and I prove the first part of the Anticedent by our Saviour's own words Iohn c 6 v 51 where he sayes thus I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world But then the Iewes wanting true faith said one to an other how can this man give uâ— his flesh to eate v 52. certainly then our Saviour who came to this world to instruct and leade us out of all darknesse to the true light hearing the Iewes murmuring so and doubting of what he said to be true wou'd explain the aforesaid words if he had any mystical meaning but he was so far from so doing that he confirm'd and repeated them again over and overâ— as is manifest by the 53 54 c. v where we read the following words then Iesus said unto them verily verily I say unto ye except ye eate the flesh of the son of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in ye whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I 〈◊〉 him as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your Fathers did eate â—anna and are dead he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever So that every faithfull sincere Christian may plainly understand that if our Saviour then had not meant that he was to give his own true flesh and blood to be really eaten and dranke that he wou'd not so proceed in confirming what he said in the begining and also that he wou'd not suffer his own disciples to part with-out declaring his mind to them as he did often before when he spoâ—e in parables neither wou'd he declare at his last supper that he gave to his discples his own body and blood saying thus Take eate this his my bâ—dy and he tooke the cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying drinke ye all of it for his is my blood of the new testâ—meâ—t which shall be shâ—d for many for the remission of sinnes Matt c 26 v 26 27 28 I leave it to all faithfull Christians seriously to be consider'd whether Christ gave only figuratively his own body and blood for the remission of our sinnes or his reall body and blood If he gave them really for our Salvation he also gave them really tâ— his disciples as his own wordâ— do manifestly affirme to deny which is of no less consequence than to charge Christ with untruth or at lest that he had not words significant to explain his intention which is rash and impious to judge of his infinite power therefore all Christians are oblig'd not to mistrust of the truth of Christ's words or doubt of their literal sence in the aforesaid text for being we acknowledge that Christ is omnipotent and consequently that it is in his Power to make of the bread and wine his own flesh and blood by his divine benediction we ought not to doubt of what he said to be true and if in case he had not exprest so plainly his mind unto us concerning this mysterie we ought to believe it firmly by St Paul's testimonye â—ae Corinth c 11 v 23 24 c. saying thus for I have receiv'd of the Lord that which also I deliver'd uâ—to ye that â—he Lord Jesus the same night in which he wâ—â— betrayed â—ooke bread and when he had given thankes he brake and said take eate this is my body which shall be â—â—liver'd for ye thiâ— do ye in remembranâ—e of mâ— afteâ— the â—ame maÌ„ner also he tooke the câ—p when he had supped saying this cup is the new testament in my blood this doe ye as often as ye drinke it in remembraâ—ce of me for as often as ye eate thâ—s brâ—ad and drinke this cup ye do shew the Lords death till be come whosoever shall â—at this bread â—â— drinke this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the â—oâ—d By which words St Paul openly declares that Christ gave his own body blood to his disciples at his last supper and also he affirms himself to have been taught this doctrine by the Lord and that he deliever'd the same to the Corinthians that there by he might perswade them not to doubt of what he said to be true but to firmly believe the reall presence beâ—ng it was the Lords doctrine delieuer'd unto him in order to teach it to the Christians Now let us heare the Authorityes of the holy Fathers Doctors of the Primitive Church wherewith I shall prove the second Part of the antecedent St. Ignatius the Apostles Disciple in his Epist to those of Smyrna ciâ—ed by Theodoret in his â— Dialogue sayes thus they â—â—mit not the Eucharists and oâ—lations because they confess not the Euchâ—râ—st to be the flesâ— of our Saviour who suffer'd for ouâ— sinneâ— Let the reader take â—otice of those heretickes against whose principles St Ignatius speaks in the aforsaid text for they rejected the Eucharist lest they would be forc'd to confess that Christ had true flesh but if the Eucharist had not then been believ'd to be Christ's â—rue flesh those heretiks could have no kind of reason to re-ject it for they did noâ— deny the figure or Image of Chrisâ— but what they deny'd was thaâ— Christ had true flesh The like argumenâ— may be form'd against the Jewes admiration hearing the word of Christ Iohn c 6 v. 51 c. for if then the jewes would believe that Christ was to give his flesh only in figure and remembrance they would have no reasoÌ„ to murmur or to mistrust the truth of Christ's words so that it manifestly appears that the Jewes suppos'd that Christ meant his true flesh and also that those heretiks of the prmitive Church believ'd and acknowledge that it was then some of the Catholickâ— Doctrine to believe that Christ's true flesh was really present in the holy Eucharist St. â—â—ustin Martyr who liv'd in the year 150 in his 2 Apology to Antoninus sayes thus we do not receive this as common bread or as common drinke but as the son of God Iesus Christ ouâ— Saviour inâ—â—rnate had flesh and blood for our salvation so are we taught that thâ— Eucharist is the flesh blood of the same Iesus incarnate St Irenaeus who liv'd in the same Century speaking of the hereticks of the Synagogue who deny'd Christ to have been the son of God sayes the following words in his 4th book c 34 how can they be assured the bread in which thankes are given to be the body of our Lord the
chalice his blood if they acknowledge him not to be the son of the maker of the world Tertullian who liv'd in the year 230 sayes thus in his book of the resurrection of the flesh the flesh is wash'd that the soul may be clean'd the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated the flesh eateth of the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be â—urish'd Origâ—nâ—s who liv'd in the same age sayes thus hom 7th in Eum speakiÌ„g of the old law thâ—n the manna was meat in figure but now the flesh of God is meat inspecie as himself sayes my flesh is mâ—at in deed and in his 5th Hom in diversa loca Evangely speaking of the Centurian he sayes the follwing words whâ—n you receive the holy meat and uncorrupted banquet when you receive the bread and cup of â—ief you eat drinke the body blood of the Lord then the Lord inters into your house you therefore humbling yourself immitate this Centurian sayâ— o Lord I am not worthy that thou shoâ—â—est inter into â—y house St Cypriaâ— who liv'd in same Century in his 5th ser de Lapsis sayes thus Violence is infer'd to his body blood they offend now more the Lord wiâ—â— their hands mouâ—h than when thâ— deny'd the Lord and in his ser oâ— the Lords supper he also sayes the following words the doctrin of this Sacrament is streange â— the Evangelical schooles publiâ—h'd 〈◊〉 this doctrine it first appear'd to thâ— world by Christ the teacher thereof thâ— Christians should drinke blood who drinking is most strictly forbidden â—â— the Authority of the old law but â—â— Gospel commends to drinke it Befoâ—â— I shall proceed further I muâ—â— take notice of St. Cyprian's words positively affirming that this Doctrine of the real presence has been first taught by Christ and his Disciples and also that Christians are commanded to drinke blood which was prohibited by the old law for the old lawâ— did not prohibit to drinke blood in figure or in remembrance for the Jewes did drinke the blood of Christ figuratively in drinking the water which flow'd our of the Rocke therefore that which was prohibited by the old law was only to drinke true and real blood but St. Cyprian clearly affirms that the Gospel commaÌ„ds the Christians to drinke that which was prohibited by the old law therefore St. Cyprian affirâ— that the Christians are commanâ—ed by the Gospel to drinke tâ—â— and real blood and consequenâ— not in figure as my adversaâ— would faine perswade St. Hilaâ—us who liv'd in the 4th Centâ—ry in his 18th book of the Tâ—nity says thus If the word be tâ—â— incarnate we do truly receive the wâ—â— flesh of the flesh blood 's â—â—â— there is noe roome left for being doubt for by the Lord 's own confesâ— and by our faith it is truly flesh truly blood let us read what is wriâ—â— and let us understand what we râ—â— and then we will perform the dutâ— perfect faith for according to the tural truth of Christ in us what â—â— we learn unless we learn it fâ—om â— we learn it imprudently impiously fâ—r he said my flâ—â—h is meat in deed c. St. Cyril of Ierusalem who liv'd in the sâ—me Century Catech 4 sayâ—â— the following words This of St. Paul's Doctrine can sufficiently make ye most certain coâ—cerning the divine mysteries seeing Christ himself so affirms sayes of the bread this is mâ— body whâ— afterwards can presume to doubt the same also saying confirming this is my blood who I say can doubt say that it is not his blood St. Ambrose who also liv'd in the same Century in his book de Mysterys Initiandis c 9th sayes the following words Perhaps you may say I see the contrary how can you affirm to me that I can receive Christ's body this now we are to prove therefore wâ— use great examples that we may prove this not to be what nature form'd but what benediction consecrated the benediction to be of more power than the naturâ—s because even â—he very nature is converted by the benediction Moses threw a rod which he converted into a serpent aftâ—rwards he tooke the serpent's tail converted the same into a rod therefore you see the nature of the serpent of â—he rod to have been twiâ—e chang'd by a Prophetical benediction If human benediction be of such power that it can change nature what do we say to the divine consecration where the very words of the Lord our Saviour do worke for the SacrameÌ„â— which you receive is perfected by the words of Christ what if Elias's words were of such force that they cou'd draw fiâ—e out of heâ—ven will not Christs wâ—rds be able to change the nature of the elements Of all the workes in the world you have read because he said they were made he commanded they were created therefore Christ's words which cou'd make that which was not of nothing can they not change these things which are into that which they were not for it is not less to give things new beings than to change their natures but why doe wâ— use arguments but let us use his own examples prove the truth of this mysterie by the IncarnatioÌ„'s example did the course of nature take place when the Lord was born of Mary it is manifest that the Virgin conceiv'd contrary to the order of nature this body which we perform is of the Virgin Why do you iâ—quire here thâ— câ—uâ—se of 〈…〉 Châ—â—st's body when the Lord himself wâ—â—â—orâ— of the Virgin beyond the coâ—rsâ— of nature Surâ—ly the true flesh of Christ was crucifi'd buri'd truly thâ—n the sâ—crament iâ— of that same flesh Tho' what I have already produc'd of this eminent Doctor 's Authority might satisfie any impartial reader yet I will adde these other Authorityes of his confirming the same in his 4th book de Sacram c 5. he sayes thus The Lord Iesus Christ declar'd unto us that we receive his own body blood why shu'd we doubt of his Authority testimoney and in his 6th book c 1 he also sayes thus as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true son of God even so it is true flesh which we receive as himself said St. Gregory Nazâ—anzen who liv'd in the same age in his 2 Oration de Paschaâ—e sayes the followings words eate the body drinke the blood with-out confusion doubt be constant firm stedfast you need not be any thing troubl'd in mind for the adversary's discourse St Ephrem who liv'd in the year 365 in his book de Natura Dei minima Scrutanda c 5 sayes the following words why do you track-out unsearchable things If you search curiously these things new you will not be call'd faithfull but curious be faithfull innocent partake of the immaculate body of thy Lord with full faith being sure that you do eat the intire lambe the mysteries of Christ are everlasting fire do
not rashly searâ—â— them over â—est you should burn in their search St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 370 in his book nam'd Ancoratus sayes thus We see thaâ— our Saviour tooke in his hands as thâ— Evangelist hath when he gave thanks he said this is my body none mistrusts his words for he whâ— dose not believe it to be his true fleâ—h falls from grace life and in a nother place cited by the Fathers of the 7th General Council in the 6th Action he sayes the following words Never shall â—o find our Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers saying that the unbloody sacrifice which is offer'd by the Priests is an Image but his very body blood St. Hierome who liv'd in the year 390 Epist to Hedib sayes thus but let us know that the bread which the Lord brake gave to his Disciples was the Lord our Saviours body himself saying to them take ye eat this is my body St Chrysostom who liv'd the year 398 Hon â—1 in Matt sayes the following words he who bestowed his own life for you why will he sâ—orn to give you his own body therefore let us hâ—arken the Priests how noble how admirable is that thing which is granted unto us he has given us his own flesh c. He also sayes thus Hom 53 Let us believe God let us not contradict him altho' what he sayes may seem strange to our sense imagination for it surpasâ—es our sense reason I beseech you what may we suppose of his words in all things chiefly in mysteries not only considering â—hese things which layes before us but also his words for we cannot be deceiv'd by them but our senses may easilie be deceiv'd his words cannot be false therefore because he said this is my body let us he convinc'd by noe ambiguity but let us believe perceive this with the eyes of our understanding O how many now sayes I wou'd fain seâ— his face countenance I wou'd wish to see his garments therefore you see him you feele him you eat him you desire to see his garmeÌ„ts truly he deliver'd himself to you not only that you may see him but also that you may touch him intertain him in yourself In his 3. book de sacerdotio he sayes thus he that â—its above with his Father even in the same instant of time is touch'd by the hands of all gives himself to all those who are willing to receive him whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us yet ascending to heaven there also he hath it More of St. Chrysostom's Authorityes plainly confirmiÌ„g the same may be seen in his 8â— Hom. on Matt. 45th on John 3 on St. Paus's Epist to the Ephes in his 2. to those of Antioch and in his 6th book de Sacerdotio St. Augustin who liv'd the year 420 expounding that of the 33. Psal he was carri'd in his own hands puts the question inquiring how can these words be understod aÌ„swers sayiÌ„g thus we cannot find this in David according to the litteral sense but we may find it in Christ for Câ—râ—s◠〈…〉 in his own haâ—ds wâ—e gâ—v◠〈…〉 body he said thi◠〈…〉 he caâ—rid that bâ—d◠〈…〉 In his â— book 〈…〉 legis eâ— Prophet c 9 he sayes â—he following wâ—rds wâ— receive the Mediator of God man Ieâ—us Christ with a fuâ—l heart mouth gâ—vâ—ng us his own flâ—sh blood to be 〈◊〉 dranke Here the Reader may take notice of the word mouth that thereby he may understand S. Augustin to have openly declar'd that we do not receive the flesh blood of Christ in figure and by faith only as my adversary believes which may be further confirm'd by S. Augustin's own words in his 2. ser de verbis Apostoli where he sayes thus we understâ—nd the true master divine redeemer kiÌ„d Saviour recommending unto us our price his own â—lood for he spoke of his own body blood More of S. Augustin's Authorityes proving the Real presence may be seen in his 11th 26th 27th 31 Treatise in John in his commeÌ„tary on the 98th psal in his 2. book agaiÌ„st PetiliaÌ„s letters in his 17th book of the City of God c. 20. In his 3. book or the Trinity c. 4. 10. in his book super Leviticum â— 57. In his 2. ser de Temp. anâ— in several other places which wouâ—d be too tedious to produce here therefore I will conclude only with the two following Authorityes S. Cyrâ—ll of Alexandria who liv'd in the year 430 in his Epist to Nestor which Epist was aprov'd of by the Fathers of the General Council of Ephesiâ— sayes thus so immediatly we come to the mystical blessings we are sanctifi'd being partakers of the holy body precious blood of Christ the Redeemer of us all not taking it to be common flesh God forbid But made the proper flesh of the word himself that â—s to say of the son of God It was defin'd in the 18. Can. of the first General Council of Nice That Deacons who have no power to offer sacrifice ought not to give the body blood of Christ to Priests who have that power All which proofs do evidently make-out that it was alwayes believ'd iÌ„ the Primitive Church that Christ's body and blood were really and substancially preseÌ„t in the holy sacrament and consequently that our Saviour had no mystical or figurative meaning in the institution of this sacrament So that it is to be admir'd what pretence can my adversary aleadge for denying the real presence If he has not a mind to deny all mysteries that surpasles his own weake understanding if so he may be the same rule Presume to deny that of the blessed Trinity Incarnation ResurrectioÌ„ c. for they surpasse his understanding and capacity as well as this of the reall presence Chap. 6 Proving that the holy Eucharist was ador'd worshipp'd by those of the Primitâ—ve Church If it was lawfull to fall down and worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour but it was lawfull to falldown worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world therefore t is lawfull to fall down worship the holy Eucharist with Godly hoÌ„our The coÌ„sequence is most certain as we shall see hereafter and the minor is manifest Mat. c. 2 v 11. c. 14. v. 33. Jo. c 9 v. 38. as for The major it may be prov'd tâ—us the same Saviour Jesus Christ who was worship'd in this world is really substâ—ntially present in the holy Sacrament as I have prov'd in my answer to the adversarys 5th point and will confirm it in my answer to his 7th therefore if â—t was lawfull to full-down and worship our Saviour Iesus Christ with Godly honour wheÌ„ he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship tâ—e holy Eucharist with
use of the Chalice that the Manichees might be discover'd who lurking amoÌ„ghst the Catholicks alwayes Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of bread but never the Chalice whosoever then during that Heresie wou'd not at the publicke Communion of Easter Receive the Chalice was suspected to be a Manichean whereby the reader may plainly see that the Church has reason to forbid at one time what it permits at an other Christ having left unto it a dispensing power to alter all matters of indifferency in the discipline thereof as the time place and circumstances wou'd require which St Augustin in his 118 Epistle openly declares and it may be confirm'd by St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11 v. 34. but the Manichean heresie being smothered the Receiving of the â—ommunion under one kind was afterwards CommoÌ„ly practis'd in the Church as Hugo de sancto Victore who liv'd about the year 1130 relates in his book Now before I shall proceed further in my Answer let the reader observe those four points which Commonly have been in practice in the Primitive Church viz. that then the people wou'd bring the Eucharist home to their houses under the forme of bread for private Communion Secondly that the Communion was sent and given to the sick under the same forme Thirdly that infants children Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of wine only Fourthly that the Primitive Christians Receiv'd publickly in the Churches the Communion either under one or both species as they pleas'd untill the Fathers of the Council of Constance about the year 1414. order'd the layties to Receive in one sole species not decreeing that the ReceiviÌ„g thereof in both species was unlawfull or ever prohibited before by the Churâ—h but for several other weighty reasons of which I shall produce only two First that thereby they might supresse and smother the Heresie of certain Germans Bohemiâ—ns who then obstinatly deny'd thâ— integrety of the Sacrement to be contain'd in one sole species Secondly that for the future they might preveÌ„t several abuses prophanations which formerly happen'd when the Chalice was given to the laity who thro their weak zeal and cold Devotion permitted very offteÌ„ drops of the holy blood to be spilt as St. Chrys ostome in his first Epistleto Innocentius Eneas Silviusin his dialogue de utraque specie relateâ— which is against the subâ—ime Reverenâ—e due to this most excellâ—t Sacrament Wherefore it evidently appears that neither the Gâ—â—câ—aÌ„ or Latâ—nes ever believ'd that all which is written in the Gospel touching the Communion under two species is to be so universaly understood that it â—on prehends all Christians but that they alwayes suppos'd and believ'd from the very begining of Christianity that one sole speâ—â—es was sâ—fficient for a true lawfull Communion so that the Council of Constance did but follow the tradition and Doctrine of all precedent ages when it defin'd that the Communion under one sole species was as good and as sufficient as under both species and that those who wou'd Receive it under one kind wou'd neither contradict the institution of Christ or deprive themselves of the fruit of this holy Sacrament for whether we eat or whether we drink or whether we do both togeather we alwayes apply the same Death of Jesus Christ alwayes Receive the same substance of the blessed Sacrament and the same effecâ— of grace for the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are whoely and â—ntirly contain'd in everâ— drop of the blessed blood anâ— in every particle of the blesseâ— Host 〈◊〉 as well as he is coÌ„taiÌ„d the whole cup or in the whole Host or in both therefore let no bodie foolishly belive that more benefit is Receiv'd by taking the Communion in two species than in taking it in one alone for being that every drop of the blessed blood and every particle of the divided Host is a maine Ocean of spiritual Blessings many of them by the same moral action Receiv'd affords no more grace then one alone being that one alone contains the whole fountaine intirly therefore it appears that it was never our Saviours intention to oblige all Christians to Receive the Sacrament in both species for if this had been his intention he wou'd certainly institute iâ— in a materia more common to all nations as he did in the institution of the Sacrament of baptism knowing the wine to be so scarce in several parts of the world that the poor inhabitants tâ—ereof couâ—d but very seldom or perhaps never Receive the Communion for the want of wine therefore our Saviours intention was when he said Drinke â—e all of this â—o oblige the Discâ—ples who only then were present and also their successors wâ—o are the Priests that daâ—â—y offer this most holy Sacrifice under both species and when he said to his Disciples John c 6. v. 63. that the flesh profitteth nothing his meaning was that it profitteth nothing â—o believe his bodie to be only human flesh excluding the divine nature as the Jews beliv'd who deny'd Châ—ist to be the son of God Câ—ap 3 proviâ—g â—hat tâ—e Coâ—mâ—n Prayers were 〈…〉 genâ—â—ally undeâ—stood by all â—hose of the Prâ—mitive Chuâ—ch The holy scripture encouragâ—s us to pâ—ay tho' we â—â—deâ—stand â—oâ— what is said theâ—efâ—re â—â—is lawfull and expedient for us â—o prâ—y tho' we understâ—nd no◠〈…〉 is saâ—â— the anâ—â—cedent is manifest by Sâ— Paulâ— fiâ—st Epist to â—â—e Corâ—nthiâ—ns chap. â—4 v. â— wheâ—â—â—e sayes thu◠〈…〉 â—peaâ—eth â—n 〈◊〉 unknown tongâ—â— â—â—eakâ—â—h not 〈◊〉 men but unto God for no man understandeth him Nay some times the speaker did not understand what himself said for the gift of languages and the gift of interpreting languages are two distinct gifts as is evident by the 11. v. and did not alwayes meet togeather as may be seen by the 13. v. of the aforsaid chapter for there the Apostle exhorts him who speaketh in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret which is a sign that ordinarilâ— he cou'd not as is manifest by the 14. v where he sayes thus â—â— I pray in an unknown 〈…〉 spirit pâ—ayâ—eth but 〈◊〉 understâ—nâ—â—â—g is unfruitfull where 〈…〉 see that St. Paul 〈…〉 unâ—erstanding to be unfruitfull and not our prayers when we pray in an unknown tongue moreover you see that St Paul gives to understand that it is lawfull and not prohibited to pray in an unknown tongue Now let us prove the consequenâ—e what the Apostles did and practis'd is lawfull and expedient for us to practice but the Apostles publick liturgies have been in languages which were not Generally understood by all the nations they Converted therefore t is lawfull and expedient for our liturgies to be in a language not generally understood by all nations 〈◊〉 use them the major is evident and I shall prove the Minor â—he Apostles publick liturgies were all in Hebrew Greecâ— Syriack or Latine as is manifest by all Ancient writters which were not generally known languages to all