the manner for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction Defence pag 61. that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal but as to the nature of the thing it self but yet it is real too A Jargon What kind of Jargon is this and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions Christ is really present §. 69. Pag. 60. line 32. says the Defender in the Sacrament in as much as they who worthily receive it have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs and therefore it is more than a meer Figure One would think this enough Oh but his Body is not there How is Christ there and not his Body Yes his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine there is no corporeal Presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood Rulric at the end of the Communion Office. for his Body is only in Heaven and it is against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one How is it then that he is there will you acknowledge Casâ—â—b Epist ad â—â—rd Pâ—â—en with King James the First that you believe a Presence no less true and real than Catholics do only you are ignorant of the manner If so tell us and recal what you have said that it is a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of No this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics And further the late Church Rubric whose Fate has been so various and the * I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever and that the Sacrifice of the Mass as it is now used in the Church of Rome is Superstitious and Idolatrous 30 Car. 2. Test The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the first time contradict the Religion professed in that Kings days for now at least you know by a new Revelator that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments and make them swear and subscribe to it under such forfeitures and penalties This is the Doctrin we are invited to believe which how inconsistent it is with it self appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative Let us now see what is the Doctrin of Roman Catholics The Council of (a) Sess 13. c. 4. Trent tels us §. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrin that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread therefore it was always believed in the Church of God and this Holy Synod does now again declare it that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion or change of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation And the same (b) Ib. can 1. Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly really and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Vertue Thus we believe a true real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament that is of his Body and Blood Soul and Divinity The Lutherans agree with us in it but will have Bread to remain too which we deny And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same but will have the presence to be Spiritual by which as I told them if they intend only that Christs presence is not there after a natural circumscribed corporeal extensive manner we admit of it but if they mean by this spiritual manner that Christ who is both God and Man is not truly really essentially substantially present we deny it They who affirm §. 71. Three manners of a Real presence as we do that Christs Body is really present in the Sacrament Propose several ways by which they think it may be done all which may be reduced to Three First that his Body may be present together with the Bread as Fire is together with Iron when red hot Water with Ashes c. Secondly present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread is also the true Body of Christ Or Thirdly that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there the Substance of Bread ceasing to be As to the first the words of the Institute are against it For if Christ had rendred his Body present after that manner he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum but Hîc est corpus meum Here is my Body The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholy impossible as implying a manisest Contradiction that it should be Bread and not Bread the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ The third is the true Catholic Doctrin and is called by the Church Transubstantiation that is a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood as I have mentioned from the Council And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament Now this existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is not after a natural corporeal extensive manner because it is neither visible nor palpable But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament We have Examples of this from Holy Writ For if we doubt not but that he could free his Body from being visible palpable and heavy and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mothers Womb without breach of her Virginity and through the Doors when shut can we doubt his Power in rendring it present without local extension or the other qualifications of a common natural Body And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses when he tels us that the Body is sown a corruptible Body and is raised a spiritual Body As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies
his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
kind of meat and therefore no wonder if they called this most solid and super substantial Food Bread. I come now to examin his other Arguments and first §. 78. Objections from Fathers and Schoolmen First from St Chrysostoms Epistle to Casarius that drawn from an obscure passage in an Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Caesarius which he has managed with all the artifice he could because it stood in need of it The Words literally rendred are these For as before Bread be Sanctified we all it Bread but the Divine Grace by the Ministry of the Priest having Sanctified it it is freed indeed from the Appellation or name of Bread but esteemed worthy of the Appellation or name of our Lords Body altho' the nature of Bread hath remained in it and it is not called two Bodys but one Body of the Son So also here the Divine Nature having overflowed the Body both these have made up one Son one Person But however we must acknowledge an unconfused and inaivisible manner not in one Nature only but in two perfect Natures From this obscure passage the Defender argues first Defence Appendix pag. 138 139 140. that the Expressions are plainly against Transubstantiation because it says the Nature of Bread remains in the Eucharist after Consecration and that which was called Bread before by being Consecrated is become worthy to be called the Body of Christ 2. That the design of this Allusion shews it to be plainly against our Tenets For Caesarius being fallen into the Apollinarian Heresy which held but one Nature in Christ affirming the Human to be converted into the Divine by being united to it this Argument would have concluded nothing against him unless it had supposed the substance of Bread to remain with the Body of Christ in the Eucharist In answer to this §. 79. Answer First it is worthy to be taken notice of what poor shifts our Adversaries are driven to that when they may find multitudes of clear Expressions in St. Chrysostoms undoubted works shewing his belief of a Real and Substantial presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread in so much as that he was deservedly called the Doctor of the Eucharist as Bigotius has well observed and the Defender takes notice nay censured even by (a) See the Centuriators and Musculus quoted by the Protestant Apology Tr. 1. Sect. 2. Sub. 2. §. 2 at 2. in the Marg. pag. 82. Protestants themselves to have taught or confirmed Transubstantiation yet an obscure passage must be picked out of a controverted Epistle A passage to which the Original Greek is no where to be found taken out of a (b) Hee verum esse de codice hujus Epistolae sateri cegor qui licet annâ—rum sit 500. parum tamea emen latè Scriptus est opem a Graeco praetipuè codice aut ab alio saliem Latino postulat In eo quem vidi aliquando voces continuae sunt verbis aliquando ita coâ—uptis ut ad sa â—â—tatem reduci mâ—n me possint absque subsidio aliorum cedicum Quae scribarum incuria deterruit opiner Petrum Martyrem ab ea edendâ— Taceo inâ—erp etationem quae minus accurata imo plane barbara videtur Thus Bigetius cited by our Defender in his Appendix pag. 147. Latin Copy which is acknowledged to be so very full of faults that it stands in need especially of the Greek or at least of other Latin Copies to Correct it In which the words are so corrupted that it is impossible as Bigotius himself acknowledges to make them right without the assistance of other Books A Book where the Interpretation was so little Correct that it seemed to be wholy Barbarous yet an obscure passage I say must be picked out of this controverted uncorrected Barbarously interpreted Epistle and the world made to believe that it is not only sound and authentick but moreover that it bears a sense which they who examin the connexion will find to be very different from the Authors intention Secondly it is no less worth taking notice of §. 80. that they are not so sollicitous to defend their own Teners as to ruine ours in so much that they care not what Doctrin they establish from this passage nor how they make St. Chrysostom oppose St. Chrysostom and the other Fathers of his time nor what absurdities they make him fall into so they do but find some pretence to make the world believe they have something against our Doctrin If St. Chrysosiom brought this Parallel in opposition to the Heresy of Appollinarius and meant as our Defender would have it that as Cesarius believed the Substance of Bread remained after consecration together with the Substance of Christs Body unconfused in the Eucharist so ought he also to believe that both the Divine and Human nature did remain unconfused in one Christ It must necessarily follow that St. Chrysostom believed the Body of Christ was as really in the Eucharist as he believed the Divinity to be Really in Christ And if so it would as necessarily follow that as Christ is to be adored because he is God tho' he be man also so is the Eucharist to be adored because the Body of Christ is there tho' Bread ought not to be adored It would also necessarily follow that Christs Body would be in as many places at once as there were Hosts That his Body and Bread would be both in one place That his Body would be in Heaven and upon our Altars at the same time c. So that whilst he endeavours to make St. Chrysostom deny Transubstantiation he makes him espouse all the difficulties of it and Consubstantiation mixed together For if this Parallel be exact as our Defender would have it St. Chrysostom must have held this opinion concerning the Eucharist That as there are two different Natures in Christ the Human and Divine which being Hypostatically united together make up but one Person Christ So are there two Natures in the Eucharist Bread and the Body of Christ both which make up but one Substance the Body of Christ and that as in Christ the Divinity Hypostatically united to the Humanity makes but one Subsistence one Person in two different Natures and that truly called Divine So in the Eucharist the Nature of Christ united to the Nature of Bread makes up but one Body and that worthy to be called the Body of Christ And that as the Human Nature of Christ by being united to the Divine has many Epithets given it which properly belong to the Divinity so the Bread it self by the Union of the Body of Christ with it is worthy to receive the Epithets I may add also the Adoration due to the Body of Christ If this be the Doctrin of the Church of England let our Defender speak if not let him confess either that St. Chrysostom did not agree with them or that he has a wrong conception of his Parallel
the Defender need not fear that St. Chrysostom should lose his credit amongst us or that we shall henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation since we cannot any longer suppress his Doctrin No no neither he nor Theodoret were against the Doctrin of the Real and Substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament tho' our Adversaries by all their Arts endeavor to draw one obscure passage out of either of them as favoring their opinion As for St. Chrysostom I must tell the Defender with Bigotius Integrum librum conficerem si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem in quibus de Sacratissima Eucharèstia similiter loquitur sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit eos in fonte legisse that should I extract all the places out of his works in which he uses the like plain expressions of the Real presence it would make a Book by it self They who desire farther satisfaction may go to the Fountain it self and if they will but spend some sew hours in a Library and there Read entirely and not by parcels his 83 Hom. in Mattb. his 21 Hom. in Act. and his 24 in 1 Cor. they will there find how contrary St. Chrysostoms opinion is to what the Defender would make us believe (a) Expost Doctr. Ch. of Eng. p. 56. His next Argument is from the Schoolmen §. 84. Argument from Schoolmen who as he says and cites these Authors in the (b) Lomb. 4. dist 10. Scotus 4. dist 2. qu. 11. Margent for it confess that there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation (c) Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 13. ss secundo dicit where he cites many others of the same opinion That there is not any that withot the Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it (d) Cajeta◠in 3. D. Th. qu. 75. Art. 1. That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words the other might with as good warrant have been received (e) See Scotus cited by Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Vnum tamen See also Gabricl cited by Suarez T. 3. disp 50. Sect. 1. So Lembard l. 4. sent dist 11. lit A. And that this Doctrin was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 Years after Christ and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day In answer to this Argument I told him first Vindi◠pag. 80. that if the Schoolmen used those Expressions that There was no formal proof in Scripture for Transubstantiation which could evince it without the Declaration of the Church it is but what they also affirm as to the Trinity and consubstantiality of the Son nay even as to all the Principal Articles of our Faith and as to the Scriptures themselves their being the word of God all which stood in need of the Churches Declaration to make them clear and convincing either to obstinate Heretics who were always ready to drop Texts of Scripture or to Atheistical persons who would rely upon nothing but Sense and Reason Secondly Ibid. pag. 82 83. I desired him to state the Question right and to distinguish betwixt the Doctrin of the Church and the Doctrin of the Schools I told him the Doctrin of the Church was contained in the Canons of the Council of Trent which Anathematised all those who should say that the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Sess 13. can 2. together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or should deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood the species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation But I told him that the Schoolmen tho' they all agreed as to the matter yet might have had several opinions concerning several possible manners of explicating Transubstantiation all which opinions as they were not of necessary belief so were they not to enter as a part of our Dispute with Protestants And upon this account I told him Lastly that he mistook the meaning of our Authors who when they spoke of the matter that is of the real and substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and absence of Bread which is made by that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of one into the other called by the Church Transubstantiation they were all at perfect agreement asserting it as a matter of Faith always believed in the Church tho' more explicitely declared in the Council of Lateran and other succeeding Councils upon account of the opposition made by Berengarius and his Followers But that as to the manner of explicating this Transubstantiation as whether it were by Production or Adduction or Annihilation Lombard says Cum haec verba proferuntur conversto fit Panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi Lomb. in 4. dist 8. li◠C. He also in his 10 dist shews it to have been an Herosy in his time not to have believed that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of ids Body and Blood. Tho' in the 11 dist he consesses he knows isot the manner how this conversion is made See the Vindic. pag. 91. the disputes that might arise amongst them regarded not our Faith which only tels us there is a true and real Conversion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which Conversion the Church calls Transubstantiation The Reply our Defender makes to this §. 85. A mistake of the Vindicators sense Defence pag. 62. seqq is ushered in with a Mistake grounded perhaps upon my not so cautiously wording a sentence which if taken alone might bear the sense he draws it to tho' if one regard what went before and followed after it cannot reasonably be wrested to it a Mistake I say affirming me to have advanced an Exposition quite contrary to the Doctrin of our Church and design of the Council of Trent which did not only define the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentarians but also the Manner or Mode as he calls it of his presence in the Sacrament against the Lutherans in two particulars 1. Of the absence of the substance of Bread and Wine 2. Of the Conversion of their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But I assure him it was never my intention to deny the Doctrin of a true Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ but only to affirm that the manner how that Conversion is made was controverted in the Schools and therefore what he brings against this mistake of
I must tell him the Mareschal has more then once expressed the just esteem he had for that Book as for that which first opened his Eyes and gave him satisfaction and did frequently recommend it to others assuring them that if they considered it with diligence it would work the same effect in them If the Defender doubt of the truth of this the Right Honorable the Lord John Bellassise His Majesties Commissioner for the Treasury will assure him that he had it from his own mouth In the Body of the Book he runs through all the Points mentioned by the Bishop §. 10. The Controversie betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender still laying such Doctrins to our charge and backing them with such weak Reasons and falsified Authorities that I thought it my Duty as having Published the Bishops Exposition in our English Tongue to detect the fallacies and lay open the falsifications this I did in my Vindication shewing him upon all occasions that what he opposed as our Doctrin either was not at all our Doctrin and the Authorities he brought to back his Assertion falsified or misunderstood or else if it was the Doctrin of some particulars yet was it neither universally nor necessarily embraced by the Church and therefore not esteemed by us as of Catholic Faith. To this he has made a Reply in his Defence of the Doctrin of the Church of England In which they who Examin nothing but the bold Assertions of an Author will think that he had much the better of it and that the Vindicators Arguments were but silly and that the falsifications c. lay at his own Door But they who will either take the pains to examin matters throughly or Read this following Reply without prejudice will I hope see the matter cleared and that notwithstanding all our Defenders pretences he has not so much as vindicated one of his falsifications nor brought any one Argument but which is merely a fallacy against our Doctrin I shall not go about to prevent the Reader by running through the whole §. 11. The state of the Controversie in particulars but it will not be amiss to shew him wherein the chiefest difficulties of our Controversies ly that he may pass over when he Reads any of our Adversaries Books of which there is so great a glut what do's not make against us tho' it be never so plausible or pleasing for I dare be bold to say that if our Adversaries would but take care of this and write against nothing but what is truly our Doctrins our Controversie would be quickly at an end and all the large Volums that are now Written would dwindle into single sheets How do some People labor to prove §. 12. Honor due to Saints that we Adore Men and Women Stocks and Stones in the utmost propriety of the phrase and shew a great deal of Reading and an excess of Zeal in speaking against Idolatry and Superstition whereas it is no where to be found but in their false accusations For we assure them that we Adore none but God in the utmost propriety of the phrase We honor but adore them not but if you take Adore for Honor in an Inferior Degree we acknowledge that the Saints and Angels may be honored with such an Inferior honor nay all animated Creatures whatever according to their Dignity If you deny it to be lawful to give this Inferior honor to the Saints prove it and you write against us otherwise all your labor is but spent in vain As to Images we say that what we call Veneration for them is no other than an honor pay'd §. 13. Images where we truly owe it to those for whose sake we use such things otherwise then common things We have a Veneration for Images as for Sacred Utensils Dedicated to God and the Churches Service and that too in a less Degree than for our Chalices c. every one being permitted to handle an Image or a Crucifix but not those Vessels which have been rendred venerable by touching the Sacrament of the most pretious Body and Blood of our Redeemer We look upon them as proper Ornaments for a Sacred place as beneficial for the instruction of the ignorant and helps to keep our Minds from wandring or our Affections from being cooled In presence of them we pay our respect to the persons whom they Represent Honor to whom Honor Adoration to whom Adoration but not to the Images themselves which can Challenge nothing of that nature from us because as St. Thomas says inanimate Creatures are not capable of any honor If you dislike this produce your Arguments and you shall be heard But run not to any hard expressions of the Schools as of Absolute and Relative Latria c. if you be Sons of Peace all which tho' they may be perhaps defended in the Sense meant by them yet ought not to be the Subject of our present Controversie which should be only upon those Points which are universally and necessarily received Our positive Answer therefore to the (a) Pref. pag. 20. Defenders Question abstracting from the School Language which he calls Gibberish and containing our selves in the necessary Doctrin and Language of the Church in her Councils is that the (b) See this proved at large by Estius from the seventh General Council lib. 3. dist 9. ◠3.4 Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross is upon no account whatsoever to be Worshipped with Divine Worship That Worship being only due to God. I say however these expressions of the Schools may be easily defended when they explicate their own Sense if we consider also what they acknowledge to be necessary Articles of our Faith. Thus in this particular our necessary Doctrin is that God alone is to be Adored with Divine Worship This all persons consent to When therefore Scholastics speak of Adoration given to Images their expressions are to be interpreted so that they shock not this their first Principle They tell you indeed of a Relative Adoration but when they explicate what they mean by it it is no more than what our Defender himself must Practise for certainly when he makes an Act of Adoration to God or Jesus Christ he Forms an Idea or Image in his Mind for he will not I suppose say he has at those times the Beatifical Vision but that Image tho' it be only a faint Representative yet is in it's Representative nature one with the Object which it Represents and the Adoration which he pays to God he pays to him as Represented by that Image without making at all times a reflection of the difference betwixt that Image and the Object that it Represents and that Homage which he there pays is Divine Adoration not Absolute to the Idea or Image but Relative in Presence of the Idea to the Object which it Represents And thus say they we may Adore Jesus Christ in Presence of a Material Image neither is there any other
Mode he tells us the KING and his IMAGE are not TWO but ONE KING one would think it should not be so difficult a thing for him to understand also how Jesus Christ and his Image are but one Christ and how the Adoration that is Paid to them is but one Adoration to one Christ Hear his own words In a word in the Hypostatical Vnion tho' 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 tho' there be Two different things united the Bread and Christs 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 c. Which expression is the very ground why St. Thomas Cardinal Capisucchi c. maintain that Doctrin as appears by the words of the Cardinal cited by the Defender with the reason annexed to it which he thought not fit to transcribe but which I have mentioned in the Preface This Doctrin taken in this sense as paying nothing to the Image it self See before in the Margent at * but only as it is one in respect of it's representation with the person whose Image it is or if we speak properly with St. Thomas taken not as if we adored the Cross but only Christ Crucified upon it and making use of the Cross only to help us to call him to mind and form in our Imaginations the Image of him whom we ought to adore this Doctrin I say thus taken is innocent and they who hold it are no more guilty of Idolatry for making use of that material Image than they who form one in their Imagination either according to the Picture they saw last or the Discourse they heard or read before which Idea they adore Christ represented by it not distinguishing him from that Idea it self which is in some sense one in it's representative nature with him whom it represents What necessity then is there that St. Thomas who as it is manifest intended that sense or the Pontifical which speaks in the same manner should be accused of Idolatry But this Scholastic nicety is not easily understood by every Doctor of the Populace and therefore they must be made to believe That Catholics hold the Cross it self absolutely and in the grossest manner is to be adored as Jesus Christ otherwise they could not so easily make them pass for Idolaters This then may suffice concerning the Doctrin of St. Thomas §. 24. The Pontifical as also in Answer to that Expression taken out of the Rubric of the Pontifical where it is mentioned that the Legats Cross must take place of the Emperors Sword because Relativè Latria is due thereto yea also to that of the Messieurs du Port Royal Def. pa. 24. who speak of adoring the Holy Thorn In all which we may say with St. Thomas as above that there is some kind of Impropriety in the Speech but such as clears it self by the application of the premises His next Argument is taken from the Pontifical in the Ceremony of the Benediction of a new Cross I told him he had mutilated a Sentence and left out two little words Propter Deum for Gods sake which would have sufficiently answered his Objection A Falsification He cannot deny the Fact but says he left out others also as much to the purpose as these I am sorry that he did What amends does he make in this Defence He troubles himself to give us an Abridgment of the Ceremony and here and there picks up expressions which may seem scandalous to those who like mortal Enemies are resolved to wrest every word and action of their Adversaries to an odious sense and at last magisterially pronounces those pious Ejaculations to be rather magical Incantations than Prayers and the Ceremony of this Dedication he should have said Benediction to be Superstition not to say worse But pray Pag. 13.19 Good Sir call to mind the two words you made a shift to leave out Propter Deum Is not all that is here done done for Gods sake Are not the Prayers addressed to him Are not the Ceremoneis as well as the Cross it self which is blessed ordained to put us in mind of the Benefits of our Redemption of the price was payd for our sins of the Obligations we have received upon that account and to excite us to perform them What is it then you find in these Prayers An Unchristian and Unscholar-like Calumny or in this Ceremony designed for the Honor and Glory of God deserving that Vnchristian and Vnscholar-like expression of Superstition or magical Incantations The words you câ—e are that God would bloss this Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind a means for the establishing our Faith for the encrease of good Works for the Redemption of Souls and a comfort and Protection against the crueâ— darts of our Enemies What is there I pray amiss in these words unless you wrest them to a Sense the Church never intended Does not every pious Preacher beg the same for the Discourse he is about to make to the People May not every Author of a devout Book beg of God that he would give a Blessing to his Labors that what he writes may be a saving Remedy to Mankind that it may establish the Faith of his Readers excite them to the performance of Good works aid them to work out their Redemption be their Comfort and Consolation and arm them with Arguments of defence against the Suggestions of their Enemies What Magic is there in all this And why I pray may not we then beg the same for these Books of the unlearned these Emblems or if I may so call them Dumb Sermons which as they are naturally apt to put us in mind of the price of our Redemption will no doubt of it by the assistance of Gods Grace which we implore animate us to perform those Duties which are required of us in order to the application of our Ransom But the Bishop blesses the Incense sprinkles the Cross with Holy Water incenses it and then Consecrates it in these words Let this Wood be sanctified c. And after a long Preamble if the Cross be not of Wood beseeches God that he would SANC ✚ TIFY to himself this CROSS c. What is it he here again quarrels at Where is the foul the notorious Idolatry Pag. 18. The use of Incense and Holy-water very antitient Is it the Incense or the sprinkling with Holy Water Certainly he will not condemn the use of those Creatures sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer a Practice so ancient and universal in the Church that according to (a) Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institurum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime
is more according to the literal sense of the words and has less difficulties in it than Consubstantiation but it does not follow that Scotus thought his Adversaries assertion to be more easy much less more true But our Defender goes farther and tells us that Scotus held this Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran and cites Bellarmin for it tho' he render his words ill in English * For Bellarmin does not say that Scotue held the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient but only that it was not an Article of Faith dogma fidei before that Council which are two very different things §. 88. Suarez Non fnerit tam aperte explicata sicut modo est Suar. in 3. D. Tho. vol. 3. disp 50. §. 1. How much better would it have been for him to go to the Fountain it self and have shewn us this in Scotus But he will scarce find it there and suppose he could one Swallow makes no Summer and I think it will appear far more reasonable to any thinking man to believe that Scotus erred in saying so than the Council of Lateran in which there were 400 Bishops and 800 Fathers in declaring that to be the Faith of the Church which was not so Thirdly Suarez he says acknowledges the same of Scotus and Gabriel Biel Suppose they had held that Doctrin what would follow but as Suarez Argues that they deserve reproof seeing the thing it self was antient and perpetually believed in the Church tho' perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is As for my overlooking that passage of Suarez which affirms the conversion of one substance into another to be of Faith and the Defenders arguing upon that account that Suarez is opposite to my opinion and pretences I have already told him that he proceeds upon a mistake of my meaning which being rectified he will find that Suarez is nothing against me nor am I guilty of any prevarication Fourthly §. 89. Cajectan The Defender tells me that my Prevarication in the next citaton viz. of Cardinal Cajetan is more unpardonable And why Because he affirmed that the Cardinal acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words Defence pag. 65. the others might with as good reason have been received and I told him that Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appealed to any that should read it for the truth of what I said This he says is such a Prevarication that should a Protestant have done it I would he believes have found out many hard names for him to testify my zeal against Falshood and Vnsincerity Id. pag. 66. and shewn what a kind of Religien that must be that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But that he will remit me wholly to the Readers Censure and my own Conscience for Correction I am glad he allows me the Readers to be of my Jury I hope he will give me leave to except against all those that are so far byassed in their affections to him and his party that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards Popery forsooth tho' against Justice Equity and Conscience Take but away I say such byassed and Ignoramus Juryes as these and I will appeal to any Learned Judicious and Conscientious men whether that Proposition he advanced be to be found in that Article of Cajetan or no. The Defender was so far from shewing this in Cajetan that he has pitched upon a place which has as little to the purpose as one would wish He tells us indeed that we have no other express Authority from Scripture for the belief of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament but only the words of our Saviour This is my Body for these words must of necessity be true And because the words of Scripture may be Expounded two ways Properly or Metaphorically The first error in this particular was of them who interpreted the words of our Lord Metaphorically which Error was treated of by the Master of Sentences and is reproved by St. Thomas in this Article And the force of the rejection consists in this that the words of our Lord have been understood by the Church properly and therefore they must be verified properly Which is as much as to say that St. Thomas and Cardinal Cajetan after him looked upon the Churches having always understood the words of our Saviour literally to be the strougest Argument against the Sacramentarians who Erred in understanding them Metaphorically But what is that to our Defenders Proposition And where does the Cardinal say there is as much reason for the one as the other abstracting from the Churches declaration which is the sense of his Proposition Wherefore now it comes to my turn to remit him as he does me to the Readers Censure and his own Conscience for correction His last Argument is drawn from the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist in these words §. 90. Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist Expos Dâ—ct Ch. of Engl. pag. 60. Since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised nor the Church for above a 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament neither could they according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles who holds that the Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as Believe it without all scruple to the Adoraton of it have believed the Corporeal presence of our Blessed Saviour in it The Antecedent he goes about to prove first from the Scriptures silence in this matter ssect 91. I. which tho' it says Take Eat Do this in remembrance of me yet never says This is my Body fall down and worship it And from St. Paul who when he reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament did not tell them tho' it was obvious and much to his purpose that in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ which it was Instituted to represent to us but even directly Affronted their Blessed Master Corporeally present there and whom instead of Profaning they ought as they had been taught to Adore in it Secondly II. From the new practices of Elevating the Host introduced says he in the 7th Century to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross but not to expose it to the People to Adore it from the Bell the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament the Pomp of carrying it through the streets Exposition of it upon the Altars Addresses to it in cases of Necessity and performing the chief Acts of Religion in its presence all which he pretends are but Inventions of yesterday or were never mentioned in Antiquity Lastly III. Because the Primitive Christians instead of
Heretical and Schismatical Assemblies and was not her self condemned or cut off by any sentence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church And tho' perhaps the number of those particular Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies one condemned in one Age and another in another some few of all which might perhaps survive even till our time might be considerable if taken altogether tho' inconsiderable in themselves yet being every one of them lawfully cut off by that Orthodox Church they can never stand in competition with her nor challenge a place in her Councils neither is she obliged to call in their help to Condemn any other New Heresy arising after them And if that New Heresy should pretend she was obliged such pretentions would be unreasonable This is the case with the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches now extant in the world §. 113. The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome having condemned the Arians in the first General Council of Nice the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was never condemned by any General Council needed not to call them in to help her to condemn Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the three following Councils The same Catholic Church that thus condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the four first General Councils condemned the followers of Origen in the 5th the Monothelites in the 6th the Iconoclasts in the 7th And the Schismatic Photius and his adherents in the 8th And as this Catholic Church needed not the assistance of those Heretics who were condemned in the first four General Councils to help her to condemn those that were extant when she called the 5th so did she not need the aid of them or of those that were condemned by the 5th or 6th to help her to condemn the Iconoclasts or Photius in the 7th or 8th And thus we can shew in following ages as Errors did arise still new Councils Called as the first second third See Binins Tom. 7. part 2. pag. 806. F. and fourth of Lateran in which last the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was defined against Berengarius and his followers the Albigenses by 400. Bishops and 800. Fathers After these the first and second of Lyons the later of which condemned the Errors which the Eastern Churches had fallen into by the delusion of Photius the condemned Schismatic Ibi compartunt Paleologus Impa Constaniinopoliâ—â—nas cuns magno comits u qui tertia decima vice in sententiam Romane Ecclesiae Graecos suos toties deficientes Conetilio necessario pertraxit Bin. Tom 7 â—onc pag. 891. c. and in which as Binius notes from Trithemius the Grecians returned the thirteenth time to the Roman Catholic Faith. Then followed that of Vienna in France against the Beguardes and the Beguines After which the Council of Florence Anno 1438. In which the Greeks and the Latins consented to these Points The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the belief of a Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome tho' through the negligence of the Emperor John Palaeologus occasioned by his too much sollicitude for wordly concerns and the calumnies of Mark the Metropolitan of Ephesus this Council had not its wished effect After this the 5th Council of Lateran Anno 1512. for the reestablishing the Unity of the Church and the condemnation of the Schism begun by the unlawful assembly at Pisa And lastly the Council of Trent Anno 1545. Against Luther Calvin and all the Modern Heresies Ths to be silent concerning the vast number of Provincial Councils we can shew eighteeen Oecumenical Councils All the General Councils that condemned Errors Communicated with the Church of Rome Generally received as such by all but those whose Errors were either condemned in them or some foregoing Councils The Members of all which Councils were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and none dissented from that Communion but such as had been thus condemned neither can Protestants ever shew that even the particular Church of Rome or any other in Communion with her were ever thus cut off by any General Council or the Doctrins that she holds condemned It is only she therefore and those Churches in Communion with her all which we call the Roman Catholic Church that can challenge the title of Orthodox that is of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic This Truth being thus established and it having been plainly shewed what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church I pass over his second and third Exception because as I have already said they are built upon a False notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken only for the Diocese of Rome or a particular Church and come to his 4th §. 114. the Defenders fourth Exception Exception which is as I said more intolerable than the rest and which since he goes about to justify it as a Doctrin of his Church for he has promised to give us no other he would have done well to have shewed us some Canon Article or Constitution for it without which others of his Brethren will I fear come off with this Excuse that he is a young man and does not well know the Tenets of his Church He tells us that it is left to every Individual person not only to examin the Decisions of the whole Church but to Glory in Opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his Own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word This I told him was a Doctrin that if admitted Maintains all Dissenters would maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are persons in the world Desence pag. 80. which consequences he confessEs to be ill but such as he thinks do not directly follow from this Doctrin as laid down in his Exposition But what if they follow indirectly or by an evident tho' secondary deduction would not that suffice to discountenance such a Doctrin as opens a gap to such licentiousness in Belief when Faith is but One and without which it is impossible to please God But let us see how he maintains it does not directly follow from what he has laid down in his Exposition First he tells us that he allows of this Dissent or Opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith where he supposes it to be every mans concern and Duty both to judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a judgment as he is able And secondly He tells us that as he takes the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to the made so be supposes these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should he found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion From these two wild Suppositions without any proof of them
been the case of St. Athanasius in whose Seat Gaudentius had been placed by the Eusebians nor that these (d) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 540. c. 1. F. Fathers acknowledged that it would be the best and most agreeable thing that Priests from all Countries should have recourse to the Head that is to the Seat of Peter the Apostle nor that it was looked upon in this Age as an (e) Socrat. l. 2. Hist c. 5. p. 244. D. c. 11. p. 246. c. 13. Epist. Julii ad Orient Episc Apud St. Athan. Apol. 2. Sozâ—m lib. 3. c. 7. p. 446. F. c. 9. Established Law that nothing was to be determined without the concurrence of the Apostolic See all which considered he will find no just reason to reject this Epistle upon the Plea that it Establishes the Popes Authority I have already mentioned that the Second General Council that of Constantinople was called by the (f) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 667. A. Popes Authority And this (a) Can. 3. Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 661. B. Council ordained that the Patriarch of Consiantinople should have Prime Honor after the Bishop of Rome The Third General Council that of Ephesus (b) Bin. Tom. 2. Conc. p. 282. B. Deposed Nestorius as they say Compelled by the Sacred Canons and the Epistle of Pope Celestine and referred the more difficult case of John (c) Ibid. pag. 353. D. Patriarch of Antioch to the Pope The Fourth besides what I have already mentioned that they admitted â—he accusation brought against (d) Bin. Tom 3. Conc. p. 50. B. Dioscorus for having taken upon him to assemble a Council without the Popes Authority frequently calls Pope Leo the (e) Act. 1.2 3. passim Vniversal Bishop of the Church and affirms that our Blessed Lord had (f) Epist ad Leonem Ibid. p. 474. B. committed to him the care of his Vineyard that is his Church I will not mention any later Councils these may suffice to Protestants of the Church of England as by Law Established Seeing their Authority has been approved by (g) 1 Eliz. c. 1. Act of Parliament Neither will I go to the antient Canons of the Church but shall conclude That seeing it is manifest that ever since the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome did exercise this Universal Pastoral care over the whole Church Excommunicating offending Bishops in other Kingdoms and Countries restoring those that had been Excommunicated unjustly to their Sees and Confirming others calling General Councils and Presiding in them and that Appeals were usually made to him in greater Causes from all Countries no beginning of which can be shewn nor no opposition made to it in those Primitive Ages but only by the Arians or other Condemned Heretics Seeing I say this is clearly matter of fact we must necessarily conclude that this Authority was looked upon at that time as given him by Divine Right and as coming down in a constant practice from the Apostles For seeing all persons in all Ages and Countries are ready to defend their Privileges and oppose usurpations had this been such or had they been exempt from such Jurisdiction they would have Unanimously opposed it in some of the succeeding General Councils after they had seen such Epistles from the Popes challenging that Authority But we find them so far from this that his plea is admitted in those very Councils and not the least Opposition made From what I have already said it will appear how easy a thing it might be to shew him in the Primitive Fathers and Councils what is given by all Catholics at present to his Holyness or challenged by him as of Necessary Faith. As to the Popes being stiled Vniversal Bishop he knows that St. Gregory the Great declined that Title in one Sense tho' he challenged it in another that is he looked not upon himself as Universal Bishop in this sense as if there were no other Bishop but he Sicut docuit Beatus Gloriesorum Apostolorum Princeps cujus Cathedram Beatitudini tuae credidit Christus optimus Pastor Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 681. c. 2. D. Non enim ignorâ—s ejus ingenium qui quotidie a Sacro doctore tuo Petro doceris oves Christi per totum habitabilem mundum creditas tibi pascere non vi sed sponte coactus Ibid. P. but yet in this other as he was the Supreme visible head of Christs Church upon Earth And for the Proof of this Title besides what I have already mentioned I will send our Defender to the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus in which they do not only acknowledge him to have been placed in the Chair of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles by Christ the chief Pastor but that all the Sheep of Christ in the whole habitable world were committed to him to Feed And in this sense I suppose it is that he was called Vniversal Bishop and Patriarch in the Council of * Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 246. 250. Chalcedon That the Pope was usually stiled the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ upon Earth is so noted in Antiquity that I wonder the Defender would desire me to direct him to the places I have already shewn him some of them which I hope may suffice if his business be not to Cavil The last Authority which he says the Pope lays claim to is that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him The terms of which Proposition are very ambiguous and therefore when our Defender has explicated his meaning more clearly and shewn that all Catholics allow it in the sense he intends I will undertake to shew him that the same Authority was acknowledged to be due to him even in the Primitive times For the Church has not innovated in this any more than in her other Doctrins The Close to the Defender Sir HAving so fully answered all the objections you have made against me or our Doctrin §. 132. and in the soregoing Articles not only vindicated what was delivered by the Bishop of Meaux as the Doctrin of the Catholic Church and Council of Trent but also shewn the consent of Antiquity for the truth of it I hope you will excuse me if I tire not my Reader by a repetition of the same in Answer to your recapitulation under the reflecting Titles of Old and new Popery I shall therefore only refer you and them to what has been said in the body of the Book and most commonly in the close of every Article for an answer to what was not particularly mentioned in your Defence where I hope I have convincingly made it appear that your Parallel is wholly grounded upon your mistake not to give it any worse title of our Doctrin You know very well Sir that I might in exchange have given you a Parallel of New and Old Protestancy if that can be called old which is not of above 150 Years standing with a