receive it is that they cannot receive the benefit of Christs Presence without a lively Faith but should rather Eat and Drink their own Damnation as is more fully express'd in the next Article and also that the expressions of a Heavenly and Spiritual manner are only to oppose that Carnal and Gross manner which a Natural Body has as having local extention c. which Body as such cannot possibly be in more places then one as St. Augustin affirms and to which that part of the Article in Edw. Sparrow's Canons pag. 49. the Sixths days to which this has succeeded do's allude If he think I impose upon their Church I desire him to let us know by some Authentic Testimony what is the meaning of that part of the Article and to shew us how it can stand with the Doctrine deliver'd in the Church Chatechism which affirms as I have told you that The inward thing signified is the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST which is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful it do's not say by Faith but by the Faithful As also how it agrees with these words of the same Article The Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of CHRIST and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of CHRIST If then he admit with King James Causab Ep. ad Card. Per. that they believe JESUS CHRIST to be as really present in the Sacrament as Roman Catholics do but only know not the manner Pag. 61. What becomes of all his Sarcasms of Worshipping a Deity whose substance they first form'd and then spake it into a God c. He knew full well that such Objections were the very Calumnies of the Heathens who did not only object to Christians their eating of their God but also of eating Mans Flesh in their Sacrifices of drinking Childrens Blood and several other such like accusations all which proceeded from some imperfect knowledge they had got of the Christian Sacrifice notwithstanding all the care the Primitive Christians took to conceal that Adorable Mystery from Infidels and even Catechumens What becomes of all the Arguments brought from pretended contradictions and an impossibility of being present in many places at once Do's not their real Participation if as the Bishop says there be any Sence in the Words fall under the same censures And what becomes of all his Objections rais'd from the difference betwixt some Schoolmen who endeavour to explicate the manner of his presence and the free acknowledgment of others that we are ignorant of it Do not they themselves profess the same And if we cannot comprehend how God can be three and one or the Divinity be Incarnate must we necessarily therefore deny the Blessed Trinity or the Incarnation In a word what will become of all the Arguments in General brought against Transubstantiation substantiation Adoration Sacrifice of the Altar Communion under one Species c. seeing Learned Protestants themselves confess that if the words of the Institution be taken in a Literal Sence without which a Real Presence can never be admitted they must yield up the Cause in all those Points to Roman Catholics This Brerelay has shown in his Liturgy of the Mass Printed Anno 1620. pag. 225 339. from several of their own Authors But he tells us that many of our Schoolmen acknowledge there is not in the Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation that there is not any Texts that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it that it was not a matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran and then triumphs as if these expressions were a perfect yielding up of our Cause But I would gladly have him to consider upon what account it is these Learned Men use those expressions and examine a little their Reasons and then I doubt not but if he observe the Connection of their Discourse he will not find such an occasion of triumphing It is an usual thing with Novelists to pretend nothing must be admitted as a matter of Faith but what can be manifestly proved from plain Texts of Scripture This Catholics deny and tell them such a proposition destroys all our Faith because no body can prove for example by Scripture the Books of the Gospels or the Epistles of St. Paul to be the Word of God or Divine Revelation and if they cannot prove those Scriptures to be Divine but by Tradition and the Interposition of the Church and yet tell us Tradition and Church Authority are not sufficient what will become of all the Articles contain'd in those Books Nay further Catholics tell them that if they rely only upon the bare words of Scripture without having recourse to the Authority of a Church and the Consent of Pastors and Teachers in all Ages and Places they will never be able to demonstrate any one Doctrine that is they can never prove it so clearly as to convince those who rely wholly upon their Reason and will admit of nothing for a proof in such weighty matters but what is so clear that whoever understands the Terms and Propositions must necessarily consent to the Conclusion drawn from them The Schoolmen do not only instance the Real Presence and Transubstantiation in proof of this but the Trinity also and Incarnation and in a word all the Articles of our Creed And the very opposition which Heretics in the several Ages of the Church have form'd against those Doctrines is a clear proof of this seeing they upon all occasions pretended Scripture for their grounds and because Catholics could not bring any Text of Scripture against them so clear but they could elude it by some seeming Exposition therefore Scripture alone could never decide the Controversies but the voice of the Church in her Councils was in all Ages esteem'd necessary to stop their Mouths and her Decisions and Declarations of the Sence of Scripture was that which confounded all their Errors Thus it was that Arius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Nice not by the sole words of Scripture but by the words of Scripture as understood and explicated by the consent of the Catholic Church and thus it was that Berengarius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Lateran and several others and that Condemnation confirm'd by that of Trent He tells us moreover That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran Pag. 56 1200 years after CHRIST and had not That and the Council of Trent interposed it would not have been so to this very day And cites Lombard Scotus Gabriel and Bellarmine for this Assertion Let us examine his Quotations but first we will represent the State of the Question as the best Method to understand their Meanings We must therefore take notice that the word Transubstantiation was first publicly used in the Council of Lateran as the word Consubstantial was in the first Council of Nice but that
and properly speaking tho' not possibly in such a rigorous sence as may be put upon the Words If she do not what means her Ordination and the Title of Priesthood which her Ministers challenge with so much earnestness And if she do why will he quarrel with the Council of Trent for calling it a True and Proper Sacrifice Sess 22. c. a True and Proper Priesthood especially since the same Council tells us that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it to the end of the World Sess 22. c. r. and so apply to us the saving virtue of it for the remission of those Sins which we commit every day In a word The Bishop of Meaux has expressed himself so clearly and consequently to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and of the Catholic Church that I cannot but admire any one who affirms as this Author do's that the Doctrine the Bishop of Meaux has express'd Pag. 63. is truly the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and such as the Church of England has never refus'd and except it be their doubt of the Corporeal Presence Mons de Meaux had certainly reason to expect there was nothing in it which they could justly except against I cannot I say but admire he should upon no better grounds than a pure Cavil about the Name and Nature of a Sacrifice when taken in the strictest Sense and the word Corporeal instead of Real Pag. 62. affirm this to be one of the most dangerous Errours that offend them But the Breach must be kept open and widened too if possible And because the offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World and because there is no other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone Article 31. as their Article expresses it and we allow therefore this Author must from thence conclude that the Representation Commemoration and Application of that first Offering by those who are Members of that Priesthood according to the Order of Melchisedec which the Apostle tells us was to be perpetual must not be called a True Heb. 6. Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice tho' it be only Commemorative and Applicatory ART XVII Of the Epistle to the Hebrews BUT the next Article shews us more manifestly Art 21. p. 67. that all this Dispute is purely de Nomine In which it manifestly appears that he mistakes the Sence of the word Offer Pag. 32. as used by the Catholic Church in this place for the Bishop of Meaux tells us the Catholic Church forms her Language and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scripture and therefore tho' in that strict sence in which the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the word Offer JESUS CHRIST cannot be said to be now offered neither in the Eucharist nor any where else yet because in other places of Scripture the word is used in a larger signification where it is often said we offer to God what we present before him therefore she do's not doubt to say that she offers up our Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him But this must not suffice for then that which he calls the principal and most dangerous Errour would appear to be none at all and therefore because the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of one Offering which has fully satisfied for our Sins of one Offering which was no more to be offered that is of an Offering in a strict Sence in which there must be a Real Suffering and Death of the Victim therefore this Epistle must be against the Doctrine of the Roman Church tho' she speak only of an Unbloody Sacrifice of a Commemorative Sacrifice which without the Sacrifice of the Cross would be no Sacrifice which takes its Virtue Efficacy and very Name from it because it refers to it and applies the Virtue of it to our Souls Let any one judge if this be not next door to a wilful misunderstanding of our Tenets Pag. 63. especially when he had before confessed that the presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us and that if this were all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it This is what she means by it that is an application of the Merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was to be but once offered and from whence it takes all its value But this he will not have to be our Doctrine and I see no reason for it but because if he admit it to be so one of the greatest grounds of their pretended Reformation must needs vanish ART XVIII Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine HIs Reflections upon this Doctrine run altogether upon the same strain Art 22. p. 69. and therefore what I have said will suffice in answer to that Article If he admit a Real Presence with the Church of England Reason must necessarily assure us that where Christ is really he ought to be Ador'd and where he really presents himself to his Father to render him Propitious to us he may be said to offer up himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice And those who will admit the Reality or not condemn the belief of it in others ought not to condemn the necessary Consequences of it in us into which we have penetrated better than they ART XIX Communion under both Species COmmunion under one kind being also a Consequence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence Art 23. p. 72. Those who admit the Real Presence or condemn it not ought not to condemn the Consequence of it He refers us to the Answer to M. de Meaux's Book of Communion and I refer him to M. de Meaux's Book which so fully explicates and proves this Doctrine that all the effects against it are but vain But if the Church of England allow the Communion to be given under one Species in case of necessity See Art 30. how will it stand that she esteems it to be the express Command of JESUS CHRIST which is certainly indispensable Edw. Sparrows Canons p. 15. the Sixth in his Proclamation before the Order of Communion ordains That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST should from thenceforth be commonly deliver'd and administred unto all Persons within 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 And after the Order of Communion there is this Annotation Note that the Bread that shall be Consecrated shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed And every of the said Consecrated Breads shall be broken into two pieces at
print them for every unbiass'd Reader may there see that the first Edition instead of proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as this Author says it did so loosly and favourably Pref. p. 2. that many undesigning Persons of that Communion were offended at it Ibid. p. 3. did on the contrary if any fault be to be found on that score propose the same Doctrine with too much strictness They may see also that the Sorbonne was so far from marking out as he says several of the most considerable Parts of it Ibid. wherein the Exposition by too much desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the Doctrine of their Church that this very Author in his Collections could not propose one Doctrine so perverted without a forced Interpretation of his own nay on the contrary he is sensible that in some places the Bishop had rather spoken with too much strictness and therefore after his wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention he tells his Reader Collect. p. 23. That th' other was really the true Sence of the Church but it was thought too ingenuous and 't is not fit Protestants should know it And in another place Ibid p. 32. That the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors M. de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfie his Holiness But if in some other Places he has either retrench'd or alter'd his Expression any one who is not willing to take every thing by a wrong Handle may easily see it was not out of such ill Designs as this Author endeavours to persuade us but purely to retrench what was not conformable to his Design of a bare Exposition or what had been sufficiently express'd before to keep himself more precisely to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent or to obviate any malicious Interpretations which Persons disposed to take all things in a wrong sence might force upon his Expressions if he worded them not more cautiously But above all it seems to me most strange that any especially one who dares publish to the World the Doctrine of a Church should make the alteration or retrenchment of some manner of Expressions in a Book writ as he owns four Years before so hainous a Crime that the Author must needs pass for one that either did not understand his own Doctrine Pref. p. 4. or at least had not the Sincerity to Expound it right He may wish it may be he had been as cautious in his own Book as the Bishop was in his However we have nothing to do with the first Impression 'T is this other put out by the Bishop of Meaux himself which has been presented to you and to which so many Authentic Approbations and Testimonies have been given And I affirm he must be strangely deceiv'd or wilfully blind who will not grant it to contain the true Doctrine of the Church according to the Sence of the Council of Trent But now to the Book it self PART II. ART I. INTRODVCTION SHould I undertake to examine all the Calumnies Misrepresentation unsincere Dealings and Falsifications of this Author in almost every Article I should swell this Answer beyond the Bounds I have prescrib'd to my self and make it tedious to the Reader yet some however I shall take notice of as they fall in my way from whence I hope we shall find this advantage that all those Books to which an Imprimatur Carolus Alston c. is prefixed will not hereafter be concluded free from Errours nor will every nameless Author who professes to be sincere pass hereafter for an Oracle His Introduction is Calumny in a high Degree and the State of his Question drawn from thence as unsincere He tells us of adoring Men and Women Crosses Introd p. 3 4 5. Images and Relics of setting up our own Merits and making other Propitiatory Sacrifices for Sin distinct from that of the Cross which he says P. 5. are contrary to our pretended Principles to wit That Religious Worship is due to God alone That we are to be sav'd only by Christ's Merits and That the Death of CHRIST was a perfect Sacrifice but yet are not as he tells us obscure Consequences drawn from our Doctrines but the plain and confessed Opinions of the Church of Rome the Practice and Prescription of the Chiefest Authority in it and therefore for us to refuse their Charge is to protest against a matter of Fact a Plea which even Justice it self has told us may without Calumny be rejected as invalid Were these Doctrines and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome he would 't is true have reason to say they contradict our Principles But seeing they are all so solemnly renounced by us that we detest the very thoughts of them and cannot hear these repeated Accusations without nauseating them and seeing he has been so often told that these Consequences are not only far-fetch'd obscure and disavowed but Consequences which are so false that no Connection can be found betwixt them and our Doctrines and Practices when truly represented we have just reason to refuse the Charge and tell him they have no more Justice to accuse us of them than Dissenters from the Church of England have to accuse her of Idolatry and Superstition for Bowing to the Altar and at the Name of JESUS or for using the Cross in Baptism or then the Quakers have for accusing them and us of breach of the First Commandment because we use the Civility of Hat and Knee to them who are but meer Creatures as we our selves But however these things must be charged upon us as an Introduction and then the Question must be stated after a new mode and we represented as consenting to it He tells us therefore Pag. 5. That they have got thus much at least by that Reflection that it shews them how they who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as INNOVATORS IN RELIGION are at last by our own Confession allowed to hold the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and from this pretended Concession he draws up the State of the Controversie you may be certain favourably to himself But who is it I pray that allows him this Proposition That the New Reformers hold the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and where do's he allow it The Exposition has Sect. 2. p. 2. 't is true a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reform'd Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But how do's he from thence shew that Catholics reciprocally grant them to hold all those Fundamental Articles I say all for no body ever deny'd they held some of them This Author knows very well we are so far
from granting this to them that on the contrary we always accuse them of Innovations and denying those Articles which are Fundamental and as necessary and as plainly revealed as many of those others which they admit We always affirm We are in possession of our Doctrines and our Practices that these have been delivered down to us by our Predecessors as Truths revealed to the Prophets and Apostles we always tell them We have the Decisions of a Church in our behalf a Church I say 1 Tim. 3.15 which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth Matth. 16.18 a Church against which the Gates of Hell by the express Promise of JESUS CHRIST was never to prevail Eph. 4.11 12 c. and in which Pastors and Teachers were to remain for ever lest we should be led away with every wind of Doctrine We tell them He who denies one Article revealed by God and proposed by his Church as so revealed is as guilty of the Breach of Faith as he who denies them all because he rejects God's Veracity upon which that Faith is grounded And by consequence we cannot but tell them That whilst they renounce those Articles which we believe are revealed Truths they are guilty of Fundamental Errors and hold not the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith So that the true State of the Controversie in general betwixt Catholics and Protestants is whether they or we do Innovate they in refusing to believe those Doctrines we profess to have receiv'd with the Grounds of Christianity or we in maintaining our Possession And the Dispute is Whether Roman Catholics ought to maintain their Possession for which many Protestants themselves grant they have a Prescription of above 1000 Years or whether the Authorities brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholic Doctrine be so weighty that every Roman Catholic is oblig'd to renounce the Communion of that Church in which he was bred up and quit his Prescription and Possession Which certainly they are not obliged to do unless it can be plainly prov'd they have innovated or taught such Doctrines as overthrow those Truths which are on both Sides allow'd to be Divine This the Bishop of Condom knew they could never do and that our Doctrines when truly represented were so far from contradicting those mutually-received Articles of our Faith that on the contrary they confirm'd our Belief of them And therefore he undertook to separate the Articles of our Faith from what was falsly imputed to us and resolved to propose them according to the received Sence of the Church declared in the Council of Trent And whether he has faithfully perform'd this Undertaking or no is our present Question which we are to examine in these following Articles What do's it therefore avail this Author to tell us Pag. 6. he will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what they can approve and what they dislike in the Doctrines of the Catholic Church unless he first shew us and that by some Authentic Acts of the Church that those are her Doctrines and secondly give us some assurance of greater Authority then the Prescription of the Roman Catholic Church that they are Novelties or Erroneous ART II. Religious Worship is terminated only in God THat all Religious Worship is terminated in God alone is the Biship of Condom's Assertion Art 2. and the Churches Doctrine to which both this and another later Author agree Answer to a Discourse entituled Papists Protesting c. but both of them will have the Invocation of Saints and the Honour which we pay to Images and Relics to be inconsistent with that Maxim What the Bishop has said is enough to satisfie any one who is not obstinate his Words are these The same Church teaches us Expos p. â— That all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be call'd Religious it is for its necessary relation to God From which Words it is plain the Bishop thought Religious Honour or Worship might be taken in a double sence the first strict and that he acknowledges is only due to God the other in a larger sence which may be paid to Creatures But how this other may be called Religious Honour he tells us is because of the reference which it has to God Thus that Civil Honour or Obedience which we pay to Magistrates if we do it for Conscience sake that is purely to obey the Ordinance of God may be not improperly call'd a Religious Honour or Obedience because by Honouring or Obeying them for God's sake we Honour and Obey God Thus to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulations is called by St. James a clean and unspotted Religion James 1.27 But if we take Religion in a stricter sence for a Supreme and Sovereign Honour or an adhesion to an Independent Being with all the Powers of our Soul c. it is only proper to God and cannot be paid to Creatures and in that sence the Honour which we pay to our Blessed Lady and other Saints is far from being a Religious Honour Let Mary be Honoured Epiph. Haer. 79. but let God be Adored was the Saying of an ancient Father not with Divine Honour for that is due to God alone Soli Deo honor gloria but with an Inferiour Honour which if our Authors will not have us call Religious we will not dispute about the Name We ought not to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone that we may give it to his Creatures neither Honour nor Worship nor Prayer nor Thanksgiving nor Sacrifice But yet we may honour those whom God has honoured we may give an inferiour Degree of Worship to those who are in some Degree of Honour above us in this World and why not to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other so it elevate them not above the State of Creatures We may pray to our Friends and Parents here on Earth to pray for us without derogating from our Duty to God and why the same may not be addressed to Saints and Angels who are no less our Friends without robbing God of what is his due is I must confess to me unintelligible If you tell me the first is only Civil or if it may be called a Religious Love or Honour Answ to Papist Protest p. 38. when it is done for God's sake yet it is but an extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive not from the Nature of the Act and therefore cannot make Gods of them we affirm the same of the second and renounce any other sort of Religious Worship which is so from the nature of the Act and by consequence only due to God This Distinction reflected on will be sufficient to answer all the Objections brought against our Doctrine by both those Authors And we cannot
as it is his Resemblance neither is that Statue his Delegate but a memorative Sign of him and which we honour as such and thus as the Indignities offered to that Statue are interpretatively offered to the King so is the Honour which is shewn it as representing him interpretatively offered to the King whom it represents In like manner that Homage which we pay to JESVS CHRIST represented by the Cross is properly speaking Adoration But nothing at all is due to the Cross for it self for that is an inanimate Being capable of no Honour but that Adoration is due to him who being an animate Nature is called to our Minds by that Resemblance The want of taking this our Doctrine in a right sence has been the occasion of that Author 's prolix Discourse of about Twenty three Leaves in which he has not at all combated our Doctrine but only some Scholastic Opinions and that with so few Additions of any new Difficulties that all he has said has been formerly refuted in the Just Discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet 's Vnjust Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome to which I will refer the Reader and return to my other Antagonist and see what he brings against this our Doctrine First he tells us That St. Thomas and his Followers were never Censured for maintaining in plain terms That the Image of the Cross ought to be worshipped with the same Worship as that Saviour who suffered on it Expos of the Doct. of the Ch. of Engl. p. 14. In answer to this I need only tell him We are not here to maintain every Opinion held by the Schools nor is it necessary the Church should Censure them unless they formally contradict her Doctrine which St. Thomas is far from being guilty of But if he had been sincere he ought to have taken notice of the Reason brought by St. Thomas and his Followers which shews That it is purely upon account of JESVS CHRIST represented that is brought to our remembrance by it and not upon any account of the Cross it self Which Reason if rightly understood speaks no more than this That whilst I see the Figure of our Blessed Saviour Crucified I by bowing in presence of that Crucifix adore him in Heaven and if I bow or kneel or prostrate my self before that Crucifix that Bowing Kneeling or Prostration may be termed Adoration because it tends to JESVS CHRIST the true Object of our Adoration who is represented to my Mind by that Crucifix It is therefore an Adoration of JESVS CHRIST represented by the Crucifix but not an Adoration of the Crucifix it self For this Holy Doctor declares 3. Qu. 25. Art 3. in Corpore That no Reverence is due to any thing for it self but to a Rational Nature but that an Irrational Creature may be honoured with respect to a Rational Nature which it represents which Honour do's not terminate in the Irrational Creature but in the Rational Nature upon which account he maintains That that Honour is the same with that which is paid to that Rational Nature The Pontifical also says he admits the same In the same sence I grant but not in that which he would willingly make us believe it do's He tells us indeed That in the Prayers for Blessing the Image of the Cross he who performs that Ceremony amongst other Prayers begs of God That as many as bow down before it may find Health both of their Souls and Bodies by it Which he will have to be irreconcilable with the Bishop of Condom's Doctrine and that of the Council of Trent which forbids us to believe any Divinity or Vertue tied to Images for which they ought to be adored c. But if he had dealt ingenuously he would not have suppressed the Reason of that Bowing mentioned by the Pontifical which would have easily reconciled the whole The Words are these See also the same quoted and falsly rendred in English by the Answerer to the Papist Protesting pag. 76. Vt orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam Crucem inveniant corporis animoe sanitatem But he thought it better to leave out the words propter Deum for the sake of God And this is his usual way of citing Authors All the rest of his Expressions drawn from the Pontifical are of the same nature either lame or patch'd up from several Places and therefore if they make any thing against us are not worthy our regarding But he has another Argument and that from an Authentic Act of the Church her self in her Good-Friday Solemnity in which the whole Church addresses her self says he to the Cross in these very dangerous words Behold the Wood of the Cross come let us adore it And he tells us the whole solemnity of that days Service plainly shews we do adore it in the utmost propriety of the Phrase But here he has been also so unfortunate as not to give us all the Words of the Church and to add another which is not there to make it speak his Sence The Words sung by the Church in that Service are these Ecce Lignum Crucis in quo pependit Salus Mundi venite Adoremus Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World did hang come let us Adore He saw well enough these words taken altogether would be a clear Explication of our Doctrine and shew it was not the Cross we adored but the Saviour of the World who hung upon it and therefore he concealed these last Words and added the word it and so gives us this mutilated Sentence Behold the Wood of the Cross come let us Adore IT instead of the other But do's not the Church in her Hymns of the Passion and Invention pray to the Cross in express terms In this indeed he seems to have some shew of reason but how often has he been told these are Poetical Expressions and that the word Cross by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets signifies JESUS CHRIST Crucified to whom we pray in those Hymns Now as the Honour which we pay to Images is referr'd to those who are represented by them so likewise is that Honour and Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Relics of those Saints who were Victims to God entirely referr'd to them whose remains they are He tells us If that be the state of the Question which the Bishop of Condom has propos'd pag. 17. they confess that the Explication of it has taken away a great part of the difficulty and that if this be all M. de Meaux desires of them they are ready to profess their Opinion that they judge it to be neither offensive to God nor fit to be scrupled by Man But least we should be thus agreed the Bishop must not be allow'd to have explicated our Tenets right and therefore either some practices or abuses which might have past amongst those which he says we complain of must be brought against him or else the Council
of Trent must be again Corrupted by him in order to it He tells us he can allow of Honouring them but that the Council of Trent says We are to Worship them and that by so doing we shall obtain many Benefits and Graces of God That these Sacred Monuments are not unprofitably revered but are TO BE SOVGHT VNTO for the obtaining their help and assistance to cure the Sick to give Eyes to the Blind Feet to the Lame and even Life to the Dead Any one to hear these words quoted as from the Council of Trent would really think we pray'd and sought unto those Relics that we might obtain sight for the Blind c. whereas the words of the Council express no such thing which to the end you may not think I Cavil I will here give you as they lye Sanctorum quoque martyrum aliorum cum Christo viventium sancta corpora quoe viva membra fuerunt Christi templum Spiritus sancti ab ipso ad oeternam vitam suscitanda glorificanda à fidelibus veneranda esse per quoe multa bèneficia à Deo hominibus proestantur ita ut affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta à fidelibus inutiliter honorari atque eorum opis impetrandoe causâ Sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari omnino damnandos esse prout jam pridem eos damnavit nunc etiam damnat Ecclesia Sess 25. dic de Iovoc c. The Holy Catholic Church teaches also that the Holy Bodies of Saints and Martyrs living with Christ which were the living Members of Christ and the Temples of the Holy Ghost and are one Day to be raised again to Eternal Life and glorified by him are to be Venerated by the Faithful Hieronymus advers Vigilantium by which Bodies many benefits have been granted by God to Men So that they who affirm that no Veneration or Honour is due to the Relics of Saints or that those Relics and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honoured by the Faithful or that they do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints to the end they may obtain their aid the aid of the Saints eorum are wholly to be condemned Conc. Nic. 2. Can. 7. as the Church do's now and has also formerly condemned them You see there is not one word here of Worshipping them unless we take Veneration for it which in some sence may pass but not in this neither is there one word of seeking to these Sacred Monuments to obtain their help and assistance to cure the Sick c. These are wholly his own inventions put upon us for the words of the Council he might very well say these were fond things vainly invented c. we require them not from him All we desire is what he professes they are ready to perform We will says he Honour the Relics of the Saints as the Primitive Church did Pag. 18. We will respect the Images of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin and as some of us now bow towards the Altar and all of us are enjoyned to do so at the Name of the Lord JESUS so will we not fail to testifie all due Respect to his Representation We will not quarrel with him about the manner how we ought to call that Respect and Honour and if any of ours say that Honour and Respect being only due upon account of the Things they represent and no ways upon their own ought therefore to have the same Denomination with that which is due to the Original I hope such an Explication being no ways injurious to the Originals deserves not so severe a Censure as some of them are pleased to give it neither ought the Church which is not concerned with those Opinions which are purely Scholastic to suffer for what is probably disputed of in the Schools Those who would see more of this Point may be pleas'd to read the Just Discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet 's Vnjust Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome and Veron's Rule of Faith upon this Head and they who have not those Books may be pleas'd to reflect seriously upon the foregoing Passages and this following transcribed out of the Council of Trent Imagines porro Christi Deiparoe Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in templis proesertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendoe vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus Psal 134. quoe in idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa quoe illoe reproesentant ita ut per imagines quas osculamur coram quibus caput aperimus procumbimus Christum adoremus Sanctos quorum illoe similitudinem gerunt Conc. Nic. 2. Actio 3 4 6. veneremur id quod Concilorum presertim vero secundoe Nicoenoe Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum Illud vero diligenter doceant Episcopi per historias mysteriorum nostroe redemptionis picturis vel aliis similitudinibus expressas erudiri confirmari populum in articulis fidei commemorandis assidue recolendis tum vero ex omnibus sacris imaginibus magnum fructum percipi non solum quia admonetur populus beneficiorum munerum quoe à Christo sibi collata sunt sed etiam quia Dei per Sanctos miracula salutaria exempla oculis Fidelium subjiciuntur ut pro iis Deo gratias agant ad Sanctorumque imitationem vitam moresque suos componant excitenturque ad adorandum ac diligendum Deum ad pietatem colendam Si quis autem his decretis contraria docuerit aut senserit anathema sit In has autem sanctas salutares observationes si qui abusus irrepserint eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus vehementer cupit ita ut nulloe falsi dogmatis imagines rudibus periculosi erroris occasionem proebentes statuantur Quod si aliquando historias narrationes sacroe Scripturoe cum id indoctoe plebi expediet exprimi figurari contigerit doceatur populus non propterea divinitatem figurari quasi corporeis oculis conspici vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi possit Sess 25. Dec. de Invoc c. Moreover the Catholic Church teaches That the Images of JESVS CHRIST of the Blessed Virgin-Mother of God and of other Saints are to be had and retained especially in Churches and that due Honour and Reverence is to be given them not that we believe any Divinity or Vertue to be in them for which they ought to be worshipped or that we ought to ask any thing of them or put our confidence in Images as the Pagans did who put their trust in Idols but because the Honour which is
Grace and Bounty of God as also that we do as properly and truly when we do well TOGETHER WITH THE GRACE OF GOD merit a Reward as we do merit Punishments when we do ill WITHOUT IT For he speaks here after the very same manner of the Just Man's Reward and of the Punishment of the Wicked These are his Words but our Author whose Religion as he tells us accustoms him to sincerity had it may be forgot himself a little here or read it in hast or copied it from some other Author upon whose sincerity he relied which made him leave out these words Together with the Grace of God His next Quotation is from Bellarmine who tells us says he De Justif lib 5. c. 17. That our Good Works do merit Eternal Life condignly not by reason of God's Covenant and Acceptation but also by reason of the Work it self The Title indeed of that Chapter is something towards that sence for the Words are these Opera bona justorum meritoria esse ex condigno non solum ratione pacti sed etiam ratione operis The Works of the Just are condignly meritorious not only by reason of God's Covenant but also by reason of the Works But if we look into the Chapter it self we shall see his Sence and that he only holds a Scholastic Opinion as most probable and one not so inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Church as he would have it nor so erroneous as that it needs an Index Expurgatorius He tells us first There are three ways by which Good Works may be condignly meritorious either by reason of the Covenant alone or by reason of the Work alone or upon account of them both together Then he tells us That several Authors have held some one and some another of these ways but he himself will keep the middle as most probable and shew That the Good Works of the Just are condignly meritorious of Eternal Life not only by reason of the Covenant but also of the Work together with it And in proving this Assertion he explicates his meaning and shews first That the Good Works of the Just taken of themselves alone without that Covenant are not condignly or so rigorously meritorious of Eternal Life that God could not without an Injustice refuse such a Reward And secondly That in Good Works proceeding from Grace there is a certain Proportion and Equality to the Reward of Eternal Life because Eternal Life is John 1.16 as St. John tells us GRACE FOR GRACE that is the Grace of a Reward for the Grace of Merit because Grace is SEMEN GLORIAE the Seed of Glory and because our Merits depend upon the Merits of CHRIST both in this that he has merited for us the Vertue of Meriting and in this that we merit as the Living Members of JESVS CHRIST and by an Influence which we receive from him as from our Head So that he concludes from these and several other Reasons brought by him all of which shew he do's not understand that either our Works can be called Good or we be esteemed Just without the Grace of God I say from these he concludes That it would be to detract from the Glory of CHRIST that our Merits which receive all their Value from him should be so imperfect as not to be condignly meritorious unless it were purely by reason of God's Acceptance Now let any impartial Man be judge whether this Doctrine require so severe a Censure as he would have the Church to give upon it Then he brings in Vasquez In D. Th. 1. c. qu. 114. d. 214. c. 5. alibi whose Doctrine is much what the same as Bellarmine's as to the first of the three Conclusions brought by him The second as appears by the Words is only a pure Scholastic Dispute about a Possibility and therefore I need say nothing to them As for his third after some search I could not find any Conclusion bearing that sence But touching his Remarkable Corollary I must needs tell him he has been so disingenuous as to leave out those Parts which would have shewn his Reader upon what Matter he was treating and how little it made for his purpose or against us But that he may see I love sincere Dealing tho' I be no Protestant I will transcribe his Words At vero cum opera Justi condigne mereantur vitam oeternam tanquam oequalem mercedem proemium non opus est interventa alterius meriti condigni quale est meritum Christi ut eis reddatur vita oeterna quinimo aliquid habet peculiare meritum cujuscunque justi respectu ipsius hominis justi quod non habet meritum Christi nempe reddere ipsum hominem justum dignum vitâ oeternâ ut eam dignè consequatur meritum autem Christi licet dignissimum sit quod obtineat a Deo Gratiam pro nobis tamen non habet hanc efficaciam virtutem ut reddat nos formaliter justos dignos oeternâ vitâ sed per virtutem ab ipso derivatam hunc consequuntur effectum homines in se ipsis Et ita nunquam petimus a Deo per merita Christi ut nostris dignis operibus meritoriis reddatur merces oeternoe vitoe sed ut per Christum detur nobis Gratia qua possumus dignè hanc mercedem promereri quod etiam manifestum signum est non expectare nos novam imputationem meritorum Christi proeter eam qua initio acceptimus gratiam virtutem ad recte operandum condigne promerendum Nam cum dicimus Christum meruisse nobis vitam oeternam non intelligimus illam ita nobis meruisse ut nostris operibus meritis condignis non reddatur nisi posteriori illa applicatione meritorum Christi sed quia Christus merito suo obtinuit nobis justificationem ea omnia quibus ad illam proeparamur proeterea obtainuit jam justificatis auxilia quibus recte operarentur vitam oeternam promererentur But says he seeing the Works of the Just do condignly merit Eternal Life as an equal Recompence and Reward there is no need that any other Condign Merit such as that of CHRIST should interpose to the end that Eternal Life might be rendred to them for the Merit of every Just man has something peculiar in respect of himself who is Just which the Merit of CHRIST has not that is to render him Just and worthy of Eternal Life that he may worthily obtain it whereas the Merit of CHRIST tho' it be most worthy to obtain Grace for us from God yet it has not this Efficacy and Power to render us formally Just and worthy of Eternal Life but Men do in themselves by a Virtue deriv'd from Him obtain this Effect And thus we never beg of God that by the Merits of CHRIST the Reward of Eternal Life may be given to our Worthy and Meritorious Works but that through CHRIST Grace may be given us whereby we
Cardinal Cajetan thought it could not be proved Nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus JESUS a discipulis exercendam in aegrotis Cajet Annot. in loc neither from the Words nor from the Effect that the Words of St. James speak of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction but rather of that Vnction which our Lord JESVS instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick he had been a faithful Quoter of Cajetan's Sence But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other is to impose upon him and his Readers He tells us They anoint not their Sick for the Recovery of their Bodily Health because the Miraculous Power of Healing to which that Ceremony ministred is ceased in the Church But unless he can manifestly prove the Unction had no relation to the Sicknesses of the Soul and this from clearer Testimonies than the continued Practice of the Church till this last Age he brings nothing against our Possession nor can he justifie the laying it aside ART XIII Of Marriage HE tells us concerning Marriage Art 14. p. 45. That M. de Meaux says nothing of it but what they willingly allow and we desire no more He supposes that all true and proper Sacraments ought to be generally necessary to Salvation Pag. 46. and after the same manner a Sacrament as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are and cites Lombard quoted by Cassander on their side But this I suppose was only for ostentation for no Catholics ever esteemed Marriage to be a Sacrament generally necessary to Salvation otherwise as he grants himself they would never have prohibited the Use of it to the Clergy But if he intend his Quotations should refer to the Reason he gives why it cannot be a Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the Holy Encharist are because as he says it wants an Outward Sign to which by CHRIST's Promise a Blessing is annex'd he will not only find this Author against him but the whole Torrent of the Fathers and the plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by them ART XIV Of Holy Orders HE tells Art 15. p. 46. That the Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Spirit may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament but because the Grace that is conferred by it is not common to all Christians he thinks it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are So that thus far I find no difference betwixt us He tells us also That they will not raise any Controversie about the distinction of Orders below Deacons because he acknowledges them to be ancient in the Church and I am satisfied with that Acknowledgment and would not willingly raise new Disputes ART XV. Of the Eucharist WE come now to the Article of the Eucharist Art 16. p. 47. in which we cannot but with him testifie our just regret that this Sacrament of Love and Charity should become now an Occasion of Contention It is not my Province to examine the Arguments he brings against our Doctrine they having been so often and so fully answered by others or to shew how weakly he oppugns the Bishop of Condom's Reasons but only to justifie his Exposition Yet however I cannot but take notice how insincerely he begins his Attaque from whence we may judge what is to be expected in the Sequel He tells us That M. de Meaux seems to allow that in two Cases it might have bene lawful to forsake the Literal Interpretation of these Words This is my Body Ibidem The first is If there be such grounds in those Words for a Figurative Interpretation as naturally lead to it Which having supposed to be grantted by the Bishop he undertakes to prove from Gratian and Bellarmine that the Words do lead to a Figurative Interpretation and endeavours to confirm it by the Words of the Institution and other Examples of Scripture But what will he say now when I shall shew him that he imposes upon the Bishop and has not proved one tittle either against him or us The Bishop's Words are these Expos pag. 19. As for us who find nothing in the Words which JESVS CHRIST makes use of in the Institution of this Mystery OBLIGING VS to take them in a Figuration Sence we think that a sufficient Reason to determine us to the Literal He speaks here you see of our being OBLIGED to take those Words in a Figurative sence which both he and all Catholics affirm can never be proved against us but no body ever denied but the Words as they lie without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church delivering the Interpretation of them down to us might possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture as for example I am a Door I am a Vine c. which being always taken by the Church in a Figurative sence we should esteem him a Madman that should think it possible after this to persuade all the World they ought to be taken in a Literal And as it would be a Madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages become so sottish as to renounce this Figurative Interpretation of JESVS CHRIST's being a Door and a Vine and fall so far into the Literal sence as to believe him to be substantially present in them and pay the utmost Adorations to him there set them up in Temples to be adored and celebrate Feasts in Honour of them So we cannot but think it to be very irrational to imagine that if the Disciples and the whole Church in all Nations had been once taught these Words This is my Body were to be taken in a Figurative sence it could ever have hapned the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children that it ought to be taken in a Literal and proceed so far as to pay their Adorations to what they knew was but a morsel of Bread expose it to be worshipped c. which they could not but know was an Idolatry would bring inevitable Damnation to them and their Posterity who should be guilty of it And further We cannot see how it can enter into the Minds of Rational men that this so grand an Errour should either overspread the Church in a moment or so insensibly creep into it that she who was so vigilant in all other Errours of lesser moment should yet be so blind as not to see this or so wicked as not to take notice of it He should then if he would have opposed M. de Meaux or the Catholic Church have undertaken to prove That the very Words of the Institution oblige us to take them in a Literal sence He tells us indeed That if the
Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and CHRIST's Body will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation But unless he can prove that the Pronoun hoc this must necessarily relate to Panis Bread and not to Corpus Body his Argument will avail him nothing but that all his Logic will never be able to effect Pag. 45. His Argument is this What did he say was his Body but that which he gave to his Discipoles What did he give to his Disciples but that which he broke What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly He took Bread But what follows from all this but that JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat THIS IS MY BODY But he go's on What JESVS took in his Hands that he blessed What he blessed the same he brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But JESUS says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said THIS IS MY BODY But what do's all this argue against us unless he beg the Question and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words Which to shew how true it is let us propose an Example We will suppose and that not incongruously that our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these either mental or vocal Words This is Wine or let this be Wine Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined but only signified Substance till the Word Wine was annexed This supposed if any one would see the force of his Argument let him change the Expression and instead of Bread use Water and instead of Body use Wine and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words This is Wine must necessarily mean This Water is Wine or rather whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19. SS prumum as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him of the like Proposition This is my Body But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument to which this Author refers He tell us there how these Words Take and eat for this is my Body must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread as Catholics or else a metaphorical Change as the Calvinists hold but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sence Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans assirming the Words This is my Body to bear necessarily one of these three sences First This which is contained under the species of Bread is my Body which is the Catholic sence and supposes a Mutation The second is that of the Sacramentaries who admit of no Mutation and their sence is This Bread is the Figure of my Body The third which is that of the Lutherans who admit of no Change but yet allow a Real Presence must bear this Interpretation This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body But this says he can by no means be admitted whether we speak of the thing it self or of the Proposition For it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another for it would be that thing and would not be that thing Moreover in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum or thing of which any thing is affirmed and the Praedicatum or thing affirm'd of it should have a regard to the same thing Then follow the Words which he cites It cannot therefore be that that Proposition should be true in which the Subjectum or former part designs Bread and the Praedicatum or latter part the Body of CHRIST For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed and which he if he had used Sincerity should have oppugned and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question But as I said it is not my Business here to justifie our Tenets but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But I observe he uses frequently the Word Corporeally and the Corporeal Presence which the Bishop has avoided keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent which tells us only that JESVS CHRIST is truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament but uses not the Word Corporeally I suppose because it may bear a double sence and signifie either first that the Body is really and substantially present tho' not after a carnal gross manner with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body and this is the sence of those Catholics who make use of it Or secondly it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal carnal manner with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body which sence our Enemies are apt to impute to us as if it were our Doctrine tho very unjustly But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux would have proved as much against it as it do's against ours He tells us Pag. â—â— They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but they deny that therefore it must be his very Body I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Gigure of it If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sence we agree with him But if he mean by this somewhat more than a meer Figure that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful in the Lords Supper as their Church Catechism has it I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs 'T is true their Twenty eighth Article tells us that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is receiv'd and eaten in the Supper is Faith Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another I am willing to think the meaning of the saying that Faith is the means by which they
as the thing intended by the word Consubstantial was all along of Faith before that Council so was the thing intended by Transubstantiation ever believed by the Faithful in all Ages The thing intended by the word Transubstantiation is expressed by the Council of Trent in these words If any one shall say Sess 13. Can. 2. That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church do's most aptly call Transubstantiation Let him be Anathema This Council having before expressed our Belief of the true Ibid. Can 1. Chap. 1. real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the most Holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it But because there are many sorts of Conversions of one Substance into another all which may be called Substantial Conversions and by consequence the word Transubstantiation might be properly enough used to express that Change therefore it is manifest the Church do's not intend here to fix the Manner of that Conversion but only to declare the Matter viz. That the body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST becomes truly really and substantially present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially present tho the Appearances thereof remain This Matter is that which is of Faith and was always so before the Council of Lateran but as for the Manner how this Conversion is made it is even at present a disputable Question in the Schools It being then manifest that our Dispute with protestants is not about the Manner how JESUS CHRIST is present but only about the thing it self whether the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST be truly really and substantially present after the Words of Consecration under the species or appearance of Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine being not so present let us examine whether the Authorities he brings as to both his Assertions have any force against our Tenets He tells us first That Lombard Scotus and many others confess that there is not in Scripture any formal Proof of Transubstantiation and cites in the Margin Lombard 4. Sent. dist 10. But there is no such thing in him as I shall more fully shew in declaring his Doctrine He brings in Scotus also 4. Dist 2. Qu. 11. whereas there are only two Questions in that Distinction His next Quotation is Bellarmine Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. ff Secundo dicit who he says confesses and cites many others of the same Opinion That there is not any formal Proof from Scripture that without that Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it 'T is true Bellarmine here acknowledges that Scotus said there was not any Place in Scripture so express that it would evidently compel any one to admit of Transubstantiation without the Churches Declaration which he confesses is not altogether improbable For says he altho the Scripture which we have mentioned above do's appear to us so clear that it may compel a Man who is not perverse to believe it yet whether it be so or no we may justly doubt since Learned and Acute Men such as in the first place Scotus was have thought the contrary And this is all he says 'T is true also that Scotus in 4. Dist 11. Qu. 3. n. 5. brings this Objection That nothing is to be held as of the Substance of Faith but what is expresly to be had out of Scripture or is expresly declared by the Church or evidently follows from what is plainly contained in Scripture or plainly determined by the Church But that it neither appears manifestly from Scripture nor from the Churches Declaration nor is it evidently inferred from either that the Substance of Bread do's not remain in the Eucharist And answers it n. 15. thus That the Church has declared it in the Council of Lateran c. Firmiter Credimus In which Chapter he tells us the Truth of some things which are to be believed are more explicitly declared than they were in the Apostles Creed or in that of Nice or that of St. Athanasius So that from hence some have concluded that Scotus probably held this Assertion That the Scripture did not evince it as also the other That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not so explicitly believed before that Council of Lateran as it was since But this is no more than what he or any one might say of the Consubstantiality of the Son before the Council of Nice It is also to be taken notice that this Distinction of P. Lombard was wholly written upon the Manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament and other Scholastic Disputes of that nature and not upon the thing it self as of Faith and therefore no wonder if Scotus writing upon that Distinction should grant how that manner of Conversion which he thought was a Consequence of the Council of Laterans Definition was not so explicitly known before that Council as since or not clearly found in Scripture But if you look upon him Dist 10. qu. 1. n. 2 3. where he is to treat of the Real Presence of CHRIST's Body and Blood under the species of Bread and Wine he tells us that it is a Truth which was expresly delivered from the beginning even from the very time of the Institution of the Eucharist His Words are Ista enim veritas a principio fuit expressè tradita ex quo Eucharistia fuit instituta And he adds That the Foundation of that Authority are the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood which he says cannot be taken Figuratively if we observe the Rule of St. Augustin Aug. 83. Quest qu. 69. That the Circumstances of Scripture do clear the Sense of it For CHRIST having added to these Words This is my Body this Circumstance which shall be brokeâ— for you and to these Words This is my Blood thâ—â— Circumstance which shall be shed for you it is manifest they ought to be taken in a Literal sence Then he tells us That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges 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 and quotes him in 3. D. Thomae qu. 75. art 1. But he says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article in which he tells us That we learn from the Truth of the Words of our Lord taken in their proper sence that the Body of CHRIST is truly in the Eucharist which is the first thing says he which we learn concerning this Sacrament from the Gospel