Petition presented by him but only in General that it was for what he desired or made in favour of him 5. If any be contentious for our not using a vulgar Tongue in our Lyturgy our Answer is with St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 16. we have no such Custome nor has had the Church of God for 1600. Years and more 6. By unknown Tongues the Apostle means not of Hebrew among the Iews Greek among the Grecians or Latin among us of the Western Church which is understood of the learned and civil People in every great City but of Miraculous Tongues which Men spoke in the Primitive Church as a Mark that they had received the Holy Ghost Think you that the Lyturgy is said in the Greek Church in an unknown Tongue because it s said in propâ—â— Greek not now understood by the vulgar SECT VIII The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses OUr Adversary sayes that Transubstantiation destroyes all evidence grounded in the experimental knowledge of our senses and makes void the proof CHRIST made use of to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit To understand my Answer to this Objection of our Adversary you must know First that the Principle of experimental knowledge is this for example wheresoever are all the Accidents of Bread there is the substance of Bread unless the Author of Nature hinder its presence there Secondly That this conditional must be alwayes added in Reverence to the Almighty Power of God otherwayes by this Experimental knowledge a Combustible thing laid in the Fire burns 'T would follow that the Children in the Furnace of Babylon were burnt contrary to what is said in Daniel 3 cap. v. 50. These two things being known I answer that evidence grounded upon experimental Knowledge stands in its full vigour with our Doctrine of Transubstantiation as is clear to him who in this true Supposition of Experimental Knowledge considers it For we deny Bread to be in the Eucharist where all the Accidents of Bread are because the Author of Nature hinders the presence of Bread to be there as he has revealed it to us in several places of Scripture And consequently I deny that Transubstantiation destroyes more Experimental Knowledge than Protestant's belief that the Angels who appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were Angels and not Men destroys it Had not the Angels appearing to them all the Accidents of Men as our Eucharist has all the Accidents of Bread And did not they look as like men as it looks like Bread Secondly It makes void sayes he the proof Christ brought to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit Handle me and see sayes our Saviour for a Spirit has no Flesh Luke 24. v. 39. which can be no conviction to Romanists who see Bread in the Eucharist if they will trust their own Senses Answ Do Protestants make void the proof Christ made use of to his Apostles when they say that the Angels of which afore that appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were not Men but Angels No say you because GOD hath revealed that they were Angels Neither do we Romanists when we say that in the Eucharist that which appears like Bread is the Body of Christ under the form of Bread and not Bread because our Saviour hath Revealed that it is his Body Our Saviours proof says our Adversary that he was not a Spirit shall never influence a Papist to conviction Answer This I deny for in this case we have both evidence of the senses and our Saviours Word and no Revelation contradicting them and therefore are fully convinc'd to believe it But for Bread in the Eucharist we have indeed the evidence of sense but not Christs word but on the contrary we have our senses contradicted by Christs infallible word Must not a Man be in Eclipse or under a Cloud not to see this Disparity To clear then our Adversary in his mistake I let him know that our Saviour undertook to prove that he had a true Body which is the Natural Remote object of our senses by the Judgment of his Disciples senses But never to prove Immediatly an Object or Mystery of Faith such as our Eucharist is by the Judgment of our senses I say Immediatly because having prov'd Immediatly that this was his true Body mediatly he proved in that Circumstance that it was risen again Nay when we come to such Mysteries of Faith we must not only Captivate our Senses but Reason also if we will believe St. Paul 2 Cor. 10. v. 5. As to that he sayes that our Transubstantiation favours the Opinion of the Marcionists its manifestly false to those who know the Marcionists Opinion to wit that Christ had not a true Body but only in appearance For who grants our Transubstantiation must grant that the Body of Christ is there either really and substantially or in appearance But under the appearance of Bread cannot be the appearance of the Body of Christ to wit the Shape Bulk Colour and Extention of all the parts of his Body for how can all these stand together with the proper Accidents of Bread in the lest Particle of the Host And consequently they not being there his reall Body must be there to make the grant of Transubstantiation good Subsect 1 In the Eucharist our senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object OUr Adversary saies let us torture our discursive faculty never so much we shall never be able to prove that our senses are not deceived representing to us as Bread what really if we are believed is not Bread Answer That our senses are not deceived in their proper Object I prove thus The proper Object of our senses are only the Accidents of Bread in the Eucharist our senses represent to us the Accidents Colour Taste c. after the Consecration just as they did afore then they are not at all deceived in their proper Object You 'l say their proper Object is also the Substance of Bread and in that they are deceived since after Consecration according to us there is no Bread Answer I deny that the Substance of Bread is their proper Object it s the Object of the understanding which from the senses Anticedent representation to him of all the Accidents of Bread infers that the Substance of Bread is there viz. ordinarily and naturally when it is not revealed to him that the Author of Nature has disposed otherwaies So that the Substance of Bread is only improperly by Accident and occasionally called the Object of our senses in as much as they by their Relation to him of all the Accidents of a Substance give him occasion to Judge certainly that the Substance is also there when he has no Revelation from God of the contrary If our Eyes are deceived in Transubstantiation was not the Iews Eyes deceived in the Incarnation representing CHRIST as a Human Person By this solution you have an Answer to all
Opinion Our Adversary foreseeing this our negative adds dare we say that Protestants are neither Learn'd nor Pious and then with a triumphing Jock he quots that Verse of Horace Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici To our Imagin'd confusion But fair and softly Would you think that a publick Professor of Philosophy should from a copulative deny'd inferr the negative of both the members as it from this deny'd copulative Our Adversary is a Souldier and a Physitian He should presently say then according to you I am neither a Souldier nor a Phisitian Who would not laugh at this Illation And consequently if I desire you not to laugh Reader or Hearer it is not at us but at him for his simplicity il ne faut pas chanter devant la Victoire saies the French-Man He should not have aplauded himself afore a clearer Eye then his had seen his Victory When I say Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious I don't say they are neither Learn'd nor Pious there 's a great difference between these two propositions I say that Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious because they who are Learn'd viz. in matters of Faith see the Truth and they who are Pious embrace it when they see it Since Protestants then do not embrace the R. Catholick Faith which has appear'd as the only true to all Antiquity as I may easily show and clearly shines to Men who have not their understanding vailed 2 Cor. 3.15 out of the Holy Scripture as I shall make appear anon either they do not see it and those are not Learn'd or they see it and do not embrace it according to that video meliora proboque deteriora sequor that is to say I see what is Good and approve of it but in the mean time I practice what is Evil and those are not Pious But while I say they are not Learn'd and Pious in order to Salvation I don't deny that many of them are very knowing Men in matter of Philosophy Astrology Mathematicks and such like Sciences and also Men of moral Lives But Quid mihi proderat saies St. Augustin Ingenium per omnes Doctrinas liberales agile cum in Doctrina pietatis errarem What did it avail me to have had a Wit fitted for all Liberal Arts whilst I was Ignorant of the Art of saving my Soul erring in the Doctrine of Piety Out of the True Church there is no Sanctity and without True Sanctity there is no True or solid Piety Let me give our Adversary one Light more by which he may see the weakness of his Argument I give and not grant that it is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd and suppose that Sempronius relying on it becomes a Protestant Now I say either Sempronius certainly believes that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture for they are no where else or not If the former then he does not rely upon a probable Opinion only for his being a Protestant but upon a certainty if the latter then he is not a true Protestant who has the Articles of his Faith not from Church or Apostolical Tradition but from Scripture only So a Man can never become a Protestant who must believe that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture relying only on this Principle 't is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd I ask again our Adversary whither this Principle a Man may follow a probable Opinion in matter of Religion Be a true or false Principle If false then a Man may prove a true Religion by a false Principle If true then a Man may prove the Religion which is false in the Opinion of our Adversary to be a true Religion by a true Principle which is absurd viz. the R. Catholick Religion is proven to be true because Catholicks of whom many are Learned and Pious nay some Protestants whose Authority makes with him a probable Opinion hold it to be a saving and consequently a true Religion SECT IV. The formal Protestant cannot be sav'd ALtho he thinks he has won the cause by his last Argument yet he brings another to prove that a Protestant nay a formal Protestant may be sav'd And to prevent our answer he sayes that R. Catholicks as he was taught distinguish the formal Protestant from the material in this that the material is in an invincible Ignorance the formal in a vincible Ignorance But before he goes further I must tell him that he is either short of Memory or that he took ill up his Lesson of the formal Hereticks For R. Catholick Divines teach not that he is a formal Heretick who lives in a vincible Ignorance altho' grosly culpable and affected too if he be not pertinacious but he only is a formal Heretick who with obstinacy defends an Errour Hence St. Aug. Epist 162. speaks thus Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt c. parati corrigi cum invenerint veritatem nequaquam sunt inter Hereticos reputandi id est Who defends their Opinion tho false and perverse but without any obstinacy ready to submit when the Truth shall be shown them are not at all to be counted Hereticks So when our Adversary tells me that a formal Protestant may have stronger Arguments viz. as they appear to him against Transubstantiation then for it he is in an invincible Ignorance and so may be Sav'd I infer from that antecedent not and so may be Sav'd But and so is only a material Protestant according to the notion of a material Protestant given and agreed upon by our Adversary and so indeed the material Protestant may in this case be Sav'd not the formal But then he will tell you there is no formal Protestant for who knowing his Error defends it is an Hypocrite c. not a True Protestant Answer There are likely many such among those who pass in the esteem of their Brethren for true Protestants Men I say carried away either by Passion or Interest to speak against their knowledge As among R. Catholicks there are but too many who are led by Interest or Passion to do that which they know to be Damnable and against their Conscience And now not to speak of those who have been and are known to be of this Category I bring you a Reason for the proof of what I have said which is this It 's certain all the Arguments R. Catholicks bring for the proof of their Religion are not clearly and with full satisfaction solv'd by Protestants or else why would so many of their Learn'd Men as I could Name some come to us for Truth 's sake not only without any Humane inticement but on the contrary with great Worldly prejudice and renouncing of natural satisfaction which is not remark'd in our Learn'd People going to them when their Lives after they have left us are considered without passion Now if this be true that our
his empty talk of Roses and Lillies c. saying I can never acertain you of any thing my Eyes sees for if I see all the Accidents of a Rose and have no Revelation from the Author of Nature that the Substance of a Rose is not there I can asure you that it is a Rose The same Answer serves when he saies that as my Eye may be deceived so may also my Ear which gives a Mortal blow to Tradition it coming by hearing For we have said already that neither Eye nor Ear are deceiv'd in their Object because as the Eye ever represents the same Colour so the Ear conveys ever to the understanding the same sound and as the Substance which is under that Colour is the Object of the understanding and not of the Eye so likewaies the Truth or Falsehood of the Word is the Object of the understanding and not of the Ear. You 'l say if Accidents only are the Object of our senses how do you understand these propositions I see Bread I Taste Wine Which are common Expressions Answer We speak so because the denomination which fals upon the Instrument often is given to the thing of which it is an Instrument and so as when my Hand is hurt I am said to be hurt because my Hand is an Instrument of my Body by which it Acts so when the savour of the Wine is tasted the Wine is said to be tasted because it is an Instrument or Vertue that flowes from the Wine and by which the Wine affects your Taste Out of all I have said gather this Truth that neither Sense nor Reason is deceiv'd in the Eucharist not our senses because they find all the Accident in the same condition after Consecration in which they were before Not Reason because Reason tells me that I ought to believe that the Substance of Bread is there where all its Accidents are unless God reveal to me the contrary and in that case not to believe it to be there But God has reveal'd it not to be there so when I now believe it not to be there my Reason is not deceiv'd Now to oppose this revelation or Infallible word of Christ we claim to This is my Body he saies Litera occidit the letter kills Answer The letter kills indeed when it taken in the literal sense involves a contradiction or any thing against Faith or good manners otherwayes not So this proposition Christ is a Vine taken literally kills because the verb is in it taken literally Imports an Identification or samety of two natures specifically different contrary to that we know by Faith to wit that the Son of God hath assum'd no nature but that of man And in this proposition This is my Body taken literally the verb is imports onely an Indentification of the same thing with it self onely otherwayes exprest less destinctly in the subject This and more destinctly in the predicate my Body Subsect II. Shows that Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion OUr Adversary's second way of opposing Transubstantiation is to say that it Inclines mean Capacities to Idolatrie and the sharper wits to Hypocrisie The Common People no doubt saies he do frequently adore the Accidents according to his concession pag. 90. They are taught as he saies there to adore Christ under the Accidents they see which they call God saying when the Wafer is lifted by the Priest on leve Dieu God is lifted Answer The Doctrine of Transubstantiation expresly commands to adore what they do not see quod non vides and forbids to Adore what is seen If nevertheless some do the contrary the Doctrine is not therefore blameable no more then the Law is to be blam'd because some do quite contrary to its Rule and Instruction For that saying on leve Dieu God is lifted if it can be said without Blasphemy that God was lifted upon the Cross because Christ's Body was lifted upon the Cross it may likewise be said without Blasphemy that God is lifted up in the Sacrifice of the Mass because Christs Body is there lifted up By a Communication of properties what is atributed to Christ's Body is atributed to Christ and what is atributed to Christ is atributed to God For the sharp wits they see that according to the probable Opinion of Protestants Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not there as in a place because to be in a place is to be with the full extention of its parts corresponding to the parts of the place but this Christ's Body in the Eucharist has not and therefore it is not there in a place And therefore tho' it be there and in Heaven both at once it is not in two places both at once yet largely and improperly speaking the Body of Christ may be said to be in the Eucharist as in a place in as much as it is united to the Accidents which are in a place The Body then of Christ is there after the existing way of a Spirit If you say the Body of Christ can't be united to Accidents in different places I ask how is our Soul united to different parts of the Body which are in different places Just then as the Soul is not in a place yet is said to be above and below before and behind because the parts to which it is united are above and below before and behind so when the Accidents to which Christ's Body is united in the Eucharist are mov'd or lifted up it is said to be mov'd or lifted up So it s a silly thing for Protestants to object to Catholicks the obsurdities which seem to follow from a Body's being in two places since they may say that the Body of Christ by its being in the Eucharist is not in two places Thus you see our witty People have not occasion to be Hypocrites but sincere believers If our Adversary saies a Body can be no more without Extention then Water without humidity Fire without Heat a Stone without Hardness I grant it is so naturally but he must mutually grant to me that it may be as well without extention supernaturally as a Fire without burning having within the splear of its activity a thing combustible which was seen in the Furnice of Babylon Dan. 3. cap. And a Stone by the stroke of a Rod to yield a Fountain of Water Exod 17. cap. v. 6. is as surprising as Water it self without Humidity Let Catholicks then mark well this that Transubstantiation does not at all force them to avow that CHRIST's Body is in two parts extensivly or with the extension of its parts Our Adversary objects that all Miracles must be visible but in the Eucharist the Substance into which the Bread is changed is not visible then there is no such Miraculous change in the Eucharist Answer I deny the Major proposition for to whom was visible the Conception and Birth of CHRIST of a Virgin-Mother To whom was visible the Creation