testament of Moyses rod turned into a serpent of water turned into blood You see then saith he that by prophetical grace nature was twise changed what shall we then say of the divine consecration it self where the words of our Saviour do operate if the speech of Elias was so prevalent that it brought down fire from heaven shall not the speech of Christ prevaile to change the species or nature of the elements Cypr. serm de de coena Domini Greg. Nys Orat. Catech. cap. 37. Damasc l. 4. Ortho fidei S. Cyprian above cited saith that the bread is changed not in shape but in nature and by the omnipotency of the wotd is made flesh S. Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that the bread wine are transelemented And S. Iohn Damascen averreth that the elements are transchanged ascribing also that change to the omnipotency of God albeit we cannot know the manner how it is done Neither is that much to be admired for the same Father saith we can hardly tell how bread and wine or water by eating drinking are turned into the substance of our body blood If we can hardly know the manner of that change which is made every day by nature how can we think to comprehend the manner of this supernatural change which is made in the divine mysteries by the omnipotent power of the God of nature These testimonies besides others shew me sufficiently both the possibility antiquity of the thing signified by transubstantiation to witt a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christs body blood the outward formes or accidents of bread wine remaining Therefore the Presbyterians do affirm very rashly in their new Confession that this change is not only repugnant to Scripture but also to common sense and reason seing the holy Fathers who cannot with any modestie be denyed to have common sense and reason did believe and prove it both by the Scriptures reason At least I resolved to preferre alwayes the common sense of the Fathers to the private sense of the Presbyterians Then when the thing it self is clear it is great follie in some to make out cryes against the word transubstantiation which they may do as well vpon the same ground against the words Trinity Consubstantial If they receive these vpon the authority of the Church and a General Councel why not the other also vpon the same authority If the change of our Saviours figure or Countenance vpon mount Thabour be fitly called Transfiguration Math. 17. v. 2. why may not also this substantial change of the elements into his body blood be iustly called Transubstantiation yea Beza plainly confesseth that if the letter of the Scripture be followed Papistical transubstantiation is established Beza vt infra And we have seen that the letter must be followed As I saw great vnity among the Catholiques in their belief concerning the holy Sacrament so I admired to find such dissension and confusion among Protestants in so substantial a point of the Christian religion and that this confusion should have risen eVen among their chief Apostles and the first builders of their high tower of Reformation Luth. in lib. de Capt. Babyl cap de Eucha Zuing. in lib. de vera falsa relig ca. de Euc. Cal lib. 4. Instit cap. 18. For Luther teacheth that Christs body is truely and really in the Sacrament but that the substance of the bread is not changed into it and that they remayne both together Zuinglius opposed his Master and taught that the Sacrament is only a bare signe of Christs body which is not in or with the elements but only really in t he heavens Then Calvin the third Apostle came in with pretence of a third light wherewith he would illuminate the world and reform these Reformers First he taught with Zuinglius against Luther that Christs body is only really in the heavens and not in the elements Then against Zuinglius he saith that the elements are not bare signes but they exhibite vnto vs the true body blood of Christ which we eate by the mouth of faith And because it seems impossible to eate any thing remaining at so great a distaÌ„ce he telleth yow that this mysterie is vnperceptible as indeed it is in his opinion which is more hard to conceive then the belief of the Catholiques because it is impossible and hath no ground neither in Scriptures nor Fathers But as some grave Authours have ' observed Calvins opinion of the Sacrament ' differs nothing in reality from the opinion of Zuinglius except only in obscurity of words which are trimmed vp to deceive men putting them in hopes of realities but indeed giving them nothing but bare figures For which cause Luther and his Disciples do brand both Zuinglius Calvin and their successors with the infamous name of Sacramentarian heretiques We do seriously censure saith he Luth. cont artic Louan Thesi 27. Idem tom 7. Vvit f. 381. ibid fol. 382. Luther in lib de Missa priuata vnct sacerd com 7. wit om Zuingl in lib da subsidiâ— Encharsstia Tigurini tract 3. cont confes Luth. p. 61. Zuinglians all Sacramentaries as heretiques strangers from the Church of God Again I take God to witnesse the whole world that I do not agree with them nor shall ever agree with them so long as the world endureth but I shall keep my hands free from the blood of those whom these heretiques draw from Christ whom they deceive and murder He leaveth also a perpetual curse to all those who will make peace with them which curse his disciples have diligently shun'd Yea he professeth that amongst other things the Devil counselled himself to deny the real presence to which he did not give consent by reason of Christs clear words to the contrarie But what the Devil could not do in this point with the Master he performed by his Scholler Zuinglius who by his own confession learned this opinion of a Spirit in the night for which cause Luther saith that the Devil doth now ever dwell in the Zuinglians that their blasphemous breasts are insatanized supersatanized and persatanized with many other horrible expressions of which the Zuinglians say did ever a man heare such words proceed from a furious and infernal Devil Luthers Schollers do continue their Masters zeale for one of them very famous Schlussel de Theologia Cavin lib. 1. c. 20. writes that as of old Averroes the Arabian the Pagans Iewes railed at the Christians for their beleef of Christs reall presence so do now hostes abiurati testamenti filij Dei Calvinistae blaspbemi the blasphemous Calvinists the foresworne enemies of Christs tâ—stament and with the auncient Pagans they take great pleasure with poisoned and Devilish blasphemies to deface and inveigh against the receiving of Christs true body which we by Christs words defend And having shewed by all circumstances that the
When S. Gregorie was giving the Sacrament to the people he came to a woman who smiled when he said to her the body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule wherevpon the Pope did withdraw his hand lay'd the SacrameÌ„t on the altar After the holy solemnities were ended he enquired at the woman why she had laughed in so dreadfull an action She in end confessed that she could not acknowledge that bread which she had made with her own hands to be the body of Christ Then S. Gregorie prayed God earnestly for her and obtain'd that the bread even in external forme should be turned into flesh by which miracle he both reduced the woman vnto the faith and confirmed the people in it The faith of S. Lowis King of France Bosius li 14 de signis Eccles p. 145. ex Villanaeo an 1258. concerning this Sacrament is much celebrated For when he being advertised that a most beavtifull child had appeard in the holy Sacrament was desired to come and see this miracle he refused to goe saying that these miracles were done for these who doubted but for himself he was most certaine that Christ Iesus was truly present in the Eucharist An other such apparition was seen at Doway in the yeare 1254. continueda good time Spond suppl anno 1254. n. 16. so that great numbers of people came from diverse parts to see it and the memory of it is every yeare celebrated in that town with great solemnity By all which considerations I was sufficiently satisfyed of the Catholique belief concerning the reall presence which I found to be containd in the holy Scriptures beleeved by the holy Fathers and by general Councels and to be confirmed by miracles And therefore I could not any longer believe the Presbyterian doctrin which against all these authorities makes the body of Christ to be as far distant from the Sacrament as the heavens are from the earth 1. I perceived that they scarcely pretend to have Scripture for them but are enforced to runne from the clear words of it to their tropes figures Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 10. which S. Augustin observed long ago to be the custom of erroneous persons So soone saith he as the opinion of any errour hath once prepossessed their minds they esteeme all to be figures which the Scripture saith to the contrarie And therefore albeit the Scripture saith not once but foure times that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Iesus Christ without ever saying in any one place that it is not his body but only a figure of it they beleeve the one which it saith not and not the other which it affirmes Against them S. Iohn Damascen saith efficaciously Damas lib. 4. Orthodo fidei The bread wine is not a figure of the body blood of Christ God forbid it were that but it is the divine body of our Lord he himself saying this is my body 2. They passe from the Scriptures Fathers and found their negative faith vpon their senses and some carnal reasons Chrys homil 60. ad popul Antioch Against which vaine pretences S. Chrysostom saith well Let vs beleeve God every where let vs not oppose him although that which he saith seem absurd to our sense vnderstanding Let his speech overcome our sense and reason which in all things we ought to do cheefly in the mysteries not only looking to that which lieth before vs but also holding fast his words For we cannot be deceived by his words our sense may be easily deceived these cannot be false this is often deceived Because therefore he hath said this is my body let vs not be holden by any doubt but let vs beleeve and comprehend it wiâ—h the ey 's of of our vnderstanding Cyrill Alex. lib. 4. in Ioan c. 13. S. Cyrill speaks no lesse efficaciously against those who pretend this mystery to be against reason and impossible compareing them to incredulous Iewes A malignant minde saith he doth presently reiect as frivolous false what it doth not vnderstand yeelding to none nor thinking any thing to be aboue it self as we shall find the Iewes to have been For when it became them who had seen the divine vertue the miracles of our Saviour to receive his speech willingly and if any thing seemed difficult to have asked the resolution of him they did the quit contrarie and cryed out together against God not without great impietie How can this man give vs his flesh neither did it come into their minde that there is nothing impossible with God for since they were sensual as S. Paul speaks they could not vnderstand spiritual things and so great a mystery seemed to them to be follie But let vs make great profit by other mens sins Let us have a firme faith in these mysteries Let vs neuer speak nor think that word How That 's meerly Iudaical and the cause of great punishment Thus S. Cyrill 3. The Presbyterians do wrest our Saviours words by a figurative interpretation against all reason as hath been shewed Then I found this Presbyterian doctrin Apud Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. Gualt Chronolog saecul 1. cap. 1. Elien resp ad Apolog. Bellar. c. 1. Casaub ans to Card. Peron 1. instance fol. 32. English to have been an ancient heresie of Simon Magus and Menander and thereafter of Berengarius who at his death did recant of the Albigenses and of diverse others Yea Gualterus brings some testimonies of the holy Fathers to shew that Iudas the traitor denyed the reall presence and did not believe our Saviours words in the 6. chapter of S. Iohn Lastly diverse famous Protestants have abandoned that doctrin of Calvin As Bishop Andrews who writes thus against Bellarmin We agree faith he with yow of the matter all the contention is about the manner a presence I say we believe not lesse reall then yow Casaubon made the like profession in name of King Iames of the whole Church of England And whereas I heard so much cryed out against Transubstantiation as a thing impossible and a noveltie lately introduced into the Church I found both these allegations to be false For the holy Fathers do shew both the possibility and the verity of it out of the Scriptures Cyrill Hieros Catech. 4. Mystag Ambros l. 4. de Sacram c. 4. lib. de mysterijs initiand cap. 9. S. Cyrill saith Christ changed once water into wine which is near vnto blood and is he not worthy to be believed of vs that he hath changed wine into blood S. Ambrose having shewed the power of Christs speech how by it he gave a being to the world which had no being before saith How much more then operative is it that these things which were might have a being and be converted into another Again the same holy Father calls this change a conversion of nature substance bringing examples out of the old
Aug. lib. 50. hom liar hom 49. and elswhere he saith It 's lawfull for the cause of fornication to put away an adulteresse wife but dure ng her life it is not lawfull to marie another c. These are Adulteries not Mariages Is Augustin contemned let Christ be feared Two Ancient Councels do also confirme the same doctrine Therefore Concil Elibert c. 9. Milerit c. 17. the Catholique Church in denying Mariage to the innocent partie divorced is not cruel as you calumniate but observes the iust Law of Christ the commandment of the Apostle and the practice of the holy ancient Church And if any think it hard they have a remedie prescribed by the Apostle to reconcile themselves to the guilty partie But indeed you are cruel who vnder pretext of mercy do allow men to Violate the iust Law of God and vnder the name of Mariages authorize people to commit Adulteries to the destruction of their soules So that it is truly verifyed of you that your mercies are cruel But let vs proceed now to your other abiurations SECTION VIII Of the Christian Sacrifice and of Priesthood AFTER you had robbed Christians of almost all the Sacraments and of our Saviours legacie to witt his precious body now you would rob the Church of the Christian Sacrifice and would spoyle God of the greatest external honour that can be rendred to him is due to him alone And with the Sacrifice you would also destroy the sacred Order of Priesthood by which it is offered For you renounce them in these most virulent tearmes of your Covenant We detest his Devilish Masse His blasphemous Priesthood His profane Sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick As never any Religion neither vnder the Law of Nature nor vnder the Law of Moyses wanted Sacrifice which is a Supâ—â—m worship due to God alone so the Chrisâ—â—â—n Religion which excells all Religions tha◠〈◊〉 have been is not destitute of that perfecâ—â—â—n but hath a most excellent Sacrifice far exceeding all the ancient Sacrifices The Prophets did foretell of it Christ did institute it the holy Apostles their Successors did offer it and the whole Christian world hath in all ages frequented it which points we shall briefly touch The Prophet David speaking of Christ saith The Lord has sworne Psal 109.4 Thou art a Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedech Which words have relation to these of Moyses Genes 14.18 Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for he was Priest of the most high God The holy Fathers vnderstand that Prophesie of the Christian Sacrifice of Christs body blood vnder the formes of bread wine So S. Cyprian who is more Priest Cypr. epist 63. ad Cecil saith he of the most high God then our Lord Iesus-Christ who offered a Sacrifice to God his father and offered the same which Melchisedech had offered that is bread wine to witt his own body blood S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. c. 17. No where now is the Priesthood Sacrifice according to the order of Aaron and every where vnder Christ the Priest is offered vp that which Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed Abraham And again speaking of Melchisedechs Sacrifice he saith There did first appeare the Sacrifice which is now offered vp to God by Christians in the whole world The second Prophesie is in Malachie where God saith to the Iewes Malachie ch 1. v. 10. I have no pleasure in you neither will I accept any offering at your hands For from the riseing of the Sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentils and there is offered Sacrificed to my name in every place a pure oblation The holy Fathers vnderstood this as a most clear Prophesie of the Christian Sacrifice So S. Ireneus Among the 12. Prophets saith he Malachie did so fâ—retell of it Ireneus lib. 4 c. 33. I have no pleasure in â—u c. most clearly signifying by these words that the first people should leave off to offer vnto God and in every place a Sacrifice and that pure shouâ—d be offered vnto him So also S. Augustin did vnderstand it Aug de 〈◊〉 it l. 18. c. 26. Malachie saith he prophesying of the Chvrch which we see now propagated saith most â—learly vnto the Iewes in the person of God I have no pleasure in you c. since then we see the sacrifice by the Priesthood of Christ according to the Order of Melchisedech offered vp in every place c and they cannot deny but the sacrifice of the Iewes is ceased why do they yet look for another Christ seing that which they read Prophesied and see fulfilled could not be accomplished but by him If this Prophesie be so strong against the Iewes it is no lesse forcible against the Covenanters As the Prophets foretould so Christ fulfilled by instituting this Sacrifice by offering it vp himself and by ordaining it to be offered vp vnto the end of the world This he performed when taking bread he blessed it saying This is my body which is given for you and after the same manner of the Chalice He ordaind the same oblation to be continued when he said to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me So the holy Fathers expresly teach S. Ireneus who lived in the second age speaking of Christs words of Institution saith Christ taught the new oblation of the new Testament Iren. lib 4 c. 33. which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth vp to God throughout the whole world S. Cyprian affirmeth clearly the same truth saying Our Lord God Iesus-Christ Cypr lib 2. epist 3. is the high Priest of God the Father He offered vp himself a Sacrifice to his Father and the same he commanded to be done in his remembrance To which two we shall only adioyn S. Augustin who saith Aug. in psal 33. serm 2. Christ did Institute the Sacrifice of his body blood according to the Order of Melchisedech And last of all may be added the practice of the whole Christian world which in all ages from the death of Christ did render vnto God supreme honour worship testifying his Soveraignity power of life death by this most excellent Sacrifice of Christs body blood which the holy Fathers called the Sacrifice of the Masse The Vertue also of which God has manifested by many Miracles one of which I will recount out of S. Augustin to our purpose Aug. lib. 22 de Civit. c. 8. Which is briefly thus The house of a certain Tribune in the Countrey near to Hippo the City of S. Augustins residence being vexed with evil Spirits to the great losse of his cattel and affliction of his Servants he came and desired that one of our Priests saith the holy Father I being then absent would goe and pray that the Devil
that themselves do acknowledge in end the necessity of good works But to know how they are necessary either as causes or conditions is not a necessary curiosity wherof few are capable and without which many have gone to heaven And so now I proceed to the Trial of our doctrin concerning the Sacraments CHAP. XVIII Of the Excellency of the Christian Sacraments and particularly how they conferre Grace which is denyed by the Presbyterians AS I knew the Christian religion to be the most excellent of all true religions that ever have been whether we consider that which was vnder the law of nature or the other which was vnder the law of Moyses so I iustly conceived that it was most agreeable to Gods goodnesse and wisdome to adorne and enrich it with most excellent Sacraments For since no religion whether true or false can be without some sensible signes Aug. lib. 19. cont Faust cap. 22. as S. Augustin hath observed the Christian religion which is not only the true but also the most perfect religion to which the former two served as preparations must also have the most perfect and efficacious Sacraments And so I found the same S. Augustin extolling the perfection of the Christian Sacraments above these of the ancient law Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 19. Aug. cont Faust lib. 19. c. 13. Our Lord saith he and the Apostolical disciplin haue delivered some few Sacraments for many and these most easy to be done most magnificent for signification and most pure to be observed And elswhere he saith the Sacramenss are changed they are made easier fewer holsommer happier Now the principal perfection of the Christian Sacraments was generally believed to consist in this that God by them did conferre grace vnto our soules Which truth is so engrafted in the hearts of Christians that I knew diverse Protestants could not be at first perswaded that Luther or Calvin or that their Church taught the contrary and. when that was sufficiently manifested to them they were much scandalized at it In so much that some of them did say If the Sacraments do not confer grace and baptisme doth not take away original sin for what vse serve the Sacraments for what end were they ordain'd Wherefore being thus stirred vp to try this question I found in end that the Catholique doctrine which taught that the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace is conformable to the divine Scriptures that it was expresly believed by the holy Fathers and doth duly exalt the perfection of the Christian Sacraments Whereas the Presbyterians doctrin which denyeth the Sacraments to confer grace is not only false against the Scriptures but was also condemned as an ancient heresy by the holy Fathers that it vndervalues the vertue of the Christian Sacraments and is so absurd that diverse famous Protestants haue abandoned that opinion albeit it was taught both by Luther Calvin and in this point do agree with the Catholiques All which things for brevities sake I will only touch Of Baptisme S. Iohn said to the Iewes 3.11 Math. I indeed baptize yow in water but he who comes after me shall baptize you in the holy Ghost fire Ananias said to S. Paul be baptized wash away thy sins Acts 22.16 Titus 3.5 Eph s 5.26 S. Paul calleth also Baptisme the Lauer of regeneration by which we are saved The same Apostle saith that Christ hath sanctifyed his Church by the lauer of water in the word of life By which testimonies albeit we speak nothing of many others it appear'd sufficiently clear to me since we are said to have our sins washed away by baptisme to be sanctifyed to be born of new again that by it we receive also grace without which these things could not be verified and performed The like is also affirmed of the Eucharist of which our Saviour saith If any man eate of this bread Iohn 6.51.54 he shall live for ever And again He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Now this everlasting life is no otherwise had here but by receiving Grace which is the seed of Glory and of eternal life happinesse Therefore these two Sacraments which are all that the Presbyterians admit do confer grace by the vertue institution of Christ What was the belief of the holy Fathers and of the whole Church in this point it is so clear that Calvin himself and other chief Protestants do acknowledge it to be the same which is now believed by the Catholiques against their doctrin Cal. lib. 4. Instit cap. 14. sect 14. 26. For. Calvin confesseth that with great consent it was taught and believed for many ages That the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace if they were not hindered by mortal sin which albeit he calleth a pernicious and pestilentious opinion and alleadgeth that it drawes men from God to rest in the sight of corporall things and not in God himself yet he confesseth also that it was taught by S. Augustin the holy Fathers whom he striveth to excuse by saying that in their immoderat praises of the Sacraments Cent. 2. c. 4. cent 3. c 4. Muscul in loc com p. 299. they vsed hyperbolical speeches The Lutheran Centurists do ascribe the same doctrin as an errour to the most ancient Fathers as to S. Clement Iustin Cyprian and others Musculus saith plainly that Augustin did rashly affirm that the Sacraments of the new law conferred grace These open confessions shall save our paines of citing the Fathers testimonies And that this doctrin of the Catholiques doth manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments it is so clear of it self that it needeth no illustration Vpon this consideratiō S. Augustin Aug. tract 80. in Ioan. admiring the wonderfull effects of the Sacraments cry'd out Vnde tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat Whence comes saith he so great vertue to the water that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the soule Where he ascribes this wonderful effect to the goodnesse omnipotency of God which sheweth also that his speeches are not hyperbolicall as Calvin falsly pretends Thus much briefly to shew that I found the Catholique doctrin to be conforme to the Scriptures holy Fathers and to manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments And therfore Calvins opinion which is iust contrary must needs be against all these He himself confesseth that it is against the holy Fathers and consequently it cannot be conforme to the Scriptures whereon they founded their faith and not vpon humane imaginations That it taketh away a great perfection from the Sacraments denying them to conferre grace is so evident that it needs no proofe Calvin saw this so clearly that he pretended the Farhers vsed immoderate praises of the Sacraments and that this vertue which the Catholiques do ascribe to the Sacraments makes people to trust more in creatures them in God himself But as I found
really present in the Sacrament Although this be a most important question and is much agitated by the curiosity of carnal reason yet I was soone satisfyed in it because I was resolved by Gods grace to found my faith vpon no other ground but vpon the divine Scriptures as they were vnderstood by the ancient Church holy Fathers And therefore after a little diligence and some conference with a Catholique on this matter I found that the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was conforme to the clear words of the Scriptures which were so vnderstood by the holy Fathers and which in right reason cannot be otherwise vnderstood and that God hath approved this truth by famous miracles And vpon the other part I found that the Presbyerian doctrin is against Scriptures Fathers Councels and right reason that it is an ancient heresy and so false that many Protestants do eagerly oppose it and lastly that such great confusion was in this matter among the first Apostles of this new religion that it is no wonder to see it so much multiplied among their children All which points I will briefly touch 1. The Catholiques bring expresse Scripture for the reall presence to witt the words of Institution of this holy Sacrament related by three Evangelists and one Apostle where our Saviour alwayes saith This is my body This is my blood And to know that he mean'd of his true reall body he adioyneth my body which shall be given for you and my blood which shall be shed for you Now it was his reall body which was given for them and his reall blood which was shed for them S. Iohn ch 6. Therefore it was his reall body reall blood which they received in the Sacrament Moreover S. Iohn relateth along discourse which our Saviour had to the Iewes in which he affirmes that he was the bread of life that came down from heaven And the bread which he was to give was his flesh for the life of the world and vnlesse they eate his flesh and drink his blood they should have no life in them And notwitstanding that the Iewes murmured at all these things saying How can this man give vs his flesh to eate and this is a hard saying who can heare it Yet our Saviour did with many asseverations affirm it over and over again yea and the suffered them to depart from him because they would not believe this divine mystery Now Christ is not a mocker or deceiver of men to speak one thing yea and to averre it with asseverations which are equivalent to oaths and to intend the contrary Christ is not ignorant of the vsual manner of speech Therefore since he tells the Apostles plainly that the Eucharist is his body delivered for them it must be his body as the Catholiques beleeve and cannot be not his body as the Presbyterians imagine If the Scripture be Iudge of controversies then this controversie is decyded for that Iudge to which Protestants make ordinarly their appeales hath so determined the cause against them that they dare not stand to the clear words of their Iudge in so much that some learned Protestants do confesse that the Scripture taken in the native proper and literal sense is plainly for the Catholiques against themselves and namely Morton when he speaks thus to the Catholiques If the words he certainly true in a proper and literal sense Morton deinstit Sacrament lib. 2. c. 1. then we are to yeeld to you the whole cause And therefore they are enforced to runne to their tropes figures But I found the holy Fathers making no such glosses on our Saviours clear words taking them in their proper sense S. Augustin citing these words of our Saviour this is my body Aug. in ps 33. speaks thus A man may be carried by the hands of others no man is carried in his own hands but Christ was carried in his own hands when recomeÌ„ding his body he himself said this is my body For he carried himself in his own haÌ„ds And again We receive with a faithfull heart and month Idem contr adversar legis lib. 2. c. 9. Ambros lib. 4. de Sacram cap. 4. Chrys lib. 2. de Sacerdotio Cypr. de Coena Domini the Mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ who giveth vs his flesh to eate S. Ambrose saith clearly Before consecration it is bread but when the words of consecration come it is the body of Christ Heare him saying take eate This is my body c. S. Chrysostom saith He who sitteth above with the father in that same instant of time O miracle O the bounty of God! is touched by the hands of all and he gives himself to those who will receive and embrace him S. Cyprian The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh Many more testimonies of these and of the other holy Fathers in all the first ages even vntill the time of the Apostles Concil Nicen. apud Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. aristi c. 10. Concil Ephes apud eund lib. 2. cap. 25. may be seen collected by Coccius and Gualterus So that I found both the Scriptures Fathers giving sentence against the Presbyterians The first for the letter and the other for the sense This same truth is also confirmed by the testimonie and authority of the vniuersal Church in general Councels as the first Nicen Councel whose words Bellarmin cites The third generall Councel of Ephesus to which S. Cyrill of Alexandria did preside by which Synod the epistle of S. Cyrill to Nestorius where the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist is contain'd was approved as it was thereafter by the fourth and fift generall Councels to speak nothing of other more late Councels Besides all these authorities it was also made evident vnto me by the light of reason that our Saviours words concerning the institution of this Sacrament cannot be but literally vnderstood For 1. the principall articles or points of our faith are not delivered in the Scriptures but in proper and clear words But this by all mens Confession is a principall mystery of our faith Therefore it is delivered in clear and plaine tearmes 2. That cannot be ascrybed to Christ without blasphemy which no reasonable or prudent man would do But no reasonable or prudent man would make his testament in obscure and figurative words for that were the high way to deceive his children heires and put them at variance Therefore since Christ at the institution of this Sacrament a little before his death was making his Testament as is manifest by his words when he calleth the Chalice Luke 20.22 the new Testament in his blood by which he left vnto his children the most precious legacie of his body for their comfort nourishment he spake properly clearly and not figuratively 3. Chrâ—st promised the Iewes
might be chased away Wherevpon one went and offered vp saith he there the Sacrifice of the body blood of Christ to the end that the vexation might cease and by Gods mercy it did cease immediatly As therefore it is evident by what has been briefly said from the Scriptures holy Fathers that there is nothing more holy divine in the whole Christian religion then the Christian Sacrifice of Christs pretious body blood vnder the formes of bread wine which was foretould by the Prophets instituted and offered vp by Christ himself and was thereafter offered vp by the holy Apostles and their Successors so you very wickedly call it Devilish For that cannot be Devilish which was ordain'd by God himself and whereby he is most honoured that cannot be Devilish which chaseth away Devils But your railing against it and abolishing it must be Devilish because the Devil by his principal instrument the great Anti-Christ is to abolish it in the later dayes Daniel 11.31 and Luther your first Reformer Luth. de Missa pri tom 7. by a strange divine Providence did confesse to the world that the Devil did stirre him vp by many arguments to abrogat it And as the Sacrifice is most holy divine so is the office of Priesthood by which it is offered most sacred and venerable If the Aaronical Priesthood whereby only bullocks and beasts were Sacrificed to God was so sacred how much more sacred excellent must be the Christian Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech by which the body blood of Christ are offered vp vnto God a pure Oblation And therefore you very wickedly call the office of Priesthood blasphemous and by dishonouring it you dishonour God himself who did institute it as S. Ignatius the Disciple of the Apostles affirmes when he saith that Priesthood is the Top of all Honours Ignat. epist ad myrn that are amongst men which if any man dishonoureth he dishonours God our Lord Iesus-Christ the alone chief Priest of God by nature Your Ministerial office is rather blasphemous against God which robs him of his supreme worship by Sacrifice which has been given vnto him since the Creation That the Christian Sacrifice is offered vp for sins our Saviour shewes when he saith This is my blood which is shed for many to the remission of sins And that it is profitable also for remission of sins to the faithfull departed the holy Fathers do teach by the Scriptures and practice of the whole Church Aug. l. de cura pro mortuis c. 1. S. Augustin saith We read in the Books of the Machabees of Sacrifice offered for the dead but though it were no where read in the old Testament yet not smal is the authority of the Vniuersal Church which shines in this custome where the commendation of the dead hath its place in the prayers of the Priest which are powred out to our Lord God at his altar lib. 9. Con. c. 3 And in his ninth book of Confessions he tells vs His Mother Monica desired on her death-bed that memory should be made of her at the Altar from whence she knew the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed wherewith the indictment against vs was blotted out Where you may see also the Saints call that a Holy Sacrifice which you call profane SECTION IX Of the Canonization of Saints Invocation of Angels and Saints Worshiping of Images Reliques and Crosses Dedicating of Churches Altars c. NOW follow these words of the Covenant We detest his Canonization of men calling vpon Angels or Saints departed worshiping of Images Reliques Crosses Dedicating of Kirks Altars Dayes and Vowes to Creatures We shall now for brevities sake run speedily through all the rest of the Covenant First you blame here the Catholique Church for a most laudable custome which she has ever observed of Canonizing that is declareing some persons who had been eminent for holynesse to be glorifyed Saints in heaven There have been indeed different wayes by which this Canonization has been performed For sometimes it was done by the voice of the people with consent of their Prelats or by the Prelats the people not controuling But since the year 800. none have been Canonized but by the Sea Apostolique according to the decree of Pope Leo the third Whence it is that this action is performed with greater diligence and more exact trial both of life miracles then when it was done in a popular manner What then can you iustly blame here But indeed you are to be blamed who Canonize in your own manner not Saints but sinners that break mortaly every day Gods commandments and such was your Covenanting Army which you ordinarly called the Army of the Saints You passe next from detesting the Catholiques Canonizing of Saints to detest the Invocation both of Angels Saints But indeed you cannot detest that vnlesse you detest also the Scriptures the practice of the Saints of the whole Primitive Church For did not Iacob invocat an Angel when blessing Iosephs children he said The Angel Genes 18 16. Osee 12.4 which delivered me from all evil blisse these children Doth not the Prophet Osee testify the same saying Iacob prevailed agrinst the Angel he wept prayed to him Did not also Abraham Lot Gedeon pray to Angels as may be seen recorded in the Scriptures Genes 18.4.19.1 Iudges 6.3 Therefore in detesting the invocation of Angels you detest the Scriptures practice of the Saints The same may be also said of the Invocation of Saints departed For if it be lawfull to invocat the Angels why not also the Saints of Heaven whom our Saviour affirmes to be equal vnto the Angels Luke 20.36 Yea if it be lawfull to invocat Saints and sinners living vpon earth and to desire the assistance of their prayers why is it not lawfull to invocat the Saints raigning in Heaven and desire them to pray for vs To say that they do not hear our prayers and know not what is done here below which may concern them Luke 15.10 is most false For our Saviour sheweth that there is ioy among the Angels of Heaven at the Conversion of a sinner Therefore they must know it And shall the Angels know such things and reioyce at them and the glorifyed Saints who are of our own nature be altogether ignorant of them and have no fellow-feeling with vs Shall some Saints living here on earth know the secrets of others hearts know what is done at a distance as is recorded in Scripture of Samuel in relation to King Saul 1. Kings 1.19 and of Elizeus in regard of his man Giezi 4. Kings 5.25 to passe by other instances of Daniel S. Peter shall I say these Saints have such knowledge in their exile here on earth and shall the glorifyed Saints in their Countrey in the presence fruition of God be ignorant of such things and so be in a worse condition No that cannot be for