literally or properly Christ is an Impostor that is is not the true Christ which is expresly the sense which my Antagonist would pin upon this passage of Costerus For first it is well known that it is usual in the Hebrew idiome in which Christ spake as it is not unfrequent also in other tongues to use the verb substantive est when the subject and predicate in a proposition is signum and significatum or if you will when the subject and predicate are those Arguments which Logicians call Similia So our Saviour â—ays elsewhere I am the Vine I am the door And St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10. 4 The rock was Christ besides the examples I have produced in the foregoing Paragraph Will any Body therefore that has the least dram of Reason or Religion in him when This is my Body may so naturally and according to the idiome of the â—ongue signifie This is the sign or symbol of my Body or this is the Representation of my Body that is to be broken or crucified for you affirm that unless it signifie This is my very Body indeed flesh blood and bones Christ must be an Impostor Nay when Christ himself so plainly affirms Matâ—h 26. 26. that it is Bread For he affirms of that Bread which he had used no consecration to that even that was his Body Indeed if he had first done something to it for the transmutation of it and then taken it up and said This is my Body here had been more colour of pretence that it was not ordinary Bread But he says of this Bread as yet unconsecrated That it is his Body and therefore he plainly affirms that Bread remaining still really Bread is his Body which can be in no sense so but in a figurative one that is to say That it is the sign or symbol of his Body Wherefore when our Saviour does so plainly affirm that the Bread is but the symbol of his Body is it any fault in him that the Church of Rome or any lapsed Church else will so perversly and absurdly understand it as if it were the very Body of Christ it self upon Consecration as if our Saviour Christ had declared it so to be And besides this affirmation of our Saviour we may add the Attestation of his Evangelists whom he lead into all Truth Does not St. Luke expresly say Câ—ap 22. 19. He took Bread and gave thanks and brake and gave it to them saying This is my Body which was given for you do this in remembrance of me What can possiblâ— be more plain then this He gave what he brake he brake what he took and what he took was Bread and of this Bread which he gave brake and took he says This is my Body Wherefore it is evident that of the Bread he pronounced according to the Testimony of St. Luke That it was his Body But Bread cannot be his Body otherwise then symbolically or by way of token or remembrance and therefore he adds Do this in remembrance of me Now memory is not of things present but of things absent All which circumstances do so emphatically import that the Bread is but still a sign not the Body of Christ himself that the most cautious Lawyer could scarce express any ones mind in a conveyance more certainly and expresly And yet our Saviour must be an Impostor if he did not mean by This is my Body This is my real Body the same that hung upon the Cross and was born of the Virgin Mary Can there be any thing more injurious to Christ and Christian Religion then this Add unto all this That besides that Christ himself and the Evangelists declare that it is Bread and not the natural Body of Christ it is demonstratively impossible to be so and openly repugnant to all our senses which alone would assoile our Saviour from being an Impostor the words being easily to be understood in a figurative sense But I hope by this my Adversary blushes that 〈◊〉 has pinned so uncouth and incredible a sense on this Argument of Costerus and will acknowledge that Costerus used this Argument onely as a probability namely That Christ being so certainly the true Christ it is not probable that he would deal so unworthily with his Church as by these words This is my Body occasion so great Idolatry in this Artolatria or Bread worship continued so long in it and that therefore it is not Bread but the real Body of Christ which yet is as well argued or rather far worse then if the Anthropomorphites of old should have argued thus That certainly God would not have dealt so unworthily with his Church as to occasion so hideous an errour and blasphemy that the eternal God has limbes and shape like a Man from those words Let us make man after our own Image if so be he have not so And that therefore he has the lineaments and shape of a Man But besides this where there is no pretense from Scripture to any such thing it is plain that the Church for as long a time have defiled themselves with the Invocation of Saints and worshipping of Images which are gross Idolatries as well as this nay indeed when the Scripture is expresly against it Which yet if you will believe the Romanists themselves have possessed the Church as many hundred years as this worshipping of the Eucharist though they be all really Innovations upon the lapse of the Church as the skilfull in Antiquity do abundantly prove And for this gross errour of Transubstantiation it was not confirmed by any Council till about 1200 after Christ. Wherefore what an intolerable injury and calumny is it against the sacred Person of Christ to cast this Bread-worship upon him as if by the occasion oâ— his words it was introduced when indeed both against his words and against all sense and Reason the lapse and corruption of the Church has brougâ—t it in with other Idolatrous opinions and mispractises But when all this is so to say Christ is not Christ that is That Christ is an Impostor if these words This is my Body be not literally to be understood as if it were his very true natural Body flesh blood and bones I leave to any one to judge if it be not so groundless and so hideous a reproach that it will be hard to find any name ill enough for it And here I profess I cannot but stand iâ—finitely astonish'd at the bold Rhetorick of my Adversary and such like Patrons of the Roman Cause who for the swaggering of the credulous people into a belief of Transubstantiation do not stick to own it as reasonable and certain as that Iesus is the Messias or that the Mystery of the holy Trinity is true When as the Mystery of the holy Trinity has been no less then three or four times confirmed by general Councils in the more pure Times of the Church before her grand Apostasy and Christ always held the true Messias nor can it be doubted
Incurvations being to the symbolical Presences of the Angels they bowed to my sixteenth Conclusion is unconcerned in it nor does it therefore at all enervate my ninth as is plain at first sight For it does not at all imply that either Abraham or St. John were Idolaters in their bowing to Angels or Men. His Answer to the sixteenth Conclusion The sixteenth seventeenth nineteenth and twentieth talk much says he of a symbolical Presence and Incurvation towards it whereof the sixteenth refers to the ninth and hath its Answer there The Reply How infirm my Adversaries Answer is to the ninth and unsatisfactory you have already seen and therefore I having already replied to it it is evident that his Answer to this sixteenth wants no further Reply His Answer to the seventeenth Conclusion To this saith he I have already answered shweing that the Pagans gave the Worship and Title of Deities to their Daemons and therefore became ipso facto Idolaters The Reply To that pretended Answer I have made a full and perspicuous Reply above which if the Reader be pleased to turn back and peruse the more he looks on it I do not question but the more he will be satisfied with it His Answer to the nineteenth Conclusion Here saith he I would know of the Doctor whether the Name of a person be not a symbolical Presence in its kind as well as an Image For as much as both of them are signs or tokens representing the same thing with this onely difference that the Image represents it to the eye the Name to the ear And why then may we not bow to the Image of Iesus as well as to the name of Jesus or how can the one be condemned of Idolatry but the other must incur the like brand The Reply The Doctor Answers that the Name may be a symbol as Aristotle has defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aword or Name may be a symbol of that conception I have in my mind says Aristotle but he says nothing of its being a symbol of the external Object But let that go Though it be a symbol yet it is very unnatural to conceive it a symbolical Presence not is any where called so nor accounted so by any one Besides a symbolical Presence must be a standing permanent representation of that which it is the symbolical Presence of consecrated and intended for that purpose How unnaâ—ural therefore is it to conceit a name that is no sooner sounded but vanishes from the senses to be a symbolical Presence but onely a meer note or symbol to help our memories and to be part of speech and discourse So plain is it there is not the same reason of the Image of Jesus and the Name of Jesus Noâ— is the second Commandment against bowing to sounds but Images Nor do we which is best of all bow to the Name of Jesus but at the Name of Jesus as I answered above And if it could be proved that the Name of Jesus were a symbolical Presence of one kind as my Adversary phrases it so long as it is not of that kind my nineteenth Conclusion speaks of and founded on the second Commandment what is it to the purpose Or if it were included unless that of the second to the Philippians commanded to bow to it in such a sense which my Adversary will be never able to prove what will it avail But I have even over-answered this Objection And it is already too too manifest that though bowing at the Name of Jesus be no Idolatry bowing to the Image of Jesus may be palpable Idolaâ—â—y His Answer to the twentieth Conclusion To me this Conclusion saith he seems big with a spirit of contradiction as being manifestly against Scripture against the practise of the Church of England and lastly against Dr. More himself First Against Scripture As is manifest besides what we have said says he in Answer to the last Conclusion of the first Chapter from the Incurvation the Scripture commands to the Name of Jesus which is as much a Religious Incurvation as any we give to t'ose symbolical Presences called Images Secondly Against the Church of England who bow the knee at the Eucharist to the bare Figurative or symbolical Presence of Christs natural flesh and blood and therefore they useing this Religious Incurvation towards a symbolical Presence are Idolaters Nor can excuse themselves by a mental reserve they intending it onely as a circumstance of their Worship because that is declared Equivocation in this very Conclusion and the foregoing one Thirdly and lastly This Conclusion is against my self Because my sixteenth Conclusion openly avoucheth That the erecting of a symbolical Presence with Incurvation thitherward was declared by the supreme God the God of Israel one of the manners of worship due to him but my twentieth runs counter and stifly presseth That Religious Incurvation towards a symbolical Presence without exception of any wittingly and conscientiously directed thither is real Idolatry These two Conclusions saith he are as perfect a contradiction as to say All Religious Incurvation toward a symbolical Presence is Idolatry Not all Religious Incurvation toward a symbolical Presence is Idolatry The Reply To all which three I Reply and First to the first That what he has said in Answer to the last Conclusion of my first Chapter I have replied to already and plainly proved there is nothing therein that clashes with the Scripture And as I said before so I again repeat that we are not commanded to bow to the name of Jesus but if it be understood of any external Ceremony onely at the name of Jesus and with all though the Incurvation be Religious that his name is no symbolical Presence as I declared before Never any one phancied a name any such thing so that it is a meer shift to amuze the ignorant To the Second that the Bread and Wine are no symbolical Presence or Figure of the very Person of Christ nor do I know that any Protetestants hold that any Blood or Flesh of Christ not actuated by his humane Spirit nor joyned with the Divinity is capable of Divine or Religious Worship sith nothing is capable thereof but God But a symbolical Presence is the representation of some Person or thing erected to represent the thing oâ— Person conceived by them that erect it adorable ' But we do not conceive the Body of Christ killed and Sacrificed and his Blood shed out of his Body adorable unless it could be proved what yet is impossible that it was even then Hypostatically united with God when it was disunited from the Soul So that the broken Bread and the Wine are but commemoration tokens of the Body of Christ killed and Crucified and his Blood shed for us this commemoration being as it were a feast upon a Sacrifice as the Apostle intimates 1 Cor. 5. 7. after the Lamb is perfectly slain Nor is any man on his knees at the Communion in order to direct their
Crime it is that the Jew and Protestant here commit Certainly the Jew's can be no less then Idolatry in the internal being that he has assented to the practise of what he thinks in his own Conscience is Idolatry the giving of Divine Worship to a meer Creaâ—ure And so much at least is true of the Protestant that adores the Sacrament But the Sacrament being not Christ he is also guilty of Idolatry in the compleatest Circumstances and becomes an Idolater as well in the external as internal Act. And if you ask what this is to the Doctors purpose he will tell you that his purpose is to perâ—â—â—â—â— all men as much as he can to deal uprightly and not to dissemble So that it is an intimation to as many as are not perswaded of Transubstantiation that they would not abuse themselves in communicating in your service they not being able to do it without apparent Idolatry His Answer to the twenty fifth Conclusion To the twenty fourth he Answered above where you have also my Reply To this twenty fifth or last he onely says touching my Objection there raised and Answered that he will leave the Doctor to the pleasure of his own thoughts raising his airy Castle with one hand and beating it down with another The Reply To which my Reply is onely this let the Reader seriously peruse this my last Conclusion and consider whether the Objection I raise be not material and whether the solution thereof be not solid And let him also impartially judge if I have not though briefly yet very clearly and perspicuously showed the Invalidity of all my Antagonists Objections against the Conclusions of these two first Chapters of my Antidote We proceed now to the third CHAP. III. That the Romanists worship the Host with the highest kind of â— orship even that of Latria according to the Injunction of the Council of Trent and that it is most grosâ— Idolatry so to do I. AND having thus clearly and distinctly evinced and declared what is or ought to be held Idolatry amongst Christians let us at length take morefull notice of some Particulars wherein according to these Determinations the Church of Rome will be manifestly found guilty of Idolatry and that according to the very Definitions of their own Council of Trent As first in the Point of the Adoration of the Host touching which the very words of the Council are Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione esse adhibendum and again Siquis dixerit in sancto Eucâ—aristiae Sacramento Christum non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum solenniter circumgestandum populóque proponendum publicè ut adoretur Anathema sit 2. This confident Injunction of gross Idolatry as it is certainly such is built upon their confidence of the truth of their Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the Chapter of the Adoration of the Host succeeds that of Transubstantiation as a natural or rather necessary Inference therefrom Nullâ—â— itaque dubitandâ— locus relinquiâ—ur c. That is to say The Doctrine of Transubstantiation being established there is no Scruple left touching the Adoration of the Host or giving Divine Worship to the Sacrament or Christ as it is there called when it is carried about and exposed publickly in Processions to the view of the people But the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being false it must needs follow that the giving of Divine Worship to the Host is as gross a piece of Idolatry as ever was committed by any of the Heathens For then their Divine Worship even their Cultus Latriae which is onely due to the onely-true God is exhibited to a meer Creature and that a very sorry one too and therefore must be gross Idolatry by the twenty-first and twenty-second Conclusions of the second Chapter 3. But now that their Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false after we have proposed it in the very words of the Council we shall evince by undeniable Demonstration Per consecrationem Panis Vini conversionem fieritotius substantiae Panis in substantiam Corporis Christi totius substantiae Vini in substantiam Sanguinis ejus quae conversio convenienter propriè à Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata And a little before cap 3. Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie sub singulis cujusque speciâ—i partibus separatione factâ totum Christum contineri Anethema sit In which passages it is plainly affirmed that not onely the Bread is turned into the whole Body of Christ and the Wine into his Bloud but that each of them are turned into the whole Body of Christ and every part of each as often as division or sepaâ—ation is made is also turned into his whole Body Which is such a contradictious Figment that there is nothing so repugnant to the Faculties of the humane Soul 4. For thus the Body of Christ will be in God knows how many thousand places at once and how many thousand miles distant one from another Whenas Ampâ—itruo rightly expostulates with hiâ— Servant Sosia and rates him for a Mad-man or Impostour that he would go about to make him believe that he was at home though but a little way off while yet he was with him at that distance from home Quo id malúm pacto pâ—test fiâ—ri nunc ntà 〈◊〉 hÃcsis â— domi And a little before in the same Colloquie with his Servant Nemo unquam â—omo vidit saith he nec potest fieri tempore uno homo idem dâ—obus locis ut simul sit Wherein Amphitruo speaks but according to the common sense and apprehension of all men even of the meanest Idiots 5. But now let us examine it according to the Principles of the learned and of all their Arts and Sciences Physicks Metaphysicks Mathematicks and Logick It is a Principle in Physicks That that internal space that a Body occupies at one time is equal to the Body that occupies it Now let us suppose one and the same body occupy two such internal places or spaces at once This Body is therefore equal o those two spaces which are double to one si gle space wherefore the body is double to that body in one single space and therefore one and the same body double to it self Which is an enormous Contradiction Again in Metaphysicks The body of Christ is acknowledged one and that as much as any one body else in the world Now the Metaphysical Notion of one is to be indivisum à â—se both quoad partes and quoad totum as well as divisum à quolibet alio But the Body of Christ being both in Heaven and without any continuance of that body here upon Earth alâ—o the whole body is divided from the whole body and therefore is entirely both unum and multa which is a perfect Contradiction 6 Thirdly in Matâ—ematicks The Council saying that in the separation of the
speak of to be such a thing as being once made is not to be destroyed And therefore to quit my self of my Antagonists crafty Evasions I will mould my Proposition into a consistence more full and close that there may be no holes nor chinkes for a slippery wit to creep through and shall argue tâ—us That thing that once made is never to be destroyed when ever it may be truely said of it That it can be made and is to be made of any thing it then is not But the Body of Christ is a thing that once made to exist is never to be destroyed Therefore when ever it is truely to be said of it That it can be made or is to be made of any thing it then is not But Transubstantiation even now says That the Body of Christ can be made and is to be made of Bread or a Waâ—er consecrated Therefore according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation the Body of Christ is not But we know certainly and both the Scripture and the Church Universal do restifie that the Body of Christ is Therefore if Transubstantiation be true The Body of Christ both is and is not at the same time against that Logical and Metaphysical Principle Idem non potest esse non esse simul Is not this as clear as the Meridian Sun But he has not done yet To say the Body of Christ is to be made of the Consecrate Bread is sucâ— an unhappy absurdity with my Antagonist that he reflects on that in the third place even with the eye of pitty It is pitty says he to observe his words in the next Proposition The individual Body of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated Which implies as if the Wafer were the material cause of Christs Body What Philosophy ever spake so Unphilosophically Reply Good lack what Tragedies are here raised upon not an half-penny of harm done If my Antagonist had but observed the many significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristotles Metaphysicks he might easily have observed more significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of than the Material cause But he proceeds Yet to make amends he immediately contradicts himself and adds That the Wafer is turned into his individual Body which is a much different thing from being made of the Wafer Reply Water is turned into Ice or Crystal or into Wine by a Miracle and Lead by Chymical transmutation into Gold how much is that different from Ice or Crystal and Wine being made of Water and Gold of Lead But the particle for saith he goes beyond wonder The individual Body of Christ is made of the Wafer Consecrated mark the word for it is turned into his individual Body Which is a piece of as Learned Non-sense as if he said in open terms Because the Wafer is turned into Christs Body by a total Conversion which excludes a Material cause therefore his Body is made of the Wafer by generation which requires a Material cause Thus unfortunate are the Arts and Sciences when they ingage against Gods Church Reply Would not one think that in this high bluster and swaggering language he had plainly proved his Antagonist a meer dotard in matters of Divinity But let us reflect a little on the Reflecter And first upon his Hyperbolical wonderment on the particle for Crystal is made of Water for Water is turned into Crystal Vineger made of Wine for Wine is turned into Vineger Gold sometime made of Lead for Lead sometimes is turned into Gold Is the use of for in such cases as these so wonderfull Or were it not a wonder if for were not used upon such occasions And yet my Antagonist cannot abstain from calling it a piece of learned Non-sense though not half so Learned as the making of a Child of two spans long but double to the same Child when but one span long which yet I had the candour gently to connive at Nor do I understand any sense in this saying of mâ— Antagonist That a total conversion excludes the material Cause if he will allow the matter to be such For certainly the whole Bread includes the matter of the Bread as well as the form and the form perishing else it were Bread still what remains but the matter of the Bread to be turned into the Body of Christ and to become formally and individuâ—lly his Body And whether this may be called generation or no is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is no such generation as is ordinarily seen in Nature but being it is such a conversion changing or mutation as whose terminus is substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is properly and simplâ— generation So fortunate are the Arts and Sciences when they engage for Gods Church against Errour and Falshood But the best jest is yet behind All the stir and bluster he makes and crowing over me is because I say The Body of Christ is made of the Wafer which is the vâ—ry language of the School-men and the Fathers For besides that conficere corpus Christi is an usual phrase with tâ—em St. Ambrose plainly says Vbi accessit consecratio de pane sit Christi caro And again Scrmo Christi creaturam mutat â—ic ex pane fit Corpus Christi The Body or flesh of Christ is made of the Bread Which ex pane according to my Adversaries own sense designs the material Cause And St. Austin Corpus Christi sanguis virtute Spiritûs sancti ex panis vinique substantia efficitur The Body and Blood of Christ is made of the substance of the Bread and Wine No words can signifie the material Cause more fully then these expressions So that now my Antagonist may clap his wings and crow over St. Austin and St. Ambrose for their learned Non-sense as well as over me Thus unfortunate is humour wit and eloquence when it will ingage against true Religion sound Philosophy and right Reason But he knows this was but a farce to the people and does ingenuousl at last acknowledge he has said nothing as yet in Answer to my Argument in that he says he does but now come to it His Answer to the Argument from that Logical and Metaphysical Principle Nothing can be and not be at the same time in this sixth Paragraph I come now to his Argument saith he Transubstantiation implies that the same thing is and is not at the same time This says he I deny First because Physicks have rendred it probable that a thing which actually is may be reproduced without losing its actual existence And if we should say that Christs Body is thus reproduced in the Sacrament it will not follow that the Body of Christ is and is not at once viz. before the Consecration But onely that it is by a first production and is not by a second production till after the Consecration Secondly That when the Host is converted into the Body of Christ there is
words she has to befool the judgements of the simple 14. But as to the first it is plain that that Vnity that is by Force is no fruit of the Spirit and therefore no Sign of the true Church nor that which is from free Agreement if it be not to good Ends. For Salomon describes an Agreement of Thieves or Robbers heartening one another to spoil and bloudshed and to enter so strict a society as to have but one purse Prov. 1. 14. And therefore for a company of men under the pretense of Spirituality to agree in the inventing or upholding such Doctrines or Fictions as are most servlceable for a worâ—dly design and for the more easily riding and abusing the credulous and carnal-minded thereby to be masters of their Persons and Wealth this is no holy Unity but an horrid and unrighteous conspiracy against the deluded Sons of Adam 15. And for Antiquity and Universality they are both plainly on the Protestants side who make no Fundamentals of Faith but such as are manifestly contained in the Scripture which is much more ancient and more universally received then any of those things upon whose account we separate from the Church of Rome which are but the fruits of that Apostasâ—e which after four Hundred years or thereabout the Church was to fall into according to Divine Prediction So that we are as ancient and universal as the Apostolick Church it self nor do we desire to appear to be the members of any Church that is not Apostolicall And for their boasts of Miracles which are produced to ratifie their crafty Figments they are but Fictions themselves framed by their Priests or Delusions of the Devil according as is foretold concerning the coming of Antichrist that Man of sin which the Pope and his Clergy most assuredly is namely that his coming iâ— after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders 2 Thess. 2. 9. So that they glory in their own shame and boast themselves in the known Character of Antichrist and would prove themselves to be Holy Church by pretending to the Privileges of that Man of sin and by appealing to the palpable signs of the Assistence of the Devil For from thence are all Miracles that are produced in favour of Practices that are plainly repugnant to the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures 16. But now as for their Sanctity what an holy Church they are any one may judge upon the reading of the Lives of their Popes and History of their Cardinals and other Religious Orâ—ers of that Church of Rome how rankly all things smell of Fraud and Imposture of Pride and Covetousness of Ostentation and Hypocrisy what monstrous examples of Sensuality their Holinesses themselves have ordinarily been of Fornication and Adultery of Incest and Sodomie to say nothing of Simonie and that infernall sin of Necromancy But for Murther and Idolatry those horrid Crimes are not onely made familiar to them but have passed into a Law with them and are interwoven into the very Essence of their Religion Judge tâ—en how holy that Church must be whose Religion is tâ—e establishment of Idolatry and Murther Of the latter of which Crimes the holy Inquisition is an Instance with a witnâ—ss And yet that Den of Murtherers whose Office it is to kill men for not committing Idolatry with the Church of Rome must needs bear the title of Holy 17. And for their pretense of Infallibility it is expresly predicted in the Apocalypse of S. Iohn as well as their laying claim to Miracles For as the two-horned Beast is said Apoc. 13. 13 to do great Wonders and to bring fire from Heaven which two-horned Beast is the Pope and his Clergy so Iezebel which is the same Hierarchy is called the Woman that gives to her self the title of a Prophetess Apoc. 2 20. whose Oracles you know must be infallible For she does not mean that she is a false Prophetess though indeed and in truth she is so And the Pope with his Clergy is judged to be so by the Spirit of God in that he is called the false Prophet Apoc. 16. 13. as well as the two-horned Beast in those Visions of S. Iohn And while he pretends himself to be a Prophet even without Divine Revelation one may plainly demonstrate that he is a false one from this one notorious Instance of Transubstantiation which is a Doctrine repugnant to common Sense and Reason and all the Faculties of the Mind of man and bears a contradiction to the most plaâ—n and indubitable Principles of all Arts and Sciences as I have proved above So that we may be more sure that this is false then that we feel our own bodies or can tell our toes and fingers on our hands and feet Judge then therefore whether is more likely that the Church of Rome should be infallible or Transubstantiation a mere Figment especially it being so serviceable for their worldly Advantages and they being taken tardy in so many Impostures and Deceits So that Infallibility is a mere Boast 18. And now for their Sacerdotal Absolution that they can so safely dismiss men to Heaven or secure them from Hell thereby this power of their Priâ—st is such another vain Boast as that of Transubstantiation Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdome of God John 3. 3. And the form of words upon one's Death-bed can no more regenerate any one then their Quinqueverbiall Charm can transubstantiate the Bread and â— ine into the Body and Bloud of Christ. Where the form of Absolution has any effect it must be on such persons as are already really regenerate and unfeignedly and sincerely penitent which I have shewn to be incompetible to any one so long and so far forth as he adheres to the Roman Church So that in this case one Aethiopian does but wash another which is labour spent in vain There must be a change of Nature or no externall Ceremony nor words can do any thing For the form of Absolution is not a Charm as I said to change the nature of things but onely a Ticket to pass Guards and Scouts and to procure safe conduct to the Heavenly Regions But if by Regeneration and due Repentance one has not contracted an alliance and affinity with the Saints and Angels but is really still involved in the impure and Hellish nature the grim Officers of that dark Kingdome will most certainly challenge their own and they will be sure to carry that Soul captive into a sutable place let the flattering Priest have dismissed her hence with the fairest and most hopefull circumstances he could This is the most hideous the most dangerous and the most perfidious Cheat of that Church of Rome that ever she could light on for the damning of poor credulous Souls that thus superstitiously depend on the vain breath of their Priest for the security of their Salvation 19. And yet they are not content with this Device alone to Iull men secure
parts of the Species that which bears the outward show of Bread or Wine that from this Division there is a parting of the whole divided into so many entire Bodies of Christ the Body of Christ being always at the same time equalâ— to it self it follows that a part of the Division is equal to the whole against that common Notion in Euclide That the Whole is bigger then the Part. And lastly in Logick it is a Maxime That the Parts agree indeed with the Whole but disagree one with another But in the abovesaid Division of the Host or Sacrament the Parts do so well agree that they are entirely the very same individual thing And whereas any Division whether Logical or Physical is the Division of some one into many this is but the Division of one into one and it self like him that for brevity â—ake divided his Text into one Part. To all which you may add that unless we will admit of two Sosia's and two Amphitruo's in that sense that the mirth is made with it in Plautus his Comedy neither the Bread nor the Wine can be transubstantiated into the intire Body of Christ. For this implies that the same thing is and is not at the same time For that individual thing that câ—n be and is to be made of any thing is not Now the individual Body of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated for it is turned into his individual Body But his individual Body was before this Consecration â—herefore it was and it was not at the same time Which is against that fundamentaâ— Principle in Logick and Metaphysicks That both parts of a Contradiction cannot betrue or That the same thing cannot both be and not be at once Thus fully and intirely contradictious and repugnant to all Sense and Reason to all indubitable Principles of all Art and Science is this Figment of Transubstantiation and therefore most certainly false Read the ten first Conclusions of the brief Discourse of the true Grounds of Faith added to the Divine Dialogues 7. And from Scripture it has not the least support All is Hoc est corpus meum When Christ held the Bread in his hand and after put part into his own mouth as well as distributed it to â— his Disciples in doing whereof he swallow'd his whole Body down his throat at once according to the Doctrine of this Council or at least might have done so if he would And so all the Body of Christ Flesh Bones Mouth Teeth Hair Head Heels Thighs Arms Shoulders Belly Back and all went through his Mouth into his Stomach and thus all were in his Stomach though all his Body intirely his Stomach excepted was still without it Which let any one judge whether it be more likely then that this saying of Christ This is my Rody is to be understood figuratively the using the Verb substantive in this sense being not unusual in Scripture as in I am the Vine The seven lean Kine are the seven years of Famine and the like and more particularly since our Saviour speaking elsewhere of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud says plainly Ioh. 6. 63. that the words he sp ke they were spirit and they were truth that is to say a spiritual or aenigmatical truth not carnally and literally to be understood And for the trusting of the judgement of the Roman Church herein that makes it self so sacrosanct and infallible the Pride Worldliness Policy and multifarious Impostures of that Church so often and so shamelesly repeated and practised must needs make their Authority seem nothing in a Point that is so much for their own Interest especially set against the undeniable Principles of common Sense and Reason and of all the Arts and Sciences God has illuminated the Mind of man withall Consider the twelfth Conclusion of the abovenamed Treatise together with the otherten before cited Wherefore any one that is not a meer Bigott may be as assured that Transubstantiation is a meer Figment or enormous Falsehood as of any thing else in the whole world 8. From whence it will unavoidablâ— follow and themselves cannot deny it that they are most gross and palpable Idolaters and consequently most barbarous Murtâ—â—rers in killing the innocent Servants of God for not subâ—itting to the same Idolatries with themselves Costerus the Iesuiâ—e speaks expresly to this Point and consonâ—ntly I think to the Suppositions of the Council viz. That if their Church be mistaken in the Doctrine of Tâ—ansubstâ—ntiation they ipso facto stand guilty of such a piece of Idolatry as never was before seen or known of in the world For the errours of those saith he were more toâ—rable who wâ—rship some golden or siâ—ver Statue or some Image of any other Materials for their God as the Heathen worshipped their Gods or arâ—d Cloth hung upon the top of a Spear as is reported of the Laplanders or some live Animal as of old the Aegyptians did then of these that â—orship a bit of Breâ—d as hitherto the Christians have done all over the wâ—râ— for so many hundred years if the Doctrine of ransubstantiation be not true What can be a more full and express acknoâ—ledgement of the gross Idolatry of the Church of Rome then this if Transubstantiation prove an Errour Then which notwithstanding there is nothing in the world more certain to all the Faculties of a man as is manifest out of what has been here said And therefore the Romanists must be gross Idolaters from the second third fourth seventh and ninth Conclusions of the first Chapter and from the fourth fifth eighth ninth twenty fiâ—st twenty-second and twenty fifth of the second Chapter All these Conclusions will give evidence against them that they are very notorious Idolaters 9. And therefore this being so high and so palpable a strain of Idolatry in them touching the Eucharist or the eating the Body and drinking the Bloud of Christ wherein Christ is offered by the Priest as an Oblation and the People feed upon him as in a Feast upon a Sacrifice which is not done without Divine Adoration done to the Host according to the precept of their Church This does hugely confirm our sense of the eating of things offered unto Idols in the Epistles to the Churches in Pergamus and in Thyatira this worshipping of the Host being so expresly acknowledged by the Pope and his Clergy and in that high sense of Cultus Latriae which is due to God alone And therefore it is very choicely and judiciously perstringed by the Spirit of Prophecy above any other Modes of their Idolatry it being such a gross and confessed Specimen thereof and such as there is no Evasion for or Excuse Hoc teneas vultus muianiem Protea nodo CHAP. III. His Answer to the first Paragraph It had been ingenuous in the Doctor whilest he states Catholick â—octrine to speak Catholick language The Council of Trent even as quoted by himself mentions not the â—ost but onely the
the next place it necessarily follows that they are the most barbarous Murtherers of the Servants of God that ever appeared on the face of the Earth For indeed if they had had Truth on their side so far as that the things they required at the hands of the Dissenters had been lawfull though not at all necessary yet considering the express voice of Scripture which must be so exceeding effectual to raise consciencious Scruples and indeed to fix a man in the contrary Opinions besides the irrefragable Votes of common Sense and Reason and the Principles of all Arts and Sciences that can pretend any usefulness to Religion in any of its Theoreticall Disquisitions I say when it is so easie from hence if not necessary for some men to be born into a contrary consciencious Persuasion it had undoubtedly even in this case been notorious Murther in the Pontifician Party to have killed men for dissenting from the Doctrine and Practice of their Church But now the Murtherers themselves being in so palpable an Error and requiring of the Dissenters to profess Blasphemies and commit gross Idolatries with them which is openly to rebell against God under pretense of obeying Holy Church as they love to be called they murthering so many hundred thousands of them for this Fidelity to their Maker and their indispensable Obedience to the Lord Iesus Christ this is Murther of a double dye and not to be parallel'd by all the barbarous Persecutions under the red Dragon the Pagan Emperours themselves 3. From which two main Considerations it follows in the third place that considering the fit and easie congruity of the names of the Seven Churches and of the Events of the seven Intervalls denoted by them to the Prefigurations in the Visions there can be no doubt but that by Balaam mentioned in the Epistle to the Church in Pergamus wherein Antipas that is the Opposers of the Pope are murthered the Papal Hierarchy is understood as it is also by the Prophetess Iezebel in the Epistle to the Church in Thyatira who was also a Murtheress of the Prophets of God and both of them exprâ—â—ly Patrons of Idolatry as is manifest in the very Text. Nor is it at all wonderfull that Balaam and Iezebel the one a man the other a woman should signifie the same thing For the false Prophet and the Whore of Babylon in the following Visions of the Apocalypse signifie both one and the same thing viz. The Hierarchy of Rome from the Pope to the rest of their Ecclesiastick Body 4. And what I have said of the Vision of those Seven Churches the same I say of all those Expositions of the thirteenth and seventeenth Chapters of the Apocalypse and that of the little Horn in Daniel namely The words of the Prophecies being so naturally applicable to the Affairs of that Church besides the demonstration of Synchronism that the weight of those two foregoing Conclusions being added thereto there cannot be the least doubt or scruple left but that those Interpretations are true and that the Church of Româ— is that Body of Antichrist that Mother of Fornications and Abominations of the Earth that is of multifarious Modes of gross Idolâ—tries or that scarlet Whore on the seven Hills that is also drunk with the bloud of the Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus 5. And that therefore in the fourth place in the Church of Rome the Poison exceeding the Antidote there can be no reason that Salvation should be hoped for there It is a sad and lamentable Truth but being a Truth and of such huge moment it is by no means to be concealed What God may do in his more hidden ways of Providence he alone knows And therefore we cannot say that every Idolatrous Heathen must perish eternally But to speak no farther then we have commission and according to the easy tenour of the Holy Scriptures we must pronounce though with great sadness of heart that we have no warrant therefrom to think or declare any of the Popish Religion so long as they continue so to be in the state of Salvation and especially since that voice of the Angel which sounded in the Intervall of Thyatira saying expresly Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues and the Apostle in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 6. 9. Be not deceived neither Fornicatours nor Idolaters nor Adulterers c. shall inherit the Kingdome of God And those of the Church of Rome are bound to continue Idolaters as long as they live or else to renounce their Church and therefore they are bound to be damned by adhering to the Roman Church unless they could live in it for ever For he that dies in such a capital siâ— as Idolatry without Repentnce nay in a blind obstinate perseverance in it how can he escape eternal Damnation 6. But though we had kept our selves to the Apocalypse the thing is clear in that Book alone ch 22. ver 14 15. where all Idolaters are expresly excluded from the Tree of Life Blessed are they that do his Commandments and one of them though expunged by Rome is Thou shalt not worship any graven Image that they may have right to the tree of life c. For without are dogs and Sorcerers and Whoremongers and Mortherers and Idolaters and whoso loveth and maketh a Lie All these are excluded the Heavenly Ierusalem and from eating the Tree of Life Of which who eateth not is most assuredly detain'd in eternall death As it is written in the foregoing Chapter Apoc. 21. 8. that Murtherers and Whoremongers and Sorcerers and Idolaters and all Liers shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second Death What sentence can be more express then this 7. But besides this Divine sentence against them they are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are self condemned or at least give sentence against themselves while they so freely pronounce that no Idolaters are to be saved which they frequently do to save their own Church from the reproach of Idolatry For because some Protestants have declared for the Possibility of Salvation in the Romish Church they farther improve the favour to the quitting themselves of the guilt from others hopefull presages that by an hearty implicit Repentance of all their sins even of those that are the proper Crimes of that Church they may through God's mercy in Christ be delivered from the punishment This piece of Charity in some of our Party they turn to the fencing off all imputation of Idolatry from themselves arguing thus That no Idolaters can be saved But those in the Romish Church may be saved according to those Protestants opinion Therefore those in the Romish Church are no Idolaters But most assuredly while they thus abuse the Charity of some even by their own Proposition they must bring the sentence of condemnation from all the rest upon their
kneeling to the Bread or Wine in any sense but they are on their knees afore hand in their Prayers and Devotions to God and Christ and it is ex accidenti as I may so speak that they are on their knees when they receive the holy symbols So far are they from wittingly and conscientiously directing any Religious Worship toward them but the symbols are brought to them in such a posture as the Communicant is found in at his Devotions whose face happily was not so much as derected to the Communion Table while he was at his Devotion and his heart as it is said sursum corda wholly carryed to Heaven This I confess is a pretty gird of my Adversary and a cunning justling me as it were against my own Church as much as he can But it is manifest that what I have here delivered in this Conclusion is agreeable enough with the Rites of our own Church as well as with Truth it self To the third I Answer That my twentieth Conclusion is not truly recited For my words run thus That Religious Incurvation toward a bare symbolical Presence wittingly and conscientiously directed thither c. He has left out the most emphatical word in the sentence viz. bare And hence you see how unseasonable his Parenthesis is without exception of any For when I restrain my Assertion to bare symbolical Presences it is evident that I except those that are covered and concealed from the eyes of the people As the Cherubins were on the Ark of the Covenant So that it was a great oversight to say no worse in my Adversary to leave out that Monosyllabon which was of such principal signification in the sentence But it being in as it was manifestly in and before his eyes in the Conclusion he pretends to consute this twentieth Conclusion is no contradiction at all to the sixteenth All Religious Incurvation towards a bare symbolical Presence is Idolatry says this twentieth Conclusion But does the sixteenth say Not all Religious Incurvation toward a bare symbolical Presence is Idolatry It says no such thing But does onely imply that some symbolical Presence may be bowed towards without Idolatry as that over the Ark of the Covenant it being not bare or open but hid from the eyes of the people nor yet that bowed to as to an Object neither but onely as a circumstance of Worship Let the Reader judge how heedlesly at least if not disingenuously my Adversary has dealt with me in this assault and withall how firmly and clearly I have maintained my own His Answer to the two and twenâ—ieth Conclusion My twenty first he gives here no brush against Of the two following he speaks thus The twenty second and twenty third Conclusions weakly cavil at the adoration of the Host as Idolatrous either in Catholicks or Protestants But these petty Nibblers at the most blessed and ever adorable Sacrament shall have their Answer in the next Chapter when the Doctor treats of this subject ex protesso The Reply His Answer is marvellous lofty and full of despiciency towards his Antagonist and all of his mind But I do not impute this so much to the pride of my Adversary as to his cunning and prudence that he may by this Scheme of confidence keep his Parties devotions warm to the adoration of the most blessed and ever adorable Sacrament as he phrases it And we indeed will also acknowledge the consecrated bread an holy and blessed symbol of the body of Christ but we adore onely our Celestial Lord and King who sits at the right hand of his Father in glory and take it as a great reproach done to him that those of the Romish Religion should pretend that a morsel of Bread or a Waser after a few words of the Priest should become this Lord of glory And meaner and more petty Nibblers than we even those small and contemptible Animals ordinarily called Mice offer such an Argument against so grand an Absurdity as may well puzzle the subtilest of your School-Divines viz. How this consecrated Host if it be Christ himself in his own Body and Person should suffer himself to be eaten up by a Mouse You will say that the Mouse onely eats up the species or external shew of a Body not any real Body at all and that though Christ be contented to go along with the species when Men eat the Sacrament yet if a Mouse light on it as soon as she nibbles at it he slips out of the way I must confess I know no other subter-fuge but this But this seems to me a meer shift Nor do I think that any will deny but that if the Mouses stomach were searched presently after she has eaten this consecrated Bread that the Bread or call it the species will be found there and certainly endewed with such Attributes as are the specifick Attributes of Body that is with Divisibility and Impenetrability which being the essential and specifick Difference whereby Body is Body it is plain that what they call species is really a Body or substance but the Body or substance of the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ therefore it is evident that the Body of Christ is in the belly of the Mouse if Transubstantion be true Which plain consideration methinks might be sufficient to awaken any one that is not in a very dead sleep or incurable Lethargy out of all conceit that a consecrated Water does become Personally and Corporeally Christ himself For if it be He though he humbled himself indeed so very extraordinarily in the behalf of us Men yet it is not at all credible that he would make himself so vile and cheap as to suffer himself to be devoured by a Mouse And if this Argument chance to be less pleasing yet the recalling it to my memory is to be imputed to the scornfull expressions of my Adversary who makes us such petty Niblers in our argumentation Whenas if he had not overlooked in this lofty mood of his my twenty first Conclusion this twenty second could not but have appeared to him perfect demonstration upon the suposal that Transubstantiation is but a conceit and no solid Truth which is the main Argument of the next Chapter His Answer to the twenty third Conclusion His present Answer to my twenty third is this For Protestants indeed to adore the Sacrament who believe no Corporeal presence of Christ there would be a like Crime as for an unconverted Iew to adore Iesus Christ in whom he believes not But what is this to the Doctors purpose The Reply My Antagonist here acknowledges it a great sin even a Crime in a Protestant to adore the Sacrament as well as for the Jew to adore Jesus Christ when he does not believe on him Let me then here note by the by how great a Crime it is in them who as much as in them lyes force men to commit so great a sin by their unchristian Persecutions But I would ask further what