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
weigh the reasons which move us to continue in the one and the Arguments he brings to make us quit it and walk in the other To effect this let us divide this Article into three Sections In the first of which I will shew what is the Doctrin which we maintain and what our opposers hold in the second I will endeavour according to my Ability to hint at some of the many reasons why we persevere in that Doctrin and in the last I intend to examin his Objections and shew the Fallacies of his Arguments SECT 1. Our and our Adversaries Tenets WHen we speak of Jesus Christ §. 64. Christ must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament we speak of one who is both God and Man and when we speak of his Presence in a place we must either speak of the presence of his Manhood together with his Divinity by a real substantial presence or we must speak of his presence in a figurative manner seeing there cannot possibly be a Medium For either Christ who is God and Man is there body and Soul and Divinity or he is not there If then he be present in the blessed Sacrament he must be either really present which cannot be unless his Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity be there really and substantially or he must be there only morally or figuratively as signified by the exterior Signs of Bread and Wine and by them bestowing upon us the benefits which he purchased for us by taking our Natures on him Now Jesus Christ may be really §. 65. He may be really present after different manners essentially and Substantially present in a place after different manners For he rendred himself sometimes visible and palpable and sometimes not yet was his Body essentially the same when he was invisible and not to be felt as when otherwise His body was sown a Corruptible Body but is now raised a Spiritual Body yet is this Spiritual Body essentially and substantially the same with that which was once corruptible tho' it was never to see Corruption All Persons §. 66. All agree that Christ is morally present in the Sacrament Catholics and Lutherans that he is really present but not after a natural manner both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that Jesus Christ is morally or figuratively present in the Sacrament that is that the outward elements signify his Body and Blood that a lively Faith apprehends him there present and that he bestows upon the worthy Communicants the Graces purchased for us by his becoming Man and dying upon the Cross But Catholics and Lutherans agree further in this that Jesus Christ that is God and Man Flesh and Blood Soul and Divinity is not only morally there but also truly really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament tho' they both of them deny him to be there circumscriptivè as the Schools call it that is in his Natural Body after a natural manner with respect to place Their chief difference consists in this that the Lutherans will have him to be so present that Bread is also present with him which Catholics deny and tho' they pretend to submit their Faith to the acknowledgment of his real presence which they do not see yet will they follow Sense so far as to judge because they see the appearance of Bread to remain that is is really Bread also when the Substance of Bread is as invisible The Zuinglians c. say he is only figuratively there as that of the Body of Christ The Zuinglians Socinians c. admit nothing at all of real here The presence which they speak of is only figurative signified by the Bread and Wine so that as they see the Bread broken eaten c. and the Wine poured out c. so ought they to call to mind that Christ's Body was Crucified and torn c. for us which whil'st they reflect upon and receive they are by Faith or a strong Fancy made partakers as they think of the Benefits of that his Death and Passion the Blessings which the offering of his Body may procure But Calvin perceiving that if he said no more §. 67. Calvin would find a midle way he should find it an insuperable Task to answer all the plain expressions from Scripture and Fathers would seek a midle way where there can be none and therefore no wonder if he fell into such a contradiction as is that of a real presence and no real presence Sometimes he (a) Calv. Consinsus cum Pastoribus Tigurinis In sine affirms Christs Body to be only in Heaven and (b) Vere in Caena datur nobis corpus Christi ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem hoc est substantia Corporis Christi pascuntur animae nostrae ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo Calv. in cap. 26. Matth. sometimes to be truly in the Sacrament Sometimes (c) Porro de modo st quis me interroget faieri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vgel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat Id. lib. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 32. Telling us that it is a Mystery that we cannot comprehend much less explicate that Christs Flesh and Blood should come to us from such a distance and be our Food and (d) Interins vero hanc non aliam esse quam fidei manducationem fatemur ut nulla alia fingi potest Id. ibid. §. 5. at other times telling us that this Manducation is only by Faith and the like Absurdities and Contradictions some of which may be seen in Cardinal Bellarmin Lib. 1. de Euchar. Sacram. cap. 1. This Doctrin of Calvin being the most agreeable to the Polititians in King Edwards Reign and to Queen Elizabeth's Interest §. 68. Agreeable to our English Polititians who were desirous to accommodate a Religion to all parties and Factions no wonder if they embraced it And therefore lest Catholics or Lutherans should have any just cause to renounce their Communion for want of a Real presence their Catechism tels us the Inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechisim which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper But lest if this should be understood plainly as the words import the Sacramentarians should be against them therefore their 28 Article has taken care of them too and tels 'um that the Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner and the means by which this is done is Faith. But then again if this Article be a Faithful Comment upon their Catechism how shall the Primitive Fathers be answered and what will the Calvinists say To have an evasion therefore and to gain them this presence must be sometimes called a real presence and sometimes only a spiritual A spiritual Presence not only as to
being present in more places than one c. First we affirm them to be no Contradictions A contradiction being an Affirmation and Negation of the same thing in the same time place manner and and all other circumstances but such an Affirmation and Negation are not made of Christs presence in several Hosts See the Guld in Controverly dâ—sc 1. ch 6. § 65 66. seqq And secondly all those who affirm a real Presence as the English Protestants seem to do have the same difficulties to overcome and none but the Sacramentarians who affirm the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be meerly figurative as the King is said to be present in his Picture Coin or Charter are free from them Having thus explicated our Tenets with respect to those of our Adversaries we come now to shew upon what Grounds we believe them SECT 2. Some Reasons for our Doctrin THe Doctrin of the true real §. 72. All the proofs for an Article of Fatith concur for this and substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread is so certainly a revealed Truth that there is scarce any one Article of Christian Faith that Christ seems to have taken so much care to establish as this All the usual Arguments that are brought at any time to confirm us that a Truth has been revealed occur here and by an united Force confirm one another and strengthen our Belief beyond exception If we cast our Eyes into the Old Testament we there find the (a) The Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 The Bread of Proposition Exod â—0 23 1 Sam 31.40 seâ—q The Bread which the Prophet Elias having eaten by the command of an Angel walked in the strength of it sorty days to the Mountain of God Horeb. 3 Reg. 19.6 The Paschal Lamb Exod. 12. The Blood of the Testament Exod. 24.6 Heb. 9.20 Manna Exod. 16. compared with John 6.49 1 Cor. 10.2 If any one doubt whether these were sigures of the Eucharist or noâ— let them read St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerome and the other Autient Fathers cited by Cardinal Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 3. Figures of this Unbloody Sacrifice which must necessarily express something more excellent than themselves If we look into the (b) Isaâ—as 25.6 Zach. 10.17 Malac 1.11 Prophets we find their Prophecies cannot be fulfilled in a Figurative presence If we come to the New Law we find not only an express (c) John 6.51 The Bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world Promise from Christ himself but (d) Matth. 26.26 Marc. 14.22 This is my Body This is my Bloâ—d of the New Testament which shall be shed for many or as the Protestants â—ender it which is shed for many for the remission of sin Luke 22.19 This is my Body which is given i. offered for you from whence the antient Fathers conclude not only the real presence but its presence as a Sacrifice Altho Sense tell the it is Bread yet it is the Body according to his words Let Faith confirm thee judge not by Sense After the words of our Lord let no doubt rise in thy mind Cyril Mystag 4. Of the verity of Fiesh and Blood there is left no place to doubt by the profession of our Lord himself and by our Faith it is Flesh and Blood indeed Is not this true To them be it untrue who deny Jesus Christ to be true God. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit vers 10 This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Blood which Chalice shall be or i. shed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It appeared to Beza so clear that if it was the Cup or Chalice that was shed for us it must contain in it truly the Blood of Christ and be properly a Sacrifice that he could find no evasion but to call it a Soloecism or Incongruity of Speech or else that the words which yet he confesses to be in all Copie Greek and Latin were thrust into the Text out of the Margent See his Annotations upon the New Testament 1556. Three Evangelists and (e) 1 Cor. 10.6.11.24 St. Paul relating the Institute in such words that many of our Adversaries themselves confess that if they must be taken literally we have gained our Cause If we look into Antiquity and the Writings of the (f) See Nubes Testâ—um from pag. 99. to 150. Conseusus veterum And the many other Books formerly writtes upon this Subject as Gualters Cronology Coâ—cii Thesaurus c. In which you may see a Collection of the plain Testimony of Fathers and eminent Writers in every Age from the Apostles time to our Ages not only concerning this Article of Transubstantiation but most others now in Controversy Primitive Fathers of the first 600 Years we find the manifest (g) All the antient Liturgies are a sufficient Testimony of this in which as Blondel himself tho a Hugonot confesses the Prayer in the Consecration of the Elements was to this purpose That God trould by his Holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. The Adoration also which was payd to our Blessed Saviour there present shews their Belief See St. Ambr. de spir lib. 3. c. 12. and St. Aug. in ps 98.5 who upon these words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus tels us that Christ has given his Flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation Now no man eats this except he first Adore it And moreover says he we do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it See Considerations upon the Council of Trens chap. 16. §. 32. Digress §. 20. c. Also Protestant Apolegy Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 2. Practice of this belief If into the later Ages we find for above (h) This has been sufficiently shewn by the aforesaid Authors and Monsieur Arnold in his Perpetuite de la foy and the Plain concession of Protestants as may be seen in the Protestant Apology 1000 Years such an Uniformity amongst all Christians that scarce one person who deserved the name of Pastor that is scarce one Bishop either in the (i) As to the consent of the Greek and Latins see the Guide in Controversy disc 3. ch â— Greek or Latin Church but embraced it There is scarce any Nation in the World in which a Synod has been held since this last 600 Years that is since Berengarius begun to broach the contrary Error but has declared their constant belief of Transubstantiation And the most (k) Guide in Controversy dise 1. ch 6. §. 57. general Councils that those Ages could afford have confirmed it by their Definitions and condemned the contrary Opinions with their Anathema's So that if Councils both national and General have any Authority if the consent
of Judicature that gave Sentence against him still inventing new Cavils and pretending that X. * This is the Defenders answer to the parallel case I brought him from our Blessed Saviour's turning Water into Wine by these or the like words This is Wine the weakness of which put off will appear from what I premised as a consideration at the beginning of this Section begs the Question supposing there was a change of Dominion made by those words This is your estate and that his Predecessors understood it so but that for his part he supposes the Contrary and he can find some persons even in the first ages that said the estate of A. did resemble the estate of B. And he does not see but that his supposition is of as much weight as that of X's and his interpretation as sound and seeing all Courts of Judicature are fallible and those words of A. are the rule he must go by seeing he cannot perswade himself the words ought to be taken any otherwise than figuratively he will not acquiesce to any Court Would not any one think that such an obstinate Sophister as this ought to be thrown out of Court and forbid ever to put in his claim to disturb it This is truly our case I leave the Defender to make the application and the Reader to judge whether obstinacy in Religion be not a greater crime than in Law and whether a Supreme Court of Ecclesiastical Judicature has not more reason to pronounce an Anathema against those who disturb the setled peace of the Church by opposing her received Doctrins than a High Court of Justice to condemn a litigious person as a common Barreter Thus much to his first Argument It seems I committed a fault before §. 76. Second Objection From the practice of the Jews Defence pag. 54. in not taking notice of our Authors second Argument drawn as he pretends from our Saviours intention An Argument which he tels us has been urged chiefly since Bellarmins time and therefore I had nothing to say to it a great sign of its force and Antiquity An Argument used by the Jews against Christians and therefore fit to be taken up by our new Reformers Expos Doctrin Church of England pag. 50. Let us now therefore see it As in the Jewish Passover says he the Master of the house took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt Ibid. pag. 49. so in the Holy Sacrament our Saviour after the same manner took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is broken for you do this in remembrance of me But as it is evident that that Bread which the Jews every year took and Brake and said This is the Bread of Affliction c. was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there but was design'd only to be the Type or Figure of it So neither could our Saviours Disciples to whom he spake and who as Jews had so long been acquainted with that Phrase ever believe that the Bread which he held in his hands which he Brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you c. was the very actual real Body of Christ Therefore they understood it to be a Type or Figure of that Body which was about to be broken for them In answer to this I say First If not only the Bread but the Paschal Lamb it self was a Type and Figure of this Sacrament and Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedec this being Instituted as our Author confesses for the like end which the Passover had been and now for ever to succeed in its place Expes pag. 49. certainly the thing Figured ought to be more perfect than the Figure the Substance than the Shadow But if the Perfection of the Substance consisted only in signifying our Blessed Saviours sufferings certainly that Bread of affliction was as Perfect a Type as this and the Paschal Lamb a much more Perfect Figure of his Passion Secondly All the whole Argument you see runs upon a supposition that our Blessed Lord spoke figuratively because the Master of the Feast in the Passover did so which is as unconclusive an Argument as if in my last Example h. should argue thus the Predecessors of A. when they shewed the Map of their Estate were wont to say This is my Estate therefore when A. said to B this is your estate he gave him only the Map and not the Estate it self Thirdly Expes pag. 50. I cannot but admire that our Defender should think the Bishop of Meaux obliged to make less exceptions against this Argument because it was the Original remark of the very Jews themselves long before the Reformation You will not send us sure to the Jews to know whether our Blessed Saviour was the true Messias or no and will you send us to them to know whether he gave his Body and Blood to his Disciples in the Sacrament They Crucified the Lord of life as a Malefactor and must they be believed in the highest Mysteries of our Religion No wonder if they who esteemed him to be mere Man should esteem his Blessed Sacrament to be more Bread. Lastly You tell us the Master of the Feast took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which your Fathers eat in Egypt From whence have you this for I find it not in Scripture T is true we find Deut. 16.3 that God commanded the Jews to eat for seven days the Bread of Affliction without leaven to the end they might remember that it was with fear and trembling that they went out of Egypt But was it not true Bread they there eat and why shall we not then believe it is the true Body of Christ tho' we eat it in remembrance of his bitter Passion I need not take notice of his other insignificant Arguments drawn from Scripture §. 77. Third Objection From its being called Bread after Consecration as that the Apostle cals the Sacrament Bread even after Consecration that to break Bread was the usual Phrase in the Time of the Apostles for receiving the Holy Communion Every common Catholick can tell him that Eve was called Bone of Adams Bone Moyses his Rod Expos Doct. Ch. Eng pag. 50. 1 Cor. 10.16 c. 11.26 Act. 2.46 c. when changed into a Serpent was still called a Rod The Wine at the Marriage in Cana was called Water the Blind are said to see and the Lame to walk He has also been often told that the Scripture usually speaks according to the appearance of things and therefore as it called the Angels Men because they appeared like Men c. so does it call the Eucharist Bread because it has the outward Appearance of Bread. Moreover by Bread in the Jewish language was usually understood any
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
this Worship did as he says many things utterly inconsistent with it as Burning in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament permitting the People to carry it home that had communicated sending it abroad by Sea and Land without any regard that we can find had to its Worship burying it with their Dead making Plaisters of the Bread mixing the Wine with their Ink which certainly says he are no instances of Adoration Before I begin to Answer this Objection §. 92. I must beg leave to shew our Belief in this matter and the Grounds we go upon First we believe It is lawful to Adore God and Christ wherever they are whoever acknowledges Jesus Christ to be God and Man may lawfully Adore him wherever he has a Rational ground to believe him to be present yet is he not at all times obliged to pay this actual Adoration because otherwise the Apostles must have done nothing else but Adore when ever they were in the presence of their Lord. Secondly the Grounds of our Belief that our Blessed Saviour is really Present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are undoubtedly Rational as I think I have sufficiently shewn and therefore all those who believe him Present may lawfully Adore him there We cannot always pay this actual adoration tho' they are not always Obliged actually to pay that Adoration otherwise they must do nothing in presence of the Sacrament but Adore Him. Thirdly It is worthy our Remark that the words Sacrament Host or Eucharist are sometimes taken for Christ alone sometimes for the Species alone VVe adore Christ in the Sacrament not what is sensible and sometimes for both Christ and the Species but when we speak properly of Adoring the Sacrament we speak only of Adoring Christ in the Sacrament For we do not adore what is Visible Tangible or any ways Sensible in the Sacrament but only Christ Jesus whom we believe to be under those Visible Tangible and Sensible Elements Lastly The Church being confirmed in this Belief has Authority as occasion serves to command the payment of this Adoration which is Due at all times and to set apart some solemn Festivals or Ceremonial Rites to invite her Children to perform this Duty These Considerations being premised I deny his Antecedent §. 93. and to his Proofs I answer To the first I say the Scriptures silence is no more an Argument against us in this I. The Scriptures silence no Argument against a perpetual practice than it is against the Adoration of our Lord when present in the flesh for tho' we find there a Command of going to Christ and following him yet will he scarce find an express place in the Gospels where Christ commands his Disciples to Adore him This Adoration depending wholly on his being God it was sufficient that he convinced them of his Divinity and we being thus convinced by his own words that he is present in the Sacrament we are obliged to adore him there And if St. Paul did not Argue as our Defender would have had him yet does he do it with no less force and Energy It was sufficient to tell them it was the Body and Blood of Christ that to receive it was an Annunciation of his Death that they who received it unworthily were guilty of the Body and Blood of their Lord that they cat and drunk their own Condemnation not Discerning the Lords Body That therefore there were many sick and weak amongst them and many died These as they were sufficient Arguments to perswade them not to profane the Sacrament so were they sufficient Arguments to convince them and us of the Obligation to Adore him Present in it tho' St. Paul did not put them in mind of that Necessary consequence To the Second §. c 4. II. The Church condemns arising Herefies by Her practice It has always been the custom of the Church to condemn Heresies by her Practice as well as her Anathema's commanding the Glory be to the Father c. to be said or sung after every Psalm in opposition to the Arian Error and the Feast of the Blessed Trinity to condemn the Antitrinitarians c. no wonder therefore if when this pernicious Heresy of the Sacramentarians begun Atque sic quidem operâ—uit victrâ—cem reâ— itatem de mendacio heresi triumphum agere ut ejus adversarts in conspectu tanti splendoris in tanta untversae Ecclesiae laetitia positi vel debilitati fracti tabescant vel pudore affecti confusi allquendo resipiscant Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. she testified her Adorations by new practices and solemnities Tho' therefore the Feast of Corpus Christi the Exposition the Elevation c. May not be very Antient yet was it no new thing to Adore Christ in the Sacrament And it was but necessary that when Heretics begun to offer Indignities to that Sacred Mystery the Church should injoyn new Prayses Honours and Adorations to her celestial Spouse to the end as the Council says that Truth might by this means triumph over Lyes and Heresy and that its Adversaries at the sight of so much splendor and amidst such an universal joy of the Church being weakned and disenabled might decay or through shame and confusion at last repent To the last I answer §. 95. III. Particular practices hurt not the Universal Doctrin That if some things were done to avoid inconveniencies or others out of a heat of Zeal which are not agreeable to our practices at present they were not generally received nay censured by the Church when once they grew more public or layd aside when the inconveniencies were removed But these practices did not shew a disbelief of the Real Presence tho' our Defender may perhaps shew that they tended to a disrespect upon which account it was that the Church abolished them If it was a custom for some time Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. in the Church of Jerusalem to burn what remained after Communion Was it not a shew of Reverence and Respect lest perhaps the Sacred Symbols might fall into the hands of those Burgr hist l. 4. c. 35. who would Profane them And the same may be said of the custom in the Church of Constantinople of giving the remaining particles of the immaculate Body of Jesus Christ our God as the Historian expresses it to young Children But this I hope was consistent with a belief of the real Prerence If also the Primitive Christians permitted the Faithful to carry it home with them or sent it by Sea or Land to the Sick or to them with whom they would testify their unity it was not I hope any sign of their disrespect but rather a testimony of their Veneration and a practice which did not derogate from their belief of its being the Body of their Lord. If a St. Benedict caused the Blessed Sacrament to be laid upon the breast of a dead Corps which the Grave
interesting my self for him any further in the business or to intercede for one in whom I had found nothing but weakness mixed with Ignorance Nevertheless Protestants Print this Mans Letter and the single Allegation of such a Witness must become God willing a proof against me I speak it in the Presence of God Reverend Father my Heart is grieved to see Objections of so poor a Nature seriously pressed in Books And I beg of Almighty God in the anguish of my Soul O Lord wilt thou still continue to suffer Christian Souls to let themselves be caught in such weak and miserable Snares The Extracts from Cardinal Bona which they bring in the last Objection regard the Common difficulty so often proposed by Protestants about Prayer to Saints The Difficulty consists in this that as they who Pray with efficacy and obtain the effect of their desires are sometimes considered as the doers of the things after their manner It happens also sometimes that instead of saying to the Saints Pray for us they say do this always understanding that it is by their Prayers they do it By such Objections the Holy Ghost might be blamed for saying so often in the Scriptures that the Saints have done that which God has done by them and at their Prayers If such manners of speaking be familiar in Scripture why will they not also have them used in the Prayers of the Church But is it possible to explain ones self more clearly than the Church does upon this Subject seeing for one time you find and that in the Hymns and other Poetical works that we Pray the Saints to do or to Grant some thing you will meet with it a Thousand times Explicated that they do it only by their Intercession and Prayers And had not the thing been already explicated by the Prayers of the Church could there yet remain any doubt after the Expositions I have brought out of the Councils Catechism and after the decision of the Council it self For I beseech you let us weigh a little with our selves what it Teaches in the Twenty fifth Session does it not put this as a Foundation of the Invocation which we make to them that they offer up Prayers for us And consequently it's design is to shew us their Power is in their Prayers and yet new Explications are still demanded as if the Council of Trent had not sufficiently declared her Doctrin in a matter otherwise very clear Truly Reverend Father it extreamly troubles a Christians Heart to see tho' the Sense of the Church be made so very Evident in her decisions People should continue still thus to Juggle and Cavil with us about words I will say nothing about Mr. De Witte Rector of St. Maries of Meckline I find nothing in that Objection which concerns me in particular nor in the Letters of the Clergy upon the Subject of some briefs from the Pope Nobody ever pretends to offend his Holiness or in the least title to diminish the Authority of his See by saying that things may proceed thence which may not always be according to Rule On the contrary Protestants my observe from such Examples that a Church may with respect maintain what she thinks to be her Right without either breaking Vnity or hurting Subordination Pardon me Reverend Father for making this return so late my Employments of another Nature which would not give me leisure sooner must with your leave be my excuse I conclude praising your Zeal which will not suffer you to mitigate the urgent desires you have for the Salvation of your Brethren I am with particular Esteem Reverend Father Your most humble and most Affectionate Servant ✚ J. Benigne de Meaux The INDEX to the PREFACE THE Mischief of Heresie and Schism § 1. Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace Ib. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons § 2. We Appeal to Scripture Ib. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages § 3. To an uninterrupted Tradition § 4. And shew the Truth of our Doctrins from Protestants own Concessions Ib. But Protestants fly to particular disputes and in them to the particular Tenets of School-men § 5. And at last to down-right rayling Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrin was thought necessary § 6. A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors from the first Conversion of this Nation till Henry the 8ths Schism § 7. A like account from Henry the 8ths time till his present Majesty § 8. The Rise of the present Controversie § 9. Of the betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender § 10. The state of the Controversie Misrepresented by Protestants who flie to Private Opinions and stick not to what is of necessary Faith. § 11. Honor due to Saints § 12. Images and Relics § 13. Justification Merit and Satisfaction § 14. Purgatory Indulgences § 15. Sacraments Church § 16. Rule of Faith. § 17. Protestants will not distinguish betwixt Faith and Private Opinions Ib. But prolong Disputes about unnecessaries which the Vindicator resolves to decline § 18. THE INDEX to the BOOK ARTICLE I. Introduction pag. 1. IDolatry and Superstition is the Protestant Cry and Calumny at present § 1. Other Protestants thought the Charge unjust Ib. It was begun in Queen Elizabeths time Rejected in King Charles the 1sts And now renewed to make us odious § 2. Catholics are allowed by Protestants to hold all Fundamentals but not Protestants by Catholics § 3. Monsieur de Meaux and the Vindicators Sense perverted by the Defender Catholics no more guilty of Idolatry than Protestants An Instance of the Defenders Charity and Moderation Ib. ARTICLE II. Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone page 6. A Necessary distinction in Respect Honor Worship Adoration c. Which are Equivocal Terms and misapplied by the Defender § 4. As also in Bowing Kneeling c. § 5. The Honor pay'd by these words or actions is distinguished by the Object § 6. Divine Honor call'd Latria is due to God only Inferior Honor called Doulia may be given to Creatures proved by 1. Scripture § 7. 2. and the Practice of Protestants § 7. ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints pag. 10. PRayer Invocation c. are Equivocal terms misapplied by the Defender § 8. Saints may be Honored They Pray for us We may desire them to Pray for us proved Three sorts of such Prayers § 9. By the Practice of the Primitive Fathers in the Fourth Age as Protestants grant § 10. These Prayers were not Rhetorical flights § 11. in St. Gregory Nazianzen St. Ephrem St. Basil St. Gregory Nissen The Primitive Fathers wrongfully accused by the Defender as if they held that the Saints were not admitted to the sight of God till the day of Judgment § 12. Wrongfully accused as if they had departed from the Practice and Tradition of the foregoing Ages § 13. They prayed to Saints within the first 300 Years