Cap 19. Passio Domini in qua tingimur Mystag 4. In Sacramentis non quid sint sed quid ostendant attenditur quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Aug. cont Max. l. 3. c. 22. Ne quis attendat in eis quod sunt c. de Doctr. Christ c. 7. Hom. 16. in Sacram. Euchar. Tom. 6. wherein neither we nor our Adversaries admit of any Transubstantiation Thus Tertullian in his Book of Baptism saith that thereby we are dyed in the passion or bloud of our Lord. In like manner Cyril of Hierusalem after he had instructed Christians not to look upon the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament as mere Bread and Wine whatever sense suggesteth but as the body and bloud of Christ affirmeth the same of the Water in Baptism that it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere or bare Water and the same he saith of the Oil in Chrism though neither of them are substantially chang'd into the very bloud of Christ Many more instances might be added but these may suffice I will onely take notice of a Similitude used by St. Chrysostom in which Bellarmin triumphs 'T is this As saith he Wax set on fire loseth its substance being turn'd into fire so by consecration the substance of the bread is chang'd into the flesh of Christ To which and the like expressions quoted out of the Fathers In Epiphanium pag. 244. pag. 288. I shall answer in the words of Petavius the Jesuit There are many things saith he in the Holy Fathers especially in Chrysostom scatter'd here and there in their Homilies which if you would reduce to the rule of exact Truth they will seem altogether void of good sense Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Biblioth Annotat 152. Another of their own Church ingenuously aknowledgeth that Preachers such as the Fathers were in their Homilies and popular Discourses often speak things by an Hyperbole being carried away affectuum impetu orationis cursu with the heat of their affections which often saith he befell Chrysostom Yea Rhetoricati sumus ali quid declamationibus dedimus Saint Hierom confesses of himself We have play'd the Rhetoricians in a Declamatory way To close this Similitudes are the weakest kind of Arguments Neither may our Adversaries in prudence urge this similitude of fired Wax too vehemently against us If so they must necessarily grant that not onely the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament ceaseth to be but the very outward accidents also For when Wax is fired not onely the substance but the very accidents are disserent from what they were before And so much at present for Transubstantiation I pass to the next Article Purgatory 3. Art. Concerning Purgatory The Antient Fathers for five hundred years after Christ did not hold the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory as an Article of Faith yea some of them expresly contradict it I will begin with the Greek Fathers Clemens Romanus and Ignatius in their genuine Writings take no notice at all of it Justin Martyr denies it We believe saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ☜ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man after his departure hence goeth according to his works either into everlasting punishment or life And immediately addeth Men would avoid sin if they consider'd that they must go without Repentance into eternal punishment by fire But of enduring temporal punishment for sin by fire not a word is to be found in all his Writings Quest 75. Amongst the Questions and Answers which are printed with his Works it is thus resolved After the departure of Souls out of their Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently they are by Angels carried to places fit for them the Souls of the just to Paradise of the unjust to Hell in which places they are kept until the Resurrection Here no notice is taken of Purgatory or any middle or third place out of which Souls may be deliver'd by Prayers Masses Indulgences c. It 's true this Writer is much younger than Justin Martyr but it maketh the more against our Adversaries for it sheweth that long after his death this Article of Roman Faith was not Catholick or universally received In Irenaeus as Erasmus also hath observ'd who was very well seen in his Writings there is no mention of Purgatory but in the close of his last Book there is somewhat contradicting it for without any distinction of Persons or sins mortal or venial he declares his opinion that the Souls of all Christ's Disciples go to one invisible place Origen Hom. 18. in Jeremiam pag. 163. edit Huet Dum hic sumus remedium non postea Vita Constant lib. 4.63 hades there remaining till the Resurrection as Tertullian Origen Lactanctius Ambrose and other of the Fathers held which is inconsistent with Purgatory as invocation of dead Saints also and contradicted by the Romanists Eusebius Caesariensis hath written several Volumes in all which as Scultetus hath noted there is not the least mention of Purgatory It 's true he relates how the people pray'd for the Soul of Constantine But Constantine as he assures us in the next Chapter went not to Purgatory but was taken up to his God and joined his divine part his Soul to God yea a little before his death he himself as Eusebius reports used these words Now I know my self to be happy to be now accounted worthy of eternal life Prayer then for the dead doth not necessarily infer Purgatory De Praep. Evang. lib. 11. c. 20. lib. 13. I grant he reporteth Plato's opinion concerning purgation of a middle sort of men by temporal punishments after death But adds that Plato through ignorance of the Scripture erred in many things I pass to Athanasius in all whose Writings tho many and large I can find no mention of this Article of Faith Purgatory and am the more confirm'd it cannot be found in regard Bellarmin quotes nothing out of him or Eusebius against us Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration in Caesarium Oratio 10. delivers himself thus I am mov'd by the sayings of the Wise that every Soul that is belov'd of God as the Souls sent by Romanists to Purgatory are acknowledg'd to be presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the loosing from the body and departure hence that which darkned the mind being either purged or cast from it or done away in what sort I cannot well express whence it's evident he believed not they were purged by fire as Romanists peremptorily affirm beginneth sensibly to discern that good which remaineth for it to be filled with wonderful delight and to leap for joy But this wonderful delight and joy cannot consist with Purgatory torments or the fear of them Nazianzen then was no Papist in this point On those words Orat. de Paschate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye shall carry out nothing until the morning c. He saith Beyond or after this night i. e. after death there
tormented in the fiery flames of Purgatory The same Father in another place hath these words Hom. 5. in Genesin He that in this present life shall not wash away his sins shall find no consolation hereafter this is the time of combating that of crowning I shall onely add what he writeth in his second Homily upon Lazarus quoted by Bellarmin When we are departed hence it is not in our power to repent or to wash away the sins we have committed V. Cyril Alexand in Joan. lib. 12. c. 36. Thus we have seen that the Greek Fathers in the first Ages of the Church were not of the present Roman Faith as to this new Article of Purgatory I might descend lower were it not needless for 't is confess'd by some of the Romish Writers V. Polyd. Virg. de invent rerum lib. 8. c. 1. Alph. de Castro c. 8. p. 572. particularly Roffensis the Pope's Martyr in Henry VIII his days That in the ancient Fathers especially the Greeks there is either none or very rare mention of Purgatory Neither saith he did the Latin Fathers all at once receive it neither does the Greek Church at this day believe it This Concession is true for the Greeks in their printed Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople Ann. 1438. in his Censure of the Lutheran Confession and Cyril Patriarch of that Church in his Confession of Faith sent by him to Cornelius Hage Ambassadour for the States of Holland at Constantinople An. 1630. deny any purgation of sins after death by fire in Purgatory which say the Greeks in their Apology was condemn'd by the fifth General Council altho it is not now to be found in the late Editions of the Councils From what hath been said I hope it is evident First That there neither is nor ever was any Catholick or universal consent of all Christian Churches as to this new Roman Article of Faith viz. Purgatory Secondly That Bellarmin the Jesuit doth but abuse the World in quoting the Greek Fathers as owning it For is it probable that the Romans should understand their meaning in their Writings better than themselves It 's true some of them as Origen Gregory Nyssen c. mention Purgation of Souls from sin by Fire but it makes nothing for the Popish doctrine of Purgatory For First Origen's Purgatory is universal which all Prophets Apostles Origen in Exod. Hom. 6. the blessed Virgin must pass through not some onely neither very good nor very bad but of a middle sort as Romanists hold Secondly The Purgation Saint Basil Gregory Nyssen and others speak of is not before the Resurrection V. Origen in lib. Regum p. 36. Contra Celsum lib. 5. p. 241. Cyrilli Catech. l. 15. pag. 168. Ego puto quod post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento nos eluente purgante Origen Hom. 14. in Lucam but at the end of the World by the fire of Conflagration which shall purge as some think the whole Creation so that at last all men even Devils too shall be saved as Origen held who turn'd Hell into Purgatory Such Sentences of the Fathers will not at all be serviceable to our Adversaries purpose So much for the Greek come we now to the Latin Fathers I shall begin with Tertullian who in his Apologetick Cap. 47. mentions onely two places to which Souls go Hell and Paradise In his Book De Testimon Animae Cap. 4. He thus bespeaketh the Soul We affirm thee to remain after death and to expect the day of judgment Expectare diem Judicii proque merito aut cruciatui destinari aut refrigerio utroque sempiterno and according to your behaviour to be destinated to torment or comfort and both eternal As for temporary torments in the fire of Purgatory before the day of Judgment Tertullian takes no notice of them In his fifth Book against Marcion Cap. 6. commenting on that famous place 1 Cor. 3. he rightly understandeth the Gold Silver Hay Stubble not of sins venial or mortal but Doctrines worthy or unworthy of the foundation i. e. Christ or Christian Religion Strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom agrees Clemens of Alex. in his fourth Book Cap. 34. against Marcion as also De Anima Cap. 35.55 he saith The Souls of all good Christians are in Abraham 's bosom in refrigerio a place of refreshment until the Resurrection as many of the ancient Fathers thought when they shall receive plenitudinem mercedis the fulness of their reward Not as Papists now teach any of them in Purgatorian torments It is farther observable that he there distinguisheth that place from Hell or any part of it as Purgatory is supposed to be And discoursing on those words apply'd by Romanists to Purgatory Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing He affirmeth that all Souls abide apud inferos till the Resurrection Which utterly overthrows the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory and renders all their Masses Indulgences c vain and unprofitable From the Master let us pass to his Scholar Saint Cyprian who in his Epistle to Demetrian saith that at the ending of this temporal life we are severed into the receptacles either of eternal death or immortality Ad aeternae mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividamur p. 166. And in his Book De bono mortalitatis he comforts the Christians generally in a time of raging Pestilence with these considerations That the servants of Christ when they die depart as Simeon desired in peace Enter into Paradise go to Christ begin to reign with Christ that when they are taken out of the storms of this World they gain the haven of Rest and eternal security Securitatis aeternae portum petimus Lastly That after death the righteous are call'd ad refrigerium to refreshment not torment in Purgatory fire whither some are sent by the Romanists and the unrighteous to punishment All which expressions are utterly inconsistent with this new Article of Faith as every man not blinded with prejudice may easily discern To the same purpose in his Epistle to Antonium he adviseth in contradiction to the bitter doctrine of Novatus that pardon and peace should be granted to Penitents in extremis at or a little before their death Because saith he apud inferos exomologesis fieri non posset in Hell or the state of death or in the grave as the word Inferi is sometimes taken there can be no satisfaction made by suffering penance or punishment for sin It 's true in the latter end of the same Epistle he saith It 's one thing to be presently admitted to the reward of Faith or heavenly Glory and another to be purged from sins by being long tormented in fire But this testimony is no good proof of the Roman Purgatory in regard he there speaketh expresly De die judicii of the day of Judgement after the Resurrection whereas our Adversaries
confess that their Purgatory Fire is of no use after the Resurrection and eternal Judgment The like saying he hath in his Epistle to Demetrian After we have gone out of this life nullus remanet satisfactionis locus There is no place for satisfying for our sins Here life is got or lost for ever Our Adversaries say after we are gone out of this World we may by suffering in Purgatory fully satisfie God for our sins compleat our Exomologesis or Penance obtaining thereby at last life eternal Surely Saint Cyprian was of another opinion Come we to Lactantius The Heathens saith he Instit lib. 6. c. 3. lib. 3. c. 19. Caeli inferorum speak of a Bivium two ways apud inferos relating to the dead which more truly say that these two ways are Heaven and Hell for to the righteous immortality to the wicked eternal death belongs Here Lactantius mentions two not three ways men go after death The next Latin Father is Saint Hilary who in his Comment on Matth. C. 27. overthroweth the main ground on which Purgatory is built for he saith expounding the Parable of the Virgins Alienis meritis ac operibus neminem adjuvandum c. that no man after this life can be helped or deliver'd by the good works or merits of others because every man must necessarily provide Oil for his own Lamp. The wise Virgins in Saint Hilary's judgment are they who embracing the opportunity or season of this life the time of repentance and reconciliation with God prepare themselves for Christ's coming The foolish are they who would be borrowing Oil of their Neighbours provide not in time for themselves but depend on the courtesie of others their Works Prayers Merits which will stand them in no stead when being out of their bodies they have neglected and lost the time of repentance If Hilary was in the right redemption of Souls out of Purgatory by other mens Prayers Merits Fastings by Indulgences Masses Pardons Scapularies and such foolish inventions are all vain and insignificant which will stand men in no stead yield them no help or relief The same Father elsewhere maketh only two sorts of men Fideles Impii In Psal p. 120. faithful and impious The former he saith going out of the body are placed in Abraham's bosom where they are kept free from evil viz. of punishment till after the resurrection so he thought they be admitted into Heaven the other are hindred like Dives by the interposing Gulf from going thither To the same purpose he discourseth in Psalm 2. I pass to Saint Ambrose who in his Book De Bono Mortis saith thus Cap. 2. He that receiveth not here remission of sins shall not be there i. e. in Heaven He speaketh indefinitely of all sins whether mortal or venial And again Cap. 12. When that day viz. of death cometh they go to their Redeemer to the very bosom of Abraham a place of rest not torment speaking of good Christians Certainly it is harsh to affirm that justify'd persons reconcil'd to God by Christ's bloud for as Hilary even now taught us this must be done here in this life or no where and consequently in a state of Grace and favour with him should in regard of some small venial sins or mortal as they are called not fully satisfy'd for in this life by Penance Fasting Alms c. be cast into fiery torments and to lie there many years none know how long unless helped out by the uncertain Prayers Merits c. of others particularly unless the alsufficient and abundantly satisfactory Merits of Christ be applyed to them by the Popes Indulgences I add next Saint Hierom In Amos cap. 9. who saith When the Soul freed from the bands of the body shall have liberty to fly whither it will or whither it is compell'd to go It shall either be carried to Hell of which it is written In Hell who will confess to thee or it shall be lifted up to Heaven It seemeth a third place viz. Purgatory Hierom knew not I will end with Saint Augustin who having mention'd Heaven and Hell Hypognost lib. 5. De Pecc mer. remiss c. 28. Epist 80. adds A third place we are altogether ignorant of neither do we find it in holy Scripture Elsewhere he saith There is no middle place to any that he should not be with the Devil who is not with Christ In his Epistle to Hesychius he writeth thus In what state the day of death findeth any one accordingly shall he be judged at the last day The like Sentence almost word for word we find in Justin Martyr In Dial. p. 107. who quoteth it as a saying of our Saviour In what things I find you so will I judge you In his Epistle to Macedonius he saith After this life there is no place to correct our manners or what hath been amiss How then can Repentance or temporal satisfaction for sins be perfected or supply'd after death I will add his words upon the 31. Psalm If God pardon sins he will cover them if he cover them he will not take notice of them if he will not take notice of them he will not punish them How is this reconcileable with Gods punishing the sins that he hath pardon'd in Purgatory It 's true We know God punisheth sometimes in this life such as he pardons for their future amendment and for example to others but what is this to punishing men after this life when there is no amendment possible as our Adversaries grant nor others to be thereby warned I acknowledge there are some places quoted by Bellarmin and others wherein St. Augustin seemeth to own Purgation of the Souls of some men from sin after this life as De Genesi lib. 2. contr Manich. Cap. 10. de Civit. Dei lib. 21. cap. 24. Altho Ludovicus Vives saith Comment in locum the place is not to be found in the antient Manuscripts nor in that printed at Friburge Hom. 16. inter 50. in Psalm 37. But in his Enchiridion his Book De fide operibus and Ad Dulcitium where he professedly handles this Point and expoundeth the principal place of Scripture now urged by Romanists for their Doctrine of Purgatory he speaketh very doubtfully and uncertainly First He acknowledgeth that 1 Cor. 3. is difficult and obscure one of those intimated by Saint Paul 2 Epist Cap. 3. ver 16. of the true meaning of which he was not certain But such an obscure place is as all will grant a very unfit ground to build an Article of Faith upon which to deny shall be Heresie and destructive of Salvation Secondly To Dulcitius quoting his own Books before-mention'd he interprets it expresly De igne doloris of the figurative and metaphorical Fire of grief according to Psalm 39. My heart was hot within me at last the fire kindled c. arising from the loss of temporal enjoyments as Estate Wealth c. too earnestly loved
A Brief EXAMINATION Of the present Roman Catholick Faith Contained in Pope PIUS HIS New Creed BY The Scriptures Antient Fathers and their own Modern Writers in Answer to a Letter desiring satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion in all Ages especially before Luther's time Imprimatur Octob. 26. 1688. Guil. Needham London Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 1689. Pope Pius his CREED OR THE Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith. V. Bullam Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei sub finem Concilii Tridentini THAT the Profession of one and the same Faith may be uniformly exhibited to all and its certain form may be known to all we have caused it to be published strictly commanding that the Profession of Faith be made after this form and no other I N. do with firm Faith believe and profess all and singular things contained in the Creeds to wit Nicene c. which the Roman Church useth namely I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible c. The Apostolick and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observances and Constitutions of that Church I firmly admit and embrace I do also confess that there be truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Extreme Vnction Orders Marriage c. And that they confer Grace All things which concerning Original Sin and Justification were defined in the 4th Council of Trent I embrace and receive Also I confess that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and that in the Holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and bloud of our Lord and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into his Body and of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calleth Transubstantiation I confess also that under one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and the Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful And likewise that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed to and that their Reliques are to be worshipped And most firmly I avouch that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them due honour and veneration is to be given Also that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and I affirm the use thereof to be most wholesome to Christs people That the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches I acknowledge and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ And all other things likewise do I undoubtingly receive and confess which are delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils and especially the Holy Council of Trent And withal I condemn and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto and that I will be careful this true Catholick Faith out of the which no man can be saved which at this time I willingly profess be constantly with Gods help retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp and by those that are under me holden taught and preached to the uttermost of my power I the said N. promise vow and swear So God me help and his Holy Gospels A Brief EXAMINATION OF THE Present Roman Catholick Faith c. SIR I Received your Letter wherein you desire I would give you satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Religion and Church in the Ages before Luther In order thereunto I send you these Lines requesting you as you love and value the safety of your own Soul laying aside the blind belief of the Roman Infallibility which renders all Discoursing or Writing vain and unprofitable to read them seriously and impartially You begin thus I find your Divines asserting that the Church hath been hidden and invisible How Protestant Writers are to be understood when they argue against the perpetual Visibility of the Church To which I answer That the Church hath been for some time hidden i. e. obscured so that it was not conspicuous or easily discernable by all Christians much less Heathens is a truth so manifest that our Adversaries themselves grant it as I shall shew afterward That the Catholick Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresie or Persecution or that in any Age all outward profession of the Truth though sometime more secret and private was wholly hidden and utterly invisible in the eyes of all men we affirm not Cardinal Bellarmine himself notes Multi ex nostris tempus terunt dum probant Ecclesiam non posse absolutè desicere nam Fleretici id concedunt De Eccles Militan lib. 3. cap. 13. that many of his Church have taken much needless pains in proving against us the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church which as he confesses we never denied We only say that any particular Church even that of Rome may utterly fail But you add I find your Divines saying otherwise for Bishop Juel Apol. p. 7. writeth That Luther's preaching was the very first appearing of the Gospel And pag. 8. That Forty years and upward i. e. at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius the truth was unknown and unheard of and that they came first to the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel Let Bishop Juel answer for himself Defence of the Apol. pag. 82. Ye say we confess our Church began only about Forty years since No Mr. Harding we confess it not and you your self well know we confess it not Our Doctrine is the Old and yours is the New. We say our Doctrine and the order of our Churches is older than yours by Five hundred years And he not only saith it but unanswerably proves it by the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers Hence that Book is appointed to be had in all our Churches so great a respect have we for Primitive Antiquity and so far are we from imagining the Gospel or the Truth we profess to be no older than Luther or Zuinglius But Mr. White in his Defence of the Way to the Church Pag. 355 356. saith Popery was such a Leprosie spreading so universally over the Church that there was no visible Company of People appearing to the World viz. in the Ages next before Luther free from it True he saith so but he explains his meaning in the same place for he acknowledgeth the Churches of Greece Aethiopia Armenia to have been and still to be true visible Christian Churches yea that the Church of Rome is a part of the Visible Church of God wherein our Ancestors possessed the true Faith as to the Fundamental Articles necessary
unmeasurable rage of ungodly persecutors yea so obscur'd that the members thereof shall not know one another This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Austins days is just like theirs who would persuade us that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholick and Apostolick Church because St. Paul 1600 years ago saith their Faith was commended throughout the World Rom. 1. ver 8. so was their Obedience also Rom. 16.19 But doth the Apostle say they should continue in that Faith more than Obedience unto the end of the World or that their Church alone should never corrupt the Faith or apostatize in any degree from it Tim. 4.1 He seemeth to say otherwise when he thus writeth to the Roman Church Rom. 8.18 19 20 21 22. Boast not against the branches thou bearest not the root but the root thee Because of unbelief they i. e. the Jewish Church were broken off and thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but fear for if God spar'd not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee And as to Christian Obedience De Pontif. in lib. 1. in Praefat. Genebrard Chronol lib. 4. seculo 10. Baronius in Ann. 912. num 8. in ann 985. num 1. it 's granted by Bellarmin Genebrard and others that some Popes have been so scandalously wicked that they were rather Apostatical than Apostolical and scarcely deserved to have their names register'd in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as professed the Protestant Religion before the Reformation As for the second Question wherein satisfaction is desir'd to answer Roman Catholicks when they demand the names of some Professors of the Protestant Religion before the Reformation it being to them strange that if Protestancy be from the Apostles and hath been in all Ages they can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since To this I reply first That altho the Apostles were not call'd by the name of Protestants as neither were they by the name of Catholicks or Papists yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learn'd the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckon'd up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation That there are seven Sacraments properly so call'd Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Angels Worshiping Images and Reliques Indulgences the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass Communion in one kind c. All which are either not mention'd in the Apostles Writings or contradicted and condemn'd by them Secondly I answer That the Ancient Fathers and Councils for 4 or 500 years at least I might say more after Christ were not in the points above-mention'd of Pope Pius his Faith but either say nothing of them or testifie against them or at least speak doubtfully of them whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant not Popish Religion This I shall shew from their Writings Yea thirdly That some of the New Articles of Faith before named cannot be prov'd to be any part of the ancient Catholick belief by the Authority of any eminent Writers for above 1000 years after Christ particularly in the points of seven Sacraments Purgatory Indulgences Communion in one kind and some others Lastly That there is scarcely any point especially of them before rehears'd condemn'd by us in the present Roman Church but we are able to produce multitudes of eminent Writers and some of their own Communion who complain of them or protest against them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther To perform my promise I shall now prove 1. Assertion First That the Articles of the present Roman-Catholick Faith recited by Pope Pius and added by him to the Nicene Creed are either not mention'd at all in the Apostles Writings or refuted and condemn'd by them Seven Sacraments not taught by the Apostles First For their seven Sacraments The Apostles no where teach us to acknowledge seven Sacraments or that Matrimony Orders Extream Unction Confirmation Confession are such and as Bellarmin affirms Nec plura nec pauciora De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost Ambros Austin c. only such Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own flowing as the antient Fathers speak out of Christ's side whence came forth Water and Bloud which are answerable to the two only Jewish Sacraments Circumcision and the Passover as we read 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. More we find not It 's true St. Paul discoursing of the Conjugal Union betwixt Christ and his Church termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 5.32 a great Mystery The vulgar Latine translation renders it ambiguously and improperly magnum Sacramentum a great Sacrament Hence the Romish Church will needs have Matrimonv instituted by God in Paradise to be a proper Christian Sacrament but St. Paul declareth he meant no such matter In locum for as Cardinal Cajetan observes he immediately addeth But I speak of Christ and the Church St James also mentions Anointing the sick with Oil James 5.14 but that was in order to the miraculous gift of healing the Body as we may gather from Mar. So Cajetan expoundeth that place 6.13 It had no spiritual effect on the Soul as all Sacraments properly so call'd have and must have as is granted The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God not Oil ver 15. Nor Transubst Secondly The Apostles did not teach Transubstantiation Durand Biel Scotus Cameracensis Cajetan grant it canbe not evidently proved from the Scripture See below Matth. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Card. Contarenus de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Canus loc Theol. l. 3. c 3. Fisher cont Luther c. 10. say the same 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Verse 29. The Church is called Christs Body is it therefore his Natural Body in a literal sense 1 Cor. 10. John 15.1 Did Christ eat his own Body when the Sacrament was administred and taken by him So Chrysostom Hom 40 in Jean 3. or that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are annihilated or turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood Yea St. Paul expresly declares the contrary for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration The Bread that we break but Christ first blessed and afterwards brake it is it not the communion of the Body of Christ The Cup of Blessing we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ So that Bread and the Cup i. e. by a Figure or Metonymy as all must grant the Wine in the Cup remain in the Communion as means whereby we obtain the communion of Christ's Body and
the Aquarii who would not use Wine but Water onely in the holy Eucharist Epist 63. Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur argueth in this manner Where there is no Wine in the Cup the bloud of Christ cannot be express'd for we see the bloud to be shown ostendi in the Wine And in his Comment upon the Lords Prayer he applies those words Give us this day our daily bread to the sacramental bread The same Cyprian declares in his Sermon of the Lords Supper what manner of body is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist when he saith Veracissimum sanctissimum creat corpus suum sanctificat De coena Dom. Who continually even to this present day doth create sanctifie and bless his Body distributing the same to godly Receivers Now it 's undeniable that Christ's very own proper body is not continually created sanctified or blessed The words of Athanasius are very remarkable Our Lord distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh Ad Serapion De Spir. S. In cap. 6. Joann V. Câ—prian de coena Dom. August de verbâ—s Apost Serm. 2. Tom. 10. spiritualiter intelligenda sunt nisi manducaveritis carnem c. Aug. Tract 27. in Joan. ubi plura that we might learn that the words he spake John 6. were not carnal but spiritual For to how many men was his body enough to eat that it should become the food of the whole World But therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven that he might draw us off from a corporal sense and thenceforward should understand his Flesh he spake of as heavenly and spiritual Food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words I speak to you are spirit and life as if he had said my Body which is shown and given for the World is given for food that it may be spiritually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicated to every one Cyril of Hierusalem saith under the Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bread Mystagog lib. 4. where he granteth that in John 6 c. Except ye eat is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually Christs Body is given thee and under the Type of Wine his Bloud Nazianzen termeth the Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes of Christs Body and Bloud In like manner Dionysius Areopag and Basil in his Liturgy But I must not forget Gregory Nyssen As saith he In Laudem Gorgoniae Orat. in Baptis the Altar is by Nature a common Stone but being consecrated to God's service is made an Holy Table and as the Eucharistical Bread is at first common Bread but when the Mystery i.e. Mystical Prayer of consecration hath sanctify'd it is called and is the Body of Christ As the Priest to day a common man by benediction is made a Teacher of Piety and nothing changed in body hath his soul transform'd by invisible Grace so the Water in Baptism when it 's nothing else but water by the heavenly blessing of Grace reneweth a man. Where it 's evident Gregory Nyssen alloweth no other Transubstantiation in the Eucharist than in Baptism the Ordination of a Priest or the Consecration of an Altar Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius which is to be seen in the Florentine Library * Which is published since this Author wrote See the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Ch. of E. in answer to the Bishop of Meaux in Append. It is quoted by Damascen contra Acephalos Etiamsi Natura panis permansit Hom. 11. in Math. V. Athanas ad Serap de SS Comment in 1 Cor. 10. V. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. Sicut mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ità etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis De Sacramentis lib 4. cap. 5. Haec oblatio est figura corporis sanguinis Domini Ibid. Fide tangitur Christus non corpore as Peter Martyr a Florentine witnesseth as also in the University-Library at Oxford writeth after this manner Before the bread be sanctify'd we call it Bread but the divine Grace sanctifying it we call it the Lords Body altho the nature of bread remain These words directly overthrow Transubstantiation In another place the same Father discourses after this manner If it be so dangerous to apply to private uses these hallowed Vessels in the which is not the very true body of Christ but onely the Mystery of his Body is contain'd c. much more our bodies to sin Adding That we ought to climb up into Heaven when we receive the Communion if we would have the fruition of Christ's Body yea rather above the Heavens for saith he in another place Wheresoever the carcass is there will the Eagles be gather'd together The Lord is the Carcass because of his death and this is a Table for mounting Eagles not for pratling Jays I shall now add the words of St. Ambrose who discoursing of our Saviour's celebrating the holy Sacrament with his Disciples breaking bread and giving it to them saying Take eat this is my body c. adds As ye have received the similitude of my death so drink also the similitude of my precious bloud This oblation is the figure of the Body and Bloud of the Lord. In another place Christ is touch'd by Faith not bodily Let us now hear Theodoret's testimony Our Saviour saith he In Lucam lib. 6. cap. 8. So Saint Jerom in Psal 50. Dei tui corpus sanguinem mente continge cordis manu suscipe in the institution of the Eucharist chang'd the names not natures of things and applied that to his body which belonged to the symbol or sign of it and to the sign what appertain'd to his body which he did that such as partake of the divine Mysteries should not be attent on the nature of those things they see but by the change of names should believe that mutation which is made by Grace For he that is Christ that called what is by nature a Body Wheat or Bread the same honoured the signs or symbols with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing their Nature Dial. 1.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but adding Grace to Nature And when the Eutychian Heretick would hence draw an argument that as the signs of Christs Body and Bloud are one thing before Consecration another after it so our Lord's body after it's Union to his divine Person ceased to be in substance what it appeared and was chang'd into the divine Nature of the Godhead Theodoret replieth upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are taken in your own Net for the Mystical signs after Consecration recede not from their former nature but remain in their former substance form and appearance Mark. He saith not onely in their former form and appearance but in their substance also This is an irrefragable testimony against the Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation I will add the words of Gelasius who was as some say Bishop of Rome but however one that liv'd towards the latter end of the fifth Century
shed I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation Our Adversaries answer That they did eat the very same body which they did see but not codem modo not in a mortal visible but in an invisible immortal and impassible manner Which Answer signifies nothing For altho not in the same manner yet they grant the very same body was really and substantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table and that not in a spiritual and Sacramental but in a corporal carnal and substantial sense which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith Ye shall not eat the body ye see c. Again I would gladly be resolv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal If as mortal and passible then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner as it was there present and seen by them if as immortal how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension I will onely add that I be not too tedious his words in his Epistle to Boniface If Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments Ex hac similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Compare Quaest in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scriptum est septem spicae septem anni sunt Non enim dixit septem annos significant they would be no Sacraments From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent As then secundùm quendam modum after some manner the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident that the present Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not but refuted and condemn'd it I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers that Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body flesh and bloud of Christ yea as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare That they are changed De coena Domini De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies yet in Nature that they remain what they were and are changed into another thing To all which in brief I answer That we question not the truth of him that said This is my Body We unfeignedly grant it is so secundum quendam modum as Augustin above Epist 23. in a true and sacramental tho not literal and proper sense We undoubtedly believe on Saint Paul's infallible Authority that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ he saith not as Saint Augustin somewhere observes it signify'd Christ but it was Christ yet no man is so simple as to understand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense Furthermore Petra erat Christus Non dixit Petra significat Christum c. Quaestiones in Levitic l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew yet in Nature taking the word Nature in a general sense as when we say a man becoming more kind and civil he is grown better natur'd In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sacrament wherein we have Communion with or real tho spitual communication of the body and bloud of Christ In like manner we subscribe to that of Ambrose That they remain what they are i.e. as to substance which directly overthrows Transubstantiation and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality When in and by the Resurrection a natural mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one we all grant the nature of it is changed yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil Ephes That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us But this is impertinently alledg'd for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants and to them onely who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh In a word As the Fathers say Christ's Body is in us V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin Tract 1. in Epist Joann Sicut Christus in nobis hic ita nos ibi in illo sumus so that our bodies are in him not onely by Faith and Charity but in very deed And if it be so that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's substance why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his Lastly They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Populum Antiochen Hom. 45. in Joann Hom. 24. in 1. Epist ad Corinth Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament we see touch and eat Christ's body that our tongues are made red with his bloud even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament viz. his body to be broken with our teeth Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Think it not In like manner Cyril of Jerus Mystag But such Hyperbolical expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken as our Adversaries well know in a strict literal and dogmatical sense No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold that Christ's body is corporally pressed pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there incruentè in an unbloudy manner insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation tho drawn up by the Pope viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth must be cautiously understood not of Christ's Body but of the outward Species or Elements onely Autor Glossae in Decret lest we fall into a worse Errour than that he retracted Secondly I answer That the Fathers use the like Rhetocal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism
any Saint As for the place usually quoted out of Justin M. to this purpose it is grosly perverted by false pointing The words are these But him i. e. God the Father and him who came from him and taught us and the Host of good Angels these things the Son and the Prophetick Spirit we worship and adore Bellarmine was not ashamed to render them thus But him the Father and his Son who came and taught us these things and the Host of good Angels and the Prophetical Spirit we worship and adore Thus by placing a note of distinction after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching us these things he abuseth his Reader into a conceit that the Primitive Christians as Justin here witnesseth did adore not only the Father Son and Holy Ghost but the Host of Holy Angels also Yea if the Cardinals reading be right then they worshiped and adored the Holy Angels in the third place next to the Father and Son before the Holy and Prophetical Spirit which certainly was far from the least thought or practice of the Primitive Christians or their Apologist Justin Martyr who elsewhere declares in his own and the Christians names that they worshipped as the Father and Son so in the third place not the Holy Angels but the Holy Ghost But enough of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only we may observe by the way with what honesty and fidelity our Adversaries quote the Fathers There is another place they bring out of Irenaeus Ut Maria Virgo sit Evae advocata Lib. 5. cont Haer. ultra medium That the Virgin Mary may be Eves Advocate Hence most impertinently they infer that Eve prayed or might pray to the Virgin Mary whereas all that can be concluded from those words is that the Virgin Mary prayeth for Eve. I wonder how it is possible to conceive that Eve should pray to the Virgin Mary some thousands of years before she was born The truth is those words of Irenaeus do not at all relate to any religious Advocation or Invocation for in that place he onely makes a Parallel or comparison betwixt Eve and the Virgin Mary that as Eve a Virgin brought sin and death into the World so Mary a Virgin brought forth a Saviour and Redeemer ut Maria sit Evae advocata that Mary might be an Advocate or Pleader to excuse the sin of Eve and defend the honour of the Sex. Take Tertullians Verses as a Comment on Irenaeus who speaks fully and clearly what he meant Virgo viro nocuit sed vir de virgine vicit Lib. 1. advers Marcionem V. Origen in Dialog p. 256. Tertul. de Habitu mulier c. 10. Virginis ut virgo caro carnis debita solvat That as by a Virgin came Death so also by a Virgin came deliverance from Death The Virgin Mary in and by her Son making full reparation or satisfaction for Eves transgression What Doth this concern religious Invocation of the blessed Virgin But I shall not satisfie my self much less others in bare Asserting Let us come to the trial of the Cause and produce our Witnesses Justin Martyr Ecclesia nec invocationibus Angelicis facit aliquid sed purè orationes dirigens ad Dominum Iren. lib. 20. c. 57. in fine Apol. 2. giving an account to the Emperor Antoninus of the Christian Religion saith We offer up the Sacrifices of Prayer and Thanksgiving to God We think him alone worthy of this Honour by whom all things were created And a little after We worship God alone The Church of Smyrna being accused by the Heathens Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. c. 15. V. Lactant. Instit lib. 5. cap. 11. de vera relig c. 55. Cont. Faustum lib. 22. c. 21. as if they intended to worship their martyred Bishop Saint Polycarp answer in vindication of themselves We worship Christ the Son of God but Martyrs we worthily love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Disciples and faithful Servants whose memory on their Natalitia or Obit days we celebrate which exactly agrees with St. Austins's dogmatical resolution of this Question We honour Angels Charitate non servitute with love not service and in another place with the worship or honour of Love and Fellowship as holy Men are worshipped in this life Origen against Celsus Lib. 8 p. 386. Edit Cant. and the same he saith lib 5. c. 60. vet Edit The good Angels in some sense we reverence honour or worship as Gods Ministers but we worship one God and his onely Son with Prayers and supplications offering them to God by his onely begotten begging that he as our High Priest would present them to God. He saith not by the Intercession of Saints upon our Prayers to them or Angels but Christ the Son of God our High Priest whose peculiar Office it is as such to present our Prayers and spiritual Sacrifices unto God. And a little after God alone is to be prayed unto Prayers are to be offered also to his onely Son. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And whereas Celsus alledged as now Papists do the power of Courtiers to injure or help those who respect or disrespect them V. Ambros p. 300. in Rom. cap. 1. Origen adviseth him to commit and commend himself to God onely the Supreme Ruler of all things and to beg of him all that help and protection which cometh from Angels and just Men For saith he as the shadow follows the motion of the Body so he that pleaseth God hath the Friends of God V. Origen in Romanos 2. p. 140. Angels and blessed Souls favourable to him who will render God more favourable and will pray together with him although unrequested But of our praying therefore to them not a word is to be found in all his Books against Celsus yea in these words the ground of all Invocation of Saints or Angels is wholly taken away Not to weary the Reader lib. 5. in Cels p. 233. He saith all Prayers are to be offered up to God and that it is not fit or reasonable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to call upon Angels If not on Angels much less on Saints The same we find lib. 8. in Cels p. 402. Clemens Alexandrinus accounted it gross folly to beg of those who are no Gods as if they were Strom. 7. wherefore justly seeing there is one good God we and Angels beg of him the bestowing of good things Tertullian says Apologet. cap. 34. Praecepit Christus secretè orare ut quem ubique audire fideret ei soli Religionem offerret Tertullian Apologet. cap. 30. These things I can beg of none else but of him of whom I know I shall obtain them because he alone which Papists dare not deny granteth them and I to whom it belongeth to obtain them am his Servant whom not Saints or Angels I onely serve or observe And in another place We are to ask of him by whom something is promised i. e. God. Have Saints or Angels promised
Psalm 50. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. and those of Malachy above-mentioned concerning pure Incense i. e. Prayer and a pure Offering i. e. saith he A broken and contrite heart He concludeth in these words We sacrifice and offer Incense sometimes by celebrating the memory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that great Sacrifice to wit of Christ on the Cross by those sacramental Mysteries which he hath delivered to us giving thanks to God for our Redemption and offering Hymns and Praises to him The same do Protestants otherwise by consecrating and devoting our selves to God and dedicating Soul and Body to his High-Priest the Word Ye see here how many sorts of Christian Sacrifices Eusebius reckons up Prayers Praises consecrating our souls and bodies to God celebrating the memory of his Sacrifice on the Cross but concerning sacrificing of Christ himself in and by the sacramental Mysteries we find nothing Can this now be a point of Catholick Faith of which Eusebius and all the antient Fathers were ignorant Lib. 5. c. 3. The same Eusebius in another place discourseth concerning Christs Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck His words are In like manner first our Saviour then the Priests of or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood by Bread and Wine V. Tertul. cont Judaeos Ambross de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. do obscurely represent the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice For first Melchizedeck as he said a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protulit as the vulgar translation rendreth it brought forth to Abraham Bread and Wine but offered obtulit no corporal Sacrifices The truth is the Mass Priests if Transubstantiation be admitted offer neither Bread nor Wine which they tell us are changed into Christs Body and Bloud which are corporal things But the Christian Priesthood saith Eusebius is spiritual so therefore are their Sacrifices also Secondly All that Eusebtus saith of the Executors of this spiritual Priesthood is that after Christs Example by Bread and Wine which he supposeth to remain in their substance they obscurely represent Christs Body and Bloud Doth this imply that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and bloud of Christ or that representing Christs body and bloud in the Holy Sacrament rendreth them a Sacrifice or implieth any offering them up as a propitiatory Victim for the sins both of quick and dead Certainly did this sacrificing Christ by or under Bread and Wine at all appertain to the Christian Priesthood Eusebius no doubt would have it being so eminent and wonderful an action made at least some little mention of it But how could he mention that which it appeareth he was wholly ignorant of to wit the sacrificing Christ by Priests in the Holy Eucharist Athanasius in a few words giveth the Sacrifice of the Mass a deadly blow Orat. 3. in Arian The Sacrifice of our Saviour once offered perfects all and remaineth firm all times Aaron had Successors our Lord had none Saint Chrysostome adv Judaeos Hom. 36. expounds Malachy's Pure Offering of Prayer and Hom. in Psalm 95. reckoning up about ten sorts of Sacrifices in the Christian Church as Martyrdom Prayer Alms c. he taketh no notice of the Sacrifice of all Sacrifices to wit of Christ in the Mass But that noted place Hom. 17. on the Hebrews must not be omitted where having first said Heb. 10.10 that Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice who offer'd himself to God once for all for us he raiseth an Objection against what he had said from Saint Paul What then do we Priests Do not we daily offer He answereth We do indeed offer but it is making a remembrance of his death V. Basil M. in Cap. 1. Esaiae we do it in commemoration of what is already done we do offer the same Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather correcting himself that he might speak more properly and exactly We celebrate or operate the remembrance of a Sacrifice i. e. of Christ on the Cross commemorantes memoriam facientes as the Roman Missal it self speaketh Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same as if he had translated Saint Chrysostome Cap. 10. Do not we daily offer Yes We offer memoriam facientes making in and by the Eucharist a memorial of his death We offer him Christ magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Rather or more properly we make a remembrance of a Sacrifice Lib. 4. de Sacra c. 6. In another place he sets down the antient forms of Consecration Wherefore being mindful of his Passion i. e. V. Canonem Missae Rom. Christ on the Cross we offer to thee this Sacrifice this bread Bread not the very Body of Christ in a carnal and corporeal sense The like words we find in Saint Chrysostomes and the Gregorian Liturgies I will now add Epiphanius who saith as Athanasius above Haer. 55. Christ hath no Successour in his Priesthood that he is both Priest and Sacrifice in regard none can properly sacrifice him but himself which he did once for all on the Cross And Haer. 42. Christ by his Sacrifice hath taken away the use of all Sacrifices i. e. properly so called under thâ—â—ospel In like manner Saint Cyril of Alexandria againâ—â— Julian the Apostate who objected that the Christians had no Sacrifice Lib. 9. cont Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For answer he asserts not any external visible and corporeal one but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual and spiritual Worship for saith he a most immaterial and spiritual Sacrifice becometh God who is in his nature pure and immaterial I will end with Saint Austin who in his 20th Book against â—â—â—stus thus writeth Christians celebrate the memory of this finished Sacrifice to wit Ch. 18. of Christ on the Cross by the Holy Oblation or Sacrament i. e. of Bread and Wine and by participation of the body and bloud of Christ not by immolation but participation of them not by reiteration of Christs Sacrifice which is finished consummatum est but commemoration of it And Chap. 21. he hath these words Lib 20. contr Faust c. 21. The like he hath de fide ad Petrum Diacon c. 19. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice of Christ before his Incarnation was promised or represented by the similitude of Levitical Sacrifices In the Passion of Christ it was performed per ipsam veritatem by the very truth of the thing it self After his Ascension it is celebrated per sacramentum memoriae by a Sacrament of memory or commemoration not by a true proper Sacrifice of Christ per ipsam veritatem and immolation of his very body and bloud as Romanists affirm In his Epistle to Boniface he expresseth it more clearly Is not Christ immolated or offer'd up once in semetipso Quod natum est ex Virgine nobis quotidie nascitur crucifigitur Hieron in Psal