But they must be so many as are suited to every ones capacity and means during his life And no man living can know that he understandeth and believeth as much as his capacity and means were in their kind sufficient to Nay there is no man that hath not been culpably ignorant of somewhat which he might have known 2. Mens Sacramental receptions and comforts depend on the Intention of the Priest which no man knoweth 3. Almost all Godly men must expect the fire of Purgatory and consequently none of them can be rationally willing to dye Because this life is better than Purgatory and no man will desire to go from hence into the fire And so by making all men unwilling to dye it destroyeth a heavenly mind and killeth faith and hope and love and holy joy and tempteth men to be worldlings and to love this life better than the next Yea it tempteth men to be afraid of Martyrdom lest dying in Venial sins as all do they go to a Purgatory fire more terrible than Martyrdom XXIII Reason Their Doctrine is not only contrary to many express Texts of Holy Scripture but also contrary to it self One Pope and one Council having decreed one thing and another the clean contrary XXIV Reason All this evil is made more pernicious by that professed Impenitence which is included in the conceit of their Churches Infallibility For they that hold themselves Infallible do profess never to Repent of any thing in which they suppose themselves to be so And as Repentance is the great evidence of the pardon of sin so Impenitency is that mortal sign of an unpardoned soul without which no sin doth qualifie the sinner to be Excommunicated by man or damned by God And a sin materially less is more Mortal unrepented of than a greater truly lamented and forsaken XXV Reason Every honest godly Protestant may be as sure that Popery is false as he is that he is himself sincere and Loveth God and is truly willing to obey him And no man can turn Papist without self-contradiction who is a true Christian and an honest man For by turning Papist he confesseth himself to be before a false-hearted hypocrite who neither Loved God nor sincerely desired to obey him nor was true to his Baptismal Covenant For it is a part of Popery to believe that none are in a state of salvation but the Subjects of the Pope or members of the Papal Church And consequently that no others have true Faith Repentance or Love to God Or else that God is false in promising salvation to all that have true Faith Repentance and Love to God All therefore that know their own hearts to be truly devoted to God are safe from Popery And seeing it is agreed on both sides that none can or ought to turn Papists but ungodly hypocrites or Knaves no wonder if such are deluded by the most palpable deceits and forsaken of God whom they perfidiously forsook I will name you no more If I make these or any one of these good as I undertake to prove them all you will see that I refuse not my self to be a Papist without sufficient cause And yet by this charge you will see that I am none of their extream adversaries I pass by abundance of Doctrinal differences wherein by many they are most deeply charged Not as Justifying them against all or most so charged on them but 1. As giving you those Reasons which most move my self and which I am most able to make good and leaving every one to his proper work 2. And as one that have certainly found out that in many doctrinals seeming to be the matter of our widest difference we are thought by many to differ much more than we do 1. The difference lying most in Words and Logical Notions and various wayes of mens expressing their conceptions 2. And the animosity of men engaged in Parties and Interests against each other causing most to take all in the worst sense and to make each other seem far more erroneous than they are and to turn differing names into damnable heresies And 3. Few men having Will and Skill to state controversies aright and cut off mistaken seeming differences 4. And few having honesty and self-denyal enough to incurr the censure of the ignorant Zealots of their own party by seeming but impartial and just to their adversaries I mean in such points as 1. The Nature of Divine faith Whether it be a perswasion that I am pardoned c. 2. Of Certainty of salvation 3. And Certainty of perseverance 4. Of Sanctification 5. Of Justification 6. Of Good works 7. Of Merit 8. Of Predestination 9. Of Providence and the Cause of Sin 10. Of Free-will 11. Of Grace 12. Of Imputation of Righteousness 13. Of Universal Redemption 14. Of Original Sin and divers others In all which I cannot justifie them but am sure that the difference is made commonly to seem to be that which indeed it is not In the true impartial stating whereof Lud. Le Blanck hath begun to do the Christian Churches most excellent service worthy our great thanks and his bearing all the Censures of the ignorant PART IV. The First Charge made good against Transubstantiation In which Popery is proved to be the Shame of Humane Nature Contrary to SENSE REASON SCRIPTURE and TRADITION or the judgement of the Antient and Present Church devised by Satan to expose Christianity to the Scorn of Infidels CHAP. I. The First Reason to prove Transubstantiation false R. THe Papists Belief of Transubstantiation is that There is a change made of the whole substance of the Bread into the body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into his blood Their opinion called their faith hath two parts The first is that There is no more true Proper Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration Hoc est Corpus meum The second is that There is the true proper Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ under the species as they call them of Bread and Wine It is the first that I shall now prove false And you must not forget the state of the Question which is not Whether Christs Body and Blood be present But Whether there remain any Bread and Wine Arg. I. If there remain no Bread and Wine after the Consecration then all the senses of all the sound men in the world are deceived or all mens perception of these sensible things deceived though there be due magnitude site distance of the object a due abode and a due medium and no depravation of the sense or intellect But this Consequent is notoriously false as shall be proved Therefore Popery is false 1. That all mens senses perceive Bread and Wine or all mens Intellects by their senses will not be denyed Not only Protestants but Greeks Mahometans Heathens Papists all persons perception by sense is here the same Therefore it is sound senses or else there are none sound in the world 2. It is not one
Saint and yet not the benefits or effects As if Christs flesh and blood could be in a mans body without his benefit When he hath promised that he that eateth him shall live by him Yet see the measures of their faith and Church Saith Aquinas 3. q. 80. a. 3. ad 2. Vnless perhaps an Infidel intend to Receive that which the Church giveth though he have not true faith about other Articles or about this Sacrament then he may receive sacramentally CHAP. VI. The fourth Argument This Miraculous Transubstantiation is expresly contrary to the Word of God in Scripture Arg. 4. THe Papists say that there is no bread after the words of Consecration Gods word saith There is Bread after the Consecration Therefore the Papists speak contrary to the Word of God I. In 1 Cor. 11. It is called expresly BREAD after consecration no less than three times in three verses together 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and Drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup Here they that call for express words of Scripture for our doctrine without our consequences may see their own faith expresly contradicted and our opposition justified The Holy Ghost here expresly calleth it Bread And yet no expresness nor evidence will satisfie them P. By Bread is meant that which was Bread before or else that which nourisheth the soul as Bread doth the body And so it is metonymically only called Bread as Christs Flesh is called Bread in Joh. 6. R. Why then do you call for express texts of Scripture as our proof when that expresness signifieth nothing with you but you can say It is a metonymie or a metaphor at your pleasure But you say so against notorious Evidence The Apostle calleth it Bread so often over and over as if he had foreseen your inhumane heresie He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten joyned with Drinking the Cup never once calling either of them the Flesh or Blood of Christ but as he reciteth Christs words which he expoundeth Yea he telleth us that eating this bread and drinking this cup is to shew the Lords death till he come where he calleth us to look back at Christs death as past in our Commemoration and to look forward to his personal coming as future but never telleth us that we must kill Christ and eat him our selves when we have made him nor that his body is there present under the accidents of Bread and Wine But the rest of the Scriptures as expresly justifie our doctrine 1 Cor. 10.15 The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion or Communication of the blood of Christ And the Bread which we break is it not the communion or participation of the body of Christ Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Consecration if the Holy Ghost may be believed And in the next words the Apostle repeateth it in his reason For we being Many are One Bread and One Body For we all partake of one Bread or Loaf Is not here express proof So Act. 20.7 When we came together to break Bread And v. 11. He ascending and breaking bread and eating c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Consecration which ever went before the Breaking So Act. 2.42 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread And what else can the recitation of Christs institution mean 1 Cor. 11.23 24. Panem accepisse fregisse to have taken Bread and having given thanks to have broken What is it that he brake It s non-sence if it have no accusative case that it respects And plain Grammatical construction tells us then that it must be that before mentioned What he Took he blessed and brake and gave But he took Bread and the Cup The same is in Mat. 26 26 27. and the other Evangelists II. The Scriptures expresly Act. 2 c. make the Killing of Christ and drawing his blood to be the heynous sin of the Jews for which some Repented and others were cast off Therefore it is not to be believed that Christ did first kill or tear himself and shed his own blood or that his disciples did kill him or tear his flesh and shed his blood before the Jews did it And if they tore his flesh and drank his blood and yet killed him not the event altered not the fact The Jews did but break his flesh and shed his blood If you fly to a good intention Paul will come in for some further excuse for his persecution III. 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils Here note 1. That the same phrase is used of the Participation of the Lords mysteries and the Devils But it was not the flesh and blood or the substance of Devils which the Idolaters ever intended to partake of but only their sacrifices 2. It is here called only the Table and the Cup and not the flesh and the blood 3. It is said that They could not partake of both whereas according to the Papists doctrine if a man should partake of the Idols sacrifice in the morning and of the Lords Table in the evening without repentance he should really partake of Christs own flesh and blood which the Text saith cannot be done P. It meaneth only You cannot Lawfully or you ought not to partake of both but not that it is impossible or never done R. No doubt but it meaneth that They ought not or cannot Lawfully but that 's not all The text plainly meaneth You cannot have communion with both You may take the bread and wine at your peril but you cannot partake of it as a sacramental feast which God prepareth you and so partake of Christ therein And the same is said expounding this 2 Cor. 6.15 What concord hath Christ with Belial and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols Intimating that Communion with God and Idols Christ and Belial are so far inconsistent But by the Papists doctrine an Idolater and Son of Belial may partake of the very substance of Christs body and blood into his body as verily as he partaketh of his meat and drink IV. The Scripture teacheth us expresly to judge of sensible things by sense Luk. 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet And v. 43 he did eat before them to confirm their faith But they could have no more sensible evidence of any of this than we have of the being of Bread and Wine or some
blood which is shed for you 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament in my blood And here no man denyeth a double Trope at least no man expoundeth it that the Cup or the Wine was the New Testament it self And yet it is as expresly said as it is that the Bread is the Body it self How then will they prove that one is spoken properly and the other figuratively III. There is no more found in these words to assert the Bread to be Christs Body than is found in a multitude of such phrases in Scripture asserting things which all men expound otherwise As in Joh. 15.1 I am the Vine and my Father is the husbandman Joh. 10.7 9. I am the door Joh. 10.14 I am the good Shepherd and know my Sheep Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man which being a prophesie of Christ a Heretick imitating you might deny Christs humanity 1 Cor. 10.4 That Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 12.27 Ye are the body of Christ Mat. 5.13 14. Ye are the Salt of the earth Ye are the lights of the World Joh. 6.63 The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are Life Abundance such are in the Scripture as All flesh is grass Christ is the Lamb of God the Lyon of the Tribe of Juda the bright Morning Star the head Corner Stone c. And it is yet more fully satisfactory that the Hebrew constantly putteth is for signifieth as you may find in all the old Testament having no other word so fit to express signifying by And as Christ spake after that manner so the New Testament ordinarily imitateth As Daniel and the Revelation agree in saying of the Visions This is such or such a thing instead of this signifieth it So Christ Matth. 13.21 22 23 37 38 39. He that soweth is the Son of man the field is the world the good seed are the Children of the Kingdom the tares are the children of the wicked one the enemy is the Devil the Harvest is the end The reapers are the Angels And thus ordinarily IV. Yea the same kind of phrase used before in the Passeover teacheth us how to expound this Exod. 12.11 Ye shall eat it in haste It is the Lords Passeover vers 27. It is the sacrifice of the Lords Passeover V. Yea the ordinary way and phrase of Christs teaching may yet farther put us out of doubt For he usually taught by Parables and expresseth his sense by such assertions As Matth. 13.3 Behold a sower went out to sow c. Luk. 15.11 12. A certain man had two sons and the younger said c. Luk. 12.16 The ground of a certain Rich man c. Luk. 16.19 There was a certain Rich man c. Mat. 21.28 A certain man had two sons c. Vers 33. There was a certain housholder which planted a Vineyard c. The Gospel aboundeth with such instances which teach us how to interpret these words of Christ VI. But most certainly all those forementioned texts teach it us which expresly call it Bread after the Consecration If we will not believe the Holy Ghost himself who so frequently calleth it bread it is in vain to alledge any text of Scripture in the Controversie Now to feign a course of ordinary Miracles Greater and more than Christs and this to every Priest how ignorant and impious soever to pretend that every Pope and Bishop can for money sell the Holy Ghost or the Gift of Miracles in Ordination and all this when no eye seeth the Miracles when it is confessed that Angels cannot naturally see it yea when all mens senses perceive the contrary and all this because that Christ said This is my Body while abundance such sayings in Scripture yea the words about the Cup it self are confessed to be tropical and when the Scripture expresly telleth us that there is Bread Judge whether it be possible for Satan to have put a greater scorn upon the Christian faith or a greater scandal before the enemies of it or a greater hinderance to the Worlds Conversion than to tell them you must renounce not only your Humanity but all common sense if you will be Christians and be saved or suffered to enjoy your estates and lives VII Lastly It is ordinary with their subtilest Schoolmen to confess that this their doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture and that they believe it only because their Church saith it which must be believed and because that by the same spirit which wrote the Scripture the Church is taught thus to expound it So that all their faith of this is by them resolved into a phanatick pretence of Inspiration As I have elsewhere shewed out of Durandus Paludanus Scotus Ockam Quodl 6. li. 5. q. 31. Rada vol. 4. Cont. 7. a. 1. pag. 164 165. And no General Council ever determined it till that at Rome under Innoc. 3. Where saith Matth. Paris many decrees were proposed or brought in by the Pope which some liked and some disliked And this was 1215 years after Christs birth And Stephanus Aeduensis is the first in whom the name of Transubstantiation is found about the year 1100. CHAP. VIII Arg. 6. From the Nature of a Sacrament Arg. 6. THat Doctrine which by consequence denyeth the Lords Supper to be a true Sacrament is false The Papists doctrine of Transubstantiation by consequence denyeth the Lords Supper to be a true Sacrament Therefore the Papists doctrine of Transubstantiation is false The Major I know no man that will deny that we have now to deal with The Minor needeth no other proof than the common definition of a Sacrament and Christs own description of this Sacrament in the Scripture I. Aquinas concludeth 3. q. 60. a. 1. that a Sacrament is a sign and a. 2. that it is a sign of a thing sacred as it sanctifieth men and a. 3. that it is a Rememorative sign of Christs passion a demonstrative sign of Gods Grace and a prognosticating sign of future Glory And a. 4. that it must be Res sensibilis a sensible thing it being natural to man to come to the knowledge of things intelligible by things sensible and the Sacrament signifieth to man spiritual and intelligible Goods and a. 5. that they must be things of Divine determination c. But 1. If the Bread and Wine be gone there is nothing left to be a sign a Real sensible sign to lead us to the knowledge of spiritual and intelligible things If they say that the species of Bread and Wine is the sensible sign what mean they by that cheating word species Not the specifying form or matter but only the outward appearance And is it a true or a false appearance If True then there is Bread and Wine If false it is a false sign And what is that false appearance which God maketh a Sacrament of It is plainly nothing but the Accidents of Bread and Wine without the substance But 1. When they take the Cup from the
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
things unseen and above sense And this is their meaning We see not God Christ Heaven Angels c. But faith hath alwaies Intelligible Evidence of Verity and as our Mr. R. Hooker saith can go no further than it hath such Evidence However I appeal to any that have not been disputed out of their wits whether If God would give us as full a sight of Heaven and Hell and Angels and Blessed souls as we have of the Bread and Wine before us and as full a Hearing of all that they say in justification of Holiness or Lamentation of sin and as full sensible acquaintance with the world we go to and our title to it as we have with this world I say whether this would not be more ascertaining and satisfactory to us and banish all doubts more than our present faith doth I love not to hear men lie as for God and talk and boast against their experience as if the interest of faith required it Things revealed to faith Are Certain and Infallible But that is because we have certain evidence 1. That God cannot lie 2. And that God revealed them and so that they are True But if we did see feel taste c. we should be more certain Else why is it said that we now know but enigmatically and as in a glass and as children but hereafter shall see as face to face and know as we are known when faith is done away as being more Imperfect than Intuition We have evidence to prove that the Revelation made to David Isaiah Jeremiah Peter Paul c. were of God and that their words are by us to be believed c. But to see hear taste feel c. would be a more quieting Assurance Therefore when all the sound senses of all men living perceive after consecration that there is Bread and Wine this Certainty is 1. in order antecedent to that of faith and 2. by Evidence more satisfying and assuring than that of meer faith as to a prophets Revelation And therefore to reject it on pretence of faith is a subversion of all natural methods of assurance and is but pretended I think by your selves The sixth Principle That except those Immediate Inspirations which none but the Inspired do Immediately and clearly perceive we have no Revelations from God but by signes which are created beings and have their several Natures and so may be called Physical though signifying Moral things And thus far our natural and supernatural Revelations agree R. Every being is either Vncreated which is God only or Created in a large sense that is Caused What God Revealed to Christ Peter Paul c. we have knowledge of but by signes In Scripture these signes are Words These words signifie partly the mind of God and the speakers or writers and partly the matter spoken or written When it is said that It is impossible for God to lye it can mean nothing to us but that it is impossible that God should make us a deceitful sign of his will The voice of an Angel Prophet Apostle a thousand Miracles c. are but signes of the matter and of Gods will And if God can ordinarily make false natural signes we are left unassured that he cannot make false signes by an Angel or a Prophet or a Miracle And so all faith is left uncertain P. Then you will make God a lyar or deceiver whenever any man is deceived by natural signes R. Not so For men may deceive themselves by taking those for signes of a thing which are none and so by misunderstanding them And the Devil and bad men may promote this deceit But whenever God giveth man so plain a sign of the Matter and his Will as that no errour of an unsound sense an unqualified object a culpable or diseased fantasie or Intellect interveneth then if we are deceived it can be none but God that doth deceive us which cannot be because he cannot lye And as it is an unresistible argument against the Dominican doctrine of Physical Predetermination as absolutely necessary to all acts of natural or free agents that If God physically predetermine every lyar to ivery lye that is mentally conceived or uttered then we have no certainty but he might do so by the Prophets and Apostles so is it as good an argument against Papists that if he ordinarily deceive the senses of all sound men by a false appearance of things seeming sensible he may do so also by the audible or legible words of a prophet The seventh Principle That he that will confute sense and prove that we should not Judge according to its perceptions must prove it by some more certain evidence that contradicteth it R. I suppose you will not question this P. No The word or Revelation of God is a more certain evidence R. How know you that there is any word of God but by your senses P. But yet by sense I may get a certainty which is above that of things sensible As I know by the world that there is a God by a certainty above that of sense R. 1. If that were so yet if things sensible be your media you destroy your Conclusion by denying them and undermine your own foundation 2. But it is not true The knowledge of the Conclusion can be no stronger than that of the principles even of the weaker of them If you are in any uncertainty whether there be Sun Moon Heaven Earth Man Beast Heat Cold or any Created sensible being you must needs be in as much doubt whether there be a God that made them The eighth Principle That Believing or Assenting is Intellection of the Truth of something revealed and therefore must have Intelligible Evidence of Truth in the thing believed R. I know that Assiance or Trust as it is the act of the Will reposing it self quietly on the Believed fidelity of God is not Intellection But the Assenting act is an Intellection or an Act of Knowledge of a Verity not as Science is narrowly confined to principles but as Knowledge is taken in genere for notitia So to believe is no other than to know that this is true because God saith it Joh. 6.69 We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ c. Joh. 3.2 We know that thou art a Teacher come from God for no man could do such works c. Joh. 21.24 We know that his testimony is true See Rom. 7.14 8.28 2 Cor. 5.1 We know that if this earthly house c. 1 Tim. 1.8 1 Joh. 3.2 Joh. 8.28 32. 1 Cor. 15.58 We know that our Labour is not in vain c. Therefore your denying the certainty where the evidence is most notorious and telling men of Meriting if they will but believe your Church without any Evidence of certainty is a meer cheat The ninth Principle That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World and that Christianity is the true Religion and Gods appointed sufficient way to Heaven
order of nature Thou blindest the providence of God himself as if he had made mens lying and deceitful senses to be the Lords in understanding honouring dispensing and enjoying all his works Is not the whole Condition of man subadministred by these And after We may not call those senses into question lest Christ himself must deliberate of their certainty or must distrust them Lest it may be said that he falsly saw Satan cast down from Heaven or falsly heard the voyce of his Father testifying of him or was deceived when he touched Peters Wives Mother or perceived not a true taste of the Wine which he Consecrated in the memorial of his blood Many such places are in Tertullian 4. Origen is large and plain to the same purpose in Matth. 25. calling it Bread and a Typical and Symbolical Body which profiteth none but the worthy receivers and that according to the proportion of their faith and which no wicked man doth eat c. Many more such places Albertinus vindicateth 5. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus is too large this way to be recited As Even the Sacrifices of the Lord declare the Christian Vnanimity connexed by firm and inseparable love For when the Lord calleth Bread his body or his body bread made up of many united grains c. And when he calleth the Wine his Blood c. So Epist ad Caecil 6. Eusebius Caesar demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. 10. Celebrating daily the memorial of the body and blood of Christ Seeing then we receive the memorial of this Sacrifice to be perfected on the Table by the symbols of his body and most precious blood And l. 8. He delivered to us to use Bread as the symbol of his own body 7. Athanasius's words are recited by Albertinus l. 2. p. 400 401 c. 8. Basil de Spir. Sanct. saith Which of the Saints hath left us in Writing the words of invocation when the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of blessing are shewed 9. Ephrem in Biblioth Photii p. 415. Edit August saith The body of Christ which believers receive loseth not his sensible substance and is not separated from the intelligible grace And ad eos qui filii Dei c. Take notice diligently how taking Bread in his hands he blessed it and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body and he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples as a figure of his pretious blood 10. Cyrillus vel Johan Hierosol Catech. Mystag calls the bread indeed Christs body but fully expounds himself de Chrysmate Cat. 3. pag. 235. For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more Common Bread but is the Body of Christ So also this Holy Oyntment is no more meer Oyntment nor if any one had rather so speak common now it is consecrated but it is a Gift or Grace which causeth the presence of Christ and the Holy Ghost that is of his Divinity As the Oyntment is Grace or the Holy Ghost just so the Bread is the body of Christ as he saith after Cat. 4. It is not only what we see Bread and Wine but more 11. Hierom cont Jovinian l. 2. The Lord as a type or figure of his blood offered not water but wine 12. Ambrose de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. This therefore we assert How that which is Bread can yet be the body of Christ And If Christs speech had so much force that it made that begin to be which was not how much more is it operative that the things that were both Be and be changed into something else And As thou hast drunk the similitude of death so thou drinkest the similitude of pretious blood 13. Theodoret in Dialog Immutab dealeth with an Eutychian Heretick who defended his Error by pleading that the bread in the Eucharist was changed into the body of Christ To whom saith Theodoret The Lord who hath called that meat and bread which is naturally his Body and who again called himself a Vine did honour the visible signs with the appellation of his body and blood not having changed their Nature but added Grace to Nature And in Dialog 2. In confus he saith The divine Mysteries are signs of the true body And again answering the Eutychians pretence of a change he saith By the net which thou hast made art thou taken ☞ For even after the Consecration the Mystical signs change not their nature For they remain in all their first SVBSTANCE figure and form and are Visible and to be Handled as before But they are understood to be the things which they were made and are believed and venerated as made that which they are believed to be Would you have plainer words 14. Gelasius cont Nest Eutych saith Verily the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take is a Divine thing for which and by which we are made partakers of the divine nature ☞ And yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine And certainly the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries What can be plainer 15. Cyril Alexandr in John 4. cap. 14. saith He gave to his believing disciples fragments of Bread saying Take Eat This is my body 16. Facundus lib. 9. cap. 5. pag. 404. as cited by P. Molin de Novitate Papismi We call that the body and blood of Christ which is the Sacrament of his body in the consecrated Bread and Cup. ☞ Not that the Bread is properly his body and the Cup his blood but because they contain the Mysterie of his body and blood But I am so weary of these needless Transcriptions that I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more Albertinus will give him enow more who desireth them And no doubt but with a wet finger they can blot out all these and teach us to deny the sense of words as well as our senses D. But you said also that the Present Church and its Tradition is against Transubstantiation as well as the Antient How prove you that R. Just as I prove that the Protestants are against it By the present Church I mean the far greater part of all the Christians in the world The Greeks with the Muscovites the Armenians the Syrians the Copties the Abassines and the Protestants and all the rest who make up about twice or thrice as many as the Papists That they hold that there is true Bread and Wine after Consecration all impartial Historians testifie both Papists and Protestants and their own several Countreymen and also Travellers who have been among them And their Liturgies even those that are in the Bibliotheca Patrum put out by themselves do testifie for those Countreys where they are used Though as Bishop Vsher hath detected by one words addition they have shamelesly endeavoured to corrupt the Ethiopick Liturgy about the Real presence But I need no more proof of that which
God to be Cruel to Mankind and that under pretence of Grace Even to put such hard Conditions of salvation on man which seem to us impossible to any but mad men or those who by faction have cast their minds into a dream If these be Gods Conditions that no man shall be saved that doth not believe that all his senses and all the senses of all the world are deceived when they perceive Bread and Wine or substance many may take on them to believe it but few will believe it and be saved indeed Reason XI Hereby you make the Gospel or New Covenant to be far harder and more rigorous than either the Law of Moses or the Law of Innocency For neither of these did damn men for believing the agreeing senses of all mankind Perfect Obedience to a perfect nature was fit to be a delight The burdensome Ceremonies had no such Impossibilities in them None of them obliged men to renounce all their senses and to come to Heaven by so hard a way Reason XII You seem to me to Contradict Gods Law and terms of life and to forge the clean contrary as his He saith He that cometh to God must Believe that God is c. and He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned But you seem to me to say in plain effect He that Believeth Gods Natural Revelations to all mens senses shall be damned and that believeth that the said Revelations are false may be saved caeteris paribus Reas XIII And what a thing by this do you mak◠Gods Grace to be Whereas true Grace is the Repaire◠and perfecter of Nature you make it to be the destroye◠and deceiver of Nature The use of Grace according to your faith is to cause men to believe that Gods natural Revelations are false and that all the senses of th◠world in this matter are deceived Whereas a mad ma◠can believe this without Grace Reas XIV By this doctrine you abominably corrupt the Church with hypocrisie while all that will hav◠Communion with you must be forced to profess tha◠all mens senses are thus deceived And can you thin◠that really they can all believe it or rather you◠Church must be mostly made up of gross hypocrites who falsly take on them to believe it when they do not Reas XV. And by this means you make the Vnity of the Church to become a meer Impossibility For you◠condition of union is that men all believe this among other Articles of your faith And that man hath lost o◠vitiated his humanity who can believe and expect tha◠all Christians in the world should ever believe that al◠the senses of all the world are thus deceived You might as well say The Church shall never have Unity till all Christians do believe that David or Christ was a Worm and no man a door a Vine a thief a Rock in proper sense or we shall have no unity till we renounce both our humanity and animality and the light and Law of God in Nature And after this to cry up Vnity and cry down Schism what abominable hypocrisie is it Reas XVI And by this doctrine what bloody inhumanity is become the brand or Character of your Church When you decree Concil Later sub Innoc. 3. Can. 3. that all that will not thus renounce their senses and give the lie to Gods natural revelations shall be excommunicated and utterly undone in this World even banished from all that they have and from the Land of their Nativity Yea your Inquisition must torture and burn them and your Writ de hereticis comburendis must be issued out against them to fry them to death in flames if they will not renounce the common senses of mankind Reas XVII And it even amazeth me to think what horrid Tyrants you would thus make all Christian Princes When the said Canon determineth that they shall be first Excommunicate and then cast out of their Dominions which shall be given to others and their subjects absolved from their allegiance and fidelity except they will exterminate all these as hereticks from their Dominions who will not give the lye to all mens senses and to Gods natural Revelations The plain English is ☞ He shall not be the Lord of his own Dominions who will have men to be his subjects or such as will not renounce both their humanity and animality or sense For to perceive substances in genere in specie by sense and to believe or trust the Common senses of all the World about things sensible as being the surest way that we have of perception is as necessary to a Man as Ratiocination is Choose then O ye Princes of the Earth whether you will be Papists and whether you will have no men to be your Subjects even none that believe the senses of themselves and all the world Reas XVIII Thus also your Idolatry exceedeth in absurdity the Idolatry of all the Heathens else in the World Even Canibals and the most barbarous Nations upon Earth For if they call men to Worship an Image the Sun the Moon an Ox or an Onion of which the Egyptians are accused they do but say that some spiritual or celestial numen affixeth his operative presence to this Creature But they never make men swear that there is no Image or Sun or Moon or Ox or Onion left but that the whole substance of it is turned into God or somewhat else Your Absurdities tend to make the grossest Idolatry seem comparatively to yours a very fair and tolerable errour Reas XIX By these means you expose Christianity to the scorn of humane nature and all the world You teach Heathens Mahometans and other Infidels to deride Christ as we do Mahomet and to say that a Christian Maketh and Eateth his God and his faith is a Believing that Gods supernatural Revelations are a lie and that God is like the Devil the great Deceiver of the world Wo be to the world because of offences and wo be to him by whom offence cometh Reas XX. Lastly by this means you are the grand pernicious hinderers of the Conversion of the Heathen and Infidel world For you do as it were proclaim to them Never turn Christians till you will believe that Gods Natural Revelations are false and that all mens senses in the world are deceived in judging that there is Bread Wine or sensible substance after the words of Consecration These are the mischievous Consequents of your doctrine But one benefit I confess doth come by occasion of it that it is easier hereby to believe that there are Devils when we see how they can deceive men and to believe the evil of sin when we see how it maketh men mad and to believe that there is a Hell when we see such a Hell already on Earth as Learned Pompous Clergie men that have studied to attain this malignant madness to decree to fry men in the flames and damn them to Hell and
eat and drink VII It is a Miracle that every wicked Priest should do so many Miracles in one and so many more in number than Christ himself did in the same proportion of time as far as the History of the Gospel telleth us Christ is quite exceeded by them all VIII It is a Miracle that every wicked Priest can work all these Miracles so easily as with the careless saying over four words When the Apostles could not cast out some Devils or work some Miracles and some could not be done but by fasting and prayer IX It is a Miracle that every Priest can work all these Miracles upon an unbeliever or a wicked man For to such they say it is the real flesh and blood of Christ and no bread or wine And the senses of all these wicked men are deceived Whereas Christ himself could not do any great miraculous work among some where he came because of their unbelief X. It is a Miracle that God and the Priest should do these foresaid Miracles on Mice and Rats and other Beasts by deceiving their senses which we find not that Christ ever did or that God should feed them with the miraculous accidents aforesaid XI It is a Miracle of these Miracles that the Priest can thus easily work Miracles not only on other creatures but on the glorified body of Christ himself by the foresaid changes c. XII It is a Miracle that when Christ wrought his Miracles usually before a far smaller number these Priests work Miracles thus before or on the senses of all the men in the world that will be present at the Mass for all their senses are deceived XIII It is a Miracle that the Abassines Armenians Greeks Protestants yea any that they call Schismaticks and Hereticks who do not intend to work any Miracle nor believe Transubstantiation do yet work Miracles in each Sacramental administration of the Eucharist not only without their knowledge but contrary to their belief and against their wills For they say that even such mens consecration is effectual XIV Either their Priests consecration worketh all these Miracles when they intend it not as if they speak the words in jeast or scorn or in Infidelity or only when they intend it If the first be said it is a Miracle of Miracles that any Priest can work so many and great Miracles by a jeast or scorn If not then all the business is come to nothing and no one but the Priest knoweth whether there be any such Miracle at all and whether ever he eat the flesh of Christ And so it will be in the power of the Priest to deceive and damn all the people according to the Papists exposition of Christs words Joh. 6. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you XV. Either a malicious intention to a wrong end will be effectual in Consecration or not If not none but the Priest knoweth that there is any body and blood of Christ or that ever he received any Because none knoweth though the Priest intend Consecration whether he intend it to a right end But if a wicked end will serve as I think most of them hold the Miracle may be great and sad For any Roguish drunken malicious Priest may undo a Baker or Vintner at his pleasure and by four words deprive him of all his Bread and Wine Yea he might nullifie all the Bread and Wine in the City and so either make a famine at his pleasure or else make whole Families and Cities live still and be nourished without any substance by bare Accidents which would be a Miracle indeed If the Priest can by consecration change only a convenient quantity of bread and wine then all that is overmuch is bread and wine after consecration If otherwise why may he not change all the bread and wine in the Shop or Cellar where he cometh intending consecration to an ill end If he can do it only on the Altar then want of an Altar would frustrate the effect which they hold not But if he can do it without an Altar he may do it in the Shop and Cellar If he can do it only on the bread and wine present how near must it be Then the words will work at so many yards distance and not at so many Or if he cannot do it out of sight a blind Priest cannot do it But if he can do it on that which is absent we may fear lest in an anger he may take away all the bread and wine in the Land at least in a frolick to try his power XVI And it is some aggravaion of these manifold Miracles that a Degraded Priest can do them Because they follow the indelible Character And so he that hath once made a Miracle-worker cannot take away his power again nor his sin lose his power Is not this a marvellous power of Miracles which becometh like a nature to them as the power of speaking is XVII Yet is this Miracle-working-power more miraculous in that a mans own unwillingness or Repentance of his Calling cannot hinder the Miracle if he do but speak four words Consent it self is not necessary to it Let a man Repent that ever he was a Priest and profess that he continueth in that Calling against his will yea let him write as I now do against Transubstantiation yet all this will not hinder his next Consecration from working all the foresaid Miracles XVIII It is miraculous that if you keep a consecrated Wafer never so long if you use it never so coursly if you as he did who occasioned the conversion of Mr. Anthony Egan a late Irish Priest pawn it at an Ale-house for thirty shillings if you lay it down for a stake at Cards or Dice c. it will not cease to be Christs flesh and so by his blood nor ever becomes bread or any other substance till it corrupt And yet in a mans stomach it ceaseth to be Christs body as natural heat corrupteth it by concoction And yet it is not Christs flesh that is concocted XIX It is a Miracle of this Miracle which Aquinas and others assert that the Bread and Wine are not Annihilated but wholly turned into Christs body and blood and yet as Vasquez saith It is not that the matter of bread begins to be under the form of Christs body as Durandus held Saith Veron Reg. fid cap. 5. This Transubstantiation is neither a change nor a production of any thing but it is a Relation of order between the substance that doth desist to be and that into which it doth desist And yet saith the Concil Trident. There is a change made of the whole substance into c. XX. Lastly It is a Miracle that all these Miracles should be done so as not to appear to the senses of any man living either to Convert Unbelievers or Confirm the faithful So that millions of these Miracles are seen and not
sensible substance after Consecration Joh. 2.9 they tasted the water turned into Wine and were convinced P. But the Body of Christ here is not a sensible thing R. But Bread and Wine are sensible things P. But They are not There and so are no objects of sense R. But all our senses say that They are there and by them we must judge P. Your senses perceive nothing but Accidents and your understanding must believe God and so as you noted out of Aquinas before there is no deceit either of sense or Intellect R. Though this be answered fully before I will again tell you That these two notorious falshoods are all that you have to say against Humanity in this case that 's worth the noting I. It is false that you say that sense perceiveth not substance When I take up a staff or stone in my hand I do not only feel Roughness or Smoothness c. but a substance It is a quantitative and qualitative substance which I feel taste smell see and hear And this I perceive by sensation it self as the medium to the Intellect It is not the sense indeed but the Intellect that giveth it the Logical notion or definition of a substance but it is the sense it self that by sensation perceiveth it and to deny this is to deny all sense And if it were not so How could any such substance be known when it cannot come into the Intellect but by the sense II. ☞ Your great cheat or errour is by confounding the first and natural-necessary perception of a sensibile sensatum or incomplex object by the Intellect with the second conception of the Names of things or of Organical second notions and the third conception of them Artificially by the use of these names and Organical notions and the fourth perception of Consequents from those conceptions To know by Believing is but the third or fourth sort of knowledge and presupposeth the two first If a man had never heard a name or word in his life yet by sensation as soon as he saw smelt tasted heard handled things his Intellect would have had a perception of the Thing it self as it was sensate And this is the Intellects first perception And this is it which falleth under our question Whether the Intellect in this first perception of a substance or Thing as sensate be deceived or not when the Thing hath the Conditions of an object before mentioned 2. Next this we learn or invent Names and organical notions for things And whether these be true or false and whether they be apt or inept is all one This is but an arbitrary work of art 3. Next this we conceive of things by the Means of these Names and second notions and examine the Congruence and so we define them And this is but a work of Artificial Reasoning and presupposeth the first Natural necessary perception Now Faith belongeth partly to this and partly to the fourth which is The raising of Conclusions and the weaving of methods and presupposeth the first yea and the second It is but an assent given by the means of an Extrinsick Testimony of God that this particular Word is True c. Now if the Intellect in its first Perception natural and necessary of the Thing it self as sensate be deceived if faith should be contrary to it 1. It must be such a Faith which is the immediate contrary perception of a sensate object which is no faith nor is any such possible properly called faith 2. And if faith can come after and undeceive the Intellect by saying that God saith otherwise yet this would be no prevention of its deception but a cure presupposing the said deception as the disease to be cured So that to say as Aquinas that faith preventeth the deceit of the Intellect is a falshood contrary to the nature of man and his natural way of acting as he is composed of soul and body I have said this over again lest errour get advantage by the brevity and unobservedness of that which I said before CHAP. VII Argum. 5. All these miracles have not the least proof yea the Scriptures fully direct us to a cross interpretation of the Papists pretended proofs which also are renounced by themselves I Know of no Scripture proof in the World that the Papists pretend to but the words This is my Body and This is my Blood and such like And that these are no proof I shall fully prove to any impartial man I. The very nature of the Sacrament instituted by Christ with his expressed End command our Reason to expound the word is of signification representation or exhibition and the word Body and Blood of a new Relative form only that is of a body and blood Representative which is all one in effect As a piece of Gold Silver or Brass is by the law and stamp turned really into the Kings Current Coine and so hath a new Relative form so that you may truly say that there is a change made of the Gold or Silver into the Kings Coyn and it is no more to be called meer Gold or Silver though it be Gold and Silver still because the form denominateth and the new form is now that in question which must denominate Or as a Prince that is marryed in effigie or by a Representative to a woman is not there personally and yet it is aptly said This is the Prince which is betrothed or marryed to thee Or as we say of Pictures This is Peter or Paul or John Or as when we deliver a man possession of a House by a Key or of Land by a twig and a turf or of a Church by the belrope c. and say Take this is such a House or such a piece of Land or Church c. As this is ordinary intelligible speech among all men so Christ tells them that he would be so understood 1. In that his Real natural body spake this of the Bread and Wine which was not his natural body His real natural body was present visible entire unwounded his blood unspilt and did eat and drink the other as the Papists hold as being the same And can any living man imagine that the Disciples who understood not his Death Resurrection Ascension c. yet understood by these four words when they saw Christs body alive and present that this Bread and Wine was that same Body and Blood without any more questioning 2. In that he bids them Do this in Remembrance of him which plainly speaketh a commemorating sign Who will say at his last farewell when he is parting with his friends I will stay among you or keep me among you in Remembrance of me So for Christ to say Eat me in remembrance of me were strange II. It may put all out of Controversie to find that Christs words of one half of the Sacrament are as they confess figurative therefore the other must be so judged also Luk. 22.20 This Cup is the new Testament in my