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
my great comfort and no small grief to consider the disingenuity of Romanists in fomenting animosities among Christians by calumniating thus the opposers of their errors CHAP. XIII Of the several large and flourishing Christian Churches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope TO all men truly zealous of the honour of God and of his Son Jesus Christ it cannot but be comfortable to see how happily the blessed Apostles have complied with the command of our Soveraign Lord and Saviour * Math. 28 â—9 Go and teach all Nations baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and how gloriously the Churches planted by them have persevered in the Faith of our Saviour in spight of the greatest persecutions and under the greatest Enemies of the Christian name such as the Turk is known to be and yet under his Domions is a numberless number of Christians of which the Grecians are for antiquity number and dignity the chief They acknowledg obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople under whose jurisdiction are in Asia the Christians of Natolia Circassia Mengrelia and Russia as in Europe also the Christians of Grece Macedon Epirus Thrace Bulgaria Servia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia â—odolia Moscovia together with all the Islands of the Aegean Sea and others about Grece as far as Corfu besides a good part of the large Dominion of Polonia and those parts of Dalmatia and Croatia that are subject to the Turkish Dominion all which Congregations of Christians subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople do exceed in number them of the Romish Communion as I find recorded by diligent a Brerewood inquiries cap. 15. Pagit Christianography cap. 2. Writers whereof Pagit saies that Christians make up the two third parts of the Grand Signiors Subjects All these Churches do deny the Popes Supremacy they account the Pope and his Church Schismatical The Patriarch of Constantinople doth yearly upon the Sunday called Dominica invocavit solemnly excommunicate the Pope and his Clergy for Schismatics They deny Transubstantiation touching which point Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople delivereth this excellent confession as agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England as opposite to the Romish In the Eucharist saith b Cap. 17. Pag. 60. he we do confess a true and a real presence of Christ but such a one as Faith offereth us not such as devised Transubstantiation teacheth for we believe the Faithful to eat Christ's body in the Lords Supper not sensibly champing it with our teeth but partaking it with the sense of the soul For that is not the Body of Christ which offereth it self to our Eies in the Sacrament but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth and offereth to us Hence ensueth that if we believe we eat and participate if we believe not we receive no profit by it Hieremy the Patriarch teacheth a change of bread into the Body of Christ which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a transmutation which is not sufficient to infer a Transubstantiation because it may only signify a mystical alteration which the Patriarch in the same place plainly sheweth saying that the mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of Christ not that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he are changed into humane flesh but we into them for the better things have ever the preeminence The words of Cyril and Hieremy in Greek are to be found with Mr. Pagit in his Christianographie Cap. 4. They deny Purgatory fire So Nilus Arch-Bishop of Thessalonica a Nilus p 219. de purg igne we have not received by tradition from our teachers that there is any fire of purgatory nor any temporal punishment by fire neither do we know of any such Doctrine taught in the Eastern Church b Castr adver haeres l. 12. p. 1.8 Alphonsus de Castro It is one of the most known errors of the Grecians and Armenians that they teach there is no place of Purgatory where Souls after this Life are purged from their corruptions which they have contracted in their Bodies before they deserve to be received into the Eternal tabernacles They administer the Eucharist in both kinds of which c Cyr c 17. p. 61. Câ—rill the Patriarch As the institutor speaketh of his Body so also of his blood which commandment ought not to be rent asunder or mangled according to humane arbitrement but the institution delivered to be kept intire a Resp p. 129 distinct 31. aliter They allow married Priests Hier. Patr. We do permit those Priests that cannot contain the use of marriage They deny the worship of Images Concerning which point b Cyr. resp ad inter 4. p. 97. Cyril speaketh we forbid not the historical use of Pictures Painting being a famous and commendable Art we grant to them that will have them the pictures of Christ and Saints but their adoration and worship we detest as forbidden by the Holy Ghost in holy Scripture least we should before we are aware adore colours instead of our Creatour and Maker They acknowledg the sufficiency of Scripture for an entire rule of Faith and of our Salvation Of which c Damasc de Orthodoxa fide lib. 1. c. 1. Damascen giveth this testimony What soever is delivered unto us in the Law and in the Prophets by the Apostles and Evangelists that we receive acknowledg and reverence and beside these we require nothing else They do not forbid the layty the reading of Scriptures As the reading of Scripture is forbidden to no Christian Man saith Cyril the Patriarch so no Man is to be kept from the reading of it for the word is near in their mouth and in their hearts Therefore manifest injury is offered to any Christian Man of what rank or condition soever he be who is deprived or kept from reading or hearing the Holy Scripture They allow no private Masses as Châ—traeus relates No private Masses saies he are celebrated among the Grecks without other communicants as their liturgies and faithfull relations testifâ— They have prayer in a known tongue They use not prayer for Souls to be delivered out of purgatory nor the extreme unction nor elevating and carrying about the Sacrament that it may be adored nor indulgences nor sale of Masses Neither is there in their Canon any mention made of the sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ for the living and dead as Chytraeus Guagnirus and others quoted by a Pagit c. 4. Pagit do relate Other differences of less account betwixt the Grecian Church and the Roman you may see related by b Brerew c. 15. Possev dereb Muscov pag. 38. Brerewood and Possevin Of the same Religion with the Grecians are the Christians of the vast and mighty Empire of Muscovia and Russia under their Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Mosco nominated and appointed by the Prince the Emperour of Russia and upon this nomination consecrated by two or three of his own suffragans To these may
fingere quem ferias to create your self an Adversary such as you may triumph over that is not to fit your answer to my Arguments but my Arguments to that you will have us take for an answer being what you have to say This is very usual with you as in many occasions I have declared from the beginning of this Discourse and will further declare in others to the end of it but in the present you appear notoriously guilty of this foul play I do neither ignore or doubt that if your doctrine of Christs personal presence in the consecrated host were true there is as much reason to adore such an host as to adore Christ himself both being the same thing in such a supposition This is the Mystery you pretend I should not understand but this is not the state of the Question with me What I did and do again call intolerable boldness is to say that the matter standing as now it doth doubtful and controverted there is as much reason for adoring the host consecrated as there is for adoring Christ his person since for adoring Christ we have several express commands laid upon us in Scripture which I related out of Heb. 1.6 Philip. 2.10 Jo. 5.23 but no intimation given of adoring Christ in the Sacramental bread supposing him corporally present there But if you go to the object of both worships Christ living in the World and your host consecrated to say that there is as much ground for believing your doctrine of Divinity existent in the latter as in the former I said and say still its intolerable boldness and a great injury to Christian Religion to make those two things of equal certainty whereof I was contented to make Bellarmin * Bellarm. de Christo lib. 1. c. 4. Judg who being to prove the Divinity of Christ goes through six Classes of Arguments out of Scripture with uncontroulable strength but being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture his only Argument is out of those words of Matth. 28. Take eat this is my Body Which place how unable it is in the opinion of the gravest School-men and of Bellarmin himself to make clear the doctrine of Transubstantiation we have seen from the beginning of this Chapter Is it not therefore intolerable boldness to say there is as much reason to assert that Christ is in the host really and corporally as there is for saying that Christ is God CHAP. XXI Mr. I. S. his weak defence of their half Communion confuted HE will have the Precept of Communion run parallel with that of Baptism wherewith I am well contented Both are commanded by Christ Baptism thus If one be not born again by the Water and the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Joh. VI. 53. And the Communion thus If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall not have life in you The essential requisites of Baptism are water and a set form of words In this no alteration may consist with the validity of the Sacrament not so of the mode or circumstances whether it be with immersion or sprinkling Herein alterations may be and were admitted by the Church Even so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the essence of it consists in eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Saviour This may not be altered but the mode or circumstances whether it be kneeling or standing whether in leavened or unleavened Bread whether white or red Wine touching these Accidents there may be alterations without prejudice to the substance of the Sacrament but not touching the essential parts of Flesh and Blood in this much we agree on both sides Now what are we to understand by Flesh what by Blood our Saviour did not leave obscure so as we may err in so weighty a matter wherein the life of our Souls doth consist but made it clear and visible to us He took Bread in his hands and of it he said this is my Body he took likewise Wine in his hand saying this is my Blood The way therefore to take his Body and Blood is to take consecrated Bread and Wine in remembrance of him This is the way Christ did establish the taking of this blessed Sacrament this the Apostles and Primitive Church did practice and this way all true Christians ought to walk Mr. I. S. censures it as a pusillanimity in me to be surprized at that famous non obstante of the Council of Constance that notwithstanding Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds and in the Primitive Church they administred it so yet the Council thought convenient to ordain the contrary I should have a strong stomach to swallow without chawing or examining what our Lord God the Pope orders as the Glossist calls him He is Vice-god upon earth as all of them stile him and of such priviledg that the commands of God must oblige no further then he pleases If he tells us that virtue is vice and vice virtue we are to believe him Yet Mr. I.S. will reason the case with us He might have spared that labor for I declared it was sufficient to my purpose to know they will pretend reason for inverting Christs Institutions But how well beseeming the gravity of a Council are the reasons he alledges grounded upon principles of nigardliness nicety To spare expences of wine and hinder the inconveniency of clean people to drink out of the same Cup with the unclean Is there not so much plenty of Wine now in the World as was in the Primitive Church and the Communion less frequent Were not clean people then in the World Shall a groundless fear of annoying the body over-weigh a certain danger of losing the Soul Christ having declared that if we do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood we shall not have life in us Is it fair that such frivolous reasons as these should suffice for a Pope to alter the Institutions of Christ and no reason be it ever so evident should excuse opposing a Popes Decree But Mr. I. S. tells us that in these words of our Saviour Joh. VI. If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall not have life in you The Particle and must be taken disjunctively for or not copâ—latively So as the command must be understood of eating his Flesh or drinking his Blood because in the Hebrew Language wherein our Saviour spake the Particle and is capable of such a sense Bellarmin and Suarez said so I see they did and thereby I see that a bad cause will make iâ—s Patrons run to narrow shifts At this rate you may pretend to comply with the precept of loving God and your Neighbor by loving either tho you do not love both And so of the precept of honoring your Father and Mother that you observe iâ— by honoring one tho you deny that duty to the other because the Particle and in those
now in use the Pope chargeth every living in his gift with a pension more or less ordinarily it amounts to half of the whole value of the benefice if but a third part 't is held easy and favourable but sometimes it extends to two parts of the whole divided into three which don he provides by an other ordination that by present payment of five years profit the pension shall be exringuished Now when by this concourse and comparison of competitors they have found which of them is best able to buy it on him presently it 's conferr'd so not the worthiest but the wealthiest carries it and thus are all the Popes livings bestow'd at Rome Now he that comes thus to a benefice by paying down five years pension before hand buyes it full dear for he paies for it at the rate of 30. in the 100. over and besides his personal service For the clearing of this point Suppose a benefice worth 300 Crowns a year this is sure to be charged being so great a Living with a pension of the largest size namely some 200 that so one 100 may be left to the Incumbent he then that comes to it in this manner pays down a 1000 Crowns for the pension and an 100 more for writing and seal of his Bulls and for expedition and so all laid together he buys his living of 300 at the rate of 30. for the hundred besides his personal service and cure of Souls Moreover whereas in the Council of Trent certain Simoniacal tricks and devices called regressus expectatives are flatly forbidden the Pope to delude the Councils decree grants coadjutorships with assurance of future succession after his Death to whom he is made coadjutor but makes them pay one years profit for the expediting and dispatch of their Bulls Now these coadjutorships are the very same and tend to the very same end even to bring in by hook and crook sums of mony for by these pensions and buying out of pensions this Pope has scraped up twenty hundred thousand Scutes all which he has bestowed in buying lands for his Nephew He bought of Sarelly a goodly large territory called Rignanum near unto Rome at the price of 353000 Scutes The City of Sulmona in the Kingdom of Naples he bought of the King of Spain and gave for the same the summ of 150000 Scutes He purchased those goodly demains called the four Casalia within the territories of the City of Rome which cost no less then 700000 Scutes In the mountanous Countries belonging to the City which are commonly at six in the hundred he made a purchase that stood him in 400000 Scutes He has built a palace and called it after his own name the palace of Burghesius upon the Fabric whereof he has bestowed 300000. He has so enriched the Cardinal Burghesius his Nephew in private Stock and wealth that his very moveables are esteemed worth 600000 Scutes Good God what a mighty wealth is here and I appeal to any that knows the Court of Rome if this could be got together by any means into the Popes own Coffers and private purse but only out of that office of the benefices called the Datary Therefore this one demonstration is presumtion sufficient enough to prove his foul and detestable Simony seeing it is certain that the whole name and bloud of the Burghesies were but of a mean estate nay many of them are known to have run out of their livings and to be little better then bankrupt when this man got the Popedom Hitherto the words of the foresaid Author who promised to justify all that he had said to be true out of the Authentical Books Records and writings extant in Rome and that out of the Register of the Popes Bulls it shall appear to whom each benefice has been given and with what pension they were charged Of all which the Spanish Nation can give a large testimony for many of them dealing in businesses of benefices at Rome have transacted them in this manner The conclusion of all before said is that if Simoniacal contracts do annul the election of a Pope and the same crime committed after his election depriveth him of all right to that place and calling if all Cardinals made by such unlawful and criminal Popes were no Cardinals and Popes made by unlawful Cardinals are no Popes as is established by the Laws and Canons forementioned if all those nullities of Simonies frauds and cheats have intervened in the election of Sixtus and following Popes as hitherto recorded and no care has bin taken of repairing those nullities as is manifest but rather the like practices continued to this day as is well known to those that are acquainted with that Court all this being so it followeth as a forceable consequence that there is not in the See of Rome any true Pope nor has bin since Gregory the thirteen How strange will all the precedent narrative appear to many poor Irish and English Roman Catholics who are not permitted to know more then their beads and some small prayer Book with the litanies of the conception of Saint Joseph Sancta Theresa c. and a list of great indulgences for very small devotions But such as know by sight or faithfull relation the intrigues of Rome whereof my good friend N. N. who gave me the occasion of this discourse is one will easily perceive that all which is said is very suitable to the language and practice of that Court. Now therefore let the poor Souls consider by these particulars what mettal that Roman holiness is which they so blindly adore And let their bold and presumtuous instructors forbear to censure the Ordinations of the Church of England in which no such dirty practices did ever intervene when their prime See is defaced and disgraced with such public and peremtory exceptions against the usurpers of it and let them cease boasting as they do of a wicked practice reordaining such as were ordained in the Church of England if they chance to pass to their communion whereas it is not less sacrilegious and unlawful to reordain persons already lawfully ordained then to rebaptize such as were lawfully baptized according to Gregory the great his declaration * Lib. 2. Epist 32. end 10. Cap. 58. Sicut baptizatus semel iterum baptizari non debet ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem iterum ordine consecrari non debet As those who were baptized before ought not to be rebaptized again so he that was once consecrated ought not to be consecrated again in the same order The same was decreed in the Council of Carthage ch 38. and before in the Council of Capua as related by the said Council of Carthage and by Baronius in the year 139. To transgress the decrees of these grave and anâ—ient Councils is the boast of Romanists when they brag of not admitting Priests ordained in the Church of England to the function of Priesthood with them if they be
difficulties rendring the Mystery more hard to be believed but that the contrary is to be held for the declaration of the Church Cajetan said that only the said declaration could make the words of our Saviour alledged for Transubstantiation appear convincing to that purpose And Suarez tells us his saying was commanded by Pope Pius the V. to be expunged An old Copy of Ocham I found in Dublin Library was more fortunate in escaping their blurs In his 5th quodlibet q. 30. he relates three opinions touching the Bread in the Eucharist The first saying that the Bread which was before is the Body of Christ after Consecration of which opinion he delivers this censure Prima est irrationalis that it is an unreasonable opinion The second opinion saies he is that the substance of Bread and Wine ceases to be and only the Accidents do remain and under them begins to be the Body of Christ Of this opinion he saies Est communis opinio quam tenâ—o propter determinationem Ecclcsiae non propâ—â—r aliam rationem That to this opinion he consems for the declaration of the Church in favor of it and not for any reason assisting it The third opinion related by him is that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and of this he saies Tertia opinio esset multum rationabilis nisi esset determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium That this opinion were very rational if the determination of the Church were not contrary to it So that it is not any reason nor any ground they saw for it in Scripture made these and many other very Learned men consent to the doctrine of Transubstantiation but only a blind Obedience to Innocents Decree in the Lateran Council Bellarmin wishes we should all have this submission to the Autority of the Church and I wish with all my heart that both we and he and his party and all Christians should have due submission to the Church truly Catholic Primitive and Apostolic declaring to us the Word of God by Canonical Scripture and Universal Tradition in which Fountains of Truth neither Transubstantiation will be found nor any of their Errors which I pointed out for motives of my forsaking their Communion Neither is I. S. more fortunate in his attemt of putting a terror upon me as if I had shock'd the Hierarchy of the Church of England by saying its rashness to give divine Adoration to a Wafer wherein they cannot be sure Christ to be Present this depending according to their own Principles upon the Priests intention to Consecrate his due Ordination and of the Bishop that gave him Orders his intention and due Ordination and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be certainly known And what has all this to do with shocking the Hierarchy of the the Church of England When I saw the man begin with so great a clap and sounding already a triumph I expected the story of the Nags-head or some other of their old Engines against the Legality of the Protestant Clergy should come down but all he brings is that we do also allow some things to be essentially requisite for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which nullifies the Sacrament As for Baptism water is requisite and the form of words I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost The Minister may vitiate this form and utter somewhat in lieu of it or omit some words of it or add some other that would destroy the form The same may happen in the Ordination of a Minister or Bishop and there is no certainty that no error of these should have happen'd in any one of the whole train of our Ordainers and if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations derived from him are null Therefore we can have no Assurance of our Hierarchy I leave the Judicious Reader to see what singular exploit this man hath done herein against the Church of England his reasons alledged of doubting the Legality of its Ministers doth prove so much for rendring doubtful the Legality of the Roman Clergy by his own confession but much more for what I am to add first that we do not make the effects of Sacraments to depend so much upon the intention and quality of the Ministers as Papists do We entertain a better opinion of Gods goodness that he will not have pious Souls lose the fruit of their sincere Endeavors and will supply to that effect the defect of the Minister secondly that their practice of muttering the words in a Language unknown to the People and in a voice not audible especially in the consecration of the Eucharist is more subject to errors and fraud then the way of our Church where the Minister is to pronounce loudly and intelligibly the words of the form But chiefly touching the subject of our present discourse from which our Adversary seems willing to divert I mean the use and Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist who run more hazard the Papists or we In case a defect should happen touching the consecration we enjoy the fruit of a spiritual Communion and are not at the loss that Papists are in the like case who make the main fruit depend upon the real and corporal presence of Christ in the host We run no danger of Idolatry material or formal giving the worship of Divinity to a thing that is not God as Papists do giving that kind of worship to any host reputed to be duly consecrated which if it happens not to be so indeed their act of worship is at least a material Idolatry in their own confession and to expose themselves to a known danger of committing such kind of Idolatry cannot chuse but be criminal as it is generally reputed to be a sin for one to expose himself to a danger of committing a sin The parity of one honoring his Father not knowing certainly him to be his true Father is impertinent and undecent A bad opinion he must have of his Mother who doubts his reputed Father to be such in truth But what if he were in a material error it is not a sin but a duty to pay respect unto him that adopts or owns him for a Son I will conclude this matter with letting Mr. I. S. see his rashness in pretending I was rash in saying its intolerable boldness in some of his fellows to say there is the same reason for the adoration of the host as for adoring Christs Divinity And he pretends I should seem thereby not to understand their doctrine Sir I am not to enter with you in comparison which of us understands better the Doctrine of both Churches what I see evidently is that either you do ignorantly misunderstand or maliciously misrepresent the state of the Question that wanting an answer to my Arguments in their proper terms you may fashion them so as your impertinent Discourses may seem to strike at something which is properly hostem tibi
Precepts is capable of a disjunctive sense and may be construed or Moreover this Argument would prove more then the Council or Bellarmin or Suarez himself would have That there is no command of drinking the Blood of our Saviour So the Council and Romish Writers commonly do pretend that Christs living Body being corporally present in the consecrated Bread and a living Body containing Flesh and Blood by taking the Bread we take both Flesh Blood But the supposition of this Argument that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament being pretended even proved clearly in our Opinion to be false it s in vain to perswade us with an Argument upon that Principle Besides tho that Supposition were true it s not easie to understand how by swallowing an Animal consisting of flesh and blood without separating both one may be said properly to drink blood All these Absurdities may be excused by following literally the words and and practice of our Saviour administring the Sacrament as he did in both kinds Here I am to admire again the good heart and confidence of Mr. I. S. in telling us that we have a positive example of Christ himself that once gave the Communion in the Accidents of Bread alone to his Disciples in the way towards Emaus pag. 217. How come you to be so positive in affirming that of Christ with his Disciples in Emaus should have bin a Communion rather then a common Supper Suarez in 3. p. Dis 71. Sec. 1. saies the Opinion of many Learned Authors denying it to have bin a Communion seems to him more probable And Maldonate supposes many good writers to be of the same Opinion But besides tho it were a Communion what is your ground for saying he should not have given the Cup in it That only Bread is mentioned that the Disciples told he was known of them in breaking of Bread But it is very frequent in Scripture to express a Dinner or Supper where both meat and drink is taken by this term of eating Bread and the Disciples might have found sufficient signs of knowing Christ by his way of breaking the Bread without mentioning more of his actions Furthermore Suarez in 3. p. Dis 42. Sec. 1. declares it to be the Opinion of all Divines and his own that the Species of Bread and Wine are the Essential Constitutes of this Sacrament Dico 30 Species consecratas esse Eucharistiae Sacramentum seu ad ejus constitutionem intrinsece essentialiter pertinere That the consecrated Species do belong essentially to the Constitution of this Sacrament How then could he give the Sacrament without the Species of Bread and Wine if they be essential Constitutes of it But Suarez say you in his Disp 71. saies that the whole Essence of the Sacrament consists in either kind and therein say I contradicts his former doctrine as also that of Gelasius * Gelas. Papa in cap. comperimus de Consecratione dist 2. quoted by himself Quidam sumt a corporis Christi portione à Calice sacri cruoris abstinent qui proculdubio aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque Mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Some taking the Body of Christ do abstain from the Cup of his sacred Blood who truly should either take all the Sacrament or leave all since being but one Mystery it may not be divided without great Sacriledg They pretend this should be understood of Priests only that they should take the Communion under both kinds but without shewing any sufficient ground for it We have no notice of Priests taking it under one kind to whom Gelasius his declaration should be directed and our Saviour did provide in this Sacrament a Spiritual food not only for Priests but for all the faithful and his words which are the ground of our Assertion did extend to all Mr. I. S. pretends that my Argument against Transubstantiation That neither for the effects of of the Sacraments neither for verifying the words of the Institution such a conversion of substances should be necessary comes pertinently to his purpose here That the Communion under both kinds is not needful either for the effects of the Sacrament or for verifying the words of Christ in the Institution of it But the Difference is wide first as to the effects Mr. I. S. himself confesses pag. 201. that Christ might were he pleased have given us the effects of the Sacraments with a figurative presence only Secondly as to the tenour of our Saviours words in the Institution of it many of their own more learned and exact Scholemen do affirm that the said words do not convince for Transubstantiation in force of their proper sense as we have seen in the precedent Chapter And * Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Bellarmin consesses saying it was the sentiment of most learned and acute Men. Both these things are wanting for making the like Argument serve our Adversary for we have proved hitherto that neither for the effect of the Sacrament nor for verifying the words of our Saviour in the Institution of it the half Communion may suffice Certainly he hath no such confession from us to his purpose as we have from him and from his brethren to ours CHAP. XXII The Roman Worship of Images declared to be sinfull Mr. I. S. is very tedious and no less impertinent in telling us its not a sin to make Images absolutely because God made man to his own Image and Protestants do make Images of the King and Queen c. but he might spare this labour I having declared that it is not only lawful but commendable to make Images and good use of them to several purposes The sin is to adore and worship them that being directly opposite to Gods Commandment set down in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus in these words Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image c. thou shalt not bow down thy self to them of which sin the Roman Church is guilty by ordering honor and reverence to be given to Images In what degree Azorius with several others of their Divines do tells us saying the same honor is to be given to them which is due to the Prototype and consequently the honor of Latria to the Image of God and Christ the honor of Dulia to the Images of other Saints So Azorius saies and not I as Mr. I. S. falsifies in these words Constans est Theologorum sententia Imaginem codem honore cultu honorari coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago It is the constant opinion of Divines that the Image is to be honored and worshiped in the same manner as the thing whereof it is an Image Mr. I. S. saies resolutely Azorius has no such words but if he did read attentively the place I quoted of Azorius Tom. 1. Inst Moral lib. 9. c. 6. § Tota haec controversia he would find those formal words in