plainly shew that no such Title or Authority was anciently claimed by or allow'd to the Bishop of Rome And therefore we say That these new and groundless pretences must be laid aside before we can be content to yield him that Honour which has been sometimes given to his Predecessors As to that new Question he has hookt in at the end of this Article Vindic. p. 106. Whether the first four General Councils might not be term'd neither General nor Free with as much reason as the Council of Trent I suppose it may easily be answer'd in the Negative 1st It was not so General because it was not call'd by so great and just an Authority as those were That was an Authority to which Christians of all Places and all Ranks acknowledged themselves bound to submit and attend where they were summon'd by it whereas this was a meer Vsurpation and being so was not regarded by a great part of the Christian World who were sensible that they ow'd no Subjection to it 2dly It was not so Free because those who had most to say in defence of the Truth durst not appear at Trent being sufficiently forewarn'd by what others had lately suffered in a like case at Constance Add to this That those who being present did set themselves most to oppose Error and Corruption were perpetually run down and outvoted by Shoals of new made Bishops sent out of Italy for that purpose So that such a Council as this could not with any shew of Reason be termed either Free or General much less ought it to be compared with those first four Councils which were in all these Respects most opposite to it CLOSE XXVII AND now Vindic. p. 106. that I have gone through the several Articles of the Vindication and found the Pretensions of this Author against me as false as I think I have shewn his Arguments to have been frivolous what shall I say more Shall I complain of his Injuries or rather shall I yet again beseech him to consider the little grounds he had for them and see whether he has been able in any one Instance to make good that infamous Character which he has told the World I have deserved in almost every Article of my Expoposition Have I Calumniated them in any thing Have I Misrepresented their Doctrines I have already said I do not know that I have I think I may now add I have made it appear that I have not Where are the Vnsincere dealings the Falsifications the Authors Miscited or Misapplied Excepting only an Error or two that 's the most of the Press has he given any one Example of this Some words now and then I omitted because I thought them impertinent and was unwilling to burden a short Treatise with tedious Citations And I am still perswaded that they were not material and that he might as well have found fault with me for not Transcribing the whole Books from whence they were produced as for leaving out those Passages which he pretends ought to have been inserted And for this I appeal to the foregoing Articles to be my Vindication But our Author has well observed That nothing can be so clearly expressed Vind. p. 120. or so firmly established let me add or so kindly and charitably performed but that a person who intends to cavil may either form a seeming Objection against it or wrest it into a different sense I never had the vanity to fancy my Exposition to be Infiallible or that the sight of an Imprimatur should make me pass for an Oracle But yet I was willing to hope that amidst the late pretences to Moderation such a peaceable Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England might at least have been received with the same civility by them as that of the Church of Rome was by us and that our new Methodists had not so wholly studied the palliating part of their Master as not to have learnt something of his fairness and civility also This I had so much the greater reason to expect for that it has been esteemed not the least part of the artifice of Monsieur de Meaux not only to mollifie the Errors of his Church but to moderate that passion and heat that for the most part occurs in the defenders of it And by the temper and candidness of his Stile insinuate into his Reader a good Opinion of his Doctrine But this is an Artifice that our late Controvertists seem resolved we shall have no great cause to apprehend Who therefore have not only wholly laid aside the Modenation of this Prelate but have in some of their last Pieces fallen into such a vein of lightness and scurrility as if their Zeal for their Church had made them forget that Religion is the Subject and Christians and Scholars to say no more of them their Antagonists I am ashamed to say what mean Reflections and trivial Jestings make up almost the sum of their latest attempts The Papist Represented which seemed to promise something of seriousness and moderation expiring in a FANATICK Sermon done indeed so naturally as if the once Protestant Author had dropt not out of the Church of England but a Conventicle into Popery His late Majesties Papers Answered with Reason and whatever is pretended with respect too by Us instead of being Vindicated ridiculed in the Reply In which it is hard to say whether the Author has least shewn his charity to us or his respect to the Persons and Church that he defends These are the new Methods that are now taken up but sure such as neither Church I suppose will be very well satisfied with And which seem more accommodated to the Genius of those Sceptics who divert themselves at the expence of All Religion on both sides than designed to satisfie the sober and conscientious of either It is not improbable but that some such ingenious Piece may in a little time come forth against what I have now publish'd to call me a few ill names pass a droll or two upon the Cause tell the World how many Sheets there were in my Defence and put the curious to another Shilling expence Amicab'e Accommodation as a late Author has very gravely observed If this be the Case I hope I shall need no Apology to men of sense and sobriety if I here end both their trouble and my own together Let those who have been always used to it rally on still with Holy things if they think good for my part I esteem the Salvation of mens Souls and the Truth of Religion to be a more serious Subject than to be exposed to the levity of a Jest and made the subject of a Controversial Lampoon And if an account shall hereafter be given for every idle word that we now speak I profess I cannot but tremble to think what shall be the judgment of those men who in the midst of such unhappy differences as the Church now labours under whilst our common
Unsincerity and shew what a kind of Religion that must be Vind. p. 222. that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But I shall remit him wholly to the Reader 's Censure and his own Conscience for Correction As for my last Assertion Vindic. p. 88. That Transubstantiation was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after Christ They are the very words of Scotus cited by Bellarmine See p. 64. and all his Sophistry will not be able to prove that they make but little for my purpose Thus notwithstanding all the little Endeavours of the Vindicator to evade the truth of those Concessions made by the greatest of his own Communion in favour of our Doctrine my Argument still stands good against them and Transubstantiation appears to have been the monstrous Birth of these last Ages unknown in the Church for almost 1200 years Vind. p. 92 93. For what remains concerning the Adoration of the Host since he has thought fit to leave my Arguments in their full force I shall not need say any thing in defence of that which he has not so much as attempted to destroy ARTICLE XIX Of the Sacrifice of the Mass IF I affirmed Vindic. p. 94. The Sacrifice of the Mass to be one of those Errors that most offends us I said no more than what the Church of England has always thought of it And had the Vindicator pleased to have examined my Arguments instead of admiring them he would perhaps have found I had reason to do so * Canon 1. Siquis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum proprium Sacrificium aut quod offerri non fit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari Anathema fit * Canon 3. Siquis dixerit Missae Sacrificium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis aut nudam commemorationem Sacrificii in Cruce peracti non autem Propitiatorium vel soliprodesse sumenti neque pro Vivis Defunctis pro peccatis paenis satisfactionibus aliis necessitatibus offerri debere Anathema sit The Council of Trent affirms Concil Trid. Sess 22. p. 196. de Missa That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice offered to God a Sacrifice not only of Praise and Thanksgiving nor yet a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross but truly Propitiatory for the Dead and the Living and for the Sins Punishments Satisfactions and other Necessities of both of them †Ibid. Cap. 2. p. 191. Una eademque est Hostia idem nunc offerens Sacerdotum Ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit sola offerendi ratione diversa A Sacrifice wherein the same Christ is now offered without Blood that once offer'd himself in that bloody Sacrifice of the Cross the same Sacrifice the same Offerer Christ by his Priests now who then did it by himself offering himself only differing in the manner of Oblation This is in short what their Council has defined as to this Mass-Sacrifice and what we think we have good reason to be offended at That there should be any true and proper Sacrifice truly and properly Propitiatory after that of the Cross that Christ who once offer'd up himself upon the Tree for us should again be brought down every day from Heaven to be Sacrificed a new in ten thousand places at a time on their Altars And by all these things so great a dishonour done to our Blessed Lord as most evidently there is and our Writers have unanswerably proved in the whole design Practice and Pretences of it How little the Doctrine of the real Presence Vindicat. ib. as understood by the Church of England will serve to support this Innovation is at first sight evident from the Exposition I before gave of it That those who are ordained Priests ought to have power given them to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ and make them present in that holy Eucharist after such a manner as our Saviour appointed and as at the first Institution of this Sacred Mystery they certainly were this we have always confessed and our †In the ordering of Priests when the Bishop imposes his hands he bids him be a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments And again when he delivers him the Bible Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments c. Sparrow Collect. p. 158. Rituals shew that our Priests accordingly have such a Power by Imposition of Hands conferred on them But that it is necessary to the Evangelical Priesthood that they should have power to offer up Christ truly and properly as the Council of Trent defines this we deny and shall have reason to do so till it can be proved to us that their Mass is indeed such a Sacrifice as they pretend and that our Saviour left it as an Essential part of their Priesthood to offer it For the rest Vindic. p. 95. If with the Council of Trent he indeed believes the Mass to be a true and proper Sacrifice he ought not to blame us for taking it in that Sence in which they themselves understand it For certainly it is impossible for words to represent a Sacrifice more strictly and properly than the Council of Trent has defined this ARTICLE XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews TO elude the authority of this Epistle Vindicat. p. 96 97. the Vindicator after Monsieur de Meaux thinks it sufficient to tell us That they understand the word Offer when they apply it to the Mass Mr. de M's Expos p 31. in a larger signification than what the Apostle there gives it as when we are said to offer up to God whatever we present before him And that 't is thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Mass Vind. p. 96. in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him That this is to prevaricate the true meaning of that phrase the Doctrine of the foregoing Article plainly shews If Christ be in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice as was there said it will necessarily follow that then he must be truly and properly sacrificed ‖ Sacrificium verum reale veram realem Occisionem exigit quando in Occisione ponitur Essentia Sacrificii Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. cap. 27. p. 1663. A. And one essential Propriety and which they tell us distinguishes a Sacrifice from any other Offering being the true and real destruction of what is offered insomuch that where there is not a true and proper destruction neither can there be as they themselves acknowledg a true and proper Sacrifice It must be evidently false in these men to pretend that by Offering in this matter is meant only a presenting of Christ before God and not a real change and destruction of his Body offered by them If in this Exposition of their Doctrine
may be dispensed with and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it prove neither damnable nor dangerous PART III. ARTICLE XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word AS to this Article Vindic. p. 100. there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me so far as We handle the Question and keep to those general terms Of the Traditions being universally received by all Churches and in all Ages for in this Case We of the Church of England are perfectly of the same Opinion with them and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word it self But after all this there is as the Vindicator observes a very material difference betwixt us viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Vniversal He tells us Vind ibid. they rely upon the judgment of the present Church of every Age declaring her sense whether by the most General Council of that Age or by the constant practice and uniform voice of her Pastors and People And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit without presuming to examine how ancient that Tradition does appear to be or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions for these two reasons 1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church is a matter of fact and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church Now where the case is thus the Accounts that are given by these Writers are certainly to those who are able to search into them a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men if the authentick Histories and Records of those times shew it to have been otherwise And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity or Vniversality of Church-Traditions But 2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and to give this Vnwritten Word the upper hand of the Written For according to this Method if the Church in any Age does but decree in Council or does generally Teach and Practice any thing as an ancient Tradition then this must obtain and be of force with all its Members tho' many of them should be perswaded that they cannot find it in nay that it is contrary to the Written Word of God Now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the Holy Scriptures And let them attribute as much as they please to the Decrees and Practices of their Church We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the written Word of God In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God ARTICLE XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church IN the two next Articles Vind. p. 101. concering the Authority of the Church I was willing to allow as much and come up as near to Mons de Meaux as Truth and Reason would permit This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions But these his hopes are soon dasht when he finds me putting in some Exceptions and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine as it is laid down in the Exposition Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him are these 1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular and not the Catholick Church 2. That She should be supposed as such either by Error to have lost or by other means to have prevaricated the Faith even in the necessary points of it 3. That any other Church should be allow'd to examine and judg of the Decisions of that Church 4. That it should be left to private or individual Persons to examine and oppose the Decisions of the whole Church if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word These are the Exceptions at which he is the most offended Vind. p. 103. The 1. of these he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome and to shew the Fallacy of it he thinks it sufficient to say That they do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholick Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Now if this in truth be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholick Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholick as that of Rome it self For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith which is the bond of this Communion this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholick with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocess and so makes it only a particular not the Vniversal Church But now should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of and that it were proper to understand by that name all those other Churches which are in Communion with her yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholick Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the World besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all Ages profess'd just the same Faith and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches which were not of her Communion She could not be looked upon as a Vniversal but only as a Particular Church Now if this be
to pay a Fine than put up Hangings before their houses for the Procession After this 't is more than probable that M. de Meaux will strike out the passage above-mention'd and that men of sense will complain in their minds to be thus eternally wearied with their pretences that the Hugonots have signed the Formulary with all the readiness in the world Always provided that these men of sense be not endow'd with that turn of Wit and Conscience of which we have spoken heretofore pag. 471. above NUM II. An Extract of Father Crasset 's Doctrine concerning the Worship which the Roman Church allows to the Blessed Virgin MOnsieur de Meaux is very much of opinion that Father Crasset has nothing in his Book contrary to the Principles of his Exposition I must transcribe his whole Book would I insist upon every thing in it opposite to this Pretence But I shall content my self for the present to propose only to Monsieur de Meaux some of this Fathers Questions that he may please to tell us whether he be indeed of the same Opinion with the Father in them 'T will be an admirable Vindication of his Exposition and we shall not doubt after that of its being a true Representation of the Doctrine of the Roman Church Question 1. Whether the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin to God for us Page 31. be not only profitable but necessary to our Salvation Resp 1 Pt. trait 1. q. 4. I do not find the Father positive in his assertion here but at least he recounts abundance of their Saints that are so St. Germain St. Anselme St. Bernard the Abbè de Celles St. Antonine and St. Bernardine whose horrid Blasphemies see at large repeated and approved Qu. 2. Whether a tender and constant Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Page 39. be not a mark of Predestination ANSWER This is what we read in all Books hear from all Pulpits There are but few Catholicks but what are of this Opinion and that this Devotion towards the Mother of God is a mark of Salvation the good Father undertakes to prove by the Authority of the Scripture Page 39 40. explain'd by the Fathers and confirmed by Reason Qu. 3. Whether a Christian that is devout towards the Blessed Virgin can be damned Page 54. ANSWER 1. Page 57. The Servants of the Blessed Virgin have an Assurance morally infallible that they shall be saved Qu. 4. Whether God ever refuses any thing to the Blessed Virgin Ibid. ANSWER 1. Page 60 61. The Prayers of a Mother so humble and respectful are esteemed a Command by a Son so sweet and so obedient 2. Being truly our Saviour's Mother as well in Heaven as she was on Earth she still retains a kind of natural Authority over his PERSON over his GOODS and over his OMNIPOTENCE So that as Albertus Magnus says she cannot only intreat him for the Salvation of her Servants but by her MOTHERLY AUTHORITY can COMMAND him and as another expresses it The Power of the Mother and of the Son is all one she being by her Omnipotent Son made HER SELF OMNIPOTENT Qu. 5. What Blessings the Virgin procures for her Servants Page 91. ANSWER 1. Page 92. She preserves them from Error and Heresie if they are in danger to fall into it and recovers them out of it if they are fallen 2. Page 98. She defends and protects them in their Temptations against their Enemy and this not only Men but other Creatures insomuch that a Bird which a young Lady had taught to say his Ave Maria being one day seized by a Hawk whilst he was in his Claws said only his Ave Maria and the Hawk terrified with the Salutation let him go and so he return'd to his Mistress Page 94. 3. She comforts them in their Distresses assists them in their Dangers counsels them in their Doubts Ib. 95. eases them in their Pains animates them in their Combats and finally procures them a good Death To this end 4. She gives them a timely foreknowledge of their Death Ib. 96. that they be not surprised She sends the Angels to assist them in it and sometimes comes her own self in Person Ib. 97. 5. She obtains them the Grace of Repentance if they are in Sin and of Perseverance Page 98. if they be in a State of Grace Qu. 6. Whether the Blessed Virgin has ever fetcht any out of Hell Page 99. ANSWER 1. As to Purgatory 't is certain that the Virgin has brought several Souls from thence as well as refreshed them whilst they were there 2. Page 100. 'T is certain she has fetcht many out of Hell i. e. from a State of Damnation before they were dead 3. The Virgin can and has fetcht men that were dead in mortal Sin out of Hell by restoring them to Life again that they might repent Page 102. which the Father proves at large for the Establishment of our FAITH and of our HOPE Qu. 7. What Honour ought we to render to the Blessed Virgin 2 Part. Pag. 73. ANSWER Pag. 79. We ought to render to her a Religious Honour 2. To honour her Images also with a Religious Honour as sacred things and this the many Miracles done by them do require 3. To build Temples to her Pag. 92. which many grave Authors do assure us was done before her Birth Pag. 99. during her Life and since her Death and Coronation in Heaven Qu. 8. Whether it be good to make Vows and Pilgrimages to the Honour of the Virgin Pag. 138. ANSWER It is good to make Vows and undertake Pilgrimages to the places where she is specially honoured Ibid. The Practice of Devotion towards Her 1. To wear her Scapulary which whoso does Pag. 315. shall not be damned but this Habit shall be for them a Mark of Salvation a Safeguard in Dangers and a Sign of Peace and eternal Alliance They that wear this Habit Pag. 316. shall be moreover delivered out of Purgatory the Saturday after their death 2. To enter into her Congregations Pag. 321. And if any man be minded to save himself 't is impossible for him to find out any more advantageous means than to enrol himself into these Companies Pag. 322. 3. To devote ones self more immediately to Her Service Pag. 339. For which the Father gives several very grave Forms Ib. seq These are some of the Heads of Father Crasset's Book It were infinite to recount his particular Follies with which every Page and Sentence is crouded And however Monsieur de Meaux is pleased at a Venture to espouse all this yet I must still beg leave to believe that he neither approves this Practice nor will receive these Principles And these things not only Monsieur de la B in his Answer but the Author of the Preservative at large alledged against him which being a Book so well known in France and mentioned to Monsieur de Meaux in a particular manner by In his Letter below N. 4. Monsieur Imbert in his Letter to
to state the Case and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say that Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament Or how that which is not the thing it self is yet more than a meer figure of it In answer to which I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alledged out of the publick Acts of our Church to satisfie him See the Church Catechism Our Catechism affirms That the inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST which are VERILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper And the meaning of it our 28th ‖ Article 28. Article expounds thus The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper ONLY AFTER A SPIRITVAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER and the means by which this is done is FAITH So that to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same The Bread which we break is as St. Paul declares it The Communion of the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which we bless The Communion of the Blood of Christ In a word We say that the faithful do really partake of Christs Body after such a manner as those who are void of Faith cannot tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike Whom therefore our Church declares * Article 29. To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be no way partakers of Christ but rather as St. Paul again says to Eat and Drink their own Damnation not discerning the Lords Body *†See the Appendix N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it These are the Words of our Church and the meaning is clearly this Christ is really present in this Sacrament inasmuch as they who worthily receive it have thereby really convey'd to them our Saviour Christ and all the benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs This great effect plainly shews it to be more than a meer Figure yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine †Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office Christ's Body being in Heaven and not on the holy Table and it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance nor is there any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the holy Altar The Presence we allow is Spiritual and that not only as to the manner of the Existence ‖ Vindicat. p. 77 78. which the Vindicator seems to insinuate for we suppose it to be a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body That this Exposition is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of England the Authorities already cited shew See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament part 1. p. 283. c. and the same is the Explication which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it as is evident by the Collation of them made by Bishop Cofins in his History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large p. 6. c. i. e. Corporal but as to the nature of the thing it self and yet it is Real too The Bread which we receive being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of and in which the Faithful by their Faith are made partakers of it Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence and yet †Vindic. p. 80. neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense * Ibid. p. 79. and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with As to the Authorities of their own Writers which I alledged to shew that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had no Grounds neither in Scripture nor Antiquity He is content to allow that the Scriptures are not so plain in this matter but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it Vind. p. 80 81. And for Antiquity he desires us to observe 1st That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon Ibid. p. 82. defined the. true real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation Sess 13. Can. 2. or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it Can. 2. If any one shall say That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholick Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation let him be Anathema The design of the Council in which Canon is evidently this To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentaries which before was done ‖ Can. 1. but also the manner or mode of his Presence against the Lutherans in two Particulars 1st Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine 2ly Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But this the Vindicator will not allow but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council and Doctrine of his Church that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion It is manifest Vindic. p. 83. says he that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion but only to declare the matter viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ becomes truly really and substantially Present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially Present tho the Appearances thereof remain Now this is so evidently false that Suarez doubts not to say 't is HEREST to affirm it Forasmuch says he See Suarez cited below as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Substance of the Bread but also the true Conversion of the one into the other thus establishing not only the two former but this last also as an Article of Faith Our dispute therefore is not only as this Author pretends about the real Presence of Christ's Body Vindic. p. 83. and Absence of the Substance of the Bread which he calls the thing it self but also about the Manner how Jesus Christ is Present viz. Whether it be by that WONDERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTIATION Now
this being that we are to enquire into let us see whether the Authorities I have brought have not the force I pretend against their Tenets And 1. LOMBARD writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time For having first asserted the real Presence in this Sacrament and the change which he supposed was made upon that account He goes on to that which the †Vind. p. 92. Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastick Nicety and it was indeed at that time no other tho since become a matter of Faith Lombard l. 4. d. 11. lit A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa Conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis desinire non sustineo Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is c. viz. What kind of Conversion is there made Whether formal or substantial or what else And for this he tells us freely He is not able to define it That some have thought it to be a SVBSTANTIAL CHANGE but for his part he will not undertake to determine it But 2dly SCOTVS is yet more free ‖ Dicendum says Scotus quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei Si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem vericrem secundum apparentiam Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63. He declares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be the more easie and to all appearance the more true Insomuch that the Churches Authority is the * And before in Sect. Quantum ergo He profess'd Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia In a Word Bellarmine himself cites Scotus for this Opinion Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D. Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine †And again p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus quod minime probandum est Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem He tells us that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very Ancient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran all which the Vindicator himself does in effect confess The same is Vind. p. 88. 3ly affirmed by * Suarez in 3 part D. Th. vol. 3 disp 50. § 1. p. 593. Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem Panis Vini in Corpus Sanguinem Christi Haec assertio est de fide Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scriptura ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri And then p. 594. col 2. adds 1mo Ex hac Fidei Doctrina colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac seu de Transubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos sunt Scotus Gabriel Biel lect 41. in Can. c. And then 2do infero Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi absentiam Panis neget tamen veram Conversionem unius in aliud in HAERESIN labi quia Ecclesia Catholica non solum duo priera sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet SVAREZ of GABRIEL and confess'd by the Vindicator who also contrary to his pretences calls this manner of Conversion an Assertion that is of Faith tho he confesses it is not expresly to be found in Scripture but deduced thence by the Interpretation of the Church Nay so opposite is he to the Opinion and Pretences of this Man that he declares in this very place which our good Author examined but amidst all his sincerity overlook'd this passage as not much for his purpose That if any one should confess the real Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Bread and yet deny the true CONVERSION of the one into the other he would fall into HEREST forasmuch as the Church has defined not only the two former but also the third likewise But 4thly The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable I affirmed That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper Sense of the Words the other might with as good reason have been received This he says is false Vind. p. 86. for that Cajetan says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article And then with wonderful assurance begins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose in the very next Words to those in which mine end For the better clearing of this Doctrine Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In comment circa praesentis sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam pro claritate ampliori intellectu difficultatum sciendum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eucharistiae nihil aliud haberi expresse nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis Hoc est Corpus meum Oportet enim Verba haec vera esse Et quoniam verba sacrae Scripturae exponuntur dupliciter vel Proprie vel Metapherice Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretantium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui hoc Articulo reprobatur Et consistit VIS Reprobationis in HOC Quod verba Domini intellecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio c. Cited by the Vindicator says Cajetan we must know That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist there is nothing to be had expresly from the Authority of the holy Scripture but the words of our Saviour saying This is my Body For it must needs be that these words are true and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways either Properly or Metaphorically the first Error was of those who interpret these words Metaphorically which is rejected in this Article And the force of the Rejection consists in this That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sence by the Church and therefore must be properly true This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by tho' the very next words to those he cites Nay to say That Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appeal to any that should read it for the truth of it Should a Protestant have done this he would I believe have found out a great many hard Names for him to testifie his Zeal against Falshood and