Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	faith_n	know_v	8,213	5	4.2899	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25225	The additional articles in Pope Pius's creed, no articles of the Christian faith being an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Pope Pius his profession of faith vindicated from novelty in additional articles, and the prospect of popery, taken from that authentick record, with short notes thereupon, defended.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.; Altham, Michael, 1633-1705. Creed of Pope Pius IV, or, A prospect of popery taken from that authentick record.	1688 (1688)	Wing A2931; ESTC R18073	87,445	96

THE Additional Articles IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BEING AN ANSWER To a Late PAMPHLET Intituled Pope PIUS his profession of Faith Vindicated from Novelty in Additional Articles AND The PROSPECT of POPERY taken from that Authentick Record with short NOTES thereupon DEFENDED LONDON Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Whilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacr. Domest Mart. 22. 1677 / 8. THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AMONG those many and great grievances which we complain of in the Church of Rome the Additional Articles of Pope Pius IV. are none of the least We look upon them as Additions to the ancient Faith imposed with great severity and as Novelties introduced into the Church without any Authority But the Vindicator tells us That though we of the Church of England be the most forward yet we of all sorts of Christians have the least reason to condemn this Prelate for this Addition who for XXIV Articles in his Profession have XXXIX in our own If this were true or the Additions were of the same kind this Remarque of his might pass among thinking Men as very considerable But had this Gentleman been so Thinking a person as he would make the World believe he is he would not have been guilty of so great a Blunder he would have seen a vast difference between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion We do not find fault with the Church of Rome or any particular Church or any Society of Men whether Sacred or Civil for making Laws and Rules to govern themselves by or framing Articles upon compliance wherewith they will admit into or acknowledge any one to be a Member of their Society provided they be such as may be complied with without Sin and Danger But we deny that the Church of Rome or any particular Church or the Catholick Church it self hath any Authority to make new Articles of Faith or declare any thing as necessary to be Believed in order to Man's Salvation which was not so antecedent to such Declaration And this I take to be the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and not as the Vindicator states it Whether there be Authority in the Catholick Church of Christ whichsoever it be to make any Addition of Articles to the Apostles Creed and require other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol Upon this mistaken Question the Vindicator proceeds and all along fights with his own shadow nor with us for all that we say is only this That no new Articles of Faith ought to be added to the Apostles Creed but we never denied That other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol may by any Church be required of Her Members Unless therefore the Vindicator do make it appear That new Articles of Faith de jure may be or de facto have been by consent of the Catholick Church added to the Apostles Creed he will not at all impugn the Church of England nor will the Church of Rome be much indebted to him for his Vindication Now whether he doth or hath made this appear will best be seen by taking his Instances into Consideration by which he pretends and endeavours to do it But before I do that it may be convenient to acquaint you what is the just and true differences between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion Articles of Faith I take to be certain Propositions containing such divine Verities as are necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation Articles of Communion I take to be some certain Laws or Rules agreed upon and established by some particular Society of Christians a compliance wherewith is necessary to the admittance of any one as a Member of that Society and an Observance whereof is necessary to the Peace Order and good Government of that Society The former of these are certain Fundamental Verities taught us by God revealed in the holy Scriptures and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed For this we have the Authority of the Trent Catechism * Catech. ad Parochos par 1. Tit. de 12. Symboli Articulis n. 1. and therefore may reasonably suppose that it will not be disowned by those of the Roman Communion And if this be granted then methinks the Consequence is plain That whatsoever is not contained in the Apostles Creed is not to be admitted as an Article of Faith. For there are many Truths revealed by God in holy Scriptures all which when known to be so revealed are necessary to be believed yet are they not all of equal necessity to Salvation and consequently not to be admitted as Articles of Faith in the strict and proper acceptation of the Word The latter are things of a quite different nature respecting principally the Peace Order and good Government of some particular Society necessary to be assented to and observed by all the Members thereof but not by all Christians For there are great Numbers of Ecclesiastical Societies in the World all or most of which have different terms of Communion which the Members of every particular Society are obliged to comply with but the Members of one Society are not under the same Obligation to observe the Constitutions of another as they are to do those of their own The Catholick Church we know is divided into several particular Churches differing in the terms of their Communion and yet none will deny but that the terms of Communion in each particular Church are to be observed in order to those ends before mentioned by the respective Members of those several Churches 'T is true indeed that all those particular Churches are Members of the Catholick Church and do or ought to hold Communion with her in Faith and Worship and upon the same terms with one another But as to what relates to the admitting of Members into or casting them out of their Society they have different terms and always have had without blame and without any the least breach of that general Communion But to bring the Instance a little nearer the Church of Rome which calls her self Catholick hath many particular Societies within her self as the Benedictines the Franciscans the Dominicans the Jesuits c. all which have particular Laws and Rules and those different from one another which are the Bands and Ligaments of their several Societies And yet the Vindicator will not deny but that they are all true Members of the Church and do hold Communion with her and with one another notwithstanding those different terms of Communion among themselves By what hath been said you may easily observe a vast difference between these two sorts of Articles which difference I shall briefly recapitulate to you in these Four particulars

his Creed are neither agreeable to Scripture nor the Sence of the Primitive Fathers And for that reason we cannot subscribe to this last Article THE CLOSE TO close up his Vindication he undertakes to answer some Objections of ours against these New Articles which how well he hath done I shall now examine The Apostles knew best what was to be believed Object since therefore none of these Articles are in their Creed they ought not to be imposed on us as Matters of Faith. To this he answers Answ That the Apostles Creed is a Summary of the principal Mysteries of the Christian Religion but doth not contain all that is of Faith. To this I reply That a thing may be said to be of Faith two ways Reply either absolutely or occasionally 1. Absolutely i. e. in and for its self when by its own nature and God's primary intention it is an essential part of the Gospel such an one as Teachers in the Church cannot without mortal Sin omit to teach the Learners such an one as is intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and Man and not only plainly revealed by God and so a certain Truth but also commanded to be preached to all Men and to be distinctly believed by all and so a necessary Truth Of this kind there are two sorts viz. Such as are necessary to be believed or such as are necessary to be done and of the former of these it is that we speak when we say That the Apostles Creed contains all necessary Matters of Faith. 2. A thing may be said to be of Faith only occasionally i. e. when it is not so in and for its self but because it is joined with others which are necessary to be believed and for the sake of that Authority by which it is delivered Of this sort there are multitudes of Verities contained in the Holy Scriptures as for Instance That Zacharias was a Priest of the Course of Abia that Elizabeth was of the Daughters of Aaron that Cyrenius was Governor of Syria that Pontius Pilate was the Roman Deputy that Paul left his Cloak at Troas These are all Truths and Objects of Faith because they are found in the divine Revelation but they are not such Truths as the Pastors of the Church are bound to teach their Flock or their Flock bound to know and remember For it would be no crime to be ignorant of these or to believe the contrary if I did not know that they were delivered in Holy Scripture When therefore we speak of Matters of Faith contained in the Creed we mean all necessary points of meer Belief and of such we say it is a perfect Summary No saith the Vindicator for it doth not contain all that is in the Scripture and yet all that is there is of Divine Inspiration and of Faith. We grant it but all things that are there are not equally of Faith many of them are not absolute and necessary but only occasional and accidental Objects of Faith as I have already shown As for Baptism and the Lord's Supper we acknowledge them to be great Mysteries of our Religion but they are not points of meer Faith and therefore not within the question That the Scripture is the word of God and that such and such Books are Canonical depends upon another Evidence by which we must be convinc'd that they are so before we can give a rational assent to the Articles of the Creed because they are all taken out of these Books and our belief of them built upon that Authority The Belief therefore of this being necessarily antecedent to the belief of the other it would have been a very absurd and preposterous thing to have made that an Article of our Creed As for the 39 Articles of the Church of England they are propounded only as Articles of Communion not as Articles of Faith and therefore the Objection doth not reach them And as for the Nicene and Athanasian Creed they are only explications of the Apostles Creed and contain the same and no other Faith but what is contained in that This I think may suffice to show That he hath not yet answered that Objection But if the Vindicator desire yet further satisfaction in this point I would recommend to him if he be allowed to read such Books the fourth Chapter of Mr. Chillingworth's Book intituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation and another little Treatise printed at London the last year intituled The Pillar and Ground of Truth All the particulars in this profession were not undoubtedly believed by all Object before the Decrees were made at Trent To this he answers Suppose they were not Answ Neither was the Canon of Scripture which the Church of England receives undoubtedly believed by all in the primitive times This may be allow'd to be a good answer to that Objection Reply but that Objection is his own it is none of ours Our Objection is this That not one of all these twelve new Articles in Pope Pius 's Creed was ever received as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Church And to this he answers nothing There 's no Authority upon Earth can make a new Article of Faith. Object Answ To this he answers That there is an Authority which can declare a thing to be of Faith which was not before expresly so believed by all This we willingly grant but this doth not answer the Objection Reply for we do not question the Church's power to declare a thing to be of Faith which before was dubious or not expresly believed by all But we say That there is no such Authority in the Church as to make that to be of Faith which really was not so before i. e. to make a new Article of Faith. And to this he returns not one word of Answer This Authority can declare only such points Object as may be warranted by Holy Scripture and such as these are the subject of the XXXIX Articles but as for Pope Pius's Creed it is but the Invention of Men. For Answer hereunto he referrs us to what he hath said in his Book Answ wherein he saith he hath shewed That all the Articles of this Creed are founded upon Scripture and the Authority of the most eminent Men in the Primitive Church And farther faith That the XXXIX Articles are not so express in Scripture as these of Pope Pius Whether there be any Truth in the first part of his Answer Reply as he referrs us to his Book so I shall referr you to the Answer given to it in these Papers And to the latter part of his Answer it may be a sufficient Reply to remind him of what he hath been often told That the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England are not propounded as Articles of Faith but as Articles of Communion nor is the Belief of them required of all upon pain of Damnation as these of Pope Pius are and therefore there is not so much danger in our complyance or non-complyance with the one as with the other Whether these Articles of Pope Pius be founded upon Scripture hath been one part of the question between us and therefore for satisfaction in this point I shall refers you to what hath been said upon that Subject on both sides Thus have I considered the Vindicator's Answers to some Objections which he thought fit to encounter with and how well he hath acquitted himself therein I shall now leave it to the ingenuous Reader to judge between us The End.

one word of the Eucharist that not being instituted till two years after or thereabouts Nor doth he there speak of a Corporal eating which is done by the Mouth of the Body but of a Spiritual eating which is done by Faith. For He is there speaking to the Capernaitan Jews who followed him for the Loaves and takes occasion from their gluttonous Appetite to instruct them better to acquaint them with another kind of Food a Celestial Bread of which whosoever eateth liveth eternally and that Bread is Himself And of this it is that he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed And lest they should understand him carnally he closeth up his Discourse with these words The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life v. 63. And that in this sence St. Hilary is here to be understood I do not doubt for in these very words he saith It is so by our Faith i. e. to them that believe and the truth of it will not be denied by any but those who deny the Divinity of Christ i. e. who deny him to be the Bread which came down from Heaven v. 50. For it was not his Flesh and Blood but his Divinity that came down from Heaven But if we should grant that St. Hilary in this discourse had an eye to the Sacrament of the Eucharist as I do believe he had yet doth he very well explain himself and give us to understand that he doth not speak of Bodily but Spiritual Meat not of Corporal but Spiritual eating not of receiving Christ by the Mouth of the Body but by the Mouth of the Soul which is Faith. For in the very same Book that is here quoted he saith Christ is in us not bodily Hilar. in Matth. Can. 30. Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. but by the Mystery of the Sacraments And again We receive Christ truly not substantially but under a Mystery And in another place he speaks of drinking of the Fruit of the Vine Which as St. Chrysostom saith Doth certainly produce Wine not Water And I may add nor Blood. His next Quotation is out of St. Chrysostom l. 3. de Sacerd. where that Holy Father in an Ecstacy crys out O Miracle He that sits above with his Father at the very same instant of time is here in the Hands of all he gives himself to those that are willing to receive him To this I answer That it was usual with the Ancient Fathers by vehement Expressions and Rhetorical Amplifications to ravish the Minds and inflame the Devotions of their Hearers we very well know and that it was as frequent with St. Chrysostom as any other cannot be unknown to any who have been conversant in his Writings I shall only trouble you with one Instance which the Vindicator may find in the same Book which he here quotes Christ is Crucified before our Eyes his Blood gusheth out of his side and streameth and floweth over the Holy Table and the People are therewith made red and bloody Did St. Chrysostom intend to be understood plainly and literally here Surely the Vindicator will not say so nor if he well consider will he think it fit to understand him so in the place by him alledged for if so then must he grant That the People do verily and indeed see Christ's very Body and handle and touch it with their Fingers which some of his own Doctors will be ready to tell him is not only false but a worse Heresie than ever was defended by Berengarius The Miracle therefore which St. Chrysostom here speaks of is not the fleshly or bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament but the wonderful Effects that God worketh in the Faithful in that dreadful time of the Holy Communion wherein the whole Mystery of our Redemption by the Blood of Christ is expressed But if this place of St. Chrysostom doth not so fully express the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist the Vindicator hath another which he thinks will sufficiently do it and that is in his 83. Hom. in Matth. where he saith He that wrought those things at the last Supper is the Author of what is done here We hold but the place of Ministers but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Of what change St. Chrysostom here speaks he himself doth plainly intimate for in the same Homily he immediately adds So is it also in Baptism as if he should have said As in the Sacrament of Baptism the Water is changed from common to sacramental Water so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are changed from common to sacramental Bread and Wine And that he meant only this and not any substantial Change is plain for in the same Homily he saith When he would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine And in another place he saith Chrysost Ep. ad Caesar As the Bread before it is Sanctified is called Bread when by the Intercession of the Priest divine Grace hath sanctified it it loseth the Name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it And in another place he saith If it be dangerous to employ the Holy Vessels about common uses Chrysost in Matth. Opere Imperf Hom. 11. wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contained but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God hath prepared to dwell in By all which we may plainly understand what St. Chrysostom's Thoughts were of a substantial Change or of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist when they were cool and calm and free from any Ecstatical Rapture His next is St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catech. whence he quotes these Words Since therefore Christ himself thus affirms and says of the Bread This is my Body and This is my Blood who can doubt of it and say it is not his Blood No body certainly for in the same sence that Christ said it was so there is no doubt to be made but that it is so i. e. Sacramentally and in a Mystery but here is to be noted that if St. Cyril be to be understood literally he will be no good Evidence for the Vindicator for he doth not say of the Bread it is changed into his Body but it is his Body c. So that according to him the Bread must be Christ's Body and the Cup his Blood which as yet they have not had the confidence to affirm nor indeed will it consist with their notion of Transubstantiation And if it be to be understood Figuratively it will less serve his purpose for then it will import no more than what Tertullian saith Tertul. contra Marcion l. 4. Christ took Bread and made it his Body by saying This is my Body i. e. The Figure of my Body But he further enforceth his Argument saying In Cana of Galilee he once by his sole Will turned Water into Wine which

persons be so Righteous as to be void of all Sin they may no doubt keep all the Commandments But if the Foundation which he builds upon happen to fail him all his Superstructure will fall to the Ground Let us therefore Examine that whether it be firm and good In order whereunto let me premise That there is a Legal and Evangelical Righteousness The former of which consists in a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the whole Law And the latter in a sincere desire and endeavour to keep all God's Commandments The former of these it is not in the power of fallen Man to attain unto And to justifie this Assertion we have good warrant from the Holy Scriptures The wise Soloman in his Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple humbly confesseth There is no Man that sinneth not 1 Kings viij 46. And St. Paul tells us The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin Gal. iij. 22. And St. James saith In many things we offend al Jam. iij. 2. And if we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us saith the Apostle John 1 Ep. c. i. v. 8. I might add many more places of Scripture to this purpose but these may suffice to show us how far it is out of the power of fallen Man to perform a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the Law of God. But the latter viz. an Evangelical Righteousness we acknowledge to be attainable in this Life It is possible for a good Man sincerely to desire and honestly to endeavour to keep all the Commandments of his God and though he fail in the attempt by reason of the corruption and depravation of his Nature yet God for Christ's sake will pardon those Failings and accept of those his honest Endeavours For if there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to that a Man hath and not according to that he hath not saith St. Paul 2 Cor. viij 12 And according to this Notion of Righteousness it is Hierom. ad Ctefiphon Aug. ad Bonifacium l. 3. c. 7. that holy and good Men are said to be Just and Righteous So St. Hierom saith Men are called just not because they are void of all Sin but because in the main they are Vertuous And S. Aug. saith The Vertue that is now in a just Man so far forth is called perfect that it pertaineth to the perfection thereof both in Truth to know and in Humility to confess that it is imperfect And the same St. Aug. in another place saith Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 19 c. 26. Ipsa nostra justitia quamvis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur tamen tanta est in hac vita ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quam perfectione virtutum Our very Righteousness it self is such in this life that it stands rather in the Remission of Sins than in the perfection of Righteousness Thus Job by the Mouth of God himself is stiled A perfect and upright Man one that feared God and eschewed evil Job i. 8. and yet he cursed the day of his Birth c. iij. And thus Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to be both Righteous before God and to walk in all the Commandments and Ordinances blameless i. e. Their Lives and Conversations were so good and vertuous that no Man had any just cause to blame them But that they were without sin doth not appear but the contrary is very manifest for not long after we find Zacharias punished for his Vnbelief Luk. i. 20. His other Scripture Proof which is 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sinneth not will do him no better service than his Former For the same Apostle in the same Epistle c. i. v. 8. saith If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us If therefore the Text by him alledged be so to be understood as if the Regenerate were free from all manner of sin then must he say that St. John and those he speaks of in the other Text were not born of God or else that he contradicts himself in these two places neither of which I presume they will dare to say We must therefore find out another sence of these words which methinks is very obvious Whosoever is born of God sinneth not i. e. He doth not make a trade of sin or he doth not deliberately and on set purpose sin against God. This their own Lyra if he had consulted him would have told him for he saith Lyra in loc That the intention of the Apostle in this place is not to secure the Regenerate from all sin but from that sin unto death of which he speaks v. 16. Thus have I examined his proofs and find them to fall far short of proving what he pretends to prove by them But if I should grant his Proposition which he calls a Definition of the Council to be true yet I do not see how the possibility of keeping the Commandments can thence be inferred All works of the just he saith are not sins What then doth it necessarily follow That it is possible for the Regenerate to keep all the Commandments No surely for though all be not yet if any of them be it will be a sufficient bar to this Inference So St. James thought or else he would not have said Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet faileth in one point he is guilty of all Jam. ij 10. Unless therefore they will understand a possibility of keeping the Commandments Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. in the same sence that St. Austin doth who tells us All the Commandments of God are accounted to be done when that thing that is not done is forgiven I do not see how it can be asserted much less defended And if thus they understand it we shall not quarrel with them about it III. He tells us That the Council hath defin'd That a man justified truly deserves life everlasting by his good works And this he undertakes to prove both by Scripture and the Testimony of St. Austin Before I come particularly to examine his Proofs the force of all which stands in a misunderstanding of the Words Merit and Reward It will be convenient for a more clear decision of the difference between us to state the true notion of those words for Ambiguity of Words often hath been and still is not only the occasion of hot and fierce Disputes among men but of their continuance also That the word Merit is frequently used by the Fathers we own but that they used it in that sence in which the present Church of Rome doth we deny and thence ariseth the difference between us The Holy Fathers understood no more by it than Obtaining or Impetration but the Romanists would now have it to be understood of Earning or Deserving in the way of Condign Wages Bellarm de Justificat l. 5. c. 17. as if there were an

the Eucharist an unbloody Sacrifice i. e. A Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving His last Reserve is St. August who l. 9. Confess c. 13. speaks of his Mother Monica desiring to be remembred at the Altar after her death because she knew that thence was dispens'd the Holy Victim by which was cancelled the Hand-writing which was contrary unto us And Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost where he speaks of a propitiatory Sacrifice and Alms offered for Souls departed and of commemorating the Dead at the Sacrifice and of a Sacrifice being offered for them That Christians did usually meet to celebrate the memorial of Holy Martyrs and others departed in the Faith of Christ and that some kind of prayers were in St. Austin's time used for the dead we deny not But these are not the things in question but whether in the Mass there be offer'd a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead To prove this he produceth these passages of St. Austin wherein he seems to call the Eucharist the holy Victim and the Sacrifice Now what St. Austin meant by these words he himself shall tell you In his Book of Faith he calls it A Sacrifice of Bread and Wine offered in Faith and Charity August ad Petr. Diac. c. 19. and A Commemoration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of the Blood which he shed for us Id. de Civ Dei l. 17. c. 17. And in another place To eat the Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians And again This Flesh and Blood of Christ was promised before his coming Id. contr Faustum l. 20. c. 21. by the resemblance of Sacrifices in the Passion of Christ it was truly exhibited After the Ascention of Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration Id. Epist ad Bonifac 23. And again Was not Christ once sacrificed in his Body and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred sign every day Id. de Civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. And again That which we call a Sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true Sacrifice Thus doth St. Austin explain himself and if thus explain'd the Vindicator can any way avail either himself or his cause by his testimony he hath free liberty so to do I believe and profess That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is a change or conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood which Conversion or Change the Holy Church calls Transubstantiation THIS Doctrine he saith is founded in the express words of Christ who said This is my Body This is my Blood. To this I answer These and the other words of Institution having been considered already and no new matter here offered I shall not need to trouble my self nor the Reader with the Repetition of what hath been already said And this being the only Scripture proof he here alledgeth I shall only referr you to what I have said of it in the foregoing Article and so wait upon the Vindicator to his Authorities The Authorities which he here produceth if they be any thing to his purpose must be acknowledged to be ancient and the Authors of good Credit Whether therefore they will serve the end which he aims at we shall now enquire His first Evidence is St. Ignatius Martyr in Ep. ad Smyrn where speaking of some Hereticks of his time he saith They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and which the Father in his mercy raised again from the dead These words are indeed thus cited by Theodoret Dial. 111. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do not receive the Eucharists and Oblations But in the Copy of this Epistle which is to be seen in the Florentine Library and is generally thought to be the most genuine we find this passage thus worded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They recede or abstain from Eucharists and Prayer But this only by the bye the stress of his Argument lies not in this but in the reason of their recession and refusal which was Because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and was raised again These words at first sight to an unthinking Man may seem to conclude the point but if we consider who they were that refused the Eucharist for this reason it will much abate the force of them That they were Hereticks the Vindicator owns and what their Heresie was Ignatius will tell us They denied Christ to be a perfect Man they held that he had not a true humane but only a fantastical Body That he did not really but in appearance only suffer upon the Cross and rise again from the Dead Against these the holy Martyr in the beginning of this Epistle bends his whole discourse his whole business being to make it appear That Christ was truly born of the Virgin Mary truly baptized of John in Jordan truly suffered under Pontius Pilate and was truly raised again from the Dead Now what wonder is it that those who did believe that he never had any real Body should refuse and reject with scorn his Sacramental Body when offered to them For what Sacrament what Sign what Remembrance what Representation can there possibly be of that which in truth never had any Being The whole importance therefore of these words is only this These Hereticks would not believe the Eucharist to be the Sacramental Body of Christ because they did not believe that ever he had any real Body St. Chrysostome speaking of some such in his time who would not believe that Christ really suffered Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. tells us in what manner they used to convince them When they say How may we know that Christ was offered bringing forth these Mysteries we stop their mouths For if Christ died not whose Sign and Token is this Sacrifice Where he calls the Eucharist a Mystery a Sign and a Token i. e. A Representation of the Death of Christ and in this sence are we to understand the Holy Martyr Ignatius in this place His next witness is St. Hilary l. 8. de Trinit where he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed There 's no place left for doubting of the Reality of his Flesh and Blood for now both by the Profession of Christ himself and by our Faith 't is truly Flesh and truly Blood. Is not this Truth It may indeed not be true to them who deny Christ to be God. To this I answer That the words which St. Hilary here quoteth are in John vi 55. In which whole Chapter our Saviour speaketh not