chalice his blood if they acknowledge him not to be the son of the maker of the world Tertullian who liv'd in the year 230 sayes thus in his book of the resurrection of the flesh the flesh is wash'd that the soul may be clean'd the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated the flesh eateth of the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be âurish'd Origânâs who liv'd in the same age sayes thus hom 7th in Eum speakiÌg of the old law thân the manna was meat in figure but now the flesh of God is meat inspecie as himself sayes my flesh is mâat in deed and in his 5th Hom in diversa loca Evangely speaking of the Centurian he sayes the follwing words whân you receive the holy meat and uncorrupted banquet when you receive the bread and cup of âief you eat drinke the body blood of the Lord then the Lord inters into your house you therefore humbling yourself immitate this Centurian sayâ o Lord I am not worthy that thou shoââest inter into ây house St Cypriaâ who liv'd in same Century in his 5th ser de Lapsis sayes thus Violence is infer'd to his body blood they offend now more the Lord wiââ their hands mouâh than when thâ deny'd the Lord and in his ser oâ the Lords supper he also sayes the following words the doctrin of this Sacrament is streange â the Evangelical schooles publiâh'd ãâã this doctrine it first appear'd to thâ world by Christ the teacher thereof thâ Christians should drinke blood who drinking is most strictly forbidden ââ the Authority of the old law but ââ Gospel commends to drinke it Befoââ I shall proceed further I muââ take notice of St. Cyprian's words positively affirming that this Doctrine of the real presence has been first taught by Christ and his Disciples and also that Christians are commanded to drinke blood which was prohibited by the old law for the old lawâ did not prohibit to drinke blood in figure or in remembrance for the Jewes did drinke the blood of Christ figuratively in drinking the water which flow'd our of the Rocke therefore that which was prohibited by the old law was only to drinke true and real blood but St. Cyprian clearly affirms that the Gospel commaÌds the Christians to drinke that which was prohibited by the old law therefore St. Cyprian affirâ that the Christians are commanâed by the Gospel to drinke tââ and real blood and consequenâ not in figure as my adversaâ would faine perswade St. Hilaâus who liv'd in the 4th Centâry in his 18th book of the Tânity says thus If the word be tââ incarnate we do truly receive the wââ flesh of the flesh blood 's âââ there is noe roome left for being doubt for by the Lord 's own confesâ and by our faith it is truly flesh truly blood let us read what is wriââ and let us understand what we rââ and then we will perform the dutâ perfect faith for according to the tural truth of Christ in us what ââ we learn unless we learn it fâom â we learn it imprudently impiously fâr he said my flââh is meat in deed c. St. Cyril of Ierusalem who liv'd in the sâme Century Catech 4 sayââ the following words This of St. Paul's Doctrine can sufficiently make ye most certain coâcerning the divine mysteries seeing Christ himself so affirms sayes of the bread this is mâ body whâ afterwards can presume to doubt the same also saying confirming this is my blood who I say can doubt say that it is not his blood St. Ambrose who also liv'd in the same Century in his book de Mysterys Initiandis c 9th sayes the following words Perhaps you may say I see the contrary how can you affirm to me that I can receive Christ's body this now we are to prove therefore wâ use great examples that we may prove this not to be what nature form'd but what benediction consecrated the benediction to be of more power than the naturâs because even âhe very nature is converted by the benediction Moses threw a rod which he converted into a serpent aftârwards he tooke the serpent's tail converted the same into a rod therefore you see the nature of the serpent of âhe rod to have been twiâe chang'd by a Prophetical benediction If human benediction be of such power that it can change nature what do we say to the divine consecration where the very words of the Lord our Saviour do worke for the SacrameÌâ which you receive is perfected by the words of Christ what if Elias's words were of such force that they cou'd draw fiâe out of heâven will not Christs wârds be able to change the nature of the elements Of all the workes in the world you have read because he said they were made he commanded they were created therefore Christ's words which cou'd make that which was not of nothing can they not change these things which are into that which they were not for it is not less to give things new beings than to change their natures but why doe wâ use arguments but let us use his own examples prove the truth of this mysterie by the IncarnatioÌ's example did the course of nature take place when the Lord was born of Mary it is manifest that the Virgin conceiv'd contrary to the order of nature this body which we perform is of the Virgin Why do you iâquire here thâ câuâse of ãâ¦ã Chââst's body when the Lord himself wâââorâ of the Virgin beyond the coârsâ of nature Surâly the true flesh of Christ was crucifi'd buri'd truly thân the sâcrament iâ of that same flesh Tho' what I have already produc'd of this eminent Doctor 's Authority might satisfie any impartial reader yet I will adde these other Authorityes of his confirming the same in his 4th book de Sacram c 5. he sayes thus The Lord Iesus Christ declar'd unto us that we receive his own body blood why shu'd we doubt of his Authority testimoney and in his 6th book c 1 he also sayes thus as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true son of God even so it is true flesh which we receive as himself said St. Gregory Nazâanzen who liv'd in the same age in his 2 Oration de Paschaâe sayes the followings words eate the body drinke the blood with-out confusion doubt be constant firm stedfast you need not be any thing troubl'd in mind for the adversary's discourse St Ephrem who liv'd in the year 365 in his book de Natura Dei minima Scrutanda c 5 sayes the following words why do you track-out unsearchable things If you search curiously these things new you will not be call'd faithfull but curious be faithfull innocent partake of the immaculate body of thy Lord with full faith being sure that you do eat the intire lambe the mysteries of Christ are everlasting fire do
not rashly searââ them over âest you should burn in their search St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 370 in his book nam'd Ancoratus sayes thus We see thaâ our Saviour tooke in his hands as thâ Evangelist hath when he gave thanks he said this is my body none mistrusts his words for he whâ dose not believe it to be his true fleâh falls from grace life and in a nother place cited by the Fathers of the 7th General Council in the 6th Action he sayes the following words Never shall âo find our Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers saying that the unbloody sacrifice which is offer'd by the Priests is an Image but his very body blood St. Hierome who liv'd in the year 390 Epist to Hedib sayes thus but let us know that the bread which the Lord brake gave to his Disciples was the Lord our Saviours body himself saying to them take ye eat this is my body St Chrysostom who liv'd the year 398 Hon â1 in Matt sayes the following words he who bestowed his own life for you why will he sâorn to give you his own body therefore let us hâarken the Priests how noble how admirable is that thing which is granted unto us he has given us his own flesh c. He also sayes thus Hom 53 Let us believe God let us not contradict him altho' what he sayes may seem strange to our sense imagination for it surpasâes our sense reason I beseech you what may we suppose of his words in all things chiefly in mysteries not only considering âhese things which layes before us but also his words for we cannot be deceiv'd by them but our senses may easilie be deceiv'd his words cannot be false therefore because he said this is my body let us he convinc'd by noe ambiguity but let us believe perceive this with the eyes of our understanding O how many now sayes I wou'd fain seâ his face countenance I wou'd wish to see his garments therefore you see him you feele him you eat him you desire to see his garmeÌts truly he deliver'd himself to you not only that you may see him but also that you may touch him intertain him in yourself In his 3. book de sacerdotio he sayes thus he that âits above with his Father even in the same instant of time is touch'd by the hands of all gives himself to all those who are willing to receive him whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us yet ascending to heaven there also he hath it More of St. Chrysostom's Authorityes plainly confirmiÌg the same may be seen in his 8â Hom. on Matt. 45th on John 3 on St. Paus's Epist to the Ephes in his 2. to those of Antioch and in his 6th book de Sacerdotio St. Augustin who liv'd the year 420 expounding that of the 33. Psal he was carri'd in his own hands puts the question inquiring how can these words be understod aÌswers sayiÌg thus we cannot find this in David according to the litteral sense but we may find it in Christ for Cârâsâ ãâ¦ã in his own haâds wâe gâvâ ãâ¦ã body he said thiâ ãâ¦ã he caârid that bâdâ ãâ¦ã In his â book ãâ¦ã legis eâ Prophet c 9 he sayes âhe following wârds wâ receive the Mediator of God man Ieâus Christ with a fuâl heart mouth gâvâng us his own flâsh blood to be ãâã dranke Here the Reader may take notice of the word mouth that thereby he may understand S. Augustin to have openly declar'd that we do not receive the flesh blood of Christ in figure and by faith only as my adversary believes which may be further confirm'd by S. Augustin's own words in his 2. ser de verbis Apostoli where he sayes thus we understând the true master divine redeemer kiÌd Saviour recommending unto us our price his own âlood for he spoke of his own body blood More of S. Augustin's Authorityes proving the Real presence may be seen in his 11th 26th 27th 31 Treatise in John in his commeÌtary on the 98th psal in his 2. book agaiÌst PetiliaÌs letters in his 17th book of the City of God c. 20. In his 3. book or the Trinity c. 4. 10. in his book super Leviticum â 57. In his 2. ser de Temp. anâ in several other places which wouâd be too tedious to produce here therefore I will conclude only with the two following Authorityes S. Cyrâll of Alexandria who liv'd in the year 430 in his Epist to Nestor which Epist was aprov'd of by the Fathers of the General Council of Ephesiâ sayes thus so immediatly we come to the mystical blessings we are sanctifi'd being partakers of the holy body precious blood of Christ the Redeemer of us all not taking it to be common flesh God forbid But made the proper flesh of the word himself that âs to say of the son of God It was defin'd in the 18. Can. of the first General Council of Nice That Deacons who have no power to offer sacrifice ought not to give the body blood of Christ to Priests who have that power All which proofs do evidently make-out that it was alwayes believ'd iÌ the Primitive Church that Christ's body and blood were really and substancially preseÌt in the holy sacrament and consequently that our Saviour had no mystical or figurative meaning in the institution of this sacrament So that it is to be admir'd what pretence can my adversary aleadge for denying the real presence If he has not a mind to deny all mysteries that surpasles his own weake understanding if so he may be the same rule Presume to deny that of the blessed Trinity Incarnation ResurrectioÌ c. for they surpasse his understanding and capacity as well as this of the reall presence Chap. 6 Proving that the holy Eucharist was ador'd worshipp'd by those of the Primitâve Church If it was lawfull to fall down and worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour but it was lawfull to falldown worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world therefore t is lawfull to fall down worship the holy Eucharist with Godly hoÌour The coÌsequence is most certain as we shall see hereafter and the minor is manifest Mat. c. 2 v 11. c. 14. v. 33. Jo. c 9 v. 38. as for The major it may be prov'd tâus the same Saviour Jesus Christ who was worship'd in this world is really substântially present in the holy Sacrament as I have prov'd in my answer to the adversarys 5th point and will confirm it in my answer to his 7th therefore if ât was lawfull to full-down and worship our Saviour Iesus Christ with Godly honour wheÌ he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship tâe holy Eucharist with
and I prove the first part of the Anticedent by our Saviour's own words Iohn c 6 v 51 where he sayes thus I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world But then the Iewes wanting true faith said one to an other how can this man give uâ his flesh to eate v 52. certainly then our Saviour who came to this world to instruct and leade us out of all darknesse to the true light hearing the Iewes murmuring so and doubting of what he said to be true wou'd explain the aforesaid words if he had any mystical meaning but he was so far from so doing that he confirm'd and repeated them again over and overâ as is manifest by the 53 54 c. v where we read the following words then Iesus said unto them verily verily I say unto ye except ye eate the flesh of the son of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in ye whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I ãâã him as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your Fathers did eate âanna and are dead he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever So that every faithfull sincere Christian may plainly understand that if our Saviour then had not meant that he was to give his own true flesh and blood to be really eaten and dranke that he wou'd not so proceed in confirming what he said in the begining and also that he wou'd not suffer his own disciples to part with-out declaring his mind to them as he did often before when he spoâe in parables neither wou'd he declare at his last supper that he gave to his discples his own body and blood saying thus Take eate this his my bâdy and he tooke the cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying drinke ye all of it for his is my blood of the new testâmeât which shall be shâd for many for the remission of sinnes Matt c 26 v 26 27 28 I leave it to all faithfull Christians seriously to be consider'd whether Christ gave only figuratively his own body and blood for the remission of our sinnes or his reall body and blood If he gave them really for our Salvation he also gave them really tâ his disciples as his own wordâ do manifestly affirme to deny which is of no less consequence than to charge Christ with untruth or at lest that he had not words significant to explain his intention which is rash and impious to judge of his infinite power therefore all Christians are oblig'd not to mistrust of the truth of Christ's words or doubt of their literal sence in the aforesaid text for being we acknowledge that Christ is omnipotent and consequently that it is in his Power to make of the bread and wine his own flesh and blood by his divine benediction we ought not to doubt of what he said to be true and if in case he had not exprest so plainly his mind unto us concerning this mysterie we ought to believe it firmly by St Paul's testimonye âae Corinth c 11 v 23 24 c. saying thus for I have receiv'd of the Lord that which also I deliver'd uâto ye that âhe Lord Jesus the same night in which he wââ betrayed âooke bread and when he had given thankes he brake and said take eate this is my body which shall be ââliver'd for ye thiâ do ye in remembranâe of mâ afteâ the âame maÌner also he tooke the câp when he had supped saying this cup is the new testament in my blood this doe ye as often as ye drinke it in remembraâce of me for as often as ye eate thâs brâad and drinke this cup ye do shew the Lords death till be come whosoever shall âat this bread ââ drinke this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the âoâd By which words St Paul openly declares that Christ gave his own body blood to his disciples at his last supper and also he affirms himself to have been taught this doctrine by the Lord and that he deliever'd the same to the Corinthians that there by he might perswade them not to doubt of what he said to be true but to firmly believe the reall presence beâng it was the Lords doctrine delieuer'd unto him in order to teach it to the Christians Now let us heare the Authorityes of the holy Fathers Doctors of the Primitive Church wherewith I shall prove the second Part of the antecedent St. Ignatius the Apostles Disciple in his Epist to those of Smyrna ciâed by Theodoret in his â Dialogue sayes thus they ââmit not the Eucharists and oâlations because they confess not the Euchârâst to be the flesâ of our Saviour who suffer'd for ouâ sinneâ Let the reader take âotice of those heretickes against whose principles St Ignatius speaks in the aforsaid text for they rejected the Eucharist lest they would be forc'd to confess that Christ had true flesh but if the Eucharist had not then been believ'd to be Christ's ârue flesh those heretiks could have no kind of reason to re-ject it for they did noâ deny the figure or Image of Chrisâ but what they deny'd was thaâ Christ had true flesh The like argumenâ may be form'd against the Jewes admiration hearing the word of Christ Iohn c 6 v. 51 c. for if then the jewes would believe that Christ was to give his flesh only in figure and remembrance they would have no reasoÌ to murmur or to mistrust the truth of Christ's words so that it manifestly appears that the Jewes suppos'd that Christ meant his true flesh and also that those heretiks of the prmitive Church believ'd and acknowledge that it was then some of the Catholickâ Doctrine to believe that Christ's true flesh was really present in the holy Eucharist St. ââustin Martyr who liv'd in the year 150 in his 2 Apology to Antoninus sayes thus we do not receive this as common bread or as common drinke but as the son of God Iesus Christ ouâ Saviour inâârnate had flesh and blood for our salvation so are we taught that thâ Eucharist is the flesh blood of the same Iesus incarnate St Irenaeus who liv'd in the same Century speaking of the hereticks of the Synagogue who deny'd Christ to have been the son of God sayes the following words in his 4th book c 34 how can they be assured the bread in which thankes are given to be the body of our Lord the
Godly honour Tho' the aforesaid argument might be a sufficient answer to this point yet I will produce the following Authorityes to confirm the same St Denis the Areeopagite who liv'd in the Apostles time in his book de Eccles. Hier. c. 3 makes mention of the IncenciÌg of the altar of the Priest washing his hands of âââ elevation of the blessed Host â the adoration thereof Origines whâ liv'd in the 3. CeÌtury in his 3. Hoâ in Exod. sayes thus I design to ââmonish ye with the examples of âââ own religion ye know who are accâââm'd to be present at the diviâ mysteries when ye receive the Lorâ body how with all caution ââ veneration ye take heed least â smal particle of it should fall down leââ any thing of the consecrated gift shââ slip out for ye belive your selves âââ guilty and ye rightly believe if â thing of it wou'd fall by your negligââce St Ambrose who liv'd in thâ 4th Century in his 3. book of thâ Holy Ghost c. 12. expounding thâ of the 98. Psal where we aâ bid to worship the footstool of his feeâ sayes thus therefore by the footstool the earth is understood and by the earth the flesh of Christ which also eveÌ at this day we adore in mysteries and which the Apostles ador'd in the Lord Jesus S. Chrysostome who also liv'd in the 4 Century in his â hom on S Pau'ls Epist to the Ephesians sayes thus we speake of the body and of him who differs nothing from it how many are made partakers of that body how many tastes of his blood remember that it is the body blood of him who refides above the heavens who is humbly ador'd by the Angels He also sayes the following words hom 24th on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians the wisemen regarded thîs body laâing ân the âangeâ the iâpioâââaââarouâ men having leât thâiâ ãâã tâey home made along voyâ when they aâriv'd wiâh grâat ââ trembâing they worâhipp d â let us therefore the Citizens of heââ immitate the barbarous people do not see him in the mângeâ but onâ aâtââ not a woman keepiâg him ââ the Priest holding him let us theâfore weaken our selves anâ be grââ afraid let us shew a great deal nâ reveâece than these barbarous peopleâ for open the gates of heaven and lââ and then you will see that whiââ said to be true for that which iâ tââ most precious and most to be ador'â aâl thinks I do âhâw you the same ââ on earth even as in a Kiâgs palââ that which is most magnificeÌâ of thiÌgs not the âalls noâ ãâ¦ã ât the Kingâ ât that yââ ãâ¦ã do nât hâw yoâ thâ Aâgâlâ Arââgeâs oâ he heaves bât tââir masâer ââ have percââv'd hâw âou ãâã on the âââh that which is most excellent âest to be regarded of aâl things neiâher do âou only see hiâ but aâso yoââââh him you eaâ him after you âat him you return home clean puâifie your soul prepare your mind against the receiving of these mysteriesââor if a King's son wiâh a neat preâious ââown had been giveâ to you âo âe carri'd you wou'd slight all the thiÌgs ââ the world but now receiving not âhe son of a worldly King but the only âegottn son of Goâ c. St Augustin who liv'd in the begining of the 5th Century expounding the 9â Psal sayes that the earth is thâ Lords footstool according to thâ of Isaiah c 66 v. 1. saying thuâ the heaven is my throne the earâ is my footstool and he inquires hoâ is it lawfull to adore the earth with-out impiety and then hâ sayes the following words being troubl'd in mind I do turn myself Christ because I do seeke him I find how the earth is ador'd with-out impiety the footstool of his feet is ador'd for he receiv'd earth from the earth because the flesh is of the earth he receiv'd flesh from the flesh of Mary because he walk'd here in that flesh gave us the same flesh to eate for our safety none eats of that flesh if he adores it not before t is found-out after what ãâ¦ã ââotstool of ââ Lord may ãâ¦ã not only âât we doe not ãâ¦ã it but ââ we siân in not a âoriâg it More â S. Augustin's Authorââyes may â seen to the same purpose in âs 118. Epist c. 3. and in his 120 âpist c. â7 which I omit to produââ least I shu'd be too troubleâââe to the reader Chap. 7 Proving that TransubstaÌtiaââ was believ'd by those of the Primiââve Church I shall only here enlarge those âââts of scripture produc'd in my ânswer to the 5th point with the ââllowing Authorityes of the ââly Fathers and Doctors of the ârimitive Church Tertullian who liv'd in the begining of the 3. Cenâury in his 4. book agaiâ Mââcian c. 4â saâes ãâã ââ bâead taken and distributed ââ his ââsciples he maâe hâs owâ body St. ãâã martyr and S Iâeneus who boââ liv'd before âertulliaÌ do affââ the same as the reader may see ââ their Authorityes produc'd ââ my answer to the 5. point S ââprian who liv'd the year 25ââ his sermon of the Lord's supâââayes thus the âread which ouâ gave to his Disciples being changâ not in shâpe but in natûre bâ the âânipotency of the word was made âleââ S Cyrill of Jerusalem who liv'd in the 4. Century speaking ââ Christ in his 4. Catech. sayes thââ followig words he did once in Caââ of Galelee only by his will turn water ânto wine which is near blood aâd âhall he not be wârthy to be believ'd âo uâ that he tuân'd wine into blood ââerefore let us receive the body and ââood of Christ with all assurance for ânder the shape of bread the body is given to you and under the shape of âine the blood is given therefore let us not consider it as bare bread and bare wine for it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lord 's own words for altho' your sense wou'd not represent this to you nevertheless let faith confirm you you ought not to judge these things by the taste therefoâe knowing this with all certainly holding the bread which is seen ây us not to be bread altho' the taste perceives it to be bread but to be the body of Christ the wine which is seeâââ altho' it may seem to the pallââ be wine notwithstandiÌg it is not ââ but the blood of Christ Let the ââder be Pleas'd to take notice ââ plainly St Cyprian affirms by ââ former words that the substaâââ of the bread wine is dissolââ at the intrance of Christ's bââ and blood and also how St. Cyââ bids us not to judge of this myââârie according to the apprehensioâ of our senses but to firmly believe the true and real presence of Christ's body and blood undeâ the shape of bread and wine that is to say under the accidents which the bread and wine had before cheir
substance was chang'd St. Gregorie Nysen who liv'd the year 380. in his Oration term'd Cateehetica c. 370. sayes thus I do also now rightly believe the sanctifi'd bread to be chang'd into the body of Christ and these things he bestows transelementing the thiÌgs that are seen into it by the vertue of his blessings which words do plainly make-out that St. Gregorie positively believ'd the Transubstantiation otherwise he wou'd not have said these words St Ambrose who siv'd about the same time in his 4th book of sacraments c. 4th sayes thus perhaps you may say my bread is ordinary but the bread is bread before the words of consecration but when consecration comes it is the flesh of Christ a nother convincing Authority of St. Ambrose may be seeÌ in my answer to the 5th point St Gaudentius who also liv'd in the 4th age in his 2. Treatis on Exod. sayes the following words the Cream and Lord of natures who brought forth the bread out of the earth and again of the bread because he can do it promis'd it made his proper body and who of the water made wine made of the wine his own blood S. Chrysostome who liv'd in the year 398. in his 83. hom on S. Matt. speaking of this mysterie sayes thus these are not the works of human power which the Lord perform'd in that supper the same also offers now the sacrifice he performs we enjoy the office of ministers truly t is he who sanctifies and chaâges these things And in his Homily of the Eucharist in âââaenys he also sayes the following words do you see the bread do you see the wine do they go like other meat to the privy the Lord forbid you ought not to imagin so for eveÌ as after wax is apply'd to the fire nothing of the substance remains even so consider here the mysteries the substance of the body to be consum'd that is to say that the breads substaÌce is annichilated when Christ's body inters under those accidents which formerly the bread had before it was annulâd St. Augustin in his â8 ser de verbis Apostoliâ sayes thus I told ye that the bread which is offer'd is call'd bread before the words of Christ but as soone as Christ's words are pronounc'd then t is not call'd bread but it is call'd the body And in the book of the IncarnatioÌ of Christ we read the following words t is not to be believ'd that the âubstance of the bread or wine remains but that the bread is cheang'd into Christ's body and the wine into his blood c St. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Epist to Calosyrius and Eusebius Emissenus Ser. de corpore Domini do affirm the same All which Authorityes do evidently make out the thing signifi'd by the word Transubstantiation that is to say the real change of the substance of bread and wine aâ the intrance of Christ's flesh blood to have been alwayes believ'd and maintain'd by the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church so that it plainly appears that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not broughtin by the Church of Rome either in the 6th 7th 8th or 9th age or by the Council of Latran in the year 1215 as some of the preteÌnded reformers do falsly aleadge It is not worth my while to answer here the Adversary's 8th point for it is sufficiently answer'd by what I have produc'd in my answers to the three last points for t is manifest that all those who contradicted in the Primitive Church the aforsaid Doctrine that they were esteem'd and beliv'd by the holy Catholicke Churh to have been notorious heretickes as I will shew in the later end of this worke Chap. 8. Proving the use and veneration of Images in the Primitive Church If it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worship Images but t is lawfull to worship other creatures therefore t is lawfull to worship Images the major is manifest for the saâe honour which the scripture forbids to be given to the one forbids it to be given to the other as I will shew hereafter therefore if it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worshâp Images whose making and puting up in Churches is commanded by the holy scripture as evidently appears by the following texts Exodus c 25 v. 18. 19. 22 where we read that God commanded two Câerubins to be made of goâd which were to be set up on both sides of the Arke before which the people were to pray and promis'd that there he wou'd meet with Moses we read also Numb c. 21 v. 8 and 9 that the Lord commanded Moses to make a fiery serpent and to set it up on a pole and that it shu'd come to passe that if any one would be bitten by a serpent that he wou'd recover when he wou'd looke upon the serpent of brasse more examples may be seen in the 3 book of Kings c. 6. v. 35. c. 7. v. 25. 29. and 36. c. 10. v. 19. in the 2. book of Chronicles c 3. v. 10 and 14. where we read that Salomon caus'd at several times Images to be made but we can never find out that ever he was reprehended for so doing Now let us see is it lawfull to worship other creatures that thereby the minor may be prov'd Lot seeing the Angels bowââ himself with his face to wards the ground Gen. c. 19. v. 1. Baâaam did the same seeing the Angel of the Lord Numb c 22 v. 31. and also Joshua as may be seen Joshua c. 5. v. 14. Saul seeing the soul of Samuel stoop'd with his face towards the grouÌd and âbowed himself as may be seen in the first book of Kings c. 28 v. 14. and in the 3. book of Kings c 18 v 7. we read that Abadiah fell on his face and worshipp'd Elyah The sons of the Prophets seeing Elisha they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him as may be seen in the 4th book of Kings c. 2. v. 15. we also read in the 2. c. v. 46. of Daniel that the King Nebuchad-nezzar fell upon his face and worshipp'd Daniel and commanded that they shu'd offer an oblation and sweetodours unto him Chirist approv'd of the making and exalting of the brazen serpent and owens it to have been the type and figure of himself exalted on the crosse âohn c. 3 v 14. S. Iohn the Baptist worshipp'd the very latehet of our Saviours shooe the latchet of whose shooes saith he I am not worthy to unloose John c. 1. v. 27. for which fact St Augustin on that place concluds him to have been full of the holy Ghost the Patriarch Jacob ador'd the top of Joâeph's rod a signe or Image of his regal power as we read in S Pauls Epist to the Hebrews c. 1 v 2â the Primitive Christians venerated the very shadow and garments of S Peter and Paul and receiv'd thereby speciall benefit as may be seen in
sayes thus It was not in vain the Apostles order'd that they shou'd be remember'd in the venerable and terribile mysteries for they knew this to be a relief and help to them for when all the people with open arms and the priests offer that dreadfull sacrifice full of veneration how shall we not pacific God praying for them he hath such an other Authority in his 41. Homily on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians and in his 7. Homily on his Epist to the Hebrews he sayes thus speaking of Christ we offer alwayes the same truely noe other but still the same therefore it is one sacrifice for this reason because he is offer'd in several places are they many Christs no not at all but one Christ in all places who is wholy and intirely here and there one boââ in his 32. de Consubstantiali ââ Sharply reprehend those who neglect to hear masse and in his 2â Homily de baptismo he compare those who leave masse before thâ last benediction to Judas who the Lords last supper departe before giving thanks More ââ his Authorityes may be seen nâ only in his liturgy but also iâ several places manifestly proving the ancient practice of celebrating masses St. Augustin whâ liv'd in the begining of the 5. century declares in his 9 book oâ Confession c. 12. that there wâ masse said for the soul of his own Mothâ Monica her body being laid beside tâ sepulchre In his 32 Ser de verb is Apostoli speaking of the dead he sayes the following words the prayers of the holy church the comfortable sacrifice and the alms which are offer'd for those spirits is not to be doubted that they are help'd by them for this hast been deliver'd by the Fathers which new the universal Church observes that those whodye in the communion of the body blood of Christy are remembr'd when the sacrifice is offer'd who doubts them to be favour'd for prayers are not in vain offer'd for them to God And in his Enchiridion c. 110. he also sayes that it is not to be deny'd that the soul of the dead are oâs'd when the holy sacrifice is offer'd for them In his 22. book of the city of God chap. 8. he relates that when Hesperious's couÌtry house was troubl'd by malignant spirits thaâ he desir'd one of his priests to go thither by the vertue of whose prayers the spirits might give over one of them went saith he and offer'd there the sacrifice of the body of Christ and afterwards the House was no more troul'd More of St. Augustins Authorityes may be seen in hiâ 46. Epist in his book de cura promorcuis c. 18. in his book desancta virgin c. 45. in his first book de origine animae c. 9. 11 in his 84. treatise in JoaÌnem All which I omit to produce for breviti sake shall only insert that of venerable Bede who in his first book c 29 ââlates that St. Gregory had sent Priestly ornaments to St. Augustin the apostle of England and in his 4 book c â2 he tells that when Jâma was taken captive by the enemyes that he cou'd never bety'd by reason of several masses which his brother Tunna the monke said for his soul believing that he was kill'd in the battel and also in his 5 book c. 13. speaking of that terrible vision of Driethelme who after his death reviu'd and told wonderfull things concerning the pains of purgatory from which said venerable Bede Prayers alms fasts and celebrations of masses doe release many before the day of Judgment Now let us see the councils Authorityes It was decree'd in the 5 can of the council of Vasens atowne in France where 18 Bishops gather'd the year 442 that kyrie eleison shu'd be said in the masses throughout all the Churches of France as it was said long before in the East and in all Italy here are the councils very words quia tam in sede apostolica quam etiam per totas Orientis atque Italiae provincias dulcis et nimis salubris consuetudo in tromissa est ut kirieelcison cum grandi affectu accompuÌctione dicatur placuit etiam ut in ominibus Ecclesiis nostris ista consuetudo sancta et ad matutinum et ad missas et ad vesperam deo propitiante intromittatur Likewise it was enacted in the 6 can of the same council that the following words holy holy holy shu'd be said iÌmornig masses iÌ the masses of lent and in those masses which were offer'd for the dead as it was accustom'd to be said in solemn Masses the words of the CouÌcil are these In omnibus missis sive matutinis sive quadragessimalibus sive in illisquae prodefunctorum commemorationibus siunt semper sanctus sauctus saÌctus eo ordine quo ad missas publicas dici debeat quiatam dulcis et desiderabilis vox etiam die noctuque possit dici fastidium non potest generare et hoc nobis justum visum est ut nomen Domini Papae quicunque sedi apostolicae praefuerit in nostris Ecclesiis recitetur Which Authorieyes doe not only make out the ancient practice of celebreating Masses but also the Popes supremacy of which I shall treate in my answer to the 4 point In the mean time let us hear the Declarations of other old Councils concerning the present point We read in the 18 can of the council of Agato celebreated the year 506 that the seculars were then oblig'd to receive the CommunioÌ trice in the year viz at Christemas haster and Whitsuntide and in the 47 can of the same couÌcil t is expres'd that they were oblig'd to hear masse every sunday Which plainly makes out that in the primitive Church it was lawfull for the Priest to say masse tho' none else wou'd receive the Communion along with him to confirm which I shall produce the Authorityes of the two following Councils who sate above a thousand years agoe the fathers of the 12 council of Toleto can 5 sharply reprehend'd certain Priests for not receiving the Communion when they said Masses which is asign that they acknowledg'd the Masse to be lawfull tho' none wou'd communicate but onely the Priest And the council of Nant c 30 quoted by Ivo p 3 deer e 70 â prohibit'd the Priests to say masse alone withoÌut the assistance of one to answer them which Authority proves the ancient practise of celebrating privat masses Tho' Luther and his doctrine aleadges the contrary for the fathers of that Council only obliges the Priests to have clerks to answer them but mentions not a word of a second person to be requisite for receiving the communion along with the Priest for they knew too well that there was no divine or Ecclesiastical precept obliging the Priest not to say Masse if none else wou'd communicate along with him and moreover that there was no Precept commanding others to receive the Communion as often as the Priest wou'd celebrat Masse for that was left to the
use of the Chalice that the Manichees might be discover'd who lurking amoÌghst the Catholicks alwayes Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of bread but never the Chalice whosoever then during that Heresie wou'd not at the publicke Communion of Easter Receive the Chalice was suspected to be a Manichean whereby the reader may plainly see that the Church has reason to forbid at one time what it permits at an other Christ having left unto it a dispensing power to alter all matters of indifferency in the discipline thereof as the time place and circumstances wou'd require which St Augustin in his 118 Epistle openly declares and it may be confirm'd by St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11 v. 34. but the Manichean heresie being smothered the Receiving of the âommunion under one kind was afterwards CommoÌly practis'd in the Church as Hugo de sancto Victore who liv'd about the year 1130 relates in his book Now before I shall proceed further in my Answer let the reader observe those four points which Commonly have been in practice in the Primitive Church viz. that then the people wou'd bring the Eucharist home to their houses under the forme of bread for private Communion Secondly that the Communion was sent and given to the sick under the same forme Thirdly that infants children Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of wine only Fourthly that the Primitive Christians Receiv'd publickly in the Churches the Communion either under one or both species as they pleas'd untill the Fathers of the Council of Constance about the year 1414. order'd the layties to Receive in one sole species not decreeing that the ReceiviÌg thereof in both species was unlawfull or ever prohibited before by the Churâh but for several other weighty reasons of which I shall produce only two First that thereby they might supresse and smother the Heresie of certain Germans Bohemiâns who then obstinatly deny'd thâ integrety of the Sacrement to be contain'd in one sole species Secondly that for the future they might preveÌt several abuses prophanations which formerly happen'd when the Chalice was given to the laity who thro their weak zeal and cold Devotion permitted very offteÌ drops of the holy blood to be spilt as St. Chrys ostome in his first Epistleto Innocentius Eneas Silviusin his dialogue de utraque specie relateâ which is against the subâime Reverenâe due to this most excellât Sacrament Wherefore it evidently appears that neither the GââcâaÌ or Latânes ever believ'd that all which is written in the Gospel touching the Communion under two species is to be so universaly understood that it âon prehends all Christians but that they alwayes suppos'd and believ'd from the very begining of Christianity that one sole speââes was sâfficient for a true lawfull Communion so that the Council of Constance did but follow the tradition and Doctrine of all precedent ages when it defin'd that the Communion under one sole species was as good and as sufficient as under both species and that those who wou'd Receive it under one kind wou'd neither contradict the institution of Christ or deprive themselves of the fruit of this holy Sacrament for whether we eat or whether we drink or whether we do both togeather we alwayes apply the same Death of Jesus Christ alwayes Receive the same substance of the blessed Sacrament and the same effecâ of grace for the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are whoely and ântirly contain'd in everâ drop of the blessed blood anâ in every particle of the blesseâ Host ãâã as well as he is coÌtaiÌd the whole cup or in the whole Host or in both therefore let no bodie foolishly belive that more benefit is Receiv'd by taking the Communion in two species than in taking it in one alone for being that every drop of the blessed blood and every particle of the divided Host is a maine Ocean of spiritual Blessings many of them by the same moral action Receiv'd affords no more grace then one alone being that one alone contains the whole fountaine intirly therefore it appears that it was never our Saviours intention to oblige all Christians to Receive the Sacrament in both species for if this had been his intention he wou'd certainly institute iâ in a materia more common to all nations as he did in the institution of the Sacrament of baptism knowing the wine to be so scarce in several parts of the world that the poor inhabitants tâereof couâd but very seldom or perhaps never Receive the Communion for the want of wine therefore our Saviours intention was when he said Drinke âe all of this âo oblige the Discâples who only then were present and also their successors wâo are the Priests that daâây offer this most holy Sacrifice under both species and when he said to his Disciples John c 6. v. 63. that the flesh profitteth nothing his meaning was that it profitteth nothing âo believe his bodie to be only human flesh excluding the divine nature as the Jews beliv'd who deny'd Châist to be the son of God Câap 3 proviâg âhat tâe Coâmân Prayers were ãâ¦ã genââally undeâstood by all âhose of the Prâmitive Chuâch The holy scripture encouragâs us to pâay tho' we ââdeâstand âoâ what is said theâefâre ââis lawfull and expedient for us âo prây tho' we understând noâ ãâ¦ã is saââ the anââcedent is manifest by Sâ Paulâ fiâst Epist to ââe Corânthiâns chap. â4 v. â wheâââe sayes thuâ ãâ¦ã âpeaâeth ân ãâã unknown tongââ ââeakââh not ãâã men but unto God for no man understandeth him Nay some times the speaker did not understand what himself said for the gift of languages and the gift of interpreting languages are two distinct gifts as is evident by the 11. v. and did not alwayes meet togeather as may be seen by the 13. v. of the aforsaid chapter for there the Apostle exhorts him who speaketh in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret which is a sign that ordinarilâ he cou'd not as is manifest by the 14. v where he sayes thus ââ I pray in an unknown ãâ¦ã spirit pâayâeth but ãâã understânâââg is unfruitfull where ãâ¦ã see that St. Paul ãâ¦ã unâerstanding to be unfruitfull and not our prayers when we pray in an unknown tongue moreover you see that St Paul gives to understand that it is lawfull and not prohibited to pray in an unknown tongue Now let us prove the consequenâe what the Apostles did and practis'd is lawfull and expedient for us to practice but the Apostles publick liturgies have been in languages which were not Generally understood by all the nations they Converted therefore t is lawfull and expedient for our liturgies to be in a language not generally understood by all nations ãâã use them the major is evident and I shall prove the Minor âhe Apostles publick liturgies were all in Hebrew Greecâ Syriack or Latine as is manifest by all Ancient writters which were not generally known languages to all
aforsaid do expressly testifiâ and also Sozomenus in his booâ c. â Under whose wings did Sâ Chrysostome fly for justice beit depos'd by Theophilus and hâ adherences but under the winâ of Innocentius the first as appeaâ by St Chrysostome's 1. 2. Epiââ to the same To whom did Forââ naâus Felix being depos'd Africk appeal but to Corneliâ Pope of Rome as St. Cyprian ââ his first book Epist 3 declares To whom did Basilideâ appeal but to Pope Stephen as St. Cyprian testifies Epist 68. To the Pope of Rome Valent and Ursacius came to give an account of their treachery against St. Athanasius and to crave pardon for the same as Epiphanius heresie 68 relates Marcion being excommunicated by his own Bishop in Asia came to Rome to be absolv'd by Pâus the first as St. Epiphanius relates heresie 42 who depos'd Anthimus the Patriarch of Constantinople and establish'd in his place Mena but Agapetus the Pope as Liberatus affirms in his bâeviatâ 62. and also Zonarias writiÌg the life of Iustinian Who depos'd Flavianus the Patrian of Antioch but Pope Danias Theodoret relates in his 5 âââ c 23 who depos'd Polychronâ Bishop of Ierusalem about â year 434 but Pope Sixtus thâ as appears in the acts of Sixâ Who depos'd Dioscorus Paarch of Alexandria but the of Rome as Gelatius's Epistle the Dardanian Bishops expreââ declares wherin he also relaâ that Pope Iulius the first resloââ Athanasius AlexaÌdrinus Pauâ Constantinopolitanus Marâlus Ancyranus to their own Biââopricks who re-establish'd Peâ St. Athanasius successor be wrongfully depos'd by the Aââans but Pope Damas as Sozoâ âus affirms in his 6 boâk c 9. who âestor'd Theodoretus being also ârongfullâ depos'd by the Aââiâns in the 2 Ephesian svnod but Pope Leo as is manifest by the first action of the General Council of Calcedon It was only the Popes of Rome âhat had iâ the Primitive Church their deputies and Vicar-generals in all foraign and remote Countryes viz. Anastasius Bishop of ThesaloÌica in the Orient as aâpears by St. Leo's 84 Epist Potentius ' in Africk as the same Leo's 87 Epist declares Aâacius Patriarch of Constantinoâle in Egypt whom the Pope of Rome commanded to depose the Bishop of Alexandria as Gelatius relates in his Epist to the Dardanian Bishops Celestinus Pope of Rome Authoriz'd St. Cyrill of Alexandria to procâed against Nestor then Bishop of Counstontinople as appears by Caelestinus's Ep to St Cyrill which is to be seen in St. Cyrill's 4. tome where also St Cyrill declares in his Epist to those of Counstantinople that the charge of that Bishoprick was committed unto himself by the Bishop of Rome Pope Hormisda instituted Salustius Bishop of Sevil his Vicar-general through Spain and Portugall as appears by the said Hormista's Epist to the same and St Gregory instituted Vigilius Bishop of Orleance to be his Vicargeneral thro' all France as may beseen in St Gregory's 4th book Epïst 52. It was also the Pope of Rome's Legates that were Presidents in the General Councils of the Primitivc Church as for example Hosius Vitus and Vincentius St Sylvester's Legates have been presidents in the General Council of Nice as Cedrinus in his Compendio Potius in his book de 7 Synodis and St Athanasius in his Epist to those who leade a solitary life do relate St Cyrill of Alexandria Pope Caelestinu's Legate preceded in the Council of Ephesias as Liberatus in his Breviate c 15. Evagrius in his first book c. 4 do write Paschasius Lâcââsius and Bonifacius St. ãâã Legates were Presidents in the General Council of Calcedon aâ is evident by the â action of âhe âame Couâcil and also by S Leo's 47 Epist Archâdâmus and Philaxenâs Iulius the first 's Legates preâeââd in the General Council of Sardâs as St. Athanasius in his â Apology and Theodoretus in his a book c 15 do declare It was only to the Pope of Rome the decrees and Canons of all General and famous Councils where sent in the primitive Church in order to be approv'd and confirm'd by his holynesse as for example it was to St. Sylvester Pope of Rome the Fathers of the Council of Nice sent a letter most humbly beseeching his holynesse to Ratifie and confirme the decrees of the said Council which letter is to be seen in the second Tome of the Councils The Fathers of this Council were in number 318 and sate in the year 325. The Fathers of the General CouÌcil of ConstaÌtinople being in number 150 assembled in the year 381 writ to Damas Pope of Rome by Cyriacus Eusebius and Prisâianus Bishops praying him to aprove and confirme their Canons this Councils letter is to be seen in Theodoret's 5th book c. 9. The decrees of the General Council of Ephesâs wherein 200 Fathers sate in the year 431 were sent to Pope Celestinus in order to be confiâm'd as St. Cyrill's Epist testifies which Epistle is to be seen in the 3 Tome of the Councils The Fathers of the General Council of Calcedon being in number 630 and sate in the year 451 sent their Canons to Pope Leo in order to be confirm'd by him as appears by the said Council's Epistle to the same which is to be seen in the 4th Tome of the Councils The Fathers of the Milevian Council sent their CanoÌs to Pope Innocentius the first in the year 416 to be confirm'd as appears by this Council's Epistle which is to be seen in the 1 Tome of the CouÌcils The Fathers of the Council of Carthage sent their CanoÌs the year 356 to be confirm'd by Pope Stephen as is manifest by their own Epistle which is to be seen in St. Cyrill's 2 book and also in the first Tome of the Councils I might produce several other convincing proofs concerning this point but that I may be easie to the reader I will conclude only with these followiÌg Councils who sate in the Primitive Church and acknowledg'd in their very Canons the Pope of Rome's Supremacy viz. the 20 chap of the Council of Rome who sate in the year 324. The 3 chap of the 3. 4th Council of Rome who sate in the year 502. The 3 4th 9th Canon of the Council of Sardis wherein 376 Fathers were The 6th Canon of the General Council of Nice The 5 CanoÌ of the General Council of Constantinople The 1 2 3 16. Action of the General Council of Calcedon who sayes thus in the 16th we throughly consider âruly that all Prâmacy chief honour is to be keept for the Arch Bishop of old Rome Chap 5 Proving that the Real Presence was believ'd by those of the Primitive Church The very words of Iesus Christ and also the Authentical Testimonyes of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church do clearly affirm that Christ's true body and blood are Really and Substantially present in the holy Sacrament therefore this Doctrine was not newly brought-in since the Primitive Church the consequens is most certain as we shall see here-after