many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of it's self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation E. W. p. 42. which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in heaven and the other in earth because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in its self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in heaven it is spoken without common wit or sense for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same-one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that fills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletive filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body In Ps. 33. Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins minde we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit C. We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystic prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholic doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sense and the reason of all the world Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Dissuasive I suppose these Gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECTION IV. Of the half Communion WHen the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poyson to the bloud of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poysoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that bloud to all the people this was a great and a public yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance Sess. 13. which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as heretics and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custome and law of giving it in one kinde only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it
any thing so well as by writing what was to be kept inviolate especially in the propositions of Faith relying oftentimes upon a word and a phrase and a manner of expression which in the infinite variety of reporters might too easily suffer change Thus far we can safely argue concerning the error of the Church of Rome and to this not we but the Fathers add a severe Censure And when some of these censures were set down by way of caution and warning not of judgment and final sentence it seems a wonder to me how these Gentlemen of the Roman Communion Letter and Truth will out c. that wrote against the Book should recite all these terrible sayings out of the Fathers against their superaddition of Articles to the Faith contain'd in Scriptures and be so little concerned as to read them with a purpose only to find fault with the quotations and never be smitten with a terror of the judgment which the Fathers pronounce against them that do so Just as if a man being ready to perish in a storm should look up and down the ship to see if the little paintings were exact or as if a man in a terrible clap of thunder should consider whether he ever heard so unmusical a sound and never regard his own danger 2. The same is the case in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshipping of consecrated Bread in which if they be not deceiv'd all the reason and all the senses of all the men in the world are deceiv'd and if they be deceiv'd then it is certain they give Divine worship to what they naturally eat and drink and how great a provocation of God that is they cannot but know by the whole analogy of the Old and New Testament and even by natural reason it self and all the dictates of Religion which God hath written in our hearts On the other side if we consider that if the Divine worship they intend to Christ were pass'd immediately to him sitting in Heaven and not thorow that blessed thing upon the Altar but directly and primarily to him whose passion there is represented and the benefits of whose death are there offer'd and exhibited there could be no diminution of any right due to Christ. Nay to them who consider that in the first institution and tradition of it to the Apostles Christ's body was still whole and unkroken and separate from the Bread and could not then be transubstantiate and pass from it self into what it was not before and yet remain still it self what it was before and that neither Christ did command the Apostles to worship neither did they worship any thing but God the Father at that time it must needs seem to be a prodigious venture of their souls to change that action into a needless and ungrounded superstition especially since after Christ's ascension his body is not only in Heaven which must contain it until his coming to judgment but is so chang'd so immaterial or spiritual that it is not capable of being broken by hands or teeth In not adoring that which we see to be Bread we can be as safe as the Apostles were who that we find did not worship it but in giving Divine honours to it we can be no more safe in case their proposition be amiss than he that worships the Sun because he verily believes he is the God of Heaven A good meaning in this case will not justifie his action not only because he hath enough to instruct him better and to bring him to better understanding but especially because he may mean as well if he worships Christ in Heaven Ad sua templa oculis animo ad sua numina spectans yea and better when he does actually worship Christ at that time directing the worship to him in Heaven and would terminate his worship on the Host if he were sure it were Christ or were commanded so to do Add to this that to worship Christ is an affirmative praecept and so it be done in wisdom and holiness and love in all just ways of address to him in praying to him reciting his prayers giving him thanks trusting in him hoping in him and loving him with the best love of obedience not to bow the knee hîc nunc when we fear to displease him by so doing cannot be a sin because for that hîc nunc there is no commandement at all And after all if we will suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true yet because the Priest that consecrates may indeed secretly have receiv'd invalid Orders or have evil Intention or there may be some undiscernable nullity in the whole Oeconomy and ministration so that no man of the Roman Communion can say that by Divine faith he believes that this Host is at this time transubstantiated but onely hath conjectures and ordinary suppositions that it is so and that he does not certainly know the contrary He that certainly gives Divine Honour to that which is not certain to be the Body of Christ runs into a danger too great to promise to himself he shall be safe Some there are who go further yet and consider that the Church of Rome say onely that the bread is chang'd into the body of Christ but not into his soul for then the same bread would be at the same time both material and immaterial and that if it were that to give honours absolutely Divine to the humanity of Christ abstracted from consideration of his Divinity into which certainly the bread is not transubstantiated is too neer the doctrine of the Socinians who suppose the humanity to be absolutely Deified and Divine Honours to be due to Christ as a man whom God hath exalted above every name But if they say that they worship the body in concretion with the Divinity it is certain that may be done at all times by looking up to heaven in all our religious addresses And therefore that is the safe way and that 's the way of the Church of England The other way viz. of the Church of Rome at the best is full of dangers and qui amat periculum peribit in illo was the wise mans caution 3. The like to this is the Practice of the Church of Rome in worshipping Angels which as it is no where commanded in the New Testament so it is expressly forbidden by an Angel himself twice Revel 22. to S. John adding an unalterable reason for I am thy fellow-servant worship God or as some Ancient Copies read it worship Jesus meaning that although in the Old Testament the Patriarchs and Prophets did bow before the Angels that appear'd to them as God's Embassadors and in the Person of God and to which they were greatly inclined because their law was given by Angels yet when God had exalted the Son of Man to be the Lord of Men and Angels we are all fellow-servants and they are not to receive religious worship as before nor we to pay it them And by
Annue nobis Domine animae famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio Pope Innocent answered him that who chang'd it or when he knew not but he knew how that is he knew the reason of it because the authority of the Holy Scripture said he does injury to a Martyr that prays for a Martyr the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints The good man had heard the saying somewhere but being little us'd to the Bible he thought it might be there because it was a pretty saying However though this change was made in the Mass-books and prayer for the soul of S. Leo was chang'd into a prayer to S. Leo * Vide Missal Roman Paris 1529. and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could Cap. cum Marthae Extrav de celebrat Missarum in Gloslâ yet because they did it so pitifully they had reason to be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for S. Leo put in again * Missale Rom. in decreto Concil Trid. restit in festo S. Leonis That by these offices of holy atonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word Letter to a friend pag. 12. but have left the whole fabric of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great authorities only one of them striving to find some fault says that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence And these are the words of Senensis concerning P. John 22. and P. Adrian but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Undequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he says that Pope Benedict XI affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors are not what they say insomuch that S. Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the house of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church Annot. 345. who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this opinion But that the present doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new article of faith is therefore certain because it was no article of faith in S. Austins time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of S. Austin Enchirid. cap. 68 69. The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best armour in which they trusted 1 Cor. 3. and expounds the words of S. Paul he shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next chapter he adds Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quâ—ri potest That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which S. Austin says is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to
poenas nullas futuras opinetur nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque judicium Cap. 16. Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil into Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sense In Psal. 6. All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words * De C. D. lib. 16. c. 24. lib. 20. c. 25. in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer that that S. Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else can be understood where it is said who shall endure the day of his coming c. 3. S. Austin speaks things expresly against the doctrine of Purgatory know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise according to its good deservings or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara Aug. tam. 9. de vanitate saeculi c. 1. de consolatione mortuorum Serm. 2. cap. 1. into the hell of the damned for I know not well how else to render it And again the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham if she be faithful or in the custody of the infernal prison De Dâ—gmat 6. Eccles. cap. 79. if it be sinful until the appointed day comes in which she shall receive her body pertinent to which is that of S. Austin Aut Augustini aut Gennadii if he be Author of that excellent book de Eccles. dogmatibus which is imputed to him After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and going from the body go unto Christ expecting the resurrection of their body But I shall insist no further upon these things I suppose it very apparent that S. Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory and that if he had fancied right yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied There is only one objection which I know of which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things S. Austin speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life saith Constat autem c. but it is certain that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirit suffer when they have receiv'd their bodies shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire here is a positive determination of the article by a word of confidence and a full certificate and therefore S. Austin in this article was not a doubting person To this I answer it may be he was confident here but it lasted not long this fire was made of straw and soon went out for within two Chapters after he expresly doubts as I have prov'd 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world and if they be so referred it is most agreeable to his other sentiments 3. This Constat or decretory phrase and some lines before or after it are not in the old books of Bruges and Colein nor in the copies printed at Friburg and Ludovicus vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this objection being remov'd Contra Pharis tit 8. there remains no ground to deny that S. Austin was a doubting person in the article of Purgatory And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him In exposit precationis missae Advers haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorium and the same is said of him by Hofmeister but modestly and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead which is nothing to the purpose and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus a Castro In Cathol Romao pacifico 9 de purgat and by Barnesius Well! but suppose S. Austin did doubt of Purgatory This is no warranty to the Church of England for she does not doubt of it as S. Austin did but plainly condemns it So one of my adversaries objects To which I answer that the Church of England may the rather condemn it because S. Austin doubted of it for if it be no Catholic doctrine it is but a School point and without prejudice to the faith may be rejected But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the doctrine if it had been left as S. Austin left it that is but as a meer uncertain opinion but when the wrong end of the opinion was taken and made an article of faith and damnation threatned to them that believed it not she had reason to consider it and finding it to be chaff wholly to scatter it away 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed if in any case she see more than S. Austin did and proceed accordingly for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things of which S. Austin indeed did not doubt but affirm'd confidently I instance in the necessity of communicating infants and the matter of appeals to Rome The next Authority to be examin'd is that of Otho Frisnigensis concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive for making him to speak of a Purgatory before whereas he speaks of one after the day of judgment with a Quidam asserunt some affirm it viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death nay but you are deceiv'd says E. W. and the rest of the adversaries he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment Now truly that is more than I said but that Otho said it is by these men confess'd But his words are these I think it ought to be search'd Esse quippe apud inferos locum purgationum in quo