that the small sufferings of this life may produce or work as S. Paul saith there in their way and measure a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory but if this Author will have it any thing to the reason of merit he must affirm that sufferings and good works do produce it veritate insitâ by their own virtue and worth as that seed doth the bulk which comes of it by its own inbred vertue The next place is Luc. 17.10 When ye have done all say Vnprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty The mistake here he imputes to us is because we will have merit excluded here Unprofitable servants in respect of God by this acknowledgment of doing but our duty and being unprofitable Why then saith he deserves a servant his Wages by doing his duty and nothing else pa. 169. Because duty of a servant does not exclude merit or desert for the servant is not bound to that duty antecedently or before his voluntary compact or Covenant with his Master as man stands bound to God Neither does the Master supply the Servant with life health ability these the servant brings with him and therefore may be said to merit or deserve his wages though his service was duty after covenant with his Master It is not so between God and Man For the acknowledgment of being Vnprofitable servants Who saith he can bring profit to God hence is only proved that God is no way beholden to us but we owe to him for all our good works this is good Catholick doctrine but contrary to what his Master the Cardinal saith as * Num. 2. above cited and directly overthrowing the vâ—re mereri the merit of works in any proper sense for if we owe to him for all our good works as we do because he enables us to do them by his grace how can we merit properly by those works at his hands therefore we are all to humble our selves before him and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts and the reward bestowed on them grounded on his free promise and acceptation of them for the merits of Christ so he pa. 169. This is good doctrine again but still contradictory to merit for if his gifts then not our merits if reward upon free promise and divine acceptation then are not our works truly meritorious of such reward Nor will such concessions which Truth and shame forces from you salve the matter whilst your doctrine delivered in Gross teaches to plead merit and to place confidence in it that is to be proud of your own works and to excuse it by saying Thou O Lord hast given me to be confident and think thus well of my doings Thou O Christ hast merited that I should merit That saying Our Merits are his Gifts though it be S. Augustines yet as used by you together with your other sayings do no more witness you humble in this point then the Pharisee was who said God I thank thee c. yet all the while was proud and conceited of what he had done and so returned unjustified nay he did not as we can gather adde the conceit of merit to his doings and therefore more justifiable then a Romanist
holding the doctrin of Works truly meritorious and accordingly trusting in them The next place is Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life Here he will have us mistaken in the word Wages Life eternal the gift of God excluding merit and gift misapplied by us Why so because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred Wages signifies the base stipend of common Souldiers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred gift signifies a donative a more noble reward anciently given to them that had carried themselves more valiantly thus pa. 171. thence he will have the true meaning of the Text to be the base recompense of sin is death but the high and noble reward of God is life eternal pa. 172. But first who taught him to render the true meaning of Scripture by such significations of the word as the Scripture does not own for where can he finde in Scripture the word Charisma to signify such a Donative Charisma free gift but alwayes the free gift of God his own Latine edition renders it gratia Dei the grace i. e. free favour or gift of God Again be it so that the Apostle whose purpose is to shew the different reward of sins service and Gods had some reflexion that way of stipend and Donative among Souldiers it s but verbal an using of like words not affording any plea or answer in this point when we speak of Gods gift or donative For first If Souldiers could pretend any merit for a donative it was for some special service above duty or of custom upon the succession of a new Prince and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift such as that word in Scripture-use signifies and such as Gods gifts and rewards to us are Secondly Souldiers have not from the Emperour that so rewards or gratifies them the strength courage and valour which he so rewards in them but this Donative of Gods gift implies such notions of grace free grace for the performance of the service free grace for the acceptation of the service free grace in the promise of the reward as exclud all merit At length he begins to yeild to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we take the word saith he for a pure free gift we may answer with S. Augustine and the Council of Trent that because the good works and merits themselves are the free gifts of God so also the glory of heaven which is deserved by them is called truly a gift also because the primary title and right which all Gods children have to eternal life is that of inheritance which is the free gift of eternal life may be properly called the gift of God 172. Thus does his answers and concessions which truth forces from him overthrow the doctrine of merit properly taken For if eternal life is called properly the gift of God and our good works be the free gifts of God then cannot they in any proper sense be truly meritorious of eternal life And because he mentioned Saint August take his sense of this Text. * Cum possit dicerectrecle dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. de gratia lib. Arbitrio cap. 9. Whereas the Apostle might say and say it truly the wages of righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our merits but for his mercies sake Another place is Eph. 2.8 9. Saved by Grace not by works least any should boast He gives here the Answer we had above in the point of justification The Grace of God excludeth merit properly taken That these works are such as are done before Justification of Grace distinguished from the good works of the Regenerate of whom it is said v. 10. Created to good works so he p. 170. True they are to be distinguished but here the opposition stands between Works and Grace not only in regard of Justification but even to the last Salvation and with a denial of merit which is here boasting so Rom. 4.4 to him that worketh c. he directly shews that meriting by works which challenges the reward as of debt is excluded by grace in the way of salvation so that if any man will merit by works he must do them of himself according to the condition of the Legal Covenant but if he must come into the way of grace to stand in need of a Redeemer for forgiveness of sins past for a supply of free grace for performance of good works for divine acceptation of his performances through the merits of that Redeemer he is clean out of the road of meriting or challenging the reward as debt in any proper sense And therefore how vain are their pretty sayings for evasions That our merits are his gifts That they merit through the merits of Christ or that Christ has merited that we should merit and that good works are meritorious through divine acceptation All which speaks contradiction or folly For to say Christ has merited that we should merit is to acknowledge we are indebted to God for giving his Son to die for our sins and for his purchasing or meriting the first grace for us but then that we enabled thereby should begin to make God and our Saviour endebted to us in the reward of eternal life Christ indeed has merited that we should not be bound to merit that is to obtain salvation by our merits or performance of exact obedience by our selves according to the Legal Covenant Again he has merited that we might be under grace and so perform good works created unto good works To say that Christ has merited that we should merit or that God accepts our works as truly meritorious is to alledge that for the merit of works which excludes it To obtain the reward by works because they are done in Grace or of grace is sense but to merit by works because done in or by grace is folly and contradiction He proceeds to prove the Catholick Position as he calls it That the works of the Regenerate are such as can deserve Heaven where it is our turn again to observe his mistakes in the places of Scripture which he brings to prove his Catholick Position The argument from them is altogether inconsequent to prove a deserving of heaven in any proper sense of merit His places are 2 Tim. 4.7 8. God is righteous in rewarding yet works are not meritorious wherein he will have the words righteous or just judge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give or render and a Crown of righteousness to favour his plea for merit as if by these expressions were implied that God
body and into Christs blood which were exislent before So that whereas he infers so bold are Protestants in restraining the omnipotency of God to defend their own groundless phantasies pa. 207. We may more justly say so bold are Romanists in obliging Gods omnipotency without any signification of his will to work miracles to make good their phansies yea such miracles as they can give no examples or instances for nor any indication in the story that he did or would engage his omnipotency to work such a miraculous chang The Instances he brings for like manner of speech His pretended Instances for the word This to denote a thing future wherein the word this speaks the thing not present but about to be come not home to the purpose as This is my commandment that ye love This is a circle when but part of it drawn and this is fire speaking of flax kindled as those words are pronounced p. 208 209. The first instance is of words to be spoken as the subject of this and do to any mans apprehension refer necessarily to the future or that which follows in speech but the case is quite different when there is a visible substance as bread taken and held up while the pronoun demonstrative this is pronounced and must in any mans apprehension point it out The other two instances are of successive Mutations and visible Of which after begun it is intelligible if said this is a Circle For he that hears the words and sees the thing knows what it means but the change or mutation they suppose made and signified by these words this is my body is instantaneous and invisible which is not begun when the words are begun but accomplisht in a moment when they are fully spoken and cannot have truth in proper speech till then nor that truth be understood till the supposed change become visible or be expresly affirmed to be done If they can shew this of their change they contend for by those words then we shall understand and believe it true and then we wall admit the sense he gives of the words pa. 211. This which I am to give you and which ye are presently to eate is my body but till he can shew us express declaration of such a change or evidence of sight for it he must give us leave to think the sense Saint Paul puts upon those words This is my body by saying The bread that is this bread which we break is the Communion of my body far better and sitter to rest on Whereas pa. 213. he commends the ingenuous profession Ingenuity of Protestants in this point and good disposition of the Protestant that acknowledging bread remaining yet believes it to be the body of Christ because he has said this is my body though he cannot comprehend how this may be it is the profession of all true Protestants And there would be no question made of the Presence if the Romanists would be so ingenuous as to rest satisfied in it and not so contend about the Mode their conceit of transubstantiation as I noted at the beginning of this discourse and would have the Reader note diligently that notwithstanding the former objections for the remaining of Bread in substance yet are they not brought to exclude or prove any thing against the true presence but the Romish conceited presence of Christs body The next objection or argument of the Protestants is from Do this in remembrance of me of which I must say Remembrance of Christ made in the Sacrament excludes not a real presence this argument is not to be pressed against the true presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament from the importance of the word remembrance which is of things past not present but first it more directy concludes against their propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass which they pretend to be the very same with that sacrifice on the Cross we say as some Fathers do that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice a shewing a commemoration an application of that facrifice of our Saviours therefore not the same Secondly though by the importance of the word remembrance it conclude not against a true presence as I said yet may it against their manner of presence by Transubstantiation because that takes away the presence of substantial bread that is of the Sacramental Element which is the necessary subject upon which passes what is done in the Sacrament for the shewing of the Lords death and for the commemorating of his body broken his blood shed upon the Cross which the very body and blood of Christ put in the place of the substantial Elements cannot supply therefore he thinks himself concerned pa. 224 to 229. to shew how the same thing may in diverse respects be a remembrance of it self Therefore to omit his Cavilling or trifling pa. 220 221. that what our Saviour did could not then be a Remembrance for that is of things past and Christ himself was present and his passion was to come To which we briefly say and he cannot deny it that our Saviour in his first institution did mean and appoint this Sacrament for a Remembrance of Him and therefore said do this in Remembrance of me and for that first time it was enough to be the shewing or representation of his death and for ever after both representation and remembrance of it but both then and after the exhibition and communication of his body and blood to all purposes of the Sacrament The Paschal Lamb or blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was a remembrance of the Angels passing over and for that called the Passover and for that purpose instituted as appears Exod. 12. Yet primâ vice at that first time it was not in proper force of the Word a Remembrance for it was done before the Angel passed over But we need not spend time about this The same body not a Remembrance or Sacrament of it self see how he endeavours to shew the same thing may be in diverse respects a Remembrance of it self viz. by doing some action bring to remembrance something he had done himself This is true and so our Saviour shall be seen of them that pierced him Zach. and therein shall be a remembrance of what was done to him but this nor any other instance brought can make it good in the Sacrament for here we affirm nothing can be a Sacramental remembrance of it self because that confounds the essential parts of a Sacrament making the same thing the Sign and the thing Sgnified Visible corporeal and invisible incorporeal The Apostle saith plainly So oft as ye eat this bread ye shew the Lords death therefore they are forced to say and use such speeches as this Author doth pa. 211. lin ult the body of Christ made a Sacrament and so the same thing must be a Sacrament of it self which comes in with the former absurdity a sacramental representation and remembrance of it self and yet altogether invisible
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time