lesser which the Fathers deny 29 CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Roman Church teaches us to disbelieve the Report of our Senses which tell us That Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist The Fathers urge this Evidence even with relation to Christ's true Body 31 Object The Fathers call upon us not to believe our Senses in the Case of the Eucharist Answ 1. The Fathers appeal to our Senses in this Case 39 2. They call upon Men not to regard their Information in Matters wherein none question the Truth of their Information ibid. 3. The true Reason why the Fathers call us off from listning to our Senses is to make us regard and attend to things beyond their Information 40 A Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and another of S. Chrysostome explain'd 42 CHAP. VII The Seventh Difference When the Fathers call the Eucharist Christ's Body and Blood the Roman Church understands it of Christs Natural Body but the Fathers mean it commonly of the Bread and Wine Several Observables from the Fathers to explain and prove this as 1 Obs They tell us of their studiously concealing the Mysteries from some Persons 44. 2 Obs The Fathers in their manner of speaking concerning Christ's Body point at another thing than his Natural Body 46 3 Obs They speak of Christ's Body with Terms of Restriction and Diminution 48 4 Obs They give us Reasons why it is call'd Christ's Body which none do for calling things by their Proper Names from its Resemblance and Representation 49 5 Obs What they call Christ's Body they say is without Life or Sense 51 6 Obs They speak of Divisions and Parts of it not to be affirmed of his Natural Body 52 7 Obs They speak of making Christ's Body differently from the Sense of the Roman Church 54 They affirm 1. That whatsoever is made was not before it was made 55 2. That Bread is made his Body and that it is made of Bread and Wine 55 56 They call it sometimes Mystical Bread sometimes Christs Mystical Body 57 8 Obs They speak of Christ's Body as sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist which is only true of his Typical Body 58 The Natural Body of Christ cannot be sanctified nor sacrificed properly 59 CHAP. VIII The Eighth Difference When the Fathers mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist the Roman Church understands such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine The Fathers never understand it so 62 Several Assertions of the Fathers to explain this 1 Assert They distinguish between the Conversion of a thing and its abolishing ibid. 2 Assert When they speak of a Conversion into what was before they suppose an Accession and Augmentation of that into which the Change is made 63 3 Assert The Fathers use the same Terms of Conversion Passing into Becoming another thing c. in other Cases besides that of the Eucharist wherein all confess no Change of Substances is made 65 Some Axioms of the Fathers to this purpose ibid. Their Instances of such Changes given in Nature in Regeneration in Christ's Incarnation our Resurrection in Baptism wherein the Change however exprest can be only in Qualities 65 66 67 4 Assert The Fathers by a Change in the Eucharist mean either a Change into a Sacrament or that of Efficacy and Virtue by infusing and adding Grace 69 70 5 Assert They express as fully and in the same manner our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body 72 CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Roman Church asserts a substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers deny 74 Several Positions of the Fathers to this purpose 1 Pos The Fathers look upon Christ's Body as absent from Earth since his Ascension tho' in another sense he is present still ibid. 2 Pos They distinguish the presence of Christs Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a memorial of him as gone away 77 78 3 Pos Whatsoever presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist they acknowledge the same in Baptism and as fully 79 80 They speak of those Waters as turned into Blood of our being Baptized in Blood and yet neither they nor any else dream'd of Transubstantiation 82 4 Pos They so consider the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to his glorified Body 83 5 Pos According to them the Presence of Christs Body to us now is a presence to our Faith a presence of Union Efficacy and Grace 85 What foul play the Romanists have used with an Author that deny'd this 90 An Account of a late Learned Dissertation concerning Christs Body and Blood occasion'd by a doubt proposed to S. Austin 91 CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference The Fathers assert positively that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration which the R. Church denies 93 Proved by their asserting that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek 101 Fraction in the Eucharist can only agree to the Bread. 103 CHAP. XI The Eleventh Difference The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament Sign Figure Type Antitype Image c. of Christs Body and Blood which Transubstantiation contradicts 105 Instances of the particulars Their calling it a Sacrament ibid. Signs 106. Types 107. Antitypes ibid. A Figure 108. Image 110. Further Remarks of the Fathers confirming the Argument as 1 Remark They say an Image Figure c. cannot be the thing it self 111 2 Rem That an Image Type c. must visibly demonstrate that of which it is an Image Type c. 112 3 Rem They make the Elements to be the Signs Symbols c. of Christ as absent 113 Some Passages out of the old Liturgy in Bertram's time 114 The Doctrine of the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies confirming the same 115 CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert that Christs Body is not eaten Corporally and Carnally but only spiritually Whereas the Rom. Church teaches a Corporal Eating of Christs Body 116 Berengarius's Recantation supposes this in the most literal sense ibid. Tho' this sense was opposed afterwards 117. Yet all Rom. agree that Christs Natural Body is taken into ours 118. How long they assert it makes its stay there ibid. Horrid Cases how resolved 119. What the Fathers call understanding things Carnally 120. That they opposed the literal and carnal eating of Christ's Body 121 122 123. Considerations proving they did not so understand it 1 Consid They say we partake of Christs Body in Baptism which can be only spiritually 125 2 Consid They distinguish eating Christs true Body from the Sacramental 126 3 Consid They assert that the Fathers under the Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this 130 CHAP.
say (n) Author Libr. cui tit Celebres Opiniones de Anima c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri That if this were possible you might then say That Heaven it self might be contained in a Grain of Millet The Fathers argue against Marcion upon this Rule That whatsoever contains another thing is greater than that which is contained in it So do's Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. sec 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So do's Tertullian (q) Contr. Marcion l. 1. c. 15. Irenaeus (r) Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis proves that the Deity has no Bounds by this Argument That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein Theophylus Antioch (t) Ad Autolycum l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says This is the Property of the Almighty and True God not only to be every where but to inspect and hear all things Neither is he contained in a Place for else the containing Place would be greater than himself for that which contains is greater than that which is contained in it I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permanet sicut à Deo accepit ut esset alia quidem sic alia autem sic Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt c. Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be one on this manner and another on that For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits c. CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Church of Rome suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood teaches us not to believe the Report our Senses make That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein But the Fathers teach the contrary That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses as to any Body even as to the true Body of Christ THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Sense is needless to prove since nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to distrust them and to believe against their Report Thus the Trent Catechism * Ad Paroch de Euchar. part 2. num 25. Nullam Elementorum substantiam remanere quamvis nihil magis à sensibus alienum remotum videri possit teaches us to believe That no Substance of the Elements remains in the Eucharist tho' nothing seems more strange and remote from our Senses than this And again †Ib. n. 46. Corpus sanguinem Domini ita sumimus ut tamen quod verè sit sensibus percipi non potest We so receive the Body and Blood of Christ that yet we cannot perceive by our Senses that it is truly so As for the Fathers they are Strangers to this Doctrine nor did they betray the Christian Cause in this manner by taking away all Certainty from the Testimony of our Senses They on the contrary proved the Truth of Christ's Body against the Valentinians the Marcionites and other Hereticks by this Argument which the Church of Rome rejects they made their Appeals frequently as S. John had done before them to what had been seen with Mens Eyes to what their Ears had heard and their Hands had handled without any suspicion of their being deceived Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv Haeres c. 20. Hoc autem illis occurrit qui dicunt eum putativè passum Si enim non verè passus est nulla gratia ei cùm nulla fuerit passio Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati seducens videbitur adhortans nos vapulare alteram praebere maxillam si ipse illud non prior in veritate passus est Et quemadmodum illos seduxit ut videretur ipse hoc quod non erat nos seducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipse non pertulit This meets with them who say That Christ suffered only seemingly For if he did not truly suffer no Thanks are due to him when there was no Passion And when he shall begin truly to suffer he will seem a Seducer when he exhorts us to suffer Stripes and to turn the other Cheek if he first did not suffer this in truth And as he seduced them in seeming to be that which he was not so he seduces us whilst he exhorts us to suffer the things which he did not suffer Again (b) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were not done seemingly only but in reality of truth for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not so he neither did remain the Spirit of God which he truly was since a Spirit is invisible nor was there any Truth in him for he was not that which he appeared to be He thought it you see absurdity enough to say That Christ appeared what he was not But what absurdity can this be to them that say it is constantly so in the Sacrament where that appears so and so which is not so as the Bread and Wine according to them do's Again (c) Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Christus in carnis substantia resurrexit ostendit discipulis figuram clavorum apertionem lateris haec autem sunt indicia carnis ejus quae surrexit à mortuis sic nos inquit suscitabit per virtutem suam As Christ therefore rose again in the Substance of our Flesh and shewed to his Disciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side and these are Indications of his Flesh which arose from the Dead so also he says he will raise us up by his Power Tertullian also argues thus against Marcion (d) De carne Christi c. 5. Maluit crede nasci quam aliqua ex parte mentiri quidem in semetipsum ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram sine musculis solidam sine sanguine cruentam sine tunica vestitam sine fame esurientem sine dentibus edentem sine lingua loquentem ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis Believe it he chose rather to be born which Marcion thought absurd than in any respect to lie and that against himself so as to carry Flesh about him hard without Bones solid without Muscles bloody without Blood cloathed without a Garment craving Food without Hunger eating without Teeth speaking without a Tongue so that his Speech was a Phantasm to Mens Ears
with them for the honour of thy Christ c. Would it not run finely to pray that God would be well pleased with Christ for the honour of his Christ But besides the Petition that God would look propitiously upon them it follows in the Canon That God would accept them as he did the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and Melchisedeck How unagreeable is this if Christ himself be understood here to make the Comparison for acceptance betwixt a Lamb and a Calf or Bread and Wine and Christ the Son of God with whom he was always highly pleased But then what follows still entangles Matters more in the Church of Rome's Sense The Prayer That God would command these things to be carried by the hands of his Holy Angel to the High Altar above For how can the Body of Christ be carried by Angels to Heaven which never left it since his Ascension but is always there Besides the High Altar above in the Sense of the Ancients is Christ himself And Remigius of Auxerre tells us (s) De celebrat Missae in Bibl. Pat. 2dae Edit Tom. 6. p. 1164. In Coelo rapitur ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi That S. Gregory's Opinion of the Sacrament was That it was snatched into Heaven by Angels to be joined to the Body of Christ there But then in the sense of Transubstantiation what absurd stuff is here to pray that Christ's Body may be joined to his own Body So that there can be no sense in the Prayer but ours to understand it of the Elements offered devoutly first at this Altar below which by being blessed become Christ's Representative Body and obtain acceptance above through his Intercession there And thus it is fully explained by the Author of the Constitutions (t) Lib. 8. c. 13. in initio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us entreat God through his Christ for the Gift offered to the Lord God that the good God by the mediation of his Christ would receive it to his Coelestial Altar for a sweet smelling Savour To put the Matter further out of all doubt it is observable that the Liturgies that go under the name of S. James and S. Mark do both of them mention the acceptance of the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and the admitting them to the Celestial Altar before the reciting the words of the Institution or Consecration as the Roman Church calls them by which they say the Change is made That the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom prays That God would receive the Oblations proposed to his Supercelestial Altar almost in the same words both before and after Consecration and that he look'd upon them to be the same in substance that they were before plainly appears by an expression after all where he prays (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Lord would make an equal division of the proposed Gifts to every one for good according to every Man 's particular need Which cannot be understood of Christ's proper Body but of the consecrated Bread and Wine which cannot admit of shares or Portions equal or unequal Lastly That S. Basil's Liturgy also before the Consecration prays That the Oblations may be carried unto the supercelestial Altar and be accepted as the Gifts of Abel Noah Abraham c. And to shew that even after the words of Institution he did not believe them to be other things than they were before he still calls them the Antitypes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. of the Body and Blood of Christ and prays That the Spirit may come upon us and upon the Gifts proposed to bless and sanctify them and to make this Bread the venerable Body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ and this Cup his Blood the Spirit working the change And afterwards the Priest prays (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by reason of his Sins he would not divert the Grace of his Holy Spirit from the proposed Gifts A needless fear if the Gifts were already Christ's Body that the Spirit should be hindred from coming upon that where all the Fulness of the God-head dwells bodily by any Man's Sins The next Passage of the Canon increases still the difficulty to them that believe Transubstantiation When it says Through Jesus Christ our Lord by whom O Lord thou dost always create sanctify quicken bless and bestow all these good things on us If there be no good thing remaining in the Eucharist besides Christ when these words are said What Sense or Truth is there in them Can Christ or his Body that already exists be created anew and be always created Can that be always sanctified that was never common Or is he to be raised and quickned anew daily that once being so raised can die no more c. But that which makes the Absurdity of this Interpretation the greater is that they say that all this is done to Christ by Christ himself as if God by Christ did create Christ and by Christ did bless and quicken and sanctify Christ which none but he that is forsaken of common Sense can affirm The old Interpreters of the Canon made other work of it and supposed that the Creatures offered to God remained Creatures still for thus the forecited Remigius (z) In Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 1165. Per Christum Deus Pater haec omnia non solum in exordio creavit condendo sed etiam semper creat praeparando reparando bona quia omnia à Deo creata valdè bona creata suis conspectibus oblata sanctificat ut quae erant simplex creatura fiant Sacramenta vivificat ut sint mysteria vitae Benedicit quia omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ accumulat Praestat nobis per eundem secum sanctificantem qui de corpore suo sanguine suo nobis tam salubrem dedit refectionem comments upon them God the Father not only in the beginning created all these things by Christ but also always creates them by preparing and repairing them Good because all things created by Good are very good He sanctifies those things so created and offered in his sight when the things that were a simple Creature are made Sacraments he quickens them so that they become Mysteries of Life He blesses them because he heaps all Celestial Benediction and Grace on them He bestows them on us by the same Christ sanctifying them with him who has given to us so wholsom a repast from his Body and Blood. What can be also more plain than the words of the next Prayer I mentioned That what we have taken with our Mouth may of a Temporal Gift be made an Eternal Remedy Did ever any one call Christ a Temporal Gift in distinction from an Eternal Remedy Is it not certain that the Oblata the things offered are the Temporal Gift which by our due receiving them become eternally beneficial to us The last Prayer also which beg That the Body and Blood of Christ may
Imprimatur Liber cui titulus A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist c. H. Maurice Reverendissimo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. Ã Sacris Octob. 6. 1687. A FULL VIEW OF THE Doctrines and Practices OF THE Ancient Church Relating to the EUCHARIST Wholly different from those of The Present ROMAN CHURCH And inconsistent with the Belief of TRANSUBSTANTIATION BEING A sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other Late Collections of the Fathers pretending the contrary Rectum est Index sui Obliqui LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul s Church-yard MDCLXXXVIII A PREFACE to the READER THAT which is here offered to thy Perusal was occasioned by some late Pamphlets * Succession of Church and Sacraments Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium that appeared much about the same time in Print pretending by a Heap of Testimonies from the Fathers to prove as in some other Doctrines so particularly in that of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation That the Ancient Church and the present Roman are at a good Agreement It is very hard for Us to believe this and scarce credible that they themselves did so when we see so much Unsincerity in their Allegations such Deceit and contrived disguising the Sense of the Fathers in their Translations such late uncertain and supposititious Writings cited by them under the Venerable Names of Ancient Authors When the way that Procrustes took of stretching Limbs or chopping them off to make all agree to his Bed who were to be laid in it is used to make the Ancient and the Present Church to agree a Consent thus procured can occasion but a short and a sorry Triumph Yet those Performances have been cry'd up and they are look'd upon as Storehouses and Repositories whence any Champion of theirs who enters the Lists may be furnish'd from the Fathers either with what is necessary for his own Defence or the assailing of an Adversary The Representer since that made great use of them in a brisk Attaque he made upon the Dublin Letter tho' the Success I believe did not answer his Expectation The Convert of Putney's Performance who in his Consensus Veterum made the largest Shew of Fathers on behalf of Transubstantiation has had a particular Consideration given it by his worthy Answerer * Veteres Vindicati And so all the other Testimonies in the rest of them that are of any seeming strength and moment have received Answers to them from other Hands particularly from the Learned Author of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared Part 1. If any thing after all seems to be wanting on our Part it is this That as our Adversaries have made a Shew of Fathers for I can give it no better name pretended to countenance their Doctrines of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation so we also ought to have our Collection of Testimonies from the Ancients made faithfully and impartially wherein their true Sense in these Matters may be clearly seen and viewed and thereby their Dissent from this Church appear plainly in those things that either constitute this Doctrine or are necessary Consequents of it And this is that which I have undertaken in the following Papers wherein as the Usefulness of the Design has encourag'd me to take some Pains so I shall think them well bestowed if the Reader will bring an honest and unprejudic'd Mind to the Perusal of them and suffer himself to be determin'd in his Opinions concerning this Controversie according to the Evidence of Truth here offered for his Conviction If the Differences which the annexed Contents of the Chapters give an Account of are of such a Nature and stand at such a wide Distance that it 's impossible ever to bring Transubstantiation to shake Hands with them as Friends and if the two Churches the Ancient and the Present Roman are really divided and disagreeing as I pretend to have demonstrated in those Points it will then I hope hereafter be ridiculous to talk confidently of a Consent of Fathers and of a Cloud of Witnesses on their Side But if I am herein mistaken I am so little tender of my Reputation compared with Truth that I heartily desire to be confuted and made a Convert for I am conscious to my self of no false Fathers I have cited for true ones of no disguising or perverting their Sense by an Ill Translation of their Words which I have therefore set down in their own Language of no imposing upon the Reader a Sense of my own making contrary to what I believe that they intended I have but one Request more to make to the unknown Author of a Book intituled Reason and Authority c. who mentioning the Defence of the Dublin Letter * Pag. 119. for which I have some reason to be concern'd says That the Authorities of the Fathers there urged are as he conceives in the Sense of them either mistaken or misapplied and that he shall endeavour to reconcile them to other Expressions of the Fathers and to that which he calls the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation I humbly desire when he is about this Reconciling Work and his Hand is in that he would go on to reconcile also the Differences urged in the following Papers Which if he shall do to any purpose I promise to return the Complements he has pass'd upon that Defender with Interest and to alter my present Opinion of him upon his Performances in that Book Farewell THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS BEING A Summary of the DIFFERENCES betwixt the FAITH and PRACTICES of the Two Churches CHAP. I. The First Difference The Roman Church asserts perpetual Miracles in the Eucharist The Ancient Church owns none but those of God's Grace working Changes in us not in the Substance of the Elements Page 1 CHAP. II. The Second Difference They differ in determining what that Thing is which Christ calls My Body which the Ancient Church says is Bread but the Roman Church denies it 7 CHAP. III. The Third Difference The Roman Church believes That Accidents subsist in the Eucharist without any Subject This the Fathers deny 12 CHAP. IV The Fourth Difference The Roman Church uses the Word Species to signifie those self-subsisting Accidents the Fathers never take Species in this Sense 16 CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from this Church about the Properties of Bodies as 1. They assert That every organiz'd Body even that of Christ is visible and palpable 21 2. That every Body possesses a Place and is commensurate to it and cannot be in more Places than one nor be entire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which Transubstantiation denies Page 22 3. That it is impossible for one to dwell in himself or partake of ones self this inferring Penetration of Dimensions and that a greater Body may be contained in a
XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood not the wicked the Ro. Church extends it to both 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two-Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given 1 Instance The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents c. from being present at the Mysteries enjoining all present to communicate ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators tho' none receive but the Priest 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration 145 146 4. Inst The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths contrary to the Ancient Practice 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly received the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation 157. 3. Differ They put what was so reserved to such uses of old as the Ro. Church would think profane 157 158 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament their frights and strange expiations when they happen all unknown and strangers to the Ancient Church 160 c. Which is proved positively from the continued practice of Communicating Infants till Transubstantiation abolished it 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference About their Prayers in two particulars 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church 175 CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd new Calumnies from both 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians 195. That the Jews have better explained Christs words of Institution agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments proved by Instances from p. 196. to the end Faults Escaped PAge 5. line 16. marg r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 11. r. supposes p. 53. l. 2. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 26. marg r. Serm. 5 p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man Ibid. l. 12. marg r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es p. 73. l. 6. marg r. qui p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel CHAP. I. The First Difference The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace working great Changes in us and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto without changing their Nature and Substance TO give the Reader a View of what Wonders are to be believed according to what the Trent Council has decreed concerning Transubstantiation we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism * Ad Parochos part 2. num 25. which tells us there are three most wonderful things which the Catholick Faith without any doubting believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament by the Words of Consecration 1. That the true Body of Christ that same Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the Right-hand of the Father is conteined in this Sacrament 2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses 3. What is easily collected from both That the Accidents which are seen with our Eyes or are perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject in which they subsist in a strange manner not to be explained So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen which yet inhere in no Substance but subsist by themselves since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist which no Created Power can effect but God's Omnipotency alone I 'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite Pererius * In Joan. c. 6. Disp 16. num 48. who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles 1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven not departing thence and without any local mutation is really and corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host but is together in all Host consecrated throughout the whole Earth 3. Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour and other sensible Qualities yet as it is in the Sacrament it is neither there visibly nor quantitatively * Quantum ad situm extensionem ejus ad locum as to its fitus and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the
Order of Accidents And elsewhere he says (l) Thesaur assert 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be Unbegotten is predicated of the Divine Essence as inseparable from it just as Colour is always predicated of every Body And in another place (m) Ibid. assert 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. disputing about the Eternity of the Son and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects We see says he Heat inseparably proceeding from Fire but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire proceeding inseparably from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendor nor Fire without Heat For what is begotten of them do's always adhere to such Substances Again in his Dialogues (n) De Trinitate Dial. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Trinity he asks Whether Black and White if they be not in their Subjects can subsist of themselves And the Answer is They cannot Claud. Mamertus (o) De Statu Animae l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus color corporis in subjecto in incorporeis animus disciplina quae ita sibi nexa sunt ut nec sine colore corpus nec sine disciplina rationalis sit animus Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in subjecto est ipso intereunte subjecto In corporeal things the Body is the Subject and the Colour of the Body in the Subject In incorporeal matters the Soul and Discipline are Instances which are so connected that the Body cannot be without Colour nor the Rational Soul without Discipline Can we ever prove that what is in the Subject abides when the Subject it self perishes Isidore Hispal (p) Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas qualitas situs sine subjecto esse non possunt Quantity Quality and Situation can none of 'em be without a Subject Bertram (q) Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii proves against the Greeks That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject because says he the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to shew how they differ from the Church of Rome in this Point of Accidents being without a Subject which to them is so necessary a Doctrine that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it and if the Fathers had believed Transubstantiation it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine without so much as once excepting the Case of the Eucharist None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short especially when as we have heard they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God and the Personality of the Holy Ghost from the inseparability of Accidents from their Subject Nay one of them says (r) Orat. 5. contra Arianos inter Athanasii Opera That if God himself had Accidents they would exist in his Substance When therefore P. Innocent (s) De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quale asserts That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste and Quantity and Quality and yet nothing coloured or tasteful nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things and to turn Accidents into Substances So that if for instance the Host should fall into the Mire and contract Dirt and Filth this Filth sticks in nothing or else Accidents are the Subject of it for it is confessed on all hands That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon or of an Horses Lameness without a Leg concerning which only Lameness can be affirmed CHAP. IV. The Fourth Difference The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES to signifie those Accidents without any Subject But the Fathers never take it in this Sense I Need only refer the Reader for the first part of this Assertion to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent Canon 2. 3. where the Word Species is so used And to what we heard before out of their Catechism of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are Every one knows this is their Customary Word to express Appearances of things by when nothing real is under them to support them But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense but in stead of denoting Accidents by the Word Species which are in no Subject they use it commonly for the Substance the Nature the Matter of a thing the Subject it self that appears Not for Appearances without a Subject S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species but never in the Sense of the Romanists For which take these Instances S. Ambrose says (a) Serm. 21. Dominum rogatum ad Nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutasse That at the Marriage of Cana our Lord being requested did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is not into the Appearance of Wine but into real Wine that he changed it And in another place * Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis prastitit He provided for the Marriage a more necessary Species i. e. Wine more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water In another Book (b) Officior lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum speaking of Holy Vessels which he broke for the Redemption of Captives he says This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups i. e. all sorts of them Again elsewhere (c) De iis qui initiant cap. 9. Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water i. e. the Substance of Iron S. Austin (d) In Joan. tract 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube in mari Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit species baptismi quantum valebit They were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Figure of the Sea availed so much how much will the Species of Baptism avail In another place (e) Serm. ad Infantes Ut sit species visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur To make the visible Species of Bread many Grains are mixed together into one Again (f) Lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 4. Quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur
de sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur That which we have seen says he which we have heard which we have seen with our Eyes and our Hands have handled of the Word of Life This is all a false Testification if the Nature of the Sense of our Eyes and Ears and Hands is a Lie and a Cheat. And in the next Chapter (m) Cap. 18. Videtur intellectus duce uti sensu auctore principali fundamento nec sine illo veritates posse contingi The Understanding seems to use Sense as a Leader an Author and principal Foundation neither can Truths be laid hold of without it S. Austin teaches the same (n) De vera Relig. cap. 33. Ne ipsi quidem oculi fallunt non enim renunciare possunt animo nisi affectionem suam Si quis remum frangi in aqua opinatur cum inde aufertur integrari non habet malum internuncium sed malus est judex Nam ille pro natura sua non potuit aliter in aqua sentire nec aliter debuit Si enim aliud est aer aliud aqua justum est ut aliter in acre aliter in aqua sentiatur Quare oculus rectè videt ad hoc enim factus est ut tantum videat sed animus perversè judicat c. Doctrine Our Eyes do not deceive us for they can only report to the Mind how they are affected If one thinks that an Oar is broken in the Water and when it is taken out of the Water made whole again he has not a Bad Reporter but he is an ill Judge For the Eye according to its Nature neither could nor ought to perceive it otherwise while in the Water For if the Air is a different Medium from Water it must perceive it one ways in the Air and another ways in Water Therefore the Eye sees rightly for it was made only to see But the Mind judges amiss c. So also S. Hillary (o) In Psal 137. Tollit stultissimam eorum temeritatem qui frustrato falsóque corpore Dominum in carne visum esse contendunt ut eum Pater ementita veritate in habitu falsae carnis ostenderit non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus Apostolis dictum esse Quid conturbati c. videte manus pedes meos quoniam ipse ego sum palpate videte quoniam spiritus carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere He takes away their foolish Rashness who contend that our Lord was seen in the Flesh in a deceitful and false Body that the Father feigning Truth shewed him in the habit of false Flesh as the Romanists make Christ's Body to be shewn in habitu falsi panis not remembring what was said after his Resurrection to the Apostles that thought they saw a Spirit Why are ye troubled c. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. is very large in arguing the Truth of Christ's Body from what was sensibly done to his Body and if he argues truly then what is sensibly done to the Bread in the Eucharist proves the Truth of Bread remaining and not only the Appearance of it He asks Marcion (q) Ibid. Refut 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How could he be taken and crucified if according to thy saying he could not be handled For thou canst not define him to be a Phantôme whom thou confessest to fall under the Touch. Again (r) Ibid. Refut 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he argues That Christ had a true Body because he went into the Pharisee's House and sat down That which sits down is a bulky Body And when the Woman washed his Feet with her Tears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds Not the Feet of a Phantôme And kissed them perceiving his Body by her Touch. And What Feet did she kiss but the Feet made up of Flesh and Bones and other Parts So again (s) Ibid. Refut 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Woman that touched Christ and was healed she did not touch Air but something Humane that might be touched Again (t) Ib. Refut 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Imaginary thing or Wind or a Spirit or Phantôme admits neither of Burial nor a Resurrection But why may not a Phantôme as well be buried and raised as Accidents be broken and distributed when no Bread remains Again he observes (u) Refut 65. from that of his kneeling down and praying That all this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because his Disciples saw him and he was found to his Disciples under their Touch. (x) Ibid. Refut 71. So also concerning Christ's Crucifixion he observes s That the piercing his Hands and Feet with Nails and handling of them to do it could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an imagination or shew But if the Church of Rome say true he is out for it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Phantôme when I chew and fasten my Teeth in the Host there being no Substance that I bite He afterwards (y) Ibid. Refut 77. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 challenges Marcion from that Expression He was known in breaking of Bread. How says he was this breaking of Bread performed was it by a Phantôme or from a Body (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bulky and really acting it Here I may well observe That if the very breaking of Bread argues a true Body that did perform that thing how much more forcible is our Question to the Romanists What means the mention of Bread broken in the Eucharist as Christ is said to break Bread if nothing be broken at all but only in shew and appearance Epiphanius also elsewhere (a) Heres 64. sec 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says when Christ shewed to them Moses and Elias in the Mount He did not present an Image or a Phantôme as intending to deceive his Apostles but shew'd what they were really Athanasius (b) Orat. 2. de Ascen Christi says Christ did both eat Meat and permitted his Body to be touched by his Disciples that not only their Eyes but also their Fingers might be brought in for Witnesses of the Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so removing all suspicion of a Phantôme or Ghostly Appearance S. Chrysostome (c) De Resurrect Hom. 9. Lat. Paris 1588. Tom. 3. pag. 775. Non est meum meos Iudificare phantasmate vanam imaginem visus si timet veritatem corporis manus digitus exploret Potest fortasse aliqua oculos caligo decipere palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat brings in Christ saying thus It is not my way to mock or abuse mine with a false appearance If the Sight is afraid of a
vain Image the Hands and Fingers may find out the Truth of my Body Perhaps some Mist may deceive the Eyes but a corporal Touch owns a Body Also elsewhere (d) Hom. 29 in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Seeing and Hearing he says By these Senses we learn all things exactly and seem Teachers worthy of credit concerning such things which we receive by our Sight or Hearing seeing we neither feign nor speak falsly But lest any one should pretend that the Eucharist is a Mystery and that in such things our Senses may impose on us and deceive us it is very remarkable how this Father distinguishes betwixt them He tells us (e) Hom. 13. in Ep. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein Deception do's consist viz. when a thing do's not appear to be what it is but appears to be what it is not But he makes a Mystery to be another thing (f) Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. when we see not what we believe but see one thing and believe another thing For this says he is the Nature of our Mysteries S. Austin (g) Serm. de Temp. 161. Cujus praesentiam agnoscat oculus attrectet manus digitus perscrutetur Si fortè diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos at non possemus dicere manus frustratas in resurrectionis enim manifestatione de aspectu ambigi potest de tactu non potest dubitari makes the concurrent Testimony of Sense especially that of Feeling to give sufficient assurance to us Thus he says There is no cause to doubt of Christ's Resurrection whose presence the Eye do's own the Hand handles and the Fingers examine If we perhaps should say That Thomas his Eyes were deceived yet we cannot say so of his Hands for in clearing the Resurrection doubt may be made of the Sight but no doubt can be made of Feeling Again elsewhere (h) Contra Faustum l. 14. c. 10. Qui nisi Daemones quibus amica fallacia est istis persuaderent Quod Christus fallaciter passus fallaciter mortuus sit fallaciter cicatrices ostenderit Who but Devils that are Friends to Cozenage could persuade them that Christ deceived Men when he suffered when he died and when he showed his Scars Again (i) Ibid. l. 29. c. 2. Illud est quod Magiae simile dicimini asserere quod passionem mortemque ejus specie tenus factam fallaciter dicitis adumbratam ut mori videretur qui non moriebatur Ex quo fit ut ejus quoque resurrectionem umbraticam imaginariam fallacemque dicatis Neque enim ejus qui non verè mortuus est vera esse resurrectio potest ita fit ut cicatrices discipulis dubitantibus falsas ostenderit nec Thomas veritate confirmatus sed fallacia deceptus clamaret Dominus meus Deus meus c. This which is like Magick ye are said to assert That Christ's Passion and Death was only in appearance and in a deceitful Shadow so that he seemed to die when he did not die Whence it fellows that you must assert also his Resurrection to be in shew imaginary and fallacious For he cannot be truly raised who did not truly die And if so then he shewed false Scars to his doubting Disciples neither did Thomas cry out My Lord and my God because he was confirmed in the Truth but because he was deceived by a Cheat. Suitably to which he asserts in another place (k) Lib. 83. Quaestion Quaest 14. Si phantasma fuit corpus Christi fefellit Christus si fallit veritas non est Est autem veritas Christus non igitur phantasma fuit corpus ejus If the Body of Christ was a Phantôme Christ deceived us and if he deceive us he is not the Truth But Christ is the Truth therefore the Body of Christ was not a Phantastical Body Now against all these plain Testimonies I know only one Objection can be made which we are to consider viz Objection That some of the Fathers call upon us not to believe our Senses nor to regard their Information and that particularly they do so in the Case of the Eucharist To this Objection I shall give these satisfactory Answers Ans 1. It is certain that the Fathers appeal to our Senses even in the matter of the Eucharist We have seen Instances before particularly in Tertullian to which let me add one remarkable Testimony out of S. Austin (l) Serm. ad recen Baptizat apud Fulgentium Bedam c. Hoc quod videtis in altari Dei etiam transacta nocte vidistis sed quid esset quid sibi vellet quam magnae rei Sacramentum contineret nondum audistis Quod ergo videtis panis est calix quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant c. This which you see upon God's Altar you were shewn last night but you have not yet heard what it is what it meaneth and of how great a Thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and the Cup thus much your own Eyes inform you c. He appeals to their Eyes you see as to the Elements before them and suppose that when they tell them there is Bread and a Cup they were not deceived But then he informs them of that which their Senses could not be judge of because not an Object of them which was understood by the Bread and the Cup as we shall hear afterwards Ans 2. The Fathers call upon Men not to regard the Information of their Senses in matters wherein yet none questions the truth and certainty of their Information Therefore this is no Argument to question the Truth of what our Senses inform us of in the Eucharist because they would not have us to regard them Thus Cyril of Jerusalem (m) Catech. Mystag 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of holy Chrism Take heed you do not think says he this to be meer simple Ointment Sense indeed reaches no further than that but then comparing Chrism with the Eucharist which is not to be look'd upon as common Bread after Consecration he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We are to look upon this Holy Ointment not as bare and common Ointment after Consecration but as the Grace of Christ c. So also he says of Baptism (n) Idem Catech. Illum 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Come not to the Font as to simple and meer Water but to the Spiritual Grace that is given together with the Water And a litle after Being says he about to descend into the Water do not attend to the simpleness of the Water And yet for all this he never intended to deny it to be true Water Gelasius Cyzic (o) Diatypos c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to consider our Baptism with sensitive but with Intellectual Eyes Or as S. Austin says (p) Serm. 2. in Append. Sermon 40. à Sirmondo Editor
Non debetis aquas illas oculis aestimare sed mente You ought not to make an Estimate of those Waters with your Eyes but with your Mind Thus also S. Ambrose (q) De his qui initiantur c. 3. Quod vidisti aquas utique sed non solas Levitas illic ministrantes summum Sacerdotem interrogantem consecrantem Primo omnium docuit te Apostolus non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur sed quae non videntur c. Non ergo solis corporis tui oculis credas Magis videtur quod non videtur quia istud temporale illud aeternum aspicitur quod oculis non comprehenditur animo autem mente cernitur speaking of Baptism As to what thou hast seen to wit the Waters and not those alone but Levites there ministring and the Bishop asking Questions and Consecrating First of all the Apostle has taught thee That we are not to look upon the things that are seen but on the things that are not seen c. Do not therefore only believe thy bodily Eyes That is rather seen which is not seen because that is Temporal this is Eternal which is not comprehended by our Eyes but is seen by our Mind and Understanding S. Chrysostom (r) In Joan. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking also of Baptism thus breaks out Let us believe God's Affirmation for this is more faithful than our Sight for our Sight often is deceived that is impossible to fall to the Ground It is so frequent an Expression of S. Chrysostome That God's Word is more to be credited than our Eyes that he applies it not only to the Sacraments but even to the Case of Alms-giving For thus he says (s) Hom. 89. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us be so affected when we give Alms to the Poor as if we gave them to Christ himself For his Words are more sure than our Sight Therefore when thou seest a poor Man remember the Words whereby Christ signified that he himself is fed For tho' what is seen is not Christ yet under this shape he receives thy Alms and asks it Ans 3. The Fathers in the matter of Signs and Sacraments therefore call upon us not to listen to our Senses and credit them because in such Cases they would have us to consider things beyond and above their information such as relate to their Use and Efficacy these being spiritual things signified by what is visible wherein they place the Mystery and which Sense can neither discover nor judge of S. Austin has a Rule (t) De Doctr. Christ l. 2. c. 1. De signis disserens hoc dico ne quis in eis attendat quod sunt sed potius quod signa sunt id est quod significant Signum est enim res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire in this Case I say this treating of Signs in which none ought to attend to what they are but rather that they are Signs that is that they signifie For a Sign is a thing which besides what appears affecting the Senses do's of it self make somewhat else to come into our thoughts So also Origen (u) In Joan. tom 18. ad finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describes a Sign to be a Note of another thing besides that which the Sense gives testimony to But none has so fully declared this Matter and answered the former Objection as S. Chrysostome in the place forecited whose Words deserve to be set down at large (x) In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where treating of Baptism the Eucharist and other Mysteries after he has told us as we heard before what a Mystery is viz. When we do not meerly believe what we see but see one thing and believe another he goes on thus I and an Infidel are diversly affected with them I hear that Christ was crucified I presently admire his Benignity He hears the same and he counts it Infirmity I hear that he was made a Servant and I admire his Care He when he hears the same counts it Infamy And so he goes on with his Death and Resurrection and the different Judgment is made of them and proceeds to speak of the Sacraments The Infidel hearing of the Laver of Baptism esteems it simply Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but I do not look meerly upon what I see but regard the cleansing of the Soul by the Spirit He thinks that my Body only is washed but I believe that my Soul is made clean and holy I reckon the Burial Resurrection Sanctification Righteousness Redemption Adoption of Sons the Inheritance the Kingdom of Heaven the Supply of the Spirit For I do not judge of the things that appear by my Sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by the Eyes of my Mind I hear of the Body of Christ I understand what is said one way an Infidel another Which he further illustrates admirably thus As Children looking upon Books know not the Power of Letters understand not what they look upon nay even to a grown Man that is unlearned it will be the same when a Man of Skill will find out much hidden Virtue Lives and Histories contained therein And if one of no skill receive a Letter he will judge it only to be Paper and Ink but he that has Skill hears an absent Person speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and discourses with him and speaks what he pleases to him again by his Letters Just thus it is in a Mystery Unbelievers hearing seem not to hear but the Believers being taught Skill by the Spirit perceive the Power of the hidden things This Discourse of S. Chrysostome's explains a Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem (y) Catech. 4. Mystag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and teaches us how to understand it where speaking of the Eucharist he says Do not consider it as bare Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lord's Affirmation And altho Sense suggests this to thee let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the Matter by thy Taste but by Faith be undoubtedly persuaded that thou art honoured with the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afterwards Being fully persuaded that the visible Bread is not Bread tho' the Taste perceive it such but the Body of Christ and the visible Wine is not Wine tho' the Taste would have it so but the Blood of Christ All which must be only understood of the Sacramental Relation that the Bread and Wine have to the Body and Blood of Christ which the Sense of Tasting acquaints us nothing at all with and therefore is not a fit Judge of this but we are to believe and not doubt of its Truth It will also help us to understand another Place of S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in
consecrated he sanctifies them that consecrate This can be only true in representation which is said of Christ's being sacrificed and sanctified or consecrated by us for the proper and natural Body of Christ can neither be sanctified in a proper sense nor sacrificed by us as I shall now show 1. Not sanctified properly For this in the sense of the Fathers is Dedication to God and tho' we may dedicate our selves to God yet not the Son of God to him Origen (t) In Levit. hom 11. Sanctificare aliquid hoc est vovere Deo. To sanctify a thing that is to vow it to God. Cyril Alexandr (u) Com. in Esaiam Edit gr lat p. 178. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is said to be sanctified do's not partake of all holiness but it rather signifies that which is devoted to God in honour of him Now Christ is certainly partaker of all Holiness Jobius * Apud Photium cod 222. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say a place or Bread or Wine is sanctified which are set apart for God and are not put to any common use Hesychius (x) In Levit. l. 7. Quod sanctificatur offertur eo quod offertur Sanctificari incipit ergo prius non erat sanctum That which is sanctified and offered because it is offered it begins to be sanctified therefore that it was not holy before This cannot be affirmed of Christs proper Body which was never other than holy but may of the Typical Bread which was common before 2. Not sacrificed properly Therefore Gaudentius (y) In Exod. tract 19. Labores Passionis c. in figura corporis sanguinis offerimus in the forecited Tract says We offer the Labours c. Of the Passion in the Figure of the Body and Blood. S. Austin (z) Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur Was not Christ offered once in himself and yet every day in the Sacrament he is offered for the people He opposes you see these two to be Sacrificed in himself and that is but once and to be offered in the Sacrament and that may be every day Also elsewhere (a) In Psal 21. Praefat. in secundum expos Quotiens Pascha celebratur nunquid totiens Christus moritur Sed tamen anniversaria recordatio quasi repraesentat quod olim factum est sic nos facit moneri tanquam videamus in cruce pendentem Dominum Does Christ die so often as Easter is celebrated Yet this Anniversary remembrance do's as it were represent what was done of old and so admonishes us as if we saw our Lord hanging on the Cross And in the second Exposition it self he says (b) In secunda expos Psal 21. Coenam suam dedit Passionem suam dedit He gave us his Supper and he gave us his Passion viz. By representation S. Chrysostom (c) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the same The mystery viz. the Eucharist is the Passion and the Cross Which he explains thus elsewhere (d) Hom. 17. in Epist ad Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We always offer the same Sacrifice or rather make a remembrance of his Sacrifice So Eulogius of Alexandria (e) Apud Photium cod 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the tremendous mystery of Christs Body says It is not the offering of different Sacrifices but the remembrance of that one Sacrifice once offered Theodoret also fully (f) In Epist ad Hebr. 8.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us That it is manifest to those that are skill'd in divine matters that we do not offer any other Sacrifice but make a remembrance of that one saving one S. Austin's words are also remarkable (g) De civit Dei l. 17. cap. 5. in fine Manducare panem in N. Testamento est Sacrificium Christianorum To eat Bread in the N. Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians Eusebius (h) Demonstr Evan. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Sacrifice offered for our Salvation adds He commanded us to offer to God continually the remembrance instead of the Sacrifice What can be more plain S. Ambrose says (i) De Offic. l. 1. cap. 48. that Christ is offered here but it is in imagine in an image and he opposes this to his offering himself in veritate in truth S. Austin (k) Quaestion 83. quaest 61 Ipse etiam Sacerdos noster qui seipsum obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris ejus Sacrificii similitudinem celebrandam in suae Passionis memoriam commendavit says Our Priest who offered himself an holocaust for our sins also commended the similitude of his Sacrifice to be celebrated in memory of his passion And elsewhere (l) Contr Faustum l. 20. c. 21. Hujus Sacrificii caro sanguis Post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice after Christ's Ascension is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance Lastly Fulgentius (m) De fide ad Petrum c. 16. Sacrificium panis vini Gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit calls the Sacrifice which the H. Catholick Church ceases not to offer through the whole World the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine and says that in this Sacrifice there is a thanksgiving and a commemoration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us For want of apprehending things thus they of the Church of Rome are tempted to utter words bordering upon Blasphemy and with Corn. à Lapide * Comm. in Heb. 7. v. 7. Adde Sacerdotem quatenus gerit personam Christi Sacrificantis quodam modo majorem esse Christo ipso sacrificato In omni enim Sacrificio sacerdos major est sua victima quam offert to make their Sacrificing Priest greater than Christ the Sacrifice CHAP. VIII The Eighth Difference The Church of Rome in all Sayings of the Fathers that mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist understand it of such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine the Accidents only remaining But the Fathers never use these Phrases in this Sense IT is acknowledged by us That the Fathers speak frequently of a Change of the Bread and Wine and their passing into and being converted into Christ's Body and Blood. It is needless therefore to cite their Testimonies to this purpose but I shall evidently prove that they do not understand this Change and Conversion in the Sense of Transubstantiation To give some Order to their Testimonies I shall not cite them in a heap but as Proofs of several Assertions of theirs which overthrow the Change by Transubstantiation 1 Assertion The Fathers make a difference betwixt the Change or Conversion of a Thing and its Abolition When they affirm the one they at the same time deny
aright and are of a confirmed Faith must be persuaded that tho' Christ he absent from us in the Flesh having undertaken a long Journey to God and the Father that yet he compasses all things by his Divine Power and is present to them that love him c. And again (e) Ibid. in v. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemed to them intolerable to be separated from Christ tho' he was always present with them by the Power and Efficacy of the Spirit Elsewhere (f) In Joan. 14.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he lays it down as a Rule That Christ's Spirit dwelling in the Saints supplies the Presence and Power of Christ in his absence And many more Places I might name out of him Their Sense is well exprest in that short Saying of the Author under S. Cyprian's (g) De Vnct. Chrysmat Inest veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento Name which I 'le again repeat Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament S. Ambrose (h) De Spir. Sanct. l. 1. c. 10. propè finem knows of no other Presence of Christ now but what makes the Father to be present with him too and that is the Presence of the Spirit and of Grace His Words are very remarkable The Spirit then so comes Sic ergo venit Spiritus quemadmodum venit Pater dixit enim Filius Ego Pater veniemus mansionem apud eum faciemus Nunquid corporaliter Pater venit Sic ergo Spiritus venit in quo cum venit Patris Filii plena praesentia est Paulo post Probavimus igitur unam praesentiam esse unam gratiam esse Patris Filius Spiritus Sancti quae tam coelestis divina est ut pro eagratias agat Patri Filius c. as the Father comes For the Son said I and my Father will come and make our abode with him What do's the Father come corporally And the same may be ask'd too of the Son by what follows The Spirit so comes as that in him when he comes is the full Presence of the Father and the Son. A little after We have therefore proved that there is one Presence and that there is one Grace which explains what the Presence is of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is so Celestial and Divine that the Son gives thanks to the Father for it c. Bede (i) Hom. ast de temp feria 6. Pasch observing how many times Christ appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection says Hac ergo frequentia corporalis suae manifestationis ostendere voluit Dominus ut diximus in omni loco se bonorum desideriis divinitùs esse praesentem Apparuit namque ad monumentum lugentibus aderit nobis absentiae ejus recordatione salubriter contristatis Apparuit in fractione panis his qui se peregrinum esse putantes ad hospitium vocaverunt aderit nobis cùm peregrinis pauperibus quaecunque possumus bona libenter impendimus Aderit nobis in fractione panis cùm Sacramenta corporis ejus videlicet panis vivi casta simplici conscientia sumimus He designed to shew by these frequent Appearances that he would be spiritually or divinely present in all Places at the Desire of the Faithful He appear'd to the Women that wept at the Sepulcher he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appear'd whilst they broke Bread to those who taking him for a Stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us whilst we liberally receive the Poor and Strangers He will be likewise with us in the Fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the Living Bread with a pure and chaste Heart All this speaks only the Presence of his Divinity and no other For as Alcuinus (k) In Joan. lib. 6. cap. 35. Et idem ipse Christus homo Deus Ergo ibat per id quod homo erat manebat per id quod Deus erat Ibat per id quod in uno loco erat manebat per id quod ubique Deus erat says The same Christ who is Man is likewise God he left them as to his Manhood but remained with them as to his Godhead He went away with reference to that by which he is but in one place N. B. yet tarried with them by his Divinity which is every where All Liturgies when the Eucharist is celebrated call aloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sursum corda Lift up your Hearts The meaning of which we are told by S. Austin (l) De bono Persev l. 2. c. 13. Quod ergo in Sacramentis fidelium dicitur ut sursum corda habeamus ad Dominum munus est Domini ut ascendat quae sursum sunt sapiat ubi Christus est in dextra Dei sedens non quae super terram c. What therefore is said in the Sacraments of the Faithful that we should lift up our Hearts to the Lord it is a Gift of the Lord. And he explains it That by the Divine Aid the Soul is helped to ascend and set its Affections upon things above where Christ is sitting at God's right Hand and not upon things on the Earth S. Jerom's Words (m) Ad Hedybiam qu. 2. Ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum mundatum accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem N. Testamenti ibique cum eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo vino sobrietatis are very emphatical Let us with our Lord ascend the great upper Room prepared and made clean and receive from him above the Cup of the New Testament and there celebrating the Passover with him be inebriated by him with the Wine of Sobriety All you see is above and our Presence too with him there S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10. speaking how we ought to approach to the tremendous Sacrifice with Concord and ardent Charity says From thence we become Eagles and so fly to Heaven it self For where the Carcase is thither will the Eagles come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls his Body the Carcase because of his Death and he calls them Eagles shewing that he who comes to this Body ought to be sublime and have nothing common with Earth nor be drawn downward and creep but continually fly upward and look to the Sun of Righteousness and to have the Eye of his Mind quick-sighted For this is a Table for Eagles not for Jackdaws Gr. Nazianzen (o) Orat. 28. contr Maxim. speaking of his Adversaries says Will they drive me from the Altars I know another Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Types the things now seen are upon which no Ax has been lift up no Iron Tool or other Instrument has been heard but is wholly a Work of the Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
more need of Symbols or Signs when the Body it self appears I refer the Reader to the Testimonies produced before Chap. 10. Position 2. out of S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Bede c. I will conclude this Chapter with a passage or two out of the Prayers after the Sacrament in the Old Liturgy used in Bertram's time (k) V. Bertram de corp sang Christi prope finem p. 112. Edit ult Lat. Engl. We who have now received the Pledge of Eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant (l) Ut quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus That we may be manifestly made partakers of that which we here receive in the Image of the Sacrament And thus afterwards (m) Ibid. p. 114. Perficiant in nobis quaesumus Domine tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus in another Prayer Let thy Sacraments work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a Figure Bertram Comments upon these Prayers in such passages as these Whence it appears says he that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be plainly exhibited therefore it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested And afterwards p. 115. The Prayer says that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of similitude or representation not the manifestation of the thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified since the Resurrection c. Ps 117. We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christs Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father For this Body which we celebrate in our way to happiness must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it sees not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chew'd with our teeth and ground in pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. But now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection c. It is very observable and a great confirmation of what has been said in this Chapter That the Ancient Christians of S. Thomas inhabiting the Mountains of Malabar in the East Indies agree with the Ancient Church in denying our Saviours Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as appears from their Publick Offices and other Books mentioned in a Synod which was celebrated amongst them by Dom Aleixo de Menezes Archbishop of Goa in the Year 1599. In the fourteenth Decree of the third Action of the said Synod in which most of their Church Offices and other Books are Condemned for containing Doctrines contrary to the Roman Faith there is particular notice taken of their contradicting the Roman Faith in the point of Transubstantiation 1. The Book of Timothy the Patriarch is condemned for asserting through three Chapters that the true Body of Christ our Lord is not in the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Figure of his Body 2. The Book of Homilies is condemned which teacheth that the H. Eucharist is only the Image of Christ as the Image of a Man is distinguished from a real Man and that the Body of Christ is not there but in Heaven 3. The Book of the Exposition of the Gospels is condemn'd which teacheth that the Eucharist is only the Image of the Body of Christ and that his Body is in Heaven at the right Hand of the Father and not upon Earth 4. Their Breviary which they call Iludre and Gaza is condemn'd which teaches that the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true Body of Christ Lastly The Office of the Burial of Priests is condemn'd where it is said that the most H. Sacrament of the Altar is no more but the virtue of Christ and not his true Body and Blood. This Synod was Printed in the University of Conimbra with the Licences of the Inquisition and Ordinary in the Year 1606. and is in the Possession of a Learned Person who gave me this account out of it CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally but only spiritually But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and carnally IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith when it imposes the Profession of it upon another and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema then I am sure it was once with a witness for the eating of Christ's Body in the most literal and proper Sense when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran prescribed a Profession of it to Berengarius made him swear it and anathematize the contrary as it is set down by Lanfrank (n) De Eucharist Sacram. adv Berengar which because the Nubes Testium tho' it has set down two other Forms durst not give us I will therefore here transcribe out of him Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis cognoscens veram Catholicam Apostolicam Fidem anathematizo omnem Haeresm praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum quae astruere conatur panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse nec posse sensualiter nisi in solo Sacramento manibus Sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium dentibus atteri Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedi ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae eam fidem tenere quam Do minus Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus haec S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica Apostolica tenendam tradidit mihique sirmavit scilicet Panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus D. N. J. Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri jurans per S. homousion Trinitatem per haec sacrosancta Christi Evangelia Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint cum dogmatibus sectatoribus suis
non deseratur Christ says he expounded the manner of his assignment and gift how he gave his Flesh to eat saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this if he abides in Christ and Christ in him if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him And he concludes with this Exhortation (m) Ibid. propè finem Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat dilectissimi ut carnem Christi sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento quod multi mali sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus bibamus ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus ut ejus spiritu vegetemur c. Let all that has been said Beloved prevail thus far with us that we may not eat Christs Flesh and Blood in Sacrament or sign only but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spirit that we may remain as Members in our Lords Body that we may be enlivened by his spirit c. CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference Several Vsages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Eucharist declare That they did not believe Transubstantiation or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there whose contrary practices or forbearance of them in the Roman Church are the Consequences of that belief As also some things the present Roman Church practises because they believe Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and dare not neglect to practise so believing which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of not knowing any obligation thereto which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes as any I have urged before tho' I think I have urged very cogent ones For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others and to shift off an Argument of that kind yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact and a plain Practice I shall therefore try by several Instances of Usages and Forbearances in the cases above-named whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts that the Ancient Church and the present Church of Rome were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter 1. Instance It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church to exclude the uninitiated Catechumens the Energumeni acted by evil Spirits and Penitents from being present at the Mysteries and to enjoin all that were present to communicate It is so known a Case that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart as I before named when they went to the Prayers of the Mass which was so called from this dismission of Catechumens Penitents c. that I shall not stay to prove it See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens l. 8. cap. 6 7 9 12. and S. Chrysostom Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes By the same Laws of the Church those that remained after the exclusion of the rest were all to communicate whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (n) Hierarch Eccles c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries and to communicate For this because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o) Can. 2. Concil Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which says That they which enter into the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures and do not communicate in Prayers with the People or turn away from receiving the Eucharist through any disorderliness are to be cast out of the Church till they confess their Sin and repent c. Which is the same in sense with that Canon (p) Canon Apostol 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very ancient tho' not Apostolical as it pretends That all the Faithful that enter and hear the Scriptures and do not continue at Prayer and also at the Holy Communion are to be separated as those that bring disorder into the Church S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist and did not communicate (q) Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain he tells them do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates in vain is the daily Sacrifice He minds them that the Cryer had said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those that were in penitence or penance should depart but thou says he art not of that number but of those that may participate i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being hindred by any Church-Censures as Penitents were and regardest it not He says That the King at the Marriage-Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not ask Why didst thou sit down but why didst thou enter And adds That whosoever being present does not receive the Mysteries stands there too boldly and impudently The rest is well worthy the reading in that Homily Gregory the Great also tells us (r) Dialog l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat det locum it was the custom in his Time for a Deacon to cry aloud If any do not Communicate let him depart There must be no Spectators that is unless they were Communicants For as Justin Martyr (s) Apolog. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquaints us it was the usage of his Time That the the Deacons reach to every one present of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water that they may communicate If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church we shall find all quite contrary There they may have as many Spectators as please to come when there is but one alone that receives the Eucharist I mean the Priest Any one that knew nothing of the Matter would conclude when he saw their Masses that they came thither about another Business ordinarily than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour which was the only use that the Ancients understood of it They considered it as a Sacrament by Institution designed to represent Christ's Passion and Crucifixion these consider the presence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there and are taken up with adoration more than any thing else That they will not abate every day you are present when the Host is shown for that end But as for the other the receiving of the Eucharist they are satisfied if it be done but once a Year The Ancients look'd upon it as an Invitation to a Table where the Sacrament was to be their Meal but here you are called to look upon the King present and sitting in state and chiefly to take care
not Things The Flesh is Meat and the Blood Drink yet Christ remains whole under each Kind Uncut unbroken undivided he is received whole by him that takes him When a thousand take him one takes as much as they nor is he consumed in taking The Good and Bad both take him but their Lot is unequal in Life and Death He is Death to the Bad and Life to the Good behold an unlike end of a like taking When the Sacrament is broken Be not stagger'd but remember There is as much in a Particle As the whole covers Here is no division of the thing Only a breaking of the Sign Whereby neither the State nor Stature of the thing signified is diminished c. Another Hymn of the same Author which begins Pange lingua gloriosi In Breviar Rom. in sesto Corp. Christi In supremae nocte coenae Recumbens cum fratribus Observata lege plenè Cibis in legalibus Cibum turbae duodenae Se dat suis manibus Verbum caro panem verum Verbo carnem efficit Fitque sanguis Christi merum Et si sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit Tantum ergo Sacramentum Veneremur cernui Et antiquum documentum Novo cedat ritui Praestet fides supplementum Sensuum defectui c. Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers At his last Supper made by Night He with his Brethren takes his Seat And having kept the Ancient rite Using the Laws prescribed Meat His twelve Disciples doth invite From his own Hands himself to eat The Word made Flesh to words imparts Such strength that Bread his Flesh is made He Wine into his Blood converts And if our Sense here fail and fade To satisfy Religious Hearts Faith only can the Truth perswade Then to this Sacrament so high Low rev'rence let us now direct Old Rites must yield in dignity To this with such great Graces deckt And Faith will all those Wants supply Wherein the Senses feel defect c. In another Hymn of Th. Aquinas which begins Verbum supernum prodiens they pray thus to the Sacrament In Breviar Rom. in Festo Corp. Christi O salutaris Hostia Quae Coeli pandis ostium Bella premunt hostilia Da robur fer auxilium O saving Host that openest Heaven's Door Th' Arms of our Foes do us enclose Thy strength we need O help with speed We humbly thee implore There was published at Paris with the approbration of three Doctors of the Faculty there An. 1669. a little Book in French called Practique pour Adorer le tres Saint Sacrament de l' Autel Or A Form for the Adoration of the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar Which begins thus Praised and adored be the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar And then adds Whosoever shall say these Holy Words Praised be the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar shall gain an hundred days of Indulgences and he that do's reverence hearing them repeated as much He that being confessed and communicated shall say the above-said words shall gain a Plenary Indulgence and the first five times that he shall say them after his having been Confessed and Communicated he shall deliver five of his Friends-souls whom he pleases out of Purgatory Then follows the Form for honouring the Holy Sacrament consisting of two Prayers as follows which I shall set down in Latin and English because I find them in the Hours of Sarum Fol. 66. and in the S. Litaniae variae p. 44. printed at Colen 1643. The first of them has this Rubrick before it in the Hours of Salisbury Our Holy Father the Pope John xxii hath granted to all them that devoutly say this Prayer after the Elevation of our Lord Jesu Christ three thousand days of Pardon for deadly Sins Anima Christi sanctifica me Corpus Christi salva me Sanguis Christi inebria me Aqua lateris Christi lava me Hor. Sar. Splendor vultus Christi illumina me Passio Christi conforta me H. Sar. Sudor vultus Christi virtuofissime sana me O bone Jesu exaudi me Intra vulnera tua absconde me Ne permittas me separari à te Ab hoste maligno defende me In hora mortis meae voca me Et jube me venire ad te Ut cum sanctis tuis laudem te In faecula soeculorum Amen Soul of Christ sanctify me Body of Christ save me Blood of Christ inebriate me Water of Christ's Side wash me Passion of Christ comfort me O good Jesus hear me Within thy Wounds hide me Suffer me not to be separated from thee From the malicious Enemy defend me In the Hour of my Death call me And command me to come to thee That with thy Saints I may praise thee For evermore Amen At the Elevation of the Mass Hor. sec us Sar. Ibid. Ave verum corpus natum De Maria Virgine Vere passum immolatum In cruce pro homme Cujus latus perforatum Unda fluxit sanguine Esto nobis praegustatum Mortis in examine O Clemens O pie O dulcis Fili Mariae Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers All hail true Body born of the Blessed Virgin Mary Truly suffered and offered upon the Cross for Mankind Whose Side pierced with a Spear yielded Water and Blood. Vouchsafe to be received of us in the Hour of Death O good O Jesu Son of the Blessed Virgin have mercy on me After this the French Form adds what follows These two good Prayers were found in the Sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ in Jerusalem and whosoever carries them about him with Devotion and in Honour of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be delivered from the Devil and from suddain Death and shall not die of an ill Death He shall be preserved from Pestilence and all infectious Diseases No Sorcerer nor Sorcery shall be able to hurt him or her that has these two good Prayers about them The Fire from Heaven shall not fall upon the House where these Prayers are rehearsed with devotion A Woman with Child saying them devoutly shall be brought to Bed without any danger of her own or her Child's Death Lightnings and Thunders shall not fall upon the Houses where these Prayers are rehearsed with Devotion Such a one shall not die without Confession and God will give him Grace to repent of his Sins Now I will add a Specimen of Litanies of the Sacrament Litaniae de Sacramento S. Litaniae variae p. 30. Panis vivus qui de Coelo descendisti Misere nobis Deus absconditus Salvator Misere nobis Frumentum Electorum Misere nobis Vinum germinans Virgines Misere nobis Panis pinguis deliciae Regum Misere nobis Juge Sacrificium Misere nobis Oblatio munda Misere nobis Agnus absque macula Misere nobis Mensa purissima Misere nobis Angelorum Esca Misere nobis Manna absconditum Misere nobis Memoria mirabilium Dei Misere nobis Panis Supersubstantialis Misere nobis Verbum caro factum habitans in nobis
de sepulchro Idea issi quod sumitur de altari cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilonem Abbalem scriâ—â—â—â—â— de corpore ipso quid verè credendum sit aperuimus Whether the Eucharist after it is consumed and sent into the Draught as other Meats are do's return again into its former Nature which it had before it was consecrated on the Altar This Question is supersluous when our Saviour himself has said in the Gospel Every thing that entreth into the Mouth goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made up of things Visible and Corporeal but effects the Invisible Sanctification both of Body and Soul. And what reason is there that what is digested in the Stomach and sent into the Draught shou'd return into its pristine State seeing none has ever asserted that this was done Some indeed of late not thinking rightly of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood have said which are the very words of Paschasius whom he opposes that the very Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again out of the Grave is the same that is taken from the Altar which Error we having opposed as we were able writing to the Abbot Egilo and declared what ought truly to be believed concerning the Body it self That which he calls here an Error is an Article now of the Romish Faith which some Zealous Monk meeting withal and not enduring it should be condemned as an Error that the same Body which was born of the Virgin c. is the same that we receive at the Altar scraped out those words which I have inclosed between the Brackets and we may securely trust our Adversaries in this Matter who have skill enough to know what Assertions make for them and what against them CHAP. XVII The CONCLUSION That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has given a new occasion to the Enemies of Christian Religion to blaspheme It is so great a stumbling-block to the Jews that their Conversion is hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Christians That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themselves who have given a better account of Christ's Words of Institution and more agreeable to the Fathers than this Church has and raised unanswerable Objections against its Doctrine HAving considered in the foregoing Chapters the Sense of the Ancient Church about Matters relating to the Eucharist and Transubstantiation from their own Writings and found that their Assertions are inconsistent with the Belief of the present Roman Church and that their Practices are not to be reconciled thereunto Having also made an Enquiry into the Ancient forms of Devotion relating to the Eucharist remaining still in this Church and found them to speak a Language which has a Sence agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients but no Sence at all when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed and those Prayers to be interpreted by it c. I shall now for a Conclusion take a view also of the principal Enemies of the Christian Faith which will afford a convincing Evidence that the Roman Doctrine is Novel and a stranger to the Ancient Christians It is sufficiently known that the Adversaries of Christianity took all the occasions possible and whatsoever gave them any colour to reproach the Faith and Worship of Christians and to make their Names odious Nothing that looked strange and absurd in either escaped being taken notice of by such as Celsus and Porphyry Lucian and Julian among the Heathens and such as Trypho among the Jews They curiously examined and surveyed what they taught and practised and whatsoever they thought to be foolish and incredible they with all their wit and cunning endeavoured to expose it So they did with the Doctrines of the Trinity the Eternal Generation of the Son of God his Incarnation his Crucifixion especially and our Resurrection Neither were they less praying into the Christian Mysteries and Worship which they could not be ignorant of there being so many Deserters and Apostates in those Times of Persecution who were well acquainted with them and by threatnings and fear of torment if there were any thing secret were likely to betray them Not to insist upon this that the great Traducer of Christians I mean Julian was himself once initiated in their Mysteries and so could not be Ignorant of what any of them were and has in particular laught at their Baptism that Christians should fansy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes Yet after all this they took no occasion from the Eucharist to traduce them tho if Christians then had given that adoration to it that is now paid in the Roman Church and if they had declared either for a Corporal Presence or an oral Manducation of him that was their God they had the fruitfullest Subject in the World given them both to turn off all the Objections of the Christians against themselves for worshipping senseless and inanimate things and also to lay the most plausible Charge of folly and madness against them which their great Orator * Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deorum Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse had pronounced before Christianity was a Religion in the World. Can any Man be supposed so mad to believe that to be a God which he eats A Learned Romanist †Rigaltius notis ad Tertal lib. 2. c. 5. ad Vxorem Se id facere in Eucharisticis suis testarentur affirms of the Ancient Christians That they did testify their eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of their Lord God in their Discourses of the Eucharist Which is true indeed taking this eating and drinking in the Sacramental Sence we do and so their Adversaries must needs understand their meaning Otherwise without a Miracle to hinder it what be acknowledges in the same place could never be true (a) Ibid. Observandum vero inter tot probra convitia accusantium Christianos impietatis eò quod neque aras haberent neque sacrificarent interque tot fratrum perfidorum transfugia non extitisse qui Christianos criminarentur quod Dei ac Domini sui carnes ederent sanguinem potarent That among so many Reproaches of those that accused Christians of Impiety for not having Altars nor Sacrifices and among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they ate the Flesh of their God and Lord and drank his Blood. We have this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself (*) De Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Verè stulti haberi possemus si absque Verbo Dei crederemus veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari That we might be accounted truly Fools if without the
Word of God we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh had been all one to the Heathens if they knew that this was their Belief and it would rather have strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then what he adds is very remarkable Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt ut notum est de Averroe aliis That Infidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox as appears from Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than the Christians who tear with their Teeth and devour that God whom they worship But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians if this was always their professed Doctrine Was Celsus or Julian or Lucian less sagacious or less malicious than Averroes that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World in naming only Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd Transubstantiation lived in the same Age and some very learned Men prove from the Arabian Accounts that those two were Contemporaries And as for his aliis others I should be glad to see any named that urged what Averroes did to the Christians reproach before the days of Berengarius After that indeed we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet who as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia de â—ensa Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmad bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa sic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi carnem ejus edunt sanguimem bibunt quod ipso teste experientia truculentius est gives us his words says thus Those words of Christ He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood he is in me and I in him c. Christians understand them literally and so Christians are more cruel against Christ than Jews for they left Christ when they had slain him but these eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which as experience testifies is more savage After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation though not before we meet with the Oppositions of Jews testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph Albo de Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis venire in Altare vestiri pane vino post pronunciata verba Hoc enim est Corpus meum à sacrificulo qualiscunque ille demum fuerit sive pius sive impius omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messia c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dicu All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog 55. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may speak for the rest the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence and called it the extreamest stupidity to worship that which is eaten And again Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can any one of a sound Mind call that a God which being offered to the True God is after wards eaten by him But now after all the saddest Consideration is that the Prejudices are so great against this and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church about the worship of Images that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews and it may be look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence and Faith of Christians and they have too great a Temptation to believe so when they have seen this Church which has got the most worldly Power into its hands persecuting not only Jews but Hereticks as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine to the Death for gainsaying it and when that Work will cease God only knows The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter whilst they who call themselves the only Catholick Christians hold such things about the Body of Christ and remember that it is about a Body which as the forenamed Jos Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere neque os eloqui neque auris audire speaks No Man's Mind can conceive nor Tongue utter nor any Ear can hear He means by reason of their absurdity So that the Case of the Jews and their Conversion seems to be hopeless and desperate according to all humane guesses till there be a change wrought not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of but in the Romanist's Belief And though this also may seem upon many accounts to be as hopeless as the former yet for a Conclusion I will try whether as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method Rom. 11.14 by the Example of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke the Jews to Emulation so it may not be as proper to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists to provoke their Emulation whom they may see better explaining as blind as they are Christ's words of Institution and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist than themselves and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine as can never to any purpose be answered The Instances of this are very remarkable in a Book called Eortalitium
thing is turned by such a change begins to exist Now it is manifest that Christ's Body did praeexist seeing it was conceived in the Womb of Mary It seems therefore impossible that it should begin to be on the Altar anew by the Conversion of another thing into it In like-manner neither by a change of Place because every thing that is locally moved do's so begin to be in one place that it ceases to be in that other in which it was before We must therefore say that when Christ begins to be on this Altar on which the Sacrament is perform'd he ceases to be in Heaven whither he ascended It is also plain that this Sacrament is in like manner celebrated on divers Altars Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should begin to be there by a Local Motion 4. You Christians affirm Ibid. 13. Imposs fol. 134 that your Christ is whole in the Sacrament under the Species of Bread and Wine This I prove thus to be impossible Because never are the Parts of any Body contained in divers Places the Body it self remaining whole But now it is manifest that in this Sacrament the Bread and Wine are asunder in separate Places If therefore the Flesh of Christ be under the Species of Bread and his Blood under the Species of Wine it seems to follow that Christ do's not remain whole but that always when this Sacrament is celebrated his Blood is separated from his Body Ibid. 14. Imposs fol. eod 5. You Christians say that in that little Host the Body of Christ is contained This I prove to be impossible Because it is impossible that a greater Body should be included in the place of a lesser Body But it is manifest that the True Body of Christ is of a greater Quantity than the Bread that is offered on the Altar Therefore it seems impossible that the true Body of Christ should be whole and entire there where the Bread seems to be But if the whole be not there but only some part of it then the foresaid Inconvenience returns that always when this Sacrament is perform'd the Body of Christ is Differenced or separated by Parts I will only here set down what the Catholick Author replies to this after the unintelligible distinctions of the Schools and seems most to trust to even such wise Similitudes as these that the Soul is greater than the Body and yet is contained within it that a great Mountain is contained in the little Apple of the Eye and the greatest Bodies in a little Looking-glass and great Virtues in little precious Stones and in the Little Body of the Pope great Authority c. Ibid. 15. Imposs fol. 135. 6. The Jew says you Christians affirm that your Christ is in like manner on more Altars where Masses are celebrated This seems to be impossible because it is impossible for one Body to exist in more places than one But it is plain that this Sacrament is celebrated in more Places Therefore it seems impossible that the Body of Christ should be truly contained in this Sacrament Unless perhaps any should say that according to one part of it it is here and according to another Part elsewhere But from thence it would again follow that by the Celebration of this Sacrament the Body of Christ is divided into Parts when yet the Quantity of the Body of Christ seems not to suffice for the dividing so many Particles out of it as there are Places in which this Sacrament is performed 7. You Christians say that after Consecration Ibid. 16. Imposs fol. 136. all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are manifestly perceived in this Sacrament viz. the Colour Tast Smell Figure Quantity and Weight About which you cannot be deceived because Sense is not deceived about its proper Objects Now these Accidents as you assert cannot be in the Body of Christ as in their Subject Nor can they subsist by themselves seeing the Nature and Essence of an Accident is to be in another thing 7. Metaphys For Accidents seeing they are Forms cannot be individuated but by their Subject and if the Subject were taken away would be universal Forms It remains therefore that these Accidents are in their determinate Subjects viz. In the substance of Bread and Wine Wherefore there is there the substance of Bread and Wine and not the substance of Christ's Body for it seems impossible that two Bodies should be together in one place 8. The Jews say Ibid. 17. Imposs fol. 137. It is certain that if that Wine in your Sacrament were taken in great Quantity that it would heat the Body and intoxicate as before it was a Sacrament and also that the Bread would strengthen and nourish It seems also that if it be kept long and carelesly it will corrupt and it may be eaten of Mice the Bread and Wine also may be burnt and turned into Vapours all which cannot agree to the Body of Christ seeing your Faith declares it to be impassible It seems therefore impossible that the Body of Christ should be contained substantially in this Sacrament 9. The Jew says Ibid. 18. Imposs fol. 137. That you Christians break that Sacrament into Parts Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should be there The Consequence is thus proved Because that Fraction which do's sensibly appear cannot be without a Subject For it seems to be absurd to say That the Subject of this Fraction is Christ's Body Therefore it is impossible Christ's Body should be there but only the Substance of Bread and Wine There is a great deal more of what the Jews say against this Doctrine in that Author but this is enough for the purposes I before mentioned and so I leave it to the Consciences of those concerned to show that even the Jews have better explained the words whereby Christ instituted this Sacrament than the Romanists have by making it a Figure of Christ's Body and not the Body it self spoken more agreeably to the Faith of the Ancient Church that did so and have confuted the Errors of this Church by Maximes consonant to the Sense and Reason of all Man-kind Which God grant they may be sensible of who have so manifestly swerved from them all that so their Words may never rise up in Judgment against them THE END Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sets By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOâ— in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condoâ— and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practâ—â—â— of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Mispresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 140. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith an the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto