As therefore Chrift's T. p. 152.

ou, Rela

448. d.

id. b.

ibid. c. d.

"man Shape, leaft Idolatry fhould be thence introduced. "natural Body is Holy, as being Deified; fo it is alfo plain that, tively (or by Application) even his Image is holy, being, as by a certain San&tification, Deified by Grace. For the Lord Chrift, as we have faid, defign'd this, that as he hath Deified the Flefh, which he took, by his own natural "Sanctification, from the very Union; in like manner it hath pleafed him, "that the Bread of the Eucharift, as a true Image of his natural Flefh, "should be made his Divine Body, (NB) being Sanctified by the Acceffion "of the Holy Spirit, and Mediation of a Prieft, who changes the Offering, "(the Loaf) from what was common, into what is Holy. Therefore the "Flesh of the Lord, having naturally a Soul and Understanding, is by the Holy Spirit anointed with Divinity. So alfo the Image, (deliver'd to us from God,) of his Body, the divine Bread, is filled with the Holy Ghoft, with the Cup of the "Enlivening Blood of his Side. This therefore is demonftrated to be, afaudas ❝eixar, the True (or Faithfull) Image of Chrift our God, as to his difpenfa"tion in the Flefh. To this the Nicene Fathers object, that none of the Apo"ftles or Fathers ever called the Sacrifice, which is made in Remembrance of "Chrift's Paffion, an Image of his Body; neither did our Lord teach them to "fay fo; for he did not fay, Take, Eat the Image of my Body; neither hath 469. a. "St. Paul recorded any fuch thing. Therefore Chrift, and the Apostles and Fa"thers never called that unbloody Sacrifice an Image, but, auto ouα ý άuтò "aa, the very Body and the very Blood; fome indeed of the Fathers have "called them Antitypes, before the Confecration was finished; as Euftathius "and Bafil; But after the Confecration they are called, and are, and are be"lieved to be the Body properly and Blood of Chrift. But thefe brave Fellows defiring to abolish the beholding, (or contemplating) of Venerable Images, "have brought in (bye the bye) another Image, which is not an Image but the Body and Blood; and have (Wickedly and Sophiftically) named this Oblation to be made Sécu Relatively. Now as to fay this, is plain Madness, "fo to call the Body and Blood of the Lord an Image, is full as Mad and more Impious then unskilful. Then fetting afide this lie, they hit a little upon the Truth. faying, that it is made the Divine Body (NB.) But if it be the Image "of the Body, it cannot be the Divine Body it felf. Therefore like Madmen, •* ́étiga arf étigar para Cuevo, they Fancy fomethings for other things; fome- T. p. 153. "times calling our facred Sacrifice an Image of Chrift's Holy Body; fometimes his Body Relatively, (or by Application,) but the meaning of all this is, as we have faid, The TW Eixonar avatuπwμaтr or, to extirpate the fecing (or *beholding) of all Representations by Images out of the Church. And truly this is all the whole and plain truth of the matter; Copronymus and his Greeks had utterly deftroyed all material Images, and in their Decree had faid, that the only Image of Chrift which himself had allow'd and appointed was the Eucharift; The Nicene Greeks quarrelled only at this Word, Image; because it was brought in, as they here fay, on purpose to caft out all other material Images on which they fo much doted; for as ro the change of the Elements both fides were plainly of one Mind, as Baronius himself confefseth, and Annal. 787. Monf. Arnold faith the fame, only he would make their common Opinion to § 34. P 428. have been a real prefence, but that is far enough from Tranfubftantiation as it Foy. part 3. Perpet. de la is from plain Truth, as fhall be fhown bye and bye. Copronymus his Greeks P. 324. 341. declared, that it pleafed Chrift that the Bread of the Eucharift should be made his Body, by the Invocation, and Acceffion, of the Holy Spirit, and the Mediation of the Priest, who changeth it from being a Common, into a Holy Thing. The Nicene Greeks, tho' they Rudely call this making of the Eucharift an Image, a lie, yet, as to what the others faid of the change of the Bread into Chrift's Body, they own'd it and allow'd it as a Truth; For it is neither more nor lefs then what Irenæus, and Juftin Martyr, and others had faid before them, the Bread was no longer common Bread, but now made the Eucharift, or Body of Chrift; fo that I admire how any one can think, that

either

ibid. e.

P. 1012.

p. 219.

con. 7. p. 348.

352.361. &ć.

T. conc. 7. p. 1055. a.

P. 449. b.

Yet

T. p. 153. either of these parties then own'd, or thought any thing of Tranfubftantiation; de cult. Lat. He that defires more in this Point, I muft, refer him to Dalla and Hofpinian. 1. 7. c. 43. Now as to the Greeks Synodicon, I must first Remark with what extravagant Hift. Sacram. Fury and Malice the Nicene Fathers treated the Oppofers of Images; calling 1.3. c. 7. them again and again, Samaritans, Jews, Sarracens, Manicha's, Theopaf Bar An. 187. Chites, Phantufiafts; ranking them with all the worst of Hereticks who ever had §. 33. Tom. exploded Images; and therefore I wonder not that this Synodicon upbraids them with the word, xs, Phantastically here. Next this Synodicon blames them for calling the daily Sacrifice an Image of Chrift's Paffion, when at the fame time they own'd that the Bread was made his Body; they cavill'd at p. 449. d. e. this (as the Council did) as inconfiftent; as if it made two Sacrifices one by an Image, the other by really making the Bread Chriff's Body; and therefore they appeal to Chryfoftom, who counted the Sacrifice but one. p. 142. Q. Chryfoftom, as is faid above, owns as much; The Bread is ftill faith he, natural Bread and at the fame time the Body of Chrift, and yet not as two Bodies but one Body of the Son. Lastly, I have told you that this Synodicon is no where found in the Printed Copies of the Seventh pretended Council; and, as it now stands in the Triodium, it was certainly made long after it; for it remembers many many of the latter Emperors quite down to Joannes Cantacuzenus, who lived above 500 years after that Council. Therefore this must be but a very late piece, and hath been either forged, or at least at several times patcht up by fome private Conventicles of the Grecks without the Latins; and I find by Sirmondus that there was of old fuch a Complaint, as if the Greeks had ftolen fuch a private Council only among themfelves, and call'd it Oecumenical. Now how Bellarmine or from him Dofit heus could pick out of all this any thing which countenanced Tranfubftantiation, I cannot fee. It is plain the Council thought that the words exav Image and ATTUTTO Antitype fignified the fame thing. They fay, none of the Fathers ever called the unbloody Sacrifice an Image; yet fome of them call it indeed, 'ATITUT, an Antitype, but it is before it is Confecrated. Now Dofitheus and the Latins may, if they pleate, call this Council Oecumenical, but it is plain from hence, that it was not Infallible; For this is a most notorious and grofs mistake. For firft the very Words which they there quoted out of St. Basil's Liturgy, you have here above fet down; and there you will find the Elements called, 'Avira, Antitypes a good while after the words of Christ. this is my Body, this is my Blood. And in the Words which R. Simon cites out of the Life of St. Stephen, concerning Copronymus his Synod, (though he ingenuoufly, after his way, endeavours to avoid their force) the Elements are plainly call'd Antitypes after Confecration, the Antitypes of Christ's Body and Blood which we Adore and Kifs, & eorum perceptione fanctitatem confequimur, and we are Sanctified by receiving of them. Now if the Fathers at this Council thought that the Confecration was not made by Chrift's Words, (as the Latins now do) it is manifeft that Bafil called them Antitypes after it, and the Fathers blunder most shamefully; but if they then thought that the Confecration was not made by Chrift's words, but by the Prayers of the Prieft which there follow, how can the Latins, (who confented there to this affertion) now juftify their prefent Doctrine, that the Words of Chrift immediately compleat the Confecration. But let the Confecration be made by the Words of Chrift, or by the Pricfts Prayer, or (as the Learned R. Simon would have it) by both, the very Marginal note that is fet by the fide of the Printed Council by fome more honeft Greek, fufficiently fhews the Fathers to have been miferably out in that bold affertion, that no antient Father had ever called the Elements Antitypes after Confecration. For Nazianzen is there quoted against them; who, telling how his Sifter Gorgonia being in a very ill habit of Body mixt the Eucharift, which she had referved (after Confecration to be fure, (with her Tears and anointed her Body with it calls the Elements 'Avira ouμATC & äμar, the Antitypes of Chriff's Body and

T. p. 154.

F. 57. Q.

Apol. p. 78. b.

Orat. 11. p. 187.

Blood

32. exerc. 12.

P. 854.

b.

P. 43. Q.

Non panem aut

Cor

Blood. Billius in his Notes there fweats hard to put à fair Glofs upon the T. p. 154. words, but all to little purpose. Befides he owns that Gorgonia uled the very t. 2. p. 625.3. Confecrated Elements, which he had referved, as it was an antient Custom with many fo to do, as you may fee at large in Morinus. But if he did then Comment. pars believe that the Bread was Chrift's very Body, and the Wine his Blood, c. 3. p. 177. (that is in the Latins Senfe, perfect and entire Jefus Christ,) truly I think §. 1,2,3. Úc. the used him very irreverently to make a kind of Cataplafme or Ointment of Him, and those, both Latins and Greeks, who of old out of a Stupid Devo Bona. Liturgiċ. tion buried the Eucharift with the dead, if they thought then that it was Chrift 1. 2. c. 17. himself, were furely more Barbarous, as they were more Impious, then Mezentius, who is faid to have tied the Living to the Dead. The next place of Nazianzen there noted, I have had occafion to mention before at large, Orat. 1. p. 38. where he likewise calls the Sacrifice an Antitype; and Elias Crentenfis in his notes there hath made as fad a piece of work to folve that paffage. To these, if you please, you may add yet another place in Nazianzen, where he Orat. 17. calls the Eucharift, Tes TÚT8s Ts eμns owτngias, the Types of his Salvation; P. 272. c. and the Commentator to mend the matter, faith Tertullian alfo ufed the word Figura, a Figure, and Auguftin, Signum, a Sign, to the fame purpose. Morcover the Marginal Note adds to the Teftimonies of Nazianzen, Cyril of Catech.myftag. Hierufalem; who expounding the Greek Synaxis faith thus, yevuevo yàp &x 5. P. 244. C. ἄρτε κ οἴνε κελεύονται γεύσαθαι, ἀλλὰ ̓Αντίτυ τε σώματα και αιματος τῷ χρεδ. They who taft, are not commanded to taft the Bread and the Wine, but the Antitype of the Body and Blood of Chrift, (as Irenæus and Justin, not T p. 155. common Bread, but the Eucharift, that is, the Antitype of Chrift's Body. Here the Interpreter to avoid the force of the word Antitype, hath made both vinum ut Gu. Nonfenfe and falfe Latin of it. Cyril there a little after teaching the Ecclefia- stent jubentur, ftick Communicant how to take the Bread in both his hands (as the Prefts and fed quod jub fpecie eft (videDeacons do to this day, and Morinus acknowledges the fame ;) be bids him licet panis & take great care that he lets not the leaft crumb fall, our of Decency and zinum) Refpect to this now Holy Thing; But had he believed that the Wine had then nem Chrifti. been Chrift's very Blood or entire Chrift himself (as the Me ufiafts now fay Comment. part it is) he would not have advised him, to wipe off the Moisture that hang'd on p. 178. §. 13. his lips, and wet his Eyes and his Forehead and the other Organs of his Senfes therewith, as I have noted before. I have here fet down thefe Authors P. 82. Q. Teftimonics at large, because the Marginal Note particularly names them, and tells us that there were others who alfo named the Eucharift Antitypes after Confecration; as at your leifure you may fee Theodoret, Macarius and others, collected by Suicer. I fhall only here put you in mind of what I have above In ATITUTOV. nored out of Dionyfius; that all along he fpeaks of the Eucharift only as a De Ecclefia. Figurative ana Symbolical reprefentation of Chrift's Paffion. And because hierarch, c, 3. this Nicene Council fo bitterly exclaim'd against the making of the Eucharift an Image, I will add a paffage or two out of this confeffedly old Author, (be he the Genuine Dionyfius, or fpurious it is no matter) which as to this Point feem directly against their Decree. He defcribes the manner of the Priest's c. 3. art. 2: Confecrating and Diftributing the Communion; and then immediately hath thefe art. 3. §. 1. words, μετά τας Εικόνας ἐν τάξει κ ἱερῶς, after thefe Images thus orderly and facredly, difpofed, according to (or after) the Godlike truth of their Origi. Digeftas interp. nals, I will declare this thing for the Convenient information (or Inftruction) of those who are in Orders, leaft the various and facred Compofition of the Symbols, as to their outward appearance only, might be altogether unprofita ble to them. Here the Eucharift and all its Rites and Symbols, are plainly called Images; and Maximus in his Scholia, diftinguishes thefe Symbols from P. 306. art. 31 Truth; and Dionyfius there presently thus informs his Novice, the common and peacefull partaking of one and the fame, both Loaf, and Cup, prefcribes (to the Communicants) a Divine uniformity of Life, as being fellow Fofter Children, and brings them to the Remembrance of the most Divine Supper, and that Primitive (or Principal) Symbol of thefe Mysteries.

U

So

pus & fangui

3d. exerc. 12.

P. 64. Q.

Corderio.

S. 1.

§. 6. p. 289.

p. 120. Q.

T. p. 156.

p. 159.

T. p. 155. So speaking of the Catechumens and poffeffed and Impure Perfons, who are dec. 3. art. 3 bar'd from the Sacrament, he faith, de ras eixivas ogao neither are they permitted to fee the Images, that is, the Confecrated Elements and Rites then §. 13. p. 300. ufed. So relating the manner how the Pricft diftributes the Sacrament he faith, διαγράφει γὰρ ἐν τέτοις αισθητῶς, for bringing Jefus Chrift under our view, be in these things fenfibly defcribes (or reprefents) as in Images our IntellectuArtic. 3. §. 3. al Life. And to fay no more, declaring the Synaxis or Eucharift to Signfy but one principal Thing, to wit the Paffion of Christ, exprefs'd by va. riety of Symbols, he calls the whole performance, (exe: maons Tus Deágɣixñs einovoygapias) one Divine principal Defcription (or Reprefentation) by way of Image. And according to this antient Author's fenfe in this Point, the lalt Reformers of the Greeks Liturgies have brought in all those odd Rites and Fancies which we find there, meerly to reprefent Chrift's Oeconomy from his Birth to his Afcenfion; and Jeremias, (notwithstanding his fhuffling,) could not but confefs as much, as I have obferyed above; and he calls the whole Action by this very word, excor, an Image, nay, (though perhaps Dofit heus and his Synodicon may declare him, arra, a Phantaflick for it) he expreffeth it by the word, Qarada, Phanfy. Speaking of the fpiritual Contemplation which we ought to have at the Eucharift, he faith, that This outward Performance of the Pricft, fets all things in a manner before our Eyes, and offers the Contemplation of them, to our Soul, Tus partacías dia tar opfaxμῶν ἐναργέτερον ἡμῖν τυπεμένης, and the Phany being more clearly Tipyfed in us from our Eyes, (or heighten'd by this outward reprefentation) it is impoffible that we fhould forget fuch a Table. And the Church of Rome it felf formerly called the Eucharift, an Image in that, (Poft communio) Prayer Hift. Sacram. after the Sacrament recorded by Hospinian out of Bertram. Pignus ærer1. 4. p. 261. næ vitæ capientes, humiliter imploramus ut quod imagine contingimus Sacramenti, Manifeftâ Participatione fumanius. We receiving the Pledge of eternal Life, humbly beg, that what we obtain in the Image of the Sacrament, we may receive by a manifeft participation. It was alfo then, and Miffal. Ed. is even to this day, called by them Pignus, a Pledge; and in the Synodicon Antwerp 1631. it felf above quoted, appador, an Earneft; but these words fignify another Thing which they are refer'd to, and not the Thing it felf. And that other Prayer, there mention'd by Hospinian, is ftill retain'd in the Misal, Perficiant in nobis, Domine quæfumus, tua Sacramenta quod continent; ut quæ nunc Specie gerimus, rérum veritate capiamus. We beseech thee O Lord, let thy Sacraments perfect in us what they contain, that we may in real Truth receive thofe Things, which we now do in Shew Therefore thefe

p. 100.

poft.com.p.60.

551. p. 150.

Sabbat. 4. temp. 405.

words, Type, Antitype, Image, Symbol, Pledge, Earneft, Shew and the like, fo commonly used, muft bear the very fame fignification, and exprefs the very fame thing, to wit, a Figurative reprefentation of Chrift's Paffion. And fo De rebus Ecclef. Walafridus Strabo expounds it in Charlemagnes's time. The plain Argument c. 16. 17. then ftands thus. An Image of a Thing is not the very Thing it felf of p. 85. ¿c. which it is an Image. The goopoga, or Bread is the Image of Chrift's

Body, therefore it is not the very Body it felf. Now let Dofit heus make what he can of his Synodicon, and Bellarmine of his Council; though hand join in hand they can never Screw them up to that height to which they would tune them. For when all is done I muft call the firft a very obfcure piece of Trumpery, God knows when or how contrived by private Greck Cabals; and the latter, that is, the Council it felf, feems to be as meer a Juggle between Pope Adrian and Irene to fettle Images. For the greatest part of the Bishops of that Council came in by Simony, as Tarafius plainly tells us; and be himT. conc. 7. felf was, a Neophytus, from a Layman made Patriarch of Conftantinople, and p. 640. d. c. Baronius confeffeth that Pepe Adrian would never have approved of this 785. §. 40. his promotion, but upon this very condition, that he should fet up Images; Vid. Theophan. Next Irene with her Son of twelve years old taking the Government upon Her, P. 383. was fearful of Nicephorus and his party; and altogether as Jealous of her

ibid. p. 936. c.

Husband's

388.

384.

395.

P. 138.

Husband's Brothers and Relations, and other Pretenders to the Crown; and T. p. 156. therefore to ftrengthen her felf, (an ufual trick of the Greek Emperors in Diftrefs) She courted the Pope by declaring for Images, and Charlemagne (the most Potent Foreign Prince,) by propounding a Match between her Son and his Daughter; and indeed what would not that ambitious Woman have done to fecure her Empire, when at laft the fpared not her own Son, but most barbarously and unnaturally bored out his Eyes to get the Government in Her own hands. The next Argument which I meet withall in Dofitheus to perfwade us that his Church was always Orthodox, and that it was impoffible that they should ever embrace Calvin's Doctrine, or indeed any other contrary to their Primitive Faith, is this in brief. It must be meer Fear that could ever make them change; and that must be either the Fear of God, or the Fear of Man. It could not be the Fear of God, for that would never fuffer them to preva. T. p. 157. ricate. And if it was the fear of Man, they must have been as wicked wretches as the Jews in Spain, who publickly profefs one thing, ana believe quite the contrary in their heart, but this Impiety is by no means the cafe of the Eastern People. Neither can they with their Mouth pretend to be of the Religion of their Governors (Turks or others) to avoid the hardships by which otherwife they might be preft; for the end of all fuch practices is Eternal Damnation. Again what should the Eastern Chriftians fear p. 142. from their Emperors and Governors where they have free liberty of their Religion, and, εἰ τὴν τῶν ἀντικειμένων δόξαν ευσεβῆ ἔδεσαν, might fafely believe and profefs their Adverfaries Doctrine, if they thought it was right. right. Again, p. 146. though by degrees the Eastern Chriftians have been brought into Subjection and Slavery by Infidels, yet they are, τws av Tegol To Pósý và Tλwr, So far above all Fear and Threatnings, as they fine every minute like Martyrs. This hath the Face of a very plaufible Apology indeed; but if we minutely examine it, it will by no means account for this pretended Synod, or reach the prefent State of the Greek or Eastern Church. First it is very true, that no Man can be thought to profefs by the fear of God a thing for a Truth, which he thinks, much lefs which he knows, to be falle or a lie. But a Man by degrees may be fo impofed upon, and fo far wrought off from the Truth, as to think now that to be right, which before he thought to be wrong, or which he never thought of before; and fo out of an Erroneous Confcience, or a miftaken or groundless fear of God, he may profefs it, and Zealously maintain it. And truly I take this to be the very Cafe of this great Man Dofit heus, as I have faid before. He never had heard of Mr. Claud, nor ever had heard, or studied the Controverfy, nor ever had read our Books, or knew any thing of thefe matters but by what the Latin Emiffaries had inftill'd into Him; and fo having had only one fide of the Controverly continually founding in his Ears, and infinuated into him, τῇ κυβεία τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐν παιεργία πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν της Tλavis, by the fleight and cunning craftiness of Men whereby they lie in wait Eph. 4. 14 Joh. 16. 2. to deceive; He might verily think that he did God good fervice, in receiving and publishing this Syftem of Doctrines as the Primitive Faith of the Eastern Church; becaufe his Confcience thus mifguided at last took all for manifest Truth. Next as to the fear of Man, I must do him that Juftice as to declare that I always found him a Perfon, as of very great Prudence and wary Conduct, fo of as great a Spirit and Courage; and this very Performance alone fpeaks him a Man of a daring Enterprize as well as Refolution. But by his favour, the Cafe of the Jews in Spain, and that of the Greeks under the Turks, is vastly and most extreamly different. The Turk forces no Man to profels Mahometanifm; Greeks, Armenians, Jews (both Karaims and Rabbanaims,) Papifts, Proteftants, all are tollerated, and may all with fafety publickly own their own Profeffion; Nay, the Perfians themselves, though they are not permitted to enter the Turkish Mofchs, or join with them in their publick Devotions, yet may Travel up and down and Trade, and are known to be Perfians without any Moleftation. Whereas a Jew in Spain, if he be known to be a Jew

P. 149.