in you Joh. 6.54 And taking the Chalice he gave thanks and gave to them saying drinke ye all of this Mat. 26.27 Also In like manner the Chalice after he had supped saying this Chalice is the New Testament in my blood this do ye as often as yee shall drinke in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.25 But none of these places rightly understood nor any other do prove what the Protestants pretend to Particularly to the first of these places I answer that seeing the Protestants do generally interpret this Chapter of S. John not of receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist but onely of believing in Christ it is no objection for them but because most Catholique Divines do interpret it of the Blessed Sacrament it is an objection against us to which therefore I further answer First that all words of Scripture that in their forme seem to import a Precept do not so indeed as where our Saviour saith to his Apostles that they ought to wash one anothers feet Joh. 13.14 yet no man ever held it for a matter of necessity But supposing for the present that it include a Precept I further answer that as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner the substance being to receive Christ the manner to receive him in both kinds by formall eating and drinking So the same distinction is to be made in our Saviours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoever his words may sound of the manner of receiving in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receive his body and blood which may be done under one kind The truth whereof will appeare if we consider first the occasion of the words objected which was the incredulity of the Capernaites whose doubt was not whether the Sacrament was to be given in one or both kinds but as Protestants still doubt whether he could give us his flesh to eat Secondly the manner of his speech which was not by making mention of any kind at all in the said words but only of the things themselves for he doth not say unlesse you eat the bread and drink the wine you have no life but unlesse you eat the flesh and drink the blood both which are equally contained under either bread or wine So that if a man receive the forme of bread only or of wine only he doth therein both eat and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ. And in other places of this Chapter where he makes mention of one kind it is of bread only and not at all of wine so that this place is of no force for the forme of wine unlesse the body and blood of Christ be separated and that receiving the form of bread we receive the body onely and of wine the blood only which must suppose Christ still dead which is most impious and impossible § 5. And if any think that because it is said unlesse you drinke therefore Christ must be received under a forme that may be drunke as well as eaten or else it is not drinking his blood but eating his blood as well as his body I answer it is called eating and drinking not so much in regard of the action as the subject so that flesh being the usuall subject of eating when the Sacrament is called flesh the action is called eating and blood being the usuall subject of drinking when there is mention of receiving the blood the action is called drinking and we are not bound to receive him in a drinkable forme because we are bid to drink his blood but we may be said to drink because we receive that which is in its nature drinkable to wit blood which we doe when we receive the body And if this will not serve the turn they may further argue against us that if we swallow the Host whole we do not eat it eating implying chewing more or lesse and so do not fulfill the precept of eating the flesh And we may argue in like manner against them that if they do not take wine enough to make a draught they do not drinke but onely tast or sip thereof and therein also do not fulfill that which they think they are here commanded But as a Protestant I suppose if the bread and wine should be so mixed together in a cup that both might be drunk together or else eaten with a spoon or in the manner of a moist piece of past or swallowed like a pill will believe that he receives in both kinds and fulfills this in his opinion Precept of drinking the blood So the body and blood being joyned together in either kind to us that believe Transubstantiation we receive both when we receive either kind which act of receiving with relation to the flesh may be called eating to the blood drinking yea though it should be taken in such a manner as strictly speaking should bee neither eating nor drinking I adde moreover with relation to them that do not believe Transubstantiation that the conjunctive particle And doth frequently signifie disjunctively that is Or For example the Apostle saith Acts 3.6 Silver and gold have I none where it is manifest that the sense is silver or gold I have none for if he had had either he had had no excuse of want for his not giving of almes So also S. Paul speaketh of this very Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.29 27. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himselfe which he interpreteth in the same Chapter saying Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of our Lord unworthily In like manner those words Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood if they be taken for eating and drinking under the severall formes of bread and wine are to be understood disjunctively thus Except ye eat the flesh or drink the blood of the sonne of man you shall not have life in you Which disjunctive sense is proved to be the sense intended in this place because else Christ should contradict himself for he promiseth in this same Chapter life eternall to eating only He that eateth me the same shall live by me and he that eateth this bread shall live for ever now if he require unto life eternall eating and drinking both under distinct forms and kinds it is manifest he should contradict himselfe and because this is impossible we must necessarily interpret this place with relation to the severall formes of bread and wine disjunctively thus unlesse you eat or drink The second text urged for Communion in both kinds is Drinks ye all of this Mat. 26.27 which being rightly understood will appeare to be spoken neither to all mankind as to Jewes Turks Infidells as Protestants also acknowledge nor yet to all the faithfull but to all the Apostles and to them all only Which is manifest out of the Text it self for what one Evangelist saith was commanded to all another relates to have been answerably performed by all They drank all
the Sea of Peter De Baptis cont Don. lib. 2. c. 1. c. that is the rock which the gates of hell do not overcome Nor do the Protestants deny the antiquity of the Church of Rome but only some of them deny S. Peter to have been Bishop there or indeed ever to have been there in person which I count a fancy not worth the confuting and they may with as much truth and more reason deny King William the Conquerour to have been King of England or so much as to have been in England seeing there is much more and more noble testimony of that than of this The main thing that they deny is the Antiquity of the doctrine of the Church of Rome for they say the Primitive Fathers taught the Protestant Doctrine and not that which the Church of Rome now teacheth Which I found to be false by the examination of particulars all which if I should here set down I should swell this intended little Treatise into a huge Volume It shall suffice me therefore to give a scant map of the Churches doctrine in the Primitive times and the testimony of some Fathers of the first five hundred yeares of every severall age some in the proof of some of the present Catholique doctrines most strongly opposed by Protestants referring him that is desirous of larger proof to the painefull volumes of Coccius and Gualterus Noting first two things by the way The former that it is not necessary that Catholiques should give this proof For it is sufficient that they are in possession of this faith and that they all say they received it from their Ancestors and they from theirs and so upward to the first beginning of Christian Religion and that the Protestant cannot by any sufficient testimony of Fathers or histories prove the contrary a thing which the Protestants no doubt would highly boast of if they were able to performe it in their owne behalf The latter is that many Protestants do confesse that the antient Fathers did hold many points of belief of the present Roman Church Whitguift Archbishop of Canterbury saith and that without exception of the very first times * Defence against Cartwright p. 472. 473. almost all the Bishops and Writers of the Greek Church and Latine also for the most part were spotted with the doctrines of free will of merit of invocation of Saints and such like And the like is affirmed by many others in many other points as is largely shewed by the book entituled The Protestants Apologie for the Roman Church Against which the Protestants have nothing to say but that which is worse than nothing to wit that they were the spots and blemishes of the Fathers And who I pray are they that undertake to correct Magnificat as we say and like Goliah to defie the whole hoast of Israel But they say that a dwarf standing upon a Giants shoulders may see further than the Giant can and so they by perusing the Fathers may see further than the Fathers could Further perhaps they may in some cases but never contrary they cannot by their help see that to be black which they saw to be white that to be false which they saw to be true § 2. Let us then take a view of the Roman Doctrines as they were held in the dayes of S. Augustine and the foure first generall Councells which were held between the yeares 315. and 457. to which first foure Councells some Protestants seem to give much honour and to subscribe to their Decrees but they do but seeme In those times the Church believed the true and reall presence and the eating with the mouth of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament as Zuinglius the Prince of the Sacramentarians acknowledges in these words a lib. de vera falsa relig cap. de Eucharist From the time of S. Augustine the opinion of corporall flesh had already get the mastery And in this quality she b Chrys in 1. Cor. HoÌ„ 24 adored the Eucharist with outward gestures and adoration as the true and proper body of Christ. The Church then believed the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament c Cyril Alex ep ad Caesar Pat. even besides the time that it was in use and for this cause kept it after Consecration for d Cypr. de laps domestical Communions e Euseb hist l. 7. to give to sick f Amb. de obit Sayr to carry upon the Sea g Euseb hist l. 5. to send into far Provinces She then believed h Paulin. in vita Ambr. Tertul. ad uxâ—c 55. Basil Ep. ad Caes Pat. that Communion under both kinds was not necessary for the sufficiency of participation but that all the body and all the blood was taken in either kind And for this cause in domesticall Communions in Communions for children for sick persons by Sea and at the houre of death it was distributed under one kind onely In those times the Church believed i Cyp. ad Coecil ep 63 that the Eucharist was a true full and entire Sacrifice not onely Eucharisticall but k Euseb de vita Const l. 4. propitiatory and offered it as well for the living l Chrys in 1 Cor. hom 41. as the dead The faithfull and devout people of the Church in those times made pilgrimages to m Basil in 40. Martyr the bodies of the Martyrs n Ambr. de vid. prayed to the Martyrs to pray to God for them o Aug. in Psa 63. 88. celebrated their Feasts p Hier. ad Marcell Ep. 17. reverenced their Reliques in all honourable formes And when they had received help from God by the intercession of the said Martyrs q Theod. de Grac. aff l. 8. they hung up in the Temples and upon the Altars erected to their memory Images of those parts of their bodies that had been healed The Church of those times held r Basil de sanct Spir. the Apostolicall Traditions to be equall to the Apostolicall Writings and held for Apostolicall Traditions all that the Church of Rome now imbraceth under that title She also offered prayers for the a Tertul. de Mon. Aug. de verb. Ap. dead both publike and private to the end to procure for them ease and rest and held this custome as a thing b Aug. de cura pro mort necessary for the refreshing of their soules The Church then held the c Hier. ad Marcel Ep. 54. fast of the forty daies of Lent for a custome not free but necessary and of Apostolicall Tradition And out of the time of Pentecost fasted all the Fridaies of the years in memory of the death of Christ except Christmasse day fell on a Friday d Epiph. in compend which she excepted as an Apostolicall Tradition That Church held e Epiph. cont Apostol Haeres 51. marriage after the vow of Virginity to be a sinne and reputed f Chrys ad Theod.
it is the offer of us all the same do we all promise and we will all perform it Indeed in the first three of the first six hundred years the Church was almost under continuall persecution and so the writers of those times were few and much of that which they wrote did perish in those great ship-wracks of persecution and the matters that they wrote of most commonly were of another quality than concernes our present differences the Heresies of those daies being for the most part different from the present and much of their writings being spent in Apologies for themselves against the Heathen Yet all these advantages of the Protestants are too narrow to cover their designe For in those ages to retort the former boast of the Protestants there is not one single proof out of any one Father rightly interpreted for any one point of doctrine held by Protestants opposite to the Roman Catholique and for the Roman Catholique there is abundance In the alleadging whereof I will begin at the bottom and so go upward in some of which testimonies there shall be intermingling the interpretation of some Scriptures to the same purpose whereby I will include the testimony of Scripture also as it is interpreted by these Fathers who were doubtlesse better expositers than John Calvin or any of his followers And first of the Reall and corporall presence of our Saviour in the Holy Eucahrist and of the Holy Sacrifice of the Masse In the fift age or hundred of years S. Augustine expounding the title of the Psalme in which it is written And he was carried in his owne hands saith * Aug. Conc. 1. in Ps 33. Brethren who can understand how this could be done in man for who is carried in his own hands a man may be carried in the hands of another How this may be understood in David himselfe according to the letter we find not but in Christ we find For Christ was carried in his owne hands when commending his own body he said This is my Body for he carried that body in his hands Nor have the Protestants more reason to deny this place to intend the true reall naturall body and person of our Saviour because Turtullian saith it is a figure of his body than the Manichees and other Heretiques had to deny a reall body to our Saviour when he lived upon earth because the Scripture saith He took upon him the forme of a servant and was made in the likenesse of men Philip. 2.7 From which place they inferred that he was not a man really and indeed but had only the forme and likenesse of a man And if they would ' not stand to the judgement of the Church for the sense and meaning of these words who could convince them For they drew all other places to the sense of this and would not suffer this to yeald unto them though they were never so many or never so plaine In the fourth age S. Ambrose saith * Lib. 4. de Sacram c. 5. Before it be consecrated it is but bread but when the words of consecration come it is the body of Christ. To conclude heare him saying Take and eat of it all for this iâ— my body and before the words of Christ the chalice is full of wine and water when the words of Christ have wrought there it is made blood which redeemed the people Therefore mark in how great matters the word of Christ is potent to convert all things Moreover our very Lord Jesus testifieth unto us that we receive his body and bloud what ought we to doubt of his fidelity and testimony And again he saith * Lib. de iis qui misteriis initiantur c. 9. Perhaps you may say I see another thing how do you affirme to me that I shall receive the body of Christ This yet remaines to us to prove How great examples therefore do we use to prove that it is not this which nature hath formed but which benediction hath consecrated and that there is greater force of benediction than of nature because by the benediction the nature it selfe is changed Moses held a Rod he cast it down and it is made a Serpent c. which if humane benediction were so powerfull that it converted nature what say we of the divine consecration it selfe where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do work In the third age S. Cyprian tells us plainly if the former be not plaine enough for Transubstantiation that * Serm. de Coena Dom. prope init That bread which the Lord did give to his disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh and as in the person of Christ his humanity was seen his divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence doth infuse it selfe after an expressible manner In the second age we find S. Iraeneus speaking thus * Lib. 4. c. 32. in fine But giving councell unto his diciples to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures not as to one that wanted but that they might be neither unfruitfull nor ungratefull he took that which is bread of the creature and he gave thanks saying this is my body And the cup in like manner which is of that creature which is according to us he confesseth his blood and taught a new oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers to God through all the world to him that maketh the first fruits of his gifts in the new Testament nourishments to us of which in the twelve Prophets Malachy 1.10.11 hath thus fore-signified I have no wil to you saith the Lord Omnipotent and I wil not receive a sacrifice of your hands for from the rising of the sun unto the going downe my name is glorified amongst the Gentiles and in every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure sacrifice because my name is great amongst the Gentiles saith the Lord Almighty Manifestly signifying by these words that the former people ceased to offer to God but in every place sacrifice is offered to God and this pure but his name is glorified in the nations Nor can this be meant of the Sacrifice of all Christians in generall but only of the Priests because as by the Chapter it doth appear God speakes of rejecting the Priests of the old law and their Sacrifice and choosing a new priesthood whom he calls the sonnes of Levi Mal. 3.3 by which figuratively is meant the Priests of the new Law and so do the Ministers of England frequently stile themselves the Tribe of Levi. Besides Protestants confesse that their * VVhitak cont Dur. l. 8. p. 572. praiers and best actions are impure and sinfull it cannot therefore be meant of such Sacrifices for this is a pure sacrifice and proper which none but Priests can offer is therefore according to the exposition of S. Irenaeus the Sacrifice of the Body and
blood of Christ the purest sacrifice that can be imagined In this age also Justin Martyr saith In Apol. 2. ad Anton. Imperat prope finem * For we do not take those things as common bread and common drink but as Jesus Christ our Saviour made flesh by the word of God had both flesh and blood for our Salvation so the bread and wine being made the Eucharist by the praier of the word proceeding from him by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change we are taught that it is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus Christ incarnate Lastly in the first age S. Ignatius Martyr and Disciple of S. John the Evangelist speaking of the error of the Saturnians saith a Epist ad Smynium ut citatur à Theodoreto Dial 3. They do not admit Eucharists and oblations because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Saviour which suffered for our sinnes which the Father by his â—ounty raised And S. Andrew the Apostle saith b lib. pass S. Andreae apud SuriuÌ„ I daily sacrifice an immaculate Lamb to the omnipotent God which when it is truly sacrificed and the flesh thereof truly eaten of the people doth continue whole and alive Concerning the honour and Invocations of Saints in the fift age S. Augustine saith c Serm. 17. de verbis Apost prope init It is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be commended And accordingly he did commend himself in these words d Meditat. c. 40. Holy immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God and Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ vouchsafe to intercede for me to him whose Temple thou hast deserved to be made Holy Michael holy Gabriel holy Raphael holy Quires of Angells and Archangells of Patriarchs and Prophets of Apostles Evangelists Martyrs Confessors Priests Levites Monks Virgins and all the just both by him who hath chosen you and in whose contemplation you rejoyce I presume to ask that you would deign to beseech God for me a sinner that I may deserve to be delivered from the jaw of the Devill and from eternall death And again he saith a Lib. de loquutionibus in Gen. prope finem Jacob blessing his Nephewes the sonnes of Joseph among other things he saith and my name shall be invoked in these and the name of my Fathers Whence it is to be noted that not only hearing but also invocation is somtimes said which are not things pertaining unto God only but unto men In the fourth age we find S. Gregory Nazianzene speaking thus to S. Basil the great b In Orat. 20. quae est in laudem Basilii Magni But thou holy and heavenly head I pray thee behold us from heaven and either with thy prayers stop the provocation of the flesh which God hath given us for instruction or truly perswade that we may beare it with a valiant mind and direct all our life to that which is most availeable and after that we shall passe out of this life receive us also there in thy Tabernacles And S. Hierome against Vigilantius saith c Cont. Vigilant c. 3. initio Thou saist in thy book that while we live we may pray for one another but after we shall be dead the prayer of no man is to be heard for another especially seeing the Martyrs regarding the revenge of their blood shall not be able to obtain to which he answers ' If the Apostles and Martyrs being yet in the body can pray for others when as yet they ought to be solicitors for themselves how much more after crowns victories and triumphs And a little after he answers to the objection of their being dead saying To conclude the Saints are not said to be dead but asleep In the third age Origen giues us this example d Initio sui Lamenti I will begin to prostrate my self on my knees and to beseech all the Saints that they help me who dare not beg of God by reason of the abundance of my sin O Saints of God I beseech you with tears and weeping full of griefe that you fall down to his mercies for me miserable wretch And after woe is me Father Abraham pray for me that I be not estranged from thy bosome which I have greatly desired not condignely truly by reason of my great sin In the second age Justin Martyr speaks thus d Apol. 2. ad Anton Pium Imper. non longe ab initio Moreover we doe worship and adore him to wit God and the Son who came from him and taught us these things and the Army of others that followed and of the good Angells assimilated and the propheticall Spirit reverencing in word and truth and fairly delivering it as we are taught to all that will learn And in the first age in the Liturgie of S. James the lesse Ante Med. we have these words e Let us make commemoration of the most holy immaculate most glorious our blessed Lady Mother of God and alwaies Virgin Mary and of all Saints and just ones that we may all obtain mercy by their prayers and intercessions § 5. Thirdly for the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images and chiefly of the holy Crosse hear what S. Augustine saith in the fift age * Tract 118. in Ioan. fine What is the signe of Christ which all have known but the Crosse of Christ which signe unlesse it be applied whether to the foreheads of believers or to the water wherewith they are regenerated or to the oile wherewith they are anointed with the chrisme or to the Sacrifice wherewith they are nourished nothing of them is rightly performed In the fourth age we shall find Athanasius speaking thus and expressing the manner of Catholiques worship of Images * ad Antiochum Principem Let it be far from us that we Christians adore images as Gods as the Greeks do we declare only our affection and the care of our love towards the figure of the person expressed by his image therefore oftentimes we burne as unprofitable the wood which ere while was an image if the figure be worne out Therefore as Jacob when he was to die adored the top of Josephs rod not honouring the rod it selfe but him who held the rod So we Christians do no otherwise adore images but even as moreover when we kisse our Fathers and children we declare the desire of our mind Even as the Jew also did adore in times past the Tables of the law and the two golden Cherubins and certaine other Images not worshiping the nature of the stone or gould but our Lord who commanded them to be made a Homil. 8. in diversos Evangelii locos In the third age * Origen saith thus To conclude * in Ezekiel the Prophet ch 9. v. 4. when the Angell who was sent had slaine all and the slaughter had begun from the Saints they only are kept safe whom the letter
one another to this end That the office of a Pastor is alwaies needfull our Saviour implies in calling his people his sheep and sheep without a shepherd are like to be but il provided for and as they are alwaies sheep so they ought alwaies to have a shepherd which office in ordinary being given to S. Peter first ought to continue out of the necessity of the cause thereof so long as the sheep continue which will be to the end of the world Which S. Peter not being now able to doe in person reason requires that it should be done by his Successors The Apostle 1 Cor. 12.21 compares the Church to a body and saith The head cannot say to the feet I have no need of you which cannot be understood of Christ our head for he may truly say to us all that he hath no need of us it must therefore be meant of some Head here on earth which must continue as long as the Church continues a body and that is to the worlds end And that the successors of S. Peter are this Head S. Chrysostome doubts not to affirm who demanding why Christ shed his blood De Saterdot l. 2. initio Leo Serm. 2. de Annivers assump sua ad Pontific answers It was to gaine that flock the care whereof he committed to Peter to Peters successors And S. Leo Peter continues and lives in his Successors And that his successors are the Bishops of Rome is out of doubt none but they ever assuming it to themselves or having it granted by others For the Bishop of Antioch succeeded not S. Peter in the government of the whole Church but of that diocesse for succession to any in his whole right is not but to him that leaves his place either by naturall death deposition or voluntary resignation now S. Peter living and ruling left the Church of Antioch and placed his Sea at Rome where he also died so that he that succeeds him in that Sea must succeed him both as he was Bishop thereof and likewise as he was Head of the whole Church as for the Bishop of Antioch he did never either possesse or pretend to higher than the third place amongst the Patriarchs Cone Nic. Can. 6. Gelasius In decret cum 70. Episcopis affirmes that the Roman Church is preferred before other Churches not by any constitutions of Councells but she obtained Primacy by the Evangelicall voice of our Lord saying thou art 〈◊〉 upon this rock I will build mâ—… 〈◊〉 And S. Hierome in his 59. Epistle 〈…〉 to Pope Damâ—sus saith To 〈◊〉 she 〈◊〉 require from the Priest the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—tion and from the Pastor 〈…〉 I speak with the successor of th◠〈◊〉 shoâ—â— c. I following none but Christ in 〈◊〉 joyned in Communion to your holyn sse that is to the chaire of Peter upon that rock I know the Church to be builded 3. whosoever out of this house eates the lamb is prophane whosoever shall not be in the Ark of Noe shall perish in the deluge And S. Aug. writing to Pope Innocentius Epist 92. saith wee think that by the Authority of your Holynesse derived from the authority of Holy Scriptures they will more easily yeeld who believe such perverse and pernicious things Wherein he derives the Popes authority from the Scriptures And S Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius saith thus Thou alone art not only the Pastor of sheep De consider l. 3 cap. 8. Epist 190. ad Innoc. PP but also of Pastors Thou demandest how I prove this Out of the word of our Lord. For to whom I do not say Bishops but also of the Apostles were all the sheep so absolutely and indeterminately committed Peter if thou lovest me feed my sheep which the people of this or that city country or Kingdome Hee saith my sheep To whom is it not plain that hee did not assigne some but all Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished c. To conclude James who seemed a pillar for the Church was content with Jerusalem onely yeelding the universality to Peter And with the Fathers apart doe concur the Fathers united in Councell by whom in many Councells this truth hath been declared as in the Councell of a Sess 14. c. 7. Trent the Councell of Florence b Sess ult the Councell of c Respons Synod de authoritat Conc. general Basil the Councell of d Part. 2. Act. 3. Ephesus the Councell of e Sub. Innoc. 3. e. 5. Lateran the second Councell of f Act. 2. Nice the Councell of g Conc. Chal. Act. 1. Act. 3. tom 2. p. 252 edit Venet. Chalcedon as is easy to shew at large if need required § 3. As for the attempt of the Bishop of Constantinople against the Pope it was not for the Primacy and headship of the Church Catholique but only of the Churches of the East And the title of universall Bishop which he claimed was not with intent of superiority over the Pope but over the other Patriarchs who were all of the Easterne Empire and in association with the Pope for those parts yet with subjection to the Pope acknowledging him the root and stock of the universality even as Menas Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of this contention acknowledges saying Concil Constant sub Men. Act. 4. we will in all things follow and obey the sea Apostolique And as the Emperour and Patriarch both acknowledge as S. Gregory lib. 7. indict 2. ep 93. reports in these words Who is it that doubts but that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Sea Apostolique which the most religious Lord the Emperour and our brother Bishop of the same city continually protest And if it were true as Protestants imagine that the Bishop of Constantinople contended with the Pope for the absolute Primacy over the Christian world this doth no more prove his right than Perkin Warbecks pretention in the daies of King Henry the seventh did prove his right to the crown of England And certain it is that neither the one nor the other did obtain that which he aspired to but were rejected by the voice of mankind which is an argument that their claim was unjust § 4. Another great objection of Protestants against the Popes Primacy is fetched from S. Gregory who was Pope himselfe and is this That he that intitled himselfe universall Bishop exalted himselfe like Lucifer above his brethren and was a forerunner of Antichrist To the understanding of which words I found that the word universall hath two meanings the one proper literall and grammaticall whereby it signifies Only Bishops excluding all others the other transferred and Metaphoricall whereby it signifies the supreme over all Bishops and S. Gregory censured this title in the first sense because that from hence it would have ensued that there had been but one Bishop only and that all the rest had been but his Deputies and not true Bishops and true Officers of Christ as
way of receiving it is impossible to receive him unworthily which is contrary to the Scripture and the common beliefe of all Christians for according to them none receive him but they that receive him worthily faith being the means with them which makes them receive him both really and worthily which who so wants doth not receive at all so that every one that receives him really receives worthily and the rest receive nothing but bread and wine and so do not receive Christ unworthily but only bread and wine at the most unworthily and how this should make them properly guilty of the body and blood of our Lord which they do not receive and liable to damnation thereby as the Apostle saith it doth is beyond the reach of my apprehension Others coming yet nearer say that they believe the reall and corporall presence but they do not believe Transubstantiation they believe that Christ is truly there but the manner they say is unknowne and unexpressible But they ought to know that men ought firmely to believe the manner of a mystery revealed when the same belongs to the substance of the mystery so that rejecting the manner we reject also the substance of the mystery Now the mystery in substance is that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest the Minister thereof shewing what seems bread may truly say thereof in the person of Christ this is my body This supposed as the substance of the mystery I infer that two Catholique doctrines concerning the manner thereof belong to the substance of this mystery and cannot be called in question without danger of misbelief First the reall presence of the whole body of Christ under the forme of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation because it cannot be done otherwise Even as he that believes the mystery of the Incarnation the substance whereof is that in Jesus Christ the nature of God and the nature of man were so united that God is truly man and man God he must necessarily believe that this union is not metaphoricall and in affection only but true and reall Secondly that this union is substantiall not accidentall Thirdly that this union of natures is not by making one nature of both as Eutyches taught but hypostaticall whereby the nature of God and man is united in one person This mystery is high subtile and incomprehensible to flagging reason yet must be believed seeing it belongs to the substance of the mystery which could not be true if it were not thus so it is in the reall presence As for the novelty of the word which some object they have little reason to do so knowing it is some hundreds of years older than the name Protestant and for the thing it is as antient as our Saviours celebrating his last supper And had not the Catholique doctrine been opposed by Heretiques perhaps the word had not yet been in use no more had consubstantiall used in the Nicene Creed had not Arrius denyed the Son to be consubstantiall or of the same substance with the Father For the Church doth and may make fit words to explicate the truth of her doctrine as occasion requires wherein she doth not change the doctrine but expresseth it more plainly or significantly CHAP. XXII Of Communion in one kind § 1. I Will instance in two particulars more because I know that Protestants doe mightily check at them the former is Communion in one kinde the later Prayer in an unknown tongue Concerning the former Protestants are by their Ministers instructed to beleeve that in this matter Catholiques are sacrilegious against God and injurious to men robbing the Church of the precious blood of Christ and giving the people a lame and halfe Sacrament instead of one whole and entire But to rectifie their understandings they may be pleas'd to take notice that the Catholique Church doth not count it in it selfe unlawfull to receive in both kinds nor yet doth she hold it necessary but in its owne nature indifferent and so by consequence determinable to one or both kinds according to the differences of persons times and places as she in her wisedome shall think fit But Protestants think it absolutely necessary for the Laity to receive in both kinds first because it was so instituted secondly because it was as they think so commanded These being the two hinges of this their opinion we must here a while arrest our considerations wherein I shall shew that there is no precept of receiving under both kinds and that the institution hath not the force of a precept § 2. To begin with the institution we must know that for a man to be bound to use any institution of God two things are required First that the end of the institution be necessary and that it be necessary for every particular person to endeavour the attaining thereof whence all men hold that though the propagation of mankind by marriage be an institution of God necessary for the continuation of the world yet while there are enough that comply with that duty to which mankind is in generall bound every particular person is not oblig'd to marry Secondly that if every particular person be bound to endeavour to attaine the end of an institution that also the whole thing instituted be necessary for the attaining of that end for if there be variety of meanes ordained sufficient for the attaining of that end a man is not bound to use all that which is instituted but it is sufficient to use so much thereof as will lead a man to that end Whence all men againe hold that although God created and instituted variety of meats and drinks for the maintainance of mans corporall life yet no man is bound to use them all but he dischargeth his duty sufficiently if he use so much of any of them as will suffice to arrive at that end for which they were instituted to wit the maintainanee of his corporall life so that if a man can live of two or three sorts of meat he is not bound to use ten or twenty and if he can live of meat without drink he may without offence choose whether he will ever drink or no. To apply this to our present purpose it is apparent enough that by the force of divine institution only no man is bound to use Communion under both kinds For though the end why Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kinds be necessary and all must endeavour the attaining thereunto to wit maintainance and increase in grace which is the life of the soule yet there are other meanes of Gods institution also by which we may attaine to this end Whence it is that learned Divines hold that though the Sacrament of the Eucharist be necessary NECESSETATE PRAECEPTI by the necessity of precept yet it is not necessary NECESSITATE MEDII as they speak that is the use thereof is not such a necessary meanes for the maintenance of spirituall
life but that a man wanting meanes of sacred communion may by other meanes preserve himselfe in the state of Grace And though we should suppose that actuall Communion were a necessary meanes to preserve spirituall life yet Communion in one kind is abundantly sufficient thereunto as I shall presently shew and if so by force of the institution there is no more required For we must know that there is a great difference between an institution and a precept the precept of both kinds if Christ gave any doth bind whether both kinds be necessary for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the institution of both kinds doth not bind to the use further than the thing instituted is necessary to the maintenance of the said spirituall life to which seeing one kind is sufficient the institution of both kinds doth not oblige us to the use of both § 3. Now that Communion in one kind is sufficient Transubstantiation being supposed easily appeares in that the Sacrament in the sole form of bread seeing it containes the author and fountaine of life whole and intire according to body soule blood and his infinite person is abundantly sufficient for the refection of the soule yea no lesse than Communion under both kinds For this one kind containeth in it no lesse than is contained in both that is whole Christ God and man His body is there by force of these words This is my body and by concomitance there is the blood the soule the divinity for there is the person of Christ alive which implies all these particulars it being impossible he should be there otherwise as S. Paul saith Christ rising againe from the dead now dieth no more death shall have no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 And to the receivers of Christ by eating only he promiseth the end of the Sacrament which is life He that eateth me he shall live by me John 6.58.59 and to the sole reception of him under the forme of bread He that eateth this bread shall live for ever And this surely he would not have said if receiving in both kinds had been necessary § 4. But because Protestants deny Transubstantiation I will without that supposition prove that to receive in one kind is sufficient First because that in one kind is contained the whole substance essence and parts of the Sacrament and secondly because it is not against any divine precept As for the institution I have proved already that it hath not the force of a precept First in one kind alone is contained the whole substance and essence of the Sacrament which are these fowre matter word signification causality First there is the element or matter of the Sacrament which is consecrated bread and manducation thereof secondly there is the word or form of speech shewing the divine and supernaturall purpose whereto the element is consecrated This is my body and these two make a Sacrament according to S. Aug Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Thirdly there is a signe or signification therein and that three-fold first of spirituall food for the nourishment of the soule secondly of union and conjunctions between Christ and his Church and between the faithfull one with another even as in the bread there is a mixture of flower and water and in the flower of many graines together Thirdly the death and passion of Christ is hereby signified For as by the wine we have a motive to remember his blood shed and separated from his body so by the bread we may conceive his body deprived of blood by the effusion thereof upon the crosse whereupon Christ as S. Paul testifies 1. Cor. 11.24.25 did after the consecration of each kind particularly recommend the memory of his passion as knowing thas in each of them alone was a sufficient memoriall thereof Lastly there is causality that is a working in the soule the spirituall effects it signifies as our Saviour saith He that eateth this bread shall live for ever Joh. 6.59 And if any object that though there be all the essentiall parts of the Sacrament in one kind yet there are not all the integrall parts I answer that bread and wine are not two integrall parts of the Sacrament more than the severall particles of the bread and wine are integrall parts and as the Sacrament is sufficient whether it be in a greater or lesse quantity of bread or wine so is it whether it be in bread only or wine only for our Saviour instituted the whole Sacrament both in bread and in wine as two distinct intire matters thereof not as integrall parts thereof and gave us leave to use or both or either as shall appeare in that he hath not obliged us by any precept to the use of both And thus it appeareth that the Sacrament in one kind is full intire and complete in substance and that by participation thereof prepared consciences do receive the benefits of Christs death and passion Neither doth it hereupon follow that because the Sacrament is essentially and intirely contained under either kind therefore the Priest receiving underboth receiveth two Sacraments for being received both at once they make but one as being ordained to one refection signifying one thing and producing one effect Even as six or seven dishes of meat set upon a table do make but one dinner whereas part thereof being served one day and part another would make two And the reason why Priests receive under both kinds is because they offer up a Sacrifice representing the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which were not perfectly represented but by both kinds wherefore also in this sort was it prefigured in the Sacrifice of Melchizedek offering bread and wine It being thus proved that whole Christ and the true essence and parts of the Sacrament are under either kind it followeth that in distributing it in one kind only there is no irreverence offered to the Sacrament it not being given as Protestants thinke halfe or maimed but essentially and intirely whole nor is any injury done to the people by depriving them of any grace meet to salvation seeing the very fountaine of grace is no lesse received under either kind than under both Nor is it the opinion of the greater part of Catholique Divines that more grace is obtained by communicating in both kinds than in one yet if it were this advantage might be easily ballanced by other meanes as by the more frequent receiving in one kind and by our obedience to the Church Now by the premisses it is evident that whether we respect the institution of the Sacrament or the nature thereof no obligation or necessity ariseth of receiving in both kinds The only question therefore remaining is whether we be bound thereunto by any expresse Precept of our Saviour or his Apostles Protestants believe we are and for proof thereof alledge these places Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you shall not have life
God upon their soules but to remain in the Protestant Communion by the private instigations of flesh and blood Who wanting the seasoning of Charity doe warp and shrink from that to which their judgement hath joyned them Whose faith like bullion though it be good metall in it selfe yet wanting the stamp of of Catholique Communion and obedience is not currant in the Kingdome of heaven nor will serve in their journey to defray them thither But they according to the condition of all weak minds accounting the Present evill as losse of goods friends and the like the most intolerable desire to avoid that and put to adventure the ensuing And so while they saile through the troublesome Sea of this life unskilfull of steerage in a storme do strike and split their soules upon the flats of fear and rocks of presumption forgetfull of that dreadfull threatning of our Saviour He that shall deny mee before men shall be denyed before the Angells of God Luc. 12.9 Now to the diligence of examination before mentioned for those that are not yet convinced in their judgements a Protestant is bound by Chillingworths owne rule who though he say that for as much as there is no infallible guide and that therefore a man must follow the choice of his own reason in what he doth believe and that God will be contented with that be it more or lesse true or false being as much as he can attain to yet addes withall that a man must imploy his uttermost endeavours to the finding out of the truth And who is it amongst the Protestants that hath done that Who hath spent all his spare time much lesse who hath spared all the time he could to this enquiry I think no Protestants conscience can acquit him in this case and if not he must not think to quiet himselfe by saying that to the best of his understanding the Protestant Religion seemes true if he have not imployed all his endeavours to find whether it be so or no which cannot be unlesse with King Philip of Macedon he keep one ear for the party accused hee equally heare both sides Wherefore devesting themselves of all prejudice and prepossessed opinions like white paper wherein there is nothing written let them addresse themselves with all their spare time yea they ought to make spare time rather than to want it to a sad and serious consideration of the great businesse of Religion the truth whereof who so gaines though with the losse of all temporall felicity doth highly improve his estate considering that as our Saviour saith what will it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his owne soule Math. 16.16 And let no man defer this most important affaire and put it off to the later end of his life which how soon it will happen the youngest know not as if the Kingdome of heaven were like a market cheapest at the later end of the day or that because nature hath placed the seat of his memory in the hindermost part of his head therefore he may defer the remembrance of God and of comming to him by the path of true Religion to the hindermost part of his life But as God himselfe saith while it is called to day harden not your hearts Psal 94.8 lest his delay pull upon himselfe the forsaking of God and steel his forehead to the perpetuall refusall of his mercifull invitation and so he and especially the Citty of London which hath been purpled with the blood of so many martyrs hear the complaint and curse of our Saviour sounding in his eare O Jerusalem Jerusalem which killest the Prophets and stonest them that are sent to thee how often would I have gathered thy children as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and you would not behold your habitation shall be left unto you desolate Math. 23.37 CHAP. XXII Of the foolish deceitfull and absurd proceedings and behaviour of Protestants in matter of Religion And of the vanity and injustice of their pretext of conscience for their separation from the Roman Church § 1. HE that will apply himself to this inquest as I have done shall find that the objections of Protestants against Catholique Doctrines are very weak and sleight they are but paper-pellets and make more noise than hurt the workes also that they raise for their owne defence are as weak and easily dismantled I found that their objections were answered again and again which a later writer would take no notice of but retrive the first arguments and urge them as fresh as if they had never been urged before or at least had never been answered forgetting to make reply to the Catholique Answers which was indeed because they could not do it And in their writings I found much abuse of all Authors even from the Bible it self to the Authors of latest times either misalledging the words â—or misconstruing the meaning or urging that for their purpose which was indeed to no purpose § 2. Particularly for their mistranslating of Scripture wherein they grievously accuse one another as I shewed before I will alledge two or three places of a great many for a tast wherein their unfaithfulnesse is apparent as first that notable depravation of their Master Luther which I have mentioned before in adding the word only where the Apostle saith that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 Also where the Apostle saith give diligence by good works to make your calling and election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 the English Bibles leave out these words by good works and yet Beza in his notes upon the place acknowledges these words to be in almost all the antient Greek Copies Also in the same Chapter fifteenth Verse these words are read according to the originall I will do my diligence also you to have often after my decease that you may have a remembrance of these things shewing thereby that he would pray for them after he was dead as S. Chrysostome expounds it saying Rejoyce ever you blessed Apostles in our Lord without intermission pray for us fulfill your promises for ô Blessed Peter thou cryest out speaking thus I will do my diligence after my coming to make mention of you 2 Pet. 1.10 Now the English Bibles read this place thus Moreover I will indeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance corrupting the sense and making it signifie only that he would indeavour that they should remember those things when he was dead whereas he saith that he would indeavour after he was dead that they should remember those things and thereby it proves that he prayed for them after be was dead a Doctrine which many Protestants will not allow Also in the first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 11. v. 27. where the Apostle saith whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord the
English translates it thus whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily putting and for or thereby making the Apostle speak of the receiving of the bread and wine unworthily in an united sense whereas he speakes of them in a divided sense Thus in very many places do they deal with the Scripture like the Elephant when he goes to drink who troubles the cleer water with his feet because he will not see the deformity of his face So they trouble and defile the sense of Scripture either in words or exposition because they would not see the deformity of their Errors Many falsifications also and corruptions of Catholique Authors by the Protestant writers I have met with as where they speaking something by way of supposition they alledge them as if they speak it positively and absolutely where they bring the objections of Heretiques they alledge them as speaking the words in their owne names where they relate with reprehension the sayings of wicked men they alledge them as saying those words themselves which is as if they should charge S. Mathew himselfe with the words of the Pharisees against our Saviour Behold a glutton and a drinker of wine Math. 11.19 But I will not be particular in this matter because many that have been guilty in this case have been called to a strict account by their Catholique answerers And when they are pressed by Catholiques with plaine and direct proofes O what serpentine wriglings and windings to escape the assaulters doe they make O what perverse ridiculous contradictory answers and evasions do some of them make in which they doe at once shew both much wit and much folly for fooles could not speak as they doe and wise men would not In so much that a Answer to a Jesuites challenge chapt of limb Patrum Bishop Vsher Primat of Armagh a very learned man to avoid the confession of Christs descent into hell according to the Article of the Creed in the plaine sense thereof doth so turn it and winde it that he makes the sense of the words He descended into hell to be He ascended into heaven to such pittifull refuges doth the weaknesse of a bad cause drive them And thus they that have the most learning amongst them being by unhappy accident bred up in an erroneous Religion and thereby presuming it to be true do bend all the endeavours of their learning to the maintenance of their errors and the obscuring of the truth which learning if it were directed to the right end might by just title claime a place in the first file of desert even like a torch which turned downward is extinguished with that wax which held upward would make it bright and glorious But though their learning were a hundred times doubled yet as Aarons serpent devoured the Magicians serpents Exod. 7.12 so the wisedome of God which is in his Church will confound the sensuall wisdome of all her opposers seeing there is no wisdome nor prudence nor councell against God Prov. 21.30 § 3. I further observed that the arguments of Protestants for themselves were very fallacious most frequently in that which the Logicians call FALLACIA CONSEqUENCIA which is when the consequence is not justly inferred for example they argue thus the Sacrament is called a figure of Christs body therefore it is not his true and reall body which is a false Consequence for it may be both even as Christ is called a figure of the substance of his father Heb. 1.3 and yet is also the same substance Christ saith come unto me therefore we may go to no body else which is false for we may go to him and others also The Apostle saith that we are Justified by faith therefore say they not by works whereas we are justified by both We must confesse our sinnes to God therefore not to a Priest whereas wee must do both Christ is the head of the Church therefore the Pope is not whereas both are in severall capacities The like might be said in many others by which kind of arguing unlearned people are exceedingly deluded think that while one thing must be done that must be done only the veine of that word only invented by Luther in the matter of justification by faith running through the whole body of their Religion § 4. Moreover I found this contradiction amongst the Patrons of Protestancy that some of them reject the Fathers and accuse them of being infected with the errors which prevailed in their times and what were their errors even all that they taught contrary to their Protestant doctrines so making themselves the rule to judge the Fathers by and not the Fathers which any wise man would think more fit a rule to themselves who no doubt knew the Scriptures also and what was agreable or contrary to them better than they Protestants being herein like carpenters who wear their rule at their backs casting behind them neglecting those that should guide their belief But other Protestants ashamed of this insolency pretend for the credit of their cause that the Fathers are altogether on their side and then with much labour hunt out some obscure passages most liable to be wrested and triumph therein as if they had found a demonstration which when they are sifted either they make nothing for them or else quite against them who in this case are like to a man ready to be drowned who to save himselfe will catch hold on a naked sword with which he cuts his fingers So Protestants sunk into the despaire of their cause think to save themselves by that which serves but to encrease their overthrow They pretend also to answer many plaes of the Fathers alledged by Catholiques and to give their words a Protestant meaning and thereby run the Fathers into manifest contradiction of themselves in regard that the Fathers have but some oblique passages which seem and but seem to make for them as whoever spake so exactly nay who can possibly speak so exactly as that his words may not be made to seem different from his meaning but they have whole Bookes Sermons Tractates and a world of dispersed places of purpose in the maintenance of Catholique truths And though they say that the Fathers taught Protestant doctrine and they give a Protestant sense though very incongruous to many of the places of the Fathers alledged by Catholiques yet they dare not use those words and Phrases of the Fathers as of the Masse the Altar the Sacrifice concerning reall presence prayers to Saints and for the dead merits satisfaction and Purgatory with the like in their prayers Sermons and books which if they speak Protestant Doctrine in the true sense of the Fathers as they say they do why do they not with the sense make use of the words and speeches also I can conceive no other reason but for fear the peoples understandings not so fraught with prejudice nor acquainted with their uncouth evasions should carry them