living Creature Prot. Then Iohn at Rome may walk towards London and Iohn at London may walk toward Rome and so they may meet shall I say one the other and you may be sure it will be a merry meeting It were worth enquiry how long they will be e're they come together Then again at Rome all the parts of Iohn may be excessively hot and at London excessively cold and at Paris neither hot nor cold This is beyond all the Romances that ever were devised Besides Iohn may be sorely wounded at Rome and yet at London he may sleep in a whole skin Iohn may be feasting at Rome and fasting at London in the same moment I might be infinite in reckoning the horrid absurdities of this Doctrine he that can believe these things will stick at nothing Pop. You talk at this rate because you measure God by your selves whereas he can do more than you or I can think Prot. There are some things which it is no dishonour to God to say he cannot do them because they are either sinful so God cannot lie or absolutely impossible God himself cannot make a man to be alive and dead at the same time God cannot make the whole to be less than a part of it he cannot make three to be more than threescore he cannot make a Son to beget his Father he cannot make the same man to be born at two several times as your Authors confess and therefore in like manner he cannot make the same body to be in two several places for this is not one jot less impossible than the other Pop. These indeed are great difficulties to humane reason but reason is not to be believed against Scripture Prot. True but this is your hard hap this Doctrine of yours is against Scripture as well as Reason and indeed against many Articles of Religion And first it is against the Scripture in as much as it is highly dishonourable to Christ whose honour is the great design of the Scripture What a foul dishonour is it to him to subject him to the will of every Mass Priest who when he pleaseth can command him down into the Bread What a dishonour is it that the very Body of Christ may be eaten by Rats or Worms and may be cast up by Vomit and the like as your Aquinas affirms And that your Church in her Missals hath put this amongst other directions that if worms or Rats have eaten Christ Body they must be burned and if any man vomit it up it must be eaten again or burned or made a Relick and yet this is no more than your Doctrine will force you to own for if you will believe Christs words in one place as well as in another he assureth us that whatsoever without exception entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught Matth. 15. 17. Pop. This is no more dishonourable to Christ than that the Fleas might such his Blood when he was upon earth Prot. You mistake wofully for though in the dayes of his flesh it was no dishonor to him and it was necessary for us that he suffered so many indignities and died and was crucified yet now that he is risen from the dead he dies no more Rom. 6. and it is a dishonour to him to be crucified again and to be brought back to those reproaches which he long since left and all this to no purpose and without any profit to us as I shewed Again the Scripture approveth and useth this argument that a body cannot be in two places at once it is the Angels argument He is not here for he is risen Mat. 28. 6. sufficiently implying that he could not be here and there too or must we say that the Angels argument is weak or deceitful that yours may be strong and true Pop. He meant he was not there visibly Prot. It seems if a man being sought after should hide himself with you in some corner or hole in your room and the pursuers should ask for him you could answer with good Conscience He is not here because he is invisible Our Blessed Saviour every where makes these two opposite his being in the world and going to heaven Joh. 13. 1. The hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father It seems you could have taught him the art of going thither and keeping here too I promise you I durst not venture to buy an Estate of any of you for it seems you could tell how to sell it to me and keep it to your selves You may remember once you and I made our selves merry with a passage that one used in a speech that since he could not give content neither by going nor staying hereafter he would neither go nor stay It seems you have as good a faculty as he had for you know how a man may both go from a place and stay in it at the same time I know not what can be more plain if you did not shut your eyes Christ saith expresly me you have not alwayes that is here Mat. 26. 11. Besides your doctrine destroyes the truth of Christs Humane Nature I read of Christ that he was in all points like unto us sin only excepted his Body was like ours and therefore it is impossible it should be in a thousand several places at once as you pretend it is this turns Christs Body into a Spirit nay indeed you make his body more spiritual than a Spirit for a Spirit cannot be in several places divided from it self The soul of man if it be entire both in the whole and in every part of the body yet it is not divided from it self nor from its body nor can it be in two several bodies at the same time as all confess and much less can it be in ten thousand bodies at once as by your Argument undoubtedly it may When ever an Angel comes to earth he leaves heaven and so this every way destroyes the truth of Christs Humane body Pop. Much of what you say was true of Christs Body in the dayes of his infirmity but when he was risen from the dead then he received a Spiritual Body as it is said ours shall be at the resurrection 1 Cor. 15. Prot. To this I answer First that you ascribe these monstrous properties to Christs Body before its Resurrection for you say The Flesh and Bloud of Christ were really in the Sacrament which the Disciples received while Christ lived Secondly Christs Resurrection though it heightned the perfections yet it did not alter the Nature and Properties of his Body nor give it the being of a Spirit for after he was risen he proves that he was no Spirit by this Argument Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luke 24. 39. By this it appears that your Doctrine destroys the Truth of Christs Humanity at least it destroys the main evidence of it
discern the true from the false Pop. I altogether approve of Bellarmin 's Rule which is this That saith he is a true Tradition which all former Doctors have successively in their several Ages acknowledged to come from the Apostles and by their Doctrine or Practices have approved and which the Universal Church owneth as such and the reason is because the Universal Church cannot erre Prot. I see all depends upon this Foundation that the Catholick Church in your sense cannot erre which having disproved I need not trouble my self further But to wave that How I pray you do you know what former Doctors have successively owned by word or practice I presume none of your Popes have so good a memory as to remember all that hath been said or done in former Ages though in my opinion when your inventions were upon the wheel and you did confer upon the Pope an infallible judgment you should have given him also an all-sufficient memory and then you had done your work Pop. No Sir we pretend no such thing but we know this from the Writings which the Doctors have left It is true Bellarmine mentions another rule which is the continual usage of the Church in all ages but to deal candidly with you I cannot know what their use was but by their Writings so all must come to that Prot. First then I note you forsake your cause and it seems a writing is now made a rule for your unwritten Traditions if it may be so let me beg your favourable opinion of the Apostles writings Besides those Writers which record these Traditions were they infallible Pop. No we do not hold any particular Writers Infallible especially not in matters of Fact such as reporting a Tradition or use of the Church undoubtedly is Prot. Then they might mistake false Traditions for true Besides how can I tell what the Antient Doctors did agree in since most of them never wrote and many of their writings are lost and yet all of them had equal liberty of voting in this case besides I have heard that divers of the Antient Fathers did report several things to be Apostolical Traditions which your Church now rejecteth as that Infants should receive the Communion and that Christ should reign on earth a thousand years and many others I am told also that your great Baronius writing concerning the Apostles professeth He despairs to find out the truth even in those matters which true Writers have recorded because there was nothing which remained sincere and incorrupted Is it so Pop. You shall find me ingenuous it is so Baronius saith it Anno 44. sect 42. Prot. Then truly I shall bid Tradition in your sense good night For as to your Traditions I see there is no certainty in them Shall I forsake the certain and acknowledged verity of the Scripture for such trash God forbid Again I pray you tell me doth not every wise man that makes any thing make it sufficient for its end If you build an house to live in will not you make it sufficient for that end If a man makes a Sword to cut with a Coat of Male to defend him c. is he not a fool if he doth not if he can make them sufficient for their end and use Pop. That must needs be granted Prot. And was not our Instruction and Salvation the end for which God wrote the Scripture Pop. How do you prove that it was Prot. God himself tells me so Iohn 20. 31. These things are written that you may believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you might have life through his Name Pop. S. John speaks there of Miracles not of doctrines and so that is nothing to the purpose Prot. He speaks of Miracles which were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of Christ and so the Doctrine is not to be excluded besides I suppose you will not say that S. Iohn wrote the Doctrines of Christ for one end and the Miracles for another Moreover it plainly appears both that this was the end for which the Scripture was written and that it is sufficient for its end from that 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. he saith expresly The Scriptures are able to make a man of God wise unto salvation Pop. Well but if all these things be so yet since the Scripture is dark and doubtful and you can never apprehend the true meaning of it but from the Church you are never the nearer and the Scripture is not a convenient judge of Controversies Prot. Tell me I pray doth your Church understand the true meaning of the Scripture Pop. Yes doubtless because she hath the Spirit of God Prot. Then certainly she is most deeply guilty of uncharitableness or envy or cruelty to souls that she doth not put forth a clear and infallible Comment upon the whole Scripture but still suffers the whole world to live in contention about the true meaning of hundreds of Texts of Scripture Pop. She forbears that for reasons best known to her self But this is not much to the purpose Prot. Whereas you pretend your Church certainly knows the true sense of the Scripture and this Church you say is the Pope or a Council and if these be infallible you say they are so in their Decrees If this be so how comes it to pass that none do more grosly mistake and mis-apply Scripture than divers of your Popes and councils have done even in their Decrees and decretal Epistles which you reverence as the Gospel Your Pope Nicholas the first proves his Supremacy from that Text Arise Peter kill and eat small encouragement to us to become his sheep if he so use them and from hence that Peter drew to the shore his net full of Fishes your Pope Boniface the eighth proves it from Gen. 1. 1. In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth therefore the Pope hath power in Temporals and Spirituals and this saith he you must hold unless with the Manichees you hold two principles And your councils are not more happy Expositors The council of Lateran proves the Popes power from Psa. 72. which speaks of Solomon and Christ All Kings shall fall down before him The second council of Nice alledges these Scriptures for the Worship of Images that God created man in his own Image Gen. 1. Let me see thy countenance Cant. 2. No man when he hath lighted a Candle covereth it under a vessel Luk. 8. 16. In my opinion they spoke like a council expecting that the world should receive their Decrees not for any solidity of Argument that had been pedantick but meerly for the Churches Majesty and Authority Nay the jest is when their Adversaries had taken notice of these absurd impertinencies up steps Pater Noster Pope Adrian and he saith he will maintain it in spite of fate that they alledged them rightly and excellently So here we have a Pope and council joyning together and therefore undoubtedly infallible in these Expositions Nay
remission of punishment which is procured by indulgences in that case it is not inconvenient that the rich is in a better condition than the poor for there it is not said come and buy without money I confess that were a dangerous speech and would utterly undoe all the Church of Rome It is sufficient that Isaiah once said it and Christ again come and drink freely People should have been wise and taken them at their word for they are never like to hear it a third time Is this true Pop. They do indeed say so and the practice of our Church manifests to all the world that Indulgences are sold for money and the condition of the rich in that is better than the poor But what great matter is that as to the Pardon of Sin and eternal Life or Death both rich and poor are alike This difference is only as to the pains of Purgatory Prot. Is that nothing to you you speak against your own and all mens sense we see how highly men esteem to be freed from a painful though short disease here how much more to be freed from such pains as you all confess to be unspeakably more sharp and grievous than all the pains that ever were endured in this world It is so considerable a thing that I assure you it is to me matter of wonder if Christ and the Apostles had been of your minde how it came to pass so unluckily that the poor only should receive the Gospel whereas if the men of that Age had not been all Fools the rich would have been most forward to entertain it VII But to proceed My seventh Consideration against your Religion is taken from its great hazard and utter uncertainty According to the doctrine of your Church no man can be sure of his salvation without a revelation but he must go out of the world not knowing whether he goes Indeed there is nothing but hazard and uncertainty in your Religion I suppose you grant that all your Faith and consequently your salvation depends upon the infallible Authority of your Church Pop. That is most certain Prot. Are you then infallibly certain that your Church is infallible or do you only probably believe it Pop. I am but a private Priest and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility but I am fully satisfied in it that the Church is infallible in it self Prot. Then I see you pretend to no more certainty than I have for I know and you grant that the Scripture is infallible in it self and I know its infallibility as certainly as you know the infallibility of your Church But I pray you tell me what is your opinion I know your are divided but where do you place the infallibility or where do you lay the foundation of your Faith Pop. To deal freely with you I place it in the Pope who when he determines things out of his Chair is infallible for S. Peter who was supream Head of the Church left the Pope his Successour Prot. Then it seems your Faith doth wholly depend on these things that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome and died there and that he left the Pope his successour in his supream and infallible Authority Pop. It doth so Prot. How then are you infallibly assured of the truth of these things which are all matters of Fact Pop. Because they are affirmed by so many of the Ancient Fathers and Writers Prot. Were those Fathers or Writers infallible persons Pop. No. Prot. Then might they and so may you be mistaken in that point and so indeed you have nothing but a meer conjecture for the foundation of your Faith But again are you infallibly sure that Saint Peters intention was to leave his Infallibility to the Pope For I do not read that S. Peter left it in his last wil. I tell you true it is strange to me that St. Peter should write two Catholick Epistles and as I observed before not leave one word concerning this matter For my part I shall alwayes rather question the Popes Authority than S. Peters fidelity or discretion in omitting so Fundamental a Point when he put in many of far less concernment But further I demand How are you assured that St. Peter intended to leave his power and did actually leave it to his Successors Pop. By the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers Prot. I wonder at your confidence that you dare affirm a thing which our Authors have so clearly proved to be false But suppose it were so that the Fathers had said it tell me are the Fathers infallible at least are they so in their reports of matter of Fact Pop. No we confess that it is only the Pope or Council that are infallible not the Fathers to be true to you even the Pope himself is not infallible in his Reports of matters of Fact Prot. Then you have nothing but a meer conjecture or historical Report delivered by men liable to mistake for the great foundation of your Faith Yet once more have you any greater or better certainty for your Faith than the Pope himself Pop. God forbid I should be so impudâ—nt or wicked to say so for my Faith depends upon his certainty Prot. Very well How I beseech you is the Pope assured what is it that makes him infallibly certain of his own Infallibility Is he assured of 〈◊〉 Revelatâ—on Pop. No as I have told you oft we pretend to no such things Prot. How then Pop. By the Spirit of God which guides him into all truth Prot. How is he assured that the Spirit of God guides him Pop. By the promises God hath made to him I need not repeat them they are known already Thou are Peter c. Simon Simon I have prayed that thy Faith fail not c. Prot. I have already shewn how absurdly these Texts are alledged But I beseech you how is the Pope infallibly assured that this is the true meaning of those Texts You confess it is not by inspiration Pop. He knows that by considering and comparing Scripture with Scripture and by consulting the Fathers and Prayer Diligence and Obedience c. Prot. All these things are very good but any other man may use these means as well as the Pope and hath as full promises from God as any the Pope pretends to as Ioh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shal know of the doctrine whether it be of God and the Spirit of Truth is promised to all that ask it Luke 11. 13. So if this be all you have to say God deliver my soul from such a desperate Religion wherein all the certainty of its Faith depends upon his infallibility that is not certain of his own infallibility But I need say no more of this It is to me an undeniable argument that there is no certainty at all in this foundation because as you confess so many hundreds of your ablest Schollars do utterly reject it But once more in my opinion you run
of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. the seven heads are seven Mountains Rev. 17. 9. So Christ saith I AM the way the door c. So Zach. 5. 7 8. This woman is wickedness and a thousand such expressions How do you understand these places Pop. The sense is plain they signifie those things the Stars signifie the Angels and so for the rest Prot. Then certainly we have the advantage of you in this point for we take is for signifies as you confess it is commonly taken nor have the Jews as I have been assured by learned men any proper word for signifie as the Greeks and Lutines have but generally express it in this manner But you must take it if the Particle this denote the Bread as I shall plainly prove it doth for is converted into a sense which you cannot give one example of in all Scripture I see it was not without reason that you took the interpretation of Scripture into the Churches hands for if you had left it in Gods hands and left one Scripture to do that friendly office to expound another you had certainly lost an Article of your Faith And whereas you say that Christ would speak so as the Disciples might understand him that sufficiently shews that yours is not the true sense for they could never have understood it and would doubtless have been as much puzled then as all the World now is to apprehend that the body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine invisibly and undiscoverably after the manner of a Spirit to conceive of a body without bigness long without length broad without breadth broken whilest it remains whole all which you profess to believe This is to turn Christs plain speech into a bundle of Riddles and to call this the plain sense of the words which is as you see a heap of Figures is a greater figure than all the rest but they did well enough understand the words in our sense because they were well read in Scripture wherein as you grant that sense of the words is usual Pop. If we grant it is used so in other cases yet not in Sacramental Texts for there Christ would speak properly Prot. Yes It is usual even in the Sacraments Is not Circumcision called the Covenant This is my Covenant Gen. 17. 10. though proprerly it was not the Covenant but the Seal of it Rom. 4. 11. Is not the Lamb called the Lords Passeover Exod. 12. though all men knew it was not the Lamb nor the ceremony of eating it which was or could be properly the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites thus 1 Cor. 10. The Rock that followed the Israelites is Christ though it was so only Figuratively and Sacramentally Moreover I am told that divers of your own brethren acknowledge figures here Tapperus saith It is not inconvenient to admit of Tropes here provided they be such as do not exclude the true presence of Christs body And that the Bishop of Eureux owns three Figures in the words of this Sacrament and that Suarez Bellarmine and divers others confess as much Pop. It is true they do say so Prot. Besides you cannot think strange if there be Figures in the first part This is my Body since it is most apparent there are Figures in the last part This is the New Testament in my bloud Here are not one but divers Figures in it The Cup you grant is taken for the liquor in it there is one figure The Wine in the Cup is taken for the Bloud which was not in the Cup there is a strange figure indeed Logicians call it Non-sense This Cup or Wine or Bloud if you please is the New Testament or Covenant whereas it was only the Seal of the New Testament as is most manifest because it is called The Bloud of the New Testament and the New Testament in my Bloud Besides other strange figures which I shall have occasion to speak to by and by Here is figure upon figure and yet you have the impudence to reproach us for putting in but one figure which you confess to be very frequent Wonder O Heavens and judge O Earth whether these men do not strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And nothing doth more confirm the truth in this point than to consider into what absurdities this Doctrine hath forced you even to say that the Bloud of Christ is properly the Covenant or Testament And that there are two sorts of Christs Bloud the one in the Cup the other shed on the Cross And that the Bloud of Christ is shed in the Sacrament and yet never stirreth out of the veins Did ever God or man speak of such bloud-shed therefore for shame never charge us with understanding this Text figuratively But again let me ask you Will you affirm that these words This is my body are to be taken properly Doth your Church understand them so Pop. Yes surely or else we do ill to reproach you for taking them improperly Prot. The words are not true in a proper sense nor indeed do you understand them so Pop. Make that good and I must give up this cause for ever Prot. First for the word this it is most evident that it is meant of Bread It is impossible for words to express any thing more plainly than that by this is meant the Bread It is said expresly that Christ took Bread and brake it and gave it and said Take eat THIS is my Body Where this necessarily relates to that which Christ took and brake and gave After Christ came the Apostles and particularly Saint Paul and he expounds the mind of Christ and I hope you do not think he was so bad an Expositor that his Comment was harder than the Text and he tells us thrice in a breath that it is Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat this Bread and whosoever shall eat this Bread and so let him eat of that Bread And again 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ And the participation of the Sacrament is called breaking of Bread Acts 2. 46. 20. 7. which your Authors undertand of the Sacrament and besides this whatever it is is broken as it follows but you dare not say Christs Body is broken Now then since it is most evident that this is meant of the Bread I hope you will not say this is properly Christs Body Pop. No We are not so absurd to say this Bread is Christs body for that is false and against common sense as Bellarmine well saith Prot. What then do you mean by the word this Pop. By This I understand neither the Bread nor Christs Body but in general this substance which is contained under this species Prot. What do you mean by that I pray you tell me Do you believe that there are any more substances under those species besides the Bread first and afterward the
Body of Christ Do not you profess that as soon as ever it ceaseth to be Bread it becomes the Body of Christ Pop. We do so Prot. Then surely if it be a substance according to you it must be either Bread or the Body of Christ but you allow it to be neither and therefore it is no substance at all In the next place for the word is I have shewed you do not understand that properly neither but for the word Body also do you understand that properly Pop. Yes without doubt Prot. I am told that your Church professeth to believe that Christs body is there after the manner of a spirit taking up no room that head hands feet are altogether in the least crumb of the Host. Is this true Pop. Yes we all agree in that Prot. Then sure I am the word Body is most improperly taken A learned man well observes that you plead for the propriety of words and destroy the propriety of things How can you say that it is properly a body which wants the essential property of a body which is to have quantity and take up room Take away this and the body may be properly a spirit for it is that only which differenceth it from a spirit So now I see you neither do nor can understand these words properly and upon the whole matter that this Doctrine is false and your Proofs most weak and frivolous you shall see that I have better arguments against your Doctrine than you have for it Pop. I pray you let me hear them but be brief in them Prot. I have only three Arguments your Doctrine is against Sense against Reason and against Scripture Pop. Let me see how you will make these things good Prot. For the first I ask you if I am as sure that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false as you are sure that the Christian Religion is true will you desire more evidence Pop. If I should I were an unreasonable person Prot. And have you any greater assurance now of the truth of the Christian Religion than you could have had if you had lived in Christs dayes Pop. That were impudence to affirm but what do you mean Prot. If you had lived then what greater evidence could you have had of it than what your senses afforded for since the great Argument for Christianity as all agree was the words that Christ spake and the works that Christ did how could you be sure that he did so speak or so work if you may not credit the reports of your eyes and ears This was S. Lukes great evidence of the truth of what he writes that it was delivered to him by eye-witnesses S. Luke 1. 1 2. and St. Johns what we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled of the Word of life 1 John 1. And St. Paul for Christs Resurrection that he was seen of Cephas then of the twelve then of the 500 1 Cor. 15. 5 6. Even Thomas his Infidelity yielded to this argument that if he did thrust his hand into Christs side he would believe John 20. 25. Christ judged this a convincing argument when the Apostles thought he had been a Spirit handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luk. 24. 39. Are these things true Pop. I cannot deny it they are not yours but Scripture assertions Prot. And do not all my senses tell me that this is Bread Pop. I must grant that but your sense is deceived Prot. Then your senses also might have been deceived about the words and works of Christ and so the greatest evidence of Christian Religion is lost but for my part it makes me abhor your Religion that so you may but seem to defend your own opinions you care not if you shake the pillars of Christianity My second Argument is that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is against reason Tell me I pray you do you think any of the Articles of Christian Religion are contrary to reason Pop. No they may be above reason but God forbid I should be so injurious to Christianity to say any of them are against reason Prot. But your doctrine is as much against reason as sense for it makes you believe things absolutely impossible and gross contradictions Pop. You may imagine many things impossible that really are not so but if you can prove any real impossibilities which this doctrine forceth us to believe I must yield for we joyn with you in condemning the Lutheran opinion that Christs Body is every where because it is an impossibility and we therefore expound those words I am the Vine I am a door c. figuratively because it is impossible for him who is a man to be a vine or a door Prot. And it is no less impossible for the Bread to be Christs Body Why might not the Vine as well as the Wine be by Transubstantiation converted into Christs Substance I think the Mother is as good as the Daughter and especially since Christ saith I am the true Vine you might as well have devised another transubstantiation to make Christs words good I know what work you would have made of it if he had said This is my TRVE Body or my TRVE Blood But to give that over I will shew you that there is such an heap of contradictions as never met together in the most absurd opinion that ever was in the world I profess when I set my wit at work I cannot devise greater absurdities than you believe Tell me do you hold that the whole Body of Christ is present in every crumb of the Bread and in every drop of the Wine Pop. Yes doubtless Christ is there entire and undivided Prot. I suppose you believe that Christs Body is in Heaven in such a proportion or bigness as he had upon Earth Pop. No doubt of that Prot. Then the same Body of Christ is bigger than it self and longer than its self and which is yet worse Christ is divided from himself I know not what can be more impossible than to say that all Christ is at Rome and all at London and all in Heaven and yet not in the places between Pop All this is by Gods Almighty Power Prot. Then I suppose by the same Almighty Power it is possible for any other man to be in so many places for it matters not that Christ be invisibly in so many places and another should be there visibly or that Christ is there in so little a bulk and another must be in a greater Pop. I must needs grant that and I affirm it is not absolutely impossible for any other man to be at several places at once by Gods Power Prot. Then mark what monsters follow from this suppose now Iohn to be by divine Power at the same time at Rome at Paris and at London where ever Iohn is alive I suppose he hath a power to move himself Pop. That must needs be else he were not a