When you come to prove us heretical denyers of any of its essence we will give you a sufficient answer The twelfth Principle That the Essence of our Religion or Christianity as Active and Saving is Faith that worketh by Love Or such a Belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as is accompanied with a true devoting of our selves to him by Love and willingness to obey his Laws so far as we know them in opposition to the temptations of the world the flesh and the Devil And he that is truly such shall be saved P. I grant that he that truly Loveth God shall be saved But a Protestant cannot truly love God because he hath not true faith R. Do you not agree and confess then that If any Protestants do truly Love God and are sincerely willing to obey his will and to know it that they may obey it such are of the true Religion and shall be saved and that popery which denyeth their salvation is false P. If your false supposition were true these false consequents would be true But you are all deceived when you think that you sincerely Love God and are willing to know and do his will R. 1. Let all Protestants note this first that you grant that none but ☞ falshearted Hypocrites that are not what they profess to be and Love not God nor would obey him should turn Papists 2. And if a man cannot know his own Mind and Will what he Loveth and what he is willing of no not about his End and greatest concernments how can he know when he Believeth aright Why do you trouble the world thus with your noise about Believing the Proposals of your Church if a man cannot know whether he believe or not ☞ And he that cannot know what he Willeth Chooseth or Loveth can no more know what he believeth For the Acts of the Will are more plenary and easily perceived And do all Papists know their own Hearts or Minds but no Protestants What would you expect but indignation and derision by such arguing as this if you will go about the world and tell men You none of you know your own Minds and wills but we know them You think you Love God and are willing to obey him but you are all mistaken it is not so with you but you must believe our Pope and his Council and then you may know your own minds and hearts They that believe you on these rates deserve the deceit of believing you and punish themselves The thirteenth Principle That when Christ described all the Essence of Christianity by our Believing in and being baptized into the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost the Apostles and first Pastors of the Churches instructed people to understand the meaning of these three Articles And the ancient Creed called the Apostles is the exposition of them as to Belief And that this Creed was of old the symbol of the true faith by which men were supposed sufficiently qualified for baptism and distinguished from Hereticks which after was enlarged by occasion of heresies to the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Creed To which that called Athanasius's was added as a fuller explication of the doctrine of the Trinity And he that believed all these was taken for one of the true Christian Religion which was sufficient in suo genere to salvation P. All that was then Necessary to be explicitely believed necessitate medii was expressed in the Creeds if not more But not all that is now necessary when the Church hath proposed more R. 1. Some of you say no more is necessary ut medium but to believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him Others say that the chief articles of the Creed also are commonly necessary And in your discord we lay no great weight on your Opinions 2. But is not Christianity the same Thing now as it was at the beginning Is Baptism altered Hath not a Christian now the same definition as then Are not Christs promises and the Conditions the same Shall not he that was a Christian then be saved if he were now alive May not we be Christians and saved by the same Constitutive Causes which made men Christians and saved them in the primitive Churches Subvert not Christianity and confound not the Church and cheat not poor souls by labouring to hide the essence of Christianity and such plain important truths You cannot deny our faith to be true without condemning the ancient Church and Christianity it self While we aloud profess that the Christian faith explained in all the ancient Creeds is the faith which we own in its Essentials explicated The fourteenth Principle That the Books which the Protestants commonly receive as Canonical Scriptures are in the agreeing Original Copies as to the very words and in true Translations as to the sence the most true Infallible word of God R. I grant that where the Copies disagree by various Readings we are no more sure that any of them is the word of God than we are sure that such a Copy is righter than all that differ from it But as long as the essence of Christianity on which our Salvation is laid is in the Covenant of Grace explained in Credondis in the Creed and in Petendis in the Lords Prayer and in Agendis in the Decalogue as explained by Christ And no one Duty or material doctrine of our Religion dependeth on the various Lections but those texts that Agree are sufficient to establish them all yea as Franc. à Sancta Clara system fid professeth the ordinary Translations so agree as that no material point of Religion doth depend on any of their differences It is as much as we assert that the Agreeing Original Copies and the sound-Translations so far as they are such are the True Infallible word of God the former both as to words and sence and the later as to sence alone Do you not grant this P. We grant the Scripture as you say to be Gods Infallible word But 1. You cannot know it to be so because you take it not on the Roman Churches Authoritative Proposal 2. And you leave out part of it R. 1. Whether we can know it shall be tryed in due place 2. And whether we have All of it or enough is another question to be debated when you will You grant us expresly that which we now desire which is the Infallible Truth of our Canonical Scripture And this is All our Religion containing not only the Essentials but all the Integrals and Accidentals needful to be recorded So that All the Protestants Religion is confessed to be Infallibly True And from hence further note that in all our disputes you are obliged to be the defendants as to Truth For we deny the Truth of much of your Religion but you deny not the Truth of one word of ours but only the Plenitude or Sufficiency P. The name of a Protestant was never known till Luthers
quae revelata non sunt ideoque ab articulorum fidei Catholicae numero excluduntur I know that there never was such a thing as a true Universal Council in the world unless Christ and his Apostles were such nor ever must or will or can be I know that they were called Universal but as to one Empire and that Emperours called them together who had nothing to do without that Empire and that unless accidentally any inconsiderable number no Churches out of the Empire were summoned or sent their Bishops thither Which needs no other proof than the knowledge of the limits of the Roman Empire and the Notitiae Episcopatùum and the Names subscribed to each Council in Binnius and the rest I know that long ago their Raynerius said Cont. Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patrum Tom. 4. p. 773. The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome And that Godignus and others make no doubt but the Abassines had the faith from the dayes of St. Matthew and the Eunuch I know that Theodoret. Histor Sanct. Patr. c. 1. saith James the Bishop of Nisibis came to the Synod of Nice for Nisibis then obeyed the Roman Empire Nothing can be more plain I know that Jacob. de Vitriaco and others say Hist Orient c. 77. that the Churches of the Easterly parts of Asia alone exceeded in number the Christians either of the Greek or Latin Churches And that Brochardus that lived at Jerusalem saith that those called Schismaticks by us are far better men than those of the Roman Church And to perswade the Kings of other Kingdoms that the necessary way of Church-Union is to unite all their Subject-Churches under the Patriarchs of another Empire is no wiser than to tell all the world that they must be under the Bishop of Canterbury I know that it was long ere Our antient Britains and especially Your Scots would so much as eat with the Roman Clergy as Beda sheweth And I know that their Melch. Canus saith Loc. Com. cap. 7. fol. 201. That not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have fought to destroy the priviledges of the Church of Rome And indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greater number of Churches And yet they could never prevail to abrogate the power of the One Pope of Rome Was this Pope then or the Roman Church Universal Besides that to this day they are but about the third or fourth part of the Christian world And I know that General Councils are their Religion and what the General approved Council at Lateran sub Innoc. 3. hath Decreed against Temporal Lords and their Dominions and absolving of their Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity Besides what Greg. 7. hath said in his Concil Rom. of his power to take down and set up Emperours The knowing of these things maketh me taken for their enemy And their Image of Worship in an unknown Tongue with their Bread-Worship and multitude of ludicrous deceitful toyes are things which my soul can never be reconciled to Much less to that renunciation of humanity which hereafter I detect in the following Treatise And having given You this Account of my self I add as to this Treatise 1. It grieved me to hear that so many refused the Parliaments Declaration against Transubstantiation And I desired to shew them what it is 2. Instead of joyning with those who talk much of the danger of Popery in the Land to keep it out I thought it better to publish the Reasons which satisfie me against it and leave the success of all to God 3. And having occasion to re-print the First Part of my Key for Catholicks with Corrections instead of the Name before prefixed of one whose face I never saw nor ever had a word from but ignorantly endeavoured to have provoked him to do good I thought Your Name fittest to be gratefully substituted who were the first then that checked my imprudent temerity Though I was not so vain as to expect of late in your multitude of greater business that You should read over my more tedious Writings I despair not but You may find leisure in perusing this to see that I have prefixed Your Name to nothing but what Sense and Reason and Religion do avow And so Craving Your Pardon for the boldness and tediousness of this Address I rest Your Graces humble much obliged Servant Richard Baxter August 27. 1673. TO THE READER THis Dialogue cometh not to you from an apprehension of any extraordinary excellency of it as if it did much more than is already done but as extorted by mens necessity 1. Because so many ignorantly turn Papists of late 2. And some are pleased to Say I dare not say To Think that it is long of men in my condition 3. And it is the Art of the Papists which our vanity encourageth to seek to bring the old Books into oblivion which are unanswerable and to call still for new The intended Use of this is 1. To tell those that will dispute with a Papist on what terms and in what order to proceed lest they be cheated into a snare 2. To teach the Ignorant Doubters truly to understand wherein the difference between us and the Papists doth indeed consist that the talk of Sectaries Calling that which displeaseth them Popery nor the scandal of our real or seeming divisions may not delude them nor Papists puzzle them by putting them to prove every word in our thirty nine Articles or other Writings 3. To Resolve all that will be Resolved by Senses Reason Scripture or the Judgement and Tradition of the Church Of the multitude of Reasons against Popery enumerated I have here made good but one by a special disputation because I would not make the Book too big The rest I shall easily prove in another Volume if greater work and shortness of life do not hinder it which I fully expect And lest I have no more opportunity to answer their Charges against us on the other side I have reprinted and added Corrected the first part of my Key for Catholicks where it is long ago done and never answered There is extant one Piece of theirs against me unanswered called Mr. Johnson's Rejoynder about the Visibility of the Church which I seriously profess I have left unanswered as utterly unworthy of my precious Time till I have no greater matter to do which I hope will never be And he that will well study his opening of the terms in the latter end will see to how pitiful a case they are reduced I conclude with this solemn Profession That I am satisfied of the truth of what I write and must dye ere long in the faith which I here profess and lay my hopes of endless happiness on no other way And that I would joyfully receive any Saving Truth from Papists or any other who will bring
information of men So the sixth General Council condemned Honorius of Heresie by false Information and misunderstanding his Epistles p. 20. The Pope saith Suarez to a particular action belonging to humane Prudence hath no infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost As that such or such an excommunication is valid or that such or such a Kingdom is disposable by the Pope for such and such causes So far Veron who is most favourable to you in narrowing our faith R. Thus far you have resolved me but I must crave somewhat more Qu. I. Are there no Essential Constitutive parts of your Religion more necessary than the Integrals and Accidentals Have you no description for it but that It is Divine Revelation proposed by the Church The Doctrine of Sacrificing was a Divine Revelation to Adam and the difference of clean and unclean Beasts to Noah and the Jewish Law was Gods Revelation to Moses and them And yet I suppose Christianity is somewhat different from all these Is not Christianity your Religion Hath Christianity no Constitutive special Essence but only the Genus of Divine Revelation which is common to that with all other Divine Revelations And what if you add to a Prophet or Apostle Was Agabus Prophesie of Paul or Pauls of the event of the shipwrack c. essential to Christianity Hath Christianity no Essence Or is all Divine Revelation essential to it P. You take advantage of the disagreement of our Doctors You know that some few acknowledg distinct fundamentals and some deny the distinction in your sense And most of us say that no man can enumerate the things necessary to all but that it dependeth upon mens various capacities educations and means of knowing And in sum that no more is necessary to all to be explicitly believed but that Gods Revelations are true and that All are Gods Revelations which the Church proposeth as such You may take our judgement much from him that cometh nearest to you whom I have heard you much praise as most moderate and judicious viz. Dr. H. Holden Anal. fid l. 1. c 5. Lect. 2. p. 53. Divines disputing of the necessity of points to be believed do commonly tend this way to denote the Articles of things revealed the explicite and express belief whereof is as they opine altogether necessary to all Christians The resolution of which question is among them so doubtful and uncertain as that they are in this as ☞ they are in all things else distracted and divided into various Opinions which they that care for them may seek To me they are as Nothing while the Authors of them profess that they have nothing of Certainty Yea to one that meditateth the matter it self laying by all preoccupation it is most clearly manifest that the Resolution of this question is not only unprofitable that I say not pernicious as it is handled by Divines but also vain and impossible It is unprofitable because no good accrueth by it to souls ☞ It is pernicious while Divines for the most part assert that only One or Two Articles yea as some say no singular Article at all is necessary to be believed of all by an explicite faith For hence however the truth of the matter be the colder Christians taking occasion do little care to obtain that degree of Knowledge in the Mysteries of faith which they might commodiously and easily attain It is Impossible seeing it is Manifest that no particular Rule or Points to be believed or Number of Articles can in this Matter be given or assigned which shall be wholly common and necessary to all Christians For this dependeth on every individual mans natural capacity means of instruction and all the other circumstances of each mans life and disposition which are to each man so special that we can determine of nothing at all that is common to all But I handle the Necessity of points to be Believed in a far other sense For the Articles of the Christian faith which I now call necessary I do not at all understand to be such as all and every one must distinctly know or hold by explicite assent But I mean only such the belief of which is accounted universally by the whole Catholick Church so substantial and essential as that he that will deservedly be esteemed and truly be a member of it must needs adhere to them all at least Implicitely and Indirectly that is by believing whatsoever the holy and Universal Church doth Catholickly believe and teach as a Revealed Doctrine and Article of divine faith And therefore he is for that cause to be removed from its Communion and Society who shall pertinaciously and obstinately deny the least of them much more if he maintain the contrary while he knoweth and seeth that it is the Universal sentence of that Church that we must adhere to that as an Article of faith And in this sense I will henceforth use the word Necessity R. This might have been said in fewer and plainer words viz. That your Divines herein do commonly err and that perniciously and yet that indeed he is of the same mind viz. that It is impossible to name the Articles necessary to be believed explicitely of all because each mans divers capacity means and circumstances diversifie them to each But that only this one thing is explicitely to be believed That whatsoever the Holy and Universal Church doth Catholickly believe and teach as a Revealed Doctrine and Article of faith is true And therefore that no man must pertinaciously deny any thing which he knoweth the Church so holdeth So that nothing is necessarily to be believed actually and indeed but Gods and the Churches Veracity P. Another of ours that cometh as near you as most openeth this more fully Davenport alias Fr. a Sancta Clara De. Nat. Grat. p. 111 c. As to the Ignorance of those things that are of necessity of Means or End there is difference among the Doctors For Soto 4. d. 5. q. 5. l. de Nat. Grat. c. 12. Vega l. 6. c. 20. sup Trid. hold that now in the Law of Grace there is no more explicite faith required than in the Law of Nature Yea Vega ib. Gabriel 2. d. 21. q. 2. ar 3. 3. d. 21. q. 2. think that in the Law of Nature and in Cases in the Law of Grace some may be saved with only natural knowledge and that the habit of faith is not required Whom Horantius terms men of great name and will not accuse of heresie I would this great mans modesty were more frequent with modern Doctors Yea Alvarez de aux disp 56. with others seemeth to hold that to justification there is not at all required the knowledge of a supernatural object or the supernatural knowledge of the object Others hold That both to Grace and Glory is required an explicite belief of Christ Bonav 3. d. 25 c. Others that at least to salvation is an explicite belief of the Gospel or
are less doubtful and resolved into a conceded Principle PART II. The Principles which Papists and Protestants are agreed in And therein the full â—ustification of all the Protestants Religion THe first common Principle That we are Men having Reason and Free-will and Sense whose Natural way of knowing things sensible is by the perception of our senses having no way of greater Certainty R. I take it for a common principle that we are Men having Reason and Free-will and Sense whose natural way of Knowing things sensible is by the perception of our senses And therefore that our rightly constituted or sound senses with their due media about their proper objects are to be trusted being either certain or we have no certainty P. I know what you intend I grant it as you express it R. It must then be granted us that there is true Bread and Wine in substance remaining after the words of the Mass-Priests consecration P. Yes When you can prove that the consecrated Bread and Wine are the proper objects of sense which we deny they being not now Bread and Wine R. Is it by the Perception of sense that you deny it or by other means P. No It is by Faith and Reason which are above Sense R. Now you come to deny the Principle which you granted Sense is the perceiver of its own objects No Faith no Reason can perceive them but by sense And if due sensation perceive them and Faith deny them then Faith denyeth sense to be the proper natural perceiver of its objects and our judgement of things sensible to be such as must follow that perception But we must dispute of this anon and will not now anticipate it Only remember that if you deny sense which is the first Principle no mortal man is capable of disputing with you there being no lower principle to which we can have recourse and resolve our differences The second Principle That there is One only God Infinite in Being Power Wisdom and Goodness Our Owner Ruler and Chief Good Most Holy Just and True and therefore cannot lye but is absolutely to be believed and trusted and loved R. I need not repeat it Do you not Agree with us in this P. Yes Heathens that are sober and Christians are agreed in it R. You grant then that this may be known by them that are no subjects of the Pope Remember anon that we are not to be blamed for Believing God The third Principle That the whole frame of Nature within us and without us within our reach is the signal Revelation of God and his Will to man called Objectively The Light and Law of Nature R. I suppose that this also may pass for a common granted Principle P. Yes as you express it If we agree not of the Light and Law of Nature we come short of Infidels and meer Natural men R. Observe then that we are Justified by your principles for Believing and Trusting Gods Natural Revelation The very first part of which is made to our senses By Natural Evidence God sheweth us that Bread is Bread P. Yes when sense is sound and objects and media just and God doth not contradict sense by supernatural Revelation The fourth Principle That Natural Revelation is before supernatural and sense before faith and we are Men in order of Nature at least before we are Christians and the former is still presupposed to the later R. This also I suppose is a granted Principle P. It is so But see that you raise no false consequents from it R. I conclude from it that He that denyeth the perception of sense to be the certain way of Judging of things sensible denyeth all the Certainty of faith and subverteth the very foundations of it And that we are justified for our Assenting first to Gods Natural Revelations It is God that made my senses and understanding and God that made the object and media as Bread and Wine and therefore God deceiveth me if I be deceived in taking it for Bread and Wine after Consecration But God is to be believed in his first Revelations P. You vainly call Sensation and Intellection or Knowledge of things sensible by the name of Believing R. We will not vainly contend about the Name if we agree of the Thing But this leadeth me to another Principle The fifth Principle That the Knowledge of things fully sensible hath more quieting satisfying Evidence than our Belief of supernatural Revelations alone as made to us by a Prophet or Apostle And that where all the sound senses of all men living do agree about their near and proper sensible object there is the most satisfying Evidence of all R. I suppose that we are all agreed also in this principle P. As you word it we are For our Divines distinguish of Evidence and Certainty and are so far from saying that Faith hath more Evidence than Sense and Knowledge that it is ordinary with them to say that this is the difference between Faith and Knowledge and that faith hath not Evidence but yet it hath no less certainty R. Some men use words first to sport themselves out of their understandings and then to use others to the same game Evidence is nothing but the Perceptibility or Cognoscibility of a thing by which we call it Knowable which is the Immediate necessary qualification of an Object of Knowledge Certainty is either Objective which is nothing but this same Cognoscibility or Evidence as in a satisfying degree Or it is Subjective or Active which is nothing but the Infallible or True and quieting satisfactory knowledge of a Truth Where the Certainty of Object and Act concurr For no man can be certain of a lye or untruth For to be Certain is to be certain that it is True Those therefore would befool the world who would perswade men that a clear and confident perception of an untruth or confident error is Certainty There may be Objective Truth and Certainty of the Matter where there is not in us an Active or Subjective Certain Knowledge of it But there can be no Active Certainty of an Objective Vncertainty or certain Knowledge of a lye Now if you mean that faith hath Objective Certainty without Evidence of Certainty or Ascertaining Evidence that is but to say and unsay It hath Certainty and no Certainty For this Certainty and Evidence is all one But if you mean that Faith hath an Active Subjective Certainty without an Objective Certainty in the Matter you speak an impossibility and contradiction as if you said I clearly see a thing invisible or without light P. Do you think that our Divines knew not what they said when they say that to believe without Evidence maketh faith meritorious R. The old asserters of this meant the same that Christ meant when he saith to Thomas Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed There is a sensible Evidence and an Intelligible Evidence Faith hath not an Immediate sensible Evidence that is we believe
sense but all The eye seeth Bread and Wine The hand and mouth feel it The palate tasteth it The smelling sense smelleth the Wine yea and the ear heareth it poured out 3. It is in due quantity and not an undiscernable Atome 4. It is near the sense and neither by too much distance or nearness made insensible 5. It hath a due abode and is not made insensible by hasty passing by 6. The air and light and all necessary media of perception are present So that there is nothing wanting to the sensibility of the object P. And how do you prove all or any of these For ought you know the media may be undue the magnitude site distance abode may not be what they seem to be and so you prove not what you say R. All that I am now saying is that All men of sound sense in the world have these immediate clear perceptions The Intellect by sense perceiveth the object as quantitative as near c. This you dare not deny So that if this perception be false and here be no Bread and Wine then Sense or the Intellect discerning by the means of sense is deceived P. I say that the Senses or Intellects perception are deceived R. I prove that they are not deceived or at least that this kind of perception is the most certain that man on earth is capable of and is to be trusted to by all men and disbelieved or contradicted by none Reason I. Because that humane nature is so formed that the Intellect hath no other way of perceiving things sensible but as they are first perceived by the sense and by it transmitted to the Intellect or made its objects And if about Spirits it hold not that There is nothing in the Intellect which was not first in the sense yet about things sensible it doth undenyably hold And also that the Intellect of it self is not free to perceive things sensible otherwise than as they are sensed or not to perceive them but is naturally necessitated to perceive them So that it is a contradiction for a man to be a man consisting of a reasonable soul with sensitive faculties and a body and yet not to be formed to judge of things sensible as sense perceiveth them P. Then mad men cease to be men if they judge otherwise R. Mad men are your fittest presidents But 1. I told you how mans nature is made by God to judge of things I told you not that this nature may not be vitiated and hindered from right action Did I ever say that the eye may not be blinded or the understanding distracted Blind men and mad men judge not according to the tendency of Nature and therefore mis-judge The Connexion of the Intellect to the sense is essential to man as man but so is not the soundness or right exercise of his faculties Reason II. Hence I argue that sensation and the understandings perception thereby is the first perception of mans soul and all that follow are but the rational improvements of it and therefore ever presuppose it The natural order of the souls apprehensions is this beyond all controversie First Sense perceiveth things sensible and the Imagination the Images of them Next the Vnderstanding by a simple perception conceiveth of them as it findeth them in the imagination Thirdly then by this Thinking or Knowing we perceive also our own Act that we do so Think or Know. And then Fourthly We compound our conceptions and form organical notions and spin out conclusions from what we first perceive Now if the first perceptions be uncertain or false it must needs follow that all those following thoughts and reasonings which do but improve them are at least as uncertain and false if not more So that there can be no more certainty in any of the Conclusions as such than there is in the premises and principles Therefore if mans first and most natural necessary perceptions are false all the following actions or reasonings of his mind must be no better All being finally resolved into these perceptions by sense there is no Truth or Certainty in mans mind at all if there be none in these Reason III. Else you would infer that God is not at all to be Believed and that there is no such thing as Divine Faith and Religion in Certainty in the world And so you would bring in by unavoidable consequence far worse Impiety and Irreligiousness than Mahomet or Julian or any Idolaters that I hear of on the earth For you directly will overthrow the Divine Veracity or Truth of Gods Revelations which is the Formal Object of Faith without which it is no Faith P. A heavy charge if you can make it good R. To make it good do but first observe 1. That Gods Essential Will or mind is not in it self immediately seen by man but known only by some Revelation 2. That this Revelation is nothing but some SIGNES For there is nothing in the Universe of Beings but GOD and CREATURES and the ACTS or Works of Creatures Now it is not Gods own Essence which is the Revelation in question Therefore it must be either A Creature or work of God or an Act or Work of a Creature As the voice on Mount Sinai and that of Christ at his baptism and transfiguration and the written Tables of Stone c. were either the works of God immediately and so created Signs of his mind or else the Acts of Angels and so Imperate Signs of his mind Nor it is not the ordinariness or extraordinariness of the way of making these signs which maketh them currant and true or credible For if God can make a Natural false sign he can make a supernatural false one for ought any mortal man can prove Only all the question is Whether it be indeed a sign of the mind and will of God or not Now the works of Nature are Gods Natural Signs and his Natural objective Light and Law as the perception of them is the Subjective or Active Light and Law of Nature Something of God these Natural signs do signifie or reveal plainly and some things darkly And so it is with supernatural signs As the written Tables the voice of an Angel the words of an inspired Prophet or Apostle c. Now there is no other way for God to speak or reveal falsly could he do it but 1. Either to make a false sign naturally or supernaturally or 2. To determine mans sense or mind to a false perception And if God can do this naturally why not supernaturally Nay à fortiore mark how you teach the Infidel to inferr 1. Gods Natural Revelations are Common and his supernatural rare 2. Gods Natural Revelations are most certainly his own Acts But how far a Voice or Book from a Spirit may be the Act of that Spirit or Angel as a free Agent and how far that Agent is fallible or defectible we could not tell if we had not farther Evidence of Gods owning it Therefore
if you make Gods own ordinary Natural Revelations or significations to be false how will you be able to disprove the Infidel about the rest 3. And then note that our Case is yet lower and plainer than all this For if the very Being of the Creatures which is the Matter of these Signs be uncertain to us and all our senses and minds deceived about it then we have no place for enquiry Whether this Creature be any sign of the mind of God As if the hearing of all men was deceived that thought they heard that voice This is my Beloved Son or Pauls that thought he heard Christ speak to him Saul Saul c. or if their Eyes and Intellects were deceived that thought they saw Christ and his miracles or that think now that they read the Bible and indeed there be no such thing as a Bible no such words c. then there is no room to enquire what they signifie For nothing hath no signification Truth and Goodness are affections or modes of Being And if we cannot by all our sound senses know the Being of things we can much less know that they are True or Good Therefore all knowledge and all faith and all Religion is overthrown by your denyal of the truth of our Senses and Intellects perception of things sensible Reason IV. And by this means you are not capable of being disputed with nor any Controversie between you and any others in the world of being decided while you deny sense For then you agree not with mankind in any one common principle And they that agree in nothing can dispute of nothing For this is the first principle Est vel non est is first to be agreed on before we can dispute any farther of a substance What will you do to confute an adversary but drive him to deny a certain principle And can you drive him to deny a lower fundamental Principle than the Being of a substance perceived by sense yea by all the sound senses of all men in the world Reason V. Yea it is specially to be noted that our difference is not only about the species of a sensible substance but about the very substance it self in genere Whether all our senses perceive any substance at all or not Suppose the question were Whether it be water or not which all mens senses see in Rivers If a Papist would deny it to be water doubtless he denyed the agreeing judgement of all mens Intellect by sense But if he should also say It is no substance which we call water or earth This were to deny the first Principle and most fundamental perception in nature Now that this is your case is undenyable For 1. You profess that Christs Body and Blood are not sensible there That it is not the quantity shape number colour smell weight c. of Christs Body and Blood which we perceive and that these Accidents are not the Accidents of Christ 2. And you believe that the Bread and Wine is gone that is changed into the body and blood of Christ so that no part of their substance matter or form is left And you put no third substance under these Accidents in the stead So that you maintain that it is the quantity of nothing the figure of nothing the colour the weight the scituation the smell the number c. of nothing which all mens Intellects by sense perceive So that the Controversie is Whether it be any substance at all which by those accidents we perceive And when we see handle taste smell it you believe or say you believe that it is none neither Bread or Wine or any other Now if by sense we cannot be sure of the very Being of a substance we can be sure of nothing in the world Reason VI. Yea it is to be noted that though Brutes have no Intellects yet their Sense and Imagination herein wholly agreeth with the common perception of man A Dog or a Mouse will eat the bread as common bread and a Swine will drink the Wine as common Wine and therefore have the same perception of it as of common bread and wine And so their senses must be all deceived as well as mans And Brutes have as accurate perfect senses as men have and some much more And meer natural operations are more certain and constant as we see by the worlds experience than meer Reason and Argumentation Birds and Beasts are constant in their perceptions and course of action being not left to the power of Mutable free-will Reason VII You hereby quite overthrow your own foundation which is fetcht from the Concord of all your party which you call all the Church You think that a General Council could not agree to any thing aâ— an Article of faith if it were not such when it is buâ— the Major Vote that agree You say that Traditioâ— is Infallible because All the Church agreeth in iâ— when it is perhaps but your Sect which is a Minoâ— part But do you not overthrow all this when yoâ— profess that All the senses of all the sound men in thâ— world and all the simple perceptions of their Intellectâ— by sense do agree that there is substance yea dâ— specie Bread and Wine after the Consecration No onâ— mans perception by sense disagreed in this from thâ— institution of the Sacrament to this day that can be proved or the least probability of it given And iâ— this Concord be no proof much less is yours For 1. The Intellect in Reasoning is more fallible than iâ— its Immediate perception of things sensed or perceived by sense 2. Yours is but the Consent of some men but ours is the Consent of all mankind Yours among your selves hath oft in Councils a Minor part of dissenters who must be overvoted by the rest But our Case hath never one dissenting sense or perception Reason VIII By this denyal of sense you overthrow the foundations of Humane Converse How can men make any sure Contracts or perform any duty on a sure ground if the Concordant senses of all the world be false Parents cannot be sure which are their own Children nor Children which are their own Parents Husbands cannot certainly know their own Wives from their neighbours No Subjects can certainly know their own Prince No man can be sure whether he buy or sell receive money or pay it c. No man can be sure that there is a Pope or Priest or man in the world Reason IX You seem to me to Blaspheme God and to make him the greatest Deceiver of mankind even in his holy Worship Whereas God cannot lye It is impossible And the Devil is the Father of lyes And you make God to tell all the world as plainly as if words told them even by demonstration to their sight smell feeling taste that here is Bread and Wine when there is none yea that it is at least some substance which they perceive when it is none at all Reason X. You thus fain
give them no peace or quietness in the World unless they will say that Gods Natural Revelations are false and that all mens senses are herein deceived by God as the great deceiver of the World CHAP. II. The Papists Answers to all this confuted P. IT is easie to make any cause seem odious till the accusations are answered which I shall confidently do in the present case I. All this is but argument from sense And sense must vail to faith Gods word must be believed before our senses R. It is easie to cheat fools and children into a dream with a sound of empty words To talk of senses vailing to faith and such like Canting and insignificant words may serve turn with that sort of men But sober men will tell you that sense is in exercise in order of Nature at least before Reason or faith and that we are Men and Animals before we are Christians And that the truth and certainty of faith presupposeth the Truth and Certainty of sense Tell me else if sense be false how you know that there is a Man or Pope or Priest in the World that there is a Book or Voice or any being And what possibility then have you of Believing P. Gods Revelation is surer than our senses R. This is the old song over and over Revelation without sense to you and ordinary Christians at least is a contradiction How know you that God hath any revelations If by preachers words How know you that there is a preacher or a word but by sense If by books How know you that there is a book but by sense P. II. We may trust sense in all other things where God doth not contradict it But not in this One Case because God forbiddeth us R. Say so of your Church too your Pope Council or Traditions that we may trust them in all cases save one or two in which it is certain that they do lye And will not any man conclude that he that can lye in one case can lye in more If one Text of Gods word were false and you would say You may believe all the rest save that how will you ever prove it For the formal object of faith is gone which is the Divine Veracity He that can lye once can lye twice So if all our senses be false in this instance how shall we know that they are ever true P. You may know it because God saith it R. 1. Where doth God say it 2. How shall I be sure that he saith it If you say that it is written in Scripture besides that there is no such word How shall I know that all mens senses are not deceived in thinking that there is a Scripture or such a word in it If you say that the Council saith it How shall I know that there is a man or ever was a Council or a Book in the world The certainty of Conclusions presupposeth the certainty of premises and principles And the certainty of faith and Reasoning presupposeth the certainty of sense And if you deny this you deny all and in vain plead for the rest P. I must believe my senses where I have no reason to disbelieve them But when God contradicteth them I have reason to disbelieve them R. 1. You vainly suppose without proof that God contradicteth them So you may say I may or must believe the Scripture or an Apostle Prophet or Miracle except God contradict them But if God contradict them he contradicteth his own word or revelation For we have no other from him but by man And if he contradict himself or his own word how can I believe him or know which of his words it is that 's true when one is false so here His Natural Revelation is his first nearest and most satisfactory revelation And if that be said to be false by his supernatural revelation which shall I believe and why P. III. You cannot deny but God can deceive our senses And therefore if he can will you conclude against all faith if once he do it R. 1. This is not once but as oft as God is worshiped in your Mass and our Sacrament 2. God can deceive us without a Lie but not by a Lie Christ deceived the two Disciples Luke 24. by carrying it as if he would have gone further but not by saying that he would go further God can do that from which he knoweth that man will take occasion of deceit God can blind a mans eyes or destroy or corrupt his other senses he can present an object defectively with unmeet mediums distance site c. In this case he doth not give us a FALSE SIGN nor doth he by the Nature of the Revelation oblige any man to believe it Yea Nature saith that a man is not to Judge by a vitiated sense or an unmeet medium or a too distant object or where the due qualification of the sense or object are wanting Nature there tells us that we are there to suppose or suspect that we are uncapable of certainty But Nature obligeth us to believe sound senses about duly qualified objects and to take sense for sound when all the senses of all the men in the world agree and the object to be a duly qualified object of sense when all mens senses in the world so perceive it For we have no way but by sense to know what is an object of sense 3. The question is not what God can do by his power if he will but what God will do and can will to do in consistency with his perfection and just and merciful Government of the World And God in making us men whose Intellects are naturally to perceive things sensible by the means of the perception of sense doth naturally oblige man and necessitate him also to trust his senses in such perception And in Nature man hath no surer way of apprehension Therefore if you could prove that sense is ordinarily fallible and Gods revelations to it false yet man were not only allowed but necessitated to use and trust it as having no better surer way of apprehension As among many knaves or lyars I must most trust the honestest and most trusty when I have no better to trust If I am not sure that it is a Sun or Light that I see yet I am sure that I must take my perception of it as a Sun or Light as it is For God hath given me no better If I am not sure that my sight feeling taste c. are infallible yet I am sure that I am made of God to use them and that I have no better senses nor a better way to be certain of their proper objects so that I must take and trust them as they are or cease to be a man P. IV. Christs Body and Blood are not sensible objects and therefore sense is no proper judge whether they be present R. This is one of your gross kind of cheats to change the question We are not yet come to the
no faithful History doth deny And then I need not prove that Transubstantiation is against the most General or Common Tradition For all these Christians the Greeks Armenians Abassines c. profess to follow the Religion which they have received from their Ancestors as well as the Papists do And if the Papists be to be believed in saying that this is the Religion which they received from their forefathers Why are not the other to be believed in the same case And if the Popish Tradition seem regardable to them Why should not the Tradition of twice or thrice as many Christians be more regardable And if in Councils the Major Vote must carry it Why not in the Judgement and Tradition of the Real body of Christs Church As for their trick of excepting against them as Schismaticks and Hereticks to invalidate their Votes and Judgement we despise it as knowing that so any Usurper that would make himself the sole Judge may say by all the rest of the world But as they judge of others they are justly judged by others themselves CHAP. X. The second part of the Controversie Whether it be Christs very Flesh and Blood into which the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated R. OUr first Question was Whether there be any Bread and Wine left after Consecration Our second is Whether Christs Real Flesh and Blood be there as that into which the Bread and Wine are changed And herein 1. I do freely grant that the change of Christs Body by Glorification is so great as that it may be called though not a Spirit yet a spiritual body as Paul 1 Cor. 15. saith Ours when Glorified shall be that is A body very like in purity simplicity and activity to a Spirit And the general difference between a spirit and body was not held by many of the Greek Fathers as it is by us And if the second Council of Nice was Infallible no Angel or other Creature is Incorporeal Or as Damasus saith They are Corporeal in respect to God but Incorporeal in respect to gross bodies The perfect knowledge of the difference between Corpus and Spiritus except by the formal Virtues is unknown to mortal men 2. I grant therefore that our senses are no Competent Judges Whether Christs true body be in the Sacrament no more than Whether an Angel be in this room There are bodies which are Invisible 3. I grant that it is unknown to us how far Christs Glorified body may extend Whether the same may be both in Heaven and on earth I am not able nor willing to confute them that say Light is a Body nor them that say It is a spirit nor them that say It is quid medium as a nexus of both I mean Aether or Ignis visible in its Light And it is an incomprehensible wonder if Lumen be a real radiant or Emanant part of the Sun that it should indivisibly fill all the space thence to this earth and how much further little do we know So for the extensions of Christs body let those that understand it dispute for me 4. And I will grant that it is very probable that as in Heaven we shall have both a Soul and Body so the Body is not like to have so near an Intuition and fruition of God as the soul And whether the Glorified Body of Christ will not be there a medium of Gods Communication of Glory to our bodies yea and his glorified soul to our souls as the Sun is now to our eyes I do not well understand only I know that it is his prayer and will that we be with him where he is to behold his Glory and that God and the Lamb will be the Light of the Heavenly Jerusalem 5. And I am fully satisfied that it is not the signs only but the Real Body and Blood of Christ which are given us in the Sacraments both Baptism and the Eucharist But how given us Relatively de jure as a man is Given to a Woman in Marriage or as a house and land are delivered to me to be mine for my use though I touch them not Thus 1. A right to Christ is given us 2. And the fruits or benefits of his Crucified body and shed blood are actually given us that is Pardon and the Spirit merited for us thereby 6. And among the Benefits given us besides the Relative there are some such as we call Real or Physical terminatively and hyperphysical originally ut à Causa which are the spirit of Holiness or the Quickening Illuminating and Sanctifying influence of the spirit of Christ upon our souls And the Sacrament is appointed as a special means of communicating this 7. I have met with some of late who say that Indeed Christs Body and Blood in his humbled state were not really eaten and drunk by the disciples at his last supper For the flesh profiteth not to such a use But that his Glorified Body is spiritual and is extensively communicated and invisibly present under the form of Bread in the Sacrament and that as we have a Body a sensitive life and an Intellectual soul so Christ is the life of all these respectively viz. His Body is made the spiritual nourishment of our Bodies his sensitive soul for which the word Blood is put because it is in the blood in animals is the food or life of our sensitive souls and his Intellectual soul of ours And to these uses they assert the Real presence and oral participation of Christs Glorified body To all which I say 1. Whether or how far an invisible spiritual Body is present sense is no judge nor can we know any further than Gods word telleth us 2. That Christ in his Glorified soul and Body is our Intercessour with God through whom we have all things we must not doubt 3. That Christ in his Humane and Divine Nature now in Heaven is that Teacher who hath left us a certain word and that King who hath left us a perfect Law of Life whom we must obey and a promise which we must trust we must not question 4. That the Holy Ghost who is our spiritual Life is given us by from and for Christ our Mediator we must take for certain truth But though in all these respects Faith apprehendeth and liveth upon Christ yet that moreover his Glorified Body in substance either feedeth or by contact purifieth our Bodies and his sensitive soul our sensitive souls and his Intellectual soul our Intellectual souls as if in themselves and not in their effects only they were thus communicated to us I understand not either by any just conception of the thing it self or any proof of it from the word of God But if any can help me to see it I shall not refuse instruction Nor can I see why the soul of Christ should be said to be given in the Wine only and not in the Bread Nor why by this kind of Communication he may not as truly be said to be given us in
truly believed that Christ was the Messiah They erred that thought it lawful to eat things offered to Idols and yet they erred not in believing in Christ No two men in the world its like have the same degree of personal faith and knowledge as I oft said before But if our professed object of faith that is Gods word were false in one thing we could not be sure that it were true in any thing Yet here I told you before 1. That a man may be much surer that one part of Scripture is Gods word than another because some Copies are doubtful in the diverse Readings of some particular words or sentences and which of them that so differ is Gods word we oft know not But so much as we are sure is the word of God we are sure is true So if the Authority of some few books was once doubted of as 2 Pet. Jam. Jud. Heb. c. and yet be by any it followeth not that they doubt of the truth of any which they know to be the word of God 2. Or if any do hold that the Penmen might be left to their natural fallibility in some by historical circumstances or words it would not follow that one Article of the Gospel or Christian faith is doubtful which is plainly as the Kernel of it delivered in all the Scripture and also by infallible Universal Tradition by it self in the Sacrament Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue And our case also much differeth from the Papists in this For We profess that our objective faith Gods word is Infallible and we are Infallible so far as we believe it But we confess that we are lyable to misunderstand some parts of it and so far are fallible as being imperfect But the Papists say that their Pope and Councils and Universal Practicers are personally Infallible so as not to be lyable to any misunderstanding of any Article of faith say some or Article of Catholick faith say others And so they make their own Act of Believing to be Commensurate and equally certain with Gods word of faith and therefore they allow you to question them in all if they err in one as pretending to a gift of never erring in any D. But is it not a great reason to incline us to them rather than to you when They only pretend to Infallibility and You confess that you are all fallible in your Belief R. This is to be the subject of our next Conference and therefore not now to be anticipated only I shall tell you that It is a meer noise of ambiguous words to deceive the heedless that cannot search out the meaning of them 1. We not only Pretend but Profess and prove that our Christian Religion is altogether Infallible For which end I have written divers Treatises my self 2. And we profess that all the mystical Church of Christ that is all sincere Christians do truly and Infallibly believe all that is Essential to Christianity and as much of the Integrals as they can know 3. And we profess that the Catholick Church-Visible that is All professors of Christianity in the world do profess all these Essentials of Christianity and are Infallible in this profession But we hold withall that there is no particular Church or Bishop no Synod or Council that is so Infallible but that 1. They that hold to the Essentials may misunderstand and err about some Integrals 2. And those persons have no Certainty that they shall not err by Heresie or Apostacy from the Essentials themselves So that the Church is Infallible because it is essentiated by believing an Infallible Word which who ever believeth not ceaseth to be of the Church not Gods Word infallible because the Church or any number of men believe it or say Its true For Truth is before Knowledge and Faith As Aristotle was a Philosopher because he understood and taught the doctrine of real Philosophy and not that doctrine called Physicks or Philosophy because that Aristotle knew or taught it But alas What work shall I shew you when I come to open their bewildring uncertainties D. But to deal freely with you methinks their way of measuring out the Necessaries in Faith and Religion according to mens various parts and opportunities seemeth to me more satisfactory than yours who fix upon certain points as the Baptismal Covenant as Essentials For there is great diversity of mens Capacities R. This cometh from confounding several Questions as if they were all one 1. It is one Question What is the Christian Religion 2. ☞ It is another Question Whether the Christian Religion be absolutely necessary to the salvation of all those to whom it was never competently revealed 3. And it is another Question Whether more than the Essentials of Christian Religion be not necessary to the salvation of many who have opportunity to know more Alas what work doth Confusion make in the world To the first It is evident that as Mahometanism is a thing which may be defined so much more may Christianity Who that writeth of the several Religions of the world Ethnick Jewish Mahometan and Christian do not take them to be distinguishable and discernable Especially when Christ hath summed up Christianity into a Covenant and given it us in express words and affixed a flat promise of salvation to the true Covenanters and the Church hath ever called our Baptism our Christening Is Christianity Nothing If Something Why may it not be defined and differenced from all false Religions And if so It hath its Essential Constitutive parts All this is plain to Children that will see 2. And then as to the second question it concerneth not our Controversie at all It is but Whether any Infidels may be saved Or any that are no Christians And if it could be proved that any are saved that are no Christians do you thereby prove that they are Christians or members of the Christian Church or that Christianity is not a Religion which may be defined 3. And as to the third question We are on all sides agreed in it That they that have more than the naked Essentials of Christianity revealed to them aptly are bound to believe more Yea it is hardly conceiveable that any one should know and believe the Essentials only and no more It is not Essential to the Christian Covenant or Christianity to know that the Name of Christs Mother was Mary or that Pontius Pilate was the man that condemned him And if an Ignorant man thought that his continuance in the Grave was four dayes I do not think that this would damn his soul to Hell Much less the not believing that Mary dyed a Virgin And yet it is not like that any man should come to the Essentials of Christianity by any such way as should acquaint him with no one of these or any point besides the said Essentials And yet it is certain for all this that he that truly receiveth the Essentials and is true to the Baptismal Covenant shall be