An answer, to a little book call'd Protestancy to be embrac'd or, A new and infallible method to reduce Romanists from popery to Protestancy

CHAP. V. Of the Roman Catholick Faith and Doctrine.

SECT. I. A Word by way of entry into this matter.

OUr Adversary sayes our Faith is so blind, that he hath heard many of ours say, if a General Council had defin'd white to be black, they would believe it.

Whereby we are seen disposed, sayes he, to admit of any Error, if it be Authoriz'd by a Ge∣neral Council.

Answer. First, such Arguments fetch'd from the Testimony of an Antagonist are of no weight, since, according to the Methode of the School we are bound to credit no more brought by an Ad∣versary then what he proves.

In the second place, I ask him, if clear Scrip∣ture should tell him that Black is White, would he believe it, or not? Would he not believe it? Then he would prefer his private Light to clear Scripture, which to do, is Impious. Would he

believe it? Then he is found dispos'd, say I, to admit of any Error if it be set down in clear Scrip∣ture. He'll say to me the case is not alike, be∣cause the Scripture is the Word of God, and the Decree of a General Council the Word of Men. But by his Favour, we hold that this also is the Word of God, tho uttered to us by the Mouth of Men, according to that of the Acts cap. 15. and v. 18. It hath seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and us.

If he say 'tis impossible that God should say by the Scripture, that Black is White, I say, 'tis al∣so, as impossible he should say it by a General Council, giving it out as a Decree of Faith. But absolutely speaking, can't that Assembly of those Men advance such a proposition?

I Answer. Absolutely speaking they can, but then we would not believe it, because that pro∣position neither belonging to Faith nor good man∣ners, (which are the whole and adequat Object to which their Infallibility extends it self, as we R. Catholicks hold,) it layes no Obligation upon us to believe it.

Moreover, to give something to what our Ad∣versary sayes he heard say. Since in Aristotles Principles, an Accident is really distinguish'd from a Substance; what if God by his Almighty Power should put the Colour of White in the Subject, in which is the Colour of Black, would this imply a Contradiction? And in this case would not this proposition be true, Black is White, or the Sub∣ject having the Colour of Black is the Subject which has the Colour of White.

SECT. II. The intention of the Minister re∣quired by the Church in Bap∣tism explained, makes ap∣pear the nullity of our Ad∣versaries Objection.

TO prove that Protestants may be sav'd more easily, and with greater security then Ro∣manists, our Adversary sayes, we teach that Baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation, and no Baptism a true and real one, if the Minister when be pronounces the Words, has not an Inten∣tion to Baptize, which no doubt happens frequent∣ly, s••••es he, since the Intention may be easily di∣verted to his other designs, and affairs.

Answer. First, if, as Protestants think, Baptism is absolutely necessary to none. Catholicks are not really less secure as to their Salvation, because they think it necessary.

Secondly, If I ask any Minister, after he ha•• Christened a Child, if he did not Intend to do what CHRIST ordain'd to be done in Baptism, and what is ordinarily done by his Church. Without doubt he'l tell me, he did. And this is all the In∣tention the Church requires in the Priest Baptize∣ing.

If you say, the Priest or Minister may be divert∣ed from this Intention by a thought of his other

affairs, so, say I, may he be diverted by the same from that Intention, which you require, to wit, of pronouncing the Words and applying the Water, and so you have as much to fear you are not Bap∣tiz'd as we. But that which hinders us both to fear, is this, that we do not require an Actual Intention or a Reflection of my understanding that my will Intends, which Actual Intention is indeed lost by a Distraction, or thought of another thing (and this seems to be the mistake of our Adversary, by his saying the Priest's Intention may be easily di∣verted to his other affairs) but only a Vertual In∣tention, which stands with an Actual thought of another thing, then that I am doing; as when a Man playes on the Virginals and speaks to another of something else, both at once. We say this mo∣tion of his Fingers is not of it self, but proceeds from a motion of the Will, and a direction of the understanding, tho' not sensible or preceptible, by Reason of the weakness of these two Acts com∣pared to the strength of an Actual Intention. This Intention is called Vertual, because it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were the Vertue or Vicar of the Actual Intention left by it to supply its place in order to do that which was first Actually Intended with a sensible and strong reflection of the understanding upon the Intention of the Will. Neither is it destroyed by the expli∣cite thought of another thing; so this other thing be not incompatible with the Action to which this Vertual Intention moves and directs.

For Example, my speaking of some other thing suffers at the same time my playing on the Organ, which playing is directed by the Vertual, while I have an Actual Intention to speak of another thing.

Now, to prove that in Baptizing this Vertual

Intention is sufficient, (not denying but that the Actual is most laudable) I desire, Men consider we have no other in all our Moral Actions which have a notable duration and succession of parts. Would you have a Man, who is going a Foot ten miles to a Market, talking earnestly with another of Buying or Selling, all the Way Actually intend and successively reflect, beside all his other Dis∣course, upon every individual step of his Journey? This were to make his Head fitter for the Hospi∣tal then for the Market, when he comes thither. Yet to every individual step his Foot is mov'd by the Will intending, and the understanding direct∣ing not Actually, then Vertually, as I have ex∣plain'd.

From all this, you see the R. Catholick is really as secure in matter of Baptism as the Protestant, and has as little Reason as he to fear its nulli∣ty.

But if by a Diabolical malice, which is a case more Metaphysical than Moral, the Priest or Mini∣ster had not a sufficient Intention, and the Inva∣lidity of the Baptism were wholly unknown to the Person Baptized, then suffices an efficacious desire of it, which, without thinking of it, is included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins, for having offended God, or an Act of the Love of GOD; which every Christian being bound often to make is supposed to make, and so remains without trou∣ble upon that Head.

As I have said in Baptism, so in the Collation of Priest-hood suffices a Vertual Intention in the Bishop, which Morally cannot be wanting without the Malice of a Devil: But if it should sall out, which is most rare, if really 'twas ever heard of: ••irst, it may be Piously believ'd, least the Faith∣ful

be often deceiv'd in that Adorable Sacrifice of the Altar, from which they expect so much; that either God gives by his Church the power of Priest-hood to those who are in all appearance or∣dain'd, as the Church gives Jurisdiction in favour of the Faithfull to the very Apostats of administring the Sacrament in a danger of Death; or that he will both manifest by his providence over his Church; that want of Intention in the Ordainer, that it may be supplied by a reordination, and move those in Authority, whom it concerns, to command it to be done.

So that if such a thing be divulged and come to the hearing of high superiors, and they take no notice of it after the case is sufficiently proposed to them, tis a sign the rumor is groundless.

And by this is partly answer'd what our adversary affirmes of a Bishop in France, who, as he saies, before his death confessed that he had ordained many, but alwayes without a due Intention.

Add, if it be true, that since the Church did not command such Priests ordain'd by him, to be re-ordain'd nor suspended them till then from the function, its to be thought that Bishop was look'd upon as a Person troubled with scruples at that time, and in the fear of Death to make his Conscience sure not distinguishing sufficiently actual Intention from virtual, accus'd himself not to have had a due Intention because he thought he had not an actual, or something of that nature not re∣gardable.

Another story our Adversary relates of a Person in pain for his Baptism being in danger of Death at Sea, of which, he saies, he was an Eye wit∣ness; I only desire him to call to mind, and, see if he was not rather an Ear witness of what

he heard related by another, than of what he saw himself (for which I have some Ground) and if it be so let him remember that the persons pain was not about the Intention of the Minister but absolutely whither or not he had been Baptiz'd re∣membering of the conjuncture of circumstances in which he was born, viz. a Bastard of a Catholick Father among the Presbyterians, who would not Baptize a Bastard unless the Father gave obedience to the Church or Synod.

However, I ask our Adversary, if he was an Eye witness, whither the doubt seem'd to him ratio∣nal, or not? If it seemed rational he being a fit Minister of the Sacrament he should have Baptiz'd him under condition; if not, he should have pa∣cified him, making him remember what we teach, to wit, that in case our Baptism had not been va∣lid, an efficacious desire of Baptism included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins, or pure love of God, suffices.

SECT. III. We have security for the Salvation of a Child dying immediately after Baptism, Prote∣stants have None.

HAving retorted the Difficulty of the Intention the R. Church requires in Baptism upon the Intention our Adversaery himself requires, and must require of applying the Words and Wa∣ter, for 'tis a humane Action.

And having shown how Catholick Doctors bring both him and us handsomly and solidly off by a Virtual Intention.

I shall make appear now that we have in this case of Baptism security for our Salvation, and they have none, we standing to our Tenets, and they to theirs.

Take me a Protestants Child validly Baptiz'd by a Minister (as we grant they can) let the Child dye afore the use of reason, what becomes of him according to the Catholick Tenet, we hold it goes straight to Heaven. What becomes of him according to the Protestant Tenet? They say it may be he's sav'd, viz. if he was one of the Elect and consequently the Parents were of the Faithful; and it may be he's damn'd, if the Parents were not of the Faithful, to wit, Spiritual

Children of Abraham or the Child, tho' of Faithful Parents, was not of the Elect; for I hope they will not say that Faithful Parents have never a Wicked or a Reprobat Child.

And how shall I know Faithful Parents but by their Fruits or Works, and how shall I know that their Works are good? Since many wicked People have had seeming good Works. Nay how shall I know a man to have Faith by Works that are all damnable and worthy of Death, as Calvin speaks, Inst. l. 3. cap. 12. n. 4. Sins, as Beza terms them, and Works of the Devil, v. Bez. Tom. 1. operum. pag. 665. and Works of Darkness, as Luther calls them, Tom 1. operum fol. 196. Edit. Wittemb. shall abominations in a Man be marks to me of a supernatural gift of kindness given by God to him?

Next, suppose that the Parents be of the Faithful, who told you the Child is one of the Elect? To us his Baptism is a sure mark of his Election. You have no such, see you then how in this case we have security and you have none? The other Motive he brings to a Protestant, is that Protestants are sav'd more easily. If he means only that Pro∣testants in their way to Salvation, trouble themselves not with taking so much pains as good R. Catholicks do freeing themselves from any Obligations and Mor∣tifications of the Flesh we take upon us, grounded in the Holy Scripture, I grant 'tis so? but this easie way is woful, since the Word of God warns all to strive to enter by the narrow way, Matth. 7.13. Enter by the narrow Gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to Perdition.

SECT. IV. Our Adversary's Exception against our Doctrine of Purgatory Retorted upon Pro∣testants.

FRom our Doctrine of Baptism he passes to our belief of Purgatory, and says that it flatters Sinners in their Imperfections, causes them to live more loosly and takes from them the fear of Hell. If this be true, then according to that Maxim of Logick Oppositorum opposita est consequentia, the consequence of contraries is ••ontrary; the contrary Doctrine, which is that of ••otestants must advance perfection, cause a more Austere life, make Protestants walk more cautiously, and fear more God's dreadful Judgment, certain, if they dye in Sin they shall be lyable to his Wrath for ever, as, if they dye in the Lord they shall from their Labours.

But this is evidently false; for what perfection 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had but by observing the Law of God? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Domini Immaculata convertans animas, Psalm, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2, 3, 8. But, this is impossible, say they, what perfection can be had if all our Actions be Sins? Are Sins and perfections Synonima's? Can I command my self to think that that man, who is confessedly acknowledged to be composed of ini∣quity, and to do nothing but abomination from Morning till Evening, lives innocently like an

Anchoret, an Austere and Godly Life? How can Protestant Doctrine give, them a deeper fear of Hell, if, in that same that they fear Hell they be∣lieve and see clearly that they cannot be saved; Because who fears, has not assurance, which is the portion•• of every just Man, since he is not just, unless he believe that his Sins are remitted by the Merits of Christ. And must every man, to whom the Gospel is Preached believe this? How many then believe a lye? Or what reason have you to believe it more then any other to whom the Gos∣pel is Preached? Because you find your self to walk more Cautiously then Romanists? But how do you walk more cautiously then we? Since if you avoid one damnable Sin, you necessarily fall into another, seeing you cannot do any thing with all the assistance of the Grace of Christ which is not an abomination in the sight of God. This is a cold com∣fort to Protestants, and all this sad Doctrine comes from that great Protestant Principle, Baptism does not take away Original sin: So that, as a poy∣soned Fountain runs nothing but poysonous Water, the Soul of Man still remaining corrupted with Original Sin brings forth nothing but corruption. How will Souls so foul enter Heaven?

Protestants smile, if, from this passage, Matth. 12. v. 33. Some Sins shall neither be forgiven in this World nor in the World to come, we silly Romanists infer that since no Sin is forgiven in Hell or Heaven, there must be a third place in the other World (call't as you please) in the which some Sins may be forgiven; But may not we rather laugh∣out at the fancy of Men, who, acknowledging them∣selves to be all broken out with the runing sores of O∣riginal & Actual Sin think with an imaginary cloak∣ing of themselves with the Justice of Christ above

all is hidden filth, they shall enter Heaven as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as a Plague Person under a disguise enters a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hospital?

••••e Master of the Hospital may be deceived, I 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but God who hath said that nothing which ••••s shall enter Heaven; Rev. cap. 21. v. 27. ••ot be deluded.

SECT. V. ••he Churches not permitting all Parts of the Scripture indiffe∣rently to be read by all, is Justified. And her high sentiment of this word of God declar∣ed.

MAny stumble at the Churches not permit∣ting indifferently all those who only understand the holy Scriptures in a vul∣gar Tongue, to read them. But without reason this is first the great veneration the Church has for the Word of God, not to submit his high My∣steries to the Interpretation of every Ignorant Crea∣ture, while upon all occasions they read it with as little respect as if it were a Romance or a play Book, and give their verdict of its meaning; the Prophet Malachy in the mean time, cap. 2. v. 7.

sayes, the lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and the Law they shall require of his Mouth.

Secondly, The Church deals with her Children as Christ dealt with his Apostles, John 16. v. 12. and St. Paul with the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 3: v. 2. Christ did not propose to them all the strong truths while they were week in Vertue, I have, said he, many other things to tell you which you are not able to bear at present, Iohn 16.12.

And St. Paul gave the Corinthians Milk, not then stronger Food saying to them that they were not yet able, 1 Cor. 3. v. 2.

Wise Parents at a great Table do not let their Children take what they please but give them of Meats presented what they know to be fit for their weak Stomach. So the Church allows the learn∣ed to feed themselves with the Holy Scripture, she gives of the same Table to the unlearned by their Pastors and Teachers what is fittest for them, lest having the whole Bible in their hands (espe∣cially without the Notes for the better understand∣ing of it) they wrong themselves, as those who as St. Peter, 2 Pet. 3. v. 16. speaks, wrested some passages of St. Paul, as also the other Scriptures to their own destruction. Destruction Implyes more then mistakes in Indifferent matters.

Would it not startle an Ignorant to hear (afore the Passage is explained) what God said to the Pro∣phet Isaiah cap. 6. v. 10. Blind the heart of the Peo∣ple, &c. Lest perhaps they may see with their Eyes and be converted. Would an Infinite Good∣ness says an Ignorant, command a Prophet to do so? Would it not amaze the same to read in the first of Hosea v. 1. That God commanded him to take a Whore and take to himself Children of Whore∣dom. Is it possible, sayes the Ignorant, that

Sanctity it self should speak so?

With what surprizing passages will an Ignorant Carnal Man meet with in the Canticles?

Respect then the Holy Ghost in the Conduct of the Church, and do not think that her Children, who do not, nor cannot read the Scriptures live in ignorance, Lukewarmness, Indifferency with∣out relishing Heavenly things, without true De∣votion, more then Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, who had the same want, but were Instructed to the Piety we read of, by the Tradition from others, as our unlearn'd are by the Labours of our Pastors and Preachers who not being diverted from their Book and Prayer, by the necessary care of providing for Wife and Children, Meditate at leasure the Holy Bible, and study how they may best deliver to the People the Truths they find there both necessary to Salvation, and conducing to Persection. And this aboundantly suffices, unless you will exclude also among Protestants all those, who cannot read, from Devotion, as if God had design'd only great Wits for Heaven.

Add to all this, that if the Scripture put into e∣very private Mans hand and being understood by him according to his best Judgement, be to him a sufficient Rule of Faith (which without doubt would breed as much confusion in the Church as the Law Book Interpreted by every private Man without Obligation to submit to the Kings Judges, would do in the Kingdom) what need have you of Ministers more then Quakers? If every one be thus capable to understand the Word, why is he not capable to Preach it? And if he be capable to Preach it to others, or stirr them up to the Faith of Justi∣fying Grace, why is he not capable to give also the Sacrament, or the Sign of it receiv'd.

If you say that God has ordained Bishops or Pres∣byters to Govern the Church; I answer, 'tis not Civily, but in Doctrine, & what will this Government in our case serve for but to make them Hypocrites, since they must then believe outwardly what the Mi∣nister Teaches, and inwardly what their own light perswades them, often contrary to the Ministers per∣swasion.

When we say the Bible doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation, we do not say that the Word of God does not contain all things necessary to Salva∣tion, because the Word of God is partly written partly unwritten; Put these two together and you have all things necessary to Salvation. Nay the Scripture alone has partly Explicitly partly Implicitly, in as much as it sends us to the Church, all things ne∣cessary to Salvation.

When we say that the Scripture is not absolutely, But in some places obscure, in others clear; what do we say more then Protestants, who teach that the Scripture is an Interpreter of it self, if you compare the less clear passage with another or others more clear; is not this to say that the less clear is obscure? which obscurity is taken away by the clearness of the other.

Neither do we say that the Scripture is Imperfect when we say it is only a part of our Rule of Faith, no more then we say the Almighty Power of God is Imperfect when we say 'tis only a part of his Infinite Perfection. As we do not say that God is Finit be∣cause he is a part of this Couple contained in Christ-God and Man, or by which we say God and Man are two, viz. natures.

SECT. VI. The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church, and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith.

WE acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be our Rule of Faith, but not alone; we believe them to be profitable to teach us in Justice, that the Man of God may be perfect, 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. But not sole sufficient to make him perfect.

We seem, sayes our Adversary, to doubt of the Originals of Scripture, since we ask a Protestant, how he knows it is the Word of God? As if the Air, Simplicity, Majesty, and way of Expression proper to God alone, did not show this sufficient∣ly, as the King's Letters are known by their style and Royal Seal.

Answer. We are so far from doubting of the Scriptures being the Word of God, that we believe it with an Act of Divine Faith. But we have ask∣ed and ask without any Answer, that has so much as a jot of Reason, by what Principle they will prove to us that the Scripture is the Word of God. If besides the Scripture there is no Rule of Faith?

Not by the Scripture it self, because self Testi∣mony

is none, were it Written in any place of it, that this Bible containing so many, and such Books is the Word of GOD, for the Question returns, how know you that this Testimony is the Word of GOD?

Now, to say that she Scripture shows it self, is frivolous. For I ask what's that to say the Scrip∣ture shows it self? Is it that by Reading it, rises in the mind of a Man who has a well disposed un∣derstanding, this apprehension, The Scripture is the Word of God? By which apprehension he sees it is so, before he Judges or believes? If so, then he does not believe the Word of God to be the Word of God, mov'd by the Word of God, but by this apprehension, which if you say is the Word of God, then you admit a Word of God which is not Written, and yet to you a Rule of Faith, and so you have another Immediate Rule of Faith, than the Written Word of God.

Again, that apprehension and inward Testimo∣ny of the mind for which its believed that the Scrip∣ture is the Word of GOD, and that it shows it self, does it rise from this, that the Simplicity, Majesty, and way of Expression, move Men to Judge that the Scripture is the Word of God?

But seeing all these particulars come from such Words Instituted by Men to signifie, and that the more or less Majesty of the Style, in a Speech or Sentence rises from a certain material placing and disposing of Words among themselves, the whole thing is natural, and so not the Word of God.

Next, that Simplicity and Majesty of Style, and what you please more, is not so in every part of Scripture, that I am bound for them to believe, that that part is the Word of God. For I pray, what Air, Simplicity, or Majesty of Style is in the

begining of the Gospel of St. Matthew, when its said there, Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Iacob; what do you find more there then you would find in those same Words written in an Au∣thor, not Sacred, as in Ioseph the Iew?

Now, if you ask us why we believe the Scrip∣ture to be the Word of God? We Answer, be∣cause an Infallible Tradition passing through all Ages, and always believing it to be the Word of God, has conveyed it to our Hands, and that Ge∣neral approv'd Councils have confirm'd it by their Sacred Decrees and uncontrolable Authority, as of∣ten as any Controversie arose among the Faithful, either concerning certain Books, or the certainty of the Tradition it self.

If you say you make use of this same Tradition of all Christians hitherto believing it to be the Word of God, as a motive of Credibility to you that it is the Word of God.

I Answer. You may, but first by claiming to this, you leave your own Principle of denying Tra∣dition. Next, tho' this Universal Tradition be to you a motif of Credibility, that the Bible is the Word of God as to the Letter, yet you have none for the sense, in which you take it.

Subsect. This passage search the Scriptures, John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants.

TO prove that the Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith; at last our Adversary brings these Words of CHRIST to the Iews. Search the Scriptures, John cap. 5. v. 39.

Answer. You must know that there our Saviour was proving to the Iews his God-head or Divinity. And he proves it, First, by the Testimony of St. Iohn Baptist v. 32. and lets them understand how worthy a Person Iohn was of Credit with them. Secondly, he proves it by his Works, v. 36. Third∣ly, by the Testimony of his Eternal Father, viz. This is my Son in whom I am well pleas'd. Matth. 3. v. 17. Take notice that CHRIST for their Rule in believing his God-head, did not fend them first to the Scripture but to the Testimony of Iohn, his Miraculous Works, and the Testimony of his Father, and last of all he saies, Search the Scrip∣tures, as if he should have said, if you will not acknowledge me to be God for these great Argu∣ments and Motives I have brought: Take yet one more, which is, that since you think you have E∣ternal Life in the Scriptures, Search them, and there you will find that I am God, because the Prophets in them give Testimony of me. And this was said to their Doctors, not to every private Person.

Secondly, The Word Scrutamini in Lati•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ereunate in Greek, is of the presenttence of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dicative mood (Cyrillus takes it in the Indicative) as well as of the Imperative, and so signisies, you do Search the Scriptures, as if he should say, since you do Read diligently the Scriptures, you can't but find my Divinity there, since they give clear Testimony of me by the Prophets.

Our adversary shuts up this matter of Scripture by shuting us up, as he Imagins, or will seem to Imagin, in a circle, while we prove the Scripture, by the Church and run back saies he, to the Scrip∣ture to prove the Church.

Answer. To those who admit the Scripture and deny the Church, we prove the Church by the Scripture: to these who deny a part of Scripture, but hold the Infallible Authority of the Church, we prove the Scripture by the Church: to those who deny both Church and Scripture we prove first the Church by the signal marks of the true Church set down in the old and new Testament, (of which some alone are of sufficient force to move a Pagan) and having Established Her Authority; by Her ac∣knowledging the Scripture to be the Word of God, we prove it to be the Word of God. In this Dis∣course you see no Circle, but in the Imagination of our Adversary.

Now let us see if he who thought to catch us be not caught himself. For, therefore with him Scripture is the Word of God because it shows it self; and wherefore doth it show it self but because it is seen by those who only disclose (as he speaks) those Divine Letters: And wherefore again is it seen to those who open those Divine Letters but because it shows it self? And so while he walks between it is seen, and it shows it self, neither sees

〈…〉〈…〉 thing himself, nor shows or can show any thing to others, who desire to see because he can't show what he sees not, nor the Scripture show what it infallibly contains without another infallible Rule of Faith.

SECT. VII. The Reason why the Mass is not said in the Vulgar Tongue.

OUr Adveriary advancing in his Reflexions upon our Religion sayes that our Prayers in an Unknown Tongue is not a small hinderance to Piety and Devotion. What Comfort, sayes he, can the Ignorant sort reap at Mass.

Answer. Either he means our Private Prayers or our Publick: If our Private Prayers, I attest his own Conscience, all English and Scots Protestants, who converse Familiarly with us if they do not know that we have our Manuals of Devotion in Eng∣lish.

If he means our Publick Prayers: Then he sup∣poses two things which are false. The first that, that publick Action which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass, is, or ought simply to be called a verbal Prayer; The second that, that less considerable part of it which consists in Words, is in an unknown Tongue.

The Sacrifice of the Mass being of its Nature, and by the Intention of Christ the Instituter of it, and

chief Officer in it, an Action ordain'd to acknow∣ledge his Fathers Supream Dominion over us; to give him thanks for his Favours bestowed upon us, for a continuation of them, and a Satisfaction for our Sins, it is a prayer, but a real one and is more the object of the Eye then of the Ear: Moreover is it not enough that the Mass is Printed in Vulgar Tongues? And that the Council of Trent. Sess. 22. cap 8. Commands the Pastors to explain it to the People altho it be not said but in the Tongues of the Church: In the Greek Church in Greek, in the Latin in Latin, to keep an uniformity among the Faithful of each Church and that the expression of the Churches Li∣turgy keep its Majestie not subject to the changes of Vulgar Tongues, to which those are, who speak them, under pain of passing sometimes for Ridi∣culous.

Neither is that to be call'd an Unknown Tongue which little Boyes are ordinarily taught in the Schools, and which they come often to speak Regularly before they can express themselves handsomly in their Mothers Tongue. Neither do our Country Clowns speak unknown Tongues because they don't easily understand one another.

But Grant the Latin Tongue is an unknown Tongue, is it not enough that all those prayers are found explained in Books?

Neither does the Devotion of the Ignorant con∣sist in their hearing or knowing what the Priest says but in knowing what he does. And in offering up with him the same Sacrifice which is also theirs, sure, if they be well disposed, to receive great good by it. I pray, did the People in the entry of the Temple hear what Zacharie said when he was Offi∣ciating far from being so much as seen by them, Luke 1. cap. v. 10. and the People wondred that he stayed there so long. v. 21.

But what shall we say of those Extemporary prayers made by some Protestants, who being weak in Spirit, yet resolved to follow the strain of their Bre∣thren speak a great deal of none-sence? Is that a known or an unknown Tongue when the Hearers can't make sence of his words, but only knows his meaning is to pray? To this he adds a bare Lecture of Scriptures sometimes of a Prophet obscure in his Expression, they know not whither its to be under∣stood in the Literal or Figurative sense, yet what a sighing and sobing! What a mournful Looks in their Eyes! And murgions in their Faces! If this Prayer and lecture of Scripture neither of them being under∣stood, can move these People to so much Devotion because they know this is said and read to Honour God; why may not the Sacrifice of the Mass which Catholicks believe to be the highest Honour that can be given to God upon ••arth, move those who are present to Devotion, although they don't under∣stand in particular what is said by the Priest to God? 'Tis enough that the Priest understand it who in his own, and in all their Names makes the Sacrifice.

I end this Section with some Reflections,

1. That S. Paul 1 Cor. 14. does not speak of a publick Prayer approved by the Church, and conse∣quently not subject to Error, But only of a new Prayer of a private Person made to others which might be subject to Error, and therefore he would not have it made in a Vulgar Tongue, but in a Tongue that others might judge of it, as appears by his saying in the 29, v. Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

2. St. Paul saies, v. 29. forbid not to speak with Tongues, i. e. in an unknown tongue, I say then what Christian dares forbid what the Apostle allows?

3. St. Paul saies there v. 15. I will pray with the

Spirit, i. e. (in an unknown Tongue) and I will pray with the understanding also. i. e. in a known Tongue. If he prayed in an unknown Tongue as well as in a known Tongue, why may we not also?

4. As, altho' an Inchanter understands not the words of his Charm the Devil understands them, and obeys them, so, altho the Ignorant understand not the words of his Prayer, the Devil understands them and fears them; and God understands them, and helps him, as the King does a Favour to an Idiot who understood not the Petition presented by him, but only in General that it was for what he desired, or made in favour of him.

5. If any be contentious for our not using a vul∣gar Tongue in our Lyturgy, our Answer is with St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 16. we have no such Custome nor has had the Church of God for 1600. Years, and more.

6. By unknown Tongues the Apostle means not of Hebrew among the Iews, Greek among the Grecians, or Latin among us of the Western Church, which is understood of the learned and civil Peo∣ple in every great City, but of Miraculous Ton∣gues which Men spoke in the Primitive Church, as a Mark that they had received the Holy Ghost. Think you that the Lyturgy is said in the Greek Church in an unknown Tongue, because its said in prop•••• Greek not now understood by the vul∣gar?

SECT. VIII. The Roman Doctrine of Transub∣stantiation, does not destroy ex∣perimental knowledge, nor deceive our Senses.

OUr Adversary sayes, that Transubstantiation destroyes all evidence grounded in the ex∣perimental knowledge of our senses, and makes void the proof CHRIST made use of to his Apostles, to convince them he was not a Spi∣rit. To understand my Answer to this Objection of our Adversary, you must know;

First, that the Principle of experimental knowledge is this, for example, wheresoever are all the Acci∣dents of Bread, there is the substance of Bread, un∣less the Author of Nature hinder its presence there.

Secondly, That this conditional must be alwayes added in Reverence to the Almighty Power of God; otherwayes by this Experimental knowledge, a Combustible thing laid in the Fire burns. 'Twould follow that the Children in the Furnace of Babylon were burnt contrary to what is said in Daniel 3, cap. v. 50.

These two things being known, I answer, that evidence grounded upon experimental Knowledge stands in its full vigour with our Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as is clear to him, who in this true Supposition of Experimental Knowledge con∣siders it.

For we deny Bread to be in the Eucharist where all the Accidents of Bread are, because the Author of Nature hinders the presence of Bread to be there as he has revealed it to us in several places of Scrip∣ture. And consequently I deny that Transubstan∣tiation destroyes more Experimental Knowledge, than Protestant's belief that the Angels, who ap∣peared to Abraham, Lot and Iacob, were Angels and not Men, destroys it.

Had not the Angels appearing to them all the Accidents of Men, as our Eucharist has all the Ac∣cidents of Bread: And did not they look as like men, as it looks like Bread?

Secondly, It makes void, sayes he, the proof Christ brought to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit. Handle me and see, sayes our Sa∣viour, for a Spirit has no Flesh, Luke 24. v. 39. which can be no conviction to Romanists who see Bread in the Eucharist, if they will trust their own Senses, Answ.

Do Protestants make void the proof Christ made use of to his Apostles when they say that the Angels (of which afore) that appeared to Abraham, Lot and Iacob, were not Men but Angels? No, say you, because GOD hath revealed that they were An∣gels?

Neither do we Romanists when we say that in the Eucharist that which appears like Bread is the Body of Christ under the form of Bread, and not Bread; because our Saviour hath Revealed that it is his Body.

Our Saviours proof, says our Adversary, that he was not a Spirit shall never influence a Papist to conviction.

Answer. This I deny, for in this case, we have both evidence of the senses and our Saviours Word,

and no Revelation contradicting them, and there∣fore are fully convinc'd to believe it. But for Bread in the Eucharist we have indeed the evidence of sense, but not Christs word, but on the contrary we have our senses contradicted by Christs infallible word. Must not a Man be in Eclipse, or under a Cloud not to see this Disparity.

To clear then our Adversary in his mistake, I let him know that our Saviour undertook to prove that he had a true Body, which is the Natural Remote object of our senses, by the Judgment of his Disci∣ples senses: But never to prove Immediatly an Ob∣ject or Mystery of Faith such as our Eucharist is, by the Judgment of our senses. I say Immediatly, be∣cause having prov'd Immediatly that this was his true Body, mediatly he proved in that Circumstance that it was risen again. Nay when we come to such Mysteries of Faith, we must not only Captivate our Senses but Reason also, if we will believe St. Paul 2 Cor. 10. v. 5.

As to that he sayes that our Transubstantiation favours the Opinion of the Marcionists its manifestly false to those who know the Marcionists Opinion, to wit, that Christ had not a true Body, but only in appearance. For who grants our Transubstantiation must grant that the Body of Christ is there either real∣ly and substantially or in appearance: But under the appearance of Bread cannot be the appearance of the Body of Christ, to wit, the Shape, Bulk, Colour, and Extention of all the parts of his Body, for how can all these stand together with the proper Accidents of Bread in the lest Particle of the Host? And con∣sequently they not being there, his reall Body must be there to make the grant of Transubstantiation good.

Subsect. 1, In the Eucharist our senses are not deceiv'd in their pro∣per Object.

OUr Adversary saies, let us torture our dis∣cursive faculty never so much, we shall never be able to prove that our senses are not deceived representing to us as Bread, what really, if we are believed, is not Bread.

Answer. That our senses are not deceived in their proper Object, I prove thus,

The proper Object of our senses (are only the Accidents of Bread; in the Eucharist our senses re∣present to us the Accidents, Colour, Taste, &c. after the Consecration just as they did afore; then they are not at all deceived in their proper Ob∣ject.

You'l say, their proper Object is also the Sub∣stance of Bread, and in that they are deceived, since after Consecration according to us there is no Bread.

Answer. I deny that the Substance of Bread is their proper Object, its the Object of the under∣standing, which from the senses Anticedent repre∣sentation to him of all the Accidents of Bread, in∣fers that the Substance of Bread is there, viz. or∣dinarily, and naturally when it is not revealed to him, that the Author of Nature has disposed other∣waies. So that the Substance of Bread is only im∣properly, by Accident and occasionally, called the

Object of our senses, in as much as they by their Relation to him of all the Accidents of a Substance, give him occasion to Judge certainly that the Sub∣stance is also there, when he has no Revelation from God of the contrary.

If our Eyes are deceived in Transubstantiation, was not the Iews Eyes deceived in the Incarnation, representing CHRIST as a Human Person.

By this solution you have an Answer to all his empty, talk of Roses and Lillies, &c. saying, I can never acertain you of any thing my Eyes sees; for if I see all the Accidents of a Rose and have no Revelation from the Author of Nature, that the Substance of a Rose is not there, I can asure you that it is a Rose.

The same Answer serves, when he saies that as my Eye may be deceived, so, may also my Ear, which gives a Mortal blow to Tradition, it com∣ing by hearing. For we have said already, that neither Eye nor Ear are deceiv'd in their Object, because as the Eye ever represents the same Co∣lour, so the Ear conveys ever to the understanding the same sound, and as the Substance which is un∣der that Colour is the Object of the understanding and not of the Eye; so likewaies the Truth or False∣hood of the Word is the Object of the understand∣ing, and not of the Ear.

You'l say if Accidents only are the Object of our senses, how do you understand these propositions, I see Bread, I Taste Wine? Which are common Expressions.

Answer. We speak so, because the denomina∣tion which fals upon the Instrument, often is given to the thing of which it is an Instrument, and so, as, when my Hand is hurt, I am said to be hurt, because my Hand is an Instrument of my Body,

by which it Acts, so when the savour of the Wine is tasted, the Wine is said to be tasted, because it is an Instrument or Vertue that flowes from the Wine, and by which the Wine affects your Taste.

Out of all I have said gather this Truth, that neither Sense nor Reason is deceiv'd in the Eucha∣rist; not our senses because they find all the Acci∣dent in the same condition after Consecration, in which they were before. Not Reason, because Reason tells me, that I ought to believe that the Substance of Bread is there where all its Accidents are, unless God reveal to me the contrary, and in that case not to believe it to be there. But God has reveal'd it not to be there, so when I now believe it not to be there my Reason is not de∣ceiv'd.

Now to oppose this revelation or Infallible word of Christ, we claim to, This is my Body, he saies Litera occidit, the letter kills.

Answer. The letter kills indeed when it taken in the literal sense involves a contradiction, or any thing against Faith, or good manners; other∣wayes not. So this proposition Christ is a Vine, taken literally kills, because the verb is in it taken literally Imports an Identification or samety of two natures, specifically different contrary to that we know by Faith, to wit, that the Son of God hath assum'd no nature but that of man: And in this proposition This is my Body taken literally, the verb is, imports onely an Indentification of the same thing with it self, onely otherwayes exprest, less destinctly in the subject. This, and more destinctly in the predicate my Body.

Subsect. II. Shows that Transubstantiation nei∣ther inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie, with some que∣stions about the Pro∣testants Commu∣nion.

OUr Adversary's second way of opposing Transubstantiation is to say, that it In∣clines mean Capacities to Idolatrie and the sharper wits to Hypocrisie. The Common People no doubt, saies he, do frequently adore the Acci∣dents (according to his concession pag. 90. They are taught as he saies there to adore Christ under the Accidents) they see which they call God, say∣ing when the Wafer is lifted by the Priest, on leve Dieu, God is lifted.

Answer. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation expresly commands to adore what they do not see, quod, non vides, and forbids to Adore what is seen. If, nevertheless some do the contrary, the Doc∣trine is not therefore blameable, no more then the Law is to be blam'd, because some do quite con∣trary to its Rule and Instruction. For that saying on leve Dieu, God is lifted if it can be said with∣out Blasphemy that God was lifted upon the Cross, because Christ's Body was lifted upon the Cross, it may likewise be said without Blasphemy that God

is lifted up in the Sacrifice of the Mass, because Christs Body is there lifted up. By a Communication of properties, what is atributed to Christ's Body, is atributed to Christ, and what is atributed to Christ, is atributed to God.

For the sharp wits they see that according to the probable Opinion of Protestants, Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not there as in a place, because to be in a place is to be with the full extention of its parts corresponding to the parts of the place, but this Christ's Body in the Eucharist has not, and there∣fore it is not there in a place: And therefore, tho' it be there and in Heaven both at once, it is not in two places both at once; yet largely and improperly speaking, the Body of Christ may be said to be in the Eucharist, as in a place in as much as it is united to the Accidents which are in a place. The Body then of Christ is there after the existing way of a Spirit. If you say the Body of Christ can't be united to Accidents in different places, I ask how is our Soul united to different parts of the Body, which are in different places?

Just then as the Soul is not in a place, yet is said to be above and below, before and behind, because the parts to which it is united are above and below, before and behind; so when the Acci∣dents to which Christ's Body is united in the Eucharist are mov'd or lifted up, it is said to be mov'd or lifted up. So its a silly thing for Protestants to object to Ca∣tholicks the obsurdities which seem to follow from a Body's being in two places, since they may say that the Body of Christ by its being in the Eucharist is not in two places. Thus you see our witty People have not occasion to be Hypocrites but sincere believers.

If our Adversary saies a Body can be no more without Extention, then Water without humi∣dity,

Fire without Heat, a Stone without Hard∣ness. I grant it is so naturally, but he must mutual∣ly grant to me, that it may be as well without ex∣tention supernaturally, as a Fire without burning, having within the splear of its activity, a thing com∣bustible which was seen in the Furnice of Babylon Dan. 3. cap. And a Stone, by the stroke of a Rod to yield a Fountain of Water, Exod: 17. cap. v. 6. is as surprising as Water it self without Hu∣midity.

Let Catholicks then mark well this, that Tran∣substantiation does not at all force them to avow, that CHRIST's Body is in two parts extensiv∣ly, or with the extension of its parts.

Our Adversary objects, that all Miracles must be visible, but in the Eucharist the Substance into which the Bread is changed is not visible, then there is no such Miraculous change in the Eucha∣rist.

Answer. I deny the Major proposition, for to whom was visible the Conception and Birth of CHRIST of a Virgin-Mother? To whom was visible the Creation of the World? What Man saw the Nothing out of which all was made, and upon that account was moved to say, the Being of the World was a Miracle?

Let him know then that God has made two sorts of Miracles, the one of necessity Visible, because they are motives to us of Credibility, or to move us to believe. Such were the Miracles by which CHRIST proved his Divinity; Moses, that he was sent by God; such were and are the Miracles by which the R. Catholick Church proves that she is the true Church of CHRIST.

Other Miracles God has made, which are meer Objects of Faith, and matters to us of submiting

our understandings to his Word, as our will to his Command. These matters on one side must not be Visible, for what submission is there of my un∣derstanding to assent to what I see; on the other∣side, they must be strange and above Nature, to give worthily to my Faith the Name of a Soveraign and pure Submission, such as is due to the vera∣city of God. Of this Nature are the Mysteries of the Incarnation in CHRIST, and Transubstantiati∣on in the Eucharist.

He ends his Battery against Transubstantion in the Eucharist with this Argument, these Words, This is my Body, &c. are not a true and real Testa∣ment; (for he sayes not, I leave you my Body, which is the usual manner of uttering our selves in Testaments) therefore they may be taken in a Fi∣gurative sense.

Answer. First, CHRIST calls his last Supper the New Testament, shall I believe him, or our Adversary? (This Cup the New Testament in my Blood, which shall be poured out for you and for many: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Is not the Testament of any other, then 'tis Christ's Legacy to his Apostles and others of the Faithful.

Secondly, No Testator ever made his Testament more clearly and expresly. Other Testators ordi∣narily make their Testament only by Words; CHRIST by Words and deed. By deed, in as much as being to depart, he gave them with his own hands: By Word, saying, Take eat this is my Body: When they took, did not he give? And to give to them, and give it to be given to others, is not that the same as to leave? When a Souldier dying in the Camp, gives his Sword to his Companion, is not that as much as to say, I leave it you? St. Augustin sayes in the Old Te∣stament

the New lyes hidden; and in the New the Old lyes open. Was not then the Old Testament a true Testament and a Figure of the New, (the Law having a shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10. v. 1.) and is the Figure more a true Testa∣ment, then the Testament figured?

After I have answered the difficulties our Adver∣versary finds in Transubstantion, I would willing∣ly ask him some Questions about their Tenet in the same matter.

First, if the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ be but Bread and Wine, and at the most, have nothing more than the Ministers Blessing above Common Bread and Wine, is it not as much Su∣perstition, to give them that respect they receive from Protestants, as it is in us to respect Agnus Dei's and Holy-Water?

Secondly, They can't increase or improve in the Justice they are supposed to have applyed to them∣selves before, by believing that all their Sins are forgiven by the Merits of Christ, what is then the effect of their Communion?

Thirdly, Since according to Protestants the Body of CHRIST cannot be Eaten but by Faith, and again, since this Faith must be not a Faith of Mi∣racles, nor an Historical Faith, but a saving Faith, or a fiducia, a confidence that their Sins are for∣given them by the Merits of CHRIST.

I infer, then they cannot Eat the Body of Christ unworthily, for by Eating CHRIST's Body with a saving Faith I save my self, by Eating it unwor∣thily I damn my self; but I can't save and damn my self both at once, then I can't Eat the Body of CHRIST unworthily. But this contradicts St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. cap. v. 27.

If you say with Dr. Taylor, that Christ's true

Body is there, viz. in the Sacrament really, but yet that the reallity and verity of his Body cannot be there, since Protestants believe that Christ does not come from Heaven to the Sacrament.

Is not this to shut up a Chymera between these two Words, He's there, as a nothing between two Dishes.