his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
ex eisdem aut percipimus aut in futurum expectamus Sparows Canons pag. 282. that the Holy Ghost did by the Mouths of the Apostles so far Honor the Name of the Cross so odious to the Jews that under it they did not only comprehend Christ himself Crucified but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion with all the comforts fruits and promises which we receive or expect thereby But if by we and us he only mean himself and desire me to oblige him so much as to inform him what Figure that is which makes the Cross signify Christ I must send him to the aforesaid Canon which I suppose he understood when he entred into the Ministry of the Church of England tho' he has now forgot it Neither let him say that he calls for a Figure which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross for he will not find our Hymns any more guilty of that than the expressions of St. Paul before mentioned in which he will find the foregoing nay in some of them the accompanying words distinguishing Christ from the Cross and yet according to his own thirtieth Canon the Holy Ghost under the word Cross did comprehend not only Christ crucisied but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion c. But to examin more particularly this Hymn which he instances He formerly bogled only at the Stroph O crux ave spes unica Exposit pag. 14. Hail O Cross our only hope c. In which as I then told him it is manifest the Church makes her addresses to the Cross with Christ that is to Christ Crucified upon the Cross Christ our only Hope as the words spes unica sufficiently demonstrate for he will not have us certainly to have two only Hopes neither will others surely whatsoever he does think us so silly as to make a formal Prayer to an insensible thing But in vindication of himself he brings St. Thomas acknowledging the worship of Latria due to the Cross and proving it as he says from this Hymn to which I have already answered and shall not here repeat it again and picks out at pleasure three other Strophs of that Hymn in which as he says the Cross is distinguished from Christ What if it be in those three Stanza's does it necessarily follow that it is so in this too For my part I see no such consequence And must certainly conclude that if the Apostles did by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost comprehend Christ and all the benefit of his Passion under the word Cross the Church which is also taught by the same Holy Spirit ought not to be censured for the same Of Reliques AS for Reliques §. 27. we are called here to a Verbal Disputation And because Veneration Worship and Adoration are frequently confounded in our Authors he endeavors from several of them to justifie his Translating of the Word Venerari in the Conncil of Trent by Worship in his Exposition I do not love to prolong Disputes and therefore shall readily give him leave to use the word Worship upon condition that he take it in the sense of those Authors who understand no more than an Honor or Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Remains of those Saints who were once the Temples of the living God and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict sense Only I must tell him that we do not seek to those Sacred Monuments for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance No Prayers to Reliques or Monuments as he very falsly insinuated from the Council and now to justify himself makes use of as great a piece of Scholarship as can well be paralleld I told him That the Words of the Council were That they who affirm that no â—â—â—eration or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or that those Reliques and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably Honored by the Faithful or that they the Faithful do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints to the end they may obtain their aid the aid of the Saints EORVM are wholly to be condemned as the Church does now and has formerly condemned them But alas it seems I did not understand the Latin or else I had a mind to Cavil for he tels his Reader my Citation of the words of the Council was only a Trick to deceive those who understood it only in my Translation that I transposed the Latin on purpose to raise a Dust to deceive the Reader the true Order being plainly as he before rendred it so that they who shall affirm That no Worship or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or That these and the like Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honored and that for the obtaining of their Help the Help of those Sacred Monuments A false Tranâ—ation EORVM the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented are to be condemned Certainly this was a great Crime and my throwing the false Translation upon him one of the reasons I suppose why he gave me that pious Admonition Presace pag. xvi Intreating me by the common name of Christian and those hopes of Eternity after which he believes we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend to consider how deagerous this way I have taken is what mischiesi it will bring in the Opinion of all good Men of what soever perswasion they be to the very cause that is maintained by such Means In a word what a sad parchase it will prove in the end if to lessen the reputation of an unknown obscure Adversary I should do that which shall lose me my own Soul. But really I must desire this Gentleman to cast once more his Eye upon the Latin and see whether of us two have rendred it right in English For my own part in his own words I thank God my Religion needs not such Defences Ibid. nor would I ever have used those means to assert it if it did I was always taught that no evil was to be done tho' for a good end nor was I ever brought up in any Schools that esteemed the Interest of the Church so Sacred as to be able to sanctify the worst of Means that can be made use of to promote it I have indeed heard some Roman Catholics accused as if they taught such Doctrins but I always found the Galumny stand at the Accusers Doors whose Art was only to cry Whore first And as for the Defender I hope if he be convinced he has done me and the Council of Trent I may say also the Catholic Church an Injury in this he will perform his Promise and think himself indispensably obliged to make a public Acknowledgment of it and thank the Vindicator that has called him to so necessary a Duty I appeal then to any Jury of Scholars in the World Whether when I Translated these words Ita ut affirmantes EORVM opis impetranda causâ memorias
shall not question whether this be not one of the less faithful Translations in this Epistle because we know not what the word may be in Greek neither will I go about to shew that the Accidents themselves are often said to have their nature and That sometimes called the Nature of the Substance of which they are the Accidents But I must say that if the word Nature in that Place meant Substance or Body so that the sense should be this tho' the Substance or Body of Bread remain the Parallel would have been false and St. Chrysostom instead of disswading Caesarius from the Heresy of Apollinarius would have drawn him to that of Nestorius For Caesarius must necessarily have Argued thus Your Parallel is betwixt the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the Person or Subsistence of Christ in the Mystery of the Incarnation If then there be two Substances in the Eucharist there are also two Subsistences in Christ But this was far from St. Chrysostoms design His intention was therefore to shew Caesarius that as in the Blessed Sacrament after Consecration there is but one Substance one Body of Christ tho' the Accidents of Bread remain and that this Substance is truly called the Body of Christ so in the Mystery of the Incarnation there is but one Son one Person and that Divine tho' the Nature of the Manhood do remain Now what can be more clear for Transubstantiation than this that in the Eucharist there should be but one Body one Substance and that the Body of Christ But our Defender objects that St. Chrysostom only says it is worthy to be called the Body of Christ and it is called not two Bodyes but one Body of the Son and therefore the change is only in the Appellation and not in the thing it self But certainly if Caesarius had understood St. Chrysostom in that sense Caesarius might have answered him You would perswade me I see to be an Arian and believe there is only a change in Christ as to Appellation and that he is not truly God but only called so But this Great Saint and Learned Doctor was far from erring in these Points For Lastly §. 83. That he did believe the Real and Substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that a change was there made of the Substance of Bread into the Sustance of his Body appears by many plain expressions in his undoubted works Bigotius mentioned two passages in his suppressed Epistle which I will here give the Reader in English tho' the Defender did not think it convenient so to do and add two or three more a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 2. ad pop Antioch in fine pag. 43. B. edit Frontoduc 1616. Elias says he left his Mantle to his Disciple but the Son of God left us his Flesh Elias stripped himself indeed to leave it but Christ both left us his Flesh and retaining it himself ascended Let us not therefore lose courage nor lament nor fear the difficulty of Times For he who did not refuse to shed his Blood for all and has communicated to us his Flesh and also that very Blood what will he refuse for our Salvation The second passage cited by Bigotius is thus at length b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 83 in Matth. pag. 703. D. edit Commel 1003. Let us therefore every where believe God neither let us resist him although what he says may seem absurd to our sense or cogitation Let his word rule our Sense and Reason which we perform in all but especially in the Mysteries not only looking upon those things which lye before us but retaining also his words For we cannot be deceived by his words but our senses are easily to be deceived Those cannot be false but these are often and often deceived Seeing therefore he has said This is my Body let us not be doubtful but believe and view it with the eyes of our Vnderstanding And a little after he says c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 704. A. How many are there now who say I would gladly see his form his shape I would see his very Garments I would see his shoos Behold Thou seest answers he himself thou touchest him thou eatest him and thou art still desirous to see his Garments And a little further Who will declare the power of our Lord and who will publish all his praises What Shepherd ever yet fed his Flock with his own members And why do I mention Shepherds There are many Mothers who give their Children to other Nurses but he Christ not so he nourishes us with his own Blood and closely knits himself to us in all things d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 705. A. The things we propose are not done by Human power He who wrought these things at the last Supper is the Author of what is done here We hold but the place of Ministers but he who Sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself To these I may add that in his Liturgy the Priest prays e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 614. B. edit Frontonduc that God would make that Bread the Pretious Body of his Son c. and that which is in the Chalice the pretions Blood of his Christ c. changing them by his holy Spirit And in his Homily de Proditione Judae he teaches that Judas received the very Body and Blood of Christ which he betrayed his words are these And Judas was present when Christ said these words f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 3. Serm. 30. pag. 463. A. This is the Body said he O Judas which thou hast sold for thirty pieces of Silver This is the Blood for which thou hast made a bargain with the Pharisees Oh the Mercy of Christ Oh the Madness of Judas He made a bargain to sell him for Thirty pence and Christ offered him the Blood which he sold that he might have remission of his Sins if he would have ceased to be wicked for Judas was there and was permitted to partake of the Sacrifice g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. For it is not man who makes the proposed Elements to be the Body and Blood of Christ but Christ himself who was crueified for us The Priest performs the ceremony and pronounces the words but it is the Vertue and Grace of God which operates the whole He said h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. Gen. 1.28 This is my Body This word Transmutes or changes the proposed things or Elements And as the voice which said encrease and multiply and fill the Earth was but once spoken but in all times by the operation of Nature felt the effect as to Generation So that voice was but once uttored but yet gives a firmness to the Sacrifice throughout all the Tables of the Church even to this very day and shall continue it even to his very coming These things being considered Appendix p. 129.
is more according to the literal sense of the words and has less difficulties in it than Consubstantiation but it does not follow that Scotus thought his Adversaries assertion to be more easy much less more true But our Defender goes farther and tells us that Scotus held this Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran and cites Bellarmin for it tho' he render his words ill in English * For Bellarmin does not say that Scotue held the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient but only that it was not an Article of Faith dogma fidei before that Council which are two very different things §. 88. Suarez Non fnerit tam aperte explicata sicut modo est Suar. in 3. D. Tho. vol. 3. disp 50. §. 1. How much better would it have been for him to go to the Fountain it self and have shewn us this in Scotus But he will scarce find it there and suppose he could one Swallow makes no Summer and I think it will appear far more reasonable to any thinking man to believe that Scotus erred in saying so than the Council of Lateran in which there were 400 Bishops and 800 Fathers in declaring that to be the Faith of the Church which was not so Thirdly Suarez he says acknowledges the same of Scotus and Gabriel Biel Suppose they had held that Doctrin what would follow but as Suarez Argues that they deserve reproof seeing the thing it self was antient and perpetually believed in the Church tho' perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is As for my overlooking that passage of Suarez which affirms the conversion of one substance into another to be of Faith and the Defenders arguing upon that account that Suarez is opposite to my opinion and pretences I have already told him that he proceeds upon a mistake of my meaning which being rectified he will find that Suarez is nothing against me nor am I guilty of any prevarication Fourthly §. 89. Cajectan The Defender tells me that my Prevarication in the next citaton viz. of Cardinal Cajetan is more unpardonable And why Because he affirmed that the Cardinal acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words Defence pag. 65. the others might with as good reason have been received and I told him that Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appealed to any that should read it for the truth of what I said This he says is such a Prevarication that should a Protestant have done it I would he believes have found out many hard names for him to testify my zeal against Falshood and Vnsincerity Id. pag. 66. and shewn what a kind of Religien that must be that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But that he will remit me wholly to the Readers Censure and my own Conscience for Correction I am glad he allows me the Readers to be of my Jury I hope he will give me leave to except against all those that are so far byassed in their affections to him and his party that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards Popery forsooth tho' against Justice Equity and Conscience Take but away I say such byassed and Ignoramus Juryes as these and I will appeal to any Learned Judicious and Conscientious men whether that Proposition he advanced be to be found in that Article of Cajetan or no. The Defender was so far from shewing this in Cajetan that he has pitched upon a place which has as little to the purpose as one would wish He tells us indeed that we have no other express Authority from Scripture for the belief of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament but only the words of our Saviour This is my Body for these words must of necessity be true And because the words of Scripture may be Expounded two ways Properly or Metaphorically The first error in this particular was of them who interpreted the words of our Lord Metaphorically which Error was treated of by the Master of Sentences and is reproved by St. Thomas in this Article And the force of the rejection consists in this that the words of our Lord have been understood by the Church properly and therefore they must be verified properly Which is as much as to say that St. Thomas and Cardinal Cajetan after him looked upon the Churches having always understood the words of our Saviour literally to be the strougest Argument against the Sacramentarians who Erred in understanding them Metaphorically But what is that to our Defenders Proposition And where does the Cardinal say there is as much reason for the one as the other abstracting from the Churches declaration which is the sense of his Proposition Wherefore now it comes to my turn to remit him as he does me to the Readers Censure and his own Conscience for correction His last Argument is drawn from the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist in these words §. 90. Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist Expos Dâ—ct Ch. of Engl. pag. 60. Since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised nor the Church for above a 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament neither could they according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles who holds that the Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as Believe it without all scruple to the Adoraton of it have believed the Corporeal presence of our Blessed Saviour in it The Antecedent he goes about to prove first from the Scriptures silence in this matter ssect 91. I. which tho' it says Take Eat Do this in remembrance of me yet never says This is my Body fall down and worship it And from St. Paul who when he reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament did not tell them tho' it was obvious and much to his purpose that in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ which it was Instituted to represent to us but even directly Affronted their Blessed Master Corporeally present there and whom instead of Profaning they ought as they had been taught to Adore in it Secondly II. From the new practices of Elevating the Host introduced says he in the 7th Century to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross but not to expose it to the People to Adore it from the Bell the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament the Pomp of carrying it through the streets Exposition of it upon the Altars Addresses to it in cases of Necessity and performing the chief Acts of Religion in its presence all which he pretends are but Inventions of yesterday or were never mentioned in Antiquity Lastly III. Because the Primitive Christians instead of