Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	faith_n	justify_v	object_n	1,744	5	9.2095	5	false

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

they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he

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.

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

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

one kind after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And in his Book of Sacraments he hath these expressions In eating and drinking we signifie that Flesh and Blood which were offered for us Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4 5. And l. 6. 1. Thou receivest the Sacrament in a similitude It is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thou drinkest the likeness of his precious Blood. And again Bread and Wine remain still the same thing they were before and yet are changed into another thing i. e. They are the same things really and in substance but another thing Sacramentally and in signification As to his last Authority taken from St. Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Coloss Though there be some Rhetorical aggravations the like whereunto may be found in other of the Fathers some of which I have given you an account of yet do I not see that any thing more is design'd by St. Cyril in this place than only to assure us of Christ's real but Spiritual presence in this Sacrament For that he never dreamt of any real and substantial change of the Elements therein is plain from his own words in another place where he saith * Cyril in Johan l. 4. c. 24. Christ gave to his believing Disciples pieces of Bread not pieces of his Body And again † Id. Ad Object Theodor. Our Sacrament doth not assert the eating of a Man i. e. Flesh and Blood that were to draw the minds of the Believers in an irreligious manner to gross cogitations I confess also That under one kind alone is received Christ whole and entire that being a true Sacrament THIS he tells us is a consequence of what is declared above and if so then must they stand and fall together If the foundation be defective the Superstructure is in danger If the Antecedent be false the Consequence can scarce be true Having therefore throughly sifted and examined the preceeding Article and found no Foundation upon which to build our Faith that there is any such real and substantial change wrought in the Elements of the sacred Eucharist after Consecration as is there pretended nor any reason to receive their monstrous and new invented Article of Transubstantiation into the Articles of our Creed we may justly reject this which he calls a consequence thereof But to shew that we have other reasons besides the inconsequence thereof to reject this Article as a Sacrilegious robbing of the People of one half of the sacred Eucharist let us consider the Institution of it and the constant practice of the Church thereupon If we consider the Institution we shall there find that our blessed Saviour in words as plain as possible did institute his Holy Supper under both kinds we may also find that as he did institute it so likewise he did administer it under both kinds we may also observe that He who said to his Disciples Take eat did also say unto them Drink ye all of this and in the close of all he leaves this word of command with them This do in remembrance of me as if he should have said what you have seen me do the same do ye And it is evident by the Apostles practice hereupon that they understood this to be the meaning of their Master And that this was not to remain a duty only during their time but in all after Ages of the Church St. Paul is very plain saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup 1 Cor. xi 26. ye shew forth the Lords death till he come And as for the practice of the Church thereupon it is very evident that for above a thousand years after Christ the Eucharist was always administred in both kinds So that if we have any regard either to the Institution or Example or Command of Christ or to the Practice of the Apostles or of the Church of Christ for so many Ages we have great reason to reject this Article as a great Novelty And indeed so it is for the first Foundation of it as a thing necessary to be believed and practised is laid in a Decree of the Council of Constance in the year of our Lord 1416. But the Vindicator will tell us that we are mistaken here for he pretends to find some footsteps of it in the Scriptures and for this alledgeth certain passages out of the sixth Chapter of St. John where our Saviour speaks sometimes both of Eating and Drinking and sometimes of Eating only To this I answer That our Blessed Saviour in that place doth not speak any thing of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but only of a Spiritual feeding upon him by Faith. For when he held that conference with the Capernaitan Jews this Sacrament was not then instituted nor of two years after and therefore no conclusive Argument can be built thereupon But he urgeth us with the Authority of St. Basil in his Epistle ad Caesar Patr. where he saith he finds these words It hath the same efficacy whether a person receives from the Priest one part or more Whether these be the words of St. Basil or how truly they are transcrib'd I have not the opportunity now to examine but admitting for the present that they are what is all this to the denying of the Cup to the Laity and forbidding the Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds under so severe a penalty But I find St. Basil cited by Johannes Gerhardus for a quite different purpose Johan Gerhard de Sacra Coena c 9. §. 43. Basil l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. for he brings him in speaking on this wise If he who by eating offends his Brother be void of Charity what shall be said of him who dares idly and unprofitably both eat the Body and drink the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ And again What is the duty of a Christian Id. in Moralib sub finem Let him cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit and so let him eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ But at last he urgeth us with the opinion of Luther Melancthon and Spalatensis That in this point Christ hath left no necessary precept but that it may profitably and lawfully be received under one or both kinds To this I answer 1. That our Faith is not founded upon Luther's or any other Man's assertion but upon the Institution of Jesus Christ 2. That Luther wrote his Epistle to the Bohemians before he was fully grounded in the truth and that afterwards he did retract according to the example of St. Austin many things that he had written To this end you may find him begging and beseeching his Reader to read his former writings with pity and commiseration In praefat Tom. 1. Before all things I pray and beseech the godly Reader and I beseech him for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake that he would read these my writings with judgment yea and with great pity remembring