Nice nor you the Council of Arimini as to prejudge one another to wit because Austin was cast by the Council of Arimini as Maximinus was cast or condemned by the Council of Nice Nec ego hujus Authoritate nec tu illius detineris that is neither am I taken convinced by the Authority of this of Arimini or you by the Authority of that of the Council of Nice viz. because as I reject the Authority of the Council of Arimini so you reject the Authority of the Council of Nice Scripturarum Authoritatibus non quorumcumque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet Let mater contend with matter cause with cause and reason with reason by the Aurthorities of Scriptures which are not proper to each of us as the Nicene Council is to me and that of Arimini to you but common witnesses to both 2. Now see how he has falsified this passage to make appear that St. Augustin did not stand to the Authority of an approved General Council Where he saies neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini St. Austin saies Neither ought I to alledge the Council of Nice nor you the Council of Arimini Is this the same in Words or Sense He goes on Neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this i. e. of the Council of Arimini nor I to the Authority of that i. e. of the Council of Nice St. Austin has the quite contrary saying neither am I taken convinc'd by the Authority of the Council of Arimini nor you by the Authority of Nice Now be pleased to look back to pag. 35. and there you will find my Explication of the passage and how it does not hurt us at all or imply any apprehension in St. Augustin of Fallibility in a General approved Council 2. That Romanists are subject to be tortured with doubts of their Baptism 3. That we have an inticement to Sin by relying on Purgatory 4. That one distinguish Venial from Mortal Sin opens a Door to loosness 5. That we don't allow every one to read the Scripture 6. The Novelty of Transubstantiation the occasion of Idolatry and Hypocrisie in it 7. Our relying on the Mediations of Saints and our own Merits 8 Our mixing Superstition and Idolatry in our Divine Worship 9. Our not Adoring God in Spirit and Truth but under corporal shapes and having our recourse to the help of Saints 10. The diâ—â—ormity of our Ecclesiastical Discipline from primative times 11 Câ—r not serving God with freedom of Spirit but indangering our Souls by Vows Answer First our Faith does not believe the Decrees of Errable but of general approved and consequently infallible Councils as I have shown Chap. 4. in 3. Sections After all this I avow our Faith is an obscure knowledge and as St. Paul speak Hebâ— â—â— v â— a perswasion of things not appearing Buâ— 't is not so weak as that of Protestants that it needs the evidence of sense to support it 2. We have no reason to be tortured with doubts of our Baptism as may be seen in what I said Chap. â— in the 2. and 3 sect But Protestants have when they read in the Gospel Io. 3. v. 3. unless one be born over again by Water he can not see the Kingdom of Heaven Because they know their Church doth not look upon it as a thing necessary to Salvation and that many are wilfully at least among the Presbiterians permitted to Dye without it 3. We have no incitment to Sin by our belief of Purgatory because we believe the Pains of that place are greater than any Torment we can suffer in this World And who would willingly purchase to himself the pleasure he may enjoy by his Venial Adhesion to a Creature by the pains of the Stone Colick Gout Of Fire Rack Wheele and all that ever was suffered in this Life by a Malefactor But the less Godly of Protestants may have some encouragement to slight Sin believing that an Act of Faith at their Death will do the turn and if they be of the Elect they are sure to have it 4. We admit the destinction between Mortal and Venial Sin strongly grounded on Scripture a just Man falls seven times or often and rises up again Prov. 24.16 who remains just in his fall does not incur Damnation by it And Luke 1. v. 6. If Zachary and Elizabeth did not keep the Commandements of God perfectly in the Protestants sense At least their breaches of the Law were not Damnable bereaving them of their Justice and of the Friendship of God From Matth. 5. v. 23. You see there are some Sins Guilty of Hell others not Guilty of Heil Fire and such Sins we call Venial call them as you please so you distinguish them from failings depriving Men of the Friendship of GOD. But this does not open the Door to loosness for the reason I brought in my third Answer but the denying of this distinction opens the Door to a perpetual disturbance of mind dread and fear in a Protestant of Dying suddenly as many Dye after he has spoken an idle Word for this idle Word according to our Adversary is a Damnable breach of the Law of GOD and deserves his Eternal Wrath as being of an illimated Malice as he speaks and can't be forgiven in the other World but must be repented here under pain of Damnation Luke 13. v. 5. I suppose he won't say that Protestants have a Priviledge to repent afore hand for Sins to come 5. The Church does not indeed allow every Ignorant Person to read indifferently the whole Bible least by their misunderstanding some hard passages they find Death where others find Life As the Manicheans from that passage of Io. 8. v. 12. I am the Light of the World held that Christ was the Sun as St. Austin relates Trac 34. in Io. And the Seleutians misunderstanding that passage Math. 3. v. 11. he will Baptize you in the Holy Ghost and Fire made use of Fire instead of Water in Baptism witness the same St. Aug. Heresi 59. But she orders the Pastors to give out of it as St. Paul did not all to all but Milk to some and stronger Food to others See out of the following passage of St. Augustin that 't is not necessary that every one read the Holy Scripture Homo saies he fide spe charitate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens non indiget Scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos Itaque multi per haec tria etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt Aug. L. 1. de Doctr. Christi c. 19. A Man born up by Faith Hope and Charity and immoveably retaining them has no need of the Scripture unless it were to teach others So many by these three live in the Desert without the Scriptures 6. The Term Transubstantiation is new as the Term Omousios of the same substance against the
are That every one may see clearly whither or no what I hold as a Tenet of Religion is not found among them but is a meer superstruction Will you refuse to a considerable Person who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book a Law which justifies the Action for which he is condemn'd to Die Will you I say refuse him a publick sight of that Book to justifie your Sentence against him but notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspecting him Innocent savagely cast him If not do not condemn us who hold for certainty Transubstantiation to be so Fundamental that no Christian of the first three Ages would have deny'd it A Subsect Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages I Ask our Adversary did those Christians living then believe as a Fundamental point that they were the true Church planted by CHRIST and continued from the Apostles or not If not then they could not say in their Creed I believe in the Holy Catholick Church If they did believe it I ask again upon what ground was truth warranted to them for three hundred Years and not to the Church till the end of the World Was not Gods promise of Infallibility to his Church made to it as well to the end of the World as for the first three hundred Years Isaiah 59. v. 21. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee to wit the Church and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart out of thy Mouth nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed saith the Lord from henceforth and forever And to the Ephes 4. cap. v. 11 12 13 14. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. That we henceforth be no more Children tost too and fro and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine by the slight of Men. If he avow the Church fail'd not in Fundamental Truths I wonder how he can allow Luther and Calvin's Reforming the Church with so much Fire Sword and Confusion for a matter that did not impede Salvation If they Reform'd Her in Fundamentals then She perish'd which is against the Infallible promise of CHRIST If you say they did not Reform it as it lay pure in the Souls of some chosen tho' unknown to others but in the publick Pastors and Teachers who were reprehensible for their grievous Deviations then say I where was the visible Church to which Men should have recourse for the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments Isaiah cap. 2. v. 3. A second Proof and Reason is drawn from that it seems morally impossible that in the begining of the fourth Age if he will have the fall of Religion then the Pastors should propose a number of new Tenets to be believ'd and perswade the People that they had heard them from their Fathers of the third Age not one individual Person in the mean time remembring that he heard them from his Is it credible that not only one Parish or Nation but all Countries who liv'd afore in the Union of the Catholick Church should of a sudden have permitted themselves to be cheated into this perswasion or rather bewitch'd since not one was found for many Ages to have gainsaid it or reclaimed against it Since this then is Morally impossible conclude that these Tenets of R. Catholicks which our adversary calls novelties were the old tenets of the three first Centuries A third reason 't is remark'd that God never permitted any notable Error to rise up in his Church but alwayes stirred up at the same time some man or men to speak and write against it and mov'd the whole Church to joyn with them to destroy it So Athanasius rose up against Arius Cyrillus Alexandrinus against Nestorius Augustin against Pelagius All back'd by the whole Church for the total overthrowing of those Errors Now if the Mass be an Error it is a most damnable one an Idolatry insupportable to give Divine Worship to the Host if it be only a piece of Bread Yet after this Error was broach'd in Gregory the Great 's time in the sixth or seventh Age as Protestants imagin what University or private Man spoke against it then or three hundred Years after It s true about four hundred Years after Berengarius inveighed against it but being better inform'd and by a torrent of Arguments for its Truth overwhelm'd he Recanted and Dyed Penitent Consult then Reason and not Passion and you will see that R. Catholicks have made no superstructurs on the Faith of the first three Ages SECT II. Formal Protestants are Hereticks I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms that we cannot say without Ignorance Calumny and Injustice that a Protestant is an Heretick First I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes viz. pertinaciously an Article of Faith or a revealed Verity Next I ask him by what principle he proves that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth I suppose he will Answer because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture I ask him further if a Preacher now of their Congregation should vent a Doctrine not Orthodox and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth according to his best Judgment reveal'd in Scripture By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick He 'l tell you he believes the three Creeds and the whole Scripture and therefore he believes this his dogme because the thinks he finds it in Scripture Is he an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren He is known to be as Learn'd as they and of as good a Life as they If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick that is against the Scripture Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an Heretick and consequently he may be proven to be one If you say he is an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars but neither to the whole Congregation or the Church of which he was a Member and therefore is justly condemn'd by Her according to Isai 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn this is the Inheritance of the Lords Servants I conclude without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice that the Protestant Luther the Protestant Calvin c. were Hereticks because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excommunicated for their self Opinions Again this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith or Science or Opinion If you say it is an Act of Faith 〈◊〉 then say I 't is false
his empty talk of Roses and Lillies c. saying I can never acertain you of any thing my Eyes sees for if I see all the Accidents of a Rose and have no Revelation from the Author of Nature that the Substance of a Rose is not there I can asure you that it is a Rose The same Answer serves when he saies that as my Eye may be deceived so may also my Ear which gives a Mortal blow to Tradition it coming by hearing For we have said already that neither Eye nor Ear are deceiv'd in their Object because as the Eye ever represents the same Colour so the Ear conveys ever to the understanding the same sound and as the Substance which is under that Colour is the Object of the understanding and not of the Eye so likewaies the Truth or Falsehood of the Word is the Object of the understanding and not of the Ear. You 'l say if Accidents only are the Object of our senses how do you understand these propositions I see Bread I Taste Wine Which are common Expressions Answer We speak so because the denomination which fals upon the Instrument often is given to the thing of which it is an Instrument and so as when my Hand is hurt I am said to be hurt because my Hand is an Instrument of my Body by which it Acts so when the savour of the Wine is tasted the Wine is said to be tasted because it is an Instrument or Vertue that flowes from the Wine and by which the Wine affects your Taste Out of all I have said gather this Truth that neither Sense nor Reason is deceiv'd in the Eucharist not our senses because they find all the Accident in the same condition after Consecration in which they were before Not Reason because Reason tells me that I ought to believe that the Substance of Bread is there where all its Accidents are unless God reveal to me the contrary and in that case not to believe it to be there But God has reveal'd it not to be there so when I now believe it not to be there my Reason is not deceiv'd Now to oppose this revelation or Infallible word of Christ we claim to This is my Body he saies Litera occidit the letter kills Answer The letter kills indeed when it taken in the literal sense involves a contradiction or any thing against Faith or good manners otherwayes not So this proposition Christ is a Vine taken literally kills because the verb is in it taken literally Imports an Identification or samety of two natures specifically different contrary to that we know by Faith to wit that the Son of God hath assum'd no nature but that of man And in this proposition This is my Body taken literally the verb is imports onely an Indentification of the same thing with it self onely otherwayes exprest less destinctly in the subject This and more destinctly in the predicate my Body Subsect II. Shows that Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion OUr Adversary's second way of opposing Transubstantiation is to say that it Inclines mean Capacities to Idolatrie and the sharper wits to Hypocrisie The Common People no doubt saies he do frequently adore the Accidents according to his concession pag. 90. They are taught as he saies there to adore Christ under the Accidents they see which they call God saying when the Wafer is lifted by the Priest on leve Dieu God is lifted Answer The Doctrine of Transubstantiation expresly commands to adore what they do not see quod non vides and forbids to Adore what is seen If nevertheless some do the contrary the Doctrine is not therefore blameable no more then the Law is to be blam'd because some do quite contrary to its Rule and Instruction For that saying on leve Dieu God is lifted if it can be said without Blasphemy that God was lifted upon the Cross because Christ's Body was lifted upon the Cross it may likewise be said without Blasphemy that God is lifted up in the Sacrifice of the Mass because Christs Body is there lifted up By a Communication of properties what is atributed to Christ's Body is atributed to Christ and what is atributed to Christ is atributed to God For the sharp wits they see that according to the probable Opinion of Protestants Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not there as in a place because to be in a place is to be with the full extention of its parts corresponding to the parts of the place but this Christ's Body in the Eucharist has not and therefore it is not there in a place And therefore tho' it be there and in Heaven both at once it is not in two places both at once yet largely and improperly speaking the Body of Christ may be said to be in the Eucharist as in a place in as much as it is united to the Accidents which are in a place The Body then of Christ is there after the existing way of a Spirit If you say the Body of Christ can't be united to Accidents in different places I ask how is our Soul united to different parts of the Body which are in different places Just then as the Soul is not in a place yet is said to be above and below before and behind because the parts to which it is united are above and below before and behind so when the Accidents to which Christ's Body is united in the Eucharist are mov'd or lifted up it is said to be mov'd or lifted up So it s a silly thing for Protestants to object to Catholicks the obsurdities which seem to follow from a Body's being in two places since they may say that the Body of Christ by its being in the Eucharist is not in two places Thus you see our witty People have not occasion to be Hypocrites but sincere believers If our Adversary saies a Body can be no more without Extention then Water without humidity Fire without Heat a Stone without Hardness I grant it is so naturally but he must mutually grant to me that it may be as well without extention supernaturally as a Fire without burning having within the splear of its activity a thing combustible which was seen in the Furnice of Babylon Dan. 3. cap. And a Stone by the stroke of a Rod to yield a Fountain of Water Exod 17. cap. v. 6. is as surprising as Water it self without Humidity Let Catholicks then mark well this that Transubstantiation does not at all force them to avow that CHRIST's Body is in two parts extensivly or with the extension of its parts Our Adversary objects that all Miracles must be visible but in the Eucharist the Substance into which the Bread is changed is not visible then there is no such Miraculous change in the Eucharist Answer I deny the Major proposition for to whom was visible the Conception and Birth of CHRIST of a Virgin-Mother To whom was visible the Creation
owed to God to a Creature Mindfull of this wonder no more that a Man who leaves God may become as void of Reason as a Calf To return then to our Foolish Israelits was that way of speaking these are thy Gods in the plural number a representation of one God in one Essence and Nature From the Golden Calf let us come to our Images they are called the Books of Ignorants but in our Adversaries Judgement ought rather to be term'd the Books of Ignorance because they are the occasion of many Errors sayes he For Example the Picture of an Old Man representing God the Father a Dove the Holy Ghost are apt to make the Ignorant sort believe they have indeed some such shape Answer VVe must then blot out of the Holy Scripture all these expressions and ways of speaking by which God is said to Heare to See to repent Gen c. 6. v. 6. Lest the Ignorant People think that God has Ears and Eyes and sorrow in his Hart as we have Now reflect that these Pictures are not representatives of God the Father or of the Holy Ghost immediatly but of an old Man and a Dove which are the Symbols of God the Father and the Holy Ghost in as much as they in some sort represent to us the destinctive perfections of those Divine Persons As the old Man is the Principle of his son and not mutualy principal'd by him so God the Father is the principle of God the Son and God the Holy Ghost and is not principal'd by them Also the puritie and fecundity of the Dove makes us more sensible of the Sanctity we are said to receave particularly from the Holy Ghost as a fountain of purity and of the fecundity of his grace brought forth in us The occasion then of Deception if there be any is not in the Images but in the things Immediatly represented by Them I hope the Zeal of our Antagonist will not be so blind on this account as to study the Extirpation of Doves and ridding the World of old Men since it is not to be thought that Christians are easily to be found of so gross an imagination as to think that the Nature or Essence of God or the Holy Ghost can be Painted out to our Eyes altho ' they may be Painted in that Figure it pleased them to appear as God appeared to Daniel with the Hairs of his Head as pure Wool Daniel 7. v. 9. And the Holy Ghost in Form of a Dove Luke 3. v. 22. SECT II. The Protestants do not Adore God in Spirit and Truth nor the R. Catholick the Cross as GOD. ALtho' our Adversary think it undeniable that Protestants Adore more than R. Catholicks in Spirit and Truth because they Adore God immediatly sayes he without having recourse to Images Yet I think I reasonably deny both parts of his proposition the first because as a Protestant to make me believe that he has Faith must prove it by his Works according to St. Iames 2. v. 18. so to perswade me that he Adores God in Spirit he must manifest it to me by his outward respect to him Shall I say that Mans Heart Adores God whose Hand does not do his duty to him Protestants do not give to God the chief Adoration which is due to him as he is above all Creatures I mean a proper Sacrifice which was ever esteemed by all and is the great Act of Religion and how shall I believe that their Spirit Adores him Self-denyals and Mortifications of the Flesh instituted and practised by the Antient Church out of a respect to God they retrench and how shall I know that in Spirit they Adore him He requires as an Homage from Men to keep his Commands saying my Yoke is easie and my Burden is light and Protestants tell him flatly they can't do it Is this to submit their Judgment to his and so in Spirit Adore him Neither do they Adore him in Truth Who knew which way God was to be truly Ador'd or according to his will before he reveal'd it Now that he has reveal'd it in the Holy Scriptures and addrest us to the Church for the understanding of this way of Adoring in these Words Matth. 18. v. 17. Who will not hear the Church let him be to the c. Since Protestants will not hear Her shall I say that doing contray to his Command they Honour him truly or in Truth Adore him When Saul sent to destroy Amalek spared the best of the spoil 1 Sam. 15. as he excus'd himself to Samuel to Sacrifice to God did he in that truly Adore God No but his own will transgressing the Command of God so Protestants taking a way of their own to serve God contrary to his Command in his Holy Word they do not truly serve him nor in Truth Adore him When our Adversary condemns our serving of God by the help of Images he condemns himself For he can't Adore God without thinking of him this thought a good will cherishes drives away others which hinder or weaken it strives to conserve it and beggs of God to continue it and so shows by all this a great respect for it And why so much respect for it Because it helps the will to move more frequently and attentively to GOD. And at last this good thought is found to be an Image for it is an Act of the understanding and every Act of the understanding is a representation of its Object and this representation is an Inâ—ge presupposing another Image more material in the Imagination And this same is all the use Romanists make of Images O but you Adore sayes he confessedly the Cross cultu latriae with that Soveraign cult belonging to God only and what can we instance in defence of our Innocency Answer This assertion is false I instance First the second Council of Nice Act. 7. Where it saies that Pictures are to be Worshiped but not with the cult of Latry which is the Worship we give to God And speaking particularly of the Cross saies our Adoration of it is only a Salutation Aspasmos and brings a number of Examples of it as Iacob is said to have Ador'd Esau Gen. 33. v. 3. And Abraham the Sons of Heth for the Field he received from them for the Burying place of Sara his Wise Gen. 23. v. 7. I instance secondly for our Innocency of this Crime the Council of Trents Words Ses 25. de Invoc Vener reliquiarum S. S. Sa. Imag. mandat Sancta Synodus c. Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in Templis presertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum Vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda vel uti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis