this half Communion the sequel of the former Article of Real presence and acknowledges that without the establishing of the one the other cannot be defended so p. 322 323. We see then what goodly fruit the Romish Real Presence has brought forth to the great and just offence of Christian people in denying them the Cup besides other goodly sequels of it as Adoration and Circumgestation It is not Real Presence truly granted no not such as the Romanists will acknowledge to be true that gives a ground for half Communion or makes it defensible for they grant as we see here p. 123. the Lutherans convinced of this mystery i. e. to believe a true Real Presence but cannot say they are convinced of this sequel or that it follows then may the Communion be delivered in one kind there being other Reasons from the Institution of this Sacrament and our Saviours purpose therein which forbid it as we shall see by what follows To the first Argument from the Institution which is carefully to be observed Halse Communion against the Institution he answers I. that the accidentary circumstances of the first institution are to be distinguished from the substance and essence of the Sacrament This is alwayes to be held not the former p. 324. This we admit only note he reckons the giving it then to Priests only among the accidentary circumstances of the first institution II. he answers that the entire substance of the Sacrament is under each kinde he means both body and blood are under each kinde we shall see asterward how farr that is true But be it so that both body and blood are under each yet is not that the whole substance of the Sacrament which stands in the outward part Bread and Wine as well as the inward or spiritual part the body and blood nor is the Institution held to if the body and blood be given but in one kinde And notwithstanding that he reckoned the giving it at first to Priests only among the Accidentary circumstances of the Institution here he tells us All that can be gathered from the bare words of Institution is that it is to be consecrated and received by Priests Mr. Spencer may say what he will and yet adde a greater untruth such as were the Apostles who were then made Priests p. 325. If then made Priests let him shew us what words what imposition of hands or other Ceremonies were there for that purpose Was our Saviour then conferring orders or instituting the Eucharist or could he with the same words actions and ceremonies institute and administer two several Sacraments Do this he said and that is all they can pretend to but if by this the Disciples were made Priests then they doing what our Saviour did must also ordain others so oft as they administer the Eucharist Now the whole importance of that precept Do this concerns the whole company Priest and people as is plain by 1 Cor. 11.25 26. And it is generally held by the Ancients that the Disciples then represented the whole Church or company of faithfull and that they received orders or Priesthood after his resurrection Jo. 20.22 Lastly the Church of Rome gives not the Sacrament in both kinds to Priests when they are not Conficientes consecrators or administers of it as the Disciples then were not but leaving this senseless assertion and novel device of our Saviours making them Priests when he said do this let us come to the main viz. the whole substance of the Sacrament under each kind He that receives under one kinde saith Mr. Spencer receives a true Sacrament Whether the whole substance of the Sacrament be in one kinde p. 326. He that receives may we say according to the Romish Church in one kinde he does not receive a true Sacrament or not the true Sacrament because not the outward part truly and wholly as it was purposed and appointed at the Institution so that definition which he gives here may pass for a compleat definition of a Sacrament in general but is not compleatly used when applied only to one of the kinds or outward parts of this Sacrament For there is as he noted p. 324. something particular in this Sacrament not the particular he there notes that the whole substance may be received in each kinde but that it stands in two kinds or signs or outward Elements both which together make the compleat sign of the spiritual grace signified and exhibited in this Sacrament each signe apart cannot represent and exhibit the whole spiritual grace of this Sacrament He acknowledges a different grace conferred here A different grace conferred in each kinde one of spiritual meat the other of spiritual drink only he will have both in each kinde p. 327. Which is as much as to say the effect of drink is shewen and exhibited by the meat we eat and the effect of meat by the drink we take so with equal absurdity to say that the blood shed is shewen by the blood in the Veins of unshed for so it s given with the body under one kinde and that the blood is drunk when we eat the flesh For though it be true that he who receives Christ by faith receives whole Christ and by that mouth of faith eats his flesh and drinks his blood is really made partaker of his body given and his blood shed for him thus without the Sacrament and when we come to receive him in the Sacrament the same act of faith receiving him in one kinde as under the bread can and doth at the same time receive also his blood Totum Christum not Totum Christi or whole Christ yet does he not receive his blood sacramentally as blood shed and so not all of Christ or Christ wholly Thus by reason of the act of faith he that receives but in one kinde out of necessity may be assured that he is not defrauded of the participation of Christs blood shed but he cannot be so assured that wilfully receives but in one kinde because though there is a concomitancy of flesh and blood in Christs body as to the natural condition of it yet not a concomitancy of his flesh and bloodshed as to the Sacramental consideration of them which therefore are set out in the Sacrament apart by two several elements Also because such a one being a Transgressor of our Saviours Institution and enemy to his own comfort falls short of the benefit thereof Therefore the Church of England had cause to say though not to the purpose he would have it p. 326. in the distribution of the bread The body of our Lord preserve thy and then adding the Cup to say there also preservethy and this conformably as to our Saviours Institution so to his saying Except ye eat and drink Jo 6.53 and to the Apostle in what he received from the Lord 1 Cor. 11.28 This Author is forced to confess that if by a compleat sign be meant a full and express
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
Dust thou art because made of Dust and the serpent call'd a Rod because made of Aarons Rod and the wine call'd water Jo. 2.9 because made of water so the body of our Lord by S. Paul call'd bread because made of it yet dare not stand to it when we reply The former things are call'd so because of the same matter remaining in the thing made which was in that of which it is made but not so in this making of Christs body which was but once made and that of the seed or blood of the blessed Virgin Mr. Spencer being put to speak to this point goes backward and forward he acknowledges p. 266. by reason of the subject which remains common to both in philosophy call'd Materia prima the first matter Adam was called Dust and the Serpent a Rod and acknowledges p. 269. that our Saviours body cannot be said to be so made of bread and therefore must acknowledge those former usual instances to be impertinent This is backward Now see how he strives forward to maintain the speech made of bread The body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same Accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it begins to be as one may say ex nocte fit Dies the day is made of the night so ex pane fit corpus Christi Christs body is made of bread as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and therefore might be called bread after consecration p. 269. Therefore it might be called Wherefore because forsooth it is made of it as the day of the night but he should have said as the day is called night because it succeeds end comes in place of it as the body of Christ according to their Tenet doth instead or place of the bread and he might have bethought himself whether ever any man call'd Day Night or whether this be not translocation or succession rather then Transubstantiation and whether for such a supposed translocation the body of Christ can be called bread as we see S. Paul often asserting bread after Consecration He has some streins of invention in the pages following as this That the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread he means by way of nourishment from the bread our Saviour did eat but not knowing how to make use of this impertinency in this question he lets it fall But the compleat reason of Catholicks saith he why S Paul calls the Sacrament bread after the consecration Their pretended Reason why S. Paul calls it Bread so oft is because the flesh of Christ into which the bread is changed is put under the species of bread which gives occasion of giving it the same denomination it had before p. 272. What had before that denomination of bread the species or the flesh of Christ neither surely such careless expressions he every where takes hold of when they fall from his Adversary and can spend whole pages against them But this compleat reason was no reason to S. Paul neither did it give him any occasion of giving it still the same denomination of bread for then he had joyned with the report of sense against faith and had deceived them in bidding them eat that bread if nothing but species of bread remained For albeit things set out to sight only may bear the names of the things they are like yet not when proposed for use which requires the substance of the things as eating does you may say of things painted this is bread these are grapes but if you say of them take and eat this is bread these are grapes you mock those that you invite to eat Which shews also the impertinency of Bellarmines instance of the brazen serpent bearing the denomination of serpent from the outward likeness to enforce this compleat reason for that serpent was only for sight to be looked on not for stinging But this is all the reason the Romanists can give and these poor species the form colour smell appearance of bread must help them at every turn they must stand for substance when there is occasion must be the visible part or signe of the Sacrament must be broken eaten nourish what not As for those sayings I am the Vine I am the Door I need not follow him in examining the differences he seeks out between them and this is my body but thus far they be appliable to our purpose that they were figurative speeches yet was our Saviour truly so that is what a Door or Vine is in their kinde and uses such was our Saviour spiritually indeed and in truth So what the bread and wine is to the corporal effects being eaten and drunk that the body and blood of our Saviour taken by faith is spiritually Omnem essectum quem materialis cibus potus quoad vi tam agunt corporalem hoc idem quoad vitam spiritualem hoc Sacramentum operatur Concil Floren. and to the spiritual effect it is the very expression of their Council of Flerence and as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are really offered and given so is the body and blood of our Saviour in the Sacrament really and to all the purposes of the Sacrament given and communicated to them that have faith to receive it for this the Sacramental bread after consecration is called and made to us the body of Christ or as St. Paul expresses it is the communication of his body Upon occasion of shewing difference between Christs saying my flesh is bread and his saying this is my body he has something which may seem in part to make reply to that which was presently delivered Bread saith he of the first saying cannot signifie true and material bread bu in the other by my body is signified the real natural body of Christ 281. What does he infer That by bread in the Protestant doctrine is signified real material bread which cannot be his body p. 282. We grant that when our Saviour said this is my body he meant his true natural body which was broken and given for us but why cannot it be said truly of real and material bread after consecration this bread is my body It cannot indeed be properly said so but may after the use of Sacramental speeches as when said that rock was Christ by rock is meant the real and natural rock out of which the water flowed and by partaking thereof they were really made partakers of the spiritual drink much more in the Sacrament of the New Testament the Bread may be truly called the body of Christ because in the due partaking thereof we are made partakers not only of the spiritual effects of Christs death but also of his very body and blood bringing along with it those spiritual effects and graces which is that St. Paul saith the bread is the communion or communication of the body of Christ the manner we know not as we said above of
the presence but believe the communication of it to all the purposes of the Sacrament But hear a great subtilty that bread should be a Sacrament of his body cannot saith he stand with the Protestant doctrine Bread how Sacrament of his body which in the little Catechisme defines a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual grace but our Saviours body in the first institution was as visible as the bread and though after Ascention his body became invisible by reason of the distance yet that makes it not an inward spiritual grace his conclusion is therefore bread could not be the Sacrament of his body 283. Mr. Spencer surely thought he was dealing with children that had newly learnt their Catechisme for see him presently afraid this should be returned upon themselves He knows first that albeit our Saviours body was in the first institution visible and so it is still visible in it self and knows also that no men make more use of his invisibilitie in the Sacrament then the Romanists do His body is broken eaten blood shed drunk in the Sacrament invisibly yea all this really done but invisibly when he was visible himself to the Apostles in the first institution and before his body was indeed broken or his blood shed on the Cross Thus can they make all good by the virtue of this word invisible yet will not allow Protestants to make Christs body and blood the inward spiritual part of the Sacrament because he was visible Nay but though he be now invisible yet is not his body the inward spiritual grace this is Mr. Spencers subtiltie but he that makes the blood go along with the body that who receives the one has the other too might allow us here a concomitancy of Christs body and the spiritual grace which as I said goes alwayes along with it so that as in the general definition of a Sacrament it is said signe of an inward spiritual grace so in respect of this particular Sacrament it may be said signe of Christs body and blood which is here by the outward visible part of the Sacrament represented conveyed with all the spiritual effects and graces Well we are to thank him for venting that subtiltie Mr. Spencers several confessions of truth in this point of the Sacrament for it brings him presently to plain confession of truth he did see that by his former precious argument against the Protestants any man might think if he were in earnest it would follow there is no Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ and therefore he subjoyns pa. 283. line ult yet we are not constrained to acknowledge there is not a Sacrament why For iâ— signifies that heavenly and divine grace which by vertue of it is given to nourish our souls which is truly inward and spiritual this is well but if the spiritual grace be given by vertue of it i. e. the Sacrament does not the Sacrament give that grace by vertue of Christs body given in it Yea we hear him presently acknowledging also that our Saviours body invisibly existent in this Sacrament and nourishing our souls may be truly called a spiritual grace and inward too when it is Sacramentally received very good all this But is there no sign of this body Hear him also saying that which sensibly appears and is called Sacramentum tantum the Sacrament only is a Sacramental sign of our Saviours body p. 284. All this acknowledged to the defiance of his former subtiltie and what could a Protestant desire more Only when he said nourishing our souls he adds and our bodies which I take to be a slip for it is not the doctrine of his Church to say Christs body nourishes our bodies And now in the name of God why should he not acknowledge the advantage of truth to be on the Protestants side for thus far we agree that there is divine grace by vertue of the Sacrament given to nourish our souls that that which appears in the Sacrament is the Sarramental signe of our Saviours body that our Saviours body is truly existent or given in the Sacrament that our Saviours body nourishes our souls Now in the difference between us see which has the advantage 1. Transubstantiation a wrong to the Sacrament several wayes That which sensibly appears saith he and is called Sacramentum tantum is the Sacramental signe of our Saviours body but what is that which appears he tells you presently those shews and species under which he will have Christs body to exist but are these fit to bear the name of a Sacrament Of the Sacramental signe of a body What advantage would this have given to Marcion in his conceit of our Saviours body as phantastical and in shew and appearance only Can these shews and appearances of bread serve to the uses of the Sacrament the corporal breaking the eating the nourishing Whereas Protestants retaining the substance of the Sacramental element Bread preserve the outward part of the Sacrament and all the uses of it without which the Sacrament is mairned if not destroyed preserve I say the outward part without prejudice to the inward which is Christs body and blood for we hold of it as above existent really given and nourishing the soul which is the full purpose of the Sacrament as to the inward spiritual part But 2. they prejudice the inward spiritual part by making it existent under those shews or species as he saith here for how would this have confirmed Eutychians if it had been really the doctrine of the Church then who upon the mistake of the Churches doctrine as Theodoret in his Dialogues shews made semblance for their heresie saying the humanity of Christ is swallowed up into the divinity shape and figure remaining as the Bread is in the Sacrament shape only and appearance remaining Again they binde our Saviours body so to these shews and species of bread that Christs body and they make unum quid but one thing so that Christs body goes along with them wheresoever they go or are cast into the mouthes and stomacks of wicked men and stayes wheresoever the species are till putrefaction of the species if they without the body of Bread be capable of it drive the body of Christ away This and hundred prejudices and inconveniences follow upon this unnecessary phansie of putting Christs body under the species in the place of substantial bread we as was said preserve the Sacrament intire acknowledging the very body and blood really given in the Sacrament to every one that comes duly to receive given I say to all the purposes of the Sacrament What he sayes p. 285. The words of Institution This is my body are properly and literally to be understood when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary might pass for a truth if he did not suppose there is nothing constrains All the former inconveniences inconsistencies with many more tending to contradiction do constrain to the contrary To
Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing †Valen disput 6. in 3. Tho. punct 1. Sect. 19. Christum illa accidentia in Eucharistia vere proprie formaliter inter se uniri Greg. de Val. proves Christ and those Accidents to be truly properly formally united From hence as I said many inconveniences follow for what happens to the species must also to the body and blood of Christ Thirdly if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament we may well put the question how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament as to the outward part of it without the substances of bread and wine or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question and the three last But the disparity is evident for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane by reason of the hypostatical union which joyns the humane nature to the divine But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour to supply all and the Romish writers by that strict union which they suppose to be between his body and the Species make it subject to many inconveniences To the question how can the same body be in several places at once Same body in several places he returns this question as satisfactory how can the Soul or an Angel or God be at the same time in many places But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer Nor is it true which he here must suppose that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other or an Angel in distant places at once therefore they are forced to take in Gods property of being present in many places l 3. c 4. de Enchar quomdo Deus est in Loco Mr. Spencer learnt it of the Cardinal affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is To that of Penetration of parts if our Saviours body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host Penetration of Dimensions he answers by our Saviours body passing through the doors and through his mothers womb both being shut But it s no where said they remained absolutely shut * in 4. sent dist in 44. qu. 6. Durand shews how with more reason it may be said our Saviour came in the doors opening to him unperceived by his Disciples for it is not said saith he that he came in per januas clausas but januis clausis not through the shut doors but the doors being shut And for his passage through his Mothers womb it being shut the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity and much to this purpose Durand shews in the place above cited may be said of our Saviours coming out of the womb citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg. Another objection p. 308. If our Saviours flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament Our Saviours body exposed to indignities then may Catts and Rats eat it This objection is not carefully expressed for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy which binds his body and blood to the species and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them But see how he would answer it by the like as he supposes If the flesh and blood of Christ saith he were really in the Passion then might dogs eat his blood that was shed As if it were alike what was done to his passible body appointed then to suffer and done now to his glorious body All the disgraces and indignities that were done or could happen unto him then were agreeable to the work he came about viz. to redeem us by suffering and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities as they do by uniting it so to the species does not beseem Christians The next objection or question If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament Multiplying of miracles need lessy Why are none of them seen He answers by another question If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour why were none of them seen p. 309. But great disparity here for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working but for our believing it the word doth sufficiently attest it and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw his glory c. Nothing like in the sacrament notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments requires all be done to the sense for confirmation and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence CHAP. VIII Against Communion in one kinde THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome delivered in the Council of Trent and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer carries its Condemnation in the forehead The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point acknowledging that our Saviour instituted and administred in both kinds and that the use of both kinds was frequent might have said Constant in the beginning of Christian Religion might have said for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice and to plead for it an authority in the Church about the Sacraments to make a change Salvâ substantia that is the substance being preserved entire where again it speaks its own condemnation for how can the substance be preserved when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people He calls
representation of the two particulars The Romish Sacrifice wrong to Christ Sa. crament the spiritual meat and spiritual drink which he granted to be a different grace then under one kinde there is not a compleat signe of both But it must be proved saith he that the substance of this sacrisice requires they should be alwayes so fully represented in each particular communion of the people why needs it such proof if we look into the institution of this Sacrament his reason is because the full representation under both kinds is exhibited unto Lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dreadful sacrifice of the Mass p. 327. But what have we to do here with their sacrifice of Mass or to enquire what is required to such a Sacrifice We are treating of the Communion or Sacrament which our Saviour instituted for all Christians and to such purposes and that cannot be compleat except administred in both no more then their sacrifice can be compleat unless consecrated in both For it is senseless to think the sacrifice must be mutilate unless the Priest consecrate and receive it in both and yet the Sacrament not mutilate though the people receive it but in one kinde and senseless to hold or call it as he doth a Communion when the Priest receives it alone But having turned the Sacrament into such a Sacrifice they take off the people from seeking the benefit of Christs blood shed in the Sacrament to seek it and be content to have it applied to them in their pretended sacrifice where they are only spectators This however more profitable to the Priests I am sure it is little to the Peoples advantage But when this sacrifice which they pretend to be real and properly propitiatory comes to be driven home it interfeirs so injuriously and unhandsomely with that true and onely propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross that they are fain to take up with making it the application of that sacrifice on the Cross which we say is the work and purpose of a Sacrament viz. to apply a sacrifice and make men from time to time partakers of that which was made or offered but once And such is the intent purpose of this Sacrament to apply that sacrifice of the Cross unto us and for this respect also it is alwayes requisite that in this Sacrament or Communion there should be a full representation and exhibition made in both kinds not only of his body broken but of his blood shed also His Instance of thrice dipping in baptism for a full expression of the Trinity His impertinent instance in Baptisme whereas Protestants acknowledge once dipping sufficient is far from concluding one kinde in this Sacrament to be a full expression of what is signified or a sufficient exhibition of what is to be received there That Ceremony of thrice dipping or that purpose of representing thereby the mystery of the Trinity was not of our Saviours institution but a practice taken up in the Church and not universal But he goes on or rather urges again what he had said If our Saviour instituted each species or kinde apart to confer saving grace then he which receives either kinde devoutly receives that grace for which he instituted it p. 329. But this is cunning through ambiguous expressions For our Saviour instituted each apart that is several or one after the other but not that one therefore should be received without the other Or if this apart belongs to confer it is true that our Saviour did institute each to confer and he that receives devoutly does in each receive the grace for which he instituted that kind or part but does not receive the whole grace for which he instituted the Sacrament Also he that receives the one kind or part devoutly in order and with respect to the other he receives the grace for which it was instituted but he cannot assure himself of receiving that grace who receives the one exclusively to the other for how shall he be partaker of Christs bloodshed in the Sacrament or as it is represented held out and exhibited in the Sacrament that will only receive that kinde or part which gives him the body to eat not that bloodshed to drink it I have been the longer upon his first Assay because what is already said will meet with most of his sophistical Replyes As when to the next objection p. 330. that the Priest is obliged to receive the Cup notwithstanding that according to the Romish Tenet he had received a true Sacrament in the Host He answers by their being Priests and by the reason of a sacrifice upon which double account he will have the Priest obliged to both not Lay people This appears vain by what was said above Num. II. IIII. So to the following objection A compleat refection intended in the Sacrament taken from the compleat Refection by meat and drink He answers as he said above that both the graces of spiritual meat and spiritual drink or grace sufficient to salvation is conferred in each kinde and All that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Saviour in the first Institution gave a most plentifull and abundant banquet whereof each part was sufficient to confer life p. 332 333. Now albeit in a plentifull feast many dishes might be taken away yet none can say it is either a plentiful or sufficient feast and Refection if drink be wholly denied And considering what our Saviour purposed by this Sacrament which he made sanguinis effusi of his blood shed and that of his New Testament it must needs be his intention that both should alwayes be received nor finally does one confer that saving grace as was said above if the other be wilfully neglected His pretence from Joh. 6.57 He that eateth me shall live by me to prove the sufficiency of receiving in one kinde is inconsequent for the verses before 53 54 56. shew one as needful as the other As when it is said He that repents and believes shall be saved both are set down as necessary and we may not conclude because we meet sometimes with one only mentioned as Jo. 6. v. 47. He that believeth hath everlasting life therefore this without the other is sufficient Faith as above said by the same act of believing eats his flesh and drinks his blood extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we come to do this in the Sacrament that is by faith there to partake of his body and blood the eating and drinking must be distinct acts according to the Sacramental way of participation for so his blood shed is not drunk in the eating of his flesh And therefore the people are deceived while they are borne in hand that by receiving in one kinde they are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation as he p. 334. For that Church as much as in it lies does deprive them of the benefit of Christs blood shed in this Sacrament
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time
and leave it to the Church of Rome to draw Gods example his sometime inflicting punishment after forgiveness to their own advantage and make a General Rule of it for themselves to practise by CHAP. VII Of the Real Presence THis Controversy about the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist the Romanists we finde State of the Controversy had rather dispute under the Title of Real presence then of Transubstantiation Whereas First I do not observe that the Ancients expressed the being of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist by the word presence but rather by affirming it to be his body blood And in the time of Bertram's Pascasius and so down to Berengarius the question was how it is his body and this more consonant to Scripture exprestion This is my body this is my blood Secondly Seeing we admit the old saying praesentiam credimus modum nescimus We believe the presence know not the mode or manner it is needless for them to dispute about the presence unless they adde the mode which they have defined Transubstantiation For the Arguments that make against Transubstantiation conclude also though not against all real presence yet against theirs Their Council also having defined in the first Canon that the body and blood of Christ are really and substantially contained in the Eucharist which speaks a presence does in the next Canon define that which concerns the mode the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine together with the body and blood of our Lord. Durand proves the remaining of the substances of Bread and Wine In 4. sent dist 11. qu. 1. together with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be possible and albeit he adheres to the way of Transubstantiation yet he grants that other way to be pressed with fewer difficulties It is indeed most evident that he who denies Transubstantiation does not therefore deny a Real presence nor does the remaining of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament exclude the real presence or communication of the body and blood of Christ but cleares it of many Difficulties and needless miracles which must accompany the way of Transubstantiation and makes a fairer interpretation of the words This is my body This is my blood According to S. Pauls explication The bread which we break is communion of c. 1 Cor. 10. to let us understand where there is a due participation of this Bread broken and this Cup blessed there is a real participation of the body and blood of our Saviour Let the Romanists take away their mode of Transubstantiation which as we shall see by the following discourse is pressed with so many difficulties infers so many inconveniencies and we will not quarrel with them about a Real presence or participation of Christs Body and Blood believing such a one is afforded as is fitting and necessary to all the ends and purposes of the Sacrament Now for the Arguments of Protestants which equally serve against Transubstantiation and against their Real presence Mr. Spencer sets them down in this order with his answers to them The first is from the contexture of the words That the substance of Fread remains as we have them in three Evangelists and in S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. that Jesus took bread blessed it brake and gave to his Disciples which shews plainly he brake and gave what he took and blessed true bread not the species only His Answer is a denial that our Saviour gave what he took and blessed the same substance of bread and for a pretence of this denial he complains of our translation or addition of the word it to blessed brake and gave which is not in the Original Greek nor the Latine and upon this silly exception makes an invective against the cunning which Protestants use in their Translations pa. 194 195. But he that knows any thing in those languages Greek and Latine finds they are not forced to repeat the pronoun it as our English is in which there would be else but an imperfect sense and when it is not expressed in the other Languages it must be implied to give a subject to those transitive verbs blessed brake gave And if to make the sense perfect we ask what did he bless break and give the subject first mentioned still must be meant unless the change be expressed in the story or made evident to the sense this rule he must grant or else nothing can be certain in such contextures of Scripture-language It is said 2 Sam. 23.16 They drew water and took and brought to David So the Greek Latine and Hebrew the English renders took it and brought it Will he say this is a fraud and falsification as he complains here But that he may see and acknowledge how answerable the manner of speech in the one is to the other It follows David said of it or of that Water is not this the blood of these men answerable to these sacramental speeches of the Text in hand but of this manner of speech more hereafter The second part of his answer is by denying the Consequence A Rule to be observed in change of substanâ—â—s therefore he gave the same in substance which he took the bread which he took being changed as he will have it into his body which he gave as when in Gallilee the Water was turned into Wine it could not be thence proved that as the servants filled the Vessels with natural Water so they drew and carried and the Master of the feast drank natural water But this is answered by the Rule above The subject first mentioned must still be meant unless the change be expressed in the story or made evident to sense Now we have it not either in the story of the institution of this Sacrament or elsehwere expressed that our Saviour would or did change the very bread into his very body neither doth the effect or change sensibly appear therefore it must follow that what he took and blessed the same also for substance he gave As for those words this is my body they do not expresly speak a substantial change but more sutable to the purpose of the Sacrament admit another meaning like as Davids speech above mentioned did and many other such figurative speeches in Scripture do And for his instance of the Water turned into Wine Joh. 2. the story expresly speaks and the senses evidently shewed then there was a change and therefore though it follows not as to that story they filled water therefore they drew and carried and drank water yet here it does follow that as he took bread and blessed it so he brake bread and gave it when neither the story nor the sense shewed such a change of the subject The Second objection which he pretends Protestants do make Of breaking the bread which proves substance remaining is of his own framing and so may easily be answered by him But thus I may object what he cannot answer What our Saviour
But it may be said the Actions in the Sacrament are visible True yet this will not salve the matter notwithstanding the explication he makes pa. 227. which is but a handsome disguise Hence saith he appears that the very same body which was given and that very blood that was shed for us remaining in its own proper substance but after an invisible manner by reason of the visible actions puts us in remembrance of the same body blood and person so many years agoe given shed crucified nay but those visible actions seen in the Sacrament seeing they pass not upon the body which they fix under the species in place of the substantiall bread for that body of Christ they grant is impassible do tell us the body cannot be by reason of them a remembrance of it selfe seeing also that body is invisible those actions cannot appear to be terminated upon it therefore it cannot be made a Sacrament or sacramental remembrance for what is so must by the senses instruct and minde us of the thing represented and not seen so that according to this Romish phansy the species and nothing else must be the sacrament and sacramental remembrance and in them must all those sacramental actions be terminated which absurdity shews the necessity of substantial Bread remaining even upon this account also of sacramental representation and remembrance not excluding as I said a true presence of Christs body and blood but the Romish mode of presence by transubstantiation which takes away the substantial element of the sacrament The next objection he sets down thus The Cup called the New Testament The Cup is called by our Saviour the New Testament for that it was a holy signe of the New Testament pa. 230. This is carelesly set down but let us see what he saith to it instead of giving a direct answer he first challenges any Protestant to produce any clear text of Scripture where that reason mentioned in the objection is alledged but if he had fully set down the objection the force of it as we shall see presently would have extorted this to be the reason why it is called the New Testament which must needs be a figurative speech and therefore implying it to be the signe Sacrament or seal of the New Testament confirmed in his blood secondly in stead of a direct answer he gives us a needless discourse of the signification of the New Testament and then answers I deny that by New Testament is understood a signe of the New Testament but truly and really the New Testament it self 233. this is a careless mistake for New Testament in the objection is taken for that which is truly the New Testament it self nor does it imply that by New Testament is understood the signe of the New Testament but that the verb is which couples this and the new Testament together is put for significat signifies or is the signe Thirdly from Exod. 24.8 where the Testament of God with the Israelites was confirmed with blood and the like saying used This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath made with you it must be real blood not a signe or figure of it which is here called the blood of the Testament for such a solemn Testament required no less but rather more then that in Exodus to be confirmed with true blood pa. 235 236. This is true but here 's his failing first that the true blood by which our Saviours Testament was confirmed and to which that in Exodus and all other sprinklings of blood under the Law referred was the blood shed on the Cross as the Apostle plainly shews in the Epistle to the Hebr. whereas this Author refers it to the blood in the Sacrament which is not the confirmation of the Testament but by reference to the blood on the Cross Secondly he gives us no direct sense of the proposition this Cup is the new Testament in my blood to exempt it from that figurative manner of speech which we contend our Saviour used throughout this Sacrament He acknowledges it to be in the Canon of the Masse and they say it dayly in saying the Masse and could not but know that the necessity of a figurative speech to be admitted in that proposition was the intent and force of the former objection yet gives us no account of it knowing that if a figure be admitted here why not in this is my body And if the words were operative there for turning the bread into his body why not here for transubstantiating the Cup or that which was in it into the New Testament If it be replied that Sâ— â—â—ke and St. Pauls words must be interpreted by St. Matthews this is my blood of the new Testament first it is more probable those other were the words our Saviour spake because of the agreement of Saint Luke and St. Paul and because St. Paul saith he delivered what he received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.23 The Canon of the Masse also retains the same words Secondly they cannot be reduced to Saint Matthews words without a figure for they must then sound thus this Cup is my blood of the new Testament but saith Mr. Spencer our Saviour never said this cup is my blood no more then he said this bread is my body pa. 238. And this in abhorrence of the figurative speech that must be admitted in saying this bread is my body and answerably in saying this Cup is my blood yet in the same place he acknowledges our Saviour said this Cup is the New Testament and is willing to overlook the most apparent figurative speech in it notwithstanding that the force of the objection rested chiefly upon it and provoked him to a direct answer The next objects to them their disagreement about the word this Disagreement of Romanists about the words of consecration This is my body in our Saviours saying this is my body 24.1 where note briefly that declining the explication of this is for this shall become or shall be transubstantiated for then saith he by this must be understood bread yet pag. 243. being to answer for one of their opinions that saith by the word this is signified nothing present he grants by this is signified nothing present precisely in that moment when the word this was pronounced but present after consecration what is this but to put the word is upon the future after Consecration And what is that but shall be And who ever heard that the word is properly taken as they will have it here should not precisely signifie the present time or existence Or who ever heard that the pronoun this should not be demonstrative Or signifie nothing in that moment present when our Saviour held up bread and said this Nor is this disagreement about the mode as among the Protestants for they agree about the subject and predicate of this Proposition that by this is meant bread by body the true body of Christ only differ about the
manner how it is made so or how that body and blood are present in the sacrament But the Romanists cannot agree what is the subject of the proposition or what is meant by this cannot agree about the words of consecration the more general opinion is the false one which places it in these words This is my body making them operative to their transubstantiation whereas the Ancients placed the Consecration in oratione invocatione not so much in the pronouncing these words as in prayer and Invocation and so our Saviours blessing and giving thanks belongs to the Consecration as well as his saying this is my body And Mr. Spencer however he would have this saying of our Saviours so clear for Transubstantiation knows that some School-men and others of their Doctors have spoken plainly that the Scripture and that saying of our Saviours in particular does not infer Transubstantiation without the definition of their Church and indeed the different opinions in the explaining of it or drawing it to that purpose speaks as much The next thing remarkable is the objection of S. Called bread after Consecration Pauls calling it often bread after Consecration 1 Cor. 11. to which Mr. Spencer returns these pitiful answers 1. He helps himsef of his old instance of the Water made Wine Jo. 2. and called Water after for it is said v. 9. tasted the water that was made wine pag. 251. But the Text speaks also plainly that it was not water but made wine 2. S. Paul saith not it is common or natural bread Nor will the Protestants say so therefore with them when S. Paul calls it Bread before and after Consecration though the name bread be the same yet the signification is not the same So the Catholicks may give saith he the same answer that before Consecration bread in Saint Paul is natural bread after supernatural spiritual divine bread p. 252 253. This is but a slender disguise which any eye that can distinguish substances from qualities may see thorow for as we deny it is common or mere natural bread after consecration so we affirm it is substantial bread bread to be eaten So oft as ye eat this bread 1 Cor. 11. and therefore although the Protestants allow such a change in the bread notwithstanding S. Paul calls it bread before and after Consecration yet will not the change which the Romanists make consist with S. Pauls calling it bread for they take away the whole substance and nature of bread and leave nothing but the species or qualities of Bread to supply the uses of the Sacrament And what if our Saviour termeth himself bread Jo. 6. which at first sight is a figurative speech S. Paul cannot be so answered when he calls that which was truly bread bread still nor they excused who seek to help themselves by figures when the Sacramental bread is called bread viz. what it is indeed and allow no figure when it is called his body viz. what it is in signification and exhibition He concludes It can no more be gathered from its being termed bread by S. Paul that it is natural substantial bread then it can be gathered from the Canon of our Mass that we believe it to be the substance of bread because it is often called Bread in the same Canon after Consecration p. 252. There are many passages in the Canon of your Mass which did not alter with the times and may confute your novelties and reprove your not believing according to that Canon speaking yet the Ancient language and belief It cannot be gathered by the Canon of your Mass so far as is ancient what ye do believe but what ye ought The inforcement of the former objection A farther enforcement of the same If by the word bread often repeated S. Paul should understand flesh he would have warned the people to believe it so though the senses shewed it bread he would not have joyned himself to the report of the senses against the perswasion of faith calling it alwayes bread without any explication He answers here by his former impertinency of the spiritual food of the soul call'd bread and Christs flesh called bread Io. 6. which first was not a joyning with the report of our senses but telling us what we must believe it to be in effect and so understand it was a figurative speech And secondly this that S. Paul calls bread was substantial bread before consecration and his calling it still bread shews it continued so still tells us we must believe it to be so still unless he had admonisht us of the change into flesh His retorting upon the Protestants is vain If S. Paul by this word bread so often repeated should understand a Sacrament or Mystery as it is believed among Christians were he not to be blamed for holding the people in error seeing he knew that sense and reason giveth evidence that it is usual and common bread c. p. 255. and in anger concluds Protestants bring Arguments fitter for Infidels then Christians ibid. But there was no cause for him to be so moved seeing there is a great difference between our argument or Reasoning and his as much as between this is not bread and this is not common bread It is not true that reason as he saith giveth evidence that it is common bread sense may because it cannot discern between holy and common but he that can use his reason as all that know any thing belonging to Sacraments or Religion knows also by what he hears and sees said and done for the consecrating or setting apart the elements for holy use that it is not common bread The Apostle also saies enough to take off that mistake or errour by calling it this bread and this Cup of the Lord and threatning judgment unto the unworthy receiver as guilty of the Lords body and because they discern not the Lords body which is enough to exclude all conceit of it as of common bread though not to infer it is no more bread but the very body as he would have it concluded from those expressions of the Apostle p. 255. Nor does his similitude come home A subject saith he cannot be said to be guilty of the body and blood of the King that receives not his signet with that reverence as becomes a subject ibid. I say this comes not home as any may see that knows what a great difference there is between moral signes or tokens and sacramental for these are not only significant and representative but exhibitive and communications of the thing signified and in them offered they carry it along with them and therefore he is guilty of the body and blood who receives this Sacrament unworthily To omit his needless discourse of the fruit of the Vine mentioned in the Gospel Their impertinent instances they bring to parallel it It is familiar with Romish writers in answer to S. Pauls calling it bread after consecration to use the help of such speeches
notes are ch 5. 8. ch 6. 10. ch 8. 3. which we shall touch below but hear what he saith in his next disputation * Non fuisse morem in V. Tâ—â—adeundi Sanctos Intercessores Erat etiam olim periculum Idololatriae Salm. disp 8. sect postremo It was not their manner in the Old Testament to use the Saints as intercessors the Reason because they were not then glorified and because of old there was danger of Idolatry Mark the danger of the Romish practises in Religion and Worship But was there not danger under the New Testament he acknowledges it saying it is not express but was left to Tradition secretly to be delivered which he cals * Tacitam Spiritus suggestionem ibid. the silent suggestion of the Spirit but why because †Quia durum erat id Judaeis praecipere Gentib daretur occasio putandi multos sibi deos exhibitos pro it was hard to command such a thing to the Jewes and it was likely to give occasion to the Gentiles of thinking that many Gods were put upon them in stead of the many Gods they had forsaken And might not the same Reasons still be good against Romish Invocation and Image-worship either to keep them out or cast them out of the Church seeing they give such occasion of scandal to Jewes and Infidels throughout the Romish Communion The Cardinal is not so liberal with us Bel. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 19. Non consuetum Nec ordinariè cognoscere preces c. 20 sect sed dices for he would confine it to the Old Testament acknowledging It was not the custom then to say Holy Abraham pray for us and his reasons are because they did not see God and could not ordinarily i. e. without special Revelation know the prayers of the living Neither is the Cardinal so ingenuous with us as was his fellow Salmeron for albeit he gives reasons why prayers were not made to them in the Old Testament which reasons were good against their Invocation till our Saviours ascension yet he brings places out of the Old Testament for a seeming proof of it Some of them indeed concern Invocation of Angels as that Gen. 48.16 Job 5.1 to which we briefly answered †Chap. II. nu 9. above And though the Cardinals reasons which exclude the Saints of the Old Testament do not conclude against the Angels which did see Gods face and as well hear and know what was said and done below on Earth in the time of the Old Testament as after yet Salmerons Reasons might prevail against invocation of them because of danger of Idolatry then and it would have seemed strange and hard to the Jewes And albeit they had Cherubins in the picture yet not Angels in their worship Which is acknowledged by Azor and Vasquez and that out of several Fathers clearing the Jewish Church from Worshipping of Angels or Images and somthing to this purpose was said †Chap. III. nu 10. above Now for the places out of the Revelation Places of Scripture alledged for Invocation which are the only Texts that have any semblance or pretence for Invocating Saints or Angels they are mistaken as applied to that purpose That Text Rev. 5.8 where the four living Creatures and the 24 Elders are set out as falling down before the Lamb having harps and viols full of odours or incense which are the prayers of the Saints Here the Romanists that would have these prayers of the Saints to be meant of the prayers of men living offered up by the Saints in heaven are mistaken for the whole place is a representation of the Church below offering up prayers to God by Christ the Lamb and those Eucharistical or prayers of thanksgiving and praise chiefly for the Victories of the Lamb and Redemption by Christ as the next verse specifies them Thus Viega understands them of the Church below and he follows good Authors in it The next is Rev. 6.10 how long O Lord Here also is a great mistake of Romanists making this a formal prayer of the Martyrs for revenge which stands not with that charity they have in so great a degree and therefore this is but a figurative or emblematical representation of their Souls lying under the Altar and calling for revenge only to shew the certainty of that judgement and vengeance which God would in time bring upon the Heathen Persecutors for their bloud as when Abels bloud is said to cry for vengeance And for the Argument they make If the Souls of Martyrs cry for Vengeance upon their Enemies therefore their charity much more prompts them to pray for Gods servants It fails first in the Antecedent for they do not as we see make any formal prayer for vengeance and then it fails in the Inference for it would only conclude that they do pray for the Church Militant which we grant not that they offer up prayers made to them which is the point in question The third Text Rev. 8.3 where Another Angel is said to stand by the Altar having a golden Censer and much incense was given to him that he might offer it with the prayers of all Saints A great mistake this and impious to make this the office of any created Angel for the very Text seems to imply that this was a special Angel differing from the seven Angels set out in the second verse as ministring Spirits and what one created Angel is sufficient for this to receive and offer up their prayers that are made by all the Saints or just men on Earth Therefore generally it is interpreted of Christ the great Angel of the Counsel of God as Viega and other modern Writers and herein they have Ambrose Haimo Rupertus and the Interlinâ—ary Gloss consenting To whom I may add what Irenaeus saith reflecting upon this place and the other cap. 5.8 where speaking of the Church offering up all by Christ applies to it that of Malachi cap. 1.11 in every place Incense shall be offered then adds Now †Iren. l. 4. c. 33. Incensa autem Joan. in Apocal. Orationes ait esse Sanctorum Tert. advers Marcion l. 4. c. 9. Per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris sacerdotem St. John in the Revel saith that Incense or the sweet odours are the prayers of the Saints And Tertul. upon that of our Saviour to the Leper cleansed shew thy self to the Priest and offer Mat. 8.4 Inferreth we must offer up all our prayers and thanksgivings by Jesus Christ the Catholick or universal Priest of the Father No Created Angel can be such a Catholick Priest to offer up the Prayers of all Saints Thus much for Scripture to shew how destitute they are of any real proof and therefore want the first and main ground of Catholick faith and doctrine Sect. 1. in Introduct according to Vincentius his certain and safe Rule at first mentioned Now let us make a brief Survey of Antiquity and see
and however it please God to deal in mercy with the poor abused people yet no man can assure himself of receiving the grace of this Sacrament that doth wilfully neglect and refuse to receive it as our Saviour instituted and appointed it But see how he would stop the peoples mouths in the close of this point by telling them that albeit they want the extent of grace which Priests have by receiving in both kinds yet they have sufficient and that they are obliged to have respect not only to their own spiritual profit in the encrease of grace by this Sacrament but also to the reverence due unto it and must be content to want that encrease when it cannot be obtained but by some irreverence offered to this divine Sacrament p. 335. As if our Saviour intending the participation of his blood shed and bidding all to drink thereof could not or did not foresee what inconvenience would or might happen upon the observing of what he appointed and as if the greatest irreverence were not disobedience and obedience to his will the greatest Reverence But the Reverence and honour of the Priest is hereby provided for among them and the people must be content with a mutilate and incompleat Sacrament The next argument is from the Precept Drink ye all of this All commanded to drink of the Cup. p. 341. where he pittifully shuffles running backward and forward to evade the force of it First he would have it no command notwithstanding that the speech is plainly imperative as well as the other Do this in which they place a strict command His instances of like speeches will appear impertinent if compared with this as Jo. 13.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye ought to wash the speech is not imperative but indicative of a duty taught them by that action or example of our Saviours washing their feet viz. the duty of humility not binding them to that very action or expression by washing as this precept of drinking doth and needs must binde all who come to receive and when they come Now that of Mat. 26.26 Take though it doth not absolutely command the Mode or manner of taking it in the hand he aimed in this instance at the Priests putting it into their mouths yet doth it peremptorily command a taking which amounts to a receiving this is the substance or necessary requisite of the Sacrament the other by hand or by mouth immediately is but of the mode or circumstance Again being loath to have it a command The words saith he of themselves cannot import a command but may signify only a bare invitation as when we say to a Guest sit down eat and drink of this or that p. 334. But he should have considered that if they may signify only a bare invitation then the one as well as other and both of them the eating and drinkng may be refused and so the Sacrament left free for every one to receive or not to receive it at all which below he will deny Again though it be but manners among men to leave a Guest at his liberty and therefore such words imply a freedome left them do not impose a necessity or duty as this ordaining of this Sacrament doth where it is our duty by drinking and eating and doing so as at first was done to remember and shew forth our Saviours death and withall it is our great and necessary concernment to receive the benefit there offered And yet you use not the people so kindly as a man that makes a feast doth his guest for dare you thus invite the people and give them the freedom to eat and drink does not the Priest notwithstanding those words of Invitation eat and drink up all himself in the celebration of the Mass the people looking on only Nay is not this Invitation come to a plain Interdict a forbidding of the people to receive the Cup Drink ye all of this saith our Saviour ye shall not drink of this saith the Church of Rome I might adde is not this a mocking of the people nay is it not a mocking of Almighty God when in a prayer of the Canon of the Mass it is said by the Priest according to the ancient practise quotquot sumpserimus implying that others have received with the Priest and in both kinds whereas none do nor are suffered to do At length Mr. Spencer yeilds a command given in those words Drink ye all of this but given to the Apostles only and extendible to Bishops and Priests But why to them and no farther here he seems to refer the meaning and Extent of such Commands given without Limitation to the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church p. 344 345. We deny not but that is a good direction for understanding matters of practice and in this point we affirm and are sure the practice and perpetual Tradition of the Church for above 12. hundred years is against this Romish innovation And we are sure that Antiquity is against them as concerning the Capacity of those persons to whom the Sacrament was first given and who were then bidden all of them to drink which must therefore be extendible not only to Bishops and Priests but to all faithfull Christians who were then represented in those first persons Now as for the other Precept Do this in remembrance of me Do this concerns allpresent he will have a strict command in those words so far as concerns the Priest to bless consecrate offer administer 346. But it s plain the Priest doth not as our Saviour did for he does not administer so oft as he consecrates and when he does administer it is not in both kinds as our Saviour did Again if the Priest be hereby bound to administer is not the people consequently bound to receive He is not willing to grant it yet but shall below here he makes instance in Priesthood and marriage which they are bound to administer when justly required to do it yet is no man bound to receive the one or the other 347. It is still the hap of his Instances to be impertinent for he himself acknowledges a little below the disparity between receiving of priesthood or Marrioge and the receiving of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour under both kinds the disparity I say between them as to this point of freedome for first though no man be bound to receive Priesthood or Marriage yet is neither the one or other ever conferred but when some are to receive them Secondly let these pass for the present as Sacraments yet is it very inconsequent from the liberty in receiving these which concern the particular estates of men to argue for like freedom in receiving that Sacrament which concerns the salvation of all Christians or from the free choice of a particular profession or state to conclude an indifferency in the duty of our general profession or calling as we are Christians the duties of which profession are