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
say you But the Church it selfe also must needes be vselesse because the Ch. as well the scripture teaches vs by no other medium But that of our senses Here is matter indeed for lamentation tho you shew no greate signe of real greife But God be praysed the Church is not brought so low as to want your helpe Her Authority is not prejudiced by such as with Humility receiue her Doctrine but by such as with Pride reject it by Protestants who impugne the sense she received with the words from her spouse his faithfull interpreters the Apostles D. M. p. 5. If I be not certaine that what I see feele tast smell to be bread wine is bread wine but something else by the same reason I cannot be certain that these words this is my body whither I see them written or heare them spoken be indeed those words not some other words of a different or contrary signification Revisor You still go on in a false supposition that we Cartesian like deny all credit to Senses This is absolutely false for we giue credit to our Senses thô not so greate as to Eternal Truth Nether do we doubt of that thing being bread wine which to Senses seemes such except only when God himself tells vs It is his Body Here then is our case A thing is placed on an Altar that Lookes feeles tasts smells like Breade What is that thing God tells me in the Eare It is his Body our Senses tell me It is Bread Whither of these depositions shall I beleiue That of Senses say you that of God says the Church seing it is not impossible our Senses should be mistaken but it is absolntely impossible that God should tell Alye But say you If we doubt of those sensations of bread we may doubt of those of the words whither we reade or heare them Answer Till you shall shew me by an Authority greater then that of God himself those words are something else J will beleiue them to be those words As I beleiue that to be Bread which seemes such vnlesse where God tells me the contrary Do J passe thorough a market by a Bakers shop come into adining toome we giue as full credit to our Senses as you judg that to be Bread which seemes Bread only on the Altar after Consecration we say it is the Body of Christ because Christ says it is such the Church always vnderstood those words as we doe Then you learnedly discourse of Outward signes inward invisible grace Of the Trumpet its sounding of men preparing to battle God blesse vs of Dreames visions jnspirations what not From which if you can conclude any thing against vs J will beare your chaines These rambling phancys are extraordinary in one of your age I wish you to take heede your pen goe not faster than your head as it seemes to doe when you cite those words as of S. Austin Quod non lego non credo what I read not I beleiue not which make against you for We read what we beleiue that it is Christ's Body but we do not read It is not Christ's Body nor It is Bread which is what you beleiue D. M. p. 7. If there be a certainty in the sense of Hearing there must be in that of seing Revisor I admit an equal certainty in both taken by themselues yet Hearing when announcing what God says surpasses Syght all the rest for we are to strike to Faith God's Truth not to any else D. M. p. 8. 9. If there be no certainty of Senses in one thing there is none in any thing vnlesse I know certainly what that one thing is nothing can secure me vnlesse Christ in expresse words tell vs Beleiue your Senses in all things else but only in the Sacrament Revisor Whence so greate a concerne for the Authority of Senses so little for that of the Church All is vndone if the Senses be corrected by the expresse words of Christ whome they contradict no hurt done thô the Church be charged with errour even when she follows the words of Christ yet by the Church we receiue the word of God its meaning too Now why is an errour charged on Senses of so pernicious a nature as to destroy all their credit vnlesse Christ's expresse words are produced to vouch it in all other things one nay many errours charged on the Church by which we receiue Faith no hurt done Js not Faith handed to vs by the Church of as greate consequence as that little scantling of Knowledge which we receiue from our Senses But why is an errour of Senses so fatal to their credit Haue they never deceived you or at least some others of your acquaintance do you therefore renounce them Haue not some men their eyes only representing a greene medow fallen into a quack-mire do you for that reason either pull out your eyes as vselesse or shut them as deceivable when you walke Are these Arguments of such strength as to beate downe the expresse words of Christ Doctrine of the whole Church what times do we liue in to what passe is Christianity brought when a Doctor of Divinity a pretended Bishop fyghts with such straws against Christ's words Faith I Yet because old age is apprehensiue J will giue you a remedy against this groundlesse Feare You require an exception in expresse words J will giue you one at least Aequivalentèr It is a general Rule Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam When an exception is made from a Rule all things not exprest in the exception remaine vnder the Rule Wherefore Christ having excepted only the Blessed Sacrament from the Deposition of Senses he left all other things subject to them So sir althô you hold with vs Transubstantiation when you see a floore you may walke on it without fearing a precipice when you see a Chaire you may confidently sit downe without Fearing it should proue a Cobweb Wherefore Cheere vp deare sir you may be secure thô Christ be beleived SECTION XI OF MIRACLES 1. Whither all Miracles visible 2. What Miracles are 3. The final cause of Miraçles 4. Accidents Changeable the substance remaining 5. Dr. M.'s Paradoxes 1. D. M. p. 9. T is to little purpose to tell vs that this conversion of Bread into Flesh wine into Bloud is miraculous therefore so monstrous as to be a contradiction to Sense Miracles are Appellations to Sense the end of them is by the evidence of our Sense to convince our Vnderstanding of some thing which otherwise we would not or could not haue beleived Revisor You seeme resolved to prevent our retreate by stopping all ways imaginable to it yet your main industry is to misse not to hit that which is most obvious which I haue already taken expect you or any who takes vp the Cudgelles for you in it Yet I will in short review what
are his lowest facultyes Just as if what the Apostle says is over my head you should say is vnder my feet But why doth not the Natural man receiue Faith Because It is foolishnesse vnto him And just such is Transubstantiation to you therefore is laught at by you the other reason is convincing He cannot receiue Faith Becaus it is spiritually discerned Are Senses spiritual facultyes can they Spiritually discern If not as certainly they cannot pull them off the throne on which you placed them of which they are vnworthy as being vncapable of discerning the thing in question which is of The spirit of God spiritual discerned only spiritually No lesse but rather more evident are the words of the same Apostle 2. Cor. 10.4 The weapons of our warfare says he are not carnal but myghty through God to the pulling down of strong holds casting down imaginations every hygh thing that exalteth it selfe against the knowledge of God bringing into captivity every Thought to the obedience of Christ .... do ye look on things after the outward appearance Thus your own Translation Which words decide the thing in question For first it is evident he speakes of the Doctrine he preacht which is Faith And in the first place he cleerely discards outward Senses from any share in this judgment The weapons of our warfare are not carnal now Senses are Carnal as is cleere 2. He rejects inward Senses Casting down all jmaginations 3. He teaches that our vnderstanding must also be subject Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ Thus according to the Apostle all facultys of soul body spiritual carnal interiour exteriour must vayle bonnet to Faith which is termed Myghty through God The last question Do ye look on things according to their out ward appearance Is a conclusion of the foregoing discourse cuts all the nerves of the Doctors argument Which is totally grounded Vpon out ward appearance to carnal sense Let vs apply the Apostles meaning to our present purpose by some few questions What will you say that is on the Holy Altar Mr. Dr Answer Bread wine But why do you think it to be bread wine Answer wee looke on the out ward appearance judge of the thing after that You know sir that the Catholick Church all over the wor'd even Luther himself beleived it to be the Body Bloud of Christ with what weapons do you combat their opinion Answer The weapons we fyght with are Carnel they are the senses Now let vs propose such questions to a Catholick What do you beleiue that to be which is on the Altar Answer the tru Body Bloud of Christ But why do you beleiue it to be the Body Bloud of Christ Answer Because Christ says it is so the Church teaches me his words are so to be vnderstood Doth it appear to be the Body Bloud of Christ Answer no. But We look not on things after the out ward appearance when that is not conformable to the word of God delivered to vs by the Church With what weapons do you combat the contrary errour Answer The weapons we vse Are not carnal sense But myghty through God to destroy all jmaginations beate downe all thoughts which are raysed in vs in opposition to the divine revealed truth 3. If we consult Reason in this debate we shall see that Senses ought not to be admitted as judges it being absolutely impossible they should vnderstand the matter in question therefore cannot possibly pronounce sentence on ether side For what is the question What is the meaning of those words of our Blessed saviour This is my Body this is my Bloud for I suppose your jmpiety is not arrived to that heygth as to deny his words to be tru or say you would not beleiue any thing to be what he plainly vndeniably says it is That is you do not beleiue that God doth or can tell a Lye Otherwise farewell all Faith we must make vse of other Mediums to deale with you Our dispute then being about the sense of those words of Christ J proue that our senses cannot judg in it with this argument Senses cannot judg of things which are not their proper objects But such are the things in debate in this controversy Therefore senses cannot judg of these things The major or first Proposition is cleere For the eye cannot judg of a found because it is not its proper object Nor the eare of a colour for the same reason The same of all other senses Wherefore no sense can judg of any thing that is not its proper object The minor or second proposition viz things in debate here are not the proper object of Senses is also selfe evident For the proper meaning or signification of words is the proper object of no sense But the matter here in debate is the proper meaning or signification of the words of Christ Therefore it is the proper object of no sense These Premisses are so evidently tru that J think it enough only to proue the first Proposition this I doe by induction for nether eye nor nose nor palate nor hand nor eare can see tast smel feale or heare the signification of words wherefore no sense can perceiue it The only doubt can be about Hearing by reason of the convexion betwixt the sound of an Articulate word which is the object of the eare the signification of it yet even here my Proposition is tru for the same articulate sound is insignificant to one who vnderstands it not sometimes signifyes different things to persons of different langages v. c. Lego to a Latinist signifyes I reade to a Grecian I speake to an English man nothing Yet the sound in the eare is the same to all these three Jndeed if it were not so by learning anew language our eares should be changed framed in a different manner to represent the new signification Which I suppose no body will say As to the other Proposition the minor that our dispute is about the signification of those words is as evident For our sentiment is grounded on the words being taken litterally yours vpon their being taken figuratively Both which are the severall significations One thing only occurres in answer to this viz that the litteral signification is so absurd that it cannot be admitted Answer this is sayd but not proved in du place these absurditys will be confidered J hope found to be no bsurditys Answer 2. this doth not satisfy my reason for no Absurdity can make any faculty judg of what it cannot know As no Absurdity can make me a competent judg of a composition in the Chinese language of which J am entirely ignorant Here I myght lay down my pen it already appearing that all you can alleadg from Senses can signify nothing seing they cannot depose of a thing they are totally strangers to you say nothing but
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
D. M. p. 12. Isaac Could not know his sons Esau Jacob from one another by feeling Iacob's hands being rough like those of Esau but by hearing he myght distinguish them Revisor To what intent this is brought is not easily discernable that Isaac hearing Iacob's voice surmised it to be like to that of Iacob is very tru but that he certainly knew him to be Iacob is not certain nay the astonishment into which the tru Esau asking his Blessing cast him is an evident signe that till then he was not quite free from the errour into which Iacob's goatish hands greasy clothes had brought him You seeme to think it necessary that our Senses either severally or at least conjointly be able to discerne betwixt any two objects proposed I think it were well that they could do so but do not beleiue that any greate danger would hang over the world if the Senses should be found insufficient sometimes They are all together vnable to distinguish betwixt two glasses of water two egges two twins a wolfe some dogs c. as hath beene often observed yet the sun keepes on his course women bring forth at their ordinary time Pompey's father was often taken for his Cooke Monogenes Pompey himself could not be distinguisht from Vibius Publitius both obscure men the later newly made free Comelius Scipio was often saluted by the name of Serapio a poore Sexton These other mistakes are recorded in Valerius maximus l. 9. c. 14. Yet that ignorance of the Romans did not ruin their state Why then are you so solicitous to provide a Remedy against it Or if a remedy be necessary why may not our Vnderstanding act the Apothecary provide it as well as our Senses Methinks it should rather belong to the vnderstanding to compare several objects together state wherein the agree wherein they differ then to the Senses Otherwise we shall find it no easy matter to fix the bounds betwixt these spiritual carnal facultyes for you will adjudge to Senses what hath hitherto owned the jurisdiction of the Vnderstanding as to what will be left to this queene of our facultyes our Reason this shall onely be tenant at will to Senses who by the same Topick may claime the rest leaue the Vnderstanding as the Covenanters left the King 3. D. M. p. 14. 15. Hath along discourse about the conditions necessary to make vs infallibly certain of what we see Viz 1. An eye well disposed 2. The medium betwixt that the object as it ought to be 3. The object at a convenient distance These conditions being observed the syght cannot be deceived in judging of colours or coloratums as such Revisor I would not mingle in this place meere Phylosophical matter with the rest if possible so J passe by these conditions onely proposing some questions 1. what certainty haue we that there are no more ways to deceiue our Syght than these conditions provide against Cannot swiftnesse or slownesse of motions alter the appearance of Colours coloratums Are there not some Colours various according to the situation of the silkes that for example which the french call Du Diable coessé something of the nature of a doves necke Do not Mountebanks find meanes to deceiue the eyes of their spectators thô their eyes be good the Medium distance competent 2. What certainty haue we those three condition be exactly observed As to the first may not our eyes be defectiue we not perceiue it Doth not Seneca write of an old woman who complained of all roomes being obscure yet never would acknowledge any fault in her eyes which were the only faulty As to the second may there not be a considerable difference in the Medium enough to Refract the Visual rays we not perceive it As to the third what certainty haue we that the object is at a competent distance Do we certainly know what is the exactest distance Do not painters direct vs who are vnskilled in that Art what is the proper Distance to see a Picture And in how many other things may the distance proper for such a determinate object be vnknowne to vs Againe what certainty haue we of the tru Distance it self Doth not the moone rising over a house seeme to touch it When a thing is within 20. yeards or a mile of vs we discerne the different distances but can we perceiue the different distances of several parts in the surface of the moone or sun Or of those of Other Planets the fixt stars How can the Distance competent secure our eyes from mistakes when distance it selfe is so obscure vncertaine When you haue answered all these questions I shall require you to answer two more The 1. what vnquestionable certainty you haue of all those Answers Jf you haue none then these conditions cannot secure vs from all possibility of errour in crediting our Senses The 2. whither the certainty of these conditions being exactly observed be equal to that we haue that what God says is tru If the certainty of the truth of God's words be greater then that of those conditions than we must conclude that To appeale to Senses in opposition to God's expresse words is rash dangerous obnoxious to Errour SECTION XIII Reasons for the credit of senses 1. We may rely on our senses 2. Courts of Iustice as free from errour amongst Catholicks as others 3. Depositions of senses subordinate to those of God 4. Our Doctrine doth not ground scepticisme 5. Scriptures Church not prejudiced by Transubstantiation 6. Conclusion 1. D. M. p. 17. What can be more knowne than Bread wine If than we may be mistaken in these what vse what certainly of Senses in any thing else And if there be not certainty of Senses why doth God command the Israelits to remember what they had Seene Heard teach it their Children Rev. J do not see that Faith is lesse taught or lesse strongly beleived where Transubstantiation is taught then where t is rejected Or that seasons would be changed the Earth lesse fruitfull or men lesse wise or lesse knowne to Relations or Freinds should God worke some other Changes vnobservable to Senses reveale it to vs. We credit our Senses as much as you where God doth not reveale the contrary what more can be due to any Created faculty Can we not prefer God's veracity before our Senses but we must absolutely vniversally reject these even where they conforme with Faith All discourse relyes on that principle Eadem vni tertio sunt idem inter se which is hardly reconcilable with the mystery of the Trinity Yet we do not suspect a fallacy in all other discourse because we make no exception but where God excepts he excepts only in that one mystery So we excepting against senses only in this particular where God excepts leaues them at full liberty in full credit in all things else D. M. p.
18. All matters of controversy both Civil Criminal Were by God's appointment to be decided by the Testimony of two or three Witnesses Now how can any man beare witnesse if he be vncertain of what he Heares or sees How is the Iudg certain he doth not condemne an jnnocent man Revisor I suspect it not very prudent to reproach Catholick courts of judicature with condemning Jnnocent men beleiving vncertain depositions of witnesses at this time of the day Those who deny Transubstantiation can take in judgment a dog for a wolf An jnnocent man for a Traitour Peter for Iudas as well as their neyghbours Your Aversion to this insensible change hath left Protestants as obnoxious to errour as other folkes witnesse the Tall slender flaxen hayred D. Iohn the Iesuits house in Paris next dore to the Louure men seene in several places the same time one sworne to be Blundel another to be Hesketh to whome they had no neerer relation then Iaphet as for as we can discover for this I appeale to the Heralds And our last fiue ye ares transactions afford twenty other odde example which I wish were buryed in oblivion recorded no where but in God's booke of mercy amongst the sins forgiuen 3. D. M. p. 18.20 If there be no certainty of Sense why did Christ vpbraide Chorasin Bethsaide for not beleving after having so many Miracles Why doth S. Iohn to proue the word was made Flesh tell vs he saw heard handled it Why did the Angel to proue The Resurrection bid Mary Magdalen come see the place where the Lord lay As inferring if he could not be seene he was not there A shrewd inference against Transubstantiation Why did Christ bid Thomas thrust his hand into his side Why did Christ ascend into Heaven in the syght of his Disciples Why did Luke say he writ what he had from eye witnesses Why did S. Peter say he was an eye witnesse of what he writ Why was the ghospel written or preacht if we are not sure of what we See or Heare Why were tru Miracles anciently done or false ones lately pretended to Why doth the Church proue her owne Being by Notes which if Senses be fallible can ground no certainty Rev. Your Whys at this rate may reach from Genesis to the Apocalypse hooke in to boote all Ecclesiastical Hystory hold vs a long lent's Reading which would haue contributed something more to confound an Ignorant Reader tire out one who would answer you Yet you will misse even of that aime for one answer will satisfy all all your questions being grounded on one false supposition To cleere this J will vse one example We are by Divine Humane laws bound to obey the King his Officers according to their several degrees the Authority communicated to them Yet with this difference that our obedience to the King is absolute without reserue in temporal things that to his Officers is conditional only as long as they continu obedient to the King But if these command vs to take vp armes against the King do what he forbids we cease to be obliged to obey them are obliged not to obey them Jf you say as subjects we are bound to obey them who haue Commissions from the King I grant it as long as they continu in their duty but no further now multiply Queres vpon this subject till Doomes day whither at their command we are bound to take Armes to come to a Rendez vous to stand sentinel shut the gates of a towne open them seize a man dismisse him advance present giue fire retreate c To these questions one answer is sufficient Whilst they command nothing contrary to the Kings will service they are to be obeyd when we are certain they designe a Rebellion rayse men onely to destroy the King build for themselues on his ruins we are not bound to obey them but rather bound not to obey them J answer in alike manner to all your Whys Our Vnderstanding receiues some knowledge from God by either immediate or mediate Revelation some by our Senses It is a general duty to admit whatever truly comes from God We may admit what comes from senses provided it be not contrary to what God averres but if they depose any thing contrary to what God reveales either in his written or vnwritten word we must renounce them stick to the revealed Truth So if they tell me athing is Chalke God tells me it is Cheefe they must pardon me if I rather beleiue God beleiue it to the Cheefe Thus althô contrary to four Senses but not to Hearing I beleiue Transubstantiation because God reveales it I may beleiue that I see a Ship go into it to crosse the seas that I see Bread eate it when I am hungry that J see Wine drink it when J am thirsty that I see a freind rejoice in his company that I see a good action commend it That I see a crime committed procure it be redrest by publicke Iustice that I reade a Hystory or heare a story beleiue it In fine giue as full credit to the verdict of Senses as any Protestant excepting onely that point which God tells me senses are deceived in This well considered I see no reason for those dismal apprehensions from our beleife of Transubstantiation as if by it Laws were made vselesse the sword of justice broken humane society dissolved all Doctrine Divine Humane made voyde of no vse both Church state brought to confusion destruction Rivers may run vnder a bridge winds blow from the same points of the compasse Senses left to their functions we to their direction in all other things though Transubstantiation be beleived D. M. p. 21. To deny the evidence certainty of Sense is in effect to deny all Possibility of Learning or of Teaching or of Knowing or of Beleiving any thing what soever brings a necessity of being a perfect Sceptick not only in other Arts c Sciences but in divinity it selfe also Revisor To secure you against this Phantôme I appeal to common experience to shew where Scepticks in matters of Religion a bound most in the Catholick or in the Protestant Communion let that decide whither Doctrine yours or ours opens a wider dore to Scepticisme What Doctrine Divine Humane haue your Brethren Reformers spared What authority so venerable as they haue not vndermined What law of God so necessary as they haue not rendred ineffectual by teaching all the commandments are impossible What rite so sacred as they haue not derided What Article of Faith fundamental as they haue not questioned rejected And when by your insolent combating Revealed Truths you haue weakned the Church shaked to pieces Faith rooted vp what had been planted by Christ watred by the Apostles growne vp in following ages by this brought into the world
countenanced Libertinisme Atheisme Scepticisme you Charge them on vs just as the late long Parliament charged the civil wars that Iliad of miserys caused by themselues on King Charles 1. Keepe to your selues those deformed brats they are yours the essential Principles of your first Reformers are evident Premisses to these vnavoidable conclusions Your Luther your Calvin your Zuinglius your Ivel eate the sowre grapes which set at all your teeth on edge They layd the egges out of which these cockatrices are hatcht And while you retaine your owne Principles you must expect the same odious encrease of mischeif 5. E. M. p. 21. If there be no certainty of Senses how know they that it is the Body Bloud of Christ By immediate Inspiration or by Seing the Scripture or Hearing the Church They pretend to no immediate Jnspiration Seing the Scriptures hearing the Church cannot be relyed on because there is no certainty of Senses Revisor The first part I admit that we do not rely on any immediate mediate Revelation or jnspiration The rest that we cannot rely on what we See in Scripture and Heare from the Church you know is contrary to our sentiments absolutely false Haec si imprudens facis nihil coecius si prudens nihil sceleratius S. Austin l. cont Adam c. 15. If you reproach vs that Paradox not knowing we abhorre it What is more blind than you If you know we renounce it yet charge it on vs what more wicked than you 6. D. M. p. 21.22 Their Interpretation of this place of Scripture must needs frustrate make voyde the vse end of all Scripture of the Church it self also consequently it is not a tru one Rev. Here is a lame jllation out of two false Premisses as J haue shewed And J appeale to any man who hath but common sense to decide whither make voyde the Scripture we who subscribe to it or you who contradict it Scripture says That is Christ's Body Catholicks say That is Christ's Body Non-Catholicks say That is not Christ's Body Credit your eyes for whome you pleade see whither part Frustrates the end of Scripture we subscribe to Scripture we defend it if we are deceived God hath deceived vs. But he cannot deceiue vs so we are sure we are not deceived As for you you contradict the scripture your Senses delude you you fyght against the scripture or if for it it is only as your Tru protestants fought for the King D. M. p. 22 If there be no Transubstantiation the Papists are as grosse Jdolaters as the Heathens says Costerus a Iesuit Revisor If the Heavens fall we may catch larkes And if an Asse flyes he will moue swiftly But what do these conditional Propositions signify while the conditions ramble in the imaginary spaces of impossible Beings are only the objects of fancifull heads You will go hungry to bed if for your supper you rely on those Larkes you will as soon performe your journy riding on a snayle as if you expect the winged Asse And Papists neede not feare Hell or Purgatory if they haue no other sin to Answer for than beleiving Christ's Body to be where he says it is and Adoring him there solely because they firmely beleiue that he is there having his owne expresse words for their warrant Conclusion of this Book An appeale from the sole competent judge which knoweth can determine to one in competent who nether knoweth the thing in question nor can decide it is an evident signe of a desperate Cause You appeale from the sole competent judge God his Church to one incompetent the Senses which nether know the thing in question the meaning of the words of Christ nor can pronounce sentence in it Therefore your Cause is desperate Otherwise thus A sentence of an incompetent judge is insignificant The Sensations are a sentence of incompetent judges therefore they are insignificant THE THIRD BOOK A REVISION OF THE VINDICATION OF THE ARGVMENT FROM SENSE THE PREFACE I Do not professe my selfe a common champion for all Catholicks that either Attacke Protestants or are Attackt by them Had God called me to that taske he would haue endowed me with a greater strength of mind Body a larger extent of knowledge more leasure from other employments then I haue Wherefore I confine my selfe to a much narrower sphere more proportioned to my abilityes viz to that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Iude verse 3. for which seing all are obliged Earnestly to contend I see my self vnder that general obligation As also to the defence of our Holy mother the Curch by whome we receiue this Faith without whose assistance Faith it self that precious gif of our bountifull lord would fayle As for the sentiments of other private persons the being of the Church the jnnocency of our Doctrine the purity of our Faith not depending on them I think it no necessary duty to make good all they say further than that cannot be destroyed without weakning Faith And in alike manner I do not expect nor desire any should concerne themselues for what I say but only on like occasions that it be such as Faith would receiue some dammage werer it confuted If any one out of an opinion that J go astray or am in an errour in what J write in defense of the Church will take the paines to shew it me with Charity meekenesse J shall thank him for his labour either acknowledge my personal errour if it be such or giue a reason why I do not Hence I was for some time doubtfull whither I should review this Vindication no body being concerned in it besides the namelesse Authour of an obsure Pamphlet whose merits are as obscure as his person namelesse especially some of his opinions being far different from what the Church her felf as well as divines hold if his meaning be sincerely represented by my freind D. M. ryghtly vnderstood by me And I think the Argument from sense low enough whither this Anonimus stand or fall althô M. Doctor page 4. is pleased to say that if this Pamphlet falls his Argument remaines not only vnanswered but vnanswerable as if that anonimus were our Hector our Troy were to be defended by his hand or by none at all Yet I am of opinion that my Reader will find something in my Review of the Argument to which what is here sayd will not giue full satisfaction probably it will scarce be brought within canon shot of it So my Review of this Treatise is a worke of supererogation which J vndertake meerely because there is occasion giuen to handle some few material points which further confirme what I haue sayd if well vnderstood SECTION XIV 1. Division of Miracles 2. Some insensible out of scripture 3. Arguments from Aetymology of words or names frivolous 1. WHo that man was whome p. 1. you call Namelesse is not material but why you
Schismaticks Many followed Absalom to Hebron without any design against their lawful Monark David althô they were after engaged in the Rebellion And many follow Heresiarks intending no evil but hoping good from such as pretend nothing else who would hate these perfectly if they knew their Hypocrisy or malice who are insensibly engaged in the guilt of separation which they strengthen with their presence These nether having the guilt of a sin against the Holy Ghost vpon their Conscience nor their soulhardned against the Call of God we hope may be reclaimed And a Conference severally to such as these may proue beneficial Though not to the whole body of Separatists vpon which the more factious heads will always haue too great an influence How fruitlesse of old were the Conferences of S. Peter with Simon the magician of S. Athanasius with Arrius of S. Austin with Felix with Pascentianus Felicianus Emeritus or the Arrians of Lanfrancus with Berengarius of S. Bernard with Peeter Abaylardus what good came of the Conference of Catholicks Hugonots at Poissy in France Of those betwixt Catholicks Lutherans in Germany And that betwixt Protestants Presbiterians at Hampton-court brought no good althô directed by K. Iames a learned wise Prince to whom both Partys owed Obedience in Ecclesiastical matters as to one whom both owned to be head of their Church With great reason then Tertullian Prescrip c. 15.16.17 advises out of the Apostles words to Avoyd a Heretick after twice warning him not to meet Hereticks except only to Warn them That much harm may be feared but no good hoped for by Disputes with them That we ought to presse them to declare whence they had the scriptures If from Catholicks as most certainly Protestants had then they must from them also receiue the sense of scriptures Thus he Out of which it doth not follow that Catholicks are bound to receiue the sense of scripture from the Iews from whom they received the Holy scriptures because those same Persons who brought vs the scriptures from them proved their Mission from God declared the blindnesse Apostasy of the Iews warned vs as from God the Authour of Scriptures to be ware of them S Austin 13. cont Faustum c. 12. is of the same mind that all such Disputations are fruitless Hunnericus King of the wandals proposed a conference betwixt his Arrian Bishops those of the Catholick Communion But Eugenius Bishop of Carthage in the name of all the rest rejected the Proposition saying they could not accept it without consent of other Bishops cheïfely of him of Rome Victor of Vtica lib. 2. de Persec wandalicâ The Civil Law forbids all disputations L. Nemo C. de summa Trinitate The same are forbidden to seculars by the Canon law C. Quicumque de Haereticis in 6. For some particular reasons without any prohibition from the Church by common consent Catholicks refused to encounter some Hereticks Such was Sisinnius who because he had a pleasant drolling wit would seeme victor by turning all discourse into ridicule when he had nothing substantial to reply S. Austin when a Manichaean was avoyded for his singular skill in Logick For a like reason J beleiue Christians were warned by the Apostle Colos 2.8 To beware of being deceived through Philosophy Yet we cannot we dare not vniversally blame those who by Conferences or Disputes endeavour to bring back straglers into the way of salvation For Christ disputed with the Pharisees S. Stephen with the Iews in Hierusalem S Paul Apollo with the same else where S. Hilarius with the Arrians S. Austin with the Donatists Manichaeans others This Saint Epist 48. Says Cum Hereticis verbis agendum est disputatione pugnandum ratione vincendum Treate with Haereticks with words fyght them with discourse overcome them with reason Hence Divines do nether absolutely approue nor absolutely condemn such Conferences but hold them law full on some conditions in certain circumstances which may be found in them This honourable man hints at two conditions 1. that the Disputants on both sides be learned moderate 2. That They proceed freely charitably Which are good but scarce sufficient For 1. it is no easy matter amongst those who sincerely haue any Religion to find such as are Moderate in his sense And 2. even the most Moderate men may be so pinioned by jnstructions from those who depute them that their Personal Moderation will signify nothing for they must follow their jnstructions vnder pain of being disowned by their party left to make good their own Acts. Thus Melancthon Bucerus who were esteemed Moderate could effect nothing at the several meetings to which they were deputed The same I say of the 2. condition debating Freely Charitably which signifyes nothing vnlesse the whole Party 1. giue a full power to its deputyes without any reserue oblige it selfe to ratify approue what so ever shall be agreed on consented to by them And 2. would assuredly stand to that Power Do we not see that a separation is first resolved on errours sought out alleadged only to colour it Did not Luther laugh at the labour in vain of the Catholicks who confuted his errours saying that before they had dispacht the old ones he would find them more worke by broaching new And how often are the same objections renewed after a full satisfactory answer That for example of Pagan Idolatry reproached to vs lately by E. S G. B. R. C. but answered so home by T. G. W. E. that it will be layd aside till these are forgotten then we may expect to see some huffing minister thunder all the curses of scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse against the Church of Rome as guilty of the very Pagan Idolatry Thus Trita haereticorum arma colligunt Says S. Prosper They take vp the broken weapons of their brethren As some rivers pass vnperceived for some space vnder ground then rise again so that so other Objections against the Church And if J am not mistaken in the Horoscope of this Argument drawn from sense against Transubstantiation it will run the same fate for while a loue of separation continues these or some other pretexts will be vsed to excuse it Wherefore The only meanes to put a good end to all Disputes in Religion is to procure a sincere Loue of Peace mutual communion The differences says this Lord are not so many nor so great but meanes may be found to reconcile the two Churchs I hope there may be meanes found thó this grounds not my hope for J do on the contrary aver that there never were any Hereticks of one denemination who haue erred in more or more material points then Protestants For to say nothing of several all most all antiquated Heresyes received by them they haue cut off all the vnwritten a great part of the written word of God destroyed
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
wisdome but in demonstration of the spirit of Power Althô it doth not sufficiently appeare whither the words themselues contained that manifestation of the spirit or the Person who spoke or both 5. All this was confirmed by Miracles which may properly enough be called the Broade seale of the King of Kings for as a Broade seale is a publicke Attestation of the Truth of a Patent or Proclamation to which it is annext solikewise a miracle is an Attestation of Almyghty God of a Truth delivered in his name Divina potentia etiam factis loquitur says S Austin Epist 49.9.6 Men speake by words God also by deedes And Origen contra Celsum l. 2. says the same This language of God by miracles is soo cleere that even the most stupid vnderstand it yet so hard that none can speake it but he who is Almyghty Hence Mar. 16 God is sayd To haue confirmed the words with the signes following it And Heb. 24. To haue borne witnesse with signes wonders divers miracles gifts of the Holy Ghost So when Christ our Lord Mat. 9.6 sayd That ye may know that the son of man hath Power on Earth to forgiue sins he sayd to the sick of the Palsye Arise take vp thy bed goe vnto thy house it was to call God to witnesse that Truth that he had such a Power And God by doing the miracle did virtually say I attest that he hath such a Power And who seing this could doubt whither Christ had such a Power without doubting of the divine veracity Yet we must not hence inferre that Miracles are the formal object of our Faith For as the only motiue why a Proclamation is obeyed is nothing else but the King's will commanding the Broade seale serues only to assure vs that is the King's deede Soe the sole motiue of our Faith is divine veracity authorizing what that man S. Paul for example preached the miracle confirmes vs in the perswasion that man delivers divine Truth SECTION VIII 1. 3. Faith by Hearing 2. Words are the best of signes 4. Scripture the object of Hearing Where of the invention of writing 1. THe Doctor of the gentils who laboured with greater successe in conversions than all the other Apostles seemes in a particular manner to speake of the Hearing as conducing to the propagation of Faith in a singular way His words are these Rom. 10. a versu 14. How shall they call on him in whome they haue not beleived how shall they beleiue in him of whome they haue not heard how shall they heare without a Preacher And how shall they preach except they besent And concludes so then Faith comes by Hearing hearing by the word of God Which words confound all enthusiasts others who vndertake to preach without being lawfully called or sent by the Holy Ghost But our present businesse is to examin why Faith is so particulary resolved into Hearing Nothing like this being any where sayd of any other Sense 2. This will be easily vnderstood if we remember that as is abouesayd Faith is an Assent giuen to an otherwise vnknowne Truth on the credit of another This cannot be done without the others thought be made knowne to me to effect this some outward signes must be vsed for men cannot speake to nor heare one another as Angels do by an immediate communication of thoughts but are forced to make vse of outward signes to which some signification knowne to both partyes is annext Now of all signes none more easy or significant than articulate words which with their signification are by the Hearing conveyghed to the mind of the Hearer who by that meanes comes to know what the other averres giues his Assent to it And so Faith comes by Hearing Yet because there are other ways to communicate our Thoughts particularly by the eyes hearing may be thought not to be the only way to beget Faith Men may speake to the eyes by gestures or motions of Head Hand or other parts of the Body if some meaning be annext to them And in this sort of language the ancient Mimi Greekes Romans were excellent Now that mute way of speaking by gestures of the Body to the eyes is much out of vse almost forgotten As to other senses they can reckon but very few significant signes so Hearing surpasses all senses in this by reason of articulate sounds which it receiues passes to the mind Which I learne from S. Austin l. 2. de Doctrinâ Christianâ Cap. 3. Tuba Tibia Cythara dant non solum suavem sed etiam significantem sonum Sed omnia signa verbis comparata paucissima sunt Verba enim inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi quaecumque animo concipiuntur si ea prodere quisque velit Several musical instruments giue not only a sweete but also a significatiue sound But words are the Princes of all signes as well for their number variety as for their efficacy in signifying Suppose I know a Truth vnknowne to another would bring him to beleiue it how must I do this 1. I choose words proper to signify my mind to him 2. J vtter those words 3. he heares them 4. beleiues the thing to be as I sayd because he is perswaded I am not deceived nor would deceiue him Thus is propagated Humane Faith Now to Divine That God can speake without vsing any words to the mind immediatly is an vndoubted Truth seing the greatest part if not all Revelations were originally made in that nature to some one Person who knew certainly not only what was sayd but that it was God who spoke it But whither this Evidentia rei attestante Deo this cleere knowledge of God affirming it is consistent with Faith or transferres that knowledge to another species of science Vision Theiologi certant adhuc sub judice lis est But this is certaine 1. That it is not necessary to Faith otherwise the mission of Preachers would be superfluous 2 That God did not vse it to all men to exclude pretences to Enthusiasmes of Fanaticks prevent the jllusions of the devil 3. That God seemes in propagating his Faith to accommodate himself to the ordinary way of men A King sends his Embassadors whither he goes not in person with jnstructions what to say credentialls to procure beleife to what they say their words are looked on as the words of the King their master So God sends the Apostles as his Embassadors 2. cor 5.20 he giues them their instructions to teach what they had learnt of him for their credentials he gaue them Power t s worke miracles Hence The words they spoke were not received as the words of men but as they truly were the words of God 1. Thes 2.13 And the Faith giuen to their words was Divine Faith 3. That this was is to the end of the wold will be the ordinary way of conveyghing Faith is
pleading for Sense against Faith you endanger the losse of both And of your Reason too giving me here a reason against yourself For if Accidents remaine when the man is no more as certainly he is not when his soul is departed why may not the Accidents of Bread remaine when the Bread is no more D. M. If there could be a substance without its owne Accidents or Accidents without their owne substance yet no man can be obliged to beleiue there was one without the other because it is not possible to judge of one but by the other Rev. All men are obliged to beleiue what God reveales So if God reveales that the substance is changed althô the Accidents remaine we are to beleiue the Change But say you We cannot judge of one but by the other Why not good sir if God speakes Can we not as assuredly ground a judgment vpon his word as vpon any Sense nay all the Senses together 5. Having thus reviewed the grounds of your judgment in this place let vs score vp some Paradoxes of yours 1. Miracles are Appellations to sense What Sense did Christ appeale to when Luk. 4.30 He past through the midst of a multitude of men went his way To what sense doth he appeale when he converts a sinner 2. Miracles Are done to convince our vnderstanding of a Truth J challenge any man to shew in scripture any proofe of this saying taken generally Many Miracles are private done for the releife of private Persons Doth not the Church teach vs to haue recourse to God by Prayer in personal wants And why so if God on such occasions never acts contrary to second causes 3. The Magicians rods were not turned into serpents Jt is expressely sayd Ex. 7.12 Their rods Became serpents J know Fathers are divided in this point But why you should take to that opinion which seemingly contradicts scripture I know not vnlesse it be your custome to regard it little But if they remained rods how had they the Appearance or Accidents of Serpents were by the spectators judged to be such Sure you may as well beleiue there may be the Accidents of Bread without its substance as the Accidents of Serpents where there never were any serpents Againe how could Moses Rod made a serpent devour the rest if they remained staues is not easy to vnderstand That one serpent should swallow another is no greate wonder we dayly see the Dains swallow their young ones vpon approach of danger their limber yeilding bodys are fitted for it But a strong staffe is not so pliable 4. All things consist of are made vp of Accidents as well as of substance So that Accidents are essential to man to other things otherwise they would not make him vp as Well as Substance this being Essential Thus far we haue examined the proofe of your maior Now comes your minor We will see how that succeedes SECTION XII 1. What is the object of sense 2. Whither senses about it do discerne of their objects in it are mistaken 3. Of the conditions requisit to certify our senses 1. D. D. M. p. 11. If Papists say the proper objects of Senses are not the Substances but Accidents of things I answer that though indeed the Objectum formale or Objectum quo of the sense are Accidents yet Substances are the Objectum materiale or the Objectum quod even of our outward senses My meaning is that though Senses do discerne immediately of Accidents onely yet mediatly by Accidents they discerne of substances also So that nether Accidents alone nor Substance alone but the thing consisting of both is the compleate adequate object of Sense Revisor This place seemes not so very proper to procure by some shreds of Latin a few schoole termes the repute of a Learned Clarck when the same things myght as well haue been sayd in plaine English in the text as in the margent had you so thought it fitting I will not imitate you Though you cite as many schoole termes as are to be found in Scotus borrow hard words from Arabick Hebrew as well as from Latin you will never prove that my eye discernes the substance as such My eye represents a white object but whither that white be in an egge or in astone or in some other substance to that my eye says nothing The same betwixt two egges betwixt Chalke Cheese c. And my eares tell me there is an Articulate sound but what it meanes my eare doth not tell Or else we must say our eare is changed as often as we learne a new language Thus the Senses only discover the Colour or the thing Coloured as it is such no further The Eye sees white on a wall discernes if it be pure or mingled with blacke or red spots cleere or darkish The Eare heares the voice discernes if it be musical or not The hand perceiues the object whither it be hard or soft rough or smooth warme or cold But to judge that the white is Plaster on a wall the voice that of a man singing the prayses of God the thing toucht the hand of a freind is the work of the vnderstanding directed by Senses but passing beyond them For as the vnderstanding discovers the meaning of words which the eare heares vnderstands not these two acts thô as different as soul Body are so linkt together as they seeme the same Act so it happens in other Senses whose Actions haue such a connexion with those of the mind which they stir vp that they seeme but one thô they really differ 2. D. M. p. 11. 12. If Senses doe not discerne of Substances how could a man say he saw such a man or heard such a story Is not every Substance discernable by its proper Accidents why are our Senses giuen vs if we cannot by them distinguish things themselues as well as their Accidents wherefore did God giue vs several Senses but onely for the better discerning of objects that if one Sense faile the others may supply Revisor Here are four questions all importing the same thing resolved with the same answer Both you we agree that it is convenient we haue some knowledge to discerne of objects This you will haue to be the sole worke of the Senses We say it is originally in the Senses but it is compleated in by the Vnderstanding Now to your four Queres To the first we can say we saw heard a story because our Vnderstanding helped by senses judged so To the 2. By our vnderstanding we can discerne of Objects substances by the meanes of Senses which represent their Accidents To the 3. Our Senses are giuen vs as servants to our Vnderstanding as its Informers To the 4. We haue several Senses because there are several objects of Senses according to the species of objects there ought to be divers Senses as you may find in Aristotle other Philosophers
should stile his Pamphlet Worthlesse I know not I haue never seene it to my knowledge yet what you cite out of him bating some phrases which to your polite eares sound harsh as some of mine will It speakes it not much inferiour to some others Then you giue vs a view of as much of the whole treatise as relates to your Argument which I will omit here being content with once viewing them as they occurre afterwards The first thing setled by this Anonimus is that some Miracles are Sensible others insensible Or as he says some are Motiues to Faith others Objects of Faith which is very neere the same as to our present purpose This distinction disgruntles you who cannot suffer that any Miracles should be sayd to be Insensible But I will proue there are such Because 1. Christ was borne Clauso Virginis Deiparae vtero without any prejudice to the virginal integrity of his Blessed mother This was a Miracle as is evident yet it was not Sensible Therefore some Miracles are not Sensible 2. His coming out of the sepulcher shut vp with a greate stone sealed was it not Miraculous Can two bodyes naturally be penetrated Could his sacred body passe through that stone without penetration of two solid bodyes such were that of Christ that stone miraculous And if you say Christs body past from the place in the sepulcher to that without the stone without passing the middle space Ab extremo ad extremum sine medio that skip will be Miraculous insensible too so it will confirme what J say You cannot say the stone was removed for him to passe for it is evident that Angel coming from Heaven roaled away the stone who was found sitting vpon it Mat. 28.2 3. Alike Miracle hapned when he entred into the chamber where his Disciples were assembled Here was again a penetration of two bodyes by what Senses or Sense was it perceived They saw they heard they toucht him when he was entred stood in the midst of them but his very entrance which was Miraculous was vnknowne to all not perceived by any till it was past so the Miracle it selfe was Insensible These three Miracles being so evident in scripture could not escape the piercing eyes of the Fathers let vs heare their opinion of them S. Ambrose l. 10. com in Lucae c. 24. Mirum quomodo se natura corporea peer impenetrabile Corpus infuderit invisibili aditu visibili conspectu It is wonderfull or Miraculous how a corporal substance could insinuate it self through a firme impenetrable body it being invisible at his entrance Which was miraculous visible after it Note that invisibili aditu his entrance invisible or insensible By these that glorious Doctor of the Church declares that all Miracles are not Sensible which is a novelty to this old D. D. S. Augustin Epist 3. ad Volusianum Ipsa virtus per inviolatae Matris Virginea viscera membra infantis eduxit quae postea per clausa ostia membra juvenis introduxit Hic si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile si exemplum poscitur non erit singulare Demus Deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur investigari non posse In talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis That same Power brought to lyght the Infants body through the virginal womb of his mother which afterwards when at mans estate brought that same body through the shut dores into the Chamber If you seeke a reason for this It will not be wonderfull if you require an example it will not be singular In such things the Power of the workman is the sole total reason of the worke Amongst S. Austin's works there is a 2. sermon vpon the saturday in Easter-weeke who ever be the Authour of it In it J find these words Quid mirum si Dominus ad Discipulos glorificatum Corpus claustris stupentibus intromisit qui illaeso Materni pudoris signaculo januam mundi huius intravit All confirm the same S. Gregory hom 26. in Evang. Quodomo post Resurrectionem Corpus Dominicum verum fuit quod clausis januis ad Discipulos ingredi potuit Sed sciendum nobis est quod divina operatio si ratione comprehenditur non est admiranilis nec fides habet meritum cui humana ratio praehet experimentum Thus the Apostle of our Nation How was Christ's body real after his Resurrection which could enter to the Disciples the dores being shut But we are to take notice that the divine workes cease to be admirable when Reason comprehends them Faith ceases to be meritorious when it begins to rely on Human discourse Out of these Authoritys it is evident 1. that those three passages of Christ's body out of his B. mother wombe out of the sepulcher into the Chamber were by the Fathers esteemed Miraculous indeed no man in his wits will deny it And 2. that these passages were not perceptible by any sense but were truly Insensible Quod erat probandum My 4. Proofe is the Miracle of stopping the fountain of Bloud of the woman mar 5. no body perceived this besides God the woman her self Et had not he by enquiry forced her to owne it publickly before all the throng nether we now nor those then present had knowne any thing of it 5. When our lord walked on the sea Iohn 6.19 for about thirty furlongs or neere four miles That walking on the waters was Miraculous from the beginning for to each part of that fluid yeilding Body whch his sacred feete toucht he gaue the consistency of a firme floore Yet who saw who heard who felt or perceived this In the dark till towards the end of his walke when drawing neere the ship he was descryed by his Disciples 6. The casting out of devils was not sensible for nether the local motion of spirits nor spirits themselues are objects of Sense yet how frequent are these in scripture Lastly Iohn 21.25 An vnconceivable number of miracles were sayd to done by Iesus which are no where written for the bookes would fill the world It is rash to say all these were done in the syght of many there being no proofe for it in scripture or Fathers I know that Iohn 20.30 Many other signes not recorded in scripture are sayd To haue beene done in ths syght of the disciples But it will be no easy taske to proue that none but such hinted at here are meant in that other place So it is very probable that of those many Miracles some were done in private none or very few knowing of feelling seing or by any sense perceiving them Let vs now harken to our freind D. M. p. 4. No such distinction of Miracles is found in the Ghospel those of Christ his Disciples were evident to Senses Rev. Answer 1. this is not tru I haue giuen you many instances of Miracles not evident to Senses recorded in scripture Answer 2. The designe of the
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