adored because it was instituted to be received This cannot be otherwise understood than as relating to the Sacrament and so that whatever it be must be granted to be the Object of Adoration By the Sacrament saith Cardinal Pallavicini is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ and the Accidents The Worship then being confessed to be Adoration which is due to God alone and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object the Question now is Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament doth justify that Adoration Our Author saith He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine p. 9. Then I say by his own confession if it be only Bread he commits Idolatry for the Adoration he cannot deny But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions which to the People sound very well but have no sincere meaning for what is it he understands by his Breaden God If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread we do not charge him with it but if it be what we believe it to be the Substance of Bread but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it All that can excuse them is the Supposition and whether that will or not is now to be consider'd 1. If it be not true themselves grant it to be Idolatry The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher and Costerus are so well known to the purpose that I shall not repeat them And Catharinus a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host altho the Person through a Mistake believes it Consecrated And he quotes St. Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion and gives this Reason for it because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament but as he is under the Species and therefore if he be not so present a Creature hath Divine Worship given it As those were guilty of Idolatry who worshipped any Creatures of old supposing God to be there as that he was the Soul of the World They were not excused saith he that they thought they worshipped but one God because they worshipped him as present in such a manner as he was not And this Book of his he saith in the Review of it was seen and approved by the Pope's Order by their Divines at Paris 2. If the Bread were taken to be God our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry for that were to worship a breaden God Yet here would be a Mistake and a gross one yet the Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry as he confesses Why then should the other Mistake excuse them when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there but the Body of Christ to be under the Species Yes say they then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship But when the Bread is supposed to be God it must be supposed not to be a Creature There is no Answer to be given in this Case but that the Bread really is a Creature whatsoever they imagined and if this Mistake did not excuse neither can the other 2. Of Transubstantiation Three Things our Author goes upon with respect to this 1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it 2. He shews the possibility of it from God's Omnipotency 3. He argues against the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case from some parallel Instances as he thinks 1. He believes Jesus Christ made his words good pronounced at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful words changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests This is a very easy way of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation And from no better Ground to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock a Vine a Door because the words are every jot as clear and then call in God's Omnipotency which is as effectual to make them good I confess these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation that if I had never heard of it I should never have thought of it from these or any other words of Scripture i. e. not barely considering the sound of words but the Eastern Idioms of speaking the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body without any Objection made against it by his Disciples The Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh and withal if these words be literally and strictly understood they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words and the strict Rules of Interpretation Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd for then all that can be infer'd from these words is that when Christ spake these words The Bread was his Body But either Christ meant the Bread by This or he did not if he did the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal Sense if he did not then by virtue of these words the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant when Christ said This is my Body This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation But several Divines of the Church of Rome understood themselves better and have confessed That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words as it were easy to shew if it had not been lately done already It is enough here to observe that Vasquez confesseth it of Scotus Durandus Paludanus Ockam Cameracensis and himself yields that they do not and cannot signify expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can This is my Body literally signify this is changed into my Body If that Proposition were literally true This is my Body it overthrows the change For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already 2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency can make his Words good We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency but we may their familiar way of making use of it
Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians were I hope the former Discourse hath shewed their Doctrines and Practices are not so very like those of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians that their Cases should be made so parallel but as in his Conclusion he hath summed up the substance of his Representations so I shall therein follow his Method only with this difference that I shall in one Column set down his own Representations of Popery and in the other the Reasons in short why we cannot embrace them Wherein Popery consists as Represented by this Author 1. IN using all external Acts of Adoration before Images as Kneeling Praying lifting up the Eyes burning Candles Incense c. Not merely to worship the Objects before them but to worship the Images themselves on the account of the Objects represented by them or in his own Words Because the Honour that is exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent 2. In joining the Saints in Heaven together with Christ in Intercession for us and making Prayers on Earth to them on that Account P. 5. 3. In allowing more Supplications to be used to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ For he denies it to be an idle Superstition to repeat Ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster 4. In giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Such as placing them upon Altars burning Wax-Candles before them carrying them in Processions to be seen touched or humbly kissed by the People Which are the known and allowed Practices in the Church of Rome P. 8. 5. In adoring Christ as present in the Eucharist on the account of the Substance of Bread and Wine being changed into that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. P. 10. 6. In believing the Substance of Bread and Wine by the Words of Consecration to be changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of Bread and Wine remaining as before P. 10. 7. In making good Works to be truly meritorious of Eternal Life P. 13. 8. In making Confession of our â—â—s to a Priest in order to Absoluâ—on P. 14. 9. In the use of Indulgences for taking away the Temporal Punishments of sin remaining due after the Guilt is remitted 10. In supposing that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the Temporal Pain which by order of God's Justice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the Eternal Pain are remitted P. 17. 11. In thinking the Scripture not fit to be read generally by all without Licence or in the Vulgar Tongues P. 19. 12. In allowing the Books of Tobit Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Maccabees to be Canonical P. 21. 13. In preferring the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before any other and not allowing any Translations into a Mother Tongue to be ordinarily read P. 24 26. 14. In believing that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any Private or Particular Person P. 28. 15. In relying upon the Authority of the present Church for the Sense of Scripture P. 29. 16. In receiving and believing the Churches Traditions as the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and assenting to them with Divine Faith just as he doth to the Bible P. 31 32. 17. In believing that the Present Guides of the Church being assembled in Councils for preserving the Unity of the Church have an Infallible Assistance in their Decrees P. 38. 18. In believing the Pope to be the Supreme Head of the Church under Christ being Successour to S. Peter to whom he committed the care of his Flock P. 40. 41. 19. In believing that Communion in both Kinds is an indifferent thing and was so held for the first Four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept for Receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. and confirmed by Pope Gelasius P. 51. 20. In believing that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded on Scripture Authority and Reason P. 54 c. 21. In believing that to the saying of Prayers well and devoutly it is not necessary to have attention on the Words or on the Sense of Prayers P. 62. 22. In believing that none out of the Communion of the Church of Rome can be saved and that it is no uncharitableness to think so P. 92. 23. In believing that the Church of Rome in all the New Articles defined at Trent hath made no Innovation in matters of Faith P. 107. Our Reasons against it in the several Particulars 1. THou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image or any likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which being the plain clear and express Words of the Divine Law we dare not worship any Images or Representations lest we be found Transgressors of this Law Especially since God herein hath declared himself a Jealous God and annexed so severe a Sanction to it And since he that made the Law is only to interpret it all the Distinctions in the World can never satisfie a Mans Conscience unless it appear that God himself did either make or approve them And if God allow the Worship of the thing Represented by the Representation he would never have forbidden that Worship absolutely which is unlawful only in a certain respect 2. We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2. 1. And but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. For Christ is entred into Heaven it self now to appear in the Presence of God for us Heb. 9. 24. And therefore we dare not make other Intercessors in Heaven besides him and the distance between Heaven and us breaks off all Communication between the Saints there and us upon Earth so that all Addresses to them now for their Prayers are in a way very different from desiring others on earth to pray for us And if such Addresses are made in the solemn Offices of Divine Worship they join the Creatures with the Creator in the Acts and Signs of Worship which are due to God alone 3. Call upon me in the Day of Trouble I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Psal. 50. 15. When we pray to Our Father in Heaven as our Saviour commanded us we do but what both Natural and Christian Religion require us to do But when men pray to the Blessed Virgin for Help and Protection now and at the Hour of Death they attribute that to her which belongs only to God who is our Helper and Desender And altho Christ knew the Dignity of his Mother above all others he never gives the least encouragement to make such Addresses to her And to suppose her to have a share now in the Kingdom of Christ in Hea. ven as a Copartner with him is to advance a Creature to Divine Honour and to overthrow the true Ground of Christs Exaltation to his
How did they receive the Bread before the hoc facite As Priests or as faithful It is ridiculous to suppose the hoc facite changed their capaciy and if it did it only relates to consecrating and not to receiving but if Christ gave it only to the Apostles as Priests then for all that I can see the People are not at all concerned in one kind or other but it was intended only for Priests If the People be concerned how came they to be so Where is there any command but what refers to the first Institution And it had been more plausible according to this Answer to exclude the People wholly than to admit them to one Kind and to debar them the other 2. Christ attributes the obtaining Life Everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to receiving under both Kinds sometimes under one John 6. 51 57 58. He could not easily have thought of any thing more against himself for our Saviour there makes it as necessary to drink his Blood as to eat his Flesh Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man aâ— drink his Blood ye have no Life in you If this be understood of the Sacrament as he saith how is it possiblâ— for him to make the Cup indifferent Unless it be indâ— ferent whether the People be saved or not 3. Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only Luke 24. 30. But is he sure Christ did then administer the Sacrament to them Or that if he did the Cup was not implied since breaking of Bread when taken for an ordinary Meal in Scripture doth not exclude drinking at it But S. Augustin he saith l. 49. de Consensu Evangel understands that place of the Sacrament If he doth it cannot be where he saith for S. Augustin wrote but Four Books of that Subject but l. 3. 25. he doth say something towards it yet S. Augustin in another place supposes that these Disciples did both eat and drink The Disciples did not know him but in the breaking of Bread and truely he that doth not eat and drink Judgment to himself doth in the breaking of Bread own Christ. Where it is plain that he applies both to the breaking of Bread here spoken of 4. He saith it was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children the Sick and to Men in a journey I would he had produced his Authorities to prove these things for I can bring several to prove the direct contrary as to Children and Sick persons and Travellers and not only Ancient Writers but the most Learned of their own Church And therefore I cannot but wonder to find him saying This was attested by all Ancient Writers and Modern Historians But I have ever found those have been most mistaken who produce all Writers and Historians when it may be there is not one that speaks home to the business At least we have here none mentioned and therefore none to examin and it would be too hard a task to search All. 5. He adds to this extravagancy in saying That Receiving in one or both kinds was indifferent for the first Four hundred years when the contrary is so manifest that the most ingenuous of their own Writers consess it If any persons did carry home one kind which is very questionable for Baronius and Albasinoeus say they carried both Kinds to receive it in times of Persecution at what season they thought fit afterwards This ought not to be set up against the general and constant Rule of the Church which is attested not only by Cassander and such like but even by Salmero Ruardus Tapperus and Lindanus who make no scruple of saying The publick Celebration in the Primitive Church was in both Kinds But then how is it possible for us to judge better what they thought themselves bound to do than what they constantly observed in all their publick Celebrations The Church is not accountable for the particular Fancies or Superstitions of Men but what was observed in all publick Offices we have reason to think the Church thought it self obliged so to do out of regard to the Institution of Christ. And to shew how Universal this Observation was in the Church those who give account of the Eastern Church say That the Greeks Nestorians Armenians Maronites Cophtites and Abyssins do all observe it still viz. That the publick Communicants do partake of both Kinds And not one of all these Churches but think themselves bound to observe it out of regard to the Institution of Christ and why then should any think the Primitive Church thought it indifferent 6. The first Precept of receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo A. D. 443. and confirmed by Gelasius A. D. 490. This is a great mistake for Leo gave no Precept about it but only told the people how they might certainly discover the Manichees for they would conform in other things but they would not taste of the Wine which argued that all other Communicants did then partake in both Kinds Gelasius not only confirms the Custom then used but he saith That it is Sacriledge to divide that Holy Mystery And surely he did not account Sacriledge an Indifferent thing 7. Lastly he saith That those who receive in one Kind are truely partakers of the whole Sacrament This is a new way of Concomitancy we used to hear of Whole Christ under either species and that Whole Christ was therefore received But how comes it to be the whole Sacrament which consists of two distinct Parts And if it be a Sacrifice the Blood must be separated from the Body else the Blood of Christ is not considered as shed and so the Notion of the Sacrifice will be lost Which is our next Head XXII Of the MASS UNder this Head which is thought of so great Consequence in the Roman Church I expected a fuller Representation than I here find as about the Opus Operatum i. e. how far the meer Act is effectual About their Solitary Masses when no Person receives but the Priest About the People having so little to do or understand in all the other parts of the Mass About the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass how useful and important they are About reconciling the present Canon of the Mass with the present Practises About offering up Masses for the honour of Saints All which we find in the Council of Trent but are omitted by our Representer Who speaks of the Mass as though there were no Controversy about it but only concerning the Sacrifice there supposed to be offered up and which he is far from true Representing For the Council of Trent not only affirms a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice to be there offered up for the quick and dead but denounces Anathema's against those that deny it So that the Question is not Whether the Eucharist may not in the sense
of Antiquity be allow'd to be a Commemorative Sacrifice as it takes in the whole Action but whether in the Mass there be such a Representation made to God of Christ's Sacrifice as to be it self a true and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead Now all that our Representer saith to the purpose is 1. That Christ bequeathed his Body and Blood at his last Supper under the Species of Bread and Wine not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice I had thought it had been more proper to have offered a Sacrifice than to have bequeathed it And this ought to have been proved as the Foundation of this Sacrifice viz. That Christ did at his last Supper offer up his Body and Blood as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God And then what need his suffering on the Cross 2. He gave this in charge to his Apostles as the first and chief Priests of the New-Testament and to their Successors to offer But Where When and How For we read nothing at all of it in Scripture Christ indeed did bid them do the same thing he had there done in his last Supper But did he then offer up himself or not If not How can the Sacrifice be drawn from his Action If he did it is impossible to prove the necessity of his dying afterwards 3. This Sacrifice was never questioned till of late years We say it was never determined to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice till of late We do not deny the Fathers interpreting Mal. 1. 11. of an Offering under the Gospel but they generally understand it of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Sacrifices and although some of them by way of Accommodation do apply it to the Eucharist yet not one of them doth make it a Propitiatory Sacrifice which was the thing to be proved For we have no mind to dispute about Metaphorical Sacrifices when the Council of Trent so positively decrees it to be a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice XXIII Of PURGATORY HEre our Author begins with proving from Scripture and Antiquity and then undertakes to explain the Doctrine of Purgatory from substantial Reasons 1. As to his Proof from Scripture 1. Is that from 2 Maccab. c. 12. where he saith Money was sent to Jerusalem that Sacrifices might be offered for the slain and 't is recommended as a Holy Cogitation to pray for the dead To this which is the main foundation of Purgatory I answer 1. It can never prove such a Purgatory as our Author asserts For he supposes a Sinner reconciled to God as to eternal Punishment before he be capable of Purgatory but here can be no such supposition for these Men died in the sin of Achan which was not known till their Bodies were found among the slain Here was no Confession or any sign of Repentance and therefore if it proves any thing it is deliverance from Eternal Punishment and for such as dye in their Sins without any shew of Repentance 2. We must distinguish the Fact of Judas from the interpretation of Jason or his Epitomizer The Fact of Judas was according to the strictness of the Law which required in such Cases a Sin-Offering and that is all which the Greek implies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so Leo Allatius confesses all the best Greek Copies agree and he reckons Twelve of them Now what doth this imply but that Judas remembring the severe punishment of this Sin in the Case of Achan upon the People sent a Sin-offering to Jerusalem But saith Leo Allatius It was the sin of those men that were slain I grant it But the Question is Whether the Sin-offering respected the dead or the living For the Law in such a Case required a Sin-offering for the Congregation And why should not we believe so punctual a Man for the Law as Judas did strictly observe it in this point But the Author of the Book of Macchabees understands it of those that were slain I do not deny it but then 3. We have no Reason to rely upon his Authority in this matter which I shall make appear by a parallel Instance He doth undoubtedly commend the fact of Razias in Killing himself 2. Macc. 14. 42. when he saith he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like a brave Man and if he had thought it a fault in him he would never have given such a Character of it but he would have added something of Caution after it And it is no great advantage to Purgatory for him that commends Self-murder to have introduced it The most probable account I can give of it is That the Alexandrian Jews of whose number Jason of Cyrene seems to have been had taken in several of the Philosophical Opinions especially the Platonists into their Religion as appears by Philo and Bellarmin himself confesses that Plato held a Purgatory and they were ready to apply what related to the Law to their Platonick Notions So here the Law appointed a Sin-offering with respect to the Living but Jason would needs have this refer to the dead and then sets down his own remark upon it That it was a holy cogitation to pray for the dead as our Author renders it If it were holy with respect to the Law there must be some ground for it in the Law And that we appeal to and do not think any particular Fancies sufficient to introduce such a Novelty as this was which had no Foundation eithe◠in the Law or the Prophets And it woul be strange for a new Doctrine to be set up when the Spirit of Prophecy was ceased among them But S. August hold these Books for Canonical and saith they are so received by the Church l. 18. de Civit De◠To answer this it is sufficient to observe not only the different opinions of others before mentioned as to these Books But that as Canus notes it was then lawful to doubt of their Authority And he goes as low as Gregory I. Whom he denies not to have rejected them And I hope we may set the Authority of one against the other especially when S. August in himself being pressed hard with the fact of Razias confesses 1. That the Jews have not the Book of Macchabees in their Canon as they have the Law the Prophets and the Psalms to whom our Lord gave Testimony as to his Witnesses Which is an evident Proof he thought not these Books sufficient to ground a Doctrine upon which was not found in the other 2. That however this Book was not unprofitably received by the Church if it be soberly read and heard Which implies a greater Caution than S. Augustin would ever have given concerning a Book he believed truely Canonical But saith Bellarmin his meaning is only to keep men from imitating the Example of Razias whereas that which they pressed S. August in with was not meerly the Fact but the Character that is given of it Sanctarum Scripturarum Auctoritate laudatus est