Supper only after an Heavenly and spiritual manner Here you have a real giving eating and taking and consequently a reall presence of the Body of Christ confessed by our Church as well as by yours Our difference is only touching the mode of his presence We say that mode or manner to be spiritual you pretend that it is corporal with what consequence or coherence with the rules of common reason you will never be able to declare nor how to avoid contradiction in saying that his flesh and blood is present in the Sacrament after a corporal manner and with all that none of our corporal senses is able to give testimony of such a presence Neither will you find it an easier task to declare unto us what may be the object of your adoration given to the consecrated bread If you say it is the person of our Saviour God and Man really present we adore and reverence the same as well as you If you pretend that your adoration doth extend to more that must be only the accidents of the Bread and Wine appearing to the senses which accidents being in your own confession meer creatures to give unto them the worship of Latria cannot with any colour of reason be excused from a formal Idolaâ—ry The second very gross error I find in the discourse of N. N. upon this subject is that finding me complain of the Roman Church for forcing upon Christians a belief of Monstrous miracles in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation he cries against me in Tragical terms as if I had reviled Gods wonders calling miracles monstrous and appeals to the Catholic Reader for a severe sentence against me in these words Numquid haec est atrox humuncionis insultantis Christo Ecclesiae rabies pag. 126. And I appeal to any Reader of sense whether I may not on good ground return on him this other quere Annon hic est hominis frigide id est non opportune excandescentis inconditus clamor p. 136. Is not this cry a fit of zeal unseasonably burniâ—g To call those miracles they pretend to intervene in the consecrated bread Monstrous he takes it for a contempt of Gods wonders in general So if I say a Man born with 2 Heads and 3 Eies is a Monstrous Man that must be taken for an affront put upon all humane kind Sir I reverence Gods wonders and those many miracles wrought by his powerful hand and I bless his holy name for all But those miracles you would have us believe to happen in the consecration of the Eucharist as that the substance of the bread vanishes a way and the accidents of it remain without any substance to rest upon c. these I deny to be true miracles or works of God but a product of your erring imagination and if you will persist in calling them miracles certainly they must appear monstrous ones For the proof whereof you give your self a very considerable help by a definition or description of a miracle which you produce out of Aquinas how much to your purpost is not easie to find but very clearly it serves for my present purpose of making your pretended miracles in the Eucharist appear most properly monstrous You tell us that Aquinas saies * 1. P. quaes 105. A. 7. quod nomen miraculi ab admiratione sumitur Admiratio autem consurgit cum effectus sunt manifesti à causa occulta That the word miracle comes from admiration and this admiration doth arise when the effect appears and the cause is hidden Here we have the common and ordinary nature of a miracle described that a wonderful effect should appear tho the cause should be hidden Now it rests to know what is the proper notion of a Monster Philosophers do give us this definition of it out of Aristotle monstrum est effectus à recta solita secundum speciem dispositione degenerans A Monster is an effect degenerating from the right and common disposition of things of that kind So that a Man born with two Heads is called monstrous because he degenerats from the right and common disposition of other men The Colledg of * Conimb in Arist. 2. Phy. c. 9. q. 5. Ar. 1. Coimbra declares this to be Vulgata Monstri desinitio the vulgar or commonly received definition of a Monster Now then if the common and ordinary nature of a miracle is as you tell us out of Aquinas that the miraculous effect should be manifest and apparent tho the cause were hidden then a miracle degenerating from this common course and nature of miracles so as the effect pretended to be miraculous should not be manifest or known to any must be according to these rules a monstrous Miracle deviating and degenerating from the common course of true Miracles Of this kind are your imaginary Miracles of the Eucharist that the bread and wine should be substantially converted into the flesh and blood of our Saviour corporally present If this were so indeed and therefore a real and true Miracle this miraculous effect would appear to the senses of men as that true and miraculous conversion of the Water into Wine at the wedding in Cana of Calilee did appear to the senses of the Men present there and thereby appeared to be a true Miracle and more fit to breed a belief in the beholders which is the ordinary aim of Divine providence in working Miracles and which certainly Christ would not have obtained of the persons then present if he had only told them that the water remaining with the same color tast and smell which it had before was really converted into Wine without letting any of their senses bear testimony of such a conversion Of this latter kind are your imaginary Miracles which being of your own making I may without offence to God or prejudice to his true Miracles call them Monstrous as degenerating from the common course of true Miracles The third mistake that I am to put N. N. in mind of at present is concerning his pretention to affinity with the Greek and Ruthenian Church in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and of other points controverted with our reformed Churches for which he pleases himself in telling us of a favourable relation to his purpose given by a Muskovite Priest to a French Prelate that feasted him But that he may see how wide is his mistake herein and how far the Grecians and Ruthenians are from joining issue with the Roman Church against us I remit him to what I have related above upon more solid and authorized grounds in the 13. Chapter of this Treatise Neither indeed can I see upon what ground you can pretend to union with the Greek Church in their tenets if it be not that several of your greatest Scholemen such as are a Lomb. 1. Sent. d. 11. Sane sciendum est quod licet in praesentiarticulo a nobis Graeci verbo discordent tamen sensu non differunt Lombard b Bona. in 1. sent d. 11. A. 1.
fingere quem ferias to create your self an Adversary such as you may triumph over that is not to fit your answer to my Arguments but my Arguments to that you will have us take for an answer being what you have to say This is very usual with you as in many occasions I have declared from the beginning of this Discourse and will further declare in others to the end of it but in the present you appear notoriously guilty of this foul play I do neither ignore or doubt that if your doctrine of Christs personal presence in the consecrated host were true there is as much reason to adore such an host as to adore Christ himself both being the same thing in such a supposition This is the Mystery you pretend I should not understand but this is not the state of the Question with me What I did and do again call intolerable boldness is to say that the matter standing as now it doth doubtful and controverted there is as much reason for adoring the host consecrated as there is for adoring Christ his person since for adoring Christ we have several express commands laid upon us in Scripture which I related out of Heb. 1.6 Philip. 2.10 Jo. 5.23 but no intimation given of adoring Christ in the Sacramental bread supposing him corporally present there But if you go to the object of both worships Christ living in the World and your host consecrated to say that there is as much ground for believing your doctrine of Divinity existent in the latter as in the former I said and say still its intolerable boldness and a great injury to Christian Religion to make those two things of equal certainty whereof I was contented to make Bellarmin * Bellarm. de Christo lib. 1. c. 4. Judg who being to prove the Divinity of Christ goes through six Classes of Arguments out of Scripture with uncontroulable strength but being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture his only Argument is out of those words of Matth. 28. Take eat this is my Body Which place how unable it is in the opinion of the gravest School-men and of Bellarmin himself to make clear the doctrine of Transubstantiation we have seen from the beginning of this Chapter Is it not therefore intolerable boldness to say there is as much reason to assert that Christ is in the host really and corporally as there is for saying that Christ is God CHAP. XXI Mr. I. S. his weak defence of their half Communion confuted HE will have the Precept of Communion run parallel with that of Baptism wherewith I am well contented Both are commanded by Christ Baptism thus If one be not born again by the Water and the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Joh. VI. 53. And the Communion thus If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall not have life in you The essential requisites of Baptism are water and a set form of words In this no alteration may consist with the validity of the Sacrament not so of the mode or circumstances whether it be with immersion or sprinkling Herein alterations may be and were admitted by the Church Even so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the essence of it consists in eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Saviour This may not be altered but the mode or circumstances whether it be kneeling or standing whether in leavened or unleavened Bread whether white or red Wine touching these Accidents there may be alterations without prejudice to the substance of the Sacrament but not touching the essential parts of Flesh and Blood in this much we agree on both sides Now what are we to understand by Flesh what by Blood our Saviour did not leave obscure so as we may err in so weighty a matter wherein the life of our Souls doth consist but made it clear and visible to us He took Bread in his hands and of it he said this is my Body he took likewise Wine in his hand saying this is my Blood The way therefore to take his Body and Blood is to take consecrated Bread and Wine in remembrance of him This is the way Christ did establish the taking of this blessed Sacrament this the Apostles and Primitive Church did practice and this way all true Christians ought to walk Mr. I. S. censures it as a pusillanimity in me to be surprized at that famous non obstante of the Council of Constance that notwithstanding Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds and in the Primitive Church they administred it so yet the Council thought convenient to ordain the contrary I should have a strong stomach to swallow without chawing or examining what our Lord God the Pope orders as the Glossist calls him He is Vice-god upon earth as all of them stile him and of such priviledg that the commands of God must oblige no further then he pleases If he tells us that virtue is vice and vice virtue we are to believe him Yet Mr. I.S. will reason the case with us He might have spared that labor for I declared it was sufficient to my purpose to know they will pretend reason for inverting Christs Institutions But how well beseeming the gravity of a Council are the reasons he alledges grounded upon principles of nigardliness nicety To spare expences of wine and hinder the inconveniency of clean people to drink out of the same Cup with the unclean Is there not so much plenty of Wine now in the World as was in the Primitive Church and the Communion less frequent Were not clean people then in the World Shall a groundless fear of annoying the body over-weigh a certain danger of losing the Soul Christ having declared that if we do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood we shall not have life in us Is it fair that such frivolous reasons as these should suffice for a Pope to alter the Institutions of Christ and no reason be it ever so evident should excuse opposing a Popes Decree But Mr. I. S. tells us that in these words of our Saviour Joh. VI. If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall not have life in you The Particle and must be taken disjunctively for or not copâ—latively So as the command must be understood of eating his Flesh or drinking his Blood because in the Hebrew Language wherein our Saviour spake the Particle and is capable of such a sense Bellarmin and Suarez said so I see they did and thereby I see that a bad cause will make iâ—s Patrons run to narrow shifts At this rate you may pretend to comply with the precept of loving God and your Neighbor by loving either tho you do not love both And so of the precept of honoring your Father and Mother that you observe iâ— by honoring one tho you deny that duty to the other because the Particle and in those
Precepts is capable of a disjunctive sense and may be construed or Moreover this Argument would prove more then the Council or Bellarmin or Suarez himself would have That there is no command of drinking the Blood of our Saviour So the Council and Romish Writers commonly do pretend that Christs living Body being corporally present in the consecrated Bread and a living Body containing Flesh and Blood by taking the Bread we take both Flesh Blood But the supposition of this Argument that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament being pretended even proved clearly in our Opinion to be false it s in vain to perswade us with an Argument upon that Principle Besides tho that Supposition were true it s not easie to understand how by swallowing an Animal consisting of flesh and blood without separating both one may be said properly to drink blood All these Absurdities may be excused by following literally the words and and practice of our Saviour administring the Sacrament as he did in both kinds Here I am to admire again the good heart and confidence of Mr. I. S. in telling us that we have a positive example of Christ himself that once gave the Communion in the Accidents of Bread alone to his Disciples in the way towards Emaus pag. 217. How come you to be so positive in affirming that of Christ with his Disciples in Emaus should have bin a Communion rather then a common Supper Suarez in 3. p. Dis 71. Sec. 1. saies the Opinion of many Learned Authors denying it to have bin a Communion seems to him more probable And Maldonate supposes many good writers to be of the same Opinion But besides tho it were a Communion what is your ground for saying he should not have given the Cup in it That only Bread is mentioned that the Disciples told he was known of them in breaking of Bread But it is very frequent in Scripture to express a Dinner or Supper where both meat and drink is taken by this term of eating Bread and the Disciples might have found sufficient signs of knowing Christ by his way of breaking the Bread without mentioning more of his actions Furthermore Suarez in 3. p. Dis 42. Sec. 1. declares it to be the Opinion of all Divines and his own that the Species of Bread and Wine are the Essential Constitutes of this Sacrament Dico 30 Species consecratas esse Eucharistiae Sacramentum seu ad ejus constitutionem intrinsece essentialiter pertinere That the consecrated Species do belong essentially to the Constitution of this Sacrament How then could he give the Sacrament without the Species of Bread and Wine if they be essential Constitutes of it But Suarez say you in his Disp 71. saies that the whole Essence of the Sacrament consists in either kind and therein say I contradicts his former doctrine as also that of Gelasius * Gelas. Papa in cap. comperimus de Consecratione dist 2. quoted by himself Quidam sumt a corporis Christi portione à Calice sacri cruoris abstinent qui proculdubio aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque Mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Some taking the Body of Christ do abstain from the Cup of his sacred Blood who truly should either take all the Sacrament or leave all since being but one Mystery it may not be divided without great Sacriledg They pretend this should be understood of Priests only that they should take the Communion under both kinds but without shewing any sufficient ground for it We have no notice of Priests taking it under one kind to whom Gelasius his declaration should be directed and our Saviour did provide in this Sacrament a Spiritual food not only for Priests but for all the faithful and his words which are the ground of our Assertion did extend to all Mr. I. S. pretends that my Argument against Transubstantiation That neither for the effects of of the Sacraments neither for verifying the words of the Institution such a conversion of substances should be necessary comes pertinently to his purpose here That the Communion under both kinds is not needful either for the effects of the Sacrament or for verifying the words of Christ in the Institution of it But the Difference is wide first as to the effects Mr. I. S. himself confesses pag. 201. that Christ might were he pleased have given us the effects of the Sacraments with a figurative presence only Secondly as to the tenour of our Saviours words in the Institution of it many of their own more learned and exact Scholemen do affirm that the said words do not convince for Transubstantiation in force of their proper sense as we have seen in the precedent Chapter And * Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Bellarmin consesses saying it was the sentiment of most learned and acute Men. Both these things are wanting for making the like Argument serve our Adversary for we have proved hitherto that neither for the effect of the Sacrament nor for verifying the words of our Saviour in the Institution of it the half Communion may suffice Certainly he hath no such confession from us to his purpose as we have from him and from his brethren to ours CHAP. XXII The Roman Worship of Images declared to be sinfull Mr. I. S. is very tedious and no less impertinent in telling us its not a sin to make Images absolutely because God made man to his own Image and Protestants do make Images of the King and Queen c. but he might spare this labour I having declared that it is not only lawful but commendable to make Images and good use of them to several purposes The sin is to adore and worship them that being directly opposite to Gods Commandment set down in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus in these words Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image c. thou shalt not bow down thy self to them of which sin the Roman Church is guilty by ordering honor and reverence to be given to Images In what degree Azorius with several others of their Divines do tells us saying the same honor is to be given to them which is due to the Prototype and consequently the honor of Latria to the Image of God and Christ the honor of Dulia to the Images of other Saints So Azorius saies and not I as Mr. I. S. falsifies in these words Constans est Theologorum sententia Imaginem codem honore cultu honorari coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago It is the constant opinion of Divines that the Image is to be honored and worshiped in the same manner as the thing whereof it is an Image Mr. I. S. saies resolutely Azorius has no such words but if he did read attentively the place I quoted of Azorius Tom. 1. Inst Moral lib. 9. c. 6. § Tota haec controversia he would find those formal words in