forth of this Index in Possevine among other European Libraries deny it and for a taste of the Author Harken to his notable Hyperbole that the wood of the Cross is so multiplied that all the world is full of it Thirdly Sect. 7 Next for the Council of Nice he tells us p. 466. out of Cardinal Baronius that they are held a meer forgery The true Nicene Acts saith he except some fragments raked at second hand out of several Authors are sufficiently known to be all lost as being made away and having suffred shipwrack in the Arrian tempests And again whereas all ages have been most eager in the pursuit of so noble a Monument never a man could hitherto find it and concludes that now no hope remains of so fertile a vintage Nay when hard search was made for a new Nicene Canon pretended by the Bishop of Rome in defence of his supremacy and by St. Augustine himself and many Learned Bishops more messengers were dispatch'd into Greece and Egypt where the first and best Copies were News was return'd both from Atticus of Constantinople and Cyrill of Alexandria that no more of that Council could be found save onely twenty Canons Fourthly Sect. 8 As for Nyssen his Catech. Orat. he tell us first that some in their Editions leave it cut as knowing it saith the Bishop of Spalat to be corrupted So Siphanius his Basil Ed. Anno Domini 1571. others that let it pass tell us that this 37. Chap. here cited is not frequently to be found in Ancient manuscripts and that the Book is tainted with the opinions of Origen foysted into it So the Author of the Paris Edition 1573. Thirdly that it mentions Severus an Eutychian a full 100 years later then Cyrill Fourthly that it speaks contrary to Nyssen himself and Fifthly that it holds no correspondence with all that Theodoret cites thence And lastly refers us to twelve Arguments of Spalatensis against this and the following Chapter Fifthly Sect. 9 Cyrills Epistle ad Calosyr is not extant among his works and whether Cyrill of Alexandria wrote it is very uncertain And albeit I can no where come to a perusal of it yet it is capable of this sence Christ is not altered viz. the Sacrament representing Christ is not alter'd neither is his Body that is the Symbols of his body changed by being kept till another day but the virtue of Benediction and quickning grace perpetually remains in it for what is it that is blessed sure not the Body of Christ that being not present till after the benediction even when hoc est corpus meum is pronounced and therefore 't is the Eucharistical bread which he calls Christ And yet were all these Authors true they might be answered by telling our adversaries they might as well have cited our Common Prayer Book which calls the Bread Sect. 10 the Body of our Lord Christ and the Wine his Blood shed for us For we acknowledge it is so viz. Sacramentally and Representatively but not by any substantial Mutation The rest of the Fathers are quoted for adoration of the Eucharist Sect. 11 and there are but two Sentences that can seem to incline to Transubstantiation The first is that of Saint Chrysostome to wit The most pretious thing in Heaven I will shew thee plac'd upon Earth 1 Cor. 10. Hom. 24. But this may be fairly interpreted thus That it is placed upon Earth in its representation in those Elements which convey the Virtue of his Body to us and therefore deservedly are called his Body Let Chrysostome interpret himself who in his Epistle ad Caesar contra Haeres Apollinar cited by Damascen and the Collector of the Sentences of the Fathers against the Severians set forth by Turrian hath these words Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from that Name and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it And yet I must not forget to tell you p. 130. that whereas our Adversary renders a Clause of Saint Chrysostomes sentence Thou not onely seest the body it self Saint Chrysostome hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou dost not indced see the very same body not properly the same that the Magi saw But thou knowest both the Virtue and the whole Dispensation and art ignorant of nothing that was done being accurately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taught all these things in the Mysteries and so the place makes more against then for him The same Answer may be returned to that of Ambrose Sect. 12 That the same flesh is in the Mysteries which the Apostles worshipped in our Lord Christ De Spir. viz. 't is in the Mystery representatively See Bishop Taylor of real Pres p 384. 't is here in Imagine as St. Ambrose elsewhere But in heaven in Veritate the Truth the substance is there Thus l. 4. De sacram C. 5. He calls it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and c. 4. tells us It is a wonderful power of God which makes that the Bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing and then again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet are changed into another and so that which was bread before Consecration now is the Body of Christ which words because they could not answer they corrupted And thus having return'd an Answer to his Arguments we come now to vindicate our own The Learned Doctor had framed an Argument thus Sect. 13 That which remained the fruit of the Vine was not Transubstantiated But the Wine in which Christ Celebrated the Sacrament remained after Consecration the fruit of the Vine To this our Adversary answers 1. Mr. C. 132. S. 12. I confidently pronounce it evident that these * Matt. 26.29 words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice nor had they any regard to the Sacrament And why so I pray you Because Saint Luke mentions them after the eating of the Paschal Supper and antecedently to the Mystical Consecration of his blessed Body and Blood who saith he will write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans A great reason of Confidence indeed put it into Syllogivm and it runs thus That which hath reference to the Passeover and the drinking of the Cup which was annexed to it hath not Reference to the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord But these words have reference to the former Now all their who tell us that Christ spake the sentence twice will deny his Major seeing the words might have reference to both according to their various times of utterance Now that this Interpretation must take place against our adversary I will prove because he grants it doth refer to the Pass-over in Saint Luke And evidently it refers to the Consecrated Cup in Saint Matthew
one and carry them to those that be absent And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears and so received it 2. See Dr. Taylor duc dub B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice but desiring more frequently to communicate they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels and when they had a mind to it in that imperfect manner Can. 3. did celebrate the Lords Supper But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ which saith If any man receive the Sacrament and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church let him be accursed for ever 3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity Justin Martyr who was before Tertullian tells us P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ had so commanded them S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption Hom. 16. on Numb or by humane Tradition to alter them And Origen saith speaking of the Sacrament the Christian people embrace him who saith Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you Now he that saith so surely must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life Fourthly and lastly Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversie produce your Fathers in the next and confirm it from their words The next supposed Evidence he brings is Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind Now here again We answer as before 1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely and that they mention but one kind doth prove no more the thing in contest then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup or if he did participate discern'd it 2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacriledge p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian from Saint Anstin Ep. 107. To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier and by Gennadius 3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice and so ministred the Sacrament but this is an Evidence that they thought not the bread alone sufficient 4. We acknowledge also that upon occasion of this use Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 p. 426. Can. de Consecrat dist 2d some fell in love with the trick and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself declaring it to be against the Divine Order and Apostolical Constitutions and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Custome of the Church and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara and all set right again according to the perpetual custome of the Church and the institution of our blessed Lord and their pretence which was lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice laid aside as trifling and superstitious His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind Now to this we say that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons And upon that occasion also it was abused and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse Next we say his proofs are not concluding indeed Euseb l. 6. tells us That the old mans mouth was dry and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it but thence to argue that the old man received no Wine is a strange and contradictory inference 3. We say and that out of the same Authors by him cited that such did communicate in both kinds This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries they should obtain their desires If in health they had been humble suiters for it Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr who in the place forecited saith That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent amongst whom were necessarily the sick Lastly Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice adding this reason that the Priest might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life ' wherein they intimate that it was necessary to the truth of these words and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament that the sick person should participate of both the Elements and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance the onely salvo imaginable for this your sacriledge Fourthly Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea Ibid. Now First He should have made this good by testimony and not have produced it back'd with no authority especially when Secondly 'T is manifest
from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
succeed theirs and must it be therefore carnal as well as this service of the Jewes If this Argument be good our sacrifice succeeds a proper sacrifice and therefore it is so must not this also be esteemed so Our sacrifice succeeded a bloodysacrifice and therefore it is such our sacrifice succeeded a sacrifice of bruit beasts and therefore it is such Our second Consideration is that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice symbollically as representing applying and some way impetrating for us all the benefits of Christs real sacrifice on the Cross For seeing the signes are often put for the things signified Chrysost H. 27. in Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb dem Evan l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide For. Cons mod p. 451. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquire the names of what they represent and bring to our remembrance Yea seeing the Apostle tells the Galathians that Christ was crucified amongst them because his sufferings on the Crofs were most lively represented to them by his preaching why may not we on the same account call the Eucharist in this sense a sacrisice as being that in which Christs sufferings are far more lively and accurately set forth Yea a perfect remembrance of a sacrifice as the Fathers call it yea secondly we allow it to be a sacrifice in this sence as exhibi ting to us all the benefits of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross for we all allow that what ever Christ dying and shedding his blood for us procured is not only represented there but applyed to the faithful and exhibited to his faith And here come in the residue of his citations and 1. That of Ignatius is Spurious Epist ad Smyrn S. 2 p. 144. you may find the words upon which the force of the argument depends written in Red Letters in the Edition of Bishop Vsher Secondly As to that of S. Cyprian In his Epis to Caecil not Cyril as Mr. C. who was more a Priest of the most high God then our Lord who offered a sacrifice to God the Father and offered the very same that Melchisedec offered that is bread and wine to wit his own body and blood which it could not be otherwise then figuratively or significatively and commanded the same viz. bread and wine to be afterward done in memory of him that Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer as he sees Christ himself offered viz. bread and wine as the Ancient Church was wont to do and this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did when at the Institution of this holy Rite Mr. Mede ib. he took the Bread and Cup into his hands and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed who after his example first offered the bread and wine unto God to agnize him Lord Paramount of the Creature and then received them from him again in a banquet as the Symbols of the body and blood of his Son now the words thus expounded have nothing in them Son now the pertinent to your purpose nothing to prove any sacrifice of Christs body much less to prove a true and proper sacrifice which that S. Cyprian never dream'd of we may be sufficiently assured from this Epistle to Caecilius whose words are these because saith he we make mention of Christs passion in all our sacrifices for the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice we offer we ought to do no other thing then what Christ did If the passion of Christ be the Sacrifice we offer how is the Eucharist properly so seeing the Scripture tells us that Christ ought to suffer only once and his glorious body is now impatible how doth he really suffer and if not then is there only a remembrance of his passion made and therefore his passion that is the Commemoration of it must sure be call'd the sacrifice offered by the Church Ubi supra and especially in his first Chap. of the same 2. part where Bellar. Arg. hence is abundantly refuted Mr. C. p. 145. And as Bochartus hath it how impertient is it to alledge a passage where it is said that Christ offered the same which Melchisedech offered which was undoubtedly true bread and wine without any transubstantiation to prove that Christ was sacrificed under the Species of bread and wine Lastly The eighteenth Canon of the Nicene Council tells us that it is a thing which neither Canon nor custome hath delivered that those who have no power of offering viz. the Symbols in commemoration of Christs sacrifice made upon the Cross should give the Body of Christ that is these Symbols of his body to those who offer Ans What of all this Is there any thing in this passage to evince a true and proper sacrifice of Christs body and blood Secondly Eusebius who was present at this Council can tell us what kind of sacrifice the Church then offered Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For thus he speaks Christ offered an excellent sacrifice for the salvation of us all delivering to us the memory thereof to be presented to God in lieu of a sacrifice And towards the end of that chapter we sacrifice the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us by Christ Secondly Gelasius from whose Authority you have this Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Premire partie Chapitre 10. tells us moreover that the Nicene Fathers said the Lamb of God was here sacrificed by the Priest without a sacrifice that is Representatively so for so the Grecians call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy things not offered as you may see evinced by Bochartus de la Messe where the interpretation of Cardinal Perron is abundantly refuted and it is made good that the words were not intended to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Cardinal contends but only sans estre Sacrifie which is the proper and natural signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly and lastly we allow it to be a propitiatory sacrifice for as much as by the right participation of it we enjoy remission of sins not as if we thought there was any force in those mysteries to satisfie Gods justice but because hereby we have sealed to us that remission which was purchased by the sacrifice of the Cross And this affords us an Answer to that of S. Chrysostome Hom. 21. Mr. C. p. 145. that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for remission of sins for the Priest that offers for the multitude for the procuring plenty which indeed it was esteemed partly upon this account that so many petitions were put up to God at the solemnity for this oblation of prayer was made through Jesus Christ commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine and it was the custome of the Antients upon the consecration of the dona Mede ib. to be the Body and Blood of Christ to offer to the Divine
Orthodox Fathers so stifly plead against it in the Council of Ariminum as such why did they not assent to the Arian Bishops or the Emperour who required no more See Soz. ubi suâ—ra Sulpâ—c Sâ—â— l. 2. c. 55. ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crat Seriptum quod unius est substantiae illi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est similis substantiae scriptum esse diccebant concedeates sim litudinem dum adimerent unitatem yea why did the Orthodox Fathers condemn and censure them as Arrians who subscribed to the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia but the contrary is evident for seeing nullum simile est idem he that saith that our Saviour is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot say that he is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Next for the Doctrine of the Millenaries he saith Sect. 22 'T is great irreverence in the Doctor to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers Answ Were there but two that asserted it might you not have found in the renounced Dally Papias Justine Irenaeus Mr. C s 18. In his Letters to Mr. Eâ—â—wich to Dr. Twâ—ss Tertullian Ambrose Lactantius Victorinus Amphilochius to whom Mr. Mede will add St. Cyprian yea and to boot will shew that it was favoured even by the General Council of Nice and at last St. Jerome albeit a profest enemy of the opinion will add that multi Ecclefiasticorum virorum martyrum ista dixerunt and then might you not have multiplied your two into two hundred 2. He Answers That albeit Justin Martyr saith That all that are purely Orthodox held this Millenium yet he thereby shews that his own opinion was not Universally embraced by the Church I pray you Sir what Topicks do you use to draw this sequel out of Justins words especially when they run thus Indeed I acknowledge there are some who are not pure and pious Christians who thus think but they are only in name Christians but indeed Atheists and arch-Hereticks and anon bids Trypho not look upon such as Christians and then adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I and all throughly Orthodox Christians not only in name we believe the resurrection and the Millenium so that he excludes out of the roll of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that believed not the Millenium L. 3 Cont. Marc. c. 24. Tertullian likewise brings it in with a Confitemur we Christians confess c. As for the double Millenary that our Author speaks of 't is very unserviceable to him seeing not one of these Fathers except Lactantius whom yet Mr. Mede excuseth are suspected of it His last refuge therefore is that it was never condemned by the Church Answ This is not to the purpose for seeing it is manifest that it was received by the Church of God for above two hundred years without any manner of contradiction either you must grant the Church fallible as the Doctor thence argues or else speak out and say That 't is still to be embraced and believed as the Primitive Church esteemed and then your Church must have erred in not believing but contradicting it as we see now they do Lastly Touching the communicating of Infants Sect. 23 a custome saith Maldonate received as necessary by the Church till six hundred years he tells us that St. Augustine c. held a necessity that Infants should communicate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptisme which Answer may be confuted out of twenty passages of Saint Augustine For 1. He speaks expresly of the Sacrament in his Tract against Pelagius and Bonifacius where comparing the Pelagians to the Manichees Both of them saith he are unwilling to have Infants freed by the flesh and blood of Christ the first by denying that Christ took flesh the second by saying there is no evil in them from which by the Sacrament of Christs body and blood they should be freed And again having urged the necessity of Baptisme to Salvation he adds 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 L. 3. Cont. Julian c. 1. Dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine islo sacramento finisset hans vitam C. 12. L. 5. who ends his life without that Sacrament Yea 2. He speaks of their receiving the Sacrament after Baptisme and therefore cannot be thought to speak of such a Spiritual participation of it as might there be had Thus in his Book against Julian Where will you put Infants for they shall want eternal life although baptized because they have not partaken of the bread c. and so in his Hypognosticks where in the Margent you find Eucharistia infantibus sub utraque specie fit to admonish our Authour of what we meet with in his Parenthesis but most irrefragably in his book de Peccati meritis L. 1. c. 20. and that in a place which our Author refers me to for the contrary Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized Quo nemo â—â—te nisi Baptizatus aâ—cedit and then citing the place Vnless you eat my flesh c he adds Dare any say that the sentence belongs not to children but that they may without the participation of the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves and tells us we may as well conclude that it belongs not to the adult which testimony doth conclude most evidently the business for these words quò nemo accedit nisi Baptizatus cannot possibly be understood of any Spiritual participation of the Sacrament at all L. 10. much less of such an one as may be had in the use of Baptism Yea 3. He speaks of Baptisme and the Eucharist as equally necessary presseth them both with like Scriptures and then what ground can there be to understand the one Spiritually the other Sacramentally Thus when he writes in his Book against two Epistles of Pelagius You give to them that are not baptized a place in Heaven nor do you attend what is written He that is not baptized shall be damned nor do you understand that those cannot have life who are expertes corporis sanguinis Christi ipso dicente Nisi manducaveritis c. and in his 107. Epistle he saith That Infants shall receive according to what they have done in their body when by the hearts and mouths of them that hear them they believed or not at which time they were baptized or not did eat the flesh of Christ or not and drink his blood or not I say when these things are so conjoyned in the Series of his discourse without the least intimation of a diverse sense what reason can we have so to interpret them nor do the places he refers to conclude that St. Augustine meant the contrary
G. 26. For he saith Christ took the Cup and gave it to them saying Drink you all of this this what This in the Cup why so for this is my Blood and then immediately follows But I say unto you I wil not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine untill the day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom Now then this fruit of the Vine Saint Matthew speaks of is this that the Disciples are bid to drink of as even the series of the words shew Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood but I will not drink of this 2. The fruit of the Vine must necessarily demonstrate some Wine so St. Marks fruit of the Vine must also have reference to some Cup demonstrated by him But they mention no other Cup besides this Sacramental therefore they must necessarily speak of this and so much for his Major Now I deny his Minor which must be proved thus That which S. Luke mentioned before any Consecration began Immediately after the Cup confessedly belonging to the Passover must belong to it But these words St. Luke thus mentions Now I retort upon his Major thus That which Saint Matthew and Saint Mark mentioned not till after Consecration and immediately after the Sacramental Cup must belong to it But this sentence is thus mentioned by them I know he will tell us the disparity is in this that St. Luke promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the other Evangelist did not Answer Grotius will tell him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only sigillatim as you may see Acts 4.18.23 which Interpretation must take place here it appearing sufficiently that he frequently for the Coherence of things joyns those passages which were separated in order of time * As the same Grotius in his Comment doth evince Vide Grot. in locum and therefore this reason of disparity is taken away Thus I have confuted his Confidence Sect. 14 Now though I dare not be Confident I think it very probable Vide Jansonium in locum that St Luke also speaks of the Consecrated Cup as Saint Augustine would have it by preoccupation that so this saying parallel to that of eating no more of the Passover might be joyned together For Matthew and Mark speak of four things belonging to this Sacramental Cup 1. Giving of Thanks 2. Distribution of it 3. The asserting of it to be his Blood 4. His protestation of not drinking of it any more Now Saint Luke speaks onely of the third of these If you will not allow the other verse to refer to the Sacred Cup. But if this be granted then are all these actions mentioned in S. Luke directly as in the other Evangelists Now then the interpretation makes all Harmonious between the Evangelists whereas he bids defiance to S. Mark and especially to S. Matthew who as I have prov'd must necessarily be understood of the Eucharistical Cup. But our Author hath another answer Sect. 15 if this fail viz. that were it so that the wine after Consecration were call'd the fruit of the Vine Mr. C. p. 133. yet this doth not argue against a change of it's nature for Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent was call'd a Rod still because it had been one Exod. 7.12 And John 2.9 't is said of the Master of the feast shat he tasted the water that was made wine Now to this I return 1. That the cases are no way parallel for first in these instances the matter remain'd the form only being chang'd it being proper conversion but in the Eucharist the Trent Council hath defin'd that the substance of Bread remains not and so there is not so much Reason why it should have the same name 2. These might well be call'd so because the Serpent was made out of a Rod tanquam ex causâ materiali and the wine out of water but you dare not say that the Blood of Christ is so made out of wine 3. There were Circumstances annex'd in these Cases which did obviate all possibility of Fallacy The Serpent is call'd a Rod but such a one as devour'd the other Rods the wine mention'd by S. John is call'd Water but 't is Water made Wine as if I should say panis transubstantiatus which phrase you would not much dislike you will say this Wine is call'd the Blood of Christ Ans Well but whether Spiritually or Corporally is not said 2. We answer that if this be a sufficient reason why the Blood of Christ should be call'd the fruit of the vine though it be not really so then may this be a sufficient reason why the bread may be call'd the body of Christ though it be not so See Paraeus de Reg. phrasium Sacrament In Cor. 11. v. 23. because Sacramental signs have often the names of the things signified by them The sequel is evident from the parity of Reason the same foundation of Each being the Analogous phrase of Scripture and in the great hold of Transubstantiation must be quitted But 3. He saith he will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which Argues that before viz. In other pasovers Or at least in this He had drank of it before now that which he had drank of before this being the first institution of the Sacramental Cup must be really the fruit of the Vine Well then that which he saith he will drink of no more must be the same also From what hath been said we may see sufficiently the weakness of his argument hence for transubstantiation Sect. 16 which runs thus Our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup but he did not drink of the fruit of the vine because he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo the Consecrated Cup was not the fruit of the Vine For not to tell him See Beza in locum Heins In Mat. c. 21 v. 41 c. the Syriack Copies leave out the two verses in which the stress of all this Argument lies nor yet to mind him of Beza's transposition of the verses a * thing sufficiently probable 1. How will he prove that our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup will he run to Matt. 26 Alas He hath told us that it Concerns not this Cup will he cite universal tradition Let him shew it and at the same time he will shew that he interprets Saint Matth. contrary to them seeing they that affirm it gather it from his words 2. Why may not his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thus interpreted I will not drink any more viz. after the solemnity ended Have we not S. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bear us out in 't and Saint Mark 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also may very well be borrowed from the 16 vers in Saint Luke It being very ordinary for Sacred Writers to leave a particle to be understood from the words foregoing or consequent And if this interpretation stand it can only be
is the body which we worship Saint Austine will tell us presently no for he brings in Christ speaking to his Disciples thus You eat not the body which you see I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you That which is brought out of the 120 Epistle needs no further answer but onely to note that our Adversary hath added it to worship determining the object which Saint Austine did not and by the same reason saith the Lord Du Plessis may be added to body transubstantiated or what you please Sect. 24 Now that the primitive Church did not terminate such Adoration upon the Elements is made out evidently by the Learned D. Taylor in these words Lib. de trans towards the end If the Primitive Church had ever taught that Divine worship was to be given to the Sacrament it had been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the Arguments upon their heads by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands to which themselves gave what figure they pleased and then by certain formes consecrated them and made by invocation as they supposed a Divinity to dwell there They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see nor hear nor smell nor taste nor move nor understand That which could grow old and perish that could be broken and burn'd that was subject to the injury of rats and mice of worms and creeping things that can be taken by Enemies and carried away That is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves and sacrilegious persons Now if the Church of those ages had practis'd and thought as they have at Rome in these last ages might not they have said why might not we as well as you Do not you worship that with divine honours and call it your God which can be burnt and broken which your selves form into a round or square figure which the oven first hardens And then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God which can see no more nor hear nor smell then the silver and gold upon our images Do not you adore that which rats and mice eat which can grow mouldy and sowre which you keep under locks and barrs for fear your God be stolne Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your Deity to the Sultan of Egypt insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escucheons by way of Triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it True it is that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our gods with us But did not the Jesuites carry your Host which you call God about their necks from Venice in the time of their interdict And now why do you reprove that in us which you do your selves What could have been answer'd to them if the Doctrine and accidents of the times had furnished them with the like instances In vain it would have been to have replyed Yea but ours is the true God and yours the false gods For they would easily have made a rejoynder that this is to be prov'd by some other Argument In the mean time all your Objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you upon this account since none of the witty and subtle Adversaries of Christianity ever did or could make this defence by way of recrimination it is certain there was no occasion given And therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament must needs be Sophistry and Illusion and need no particular consideration Will they say that the Fathers kept these mysteries secret Sect. 29 and so the Heathens could not be acquainted with what they did I answer But were not there wise and subtle Apostates such as Julian such as the pesecutors of the Church forc'd to relinquish their profession of Christianity Such as turn'd Christians chiefly upon these Arguments enforced upon them by the Champions of the Christian cause Doth not Saint Paul tell us that even in his time all that were in Asia fell away from the truth 2 Tim. 1.15 And could it be that none of these should be able to retort this Objection Was it not strange that none of the Converts of the Church should be scandaliz'd at this when as Avicenna presently cries out Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis CHAP. XII The State of the Question Sect. 1. The lawfulness of communicating in one kind not proved from the Christians practice in the times of persecution Sect. 2. Nor from their communicating of Infants Sect. 3. Nor from their communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4. Nor from communions at Sea Sect. 5. Nor lastly from communions sent to other provinces Sect. 6. Christs institution respected Laicks as well as Priests Sect. 7 8. An evasion obviated Sect. 9. Further evidence of the Laicks interest in the Cup and a farther evasion obviated Sect. 10. Christs Institution a Command Sect. 11. The verdict of Antiquity for us Sect. 12. No evidence of concomitance Sect. 13 14. Three Arguments against it Sect. 16 17 18. The vain pretences alledged for this half communion Sect. 19. Vpon what conditions a dispensation may be granted Sect. 20. THe State of this Question is not Sect. 1 as our Author would perswade us Mr. C. p. 138. Ibid. whether The receiving in both kinds be necessary to the essence of the Communion Albeit that be very true but whether the administring the Sacrament in both kinds to the people or Priests non-Conficients capable of it in both kinds be not necessary necessitate praecepti or from the injunction of our blessed Saviour or in a word whether the with-holding of the Cup from such be not a violation of the will of Christ If so then farewel Trent Council Now this we assert to be so our Author on the contrary will make it good that the Fathers thought the contrary and appeals to Doctor Peirces Conscience Ibid. whether if he should side with us in it he should not be overwhelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against him And then he produceth his old Arguments in defence of this apparent Novelty And first he tells us out of Tertullian and Cyprian Sect. 2 that during the times of persecution the Eucharist was delivered to the faithful under the species of Bread alone Ibid. and carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions To which we Answer P. 184. First in the words of Doctor Featly That the Sacrament was anciently carried home in both kinds and not in one as the Romanist here pleadeth And this is proved from Justin Martyr who in his second Apology declaring the order of the Church saith thus Of the things that be consecrated viz. the Bread Water and Wine they give a part to every
them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy not of the people This one would think were a strange shift and yet 't is such a one as they are forced to fly unto But First Let it be considered how unlikely 't is that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament of so different natures and yet speak nothing of the use or the reason the benefit or the necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the mysterie nor distinguish the rite or the words but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world Secondly If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite spoken before the institution of the Chalice then doth not hoc facite signifie offerte sacrificium as the Trent Council that infallible interpreter of Scripture would have it and consequently cannot make them Priests that is in their language Sacrificers For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice Thirdly If the Apostles were thus made Priests and drank of the Chalice under that capacity then seeing this is a Command as we presently shall evince it ought to be followed at least so far and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice which because they do not in the Church of Rome it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients Thirdly Sect. 11 I say that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated This will sufficiently be made out if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements and that not temporary but reaching even to us Now the Trent Council tells us that hoe facite c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him Yea the Apostle Intimates to us that this is a standing Institution in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till â—e come Now it is evident that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ in that it is said Take eat this is my Body this do this which I bid you do what was that eat his Body But it is more clear concerning the Cup of which it is said this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse where the Apostle infers that we do this in remembrance of Christ because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lords deâ—th till he come Clearly intimating that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup Wherefore this being a Command it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 12 Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute In 1 Cor. 11. Quest 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given St. Augustine saith Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it By whom sure by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup Hom 4. de quadr practised by the Manichees sacrilegious simulation and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints Yea when at the general Council of Calcedon Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba Bishop of Edessa that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine and that corrupt and sowre provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people that Bishop was severely taxed Whereby it appears that at the time of this Councill the Administring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it De Consecrat dist 2. comperimus c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable as you find them in Gratian We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood which because they do out of I know not what superstition we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them In Psa 6. poen because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge Thus a Pope è Cathedra And Saint Gregory cries out Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed De C rp Sang. Domini c. 15. 19. by the perception of which the Church his Body pascitur potatur I will conclude with Paschasius who tells us That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated And expounding the words of Christ saith He alone it is that breaks this Bread and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers saying Take drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander and * De Eccles l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius Papists and to Doctor Featly who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions We pass on now to the Fourth Section Sect. 13 wherein we are told Mâ— C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind in the fore-mentioned cases did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one onely But First How came he acquainted with their Mind Hath hiâ— Guardian Angel told him so Secondly In the fore-mentioned cases which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind if there be any such we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both yea from spiritual Communion as corâ—oreal or by the Elements when this latter way cannot be had but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent But he tells us farther Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread Ibid. and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh c. Now not to require a proof of him that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected and
4. c. 32. De Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. Mr C. p. 114. 1. Irenaeus saith That these first fruits are the Offerings of the Vniverse S. * l. 4. c. 32. Dee Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. M. C. p. 114.1 Cyprian checks the rich widow for approaching the Lords Table without her Corban without a Sacrifice yea eating of the sacrifice the poor man bronght And in St. Austins phrase the Alms of pious Matrons are Oblations And of this sacrifice doth Irenaeus speak in the Sentence urged by Mr. C. to evince this proper sacrifice when he tells us That our Saviour giving counfel to his Disciples to offer the first fruits to God of his creatures not as if he wanted any thing but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful took the creature of bread and gave thanks saying this is my Body Qui est ex ea creatura quae est secunâ—um nos and the Câ—p likewise which consists of a creature which is usual amongst us he confessed to be his blood and brought a new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers through all the world unto that God who gives us nourishment to wit the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament of which the Prophet Malachy speaks cap. 1. vers 11. where it is manifestly declared that the former people of the Jewes have ceased to offer unto God and in all places a pure sacrifice is now offered to him Where first not to deal rigidly with him in telling him that Irenaeus doth not determine whether this Oblation be Eucharistical or Ilastical or if Ilastical whether properly or rather metonimycally so I confidently affirm that the Sacrifice here mentioned can not be the sacrifice of the Mass or of Christs Body and Bloud the reasons are 1. From these words Chap. 34. The Oblation of the Church which the Lord taught us to be offered in the whole world is reputed a pure sacrifice before God and acceptable to him not because God wants our gift or sacrifice but because he that offereth is glorified thereby if his gift be accepted When therefore thou offerest this gift at the Altar Matt. 5.24 25. Go first and be reconciled to thy brother then come and offer it You must therefore offer to God the first fruits of his creatures Deut. 16.26 as Moses said Thou shalt not appear empty before God Now had he spoken of the sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood would he have told us that it is reputed apure sacrifice not is so when to be and to be reputed are disparates But secondly the Oblation which he speaks of is that which all Christians offer not the Priest onely as is evident from the two places cited when thou offerest thy gift And thou shalt not appear empty before God Seeing therefore that the first fruits of the creature to be offered to God here are not the Body and Blood of Christ and Irenaeus tells us that he speaks of this Oblation which the Church offers throughout all the world neither can that be such 3. You have a further Evidence in that it is said We offer this sacrifice to God not that he wants it but that we should not be unfruitful For that this passage must refer to Almes not to Christs Body Let Irenaeus himself assure us who in this 34. Chapter tells us that God wants not any thing of ours but yet 't is needful we offer somewhat to him for as Solomon saith Pro. 19.17 He that hath mercy on the poor lendeth to the Lord and that God which wants nothing yet takes our good works as done to him that he may give us a reward of his good things for them as our Lord saith Come you blessed of my Father c. for I was an hungry and you gave me to eat I Mat. 24.25 and a little after he tells us that God will have these things done by us that we may not be unfruitful so that evidently this refers to Almes and the Oblations at the Eucharist not of the Eucharist and therefore the same words in this Sentence touching the same matter must in all reason be esteemed to refer unto them also Again in the same Chapter he addes The Sacrifice doth not sanctifie the man but the conscience of him that offers being pure doth sancâ—ifie the Sacrifice Seeing therefore with simplicity or sincerity The Church doth offer the Sacrifice is justly reputed pure by God And hence it is that Saint Paul calls them an Odour of sweetness an Offering acceptable and well pleasing unto God For we must offer unto God Thus the Church offers to him the first Fruits and that of his Creatures and a little after we offer sanctifying the Creature Now first can it be tollerably said we sanctifie the sacrifice of Christs body and that it sanctifieth not us That this sacrifice is reputed pure before God from our sincerity in offering That the Apostle in the place now cited speaks of the Body of Christ not Alms And consequently can the Offering of the first Fruits of his Creatures be any other Seeing therefore this Offering of the New Testament which the Church offers is expresly said to be primitias suorum munerum the first fruits of her gifts offered to him that affords us sustenance is it not rationally inferred that it refers also to these Almes and Oblations made at the Sacrament not to any Oblation of the Sacrament well then 2. Mr. Mede's Christian Sicrifice In short in the Primitive times the Church of God was wont to offer very freely of what God afforded them and amongst the rest they offered Bread and Wine to him that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief Minister of the Brethren who took it and gave thanks and glory to the Lord of the whole world then made a large and prolix thanksgiving to him that had made them worthy of such gifts and the rest of the Offerings were distributed either to serve the necessities of the poor or for other uses of the Church as you may find in Justin Martyr Apol. 2. and Irenaeus every where And to this it is that he here refers when he tells us that our Lord instituting this Sacrament taught us a new Oblation of the New Testament I confess Bellarmine here objecteth that Irenaeus speaks of such a sacrifice as was to succeed the sacrifices made in the Jewish Paedagogy Now such were not the sacrifices of Almes Prayers Thanksgivings and therefore Irenaeus cannot be supposed to speak of them But first Irenaeus doth no where say that the sacrifice he speakes of succeeds those of the Jewish Laws but onely that they have ceased to Offer and in their places we now do 2. See this Argument shamtfully balfled in Mat. Boehart traitte du sacrifice de la Mâ—sse seconde partiè Chapitre 5. Will it hence follow that we must offer a proper sacrifice as they did Doth not our service
Majesty as it were over the Lamb of God then lying upon the table their supplications and prayers for the whole State of Christs Church and all sorts and degrees therein thus the Authour of the Mystagogical Catechis Lib. 5. upon these propitiatory hosts we beseech God for the common peace of the Church the tranquillity of the world for Kings Souldiers Companions the afflicted in fine for all that stand in need of help Christ Sac. S. 3. See more of this in the Ingenious Master Mede and partly because it was such a commemoration of Christs sufferings as conveyed unto us an interest in what he hath suffered for us which therefore we are enabled to plead for our selves and others but that Saint Chrysost never esteemed it a proper Sacrament is apparent from these words of his 17. Hom. on the Heb. What do we not continually offer Yes saith he we offer but only by a commemoration of his Christs death there is but one host not many how so because it was offered once and that host viz. once offered was carried up into the holy of holies this that we celebrate is the figure of that former and that the truth of this And a little after he is our high Priest who offers that sacrifice which cleanseth us which we now offer and which then was offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor possibly can be consumed this is done in a remembrance of that which was then done according to that of Our Saviour do this in remembrance of me we do not offer another sacrifice as the Jewish Priests but continually the same or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice what can be more express then this And indeed our Authour saith the same thing S. 4. p. 146. his words are these Ordinarily the conception of a sacrifice is supposed to import an immolation shedding of blood and killing and no such matter appearing here but only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs Blood therefore we Sectaries will not allow it the name of sacrifice Now not to note that if this be the ordinary conception of a sacrifice that then the Fathers must be granted in this matter to have spoken contrary to the ordinary sence which the word beareth and to that which it is supposed commonly to import 1 hence it is clear that he holds the celebration of the Eucharist to be only a commemoration of a sacrifice which we will endeavour to evince from his own words only premizing that Christs sacrifice was a reall immolation and shedding of his blood thus where there is only a commemoration of the reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood there is only the commemoration of Christs sacrifice offered on the Cross but here that is in the celebration of the Mass there is only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood and therefore a commemoration only of his sacrifice S. 6. p. 148. nor is it any thing to the purpose which he adds that it is in the most proper rigorous sence an oblation of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in heaven For to let pass the question sufficiently handled already whether the very same body and blood which Christ offered on the Cross be present in the Sacrament or only the Symbols of it either he terms this a proper oblation because in the Sacrament somewhat is properly tendred or presented unto God and thus we all acknowledge a proper oblation in the Sacrament for there we shew forth the Lords death by presenting before him the sacrifice of atonement that Christ hath made commemorating the pains that he endured entreating God that we may all enjoy the purchase of his blood and reap the benefit of his passion reached forth unto us in the Symbol and that for the sake of the Bloody sacrifice of his Son in which by the faithful receiving of the elements we are interested he will turn away all his anger from us Or Secondly as this word is taken in a stricter sence to signifie a sacrifice of inanimate things as fruits incense c. and thus it is distinguished from a sacrifice of an animate being which was accompanied with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an effusion of blood to which it is requisite Clopen Scb. Suc. ab initio if properly and strictly such ut vel incendio vel alio convenienti riâ—u sacro per sacerdotis ministerium destruatur that it be destroyed by fire or any other convenient Rite by the ministery of a Priest and if this be his sense of an oblation we deny that there is any such destruction or consumption of the reall body and blood of the Lord in the holy Sacrament and shall now consider it Fourthly Sect. 7 Therefore that this is no true and proper sacrifice appears 1. because to a proper sacrifice is requisite that the thing sacrificed suffer some Physical mutation but here is no Physical mutation of the thing sacrificed the Major is proved by Bell from the perpetuall use of Scripture when speaking of a proper sacrifice for what ever in Scripture is properly so call'd was necessarily to suffer such a mutation if it had life by the deprivation of it if it were an inanimate and solid being as Frankincense Salt c. by combustion if liquid as wine blood and water by effusion Levit. 1.2 Secondly He proves it because all the Sacraments did prefigure the death of Christ their death or mutation being Typical of his with Bellarmine consents Cardinal Alanus De Eucha sacrif l. 2. c. 3. who tells us that unless the intervention of some mutation be allowed to the nature of a sacrifice we must acknowledge that first-fruits Tythes the first-born religious persons and innumerable other things which in the Law were consecrated to God must be called sacrifices there being no difference in them from true and proper sacrifices imaginable but this that these gifts thus consecrated remain entire but the things which are sacrificed do not but suffer as it were a change into another species being either kill'd roasted bruised or boiled or by some other action of the Priest consumed But now there is no real mutation here of the thing sacrificed for the thing sacrificed is the very same body and blood which our Lord offered upon the Cross as our Author tells us P. 148. and p. 135. We acknowledge an oral manducation but without any suffering or change in the divine body it self and the victim saith he suffers nothing But should he eat his words as he doth his God I will thus force him to confesse the truth If the body of Christ suffer any mutation when sacrificed then either as to its real being in Heaven or its Sacramental but neither can with reason be affirmed Not the first for Christs natural body is now impassible not the second for then would the body of Christ lose its being in
the plaguy Lutheran Heresie Lastly Mr. C. ibid. hee adds that the Doctrines of this Council are now actually embraced by all Catholick congregations i.e. all Papists wherefore by the Arch Bishops concessions viz. that when the decisions of a General Council are embraced by the universal Church spread throughout the world they are infallible they are to be esteemed infallibly true Which Argument is built upon this supposition that the Arch-Bishop even when defending the reformed Churches against the imputations of the Church of Rome should yet acknowledge her to be the universal Church of God CHAP. XXII Absolute submission not due to Patriarchical Councils sect 1. The Reason of it sect 2 3. Mr. C ' s. Arguments for it Answered sect 4. Nothing can thence be inferred against us sect 5. A Judgement of discretion must be allowed to private men sect 6. The reasons of it sect 7 8. THe sixth Proposition shall be this Sect. 1 That we are not obliged to yeild obedience to the decrees of Patriarchical Councils 6 Proposition but may reject them when ever they contradict the word of God For the eviction of this which is the main Pillar of our Authors Fabrick I will premise 1. That such Councils are not infallible this is evident from the contradictions of them to each other thus the Council of Constance defined a General Council to be superiour to the Pope that of Lateran the contrary the second Council of Nice decreed for Images the Council of Constantinople contradicted that from the evident errours determined by them thus the corporiety of Angels by that of Nice the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Arrian Councils at Ariminum Seleucia and elsewhere from the want of any promise of infallibility from the appeals permitted from them to a General Council the correcting and nulling their decrees by that higher power and many other things 2. That such conventions of men thus fallible Sect. 2 may obtrude Heretical opinions and unlawful practises upon the Churches which are members of that Patriarchate seeing they may and often do obtrude upon others their decrees which by reason of their fallibility may bee Heretical and unjust Yea further the decrees of one Patriarchical Council may be contradictory to another and consequently if the National Churches of these Patriarchates bee bound to assent unto them they must bee bound to bee Schismaticks even in the judgement of the Church of Rome thus V. G. the Council of Trent hath decreed for communion in one kinde celibacy of Priests the worship of God in an unknown tongue the Council of Lateran for the supremacy of the Pope over a General Council now let the Patriarcks of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and other of the Eastern Church assemble such a Council would they not undoubtedly decree the contrary to all these and then according to Mr. C's own rule must not all the National Churches under them be bound to contradict the decrees of the Trent Council and consequently to be Schismaticks yea if Provincial Churches may not examine the decrees of such fallible conventions must they not lye under a necessity of asserting any errour or practising what ever they define though never so contradictory to the law of God Once more it cannot be denied but that the Arrian Councils at Ariminum and Seleucia were at least Patriarchical or equivalent to such and will you add that therefore every Province from whence they were convened were bound to submit to their determinations You will say no because they contradicted the General Council held at Nice Ans True but doth not your Rule assure us that former plenary Councils may be corrected by those that follow and were not the Bishops at Ariminum more numerous then those at Nice 2. What if this of Ariminum had been assembled before the Nicene Council must Arrianisme then have commenced Orthodox VVas there any impossibility but it might have been so He that permitted Arrianisme then to triumph might have done it if he pleased in the former Centuries Lastly Sect. 3 is there any impossibility that the lesser part of a Patriarchate should bee Orthodox and the greater Schismatical and erronious and sticklers for that which God hath contradicted in his Word In this case may not any body see whether a patriarchical Synod will encline and must the Orthodox party then bee necessitated to convene when called to such a Synod and to assent to their determinations and practise contrary to what God requires in his Word Thus in the Trent Council matters stood and they openly professed they came to extirpate and condemn the Plaguy heresie as they called it of the Lutherans By these things wee may see what we are to think of this axiom of our Antagonist Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 237. viz. That if any law custome or doctrine in any Diocesse bee discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province or any Provincial law what is in force in the Patriarchate such a law ought not to be made or being made ought to be repealed Now apply these former instances to the Rule and it will follow that if any Province in the Eastern Churches should acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope and decree Communion in one kind legitimate c. They were bound to alter such Doctrines and decrees and consequently bound to refuse the conditions of Communion tendered to them by the Church of Rome Thus again under the Old Testament when the ten Tribes departed from the Worship of God in the place appointed by himself and set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel it was unlawful for the Tribe of Judah to practise the contrary much more to hold it unlawful so to transgress the Law of God more yet to decree it to be so and had the lesser convention of twenty three determined for Christ and held him the Messias that was to come had they given him the veneration due unto him yea decreed it should be so all this must necessarily have been nulled by the contrary decrees of the greater Sanhedrim The onely Argument which hee useth to uphold this fundamental Rule as hee is pleased to call it Mr. C. p. 246. is that if a Provincial Synod could disannul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we professe in our Creed unam Catholicam Which Syllogistically runs thus if there bee one Catholick Church then must a National Synod bee subject to a Patriarchal But the first is true the sequel depends upon this assertion that without such subjection there could not be one Catholick Church Answ This is manifestly untrue For that cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church which may be sinful but such may be the submission of a National Church to the decrees of a Patriarchal as our instances sufficiently declare Again