Petition presented by him but only in General that it was for what he desired or made in favour of him 5. If any be contentious for our not using a vulgar Tongue in our Lyturgy our Answer is with St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 16. we have no such Custome nor has had the Church of God for 1600. Years and more 6. By unknown Tongues the Apostle means not of Hebrew among the Iews Greek among the Grecians or Latin among us of the Western Church which is understood of the learned and civil People in every great City but of Miraculous Tongues which Men spoke in the Primitive Church as a Mark that they had received the Holy Ghost Think you that the Lyturgy is said in the Greek Church in an unknown Tongue because it s said in propâ—â— Greek not now understood by the vulgar SECT VIII The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses OUr Adversary sayes that Transubstantiation destroyes all evidence grounded in the experimental knowledge of our senses and makes void the proof CHRIST made use of to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit To understand my Answer to this Objection of our Adversary you must know First that the Principle of experimental knowledge is this for example wheresoever are all the Accidents of Bread there is the substance of Bread unless the Author of Nature hinder its presence there Secondly That this conditional must be alwayes added in Reverence to the Almighty Power of God otherwayes by this Experimental knowledge a Combustible thing laid in the Fire burns 'T would follow that the Children in the Furnace of Babylon were burnt contrary to what is said in Daniel 3 cap. v. 50. These two things being known I answer that evidence grounded upon experimental Knowledge stands in its full vigour with our Doctrine of Transubstantiation as is clear to him who in this true Supposition of Experimental Knowledge considers it For we deny Bread to be in the Eucharist where all the Accidents of Bread are because the Author of Nature hinders the presence of Bread to be there as he has revealed it to us in several places of Scripture And consequently I deny that Transubstantiation destroyes more Experimental Knowledge than Protestant's belief that the Angels who appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were Angels and not Men destroys it Had not the Angels appearing to them all the Accidents of Men as our Eucharist has all the Accidents of Bread And did not they look as like men as it looks like Bread Secondly It makes void sayes he the proof Christ brought to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit Handle me and see sayes our Saviour for a Spirit has no Flesh Luke 24. v. 39. which can be no conviction to Romanists who see Bread in the Eucharist if they will trust their own Senses Answ Do Protestants make void the proof Christ made use of to his Apostles when they say that the Angels of which afore that appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were not Men but Angels No say you because GOD hath revealed that they were Angels Neither do we Romanists when we say that in the Eucharist that which appears like Bread is the Body of Christ under the form of Bread and not Bread because our Saviour hath Revealed that it is his Body Our Saviours proof says our Adversary that he was not a Spirit shall never influence a Papist to conviction Answer This I deny for in this case we have both evidence of the senses and our Saviours Word and no Revelation contradicting them and therefore are fully convinc'd to believe it But for Bread in the Eucharist we have indeed the evidence of sense but not Christs word but on the contrary we have our senses contradicted by Christs infallible word Must not a Man be in Eclipse or under a Cloud not to see this Disparity To clear then our Adversary in his mistake I let him know that our Saviour undertook to prove that he had a true Body which is the Natural Remote object of our senses by the Judgment of his Disciples senses But never to prove Immediatly an Object or Mystery of Faith such as our Eucharist is by the Judgment of our senses I say Immediatly because having prov'd Immediatly that this was his true Body mediatly he proved in that Circumstance that it was risen again Nay when we come to such Mysteries of Faith we must not only Captivate our Senses but Reason also if we will believe St. Paul 2 Cor. 10. v. 5. As to that he sayes that our Transubstantiation favours the Opinion of the Marcionists its manifestly false to those who know the Marcionists Opinion to wit that Christ had not a true Body but only in appearance For who grants our Transubstantiation must grant that the Body of Christ is there either really and substantially or in appearance But under the appearance of Bread cannot be the appearance of the Body of Christ to wit the Shape Bulk Colour and Extention of all the parts of his Body for how can all these stand together with the proper Accidents of Bread in the lest Particle of the Host And consequently they not being there his reall Body must be there to make the grant of Transubstantiation good Subsect 1 In the Eucharist our senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object OUr Adversary saies let us torture our discursive faculty never so much we shall never be able to prove that our senses are not deceived representing to us as Bread what really if we are believed is not Bread Answer That our senses are not deceived in their proper Object I prove thus The proper Object of our senses are only the Accidents of Bread in the Eucharist our senses represent to us the Accidents Colour Taste c. after the Consecration just as they did afore then they are not at all deceived in their proper Object You 'l say their proper Object is also the Substance of Bread and in that they are deceived since after Consecration according to us there is no Bread Answer I deny that the Substance of Bread is their proper Object it s the Object of the understanding which from the senses Anticedent representation to him of all the Accidents of Bread infers that the Substance of Bread is there viz. ordinarily and naturally when it is not revealed to him that the Author of Nature has disposed otherwaies So that the Substance of Bread is only improperly by Accident and occasionally called the Object of our senses in as much as they by their Relation to him of all the Accidents of a Substance give him occasion to Judge certainly that the Substance is also there when he has no Revelation from God of the contrary If our Eyes are deceived in Transubstantiation was not the Iews Eyes deceived in the Incarnation representing CHRIST as a Human Person By this solution you have an Answer to all
of the World What Man saw the Nothing out of which all was made and upon that account was moved to say the Being of the World was a Miracle Let him know then that God has made two sorts of Miracles the one of necessity Visible because they are motives to us of Credibility or to move us to believe Such were the Miracles by which CHRIST proved his Divinity Moses that he was sent by God such were and are the Miracles by which the R. Catholick Church proves that she is the true Church of CHRIST Other Miracles God has made which are meer Objects of Faith and matters to us of submiting our understandings to his Word as our will to his Command These matters on one side must not be Visible for what submission is there of my understanding to assent to what I see on the otherside they must be strange and above Nature to give worthily to my Faith the Name of a Soveraign and pure Submission such as is due to the veracity of God Of this Nature are the Mysteries of the Incarnation in CHRIST and Transubstantiation in the Eucharist He ends his Battery against Transubstantion in the Eucharist with this Argument these Words This is my Body c. are not a true and real Testament for he sayes not I leave you my Body which is the usual manner of uttering our selves in Testaments therefore they may be taken in a Figurative sense Answer First CHRIST calls his last Supper the New Testament shall I believe him or our Adversary This Cup the New Testament in my Blood which shall be poured out for you and for many 〈◊〉 Is not the Testament of any other then 't is Christ's Legacy to his Apostles and others of the Faithful Secondly No Testator ever made his Testament more clearly and expresly Other Testators ordinarily make their Testament only by Words CHRIST by Words and deed By deed in as much as being to depart he gave them with his own hands By Word saying Take eat this is my Body When they took did not he give And to give to them and give it to be given to others is not that the same as to leave When a Souldier dying in the Camp gives his Sword to his Companion is not that as much as to say I leave it you St. Augustin sayes in the Old Testament the New lyes hidden and in the New the Old lyes open Was not then the Old Testament a true Testament and a Figure of the New the Law having a shadow of good things to come Heb. 10. v. 1. and is the Figure more a true Testament then the Testament figured After I have answered the difficulties our Adverversary finds in Transubstantion I would willingly ask him some Questions about their Tenet in the same matter First if the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ be but Bread and Wine and at the most have nothing more than the Ministers Blessing above Common Bread and Wine is it not as much Superstition to give them that respect they receive from Protestants as it is in us to respect Agnus Dei's and Holy-Water Secondly They can't increase or improve in the Justice they are supposed to have applyed to themselves before by believing that all their Sins are forgiven by the Merits of Christ what is then the effect of their Communion Thirdly Since according to Protestants the Body of CHRIST cannot be Eaten but by Faith and again since this Faith must be not a Faith of Miracles nor an Historical Faith but a saving Faith or a fiducia a confidence that their Sins are forgiven them by the Merits of CHRIST I infer then they cannot Eat the Body of Christ unworthily for by Eating CHRIST's Body with a saving Faith I save my self by Eating it unworthily I damn my self but I can't save and damn my self both at once then I can't Eat the Body of CHRIST unworthily But this contradicts St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. cap. v. 27. If you say with Dr. Taylor that Christ's true Body is there viz. in the Sacrament really but yet that the reallity and verity of his Body cannot be there since Protestants believe that Christ does not come from Heaven to the Sacrament Is not this to shut up a Chymera between these two Words He 's there as a nothing between two Dishes CHAP. VI. Of the R. Catholicks Divine Worship SECT I. Roman Catholicks do not agree with Heathens in their Veneration and use of Images OUr Divine Worship sayes our Adversary is not unlike that of the Antient Heathens we adore God in Pictures as he was ador'd by Heathens in the Sun we Worship those Images as representations of that Invisible and Soveraign being we â—all God Answer That 〈◊〉 may make Catholicks Idolaters he makes Idolaters Worshipers of the true God For if they adore God in Creatures they had then the Faith of 〈◊〉 true God and all their Worship and Religion was directed as to its last End to the true and invisible God Wherefore then are they said by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. cap. v. 20 to have Sacrificed to Devils and not to God All the Gods of the Gentils are Devils sayes David Psalm 95. then those to whom they directed their Worship was not God then they and Romanists do not agree in their Religious Worship He sayes again that relative Worship was severely punish'd in the Israelites For he can't imagine they adored the Calf as a true God unless we suppose them as void of Reason as the Calf it self Answer They believed the Calf to be a God able to bring them out of Egypt if we may believe the Scripture Exod. 32. These are thy Gods Israel who have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt And 1 of the Kings according to Protestants cap. 12. v. 28. Jeroboam made two Golden Calves and said to them go up no more to Jerusalem behold thy Gods Israel Tho our Adversary can't imagin this Who could have imagin'd that those great Philosophers of whom St. Paul speaks 1 Romans v. 23. to whom God had given great Lights by which they came to the knowledge of him should have chang'd the Glory of an incorruptible God into the Adoration of Men Birds four-footed Beasts and Serpents Does not St. Paul speak plain here I grant then they were as void of Reason in that as the Calf they Ador'd What is a Man left by God But what was the Reason of this their fall from Reason Hear it from the same Apostle v. 21. having known God they did not Glorifie him as God nor thanked him for so great a benefit but proudly vanish'd in their thoughts for which ill behavior and ingratitude how did he punish them By a with-drawing of his Light obscuratumest insipiens cor cor eorum and as a Man in the dark runs his Head against a Wall they wanting the Light of Grace run themselves into the shameful passions of corrupted Nature exchanged Truth with Lyes and gave the Honour they
and approbation from the Sea of Rome I grant And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible He Answers by setting Reason to Reason and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture Here I ask if that Collation or comparing of Reason with Reason and tryal by the Holy Scripture be fallible or infallible If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speaking for since I must give an assent Infallible super omnia above all my doubt must be taken infallibly away If it be Infallible I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion Not infundamentals for there is no doubt in them they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture If in Integrals then say I since a private man useing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them and consequently infallibly propose them to the People to be believ'd since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture and consequently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick SECT V. We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd general Council is Baptis'd ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly sayes our Adversary since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister And upon the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention Answer First that the Synods and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful the members of them must be of the Elect for if they are not of the Elect Christ did not dye for them according to the Kirk of Scotland and if Christ did not dye for them they are not Christians and if they are not Christians what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith in which you believe are found all the foundamentals of Christianity They composed them they put them into your hands by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them How are you more assured that they are of the Elect then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd Is it written in their faces O but they have a gift of prayer had not Major Wyer in appearance one and a very great one Answer Secundo We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see it approv'd by the Pope because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Council unlawful for some hidden defect to have all the outward form of a lawful Council for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council if as it might fall out such a Council should propose a false Doctrine to be believed Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church Matth. 18.23.17 A Subsect The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity OUr Adversary having prov'd as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions The Church is fallible then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith then who rejects Transubstantiation Purgatory c. are not Hereticks Answer From that antecedent the Church is Fallible he might as well have drawn these conclusions then There is no Faith nor true Religion For if the Church be fallible in her Decisions then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion then it s only probable that Christianity is the true Religion Again if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion theâ— its only probable that CHRIST is God Go further if it be only probable that CHRIST is God then it may be he is not God Is this a pretty Discourse Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent The Church is Fallible thâ— Church nevertheless which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him Where is then Faith Where is true Religion If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle to wit the Holy Scripture by which you prove the Infallibility of Christianity I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demonstrating the Infallibility of Christianity is the Word of God By no other but by your private Light or Spirit but this is Fallible as I shall show anon then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible the former Discourse was Rational it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion if your principle carry with it fallibility and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it Now I prove that your private Light or private Spirit is fallible You are not sure 't is the Spirit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture try the Spirit sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church then you must try it by Scripture Again you cannot read the Scripture in Order to try this Spirit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guided by the Spirit of God for if perchance it be the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light who guids you he 'l make that seem to you true which is false If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you you can't be sure that the spirit which inlightens you is Infallible then it s fallible and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible I pray what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion if we have none we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion Be pleas'd to take notice then that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church According to that Ephes 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity Reflect again how can we but waver in our thoughts and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us is fallible
say the Bible doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation we do not say that the Word of God does not contain all things necessary to Salvation because the Word of God is partly written partly unwritten Put these two together and you have all things necessary to Salvation Nay the Scripture alone has partly Explicitly partly Implicitly in as much as it sends us to the Church all things necessary to Salvation When we say that the Scripture is not absolutely But in some places obscure in others clear what do we say more then Protestants who teach that the Scripture is an Interpreter of it self if you compare the less clear passage with another or others more clear is not this to say that the less clear is obscure which obscurity is taken away by the clearness of the other Neither do we say that the Scripture is Imperfect when we say it is only a part of our Rule of Faith no more then we say the Almighty Power of God is Imperfect when we say 't is only a part of his Infinite Perfection As we do not say that God is Finit because he is a part of this Couple contained in Christ-God and Man or by which we say God and Man are two viz. natures SECT VI. The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith WE acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be our Rule of Faith but not alone we believe them to be profitable to teach us in Justice that the Man of God may be perfect 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. But not sole sufficient to make him perfect We seem sayes our Adversary to doubt of the Originals of Scripture since we ask a Protestant how he knows it is the Word of God As if the Air Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression proper to God alone did not show this sufficiently as the King's Letters are known by their style and Royal Seal Answer We are so far from doubting of the Scriptures being the Word of God that we believe it with an Act of Divine Faith But we have asked and ask without any Answer that has so much as a jot of Reason by what Principle they will prove to us that the Scripture is the Word of God If besides the Scripture there is no Rule of Faith Not by the Scripture it self because self Testimony is none were it Written in any place of it that this Bible containing so many and such Books is the Word of GOD for the Question returns how know you that this Testimony is the Word of GOD Now to say that she Scripture shows it self is frivolous For I ask what 's that to say the Scripture shows it self Is it that by Reading it rises in the mind of a Man who has a well disposed understanding this apprehension The Scripture is the Word of God By which apprehension he sees it is so before he Judges or believes If so then he does not believe the Word of God to be the Word of God mov'd by the Word of God but by this apprehension which if you say is the Word of God then you admit a Word of God which is not Written and yet to you a Rule of Faith and so you have another Immediate Rule of Faith than the Written Word of God Again that apprehension and inward Testimony of the mind for which it s believed that the Scripture is the Word of GOD and that it shows it self does it rise from this that the Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression move Men to Judge that the Scripture is the Word of God But seeing all these particulars come from such Words Instituted by Men to signifie and that the more or less Majesty of the Style in a Speech or Sentence rises from a certain material placing and disposing of Words among themselves the whole thing is natural and so not the Word of God Next that Simplicity and Majesty of Style and what you please more is not so in every part of Scripture that I am bound for them to believe that that part is the Word of God For I pray what Air Simplicity or Majesty of Style is in the begining of the Gospel of St. Matthew when it s said there Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Iacob what do you find more there then you would find in those same Words written in an Author not Sacred as in Ioseph the Iew Now if you ask us why we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God We Answer because an Infallible Tradition passing through all Ages and always believing it to be the Word of God has conveyed it to our Hands and that General approv'd Councils have confirm'd it by their Sacred Decrees and uncontrolable Authority as often as any Controversie arose among the Faithful either concerning certain Books or the certainty of the Tradition it self If you say you make use of this same Tradition of all Christians hitherto believing it to be the Word of God as a motive of Credibility to you that it is the Word of God I Answer You may but first by claiming to this you leave your own Principle of denying Tradition Next tho' this Universal Tradition be to you a motif of Credibility that the Bible is the Word of God as to the Letter yet you have none for the sense in which you take it Subsect This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants TO prove that the Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith at last our Adversary brings these Words of CHRIST to the Iews Search the Scriptures John cap. 5. v. 39. Answer You must know that there our Saviour was proving to the Iews his God-head or Divinity And he proves it First by the Testimony of St. Iohn Baptist v. 32. and lets them understand how worthy a Person Iohn was of Credit with them Secondly he proves it by his Works v. 36. Thirdly by the Testimony of his Eternal Father viz. This is my Son in whom I am well pleas'd Matth. 3. v. 17. Take notice that CHRIST for their Rule in believing his God-head did not fend them first to the Scripture but to the Testimony of Iohn his Miraculous Works and the Testimony of his Father and last of all he saies Search the Scriptures as if he should have said if you will not acknowledge me to be God for these great Arguments and Motives I have brought Take yet one more which is that since you think you have Eternal Life in the Scriptures Search them and there you will find that I am God because the Prophets in them give Testimony of me And this was said to their Doctors not to every private Person Secondly The Word Scrutamini in Lati◠〈◊〉 Ereunate in Greek is of the presenttence of 〈◊〉 dicative mood Cyrillus takes it in the Indicative as well as of the Imperative and so signisies you do Search the Scriptures as
if he should say since you do Read diligently the Scriptures you can't but find my Divinity there since they give clear Testimony of me by the Prophets Our adversary shuts up this matter of Scripture by shuting us up as he Imagins or will seem to Imagin in a circle while we prove the Scripture by the Church and run back saies he to the Scripture to prove the Church Answer To those who admit the Scripture and deny the Church we prove the Church by the Scripture to these who deny a part of Scripture but hold the Infallible Authority of the Church we prove the Scripture by the Church to those who deny both Church and Scripture we prove first the Church by the signal marks of the true Church set down in the old and new Testament of which some alone are of sufficient force to move a Pagan and having Established Her Authority by Her acknowledging the Scripture to be the Word of God we prove it to be the Word of God In this Discourse you see no Circle but in the Imagination of our Adversary Now let us see if he who thought to catch us be not caught himself For therefore with him Scripture is the Word of God because it shows it self and wherefore doth it show it self but because it is seen by those who only disclose as he speaks those Divine Letters And wherefore again is it seen to those who open those Divine Letters but because it shows it self And so while he walks between it is seen and it shows it self neither sees 〈…〉 thing himself nor shows or can show any thing to others who desire to see because he can't show what he sees not nor the Scripture show what it infallibly contains without another infallible Rule of Faith SECT VII The Reason why the Mass is not said in the Vulgar Tongue OUr Adveriary advancing in his Reflexions upon our Religion sayes that our Prayers in an Unknown Tongue is not a small hinderance to Piety and Devotion What Comfort sayes he can the Ignorant sort reap at Mass Answer Either he means our Private Prayers or our Publick If our Private Prayers I attest his own Conscience all English and Scots Protestants who converse Familiarly with us if they do not know that we have our Manuals of Devotion in English If he means our Publick Prayers Then he supposes two things which are false The first that that publick Action which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass is or ought simply to be called a verbal Prayer The second that that less considerable part of it which consists in Words is in an unknown Tongue The Sacrifice of the Mass being of its Nature and by the Intention of Christ the Instituter of it and chief Officer in it an Action ordain'd to acknowledge his Fathers Supream Dominion over us to give him thanks for his Favours bestowed upon us for a continuation of them and a Satisfaction for our Sins it is a prayer but a real one and is more the object of the Eye then of the Ear Moreover is it not enough that the Mass is Printed in Vulgar Tongues And that the Council of Trent Sess 22. cap 8. Commands the Pastors to explain it to the People altho it be not said but in the Tongues of the Church In the Greek Church in Greek in the Latin in Latin to keep an uniformity among the Faithful of each Church and that the expression of the Churches Liturgy keep its Majestie not subject to the changes of Vulgar Tongues to which those are who speak them under pain of passing sometimes for Ridiculous Neither is that to be call'd an Unknown Tongue which little Boyes are ordinarily taught in the Schools and which they come often to speak Regularly before they can express themselves handsomly in their Mothers Tongue Neither do our Country Clowns speak unknown Tongues because they don't easily understand one another But Grant the Latin Tongue is an unknown Tongue is it not enough that all those prayers are found explained in Books Neither does the Devotion of the Ignorant consist in their hearing or knowing what the Priest says but in knowing what he does And in offering up with him the same Sacrifice which is also theirs sure if they be well disposed to receive great good by it I pray did the People in the entry of the Temple hear what Zacharie said when he was Officiating far from being so much as seen by them Luke 1. cap. v. 10. and the People wondred that he stayed there so long v. 21. But what shall we say of those Extemporary prayers made by some Protestants who being weak in Spirit yet resolved to follow the strain of their Brethren speak a great deal of none-sence Is that a known or an unknown Tongue when the Hearers can't make sence of his words but only knows his meaning is to pray To this he adds a bare Lecture of Scriptures sometimes of a Prophet obscure in his Expression they know not whither it s to be understood in the Literal or Figurative sense yet what a sighing and sobing What a mournful Looks in their Eyes And murgions in their Faces If this Prayer and lecture of Scripture neither of them being understood can move these People to so much Devotion because they know this is said and read to Honour God why may not the Sacrifice of the Mass which Catholicks believe to be the highest Honour that can be given to God upon â—arth move those who are present to Devotion although they don't understand in particular what is said by the Priest to God 'T is enough that the Priest understand it who in his own and in all their Names makes the Sacrifice I end this Section with some Reflections 1. That S. Paul 1 Cor. 14. does not speak of a publick Prayer approved by the Church and consequently not subject to Error But only of a new Prayer of a private Person made to others which might be subject to Error and therefore he would not have it made in a Vulgar Tongue but in a Tongue that others might judge of it as appears by his saying in the 29 v. Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judge 2. St. Paul saies v. 29. forbid not to speak with Tongues i. e. in an unknown tongue I say then what Christian dares forbid what the Apostle allows 3. St. Paul saies there v. 15. I will pray with the Spirit i. e. in an unknown Tongue and I will pray with the understanding also i. e. in a known Tongue If he prayed in an unknown Tongue as well as in a known Tongue why may we not also 4. As altho' an Inchanter understands not the words of his Charm the Devil understands them and obeys them so altho the Ignorant understand not the words of his Prayer the Devil understands them and fears them and God understands them and helps him as the King does a Favour to an Idiot who understood not the
his empty talk of Roses and Lillies c. saying I can never acertain you of any thing my Eyes sees for if I see all the Accidents of a Rose and have no Revelation from the Author of Nature that the Substance of a Rose is not there I can asure you that it is a Rose The same Answer serves when he saies that as my Eye may be deceived so may also my Ear which gives a Mortal blow to Tradition it coming by hearing For we have said already that neither Eye nor Ear are deceiv'd in their Object because as the Eye ever represents the same Colour so the Ear conveys ever to the understanding the same sound and as the Substance which is under that Colour is the Object of the understanding and not of the Eye so likewaies the Truth or Falsehood of the Word is the Object of the understanding and not of the Ear. You 'l say if Accidents only are the Object of our senses how do you understand these propositions I see Bread I Taste Wine Which are common Expressions Answer We speak so because the denomination which fals upon the Instrument often is given to the thing of which it is an Instrument and so as when my Hand is hurt I am said to be hurt because my Hand is an Instrument of my Body by which it Acts so when the savour of the Wine is tasted the Wine is said to be tasted because it is an Instrument or Vertue that flowes from the Wine and by which the Wine affects your Taste Out of all I have said gather this Truth that neither Sense nor Reason is deceiv'd in the Eucharist not our senses because they find all the Accident in the same condition after Consecration in which they were before Not Reason because Reason tells me that I ought to believe that the Substance of Bread is there where all its Accidents are unless God reveal to me the contrary and in that case not to believe it to be there But God has reveal'd it not to be there so when I now believe it not to be there my Reason is not deceiv'd Now to oppose this revelation or Infallible word of Christ we claim to This is my Body he saies Litera occidit the letter kills Answer The letter kills indeed when it taken in the literal sense involves a contradiction or any thing against Faith or good manners otherwayes not So this proposition Christ is a Vine taken literally kills because the verb is in it taken literally Imports an Identification or samety of two natures specifically different contrary to that we know by Faith to wit that the Son of God hath assum'd no nature but that of man And in this proposition This is my Body taken literally the verb is imports onely an Indentification of the same thing with it self onely otherwayes exprest less destinctly in the subject This and more destinctly in the predicate my Body Subsect II. Shows that Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion OUr Adversary's second way of opposing Transubstantiation is to say that it Inclines mean Capacities to Idolatrie and the sharper wits to Hypocrisie The Common People no doubt saies he do frequently adore the Accidents according to his concession pag. 90. They are taught as he saies there to adore Christ under the Accidents they see which they call God saying when the Wafer is lifted by the Priest on leve Dieu God is lifted Answer The Doctrine of Transubstantiation expresly commands to adore what they do not see quod non vides and forbids to Adore what is seen If nevertheless some do the contrary the Doctrine is not therefore blameable no more then the Law is to be blam'd because some do quite contrary to its Rule and Instruction For that saying on leve Dieu God is lifted if it can be said without Blasphemy that God was lifted upon the Cross because Christ's Body was lifted upon the Cross it may likewise be said without Blasphemy that God is lifted up in the Sacrifice of the Mass because Christs Body is there lifted up By a Communication of properties what is atributed to Christ's Body is atributed to Christ and what is atributed to Christ is atributed to God For the sharp wits they see that according to the probable Opinion of Protestants Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not there as in a place because to be in a place is to be with the full extention of its parts corresponding to the parts of the place but this Christ's Body in the Eucharist has not and therefore it is not there in a place And therefore tho' it be there and in Heaven both at once it is not in two places both at once yet largely and improperly speaking the Body of Christ may be said to be in the Eucharist as in a place in as much as it is united to the Accidents which are in a place The Body then of Christ is there after the existing way of a Spirit If you say the Body of Christ can't be united to Accidents in different places I ask how is our Soul united to different parts of the Body which are in different places Just then as the Soul is not in a place yet is said to be above and below before and behind because the parts to which it is united are above and below before and behind so when the Accidents to which Christ's Body is united in the Eucharist are mov'd or lifted up it is said to be mov'd or lifted up So it s a silly thing for Protestants to object to Catholicks the obsurdities which seem to follow from a Body's being in two places since they may say that the Body of Christ by its being in the Eucharist is not in two places Thus you see our witty People have not occasion to be Hypocrites but sincere believers If our Adversary saies a Body can be no more without Extention then Water without humidity Fire without Heat a Stone without Hardness I grant it is so naturally but he must mutually grant to me that it may be as well without extention supernaturally as a Fire without burning having within the splear of its activity a thing combustible which was seen in the Furnice of Babylon Dan. 3. cap. And a Stone by the stroke of a Rod to yield a Fountain of Water Exod 17. cap. v. 6. is as surprising as Water it self without Humidity Let Catholicks then mark well this that Transubstantiation does not at all force them to avow that CHRIST's Body is in two parts extensivly or with the extension of its parts Our Adversary objects that all Miracles must be visible but in the Eucharist the Substance into which the Bread is changed is not visible then there is no such Miraculous change in the Eucharist Answer I deny the Major proposition for to whom was visible the Conception and Birth of CHRIST of a Virgin-Mother To whom was visible the Creation
the R. Church there has appeared publickly and visibly to whole Nations Men of such Sanctity of Life with the Gifts of Miracles that after their decease their Lives and Miracles done both afore and after their Death having been first severely examin'd and discus'd and then approv'd they were after this Examination declared Saints and as such are for the present Honour'd by the whole Catholick Church If you say what is said of those Saints and their Miracles is but Fabulous Then I ask you if a Iew would say the same to you of our Saviours Miracles How would you convince him For as he denyes the Divinity of CHRIST so he denyes also the New Testament to be the Word of God Laying then aside Divine Revelation had Men at that time more Humane Authority to believe CHRIST's Miracles then we have now to believe the approv'd Miracles of our Saints From all I have said I infer First If the R. Church notwithstanding all these marks be not the true Church of CHRIST he has no true Visible Church upon Earth since there cannot be more clear and Visible Marks of the true Church then these I have brought Secondly I infer that if the Iews seeing some Prophet's Sanctity of Life and Miracles were most reasonably perswaded and convinc'd that GOD directed them by his Spirit and spoke by their Mouths to others We must of necessity believe that the Roman Church is directed by the Spirit of GOD and that He speaks by Her to us Since whatsomever motif you 'l find for that perswasion in a single Prophet you will find it in an higher Degree in the whole Body of the Church Now to make use of our rational faculty in order to see if you have any appearance of a Church among you 't is not enough for you to say that the Protestant Church has the true Worship of God You must bring such proofs as I have brought for the R. Church to prove it This you have never done nor will ever do But to come nigher to you I ask by what motive you can perswade me that Luther and Calvin your first Reformers were mov'd and directed by the Spirit of God in all their oppositions to the Roman Church Can it be imagined that God would have taken from a whole visible Church which had those marks I spoke of the true sense and meaning of the word and given it to Men who leaving the Altar and their Vow of Chastity prostituted themselves becoming the slaves of a shamful and Sacrilegious Passion As to that our Adversary saies the Roman Church Imposes many weighty burdens on her Children beyond what God Commands he is mightily deceiv'd for God commanding us to Worship and obey him he Commands us implicitly to make use of the means most convenient to perform these two duties Now the Church by her Commands does also but show us the fittest means to perform the perfect observation of Gods explicit Command and oblidges us to make use of them and consequently properly speaking there is no new burden impos'd upon us SECT II. Saint Pauls saying whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24.25.27 makes nothing against our abstinence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes OUr great Defender of the rights and dues of the senses having told us in the Eucharist what the sight claims to now he will not have the Taste depriv'd of its satisfaction Telling us Pag. 107. 't was a liberty and priviledge of the primitive Church as St. Paul witnesses to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 10. that whatsoever is Sold in the Shambless c. we may Eat Answer St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. Having terrified the Christians from Eating with the Gentils in their Solemnities a part of what was offer'd to the Idol because by this Eating they seem'd to approve the Oblation of that Flesh made to the Devil he told them nevertheless that they should not be scrupulous to Buy what they found in the Shambles nor to Eat what was set down before them to Eat at Common Tables out of those Solemnities altho' perchance those Meats had been offer'd to Idols viz. because they being Ignorant of it did not give occasion to think they approv'd that Oblation to the Idol in which onely the Sin was But if it fell out that one should tell them that such a Meat had been offerd to the Idol then he forbid them to Eat of it v. 28. for fear of scandalizing that Person Is not here something refused to Eat altho' it be set down afore me to be Eaten and altho' the thing be good in it self ond belonging to God Was not the forbidden fruit good in it self and yet was it Lawful for Adam to Eat it then with Thanks-giving when God had forbidden it no more is it Lawful to us to Eat Flesh which is good in it self on Fasting dayes because it is then forbidden by the Church of God which God will have us hear as himself Luke 10. v. 16. Who hears you hears me Has not the Church of England taken away that priveledge too when she commands to abstain from Flesh in Lent or at least from Eating a sull Meal till after noon or towards the Evening on their dayes of Humiliation When there is no Danger then of offending God neither by my approbation of an offering to the Devil or Scandalizing my Neighbour St. Paul sayes I may Eat Flesh tho' offer'd to the Devil From that antecedent is this a good Inference then when I know I offend God by Transgressing the Command of his Church and by Scandal of my Neighbour I may Eat Flesh because it is good in it self and at another time may be Eaten with Thanks-giving St. Paul then bids Christians not to scruple to buy or Eat Meat upon a fear that it may be 't was offer'd to Idols because that reason did not make it unlawful to Eat so I was not told of it But he bids not Eat it if it be unlawful upon an other accompt viz. because forbidden on certain dayes by the Church Now to show how pleasing a thing to God and advantageous to our Souls our Fasting is remember that Moses having fasted forty Dayes and forty Nights in the Mountain obtain'd the Favour to see God Face to Face Exod. 24. chap. did not Achab make use of Sack-Cloath and Fasting for the expiation of his Sins 1 Regum 28. did not David after he heard from Nathan that God had Forgiving him his Sin say that his knees were weak through Fasting 2 Sam. 12. chap. Were not Divine Mysteries reveal'd to Daniel after he had Fasted and was he not Favour'd with a Miraculons Dinner by the means of an Angel Daniel 14. In the New Testament did not Christ Fast forty Dayes and forty Nights and so teach us how to overcome the Temptations of the Devil Matth. 4. did not he tell his Disciples that a certain kind of Devils was not cast out but by Prayer and Fasting Math. 17. Our
for God renounced in this Life and a true fore-taste of the Life Eternal or in St. Paul's Words a Peace passing above our senses Phil. 4.7 Hieronimus Platus saies our Adversary is as whimsical in his notions of this imaginary happiness as Plato was in his abstract Idea's here he runs out at random as a Clock dismounted that stricks twenty for one and tells you he can prove to perswasion that their is no way of serving God more dangerous than in a Religious Order and why By reason of a Yoak they take upon themselves of keeping a number of petty Rules which altho' we do not hold to be observed under pain of Sin yet we teach none of them can scarce ever be transgressed without Sin either ratione scandali or ratione contemptus by reason of the Scandal or Contempt of Authority And what is more strange that we say non progredi is regredi not to go forward is to go back Then he concluds with an applause to his perswasive premisses as he Imagins thus in what fears if we have a timorous Conscience Troubles Tormoiles and Vexation of Spirit do we live He amplifies his conclusion by what he has heard some Religions say that their burden was not like that of Christ Sweet and Light but Bitter and most Heavy Hence he further infers that those Vows are snares to entrap Souls by which the Devil catches some who would not admit an open suggestion to Sin by giving scope to follow their own Inclinations to make Vows which being above their frailty weary to swim alwise against Water at last they yield to the Stream and go down-wards which was the Devils design Answer What does Hicr Platus for the most part in that Treaty of the Good of a Religious Life exhort unto but what the ancient Philosophers Cicero Seneca Epictetus c. discovered by the Light of Nature to wit that the happiness of Man here upon Earth was to live a Life removed from Ambition Covetousness of Riches and other Cares which might with-draw his Spirit from pleasing the immortal Gods as the Heathens spoke acquiring Vertues and overcoming Passions by which study his mind might be raised above all that is feared or loved in Human things and so dispose himself by a dissipation of Clouds that rise from Human Affections to a clear Contemplation of the most perfect being which is intelligible or knowable I mean God in which Aristotle tho' not a Christian places the Felicity of Man Answer Secondly If Hier. Platus promised a singular Contentment to those who leave for God's sake all the goods which flatter the Hearts of worldly Men did not our Saviour promise as much afore him when he said Luke 18. v. 29. Amen I say unto you there is no Man that hath left House or Parents or Brethren or Wife or Children for the Kingdom of God how do you understand that and shall not receive much more in this time and in the World to come Life everlasting I lived with a Religious Man who said upon this Discourse he saw the Truth of the first part clearly he only expected the second Let my Adversary give me leave to tell him from St. Paul animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei 1 Cor. 2.14 a sensual Man is not sensible of the things of God nor understands the ways of his Spirit they are a folly to him Those things which are great helps to advance in Spirit seem to him impediments of Perfection Christ calling those who were under Burden Math. 11. v. 29. and promising to ease them bids them take moreover his Yoke on them and tells them that by that means they shall find ease This seems a Paradox an odd thing to a sensual Man who looses the Yoke from the Neck of his Oxen when he has mind to ease them Little knows he for want of Experience that this more particular Yoke of Christ I mean his Evangelical Counsels put in practise are to a good Religious Man what the Wings are to an Eagle they weigh indeed something but are so far from weighing him down that they help him to raise himself in the Air and reach his Prey which he could not do without them If the diminishing of Laws and Commands for which our Adversary is so great a Stickler makes the way smoother and straighter to Spiritual Perfection then the Law of Nature was the most advancing Law to Perfection of the three and carried it far afore the written Law and that of Grace But who will say this And consequently that from whence it follows A Subsect Answers the rest of this matter of Vows I Avow that the Yoke of a Religious Man considered in it self is greater then that of a Lay-Person but if you consider it joyned to the singular helps he has from God to carry it 't is far easier crucem vident saies St. Bernard the People of the World see our Crosses they know we Fast we rise in the Night to Pray and take other Mortifications unctionem non vident they don't see saies he our Unction of the Holy Ghost the victorious pleasure of Grace which upholds us and makes us carry chearfully our Crosses viam mandatorum tuorum cucurri cum dilatasti cor meum I did not only go but run saies the Royal Prophet through the Wayes of thy Commands when thou didst enlarge my Heart to wit with thy Grace Psal 118. v. 32. Religious Orders have many Rules I grant but they are all reduc'd to three Heads the keeping of Poverty Chastity and Obedience As the general Laws of Kings and Countries are subdivided in a number of particular Observations Neither is it true that a Rule cannot be scarce broken without Scandal or Contempt of Authority For when the Bell in a Religious Community Rings a quarter of an hour afore Dinner to make the Examen of Conscience a Religious Man reflects that he has a Letter of Importance that must be sent to the Post at their rising from Table he Writes his Letter in the time of the Examen thinking it pleases God he do so the Rule is brok without Scandal Contempt or Sin in that case This and such like we call defects not culpable or breaches of the Rule without Guilt When we say non progredi is regredi not to go forward is to go back we don't mean as our Adversary mistakes that he who keeps the Commandements of God and his Church onely goes backward no we think he goes forward for the new observance of every Command is a new step to Perfection but that as a Boat can't stand or flote upon a Currant but must either bear up against Tyde or must be carryed down with the Stream so we must never stop in the way of Perfection saying with that Foolish Man Luke 12. v. 19. my Sâ—ul rest for we have a Provision for many Years thinking we have enough but still make forward for more Be perfect as your
and consequently they Judge it more perfect then not to make it Did not Hannah think she did a thing more pleasing to God to Vow then not to Vow 1 Sam. v. 11. A second Proof 'T is more perfect to deprive one self for the Love of God of many things then only of few But who makes these Vows deprives himself of the Use Dominion and Capacity of being Master of Riches otherwise Lawful Pleasures and ones one Will. Then he deprives himself for the Love of God by those Vows of more things then if he did not make them Besides 't is a greater Gift to give the Tree with the Fruit which the Religious Man does then the Fruit only A third Proof A thing shown and praised in the Gospel and not Commanded is an Evangelical Counsel But Poverty Chastity and Obedience are shown to us in the Gospel praised and not Commanded Then they are Evangelical Counsels You 'l say I avow that these three things are praised in the Gospel and not Commanded and that CHRIST practised them but where find you that Christ made a Vow himself or moved any other to Vow them Especially since the Vow broken charges the Breaker with a double guilt Answer When Christ perswaded Poverty Math. 19. in these Words If thou wilt be perfect Sell all thou hast and give it to the Poor He perswaded that relinguishment of Goods which should make a Man perfect But that exterior abdicatition or leaving of Earthly Goods with a Will to repossess them again does not make a Man perfect But he ought to have an interior renouncing or a Will not to acquire others in their place Neither had this Will compleated him in a perfect Man if this Will had been at his pleasure and freedom freely revocable Because in that case this Young-Man of which the Gospel speaks had not been fixed in the Service of God yet with-drawable by an Affection to or care of these Temporal Goods Christ then when he perswaded that renouncing of Temporal Goods which makes a Man perfect in the Service of God he perswaded a Vow of Poverty If you say Christ embrac'd this Poverty in a most perfect manner without a Vow and therefore a Vow is not necessary for that end I Answer In Christ 't is True 't was not necessary because he was determined to it by the Beatifick Vision and had a Will that was not changeable but a pure Man having a changeable Will so that sometimes what he Wills to day he Wills not to morrow he has need of a Vow to tye him to that which he now efficaciously Wills for the greater Glory of God The Vow of Obedience is Counselled in the same Chapter and Verse in these Words Follow me Where Christ advises to a following which makes a Man perfect but that is not the general way of following him which all Christians commonly take by an Observation only of the Commandements of God which make in some sense a perfect Man but not in that sublime and high perfection of which our Saviour speaks here when he sayes if thou wilt be perfect c. then it s a particular following And whether then did Christ go If to follow him be so high a perfection To and through all the Commands of his Father renouncing his own Will Luke 22. v. 42. made Obedient to Death nay the Death of the Cross To follow Christ then is to despoil ones self of one 's own Will to be perfectly Subject and Obedient to another for the Love of God As Christ out of Love to his Father was perfectly Subject and Obedient to him That then which Christ perswaded by saying follow me was a renouncing for the Love of God self Will a Subjection of it to that of another and a perfect Obedience to Death The Vow of Chastity is seen perswaded in these words there are Eunuchs who have gelded themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven Math. 19. see what God promises to such Spiritual Eunuchs Isa 56. v. 4. and 5. ever unto them will I give in my House c. a name better then of Sons and Daughters for according to the common Opinion of Divines they are to be understood of a Vow of Chastity and with great Reason for since gelding takes away both Actâ— and Power to Act the moral gelding must needs be by a Vow of Chastity all other will which is not equivalent to a Vow as it was in Christ leaves a Power to Act. Iâ— you say Christ did not perswade that sort of gelding but onely made it known I Answer his adding who can take let him take was tho' not a Precept yet an Exhortation to it Moreover since all the Gospel as to the part of it which regards manners is a perpetual Instruction and Exhortation this part runs in the general intention of Christ and follows the nature of the whole We discover by Christ's Words his inclinations and his Inclinations are strong perswasions to those who are of the noble temper of well disposed Souls A Subsect Vows put not a Man in a worse condition more then the Law of God OUr Adversary cryes down Vows as making Man in a worse condition than afore for if a Man break his Vow of Chastity for example he commits a double Sin whereas without it he had committed only a single one Answer First is a Man after Marriage in a worse condition then afore yet the Sin of the Flesh in him is double Answer Secondly did God put Man in a worse condition by giving him the Law then that in which he was afore he gave it him Yet St. Paul Rom. 7. v. 7. did not know that Concupiscence was a Sin without the Law and so had not Sinned committing it afore he knew the Law and had Sinned if had committed it after Answer Thirdly who Sins against Chastity having made a Vow of Chastity is in a worse condition then he who commits the same not being under Vow I grant but the Vow does not make him Sin no more then the Law of God makes a Man Sin Contrarywayes it forbids him to Sin with-draws him and frights him from Sin more then the Law of God alone So it s by accident that 't is an occasion of Sin of it self â—ts a strong help to abstain from Sin in as much as it represents a far greater malice in that Sin to which it is annexed and a more formidable punishment to be expected Thus you see a Man is more removed from Sin and the occasion of Sin with it then without it Our perverse Nature of striving against what is Commanded us militates equally against the Command of God as against a Vow but is more forcibly resisted by the Command of God when this is backed by a Vow SECT III. What is the Fruit of these Vows well observed ANswer A sweetness of Spirit which often overflows the very senses and is read in the Faces of perfectly Religious Persons a centuple of what they have