Counter-Queries My next Task is to examine his exceptions against my Categorical Answers I shall not contend about words nor much crave excuse for want of accurate expression in that hasty delivery of my Conceptions to comply with your request at that time 1. As to the first he excepts against the term Christianity as dubious to make my Answer acceptable I will insert the Term he desires and say True Christianity But I fear the addition will dispel no mist of doubtfulness if there were any such about the answer For Hereticks alwaies pretend to Truth as much as to Christianity and would be taken for the only true Christians But to satisfy his nice and curious palate I answer as fully as he desires There was is and shall be till the worlds end a Catholick Church that in every age is visible by profession of true Christianity to the persons then living That is to say In all ages God had and will have and preserve some Christians who shall so profess the Truth according to the doctrine of the Gospel that their light of Faith shall shine to the men of their generation respectively But I cannot so easily admit another addition sliely made by the Querist to my Answer viz. in their whole profession Latet anguis in herbâ 1 Cor. 3.12,13 He that professes true Christianity may build hay and stubble upon the foundation and yet not miscarry in his person whilst he holds fast his profession of the saving truth unto the end though he be saved through the fire and loose his superstructure as St. Paul assures us It is not therefore necessary that any person or Church which maintains true Christianity should profess it in such an absolute purity as that water should never be mixed with the wine It is enough that poyson is not admixed with the liquor of life But because I perceive that there is much ambiguity in the termes of the Query for which it deserves to be called Fallacia plurium interrogationum a sophistical trick of asking many things under one word that hath two faces under a hood I will weigh the vvords over again and mould my answer anevv fitted to his explication of the vvord Catholick In common speech Catholick is no more than Universal Just. Mart. dial cum Tryph. Justin Martyr vvho vvith many others of that age believed a particular Resurrection of some that should rise and reign 1000 years before the end of the World calls the last Resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Catholick or in plain English Universal Resurrection There is also a Catholick Faith vvhich is common to all Christians and comprises all that is necessary to Salvation And the Church of Christ novv unconfined to any one place or nation but spreading like a fruitful vine her branches throughout the carth is called Catholick that is not National as the old Church of the Jevvs vvas but Universal since the Gospel is preached to all the vvorld indifferently and the voice of the Apostles vvent forth into all the earth and their vvords unto the ends of the habitable vvorld Col. 2.6 Rom. 10.18 It is not to be omitted that in a secondary and borrovved sense the word Catholick is applied to them that hold the true Faith which is common to all Christians and therefore Catholick In this sense not only a particular Church but also a singular person may be called Catholick meaning one that professes the Catholick Faith But the Querist who hath a peculiar language and though he speaks English yet means Italian hath taught me since I first read his Questions and answered them according to the common usage of the words that he meant by the Catholick Church the Representative Church in a full and lawful meeting of the Priests and Pastors to teach the Church diffusive Now according to this sense of the words Catholick Church I do turn my Affirmative Answer into a Negative and say There is not in all ages a visible Catholick Church meaning a general Council lawfull assembled If this be Equivocation you see who teac hes me to be double tongued The exception against my second Answer is that I add the word ordinarily and he supposes that I might mean that some may be saved in extraordinary cases out of the visible Church and therefore he takes my Answer to be Affirmative That some may be saved out of the Catholick Church and this he thinks is contrary to the stream of Antiquity Mage cernit acutum quam aut Aquila out Serpens Epidaurius Horat. If he had not had the malignant disposition rather then the quick-sighted eye of a Serpent he would never have espied a fault in my Answer and fancied an Affirmative sentence in a Negative Proposition For if he had not been forward to cavil he might have easily conceived a very obvious reason of my putting in the word Ordinarily Because we know not how God will deal in judging all out of the pale of the Church and we that live within it are concerned to give an account onely for our selves and for the use of our Light and Talent I said that Ordinarily out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation This negative which resolves nothing positively concerning Gods extraordinary acting cannot without unjust violence to my words be taken for an affirmative sentence That some may be saved out of the Church And I hope you will excuse if not justify my unwillingness to limit the spirit and mercies of God which blows and shine where God pleases As for Christian Antiquity you know that many antient Doctors have been very favourable in their judgment not only of them who lived by the law of nature in a communion with God when the Covenant of Grace was first ratified with the Hebrew Patriarchs though those worshippers of God were not of the stock of Israel Of this see Is Casaub Exerc 1. ad Card. Baron App. c. 1. but also of them who lived in latter ages in the acknowledgment of one God with a constant observation of Truth and Justice such as were Socrates and Aristides But according to the Querists explication of the Church Catholick I shall now change the shape of my second Answer also and say That Christians may attain salvation out of a Representative Church which he gives to be the meaning of a Catholick Church in the Querie and charges me with sophistry because I will not understand it so The members of a general Council being but few and that not agreed who have right to be so it were hard with Christendom if all who are extra Concilium out of that compass were excluded out of Heaven I add that the Church Catholick may stand and all the members of it may be saved without a Church Representative Now because all that he says is but beating the Air and very impertinent to his design of making a Convert which is the thing aimed at I add a Proposition which though
it be not a direct Answer to his Question yet it shall strangle or stifle his intended Conclusion in the conception and it is this A Man may be a member of Christs body which we now call the Catholick Church and be in the Ark out of which there is no Salvation though he be not in communion with the chief Governors of the Roman Synagogue Let him deny this if he dare make an open forfeiture of his charity Let him disprove it if he can There was a visible Church and Salvation attained in it before there was a stone laid at Rome of a spiritual Temple for Jerusalem was the mother and Mistress of all Churches and not Rome as the Father of lies teaches Papists to say and swear and it may be so again when Babylon the great the City seated on seven hills is fallen as a milstone cast into the bottom of the Sea In the mean time the old position of Dr. Jo. Reynolds is worthy of Remembrance The Roman Church is neither the Catholick Church nor a sound member of the Catholick Church Read the Bul. of P. Pius 4. which enjoyns all Clergy-men and all in Religious Orders to swear to the new Creed whereof this is one Article I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches My Answer to his third Querie is very magisterially but ridiculoussy censured by him to have nothing of a Categorical Answer The Proposition is for certain Categorical because it is not hypothetical Let the Question and the Return be compared and this will appear defective in nothing necessary to an Answer The demand is this I desire to know by designation which amongst them all which pretend to be the Catholick Church or a part of it is now the Catholick Church The Answer runs thus That is the Holy Catholick Church which professeth that one Holy Catholick Faith once for all delivered to the Saints c. ut supra He says I give no designation of any particular profession or professions of Christians That is to say if I mistake not his meaning I do not name Protestants or Papists the Church of England or of Rome or of Greece or of Germany Indeed if I had so done I had then given an Answer that could not satisfie any rational man For no Church denominated from the place of habitation which way of distinction of Churches is usual in Scripture or from some bond of union which is not general to all Christendom can properly and truly be called the Catholick that is the Universal Church But I that was at liberty to design it as well as I could did give a significant Character of the Catholick Church taken from its proper office and action The Querist says I tell what the holy Catholick Church is Very good But I do not design which of so many several professions in the world is now the Catholick Church Now if he expect that I should play the fool and say that a particular Church is properly the Catholick Church I hope you will not be offended if I do not satisfie his expectation And when I have designed the Church Universal so that a man may understand what it is I think with the same labour I have told him which is it because the Church Universal is but one as he that tels what the Sun is designs which is the Sun because there are not many Suns And because the Church is a collective body that is one by aggregation of similar parts each of which lesser Societies is called a Church I have given him a Mark whereby he may know whether any particular Society be a member of that Body since the one faith runs through the one body and is the life of that body and of every limb of it But my fault is that I design one obscure thing by another that is equally obscure I will mend my fault if I do not justifie my self from having committed one I confess all spiritual things are obscure to men that are meerly carnal or natural but where the Gospel shines if it be attended unto it brings light with it whereby we may discern things that differ For judging or discerning of a true Church from a false we must first know in some measure what is Truth Mat. 7.16,17,18 For if we must discern a good tree from a bad by the fruit as our Saviour directs us to do then we must first know what is good and bad in fruit and then consider what fruit the tree bears and from thence give a judgement of the tree This is the method which we must take in the enquiring for a true Church Till we know what is Truth and that is * Thy scil Gods Law is the Truth Psal 119.142 Gods Word is the Truth Joh. 17.17 the Faith once delivered to the Saints we cannot know what Church brings forth good or bad fruit Profession of faith is bearing of fruit The goodness of this fruit is Truth that is agreeableness to the Word of God It is therefore necessary that we know the Truth before we can know a Church to be true Now though the Truth or the holy Catholick Faith may be under doubt and debate yet hat God set it up in the Scriptures so conspicuously 2 Cor. 4.3 that if the Gospel be hid it is hid to them that perish Therefore I added to the Character of the Church by which I designed it to be known that is the profession of faith the means whereby we may know what the faith is which being professed is the sole certain mark of a true Church For the marks of the Church which Romanists commonly give are separable from the Truth and if they be taken singly without truth are false and treacherous indices whereas the true faith of it self is a sure note of a true Church And I pointed at Scripture which is the Rule of faith on purpose in mine Answer that I might not be thought to send a man to look for a thing in the dark without a light And now Sir do you judge whether I have deserved blame by my designation of the Catholick Church by professing the Catholick Faith But to make mine Answer both applicable to the Question and also useful to you I shall a little explicate and enlarge my sence It is presumed that the enquiry after a Church is made by a Christian that may be distracted in the variety of visible Societies differing one from another but every one equally pretending to be a Church but his distraction is the greater because of all Societies only the Roman Synagogue doth challenge to her self to be the Ark out of which there is no salvation There are three Reasons which may move Christians to enquire for a Church or a visible Society of Christians 1. That they may serve God and offer up the spiritual sacrifices of praise and prayer by Christ Jesus Heb. 13.15 1 Pet.
that the learned Papists who differ about the Conception of the blessed Virgin Mary do on either side urge for their defence universal Tradition If then it be not sufficient to determine this controversie why should it be set up to justle Scripture out of its Seat to make room for another means of determining controversies which is as uneffectual and indeed infinitely more unfit If a Papist say that the determination of this point is not necessary which is a gross absurdity because this remaining undetermined no small part of Popish worship of the Virgin Mary as the Feast of the Immaculate Conception hath no certain ground of Faith and by the Apostle St. Paul's sentence is Sin Rom. 14 23. we may with more reason say that the determination of the points in controversie between us is not necessary Or if it be necessary that determination is to be regulated now as the decision of things in dispute was of old in the general Councils by the Scripture or written word of God by which Tradition it self is to be measured and judged as St. Paul made the Scriptures the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or measure of truth between * Mat. 26.15 Read 1. Cor. 15.3,4 the Tradition of the Jews on the one side and the Christians on the other side concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 6. Because here is frequent mention of Tradition and the ambiguity of the word is apt to beget mistakes and confusion therefore give me seave to unfold the Senses of the word that we may have a clear apprehension of the matter in hand Tradition is sometimes put to signify the thing delivered whether the way of delivery be writing or speaking and Tradition thus taken materially is indifferent to the being written or unwritten for the same Tradition or Doctrine of the Gospel which was at one time unwritten might have been written and for certain was at another time writen And the Jewish Traditions which for many generations past by a successive conveyance without Book have been by the Rabbies committed at length to vvriting for their better Security And the Papists now make no scruple of vvriting their Traditions vvhich they call the unvvritten Word of God let them justify the presumption as vvell as they can Mat. 14.2,3,6 Novv as the Traditions of the Elders mentioned in Scripture signify the doctrines and Ceremonies that vvere delivered by the Fathers but vvere distinct from the Law vvritten So when vve speak of Traditions in the Christian Church vve do now in these latter ages commonly understand some particular doctrines or Rites or matters of fact delivered with a pretence of divine or at least Apostolical Authority for their reception which are not expressed in the written word of God These Traditions once accepted and commended by the present Church of Rome the Conventicle at Trent hath very severely enjoyned to be received and embraced with an equal affection of holy reverence wherewith we entertayn the sacred Scriptures themselves But to keep up the mystery of iniquity with the liberty of laying aside old Traditions and giving credit to new inventions as their interest and occasions may require they who determined the Canon of Scriptures and numbred the Books yet would not reckon up and determine the Traditions of the Church that Christians might know what is the perfect and fixed Rule of Faith Thus Romanists though they have a larger Object of Faith then we have yet they have no certain measure because the Traditions of the Roman Church are like the Moon subject to decreases as the giving of the Eucharist to Infants was once held by D. Innocentius 3. as a Doctrine of Faith and a Tradition of the Church Maldonate on John 6. confesseth thus much but after 600 years practise wore out insensibly and hath been condemned by the Councils of Constance and Trent with an Anathema and to increases also and therefore their Religion is indeed Irregular But concerning Traditions as the word signifies particular points of beliefe or practise in Christian Religion these 3 Rules are worth Observation 1. Whatsoever is offered to us or enjoyned to us in belief or practise under colour of being a Tradition if it be repugnant to the written word of God or destructive of Gods precepts ought to be rejected by Christians Christs reason together with the refutation of Phaâ—…aical Traditions confirms the Truth of this Rule Nihil credi Deus voluit adversus Sc ipturarum authoritatem Aug. l. 13. cont Faus Manich. Mark 7.5 13. 2. Whatsoever is obtruded upon us under the pretext of being a Tradition that is neither clearly delivered in nor fairly by good consequence deduced out of Gods written word needs not and ought not to be received as a matter necessary to Salvation The manner of conveniency or necessity wherein things which are strangers to Scripture are held is carefully to be taken notice of For several practises have been in early times introduced under shew of conveniency as the Apostle says some bodily exercises carry a plausible shew of wisdome which having once obtained credit by the favourable commendation of eminent persons and custome have been in succession of time adorned with the Title of Tradition and grown up from being thought convenient to be accounted and prest as necessary to Salvation This danger is to be prevented by circumspection And the perfection of Scripture as it is a compleat Rule of Religion proves the truth and usefulness of this second Rule 3. Doctrines of Faith and divine Worship being secured by Gods written word from intrusions of humane inventions if any Rites or Ceremonies can be proved by fair Testimonies of Antiquity to have been practised by the Church universal of primitive times and are still continued by the Authority of Church Governors as tending to edification or the free and open profession of our Faith whether they be called Traditions or no are not lightly to be rejected much less violently opposed by private Christians Thus much for Traditions as meaning Matters of Religion delivered down from former times to posterity But Tradition often bears another sence and is taken formally for the manner of conveyance of matters that concern Religion which is partly oral partly practical The joynt agreement of Doctrine and practice continued by succession of one Age after another whilst one generation derives to another the whole body of Religion is now called Tradition and of late is asserted by Papists in this Kingdom to be the only Principle and Rule of â—aith and affirmed to be of its own nature infallible and incorruptible and to be evident by its own light And thus the order of inquiring for the ancient dayes and old wayes is quite inverted for now we need only as they teach mark what the present Church of Rome doth and because Tradition cannot fail nor vary therefore the Popes Court at this day with the Church Altars Pictures Wafers mangled Eucharist adoration of the
senses to be the instruments of our faith and the Bread and Wine are designed to be sensible Symbols of spiritual things even as the Water in Baptism is Briefly since our Blessed Saviour the Angels and the holy Apostles Luk. 24.39 Joh. 20.27 Mat. 28.26 Act. 10.41 1.9 1 Joh. 1.1,3 have made our senses competent instruments to assist our faith and reason in judging of the truth and presence of Christs Body even after the Resurrection and Christ hath not any where by himself or his Apostles limited the free exercise of our senses nor lessened the credit of their Verdict in the Sacrament of the Eucharist more then in Baptism is it not a horrid tyranny over Christians to require that we renounce both senses and reason and at the command of a Romish Priest believe that there is no Bread and Wine where all our senses almost conspire to inform us of their presence and the very nature of the Sacrament requires it and on the other side to believe that Christs Body is in every consecrated Host and in every crum whole and entire and continues one though divided from it self in a million of places when our senses can give us no information of this presence and our reason assures us that it is inconsistent with many Articles of our Creed But observe the confidence of this Factor who with a fore-head well rubbed tels you that Protestants require you to renounce your senses whereas we think that our Saviours command He that hath ears to hear let him hear holds by proportion in the rest Mat. 13.9 Apoc. 2.9 He that hath eyes to see let him see with assurance that the God of truth who fitted man with senses for the service of his Maker as well as for his own benefit doth secure him from deceit in the use of them about their proper objects in Religion as well as in civil conversation As for our Reason this he would perswade you must be renounced in the belief of the Trinity that you may renounce it for the easie swallowing the Camel of Transubstantiation Think what advantage this man gives to Heathens Socinians Anti-Trinitarians and indeed all the adversaries of the Gospel by confessing that the prime Article of our faith concerning the God whom Christians worship is more opposite to reason then the scandalous Monster of Transubstantiation The Doctrine of three Persons in one God is indeed a sublime mystery which is beyond the discovery of reason before it is revealed and incomprehensible by reason after revelation as many secrets in the very course of nature cannot be accounted for by our dark and narrow understandings Reason it self tels us that the infinite nature of God is not to be measured by the limited being of the creatures and also that the glory of the invisible God cannot be discovered but by his own manifestation of it and that according to his own good pleasure with different degrees of light as Gods wisdom thinks fit to impart unto man the knowledge of God And lastly Reason resolves that Gods Word especially of himself who like the Sun is seen by his own light is to be believed without dispute Since therefore God in his Word written hath clearly revealed that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God it is a kindly office of enlightened reason to bring down every vain thought and weak reasonings that lift up themselves against the knowledge of God and to lead them captive under the obedience of faith But there is no cause why we should struggle with our reason and un-man our selves that we may admit the divelish figment of Transubstantiation whereof there is not the least shadow in the Word of God This subtil Sophister aggravates the difficulty that may be fancied in the Trinity to the greatest advantage of Atheistical cavillers but he would lessen the absurdities of Transubstantiation by an imperfect and false representation of his own Doctrine which hath no ground in Gods Word All that is with any colour alleadged out of Scripture to give countenance to the lie which we are required to believe is the sentence of Christ This Bread is my Body This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luk. 22.19,20 Mat. 26.26,28 or My Blood of the New Testament Mark now what a vast difference between the speech of our Blessed Saviour The Bread is my Body that is signifies and represents my Body as God himself says Ezek 37.11 These hones are the whole house of Israel and Ezek 25.3 Concil Trâ—d Sess 13. c. 4. This to wit the Hair before-mentioned is Jerusalem and the definition of the Tridentine Fathers The whole substance of the Bread is turned into the whole substance of Christs Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the whole substance of Christs Blood Where is this Conversion recorded in the Gospel or Apostolical Epistles that we should offer violence to our reason to work our minds to the belief of it It is also false that you are required only to believe that Bread is turned into Flesh We do believe and that without renouncing our reason that Christ who could turn stones into Bread and did turn water into Wine could turn if he pleased Bread into Flesh and Wine into Blood as easily as he did Water into Blood in Egypt And if Christ should do this at any time the change would be as evident to the senses as it was in all miraculous conversions and the Flesh would be as visible as the Serpent was into which Aarons Rod was turned and the Blood as truly obvious to the eye as the sanguified streams of Egypt But Papists require your unreasonable belief of another thing to wit that the Sacramental Bread is turned substantially into the very Body of Christ which was before that born of the Blessed Virgin Mary and is now at the time of every conversion sitting at the right hand of God in glory above the Heavens By the way because it is not my business now to refute this false Doctrine remember that unquestionable Axiome of true Philosophy Nothing is before it is made or whilst it is in making But Christs Body was before the Sacrament and is already when the Priest begins the first syllable of his Magical murmur by which he pretends to make the Body of Christ You see the manifest contradiction which you are obliged by Papists to believe in this insensible conversion Now if you will to please a Papist renounce sense and reason that you may be capable of this rare belief I know no cause why you should not also take Ovid's Poem of Metamorphosis for a veritable History He fraudulently minces the matter again when he speaks of the easinesse of believing that one Body is in more places at one time I know that Thomas Aquinas in his Quodlibets says that the subsistence of one Body in more places at one time is impossible because that which is one in it self cannot