Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
earth_n heaven_n pass_v word_n 8,433 5 5.0308 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A46941 The absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703.; Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703. Second five year's struggle against popery and tyranny. 1688 (1688) Wing J820; ESTC R28745 40,536 74

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

them what Impossible Absurdities Real Accidents are and how full of Repugnancy and Contradictions and that these Contradictions made men Dissenters from the Church of Rome And then he concludes That he hoped the Time would come when the Divines of that Church would hiss the Doctrine of Real Accidents out of the world as an Unreasonable Incomprehensible and Unsafe Doctrine to be Believed and that his Superficies would be embraced instead of it as Certain and Indubitable Monsieur Arnault was a Man of sense and therefore I doubt not but he let fall his Ears at this Answer And the Paris Divines sent Cartes word afterwards in their sixth Objections Scruple the 7th That they did not understand his Supersicies and knew not what to make of it And that though he put them in hope that he would make things plainer in his Physics yet they were inclined to Believe they should never part with their old Opinion concerning Accidents for his new one But though they were of this mind yet we find a very considerable Person Epist. Vol. 2. Epist. 3. who had better thoughts of it and says That he had happily shewn how the Inseparableness of Accidents from a Substance might be consistent with the Sacrament of the Altar but then he desires to know of Cartes whether he had bethought himself of a way to Reconcile another part of his Philosophy with Christ's Body being without Local Extension upon the Altar for otherwise he would expose to great Peril the most sacred thing in the world Upon this Cartes stops short and does not care to give any thing more concerning the Sacrament under his hand but offers to meet him if he pleases and to tell him his Conjectures by word of mouth ibid. Epist. 4. And was not this a pleasant way of proceeding Which is in effect as if they had said Sir You are a great Philosopher of our own Church you know we hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and you your self hope to be saved by it see therefore what can be done for it pray make it as reasonable as you can It is too like the Comical Story of the Woman who after she had eaten Pig in Smithfield went to Rabbi Buisy and prays him to make the eating of Pig as lawful as he can And is it not likewise a neat turn to quiet them with his Doctrine of the Superficies Now the Superficies is much such another Rationale of Transubstantiation as the following Argument is a proof of Purgatory If there be one whose words are recorded in Scripture who when he died went neither to Heaven nor Hell then there is such a Middle place as Purgatory but there is one whose words are recorded in Scripture c. Ergo. I have seen a Papist catch at this Syllogism very greedily and as Impatient to know who that One was as if he would presently have gone a Converting with the Argument But he was as blank when he was told that it was Baalam's Ass as I fancy Dr. Arnault was when he had read and considered the long Story of the Superficies which I believe never yet drew one of those back again to the Church of Rome whom Cartes complains the Doctrine of Real Accidents drove away 2. This Proposition Nihili nullae possunt esse Affectiones That Nothing cannot possibly have any Qualities or Affections is a Necessary and Everlasting Truth and it is so clear and self-evident that all words and discourse about it would but darken the Natural Light which is in it Now a Wafer or singing Cake is an Extended Round White Substance having all the Qualities and Affections of Bread and when this Substance wholly ceases to be it is nothing But if the Extension Roundness Whiteness and all the Bready Qualities of it still Remain then at the same time there do Remain the Extension the Roundness the Whiteness and the Bready Qualities or Affections of Nothing which is Impossible And that Nothing whose Extension Roundness Whiteness and Bready Qualities are still Remaining is an Extended Round White and Bready Nothing which are so many Contradictions and Impossibilities Q. E. D. I see that I must either break off Abruptly or never have done For I find the Dividing of the Accidents of a Wafer into 3 Parts which is one of the Operations performed in the Mass and with the self-same Division the Dividing of Christ's Body into 3 Wholes and many more of their Absurdities coming thick into my head and therefore I will here Conclude in time All these Demonstrations hitherto are Arguments to all Mankind I have now an Argument or Two ad Hominem or to the Papists themselves And I st By their own Infallible Doctrine of Concomitancy I shall Demonstrate That there has been never a God's-Body as they call it upon Earth these 1600 Years Provided they will allow me First That Christ's Body has been in Heaven these 1600 Years And 2ly That Heaven and Earth are different and distant Places I reckon that Infallibility her self either has granted me both these Postulata already in these following words Tr. Cat. de Euch. Sect. 37. But it is plainly Impossible That the Body of Christ should be in the Sacrament by coming out of one Place into another for so it would come to pass that the Body of Christ would be Absent from its Seat in Heaven Now I presume if it has not been Absent from its Seat in Heaven to come and be Present in the Sacrament these 1600 Years it has not been Absent upon any other Account Or else I reckon that because the things Demanded are very Reasonable she will not now stick at the Granting of them Now the Rule of Concomitancy is this Tr. Cat. de Euch. Sect. 33. Si enim duo aliqua inter se reipsa conjungantur Ubi unum ' sit ibi alterum etiam esse Necesse est If any two things are Really joined together where the one is there of Necessity the other must be also That is to say it is Impossible for it to be in any other Place But no two things in the World are more Really joined together than one and the same thing is with it self and if it were not so no one thing could be really joined to another The Union of one and the same thing with it self is the most close and intimate that can be and consequently the Concomitancy must be the strictest Nay the very Reason Ground Bottom and Foundation of the Rule of Concomitancy is this Because from Two single Things Really joined together there results One Compound The Union is the Cause of the Concomitancy becaufe it is Impossible for the same thing to be Divided from it self So that if two things which are Really joined together must always of Necessity keep company together then it is utterly Impossible for one and the same thing to straggle from it self but it must ever be its own Individual Companion From these Premises I say That
Christ's Body having been in Heaven these 1600 Years if in that Space of Time it has been upon Altars here on Earth then it has not been at the same time where it has been but it has broken the Rule of Concomitancy and has strangely straggled from it self which is Impossible Q. E. D. I have studied with all the Application of Mind of which I am capable to forecast in my thoughts what fault the Papists would find with any of the former Reasonings or with this last in particular and cannot foresee nor imagine any For though we should allow Christ's Body to be Independent of Place or to have any other Impossible Prerogatives which they list to Invent yet still this Body must be subject to the Rule of Concomitancy because they themselves are forced to make use of it to prove that the Body of Christ is under the Species of Wine and that the Blood of Christ is under the Species of Bread and it is the only Proof they have Now if of Necessity the Body must be by Concomitancy where the Blood is then by an antecedent Necessity the Blood must be where the Blood is for the Blood 's being there is the cause of the Bodies being there likewise So the Body being under the Form of Bread is the reason that the Blood is there also but then to be sure the Body must be there From whence as I shewed before it undeniably follows That Christ's Body is only in Heaven or else it is not where it is which overthrows the very Foundation of Concomitancy 2. The Second Argument shall be drawn from their Form of Consecration For this is my Body being the words of our Saviour from whence they have wrested the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now to give them a Samplar of their own and to shew them how they themselves interpret Scripture I say that it appears by the very words of Consecration That the Priest himself is also Transubstantiated for the Body is Christ's and yet the Priest says it is My Body which cannot be True unless the Priest and Christ be the same And that cannot be but by an admirable Change and Conversion which the Holy Catholick Church has conveniently and properly named Transubstantiation No say the Papists in great anger There is no such Change at all for the Priest only stands for Christ and sustains his Person he only Represents him in that Action and is in Christ's stead so that we are not to look upon the Priest in that solemn Action as Friar John but as Christ himself And therefore the Priest may say with Truth this is My Body tho Literally and Properly and in strictness of Speech it is Christ's Body and not His. To which I again reply Why this is the very Exposition of these words of our Saviour for which the Hereticks have all along been Burnt namely This Bread stands for my Body and Represents it in this Action it is instead of my Body and bears the Character of it and you are not so much to consider it as Bread but to look upon it as the Representation of my Body which is given for you And therefore with Truth I can say it is my Body though Literally and Properly and in strictnefs of Speech it is Bread and not my Natural Body Now therefore let the Papists give or take Either the Bread is not Transubstantiated or if it be by virtue of the self-same words the Priest is Transubstantiated too For every word in the Prolation with one Breath except the word Enim Sect. 20. does Operate as well as Signifie and Does what it Says and therefore if the word Corpus be effectual to make it a Body then the word Meum makes it the Priests Body The Wit of Man cannot find an Evasion and I doubt not but I am able to maintain this Argument against all the Popish Priests in the world For all the Advantage lies clearly on the Protestant Side For our Saviour visibly took Bread and gave it the office of Representing him and made it the Figure of his Body as Tertullian's word is He erected it as a standing Memorial to be used in Remembrance or Commemoration of him as S. Luke's word is To shew forth his Death till he come as S. Paul speaks 'T is true he commanded his Disciples to repeat the same Action and to do as he had done But where did he bid the Priest to personate him That he gave us the Bread by the Name of his Body Three of the Four Gospels witness and by the Name of his Broken Body S. Paul witnesses But where did he ever say That He himself would always Sacrifice himself by the Priests Hands and say Hoc est Corpus meum to the end of the world by the Priests Mouth And further There is not one word which the Papists have said in behalf of the Bread being Transubstantiated but holds as strongly for the Priests being Transubstantiated which makes full as much for the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament for the abasing and mortifying of our Deceivable Senses and for the improving and exalting our Faith and making it Meritorious as the other can We have gained such considerable Advantages by the foregoing part of our Discourse that now we are able unalterably to renounce the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For having demonstrated the Impossibility of it We have thereby Demonstrated that though Heaven and Earth should pass away yet that Doctrine can never be True. We have likewise at the same time Demonstrated the Protestant Exposition of those words of our Saviour This is my Body to be the true and necessary Sense of them for either there is a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ or there is not But because such a Change is an utter Impossibility as we have abundantly proved therefore it remains That the Protestant Doctrine which asserts there is no such Change is Demonstrably True. We have also made it as clear as the Light That neither the Letter of a Divine Revelation nor the pretence of an Infinite Power nor any thing in the World can support one single Contradiction because if one single Contradiction could stand it would destroy the very Being of God himself and deprive the World of the Adorable Object of all Religion For supposing it Impossible for a Being of Necessary Existence to Exist which is but supposing a Contradiction and we have immediately lost the Author of all Divine Revelation And not only so but the whole Universe likewise must presently sink into Nothing or rather indeed it could never have been at all But more particularly we shall find the Benefit of the former Demonstrations in the short remainder of our present Discourse for they will add to what we have further to say against Transubstantiation all the force and strength which Demonstration can give Costerus the Jesuit acknowledges and I suppose all Papists with him that If the Bread be not changed
the Parts put together Now at this rate a Part is as big as the Whole and has as much Extension because either of them has none at all Is this indeed the Body which the Wonder-working Priest produces A Body without Extension is a mere Nothing and a perfect Contradiction in Terms for Extension is the very Essence of a Body and the Foundation of all the other Properties that are in it the 3 Dimensions as also Figure Divisibility and Impenetrability do all flow from it Again so much as you add to the Quantity of a Body so much you add to the Substance and so much of the Extension as you take away just so much of the Substance goes along with it In a word Body and Extension are Reciprocal for every Body is an extended Substance and every extended Substance is a Body so that they are but different Names for the same thing 2. This Body is whole in every part of the Symbols that is of the Elements of Bread and Wine But the Bread has suppose an Hundred distinct Parts one of which is not the other and therefore this Body being Whole in every distinct Part has an Hundred distinct Wholes one of which is not the other and yet is but One Body all the while which as I take it is Contradiction by whole-sale 3. This Body is not Obnoxious to any Corporeal Contingencies If it be a Body what may happen to one Body may happen to another To use Terence's words in this case Homo sum nihil Humanum a me alienum puto I am a Man and what is incident to a Man is incident to me And so if a Body could speak it would say Corpus sum nihil corporeum a me alienum puto I am a body and what belongs to a body belongs to me Whatever body is subject to be eaten is subject to be pressed and grinded with the Teeth to be swallowed down and afterwards voided and I suppose this last Clause was added on purpose to avoid such Inconveniencies and to save the Honour of this body which they call God's Body but in my Opinion it was a needless Clause for a Body without Extension can never take hurt nor come to any damage at all For a man may bite till his Jaws ake and grind all his Teeth out of his Head before he can fasten upon that which is not and which never yet had any Existence in the world save in a parcel of insignificant words ill put together on purpose It is an endless thing to encounter shadows and to oppose these manifest Impossibilities which are so contrary to the Reason of Manking that the Papists themselves own they would not hold them were it not for the sake of Revelation which is to be believed they say before Reason and ought to outweigh all other Reasons They are over-ruled they say in this case by the express words of our Saviour who in the same night in which he was betrayed took Bread and said Take Eat This is my Body do this in Remembrance of me And who has all Power in Heaven and Earth to make his words good We allow these words to be our Saviour's neither do we question his Power but conclude That he accomplished all that he intended and did make the bread his body in that sense in which he meant it should be So far we are agreed on both sides The Question therefore in short is this What he did to the bread when he said This is my Body Whether he Metamorphosed and changed the nature of it or only altered the use of it that it might be a Token of his body and serve to remember him by to all those excellent purposes of Religion which we acknowledg to be design'd by him The latter is undoubtedly the true sense considering all the circumstances of the place As 1st considering that our Saviour was upon his Departure at which time men use to leave Memorials of themselves with their Friends to be Remembred by in their Absence 2ly Considering that the Frequent use of the world Is imports no more than Signifies As in very many Places where the Scripture says one thing is another it means only that that thing must be Expounded by the Other it signifies or stands for the other And consequently This is my Body i. e. This signifies my body is the Literal sense And 3ly considering that Clause which shews the end and meaning of this whole passage and is the very Key to unlock it Do this in Remembrance of me For it is an absurd speech to say Take my body in Remembrance of my body Take me for a Token to Remember me by So that if there were not one Contradiction or Impossibility or any such Rock to be shunned in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation yet every thing in the Text leads us into this sense which I have now delivered We are plainly determined to this sense by reasons taken out of the very bowels of the Text the Text expounds its self But still the Papists are very urgent and pressing upon us and say That unless we believe the Bread to be changed into Christ's Real and Natural Body when he says it Is his body we make him a Lyar. Take heed of that For our Saviour calls many things by the name of those things into which they never were substantially changed He called his body a Temple when he said Destroy this Temple and in three days I will rear it up And yet his Body was never substantially changed into a Pile of Building And so likewise when that Temple was in destroying and our Blessed Redeemer was hanging upon the Cross we have a marvellous tender passage of his dutiful care to provide for his Mother when he was in the extremity of his sufferings John 19. 26 27. seeing his Mother and his Disciple John standing together by the Cross he said to her Woman behold thy Son. Which was equivalent to this Proposition That Man is thy Son. And he said to John Behold thy Mother wherein he calls the Virgin Mary John's Mother which she was not But upon this John took her for his Mother and carried her home to his own House And so in this present case This is my Body Look not upon this as common Bread for it stands for my body consider it under that notion and remember me by it Behold thy Mother Repute her as such But if it be a Reflection upon our Saviour to say that it is bread when he calls it his body is it not the same Reflection upon Saint Paul to say That it is not bread when he calls it bread three or four times over 1 Cor. 11. No no it was not Scripture which led the Papists into the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but by engaging themselves in the defence of Image-worship they were betrayed into it and were driven to take shelter and sanctuary in it to avoid the force of an Argument which they could not
likewise it is but one Foot Diameter and at the same time it is four times one Foot Diameter which is two Foot Diameter And by the vast number of Places in which the Papists have bestowed it it will be but five Foot and a half long and one Foot Diameter and at the same time it will be as big as Mount Atlas or Pen Men Maur or the Pic of Tenariff 4. The fourth Head of Contradictions are those which relate to Number in spight of which the Papists make Ten thousand several bodies to be but one and the same body Now as we have already proved it to be impossible for one and the same body to be in several distant Places so we shall here demonstrate that it is equally impossible for what is in several distant Places to be one and the same body The Unity of a body consists in this That it be undivided from it self and divided from all other Bodies so that if a body be an Individual body that is to say one and the same it must be undivided from it self Now if Christ's body in the Pix at Limestreet be the same Individual body which is in the Pix at St. James's or at Posnanie in the Higher Poland then the self-same Individual body is both undivided from it self and divided from it self For in the former case the same Individual body is divided from it self not only by two Wonderful Coverlets of the Accidents of bread and by the less wonderful Covers of two Pixes but also by the greatest part of two great Cities London and Westminster And in the latter case of Posnanie in Poland it is divided from it self by vast Tracts of Land and a very wide Sea so that the self-same individual body is undivided from it self and yet at the same time is divided from it self which is impossible Q. E. D. On the other hand There is not any thing which more Infallibly proves a real distinction betwixt Substances and shews that they are divers and that the one is not the other than this That the one can be without the other and that they can exist separately and apart Now Christ's body at Limestreet in London and Christ's body at Rosnanie in Poland do exist separately and apart for it is a long and weary Pilgrimage to go from one to the other And the one can be without the other for that body at Posnanie was many years without the other and had raised thirty six Persons from the Dead long before the body at Limestreet was made And therefore these are distinct and divers Bodies that is to say they are not the same Body And yet they are the same Body which is impossible Which was to be Demonstrated Corollary It is to be supposed that when Anti-Christ comes with Lying Wonders no body will be so Unmannerly as to call them Lying Wonders and therefore we shall not Question the Truth of any one of those Miracles which are in the School of the Eucharist Only thus much we gather from the former Demonstration That the good Example of the Birds Beasts and Vermin which worshipped Gods Body in other Ages and Countries is wholly Useless to us For the Gods Body which is at Limestreet and St. James's or any where hereabouts to be had is not the same Gods Body which those Devout Creatures meekly Worshipped and which the Stubborn Black Horse was forced to Worship with one Knee and therefore we are not in a capacity of Worshipping the same Gods Body if we would 5. The next Head of Contradictions is of those that arise from the consideration of that space or Distance which is betwixt one body and another which is always measured by a straight Line drawn from a point of the one body to a point of the other body which is the shortest Line that can be drawn betwixt them and consequently there can be but one straight line drawn betwixt the same Terms which measures and describes the just distance of them Now we are allowed to draw a straight Line from any one Point to another Corollary From the same Demonstration it follows that St. Peter's in Rome Corpus Christi Church at Posnanie in Poland and other the remotest places in the world where God's Body is are as near Neighbours to the Monument in Fishstreet as the very Mass-house in Limestreet is And there is likewise an infinite variety of other Contradictions which would result from drawing but half a score right Lines from God's Body which is in so many several Quarters which should all meet together in the Point C. For this as the meanest Mathematician easily understands would not only confound all Distances but also overthrow all the Everlasting Principles of Geometry 6. The Sixth Head of Contradictions is in reference to Quality whereby a Thing is rendred Like or Unlike to another Now the self-same Body of Christ by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has quite contrary Qualities and is Like and Unlike to it self at the same time For in Heaven it is in Form of an Human Body and in Earth it is in Form of Bread. And so again upon Earth it has a Light about it like a Pillar of Fire which reaches up to Heaven and it has not such a Light about it at the same time It is stabbed by a Jew and is Red with Blood and at the same time the same Body has no Redness nor Mark of Blood upon it It is marked with a Crucifix and at the same time it is not marked with a Crucifix but with I H S and a Glory Now these are manifest Contradictions for the self-same thing is affirmed and denied of the self-same Body at the self-same time But before I proceed to Demonstrate the Contradictions and Impossibilities which fall under this Head lest I should lose all my pains in so doing it will be fit to consider a shuffling Answer which the Papists have invented to rid their hands of all Contradictions of this kind It is in these words A Body in two Places is Equivalent to Two Bodies and therefore one may say of it the most Opposite things without Contradiction It seems this is no new Answer but I confess it was New to me for I first met with it in the late Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist p. 89. where that very Learned and Judicious Author has answered it and sent it home again with such Arguments ad Hominem as would close the Mouths of any body but Papists But because it now also lies just cross my way I ought likewise to say something to it 1st Therefore I say That the Supposition of One Body in Two Places at once is an utter Impossibility which I have already Demonstrated over and over again both under the 1st Head of Place and also under the 4th Head of Number 2ly One Body Equivalent to Two that is One Body which to all Intents and Purposes is Two is a Contradiction in
into the Body of Christ the worship of the Host is gross Idolatry But we are past all Iss and And 's and have Demonstrated that there can be no such Change of the Bread into Christ's Body And consequently we have Demonstrated that the Papists in worshipping of the Host are guilty of gross Idolatry and the Best Friends they have in the world cannot free them from it So likewise it can be no longer a Moot-point or a disputable matter whether it be Criminal to call the Host their Lord God their Maker their Former and their Creator when we have Demonstrated that it cannot be so and that it is only a bit of Bread and to affirm Bread to be a God if it be not Blasphemy it wants a name in our Language In short That can never be a Divine Mystery which is not in a Possibility of being a Divine Truth And consequently the Mystery and Miraculousness of Transubstantiation which has been the old and dark stronghold of Popery is utterly demolished And the Papists having lost that shelter not only all the Absurdities of their Belief concerning it will fall upon them with their whole weight but also all their absurd Practices in reference to it to which I shall now proceed 2. The second General Head is of Practical Absurdities by which I mean such unreasonable and unworthy Actions as are done by the Papists in pursuance of their Doctrine of Transubstantiation And here I can by no means charge them with eating their Maker or eating Man's flesh and drinking Man's blood in the Sacrament For I have shewn it to be impossible for them to do either of these But yet because they intend and profess to do both perhaps the guilt is no less than if they really did them And the Absurdity of their Practice in this behalf is very equally matched with the Absurdity and Contradictiousness of their Belief For as they hold the Sacrament to be the Natural Body of Christ and yet say it is in several Places at once and is made at several times and is in the Form of Bread whereby it appears to be not the Natural Body of Christ but a piece of Bread wherein they say and unsay at once So likewise they worship and serve and pray to that which I have Demonstrated to be a bit of Bread as if it were a God and immediately they undo all that they have done and treat him not at all like a God but eat him up as if he were a bit of Bread. So also they say expresly That the common Nature of Mankind abhors the eating of Man's flesh and drinking of Man's blood and yet they eat and drink that of which they say they have greater Assurance that it is Man's flesh and Man's blood than the Testimony of all their Senses can give them But omitting these things and the great Indignity which is offered to our Blessed Saviour by such like Practices I shall I st take notice of their Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bread as if it were God himself And this Practice is unavoidable Idolatry if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should chance to be false And if it be not false then a Thousand Millions of Contradictions must be all of them true So that if the Apostles rent their Clothes when the Lycaonians said that the Gods were come down in the likeness of Men and were going to give them Divine Honour surely they would hardly spare their flesh but rend that too if they should be shewn more than an Hundred God Almighties together in the Form of Bread and should see Divine Worship paid to them Especially since the Apostles Evangelized men to turn away from Idolatry to the Living God who made Heaven and Earth if moreover the Papists should plead Gospel for their Idolatry and say that they were Evangelized into it I have often thought what St. Paul and Barnabas would have said and done in that Case But what they then cried out and said to the Lycaonians Sirs why do ye these things For we are men of like Passions with you methinks the Host it self says as loud every day to the Papists Sirs why do ye these things For I am no Object of Worship but like another piece of Bread. I have all the Properties and am subject to all the Casualties of any other bit of Bread For either I am presently eaten and swallowed down as any other Bread is or else if I be kept I grow Stale and Mouldy I am put into a Box for fear of Mischances for if the Mouse gets me I am gone Alas I am Bread I am no God. Thus to my Apprehension the Host it self continually cries out and reasons with them And Oh would to God that they would consider to as good purpose as the Lycaonians did I should be content to endure great hardships to see that Happy Day 2. The Reproach which is done to our Saviour in the worshipping of the Host is intolerable For would it not be an unsufferable affront to the Majesty of Earthly Princes to take a Bundle of Rags and place it in the Throne and serve it upon the Knee and cry God save the King and treat it in every respect like a Crown'd head and to destroy every good Subject that would not join in this contumelious Pageantry And is it nothing for the Great God of Heaven to be used in a more reproachful manner For I appeal to all Mankind considering the Infinite Distance there is betwixt the Persons whether it be not a less Scorn and Indignity to set up a King of Clouts than a Breaden God A Contemptible Crumb of Dough which is Kneaded and Baked and Crossed and Muttered into the most High God God over all Blessed for evermore I might descend to many more Particulars and enlarge upon them but this has already been done by Learneder Hands And now O ye Papists I have discharged my Conscience for it has troubled me that I had not long since laid these things plain and open before you And if I knew how to incline you to consider them I would not think much to kneel down at your Feet But if you will not consider them with that evenness of mind which is always necessary to Conviction but rather will consider them with that prejudice and indignation which shall put you upon Contradicting and Objecting and using all your Subtilties and Evasions then I beg of you to do this throughly and spare me not For I have written this Discourse only for the Honour of God and out of love to Truth which never loses any thing by being Tried and Examined but still comes the Brighter out of the Fire It is the Cause of God my Saviour who died for me and I am willing to spend the remainder of my days in it or lay down my life for it even which of the two He shall please And as for you O ye Protestants you have great reason to Bless God that