being present in more places than one c. First we affirm them to be no Contradictions A contradiction being an Affirmation and Negation of the same thing in the same time place manner and and all other circumstances but such an Affirmation and Negation are not made of Christs presence in several Hosts See the Guld in Controverly dâ—sc 1. ch 6. § 65 66. seqq And secondly all those who affirm a real Presence as the English Protestants seem to do have the same difficulties to overcome and none but the Sacramentarians who affirm the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be meerly figurative as the King is said to be present in his Picture Coin or Charter are free from them Having thus explicated our Tenets with respect to those of our Adversaries we come now to shew upon what Grounds we believe them SECT 2. Some Reasons for our Doctrin THe Doctrin of the true real §. 72. All the proofs for an Article of Fatith concur for this and substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread is so certainly a revealed Truth that there is scarce any one Article of Christian Faith that Christ seems to have taken so much care to establish as this All the usual Arguments that are brought at any time to confirm us that a Truth has been revealed occur here and by an united Force confirm one another and strengthen our Belief beyond exception If we cast our Eyes into the Old Testament we there find the (a) The Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 The Bread of Proposition Exod â—0 23 1 Sam 31.40 seâ—q The Bread which the Prophet Elias having eaten by the command of an Angel walked in the strength of it sorty days to the Mountain of God Horeb. 3 Reg. 19.6 The Paschal Lamb Exod. 12. The Blood of the Testament Exod. 24.6 Heb. 9.20 Manna Exod. 16. compared with John 6.49 1 Cor. 10.2 If any one doubt whether these were sigures of the Eucharist or noâ— let them read St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerome and the other Autient Fathers cited by Cardinal Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 3. Figures of this Unbloody Sacrifice which must necessarily express something more excellent than themselves If we look into the (b) Isaâ—as 25.6 Zach. 10.17 Malac 1.11 Prophets we find their Prophecies cannot be fulfilled in a Figurative presence If we come to the New Law we find not only an express (c) John 6.51 The Bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world Promise from Christ himself but (d) Matth. 26.26 Marc. 14.22 This is my Body This is my Bloâ—d of the New Testament which shall be shed for many or as the Protestants â—ender it which is shed for many for the remission of sin Luke 22.19 This is my Body which is given i. offered for you from whence the antient Fathers conclude not only the real presence but its presence as a Sacrifice Altho Sense tell the it is Bread yet it is the Body according to his words Let Faith confirm thee judge not by Sense After the words of our Lord let no doubt rise in thy mind Cyril Mystag 4. Of the verity of Fiesh and Blood there is left no place to doubt by the profession of our Lord himself and by our Faith it is Flesh and Blood indeed Is not this true To them be it untrue who deny Jesus Christ to be true God. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit vers 10 This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Blood which Chalice shall be or i. shed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It appeared to Beza so clear that if it was the Cup or Chalice that was shed for us it must contain in it truly the Blood of Christ and be properly a Sacrifice that he could find no evasion but to call it a Soloecism or Incongruity of Speech or else that the words which yet he confesses to be in all Copie Greek and Latin were thrust into the Text out of the Margent See his Annotations upon the New Testament 1556. Three Evangelists and (e) 1 Cor. 10.6.11.24 St. Paul relating the Institute in such words that many of our Adversaries themselves confess that if they must be taken literally we have gained our Cause If we look into Antiquity and the Writings of the (f) See Nubes Testâ—um from pag. 99. to 150. Conseusus veterum And the many other Books formerly writtes upon this Subject as Gualters Cronology Coâ—cii Thesaurus c. In which you may see a Collection of the plain Testimony of Fathers and eminent Writers in every Age from the Apostles time to our Ages not only concerning this Article of Transubstantiation but most others now in Controversy Primitive Fathers of the first 600 Years we find the manifest (g) All the antient Liturgies are a sufficient Testimony of this in which as Blondel himself tho a Hugonot confesses the Prayer in the Consecration of the Elements was to this purpose That God trould by his Holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. The Adoration also which was payd to our Blessed Saviour there present shews their Belief See St. Ambr. de spir lib. 3. c. 12. and St. Aug. in ps 98.5 who upon these words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus tels us that Christ has given his Flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation Now no man eats this except he first Adore it And moreover says he we do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it See Considerations upon the Council of Trens chap. 16. §. 32. Digress §. 20. c. Also Protestant Apolegy Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 2. Practice of this belief If into the later Ages we find for above (h) This has been sufficiently shewn by the aforesaid Authors and Monsieur Arnold in his Perpetuite de la foy and the Plain concession of Protestants as may be seen in the Protestant Apology 1000 Years such an Uniformity amongst all Christians that scarce one person who deserved the name of Pastor that is scarce one Bishop either in the (i) As to the consent of the Greek and Latins see the Guide in Controversy disc 3. ch â— Greek or Latin Church but embraced it There is scarce any Nation in the World in which a Synod has been held since this last 600 Years that is since Berengarius begun to broach the contrary Error but has declared their constant belief of Transubstantiation And the most (k) Guide in Controversy dise 1. ch 6. §. 57. general Councils that those Ages could afford have confirmed it by their Definitions and condemned the contrary Opinions with their Anathema's So that if Councils both national and General have any Authority if the consent
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.
the manner for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction Defence pag 61. that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal but as to the nature of the thing it self but yet it is real too A Jargon What kind of Jargon is this and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions Christ is really present §. 69. Pag. 60. line 32. says the Defender in the Sacrament in as much as they who worthily receive it have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs and therefore it is more than a meer Figure One would think this enough Oh but his Body is not there How is Christ there and not his Body Yes his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine there is no corporeal Presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood Rulric at the end of the Communion Office. for his Body is only in Heaven and it is against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one How is it then that he is there will you acknowledge Casâ—â—b Epist ad â—â—rd Pâ—â—en with King James the First that you believe a Presence no less true and real than Catholics do only you are ignorant of the manner If so tell us and recal what you have said that it is a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of No this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics And further the late Church Rubric whose Fate has been so various and the * I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever and that the Sacrifice of the Mass as it is now used in the Church of Rome is Superstitious and Idolatrous 30 Car. 2. Test The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the first time contradict the Religion professed in that Kings days for now at least you know by a new Revelator that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments and make them swear and subscribe to it under such forfeitures and penalties This is the Doctrin we are invited to believe which how inconsistent it is with it self appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative Let us now see what is the Doctrin of Roman Catholics The Council of (a) Sess 13. c. 4. Trent tels us §. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrin that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread therefore it was always believed in the Church of God and this Holy Synod does now again declare it that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion or change of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation And the same (b) Ib. can 1. Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly really and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Vertue Thus we believe a true real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament that is of his Body and Blood Soul and Divinity The Lutherans agree with us in it but will have Bread to remain too which we deny And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same but will have the presence to be Spiritual by which as I told them if they intend only that Christs presence is not there after a natural circumscribed corporeal extensive manner we admit of it but if they mean by this spiritual manner that Christ who is both God and Man is not truly really essentially substantially present we deny it They who affirm §. 71. Three manners of a Real presence as we do that Christs Body is really present in the Sacrament Propose several ways by which they think it may be done all which may be reduced to Three First that his Body may be present together with the Bread as Fire is together with Iron when red hot Water with Ashes c. Secondly present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread is also the true Body of Christ Or Thirdly that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there the Substance of Bread ceasing to be As to the first the words of the Institute are against it For if Christ had rendred his Body present after that manner he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum but Hîc est corpus meum Here is my Body The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholy impossible as implying a manisest Contradiction that it should be Bread and not Bread the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ The third is the true Catholic Doctrin and is called by the Church Transubstantiation that is a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood as I have mentioned from the Council And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament Now this existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is not after a natural corporeal extensive manner because it is neither visible nor palpable But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament We have Examples of this from Holy Writ For if we doubt not but that he could free his Body from being visible palpable and heavy and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mothers Womb without breach of her Virginity and through the Doors when shut can we doubt his Power in rendring it present without local extension or the other qualifications of a common natural Body And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses when he tels us that the Body is sown a corruptible Body and is raised a spiritual Body As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies
the Defender need not fear that St. Chrysostom should lose his credit amongst us or that we shall henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation since we cannot any longer suppress his Doctrin No no neither he nor Theodoret were against the Doctrin of the Real and Substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament tho' our Adversaries by all their Arts endeavor to draw one obscure passage out of either of them as favoring their opinion As for St. Chrysostom I must tell the Defender with Bigotius Integrum librum conficerem si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem in quibus de Sacratissima Eucharèstia similiter loquitur sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit eos in fonte legisse that should I extract all the places out of his works in which he uses the like plain expressions of the Real presence it would make a Book by it self They who desire farther satisfaction may go to the Fountain it self and if they will but spend some sew hours in a Library and there Read entirely and not by parcels his 83 Hom. in Mattb. his 21 Hom. in Act. and his 24 in 1 Cor. they will there find how contrary St. Chrysostoms opinion is to what the Defender would make us believe (a) Expost Doctr. Ch. of Eng. p. 56. His next Argument is from the Schoolmen §. 84. Argument from Schoolmen who as he says and cites these Authors in the (b) Lomb. 4. dist 10. Scotus 4. dist 2. qu. 11. Margent for it confess that there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation (c) Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 13. ss secundo dicit where he cites many others of the same opinion That there is not any that withot the Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it (d) Cajeta◠in 3. D. Th. qu. 75. Art. 1. That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words the other might with as good warrant have been received (e) See Scotus cited by Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Vnum tamen See also Gabricl cited by Suarez T. 3. disp 50. Sect. 1. So Lembard l. 4. sent dist 11. lit A. And that this Doctrin was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 Years after Christ and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day In answer to this Argument I told him first Vindi◠pag. 80. that if the Schoolmen used those Expressions that There was no formal proof in Scripture for Transubstantiation which could evince it without the Declaration of the Church it is but what they also affirm as to the Trinity and consubstantiality of the Son nay even as to all the Principal Articles of our Faith and as to the Scriptures themselves their being the word of God all which stood in need of the Churches Declaration to make them clear and convincing either to obstinate Heretics who were always ready to drop Texts of Scripture or to Atheistical persons who would rely upon nothing but Sense and Reason Secondly Ibid. pag. 82 83. I desired him to state the Question right and to distinguish betwixt the Doctrin of the Church and the Doctrin of the Schools I told him the Doctrin of the Church was contained in the Canons of the Council of Trent which Anathematised all those who should say that the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Sess 13. can 2. together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or should deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood the species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation But I told him that the Schoolmen tho' they all agreed as to the matter yet might have had several opinions concerning several possible manners of explicating Transubstantiation all which opinions as they were not of necessary belief so were they not to enter as a part of our Dispute with Protestants And upon this account I told him Lastly that he mistook the meaning of our Authors who when they spoke of the matter that is of the real and substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and absence of Bread which is made by that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of one into the other called by the Church Transubstantiation they were all at perfect agreement asserting it as a matter of Faith always believed in the Church tho' more explicitely declared in the Council of Lateran and other succeeding Councils upon account of the opposition made by Berengarius and his Followers But that as to the manner of explicating this Transubstantiation as whether it were by Production or Adduction or Annihilation Lombard says Cum haec verba proferuntur conversto fit Panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi Lomb. in 4. dist 8. li◠C. He also in his 10 dist shews it to have been an Herosy in his time not to have believed that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of ids Body and Blood. Tho' in the 11 dist he consesses he knows isot the manner how this conversion is made See the Vindic. pag. 91. the disputes that might arise amongst them regarded not our Faith which only tels us there is a true and real Conversion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which Conversion the Church calls Transubstantiation The Reply our Defender makes to this §. 85. A mistake of the Vindicators sense Defence pag. 62. seqq is ushered in with a Mistake grounded perhaps upon my not so cautiously wording a sentence which if taken alone might bear the sense he draws it to tho' if one regard what went before and followed after it cannot reasonably be wrested to it a Mistake I say affirming me to have advanced an Exposition quite contrary to the Doctrin of our Church and design of the Council of Trent which did not only define the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentarians but also the Manner or Mode as he calls it of his presence in the Sacrament against the Lutherans in two particulars 1. Of the absence of the substance of Bread and Wine 2. Of the Conversion of their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But I assure him it was never my intention to deny the Doctrin of a true Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ but only to affirm that the manner how that Conversion is made was controverted in the Schools and therefore what he brings against this mistake of
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
I must tell him the Mareschal has more then once expressed the just esteem he had for that Book as for that which first opened his Eyes and gave him satisfaction and did frequently recommend it to others assuring them that if they considered it with diligence it would work the same effect in them If the Defender doubt of the truth of this the Right Honorable the Lord John Bellassise His Majesties Commissioner for the Treasury will assure him that he had it from his own mouth In the Body of the Book he runs through all the Points mentioned by the Bishop §. 10. The Controversie betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender still laying such Doctrins to our charge and backing them with such weak Reasons and falsified Authorities that I thought it my Duty as having Published the Bishops Exposition in our English Tongue to detect the fallacies and lay open the falsifications this I did in my Vindication shewing him upon all occasions that what he opposed as our Doctrin either was not at all our Doctrin and the Authorities he brought to back his Assertion falsified or misunderstood or else if it was the Doctrin of some particulars yet was it neither universally nor necessarily embraced by the Church and therefore not esteemed by us as of Catholic Faith. To this he has made a Reply in his Defence of the Doctrin of the Church of England In which they who Examin nothing but the bold Assertions of an Author will think that he had much the better of it and that the Vindicators Arguments were but silly and that the falsifications c. lay at his own Door But they who will either take the pains to examin matters throughly or Read this following Reply without prejudice will I hope see the matter cleared and that notwithstanding all our Defenders pretences he has not so much as vindicated one of his falsifications nor brought any one Argument but which is merely a fallacy against our Doctrin I shall not go about to prevent the Reader by running through the whole §. 11. The state of the Controversie in particulars but it will not be amiss to shew him wherein the chiefest difficulties of our Controversies ly that he may pass over when he Reads any of our Adversaries Books of which there is so great a glut what do's not make against us tho' it be never so plausible or pleasing for I dare be bold to say that if our Adversaries would but take care of this and write against nothing but what is truly our Doctrins our Controversie would be quickly at an end and all the large Volums that are now Written would dwindle into single sheets How do some People labor to prove §. 12. Honor due to Saints that we Adore Men and Women Stocks and Stones in the utmost propriety of the phrase and shew a great deal of Reading and an excess of Zeal in speaking against Idolatry and Superstition whereas it is no where to be found but in their false accusations For we assure them that we Adore none but God in the utmost propriety of the phrase We honor but adore them not but if you take Adore for Honor in an Inferior Degree we acknowledge that the Saints and Angels may be honored with such an Inferior honor nay all animated Creatures whatever according to their Dignity If you deny it to be lawful to give this Inferior honor to the Saints prove it and you write against us otherwise all your labor is but spent in vain As to Images we say that what we call Veneration for them is no other than an honor pay'd §. 13. Images where we truly owe it to those for whose sake we use such things otherwise then common things We have a Veneration for Images as for Sacred Utensils Dedicated to God and the Churches Service and that too in a less Degree than for our Chalices c. every one being permitted to handle an Image or a Crucifix but not those Vessels which have been rendred venerable by touching the Sacrament of the most pretious Body and Blood of our Redeemer We look upon them as proper Ornaments for a Sacred place as beneficial for the instruction of the ignorant and helps to keep our Minds from wandring or our Affections from being cooled In presence of them we pay our respect to the persons whom they Represent Honor to whom Honor Adoration to whom Adoration but not to the Images themselves which can Challenge nothing of that nature from us because as St. Thomas says inanimate Creatures are not capable of any honor If you dislike this produce your Arguments and you shall be heard But run not to any hard expressions of the Schools as of Absolute and Relative Latria c. if you be Sons of Peace all which tho' they may be perhaps defended in the Sense meant by them yet ought not to be the Subject of our present Controversie which should be only upon those Points which are universally and necessarily received Our positive Answer therefore to the (a) Pref. pag. 20. Defenders Question abstracting from the School Language which he calls Gibberish and containing our selves in the necessary Doctrin and Language of the Church in her Councils is that the (b) See this proved at large by Estius from the seventh General Council lib. 3. dist 9. ◠3.4 Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross is upon no account whatsoever to be Worshipped with Divine Worship That Worship being only due to God. I say however these expressions of the Schools may be easily defended when they explicate their own Sense if we consider also what they acknowledge to be necessary Articles of our Faith. Thus in this particular our necessary Doctrin is that God alone is to be Adored with Divine Worship This all persons consent to When therefore Scholastics speak of Adoration given to Images their expressions are to be interpreted so that they shock not this their first Principle They tell you indeed of a Relative Adoration but when they explicate what they mean by it it is no more than what our Defender himself must Practise for certainly when he makes an Act of Adoration to God or Jesus Christ he Forms an Idea or Image in his Mind for he will not I suppose say he has at those times the Beatifical Vision but that Image tho' it be only a faint Representative yet is in it's Representative nature one with the Object which it Represents and the Adoration which he pays to God he pays to him as Represented by that Image without making at all times a reflection of the difference betwixt that Image and the Object that it Represents and that Homage which he there pays is Divine Adoration not Absolute to the Idea or Image but Relative in Presence of the Idea to the Object which it Represents And thus say they we may Adore Jesus Christ in Presence of a Material Image neither is there any other
creditur Aug. lib. 4. de Baptis cenntra Donatistas c. 24. Tom. 7. pag. 433. A. St. Augustin's Rule we must necessarily conclude it to have come from the Apostles They who would establish a beginning of the use of Holy Water tell us that (b) Aquam enim sale conspersam populis benâ—dicimus ut ea cuncti aspersi sanctisicentur ac purificentur quod omnibus Sacerdotibus faciendum esse mandamus Ep. 1. decret Extat To. 1. Concil pag. 68. n. 5. C. Binn Alexander the First Bishop of Rome who lived you must know Anno 121. so near the Apostles commanded it to be practised But they who read his first Epistle will find that he did not command it as a new thing but as the antient Practice unless they will have him to have instituted the Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ and healing of the Sick which he there also seriously advises the Priests to celebrate often and devoutly Now if this be Incantation with him he may please to learn that the Aqua benedicta as Baronius tells us dissolves all Incantations and Magic frauds rather than introduces them being famed for sundry Miracles which God hath pleased to work thereby in several Ages witness Epiphanius S. Hierom in the Life of S. Hilarion Theodoret and others And as for Incense which is a Testimony of the (c) Omnes de Saeba venient Aurum Thus deferentes Esa 60.6 Muth 2.11 Adoration which is due to God of the fervor with which our (d) Dirigatur Oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo Ps 14.2 Prayers ought to ascend to him and of the good (e) Christi bonus odor sumus Deo. 2 Cor. 2.15 Life we ought to lead I suppose he will not defie * S. Dion Areop Eccles Hier. c. 4. pag. 281. A. S. Ambros in cap. 1. Lâ—e St. Dionysius the Areopagite nor St. Ambrose nor other Antient Fathers who upon occasion make mention of it nor condemn them and us of foul Idolatry or Wichcraft e. Incantation for the use of it Neither can he I hope condemn the solemn use of these Creatures in this particular For what doth the Church intend thereby but by the Water to shew the Purity and Holiness of that Sacred Utensil as it relates to our Blessed Redeemer the Lamb of God offered upon the Altar of the Cross And what by the Incense but the precious sweetness of that Mystery as I may call it the Church being willing to express her Devotion to her ever-blessed Redeemer by such Testimonies And he who likes them not 't is feared would not have liked the Penitent Magdalen's Spikenard poured out on the Feet of her Lord. Neither can any man of the Church of England reasonably question the uses of these things which were in practice even in the Jewish Synagogue seeing the wisdom of the Church has beyond all exception thought fit to retain several of their solemn usages Sacrifices and Sabbaths being excepted Well but it may be that in the very Prayers this foul and notorious Idolatry is couched Certainly he dare not affirm that seeing they are immediately addressed to God himself to beg of him a Blessing upon that Creature and that he would impart the same Benediction to this Cross that he did to that upon which he suffered and grant that they who pray and bow down before this Cross PROPTER DEVM in honor of him who suffered upon it may so call to mind his Passion that they may find health both of Soul and Body through the same JESVS CHRIST c. Oh but after this Benediction the Bishop and as many as will of those that are present kneel down and devoutly ADORE it and kiss it Here I suppose is the foul and notorious Idolatry But let him consider their Intention Is not all this as well as the other PROPTER DEVM FOR GODS SAKE 1. Is it foul and notorious Idolatry to kneel down before a Cross or kiss it in honor of that God and Man who suffered on it for our Salvation 2. Or is it Idolatry to adore the Saviour of the world in presence of the Cross if we speak in a more proper sense and according to the Ecclesiastical style 3. Or lastly can he call it Idolatry to adore that is venerate unless he will always fix an univocal sense to an equivocal word that which represents unto us the Blessed Author and mysterious manner of our Redemption This would certainly render us Enemies of the Cross of Christ and condemn them who kiss the Bible or kneel to their Parents or God's vicegerents upon Earth much more those of the Church of England who Adore God before the Altar in their Public Devotions and Communions But he has one Question yet to ask of M. de Meaux and that is If the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign to what end is all this Consecration so many Prayers shall I say or rather magical Incantations and how comes it to pass that a Cross without all this ado is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross as after all this Superstition not to say any worse in the dedication of it Pray Good Sir call to mind what you so much pretend to be a Scholar and a Christian As a Scholar change a little your Medium and see whether your Argument will not fall as heavy upon your selves as upon us And as a Christian remember that you must answer for every Idle word much more for every abusive term or scurrilous misrepresentation of another Do not you your selves use to set apart some Persons Things or Places to the Service of Almighty God which were of themselves after a sort proper for that purpose without such a busy Ceremony and would not you if a Dissenter observing your Ceremonies in Consecrating a Church or a Bishop should tell you that what you do is Superstition or magical Incantation would not you I say esteem such expressions little less than Blasphemy and look upon such accusers as Ignorant and Malicious not knowing what they say or of what they affirm If a Quaker I say should ask you what need of so many Prayers and Formalities to bless a place for the Burial of the Dead as if any Piece of Ground were not proper enough for that without such Superstition â—hould he call your Cross in Baptism your Ring in Marriage and your other Formalities magical Incantations I doubt not but you would bless your self from his Ignorance And yet all this which you condemn in others who oppose you you applaud in your selves when you would render us odious Turn then the Argument upon your self and retract this unchristian Censure and grant that tho'a cross Barr in a Window or a Turn-stile may put us in mind of the Instrument of our Redemption yet the Figure of the Cross may be justly set apart in order to bring those pious Thoughts to
weigh the reasons which move us to continue in the one and the Arguments he brings to make us quit it and walk in the other To effect this let us divide this Article into three Sections In the first of which I will shew what is the Doctrin which we maintain and what our opposers hold in the second I will endeavour according to my Ability to hint at some of the many reasons why we persevere in that Doctrin and in the last I intend to examin his Objections and shew the Fallacies of his Arguments SECT 1. Our and our Adversaries Tenets WHen we speak of Jesus Christ §. 64. Christ must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament we speak of one who is both God and Man and when we speak of his Presence in a place we must either speak of the presence of his Manhood together with his Divinity by a real substantial presence or we must speak of his presence in a figurative manner seeing there cannot possibly be a Medium For either Christ who is God and Man is there body and Soul and Divinity or he is not there If then he be present in the blessed Sacrament he must be either really present which cannot be unless his Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity be there really and substantially or he must be there only morally or figuratively as signified by the exterior Signs of Bread and Wine and by them bestowing upon us the benefits which he purchased for us by taking our Natures on him Now Jesus Christ may be really §. 65. He may be really present after different manners essentially and Substantially present in a place after different manners For he rendred himself sometimes visible and palpable and sometimes not yet was his Body essentially the same when he was invisible and not to be felt as when otherwise His body was sown a Corruptible Body but is now raised a Spiritual Body yet is this Spiritual Body essentially and substantially the same with that which was once corruptible tho' it was never to see Corruption All Persons §. 66. All agree that Christ is morally present in the Sacrament Catholics and Lutherans that he is really present but not after a natural manner both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that Jesus Christ is morally or figuratively present in the Sacrament that is that the outward elements signify his Body and Blood that a lively Faith apprehends him there present and that he bestows upon the worthy Communicants the Graces purchased for us by his becoming Man and dying upon the Cross But Catholics and Lutherans agree further in this that Jesus Christ that is God and Man Flesh and Blood Soul and Divinity is not only morally there but also truly really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament tho' they both of them deny him to be there circumscriptivè as the Schools call it that is in his Natural Body after a natural manner with respect to place Their chief difference consists in this that the Lutherans will have him to be so present that Bread is also present with him which Catholics deny and tho' they pretend to submit their Faith to the acknowledgment of his real presence which they do not see yet will they follow Sense so far as to judge because they see the appearance of Bread to remain that is is really Bread also when the Substance of Bread is as invisible The Zuinglians c. say he is only figuratively there as that of the Body of Christ The Zuinglians Socinians c. admit nothing at all of real here The presence which they speak of is only figurative signified by the Bread and Wine so that as they see the Bread broken eaten c. and the Wine poured out c. so ought they to call to mind that Christ's Body was Crucified and torn c. for us which whil'st they reflect upon and receive they are by Faith or a strong Fancy made partakers as they think of the Benefits of that his Death and Passion the Blessings which the offering of his Body may procure But Calvin perceiving that if he said no more §. 67. Calvin would find a midle way he should find it an insuperable Task to answer all the plain expressions from Scripture and Fathers would seek a midle way where there can be none and therefore no wonder if he fell into such a contradiction as is that of a real presence and no real presence Sometimes he (a) Calv. Consinsus cum Pastoribus Tigurinis In sine affirms Christs Body to be only in Heaven and (b) Vere in Caena datur nobis corpus Christi ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem hoc est substantia Corporis Christi pascuntur animae nostrae ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo Calv. in cap. 26. Matth. sometimes to be truly in the Sacrament Sometimes (c) Porro de modo st quis me interroget faieri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vgel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat Id. lib. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 32. Telling us that it is a Mystery that we cannot comprehend much less explicate that Christs Flesh and Blood should come to us from such a distance and be our Food and (d) Interins vero hanc non aliam esse quam fidei manducationem fatemur ut nulla alia fingi potest Id. ibid. §. 5. at other times telling us that this Manducation is only by Faith and the like Absurdities and Contradictions some of which may be seen in Cardinal Bellarmin Lib. 1. de Euchar. Sacram. cap. 1. This Doctrin of Calvin being the most agreeable to the Polititians in King Edwards Reign and to Queen Elizabeth's Interest §. 68. Agreeable to our English Polititians who were desirous to accommodate a Religion to all parties and Factions no wonder if they embraced it And therefore lest Catholics or Lutherans should have any just cause to renounce their Communion for want of a Real presence their Catechism tels us the Inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechisim which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper But lest if this should be understood plainly as the words import the Sacramentarians should be against them therefore their 28 Article has taken care of them too and tels 'um that the Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner and the means by which this is done is Faith. But then again if this Article be a Faithful Comment upon their Catechism how shall the Primitive Fathers be answered and what will the Calvinists say To have an evasion therefore and to gain them this presence must be sometimes called a real presence and sometimes only a spiritual A spiritual Presence not only as to
of all Churches for a 1000 Years have any weight If the clear Writings of antient Fathers long before our Contest have any force if Scripture it self both old and new when thus interpreted be of any moment we must necessarily conclude that Jesus Christ gave his Disciples truly really and substantially his Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Had we not such clear proofs from Antiquity yet certainly the Consent of the much major and superior part of Christians for this last 600 Years would be sufficient to any reasonable mind who would but consider that if it had not been taught by Jesus Christ those persons who introduced it and those who followed them would have been guilty of Idolatry as the Test and some Protestants now accuse us to be and by consequence the whole Church which taught and practised it during that time would have erred in Fundamentals and taught a damnable Doctrin destructive of Salvation contrary to the Promise of Jesus Christ that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her But when we find that the Council of Lateran and those others in Berengarius's time were so far from pretending that they introduced a new Doctrin excogitated by themselves or invented by some of their learned Predecessors that they freely and fully declared that it had been delivered to them as a Doctrin taught by Christ and his Apostles that their predecessors in their several respective Countries had taught them the same and practised it that all their Historians and antient Writers had confirmed it when we consider also how impossible it is that if the figurative presence had been once the established Doctrin of the Church the Doctrin of the real presence could have gained such credit that all Christians in all Countries should consent to it and commit manifest Idolatry wilfully against their former belief no one of the Many Learned Pious and Couragious Bishops who were vigilant in opposing the smallest growing Errors ever speaking of this as an erroneous Doctrin or as a novelty I say when we consider all these things which have been so fully and so often proved that nothing but Impudence can deny them how can we have the least Difficulty in believing this Doctrin to be that of Jesus Christ or his words not to be literally true Thus much for our Grounds I come now to shew the weakness of my Opponents Arguments against them and our Doctrin SECT 3. Objections answered BEfore I begin to answer my Adversaries Objections §. 73. I must desire my Reader to consider that Catholics are in Possession of this Belief of the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and that Protestants who would throw us out of Possession are the aggressors Now as a Possessor of an estate time out of mind is not condemned if he proceed upon a supposition that the Deed of gift by which his Ancestors first possessed that estate was good In like manner must it be with us We believe that Jesus Christ pronouncing those words This is my Body Catholics being in Possession are the Defenders Protestants the Aggressors changed the Bread into his Body we received this belief from our predecessors and they from theirs we therefore who are in Possession and are to defend our right cannot be condemned if we suppose our Belief to be true But as on the other hand an Aggressor is not to be heard if he only suppose the Deed of gift to be void and argue from thence that the Possession is unlawful So ought it also to be with them who oppose us If they only suppose our Blessed Savior did not change the Bread into his Body by those words this is my Body and argue merely upon that supposition they ought not to be heard They are to prove he did not make that change Protestants must therefore bring clear and undeniable proofs against our Possession and not only to suppose it They are to prove his words cannot possibly be taken in a literal Sense and not only that they may be taken figuratively They are to prove that we are obliged to take the words in a figurative sense and not only to shew they they may lead us to it Our Possession is a manifest proof against their supposition and we need no more This being considered let us now weigh my Adversaries Arguments Arguments from Scripture answered And first those from Scripture His first Argument is reduced by himself to this Syllogism If the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body §. 74. First objection From the words of the Institute then it must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That Proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or t is plainly absurd and Impossible The Major or first Proposition he tels us is our common Concession In answer to which I say Answered If he understand the Major in Luthers sense as Bellarmin and Gratian do whom he cites for it that is that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body should so signify Bread that the meaning of it is This truly wheaten Bread remaining such is also truly the Body of Christ I grant it for as I told him before from the Cardinal it implies a contradiction for it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another because it would be that thing and not that thing But if he mean by his Major that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body has such a reference to Bread that the meaning is This Bread is my Body that is this substance of Bread which I take in my hands I do by these words change into the substance of my Body I deny it neither is it our common Concession for in that sense it is neither an absurdity nor impossibility to understand the Proposition literally So that you see Luther will have no change and will yet have the words to be understood literally and we call that an absurdity Catholics admit of a change and so understand them literally which is far from being either impossible or absurd We argue that the Proposition in Luthers sense admitting of no change is false absurd and impossible unless it be taken figuratively But in our own fense admitting a change is true and genuine and need not be taken figuratively His Minor or second Proposition he tels us is Bellarmins own grant nay what he contends for Is this Learned Cardinal then so great a Blockhead as to maintain that the words ought to be taken literally and yet at the same time to
of Judicature that gave Sentence against him still inventing new Cavils and pretending that X. * This is the Defenders answer to the parallel case I brought him from our Blessed Saviour's turning Water into Wine by these or the like words This is Wine the weakness of which put off will appear from what I premised as a consideration at the beginning of this Section begs the Question supposing there was a change of Dominion made by those words This is your estate and that his Predecessors understood it so but that for his part he supposes the Contrary and he can find some persons even in the first ages that said the estate of A. did resemble the estate of B. And he does not see but that his supposition is of as much weight as that of X's and his interpretation as sound and seeing all Courts of Judicature are fallible and those words of A. are the rule he must go by seeing he cannot perswade himself the words ought to be taken any otherwise than figuratively he will not acquiesce to any Court Would not any one think that such an obstinate Sophister as this ought to be thrown out of Court and forbid ever to put in his claim to disturb it This is truly our case I leave the Defender to make the application and the Reader to judge whether obstinacy in Religion be not a greater crime than in Law and whether a Supreme Court of Ecclesiastical Judicature has not more reason to pronounce an Anathema against those who disturb the setled peace of the Church by opposing her received Doctrins than a High Court of Justice to condemn a litigious person as a common Barreter Thus much to his first Argument It seems I committed a fault before §. 76. Second Objection From the practice of the Jews Defence pag. 54. in not taking notice of our Authors second Argument drawn as he pretends from our Saviours intention An Argument which he tels us has been urged chiefly since Bellarmins time and therefore I had nothing to say to it a great sign of its force and Antiquity An Argument used by the Jews against Christians and therefore fit to be taken up by our new Reformers Expos Doctrin Church of England pag. 50. Let us now therefore see it As in the Jewish Passover says he the Master of the house took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt Ibid. pag. 49. so in the Holy Sacrament our Saviour after the same manner took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is broken for you do this in remembrance of me But as it is evident that that Bread which the Jews every year took and Brake and said This is the Bread of Affliction c. was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there but was design'd only to be the Type or Figure of it So neither could our Saviours Disciples to whom he spake and who as Jews had so long been acquainted with that Phrase ever believe that the Bread which he held in his hands which he Brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you c. was the very actual real Body of Christ Therefore they understood it to be a Type or Figure of that Body which was about to be broken for them In answer to this I say First If not only the Bread but the Paschal Lamb it self was a Type and Figure of this Sacrament and Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedec this being Instituted as our Author confesses for the like end which the Passover had been and now for ever to succeed in its place Expes pag. 49. certainly the thing Figured ought to be more perfect than the Figure the Substance than the Shadow But if the Perfection of the Substance consisted only in signifying our Blessed Saviours sufferings certainly that Bread of affliction was as Perfect a Type as this and the Paschal Lamb a much more Perfect Figure of his Passion Secondly All the whole Argument you see runs upon a supposition that our Blessed Lord spoke figuratively because the Master of the Feast in the Passover did so which is as unconclusive an Argument as if in my last Example h. should argue thus the Predecessors of A. when they shewed the Map of their Estate were wont to say This is my Estate therefore when A. said to B this is your estate he gave him only the Map and not the Estate it self Thirdly Expes pag. 50. I cannot but admire that our Defender should think the Bishop of Meaux obliged to make less exceptions against this Argument because it was the Original remark of the very Jews themselves long before the Reformation You will not send us sure to the Jews to know whether our Blessed Saviour was the true Messias or no and will you send us to them to know whether he gave his Body and Blood to his Disciples in the Sacrament They Crucified the Lord of life as a Malefactor and must they be believed in the highest Mysteries of our Religion No wonder if they who esteemed him to be mere Man should esteem his Blessed Sacrament to be more Bread. Lastly You tell us the Master of the Feast took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which your Fathers eat in Egypt From whence have you this for I find it not in Scripture T is true we find Deut. 16.3 that God commanded the Jews to eat for seven days the Bread of Affliction without leaven to the end they might remember that it was with fear and trembling that they went out of Egypt But was it not true Bread they there eat and why shall we not then believe it is the true Body of Christ tho' we eat it in remembrance of his bitter Passion I need not take notice of his other insignificant Arguments drawn from Scripture §. 77. Third Objection From its being called Bread after Consecration as that the Apostle cals the Sacrament Bread even after Consecration that to break Bread was the usual Phrase in the Time of the Apostles for receiving the Holy Communion Every common Catholick can tell him that Eve was called Bone of Adams Bone Moyses his Rod Expos Doct. Ch. Eng pag. 50. 1 Cor. 10.16 c. 11.26 Act. 2.46 c. when changed into a Serpent was still called a Rod The Wine at the Marriage in Cana was called Water the Blind are said to see and the Lame to walk He has also been often told that the Scripture usually speaks according to the appearance of things and therefore as it called the Angels Men because they appeared like Men c. so does it call the Eucharist Bread because it has the outward Appearance of Bread. Moreover by Bread in the Jewish language was usually understood any
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
this Worship did as he says many things utterly inconsistent with it as Burning in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament permitting the People to carry it home that had communicated sending it abroad by Sea and Land without any regard that we can find had to its Worship burying it with their Dead making Plaisters of the Bread mixing the Wine with their Ink which certainly says he are no instances of Adoration Before I begin to Answer this Objection §. 92. I must beg leave to shew our Belief in this matter and the Grounds we go upon First we believe It is lawful to Adore God and Christ wherever they are whoever acknowledges Jesus Christ to be God and Man may lawfully Adore him wherever he has a Rational ground to believe him to be present yet is he not at all times obliged to pay this actual Adoration because otherwise the Apostles must have done nothing else but Adore when ever they were in the presence of their Lord. Secondly the Grounds of our Belief that our Blessed Saviour is really Present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are undoubtedly Rational as I think I have sufficiently shewn and therefore all those who believe him Present may lawfully Adore him there We cannot always pay this actual adoration tho' they are not always Obliged actually to pay that Adoration otherwise they must do nothing in presence of the Sacrament but Adore Him. Thirdly It is worthy our Remark that the words Sacrament Host or Eucharist are sometimes taken for Christ alone sometimes for the Species alone VVe adore Christ in the Sacrament not what is sensible and sometimes for both Christ and the Species but when we speak properly of Adoring the Sacrament we speak only of Adoring Christ in the Sacrament For we do not adore what is Visible Tangible or any ways Sensible in the Sacrament but only Christ Jesus whom we believe to be under those Visible Tangible and Sensible Elements Lastly The Church being confirmed in this Belief has Authority as occasion serves to command the payment of this Adoration which is Due at all times and to set apart some solemn Festivals or Ceremonial Rites to invite her Children to perform this Duty These Considerations being premised I deny his Antecedent §. 93. and to his Proofs I answer To the first I say the Scriptures silence is no more an Argument against us in this I. The Scriptures silence no Argument against a perpetual practice than it is against the Adoration of our Lord when present in the flesh for tho' we find there a Command of going to Christ and following him yet will he scarce find an express place in the Gospels where Christ commands his Disciples to Adore him This Adoration depending wholly on his being God it was sufficient that he convinced them of his Divinity and we being thus convinced by his own words that he is present in the Sacrament we are obliged to adore him there And if St. Paul did not Argue as our Defender would have had him yet does he do it with no less force and Energy It was sufficient to tell them it was the Body and Blood of Christ that to receive it was an Annunciation of his Death that they who received it unworthily were guilty of the Body and Blood of their Lord that they cat and drunk their own Condemnation not Discerning the Lords Body That therefore there were many sick and weak amongst them and many died These as they were sufficient Arguments to perswade them not to profane the Sacrament so were they sufficient Arguments to convince them and us of the Obligation to Adore him Present in it tho' St. Paul did not put them in mind of that Necessary consequence To the Second §. c 4. II. The Church condemns arising Herefies by Her practice It has always been the custom of the Church to condemn Heresies by her Practice as well as her Anathema's commanding the Glory be to the Father c. to be said or sung after every Psalm in opposition to the Arian Error and the Feast of the Blessed Trinity to condemn the Antitrinitarians c. no wonder therefore if when this pernicious Heresy of the Sacramentarians begun Atque sic quidem operâ—uit victrâ—cem reâ— itatem de mendacio heresi triumphum agere ut ejus adversarts in conspectu tanti splendoris in tanta untversae Ecclesiae laetitia positi vel debilitati fracti tabescant vel pudore affecti confusi allquendo resipiscant Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. she testified her Adorations by new practices and solemnities Tho' therefore the Feast of Corpus Christi the Exposition the Elevation c. May not be very Antient yet was it no new thing to Adore Christ in the Sacrament And it was but necessary that when Heretics begun to offer Indignities to that Sacred Mystery the Church should injoyn new Prayses Honours and Adorations to her celestial Spouse to the end as the Council says that Truth might by this means triumph over Lyes and Heresy and that its Adversaries at the sight of so much splendor and amidst such an universal joy of the Church being weakned and disenabled might decay or through shame and confusion at last repent To the last I answer §. 95. III. Particular practices hurt not the Universal Doctrin That if some things were done to avoid inconveniencies or others out of a heat of Zeal which are not agreeable to our practices at present they were not generally received nay censured by the Church when once they grew more public or layd aside when the inconveniencies were removed But these practices did not shew a disbelief of the Real Presence tho' our Defender may perhaps shew that they tended to a disrespect upon which account it was that the Church abolished them If it was a custom for some time Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. in the Church of Jerusalem to burn what remained after Communion Was it not a shew of Reverence and Respect lest perhaps the Sacred Symbols might fall into the hands of those Burgr hist l. 4. c. 35. who would Profane them And the same may be said of the custom in the Church of Constantinople of giving the remaining particles of the immaculate Body of Jesus Christ our God as the Historian expresses it to young Children But this I hope was consistent with a belief of the real Prerence If also the Primitive Christians permitted the Faithful to carry it home with them or sent it by Sea or Land to the Sick or to them with whom they would testify their unity it was not I hope any sign of their disrespect but rather a testimony of their Veneration and a practice which did not derogate from their belief of its being the Body of their Lord. If a St. Benedict caused the Blessed Sacrament to be laid upon the breast of a dead Corps which the Grave
Imitate the Magi who Adored him in the Manger whereas we see him not in the Manger but on the Altar not in the Arms of a Woman but the Priest standing by him and the Spirit with great power hovering over the proposed Mysteries In his Liturgy we find the Priest the Deacon and the People ordered to adore with Piety and Devotion He tells us also that their custom was then to (h) Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. Pray to the Lamb lying there for the souls of the Dead He affirms The Angels to be (i) De Sacerdâ—tio l. 6. c. 4. Hon. 1. de Verbis Isâ—iae Nuc. Orat. 11. que est de â—orgonia sorore present at this wonderful table and to compass it about with reverence and in confirmation of it reports that an aged holy man to whom God had revealed many mysteries was thought worthy by almighty God to see such an Angelic Vision St. Gregory Nazianzen reports how his Sister Gorgonia being sick proserated her self before the Altar and calling upon him who is worshipped on it c. O Miracle says he she went away presently in perfect health We Read also in St. Basil S. Basit de Spiritu Sundo c 27. where mentioning several unwritten Traditions he says Invocationis verba dum estenditur panis Eucharistiae poculum benedictionis quis scripto reliqunâ— that in his time there was a prescribed form of Prayer or words of Invocation when the Blessed Sacrament was shewed to the people In a word all Antiquity speaks of this Adoration all the Liturgies both of the Latin and Greek and Abyssine Churches shew the Practice of it long before our Defender speaks of so that a Treatise might be made a part of this to the eternal shame of those who are so bold as to say that the Church neither required nor taught it for above a thousand years From these and several other the like passages of antient Fathers I conclude quite contrary to the Defender that seeing the Primitive Christians did adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament and Pray to him they did believe him to be really present in it I pass by the wonderful respect that was shewn to the Sacred Vessels Corporals and other Utensils §. 97. consecrated to the Service of the Altar neither Lay persons nor yet they who had only taken the miâ—â— Orders being permitted to handle those which had touched that Adorable Sacrament I omit the Reverence with which it was received and the wonderful care lest any drop or particle should fall to the ground and the punishment inflicted upon them that should let it sall which caution was not used towards the water of Baptism though Holy also neither will I insist upon the receiving it fasting as St. Augustin says in honorem tanti Sacramenti in honor of so great a Sacrament nor of the admonition that was given to married persons to live continent certain days before their Communion nor of the manner of reserving the Sacrament in Silver Doves in Golden Towers and Tabernacles nor the care they had lest Insidels or the Catechumens should be present at those Sacred Mysteries These were not accidental or at hap-hazard but the-deliberate practices of those Primitive Ages and I think ought rather to be considered than those pretended instances brought in by my Antagonist They who desire to see more §. 98. let them read the two Discourses lately published concerning this point and Brierley's Lyturgy of the Mass I will conclude with this one Reflection which I desire all thinking persons to consider If the Doctrin of the real and substantial Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament carried with it so many Absurdities as our Modern Authors would make us believe and the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament was so manifest an Idolatry as they pretend all Christians certainly who were tender of their Salvation must needs have had an abhorrence of and so much the greater aversion from that practice by how much it was more contrary to their great Principle that God only was to be Adored Seeing then it is manifest by the concession of Protestants and public Records of every Nation that the Adoration of the Sacrament was publicly practised not in one corner of the World only but throughout all Christendom for this last 800 Years and that no persons that we know of ever contradicted that practice but such as were immediately condemned as Heretics Seeing also the plain expressions of the Primitive Fathers shew this to have been also practised in their days and that no beginning of this practice can be shewn we must necessarily conclude that our Modern Authors are deceived both as to the Absurdities with which they charge the Doctrin and the Idolatry of the Practice and that the Church in all those Ages did believe as we do that Christs Body and Blood was truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament and there to be adored ART XIX XX XXâ—â— Of the Sacrifice of the Mass HAving been of necessity so prolix in the foregoing Article § 99. What a Sacrifice is I hope my Readers will excuse me if I be short in these which follow and are but consequences of a Real and Substantial presence The word Sacrifice has various acceptations Some times it is taken Improperly or Metaphorically for any act of Devotion referred to the Honor and Worship of God as Prayer Alms-deeds Praise Contrition c. But when we speak properly we intimate an External act of Religion whereunto the office or function of a Priest is ordained Hebr. 5.1 And according to this acceptation we define a Sacrifice to be An External act of Religion whereby a Priest lawfully called offereth unto God alone some Sensible and Permanent thing with alteration or real change thereof in due acknowledgment of Gods sovereign Dominion over us and our all-dependance on his power and providence Our Defender in this and the following Articles as formerly in his Exposition seems to lay the stress of the cause upon the Council of Trents calling this truly and properly a Sacrifice whereas he thinks it is only Metaphorically so And will have nothing to be called truly and properly a Sacrifice in which there is not a true and real destruction or slaying of the thing Sacrificed and cites Bellarmin in the Margent for it In answer to which I need only give that very objection of the Cardinal at length in which any one will see that our difference here is more in the Name than in the Thing tho' however this must be represented as one of those Errors which most offend the Church of England and our bleeding divisions must be kept open to the ruin of both Church and State. Cardinal Bellarmin being about to shew the several opinions concerning the Essence of a Sacrifice Cardinal Bellarmin vindicated and in what part of the Mass it consists tells us that some place it in the Consecration for this reason because
they will have the Essence of a Sacrifice to consist in a slaying of the Victim but by that act only there is a true Immolation of Jesus Christ viz. a separation of his Body from his Blood by â—he words of Consecration tho' the natural concomitance hinder the Blood or Soul from being truly separated from the Body Against this reason after other Arguments he brings this Denique vel in Missa fit vera vealis Christi mactatie occisio vel non sit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificium Missa Sacrisâ—eium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrisicii Si autem sit ergo verum erit dicere à Sacerdotibus Christianis verè realiter Christium occidi at hâ—o Sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur de Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. pag. 873. A. In the Sacrifice of the Mass either there is says he a true and real mactation and slaying of Jesus Christ or there is not If there be not then according to you the Mass is no real Sacrifice for when the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in being slain as it is your opinion a true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real slaying But if there be then we might truly say that Christ is truly and really slain by Christian Priests but this is rather a Sacrilege than a Sacrifice From this manner of Arguing any one may see that it is neither the Cardinals §. 100. The essence of a Sacrifice consills not in slaying the Victim nor the Churches opinion that the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in Slaying of the Victim But yet we acknowledg a True and Real Sacrifice in the Mass And had he gone a little farther in this Author he would have seen how all the Essential parts of a Sacrifice are contained in it Our Defender in his Exposition tells us there are Four things required to make a Sacrifice Pag. 66. Four things reqired to a Sacrifice 1. That what is offered be something that is Visible 2. That of profane which it was before it be now made Sacred 3. That it be offered to God. And 4 ly by that offering suffer an Essential destruction And supposes the greatest part of these conditions nay all of them to be evidently wanting Now Bellarmin in this same place tells him that three of these Conditions are fund in the Consecration of the Eucharist and the other is evidently included in them First says he a Profane or common thing Bread is by Consecration made the Body of Christ the Visible Species of Bread remaining neither does it follow from thence that Bread is only Sacrificed but that which remains the change being made 2. That Sacred thing which remains under the Visible species is offered to God by being placed upon the Altar Lastly From hence it appears how falsely our defender in his Exposition pag. 65. accused the Cardinal of saying that Either Christ Sacrificed in Eating or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Read his 7. Proposition in the same 27. Ch. of his 1. Book Sacramenti consumptio ut fit a Sacerdote Sacrificante pâ—rs est essentialn sed non tots Essentia And the 8th Consecratio Eucharislia ad Essentiam Sacrificii pertinet The words of Bellarmin which he cited are these Christus isse out Consecrando consumendo Sacrificavit aus nullo modo Sacrificavit But it was not to his purpose to put in consecrando By Consecration that which is offered is ordained to a True Real and external change and destruction which was necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice for by Consecration the Body of Christ receives the form of food but food is ordained to be Eaten and by that to a change and destructon neither is that any objecton that the Body of Christ suffers not nor loses its natural being when we receive the Eucharist for it loses its Sacramental being and thereby ceases to be really upon the Altar ceases to be a sensible food The Cardinal being thus Vindicated I say Our Defender cannot deny Malac. 1 11. 3. 3. Esay 66.21 but that the Prophets in the Old Law foretold and that in the time of Antichrist the dayly Sacrifice should be taken away He cannot also deny but that the New Testament speaks of Altars and Priesis Dan 11 3â— 12.11 hebr 13. 10. compared with the 1 Cor. 10. And that the Fathers of the Primitive Church usually called the Eucharist a Sacrifice an Oblation an unbloody Sacrifice a Sacrifice which * Pervenit ad Sanctum magnumque Concâ—tium quod in quibusdam locir civitatibus Presbyteris gratiam Sacrae communionis Diaconi porrigant quod nec regula nec consuetudo tradidit ut ab his qui potessatem non habent offerendt illi qui offerunt Christi corpus accipiant Conc. Nic. Primum can 18. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 344. Deacons had not power to offer but only Priests and the like Expressions Upon what ground then can he pretend that all these Expressions were Metaphorical and endeavour to elude all these by sticking firm to his Notion of a Sacrifice that there can be no true offering without suffering And because Christ does not suffer in the Mass therefore he is not truly Offered The Bishop of Meaux one would have thought has fully removed that difficulty telling him that if we take the word Offer in the sense it is made use of in the Epistle to the Hebrews as implying the Actual death of the Victim we will publickly consess that Jesus Christ is now no more Offered up neither in the Eucharist nor any where else But because this word has a larger signification in other places of Scripture where it is often said we offer up to God what we present before him the Church which forms her Language and her Doctrin not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scriptures is not afraid to say that Jesus Christ Offers up himself to God wherever he appears before his Face upon our behalf and that by consequence he Offers up himself in the Eucharist according to the Holy Fathers expressions We affirm then that in the Mass is Offered up to God a True proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice A Sacrifice in remembrance of that on the Cross and applying to us the benefits there purchased for us A Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is both the Priest and the Victim But yet no bloody Sacrifice Here is no Death of the Victim but in Mystery and representation But however it is a True and proper Sacrifice as Christ is truly and properly a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec I might here have taken notice how this Expositor brings in the Bishop of Meaux §. 101. Expos Ch. of Eng. pag. 67. observing that the Author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered and makes his Advantage of it Whereas if he had added the next words they would have solved the Difficulty A Falsification For the Bishops words are that the Aposile concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us But these last words were overseen by our Expositor or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly and properly speaking or no tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words To all which he returns a profound silence As for the Reflections upon what has been said I leave the Reader to make them himself and hope if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul he will seriously consider the premises and heartily beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith without which it is impossible to please him ART XXII Communion under both Species THe Vindicator tells me § 102. The Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither faise unreasonable nor frivolous that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church The first false The second both false and unreasonable And the third nothing to the purpose By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication and very willing to cast the Lyer upon me if he could But the false the unreasonable and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lye at the Accusers Door My Argument was but one and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent He had told me from their 30th Article Art. 30. That the Church of England declared that the Cup ought not to be denyed to the Lay-people for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike From hence I Argued that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity she was not consonant to her self nor agreed with her 30th Article which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species and his express Commands are certainly indispensible Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France were equally in force against the Church of England viz. that they must not deny but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species in case of Necessity I proved from Edward the Sixths Proclamation before the Order of Communion In which I said he had ordained That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administred unto all persons within this our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This he says as thus alledged is False because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing but only says that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained Therefore He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it Let it be so if you please that Edward the 6th did not by vertue of this Proclamation ordain it yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubrick to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament that if necessity required it they might give it in one kind And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed seeing it has now not only a Proclamation but an Act of Parliament to back it But he says it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England from what was allowed only and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it But if this Act be still in force I see no reason why we may not justly conclude that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species which if she do all her Arguments against Catholics as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament violated Christs Ordinance gave but a half Communion and the like have as much force against her self as us And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power And if a natural Reason such as is a loathing of Wine may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup to some particular persons why may not a Supernatural Reason such as is the detection and by that means the refutation of an Heresy not to mention the avoiding of many indignities c. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament As for the Note I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds However I might justly conclude that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained and this Body be now a living Body which it cannot be unless the Flesh and Blood the Soul and Divinity be united They who receive one Particle receive whole Christ and with him his Gifts and Graces that is a full Sacrament So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is as you see a plain mistake I do not say he had no Reason for it because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margent over against a wrong place but had he considered the sense he might have saved that ungenteele Answer The second Argument as he calls it is neither false in the bottom nor unreasonable And if the last be not so convincing an Argument yet does it not want some force And I will add to