Rhenanus and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis â—s ulentis habemus and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants they to evince the impudence and falseness of that charge did constantly return this answer d Nobis homicidium nec videre sas nec audire tantumque abhumano sanguine cayâ—mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minuâ— par 34. cum notis Ouzel porro quale est ut quos sanguinempecoris horâ—ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis Tertul. Apol. c. 9. vid. Eusib Hist Eccl. l. 5. c 1. That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men whereas had they conceived that by partaking of the consecrated Cup they drank of humane Blood this answer could not have excused them nor could it with sincerity be urged by them since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts they daily fed upon his Blood who was the Man Christ Jesus and to depose a Priest from eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Flesh that contains the Blood as the fore-mentioned Canon doth would in effect be to depose him for pertaking of the Holy Sacrament that being most emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Flesh with Blood according to the Roman Doctrine And therefore this opinion that it was lawfull for Christians to eat Blood found little or no countenance in the Church of Christ till the time of Berengarius when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge besides the ancient Fathers objected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing e Quod Saturni filiâ—dignum est mali nexâ—â— hominis â—angâ—inâ—â— gâ—natur ipsoâ—â— credo decuâ—sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere Comitialem morbum hominis sanguine id est â—orbo graviore sanare Minuc p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo ejusmodiâ—t agâ—es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit est apud Herodotum opiâ—â—â— defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foederà comparasse nescio quid sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9. That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood and used that barbarous custom as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood to the performance of all works of Piety as Pliny saith they did by the participation of the Holy Sacrament Had they thus used humane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls and of their Bodies too as f Erat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat Sed quia intus sani palpeoris cohaerentibus non patebant medicum eos ferro aperire voluine neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Cataplasmare cum jam puer quinque aut fere ampliuâ— esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August l. 3. Sec. adv Julian Op. S. 164. they did use the Holy Sacrament what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and arguments and what could lay upon them an imputation of greater impudence and folly then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised Besides this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernitious Spirits because g Hodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. a draught of humane Blood or the Oblation of the Blood of Man was deemed an acceptable service to them and that which would appease their anger and because their Priests were Consecrated by drinking humane Blood Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice and if both Priest and People did as often drink it as they did celebrate the Sacrament what could these charges be but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh Arg. 2. §. 2. and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross he had delivered that which could not have been thought of and much less practised without the greatest horrour For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh he had enjoyned them to do that which is repugnant unto humane nature and hath been constantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens a barbarous and inhumane thing Hence that expression of our Saviour Christ That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh was by the unbelieving Jew rejected as a thing impossible Joh. 6.52 how can this Man say they give us his Flesh to Eat And if they deemed it a thing impossible that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one mans Flesh well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so Nay when his own Disciples heard it verse 60. they presently cried out This is an hard saying who can hear it they judged it so absurd a Proposition and were so highly scandalized at it that notwithstanding all the conviction they received from their Eyes and other senses that he was the true Messiah they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to reject him verst 66. for from that very time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him So that our Blessed Saviour to obviate and to remove this Scandal doth in the judgment of the Fathers presently expound himself in a Spiritual sence and doth assert that this corporal eating was unprofitable and not the thing he did exhort them to for thus Eusebius doth paraphrase his words g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 3. Eccles Theol. contra Marcell Ancyr M. S. Bibl. Oxon. do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagin that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and h See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites p 48 49 50 51. Life This also is the Exposition of Tertullian Origen St. Augustin Athanasius to omit divers others And of this Exposition they give this account i August de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15 16. that those expressions taken literally command what is an impious and k Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quaedicuntur adverterit si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam c. occidit haec litera Origen in Lev. c. 10. Hom 7.
ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
whether they had the knowledge of our condition yea or not Sect. 4. Fourthly That the forementioned Fathers did often speak to their departed Friends as present although they did not think them so to be Sect. 5. Fifthly That the very same Authors do make the like addresses to insensate Creatures which makes it reasonable to look upon them as Rhetorical Apostrophe's ibid. Sixthly That there is great difference betwixt the practise which then began to be approved in some parts of the Christian World and the practise of the Church of Rome as V.G. 1. That no instance can be given of any Christian that put up mental Prayers unto them or dia ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart 2. That they prayed unto them only upon supposition of their presence at their Tombs and Oratories Sect. 6. The Authors cited by T. G. are partly spurious or doubtful Sect. 7. Partly impertinent and such as use either Rhetorical Apostrophe's or only wishes Sect. 8. or such as only do ascribe unto them the worship of honour and affection but say not any thing which necessarily includeth Prayer Sect. 9. Or only do assert that they did pray with us and so did help us with their Prayers Sect. 10. Or that they did commend themselves unto their Prayers by desiâ—ing God that for their intercession he would be gracious Sect. 11. § 1. AND thus we have confirmed the truth of our assertion from the most pregnant Testimonies of the ancient Fathers of the four first Centuries We come now to consider what T.G. offers from the Fathers to prove the invocation of the Saints departed to have been the practice of the Primitive Church Unto which purpose he alledgeth some passages of Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen St. Cyril and St. Ambrose Ruffinus St. Basil Chrysostome St. Austin to which we Answer 1. That all these Fathers lived in the declining times of the fourth Century or after the conclusion of it Bas M. A. 370. Nazian 379. Nissenus 380. Ambrose 374. Chrysost An. 398. Hierom. ob 420. Ruffinus 418. August 396. Cyril Alex. 412. Theodoret 423. Nor can one Item of such a practice be produced from any of the former Writers so that if all these Fathers did expresly say what T. G. doth contend they do it would be only this That the most ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries and to the middle of the fourth were in this matter perfect Protestants whereas some of the middle Fathers who lived in the declining Ages of the Church do seem to speak in favour of the Church of Rome Now in this case we say with Cyprian (a) Si in aliquo nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangdicam Apostolicam traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nestri ratiâ— unde ordo origo surrexit Ep. 74. Sect. 14. If verity doth warp or lean aside we must look back and return to Divine Evangelical and Apostolick Tradition and derive the order of our action from the original ground where it first began And with Tertullian (b) Ostendam hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potesi non sputium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum ex his enim ferè consuetudo ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplieitate initium sortita in usam per successionem corroboratur ita adversus veritatem vindicatur sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem senon consuetudinem cognominavit siquidem semper Christus prior omnibus aeque veritas sempiterna antiqua res De Veland Virg. c. 1. If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicity be confirmed by use of succession and opposed against verity we must observe that neither space of time nor priviledge of persons may prescribe against truth for Christ is eternal and before all and in like sort verity is most ancient For who knoweth not that above 100 years before this time the practice of communicating Infants had obtained in the Church St. * De Lapsis Sect 7. 20. Cyprian makes mention of it twice the †l. 8. c. 13. Apostolick Constitutions declare that first the Priests communicated then Virgins after them Widows and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their little Infants In the same Century (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Phot. in Bibl. 177 Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia in Sicily concludes against his Adversaries that Infants must be acknowledged to be guilty of sin because it was the custome to administer Christs Body to them for the Remission of Sin They also held that it was necessary to eternal life for Infants to receive this Sacrament When Christ saith If you eat not my flesh you shall not have life in you should I say that an Infant should have life who ends his life without that Sacrament So Austin Again (d) Dominum audiamus inquam non quidam hoc de Sacramento Iavacri dicentem sed de Sacramento Sanâ—â— monsae suae quo nemo ritè nisi Baptizatus accedit nisi manducaâ—â—â— t is carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitan 〈◊〉 vobis an verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quod ad parâ—â—â— los haec sententia non pertineat possinique sine participatione corpâ—â—â— hujus sanguin is in se habere vitam Tom. 7. l. 1. de peccat 〈◊〉 ritis remiss c. 20. Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized and then citing this place Vnless you eat my flesh c. he adds Dare any say that this sentence belongs not to Children but that they may without the participation oâ— the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves For this he also urgeth the Testimony of thâ— See of Rome for then this Doctrine 〈◊〉 well as Practice was received there (e) Ecce B. memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit To. 7. contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. p. 190. L. Si autem cedunt Pelagiani Apostolicae sedi vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non habitures vitam in seipsis nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis c. quod nisi Baptizati non utâ—que possunt nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non Baptizatos vitam habere non posse Epist ad Paulinum Ep. 106. p. 101. Behold saith he Pope Innocent of blessed memory declares that little ones cannot have life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ And in his Epistle to Paulinus if the Pelagians saith he will yield to the Apostles Seat or rather to their Lord and Master saying that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood which the unbaptized cannot do we shall not have life they will at last confess that
there were as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there were several meats eaten by him no saith he this Argument carries not the shew of probability Rep. Sure I am this answer hath but the shew of a similitude for the Elements of Bread are changed into Christs whole Body but all the several meats Christ eat were not changed into Christs whole Body but only into some part of it but the similitude is good against him for as the several meats which by Conversion became parts of Christs Body were not the self same parts but divers So the several Wafers which by Conversion become Christs whole Body are not the same whole Body but divers thus doth T. G's similitudo turn tayl upon him And that the Doctors Argument is perfect demonstration is most evident for it depends upon this proposition that if one Consecrated Element by one Christs Body hypostatically united to him then must Two be Two and Ten be Ten and many Consecrated Elements many Bodys which is a evident as this if one Twenty shillings in a bag be one pound then must Two be Two pound and many Twenty shillings in a bag must be many pounds CHAP. III. The CONTENTS Prop. The Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated 1. Because we do not drink blood 2. Because we do not eat mans Flesh 3. Because mankind was not redeemed by the first Sacrament 4. Because the Scripture after Consecration calls it Bread and Wine 5. Because our senses have no evidence of such a change IN the participation of the Eucharist we do not eat the humane body of our Lord which suffered on the Cross nor drink of humane blood Prop. 1. Sect. 1. but what we eat and drink is true substantial Bread and Wine for 1. If Christ had given to his Disciples blood to eat he must have taught them to have done what was forbidden in the Law of Moses whereas he both exactly did observe that Law Mat. 23 3. and taught his own Disciples to observe what ever by the Scribes and Pharisees was taught them from the Law of Moses which was in force till all things were fulfilled by the death of Christ Secondly Christs own Disciples after his Resurrection were strict observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time and so were also many Thousands of the Jewish converts 21 Act. 20. St. Peter was so nice in observation of the Jewish Customs that till a vision had informed him better 10 Act. 14. he thought such meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law and when in a vision on he was bid to stay and eat he presently cryes out as a man tempted to an unlawful act not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is unclean St. James gives an account to Paul of the great zeal that all the Jewish Converts had for the Law of Moses Act. 21.20 in these words Thou seest Brother how many Thousands of Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law he declares how highly they were all offended with him because they were informed that he taught that they were not obliged to yield Obedience to the Constitutions and customs of the Jewish Law vers 21. They are saith he informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to Circumcise their Children neither to walk after their Customs And Thirdly he exhorts him for their better satisfaction so to act v. â—4 as that he might induce them to believe that he also walked soberly and did keep the Law And yet St. Peter before this vision had assembled to celebrate the Holy Sacrament and all these Jewish converts so zealous of the observation of the Ceremonial Law did very frequently receive this Cup of Blessing Act. 20.7 11. and upon every Lords day at least did meet together to break Bread Whence evident it is that they did not look upon that action as any violation of the Law of Moses and so could not imagine that by participation of this Sacrament they drunk what properly was blood For they could not be ignorant that blood was by this Law forbidden Lev. 3.17 it having said it shall be a perpetual Statute for your Generations throughout all your dwellings Lev. c. 7. v. 27. that ye eat neither Fat nor Blood and that whatsoever sâ—â—â—l it he that eateth any manner of Blood even that soul shall be cut off from his People Nor could they be both zealous observators of the Law and quarrellors with those that did not keep it and yet transgress it themselves The Sect of Nazarens continued in the Church of Christ 400 years for of the a Sectae illius meminit Hâ—â—ronymus in Epist ad August August ipse l. 4. con Crescon Danaeas in August de Haeres p. 75. Nazarens St. Jerom and St. Austin do make mention they multiplyed and spread themselves throughout the Eastern Church and yet this Sect observed b Nazaraei cum Dei filium confireantur esse Christum omnia tamen veteris legis observant August de Heresibus Cap. 9. vid. Epiphaâ—â—um Haeres 29. § 7. all the Law of Moses and held it necessary to Salvation so to do and therefore none of them did think that by participation of the Holy Sacrament they fed on blood and so transgressed it Again when the Disciples met together to consult of what was needfull to be observed by the Gentile Converts the better to avoid the Scandal of the Jews they strictly charged them to avoid things strangled and abstain from Blood Acts 15.28 29. and judged it necessary so to do Now had they fed on Blood in Holy Mysteries no Christian communicant could have observed this precept and nothing could have been more foolish than to give injunctions to avoid that Scandal which in their Holy Rites they daily ministred This therefore is a signal and triumphant evidence that they who first imposed this Decree and they who undertook to keep it were utter strangers to this idle dream of Transubstantiation The ancient Christians did for many Centuries abstain from Blood look upon it as a thing forbidden by this Canon which enjoyns this abstainance and reckons it amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or things necessary of which we have sufficient Testimony from that Law of Leo the Emperour where having forbidden the use of Blood stuffed in the entrails of Beasts he affirms That in the Old Law and in the Gospel it was always esteemed impious to eat it and in the Canons called c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canonum Apestol cap. 62. Apostolical it is forbidden to a Clergy-man to eat Blood under pain of deposition to a Lay-man under pain of Excommunication And hence the Penitential Books had warrant enough to impose Canonical Penances upon them that did tast this forbidden Dish And that they did so is known and confessed by Pamelius
p. 87. wicked think and are a killing Letter and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sence And we are informed by l Horum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati ca autem immanitas coepit a Simone Mago ut Narrat Clem. de rebus geftis Petri qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis ipsius sanguinem c. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst in haec verba Minuc infans farre contectus ut decipiat incautos apponitur Wowerius out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians Quintilians and others who mixt the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread had its first rise from Simon Magus misunderstanding those very words of John except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. Now if this oral manducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repugnant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it can we suppose it would pass down so glib not only with the Jewish but all the Gentile converts and yet we do not find that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians that they were Canibals on this account or that they did devour humane Flesh When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradition and so received by the Church of Christ could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a killing Letter and the injunction of the greatest wickedness could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood or could those Hereticks have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christs Blood But then if we conceive this person we thus devour to be also God and therefore look upon this action as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devouring of our God and Maker it is so full of horrour scandal and amazament that nothing can be more for what this Doctrine doth assert was in the judgment of the a Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse de natura Deorum C. 3. Orator such an incredible madness as humane nature never could be guilty of And Averroes upon this single score pronounceth that b Qui dicit se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire cujus sectatores suum quem colunt Deum denibus discerpunt devorant Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973. among all Religious Sects the Christians were the worst and most ridiculous because that God they Worshipped they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahumetan can cast upon us we are by them reproached as d Christianos atrociores esse in Christum quam Judaeos ait Akmed Ben. Edris Mahummed hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse illos vero carnem ejus edere sanguinem bibere quod ipsa expeperientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat V. Hotting Apol. de Luch §. 14. p. 220. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devourers of our God and they are wont to say that by thus eating of his Flesh we use him worse then did the Jews that Crucified him The ancient Fathers do agree in these with Cicero and Averroes and say with them That to adore what we do eat is the extreamest sottishness and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions and of the Gods they Worshiped that what they Worshiped they did also Sacrifice and that they did devour him whom they adored as Tatian and Minutius suggest And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations Theodoret also doth affirm That e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest 55. in Genesin God foreseeing Men would fall to such extremity of madness as to Worship Beasts the better to restrain that Wickedness did suffer us to eat them which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry because saith he it is the evtreamest of all folly to Worship what we Eat He again adds That f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. God divided Beasts into clean and unclean that Men abhorring what they judged unclean and eating what they called clean might Worship neither for can any Man of sense saith he f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. conceive that to be God which he abominates as unclean or which he offers to the true God and himself doth Eat Thirdly he adds That God enjoyned the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Creatures which the Aegyptians Worshiped as Gods Serm. 7. de Sacrif To. 4. P. 585. that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice and not be guilty of such extream stupidity and folly as to conceive them to be Gods Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ it must have given greater scandal and been a fitter matter of reproach to Christians then was the scandal of the Cross and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal as that other of the Cross The Jews and Heathens who cast this always in their Dish That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross would not have stuck to load them with this more hainous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore at least when this was frequently objected to them as the extreamest madness they must have presently retorted That you Christians confessedly do the same your God is also deemed your Sacrifice and you do first adore and then devour him The ancient Fathers of the Church who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they payed unto a Crucified Saviour would surely have afforded some Apology for that which in the Judgment of Heathens Turks and Christians seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find that Christs Disciples or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal since no malitious Jew or subtile Gentile did in the least accuse the Christians of what they all conceived a crime so monstrous although they were not wanting to seek occasions of reproach against them and to divulge false stories of them and were particularly upbraided with doing what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them must be the Christians constant practice Lastly Seeing the
see them But we have great reason to suspect that they also are cited more Romano i.e. with great impertinence and falshood And I am certainly informed from Oxford that what is cited as from Vrsin is really the words of Vrsins Adversary Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party Having produced these Testimonies of the Fathers which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious and these confessions of the Protestants which are insignificant or false or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini Eusebius Emissenus and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream He thus concludes that to deny what is confirmed by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fathers P. 308 309 and strengthned by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable But alas this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm For First it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine viz. Peter Lombard Scotus Biel Erasmus and Peroon And Secondly a In Primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in co pus Christi converti Job Yribarn in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp 42. Sect. 1. That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith Thirdly b Scotus in 4 Distinct 11. Qâ—aest 3. s 1 â— Aâ—â—â—m That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ might more simply plainly and truly be understood and expounded Fourthly the Cardinal of c Distinct 4. Qu. 6. A. 2. Cambray adds that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Fifthly Your Secular d Discourse Modest p. 13. Priests affirm that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society and what Catholick would not believe them that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Sixthly It is no wonder saith e Antequam quaestio illa de Transubstantiatione in Ecclesia palam agitaretur minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus consideratè Rectè hâc de re senserint scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7. Gregory de Valentia if one or two or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly And f Hinc discimus non essemirandum si Augustinus Theodoretus alii Veteres quaedam dixerint quae in specitem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B. Bellarmin confesseth it is not to be wondred at if St. Austin Theodoret and other of the Ancients speak something which in show seems to favour the Hereticks The sayings of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ This is my Body in a figurative sence as much as any Protestant can do and which forced these Confessions from so many Cardinals Bishops Schoolmen Priests and Jesuites are these g Pane corpus suum representat l. 1. adv Marcion c. 14. by Bread Christ represents his Body saith Tertullian and again h Panem corpus suum appellat ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse L. 3. c. 19. Christ hath called Bread his Body that thereby thou mayest understand that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body And again i L. 4. c. 4 c. This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body St. k Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175. Cyprian noteth That it was Wine even the Fruit of the Vine which the Lord saith was his Blood Our Lord saith St. l Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100 106. Clemens did bless Wine when he said Take drink this is my Blood and that it was Wine which was blessed be sheweth again saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine 2. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100. 106. Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols when he saith Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises And again there is a donable Blood of the Lord Paed. l. 2. c. 2. one Carnal by which we are redeemed froim destruction and another Spiritual by which we are Anointed Origen speaks thus m Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum haee quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B. It is not the matter of bread but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flourished in the 4th the first whereof shall be n Euseb l. 8. c. 1. Eusebius who saith ' That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensation commanding them to make the Image of his own Body and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body And that o Euseb Demonst l. 1. c. 10 p. 27. we still celebrate upon the Lords Table the memory of his Sacrifice by the Symbols of his Body and Blood according to the Ordinances of the New Testament And lastly p Demoâ—ist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141. Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church signifie unto us by the bread and wine the Mysteries of his body and blood q Serm. in illud quiounque dixerit verbum p. 979. Athanasius faith ' That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh that we might learn that the things he spake were not Carnal but Spiritual For how many men might his body have sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world it is as if he should have said that which is given for the world shall be given for meat that it may be Spiritually given to all In the Church saith r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar Aegypt Hom 27 p. 164. Marcarius is offered bread and wine the Type of his Flesh and Blood and they which are partakers of the visible bread do Spiritually eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover saith Å¿ Orat. 2 de Pasch To. 1. p. 692. Gregory Nazianzen but as yet in a Figure though more clear then in the Old Law For the Passover of the Law I will be bold to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure Elsewhere he calls the Symbols the t In Epita Gorgon p. 187. Antitypes of the
tenuisti Idem Tract 50. in Joh. T. eod p. 358 371. thou hast Christ present by faith and in the sign by the Sacrament of Baptism and the meat and drink of the Altar According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples me you shall not have alwayes how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there †send thy faith and thou dost hold him To conclude the Fathers po expresly say that Christ pronounced of the Bread this is my body and of the Wine this is my Blood which say the R. Doctors had our Lord affirmed we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically For proof hereof B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. § 6 behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierom Ambrose Agustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore thirteen to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech 1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57 The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body The second Christ to have called Bread his body Third that Christs speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that that which he brake was Bread The fifth 2. Christus panem corpuâ— suum appellat Tertullianus adv Judeos that it was Bread which he brake The sixth that it was Bread of the Lord not Bread the Lord. The seventh that the words my Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread this is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds 3 Nec matteria panis est sed super illum dâ—ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat 15. illustrates the matter thus So saith he did Christ call his Body Bread as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat except the grain of Wheat die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the consecrated Bread this is my 4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris Hieron Ep. ad Helvid Qu. 2. 5. Panem fractum tradidit disâ—lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc c. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacrament cap. 5. 6. Judas manducavit panem Domini c. Augustinus Tract 59. in Joh. Cyril Hieros 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 4 p 528. 8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum c. Cyril Alez Catech. 4 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8. 10. Gaudent tract de rat sacra Body The eleventh 11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that he blessed Wine when he said drink and the last the Bread strengthning mans Body was therefore called the Body of Christ To these citations add that of Cyprian and †Theophilus the Lord calleth Bread his Body which is made up of many grains 12. Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian or †Ammonius having taken the Bread then afterward the cup of Wine and testified it to be his Body and Blood 13. Panis quia confirmat corpus ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur I st dor l. 1. de officiis cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death That also of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1 T. 4 p 17 Theodoret that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body and that which was mixt his blood And as if this was beyond all dispute he puts this question to the Heretique * ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑΠId. ibid. knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body and makes him answer yea I know it By all which passages a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said this Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood b In Evan l 1 p 152 L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit c. Ammon Harmon Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body to be Metaphorical and figurative as any Protestant now doth note also by the way that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor for saying they believe Bread to be God for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable to no exception since they import this only that the Romanist believes that to be a God which we believe is Bread and to one of that perswasion the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith but to proceed To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils The first is that of Carthage held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops whereof St. Austin and Aurelius were two which thus decrees that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. Eccles Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. as also the Lord commanded it that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water The second is that of Trull whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water because Bread is the figure of the Lords body and the Wine a figure of his blood c In Can. 40. Concil Carthag p. 426 427. Zonaras saith the same In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Image of Christ and the true Image of his natural body and the Image of his flesh given by God And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day before they did receive the Sacrament where we have these words viz. * Aeifrick Saxon Homily v.
Christs humanity is as to the substance and the nature of it changed into the Deity and that the accidents form and figure of it only remain unchanged that is he grants all that the Heretick asserts and he endeavoured to refure For thus the Heretick dispuâ—es As the Symbols of the body and blood of Christ are other things before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation they are changed and made other so the body of Christ after the assumption is changed into the divine substance and thus the Orthodox doth answer thou art caught in thy own Net for the mystical signs after Sanctification do not recede from their own natures Again the Orthodox puts this question are not the mysteries Ibid. vid. p. 57. the signs of the body which truly is this being granted by the Heretick he makes this inference If the divine mysteries do truly represent the body then the body of our Lord now is and is not changed into the Deity but only filled with his Glory When therefore is it affirmed by Theodoret that this Sacrament is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a venerable Type And that the Symbols are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Symbols which are Worshiped This phrase can signifie no more then this That they are venerable Types and Symbols such as deserve a reverence or honorary Worship from all Christians which is a very common acceptation of the word for thus Christian Temples are stiled by the Ancients a Concal sub Menna act 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venerable Temples the Apostles Throat b Epist Leonis 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Venerable Throne and Baptism c Justinian Novil 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venerable Baptism The same uncenscionable dealing we meet with in that passage of St. Austin for no Man eats Christs flesh 〈◊〉 be have siâ—sâ— adored for in that very place he tells us That * In â—â—sâ—l 98. p 241. â— G. H the Jews interpreted the eating of Christs Flesh like Fools for they interpreted it carnally whereas Christ did instrâ—â— his own Disciples and say unto them understand Spiritually what I say unto you you shall not eat the Body which you see and drink the Blood which they will shed that Crucifie me I have commended unto you a Sacrament that Spiritually being understood will quicken you So that St. Austin in this very place asserts the contradictory to what the Church of Rome believes touching the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and calls them Fools that think Christ did intend what they imagine he hath said Therefore it is manifest that St. Austin in this place speaks nothing of the adoration of Christs Flesh under the accidents of Bread but only of the adoration of hs Flesh considered as united to the Godhead and placed at the Right Hand of God I astly to that of Ambrose De spir Saâ—cto l 3. c. 12. By the Footstool is understood the Earth and by the Earth the flesh of Christ which we Adore in the mysteries at this day and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus I answer that he saith no more than this that in these mysteries we Worship Christ and câ—nâ—â—quently the flesh of Christ as being not divided from him â—u he doth not say that in adoring the mysteries we adore Christ or that we do adore the mysteries which are Christ 1. Therefore let it be observed that St. Ambrose doth not say that we adore Christ only in this mysteries but in mysteriis or in the Celebration of the Sacraments which it was the custome of Antiquity to do because they held these mysteriâ—s to be instituted by him to convey unto us those blessings he had purchased by his blood and did conceive he * in Job 9 6.7 Cyril words it doth invisibly swim in the waters of Baptism And therefore in the Celebration of that rite they eall upon us as * Paulinus Epist 4. Chrysost To. 6. in illud simile est regnum czlorum Captives to fall down before our King and with hands lifted up to Heaven to adore him and mutually to exhort our selves and say come let us Worship before the Lord who made us And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that Element of Water to be transmuted into Christs Body and therefore Worshiped by the Christians of those times Secondly observe that Christs Sacred Flesh being united to his Godhead and adored with it the Worship which at the celebration of those Mysteries was directed to him as sitting in the Heavens must be the Worship of his Flesh and this assuredly must be the meaning of St. Ambrose who in his exposition of these words seek those things which are above serm 58. c. speaketh thus we ought not now to seek our Saviour upon the Earth or according to the Flesh it we would find and touch him but according to the Glory of his Divine Majesty that we may say with the Apostle Paul but now we know not Christ according to the Flesh And therefore Blessed Stephen by his Faith did not seek Christ upon the Earth but did acknowledge him standing at the Right Hand of God where with the devotion of the mind he sought him Now this no Protestant denies that Christ even in the celebration of the Eucharist is to be Worshiped where he is and where he is to be sought after by such as do desire to sind him i.e. at the right hand of God CHAP. VI. The Contents Prop. 1. When we ascribe unto the Creature the Homage due to the Creator we become guilty of Idolatry Prop. 2. To know the secrets of the hearts of persons praying at all times and in all places of the World is a divine and incommunicated excellency Prop. 3. That to ascribe this knowledge to any Creature to whom God doth not thus discover the secrets of the heart and to pay that honour to it which doth suppose that knowledge is Idolatry Prop. 4. Those outward Acts of Worship which by consent of Nations or by common Use do signifie the honour due to the Creator are Idolatrical when given to a Creature Corol 1. That to offer Sacrifice is to perform that Worship which is proper only to God 2. That to vow to Angels or to Saints departed is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator 3. Prayer offered and put up in any time and place to an invisible and not corporeally present Being is the oblation of that Worship to it which is due to God alone Objections Answered §. 1. HAving thus endeavoured to confirm and justifie the Judgment of the Church of England touching the Worshipping of the Host I now proceed to shew the Equity and Justice of her Censure of the Roman practice in reference unto the Invocation and Adoration of Holy Angels and of Saints departed And what we have to say in this particular as the foundation of this Charge shall be contained in these
unbaptized Infants cannot have it The Words of Innocentius are these (f) Haec enim ejus verba sunt Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis Gratia posse donari perfatuum est risi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis August contr duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c 4. Whereas your Brotherhood asserts that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond opinion for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no life in them (g) Hinc constat Inncoentii primi sentententia quae 600 circiter annos in Ecclesia viguit quamque Augusitnus sectatus est Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus neceâ—sarium fuisse Concil Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. Whence it is evident saith Binius that this was Pope Innocents opinion which also was maintained in the Church 600 years viz. that the participation of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants and what he thus confesseth is made good by * Dalle from the fourth inclusivè to the eleventh Century by the plain pregnant Testimonies of them that lived in those Times Who also doth abundantly consute that vain imagination of Mr. Cressy and Vasquezius that they conceived it necessary that Infants should partake Christs Body and his Blood not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism Lastly they also do affirm this Doctrine to be derived from (h) Optimè Funici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil a liud quam salutem Sacramentum Corporis Christi nihil aliud quam viâ—um vocant unde nisi ex Aatiqua ut existimo et Apostolica traditione qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participationem dominicae mensae non solum ad regnum Dei sed we ad salutem vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire hoc enim scriptura testatur viz. Tit. 3.5 1 Petr. 3.21 John 6.51 53. si ergo ut tot tanta Divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeâ—crna sine Baptâ—â—mâ— Corpore Sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra â—â—ne his promittitur parvulis Tom. 7. lib. 1. de peccat meritis c. c. 24. p. 144 D. E. Apostolical Tradition and deeply setled in the Churches of Christ as doth most evidently appear from that of Austin From an ancient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal If therefore so many Testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting Life is not to be expected without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them And yet the Church of Rome hath laid aside this practise and determined against this Doctrine thus (i) Concil Trid. Sesi 21. Can. 4. Si quis dixerit Parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem anathema sit Which must be thus interpreted If any Person now doth say what the whole Church of Christ did for 600 years together viz. That it is necessary for Infants to be partakers of the Eucharist let him be accursed I will not quarrel with them as Mr. Dalle doth for their intolerable irreverence to the ancient Fathers or for the Curse they have pronounced on the whole Church of Christ for many Ages but I will take the Boldness to infer that if they may condemn a practice far more ancient than was the Invocation of departed Saints a practice not opposed as that was by many Fathers of the Church upon its first encroachment when about A. D. 360. it began to creep into the Church a practice so deeply setled in all Christian Churches in St. Austins time when that of Invocation of Saints departed was but in the Embryo Lastly a practice proved from clear unanimous and numerous assertions of the learned Fathers Whereas what is produced for the other practice is obscure and contradictory to what in other places they deliver and fairly may admit another sense as you shall see hereafter I say if they may wholly lay aside this practice and may pronounce Anathema's against it I hope we also may refuse to practice this Invocation of the Saints departed provided that it were as ancient as the Times of Nazianzen Basil and St. Austin 2 Observe § 2. That though these Fathers cited by T. G. seem in some places to assert or use this invocation of the Saints departed in others they deny the Doctrine and disapprove the practice of it and this they do in Writings more assuredly Authentick and in words more clear and pregnant than are or can be brought to justifie it This I might easily make good by an induction of the places cited pro and con from all these Father but since T. G. hath singled out St. Austin p 431. as a man so clear and pregnant in this Point that whosoever shall deny St. Austin to have held such formal invocation to be the Worship due to Saints must shut his eyes and fight against the light of a noon-day truth Let any man peruse the places which are cited from that Father and say whether I have not reason to affirm this bold Assertion to be a manifest untruth The passages produced out of the genuine Works of Austin for Invocation are 1. Let Blessed Cyprian help us with his prayers T. G. p. 430. 2. We Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs both to excite us unto the imitation of them and that we may become partakers of their merits and may be helped by their prayers T. G. p. 433. 3. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be commended T. G. p. 434. Against it we produce these Testimonies * Ipse Sacerdos est qui nunc ingressus in interiora Veli solus ibi ex his qui carnem gestaverunt interpellat pro nobis In Psalm 64. p 144. M. 1. Christ is the Priest who being now entred within the Vail only of all that have been made partakers of flesh makes intercession for us there †Si vero ita diceret hoc scripsi vobis ut non peccetis si quis peccaverit Mediatorem me habetis apud Patrem ego exoro pro peccatis vestris sicut Parmenianus quodam loco Mediatorem posuit Episcopum inter Populum Doum quis cum ferret bonorum atque fidelium Christianorum quis sicut Apostolum Christi non sicut Antichristum intueretur Contr. Epistol Parmen l. 2. c. 8. p. 7. L. Tom. septimo 2. If he i. e. St. John had said thus If any man sin you have me a Mediator with the Father I make intercession for your sins
viz. The three branches are three days The seven Kine and seven ears of Corn are seven years The four great Beasts are four Kingdoms Thou art that Golden head The Seed is the word the Field is the World the Reapers are the Angels the Harvest is the end of the World the Rock is Christ c. Should we omit I say all these and many other instances of this familiar Trope it would be easie to produce many expressions of the like import with them For doth not the Scripture say of that same hair which by Ezekiel was burnt 5 Ezek. 5. and cut and bound up in his skirt this is Jerusalem And of that water which the three mighty men procured for David 2 Sam. 23. â—7 this is the Blood of the men that went in Jeopardy of their lives Have we not clear and pregnant instances of Sacramental Tropes in Scripture and in Jewish Writers doth not our Saviour call the Paschal-lamb the Passover doth not he say the Cup is the New Testament and was it not familiar with the Jewes to say of their unleavened Bread this is that Bread of affliction which our Fathers did eat and of the Lamb that it was Corpus Paschatis or the memorial of the Passover Buxt de Caena Dom §. 25. And is it therefore any absurdity to think Christ should affirm of Sacramental Bread designed to signifie and represent his Body broken for us and to conveigh the blessings he had purchased by the oblation of it on the Cross This is my Body Fifthly This Answer will render us unable to confute the Marcionites the Valentinians and the Manichaeans who thought Christs Body to be only the appearance of a Body and so denied the Article of his Incarnation and his real Passion This fond imagination the ancient Fathers did confute by Mediums which overthrows this answer and the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor can it be sufficiently confuted by men of T. G's Principles 1 The ancient Fathers did confute it from this principle that we must certainly believe the evidence of Sence and that to doubt the certainty of what our sences apprehend is to endanger all Religion Tertullian discourseth thus a Non licet nobis in dubium sensesistos revorate ne in Ghristo de fide corum deliberetur Ne forte dicatur quod salso patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatum Recita Johannis testa ionem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus quod manibus nostris palpavimus c. falsa utique testatlo si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur de anima Cap. 17. B. C it is not lawful to doubt of our Sences least the same doubt be made concerning Christ least peradventure it should be said he was deceived when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him Recite the Testimony of St. John what we have heard with our Ears and our Eyes have seen and our Hands have handled of the word of Life that declare we to you The Testimony verily is false if nature do deceive us in the Testimony of our Eyes and Ears and Hands And in his Book de Carne Christi he speaks thus b Sed qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma configere ut conceptus praegnatus partus Virginis Ipsrus exindeinfantis ordo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haberentur eosdem oculos eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit cap. 1. He that doth introduce the Tenet of the Imaginary Flesh of Christ hath equal reason to introduce an imaginary Nativity and to assert the Conception Pregnance and the Virgins Birth and the whole Order of the Infant was Phantastical for they would only have deceived the same Eyes and Sences which were deceived by the opinion of his Flesh 2. They argue thus that if Christ had no real Flesh and if he did not suffer really the Sacrament cannot duely be stiled the Image Figure Symbol Type Similitude Memorial or Representation of his real Flesh c Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus illum suum secit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura Corporis mei Figura autem non suisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non possit Quid tune voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem Tertul. contra Marcionem l. 4. c. 40. Christ saith Tertullian said This is my Body i. e. the figure of my Body but it had been no figure unless the Body had been true for a Phantasme can have no figure But what he would have Bread to signifie he hath sufficiently declared calling Bread his Body and therefore thus he sums up his discourse d Panis calicis Sacrimento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis l. 5. c 8 against the Phantasme of Marcion We have proved the verity of Christs Body and Blood by the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And Maximus who flourished Anno Dom. 190. discourseth thus e Apud Orig. Dial. 3. part 2. If Christ as these Men say were without Body and Blood of what kind of Elesh or of what Body or of what kind of Blood did he give the Bread and Cup to be Images of when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a Commemoration of him Theodoret against the Eutichians disputeth thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. p. 84 85. That the Flesh of Christ was not transformed into the nature of the Godhead because that Christians do participate of the Signs of his Body Now had this been the Doctrine of the Church of Christ that this blessed Sacrament contained his very Flesh and Blood they had much weakned their argument by those expressions for what is more convincing then this inference if Christians in the Sacrament do eat Christs real Flesh and Blood then must his Flesh and Blood be real if they do eat Christs real Body he had a real Body Secondly Why do they so absurdly and untruly set the Sacrament in opposition to Christs real Body as the Figure stands opposed to the Truth Thirdly why do they all expresly say the Bread and Wine are Types and Symbols and Remembrances of his Body and Blood and that of them he said This is my Body and my Blood seeing such Speeches cannot properly be true but must admit a Figure But Secondly These Hereticks can never be confuted by Men of T. G's Principles for hath the Roman Catholick one Text of Scripture to build his Dream upon so hath the Marcionite that passage of St. Paul which tells us that as in the Eucharist we have the shape of bread and yet no real bread so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the shape of Man and yet no Man as we have
That when the Encratitae held it unlawful to drink Wine the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument That Christ himself drank Wine and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine saith Chrysostom that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresie for because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water declaring that when he delivered the Mysteries he delivered Wine and that when he rose and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries he used Wine he saith I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine Now the Vine produceth Wine not Water Chrysost Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris 1641. Be ye sure saith Clemens to the Encratitae he also did drink Wine for he blessed Wine when he said take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine he shewed again saying to his Disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom h Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa paenè â—mnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta lignis â—guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradicationis quae jam per Donm â—â—strum Jesu dâ—clatate est Contr. Adiman Coy 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem filâ—s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres nec tamen ait Petra significabat Châ—istum â—sed ait Petra erat Christus quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur spiritualem illam vocat Ib. Cap. 12. Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine this Argument would have been frivolous and vain Had not they held as the Church of England their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ Secondly The Manichees to prove the contradiction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour that none was able to cause the Soul to perish that of Moses that the Blood was the Soul To this St. Austin answers those words may be expounded thus the Blood is that is it signifies the Soul this he confirms 1. by this general assertion that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching which is now declared by Christ and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly converted into what they signified Seconly this he illustrates by a double instance †So is Blood the Soul as the Rock was Christ they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ he said not the Rock signified Christ but the Rock was Christ 2. I may expound it thus saith he * Blood is the Soul that is it signifies the Soul because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body since then as the Rock is Christ and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what thâ—â— Typified in the New so is the Bread Christs Boâ—â— It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgment it is Christs Body not by conversion into Christs real Body but by signification of it k Nam ex â—o quod sâ—riptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse possum interpretaâ—i preceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret sui corporis bl yea by such signification as excludes Christs body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread for else the Manichees might have replyed upon St. Austin and given him the baffle thus as the sign not only signified Christs real Body but contained it too so must the Blood not only signifie but really contain the Soul Therefore it is apparent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants Thirdly The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christs humane nature was absorpt and changed into the Deity this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only but others that it was thus changed at his Conception whence they affirm that whilst he lived on Earth he had the form and shape of man but not his proper nature For Illustration and Confirmation of these Heresies they urge †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84 85. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures had they been really changed into Christs Flesh and Blood no greater Confirmation of their Heresie no fitter illustration of their Tenet could be well imagined for thus the similitude would run First That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread and not the real substance even so in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh but not the very nature Secondly Even as in the Eucharist the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs ascension the humane nature is absorpt and converted into the Deity What is it therefore that the Fathers answer do they confess the thing and say Transubstantiation was the Tradition of the Church and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures but that no like Tradition nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's principles No they expresly say and that in words as plain full as any Protestant could use that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justisie * Certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumus Ut sicut in hance scilicet in divinam transeant Sacramenta Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis effâ—eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich
precious body or blood of the Lord under the Type of bread the body is given to thee and under the Type of wine the blood So St. u Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. Cyril Hieros x Constit l. 5. c. 16. Pseudo Clemens saith That Christ having given us the Mysteries figurative of his precious body and blood c. went up into the Mount of Olives and that y Constit l. 6. c. 23. the Mystical and unbloody Sacrifice is celebrated by the Symbols of his body and blood And he adds That in the Participation of this Sacrament they used this thanksgiving z L. 5. c. 16 We give thee thanks our Father for the precious blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us for the precious body of which we celebrate these Signs by his command to announce his Death Of the same Judgment were the Latine Fathers for a Dicit Sacerdos fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Domini nostri Jesu Christi Ambrose in the fourth Book of the Sacraments Chap. 5. affirmeth that in his time this clause was in the publick Service make this Oblation to be set to our account acceptable and reasonable which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. And again b Hic in imagine quidem Christus offertur in caelo verò in veritate L. 1. Officiorum cap. 48. T. 1. p. 37. Christ here saith he is offered in the Image in Heaven in the Truth Hilary the Deacon saith c Nam Mâ—ses â—ece pâ—o sanguine vituli in patera aspersit filios Israel dicens hoc est Testamentum hoc figura fuit Testamenti Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est Quia beneficii divini sanguis testis est in cujus typum nos calicem Mysticum Sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis nostri animae percipimus In 1 Cor 11. The blood is a witness of divine benefit for the Figure of which we receive the mystical Cup of Blood for the preservation of the Body and the Soul Gelasius saith d Certe Imago Similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Contra Eutych indeed the Image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries In the Fifth Century St. Chrysostom speaks thus e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 82. in Matthaeum T. 2. p. 510. if really Christ dyed not Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750. of what is this Celebration Symbola Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750. see how he studies to make us alwayes mindful of his death hence by the Sacraments he calls to mind his passion Again it is a carnal thing to doubt how Christ could give his flesh to eat we ought to understand it Mystically and spiritually his words were spiritual and had nothing carnal in them Theodoret speaks thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 1. T. 4. p. 17 18. G. 12. Our Saviour changed the names and gave unto the body that which is the name of the Symbol and to the Symbol the name of the body So when he had named himself the Vine he called that which was the Symbol the blood And when the Heretick desired to know the reason of this change of names he gives it thus Christ would have those who are partakers of the Divine Mysteries not to attend unto the nature of the things they see but by reason of the change of names to believe that change which is made by Grace For he that called that which was Wheat and Bread his natural body and again calls himself a Vine he honoured the Symbols which are seen with the appellation of his body and his blood not changing the nature but adding Grace unto it And ween the Heretick had granted that the Sacrament contained the Symbols of a real body g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Dial. 2. T. 4. p. 84. This is well answered saith the Orthodox For every Image ought to have his Architype and Painters imitate the nature and paint the Images of things visible Gaudentius saith that * Tract 2. in Exod. v. Supr in the Bread the figure of Christs body is reasonably understood St. Hierom that the Lord did not offer Water but Wine for a Type of his blood St. Austin saith h In Typo sangui nis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum l. 2. adv Jovinian p. 27. F. the Lord did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body And most emphatically in these words i Dominus non dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum quum figuum daret corporis sui Contr. Adimantum c. 12. T. 6. p. 128. a preceptive speech for bidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative but if it seems to command a crime or forbid a good then it is figurative Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man k Si preceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut utllitatem aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videatur jubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare sigurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit Christus Joh. 6.53 Carnem c. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura est ergo precipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit L. 3. de Doctr. Christian c. 16. c. Seems to command a wickedness it is therefore a figure commanding us to Communicate with the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucifyed and wounded for us Again l Sacramenta sunt signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Idem contra Maxim S. 3. cap. 22. T. 6. p. 522. the Sacraments are signs of things being one thing and signifying another Again the Israelites did m Bibebant de spirituali sequente petra petra autem erat Christus Videte ergo petrâ manente signa variata ibi perra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Id. Tract 45 in Joh. I. 9. p. 333. drink of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ see therefore faith remaining how the signs are varied there the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed upon the Altar is Christ Lastly n Habes Christum in praesenti per sidem in presenti per signum in presenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum in presenti per altaris cibum potum Secundum presentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem no semper habebitis Quomodo absentem tenebo Quo modo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte