principles not to be rely'd on because fallible engaged by interest or affection into a partiality which should be more suspicious to you then the bare fallibility of such men as the Fathers and whoever they be I may safely say not comparable either in learning or virtue to those great ornaments of the Church of God If ever you think fit to look into them take my counsel and look with your own not other mens eyes 'T is your self are concerned and I conceive it injustice to yield a submission to any body else which you deny the Fathers Next do not only read them by starts I mean as an occasional citation invites you but study them and persevere with diligence from the beginning to the end of that piece you desire to be Master of and then if you be truly unprejudic'd and bring a willingnesse to embrace what you find I am as confident you will find the truth this way as I think it extreamly difficult not to say impossible you should come to it by any other It would perhaps not have been improper to consider a little in this place the nature of Arguments drawn from Fathers for neither do we hold this consequence necessary A father affirms this therefore this is true But having been already lonlonger then I intended give me leave to refer you for that point to Mr Whites Controversie Logick and only propose you this short reflexion that since a Father is a Father in as much as he propagates that kind in which he is a Father that is in our case the Church and the Church is a company of faithful and who are faithful is to be known by the rule of faith that point must first be setled before any claim can be made either to father or Church since without it you can neither affirm of any man that he is a Father nor of any company of men that 't is a Church Farther since a Father as such is not a Doctor or deducer of Consequences for so every Doctor of Divinity would be a Father nor a Homilist nor Commentator for the same reason you will find the word strictly look'd into imports a propagator of Christian faith by witnessing what the Church held in the time for which he witnesseth but so as that the witness by reason either of his eminency in learning dignity of place or both or by being an avowed Champion of the Churches Doctrine against her enemies cannot be conceived ignorant of the Churches sence in his days To go therefore properly to work your Testimonies from Fathers should be from men thus qualified speaking as witnesses the words though of the same men if under other capacities being not properly the words of Fathers but of Schollers Preachers or what other capacity they speak in And to these just bounds would you as you ought confine your quotations alas how small a shew would Antiquity afford you perhaps not four in her whole extent Your present appearance will I doubt by this reflexion be discovered to be made out of false Musters nevertheless in condescendence to you let us now examine what you say and let me wonder what you say first viz. That the first Ages were clearly against us Pray what have you or can you have to justifie an Assertion of that sound perhaps you will say the writings of these times But I should think that those who do not write are infinitely more considerable in number and no lesse in value then those who do and do not believe you can assign a reason why the Title and credit of so glorious a title as an Age should be taken from them who certainly best deserve it but of whose sense you have no account at all to be given to those few who have given an account of their sence but do not at al deserv the title Again even of those few who have written how many are lost and never descended down to us who for any thing we know to the contrary may not have been of the same opinion with those whose writings we have If I should write now and you write against me but so as my Book have the fortune to be preserved yours not Will you not think the Age wrong'd if a thousand years hence they conclude that to be the sence of it which they find in my Book Cast up your accounts therefore faithfully and you will find the sum total of your Age to be two or three Writers in every hundred years who are so far from making the sence of the first Ages to be against us for they are of our side too that they do not so much as make it appear what it was Yet since you seem to put a confidence in them let us see to whom they will be more favourable Your first from Irenaeus we look upon as so far from being clearly against us that we use to produce it on our behalf conceiving it expresses very clearly that what was common Bread before consecration does by vertue thereof accepta vocatione cease to be what it was and becomes Eucharist in which are both earthly qualities colour taste c. and heavenly substance the body of Christ A second view will I am confident shew you this to be the sence of the place and cause you to agree in this particular with Luther who in his Defens verb. Coen is of opinion that the vocare Dei did make the things to be vvhat they vvere called and that Irenaeus used the word in that sence The next from Tertullian is accompanied with as great though a more easie mistake his obscurity being very often not penetrable but to laborious and obstinate industry but if you please to look upon the place and throughly consider it you will find his meaning was not that this which he says our Saviour made his body was only a figure of his body but that what anciently was a figure of his body he then made his body for his whole design being to prove that our Saviour fulfilled the figures of the Old Testament the place objected provs particularly the fulfilling that of Bread which being by the Prophet conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus used for a Figure of his body he says is the reason why he took rather Bread then any other thing to change into his sacred body The following ones all but Theodorets have the same difficulty all witnessing the Blessed Eucharist to be an Antitype a figure a sign c. of the body and blood of Christ and that it is so and usually and well called so we agree but that the Fathers ever meant it so a Figure or sign as to exclude the thing signified we deny and conceive it impossible you should prove In what sense they called it so you may if you please learn from the last words of your Testimony attributed by you to S. Austin contra Didim who never wrote any such Book that I know of but found in the Canon Hoc
est de Consecr and said indeed to be taken out of him These now affirm the consecrated Bread to be truly the flesh of Christ and yet a Sacrament also or sign of his Body How observe illius viz. quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce positum est that is this body now immortal now invisible signifies or brings into our mind this same body as mortal as visible c. being it self in a different form a sign of it self Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis the sacrifice mark you of what Of flesh quae sacerdotis manibus fit that is the Mass Christi passio c. non rei veritate sed significante mysterio for the Priest does not truly crucifie truly kill our Saviour but mistically represent to us by sacrificing his now impassible body that great and onely once performed Sacrifice offered upon the Cross in the same body when passible Both actions truly Sacrifice both Victims truly body and the same body but one under one form a Sacrament or sign of it self under another Now that the same thing in a different relation may be a sign or figure or image of it self I hope will not appear strange to you if you reflect that God the Son is the image of his Fathers substance and the same substance was made into the likeness of man and yet truly man c. And your Argument 't is a sign or figure therefore not substance is common to you with the Marcionites who argued Christ because in Image therefore not in truth a servant no man because in likeness a man and because in figure therefore not in substance a man for which they are reprehended and confuted by Tertullian lib. 5. cont Marc. c. 20. So that your Argument were it good proves more then you intended and perhaps imagined and not onely takes away our Saviours bodie from the blessed Eucharist but leaves him none to take away for certainly the same Argument is the same whether in Marcions mouth or in yours and there is no remedy but you must either relinquish it or cannot relinquish him In short what wonder that it is called a sign when it cannot be a Sacrament without being so all our Question is Whether it be a meer sign This the Testimonies should express and not leave to the Readers gloss There remains Theodoret saying the nature is not changed but grace added to it But what is meant by nature then which a more equivocal word seldom accurs is the Question In our ordinary speech very often and in the Fathers most frequently the proper qualities of a thing use to be called natural and nature and that Theodoret meant no more by the word here viz. that the nature that is the taste colour shape c. of bread was not changed I am induced to beleeve both from this very place which tells us we are not to look to the nature or outward appearances of what is seen but for the change of names to beleeve the change made by grace which change I conceive to be a real not moral onely change of substance not office since then the Bread by consecration should become a sign of Christs body which if you will beleeve Tertullian it was before is no such mysterie as to deserve a change of names to require our faith and be manifest onely mysteriis initiatis But more by what he says in his second Dialogue where he plainly tells us the mystical signs are understood to be that which they are made and are beleeved and adored as being the things which they are beleeved Now what think you was Theodoret of your opinion that maintains such a change by vertue of consecration as brings in adoration with it May bread be adored let it signifie what it will unquestionably therefore he held such a change as made the bread to be no longer bread but a fit object of adoration And that it may appear the rest of the Fathers were of his mind and the interpretation I make of their sayings not obtruded upon them but purely their own true sentiments I shall present you with a short taste of their judgment leaving you in case it stir your appetite to desire it for a fuller meal to the large store of their own writings which if you please to fall upon I am confident you cannot bring a hunger which will not meet with full satietie S. Ambros de iis qui myst init c. 9. Quantis igitur utimur exemplis ut probemus non hoc esse quod natura formavit sed quod benedictio consecravit majoremque esse vim benedictionis quam naturae How many examples therefore do we use to prove it is not what nature framed but what the blessing has consecrated and that the force of the blessing is greater then that of nature And in his Treatise de Sacram. l. 4. cap. 5. Antequam consecretur panis est ubi autem verba Christi accesserint corpus est Christi Again ante verba Christi calix est vini aquae plenus ubi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Ergo videte quantis generibus potens est sermo Christi universa convertere Deinde ipse Dominus Jesus testificatur nobis quod corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem nunquid debemus de ejus fide testificatione dubitare Before consecrated it is bread as soon as the words of Christ are added it is the body of Christ Again and before the words of Christ it is a Chalice full of Wine and Water as soon as the words of Christ have operated bloud is made there that bloud which redeemed the people Behold therefore how many ways powerful the speech of Christ is to change all things Moreover our Lord Jesus himself testifies to us that we do receive his body and bloud is it for us to doubt of his credit and witness S. Greg. Nyss orat Catec cap 37. Oportet considerare quomodo fieri potuerit ut unum illud corpus quod tam multis fidelium millibus in universo orbe terrarum semper distribuitur totum per partem sit in unâ—quoque ipsum in se totum maneat Which having discoursed he concludes Haec autem dat virtute benedictionis in illud transelementata eorumquae apparent natura We are to consider how it could come to pass that that one body which is perpetually distributed to so many thousands of faithful through the whole world is whole in every one in particular and remains whole in it self But these things he gives by vertue of the blessing having trans-elemented the nature of those things which appear unto it And Orat. 1. de Resur Qui enim potestate sua cuncta disponit non ex proditione sibi impendentem necessitatem non Judaeorum quasi praedonum impetuus non inquam Pilati sententiam expectat ut eorum malitia sit communis hominum salutis principium causa sed consilio
suo antevertit arcano sacrificii genere quod ab hominibus cerni non poterat seipsum pro nobis hostiam offert victimam immolat sacerdos simul existens agnus Dei ille qui mundi peccatum tollit Quando id praestitit cum corpus suum discipulis congregatis edendum sanguinem bibendum praebuit tunc aperte declaravit agni sacrificium jam esse perfectum For he who by his power disposes all things doth not expect the necessity now neerly approaching from his betraying expects not to be set upon by the Jews like Theeves expects not I say the sentence of Pilate that their malice may be the beginning and cause of the common safetie of mankind but by his providence prevents them and by a hidden kinde of sacrifice which could not be discerned by men offers himself an Host for us and immolates a Victim being himself both Priest and Lamb of God that Lamb which takes away the sin of the world When did he perform this when he gave his bodie to be eaten and blood to be drunk to his Disciples gathered together then he openly declared the Sacrifice of the Lamb to be now accomplished S. Hierom. ep ad Hedib q. 2. Nec Moyses dedit nobis panem verum sed Dominus Jesus ipse conviva convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur Neither did Moses give us the true bread but our Lord Jesus himself both guest and banquet himself both eating and eaten Cyril Al. l. 10. in Joan. c. 13. Non tamen negamus recta nos fide charitateque syncera Christo spiritualiter conjungi sed nullam nobis conjunctionis rationem secundum carnem ejus illo esse id profecto pernegamus idque à divinis scripturis omnino alienum dicimus An fortassis putat ignotam nobis mysticae benedictionis virtutem esse quae quum in nobis fiat nonne corporaliter quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis hahitare Vnde considerandum est non babitudine solum quae per charitatem intelligitur Christum in nobis esse verum etiam participatione naturali Non credis mihi haec dicenti Christo te obsecro fidem praebe Nevertheless we do not deny that we are joyned spiritually to Christ by a righs faith and sincere charity but that we are not at all joyned to him according to the flesh that we utterly deny and affirm it to be altogether against the Divine Scriptures Does he think we are ignorant of the efficacie of the mystical blessing which when it is performed in us doth it not make Christ dwell in us even corporally too by communication of the flesh of Christ Whence is to be considered that Christ is in us not habitually onely that is by charity but also by a natural participation too You beleeve not me in these matters I beseech you beleeve Christ Cyril Hier cat myst 4. Cum igitur Christus ipse sic affirmet atque dicat de pane hoc est corpus meum Quis deinceps audeat dubitare ac eodem quoque confirmante dicente hic est sanguis meus Quis inquam dubitet dicat non esse illius sanguinem aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum quod est sanguini propinquum in Cana Galileae sola voluntaâ—e non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutasset Ne ergo consideres tanquam panem nudum vinum nudum Corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gustu rem judices quin potius habeas ex fide pro certissimo ita ut nulla subeat dubitatio esse tibi donata corpus sanguinem Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi senâ—ui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi Since therefore Christ himself affirms it says of Bread This is my body who dares from thenceforth doubt it himself also confirming and saying This is my bloud who I say is there can doubt and say it is not his bloud In Cana of Galilee he did heretofore by his onely will change water into wine which approaches to bloud and will he become not worthy to be beleeved that he has changed wine into bloud Do not therefore consider it as bare bread and bare wine for according to the words of our Lord himself it is the body and bloud of Christ for although sense do suggest this unto thee yet let faith confirm thee that thou do do not judge of the thing by thy taste but rather hold by faith for most certain so that there be no place for doubt that what is given thee is body and bloud Knowing this and holding for most certrin that this Bread which is seen is not Bread although the taste judge it to be so but the Body of Christ and the Wine which is seen by us although to the sense of taste it seem Wine yet is not Wine but the bloud of Christ S. Aug. Ep. 162. Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam Diabolum sunem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos quod fideles noverunt pretium nostrum And in Psal 33. con 1. Ferebatur in manibus suis Hoc vero fratres quomodo posset fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur manibus suis manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David secundum literam non invenimus in Christo autem invenimus ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendamus ipsum corpus suum ait hoc est corpus meum Our Lord himself endures Judas a Devil a Thief who sold him he suffers him to receive amongst his innocent Disciples that which the faithful know to be our price Again upon these words of Psal 33. And he was carried in his own hands But this brethren how it may be verified in man who can understand for who is carried in his own hands in the hands of another a man may be carried no man is carried in his own How this may literally be understood of David we do not find of Christ we do for Christ was carried in his own handâ— when recommending his own very body he said This is my body S. Chrys in Matth. 26. Hom. 83. Credamus itaque ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit superet sensum rationem nostram sermo ipsius quod in omnibus praecipue in mysteriis faciaâ—us non illa quae ante nos jacent solummodo aspicientes sed verba quoque ejus tenentes nam verbis ejus defraudari
non possumus sensus vero noster deceptui facillimus est illa falsa esse non possunt hic sepius atque saepius fallitur Quoniam ergo ille dixit hoc est corpus meum nulla teneamur ambiguitate sed credamus oculis intellectus id perspiciamus O quot modo dicunt vellem formam speciem ejus vellem vestimenta ipsa vellem calceamenta videre ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Veniat tibi in mentem quo sis honore honoratus qua mensa fruaris ea namque re nos alimur quam Angeli videntes tremunt nec absque pavoâ—e propter fulgo em qui inde resilit aspicere â—essunt Let us therefore beleeve God and not withstand him although what he says seem absurd to our sence and understanding let his words surmount both our sense and our reason this let us do in all things and principally in the mysteries not looking only upon those things which lie before us but minding also his words for by them we cannot be deceived 't is very easie to impose upon our sence 'T is not possible they should be false this is deceived over over again since therefore he has said This is my body let us not doubt at all but beleeve and look upon it with the eies of our understanding O how many are there now who say I would fain see his shape and beauty nay but his cloths his shooes why thou seest his own self touchest himself eatest himself Consider what an honour it is which is done thee at what a Table thou art fed for we are nourished with that very thing which the Angels tremble in beholding and are not able to look upon without dread for the glory which issues from it And Hom. 24. on 1 Cor. Id quod est in calice est id quod fluxit è latere illius sumus participes Hoc â—â—â—â—us etiam jacenâ— in praesepi reveriti sunt magi And cum multo metu tremore adorarunt Tu autem non in praesipi vides sed in altari non foeminam eum tenentem sed sacerdotem astantem Nos ergo ipsos excitemus formidemus longe majorem quam illi Barbari ostendamus reverentiam That which is in the Chalice is that which did flow from the side and of that we are partakers The wise men did reverence to this body lying even in a Crib with much fear and trembling adored it But thou seest it not in the Crib but on the Altar thou seest not a woman holding him but a Priest assisting Let us therefore stir up our selves and fear and shew much more reverence then those barbarous men Again Hom. 17. ad Heb. Eundem enim semper offerimus non nunc quidem alium sed semper eundem Quoniam multis in locis offertur multine sunt Christi nequaquam sed unus ubique Christus qui hic est plenus illic plenus unum corpus Pontifex noster ille est qui illam obtulit hostiam quae nos mundat Illam nunc quoque offerimus quae tunc fuit oblata quae non potest consumi For we always offer up the same not another even at this time but the same because he is offered or sacrificed in many places are there therefore many Christs by no means but one Christ every where who is entire here entire there one bodie He is our Bishop who offered that Host which cleanseth us We also do now offer that Host which then was offered which cannot be consumed And lib. 3. de Sacerd. c. 4. O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodness of God! He who sits with his Father above is in the same instant of time hand led by us all and himself gives himself to those who are willing to receive and imbrace him I shall conclude with two but those so evidently express in the point of Adoration that they seem of themselves enough to conclude the Controversie The First is from S. Ambrose l. 3. de spir sanct c. 12. Itaque per scabellum terra intelligatur per terram autem caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu ut supra diximus adorarunt By a footstool therefore let earth be understood by earth the flesh of Christ which even at this day we adore in the mysteries and which the Apostles as I said before adored in our Lord Jesus The next from S. Austin explicating the same words in Psal 98. Suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit nemo autem illam carnem manducaverit nisi prius adoraverit Juventum est quomodo adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini non solum non peccemus adorando sed peccemus non adorando For of earth he took earth because flesh is of earth and of the flesh of Mary he took flesh and because he walked here in that flesh and gave us that flesh to be eaten unto salvation and none eats that flesh without having first adored it We have found how such a footstool of the feet of our Lord may be adored and how we do not only not sin in adoring it but sin in not adoring it These few I have chosen out of many enough I hope to satisfie you that 't is very far from plain that the first Ages were cleerly against us And that those whose forward confidence has perswaded you to think so have very much wronged the confidence you put in them it being not possible for our selves at this day to express more plainly then those great lights of the Church have done before us That our senses are not in this matter to be trusted that they may but the Word of God cannot deceive us that what we see in the blessed Eucharist is not what nature framed not Bread and Wine though to our senses it seem so but the body and blood of Christ that blood which redeemed the people that very thing which did flow from his side which the Sages saw and adored in the manger that at which the Angels in beholding tremble nor are able to look upon without fear that which no man received without first adoring and which in fine 't is sin not to adore SECT III. Prayer to Saints BVt to proceed page 103. Mr. White strives to answer the Objection of Prayer to Saints alleged as an Innovation so a proof of the uncertainty of Traditions and their corruptions the first Argument from the opinion of the Fathers who held that the souls of Saints were not admitted into heaven before the day of Judgment