only to diminish the difficulty of the beleife of it by explicating in some probable manner a part of the mystery You see sir how easy it is to excuse S. Thomas from the contradiction you charge him with for it is no contradiction to say A fire well kindled burnes matter combustible duly applyed in the furnace fire did not burne those three young men Both which we know to be tru one by experience the other by Revelation why may not such an obvious explication excuse this greate Doctor from so shamefull a fault as contradicting himself is That all quantity fills some space is a general rule that in the Sacrament it doth not is an exception from this rule Can you not vnderstand how a man without contradicting himself admits an exception from his Rule 3. D M. p. 10. Lastly Thomas all the rest teach that no other body can be in more places than one at one time yet they say Christs body in the Sacrament is in many places at the same time Thus they mantain what their church hath defined though it be with doing violence to all the principles not of Divinity only but of Nature sense Reason not without manifest manifold contradictions not of one another onely but even of themselues also Revisor The contradiction you charge on S. Thomas all Catholicks is that we teach that Christ's body is in two places at once that we deny that Any other body can be in two places at once Where your first fault is against Logick for you beleiue these two propositions to be contradictions they are not soe For a contradiction is Affirmatio negatio eiusdem de eodem the same thing must be sayd denyed of the same subject now here is not the same subject for Christs body other bodys are not the same Hence it is no contradiction to say Christs body is personally vnited to the word and no other body is personally vnited to the word Your second fault is more reproachfull a lack of sincerity in relating our sentiments You say we teach that No other body but that of Christ can be in more places than one at the same time Which is so far from being tru that I will challenge you or any other in the world to produce any one either Divine or Philosopher of the Catholick communion who denyes to Any body a passiue capacity of being in two places when God shall determine in that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places And if I am disproved in this I am content to be thought the Impostor Had you consulted either our Phylosophers or Divines or even any of our yearly conclusions you would haue found instances enough to correct your mistake if it were not affected which I will not determine I say In that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places because I know the Thomists hold a body cannot be Extensivè Localitèr or Desinitivè in two places the Scotists hold the contrary but those same learned men say the same of the Body of Christ. So your mistake is vnexcusable Your third fault is that Our Doctrine is contrary to all principles of Divinity I know no other at least no better Principles of tru Divinity than Scripture Tradition Definitions of the Church Fathers If you know any better make vs happy by communicating them Now J am sure our Doctrine is not contrary to these nay it is grounded on them all this you knew so well that you haue carefully avoyded all mention of them as conscious of your contradicting them all foreseing that they are rockes on which this Sensual Heresy would split it self Scriptures says It is Christs body Tradition says the same so do Fathers so doth the Church so do we Not one Egge more like another than our Doctrine is to theirs What violence then do we do to all the principles of Divinity But it is not vnusual that men who rob cry Theiues You know you cannot proue that we oppose any one principle of Divinity so you never attempt it Yet you would haue it beleived Therefore you beg it Your fourth fault is that you blame vs as faulty for going in matters of Faith against Nature Sense Reason Sir we are Disciples of S. Paul of him we haue learnt To cast downe jmaginations every hygh thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2. cor 10.6 This we practice in this other matters If in this we are blameworthy condemne him who directs vs to do so if you dare not condemne him you must absolue vs. Call to mind S. Austins words mentioned aboue in Epist ad Volusianum Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile si exemplum poscitur non erit singulare If a reason be found out it will cease to be admirable if an example be produced it will not be singular We owne it is Admirable we professe it is Singular So we expect nether Reason nor example to confirme vs in the beleife of it That is we are nether Socinians nor Morleyans Iust so we beleiue the same Christ to be borne of a virgin thô nether Reason nor experience confirme it Yet out of some other places of scripture joyned together it appeares that Christ's body hath been in two places at the same time For we learne out of Ephes 4.10 that He ascended vp far aboue all Heavens whence Heb. 7.26 he is sayd To be Hygher then the Heavens And Act. 13.21 we reade Whome the Heavens must receiue till the time of restitution of all things that is till the vniversal Resurrection he must remaine aboue the Heavens Yet he was seene by S. Paul 1. Cor. 15.8 Act. 9. Therefore he was in two places at the same time In Heaven aboue the Heavens as the scripture says neere the Earth otherwise the Apostle could nether haue seene his Body nor heard his voice You begin pag. 11. a long discourse about Mysteryes Which being nothing to the purpose I leaue it as I find it passe to the your 19. page where I find something in which I am concerned SECTION XVI Transubstantiation is a Miracle MY reason is because it is a worke not only Besides or Aboue but Contrary to second causes Therefore it is a Miracle The illation is evident as being from the definition to the thing defined The antecedent is cleere first from the littlenesse of the space or rather the no space to which Christs Body is reduced Secondly from its being in many places at once Answer this Reason eris mihï magnus Apollo What haue you against this D. M. p. 19. Scripture makes no mention of any Miracle in this Sacrament as no doubt it would haue done if there had beene any seing no man can perceiue it Rev. Must nothing be counted a Miracle but what scripture calls such
they are tru when conformable to their object as this The whole is greater then any part of it They are false when not conformable to them as this Apart of a body is as greate as the whole Some adde a third kind of Propositions indifferent to Truth Falshood but this is only relating to our minds which are vncertain whither they be tru or false But in themselues they are determinately either tru or false it is as certaine they cannot be otherwise as it is certaine that a thing either is or is not it being impossible that any thing should be not be at the same time That is to say two contradictions can nether be tru nor false This Truth or conformity of a Proposition with its object may be knowne several ways 1. by its natiue lyght self evidence of the thoughts themselues which when well vnderstood evidently appeare the same For example Two two are four Jtem A streyght line is the shortest betwixt two points 2. By discourse as when by the thoughts themselues it doth not appeare how they agree we compare them with a third Thus by applying a line to two bodyes finding it equal to each severally we conclude they are both of an equall bignesse 3. by sense as when J see a man walke I know he moues 4. By report of another as when a freind tells me he Saw the King a hunting I take it as a Truth relying on his word And this last way of knowing a thing to be tru or giving Assent to it is properly Faith 3. Two things are necessary to make this Assent prudent 1. That he who relates the thing to me the witnesse be not deceived himself 2. That he doth not deceiue me By reason of the first we more readily credit an eye-witnesse than any other because a man is lesse obnoxious to mistake what he sees than what he heares or knows by conjectures For the second we easilyer beleiue an honest man than any other and we rather beleiue an honest man with an Oath then without it seing these are greater assurances that he speakes his mind sincerely doth not deceiue vs. So an Oath is the strongest foundation of human Faith wherefore by the Apostle it is sayd to be To men an End of all strife Heb. 6.16 we will now apply this to Divine Faith Nothing can be more certain than what God averres Because he can nether be deceived being Omniscient or knowing all things nor deceiue vs by reason of his goodnesse So we are never mistaken in beleiving him But the assurance we haue of what any may says even vpon Oath is much lesse For 1. he may deceived think for example he saw the King walking when it was not the King but some other Person like him And 2. he may haue an intention to deceiue vs by making vs beleiue what he knows to be false whence no man deserues greater credit than his personal endowments beare to beleiue him further is blamed in scripture He that is hasty to giue credit is lyght minded Eccles 19.4 All this is expressed in few words by the Apostle Rom. 3.4 God is tru every man a lyar Both Phylosophers Divines enquire whither the same thing can be the object of Faith Senses can be seene beleived commonly they conclude that it is impossible At least this seemes vndoubted of that De facto it is not soe For the Apostle says that Faith is An evidence of things not seene Heb. 11.1 S. Austin tr 68. 79. in Ioan. Quidest fides Credere quod non vides Faith is a Beleife of things which we do not see So that Senses are so far from being the Objectum formale the motiue of our Faith that it doth not at all depend on them 4. The Apostles being witnesses of the greatest most important truths that can be were carefull to perswade their Auditory 1. that they vnderstood very well the things they preacht 2. that they did not alter any thing in the delivery of it And because Eye witnesses are commonly more assured than others they mention that 1. cor 15.8 He was seene of me 2. Pet. 1.16 We haue not followed cunningly devised fables when we made knowne vnto you the power coming of our Lord Iesus-Christ but were eye witnesses of his Majesty This voice which came from Heauen we heard when we were with him in the holy mount Here are two Senses alleadged Seing Hearing And the beloved Disciple 1.30 1.1 3. Which we haue heard which we haue seene with our eyes which we haue looked vpon our hands haue handled of the word of life That which we haue seene heard declare we that vnto you And S. Peter being to choose a successor to Iudas required the choice should be made amongst those who from the Baptisme till the Ascension adhered to Christ Act. 1.21.22 Of these men which haue companyed with vs all the time that our Lord Iesus went in out amongst vs beginning from the Baptisme of Iohn vnto that same day that he was taken vp from vs must one be ordained to be a witnesse with vs of his Resurrection And Nicodemus doubting of something which our faviour had told him Christ for confirmation of what he sayd alleadged the like motiue Joan. 3.11 We speake what we know testify what we haue seene And S. Luke in the Preface to his ghospel assures he writes what he received from those who From the beginning were eye witnesses ministers of the word having a perfect vnderstanding of things c. Whence is evident that all that mention of the senses doth not proue that Faith hath any dependance at all on them being only alleadged to make the Preachers of the Ghospel more creditable But the only tru motiue of our Faith is the Veracity of God the Preachers of the Ghospel not delivering their owne word but the word of God the Hearers Receiving it not as the word of men but as it is truly the word of God 1. Thes 2.13 This as to the first qualification of a witnesse As to the second that They would not deceiue others was evident from the whole life of the Apostles free from levity from vanity from selfe interest c. all these strengthned by several other circumstances whereof each one severally taken had some force but taken altogether they convinced all considering men that it was more them morally impossible that men so qualifyed should wittingly tell a lye or deceiue willingly their Auditory All which things are hinted at in those words 1. Thes 1.5 Our Ghospel came not vnto you in word only but also in Power in the Holy Ghost in much assurance fullnesse as ye know WHAT MANNER OF MEN WE WERE amongst you for your sakes QVALES FVERIMVS IN VOBIS PROPTER VOS And 1. Cor. 2.4 My speech my preaching was not with entising words of men's
18. All matters of controversy both Civil Criminal Were by God's appointment to be decided by the Testimony of two or three Witnesses Now how can any man beare witnesse if he be vncertain of what he Heares or sees How is the Iudg certain he doth not condemne an jnnocent man Revisor I suspect it not very prudent to reproach Catholick courts of judicature with condemning Jnnocent men beleiving vncertain depositions of witnesses at this time of the day Those who deny Transubstantiation can take in judgment a dog for a wolf An jnnocent man for a Traitour Peter for Iudas as well as their neyghbours Your Aversion to this insensible change hath left Protestants as obnoxious to errour as other folkes witnesse the Tall slender flaxen hayred D. Iohn the Iesuits house in Paris next dore to the Louure men seene in several places the same time one sworne to be Blundel another to be Hesketh to whome they had no neerer relation then Iaphet as for as we can discover for this I appeale to the Heralds And our last fiue ye ares transactions afford twenty other odde example which I wish were buryed in oblivion recorded no where but in God's booke of mercy amongst the sins forgiuen 3. D. M. p. 18.20 If there be no certainty of Sense why did Christ vpbraide Chorasin Bethsaide for not beleving after having so many Miracles Why doth S. Iohn to proue the word was made Flesh tell vs he saw heard handled it Why did the Angel to proue The Resurrection bid Mary Magdalen come see the place where the Lord lay As inferring if he could not be seene he was not there A shrewd inference against Transubstantiation Why did Christ bid Thomas thrust his hand into his side Why did Christ ascend into Heaven in the syght of his Disciples Why did Luke say he writ what he had from eye witnesses Why did S. Peter say he was an eye witnesse of what he writ Why was the ghospel written or preacht if we are not sure of what we See or Heare Why were tru Miracles anciently done or false ones lately pretended to Why doth the Church proue her owne Being by Notes which if Senses be fallible can ground no certainty Rev. Your Whys at this rate may reach from Genesis to the Apocalypse hooke in to boote all Ecclesiastical Hystory hold vs a long lent's Reading which would haue contributed something more to confound an Ignorant Reader tire out one who would answer you Yet you will misse even of that aime for one answer will satisfy all all your questions being grounded on one false supposition To cleere this J will vse one example We are by Divine Humane laws bound to obey the King his Officers according to their several degrees the Authority communicated to them Yet with this difference that our obedience to the King is absolute without reserue in temporal things that to his Officers is conditional only as long as they continu obedient to the King But if these command vs to take vp armes against the King do what he forbids we cease to be obliged to obey them are obliged not to obey them Jf you say as subjects we are bound to obey them who haue Commissions from the King I grant it as long as they continu in their duty but no further now multiply Queres vpon this subject till Doomes day whither at their command we are bound to take Armes to come to a Rendez vous to stand sentinel shut the gates of a towne open them seize a man dismisse him advance present giue fire retreate c To these questions one answer is sufficient Whilst they command nothing contrary to the Kings will service they are to be obeyd when we are certain they designe a Rebellion rayse men onely to destroy the King build for themselues on his ruins we are not bound to obey them but rather bound not to obey them J answer in alike manner to all your Whys Our Vnderstanding receiues some knowledge from God by either immediate or mediate Revelation some by our Senses It is a general duty to admit whatever truly comes from God We may admit what comes from senses provided it be not contrary to what God averres but if they depose any thing contrary to what God reveales either in his written or vnwritten word we must renounce them stick to the revealed Truth So if they tell me athing is Chalke God tells me it is Cheefe they must pardon me if I rather beleiue God beleiue it to the Cheefe Thus althô contrary to four Senses but not to Hearing I beleiue Transubstantiation because God reveales it I may beleiue that I see a Ship go into it to crosse the seas that I see Bread eate it when I am hungry that J see Wine drink it when J am thirsty that I see a freind rejoice in his company that I see a good action commend it That I see a crime committed procure it be redrest by publicke Iustice that I reade a Hystory or heare a story beleiue it In fine giue as full credit to the verdict of Senses as any Protestant excepting onely that point which God tells me senses are deceived in This well considered I see no reason for those dismal apprehensions from our beleife of Transubstantiation as if by it Laws were made vselesse the sword of justice broken humane society dissolved all Doctrine Divine Humane made voyde of no vse both Church state brought to confusion destruction Rivers may run vnder a bridge winds blow from the same points of the compasse Senses left to their functions we to their direction in all other things though Transubstantiation be beleived D. M. p. 21. To deny the evidence certainty of Sense is in effect to deny all Possibility of Learning or of Teaching or of Knowing or of Beleiving any thing what soever brings a necessity of being a perfect Sceptick not only in other Arts c Sciences but in divinity it selfe also Revisor To secure you against this Phantôme I appeal to common experience to shew where Scepticks in matters of Religion a bound most in the Catholick or in the Protestant Communion let that decide whither Doctrine yours or ours opens a wider dore to Scepticisme What Doctrine Divine Humane haue your Brethren Reformers spared What authority so venerable as they haue not vndermined What law of God so necessary as they haue not rendred ineffectual by teaching all the commandments are impossible What rite so sacred as they haue not derided What Article of Faith fundamental as they haue not questioned rejected And when by your insolent combating Revealed Truths you haue weakned the Church shaked to pieces Faith rooted vp what had been planted by Christ watred by the Apostles growne vp in following ages by this brought into the world
should stile his Pamphlet Worthlesse I know not I haue never seene it to my knowledge yet what you cite out of him bating some phrases which to your polite eares sound harsh as some of mine will It speakes it not much inferiour to some others Then you giue vs a view of as much of the whole treatise as relates to your Argument which I will omit here being content with once viewing them as they occurre afterwards The first thing setled by this Anonimus is that some Miracles are Sensible others insensible Or as he says some are Motiues to Faith others Objects of Faith which is very neere the same as to our present purpose This distinction disgruntles you who cannot suffer that any Miracles should be sayd to be Insensible But I will proue there are such Because 1. Christ was borne Clauso Virginis Deiparae vtero without any prejudice to the virginal integrity of his Blessed mother This was a Miracle as is evident yet it was not Sensible Therefore some Miracles are not Sensible 2. His coming out of the sepulcher shut vp with a greate stone sealed was it not Miraculous Can two bodyes naturally be penetrated Could his sacred body passe through that stone without penetration of two solid bodyes such were that of Christ that stone miraculous And if you say Christs body past from the place in the sepulcher to that without the stone without passing the middle space Ab extremo ad extremum sine medio that skip will be Miraculous insensible too so it will confirme what J say You cannot say the stone was removed for him to passe for it is evident that Angel coming from Heaven roaled away the stone who was found sitting vpon it Mat. 28.2 3. Alike Miracle hapned when he entred into the chamber where his Disciples were assembled Here was again a penetration of two bodyes by what Senses or Sense was it perceived They saw they heard they toucht him when he was entred stood in the midst of them but his very entrance which was Miraculous was vnknowne to all not perceived by any till it was past so the Miracle it selfe was Insensible These three Miracles being so evident in scripture could not escape the piercing eyes of the Fathers let vs heare their opinion of them S. Ambrose l. 10. com in Lucae c. 24. Mirum quomodo se natura corporea peer impenetrabile Corpus infuderit invisibili aditu visibili conspectu It is wonderfull or Miraculous how a corporal substance could insinuate it self through a firme impenetrable body it being invisible at his entrance Which was miraculous visible after it Note that invisibili aditu his entrance invisible or insensible By these that glorious Doctor of the Church declares that all Miracles are not Sensible which is a novelty to this old D. D. S. Augustin Epist 3. ad Volusianum Ipsa virtus per inviolatae Matris Virginea viscera membra infantis eduxit quae postea per clausa ostia membra juvenis introduxit Hic si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile si exemplum poscitur non erit singulare Demus Deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur investigari non posse In talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis That same Power brought to lyght the Infants body through the virginal womb of his mother which afterwards when at mans estate brought that same body through the shut dores into the Chamber If you seeke a reason for this It will not be wonderfull if you require an example it will not be singular In such things the Power of the workman is the sole total reason of the worke Amongst S. Austin's works there is a 2. sermon vpon the saturday in Easter-weeke who ever be the Authour of it In it J find these words Quid mirum si Dominus ad Discipulos glorificatum Corpus claustris stupentibus intromisit qui illaeso Materni pudoris signaculo januam mundi huius intravit All confirm the same S. Gregory hom 26. in Evang. Quodomo post Resurrectionem Corpus Dominicum verum fuit quod clausis januis ad Discipulos ingredi potuit Sed sciendum nobis est quod divina operatio si ratione comprehenditur non est admiranilis nec fides habet meritum cui humana ratio praehet experimentum Thus the Apostle of our Nation How was Christ's body real after his Resurrection which could enter to the Disciples the dores being shut But we are to take notice that the divine workes cease to be admirable when Reason comprehends them Faith ceases to be meritorious when it begins to rely on Human discourse Out of these Authoritys it is evident 1. that those three passages of Christ's body out of his B. mother wombe out of the sepulcher into the Chamber were by the Fathers esteemed Miraculous indeed no man in his wits will deny it And 2. that these passages were not perceptible by any sense but were truly Insensible Quod erat probandum My 4. Proofe is the Miracle of stopping the fountain of Bloud of the woman mar 5. no body perceived this besides God the woman her self Et had not he by enquiry forced her to owne it publickly before all the throng nether we now nor those then present had knowne any thing of it 5. When our lord walked on the sea Iohn 6.19 for about thirty furlongs or neere four miles That walking on the waters was Miraculous from the beginning for to each part of that fluid yeilding Body whch his sacred feete toucht he gaue the consistency of a firme floore Yet who saw who heard who felt or perceived this In the dark till towards the end of his walke when drawing neere the ship he was descryed by his Disciples 6. The casting out of devils was not sensible for nether the local motion of spirits nor spirits themselues are objects of Sense yet how frequent are these in scripture Lastly Iohn 21.25 An vnconceivable number of miracles were sayd to done by Iesus which are no where written for the bookes would fill the world It is rash to say all these were done in the syght of many there being no proofe for it in scripture or Fathers I know that Iohn 20.30 Many other signes not recorded in scripture are sayd To haue beene done in ths syght of the disciples But it will be no easy taske to proue that none but such hinted at here are meant in that other place So it is very probable that of those many Miracles some were done in private none or very few knowing of feelling seing or by any sense perceiving them Let vs now harken to our freind D. M. p. 4. No such distinction of Miracles is found in the Ghospel those of Christ his Disciples were evident to Senses Rev. Answer 1. this is not tru I haue giuen you many instances of Miracles not evident to Senses recorded in scripture Answer 2. The designe of the
Then we must blot out of our Catalogue of Miracles a greate part of those recorded in Scripture it self But you say No doubt it would haue called it so I say I doubt of it my doubt is confirmed by many instances of Miracles recorded in scripture without being called so That of rayes for example on Moses I ace But you say this was Sensible which the other is not And J say that is nothing to the purpose as I haue often shewed How ever it is evident enough for it appeares by the words of Christ that he is there our Senses tell vs that he is not visible there D. M. p. 19. It is no Miracle because it is not onely not evident to Sense but moreover it is contrary to Sense Rev. Here you serue vp againe your cold cabbadge which how insipid they were at first we haue Seene now we nauseate them Yet for four pages you afford vs no other foode D. M. p. 23. God never workes a Miracle but for some greate good End which cannot be obtained without it for God doth nothing in vaine Now such a Miracle would be to no purpose for Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing Revisor The Apostles the Fathers the Church the Faith full all over the world had haue a far different opinion of the sacramental Communion of the Body Bloud of Christ than you haue S. Paul makes vse of that consideration to moue men to try themselues before they approach the Divine Table least by receiving it vnworthily they become guilty of the Body Bloud of Christ S. Cyril of Hierusalem says that by it we are Christophori Bearers of Christ jtem Consanguinei his kinsmen S. Chrisostome yOu desire to see Christ to heare his voice to touch the hemme of his garment more is granted to you that you eate him c. Againe when describes a Preist at the Altar with quires of Angels round about him the Heavens open over his head God the holy ghost cooperating with him God the son in his hands to be offred to the Eternal Father who is aboue expecting to receiue that most gratefull offering doth all this avayle nothing Was the centurion moved with the consideration of his owne vnworthinesse being to receiue Christ vnder his roofe is our Faith so dead as to be insensible when he vouchsafes to come into our bosomes What can if this doth not stir vp in vs sorrow for having offended Almyghty God Faith in him whome we beleiue present Hope that he who hath giuen himself vnto vs will not can not refuse vs any thing And an intire sincere Loue of him who hath loved vs doth loue vs so much as to giue himself for all in general to each one in particular Besides acts of Devotion of Adoration of Humility of Zeale c. All which if you esteeme inconsiderable to Profit nothing I desire you to tell me what doth profit in the way of vertu You will say Faith And J will answer we haue that as well as you that quickned strengthned by the consideration of him really present who is both Authour Object or last end the Λ. Ω. of our Faith Jn fine S. Eucherius sayd Tria sibi Deus struxit tabernacula c. God hath set vp for himself three tents the Synagogue the Christian Church Heaven In the first there is nothing but Types of things hoped for in the last Substance without any Types in the Christian Church Substance vnder Types That same Christ who was figured to the Iews is cleerely seene enjoyed by the Blessed in Heaven being really present vnder Types on our Altars And you Protestants by denying this presence of Christ in this Divine Sacrament what do you but degrade your Communion from the dignity of a Sacrament of the new law bring it to the condition of a jewish rite of a base Beggarly element But The flesh profiteth nothing say you I grant it if it be taken carnally without spirit or Faith without discerning betwixt that other Bodily food not otherwise For can you or will you say that That flesh avayles nothing by which we were redeemed Will you say with your late tru Protestant Oracle that we were never the better for Christs being crucifyed for vs D. M. p. 24. 25. Lastly there can be no such Miracle as Transubstantiation because all Miracles are possible Transubstantiation is impossible And you send vs to see this proved in D. Whitaker Bishop Morton Mr. Chillingworth who shew say you that this implyes contradiction such things cannot be done nay it would argue rather an impotency than omnipotency in God to doe such things Revisor You had done vs appleasure Protestants would haue thought your time well spent in producing Reasons to proue this implicancy not to send vs them on this wild goose chacé to find what those learned men say in this point The meane while what you haue sayd proues nothing the beleife of Transubstantiation remaines firme God and his Church Tru. D. M. p. 27. There is therefore no such Miracle as Transubstantiation it being not onely an vselesse thing if it were so but an impossible thing that it should be lo. Revisor That Transubstantiation is a Miracle is a thing so evident to Reason that J never feare to see the Reasons for it answered That it is Vselesse impossible you say but you will never be able to persuade the first to any pious man nor the second to any learned man THE FOVRTH BOOK A REVISION OF D. M.'s ANSWER TO Mr CRESSEY'S LETTER HIS SERMON BEFORE THE KING HIS LETTER TO HER ROYAL HYGHNESSE ET HIS LETTER TO A PREIST THE PREFACE THese three pieces containing not many doctrinal Points controverted betwixt the two Churchs of Rome England will not detaine me long in reviewing your judgment declared in them especially considering that a greate part is personal of Mr. Cressey the Gun powder Plotters her R. H. which kind of things whither tru or false may be let pa se without any prejudice to the Catholick Caeuse For Personal sanctity of all Catholicks spread all over the world is a thing to be wisht not hoped for And althô some faults even of the first magnitude could be proved vpon some of them yet that ought no more to moue any man to abandon the Communion of the Church now than it did to abandon it in the Apostles times when some of her children were Detractors Gluttons Incestuous Contentious Proud Avaritious men as may be seene in S. Paul's Epistles In these indeed mention is made of a Church free from spot wrinkle that we hope for in Heaven But at present there are in the net good bad fish in the feild Corne Darnel in the barne wheate Chaffe in the house Vessells to honour to dishonour Amongst the virgins some foolish amongst the Apostles a Iudas