Image nor the likeness of any thing Thou shalt not bow down to them c. I know the Pamphleter says that this is a corrupt Version and that it should be rendred Idol not Image it being Pesel in the Hebrew But that is a corrupt evasion say I doth not the root Pasal signifie dolare sculpere Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma an Image Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus render it sculptile But whatever be of that is it not added in the Hebrew Ve coltemuna or any likeness of any thing Are not here then all Images in so far as they are made objects of Adoration prohibited But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol which before was not one Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est Idololatria and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similachrum quod humana effigie factum consecratum est according to the known Distich Qui sacros fingit auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit Yea so evident is this that their great School-man Vasq Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 104. cap. 2. confesses that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews whence I conclude therefore also to Christians the Moral Law standing still in force Rom. 3. 31. Do we by Faith make void the Law nay rather we establish it I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures Whereas he says these three Scriptures Mat. 26. 26. Jam. 2. 24. 2 Thes 2. 13. are flatly against Protestants he too flatly discovers either his own ignorance or impudency the harmony betwixt these and the Doctrine of Protestants hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Justification and Traditions Now shortly I say first that these words This is my Body make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ than these 1 Cor. 10. 4. the Rock was Christ for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ Yea their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted without falsifying the words of Christ as I demonstrated against M. Demster and shall shew in its own place that my Argument stands yet in force not withstanding the Pamphleters insignificant attempts to the contrary In evidence hereof after Consecration it 's frequently called Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26 27. I proceed therefore to the second Scripture Jam. 2. 24. Ye see that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only That this place is not so clear for them may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 4. 5 6. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly is Faith counted for righteousness even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi per fidem which Estbius upon the place acknowledges to be equivalent to sed tantum per fidem but only by Faith And he affirms that the most Learned both of Greek and Latin Interpreters do agree in that Exposition These and other Texts of the Apostle Paul seem to stand in so full contradiction to the sense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to elude those luculent testimonies of the Apostle S. Paul Some affirming that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel as is clear comparing Rom. 3. 28. with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law yet say that only these works as done before Conversion and without Grace are excluded Others say that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justification but not of the second But the Apostle S. Paul Rom. 4. to confirm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law brings in the instances of David and Abraham long after their Conversion and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justâ—fication I shall not digress to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification but surely in the Romish sense it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness or by works and so is a begging of the question Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words it would be considered that the chief question betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is concerning the meritorious cause of Justification what it is that purchases to us Remission of sin and right to Eternal Life Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons what else can do this but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ Can our good works either before or after Conversion satisfie Divine Justice or merit to us remission of sins and a right to eternal life Is there any proportion betwixt our works and that Eternal and far more exceeding weight of Glory or the wrath to the uttermost due to us for our sins Are we not bound Luke 17. 10. When we have done all that we are commanded to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants for we have but done that which was our duty to do Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects Eccles 7. 20. Esay 64. 6. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is not that saying of S. Greg. known lib. 9. Moral in Job cap 11. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esse convincitur si districté judicetur prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ex sola judicis pietate convalescat Does any man love God so well as he ought says not S. Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet in vitio est Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works Neh. 13. 22. Are they not made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. Can we then be pronounced by God perfectly just on the account of these or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ for which these are accepted and we our selves also Ephes 1. 6. He hath made us accepted in the beloved Is not that Scripture luculent Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one shall many be made
a banquet I may therefore here shut up with a new demonstration of Popish Novelty That there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass was no essential of the Ancient Catholick Religion But that there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass is an assential in the present Romish Religion Ergo. There is an other essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Ancient Catholick Religion SECT IV. A fourth Instance of Novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his fourth Instance saith that Protestants deny the real presence and Transubstantiation And toward the close of this fourth Instance Pag. 145. he would sneakingly insinuate that their half Communions which are so palpable an innovation that their own Authors cannot deny it had been approven by the Ancient Church To this last I shall have a more fit occasion to speak in the first appendix to this Sect. 7. And therefore at the time shall only examin that of Transubstantiation We deny not the real presence nay we affirm that Christ is really exhibited to believers in the use of the Sacrament That which we deny is a Transubstantiated presence so as the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed a specter of accidents without a Subject remaining and the body and blood of Christ being substituted under the accidents In this we and not Romanists are consonant to the Faith of the Ancient Church Hence Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. the bread after consecration is not now common brâ—ad but an Eucharist consisting of two things the terren and the heavenly Then in the Eucharist two things are exhibited to believers the terren viz Bread and Wine and the Heavenly the body and blood of Christ And therefore the usual Objection which the Pamphleter takes out of the same cap. of Irenaeus where the Father concluds against Hereticks that Jesus is the Son of the maker of the World because that bread upon which thanks is given is the body of the Lord and that cup his blood makes nothing for Transubstantiation Nay it distroys it Bread cannot be the body of Christ nor the cup his blood in a proper sense but in a figurative and the force of Irenaeus argument appears to be this he that instituted the creatures of God as sacred and exhibitive Symbols of his body and blood must be the Son of God Christ did so Ergo c. Tertullian is no less luculent lib. 4. Cont. Marcio cap. 40. expresly calling the Bread a figure of his body and then drawes an argument against Marcion and other Hereticks to prove that Christ had a true and real body because it could not be the figure of his body if he had not a true body But if Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation were true Tertull could never have used a more unhappy argument against Marcion for if there be no real bread in the Sacrament but a Phantasm of accidents without a subject this had rather given advantage to Marcion who affirmed Christ to have a Phantastical body Here I cannot but notice the prevarication of the Pamphleter he mentions only these words of Tertull the Bread taken and distributed he made his body and then crys out what more cleer for Transubstantiation But had he not mutilated Tertullians words it would have appeared nothing could be more clear to overturn Transubstantiation for presently Tertull thus explains himself hoc est figur a corporis mei that is this is the figure of my Body Yea Beatus Rhenanus in admon de Tertul. dogm reckons this as one of Tertullians sentiments that the body of Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist By this also may be cleared what the Phamphleter objects out of Ignatius Epist ad Smyrnenses that the Saturnian Hereticks did not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours Flesh For as Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Num. 151. well observes though the Eucharist be not properly the Flesh of Christ yet being a Symbol of his Flesh it receives the denomination of the thing signified and strongly proves that Christ hath real Flesh and a proper humane nature which those Hereticks denyed They therefore seeing the strength of this Argument rejected the Eucharist I add another testimony of Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 17. the senses saith he are not deceived about their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yeelded to Hereticks making but a Phantasm of Christ c. But according to the tenet of Transubstantiators the senses of all the World are ludified with Tertullian accords Cyprian who Epist 76. calls the Bread the body of Christ and the Wine his blood which were a manifest falshood if not figuratively understood So likewise Origen in Math. 15. that which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer according to the material part of it goes into the belly and is sent into the draught I desire to know by a Romanist what is this material part of the Sacrament which goes into the draught if the substance of bread do not remain when therefore Origen saith we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord in the place objected by the Pamphleter he can only be understood of a Symbolical and Mystical Eating and Drinking With those Fathers of the first three ages these of following times do agree as appears by Theod dial 1. where he says that by the blessing of consecration the nature of the elements is not changed but grace added unto nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but abide in their proper nature shape and figure so much is affirmed by Gelasius lib. de duabus natu is Christi contra Eutych Nestor in bib pat tom 5. part 3. So also Augustin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and the Author of the Books de sacramentis going under the name of Ambrose lib. 4. cap. 4. ut sint quae er ant in aliud convertantur that they may be what they were and be converted into another thing If they remain what they were then sure their conversion into another thing must be only Symbolical A volume would hardly contain the testimonies of this nature which may be heaped up Scarce doth any testimony remain objected by the adversary which we have not cleared on the by as we were bringing testimonies for the truth His spurious testimonies I value not and such is not only that from Deny's lib. de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. but also that from Cyprian de caena domini as is demonstrated by Criticks and yet neither of them make for Transubstantiation Not the first or the Pseudo Deny's exclamation O divinissimum sacramentum whither it be taken with Dr. Morton as a Rhetorical apostrophe or with Spalat as an invocation of Christ himself who is the thing signified in the Sacrament Nor the other ascribed to Cyprian wherein the Elements are said to be changed not in shape but in nature for nature is not taken for
formally or only objectively negative and a Solution of the retorsion of that same Syllogism against the Popish Religion but neither of thâ—se could ever M. Demster be induced to undertake Had this Pamphleter supplied M. Demster's defects in these he had done M. Demster a better office and given more satisfaction to his Reader Yet seeing they will be making a business about the form of that Syllogism the Pamphleter would consider how he reconcile himself with M. Demster who in Paper 6. pag. 7. says all the three Propositions of his Syllogism are affirmatives but this Pamphleter only says that the second is affirmative which of these shall I believe May not a Bajon put such infinitant Glosses upon the rest of the Propositions as the Pamphleter hath put on the second Consequently not the Minor only but the Conclusion also should be affirmative viz. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion which whether it be an affirmative or negative I remit to the decision of the disinterested It seems the Pamphleter must take a Journey down to the Infernal Regions if the Author of Ignatius Conclave be not mistaken concerning the receptacle of Jesuits to consult with M. Demster whether only the second Proposition or all were affirmatives yet I have the kindness to premonish him that Fecilis dâ—scensus averni Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auraes Hoc opus hic labor est Pag. 29 30 31. The Pamphleter endeavours to cast a blind before the eyes of his Reader by a gross representation of the state of the debaâ—e betwixt M. Demster and me To clear the truth herein it would be remembred that M. Demster Paper 1. pag. 2. asserted the Protestant Religion had no grounds to prove it self a true Religion To which it was answered in my Pap. 1 pag. 7. that it were as easie by way of retorsion to assert that the Popish Religion had no grounds to prove it self to be the true Religion and therefore if he intended to satisfie Consciences he ought to pitch upon the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion and to demonstrate that these did agree to the Popish Religion and not to ours This Jesuit Demster altogether declined only at length Pap. 4. pag. 38. he undertook if I would produce the grounds of our Religion that he should impugn them Hereupon in my Paper 4. I did produce two grounds sufficiently distinctive of the true and false Religion viz. the perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation and conformity in all Fundamentals with the Ancient Christian Church and from these in that Pap. 4. I did demonstrate both the truth of our Religion and the falshood of the Romish Religion But the scope of all M. Demster's Papers thereafter was to shun the Tryal of Religion by Scripture or Antiquity yet could bring no reason why these assigned grounds should not be admitted as distinctive Tests of the true and false Religion Nor did he once attempt to answer the Arguments by which from these grounds I proved the truth of the Reformed and falshood of the Popish Religion I appeal to the Papers themselves whereof the ipsa corpora are exhibited in Papismus Lucifugus if this be not the true state of the debate By this the unfaithful dealing of this Pamphleter may appear who pag. 31. is bâ—ld to say that still I declined to bring any popâ—sitive proof that these grounds were peculiar to Protestants and that M. Demster was not bound to prove the contrary Did I not Paper 4. pag. 46 47 53 54 55. prove from these grounds both the truth of the Protestant Religion and falshood of the Romish Did I not more particularly give a Specimen of the peculiar interest of Protestants in these grounds Pap. 7. pag. 126 127. by demonstrating the conformity of our Doctrine with that Scripture Hoc est corpus meum and of the dissonancy of the Romish Transubstantiation and Pap. 8. pag. 169. c. gave seven instances of the conformity of our Religion with Antiquity and the disagreement of theirs Did I not offer to do the like in other points of difference betwixt us would Jesuit Demster examine these But their old Fabius durst never come to an open Field for M. Demster's Obligation to impugne these grounds assigned by me I need say no more but that Paper 4. pag. 38. he undertook to do it and acknowledged it was incumbent to him as the Opponent unless it be said that Jesuits are so nimble that promises do not bind them Is it not a Noble simile whereby the Pamphleter would put a face upon so foul a business pag. 15. Tautologizing M. Demster as the Creditor frequently demands payment of his debt and I as Debtor am said to answer his demands only with stories of late Wars and Forreign Leagues I pray by what Law do reiterated demands of payment by a pretended Creditor make another to be his Debtor Whom would not affronted Jesuits make their Debtors if by the importunity of their demands they could impose Obligations upon others Are Romanists no more concerned when their Transubstantiation half Communions Adoration of â—mages the Popes Infallibility Supremacy over the Catholick Church and Secular Princes Purgatory Apocryphal Scriptures are confuted for these and such like were the points my Replies did run upon then in Exotick stories May not this Simile with more reason be inverted thus When Jesuit Demster alledged I was his Debtor I not only told the Allegation was false and therefore required him as he would not be held a Caviller to prove the Debt by Bond or otherwise which he could never do but also I charged him as being my Debtor for which I produced such Evidence as he could not control only as if Jesuits had an Art of paying their Debt by bold Assertions he had the confidence oft to say I was owing him and this procedure is justified by the Pamphleter Now whether M. Demster as Debtor or the Pamphleter as Procutor have discovered least sincerity others may judge It is further to be noted that the Pamphleter in that pag. 34. maintains that without an Infallible Judge of Controversies we cannot be assured either of the incorrupt writings or sincere Doctrine of Fathers or of the incorrupt Letter or genuine sense of Scripture by which with one dash he hath destroyed the whole Plagiary heap of Testimonies from Scripture and Antiquity which are raked together in his Pamphlet to which there can be no Faith given without the sentence of his Infallible visible Judge that is of the Pope for I know none else they have at present pretending to Infallibility there being no General Council at the time And Greg. de Valentia lib. 8. de Annal. fid cap. 7. puts the matter out of doubt Eadem saith he est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur
Scripture though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth not only because she ought but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth yet Romanists lose their design unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure That in the Catholick Church all Truths necessary to Salvation shall be preserved is acknowledged by Protestants but Romanists have to prove that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point which they will hardly evict from this place in which the Note of Universality is wanting however the Church be said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth yet not of all Truth Seventhly and lastly Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Apostolick Church in that time when the Apostle wrote does it therefore follow crgo she is now infallible It 's confessed that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles the case of the Church so requiring for founding the Gospel Church and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture but it doth not follow that it shall be so in every Age neither do the necessities of the Church require it Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility whether they prove his Thesis let them who are not willing to be deceived judge The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity Pag. 39 40 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader he hath gathered up from their Manuals Pamphlets and Controversie Books a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom both the Cyrils Ambrose Eusebius and Austin asserting that the Church shall not fail or be adulterated with Heresie To all which I answer First that none of these contain the sentence of an infallible visible or living Judge they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead and so according to his own Principles are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some or these are grosly mis cited particularly the first from Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Printer for it 's again cited the same way pag. 102. But I must excuse him for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies Art 5. from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Romanism discussed Art 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes But by the words of the testimony I perceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book following there also his Guide H. T. loc cit but by the words I likewise suspect it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly I answer that in none of all these testimonies cited by him is there any mention of the Roman Church of the Pope of Rome or of Councils swearing subjection to him but of the Catholick Church in general so that whatever be of these testimonies they make nothing for the Papal interest yet as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster I had made mention of an eminent person who considering the superciliousness of the Bishop of Rome did break forth into these words Odifastum istius Ecclesiae Now I only ask whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great who Epist 10. hath a sharp reflection upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the Western or Romish Church But fourthly not to trifle time in a particular examination of these testimonies which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers and divers of them lately by M. Tombs loc cit as Irenaeus Origen Cyprian to which the rest seem on the matter homogeneous except it be that of Austin Epist 118. which speaks of the power of the Church in reference to things indifferent and so concerns not the matter in hand I answer to them all in cumulo that they are wholly impertinent to the present Debate for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge far less assert the necessity thereof some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church that she cannot be overthrown and cease to be as Ambrose Chrysost Eusebius the rest hold forth that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church So that their utmost significancy is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths which are necessary to Salvation and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie or perish which Protestants do freely grant And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand for the question is not whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies This is so evidently the meaning of them that the Pamphleter did foresee pag. 41. it would be replied to him that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity and thereupon without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testimonies which he emendicates for most part from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand But before I come to examine them I must in the fifth place retort the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies against the Romish Church thus the true Catholick Church is never adulterated with Heresie nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints say these testimonies of Fathers but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith delivered to the Saints as appears by her gross Innovations such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Invocation and Worshipping of Saints deceased and Angels Relicks Images Crosses performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue and the rest of her Errours and abuses manifestly repugnant to Scriptures and the Faith of the Primitive Church as hereafter may be particularly cleared ergo the Roman is not the true Catholick Church consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him that they cut the throat of his own Cause His next bundle of testimonies
yet it s questioned also if in that Lateran Council it were defined Are we the first who held the sence of these words figurative Did not Austin positively say as much contra Adimant cap. 12. Is not Theod. very express Dial. 1. Dominus imposuit signo nomen corporis And a little after our Saviour saith he exchanged names corpori suo imposuit nomen signi signo imposuit nomen corporis sui ita qui se vitem ipse vocabit vocabit signum sanguinem suum and again he honoured saith he visible Symbols with the Names of his body and blood Non naturam mutando sed gratiam nature adjiciendo not by changing their Nature or substance but by adding grace thereto What need I more may not their own Canon Law stop their mouths aist 2. de consecrat Can. hoc est and the gloss thereupon where it is expresly declared that the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ non proprie in rei veritate not properly sed significante mysterio but by a mystical signification because the Sacramental bread doth truly represent the body of Christ Yea have not Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Forbes Instruct Hist Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 9 10 11. c. And Moulin de Novitate Papismi demonstrated that the current of Antiquity is for us in this matter what a world of interminable debates hath this figment of Transubstantiation raised among their own men So that hither may the lines be applyed Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Deque modo lis est non habitura modum But leaving these and such like grounds of Arguments against this bloody Doctrine of Transubstantiation for which Papists have shed the blood of many thousands of Protestants I come to examine the Argument which this Pamphleter so much undervalues And first I must remember him of one branch of the Argument which he hath not touched which he will find in pag. 129. what Christ took in his hands what he did break and bless that he gave to his Disciples and affirm'd to be his body but it was bread which he took into his hands which he did break and bless Ergo It was bread which he gave and affirmed to be his body Now all know and Bell. doth acknowledge it that the body of Christ cannot be predicated of bread Consequently the proposition must be figurative both the premises are clear in the Series of the context ought not this Jesuit either to have been more sparing in boasting or else more through in examining the Argument Next I come to try how solidly he hath behaved himself in what he hath touched I asserted indeed pap 7. p. 127. that these words of Christ This is my body according to the Romish gloss would be inexplicable false and imply a contradiction and consequently their gloss could not be genuine I am so far from being removed from my judgment by reading this Pamphlet that the shallowness of his Answers do the more confirm me And first I said it was inexplicable and therefore desired Mr. Demster to let me know what Christ meant by hoc this for if he meant either the bread or the accidents of bread the sence must be figurative for these are not in a proper sence the body of Christ And by hoc this Christ could not mean his own body it not being yet present when hoc this was pronounced Nor could he mean Ens in confuso individuum vagum or contentum sub speciebus that is something under the accidents of bread Christ himself knew not what which are the desperate shifts of Schoolmen This I say cannot be the meaning unless they come to that height of Blasphemy to affirm that Christ's understanding was clouded with confusions so that he knew not himself what he meant by hoc this To all this he answers pag. 112 113. That hoc this signifyed nothing determinately until the last word or predicate my Body was pronounced A noble Solution forsooth and worthy of the acumen of a Jesuit Doth he not by saying that when Christ pronounced this it signifyed nothing at all determinately confirm what I say that their gloss renders the proposition of Christ inexplicable for I can put no other gloss upon the words of this Pamphleter but that neither the Apostles nor yet Christ himself understood what hoc signified when it was first uttered it signifyed nothing determinately then it would appear it signifyed something but indeterminately what can this be but the individuum vagum that others talk of that is in plain Scots something but Christ himself knew not what Was the mind of our Saviour in whom are all treasures of wisdom and knowledge so clouded Though it were granted that the hearer could not understand so distinctly what were meant by hoc this until the predicate whole proposition were uttered yet sure at the 1 st utering of the subject hoc the speaker himself knows as perfectly what he means by it as when the whole proposition is uttered Now the question betwixt Romanists and us is what Christ who was the speaker understood by this when he uttered it Sure it could be nothing but that which he had in his hand at the present but at the present he had nothing in his hand but real bread for the body of Christ was not substituted in the place of bread according to the principles of Transubstantiators ergo hoc this could signifie nothing but bread and that determinately and consequently the proposition must be figurative Suppose a man holding out a piece of Gold to another should say this is a Jacobus who could deny but by this at the first pronunciation thereof he did understand the piece of Gold whether he or I do quibble concerning this matter others may judge I added Secondly pag. 128. that according to the Popish gloss this proposition of Christ's were both false and should imply a manifest contradiction This I confirmed two wayes First because a true affirmative proposition de praesenti cannot produce its own object else in that instant of Nature wherein the proposition is conceived before its object as the cause before its effect the proposition should be true as is supposed and not true because the object in that instant is not Secondly because at least in that instant of time wherein the copula of an affirmative proposition de praesenti is enunciated the object ought to exist But according to Transubstantiators in that instant of time wherein Christ pronounced the copula of this proposition This is my body Christ's body was not in the Sacrament and therefore the proposition in the sense of Transubstantiators must be false This Argument he first retorts pag. 113. Alleadging that this other affirmative proposition of Christ de praesenti Joh. 15. This is my command that ye love one another doth produce its own object and pag. 115. he adds many more viz. let the light be made let the firmament be
perhaps both of us did bewray somewhat of humane infirmity but if therefore either of us should be concluded contentious hardly could Hierom Austin Ruffin Chrysostom Epiphanius yea Paul and Barnabas escape the like character I ever had an high respect for that Reverend and Worthy Person and do honour his memory as for other eminent Gifts and Graces so in special for his faithfulness and zeal against Romish Idolaty and I hope e're long to live in Eternal Concord and Bliss with him I judge it indeed duty to contend cum vitiis against errour and ungodliness against Popery Quakerism Prophaness and Atheism Yet I have such affection to persons smitten with these diseases that even for this Railing Jesuit I can pray that his spite against the Truth and against me for the Truths sake may not be laid to his charge I would trespass too much on the Readers patience should I insist to resume the rest of his ludibrious Raillery Perhaps to compense the softness of his Arguments he hath designed to stone me with reproaches but he would remember that Gratian Gaus 5. q. 1. from the Council of Eliberis Can. 52. thunders out an Anathema upon Pasquillers And a greater than these the Royal Prophet Psal 31. 18. Let lying lips be put to silence which speak grievous things proudly and presumptuously against the righteous To conclude the Reader may know that the reason why this Reply was so slow in coming abroad was not that it was not soo er ready as could be attested by divers credible persons who did peruse it shortly after the publishing of the Popish Pamphlet but because the Author was little concerned whether it should be committed to the Press at all in regard his Adversaries Book contained nothing which had not been confuted with an Antidate save only the Personal Invectives the chief significancy whereof was to demonstrate the spleenish humour of Jesuits But since Providence is bringing these Papers to publick view the God of Truth make them subservient for the good of his Church Amen FINIS A TABLE Of the chief heads contained in this Treatise THe Preface pag. 1 Cap. 1. A brief survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Dempster pag. 6 Cap. 2. There is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge of controversies in the Church and consequently the basis of the Pamphleters whole discourse is overthrown pag. 22 Sect. 1. The true state of the question propounded pag. 23 Sect. 2. Arguments proving there is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge in the Church pag. 26 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters objections for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge discussed pag. 53 Chap. 3. That the Scriptures are the compleat infallible and principal rule of Faith pag 71 Sect. 1 Some hints of indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists pag 71 Sect 2. the state of the question concerning the rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the rule of Faith pag. 75 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters four principal objections against the Scriptures being the compleat rule of Faith discussed pag. 89 Sect. 4. Some reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters rapsodik discourse concerning the rule of Faith pag. 117 Cap. 4. A discourse of fundamentals with some reflections on the contradictions impertinences and falsehoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. pag. 141 Sect. 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or of essentials and integrals in religion pag. 143 Sect. 2. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith pag. 151 Sect. 3. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamentals pag. 168 Sect. 4. Whether was it necessary for the dicision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals pag. 174 Sect. 5. Whether is the Popish religion injurious to the fundamentals of Christianity pag. 178 Sect. 6. Whether the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites be of the same religion as to fundamentals and essentials with Protestants pag. 180 Sect. 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to fundamentals pag. 186 Sect. 8. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the fundamentals of religion pag. 189 Cap. 5. Concerning Transubstantiation and the number of Sacraments pag. 433 Sect. 1 The Popish sigment of Transubstantiation briefly confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter pag. 433 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters superficial reflections on the number and nature of Sacraments examined pag. 440 Cap. 6. VVhether Protestant Churches do grant that the visible Church was not alwayes preserved and that for 1400 years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing religion p. 452 Cap. 7. The truth of the Protestant Religion evicted by the comformity thereof with the faith of the primitive Church in the first three ages and the falshood of the Present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the faith of these ages pag. 467 Sect. 1. the Pamphleters first instance of novelty touching the Popes supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists pag. 469 Sect. 2. The second instance of novelty concerning unwritten traditions examined retorted upon Romanists pag. 476 Sect. 3. The third instance of novelty concerning the sacrifice of the mass considered and retorted upon Romanists pag. 479 Sect 4. A fourth instance of novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists pag. 267 Sect. 5. A fifth instance of novelty concerning purgatory examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 270 Sect. 6. A sixt instance of novelty concerning invocation of Saints examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 276 Sect. 7. A seventh instance of novelty concerning Crosses and images examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 281 Sect. 8. An eight instance of novelty concerning free-will examined and repelled pag. 286 Sect. 9. A ninth instance of novelty concerning merits examined and retorted pag. 290 Sect. 10. A tenth instance of novelty concerning a perfect keeping of the commands examined and retorted pag. 292 Appendix 1. Containing another Decad of Romish novelties in Religion pag. 294 Appendix 2. The Pamphleters impertinent citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discussed pag 314 Cap. 8. A confutation of the Pamphleters last section wherein beside other things his three notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of life are examined and by them also the truth of the reformed and falshood of the Popish religion demonstrated pag. 321 Sect. 1. A bundel of the Pamphleters most impudent slanders against Protestants rejected pag. 321. Sect. 2. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion pag. 322. Sect. 3. Three propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased pag. 323 Subject 1.