the liberty to propose his Argument am ready to heare him SECTION X. 1. The Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. D Morley's argument against it returned vpon him 4. Nether scripture nor Church prejudiced by our Doctrine 4. Nor senses 1. D. Morley The Doctrine of Transubstantiation Or the Church of Rome's Interpretation of those words This is my Body Is that in Sacrament of the Altar the whole substance of Bread is changed into the Body the whole substance of wine into the Bloud of Christ so that after Consecration there Remains nether Bread nor wine but only the Body Bloud of Christ vnder the species or accidents of Bread wine Revisor Why you should say it is the sentiment of the Church of Rome particularly when it is common to all other Oriental Christians is not hard to guesse at you would insinuate what you dare not speake out it is so evidently false that she the Ch. of R. stands alone in this point of Doctrine whereas all other Christian Churchs extant when your Reformation began agreed in substance with that of Rome their mother in this point But let that passe J acknowledge that you represent our sentiment ryght What haue you to say against it 2. D. Morley Against this Position I argue thus that which frustrates all the vse end of scripture cannot be the tru interpretation of any one place of it But that interpretation of those words of scripture frustrates all the end vse of scripture Therefore the Ch. of Romes interpretation of this place of scripture cannot be tru I proue the minor or second proposition thus that which necessarily implyes our Senses are or may be deceived in their proper objects so that what all men's Senses represent as one thing may be is indeed another must needes frustrate all the end vse of all scripture But that interpretation doth necessarily imply that our senses may be are deceived in their proper objects by teaching that to be Flesh Bloud which to all men's Senses appeares to be Bread wine Therefore our interpretation of those words doth frustrate the vse end of all scriptures Revisor I deny the minor or second Proposition of your first syllogisme To the proofe of it 1. I will let the maior or first Proposition passe althô it be not tru for mine all men's senses in the world represent the moone bigger in the east west then in the south which is evidently falfe yet the Scripture is not Frustrated by that Epidemical errour of all men's Senses Our Reason is superiour to Senses doth correct that errour without prejudicing Scripture by it why may not Faith which is superiour to both Sense Reason correct both when they go astray yet Scripture remaine entire seing Faith is but the Doctrine of Sripture as it were its soul Yet I will Gratis admit your Maior 2. I deny your minor or second Proposition for it appeares to no man's Hearing to be Bread wine but Flesh Bloud This is my Body this is my Bloud are the expresse words of Christ now sir you know out of the Apostle I haue minded you of it that Faith comes by Hearing And Hearing is not mistaken in this matter Hence S. Thomas of Aquin. Visus Tactus Gustus in te fallitur Sed auditu solo tuto creditur Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius Nihil hoc verbo veritatis verius We acknowledg that Syght Feeling Tast are mistaken here we correct their mistake by the expresse word of God by Hearing conveyghed to our minds to which word we owe greater obedience than to all our Senses together So your minor is false Thus your Conclusion that Our jnterpretation doth frustrate make voyde the end vse of scripture that came limping in on two bullrushes for crutches fals to the ground one of them being broken the other insufficient to beare such a weyght 2. Now I desire you to shew your skill in sophistry answer this syllogisme by which I draw the same Conclusion out of your Doctrine exposition of Christ's words That interpretation which is plainely contradictory to the expresse words of Scripture doth frustrate the end vse of Scripture But such is your interpretation of those words of Christ Therefore your interpretation frustrates the end vse of Scripture The maior or first Proposition is evident for what vse can be made of Scripture to what intent can it serve if we take the liberty to beleiue teach the direct contrary Doctrine to what it delivers For example if when the scripture says God Created Heauen Earth we say God did not create Heauen Earth When it says The word was in the beginning We say The word was not in the beginning When it says The word was made Flesh we say The word was not made Flesh. And so of the rest What can Scripture signify to what vse to what intent can it serue when such interpretations are made of it Soe my maior stands good The minor 2. Proposition is evident that Such is your jnterpretation of Christ's words For Scripture says That is Christ's Body you say That is not Christ's Body Scripture says That is Christ's Bloud you say That is not Christ's Bloud Let those frame an interpretation more opposit to Scripture who can I confesse my skil in Logicke reachs not to frame any more directly opposite I feare you will find it as much harder to answer this Argument than J shall to answer yours as it is to cure a real than to cure afeigned sicknesse 4. D Morley p. 4. All scripture being written for our learning as S. Paul Says it is there being no other meanes whereby we can come to know what is written in Scripture but our Senses either reading it our Selues or hearing it read if I be not certain of what I see when I reade my selfe nor of what I heare when I am read to by others it is impossible for me to know what the Scripture teacheth by consequence the Scripture it self must be vselesse or to no purpose Thus you Here Goliath like you bring a sword to cut off your owne head We say the words of Scripture are cleere that whither we Reade or Heare them they signify the same thing we vnderstand them in their plaine obvious sense as any man would vnderstand them who is resolved to submit his reason to them which we doe not make them stoop to some of our fleshly Senses as you doe Wherefore your method interpretation frustrates all vse of Scripture ours leaues it in its full force vigour You make Scripture weare the chaines of Senses we bind senses Reason too to the triumphant chariot of Scripture Then you discover an vnexpected concerne for the Church Authority after having spent your whole life in fyghting against it as if that were prejudiced by our Doctrine Not only the scripture
are his lowest facultyes Just as if what the Apostle says is over my head you should say is vnder my feet But why doth not the Natural man receiue Faith Because It is foolishnesse vnto him And just such is Transubstantiation to you therefore is laught at by you the other reason is convincing He cannot receiue Faith Becaus it is spiritually discerned Are Senses spiritual facultyes can they Spiritually discern If not as certainly they cannot pull them off the throne on which you placed them of which they are vnworthy as being vncapable of discerning the thing in question which is of The spirit of God spiritual discerned only spiritually No lesse but rather more evident are the words of the same Apostle 2. Cor. 10.4 The weapons of our warfare says he are not carnal but myghty through God to the pulling down of strong holds casting down imaginations every hygh thing that exalteth it selfe against the knowledge of God bringing into captivity every Thought to the obedience of Christ .... do ye look on things after the outward appearance Thus your own Translation Which words decide the thing in question For first it is evident he speakes of the Doctrine he preacht which is Faith And in the first place he cleerely discards outward Senses from any share in this judgment The weapons of our warfare are not carnal now Senses are Carnal as is cleere 2. He rejects inward Senses Casting down all jmaginations 3. He teaches that our vnderstanding must also be subject Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ Thus according to the Apostle all facultys of soul body spiritual carnal interiour exteriour must vayle bonnet to Faith which is termed Myghty through God The last question Do ye look on things according to their out ward appearance Is a conclusion of the foregoing discourse cuts all the nerves of the Doctors argument Which is totally grounded Vpon out ward appearance to carnal sense Let vs apply the Apostles meaning to our present purpose by some few questions What will you say that is on the Holy Altar Mr. Dr Answer Bread wine But why do you think it to be bread wine Answer wee looke on the out ward appearance judge of the thing after that You know sir that the Catholick Church all over the wor'd even Luther himself beleived it to be the Body Bloud of Christ with what weapons do you combat their opinion Answer The weapons we fyght with are Carnel they are the senses Now let vs propose such questions to a Catholick What do you beleiue that to be which is on the Altar Answer the tru Body Bloud of Christ But why do you beleiue it to be the Body Bloud of Christ Answer Because Christ says it is so the Church teaches me his words are so to be vnderstood Doth it appear to be the Body Bloud of Christ Answer no. But We look not on things after the out ward appearance when that is not conformable to the word of God delivered to vs by the Church With what weapons do you combat the contrary errour Answer The weapons we vse Are not carnal sense But myghty through God to destroy all jmaginations beate downe all thoughts which are raysed in vs in opposition to the divine revealed truth 3. If we consult Reason in this debate we shall see that Senses ought not to be admitted as judges it being absolutely impossible they should vnderstand the matter in question therefore cannot possibly pronounce sentence on ether side For what is the question What is the meaning of those words of our Blessed saviour This is my Body this is my Bloud for I suppose your jmpiety is not arrived to that heygth as to deny his words to be tru or say you would not beleiue any thing to be what he plainly vndeniably says it is That is you do not beleiue that God doth or can tell a Lye Otherwise farewell all Faith we must make vse of other Mediums to deale with you Our dispute then being about the sense of those words of Christ J proue that our senses cannot judg in it with this argument Senses cannot judg of things which are not their proper objects But such are the things in debate in this controversy Therefore senses cannot judg of these things The major or first Proposition is cleere For the eye cannot judg of a found because it is not its proper object Nor the eare of a colour for the same reason The same of all other senses Wherefore no sense can judg of any thing that is not its proper object The minor or second proposition viz things in debate here are not the proper object of Senses is also selfe evident For the proper meaning or signification of words is the proper object of no sense But the matter here in debate is the proper meaning or signification of the words of Christ Therefore it is the proper object of no sense These Premisses are so evidently tru that J think it enough only to proue the first Proposition this I doe by induction for nether eye nor nose nor palate nor hand nor eare can see tast smel feale or heare the signification of words wherefore no sense can perceiue it The only doubt can be about Hearing by reason of the convexion betwixt the sound of an Articulate word which is the object of the eare the signification of it yet even here my Proposition is tru for the same articulate sound is insignificant to one who vnderstands it not sometimes signifyes different things to persons of different langages v. c. Lego to a Latinist signifyes I reade to a Grecian I speake to an English man nothing Yet the sound in the eare is the same to all these three Jndeed if it were not so by learning anew language our eares should be changed framed in a different manner to represent the new signification Which I suppose no body will say As to the other Proposition the minor that our dispute is about the signification of those words is as evident For our sentiment is grounded on the words being taken litterally yours vpon their being taken figuratively Both which are the severall significations One thing only occurres in answer to this viz that the litteral signification is so absurd that it cannot be admitted Answer this is sayd but not proved in du place these absurditys will be confidered J hope found to be no bsurditys Answer 2. this doth not satisfy my reason for no Absurdity can make any faculty judg of what it cannot know As no Absurdity can make me a competent judg of a composition in the Chinese language of which J am entirely ignorant Here I myght lay down my pen it already appearing that all you can alleadg from Senses can signify nothing seing they cannot depose of a thing they are totally strangers to you say nothing but
evident 1. Because the Apostles proposition Faith comes by Hearing is vniversal vnlimited to any time or place 2. God sent his Apostles Disciples to Preach the Ghospel without any expresse command to vse other signes or write bookes indeed most of those written were casual 3. The Apostles sent their successours on alike errant with alike Commission we find in S. Irenaeus that Faith was long preserved in some countryes without any written word 4. Faith by the Apostle called milke is still by Parents Nurses such persons instilled into the Tender minds of Infants even before they are able to reade And if they conceiue it ryghtly beleiue it strongly they haue tru divine Faith 5. The same of several Persons at men's estate who for Poverty or other employments cannot reade the scriptures 4. Scripture may seeme an exception from that general rule Faith by Hearing but it is not so Scripture it selfe being only an jmage of what is spoken therefore belongs to the same Sense that words do Hence S. Austiu l. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 4. Quia verberato aere statim transeunt verba nec diutius manent quam sonant instituta sunt per litteras signa verborum ita voces ostenduntur non per seipsas sed per signa quaedam sua By reason that after a little motion of ayre the voice presently vanishs is assoone lost as the sound is past Letters were invented as signes of words by which meanes words are shewed not by themselues but by their signes Thus S. Austin Which was elegautly exprest by a French Poet Brebeuf en sa Pharsale C'est de là que nous vient cet art ingenieux De peindre la parole de parler aux yeux Et par les traits divers des figures tracées Donner de la couleur du corps aux pensées Hence that ingenious art did first arise Of painting words speaking to our eyes Where with the pen doth by mysterious draught Both colour giue Body to a thought J doe not cite this as building my assertion vpon it but as a neate expression of what I meane The ground on which J rely is scripture whereof a greate part is evidently a description of speeches For 1. a greate part of the Ghospel is a Relation of our saviours Admonitions Sermons Reprehensions Justructions c. 2. The Acts of the Apostles containe their speeches 3. the Apocalypse is a representation of visions Prophecyes revealed to S Iohn 4. S. Luke in his preface declares that he writes what he had Heard 5. S. Mark writ what S. Peter preacht Marcus Discipulus Interpres Petri says S. Hierome juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae a Fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium Mark the Disciple Interpreter of Peter at the request of the Brethren in Rome writ in a short Ghospel what he had heard Peter preach My last cheifest proofe is from the words of Abraham to the glutton Luck 16.29 They thy Brothers haue moyses the Prophets let them heare them Et verse 31. If they heare not Moyses the Prophets nether will they be perswaded though one rise from the dead Here those are sayd to haue Moses the Prophets who haue their writings 2. Moses the Prophets are sayd to Speake in their writings seing others are sayd to Heare them Hence I conclude that the jnstruction we receiue from Scripture it selfe is reduced to Hearing SECTION IX 1. All Senses never contrary to Faith 2. Hearing is to correct the other senses 3. A conclusion of this digression THe two first points are cheifely aimed at in all this Preface will serue to cleere the mist which Humane Reason casts before our eyes that we may not discerne Truth from falshood but may embrace a Cloud for Iuno leaue the substance for a shaddow Thô some Senses may yet all can never be contrary to Faith this is my first conclusion The reason is Faith must be conveyghed into our mind by some Sense wherefore that Sense at least is not contrary to Faith Which is evident by the ordinary course of Providence teaching vs by Hearing Preachers Missions c. Of which S. Paul Rom. 10. Now if God doth at any time by particular inspiration instruct some that is nothing against this Truth seing those thoughes so inspired are conformable to what others Heare by consequence not contrary to all Senses 2. My second Conclusion is in matter of Faith Hearing is preferred before all other Senses The 1. reason is because Hearing is more capable of conveyghing revealed Truths than any other Sense nay than all the rest together it having more significant signes then all the rest together as is evident by the multitude of significant words The second reason is because God doth actually vse Hearing no other Sense to communicate to vs his Faith For our whole Duty to God our neyghbour what we are bound to beleiue practice is all delivered ether by living words in Catechisms Sermons or in Bookes by dead representations of those living words Wherefore when senses interfere in their depositions concerning any object of Faith we must recurre to Hearing adhere to that For example Other Senses represent Christ to vs as an ordinary man Hearing says he is The only begotten son of God full of grace Truth we must beleiue this silence the rest The rest say water only washes from dirt the surface of the Body this says it purges the soul from the staine of sin we must beleiue this Why then should not this rule acknowledged by the Zuinglians in other things to be good hold in the Blessed Eucharist So that althô the tast tell vs it is bread wine we may subscribe to our Hearing with S. Cyril nay with the whole Church say It is the Body Bloud of Christ But what if Reason takes the part of the other Senses Answer I will say still we must stick however to Hearing For example Reason says the same substance cannot be One three Hearing says the same Divine substance is one in nature three in Persons Our duty is to beleiue God to be so to silence all reasons to the contrary This is what S. Paul vnderstood by Pulling downe imaginations every thought contrary to his Doctrine bringing vnderstandings vnder the subjection of Christ I haue here delivered as by a digression such grounds as if well vsed will be sufficient to resist all the Attacks of God his spousés enemys Yet they are soe cleere that J think few can deny them without rejecting Christianity in some very material points Yet I haue not wandred in this digression out of the syght of my learned freind D. Morley if he retaines his treatise in his company in passing over these few sections he will easily obserue there is nothing but which relates to it J now returne to him
be proved to be vniversal or in vse in the Roman Church Some think the Pelagians introduced that custome that S. Austin proues thence the necessity of Baptism argumento ad hominem By a reason drawn from their own sentiments The same I say of Binius S. Austin for both speake of the practice which they found without citing any publick decree for indeed there was none ever made even by Innocent I. whom you cite For the place you mean is in his answer to a letter written to him by the Fathers of the Council of Milevis in Africa which had condemned Pelagius Celestius who taught there was no need of the grace of God to keep the commandments that children myght be saved without Baptism Innocent approves their decrees proves none can be saved without Baptism because none can be saved Without eating the Body drinking the Bloud of Christ And he addes Qui vitam ijs sine regeneratione defendunt videntur mihi ipsum baptismum velle cassare cùm praedicant hos habere quod in eos creditur nonnisi baptismate conferendum Those who hold they the children may be saved without being regenerated seeme to me to take away Baptism it self teaching that they haue without it what we beleiue is not giuen but by Baptism Thus he which words are cited by S. Austin l. 2. cont duas Ep. Pelag. c. 4. so what explicates one will serue the other both saying the same thing Where it is certain that he thinks a Participation of the Body Bloud of Christ necessary to salvation Now whether he meanes a real sacramental Participation by receiving the Sacrament or only a mystical or spiritual Participation which both you we beleiue is attained by the Sacrament of Baptism is the constant doctrine of the Church to this day seemes not so evident You say he meanes the first I say the second this is my reason He doth not speake of the participation by Communion or the Eucharist but of that by Baptism for he doth not say Cum Baptismate conferendum as if some thing different from Baptism administred with it were the medium of that Participation but Baptismate conferendum as if Baptism were the sole cause or meanes of that Participation Now the participation of Christ's body by Baptism is mystical not sacramental Therefore he speakes of the mystical Participation of Christ's Body averres that to be necessary to salvation Which both you I both Protestants Papists do admit for tru Catholick doctrine How can you then hence inferre that the Church hath erred may erre This is my first answer A second is that he S. Austin speake of participation of the Body Bloud of Christ In voto in desire which all haue are bound to haue when they are baptized .... A third is that in decrees of Faith or doctrinal we make a great difference betwixt what is Ex professo directly treated discussed defined such other things as are only accidentally mentioned Infallibility in the later points is by vs esteemed a Priviledge reserved to the writers of Holy scripture not pretended to even by general councils we make likewise a great difference betwixt a decree a reason for making the decree on which it is grounded For example in the 7. general Council it is said that Angels may be painted because they haue bodys We think our selves oblidged to beleiue Angels may be painted but not that they haue Bodys for our Divines commonly teach the contrary Now to your objection J answer that Innocent mentions only accidentally that point of Infants Communion intends by it only to proue that Baptism is necessary to salvation So the real Communion is not held by vs a decree of Faith Thus I haue once again broken that weapon which you brandish a new althô you know it had been broken in Viscount Falkland's hand whence you took it SECTION IV. 1. No possibility of salvation in schisme 2. Protestants truly Schismaticks 3. Catholicks hold their salvation desperate 4. A paralel betwixt Protestants Donatists D. Morley The Iesuit sayd that doubless it was more prudent safe to venture a man's self in that Church where in all agree he may besaved than in one where in all Catholicks say a man cannot be saved The Doctor replyed it was rather the vsual saying than the setled jugdment of all Catholicks for F. knot says the case may be such that a Protestant dying such may be saved which is as much as Protestants grant to Papists And then it would out of this reason follow it were more safe to be of the Donatists perswasion than a Catholick for S. Austin granted that a Donatist could be saved where as the Donatists did affirm that who soever was not a Donatist could not besaved Revisor all the substance of what J will here say is contained in this syllongisme None out of the true Church of Christ a schismatick can be saved The Protestants are out of the tru Church of Christ or schismaticks Therefore they cannot be saved The first Proposition or Major that none can be saved out of the tru Church of Christ is so cleere in scripture in Fathers even in Hereticks themselues that all must see it who do not wilfully shut their eyes My first Proofe the Church is the Body of Christ. Colos. 1.24 For his Christ's Body which is the Church Vpon which words S. Austin discourses thus 1. lib. Cont. Epistolam Petiliani Donat. c. 2. Vnde manifestum est eum qui non est in membris Christi Christianam salutem habere non posse Membra vero Christi per vnitatis charitatem sibi copulantur per candem capiti suo cohaerent quod est Christus Iesus Hence it is evident that who is not part of Christ's body cannot attain to Christian salvation And those are in Christs body who are linked together to their head with the loue of vnion And in his 19. Chapter Ad salutem vitam aeternam nemo pervenit nisi qui habet caput Christum Habere autem caput Christum nemo poterit nisi qui in eius corpore fuerit quod est Ecclesia No man can be saved vnlesse Christ be his Head But Christ can be head to no man who is out of his Body which is the Church My 2. proofe Rom. 8.9 If any man haue not the spirit of Christ he is none of his S. Austin alluding to these words tract 27. in Ioan says Christi spiritus neminem animat qui non sit de corpore eius Christs spirit doth quicken none but such as are in his Body that is in the Church 3. Proofe It seemes the express words of Christ Ioan. 15.6 If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch is withered men gather them cast them into the fire they are burnt This is the doom of such
broach Heresyes impugn her defend themselves with the same principles I am now arrived at the end of this real or pretended Conference without omitting any one material point of it I hope I haue given reasonable satisfaction of which others will judge more impartially then my selfe if I am mistaken by judging too favourably of my owne labours my replyes be found vnsatisfactory J desire that defect be charged on my weakenesse not on the cause I defend which is invincible being secured by the promise of Christ from all possibility of errour for Against it the gates of Hell shall never prevayle I haue given a reason in the preface why I take no notice of the Father's answers as they are couched in this Relation My intention is only to defend the Church from the Objections of the Learned Doctor To which it is enough to shew as I think I haue don that his Premisses are false his Jllations incoherent his whole discourse not convincing Thus Wisdome is justified of her children Mat. 11.19 THE SECOND BOOK A REVISION OF THE ARGVMENT FROM SENSES AGAINST TRANSVBSTANTIATION THE PREFACE I Never began to read any Treatise with greater Horrour nor ended with greater Indignation than this which J now come to review Horrour to see doubts of divine Doctrine submitted to the depositions of facultys common to Beasts a jury of the Senses impanelled to decide controversys of Faith set on a throne to judge the judg of the world determine the meaning of the words of eternal Truth of divine veracity althô they are vncapable of vnderstanding the words of the meanest vnderstanding most illiterate Pesant I expect shortly to see some other appeal to Beasts seing many of the better sort of these surpasse man as to quicknesse of Senses which in them are much more perfect then in most if not al men therefore may be sayd to be more competent judges of the objects of Senses then men can be Indeed Seducers proficiunt in peius wax worse worse 2. Tim. 2.13 it is not so great a step from the Senses of men to those of Beasts which are of the same Species are rather more than lesse perfect in their kind J as it is from the Church directed by the Holy Ghost for our jnstruction in Faith to Carnal senses That having something of divine by reason of the Holy Ghost assisting these being meere Corporal below all that hath any thing of Reason A fit judge indeed for such a Church as the Protestant is My horrour changed into Indignation when I heard the Verdict brought in by this Iury the Sentence pronounced by this Vmpire this Brutish judge yet from such a Iudg little lesse could be hoped for in such a matter by which the Scripture is silenced Tradition trampled vnder foot Fathers rejected the Practice Faith of the whole Catholick Church condemned the Communion with all Faith full all the Catholick Church renounced a horrid execrable Schisme authorized And all this vpon the deposition of so vile a witnesse by the Sentence of so contemptible a judg as Carnal sense And this Sentence accepted of recommended by a learned Doctor of divinity a pretended Ryght Reverend Bishop Is Christianity is Divine Faith brought to this Yet J find one sign of Modesty vnlesse it were rather Cunning craftinesse in adorning the stage for this piece of Pageantry disposing for this extravagant judgment that there is ether no mention at all of the grounds of Catholick Faith in this treatise or else it is so silent low a mention that it is scarce perceptible For had you set before the eyes of your Readers the practice of the Church the Testimonys of Fathers the decrees of councils the written vnwritten word of God in fine the vnanimous vote of the primitiue present Church averring that to be Christs Body Bloud the Readers would not haue heard the sentence of this mock judg would haue pulled him off the Bench forced him to yeild the victory to Truth For if we Must pull out our eye if it scandalize vs we must shut our eyes stop our cares renounce all our Senses when thy contradict God's expresse word But if by this you made sure of such a sentence as you wisht you discovered the vnjustice of it by not admitting the plea of the contrary party For qui statuit aliquid parte inauditâ alterâ aequum licet statuerit hand aequus fuit This argument is not of the Doctors invention it is as old as the Sacramentarian Heresy Berengarius vsed it so did Zuinglius Calvin F. Stillingfleet G. Burnet And the answer is as common To confute this Treatise it were enough to reprint the 33. Chapter of Anti-Haman so no new reply is necessary Yet least he think himself neglected I will review what he says SECTION V. 1. Ancient Fathers re'yed not on sense 2. S. Paul teaches the senses are not to be relyed on 3. Reason convinces the same SEnses no competent judges in this Controversy Are not our Senses the same now as they were a thousand or sixteen hundred yeares ago Are their objects changed Are not the sensations they cause the same now as then Did not Bread tast like Bread wine like wine than as well as now Are not their colour odour the same at all times And had not men then as much reason to rely on their Senses in framing a judgment of their objects as now Sure they had Now what judgments did Ancients frame of this object in debate Let S. Cyril of Hierusalem speak for all the rest Althô it seemes to be Bread yet it is not Bread Althô it seemes to be wine yet it is not wine Thus this great saint ancient Father delivering Christian Doctrine in a Catechisme So this is not his private sentiment but that of the Church not things of his own invention but of publick Tradition Till then Christians retained a sincere entire veneration for the word of God they harkned indeed to Senses but more to God when these two interfered one saying That is Christ's Body the other it is not such It is Bread they did not hesitate which to follow they easily resolved pronounced in favour of Faith subscribed to the son of God Who had words of life even life everlasting Io. 6.69 Animalis homo non percivit ca quae sunt spiritus Dei c. says the Apostle 1. Cor. 2.14 The natural man as your Translation hath-it Receiues not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnesse vnto him nether can he know them because they are spiritually discerned Thus the Holy Apostle is not Faith one thing of the spirit of God Is it not of Faith or revealed Truth preached by the Apostle that he speakes in that place Now if Faith be aboue the reach of the whole Natural man how comes it to be below Senses which
countenanced Libertinisme Atheisme Scepticisme you Charge them on vs just as the late long Parliament charged the civil wars that Iliad of miserys caused by themselues on King Charles 1. Keepe to your selues those deformed brats they are yours the essential Principles of your first Reformers are evident Premisses to these vnavoidable conclusions Your Luther your Calvin your Zuinglius your Ivel eate the sowre grapes which set at all your teeth on edge They layd the egges out of which these cockatrices are hatcht And while you retaine your owne Principles you must expect the same odious encrease of mischeif 5. E. M. p. 21. If there be no certainty of Senses how know they that it is the Body Bloud of Christ By immediate Inspiration or by Seing the Scripture or Hearing the Church They pretend to no immediate Jnspiration Seing the Scriptures hearing the Church cannot be relyed on because there is no certainty of Senses Revisor The first part I admit that we do not rely on any immediate mediate Revelation or jnspiration The rest that we cannot rely on what we See in Scripture and Heare from the Church you know is contrary to our sentiments absolutely false Haec si imprudens facis nihil coecius si prudens nihil sceleratius S. Austin l. cont Adam c. 15. If you reproach vs that Paradox not knowing we abhorre it What is more blind than you If you know we renounce it yet charge it on vs what more wicked than you 6. D. M. p. 21.22 Their Interpretation of this place of Scripture must needs frustrate make voyde the vse end of all Scripture of the Church it self also consequently it is not a tru one Rev. Here is a lame jllation out of two false Premisses as J haue shewed And J appeale to any man who hath but common sense to decide whither make voyde the Scripture we who subscribe to it or you who contradict it Scripture says That is Christ's Body Catholicks say That is Christ's Body Non-Catholicks say That is not Christ's Body Credit your eyes for whome you pleade see whither part Frustrates the end of Scripture we subscribe to Scripture we defend it if we are deceived God hath deceived vs. But he cannot deceiue vs so we are sure we are not deceived As for you you contradict the scripture your Senses delude you you fyght against the scripture or if for it it is only as your Tru protestants fought for the King D. M. p. 22 If there be no Transubstantiation the Papists are as grosse Jdolaters as the Heathens says Costerus a Iesuit Revisor If the Heavens fall we may catch larkes And if an Asse flyes he will moue swiftly But what do these conditional Propositions signify while the conditions ramble in the imaginary spaces of impossible Beings are only the objects of fancifull heads You will go hungry to bed if for your supper you rely on those Larkes you will as soon performe your journy riding on a snayle as if you expect the winged Asse And Papists neede not feare Hell or Purgatory if they haue no other sin to Answer for than beleiving Christ's Body to be where he says it is and Adoring him there solely because they firmely beleiue that he is there having his owne expresse words for their warrant Conclusion of this Book An appeale from the sole competent judge which knoweth can determine to one in competent who nether knoweth the thing in question nor can decide it is an evident signe of a desperate Cause You appeale from the sole competent judge God his Church to one incompetent the Senses which nether know the thing in question the meaning of the words of Christ nor can pronounce sentence in it Therefore your Cause is desperate Otherwise thus A sentence of an incompetent judge is insignificant The Sensations are a sentence of incompetent judges therefore they are insignificant THE THIRD BOOK A REVISION OF THE VINDICATION OF THE ARGVMENT FROM SENSE THE PREFACE I Do not professe my selfe a common champion for all Catholicks that either Attacke Protestants or are Attackt by them Had God called me to that taske he would haue endowed me with a greater strength of mind Body a larger extent of knowledge more leasure from other employments then I haue Wherefore I confine my selfe to a much narrower sphere more proportioned to my abilityes viz to that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Iude verse 3. for which seing all are obliged Earnestly to contend I see my self vnder that general obligation As also to the defence of our Holy mother the Curch by whome we receiue this Faith without whose assistance Faith it self that precious gif of our bountifull lord would fayle As for the sentiments of other private persons the being of the Church the jnnocency of our Doctrine the purity of our Faith not depending on them I think it no necessary duty to make good all they say further than that cannot be destroyed without weakning Faith And in alike manner I do not expect nor desire any should concerne themselues for what I say but only on like occasions that it be such as Faith would receiue some dammage werer it confuted If any one out of an opinion that J go astray or am in an errour in what J write in defense of the Church will take the paines to shew it me with Charity meekenesse J shall thank him for his labour either acknowledge my personal errour if it be such or giue a reason why I do not Hence I was for some time doubtfull whither I should review this Vindication no body being concerned in it besides the namelesse Authour of an obsure Pamphlet whose merits are as obscure as his person namelesse especially some of his opinions being far different from what the Church her felf as well as divines hold if his meaning be sincerely represented by my freind D. M. ryghtly vnderstood by me And I think the Argument from sense low enough whither this Anonimus stand or fall althô M. Doctor page 4. is pleased to say that if this Pamphlet falls his Argument remaines not only vnanswered but vnanswerable as if that anonimus were our Hector our Troy were to be defended by his hand or by none at all Yet I am of opinion that my Reader will find something in my Review of the Argument to which what is here sayd will not giue full satisfaction probably it will scarce be brought within canon shot of it So my Review of this Treatise is a worke of supererogation which J vndertake meerely because there is occasion giuen to handle some few material points which further confirme what I haue sayd if well vnderstood SECTION XIV 1. Division of Miracles 2. Some insensible out of scripture 3. Arguments from Aetymology of words or names frivolous 1. WHo that man was whome p. 1. you call Namelesse is not material but why you
Then we must blot out of our Catalogue of Miracles a greate part of those recorded in Scripture it self But you say No doubt it would haue called it so I say I doubt of it my doubt is confirmed by many instances of Miracles recorded in scripture without being called so That of rayes for example on Moses I ace But you say this was Sensible which the other is not And J say that is nothing to the purpose as I haue often shewed How ever it is evident enough for it appeares by the words of Christ that he is there our Senses tell vs that he is not visible there D. M. p. 19. It is no Miracle because it is not onely not evident to Sense but moreover it is contrary to Sense Rev. Here you serue vp againe your cold cabbadge which how insipid they were at first we haue Seene now we nauseate them Yet for four pages you afford vs no other foode D. M. p. 23. God never workes a Miracle but for some greate good End which cannot be obtained without it for God doth nothing in vaine Now such a Miracle would be to no purpose for Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing Revisor The Apostles the Fathers the Church the Faith full all over the world had haue a far different opinion of the sacramental Communion of the Body Bloud of Christ than you haue S. Paul makes vse of that consideration to moue men to try themselues before they approach the Divine Table least by receiving it vnworthily they become guilty of the Body Bloud of Christ S. Cyril of Hierusalem says that by it we are Christophori Bearers of Christ jtem Consanguinei his kinsmen S. Chrisostome yOu desire to see Christ to heare his voice to touch the hemme of his garment more is granted to you that you eate him c. Againe when describes a Preist at the Altar with quires of Angels round about him the Heavens open over his head God the holy ghost cooperating with him God the son in his hands to be offred to the Eternal Father who is aboue expecting to receiue that most gratefull offering doth all this avayle nothing Was the centurion moved with the consideration of his owne vnworthinesse being to receiue Christ vnder his roofe is our Faith so dead as to be insensible when he vouchsafes to come into our bosomes What can if this doth not stir vp in vs sorrow for having offended Almyghty God Faith in him whome we beleiue present Hope that he who hath giuen himself vnto vs will not can not refuse vs any thing And an intire sincere Loue of him who hath loved vs doth loue vs so much as to giue himself for all in general to each one in particular Besides acts of Devotion of Adoration of Humility of Zeale c. All which if you esteeme inconsiderable to Profit nothing I desire you to tell me what doth profit in the way of vertu You will say Faith And J will answer we haue that as well as you that quickned strengthned by the consideration of him really present who is both Authour Object or last end the Λ. Ω. of our Faith Jn fine S. Eucherius sayd Tria sibi Deus struxit tabernacula c. God hath set vp for himself three tents the Synagogue the Christian Church Heaven In the first there is nothing but Types of things hoped for in the last Substance without any Types in the Christian Church Substance vnder Types That same Christ who was figured to the Iews is cleerely seene enjoyed by the Blessed in Heaven being really present vnder Types on our Altars And you Protestants by denying this presence of Christ in this Divine Sacrament what do you but degrade your Communion from the dignity of a Sacrament of the new law bring it to the condition of a jewish rite of a base Beggarly element But The flesh profiteth nothing say you I grant it if it be taken carnally without spirit or Faith without discerning betwixt that other Bodily food not otherwise For can you or will you say that That flesh avayles nothing by which we were redeemed Will you say with your late tru Protestant Oracle that we were never the better for Christs being crucifyed for vs D. M. p. 24. 25. Lastly there can be no such Miracle as Transubstantiation because all Miracles are possible Transubstantiation is impossible And you send vs to see this proved in D. Whitaker Bishop Morton Mr. Chillingworth who shew say you that this implyes contradiction such things cannot be done nay it would argue rather an impotency than omnipotency in God to doe such things Revisor You had done vs appleasure Protestants would haue thought your time well spent in producing Reasons to proue this implicancy not to send vs them on this wild goose chacé to find what those learned men say in this point The meane while what you haue sayd proues nothing the beleife of Transubstantiation remaines firme God and his Church Tru. D. M. p. 27. There is therefore no such Miracle as Transubstantiation it being not onely an vselesse thing if it were so but an impossible thing that it should be lo. Revisor That Transubstantiation is a Miracle is a thing so evident to Reason that J never feare to see the Reasons for it answered That it is Vselesse impossible you say but you will never be able to persuade the first to any pious man nor the second to any learned man THE FOVRTH BOOK A REVISION OF D. M.'s ANSWER TO Mr CRESSEY'S LETTER HIS SERMON BEFORE THE KING HIS LETTER TO HER ROYAL HYGHNESSE ET HIS LETTER TO A PREIST THE PREFACE THese three pieces containing not many doctrinal Points controverted betwixt the two Churchs of Rome England will not detaine me long in reviewing your judgment declared in them especially considering that a greate part is personal of Mr. Cressey the Gun powder Plotters her R. H. which kind of things whither tru or false may be let pa se without any prejudice to the Catholick Caeuse For Personal sanctity of all Catholicks spread all over the world is a thing to be wisht not hoped for And althô some faults even of the first magnitude could be proved vpon some of them yet that ought no more to moue any man to abandon the Communion of the Church now than it did to abandon it in the Apostles times when some of her children were Detractors Gluttons Incestuous Contentious Proud Avaritious men as may be seene in S. Paul's Epistles In these indeed mention is made of a Church free from spot wrinkle that we hope for in Heaven But at present there are in the net good bad fish in the feild Corne Darnel in the barne wheate Chaffe in the house Vessells to honour to dishonour Amongst the virgins some foolish amongst the Apostles a Iudas