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
sense but all The eye seeth Bread and Wine The hand and mouth feel it The palate tasteth it The smelling sense smelleth the Wine yea and the ear heareth it poured out 3. It is in due quantity and not an undiscernable Atome 4. It is near the sense and neither by too much distance or nearness made insensible 5. It hath a due abode and is not made insensible by hasty passing by 6. The air and light and all necessary media of perception are present So that there is nothing wanting to the sensibility of the object P. And how do you prove all or any of these For ought you know the media may be undue the magnitude site distance abode may not be what they seem to be and so you prove not what you say R. All that I am now saying is that All men of sound sense in the world have these immediate clear perceptions The Intellect by sense perceiveth the object as quantitative as near c. This you dare not deny So that if this perception be false and here be no Bread and Wine then Sense or the Intellect discerning by the means of sense is deceived P. I say that the Senses or Intellects perception are deceived R. I prove that they are not deceived or at least that this kind of perception is the most certain that man on earth is capable of and is to be trusted to by all men and disbelieved or contradicted by none Reason I. Because that humane nature is so formed that the Intellect hath no other way of perceiving things sensible but as they are first perceived by the sense and by it transmitted to the Intellect or made its objects And if about Spirits it hold not that There is nothing in the Intellect which was not first in the sense yet about things sensible it doth undenyably hold And also that the Intellect of it self is not free to perceive things sensible otherwise than as they are sensed or not to perceive them but is naturally necessitated to perceive them So that it is a contradiction for a man to be a man consisting of a reasonable soul with sensitive faculties and a body and yet not to be formed to judge of things sensible as sense perceiveth them P. Then mad men cease to be men if they judge otherwise R. Mad men are your fittest presidents But 1. I told you how mans nature is made by God to judge of things I told you not that this nature may not be vitiated and hindered from right action Did I ever say that the eye may not be blinded or the understanding distracted Blind men and mad men judge not according to the tendency of Nature and therefore mis-judge The Connexion of the Intellect to the sense is essential to man as man but so is not the soundness or right exercise of his faculties Reason II. Hence I argue that sensation and the understandings perception thereby is the first perception of mans soul and all that follow are but the rational improvements of it and therefore ever presuppose it The natural order of the souls apprehensions is this beyond all controversie First Sense perceiveth things sensible and the Imagination the Images of them Next the Vnderstanding by a simple perception conceiveth of them as it findeth them in the imagination Thirdly then by this Thinking or Knowing we perceive also our own Act that we do so Think or Know. And then Fourthly We compound our conceptions and form organical notions and spin out conclusions from what we first perceive Now if the first perceptions be uncertain or false it must needs follow that all those following thoughts and reasonings which do but improve them are at least as uncertain and false if not more So that there can be no more certainty in any of the Conclusions as such than there is in the premises and principles Therefore if mans first and most natural necessary perceptions are false all the following actions or reasonings of his mind must be no better All being finally resolved into these perceptions by sense there is no Truth or Certainty in mans mind at all if there be none in these Reason III. Else you would infer that God is not at all to be Believed and that there is no such thing as Divine Faith and Religion in Certainty in the world And so you would bring in by unavoidable consequence far worse Impiety and Irreligiousness than Mahomet or Julian or any Idolaters that I hear of on the earth For you directly will overthrow the Divine Veracity or Truth of Gods Revelations which is the Formal Object of Faith without which it is no Faith P. A heavy charge if you can make it good R. To make it good do but first observe 1. That Gods Essential Will or mind is not in it self immediately seen by man but known only by some Revelation 2. That this Revelation is nothing but some SIGNES For there is nothing in the Universe of Beings but GOD and CREATURES and the ACTS or Works of Creatures Now it is not Gods own Essence which is the Revelation in question Therefore it must be either A Creature or work of God or an Act or Work of a Creature As the voice on Mount Sinai and that of Christ at his baptism and transfiguration and the written Tables of Stone c. were either the works of God immediately and so created Signs of his mind or else the Acts of Angels and so Imperate Signs of his mind Nor it is not the ordinariness or extraordinariness of the way of making these signs which maketh them currant and true or credible For if God can make a Natural false sign he can make a supernatural false one for ought any mortal man can prove Only all the question is Whether it be indeed a sign of the mind and will of God or not Now the works of Nature are Gods Natural Signs and his Natural objective Light and Law as the perception of them is the Subjective or Active Light and Law of Nature Something of God these Natural signs do signifie or reveal plainly and some things darkly And so it is with supernatural signs As the written Tables the voice of an Angel the words of an inspired Prophet or Apostle c. Now there is no other way for God to speak or reveal falsly could he do it but 1. Either to make a false sign naturally or supernaturally or 2. To determine mans sense or mind to a false perception And if God can do this naturally why not supernaturally Nay à fortiore mark how you teach the Infidel to inferr 1. Gods Natural Revelations are Common and his supernatural rare 2. Gods Natural Revelations are most certainly his own Acts But how far a Voice or Book from a Spirit may be the Act of that Spirit or Angel as a free Agent and how far that Agent is fallible or defectible we could not tell if we had not farther Evidence of Gods owning it Therefore
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
seen the Priest and Action and Accidents are seen but no Miracle seen by any So that Aquinas concludeth 3. q. 76. a. 7 Though Christ be existent in this Sacrament per modum substantiae yet neither bodily eyes nor our Intellects can see him but by faith no nor the Intellect of an Angel can see him secundum sua naturalia nor do Devils see him but by faith nor the blessed but in the Divine Essence All these make these Miracles far more miraculous than the raising of Lazarus from the dead WHether all these are Miracles or most or many of them Contradictions and therefore Impossibilities I make no great matter of at this time I think it utterly needless to add any more to what is said in answer to such sayings as Aquinas's 3. q. 75. 76. and other Schoolmen that The senses are not deceived because there are the Accidents and the Intellect is by faith preserved from deception that the remaining accidents are in quantitate dimensiva quasi in subjecto that these Accidents can change an extrinsick body can be corrupted can generate Worms can nourish can be broken c. For all this at least confesseth that its all done by Miracle Though I will say 1. That they could scarce have chosen a more unhappy pro-subject of Accidents than Quantity nor have given more unhappy reasons for it than Aquinas doth q. 77. a. 2. c. 1. Because the sense perceiveth that it is Aliquid quantum that is coloured 2. Because Quantity is the first disposition of matter c. For this includeth matter and Aliquid quantum is a word that giveth away his Cause And no Accident is more the same with its subject than Quantity or moles extensiva 2. And he will be long before he will make or prove mans nature to be such as that his Intellect can judge of substances by Believing as incomplex objects before it have perceived them by sense and imagination When we see taste smell feel hear them the Intellect will suddenly and necessarily have some species or perception of the Thing before it come Logically to dispute from extrinsick media of Testimony What this thing is in a second notion And our question is Whether the Intellect in this first Perception be deceived or not If you discharge the Intellect from perceiving substances presently before it know them by second notions or Argument you will make man quite another thing than every hour and action tells us he is But what will not a man say when he sets himself only to study what to say for the making good of his undertaken Cause But my next work is to prove the Falshood of these pretended Miracles CHAP. V. The Minor proved viz. That these Miracles are false THat these are all but feigned Miracles I thus prove I. Because the holy Scriptures do plainly deny such an ordinariness or commonness of the gift of Miracles 1 Cor. 12.8 9 10 11. To one is given by the spirit the word of Wisdom to another the word of Knowledge by the same spirit to another faith by the same spirit to another the gifts of healing by the same spirit to another the working of miracles c. But all these worketh that one and the self same spirit dividing to every man severally as he will 28 29. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing helps Governments diversities of tongues Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers are all workers of Miracles Here it is most expresly told us that working Miracles is a peculiar gift of some and even in those times not common to all that were Priests But the Papists make it common to every Priest though a common Adulterer Drunkard Murderer or Heretick no one Priest in the world is without it II. Though some few that were workers of iniquity might have some such gifts Matth. 7. Yet that was so rare that Nature it self taught men to judge Miracles to be signs of divine approbation so that Nicodemus thence argueth Joh. 3.2 No man could do these Miracles that thou dost except God be with him And the man Joh. 9.31 God heareth not sinners but if any man be a Worshipper of God and doth his will him he heareth And the people vers 16. How can a man that is a sinner do such Miracles And it was Christs own proof that he was of God and his Gospel true and therefore to Blaspheam his Miracles by ascribing them to the Devil was the unpardonable Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost And to deny Miracles to be a sign of Gods attestation is to subvert all Christianity Act. 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God among you by miracles wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you Joh. 5.36 The same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me Joh. 10.25 37 38. The works that I do in my Fathers name they bear witness of me If I do not the works of my Father believe me not But if I do though ye believe not me believe the works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him Joh. 14.11 Believe me for the very works sake Joh. 15.24 If I had not done among them the works that no other man did they had not had sin This also was Pauls proof of his Apostleship yea and of the truth of all the Apostles doctrine Heb. 2.3 4. God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders and divers Miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own Will Therefore that Doctrine is unlike to be true which tells us that every wicked Priest in the world though a Simonist or an enemy of Christ and Godliness and drown'd in all Vice is such a constant miracle-worker When God hateth all the workers of iniquity Psal 5.5 III. But though this Reason be but probable this following is demonstrative to a believer That doctrine which maketh every Ignorant wicked or Heretical Priest in the world far to excell the Prophets Apostles and Christ himself in the Greatness Number and facility of Miracles is false But such is this doctrine of Transubstantiation I know that Christ telleth his Apostles Greater works than these shall ye do But 1. There are Greater works such as the converting of greater numbers in the world which are not Greater Miracles 2. And what was promised â—o the Apostles as to Miracles was not promised to every Priest in the world I appeal to the Consciences of sober Christians whether it sound not as an arrogant if not blaspheamous speech to say that Christ and his Apostles did fewer and smaller miracles proportionable to their time than every Priest And as to the Minor it is soon proved in its parts 1. As to the Greatness of the Miracles those of Christ were exceeding Great especially his Raising Lazarus and his own
Resurrection his turning water into Wine and his feeding thousands with a little food But he that will examine Transubstantiation as afore-described shall find it to have more that is contrary to nature than all these by far The substance of the dead body of Christ or Lazarus did not vanish but remained to be the organized Recipient matter of the re-entring soul There were no Accidents without substances or other such things as are mentioned before The multiplying of food could at the most be but a new Creation But it was real food and none of the contradictions or absurdities before recited The turning of Water into Wine was likest this in the Papists opinion but indeed little like it For the matter of the water there remained with the form of Wine and so became the Matter of Wine and did not vanish And here was real Wine and real substance and not Accidents without substances deceiving all the senses or Intellectual perceptions The same may be said of the miracles of the Apostles compared with Transubstantiation 2. And as to the Number though Christs and his Apostles Miracles were very many yet there is no Scripture-evidence that they were for number comparable for so much time to every Priests Christs miracles are set down in the sacred history in such order and the Evangelists so much agree in reciting the same miracles that though St. John say the world could not contain the Books that should be written yet we find no probability that they were neer so common as Masses are when in several places where Christ came they that looked after Miracles and Signs were denyed them and had none but were put off to the sign of the Prophet Jonah c. Yea Herod and Pilate were in this denyed their desired satisfaction and they that call to him for a miracle on the Cross And so of the Apostles But every Priest doth his miracles as oft as there is a Mass though every day 3. And as to the Facility I said before that in his own Country among his own kindred he could do no mighty work save that he layed his hands on a few sick folk and healed them and he marvelled at their unbelief Mark 6.4 5 6. And he some time groaned in spirit and wept as for Lazarus And the Disciples could not cast out a Devil Mar. 9.18 28. Luk. 9.40 It was not to be done but by fasting and prayer It s like Paul would have cured Trophimus if he could when he left him sick And as holy men spake not when nor as they pleased but when and as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost so did they work miracles not arbitrarily but at such times and in such manner as the spirit moved them But any the most wicked Priest can do it at his pleasure any hour of the day and that but by reciting Hoc est corpus meum Many other disparities appear in what is said before IV. The End of the Gift of Miracles confuteth the feigned Miracles of Transubstantiation The End of Christs gift was to prove him to be of God as is aforeshewed and to prove his Apostles to be of God and to confirm the Gospel which they Preached Mar. 16.17 18 19 20. Heb. 2.4 As the gift of Tongues so other wonders were to convince unbelievers 1 Cor. 14. Act. 2. 4.30 5.12 7.36 8.13 14.3 2 Cor. 12.12 But the miracles of Transubstantiation are known to no unbeliever nor to any one in the world by any sense and have no such End but a contrary effect The Apostles who were to convert the world and next Christ to do the greatest good were therefore to do the greatest miracles And it was their argument for Christ Joh. 7.31 When Christ cometh will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done Yet now every ignorant Priest pretendeth to far more who doth but tempt Infidels to deride Christianity by the pretence as we do Mahometanism for Mahomets sport pretended with the Moon and other such delirations V. God is not to be said to work Miracles and cross the established course of nature without proof But these pretended Miracles have no proof No man living perceiveth them by sense And that God telleth us of no such things by supernatural Revelation shall be further shewed anon In the mean time it may satisfie us that they bring us no proof but their own affirmation which they require us to believe VI. The Matter of these pretended Miracles is expresly contradicted by the Word of God as shall be proved in the next Chapter VII Ad hominem Do not the Papists forget themselves here and contradict their other suppositions 1. They make Miracles to be one evidence of sanctity and therefore Canonize men when they think that they have proof that they wrought Miracles And yet maintain that a Whoremonger Drunkard or Heretick may do many more 2. They make Miracles a proof that they are the true Church and say that among us there are no Miracles and yet they confess that every Priest among us and all others whom they account Schismaticks and Hereticks do more Miracles than Christ did if they consecrate frequently 3. They burn men to ashes for working miracles even for making God if so be they do it not in the Roman fashion 4. They confess that the other Sacraments are not thus made up of Miracles no not Baptism which is our Christening and washeth us from our sins And yet this Sacrament alone must by a multitude of Miracles differ from the rest 4. Whether the Doctrine of their St. Thomas and his followers and others that the formal words of this Sacrament have a created effective virtue by which they instrumentally make the change 3. q. 78. a. 4. c. be not an absurdity rather than a proper miracle For words Physically move but the air first and the terminus of the aires motion e.g. the ear next and next that if it be an intellectual or other animal recipient the sense and fantasie next and so on But the Bread and Wine have no sense nor fantasie nor Intellect And to say that the moved aire is the means of turning them into the body and blood of Christ is still to multiply miracles 5. Do they not too much magnifie the common work and consequently the office of a Priest above the work of a Pope or Prelate who seldom consecrate when the Priest worketh so many Miracles more than they 6. They conclude that a sinner that hath Voluntatem peccandi receiveth Baptism in vain as to its ends of pardoning him and therefore should not receive it Concil Rom. Epist Gregor 7. Aquin. 3. q. 68. a. 4. c. c. And yet be the sinner never such an hypocrite or Infidel he eateth Christs real flesh nevertheless yea against his will if he do but the outward act 7. Is it not strange that an Infidel receiveth as verily the real flesh and blood of Christ as a
sensible substance after Consecration Joh. 2.9 they tasted the water turned into Wine and were convinced P. But the Body of Christ here is not a sensible thing R. But Bread and Wine are sensible things P. But They are not There and so are no objects of sense R. But all our senses say that They are there and by them we must judge P. Your senses perceive nothing but Accidents and your understanding must believe God and so as you noted out of Aquinas before there is no deceit either of sense or Intellect R. Though this be answered fully before I will again tell you That these two notorious falshoods are all that you have to say against Humanity in this case that 's worth the noting I. It is false that you say that sense perceiveth not substance When I take up a staff or stone in my hand I do not only feel Roughness or Smoothness c. but a substance It is a quantitative and qualitative substance which I feel taste smell see and hear And this I perceive by sensation it self as the medium to the Intellect It is not the sense indeed but the Intellect that giveth it the Logical notion or definition of a substance but it is the sense it self that by sensation perceiveth it and to deny this is to deny all sense And if it were not so How could any such substance be known when it cannot come into the Intellect but by the sense II. ☞ Your great cheat or errour is by confounding the first and natural-necessary perception of a sensibile sensatum or incomplex object by the Intellect with the second conception of the Names of things or of Organical second notions and the third conception of them Artificially by the use of these names and Organical notions and the fourth perception of Consequents from those conceptions To know by Believing is but the third or fourth sort of knowledge and presupposeth the two first If a man had never heard a name or word in his life yet by sensation as soon as he saw smelt tasted heard handled things his Intellect would have had a perception of the Thing it self as it was sensate And this is the Intellects first perception And this is it which falleth under our question Whether the Intellect in this first perception of a substance or Thing as sensate be deceived or not when the Thing hath the Conditions of an object before mentioned 2. Next this we learn or invent Names and organical notions for things And whether these be true or false and whether they be apt or inept is all one This is but an arbitrary work of art 3. Next this we conceive of things by the Means of these Names and second notions and examine the Congruence and so we define them And this is but a work of Artificial Reasoning and presupposeth the first Natural necessary perception Now Faith belongeth partly to this and partly to the fourth which is The raising of Conclusions and the weaving of methods and presupposeth the first yea and the second It is but an assent given by the means of an Extrinsick Testimony of God that this particular Word is True c. Now if the Intellect in its first Perception natural and necessary of the Thing it self as sensate be deceived if faith should be contrary to it 1. It must be such a Faith which is the immediate contrary perception of a sensate object which is no faith nor is any such possible properly called faith 2. And if faith can come after and undeceive the Intellect by saying that God saith otherwise yet this would be no prevention of its deception but a cure presupposing the said deception as the disease to be cured So that to say as Aquinas that faith preventeth the deceit of the Intellect is a falshood contrary to the nature of man and his natural way of acting as he is composed of soul and body I have said this over again lest errour get advantage by the brevity and unobservedness of that which I said before CHAP. VII Argum. 5. All these miracles have not the least proof yea the Scriptures fully direct us to a cross interpretation of the Papists pretended proofs which also are renounced by themselves I Know of no Scripture proof in the World that the Papists pretend to but the words This is my Body and This is my Blood and such like And that these are no proof I shall fully prove to any impartial man I. The very nature of the Sacrament instituted by Christ with his expressed End command our Reason to expound the word is of signification representation or exhibition and the word Body and Blood of a new Relative form only that is of a body and blood Representative which is all one in effect As a piece of Gold Silver or Brass is by the law and stamp turned really into the Kings Current Coine and so hath a new Relative form so that you may truly say that there is a change made of the Gold or Silver into the Kings Coyn and it is no more to be called meer Gold or Silver though it be Gold and Silver still because the form denominateth and the new form is now that in question which must denominate Or as a Prince that is marryed in effigie or by a Representative to a woman is not there personally and yet it is aptly said This is the Prince which is betrothed or marryed to thee Or as we say of Pictures This is Peter or Paul or John Or as when we deliver a man possession of a House by a Key or of Land by a twig and a turf or of a Church by the belrope c. and say Take this is such a House or such a piece of Land or Church c. As this is ordinary intelligible speech among all men so Christ tells them that he would be so understood 1. In that his Real natural body spake this of the Bread and Wine which was not his natural body His real natural body was present visible entire unwounded his blood unspilt and did eat and drink the other as the Papists hold as being the same And can any living man imagine that the Disciples who understood not his Death Resurrection Ascension c. yet understood by these four words when they saw Christs body alive and present that this Bread and Wine was that same Body and Blood without any more questioning 2. In that he bids them Do this in Remembrance of him which plainly speaketh a commemorating sign Who will say at his last farewell when he is parting with his friends I will stay among you or keep me among you in Remembrance of me So for Christ to say Eat me in remembrance of me were strange II. It may put all out of Controversie to find that Christs words of one half of the Sacrament are as they confess figurative therefore the other must be so judged also Luk. 22.20 This Cup is the new Testament in my
order of nature Thou blindest the providence of God himself as if he had made mens lying and deceitful senses to be the Lords in understanding honouring dispensing and enjoying all his works Is not the whole Condition of man subadministred by these And after We may not call those senses into question lest Christ himself must deliberate of their certainty or must distrust them Lest it may be said that he falsly saw Satan cast down from Heaven or falsly heard the voyce of his Father testifying of him or was deceived when he touched Peters Wives Mother or perceived not a true taste of the Wine which he Consecrated in the memorial of his blood Many such places are in Tertullian 4. Origen is large and plain to the same purpose in Matth. 25. calling it Bread and a Typical and Symbolical Body which profiteth none but the worthy receivers and that according to the proportion of their faith and which no wicked man doth eat c. Many more such places Albertinus vindicateth 5. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus is too large this way to be recited As Even the Sacrifices of the Lord declare the Christian Vnanimity connexed by firm and inseparable love For when the Lord calleth Bread his body or his body bread made up of many united grains c. And when he calleth the Wine his Blood c. So Epist ad Caecil 6. Eusebius Caesar demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. 10. Celebrating daily the memorial of the body and blood of Christ Seeing then we receive the memorial of this Sacrifice to be perfected on the Table by the symbols of his body and most precious blood And l. 8. He delivered to us to use Bread as the symbol of his own body 7. Athanasius's words are recited by Albertinus l. 2. p. 400 401 c. 8. Basil de Spir. Sanct. saith Which of the Saints hath left us in Writing the words of invocation when the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of blessing are shewed 9. Ephrem in Biblioth Photii p. 415. Edit August saith The body of Christ which believers receive loseth not his sensible substance and is not separated from the intelligible grace And ad eos qui filii Dei c. Take notice diligently how taking Bread in his hands he blessed it and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body and he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples as a figure of his pretious blood 10. Cyrillus vel Johan Hierosol Catech. Mystag calls the bread indeed Christs body but fully expounds himself de Chrysmate Cat. 3. pag. 235. For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more Common Bread but is the Body of Christ So also this Holy Oyntment is no more meer Oyntment nor if any one had rather so speak common now it is consecrated but it is a Gift or Grace which causeth the presence of Christ and the Holy Ghost that is of his Divinity As the Oyntment is Grace or the Holy Ghost just so the Bread is the body of Christ as he saith after Cat. 4. It is not only what we see Bread and Wine but more 11. Hierom cont Jovinian l. 2. The Lord as a type or figure of his blood offered not water but wine 12. Ambrose de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. This therefore we assert How that which is Bread can yet be the body of Christ And If Christs speech had so much force that it made that begin to be which was not how much more is it operative that the things that were both Be and be changed into something else And As thou hast drunk the similitude of death so thou drinkest the similitude of pretious blood 13. Theodoret in Dialog Immutab dealeth with an Eutychian Heretick who defended his Error by pleading that the bread in the Eucharist was changed into the body of Christ To whom saith Theodoret The Lord who hath called that meat and bread which is naturally his Body and who again called himself a Vine did honour the visible signs with the appellation of his body and blood not having changed their Nature but added Grace to Nature And in Dialog 2. In confus he saith The divine Mysteries are signs of the true body And again answering the Eutychians pretence of a change he saith By the net which thou hast made art thou taken ☞ For even after the Consecration the Mystical signs change not their nature For they remain in all their first SVBSTANCE figure and form and are Visible and to be Handled as before But they are understood to be the things which they were made and are believed and venerated as made that which they are believed to be Would you have plainer words 14. Gelasius cont Nest Eutych saith Verily the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take is a Divine thing for which and by which we are made partakers of the divine nature ☞ And yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine And certainly the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries What can be plainer 15. Cyril Alexandr in John 4. cap. 14. saith He gave to his believing disciples fragments of Bread saying Take Eat This is my body 16. Facundus lib. 9. cap. 5. pag. 404. as cited by P. Molin de Novitate Papismi We call that the body and blood of Christ which is the Sacrament of his body in the consecrated Bread and Cup. ☞ Not that the Bread is properly his body and the Cup his blood but because they contain the Mysterie of his body and blood But I am so weary of these needless Transcriptions that I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more Albertinus will give him enow more who desireth them And no doubt but with a wet finger they can blot out all these and teach us to deny the sense of words as well as our senses D. But you said also that the Present Church and its Tradition is against Transubstantiation as well as the Antient How prove you that R. Just as I prove that the Protestants are against it By the present Church I mean the far greater part of all the Christians in the world The Greeks with the Muscovites the Armenians the Syrians the Copties the Abassines and the Protestants and all the rest who make up about twice or thrice as many as the Papists That they hold that there is true Bread and Wine after Consecration all impartial Historians testifie both Papists and Protestants and their own several Countreymen and also Travellers who have been among them And their Liturgies even those that are in the Bibliotheca Patrum put out by themselves do testifie for those Countreys where they are used Though as Bishop Vsher hath detected by one words addition they have shamelesly endeavoured to corrupt the Ethiopick Liturgy about the Real presence But I need no more proof of that which
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