Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	believe_v	faith_n	word_n	7,647	5	4.8713	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80756	The royal prerogative vindicated in the converted recusant convinced by Scripture, reasons, fathers, and councils, that the oath of abjuration (compared with those of allegiance, and supremacy) containeth nothing, but what may be lawfully taken by every pious Christian, and loyal subject; and that the known doctrine, and discipline of the Church of England, in opposition to Popery on the one hand, and all sects, and schisms on the other, is the safest way to peace and loyalty here, and salvation hereafter. To which is annexed The King's supremacy in all causes, ecclesiastical, and civil, asserted in a sermon preached at the assises at Monmouth before Sir Robert Hide, one of his Majestie's judges, March 30. 1661. / By John Cragge, M.A.	Cragge, John, M.A.	1661 (1661)	Wing C6790; Wing C6786; Thomason E2261_1; Thomason E2261_2; ESTC R210148	173,676	266

tanta inter recentiores aliquos Scholasticos de natura illius exorta fuit controversia utquó magis se extricare conati sunt eo seipsos majoribus difficultatibus implicârunt Vasques in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. Disp. 183. cap. 1. such is the Doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation Therefore it ought not to be believed to be effected by any man whatsoever but rather abjured and renounced Gent. Well by that which you have delivered I am convinced to be of Doctour Andrews judgment (m) De Hoc est firmâ fide tenemus quòd sit de hoc modo est nempe Transubstantiato in corpus pane de modo quo fiat ut sit sive per in sive con sive sub sive trans nullū inibi verbum est quia verbum nullum merito à fide ablegamus procul inter scita Scholae fortasse inter fidei Articulos non pronimus Doctour Andrews Bishop of Winchester Contra Apol Bellarm. cap. 1. pag. 11 believing firmly that the words of Christ are true and in the sence he meant it to be his body but for the manner how it is his body seeing there is not one express word I dare not make it a matter of faith rank it we may amongst the Nicities of Scholes but not amongst the Articles of our Creed Therefore you may proceed to the fourth Article The Fourth Article And I do also believe that there is not any Purgatorie Minist THIS is symbolical and concentrick with the two and twentieth Article of our English Confession wherein it is said that The Romish Doctrine of Purgatorie is a vain Fiction (a) Quòd fuerit divina institutio non possit manifestè probari quia non constat ex Sacris Literis neque ex Conciliis Nugnus Addit in 3. part Thom. q. 20. Art 3. Dif 1. grounded upon no Testimonies of Scripture but contrarie to the word of God and the Apologie of the Church of England which saith That It is no better then a blockish and old wife's device Gent. Here me thinks that I may cope with you with better success then formerly for Purgatorie is so far from being a vain fiction and old wife's device that it mounteth high upon the Wings of Antiquitie Saint Augustine who lived in the fourth Centurie and may be stiled The Standard-bearer of the Fathers makes (b) August Enchirid. ad Laurent cap. 6● cap. 68. ad Dulcitium Quaest 1. De fide openbus cap. 16. De Civitate Dei lib. 12. cap. 26. often mention of it Minist Your Argument in form is this That which Augustine makes often mention of is no vain fiction but a creditable veritie Augustine makes often mention of Purgatorie I first deny your Proposition for all that Augustine makes frequent mention off is not creditable veritie and void of fiction he insists often upon Infants damnation that dy without Baptism of the Eucharist to be given to Babes that (c) Sine fide etiam quae videntur bona opera in peccatum vertuntur August De fide operibus all Works of Infidels are sins which the (d) Concilium Tridentinum meritò damnavit Omnia Infidelium opera esse peccata etiamsi gravem habeat authorem Augustinum Maldonat Comment in Matth. vii 18. Romists deny In the Bull of Pius Quartus by the Oath their fore-man hath taken all Priests and Jesuites are sworn not to receive or interpret the Scriptures but according to the uniform consent of Fathers Saint Augustine is but one (e) Aristoteles Ethic. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly to your Assumption Saint Augustine in the pretended places mentions Purgatory not as a creditable veritie but as a doubtfull opinion for thus he writes to Laurentius (f) August ad Laurent cap. 67. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quaeri potest Some such thing as Purgatorie to be after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be a Question And to Dulcitius (g) Quòd spiritus defunctorum ignem transitoriae tribulationis inveniant non redarguo quia forsitan verum est August in 8. Quaest ad Dulcitium That the spirits of the dead finde a fire of transitorie tribulation I reprove it not for perhaps it is true And in his Civitate Dei (h) Quis sit ille modus aut quae sint illa peccata quae ità impediunt perventionem ad regnum Dei ut tamen sanctorum amicorum meritis impetrent indulgentiam difficilimum est invenire pericalesissimū definire ego certè usque ad hoc tempus cùm indè satagerem ad eorum indaginem perventre non potut Aug. De civitate Dei lib. 21. cap. 27. The manner how and what sins they be which so let a man from coming to the Kingdom of God that they not withstanding obtain pardon by the merits of holy friends it is very hard to finde and very dangerous to determine certainly I my self not withstanding my Study and Travail taken in this behalf could never attain to the knowledg of it Thus you see how Saint Augustine is pendulous These crochets and quavers Whether there be any such thing as Purgatorie after this life or no it may be a Question Perhaps it is true As much as I think I cannot tell I could never attain to the knowledge of it make no full consent or perfect Musick in matters of Faith But what if these Sentences be forged and interfoisted into Augustine's Works Ludovicus Vives a Romish Rabbie and therefore not partial on our behalf confesses that in antient Manuscripts of several Vniversities and Monasteries he could not finde them and it is no wonder seeing Erasmus Melancthon Oecolampadius (i) Possevinus in Select Bibl. lib. 1. cap. 19. Possevinus (k) Crastov in Bello Jesuit Crastovius (l) Rainolds in lib. De Idolol Roman Doctour Rainolds Doctour James and Felkmanus have discovered so many Forgeries in this one Father who unless Saint Augustine contradicteth himself there is no probability those Sentences ever dropped from his pen for in his Hypognosticks he maintaineth there are but two places after bodily Dissolution The first place saith he the Catholick faith by Divine authority believeth to be the Kingdom of Heaven The second place the same Catholick Faith believeth to be Hell where all Apostates and whosoever is without faith of Christ shall tast everlasting punishment as (m) Tertium locum penitùs ignoramus imò nec in Seripturis sacris invenimus August Hypognost lib. 5. for any third place we are utterly ignorant neither shall we finde in holy Scriptures that there is any such And again (n) Non est ullus locus medius ut possit esse nisi cum Diabolo qui non est cum Christo August De peoca merit remiss cap. 28. There is no middle place for any to be else-where then with the Devil who

Christ said to Peter thrice Feed my Flock in relation to his threefold Denyal that he that abjured him thrice might be adjured to Fidelity in his Pastoral Charge by this Advice repeated thrice He said it in the Presence of the Apostles that they that were scandalized with his fall might be confirmed by his Establishment and make use of the Instruction which also concerned themselves (b) Haec velut ad Petrū dicta sunt omnium communia Orig. in Matthaeum Tract 1. These words being spoken as it were unto Peter are common to all the Apostles saith Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely in St. Matthew and Homer but in Plato (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato lib. 1. De Legibus who also useth the same words signifieth to rule but is as Budeus saith Pastorum more gubernare curare gregem To rule and take care of the Flock Pastour-like As the Father of Hippo emblazons it (d) Non te pascere cogita sed oves meas sicut meas pasce non sicut tuas gloriam meam in illis quaere non tuam Dominium meum non tuum lucra mea non tua August in Johannem Tract 123. Think not to feed thy self feed my Sheep feed them as my Sheep not as thine own seek mine Honour in them seek not thine seek my Dominion and not thine seek my Gains and not thine own No man ever denyed this Feeding this ruling of the Flock to St. Peter nor did Peter himself ever deny it to any other Pastour but said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Feed or if you will for it is the same word rule the Flock of God which is among you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) 1. Pet. v. 2 3. taking the Oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy Lucre but of a ready mind neither as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over-ruling or being Popes over God's Heritage but being Ensamples to the Flock Where you see St. Peter yields that to every Pastor which Christ yields to him But says Boniface Christ said to St. Peter Feed my Sheep Therefore he committed all his Flock to him What sequel more then in this Peter said to all Pastours Feed the Flock Therefore he committed the whole Flock to all Pastours Bishop Jewel (f) Defence of the Apologic of the Church of England page 92. Bishop Jewel challenges the Romanists to produce the Authority of one antient learned Father that ever made this Collection but ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem yet we deny not but St. Peter had Commission to feed and rule the whole Church but it was a joint Commission with the rest of the Apostles upon whom Christ breathed alike saying (g) John xx 22. 23. Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit they are remitted and whose Sins ye retain they are retained gave them mission and commission alike in the same extent and latitude (h) Matthew xxviii 19. Go teach all Nations c. Whereupon St. Hierom (i) Hierom. Contra Jovinianum lib. 1. saith All the Apostles received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Stability of the Church was built equally upon them all Gent. But though I should be forced to relinquish my hold from these Texts and the antient Commentaries and Glosses thereupon yet it is undeniable that the Fathers give St. Peter Primacy over the rest of the Apostles for St. Chrysostom (k) Chrysost in Matthaeum Homil. 83. Homil 87. Homil. 55. calls him Verticem Apostolorum the Head of the Apostles the Head and Pastour of the Church the Master of the World Ruler over all the World Minist So doth the same St. Chrysostom (l) Chrysost ad Rom. Homil. 18. call Elias Caput Prophetarum the Head of the Prophets yet had not Elias Primacy over Moses and all his Collegues He gives Paul (m) Nullus Paulum antecedit de ea re nemo omnium dubitat Chrysost de laudibus Pauli Chrysost in Genesin Homil. 7. in Genesin Homil. 11. Preheminence over all the rest over the World Paulus Magister Orbis Paul the Master of the World And from Generalities condescends to induction of particulars (n) Paulo tribuitur cura omnium Ecclesiarum non unius vel duarum vel trium sed omnium quae sunt in toto orbe Chrysost in Johan Homil. 11. in Act. 53. Paulo tribuitur cura omnium Ecclesiarum non unius vel duarum vel trium Vnto Paul the charge of all Churches is given not of one or two or three Churches but of all the Churches that be in the world Gregory (o) Gregor 1 Reg. lib. 1. cap. 4. a Roman Prelate himself stiles Paul caput Nationum the Head of Nations Eleutherius (p) Epistola Eleutherii ad Episcopos Galliae Stow Chronic. another Bishop of Rome writing to the Bishops of France says Vniversalis a Christo vobis commissa est Ecclesia The Vniversal Church is committed to you by Christ Chrysostom (q) Chrysost in Epist ad Phil. Homil. 13. calls the Women of Philippi caput Ecclesiae the Head of the Church and salutes Theodosius the Emperour (r) Chrysost ad populum Antiochen Homil. 2. with this Encomium Summitas caput omnium supra terram hominum the Height and Head of all men upon Earth Yet neither had St. Paul nor the Gaulish Bishops nor the Women of Philippi nor Theodosius the Emperour Primacy over the Apostles or Superintendency over the whole Church Gent. But St. Ambrose saith (s) Ambros in locum cap. 24. Christus Petrum amoris sui veluti Vicarium reliquit Christ left St. Peter as the Vicar of his love which Attribute and Elogy is not given to any of the Apostles Minist He saith not expressly his Vicar but as his Vicar which Tertullian being Judge is the Holy Ghost's peculiar who speaking of Christ saith (t) Misit vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agat Tertull. De praescriptione adversùs Haereticos He sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father instead of himself sent the power of the Holy Ghost as his Vicar to direct them that believe But if St. Peter in a borrowed Sence may be termed Christ's Vicar the Stile is but the same Eleutherius of Rome gave Lucius first King of Britain And that Eusebius gives not onely the Apostles but all Ministers saying (u) Eusebius Episcopus Romanus Epist 3. 2. Cor. 5. Caput Ecclesiae Christus est Christi autem Vicarii Sacerdotes sunt qui vice Christi legatione funguntur in Ecclesia Christ is the Head of the Church and his Vicars are the Priests that do their Embassage in the Church in place of Christ Now the Collection would be wilde Eleutherius stiles King Lucius and Eusebius calls all Priests Christ's Vicars Therefore Lucius had and all Priests have Supremacy over the whole Church But I beseech you if it should be granted that Peter was Christ's Vicar in some peculiar

2. De Eucharist cap. 5. confesses but it will not infer Transubstantiation or a corporal presence when the the thing signified is in the natural substance thereof contained under the outward and visible signs this is the Transubstantiation which we denie And the Presence acknowledged by us though expressed by figurative Speeches is as real (e) Figuratio locutionis veritatem rei non perimit Rupert in Joann lib. 6. pag. 131. as theirs For first a Mystical Head is really present to the Mystical Body which is taught in Scripture by Tropical Expressions Psalm xlv Canticles Ephes v. John xv Secondly our Saviour's words about the other part of the Sacrament to wit This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luke xxii 20. is confessed by the Romists (f) Non negamus in verbo Calix Tropum esse Bel. larm De Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 11. themselves to be figurative why may not this as well Gent. But our Catholick Writers have taught that Transubstantiation may be gathered from those words of Consecration and that they are not figurative Minist Here you affirm two things First That your Catholick Writers taught that Transubstantiation may be gathered from the words of Consecration Secondly That they are not figurative For the former your Doctour Fisher once Bishop of Rochester ingenuously confesses that (g) Hactenus Matthaeus qui solus Testamenti Novi meminit neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis sangiuins Christi praesentiam Fisher Contra Captivit Babylon There is not somuch as one word there whereby the real bodily presence of the flesh and blood of Christ can be proved in the Mass no nor in any Scripture else these are his words Non potest per ullam Scripturam probari So you see it is acknowledged that your Popish Transubstantiation is Scriptureless For the latter That the words of Christ This is my Body are not taken figuratively but (h) Substantia panis nunquam est corpus Christi quamvis convertatur in ipsum Richard 4. Dist 11. in sine Art qu. 9. 6. properly consider these Arguments First If the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their specifical Nature without alteration even after Consecration as before then the Words must needs be figurative for one individual substance cannot be predicated of another property but I shall prove anon by Scriptures and Fathers That the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their specifical Nature without alteration even after Consecration as before Secondly The Body and Blood of Christ would be delivered and received without the Soul and Deitie of Christ For in propriety of Speech the Body is distinguished from the Blood and Soul If the Body be onely received as the letter purports then Christ is dead his Soul and Blood separated from his Body If by Body Blood and Soul be also meant it is a Synecdochical and so a figurative Expression the part put for the whole This Dilemma is not easilie answered Thirdly That which Christ delivered to be participated by his Disciples he did Sacramentally eat and drink himself Luke xxii 15. as (i) Hieron Ad Hedib Qu. 2. Saint Hierom (k) Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. Saint Chrysostom (l) Euthym. in Matth. xxvi cap. 64. Euthymius with (m) Aquin. 3. Quaest 81. Art 1. Vasques in 3. Disp 2. Conclusio est affirmans in qua omnes Catholici quos ego legerim plane conveniunt Sic. Vasquez many Schole-men affirm but if the words be literally interpreted then he did eat his own Flesh and drink his own Blood which the Cannibals abhor Fourthly If the Words be understood literally then Christ gave his passible and mortal Body to his Disciples but a passible and mortal Body could not be received of several Communicants and so be in several places at once could not wholly be contained in a piece of Bread be divided into parts without sensible effusion of Blood But Bellarmine avers (n) Corpus exhibitum Apostolis sumptum ab ipso Christo Domino vereerat passibile Bellarm. De Eucharist lib. 2. cap. 14. That The Body Christ gave his Disciples and they received was a passible Body Fifthly If our Saviour's Words be literally expounded then (o) Verum corpus Christi manet adhuc sub speciebus à Brutorum ore acceptis Turre-Cremata Dogs and Swine may eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of man but all that eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of man have everlasting life John vi 49 50. Sixthly If our Saviour's Words were literal and plain they themselves could not be so distracted and divided about the sence thereof but they are notoriously divided as Vasques confesses p Ingens q Vasques in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. inter Catholicos de horum verborum sensu est controversia There is a great Controversie amongst the Catholicks of the sence of these words And Suarez saith (q) Catholici in tanta opinionum varietate sunt constituti ut singulatim eas recensere nimis molesiū esset Suarez in 3. part Thomae Catholicks are in such variety of opinions that to reckon them severally were too troublesom Gent. What varietie of Opinions I had thought that there had been summa pax a compleat Harmonie Minist No for in every word their different Conceipts outstrip the number of Letters First For the subject of the Proposition Turre-Cremata saith (r) Turre-Cremata De Consecrat Dist 2. That The Pronoun This signifieth nothing so the sense would be Nothing is my Body Alexander of Hales saith (s) Alexander Hales 4. q. 10. m. 4. Artic. 2. Sect. 3. Hoc id est Panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum est corpus meum This that is the Bread to be transubstantiated into my Body is my Body Bonaventure saith (t) Pronomen demonstrat Panis substantiam sub Accidentibus quae oculis conspici potest Bonavent 4. Dist 8. Art 1. It signifies the Accidents and Forms of Bread Others say (u) Suarez in 3. partem Thomae Disp. 58. It signifies the Body of Christ Others say It signifieth confusedly that which is couched under the Forms And all of these have their Daedalian Windings Labyrinths and Limitations Secondly For the Copula or Verb Substantive Est Is Aquinas (x) Aquinas 3. q. 75. Art 8. Art qu. 78. expounds it by Continetur Under these forms my Body is contained Bellarmine (y) Bellarm. De Euchar lib 1. cap. 11. interprets it by Erit This shall be my Body Marsilius (z) Marsil 4. qu. 6. Art 1. by Transmutatur It is changed and converted into my Body Thirdly For the Predicate corpus meum My Body some make it materia prima the first matter of Christ's Body and that is common with the Bread and needs no Transubstantiation Others Corpus materiatum the materiate Body with the reasonable Soul Others an organized Body without reference to

probable But we have been taught that in this stupendous Mysterie we must deny both sense and reason Minist Where any Mysterie is evidently expressed in Sacred Writ sense and reason must submit to Divine Revelation as in the Incarnation of the Word The Word was made flesh John i. 14. the Trinitie of Persons in the Vnitie of Essence These Mysteries are clearly revealed in Scripture and though (i) Oportet igitur nos cùm audiverimus Nisi ederetis carnem filii non habebitis vitam in sumptionibus divinorum Mysteriorum indubitatam retmere fidem non quaerere quo pacto Theophylact in Joann vi above reason yet not contrary to reason But Transubstantiation as you have heard it proved and by the Romists confessed is (k) Non apparet ex Euangelio coactitium aliquod ad intelligendum haec verba proprié Cajeran 3. Quaest 75. discountenanced nay diametrically opposite to Scripture besides there are sequeles and concomitances that attend it that involve (l) Mirum videtur quare in uno Articulo qui non est principalis Articulus fidei debeat talis intellectus asseri propter quam fides pateat contemptui omuium sequentium rationem Scot. 4. Dist 11. q. 3. lit 13. contradiction and inextricable absurdities as in particular these First That the Bread should be changed into the Body or humane Nature of Christ which was (m) Virtute Transubstantiationis non accipit corpus Domini Esse post Non esse quoniam priùs erat Aureol 4. Dist 11. q. 1. Art 1. before Secondly That the accidents or forms of Bread should be without a subject Thirdly How whole Christ should be in every crumb of Bread and drop of Wine Fourthly That at once Christ should be in Heaven and in a thousand Hosts upon Earth Gent. The Meditation of these hath oftentimes staggered me therefore I request you to lay them open more distinctly and that in order as you named them First That the Bread cannot be changed into the humane Nature of Christ which was praeexistent or before Minist The impossibilitie of this change is apparent Because in all substantial conversions natural or miraculous there is a new thing which was not before produced out of that which is converted as appeareth in the conversion of Water into Wine Wine that was not before is made of Water and Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt Salt that was not before is made of Her Body converted into it But in Popish imaginary Transubstantiation the Body of Christ is not produced anew for it is praeexistent and receiveth no substantial change by the confession of Romists themselves for Faventinus one of your own proposes the Question (n) Quaero quis sit terminus formalis hujus actionis Transubstantiationis conversionis Non est corpus Christi Faventin in 4. Disp 35. cap. 6. What is the terminus formalis the formal bound of this Action Transubstantiation or conversion and answers Non est corpus Christi It is not the body of Christ for that saith he is the terminus materialis the material bound intimating it was before and concludes Hoc totum est accidentale there is no substantial change but onely an accidental alteration Neither is the Body of Christ substantially united unto the accidents of Bread and Wine for it giveth no subsistence to them and it sustaineth them not but is united accidentally onely by being made (o) Terminus novae actionis accipit Esse per ipsam actionem sed per Transubstantiationem quae est actio nova non accipit corpus Christi Esse substantiale sed praesentialitarem ad specics ergo corpus Christi non est terminus Transubstantiationis secundium Esse substantiale sed solùm secundùm praesentialitatem Petigian Summa Theol. in 4. Dist 11. q. 3. Art 3. present where the substance of the Elements formerly were now if Water should be poured upon the Ground or otherwise consumed and Wine brought from Heaven as Hail and Snow are and be placed where the Water formerly was here is no substantial conversion so likewise when the substance of Bread and Wine cease according to their Doctrine and Christ's Body and Blood are brought into the place where these were no substantial thing is produced but one substance succeedeth in the room of another by that which they stile (p) Ubiatio est quando aliquid de Vbt non transit ad aliud Vbt Aureol 4. Dist 11. q. 1. Art 3. Vbiation Therefore I conceive we may safely conclude thus That Body which was compleatly praeexistent before was glorified and impassible took q Praecise unum succedit alteri non est verum dicere quod illud cui succeditur accedat convertatur ad illud quod succedit Aureol supra its substance of the seed of the Virgin cannot be made anew of the Consecrated Bread But Christ's body is compleatly praeexistent before is glorified and impassible took its substance of the seed of the Virgin Therefore Christ's Body is not made anew of the Consecrated Bread Again Nothing that is (r) Illud non transit in aliud quod desinit antè quàm veniat ad illud Auteol 4. Dist 11. q. 1. Art 1. annihilated and ceaseth to be any thing is changed into that which was before Bread according to the Romish Tenet is annihilated and ceases to be any thing Therefore it cannot be changed into the Body of Christ which was before Gent I apprehend this as very reasonable and consequent from our own Grounds proceed to the second that The Accidents and Forms of Bread cannot subsist without a Subject Minist That Accidents may subsist and have their natural operation without a Subject of support or inhaerencie implies a contradiction that the Bread shall cease to be and yet tast colour weight and form to remain as before to be sweetness and nothing sweet whitness and nothing white for it is of the Definition and Being of Accidents to be in another or to be in their subject so Porphyrie saith (s) Accidentis Esse est Inesse Porphyr Isagog cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus you see it is Dissonant to Reason and Doctour Biel a Romish Champion confesses (t) Quomodo ibi fit corpus Christi an per conversionem an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus accidentibus non invenitur expresse in Canone Biblii Gabr. Biel De Canon Lect. 4. How the Bread becomes the Body of Christ whether by conversion or without conversion the accidents still remaining is not contained in the Canon of the Bible And if both reason and Scripture disclaim it as an erroneous Prodigie let us see what countenance it hath from Antiquitie This Doctour Tonstall upon search hath found (u) Cuthbert Tonstall De Eucharistia lib. 1. pag. 45. That it was determined in the Council of Lateran which was holden in Rome in the Year of our Lord a thousand two hundred and fifteen

scelus aut exuritur igne Quisque suos patitur manes And Claudian Quos ubi per varios annos per mille figuras Egit Laethaeo purgatos flumine tandem Rursus ad humanae revocar primordia formae Gent. How came this Heathenish and Poetical Figment traduciary to Christians It is not probable they should intermingle their Fables with Divine verity Minist Corruption was introduced and Divine Oracles contaminated with humane Traditions three ways First By retaining some reliques of former Superstitions for when Pagans were converted Christians (a) Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem Testa diu Horat. the Casket still relished of the precedent Liquor Constantine (b) Eusebius in Vita Constantini the Emperour when a professed Christian continued the (c) Plutarch in Numa Pompil Heathen Office of Pontifex Summus with other remainders of Idolatry Secondly The People's Credulity and the Clergie's policy for whereas Cardinal Cajetan tells us (d) Indulgentias dari tantum de impositis poenitentiis Cajetan Opusc Tom. 1. tr 8. q. 1. Indulgences at the first were onely given after penance imposed the manner how is described in the Nicene and Ancyran (e) Concil Ancyr Concil 1. Nic. Burchard lib. 19. Gratian. Dist. 12. cap. Presb. Councils thus (f) Concil Anc. Can. 5. Nic. 1. Can. 11. After grievous crimes men were put to grievous penances it fell out sometimes that it was thought convenient that penance should be mitigated which favour the Bishops and Priests invested with jurisdiction had authority to grant at length they began to redeem them with mo ney by little and little Superstition took so deep root that the common people began to think that if they did not perform or redeem them while they lived they could not die in peace The Romish Higlers took advantage of this and affrighted them on their Death-beds with exquisite tortures to be endured hereafter if not ransomed by themselves or friends hence it was a common opinion in the days of (g) Albert. 4. Dist. 12. Art 17. Albertus and (h) Gand. Quodlibet 15. Henricus de Gandavo that Popes Pardons and Purgatory were onely pious frauds So Altisiodorus expresly (i) Dicunt quidam quod relaxatio non valet quantum Ecclesia promittit sed facit ut ex●it●ntur fidcles ad dandum decipit eos Ecclesia Altisiodor Sum. lib. 4. De relap The end of Indulgences is that the Faithful may be excited to give and the Church deceives them Thirdly Satan having got (k) Videtur dicendum quod valet ad tot annos ad quot secundum divinam ordinationem pro peccatis praeteritis haberet sustinere in Purgatorio si ante indulgentiae consecutionem in gratia decessisset Viguer Institut cap. 16. sect 6. vers 22. this hint drove on the design by (l) Frater Justus qui defunctus fuerat nocte quadam fratri suo Germano Copioso per visionem apparuit quem cùm vidisset inquisivit dicens Quid est frater quomodo es cui respondet Nuncusque malé sed jam modo bene habet quia hodie communionem recepi Gregor Dialog lib. 4. cap. 55. Apparitions to the living in the shape and persons of the Dead telling them they were scorched in Purgatorial Flames and not to be delivered from thence but by Popes Pardons Pilgrimages Masses Oblations Prayers for the Dead and other Superstitious superstructures which this subtile Serpent builded upon this foundation Hence as some Geographers for proving of a (m) Vide Tabulam M●reat universam black Magnetick Rock many hundred miles about directly under the Northern Pole sends us to Gyraldus Cambrensis he to a Priest of Norway the Priest to an Oxford Magician who was carried thither to see it by the Devil So the best Romish proofs for their subterranean Purgatory come by many deductions from the same Authour as appeareth by the divers Apparitions they so confidently alledge for it The result of the whole epitomized is this That which is not grounded upon Scripture and can justly plead neither Vniversality Antiquity nor Succession but had its spring and rise from Poetical Fictions People's credulity Priest's avarice Satan's subtlety ought not to be believed but rather abjured and renounced But such is Purgatory Therefore it ought not to be believed but rather abjured and renounced Gent. Well I clearly perceive there is no Purgatory but in a man's Imagination with which Lunacie I have been vexed these many years but I thank you for delivering me out of it and desire you to proceed to the next Article The Fifth Article And that the Consecrated Hoast Crucifixes or Images ought not to be worshipped neither that any Worship is due to any of them Minist THis Article innovates nothing but is synonomous and without any considerable alteration in effect the same with the twenty second of our English Confession wherein it is said That the Romish Doctrine of Veneration and Adoration both of Images and Reliques are grounded upon no warrant of Scripture but rather contradictory to the Word of God Gent. There is some difference for in the present Article there is no mention of Reliques in that of the English Confession none of the Consecrated Hoast which seems to me distinct things and requires a distinct manner of handling Therefore I beseech you begin with the former that the consecrated Hoast ought not to be worshipped Minist They are coincident and the handling of them will fall in together for the consecrated Hoast and Images are in this distinguished that the former represent the Prototype by a Divine the latter onely by a humane institution but both concenter in this which is essential to the Question that they are but signs or Creatures at the best and so not adorable we have been long since taught of St. Augustine (a) Ea demum est miserabilis anima servitus signa pro robus accipere August De Doct. Christ lib. 3. cap. 5. That it is a miserable servitude of the Soul to take the signs instead of the thing signified Gent. But Christ calls the consecrated Hoast his Body and Theodoret tells us (b) Intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur Theodoret Dialog 2. The Mystical signs are understood to be those things which they are made and so they are believed and are adored Minist In what sense the Consecrated Hoast is the Body of Christ you have heard in the Article of Transubstantiation your own quoted Theodoret if you desire it will give you further satisfaction for an Heretick having avouched as you do now That (c) Symbola Dominici corporis sanguinis aliae quidem sunt ante invocationem Sacerdotis sed post invocationem mutantur aliud fiunt Respondetur Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua manent anim in priori substantia figura forma Theodoret Dialog 2. The Sacraments or signs of Christ