But it may be said the Actions in the Sacrament are visible True yet this will not salve the matter notwithstanding the explication he makes pa. 227. which is but a handsome disguise Hence saith he appears that the very same body which was given and that very blood that was shed for us remaining in its own proper substance but after an invisible manner by reason of the visible actions puts us in remembrance of the same body blood and person so many years agoe given shed crucified nay but those visible actions seen in the Sacrament seeing they pass not upon the body which they fix under the species in place of the substantiall bread for that body of Christ they grant is impassible do tell us the body cannot be by reason of them a remembrance of it selfe seeing also that body is invisible those actions cannot appear to be terminated upon it therefore it cannot be made a Sacrament or sacramental remembrance for what is so must by the senses instruct and minde us of the thing represented and not seen so that according to this Romish phansy the species and nothing else must be the sacrament and sacramental remembrance and in them must all those sacramental actions be terminated which absurdity shews the necessity of substantial Bread remaining even upon this account also of sacramental representation and remembrance not excluding as I said a true presence of Christs body and blood but the Romish mode of presence by transubstantiation which takes away the substantial element of the sacrament The next objection he sets down thus The Cup called the New Testament The Cup is called by our Saviour the New Testament for that it was a holy signe of the New Testament pa. 230. This is carelesly set down but let us see what he saith to it instead of giving a direct answer he first challenges any Protestant to produce any clear text of Scripture where that reason mentioned in the objection is alledged but if he had fully set down the objection the force of it as we shall see presently would have extorted this to be the reason why it is called the New Testament which must needs be a figurative speech and therefore implying it to be the signe Sacrament or seal of the New Testament confirmed in his blood secondly in stead of a direct answer he gives us a needless discourse of the signification of the New Testament and then answers I deny that by New Testament is understood a signe of the New Testament but truly and really the New Testament it self 233. this is a careless mistake for New Testament in the objection is taken for that which is truly the New Testament it self nor does it imply that by New Testament is understood the signe of the New Testament but that the verb is which couples this and the new Testament together is put for significat signifies or is the signe Thirdly from Exod. 24.8 where the Testament of God with the Israelites was confirmed with blood and the like saying used This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath made with you it must be real blood not a signe or figure of it which is here called the blood of the Testament for such a solemn Testament required no less but rather more then that in Exodus to be confirmed with true blood pa. 235 236. This is true but here 's his failing first that the true blood by which our Saviours Testament was confirmed and to which that in Exodus and all other sprinklings of blood under the Law referred was the blood shed on the Cross as the Apostle plainly shews in the Epistle to the Hebr. whereas this Author refers it to the blood in the Sacrament which is not the confirmation of the Testament but by reference to the blood on the Cross Secondly he gives us no direct sense of the proposition this Cup is the new Testament in my blood to exempt it from that figurative manner of speech which we contend our Saviour used throughout this Sacrament He acknowledges it to be in the Canon of the Masse and they say it dayly in saying the Masse and could not but know that the necessity of a figurative speech to be admitted in that proposition was the intent and force of the former objection yet gives us no account of it knowing that if a figure be admitted here why not in this is my body And if the words were operative there for turning the bread into his body why not here for transubstantiating the Cup or that which was in it into the New Testament If it be replied that Sâ— â—â—ke and St. Pauls words must be interpreted by St. Matthews this is my blood of the new Testament first it is more probable those other were the words our Saviour spake because of the agreement of Saint Luke and St. Paul and because St. Paul saith he delivered what he received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.23 The Canon of the Masse also retains the same words Secondly they cannot be reduced to Saint Matthews words without a figure for they must then sound thus this Cup is my blood of the new Testament but saith Mr. Spencer our Saviour never said this cup is my blood no more then he said this bread is my body pa. 238. And this in abhorrence of the figurative speech that must be admitted in saying this bread is my body and answerably in saying this Cup is my blood yet in the same place he acknowledges our Saviour said this Cup is the New Testament and is willing to overlook the most apparent figurative speech in it notwithstanding that the force of the objection rested chiefly upon it and provoked him to a direct answer The next objects to them their disagreement about the word this Disagreement of Romanists about the words of consecration This is my body in our Saviours saying this is my body 24.1 where note briefly that declining the explication of this is for this shall become or shall be transubstantiated for then saith he by this must be understood bread yet pag. 243. being to answer for one of their opinions that saith by the word this is signified nothing present he grants by this is signified nothing present precisely in that moment when the word this was pronounced but present after consecration what is this but to put the word is upon the future after Consecration And what is that but shall be And who ever heard that the word is properly taken as they will have it here should not precisely signifie the present time or existence Or who ever heard that the pronoun this should not be demonstrative Or signifie nothing in that moment present when our Saviour held up bread and said this Nor is this disagreement about the mode as among the Protestants for they agree about the subject and predicate of this Proposition that by this is meant bread by body the true body of Christ only differ about the
the speech will bear another more agreeable to the purpose of the place and to impose upon omnipotencie a necessitie of making it good what is it but to tempt God And here we may mind him again of the other proposition this cup is the new Testament in my blood which we found him above loath to speak to but desire him here to examine whether this Scripture can be taken in a literal proper sense He can not say it many things compel to the contrary then is it a figurative speech and that in the words of institution as well as this is my body The last objection is from Jo. 6. the Capernaites conceit of eating our Saviours flesh and his saying the flesh profiteth nothing some indeed will apply this against the Romish doctrine but I will not quarrel with him about the force of it The Protestant doctrine rests not upon this place of Scipture we say the true flesh of Christ profiteth where ever it is really given and received or eaten and let the Romanists consider whether they must not say the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing when they say the wicked really eat the true flesh of Christ It is plain by what our Saviour saith in that Chapter of eating his flesh that albeit the Sacramental eating of his flesh may profit nothing as in them that receive unworthily yet is there no real eating of our Saviours flesh but what profiteth St. Paul might say He that eateth that bread unworthily but could not say he that eateth Christs flesh unworthily taking it not for the bare Sacramental eating but for real participation of his very flesh which the Romanists allow unto the wicked The cause of this and many more and greater incongruities is that gross kind of Real Presence which puts our Saviours body in stead of the substantial bread fixing it under those species or qualities of bread making it unum quid as we noted above one thing with them and so carryed whither soever they are given to whom soever and received by whomsoever they are Having done with these objections which he calls the chief arguments of protestants from Scripture Considerations of Transubstantiation as to natural reason he tells us there are other drawn from Natural Reason fitter for Heathens then Christians p. 306. If we do but speak the horrid inconveniences and indignities that the blessed and glorious body of our Saviour is or may be exposed to by this gross way of presence or binding his body under to the species they presently cry this is fitter to be spoken by Infidels then Christians we may not so much as utter the ill consequences of their belief without note of infidelity So if inquiring a Reason of this their belief and not finding in Scripture any express witness of Gods will nor any example of the like conversion but finding many things that compel to the contrary from the reason of a body and of a Sacrament we profess that we cannot see how it should be and that we have no reason to make it an Article of our belief then are such arguments or questionings of it fitter for Heathens then Christians so unwilling is that Church to have any thing questioned or searched into that it propounds as Article of Faith St. Chrysostome speaking of that questioning of the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15.35 how are the dead raised and with what body do they come saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be asking still how shall this be is the part of one that believes not and it was well said supposing the Article or thing to be believed clearly expressed in Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead Incarnation Birth of our Saviour and the like when God Almighty has expresly declared these then to ask how this shall be sounds unbelief it s more fit for a Heathen then Christian therefore we believing the Sacrament is his body and blood or as S. Paul the communication of his body blood and consequently his body and blood really present in the Sacrament we do not question nor define the Modus how this is done but challenge the boldness of the Church of Rome that has determined the Modus by transubstantiation that is by destroying one essential part of the Sacrament the outward Element Bread and Wine and would impose this upon the world as an Article of Faith These arguments from Reason as he calls them he will undertake to answer and because he deals with such as profess themselves to be Christians he will endeavour it by giving clear instances in some Article of Christian faith which they believe wherein they must solve the like difficulties to those they urge from natural Reason against this mystery p. 306. This is fair and will be satisfactory if he can make it good But still we must remember if he could make it good it evinces but the possibility of the thing which is needless in this point to contend much about and does acknowledge a needless multiplying of miracles and engaging of Gods omnipotency where he has made no express declaration of his will or evidence of the thing The Arguments as he calls them are propounded here by way of question and he answers by other questions which binds him to see to it that there be no disparity between the reason of the one and of the other or that the like difficulty as he undertook above must be solved in that Instance he gives But this is not likely to be done if we observe the doubts proceed upon our Saviours body considered not onely simply in it self or nature of a body but also as concerned in this business in the nature of a Sacrament also if we observe his way of proceeding for he is fain still to serve himself of the capacity of a spirit as Soul Angel God himself to shew the possible conditions a Body may be put under or of the mystery of the hypostatical union to shew the like supply of defects in nature here now this at first sight presents a great disparity between the things The first question enquires how can Accidents the species of bread and wine exist without a subject This question Accidents without a subject although we will not dispute it to the denying of Gods omnipotency in sustaining Accidents without a Subject yet may it be put to the prejudice of Romish Transubstantiation many wayes First because it implies a needless multiplying of miracles in the Sacrament Secondly because it binds the body and blood of Christ to and under those Accidents or Species upon which many inconveniences follow Mr. Spencers answering this question by the humane nature in Christ which subsists without its proper personality and receives it from the divine nature must suppose that Christs body and blood in the Eucharist does supply the defect of the proper subject of those species * Bell. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. Sect. sed haec Bellarm. makes them and Christs body
avoid the Argument from the manner of the Old Testament Sacramental speeches in the Old Test in calling the signes by the names of the things signified as circumcision call'd the Covenant and such is the name Passover He strangly phansies two Covenants made with Abraham in that one chapter Gen. 17. the first in 2 3 4 5. verses the other verse 9. as if he understood not that in every Covenant there is a mutual stipulation the promise on Gods part the condition to be performed on mans to which he consents and engages That first Covenant which he phansies contained Gods promise to Abraham and that which he required of Abraham was in general expressed in the first verse viz. to walk before God and be perfect Now that which this Author calls the other Covenant was but the imposing of Circumcision as the signe of that Covenant made with Abraham and his posterity and a witness of their engagement to him as it is plain ver 11. where it is called the token or signe of the Covenant And if this were a new Covenant where are the promises of it He confesses as much when he saith The second Covenant was a signe and seal of the first only he abusively calls that the second Covenant which he should have called Circumcision for so S. Paul whom he cites saith he received the sign of Circumcision the seal of righteousness Rom. 4.12 And so his own instance he brings p. 287. makes against him for that promise of favour and Patronizing one of inferiour rank is but part of their agreement and that waiting on him once a year is the other part the condition to be performed as a testification of his service and obligation To the objection of the Lamb called the Passover Exod. 12. he answers 1. The Scripture does not expresly call the Lamb the Passover 2. He saith by Passover is meant the feast of the Passover kept to the Lord as v. 11. of that Chapter pa. 289 290. It is true the Feast was call'd the Passover but so was the Lamb and that more chiefly and immediately as v. 21. ye shall kill the Passover and elsewhere eat the Passover So Mat. 26.17 eat the Passover v. 29. they made ready the Passover Mar. 14.12 killed the Passover in all these the Lamb is the Passover and from the killing and eating that the yearly feast or celebration is also by figure called the Passover And the Lamb called Passover by a figure in reference to the Angels passing over the houses of the Israelites Unto 1 Cor. 10.4 The Rock was Christ he answers the Apostle speaks not of any Rock which was the signe of Christ a visible material rock but of a spiritual rock now Christ was that spiritual rock truly really and so no figure pa. 294. Here to avoid one rock of a figurative speech in those words he falls upon two for first he must hereby acknowledge that all the Israelites did eat really of Christ and drink of him as we under the gospel do if by that spiritual meat and spiritual drink Christ be immediately meant but this the Romanists carefully avoid answering the Israelites did eat the same spiritual meat Manna and drank the same spiritual drink among themselves but not the same with us The second rock he falls on is that by this his interpretation he must contrary to the Apostle grant they did all good and bad worthy and unworthy really and truly partake of Christ who was truly according to Mr. Spencer this spiritual rock and drink Whereas the Apostle means they did all partake of Christ Sacramentally Fathers also and their own Commentators grant it spoken of the material rock but because of the sacramental relation which that rock and the water flowing from it to serve the whole Congregation had to Christ and that which flowed from him it is called a spiritual rock and by a figure called Christ But in producing figurative speeches he binds us to this condition Mr. Spencer Rule for understanding speeches in Scripture figuratively or literally examined that if we will bring any thing against them it must be such a proposition that may possibly be verified in a proper sense and yet must be understood figuratively whereas the Protestants produce propositions that cannot possibly be understood in a real and proper sense as this is my body may pa. 299. But may not Manna or Rock be by the omnipotency of God turned into flesh as well as Bread or the water that came out of the rock into blood as well as wine may For that proposition this is my body is so far from being connaturally to be understood in a proper sense as he boldly affirms there that it cannot possibly be so understood without the engaging of omnipotency to make such a change of the subject bread and therefore they are still fain to fly to Gods omnipotency to make this proper sense of theirs good but why cannot propositions which possibly can be understood in a proper sense be rather figuratively taken Because saith he the words of Scripture and also of other Authors must be understood properly when they can be understood so or when nothing compels to the contrary This reason is good but misapplied to this is my body for it is one thing to say can be so understood another to say can possibly be so understood taking in all the wayes of possibility and omnipotency without which that proposition this is my body cannot be possibly understood in a proper sense for many things yea circumstances may compel us to the contrary and hinder us from taking it in a proper sense beside absolute impossibility else should we multiply miracles in Scripture and be still offending against the rule of reason that forbids us to conclude a possibili ad esse the thing to be so indeed because it is possible to be made so The Scripture saying all flesh is grass saith or might say of every man this is grass and it is as possible for omnipotence to turn it into grass as the bread into Christs body must we therefore so understand it in a real proper sense So when God said of Adam thou art dust so when David said of the water of Bethlem this the blood of these men 2 Sam. 23.17 Romanists that say the wine is turned into Christs blood must say that water could be turned into their blood and therefore possibly verified in a proper sense but those about David understood the figurative sense of it Did nothing else compel us to the contrary that is not to understand these propositions in a proper sense but the engaging of omnipotencie to work so miraculously to make it good it were enough For when he works so he tells us plainly of it or at least gives us the evidence of sense for the change neither of which we have for understanding this is my body in the Romish proper sense Then to impose upon Scripture such a sense when
Now albeit what this Doctor asserted was most false yet does it plainly follow upon the Romish Doctrine of truly meritorious which the Doctor saw plainly must be deserted or this must be maintained he saw plainly that if good works were truly meritorious they would be so whether there were promise made or no for as I noted above The promise makes not for the merit of the work but for the consecution or obtaining of the reward also he saw that if eternal life were by a gracious and free promise it could not be due to the work of Justice Lastly the Cardinal in the same place acknowledges Bel. l. 5. de Just c. 14. sect Tertia Omnes conditione servi Mancipia Dei operibus nostris alioqui debitis We are all by our Creation servants yea bond servants of God and that there cannot be justice between us God unless he had been pleased of himself by a free Convention to appoint a reward to our works which were otherwise due Due antecedently to all promise due from our being and Creation and if all the justice that can be found 'twixt God Almighty and us men be in regard of his promise only as indeed it is it cannot be in regard of any obligation the work it self casts upon God to make him our Debtor as the Cardinal above did not fear to assert Truth and the Conviction of Gods free and bountiful dealing with man extorts such Concessions from them as do sufficiently contradict their bold Assertions and might put end to the Controversie if some unjustifiable ends did not still engage them SECT VI. Of Purgatory THat Purgatory is conceived to be a Place of pain or punishment What Purgatory is that for Souls of just Persons departed out of this life is plain by the * Sess 6. Can. 30. Council of Trent and by the Reason or ground of it according to the Romish conceit because it is for those to whom the sin and the eternal punishment is forgiven but the temporal not fully satisfied by them here and therefore must be payed or born hereafter This appeared above chap. VI. nu 1.5.6 The Cardinal is bold to affirm Bel. li. 1. de Purgat c. 15. that Purgatory is an Article of the Catholick faith and may be proved all the four waies that points of Faith use to be proved by viz. by express Testimony of Scripture with the Declaration of the Church So is the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father proved or by evident deduction from that which is express in Scripture So is the Article of two Wills in Christ proved c. and so is Purgatory proved saith the Cardinal and he boasts that he has so proved it by giving us many places of Scripture mistaken as to that sense and many sayings of Fathers misapplied as to that purpose which will appear upon the Trial following It will appear that this Doctrine of Purgatory is not Catholick but the invention of later Times taking Rise from that which St. Aug. hinted as probable touching pains after death and then having an Advancement by fabulous reports of Visions and deluding apparitions in St. Gregories time and after at last receiving a Definition and establishment in the Church of Rome And for the countenancing of it They force many places of Scripture and whatever they finde in the Fathers concerning prayer for the Dead or touching a purging Fire though spoken to other purpose doing therein as those Hereticks of whom St. Hilary said that they drew Scripture to that ad id quod praesumpserunt credendum which they had of themselves presumed or before conceived to be proposed and held as matter of Belief For better proceeding We will reduce all to these Heads The Place or state of Souls after death The Prayers that were made for the Dead The Remission of sins after death The pains or punishment after death What the Romanists bring from Scripture or Fathers touching any of these we shall meet with As for the Texts of Scripture alledged by them we may say this in General They have no consent of Fathers for such a sense as they would fasten upon the Texts they cite in behalf of Purgatory First for the Place or state of souls departed Of the Place or state of Souls departed Scriptures alledged by the Romanists There are two Scriptures especially which they alledge for such a place of Souls as they phansie Purgatory to be The one is Zach. 9.11 I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the Pit where no water is which text in the first and immediate sense speaks the deliverance of that people out of the Babylonish captivity but is by many of the Ancients applied to our Saviours bringing forth the Souls of the Fathers of the old Testament out of their Receptacle or Limbus And the Cardinal acknowledges Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 3. Non est aqua Conâ— solationis it has been usually taken in that sense but thinks it as proper for Purgatory and the rather because in this there is not the Water of consolation as there was in the other And this is to be noted here because we shall finde the Cardinal below put to devise how prayers for the Dead made by the Ancient Church for those that rested in peace Bel. l. 2. de Purgat c. 4. admixtam cum cruciatibus incredibilem consolationem propter certam spem salutis could concern Souls in purgatory that is in Torment and cannot invent any expedient for it but by referring that rest and peace to the Comfort and satisfaction they have there together with their Torment by reason of their hope and assurance of coming out of those pains into eternal bliss That which the Cardinal for proof of his interpreting that text of Zach. in behalf of Purgatory fastens upon St. August is not that Fathers expression or intention but the Cardinals misapplication St. August in the places cited by the Cardinal Epist 49. ad Euod lib. 12. in Genes c. 33. speaks of our Saviours descending into Hell and delivering some that were there but i. e. in Purgatorio is the Cardinals addition The other Text is Mat. 5.25 where we read of a prison and a payment to be made there but what proof is there more then a strong phansie that this must signifie Purgatory The Cardinal indeed alledges some Fathers using those words of our Saviour as a Commination against Sinners but that they should thereby intend a Romish Purgatory is still the Cardinals misapplication One and the chief of those Fathers cited by him is St. Cyprian in his Epist 52. ad Antonian where He plainly as we shall see below applies that of the prison and the paying of the utmost farthing to the Severity of Ecclesiastick Pennances and Satisfactions under which the Lapsi or those that fell in time of persecution were held Now when the Fathers give any direct interpretation of that