Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
necessary to Salvation but dare not positively exclude the others from being a kind of particular Sacraments And seeing the Scripture mentions not the number either of three or seven why should not the voice and constant practice of the Church be heard before particular clamours As to the matter of the Eucharist if People would but once take a right notion of what we mean by a Real Presence and rightly understand what we mean by the Terms Corporal and Spiritual we should not have such large Volumns Written by those who pretend to believe all that Christ has said And in our disputes about the Church The Church and it's Authority what perpetual mistakes are their committed for want of considering what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church and by her Infallibility In a word §. 17. The Rule of Faith. would People take notice that we affirm the Total and only Rule of Catholic Faith to which all are obliged under pain of Heresie and Excommunication to be Divine Revelation delivered to the Prophets and Apostles and proposed by the Catholic Church in her General received Councils or by her universal Practice as an Article of Catholic Faith and that if either this Divine Revelation to the Prophets and Apostles or this proposal by the universal Church be wanting to a Tenet it ceases to be an Article or Doctrin of Faith Protestants will not distinguish betwixt faith and private opinions tho' it may be a truth which it would be temerarious to deny would they I say take notice of this and then examin what are those Doctrins which we hold to have been thus taught and proposed we should not only find our Controversie brought into a narrow Room but all the odious Characters of Popery and the Calumnies that are thrown upon us with the ill consequences of fears and jealousies c. would be removed and we might hope for Peace and Unity Whereas by the methods by which we see Disputes now carried on But prolong disputes upon unnecessaries one would think our Adversaries had no other end in all their Controversial Books or Sermons but to cry down Popery at any rate least they should suffer prejudice by it's increase which they are conscious it would do if what is of Faith were separated in all their Discourses from Inferior Truths or probable opinions And because I am not willing to prolong disputes §. 18. Which the Vindicator resolves to decline I do here declare that if the Defender do hereafter medle with such points as those which are not of necessary Faith I shall not think my self obliged to answer him tho' after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last word But if he please to answer any thing positively to those Doctrins acknowledged by all Catholics to be of Faith or to the Arguments I have brought in the XXIII and and XXIV Articles to prove the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the true Orthodox Catholic Church and that the voice of the Church in every Age is the best way to know what is Apostolical Tradition upon finishing which two last disputes all our Controversie would be ended he shall have a fair hearing But I may be bold to foretel without pretending to be a Prophet that nothing of all this will be done and that if he vouchsafe an Answer he will as to the first either still fly to the private Tenets and Practices of Particulars or Misrepresent our Doctrin and as to the others either fob my Arguments off with such an Answer as he thinks is sufficient against Monsieur Arnauld's Perpetuity Desence Pref. pag. 11. that is calling it a Logical subtilty which wants only Diogenes 's Demonstration to expose it's Sophistry A pretty quirk indeed were the case parallel or that it could be made out as clearly that the Church has erred as it could be shewn that Diogenes moved but what is the Point in Question must be always supposed as certain in our Defenders Logic or else he will send us to his beloved friends Monsieur Daille or Monsieur Claude as he has upon the like occasions or lastly endeavor to expose us by some contemptible Raillery as he has done the Bishop of Meaux to the Defenders own confusion amongst thinking Men. For It is not enough to Men of Sense to speak contemptibly of solid Arguments excellent Discourses or persons of known integrity Monsieur Arnauld 's Perpetuity of the Faith and the just Prejudices against the Calvinists will not loose their esteem amongst the Learned and Judicious because our Defender tels us they have been out-done by Huguenots neither will the Bishop of Meaux's credit be any ways impaired or his Exposition less esteemed because the Defender and such as he have endeavored to traduce him and make the World believe him to be Insincere or ignorant But such things as these are now a-days put upon the World without a blush and they who are this day ingenious Learned and honest Men shall be to morrow time-servers block-heads and knaves if they chance but to cast a favorable look towards Popery and hated abhorred and oppressed with injurles if they forsake their Errors to embrace the Truth even by those who pretend that Conscience ought not to be forced I must conclude this Preface with begging pardon of my Readers for the length of this work which will I fear deter some from the perusal of it but I hope they who are desirous to search for the True Faith which is but one amongst so many and without which it is impossible to please God will not think it much to spend a little time for their satisfaction which if they do I hope it will open their Eyes and they will see how much they have been hitherto kept in ignorance by those who pretend to be their guides but shew themselves by their Writing either to be blind or which is worse malitious For if they know our Doctrins and yet Misrepresent them to their People they must be convinced of Malice and if they know them not we are ready to inform them if they think we palliate or pervert our Doctrins to gain Proselites it shews how little they understand our Tenets For when they see us ready to lose our Estates our Liberties and our Lives rather than renounce one title of our Faith how can a reasonable Man be persuaded we would renounce it all to gain a Proselite who the very first time he should see us Practise contrary to our Doctrins would be sure to return and expose our Villany BEcause the Defender has been pleased to ask this Question in the close of his Discourse page 84. Where are the Vnsincere dealings the Falsifications the Authors Miscited or Misapplied I thought it might not be amiss to refer the Reader to some of them as they are detected in this following Treatise And tho' the Defender had not the sincerity to acknowledge them yet I dare
with such Idolatry We find indeed that their Twenty second Article tells us that the Invocation of Saints is one of those Practices which are fond things vainly invented c. but it proceeds not so far as to call it Idolatrous And if the Book of Homilies to which he flies upon other occasions when he is prest to shew the Doctrin of his Church be more severe he is little versed in his own Doctrins if he be ignorant that several Eminent Divines of his own Church do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick Dogmatical Doctrin of the Church of England Bishop Montague Dr. Heylin Mr. Thorndike tho' they be all obliged to subscribe to it as containing a wholesome Doctrin I wish then there be not something more in the bottom of this than what appears at first sight Dr. Heylin tells us §. 2. The charge of Idolatry begun in Queen Eliz. time that when Queen Elizabeth beheld the Pope as her greatest Enemy in reference to her Mothers Marriage her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England Books were filled with bitter Revilings against the Church of Rome and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Cyprian Angl. pag. 342. 2d Edit but that in the next Ages the dangerous consequences of the Charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome began to be more calmly and maturely considered Rejected in King Charles the first 's time in so much that Arch-bishop Laud thought it necessary to endeavor with diligence to hinder the reprinting of those Books And what must the same Apprehensions be now again raised in the Peoples minds Must the Pope pass now for our greatest Enemy And must the common People be taught to hate Papists worse than Jews and Mahumetans Renewed at present to make us odious that the Pulpits ring again with such horrid accusations and every Book tho' pretending moderation brings now the charge of Idolatry along with it If this Author had not this design for I dare not accuse him of being a leading Man he might at least have foreseen the ill consequences which would follow in the Nation and for which I fear He and Those that set him on will one day answer before the Tribunal of the God of Peace and Unity But he thinks himself clear at least of Calumny Defence pa. 2. if he can shew that our Authors allow all that he has charged us with Calumny Not too fast I must in this also beg his pardon The consequence do's not follow that because some particular Members of the Church of Rome may have taught such Doctrins therefore the Church is guilty of them He has been often told and that according to all reason that we have nothing to do here with the Doctrin of the Schools that he must take our Doctrins from the Councils which contain the Public Authentic and Vniversally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church otherwise he touches not the necessary terms of Communion Des Pref. p. 19. But tho' he acknowledges this to be my Catholic Distinction yet he takes little or no notice of it throughout his whole Book but flies still to particular Authors to maintain his charge But what if our Authors allow not those things which he charges them with will he then acknowledge himself guilty of Calumny If he cannot bring any of our Authors that say Divine Worship is to be given to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed unless their expressions be miserably distorted or any persons that do practice it if our Missals and Pontificals do not command us to adore the Cross taking the word Adoration in that strict Sense and if I shew him in the following Articles that he mistakes the Doctrin of the Council of Trent about the Sacrisice of the Mass and the Churches Tenet about Merit I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess that we deserve not so ill a Character and if he be so sensible of the account which must be given for idle words Close pag. 86. I hope he will likewise consult the Salvation of his Soul and repent and make satisfaction for those which are injurious to the reputation of a Church to which if he be what he professes he must acknowledg he owes some obligations as to a Mother But I charged him also with Vnsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics and Protestants Unsincerity and this also touches his reputation I must confess I would willingly be tender of it but where so great a concern as the reputation of an Innocent Church is joyned with his single Honor I think I may be excused if I let the dirt fall where it ought when by wiping it off from one it must necessarily stick upon the other That which I condemned in his stating of the Question was §. 3. Catholics affirm that Protestants hold not all Fundamentals that he represented us as allowing them to hold the Antient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. I told him that we do not allow that Proposition especially if he mean all Fundamentals Pag. 24. and that tho' the Bishop of Meaux has a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Protestants grant that Catholics hold all Fundamentals yet it do's not from thence follow that Catholics reciprocally grant them also to hold the same And what I pray is his answer to this That whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daille's Concessions Defence pa. 4. as to this Point will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consist of Fundamental Articles But really I have again and again considered what Monsieur de Meaux says in that Section and can find no such thing in it but that his is only Argumentum ad hominem M. de Meaux sense perverted by the Defender an Argument drawn from the Concessions of Monsieur Daillé and from what is manifest to every one viz. That we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental But he neither says nor insinuates Expos Sect. 2. pag. 3. nor so much as shews it to be his Opinion that the Protestants hold all those Articles which Catholics call Fundamental But he who can find That in the Bishops Argument The Vindicators sense perverted by the Defender Def. pag. 5. can find also that I my self confess that the Articles which we hold and they contradict do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental I know not with what Spectacles he Reads but I think any judicious Reader will grant that I never said any such thing 'T is true I tell him Vindic. pa. 23. that were the Doctrins and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrins and
the manner for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction Defence pag 61. that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal but as to the nature of the thing it self but yet it is real too A Jargon What kind of Jargon is this and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions Christ is really present §. 69. Pag. 60. line 32. says the Defender in the Sacrament in as much as they who worthily receive it have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs and therefore it is more than a meer Figure One would think this enough Oh but his Body is not there How is Christ there and not his Body Yes his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine there is no corporeal Presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood Rulric at the end of the Communion Office. for his Body is only in Heaven and it is against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one How is it then that he is there will you acknowledge Casâ—â—b Epist ad â—â—rd Pâ—â—en with King James the First that you believe a Presence no less true and real than Catholics do only you are ignorant of the manner If so tell us and recal what you have said that it is a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of No this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics And further the late Church Rubric whose Fate has been so various and the * I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever and that the Sacrifice of the Mass as it is now used in the Church of Rome is Superstitious and Idolatrous 30 Car. 2. Test The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the first time contradict the Religion professed in that Kings days for now at least you know by a new Revelator that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments and make them swear and subscribe to it under such forfeitures and penalties This is the Doctrin we are invited to believe which how inconsistent it is with it self appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative Let us now see what is the Doctrin of Roman Catholics The Council of (a) Sess 13. c. 4. Trent tels us §. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrin that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread therefore it was always believed in the Church of God and this Holy Synod does now again declare it that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion or change of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation And the same (b) Ib. can 1. Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly really and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Vertue Thus we believe a true real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament that is of his Body and Blood Soul and Divinity The Lutherans agree with us in it but will have Bread to remain too which we deny And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same but will have the presence to be Spiritual by which as I told them if they intend only that Christs presence is not there after a natural circumscribed corporeal extensive manner we admit of it but if they mean by this spiritual manner that Christ who is both God and Man is not truly really essentially substantially present we deny it They who affirm §. 71. Three manners of a Real presence as we do that Christs Body is really present in the Sacrament Propose several ways by which they think it may be done all which may be reduced to Three First that his Body may be present together with the Bread as Fire is together with Iron when red hot Water with Ashes c. Secondly present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread is also the true Body of Christ Or Thirdly that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there the Substance of Bread ceasing to be As to the first the words of the Institute are against it For if Christ had rendred his Body present after that manner he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum but Hîc est corpus meum Here is my Body The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholy impossible as implying a manisest Contradiction that it should be Bread and not Bread the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ The third is the true Catholic Doctrin and is called by the Church Transubstantiation that is a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood as I have mentioned from the Council And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament Now this existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is not after a natural corporeal extensive manner because it is neither visible nor palpable But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament We have Examples of this from Holy Writ For if we doubt not but that he could free his Body from being visible palpable and heavy and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mothers Womb without breach of her Virginity and through the Doors when shut can we doubt his Power in rendring it present without local extension or the other qualifications of a common natural Body And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses when he tels us that the Body is sown a corruptible Body and is raised a spiritual Body As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies
his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation