him and others immediatly following wherein he attributes the same opinion to the Council of Trent Sessione 25. in decret Fdei de sacris Imaginibus and to the seventh Synod Vasquez lib. 2. de Adoratione disp 6. cap. 2. gives this further Account of the mode of worshipping Images in the Roman Church Catholica veritas est Imaginibus deferendam esse adorationem h. e. signa servitutis submissionis amplexu luminaribus oblatione suffituum capitis nudatione c. That it is a Catholic verity that worship is to be given to Images that is to say expressions of Service and Submission by embraces light burning offering of Incense uncovering the head Azorius quotes for the same opinion Aquinas Bonaventure Alensis Cajetan and several other ancient and modern Schole-men Mr. I. S. will not have us believe all these Doctors in this their Declaration touching the Romish worship of Images But who are you good Mr. I. S. Quidam nescio quis nec puto nomen habet one I know not who and as I see nameless that we must believe you rather then so many famous Doctors now mentioned Give to your worship of Images what name you please to worship them at all is a formal transgression of the divine Precept above mentioned and therefore a grievous fin You would fain prove out of Scripture that God ordered Images to be adored which is to pretend that God should contradict himself and so it appears in the ill success of your attempt upon finding your doctrine in Scripture Your first discovery in Scripture is that God commanded the Brazen Serpent to be put up to be adored say you Gods command touching that matter is set down Numb XXIV 8. in these words Make thee a fiery Serpent and set it upon a Pole and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he looketh upon it shall live Here is no mention of adoring that Serpent you say that looking upon it was to be with inward reverence and veneration wherein adoration or worship doth properly consist Then when we look upon a Church with reverence as being the house of God we adore it the same when we look upon the Bible when a dutiful child looks reverently upon his Father all is adored Likely the Israelites in time came to be of your opinion and to adore the Serpent but how well was that taken at their hands you may see in the second of Kings XVIII 4. That the godly King Ezechias brake in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made for unto those daies the Children of Israel did burn Ineense to it While they only looked upon it according to Gods Ordinance it was beneficial to them but when their devotion grew to a worship it provoked Gods Indignation declared in that action of Ezechias which the sacred Writer approves in these words And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. Your second discovery is Josue VII 6. where only we find that Josue together with the Elders of Israel fell upon their faces before the Ark and praied to God and that you take for an adoration of the Ark. So whensoever you pray before an Altar or a Bible you adore the Altar and the Bible The third Instance to which you say Protestants will never answer is that the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs Passion and a figure of his Body and is religiously worshiped by them if they do what St. Paul requires 1 Cor. XI 28. And what do's St. Paul require in that place This Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. That Protestants should never answer this Argument is no wonder what answer can be where no question is and questionless there is no sign or the least insinuation of Adoration to be paid unto the Communion Bread in the place you quote It is a work of your fancy no discovery of common sense to imagine worship given by Gods Ordinance to the Serpent to the Ark or to the Communion Bread in the places you relate You are to give me leave to tell you that your Argument is so frivolous as requires no more serious answer then to put you in mind of a Spanish Proverb Quien Vaccas ha perdido cencerrosse le antexan who has lost his Oxen Bells do ring in his cars His vehement desire of finding his Oxen makes him think every noise of a bough or leaf of a tree stirred be the wind to be the sound of the Bells his Oxen bare so your strong fancy for Image-worship makes you conceive it even where no shape nor sound of it appears You confess Images were little used in the Primitive Church nay were absolutely prohibited in the Council of Eliberis but that was say you to avoid the scandal of Pagans and the relapse of those converted from Paganism And are there not Pagans yet in the world Is not a conversion of them still procured What consequence is it to decry their adoration of stocks and stones and when they come to your Churches to see you perform to Images all those acts of worship which they used to their Idols by genuflexion thurification c. To speak to them of your distinction of terminative and relative worship will be insignificant as in it self its vain for the reasen I proposed pag. 70. of my former discourse to which you give no answer I alledged Nicephorus saying It is an absurd thing to make Images of the Trinity and yet they do it in the Roman Church You say that what Nicephorus and others do hold absurd is to paint Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substance and nature Nor do the Catholics use it as you falsly criminate them say you to me but herein certainly you do most falsly criminate me in saying I should impose such a thing upon them Where have I said that Papists do paint the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substarce and nature Or how could any man in his senses conceive Images of that kind could be drawn with material colors To attemt the drawing of any shape of them is what Nicephorus called absurd and * Damascen l. 4. c. 15. ante medium Damascen madness and impiety Insiplentiae summae est impictatis sigurare quod est divinum Of this madness Cajetan more ingenuous then you confesses your Church to be guilty who after having said that in the old Law certainly Images of God were prohibited and for the same reason were reprehended as unlawful by several Doctors among Christians since in both occasions they may engender in men a false conception of Gods nature yet he concludes in these words In oppositum autem est usus Ecclesiae admittens Trinitatis Imagines representantes non solum silium incarnatum sed Patrem Spiritum Sanctum That contrary to the said reasons autority of Damascen the Church
the purpose he talks of fitting it to the Predicate of the second Proposition about which is no question for none doubts whether it was the real Body of Christ that was given for us upon the Cross I allow you the benefit of the same rule alledged for the second Proposition Christs Body was given for us that the indifferency of the word Body which is the Subject may be determined by the quality of the Predicate and so taken for a real Body because 't was a real Body which was given for us upon the Cross Why will not you allow us the benefit of the same rule for the former Proposition This is my Body which is the proper Subject of this Debate that the indifferency of the word Body in the Predicate be determined by the quality of the Subject which was the Bread Christ had in his hand and of which with more propriety and less violence may be affirmed that its a figurative Body of Christ then his living Body But if the rules of your Logic must be so extravagant as to demand that when a discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject of a Proposition supposed to be true it s the Subject must be altered or fashioned to a conformity with the Predicate not the Predicate to conform with the Subject what will you make of these two Propositions of our Saviour I am the true Vine Joh. XV. 1. I am the bread of life Joh. VI. 48. In which two Propositions a great discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject The person of Christ speaking is the Subject in both Propositions Wine and Bread the Predicate Will you have the person of Christ to be altered and converted to a Vine and to Bread to verifie those Propositions I hope you will not be so blasphemous And why Because Christ was seen to be a Man not a Vine or Bread and so was the Bread in his hands seen and felt to be true Bread no humane Body I objected that the Council of Trent Sess 13. Can. 2. accursing such as affirm Bread and Wine to remain in the Eucharist after Consecration doth oppose St. Paul calling the consecrated Element Bread You say he called it Bread not because it was such then but because it was Bread before as in Scripture we read The blind do see the lame do walk not that they were blind and lame when they did see and walk but because they were such before I answer that in these latter cases an Ampliation of the term was necessary because the senses did assure that those men were not then blind or lame but not so in St. Pauls case the senses did see and feel what he called Bread to be such indeed I produced several clear and express testimonies of the most ancient and renowned Fathers of the Church delivering our doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist do not change their nature but are Types and Symbols of the Body of Christ abiding still in their proper substance To all which Mr. I. S. answers that the Eucharist is indeed a Type and Representation of Christ's Body but Christ himself is there both representing and represented as a King that would act a part in a Tragedy of his own Victories he would be the thing represented and the representation Truly I wonder how this old Simile kept credit so long time among Romish Catechists but more that it should be brought to a serious dispute I wonder they should not apprehend a great indecency in the parity if a Tragedy were made of the late Seige of Maestricht wherein the King of France was in person active would not a judicious man think it unbecoming the majesty of so great a Prince to go himself about all the Cities of the Country acting a part in such a Tragedy to represent his own Chivalry Why will not they think it indecent that the King of Glory Christ should act personally and corporally in all corners of the World where the Eucharist is celebrated being able to do all intended by it in a more intelligible way and with more decency But all this while our Adversary slips the main Point intended by the testimony of the Fathers that the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their own nature unchanged after Consecration whereby they seem to lie under the curse of the Council of Trent now mentioned To which testimonies I will add another out of Dionysius Syrus writing upon the first Chapter of S. John v. 14. and the word was made Flesh His words translated by a most * Dr Lofius learned and honorable person out of the Syriac Language into English are these Object The Heretics demand how was the word made Flesh being not changed Sol. Even as he appeared to the Prophets in Similitudes without being changed as he was before he was made so was he when he was made without change And as the Amianton or Salamander is united with the fire without being changed as the Bread is made the Body of Christ and the waters of Baptism are made Spiritual without being changed from their nature so the word was made Flesh without being changed from what it was as God that is to say he took Flesh without being changed From the same hand I had notice that the Ethiopic Liturgy printed at Rome dn Dom. 1548. useth these words in the Celebration of the Sacrament This Bread is my Body which determination of the Particle hoc to Bread disfavoring the doctrine of Transubstantion the Translator of the Liturgy plai'd the falsary in translating that passage by the words Hoc est Corpus meum To all these and the like Testimonies Mr. I.S. saies they are not so clearly for us but that Bellarmin and others of his side do find waies to give them another sense and therefore we needed an infallible living Judg to determine the sense of the Fathers as well as of Scripture and that Judg being to be the Bishop of Rome he may be sure of a favorable sentence if the cause be devolved thither But what if we find a Pope clearly delivering our Opinion twelve hundred years ago and saying The Sacramental Elements after Consecration do not cease to be the substance and nature of Bread and Wine as we have found Pope Gelasius do whose words I related pag. 56. of my sormer Discourse Will he find a way to decline such a sentence Were the Popes Infallible in that time Certain I am they did not pretend to be so But Mr. I.S. answers that Bellarmin saies that Gelasius was no Pope but a Monk Bellarmiâ— do's cast a thick cloud upon History to prove so much or at least to render the matter obscure and so do's Baronius But this latter fearing not to carry on that design or as he saies to war with more gallantry and contemt of his Adversaries will afford them the Arms they pretend and allow Gelasius the Pope should be Author of those words And what then Why Gelasius by
Doctrine of Purgatory Indulgences veneration and adoration as well of Images as of reliques as also of the invocation of Saints is absurd and vainly invented nor is grounded upon any authority of Scripture but is rather repugnant to the word of God Upon which Article N. N. delivers this heavy censure that it is false profane and Heretical But in the whole discourse of the second part of this Treatise I will demonstrate God willing that it is rather true Religious and Catholic as also I do intend by the help of God to vindicate the rest of those Articles in a separat Treatise from the cavils of Alexander White and other Romanists whereby N. N. will find how much he is mistaken in taking the said Alexander White 's Book against the thirty nine Articles for unanswerable as certainly he is far mistaken in saying resolutely tho without having any ground for it that the aforesaid White hath bestowed more time and deliberation in quitting those Articles then I have don in deserting the communion of the Roman Church Seven years he saies Mr. White spent in deliberating upon his resolution but certainly I have spent many more years in deliberating upon mine How many they were as it is not easie to demonstrate so it is not material to tell men may deliberate long and err at last in their resolution To my reasons alledged for that resolution which I took I appeal and do willingly expose them to public view and examination that others as well as I may judg of the weight of them Very foul and slanderous also has bin the mistake of our adversary in saying that the Authors of our 39. Articles were only some few obscare men Priests and Friers run out of Germany and that by them the Church and Kingdom of England was governed in the Reformation of their Religion How false their report is may appear by the public Records and Histories of the Land and by several Acts of Parliament passed with great deliberation of all the States of the Kingdom upon the settlement of the Reformation and of those Articles as well in that great Synod or Convocation celebrated under Edward the sixth in the year 1552. above mentioned as also an other no less famous Synod held at London ten years after viz. 1562. wherein the said Articles were reviewed examined and confirmed I have seen among Seldens Books kept in the Bodleian Library of Oxford an Authentic COpy of these Articles printed at London in the year 1563 and a scroul of parchment annexed to it with the subscriptions by their proper hands of the members of the lower house of Convocation being all Deans Arch Deacons and procurators of Clergy which I found to be in number 104 besides the Arch-Bishops and Bishops sitting in the upper house whose names came not in my way to see but I am to suppose they were all the Prelates of the Land as they used to meet in Convocation And is this to shuffle up a Reformation and make Articles in clandest in manner without due examination as our Adversary would make his Reader believe CHAP. XVIII A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantiation and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian THo N. N. had declared his purpose in the beginning to deal with me not Scholastically but Historically yet it seems he would not part with me without disputing upon the point of Transubstantiation He alledges testimonies and Fathers and miracles in favour of it and pretends it to have bin a Doctrine of more ancient standing then the Lateran Council To all which I have given a full answer in what I have delivered by my discourse formerly printed and in what will follow in the second part of this Treatise from the 18. Chapter forward Only I will reflect here upon two or three very gross mistakes of N. N. in his present discourse with me upon the point The first is touching my belief of this great mystery He saies resolutely without giving any ground for his saying as indeed he could have none for it that I do not believe Christ to be really present at all in this Sacrament why then saies he should he dispute with us about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeing he flatly denies the body and blood of Christ to be really and substantially present in the Sacrament But good Sir where have you seen this flat denial of mine certainly not in my declaration which seems to be the object of your quarrel not in the 39. Articles not in any public Catechism or system of Doctrine generally received by the Church of England nay the Catechism approved by autority and commended to the use of all being inserted into the Common Praier Book delivers the Doctrine quite opposite For to the question proposed touching the inward or invisible part of this Sacrament this answer is returned The Body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper And is this to deny flatly that the Body and blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament as you impute to us When a Jesuite in Germany broached the like calumny in a conserence had with some of the English nobility waiting upon our King in that Country in presence of his Majesty and of a Prince Elector in that Empire both his Majesty and the Noble-Men took offence at his Speech as being a foul Calumny and therefore desired the Reverend and Learned Doctor Cosin Bishop of Durham to vindicate the Church of England from that a spersion as he did abundantly in a very learned Tract published under the title of Historia Transubstantiationis Papalis Wherein he proves by the Articles public Catechisms and by the testimonies of several * Vide Jacobum Armac in resp ad Malon Mont. Norw in Antidiatribis Laud. Cantua in resp ad Fish Hooker Polit. Eccles l. s Joh. Roffens de potest Pap. in prae fat stat Prime Elis. c. 1. 8. Elis. c. 12 13. Elis. c. 1. grave and learned Prelates that all true Protestants especially those of the Church of England do constantly believe and profess that Christ our Saviour is really and substantially present in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist and his Body and blood really and substantially received in it by the faithful and accordingly he alledges the learned Bilson B. of Wincl ester declaring the belief and Doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in the words following Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini sed etiam ipsam veritatem naturam atque sul stantiam in se comprehendere ' That the Eucharist is not only a figure or representation of the Body of our Saviour but that it comprehends also the very truth and nature and substance of his body The very same Doctrine is contained in the 28. Article of the 39. above mentioned in these words The Body of Christ is given or taken and eaten in the
the words substance of Bread and Wine did mean the Accidents or Species of Bread and Wine which do remain and are to us the means of knowing the substance and may not be called properly Accidents in this Case because there is no substance left for them to rest upon as the nature and common notion of an Accident do's require And having deliver'd this most strange and never heard of complication of contradictory expressions to make of Accidents a substance and with all no substance of Bread to remain he sounds lowdly a triumph over his Adversaries that he has whipt them like boys with their own arms and altho it be allowed gratis that the foresaid testimony should be of Pope Gelasius yet it serves nothing to their purpose I could enlarge more upon the Absurdities of Baronius his discourse upon that subject and the injury he do's to Gelasius in fathering upon him so ridiculous a paradox but I think sufficient for the present to let the Reader see how solid and serious I should say how childish and ridiculous even great Men appear when engaged in a bad cause I am apt to think that some will hardly believe so great a Man as Cardinal Baronius should deliver so eminent nonsense as we have now related Read him in his fifth Tome of his Annals An. Dom. 406. Gelasii Papae an 5. from the first number to the twentieth And conclude Reader from this passage what little hopes we may have of peace and end of Controversy among Christians by allowing the Pope to be infallible when the most clear and plain words of a Pope are subject to an Interpretation of them so cross and diametrically opposite to the meaning of them according to common use As to understand Scripture a Popes Declaration is pretended to be necessary so to understand each Pope his Declaration another infallible Judg is to be look'd after without end CHAP. XX. Ancient School-men declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my Check to their worship of the Host a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England declared to be void of sense and ground MR. I. S. with his usual confidence says it is most false what I imputed to Scotus Ocham Cajetan and other School-men that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not contained in the Canon of Scripture nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council He allows Cajetan was of that opinion and was censored for it he erred therein says he and what then but he denies resolutely that Scotus should be of such an opinion Then Bellarmin did him an injur in relating the contrary of him in these words One thing says he Scotus adds which is not to be approved that before the Lateran Council Transustantiation was no Article of Faith And a little before he tells us that Scotus said there is no place in Scripture that proves clearly Transubstantiation to be admitted if the authority of the Church did not intervene where Bellarmin adds Scotus his saying not to be improbable for tho the Scripture himself alledged may seem clear to the purpose yet even that * Vnum taemen addit Scotus quâ—d minimè probandum est ante â—ateranense consilium non fuisse dogina Fides Transidistantiaâ—â—enem may be doubted whereas most learned and acute Men such as Scotus chiefly was did hold the contrary These are the express words of Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Here you have Bellarmin declaring clearly against Mr. I. S. that Scotus said that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council and that both Scotus and other most learned and acute men were of opinion that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not clearly contained in Scripture And truly tho I had not seen Scotus his writing upon the point I am apt to believe that Mr. I. S. should be mistaken rather then Bellarmin but I have read over Scotus his discourse upon this subject not only in the printed Editions but in the ancient MS. kept in Merton Coll. in Oxon. whereof he was a Fellow with no small admiration and compassion to see so noble and excellent a wit forced to opine or seem to opine against his proper sentiment as he doth protest himself to do to comply with Pope Innocent and the Lateran Council Having stated the question of Transubstantiation related the opinion of Aquinas and others for it and confuted most vigorously their arguments out of Scripture and reason for it as not convincing at last yields to the opinion of Innocent in these words Teneo igitur istam opinionem ibi positam ab Innocentio quod substantia panis non maneat sed quod transubstantiatur in Corpus Christi non propter rationes praedictas quia non cogunt For which opinion to say something being forced to follow it he alledges two conveniences The first that if the substance of bread did remain under the Accidents of it a man taking the Body and Blood of our Savior under such Accidents would not be fasting and so may not celebrate twice in one day which is against that Canon de consecrat distinct primâ in nocte The second conveniency is that the Church prays as appears in the Canon of the Mass the bread and wine may be made the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ but prays not for a thing impossible therefore it is to be said that the substance of bread ceases to be there and is converted into the Body of Christ Whoever knew the subtilty and exactness of Scotus his reasoning may easily perceive that he spoke against his own sentiment when he alledged such weak Arguments as those two now mentioned and so not to forfeit the credit of his subtilty turns to protest with his accustomed ingenuity that he followed this opinion only for the Authority of the Church concluding thus hoc principaliter teneo propter Authoritatem Ecclesiae c. and the same his Scholiasts declares of him upon the foresaid words saying Tenet Doctor tertiam sententiam nempè panem converti in Corpus Christi quia sic Ecclesia tenet * Edit Lugdun an 1639. Vid. Scot. in 4. dist 10. q. 3. Scotus holds the bread to be converted into the Body of Christ because the Church declared it so in the Lateran Council not for any Authority of Scripture or reason which could move him to it The same I may easily prove of other learned Schoolmen By this you may see Mr. I. S. his rashness in saying I did most falsely impose upon Scotus what both Bellarmin and himself declares to be his proper opinion Of the same opinion with Scotus was Durandus in 4. Sent. dist 11. q. 1. sect propter 3. where he declares that the opinion affirming the substance of Bread to remain after Consecration was more convenient to obviate