quae revelata non sunt ideoque ab articulorum fidei Catholicae numero excluduntur I know that there never was such a thing as a true Universal Council in the world unless Christ and his Apostles were such nor ever must or will or can be I know that they were called Universal but as to one Empire and that Emperours called them together who had nothing to do without that Empire and that unless accidentally any inconsiderable number no Churches out of the Empire were summoned or sent their Bishops thither Which needs no other proof than the knowledge of the limits of the Roman Empire and the Notitiae Episcopatùum and the Names subscribed to each Council in Binnius and the rest I know that long ago their Raynerius said Cont. Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patrum Tom. 4. p. 773. The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome And that Godignus and others make no doubt but the Abassines had the faith from the dayes of St. Matthew and the Eunuch I know that Theodoret. Histor Sanct. Patr. c. 1. saith James the Bishop of Nisibis came to the Synod of Nice for Nisibis then obeyed the Roman Empire Nothing can be more plain I know that Jacob. de Vitriaco and others say Hist Orient c. 77. that the Churches of the Easterly parts of Asia alone exceeded in number the Christians either of the Greek or Latin Churches And that Brochardus that lived at Jerusalem saith that those called Schismaticks by us are far better men than those of the Roman Church And to perswade the Kings of other Kingdoms that the necessary way of Church-Union is to unite all their Subject-Churches under the Patriarchs of another Empire is no wiser than to tell all the world that they must be under the Bishop of Canterbury I know that it was long ere Our antient Britains and especially Your Scots would so much as eat with the Roman Clergy as Beda sheweth And I know that their Melch. Canus saith Loc. Com. cap. 7. fol. 201. That not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have fought to destroy the priviledges of the Church of Rome And indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greater number of Churches And yet they could never prevail to abrogate the power of the One Pope of Rome Was this Pope then or the Roman Church Universal Besides that to this day they are but about the third or fourth part of the Christian world And I know that General Councils are their Religion and what the General approved Council at Lateran sub Innoc. 3. hath Decreed against Temporal Lords and their Dominions and absolving of their Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity Besides what Greg. 7. hath said in his Concil Rom. of his power to take down and set up Emperours The knowing of these things maketh me taken for their enemy And their Image of Worship in an unknown Tongue with their Bread-Worship and multitude of ludicrous deceitful toyes are things which my soul can never be reconciled to Much less to that renunciation of humanity which hereafter I detect in the following Treatise And having given You this Account of my self I add as to this Treatise 1. It grieved me to hear that so many refused the Parliaments Declaration against Transubstantiation And I desired to shew them what it is 2. Instead of joyning with those who talk much of the danger of Popery in the Land to keep it out I thought it better to publish the Reasons which satisfie me against it and leave the success of all to God 3. And having occasion to re-print the First Part of my Key for Catholicks with Corrections instead of the Name before prefixed of one whose face I never saw nor ever had a word from but ignorantly endeavoured to have provoked him to do good I thought Your Name fittest to be gratefully substituted who were the first then that checked my imprudent temerity Though I was not so vain as to expect of late in your multitude of greater business that You should read over my more tedious Writings I despair not but You may find leisure in perusing this to see that I have prefixed Your Name to nothing but what Sense and Reason and Religion do avow And so Craving Your Pardon for the boldness and tediousness of this Address I rest Your Graces humble much obliged Servant Richard Baxter August 27. 1673. TO THE READER THis Dialogue cometh not to you from an apprehension of any extraordinary excellency of it as if it did much more than is already done but as extorted by mens necessity 1. Because so many ignorantly turn Papists of late 2. And some are pleased to Say I dare not say To Think that it is long of men in my condition 3. And it is the Art of the Papists which our vanity encourageth to seek to bring the old Books into oblivion which are unanswerable and to call still for new The intended Use of this is 1. To tell those that will dispute with a Papist on what terms and in what order to proceed lest they be cheated into a snare 2. To teach the Ignorant Doubters truly to understand wherein the difference between us and the Papists doth indeed consist that the talk of Sectaries Calling that which displeaseth them Popery nor the scandal of our real or seeming divisions may not delude them nor Papists puzzle them by putting them to prove every word in our thirty nine Articles or other Writings 3. To Resolve all that will be Resolved by Senses Reason Scripture or the Judgement and Tradition of the Church Of the multitude of Reasons against Popery enumerated I have here made good but one by a special disputation because I would not make the Book too big The rest I shall easily prove in another Volume if greater work and shortness of life do not hinder it which I fully expect And lest I have no more opportunity to answer their Charges against us on the other side I have reprinted and added Corrected the first part of my Key for Catholicks where it is long ago done and never answered There is extant one Piece of theirs against me unanswered called Mr. Johnson's Rejoynder about the Visibility of the Church which I seriously profess I have left unanswered as utterly unworthy of my precious Time till I have no greater matter to do which I hope will never be And he that will well study his opening of the terms in the latter end will see to how pitiful a case they are reduced I conclude with this solemn Profession That I am satisfied of the truth of what I write and must dye ere long in the faith which I here profess and lay my hopes of endless happiness on no other way And that I would joyfully receive any Saving Truth from Papists or any other who will bring
it me with such evidence as may make it indeed my own The Lord Unite us by Truth Love and Humility Amen Septemb. 1. 1673. Richard Baxter THE CONTENTS PART I. WHat is the Protestants Religion and what the Papists pag. 1. Chap. 1. The occasion of the Conference with an humbling consideration to staggerers ibid. Chap. 2. The Conditions of the Conference p. 6. Chap. 3. What is the Religion of the Protestants Of the name Protestant The Augustane and other Confessions The thirty nine Articles The Essentials of Christianity to be distinguished from the Integrals and Accidentals p. 9. Chap. 4. What is the Papists Religion out of Veron Davenport c. p. 25. PART II. Fourteen Principles in which the Papists and Protestants seem agreed by which the Protestant Religion is by the Papists confessed and maintained to be all true p. 40. PART III. Twenty five Charges against Popery enumerated to be all in order proved as Reasons why no one that hath Religion or Sense and Reason should turn Papist p. 61. PART IV. The first Charge made good viz. against Transubstantiation In which Popery is fully proved to be the shame of Humane Nature contrary to SENSE REASON SCRIPTVRE and TRADITION or the Judgement of the antient and the present Church devised by Satan to expose Christianity to the Scorn of Infidels p. 75. Chap. 1. The first Reason to prove that there is Bread after the Consecration from the certainty of the Intellects Perception by the means of sense ibid. Twenty Reasons against the denying of common senses p. 77. Chap. 2. The Papists Answers to all this confuted p. 88. Chap. 3. The second Argument against Transubstantiation from the contradictions of it p. 96. Chap. 4. The third Argument from the certain falshood of their multitudes of feigned Miracles in Transubstantiation Thirty one Miracles in it enumerated with Twenty aggravations of those Miracles p. 99. Chap. 5. The Minor proved viz. That these Miracles are false or feigned p. 110. Chap. 6. Arg. 4. Transubstantiation contrary to the express Word of God p. 117. Chap. 7. Arg. 5. All these Miracles are proofless yea the Scripture abundantly directeth us otherwise to expound This is my Body p. 123. Chap. 8. Arg. 6. Transubstantiation nullifieth the Sacrament p. 128. Chap. 9. The Novelty of Transubstantiation as contrary to the faith of the antient Christians And the singularity contrary to the Judgement and Tradition of most of the Christian world p. 132. Chap. 10. The second part of the Controversie That it is not Christs very flesh and blood into which the Bread and Wine is turned p. 146. Chap. 11. The Conclusion The Scandal of our difference removed Whether the falshood of one Article prove the Papists foundation false Whether it do so by the Protestants Whether Papists have any more Infallibility than others The necessity of discerning the Essentials of Christianity The distinction of Explicite and Implicite faith considered How come so many Princes Nobles Learned men and whole Nations to be Papists All Christians besides Papists are of one Church though of many opinions How come so many among us at home of late inclinable to Popery What hope of Concord with the Papists How to help them off their Councils Snares in the point of Transubstantiation Of their denying the Cup to the Laity p. 152. Reader I Hope the Printers Errata are not many and I am discouraged from gathering them because I see men had rather err themselves and calumniate the Author than take notice of them So hath Mr. Danvers done by me in a Book against Infant Baptism where as an Introduction to abundance of mistakes in History he abuseth his Reader by several scraps of a Book of mine so curtail'd as to be insufficient to signifie the sense And among them feigneth me to write Chr. Direct p. 3. pag. 885. l. 13. to Institute Sacraments as that which man may do instead of Nor to Institute Sacraments and so maketh his credulous flock to believe that I assert that very thing which I write against Though the place was markt with a Star in the Errata and the Reader desired specially to Correct it But such dealing is now grown so common with such men that we must bear it as the effect of their disease PART I. What is the Protestants Religion and what the Papists CHAP. I. The occasion of the Conference D. SIR I am come to crave your help in a matter of great importance to me I was bred a Protestant but the Discourses of some Roman Catholicks have brought me into great doubts whether I have not been all this while deceived And though I cannot dispute the case my self with you I desire you to dispute it in my hearing with a Catholick Priest whom I shall bring to you R. With all my heart But let me first ask you a few Questions Quest 1. Did you ever understand what the Protestants Religion is D. I take it to be the 39 Articles Liturgie and Government of the Church of England R. No wonder if you be easily drawn to doubt of that Religion which you no better understand Can you hold it and not know what it is Quest 2. Do you know what it is to be a Christian D. It is to believe in Christ and to Love and obey Him Our Baptism is our Christening R. Very true And in your Baptism you are Dedicated and Vowed to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost renouncing the Lusts of the Flesh the World and the Devil Quest 3. And have you been a true Christian and lived according to this Vow Have you obeyed God more than the desires of your flesh Have you preferred the Kingdom of Heaven before all the pleasures honours and riches of this world Have you sincerely submitted to the healing saving Doctrine Law and example of Christ and to the sanctifying motions of his Holy Spirit And have you lived soberly righteously and Godlily in the world and made it your care and business to deny your self and mortifie all fleshly inordinate desires as it is the care of sensual men to gratifie them D. I have had my faults as all men have but I hope none can say but I have lived honestly towards all And if I have been faulty in drinking sports or gaming it hath been to no ones injury but my own R. I ask you not whether you are a sinner For so are all men But whether you are a truly Penitent Converted sinner and whether yet you are true to your Baptismal Vow and Covenant Can your Conscience say that you Love and Trust and obey God and your Redeemer before all the world and that you love not Pleasure Riches and Honour more than God and Holiness and Heaven and that it is more of the care and business of your life to Know and Love and serve God better and to make sure of your salvation than to please your flesh or prosper in the world In a word Do you heartily and in
time And the occasion of it was a particular Protestation of the German Princes and not directly a Protesting against Popery R. It is not Names but Religion which we dispute of And it is that which each party Professeth to be their Religion Therefore you must take our Profession or you change the subject of the dispute And we profess that the Law of Nature which no sober man questioneth and the Scriptures are All our Religion Therefore if you please you shall suppose that the name Protestant were not now in the world It doth not signifie our Religion But we now use it to signifie our Protesting against Popery or that we agree in substance and in rejecting Popery with those that made that particular Protestation mentioned by you Names are oft given from accidents as Africanus Germanicus Britannicus c. to several Roman Captains when yet their Humanity was the same before they were so named P. Turks Socinians Quakers c. Protest against Popery It seems then they are Protestants too and your companions R. 1. Thus some men study to deceive by turning from the question to another Our question I tell you is Whether the Religion of the Protestants be Infallible and not Whence is their name 2. But by a Protestant we mean only one that taketh the Scripture for the Rule and Christianity for the Essence of his Religion Which no one doth that denyeth any essential part of it If we do so prove it and you shall have our answer How do you judge of any man among your selves that taketh Gods word proposed by your Church for his Religion and yet mistaketh the Church in any point As Durandus that thought the matter of Bread continues whom Bellarmine yet denyeth to be an Heretick So is it with any among us that mistake the sence of Scripture in some such point When a Name is put upon any person or party from a common accident you may if you will call all by that name which that accident agreeth to And so Papists are called by some Non-conformists now in England because they Conform not But the world knoweth well enough that it is Protestants which are commonly meant by that name and not Papists Quakers Seekers c. though these conform not And so you may say if it please your self that Turks Jews Heathens Socinians Quakers Ranâ—ers are Protestants because they Protest against or reject Popery But the world knoweth who is meant by the Name Even Christians rejecting proper Popery And for my part I deal openly with you I care not if the name Protestant were utterly cast aside If any man be so deceived by it as 1. Either to think that it signifieth the Essence of our Religion unless you mean as we Protest for Christianity 2. Or that we take those called Protestants for the whole Catholick Church they make it an occasion of their own deceit Names of distinction are used because men know not else readily how to speak intelligibly of one another without circumlocutions And then cometh the Sectarian and taketh his Party for all the Church at least which he may lawfully Communicate with and the name of his party to notifie his Religion And then comes the crafty Papist and pretends from hence that such a named Religion is new and asketh you where was there any e. g. Protestants before Luther My Religion is naked Christianity the same as is where the name of a Protestant is not known and as was before it was known and as if the name of the Pope had never been known But now the Pope and his Monarchical Vsurpation over all the world are risen and known I am one of those that protest against them as being against Christianity which is my Religion But so as to addict my self to the opinions of no man or party that opposeth them wholly and absolutely and beyond evidence of truth I take the Reformed Churches to be the soundest in the world But I take their Confessions to be all the Imperfect expressions of men and the Writings of Protestant Divines to be some more clear and sound and some more dark empty and less sound and in many things I differ from many of them Choose now whether you will call me a Protestant or not I tell you my Religion which is simple Christianity Names are at your own Will I could almost wish that there were no name known besides that of CHRISTIAN as notifying our faith and Religion in the Christian world Though as notifying Heresie and sin there must be proper names as in Rev. the name Nicolaitans is used Even the word Catholick had long a narrower sense in the Empire with many than I now own it in Though as it signifieth One that is of the Church Vniversal loveth Vniversally all true Christians and hath Communion with them in Faith Love and Hope so I like it and am A CATHOLICK CHRISTIAN I dispute for nothing else I perswade this person here in Doubt to nothing else but 1. To hold fast to true and meer Christianity 2. To Reject all in Popery or any other Sect that is Evidently against it 3. To suspend his belief of all that 's doubtful and to receive nothing as a part of Divine faith or Religion till he be sure that indeed it is of God And now these Principles being supposed let us proceed and try whether Popery be of God or not PART III. The Protestants Reasons against Popery D. I Have heard what you have said in stating the Protestants Religion I now expect to hear what Reasons you have against that which you call Popery And afterwards that you prove all that you charge upon it But I adjure you first that you say nothing but what you believe in your conscience to be the truth as one that looketh to be judged for it R. With many Papists confident and vehement protestations go instead of Arguments and we oft hear them say If this be not true I am content to be torn in a thousand pieces We will seal it with our blood We will lay our salvation on it And do you think we have not souls to save c. Which is much like as if they would end all Controversies by laying Wagers that they are in the right or by protesting that they are honester and credibler men than their adversaries And it is no more than a Quaker or other such Sectary will say the most proud and ignorant being usually the most confident But yet though I expect not that you should receive any thing from me upon Protestations but upon Proofs I will here promise you that I will charge nothing on the Papists but what in my Conscience I am verily perswaded to be true The Reasons which resolve me against Popery are these and such like I. Reason Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so notoriously false and inhumane even contrary to the fullest ascertaining evidence that mankind can expect on earth viz. for all men on pain
But they must be so many as are suited to every ones capacity and means during his life And no man living can know that he understandeth and believeth as much as his capacity and means were in their kind sufficient to Nay there is no man that hath not been culpably ignorant of somewhat which he might have known 2. Mens Sacramental receptions and comforts depend on the Intention of the Priest which no man knoweth 3. Almost all Godly men must expect the fire of Purgatory and consequently none of them can be rationally willing to dye Because this life is better than Purgatory and no man will desire to go from hence into the fire And so by making all men unwilling to dye it destroyeth a heavenly mind and killeth faith and hope and love and holy joy and tempteth men to be worldlings and to love this life better than the next Yea it tempteth men to be afraid of Martyrdom lest dying in Venial sins as all do they go to a Purgatory fire more terrible than Martyrdom XXIII Reason Their Doctrine is not only contrary to many express Texts of Holy Scripture but also contrary to it self One Pope and one Council having decreed one thing and another the clean contrary XXIV Reason All this evil is made more pernicious by that professed Impenitence which is included in the conceit of their Churches Infallibility For they that hold themselves Infallible do profess never to Repent of any thing in which they suppose themselves to be so And as Repentance is the great evidence of the pardon of sin so Impenitency is that mortal sign of an unpardoned soul without which no sin doth qualifie the sinner to be Excommunicated by man or damned by God And a sin materially less is more Mortal unrepented of than a greater truly lamented and forsaken XXV Reason Every honest godly Protestant may be as sure that Popery is false as he is that he is himself sincere and Loveth God and is truly willing to obey him And no man can turn Papist without self-contradiction who is a true Christian and an honest man For by turning Papist he confesseth himself to be before a false-hearted hypocrite who neither Loved God nor sincerely desired to obey him nor was true to his Baptismal Covenant For it is a part of Popery to believe that none are in a state of salvation but the Subjects of the Pope or members of the Papal Church And consequently that no others have true Faith Repentance or Love to God Or else that God is false in promising salvation to all that have true Faith Repentance and Love to God All therefore that know their own hearts to be truly devoted to God are safe from Popery And seeing it is agreed on both sides that none can or ought to turn Papists but ungodly hypocrites or Knaves no wonder if such are deluded by the most palpable deceits and forsaken of God whom they perfidiously forsook I will name you no more If I make these or any one of these good as I undertake to prove them all you will see that I refuse not my self to be a Papist without sufficient cause And yet by this charge you will see that I am none of their extream adversaries I pass by abundance of Doctrinal differences wherein by many they are most deeply charged Not as Justifying them against all or most so charged on them but 1. As giving you those Reasons which most move my self and which I am most able to make good and leaving every one to his proper work 2. And as one that have certainly found out that in many doctrinals seeming to be the matter of our widest difference we are thought by many to differ much more than we do 1. The difference lying most in Words and Logical Notions and various wayes of mens expressing their conceptions 2. And the animosity of men engaged in Parties and Interests against each other causing most to take all in the worst sense and to make each other seem far more erroneous than they are and to turn differing names into damnable heresies And 3. Few men having Will and Skill to state controversies aright and cut off mistaken seeming differences 4. And few having honesty and self-denyal enough to incurr the censure of the ignorant Zealots of their own party by seeming but impartial and just to their adversaries I mean in such points as 1. The Nature of Divine faith Whether it be a perswasion that I am pardoned c. 2. Of Certainty of salvation 3. And Certainty of perseverance 4. Of Sanctification 5. Of Justification 6. Of Good works 7. Of Merit 8. Of Predestination 9. Of Providence and the Cause of Sin 10. Of Free-will 11. Of Grace 12. Of Imputation of Righteousness 13. Of Universal Redemption 14. Of Original Sin and divers others In all which I cannot justifie them but am sure that the difference is made commonly to seem to be that which indeed it is not In the true impartial stating whereof Lud. Le Blanck hath begun to do the Christian Churches most excellent service worthy our great thanks and his bearing all the Censures of the ignorant PART IV. The First Charge made good against Transubstantiation In which Popery is proved to be the Shame of Humane Nature Contrary to SENSE REASON SCRIPTURE and TRADITION or the judgement of the Antient and Present Church devised by Satan to expose Christianity to the Scorn of Infidels CHAP. I. The First Reason to prove Transubstantiation false R. THe Papists Belief of Transubstantiation is that There is a change made of the whole substance of the Bread into the body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into his blood Their opinion called their faith hath two parts The first is that There is no more true Proper Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration Hoc est Corpus meum The second is that There is the true proper Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ under the species as they call them of Bread and Wine It is the first that I shall now prove false And you must not forget the state of the Question which is not Whether Christs Body and Blood be present But Whether there remain any Bread and Wine Arg. I. If there remain no Bread and Wine after the Consecration then all the senses of all the sound men in the world are deceived or all mens perception of these sensible things deceived though there be due magnitude site distance of the object a due abode and a due medium and no depravation of the sense or intellect But this Consequent is notoriously false as shall be proved Therefore Popery is false 1. That all mens senses perceive Bread and Wine or all mens Intellects by their senses will not be denyed Not only Protestants but Greeks Mahometans Heathens Papists all persons perception by sense is here the same Therefore it is sound senses or else there are none sound in the world 2. It is not one
blood which is shed for you 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament in my blood And here no man denyeth a double Trope at least no man expoundeth it that the Cup or the Wine was the New Testament it self And yet it is as expresly said as it is that the Bread is the Body it self How then will they prove that one is spoken properly and the other figuratively III. There is no more found in these words to assert the Bread to be Christs Body than is found in a multitude of such phrases in Scripture asserting things which all men expound otherwise As in Joh. 15.1 I am the Vine and my Father is the husbandman Joh. 10.7 9. I am the door Joh. 10.14 I am the good Shepherd and know my Sheep Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man which being a prophesie of Christ a Heretick imitating you might deny Christs humanity 1 Cor. 10.4 That Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 12.27 Ye are the body of Christ Mat. 5.13 14. Ye are the Salt of the earth Ye are the lights of the World Joh. 6.63 The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are Life Abundance such are in the Scripture as All flesh is grass Christ is the Lamb of God the Lyon of the Tribe of Juda the bright Morning Star the head Corner Stone c. And it is yet more fully satisfactory that the Hebrew constantly putteth is for signifieth as you may find in all the old Testament having no other word so fit to express signifying by And as Christ spake after that manner so the New Testament ordinarily imitateth As Daniel and the Revelation agree in saying of the Visions This is such or such a thing instead of this signifieth it So Christ Matth. 13.21 22 23 37 38 39. He that soweth is the Son of man the field is the world the good seed are the Children of the Kingdom the tares are the children of the wicked one the enemy is the Devil the Harvest is the end The reapers are the Angels And thus ordinarily IV. Yea the same kind of phrase used before in the Passeover teacheth us how to expound this Exod. 12.11 Ye shall eat it in haste It is the Lords Passeover vers 27. It is the sacrifice of the Lords Passeover V. Yea the ordinary way and phrase of Christs teaching may yet farther put us out of doubt For he usually taught by Parables and expresseth his sense by such assertions As Matth. 13.3 Behold a sower went out to sow c. Luk. 15.11 12. A certain man had two sons and the younger said c. Luk. 12.16 The ground of a certain Rich man c. Luk. 16.19 There was a certain Rich man c. Mat. 21.28 A certain man had two sons c. Vers 33. There was a certain housholder which planted a Vineyard c. The Gospel aboundeth with such instances which teach us how to interpret these words of Christ VI. But most certainly all those forementioned texts teach it us which expresly call it Bread after the Consecration If we will not believe the Holy Ghost himself who so frequently calleth it bread it is in vain to alledge any text of Scripture in the Controversie Now to feign a course of ordinary Miracles Greater and more than Christs and this to every Priest how ignorant and impious soever to pretend that every Pope and Bishop can for money sell the Holy Ghost or the Gift of Miracles in Ordination and all this when no eye seeth the Miracles when it is confessed that Angels cannot naturally see it yea when all mens senses perceive the contrary and all this because that Christ said This is my Body while abundance such sayings in Scripture yea the words about the Cup it self are confessed to be tropical and when the Scripture expresly telleth us that there is Bread Judge whether it be possible for Satan to have put a greater scorn upon the Christian faith or a greater scandal before the enemies of it or a greater hinderance to the Worlds Conversion than to tell them you must renounce not only your Humanity but all common sense if you will be Christians and be saved or suffered to enjoy your estates and lives VII Lastly It is ordinary with their subtilest Schoolmen to confess that this their doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture and that they believe it only because their Church saith it which must be believed and because that by the same spirit which wrote the Scripture the Church is taught thus to expound it So that all their faith of this is by them resolved into a phanatick pretence of Inspiration As I have elsewhere shewed out of Durandus Paludanus Scotus Ockam Quodl 6. li. 5. q. 31. Rada vol. 4. Cont. 7. a. 1. pag. 164 165. And no General Council ever determined it till that at Rome under Innoc. 3. Where saith Matth. Paris many decrees were proposed or brought in by the Pope which some liked and some disliked And this was 1215 years after Christs birth And Stephanus Aeduensis is the first in whom the name of Transubstantiation is found about the year 1100. CHAP. VIII Arg. 6. From the Nature of a Sacrament Arg. 6. THat Doctrine which by consequence denyeth the Lords Supper to be a true Sacrament is false The Papists doctrine of Transubstantiation by consequence denyeth the Lords Supper to be a true Sacrament Therefore the Papists doctrine of Transubstantiation is false The Major I know no man that will deny that we have now to deal with The Minor needeth no other proof than the common definition of a Sacrament and Christs own description of this Sacrament in the Scripture I. Aquinas concludeth 3. q. 60. a. 1. that a Sacrament is a sign and a. 2. that it is a sign of a thing sacred as it sanctifieth men and a. 3. that it is a Rememorative sign of Christs passion a demonstrative sign of Gods Grace and a prognosticating sign of future Glory And a. 4. that it must be Res sensibilis a sensible thing it being natural to man to come to the knowledge of things intelligible by things sensible and the Sacrament signifieth to man spiritual and intelligible Goods and a. 5. that they must be things of Divine determination c. But 1. If the Bread and Wine be gone there is nothing left to be a sign a Real sensible sign to lead us to the knowledge of spiritual and intelligible things If they say that the species of Bread and Wine is the sensible sign what mean they by that cheating word species Not the specifying form or matter but only the outward appearance And is it a true or a false appearance If True then there is Bread and Wine If false it is a false sign And what is that false appearance which God maketh a Sacrament of It is plainly nothing but the Accidents of Bread and Wine without the substance But 1. When they take the Cup from the
Full and Easie SATISFACTION WHICH IS THE TRUE AND SAFE RELIGION In a CONFERENCE Between D. A DOUBTER P. A PAPIST and R. A REFORMED CATHOLICK CHRISTIAN In Four Parts I. The true stating of our Difference and opening what each Religion is II. The true easie and full Justification of the Reformed or Protestant Religion III. The Protestants Reasons and Charges against Popery enumerated IV. The first Charge viz. Against Transubstantiation made good In which Popery is proved to be the SHAME OF HUMANE NATURE notoriously contrary to SENSE REASON SCRIPTURE and TRADITION or the Judgement of the Antient and the Present Church devised by Satan to expose Christianity to the Scorn of Infidels By Richard Baxter London Printed for Nev. Simmons at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard 1674. and still continueth so to do And while I can say that I know of no Nobleman living who hath read more of my Writings than You have done all that know the End of Writing will consent that there is no Noble Name which I should prefer And as I long ago read in the Learned Spanhemius's Dedication of his Dubia Evangelica p. 3. to You well joyned with the famous Usher the predication of Your Judicium supra aetatem maturum rerum omnium cognitione subactum pectus and that as attested by the Illustrious Duke of Rohane the Most Sagacious Arbiter of ingenies And years and experience have been long adding to Your knowledge Being not a stranger to the Truth of this my self I have great reason to be Ambitious to stand right in Your esteem For who reverenceth the Judgement of ignorant Readers Or doth not reverence the Judgement of the Wise And therefore to give You an account of my self and of this writing Since I overgrew that Religion which is taken up most on humane trust by increasing knowledge I increased mens displeasure and my judgement not falling just into the mold of any Sect among Church-dividers there is scarce any Sect which doth not according to their various interests signifie their displeasure Some only by Magisterial Censures more credibly acquainting the world what they are themselves than what I am or what is my judgement But from others I take a meer slander for Clemency and as Philostratus saith de Dicto Phavorini Et dum Socratis cicutam non bibam aereâ privari statuâ non laedit Simple Christianity is my Religion I determine to know nothing but Christ Crucified and Glorified And I am past all doubt that till simple Christianity become the terms of Church-Unity and Concord the Church will never see Unity or Concord which shall prove universal or durable So certain am I that the Wits of the Learned much less of the Community of vulgar Christians will never arrive at the stature of Concord in numerous and difficult points Nor the marvellous diversity of Educations occasions temperatures and capacities be ever united in any thing but what is plain and simple And as Certain am I that the Universal Conscience of true believers will never unite in any thing which is not evidently divine And yet as certain am I that the forsaking of the determination of the Holy Ghost and the Apostles Acts 15.28 and of Pauls Decision Rom. 14. 15. hath been the Engine of Church-Divisions and many calamitous distractions to this day And that that blessed Prince who must have the honour and comfort of beginning the true healing and Concord of the Churches must pare off all their superfluities and leave them at best among their things indifferent and unite them on the terms of simple Christianity And as to Popery I have certainly found that the Cross Interests and Passions of Disputers have made us though really too distant to seem commonly about many Doctrinals more distant than indeed we are And that it had been better with us if such men as judicious Ludov. le Blank had had the stating of our Controversies at the first that differing words and methods might not have passed with either side for damnable errors in the faith I mean in the points of fore-knowledge predestination providence predetermination concurse original sin free-will universal Redemption sufficient Grace effectual Grace the nature of Faith Justification Sanctification Merit Good Works Certainty of Justification and of Salvation Perseverance c. For my knowing this to be true I am censured by those on one extream as too favourable to the Papists being indeed an Enemy to injury calumny uncharitableness or cruelty to any in the world But I am much more displeasing to the Roman party Because I know that One man is naturally uncapable of being the Monarch of all the world That the King of Rome as the Geographia Nubiensis calls him was never by Christ made King of Kings and Lord of Lords That he never was nor can be a Pastor at the Antipodes and over all the Earth or as far as Drake and Candish did Navigate That it 's a sorry Argument Monarchy is the best Government Ergo An universal Monarchy is best That the Government setled in Nature and Scripture is for Princes to rule Churchmen and all by the Sword and the Pastors of all particular Churches to rule their Congregations by the Church-Keys that is by the Word using Synods for due concord and correspondency And this much will do better than all the stir that the Clergies Ambition hath made in the world I know that the Pope standeth on no better a foundation than the other four Patriarchs And that he was but the chief Prelate or Patriarch in one Empire as the Archbishop of Canterbury is in England And that the Greek Church never took his Primacy in that one Empire to be of Divine Right For if they had they had never set up the Patriarch of Constantinople against him who never claimed his Primacy as jure Divino I know that the great Council of Chalcedon decreed Act. 16. Bin. 734. We following alwayes the definitions of the holy Fathers and the Canon have our selves also defined the same things concerning the Priviledges of the same Most Holy Church of Constantinople New Rome For to the Seat of Old Rome because of the Empire of that City the Fathers consequently gave the Priviledges And the one hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved of God being moved with the same intention have given equal Priviledges to the Most Holy Seat of New Rome Reasonably Judging that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate shall enjoy equal Priviledges with Old Regal Rome I know that their late Bishop of Chalcedon saith against Bishop Bramhall Survey pag. 69. To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters Successor and this all Fathers testifie But whether he be so jure Divino vel humano is no point of faith Vid. Bellarm. 1.2 de Pont. l. 12. And Holden Analys fid l. 1. c. 9. p. 161. Multa sunt quae traditione universa firmiter innituntur puta S. Petrum fuisse Romae
TRUE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES Here note 1. That our Religion hath its Essential parts And its Integral parts and Accidentals I. The Essentials of our Religion are contained in the Baptismal Covenant which is expounded in the CREED the LORDS PRAYER and the DECALOGUE as delivered and expounded by Christ and the Law of Nature II. Our Entire Religion in the Essentials Integrals and needful Accidentals is contained wholly in the Law of Nature and the Canonical Scriptures The Essentials are delivered down to us two wayes 1. In Scripture with the rest 2. By the sure tradition of the Vniversality of Christians in actual Baptizings and the daily profession of Christianity This is all the Protestants Religion If you fasten any other on us we deny it we own no other And none know What is my Religion that is What I take for the Rule of my holy Faith Love and Life so well as my self P. This is meer craft you will make that only which is past controversie among us to be Your Religion that so your Religion may be past controversie too R. It is such Craft as containeth that naked truth which we trust all our own salvation on I say that I have no other Religion And if you know better than I disprove me P. I disprove you three wayes I. Because the Name Protestant signifieth no such Religion but somewhat else lately taken up II. Because the Angustane Confession the thirty nine Articles and such like are by your selves called The Articles of your Religion III. Because all your Writings declare that besides these you hold all those controverted points which are contrary to that which you call Popery R. I pray you mark D. that he would perswade you that he knoweth my Religion better than I do my self What if I should pretend the like as to his Religion Were I to be believed P. No but if you have an odd Religion of your own that proveth it not to be the Protestant Religion R. Remember D. that I come not hither to perswade you to any other Religion than this which I have mentioned Let him talk as long as he will what is other mens opinions I perswade you to nothing but this to take Gods Law of Nature and the Scripture for your Religion Either this is Right or Wrong If Right fix here and I have done If Wrong let that be disputed But yet I open to you all his three deceits I. The name Protestant doth not signifie our Religion but our Protesting against the Papists corruptions and additions I have no Religion but Christianity I am a Christian and that signifieth all my Religion I am a Catholick Christian that is of the Common Christian Faith and Church and not of any heretical dividing Sect And I am a Reformed Protestant Christian because I renounce Popery Therefore I rather say The Protestants than the Protestant Religion As if I were among Lepers If I say I am no Leper that signifieth not my Essence But if I say I am a Man and I am not a Leper I speak my Nature and my freedom from that disease So if I say I am a Christian Protestant I mean only that I am a Christian and no Papist or renouncing Popery as by the word Catholick I renounce all Sects and Schisms I tell you This is my meaning when I say I am a Protestant and can you tell my meaning better than my self II. And as to what he saith of the thirty nine Articles and other Church Confessions I answer None of these are our Religion in the sense now in question that is They are not taken by us to be the Divine Revealed-Rule of our Faith Love and Life which is our Religion now disputed of And that this is so I prove to you past all question For 1. Else should we have as many Religions as we have Church Confessions and should alter our Religion as oft as we alter our Confessions and our Religion should be as New as those Confessions All which the Protestants abhor 2. All those very Confessions themselves do assert that Gods Word is our only Religion and all mens Writings and Decrees are lyable to mistakes To pass by all the rest these are the words of our sixth Article Holy Scripture containeth all things Necessary to salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of faith or be thought Requisite or necessary to salvation What would you have more plain and full And in the Book of Ordination it is askt Are you perswaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ And are you determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge and to teach Nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which you shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture Is not this plain P. Why then do you call the thirty nine Articles the Articles of your Religion And what is their use And why are all required to subscribe them R. 1. Their Use is to signifie how the Conjunct Pastors who use them do understand the Holy Scriptures in those points And that partly for the satisfaction of all forreign Churches who may hear us accused of Heresie or Error and partly to be a hedge to the Doctrine of young Preachers to keep them from vending mistakes in the Churches and also to try the soundness of their understandings 2. The Confessions and Articles and Catechisms are our Religion as the Writings of Perron Bellarmine Suarez c. or many of these agreeing are the Roman Religion They are not the Divine Revelation and Rule of faith and practice to us But they are the expression of our own conceptions of the sense of several chief matters in that Rule or Revelation So that they are the Expression of our faith or Religion taken subjectively for acts and habits and not our objective Rule it self Our Sermons and Prayers are our Religion in this sense that is The Expression of our own Religious Conceptions And so are your Sermons and your Writings also to you But if this were our Rule of Faith and Life and so our Divine Objective Religion then we should be of as many Religions as we are several persons For every one hath his several Expressions And every new Sermon or Book or Prayer would be a new part of Religion And so with you also So that this doubt is past all doubt Our Confessions are but the expressions of our personal belief and not our Rule of Faith III. And as to your third pretence that we have other Articles as opposite to Popery I answer Our Religion as a Rule of Faith and Worship is one thing And our Rejecting all Corruptions and Additions is another E. g. My Religion is that our God is only the true God
If now I say also that Hercules is not God and Bacchus is not God and Venus Mars Mercury Pallas Neptune Pluto Ceres c. are not Gods is this a new Religion or an addition to the former If the Baptismal Covenant be the Essentials of my Religion and the Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue the Explication of it and if the Scripture be my Entire Religion and if the Papists will come and add a multitude of new Articles and Corruptions my rejecting of those additions is no more an alteration of my Religion than the sweeping of my house or the washing of my hands is an alteration of them So that notwithstanding all that you have said my Religion is nothing but the Law of Nature and Scripture and my rejecting of Popery is no otherwise my Religion than my freedom from the Leprosie c. is my humanity P. Observe I pray you that It is no part of your Religion to be against Popery R. Observe I pray you that Popery is against my Religion that is against much of the Christian Religion and therefore my Religion is against Popery But I will not quarrell with you about words When God hath Revealed to us his Will and the Papists add their corrupting inventions Gods Revealed Will is my Religion your Corrupting additions are contrary to it Call my rejecting such Corruptions and additions by the name of my Religion Reductively as Nihil is objectum Intellectus Malum Voluntatis and as non-agere is part of obedience or Call it no part of my Religion in the primary notion but a Rejecting of its contraries so we understand each other I care not The truth is the Rejecting of some of your errors directly contradicting the Scripture it self may be called part of our Religion as the Negation of the Contrary is included in the sense of an Affirmative But your remoter additions are contrary to our Religion but not so directly For instance when the Scripture saith There is bread after Consecration and you say There is no bread My Religion containeth the Assertion that There is bread And so includeth a contradiction to your Negative that saith There is none Now to say that it is none of my Religion to deny your Negative who say There is no bread would import that It is none of my Religion which affirmeth that there is bread Contradictions cannot both be true Properly that word that saith There is bread is my Religion But this word contradicteth you that say There is none But in another instance my Religion saith that The Righteous shall go into life everlasting and the rest to everlasting punishment and tells us of a Heaven and Hell only hereafter And you tell us of Limbus Patrum Infantum and of Purgatory The Scripture enableth us by consequence to confute this but if it did not it were enough for me to say It is none of my Religion because not Revealed by God in Nature or Scripture And as it is your Addition so to deny it is not directly and properly my Religion it self but the Defence and Vse of my Religion God tells us in Scripture that He created Heaven and Earth If one should assert as from God that God created ten thousand Heavens and ten thousand Earths this is a faith of his own invention or addition and it is enough for me to say I have no such faith because God revealeth no such thing So thaâ— still the Scripture is the Protestants Religion as your Polydor Virgil truly describeth them and others confess P. All this is meer delusion For It is not the words but the sense that is your Religion as you will confess And if your Articles or Confessions contain a false sense or your Books or Sermons shew that you falsly expound the Scripture your Religion is then false R. Such Confusion may cheat a heedless hearer But any one that will take heed may quickly perceive that you here fraudulently play with the ambiguity of the word Religion and quite turn to another question For you now speak of subjective Religion that is of the Acts and habits of the person whereas we are disputing only of objective Religion which is Gods Revelation and our Rule If I understand any Texts of Scripture amiss my faith is so far defective in my selfs But Gods Word which is my Rule is never the more imperfect I pray you consider how justly you have spoken 1. Is a mans Act of faith Gods Word or Revelation 2. What need you dispute of the Protestants Religion if we have as many Religions as persons For it is as certain that we have as many degrees of our understanding many Texts of Scripture 3. Would not this prove also as many Religions as persons among your selves Is it not most certain that no two Papists in the world have just the same sense or conceptions of the Scriptures and Councils in each particular The Law of God is my only Religion objectively as how disputed of If I mistake any essential part of it so as to deny it I am personally a Heretick If I mistake any Integral part I so far err from the Rule of my Religion or faith But I still profess that I take Gods Word or Law only for my sure unchangeable Rule or objective Religion and I am daily learning to understand it better and as soon as I see my error I will reform it and blame my self and not my Rule And I think you will say the same of your Rule and of your personal errors P. This shall not serve your turn For every Law must have its promulgation And if it be not manifested to you that Scripture is Gods Law and sufficient it cannot be your Rule I ask you therefore Qu. 1. Is it the Scripture in the Original or in the Translations which you say is your Religion Law or Rule R. I told you our Divine Rule consisteth of Words and Meaning It is only the Originals which are our Rule or Religion as to the very words that is Only the Original words were of that Divine Inspiration But every Translation is so far Gods Word in sense as it expresseth truly the sense of the original words P. Qu. 2. I pray you what then is the Religion of all the unlearned Protestants who know not a word of the Originals They may see now that you have stript them of all Divine Religion R. Their Religion is the same objectively with that of the most learned as delivered from God but it is not equally learned and understood by them Gods Word in the Original Tongues is given them as the Rule of Faith and Worship and Teachers are appointed to help them to understand it When these Teachers have Translated it to them they have the same sense though not the same words for their Religion And to know the Words is not so necessary to salvation as to know the sense or sentence though by other words For the words are but means to
know the Sense and the sense but a means to know the Things viz. God Christ Grace Glory c. And as they have the same God Christ Spirit Grace Glory c. to be the real objects of their Religion so have they the same Do-Doctrine and Law in sense which is in the Originals P. Q. 3. And I pray you How shall the unlearned be sure that the Translations are true as to the sence when you have no Divine Infallible Translators R. I also ask you 1. How was all the Greek Church for many hundred years sure of the soundness of the Translation called the Septuagint or that of Aquila Theodot Symmachus c. when it is certain that in many things they were all unsound 2. How was the Latine Church sure of the soundness of their Translation before Hierome amended it And how have you been sure since then when Pope Sixtus and Pope Clement have made so many hundred alterations or differences Had you then Infallible Translators And why then do your Translators as Montanus and others still differ from that Vulgar Latine 3. And how do all your unlearned persons know that you give them not only the true sence of the Scriptures but of all your Councils or Traditions But I will answer you directly We still distinguish the Essentials of our Religion from the Integrals and Accidentals 1. The unlearned may be certain that the Essentials are truly delivered them in sence Because they have them not only in the Scripture but by Vniversal certain Tradition in the constant Vse of Christian Baptism and in the use of the Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue in all the Church-assemblies And they may easily know that mens tempers Countreys Interests opinions in other points and sidings are so various that it is not a thing possible without a miracle that all these should conspire both in a false Translation and Vniversal assertion and Tradition of all these Essentials For the effects must be contrary to a torrent of Causes The Papists Protestants Arians Greeks Socinians Lutherans Calvinists Anabaptists Separatists c. have so much animosity against each other that undoubtedly if any party of them did falsifie Scripture even in the Essentials which are easily discerned multitudes would quickly detect it and contradict them And this the unlearned may surely and easily discern But as for all other less necessary texts of Scripture neither you nor we learned or unlearned are certain that they are perfectly translated nor are they by any one perfectly understood nor are they sure by reason of the various readings which copie of the original is absolutely faultless 2. But suppose that an unlearned weak Believer were not absolutely certain as he may be that the very essentials of Christianity are truly opened to him he may yet grow up to better understanding and he may be saved with some doubtings of Christianity it self so be it his Faith be more prevalent than those doubtings upon his Heart and Life P. Is it a safe Religion which you your self describe When no man can be sure that he rightly understandeth all the Scriptures and when your believer is uncertain even of Christianity it self Let D. Judge whether this be a sure Religion R. The word of God is absolutely certain in it self but that so much uncertainty may be in believers I will make you to your shame confess your self and recant these insinuations Q. 1. Dare you say that all your Church or any one man even the Pope himself doth understand all the Scripture or can perfectly and infallibly translate each word You dare not say it Else why did he never once pretend to give us either an unerring Commentary or Translation And why have you such great diversity of both Q. 2. How much less dare you say that any of you perfectly understand all the Councils which are the rest of your Religion No nor that you have certainty which are the true Copies of them all else why do Caranza Crab Surius Binnius Nicolinus c. give give us such various Copies And yet you confess the Scriptures to be Gods word and with the Councils to contain your Religion Q. 3. If God have promised salvation to all that truly hold and practise the Essentials the Baptismal Covenant doth the difficulty of other points in Genealogie Chronologie History by matters either make our salvation ever the less certain or any way impeach the word of God What disgrace is it to a man that besides Head and Heart he hath fingers and toes and nails and hair No more is it to the Scripture that as our entire Religion it containeth even Integrals and Accidentals Q. 4. And as to a Doubting Believer I ask Dare you say that all those were Infidels or in a state of damnation who said See the Roman Catech. where this is confest Cap. 1. q. 1. pag. 9. Lord increase our faith or Lord we believe help our unbelief or to whom Christ said Why are ye afraid O ye of little faith or that said Luk. 24. We trusted that this had been he that should have delivered Israel Or if a man should doubt even of the Life to come and yet his Faith be so much more powerful than his doubts as that he resolveth to prefer his hopes of Heaven before all this world and to seek it on the most self-denying terms even to the laying down of life it self are you sure that this man shall be damned But this is the Course of pievish wranglers To maintain their own opinions and put a face of certainty on their own conclusions they stick not to damn almost all the world For it will be no less if all doubting believers must be damned 5. It is a gross delusion to pretend that there is a necessity that All Gods Infallible word must needs be taught us by as Infallible Inspired Prophets or other persons as those that first delivered it Translation is but the first part of exposition And must we have none but Infallible or Prophetical Expositors 6. Is it All the Scriptures or but some part that your Pope or Councils can Infallibly both translate and expound If but some we need not their Infallibility or Inspiration for the most plain and necessary parts It is and can be done without them If it be All how impious and cruel are they that would never do it to this day 7. And why use all your Expositors the common helps of Grammars Lexicons Teachers long studies and yet differ de side even of the sense of many a text of Scripture when all is done if your Pope have the gift of Infallible Translating and expounding all P. Remember that your selves derive your Essentials from Tradition R. Yes and our Integrals to What objective presence to the senses eyes and ears of those that heard Christ and his Apostles and saw their miracles was to the first Converts in those times that partly Tradition is to us or the necessary medium
information of men So the sixth General Council condemned Honorius of Heresie by false Information and misunderstanding his Epistles p. 20. The Pope saith Suarez to a particular action belonging to humane Prudence hath no infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost As that such or such an excommunication is valid or that such or such a Kingdom is disposable by the Pope for such and such causes So far Veron who is most favourable to you in narrowing our faith R. Thus far you have resolved me but I must crave somewhat more Qu. I. Are there no Essential Constitutive parts of your Religion more necessary than the Integrals and Accidentals Have you no description for it but that It is Divine Revelation proposed by the Church The Doctrine of Sacrificing was a Divine Revelation to Adam and the difference of clean and unclean Beasts to Noah and the Jewish Law was Gods Revelation to Moses and them And yet I suppose Christianity is somewhat different from all these Is not Christianity your Religion Hath Christianity no Constitutive special Essence but only the Genus of Divine Revelation which is common to that with all other Divine Revelations And what if you add to a Prophet or Apostle Was Agabus Prophesie of Paul or Pauls of the event of the shipwrack c. essential to Christianity Hath Christianity no Essence Or is all Divine Revelation essential to it P. You take advantage of the disagreement of our Doctors You know that some few acknowledg distinct fundamentals and some deny the distinction in your sense And most of us say that no man can enumerate the things necessary to all but that it dependeth upon mens various capacities educations and means of knowing And in sum that no more is necessary to all to be explicitly believed but that Gods Revelations are true and that All are Gods Revelations which the Church proposeth as such You may take our judgement much from him that cometh nearest to you whom I have heard you much praise as most moderate and judicious viz. Dr. H. Holden Anal. fid l. 1. c 5. Lect. 2. p. 53. Divines disputing of the necessity of points to be believed do commonly tend this way to denote the Articles of things revealed the explicite and express belief whereof is as they opine altogether necessary to all Christians The resolution of which question is among them so doubtful and uncertain as that they are in this as ☞ they are in all things else distracted and divided into various Opinions which they that care for them may seek To me they are as Nothing while the Authors of them profess that they have nothing of Certainty Yea to one that meditateth the matter it self laying by all preoccupation it is most clearly manifest that the Resolution of this question is not only unprofitable that I say not pernicious as it is handled by Divines but also vain and impossible It is unprofitable because no good accrueth by it to souls ☞ It is pernicious while Divines for the most part assert that only One or Two Articles yea as some say no singular Article at all is necessary to be believed of all by an explicite faith For hence however the truth of the matter be the colder Christians taking occasion do little care to obtain that degree of Knowledge in the Mysteries of faith which they might commodiously and easily attain It is Impossible seeing it is Manifest that no particular Rule or Points to be believed or Number of Articles can in this Matter be given or assigned which shall be wholly common and necessary to all Christians For this dependeth on every individual mans natural capacity means of instruction and all the other circumstances of each mans life and disposition which are to each man so special that we can determine of nothing at all that is common to all But I handle the Necessity of points to be Believed in a far other sense For the Articles of the Christian faith which I now call necessary I do not at all understand to be such as all and every one must distinctly know or hold by explicite assent But I mean only such the belief of which is accounted universally by the whole Catholick Church so substantial and essential as that he that will deservedly be esteemed and truly be a member of it must needs adhere to them all at least Implicitely and Indirectly that is by believing whatsoever the holy and Universal Church doth Catholickly believe and teach as a Revealed Doctrine and Article of divine faith And therefore he is for that cause to be removed from its Communion and Society who shall pertinaciously and obstinately deny the least of them much more if he maintain the contrary while he knoweth and seeth that it is the Universal sentence of that Church that we must adhere to that as an Article of faith And in this sense I will henceforth use the word Necessity R. This might have been said in fewer and plainer words viz. That your Divines herein do commonly err and that perniciously and yet that indeed he is of the same mind viz. that It is impossible to name the Articles necessary to be believed explicitely of all because each mans divers capacity means and circumstances diversifie them to each But that only this one thing is explicitely to be believed That whatsoever the Holy and Universal Church doth Catholickly believe and teach as a Revealed Doctrine and Article of faith is true And therefore that no man must pertinaciously deny any thing which he knoweth the Church so holdeth So that nothing is necessarily to be believed actually and indeed but Gods and the Churches Veracity P. Another of ours that cometh as near you as most openeth this more fully Davenport alias Fr. a Sancta Clara De. Nat. Grat. p. 111 c. As to the Ignorance of those things that are of necessity of Means or End there is difference among the Doctors For Soto 4. d. 5. q. 5. l. de Nat. Grat. c. 12. Vega l. 6. c. 20. sup Trid. hold that now in the Law of Grace there is no more explicite faith required than in the Law of Nature Yea Vega ib. Gabriel 2. d. 21. q. 2. ar 3. 3. d. 21. q. 2. think that in the Law of Nature and in Cases in the Law of Grace some may be saved with only natural knowledge and that the habit of faith is not required Whom Horantius terms men of great name and will not accuse of heresie I would this great mans modesty were more frequent with modern Doctors Yea Alvarez de aux disp 56. with others seemeth to hold that to justification there is not at all required the knowledge of a supernatural object or the supernatural knowledge of the object Others hold That both to Grace and Glory is required an explicite belief of Christ Bonav 3. d. 25 c. Others that at least to salvation is an explicite belief of the Gospel or
things unseen and above sense And this is their meaning We see not God Christ Heaven Angels c. But faith hath alwaies Intelligible Evidence of Verity and as our Mr. R. Hooker saith can go no further than it hath such Evidence However I appeal to any that have not been disputed out of their wits whether If God would give us as full a sight of Heaven and Hell and Angels and Blessed souls as we have of the Bread and Wine before us and as full a Hearing of all that they say in justification of Holiness or Lamentation of sin and as full sensible acquaintance with the world we go to and our title to it as we have with this world I say whether this would not be more ascertaining and satisfactory to us and banish all doubts more than our present faith doth I love not to hear men lie as for God and talk and boast against their experience as if the interest of faith required it Things revealed to faith Are Certain and Infallible But that is because we have certain evidence 1. That God cannot lie 2. And that God revealed them and so that they are True But if we did see feel taste c. we should be more certain Else why is it said that we now know but enigmatically and as in a glass and as children but hereafter shall see as face to face and know as we are known when faith is done away as being more Imperfect than Intuition We have evidence to prove that the Revelation made to David Isaiah Jeremiah Peter Paul c. were of God and that their words are by us to be believed c. But to see hear taste feel c. would be a more quieting Assurance Therefore when all the sound senses of all men living perceive after consecration that there is Bread and Wine this Certainty is 1. in order antecedent to that of faith and 2. by Evidence more satisfying and assuring than that of meer faith as to a prophets Revelation And therefore to reject it on pretence of faith is a subversion of all natural methods of assurance and is but pretended I think by your selves The sixth Principle That except those Immediate Inspirations which none but the Inspired do Immediately and clearly perceive we have no Revelations from God but by signes which are created beings and have their several Natures and so may be called Physical though signifying Moral things And thus far our natural and supernatural Revelations agree R. Every being is either Vncreated which is God only or Created in a large sense that is Caused What God Revealed to Christ Peter Paul c. we have knowledge of but by signes In Scripture these signes are Words These words signifie partly the mind of God and the speakers or writers and partly the matter spoken or written When it is said that It is impossible for God to lye it can mean nothing to us but that it is impossible that God should make us a deceitful sign of his will The voice of an Angel Prophet Apostle a thousand Miracles c. are but signes of the matter and of Gods will And if God can ordinarily make false natural signes we are left unassured that he cannot make false signes by an Angel or a Prophet or a Miracle And so all faith is left uncertain P. Then you will make God a lyar or deceiver whenever any man is deceived by natural signes R. Not so For men may deceive themselves by taking those for signes of a thing which are none and so by misunderstanding them And the Devil and bad men may promote this deceit But whenever God giveth man so plain a sign of the Matter and his Will as that no errour of an unsound sense an unqualified object a culpable or diseased fantasie or Intellect interveneth then if we are deceived it can be none but God that doth deceive us which cannot be because he cannot lye And as it is an unresistible argument against the Dominican doctrine of Physical Predetermination as absolutely necessary to all acts of natural or free agents that If God physically predetermine every lyar to ivery lye that is mentally conceived or uttered then we have no certainty but he might do so by the Prophets and Apostles so is it as good an argument against Papists that if he ordinarily deceive the senses of all sound men by a false appearance of things seeming sensible he may do so also by the audible or legible words of a prophet The seventh Principle That he that will confute sense and prove that we should not Judge according to its perceptions must prove it by some more certain evidence that contradicteth it R. I suppose you will not question this P. No The word or Revelation of God is a more certain evidence R. How know you that there is any word of God but by your senses P. But yet by sense I may get a certainty which is above that of things sensible As I know by the world that there is a God by a certainty above that of sense R. 1. If that were so yet if things sensible be your media you destroy your Conclusion by denying them and undermine your own foundation 2. But it is not true The knowledge of the Conclusion can be no stronger than that of the principles even of the weaker of them If you are in any uncertainty whether there be Sun Moon Heaven Earth Man Beast Heat Cold or any Created sensible being you must needs be in as much doubt whether there be a God that made them The eighth Principle That Believing or Assenting is Intellection of the Truth of something revealed and therefore must have Intelligible Evidence of Truth in the thing believed R. I know that Assiance or Trust as it is the act of the Will reposing it self quietly on the Believed fidelity of God is not Intellection But the Assenting act is an Intellection or an Act of Knowledge of a Verity not as Science is narrowly confined to principles but as Knowledge is taken in genere for notitia So to believe is no other than to know that this is true because God saith it Joh. 6.69 We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ c. Joh. 3.2 We know that thou art a Teacher come from God for no man could do such works c. Joh. 21.24 We know that his testimony is true See Rom. 7.14 8.28 2 Cor. 5.1 We know that if this earthly house c. 1 Tim. 1.8 1 Joh. 3.2 Joh. 8.28 32. 1 Cor. 15.58 We know that our Labour is not in vain c. Therefore your denying the certainty where the evidence is most notorious and telling men of Meriting if they will but believe your Church without any Evidence of certainty is a meer cheat The ninth Principle That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World and that Christianity is the true Religion and Gods appointed sufficient way to Heaven
When you come to prove us heretical denyers of any of its essence we will give you a sufficient answer The twelfth Principle That the Essence of our Religion or Christianity as Active and Saving is Faith that worketh by Love Or such a Belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as is accompanied with a true devoting of our selves to him by Love and willingness to obey his Laws so far as we know them in opposition to the temptations of the world the flesh and the Devil And he that is truly such shall be saved P. I grant that he that truly Loveth God shall be saved But a Protestant cannot truly love God because he hath not true faith R. Do you not agree and confess then that If any Protestants do truly Love God and are sincerely willing to obey his will and to know it that they may obey it such are of the true Religion and shall be saved and that popery which denyeth their salvation is false P. If your false supposition were true these false consequents would be true But you are all deceived when you think that you sincerely Love God and are willing to know and do his will R. 1. Let all Protestants note this first that you grant that none but ☞ falshearted Hypocrites that are not what they profess to be and Love not God nor would obey him should turn Papists 2. And if a man cannot know his own Mind and Will what he Loveth and what he is willing of no not about his End and greatest concernments how can he know when he Believeth aright Why do you trouble the world thus with your noise about Believing the Proposals of your Church if a man cannot know whether he believe or not ☞ And he that cannot know what he Willeth Chooseth or Loveth can no more know what he believeth For the Acts of the Will are more plenary and easily perceived And do all Papists know their own Hearts or Minds but no Protestants What would you expect but indignation and derision by such arguing as this if you will go about the world and tell men You none of you know your own Minds and wills but we know them You think you Love God and are willing to obey him but you are all mistaken it is not so with you but you must believe our Pope and his Council and then you may know your own minds and hearts They that believe you on these rates deserve the deceit of believing you and punish themselves The thirteenth Principle That when Christ described all the Essence of Christianity by our Believing in and being baptized into the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost the Apostles and first Pastors of the Churches instructed people to understand the meaning of these three Articles And the ancient Creed called the Apostles is the exposition of them as to Belief And that this Creed was of old the symbol of the true faith by which men were supposed sufficiently qualified for baptism and distinguished from Hereticks which after was enlarged by occasion of heresies to the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Creed To which that called Athanasius's was added as a fuller explication of the doctrine of the Trinity And he that believed all these was taken for one of the true Christian Religion which was sufficient in suo genere to salvation P. All that was then Necessary to be explicitely believed necessitate medii was expressed in the Creeds if not more But not all that is now necessary when the Church hath proposed more R. 1. Some of you say no more is necessary ut medium but to believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him Others say that the chief articles of the Creed also are commonly necessary And in your discord we lay no great weight on your Opinions 2. But is not Christianity the same Thing now as it was at the beginning Is Baptism altered Hath not a Christian now the same definition as then Are not Christs promises and the Conditions the same Shall not he that was a Christian then be saved if he were now alive May not we be Christians and saved by the same Constitutive Causes which made men Christians and saved them in the primitive Churches Subvert not Christianity and confound not the Church and cheat not poor souls by labouring to hide the essence of Christianity and such plain important truths You cannot deny our faith to be true without condemning the ancient Church and Christianity it self While we aloud profess that the Christian faith explained in all the ancient Creeds is the faith which we own in its Essentials explicated The fourteenth Principle That the Books which the Protestants commonly receive as Canonical Scriptures are in the agreeing Original Copies as to the very words and in true Translations as to the sence the most true Infallible word of God R. I grant that where the Copies disagree by various Readings we are no more sure that any of them is the word of God than we are sure that such a Copy is righter than all that differ from it But as long as the essence of Christianity on which our Salvation is laid is in the Covenant of Grace explained in Credondis in the Creed and in Petendis in the Lords Prayer and in Agendis in the Decalogue as explained by Christ And no one Duty or material doctrine of our Religion dependeth on the various Lections but those texts that Agree are sufficient to establish them all yea as Franc. à Sancta Clara system fid professeth the ordinary Translations so agree as that no material point of Religion doth depend on any of their differences It is as much as we assert that the Agreeing Original Copies and the sound-Translations so far as they are such are the True Infallible word of God the former both as to words and sence and the later as to sence alone Do you not grant this P. We grant the Scripture as you say to be Gods Infallible word But 1. You cannot know it to be so because you take it not on the Roman Churches Authoritative Proposal 2. And you leave out part of it R. 1. Whether we can know it shall be tryed in due place 2. And whether we have All of it or enough is another question to be debated when you will You grant us expresly that which we now desire which is the Infallible Truth of our Canonical Scripture And this is All our Religion containing not only the Essentials but all the Integrals and Accidentals needful to be recorded So that All the Protestants Religion is confessed to be Infallibly True And from hence further note that in all our disputes you are obliged to be the defendants as to Truth For we deny the Truth of much of your Religion but you deny not the Truth of one word of ours but only the Plenitude or Sufficiency P. The name of a Protestant was never known till Luthers
of damnation to believe that there is no Bread and no Wine when all the soundest senses of any men in the world do perceive Bread and Wine by seeing it tasting it feeling it smelling it and by the notorious effects and all this built upon no Revelation of God no Reason at all nor any true consent of the Primitive Church but clean contrary to them all that I solemnly profess that I find it an utter Impossibility to believe it And it often puts me to a doubt Whether it be possible for any mortal man unfeignedly and fully to believe it and Whether there be really any such Papist in the world or Whether most do not for carnal respects take on them to believe it when they do not or rather the Vulgar understand their words as not really excluding the true being of Bread and Wine and the rest only somewhat overawing their own reason with a reverence of their Church so far as not to contradict or so far as notionally to own it when they do not from the heart believe the thing So many contradictions absurdities and impieties are to be by them believed with it that I am sure no man that understandeth them can possibly believe them all And all this must be done by Miracles stupendious miracles daily or common miracles which every Priest can do at his pleasure and never fail sober or drunken greater than raising a man from the dead so that every beastly sordid ignorant Priest shall do more miracles by far than ever Jesus Christ did in all his life on earth as far as we know by the holy Records if he live as long He that can believe all this may next believe that there is neither Earth under his feet nor the Firmament over his head nor Water nor Air nor any other Creature and that he hath no being himself II. Reason The Faith or Religion of the Papists as described by themselves is so far from Infallibility as that it is utterly uncertain unintelligible and meer contradiction and confusion and a changeable thing so that no man knoweth whether he have it or not and whether he have it all But whoever hath it he hath certainly a hodge-podge of truth and falshood III. Reason Their Papacy which essentiateth their Church is a horrid Usurpation of Christs own Prerogative and of an Office to do that which is incompaparably above the Natural Power or Capacity of any mortal man even to be the Apostle and Governour of the whole world of Christians at least To take Charge of all the souls on earth to teach and call those that are uncalled and to Rule those that are baptized even at the Antipodes and in all those unknown or inaccessible parts of the world which he hath no knowledge of A far more arrogant undertaking than to be the Civil Monarch of all the earth and utterly impossible for him to perform and which never was performed by him IV. Reason The said Papacy is an arrogant Usurpation of the Power of all the Christian Princes and Pastors upon earth or of a Power over them never given by Christ It setteth up a Kingdom in a Kingdom and taketh from Pastors the power which Christ gave them over their particular flocks V. Reason The said Papacy is a meer humane Institution They confess themselves that it is not of Divine faith that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters Successor by Divine Right It is no article of their own faith But History fully assureth us that it was but in the Roman Empire that the Roman Bishop was made Supream as the Archbishop of Canterbury is in England And that he standeth on the same humane foundation as the other four Patriarchs of the Empire did And that their General Councils were called by the Emperours and were called General only with respect to that Empire And there never was such a thing as a General Council of all the Christian world nor ever can be And that there never was such is most notorious yet by the Names subscribed to all the Councils But they abuse the world and claim that power over all the Christians on earth which one Prince gave his subject-Prelates in his Empire As if the General Assembly of Scotland or France should pretend to be a General Council of the world and the Archbishop of Canterbury should call himself Archbishop of all the Church on earth and claim the government of it VI. Reason The said Papacy hold their claim of Supream Government as by Gods appointment though they confess as before said that it is not de fide that the Pope succeedeth Peter by Divine right and this notoriously Contrary to the Judgement and Tradition of the far greatest part of the Churches in the world General Councils such as they had and the sense of the greatest part of Christians have determined against the Papal claime And Tradition condemneth them to this day while they plead Tradition VII Reason It is Treason against Christ for the Papists who are but a Sect and not the third part of the Christians in the world to call themselves the whole Church and unchurch all the rest and seek to rob Christ of the far greatest part of his Kingdom by denying them to be such As if they would deny two third parts of this Kingdom to be the Kings They are Sectaries and Schismaticks by this arrogant dividing from all the rest and appropriating the name and priviledges of the Church to themselves alone VIII Reason By making an unlawful and Impossible Condition and Center of Church Vnion they are the greatest Schismaticks in all the world The greatest Dividers of the Church upon pretence of Vnity As he would be a divider of this Kingdom who would set up a Vice-King without the Kings authority and say that none that subject not themselves to him shall be taken for subjects of the King IX Reason They studiously brand themselves with Satans mark of malice or uncharitableness and cruelty to mens souls while they sentence to damnation two third parts of the Christian world because they will not be the subjects of their Pope And they think their way to Heaven is safest because they are bolder than us in damning other Christians Whereas Love is the mark by which Christs Disciples must be known to all X. Reason They are inhumanely cruel to mens bodies And this is their very Religion For the Council at the Laterane under Innocent the third decreed that those that believe not or deny Transubstantiation are Hereticks and all Temporal Lords shall exterminate them from their Dominions That is no man shall be suffered to live under any Christian Lord that will not renounce all his senses and profess that he believeth that they are all deceived by God himself which is not only to renounce their Humanity but their Animality or sense it self So that no men indeed are to be suffered to live but only such as deny themselves to be men What Heathens
if you make Gods own ordinary Natural Revelations or significations to be false how will you be able to disprove the Infidel about the rest 3. And then note that our Case is yet lower and plainer than all this For if the very Being of the Creatures which is the Matter of these Signs be uncertain to us and all our senses and minds deceived about it then we have no place for enquiry Whether this Creature be any sign of the mind of God As if the hearing of all men was deceived that thought they heard that voice This is my Beloved Son or Pauls that thought he heard Christ speak to him Saul Saul c. or if their Eyes and Intellects were deceived that thought they saw Christ and his miracles or that think now that they read the Bible and indeed there be no such thing as a Bible no such words c. then there is no room to enquire what they signifie For nothing hath no signification Truth and Goodness are affections or modes of Being And if we cannot by all our sound senses know the Being of things we can much less know that they are True or Good Therefore all knowledge and all faith and all Religion is overthrown by your denyal of the truth of our Senses and Intellects perception of things sensible Reason IV. And by this means you are not capable of being disputed with nor any Controversie between you and any others in the world of being decided while you deny sense For then you agree not with mankind in any one common principle And they that agree in nothing can dispute of nothing For this is the first principle Est vel non est is first to be agreed on before we can dispute any farther of a substance What will you do to confute an adversary but drive him to deny a certain principle And can you drive him to deny a lower fundamental Principle than the Being of a substance perceived by sense yea by all the sound senses of all men in the world Reason V. Yea it is specially to be noted that our difference is not only about the species of a sensible substance but about the very substance it self in genere Whether all our senses perceive any substance at all or not Suppose the question were Whether it be water or not which all mens senses see in Rivers If a Papist would deny it to be water doubtless he denyed the agreeing judgement of all mens Intellect by sense But if he should also say It is no substance which we call water or earth This were to deny the first Principle and most fundamental perception in nature Now that this is your case is undenyable For 1. You profess that Christs Body and Blood are not sensible there That it is not the quantity shape number colour smell weight c. of Christs Body and Blood which we perceive and that these Accidents are not the Accidents of Christ 2. And you believe that the Bread and Wine is gone that is changed into the body and blood of Christ so that no part of their substance matter or form is left And you put no third substance under these Accidents in the stead So that you maintain that it is the quantity of nothing the figure of nothing the colour the weight the scituation the smell the number c. of nothing which all mens Intellects by sense perceive So that the Controversie is Whether it be any substance at all which by those accidents we perceive And when we see handle taste smell it you believe or say you believe that it is none neither Bread or Wine or any other Now if by sense we cannot be sure of the very Being of a substance we can be sure of nothing in the world Reason VI. Yea it is to be noted that though Brutes have no Intellects yet their Sense and Imagination herein wholly agreeth with the common perception of man A Dog or a Mouse will eat the bread as common bread and a Swine will drink the Wine as common Wine and therefore have the same perception of it as of common bread and wine And so their senses must be all deceived as well as mans And Brutes have as accurate perfect senses as men have and some much more And meer natural operations are more certain and constant as we see by the worlds experience than meer Reason and Argumentation Birds and Beasts are constant in their perceptions and course of action being not left to the power of Mutable free-will Reason VII You hereby quite overthrow your own foundation which is fetcht from the Concord of all your party which you call all the Church You think that a General Council could not agree to any thing aâ— an Article of faith if it were not such when it is buâ— the Major Vote that agree You say that Traditioâ— is Infallible because All the Church agreeth in iâ— when it is perhaps but your Sect which is a Minoâ— part But do you not overthrow all this when yoâ— profess that All the senses of all the sound men in thâ— world and all the simple perceptions of their Intellectâ— by sense do agree that there is substance yea dâ— specie Bread and Wine after the Consecration No onâ— mans perception by sense disagreed in this from thâ— institution of the Sacrament to this day that can be proved or the least probability of it given And iâ— this Concord be no proof much less is yours For 1. The Intellect in Reasoning is more fallible than iâ— its Immediate perception of things sensed or perceived by sense 2. Yours is but the Consent of some men but ours is the Consent of all mankind Yours among your selves hath oft in Councils a Minor part of dissenters who must be overvoted by the rest But our Case hath never one dissenting sense or perception Reason VIII By this denyal of sense you overthrow the foundations of Humane Converse How can men make any sure Contracts or perform any duty on a sure ground if the Concordant senses of all the world be false Parents cannot be sure which are their own Children nor Children which are their own Parents Husbands cannot certainly know their own Wives from their neighbours No Subjects can certainly know their own Prince No man can be sure whether he buy or sell receive money or pay it c. No man can be sure that there is a Pope or Priest or man in the world Reason IX You seem to me to Blaspheme God and to make him the greatest Deceiver of mankind even in his holy Worship Whereas God cannot lye It is impossible And the Devil is the Father of lyes And you make God to tell all the world as plainly as if words told them even by demonstration to their sight smell feeling taste that here is Bread and Wine when there is none yea that it is at least some substance which they perceive when it is none at all Reason X. You thus fain
God to be Cruel to Mankind and that under pretence of Grace Even to put such hard Conditions of salvation on man which seem to us impossible to any but mad men or those who by faction have cast their minds into a dream If these be Gods Conditions that no man shall be saved that doth not believe that all his senses and all the senses of all the world are deceived when they perceive Bread and Wine or substance many may take on them to believe it but few will believe it and be saved indeed Reason XI Hereby you make the Gospel or New Covenant to be far harder and more rigorous than either the Law of Moses or the Law of Innocency For neither of these did damn men for believing the agreeing senses of all mankind Perfect Obedience to a perfect nature was fit to be a delight The burdensome Ceremonies had no such Impossibilities in them None of them obliged men to renounce all their senses and to come to Heaven by so hard a way Reason XII You seem to me to Contradict Gods Law and terms of life and to forge the clean contrary as his He saith He that cometh to God must Believe that God is c. and He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned But you seem to me to say in plain effect He that Believeth Gods Natural Revelations to all mens senses shall be damned and that believeth that the said Revelations are false may be saved caeteris paribus Reas XIII And what a thing by this do you mak◠Gods Grace to be Whereas true Grace is the Repaire◠and perfecter of Nature you make it to be the destroye◠and deceiver of Nature The use of Grace according to your faith is to cause men to believe that Gods natural Revelations are false and that all the senses of th◠world in this matter are deceived Whereas a mad ma◠can believe this without Grace Reas XIV By this doctrine you abominably corrupt the Church with hypocrisie while all that will hav◠Communion with you must be forced to profess tha◠all mens senses are thus deceived And can you thin◠that really they can all believe it or rather you◠Church must be mostly made up of gross hypocrites who falsly take on them to believe it when they do not Reas XV. And by this means you make the Vnity of the Church to become a meer Impossibility For you◠condition of union is that men all believe this among other Articles of your faith And that man hath lost o◠vitiated his humanity who can believe and expect tha◠all Christians in the world should ever believe that al◠the senses of all the world are thus deceived You might as well say The Church shall never have Unity till all Christians do believe that David or Christ was a Worm and no man a door a Vine a thief a Rock in proper sense or we shall have no unity till we renounce both our humanity and animality and the light and Law of God in Nature And after this to cry up Vnity and cry down Schism what abominable hypocrisie is it Reas XVI And by this doctrine what bloody inhumanity is become the brand or Character of your Church When you decree Concil Later sub Innoc. 3. Can. 3. that all that will not thus renounce their senses and give the lie to Gods natural revelations shall be excommunicated and utterly undone in this World even banished from all that they have and from the Land of their Nativity Yea your Inquisition must torture and burn them and your Writ de hereticis comburendis must be issued out against them to fry them to death in flames if they will not renounce the common senses of mankind Reas XVII And it even amazeth me to think what horrid Tyrants you would thus make all Christian Princes When the said Canon determineth that they shall be first Excommunicate and then cast out of their Dominions which shall be given to others and their subjects absolved from their allegiance and fidelity except they will exterminate all these as hereticks from their Dominions who will not give the lye to all mens senses and to Gods natural Revelations The plain English is ☞ He shall not be the Lord of his own Dominions who will have men to be his subjects or such as will not renounce both their humanity and animality or sense For to perceive substances in genere in specie by sense and to believe or trust the Common senses of all the World about things sensible as being the surest way that we have of perception is as necessary to a Man as Ratiocination is Choose then O ye Princes of the Earth whether you will be Papists and whether you will have no men to be your Subjects even none that believe the senses of themselves and all the world Reas XVIII Thus also your Idolatry exceedeth in absurdity the Idolatry of all the Heathens else in the World Even Canibals and the most barbarous Nations upon Earth For if they call men to Worship an Image the Sun the Moon an Ox or an Onion of which the Egyptians are accused they do but say that some spiritual or celestial numen affixeth his operative presence to this Creature But they never make men swear that there is no Image or Sun or Moon or Ox or Onion left but that the whole substance of it is turned into God or somewhat else Your Absurdities tend to make the grossest Idolatry seem comparatively to yours a very fair and tolerable errour Reas XIX By these means you expose Christianity to the scorn of humane nature and all the world You teach Heathens Mahometans and other Infidels to deride Christ as we do Mahomet and to say that a Christian Maketh and Eateth his God and his faith is a Believing that Gods supernatural Revelations are a lie and that God is like the Devil the great Deceiver of the world Wo be to the world because of offences and wo be to him by whom offence cometh Reas XX. Lastly by this means you are the grand pernicious hinderers of the Conversion of the Heathen and Infidel world For you do as it were proclaim to them Never turn Christians till you will believe that Gods Natural Revelations are false and that all mens senses in the world are deceived in judging that there is Bread Wine or sensible substance after the words of Consecration These are the mischievous Consequents of your doctrine But one benefit I confess doth come by occasion of it that it is easier hereby to believe that there are Devils when we see how they can deceive men and to believe the evil of sin when we see how it maketh men mad and to believe that there is a Hell when we see such a Hell already on Earth as Learned Pompous Clergie men that have studied to attain this malignant madness to decree to fry men in the flames and damn them to Hell and
give them no peace or quietness in the World unless they will say that Gods Natural Revelations are false and that all mens senses are herein deceived by God as the great deceiver of the World CHAP. II. The Papists Answers to all this confuted P. IT is easie to make any cause seem odious till the accusations are answered which I shall confidently do in the present case I. All this is but argument from sense And sense must vail to faith Gods word must be believed before our senses R. It is easie to cheat fools and children into a dream with a sound of empty words To talk of senses vailing to faith and such like Canting and insignificant words may serve turn with that sort of men But sober men will tell you that sense is in exercise in order of Nature at least before Reason or faith and that we are Men and Animals before we are Christians And that the truth and certainty of faith presupposeth the Truth and Certainty of sense Tell me else if sense be false how you know that there is a Man or Pope or Priest in the World that there is a Book or Voice or any being And what possibility then have you of Believing P. Gods Revelation is surer than our senses R. This is the old song over and over Revelation without sense to you and ordinary Christians at least is a contradiction How know you that God hath any revelations If by preachers words How know you that there is a preacher or a word but by sense If by books How know you that there is a book but by sense P. II. We may trust sense in all other things where God doth not contradict it But not in this One Case because God forbiddeth us R. Say so of your Church too your Pope Council or Traditions that we may trust them in all cases save one or two in which it is certain that they do lye And will not any man conclude that he that can lye in one case can lye in more If one Text of Gods word were false and you would say You may believe all the rest save that how will you ever prove it For the formal object of faith is gone which is the Divine Veracity He that can lye once can lye twice So if all our senses be false in this instance how shall we know that they are ever true P. You may know it because God saith it R. 1. Where doth God say it 2. How shall I be sure that he saith it If you say that it is written in Scripture besides that there is no such word How shall I know that all mens senses are not deceived in thinking that there is a Scripture or such a word in it If you say that the Council saith it How shall I know that there is a man or ever was a Council or a Book in the world The certainty of Conclusions presupposeth the certainty of premises and principles And the certainty of faith and Reasoning presupposeth the certainty of sense And if you deny this you deny all and in vain plead for the rest P. I must believe my senses where I have no reason to disbelieve them But when God contradicteth them I have reason to disbelieve them R. 1. You vainly suppose without proof that God contradicteth them So you may say I may or must believe the Scripture or an Apostle Prophet or Miracle except God contradict them But if God contradict them he contradicteth his own word or revelation For we have no other from him but by man And if he contradict himself or his own word how can I believe him or know which of his words it is that 's true when one is false so here His Natural Revelation is his first nearest and most satisfactory revelation And if that be said to be false by his supernatural revelation which shall I believe and why P. III. You cannot deny but God can deceive our senses And therefore if he can will you conclude against all faith if once he do it R. 1. This is not once but as oft as God is worshiped in your Mass and our Sacrament 2. God can deceive us without a Lie but not by a Lie Christ deceived the two Disciples Luke 24. by carrying it as if he would have gone further but not by saying that he would go further God can do that from which he knoweth that man will take occasion of deceit God can blind a mans eyes or destroy or corrupt his other senses he can present an object defectively with unmeet mediums distance site c. In this case he doth not give us a FALSE SIGN nor doth he by the Nature of the Revelation oblige any man to believe it Yea Nature saith that a man is not to Judge by a vitiated sense or an unmeet medium or a too distant object or where the due qualification of the sense or object are wanting Nature there tells us that we are there to suppose or suspect that we are uncapable of certainty But Nature obligeth us to believe sound senses about duly qualified objects and to take sense for sound when all the senses of all the men in the world agree and the object to be a duly qualified object of sense when all mens senses in the world so perceive it For we have no way but by sense to know what is an object of sense 3. The question is not what God can do by his power if he will but what God will do and can will to do in consistency with his perfection and just and merciful Government of the World And God in making us men whose Intellects are naturally to perceive things sensible by the means of the perception of sense doth naturally oblige man and necessitate him also to trust his senses in such perception And in Nature man hath no surer way of apprehension Therefore if you could prove that sense is ordinarily fallible and Gods revelations to it false yet man were not only allowed but necessitated to use and trust it as having no better surer way of apprehension As among many knaves or lyars I must most trust the honestest and most trusty when I have no better to trust If I am not sure that it is a Sun or Light that I see yet I am sure that I must take my perception of it as a Sun or Light as it is For God hath given me no better If I am not sure that my sight feeling taste c. are infallible yet I am sure that I am made of God to use them and that I have no better senses nor a better way to be certain of their proper objects so that I must take and trust them as they are or cease to be a man P. IV. Christs Body and Blood are not sensible objects and therefore sense is no proper judge whether they be present R. This is one of your gross kind of cheats to change the question We are not yet come to the
Laity and deny them half the Sacrament sure there are then no Accidents of Wine Is there either Quantity Colour Smell Taste c. of Wine They will not say it So that here is no sensible sign as to one half 2. And herein they deal far more inhumanely with us than the Infidels themselves For when they plead against Christ and Scripture they grant that the common principles and Notitiae which all mankind acknowledge are the certain unquestionable light of Nature But the Papists deny not only the Notitias communes but common sense It is nothing with them to damn all the world that will not believe contradictions They say that the Quantity of Nothing endued with the Qualities the Actions the Passion the Relations the quando ubi situs of nothing is the Sacramental sign Inhumane contradiction 1. Gassendus and others say truly that an Accident is not properly Res but Modus Rei vel Qualitas as he calleth it 2. Quantity doth not Really differ a re quanta and to say The Length Breadth Profundity of Nothing is a notorious contradiction And so it is of the other Accidents There is no Real sensible sign and therefore no Sacrament where there is nothing but the quantity colour taste smell c. of Nothing 3. And they cannot they dare not say that Christs Real Flesh and Blood is the Sacramental sign For 1. It is not sensible 2. It should be then the sign of it self The sign and the thing signified cannot be the same II. The very substantiality or corporeity of the Bread and Wine as such is part of the sign As Christ saith Behold and handle me a spirit hath not flesh and blood as ye see me have So he taketh Corporeal bread and wine in their sight and breaketh it and poureth it out and giveth it them to see to feel to taste to eat that they may know it is true bread and wine the signs of his True Body and Blood So that to deny the Corporeity is to deny Christs Corporeity in its signs and tendeth to the old Heresie of them that held that Christ had but a phantastical body or was not indeed Crucified but seemed so to be They teach Hereticks to argue The sign was no Real substance Therefore neither the thing signified III. The nutritive use of the bread and wine was another part of the sign as all confess As bread and wine are the Nutriment of the body and life of man so is Christ crucified meritoriously and Christ glorified efficiently the life of the soul And he that denyeth the Nutritive sign denyeth the Sacrament But it is not the false appearance or phantasm or accidents of bread and wine that are the natural nourishers of man Therefore he that denyeth the nourishing substance denyeth the Real sensible Sacramental sign Saith Bellarmin de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. In the Eucharist we receive not corporal food that the flesh may be thence nourished and made fat but only to signifie inward refection So that he acknowledged this to be part of the Sacramental sign So Gregor Valent. saith that The chief and essential signification of this Sacrament is that which by external nourishment is signified the internal spiritual refection of the soul by the body of Christ So that denying the nourishing sign is destroying the essence of the Sacrament IV. The breaking of the Bread and pouring out the Wine is confessedly another part of the Sacramental sensible sign But 1. When there is no Wine there is no pouring it out 2. And if there be no Bread neither there is no breaking it Can that be broken which is not They that deny as the Papists do that the Bread is broken saying that only the Quantity of Nothing is broken deny the sensible Sacramental sign And here I may note that we do not well to contend with them for denying the Cup only to the Laity and granting them only the Bread when indeed they grant neither but deny them both There is say they no more Bread than Wine but only a false appearance of it V. Lastly The Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 17. sheweth that one Sacramental use of the Bread was to signifie the Vnity of Christians who are one Bread and one Body as one Loaf is made of many Corns But that cannot be One which is Nothing Ens Vnum Verum convertuntur To say with Greg. Valent. and Bellarmine that because it was Once bread and one bread therefore the accidents of it remaining now signifie that we are one bread is but to say that There was once a fit sign but then there wanted the form Now after Consecration there is no Sacramental sign but yet there is a Sacramental form And in what Matter is that form Doubtless it can be no where but in the Brain or Mind of man That is man can Remember that once he saw Bread This is the species of bread in his Intellect This species is the sign And so we have found out another sense of the species of bread than many think on viz. It is that which is called The species intentionalis or the Idea or conception of bread in a mans fantasie and mind And so indeed the Sacrament is with them an invisible thing for it is only in mens minds There is no Sacrament on the Altar but in the thoughts And so who hath a Sacrament and who not we know not And a man may by thinking make a Sacrament when he will CHAP. IX Of the Novelty of Transubstantiation R. I Once thought to have next proved out of the Current of Antiquity the Novelty of this inhumane doctrine of the Papists and that the Antients commonly confessed that there was true Bread and Wine remaining in the Sacrament after Consecration But 1. I should but tempt and weary ordinary Readers who neither need any such arguments having Sense and Scripture to give them satisfaction nor are able to try them For it is an indirect kind of dealing to expect that the unlearned or those that are strangers to the Writings of the Antients should believe this or that to be their mind and sayings meerly because I tell them so And if they read the plainest words they know not whether I rightly recite them but by believing me And it is as unreasonable on the other side that the Papists should expect either by their Citations or their general Affirmations that the Readers should believe them that the Antients were for Transubstantiation Till men can both read the Authors themselves and try the Copies they can have no sure historical notice what the Father 's held except by the common consent of credible Reporters or Historians Not while one side saith they say this and the other side saith they say the contrary and yet their Books are to be seen by all We may bid them believe us and the Papists may bid them believe them and a Priest may cheat them by saying that his word is the Churches But
though this will produce a humane belief in the Hearers or Readers as by advantages it is most taking with them yet that fallible belief is all the Certainty that it can afford them Therefore I think it most ingenuous and reasonable to give men such arguments as they are capable of understanding and improving to certain satisfaction 2. Because they that can study such Authors as have gathered the sentences of the Antients in this Controversie may find it so fully done by Edmund Albertinus in his second Book that they can need no more P. You know that Albertinus is answered R. And I know that he is again Defended And who doubteth but you can answer me copiously if I did maintain that the Sun giveth light What is it that a man cannot talk for especially they that can hope to perswade all the Christian world that they must be damned unless they will believe that all mens senses are deceived and that God is the great Deceiver of the world P. But how can you think to please God and be saved if you be not of the same faith as the Church hath alwayes been of All the antient Fathers and Catholick Church were for Transubstantiation and are you wiser and in a safer way than they R. You have lost your credit with me so far as that your word is no oracle to me If I must not believe my own nor other mens senses I am not bound to believe you at least when I know you speak falsly But I pray tell me How know you that the Church and Fathers did so believe P. Because the present Church saith so which cannot err R. Do not your own Writers say that a General Council and Pope may err in matter of fact and that they did so in Condemning Pope Honorius and in other Cases P. Yes but this is a matter of faith R. Is it not a matter of fact what this or that man said and what doctrine the Church at such a time did teach and hold But how know you that the present Church doth say so that this was the faith of the antient Church P. By their testimony in a General Council R. Did you hear the Council say so P. No but the Church telleth me that the Council said so R. Who is it that you now call the Church which tells you so P. My Superiours who have it from the Pope and their Fathers R. Are your Superiours that told you so the Church Or is the Pope the Church If so What need you say a Council is the Church And how know you that the Pope and your Superiours err not in a matter of fact P. I know it by the Decrees of the Council yet extant R. 1. But if sense be deceitful how know you that you ever read such Decrees 2. How know you that they are not forgeries or since corrupted P. The Church is a safe keeper of its own Records R. Still what mean you by the Church The Vulgar neither keep nor understand your Councils The Council of Trent is long ceased No other General Council hath been since to tell you what are the true Decrees of that Council The Pope is not the Church And he may err in a matter of fact What then is the Church that tells you certainly what the Council of Trent decreed Tell me if you can P. We have such common historical Evidence and Tradition as you have for your Acts of Parliament when the Parliament is ended The present Governours preserve them R. Very good It is the Office of the Governours to take that Care but therein they are not indefectible and infallible but they and the published Laws and the notice of the whole Land and the Judicial proceedings by them in the Courts of Judicature make up a Certain Historical Evidence And so it may be in your Case And when you have talkt your utmost you can shew no more And have not we the same Writings of Fathers and Councils as you have You dare not deny it Why then may not we know what is in them as well as you And I pray you tell me Whether your Antiquaries such as Albaspinaeus Sixtus Senensis Petavius Sirmondus c. do prove what Cyprian Optatus Augustine c. held by the judgement of the Pope or Councils or by citing the words of the Authors themselves And do Crab Binnius Surius Caranza c. prove what one Council said by the authority of another or by the Records themselves yet visible to all P. Those Records themselves even the visible Writings of the Fathers and Councils are for Transubstantiation R. Till you have perswaded me out of my senses I will not believe you I pray you tell me if you can of any Author or Council that ever used the name Transubstantiation before Stephanus Aeduensis after the year 1100 de Sacram. Altar c. 13. P. Though the name be new the Doctrine is not R. Tell me next what General Council did ever determine it before the Council of Laterane under Innoc 3. an 1215. P. Not expresly for General Councils need not mention it till the Albigenses Hereticks gave them occasion by denying it R. Was it an Article of faith before If it were either the Councils are not the measure of your faith or it is very mutable P. Among all your questionings answer me this question if you can If that General Council decreed Transubstantiation what could move them so to do if it were not the faith of the Church before Were they not all of the same mind the day before they did it and so the day before that and the day before that c. Or do you think that they were against Transubstantiation the night before and awaked all of another mind the next morning What could make all the Pastors of the Church think that this was the true faith if they did not think it was the antient faith And what could make them think it the antient faith if it were not so Did not they know what their Fathers held And did not their Fathers know what their Fathers held The same I say of the Council of Trent also R. Thus men that must not believe the common sense of mankind can believe the dreaming conjectures of their brains and sit in a corner and thence tell the world what can and what cannot be done by publick assemblies at many hundred years and miles distance Who would not laugh at a Fryer that in his Cell would tell by moral conjectures all the thoughts and motions of an Army or Navy that never saw them and contrary to the experience of those that were on the ground and interessed in their Councils and actions Observe how many false suppositions go to make up your cheats 1. You suppose this a true General Council which is a pack of factious Prelates subject to the Pope and assembled at Rome in his own Palace under the awe of his presence and power And as if the small
what a man may say is certain R. To this I have several things to say 1. Ordination doth not make men wise holy humble and self-denying but sets such men apart for the sacred office who seek it and have tolerable gifts of utterance And it is too ordinary for worldly minded men to make a worldly trade of the Priesthood meerly for ease and wealth and honour In which case do you not think that the Papists who have multitudes of rich benefices prelacies preferments and Church-power and worldly honour are liker to be drawn by worldly interest than such as I that am exceeding glad and thankful if I might but preach for nothing 2. Do you lay your faith and salvation upon plausible discourses and will you be of that mans faith whom you cannot confute Then you must be of every mans faith or indeed of no mans There are none of all these sects so hardly confuted as a Porphyry a Julian or such like Infidels who dispute against Christ and the truth of the Scriptures or such Sadducees as dispute against the Immortality of the soul Alas the tattle of Papists Pelagians Antinomians Separatists Quakers and all such supposing the truth of the souls Immortality and the Scriptures is easily resisted and confuted in comparison of their assaults who deny these our foundations And will you turn Sadducee Atheist or Infidel because you cannot confute their Sophistry I tell you if you knew how much harder it is to deal with one of these than with a Papist or any other Sectary you would shake the head to hear one man dispute for an universal Monarch and another dispute against a form of prayer and another whether it be lawful to Communicate with dissenters c. while so few of them all can defend their foundations even the souls Immortality and the Scriptures nor confute a subtle Infidel or Sadducee 3. What if we all agreed to say that there is no Bread in the Sacrament after Consecration Were it ever the truer for that Will you be deceived as oft as men can but agree to deceive you There is a far greater party Agreed against Jesus Christ even five parts of the World than that which is agreed for him Will you therefore be against Christ too There are more Agreed for Mahomet a gross upstart deceiver than are agreed for Christ And doth that make it certain that they are in the right 4. Will you deny all your senses and the senses of all the World as oft as you cannot answer him that denyeth them Upon these terms what end will there be of any Controversie or what evidence shall ever satisfie man Have Papists any surer and more satisfying evidence for you than sense I pray you tell me Did you ever meet with any of them that doubt of another life or of the Immortality of the soul D. Yes many a one I would we were all more certain than we are R. And what is it that such men would have to put them out of doubt D. They say that our talk of Prophets and supernatural revelation are all uncertainties and if they could see they would believe Could they see such Miracles as they read of Had they seen Lazarus raised or Christ risen from the dead c. Had they seen Angels or Devils or Spirits appearing Had they seen Heaven or Hell they would believe R. And are not you more obstinate than they if you will not believe that there is any Bread and Wine when you see feel smell and taste it and all men that have senses are of the same mind What is left to satisfie you if you give so little credit to the common sense of all the world D. But I oft think that the faith of all the Church is much surer than my sense or my private faith At least it is safest to venture in the common road and to speed as the Church speedeth which Christ died for and is his Spouse R. 1. But do you think that the opinion of the Papal faction who are not the third part of the Universal Church that is the Christian world is the faith of all the Church Why call you Opinion faith and a sect and faction All the Church 2. Indeed if all the Church did set their senses against mine I would rather believe them than my senses For I should think that I were in that point distracted or my senses by some disease perverted which I did not perceive I mean if it were in a case where they had the affirmative As if all England should witness that they saw it Light at Midnight I would think my eyes had some impediment which I knew not of if I saw none But this is not your case The Papists themselves do not set all their senses against yours much less the senses of all mankind They do not say that We and all men except the Protestants do see and feel and taste that There is no Bread and Wine But contrarily You have the senses of all the world and the saith of two or three parts of the Christian world against the Opinion of one Sect which Schismatically call themselves All the Church D. But suppose that they err in this one point they may for all that be in the right in all the rest Who is it that hath no error I must not for this one forsake them R. 1. I will stand to their own judgements in this Whether all their foundation and faith be not uncertain if any one Article of their faith prove false They are all that ever I knew agreed of the affirmative And will give you no thanks for such a defence 2. And if we come to that work I shall prove all the rest of their opinions before mentioned to be also false D. What then if I find but one point false in the Protestants Religion Must I therefore forsake it all as false R. 1. Still remember to distinguish between our Objective and our Subjective faith or if you understand not those words between Gods Revelation and Mans Belief of it or the Divine Rule and Matter of our faith and our faith it self And about our own Belief you must distinguish between a mans Profession of Belief and the Reality of his belief All true Protestants profess to take Gods word alone or his Revelation in Nature and Scripture for the whole Matter of their Divine Belief and Religion But who it is that sincerely believeth little do I know nor how much of this word any singular person understandeth and believeth I can give you no account of If personal faith were that which we dispute of I would be accountable for no mans but mine own In this sense There are as many Faiths and Religions as men For every man hath his Own Faith and Religion And if you know that a man erreth in one point it followeth not that he erreth in another They that believed that the Resurrection was past believed a falshood and yet
and his own General Councils The Kings of France Spain c. may easily prove that they have more power to cast out the Pope than he hath to cast out half Christs Sacrament And they may better forbid their own Subjects to obey a forreign Usurper than he can forbid all the world to obey Christ 7. And for all this the wit of man can hardly devise What Reason they have to do it What point of their Religion What Interest of their own did engage them to it Unless it be their Interest to shew that they are Above Christ and the Scripture I do not yet discern their reason 8. And yet they have with Resolution and obstinacy persisted herein divers hundreds of years and denyed the requests of Emperours Nobles and great part of several Kingdoms in this point This and the leaving out the second Commandment seem to be of purpose to shew that they are above the Maker of the Ten Commandments and of the Gospel How long Lord shall Tyranny oppress the Nations of the Earth and the Honour and Domination and Wills of Rebels prevail to tread down Truth and Godliness and keep the notice of thy salvation from the sinful miserable world whilest yet we daily pray by thy Command that Thy Name may be Hallowed Thy Kingdome come and Thy Will be done on Earth as it is done in Heaven Whether the Pope be the Antichrist meant in the Scripture by that name or not you see that my passing it by doth shew my cautelousness in resolving as Zanchy and others before me have done because I am confessedly so far unstudyed or ignorant of the sense of the Revelations and some other Scripture Prophecies as that I must leave such cases to such as Bishop Downame and others that have deeper insight into them Every man should be best at that which he hath most studyed But I must needs say that though I take it to be indispensible duty to keep up all due charity to all professed Christians such instances as these which I have here opened do utterly disable me from confuting that man who shall assert that this pretended Vicar of Christ and King or Monarch of the world and so King of Kings and Lord of Lords is an abominable Usurper and insolent Traytor against God and the true King and Head of the Universal Church How long will Princes and Prelates Learned and Unlearned be deluded by him or fear Power And when shall he be restrained from hindering Christs Gospel and the Peace and Concord of the Christian world FINIS Johns Nov. Repr p. 426. Protestants formally such have not enough to be brought to the unfeigned Love of God above all things and special Love to his servants and unfeigned willingness to obey him I deny you have any certain knowledge or feeling that you love God or his servants or willingness to obey c. Knot against Chillingworth Ch. 2. p. 122. In no one doctrine Protestants would seem more unanimously to agree than in this That all things necessary to salvation are contained evidently in Scripture which they hold as the only foundation of the whole structure of their Faith and Religion Note this Confession See Dr. Holden Analys fidei Li. 1. c. 3. Lett. 1. He that would know what stress we lay on Tradition as the Medium may see it fully in my Reasons of Christ Relig. And Dr. Holden is more for us than for the Papists Cap. 3. Q. Was it from the Church that the first Church received it Or was it not the same Divine Religion which the first Church whether Council or Practicers received without the Tradition of Council or Practicers If so this cannot be essential to Religion If the Apostles words were to be believed their proved Writings are to be believed And their Writings were proved theirs before a General Council or Universal Practice witnessed it Even by each Church and person that received any Epistle from any one of them So that if the Doctors will but differ in their Expositions the Scripture is no more the sure Word of God or to be believed by Catholick faith Of the Pope without a General Council Mark then that it may be de fide divina though not of Catholick necessity without the proposal of Council or universal practice Johns Nov. Rep. p. 19. of the explication of Terms Know you not that Divines are divided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii Some and those the more antient hold that the explicite belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his Passion Resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii Others among the recentiors that no more than the belief of the Deity and that he is the rewarder of our works is absesolutely necessary with that necessary to be explicitely believed He doth better interpret the distinction of Explicite and Implicite on another occasion in another sense Holden l. 1. c. 9. p. 169. Queret an teneatur quispiam aâ— internum Divinae fidei actum quem nec semper fortasse in eius potestate situm novimus Quamdiu sane arbitretur quispiam hujusmodi fidei actum lumini naturali rationi oppositum contrarium esse nequaquam poterit ad illum eliciendum astringi Aquin. p. 3. q. 75. a. 5. ad 3. Fides non est contra sensum sed est dâ— eo ad quod sensus non attingit But doth not sense say Here is Bread and Wine Vid. Aquin. 3. q. 82. a. 7. c. Vid. Aquin. 3. q. 69. a. 9. Vid. Aquin. 3. q. 82. a. 8. 2 Cor. 12.12 Rom. 15.19 Act. 14.3 15.12 Matth. 21.15 So they do by forbidding to eat Flesh in Lent And yet say they eat Christs flesh in Lent When Irenaeus cited by Occumenius Com. in 1 Peâ— c. 3. bringeth in Blandina proving to the Heathens that Christians did not eat flesh and drink blood in the Eucharist because that they use even to abstain for exercise sake from Lawful flesh See my More Reasons for the Christian Religion and the Lord Herbert de Veritate Apply this to Mr. Johnsons Rejoynder on this Point and you will see his Vanity