root Pasal signifie dolare sculpere Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma an Image Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus render it sculptile But whatever be of that is it not added in the Hebrew Ve celtemuna or any likeness of any thing Are not here then all Images in so far as they are made objects of Adoration prohibited But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol which before was not one Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est Idololatria and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similaehrum quodâ—humana effigie factum consecratum est according to the known Distich Qui sacros fingit auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit Yea so evident is this that their great School-man Vasq Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 104. cap. 2. confesses that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews whence I conclude therefore also to Christians the Moral Law standing still in force Rom. 3.31 Do we by Faith make void the Law nay rather we establish it I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures Whereas he says these three Scriptures Mat. 26.26 Jam. 2.24 2 Thes 2.13 are flatly against Protestants he too flatly discovers either his own ignorance or impudency the harmony betwixt these and the Doctrine of Protestants hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Justification and Traditions Now shortly I say first that these words This is my Body make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ than these 1 Cor. 10.4 the Book was Christ for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ Yea their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted without falsifying the words of Christ as I demonstrated against M. Demster and shall shew in its own place that my Argument stands yet in force notwithstanding the Pamphleters insignificant attempts to the contrary In evidence hereof after Consecration it 's frequently called Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. I proceed therefore to the second Scripture Jam. 2.24 Ye see that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only That this place is not so clear for them may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 4.5 6. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly is Faith counted for righteousness even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi per fidem which Esthius upon the place acknowledges to be equivalent to sed tantum per fidem but only by Faith And he affirms that the most Learned both of Greek and Latin Interpreters do agree in that Exposition These and other Texts of the Apostle Paul seem to stand in so full contradiction to the fense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to clude those luculent testimonies of the Apostle S. Paul Some affirming that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel as is clear comparing Rom. 3.28 with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law yet say that only these works as done before Conversion and without Grace are excluded Others say that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justification but not of the second But the Apostle S. Paul Rom. 4. to confirm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law brings in the instances of David and Abraham long after their Conversion and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justification I shall not digress to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification but surely in the Romish sense it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness or by works and so is a begging of the question Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words it would be considered that the chief question betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is concerning the meritorious cause of Justification what it is that purchases to us Remission of sin and right to Eternal Life Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons what else can do this but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ Can our good works either before or after Conversion satisfie Divine Justice or merit to us remission of sins and a right to eternal life Is there any proportion betwixt our works and that Eternal and far more exceeding weight of Glory or the wrath to the uttermost due to us for our sins Are we not bound Luke 17.10 When we have done all that we are commanded to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants for we have but done that which was our duty to do Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects Eccles 7.20 Esay 64.6 All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is not that saying of S. Greg. known lib. 9. Moral in Job cap 11. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esseconvincitur si districtè judicetur prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ex sola judicis pietate convalescat Does any man love God so well as he ought says not S. Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet in vitio est Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works Neh. 13.22 Are they not made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Can we then be pronounced by God perfectly just on the account of these or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ for which these are accepted and we our selves also Ephes 1.6 He hath made us accepted in the beloved Is not that Scripture luculent Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous If any might have placed confidence on their works to be justified thereby then surely the Apostle S. Paul might have done it but he durst not adventure on it 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified It remains then to be expounded in what sense a man is said Jam. 2.24 to be justified by works and not by Faith only
Transubstantiated presence so as the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed a specter of accidents without a Subject remaining and the body and blood of Christ being substituted under the accidents In this we and not Romanists are consonant to the Faith of the Ancient Church Hence Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. the bread after consecration is not now common bread but an Eucharist consisting of two things the terren and the heavenly Then in the Eucharist two things are exhibited to believers the terren viz Bread and Wine and the Heavenly the body and blood of Christ And therefore the usual Objection which the Pamphleter takes out of the same cap. of Irenaeus where the Father concluds against Hereticks that Jesus is the Son of the maker of the World because that bread upon which thanks is given is the body of the Lord and that cup his blood makes nothing for Transubstantiation Nay it distroys it Bread cannot be the body of Christ nor the cup his blood in a proper sense but in a figurative and the force of Irenaeus argument appears to be this he that instituted the creatures of God as sacred and exhibitive Symbols of his body and blood must be the Son of God Christ did so Ergo c. Tertullian is no less luculent lib. 4. Cont. Marcio cap. 40. expresly calling the Bread a figure of his body and then drawes an argument against Marcion and other Hereticks to prove that Christ had a true and real body because it could not be the figure of his body if he had not a true body But if Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation were true Tertull could never have used a more unhappy argument against Marcion for if there be no real bread in the Sacrament but a Phantasm of accidents without a subject this had rather given advantage to Marcion who affirmed Christ to have a Phantastical body Here I cannot but notice the prevarication of the Pamphleter he mentions only these words of Tertull the Bread taken and distributed he made his body and then crys out what more cleer for Transubstantiation But had he not mutilated Tertullians words it would have appeared nothing could be more clear to overturn Transubstantiation for presently Tertull thus explains himself hoc est figura corporis mei that is this is the figure of my Body Yea Beatus Rhenanus in admon de Tertul. dogm reckons this as one of Tertullians sentiments that the body of Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist By this also may be cleared what the Phamphleter objects out of Ignatius Epist ad Smyrnenses that the Saturnian Hereticks did not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours Flesh For as Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Num. 151. well observes though the Eucharist be not properly the Flesh of Christ yet being a Symbol of his Flesh it receives the denomination of the thing signified and strongly proves that Christ hath real Flesh and a proper humane nature which those Hereticks denyed They therefore seeing the strength of this Argument rejected the Eucharist I add another testimony of Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 17. the senses saith he are not deceived about their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yeelded to Hereticks making but a Phantasm of Christ c. But according to the tenet of Transubstantiators the senses of all the World are ludified with Tertullian accords Cyprian who Epist 76. calls the Bread the body of Christ and the Wine his blood which were a manifest falshood if not figuratively understood So likewise Origen in Math. 15. that which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer according to the material part of it goes into the belly and is sent into the draught I desire to know by a Romanist what is this material part of the Sacrament which goes into the draught if the substance of bread do not remain when therefore Origen saith we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord in the place objected by the Pamphleter he can only be understood of a Symbolical and Mystical Eating and Drinking With those Fathers of the first three ages these of following times do agree as appears by Theod. dial 1. where he says that by the blessing of consecration the nature of the elements is not changed but grace added unto nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but abide in their proper nature shape and figure so much is affirmed by Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis Christi contra Eutych Nestor in bib pat tom 5. part 3. So also Augustin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and the Author of the Books de sacramentis going under the name of Ambrose lib. 4. cap. 4. ut sint quae erant in aliud convertantur that they may be what they were and be converted into another thing If they remain what they were then sure their conversion into another thing must be only Symbolical A volume would hardly contain the testimonies of this nature which may be heaped up Scarce doth any testimony remain objected by the adversary which we have not cleared on the by as we were bringing testimonies for the truth His spurious testimonies I value not and such is not only that from Deny's lib. de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. but also that from Cyprian de caena domini as is demonstrated by Criticks and yet neither of them make for Transubstantiation Not the first or the Pseudo Deny's exclamation O divinissimum sacramentum whither it be taken with Dr. Morton as a Rhetorical apostrophe or with Spalat as an invocation of Christ himself who is the thing signified in the Sacrament Nor the other ascribed to Cyprian wherein the Elements are said to be changed not in shape but in nature for nature is not taken for substance else this should be repugnant to the true Cyprian but for the condition of these Elements as when we say that things are of different nature some common and prophane others holy and Divine in this sense the Elements after consecration are changed in their nature beginning then to be of holy use and Divine vertue albeit Learned Salmasius in Simplicio Verino Pag. 78. suspects that testimony to be vitiated and that it ought to be read nec specic nec natuna neither changed in shape nor in nature Romanists have committed many such parricids on the writings of Fathers so that here also I may conclude with a fourth demonstration of Romish Novelty That the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ are substituted in their place was no essential of Faith in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT V. A fifth instance of Novelty concerning Purgatory examined and Retorted THe Pamphleter in his fifth Instance saith that Protestants deny Purgatory and Prayers for the dead Where Sophistically he throwes two Popish errors together Well he knew
denial of merits is charged on us as a fundamental error Is not Bell. in the end constrained to take him to his tutissimum Do we contradict the appointment of God when we take the surest way What more ordinary for Romansts on dying beds then to renounce their merits I could give an instance of a near friend of mine whose memory I honour the most moral person I ever knew of that Religion who about half an hour before his death did solemnly renounce all his own merits and professed he had nothing to lean to but the merits of Jesus Christ alone It can be no good point of Religion that the best of them must renounce at death 10. Ibid. Sayes he We protest against Gods divine authority in denying the real presence contrary to the Scripture saying clearly this is my Body We deny not a real presence but a corporal and Capernaiâ—ical presence under accidents of bread and wine which Scripture no where asserts As Scripture says This is my Body so as expresly after consecration it s called bread 1 Cor. 11. and the heaven is said to contain his real Body nay as we shall prove cap. 5. If these words were not taken in a Figurative sense they should imply a manifest contradiction Knows he not S. Austins rule that when the proper sense of words does impart a flagitious crime then the genuine sense of Scripture is figurative now what a crime is this that the living body of Christ should be devoured by men nor can this be avoided but by taking the words in a Figurative sense 11. Ibid. We protest saith he against Gods command in forbiding Images as Idols he having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the ark of the Covenant Exod. 25. O daring impudency Is Image worship commanded by God Sure then the 2d command Exod. 20.4 5. must be none of Gods commands as indeed Papists have rased it out of some of their Catechisms yet we forbid not all Images but Images of God and the Trinity or Images of any thing for adoration Produce who can institution or approbation for that in all Scripture The Cherubims were indeed set above the ark but no command for their adoration 12. Sayes he We protest against Gods practice in denying honour to Saints contrary to 1 Sam. 2.30 them that honâ—ur me I will honour Who does not see this whole discourse to be a Rapsody either of calumnies or impertinent allegations Did ever Protestant deny honor to Saints We only deny that they are religiously to be adored Are honour and religious adoration terms reciprocal The civil Magistrate and living Saints ought to be honoured Yet I suppose this Pampheleter will not say they should be religiously adored And would he also infer from 1 Sam. 2.30 that God adores Saints the Creator his own creatures Might not such foolries have been rather expected from a child then from one who would be reputed a Rabbi 13. Ibid. he sayes we protest against Gods dispensation by denying the Power given to Apostles and their Successors to for give sins contrary to Joh. 20.23 whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven We do not protest against Gods dispensation we but protest against your imposing on consciences a necessity of auricular confession of all sins how secret so ever to your Priests which God never enjoyned We protest against your papal usurped power of indulgences which neither the Apostles not the Pastors of the ancient Church ever assumed We protest against an absolute authoritative power of forgiving sin by men who cannot infallibly know who are truly penitent and who not We grant to Pastors of the Church a ministerial and conditional power of absolution To them is committed the word of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.19 and no more is granted Joh. 2.23 The soveraign absolute power of forgiving sin is claimed by God as his Perogative royal Isai 43.25 Micah 7.18 Nor can it be ascribed to any creature without blasphemy For who can forgive sin but God Luk 5.21 yet a ministerial power of absolution is exercised by Pastours 1 by the ministery of the word 2. by the administration of the Sacraments 3. by prayer 4. by the relaxation of the censures of the Church as is Judiciously expounded by the Reverend Bishop of Armagh in his answer to the Irish Jesuits challenge cap. 5. and the sober and Judicious among Romanists themselves are forced to acknowledg that no more was given by Christ to the Apostles So Ferns annot In Joh. 20. and comment on Matth. cap. 16. though sayes he as he is cited by the said Bishop of Armigh it be the proper work of God to remit sins yet are the Apostles said to remit also not simply but because they apply these means whereby God doth remit sins which means are the word and Sacraments to which we add the relaxations of the censures of the Church and prayer 14. Pag. 109. He sayes we protest against the Satisfaction which Justice requires for our Sins even after the guilt is forgiven by denying Purgatory contrary to 1 Cor. 3. himself shall be saved yet so as by fire O the seared Consciences of Jesuits who are not afraid to write at this rate Know therefore that our protestation is against the injury which Romanists do both to the Justice of God and to the compleat satisfaction of Jesus Christ by asserting Purgatory If Christ have Satisfied justice fully then Humane Satisfactions in Purgatory are forged in their mint house at Rome If not borrowed from the old Platonists and Pythagorians If Justice were compleatly satisfied by Christ how can justice demand new satisfaction from the delinquent If the guilt be forgiven then all the obligation to punishment is dissolved so Justice can demand no further satisfactions We deny not but pardoned Saints such as David may be exercised with Paternal chastisements that they may be the more sensible how bitter and evil a thing it is that they have sinned against the Lord but proper satisfaction to Justice by departed Saints in a place you call Purgatory Scripture no where affirms Your eyes must be anoynted with papal Chrism that you see so clearly your Purgatory in that place 1 Cor. 3. I suppose Augustine was as clear sighted an interpreter as you yet to him it seemed not so clear yea he held it for one of these places in Paul which are hard to be understood lib. de fid oper cap. 15. and quest 1. ad Dulcit It seems Jesuit Cotton saw not such clearness in it for Purgatory when as Thuan records lib. 13 2. he would enquire at the devil what were the clearest Scripture for Purgatory The Difficulty of this Scripture appears by the perplexed disputes both of ancient and modern interpreters concerning it in so much that Bellarmine lib. 1. de purg cap. 5. confesses it to be unum ex difficillimis totius Scripturae one of the hardest places in all the Bible Before he can make use of it for his
to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Insallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4. there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the
Scribler who now appears supposes he hath solved that argument as easily as Sampson broke the withes wherewith Delilah had tied him Judg. 16.9 Yet I hope to make him sensible of his mistake SECT I. The Popish Figment of Transubstantiation briefly Confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter PAssing by his undervaluing and approbrious words I first take notice that p. 112. he says I bring only a Philosophical Argument to prove that these words This is my Body are to be taken in a Figurative sense But if he be pleased to review what I said he will find I brought an Argument from a Scripture-Medium and confirmed the sence of Protestants with the testimony of Austin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and Tertull. contra Iud. cap. 40. None of which this vain-glorious disputant adventures to examine I was so far from looking upon that Argument which I brought as the only supporter of our Doctrine that I advertised Mr. Dempster Pap. 7. pag. 127. of armies of Arguments brought by Whittaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. to prove the same conclusion Doth not the senses of all men in the world find real bread after consecration Did ever God deceive the senses of all men through so many ages If the Argument from senses were fallacious when the Organ and Medium are rightly disposed and the object within coâ—venient distance how did Christ use it Luk. 24.38 39. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Doth not consecrated Bread and Wine nourish Bodies as other Bread and Wine Do they not putrifie and turn to worms when long kept Have not persons been poysoned thereby Will either meer accidents or the true glorified body of Jesus do so Was it ever heard that the blessing and consecration of a thing did destroy or annihilate it What have Romanists here to consecrate but Bread and Wine The glorified Body of our Lord Jesus Christ I hope is above their consecration and doth the benediction of the Bread make it cease to be Doth not two things verbum and elementum as Austin well observed Trac 80. in Joh. A visible element and an audible word concur to make up a Sacrament If the substance of Bread and Wine cease where have they a remaining element which hath a Sacramental Analogy with the Body and Blood of Jesus Will they say that a specter of meer accidents without a subject are an element with such an Analogical resemblance Is not the end of a Sacrament to confirm us by things visible in the faith of invisible my steries Is not the figment of transubstantiation a thing so incredible to reason that it tends rather to shake faith than to confirm it is it credible if Christ had meant by these words that the Bread was Transubstantiated into his Body that the Disciples who were scrupulous about far less matters would not have moved one scruple concerning this stupendious mysterie Are not figurative expressions very frequent in Sacramental purposes as Gen. 17.10 Circumcision is my Covenant Exod. 12.11 The Lamb is the Passcover 1 Cor. 10.3 the Rock is Christ Doth not Romanists acknowledge multitude of figurative expressions in the justification of the Supper As when the said 1 Cor. 11.24 This is my Body which is broken was it then broken Was there not there Enallage temporis So in Verse 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood are there not more figures than one Is not the cup put for that which was contained in the cup Can either the cup or that which was in the cup be called the New Testament without a Trope Why then judge they it so piacular a crime to expound these words in the same institution This is my body figuratively Is it not often called bread after the consecration as 1 Cor. 10.16 1 Cor. 11.26 27. Let a man Examine himself and so let him Eat of this Bread Can they reconcile these expressions with their notion of Transubstantiation without making all these figurative Think they it not a Cyclopick-like practice to devour the living body of a Man much more of their Saviour Must not the Heavens receive Christ till he come again Act. 3.21 Are we not prohibited to believe these who say loe here is Christ or there or in secret Chambers Math. 24.23.25 Do not the principles of Romanists in this thing expose them to perpetual hazard of Idolatry not only through the uncertainty of the Priests intention upon which according to them depends the consecration but also through many other contingencies such as the Priests erring in the pronunciation of the words whereof the people can never have certainty they being but secretly whispered and though heard doth every one understand Latin Heard he never of the Priest who having many Wafers to consecrate said Haec sunt corpora mea What should I blot Paper with the absurdities which many have deduced from the replication of Christ's body in many thousand not contiguous places the penetration of all the parts of the body of Jesus in every point and the existence of accidents without a subject Doth not Renatus Des Cartes and many great Philosophers question if there be such accidents in the world as the Schools did commonly teach about the time of the Lateran Council Is it not a goodly article of Faith which is calculated to the variable and problematick Hypotheses of Philosophers which may have the vogue in one age and may perhaps with more reason be exploded in another Must Religion stand and fall with the Sect of Peripateticks Is it not the height of Impudence to say that the words of the Institution are clear for their Transubstantiated presence seeing Scotus their subtle Doctor confesses that had nor the Church interposed her definition no man could have from them concluded Transubstantiation It 's not the perspicuity of Scripture according to Scotus that made the mysterie of Transubstantiation clear but the Lateran definition and yet it s questioned also if in that Lateran Council it were defined Are we the first who held the sence of these words figurative Did not Austin positively say as much contra Adimant cap. 12. Is not Theod. very express Dial. 1. Dominus imposuit signo nomen corperis And a little after our Saviour saith he exchanged names corpori suo imposuit nomen signi signo imposuit nomen corporis sui ita qui se vitem ipse vocabit vocabit signum sanguinem suum and again he honoured saith he visible Symbols with the Names of his body and blood Non naturam mutando sed gratiam naturae adjiciendo not by changing their Nature or substance but by adding grace thereto What need I more may not their own Canon Law stop their mouths dist 2. de consecrat Can. hoc est and the gloss thereupon where it is
expresly declared that the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ non proprie in rei veritate not properly sed significante mysterio but by a mystical signification because the Sacramental bread doth truly represent the body of Christ Yea have not Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Forbes Instruct Hist Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 9 10 11. c. And Moulin de Novitate Papismi demonstrated that the current of Antiquity is for us in this matter what a world of interminable debates hath this figment of Transubstantiation raised among their own men So that hither may the lines be applyed Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Deque modo lis est non habitura modum But leaving these and such like grounds of Arguments against this bloody Doctrine of Transubstantiation for which Papists have shed the blood of many thousands of Protestants I come to examine the Argument which this Pamphleter so much undervalues And first I must remember him of one branch of the Argument which he hath not touched which he will find in pag. 129. what Christ took in his hands what he did break and bless that he gave to his Disciples and affirm'd to be his body but it was bread which he took into his hands which he did break and bless Ergo It was bread which he gave and affirmed to be his body Now all know and Bell. doth acknowledge it that the body of Christ cannot be predicated of bread Consequently the proposition must be figurative both the premises are clear in the Series of the context ought not this Jesuit either to have been more sparing in boasting or else more through in examining the Argument Next I come to try how solidly he hath behaved himself in what he hath touched I assetted indeed pap 7. p. 127. that these words of Christ This is my body according to the Romish gloss would be inexplicable false and imply a contradiction and consequently their gloss could not be genuine I am so far from being removed from my judgment by reading this Pamphlet that the shallowness of his Answers do the more confirm me And first I said it was inexplicable and therefore desired Mr. Demster to let me know what Christ meant by hoc this for if he meant either the bread or the accidents of bread the sence must be figurative for these are not in a proper sence the body of Christ And by hoc this Christ could not mean his own body it not being yet present when hoc this was pronounced Nor could he mean Eus in confuso individuum vagum or contentum sub speciebus that is something under the accidents of bread Christ himself knew not what which are the desperate shifts of Schoolmen This I say cannot be the meaning unless they come to that height of Blasphemy to affirm that Christ's understanding was clouded with confusions so that he knew not himself what he meant by hoc this To all this he answers pag. 112 113. That hoc this signifyed nothing determinately until the last word or predicate my Body was pronounced A noble Solution for sooth and worthy of the acumen of a Jesuit Doth he not by saying that when Christ pronounced this it signifyed nothing at all determinately confirm what I say that their gloss renders the proposition of Christ inexplicable for I can put no other gloss upon the words of this Pamphleter but that neither the Apostles nor yet Christ himself understood what hoc signified when it was first uttered it signifyed nothing determinately then it would appear it signifyed something but indeterminately what can this be but the individuum vagum that others talk of that is in plain Scots something but Christ himself knew not what Was the mind of our Saviour in whom are all treasures of wisdom and knowledge so clouded Though it were granted that the hearer could not understand so distinctly what were meant by hoc this until the predicate whole proposition were uttered yet sure at the 1st utering of the subject hoc the speaker himself knows as perfectly what he means by it as when the whole proposition is uttered Now the question betwixt Romanists and us is what Christ who was the speaker understood by this when he uttered it Sure it could be nothing but that which he had in his hand at the present but at the present he had nothing in his hand but real bread for the body of Christ was not substituted in the place of bread according to the principles of Transubstantiators ergo hoc this could signifie nothing but bread and that determinately and consequently the proposition must be figurative Suppose a man holding out a piece of Gold to another should say this is a Jacobus who could deny but by this at the first pronunciation thereof he did understand the piece of Gold whether he or I do quibble concerning this matter others may judge I added Secondly pag. 128. that according to the Popish gloss this proposition of Christ's were both false and should imply a manifest contradiction This I confirmed two wayes First because a true affirmative proposition de prasenti cannot produce its own object else in that instant of Nature wherein the proposition is conceived before its object as the cause before its effect the proposition should be true as is supposed and not true because the object in that instant is not Secondly because at least in that instant of time wherein the copula of an affirmative proposition de praesenti is enunciated the object ought to exist But according to Transubstantiators in that instant of time wherein Christ pronounced the copula of this proposition This is my body Christ's body was not in the Sacrament and therefore the proposition in the sense of Transubstantiators must be false This Argument he first retorts pag. 113. Alleadging that this other affirmative proposition of Christ de praesenti Joh. 15. This is my command that ye love one another doth produce its own object and pag. 115. he adds many more viz. let the light be made let the firmament be made young man I say unto thee arise I will be thou healed I wonder that with these words of God fiat coelum he did not joyn these of the Pope Esto Cardinalis whereby his Holiness like another Deity by two words of a kind of non ens creates a Cardinal Yet I must take leave to tell him that in none of these examples is there an instance of an affirmative proposition de praesenti producing its object meer imperative words such as fiat lux let there be light and the rest mentioned pag. 115. are no affirmative propositions but meer commands Doth God affirm every thing to be which he commands to be What a Jesuite and not able to distinguish betwixt one affirmative proposition and a word of command If any of his instances seem to be to the purpose it 's that Joh. 15. This is my command that ye