from that Bread as they are by Romanists from that Cup unless they have a special Licence from the Church But concerning the judgment and practice of Primitive times we shall say more by and by I might add more instances but these may suffice to make good my first Assertion that the present Roman Faith or Religion is not grounded on the holy Scriptures Assert 2 The sence of Antiquity concerning the Points in Dispute The second thing I am oblig'd to shew is That the Points above-mention'd are no parts of the true antient Catholick Faith or were so esteem'd by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ but rather condemn'd and rejected by them Art. 1 Concerning the seven Sacraments I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments The antient Fathers when they treat of the Sacraments of the Church in the strict and proper sense of the word for it is equivocal mention two onely V. Augustin de Symbolo Ambros de Sacram. Card. Richelieu hence grants there are properly but two Examen Pacific Epist 118. ad Januar. V. Ambros de Sacram. Incarnation V. Cyprian de ablution pedùm Aug. de bono Conjug 1.18 lib. 1. cont Faust c. 14. Bernard de coena Domini viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These Justin Martyr in the end of his 2d Apology where he describeth the publick service of the Church on the Lord's days takes notice of and none of the other five Chrysostom Cyril and Theophylact on John 19. As also Ambrose Austin and Damascen write that the Water and Bloud that came out of our Saviours side signify'd the Sacraments of the Church viz. the Water Baptism and the Bloud the Eucharist Irenaeus no where mentions any more Sacraments than these two Saint Austin saith Christ hath left us a very few Sacraments numero paucissima Baptism and the Eucharist 'T is true The Fathers sometimes term Confirmation Orders c. Sacraments but then they use the word in a more large sense as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity Incarnation c. Sacraments i. e. Mysteries Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet the sign of the Cross yea Polygamy are sometimes honour'd by Cyprian Augustin Bernard with the name of Sacraments i. e. sacred or mystical Signs In which sense there may be not onely seven but seventeen Sacraments But to avoid falling into a Logomachia or strife about words it is agreed as Bellarmin himself grants that the essential note of a proper Sacrament is to communicate justifying Grace De Sacram l. 1. c. 11. Costerus Enchir p. 340. Peter Lombard and Durandus say Matrimony confers not Grace See Cassandr Art 14. Do holy Orders communicate justifying Grace or Matrimony either If the latter I wonder why they should prohibit it the Clergy If the former surely there would not be found sons of Eli or Belial in their Church who know not the Lord. But enough of this at present Art. 2 Concerning Transubstant Secondly The Ancient Fathers did not believe or teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Alphonsus de Castro de Haeres lib. 8. saith the same It was first taught by Paschasius anno 818. See Bellarmin de Script i.e. that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine cease to be and are turn'd into the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he now hath being at the right hand of God. * Ad Philadelphin Ignatius saith that in the holy Eucharist one and the same Bread is administred to all Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration and saith our flesh and bloud are nourished by them In Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 12. Bellar. min lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. ad finem V. Bonavent l. 4. Sent. Dist 12. art 3. qu. 1. I adjoin But mere Accidents cannot nourish our bodies Therefore the true substance of Bread and Wine still remain Our Adversaries dare not affirm that our bodies are nourish'd by some substance He addeth a little after that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be receiv'd at their own Houses Irenaeus declareth that the Eucharist consists of two things one terrestrial viz. the Elements of Bread and Wine the other Celestial viz. Christ's Body and Bloud Iren. Lib. 4. adv Haer. c. 34. Ex duabus rebus constat terrena caelesti Clemens Alex. Paed. l. 1. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man in a symbolical or figurative sense and disputing against the Encratites who condemn'd all use of Wine he confutes them from the Example of our Saviour who drank in the holy Eucharist of the fruit of the Vine An evident proof that Clemens did not believe any transubstantiation of the substance of the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ Tertullian disputing against Marcion who held that Christ had not a real but phantastick body onely as Romanists speak of the Sacramental Elements which seem only to be what in truth they are not draws an argument from the Eucharist saying A figure of a Body argues a true Body in another place Christ represented by Bread his Body But Christ taking Bread made it his Body In Marcion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane Ad Marcion lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum hoc est figura corporis mei V. lib. 3. in Marcion c. 19. corporis sui figuram pani dedisse saying This is my Body i.e. the figure of my Body So Tertullian understood it Marcion might easily have retorted this Argument if the substance of Bread remained not in the Sacrament by saying As the Bread in the Sacrament seems to be Bread but is not truly and really so in like manner Christ's body appear'd to to be a true humane Body but was not really what it seem'd Origen in his third Dialogue against Marcion uses the same argument V. Hom. 9. Si secundum literam sequaris occidit haec litera Hom. 7. In cap. 17. Matth. Juxta id quod habet materiale Haec de Typico Symbolicoque corpore and in his seventh Homily on Levit. he saith In the Gospel there is the Letter which killeth him who understandeth not spiritually If according to the letter you take those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Occidet haec litera this letter or literal sense will kill ye And in another place he is not affraid to affirm that the consecrated Elements according to what is material in them go into the belly and so into the draught which it were horrid blasphemy to affirm of Christs natural Body But he ascribes it to his sacramental typical or symbolical Body as he there calls it Cyprian disputing against
shed I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation Our Adversaries answer That they did eat the very same body which they did see but not codem modo not in a mortal visible but in an invisible immortal and impassible manner Which Answer signifies nothing For altho not in the same manner yet they grant the very same body was really and substantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table and that not in a spiritual and Sacramental but in a corporal carnal and substantial sense which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith Ye shall not eat the body ye see c. Again I would gladly be resolv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal If as mortal and passible then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner as it was there present and seen by them if as immortal how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension I will onely add that I be not too tedious his words in his Epistle to Boniface If Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments Ex hac similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Compare Quaest in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scriptum est septem spicae septem anni sunt Non enim dixit septem annos significant they would be no Sacraments From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent As then secundùm quendam modum after some manner the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident that the present Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not but refuted and condemn'd it I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers that Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body flesh and bloud of Christ yea as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare That they are changed De coena Domini De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies yet in Nature that they remain what they were and are changed into another thing To all which in brief I answer That we question not the truth of him that said This is my Body We unfeignedly grant it is so secundum quendam modum as Augustin above Epist 23. in a true and sacramental tho not literal and proper sense We undoubtedly believe on Saint Paul's infallible Authority that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ he saith not as Saint Augustin somewhere observes it signify'd Christ but it was Christ yet no man is so simple as to understand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense Furthermore Petra erat Christus Non dixit Petra significat Christum c. Quaestiones in Levitic l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew yet in Nature taking the word Nature in a general sense as when we say a man becoming more kind and civil he is grown better natur'd In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sacrament wherein we have Communion with or real tho spitual communication of the body and bloud of Christ In like manner we subscribe to that of Ambrose That they remain what they are i.e. as to substance which directly overthrows Transubstantiation and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality When in and by the Resurrection a natural mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one we all grant the nature of it is changed yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil Ephes That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us But this is impertinently alledg'd for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants and to them onely who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh In a word As the Fathers say Christ's Body is in us V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin Tract 1. in Epist Joann Sicut Christus in nobis hic ita nos ibi in illo sumus so that our bodies are in him not onely by Faith and Charity but in very deed And if it be so that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's substance why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his Lastly They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Populum Antiochen Hom. 45. in Joann Hom. 24. in 1. Epist ad Corinth Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament we see touch and eat Christ's body that our tongues are made red with his bloud even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament viz. his body to be broken with our teeth Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Think it not In like manner Cyril of Jerus Mystag But such Hyperbolical expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken as our Adversaries well know in a strict literal and dogmatical sense No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold that Christ's body is corporally pressed pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there incruentè in an unbloudy manner insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation tho drawn up by the Pope viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth must be cautiously understood not of Christ's Body but of the outward Species or Elements onely Autor Glossae in Decret lest we fall into a worse Errour than that he retracted Secondly I answer That the Fathers use the like Rhetocal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism
unmeasurable rage of ungodly persecutors yea so obscur'd that the members thereof shall not know one another This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Austins days is just like theirs who would persuade us that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholick and Apostolick Church because St. Paul 1600 years ago saith their Faith was commended throughout the World Rom. 1. ver 8. so was their Obedience also Rom. 16.19 But doth the Apostle say they should continue in that Faith more than Obedience unto the end of the World or that their Church alone should never corrupt the Faith or apostatize in any degree from it Tim. 4.1 He seemeth to say otherwise when he thus writeth to the Roman Church Rom. 8.18 19 20 21 22. Boast not against the branches thou bearest not the root but the root thee Because of unbelief they i. e. the Jewish Church were broken off and thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but fear for if God spar'd not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee And as to Christian Obedience De Pontif. in lib. 1. in Praefat. Genebrard Chronol lib. 4. seculo 10. Baronius in Ann. 912. num 8. in ann 985. num 1. it 's granted by Bellarmin Genebrard and others that some Popes have been so scandalously wicked that they were rather Apostatical than Apostolical and scarcely deserved to have their names register'd in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as professed the Protestant Religion before the Reformation As for the second Question wherein satisfaction is desir'd to answer Roman Catholicks when they demand the names of some Professors of the Protestant Religion before the Reformation it being to them strange that if Protestancy be from the Apostles and hath been in all Ages they can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since To this I reply first That altho the Apostles were not call'd by the name of Protestants as neither were they by the name of Catholicks or Papists yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learn'd the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckon'd up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation That there are seven Sacraments properly so call'd Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Angels Worshiping Images and Reliques Indulgences the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass Communion in one kind c. All which are either not mention'd in the Apostles Writings or contradicted and condemn'd by them Secondly I answer That the Ancient Fathers and Councils for 4 or 500 years at least I might say more after Christ were not in the points above-mention'd of Pope Pius his Faith but either say nothing of them or testifie against them or at least speak doubtfully of them whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant not Popish Religion This I shall shew from their Writings Yea thirdly That some of the New Articles of Faith before named cannot be prov'd to be any part of the ancient Catholick belief by the Authority of any eminent Writers for above 1000 years after Christ particularly in the points of seven Sacraments Purgatory Indulgences Communion in one kind and some others Lastly That there is scarcely any point especially of them before rehears'd condemn'd by us in the present Roman Church but we are able to produce multitudes of eminent Writers and some of their own Communion who complain of them or protest against them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther To perform my promise I shall now prove 1. Assertion First That the Articles of the present Roman-Catholick Faith recited by Pope Pius and added by him to the Nicene Creed are either not mention'd at all in the Apostles Writings or refuted and condemn'd by them Seven Sacraments not taught by the Apostles First For their seven Sacraments The Apostles no where teach us to acknowledge seven Sacraments or that Matrimony Orders Extream Unction Confirmation Confession are such and as Bellarmin affirms Nec plura nec pauciora De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost Ambros Austin c. only such Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own flowing as the antient Fathers speak out of Christ's side whence came forth Water and Bloud which are answerable to the two only Jewish Sacraments Circumcision and the Passover as we read 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. More we find not It 's true St. Paul discoursing of the Conjugal Union betwixt Christ and his Church termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 5.32 a great Mystery The vulgar Latine translation renders it ambiguously and improperly magnum Sacramentum a great Sacrament Hence the Romish Church will needs have Matrimonv instituted by God in Paradise to be a proper Christian Sacrament but St. Paul declareth he meant no such matter In locum for as Cardinal Cajetan observes he immediately addeth But I speak of Christ and the Church St James also mentions Anointing the sick with Oil James 5.14 but that was in order to the miraculous gift of healing the Body as we may gather from Mar. So Cajetan expoundeth that place 6.13 It had no spiritual effect on the Soul as all Sacraments properly so call'd have and must have as is granted The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God not Oil ver 15. Nor Transubst Secondly The Apostles did not teach Transubstantiation Durand Biel Scotus Cameracensis Cajetan grant it canbe not evidently proved from the Scripture See below Matth. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Card. Contarenus de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Canus loc Theol. l. 3. c 3. Fisher cont Luther c. 10. say the same 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Verse 29. The Church is called Christs Body is it therefore his Natural Body in a literal sense 1 Cor. 10. John 15.1 Did Christ eat his own Body when the Sacrament was administred and taken by him So Chrysostom Hom 40 in Jean 3. or that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are annihilated or turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood Yea St. Paul expresly declares the contrary for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration The Bread that we break but Christ first blessed and afterwards brake it is it not the communion of the Body of Christ The Cup of Blessing we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ So that Bread and the Cup i. e. by a Figure or Metonymy as all must grant the Wine in the Cup remain in the Communion as means whereby we obtain the communion of Christ's Body and
13. Epist 39. Lib. 7. Epist 30. ad Eulogium he rejects the name given to himself this name of Singularity or consented to use it as Popes now do And who is he who contrary to the Gospel and the Decrees of the Canons presumeth to take upon him this foolish and proud Name Did ever any Protestant inveigh more bitterly against the Popes Universal Episcopacy I would gladly know whether both parts of a contradiction can be true Whether the antient or modern Roman Bishops or both be infallible Do not the modern Popes assume and earnestly contend for this foolish proud and Antichristian Name And lest we should imagine that Pope Gregory condemn'd this Name in other Patriarchs only not as to himself he addeth in the before-mentioned Epistle to Mauritius the Emperour Gracious Lord Nunquid hac in re propriam causam defendo c. Do I in this speak for my self or plead my own cause and not rather the cause of the whole Church Where note he acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his Lord and to whose judgment he is willing to refer the whole cause Did Pope Gregory make the Emperour supreme Judge in an Article of Faith Let Papists judge Notwithstanding all this zeal his successor Boniface soon after Ann. 607. as Sigebert Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus and other Historians testifie Epist 32. ad Maurit lib. 2. Epist 61. ad Maur. Beda de aetate Anastas vita Bonifacii 3. Ad. Chron. l. 1. In Praefat. Reipub. Eccl. by the favour of that execrable Regicide Phocas obtained this proud foolish and prophane Title and the present Pope not onely owneth the Name but contrary to the judgment of his Predecessors who are supposed to have been infallible executeth an Universal jurisdiction over all Princes Bishops Churches as far as he is able to the diminution yea almost abrogation of their due Rights Priviledges and Authority as Marcus Antonius de Dominis Arch-bishop of Spalato justly complained So much for the Popes Supremacy Art. 7 Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass The next Article is the proper and real Sacrificing Christ his very Body and Bloud in the Mass by the Priest as a Propitiation for the sins both of quick and dead This Error in all probability arose from want of a discreet understanding of some Rhetorical or Hyperbolical expressions used by the Antient Fathers in their popular Sermons and Discourses concerning the Sacrament of Christ's death and Passion Christus in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc Mysterio moritur Greg. M. de Concil Dist 2. Quid sit But that it was no part of their Faith to believe that Christ is really and properly sacrificed in the Mass we shall evidently prove out of their own Writings I shall begin with Justin Martyr Apol. ad Antonin who discoursing of the Holy Eucharist sheweth how the Christians then used to offer Bread and Wine to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minister who receiving them offereth up to God not Christ himself but Glory Thanks and Praise for those his gifts i. e. Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mal. 1.11 which relates to all Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Wine which after the Ministers Prayers and Thanksgivings are distributed to every one that is present Where note First They termed Bread and Wine after the Ministers Prayers or Consecration Secondly Both Bread and Wine were given to all present not Bread onely much less neither one nor the other as in Private Masses But of sacrificing or offering up Christ himself to God he hath not a word in that place The same Father in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew P. 201. treateth at large concerning the abrogation of the Jewish Sacrifices and coming to mention the Christian Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Dialog pag. 270. which Malachy foretold should be offered up to God by the Gentiles in every place he interprets it as Tertullian Eusebius and the rest of the Fathers do of Prayers and Praises Which saith he I account the onely perfect sacrifices pleasing to God. Which Spiritual Sacrifices a little after he opposeth to all the Sacrifices Offerings and Oblations of the Law. Surely had Saint Justin believed that in the Eucharist Christ himself his Body and Bloud were by the Priest really and properly sacrificed to God he would no doubt have made mention of this Christian Sacrifice far exceeding in virtue and value no onely all Jewish Offerings but the Prayers and Thanksgivings of all Christians at least he would never have affirmed that the latter were in his opinion the onely perfect Sacrifices under the Gospel pleasing to God. But he is altogether silent as to any such Sacrifice yea contrarily in that very place he addeth That these onely Sacrifices to wit Prayers and Praises Christians have learned to make and that in or at the commemoration or remembrance of their alimony both wet and dry i. e. the Eucharistical Bread and Wine in which they remember the Passion of Christ Where it is remarkable that Justin Martyr instead of proper sacrificing of Christ in the Holy Eucharist mentions onely the Commemoration or Memorial of his Passion and that the Prayers and Thanksgivings attending it for it 's called the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the onely Sacrifices Christians had learned in that most solemn Office of Religion to offer up to God. So much for Justin I pass on to St. Irenaeus who acknowledgeth that Christ teaching his Disciples to offer to God First-fruits of his Creatures Lib. 4. c. 32.32 34. lest they should seem ungrateful took that Bread which is of the creature or Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possibly was the word and gave thanks and said This is my Body In like manner the Cup of Wine which is of the creature i. e. the Vine confessing it to be his Bloud and taught the Oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the World to him who granteth to us the First-fruits of his Gifts in the New Testament Here we find an Oblation but not a Sacrifice which two De Missa l. 1. c 2. as Bellarmine observeth are different things much less a sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud Irenaeus plainly sheweth what kind of Oblation he meant when he declareth it to be not of Christ the Creator but of Gods creatures to wit Bread and Wine which the Church offers to God. De Euchar. lib 10. c. 27. V. Litur Chrysost Bellarmine grants this First as an expression of honour love and gratitude to him for his creatures bountifully bestowed on us for our sustenance Secondly That out of a part of them to wit Bread and Wine set on Gods Table or Altar by the prayers of the Priest they might become sacramentally and mystically his Body and Bloud Thirdly That out of the remains the poor might be relieved These Oblations Saint Cyprian after him calleth in an improper
Cap 19. Passio Domini in qua tingimur Mystag 4. In Sacramentis non quid sint sed quid ostendant attenditur quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Aug. cont Max. l. 3. c. 22. Ne quis attendat in eis quod sunt c. de Doctr. Christ c. 7. Hom. 16. in Sacram. Euchar. Tom. 6. wherein neither we nor our Adversaries admit of any Transubstantiation Thus Tertullian in his Book of Baptism saith that thereby we are dyed in the passion or bloud of our Lord. In like manner Cyril of Hierusalem after he had instructed Christians not to look upon the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament as mere Bread and Wine whatever sense suggesteth but as the body and bloud of Christ affirmeth the same of the Water in Baptism that it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere or bare Water and the same he saith of the Oil in Chrism though neither of them are substantially chang'd into the very bloud of Christ Many more instances might be added but these may suffice I will onely take notice of a Similitude used by St. Chrysostom in which Bellarmin triumphs 'T is this As saith he Wax set on fire loseth its substance being turn'd into fire so by consecration the substance of the bread is chang'd into the flesh of Christ To which and the like expressions quoted out of the Fathers In Epiphanium pag. 244. pag. 288. I shall answer in the words of Petavius the Jesuit There are many things saith he in the Holy Fathers especially in Chrysostom scatter'd here and there in their Homilies which if you would reduce to the rule of exact Truth they will seem altogether void of good sense Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Biblioth Annotat 152. Another of their own Church ingenuously aknowledgeth that Preachers such as the Fathers were in their Homilies and popular Discourses often speak things by an Hyperbole being carried away affectuum impetu orationis cursu with the heat of their affections which often saith he befell Chrysostom Yea Rhetoricati sumus ali quid declamationibus dedimus Saint Hierom confesses of himself We have play'd the Rhetoricians in a Declamatory way To close this Similitudes are the weakest kind of Arguments Neither may our Adversaries in prudence urge this similitude of fired Wax too vehemently against us If so they must necessarily grant that not onely the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament ceaseth to be but the very outward accidents also For when Wax is fired not onely the substance but the very accidents are disserent from what they were before And so much at present for Transubstantiation I pass to the next Article Purgatory 3. Art. Concerning Purgatory The Antient Fathers for five hundred years after Christ did not hold the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory as an Article of Faith yea some of them expresly contradict it I will begin with the Greek Fathers Clemens Romanus and Ignatius in their genuine Writings take no notice at all of it Justin Martyr denies it We believe saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ☜ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man after his departure hence goeth according to his works either into everlasting punishment or life And immediately addeth Men would avoid sin if they consider'd that they must go without Repentance into eternal punishment by fire But of enduring temporal punishment for sin by fire not a word is to be found in all his Writings Quest 75. Amongst the Questions and Answers which are printed with his Works it is thus resolved After the departure of Souls out of their Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently they are by Angels carried to places fit for them the Souls of the just to Paradise of the unjust to Hell in which places they are kept until the Resurrection Here no notice is taken of Purgatory or any middle or third place out of which Souls may be deliver'd by Prayers Masses Indulgences c. It 's true this Writer is much younger than Justin Martyr but it maketh the more against our Adversaries for it sheweth that long after his death this Article of Roman Faith was not Catholick or universally received In Irenaeus as Erasmus also hath observ'd who was very well seen in his Writings there is no mention of Purgatory but in the close of his last Book there is somewhat contradicting it for without any distinction of Persons or sins mortal or venial he declares his opinion that the Souls of all Christ's Disciples go to one invisible place Origen Hom. 18. in Jeremiam pag. 163. edit Huet Dum hic sumus remedium non postea Vita Constant lib. 4.63 hades there remaining till the Resurrection as Tertullian Origen Lactanctius Ambrose and other of the Fathers held which is inconsistent with Purgatory as invocation of dead Saints also and contradicted by the Romanists Eusebius Caesariensis hath written several Volumes in all which as Scultetus hath noted there is not the least mention of Purgatory It 's true he relates how the people pray'd for the Soul of Constantine But Constantine as he assures us in the next Chapter went not to Purgatory but was taken up to his God and joined his divine part his Soul to God yea a little before his death he himself as Eusebius reports used these words Now I know my self to be happy to be now accounted worthy of eternal life Prayer then for the dead doth not necessarily infer Purgatory De Praep. Evang. lib. 11. c. 20. lib. 13. I grant he reporteth Plato's opinion concerning purgation of a middle sort of men by temporal punishments after death But adds that Plato through ignorance of the Scripture erred in many things I pass to Athanasius in all whose Writings tho many and large I can find no mention of this Article of Faith Purgatory and am the more confirm'd it cannot be found in regard Bellarmin quotes nothing out of him or Eusebius against us Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration in Caesarium Oratio 10. delivers himself thus I am mov'd by the sayings of the Wise that every Soul that is belov'd of God as the Souls sent by Romanists to Purgatory are acknowledg'd to be presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the loosing from the body and departure hence that which darkned the mind being either purged or cast from it or done away in what sort I cannot well express whence it's evident he believed not they were purged by fire as Romanists peremptorily affirm beginneth sensibly to discern that good which remaineth for it to be filled with wonderful delight and to leap for joy But this wonderful delight and joy cannot consist with Purgatory torments or the fear of them Nazianzen then was no Papist in this point On those words Orat. de Paschate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye shall carry out nothing until the morning c. He saith Beyond or after this night i. e. after death there
sense Sacrifices In Dominicum sine sacrificio venis Dost thou come Serm. de Eleemosyna V. Canonem Missae and D. Field in Append p. 212. speaking to a rich Widow to Church without a Sacrifice i. e. Oblation These Oblations of Bread and Wine offered up to God in a way of grateful acknowledgment of his mercies out of which the sacramental Elements were of old taken are the Oblation of the New Testament taught by Christ and observed by the Primitive Christians That this was his true sense and meaning appeareth plainly from the next Chapter Cap. 33. where having quoted the Prophecy of Malachy concerning the pure Incense and Offering of the Gentiles a place urged by our Adversaries for their Mass-Sacrifice Sacrifice he expounds it according to Revel 8.3 Cap. 34. of the Prayers of Saints and in the next Chapter discoursing of this Oblation which our Saviour taught to be offered in all places throughout the World which is accounted by God a pure Sacrifice he applieth to it those words If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar c. Matth. 5. which Gift was never understood by any of Christs Body and Bloud which according to our Romanists own Doctrine none but Priests not private Christians offer at Gods Altar To this he subjoineth the words of God by Moses Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty i.e. without an Oblation For gifts saith he Cap. 34. testifie love and honour of the Person to whom they are presented Then he addeth In regard the Church offereth with Simplicity her Oblation is justly accounted by God a pure Sacrifice as Saint Paul writeth to the Philippians of their Oblations i.e. Psal 4.18 Alms sent to him terming them an Offering pleasing to God For it becometh us saith Irenaeus to make an Oblation to God and in all things to be found grateful unto the Creator offering primitias creaturarum ejus not his Son but the first-fruits of his Creatures The Synagogue of the Jews offereth not thus ☜ in regard they have not received the word Christ by whom it is to be offered to God in which respect it is termed a New Oblation of the Church However then our Adversaries boast much of Irenaeus as owning their Sacrifice of the Mass it is evident to any who will weigh the whole Context of his Discourse that he saith nothing in the least of sacrificing Christ in the Sacrament but of Oblations and Alms which are still used in our Churches at the Offertory when the Eucharist is celebrated Let us now proceed to Tertullian Lib. 3. cap 22. Gloriae Relatio Benedictio Laus Hymni Lib. 4. c. 1. Simplex Oratio de Conscientia pura Purâ prece who against Marcion expounds Malachy's clean or pure Sacrifice of giving Glory Blessing and Praise to God and in another place of Simple or pure Prayer from a pure Conscience Lib. 4. in Marc. c. 1. In like manner ad Scapulam written in defence of the Christians who were accused because they did not offer up as the Gentiles any Sacrifice for the life of the Emperour He answereth We do sacrifice for the Emperour but as God hath commanded purâ prece with pure Prayer Why doth he not say which Bellarmine granteth de Missa l. 2. c. 6. might lawfully have been done we offer up for him a most perfect and venerable Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of the Son of God. V. Tertul. adv Judaeos c. 5. Strom. 7. p. 717. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It seemeth he was ignorant of this Mass Sacrifice Clemens Alexand. discoursing much about Heathenish and Jewish Sacrifices addeth We Christians honour God with our Prayers and this most excellent Sacrifice we present unto him And a little after The Sacrifice of the Christian Church is speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 breathed out from holy Souls I will add Lactantius Instit lib. 6. cap. ult Summus colendi Dei ritus c. The highest rite or office of worship to God is praise from the mouth of a righteous Man. Would he or Clemens have advanced Prayer or Praise above the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass Epist 63. had they believed it But I must not forget Saint Cyprian ad Luc. where he saith Christ offered himself to God a Sacrifice Add Cyprian de Vnctione Chrismatis In mensa Panem Vinum in cruce militibus Corpus vulnerandum tradit Vino Christi sanguis oftenditur Aqua sola Christi sanguinem non potest exprimere Cypr. Epist 17. V. Lactant. Instit p. 1. c. 1. and commanded the Eucharist to be celebrated in commemoration or remembrance of him It is the Passion of our Lord which is the Sacrifice we offer wherefore as often as we offer the Cup in remembrance of the Lord and his Passion we ought to do what he did before us Which last words confute the Romish Half-communion Surely if the Passion of Christ on the Cross be the Sacrifice we offer to God evident it is that it can be offered only by way of commemoration or remembrance for Christ suffered but once on the Cross which was performed above 1600 years ago How can that very Passion be really and properly reiterated or acted over again unless by way of representation and commemoration But if the Sacrifice of the Mass be onely a representation or commemoration of Christs Passion then it cannot be a proper Sacrifice but improper and by similitude onely as the Picture of the Passion of a Martyr is not really and properly the Passion it self I come now to Eusebius the learned Bishop of Cesarea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. de Demonstr Evang c. 10. V. Euseb de Laudib Constantini pag. 488. who teacheth us that the Sacrifice of Christ himself was prefigured by all the Jewish Sacrifices of which Christians make in the Eucharist a continual remembrance as he often repeateth it But concerning sacrificing Christ again and again by the Priest we find not a word Yea in the same place he saith That Christians offer up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the memory or memorial of Christs sacrifice on the Cross instead of a sacrifice to God which Memorial saith we celebrate signis quibusdam by certain signs to wit Bread and Wine on the Holy Table wherein we offer up to God unbloudy and rational Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incorporeal and without bloud by his most eminent High-Priest Jesus Christ i. e. Prayers and Praises He saith not We offer Jesus Christ the High-Priest but we offer up other Sacrifices by him Neither by incorporeal and unbloudy Sacrifices in the plural could he intend offering up Christs Body and Bloud for how possibly can Christs Body be incorporeal or his bloud without bloud A little after he explaineth more fully what he meaneth by those Rational Incorporeal or spiritual Sacrifices to wit the sacrifices of Prayer and Praise to which purpose he quoteth the words of David
See Bishop Vsher de success Eccl. and Albigenses who were vastly numerous and had Pastors of their own resisting Popery even unto bloud Onely I must mind our Adversaries these persons were rather fugati violently driven out of the Roman Church by Excommunications armed with Fire and Sword than fugitivi fugitives or voluntary Separatists As for their condemning them as Hereticks it signifies little or nothing for that 's the matter in question and seeing the Pope and Court of Rome as Saint Bernard Pope Adrian Bernard de Concil Adri. in legatione ad Principes Germaniae Polycrat lib. 6. cap. 24. Sarisberiensis and others acknowledge were in those days charged as the source and original cause of all disorders and abuses in the Church it 's most unreasonable their known Enemies should be admitted as their Judges in their own cause The truth is some of the Popish Writers of those days have accused Wickcliffe the Waldenses and Albigenses of such inconsisting horrid and self-contradicting Opinions Vsher de Success Eccl. that no ingenuous and impartial man can possibly believe any thing they say of them I verily think their great fault or Heresie was that they were victus populus Dei as they said conquered quelled and subdued by force of Arms not Arguments So were the Catholicks under the Heathen and Arian persecuting Emperours Certainly no prudent Christian will take Prosperity Victory outward Pomp and Power to be certain notes or perpetual properties of the true Church and right Believers nay Adversity and persecution rather as our Saviour intimates when he assures his Apostles they should be hated of all men for his Names sake and that the time would soon come when whosoever killed them should think as the Crusadoes and their Military Saint Dominic no doubt thought they did God service It 's sufficient to our present purpose that we shew some who held with us against the present Doctrine of the Papacy But here I expect their usual Objection That many of the Writers and Persons we alledg did not in all things agree with the Protestants though in some particulars they consented True no more did they in all things agree with the present Roman Church If some who believed not the Popes Supremacy the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass Merits Purgatory c. were yet Members as of the Catholick so Roman Church and were saved which I suppose no Papist will deny Why are we Protestants condemn'd as Hereticks to Hell for believing as some of their Infallible Popes and Canonized Saints have done I challenge any Papist to shew me one National or Provincial Church I might go farther in the whole World that for at least twelve hundred years after Christ did in all points believe as the Trent Council have decreed or professed that Catholick Religion which Pope Pius hath summ'd up in his Creed We may ask them Where was your Tridentine Faith and Church before Luther Was Pope Leo the Great for receiving the Communion in one kind Was Pope Gregory the Great for worshipping of Images or for that proud profane Antichristian and foolish name as he calls it of Universal Bishop Were Cyprian Saint Austin the Council of Chalcedon the Affrican Bishops for Appeals to the Bishop of Rome and subjecting all Churches to the Popes Universal jurisdiction Were these Tridentine Papists Was P. Gelasius for Transubstantiation Were they in all things agreeing with our present Roman Catholicks Who hath so hard a forehead as to affirm it or so soft a head as to believe it I shall onely add That it is no wonder if many good Men and learned did not at once see and discover in an Age wherein Ignorance and Superstition abounded all these Errours Abuses and corruptions which infected the Church of God but did in some things not altogether so gross and palpably wicked as others errare errorem seculi follow the current of the times To end I hope Sir by what hath been said you plainly perceive that those Doctrines and Practices Protestants have rejected were never any part of the true Primitive and Catholick Faith contained in the Scriptures or the Writings of the Antient Fathers and Councils Yea that in the later and as is confessed worst Ages of the Church were never received and visibly professed by all true Catholicks whether of the Grecian or Roman Communion See Brerewoods Enquiries The most and best that can be said is that at first some of them were the private Sentiments and doubtful Opinions of some Worthy Men as Invocation of Saints Purgatory c. in the fourth or fifth Century Which after many Ages by the Policy and Power of the Pope and his Party were obtruded by the Councils of Lateran Constance Florence Trent c. as Articles of Faith on this Western part of the World but not without visible opposition and open contradiction I have shewn how multitudes of learned and pious Men did complain of them and write against them and others as the Waldenses and Albigenses forced by violence and persecution separated themselves as the Orthodox Christians did under the prevalence of the Arians actually and personally from them besides others who cordially yet for fear of persecution more privately and secretly i. e. in some sense or degree invisibly renounced and detested them I shall here add that indeed this is more than we are in reason bound to shew for it was sufficient to prove the perpetual existence or visibility of the Catholick Church and to denominate the Roman a true though corrupt part or member of it V. Augustin de Baptismo contra Donatist l. 1. c. 8. 10. B. Vsher's Serm. before King James of the Unity of Faith. that she professed the fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian Creeds although she superadded as Hay and Stubble thereunto many additional or traditional Points and erroneous practices whereby consequentially the foundation of Faith was much shaken and undermined yet so as some amongst them not erring wilfully upon a general repentance might be saved yet so as by fire i. e. with much danger and difficulty However undeniable it is that many Eminent Writers and Professors in the Ages before Luther never owned them as Theological truths much less Articles of Faith but visibly openly and couragiously resisted them even unto bloud These and not the Popish domineering Party termed by some the Court rather than the Church of Rome were August Epist ad Vincent as the persecuted Catholicks under Liberius and the Arian Emperours in the strict and most proper sense the true visible Catholick Church which remained discernible though more obscurely in firmissimis suis membris as Saint Austin speaketh in these her most firm and invincible members Others who maintained promoted and tyranically imposed these Errours as points of Faith were in respect of these introduced corruptions like an impostumated Wen growing by little and little on the body of the Church or like a