the ancient Fathers believ'd touching the Eucharist was this that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ as appears by the passages produc'd from their Works where the Fathers in their Catechisms and Homilies make it their Bus'ness to explain this Mystery to the Faithful And because their Senses gave them to understand that the outward Forms or Accidents remain'd these they call'd the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body because they represent unto us the Body of Christ which is as it were cloath'd with these Accidents So that the ancient Fathers believ'd this Sacrament to be both the Figure and Reality of the Body of Christ according to the two different things they discover'd in it viz. the outward Signs or Simbols and the Body and Blood of Christ which are vail'd and cover'd by them Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem says under the Type and Figure of Bread he gives you his Body and under the Figure of Wine he gives you his Blood And Gratian Distinct 2. C. Hoc est de Consecrat says Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is what we say and what by all means we endeavour to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two Things consists of two Things of the visible Appearance of the Elements and of the invisible Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Sacrament that is of the External and Sacred Sign and of the thing of the Sacrament Re Sacramenti that is of the Flesh and Blood of Christ Again Caro ejus est c. 'T is his Flesh which we receive in the Sacrament vail'd with the Form of Bread and his Blood which we drink under the Appearance and taste of Wine But for all the Fathers do very often especially in their Disputes with Heretics and when they apprehend their Writings shou'd fall into the Hands of the Pagans call the Eucharist the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body and Blood because in effect it is so in regard of the Accidents or outward Forms yet we do not find that they ever call'd it a Sign or Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of Christ's Flesh and Blood 3. 'T is very material to our present Dispute to know whence those Passages objected by the Doctor are taken And this he himself is careful to tell us namely that they are taken out of those Father's Disputes with Heretics In which sort of Writing it is natural for any Man to take all kind of just advantage of his Adversary in order to confute him even to the silencing of some part of the Truth when it is not to his purpose nor absolutely neccessary to be declar'd So that it is very hard to gather those Father's Opinions from such Passages much more to establish an Article of Faith upon their Ambiguous Expressions Whereas the Passages which we alledge for Transubstantiation are taken from Catechisms Homilies Sermons and familiar Discourses where the Fathers on purpose and as Pastors and Doctors of the Church expound this Mystery to the people and tell them what they are to believe concerning it This suppos'd 1. I answer 1. That Tertullian here disputed with an Heretic and that at such a Time as was neither convenient nor agreeable to his Prudence to publish the whole Truth concerning this Mystery Consequently that it is not to be admir'd he spoke somewhat obscurely 2. That by these Words this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body he meant the outward Forms or Accidents of the Sacrament For he knew very well that the Sacrament consisted of two things viz. of the outward Accidents or Forms of Bread and Wine and of the Body and Blood of Christ contain'd under these Accidents The first Tertullian calls the Figure of Christ's Body and so do all the R. Catholics at present because these outward forms exhibit and represent unto us the Body and Blood of Christ which they cover Now this gave Tertullian a signal Advantage over his Antagonist who deny'd that Christ had a Real Body because it prov'd that the Sacrament cou'd not be call'd the Figure of Christ's Body unless he had a True and Real Body and therefore he insisted upon it without declaring what was contain'd under that Figure Which tho' it may be blameable in a Sermon or Discourse design'd for the Instruction of the People yet may very well be allow'd in a Dispute considering the advantage it gave to his Cause on the one side but without prejudice to Truth and the Scorn and Contempt it wou'd expose the Christian Religion to on the other had he at that time of day fully expounded that Mystery Now that Tertullian did not believe that the Sacrament was a Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of the Body and blood of Christ is evident from that Passage before cited non sciet Maritus c. 2. St. Austin's Words are to be understood in the same sense For he here disputed with Adimantus the Manichean who affirm'd that the Soul or Life of Animals consisted in their Blood Now St. Austin to refute this Error tells him that the Blood of Animals in Scripture is taken for their Life because it represents and contains Life And so says he God calls Blood Soul or Life for our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Which words surely if the comparison be just must signifie that that Sign of Christ's Body contain'd his true Body as the blood which is the Sign of the Soul or Life in Animals contains their Life or Soul But that the Doctor may see how far St. Austin was from believing that the Sacrament was only a Sign or Figure of Christ's Body I will transcribe a passage taken out of his Comments upon the Psalms where he speaks plainly and familiarly for the People's Instruction 'T is upon these Words of the Psalmist adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam Sanetum est adore ye his Footstool because it is holy Behold Brethren says he what he commands us to adore The Scripture saith elswhere Heaven is my Seat but the Earth is my Footstool He commands us then to adore the Earth because he said in another place that the Earth was God's Footstool and how shall we adore the Earth since the Scripture expresly says thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God And this Psalmist says adore ye his Footstool But explaining to me what his Footstool is he saith The Earth is my Footstool I am at a stand I fear to adore the Earth lest he shou'd damn me who made Heaven and Earth Again I fear if I do not adore the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalm says to me adore ye his Footstool I ask what his Footstool is and the Scripture tells me The Earth is my Footstool Being in doubt I turn me to Christ for 't is He whom I here seek and I find how without impiety the Earth may
Invocation of the Priest but after the Invocation are chang'd and become an other thing so the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is chang'd into the Divine Substance To which the Catholic Orthodoxus answers thus thou art caught in thine own Net because 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 pag. 325. 4. Pope Gelasius seems to be of the same mind Surely says he the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood of our Lord are a Divine Thing so that by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine and certainly the Image and resemblance of Christ's Body and Blood are celebrated in the Action of the Mysteries Bib Patr. tom 4. These and some more of less moment are by the Dr. very much magnified and cry'd up and to do him justice he spares no Art nor Industry to improve them to the best Advantage peremptorily concluding at the Foot of each Passage that Transubstantiation was unknown to Antiquity But before I answer them it will be requisite for the better Understanding of these Fathers to observe 1. What Conduct the ancient Fathers generally held when they treated of the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Sacrament 2. What was the ancient Father's Belief concerning this Mystery and 3. Whence these Passages objected are taken Which if well consider'd I doubt not to make it appear that these Objections notwithstanding their plausible appearance do not in the least prejudice the Truth of Transubstantiation nor clash with the Father's Opinions who Favour this Doctrine 1. The Fathers here objected and most of the Ancients were very cautious how they spoke any thing on this Subject which might increase the Suspicion the Gentils had conceiv'd of them as if they us'd to eat Human Flesh in the Celebration of their Mysteries which no doubt was occasion'd by the Information of some Apostat Christians who upon renouncing of their Faith declar'd that the Christians us'd to eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ They were therefore to avoid the Reproach and Odium which they must hereupon necessarily incur the Gentils thinking they eat this Flesh as Men do that which is fold in the Shambles very careful to conceal this Mystery and to write nothing that was to be expos'd to the Infidels which might seem to insinuate any such Doctrine being content to glance at it and when they must to deliver their Thoughts obscurely knowing very well that by this prudent Conduct the Pagans wou'd have no just Reason to reproach them and the Christians who were carefully instructed in this Point wou'd easily understand what they hinted at So that in their Treatises against Heretics in the Books they must have expos'd to public view for the comfort and instruction of the Christians and the conversion of the Gentils but more especially in their public Sermons and Homilies where they apprehended any Pagans were present they were very careful to speak nothing out touching this Point but by hints and glances to insinuate their meaning to the Christians so as the Pagans cou'd not understand what they meant Thus Tertulian in the Book which he wrote to diswade his Wife from Marrying after his Decease Non sciet Maritus quid ante omnem cibum gustes si sciverit Panem esse credet non quod dicitur Your Husband will not know that which you taste before all other Meat and if he does he will think it is Bread and not what it is call'd Here a Pagan knows not what he means but his Wife and all other Christians might easily understand that he means the Body of Christ Thus St. Austin in several places insinuates this Mystery in obscure words and then adds these fam'd Words Nôrunt fideles Nôrunt fideles quod dico The Faithful know the Faithful know what I say Thus Theodoret in that very Dialogue objected by the Doctor puts these Words in Orthodoxus his Mouth Oro te ut obscurius respondeas adsunt enim fortasse aliqui Mysteriis non initiati I beseech you answer more obscurely for there are some perhaps here present who are not initiated in the Mysteries This he said because they were about to talk of the Eucharist as appears by the Words of the Dialogue Eranistes answers him sic audiam sic respondebo So I will hear and so I will answer It were needless to bring any more Authorities from Fathers to prove this Truth it being evident from the Conduct observ'd in respect of the Catechumens that this was the universal Practise of the primitive Church These Catechumens were Candidates for Christianity they were taught and instructed in all the other Mysteries of the Christian Faith but not one Word did they hear of or relating to the Eucharist till they had by long Tryal and Experience given sufficient Proof of their Good Resolutions and solemnly promis'd to believe whatever the Catholic Church taught and profess'd Tho' they were taught the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation tho' they were allow'd to hear the Gospel read and expounded and to assist at the Rest of the Divine Service yet when the Consecration and Communion of the Eucharist was to be perform'd they were by no means admitted to be present nor as much as know any thing of it but were dismiss'd and excluded from that part of the Service till by long and careful Instructions they were deem'd competent * hence the name of Competentes missa Catechume norum so often mention'd by the Canons to assist at it as they then phras'd it So careful were the Primitive Fathers that none shou'd come to the Knowledge of this Mystery but such as were very well dispos'd to believe and embrace it And now can any Man of Sense imagin that these Holy and Learned Fathers shou'd keep such a stir about the Eucharist or be so careful to conceal it were it but a Type or Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ What is more easie to be believ'd than that Bread represents the Body of Christ and Wine his Blood and that both are taken in remembrance of his Death and Passion Surely there is nothing in the world so easie to be perswaded since all Mankind knows that such arbitrary Signs or Representations depend meerly of the Will of him that institutes them and that there is nothing to be done to perswade their Belief but to tell that they are so Certainly no Pagan or Gentil cou'd ever be offended at a thing so plain or offer the least Reproach to the Christian Religion upon the account of it Consequently there wou'd be no need to conceal or speak obscurely of it nor to hinder not only Catechumens but even Pagans or Infidels to hear it taught and deliver'd But to proceed 2. What
Compass of Civility and Respect and wou'd have given no Man cause to complain if his Conduct had not as I conceive extorted some hard Words from me 'T is true no manner of Dispute or Controversie can Justifie a Man's being Rude or Vncivil yet I believe every one will allow that it is not possible to manage a Controversie of this Nature and at the same Time to shew the Respect that might be expected upon other Occasions without betraying the Cause I have indeed on purpose forborn to give him any other Title than that of Doctor because my Dispute with him is not as he was an Arch-Bishop but as a Dr. of Divinity and because I conceiv'd I might with less Disrespect use the necessary freedom of speech under that Notion However if any of my Readers will please to do me the favour to let me know wherein I have unnecessarily exceeded the Limits of due Moderation I shall take it very kindly and endeavour to make amends for my Fault To the Second That I never intended to provoke or exasperate any Man much less wou'd I provoke any of the worthy Members of the Church of England whom I am in Duty bound to Honor and Respect And if I wrote any thing that looks that way 't was the necessity of the Subject not my Inclination that forc'd me upon it My Design was only to lay before those of my own Perswasion the Truth of that Doctrine which they and their Ancestors have believ'd since Christianity was planted among Them and which I see now they have many Temptations to quit And in this I think I do but follow the Example of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers who in the greatest Heat of Persecutions and Fiery Tryals as the Scripture phrases it took more care than ever to inculcate to the Christians the Truth of their Religion and to Arm them with the Hopes of a future Life that they might the better be able to bear up against the Temptations and Rage of the World and suffer with Joy as St. Paul saith the Pillage and Plunder of their Goods Rapinam bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis However if I have sin'd on that hand I have that confidence in the Equity and Goodness of the Church of England that my Fault which is peculiar to my self will not be requir'd at the hands of Those of my Perswasion whose Consent or Approbation I never desir'd I am not ignorant That our Lives and Fortunes are at the Mercy of the Law and may be depriv'd of Both when it shall please our Magistrates to put them in Execution But such is their Lenity and Goodness that they overlook us and suffer us to live which we accept always and in all places and with all Thankfulness and earnestly beseech Almighty God to bless and prosper them for it The Better Sort which blessed be God are also the Greater are sensible that our only Crime is our Conscience which we cannot help and which I trust in God we shall ever prefer to all that is most dear to us in this World They desire our Conversion because they think us in an Error and we likewise desire and earnestly pray for their's because we are perswaded they are in the wrong They know we have made no Innovations in Religion nor broach'd any New Doctrines but only stick to and to use St. Paul's Words hold fast the Profession of that Faith which we received from our and their Ancestors A Plea which secur'd the very Pagans in the Possession of their Lives and Fortunes when the Christians got the better of them and which I trust in God and in the Goodness of our Governours will ever secure us We are not therefore insensible of the Clemency and Good Nature of the Worthy Men of the Church of England nor are we so dull as not to take notice of the Connivance and Liberty they are pleas'd to allow us but we think we cannot make them a more suitable Return a more charitable I am sure we cannot than to lay before them the Dangerous Consequences of their Errors and the desperate State of their Souls We see the horrid Sacrileges committed by their Ancestors and the Schism and Heresie into which they fell and we conceive it our Duty to them who tho' they shou'd use us never so ill are still our Brethren to mind them of the great Danger and Hazard they run in following the Steps of their Fore-Fathers and in persisting in those Things which we conceive are very great Impieties And if in handling these Matters we are forc'd to use such Expressions as may seem to give Offence 't is the Necessity of the Subject not our Inclination that extorts them from us Bad Things must have bad Names and Words must bear some Proportion with the Things they are put to signifie else they wou'd not give us a just Idea of them And therefore in speaking to things that are confessedly Bad namely Heresie and Schism if any Expressions in this Treatise may seem to shock or give Offence I hope they will be look'd upon as necessary and unavoidable and consider d as Vinegar intended only to Cleanse the Wound but not to Vex the Patient tho' it shou'd prove Vneasie to him which I call the Great GOD of Heaven to Witness was the Author's Design ERRATA PAge 2. Line 3. read Ingenious p 6 l 12. r seemingly p 7. l 19. r Patrlarchs p 1â— l 33. r demonstration p 17. l 30. r according p 25. l. 1. r â—â—â—ebians p 39. l ult r Hominâ—m p 52. l 1â— r Cateraâ— p 55. l 17. r as p 8. l 28 r pray'd p 106. l 2. add it p 119. 16. r this is ibid. l 13. r be p 129. l 34. r reâ—â—â—'d p 131. l. 24. r Scurrilous p 157 l. 29. r too p 158. l 10. r Incredulous ibid. l 15. r Divest p 174. l 24. r added p 175. l 33 r tell p 183. l 26. r was p 184. l 28. r practice ibid. l 30. r given p. 100. l 1. r Question p 193. l 2. r left p 200. l 21. dele must p. 204. l 27. r Calvinists p 207. l 33. r Captivity p 208. l 14. r Eastern ibid. l 18. r Common p 215. l 14. r hundred p 216. l 24. r probiâ—y p 220. l 18. add it is 222. l 24. r Test p 225. l 32 r appear p 228. l 20. r Solemâ— p 251. l 3. 〈◊〉 p 261. l 18. r proportion p 262. l 15. r graâ—eful p 297. l 32. for these r the. A Modest and True ACCOUNT OF THE Chief Points in Controversie c. The Introduction IT is commonly said and our own Experience teacheth it us that good Language goes far in gaining Credit to whatever is said and that a smooth polish'd Discourse when Gravely delivered seems to carry the Face of Truth though it should happen to be otherwise Words when handsomely laid together have I know not what of Charming in them and do
the Gospel Tho' the Scribes and Pharisees were notoriously known to be very wicked and had enjoyn'd the Jews the observance of some Traditions of their Fathers together with the Law of Moses yet Christ was so far from advising the Jews to separate from them that he expresly commanded them to observe and do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees bid them Mat. 23.2 And that because they sate in the Chair of Moses Nay what is more he says if I had not done among them the works John 15.24 which none other man did they had not had sin Intimating that it was neither Reasonable to depart from that Religion which they received from their Ancestors the Truth whereof was at several times confirm'd by True and Real Miracles nor sinful not to hear his Doctrine to the prejudice of their own unless he had done greater Works that is had wrought greater Miracles in confirmation of the Truth of it than any man before had done in confirmation of theirs And shall the Catholic Religion the Religion of Jesus Christ which is grounded upon surer and better promises than that of the Jews even upon the promise of that Word which abideth for ever shall this Religion I say be abandon'd at a Signal given by one single man rising up in opposition to all the World without a Sign or Miracle or the least reasonable pretence to it Surely this is so monstrously absurd that were we not convinced of the truth of it by our own woful experience we shou'd rather believe the whole frame of nature wou'd dissolve and all things run counter to their usual course than that any man in his wits shou'd be guilty of such a folly Obstupâ—cite Coell super hoc That one Profligate Monk who as all the World knows debauched a professed Nun whom he kept till his death contrary to his and her solemn vows of Chastity and for ough that ever I cou'd hear or learn never shewed any marks of Repentance for this his Incestuous and Crimminal Commerce That this wretched man I say without the least Mark or Character of a Divine Commission on the contrary that was branded with all the Marks wherewith Christ and his Apostles point us out the Ministers of Satan shou'd prevail upon the Credulity of so many Great and in other matters Wise and Learned Men is surely so surprising that nothing in Nature can parallel it But did the first Authors of the Reformation work no Miracles As for true Miracles I do not find they did any but somthing like Miracles or rather surprising wonders I find recorded by their own Writers but the mischief on 't is they are such as overthrow the whole Reformation if they were believed Luther tells us in his Book do missa angulari that what he wrote against the Mass was suggested to him by the Devil This Book was printed and published by his own Reformed Doctors of Wittenberg but becauses it looks now somthing scandalous to pious reformed Ears it must pass for an Imposture Bolsec a Protestant Writer tells us that Calvin agreed to give a certain man named Bruleus a sum of mony on condition he wou'd feign himself dead that he might come to Resuscitate him and when all thingâ— were prepared for this farce the new Apostle had no sooner commanded the Living to rise when his words had that strange efficacy as to strike him dead but Bruleus his poor Wife who lost both her Husband and the hopes of her Money reviled the Apostle and discovered the Imposture But this is still so offensive to the Reformation that it is meet it shou'd likewise pass for a Fable But to return Luther arose saith the Dr. and appear'd stoutly against the gross Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome and resisted the united malice and force of Antichrist and his Adherents And what are these gross Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Even that Faith which was preach'd to his Ancestors at their first Conversion to Christianity as the best of his own Protestant Writers do confess the Truth whereof was confirm'd not by Impostures but by true Miracles as venerable Bede and all the Historians of those Times do witness As to his unchristian Railing in this Place I will say nothing to it but leave him to his own Master to account for it And indeed if Railing were the subject of our Dispute I wou'd freely yield him the Palm for I own I have no Talent that way You see then Christian Reader upon how fickle and sandy a bottom the Faith of all Sectaries stands and how firm and solid that Basis and Foundation are whereon the Catholic Faith is built namely the Universal Consent of all the Christian World which if lyable to Error we may justly doubt of the Truth of any thing in the World even of what we see with our Eyes since as 't is already prov'd it is as impossible that the Universal Consent of so many Nations shou'd conspire to declare they had received that Faith from their Ancestors if they had not as that a Wall for example shou'd not be white when I see it to be so Here I foresee it will be objected that clear Evidence destroys the Virtue of Faith which is essentially obscure as St. Gregory saith Nec bides habet meritum cui Ratio humana prebeâ— Experimentum Nor hath that Belief any merit to which humane Reason gives Experience But this is easily answer'd viz. That the Obscurity of Faith is well consistent with Evidence that the Faith was reveal'd tho' not with the Evidence of the Thing reveal'd by Faith that is one may have Evidence of the Existence of a Thing tho' his Reason can neither understand nor comprehend the Thing it self else the Apostles must have been in worse Circumstances than any other Christian for having seen with their Eyes Epist 1. chap. 1. and felt with their Hands as St. John saith most of the Mysteries of our Redemption they had the Evidence of their Senses for the Truth of their Existence consequently could have no Faith concerning them if there be any Force in this Objection This Answer is agreeable to the Definition St. Paul gives of Faith viz. That it is an Evidence of things not seen Fides est sperandarum substantia rerum Argumentum non apparentium Faith is the Substance of things hoped for the Evidence of things not seen that is grounded upon the Evidence of things not seen nor understood And thus St. Gregory's Words are to be understood for he comments upon these Words of St. John cap. 20. When the Doors were shut where the Disciples were assembled for Fear of the Jews came Jesus and stood in the midst Quomodo saith he post resurrectionem corpus Dominicum verum fuit quod clausis januis ingredi potuit Sed sciendum nobis est quod divina operatio si râ—tione comprehenditur non est admirabilis nec fides habet meritum cui ratio
he was qualified by Jesus Christ for that Office or that he must be a very arrogant Man in taking so much upon him to the Diminution of the Honour and Esteem of his Fellow Apostles And if we put these three things together viz. 1. Christ's building his Church upon Peter giving him the Charge of feeding his Lambs and Sheep and the Power of Confirming his Brethren 2. The Evangelist pursuant to this Power not only reckoning him first amongst the Apostles but also calling him the First 3. Peter's exercising the Office and Charge of Head or Chief among the Apostles as aforesaid We shall plainly see that this Superiority is no Imaginary thing as our Adversaries wou'd make the World believe but a Real Truth grounded upon the Word of God And if this was confer'd upon Peter it is granted by all that the same Prerogative must necessarily devolve upon his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome And indeed this was so publickly taught and profess'd by the Primitive Fathers and Councils as a necessary and fundamental Truth that many Learned Protestants have been forc'd to own it I shall instance in one Monsieur Blondel one of the most learned Protestants that ever writ against the Pope's Supremacy gives it this Testimony The Titles of the Apostle St. Peter saith he ought not to be put in debate since the Grecians and Pâ—otestants also do confess that it has been believ'd and that it might indeed be that he was the President and Head of the Apostles the Foundation of the Church and Possessor of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Again pag. 107. Rome being a Church consecrated by the Residence and Martyrdom of St. Peter whom Antiquity has acknowledg'd to be the Head of the College Apostolic having been honour'd with the Title of the Seat of the Apostle St. Peter might without Difficulty be consider'd by one of the most renowned Councils viz. that of Chalcedon as Head of the Church Thus far this Learned Man and surely nothing but the Evidence of this Truth cou'd extort so ingenuous a Confession from an Adversary in favour of â—â—me whose Supremacy he chiefly aim'd to pull down Now how far this Title gives him Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops I will not take upon me to determine This only I shall undertake to prove that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did believe St. Peter and his Successors the Bâ—shops of Rome to be by virtue of this Prerogative St. Peter Head and Chief amongst the Apâ—stles and the Bishop of Rome the same among all other Bishops and Center of Catholic Vnity and that the Bishop of Rome did exercise Jurisdiction as occasion offer'd over the Eastern as well as the Western Bishops even in the Primitive Times such as Excommunication receiving of Appeals Confirming and Deposing of Bishops c. For the Truth of all which we have besides the general Consent of the Church as Authentic Records next to the Scripture as for any matter of Fact whatsoever happening at so great a distance I shou'd never end if I shou'd cite all the Passages of Fathers and Councils and Ecclesiastical Writers which may be brought to prove this Point I will therefore Instance in a few only but they shall be such as will by the Greatness of their Authority and Clearness of Expression I hope be abundantly sufficient to compose this Difference And 1. St. Irenaeus speaks thus of the Church of Rome ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentierem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui undiquâ— sunt Fideles Every Church that is the Faithful on every side must have recourse to this Church by reason of her more powerful Principality lib. 3. c. 3. 2. St. Cyprian thus of St. Peter Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti Potestatis Honoris Primatus tamen Pâ—tro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur The Rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was endued with a like Fellowship of Power and Honour yet the Primacy is given to Peter that the One Church of Christ and one Chair might appear lib. de Unitat. Eccles 3. St. Ambrose Andreas prius secutus est Dominum quam Petrus tamen principatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus Andrew follow'd Christ sooner than Peter yet Andrew did not receive the Principality but Peter in 2 Cor. 12. 4. St. Jerom. Propterea inter duodâ—cem unus eligitur ut capite constituto Schismatis toâ—latur occasio One is chosen among the twelve Apostles to the end that a Head being constituted all occasion of Schism may be taken away Cont. Jovin 5. St. Chrysostom The Pastor and Head of the Church was a Fisherman Hom. 55. in Cap. 16. Mat. 6. St. Augustin In Ecclesia Romana semper viguit Apostoliâ—ae Cathedrae Principatus The Principality of the Apostolic Chair has always flourish'd in the Church of Rome Epist 162. 7. The General Council of Chalcedon We throughly consider that all Primacy and Chief Honour is to be kept for the Bishop of old Rome Act. 16. This was the General Language not only of the Fathers of this Council but even of all Antiquity both in public Assemblies and private Writings the primitive Fathers and Councils always deferring the chief Honour and Primacy to the See of St. Peter as they generally phrase it And indeed tho' the Bishops of Constantinople have always been observ'd to be very ambitious to advance their own See above all others and to have procur'd in two General Councils viz. in the first Council of Constantinople and in that of Chalcedon to have that See prefer'd to Alexandria and Antioch and plac'd next after Rome yet we do not find that any Council or Father did ever dispute with the Bishop of Rome in Point of Primacy or Jurisdiction in so much was all Antiquity perswaded and convinc'd that he was the Chief and Supreme visible Head of the whole Catholic Church Thus much concerning the Primacy of St. Peter and his Successors which yet is not the one half of what may be alledg'd for this Point Now I wou'd willingly beg of any of our Adversaries to Answer me to these few Queries Whether these Holy Fathers did not believe the Primacy of St Peter and his Successors when they spoke so plainly in favour of it Whether they did not understand and were well instructed in the Doctrine of the whole Catholic Church touching this Point Whether they had a mind to flatter the Bishop of Rome or to grant him any more Authority and Power over themselves than was justly due to him And whether it be not an excess of Folly and Weekness to say no worse in the Protestants now fifteen hundred Years after to dispute that Prerogative which is so manifestly acknowledg'd by so many Eminent Martyrs and Confessors and great Doctors of the Primitive Church That the Bishop of
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
of the Protestants that it needs no farther Confutation 3. All the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ both in a literal Sense and in a Sense of Transubstantiation I shou'd fill up a Volum were I to bring all the Passages of Councils and Fathers which make for this Truth no Mistery of our Religion being ever with more Care inculcated and expounded by the Fathers in their Homilies Catechisms and familiar Discourses to the common People and that no doubt for the difficulty Men naturally have to believe it But it not being my design to write all that may be said for it but what may suffice to evince the truth of it I shall content my self with the Testimony of a few Councils and Fathers whose Authority and Weight however I hope shall make sufficient amends for the smalness of their number And 1. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense or which is the same thing believ'd the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament let St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria bear witness This great Patriarch in his Epistle to Nestorius speaks thus of the Eucharist Neque enim illam ut â—arnem communem suscipimus absit hoc neque rursum tanquam viri cujuspiam Sanctificati dignitatis unitate verbo consociati sed tanquam verè vivificam ipsiusque verbi propriam God forbid we shou'd receive it as common flesh nor yet as the flesh of a Man sanctified and united to the Word by a conjunction of dignity but we receive it as it truely is the quickening and proper flesh of the Word Himself This Letter was read and approv'd in the third General Council * Concil Ephes puncto 7. which no doubt wou'd never have been had it contain'd any thing contrary to Orthodox Faith so that having receiv'd Authority and Approbation from those Fathers we shall no more consider it as the Doctrine of a private Man but as the Faith of the whole General Council Now can it be imagin'd that this Council which represented the whole Catholic Church shou'd approve and put upon Record a Letter which declares the Real Presence as clear and plain as is possible for words to express it unless it had been at that Time the Faith of the whole Catholic Church And can it be imagin'd that the Catholic Church in those fair Days of her Youth as the Calvinists speak shou'd believe that Christ's proper Flesh as the said Letter words it was in the Sacrament unless they had understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense and receiv'd the same Doctrine from their immediate Ancestors Or can it be imagin'd that these Ancestors shou'd be of this Belief unless they had likewise receiv'd it from their Ancestors and so up to the very Apostles This is surely to any Man of Sense but more especially ought to be to the Church of England who professes to receive the Acts and Decrees of this Council instead of a Demonstration that from the begining of Christianity to the Time of this Council all the Orthodox Christians did both believe the Real Presence and understand Christ's Words in a literal Sense 2. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ this is my Body in a sense of Transubstantiation we have the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers of the Church many whereof in their familiar Discourses to the common People Illustrate this Conversion by the change of the Water into Wine of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the River Nilus into Blood and the like And 't is very observable that in all their Discourses upon this Subject and whenever they speak of this Change they have Recourse to the Omnipotent Power of God to which alone they ascribe it which surely wou'd be very needless had there been no real Change in the Case St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem speaks thus Concerning this Change Therefore since Christ hath said of the Bread this is my Body who durst any more doubt it And since He himself so positively affirm'd saying this is my Blood who ever doubted so as to say that it was not his Blood In Time past at the Wedding of Cana in Galilee he chang'd Water into Wine which has a certain likeness to blood and shall not we think him worthy to be believ'd that he cou'd change Wine into his Blood Again for under the appearance of Bread he gives us his Body and under the appearance of Wine he gives us his Blood And a little after tho' your Senses seem in this to oppose you yet Faith must confirm you do not judge the thing by the Taste but let Faith assure you beyond all doubt that you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Cate. Mystag 3. Here is a great Bishop an Eminent Witness of Antiquity one who flourish'd 1300 Years since and who no doubt knew very well the Faith of the Catholic Church of his Time touching this Point Here is a careful Pastor expounding Christ's Words and Catechizing his Flock in the very Language of the present Roman Catholics He tells them that since Christ said that the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood they must believe that the Bread and Wine were chang'd into his Body and Blood He illustrates this change by a familiar Comparison of the Water which Christ chang'd into Wine and enforces the belief of the possibility of the other by the actual Existence of this change which they both read and believ'd He tells them that under the Appearance of Bread they receive the Body and under the Appearance of Wine they receive the Blood of Christ and that tho' their senses may tell them that it is still Bread yet their Faith must correct that Mistake that they must not judge what it is by the Taste but must believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ whatever their senses may suggest to them to the contrary Did ever any Roman Catholic speak plainer concerning Transubstantiation Can any Roman Bishop or Pastor at present enforce the belief of this Mystery with more cogent Arguments than to tell his Auditors that since Christ said this is my Body we must believe it is so since he chang'd Water into Wine we have no Reason to doubt but his Omnipotence is sufficient to change Wine into his â—lood that tho' it appears to our Eyes to our Taste to our Smell that the thing is otherwise yet we must not in this bus'ness rely upon the Relation of these senses but upon the sense of Hearing because Faith is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God which Word we are here only requir'd to believe All which are the very Reasonings of St. Cyril Now what the Protestants may think of this great Maâ— I shall not determin but this I am sure of that had he written this since the Reformation they wou'd have all reckon'd him to be as rank a Papist as ever put Pen
tell us that Colours contradict the Sense of Hearing or Sound the Sense of Seeing Had we said that there is a Trans-Accidentation in that Mystery the Dr. wou'd then indeed have been in the right to press his Argument Accidents being the proper Objects of our Senses but surely we never said any such thing consequently we never contradicted our Senses upon that Subject We see with our Eyes that the Accidents remain the same as before we therefore conclude that the Change must be in the Substance which we cannot see because Christ told us it was his Body and because we are sure he was able by his Omnipotent Power to make it his Body But says the Doctor there are all the Accidents of the Bread and where ever the proper Accidents of any Substance is there the Substance must necessarily be Answ 1. Suppose this were true there is still no contradicting of Senses in the Case since we own the Accidents are there which alone are the Object of our Senses 2. Will the Dr. himself say that this is and always was necessarily True No for he tells us Vol. 2. Pag. 67. That God may impose upon our Senses and if he tells us the thing is otherwise than it appears we must believe him All that this Argument proves then is that ordinarily and for the most part the matter is so but why may not God notwithstanding this do otherwise upon extraordinary Occasions especially in Mysteries of Faith which are not subject to the ordinary Rules of Nature And why may not we believe that the Accidents of Bread may exhibit an other Substance to us especially since we have the Word of the Son of God for it as well as the Accidents of a Dove and the Appearance of Men cou'd represent the Holy Ghost and the Angels to St. John the Baptist and to Lot John the Baptist saw in appearance a Dove descend and remain upon Christ yet He believ'd it was not a Real Dove because he was told by him that sent him God that it was the Holy Ghost that was to descend and remain upon him And why may not we likewise believe the same God when he tells us that that which appears to us to be Bread is his Body John the Baptist says I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a Dove and it abode upon him and I knew him not But he that sent me to baptize with Water the same said unto me upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost John 1.31 32. Now John the Baptist might have waited till now and expected to see the Holy Ghost descend upon Christ and yet be never the wiser had he been of the Doctor 's Opinion For if he must in that respect believe his Senses he is never like to see the Holy Ghost who surely has neither Colour Shape nor Figure to affect our Senses And whatever Shape or Figure the Holy Ghost appear'd in St. John was still in Right of maintaining his Ground and of affirming if we believe the Doctor that what he saw was not the Holy Ghost but a Dove or something else For he might have said with the Doctor the Evidence of Sense is Infallible Whatever my Eyes represent to me I must believe it Take away the Evidence of Sense and you destroy all Knowledge What appears to my Eyes is a Dove therefore I cannot nor must not believe it is the Holy Ghost or any thing else but a Dove When you told me I shou'd see the Holy Ghost descending c. I gave Credit to my Hearing by which I perceiv'd your Words and now I must contradict my Sight which tells me this is a Dove Or if I believe it is the Holy Ghost why may not I as well question my Hearing and doubt whether you said any such thing to me as I must now disclaim the Evidence of my Sight which surely is a Sense every whit as Infallible as my Hearing May not all these Questions and Reasonings be urg'd by St. John as well as by the Doctor But alas St. John never dreamt of any such thing For he knew very well and so might the Doctor too if he cou'd devest himself of his Prejudices that tho' we must ordinarily Rely upon the Evidence of our Senses yet when God tells us the thing is otherwise than our Senses represent it we ought to give Credit to his Word because we are sure on the one side his Word cannot be false and we know on the other he may impose upon our Senses And sure this does not destroy any human Knowledge or Science since it does not hinder but that in all other things we may rely and that must assuredly upon the Evidence of our Senses only where the Word and Omnipotent Power of God it pleas'd to interpose Nor does it in the least shake the External Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity as the Doctor wou'd bear the World in Hand it does For when our Saviour bad the Apostles have recourse to their Senses to convince them of the Truth of his Resurrection he did not tell them that they must not believe their Senses in that particular Since we are then in all things which are not repugnant to God's Word not only allow'd to follow the Evidence of our Senses for that we always uncontroulably do but also may safely believe that the Substance which such Accidents or Objects of our Senses usually represent is infallibly there how can that Doctrine which is warranted by the same Divine Word in that wherein it seems to be repugnant to Sense destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity it being evident that wherever Christ appeal'd to the Evidence of Sense for the Proof of any of his Miracles he never disclaim'd that Evidence nor said nor acted any thing that might seem to invalidate it But surely this cannot be said of the Eucharist nor of St. John's Dove nor yet of Lot's young Men For it is said of the first that it is the Body of Christ tho' it has the Appearance of Bread of the second that it was the Holy Ghost tho' under the Appearance of a Dove and of the third that they were Angels tho' under the Appearance of Men. Now how can the Belief of Transubstantiation destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity any more than the Belief of the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove or of the Angels under the Form of Men Here is a Dove and two Men in Appearance and as far as Corporeal Senses can discover yet they are beliv'd to be the Holy Ghost and two Angels There is Bread in appearance yet it is beliv'd to be the Body of Christ Is not the Evidence of our Senses equally disclaim'd in both Do not we believe contrary to what we see in the one as well as in the other Notwithstanding no Man ever yet
affirm'd that the Belief of the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove or of the Angels under the Form of Men did destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity How can the Belief of Transubstantiation destroy 'em then Thus you see how grosly the Common People are abus'd on the one hand when they are made to believe that Transubstantiation is so monstrously absurd as the Dr. wou'd fain here paint it And how hardy He himself must needs have been on the other when he had the Courage to deliver out of the very Pulpit the Chair of Truth that it was as evidently contrary to the common Sense of Mankind as it is evident that twice two make four vol. 5. pag. 18 19. But I have an other Challenge to him yet He tells us in the foregoing Page that in things doubtful a modest Man wou'd be very apt to be stagger'd by the judgment of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgment of the Generality of Men the General Voice and Opinion of Mankind being next to the Voice of God himself And a little after He gives this Reason for it because in things lawful and indifferent we are bound by the Rules of Decency and Civility not to thwart the General Practice and by the Commands of God we are certainly oblig'd to obey the lawful Commands of lawful Authority Since then the falshood of Transubstantiation is not only doubtful but the Truth of it is establish'd upon the firmest Foundation either in Heaven or on Earth even upon that Word which shall never pass away tho' Heaven and Earth shall and since the belief of it when the Reformation began was grounded upon the General Voice and Opinion of the Generality of Mankind as the Doctor and all those of his Perswasion do acknowledg and upon the lawful Commands of lawful Authority if any such thing were on Earth I appeal to his own Judgment if every Man be not bound both in Decency and Civility and by the Commands of God not to thwart or contradict a Point of Faith so firmly establish'd And now if after all this any Man will undertake to justifie the Doctor 's Conduct and Vindicate what he writ against Transubstantiation I here make him this fair offer for his encouragement that tho' this good Doctor is pleas'd to say Vol. 3. pag. 299. that in the bus'ness of Transubstantiation it is not a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down right Impudence civily spoken against the plain meaning of Scripture and the Sense and Reason of Mankind If He I say or any body else will bring but one single Argument in Mood and Figure to prove that Transubstantiation does either contradict Sense or Reason I do sincerely promise him I will be of his Opinion the very next Moment And this I do the more confidently affirm because I am sure Transubstantiation cannot possibly contradict or be against Sense or Reason Sense it cannot for it is not the Object of any of our Senses and surely it is not against Reason that one Substance shou'd be chang'd into an other since all Generations and Corruptions are thus perform'd and even daily Experience teaches us that the Meat on which wee feed does not nourish us but in as much as it is chang'd into the substance of our Flesh And to let the World know it is not the Roman Catholics alone who see the absurdity of this Pretence I will Transcribe the Words of an Ingenious Sociâ—tan upon this Subject who surely is no more a Friend to the Roman Catholics than to the Protestants They are taken out of a Book Intitul'd Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity c. Pag. 21. He cites the Words of the Bishop of Sarum taken out of his Discourse concerning the Divinity and Death of Christ pag. 94. which are these Transubstantiation must not be a Mystery because there is against it the Evidence of Sense in an Object of Sense For Sense plainly represents to us the Bread and Wine to be still the same that they were before the Consecration And thus he speaks his own Thoughts of them This is says he every way faulty for it is not pretended by the Papists that the Bread and Wine have received any the least Change in what is an Object of Sense The Papists following the Philosophy of Aristotle distinguish in Bodys these two things the Accidents such as the quantity figure colour smell taste and such like which are Objects of our Senses And the Substance which bears and is cloathed as it were with these visible and sensible Accidents but is it self invisible and the Object of our Vnderstanding not of our Senses They say hereupon our Saviour having call'd the Sacrament his Body and Blood because our Senses assure us there is no change of the sensible Accidents therefore the change that is made must be in the invisible Substance Which change they therefore call Transubstantiation Nor do they say that Christ is corporally or bodily present in the Sacrament but that His Body is present in a spiritual manner As Cardinal Bellarmin largely discourses De Eucharist l. 1. c. 2. His Lordship therefore is greatly out in pretending that the Transubstantiation as held by the Papists is contradicted by Sense in an Object of Sense Thus far this Ingenious Man Whence 't is evident how miserably weak the Doctor 's pretence to Evidence of Sense against this Mystery is and how grosly he abuses Mankind when alluding to Transubstantiation he tells them they do not come to learn from their Guids or Pastors the difference between Sea and dry Land Vol. 3. pag. 100. or between North and South as if they had the same Evidence that there is no Transubstantiation in the Eucharist as they have of the difference of Sea from dry Land or of North from South 2. The four Objections taken out of the Dr's Discourse against Transubstantiation are these Vol. 3. pag. 315. 1. Tertullian speaks thus of the Eucharist The Bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it cou'd not have been the Figure of his Body if there had not been a True and Real Body Advers Marcion l. 4. Here Tertullian seems to insinuate that the Eucharist is the Figure of Christ's Body Vol. 3. pag. 318. 2. St. Austin seems to be of the same Opinion Our Lord says he did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body lib. contra Adimant 3. Theodoret speaks to the same purpose in his second Dialogue between a Catholic Vol. 3. pag. 324. under the Name of Orthodoxus and an Heretic under the Name of Eranistes where he makes Eranistes speak these Words As the Symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the
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
whether in one or both kinds is quite an other thing from the Institution of it We say indeed that when Christ instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood He consecrated not in One but in both Kinds because He design'd to leave these Symbols to his Church as a perpetual and everlasting Memorial of His Body broken and Blood shed upon the Cross which is express'd by the Separation of one Symbol from t'other and this I hope we are careful to do as often as we offer that Sacrifice But to eat or partake of the Sacrifice it self in one or both kinds is sure no part of the Institution but belongs to the Modus or manner of administring it Christ instituted the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and Matrimony yet we do not find that ever he gave or administred any of these Sacraments to any Body which surely he wou'd not have omitted were it any part of their Institution 'T is then plain that to give the Communion in One or both kinds is neither for nor against our Saviour's Institution but respects meerly Administration and Use But let us suppose with the Doctor that to administer the Communion in One kind is contrary I do not say to Christ's Institution for that it cannot be but to the manner in which our Saviour gave it yet still I do not see how this can help the matter For the Question is not whether Christ gave it in both kinds but whether we ought necessarily to give it in both kinds because he did so This the Doctor affirms and we deny But how does He prove it Why because Christ gave it in both kinds This is begging the Qustion Well because Christ gave it in both kinds we ought to do so too This is to say if it be to purpose that we are bound to do all those things that Christ did at the institution and administration of the Communion If so then we must fall to wash the Disciples Feet to eat Suppers before the Sacrament to administer the Communion at Night and which is more strange we must command all those to whom we give the Communion to do the same thing we do that is to consecrate and administer the Sacrament and consequently make them all Priests all these things I say we are bound to do For Christ did all and every particular here mention'd to all those to whom he gave the Communion in both kinds But since neither He nor any Man in his Wits will say that we are bound to do all these Things because the Discipline and Practice of the Church and the Living Members of it have determin'd that all those particulars are now neither Necessary nor Expedient I hope he will give us leave to conclude that we are not bound to give the Communion in both kinds neither Touching the second Proposition The Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ The Doctor is not the only Man who affirms this for I find it in the Works of one or two more of his Brethren upon this Subject But Good God! What may not Men undertake who have the Confidence to give out such Calumnies for Truth 'T is a vulgar Observation but a True one that when Mountebanks pretend most to infallible Cures they are then furthest from them just so 't is with these Gentlemen for there are Mountebanks in Religion as well as in Physick when they pretend most to Evidence and Demonstration in matters of Religion then they have the least Colour or reasonable Pretence to it But the best way to refute this Calumny is to cite the very Words of the Council and then let the Reader judge what Faith is to be given to Men who vend such Impostures for Truth In the * In nomine sanctae individuae Trinitatis Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Amen Licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque Specie Panis Vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante Sacrorum Canorum Authoritas laudabilis aprobata Ecclesiae consuetudo servavit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post Caenam neque a fâ—lelibus recipi non jejunis nisi in casu Infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel ab Ecclesia concesso vel admisso Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost Amen Tho' Christ hath instituted this venerable Sacrament after Supper and hath administred it to his Disciples under both Kinds of Bread and Wine tamen hoc non obstante yet this notwithstanding the Authority of the sacred Canons the Laudable and Approv'd Custom of the Church hath held and doth hold that this Sacrament ought not to be made after Supper nor receiv'd by the Faithful not fasting except in case of Infirmity or some other Necessity approv'd and allow'd by Law or by the Church This is all in this Decree that has any Relation to the Dr's Non obstante And now I appeal to the most partial of our Adversaries whether he had the least Colour or Pretence to what he here suggests There is indeed a Non obstante to the making of this Sacrament after Supper and giving it to those who were not fasting and no more And if this be a sin sure he is not qualified to throw the first Stone at us for it For he and his Brethren are confessedly involv'd in the same Crime seeing they do not make the Sacrament after Supper nor give it to the best of their knowledge to any but such as are fasting As to the third Proposition The Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and exhausted and drain'd of his Blood Hence the Doctor infers that the Sacred Bread which represents his Body under these circumstances cannot be said to contain or exhibit his Blood But methinks he shou'd have prov'd his Postulatum before he wou'd perswade us of the Truth of this Inference For I suppose he was too well acquainted with us to think we shou'd believe it upon his Word That our blessed Lord shed a great deal of His Precious Blood as much as was sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind we readily grant but that His Body was exhausted and drain'd of His Blood so as to have none at all left in it we can by no means assent to If Christ's Body had been drain'd of His Blood He wou'd have died of Weakness and Loss of Blood but the Centurion who it seems was a better Naturalist than the Doctor thought quite otherwise For he concluded from the Force and Vigour wherewith our Blessed Lord gave up the Ghost that he was the Son of God Vere Filius Dei erat iste Nor will it avail the Doctor that when the Souldier pierc'd his side with a Spear there came out Blood and Water For Christ being then dead and
Supplications put up for all Men. Do not we then constitute one another Mediators between God and our selves Does not St. Paul make the Ephesians Mediators between God and himself Most certainly as much as we make the Saints for we only desire the Saints to pray for us and St. Paul desir'd the Ephesians to pray for him and we desire every Day the same thing of our Brethren And do these Mediators derogate from the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ God forbid Ay but says the Doctor the Saints are in Heaven and these Men were on Earth Well and does their being Present or Absent their being in Heaven or on Earth make them the more or less Mediators when they are made such or do the Office of Mediators Is any Man the less a Mediator who sues for the Pardon of an other because he is present or in the same Town or Country with him for whom he sues Sure there is not to use the Doctor 's own Phrase a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down right Imp * Discourse against Transub Vol. 3. p 299. against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the Sense and Reason of Mankind I forbear that uncivil Word the Reader may find it at Length with the Dr. in the place pointed at in the Margin Well! But the Saints are in Heaven What then Why if we desire them to pray for us we make them Mediators But do not the Saints in Heaven pray for us Yes the Dr. grants they do Vol. 2. 2. edit obit pag. 93. They make themselves Mediators then No says he they are not Mediators and Intercessors properly so call'd for continues He all Intercession strictly and properly so call'd is in virtue of a Sacrifice offer'd by him that intercedes Here He pulls down all that He built before and justifies our Practice as fully as we cou'd desire All Intercession strictly and properly so call'd is in virtue of a Sacrifice offer'd by him that intercedes Say you so Why then the Saints can by no means be Mediators or Intercessors properly so call'd whether we desire them to pray for us or they do it of themselves since they did not offer any Sacrifice by virtue whereof they may in a strict and proper sense be called Mediators or Intercessors and then we may desire them to pray for us or they may do it of themselves and yet be no Mediators or Intercessors and consequently not derogate from the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ And thus the Doctor has very judiciously and in my Opinion very truly interpreted St. Paul's Words and justified us into the bargain 2. That in the public and solemnly Service of the Church excepting the Litanies c. as aforesaid we put up no Prayers to Saints or Angels but all our Prayers are address'd to Almighty God and to Jesus Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer This will appear by a thoro ' Examination of those Books wherein the public Service of our Church is contain'd which are the Mass-book and the Breviary the first containing the solemn Service of the Mass and the latter the Canonical Office namely Matins Hours Even-song and Compline And here I can in truth aver that I have read both these Books at least ten Times yet excepting the Litanies the general Confession some few Hymns Anthems and Versicles whereof one or two are read in the Breviary on the Feasts of B V. Mary and other Saints which yet are not properly Prayers and which only mention these Words Pray for us intercede for us or the like I do profess I do not know one single Prayer appointed for the public and solemn Service of the Church in either of them address'd directly to either Saint or Angel or the B. V. Mary As for the Mass-book which is the public Liturgy of the Church excepting the General Confession there is not one Prayer in it aderess'd to any but God-Almighty no not on the Feasts of Saints or of the B. V. Mary no nor in the Book at all excepting this one Versicle which is I think four times read Mother of God intercede for us Which yet is seldom read in any public and solemn Service of the Church and one single Anthem wherein the like Words are found on the Feast of St. Michael And for the Truth of all this I appeal to the Books themselves There is indeed a Little Office of the Virgin Mary annex'd to the Breviary wherein the aforesaid Words Pray for us intercede for us or the like are some nine or ten times repeated in Hymns Anthems and Versicles but this being read neither Publicly nor Privately in the Church Service cannot Reasonably be said to pertain to it Now these two Books are an Extract the Mass-Book of what is most Moving and Ravishing in the Psalms of David of what is most Edifying and Instructive and most sit to declare the Praises of God and to shew his loving Kindness and Mercy to Mankind in the Old Testament and of the most useful and necessary Precepts and Instructions of Faith and Good Manners contain'd in the New suited and adapted to all the Seasons of the Year together with many Devout and Fervent Prayers all tending to praise Almighty God to thank him for His Benefits and Blessings and to implore Mercy and Pardon for our Sins The Breviary of all the Psalms most of the History of the Old Testament a Summary of all the Epistles of the Apostles and the Revelations some Verses of the Gospel of every Feast and Sunday in the Year with the Homilies of the Ancient Fathers of the Church upon these Texts together with a Brief Account of the Lives of the most Eminent Saints and Martyrs that flourish'd in the Church with a great many Pious and Godly Prayers Anthems Hymns and Versicles address'd to God-Almighty and put up in the Name and thro' the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ We do indeed Commemorate the holy Apostles the B. V. Mary and the Saints in the Public Service of the Church because we have sufficient Warrant for it in the Scripture and Practice of the Primitive Church David says the Righteous shall be in Everlasting Remembrance Psal 112. and Dr. Tillotson himself has a Sermon upon this Subject wherein he proves from the Practice of the Fathers and from Reason that it is Lawful to give due Honor and Respect to the Saints but we do not put up any Formal Prayers to them in the public Service And this will appear from the Collects in the Mass-Book and Breviary where their Names are mention'd I will transcribe two or three of them and leave the Reader who desires farther Satisfaction to consult these Books whether all the Rest of the Collects where the Saints are mention'd be not of the same Tenor. A Collect on the Annunciation of the B. V. Mary O God who hast been pleas'd that thy Word shou'd take Flesh in the Womb of the B. V. Mary when
the Angel declar'd it grant us thy humble Petitioners who believe Her to be truly the Mother of God that by Her intercession we may with Thee be assisted thro' the same our Lord Jesus Christ c. Amen A Collect on the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul O God who hast consecrated this Day by the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul grant to thy Church to follow their Example in all things by whom the Religion began thro' our Lord Jesus c. Amen A Collect on the Nativity of St. John Baptist O God who hast Honor'd this Day with the Nativity of St. John give to thy People the Grace of Spiritual Joy and guide the Minds of all the Faithful in the way of eternal Salvation thro' Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen Here you see all these Prayers are address'd to God alone And thus indeed are all the Collects in the Mass-Book and Breviary which I willingly submit to any Man's Tryal ad Paenam libri As to the Office and Litanies of the B. V. Mary which are found in Manuals and read by some R. Catholics there is no Reason to charge them upon the Public Office and Service of the Church since they are not us'd by the Church nor publish'd by public Authority The Church does indeed allow such Prayers to be said as far as they hold within the Compass of meer Intercession because they are founded in the Practice of the Primitive Church and all succeeding Ages But if any of them contain any Terms or Expressions bordering upon the Prerogative of the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ she does as heartily and as earnestly desire they shou'd be abolish'd as any Protestant whatsoever Touching the Rosary or Beads in which the Dr. reproaches us for saying ten Ave Marias for one Pater Noster I believe every one knows the Church obliges no body to say it I am sure there are Millions of R. Catholics who never do Besides there is nothing in the Ave Maria but the very Words of Scripture except these last pray for us now and in the Hour of our Death and if it be a good thing to desire the Mother of God to pray for us sure the oftner we desire it the better it is As to the Disproportion between the Pater Nosters and the Ave Marias I must confess it were something if those who use the Rosary made all their Devotion to consist in it But it is well known that such as say it do to their Power discharge all other Christian Duties at least do pretend to no Exemption upon the Score of their Beads or Rosary from Praying to Almighty God from Adoring and Worshiping Him and giving Him their Humble and Hearty Thanks for his Benefits and Blessings from commemorating the Death and Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and having recourse to the Merits thereof for Mercy and Pardon of their Sins And now when they have endeavour'd to discharge all these Essential Duties where lies the harm if they spend some part of their spare Hours in saying over and above so many Ave Marias especially since they are founded in the Merits of the Death and Passion of our Lord and Saviour in Virtue whereof all Catholics do hope and trust that the Virgin Mary and all the Saints will pray for them Or how can it be counted a Fault to desire the Virgin Mary to do that for us which even the Dr. himself and all the Learned Protestants in the world do acknowledge She and all the Saints in Heaven constantly do tho' we shou'd not ask it of them Now this is plainly the Case All R. Catholics are taught and exhorted by the Church to discharge first their Duty to God to worship and adore him to put up their Prayers to Him to thank him for His Benefits to be sorry for their sins to beg Mercy and Forgiveness thro' the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and when this is done if they will take the Lady's Office or the Litanies of the Saints or the V. Mary or their Beads and beg those great Friends and Favourits of Jesus Christ who shed their Blood and lay down their Lives for the Truth of His Gospel to recommend them to Him and his Heavenly Father is it not better since the mind of Man must always be in Action than spend the Time in Idleness or perhaps in Evil Conversation In a Word these are Devotions which certain Fraternities and Regular Societies have taken upon them to discharge over and above the necessary and Essential Duties of Christianity and which other Catholics to be Partakers of the Prayers of the said Fraternities and Societies do also perform But in saying their Beads they do not always as the Dr. wou'd suggest say ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster For several Fraternities and Catholics say all Pater Nosters without ever an Ave Maria. But of this enough I proceed to shew 3. From the very Words of the Holy Fathers that this Practice of praying to Saints was us'd in the primitive Church St. Ambrose delivers his Thoughts in these Words We ought to pray to the Angels in our own Behalf who are given as a Guard to Vs We ought to pray to the Martyrs whose Bodies remaining with Vs seem to be as it were a Pledge of their Protection Lib de Viduis prope Fin. Gregory Nissen speaks thus to the Martyr St. Theodorus Intercede and Pray for your Country with our Common Lord and King Orat. in St. Theodor. St. Austin We do not Commemorate the Martyrs at the Lord's Table as We do those who die in the Peace of the Church but We do Commemorate them that they may pray for Vs that we may follow their Steps Tract 84. in Joa Again Holy Mary * Note that the Sermon whence this Passage is taken is ascrib'd by some Critics to St. Fulgentius but whether of the two it belongs to it matters not being both Fathers of Great Renown and of the same Age. succour the Distressed help the Pusillanimous cherish those that Mourn pray for the People mediate for the Clergy intercede for the Devout Female Sex let every one perceive thy Assistance who celebrate thy Commemoration Ser. 18. de Sanctis Theodoret We do not address our Selves unto the Martyrs as unto Gods but we pray unto them as Divine Men that they wou'd please to become Legats or Intercessors for us Ser. 8. de Martyr lib. Curat Grae◠Affect The Council of Calcedon Act. 11. has these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Flavianus Liveth after his Death the Martyr will pray for us or as the Translators render it Let the Martyr pray for us it being usual with the Orientals to put the Future Tense for the Imperative Here is a General Council of more than 600 Bishops desiring the Martyr Flavianus to pray for Them This Council was held in the Year 451 and is one of the four first General Councils whose Acts and Decrees the Church of
of our Saviour and the B. Virgin And as some of us now bow towards the Altar and all of us are enjoy'd to do so at the Name of Jesus so will we not fail to testifie all due Respect to this Representation Now we do-likewise declare and have upon all occasions done that we neither mean nor intend to give any more to the Images of Christ or the V. Mary or the Saints but due Honor and Respect But if neither the express Decree of the Council of Trent which commands us to give them no more nor the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition of our Doctrine in which this is so manifestly declar'd nor our own often repeated Protestations to that Effect will prevail upon them to believe us all we can say is that we are sorry for their Incredulity but cannot help it As to those Abuses which this Ingenious Man says have crept in upon Account of Images If there be any such we protest and declare that we abhor and detest them no less than he or any of his Perswasion or to use the Council of Trent's Phrase we earnestly desire they shou'd be intirely abolish'd But sure he was too reasonable to think that the abuse of a thing was a good Argument against the use of it Nor will his Example of Hezekiahis destroying the Brazen Serpent help the matter For he may please to consider that the Children of Israel liv'd in a Country where they were surrounded and as I may say hedg'd in on every side with Idolatry and the Worship of false Gods and not only so but they themselves were very much given to that Worship as appears by the Groves and high Places and Idols set up among them by their wicked Kings and Rulers and which this pious King pull'd down and destroy'd and therefore is deservedly commended in Scripture for breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent to which the People no doubt sacrific'd But blessed be God we have no such thing to fear We have no Idolaters among us nor near us we have no Groves nor high Places nor Idols in the land We do not burn Incense to any false Gods nor worship them We make only the Images and Pictures of the true God and his Saints and it cannot be denied but these same Pictures and Images have been kept in our Churches and have had the same respect given them which we now give at least these nine hundred years and in the Opinion of many learned Protestants for four hundred Years before Yet all this while no Heathen Idolatry was ever introduc'd into the Church upon Account of our Images No Defection from Christianity to Pagan Worship was heard among us So that the Example of Hezekiah is not to the purpose the Parallel is not just we are nothing concern'd in it Besides the Brazen Serpent was a Monument of no such great Moment to be long preserv'd 'T was only kept to put the Children of Israel in mind of the Miraculous Cure of those who were bitten by the Serpents in the Wilderness and when they left that Land and were no more vex'd by these Serpents it was of no great use But the Remembrance of the Death and Passion of our Lord by whom the Sins of the World was taken away and of his Holy Apostles and Saints by whom his Doctrine was propagated and transmitted to us is of that high Importance and Concern to all the World that these Monuments which put us in mind of them ought to be for ever most carefully preserv'd Page 14. As to what he says that in the Hymns for the day of the Invention of the Cross Good-Fryday we desire the Cross to strengthen the Righteous and give Pardon to the Guilty c. And that in the Service on Good-Fryday we say Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it I answer First That Poetical Hymns and Verses have in all Writings a greater Latitude than Prose Secondly That these Expressions are Apostrophes and Exclamations address'd to Jesus Christ upon the Cross whom we represent to our minds as there hanging when we salute the Cross And that this is our meaning whatever the words may import upon any other occasion I think is plain from the Words of the Council of Trent which expresly forbids us to believe that there is any Virtue or Divinity in Images or to demand any thing of them which if we believe as we profess and declare we do it cannot with any colour of Reason be presum'd that we shou'd ask Strength or Pardon of the Wood of the Cross contrary to the express commands of the Council and to the Faith which we profess Touching the Words in the Service on Good-Fridaâ— Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it I am sorry to see so Ingenious a Man and who otherwise professes to be so great a Friend to Sincerity and Truth swerve so manifestly from both in this Point He gives us here an Anthem sung on Good-Fryday maim'd in the middle and added to in the End The Words in the Roman Missal are thus Ecce Lignum Crucis in quo salus mundi pependit Venice Adoremus Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung Come let us adore Here is no It as he adds And sure it is more reasonable and more agreeable to Grammatical Construction to refer the word Adore to Saviour of the World which imediately goes before it than to Wood of the Cross which goes before that And then the sense is plainly this Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung Come let us adore Him And that this and no other is the Sense in which the Roman Catholic Church takes these Words I wonder any Man that ever read the Council of Trent shou'd be ignorant of seeing the Church in that Council has expresly declar'd that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and bow down we adore Christ and reverence the Saints Here is a Crucifix propos'd to us a Representation of Jesus Christ upon Mount Calvary we kiss it and bow to it and when we say Come let us adore we must surely mean come let us adore Christ else we shou'd contradict the express words of the Council I own indeed that we mean likewise by Kissing the Crucifix and bowing to it that day to give it due Honour and Respect and that we make use of the words Crucem Adoramus several Times on Good-Fryday to express the Respect we give it But then we are warranted so to do by the Scripture which uses the same Term to express the Honor exhibited to several Creatures as appears by these Texts Adorem te Filii Matris tuae Let thy Mother's Sons adore Thee says Isaac to his Son Jacob Gen. 27.29 Et omnis Multitudo inclinantes capita adoraverunt Dominum Regem and all the Congregation bowing their Heads ador'd the Lord and the King
are so far from countenancing or abbetting them that it is our earnest wishes and the desire of our Hearts that all such shou'd be intirely abolish'd and taken away We cover no more than that all Christians in Time of Jubileâ—s and Plenary Indulgences shou'd think on their way in the bitterness of their Sâ—als shou'd repent and be sorry for their Sins shou'd have a strong hope and confidence in the Mercy of Almighty God giâ—â— Alâ—â—â— to the Poor and by their 〈◊〉 and servent Prayers dispose themselves 〈◊〉 God is Grace to receive the Indulâ—â—â—â— of Permission of those Canonical Penances which neither the Condition of the Persons nor the Wickedness of the Times nor yet the great Decay of Piety will permit us to require they shou'd fully perform And this we do because we find the same thing practic'd in the best and purest Times of Christianity even in the First Second Third and Fourth Ages especially being warranted by the Word of God who gave to his Church the Power of remitting and retaining Sins And now having found nothing in Dr. Tillotson's Sermons upon this Subject that requires any particular Consideration besides what is here explain'd I shall conclude this Treatise with my Hearty Prayers to the Father of Light that He wou'd be mercifully pleas'd to open the Eyes of our Adversaries that they may see the Innocence and Reasonableness of our Doctrine and give them the Grace to lay seriously to Heart how dangerous it is to reject those Things which the Catholic Church declares to have been deliver'd by Christ and His Apostles Our and Their Creed says I believe the Holy Catholic Church And they own that the Catholic Church before the Reformation did hold and Declare those Things wherein we differ from them to be Truths deliver'd by Christ and His Apostles How then can they believe the Catholic Church when She declares these Things if they do not hold and believe these Things themselves Or how can they in Reason reject them if they believe the Catholic Church which tells them they are Divine Truths But there is yet something more desperate which I beg of Almighty God to give them the Grace to consider Our Saviour saith to His Apostles Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Mat. c. 28.19 20. And St. Mark adds He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be Sav'd but he that believeth not shall be Damn'd Cap. 16.16 Now if those Things which make the Subject of our Dispute be Truths given in charge to the Apostles then our Adversaries are to my great grief I must say it lost for ever For it is not enough according to Christ's own Words to Believe in the Trinity to Believe the Incarnation to believe in the Holy-Ghost to believe Baptism the Eucharist c. But we must believe all Things whatsoever Christ commanded and that on pain of Damnation But if it shou'd happen as no doubt it cannot that the Points in Dispute were not commanded by Christ or His Apostles where is the harm in believing them since we are commanded to do so by the Church which our Creed tells us we must believe Christ our Saviour doth often reproach the Jews for their Incredulity and the Scripture in several places gives us an Account of the Punishment of such as wou'd not believe the Messengers sent by God to declare His Will to them But we do not find that ever He reproach'd any Body for having too much Faith especially when the Things to be believ'd were declar'd to them by the Messengers of God which sure the Bishops and Priests of the Church are On the contrary we read in the Scripture that Christ has upon several Occasions highly commended and extoll'd Men's readiness to believe O Woman Great is thy Faith Mat. 14.28 Where lyes then the Harm of believing Transubstantiation or the Real Presence which are so plainly deliver'd in Scripture Where is the Harm of allowing due Honor and Respect to be given to Saints and of desiring them to pray for us since it is what we do and are commanded to do to one another in this Life If they hear our Prayers and Intercede for us well and good But if they do not what do we loose by it Where is the Harm in praying for our deceas'd Friends Sure we do but declare our pious Affections to them tho' our Prayers had done them no good And where is the Harm in all this How can it hurt any Body to believe that the Church hath Power to give Indulgences that is to Remit all or part of the Temporal Punishment due for Sins since it is plainly exprest in Scripture that Christ gave to His Apostles and the Apostles to their Successors the Power of Remitting and Retaining Sins and that whatsoever they Loose on Earth shall be Loosed in Heaven How can this hurt any Body I say or where lies the Hazard in believing those Things tho' we had not as much assurance of their being Divine Truths as of other Things since they are not contrary to any other Article of our Faith nor to Right Reason or Good Manners But there is Infinit Hazard in not believing them since they have been declar'd by the Church which our Creed and the Scripture command as to believe and hear on pain of being reputed Heathens and Publicans Now that they are Divine Truths besides what is already offer'd to prove each Point in particular We have all the Eastern Churches on our side All the Greek Church together with the Nestorians Euâ—ychians Monothelites the Christians of St. Thomas in a Word all the Oriental Sects of what Denomination soever do Practice and Believe Transubstantiation the Real Presence the Sacrifice of the Mass Seven Sacraments the Use of the Liturgy in a Tongue which the Common People do not understand Invocation of Saints Veneration of Relicks and Images and Prayers for the Dead See the Critical History of the Learn-Father Simon Of the Religion and Customs of the Eastern Churches 'T is done into English printed in London and very much esteem'd by the Learn'd Seeing then that the Latin Church which together with the Greek and other Eastern Churches make up the whole Body of the Christian World and that all these Churches did hold and profess the said Doctrine when the Reformation began and do still hold and believe the same I think I may confidently affirm that it is Catholic and Orthodox I shall therefore once more beg of Almighty God thro' the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and by that Blood which was shed for our Redemption that he wou'd please in His Mercy to Soften the Hearts of our Adversaries and give them Grace to entertain Thoughts of Peace of His Holy Church from which they have so long gone astray To the end that They and We may with one Heart and one Tongue praise and magnifie His Holy Name all the Days of our Lives and when it shall please His Infinite Goodness to call us to Himself that we may meet together at the Resurrection of the Just thro' the Merits of the Death and Passion of our only Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost be Honor and Glory now and for ever Amen FINIS