on the diseased Christians if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind what reason have we to esteem this so Besides is not a Miracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a sign sure I am the Scripture often calls it so and is not every sign declared by St. * Signum est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 1. Austin to be something sensible whereby we do perceive what is not sensible what therefore is no object of the sence can be no sign or Miracle Secondly we cannot possibly obtain a greater evidence that any Revelation is Divine than is the evidence of sence whence it doth follow that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our sences as T. G. asserts for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophesies they delivered the Doctrine they taught and that by sence should any of them be questioned must not we recur unto the sences of the Primitive Christians to confirm them and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith and our Traditions must we not be surer of the proof than of the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sense than that of Faith which deriveth from it if not why Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed who believe and have not seen 20 Joh. 29 than Thomas who first saw and felt and then believed is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts of a Plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to encrease it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferior to that of sence It is not possible we should have greater reason to believe a Revelation or any matter of our Faith than to believe our sences as T. G. suggests hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words this is my body are contained in Scripture or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christs Body than that assurance which the sences of all Christians do afford us that it remaineth Bread And Thirdly hence it follows that we can have no greater reason to profess the Christian Faith than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation Answer 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said this is his Body and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so although it be against the sence and reason of mankind that he should do it This will oblige us also to believe that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incarnation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock which ministred water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness for of that it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.4 or that Rock was Christ 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit We unbelieving Protestants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood yet the Sacrament should be his very Flesh and Blood but as for you you know the danger of not believing God more than your sences and your reasons and therefore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter 3. This will oblige us to be Anthropomorphites and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and ineffectual for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God but also doth in very many places attribute unto him the parts and members of an humane body what then will you oppose against them sence and reason T. G. will give this answer for them that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their sences or their reason Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture which seems to contradict their Doctrine alas that which is often stiled Bread must not be thought to be so because Christ hath once said it is his body and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred God makes or searcheth God loves or seeks the Spirit 4 Joh. 24. should carry it against so many which more expresly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body or shall we fly unto Tradition alas is it not that which is derived from the sences of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites must not their eyes and tast and smell and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Fourthly This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah for all his Miracles were only motives to believe that Law should be abolished which God hath often said should last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for ever Doth nor he tell them that the things he had revealed belonged to them and to their Children for ever Deut. 29.29 Exod. 12.17 that they might do all the things of this Law Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations 23 Lev. 14 And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not alwayes signifie an infinite duration but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sence and reason Will not this answer justifie the Protestants when they produce so many instances to shew that when a thing in Scripture is stiled this or that the meaning only is that it doth signifie what it is said to be for to omit those passages so often cited 40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38 39.
Innocent the first S. Austin and which was the current Doctrine of the Church of Christ for many hundred years I wave the Opinion of Austin and of Innocent the first saith Maldonate which flourished in the Church six haundred years In Joh. 6. n. 116. viz. that the Eucharist was necessary even for Infants the things is now unfolded by the Church and by the use of many ages and the decree of the Trent Council that it is not only unnecessary for them but that it cannot lawfully be given to them 2. It must be false which is defined by the Council of Florence and is received by the whole Church of Rome that Saints departed before the Resurrection do see the face of God in Glory for we have proved and Sixtus Senensis doth acknowledge that this definition was Bibl. l. 6. An. 345. Repugnant Ingenti numero illustrium Ecclesiae Patrum 3. Hence it will follow that the Trent Catechism and all the Roman Doctors who generally urge that of Jacob The Angel that redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads to prove that Angels may be Invocated embrace that exposition of these words of Scripture which is heretically false as I have proved Chap. 10. Sect. 6. Thirdly I have not entred into that deep dispute betwixt him and the Doctor whether jubere doth signify to command or entreat and whether imperare be to enjoyn or supplicate I Judge it is sufficient advantage to our cause that if Jubere and imperare should not be rendred to entreat and supplicate but to command the Romanists must unavoidably be guilty of Idolatry T. G. indeed informs us that it is not the dead words but the intention of the speaker that makes them to be prayer for otherwise a Parrot might be taught to Pray as well as a Christian and thence he manfully concludes that in these expressions Nos a peccatis omnibus solvite jussu quaesumus Cassand Consult tit de meritis intercess Sanctor p. 971. Jube filio O foelix puerpera jure Matris Impera Redemptori c. They only pray to Saints to pray for us As if a man should call his Prince a Tyrant and his Brother Knave and being brought before the Judge should plead that by a Tyrant he meant only a King and by a Knave a Servant and since it was not the dead words but the intention of the speaker that made them significative for otherwise a Parrot might be hanged for speaking what he did he hoped that he had spoken nothing which might give offence especially seeing he had more Authors ready to produce to justify this sense and acceptation of these words than had the Church of Rome for this interpretation of jubere and imperare if when the Sentence were thus passed upon him Jubemus imperamus hunc suspendi he should plead that it did only signify that they entreated him to be hanged I say should such a plea be made it would be as significant as is this Answer of T. G. And all that any man can say against the Plea of such a trifling Sophister will equally conclude against this pittiful defence which he hath offered Josh 10.12 14. and hath confirmed by a false citation of that place of Joshuah which doth not say that God obeyed as from the Vulgar he translates it but that God hearkened to the Voice of man Fourthly In this discourse I have not waved any thing which had the least appearance of an argument but have returned a full and as I hope a satisfactory Answer to all that hath been offered by T. G. and all that I desire of him is that if be should be pleased to Reply he would not nibble at some few Expressions as is the manner of the Roman party but would return a perfect Answer to the whole and then I do not doubt but he will Suffer me to rest for some convenient Season Thy Friend and Servant D. WHITBY Errata PAg. 4. l. 5. for Surerstition r. superstition p. 11. l. 12. honerem r. honorem p. 33. l. 18. mby r. may p. 40. l 27. from r. for p. 45. l. 5. 〈…〉 r. 〈…〉 p. 55. l. 16. overthrows r. overthrow p. 56. marg configere r. confingere p. 60. l. 23. ef r. of ibid marg creatura r. creaturam p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 86. l. 23. sguiritual r. spiritual p. 90. Marcarius r. Macarius p. 91. Symbol a r. a Symbol p. 93. po r. do p. 340. Chap. 11. r. Chap. 12. THE IDOLATRY Of the Church of ROME CHAP. I. The CONTENTS That according to the Doctrine of the Church of England the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry 1. In Worshipping the Host § 1. And 2. In Praying to departed Saints § 2. The Method used to Justifie this Charge § 3. The Notion of Idolatry considered Negatively in two Propositions 1. That to render any Person Guilty of Idolatry it is not Requisite that he should Conceive the Object of his Worship to be the Great Creator or the chiefest Good § 4. 2. That Worship may be Guilty of Idolatry which is not Given to a Creature with an Intent to Ascribe unto it that Worship which Agrees to God alone § 5. Idolatry is then Committed when any Honour due to God alone is Attributed to or is Conferd on that which is not God § 6. THe Doctrine of the Church of England as it is Delivered in her Injunctions Canons Orders Ordinances and Constitutions her Liturgies and Publick Homilies commanded to be Read in every Parish Church and to be Subscribed and Received by all that Exercise the Ministerial Function and by them to be acknowledged to contain a Good and Wholesome Doctrine and Needful for the Times in which those Homilies were Published is this That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry in Worshipping the Host The Rubrick after the Communion speaks thus The Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances and therefore may not be Adored for that were Idolatry to be Abhorred of all faithful Christians The Constitutions and Canons of the Convocation held A. D. 1640. Can. 7. and Published by the Authority of our Royal Martyr Charles the First affirm That at the time of Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery it was carefuly Provided that all Means should be used to Root out of the Minds of the People both the Inclination thereunto and Memory thereof Especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass for which cause all Popish Altars were Demolished That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry by Praying unto Saints Departed §. 2. Thus in the Homily touching the Peril of Idolatry we have these words Terrentius Vorro sheweth That there were 300 Jupiters in his time I think we had no fewer Saints to whom we gave the Honour due to God Then follows this Apostrophe Oh Heaven Earth and Seas what Madness and
adv Heares l. 1. c. 20. Imaginem quoque Simonis habent factam adfiguram Jovis Helenea in figuram Minervea has adorant ibid Irenaeus tells us did glorifie him as God and had his Image made like to that of Jupiter which they adored all these I say must be excused from Idolatry for they all did it upon this presumption that be vvas the highest God God over all Principalities and Povvers and all other virtues Thirdly If this were so this error in the understanding would equally take off the guilt of other Sins This would excuse the theft of him who robbs his wicked Brother of his goods provided that he think with our Phanatick that all Dominion is founded upon Grace and that avvicked person hath no right to any thing he possesseth for as he that worshipeth the Host upon this false presumption that it is no Creature but the great Creator conceives he worshipeth only God and doth not give his worship unto another So this Phanatick conceives he taketh only what is his by right of grace and what his wicked Brother hath no right unto and so cannot be guilty of that theft which necessarily is the taking of what is anothers and is not mine own Again the Rebel who unsheathed his Sword against his King will not be guilty of Rebellion provided he erroniously conceived as did the Presbyterian That the Kings Majesty was not the highest power but that the power of the Parliament was equal with him and Co-ordinate or if d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. c. or if he think as did the Irish Rebels that being excommunicated by the Pope he becomes presently a Tyrant and hath no further right to his Dominions For if the Adorer of the Host provided that it be a Creature must be excused from Idolatry because he therefore only worships it because he â—alâ—ly thinks it to be God why may not both these sorts of Rebels be absolved from such an hainous imputation Since though the King is really the highest power and not withstanding the interdiction of the Pope continues so to be yet they do only fight against him under the notion of a Tyrant or of a power Co-ordinate Fourthly St. Austin speaks of some who worshiped the Sun as thinking it was Jesus Christ or that Christ was in the Sun and yet he sticks not to condemn this worship as a contempt of the Creator To this example urged by Dr. St. to evince that if the Host after the Consecration did continue Bread the Romanist must be guilty of Idolatry in paying of Latria to it as were the Manichees in giving of that worship to the Sun T. G. returns this answer that the disparity is so clear p. 327. that not to see it was in the Dr. a very gross mistake and he appeals unto the Reader for the truth of what he frith viz. That they worshiped the Sun whom they falsly thought to be Christ even as the Papists worship the Sacrament which they falsly think to be Christ i. e. what they had in their minds and purposes to adore was the Sun but the Catholicks do not believe the bread to be Christ or worship the Bread which they believe to be Christ no their mistake if there was any would be that they believed the Bread not to be there at all and therefore what they would have in their minds and purposes to adore would not nor could not be bread but the only true and eternal Son of God Answer even so the Manichees did not conceive the Sun to be a Creature only * Manscheai dicebant se colere Deum Patrem filium ejus Christum sed quia per deum Intelligebant lucem corpoream per Christum solem istum Corporeum nihil habebant Dei Christinâ—â—â— solum nomen Belâ— larm nor did they worship that Sun which they conceived to be a meer Creature nay their mistake if there were any would be this that they believed no Creature to be there at all or else that Christ resided in the Creature what therefore they had in their minds and purposes to adore would not nor could not be a Creature but the true and eternal Son of God but Secondly this senseless pittiful excuse will free the Heathens from this imputation for they did not believe their Jupiter to be an evil Spirit or a Creature but the God of all things they did not worship him whom they believed to be an evil Spirit no when they appeared before his Image and there addressed their worship to him they believed no evil Spirit to be there at all and therefore what they had in their minds and purposes to adore would not nor could not be an evil Spirit but the true and only God T. G. proceeds to say the difference then in the mistakes is this That the Manichees had for the formal Term of their worship an undue object viz. A Creature instead of the Creator but Catholicks in case of a mistake would have no other formal object of Adoration in their minds but the Creator himself Answer 1 What means this ignorant and simple Tattle of the formal term of worship but to amuze the Reader and make him hope that he faith something when he hath nothing but a mess of non-sence to return unto the Doctors argument Divinity and Metaphysicks are wholly strangers to this rude expression in Logick a material term is the word Homo The formal term is what the word doth signifie so then the sense runs thus the Manichees had for the signification of this word worship an undue object admirable non-sense 2 What is the formal object but the reason for which the outward or the material object is Adored This being so is it not clearer than the Sun that they who had this apprehension in their minds that what we call the Sun was also Jesus Christ and for that only reason did Adore it had equally no other formal object as they who had this apprehension that the Host was Christ and therefore did Adore it and if the Host continue Bread must not the Adoration terminated on it be terminated on a Creature must not the formal term of the Latria or worship which is given to it be an undue object If this erroneous conception will excuse the Authors of it from being guilty of Idolatry then first the Israelites could not be rightly stiled Idolaters for worshiping the golden Calf for many of the Roman Doctors assert they did it upon this presumption that the Calf was God and yet the holy Scripture doth expresly say they were Idolaters 1 Cor. 10.7 by doing thus and that they offered Sacrifice unto the Idol which sure is little better than Idolatry 7 Act. 41. To this instance of the golden Calf he answers thus The Israelites believed the golden Calf to be God P. 329. but Catholicks though supposed to be mistaken in their belief would not worship the
Eliensis Respon ad Apol. Bel. pag. 7. Garnet openly confessed and therefore though they stande obliged to believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated some where or other at some time or other by some Priest or other yet they think no man is obliged to believe that any Priest now or at any one certain time does consecrate effectively And this concession is not very liberal if we consider what is acknowledged by Suarez b Multae sut causae propter quas potest accidere ut Christus non sit praesens ut si sacerdos non sit baptizatus vel non sit ritè ordinatus quod pendet ex multis aliis causis quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus ut ex parte materiae saepe accidit defectus Suarez in 3 Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65.2 That we may almost infinitely proceed in the enumeration of the defects which will obstruct Christs presence in the Holy Sacrament For as we are informed by the Roman Missal if the c Si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsâ consecratione requiruntur Verba autem consecrationis quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti sunt haec hoc est enim corpus meum hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti misterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum Si quis autem aliquid diminueret vel immutaret de forma consecrationis corporis sanguinis in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent non Conficeret sacramentum Miss Rom. de Defec Miss p. 35. Priest happen to diminish or alter any of the words of Consecration so that the sense be varied or any word belonging to the form of Consecration be ontitted in all these cases Christ is not present in the Sacrament but it remaineth Bread now since the form of Consecration of the Cup containeth 11 words and so is the more subject to diminution or alteration seeing the Priest doth always speak the words of Consecration in a d Si quis dixerit Ecclesiae R. ritum quo submissa voce pars canonis verba consecrationis proseruntu◠damnandum esse aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere anathema sit Concil Trid Sess 22. Can. 9. secret voice and not to be heard and in the Latine Tongue none of the People can be certain that he speaks the words of Consecration so fully and so regularly as to secure them from Worshipping a piece of Bread Secondly e Si panis non sit triticeus vel si triticeus sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tanta quan titate ut non maneat panis triticeus vel sit alioqui corruptus non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. pag. 34. If the Bread be corrupted or if it be not Wheaten-Bread then is it not converted into Christs Body and if the Wine be sowre or turned into Vinegar if it be made of unripe Grapes if it be mixt with so much Water as will corrupt the Wine then is it not converted into the Blood of Christ Now by what means the person that adores the Sacrament can be assured that the Bread and Wine is subject unto none of these defects it is not easie to conceive f Si vinum sit factum pe nitus acetum vel penitus putridum vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expessum vel admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. Thirdly g Siquis non intendit conficere sed delusorie aliquid agere non consecrat quiarequiritur inten tio ibid. P. 35.36 If the Priest have uo intention to consecrate the Bread and Wine if in this matter he acts dilusorily if he be asecret Atheist a Moor a Jew in all these cases the person Worshiping must give Latria to a Creature if none of all this happen yet h Quicquid horum deficit scilicet mat eria debita for ma cum intentione ordo Sacerdotalis in conficiente non consicitur Sacramentum ib. p. 34. if the Consecrated Priest were not Baptized with due form of words or if the Person that Baptized him doth not intend to do as the Church doth if he be not a Priest which often happens saith Pope * In quaest quodlib quaest 3. Adrian and certainly falls out when he that doth Ordain him doth noth not intend to do so or faultreth by diminution of or by addition to the form of Ordination so that the sence is changed or made imperefct or lastly if the Bishop that Ordain'd this Priest that doth now Consecrate were not himself Ordained and Baptized with due matter form and intention or if this happened to any Priest to Bishop before him or any one in the same Line of Ordainers till you come unto St. Peter that is if this hath happen'd out in sixteen hundred years then will the Elements remain still Bread and Wine as wanting Consecration by a real Priest for Baptism and Ordination being necessary requisites to Priesthood he who by the defect of these is only a supposed Priest can give but a supposed Priesthood and they that do receive their Priesthood or do derive it from such as have received it from them can receive nothing but a shadow it being undeniably certain that the unsupplyable defect of any necessary antecedent doth cause a nullity in all those consequences which depend upon it So that no R. Catholick can be assured he doth not Worship Bread without he can have no assurance there being no necessity that they should be true From the consideration of all these defects it is exceeding evident That all that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome and daily practice the adoration of the Host are unavoidably subjected to the continual peril of Idolatry and have just reason to suspect although the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should in the general be certain that the material object of their Worship is but Bread and Wine On this Objection T. G. reflects with so much insolence and triumph as if it were the vainest scruple that a tongue could utter and had been managed by the Dr. with the greatest weakness And yet so little reason had he to be thus insolent and pert that by his first reply unto it he hath quite overthrown the Roman Cause and given all considering persons such a clear convincing motive to desert the Church of Rome that nothing can be more prevailing For thus he speaks The absurdness of the assertion that another mans defect and wickedness should make me incur the Crime of Idolatry whether I will or no might suffice to make any reasonable man depose so Chimerical a seruple This I confess is a most clear and certain truth that it is infinitely absurd to say I should be guilty of so great a Crime only by reason of anothers fault or wickedness But then it must
Rhenanus and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis â—s ulentis habemus and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants they to evince the impudence and falseness of that charge did constantly return this answer d Nobis homicidium nec videre sas nec audire tantumque abhumano sanguine cayâ—mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minuâ— par 34. cum notis Ouzel porro quale est ut quos sanguinempecoris horâ—ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis Tertul. Apol. c. 9. vid. Eusib Hist Eccl. l. 5. c 1. That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men whereas had they conceived that by partaking of the consecrated Cup they drank of humane Blood this answer could not have excused them nor could it with sincerity be urged by them since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts they daily fed upon his Blood who was the Man Christ Jesus and to depose a Priest from eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Flesh that contains the Blood as the fore-mentioned Canon doth would in effect be to depose him for pertaking of the Holy Sacrament that being most emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Flesh with Blood according to the Roman Doctrine And therefore this opinion that it was lawfull for Christians to eat Blood found little or no countenance in the Church of Christ till the time of Berengarius when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge besides the ancient Fathers objected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing e Quod Saturni filiâ—dignum est mali nexâ—â— hominis â—angâ—inâ—â— gâ—natur ipsoâ—â— credo decuâ—sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere Comitialem morbum hominis sanguine id est â—orbo graviore sanare Minuc p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo ejusmodiâ—t agâ—es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit est apud Herodotum opiâ—â—â— defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foederà comparasse nescio quid sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9. That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood and used that barbarous custom as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood to the performance of all works of Piety as Pliny saith they did by the participation of the Holy Sacrament Had they thus used humane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls and of their Bodies too as f Erat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat Sed quia intus sani palpeoris cohaerentibus non patebant medicum eos ferro aperire voluine neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Cataplasmare cum jam puer quinque aut fere ampliuâ— esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August l. 3. Sec. adv Julian Op. S. 164. they did use the Holy Sacrament what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and arguments and what could lay upon them an imputation of greater impudence and folly then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised Besides this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernitious Spirits because g Hodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. a draught of humane Blood or the Oblation of the Blood of Man was deemed an acceptable service to them and that which would appease their anger and because their Priests were Consecrated by drinking humane Blood Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice and if both Priest and People did as often drink it as they did celebrate the Sacrament what could these charges be but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh Arg. 2. §. 2. and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross he had delivered that which could not have been thought of and much less practised without the greatest horrour For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh he had enjoyned them to do that which is repugnant unto humane nature and hath been constantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens a barbarous and inhumane thing Hence that expression of our Saviour Christ That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh was by the unbelieving Jew rejected as a thing impossible Joh. 6.52 how can this Man say they give us his Flesh to Eat And if they deemed it a thing impossible that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one mans Flesh well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so Nay when his own Disciples heard it verse 60. they presently cried out This is an hard saying who can hear it they judged it so absurd a Proposition and were so highly scandalized at it that notwithstanding all the conviction they received from their Eyes and other senses that he was the true Messiah they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to reject him verst 66. for from that very time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him So that our Blessed Saviour to obviate and to remove this Scandal doth in the judgment of the Fathers presently expound himself in a Spiritual sence and doth assert that this corporal eating was unprofitable and not the thing he did exhort them to for thus Eusebius doth paraphrase his words g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 3. Eccles Theol. contra Marcell Ancyr M. S. Bibl. Oxon. do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagin that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and h See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites p 48 49 50 51. Life This also is the Exposition of Tertullian Origen St. Augustin Athanasius to omit divers others And of this Exposition they give this account i August de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15 16. that those expressions taken literally command what is an impious and k Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quaedicuntur adverterit si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam c. occidit haec litera Origen in Lev. c. 10. Hom 7.
ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
there the likeness of Wine and yet no Wine so Christ whilst he conversed in the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the similitude of Man but yet no Man If you should urge against them sence and reason they will answer with T. G. Christianity hath taught them to renounce them or if you urge against them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a Body they may answer it was in Scripture called a Body because it seemed to be so For this is that very answer which R. Catholicks do give to all those places of of Scripture which say the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine But Chrysostom and Cyril seem to say §. 6. we must not in this matter trust the Judgment of our our Sences Hom. 82. The words of Chrysostom are these Let us obey God in all things and not gainsay him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and our Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us then our thoughts or sight And let us behave our selves in the Mysteries not beholding only those things which lye before us but holding fast his words For his Word is infallible but our sences are easie to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therefore the word saith this is my Body let us obey and believe and behold him with the Eyes of our understanding Answ These words are Hyberbolical and high but must be soberly interpreted viz. That we must not finally resolve all into Sence but we must certainly believe that howsoever the Sences do perceive nothing but common ordinary Bread and Wine yet by Gods power they are changed into a supernatural use and operation and that by those sensible things spiritual blessings are conveighed unto us That this is the true sence of this expression and that it cannot be designed to intimate the change of Bread into Christs Body so that the accidents of Bread alone remain is evident First from the words immediately following g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 82. in Matt. p. 513. l. 41. For Christ delivered to us nothing sensible but by things sensible things which are intelligible for so it is in Baptism by thing sensible viz. Water the gift to wit Regeneration and Renovation is performed Where note I That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the intelligible thing conveighed in the Sacrament is said to be conveighed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by things sensible i.e. by such things sensible as Water Wherefore the things sensible are no more Transubstantiated then is that Element in Baptism Secondly the thing intelligible or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by Baptism makes but an accidental change a renovation consisting not in the conversion of the nature but in the addition of Grace to Nature So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by this holy Sacrament must not impart the Transubstantiated Bread but Bread converted in its use and operation by the addition of Spiritual Grace And therefore what he here declareth touching the Holy Eucharist he elsewhere doth apply to Baptism in these words let us believe Gods word for it is more certain then our sight for the sight is oftentimes deceived whereas Gods word can never fail And speaking of the poor he saith when we are charitable to them let us be so affected as is we gave to Christ himself for his words are more certain then our sight So that we may from these expressions with equal reason argue that the Baptismal Water is Tran. substantiated and that the poor man is truly changed into Christ as that the Sacramental Signes are changed into his Body and his Blood This is apparent Secondly from what he doth affirm of all good Christians viz. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 B. l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 513. l 21. That their Tongues are red with the Blood of Christ that they are nourished and so mixed with him that they are Christs own Flesh and Body ' and that the whole multitude is the Body of Christ Thirdly from what he adds of wicked Men viz. 1. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 27. That Christ doth not give his Body to them by the Mysteries which is impossible if both the Bread and Wine contain his Body And Secondly That the Table and the place which they resort to is l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 38. that same very Table and that same very upper room in which Christ with his own Disciples did eat the Passeover viz. because it doth contain the same Spiritual Viands And therefore may he not be thought to say his Sacramental Body is indeed the same which suffered on the Cross because it doth conveigh unto us the same Blessings which he purchased by it Hence in this Homily he doth not only call the Bread and Wine * P. 510. l. 36. the Symbols of Christs Body but he confutes the Encratitae by asserting that in those Holy Mysteries our Lord delivered Wine i.e. the fruit of the Grape The words of Cyril Catech. Myst p. 237 238. viz. Consider this is not meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to the words ef Christ himself And although sence do suggest this to thee viz. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Bread yet let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the thing by thy tast but know and hold for most certain that this Bread which is seen of us is not Bread though the tast judge it to be Bread but the Body of Christ and that the Wine which is seen by us although it seem Wine to the sence of tasting notwithstanding is not Wine but the Blood of Christ I say these words if we consider well the context cannot admit of any other sence then that which we have given to the words of Chrysostom For 1. he doth expressly tell us that Christ pronounced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cotech Myst 4. p. 237. D. the Bread this is my Body and immediately before these words he gives this caution look not upon these things as upon common Bread and Wine Now even Romanists themselves confess n Beharm de Ench. l. 1. c. 1. l. 3. c. 19. that if the words this is my Body did make this sence This Bread is my Body this Sentence must either be taken tropically that Bread may be the Body of Christ significatively or else it is plainly absurd and impossible for it cannot be that Bread should be the Body of Christ It is the nature of this Verb Substantive Est or Is saith * Tom. 7. c. 20. Salmeron that as often as it joineth and coupleth togehter things of divers natures which by the Latines are termed Disparata there we must of necessity run to a Figure and Trope And therefore should we
supposed to be In fine P. 2â— to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more then our sences and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholicks he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like unto the fleshly Image or the invisible Deity or the Characters of his Members for this is of a round form and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Answ by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius we are like to see and others to know nothing but the detestable fraud and falshood of T. G. For Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him That who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace But his words are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Anch. p. 60 He that believeth not that Christ is true doth fall from Grace Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christs words may yet believe that Christ is true in all his sayings as much as they from whom he differs Secondly had he considered well the context he would have found this passage is a strong argument against him For Epiphanius in this very Section affirmeth Man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in a similitude or figure but not according to nature for saith he men have not the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equally and yet what God hath constituted we will not substract * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. for he is true who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him and we have many like examples and then immediately follows the example of the Eucharist Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this That we are like unto God after his Image but yet not according to nature even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Image or representment not according to nature Thridly St. Epiphanius affirms that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine this is mine his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum panem Petav. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now since that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things Christ took and blessed confessedly were Bread and Wine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth answer to them must be so I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers but I have chosen only to answer what the very places did suggest that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited or else did chuse to cite them though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them and to convince the Reader that the Judgment of the Fathers must be clearly for us seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine We have now done with his Fathers and briefly shall consider what he hath to â—ay from Protestants And thus he begins P. 299. That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Vniversal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600 years ago is scarcely denied by any I know of Answ One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton in the Treatise of the Mass Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3 4. A.D. 1159 Where we have this confession of Peter Lumbard Master of the Sentences whether the conversion be substantial or not I am not able to determine And Scotus affirming a Si quaeratur qualis sit conversio viz. panis in Eucharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non sufficio Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct 11. Lit. a. that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran And Suarez saying that some School-men held that Transubstantiation was not very ancient Scotus to wit and Gabriel Biel among others And Erasmus that it was but lately determined in the Church And lastly Cardinal Perroon who did not look upon it as b Scotus dicit ante consilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 23. ss sed tamen c In Synaxiserò definivit Ecclesia Transubsiantiationem diâ—iatis erat credere sub pane quocunque modo adesse verum CoÌ„rpus Christi Erasm in 1. Cor. 7. p. 373. a thing very commendable to oppugne the received Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ asserts Card. Perroon En. Sa. Hâ—rrang Autiâ—rs Estates p. 33 De Christ Eccles Suc câ—â—s p. 19 208. That if it had not been for the Council of Laterane it might be now lawful to oppugne it Pious and Learned Bishop Vsher shews out of ancient and authentick Records That after the times of Berengarius many continued even there where Satan had his Throne who privately employed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited T.G. p. 301. for they only do confess that St. Ignatius said what we all grant what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine as we have already proved p. 300. Perkins is also falsly and impertinently cited for he doth not affirm that this particular Heresie of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years Nay he expresly doth assert That it was not concluded in the days of Lumbard Problem p. 155 156 nor then received as an Article of Faith and that for a whole thousand years the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen T.G. p. 301. Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation is a notorious falshood what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian p. 58. is most expresly for the contrary and of Origen p. 260. they speak thus recte in Caena Domini sub pane vino sumi asserit corpus sanguinem Domini i.e. Origen rightly doth assert that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine we take the body and blood of Christ What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Authour precationis primae Praepar ad Missam which is a spurious piece as they themselves have noted from Erasmus Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit The true Ambrosius is reckoned among the Fathers that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Camerarius I can say nothing because I know not where to
tenuisti Idem Tract 50. in Joh. T. eod p. 358 371. thou hast Christ present by faith and in the sign by the Sacrament of Baptism and the meat and drink of the Altar According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples me you shall not have alwayes how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there †send thy faith and thou dost hold him To conclude the Fathers po expresly say that Christ pronounced of the Bread this is my body and of the Wine this is my Blood which say the R. Doctors had our Lord affirmed we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically For proof hereof B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. § 6 behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierom Ambrose Agustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore thirteen to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech 1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57 The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body The second Christ to have called Bread his body Third that Christs speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that that which he brake was Bread The fifth 2. Christus panem corpuâ— suum appellat Tertullianus adv Judeos that it was Bread which he brake The sixth that it was Bread of the Lord not Bread the Lord. The seventh that the words my Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread this is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds 3 Nec matteria panis est sed super illum dâ—ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat 15. illustrates the matter thus So saith he did Christ call his Body Bread as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat except the grain of Wheat die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the consecrated Bread this is my 4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris Hieron Ep. ad Helvid Qu. 2. 5. Panem fractum tradidit disâ—lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc c. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacrament cap. 5. 6. Judas manducavit panem Domini c. Augustinus Tract 59. in Joh. Cyril Hieros 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 4 p 528. 8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum c. Cyril Alez Catech. 4 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8. 10. Gaudent tract de rat sacra Body The eleventh 11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that he blessed Wine when he said drink and the last the Bread strengthning mans Body was therefore called the Body of Christ To these citations add that of Cyprian and †Theophilus the Lord calleth Bread his Body which is made up of many grains 12. Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian or †Ammonius having taken the Bread then afterward the cup of Wine and testified it to be his Body and Blood 13. Panis quia confirmat corpus ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur I st dor l. 1. de officiis cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death That also of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1 T. 4 p 17 Theodoret that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body and that which was mixt his blood And as if this was beyond all dispute he puts this question to the Heretique * ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑΠId. ibid. knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body and makes him answer yea I know it By all which passages a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said this Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood b In Evan l 1 p 152 L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit c. Ammon Harmon Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body to be Metaphorical and figurative as any Protestant now doth note also by the way that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor for saying they believe Bread to be God for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable to no exception since they import this only that the Romanist believes that to be a God which we believe is Bread and to one of that perswasion the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith but to proceed To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils The first is that of Carthage held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops whereof St. Austin and Aurelius were two which thus decrees that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. Eccles Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. as also the Lord commanded it that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water The second is that of Trull whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water because Bread is the figure of the Lords body and the Wine a figure of his blood c In Can. 40. Concil Carthag p. 426 427. Zonaras saith the same In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Image of Christ and the true Image of his natural body and the Image of his flesh given by God And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day before they did receive the Sacrament where we have these words viz. * Aeifrick Saxon Homily v.
guilty of idolatry it being the most clear and most unquestionable truth that the most excellent Creature is not God 2. Whatever doth import and signifie the honour due to the Ceator doth also signifie that excellency which is only due unto him We cannot then perform that act of honour which imports this excellency to the best of Creatures but we must honour it as our Creator nor can we honour it as our Creator but we must worship it as God and by so ding we must be guilty of what the Romanists confess to by paying honor to a Creature But we can pay no greater honor to the most excellent of Creatures than by ascribing to it that honor which is due to God alone and therefore by ascribing of that honor to it we must be guilty of idolatry 4. By giving of that honor to God which doth import that excellence and perfection which agrees to God alone we exercise that act of Worship which we call Latria for since Dulia doth import only the worship proper to the Creature it cannot signifie that worship which is due to him whose dignity is infinitely greater than what the best of Creatures doth enjoy if then we exercise that act of worship to the Creature we give Latria to it and in the judgment of our most rigid Adversaries to give Latria to a Creature is to be guilty of Idolatry To know the secrets of the hearts of persons praying Prop. 2. §. 2. is a divine and uncommunicated excellency This is apparent 1. from express Scripture testimony 1 Kings 8.39 2 Chron. 6.29 30. What prayer or what supplication soever shall be made by any man or by all thy people Israel when every one shall know his own sore and his own grief and shall spread forth his hands in this house hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place and forgive and render unto every man according to all his wayes whose heart thou knowest for thou even thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men where first observe That there it is asserted as a thing proper to God not only that he knows the hearts of all men collectively taken but distributively i. e. that he alone doth know the heart of any man for this is given as a reason why when supplications are made by any man God should render to him according to his wayes because he only knows his heart i. e. he only knows the heart of any single person 2. Observe this knowledge of the heart is thus appropriated to God in reference to whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man Whence we infer that whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man God only knows the heart and the conceptions of the Supplicant and therefore that this knowledge is not communicated to Saints or Angels 3. Observe that to affirm this knowledge is ascribed to God alone because he only hath this knowledge from the perfection of his nature whereas it is communicated to the Saints and Angels only by way of revelation or by the vision of that God who knoweth all things Is 1. without all ground to limit what is universally pronounced in the case of prayer 2. It we admit this limitation to say God only knows the secret of the heart of him that prayeth hath no more of truth than if I should assert God only hath a being he only acts he only knows that Christ is come into the world because he only acts and hath his being from himself our beings and our power of action is derived from him and by his revelation only we do know that Christ is come into the world 3. We may on like accounts assert That even when the general hath paid his Souldiers he alone hath money because what money and of his Souldiers have was given by him and that the Master only of the School of Westminster knows Greek and Latine because his Scholars have derived that knowledge from him 4. If we admit of such a limitation then the exclusive term will not refer to what is spoken but to that which is not mentioned not to the predicate viz. the knowledge of the hearts of men which is expressed but only to the manner of that knowledge of which the Text is wholly silent Now this inter pretation gives such a forced and strained sense as in a matter of this nature ought not to be admitted without the greatest evidence Whereas the sence we plead for is the most plain and natural import of the words For it is natural to conceive the sense of this expression should be this thou and no other knowest the hearts of men whereas if we do paraphrase it thus that many myriads of Saints and Aâ—gels have this knowledge of the heart but thou alone dost naturally know what they receive from revelation this Proposition taken as it is expresed viz. God only knows the hearts of men will be both absolutely false and uncouth and what is contradictory to it viz. God only doth not know the hearts of them that pray will be absolutely true 2. If such a knowledge of the heart was not an uncommunicated excellency if it was only that which did agree to many thousands of blessed Saints and Angels then could it be no proof of the divinity of Christ and of the holy Spirit for what is answered to the Protestant by those who do ascribe this knowledge to the Saints in glory might be with equal probability alledged to baffle and evade this evidence of Christs divinity which is so often and so triumphantly suggested by the holy Fathers And hence it is confessed by the great (f) Quod argumentum nullum esset omnino si non Dei proprium id foret cogitationes intimas corda cognoscere Theol. dogm Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 7. p. 39. §. 3. Petavius that if this knowledge were not proper to God their argument would certainly be weak and groundless And yet the Fathers in his Argument are so exceeding full and copious that it were endless to collect what they deliver Our Lord saith (g) in Lucam l. 5. c. 3. Ambrose demonstrateth himself to be God by knowing of the secrets of the heart Take saith (h) Serm. 50. Chrysologus these indications of our Lords divinity hear how he penetrates the secret of thy heart see how he dives into thy hidden thoughts See saith St. (i) p. 2. Com. in Joh. p. 144. Cyril how he is that God who is the (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alex. Com. in Joh. l. 2. p. 133. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. p. 144. searcher of all hearts For to none other is it given to know the mind of man as is apparent from that passage of the Psalmist God is the searcher of the heart and reins for there the Psalmist mentions it as a peculiar thing which only doth agree to the Divine nature and to nothing else if it be proper unto God
possibly receive it from another This therefore could not be the apprehension of the Jews and Heathens touching their Images and Calves and yet I say the Scripture doth expresly say the Jews asked counsel of their stocks Hos 4.12 Jer. 2.27 Acts 7.41 and said unto the stock thou art my Father and to a stone thou hast brought me forth and that they sacrificed unto the very Idolor Image of a Calf which they had made and of the Heathens it affirms without distinction Esa 44.15 17. That they fell down and prayed to the very Image they had made because the homage they performed to these Images upon presumption of a Deity presiding in them that being an absurd and false imagination was really performed to stocks and stones an therefore on the same account this knowledge of the heart of all that in all places pray unto them being ascribed to Saints and Angels upon as vain presumptions of such a revelation which God vouchsafes not to them must be deem'd to be the same as if they did conceive this knowledge to arise form the perfection of their natures and upon that account did put up their petitions to them Those outward acts of worship Prop. 4. § 4. which by consent of nations or by common use and custome of mankind do signifie that honour they ascribe to God alone and by the exercise of which they alwayes did intend to give him the glory due unto his name are to be reckoned acts of worship proper to God and he that doth perform those acts of worship to a Creature which by consent of nations have obtained to signifie the worship due to the Creator and which in such a place or country are only used to that intent is by so doing an Idolater For by doing of the same which they conceive an act of worship proper to the Deity he must be vertually conceived to will the same and consequently to will the giving of that worship to the Creature which alone is due to the Creator For seeing all such actions have their import form custome and institution by whom soever they are exercised and whatsover private apprehensions he may have that worshippeth they must be thought to signifie according to that import which institution and custome gives them If any man should use those words which naturally import according to the common use and acceptation of the words that hope and confidence that love and duty which we owe to God alone whatever private sense or meaning he may put upon them in his inward thoughts he must be deemed to ascribe unto that object to which he useth such expressions the honor due to God For this being the immediate use of words to signifie the thoughts and apprehensions of our hearts he must be judged to use them in that sense which custome hath imposed upon them because they will not otherwise declare the apprehensions of the mind Since therefore outward rites ceremonies have their signification from the same original from which our words derive it or else do naturally import as much what reason can be given why the use of words which do import Gods Worship should be thought to signifie it yet the use of Rites should not be thought to do the same And hence S. Augustine saith Aquinas gives this reason why we must nor sacrifice unto inferior Daemons quia exterior a sacrificia it a signa sunt interiorum 2ª 2a q. 96. Art 2. sicut verba sonantia signa sunt rerum because exterior sacrifices are signs of the interior even as words are signs indications of the things they signifie now since all outward acts of Worship are also signs of the interior respect and veneration of the soul and are performed to express the same it follows that no act of outward Worship which doth by nature custome or institution signifie the honour due to God can be assigned to any other without ascribing to it that inward veneration which alone is due unto him and if this vvere not so those vviser heathens of vvhom St. * De. Civ Dei l. 6. c. 10. Austin speaks who understood that vvhat the vulgar people vvorshipped vvere no Gods and yet complyed vvith the common practice could not be guilty of Idolatry and they vvho understood them to be cheats and devils and yet for fear of punishment did offer sacrifice or incense to them must be excused from that crime because they did perform indeed the outward action but not vvith an intent to pay the inward homage vvhich vvas due to God but only to comply vvith the opinion of the Vulgar or to preserve themselves from the unhappy fate of Socrates and yet St. Augustine doth pronounce those vvise men guilty in an †Colebat quod reprehendebat quod culpabat adorabat â—o damnabilius quo illa quae mendaciter ogebat sic ageret ut eum populus veraciter agere existimaret Aug. de Civ Dei l. 6. c. 10. higher nature than they vvere vvho thought them to be Gods and | 2ª 2ª qu. 96. Art 2. Thomas gives this clear and pregnant reason vvhy such a sentence should be passed upon them viz. Because this outvvard Worship vvas a sign of the interior As therefore he that doth affirm by vvords the contrary to vvhat his heart conceiveth must be esteemed guilty of a pernicious lye So also he that doth exterior Worship to that vvhich he conceiveth in his mind is no due object of that Worship is guilty of the like pernicious falsity vvhich sure he could not be if that exterior action did not import that invvard Worship of vvhich it is by institution and by common custome made the sign and hence in Scripture those actions which in their nature do not at all import religious Worship yet being tendred to that object vvhich by those actions was used to be vvorshipped as God I say such actions are in Scripture mentioned as indications of Idolatry viz. to kiss the hand unto the Sun to eat of what is sacrificed to false Gods to feast and play before them to bow the knee to Baal Moreover to bow the body or to use prostration to the wicked Haman was that which Mordecai refused and of this action he gives this account Esth 13.14 Thou knowest Lord that it was neither in contempt nor pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I refused to worship Haman but I did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God nor will I worship any besides thee O God Sith then we find this outward worship was refused as being due to God alone we must confess that it was due unto him either because God hath enjoyned it should be given unto him alone and then the Papists must confess they have Gods precept and injunction against their prostrations made to Saints or to the Images of Saints or else because this practice was in those Persian Countries used as a testification of
see and hear us every where And Chrysostom upon the same Expression finds fault with those that pray aloud and bids us Imitate the Hymnes and Melodies of holy Angels who pray with us although we do not hear them for saith he (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Tom. 2. Homil. in Matt. 19. pag. 137. thou dost not pray to Man but to God omnipresent to him that hears before thou speakest to him that understandeth what the Mind doth not utter 4. Because he only can Answer our Petitions and from him only can we obtain what we desire * Precantes sumus proomnibus Imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam imperium securum domun tutam populum probum orbem quietum quaecunque hominis Caesaris vota sunt Haec ab alio orare non possum quam à quo me scio consequnturum quoniam ipse est qui SOLVS praestat ego sum cui impetrare debetur famulus ejus qui eum Solum observo Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Sect. 2 3. We beg for all our Emperors long life safe Empire valiant Armies a faithful Senate an honest People and a quiet World and whatsoever any man or Emperor could wish So Tertullian And then he adds These things I may not pray for from any other but from him of whom I know I shall obtain them because both it is he who alone is able to give and I am be to whom it appertaineth to obtain that which is requested being his servant who observe him alone From all which sayings it is evident these antient Fathers did not only think as we now do that all our Intercessions should be made to God but also that they did it for these very Reasons we alledg viz. that he alone is omnipresent that he alone discerns the secrets of the Heart that he alone is able to confer the Blessings which we want and pray for 2 The Fathers do affirm that by addressing a petition to a Martyr Saint or Angel we become guilty of distraction from God and of deserting our Lord Jesus Christ (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 15. pag. 135. We cannot be induced saith the Church of Smyrna to forsake Christ or worship any other Person where first it well deserveth to be noted that what is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the antient Interpreter of the Acts of Polycarp Alteri cuiquam Orationis precem impendere we cannot pray to any other Act. Polyc in Append Ignat Usser p. 27. And what the Jews objected that if the Christians could obtain the Martyrs body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deserting Christ they would begin to worship him is by the Metaphrast thus rendred huic fundenda esset oratio singulorum they would all pray unto him Now seeing this Translation was of such credit in the Western Church that it was read in their assemblies it is most certain that Church did antiently conceive 1. that the Church of Smyrna did deny that any genuine Christian would pray to any Saint departed 2. That to put up a petition to a Martyr was to renounce their Saviour And 3. that to pray to and afford religious worship to a Martyr was the same And 4. that we must only put up our petitions to the Son of God because he only must be worshipped Secondly observe the reason of this assertion of the Church of Smyrna We cannot worship any other delivered in these words For him being the Son of God we worship but the Martyrs as the Disciples and followers of the Lord we highly love for their exceeding great affection to their own King and Master The Church of Rome could have informed them of a better Reason why they should affect them viz. as being Intercessors and Mediators for and Patrons of the Christian Church and the Procurers of all spiritual Blessings for them She could have told them it was ignorantly done to comprehend that Service vvhich was due to the deceased Martyrs in this one expression We love them worthily For if the Veneration and Worship of the Saints departed nay the Worship of their very Ashes hath been the constant Custom of the whole Church of God and if the Invocation of them be that which Holy Scripture teacheth and the Apostles have delivered and which the Church of God hath alwaies practised as is delivered in the * Catechism of the Church of Rome Part. 3. c. 2. Sect. 8. it may be well admired that the Church of Smyrna which daily practised say they this veneration and invocation of the holy Martyrs should without distinction appropriate all worship and adoration to the Son of God in opposition to the Martyrs and comprehend the Service they performed to the blessed Martyrs in a word which doth not in the least import the Veneration which they daily practised 2. Observe the Reason vvhich is given by the Church of Smyrna why they could not worship any other viz. Because they worshipped the Son of God if any worship had been then paid to Martyrs or any other Saints departed by the Church of Christ what could have been more stupid than this Way of reasoning Now that this Doctrine is introduced into the Church of Rome we hear them speaking thus †Tantum abest ut Sanctis invocandis Dei gloria minuacur ut eo maximè augeatur Cat. Rom. part 3. c. 2. Sect. 11. We worship Saints and Martyrs in honour of the Son of God So far do they esteem that honour which they pay to him from being any prejudice unto the Worship of those blessed Spirits 3. Observe the Argument which the Jews urged to move the Proconsul to retain the body viz. That if the Christians could obtain it it might be feared they would leave Christ and worship Polycarp The Jews could not be ignorant of what the Christians practised in this case by reason of those numerous Apostates who daily left the Church and of that liberty they had to come to their Assemblies Had then the Christians worshipped other Martyrs with Christ and had they professed to do it for his sake and honour could this have been objected by the Jews with any sense and reason that they would quit Jesus Christ that they might worship Polycarp Must they not rather have objected that with Christ they would worship Polycarp which since they did not we may well suspect the practice of the Church gave them no reason so to do Athanasius discoursing upon these words of Jacob The Angel that delivered me from all evil defend the Lads which by the Arians were urged to the same purpose as they are used by Roman Catholicks viz. to prove that Invocation was not so proper to God but that it might be used to Creatures and therefore that it was no evidence that Christ was God declares that Jacob did not speak of a created Angel 1. Because he joyns the Angel with God and saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
this is manifestly false and that Doctor Stillingfleet not only contradicis the Truth but himself too to wit because he had before affirmed that the Aegyptian Daemons saith Celsus healed the diseases of the parts proper to themselves and therefore might justly be Invocated And 2. because he had told us from S. Augustin that it was their Office to inform the superior Gods of what they could not know otherwise this is the only ground of this rude imputation of falsehood and contradiction to the Doctor and yet this ground is as ridiculously vain as if I should affirm this Proposition to be false that all the Heathens attributed to their good Spirits was only Intercession because they attributed to them Wings and an Aetherial body who is so blind as not to see that when the Doctor saith they made them Mediators of Intercession only not Mediators of Redemption by that exclusive only he could not intend to say that they asserted nothing else concerning them as he most grosly doth mistake or most unconscionably doth interpret him but only that they ascribed nothing to them which made them Mediators of Redemption Moreover is it fair dealing when he thus rails against Dr. Stillingfleet to do himself what he imputes unto the Doctor and quote him falsely in that very place which yet he manifestly doth in setting down this passage as the Doctors words viz. that the giving them Divine Worship proceedeth upon that superstition c. For both to this citation and to many passages pretendedly translated from the Fathers or cited as the sense and meaning of their words he adds this word Divine where it is not expressed or in the least intended only that he may seem to answer when he doth nothing less which is a fraud so horrible and disingenious that no man can sufficiently detest it or judge that man can make a conscience of his actions who makes a common practice of it 2. Let any man peruse S. Augustin's whole discourse upon this matter and he will find that to overthrow this Tenet of * Sed quia eosdem Daemones inter homines Deos ita medios constitutos putant tanquam nullus deus homini misceatur ut hine perferant desiderata inde referant impetrata atque hoc Platonici precipui Philosophorum ac nobilissimi sentiant cum quibus velut cum excellentioribus placuit istam examinare quaestionem utrum cultus plurimorum Deorum prosit ad consequendam vitam beatam quae post mortem futura est De Civitat Dei l. 9. c. 1. p. 268. D. Apuleius and all Philosophers that were of the same judgement with him and held that their good Doemons did so mediate betwixt the Gods and men as that they carried our petitions up to them and did return the Aids and Blessings of the God to us He undertakes the Refutation of this Platonick Doctrine and the examination of this Question whether the worship of those many Gods or Daemons was profitable to the obtaining of our future Bliss and to confute this Doctrine of the Platonists and to prove this Mediation not to be profitable to this end he argues thus * Proinde mediatorem inter nos Deum mortalitatem habere oportuit transeuntem beatudinem permanentem ut per id quod transit congrueret morituris ad id quod permanet transferret ex mortuis Boniigitur Angeli inter miseros mortales beatos immortales medii esse non possunt quia ipsi quoque beati immortales sunt Id. ib. c. 15. vid. etiam c. 13. Multi sunt medii Separatores ne possit ad illud unum beatificum perveniri ad quod ut perduceremur non multis sed uno Mediatore opus erat hoc eo ipso cujus participatione sumus beati hoc est Verbo Dei non facto sed per quod facta sunt omnia Ib. c. 15. A. This Mediation cannot be performed but by a middle person who partakes of some what that makes him like unto hoth parties and therefore cannot be performed by good Angels such as the Platonist asserts these Daemons are because Good Angels have happiness and immortality with God but neither misery nor mortality by which they may agree with Man This is his argument even in that place whence Dr. Stillingfleet doth cite these words that those who are Christians do believe that we need not many but one Mediator and that such a one by whose participation we are made happy i. e. the word of God not made but by whom all things were made Now here the Doctor is with great confidence p. 373. and with as little reason accused of false translation and addition to St. Austins words of addition because he saith those that are Christians do believe Of false Translation in those words we need not many but one Mediator but it is easie to vindicate the Doctor from these false aspersions for that Christians only could be brought to the Enjoyment of God was certainly St. Austins Faith so then ut perduceremur sc nos ad Deum non multis sed uno Mediatore opus erat sc nobis must import thus much That we Christians may be brought to God we have no need of many Mediators To cavil at this Translation is to expose his ignorance to every School Boy But to the Testimony of St. Austin he returns this Answer that it is plain he speaks of such a Mediator p. 374. by whose participation we are made happy that is a Mediator of Redemption and not a Mediator of Intercession Rep. it is as plain that St. Austin speaks of such a Mediator who is the word of God not made but making all things and that the Platonist acknowledged his Mediating Demons to be made by God the Platonist may therefore with T. G. infer that it is plain he speaketh not against them though he designed nothing else because he speaks of such a Mediator by whose participation we are made happy that is sayth he the word of God not made c. 2. Doth not St. Austin tell us in the begining of this Book that seeing some Philosophers affirmed that their Good Demons were Ministers to intercede with God or carry up our Prayers to him and to bring back his Blessings unto us therefore he would enter upon this dispute whether the worship of those many Gods was profitable to Salvation And therefore it is evident he stood obliged to shew they did not contribute to our Salvation by being Mediators of Intercession for us as well as to exclude them from from being Mediators of Redemption The Works of Origen against Celsus §. 2. are so express and clear against this practice of the Church of Rome that if he had designed to confute the Doctrine of that Church he could not have devised expressions more repugnant to it for having confessed that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 233. holy Angels did carry up our