nay Scotus in that place brings for example the Creed of the Nicen Council which sayes he was no new doctrin of the Council but a more explicit declaration of the sence formerly belieued by the Church so the Decree of the Lateran Council was but an explicit declaration of the sence that was held by the Church in all ages in this point of the real Presence Suarez indeed tells vs that Caietan but speaks nothing of Bassoly so much you add of your own spoke rashly of this Mystery but tells vs also that his expressions were censured by the Church and all that Mr Sall can proue by this is that Caietan did err and what then But fayes he Bellarmin and the Roman writers do agree that in that text this Cup is the nevv Testament of my blood the word Cup is taken by a Trope not for the material Cup but for the thing it contains and why will wee not also admit a Trope in the words relating to the bread consecrated Mr Sall playes the Catholick vndoubtedly vnder the mask of Protestancy for this argument proues manifestly our Doctrin wee confess that in the text alleadged the word Cup must be taken by a Trope for what it contains not for the material Cup so wee desire him that in this text the bread vvhich I vvil giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld the word bread may be taken by a Trope not for the material bread but for what it contains which wee proue to be in the Cup the true blood of Christ because of it and not of the material Cup it can be verifyed that it was shed for vs in the bread the true flesh of Christ for of it and not of the material bread that Predicat can be verifyed giuen for the lyfe of the vvorld He concludes with a discourse which shocks the Hierarchy of the Church of England Mr Anderton has lately proued in his iudicious Treatyse stiled a Soueriagn Remedy against Atheism and Heresy the Nullity of the Protestant Clergy and Mr Sall not sufficiently as yet engaged in the defence of that cause as wee may iudge by his so weake opposition of our Tenets and defence of theirs that he has not as yet got so great aduantages by his Reuolt as he expected that should edge his wit to plead with more vigor I know not with what design strengthens this Assertion with his following argument against our Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament How can you sayes he giue Diuin Adolration to the wafer wheras in your own Principles you cannot be sure that Christ is there present for in your Principles That depends of the intention of the Priest who consecrats and of his true ordination this depends of the intention and due ordinatiō of the Bishop that ordained him and this Bishop depends of the true ordination of others that consecrated him and so vpwards of endless requisits impossible to be knowen certainly consequently you cannot certainly know that Christ is present in that wafer how then are you so desperat as to adore it Answer its question less on both sydes yours and ours that som things are essentially requisit for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which or any one thing of them nullifyes the Sacrament as for the validity of Baptism water is essentially necessary and the form of words I baptize you in the name of the Father son and Holy Ghost This you belieue as well as wee now who doubts but that it depends of the free will of the Minister to vitiat the form for since that the validity of the Baptismdoes not require that he vters the form in aloud voyce he may pretend to speak the form and vtter som what els in lieu of it or if he should pronounce some words of it with an audible voyce he may with an vnder voyce omit some word or add som word that would destroy the form this may happen through malice or ignorance and wee cannot possibly be certain that it does not or has not happened and consequently wee can haue no assurance if Mr Salls discourse be good of the truth of any mans Baptism The ordination of your Ministers depends essentially in your Principles also as well as in ours of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop for if he be no true Bishop he can giue no orders and of the exact form or words essentially requisit for a due ordination the Iurisdiction of the Bishop depends of the due ordination of the Consecrators for he must be consecrated by the imposition of hands of true Bishops and the vttering of the form of Consecration the due ordination of the Consecrators depends of the like requisits in those from whom they receiued their Caracter now since that the defect either of the true form of the Consecration or of the true Ordination of the Consecrators nullifies your Hierarchy and that there is no possible means for vs to know certainly that neither of those two was wanting in any one of the whole trayn of your Ordainers for if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations deriued from him are Null what assurance haue you or can you haue of the truth of your Hierarchy and but that you are all buth meer laymen without any authority or iurisdiction for preaching or administring Sacraments Thus Mr Sall obliges his Church in opening a way to question the Iurisdiction of the Clergy let him make his peace as he can with his Church and Clergy wee will answer his obiection thus Wee can without hazard of Idolatry and ought in conscience to adore the wafer consecrated though wee be not infallibly assured of the Priests intention for our obligation of adoring is grounded on and guided by that General Principle of Faith which is infallibly true that Christ is really present in the wafer duely consecrated this General Principle applied to this particular case of this vvafer consecrated by this Priest obliges me to adore this wafer though that application of the said general Principle be not infallibily sure or I am not infallibly ascertained that it is applyed in this particular case it is sufficient for my obligation of adoring that I am morally assured that it is applyed As in this case this General Principle of Nature Parents are to be honored by their children is infallibly true and iust and grounds an obligation in all children to honor their Parents in virtue of this general Principle applyed this particular Man and woman that are your Parents you are obliged to honor them but are you infallibly assured that these are your Parents not at all are not you not withstanding obliged to honor them is it rashness or folly in you to honor them for though the general Principle that Parents must be honored be infallibly true and iust yet you are not infallibly assured that this general Principle is duely applyed to these in particular but for your obligation that is not requisit its sufficient that you are morally
may say what S. Paul said of the Lords supper This if worthily taken is life and saluation if vnworthily is damation if Scripture be vnderstood in the true sence intended by the Holy Ghost it leads to true Religion if vnderstood in the wrong sence it leads to perdition as S. Peter sayes 2. cpist 3.16 speaking of the Epistles of S. Paul the vnlearned and vnstable depraue them as the rest of the Scripture to their perdition by misunderstanding them Grant this volum to be the word of God the words of it may be and are interpreted in diuerse and quite opposit sences as that command of Christ he that vvill not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud shall not haue lyfe in him it is interpreted in three opposit sences by Lutherans Catholiks and Protestants and it is euident that Christ intended only one of the three sences wee are bound vnder pain of damnation to eat his flesh and drink his blood in that sence which he intended and no other will suffice the Scripture alone does not assure vs which of those three sences is that which Christ intended for wee haue all the Scripture wee read it wee study wee pray and wee cannot agree in the sence of those words either therefore there must be somwhat else beseids Scripture for to assure vs of the true sence of it or God has left vs with an obligation of belieuing and not afforded vs the sufficient means for to ascertain vs what he will haue vs to belieue To say that God giues an inward light and testimony of the spirit to the humble and well disposed harts which assures them the sence which they hold of the Scripture is the true sence is a groundless fancy exploded euen by the modern Protestants wheras those illuminated persons cannot be assured if that inward light be an illumination from God or an illusion of Satan often transfigured into an Angel of light our Controuersists haue fully refuted this foolish fancy I only add that if the means appointed by God to assure us of the true sence of Scripture be that inward light and testimony of the priuat spirit God has afforded no means for to keepe vs in vnity of Faith for there are as many different lights and testimonies of the spirit as there be men almost and so his house will not be a house of peace but of confusion and if that be the true sence of Scripture which the inward light and testimony of each mans spirit does suggest those lights and inward testimonies of the spirit being quite contradictorily opposit one to the other it follows that the H. G. intended quite opposit sences in each text of Scripture Nor could any man reasonably pretend to persuade an other to be of his religion for since he has no assurance of the truth of his Religion but what he has by that inward light and spirit how can he in reason go about to persuade me that his light and spirit is true rather than that which I haue my self so each man must be content to haue his Religion to himself and seeke no other to be of it S. Iohn 1. Epist 4.11 bids vs not to belieue euery spirit but to try it and in that very ch directs vs to a touch stone wherat to try our spirits He that knovveth God heareth vs he that is not of God heareth vs not in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth and the spirit of Error If your spirit heares and obeyes the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of Truth in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth in hearing vs not in reading vs. If your spirit will not heare the Church but prefer it self before the spirit of the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of error The means therefore to distinguish spirits to know the truth and the true sence of Scripture is not Scripture it self nor your inward light but the Church which is the approuer or reprouer of spirits The Modern Protestants haue found out an other way for to defend the sufficiency of Scripture for to vnderstand by it alone the true sence of it for say they though some text or texts of Scripture be obscure yet comparing them with other texts they are expounded and the true sence found by the scripture alone comparing one text with an other especially in what concerns the fundamental points of Religion necessary for saluation which are easily found and cleerly set down in Scripture Mr Sall pag. 105. of his discourse seems to be of this opinion saying that all necessary knovvlegde for Faith in God to serue and prayse him is fully contained in vvhat is cleer of Scripture There is nothing more cleer than that the Holy Scriptures are most obscure euen in points necessary for saluation the obscurity consisting in the hight of the Misteries it contains in the difficulty of its phrases in the seemingly contradictions it contains that the most learned men that euer were in the Church found it a task too great for their vnderstandings to expound it learned Protestants themselues do confess it and our Controuersists haue so euidenced it that it were a superfluous labor to proue it that only text of saint Peter 2. epist 3. ch which I quoted but now sufficiently proues it and that no text nor texts of scripture compared doth declare sufficiently euen the fundamental points of our Religion two instances do cleerly euidence First Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons in all Christians acknowledgment is a fundamental article of Religion wee belieue he is One not in Person but in Nature wee belieue he is Three not in Nature but in Persons And what text or texts compared one with an other can you bring to shew this Mistery Let the dispute be betwixt a Protestant an Arrian and a Pagan suppose the Pagan confesses and agrees with both that the scripture is the word of God but will not admit that either the Protestant or Arrian is infallible in the interpretation of it how will the Protestant proue against the Pagan that God is One in Nature and Three in Persons He will alleadge out of saint Iohn 1. ep 5. the Father the son and the spirit and these Three are One the word One signifies Vnity in Nature and the word Three Trinity in Persons But sayes the Pagan that is against all reason and the principles of Philosophy that Three distinct Persons should haue but One Nature and though I do belieue the word of God to be infallibly true euen in what surpasses my reason yet I will not belieue against my reason but what the word of God does assuredly say and that text which you alleadge does only say they are One but does not express if that Vnity be in Nature or in Person nor doeth the text express that the Trinity is in Persons and not in Nature nay the Arrian who is a Christian as well as you saieth
to be called damnably vnbelieuers They would not belieue that corporal eating of his real flesh as you do not for the difficulties which reason dictated against the lyke expressions such as you and your fraternity proposes against them and therefore wee say that you are damnably vnbelieuers as they were and you and they are checkt by those wordes of Christ the flesh profiteth nothing it s the spirit that quickneth c which were not to check their vnderstanding for apprehending a corporal eating but to check their obstinacy that for the difficulties which natural reason did suggest against his expressions they would not belieue what he spoke and they vnderstood him to haue spoken the flesh profiteth nothing that was to say to them and to you that they must not iudge of this Mystery by the senses of the flesh nor by natural reason which is adquired by the help of the fleshy senses They cannot vnderstand how that can be It s the spirit that quickneth that 's to say it s the Diuine grace that must enlighten your vnderstandings to know and belieue how this can be Euen as when S. Peter confessed Chist to be the son of the liuing God Christ added it s not flesh and blood that reuealed that vnto thee but my Father that is in heauen Mat. 16 17. which was to say that it was not natural reason nor any knowledge of the senses of flesh or gotten by them but the grace of the heauenly Father that discouered that Mystery to him If you reade that passage in S. Io. 6. you will find that Christ as wee haue euidently proued proposed a corporal eating of his real flesh but did not at all then which is to be obserued propose the manner how he would giue his flesh to be eaten The obligation of the Iews was to belieue that he would giue it and not to dispute hovv that could be or in what manner but they began to think how it could be quomodo potest c. and their natural reason which only they consulted not vnderstanding that it could be otherwyse than by cutting his flesh in morsels to be giuen to them this appearing so absurd to human reason they absolutly denyed the possibility of the Mystery If Christ when he proposed to them his flesh for food had also proposed the manner that he intended of giuing it perhaps they would haue belieued but then he did not but only the eating of his flesh Their error was two fold the one that they denyed the possibility of giuing his flesh to be eaten for which they were called vnbelieuers the other was the cause why they denyed it because the manner of eating it which their natural reason proposed vnto them appeared absurd and therefore not conceiuing how it could be they denyed it therefore Christ checkt this their vnderstanding that the manner of giuing his flesh really to be eaten was in a spiritual way aboue what their natural reason could apprehend and sayd its the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing as wee haue expounded but they either because they did not vnderstand this expression or that they obstinatly adheared to their first denyal flincht from him I conclude with this reason you will not deny but that God might if he were pleased haue conuerted the substance of that bread which he took in his hands into his real flesh and Body as by his omnipotent word he created all things of nothing as he conuerted the water into wyne and as the bread which wee eat is by the heat of our stomacks conuerted into our flesh and blood suppose I pray that he intended at the last supper to make such a change or that now he descended from heauen to make it what words could he vse more significant to let vs vnderstand that he gaue vs his real and true Body vnder the Accidents of bread than those take eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you this is truly my flesh if in a serious discourse I promised you a horse would not you vnderstand that I intended to giue you a true horse would I perform my promomiss by giuing the figure of one since then that he might haue giuen vs if he had been pleased his true and real Body and that he spoke as if really he did intend it for he could not speake otherwyse if he did wee must vnderstand that he did intend it and gaue it If he did intend it when he spoke those words what could hinder him if he did not intend it was it sincerity and honesty to speake otherwyse than as he intended no more than if you hauing promised a horse would giue only the picture of one Let vs heare Mr Salls arguments he begins as the Iews with difficulties that reason proposes against so great a Mystery that the Accidents of bread should be without any substance to rest on that a Body would be at one tyme in many places that a well proportioned body should be confined to the smale compass of a wafer that the Accidents conuerted into vermin should produce a substance I would tyre my Readers patience if I did scan each triuial objection of these that has been a hundred tymes answered and our answers neuer replyed vnto You would haue shewen more wit Mr Sall and got more credit by replying to the answers that our writers giue to these obiections and especially Bellarmin from whom you borrow them than by repeating again a parcel of thrid bare tryfles against so great a Mystery in homage of which wee must captiuat our sence and reason as wee do to the Mystery of the Trinity which surpasseth all created intellects far more than this Mystery and yet not so cleerly expressed in Scripture as this is And if you must haue natural reason for to belieue this Mystery tell me what reason haue you for to belieue that the Bread and wyne giueth lyfe and grace to the worthy eater what proportion can reason find betwixt bread and Diuin grace what proportion betwixt the water of Baptism and spiritual Regeneration none if you do not appeale to the omnipotency of God by he same wee answer you also to shun tedious Tatalogyes that those difficulties you represent be impossible to Nature but they are possible to the omnipotent word of God But for the satisfaction of the Reader I will deliuer this argument in the terms of an ingenious man which once I discoursed with This Mystery said he is repugnant to sense and reason consequently it is not to be imposed on man if God will not haue him to renounce both It s repugnant to sense for what wee see tast and feel is but bread repugnant to reason for this ought prudently to conclude that the substance of bread is there vpon the testimony of the senses which perceiue the Accidents that by natural course are inseparable from the substance of bread I answer Reason prudently ought to conclude the substance of bread is there
are conueyed vnto vs not for the effects conueyed wheras what Christ promised to the Receiuers of the bread and Cup he promises to the Receiuers of the bread alone He that eats this bread shall liue for euer Io. 6.38 which he repeats three tymes in that chap. is not this all that is promised to the Receiuers of the Bread and Cup not for the verifying of Christ his words for that text Io. 6. which is the strongest that our aduersaryes can alleadge if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not haue lyfe in you The particle and which seems to require the taking of the Cup as well as the bread Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. and Suar. in 3. par disp 71. sect 2. do manifestly proue that it must be vnderstood disiunctiuly and signify or and the sence of the text is if you do eat the flesh of the son of Man or drink his blood c. And that in the Hebrew or Syriach language wherin Christ did speake it signifyes so and that the Apostle S. Iohn writing in Greek retained the Hebrew Phrase Now that the particle and which vsually is Copulatiue somtymes in Scripture signifyes disiunctiuly they proue it by seueral examples of Scripture as when S. Peter was asked an alms Act. 3. he answered I haue no syluer and Gold meaning that he had neither syluer nor Gold otherwise the excuse was friuolous Ex. 15. and 21. He that vvill kill his Father and Mother let him dye the sence is Father or Mother Psal 1. the impious shall not ryse in iudgment and the sinners in the Council of the Iust The sence is nor the sinners So in that text if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood c. The word and must be taken in a disiunctiue sence and signify he that vvill not eat his flesh nor drink his blood which is declared by Christ his subsequent words He that eats this bread shall liue for euer signifying that eating alone and consequently or drinking alone was sufficient But say you Christ Mat. 26. after giuing the bread and commanding to Eat gaue the Cup and said drink ye all of this If the Apostles only were commanded to drink they only were commanded to eat and so as the Layty is excluded from drinking they must be also excluded from eating and if the command of eating did reach to the Layty the command also of drinking did extend to them For to answer this Obiection you must obserue the difference betwixt a sacrifice and a Sacrament a sacrifice is a worship of God by the oblation of some visible thing which wee offer in homage of his greatness so that a sacrifice is directed to God and consists in an Action exhibited to his honour A Sacrament is a sensible sign giuen to a Creature for some spiritual inuisible effect so that the Nature of a Sacrament consists in the Reception of a visible sign by Gods Creatures and is directed to them for a spiritual effect The Eucharist is a Sacrifice a Sacrament It s a sacrifice of Christs body and blood vnder the Accidents of bread and wyne offered to God in representation of Christs body sacrificed on the Cross and that the representation should be full and compleat it was ordained in bread to signify his body broken for vs and in the liquid species of wyne to represent his blood effused This sacrifice is offered not only by the Priest and for the Priests that consecrats but by and for the whole congregation but because each Person of the multitude is not the immediat Minister of the sacrifice but all do offer it by the hands of consecrated Persons on whom Christ layd the commend of sacrificing Do this in commemoration of me commanding them to do as then he did it is not need full that each particular of the congregation should receiue either the bread or the vvyne consecrated as it is a sacrifice but that the immediat Minister who offers it for all should receiue both Hence I confess that Christ in the institution of this Sacrifice in the last supper directed his commands of eating and drinking only to the Apostles and their successors which he then consecrated Ministers of the Sacrifice and that neither the word Drink nor eat in those texts extend to oblige the Layty But the Eucharist is also a Sacrament for that very body and blood of Christ which he ordained to be a sacrifice to God vnder the accidēts of bread and wyne he ordained them to be giuen vnder the same Accidents to man for the spiritual nourishment of his soule I say vnder the same Accidents not that both kind of Accidents of bread and vvyne are needfull for the perfect receiuing of a Sacrament but either for the Eucharist in the Accidents of bread alone is a sensible sign containing the body and blood of Christ which nourishes the soul and giues lyfe euerlasting He that eats this bread shall liue for euer therefore its a perfect Sacrament whence I conclude that since it is giuen to Creatures as a Sacrament and not as a Sacrifice its sufficient they receiue vnder the sensible signs either of bread alone or wyne alone for in either its a perfect Sacrament and only in both a perfect Sacrifice If you ask where then if not in the words of the last supper was there any obligation layd on vs to receiue the Eucharist Sacramentally I answer Io. 6. if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man c. Mr Sall concludes that by Suarez his confession 3. p. disp 42. s 1. the Accidents of bread and wyne are the constitutes of the Sacrament consequently by taking away the Cup wee depriue the Layty of the Sacrament Suarez sayes that the Accidents of bread and wyne and either of bread or vvyne are constituts of the Sacrament and throughout the whole disput 71. largely proues in three sections that the whole essence of the Sacrament is contained in either kind VVorshipp of Images Mr Sall sayes the worship of Images is expresly prohibited in the 20. Chap. Ex. which text also expresly prohibits the making of grauen Images or the lyknefs of any thing that is in heauen aboue and on the earth or vnder the earth or in the vvaters and then adds in a distinct verse thou shall not adore nor vvorship them If Mr Sall will admit no interpretation of that text but vnderstand it literally the Protestants are also transgressors who make pictures of the King Queen and seueral other things and yet the text prohibits the making of the likness of any thing If he will interpret the text to signify no image must be made to be adored wee say the text does not only prohibit the adoring of them but the making of them if notwithstanding he will still insist vpon his interpretation then he must giue vs also leaue to giue our interpretation