us Do we not firmly believe the Holy Scriptures according to the Sence and unanimous consent of the Antient and Primitive Fathers Do we not embrace the three Creeds nay and believe all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Do you not acknowledge us to be true Members of the Catholic Church and by Consequence your Brethren tho' you will have us to be unsound and weak If we maintain any Doctrines different from yours do we not shew you plain Texts of Scriture for most of them and the consent of Primitive Fathers and the acknowledged Practices of the Church for above 1000 Years for every one of them Do we not fix our Grounds upon the undoubted Word of God deliver'd down to us either by Writing or uninterrupted Tradition and explicated by the unanimous consent of the Pastors and Teachers in all times and places If we tell you a due Honour is to be paid to Images purely upon the account of being Representatives and not for themselves is it not agreeable to your own Practice who bow to the Altar keep uncover'd in a Church bend the Knees at the Name of JESVs not for the sake of the Altar Fabric or Sound but with a reference to the Victim which Consecrates the Altar to God who is in a peculiar manner present in the Church and to JESVS CHRIST the Son of God understood by that sound which Honour if it may be called Religious in some respect it is not manifestly because it tends ultimately to God himself If we desire the Saints and Angels who Reign in Heaven to Pray with us and for us to their and our Common Creator and if we acknowledge such Prayers are good and beneficial to aid and help us in our necessities we know no more injury is done to JESVS CHRIST our sole Redeemer by such Addresses than by your own to a Parent or a Friend we detest that Religion of Angels mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2. 18. accoding to that Sence that place manifestly bears and as the Antient Fathers understood it but we think with the same Fathers that a due Honour ought to be given them as to the Messengers and Friends of God And any undue Worship which elevates them above the pitch of our fellow Creatures we detest What more can any one in reason desire of us And if we pronounce Anathema's against those who deny it to be lawful to make such innocent Addresses or to pay such a due and limited Honour it is because they contradict Antiquity and the approved Fathers of the Church We acknowledge 't is true a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of JESVS CHRIST under the Species or Appearances of Bread and Wine and are we not assured of it by the very Words of JeSVS CHRIST by the manifest consent of Antiquity by the continual practice of both the Greek and Latin Churches If we be ignorant of the manner at least we are not of the thing And do's not your Chatechism and your most Learned Divines acknowledge as much your Confession of your ignorance of the manner of his being present do's not hinder you from acknowledging the Body and Blood of our Blessed Saviour to be verily and indeed taken and receiv'd not only by Faith but by the Faithful in the Lords Supper This Real Presence is grounded upon the Words of our Blessed Saviour This is my Body taken literally from whence also it necessarily follows that after the words of Consecration 't is not more Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of JESVS CHRIST This Consequence of the Real Presence many Protestants themselves confess and acknowledge that if the words must be taken literally they must necessarily grant both Transubstantiation Adoration and all the rest of our Doctrines about this Sacrament And if any one ask us why we take it literally we may with the Bishop of Condom say they may as well ask us why we keep the High Road that is all the Fathers of the Church in all Ages having taken it in that Sence we ought no more to deviate from it than from a beaten Road. If we adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament it is but a necessary Consequence of his Real Presence and what they who believe him present cannot but think themselves oblig'd to do We acknowledge that where Gods Commands are Positive they are indispensible and therefore if we judge Communion under both kinds not to be positively Commanded we judge so because the Church in all Ages dispensed with it and you your selves grant that in cases of necessity eveyr Pastor may give it under one kind only and is he not left judge when that case occurs and when he may make use of it These things considered I must use your own words Men and Brethren Pag. 84. consider we conjure you these things and if you please consider us too what we are and what our Manners and Conversation amongst you has been even when Perjury and Faction loaded us with all the Injuries Hell it self could invent and exercised their utmost severities upon us What also we are at present and how our change of Fortune makes us neither remember former Injuries nor desire to revenge them Believe us at least that we have no other ends but Truth no designs but to convince your Judgments and if we dare not be over curious in enquiring into the manner how the Mysteries that are revealed can possibly be true 't is because we know they are revealed and doubt not of Gods Veracity Believe us that we have no other Interest but the Salvation of our own Souls and those of others by endeavouring to represent our Doctrines as they truly are and soliciting the Children of the Church to return to their Mothers Bosome We are in possession the Proofs you bring against us are only Negatives and meer Conjectures you think them convincing Arguments but are not certain but that you may fail in your Concjectures You cannot shew one positive Argument against the Invocation of Saints either from Scripture or from Fathers Not one against the Doctrine of the Real Presence Transubstantiation Veneration of Images upon account of their Representations not one against the number of Sacraments not one to prove Communion under both kinds to be indispensible or that Children dying without Baptism are saved In a word you cannot shew one positive Argument against any one Doctrine of our Church if you state it right All you can say is it do's not appear to us out of Scripture it do's not appear to us from Antiquity shew us you say your Authentic Records your Deeds of Gift your Revelation and we will believe as if uninterrupted possession were not sufficietn Proof Our Plea is good olim possidio prior possidio If you will dispute our Title you must shew your positive Records of a more Antient Date But what need of so much bitterness whilst you plead your Cause Is it not enough to dispossess us
his Mystical Body that is his Church but the visible species are the Sacrament or Sign of both these things Then in his Ninth Distinction speaking of a two fold Manducation the one Sacramental in which the good and bad do Eat the Body of Christ and the other only Spiritual in which only the good are made partakers of it which is by Faith he proceeds to tell us of the Errours of some who held that the bad did not receive the Body of Christ and affirms that it must be undoubtedly held that it is received by the good not only Sacramentally but Spiritually whereas the bad receive it only Sacramentally that is under the visible species of Bread and Wine they receive that Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us but not the Mystical Body that is the benefits of his presence All which he there proves from St. Gregory and St. Augustin and explicates some ambiguous terms which might give occasion of errour His next Distinction cited by this Author which Bist 10. treats De hoeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in Sign tells us That there are others who transcend the madness of the former Heretics who measuring the Power of God according to the manner of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that the Body and Blood of Christ are not on our Altars and that the substance of Bread and Wine are not converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood and take occasion of erring from the words of Truth whence began the first Heresie against this Truth amongst Christ's Disciples Then shewing what pretensions they make for their Errour both from Scripture and Fathers and having solved them he says Satis responsum est Hoereticis objectionibus eorum We have sufficiently answered Heretics and their Objections who deny the true Body of Christ to be on our Altars and the Bread to be changed into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a Mystical Consecration Then setting down his proofs out of the Fathers to confirm our Doctrine he concludes this Distinction with these words Ex his aliisque pluribus constat c. From these and many others it is manifest that the true Body and Blood of Christ is on our Altars yea that whole Christ is there under both species and that the Substance of Bread is converted into his Body and the substance of Wine into his Blood Having thus confirm'd the substance of our Faith as to the thing Dist 11. Lib. A. he proceeds in his next Distinction cited also by this Author to treat of the manner how this Conversion is made whether it be Formal or Substantial or of some other kind and this being a pure Scholastic Nicety he tell us he dare not undertake to define it but declares that if we ask him about the manner he will give us this short answer Lit. C. Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest investigari salubriter non potest A Mystery of Faith may be safely believ'd but not safely searched into This is the Doctrine of Lombardus who lived before the Council of Lateran and this is the Doctrine we now hold without the least alteration and this Doctrine was always held ever since the Institution tho' it was thought convenient by the Primitive Fathers to conceal it from the Enemies of Christianity and from those who were not Initiated so that it may be said that it is now more publicly taught than it was then but was always equally believ'd by the Faithful These things being thus cleared and the charge he has made against us being found to be thus false the consequences he has drawn from thence will fall upon himself and we must needs tell him that we cannot but admire the Power of Truth and hope that God has permitted him thus to misrepresent our Tenets to disguise the Truth and to cite Authors contrary to their Intentions that the Eyes of of all those of his Communion may be opened and that they may see what blind guides they follow who either take up things upon trust or wilfully prevaricate the Text that they may keep them in Ignorance Moreover this Author affirms Pag. 61. the Church never taught nor practised the Adoration of the Sacrament for above 1000 years that the Elevation of it was not heard of till the Seventh Century and then used not to expose it to the People to be adored but to represent the lifting up of CHRIST upon the Cross that all the Circumstances of this Worship are but Inventions of yesterday that the Primitive Christians did several Actions which seem inconsistent with Adoration c. And we must take all these Assertions upon his bare word for Truths I shall nto go about to swell this Answer by proving an Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament within the first 400 years and the Expressions of the first Ages which argue an Elevation nor the other Proofs we have for a Real Presence nor the Consent of the most Learned Protestants this has been too frequently done to repeat it here The Reader who is desirous of searching into the Truth may see if he understand French what M. Arnold has writ in Three Volumes of the Perpetuity of Faith or else what Brierlay has written concerning the Sacrifice of Mass what Coccius in his Thesaurus and what many others have published upon those Accounts in which they will find that our Doctrine is conformable to Scripture that it has been continued down to our time by an uninterrupted Succession and that our Practices have been always conformable to our Doctrine which is sufficient to evince the Truth of it and shew the unjust Pretences of a Reformation ART XVI Of the Sacrifice of the Mass IN his Twentieth Article Of the Sacrifice of the Mass Pag. 62. which he tells us is justly esteemed one of the greatest and most dangerous Errours that offends them he yet acknowledges That seeting aside the Foundation of the CORPOREAL PRESENCE on which the Bishop builds and his Consequence That this Service is a TRVE AND REAL PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE which he says they are persuaded his manner of Expounding it will never bear there is little in it besides but what they could readily assent to but if he cannot allow of the Corporeal Presence will be with the Church of England in her Catechism allow a Real Presence If he do I would gladly know whether that Foundation be not solid enough to build those Doctrines on which M. de Meaux has founded upon that Reality If he will not allow of a Real Presence how is he of the Church of England Again I would gladly know of him what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly
steer his Course resolving not to deviate from its Sence being that of the Catholic Church but meerly to separate Matters of Faith from such Opinions as are neither necessarily nor universally receiv'd Expos p. 2. And therefore he declar'd Secondly That they who would go about to Answer his Exposition ought not to undertake to Confute the Doctrine contain'd in it Expos p. 43. seeing his Design was only to Propose it without going about to Prove it That it would be a quitting the Design of his Treatise to Examine the several Methods which Catholic Divines make use of to Establish or Explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it That it would avail them nothing Advert p. 20. either to object against us those Practises which they call general or the particular Opinion of Doctors because it suffices in one word to say That those Practices and Opinions be they what they will which are not found conformable to the Intent and Decisions of the Council are nothing to Religion nor to the Body of the Catholic Church nor ought by Consequence as the pretended Reform'd do themselves avouch Daillè Apol c. 6. p. 8. to give the least pretence to Separate from us because no one is oblig'd either to approve or follow them Expos p. 43. Lastly That to urge any thing solid against his Treatise and which may come home to the Point it must be prov'd that the Churches Faith is not faithfully Expounded in it and that by Acts which the same Church has oblig'd her self to receive or else it must be shown that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the Disputes untouch'd or in fine it must be precisely shown in what this Doctrine subverts the Foundation of Faith So that if they who Answer'd his Book brought only Arguments against the Doctrine deliver'd in it from private Authors holding particular Scholastic Opinions and not from Authentic Acts receiv'd by the Catholic Church or did not manifestly show the Bishop of Condom to have left out the chief Matters in Dispute and touched only lesser Difficulties or did not demonstrate how the Doctrine as Expounded by him subverted the remaining Maxims wherein both Protestants and we agree the Bishop might justly esteem their Answers not worthy his Reflection and that every Judicious Reader would grant his Pieces were as this Author terms them tho' in derision of a spirit and force sufficient to despise whatever Attempts could be made upon them of that nature Pref. p. 16. How true it is that nothing solid of this kind was objected by the Pretended Reform'd in France appears by his Advertisement And what our Author of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has Propos'd is now our Province to Examine And first as to his Preface He tells us of a first Edition suppress'd and another with Corrections publish'd in its place because the Sorbon refus'd to Approve the first He tells us of one Imbert and a Pastor of Mechlin Condemn'd the one by the Archbishop of Bourdeaux and the other by the Faculty of Lovain tho' they both alledg'd the Bishop of Condom's Exposition for proof of their Doctrines He tells us that Cardinal Capisucchi and Father Crasset have taught Doctrines contrary to that of the Exposition c. But suppose all he there says should be true what force can his Argument bear against the Doctrine as now Explicated in the later Editions of the Exposition what if some particular Persons have sustain'd Scholastic Opinions which in some sence seem to thwart the Doctrine of the Exposition as to such Scholastic Opinions and others like drowning Persons have grasp'd at any thing to save themselves whether for them or against them It follows not that the Exposition gives us not the Doctrine of the Church But to show the World what has been imposed upon them on this account by those who in their own Countries studied to maintain old Calumnies by new Inventions I shall here insert the Copy of a Letter lately sent me by that Learned and Pious Prelate in which they will see the true Matter of Fact as to those things alledg'd against his Exposition Very Reverend Father IT will not be difficult to answer your Letter of the Third Instant nor to solve the Objections drawn from Matters of Fact sent you out of England against my Exposition of the Catholic Doctrine The English Minister who has oppugn'd it and whose Objections you have sent me has done nothing but gather'd together the vain Inventions which our Huguenots endeavor'd to publish here and which are come to nothing of themselves without my being oblig'd to combat them This Author first tells us the Sorbon would not Approve to my Book But all the World here knows I never so much as thought of asking it The Sorbon is never us'd to Licence Books in Body If it did I should not need its Approbation having that of so many Bishops and being Bishop also my self That Venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors when moreover most of those Bishops who have approv'd my Book are of the Body of the Sorbon and I my self also partake of that Honor. It is a great weakness to require of me to produce the Approbation of Sorbon when they see in my Book that of so many Learned Bishops that of the whole Clergy of France in the General Assembly of 1682 and that of the Pope himself You see by this Sir that it is a manifest Falsity to say that a first Edition of my Book was suppress'd because the Doctors of Sorbon had something to say against it I never did publish nor cause to be Printed any other Edition but that which is in the Hands of every one to which I never added nor diminish'd one Syllable and I never yet fear'd that any Catholic Doctor could find in it any thing worthy of Reprehension This to the first Objection of the English Author As for what he adds in the Second place That a certain Catholic whose Name he designs by a Capital Letter had written against me suppose it had been true so much the worse for that ill Catholic But this is as the rest an Invention of their own Heads Our Huguenots have in vain endeavour'd to vend such false Wares here no body ever yet heard of that Catholic they could never name him and all the World has scoffed at them for going about it In the Third place he tells us That Father Crasset a Jesuit has oppugned my Doctrine in a Book Entituled La veritable Devotion envers la Sainte Vierge I have not read that Book but neither did I ever hear it mention'd there was any thing in it contrary to mine and that
Father would be much troubled I should think there was For Cardinal Capisucchi he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine I have taught that his express Approbation is to be found among those which are Printed in my Edition of 1676 and it is he who as Master of the Sacred Palace Licens'd the Impression of the Italian Version in the Year 1675 Printed at the Congregation De Propagandâ Fide These are them my Adversaries bring against me As for that Monsieur Imbert and the Pastor of St. Maries at Mechlin whom they pretend to have been condemn'd tho' they alledg'd my Exposition as a Warrant for their Doctrines the Question is whether they alledg'd it right or wrong And such Matters of Fact as these advanc'd without Proof * * Or bringing the Propositions maintain'd by them and Condemn'd merit not any further Information But because you desire to know something concerning them I must tell you that this Imbert is a Man of no Renown as well as of no Learning who thought to justifie his Extravagances before the Archbishop of Bourdeaux his Superior by alledging my Exposition to this Prelate who had Subscribed to the Approbation in the Assembly of 1682. But all Mankind saw very well that Heaven and Earth was not more opposite then my Doctrine from that which this daring Person has presum'd to broach Moreover it never enter'd into the Mind of any Catholic that we ought to adore the Cross after the same manner as JESVS CHRIST in the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor that the Cross with JESVS CHRIST was to be ador'd as the Human Nature of our Saviour with the Divine in the Person of the Son of God And if this Man gives out he is Condemn'd for denying those Errors which no body ever sustain'd he shews his Malice to be as great as his Ignorance For the Pastor of St. Mary of Mechlin who I am inform'd is a Person of Merit I have seen a little Printed Treatise of his call'd Motivum Juris where he advances this Proposition That the Pope is in the Church as the President in a Council and the Major or Bourghemaster as they call them in the Low-Countries amongst the Company of Aldermen A Proposition very different from my Exposition where I acknowledge the Pope to be as a Head Establish'd by God to whom we owe Submission and Obedience If then the Faculty of Louvain has Censur'd this Book * * Or any other Proposition of that nature which this Author if he had been Ingenuous ought to have mentioned I am not engag'd in that Dispute And on the other hand my Exposition is so far from being rejected in the Low-Countries that on the contrary it has been Printed at Antwerp in their own Language with all the Marks of Public Authority as well Ecclesiastical as Secular As for those Passages which they pretend I have Corrected in a second Edition for fear of offending the Sorbon it is as you see a chymerical Invention and I do here once more repeat it That I neither publish'd nor conniv'd at nor caus'd to be made any Edition of my Book but that which is well known in which I never alter'd any thing 'T is true this little Treatise being at first given in Writing to some particular Persons for their Instruction many Copies of it were dispersed and it was Printed without my order or knowledge No body found fault with the Doctrine contai'nd in it and I my self without changing any thing in it of importance and that only as to the order and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile caus'd it to be Printed as you now see If upon that account they will have me in some manner to have been contrary to my self they show themselves to be too credulous But suppose it had been so and that to free my Book from the danger of all Attempts I had in some places Corrected my Expressions which God be thanked I had no occasion to do the Work ought to be so far from being disesteem'd upon that account that on the contrary it would be a Proof I had at last brought it to that Exactness that neither the Sorbon nor any other could find any thing to say against it as in reality no Catholic Reprehends any thing contained in it The last Objection which this English Minister brings against me is That I am fertile enough in producing new Labours but steril in Answering what is written against my Works from whence he concludes that I am conscious they cannot be Defended 'T is true I have written three little Treatises of Controversie one of which is this of the Exposition As the principal Objection against this was That I had palliated and prevaricated the Catholic Doctrine the best Answer I could make to it was to relate the Approbations which were sent me undesignedly from all Parts of Europe and that from the Pope himself repeated This Answer will bear no Reply and I have said what was necessary upon that Subject in the Advertisement prefix'd to the Edition of 1676. If he who has sent you the Objections of the English Minister has not seen this Advertisement I desire you would take it up at Cramoisy's in virtue of this Order and send it to him as it is Printed this Year 1686 because I have there added the Approbation of the French Clergy These Approbations are added in the Edition publish'd by his Majesty's Command and a second Approbation of the Pope's very Authentic And if he will but take the pains to joyn this Advertisement and the Approbations to his Translation of the Exposition he will render his Labour more profitable to the Public and stop the Mouths of all those who contradict it Concerning the two other Treatises which I writ upon Matters of Controversie one of them is upon Communion under both Species and the other is my Conference with M. Claude Minister of Charenton upon the Authority of the Church with Reflections upon the Answers of that Minister In these Treatises I have endeavour'd to prevent the principal Objections and to give Answers to them so that all Men of sence are satisfi'd After which to multiply Disputes and to compose Books after Books to embroil the Question and quit the first Design neither do's Charity require it of me nor do's my Employment give me leisure You may send this Letter into England that he who desires this Information may make use of what he thinks convenient and if he think it may be beneficial to mention he has had what concerns these Matters of Fact and my Intentions from me he may do it and also assure them without the least apprehension that there is nothing in this Letter but what is public and certain c. From Meaux April the 6th 1686. SIR Your very humble and affectionate Servant ✚ J. Benigne E. de Meaux BEhold what the Bishop of Meaux himself has thought good to Answer to a
as it is his Resemblance neither is that Statue his Delegate but a memorative Sign of him and which we honour as such and thus as the Indignities offered to that Statue are interpretatively offered to the King so is the Honour which is shewn it as representing him interpretatively offered to the King whom it represents In like manner that Homage which we pay to JESVS CHRIST represented by the Cross is properly speaking Adoration But nothing at all is due to the Cross for it self for that is an inanimate Being capable of no Honour but that Adoration is due to him who being an animate Nature is called to our Minds by that Resemblance The want of taking this our Doctrine in a right sence has been the occasion of that Author 's prolix Discourse of about Twenty three Leaves in which he has not at all combated our Doctrine but only some Scholastic Opinions and that with so few Additions of any new Difficulties that all he has said has been formerly refuted in the Just Discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet 's Vnjust Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome to which I will refer the Reader and return to my other Antagonist and see what he brings against this our Doctrine First he tells us That St. Thomas and his Followers were never Censured for maintaining in plain terms That the Image of the Cross ought to be worshipped with the same Worship as that Saviour who suffered on it Expos of the Doct. of the Ch. of Engl. p. 14. In answer to this I need only tell him We are not here to maintain every Opinion held by the Schools nor is it necessary the Church should Censure them unless they formally contradict her Doctrine which St. Thomas is far from being guilty of But if he had been sincere he ought to have taken notice of the Reason brought by St. Thomas and his Followers which shews That it is purely upon account of JESVS CHRIST represented that is brought to our remembrance by it and not upon any account of the Cross it self Which Reason if rightly understood speaks no more than this That whilst I see the Figure of our Blessed Saviour Crucified I by bowing in presence of that Crucifix adore him in Heaven and if I bow or kneel or prostrate my self before that Crucifix that Bowing Kneeling or Prostration may be termed Adoration because it tends to JESVS CHRIST the true Object of our Adoration who is represented to my Mind by that Crucifix It is therefore an Adoration of JESVS CHRIST represented by the Crucifix but not an Adoration of the Crucifix it self For this Holy Doctor declares 3. Qu. 25. Art 3. in Corpore That no Reverence is due to any thing for it self but to a Rational Nature but that an Irrational Creature may be honoured with respect to a Rational Nature which it represents which Honour do's not terminate in the Irrational Creature but in the Rational Nature upon which account he maintains That that Honour is the same with that which is paid to that Rational Nature The Pontifical also says he admits the same In the same sence I grant but not in that which he would willingly make us believe it do's He tells us indeed That in the Prayers for Blessing the Image of the Cross he who performs that Ceremony amongst other Prayers begs of God That as many as bow down before it may find Health both of their Souls and Bodies by it Which he will have to be irreconcilable with the Bishop of Condom's Doctrine and that of the Council of Trent which forbids us to believe any Divinity or Vertue tied to Images for which they ought to be adored c. But if he had dealt ingenuously he would not have suppressed the Reason of that Bowing mentioned by the Pontifical which would have easily reconciled the whole The Words are these See also the same quoted and falsly rendred in English by the Answerer to the Papist Protesting pag. 76. Vt orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam Crucem inveniant corporis animoe sanitatem But he thought it better to leave out the words propter Deum for the sake of God And this is his usual way of citing Authors All the rest of his Expressions drawn from the Pontifical are of the same nature either lame or patch'd up from several Places and therefore if they make any thing against us are not worthy our regarding But he has another Argument and that from an Authentic Act of the Church her self in her Good-Friday Solemnity in which the whole Church addresses her self says he to the Cross in these very dangerous words Behold the Wood of the Cross come let us adore it And he tells us the whole solemnity of that days Service plainly shews we do adore it in the utmost propriety of the Phrase But here he has been also so unfortunate as not to give us all the Words of the Church and to add another which is not there to make it speak his Sence The Words sung by the Church in that Service are these Ecce Lignum Crucis in quo pependit Salus Mundi venite Adoremus Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World did hang come let us Adore He saw well enough these words taken altogether would be a clear Explication of our Doctrine and shew it was not the Cross we adored but the Saviour of the World who hung upon it and therefore he concealed these last Words and added the word it and so gives us this mutilated Sentence Behold the Wood of the Cross come let us Adore IT instead of the other But do's not the Church in her Hymns of the Passion and Invention pray to the Cross in express terms In this indeed he seems to have some shew of reason but how often has he been told these are Poetical Expressions and that the word Cross by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets signifies JESUS CHRIST Crucified to whom we pray in those Hymns Now as the Honour which we pay to Images is referr'd to those who are represented by them so likewise is that Honour and Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Relics of those Saints who were Victims to God entirely referr'd to them whose remains they are He tells us If that be the state of the Question which the Bishop of Condom has propos'd pag. 17. they confess that the Explication of it has taken away a great part of the difficulty and that if this be all M. de Meaux desires of them they are ready to profess their Opinion that they judge it to be neither offensive to God nor fit to be scrupled by Man But least we should be thus agreed the Bishop must not be allow'd to have explicated our Tenets right and therefore either some practices or abuses which might have past amongst those which he says we complain of must be brought against him or else the Council
Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and CHRIST's Body will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation But unless he can prove that the Pronoun hoc this must necessarily relate to Panis Bread and not to Corpus Body his Argument will avail him nothing but that all his Logic will never be able to effect Pag. 45. His Argument is this What did he say was his Body but that which he gave to his Discipoles What did he give to his Disciples but that which he broke What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly He took Bread But what follows from all this but that JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat THIS IS MY BODY But he go's on What JESVS took in his Hands that he blessed What he blessed the same he brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But JESUS says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said THIS IS MY BODY But what do's all this argue against us unless he beg the Question and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words Which to shew how true it is let us propose an Example We will suppose and that not incongruously that our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these either mental or vocal Words This is Wine or let this be Wine Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined but only signified Substance till the Word Wine was annexed This supposed if any one would see the force of his Argument let him change the Expression and instead of Bread use Water and instead of Body use Wine and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words This is Wine must necessarily mean This Water is Wine or rather whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19. SS prumum as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him of the like Proposition This is my Body But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument to which this Author refers He tell us there how these Words Take and eat for this is my Body must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread as Catholics or else a metaphorical Change as the Calvinists hold but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sence Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans assirming the Words This is my Body to bear necessarily one of these three sences First This which is contained under the species of Bread is my Body which is the Catholic sence and supposes a Mutation The second is that of the Sacramentaries who admit of no Mutation and their sence is This Bread is the Figure of my Body The third which is that of the Lutherans who admit of no Change but yet allow a Real Presence must bear this Interpretation This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body But this says he can by no means be admitted whether we speak of the thing it self or of the Proposition For it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another for it would be that thing and would not be that thing Moreover in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum or thing of which any thing is affirmed and the Praedicatum or thing affirm'd of it should have a regard to the same thing Then follow the Words which he cites It cannot therefore be that that Proposition should be true in which the Subjectum or former part designs Bread and the Praedicatum or latter part the Body of CHRIST For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed and which he if he had used Sincerity should have oppugned and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question But as I said it is not my Business here to justifie our Tenets but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But I observe he uses frequently the Word Corporeally and the Corporeal Presence which the Bishop has avoided keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent which tells us only that JESVS CHRIST is truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament but uses not the Word Corporeally I suppose because it may bear a double sence and signifie either first that the Body is really and substantially present tho' not after a carnal gross manner with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body and this is the sence of those Catholics who make use of it Or secondly it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal carnal manner with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body which sence our Enemies are apt to impute to us as if it were our Doctrine tho very unjustly But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux would have proved as much against it as it do's against ours He tells us Pag. â—â— They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but they deny that therefore it must be his very Body I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Gigure of it If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sence we agree with him But if he mean by this somewhat more than a meer Figure that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful in the Lords Supper as their Church Catechism has it I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs 'T is true their Twenty eighth Article tells us that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is receiv'd and eaten in the Supper is Faith Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another I am willing to think the meaning of the saying that Faith is the means by which they
as the thing intended by the word Consubstantial was all along of Faith before that Council so was the thing intended by Transubstantiation ever believed by the Faithful in all Ages The thing intended by the word Transubstantiation is expressed by the Council of Trent in these words If any one shall say Sess 13. Can. 2. 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 Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church do's most aptly call Transubstantiation Let him be Anathema This Council having before expressed our Belief of the true Ibid. Can 1. Chap. 1. real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the most Holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it But because there are many sorts of Conversions of one Substance into another all which may be called Substantial Conversions and by consequence the word Transubstantiation might be properly enough used to express that Change therefore it is manifest the Church do's not intend here 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 This Matter is that which is of Faith and was always so before the Council of Lateran but as for the Manner how this Conversion is made it is even at present a disputable Question in the Schools It being then manifest that our Dispute with protestants is not about the Manner how JESUS CHRIST is present but only about the thing it self whether the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST be truly really and substantially present after the Words of Consecration under the species or appearance of Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine being not so present let us examine whether the Authorities he brings as to both his Assertions have any force against our Tenets He tells us first That Lombard Scotus and many others confess that there is not in Scripture any formal Proof of Transubstantiation and cites in the Margin Lombard 4. Sent. dist 10. But there is no such thing in him as I shall more fully shew in declaring his Doctrine He brings in Scotus also 4. Dist 2. Qu. 11. whereas there are only two Questions in that Distinction His next Quotation is Bellarmine Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. ff Secundo dicit who he says confesses and cites many others of the same Opinion That there is not any formal Proof from Scripture that without that Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it 'T is true Bellarmine here acknowledges that Scotus said there was not any Place in Scripture so express that it would evidently compel any one to admit of Transubstantiation without the Churches Declaration which he confesses is not altogether improbable For says he altho the Scripture which we have mentioned above do's appear to us so clear that it may compel a Man who is not perverse to believe it yet whether it be so or no we may justly doubt since Learned and Acute Men such as in the first place Scotus was have thought the contrary And this is all he says 'T is true also that Scotus in 4. Dist 11. Qu. 3. n. 5. brings this Objection That nothing is to be held as of the Substance of Faith but what is expresly to be had out of Scripture or is expresly declared by the Church or evidently follows from what is plainly contained in Scripture or plainly determined by the Church But that it neither appears manifestly from Scripture nor from the Churches Declaration nor is it evidently inferred from either that the Substance of Bread do's not remain in the Eucharist And answers it n. 15. thus That the Church has declared it in the Council of Lateran c. Firmiter Credimus In which Chapter he tells us the Truth of some things which are to be believed are more explicitly declared than they were in the Apostles Creed or in that of Nice or that of St. Athanasius So that from hence some have concluded that Scotus probably held this Assertion That the Scripture did not evince it as also the other That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not so explicitly believed before that Council of Lateran as it was since But this is no more than what he or any one might say of the Consubstantiality of the Son before the Council of Nice It is also to be taken notice that this Distinction of P. Lombard was wholly written upon the Manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament and other Scholastic Disputes of that nature and not upon the thing it self as of Faith and therefore no wonder if Scotus writing upon that Distinction should grant how that manner of Conversion which he thought was a Consequence of the Council of Laterans Definition was not so explicitly known before that Council as since or not clearly found in Scripture But if you look upon him Dist 10. qu. 1. n. 2 3. where he is to treat of the Real Presence of CHRIST's Body and Blood under the species of Bread and Wine he tells us that it is a Truth which was expresly delivered from the beginning even from the very time of the Institution of the Eucharist His Words are Ista enim veritas a principio fuit expressè tradita ex quo Eucharistia fuit instituta And he adds That the Foundation of that Authority are the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood which he says cannot be taken Figuratively if we observe the Rule of St. Augustin Aug. 83. Quest qu. 69. That the Circumstances of Scripture do clear the Sense of it For CHRIST having added to these Words This is my Body this Circumstance which shall be brokeâ— for you and to these Words This is my Blood thâ—â— Circumstance which shall be shed for you it is manifest they ought to be taken in a Literal sence Then he tells us That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges 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 and quotes him in 3. D. Thomae qu. 75. art 1. But he says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article in which he tells us That we learn from the Truth of the Words of our Lord taken in their proper sence that the Body of CHRIST is truly in the Eucharist which is the first thing says he which we learn concerning this Sacrament from the Gospel