the R. Church there has appeared publickly and visibly to whole Nations Men of such Sanctity of Life with the Gifts of Miracles that after their decease their Lives and Miracles done both afore and after their Death having been first severely examin'd and discus'd and then approv'd they were after this Examination declared Saints and as such are for the present Honour'd by the whole Catholick Church If you say what is said of those Saints and their Miracles is but Fabulous Then I ask you if a Iew would say the same to you of our Saviours Miracles How would you convince him For as he denyes the Divinity of CHRIST so he denyes also the New Testament to be the Word of God Laying then aside Divine Revelation had Men at that time more Humane Authority to believe CHRIST's Miracles then we have now to believe the approv'd Miracles of our Saints From all I have said I infer First If the R. Church notwithstanding all these marks be not the true Church of CHRIST he has no true Visible Church upon Earth since there cannot be more clear and Visible Marks of the true Church then these I have brought Secondly I infer that if the Iews seeing some Prophet's Sanctity of Life and Miracles were most reasonably perswaded and convinc'd that GOD directed them by his Spirit and spoke by their Mouths to others We must of necessity believe that the Roman Church is directed by the Spirit of GOD and that He speaks by Her to us Since whatsomever motif you 'l find for that perswasion in a single Prophet you will find it in an higher Degree in the whole Body of the Church Now to make use of our rational faculty in order to see if you have any appearance of a Church among you 't is not enough for you to say that the Protestant Church has the true Worship of God You must bring such proofs as I have brought for the R. Church to prove it This you have never done nor will ever do But to come nigher to you I ask by what motive you can perswade me that Luther and Calvin your first Reformers were mov'd and directed by the Spirit of God in all their oppositions to the Roman Church Can it be imagined that God would have taken from a whole visible Church which had those marks I spoke of the true sense and meaning of the word and given it to Men who leaving the Altar and their Vow of Chastity prostituted themselves becoming the slaves of a shamful and Sacrilegious Passion As to that our Adversary saies the Roman Church Imposes many weighty burdens on her Children beyond what God Commands he is mightily deceiv'd for God commanding us to Worship and obey him he Commands us implicitly to make use of the means most convenient to perform these two duties Now the Church by her Commands does also but show us the fittest means to perform the perfect observation of Gods explicit Command and oblidges us to make use of them and consequently properly speaking there is no new burden impos'd upon us SECT II. Saint Pauls saying whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24.25.27 makes nothing against our abstinence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes OUr great Defender of the rights and dues of the senses having told us in the Eucharist what the sight claims to now he will not have the Taste depriv'd of its satisfaction Telling us Pag. 107. 't was a liberty and priviledge of the primitive Church as St. Paul witnesses to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 10. that whatsoever is Sold in the Shambless c. we may Eat Answer St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. Having terrified the Christians from Eating with the Gentils in their Solemnities a part of what was offer'd to the Idol because by this Eating they seem'd to approve the Oblation of that Flesh made to the Devil he told them nevertheless that they should not be scrupulous to Buy what they found in the Shambles nor to Eat what was set down before them to Eat at Common Tables out of those Solemnities altho' perchance those Meats had been offer'd to Idols viz. because they being Ignorant of it did not give occasion to think they approv'd that Oblation to the Idol in which onely the Sin was But if it fell out that one should tell them that such a Meat had been offerd to the Idol then he forbid them to Eat of it v. 28. for fear of scandalizing that Person Is not here something refused to Eat altho' it be set down afore me to be Eaten and altho' the thing be good in it self ond belonging to God Was not the forbidden fruit good in it self and yet was it Lawful for Adam to Eat it then with Thanks-giving when God had forbidden it no more is it Lawful to us to Eat Flesh which is good in it self on Fasting dayes because it is then forbidden by the Church of God which God will have us hear as himself Luke 10. v. 16. Who hears you hears me Has not the Church of England taken away that priveledge too when she commands to abstain from Flesh in Lent or at least from Eating a sull Meal till after noon or towards the Evening on their dayes of Humiliation When there is no Danger then of offending God neither by my approbation of an offering to the Devil or Scandalizing my Neighbour St. Paul sayes I may Eat Flesh tho' offer'd to the Devil From that antecedent is this a good Inference then when I know I offend God by Transgressing the Command of his Church and by Scandal of my Neighbour I may Eat Flesh because it is good in it self and at another time may be Eaten with Thanks-giving St. Paul then bids Christians not to scruple to buy or Eat Meat upon a fear that it may be 't was offer'd to Idols because that reason did not make it unlawful to Eat so I was not told of it But he bids not Eat it if it be unlawful upon an other accompt viz. because forbidden on certain dayes by the Church Now to show how pleasing a thing to God and advantageous to our Souls our Fasting is remember that Moses having fasted forty Dayes and forty Nights in the Mountain obtain'd the Favour to see God Face to Face Exod. 24. chap. did not Achab make use of Sack-Cloath and Fasting for the expiation of his Sins 1 Regum 28. did not David after he heard from Nathan that God had Forgiving him his Sin say that his knees were weak through Fasting 2 Sam. 12. chap. Were not Divine Mysteries reveal'd to Daniel after he had Fasted and was he not Favour'd with a Miraculons Dinner by the means of an Angel Daniel 14. In the New Testament did not Christ Fast forty Dayes and forty Nights and so teach us how to overcome the Temptations of the Devil Matth. 4. did not he tell his Disciples that a certain kind of Devils was not cast out but by Prayer and Fasting Math. 17. Our
of Judgement So a drunken Man Dying tho' he is not Damned for what proceeds from Drunkeness for a Blasphemy uttered in that time yet he may be damned for the Sin which brought him to this distemper of his Reason Neither flatter your self with an invincible Error proceeding from knowledge there is no such an Error of Judgement is an Ignorance of Truth and therefore that Error proceeds from Ignorance and not from knowledge A Fool upholding his Opinion against a number of Wise Men thinks this his Opinion proceeds from his knowledge which others have not and that he speaks with a great deal of sense In the mean while the Wise Men present pitty him seeing all he sayes is but non-sense and that all this Discourse in which he runs out proceeds from his Ignorance So that what he esteems in himself to be Light is truely Darkness CHAP. III. Our Adversary's Negative Proofs for the Salvation of Protestants Refuted SECT I. Formal Protestants are Schismaticks AFter our Adversary had endeavoured tho' as I hope you have sufficiently seen in vain to prove positively that Protestants may be sav'd in his second Sect. pag. 43. His aim is here to prove the same negatively i.e. that in their Religion there is no hinderance of Salvation Two things only as he Imagins may hinder from Salvation Schism and Heresie But Protestants are free from both then they have no hinderance of Salvation as he concluds Schism saies he is a separation from the true Church and the true Church is that of primative Christians We grant all this But Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians this we deny And this which he should have chiefly proven and one which lyes the whole force of debate between him and us he passes over and slips away saying it has been proven by others This way of proving is indeed a new method but not infallible For why shall I believe him that others have done that which he with all their Light given him and his own dar'd not undertake to do himself Since he then could not prove that Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians I will not content my self to say that others have proven that they do differ but I will prove it to him I suppose that Christians in the third age I go no farther then the bounds he allows me did not differ from the second nor the second from the first in their rule of Faith and this supposed I say Protestants now have not the same Rule of Faith which Christians had in the first three Ages then they differ from them The Rule of Faith among those primative Christians was the Holy Scripture as interpreted by Christ the Apostles and their Successors not the Scripture as interpreted by every private Mans best understanding which is the Rule now among Protestants refusing to submit to any Counsel or Synods interpretation of a passage of Scripture if their Judgment stand against it The Disciples of Christ englightn'd as they were did not understand the Scriptures before Christ opened 'em to them and St. Peter Vicar of Christ in that function explaining the Scripture to those of his time told them it did not belong to any private Man to Interpret it 2 Petr. 1 v. 20 and Instanced that many had wrested or miss-Interpreted St. Pauls Words to their own Destruction 2 Petr. 3. v. 16. CHRIST said to Peter feed my Sheep not with Bread but with Doctrine As I cannot Feed that Child who willfully refuses to open his Mouth to receive the Food I offer him no more could Peter Feed those Christians with Doctrine had they refused to open their Ears and to bear it with submission Those Christians then wisely submited to Peter and their followers to his Sucessors being of an equal power to Instruct them for Christ promising to be with his Apostles to the end of the World did not mean with their Persons only who were not to exceed a hundred Years but also with those of their Lawful Successors And so the perpetual Custome of the Church hath been to have recourse in Controversies of Religion to the Sea of Rome it being necessary as St. Ireneus said in the 2. Age for all Churches to have their recourse to her Next to prove to me that the Protestants do not differ from the Primative Christians you must not only say but show me that your whole Church not only some private men takes the Scripture in the same sense their whole Church or leading Church took it in Show me some General Counsel of yours or a Body of Pastors to which you all unanimously submit and then I will understand what your Church holds otherwayes not And because you will not submit to any such Body I can never understand how you agree with the Christians of primative times Neither send me to your professions of Faith â—oâ— first in these all Protestants do not agree We agree say you in Fundamentals I ask what are the Fundamentals in which you agree with all other Protestant Churches Here you are at a stand And I also For if you don't assign me them how shall I know that in them precisely you all agree Beside most of the Articles of those Professions are meer Negatives of Catholick Articles unknown as you say not I to the primitive Christians and I say if they did not know those our Articles neither had they a knowledge of the Negations of them which is posterior to the knowledge of the things of which they are Negations And so not knowing those your Articles they did not in them agree with you But Romanists say you cannot say that they agree with the Christians who liv'd in the first three Ages because they have brought in many Novelties unheard of to them As the Invocations of Saints Adoration of the Holy Host Veneration of Pictures and the Popes power in order to teach us what we ought to believe for if you mean of the deposing power you know tho' some Catholicks hold it none is bound to believe it since the Church hath not defin'd it Ans You say we have brought in Novelties but you don't prove it But I say if those our Tenets you call novelties were not heard of in the first three ages neither were the denyals of them for the denyal is alwayes posterior to the knowledge of the thing deny'd these then denyals brought iâ— by you and believed by you with Divine Faith are Novelties brought in by you and consequently by them you differ from the primitive Christians Do not you believe for Example as an Article of Faith that there is no Transubstantiation If not then we Catholicks who believe Transubstantiation believe nothing contrary to Divine Faith And so of all the rest And by this means you will be found Guilty of Schism for leaving us You say its certain that standing to the Fundamentals we are Guilty of a Superstruction I ask once again what these Fundamentals of Christianity
Petition presented by him but only in General that it was for what he desired or made in favour of him 5. If any be contentious for our not using a vulgar Tongue in our Lyturgy our Answer is with St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 16. we have no such Custome nor has had the Church of God for 1600. Years and more 6. By unknown Tongues the Apostle means not of Hebrew among the Iews Greek among the Grecians or Latin among us of the Western Church which is understood of the learned and civil People in every great City but of Miraculous Tongues which Men spoke in the Primitive Church as a Mark that they had received the Holy Ghost Think you that the Lyturgy is said in the Greek Church in an unknown Tongue because it s said in propâ—â— Greek not now understood by the vulgar SECT VIII The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses OUr Adversary sayes that Transubstantiation destroyes all evidence grounded in the experimental knowledge of our senses and makes void the proof CHRIST made use of to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit To understand my Answer to this Objection of our Adversary you must know First that the Principle of experimental knowledge is this for example wheresoever are all the Accidents of Bread there is the substance of Bread unless the Author of Nature hinder its presence there Secondly That this conditional must be alwayes added in Reverence to the Almighty Power of God otherwayes by this Experimental knowledge a Combustible thing laid in the Fire burns 'T would follow that the Children in the Furnace of Babylon were burnt contrary to what is said in Daniel 3 cap. v. 50. These two things being known I answer that evidence grounded upon experimental Knowledge stands in its full vigour with our Doctrine of Transubstantiation as is clear to him who in this true Supposition of Experimental Knowledge considers it For we deny Bread to be in the Eucharist where all the Accidents of Bread are because the Author of Nature hinders the presence of Bread to be there as he has revealed it to us in several places of Scripture And consequently I deny that Transubstantiation destroyes more Experimental Knowledge than Protestant's belief that the Angels who appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were Angels and not Men destroys it Had not the Angels appearing to them all the Accidents of Men as our Eucharist has all the Accidents of Bread And did not they look as like men as it looks like Bread Secondly It makes void sayes he the proof Christ brought to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit Handle me and see sayes our Saviour for a Spirit has no Flesh Luke 24. v. 39. which can be no conviction to Romanists who see Bread in the Eucharist if they will trust their own Senses Answ Do Protestants make void the proof Christ made use of to his Apostles when they say that the Angels of which afore that appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were not Men but Angels No say you because GOD hath revealed that they were Angels Neither do we Romanists when we say that in the Eucharist that which appears like Bread is the Body of Christ under the form of Bread and not Bread because our Saviour hath Revealed that it is his Body Our Saviours proof says our Adversary that he was not a Spirit shall never influence a Papist to conviction Answer This I deny for in this case we have both evidence of the senses and our Saviours Word and no Revelation contradicting them and therefore are fully convinc'd to believe it But for Bread in the Eucharist we have indeed the evidence of sense but not Christs word but on the contrary we have our senses contradicted by Christs infallible word Must not a Man be in Eclipse or under a Cloud not to see this Disparity To clear then our Adversary in his mistake I let him know that our Saviour undertook to prove that he had a true Body which is the Natural Remote object of our senses by the Judgment of his Disciples senses But never to prove Immediatly an Object or Mystery of Faith such as our Eucharist is by the Judgment of our senses I say Immediatly because having prov'd Immediatly that this was his true Body mediatly he proved in that Circumstance that it was risen again Nay when we come to such Mysteries of Faith we must not only Captivate our Senses but Reason also if we will believe St. Paul 2 Cor. 10. v. 5. As to that he sayes that our Transubstantiation favours the Opinion of the Marcionists its manifestly false to those who know the Marcionists Opinion to wit that Christ had not a true Body but only in appearance For who grants our Transubstantiation must grant that the Body of Christ is there either really and substantially or in appearance But under the appearance of Bread cannot be the appearance of the Body of Christ to wit the Shape Bulk Colour and Extention of all the parts of his Body for how can all these stand together with the proper Accidents of Bread in the lest Particle of the Host And consequently they not being there his reall Body must be there to make the grant of Transubstantiation good Subsect 1 In the Eucharist our senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object OUr Adversary saies let us torture our discursive faculty never so much we shall never be able to prove that our senses are not deceived representing to us as Bread what really if we are believed is not Bread Answer That our senses are not deceived in their proper Object I prove thus The proper Object of our senses are only the Accidents of Bread in the Eucharist our senses represent to us the Accidents Colour Taste c. after the Consecration just as they did afore then they are not at all deceived in their proper Object You 'l say their proper Object is also the Substance of Bread and in that they are deceived since after Consecration according to us there is no Bread Answer I deny that the Substance of Bread is their proper Object it s the Object of the understanding which from the senses Anticedent representation to him of all the Accidents of Bread infers that the Substance of Bread is there viz. ordinarily and naturally when it is not revealed to him that the Author of Nature has disposed otherwaies So that the Substance of Bread is only improperly by Accident and occasionally called the Object of our senses in as much as they by their Relation to him of all the Accidents of a Substance give him occasion to Judge certainly that the Substance is also there when he has no Revelation from God of the contrary If our Eyes are deceived in Transubstantiation was not the Iews Eyes deceived in the Incarnation representing CHRIST as a Human Person By this solution you have an Answer to all