Eliensis Respon ad Apol. Bel. pag. 7. Garnet openly confessed and therefore though they stande obliged to believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated some where or other at some time or other by some Priest or other yet they think no man is obliged to believe that any Priest now or at any one certain time does consecrate effectively And this concession is not very liberal if we consider what is acknowledged by Suarez b Multae sut causae propter quas potest accidere ut Christus non sit praesens ut si sacerdos non sit baptizatus vel non sit ritè ordinatus quod pendet ex multis aliis causis quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus ut ex parte materiae saepe accidit defectus Suarez in 3 Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65.2 That we may almost infinitely proceed in the enumeration of the defects which will obstruct Christs presence in the Holy Sacrament For as we are informed by the Roman Missal if the c Si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsâ consecratione requiruntur Verba autem consecrationis quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti sunt haec hoc est enim corpus meum hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti misterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum Si quis autem aliquid diminueret vel immutaret de forma consecrationis corporis sanguinis in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent non Conficeret sacramentum Miss Rom. de Defec Miss p. 35. Priest happen to diminish or alter any of the words of Consecration so that the sense be varied or any word belonging to the form of Consecration be ontitted in all these cases Christ is not present in the Sacrament but it remaineth Bread now since the form of Consecration of the Cup containeth 11 words and so is the more subject to diminution or alteration seeing the Priest doth always speak the words of Consecration in a d Si quis dixerit Ecclesiae R. ritum quo submissa voce pars canonis verba consecrationis proseruntu◠damnandum esse aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere anathema sit Concil Trid Sess 22. Can. 9. secret voice and not to be heard and in the Latine Tongue none of the People can be certain that he speaks the words of Consecration so fully and so regularly as to secure them from Worshipping a piece of Bread Secondly e Si panis non sit triticeus vel si triticeus sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tanta quan titate ut non maneat panis triticeus vel sit alioqui corruptus non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. pag. 34. If the Bread be corrupted or if it be not Wheaten-Bread then is it not converted into Christs Body and if the Wine be sowre or turned into Vinegar if it be made of unripe Grapes if it be mixt with so much Water as will corrupt the Wine then is it not converted into the Blood of Christ Now by what means the person that adores the Sacrament can be assured that the Bread and Wine is subject unto none of these defects it is not easie to conceive f Si vinum sit factum pe nitus acetum vel penitus putridum vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expessum vel admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. Thirdly g Siquis non intendit conficere sed delusorie aliquid agere non consecrat quiarequiritur inten tio ibid. P. 35.36 If the Priest have uo intention to consecrate the Bread and Wine if in this matter he acts dilusorily if he be asecret Atheist a Moor a Jew in all these cases the person Worshiping must give Latria to a Creature if none of all this happen yet h Quicquid horum deficit scilicet mat eria debita for ma cum intentione ordo Sacerdotalis in conficiente non consicitur Sacramentum ib. p. 34. if the Consecrated Priest were not Baptized with due form of words or if the Person that Baptized him doth not intend to do as the Church doth if he be not a Priest which often happens saith Pope * In quaest quodlib quaest 3. Adrian and certainly falls out when he that doth Ordain him doth noth not intend to do so or faultreth by diminution of or by addition to the form of Ordination so that the sence is changed or made imperefct or lastly if the Bishop that Ordain'd this Priest that doth now Consecrate were not himself Ordained and Baptized with due matter form and intention or if this happened to any Priest to Bishop before him or any one in the same Line of Ordainers till you come unto St. Peter that is if this hath happen'd out in sixteen hundred years then will the Elements remain still Bread and Wine as wanting Consecration by a real Priest for Baptism and Ordination being necessary requisites to Priesthood he who by the defect of these is only a supposed Priest can give but a supposed Priesthood and they that do receive their Priesthood or do derive it from such as have received it from them can receive nothing but a shadow it being undeniably certain that the unsupplyable defect of any necessary antecedent doth cause a nullity in all those consequences which depend upon it So that no R. Catholick can be assured he doth not Worship Bread without he can have no assurance there being no necessity that they should be true From the consideration of all these defects it is exceeding evident That all that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome and daily practice the adoration of the Host are unavoidably subjected to the continual peril of Idolatry and have just reason to suspect although the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should in the general be certain that the material object of their Worship is but Bread and Wine On this Objection T. G. reflects with so much insolence and triumph as if it were the vainest scruple that a tongue could utter and had been managed by the Dr. with the greatest weakness And yet so little reason had he to be thus insolent and pert that by his first reply unto it he hath quite overthrown the Roman Cause and given all considering persons such a clear convincing motive to desert the Church of Rome that nothing can be more prevailing For thus he speaks The absurdness of the assertion that another mans defect and wickedness should make me incur the Crime of Idolatry whether I will or no might suffice to make any reasonable man depose so Chimerical a seruple This I confess is a most clear and certain truth that it is infinitely absurd to say I should be guilty of so great a Crime only by reason of anothers fault or wickedness But then it must
p. 87. wicked think and are a killing Letter and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sence And we are informed by l Horum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati ca autem immanitas coepit a Simone Mago ut Narrat Clem. de rebus geftis Petri qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis ipsius sanguinem c. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst in haec verba Minuc infans farre contectus ut decipiat incautos apponitur Wowerius out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians Quintilians and others who mixt the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread had its first rise from Simon Magus misunderstanding those very words of John except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. Now if this oral manducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repugnant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it can we suppose it would pass down so glib not only with the Jewish but all the Gentile converts and yet we do not find that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians that they were Canibals on this account or that they did devour humane Flesh When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradition and so received by the Church of Christ could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a killing Letter and the injunction of the greatest wickedness could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood or could those Hereticks have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christs Blood But then if we conceive this person we thus devour to be also God and therefore look upon this action as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devouring of our God and Maker it is so full of horrour scandal and amazament that nothing can be more for what this Doctrine doth assert was in the judgment of the a Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse de natura Deorum C. 3. Orator such an incredible madness as humane nature never could be guilty of And Averroes upon this single score pronounceth that b Qui dicit se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire cujus sectatores suum quem colunt Deum denibus discerpunt devorant Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973. among all Religious Sects the Christians were the worst and most ridiculous because that God they Worshipped they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahumetan can cast upon us we are by them reproached as d Christianos atrociores esse in Christum quam Judaeos ait Akmed Ben. Edris Mahummed hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse illos vero carnem ejus edere sanguinem bibere quod ipsa expeperientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat V. Hotting Apol. de Luch §. 14. p. 220. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devourers of our God and they are wont to say that by thus eating of his Flesh we use him worse then did the Jews that Crucified him The ancient Fathers do agree in these with Cicero and Averroes and say with them That to adore what we do eat is the extreamest sottishness and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions and of the Gods they Worshiped that what they Worshiped they did also Sacrifice and that they did devour him whom they adored as Tatian and Minutius suggest And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations Theodoret also doth affirm That e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest 55. in Genesin God foreseeing Men would fall to such extremity of madness as to Worship Beasts the better to restrain that Wickedness did suffer us to eat them which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry because saith he it is the evtreamest of all folly to Worship what we Eat He again adds That f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. God divided Beasts into clean and unclean that Men abhorring what they judged unclean and eating what they called clean might Worship neither for can any Man of sense saith he f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. conceive that to be God which he abominates as unclean or which he offers to the true God and himself doth Eat Thirdly he adds That God enjoyned the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Creatures which the Aegyptians Worshiped as Gods Serm. 7. de Sacrif To. 4. P. 585. that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice and not be guilty of such extream stupidity and folly as to conceive them to be Gods Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ it must have given greater scandal and been a fitter matter of reproach to Christians then was the scandal of the Cross and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal as that other of the Cross The Jews and Heathens who cast this always in their Dish That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross would not have stuck to load them with this more hainous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore at least when this was frequently objected to them as the extreamest madness they must have presently retorted That you Christians confessedly do the same your God is also deemed your Sacrifice and you do first adore and then devour him The ancient Fathers of the Church who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they payed unto a Crucified Saviour would surely have afforded some Apology for that which in the Judgment of Heathens Turks and Christians seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find that Christs Disciples or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal since no malitious Jew or subtile Gentile did in the least accuse the Christians of what they all conceived a crime so monstrous although they were not wanting to seek occasions of reproach against them and to divulge false stories of them and were particularly upbraided with doing what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them must be the Christians constant practice Lastly Seeing the
there the likeness of Wine and yet no Wine so Christ whilst he conversed in the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the similitude of Man but yet no Man If you should urge against them sence and reason they will answer with T. G. Christianity hath taught them to renounce them or if you urge against them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a Body they may answer it was in Scripture called a Body because it seemed to be so For this is that very answer which R. Catholicks do give to all those places of of Scripture which say the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine But Chrysostom and Cyril seem to say §. 6. we must not in this matter trust the Judgment of our our Sences Hom. 82. The words of Chrysostom are these Let us obey God in all things and not gainsay him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and our Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us then our thoughts or sight And let us behave our selves in the Mysteries not beholding only those things which lye before us but holding fast his words For his Word is infallible but our sences are easie to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therefore the word saith this is my Body let us obey and believe and behold him with the Eyes of our understanding Answ These words are Hyberbolical and high but must be soberly interpreted viz. That we must not finally resolve all into Sence but we must certainly believe that howsoever the Sences do perceive nothing but common ordinary Bread and Wine yet by Gods power they are changed into a supernatural use and operation and that by those sensible things spiritual blessings are conveighed unto us That this is the true sence of this expression and that it cannot be designed to intimate the change of Bread into Christs Body so that the accidents of Bread alone remain is evident First from the words immediately following g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 82. in Matt. p. 513. l. 41. For Christ delivered to us nothing sensible but by things sensible things which are intelligible for so it is in Baptism by thing sensible viz. Water the gift to wit Regeneration and Renovation is performed Where note I That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the intelligible thing conveighed in the Sacrament is said to be conveighed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by things sensible i.e. by such things sensible as Water Wherefore the things sensible are no more Transubstantiated then is that Element in Baptism Secondly the thing intelligible or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by Baptism makes but an accidental change a renovation consisting not in the conversion of the nature but in the addition of Grace to Nature So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by this holy Sacrament must not impart the Transubstantiated Bread but Bread converted in its use and operation by the addition of Spiritual Grace And therefore what he here declareth touching the Holy Eucharist he elsewhere doth apply to Baptism in these words let us believe Gods word for it is more certain then our sight for the sight is oftentimes deceived whereas Gods word can never fail And speaking of the poor he saith when we are charitable to them let us be so affected as is we gave to Christ himself for his words are more certain then our sight So that we may from these expressions with equal reason argue that the Baptismal Water is Tran. substantiated and that the poor man is truly changed into Christ as that the Sacramental Signes are changed into his Body and his Blood This is apparent Secondly from what he doth affirm of all good Christians viz. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 B. l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 513. l 21. That their Tongues are red with the Blood of Christ that they are nourished and so mixed with him that they are Christs own Flesh and Body ' and that the whole multitude is the Body of Christ Thirdly from what he adds of wicked Men viz. 1. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 27. That Christ doth not give his Body to them by the Mysteries which is impossible if both the Bread and Wine contain his Body And Secondly That the Table and the place which they resort to is l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 38. that same very Table and that same very upper room in which Christ with his own Disciples did eat the Passeover viz. because it doth contain the same Spiritual Viands And therefore may he not be thought to say his Sacramental Body is indeed the same which suffered on the Cross because it doth conveigh unto us the same Blessings which he purchased by it Hence in this Homily he doth not only call the Bread and Wine * P. 510. l. 36. the Symbols of Christs Body but he confutes the Encratitae by asserting that in those Holy Mysteries our Lord delivered Wine i.e. the fruit of the Grape The words of Cyril Catech. Myst p. 237 238. viz. Consider this is not meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to the words ef Christ himself And although sence do suggest this to thee viz. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Bread yet let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the thing by thy tast but know and hold for most certain that this Bread which is seen of us is not Bread though the tast judge it to be Bread but the Body of Christ and that the Wine which is seen by us although it seem Wine to the sence of tasting notwithstanding is not Wine but the Blood of Christ I say these words if we consider well the context cannot admit of any other sence then that which we have given to the words of Chrysostom For 1. he doth expressly tell us that Christ pronounced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cotech Myst 4. p. 237. D. the Bread this is my Body and immediately before these words he gives this caution look not upon these things as upon common Bread and Wine Now even Romanists themselves confess n Beharm de Ench. l. 1. c. 1. l. 3. c. 19. that if the words this is my Body did make this sence This Bread is my Body this Sentence must either be taken tropically that Bread may be the Body of Christ significatively or else it is plainly absurd and impossible for it cannot be that Bread should be the Body of Christ It is the nature of this Verb Substantive Est or Is saith * Tom. 7. c. 20. Salmeron that as often as it joineth and coupleth togehter things of divers natures which by the Latines are termed Disparata there we must of necessity run to a Figure and Trope And therefore should we
not the truth Wherefore Gaudentius doth argue a majori thus he that made Water to be substantially Wine can certainly make Wine to become Sacramentally his Blood T. G. p. 507. We must be told that St. Ignatius confesseth Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffered for our Sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2. But then we must not know that this Epistle is intended against the Simonians and Menandrians who held that Christ suffered only in appearance had no real Flesh therefore could not confess that the Eucharist was Sacramentally Christs flesh least admitting the figure they should be forced to admit the truth and substance and therefore his Interpolater disputes against them thus V. usher Not. in Epist ad Smyr p. 50 That incorporeal things have neither shape nor character nor figure of a Living Creature that hath form which may be seen whereas when Christ shall come to Judgment they who have pierced shall see him Secondly We confess the Eucharist to be Christs Body and his Flesh and only do dispute the manner how of which Ignatius saith nothing We do acknowledge that it is truly and indeed Christs flesh and Blood as knowing that it may be truly what it is Spiritually for Christ is the true Vine Job 15.1 Joh. 1.8 Heb. 8.2 Luk. 16.12 and the true Light Heaven is called the true Tabernacle and Spiritual Blessings the true Riches and of this we have innumerable instances both from the Fathers and the Church of Rome produced by Albertinus de Sacramento Euch. p. 218. 854. Moreover it is objected T. G. p. 306. Orat. Mag. Catec c. 37 that Gregorius Nyssen doth affirm That he believes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The Bread Sanctisied by the Word of God to be transmuted into the body of the word Answ True but then it is as true that this transmutation may be as well by the addition of Grace to Nature as by the substantial mutation of that nature it being evident from the abundant testimonies of Bafil Vid. Alb. de Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 487. Nazianzen Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and transmutari are terms indifferently used as well of a mutation which only doth respect the qualities States and conditions of the Subject as the nature of it and of this we have many instances in the undoubted works of Gregory Who tells us That the Soul made virtuous is a In Inscr Psal c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transmuted and that b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cant. Hom 8. Regeneration is a transmutation of it into that which is Divine and that c ibid. Hom. 9. when we appear in Glory we shall undergo this transmutation nay in this very place he twice asserts That the mortal Body of Christ being received into our body doth change our body into its self or its own nature d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. So then these words cannot infer That the Sacramental Bread and Wine receive by Consecration any other change He tells us further that the virtue of the benediction doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 change or transelement the nature of things which do appear Answ This word is also used ordinarily to signifie not any change of substance but of qualities and virtues only and of this kind you have in Albertinus many instances produced l. 2. p. 488 of which no less then twenty are cited from Gregorius Nyssen declaring that by Regeneration and Baptism we are transelemented or changed to a Spiritual Nature and that the Resurrection will thus transelement and change our Natures So that it may with equal reason be concluded from this word that in Baptism our Natures are Transubstantiated as that the nature of the Eucharistical Bread is changed into Christs real and substantial body And so much for that spurious or doubtful passage of Gregorius Nyssen The passage cited from St. Cyril saith T. G. p. 306. That our Saviour sometime changed Water into Wine and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood But then the same St. Cyril doth also say Catech. 2. he who raised Lazarus when four dayes dead can he not much more easily raise thee viz. from a death of Sin unto a life of Righteousness who dost live and breath And again Catech. 4. the rod of Moses was changed by the will of God into the dissentaneous nature of a Serpent and shall not dead Man be restored unto himself again And both Ambrose and St. e Serm. 12. ex 40 a Sirmundo editis Austin do argue from the conversion of Water into Wine That God can change our mortal into immortal Glorious bodies If then it be ridiculous from any of these passages to argue a substantial change wrought in us by Regeneration or the Resurrection it must be also vain to argue a substantial change from the like instance used to illustrate the change which is by Consecration made upon the Eucharistick Symbols 2 The words immediately preceding do clearly evidence that Cyril argues a majori For saith he If God could make this change from Water into Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. 4. Myst shall it not much more be confessed that he doth give us the fruition of his Body and his Blood whereas had he conceived the mutation of the Eucharistick Symbols to have been equal to the change of Water into Wine that phrase had been improper and absurd for of two equal changes it cannot reasonably be affirmed he that is able to perform the one is much more able to perform the other 3 I have already largely proved that Cyril here intended only an accidental change and shall yet further make it evident from two considerations 1. That in the following Catechism he speaks thus we pray unto the God of Mercies * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would send his Spirit into the things that lye before us and would make the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood For whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is sanctified and changed not that it is substantially changed for he affirmeth of the Baptismal Oyl and Water that they are Sanctified by the Holy Spirit And yet no Romanist will hence infer that they do not retain the nature both of Oyl and Water 2. In his first Catechism he affirms that as the Eucharistick Bread and Wine before the Consecration remains meer Bread and Wine but afterwards is made the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After like manner truly are the meaâ—â— used in the Pomps of Satan in themselves pure or simple but by invocation of the Daemons they are made impure As therefore the mutation of these meats is only a mutation of their qualities not of the substance of them so must the change of Bread and Wine with which it is compared and equalled be
supposed to be In fine P. 2â— to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more then our sences and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholicks he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like unto the fleshly Image or the invisible Deity or the Characters of his Members for this is of a round form and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Answ by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius we are like to see and others to know nothing but the detestable fraud and falshood of T. G. For Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him That who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace But his words are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Anch. p. 60 He that believeth not that Christ is true doth fall from Grace Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christs words may yet believe that Christ is true in all his sayings as much as they from whom he differs Secondly had he considered well the context he would have found this passage is a strong argument against him For Epiphanius in this very Section affirmeth Man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in a similitude or figure but not according to nature for saith he men have not the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equally and yet what God hath constituted we will not substract * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. for he is true who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him and we have many like examples and then immediately follows the example of the Eucharist Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this That we are like unto God after his Image but yet not according to nature even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Image or representment not according to nature Thridly St. Epiphanius affirms that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine this is mine his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum panem Petav. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now since that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things Christ took and blessed confessedly were Bread and Wine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth answer to them must be so I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers but I have chosen only to answer what the very places did suggest that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited or else did chuse to cite them though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them and to convince the Reader that the Judgment of the Fathers must be clearly for us seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine We have now done with his Fathers and briefly shall consider what he hath to â—ay from Protestants And thus he begins P. 299. That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Vniversal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600 years ago is scarcely denied by any I know of Answ One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton in the Treatise of the Mass Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3 4. A.D. 1159 Where we have this confession of Peter Lumbard Master of the Sentences whether the conversion be substantial or not I am not able to determine And Scotus affirming a Si quaeratur qualis sit conversio viz. panis in Eucharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non sufficio Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct 11. Lit. a. that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran And Suarez saying that some School-men held that Transubstantiation was not very ancient Scotus to wit and Gabriel Biel among others And Erasmus that it was but lately determined in the Church And lastly Cardinal Perroon who did not look upon it as b Scotus dicit ante consilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 23. ss sed tamen c In Synaxiserò definivit Ecclesia Transubsiantiationem diâ—iatis erat credere sub pane quocunque modo adesse verum CoÌ„rpus Christi Erasm in 1. Cor. 7. p. 373. a thing very commendable to oppugne the received Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ asserts Card. Perroon En. Sa. Hâ—rrang Autiâ—rs Estates p. 33 De Christ Eccles Suc câ—â—s p. 19 208. That if it had not been for the Council of Laterane it might be now lawful to oppugne it Pious and Learned Bishop Vsher shews out of ancient and authentick Records That after the times of Berengarius many continued even there where Satan had his Throne who privately employed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited T.G. p. 301. for they only do confess that St. Ignatius said what we all grant what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine as we have already proved p. 300. Perkins is also falsly and impertinently cited for he doth not affirm that this particular Heresie of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years Nay he expresly doth assert That it was not concluded in the days of Lumbard Problem p. 155 156 nor then received as an Article of Faith and that for a whole thousand years the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen T.G. p. 301. Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation is a notorious falshood what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian p. 58. is most expresly for the contrary and of Origen p. 260. they speak thus recte in Caena Domini sub pane vino sumi asserit corpus sanguinem Domini i.e. Origen rightly doth assert that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine we take the body and blood of Christ What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Authour precationis primae Praepar ad Missam which is a spurious piece as they themselves have noted from Erasmus Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit The true Ambrosius is reckoned among the Fathers that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Camerarius I can say nothing because I know not where to
tenuisti Idem Tract 50. in Joh. T. eod p. 358 371. thou hast Christ present by faith and in the sign by the Sacrament of Baptism and the meat and drink of the Altar According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples me you shall not have alwayes how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there †send thy faith and thou dost hold him To conclude the Fathers po expresly say that Christ pronounced of the Bread this is my body and of the Wine this is my Blood which say the R. Doctors had our Lord affirmed we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically For proof hereof B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. § 6 behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierom Ambrose Agustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore thirteen to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech 1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57 The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body The second Christ to have called Bread his body Third that Christs speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that that which he brake was Bread The fifth 2. Christus panem corpuâ— suum appellat Tertullianus adv Judeos that it was Bread which he brake The sixth that it was Bread of the Lord not Bread the Lord. The seventh that the words my Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread this is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds 3 Nec matteria panis est sed super illum dâ—ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat 15. illustrates the matter thus So saith he did Christ call his Body Bread as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat except the grain of Wheat die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the consecrated Bread this is my 4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris Hieron Ep. ad Helvid Qu. 2. 5. Panem fractum tradidit disâ—lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc c. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacrament cap. 5. 6. Judas manducavit panem Domini c. Augustinus Tract 59. in Joh. Cyril Hieros 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 4 p 528. 8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum c. Cyril Alez Catech. 4 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8. 10. Gaudent tract de rat sacra Body The eleventh 11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that he blessed Wine when he said drink and the last the Bread strengthning mans Body was therefore called the Body of Christ To these citations add that of Cyprian and †Theophilus the Lord calleth Bread his Body which is made up of many grains 12. Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian or †Ammonius having taken the Bread then afterward the cup of Wine and testified it to be his Body and Blood 13. Panis quia confirmat corpus ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur I st dor l. 1. de officiis cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death That also of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1 T. 4 p 17 Theodoret that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body and that which was mixt his blood And as if this was beyond all dispute he puts this question to the Heretique * ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑΠId. ibid. knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body and makes him answer yea I know it By all which passages a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said this Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood b In Evan l 1 p 152 L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit c. Ammon Harmon Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body to be Metaphorical and figurative as any Protestant now doth note also by the way that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor for saying they believe Bread to be God for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable to no exception since they import this only that the Romanist believes that to be a God which we believe is Bread and to one of that perswasion the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith but to proceed To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils The first is that of Carthage held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops whereof St. Austin and Aurelius were two which thus decrees that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. Eccles Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. as also the Lord commanded it that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water The second is that of Trull whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water because Bread is the figure of the Lords body and the Wine a figure of his blood c In Can. 40. Concil Carthag p. 426 427. Zonaras saith the same In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Image of Christ and the true Image of his natural body and the Image of his flesh given by God And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day before they did receive the Sacrament where we have these words viz. * Aeifrick Saxon Homily v.
Romana Ecclesia casura interitura penitus videri potuisset tot improbis sceleratis impudicis Praedonibus invasorbus sanguinariis grassatoribus hoc seculo ut audisti sedem Apostolicam invadentibus Cbron. 1000. Tenth and c Cent. 11. Quam tunc deploratus fuerit status Ecclesiae ferme monstro simillimus cernere licet apud sigebertum Vincent Antoni sacerdotes crant moribus depravatissim is propterea ipsi res sacrae populo contemptibiles quilibet ex plebe audebat de sacris mysteriis disputare Sacramenta etiam ab Infantibus turpiter tractabantur in extremo vitae viaticum Dominicum contemnebatur decimae presbyteris debitae igne cremabantur Corpus domini saepe pedibus conculcabatur sanguis effundebatur multaque alia scclera in Ecclesia patrabantur Genebrard Chron. 1079. Eleventh Ages The Priests and Bishops of the Roman Church were so abominably wicked that Tongue cannot express sufficiently their vileness that by their own confession 50 succeeding Popes were rather Devils and Apostates than Apostolick Persons that their Sacrificators were d Sacrificuli principibus a Deo datis non solum non parendum esse verum etiam fraude vi quov is modo tollendos populum Christianum docere audent per juria homicidia civilia bella caedes perfidiam pietatem vocant fidem frangentes faedera dissolventes pactum praevaricantes juramentum vjolantes perfidos atque perjuros non esse sibi credi postulant Quin cos qui fideles sunt qui rebellionem incendia facere stup a incestus committere praedas agitare proximos opprimere occidere compilaâ—e sanguinem Christianum effundere summopere cavent in numero sceleratorum atque impiorum computant c. Aventinus Annal. Bojar lib. 5 pag. 591. Antichrists Magicians Invaders of the holy Function guilty of Simony and Perjury Monsters and Prodigies of vice and that on those accounts the Ages mentioned are called the unhappy and the most desperate times wherein the very e Praefari aliquid necessarium duximus ne quid scandali pusillus auimo pateatur si quando videre contigerit abominationem desolationis in Templo Baron a An. 900. Abomination of Desolation had usurped the Temple If we consider that their ignorance was so exceeding great that f Multo jam Tempore indoluit paternitas tua tantam in Ecelesia Dei invalescere inscitiam atque tam Crassam corum qui Sancto ministrant altari divinas ex officio personant laudes ignorantiam ut rari admodum inveniantur qui exactè integrè quae legunt aut canunt intelligant aut corum quae ore expromunt sensum capiant aut rectam teneant percipiantve sententiam Clichto v. preâ—at Elucidat Eccles vid. Nich. de Cleman p. 16. Hotting de necess Reform p. 65. few knew what it was they read I say if these things be impartially considered it must be highly probable to men of ordinary reason that if the forementioned defects do certainly obstruct the Sacrament of Ordination there is not any Priest now living in the whole Church of Rome This answer also shews that all his other instances are also wretchedly impertinent and therefore cannot possibly deserve to be particularly considered Were it most certain that every particular Host were duly Consecrated Prop. 4. Sect. 4. and certainly contained Christs real Body yet have we no good warrant upon that supposition to Adore it with Latria P. 127. For as the Dr. excellently argues the reason of all Adoration given to the Sacrament is this that Christ hath said this is my Body which words if they imply Transubstantiation cannot be understood of any other change than of the Bread into Christs Body and if this sense were to be put upon them why mhy I not imagine much more agreeably to the nature of the Institution That the mere humane nature of Christ is there then that his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no end and where it makes not the least manifestation of it self To this discourse T. G. returns this Ansvver P. 23â— That where there is a General command without exception to Worship the word made Flesh there he hath given a sufficient indication of doing it wherever we are certain by faith that he is so present Ansvver But what is this to the Doctors Argument which proceeds upon this ground that the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist is no sufficient evidence that in the Eucharist it is united to the word for if Christs Body may be eaten and not eaten eaten by them who have received the Host and not eaten by them who have not yet received it If it may be under the species of Bread and not under the species of Bread under the species of Bread as it is in the Sacrament and not under the species of Bread as it is in Heaven why may it not be united to the word and not united to the word united to the word as it is in Heaven but not united to the word as it lyes senseless on the Altar And therefore the belief of Catholicks that the Divinity is thus united to the Sacrament is no sufficient motive to Adore it with Latria because I can have no sufficient reason to think it true Secondly P. 113. The Dr. Argues thus if the Bread be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the Divine nature then the conversion is not merely into the Body but into the person of Christ and then Christ hath as many bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements consecrated This clear perspicuous Argument is saith T. G. A notable piece of new mystical Divinity p. 141. and expres'd in hard words and attended with a contradiction Answer can it be expected that any man should speak of a Subject that is it self made up of infinite contradictions and not speak sutably to the Subject if T. G. would assert the contrary to what the Dr. argues must he not say that all the Consecrated Elements perhaps a 1000 are but one Body and seeing all these Elements are Christs Body must not he say that a 1000 Christs bodys are but one Christs body is it not impudence and disingenuity to cry out of hard words upon the mention of Consecrated Elements and Conversion into the person of Christ when we are speaking of that change which they all Transubstantiation and say that it is made by Consecration of the Elements or because we use that term of hypostatick union when we are speaking of that union which is so called by all Divines that treat upon that Subject and is delivered to us in that very word by the whole Church of Christ P. 241.242 It doth not follow saith T. G. any more then because the Bread the Flesh the Fish which he eat upon Earth were converted into the substance of his Body and hypostatically united to him it follows That
Rhenanus and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis â—s ulentis habemus and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants they to evince the impudence and falseness of that charge did constantly return this answer d Nobis homicidium nec videre sas nec audire tantumque abhumano sanguine cayâ—mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minuâ— par 34. cum notis Ouzel porro quale est ut quos sanguinempecoris horâ—ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis Tertul. Apol. c. 9. vid. Eusib Hist Eccl. l. 5. c 1. That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men whereas had they conceived that by partaking of the consecrated Cup they drank of humane Blood this answer could not have excused them nor could it with sincerity be urged by them since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts they daily fed upon his Blood who was the Man Christ Jesus and to depose a Priest from eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Flesh that contains the Blood as the fore-mentioned Canon doth would in effect be to depose him for pertaking of the Holy Sacrament that being most emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Flesh with Blood according to the Roman Doctrine And therefore this opinion that it was lawfull for Christians to eat Blood found little or no countenance in the Church of Christ till the time of Berengarius when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge besides the ancient Fathers objected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing e Quod Saturni filiâ—dignum est mali nexâ—â— hominis â—angâ—inâ—â— gâ—natur ipsoâ—â— credo decuâ—sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere Comitialem morbum hominis sanguine id est â—orbo graviore sanare Minuc p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo ejusmodiâ—t agâ—es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit est apud Herodotum opiâ—â—â— defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foederà comparasse nescio quid sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9. That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood and used that barbarous custom as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood to the performance of all works of Piety as Pliny saith they did by the participation of the Holy Sacrament Had they thus used humane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls and of their Bodies too as f Erat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat Sed quia intus sani palpeoris cohaerentibus non patebant medicum eos ferro aperire voluine neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Cataplasmare cum jam puer quinque aut fere ampliuâ— esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August l. 3. Sec. adv Julian Op. S. 164. they did use the Holy Sacrament what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and arguments and what could lay upon them an imputation of greater impudence and folly then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised Besides this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernitious Spirits because g Hodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. a draught of humane Blood or the Oblation of the Blood of Man was deemed an acceptable service to them and that which would appease their anger and because their Priests were Consecrated by drinking humane Blood Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice and if both Priest and People did as often drink it as they did celebrate the Sacrament what could these charges be but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh Arg. 2. §. 2. and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross he had delivered that which could not have been thought of and much less practised without the greatest horrour For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh he had enjoyned them to do that which is repugnant unto humane nature and hath been constantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens a barbarous and inhumane thing Hence that expression of our Saviour Christ That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh was by the unbelieving Jew rejected as a thing impossible Joh. 6.52 how can this Man say they give us his Flesh to Eat And if they deemed it a thing impossible that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one mans Flesh well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so Nay when his own Disciples heard it verse 60. they presently cried out This is an hard saying who can hear it they judged it so absurd a Proposition and were so highly scandalized at it that notwithstanding all the conviction they received from their Eyes and other senses that he was the true Messiah they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to reject him verst 66. for from that very time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him So that our Blessed Saviour to obviate and to remove this Scandal doth in the judgment of the Fathers presently expound himself in a Spiritual sence and doth assert that this corporal eating was unprofitable and not the thing he did exhort them to for thus Eusebius doth paraphrase his words g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 3. Eccles Theol. contra Marcell Ancyr M. S. Bibl. Oxon. do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagin that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and h See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites p 48 49 50 51. Life This also is the Exposition of Tertullian Origen St. Augustin Athanasius to omit divers others And of this Exposition they give this account i August de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15 16. that those expressions taken literally command what is an impious and k Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quaedicuntur adverterit si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam c. occidit haec litera Origen in Lev. c. 10. Hom 7.
ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
That when the Encratitae held it unlawful to drink Wine the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument That Christ himself drank Wine and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine saith Chrysostom that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresie for because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water declaring that when he delivered the Mysteries he delivered Wine and that when he rose and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries he used Wine he saith I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine Now the Vine produceth Wine not Water Chrysost Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris 1641. Be ye sure saith Clemens to the Encratitae he also did drink Wine for he blessed Wine when he said take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine he shewed again saying to his Disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom h Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa paenè â—mnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta lignis â—guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradicationis quae jam per Donm â—â—strum Jesu dâ—clatate est Contr. Adiman Coy 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem filâ—s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres nec tamen ait Petra significabat Châ—istum â—sed ait Petra erat Christus quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur spiritualem illam vocat Ib. Cap. 12. Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine this Argument would have been frivolous and vain Had not they held as the Church of England their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ Secondly The Manichees to prove the contradiction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour that none was able to cause the Soul to perish that of Moses that the Blood was the Soul To this St. Austin answers those words may be expounded thus the Blood is that is it signifies the Soul this he confirms 1. by this general assertion that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching which is now declared by Christ and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly converted into what they signified Seconly this he illustrates by a double instance †So is Blood the Soul as the Rock was Christ they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ he said not the Rock signified Christ but the Rock was Christ 2. I may expound it thus saith he * Blood is the Soul that is it signifies the Soul because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body since then as the Rock is Christ and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what thâ—â— Typified in the New so is the Bread Christs Boâ—â— It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgment it is Christs Body not by conversion into Christs real Body but by signification of it k Nam ex â—o quod sâ—riptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse possum interpretaâ—i preceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret sui corporis bl yea by such signification as excludes Christs body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread for else the Manichees might have replyed upon St. Austin and given him the baffle thus as the sign not only signified Christs real Body but contained it too so must the Blood not only signifie but really contain the Soul Therefore it is apparent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants Thirdly The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christs humane nature was absorpt and changed into the Deity this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only but others that it was thus changed at his Conception whence they affirm that whilst he lived on Earth he had the form and shape of man but not his proper nature For Illustration and Confirmation of these Heresies they urge †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84 85. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures had they been really changed into Christs Flesh and Blood no greater Confirmation of their Heresie no fitter illustration of their Tenet could be well imagined for thus the similitude would run First That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread and not the real substance even so in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh but not the very nature Secondly Even as in the Eucharist the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs ascension the humane nature is absorpt and converted into the Deity What is it therefore that the Fathers answer do they confess the thing and say Transubstantiation was the Tradition of the Church and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures but that no like Tradition nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's principles No they expresly say and that in words as plain full as any Protestant could use that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justisie * Certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumus Ut sicut in hance scilicet in divinam transeant Sacramenta Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis effâ—eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich
Christs humanity is as to the substance and the nature of it changed into the Deity and that the accidents form and figure of it only remain unchanged that is he grants all that the Heretick asserts and he endeavoured to refure For thus the Heretick dispuâ—es As the Symbols of the body and blood of Christ are other things before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation they are changed and made other so the body of Christ after the assumption is changed into the divine substance and thus the Orthodox doth answer thou art caught in thy own Net for the mystical signs after Sanctification do not recede from their own natures Again the Orthodox puts this question are not the mysteries Ibid. vid. p. 57. the signs of the body which truly is this being granted by the Heretick he makes this inference If the divine mysteries do truly represent the body then the body of our Lord now is and is not changed into the Deity but only filled with his Glory When therefore is it affirmed by Theodoret that this Sacrament is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a venerable Type And that the Symbols are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Symbols which are Worshiped This phrase can signifie no more then this That they are venerable Types and Symbols such as deserve a reverence or honorary Worship from all Christians which is a very common acceptation of the word for thus Christian Temples are stiled by the Ancients a Concal sub Menna act 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venerable Temples the Apostles Throat b Epist Leonis 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Venerable Throne and Baptism c Justinian Novil 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venerable Baptism The same uncenscionable dealing we meet with in that passage of St. Austin for no Man eats Christs flesh 〈◊〉 be have siâ—sâ— adored for in that very place he tells us That * In â—â—sâ—l 98. p 241. â— G. H the Jews interpreted the eating of Christs Flesh like Fools for they interpreted it carnally whereas Christ did instrâ—â— his own Disciples and say unto them understand Spiritually what I say unto you you shall not eat the Body which you see and drink the Blood which they will shed that Crucifie me I have commended unto you a Sacrament that Spiritually being understood will quicken you So that St. Austin in this very place asserts the contradictory to what the Church of Rome believes touching the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and calls them Fools that think Christ did intend what they imagine he hath said Therefore it is manifest that St. Austin in this place speaks nothing of the adoration of Christs Flesh under the accidents of Bread but only of the adoration of hs Flesh considered as united to the Godhead and placed at the Right Hand of God I astly to that of Ambrose De spir Saâ—cto l 3. c. 12. By the Footstool is understood the Earth and by the Earth the flesh of Christ which we Adore in the mysteries at this day and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus I answer that he saith no more than this that in these mysteries we Worship Christ and câ—nâ—â—quently the flesh of Christ as being not divided from him â—u he doth not say that in adoring the mysteries we adore Christ or that we do adore the mysteries which are Christ 1. Therefore let it be observed that St. Ambrose doth not say that we adore Christ only in this mysteries but in mysteriis or in the Celebration of the Sacraments which it was the custome of Antiquity to do because they held these mysteriâ—s to be instituted by him to convey unto us those blessings he had purchased by his blood and did conceive he * in Job 9 6.7 Cyril words it doth invisibly swim in the waters of Baptism And therefore in the Celebration of that rite they eall upon us as * Paulinus Epist 4. Chrysost To. 6. in illud simile est regnum czlorum Captives to fall down before our King and with hands lifted up to Heaven to adore him and mutually to exhort our selves and say come let us Worship before the Lord who made us And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that Element of Water to be transmuted into Christs Body and therefore Worshiped by the Christians of those times Secondly observe that Christs Sacred Flesh being united to his Godhead and adored with it the Worship which at the celebration of those Mysteries was directed to him as sitting in the Heavens must be the Worship of his Flesh and this assuredly must be the meaning of St. Ambrose who in his exposition of these words seek those things which are above serm 58. c. speaketh thus we ought not now to seek our Saviour upon the Earth or according to the Flesh it we would find and touch him but according to the Glory of his Divine Majesty that we may say with the Apostle Paul but now we know not Christ according to the Flesh And therefore Blessed Stephen by his Faith did not seek Christ upon the Earth but did acknowledge him standing at the Right Hand of God where with the devotion of the mind he sought him Now this no Protestant denies that Christ even in the celebration of the Eucharist is to be Worshiped where he is and where he is to be sought after by such as do desire to sind him i.e. at the right hand of God CHAP. VI. The Contents Prop. 1. When we ascribe unto the Creature the Homage due to the Creator we become guilty of Idolatry Prop. 2. To know the secrets of the hearts of persons praying at all times and in all places of the World is a divine and incommunicated excellency Prop. 3. That to ascribe this knowledge to any Creature to whom God doth not thus discover the secrets of the heart and to pay that honour to it which doth suppose that knowledge is Idolatry Prop. 4. Those outward Acts of Worship which by consent of Nations or by common Use do signifie the honour due to the Creator are Idolatrical when given to a Creature Corol 1. That to offer Sacrifice is to perform that Worship which is proper only to God 2. That to vow to Angels or to Saints departed is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator 3. Prayer offered and put up in any time and place to an invisible and not corporeally present Being is the oblation of that Worship to it which is due to God alone Objections Answered §. 1. HAving thus endeavoured to confirm and justifie the Judgment of the Church of England touching the Worshipping of the Host I now proceed to shew the Equity and Justice of her Censure of the Roman practice in reference unto the Invocation and Adoration of Holy Angels and of Saints departed And what we have to say in this particular as the foundation of this Charge shall be contained in these
Spirits he adds that it is evident St. Austin speaks of the worship which is due to God alone that is of such dedications and consecrations as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods And having T. G's word for this you ought not to expect his proof But 1. The words of St. Austin do apparently distinguish betwixt performing Sacred Offices and Consecration of our selves unto them for saith he the Question is * Quomodo Credendi sint velle a nobis religionem pietatemque servari hoc est ut apertius dicam utrum etiam sibiâ—â—an tantum Deo suo qui etiam nosier est placeat eis ut sicra faciamus Et Sacrificemus vel aliqua nostra sen nos ipsos Religionis Ritibus consecre mus Whether it can please those holy Spirits that we should perform Sacred offices and Sacrifices to them or should consecrate our selves or any thing belonging to us by Religious Rites The affirmative is the opinion of the Platonists and of the Church of Rome but that we should not consecrate our selves unto them by any Religious Rite is the opinion of S. Austin 2. St. Austin had in the immediate foregoing Chapter undertaken to evince †Quos autem bonos ideo non solum immortales verum etiam beatos Deorum nomine Sacris Sacrificiis propter vitam bâ—â—tam post mortem adipiscendam colendos putant qualescunque illi sint quolibet vocabulo digni sint non eos velle per tale religionis obsequium nisi unum Deum coli a quo creâ—ti cujus participatione beati sint adjuvante ipso in se uenti libro diligentius disseremus de Civit. Dei l. 9. c. 23. that those blessed spirits would not be worshiped Sacris Sacrificiis id est by Sacred Offices and Sacrifices but that God only was to be worshiped by such rites and though he saith they would not be worshiped Deorum nomine which gave occasion to this Answer of T. G. St. Austin in this very Chapter doth inform us that these Palatonists against whom he disputed did not differ from the Christians in their apprehensions of their Daemons and as if he had intended to exclude this exposition of T. G. he adds that Platonists acknowledged their Daemons to be good Spirits De C D. lib. 9. c. 23. made by God and therefore only called them Gods in such a sence in which the Scripture was wont to Stile the Angels Gods So that it is most certain 1. that Sacra facere was not equivocally translated to perform Sacred Offices And 2. that Austin doth not speak of the worship due to God alone but of the worship due to good Spirits made by God Pag. 390 391. §. 5. We have a fresh attempt to blast the Credit of the Doctor but I have throughly considered it Chap. 6. Prop. 4. Corol 3. and have made it clear beyond all contradiction that it is only a rude heap of false suggestions and desingenious insinuations be pleased Reader to consult the place and disbelieve me if thou canst From p. 390 § 6. to 430. he is more sparing in his accusations but from that Page to the conclusion of his book we have but little besides Prodigious outcries and admirations of the miserable shifts and disingenious arts of Dr. Stilling fleet p. 431. and thus the Charge begins I must desire the Reader to take the pains to peruse attentively the words of S. Austin as they stand cited in the Reply and the Doctors Considerations upon them for himself thought not fit to call them an Answer that by his performance in this point he may see to what miserable shifts and disingenious arts they are put who will shut their Eyes and fight against the light of a Noon-day truth And then he proceeds to charge the Doctor with corrupting the words of Austin li. 22. and with an exposition not only opposit unto the sence of Austin li. 29. but confuted by him And with affirming what if he had not shut his Eyes could not have been affirmed li. 16. and yet all this I have demonstrated to be false Chap. 9. Sect. 11. But then what follows p 432. is that disingenious accusation which deserves for ever to to be branded with a note of Infamy viz. Whereas he saith that I conveniently left out what St. Austin adds p. 432. that not only Sacrifice was refused by Saints and Angels but any other Religious honor which is due to God himself had he not conveniently put in those words any other Religious honor into the Text for they are not in S. Austin he had had nothing to blind his Reader with Whoever looks into the Text will judge he had done much more conveniently for his Cause had he left it out p. 433. Answ This he avoucheth here in the face of the world but as I suppose in confidence that neither his Reader or his Adversary would be so rude as to look into the Text or to suspect the truth of what he doth assert with so much confidence For thus St. Austin speaks Cum autem ad hunc Cultum pertineat oblatio Sacrificii unde Idololatria dicitur eorum qui hoc etiam Idolis exhibent nullo modo tale aliquid offerimus Now let it only be observed that Sacrifice is on all hands confessed to be religious worship lib. 20. contra Faust c 21. and then let Romanists themselves be judge whether nullo modo tale aliquid offerimus do not signify we do not offer ony other religious honor which is due to God himself and which would render us Idolaters so unhappily did he advise us to peruse attentively the words of Austin which do so clearly evidence that it is not the Doctor but T. G. who is forced to fly to miserable shifts and disingenious Arts. The Doctor p. 173. § 7. Speaks thus we do not say that some superstitions did not creep in after the Anniversary meetings at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs grew in request for St. Austin himself saith that what they taught was one thing and what they did bear with was another speaking of the Customs used at those Solemnities Now here T. G. is pleased to represent him as a most unconscionable Cheat and with great wonderment Cryes out Is it possible he could think so great a forb as this could pass for current in the World p. 439. Is it possible he could have courage enough to cite the place where these words are to be found and not fear a Rat Observe I pray What St. Austin condemns is this that some who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchres of the Martyrs took so plentifully of them that they made themselves drunk His words are these as for those who make themselves drunk at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs how can they be approved by us whom sound doctrine condemns even when they do it in their own private houses This was
whether they had the knowledge of our condition yea or not Sect. 4. Fourthly That the forementioned Fathers did often speak to their departed Friends as present although they did not think them so to be Sect. 5. Fifthly That the very same Authors do make the like addresses to insensate Creatures which makes it reasonable to look upon them as Rhetorical Apostrophe's ibid. Sixthly That there is great difference betwixt the practise which then began to be approved in some parts of the Christian World and the practise of the Church of Rome as V.G. 1. That no instance can be given of any Christian that put up mental Prayers unto them or dia ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart 2. That they prayed unto them only upon supposition of their presence at their Tombs and Oratories Sect. 6. The Authors cited by T. G. are partly spurious or doubtful Sect. 7. Partly impertinent and such as use either Rhetorical Apostrophe's or only wishes Sect. 8. or such as only do ascribe unto them the worship of honour and affection but say not any thing which necessarily includeth Prayer Sect. 9. Or only do assert that they did pray with us and so did help us with their Prayers Sect. 10. Or that they did commend themselves unto their Prayers by desiâ—ing God that for their intercession he would be gracious Sect. 11. § 1. AND thus we have confirmed the truth of our assertion from the most pregnant Testimonies of the ancient Fathers of the four first Centuries We come now to consider what T.G. offers from the Fathers to prove the invocation of the Saints departed to have been the practice of the Primitive Church Unto which purpose he alledgeth some passages of Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen St. Cyril and St. Ambrose Ruffinus St. Basil Chrysostome St. Austin to which we Answer 1. That all these Fathers lived in the declining times of the fourth Century or after the conclusion of it Bas M. A. 370. Nazian 379. Nissenus 380. Ambrose 374. Chrysost An. 398. Hierom. ob 420. Ruffinus 418. August 396. Cyril Alex. 412. Theodoret 423. Nor can one Item of such a practice be produced from any of the former Writers so that if all these Fathers did expresly say what T. G. doth contend they do it would be only this That the most ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries and to the middle of the fourth were in this matter perfect Protestants whereas some of the middle Fathers who lived in the declining Ages of the Church do seem to speak in favour of the Church of Rome Now in this case we say with Cyprian (a) Si in aliquo nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangdicam Apostolicam traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nestri ratiâ— unde ordo origo surrexit Ep. 74. Sect. 14. If verity doth warp or lean aside we must look back and return to Divine Evangelical and Apostolick Tradition and derive the order of our action from the original ground where it first began And with Tertullian (b) Ostendam hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potesi non sputium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum ex his enim ferè consuetudo ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplieitate initium sortita in usam per successionem corroboratur ita adversus veritatem vindicatur sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem senon consuetudinem cognominavit siquidem semper Christus prior omnibus aeque veritas sempiterna antiqua res De Veland Virg. c. 1. If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicity be confirmed by use of succession and opposed against verity we must observe that neither space of time nor priviledge of persons may prescribe against truth for Christ is eternal and before all and in like sort verity is most ancient For who knoweth not that above 100 years before this time the practice of communicating Infants had obtained in the Church St. * De Lapsis Sect 7. 20. Cyprian makes mention of it twice the †l. 8. c. 13. Apostolick Constitutions declare that first the Priests communicated then Virgins after them Widows and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their little Infants In the same Century (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Phot. in Bibl. 177 Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia in Sicily concludes against his Adversaries that Infants must be acknowledged to be guilty of sin because it was the custome to administer Christs Body to them for the Remission of Sin They also held that it was necessary to eternal life for Infants to receive this Sacrament When Christ saith If you eat not my flesh you shall not have life in you should I say that an Infant should have life who ends his life without that Sacrament So Austin Again (d) Dominum audiamus inquam non quidam hoc de Sacramento Iavacri dicentem sed de Sacramento Sanâ—â— monsae suae quo nemo ritè nisi Baptizatus accedit nisi manducaâ—â—â— t is carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitan 〈◊〉 vobis an verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quod ad parâ—â—â— los haec sententia non pertineat possinique sine participatione corpâ—â—â— hujus sanguin is in se habere vitam Tom. 7. l. 1. de peccat 〈◊〉 ritis remiss c. 20. Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized and then citing this place Vnless you eat my flesh c. he adds Dare any say that this sentence belongs not to Children but that they may without the participation oâ— the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves For this he also urgeth the Testimony of thâ— See of Rome for then this Doctrine 〈◊〉 well as Practice was received there (e) Ecce B. memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit To. 7. contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. p. 190. L. Si autem cedunt Pelagiani Apostolicae sedi vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non habitures vitam in seipsis nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis c. quod nisi Baptizati non utâ—que possunt nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non Baptizatos vitam habere non posse Epist ad Paulinum Ep. 106. p. 101. Behold saith he Pope Innocent of blessed memory declares that little ones cannot have life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ And in his Epistle to Paulinus if the Pelagians saith he will yield to the Apostles Seat or rather to their Lord and Master saying that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood which the unbaptized cannot do we shall not have life they will at last confess that
unbaptized Infants cannot have it The Words of Innocentius are these (f) Haec enim ejus verba sunt Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis Gratia posse donari perfatuum est risi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis August contr duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c 4. Whereas your Brotherhood asserts that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond opinion for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no life in them (g) Hinc constat Inncoentii primi sentententia quae 600 circiter annos in Ecclesia viguit quamque Augusitnus sectatus est Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus neceâ—sarium fuisse Concil Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. Whence it is evident saith Binius that this was Pope Innocents opinion which also was maintained in the Church 600 years viz. that the participation of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants and what he thus confesseth is made good by * Dalle from the fourth inclusivè to the eleventh Century by the plain pregnant Testimonies of them that lived in those Times Who also doth abundantly consute that vain imagination of Mr. Cressy and Vasquezius that they conceived it necessary that Infants should partake Christs Body and his Blood not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism Lastly they also do affirm this Doctrine to be derived from (h) Optimè Funici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil a liud quam salutem Sacramentum Corporis Christi nihil aliud quam viâ—um vocant unde nisi ex Aatiqua ut existimo et Apostolica traditione qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participationem dominicae mensae non solum ad regnum Dei sed we ad salutem vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire hoc enim scriptura testatur viz. Tit. 3.5 1 Petr. 3.21 John 6.51 53. si ergo ut tot tanta Divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeâ—crna sine Baptâ—â—mâ— Corpore Sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra â—â—ne his promittitur parvulis Tom. 7. lib. 1. de peccat meritis c. c. 24. p. 144 D. E. Apostolical Tradition and deeply setled in the Churches of Christ as doth most evidently appear from that of Austin From an ancient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal If therefore so many Testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting Life is not to be expected without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them And yet the Church of Rome hath laid aside this practise and determined against this Doctrine thus (i) Concil Trid. Sesi 21. Can. 4. Si quis dixerit Parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem anathema sit Which must be thus interpreted If any Person now doth say what the whole Church of Christ did for 600 years together viz. That it is necessary for Infants to be partakers of the Eucharist let him be accursed I will not quarrel with them as Mr. Dalle doth for their intolerable irreverence to the ancient Fathers or for the Curse they have pronounced on the whole Church of Christ for many Ages but I will take the Boldness to infer that if they may condemn a practice far more ancient than was the Invocation of departed Saints a practice not opposed as that was by many Fathers of the Church upon its first encroachment when about A. D. 360. it began to creep into the Church a practice so deeply setled in all Christian Churches in St. Austins time when that of Invocation of Saints departed was but in the Embryo Lastly a practice proved from clear unanimous and numerous assertions of the learned Fathers Whereas what is produced for the other practice is obscure and contradictory to what in other places they deliver and fairly may admit another sense as you shall see hereafter I say if they may wholly lay aside this practice and may pronounce Anathema's against it I hope we also may refuse to practice this Invocation of the Saints departed provided that it were as ancient as the Times of Nazianzen Basil and St. Austin 2 Observe § 2. That though these Fathers cited by T. G. seem in some places to assert or use this invocation of the Saints departed in others they deny the Doctrine and disapprove the practice of it and this they do in Writings more assuredly Authentick and in words more clear and pregnant than are or can be brought to justifie it This I might easily make good by an induction of the places cited pro and con from all these Father but since T. G. hath singled out St. Austin p 431. as a man so clear and pregnant in this Point that whosoever shall deny St. Austin to have held such formal invocation to be the Worship due to Saints must shut his eyes and fight against the light of a noon-day truth Let any man peruse the places which are cited from that Father and say whether I have not reason to affirm this bold Assertion to be a manifest untruth The passages produced out of the genuine Works of Austin for Invocation are 1. Let Blessed Cyprian help us with his prayers T. G. p. 430. 2. We Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs both to excite us unto the imitation of them and that we may become partakers of their merits and may be helped by their prayers T. G. p. 433. 3. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be commended T. G. p. 434. Against it we produce these Testimonies * Ipse Sacerdos est qui nunc ingressus in interiora Veli solus ibi ex his qui carnem gestaverunt interpellat pro nobis In Psalm 64. p 144. M. 1. Christ is the Priest who being now entred within the Vail only of all that have been made partakers of flesh makes intercession for us there †Si vero ita diceret hoc scripsi vobis ut non peccetis si quis peccaverit Mediatorem me habetis apud Patrem ego exoro pro peccatis vestris sicut Parmenianus quodam loco Mediatorem posuit Episcopum inter Populum Doum quis cum ferret bonorum atque fidelium Christianorum quis sicut Apostolum Christi non sicut Antichristum intueretur Contr. Epistol Parmen l. 2. c. 8. p. 7. L. Tom. septimo 2. If he i. e. St. John had said thus If any man sin you have me a Mediator with the Father I make intercession for your sins