Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	catholic_n	church_n	profess_v	6,124	5	9.0713	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25225	The additional articles in Pope Pius's creed, no articles of the Christian faith being an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Pope Pius his profession of faith vindicated from novelty in additional articles, and the prospect of popery, taken from that authentick record, with short notes thereupon, defended.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.; Altham, Michael, 1633-1705. Creed of Pope Pius IV, or, A prospect of popery taken from that authentick record.	1688 (1688)	Wing A2931; ESTC R18073	87,445	96

THE Additional Articles IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BEING AN ANSWER To a Late PAMPHLET Intituled Pope PIUS his profession of Faith Vindicated from Novelty in Additional Articles AND The PROSPECT of POPERY taken from that Authentick Record with short NOTES thereupon DEFENDED LONDON Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Whilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacr. Domest Mart. 22. 1677 / 8. THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AMONG those many and great grievances which we complain of in the Church of Rome the Additional Articles of Pope Pius IV. are none of the least We look upon them as Additions to the ancient Faith imposed with great severity and as Novelties introduced into the Church without any Authority But the Vindicator tells us That though we of the Church of England be the most forward yet we of all sorts of Christians have the least reason to condemn this Prelate for this Addition who for XXIV Articles in his Profession have XXXIX in our own If this were true or the Additions were of the same kind this Remarque of his might pass among thinking Men as very considerable But had this Gentleman been so Thinking a person as he would make the World believe he is he would not have been guilty of so great a Blunder he would have seen a vast difference between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion We do not find fault with the Church of Rome or any particular Church or any Society of Men whether Sacred or Civil for making Laws and Rules to govern themselves by or framing Articles upon compliance wherewith they will admit into or acknowledge any one to be a Member of their Society provided they be such as may be complied with without Sin and Danger But we deny that the Church of Rome or any particular Church or the Catholick Church it self hath any Authority to make new Articles of Faith or declare any thing as necessary to be Believed in order to Man's Salvation which was not so antecedent to such Declaration And this I take to be the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and not as the Vindicator states it Whether there be Authority in the Catholick Church of Christ whichsoever it be to make any Addition of Articles to the Apostles Creed and require other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol Upon this mistaken Question the Vindicator proceeds and all along fights with his own shadow nor with us for all that we say is only this That no new Articles of Faith ought to be added to the Apostles Creed but we never denied That other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol may by any Church be required of Her Members Unless therefore the Vindicator do make it appear That new Articles of Faith de jure may be or de facto have been by consent of the Catholick Church added to the Apostles Creed he will not at all impugn the Church of England nor will the Church of Rome be much indebted to him for his Vindication Now whether he doth or hath made this appear will best be seen by taking his Instances into Consideration by which he pretends and endeavours to do it But before I do that it may be convenient to acquaint you what is the just and true differences between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion Articles of Faith I take to be certain Propositions containing such divine Verities as are necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation Articles of Communion I take to be some certain Laws or Rules agreed upon and established by some particular Society of Christians a compliance wherewith is necessary to the admittance of any one as a Member of that Society and an Observance whereof is necessary to the Peace Order and good Government of that Society The former of these are certain Fundamental Verities taught us by God revealed in the holy Scriptures and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed For this we have the Authority of the Trent Catechism * Catech. ad Parochos par 1. Tit. de 12. Symboli Articulis n. 1. and therefore may reasonably suppose that it will not be disowned by those of the Roman Communion And if this be granted then methinks the Consequence is plain That whatsoever is not contained in the Apostles Creed is not to be admitted as an Article of Faith. For there are many Truths revealed by God in holy Scriptures all which when known to be so revealed are necessary to be believed yet are they not all of equal necessity to Salvation and consequently not to be admitted as Articles of Faith in the strict and proper acceptation of the Word The latter are things of a quite different nature respecting principally the Peace Order and good Government of some particular Society necessary to be assented to and observed by all the Members thereof but not by all Christians For there are great Numbers of Ecclesiastical Societies in the World all or most of which have different terms of Communion which the Members of every particular Society are obliged to comply with but the Members of one Society are not under the same Obligation to observe the Constitutions of another as they are to do those of their own The Catholick Church we know is divided into several particular Churches differing in the terms of their Communion and yet none will deny but that the terms of Communion in each particular Church are to be observed in order to those ends before mentioned by the respective Members of those several Churches 'T is true indeed that all those particular Churches are Members of the Catholick Church and do or ought to hold Communion with her in Faith and Worship and upon the same terms with one another But as to what relates to the admitting of Members into or casting them out of their Society they have different terms and always have had without blame and without any the least breach of that general Communion But to bring the Instance a little nearer the Church of Rome which calls her self Catholick hath many particular Societies within her self as the Benedictines the Franciscans the Dominicans the Jesuits c. all which have particular Laws and Rules and those different from one another which are the Bands and Ligaments of their several Societies And yet the Vindicator will not deny but that they are all true Members of the Church and do hold Communion with her and with one another notwithstanding those different terms of Communion among themselves By what hath been said you may easily observe a vast difference between these two sorts of Articles which difference I shall briefly recapitulate to you in these Four particulars

I. Church Communion it is plain is of two sorts either with the Catholick or with a particular Church Now it must be acknowledged That Articles of Faith properly so called are really terms of Communion with the Catholick Church for by our Profession of them it is that we are look'd upon as Christians and own'd as members of the Catholick Church But they are not nor cannot be the only terms of Communion with any particular Church for it is not by owning and assenting to the terms of Communion with any particular Church that we are called Christians but only Christians of such or such a Denomination i. e. We are upon our compliance with such terms look'd upon as Members of such a particular Society of Christians II. Articles of Faith properly so called are certain Fundamental Verities revealed by God in holy Scripture and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed But meer Articles of Communion with any particular Church are no fundamental Verities of Religion though they may be fundamental Constitutions of a Society nor is it necessary that they should all be revealed by God but may be invented by Men and certain it is that all of them never were comprized either in the Apostles or any other ancient Creed III. Articles of Faith are the same to all Christians being such fundamental Verities as all ought to believe and assent thereunto But Articles of Communion are various each Community having different terms of Communion from another so that the Members of one Society though they stand obliged to comply with observe and assent unto the terms of Communion established and required of them by their own Body yet are they not any way obliged to comply with observe or assent unto the terms of Communion required in another IV. Articles of Faith are certain fundamental Verities necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation but Articles of Communion as such are not necessary to the Salvation of Men but only to the Peace Order and good Government of a Society For a Member of one Society may be safe and saved at last without complying with the terms of Communion established by another Having thus represented to you the difference between these two sorts of Articles I shall now proceed to consider the Vindicator's Instances by which he endeavours to prove That it is in the power of the Church to add unto the Apostles Creed not only other Articles of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol but also other Articles of Faith. His first Instance is The acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church in the time of her confessed Purity This is a mighty Instance and if he can make any thing of it to evince the Addition of any new Article of Faith to the Apostles Creed in that time he will do a great Work for we own there is a great deal of difference due to the practice of the Primitive Church in that time But instead of so doing he acknowledgeth that the Apostles Creed was the only summary of the Christian Faith known in the first Three hundred Years And if so then the Church in all that time never thought it necessary to add any new Article thereunto But after this time saith he upon occasion of the Arian Heresie another Creed was composed by the Council of Nice with an express condemnation and detestation of that new broach'd Error in the Addition of these Words in relation to the Divinity of the Son I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God * For begotten born of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made consubstantial to the Father And without the express assenting to this Addition none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledged as Members of the Church Which Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and Subscription to it is required by the Church of England Art. VIII Here this Gentleman as he thinks hath found a considerable Addition to the Apostles Creed and that made by no less Authority than that of the Famous Council of Nice But certainly never any Thinking Man besides himself ever thought this to be an Addition to but only an Explication of the Apostles Creed or a Declaration of what was the Sence of the Church in those Three hundred Years preceding touching that Article of the Apostles Creed And whereas he saith That without the express Assenting to this Addition as he calls it none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledg'd as Members of the Church It is very true but little to his purpose for what doth this import but only that an Assent to this Explication was required as a term of Communion but not that it should be owned as a new Article of Faith. And whereas he further saith That this Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and a Subscription to it is now required by the Church of England Art. VIII It is very true and the Church of England in the same Article will tell him upon what Grounds she now doth and the Church then did receive this Creed The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius's Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture So that upon the whole matter it is very evident That the Council of Nice makes no new Article but only explains an old one The same Answer may serve to his two next Instances out of the Athanasian and Constantinopolitan Creeds in which upon like Occasions we meet with Explications of some other Articles of the Apostles Creed but no Addition of any new Article thereunto But our Vindicator being a mighty Thinking Man hath found out a way not only of confounding Articles of Faith with Articles of Communion but also of jumbling Additions and Explications together as if they were one and the same thing And if you will allow this Issue of his so pregnant Thoughts you shall not want a Vindication of the most absurd Doctrines and irregular Practices in the Church of Rome but if you deny him this you take away the Foundation he is to build upon and then it would be unreasonable for you to expect any good and durable Superstructure from him This is plain from his next Instance which is taken from the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in which he saith are many particular Points not found in the Symbol of the Apostles nor yet in any of the forementioned Creeds of the Primitive Church Whence he concludes That the Church of England hath greater variety and a greater number of Additional Atticles than the Church of Rome To make good which conclusion he must according to his new way of Thinking take all the Articles of our Church to be Articles of Faith strictly and

did frequently relax some part of their penance And if this be all that is intended by Indulgences we shall not much quarrel with him about them but I am apt to think that this Gentleman will find but few of his own Communion who will be so ready to comply with him herein as we are There are two eminent persons of his own Church if he has any acquaintance with them viz. Greg. de Valentia Greg. de Valentia de Indulg c. 2. Bellarm. de Indulg l. 1. c. 7. and Cardinal Bellarmine who if he please to consult them in this matter will tell him another tale The former will assure him That this opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things And the latter will inform him That if this opinion be true then there will be no need of the Treasure of the Church and that Indulgences will be rather hurtful than profitable It is plain That these Doctors had a far different notion of Indulgences from that which the Vindicator here would perswade us to But it may be he will appeal from them as private Doctors which if he do whither will he send us to learn the Intention of the Church in this matter The Council is silent and gives us no Definition of the thing established by it and their chief Pastor who by the Bull of Pope Pius IV. is made the sole Interpreter of that Council hath not by any publick Act that we ever yet heard of declared the sence of the Council in this Decree So that we are still left either to spell out the intention of the Church in the Writings of their approved Doctors or else to guess at it by the practices of their supreme Pastors As to the former I have already given you a taste in two eminent Instances and might without any great trouble furnish you with many more And for the latter we need go no farther than the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber and the Bullarium in the former of which you may find Rates set which being paid an Indulgence may be had for almost any kind of Sin. And in the latter you have an account of several Bulls of Indulgence by several Popes Vide Bullar Tom. I. p. 204. Tom. III. p. 74 Tom. IV. p. 86. wherein a plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins and of all Sins is granted Which certainly must amount to more than a bare Relaxation of some part of Canonical Penance or else the poor People who purchased them were horribly cheated both of their Money and Expectations And if this be their notion of Indulgences we do not believe that any such power was ever given or left by Christ to his Church or that the use of it is at all beneficial to the Faithful I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and I promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. THE Vindicator foreseeing what Objection might be made to the Catholicism of the Roman Church begins his defence of this Article with an explanation of that Title telling us That as the Catholick or universal Church signifies a Church consisting of all particular Churches united in the Communion of the same Faith and Sacraments and submission to the same Ecclesiastical Government the Church of Rome is not the universal or Catholick Church but a part of it but as it imports a Church which is universal in its influence and by a singular privilege hath Authority over all other particular Churches and is the Center of their Communion the Church of Rome in this sence is the Catholick or universal Church and is rightly stiled the Mother and Mistress of all other particular Churches This Notion of the Catholick Church is liable to as many if not more Objections than the other For 1. Where or by whom was ever the Catholick or Universal Church understood to import a particular Church endowed with universal Influence 2. By what singular privilege hath any particular Church this universal Influence or Authority over all other particular Churches seeing par in parem non habet imperium 3. Whence had the Church of Rome this singular Privilege Was it from God or of Men If from God let her produce her Charter if of Men then those who gave it were superior to her to whom it was given and certainly they did not give away their own Superiority and if not then the Church of Rome instead of being a Mother and Mistress must own her self to be a Daughter and Handmaid to another 4. When where or by whom was the Church of Rome ever made or owned to be the Center of Catholick Union or Communion These Questions I doubt will not be quickly answered and till we are satisfied in these and some others we shall hardly be perswaded to subscribe this Article But why not The Vindicator assures us This was the Doctrine of the first Ages of the Church and if so then ought we rather to suspect our own Judgments than distrust theirs To this I answer That if this was the Doctrine of the first Ages then Pope Gregory the Great who certainly was as Infallible as any other Pope was mightily mistaken For when John Bishop of Constantinople did arrogantly assume to himself the Title of Oecumenic or Vniversal Bishop Gregory sharply reproves him for it and tells him Gregor l. 4. Epist 38 39. c. It is a New Name a wicked profane insolent Name the general plague of the Church a corruption of the Faith against Canons against the Apostle Peter and against God himself And he farther adds That never any Godly Man never any of his Predecessors used those Titles and whosoever doth or shall use them is the very Fore-runner of Antichrist From whence it is plain that before his time which was about Six hundred Years after Christ there never was any pretence made to it But the Vindicator says there was and that it was the Doctrine of the first Ages Now whether Gregory or this Gentleman be in the right is the thing in question The Vindicator to make good his ground urgeth us with the Authority of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. adv Haer. where he saith That the Church of Rome is the greatest and most ancient of all others founded and established there by the Two most Glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. 'T is necessary that every Church should recurr to this by reason of its more powerful principality To this I answer That Irenaeus in that Book writeth against Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion who contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles had devised certain strange Heresies for trial whereof he appeals to those Churches which the Apostles had planted saying The Church of Ephesus first instructed by St. Paul and afterward continued by St. John is a sufficient witness of the Apostles

learning Polycarpus being converted and taught by the Apostles instructed the Church of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia follow it Yet none of all these Churches ever allowed or received your strange Doctrine Yea the very wild Barbarous Nations that have received the Faith of Christ at the Apostles hands only by hearing without any Book or Letter if they should hear of these Heresies they would stop their Ears Here he appeals to the Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia But then he adds It would be too tedious to reckon up the Sucession of all Churches and for that reason being himself a Western Bishop he appeals to that Church which was of Apostolical plantation in the West viz. the Church of Rome Which he calls the greatest most ancient and known to all Men. Not the most Ancient of all other Churches as the Vindicator renders it for it is well known that Jerusalem Antioch and several others were more ancient but it was then the most famous Church in the West To this Church therefore he appeals and thinks it necessary that in such cases all other Churches i. e. all other Churches in the West should do the same and that for two Reasons 1. Because of the more powerful principality 2. Because in this Church the Tradition of the Apostles hath ever been kept The latter of these which is the principal the Vindicator leaves out and he had reason for it for with that he could not serve the end he aim'd at At that time the Tradition i. e. the Doctrine of the Apostles was look'd upon to be the best Trial and Rule of Faith. Which Doctrine in those early days was exactly observed in Rome without corruption and for that reason was that Church had in Reverence and Estimation above others And if the Church of Rome at this day did as faithfully keep the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles as she did then we would never scruple to yield her that same Honour that Irenaeus gives to the ancient Church of Rome But he makes sure not to forget the other reason viz. The more powerful principality And yet he will be as little able to avail himself of this as of the other for the Principality which Irenaeus here means is the Civil Dominion and Temporal State of the City of Rome which was then the Imperial City For if we consider that this was in the Reign of Commodus the Emperor who was an Heathen and a Persecutor we cannot imagine that the Church was then possessed of any powerful Principality But as in every Province there was a Metropolis or chief City so it was usual with the Fathers to call the Church planted there the chief or principal Church And it is well known Concil Constant 6. that upon that very account the Patriarch of Constantinople was by a general Council declared to have equal Privileges and Authority with the Patriarch of Rome And that this was all the principality that Irenaeus dream'd of will appear plainly if we consider that when Victor Bishop of Rome was angry with the Churches of Asia for not celebrating the Feast of Easter at the same time Euseb Histor Eccles l. 5. c. 23. and in the same manner as they did at Rome and would have Excommunicated them for it Irenaeus opposed his design and sharply reproved him as a disturber of the Church's peace Which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Church of Rome had been the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience to her Bishop was necessary for every Christian in order to his Salvation His next witness is Optatus Milevitanus lib. 2. adv Parm. Where he speaks of St. Peter's Chair being erected at Rome to the end that Unity might be preserved and that they are Schimaticks and Sinners and Sacrilegious who set up themselves in defiance against the Chair of Peter To this I answer That Optatus there writes against Parmenianus the Donatist Now the Donatists were a certain Sect of Christians broken off from the Unity of the Catholick Church confining it to a corner of Africa where they themselves dwelt as our Neighbours of the Roman Communion do now to Rome To convince these People of their folly and madness and to reduce them if possible into the bosom of the Church Optatus doth as Irenaeus before him had done appeal to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles and particularly to the Church of Rome blaming them for departing from that Faith and Doctrine which was there kept and taught and telling them that they could not belong to the Church of Christ so long as they continued in a state of separation from that Church He doth not therefore require their Union and Communion with the Roman Church as with the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches but as with the keeper of the Apostolick Faith. Nor doth he require them to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the universal Head and Monarch of all Churches for there is not one word to be found in all Optatus tending that way His next Evidence is St. Cyprian Epist 40. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the Word of God. The design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle is to give an account to those to whom he wrote of the Schismatical Sedition raised by Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters in the Church of Carthage and against him their Bishop and by warning them against it to preserve them in Peace and Unity To that end he lays down these words There is one God c. And immediately adds Another Altar cannot be set up nor a new Priesthood made besides that one Altar and one Priesthood Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth It is Adulterous it is Wicked it is Sacrilegious to make way for humane Inventions by the violation of a divine Constitution Whence it is plain That by the one Church here he meant the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and by the One Chair the Episcopal Chair Obedience whereunto preserves Unity and Disobedience begets Schism and Sedition in the Church But the force of his Argument lies here That this One is founded upon Peter and that not by any humane but by divine Authority Voce Domini by the Word of the Lord i. e. as the Margin of St. Cyprian directs us those Words of our Saviour Matth. xvi 18. where our Saviour saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To this I answer 1. That there are some who read these words of St. Cyprian not super Petrum but super petram not upon Peter but upon the Rock not upon Peter's person but upon his profession or as others upon Christ who is the spiritual Rock upon which St. Peter himself was builded But 2. Suppose we should grant that St. Cyprian speaks of St. Peter's person

they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he