CHAP. I. The occasion of the Conference.

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.

With all my heart: But let me first ask you a few Questions.

Quest. 1. Did you ever understand what the Prote­stants Religion is?

I take it to be the 39 Articles, Liturgie and Go­vernment of the Church of England.

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?

It is to believe in Christ, and to Love and obey Him. Our Baptism is our Christening.

Very true: And in your Baptism you are Dedi­cated and Vowed to God the Father, Son, and Holy [Page 2] 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?

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.

I ask you not whether you are a sinner; For so are all men. But whether you are a truly Penitent, 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. 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 your practice, take God for your God, even for your All, and Christ, for your Teacher, King and Saviour, and the Holy Ghost for your Sanctifier, [Page 3] turning in heart and life, from the Devil, the world, and the sinful pleasures of the flesh? This is the question which I desire you to answer.

But I will prevent your answer lest you mistake my purpose, and think I make my self your Confessour, and I will tell you why I ask the question.

Either you have thus Kept your Baptismal Vow, by a Godly life, or else you have broken it by worldliness and sensuality, &c. If you have kept it, and are a truly Godly person, you have resolved your own doubt, and absolutely confuted Popery already. For no honest man and true Christian can possibly turn Papist without gross contradiction.

How prove you that.

Most easily: I pray you do but mark: 1. It is their principal Doctrine that the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church on earth; and that the Church sub­jected to him, is the Universal Church; and that out of that Church there is no salvation; and that no one is a true member of Christ and his Church, who is not a subject of the Pope.

2. And they all confess that every one shall be saved that is a true Christian, and keepeth his Baptismal Cove­nant, and that Loveth God above all. So that they must needs hold that none in the world but Papists, do truly Love God, & keep that Covenant, and are true Christians.

Now if you can know that you have the true Love of God, and are true to your Baptism, you must needs con­fess that Popery is false, which saith that none Love God above all but Papists.

But what if I have not Loved God, and obeyed him, above my flesh?

I'le tell you what followeth. 1. It is no wonder if you forsake the Protestants Religion, who never truly entertained it. If your Heart and Life were not de­voted [Page 4] unfeignedly to God, you were no true Christian, nor indeed had any true Religion at all: And he that hath no Religion, turneth from none which he truly had. If you were never a true Christian, you were never a true Protestant: And then what wonder if you turn Papist? For you have no experimental Knowledge of that Religion which you seem to forsake.

2. And how could you expect better, but that God should penally forsake you, and give you over to believe deceits, if you have dealt so falsly and deceitfully with him, as to live to the world and flesh which you renoun­ced, and neglect that God and Saviour and sanctifier to whom you were so solemnly devoted? And if you have been so treacherous and unwise, as to prefer a bruitish transitory pleasure, before Gods Love and the Joyes of Heaven?

3. And what honour is it to the Church of Rome, that none but Infidels and false-hearted hypocrites, and perfidious breakers of their Covenant with God, did ever turn to them? If you turn Papist, you confess that you were a wicked hypocrite before.

4. But the chief thing which I would tell you is, that turn up and down as oft as you will, to this Church or that Church, to this side or that side, you will never be saved, unless you become a holy, serious, mortified Christian: As long as you love pleasures, wealth and ho­nour more than God and Holiness and Heaven, you shall never be saved, whether you be Papist, or a professed Protestant. It would make the heart of a Christian ake, to see so many thousands cheated by the Devil, to take this opinion or that opinion, called the true faith, and this side or that side, called the true Church, to be to them instead of a holy heavenly heart and life. And how many thousands, especially Papists, that are truly of no Religion, do dispute, and plot and disquiet the [Page 5] world, as for Religion. To hear a prophane man swear that his Religion is right; or that man to think to be saved for being of the true Church and faith, whose heart was never set on Heaven, but liveth in drunken­ness, lying, idleness, fornication, and thinketh that the Priests absolution sets all right again. Without true Holiness no man shall be saved, what Church soever he joyn with; and with it no man shall be damned. For God cannot hate them that have his nature, and Image.

Well sir: I came not to dispute with you, but to desire you to meet a Roman Catholick Priest, that I may hear you both together.

I have the greater hopes of you, because you have so much regard of your soul, as to be willing to hear what can be said. For most that turn to them, never come to an impartial tryal, but rashly follow the de­ceiver, or stay till they are secretly hardened by false in­sinuations, and then take on them to desire to hear both, when they are first resolved to be gone.

But you must tell me what is the question that you de­sire should be disputed.

I would know whether the Papists or the Prote­stants be the True, and safe Religion?

I undertake to give you that plain undenyable evi­dence for your resolution, which should fully satisfie any reasonable man, at least that professeth himself a Chri­stian: so be it you will perform these reasonable condi­tions: 1. That you will be impartially willing to know the truth. 2. That you will honestly resolve to Live according to it when you know it, and to be True to the True Religion. 3. That you will bring such a man to confer with me, who will yield to the Reasonable Condi­tions of a disputant, such as your Doubt and the nature of the matter doth notoriously require, and not a Knave, [Page 6] and studied Deceiver, who will set himself purposely to hide the truth.

These conditions are so reasonable that I must not deny them.

CHAP. II. The Conditions of the Conference; between a P. and R. and D.

SIR, I am desired by this person, who is brought by some of you to doubt of our Religion, to debate this Case with you in order to his satisfaction, Whether the Papists or the Protestants be the True and Safe Re­ligion?

That is too large a Question: We cannot dispute of all our Religion at once: I will begin with you, about some one of the Articles of the Church of En­gland, or the Visibility of your Church in all Ages, or the Resolution of your faith, &c. And this I will do only on these conditions, 1. That you bring some express Text of Scripture, which without your Inter­pretation, Reasonings or Consequences, doth assert that Article of yours which I shall accuse, or contradict any Article of our faith, which shall be questioned. 2. Or if you will go from the express words to Rea­soning, that we keep to the strictest Rules of Logick, and that you use nothing but Syllogism, and that all be done in writing, and not by word of mouth.

Neighbour D. you promised me to bring another kind of Disputant: You hear his conditions: you shall hear my answer.

1. The Case which you told me you were in doubt of, and desired satisfaction in, was Which is the True [Page 7] and Safe Religion? This he refuseth to Dispute. Pre­tending that we cannot dispute of our whole Religion at once. But did you never hear him give any Rea­sons against our Religion? If he have, Why can he not do it now? I expect not all in a word, but let him give them one by one, and say his worst. I am sure I can give you many against theirs: And we will after debate them particularly as largely as you please.

2. If Writing be it that you desire for your satisfa­ction, I ask you, whether you have read all, or the fourth part, of what is written against Popery already. Have you read Dr. Challoner of the Catholick Church? Dr. White, Dr. Field, Dr. Downame of Antichrist, Chillingworth, Dr. Abbot, Dr. Willet, Bishop Ʋsher, Bishop Morton, Dr. Stillingfleet, and an hundred more? Why should I expect that you should read what I shall write, if you will not read what's writ­ten already?

3. Can you stay so long unresolved without injury to your soul, till he and I have done writing? You cannot but know, that from Sheets we must proceed to the writing of Volumes, in answering each other, as others have done. And this is like to be many years work, for men that have other business: And how know you that we shall all Live so long?

4. Are you able when it cometh to tedious Volumes to examine them, and find who is in the right? Or will you not rather take him to conquer, who hath the last word? And it's like that will be the longest liver?

5. And as to a strict syllogistical form, do you un­derstand that best? I avoid it not, but shall consent to use it as far as you understand it. Do you know all the Logical forms of arguing, all Moods and Figures, and all the fallacies? Or do you not perceive, that you have broken your promise with me, and brought a [Page 8] friend of darkness, who cometh purposely to hide the truth?

I must needs profess, that the Question which I would have debated, is, Which is the True and Safe Reli­gion? And that it is not tedious writings, nor long de­layes, but present conference which must satisfie me. And that it is plain Scripture and Reason that must sa­tisfie me, who understand not Logick. I pray let me hear your own Conditions which you think more just.

The Conditions which the nature of the Cause directeth us to, are these.

I. That we first truly state the question to be di­sputed: For we cannot dispute till we are agreed of what: That is, 1. That we agree what we mean by our [ Religion]; and 2. That I tell you, what is the Religion of Protestants, which I undertake to defend: And that he tell us what is the Religion of the Roma­nists, which must be compared with it.

II. That our Conference consist of these several parts.

1. That premising the principles in which we are agreed, I tell you the Reasons why you should not be a Papist.

2. That he tell you the Reasons why you should turn Papist, or what he hath against Our Religion.

3. That then we come to dispute these Reasons di­stinctly: where I will prove my charges against them, and he shall prove his charges against us one by one.

III. And that in all our disputes, we shall consent, 1. Not to interrupt each other in speech; but if the length seem to overmatch the hearers memory, we will take brief Notes to help our memories, as we go, and crave the recitation of what shall be forgotten: For the strength of Truth lyeth so much in the connexion of its parts, that when it is mangled into scraps by uncivil in­terruptions, [Page 9] it is deformed and debilitated and cannot be well understood.

2. That we bind our selves by solemn promise, to speak nothing which we unfeignedly judge not to be truth, nor any thing designedly to hide or resist the truth which we discern.

These terms are so just and necessary, that I will avoid him as a fraudulent wrangler who will deny them. For I come not to scold, nor to try who hath the strongest Lungs, the nimblest Tongue, or the lowdest voice, or the greatest confidence, or fiercest pas­sion; but to try who hath the truth, and which is the true way to Heaven. For the servant of the Lord must not strive; especially about words and barren notions; for that doth but tend to increase ungodliness.

Your Method is so reasonable, and so suited to my own necessity, that I must profess no other can so much tend to my satisfaction: And therefore I hope it will not be refused.

(Here after long opposition, the P. at last agreeth to these terms).

CHAP. III. What is the Religion of the Protestants.

I. THe word [ Religion] is sometimes taken Objectively; And so I mean by it▪ [ The objects of Religious Belief, Love and Practice,] which are, 1. The Things themselves; which are the principal objects (called by Logicians, The Incomplex terms.) 2. The organical object; or the Revelation of these Things; containing 1. The Words or other. Signs: 2. The sense or notions signified.

[Page 10]For instance, Matth. 17.5. [ This is my Beloved son in whom I am well pleased.] Here 1. The Real Incom­plex object is Christ Himself, the beloved Son of God, and God the Fathers well-pleasedness in him. 2. The signal part of the organical object, or Revelation, is the Words themselves, as spoken then, and written now. 3. The signified notions are the Meaning of the words, and are the chief part of the organical object, that is the Divine Revelation.

The word [ Religion] is of larger extent in its sense than [ Faith]; For it containeth all that Reve­lation which God hath made Necessary to salvation; which is twofold, 1. That which is to inform the un­derstanding with necessary knowledge and faith. 2. That which is necessary to a Holy Will and a Holy Life, to the Love of God and man, and to well doing; which are Precepts, Promises and Threatnings.

II. The word [ Religion] is oft taken also subje­ctively (as they speak); For the Acts and habits of Love and Obedience.

Now I suppose we are agreed that it is not Religion in this last sense that we are to dispute of (which is as divers as persons are:) But it is that which we call Objective Religion, even the Organical part directly. And if by all this D. understandeth us not, in plainer words, our Question is, Of the True Divine Revelation, viz. Which is the True Rule of Faith, Will and Practice; that which is held to be such by the Protestants: or that which is held to be such by the Papists?

I grant you, that this is the state of the Que­stion.

I here declare to you then, What is the Religion of the Protestants. IT IS THE LIGHT and LAW OF GOD CONCERNING HOLY KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF, HOLY WILL and PRACTICE, [Page 11] CONTAINED IN NATURE and THE 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 Ʋniversality 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Page 12]

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?

No: but if you have an odd Religion of your own, that proveth it not to be the Protestant Religion.

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: 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. 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 [Page 13] 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?

Why then do you call the thirty nine Articles the [Page 14] Articles of your Religion? And what is their use? And why are all required to subscribe them?

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. [Page 15] 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.

Observe, I pray you, that It is no part of your Religion to be against Popery.

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 [Page 16] 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 Ʋse 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 tha [...] still the Scripture is the Protestants Religion as your Polydor Virgil truly describeth them, and others confess.

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 [Page 17] a false sense, or your Books or Sermons shew that you falsly expound the Scripture, your Religion is then false.

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.

[Page 18]

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?

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.

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.

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 Do­Doctrine and Law in sense which is in the Ori­ginals.

Q. 3. And I pray you, How shall the unlearned [Page 19] be sure that the Translations are true as to the sence? when you have no Divine Infallible Translators?

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 Ʋniversal certain Tradition, in the constant Ʋse 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 Ʋniversal 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 [Page 20] 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.

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.

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 [Page 21] 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.

[Page 22]5. It is a gross delusion to pretend that there is a necessity, that All Gods In­fallible word, See Dr. Holden Analys. fidei Li. 1. c. 3. Lett. 1. 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?

Remember that your selves derive your Essentials from Tradition.

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. 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. The words could not come down to us, with­out some to deliver them. We have the Bible by Tradi­tion, and we have practical Tradition of Baptism and the Creed by it self, and that in many languages; where we are sure we have all the necessary sence. But do you remember that this is [Page 23] Ʋniversal Tradition, and not meer Roman Tradition; such as is certain by moral Evidence, even the consent of all that are yet of cross opinions and Interests, (as to matter of fact); Historical Evidence; and not the pretended certainty of a Pope and his favourites, pha­natically claiming a spirit of Infallibility.

But I am not now disputing with you, I am only telling you that the Protestant Religion is nothing but Christianity and the Scriptures. And all our Confes­sions are our Religion (besides Consent) but as our Sermons and Treatises are, which vary as they are va­rious expressions of mens various subjective faith; while Gods word varyeth not.

If the Bible be your Religion, then the Ceremo­nial Law of Moses is your Religion: For that is part of the Bible.

You study what to say against another, and never think how it concerneth your selves. 1. Is not the Bi­ble at least Part of your Religion? You dare not deny it. And is the Ceremonial Law of Moses therefore your Religion?

2. I told you that as a perfect man hath hair and nails, which are but Accidents, so the Bible hath more than the Integrals of our Religion.

3. The Ceremonies of Moses in that sense as now they are delivered to us in the Bible, are parts or appurte­nances of our Religion: That is, the historical narra­tive of those Abrogated Laws, which now bind us not as Laws, but tell us (as the Prophesies) what was here­tofore, and how Christ was fore-typified, and what in­timations of Gods will we may gather from the history. And the abrogated Laws are no otherwise delivered to us, and so we must use them.

If the ten Commandments be your Religion, you must keep the Jewish seventh day Sabbath: [Page 24] so that neither there can you fix.

The same answer will serve. 1. The ten Com­mandments are no otherwise part of our Religion th [...]n they are of yours. 2. They are a Law to us, as deli­vered and expounded by Christ, and in Nature: and the seventh day is an abrogated part of Moses Law.

If the Creed be your Religion, you must take the Article of Christs descent into Hell to be necessary to salvation.

1. Is the Creed no part of your Religion? As you answer, so may we. 2. I did not tell you that the Creed had no more than the Essentials. I told you that all the Essence of Christianity is in the Baptismal Cove­nant: And he that understandeth that, understandeth it all. And that the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the Christian Decalogue are the exposition of it. But the Exposition may have somewhat more than the Essenti­als. 3. The Creed was not written first in English, nor Latine; And Christs descent to Hades is more needful to be believed, than his descent to Hell, as the word is commonly taken in English.

But, to conclude, remember, 1. That I profess here to own and plead for no other Religion (as we ex­plained the word) but Gods Law of Nature and Scripture. 2. That I profess to perswade D. to no other: And you cannot make me a Religion against my will.

CHAP. IV. What is the Papists Religion.

I Have plainly told you what my own, and the Protestants Religion is, viz. [ Nothing but Chri­stianity; contained Integrally in the holy Scriptures; And the Essentials being the Baptismal Covenant, ex­plained in the Creed, Lords prayer and Christian Deca­logue, are delivered to us both in the said Scriptures, and by distinct Tradition; which also hath brought down to us the Scripture it self: Not a Tradition de­pending on the pretended Authority of the Roman Pope or party, or on any other that shall pretend the like; But that Historical Evidence of matter of fact, which is sure­lier given us by all sorts of Christians, taking in the Concord of many Hereticks, Infidels and Enemies; which evidence dependeth not on the credit of superna­tural Revelation, but on the natural credibility yea and certainty of such universal Circumstantiated Concordant testimony; and is necessarily antecedent to the Belief of supernatural Revelations in the particulars, as sight and hearing were in the auditors of Christ and the Apostles; seeing these two Acts of Knowledge, [Whatever God saith is True; and This God saith] must necessarily go before our Belief or Trust that [This is True, because God saith it.] And so we run not in a circle, and need not a supernatural faith, for the founding of our first supernatural faith; that is, A first before the first.]

Without fraud or obscurity this is our faith and Re­ligion.

Now do you as honestly and plainly tell me What is Yours, which D. must be perswaded to: For I confess [Page 26] that I take it to be an unintelligible thing, and despair that ever you give any man a certain notice, what it is, which may be truly called the Religion of your Roman-Catholick-Church.

I shall make you understand it if you are willing: But 1. Note that [ Religion] being a larger word than [ faith] includeth also [ Practice] or [ Manners], we must give you a distinct account of each: For they have not the same Causes: Our Faith is Divine; But our Manners or Practice must follow the Laws of the Church, as well as the Immediate Laws of God: These must not be confounded.

Man hath three faculties, Intellective, Volitive and Vitally- Executive, or Active: Our Religion subjective­ly must be in all, viz. The Sanctity of all, by Holy Life, Light and Love: And therefore the Rule which is our objective Religion doth extend to all, (to Intellect, Will and Practice). And surely for All, there is a Rule directly Divine, given by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost or Christs own words, and subordinate Rules by Christs Ministers, which are directly Humane, and no other­wise Divine than as God hath in General authorized them thereto. Even as the Soveraign hath the only Ʋniversal Legislative power, and Magistrates by Him are authorized to subordinate mandates and acts of Go­vernment. And so we have a Divine Faith and Reve­lation, and a subordinate Humane faith and Ministerial Revelation or Preaching: We have Divine Perswasi­ons, and subordinate Perswasions of men: We have Divine Laws, yea and executions; and we have Hu­mane subordinate Laws and executions. If you resolve to call the Humane, Divine so far as they are indeed Authorized by God, I will not quarrel about words: But remember, 1. That so you must do also on the same reasons, by the Laws of Kings and the Commands of [Page 27] Parents, who are as much authorized by God to their proper Government. 2. And I hope you mean not to Confound these Humane Laws, with Gods own Ʋni­versal Laws, nor humane faith with Divine faith. And be it known to you, It is the Divine Revelations and Laws as distinct from the Humane, which we are now calling our Religion, and disputing of; though this Religion teach us to obey Parents, Pastors and Princes, and that obedience may be consequentially and reductively called Religious if you please. But if really your Religion be not Divine, but Humane, let us know it. For by the word [ Religion] we essentially mean that which is [ Divine.]

Men were the speakers and writers of the Scri­ptures, and so far they are humane, as well as the De­crees of the present Church.

The Decalogue was witten by God, and delivered by the Ministry of Angels: Christ was owned by a Voice from Heaven. And himself spake and did most re­cited by the four Evangelists: And the Prophets and Apostles spake by the immediate Infallible Inspiration of the Holy Ghost: So that the Holy Ghost is the Author of the Scriptures. But the present Pastors of the Church instead of that Immediate Revelation from God by the Spirits Inspiration, have but the ordinary help of the Spirit, to understand those same Revelati­ons, and that proportioned to the measure of their diligence, natural parts and helps of Art, as the knowledge of Theologie is attained by other Students; who are none of them perfect or free from error.

I will tell you what our Religion is, It is Gods Word concerning things to be Believed and Done deli­vered partly in the Canonical Scriptures, and partly by [Page 28] Oral Tradition, and received by the Church, and by it delivered to us. The Trent. Catech. Prefac. q. 12. saith, 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. Omnis doctrinae ratio, quae fidelibus tradenda sit, verbo Dei continetur, quod in Scri­pturam, Traditiones (que) distri­butum est. The Reason of every doctrine which is to be delivered to the faith­ful, is contained in the Word of God, which is distribu­ted into the Scripture and Traditions.

Vide Concil. Senonens. in Bin. Decr. 5. p. 671. & Concil. Tridentini Sess. 4. p. 802. — Perspiciensque hanc Veritatem & disciplinam contineri in libris sa­cris, & sine scripto Traditionibus, quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, & ab ipsi, Apostolis Spiritu sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum patrum sententiam sequu­ta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, nec non Traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores per­tinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu sancto dicta [...]as, & continua successione in Ecclesia Ca­tholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu & reverentia suscipit ac veneratur.

Bellarmin. de Verbo Dei, lib. 4. c. 2, 3. sheweth the divers sorts of unwritten Traditions which are part of Gods Word: some de side, as the perpetual Virginity of Mary, that there are but four Gospels, &c. and some of Manners; as Crossing, Fast-dayes, &c. Easter, Whitsontide, and other Festivals.

[Page 29] Veron de Reg. fid. cap. 2. saith,

So far Veron, who is most favourable to you, in nar­rowing our faith.

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 [Page 32] 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?

You take advantage of the disagreement of our Doctors. You know that some few acknowledg distinct fundamentals; 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. 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.

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.

Another of ours that cometh as near you as most, openeth this more fully, Davenport alias Fr. a [Page 35] Sancta Clara, De. Nat. Grat. p. 111, &c.

Much more saith Sancta Clara there, to prove that the ignorant Protestants here may be saved; citing fur­ther to his end, Zanchez in Decal. l. 2. c. 1. n. 8. Alph. [Page 37] a Castro, Simanca, Argon, Tanner, Faber, Eman [...]sa, Rozell. And out of Argon tells us when Faith is suffici­ently proposed, viz. ‘[When faith is so confirmed by Reasons, holiness of life, the confutation of the contrary errors, and by some signs, as that Reason it self beginneth prudently to prescribe, that the mat­ters of faith heard are to be believed, and the con­trary Sect is false.]’ p. 125.

And probl. 16. p. 127. ‘Whether men may be blamelesly ignorant of the Law of Nature and the Decalogue? The common opinion is that they may; not of the first principles, but 1. Of the easie conclu­sions for some time, and of the remoter conclusions for a longer time: Such are the Commandments of the Decalogue as to the substance of the act; as in some lying, theft, fornication, manslaughter (in Will at least) &c.’

Qu. II. But do you think that men may not as invincibly and inculpably be unacquainted with the Au­thority of the Pope and Ro­man Councils or Church, as you say they may be igno­rant of Christ, Holden. l. 1. c. 9. p. 169. Queret an teneatur quispiam a [...] 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. and the Law of Nature? I instance in the millions of the Abassme Christians, who for above a thousand years never heard from the Pope or his emissaries.

That cannot be denyed: For they have not the ne­cessary means.

How then do you make your Churches proposal to be the necessary point to be Explicitely believed of all?

We do not mean it of all that Will be saved: For [Page 38] you hear that some may be saved without any explicite belief of Christ. But we mean it of all that will be in the Church, and be saved there.

But do you not hold and say, that out of the Church there is no salvation?

Some say so: and some say that It is rare out of the Church.

But are the Ethiopian Christians out of the Church?

They are out of the true Church, being Schis­maticks.

Why said your Author before, that Infidels were not formally out of the Church who are invincibly ig­norant?

But other Doctors are of another opinion.

But Christ is the Saviour of his body: Are not those of the Church who are saved, or in a state of sal­vation? What hold you of that?

Some say, They are all of the Church: and others that Christ saveth more than his Church: And some say, that They are of the Church Regenerate, but not of the Church Congregate. But few own this, because it is your distinction: as of a visible and invisible Church.

Qu. III. But above all, I would know of you, what you mean by the Catholick Church, whose proposal is necessary to the being of faith?

We mean the Roman Catholick Church: that is, the Pope and his Subjects.

Do you mean the Pope without a General Coun­cil, or a General Council without the Pope? or only both agreeing and conjunct?

You take advantage of our differences: but those do but shew, that this is no point of faith. Some hold that the Pope alone may serve: and some, that the Pope [Page 39] in a Provincial Council: and some that a General Council without him: But you heard Veron taketh in the Council, and it is no true Council without the Pope: And therefore the surest opinion saith, that it must be both in Concord.

But what is the Ʋniversal Church whose Practice is made sufficient instead of, or without a General Council?

It is the whole Roman Church real, distinct from the Representative.

Is it the Clergy only, or the Laity only; or must it be both?

Both, but not equally; but in their several places.

Must it be All the Church, without any except­ed? Or only the greater part?

These are points not agreed of, and therefore not of faith. Some say that it must be so many as that the dissenters be not considerable. But how many are con­siderable or inconsiderable is undetermined. Others say, It may be the minor part that practise, so be it the rest do not contradict it, or do contrarily.

I will trouble you with no more such questions, (though I have a multitude which should be here re­solved) for I perceive that we must expect nothing but a Maze of uncertainties and confusion.

We are next in order to Agree upon our common principles which must be supposed in our following Di­spute: For they that Agree in nothing, are uncapable of disputing of any thing; seeing all conclusions of which we doubt, must be drawn from more evident truths, of which we are less doubtful, and resolved into a conceded Principle.

CHAP. I. The First Reason to prove Transubstantiation false.

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.

[Page 76]It is the first that I shall now prove false: And you must not forget the state of the Question, Aquin. p. 3. q. 75. a. 5. ad 3. Fides non est contra sensum, sed est d [...] eo ad quod sensus non attingit. But doth not sense say, Here is Bread and Wine? 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 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.

[Page 77]

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.

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.

I say that the Senses or Intellects perception are deceived.

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.

Then mad men cease to be men, if they judge otherwise.

Mad men are your fittest presidents: But, 1. I told you how mans nature is made by God to judge of [Page 78] 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 mis­judge. 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 Ʋnderstanding 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.

[Page 79] 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.

A heavy charge, if you can make it good.

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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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, [Page 82] 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 [Page 83] that a General Council could not agree to any thing a [...] an Article of faith if it were not such; (when it is bu [...] the Major Vote that agree); You say that Traditio [...] is Infallible, because All the Church agreeth in i [...] (when it is perhaps but your Sect, which is a Mino [...] part). But do you not overthrow all this, when yo [...] profess, that All the senses of all the sound men in th [...] world, and all the simple perceptions of their Intellect [...] by sense, do agree, that there is substance, yea, d [...] specie Bread and Wine after the Consecration? No on [...] mans perception by sense disagreed in this, from th [...] institution of the Sacrament to this day, that can be proved, or the least probability of it given. And i [...] this Concord be no proof, much less is yours: For▪ 1. The Intellect in Reasoning is more fallible than i [...] 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 [Page 84] 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.]

[Page 85] 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 Ʋnity 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 Ʋnity, 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, [Page 86] 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 [Page 87] 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.

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.

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?

Gods Revelation is surer than our senses?

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?

II. We may trust sense in all other things, where [Page 89] God doth not contradict it: But not in this One Case, because God forbiddeth us.

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?

You may know it because God saith it.

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.

I must believe my senses, where I have no reason to disbelieve them. But when God contradicteth them, I have reason to disbelieve them.

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 [Page 90] contradict himself, or his own word, how can I believe him, or know which of his words it is thats 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?

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?

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 [Page 91] 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.

IV. Christs Body and Blood are not sensible ob­jects; and therefore sense is no proper judge whether they be present.

This is one of your gross kind of cheats, to change the question. We are not yet come to the question, Whether Christs Body and blood be here? And I grant you that sense is no judge of that, any more than whether an Angel be here. But the question is now only, Whe­ther Bread or Wine or sensible substance be here? And of this we have no natural way but by sense to judge.

V. If God should say to you [ Your senses are in this deceived; Here is no bread or wine or sensible sub­stance] Would you not believe him?

[Page 92]

1. Again I tell you, it is a supposition not to be put: As if you should say, [ If God should say, that part of the Gospel or word of God is false, would you not be­lieve him?] 2. If I know that God telleth me that some disease or false medium, &c. deceive me or ano­ther in particular, I will believe him: But here it is supposed, 1. That I have assurance that it is God that tells me so; 2. And that I have no assurance that com­mon sense saith the contrary. But if the sense of all the world about a well scituate object of sense agree, I will not take that to be Gods word which contradicteth it, till I have some evidence which is better and stronger than the agreeing senses of all the world to prove it to be so. And what evidence must that be? I assure you somewhat greater than the authority of a beastly ignorant murder­ing Pope, and his factious Council.

VI. Cartesius giveth you an instance of deception of sight: We think a square Tower of a Steeple to b [...] round till we come neer it: And the water seemeth to us to move when it is the boat.

Cartesius and you do seem to be Confederate, to put out the eye of nature, and tempt the world to Infide­lity, if not to Atheism. 1. Nature tells us that a distan [...] Steeple or other object, is not perfectly discernible and therefore Nature forbiddeth us to judge till w [...] come neerer. We speak only of objects duly scituate an [...] qualified. 2. The failing of the sight there is but Ne­gative: It discerneth not the corners: but here yo [...] feign it to be positive. 3. As the errour is corrigibl [...] by nearer approach, so also by the use of other sense [...] ▪ If a man feel the Tower that is square, he will infallibly perceive it. But if you could prove that this squar [...] Tower is no Tower, no Stone, no Substance at all, thoug [...] all the world should judge otherwise that see it at th [...] [Page 93] meetest distance, and feel it with their hands, then you did something to the purpose.

So as to the moving water or banks, 1. Motion is not so evident as substance. 2. Though one sense, through the weakness of the brain be insufficient, the Intellect by the same sense about other objects, and by other senses can infallibly discern what that one perceiveth not. 3. And if one mans eyes deceive him who is in the boat, ten thousand mens eyes that stand on the firm land, per­ceive the truth: But in our case it is all the senses of all the world, in all ages, about the neerest object, that agree.

VII. Substance is not the proper object of sense, but only Accidents: We see, feel, taste, smell the ac­cidents, but not the substances.

1. If you can name some notional speculator or Word-maker that hath said so, you think you have au­thority to renounce humanity by it. Call it proper or not-proper, substance is the certain object of sense as cloathed with its accidents. Quantity and the res quanta are not two things, but one: And he that feel­eth or seeth quantity, feeleth or seeth the rem quan­tam. He that seeth or feeleth shape or figure, seeth or feeleth the thing figured. He that smelleth odor, smel­ [...]eth rem odoratam; He that seeth Colour, seeth the rem coloratam. When to feel the superficies, you feel [...]he substance.

2. By this we see how by words you will unman man­kind. Have you any way of perception of corporal sub­stances but by sense? Do you know that there is any Earth or Water, or any corporal substance in the world, or not? If you do, tell us how you know it but by the [...]erception of sense presenting it to the Intellect? You know that you must thus know it, or not at all.

3. And thus still you would bring men with Scepti­cism [Page 94] to Infidelity. You would teach men, that they that saw Christ were not sure that they saw him or any substance at all, but only the accidents, called Quantity, Shape, Colour, &c. They that saw Apostles, Miracles, Bibles, Councils, were not sure that they saw any more than accidents, &c.

VIII. They that saw Angels appearing to them like men, or the Holy Ghost descending on Christ in the shape of a Dove, thought they saw Men and a Dove: So Moses Rod did seem a Serpent. But their senses did deceive them.

Their senses were not at all deceived: And if by rash judging they would go beyond sense, and wilfully deceive themselves, it was their fault. Their sense saw the shape or likeness of a man and dove. The text saith, not that the Holy Ghost was a dove, but that it descend­ed in the likeness of a Dove: and their senses perceived no more. And this was true. A man consisteth of a soul and a body of flesh and blood: Did sense perceive any of this in the Angels? either, soul, flesh or blood? or any such thing in the appearance of a dove? If I see your picture or statue, is my sense deceived if I take it not for a living man? It I see it moved, is my sense deceived if I take it not for any other than a mov­ing Image? Nature doth not bind me to take every simile to be idem; a corps for a man; an Image for the person. It will be foolishness so to take it. But if this Angel, or Dove, had come near to the senses, all the senses, of all sorts of men, and they had seen, and felt, and tasted, and smelt, all that are the objects of these senses, and yet there had been indeed no visible, tactible, sensible substance at all, this had been a deception of the senses remediless. Christ I am sure appealed to sense, to prove that he had flesh and blood and was not a meer spirit. The same I say of Moses Rod: either it [Page 95] was really a Serpent or not; If it was, then it was no deception to judge it such: If not, sense was not at all deceived: For it perceived nothing but the similitude and motion, and those (with the substance) were certainly there. But if all mens senses, seeing, feeling, tasting, &c. had been deceived, and there had been indeed no shape of a Serpent, nor any sensible substance at all but Accidents real without any substance, this had been in­deed a deception of the senses. And if God so subvert mans nature, he will not bind him to do the things which belong to the nature of man to do.

But by all this we may perceive, that there is no end of Controversies with you to be hoped for: For how is it possible to bring any thing to a more satisfying issue, than when the senses of all the world do as clearly perceive it, as any sensible thing can be perceived? If our difference were whether this be Paper, and these be Letters; or whether this be a Pen, a Table, yea or a sub­stance, and I should appeal to the sense of all the World, and yet this will not serve to decide the Con­troversie; what end, or hope of ending can there be: I will sooner look for concord with a mad man, than with men that deny the senses of all the World.

CHAP. III. The second Argument against Transubstantiation: The Contradictions of it.

Arg. 2. GOd owneth not Contradictions (nor can do). The Papists doctrine of Transubstantiation, or nullification of the whole sub­stance of Bread and Wine, is contradictious: There­fore it is not owned by God.

The Major I know no man that denyeth.

The Contradictions are these.

I. You feign many Accidents of no substance; which is a gross contradiction. For to be an Accident is essentially Relative to a subject or substance: And ejus esse est inesse. To be a Father without a Son, or a Son without a Father, a Husband without a Wife, or a Wife without a Husband, &c. are contradictions: And so it is to be an Accident of nothing, or without a subject.

Particularly, 1. The quantity of nothing is a con­tradiction: We can measure the Bread, and Wine: To be an inch in longitude, latitude or profundity, and yet to be no substance is a contradiction. To be (as the Wine is) a quart, a gallon of Nothing is a contra­diction.

2. So for number; we can number the wafers or pieces of Bread, and the Cups of Wine: And to be twenty, forty, an hundred nothings, is a contradi­ction.

3. So for the Weight, To be an ounce, a pound, or ten pound, of nothing, is a contradiction.

[Page 97]4. So for the figure or shape: It is a contradicti­on to be a round nothing, a square nothing, &c.

5. So is it to be a sweet nothing, a sharp nothing, an austere nothing, &c. as the Wine is fancied by you.

6. Or to be an odoriferous nothing: A rough or a smooth nothing, &c.

7. Or to be a white nothing, or a red nothing, or any coloured nothing. The same I may say of site, and of a multitude of Relations, &c.

II. It is a contradiction, for Nothing to have all those Real notable effects, which it is certain that the consecrated Bread and Wine have.

As, 1. That when a man or a beast, is really nou­rished by the Bread and Wine, and flesh and blood, and spirits are made of it, (as they may live by it many months,) that these should be the effects of nothing, or made out of no substance by way of Nutrition, with­out a proper Creation.

2. When the Consecrated Bread and Wine do part­ly turn to Excrements, Ʋrine, Dung and Spittle, that all the Excrements are nothings or made of nothing without a new Creation, is a contradiction.

3. When the Wine shall (as it may do) make a man or a swine drunk, that he is made drunk by nothing or no substance, when as that drunkenness is essentially the operation of the spirits of the Wine upon the spirits of him that drinks it, this also is a contradiction. And God maketh not contradictions true.

It is the plea of an Infidel to say that God cannot do this or that. Will you limit the power of the Almighty? Will you say that God cannot make Quan­tity, quality, site, &c. without substance, because we cannot? It is blasphemy to say God cannot.

[Page 98]

God can do All things that are works of Power: God can do nothing which is a work of Impotency, defectiveness, naughtiness, or folly, or which are con­tradictions in themselves. And when we say God can­not, we do but say either that God is Perfect and Al­mighty, or that the thing is Nothing, but a false name, and not capable of being any ones work. God cannot lye, because he is perfect and Almighty, and not be­cause he wanteth power. God cannot make you to be a man and no man, a substance and no substance, in the same sence, at the same time: because it is a con­tradiction.

But if this Argument did not hold, and it were no contradiction, for God to overturn his setled course of Nature, I shall shew you next that we have other rea­sons enough to judge that he doth it not. If he Can make darkness to give Light, and a clod to be to the World instead of the Sun, without changing it, or a stone to understand and speak without changing it, yet that God doth none of this, both reason and ex­perience prove.

CHAP. IV. The Third Argument against Transubstantiation: from the certain falshood of their assertion of multitudes of Miracles in it.

THat doctrine which asserteth a multitude of false or feigned Miracles is false and not of God: But such is the doctrine of Transubstantiation— Ergo—

I will 1. Shew you what Miracles it asserteth; and 2. Prove that they are feigned or false.

I. It is a Miracle for Bread and Wine to be turned in­to no Bread and Wine, yea, into nothing; and this by the speaking of four words.

II. It is a Miracle (or Contradiction) for the Bread and Wine to be turned into Christs Body and Blood, and yet neither the matter nor form of it to be­come any of the matter of Christs body and blood.

III. It is a Miracle, (or a contradiction rather as aforesaid) for the Accidents to be the Accidents of No­thing, or no substance; to be the quantity of Nothing, the shape, the number of nothing, the colour, savour, smell of nothing, and so of all the rest.

IV. It is a Miracle to have all the sound senses of all sorts of men in the world so deceived herein, as to per­ceive bread, wine and substance, if there be none.

V. It is a Miracle to have the senses of Mice and Rats, and Dogs and other Brutes also deceived when they eat and drink it.

VI. It is a Miracle (or contradiction) to have nothing without a Creation, to become excrements: or else those excrements to be nothing also: And the [Page 100] Accidents of all those excrements to be the Accidents of Nothing.

VII. It is a Miracle to be nourished by Nothing: (For you say, that it is not Christs body and blood that nourisheth the flesh.) To have flesh and blood made of nothing, is a creation.

VIII. It is a Miracle to be drunk with nothing, when the Wine is annihilated or gone, and seemeth to be it that causeth the effect: Yea, for Beast or man to be so drunk.

IX. It is a Miracle (or contradiction) for Christ to eat his own body (as the Papists hold he did); and yet it was his Whole Body which did eat his body, and yet he had but one body.

X. It was a Miracle (or contradiction) for Christs entire body to be nourished by that eaten body, and that the eaten body turned into the substance of his eating body: And yet all was but one.

XI. It was a Miracle that Christs Eaten body being not dead but living with a humane soul, should be broken and eaten by him and his disciples, and yet feel no pain by it.

XII. It was a Miracle that his whole body was on the Cross; and yet part of it in the disciples bellies at that time; or at least before that eaten by them.

XIII. It was a Miracle (or contradiction) that Christs eaten body now nourisheth not the flesh of any man; and yet did nourish the flesh of the disciples be­fore his death. Or if it did not nourish them, it was a Miracle that what they eat and drank then did not nou­rish them, (or Christ what he eat and drank).

XIV. It was a Miracle that the whole body of Christ should arise and live, and ascend to Heaven, when the disciples had eaten it.

[Page 101]XV. It is a Miracle that every Receiver eateth the whole body of Christ, and not a part, and yet that he hath but one body; or that they eat each a part with­out dividing him.

XVI. It is a Miracle that as soon as the species of Bread and Wine perish or cease in the Eater, Christs body and blood ceaseth to be in him, and this without his detriment.

XVII. It is a Miracle that there is such a local di­stance between the consecrated bread and wine all over the world; and yet no such distance between the parts of Christs body, and yet that bread to be his body.

XVIII. It is a Miracle that bread and wine is An­nihilated or cease every Mass, and yet that the quanti­ty of corporeal matter in the whole world is no whit diminished: or else that those four words can so anni­hilate and diminish the matter of the world.

XIX. It is a Miracle that Christs body and blood increase not, when so many millions of parcells of bread and wine are turned into it.

XX. It is a Miracle that Christs body and blood is not diminished, when by the Corruption of the species of bread and wine, it vanisheth away.

XXI. It is a Miracle that Christs body and blood should be so received into the bowels of a wicked man, and yet not be any way defiled by his sin, nor by his bodily uncleanness.

XXII. It is a Miracle that a Baker dispositively, and a Priest effectually can make his own God, and eat him when they have done.

XXIII. It is a Miracle that when Worms are bred of that which was bread and wine, these worms are really generated of nothing, or created; (or if as some say, the bread and wine do substantially return again, and breed them, that is another, a double miracle.)

[Page 102]XXIV. And it is a Miracle that the Corporeal matter of the world should by these Worms be daily in­creased, out of nothing, or out of meer accidents that have no substance.

XXV. It is a Miracle that men may be poysoned by the Sacramental Elements as ingredients in the mix­ture, and yet that they are no substance.

XXVI. It is a Miracle or Contradiction, that when flesh and blood (formally such) enter not into the King­dom of God, but Glorified bodies are all spiritual bo­dies (though not Spirits), and therefore not flesh and blood: Yet Christs body in the Sacrament should be truly and properly flesh and blood, and yet the same with his glorified body (which is not flesh and blood:) which is the Papists doctrine; and the bread turned into such flesh.

XXVII. It is a Miracle that the same Body which in Heaven is brighter in Glory than the Sun, and exalt­ed above Angels, should yet shew no signs of Glory on the Altar, in the Cup, in the hand, mouth or belly of him that taketh it; but all its Glory be so hid.

XXVIII. It is a Miracle (or Contradiction) that Christs Humiliation should be past, and his whole Body Glorified, and yet that to be torn with the teeth of a wicked man, to be eaten by Mice, Rats or Dogs, to go into the filthy guts, to be trodden in the dirt, should be neither painful, nor any diminution of the Glory of that same body. Indeed his body on the Cross might be broken, and his blood spilt and trodden on, because he was a sacrifice for sin; and it was the time of his Vo­luntary Humiliation: But now for the suffering of death he is crowned with Glory and Honour, Heb. 2.9, 7.

XXIX. It is a Miracle that the Living Body of our Glorified Redeemer should give no evidence or sign of [Page 103] life; neither stir, nor speak, nor have breath, pulse, warmth, or other property of life appearing.

XXX. It is a Miracle, at least, that flesh should have none of the common notes or properties of flesh, not to be made of food, of blood and chyme, not to con­sist of the fibrae which flesh consisteth of; not to have the colour, taste, odour or other such accidents of flesh: And that Blood should have none of these noti­fying accidents of blood.

XXXI. It is a Miracle or Contradiction, that Christs Flesh was Broken before it was broken, sacri­ficed before it was sacrificed, I mean really broken and sacrificed at his Supper, when yet he was whole and not really sacrificed till he was nailed to the Cross. And so that his blood was really and properly shed in his Supper, and yet no skin broken, nor his blood really shed till his side was pierced on the Cross. And that he that was but once offered and sacrificed, should yet be offered and sacrificed once on one day, and another time on another day.

Here are one and thirty Miracles or Contradictions: Let us hear some of the Aggravations of them, as wor­thy to be considered.

I. It is a Miracle of these Miracles, that there should be as many Miracle workers as Priests in the world: How many thousand are they in France alone? And so in many other Countreys. Whereas in Christs own time, they were comparatively but few.

II. That the Pope or any Prelate can make a Mi­racle worker when he please, yea, a thousand; as if the Holy Ghost were at his will.

III. It is a Miracle of these Miracles that a Simonist who buyeth the Priesthood with money, doth buy the Holy Ghost to work Miracles for that money, which Simon Magus was condemned for thinking possible. [Page 104] For the Papists hold, that the Consecration of a Simoni­acal Priest transubstantiateth.

IV. It is a Miracle that all this power of Miracles should be given to flagitious wicked men; Adulterers, Murderers, Drunkards, &c.

V. It is a Miracle that all these men can work Mira­cles at their own will and pleasure, at any hour: where­as the Apostles had not the Spirit at command, and could not do it when they would.

VI. It is a Miracle that Miracles should be as com­mon as Masses, or the Eucharistical worshipping of God; not only on every Lords Day in all Church-as­semblies, but any day or hour else in the Week. And so Miracles be as ordinary almost as to eat and drink.

VII. It is a Miracle that every wicked Priest should do so many Miracles in one, and so many more in number than Christ himself did, in the same proporti­on of time, as far as the History of the Gospel telleth us: Christ is quite exceeded by them all.

VIII. It is a Miracle that every wicked Priest can work all these Miracles so easily, as with the careless saying over four words: When the Apostles could not cast out some Devils, or work some Miracles, and some could not be done but by fasting and prayer.

IX. It is a Miracle that every Priest can work all these Miracles upon an unbeliever or a wicked man: For to such they say, it is the real flesh and blood of Christ, and no bread or wine; And the senses of all these wicked men are deceived. Whereas Christ him­self could not do any great miraculous work among some where he came, because of their unbelief.

X. It is a Miracle that God and the Priest should do these foresaid Miracles on Mice and Rats and other Beasts, by deceiving their senses, which we find not [Page 105] that Christ ever did: or that God should feed them with the miraculous accidents aforesaid.

XI. It is a Miracle of these Miracles that the Priest can thus easily work Miracles not only on other crea­tures, but on the glorified body of Christ himself, (by the foresaid changes, &c.)

XII. It is a Miracle, that when Christ wrought his Miracles usually before a far smaller number, these Priests work Miracles thus before or on the senses of all the men in the world that will be present at the Mass; for all their senses are deceived.

XIII. It is a Miracle that the Abassines, Armeni­ans, Greeks, Protestants, yea, any that they call Schisma­ticks, and Hereticks, Vid. Aquin. 3. q. 82. a. 7. c. who do not intend to work any Miracle, nor believe Transub­stantiation, do yet work Miracles in each Sacramental ad­ministration of the Eucharist, not only without their knowledge, but contrary to their belief, and against their wills: For they say, that even such mens consecration is effectual.

XIV. Either their Priests consecration worketh all these Miracles, when they intend it not, Vid. Aquin. 3. q. 69. a. 9. (as if they speak the words in jeast or scorn, or in Infidelity,) or only when they intend it. If the first be said, it is a Miracle of Miracles, that any Priest can work so many and great Miracles by a jeast or scorn—If not, then all the business is come to nothing, and no one but the Priest knoweth whether there be any such Miracle at all, and whether ever he eat the flesh of Christ: And so it will be in the power of the Priest to deceive and damn all the people, according to the Papists exposition of Christs words, Joh. 6. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

[Page 106]XV. Either a malicious intention to a wrong end will be effectual in Consecration, or not. If not, none but the Priest knoweth that there is any body and blood of Christ, or that ever he received any: Because none knoweth though the Priest intend Consecration, whe­ther he intend it to a right end. But if a wicked end will serve (as I think most of them hold) the Miracle may be great and sad. For any Roguish drunken mali­cious Priest may undo a Baker or Vintner at his plea­sure, and by four words deprive him of all his Bread and Wine: Yea, he might nullifie all the Bread and Wine in the City, and so either make a famine at his pleasure, or else make whole Families and Cities live still and be nourished without any substance by bare Acci­dents, which would be a Miracle indeed.

If the Priest can by consecration change only a con­venient quantity of bread and wine, then all that is overmuch is bread and wine after consecration. If otherwise, why may he not change all the bread and wine in the Shop or Cellar where he cometh, intending consecration to an ill end?

If he can do it only on the Altar, then want of an Altar would frustrate the effect (which they hold not). But if he can do it without an Altar he may do it in the Shop and Cellar.

If he can do it only on the bread and wine present, how near must it be? Then the words will work at so many yards distance, and not at so many. Or if he can­not do it out of sight, a blind Priest cannot do it. But if he can do it on that which is absent, we may fear lest in an anger he may take away all the bread and wine in the Land; at least in a frolick to try his power.

[Page 107]XVI. And it is some aggravaion of these manifold Miracles that a Degraded Priest can do them: Vid. Aquin. 3. q. 82. a. 8. Because they follow the indelible Cha­racter: And so he that hath once made a Miracle-worker, cannot take away his power again, nor his sin lose his power. Is not this a marvellous power of Mi­racles, which becometh like a nature to them, as the power of speaking is?

XVII. Yet is this Miracle-working-power more miraculous, in that a mans own unwillingness, or Re­pentance of his Calling cannot hinder the Miracle if he do but speak four words. Consent it self is not neces­sary to it: Let a man Repent that ever he was a Priest, and profess that he continueth in that Calling against his will, yea, let him write as I now do against Tran­substantiation, yet all this will not hinder his next Con­secration from working all the foresaid Miracles.

XVIII. It is miraculous that if you keep a conse­crated Wafer never so long, if you use it never so coursly, if you (as he did who occasioned the conver­sion of Mr. Anthony Egan a late Irish Priest) pawn it at an Ale-house for thirty shillings; if you lay it down for a stake at Cards or Dice, &c. it will not cease to be Christs flesh (and so by his blood,) nor ever becomes bread, or any other substance till it corrupt: And yet in a mans stomach it ceaseth to be Christs body, as na­tural heat corrupteth it by concoction: And yet it is not Christs flesh that is concocted.

XIX. It is a Miracle of this Miracle which Aquinas and others assert, that the Bread and Wine are not An­nihilated, but wholly turned into Christs body and blood; and yet, as Vasquez saith, It is not that the matter of bread begins to be under the form of Christs body (as Durandus held.) Saith Veron Reg. fid. cap. 5. [Page 108] This Transubstantiation is neither a change nor a pro­duction of any thing; but it is a Relation of order be­tween the substance that doth desist to be, and that into which it doth desist. And yet saith the Concil. Trident. There is a change made of the whole sub­stance into, &c.

XX. Lastly, It is a Miracle that all these Miracles should be done so as not to appear to the senses of any man living, either to Convert Unbelievers or Con­firm the faithful: So that millions of these Miracles are seen and not 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 [Page 109] 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 [Page 111] 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. 2 Cor. 12.12. Rom. 15.19. Act. 14.3. & 15.12. 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, Matth. 21.15. 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.

[Page 112]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 [...]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 [Page 113] 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. Its 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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? 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 Pe [...]. 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.

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 [Page 116] 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 Saint, and yet not the benefits or effects? As if Christs flesh and blood could be in a mans body without his benefit: When he hath promised that he that eateth him, shall live by him. Yet see the measures of their faith and Church: Saith Aquinas (3. q. 80. a. 3. ad 2.) [ Ʋnless perhaps an In­fidel intend to Receive that which the Church giveth, though he have not true faith about other Articles or about this Sacrament] then he may receive sacramen­tally.

CHAP. VI. The fourth Argument. This Miraculous Transubstan­tiation is expresly contrary to the Word of God, in Scripture.

Arg. 4. THe Papists say that there is no bread after the words of Consecration: Gods word saith, There is Bread after the Consecration: Therefore the Papists speak contrary to the Word of God.

I. In 1 Cor. 11. It is called expresly BREAD after consecration no less than three times in three verses to­gether, 26, 27, 28. ‘[For as oft as ye eat this Bread and Drink this cup, ye shew the Lords death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and blood of the Lord. But let a man exa­mine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup]:’ Here they that call for express words of Scripture for our doctrine, without our con­sequences, may see their own faith expresly contradicted, and our opposition justified: The Holy Ghost here ex­presly calleth it Bread: And yet no expresness nor evi­dence will satisfie them.

By Bread is meant that which was Bread before, or else that which nourisheth the soul as Bread doth the body: And so it is metonymically only called Bread, as Christs Flesh is called Bread in Joh. 6.

Why then do you call for express texts of Scri­pture as our proof, when that expresness signifieth no­thing with you; but you can say, It is a metonymie or a metaphor at your pleasure. But you say so against notorious Evidence: The Apostle calleth it Bread so [Page 118] often over and over, as if he had foreseen your in­humane heresie: He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten, joyned with Drinking the Cup; never once calling either of them the Flesh or Blood of Christ, but as he reciteth Christs words which he expoundeth. Yea he telleth us that eating this bread, and drinking this cup, is to shew the Lords death till he come; where he calleth us to look back at Christs death as past, in our Commemoration, and to look forward to his personal coming as future; but never telleth us that we must kill Christ and eat him our selves (when we have made him), nor that his body is there present un­der the accidents of Bread and Wine.

But the rest of the Scriptures as expresly justifie our doctrine. 1 Cor. 10.15. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion (or Communication) of the blood of Christ: And the Bread which we break, is it not the communion (or participation) of the body of Christ?] Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Conse­cration, if the Holy Ghost may be believed.

And in the next words the Apostle repeateth it in his reason [ For we being Many are One Bread, and One Body▪ For we all partake of one Bread (or Loaf).] Is not here express proof?

So Act. 20.7. When we came together to break Bread — And v. 11. He ascending, and break­ing bread, and eating &c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Consecration (which ever went before the Breaking).

So Act. 2.42, 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread.

And what else can the recitation of Christs institution mean, 1 Cor. 11.23, 24. Panem accepisse, fregisse; to have taken Bread, and having given thanks, to have broken? What is it that he brake? Its non-sence if it [Page 119] have no accusative case that it respects? And plain Grammatical construction tells us then, that it must be that before mentioned, What he Took he blessed, and brake and gave: But he took Bread and the Cup —. The same is in Mat. 26, 26, 27. and the other Evangelists.

II. The Scriptures expresly ( Act. 2, &c.) make the Killing of Christ, and drawing his blood, to be the hey­nous sin of the Jews, for which some Repented and others were cast off: Therefore it is not to be believed that Christ did first kill or tear himself, and shed his own blood; or that his disciples did kill him, or tear his flesh and shed his blood, before the Jews did it. And if they tore his flesh and drank his blood, and yet killed him not, the event altered not the fact: The Jews did but break his flesh and shed his blood. If you fly to a good intention, Paul will come in for some further ex­cuse for his persecution.

III. 1 Cor. 10.21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils. — Here note 1. That the same phrase is used of the Participa­tion of the Lords mysteries and the Devils. But it was not the flesh and blood or the substance of Devils which the Idolaters ever intended to partake of: but only their sacrifices.

2. It is here called only the Table and the Cup, and not the flesh and the blood.

3. It is said that They could not partake of both: whereas according to the Papists doctrine, if a man should partake of the Idols sacrifice in the morning, and of the Lords Table in the evening (without repen­tance,) he should really partake of Christs own flesh and blood; which the Text saith cannot be done.

It meaneth only, You cannot Lawfully, or you [Page 120] ought not to partake of both, but not that it is impossible or never done.

No doubt but it meaneth that They ought not, or cannot Lawfully; but thats not all: The text plainly meaneth, You cannot have communion with both: You may take the bread and wine at your peril; but you can­not partake of it as a sacramental feast which God pre­pareth you, and so partake of Christ therein.

And the same is said (expounding this) 2 Cor. 6.15. What concord hath Christ with Belial— and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols?] Inti­mating that Communion with God and Idols, Christ and Belial, are (so far) inconsistent: But by the Papists doctrine an Idolater and Son of Belial may partake of the very substance of Christs body and blood, into his body, as verily as he partaketh of his meat and drink.

IV. The Scripture teacheth us expresly to judge of sensible things by sense. Luk. 24.39. [ Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my self: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.] And v. 43, [ he did eat before them] to confirm their faith. But they could have no more sen­sible evidence of any of this, than we have of the being of Bread and Wine, or some sensible substance after Consecration. Joh. 2.9. they tasted the water turned into Wine, and were convinced.

But the Body of Christ here is not a sensible thing.

But Bread and Wine are sensible things.

But They are not There; and so are no objects of sense.

But all our senses say that They are there; and by them we must judge.

Your senses perceive nothing but Accidents: and your understanding must believe God, and so (as you [Page 121] noted out of Aquinas before) there is no deceit either of sense or Intellect.

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, thats 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 [Page 122] 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 [Page 124] 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 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?

[Page 125]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 [Page 126] 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 [Page 127] 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 [Page 129] [ 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 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. See my More Reasons for the Christian Religion, and the Lord Herbert de Veritate. 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 [Page 130] 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 [Page 131] 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 Ʋnity 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, Ʋnum & 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 [Page] 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.

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 Fathers held, except by [Page 133] 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.

You know that Albertinus is answered.

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.

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?

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. [Page 134] But I pray tell me, How know you that the Church and Fathers did so believe?

Because the present Church saith so; which can­not err.

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?

Yes: but this is a matter of faith.

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?

By their testimony in a General Council.

Did you hear the Council say so?

No: but the Church telleth me that the Council said so.

Who is it that you now call the Church which tells you so?

My Superiours, who have it from the Pope, and their Fathers.

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?

I know it by the Decrees of the Council yet extant.

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?

The Church is a safe keeper of its, own Re­cords.

[Page 135]

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.

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.

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?

Those Records themselves, even the visible Writings of the Fathers and Councils are for Transub­stantiation.

Till you have perswaded me out of my senses, I will not believe you. I pray you tell me if you can of [Page 136] any Author or Council that ever used the name [Transubstantiation] before Stephanus Aeduensis after the year 1100, de Sacram. Altar. c. 13.

Though the name be new, the Doctrine is not.

Tell me next, what General Council did ever de­termine it, before the Council of Laterane under In­noc. 3. an. 1215.

Not expresly: for General Councils need not mention it, till the Albigenses Hereticks gave them oc­casion by denying it.

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.

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.

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 [Page 137] 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 number after at Trent had spake the minds of all the Churches.

2. You suppose all the members of a Council to be of one mind: when as they determine by the Major Vote. And oft times the difference is not above two or three, and its possible one Voice may turn the scales: And perhaps one, or two, or ten may be absent one day, and present another, and so the Cry of [ the Judgement of all the Bishops in the world] may signifie no more, but that two or three of the other side staid a little too long at dinner that day, while the other par­ty carryed it by their absence. And I pray you where hath God promised, that the faith of an hundred and one shall not fail, when the faith of ninety nine of the same company may fail (supposing the Council to be two hundred): Or why are the one hundred and one the Bishops of all the world, and not the ninety nine?

3. Do you think we never read the History of the Council of Trent? and before them, of the Councils of Ariminum, Ephes. 2, yea, Calcedon, &c.? And yet must we suppose, that men come thither all of one mind? when they have such shameful Contentions? Such cunning contrivances to get the majority of Votes? Such awe and terror from the power of the Chief? and such carnal dependances and respects to their seve­ral worldly interests? Yea, sometimes fighting it out unto blood (as Dioscorus and Flavianus case doth shamefully evince?)

[Page 138]4. And must we suppose mens minds to be changed in their sleep, when the awe or the oratory of other men change them? Do we not know the Course of the Parliaments of England of later times? How much a few men of more than ordinary parts and interest, can do with the rest? And how oft the major Vote hath gone against the sense of the far greater number of the House?

5. And do we not know, that ordinarily he that is sent to the Council from a Province, is chosen as it pleas­eth the Pope, the King, or the Archbishop, or some in greatest power; and rarely according to the free-will and sense of the greater part of the Clergy. If five hundred to one of the Clergy of a Kingdom be of one mind, and the Prince, or chief men, or powerfullest Prelates be of another, they will send a Bishop thither of their own mind.

6. Do you think we know not that all the Papists are not past the third or fourth part of the Christian world? Why then should their sense be called the sense of all the Christian world?

7. Do you think we know not how little reason you have to say, that the Council at Laterane spake the sense of all the Church? When the Decrees were but pro­posed by Pope Innocent, and recited there without any due Synodical deliberation, and some liked them, and some disliked them? as you may find in Math. Paris in K. John, Nauclerus Gener. 41. ad an. 1215. Gode­fridus ad an. 1215. Platina in Vita Innoc. 3. And this one of your late false Scriblers in a Book for Tole­ration also saith; Though the Disputers against Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pierson copiously and confidently justifie that Council: and indeed with you it passeth for an Approved one.

[Page 139]8. And were not your arguing as strong for the Council of Ephes. 2. and that at Arim. and Sirmium, and divers at Constantinople disallowed, and those at Constance and Basil, (where were many times the num­ber of the Council at Trent)? Did these Councils all go to bed of one mind, and rise of another? Or did they not know what their Fathers faith was? Why then do you reprobate them, and deny that which they de­creed as of faith? Is it not a shame, to talk of [ the Bishops of all the world] and [ Tradition from their Fathers] when your meaning is but that All these may err, and do oft err, unless one man, the Pope approve them? But where sense is renounced, we must not ex­pect modesty.

But the antient Councils and Fathers are against you, as is to be seen.

It is utterly false: I will not abuse the Reader so as to carry him into a Wood, and lose him among a multitude of old Books, when he hath more satisfactory evidence enough at hand.

But, I. As to all your Citations from true antiquity (for your forged Authors and corrupted Testimonies we regard not) they are answered by this one true observation, that when old Writers sometimes say, that after consecration it is [ No more bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ], their whole Context plainly sheweth, that they mean that it is no more MEER or Common Bread and Wine; and usually they so speak. Because forma denominat, and it is the ultimate form that denominateth, all antecedent forms being but the dispositio materiae. As if the question be, Whether a Shilling be Silver or Money? Before the Coining, it was but Silver; but after, it is no more Common Silver, but Money: Silver is but the matter, and not the de­nominating form. Is your Garment to be called Cloth, [Page 140] or a Cloak? Before the making it was but Cloth, but now it is not meer Cloth, but a Cloak. The same I may say of the Kings Crown and Scepter, or of any Relative, Representative or Personating form that is added to any matter or man. This is the plain mean­ing of the Antients.

II. And as to what they say against you, I will now only give you a few brief instances.

1. Justin Martyr. in Dial. cum Tryph. saith, [ The offering of Flower delivered to be offered for them that were cleansed of the Leprosie, was a Type of the BREAD of the Eucharist which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to make in remembrance of his passion, &c.]

And more plainly Apolog. 2. (indeed the first) [ When the President hath given thanks, and all the people acclaimed, those that with us are called Deacons, distribute to every one present BREAD and WINE and Water, and bring them to those that are absent.]

2. Irenaeus saith lib. 4. c. 34. [ For as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the divine invocation, is not now Common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the Terrene and the Celestial, &c.]

See more out of him in Albertinus, at large.

3. Tertullian cont. Marcion l. 3. c. 19. [ Calling Bread his Body, that hence you may understand that he gave to Bread the Figure of his body.]

And before l. 1. [ He reprobated not — Bread, by which he Representeth his very Body.]

And lib. 4. cap. 40. [ The Bread which he took and distributed to his Disciples he made his body, saying, This is my Body; that is, The figure of my body. — And what he would have Bread then signifie, he suffi­ciently declared, calling Bread his Body.]

[Page 141]And it is a notable passage of Tertullians against the Academicks that questioned sense, lib. de anim. c. 17. [ What dost thou, O procacious Academick? Thou overthrowest the whole state of life: Thou disturbest the whole 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 Ʋnanimity, 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 [Page 142] 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 [Page 143] 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 SƲBSTANCE, 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?

[Page]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.

But you said also, that the Present Church and its Tradition is against Transubstantiation, as well as the Antient: How prove you that?

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 Ʋsher hath detected) by one words addition they have shamelesly endeavoured to corrupt the Ethi­opick [Page 145] Liturgy about the Real presence.) But I need no more proof of that which no faithful History doth deny.

And then I need not prove, that Transubstantiation is against the most General or Common Tradition, For all these Christians, the Greeks, Armenians, Abas­sines, &c. profess to follow the Religion which they have received from their Ancestors, as well as the Papists do: And if the Papists be to be believed in saying that this is the Religion which they received from their forefathers, Why are not the other to be believed in the same case? And if the Popish Tradi­tion seem regardable to them, Why should not the Tradition of twice or thrice as many Christians be more regardable? And if in Councils, the Major Vote must carry it; Why not in the Judgement and Tra­dition of the Real body of Christs Church? As for their trick of excepting against them as Schismaticks and Hereticks, to invalidate their Votes and Judge­ment, we despise it, as knowing that so any Usurper that would make himself the sole Judge, may say by all the rest of the world: But as they judge of others, they are justly judged by others themselves.

CHAP. X. The second part of the Controversie, Whether it be Christs very Flesh and Blood into which the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated.

OUr first Question was, Whether there be any Bread and Wine left after Consecration; Our second is, Whether Christs Real Flesh and Blood be there, as that into which the Bread and Wine are changed?

And herein 1. I do freely grant, that the change of Christs Body by Glorification is so great, as that it may be called, though not a Spirit, yet a spiritual body, as Paul, 1 Cor. 15. saith Ours when Glorified shall be; that is, A body very like in purity, simplicity, and activity to a Spirit: And the general difference be­tween a spirit and body was not held by many of the Greek Fathers as it is by us: And if the second Coun­cil of Nice was Infallible, no Angel or other Crea­ture is Incorporeal: Or as Damasus saith, [They are Corporeal in respect to God, but Incorporeal in re­spect to gross bodies.] The perfect knowledge of the difference between Corpus and Spiritus, except by the formal Virtues, is unknown to mortal men.

2. I grant therefore, that our senses are no Compe­tent Judges, Whether Christs true body be in the Sacra­ment? no more than Whether an Angel be in this room? There are bodies which are Invisible.

3. I grant that it is unknown to us, how far Christs Glorified body may extend? Whether the same may be both in Heaven and on earth? I am not able nor willing [Page 147] to confute them that say, Light is a Body; nor them that say, It is a spirit: nor them that say, It is quid medium as a nexus of both: I mean Aether or Ignis, vi­sible in its Light. And it is an incomprehensible won­der, if Lumen be a real radiant or Emanant part of the Sun, that it should indivisibly fill all the space thence to this earth, and how much further little do we know. So for the extensions of Christs body, let those that un­derstand it dispute for me.

4. And I will grant that it is very probable that as in Heaven we shall have both a Soul and Body, so the Body is not like to have so near an Intuition and fruition of God as the soul. And whether the Glorified Body of Christ will not be there a medium of Gods Communication of Glory to our bodies, yea and his glorified soul to our souls, as the Sun is now to our eyes, I do not well understand: only I know that it is his prayer and will, that we be with him where he is to behold his Glory; and that God and the Lamb will be the Light of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

5. And I am fully satisfied that it is not the signs only; but the Real Body and Blood of Christ, which are given us in the Sacraments (both Baptism and the Eucharist): But how given us? Relatively, de jure; as a man is Gi­ven to a Woman in Marriage; or as a house and land are delivered to me, to be mine for my use; though I touch them not. Thus 1. A right to Christ is given us: 2. And the fruits or benefits of his Crucified body and shed blood, are actually given us, that is, Pardon and the Spirit, merited for us thereby.

6. And among the Benefits given us, besides the Re­lative, there are some such as we call Real or Physical terminatively, and hyperphysical originally ut à Causa, which are the spirit of Holiness, or the Quickening, Illuminating and Sanctifying influence of the spirit of [Page 148] Christ upon our souls. And the Sacrament is appointed as a special means of communicating this.

7. I have met with some of late who say, that Indeed Christs Body and Blood in his humbled state, were not really eaten and drunk by the disciples, at his last supper: For the flesh profiteth not to such a use: But that his Glorified Body is spiritual, and is extensively commu­nicated, and invisibly present under the form of Bread in the Sacrament; and that as we have a Body, a sen­sitive life, and an Intellectual soul, so Christ is the life of all these respectively; viz. His Body is made the spiritu­al nourishment of our Bodies; his sensitive soul (for which the word Blood is put, because it is in the blood in animals) is the food or life of our sensitive souls; and his Intellectual soul, of ours: And to these uses they assert the Real presence and oral participation of Christs Glorified body.

To all which I say, 1. Whether or how far an in­visible spiritual Body is present, sense is no judge; nor can we know any further than Gods word telleth us. 2. That Christ in his Glorified soul and Body is our In­tercessour with God, through whom we have all things, we must not doubt. 3. That Christ in his Humane and Di­vine Nature now in Heaven, is that Teacher who hath left us a certain word, and that King who hath left us a perfect Law of Life, whom we must obey, and a promise which we must trust, we must not question. 4. That the Ho­ly Ghost who is our spiritual Life, is given us by, from and for Christ our Mediator, we must take for certain truth.

But, though in all these respects, Faith apprehendeth and liveth upon Christ, yet that moreover his Glorified Body in substance, either feedeth or by contact purifieth our Bodies, and his sensitive soul, our sensitive souls, and his Intellectual soul, our Intellectual souls, as if in [Page 149] themselves, and not in their effects only they were thus communicated to us, I understand not, either by any just conception of the thing it self, or any proof of it from the word of God. But if any can help me to see it, I shall not refuse instruction.

Nor can I see why the soul of Christ should be said to be given in the Wine only, and not in the Bread; Nor why by this kind of Communication he may not as truly be said to be given us in other Ordinances as in the Eucharist: Nor know I what they mean by the Forms of bread and wine, under which they say that Christs Body and blood is given: But I am past doubt that Bread and Wine are still really in substance there.

And whereas the same men say that It is Christs humbled flesh and blood as sacrificed on the Cross that is Commemorated, but his Glorified Body and soul only which are Communicated and Received, I must say, 1. That Christ plainly tells us of his Giving us his Sacrificed Body or flesh it self to eat, as he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World: And he saith, Take, Eat, this is my Body which is broken for you, &c. so that the same body is Commemorated and Communicated: But how Communicated? In the effects of his sacrifice: His Body was given a sacrifice to God for us, and the fruits of that sacrifice given to us. And thus he was given a sacrifice for the life of the world; And thus we do receive him: By our bodily taking and eating the Bread, we profess that our souls take him to be our Saviour and Cause of our Life, both as Purchasing and Meriting it on Earth, and Interceding and Communicating it in and from Heaven.

2. And this Doctrine will not serve the Papists turn, who tell us that Bread and Wine are ceased, and that Christs very flesh and blood is there, into which all the [Page 150] substance of the bread and wine are turned; and that his natural Body before his death, was in the same sort given under the forms of Bread and Wine as now; and will not be beholden to this subterfuge.

And indeed it is strange if the Sacrament at the first Institution should be One thing, and ever after another thing; and that the Bread should ever since be turned into Christs body, upon the Priests Consecration, and not be turned into it, (because not yet glorified) upon his own words [ This is my Body.] Therefore we must let this go, and speak of what they own and hold indeed. And as for any other Bodily presence, influence or com­munication of Christs Body or Soul, besides that which they call Transubstantiation, we have nothing to do with it in this Controversie.

That the substance of the Bread and Wine is not turned into the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, is proved.

I. Because the Glorified Body of Christ is not for­mally and properly Flesh and Blood: Though it be the s [...]me Body which was Flesh and Blood. The Apostle Paul saith, 1 Cor. 15.50, 51. [ Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor doth corruption inherit incorruption; Behold, I shew you a mysterie: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.] It is not only Dr. Hammond, but other of the best expositors who shew that by Flesh and blood and corruption here is not meant sin, but flesh and blood for­mally considered; which is ever corruptible: And the Papists commonly confess this. If therefore it be flesh and blood which the bread and wine are turned into, then either Christ hath two bodies, or two parts of one, which are utterly heterogeneal, one flesh and blood, and the other not; one corruptible and the other incorru­ptible.

II. And this feigneth Christ to be often Incarnate, [Page 151] even thousands and millions of times; And to lay down that Incarnate body again as oft as it corrupteth, and to take up a new one as oft as the Priest please; and yet all but one. Whereas the Church and Scripture have ever told us but of one Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

III. And it is expresly contrary to his promise Joh. 6.51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: And the bread which I give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world— v. 34. Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life— He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living Fa­ther hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that Eateth me, even he shall live by me— He that eat­eth of this bread shall live for ever—.] These are the express promises of Christ. But the Papists say that wicked men and unbelievers eat the flesh of Christ, who shall not live for ever, nor have eternal life, nor dwell in Christ, but are more miserable by their hypo­crisie.

I pass by abundance of other arguments, because commonly used, and these are as many as my ends re­quire; and I would make the Reader no more work than needs.

CHAP. XI. The Conclusion of the first Book: The Causes of Po­pery.

I Have now made plain to you, 1. What the Pro­testants Religion is, (or at least my own, and all that I perswade you or any other to embrace.) 2. And also that it is granted to be all true by the generality of the Papists (as is explained and proved.) 3. And I have told you, by an enumeration of some particulars, why I am not a Papist, and why I do disswade you from it. 4. And I have made good my first charge, in the point of Transubstantiation, if any thing in the world can be proved. The second I shall leave till another time, viz. To shew you how far their Religion (as Popish) is from Infallible Certainty; and what horrid confusion is among them; and how they have done much to promote Infidelity in the world, by building Religion upon some notorious untruths, and upon a multitude of utter uncertainties. Though I doubt not but among them there are many true Christians, who practically resolve their faith into the surer evi­dences of Divine Revelation, yet I shall clearly prove to you, that all those whose practical faith is no surer or better, than the notional opinions of their Divines will allow, have no certain faith or Religion at all: And what impudency is it to make men believe, that there is no certainty of Religion to be had, but in their way, who build their Religion upon such a multitude of uncertainties and certain falshoods, as will amaze you when I come to open them to you, viz. that ever so [Page 153] many Learned men, and persons of all ranks, can be induced so to jest in the matters of their salvation.

And if I be not by death or other greater work pre­vented, I hope in order to make good all the rest of the Charges before mentioned, which are our Reasons against the Popish way of Religion. In the mean time tell me what you think of that which is already said.

I know not how to confute what you have said: And yet when I hear them on the other side, me thinks their tale seems fair, and I cannot answer them neither: so that between you both, we that are unlearned are in a sad case, who must thus be tost up and down by the disputati­ons of disagreeing Priests, so that we know not what a man may say is certain.

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, [Page 154] 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?

Yes, many a one: I would we were all more cer­tain than we are.

[Page 155]

And what is it that such men would have to put them out of doubt?

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.

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?

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.

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 [Page 156] 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.

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.

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.

What then if I find but one point false in the Protestants Religion? Must I therefore forsake it all as false?

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. [Page 157] 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 truly believed that Christ was the Messiah: They erred that thought it lawful to eat things offered to Idols; and yet they erred not in believing in Christ. No two men in the world, its like, have the same de­gree of personal faith and knowledge; as I oft said be­fore. But if our professed object of faith, that is, Gods word, were false in one thing, we could not be sure that it were true in any thing.

Yet here I told you before, 1. That a man may be much surer that one part of Scripture is Gods word, than another; because some Copies are doubtful in the di­verse Readings of some particular words or sentences; and which of them that so differ is Gods word, we oft know not: But so much as we are sure is the word of God, we are sure is true: So if the Authority of some few books was once doubted of, (as 2 Pet. Jam. Jud. Heb. &c.) and yet be by any, it followeth not that they doubt of the truth of any, which they know to be the word of God. 2. Or if any do hold that the Penmen might be left to their natural fallibility in some by hi­storical circumstances or words, it would not follow, that one Article of the Gospel or Christian faith is doubt­ful, which is plainly as the Kernel of it, delivered in all the Scripture, and also by infallible Universal Traditi­on, by it self, in the Sacrament, Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalogue.

[Page 158]And our case also much differeth from the Papists in this: For We profess that our objective faith, (Gods word) is Infallible, and we are Infallible so far as we believe it: But we confess that we are lyable to mis­understand some parts of it; and so far are fallible, as being imperfect: But the Papists say, that their Pope and Councils and Universal- Practicers are personally Infal­lible, so as not to be lyable to any misunderstanding of any Article of faith (say some) or Article of Catholick faith (say others): And so they make their own Act of Believing to be Commensurate and equally certain with Gods word of faith; and therefore they allow you to question them in all, if they err in one, as pretending to a gift of never erring in any.

But is it not a great reason to incline us to them rather than to you, when They only pretend to Infallibility, and You confess that you are all fallible in your Belief?

This is to be the subject of our next Conference, and therefore not now to be anticipated; only I shall tell you, that It is a meer noise of ambiguous words to de­ceive the heedless that cannot search out the meaning of them. 1. We not only Pretend, but Profess and prove that our Christian Religion is altogether Infallible. For which end I have written divers Treatises my self. 2. And we profess that all the mystical Church of Christ (that is all sincere Christians) do truly and Infallibly believe all that is Essential to Christianity, and as much of the Integrals as they can know. 3. And we profess that the Catholick Church-Visible (that is, All profes­sors of Christianity in the world) do profess all these Essentials of Christianity, and are Infallible in this profession.

But we hold withall, that there is no particular [Page 159] Church, or Bishop, no Synod or Council, that is so In­fallible, but that, 1. They that hold to the Essentials may misunderstand and err about some Integrals: 2. And those persons have no Certainty that they shall not err by Heresie or Apostacy from the Essentials themselves: So that the Church is Infallible, because it is essentiated by believing an Infallible Word; which who ever believeth not, ceaseth to be of the Church: not Gods Word infallible, because the Church or any number of men believe it, or say Its true: For Truth is before Knowledge and Faith: As Aristotle was a Philosopher, because he understood and taught the do­ctrine of real Philosophy; and not that doctrine cal­led Physicks or Philosophy, because that Aristotle knew or taught it.

But, alas, What work shall I shew you when I come to open their bewildring uncertainties?

But to deal freely with you, methinks their way of measuring out the Necessaries in Faith and Religion according to mens various parts and opportunities, seemeth to me more satisfactory than yours, who fix upon certain points (as the Baptismal Covenant) as Essentials. For there is great diversity of mens Ca­pacities.

This cometh from confounding several Questions as if they were all one.

1. It is one Question, What is the Christian Reli­gion?

2. ☞ It is another Question, Whether the Christian Religion be absolutely necessary to the salvation of all those to whom it was never competently reveal­ed?

3. And it is another Question, Whether more than the Essentials of Christian Religion be not necessary [Page 160] to the salvation of many who have opportunity to know more? Alas, what work doth Confusion make in the world!

To the first, It is evident that as Mahometanism is a thing which may be defined, so much more may Christianity: Who that writeth of the several Reli­gions of the world, Ethnick, Jewish, Mahometan, and Christian, do not take them to be distinguishable and discernable? Especially when Christ hath summed up Christianity into a Covenant, and given it us in ex­press words, and affixed a flat promise of salvation to the true Covenanters, and the Church hath ever called our Baptism, our Christening? Is Christiani­ty Nothing? If Something, Why may it not be de­fined, and differenced from all false Religions? And if so, It hath its Essential Constitutive parts. All this is plain to Children that will see.

2. And then as to the second question, it concern­eth not our Controversie at all. It is but Whether any Infidels may be saved? Or any that are no Christi­ans? And if it could be proved, that any are saved that are no Christians, do you thereby prove that they are Christians, or members of the Christian Church? or that Christianity is not a Religion which may be defined?

3. And as to the third question, We are on all sides agreed in it, That they that have more than the naked Essentials of Christianity revealed to them aptly, are bound to believe more: Yea, it is hardly conceive­able that any one should know and believe the Essen­tials only, and no more: It is not Essential to the Christian Covenant or Christianity to know that the Name of Christs Mother was Mary; or that Pontius Pilate was the man that condemned him; And if [Page 161] an Ignorant man thought that his continuance in the Grave was four dayes, I do not think that this would damn his soul to Hell: (Much less the not be­lieving that Mary dyed a Virgin.) And yet it is not like that any man should come to the Essentials of Christianity by any such way, as should acquaint him with no one of these, or any point besides the said Essentials.

And yet it is certain for all this, that he that tru­ly receiveth the Essentials, and is true to the Baptis­mal Covenant, shall be saved, whatsoever else he want: But it is as true, that he that Receiveth the Essentials, will (from the same principles and obligations) re­ceive more, when it is aptly notified to him: And he that truly Covenanteth, will honestly keep the Covenant he maketh; which bindeth him still to learn of Christ. But if any man be saved without the Essen­tials, he must be saved without Christianity.

But you know that they distinguish of faith Explicite and Implicite: He may be Implicitely a Christian that believeth not the Essentials Explicitely; as long as he believeth that which would infer them; if they were made known to him to be indeed the Word of God.

Thus do Words abuse and cheat the ignorant: Could you but read their own Dr. Holden before cited in his Analys. fid. you would find this distinction justly rendred by him shameful and ridiculous, ac­cording to their common sense and use of it; and the truer sense delivered and vindicated. An Implicite faith or Knowledge we confess to be true, as it is op­posed to 1. A distinct, or 2. To a well-expressed faith or Knowledge. For it is Implicite, ☞ 1. As to the Object, when a man knoweth the whole matter, but not [Page 162] by distinct parts: As a man may know a Cup of wa­ter, and not know how many drops or drams it is; or he may know a sentence, and not know how ma­ny letters are in it. 2. Or it is Implicite as to the Act, when it is yet but a crude imperfect conception, Apply this to Mr. Johnsons Re­joynder on this Point, and you will see his Vanity. and the thing is really known, but not the Logical notions, or Grammatical names, either the verba oris or men­tis by which it should be expressed: So that the man cannot notifie his knowledge to another. These two are called Implicite; the first signifieth Confused and General Knowledge, and the other Imperfect and undigested.

But to call that Implicite faith or knowledge, which extendeth only to some Principles, and not to the Conclusions themselves, is 1. To Call No-knowledge and faith, by the name of knowledge and faith. 2. And by their application to confound the World and the Church, and to make all the Infidels and Hea­thens to be Christians, and every Fool a Philoso­pher.

For, 1. All men of Reason know these two Princi­ples (who own a God), 1. That God is not a lyer, but all his Word is True. 2. That all the Truths in the world are God's, some way or other revealed by him. Therefore, if they knew that the Gospel were Gods word, they would believe it: or if they knew it to be one of those Truths that are in the world, they would take it to be of God. And thus all Infi­dels, and Turks, and Pagans may (by such abuse) be called Implicite Christians.

But why then do the Papists burn the Protestants when if their Religion were true, we are all Impli­citely [Page 163] Papists. For we believe, 1. That all Divine Revelations are True; 2. And that all those are In­fallible whom God hath promised to make Infallible; 3. And that all those must be believed and obeyed whom God hath commanded us to believe and obey; 4. And that we must not forsake that Church which God hath commanded us to adhere to; 5. And that all our Lawful Pastors must be reverenced and sub­mitted to; 6. And all their lawful Precepts obeyed. 7. And all Gods Sacraments holily used; 8. And all Traditions from the Apostles to the Churches received; with many more such: Only we know not that the Pope is our Pastor, or that his Coun­cils are the Church, or have a promise of Infalli­bility; and so of the rest. And yet we must burn for it, if they can procure it. And yet he is a true believer Implicitely who believeth not the Essentials of Christianity.

But the Design which is predominant here is too visible, when this Implicite faith cometh to be de­scribed: For it is not a Belief in God, or in Christ only that will serve the turn, but it must be a belief in the Church, and their Church, and their Pope too, or else it will not do. The Implicite faith is the explicite belief of these three Articles: 1. All Gods Word is true: 2. All that is Gods Word, which the Church tells us is Gods Word. 3. The Pope and his Council and Subjects are this Church. And yet this man must be supposed if he know no more, per impossibile, not to know that there is a Christ, or who he is as to his Person or Office, or what he hath done, or will do for us: And yet that he hath a Vicar and a Church. Or else they may know Christ and Christianity before they know that there is any [Page 164] Pope or Church, and then the Pope hath lost the Game.

But if Popery be so senseless a thing as you make it, how come so great a number of persons of all ranks and qualities, Kings, Nobles, Learned men, and Religiously-disposed persons to embrace it? Have not they souls to save or lose as well as you? and do they not lay all their hopes of Heaven upon it? and can such persons, and so many, be so mad and senseless?

Do we need thus to ramble round about, as if we would doubt of the thing till we know the Causes of it? when we see and they all confess that they deny all our senses? Will you not believe that there is a Sun, till you know what it is made of? Or whether the Sea ebb and flow, till you know the Causes of it? I pray you tell me,

Q. 1. Do you think that the Mahometan's is not a very foolish Religion, and their foundation (the pretended Mission of their Prophet) without any shew of truth; and his Alcoran (if ever you read it) a heap of Non-sense and Confusion?

Yes: I think it deserveth no better thoughts.

And do you not know that (though it arose not till about six hundred years after Christ) much more of the world is Mahometan than Christian? And are there not far Greater Emperours and Princes Mahometans than any that are Christians? And have not all these souls to save or lose? And do they not all venture their souls upon that Religion? Why then is not your argument here as good for Mahometa­nism as for Popery?

Though the Emperours of Constantinople, the Great Mogul, the Persian, Tartarian Mahome­tans, [Page 165] &c. be all Great as to their vast Dominions, yet they are barbarous and unlearned in comparison of the Papists.

1. It is not because they have not as much wit as we: but because they think that our laborious wor­dy kind of learning, is an abuse of wit, and against true Policy, ludicrously or contentiously diverting mens minds and time from those employments which they think more manly and profitable to the Common­wealth; Though no doubt but they do err more un­manly on that extream. But I further ask you,

Q. 2. Do you not think that the Common Reli­gion of the Heathens is very unworthy for any wise man to venture his soul upon? If you have but read how it is described by the Antient Christi­ans, Justin, Athenagoras, Origen, Arnobius, Minu­tius Foelix, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Au­gustine, &c. you will say that they thought it a ridi­culous unmanly Religion.

I think no better of it than they did.

And 1. Do you not know that almost all the world was then Heathen and Idolaters? Alas, what was Judaea (less than England) to all the world? Was not the Roman Empire, and Alexanders before that, far Greater than any Christian Prince hath now? And to this day, are not four sixth parts of the whole world (at least) Heathens and Idolaters? Brierwoods Calculation is, that if you divide the world into thirty parts, nineteen are Heathen, six Mahometans, and five only Christians of all sorts: besides the vast unknown parts of the world, which are not like to have any Religion of supernatural Revelation.

[Page 166]2. And do you not know, that Athens and Rome-Heathen were no Barbarians, but of most polite li­terature, and the Fathers of the Learning now in use; and that when the Christians arose among them, they accounted them Barbarians? And at this day, and long before us, the Chinenses have been addicted to Arts and Literature: And the Brach­manes and Bonzii are no Barbarians. And have not all these souls to save or lose? And are all these so mad as to cast away their souls upon a senseless con­temptible Religion? If your reason be good, how much more will it hold for the Heathens, than the Papists? Alas, what a handful are the Papists in com­parison of the present Idolaters! much more in com­parison of the Antient Heathen world, before Chri­stianity and Mahometanism dispossessed them of those parts which they now hold!

With what greater shew of advantage did the Hea­thens use the Arguments which the Papists do now put their trust in, and lay their Cause upon!

1. Do they talk of Antiquity? Why, it was the Novelty of Christianity in comparison of Heathenism through the world, which was it that hardned them to contemn and persecute it.

2. Do they talk of Ʋniversality and Consent? Alas, how little a part of the world were the Chri­stians at first, and are the Papists now, in comparison of the Heathens, then and now?

3. Do they talk of Greatness, Empire, Acts and Learning? How little are they as to the first, to the Heathen Empires? And for Learning, they re­ceived it of them: And Aristotle still is the School­mens Oracle. And yet doubtless all these advan­tages are not sufficient to disprove the follies of Hea­nism, [Page 167] nor the badness of their Religion? And yet will so much less serve to support the credit of senseless Popery?

But Christians may well expect greater helps from God, than Heathens or Mahometans: Therefore that so many Great and Learned and Religious Christi­ans should go such a senseless way to another world, methinks seemeth strange.

And are not Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Abas­sines and Protestants, all Christians as well as they? Their proud schismatical unchristening all but the subjects of the Pope, is a silly proof that we are no Christians, or that they are any better than others; unless Malignity, uncharitableness and Schism be the true Excellency.

1. And are not other Christians More than the Pa­pists? Bishop Bramhall reckons the Papists to be about the fifth part of Christians: Suppose they be a third part? They are still the Minor part.

2. And are not the Protestants as Learned as the Papists? Why then will not your argument hold against them as well as for them? Have not all these Christians souls to save or lose? And do they not take that for the true Religion on which they trust their souls?

But though all these set together are more than the Church of Rome, yet no one Sect of them is so great; and what matter is it how many various Sects are?

1. The Greek Church is judged by wise men, te be yet bigger than the Roman, even in this its broken state: But there is no doubt but it was much bigger long after the first division, before the Turk did win the Eastern Empire.

[Page 168]2. But, if it were not so, your objection is frivo­lous. The Question is either of Different Churches, or of Different opinions and parties in the same Church. As to the first, There are but two opinions in the Christian world, that I know of, about the Constitution of the Catholick Church. The one is the opinion of the Papists only, ☞ that The Catholick Church is essentially constituted both of Christ, and the Pope as his Vicar and universal Monarch, with all his subjects; as the pars Imperans and pars sub­dita.

The other is the judgement of all other Christians, (that I know or hear of,) that The Catholick Church is essentially constituted only of Christ as the supream Head, or King, or pars Imperans, and his subjects as the pars subdita; ☞ And that Patriarchs, Arch­bishops, Bishops, &c. are but Officiales & subditi primarii vel nobiles, constitutive parts indeed of their particular Churches (some humane, and some Divine) but no essential parts of the Catholick Church.

☞ This is the Grand difference between the Papists and all other Christians in the World, What the Catho­lick Church is? Whether it have any Constitutive Ʋni­versal Head or Monarch besides Christ? Now see­ing that Greeks, Abassines, Armenians and all agree with us in this against the Papists, it is evident to them that are willing to see that we are all of the same Catholick Church, though not of the same particular Churches, nor all for the same Offi­cial Ministers; Because we are all for the same Con­stitutive Head, and his subjects as such, and agree in all the Essential parts, ☞ So that our differences among all these parties or particular Churches or [Page 169] Countries is but the difference of Opinions and parties in one and the same Church; and not a difference of Catholick Churches (which can be but one.)

And if that be the question, I undertake to prove that there is no one Sect of Christians known under Heaven, that hath so many different opinions within it self, (if half so many,) nor have written half so much against one another, as the Pa­pists have done.

3. But I must not here anticipate my further work: when I come to that, I shall shew you how small and how disagreeing a part of the Christian world the Papists are. I have elsewhere recited the words of their Melchior Canus who boasteth that the Papacy yet standeth, though almost all the world, and besides Princes, almost all the Bishops and Churches have fought against it. Was it then the Universal Church? And the words of Reynerius who saith, that the Churches of the Armenians and the others planted by the Apostles (without the Empire he meaneth) were not under the Pope of Rome. I shall, if I live to do that work, yet ful­lier shew you, that the Pope was but the chief Pa­triarch in one Empire, as the Archbishop of Can­terbury is the chief Bishop in England; and that his General Councils were but General Assemblies of the Empire (inconsiderable occasional acci­dentals excepted), even as our Convocations, or the Scots General Assemblies were, though in a far larger Empire. But all this I have done already in other writings, beyond all reasonable contradiction.

Tell me then, how it cometh to pass that so many Princes, Nobles, Learned men, and Re­ligious can be so marvellously deluded?

[Page 170]

Alas poor man; You talk as if you knew not your self nor mankind! how bad a thing cor­rupt unsanctified nature is! Why do you not also ask, How cometh it to pass, that the far great­est part of the World (even five parts of six) are Heathens and Mahometanes! and that most of the World are wilful self-destroyers; many ruining their very bodies, Eating, and Drinking, and Whore­ing, and Idling them into Gowt, Stone, Dropsies and an hundred Maladies: but far more ruining their souls. Why do you not also ask, How rea­sonable Creatures (of all Professions) are so worse than mad, as to sell their souls and everlasting hopes, for a dream and shadow, or for dirt and dung; even for a few Cups or Morsels, or merry hours, which they know are like the mirth of drunkenness, which is quickly gone, and ends in sickness and in shame! For a great Name, and a large attendance in their way to the grave! For the thoughts and breath of mortal man! And for that which all men first or last, are forced to call meer Vanity and Vexation! Were not men mad in sin, had they never heard a Preacher, the sight of a dead Carkass and a grave would do more to make them sober and considerate, than is done with most. When most of the World will obsti­nately follow the Devil their enemy, by known sin to everlasting misery, against all the commands, exhortations, promises, threatnings, mercies and warnings of God himself, and all the perswasions of their truest friends, What wonder if the same men can be Papists or any thing?

But I will tell you some of the particular Causes.

[Page 171]I. Abroad in other Countries, there are all these Reasons easily discernible. 1. Who knoweth not how great an advantage Education hath, to form mens judgements to almost any thing, how bad so­ever? That which children receive, if it be not dis­agreeable to their sensible interest, how commonly and tenaciously do they follow? Whence is it that the whole Empires and Kingdoms of Pagans are all of one mind; and the Kingdoms of Mahometans of another? One Kingdom almost all Greek Christi­ans and another Papists, and another Lutherans, and another Reformists, &c? Hath not education a great hand in this?

2. And the custome of the Countrey, and the com­pany which they converse with, is of no small pow­er with mens minds. Especially when men live where almost all are of a mind, they think that con­cord is a sign of truth, and modesty forbiddeth them to be wiser than all the Countrey.

3. And when they know few or none of another mind, how should they know what they are? And when they hear an hundred lies against them, and never hear them speak for themselves, they think that the Law of modesty, humanity and converse, ob­lige them to believe, that so Many, so Great, and so Learned and Religious persons will not impudently lie: When as perhaps the lye it self is a Tradition which the lyars received on the same terms in modest credulity from their teachers or fathers.

4. And specially, the Names of Order, Govern­ment, Ʋnity, and Concord, deceive many millions of souls: For Order and Ʋnity are justly amiable to nature it self. And the purblind know not an Image from a Man.

[Page 172]5. Especially when civil Wars, or Church dis­cords have distracted the World, and made men aweary of all that's present, and suspicious of all things, which seemed to have a hand in their dis­appointments; this maketh men hearken to any thing which pretendeth to certain settlement, Order and peace. Even as a man that by turning round is wheelsick, will lay hold on the next post or fixed thing, to keep him from falling down.

6. And when their Teachers make them believe, that all Christians besides them do live like mad­men, in Sects and Schismes, distractedly tearing out one anothers throats, What wonder if this make men willing of any way which pretends to peace, and glad to run into any Cottage which will keep them from such a storm?

7. But the great cause is, 1. The Blindness of mens minds, 2. The wickedness of all unrenewed hearts, and 3. The power of carnal Interest.

1. Few men are of great natural parts for wit, and fewer improve them, by any serious study of things spiritual.

2. Almost all men study with the byas of pre­judice and partiality, and as men that would have one side to be right, because it is for their worldly ends.

3. Sin Ruleth in most souls, and the enmity against God and his Laws prevaileth in carnal minds, Rom. 8.6, 7, 8. And enmity is an ill student and seeker of truth; and friendship is an incompetent judge of sin.

4. None but a few self-denying persons can bear to be reproached as Hereticks and Schismaticks by all about them.

[Page 173]5. Especially the countenance or discountenance of Great ones, doth more with such than Heaven and Hell.

6. And that's not all, But he that will not be a Pa­pist, in most of their Countreys must be undone, and in many must be rackt, tormented and burnt: And it is but few that have learnt to go to so high a price for truth, and to be Religious at such a rate.

8. Therefore it is a thing utterly unknown among them, who is heartily a Papist, and who not. For when men must take on them to be Papists or be undone, or burnt, millions will seem to be such that are not. For,

9. Most of the World have no Religion in truth and power, to overcome the world and flesh: and therefore will seem to be of that Religion, which hath the upper hand, and serveth their turns.

10. Yea, the very Belief of the Immortality of the soul, the Resurrection and the life to come, is feeble, if not unsound and lifeless, in the most of men: And so is the Belief of the Christian faith: And a man that doubteth whether there be another life or not, will make as sure as he can of the plea­sures of this present life. And I fear that this is the case of no small number of Papists; to think, ‘[I know not whether there be any other life of retribution: I rather think that there is none: But lest it should prove true, I will be of some Religion: And where can I be with more ease and safety, than in that which my Rulers and Teachers and the whole Countrey say is right? If it prove otherwise, I hope God will excuse me, while I obey my Governours, and do as the [Page 174] most do.]’ He that much doubteth of the truth of Christianity it self, may easily fall in with any Sect which seemeth for his interest. I fear Me­lancthon too truly said, that Italians maintain that Christ is in the Sacrament, when they do not believe that he is in Heaven.

11. And many Nicodemites think, that a man needs not expose himself to danger for his faith, but may keep it to himself, and do as his neigh­bours do: especially where they have no other so­ciety to joyn with, they think it better to joyn with the Popish Churches than none.

12. And I have reason to think that it is but few among the multitude, that understand indeed what the Papists hold, while they go with them in the general Name and profession: And in parti­cular about Transubstantiation: When even the subtle Schoolmen are not agreed of its proper sense; (as Durandus his instance for one doth prove.) I do not think that one of an hundred that receiveth their Eucharist, doth in his heart believe, that It is not Bread: But some think that their Church it self meaneth otherwise: And some say, [It is not for such as I to contradict them and dispute; but I will leave every one to think as he will; and so will I.]

13. And as for Princes and Lords abroad, Those that have once escaped Popery will take heed how they entertain it again, unless lust and folly have sold them for a prey: But they that live where their subjects are Papists, dare not venture to shake so great a fabrick, lest they overthrow themselves:

For 1. People are tumultuous;

[Page 175]2. The Popish Clergie are rich and powerful and exceeding numerous.

3. Religion is a thing that men are tender and te­nacious of, who are seriously of any.

4. The Popish doctrine of deposing and killing excommunicate Kings, maketh many Princes flatter the Priests, for fear of losing [...]heir lives. They think that it is better make some advantage of the Popes friendship, than to have such an enemy, whose Knives and poison have easie access, and whose armies we must watch against in peace, as in a continued War, and we know not when they are in our own houses or near us, nor where nor when we are in safety.

14. And, alas, the Great ones of the World have the greatest Temptations, and not the weak­est lusts and passions, and have more of worldly and carnal Interest to carry them away!

15. And the Papists Religion is notably suited to their lusts and carnal ends: All which, and much more, may tell you that it no wonder, that so many forreign Princes, and States and Nobles can cleave to so sensless a way as Popery.

II. But how come so many among us in England to turn Papists of late years, where Po­pery is discountenanced by the King, Parliament and Laws?

Many of the same Causes do this, which I need not reherse. And 1. Too many both Noble and ignoble are prepared by their Lusts, and by a vicious life. There are many things in Popery which greatly accommodate a carnal mind and a debauched guilty Conscience, which the Christian Protestant Religion affordeth not. And a profligate [Page 176] flagitious person, is likeliest to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to believe a lye, seeing they received not the truth in the love of it, that they might be saved, 2 Thess. 2.10, 11, 12. I fear no­thing so much, as lest men turn Heart-Infidels and Tongue-Papists (as the suitablest Reserve, lest Chri­stian Religion and the life to come, should prove a truth). And indeed great sins Cry for great Ven­geance: And what Greater than for Mind, Will and Life to be forsaken of God?

2. And alas, except Lawyers, Physicions and others bred up to Studies and Employments, how few are there of Nobility or Gentry that are hard studying men! And the great Mysteries of Religi­on will not be well learned and defended, by a life of eating, drinking, playing, jeasting, gaming, hawking, hunting, visitings of empty company, lustfulness, worldliness, or vain-glorious pomp. No men grow wise or Christians indeed by such a course.

3. And indeed the Popish Priests are more in­dustrious than too many of our Incumbent Ministers; for which they are Commendable in their way: The Erroneous are oft more zealous than the Or­thodox. And they that apprehend themselves be­tween fear and hope, are usually more industrious than they that by possession are secure: which maketh the lower side so oft get up, and the up­per side go down. And I would I might not say, that our Ministers are too few of them able to deal with a trained Sophister: Some are unable in this particular cause, because they take it as a baffled pack of notorious Errors, and thought that few sober persons were in danger of it: And so [Page 177] they have (honestly) bent their studies and la­bours to the winning of sensual persons from their sins; and are unfurnished in the Popish Contro­versies; knowing that they can refer them to mul­titudes of Books, which are unanswerable. But alas, too many also are unable through meer ig­norance, lowness of parts, and gross insufficiency or negligence, not only in this, but other parts of their Ministerial work.

4. And we have incurred no small dammage and danger, by ignorant Over-doing against the Papists: Partly with the self-wise Sectaries, calling many laudable or blameless things, by the Name of Popery, Antichristianity and Idolatry, because they are cross to their pre-judging partial con­ceits: And partly by some unsound doctrines, which some defend as parts of the Protestant Reli­gion: And partly by magnifying verbal differences, and making a noise about them as if they were real, and such as salvation lyeth on: For want of skill to state a controversie, and discern a verbal difference from a real. And when a Papist can but shew their Novices one such palpable error in the Writings of a Protestant; What sad work will he make with it? and still harp upon that string, and perswade the people that the rest of our diffe­rences are such like. And thus many Overdoing well-meaning ignorant men both Ministers and people, have unwittingly done as much to harden Papists, and increase their numbers, almost as if Satan had hired them as Spies, to betray the Chur­ches and Cause of Christ: Yea, and if one better studied in these points, shall go a sounder and [Page 178] more successful way to work, and take these wea­pons out of the Papists hands, which some igno­rant Protestants have given them, the same mens blind zeal will rage against them, (as some did against Chillingworth, Anthony Wotton, and divers others our greatest Champions) as if it were not themselves but these, that were befriending Pope­ry. So that they neither can confute them sound­ly themselves, nor will suffer others, but zealous Protestants assault Christs ablest servants at their backs, while their faces are towards the adversa­ries whom they oppose.

5. But nothing among us (except Ignorance and wickedness) increaseth them more, than the scandal of our numerous, and some of them abo­minable Sects. When the people see many zea­lous professors turn Quakers, or Ranters, or Seek­ers, or Antinomians, or Socinians, or Familists; and shall see the more tolerable parties (Episco­pal, Presbyterian, Independant, Erastian, Separa­tists, and Anabaptists) condemning, backbiting, reproaching and making odious (if not persecute­ing) one another, and shunning (many of them) the Communion of one another, as they do the Papists. This makes them think, that they must seek some surer soberer way than any of us have yet found: and the Papists set in and tell them, ‘[All these are branches broken off from the true Vine and withered; This it is to depart from the Catholick Church; when they are once gone thence, there is no stop or consistence, till they crumble all to dust and atomes: You must be­come Roman Catholicks, or go mad: You see [Page 179] to what confusion all others tend: If you once leave our Church, you will never know where to settle▪ Which Sect will you be of? If an Independant, why not an Anabaptist? If an Anabaptist, why not an Antinomian? How will you ever know which one of all these is in the right]?’ All this is easily an­swered by a man of understanding; But to the ignorant Vulgar, it seemeth unanswera­ble. And alas, how many have given them this scandal? Wo be to some by whom offence cometh.

6. But the Contentions of our Clergie ad­vantage them more than the divisions of the people: when we are of many interests, and many parties, and proceed to make each other contemptible and odious: especially when we come to hinder each other from the work of our Mi­nistry. A house and Kingdom divided cannot stand: Christ tells us that the Devil himself is not so foolish, as to divide his Kingdom. All our consent and best endeavour is too little to save mens souls from sin and error: And when one part is cast by, and each part by contention hindereth the other: the Papists have the far easier work. When one part are not to come within five miles of Cities or Corporations, where Papists are, and those that may come near them are too few, and many too indisposed, or negligent in resisting them; so that we are all overdone by their Priests in constant diligence, (especially with the Greater rank of men, with whom one part of our Ministers, have almost as [Page 180] little inclination as opportunity to converse,) no wonder if the Roman work go on.

7. And, alas, how great advantage have they made of our late calamitous Civil Wars, and ma­nifold scandalous Rebellions? Though indeed it was the terrour of their murdering about two hun­dred thousand in Ireland (of which see Bishop Jones, Sir John Temple, and the Earl of Orery against Welsh,) which frightened those that I was acquainted with, out of their peace, and al­most out of their wits here in England, yet dead men are not heard on Earth, and their service for the King in England serveth not only for a Cloke for that, but for an advantage against many that stand in their way. In all Civil Wars, if the Clergy be drawn in to own several Causes (espe­cially if they own an ill Cause) who ever pre­vaileth, Religion suffereth by it; while one part of them are laid by, or hindered by the other.

8. And though God hath greatly obliged this Nation to thankfulness, by preserving our Superi­ours so much from Popery as he hath done, yet some of their names are injuriously abused, to en­tice men to the Popish way, as if it had so much countenance and patronage, that Interest might in­vite them to it.

9. And the World is lyable to changes, and weary of holding long in one way: The name of Antiquity especially in Religion is venerable with all; but yet it is Novelty that pleaseth in the Matter. And when Popery is to us a New way honoured with the name of The old Religion, it is a taking bait.

[Page 181]10. But the grand cause of all, is, the common peoples Ignorance, as being ungrounded in their own Religion; and their badness, who measure all by carnal Interests, and all our great and manifold sins, by which we have forfeited Gods presence and his grace, and provoked him to leave us to the shame and ruine of our own lusts and delusions to undoe our selves. Great sins bring great plagues. And most men are of their Religion who have the greatest interest in their estimation and affections, or that have greatest advantage on them by con­stant nearness, familiarity, kindred, kindness or power to do them good or hurt in the World.

And therefore to your question Why so many of late turn Papists, I shall but now concludingly an­swer you, as I begun with you, concerning the Cause of your own doubts; They that have long lived under the light of the holy Gospel, and among the mercies which have blest this Land, and yet have been sincerely no true Christians, but loved their fleshly lusts and pleasures, and their wealth and worldly honour, more than God, or holiness, or Heaven, it is no wonder that they easily change their party, and can be, in siding, of any Religion who are in sincerity of none; and if God forsake their understandings, and give them up to senseless and unreasonable opinions, who would not live according to the knowledge which they had, nor obey the truth which was clearly opened to them. And such hypocrites and perfidious rebels against Christ, all Protestants do confess themselves to have been, who turn Papists, and know what they do: Because they profess to go from a state of damnation, into a Church out of [Page 182] which there is no salvation; if the Popes judge­ment be as powerful in Heaven, as it is at Rome.

But is there no hope of ending these la­mentable differences, and removing the scandal of Infidels hereby? or at least of living together like Neighbours without seeking each others blood or ruine?

1. Yes; when God shall by his Providence take down the worldly Greatness and Advantages of the Papacy, and level the King of Rome with the true Pastors of his Church, and turn the usurping Monarch of all the World into a true Bishop; that so worldly Power, honour and wealth, may not be stronger arguments with their party than Heaven and Hell, and Gods commands. Till then their Great twisted Interest is like to rule them, and keep them in the errours into which it hath involved them. Especially while their pretended In­fallibility (against all sense and reason) is their strength, which maketh them uncurable in any errour which they once embrace.

2. But yet I did in the second Part of my Key for Catholicks, long ago shew the terms on which we may live like neighbours, if not like Christi­ans, if their principles would allow their minds, to be but peaceable, and give dissenters leave to live.

And I still profess that might we but secure our selves and our posterity, I am none of those that would have the least injury, much less cruelty ex­ercised upon any man for being a Papist: If they will live peaceably with me, or but give me leave, I will live peaceably with them. And I doubt not [Page 183] but as there are some among them truly fearing God (though corrupt with the errours of their education) so there are more that are of kind and civil natures, which their ill opinions cannot make fierce and sanguinary nor overcome. And none of them, I think, shall be more loving, kind and peaceable to me, than I will be to him.

And I confess I have a greater respect and ho­nour for those whose Ancestors have transmitted Popery to them under the name of the True Catho­lick faith, and who live according to what they know (though perhaps in blind zeal they hate me and such others for the Interest of their way,) than I have for those that seemed once Protestants, and by filthy debauched lives have made it seem needful or convenient for them to turn Papists, that they may have a seeming Religion and Priests pardons to quiet or deceive their Consciences; or than I have for those Papists who live in drunken­ness, lust and common lying and prophane swear­ing, while yet they seem to be Religious and re­gardful of God and their souls; or than I have for those Priests who befriend such mens wick­edness for the increase and interest of their Church.

Yea, I truly profess that if I know a truly Godly conscionable charitable Papist, I must, I will love and honour him far more than an ungodly, unconscionable, uncharitable Protestant. And as far as I can discern, both Ministers and private Chri­stians (but especially Ministers) whom I most converse with, are of the same mind.

But is there no way possible to bring them fairly off, in this gross business of Transubstantia­tion, [Page 184] without putting them upon the disclaiming of the Popes and General Councils Infallibi­lity?

I am not bound to devise accommodations to strengthen them in their other errours, if I could. But yet I would cure any errour in any, though they intend their own cure to an evil end. I cannot be perswaded but their understanding men are sorry at the heart that the Laterane Council hath drawn them into such a snare, by making Transubstantiation an Article of their faith; and that they are very angry at them, and wish that it had never been done: but being done they must take on them to believe it, lest they pull down with their foundation all their fabrick. I doubt not but they are troubled and ashamed to read the Schoolmens disputes of Transubstantiation, exposing Christianity to the Infidels scorn, which this Council hath most occasioned. I know not how to bring them off, unless they will hearken to what Dr. Taylor in his Disswasive from Popery, and Dr. Heylin, and Dr. Pierson and Dr. Gunning in the Dispute, have said against the Validity of that Laterane Council (could they but spare the Canon for deposing Temporal Lords, and dispos­sessing them of their Dominions, and absolving all their Papists subjects from their Oaths of Allegi­ance and exterminating the rest; Yea it would be more serviceable to them at last with Princes, to retract that also, than to keep it.) Their best way is to take the help of these pretences, and condemn the contrary Reasons of Mr. Terret and his fellow Disputant against the foresaid Doctors, [Page 185] and expunge that Council out of Binnius, Surius and the rest who number it with the approved Councils; and because Matth. Paris and others say that some at the Council thought the Canons bur­densom, and they were brought in by the Pope, and hastily read, &c. therefore say, that They were not passed at least Conciliariter, which you know is a word that serveth their turn against another Coun­cil which they dislike.

But what shall they do with following Councils, especially that at Trent, which say the same?

The best shifts that I know are, 1. To do as they do about the condemning of Pope Honori­rius as a Heretick. They say that a General Council and Pope too may err in a matter of fact; and so they did in judging of Honorius his meaning: So they may say, that the Coun­cil of Trent did decree this as an Article of faith, only because they thought that the Church so held it: which was because they thought that the General approved Council of Laterane had so decreed it▪ But now finding that it was not so decreed there, the error in matter of fact ceas­ing, which was the supposition, the doctrinal error proveth to be no Article of faith, or Conci­liariter decretum.

2. Or if this will not do, they are best yet stretch the words of Rome and Trent, to a more tolerable signification, and say, That it is not the ceasing of the substance of Bread and Wine which is meant; but the changing it into a Re­lative new form: And so, as the Whole substance [Page 186] of a man is changed from being a meer Common man, into a King, a Bishop, a Doctor, with­out any cessation of his Humanity; but only quia forma ultima denominat, he is not any more to be called meerly A Man, but A King, A Bishop, &c. Or, as the whole substance of a piece of Gold is changed into Currant Coin by the Kings Stamp, &c. So the whole substance of Bread is turned into the (Representative) Body of Christ, and the whole substance of Wine in­to his (Representative) blood; which change they call Transubstantiation.

But why should I give counsel to men that will not thank me for it, and that obstinately refuse much better?

But why speak you nothing of their deny­ing the people the Cup? I thought you would principally have fastned on that.

Because it is no part of this present Con­troversie, which I was first to handle, though it concern the same Sacrament: But it is such an instance, as serveth to tell those of the world that will understand, what horrid unreasonable, auda­cious arrogance and Ʋsurpation and Treason against God and the true Head of the Church, this pre­tended Monarch of the world, and his pretend­ed Catholick Church (the Popish Sect) are guilty of: considering,

1. That it is as essential a part of the Sacra­crament as the Bread is: For Christ hath made no difference.

2. It hath the same Institution and express Com­mand: He that said, [ Take, Eat] said also [Page 187] [ Drink ye all of this:] He hath said, [ Do this in remembrance of me] of One as well as of the Other.

3. Therefore to take away an Essential part, is to take away the Sacrament, and make it ano­ther thing. As it is not a humane body that hath not both Head and Heart: So here.

4. Therefore by the same authority they might have continued the Cup, and taken away the Bread; or have taken away both.

5. And on the same reason they might have taken away Baptism, and all Christs positive Instituti­ons. And for ought I know the Ministry it self as instituted.

6. But then Gersons question, de auferabilitate Papae would be next to be debated: For were he of Christs own Institution (as he is not) it is no more than the Cup in the Lords Supper. Could he but prove an Institution of his Papacy as evi­dently, who would not be his Subject? If you say, But who should take him down, if it might be done? I answer, Kings in their own Kingdoms, 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 [Page 188] 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 [Page 189] 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?