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
some private men amongst you withstand yours What reason can you alleadge against a Tub preacher Some texts of scripture Canons of Councils Tradition of the Church Laws of the Realme All these stood in favour of our Clergy against the first Reformers as more evidtntly than for you against your dissenters So your Schisme Reformation hath deprived you of all meanes to preserue the Peace of the Church My 5. Is taken from the manner of your Reformation From Rome our Ancesters had received by the same hands a systeme of Faith a body of Ceremonys some Ecclesiastical Laws The whole Faith as necessary to be beleived the Ceremonys as decent to entertaine devotion The laws as convenient to government order And your first Reformers changed all Jn Faith they first rejected the whole vnwritten word Tradition a greate part of the written scripture They secondly perverted many places of this by new interpretations retaining the word without its sense The Ceremonys laws were treated as licentiously throwing out of dores whatsoever they pleased Now why may not another imitate these your Patriarks Cur non licebit Valentiniano quod licuit Valentino de arbitrio suo fidem innovare What was lawfull to Luther is sure lawfull to a Lutheran what was laudable in the sixteenth is not a sin in the seventeenth age to giue new interpretations to scripture abolish other ceremonys repeale more Canons Especially the motiues of reforming being common Which is My 6. Your first reformers rejected some Articles of Faith as being delivered by fallible men some Ceremonys as men's inventions some laws as contrary to Evangelical liberty Now all this holds as strongly against what they Keepe in as what they leaue out for all Canons were imposed by men all Ceremonys prescribed by men scripture it self brought to you continued amongst you by fallible men as much as the real presence Now as you blot this out of your creede why may not another strike out Baptisme a third the Trinity a fourth the Incarnation afifth the vnity of God a sixth the Deity it self so farewell all Faith What reason is there to say that our Roman Missioners sent by S. Gregory were infallible in delivering the mysterys of the Trinity or Incarnation fallible in speaking of Purgatory or the Real presence They say they pared away these Articles because they were not from the beginning were abuses But will not a Monothelit alleadge the same against the distinction of wills in Christ an Eutychian against the distinction of natures a Nestorian against the vnity of Person in him a Macedonian against the Divinity of the Holy ghost an Arrian against that of the son a Manichean against the vnity of the Divine nature a Iew against the new Testament a Libertin and Atheist against both old new God himself These are not wyre drawne conclusions by obscure mediums far fetched illations but natural obvious sequels of the fundamental principles of your Reformation which are inconsistent with any constancy in Faith and settlement in Church government So I must conclude that your Church building is such as no principles can beare your principles are such as can beare no building By which we may guesse from whome your reformers had their vocation from Abaddon Apollion the Destroyer seing their principles are good only to Destroy Churchs not at all to Build them In fine a prudent man without casting a figure might haue seene the fate of the late troubles in their principles which were inconsistent with any setled forme of civil gouvernment would ruin them all successively as they did without any hopes of rest vnlesse these were layd aside the just ancient government restored The like conjecture may be made of Protestantisme its principles being inconsistent with any setled forme of Faith Church government will destroy them all by Schisme Heresyes no probability of a settlement vnlesse these be renounced the Ancient Catholick Apostolical Faith Government restored For a further proofe of this I appeale to experience which is a demonstration A posteriori as the former is A priori which is My 7. Experience shews that t is much easier to destroy than to settle a government ether in Church or State Nothing of Art or Power was wanting to the establishment of the Prelatical Church in England She appeared first with the plausible colours of an Apostolical Reformation was cherisht by Royal favour armed the severest laws imaginable Yet one age had not past over her head when the peccant humours bread within her layd her in the dust the crowne it self with her which it was hoped she would vp hold Both were againe restored yet how soone was the joy of that over both brought againe into a like danger Seeke no where abroade the spring of these mischeifes they rise from the Reformation are inseparable from the Protestant Church My 8. And last reason is drawne from the Protestant Clergy it self which as it is modelled principled can never sufficiently influence the Nation to preserue its vnion in the Worship of God its duty to the King to prevent Schisme in the Church Faction in the State This appeares by experience The reasons I reserue till some further occasion be given 3. D. M. so we shall hereafter call my Lord of Winton says in his Preface pag. 11. A french Iesuit called Mainbourg publisht something as writen by her late R. H. he repeates afterwards four times in the Preface once in his post script Mainbourg the Iusuit when it was Mainbourg the secular Preist who printed it Which that booke of his tells all the world so did the publike Gazets containing his dismission out of the society His superiors did never permit him to print it whilest he was a Iesuit knowing how sacred the secrets of Princes ought to be So that paper crept about only in written copyes seene by few of these not many beleiving it to be hers whose name it beares Now D. M. hath spreade it the rumor of her Change in Religion for his owne vindication so prejudiced his mother the Church of England for I doubt not but her R. H. example will moue more Powerfully to leaue that Church than D. M. S. judgment to retaine men in it He questions the Conference betwixt her R. H. the Bishop which being a matter of Fact must rely on the deposition of witnesses their credit interest She is positiue he conjectural she had no motiue but Truth he concerned for the honour of his Church his owne His topick is if the Bishop answered so he was nether so Learned nor Conscientious nor Prudent as he ought to be Which many will easier grant then that her R. H. in a matter of fact would wittingly tell an vntruth He relates many things in his Preface to little purpose v. c. His coming out of
only to diminish the difficulty of the beleife of it by explicating in some probable manner a part of the mystery You see sir how easy it is to excuse S. Thomas from the contradiction you charge him with for it is no contradiction to say A fire well kindled burnes matter combustible duly applyed in the furnace fire did not burne those three young men Both which we know to be tru one by experience the other by Revelation why may not such an obvious explication excuse this greate Doctor from so shamefull a fault as contradicting himself is That all quantity fills some space is a general rule that in the Sacrament it doth not is an exception from this rule Can you not vnderstand how a man without contradicting himself admits an exception from his Rule 3. D M. p. 10. Lastly Thomas all the rest teach that no other body can be in more places than one at one time yet they say Christs body in the Sacrament is in many places at the same time Thus they mantain what their church hath defined though it be with doing violence to all the principles not of Divinity only but of Nature sense Reason not without manifest manifold contradictions not of one another onely but even of themselues also Revisor The contradiction you charge on S. Thomas all Catholicks is that we teach that Christ's body is in two places at once that we deny that Any other body can be in two places at once Where your first fault is against Logick for you beleiue these two propositions to be contradictions they are not soe For a contradiction is Affirmatio negatio eiusdem de eodem the same thing must be sayd denyed of the same subject now here is not the same subject for Christs body other bodys are not the same Hence it is no contradiction to say Christs body is personally vnited to the word and no other body is personally vnited to the word Your second fault is more reproachfull a lack of sincerity in relating our sentiments You say we teach that No other body but that of Christ can be in more places than one at the same time Which is so far from being tru that I will challenge you or any other in the world to produce any one either Divine or Philosopher of the Catholick communion who denyes to Any body a passiue capacity of being in two places when God shall determine in that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places And if I am disproved in this I am content to be thought the Impostor Had you consulted either our Phylosophers or Divines or even any of our yearly conclusions you would haue found instances enough to correct your mistake if it were not affected which I will not determine I say In that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places because I know the Thomists hold a body cannot be Extensivè Localitèr or Desinitivè in two places the Scotists hold the contrary but those same learned men say the same of the Body of Christ. So your mistake is vnexcusable Your third fault is that Our Doctrine is contrary to all principles of Divinity I know no other at least no better Principles of tru Divinity than Scripture Tradition Definitions of the Church Fathers If you know any better make vs happy by communicating them Now J am sure our Doctrine is not contrary to these nay it is grounded on them all this you knew so well that you haue carefully avoyded all mention of them as conscious of your contradicting them all foreseing that they are rockes on which this Sensual Heresy would split it self Scriptures says It is Christs body Tradition says the same so do Fathers so doth the Church so do we Not one Egge more like another than our Doctrine is to theirs What violence then do we do to all the principles of Divinity But it is not vnusual that men who rob cry Theiues You know you cannot proue that we oppose any one principle of Divinity so you never attempt it Yet you would haue it beleived Therefore you beg it Your fourth fault is that you blame vs as faulty for going in matters of Faith against Nature Sense Reason Sir we are Disciples of S. Paul of him we haue learnt To cast downe jmaginations every hygh thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2. cor 10.6 This we practice in this other matters If in this we are blameworthy condemne him who directs vs to do so if you dare not condemne him you must absolue vs. Call to mind S. Austins words mentioned aboue in Epist ad Volusianum Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile si exemplum poscitur non erit singulare If a reason be found out it will cease to be admirable if an example be produced it will not be singular We owne it is Admirable we professe it is Singular So we expect nether Reason nor example to confirme vs in the beleife of it That is we are nether Socinians nor Morleyans Iust so we beleiue the same Christ to be borne of a virgin thô nether Reason nor experience confirme it Yet out of some other places of scripture joyned together it appeares that Christ's body hath been in two places at the same time For we learne out of Ephes 4.10 that He ascended vp far aboue all Heavens whence Heb. 7.26 he is sayd To be Hygher then the Heavens And Act. 13.21 we reade Whome the Heavens must receiue till the time of restitution of all things that is till the vniversal Resurrection he must remaine aboue the Heavens Yet he was seene by S. Paul 1. Cor. 15.8 Act. 9. Therefore he was in two places at the same time In Heaven aboue the Heavens as the scripture says neere the Earth otherwise the Apostle could nether haue seene his Body nor heard his voice You begin pag. 11. a long discourse about Mysteryes Which being nothing to the purpose I leaue it as I find it passe to the your 19. page where I find something in which I am concerned SECTION XVI Transubstantiation is a Miracle MY reason is because it is a worke not only Besides or Aboue but Contrary to second causes Therefore it is a Miracle The illation is evident as being from the definition to the thing defined The antecedent is cleere first from the littlenesse of the space or rather the no space to which Christs Body is reduced Secondly from its being in many places at once Answer this Reason eris mihï magnus Apollo What haue you against this D. M. p. 19. Scripture makes no mention of any Miracle in this Sacrament as no doubt it would haue done if there had beene any seing no man can perceiue it Rev. Must nothing be counted a Miracle but what scripture calls such
Schismaticks Many followed Absalom to Hebron without any design against their lawful Monark David althô they were after engaged in the Rebellion And many follow Heresiarks intending no evil but hoping good from such as pretend nothing else who would hate these perfectly if they knew their Hypocrisy or malice who are insensibly engaged in the guilt of separation which they strengthen with their presence These nether having the guilt of a sin against the Holy Ghost vpon their Conscience nor their soulhardned against the Call of God we hope may be reclaimed And a Conference severally to such as these may proue beneficial Though not to the whole body of Separatists vpon which the more factious heads will always haue too great an influence How fruitlesse of old were the Conferences of S. Peter with Simon the magician of S. Athanasius with Arrius of S. Austin with Felix with Pascentianus Felicianus Emeritus or the Arrians of Lanfrancus with Berengarius of S. Bernard with Peeter Abaylardus what good came of the Conference of Catholicks Hugonots at Poissy in France Of those betwixt Catholicks Lutherans in Germany And that betwixt Protestants Presbiterians at Hampton-court brought no good althô directed by K. Iames a learned wise Prince to whom both Partys owed Obedience in Ecclesiastical matters as to one whom both owned to be head of their Church With great reason then Tertullian Prescrip c. 15.16.17 advises out of the Apostles words to Avoyd a Heretick after twice warning him not to meet Hereticks except only to Warn them That much harm may be feared but no good hoped for by Disputes with them That we ought to presse them to declare whence they had the scriptures If from Catholicks as most certainly Protestants had then they must from them also receiue the sense of scriptures Thus he Out of which it doth not follow that Catholicks are bound to receiue the sense of scripture from the Iews from whom they received the Holy scriptures because those same Persons who brought vs the scriptures from them proved their Mission from God declared the blindnesse Apostasy of the Iews warned vs as from God the Authour of Scriptures to be ware of them S Austin 13. cont Faustum c. 12. is of the same mind that all such Disputations are fruitless Hunnericus King of the wandals proposed a conference betwixt his Arrian Bishops those of the Catholick Communion But Eugenius Bishop of Carthage in the name of all the rest rejected the Proposition saying they could not accept it without consent of other Bishops cheïfely of him of Rome Victor of Vtica lib. 2. de Persec wandalicâ The Civil Law forbids all disputations L. Nemo C. de summa Trinitate The same are forbidden to seculars by the Canon law C. Quicumque de Haereticis in 6. For some particular reasons without any prohibition from the Church by common consent Catholicks refused to encounter some Hereticks Such was Sisinnius who because he had a pleasant drolling wit would seeme victor by turning all discourse into ridicule when he had nothing substantial to reply S. Austin when a Manichaean was avoyded for his singular skill in Logick For a like reason J beleiue Christians were warned by the Apostle Colos 2.8 To beware of being deceived through Philosophy Yet we cannot we dare not vniversally blame those who by Conferences or Disputes endeavour to bring back straglers into the way of salvation For Christ disputed with the Pharisees S. Stephen with the Iews in Hierusalem S Paul Apollo with the same else where S. Hilarius with the Arrians S. Austin with the Donatists Manichaeans others This Saint Epist 48. Says Cum Hereticis verbis agendum est disputatione pugnandum ratione vincendum Treate with Haereticks with words fyght them with discourse overcome them with reason Hence Divines do nether absolutely approue nor absolutely condemn such Conferences but hold them law full on some conditions in certain circumstances which may be found in them This honourable man hints at two conditions 1. that the Disputants on both sides be learned moderate 2. That They proceed freely charitably Which are good but scarce sufficient For 1. it is no easy matter amongst those who sincerely haue any Religion to find such as are Moderate in his sense And 2. even the most Moderate men may be so pinioned by jnstructions from those who depute them that their Personal Moderation will signify nothing for they must follow their jnstructions vnder pain of being disowned by their party left to make good their own Acts. Thus Melancthon Bucerus who were esteemed Moderate could effect nothing at the several meetings to which they were deputed The same I say of the 2. condition debating Freely Charitably which signifyes nothing vnlesse the whole Party 1. giue a full power to its deputyes without any reserue oblige it selfe to ratify approue what so ever shall be agreed on consented to by them And 2. would assuredly stand to that Power Do we not see that a separation is first resolved on errours sought out alleadged only to colour it Did not Luther laugh at the labour in vain of the Catholicks who confuted his errours saying that before they had dispacht the old ones he would find them more worke by broaching new And how often are the same objections renewed after a full satisfactory answer That for example of Pagan Idolatry reproached to vs lately by E. S G. B. R. C. but answered so home by T. G. W. E. that it will be layd aside till these are forgotten then we may expect to see some huffing minister thunder all the curses of scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse against the Church of Rome as guilty of the very Pagan Idolatry Thus Trita haereticorum arma colligunt Says S. Prosper They take vp the broken weapons of their brethren As some rivers pass vnperceived for some space vnder ground then rise again so that so other Objections against the Church And if J am not mistaken in the Horoscope of this Argument drawn from sense against Transubstantiation it will run the same fate for while a loue of separation continues these or some other pretexts will be vsed to excuse it Wherefore The only meanes to put a good end to all Disputes in Religion is to procure a sincere Loue of Peace mutual communion The differences says this Lord are not so many nor so great but meanes may be found to reconcile the two Churchs I hope there may be meanes found thó this grounds not my hope for J do on the contrary aver that there never were any Hereticks of one denemination who haue erred in more or more material points then Protestants For to say nothing of several all most all antiquated Heresyes received by them they haue cut off all the vnwritten a great part of the written word of God destroyed
thing in order to Christian Peace in things of Ecclesiastical constitution as v. c. The latin service the Sacrament vnder one kind the celibate of Preists thô not in things of Faith such as is the Church's Jnfallibility 3. D. Morley Replyed If by the Church he meant all Christians in all places it could not erre If any particular Church v. c. That of Rome it could erre had erred which he proved thus That Church which formerly held as matter of Faith an errour hath erred can erre But this is the case of the Church of Rome Therefore it hath erred and can erre To proue the minor he inslanced in the Communion of Infants beleived to be necessary to salvation For which he quoted Innocent 1. S. Austin Binius Maldonate This last says for six hundred yeares it was Dogma de Fide vniversalts Ecclesiae 1. Revisor you approved here what J haue at larg proved aboue little good from Conserences in matters of Religion can be expected But you haue a sting in the end when you reject all the fault all the opposition of so great a good as the Peace of the Ch. on vs. Who are resolved to remit nothing A very vncharitable rash judgment And vntru to boote as appeares by F. Darcys reply by that story which Protestants with great confidence relate in Q. Elisabeths time viz that the Pope offred to confirm all she had don in Church affayres vpon condition she would acknowledg him How can you say We will remit nothing when your Brethren assure the Pope was ready to remit all But it is your fashion to say vnsay as you think for your present purpose Then it served your turn that the Pope did not dislike your Reformation to moue Catholicks to embrace it so you spread that report Now it is to your purpose to throw the odium of the division on the Popes inflexibility so you report that The tru only reason that the schismatical Party is resolved never to rest satisfyed with what is remitted So the rebellious Part of the Parliament resolved never to be satisfyed with what soever answer the King gaue to their Addresses for that Reason we might say all Treatys for peace betwixt the King Parliament would proue ineffectual 2. F. Darcys answer shews how desirous the Church is to restore Peace to Christendome being ready for so great a good to remit of her Ryght in imposing ceremonys making Canons In Faith she can change nothing that belongs to a higher Tribunal she receiues it from her spouse in the nature of a Depositum 1. Tim 6.20 which must not be altred But Ecclesiastical Discipline being lef to her determination of her own appointement she may change as the Father sayd will change if by that meanes she could restore to the sheep-fold of Christ all his strayed sheep This is more than the Ch. of Engl. will do seing to reclaime her vndutiful children she will not omit the signe of the Crosse in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament bowing to the Altar all ceremonys of humane jnstitution her own injunction Nay she would not alter some words in her Lyturgy to purchase Peace 3. If the Church diffusivè that is all Christians in all places cannot erre wo be to the first Protestants whose sentiments in matters of Faith were as contrary to those of all Christians in all places as to those of the Roman Church except that one point of Papal Power So if all Christians did not cannot erre the first Protestants did erre all their followers doe erre will erre as long as they retain those sentiments for what is an errour to day will be such to morrow to the end of the world As to the Communion of Infants J acknowledg that for a long time when Baptism was administred solemnly by Bishops to men grown vp Adultis two other Sacraments were administred with it Confirmation the Eucharist That when it was administred by Preists they were ordred to anoint the baptised person not on the forehead but on the crowne That when Infants were baptised because the Sacrament could not without danger be administred to them vnder the species of Bread alone it was giuen vnder the other species the Preist dipping his finger into the Holy Chalice gaue it them to suck or a litle particle of the species of Bread soaked in the consecrated wine was layd on their tongue That the Communion was giuen to Infants out of an opinion that it was necessary to salvation grounded on those words of Christ Ioan. 6. Vnlesse ye eate the Body .... you haue no life in you I grant also that some haply many in some private Churchs beleived that to be the litteral meaning of those words thought consequently that sense was De fide a point of Faith Yet I deny that the vniversal Church did erre in declarations or definitions of Faith for indeed she never made any definition in this matter That Text was exposed with the rest of Holy writ to the view of all Christians left to the interpretation of ordinary Pastors as the rest was Many vnderstood it litterally for that reason extended to Infants the Communion in Baptism ordained to men enjoying the vse of Reason The Church seing no pressing inconvenience in this custome consequently no necessity to make a severe examen of the meaning of those words a censure of an jnnocent errour permits them to go on without interposing her Authority or by any legal definition obliging her children to beleiue either the one or the other part And I doubt not but there are several other texts of scripture commonly vnderstood one way that thought to be the litteral meaning tru sense followed as such some nay many may beleiue that sense to be De fide the Church permits them to beleiue practice so not seing any necessity to call a General Council to decide it the errour being nether destructiue to necessary Faith nor good manners yet this sense may be different from that the Holy Ghost cherfly intended by those texts all this without any prejudice to the Church of Rome's infallibility which never declared any thing in it Such I think is the common way of explicating Anti Christ to be one single man the three yeares a halfe to be litterally vnderstood for forty two months vulgar From alike occasion the error of the Chiliasts or Millenarians had its rise progresse which was not condemned till its Abettars grew troublesome to those who differed from them in the exposition of those words Apoc. 20.4 on which they grounded their error Hence it so lows that what Maldonate says makes nothing against the Churchs infallibility in defining things of Faith for he nether says nor could say with truth that she ever defined any thing in this matter And the practice it self of communicating Infants cannot
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
being vncyp hered by their actions the best interpreters of them Wherefore F. Darcy's argument remaines in force that it is safer to joine with the Catholicks than with the Protestants as it was safer to avoyd Treason to joine with the king than with the Parliament there being no sin in remaining in the Communion of the Catholick Church two great sins Schism Heresy in joining with the Protestants You say that this Reason would proue that in S. Austin's time it was safer to joine with the Donatists than with the Catholicks seing both sides agreed that the Donatists could be saved the Donatists denyed that possibility to the Catholicks Answer you are here grossely mistaken pardon that word for S. Austin never sayd a Donatist remaining such Could be saved nay a great part of his workes against them is employed to proue that they cannot be saved that their Baptism avayles them nothing but serues for their greater damnation Let me beseech you only to open any leafe any page of the several bookes written against them there is none which will not correct that mistake What you should say is only that both sides owned tru Baptism amongst the Donatists which these denyed amongst Catholicks Which argument the Donatists not only myght but did make vse of to pervert Catholicks as you may see in S. Austin L. 1. de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 3. l. 2. cont Petilianum c. 108. else where To this I answer that such a reason from a Donatist to a Catholick is of no force he having no good ground at all for that reason to rely on therefore denying Baptisme in the Catholick Church only out of a peevishnesse of nature Religion it was by them sayd with no more cause than Quakers had to say Thou art damned when they had nothing else to say Where as Catholicks proue that Assertion of theirs with jrrefragable reason drawn from those two crying sins Schisme Heresy of which we accuse the Protestants these do not nay cannot sufficiently cleere I haue all ready explicated these reasons That those of the Donatists were frivolous is evident for they sayd some Bishops of the Catholick Communion were Traditores had delivered the sacred bookes to the Persecutors that all Catholicks by communicating with them did contract the same guilt had lost the Holy Ghost And hence they inferred there could be no valid Baptisme in the Catholick Communion for those who haue not the Holy Ghost cannot give him to others To which the Catholicks answered 1. that those Bishops accused of that shamefull compliance with the jmperial Edicts against Christians were jnnocent of that crime which was never sufficiently proved vpon them no man ought to be condemned vnlesse the crime be evidently proved against him 2. They answered that althô the persons accused were really guilty yet their personal guilt could not prejudice all Catholicks communicating with them because another man's sin cannot prejudice me vnlesse J make it my own by commanding or perswading approving defending or imitating it Now the Catholicks were so far from being accessory to that pretended sin in another that they detested the sin always condemned it in all persons who were really guilty of it but never could find sufficient grounds to pronounce those accused by the Donatists guilty of it as those would haue them doe They answered 3. that supposing not granting that the Persons accused were really guilty that guilt had infected the whole body of Catholicks by communicating with them yet their Baptism myght be valid this not depending on the Personal sanctity of its Minister but on the justitution promises of Christ the operation of the Holy Ghost Hence S. Austin sayd he did not regard Peter when he Baptizes nor Paul nor Iohn nor Iudas but he considered the Holy Ghost who is the Baptist who ever he be who washes the body pronounces the words as Minister of that Sacrament You se how frivolous the reasons of the Donatists were to deny the validity of Baptism in the Catholick Church Shew that ours are as frivolous J will grant the parity but this you can never doe So our Reason stands good against you that of the Donatists against vs falls to the ground It seemes not discreet in an English Protestant to mention the Donatists there being so great a resemblance betwixt these two schismatical Churchs that they may seem sisters the later to haue copyed the other which appeares by these paralel points 1. Donatists were no where out of one corner of the world Africa Protestants of the Church of Eng. that is such as agree with her in points of Doctrine Hierarchy no where out of England 2. Donatists sayd theirs was the only perfect vnspotted Church you say yours is the only Apostolical Church perfectly reformed c. 3. Those endeavoured to justify their separation with some pretended faults of particular men you to justify yours alleadg some indiscreet devotions of old women and vnwary words of some otherwise pious Authours 4. Those appealed to some parts of scripture which you vse against vs And the Fathers proved against them the Vniversality of the Church the necessity of Communion with her out of the same texts which we vse against you 5. Donatists called Rome the seat or Chair of pestilence you call it a Pest-house letter to her R. H. P. 17. the seat of Antichrist 6. Those had their Circumcellions who thought to do God good service in murthering Catholicks you haue some of the same perswasion as appeares by their workes Yet I own a great difference betwixt the old Circumcellions the new ones Those when the toy took them would ether break their own necks or force others to cut their throates the new ones in this do not imitate them they loue too much their mothers sons 7. Those had the Maximianists who left them for the same reasons they had broken off Communion with the Church these haue the Presbiterians others who will not conforme with them vpon the same grounds for which they refuse to conform to the Catholick Church 8. And lastly the Non-conformist donatists made evident to the world that the Donatists had no real ground to break the Catholick Communion by forcing them to solue their owne Objections against the Church of which S. Austin l. 2. Retract C. 35. And your Non conformists with the same successe force you to answer all your pretences against vs breake those weapons with which you haue hitherto fought against the Church Those who will take the paines to examin further the Donatists principles will discover more points of agreement betwixt them you These are sufficient to shew that what is now hath been before will be that as the Church sticks constantly through all ages to the same Faith ways of defending it so Factious spirits seditious Brethren break her Communion turn Schismaticks
things in motion which stir not in rest others which moue shewing substance other then it is colours where there are none As for Hearing some raving haue seemed to heare a consort of musicke A person of my acquaintance was once awakened with an exceeding great noise as if guns had ben shot off at his bed side Calling to mind that there was nether Canon nor any thing else neere which could cause that vast noyse he concluded it must be something in his eare picking it he pulled out a little insect bred in some roses which the day before he had throwne over the tester of his bed which falling from them creeping into his eare with the motion of its little tender feete caused that huge noyse Whither these such like instances of the vncertainty of our Senses sufficiently proue that they were not designed by the Authour of nature God Almyghty for instruments of sciences or to conveygh new notions into our mind or only as Guards or sentinels for our security preservation the only thing they can be designed for in Beasts thô these haue their Senses as perfect as men I leaue to the judgment of others as also to determine whither these examples can ground a judgment in that doubt what I gather hence is That Senses are often mistaken that even about their proper objects That these errours are sometimes corrected by our owne reason or discourse some times by advice or information from other men For example we know that on oare hath a strong consistency of parts to which those of the water yeild as having no consistency at all Whence thô our eyes represent it as broken in the water we conclude their deposition false 1. because water cannot breake a strong oare gently thrust into it 2. because if it were broken by the water it would not be whole when taken out as we see it is Thus reason corrects our eyes By discourse likewise we find that the diameter of the moone is much bigger then a foote as our eyes represent it Now an illiterate Bumpkin who knowes not how the tru quantity of a body seemes lesse by reason of its distance from the eye heare 's one whome he beleiues to be a learned clark say the moone is bigger then all his grounds are he beleiues him vpon his credit corrects that errour of his eyes So he preferres the word of that learned man before his syght 4. It is easy to draw from these premisses the conclusion cheifely intended viz that it is rash presumptuous to alleadge rely on any sensation contrary to the word of God or any revealed Truth For if your reason discourse or the Authority of a man more knowing experienced then our selues are sufficient to make vs frame a judgment different from or contrary to the depositions of the most perfect of our Senses our eyes with much greater reason ought we to suspect their depositions nay reject them when we find them disagree from what God hath attested For J hope the world is not brought as yet by Dogmatizers to such a degree of Libertinisme Atheisme as to say that God either can be deceived him selfe through ignorance or can maliciously deceiue vs. And if the credit of a man be sufficient to reforme the judgments we frame on our sensations shall that of God be lesse regarded Wherefore we must nether prefer Reason before Faith with Socinus nor which is worse Sense before Faith with Dr. Morley but with S. Paul the Church submit both Sense Reason to Faith let God be tru all men lyars And this conclusion holds tru whither one or more Senses bepose the same thing or whither the revealed Truth be confirmed by any Sense or no for if a clowne doth prudently prefer the word of one whome he thinks learned before his syght which no other sense doth or can correct it is certainly prudent to prefer the word of God before all Senses before our reason too SECTION VII How far senses are serviceable to Faith 1. Cartesian doubts destroy science human society 2. Nature of Faith as it comprehends divine humane 3. Two things necessary to a witnesse knowledge veracity 4. Both eminent in the Apostles 5. Miracles very serviceable to Faith 1. ALthô I think the Senses sometimes are often may be mistaken for that reason think we ought to reject their depositions when they are contrary to such things as we haue greater reason to trust to yet J am far from the senselesse errour of those who say no credit at all is du to them or that by them we cannot be sufficiently assured that we haue nether hornes nor a coxcombe on our head that our nose is nether the bille of a cocke nor the trunk of an Elephant or that our Body is flesh not glasse or butter Which is the sentiment of the Authour of the Search of Truth Cartesius teachs vs more to doubt whither we are awake or a sleepe or haue any body at all Which doubts if really admitted not pretended only afford an excellent pretext to all Ignoramus jurys to all malefactours who may pretend the witnesses are not certain of what they depose to all Rebells Refractory subjects who may alleadge their doubts against the King's Proclamation lastly to all knaues who may pretend ignorance of the promises which they haue no mind to keepe So this Cartesian way to knowledge certainty by casting off all former knowledge senses as vncertain lays the Axe at the roote of all Authority dissolues all bonds of commerce amongst men is only good to make Scepticks Atheists too seing it leaues no certain meanes to teach or learne Faith to vnderstand scripture or Councils So that nether Church nor state can stand if these doubts against the depositions of Senses without any ground to the contrary besides the general fallibility of our Senses themselues be really admitted Wherefore when D. Morley often repeates that we deny all authority to our Senses he is either deceived himself or deceiues his reader which is worse for we rely on our Senses where Reason or greater Authority doth not contradict them of both which J haue giuen examples So a man sees Titius kill Simpronius deposes it vpon oath his deposition ought to be admitted notwithstanding all Cartesian doubts So Peter relyes on a promise of Paul to Pay him within such a time 100. l. Paul is bound to make it good Peter may exact it by law 2. Faith taken generally as it comprehends Divine Humane is an Assent giuen to a thing as Tru vpon the credit of another In the first operation of our mind which consists of single thoughts called in our schooles Simple Apprehensions there can nether be Truth nor Falshoode these being propertyes of combined thoughts which are called Propositions these are the second operation of our mind for
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
say you But the Church it selfe also must needes be vselesse because the Ch. as well the scripture teaches vs by no other medium But that of our senses Here is matter indeed for lamentation tho you shew no greate signe of real greife But God be praysed the Church is not brought so low as to want your helpe Her Authority is not prejudiced by such as with Humility receiue her Doctrine but by such as with Pride reject it by Protestants who impugne the sense she received with the words from her spouse his faithfull interpreters the Apostles D. M. p. 5. If I be not certaine that what I see feele tast smell to be bread wine is bread wine but something else by the same reason I cannot be certain that these words this is my body whither I see them written or heare them spoken be indeed those words not some other words of a different or contrary signification Revisor You still go on in a false supposition that we Cartesian like deny all credit to Senses This is absolutely false for we giue credit to our Senses thô not so greate as to Eternal Truth Nether do we doubt of that thing being bread wine which to Senses seemes such except only when God himself tells vs It is his Body Here then is our case A thing is placed on an Altar that Lookes feeles tasts smells like Breade What is that thing God tells me in the Eare It is his Body our Senses tell me It is Bread Whither of these depositions shall I beleiue That of Senses say you that of God says the Church seing it is not impossible our Senses should be mistaken but it is absolntely impossible that God should tell Alye But say you If we doubt of those sensations of bread we may doubt of those of the words whither we reade or heare them Answer Till you shall shew me by an Authority greater then that of God himself those words are something else J will beleiue them to be those words As I beleiue that to be Bread which seemes such vnlesse where God tells me the contrary Do J passe thorough a market by a Bakers shop come into adining toome we giue as full credit to our Senses as you judg that to be Bread which seemes Bread only on the Altar after Consecration we say it is the Body of Christ because Christ says it is such the Church always vnderstood those words as we doe Then you learnedly discourse of Outward signes inward invisible grace Of the Trumpet its sounding of men preparing to battle God blesse vs of Dreames visions jnspirations what not From which if you can conclude any thing against vs J will beare your chaines These rambling phancys are extraordinary in one of your age I wish you to take heede your pen goe not faster than your head as it seemes to doe when you cite those words as of S. Austin Quod non lego non credo what I read not I beleiue not which make against you for We read what we beleiue that it is Christ's Body but we do not read It is not Christ's Body nor It is Bread which is what you beleiue D. M. p. 7. If there be a certainty in the sense of Hearing there must be in that of seing Revisor I admit an equal certainty in both taken by themselues yet Hearing when announcing what God says surpasses Syght all the rest for we are to strike to Faith God's Truth not to any else D. M. p. 8. 9. If there be no certainty of Senses in one thing there is none in any thing vnlesse I know certainly what that one thing is nothing can secure me vnlesse Christ in expresse words tell vs Beleiue your Senses in all things else but only in the Sacrament Revisor Whence so greate a concerne for the Authority of Senses so little for that of the Church All is vndone if the Senses be corrected by the expresse words of Christ whome they contradict no hurt done thô the Church be charged with errour even when she follows the words of Christ yet by the Church we receiue the word of God its meaning too Now why is an errour charged on Senses of so pernicious a nature as to destroy all their credit vnlesse Christ's expresse words are produced to vouch it in all other things one nay many errours charged on the Church by which we receiue Faith no hurt done Js not Faith handed to vs by the Church of as greate consequence as that little scantling of Knowledge which we receiue from our Senses But why is an errour of Senses so fatal to their credit Haue they never deceived you or at least some others of your acquaintance do you therefore renounce them Haue not some men their eyes only representing a greene medow fallen into a quack-mire do you for that reason either pull out your eyes as vselesse or shut them as deceivable when you walke Are these Arguments of such strength as to beate downe the expresse words of Christ Doctrine of the whole Church what times do we liue in to what passe is Christianity brought when a Doctor of Divinity a pretended Bishop fyghts with such straws against Christ's words Faith I Yet because old age is apprehensiue J will giue you a remedy against this groundlesse Feare You require an exception in expresse words J will giue you one at least Aequivalentèr It is a general Rule Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam When an exception is made from a Rule all things not exprest in the exception remaine vnder the Rule Wherefore Christ having excepted only the Blessed Sacrament from the Deposition of Senses he left all other things subject to them So sir althô you hold with vs Transubstantiation when you see a floore you may walke on it without fearing a precipice when you see a Chaire you may confidently sit downe without Fearing it should proue a Cobweb Wherefore Cheere vp deare sir you may be secure thô Christ be beleived SECTION XI OF MIRACLES 1. Whither all Miracles visible 2. What Miracles are 3. The final cause of Miraçles 4. Accidents Changeable the substance remaining 5. Dr. M.'s Paradoxes 1. D. M. p. 9. T is to little purpose to tell vs that this conversion of Bread into Flesh wine into Bloud is miraculous therefore so monstrous as to be a contradiction to Sense Miracles are Appellations to Sense the end of them is by the evidence of our Sense to convince our Vnderstanding of some thing which otherwise we would not or could not haue beleived Revisor You seeme resolved to prevent our retreate by stopping all ways imaginable to it yet your main industry is to misse not to hit that which is most obvious which I haue already taken expect you or any who takes vp the Cudgelles for you in it Yet I will in short review what
pleading for Sense against Faith you endanger the losse of both And of your Reason too giving me here a reason against yourself For if Accidents remaine when the man is no more as certainly he is not when his soul is departed why may not the Accidents of Bread remaine when the Bread is no more D. M. If there could be a substance without its owne Accidents or Accidents without their owne substance yet no man can be obliged to beleiue there was one without the other because it is not possible to judge of one but by the other Rev. All men are obliged to beleiue what God reveales So if God reveales that the substance is changed althô the Accidents remaine we are to beleiue the Change But say you We cannot judge of one but by the other Why not good sir if God speakes Can we not as assuredly ground a judgment vpon his word as vpon any Sense nay all the Senses together 5. Having thus reviewed the grounds of your judgment in this place let vs score vp some Paradoxes of yours 1. Miracles are Appellations to sense What Sense did Christ appeale to when Luk. 4.30 He past through the midst of a multitude of men went his way To what sense doth he appeale when he converts a sinner 2. Miracles Are done to convince our vnderstanding of a Truth J challenge any man to shew in scripture any proofe of this saying taken generally Many Miracles are private done for the releife of private Persons Doth not the Church teach vs to haue recourse to God by Prayer in personal wants And why so if God on such occasions never acts contrary to second causes 3. The Magicians rods were not turned into serpents Jt is expressely sayd Ex. 7.12 Their rods Became serpents J know Fathers are divided in this point But why you should take to that opinion which seemingly contradicts scripture I know not vnlesse it be your custome to regard it little But if they remained rods how had they the Appearance or Accidents of Serpents were by the spectators judged to be such Sure you may as well beleiue there may be the Accidents of Bread without its substance as the Accidents of Serpents where there never were any serpents Againe how could Moses Rod made a serpent devour the rest if they remained staues is not easy to vnderstand That one serpent should swallow another is no greate wonder we dayly see the Dains swallow their young ones vpon approach of danger their limber yeilding bodys are fitted for it But a strong staffe is not so pliable 4. All things consist of are made vp of Accidents as well as of substance So that Accidents are essential to man to other things otherwise they would not make him vp as Well as Substance this being Essential Thus far we haue examined the proofe of your maior Now comes your minor We will see how that succeedes SECTION XII 1. What is the object of sense 2. Whither senses about it do discerne of their objects in it are mistaken 3. Of the conditions requisit to certify our senses 1. D. D. M. p. 11. If Papists say the proper objects of Senses are not the Substances but Accidents of things I answer that though indeed the Objectum formale or Objectum quo of the sense are Accidents yet Substances are the Objectum materiale or the Objectum quod even of our outward senses My meaning is that though Senses do discerne immediately of Accidents onely yet mediatly by Accidents they discerne of substances also So that nether Accidents alone nor Substance alone but the thing consisting of both is the compleate adequate object of Sense Revisor This place seemes not so very proper to procure by some shreds of Latin a few schoole termes the repute of a Learned Clarck when the same things myght as well haue been sayd in plaine English in the text as in the margent had you so thought it fitting I will not imitate you Though you cite as many schoole termes as are to be found in Scotus borrow hard words from Arabick Hebrew as well as from Latin you will never prove that my eye discernes the substance as such My eye represents a white object but whither that white be in an egge or in astone or in some other substance to that my eye says nothing The same betwixt two egges betwixt Chalke Cheese c. And my eares tell me there is an Articulate sound but what it meanes my eare doth not tell Or else we must say our eare is changed as often as we learne a new language Thus the Senses only discover the Colour or the thing Coloured as it is such no further The Eye sees white on a wall discernes if it be pure or mingled with blacke or red spots cleere or darkish The Eare heares the voice discernes if it be musical or not The hand perceiues the object whither it be hard or soft rough or smooth warme or cold But to judge that the white is Plaster on a wall the voice that of a man singing the prayses of God the thing toucht the hand of a freind is the work of the vnderstanding directed by Senses but passing beyond them For as the vnderstanding discovers the meaning of words which the eare heares vnderstands not these two acts thô as different as soul Body are so linkt together as they seeme the same Act so it happens in other Senses whose Actions haue such a connexion with those of the mind which they stir vp that they seeme but one thô they really differ 2. D. M. p. 11. 12. If Senses doe not discerne of Substances how could a man say he saw such a man or heard such a story Is not every Substance discernable by its proper Accidents why are our Senses giuen vs if we cannot by them distinguish things themselues as well as their Accidents wherefore did God giue vs several Senses but onely for the better discerning of objects that if one Sense faile the others may supply Revisor Here are four questions all importing the same thing resolved with the same answer Both you we agree that it is convenient we haue some knowledge to discerne of objects This you will haue to be the sole worke of the Senses We say it is originally in the Senses but it is compleated in by the Vnderstanding Now to your four Queres To the first we can say we saw heard a story because our Vnderstanding helped by senses judged so To the 2. By our vnderstanding we can discerne of Objects substances by the meanes of Senses which represent their Accidents To the 3. Our Senses are giuen vs as servants to our Vnderstanding as its Informers To the 4. We haue several Senses because there are several objects of Senses according to the species of objects there ought to be divers Senses as you may find in Aristotle other Philosophers
D. M. p. 12. Isaac Could not know his sons Esau Jacob from one another by feeling Iacob's hands being rough like those of Esau but by hearing he myght distinguish them Revisor To what intent this is brought is not easily discernable that Isaac hearing Iacob's voice surmised it to be like to that of Iacob is very tru but that he certainly knew him to be Iacob is not certain nay the astonishment into which the tru Esau asking his Blessing cast him is an evident signe that till then he was not quite free from the errour into which Iacob's goatish hands greasy clothes had brought him You seeme to think it necessary that our Senses either severally or at least conjointly be able to discerne betwixt any two objects proposed I think it were well that they could do so but do not beleiue that any greate danger would hang over the world if the Senses should be found insufficient sometimes They are all together vnable to distinguish betwixt two glasses of water two egges two twins a wolfe some dogs c. as hath beene often observed yet the sun keepes on his course women bring forth at their ordinary time Pompey's father was often taken for his Cooke Monogenes Pompey himself could not be distinguisht from Vibius Publitius both obscure men the later newly made free Comelius Scipio was often saluted by the name of Serapio a poore Sexton These other mistakes are recorded in Valerius maximus l. 9. c. 14. Yet that ignorance of the Romans did not ruin their state Why then are you so solicitous to provide a Remedy against it Or if a remedy be necessary why may not our Vnderstanding act the Apothecary provide it as well as our Senses Methinks it should rather belong to the vnderstanding to compare several objects together state wherein the agree wherein they differ then to the Senses Otherwise we shall find it no easy matter to fix the bounds betwixt these spiritual carnal facultyes for you will adjudge to Senses what hath hitherto owned the jurisdiction of the Vnderstanding as to what will be left to this queene of our facultyes our Reason this shall onely be tenant at will to Senses who by the same Topick may claime the rest leaue the Vnderstanding as the Covenanters left the King 3. D. M. p. 14. 15. Hath along discourse about the conditions necessary to make vs infallibly certain of what we see Viz 1. An eye well disposed 2. The medium betwixt that the object as it ought to be 3. The object at a convenient distance These conditions being observed the syght cannot be deceived in judging of colours or coloratums as such Revisor I would not mingle in this place meere Phylosophical matter with the rest if possible so J passe by these conditions onely proposing some questions 1. what certainty haue we that there are no more ways to deceiue our Syght than these conditions provide against Cannot swiftnesse or slownesse of motions alter the appearance of Colours coloratums Are there not some Colours various according to the situation of the silkes that for example which the french call Du Diable coessé something of the nature of a doves necke Do not Mountebanks find meanes to deceiue the eyes of their spectators thô their eyes be good the Medium distance competent 2. What certainty haue we those three condition be exactly observed As to the first may not our eyes be defectiue we not perceiue it Doth not Seneca write of an old woman who complained of all roomes being obscure yet never would acknowledge any fault in her eyes which were the only faulty As to the second may there not be a considerable difference in the Medium enough to Refract the Visual rays we not perceive it As to the third what certainty haue we that the object is at a competent distance Do we certainly know what is the exactest distance Do not painters direct vs who are vnskilled in that Art what is the proper Distance to see a Picture And in how many other things may the distance proper for such a determinate object be vnknowne to vs Againe what certainty haue we of the tru Distance it self Doth not the moone rising over a house seeme to touch it When a thing is within 20. yeards or a mile of vs we discerne the different distances but can we perceiue the different distances of several parts in the surface of the moone or sun Or of those of Other Planets the fixt stars How can the Distance competent secure our eyes from mistakes when distance it selfe is so obscure vncertaine When you haue answered all these questions I shall require you to answer two more The 1. what vnquestionable certainty you haue of all those Answers Jf you haue none then these conditions cannot secure vs from all possibility of errour in crediting our Senses The 2. whither the certainty of these conditions being exactly observed be equal to that we haue that what God says is tru If the certainty of the truth of God's words be greater then that of those conditions than we must conclude that To appeale to Senses in opposition to God's expresse words is rash dangerous obnoxious to Errour SECTION XIII Reasons for the credit of senses 1. We may rely on our senses 2. Courts of Iustice as free from errour amongst Catholicks as others 3. Depositions of senses subordinate to those of God 4. Our Doctrine doth not ground scepticisme 5. Scriptures Church not prejudiced by Transubstantiation 6. Conclusion 1. D. M. p. 17. What can be more knowne than Bread wine If than we may be mistaken in these what vse what certainly of Senses in any thing else And if there be not certainty of Senses why doth God command the Israelits to remember what they had Seene Heard teach it their Children Rev. J do not see that Faith is lesse taught or lesse strongly beleived where Transubstantiation is taught then where t is rejected Or that seasons would be changed the Earth lesse fruitfull or men lesse wise or lesse knowne to Relations or Freinds should God worke some other Changes vnobservable to Senses reveale it to vs. We credit our Senses as much as you where God doth not reveale the contrary what more can be due to any Created faculty Can we not prefer God's veracity before our Senses but we must absolutely vniversally reject these even where they conforme with Faith All discourse relyes on that principle Eadem vni tertio sunt idem inter se which is hardly reconcilable with the mystery of the Trinity Yet we do not suspect a fallacy in all other discourse because we make no exception but where God excepts he excepts only in that one mystery So we excepting against senses only in this particular where God excepts leaues them at full liberty in full credit in all things else D. M. p.
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