some private men amongst you withstand yours What reason can you alleadge against a Tub preacher Some texts of scripture Canons of Councils Tradition of the Church Laws of the Realme All these stood in favour of our Clergy against the first Reformers as more evidtntly than for you against your dissenters So your Schisme Reformation hath deprived you of all meanes to preserue the Peace of the Church My 5. Is taken from the manner of your Reformation From Rome our Ancesters had received by the same hands a systeme of Faith a body of Ceremonys some Ecclesiastical Laws The whole Faith as necessary to be beleived the Ceremonys as decent to entertaine devotion The laws as convenient to government order And your first Reformers changed all Jn Faith they first rejected the whole vnwritten word Tradition a greate part of the written scripture They secondly perverted many places of this by new interpretations retaining the word without its sense The Ceremonys laws were treated as licentiously throwing out of dores whatsoever they pleased Now why may not another imitate these your Patriarks Cur non licebit Valentiniano quod licuit Valentino de arbitrio suo fidem innovare What was lawfull to Luther is sure lawfull to a Lutheran what was laudable in the sixteenth is not a sin in the seventeenth age to giue new interpretations to scripture abolish other ceremonys repeale more Canons Especially the motiues of reforming being common Which is My 6. Your first reformers rejected some Articles of Faith as being delivered by fallible men some Ceremonys as men's inventions some laws as contrary to Evangelical liberty Now all this holds as strongly against what they Keepe in as what they leaue out for all Canons were imposed by men all Ceremonys prescribed by men scripture it self brought to you continued amongst you by fallible men as much as the real presence Now as you blot this out of your creede why may not another strike out Baptisme a third the Trinity a fourth the Incarnation afifth the vnity of God a sixth the Deity it self so farewell all Faith What reason is there to say that our Roman Missioners sent by S. Gregory were infallible in delivering the mysterys of the Trinity or Incarnation fallible in speaking of Purgatory or the Real presence They say they pared away these Articles because they were not from the beginning were abuses But will not a Monothelit alleadge the same against the distinction of wills in Christ an Eutychian against the distinction of natures a Nestorian against the vnity of Person in him a Macedonian against the Divinity of the Holy ghost an Arrian against that of the son a Manichean against the vnity of the Divine nature a Iew against the new Testament a Libertin and Atheist against both old new God himself These are not wyre drawne conclusions by obscure mediums far fetched illations but natural obvious sequels of the fundamental principles of your Reformation which are inconsistent with any constancy in Faith and settlement in Church government So I must conclude that your Church building is such as no principles can beare your principles are such as can beare no building By which we may guesse from whome your reformers had their vocation from Abaddon Apollion the Destroyer seing their principles are good only to Destroy Churchs not at all to Build them In fine a prudent man without casting a figure might haue seene the fate of the late troubles in their principles which were inconsistent with any setled forme of civil gouvernment would ruin them all successively as they did without any hopes of rest vnlesse these were layd aside the just ancient government restored The like conjecture may be made of Protestantisme its principles being inconsistent with any setled forme of Faith Church government will destroy them all by Schisme Heresyes no probability of a settlement vnlesse these be renounced the Ancient Catholick Apostolical Faith Government restored For a further proofe of this I appeale to experience which is a demonstration A posteriori as the former is A priori which is My 7. Experience shews that t is much easier to destroy than to settle a government ether in Church or State Nothing of Art or Power was wanting to the establishment of the Prelatical Church in England She appeared first with the plausible colours of an Apostolical Reformation was cherisht by Royal favour armed the severest laws imaginable Yet one age had not past over her head when the peccant humours bread within her layd her in the dust the crowne it self with her which it was hoped she would vp hold Both were againe restored yet how soone was the joy of that over both brought againe into a like danger Seeke no where abroade the spring of these mischeifes they rise from the Reformation are inseparable from the Protestant Church My 8. And last reason is drawne from the Protestant Clergy it self which as it is modelled principled can never sufficiently influence the Nation to preserue its vnion in the Worship of God its duty to the King to prevent Schisme in the Church Faction in the State This appeares by experience The reasons I reserue till some further occasion be given 3. D. M. so we shall hereafter call my Lord of Winton says in his Preface pag. 11. A french Iesuit called Mainbourg publisht something as writen by her late R. H. he repeates afterwards four times in the Preface once in his post script Mainbourg the Iusuit when it was Mainbourg the secular Preist who printed it Which that booke of his tells all the world so did the publike Gazets containing his dismission out of the society His superiors did never permit him to print it whilest he was a Iesuit knowing how sacred the secrets of Princes ought to be So that paper crept about only in written copyes seene by few of these not many beleiving it to be hers whose name it beares Now D. M. hath spreade it the rumor of her Change in Religion for his owne vindication so prejudiced his mother the Church of England for I doubt not but her R. H. example will moue more Powerfully to leaue that Church than D. M. S. judgment to retaine men in it He questions the Conference betwixt her R. H. the Bishop which being a matter of Fact must rely on the deposition of witnesses their credit interest She is positiue he conjectural she had no motiue but Truth he concerned for the honour of his Church his owne His topick is if the Bishop answered so he was nether so Learned nor Conscientious nor Prudent as he ought to be Which many will easier grant then that her R. H. in a matter of fact would wittingly tell an vntruth He relates many things in his Preface to little purpose v. c. His coming out of
only to diminish the difficulty of the beleife of it by explicating in some probable manner a part of the mystery You see sir how easy it is to excuse S. Thomas from the contradiction you charge him with for it is no contradiction to say A fire well kindled burnes matter combustible duly applyed in the furnace fire did not burne those three young men Both which we know to be tru one by experience the other by Revelation why may not such an obvious explication excuse this greate Doctor from so shamefull a fault as contradicting himself is That all quantity fills some space is a general rule that in the Sacrament it doth not is an exception from this rule Can you not vnderstand how a man without contradicting himself admits an exception from his Rule 3. D M. p. 10. Lastly Thomas all the rest teach that no other body can be in more places than one at one time yet they say Christs body in the Sacrament is in many places at the same time Thus they mantain what their church hath defined though it be with doing violence to all the principles not of Divinity only but of Nature sense Reason not without manifest manifold contradictions not of one another onely but even of themselues also Revisor The contradiction you charge on S. Thomas all Catholicks is that we teach that Christ's body is in two places at once that we deny that Any other body can be in two places at once Where your first fault is against Logick for you beleiue these two propositions to be contradictions they are not soe For a contradiction is Affirmatio negatio eiusdem de eodem the same thing must be sayd denyed of the same subject now here is not the same subject for Christs body other bodys are not the same Hence it is no contradiction to say Christs body is personally vnited to the word and no other body is personally vnited to the word Your second fault is more reproachfull a lack of sincerity in relating our sentiments You say we teach that No other body but that of Christ can be in more places than one at the same time Which is so far from being tru that I will challenge you or any other in the world to produce any one either Divine or Philosopher of the Catholick communion who denyes to Any body a passiue capacity of being in two places when God shall determine in that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places And if I am disproved in this I am content to be thought the Impostor Had you consulted either our Phylosophers or Divines or even any of our yearly conclusions you would haue found instances enough to correct your mistake if it were not affected which I will not determine I say In that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places because I know the Thomists hold a body cannot be Extensivè Localitèr or Desinitivè in two places the Scotists hold the contrary but those same learned men say the same of the Body of Christ. So your mistake is vnexcusable Your third fault is that Our Doctrine is contrary to all principles of Divinity I know no other at least no better Principles of tru Divinity than Scripture Tradition Definitions of the Church Fathers If you know any better make vs happy by communicating them Now J am sure our Doctrine is not contrary to these nay it is grounded on them all this you knew so well that you haue carefully avoyded all mention of them as conscious of your contradicting them all foreseing that they are rockes on which this Sensual Heresy would split it self Scriptures says It is Christs body Tradition says the same so do Fathers so doth the Church so do we Not one Egge more like another than our Doctrine is to theirs What violence then do we do to all the principles of Divinity But it is not vnusual that men who rob cry Theiues You know you cannot proue that we oppose any one principle of Divinity so you never attempt it Yet you would haue it beleived Therefore you beg it Your fourth fault is that you blame vs as faulty for going in matters of Faith against Nature Sense Reason Sir we are Disciples of S. Paul of him we haue learnt To cast downe jmaginations every hygh thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2. cor 10.6 This we practice in this other matters If in this we are blameworthy condemne him who directs vs to do so if you dare not condemne him you must absolue vs. Call to mind S. Austins words mentioned aboue in Epist ad Volusianum Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile si exemplum poscitur non erit singulare If a reason be found out it will cease to be admirable if an example be produced it will not be singular We owne it is Admirable we professe it is Singular So we expect nether Reason nor example to confirme vs in the beleife of it That is we are nether Socinians nor Morleyans Iust so we beleiue the same Christ to be borne of a virgin thô nether Reason nor experience confirme it Yet out of some other places of scripture joyned together it appeares that Christ's body hath been in two places at the same time For we learne out of Ephes 4.10 that He ascended vp far aboue all Heavens whence Heb. 7.26 he is sayd To be Hygher then the Heavens And Act. 13.21 we reade Whome the Heavens must receiue till the time of restitution of all things that is till the vniversal Resurrection he must remaine aboue the Heavens Yet he was seene by S. Paul 1. Cor. 15.8 Act. 9. Therefore he was in two places at the same time In Heaven aboue the Heavens as the scripture says neere the Earth otherwise the Apostle could nether haue seene his Body nor heard his voice You begin pag. 11. a long discourse about Mysteryes Which being nothing to the purpose I leaue it as I find it passe to the your 19. page where I find something in which I am concerned SECTION XVI Transubstantiation is a Miracle MY reason is because it is a worke not only Besides or Aboue but Contrary to second causes Therefore it is a Miracle The illation is evident as being from the definition to the thing defined The antecedent is cleere first from the littlenesse of the space or rather the no space to which Christs Body is reduced Secondly from its being in many places at once Answer this Reason eris mihï magnus Apollo What haue you against this D. M. p. 19. Scripture makes no mention of any Miracle in this Sacrament as no doubt it would haue done if there had beene any seing no man can perceiue it Rev. Must nothing be counted a Miracle but what scripture calls such
thing in order to Christian Peace in things of Ecclesiastical constitution as v. c. The latin service the Sacrament vnder one kind the celibate of Preists thô not in things of Faith such as is the Church's Jnfallibility 3. D. Morley Replyed If by the Church he meant all Christians in all places it could not erre If any particular Church v. c. That of Rome it could erre had erred which he proved thus That Church which formerly held as matter of Faith an errour hath erred can erre But this is the case of the Church of Rome Therefore it hath erred and can erre To proue the minor he inslanced in the Communion of Infants beleived to be necessary to salvation For which he quoted Innocent 1. S. Austin Binius Maldonate This last says for six hundred yeares it was Dogma de Fide vniversalts Ecclesiae 1. Revisor you approved here what J haue at larg proved aboue little good from Conserences in matters of Religion can be expected But you haue a sting in the end when you reject all the fault all the opposition of so great a good as the Peace of the Ch. on vs. Who are resolved to remit nothing A very vncharitable rash judgment And vntru to boote as appeares by F. Darcys reply by that story which Protestants with great confidence relate in Q. Elisabeths time viz that the Pope offred to confirm all she had don in Church affayres vpon condition she would acknowledg him How can you say We will remit nothing when your Brethren assure the Pope was ready to remit all But it is your fashion to say vnsay as you think for your present purpose Then it served your turn that the Pope did not dislike your Reformation to moue Catholicks to embrace it so you spread that report Now it is to your purpose to throw the odium of the division on the Popes inflexibility so you report that The tru only reason that the schismatical Party is resolved never to rest satisfyed with what is remitted So the rebellious Part of the Parliament resolved never to be satisfyed with what soever answer the King gaue to their Addresses for that Reason we might say all Treatys for peace betwixt the King Parliament would proue ineffectual 2. F. Darcys answer shews how desirous the Church is to restore Peace to Christendome being ready for so great a good to remit of her Ryght in imposing ceremonys making Canons In Faith she can change nothing that belongs to a higher Tribunal she receiues it from her spouse in the nature of a Depositum 1. Tim 6.20 which must not be altred But Ecclesiastical Discipline being lef to her determination of her own appointement she may change as the Father sayd will change if by that meanes she could restore to the sheep-fold of Christ all his strayed sheep This is more than the Ch. of Engl. will do seing to reclaime her vndutiful children she will not omit the signe of the Crosse in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament bowing to the Altar all ceremonys of humane jnstitution her own injunction Nay she would not alter some words in her Lyturgy to purchase Peace 3. If the Church diffusivè that is all Christians in all places cannot erre wo be to the first Protestants whose sentiments in matters of Faith were as contrary to those of all Christians in all places as to those of the Roman Church except that one point of Papal Power So if all Christians did not cannot erre the first Protestants did erre all their followers doe erre will erre as long as they retain those sentiments for what is an errour to day will be such to morrow to the end of the world As to the Communion of Infants J acknowledg that for a long time when Baptism was administred solemnly by Bishops to men grown vp Adultis two other Sacraments were administred with it Confirmation the Eucharist That when it was administred by Preists they were ordred to anoint the baptised person not on the forehead but on the crowne That when Infants were baptised because the Sacrament could not without danger be administred to them vnder the species of Bread alone it was giuen vnder the other species the Preist dipping his finger into the Holy Chalice gaue it them to suck or a litle particle of the species of Bread soaked in the consecrated wine was layd on their tongue That the Communion was giuen to Infants out of an opinion that it was necessary to salvation grounded on those words of Christ Ioan. 6. Vnlesse ye eate the Body .... you haue no life in you I grant also that some haply many in some private Churchs beleived that to be the litteral meaning of those words thought consequently that sense was De fide a point of Faith Yet I deny that the vniversal Church did erre in declarations or definitions of Faith for indeed she never made any definition in this matter That Text was exposed with the rest of Holy writ to the view of all Christians left to the interpretation of ordinary Pastors as the rest was Many vnderstood it litterally for that reason extended to Infants the Communion in Baptism ordained to men enjoying the vse of Reason The Church seing no pressing inconvenience in this custome consequently no necessity to make a severe examen of the meaning of those words a censure of an jnnocent errour permits them to go on without interposing her Authority or by any legal definition obliging her children to beleiue either the one or the other part And I doubt not but there are several other texts of scripture commonly vnderstood one way that thought to be the litteral meaning tru sense followed as such some nay many may beleiue that sense to be De fide the Church permits them to beleiue practice so not seing any necessity to call a General Council to decide it the errour being nether destructiue to necessary Faith nor good manners yet this sense may be different from that the Holy Ghost cherfly intended by those texts all this without any prejudice to the Church of Rome's infallibility which never declared any thing in it Such I think is the common way of explicating Anti Christ to be one single man the three yeares a halfe to be litterally vnderstood for forty two months vulgar From alike occasion the error of the Chiliasts or Millenarians had its rise progresse which was not condemned till its Abettars grew troublesome to those who differed from them in the exposition of those words Apoc. 20.4 on which they grounded their error Hence it so lows that what Maldonate says makes nothing against the Churchs infallibility in defining things of Faith for he nether says nor could say with truth that she ever defined any thing in this matter And the practice it self of communicating Infants cannot
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
they are tru when conformable to their object as this The whole is greater then any part of it They are false when not conformable to them as this Apart of a body is as greate as the whole Some adde a third kind of Propositions indifferent to Truth Falshood but this is only relating to our minds which are vncertain whither they be tru or false But in themselues they are determinately either tru or false it is as certaine they cannot be otherwise as it is certaine that a thing either is or is not it being impossible that any thing should be not be at the same time That is to say two contradictions can nether be tru nor false This Truth or conformity of a Proposition with its object may be knowne several ways 1. by its natiue lyght self evidence of the thoughts themselues which when well vnderstood evidently appeare the same For example Two two are four Jtem A streyght line is the shortest betwixt two points 2. By discourse as when by the thoughts themselues it doth not appeare how they agree we compare them with a third Thus by applying a line to two bodyes finding it equal to each severally we conclude they are both of an equall bignesse 3. by sense as when J see a man walke I know he moues 4. By report of another as when a freind tells me he Saw the King a hunting I take it as a Truth relying on his word And this last way of knowing a thing to be tru or giving Assent to it is properly Faith 3. Two things are necessary to make this Assent prudent 1. That he who relates the thing to me the witnesse be not deceived himself 2. That he doth not deceiue me By reason of the first we more readily credit an eye-witnesse than any other because a man is lesse obnoxious to mistake what he sees than what he heares or knows by conjectures For the second we easilyer beleiue an honest man than any other and we rather beleiue an honest man with an Oath then without it seing these are greater assurances that he speakes his mind sincerely doth not deceiue vs. So an Oath is the strongest foundation of human Faith wherefore by the Apostle it is sayd to be To men an End of all strife Heb. 6.16 we will now apply this to Divine Faith Nothing can be more certain than what God averres Because he can nether be deceived being Omniscient or knowing all things nor deceiue vs by reason of his goodnesse So we are never mistaken in beleiving him But the assurance we haue of what any may says even vpon Oath is much lesse For 1. he may deceived think for example he saw the King walking when it was not the King but some other Person like him And 2. he may haue an intention to deceiue vs by making vs beleiue what he knows to be false whence no man deserues greater credit than his personal endowments beare to beleiue him further is blamed in scripture He that is hasty to giue credit is lyght minded Eccles 19.4 All this is expressed in few words by the Apostle Rom. 3.4 God is tru every man a lyar Both Phylosophers Divines enquire whither the same thing can be the object of Faith Senses can be seene beleived commonly they conclude that it is impossible At least this seemes vndoubted of that De facto it is not soe For the Apostle says that Faith is An evidence of things not seene Heb. 11.1 S. Austin tr 68. 79. in Ioan. Quidest fides Credere quod non vides Faith is a Beleife of things which we do not see So that Senses are so far from being the Objectum formale the motiue of our Faith that it doth not at all depend on them 4. The Apostles being witnesses of the greatest most important truths that can be were carefull to perswade their Auditory 1. that they vnderstood very well the things they preacht 2. that they did not alter any thing in the delivery of it And because Eye witnesses are commonly more assured than others they mention that 1. cor 15.8 He was seene of me 2. Pet. 1.16 We haue not followed cunningly devised fables when we made knowne vnto you the power coming of our Lord Iesus-Christ but were eye witnesses of his Majesty This voice which came from Heauen we heard when we were with him in the holy mount Here are two Senses alleadged Seing Hearing And the beloved Disciple 1.30 1.1 3. Which we haue heard which we haue seene with our eyes which we haue looked vpon our hands haue handled of the word of life That which we haue seene heard declare we that vnto you And S. Peter being to choose a successor to Iudas required the choice should be made amongst those who from the Baptisme till the Ascension adhered to Christ Act. 1.21.22 Of these men which haue companyed with vs all the time that our Lord Iesus went in out amongst vs beginning from the Baptisme of Iohn vnto that same day that he was taken vp from vs must one be ordained to be a witnesse with vs of his Resurrection And Nicodemus doubting of something which our faviour had told him Christ for confirmation of what he sayd alleadged the like motiue Joan. 3.11 We speake what we know testify what we haue seene And S. Luke in the Preface to his ghospel assures he writes what he received from those who From the beginning were eye witnesses ministers of the word having a perfect vnderstanding of things c. Whence is evident that all that mention of the senses doth not proue that Faith hath any dependance at all on them being only alleadged to make the Preachers of the Ghospel more creditable But the only tru motiue of our Faith is the Veracity of God the Preachers of the Ghospel not delivering their owne word but the word of God the Hearers Receiving it not as the word of men but as it is truly the word of God 1. Thes 2.13 This as to the first qualification of a witnesse As to the second that They would not deceiue others was evident from the whole life of the Apostles free from levity from vanity from selfe interest c. all these strengthned by several other circumstances whereof each one severally taken had some force but taken altogether they convinced all considering men that it was more them morally impossible that men so qualifyed should wittingly tell a lye or deceiue willingly their Auditory All which things are hinted at in those words 1. Thes 1.5 Our Ghospel came not vnto you in word only but also in Power in the Holy Ghost in much assurance fullnesse as ye know WHAT MANNER OF MEN WE WERE amongst you for your sakes QVALES FVERIMVS IN VOBIS PROPTER VOS And 1. Cor. 2.4 My speech my preaching was not with entising words of men's
evident 1. Because the Apostles proposition Faith comes by Hearing is vniversal vnlimited to any time or place 2. God sent his Apostles Disciples to Preach the Ghospel without any expresse command to vse other signes or write bookes indeed most of those written were casual 3. The Apostles sent their successours on alike errant with alike Commission we find in S. Irenaeus that Faith was long preserved in some countryes without any written word 4. Faith by the Apostle called milke is still by Parents Nurses such persons instilled into the Tender minds of Infants even before they are able to reade And if they conceiue it ryghtly beleiue it strongly they haue tru divine Faith 5. The same of several Persons at men's estate who for Poverty or other employments cannot reade the scriptures 4. Scripture may seeme an exception from that general rule Faith by Hearing but it is not so Scripture it selfe being only an jmage of what is spoken therefore belongs to the same Sense that words do Hence S. Austiu l. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 4. Quia verberato aere statim transeunt verba nec diutius manent quam sonant instituta sunt per litteras signa verborum ita voces ostenduntur non per seipsas sed per signa quaedam sua By reason that after a little motion of ayre the voice presently vanishs is assoone lost as the sound is past Letters were invented as signes of words by which meanes words are shewed not by themselues but by their signes Thus S. Austin Which was elegautly exprest by a French Poet Brebeuf en sa Pharsale C'est de là que nous vient cet art ingenieux De peindre la parole de parler aux yeux Et par les traits divers des figures tracées Donner de la couleur du corps aux pensées Hence that ingenious art did first arise Of painting words speaking to our eyes Where with the pen doth by mysterious draught Both colour giue Body to a thought J doe not cite this as building my assertion vpon it but as a neate expression of what I meane The ground on which J rely is scripture whereof a greate part is evidently a description of speeches For 1. a greate part of the Ghospel is a Relation of our saviours Admonitions Sermons Reprehensions Justructions c. 2. The Acts of the Apostles containe their speeches 3. the Apocalypse is a representation of visions Prophecyes revealed to S Iohn 4. S. Luke in his preface declares that he writes what he had Heard 5. S. Mark writ what S. Peter preacht Marcus Discipulus Interpres Petri says S. Hierome juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae a Fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium Mark the Disciple Interpreter of Peter at the request of the Brethren in Rome writ in a short Ghospel what he had heard Peter preach My last cheifest proofe is from the words of Abraham to the glutton Luck 16.29 They thy Brothers haue moyses the Prophets let them heare them Et verse 31. If they heare not Moyses the Prophets nether will they be perswaded though one rise from the dead Here those are sayd to haue Moses the Prophets who haue their writings 2. Moses the Prophets are sayd to Speake in their writings seing others are sayd to Heare them Hence I conclude that the jnstruction we receiue from Scripture it selfe is reduced to Hearing SECTION IX 1. All Senses never contrary to Faith 2. Hearing is to correct the other senses 3. A conclusion of this digression THe two first points are cheifely aimed at in all this Preface will serue to cleere the mist which Humane Reason casts before our eyes that we may not discerne Truth from falshood but may embrace a Cloud for Iuno leaue the substance for a shaddow Thô some Senses may yet all can never be contrary to Faith this is my first conclusion The reason is Faith must be conveyghed into our mind by some Sense wherefore that Sense at least is not contrary to Faith Which is evident by the ordinary course of Providence teaching vs by Hearing Preachers Missions c. Of which S. Paul Rom. 10. Now if God doth at any time by particular inspiration instruct some that is nothing against this Truth seing those thoughes so inspired are conformable to what others Heare by consequence not contrary to all Senses 2. My second Conclusion is in matter of Faith Hearing is preferred before all other Senses The 1. reason is because Hearing is more capable of conveyghing revealed Truths than any other Sense nay than all the rest together it having more significant signes then all the rest together as is evident by the multitude of significant words The second reason is because God doth actually vse Hearing no other Sense to communicate to vs his Faith For our whole Duty to God our neyghbour what we are bound to beleiue practice is all delivered ether by living words in Catechisms Sermons or in Bookes by dead representations of those living words Wherefore when senses interfere in their depositions concerning any object of Faith we must recurre to Hearing adhere to that For example Other Senses represent Christ to vs as an ordinary man Hearing says he is The only begotten son of God full of grace Truth we must beleiue this silence the rest The rest say water only washes from dirt the surface of the Body this says it purges the soul from the staine of sin we must beleiue this Why then should not this rule acknowledged by the Zuinglians in other things to be good hold in the Blessed Eucharist So that althô the tast tell vs it is bread wine we may subscribe to our Hearing with S. Cyril nay with the whole Church say It is the Body Bloud of Christ But what if Reason takes the part of the other Senses Answer I will say still we must stick however to Hearing For example Reason says the same substance cannot be One three Hearing says the same Divine substance is one in nature three in Persons Our duty is to beleiue God to be so to silence all reasons to the contrary This is what S. Paul vnderstood by Pulling downe imaginations every thought contrary to his Doctrine bringing vnderstandings vnder the subjection of Christ I haue here delivered as by a digression such grounds as if well vsed will be sufficient to resist all the Attacks of God his spousés enemys Yet they are soe cleere that J think few can deny them without rejecting Christianity in some very material points Yet I haue not wandred in this digression out of the syght of my learned freind D. Morley if he retaines his treatise in his company in passing over these few sections he will easily obserue there is nothing but which relates to it J now returne to him
the liberty to propose his Argument am ready to heare him SECTION X. 1. The Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. D Morley's argument against it returned vpon him 4. Nether scripture nor Church prejudiced by our Doctrine 4. Nor senses 1. D. Morley The Doctrine of Transubstantiation Or the Church of Rome's Interpretation of those words This is my Body Is that in Sacrament of the Altar the whole substance of Bread is changed into the Body the whole substance of wine into the Bloud of Christ so that after Consecration there Remains nether Bread nor wine but only the Body Bloud of Christ vnder the species or accidents of Bread wine Revisor Why you should say it is the sentiment of the Church of Rome particularly when it is common to all other Oriental Christians is not hard to guesse at you would insinuate what you dare not speake out it is so evidently false that she the Ch. of R. stands alone in this point of Doctrine whereas all other Christian Churchs extant when your Reformation began agreed in substance with that of Rome their mother in this point But let that passe J acknowledge that you represent our sentiment ryght What haue you to say against it 2. D. Morley Against this Position I argue thus that which frustrates all the vse end of scripture cannot be the tru interpretation of any one place of it But that interpretation of those words of scripture frustrates all the end vse of scripture Therefore the Ch. of Romes interpretation of this place of scripture cannot be tru I proue the minor or second proposition thus that which necessarily implyes our Senses are or may be deceived in their proper objects so that what all men's Senses represent as one thing may be is indeed another must needes frustrate all the end vse of all scripture But that interpretation doth necessarily imply that our senses may be are deceived in their proper objects by teaching that to be Flesh Bloud which to all men's Senses appeares to be Bread wine Therefore our interpretation of those words doth frustrate the vse end of all scriptures Revisor I deny the minor or second Proposition of your first syllogisme To the proofe of it 1. I will let the maior or first Proposition passe althô it be not tru for mine all men's senses in the world represent the moone bigger in the east west then in the south which is evidently falfe yet the Scripture is not Frustrated by that Epidemical errour of all men's Senses Our Reason is superiour to Senses doth correct that errour without prejudicing Scripture by it why may not Faith which is superiour to both Sense Reason correct both when they go astray yet Scripture remaine entire seing Faith is but the Doctrine of Sripture as it were its soul Yet I will Gratis admit your Maior 2. I deny your minor or second Proposition for it appeares to no man's Hearing to be Bread wine but Flesh Bloud This is my Body this is my Bloud are the expresse words of Christ now sir you know out of the Apostle I haue minded you of it that Faith comes by Hearing And Hearing is not mistaken in this matter Hence S. Thomas of Aquin. Visus Tactus Gustus in te fallitur Sed auditu solo tuto creditur Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius Nihil hoc verbo veritatis verius We acknowledg that Syght Feeling Tast are mistaken here we correct their mistake by the expresse word of God by Hearing conveyghed to our minds to which word we owe greater obedience than to all our Senses together So your minor is false Thus your Conclusion that Our jnterpretation doth frustrate make voyde the end vse of scripture that came limping in on two bullrushes for crutches fals to the ground one of them being broken the other insufficient to beare such a weyght 2. Now I desire you to shew your skill in sophistry answer this syllogisme by which I draw the same Conclusion out of your Doctrine exposition of Christ's words That interpretation which is plainely contradictory to the expresse words of Scripture doth frustrate the end vse of Scripture But such is your interpretation of those words of Christ Therefore your interpretation frustrates the end vse of Scripture The maior or first Proposition is evident for what vse can be made of Scripture to what intent can it serve if we take the liberty to beleiue teach the direct contrary Doctrine to what it delivers For example if when the scripture says God Created Heauen Earth we say God did not create Heauen Earth When it says The word was in the beginning We say The word was not in the beginning When it says The word was made Flesh we say The word was not made Flesh. And so of the rest What can Scripture signify to what vse to what intent can it serue when such interpretations are made of it Soe my maior stands good The minor 2. Proposition is evident that Such is your jnterpretation of Christ's words For Scripture says That is Christ's Body you say That is not Christ's Body Scripture says That is Christ's Bloud you say That is not Christ's Bloud Let those frame an interpretation more opposit to Scripture who can I confesse my skil in Logicke reachs not to frame any more directly opposite I feare you will find it as much harder to answer this Argument than J shall to answer yours as it is to cure a real than to cure afeigned sicknesse 4. D Morley p. 4. All scripture being written for our learning as S. Paul Says it is there being no other meanes whereby we can come to know what is written in Scripture but our Senses either reading it our Selues or hearing it read if I be not certain of what I see when I reade my selfe nor of what I heare when I am read to by others it is impossible for me to know what the Scripture teacheth by consequence the Scripture it self must be vselesse or to no purpose Thus you Here Goliath like you bring a sword to cut off your owne head We say the words of Scripture are cleere that whither we Reade or Heare them they signify the same thing we vnderstand them in their plaine obvious sense as any man would vnderstand them who is resolved to submit his reason to them which we doe not make them stoop to some of our fleshly Senses as you doe Wherefore your method interpretation frustrates all vse of Scripture ours leaues it in its full force vigour You make Scripture weare the chaines of Senses we bind senses Reason too to the triumphant chariot of Scripture Then you discover an vnexpected concerne for the Church Authority after having spent your whole life in fyghting against it as if that were prejudiced by our Doctrine Not only the scripture