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
not the truth Wherefore Gaudentius doth argue a majori thus he that made Water to be substantially Wine can certainly make Wine to become Sacramentally his Blood T. G. p. 507. We must be told that St. Ignatius confesseth Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffered for our Sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2. But then we must not know that this Epistle is intended against the Simonians and Menandrians who held that Christ suffered only in appearance had no real Flesh therefore could not confess that the Eucharist was Sacramentally Christs flesh least admitting the figure they should be forced to admit the truth and substance and therefore his Interpolater disputes against them thus V. usher Not. in Epist ad Smyr p. 50 That incorporeal things have neither shape nor character nor figure of a Living Creature that hath form which may be seen whereas when Christ shall come to Judgment they who have pierced shall see him Secondly We confess the Eucharist to be Christs Body and his Flesh and only do dispute the manner how of which Ignatius saith nothing We do acknowledge that it is truly and indeed Christs flesh and Blood as knowing that it may be truly what it is Spiritually for Christ is the true Vine Job 15.1 Joh. 1.8 Heb. 8.2 Luk. 16.12 and the true Light Heaven is called the true Tabernacle and Spiritual Blessings the true Riches and of this we have innumerable instances both from the Fathers and the Church of Rome produced by Albertinus de Sacramento Euch. p. 218. 854. Moreover it is objected T. G. p. 306. Orat. Mag. Catec c. 37 that Gregorius Nyssen doth affirm That he believes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The Bread Sanctisied by the Word of God to be transmuted into the body of the word Answ True but then it is as true that this transmutation may be as well by the addition of Grace to Nature as by the substantial mutation of that nature it being evident from the abundant testimonies of Bafil Vid. Alb. de Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 487. Nazianzen Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and transmutari are terms indifferently used as well of a mutation which only doth respect the qualities States and conditions of the Subject as the nature of it and of this we have many instances in the undoubted works of Gregory Who tells us That the Soul made virtuous is a In Inscr Psal c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transmuted and that b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cant. Hom 8. Regeneration is a transmutation of it into that which is Divine and that c ibid. Hom. 9. when we appear in Glory we shall undergo this transmutation nay in this very place he twice asserts That the mortal Body of Christ being received into our body doth change our body into its self or its own nature d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. So then these words cannot infer That the Sacramental Bread and Wine receive by Consecration any other change He tells us further that the virtue of the benediction doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 change or transelement the nature of things which do appear Answ This word is also used ordinarily to signifie not any change of substance but of qualities and virtues only and of this kind you have in Albertinus many instances produced l. 2. p. 488 of which no less then twenty are cited from Gregorius Nyssen declaring that by Regeneration and Baptism we are transelemented or changed to a Spiritual Nature and that the Resurrection will thus transelement and change our Natures So that it may with equal reason be concluded from this word that in Baptism our Natures are Transubstantiated as that the nature of the Eucharistical Bread is changed into Christs real and substantial body And so much for that spurious or doubtful passage of Gregorius Nyssen The passage cited from St. Cyril saith T. G. p. 306. That our Saviour sometime changed Water into Wine and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood But then the same St. Cyril doth also say Catech. 2. he who raised Lazarus when four dayes dead can he not much more easily raise thee viz. from a death of Sin unto a life of Righteousness who dost live and breath And again Catech. 4. the rod of Moses was changed by the will of God into the dissentaneous nature of a Serpent and shall not dead Man be restored unto himself again And both Ambrose and St. e Serm. 12. ex 40 a Sirmundo editis Austin do argue from the conversion of Water into Wine That God can change our mortal into immortal Glorious bodies If then it be ridiculous from any of these passages to argue a substantial change wrought in us by Regeneration or the Resurrection it must be also vain to argue a substantial change from the like instance used to illustrate the change which is by Consecration made upon the Eucharistick Symbols 2 The words immediately preceding do clearly evidence that Cyril argues a majori For saith he If God could make this change from Water into Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. 4. Myst shall it not much more be confessed that he doth give us the fruition of his Body and his Blood whereas had he conceived the mutation of the Eucharistick Symbols to have been equal to the change of Water into Wine that phrase had been improper and absurd for of two equal changes it cannot reasonably be affirmed he that is able to perform the one is much more able to perform the other 3 I have already largely proved that Cyril here intended only an accidental change and shall yet further make it evident from two considerations 1. That in the following Catechism he speaks thus we pray unto the God of Mercies * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would send his Spirit into the things that lye before us and would make the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood For whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is sanctified and changed not that it is substantially changed for he affirmeth of the Baptismal Oyl and Water that they are Sanctified by the Holy Spirit And yet no Romanist will hence infer that they do not retain the nature both of Oyl and Water 2. In his first Catechism he affirms that as the Eucharistick Bread and Wine before the Consecration remains meer Bread and Wine but afterwards is made the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After like manner truly are the meaâ—â— used in the Pomps of Satan in themselves pure or simple but by invocation of the Daemons they are made impure As therefore the mutation of these meats is only a mutation of their qualities not of the substance of them so must the change of Bread and Wine with which it is compared and equalled be
upon their Temples they could not escape but were consumed by it And can we then imagine that all Christians during this custom were such sots as to imagine that to be God which was not only subject to be consumed by but was by them committed to the flames for this intent and purpose was it not easie to retort upon the Christian that of the Prophet Esaiah that part of the same Corn which was converted into the Host and of the Wine which was converted into the blood of Christ served only to be meat and drink and to descend into the Stomach and the draught Fifthly v. Daille de Cultu Lat. l. 7. c. 30. If this had been the judgment of the ancient Church why did they put the Host into the n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Balfamon p. 460. Sepulchers of dying friends or bury what they could not eat since humane nature doth abhor to offer such affronts unto that God we Worship The Prophet Esay to express what great contempt the Heathens in the time of Christ should shew unto their Idols saith that they shall cast them to the Moles and to the Batts could a Christian cast his God unto the Worms or lodge him with a stinking Carcase and not be deemed to contemn him in a viler manner Sixthly We read that o Vituli pulverem quem adoraverat Israel in contemptum superstitionis in potum accepit populus ut discat contemnere quod in secessum projici viderat Hieron ad Fab. p. 20. Moses took the Calf and burnt it with fire and ground it to powder and strewed it upon the Water and made the Children of Israel drink of it Isa 1.2 v. 20. Exod. 32. v. 20. The ancient Fathers tell us this was done to teach them to contemn what they saw consumed and go down into the draught whereas this Romish Doctrine confutes both Moses and the Fathers and lets us know that what we devour may be God that that which p Si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur ille cibus qui Sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque observationem juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur Orig. in Mat. 15. p 17. Origen assures us goes down into the draught is that which also ruleth in the Heavens Seventhly Let it be considered that if the primitive Church had ever practised this Adoration of the Host the Heathens would sure have retorted all those Arguments upon their heads by which they did reprove the Heathens for their Idol-worship for the Christians upbraided them with Worshipping the works of their own hands to which themselves gave what figure they pleased and then by certain forms did Consecrate them and made by invocation as they supposed a Divinity to dwell there They objected to them that they Worshipped that which could neither hear nor see Just Martyr Apol. 2. nor smell nor tast nor move and in particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things having not the shape of God they upbraided them with Worshipping what they had baked in the Furnace and that which could grow old and perish that could be broken and burned that was subject to the injuries of Ratts and Mice and Worms and creeping things that can be taken by Enemies and carried away that is not able either to revenge or help it self Is it not the extremity of madness saith St. b Tom. 5. p. 51. 7. Chrysostom to think men do not say or do what 's filthy when they go about to bring their Gods into the Images of Stone or Wood and there to shut them up as in a Prison Dost thou not see saith c Recognit l. 5. f. 30. Clement That that which thou Adorest cannot see dost thou not hear that it cannot understand Your Gods are baked in the Potters Furnace saith d Arnob. l. 6. p. 200. Fornacibus incocta f gulinis Arnobius and wrought into those forms in which you see them As for your Gods they may be burnt or broken or perish saith Lactantius for they are often broken by the fall of Houses and often are consumed by fire what madness therefore is it to fear that whose Ruine Theft or Incension may be rather feared what vanity to hope for help from them who are not able to defend themselves what perverseness is it to fly unto their aid who being injured are umevenged unless revenged by their Worshippers How great stupidity is it not to see it is a wickedness to think or say that men are keepers of the Gods Apâ—l p. 4â— So e l. 2. c. 4. Justin M 'T is a shame to to Worship those whom thou defendest and to hope for succour from them whom thou thy self preservest saith St. f Ad Lenâ—etr p. 239. Cyprian These arguments are frequent in the mouths of Ancient Father and had the Church then thought and practiced as they have done at Rome in these last Ages might not the Heathens have replyed why may not we as well as you do not you Worship that with Divine Honours and call it your God which can be barnt and broken which your selves form into a round or square figure which the Oven first hardens and then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God which can see no more then the Silver and Gold upon our Images Do not you adore that which Rats and Mice eat which can grow Mouldy and Sowre which you keep under Locks and Barrs for fear your God should be frollen True it is that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our Gods with us But doth not your Roman Ritual command the Priest that undertakes a long and dangerous journey p. 72. to put his God up into a bag and hang that bag about his Neck that so he may be carried with him Let me then answer you in the words of your Arnobius Contra Gentes l 2 how impudent and shameless is it to reprehend that in another which you do your selves And whereas some reply Sect. 5. that Christians hid this practice from the Heathens the vanity of this exception will be evident from this consideration That many who embraced the Christian Doctrin were by the heat of persecution driven back to Paganism who therefore were concerned to save their credit by divulging what they thought lyable to most exception in the Christian practice But this exception is so abundantly confuted by Monsieur Daille De culius objecto l. 2 c. 25. p 31 that it is needless any further to consider it To conclude therefore the Synod of Constantinople held A. D. 754. and consisting of the flower of the Eastern Church determins thus a Syn â— Act 6.7 â— p. 756. Concil T. 5. That Christ commanded an Image ex ellent matter or the substance of Bread to be offered not having humane shape least Idolatry should be
introduced Now who knows not that the substance of Bread is not a proper object of Latria and it that Christ God-man was properly contained in the Sacrament there could be no suspition of Idolatry in the adoration of it What I have thus discoursed I judge sufficient to convince the Reader that this was not the practice of the Ancient Church What T. G. offers to the contrary is §. 6. that St. Basil saith the words of invocation when the Eucharistical Bread was shewed T G. p. 222 223. are Apostoliâ—al Tradition Ergo the Host was worshiped with Latria St. Austins Mother assisted at the Altar from whence she knew the Holy Victim was disp aced Ergo the Host was Worshiped with Latria Optatus calls the Altar the Seat of the Body of our Lord. Ergo the Host was Worshiped with â—atria He might have added that Protestant do call the Sacrament the Blood and Body of our Lord they do uncover and shew it to the people they therefore do adore it with Latria These are the wretched Sophisms by which this universal practice is confirmed and they prove only this That the abettors of them do not renounce their sence and reason only when they do believe this Doctrine but also when they discourse on this unhappy Subject Thus when T. G. proceeds to tell us p. 224. That the practice of the Church was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist that the Heathens because they knew that the Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries objected to them that they Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus Nothing is so notorious as is the weakness of this Inference For if this argument be valid the Heathens thought that Christians Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries therefore all Christians Worshiped what seemed to be Bread and Wine this must be also valid the Heathens thought that the Jews did Worship Saturn because they met on Saturday August conâ—a Faust Mamich l. 20. c. 13. as the same Austin in the same place informs us therefore all Jews Worshiped Saturday 2. St. Austin saith and he himself confesseth that the Heathens thus conceived not because they Worshiped the likeness of Bread and Wine but because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries the bare use therefore not the Worship of these things was that which gave the rise to this absurd imagination as St. Austin deems it Like to this stuff is that of Chrysestom viz. That the whole order of heavenly Powers lift up their voice T G. p. 224. and the place round about the Altar is filled in honour of him that lyeth upon it And that of Nazianzen p. 222. affirming That Gorgonia went with Faith to the Altar and with a loud voice besought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him that was honoured upon it For who knows not that Christ is honoured at the Holy Table when by the invocation of his Holy name the Sacrament of his true Body and Blood is Consecrated and to his Glory is distributed to all the Faithfull who knows not that the honour done to that which represents and is the true memorial of our Blessed Lord is Honour done to him And therefore these expressions only signifie that Holy Angels and Good Christians do honour the memorials of Christs Body and this we Protestants do as truly but more safely then the Church of Rome witness the preparations made before we do receive them and the Reverence we use when we receive them and witness lastly our confession Eucharistiam ut signum utile divinitus institutum venerandam confitemur saith Albertinus And that Nazianzen could intend no more is clear from what he doth immediately subjoyn viz. In Epitaph Gorgon p. 187 That if his Sister could lay hold of any of the Antitypes of our Lords Blood and Body she presently bedewed them with her Tears What therefore lay upon the Altar was only the Antitype of Christs true Body This also was the mind of Chrysostom for he declares Epistol ad Caefar Monach. That before the Bread is Sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace Sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is sâ—eâ—d from the name of Bread and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remaineth in it To the words of Chrysostom p. 224. cited from Hom. 24. in Epist ad Corinth I answer That Chrysostom doth here exhort us to Worship Christs Body which we do he also saith we see this Body on the Altar Nay elsewhere he adds * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ— Pop. Antâ—oc Hom. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. Hom. 24 Vide Albert l. 2. at Sacr. Euch. p. 535 536. we see it slain and jugulated d In Mat. Hom. 82. And when the Hereticks do ask whence it is evident that Christ was Crucified we stop their mouths saith he by the consideration of these Mysteries for if Christ be not â—ead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what do these Symbols mean Christs Body therefore is seen upon the Altar not as to its substance for there according to the Roman Doctors its being is invisible but as to that Sacrament which represents his Body this then must be the mind of Chrysostom that Body which is really in Heaven and in the Altar is seen slain and jugulated in effigie do you adore Hitherto we have complained only of the want of reason in the citations following we have just reason to suspect his want of Conscience For with what Conscience could he offer this passage of f Theodoret in confirmation of this practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 2 p. 84.85 viz. The mystical symbols * Those words T. G. leaves out do not receed from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and from and may be seen and touched as they were before but they are understood to be what they are made and are believed and adored as being the things they are believed for can that be a Demonstration of this practise which is a most convincing demonstration that the supposition upon which the Romanist doth build this practise is absurd and false And that the Adoration of the Host would be the Adoration of what continues Bâ—ead as certainly as the humanity of Christ continues to retain its nature and its proper substance had not T. G. sufficient reason to leave our these words which are so clear a Condemnation of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently of the Adoration of the Host that their great Doctors are even forced to say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substance Theodoret doth understand no substance out only accidents which are the opposite to substance And that by substance and nature he meaneth form and figure though in this very place he makes a clear distinction of substance both from form and figure and consequently that he grants unto the Heretick that
guilty of idolatry it being the most clear and most unquestionable truth that the most excellent Creature is not God 2. Whatever doth import and signifie the honour due to the Ceator doth also signifie that excellency which is only due unto him We cannot then perform that act of honour which imports this excellency to the best of Creatures but we must honour it as our Creator nor can we honour it as our Creator but we must worship it as God and by so ding we must be guilty of what the Romanists confess to by paying honor to a Creature But we can pay no greater honor to the most excellent of Creatures than by ascribing to it that honor which is due to God alone and therefore by ascribing of that honor to it we must be guilty of idolatry 4. By giving of that honor to God which doth import that excellence and perfection which agrees to God alone we exercise that act of Worship which we call Latria for since Dulia doth import only the worship proper to the Creature it cannot signifie that worship which is due to him whose dignity is infinitely greater than what the best of Creatures doth enjoy if then we exercise that act of worship to the Creature we give Latria to it and in the judgment of our most rigid Adversaries to give Latria to a Creature is to be guilty of Idolatry To know the secrets of the hearts of persons praying Prop. 2. §. 2. is a divine and uncommunicated excellency This is apparent 1. from express Scripture testimony 1 Kings 8.39 2 Chron. 6.29 30. What prayer or what supplication soever shall be made by any man or by all thy people Israel when every one shall know his own sore and his own grief and shall spread forth his hands in this house hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place and forgive and render unto every man according to all his wayes whose heart thou knowest for thou even thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men where first observe That there it is asserted as a thing proper to God not only that he knows the hearts of all men collectively taken but distributively i. e. that he alone doth know the heart of any man for this is given as a reason why when supplications are made by any man God should render to him according to his wayes because he only knows his heart i. e. he only knows the heart of any single person 2. Observe this knowledge of the heart is thus appropriated to God in reference to whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man Whence we infer that whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man God only knows the heart and the conceptions of the Supplicant and therefore that this knowledge is not communicated to Saints or Angels 3. Observe that to affirm this knowledge is ascribed to God alone because he only hath this knowledge from the perfection of his nature whereas it is communicated to the Saints and Angels only by way of revelation or by the vision of that God who knoweth all things Is 1. without all ground to limit what is universally pronounced in the case of prayer 2. It we admit this limitation to say God only knows the secret of the heart of him that prayeth hath no more of truth than if I should assert God only hath a being he only acts he only knows that Christ is come into the world because he only acts and hath his being from himself our beings and our power of action is derived from him and by his revelation only we do know that Christ is come into the world 3. We may on like accounts assert That even when the general hath paid his Souldiers he alone hath money because what money and of his Souldiers have was given by him and that the Master only of the School of Westminster knows Greek and Latine because his Scholars have derived that knowledge from him 4. If we admit of such a limitation then the exclusive term will not refer to what is spoken but to that which is not mentioned not to the predicate viz. the knowledge of the hearts of men which is expressed but only to the manner of that knowledge of which the Text is wholly silent Now this inter pretation gives such a forced and strained sense as in a matter of this nature ought not to be admitted without the greatest evidence Whereas the sence we plead for is the most plain and natural import of the words For it is natural to conceive the sense of this expression should be this thou and no other knowest the hearts of men whereas if we do paraphrase it thus that many myriads of Saints and Aâ—gels have this knowledge of the heart but thou alone dost naturally know what they receive from revelation this Proposition taken as it is expresed viz. God only knows the hearts of men will be both absolutely false and uncouth and what is contradictory to it viz. God only doth not know the hearts of them that pray will be absolutely true 2. If such a knowledge of the heart was not an uncommunicated excellency if it was only that which did agree to many thousands of blessed Saints and Angels then could it be no proof of the divinity of Christ and of the holy Spirit for what is answered to the Protestant by those who do ascribe this knowledge to the Saints in glory might be with equal probability alledged to baffle and evade this evidence of Christs divinity which is so often and so triumphantly suggested by the holy Fathers And hence it is confessed by the great (f) Quod argumentum nullum esset omnino si non Dei proprium id foret cogitationes intimas corda cognoscere Theol. dogm Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 7. p. 39. §. 3. Petavius that if this knowledge were not proper to God their argument would certainly be weak and groundless And yet the Fathers in his Argument are so exceeding full and copious that it were endless to collect what they deliver Our Lord saith (g) in Lucam l. 5. c. 3. Ambrose demonstrateth himself to be God by knowing of the secrets of the heart Take saith (h) Serm. 50. Chrysologus these indications of our Lords divinity hear how he penetrates the secret of thy heart see how he dives into thy hidden thoughts See saith St. (i) p. 2. Com. in Joh. p. 144. Cyril how he is that God who is the (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alex. Com. in Joh. l. 2. p. 133. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. p. 144. searcher of all hearts For to none other is it given to know the mind of man as is apparent from that passage of the Psalmist God is the searcher of the heart and reins for there the Psalmist mentions it as a peculiar thing which only doth agree to the Divine nature and to nothing else if it be proper unto God