to state the Case and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say that Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament Or how that which is not the thing it self is yet more than a meer figure of it In answer to which I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alledged out of the publick Acts of our Church to satisfie him See the Church Catechism Our Catechism affirms That the inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST which are VERILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper And the meaning of it our 28th ‖ Article 28. Article expounds thus The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper ONLY AFTER A SPIRITVAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER and the means by which this is done is FAITH So that to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same The Bread which we break is as St. Paul declares it The Communion of the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which we bless The Communion of the Blood of Christ In a word We say that the faithful do really partake of Christs Body after such a manner as those who are void of Faith cannot tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike Whom therefore our Church declares * Article 29. To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be no way partakers of Christ but rather as St. Paul again says to Eat and Drink their own Damnation not discerning the Lords Body *†See the Appendix N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it These are the Words of our Church and the meaning is clearly this Christ is really present in this Sacrament inasmuch as they who worthily receive it have thereby really convey'd to them our Saviour Christ and all the benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs This great effect plainly shews it to be more than a meer Figure yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine †Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office Christ's Body being in Heaven and not on the holy Table and it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance nor is there any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the holy Altar The Presence we allow is Spiritual and that not only as to the manner of the Existence ‖ Vindicat. p. 77 78. which the Vindicator seems to insinuate for we suppose it to be a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body That this Exposition is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of England the Authorities already cited shew See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament part 1. p. 283. c. and the same is the Explication which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it as is evident by the Collation of them made by Bishop Cofins in his History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large p. 6. c. i. e. Corporal but as to the nature of the thing it self and yet it is Real too The Bread which we receive being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of and in which the Faithful by their Faith are made partakers of it Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence and yet †Vindic. p. 80. neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense * Ibid. p. 79. and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with As to the Authorities of their own Writers which I alledged to shew that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had no Grounds neither in Scripture nor Antiquity He is content to allow that the Scriptures are not so plain in this matter but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it Vind. p. 80 81. And for Antiquity he desires us to observe 1st That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon Ibid. p. 82. defined the. true real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation Sess 13. Can. 2. or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it Can. 2. If any one shall say That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholick Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation let him be Anathema The design of the Council in which Canon is evidently this To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentaries which before was done ‖ Can. 1. but also the manner or mode of his Presence against the Lutherans in two Particulars 1st Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine 2ly Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But this the Vindicator will not allow but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council and Doctrine of his Church that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion It is manifest Vindic. p. 83. says he that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion but only to declare the matter viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ becomes truly really and substantially Present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially Present tho the Appearances thereof remain Now this is so evidently false that Suarez doubts not to say 't is HEREST to affirm it Forasmuch says he See Suarez cited below as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Substance of the Bread but also the true Conversion of the one into the other thus establishing not only the two former but this last also as an Article of Faith Our dispute therefore is not only as this Author pretends about the real Presence of Christ's Body Vindic. p. 83. and Absence of the Substance of the Bread which he calls the thing it self but also about the Manner how Jesus Christ is Present viz. Whether it be by that WONDERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTIATION Now
we do indeed misunderstand the meaning of it we must at least profess it to be so far from any wilfull mistake that we do no more than what their greatest men have done before us And inded it still seems most reasonable to us that either this Sacrifice is no true and proper Sacrifice as they say it is or it is truly and properly offer'd as we affirm they understand it to be ARTICLE XXI Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine IF my Reflections in this Article be but as good Vindicat. p. 97. as my Exceptions in the foregoing have been just against their Doctrine what the Vindicator has said to these here will I believe be found as little to the purpose as what he endeavoured to reply to those before Tho' Christ be acknowledged to be really present after a Divine and Heavenly manner in this Holy Eucharist yet will not this warrant the Adoration of the Host which is still nevertheless only Bread and Wine from being what our Church censures it Rubrick about kneeling at the end of the Communion Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians nor will such a real presenting of our Blessed Lord to his Father to render him propitious to us make the Eucharist any more than a metaphorical not a true and proper propitiatory Sacrifice If these men please to fix upon us any other notion of the real presence than what has been said and which alone our Church allows of we are neither concerned in the Doctrine nor shall we think our selves at all obliged to answer for those consequences they may possibly draw from it ARTICLE XXII Communion under both Species TO prove the lawfulness of their denying the Cup to the Laity Vindicat. p 98. the Vindicator advances three Arguments from the publick Acts of our own Church The 1st false The 2d both false and unreasonable The 3d. nothing to the purpose 1st He says the Church of England allows the Communion to be given under one species in case of Necessity Art 30. This is FALSE The Article establishes both Kinds and speaks nothing at all of any Case of Necessity or what may or may not be done on that account See Art 30. Sparrow 's Collect pag. 102 and 219. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be administred to all Christian men alike 2dly Edward the sixth he says in his Proclamation before the order of Communion ordains That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and administred unto all Persons within our Realms of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds That is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This as it is thus alledged by the Vindicator is both False and Vnreasonable FALSE for that Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing See Sparrow 's Collect. p. 17. but only says That Forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was ordain'd viz. That the most blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ should from thenceforth be commonly Administred to all persons under both kinds c. He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it ‖ Note That this order of Communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the Reformation The Mass was yet left remaining and Edward the 6th afterwards published two other Books in which were considerable Alterations and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind It is in the next place VNREASONABLE to argue as to the present state of the Church of England from what was allow'd only and that in case of necessity too in the very first beginning of the Reformation It was indeed the singular Providence of God That in the 2d year of that Excellent Prince things were so far Reformed from those long and inveterate Errors in which the Ignorance and Superstition of Several Ages had involved the Church That they had allowed nay commanded the Holy Sacrament to be given under both kinds when for so many years it had been received only under one But that labouring still under their former prejudices they should in case of Necessity permit that which had been the universal practice of the Church without any necessity at all before this is neither to be admired in them then nor is it reasonable to urge it against us now His 3d Argument is not only Vnreasonable upon the account we have now said but were it never so proper is absolutely nothing to the purpose In the Rubrick at the end of the same Order of the Communion there is this Remark Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated Sparrow 's Collect p. 24. shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed and every of the said consecrated Breads shall be broken in two pieces at the least or more by the discretion of the Minister and so distributed And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole but in each of them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ The meaning of which Rubrick is very plain That whereas the people who had hitherto been accustomed to receive the Wafer entire were now to have but a part of it given to them to prevent any mis-conceits upon that account as if because they did not receive the whole Wafer as they were wont to do they did not receive the whole Body i. e. the Flesh of Christ for as to the Blood that they received afterwards in the Cup It was thought fit for the prevention of this scruple to tell them That they must not think less to be received in part than in the whole but in each of them the whole Body of Jesus Christ which what it makes for their denyal of the Cup to the Laity I cannot very well apprehend And now how well this Author has proved it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England to dispence with the Cup in the Holy Eucharist in case of necessity I shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge Tho' after all did we indeed as some others do believe that the Church had power to do this How will this excuse them who without any necessary or but reasonable cause deny it to the people altogether Concil Trid. Sess 21. Can. 1 2. and damn all those that will not believe they had not only power but just cause and reason so to do And why will it not as well follow that they may take away if they please the whole Sacrament from them and Damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too since even that in Case of Necessity
Orat 46. p. 722. c. but to have been always with him consubstantial with the Divinity which Divinity therefore by consequence suffer'd and was mortal which Epiphanius Theodoret but especially Gregor Nazianzen has at large related Only since some for the more distinct conception of the Apollinarian Heresie have thus distinguish'd it from that of Eutyches afterwards that the Eutychian affirm'd That our blessed Saviour took nothing from the blessed Virgin Theodoret. Haeretic Fab. l. 4. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eutyches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the very Logos the Word it self being as Theodoret expresses it immutably converted and made Flesh only passed through the Virgin whereas Apollinarius supposed the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin to be converted into the Divine Nature It appears by Gregory Nazianzen that this was no certain distinction forasmuch as the Apollinarian too affirmed oftentimes the same thing that as the Father expresses it in the place I before cited Naz. orat 46. supr dict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apollinarius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 722. our Saviour was even before he descended the Son of Man and descending brought his Flesh along with him which he had whilst he was in Heaven before all Ages and consubstantial with his Essence Which is what Theodoret long since observed when in his 3. Dialogue speaking with relation to them both he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who have patcht together this various and many-form'd Heresie sometimes say that the Word is become Flesh sometimes that the Flesh is changed into the Word Wherefore laying aside these subtleties this we may undoubtedly conclude That whatever their other differences were whether as to his Body which we see is uncertain or to his Soul in which the variety was more constant and more discernable the Eutychian affirming the Vnion of the two intire Natures the Humane and Divine whereas the Apollinarian deny'd that our Saviour ever assumed the reasonable Soul at all certain it is for what concerns our present purpose See Petav Dogm Theolog. Tom. 4. l. 1. c. 15. pag. 71. §. 3. that they both agreed in this That after the Vnion of the Word and Flesh there was but one only Nature common to both the Substance of the two that were before being now confused and permixt from whence they were both of them afterwards called by Apollinarius by St. Chrysostom Eutyches by others St. Chrysostom and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their confusion of the two Natures into one and making not only one Person as the Catholick Church did but one Nature too alone in Christ REFLECTION II. St. Chrysostme's Argument from the Eucharist against the Apollinarians consider'd and explain'd SUch is the Account which the antient Fathers have left us of the Apollinarian Heresie and the same we find to have been the Notion which St. J. Chrysostom in this Epistle had of it He proves the divine and humane Natures to be distinct in Christ that the Properties of the one ought no otherwise to be confounded with the other than as they are united in the same Person He charges the Apollinarians with saying that our Saviour's Body is converted into the Divinity and upon that account attributing Passion to the Deity and finally he concludes all with this Exhortation to Caesarius whom he designed by this Epistle to recover from their Errours Wherefore dearly beloved says he laying aside the novel Phrases and vain Speeches of these men let us return to what we have before said that it is pious most pious indeed that we should confess our Saviour Christ who died for us to be perfect in the Godhead perfect in the Manhood one only begotten Son not divided into two but bearing in himself together the unmixt proprieties of two distinct Natures Not two different Persons God forbid But one and the same Lord Jesus God Word cloathed with our Flesh and that not inanimate without the rational Soul as the wicked Apollinarius pretends Let us then assent to these things let us fly those who would divide him for though the Natures be distinct yet is there but one undivided and indivisible Union to be acknowledged in the same one Person and Substance of the Son II. And now if this be the Catholick Doctrine which this Holy Father here designs to bring Caesarius to such the Errours which by the subtlety of the Apollinarians he was involved in It will be very easie to conceive the Allusion he here makes between the two Natures united in Christ and the two Parts which the Catholick Church has ever acknowledged in the Holy Eucharist to the destruction of the Romanists Pretences of Transubstantiation and to the solid Establishment of the real Presence of Christ in this sacred Mystery such as the Church of England believes and has been established by me in the foregoing Discourse III. The Words of St. See below ☜ Chrysostome in this Epistle are these Christ is both GOD and MAN GOD in that he is impassible MAN for that he suffer'd yet but one SON one LORD He the same without doubt having one Dominion one Power of two united Natures Not that these Natures are consubstantial forasmuch as either of them does without confusion retain its own Properties and being two are yet inconfused in him For as in the Eucharist before the BREAD is Consecrated we call it BREAD but when the Grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it it is no longer called BREAD but is esseemed worthy to be called the LORD's BODY although the Nature of BREAD still remains in it and we do not say there be TWO BODIES but ONE BODY of the Son So here the DIVINE NATURE being joyned with the Humane BODY they both together make up but one Son one Person But yet they must be confess'd to remain without confusion after an indivisible manner not in ONE NATURE but in TWO PERFECT NATURES IV. In which Passage whether we consider the Expressions themselves or the Application of them they are utterly destructive of Transubstantiation First as to the Expressions themselves They tell us plainly That the Nature of BREAD remains in the Eucharist after the Consecration That our not calling it BREAD but CHRIST's BODY does not therefore intend to signifie that the Nature of BREAD is at all changed for that the BREAD by Consecration becomes indeed worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY but yet still retains its own Nature of BREAD V. These are such plain expressions of the Bread's continuing in its own Nature after Consecration that the Papists themselves have not been able to deny it So that their only Refuge is that by the BREAD'S retaining still its own Nature we are they say to understand only this that its Accidents remain but for its Substance that is changed into the BODY OF CHRIST See most of these cited by Albertinus de Eucharist l. 2. pag. 533. in Chrysostome c. 1. Thus Gardiner Turrian Bellarmine Gregory
de Valentia Vasquez Suares Perron Gamachaeus and last of all Father Nouet de la presence de Jesus Christ dans les tres saint Sacrement liv 4. c. 5. art 3 p. 285. Nouet in his Controversie against Monsieur Claude VI. This is indeed to cut the Knot when it was not to be untied and makes St. Chrysostome in effect to say thus much That the Nature of BREAD after the Consecration still remains though indeed the Nature be changed and only the Accidents continue And would it not have been an admirable Similitude to shew that the Humane Nature of Christ was not changed into the Divine as the Appollinarian pretended to alledge the Example of the Eucharist in which the Nature of the BREAD was changed into the very Nature of Christ's Body as the Papists believe VII But S. Chrysostome was not so absurd as these men would represent him and his other Expressions utterly overthrow this Evasion 1. He tells us plainly that all the Change that was made in the BREAD by Consecration was in the Name See this Argument managed by Monsieur Claude Rep. à Pere Nouet Partie 5. c. 6. p. 488. not the Substance That whereas before it was called BREAD by being consecrated it became worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY 2. Had St. Chrysostome believed the BREAD to have been truly changed and become the very Body of Christ would he have said that it became WORTHY to be CALLED the Body of Christ and not rather plainly have told us that it became the VERY BODY of Christ Do men use to say that the Heaven is worthy to be called the Heaven The Sun worthy to be called the Sun And why shall we think St. Chrysostome the only ridiculous man to use such a Phrase as no man in the World ever did or would have done besides But 3. And to put this point beyond all doubt When St. Chrysostome here speaks of the Nature of BREAD in allusion to the Nature of CHRIST if we will have him consistent with himself we must suppose him to have used that Expression with reference to both in the same sense As therefore in his Discourse immediately before and after by Nature with reference to CHRIST he does not mean the Properties only but the very Substance of his Humanity and Divinity so here in his allusion to the Eucharistical BREAD he must still mean the same the Substance of the BREAD and not barely the Properties or Accidents of it and of this I am perswaded no indifferent Person will make any doubt Secondly As to the design of this Allusion VIII The Apollinarians as we have seen affirm'd the Change of one Nature in Christ into the other That however before the Vnion they were two distinct things yet by being united the humane Nature became converted or if you will transubstantiated into the Divine IX Now the Falseness of this S. Chrysostom shews by the Example of the Eucharist That as there the BREAD by being consecrated becomes indeed worthy to be called CHRIST's BODY yet do's not lose its own Nature but continues the same BREAD as to its Substance that it was before So here the Humane Nature of Christ being by the Incarnation hypostatically united to the Divine did not cease to be a Humane Nature but still continued what it was before however united with the other in one Person X. So that as certainly then as the Humane Nature of Christ does now continue to be a Humane Nature notwithstanding that Incarnation so certainly does the BREAD in the Eucharist continue BREAD after this Consecration As certainly as Apollinarius was deceived in supposing the Manhood of Christ to be swallowed up and changed into the Godhead so certainly is the Papist deceived in imagining the Substance of the BREAD to be swallow'd up and converted into the Substance of CHRIST'S BODY in this Holy Sacrament XI Christ's Humane Nature being united to the Divine became worthy thereby to be called together with it by the same common Name of Christ Lord Jesus the Word the Son of God the BREAD being by Consecration mystically united to Christ's BODY becomes worthy to be called together with it THE LORD's BODY but that is all the Humane Nature still continues what it was before in the one the Nature of the BREAD still continues what it was before in the other and there is no Transubstantiation made in either XII In a word in the Hypostatick Vnion though there be two distinct Natures God and Man yet there is but one Person one Son made up of both So in the Holy Eucharist though there be two different things united the BREAD and CHRIST's BODY yet we do not say there be two Bodies but one mystical Body of Christ made up of both as the King and his Image to use the Similitude of the Antient Fathers are not two but one King Or in the Example of St. Chrysostome himself Christ and the Church are not two but one Body REFLECTION III. Of the Epistle it self and the Attempts that have been made against it I. ANd now when such is the force of this Epistle that it utterly destroys one of the principal Errors of Popery It is not at all to be wondred at if those men who were resolved not to be convinced by it themselves have used all imaginable means to provide that others should not II. Ann. 1548. It is now above 100 years since this passage was first produced by Peter Martyr in his Dispute with Gardiner Bishop of Winchester concerning the Eucharist He then profess'd that he had copied it out of the Florentine MS. and that the whole Epistle was put by him into Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Library Lovanii Confutatio Cavillationum c ad Obj. 201. This Gardiner could not deny who therefore in his Answer to him 1552. endeavour'd first to ascribe it to another John of Constantinople who lived about the beginning of the 6th Century Secondly to elude the force of this Passage by that strange interpretation of the Word Nature I have before mentioned and in which all the others have since follow'd him III. Libr. 1. de Euchar. cap. 18. Turrian who by his writing seems to shew that he had somewhere or other seen this Epistle contends in like manner and if we may believe Vasquez Vasquez dis 180. c. 9. n. 102. Valentia de Transub cap. 7. §. Similiter and de Valentia proves it too that this Epistle was not Chrysostom's but the other John's to whom the Bishop of Winchester had before ascribed it But yet still the Argument recurr'd upon them forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning of the 6th Age and Transubstantiation by consequence was not the Doctrine of the Church then IV. And indeed Gamachaeus is not very unwilling to acknowledge this for having with the rest assigned this Epistle to the other John he tells us Excusari posse quod nec Transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita explicata fuerat sicut
Peccatum institutum non utique propter Remedium sed ad Sacramentum Et d. 26. l. A. Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum propter peccatum exordium sumpserint Matrimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum à Domino Sacrament to have been instituted not only before Christ but even before the Fall and therefore was not cited either for Ostentation or for the silly Reason mention'd by the Vindicator * 4 Sent. d. 26. q. 3. Durandus in express terms declares that forasmuch as it neither confers Grace where it is not nor encreases it where it is it cannot be a Sacrament truly and properly so called It is therefore evidently false to say that Lombard is against me in this Matter and for the torrent of Fathers and †For his torrent of Fathers Bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven of which not one to the purpose nor any very ancient And for the Scriptures Estius one of the wisest of their own Party is forced to confess Cum igitur hujus Doctrinae non poffit ex Scripturis haberi probatio saltem aperta evidens consequens est articulum hunc Matrimonii Sacramento gratiam conferri unum esse extraditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis ad Virbum Dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere 4 Sent. d. 26. §. 7. p. 61. Scriptures which he talks of it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their Authorities than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform ARTICLE XIV Of Holy Orders IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Article Vindicat. p. 71. He must then renounce the number of his seven Sacraments I deny'd that there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture being only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded I affirm'd that several of his own Church had declared it not to be Essential to Holy Orders nor by consequence the outward Sign of a Sacrament in them In a word I said that the Grace conferr'd was no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament To all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in Answer ARTICLE 15 16 17 18. Of the Eucharist AS to the Business of the Eucharist Vindicat. p. 72. I had not entred on any Argument about it had not Monsieur de Meaux here thought fit to lay aside the Character of an Expositor to assume that of a Disputant For the words of Institution which are the principal part of this Controversy I proposed two Arguments to confirm the Interpretation which our Church gives of them One from the the natural import of the words themselves the Other from the intention of our Saviour in the institution of this Holy Sacrament To the former of these the Vindicator thought he could answer somewhat but for the latter it has been urged chiefly since Bellarmine's time and so our Author had nothing to say to it For the former then he tells us Ibid. first Of the insincerity of my Attacque Pag. 73 74. That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIGING them to take them in a figurative sense to which I oppose only That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation as NATVRALLY lead to it 'T is true I have not here used the very word OBLIGED but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would NECESSARILY REQVIRE a figurative Expos Ch. of Eng. p. 47. Interpretation which is much the same thing And though I cannot tell what will Oblige Him to take those words in their true i. e. figurative sense yet if I have proved That there are such Grounds in those words as Naturally indeed necessarily lead to it any reasonable Man would think that joyn'd with the Other proof from the Reason of the thing it self might be sufficient to Oblige him to acquiesce in it But we will examine his Process which whether it argues more my unsincerity or the falseness of their Interpretation I shall leave it to the Reader to judg First He confesses as to my first Position Vindicat. p. 73. that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation No-Body says he ever deny'd but the words as they lie without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church delivering the Interpretation of them down to us might possibly lead to a figurative Interpretation Seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture As for Example I am a Door I am a Vine c. Which being always taken by the Church in a figurative sense we should esteem him a Mad-man that should think it possible after this to perswade all the World they ought to be taken in a literal And as it would be a madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages be so sottish as to renounce this figurative Interpretation of Jesus Christ's being a Dore and a Vine and fall so far into the literal sense as to believe him to be substantially present in them and pay the utmost adorations to him there set them up in Temples to be Adored and celebrate Feasts in honour of them ‖ This is the Pretence of Mr. Arnauld and at large refuted by Mr. Claude in his answer to him whose Works being in English I shall refer the Reader who desires to see the vanity of this Argument exposed to what he has there said So we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine that if the Disciples and whole Church in all Nations had been once taught these words This is my Body were to be taken in a figurative sense it could ever have happen'd that the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children the literal c. The meaning of which Discourse if I understand it aright is this Concession that the words of Institution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation as those other Expressions I am a Vine I am a Door And the only thing which makes the difference is that the Church as he supposes has from the beginning interpreted the One according to the Letter the Other in a figurative Acceptation Secondly As to my Argument That if the Relative This in that Proposition this is my Body referr'd to the Bread which our Saviour held in his Hand the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and Christ's Body will NECESSARILY REQVIRE the figurative Interpretation This * De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. p. 462. l. D. speaking of Carolstrad's Opinion of the Eucharist Scripsit says he Verba Evangelistae Hoc est Corpus meum hunc facere sensum Hic Panis est Corpus meum quae sententia aut
accipi debet tropicè ut Panis sit Corpus Christi significativè aut est planè absurda Impossibilis nec enim fieri potest ut Panis sit Corpus Christi Et l. 3. c. 19. p. 747. Non potest fieri ut vera fit propositio in quâ Subjectum supponit pro Pane praedicatum autem pro Corpore Christi c. Bellarmine †Hoc est impossibile quod Panis fit Corpus Christi de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. p. 2393. in Gloss Gratian and others do confess and the Vindicator himself seems contented with it Only he believes That all my Logic will never be able to prove that the Pronoun THIS must necessarily relate to Panis * In the Aethiopian Church they give the Holy Eucharist with this Explication Hic Panis est Corpus meum Ludolphi Hist l. 3. c. 5. n. 56. Bread and not to Corpus Body How far my Logic has been able to do this I must leave it to others to determine but for the Vindicator's satisfaction I do assure him that Bellarmine looks upon it to be Good Logic. And because it is in the middle of the citation I referred to and which he has almost intirely transcribed excepting only the part I am now speaking of I will not charge him with unsincerity in the omission but I must needs say 't was indiscreet to put the issue of the Question upon what his Cardinal had so freely confessed †Bellarm de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. p. 746. Lit. D. Dominus accepit in manibus panom eumque benedixit dedit discipulis de eo ait Hoc est Corpus meum Itaque panem accepit panem benedixit panem dedit de Pane dixit Hoc est corpus meum The Lord says he took Bread in his hands and blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and said of it This is my Body Therefore he took BREAD and blessed BREAD and gave BREAD to his Disciples and said of BREAD This is my Body And in ⸪ Id. l. 1. c. 11. p. 517. Lit. B. Siquis digito aliquid ostendat dum Pronomen effert valdè absurdum videtur dicere Pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem Atqui Dominus accepit Panem Illum porrigens ait Hoc est Corpus meum videtur igitur demonstravisse Panem Neque obstat quòd propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis Nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est Oratio quaedam tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces Et sanè in illis verbis Bibite ex hoc omnes valdè durum est non demonstrari I D. quod Erat sed I D. tantùm quod futurum erat another place arguing against this very Opinion of the Vindicator That THIS in that proposition belongs to BODY not the BREAD which he held in his hand says That if a Man points with his finger to a thing whilst he utters a pronoun demonstrative 't were absurd to say that any thing else should be referred to but that thing Our Lord took Bread and reaching it out to them said Take Eat THIS is my Body He seems to have pointed to the BREAD and therefore must have shewn some certain thing even before the other words were pronounced From which put together I think we may frame this Argument If the Relative THIS in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body then it must be understood Figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the relative This in that proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible How far the Vindicator will approve this Logick I cannot tell but the first proposition is their common concession and he himself seems contented with it The second is Bellarmine's own grant nay what he contends for and indeed what the connexion of the Words do evidently require And then for the conclusion I believe a very little Logick will be enough at any time to make good the sequel of it But the Vindicator has an Exception against all this Vind. p. 75. and tells us That it will all argue nothing against them unless I beg the Question and suppose that no real change was made by those words I presume it is as much a begging of the Question for him to suppose there was as for me that there was not We do not now enquire how to expound the Proposition supposing there were such a change made as they imagine but the Question is Whether these Words do necessarily imply any such change nay rather do not oblige us to take them in a figurative sense to shew that there is none However he is resolved he will suppose the Question first and then prove it tho' I must not We will suppose says he and that not incongruously That our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these words THIS IS WINE or LET THIS BE WINE I hope he does not look upon these two to be one and the same But in short If our Saviour had said Let this be Wine the meaning must have been Let this which is now Water become Wine If he had said This is Wine and the conversion not yet made it would have been false If after the conversion no more than this This that is contained in these Pots is Wine or This which before was Water now is Wine And so in the point before us Had our Blessed Saviour said LET THIS BE MY BODY and a conversion had been thereupon as truly made as of the Water into Wine we should have made no doubt but that it was a command for that which before was Bread to become his Body If we take the Words as they are THIS IS MY BODY and no conversion made before they were pronounced the Proposition in the literal sense must plainly be false If a real conversion had first been made as when the Water was turned into Wine then would it signifie no more than this This which before was Bread is now my Body So that all this will as little avail him as he says the other did us unless he also beg the Question and suppose a real change made by these words which he knows is the very thing which we deny as we shall have reason to do till they can prove that what we are sure was Bread is converted into the Body of Christ And thus much for his disputing Vindicat. p. 77 78 79 80. Before he enters on an Examination of those Authorities I produced to shew the novelty and uncertainty of Trany-substantiation he is willing
Honour of God is concerned in it and especially at a time when the whole Province is filled with Missionaries Capuchins ignorant Jesuits and others who preach up the Adoration of the Cross and cause it to be done in a Country full of Protestants and among whom I durst promise 10000 Converts were the Practice of our Religion conformable to your Exposition The Protestants have hardly any other Objection to make to me than this That the Church of Rome treats both your Lordship and me as Hereticks I beg your Lordship's Pardon for this I thought my self obliged to acquaint you with my Case after which I have only remaining to assure you of the Submission of My LORD Your Lordship 's most humble and obedient Servant IMBERT Such was the Account which Monsieur Imbert gave of his Case to M. de Meaux I was the more willing to publish it 42 pages in 4to that those who have never seen the Factum which he printed of it and which is too long to be inserted here may at least by this perceive that his Crime was truly his adhering to M. de Meaux's Exposition and that he had reason to say as he does in this Letter to him That if he was convicted of Heresie M. de Meaux ought to be his warrant for it And because the Bishop has been pleased to endeavour to take off the force of this great Allegation Vindicat. p. 116. Cet Imbert est un homme sans sçavoir qui crût justifier ses extravagances en nommant mon Exposition c. by lessening the Character of the Person I shall leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether this Letter carries any thing of the Stile of an extravagant a man of no learning as well as of no Renown such as M. de Meaux in his Answer pretends him to be NUM V. The Epistle of St. Chrysostome to Caesarius cut by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne out of the Greek Edition of Palladius published by Monsieur Bigot 1680. with a Dissertation premised containing an Historical Account of the whole Affair IT will perhaps be look'd upon by some as a little unseasonable to joyn a piece of Antiquity so considerable as this Epistle to a Treatise of so little Importance as the foregoing Defence may justly be esteem'd to be But since the main thing I charge M. de Meaux with is That a first Edition of his Book was suppress'd for containing some Assertions not so suitable to the Sentiments of the Sorbonne Doctors to whom it was sent for their Approbation to shew the undistinguishing Justice of their Proceedings and that M. de Meaux is not the only Bishop they have dealt thus rudely with on these Occasions I was willing to communicate to the World one Instance more of the like nature especially since the Original Leaves rased out and suppress'd by them have here also fallen into my Hands and may at any time be seen with the suppress'd Edition of M. de Meaux's Exposition It may be some Satisfaction to M. de Meaux to consider that in this Case he has run no other fortune than what is common to him with the great St. Chrysostome And possibly the Reader too will from hence begin to find it no difficult matter to believe that those who made no scruple to suppress a whole Epistle of St. Chrysostome a Patriarch and a Saint for contradicting their Doctrine in one only Point may indeed have made as little of correcting M. de Meaux's Exposition tho' a Bishop's that had prevaricated their Faith in so many Nor was I less engaged on the Vindicator's account to this Publication 't is one of his greatest difficulties and which he seems the most desirous to be resolv'd in how there can be such a thing as the Real Presence in the Eucharist without Transubstantiation I have before told him what I suppose sufficient to explain this matter But because I cannot expect that either my Church or Book should pass pass with him for an Oracle it may be some confirmation of the Idea to shew him one of their pretended Patrons concurring with me in the Exposition and manifestly supposing a Union betwixt the Bread and Christ's Body in the holy Eucharist and yet stifly contending at the same time that the Nature of the Bread is not changed in it All the danger is that this holy Father who as Monsieur See Mr Bigot's Preface below Bigot observes has hitherto pass'd for the great Doctor of the Eucharist as St. Austin of Grace may possibly by this run the hazard of losing his Credit amongst them and as it has fared but very lately with Theodoret upon the same account that they will henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation since they cannot any longer suppress his Doctrine But before I offer the Epistle it self it is fit that I premise something for the better understanding of it It was written to Caesarius a Monk that had a little before fallen into the Apollinarian Heresie to reduce him to the Catholick Faith I shall therefore beg leave to begin my Reflections with a short account of that as far as may serve to open the way to what we are to read of it in this REFLECTION I. Of APOLLINARIUS and his HERESIE APOLLINARIVS the younger from whom this Heresie derives its name was Son to the elder Apollinarius Godefry vie de S. Athanase livre II. cap. 13. Ex Basil Ep 74. a very learned Man and never that we read of charged with any Heresie He was of Alexandria where he was ordain'd a Priest and became deservedly eminent for this That when Julian forbad the Christians the reading of human Writers being envious of that Reputation which many of the Fathers of the Church had so justly acquired in that sort of Learning he with his Son Socrat. Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap 16. Calvisii Chronol pag. 525. an 362. repaired in great measure this Disadvantage by opening of two Schools The Father turning the Writings of the Old Testament into Heroick Verse and composing several Tragedies of the Historical Parts of them The Son explaining the New in Dialogues after the Platonick manner and by this means preserving the Church from that Ignorance which the Apostate Emperor thought to have reduced it to II. As for the younger Apollinarius he is on all hands acknowledged to have been a very extraordinary Man Sozomen Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 25. See Epiphan Haer. 77. Theophilus l. 1. paschal Vincen. Lirin lib. adv prof novationes Quid illo praestantius acumine exercitatione doctrinâ Quam multas ille Haereses multis voluminibus oppresserit quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores indicio est opus illud 30 non minus librorum nobilissimum maximum quo insanas Porphyrii calumnias magnâ probationum mole confudit Longum est universa ipsius opera commemorare quibus profectò summis Aedificatoribus Ecclesiae par esse potuisset nisi profanâ illâ haereticae curiositatis libidine novum