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
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
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
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