shunned not to declare the whole Counsel of God professeth that he had said no other things than those which Moses and the Prophets did say should come I quickly concluded that the only mark of the true Church is to be taken from this Fountain That the Church is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and the chief Corner-stone is Jesus Christ And I found that Augustine that glorious Light of Antiquity did agree with me writing Contr. Ma. Arian l. 3. Neither will I alledge the Nicene Chuncil to your prejudice nor ought you to alledge the Council of Ariminum to mine Let us not make use of Writings partial to the one or to the other Party but of the holy Scriptures that are impartial Judges of both and compare Cause with Cause Matter with Matter and Reason with Reason And elsewhere writing against Donatus There namely in the Scriptures let us seek for the True Church there let us discuss the point Being now fully confirmed in this general Principle I began to enquire narrowly into the Purity of particular Churches and upon enquiry found that none do so exactly agree with the Scriptures as the Reformed Churches Wherefore I firmly resolved with my self to forsake the Roman Idolatry and associate my self to the Protestants which I accordingly performed in France and having renounced the Romish Superstitions I adjoyned my self to the Reformed Church as being the true Church of Christ which I shall now shortly evince by the following Arguments That is the true Church which 1. Vindicates and maintains the Authority of the Scriptures 2. Teacheth Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures 3. Because I will not be so Scripturary as to neglect the Testimony of the Fathers and Councils Which agrees also with the Testimony of Ancient Fathers and Councils But the Reformed Church is such Therefore the Reformed is the true Church As for the first the Reformed Church maintains the Authority of the Scriptures against the Papists who affirm That the Scriptures have no Authority as to us at least but from the Church Which distinction was found out by Bellarmine namely that the Authority of the Scripture considered in it self doth not depend upon the Church but only in respect of us But how frivolous is this distinction For all Authority is Relative and therefore it cannot be considered without a relation to us And moreover the Supposition is false that the Scriptures Authority as to us depends upon the Church But before I come to overthrow this Assertion it will not be amiss to observe that the reason which induceth the Papists to defend it is evidently this They know not how to answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture without wresting the sense and therefore hold that the sense of the Scriptures depends upon the interpretation of the Church which obligeth them to desend that the Authority of the Scriptures depends also upon the Church being that without the Churches Tradition we can have no certainty of the Scriptures themselves nor of their sense In this they imitate exactly the Ancient Hereticks of whom Tertullian says When the Hereticks are confuted from the Scriptures they presently begin to accuse the Scriptures as if they were not of sufficient Authority or were otherwise written than they are cited by the Orthodox and of which there is no certainty without Tradition Where you may see an exact Portraicture of the Modern Papists But to return to our purpose we assert That the Scriptures Authority doth no way depend upon the Authority of the Church but of the Holy Ghost only speaking internally in our hearts and externally in the Scriptures because he is their Author 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 and therefore he alone can give them their Authority And as Christ seeks a Testimony from none besides the Father so neither doth his Word need any other which he hath left upon Earth instead of his own Person And as it were very absurd to affirm that the Authority of the Kings Proclamation depends upon the Cryer or a Rule upon the thing ruled or that the Sun borrows his light from his own Orb or Vortex so it is no less ridiculous to affirm that the Authority of the Scriptures depends upon the Church The Church is the Candlestick the Word of God is the Candle Revel 1.20 Luk. 8.16 Now as a Candlestick contributes nothing to the light of the Candle so neither doth the Church to the Authority of the Scriptures We reject not the Ministerial Testimony of the Church in this affair because thereby we come to the knowledge of the Scriptures as the Samaritans came to the knowledge of Christ by the Samaritan Womans Testimony which nevertheless was not the reason or ground of their Faith but the Instrument only The Papists object that the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3.15 And from hence they conclude that the Authority of the Scriptures as to us depends entirely upon the Church But to pass Camero's observation that these words belong to the sixteenth verse where there is a Copulative Particle which otherwise were useless and that the Apostle first compares the Church to a House and then teacheth us what is the chief Pillar of that House viz. God manifest in the Flesh For a House cannot be called a Pillar but a Pillar is in a House In this place Paul means not an Architectonical Pillar that sustains the Authority of the Scriptures but a Political to which the Fdicts of the Supreme Governour are affixed Nor is Bellarmines Exception against this distinction of any weight that the Church may be as well called a Bibliotheck as a Pillar in this sense For we affirm that the Church doth not only keep these Books but also teach and publish the Contents thereof and expose them to the view of the people So then the Testimony of the Church may be one Motive to induce us to believe the Divine Authority of the Scriptures but cannot beget in our minds a firm and certain perswasion of it which is the work of the Holy Ghost only whom God joyns with his Word Isa 59.21 My Spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Augustine speaks well to this purpose in his Confessions But how shall I know that these are thy words Moses said so indeed but Moses is gone and if he were present and should speak Hebrew I could not understand him but if he spoke Latin and I understood him how could I be certain that he spoke the truth The Truth it self which is neither Greck Latin Hebrew nor Barbarian without any sound of the tongue or noise of Syllables would say unto me inwardly in the Cabinet of my heart he speaketh truth You see Christian Readers how Augustine was perswaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures not by the Authority of the Church nor of Moses and the Prophets but by the Internal Truth
the Living and the Dead and by consequence no Transubstantiation uppon which this Sacrifice is builded And here their Purgatory falls to the Ground for besides that it is contrary to Scriptures to Reason to the Antient Fathers and injurious to the satisfaction and merits of Christ moreover if there be no Sacrifice there can be no Mass and by consequence no money for the delivery of Souls out of Purgatory Here also falls to the ground their Doctrine of Concomitancy for the sake whereof as Gelatius one of their Popes Intimates they have committed Sacriledg in the Cup from the Laity which although the Council of Constance confesseth to be contrary to the Primitive Institution of Christ and Custom of the Antient Church yet for some ridiculous reasons such as That some persons hands do shake that some have deformed Whiskers and Beards pronouncing an Anathema against him that will contradict it And I have many times wondred why by the same Doctrine of Concomitancy they may not as well give the Cup and take away the Bread or take away the Cup from the Clergy as well as the Laity Why it is a fufilling of the Law to abstain from the one and a sin yea a mortal sin to abstain from the other There is neither reason nor Scripture to countenance it in the least So that the Reformed Churches teach sound Doctrine both as to the Nature and the Integrity of this Sacrament The last Point I shall touch upon is the worshipping of Saints The Protestants agree herein with the Scriptures and the Ancient Fathers that the Saints are to be honoured by imitation but not to be religiously adored and that for these three Reasons 1. We cannot believe in Saints therefore we cannot worship them how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed Rom. 10.14 2. We are severely forbidden to worship any but God Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10 3. The Saints do not know our thoughts nor can they hear our Prayers Abraham is ignorant of us and Israel acknowledgeth us not Isa 63.16 Hence Aquinas saith To know the thoughts of the heart is the property of God and elsewhere The Angels know not the secrets of the heart And again to know the particular thoughts and actions of men is above the perfection of a create understanding And Durandus denies that the glorified Saints do know our thoughts Finally Augustin saith that the dead know not what is done here God onely knoweth the hearts of the Children of Men 1 Kings 8.39 Peter the Apostle though a Saint would not suffer Cornelius to worship him saying I my self also am a man Acts 10.26 nor would the Angel suffer John to prestrate himself to him worship God saith he Rev. 19.20 Yea a Heathen Poet could tell that God onely is to be worshipped Nec Dâ—a sum dixit nec sacro thuris honore Humanum dignare capuâ— Their distinction betwixt latria and dulia and hyperdulia hath been abundantly refuted by many of the Reformed Writers I shall onely conclude that if Papists cannot be accused of formal Idolatry yet they are certainly guilty of material Idolatry Having demonstrated that the Protestant Churches do defend the Holy Scriptures and conform their Doctrine thereunto in the most weighty points I justly infer that the Protestant Church is a true faithful and sincere Church I shall shut up all with this Observation that the Papists perceiving that they cannot prevail against the Protestants in disputing of their Doctrine They question the Protestant Minestery as not Legitimate But besides that their own Scholasticks as Bannes Canus c. do allow that the power of Ordaining is not lost by Heresy their own practice doth evidently confute them for these that have been ordained in our Churches are not reordained by them as to the substantial part of Ordination And it is certain enough That a bad Governour or Governours of the Church may send good Labourers into Christ's Vineyard yea Antichrist himself being under the Cloak of Christs Vicar may distribute the Offices of Christs Temporal and Earthly Court to good men that are willing to serve Christ So when Christ was upon Earth the Church was very much corrupted and yet they sent good Workmen into the Lords Vineyard such as Joseph Nicodemus and othes I shall conclude all with thanks to Almighty God for that he hath been pleased to open mine eyes to see the way of truth and prayers to him to confirm me therein and my hearty wishes that every one may reject the way of abomination and be rooted and built up in Christ and established in the faith lest he be spoiled by vain deceit after the Tradition of Men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ Come out of Babylon my People lest ye be partakers of her sins Embrace the true Protestant Religion which is pure in Doctrine holy in Manners and faithful to God and the King FINIS
Popes pronouncing from or without his Chair so that what he Decrees in the former way is infallible though in the latter he may deceive and be deceived But you 'l find that even this distinction can very little advantage but rather prejudice your Cause For how can it be conceived that one and the same Man without any fear or compulsion can contradict himself in one and the same matter Again the Pope who being out of the Chair may deceive ought to advise with himself as sitting in the Chair lest he fall into an errour or the Cardinals if they would have this Holy Father to be always infallible should bind the good Old Man to the Chair with Chains as Prometheus was tyed to Caucasus that he may never be moved out of this Infallible Seat Besides it is manifest that the Popes even pronouncing from the Chair have frequently erred as appears by the examples of John the XXIII Stephanus Formosus and others as hath been made manifest to the World by many of the Reformed Writers yea even by the Papists themselves witness Platina concerning the Lives of the Popes which Platina was the Popes own Library-keeper at Rome 2. They can give no account what they mean by this Chair for the material Chair can contribute nothing to the Popes Infallibility by any physical or internal vertue else a Herds-man if set upon this Infallible Chair would be no less Infallible than the Pope himself But by the formal or rather Moral Chair in which sense our Saviour makes mention of Moses Chair there can nothing else be understood than the Holy Scripture it self and if the Pope pronounceth according to the tenour thereof we shall willingly hearken to him 3. The Holy Spirit upon whom the Popes Infallibility is said to depend is not tyed to this or that place but bloweth when and where and upon whom he listeth Others more sharp-sighted observing the foolishness of this distinction have devised another namely that the Pope cannot erre in a question of Right though he may be deceived in matters of Fact But this also is a broken Reed upon which if a man lean it will go into his hand and pierce it although it was invented by the Jansenists to heal that Wound which Alexnnder the VII gave them in that famous business of the five Articles For first when the Pope Anathematizeth a man he considers him as believing so and so Nor doth it appear how he that is free from all possible errour in matters of Right can be subject to errour in matters of Fact for when he pronounceth concerning the sense of any Book being an Infallible Interpreter of the sense and meaning which they do affirm he may fall from a question of Right into a question of Fact and so may determine that this and no other was the Authors meaning 2. Seeing Law prescribes to matter of Fact it is not likely that he who is Infallible in matter of Right can erre in matter of Fact 3. Right doth sometimes arise from Fact therefore that which before was a question of Fact afterwards turning to a question of Right the Pope may give an infallible judgment concerning it 4. If this be true the Pope cannot condemn nor Anathematize an Heretick his judgment being fallible in matters of Fact 5. We have before shortly proved that the Pope hath erred most abominably in matters of Right And thus you may see what difficulties they involve themselves in who place the Church and its Infallibility in the Pope alone Now followeth the third and last Opinion of the Papists concerning the Church and its Infallibility namely that it consists in the Pope and the Council together But Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim For the same difficulties that were before proposed do press them equally And moreover these doubts will arise Whether the Pope have his Infallibility from the Council or the Council from the Pope Whether if the Pope be absent his Legates have the same Infallibility that he himself would have if Present if so whether he might not as easily Delegate this Infallibility to the Bishops of the Council as to his Legates Whether Decrees made in the Popes absence be Infallible and binding to the Conscience For if no Decrees be binding without the Popes Confirmation it cannot be conceived how he can extrajudicially or out of Council ratifie the Decrees made in Council being the Popes Infallibility consists not in his own Person as separate from but joyntly with the Council From what I have said it evidently appears that the Papists catch at a Shadow instead of the Body and though they obstinately assert the Infallibility of their Church yet they cannot agree nor do they know where this Church is to be found So that they are altogether ignorant how to satisfie a doubting Soul in this matter and yet they desist not Projicere ampullas sesquipedalia verba While I was yet in the Roman Communion I perceived my self intangled in these Labaryinths and often considered how to extricate my self that so I might with a clear Conscience worship God in purity and holiness And although I had heard much in my own Country which is Spain of the Reformed Churches yet I could never light on any of the Books of their Learned Divines being forbidden to read them under the severest penalties But hearing that they founded all their Doctrines upon the Holy Scriptures I became very desirous to search into the same for in Spain it self the Clergy is not forbidden to read the Scriptures and having met with these words of the Apostle Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction in Righteousness that the Man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works It seemed to me that the Apostle had drawn a lively Portraicture of a Minister of the Gospel and described at once what ought to be the matter and Fountain as well as Method of Preaching yea and declared by what means the Man of God that is a Minister of Christ may undoubtedly attain unto the full perfection of his Ministry as well in reference to his own accomplishments for the work as to the good effects of his labour upon the Souls committed to his care namely he asserteth that the Scriptures contain a rich Treasure of Divine Knowledge able to make a man wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 and pronounceth him accursed that should preach another Gospel even though it were an Angel from Heaven Gal. 1.8 but peace upon as many as walk according to this Rule Gal. 6.16 And God himself sends his people to the Law and to the Testimony as the most effectual way to reduce them from seeking unto false Prophets and Wizards Isa 8.19 20. Having pondered these things seriously and often within my self and observed that Paul speaks so magnificent things of the Scriptures and that he who
speaking in his heart which is the Holy Spirit It 's in vain to reply hereunto that every one may pretend the Spirit for pretensions cannot prejudice the Truth the Question between us and the Papists is not Whether the Scriptures are of Divine Authority or not for both of us assert that they are But Whether he that admits this is perswaded of it To which whether they or we give the most satisfactory answer we leave the whole Christian World that are not partial to either Party to judge We conclude therefore that as this Question Whether the Scriptures are the Word of God is unworthy of a Christian So Jesuit Sambays's Assertion de fide Orthodoxa is foolish and ridiculous That the Protestants have not the Scriptures For besides that he defends it for no other end but that he may shun the dint of their Arguments drawn from the Scriptures He useth no other Medium to prove that Assertion but that the Reformed Church wanting the Marks of the true Church is a false Church and therefore cannot have the Scriptures which do both in their matter and form depend upon the Church Which Argument is most false and doth manifestly beg the Question viz. That the Scriptures and their sense depend upon the Authority of the Church which we utterly deny and that not without reason as I shewed above Moreover the Jesuit sheweth his Cause to be desperate by endeavouring to rob us of the Scriptures for none of the Ancient Fathers denied the Scriptures to any Heretick that argued his own Cause from them and Augustine that we quoted above affirms that the Scriptures are not peculiar to any one Party but impartial Judges of all We might with far better reason return this Argument upon the Papists because we have proved that their Representative Church is not only false but no Church at all But I am not so much afraid of their Arguments from Scripture and therefore do not deny them the Bible Having established the Opinion of the Reformed Churches in reference to the Authority of the Scriptures I shall now proceed to the properties of the same First therefore I affirm that the Scriptures are perfect by a perfection of parts as well as degrees and so sufficient to Salvation Psal 19. The Law of God is perfect Their sufficiency appears from the forecited place 2 Tim. 3.16 17. The accession of the New Testament to the Old doth not disprove the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures For he that revealed the whole Counsel of God to Believers did nevertheless reveal no other than what Moses and the Prophets had written before as we hinted above Hence the Ancient Fathers said very well As the New Testament is hid in the Old so the Old is made plain and clear in the New Nor doth a difference in degree alter the nature or species of a thing neither is the Question betwixt the Papists and us concerning this or that part of the Scriptures but concerning the whole Canon as it was received by the Ancient Church and enumerated by Hierom. So that in this Argument there is evidently the Fallacy of dividing what ought to be joyned together And as we justly cut off the Apocryphal Books from this perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because they contradict both themselves and the Canon nor were they ever received in the Jewish Church to which the Oracles of God were committed Rom. 3.2 So we reject the Popish distinction of Protocanonical Deuterocanonical Books with the same facility that they propose it being without proof Hence we do but little esteem unwritten Traditions because what is written doth sufficiently instruct us what we are to believe and do in order to life eternal John 20.31 It 's ridiculous to refer the several Orders of Monks and particularly the shaving of their Crowns to these unwritten Traditions because Christ says I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now Joh. 16.12 For if this had been the thing that Christ had further to say unto them he might easily have sent for a Barber and caused their Heads to be shaved Besides that the Monks whose duty was to weep and not to teach saith Hierom were shaven as a sign of their penitence not of any honour or preeminence Secondly The Scriptures are plain and easie to be understood The Commandment enlightning the eyes Psal 19.8 Whatsoever things were written afore-time were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 Those things therefore which are absolutely necessary to Salvation being very few and very easie are clearly and plainly set down in the Scriptures though other things not so absolutely necessary may puzle the most Sagacious understandings Chrysostom says well The holy Scriptures are such that a Lamb may wade in them and yet an Elephant may swim Seeing then that the Scriptures are plain as is evident from Reason and the Testimony of the Fathers the Reformed Churches do with good reason attribute a judgment of discretion in Controversies of Faith to every true Christian So that every Believer by frequent reading and comparing of the Scriptures may easily understand their meaning at least as to things absolutely necessary to Salvation For no Prophesie of Scripture is of aâ—y private interpretation nor came by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.20 21. As for the Fathers of the Ancient Church and the four Primitive Councils we willingly imbrace them as Interpreters of the Scriptures yea moreover we affirm that in subordination to the Scriptures they may bind but not force our belief But we utterly deny that the Fathers or these Councils or the Pope are Judges of Controversies about matters of Faith but the only Judge of all such Controversies is the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures or as Augustine saith Christ himself Let Christ judge of this Controversie who although he be absent in his Person yet is present in his Word Hence it doth appear that the Scriptures may rightly be called a Normal Judge deciding the question in manner of a Law though not outwardly proclaiming the sentence The Word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4.12 We have sufficiently proved that the Reformed Churches do vindicate the Authority and Properties of the Scriptures It remains now to be proved that they teach according to the Scriptures I shall pass the Doctrines of God and his Attributes of the Trinity and the like because there is little difference between the Papists and us in there Points except in some Preter-fundamental things which the Jesuits and Dominicans do also dispute among themselves I shall now only take notice of this that the Jesuits do very absurdly define Free-will viz. A Faculty whereby all things requisite to action being present the will may act or not act act this or the contrary For
from a custom frequent among them in the Celecration of this Sacrament The reason why they affirm it is because they hold that Infants departing without Baptism cannot be saved but go into the Limbus Infantum a kind of Hole prepared to put Children into where they suffer paenam damni but not paenam seasus that is they are deprived of the Beatifick Vision of God though they are not under any sensible torment If then their Election which is unchangeable and their being under the Covenant of Grace which belongeth to them as well as to their Parents be not sufficient to save them because they were not baptized surely Baptism which maketh them capable to demand Heaven must by a physical vertue work those Graces whereby they may attain unto Salvation 2. They hold that none can be saved without the Bosom of the Church and that none can be reputed Members of the Church except such as have been baptized Moreover their Custom is to admit of the Baptism of Women providing the Form be observed in case of necessity which shews how absolutely necessary they esteem Baptism unto Salvation Having proved the Charge I shall demonstrate the Errour And first it is as certain That all Infants departing without Baptism are not deprived of the beatifick Vision as that David was saved who after death was to go to his Child that died without Circumcision 1 Sam. 12.18 23. in place whereof Baptism succeeded as appears from Coll. 2.11 12. And as certain as that the promise of Eternal Life doth belong to Infants which Argument is of the same force against the Anabaptists that deny the Seal to Infants to whom the promise belongs for which reason Peter did willingly confer Baptism upon some Converts Act. 2.38 39 as against the Papsts that deny Eternal Life to Children dying without Baptism although they be under the promise and Covenant of Grace for he that is under the Covenant of Grace or the Promises is in Christ and he that is in Christ will certainly be saved Therefore Children being under the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of Life will certainly be saved Acts 2.39 Eph. 2.12 But they object this Scripture Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3. â— whence they conclude that none can be saved without Baptism But I answer that nothing else is meant by this water and spirit but the holy Ghost himself who is compared to water because he washeth away our sins There is another expression like unto this in Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire that is the Holy Ghost shall purge you as fire doth Gold seven times refined So that these Expressions are Metaphorical and Figurative Virgil hath the like expression Pateris libamus auro We drink out of Cups and Gold that is out of Golden Cups so to be baptized with the Spirit and with fire is nothing else but to be baptized with a fiery Spirit and the same way are Christ's words concerning water and spirit to be understood wherefore what he saith here figuratively by way of Hendiadis he expressed in the third Verse in proper words except a man be born again he can not see the Kingdom of God So that it clearly appears from Christs own exposition that here is understood spiritual Regeneration and not the external washing with water in Baptism 2. We utterly deny that Baptism by women is valid and not to be reiterated They can only alledge the example of Zipporah that Circumcised her Son whence they argue that a Woman may as lawfully Baptize as Circumcise I shall not give the answer that is usual amongst some Divines viz. that Zipporah sinned in so doing for God never blesseth men for any sin as such but he did bless Moses for this action of Zipporah But I answer thus that Circumcision in the Old Testament was indifferently administred by any person by reason it was not so strictly joyned with the Ministerial Office of Preaching as Baptism is in the New Testament Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Mat. 28.19 So that now it is unlawful for any to administer Baptism but such as are ordained for the Ministery Now we shall proceed to speak of the other Sacrament without regarding the rest of their five Sacraments that have no ground in the Scriptures nor the Fathers which is the Lords Supper According to sound Doctrine the Lords Supper is nothing else but a visible sign of an invisible Grace wherein by receiving of Bread and Wine is signified our receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ as a Seal of the Covenant of Crace tending to our Salvation We deny not that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in this holy Sacrament but we deny 1. That it is corporally present because it is circumscriptive and in Heaven and therefore cannot be every where 2. We deny that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead which point I shall chiefly insist upon As to the first the Papists do very much urge their Transubstantiation by which they understand nothing else but the Corporal presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine imagining that the substance of the Bread and Wine is turned to the first nothing out of which it was created and the accidents only do remain which affect our senses of sight feeling and taste The falshood and absurdity of this imagination I thus demonstrate 1. Neither the Word nor the thing is to be found in Scripture for after the Consecration it is called the Bread of which we are partakers 1 Cor. 10.17 Now if the Bread were annihilated how could we be partakers of it And moreover no Papist will allow that it be called Bread after Consecration which yet we see the Scripture doth 2. The Word it self is new and was never heard of before the Lateran Council when Berengarius was forced to recant the Truth and fall into a most abominable Errour namely that Christs Body is bruised by the Teeth and let down into the Belly c. 3. The Word is no way adapted to the thing yea Creation may be as well called Annihilation as this may be called Transubstantiation for Transubstantiation is nothing else but a mutation or turning of one substance into another as in Cana of Galilee Wine was turned into Water but the Papists say that in this case one substance is not turned into another but that the one namely the Bread and Wine is annihilated and the other namely the Body and Blood of Christ is induced under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine although they have a thousand distinctions here about the introducing of the Body and Blood of Christ under these accidents which I shall pass over so that it ought rather to be called an Annihilation of one substance and Introduction