These Words Precisely force not on us any Memory of his sacred Body or Blood Present But only Mind us of his Action of Sacrificing in his last Supper However to Satisfy our Adverfaries be pleased A Disguised Prince may be Remembred though present with his Nobles only to put this supposition That a Prince were with his Nobles in a Disguised weed And Would not appear to their Senses but Disguised Might they not well Although they knew otherwise He were their Conceiled Prince and Present not Only Reverence and Adore him But also make a Commemoration of Him Most certainly yes This is our Case As therfore that which we call a Sign requires not A Sign requires not the absence of the thing signified the Absence of the thing signified For the Ark of the Covenant was a Sign of God Present and the Dove Descending on Christ was a Sign of the Holy Ghost Present So likewise a Remembrance or Commemoration Implyes no Necessity of his Absence that is Remembred Finally We may Remember our Lord and Saviour as He is in Heaven absent whilst He Feed's and feast's us here on Earth with his precious Body and Blood on the Altar The Objection therfore is Forceles every way 16. They Object 3. This Sacrament is called Bread Answ But never Bakers Bread after the The Sacrament is not called Bakers bread Words of Consecration Fancy only say's so and no Proof Again 'T is called Bread becaus it 's made of Bread as Man is called Dust because made of Dust Such Objections are Trivial 17. They Object 4. The Breaking of Bread strongly Calvin saith Breaking of Bread is Sacrificing argues 'T is plain Bread Though Deputed to a Holy Vse Answ The Breaking here is Sacrificing as Calvin Himself confesseth The Argument though it Proves just nothing is seemingly more for Luthers Opinion of Bread and Flesh together then for our Sectaries 18. They Object 5. Christ is called a Vine a Rock and a Doore Answ What then Put a Minor Proposition to these Words and Se How weak a Conclusion A weak Inference of Sectaries Followes Is it any Consequence that because figurative Speeches are in Scripture sometimes Therfore all we Read there must be Tropes and Metaphors We know and the whole world knowes also by other Principles that These are Tropes And we evidently know by as assured Principles that Mr BODY GIVEN FOR YOU MY BLOOD SHED FOR MANY Are no figurative Locutions 19. They Object 6. The Cup is called the Fruit The legal and Sacramental Cup Distinguished of the Vine therfore it is not Blood Answ 1. It may be called Heavenly Wine as Christ called himself Heavenly Bread c. But the true Solution is There were two Cupps on the Table that night before our Saviour suffered the Legal and the Eucharistical or Sacramental Cup That 's called the Fruit of the Vine This not 20. They Object 7. Some places of Scripture The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life The flesh Profiteth nothing All did eat the same Spiritual Food and all drank the same Spiritual Drink Answ Nothing But meer Fancy or something Wors can Draw these Texts to the sense of Sectaries The open and plain Meaning of Christs words without Violence offered to them easily Gathered By the whole Context is The sense of Christs own words is clear by the whole context of the Gospel Thus. I have spoken to you of Divine and Spiritual Matters conducing to Eternal Happines But your Thoughts are still on Earth As if I were to cut off certain Pieces of my Body and give them you to Eat so S. Austin explicates this Place it is not so saith our Saviour I spak of that more Hidden Mystery of the Sacrament If Sectaries can prove the contrary let the◠them do by a sure Principle which Being Believed and Spiritually Vnderstood will Quicken you and Give you Eternal life The Flesh therfore That is a Carnal Vnderstanding of my words Profit 's Nothing c. This is the Genuin and candid sense of Christs Expression For it were a Blasphemy to say that his sacred Body Profit 's none I Answer To The other Passage of S. Paul It s an Errour to judge That the Jewes Received no less the Substance The Apostles words misonderstood by Sectaries and Benefits of Christs Graces in Their Figures Then We do in our Sacraments The Apostle Intimates no such Thing But only Saith They all the Hebrewes among Themselves good and bad Eat the same Meat and Drank of the same Rock which was a Figure of Christ Now Pray you Tell me Do all Calvinists Good and Bad when They Receive Christ by the Mouth of their Faith Equally participate of his Graces Or were There any such Ample Promises Annexed to the Eating of Manna in the Desert and Drinking the Wather Issuing out of that Rock as are now made to the Sacraments of the New Law No. They were Egena elementa Barren Elements for so Scripture speak's You 'l Ask Why Then doth the Apostle call the Manna and Water Spiritual Food Why the Apostle call's Manna Spiritual Food and Drink I Answer They are called so not Becaus they Produced Grace as our Sacraments Do But becaus They had a Spiritual Signification And were caused by a Special supernatural Providence contrary to the Ordinary Cours of nature 21. They Object 8. Such ought to be the Way of Receiving this Food of the blessed Sacrament as is An Objection concerning the way and manner of Receiving showed null Answerable to the Quality of the Food and End for which we take it But both the Food it self to wit Divine Grace and the Final end of it which is a Union of the soul with Christ are purely Spiritual Therfore the Way or Mode of Receiving it must be Proportionably Spiritual But no Mode or Way of Taking it can be more Fit or Spiritual then Faith Therfore we are to Receive it by Faith Only as the meetest Instrument Answ The Objection no less improper in Speech then simply Fallacious Distinguisheth not rightly Between the Immediate Cause of Grace the effect of Sectaries distinguish not rightly between the cause of Grace the effect it self and the Disposition necessary to receiving Grace and the Disposition necessary to Receive this Effect Fruitfully The immediate cause of grace is Christs sacred Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine Now to say That his Body is the Way or Manner of Receiving our Spiritual Nutriment is an Impropriety in Speech And to say Again That this Body ought to be Ejusdem planè rationis of the self same Nature with the Spiritual Food it Causeth or That a Corporal thing cannot be Ordained to Produce a Spiritual Effect is most untrue For the water in Baptism A material thing can cause Spiritual Grace produceth grace in the Baptized yet is Corporeal the Corporeal visible Effusion of Christs sacred Blood in his Passion
vapour with a few broken fragments I 'll espyed in these Modern Authors and worse applyed without attending to their whole drift antecedent and consequent and think to defeat an Ancient Church with such trivial Doings is so slight a way of schirmishing that it deserves no counterblow but pitty and compassion That incomparable Author of the Protestants Apology learn's them anohter way of arguing whilst he doth not only shew the endles clashing of Sectaries amongst themselves but moreover solidly proves our Catholik Doctrin positively and this by the most satisfactory and undeniable Principles that a lover of Truth can wish for Thus these new men should defend their cause and it is no fault of ours that they trifle it out and do no better We charge enough upon them and could they well acquit themselves they would certainly go more closely to work and answer directly We say and will prove it That that Doctrin which they believe as Protestants contrary to the Roman Catholik Faith is evidently no part of any Christian belief but a meer Opinion grounded on fancy only We say and will prove it that this new Religion of Protestancy hath all the marks and characters of heresy following it which can be thought on not one is wanting for if Arius of old who quited the ancient Roman Church and banded against it was upon that account both schismatick and heretick our Sectaries are in eâdem nave and have done so their cause and case in other matters is the very same 2. As Arius stood all alone at his first rise opposite to the rest of Christians and was opposed by all so were they also both opposite and opposed by all 3. As he began without commission to broach his Novelties against the ancient Faith so are they as wholy uncōmissioned to preach Theirs And here we give them matter enough to work on and conjure them to produce their commission 4. As Arius supported by secular power vented what ever he pleased without curb or any superiour law to check him and therfore fell into desperate Extravagancies so are our new men lawles also and submit to none but their own fancy and self-judgement Finally as Arius without warrant of the Church interpreted Scripture as his own weak reason taught him just so do our Sectaries here only is the difference That he had a plausible sound of Scripture-words for his heresy Protestants have neither sound nor syllable nor sense through the whole Bible for one article of Protestancy as Protestancy This I shall make good hereafter Here is charge enough drawn up against them but by what satisfactory known and received Principles which force reason to acquiesce and we make a search after these they can acquit themselves or rationally answer is a heavy difficulty I 'll tell you in a word and remember it they shall never answer by any thing that hath the look of a rational proof or a received Principle No Their own sole proofles word wheron the whole machin of Protestancy is built upholds what ever they teach They have no more They say 't is true they left the ancient Roman Church because it left it self but yet stick close to the Primitive Doctrin Observe it They are here both Accusers of us and Iudges in their own cause Their proofles word doth all without reducing it to any known or certain owned Principle Not one Council not one Canon no ancient Tradition no consent of Fathers can they produce wherby particular men are lycensed to rise up against an Ancient Mother Church and condemn it of false Doctrin They will tell you that they stood all alone when Luther rose up yet taught forsooth the true Gospel of Iesus Christ and we must believe them Here is the last Propositio quiescens They say so To what we charge against their uncommissioned Authority to preach as they did you have the like uncommissioned answer The Lord sent them abroad and the Truth they taught secures them But of these weak wordy replyes I have said to much in this short Digression Let us now retourn to Mr. Poole And I must say all he hath vented in his Nullity or Appendix against us comes to no more but to a most weak assault of a feeble Adversary for this man who endeavorus to prove that both Church and Councils and what else you can mention are fallible can never assume to himself or tye to any Community he joyns with the Spirit of Infallibility For if the infallibility of the Church of Rome must down down say I also with the infallibility of the Protestant Church of the Grecian Church and of all other societies of Christians With some of these Mr. Poole is listed and therfore I cannot but hold him and his Adherents men of no more then of a fallible Religion Hence I argue Suppose which is utterly false that the Church or all Churches all Councils all Fathers are fallible and that Christian Religion as it is taught by these is likewise fallible Admit also that I were to embrace one of these many fallible Religions which I shall never do will not prudence dictate if I have no other certainty then these meer uncertainties to rely on that it is better to hold where I am and stick to my ancient Religion glorious with innumerable Martyrs Doctors Confessors c. then to give up my Faith to Mr. Pooles post-nate fallible Religion and false discours How therfore can this man so much as once endeavour to draw me or any of my more ancient and universal Religion though supposed fallible to another new one which lyes sick of the same disease totters and reel's as much as mine if not more and in a word is fallible Of two evils the lesse is to be chosen It is an evil without doubt to have no Religion certain yet if I were to choose one of two uncertain Religions and could by no certain Teacher learn which of them is worse being both naught I would either pitch where I list and as my fancy lead's me or rather choose none at all knowing wel that a ruin of all Faith followes the renouncing of certainty in Religion But of this more hereafter In the interim I would know of Mr. Poole whether this strange and unheard of Proposition Christian Religion as it is taught and delivered by all Pastors Doctors c. is fallible be subjectively in him that speak's it an infallible Assertion or fallible If the first we have an English Pope I mean Mr. Poole who without either Scripture Church or Council can speak infallibly in matters of Faith If that formal Proposition be fallible it fall's of it self without further proof to nothing and renders this sense I. M. P. say by a fallible Assertion that Christian Religion is fallible which feeble Assertion and the weaker it is the worse it is for him cannot at all startle me or any who upon the Authority of thousands more learned than he to say no more hold one
Such an Assertion though most Morally certain is capable of Falsity For God may have destroyed all those men or given them over to a strange unheard of drowsines That 's no impossibility if it were so Why Because the Assertion only stands upon these Negatives or some like Foundations Never yet was seen such an Effect as this Secundary Causes never yet concurred to so Universal a Sleep or Mortality Here is the best Assurance which can be had and yet it may be false Contrarywise Suppose that God Reveal's to the Imprisoned party this What God Reveales is always most Certain Truth duely proposed All the men of this Citty are not dead His Belief resting on this Revelation is so Certain that no power in Heaven can falsify it Where you see a vast Disparity in order to Infallibility between Faith and Moral certainty The one Difference between Faith and Moral Certainty because of its weak motive may be fals the other strongly upheld by Revelation cannot be falsified Perhaps you will say At least we know not that God speaks to us but only upon Moral certainty Of this more presently Here the Reply is not to the purpose For all we convince now is That Faith if any be in the World must finally Rest on Gods infallible Revelation and consequently That no Motive of Moral certainty hath Strength enough to support it Now by what means it comes at last to be setled in this Center of Gods infallible Veracity is another question Thus it must Rest or as our Adversaries confes loose the Essence of infallible Faith 3. Briefly We shall now make good the other Assertion in the Title and show Though Moral certainty were as it is not a prop strong enough to Protestants Religion hath not Moral Certainty support Christian Religion yet Protestants have no Degree of it for their Pretended Religion I prove this Truth By Protestancy we must either understand those Prudential Motives which induce men to Believe the Specifical and particular Doctrins of Protestants such are Miracles Antiquity great Conversions c. Or rather the very Tenents and Doctrins actually believed by them For example That all Pastors may err in delivering Christian Doctrin That there are two Sacraments only or what else you will If we speak of Motives this Religion is so naked that it cannot shew you so much as one as is largely Demonstrated in the 8. 9. and 10. ensuing Chapters whether to avoyd an unnecessary Repetition the Reader is remitted Waving therfore at present a further Proof hereof I Argue thus against the Moral certainty Protestants Doctrin without Rational inducements of their Doctrin A Doctrin broached without Previous rational Inducements whose very Professors were and are no more but Fallible and which at its first Rise or Appearance in the World seemed a meer Paradox to the far greater part of Christians and yet throughly examined is held still by this far greater number most knowing and learned false and improbable cannot be a Doctrin morally certain Protestancy is thus consestedly fallible and both at its A Conuincing Argument Rise was and is Still Opposed not only by the vast number of Catholicks But by all other Haereticks also as fals and improbable Ergo it is not a Doctrin Morally Certain That a Doctrin so meanly thought of and universally Decryed cannot be thus Certain is proved out of the very Notion of Moral certainty which though not absolutely infallible yet when the Grounds and Motives of it are perfectly known it passeth for an uncontradicted Truth and free 's men from Doubt destructive of such a degree of Certainty Thus we say morally Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in being All the inhabitants of China are not dead These And the like Assertions passe for current Moral Truths without Opposition without Contradiction If therfore Protestant Religion The reason of the Argement were in such a measure Morally certain That vast Multitude of Christians wherof innumerable are Pious Conscientious and Learned could never hold it as they do false and improbable No Verity Morally certain ever mett A Verity Morally Certain was never so long and universally opposed as Protestancy is with such a strong Contradiction If ye say This Opposition ariseth out of Malice ye speak not probably and more justly draw on your selves the like Censure for beginning so strange a Religion If you say again These Learned Men penetrate not too well the Depth of this new Doctrin you talk at random Their Knowledge is not inferiour to Yours what you se they se and perhaps more Charge not therfore Ignorance on them wherof your selves are more likely guilty 4. Yet some Replyes may be here expected One is Protestants have moral Assurance of their Bible Because all say it is Gods Word Ergo they have Assurance Moral Assurance of the Bible is no Assurance of True Religion of their Religion also The Antecedent is bad and the Consequence worse Arians Pelagians and all Haereticks are as morally assured of their Bible as any Protestant Have they I pray you as great Certainty of those pestilent Haeresies proved as they think out of the Bible You say no Because they Interpret amis and you do not Learnedly answered But who makes your Interpretation better then Theirs They have that Book and spend their private Judgement on it you have no more Unles therfore your Book or Judgement be better then Theirs You are Altogether as uncertain of your particular Doctrins as They of Theirs The Reason is Because Protestant Glosses no more Scripture then the Glosses of Arians you have not one Sole Expres Text of Scripture for Protestancy You may add your own Glosses and make it speak Protestancy But these Glosses are no more Scripture nor more morally certain then Those of Arians Pelagians c. Therfore a moral Assurance of the Bible which is easily abused gives no man moral certainty of sound Doctrin But of this subject hereafter 5. A second Objection As what is Fals may be by errour judged Morally certain so often what is True may not be held Morally certain Therfore though Protestancy want's that High Moral certainty now required yet it may be True I answer But if it want Moral certainty it hath it not which is all we prove at present Again Though it may be true which is impossible so also it may be fals Now Protestants I hope do not believe a meer Possibility Sectaries can not believe the actual Truth of Protestancy only nor the May be of Truth for many Things are not which may be but they Believe more the Actual supposed Truth of Protestancy And this they cannot do without Moral Certainty of that which they hold Actually true 6. A third Objection and 'T is more to the purpose Our Argument now proposed proves too much and Therfore proves nothing For its best Force lyes in this one Assertion viz. That a Doctrin or Religion which is