in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
forth of this Index in Possevine among other European Libraries deny it and for a taste of the Author Harken to his notable Hyperbole that the wood of the Cross is so multiplied that all the world is full of it Thirdly Sect. 7 Next for the Council of Nice he tells us p. 466. out of Cardinal Baronius that they are held a meer forgery The true Nicene Acts saith he except some fragments raked at second hand out of several Authors are sufficiently known to be all lost as being made away and having suffred shipwrack in the Arrian tempests And again whereas all ages have been most eager in the pursuit of so noble a Monument never a man could hitherto find it and concludes that now no hope remains of so fertile a vintage Nay when hard search was made for a new Nicene Canon pretended by the Bishop of Rome in defence of his supremacy and by St. Augustine himself and many Learned Bishops more messengers were dispatch'd into Greece and Egypt where the first and best Copies were News was return'd both from Atticus of Constantinople and Cyrill of Alexandria that no more of that Council could be found save onely twenty Canons Fourthly Sect. 8 As for Nyssen his Catech. Orat. he tell us first that some in their Editions leave it cut as knowing it saith the Bishop of Spalat to be corrupted So Siphanius his Basil Ed. Anno Domini 1571. others that let it pass tell us that this 37. Chap. here cited is not frequently to be found in Ancient manuscripts and that the Book is tainted with the opinions of Origen foysted into it So the Author of the Paris Edition 1573. Thirdly that it mentions Severus an Eutychian a full 100 years later then Cyrill Fourthly that it speaks contrary to Nyssen himself and Fifthly that it holds no correspondence with all that Theodoret cites thence And lastly refers us to twelve Arguments of Spalatensis against this and the following Chapter Fifthly Sect. 9 Cyrills Epistle ad Calosyr is not extant among his works and whether Cyrill of Alexandria wrote it is very uncertain And albeit I can no where come to a perusal of it yet it is capable of this sence Christ is not altered viz. the Sacrament representing Christ is not alter'd neither is his Body that is the Symbols of his body changed by being kept till another day but the virtue of Benediction and quickning grace perpetually remains in it for what is it that is blessed sure not the Body of Christ that being not present till after the benediction even when hoc est corpus meum is pronounced and therefore 't is the Eucharistical bread which he calls Christ And yet were all these Authors true they might be answered by telling our adversaries they might as well have cited our Common Prayer Book which calls the Bread Sect. 10 the Body of our Lord Christ and the Wine his Blood shed for us For we acknowledge it is so viz. Sacramentally and Representatively but not by any substantial Mutation The rest of the Fathers are quoted for adoration of the Eucharist Sect. 11 and there are but two Sentences that can seem to incline to Transubstantiation The first is that of Saint Chrysostome to wit The most pretious thing in Heaven I will shew thee plac'd upon Earth 1 Cor. 10. Hom. 24. But this may be fairly interpreted thus That it is placed upon Earth in its representation in those Elements which convey the Virtue of his Body to us and therefore deservedly are called his Body Let Chrysostome interpret himself who in his Epistle ad Caesar contra Haeres Apollinar cited by Damascen and the Collector of the Sentences of the Fathers against the Severians set forth by Turrian hath these words Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from that Name and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it And yet I must not forget to tell you p. 130. that whereas our Adversary renders a Clause of Saint Chrysostomes sentence Thou not onely seest the body it self Saint Chrysostome hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou dost not indced see the very same body not properly the same that the Magi saw But thou knowest both the Virtue and the whole Dispensation and art ignorant of nothing that was done being accurately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taught all these things in the Mysteries and so the place makes more against then for him The same Answer may be returned to that of Ambrose Sect. 12 That the same flesh is in the Mysteries which the Apostles worshipped in our Lord Christ De Spir. viz. 't is in the Mystery representatively See Bishop Taylor of real Pres p 384. 't is here in Imagine as St. Ambrose elsewhere But in heaven in Veritate the Truth the substance is there Thus l. 4. De sacram C. 5. He calls it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and c. 4. tells us It is a wonderful power of God which makes that the Bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing and then again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet are changed into another and so that which was bread before Consecration now is the Body of Christ which words because they could not answer they corrupted And thus having return'd an Answer to his Arguments we come now to vindicate our own The Learned Doctor had framed an Argument thus Sect. 13 That which remained the fruit of the Vine was not Transubstantiated But the Wine in which Christ Celebrated the Sacrament remained after Consecration the fruit of the Vine To this our Adversary answers 1. Mr. C. 132. S. 12. I confidently pronounce it evident that these * Matt. 26.29 words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice nor had they any regard to the Sacrament And why so I pray you Because Saint Luke mentions them after the eating of the Paschal Supper and antecedently to the Mystical Consecration of his blessed Body and Blood who saith he will write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans A great reason of Confidence indeed put it into Syllogivm and it runs thus That which hath reference to the Passeover and the drinking of the Cup which was annexed to it hath not Reference to the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord But these words have reference to the former Now all their who tell us that Christ spake the sentence twice will deny his Major seeing the words might have reference to both according to their various times of utterance Now that this Interpretation must take place against our adversary I will prove because he grants it doth refer to the Pass-over in Saint Luke And evidently it refers to the Consecrated Cup in Saint Matthew
them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy not of the people This one would think were a strange shift and yet 't is such a one as they are forced to fly unto But First Let it be considered how unlikely 't is that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament of so different natures and yet speak nothing of the use or the reason the benefit or the necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the mysterie nor distinguish the rite or the words but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world Secondly If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite spoken before the institution of the Chalice then doth not hoc facite signifie offerte sacrificium as the Trent Council that infallible interpreter of Scripture would have it and consequently cannot make them Priests that is in their language Sacrificers For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice Thirdly If the Apostles were thus made Priests and drank of the Chalice under that capacity then seeing this is a Command as we presently shall evince it ought to be followed at least so far and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice which because they do not in the Church of Rome it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients Thirdly Sect. 11 I say that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated This will sufficiently be made out if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements and that not temporary but reaching even to us Now the Trent Council tells us that hoe facite c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him Yea the Apostle Intimates to us that this is a standing Institution in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till â—e come Now it is evident that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ in that it is said Take eat this is my Body this do this which I bid you do what was that eat his Body But it is more clear concerning the Cup of which it is said this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse where the Apostle infers that we do this in remembrance of Christ because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lords deâ—th till he come Clearly intimating that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup Wherefore this being a Command it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 12 Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute In 1 Cor. 11. Quest 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given St. Augustine saith Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it By whom sure by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup Hom 4. de quadr practised by the Manichees sacrilegious simulation and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints Yea when at the general Council of Calcedon Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba Bishop of Edessa that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine and that corrupt and sowre provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people that Bishop was severely taxed Whereby it appears that at the time of this Councill the Administring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it De Consecrat dist 2. comperimus c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable as you find them in Gratian We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood which because they do out of I know not what superstition we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them In Psa 6. poen because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge Thus a Pope è Cathedra And Saint Gregory cries out Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed De C rp Sang. Domini c. 15. 19. by the perception of which the Church his Body pascitur potatur I will conclude with Paschasius who tells us That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated And expounding the words of Christ saith He alone it is that breaks this Bread and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers saying Take drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander and * De Eccles l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius Papists and to Doctor Featly who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions We pass on now to the Fourth Section Sect. 13 wherein we are told Mâ— C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind in the fore-mentioned cases did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one onely But First How came he acquainted with their Mind Hath hiâ— Guardian Angel told him so Secondly In the fore-mentioned cases which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind if there be any such we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both yea from spiritual Communion as corâ—oreal or by the Elements when this latter way cannot be had but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent But he tells us farther Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread Ibid. and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh c. Now not to require a proof of him that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected and
divided drops of species should be let us come to his proofs Sect. 15 And First He summons in Saint Ambrose to tell us that Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body that is the representation of the Body â—f Christ Next the Council of Ephesus to inform us that we participate the flesh of Christ not as common but as truly quickening flesh That is which by our spiritual reception of it is made quickening to us And Thirdly Saint Austine This he did saith he quodammodo con 2. in Ps 33. And this quodammodo is non rei virtute sed significante mysterio cp 23. ad Bonif. l. 12. in Joan. c. 32. to teach us that Christ was carried in his own hands that is Christ real and corporeal diâ— carry these Elements which represented him in his hand Ergo in every divided particle of the species of Bread is the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ A Consequence very irrational and absurd Nor will the testimony of Saint Cyrill be able to conclude the business for if he argue from these words The four parts of the world have divided amongst themselves his flesh without dividing of it I Answer he adds The Paschal Lamb was found amongst all the Israelites divided and yet undivided And will our Author thence argue that he esteemed each part of the Paschal Lamb to be the whole or that he that received the least particle thereof received the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he argue from the following words for the onely begotten not passing into as he rendreth it but being distributed to them all and sanctifying each of their Souls and Bodies by his own flesh is in all of them whole and entire being every where one for as Saint Paul teacheth he is not divided I say if hence he argue I answer that he is in all of them whole and entire as being truly God and truly though mystically united to them For having sanctified them by his flesh spiritually received he is spiritually made one with them as the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 10.17 And thus have we dispatch'd his pretences for concomitance his fifth and sixth Sections are built upon the third and fourth and therefore must fall with them C. 13. S. 4. I pass on therefore to urge an Argument against concomitance And 1. Sect. 16 I will take for granted what our Author affords me viz. that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Christs Sacrifice Mr. C. p. 146. of his former immolation and the realâ— shedding of his Blood do this in remembrance of me being sufficient warrant for his assertion 2. I suppose that in this Sacrament the shedding of Christs blood is by the Symbols represented For 1. Why else have we the Wine separated from the bread 2. How is it a representation of Christs Sacrifice upon the cross that being a Sacrifice in which his Sacred blood was shed 3. How do we by partaking of his blood shew forth his death but by shewing that his blood was separated from his body 4. I suppose that Christs blood is represented by the wine consecrated not antecedently to the consecration else may it represent it in the Cellar as well as in the Church 5. I suppose that shedding of Christs Blood is the separating it from the body or at least from the veins and consequently the representation of it as shed is the representation of it as severed from the veins but now it is impossible that such a representation should be made to an assertor of concomitance seeing he is bound to believe that where one single drop of blood is resident there also must the Sacred body of Christ reside entirely and consequently it is impossible that concomitance should be a truth 2. Sect. 17 If there be such a necessary concomitance then must each part exhibit whole and entire Christ and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part must be the depriving them of whole Christ as offered to them for the remission their sins and Sanctification Now then in doing so either you deprive them of some benefit or not if the first then are you Sacrilegious in depriving the people of some benefit from those Sacred mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably to the Institution of S. Paul received from Christ and the common practice of the Church for a thousand years Secondly Then must you grant that by communicating in both kinds more of Christ is received contrary to your fourth Section if the latter then not to speak of the superfluity of Christs instituion First you must assert that albeit a man receive entire Christ and that worthily and have the pardon of his sins and the benefits of the new Covenant sealed to him yet may he be never the better And secondly You will be troubled to give a reason why the Conficient should be obliged by you to drink the Chalice and not excused by concomitance Thirdly Sect. 18 If they who receive the body by concomitance receive the blood then they who consecrate the body by reason of concomitance do also consecrate the blood the parity of Reason being most notorious and consequently no Reason can be assigned why Christ in his Institution should be thought to oblige us to the Consecration in both kinds rather then the Reception in both kinds and therefore seeing the Trent Council saith peremptorily De Missa Sess sexta c. 10. that Christ commanded the Apostles and their Successors to offer in both kinds why should she not also say that he commanded them and their Successors to distribute in both kinds But were this salve good Sect. 19 yet would it not free them from the imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from the delivering of half Christ for seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently that he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently hath an half Sacrament these and many other things may be alledged against this half Communion which I suppose will a little exercise their Reason in the Answer of them and therefore our Author did well to take Sanctuary in the infallibility of the Church and then proceed to give some account of the Reasons that induced her to this grand Sacriledge And 1. He tells us Sect. 20 that it was done by reason of the wonderful increase of the Communicants and decay of their devotion whence very great danger of irreverence and effusion of the precious blood of our Lord was like to follow if not thus prevented Now 1. Not to tell him that this excuse hath been by the Primitive Church rejected as Superstitious lay aside that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation and what great harm will it be if casually and by no fault of ours or wilfull contempt some of the Wine should be spilt 2. With what conscience can they pretend their Reverence to the Sacrament for this when our Authour supposes there
succeed theirs and must it be therefore carnal as well as this service of the Jewes If this Argument be good our sacrifice succeeds a proper sacrifice and therefore it is so must not this also be esteemed so Our sacrifice succeeded a bloodysacrifice and therefore it is such our sacrifice succeeded a sacrifice of bruit beasts and therefore it is such Our second Consideration is that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice symbollically as representing applying and some way impetrating for us all the benefits of Christs real sacrifice on the Cross For seeing the signes are often put for the things signified Chrysost H. 27. in Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb dem Evan l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide For. Cons mod p. 451. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquire the names of what they represent and bring to our remembrance Yea seeing the Apostle tells the Galathians that Christ was crucified amongst them because his sufferings on the Crofs were most lively represented to them by his preaching why may not we on the same account call the Eucharist in this sense a sacrisice as being that in which Christs sufferings are far more lively and accurately set forth Yea a perfect remembrance of a sacrifice as the Fathers call it yea secondly we allow it to be a sacrifice in this sence as exhibi ting to us all the benefits of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross for we all allow that what ever Christ dying and shedding his blood for us procured is not only represented there but applyed to the faithful and exhibited to his faith And here come in the residue of his citations and 1. That of Ignatius is Spurious Epist ad Smyrn S. 2 p. 144. you may find the words upon which the force of the argument depends written in Red Letters in the Edition of Bishop Vsher Secondly As to that of S. Cyprian In his Epis to Caecil not Cyril as Mr. C. who was more a Priest of the most high God then our Lord who offered a sacrifice to God the Father and offered the very same that Melchisedec offered that is bread and wine to wit his own body and blood which it could not be otherwise then figuratively or significatively and commanded the same viz. bread and wine to be afterward done in memory of him that Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer as he sees Christ himself offered viz. bread and wine as the Ancient Church was wont to do and this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did when at the Institution of this holy Rite Mr. Mede ib. he took the Bread and Cup into his hands and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed who after his example first offered the bread and wine unto God to agnize him Lord Paramount of the Creature and then received them from him again in a banquet as the Symbols of the body and blood of his Son now the words thus expounded have nothing in them Son now the pertinent to your purpose nothing to prove any sacrifice of Christs body much less to prove a true and proper sacrifice which that S. Cyprian never dream'd of we may be sufficiently assured from this Epistle to Caecilius whose words are these because saith he we make mention of Christs passion in all our sacrifices for the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice we offer we ought to do no other thing then what Christ did If the passion of Christ be the Sacrifice we offer how is the Eucharist properly so seeing the Scripture tells us that Christ ought to suffer only once and his glorious body is now impatible how doth he really suffer and if not then is there only a remembrance of his passion made and therefore his passion that is the Commemoration of it must sure be call'd the sacrifice offered by the Church Ubi supra and especially in his first Chap. of the same 2. part where Bellar. Arg. hence is abundantly refuted Mr. C. p. 145. And as Bochartus hath it how impertient is it to alledge a passage where it is said that Christ offered the same which Melchisedech offered which was undoubtedly true bread and wine without any transubstantiation to prove that Christ was sacrificed under the Species of bread and wine Lastly The eighteenth Canon of the Nicene Council tells us that it is a thing which neither Canon nor custome hath delivered that those who have no power of offering viz. the Symbols in commemoration of Christs sacrifice made upon the Cross should give the Body of Christ that is these Symbols of his body to those who offer Ans What of all this Is there any thing in this passage to evince a true and proper sacrifice of Christs body and blood Secondly Eusebius who was present at this Council can tell us what kind of sacrifice the Church then offered Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For thus he speaks Christ offered an excellent sacrifice for the salvation of us all delivering to us the memory thereof to be presented to God in lieu of a sacrifice And towards the end of that chapter we sacrifice the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us by Christ Secondly Gelasius from whose Authority you have this Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Premire partie Chapitre 10. tells us moreover that the Nicene Fathers said the Lamb of God was here sacrificed by the Priest without a sacrifice that is Representatively so for so the Grecians call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy things not offered as you may see evinced by Bochartus de la Messe where the interpretation of Cardinal Perron is abundantly refuted and it is made good that the words were not intended to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Cardinal contends but only sans estre Sacrifie which is the proper and natural signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly and lastly we allow it to be a propitiatory sacrifice for as much as by the right participation of it we enjoy remission of sins not as if we thought there was any force in those mysteries to satisfie Gods justice but because hereby we have sealed to us that remission which was purchased by the sacrifice of the Cross And this affords us an Answer to that of S. Chrysostome Hom. 21. Mr. C. p. 145. that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for remission of sins for the Priest that offers for the multitude for the procuring plenty which indeed it was esteemed partly upon this account that so many petitions were put up to God at the solemnity for this oblation of prayer was made through Jesus Christ commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine and it was the custome of the Antients upon the consecration of the dona Mede ib. to be the Body and Blood of Christ to offer to the Divine
evidently known to be such or openly declared such obligeth no man that the Kings Oath is unjust is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself you see now that the obligation of it is vanished into smoak and that the bond which so many wise men thought was made of Iron is less then straw Yea further cannot good Pope * Cardinal Ossatus Ep. 87. ad D. de ville-roy Suarez adv sect Aug. l. 6. c. 4. s 14 c. 6. s 22 24. Azorius Iâ—st Moral part 1. l 8. c. 13. See the Jansenians mysterie of iniquity Abbots Antilogia Clement the VIII suggest to You as he did to the King of France tied by the bond of a Sacred Oath to the Queen of England that your Oath is made to an Heretick but you stand bound against her and her Succcessors in another Oath to God and to the Pope Fourthly What is his Majesty the better for your subscriptions to his due Supremacy whereas many of you hold that when the Pope hath deposed him no obedience is due unto him yea that then ipso facto he becomes a Tyrant and may be dealt with as such an one and consequently be slain by a private man Suarez defens fid Cathol l. 6. c. 4. Norson ubi supra Will you plead your fidelity Sect. 5 and zeal in serving and defending of our Princes See p. 7. and even the Religion of the Kingdom in sacrificing your blood and fortunes for his Majesty 1. With what confidence can this be pleaded by you when the whole Colledge of your Jesuits in London say Mr. Baxters Key for Cath. c. 45. That they will rather promote the cutting off of the Kings Majesty then hinder it least they the Puritans should make use of his extremities to any advantage nor are we ignorant who it was that hath of late been convicted of rejoycing at that unsavage butchery 2. For shame do not say you were unanimously so was it so in Ireland In two Letters to Arch B. Laud extant in Print introduc p. 102 112. Vide Bax. ibid. no Bishop Bedle will assure us his Majesty was with the greatest part of Ireland as to their hearts and consciences King but at the Popes discretion and that in Ireland the Pope had another Kingdom far greater in number then his Majesties and as he had heretofore signified to the Lords Justices and Council which since is justified by themselves in Print constantly directed and guided by the order of the new congregation de propaganda fide lately erected at Rome 3. What reason do some of you give why you should be quiet under his Majesties dominions even this because you are not able to manage a war against him In Th. 22. qu. 13. art 2. non licet eis tolâ—rare talem Regem Bell. l. 5. de Paul c. 7. s 3. And again they are obliged not to suffer him s probatur they are bound to deprive him of his dominions Bull. Pauli 5. cont Hen. 8. yea t is meritorious of eternal life saith Card. Commens in his letter to Pareus thus Bannes The faithful Papists in England and Saxony are to be excused that they do not free themselves from the power of Superiors nor make war against them because commonly they are not strong enough to manage these wars and great dangers hang over them were they then strong enough not to rebell would be unexcusable But that which without doubt you plead with greatest confidence Sect. 6 Pag. 4. is That if all the received Canons of the Church were searched not one could be found to testifie the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion In Answer to this I shall return you the words of one of your approved General Councils the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third as Binius and others of your own record it where in the first Chapter they set down their Catholick Faith two Articles of which are 1. That no man can be saved out of their universal Church And 2. That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar are transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ the appearances remaining And in the third Chapter they say We Excommunicate and Anathematise every Heresie extolling it self against this holy Orthodox Catholick Faith which we have before exponed condemning all Hereticks by what names soever they be called And being condemned let them be left to the present secular powers or their Bayliffs to be punished the Clergy being first degraded of their orders and let the goods of such condemned ones be confiscate if they be Lay-men but if they be Clergy-men let them be given to the Churches whence they had their Stipends And those that are found notable only by suspition if they do not by congruous purgation demonstrate their innocency according to the considerations of the suspition and the quality of the person let them be smitten with the sword of Anathema and avoided by all men till they have given sufficient satisfaction and if they remain a year excommunicate let them then be condemned as Hereticks And let the secular powers in what office soever be admonished and perswaded and if necessary compelled by Ecclesiastical censure that as they would be reputed and accounted believers so for the defence of the faith they take an Oath publikely that they will study in good earnest according to their power to exterminate all that are by the Church denoted Hereticks from the Countries subject to their Jurisdiction So that when any one shall be taken into Spiritual or Temporal power he shall by his Oath make good this Chapter But if the Temporal Lord being required or admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Countrey of Heretical defilement let him by the Metropolitan and Comprovincial Bishops be tyed by the bond of Excommunication And if he refuse to satisfie within a year let it be signified to the Pope that he from thenceforth may denounce his Vassals absolved from his fidelity and may expose his Countrey to be Seised on by Catholiques who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and may keep it in the purity of faith saving the right of the principal Lord so be it that he make no hinderance hereabout and oppose not any impediment and the same Law is to be observed with them that are not principal Lords And the Catholikes that taking the sign of the Cross shall set themselves to the rooting out of the Hereticks shall enjoy the same Indulgences and holy priviledges which were granted to those that go to the relief of the Holy Land Moreover we decree that the Believers Receivers Defenders and favourers of Hereticks shall be excommunicate firmly decreeing that after any such is noted by excommunication if he refuse to satisfie within a year he shall from thenceforth be ipso Jure infamous and may not be admitted into publick offices or councils or to the choice of such nor to bear
G. 26. For he saith Christ took the Cup and gave it to them saying Drink you all of this this what This in the Cup why so for this is my Blood and then immediately follows But I say unto you I wil not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine untill the day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom Now then this fruit of the Vine Saint Matthew speaks of is this that the Disciples are bid to drink of as even the series of the words shew Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood but I will not drink of this 2. The fruit of the Vine must necessarily demonstrate some Wine so St. Marks fruit of the Vine must also have reference to some Cup demonstrated by him But they mention no other Cup besides this Sacramental therefore they must necessarily speak of this and so much for his Major Now I deny his Minor which must be proved thus That which S. Luke mentioned before any Consecration began Immediately after the Cup confessedly belonging to the Passover must belong to it But these words St. Luke thus mentions Now I retort upon his Major thus That which Saint Matthew and Saint Mark mentioned not till after Consecration and immediately after the Sacramental Cup must belong to it But this sentence is thus mentioned by them I know he will tell us the disparity is in this that St. Luke promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the other Evangelist did not Answer Grotius will tell him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only sigillatim as you may see Acts 4.18.23 which Interpretation must take place here it appearing sufficiently that he frequently for the Coherence of things joyns those passages which were separated in order of time * As the same Grotius in his Comment doth evince Vide Grot. in locum and therefore this reason of disparity is taken away Thus I have confuted his Confidence Sect. 14 Now though I dare not be Confident I think it very probable Vide Jansonium in locum that St Luke also speaks of the Consecrated Cup as Saint Augustine would have it by preoccupation that so this saying parallel to that of eating no more of the Passover might be joyned together For Matthew and Mark speak of four things belonging to this Sacramental Cup 1. Giving of Thanks 2. Distribution of it 3. The asserting of it to be his Blood 4. His protestation of not drinking of it any more Now Saint Luke speaks onely of the third of these If you will not allow the other verse to refer to the Sacred Cup. But if this be granted then are all these actions mentioned in S. Luke directly as in the other Evangelists Now then the interpretation makes all Harmonious between the Evangelists whereas he bids defiance to S. Mark and especially to S. Matthew who as I have prov'd must necessarily be understood of the Eucharistical Cup. But our Author hath another answer Sect. 15 if this fail viz. that were it so that the wine after Consecration were call'd the fruit of the Vine Mr. C. p. 133. yet this doth not argue against a change of it's nature for Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent was call'd a Rod still because it had been one Exod. 7.12 And John 2.9 't is said of the Master of the feast shat he tasted the water that was made wine Now to this I return 1. That the cases are no way parallel for first in these instances the matter remain'd the form only being chang'd it being proper conversion but in the Eucharist the Trent Council hath defin'd that the substance of Bread remains not and so there is not so much Reason why it should have the same name 2. These might well be call'd so because the Serpent was made out of a Rod tanquam ex causâ materiali and the wine out of water but you dare not say that the Blood of Christ is so made out of wine 3. There were Circumstances annex'd in these Cases which did obviate all possibility of Fallacy The Serpent is call'd a Rod but such a one as devour'd the other Rods the wine mention'd by S. John is call'd Water but 't is Water made Wine as if I should say panis transubstantiatus which phrase you would not much dislike you will say this Wine is call'd the Blood of Christ Ans Well but whether Spiritually or Corporally is not said 2. We answer that if this be a sufficient reason why the Blood of Christ should be call'd the fruit of the vine though it be not really so then may this be a sufficient reason why the bread may be call'd the body of Christ though it be not so See Paraeus de Reg. phrasium Sacrament In Cor. 11. v. 23. because Sacramental signs have often the names of the things signified by them The sequel is evident from the parity of Reason the same foundation of Each being the Analogous phrase of Scripture and in the great hold of Transubstantiation must be quitted But 3. He saith he will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which Argues that before viz. In other pasovers Or at least in this He had drank of it before now that which he had drank of before this being the first institution of the Sacramental Cup must be really the fruit of the Vine Well then that which he saith he will drink of no more must be the same also From what hath been said we may see sufficiently the weakness of his argument hence for transubstantiation Sect. 16 which runs thus Our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup but he did not drink of the fruit of the vine because he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo the Consecrated Cup was not the fruit of the Vine For not to tell him See Beza in locum Heins In Mat. c. 21 v. 41 c. the Syriack Copies leave out the two verses in which the stress of all this Argument lies nor yet to mind him of Beza's transposition of the verses a * thing sufficiently probable 1. How will he prove that our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup will he run to Matt. 26 Alas He hath told us that it Concerns not this Cup will he cite universal tradition Let him shew it and at the same time he will shew that he interprets Saint Matth. contrary to them seeing they that affirm it gather it from his words 2. Why may not his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thus interpreted I will not drink any more viz. after the solemnity ended Have we not S. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bear us out in 't and Saint Mark 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also may very well be borrowed from the 16 vers in Saint Luke It being very ordinary for Sacred Writers to leave a particle to be understood from the words foregoing or consequent And if this interpretation stand it can only be
one and carry them to those that be absent And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears and so received it 2. See Dr. Taylor duc dub B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice but desiring more frequently to communicate they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels and when they had a mind to it in that imperfect manner Can. 3. did celebrate the Lords Supper But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ which saith If any man receive the Sacrament and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church let him be accursed for ever 3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity Justin Martyr who was before Tertullian tells us P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ had so commanded them S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption Hom. 16. on Numb or by humane Tradition to alter them And Origen saith speaking of the Sacrament the Christian people embrace him who saith Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you Now he that saith so surely must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life Fourthly and lastly Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversie produce your Fathers in the next and confirm it from their words The next supposed Evidence he brings is Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind Now here again We answer as before 1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely and that they mention but one kind doth prove no more the thing in contest then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup or if he did participate discern'd it 2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacriledge p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian from Saint Anstin Ep. 107. To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier and by Gennadius 3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice and so ministred the Sacrament but this is an Evidence that they thought not the bread alone sufficient 4. We acknowledge also that upon occasion of this use Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 p. 426. Can. de Consecrat dist 2d some fell in love with the trick and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself declaring it to be against the Divine Order and Apostolical Constitutions and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Custome of the Church and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara and all set right again according to the perpetual custome of the Church and the institution of our blessed Lord and their pretence which was lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice laid aside as trifling and superstitious His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind Now to this we say that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons And upon that occasion also it was abused and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse Next we say his proofs are not concluding indeed Euseb l. 6. tells us That the old mans mouth was dry and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it but thence to argue that the old man received no Wine is a strange and contradictory inference 3. We say and that out of the same Authors by him cited that such did communicate in both kinds This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries they should obtain their desires If in health they had been humble suiters for it Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr who in the place forecited saith That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent amongst whom were necessarily the sick Lastly Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice adding this reason that the Priest might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life ' wherein they intimate that it was necessary to the truth of these words and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament that the sick person should participate of both the Elements and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance the onely salvo imaginable for this your sacriledge Fourthly Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea Ibid. Now First He should have made this good by testimony and not have produced it back'd with no authority especially when Secondly 'T is manifest
from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
4. c. 32. De Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. Mr C. p. 114. 1. Irenaeus saith That these first fruits are the Offerings of the Vniverse S. * l. 4. c. 32. Dee Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. M. C. p. 114.1 Cyprian checks the rich widow for approaching the Lords Table without her Corban without a Sacrifice yea eating of the sacrifice the poor man bronght And in St. Austins phrase the Alms of pious Matrons are Oblations And of this sacrifice doth Irenaeus speak in the Sentence urged by Mr. C. to evince this proper sacrifice when he tells us That our Saviour giving counfel to his Disciples to offer the first fruits to God of his creatures not as if he wanted any thing but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful took the creature of bread and gave thanks saying this is my Body Qui est ex ea creatura quae est secunâ—um nos and the Câ—p likewise which consists of a creature which is usual amongst us he confessed to be his blood and brought a new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers through all the world unto that God who gives us nourishment to wit the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament of which the Prophet Malachy speaks cap. 1. vers 11. where it is manifestly declared that the former people of the Jewes have ceased to offer unto God and in all places a pure sacrifice is now offered to him Where first not to deal rigidly with him in telling him that Irenaeus doth not determine whether this Oblation be Eucharistical or Ilastical or if Ilastical whether properly or rather metonimycally so I confidently affirm that the Sacrifice here mentioned can not be the sacrifice of the Mass or of Christs Body and Bloud the reasons are 1. From these words Chap. 34. The Oblation of the Church which the Lord taught us to be offered in the whole world is reputed a pure sacrifice before God and acceptable to him not because God wants our gift or sacrifice but because he that offereth is glorified thereby if his gift be accepted When therefore thou offerest this gift at the Altar Matt. 5.24 25. Go first and be reconciled to thy brother then come and offer it You must therefore offer to God the first fruits of his creatures Deut. 16.26 as Moses said Thou shalt not appear empty before God Now had he spoken of the sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood would he have told us that it is reputed apure sacrifice not is so when to be and to be reputed are disparates But secondly the Oblation which he speaks of is that which all Christians offer not the Priest onely as is evident from the two places cited when thou offerest thy gift And thou shalt not appear empty before God Seeing therefore that the first fruits of the creature to be offered to God here are not the Body and Blood of Christ and Irenaeus tells us that he speaks of this Oblation which the Church offers throughout all the world neither can that be such 3. You have a further Evidence in that it is said We offer this sacrifice to God not that he wants it but that we should not be unfruitful For that this passage must refer to Almes not to Christs Body Let Irenaeus himself assure us who in this 34. Chapter tells us that God wants not any thing of ours but yet 't is needful we offer somewhat to him for as Solomon saith Pro. 19.17 He that hath mercy on the poor lendeth to the Lord and that God which wants nothing yet takes our good works as done to him that he may give us a reward of his good things for them as our Lord saith Come you blessed of my Father c. for I was an hungry and you gave me to eat I Mat. 24.25 and a little after he tells us that God will have these things done by us that we may not be unfruitful so that evidently this refers to Almes and the Oblations at the Eucharist not of the Eucharist and therefore the same words in this Sentence touching the same matter must in all reason be esteemed to refer unto them also Again in the same Chapter he addes The Sacrifice doth not sanctifie the man but the conscience of him that offers being pure doth sancâ—ifie the Sacrifice Seeing therefore with simplicity or sincerity The Church doth offer the Sacrifice is justly reputed pure by God And hence it is that Saint Paul calls them an Odour of sweetness an Offering acceptable and well pleasing unto God For we must offer unto God Thus the Church offers to him the first Fruits and that of his Creatures and a little after we offer sanctifying the Creature Now first can it be tollerably said we sanctifie the sacrifice of Christs body and that it sanctifieth not us That this sacrifice is reputed pure before God from our sincerity in offering That the Apostle in the place now cited speaks of the Body of Christ not Alms And consequently can the Offering of the first Fruits of his Creatures be any other Seeing therefore this Offering of the New Testament which the Church offers is expresly said to be primitias suorum munerum the first fruits of her gifts offered to him that affords us sustenance is it not rationally inferred that it refers also to these Almes and Oblations made at the Sacrament not to any Oblation of the Sacrament well then 2. Mr. Mede's Christian Sicrifice In short in the Primitive times the Church of God was wont to offer very freely of what God afforded them and amongst the rest they offered Bread and Wine to him that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief Minister of the Brethren who took it and gave thanks and glory to the Lord of the whole world then made a large and prolix thanksgiving to him that had made them worthy of such gifts and the rest of the Offerings were distributed either to serve the necessities of the poor or for other uses of the Church as you may find in Justin Martyr Apol. 2. and Irenaeus every where And to this it is that he here refers when he tells us that our Lord instituting this Sacrament taught us a new Oblation of the New Testament I confess Bellarmine here objecteth that Irenaeus speaks of such a sacrifice as was to succeed the sacrifices made in the Jewish Paedagogy Now such were not the sacrifices of Almes Prayers Thanksgivings and therefore Irenaeus cannot be supposed to speak of them But first Irenaeus doth no where say that the sacrifice he speakes of succeeds those of the Jewish Laws but onely that they have ceased to Offer and in their places we now do 2. See this Argument shamtfully balfled in Mat. Boehart traitte du sacrifice de la Mâ—sse seconde partiè Chapitre 5. Will it hence follow that we must offer a proper sacrifice as they did Doth not our service
the Sacrament which first is contrary to what * P. 131. he himself produceth from Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyrium And secondly were it so either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten or before or after viz. when the species of bread cease to remain If this last then is it sacrificed in the belly not on the Altar if when it is eaten 't is sacrificed in the mouth if before then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ Secondly if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale and ceaseth to be present under these species then by parity of reason God himself and his Angels may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation when he ceaseth to be where he was by the destruction of that wherein he was or the annihilation of the same Secondly If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice then neither do his Ministers but the first is so the sequel is evident because that which is delivered to us to be done was receiv'd from Christ for seeing it is deliver'd by the Evangelists and Saint Paul and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed that he received it of Christ and delivered no other thing If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice neither did he deliver it to us from Christ but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice Hist Conc. Trent for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper which went before Besides the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memorial of that which he offered on the Cross now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past and therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross but shewed what we were afterwards to do And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter and onely desire Mr. C. in case he reply to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church and wherein they differ from us and what are the requisites of a sacrifice that so we may know what we are to dispute against CHAP. XIIII Why Master C. omits the dispute touching the Books stiled Apocryphal Sect. 1. His way of reasoning weak Sect. 2. 3 4 5 6. The Primitive Fathers against the veneration of Images Sect. 7. All their pretences evacuated by the Fathers Sect. 8. The Honour given to Images is called worship by the Romanists themselves Sect. 9. To worship false Gods not necessary to Idolatry Sect. 10. Vulgar Papists give divine honour to Images Sect. 11. Papists pray to them Sect. 12. Master Cs. Argument for veneration of Images Answ Sect. 13. An Argument against it Sect. 14. His Story further requited Sect. 15. WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith onely this That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles the Invocation of Saints the worship of Images yea saith he many humane writings the Apocryphal Books and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images he takes advantage of these few words to transcribe the whole dispute over-looking that which more copiously is insisted on to wit the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly stile Apocryphal Doctor John Reynolds and Bishop Cousens which sure was onely upon this account because it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men even from Christ time to the Sessiâ—n of this worthy Conventicle we call upon him for answer to them in his next Well but we will be content to undergo this trouble also and that the rather because this peice is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it although it be fraught if I mistake not with inconsiderable Sophismes Sect. 2 First if then he catechizes us thus Should you see the Picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross Mr. C. p. could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he had done and suffered for you Answer Your own Gerson will tell us another story compertum est c. It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turn'd from holy cogitations and pure affections to carnal filthy wicked and impure yea execrably blasphemous but to let this passe Secondly I see a Crucifix almost every day in our Colledge windows and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect to the members of our Colledges whether they do not often look upon their windowes without such remembrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured as may make them spiritual or compell them into a fit of devotion yea the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies notwithstanding the loud cries of the Phanaticks that they are scandalous and dangerous is evidently this because she knows they have an historical use and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them Thirdly The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London Spanish Inquisition Irish Rebellions Popish Cruelties to the Waldenses and Albingenses yea the picture of Hell and the Devil are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remembrances and doing so may not I adresse my self with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants and pray heartily to be freed from the torments of Hell and tyranny of Satan Is not there as much reason for my devotion here as at the sight of an Image yea the very names of Peter and Paul Heaven and Hell are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts and therefore when I read in a play Heavens bless c. must I turn to my devotions I might be endlesse in such instances Again he tells us Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and Bradshaw should we have the Bible and Pantagruel they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts almost impossible to be avoided Answer First Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us Secondly When he walks along London streets and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due subjection and reverence And should he have Faux in his
is the body which we worship Saint Austine will tell us presently no for he brings in Christ speaking to his Disciples thus You eat not the body which you see I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you That which is brought out of the 120 Epistle needs no further answer but onely to note that our Adversary hath added it to worship determining the object which Saint Austine did not and by the same reason saith the Lord Du Plessis may be added to body transubstantiated or what you please Sect. 24 Now that the primitive Church did not terminate such Adoration upon the Elements is made out evidently by the Learned D. Taylor in these words Lib. de trans towards the end If the Primitive Church had ever taught that Divine worship was to be given to the Sacrament it had been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the Arguments upon their heads by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands to which themselves gave what figure they pleased and then by certain formes consecrated them and made by invocation as they supposed a Divinity to dwell there They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see nor hear nor smell nor taste nor move nor understand That which could grow old and perish that could be broken and burn'd that was subject to the injury of rats and mice of worms and creeping things that can be taken by Enemies and carried away That is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves and sacrilegious persons Now if the Church of those ages had practis'd and thought as they have at Rome in these last ages might not they have said why might not we as well as you Do not you worship that with divine honours and call it your God which can be burnt and broken which your selves form into a round or square figure which the oven first hardens And then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God which can see no more nor hear nor smell then the silver and gold upon our images Do not you adore that which rats and mice eat which can grow mouldy and sowre which you keep under locks and barrs for fear your God be stolne Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your Deity to the Sultan of Egypt insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escucheons by way of Triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it True it is that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our gods with us But did not the Jesuites carry your Host which you call God about their necks from Venice in the time of their interdict And now why do you reprove that in us which you do your selves What could have been answer'd to them if the Doctrine and accidents of the times had furnished them with the like instances In vain it would have been to have replyed Yea but ours is the true God and yours the false gods For they would easily have made a rejoynder that this is to be prov'd by some other Argument In the mean time all your Objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you upon this account since none of the witty and subtle Adversaries of Christianity ever did or could make this defence by way of recrimination it is certain there was no occasion given And therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament must needs be Sophistry and Illusion and need no particular consideration Will they say that the Fathers kept these mysteries secret Sect. 29 and so the Heathens could not be acquainted with what they did I answer But were not there wise and subtle Apostates such as Julian such as the pesecutors of the Church forc'd to relinquish their profession of Christianity Such as turn'd Christians chiefly upon these Arguments enforced upon them by the Champions of the Christian cause Doth not Saint Paul tell us that even in his time all that were in Asia fell away from the truth 2 Tim. 1.15 And could it be that none of these should be able to retort this Objection Was it not strange that none of the Converts of the Church should be scandaliz'd at this when as Avicenna presently cries out Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis CHAP. XII The State of the Question Sect. 1. The lawfulness of communicating in one kind not proved from the Christians practice in the times of persecution Sect. 2. Nor from their communicating of Infants Sect. 3. Nor from their communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4. Nor from communions at Sea Sect. 5. Nor lastly from communions sent to other provinces Sect. 6. Christs institution respected Laicks as well as Priests Sect. 7 8. An evasion obviated Sect. 9. Further evidence of the Laicks interest in the Cup and a farther evasion obviated Sect. 10. Christs Institution a Command Sect. 11. The verdict of Antiquity for us Sect. 12. No evidence of concomitance Sect. 13 14. Three Arguments against it Sect. 16 17 18. The vain pretences alledged for this half communion Sect. 19. Vpon what conditions a dispensation may be granted Sect. 20. THe State of this Question is not Sect. 1 as our Author would perswade us Mr. C. p. 138. Ibid. whether The receiving in both kinds be necessary to the essence of the Communion Albeit that be very true but whether the administring the Sacrament in both kinds to the people or Priests non-Conficients capable of it in both kinds be not necessary necessitate praecepti or from the injunction of our blessed Saviour or in a word whether the with-holding of the Cup from such be not a violation of the will of Christ If so then farewel Trent Council Now this we assert to be so our Author on the contrary will make it good that the Fathers thought the contrary and appeals to Doctor Peirces Conscience Ibid. whether if he should side with us in it he should not be overwhelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against him And then he produceth his old Arguments in defence of this apparent Novelty And first he tells us out of Tertullian and Cyprian Sect. 2 that during the times of persecution the Eucharist was delivered to the faithful under the species of Bread alone Ibid. and carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions To which we Answer P. 184. First in the words of Doctor Featly That the Sacrament was anciently carried home in both kinds and not in one as the Romanist here pleadeth And this is proved from Justin Martyr who in his second Apology declaring the order of the Church saith thus Of the things that be consecrated viz. the Bread Water and Wine they give a part to every