A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 9 – Chapter 10
CHAP. IX.
Argum. 7. TO the foregoing Arguments, I add the recital of one formerly mentioned, for the uſe of all that have the uſe of their wits and ſenſes.
If a man may be ſure, that he knows bread to be bread, and wine to be wine, when he ſeeth, feeleth, and taſteth them, then he may be ſure that Popery is a deceit. (This Conſequence they cannot queſtion) But a man may be ſure that he knoweth bread to be bread, and wine to be wine, when he ſeeth, feeleth, and taſteth them: therefore, &c.
Note that I ſpeak of ſuch a knowledge as belongs to men of ſound wits and ſenſes, and a convenient object and medium. It is the ſenſes of the whole world that I appeal to, and not of one or two: it is bread and wine that are near us, in the hand or mouth that I ſpeak of, and not at a miles diſtance: in the daylight, and not in the dark. So that take the bread and wine into your hand, and judge of it, and let this decide our Controverſie. If you can tell whether that be bread or no bread, you may tell whether the Papiſts or we are in the right. Thoſe therefore that be not learned and ſubtile enough to judge by Diſputations and writings of Learned men, may yet judge by their ſight and feeling. Either you know bread and wine when you ſee it, taſte it, feel it, or you do not. If you do, then the Controverſie is at an end: for the ſenſes of all ſound men in the world, will be againſt the Papiſts that ſay the bread after Conſecration is no bread, and the wine is no wine. But if you cannot know bread when you ſee, feel, and eat it, then ſee what follows. 1. Then we are ſure that the Pope and all his Council are not at all to be truſted: for if ſence be not to be truſted, then the Pope and his Council know not when they read the Scripture, and Canons, and Fathers, and hear Traditions, but that they are deceived. 2. Then we are uncertain of any Judgement that Pope or Council can give: for when they ſpoke or wrote it, we are uncertain whether our eyes and ears, or reaſon judging by them, are not deceived in the hearing or reading of their words. 3. How ridiculouſly then do they call for a Judge of Controverſies? and what a fooliſh quarrel is it that they make, who ſhall be the Interpreter of Scriptures, or Judge of Controverſies? For what can a Judge do but ſpeak or write his mind? and when he hath done, you know not what it is that you hear or read, becauſe your ſenſes may deceive you. Its a far harder matter to underſtand a ſentence or book of the Pope or Council when you read or hear it, then to know bread when you ſee, and feel, and eat it. Many thouſands know bread, that know not the Popes ſentence, nor a word of a book. 4. And by this rule, it is uncertain whether Scripture be true, or Chriſtianity the true Religion. For we cannot know it but by our ſences: and if they are ſo uncertain, all our Religion muſt needs be uncertain. 5. Yea we cannot tell what Revelation to deſire that ſhould end our Controverſies and make us certain. For if God ſhould ſend an Angel or other Meſſenger from heaven to decide the Controverſies between us and the Papiſts, what could he do more but ſpeak it to us as from God? and we ſhould ſtill be uncertain of what we ſee or hear: ſo that we are left uncurably in our ignorance and Controverſies, if Popery be true.
And here you may ſee upon what terms we diſpute with Papiſts, and what hope there is of ſatisfying them. We diſpute with men that will not believe their own ſenſes, or the ſenſes of the world. The damned man, Luk. 16. thought if one might have been ſent to his brethren from the dead, they would have believed. And if Abraham ſay to them, If they will not hear Moſes and the Prophets, neither will they be perſwaded though one riſe from the dead; we may ſay of Papiſts, ſure, if they will not believe their own eyes, and ears, and taſte, and know not bread when they ſee, and feel, and eat it, how ſhould they be perſwaded, though one were ſent to them from heaven to reſolve them? Can we think by all our Arguments to make any matter plainer to a man then that Bread is Bread, when he ſeeth and eateth it? If this be uncertain to them, what can you prove to them, or what way can you deviſe to deal with them? For indeed, if ſenſe be uncertain, we have no certainty of any thing in the world.
But to this H. T. (they ſay H. Turbervile) in his Manual of Controverſies ſaith thus. [Anſw. Subſtance is not the proper and immediate object of ſenſe, but colour, quantity, &c. Nor can ſenſe judge at all of ſubſtance though it be under ſenſible accidents, unleſs it be the ſubject of thoſe accidents, and have a ſenſible and corporal manner of being, which the Body of Chriſt neither is, nor hath in that Sacrament. It hath a ſpiritual manner of being, and is not the ſubject of the accidents of bread; they are without a ſubject by Miracle; therefore no wonder, if ſenſe be deceived in this matter. Here Senſe and Reaſon muſt vail bonnet to faith, and ſubmit to the Authority of God revealing, and the Church propounding; they are no competent Judges what God can do by his Omnipotence.] Thus H. T.
Repl. And is this all that theſe Rabbies have to ſatisfie the world that it is not Bread and Wine which is ſeen, and felt, and taſted! Let us firſt take notice of the by-paſſages of his anſwer, and then reply to the ſubſtance. 1. Is not this like the reſt of their contradictory imaginations? That Chriſt hath not a Corporal manner of Being in the Sacrament: and yet it is not Bread, but his Body that is there: yea before pag. 207. he ſaith, [We maintain not his Corporal, but real and ſpiritual preſence in the Sacrament. So that either they affirm that his Body is preſent, and yet deny his Bodily preſence; or elſe they affirm his Bodily preſence, but not his Corporal preſence. Moſt learnedly! We ſhall at laſt be taught to diſtinguiſh between Bodily and Corporal! But is not the Juggle in the word [Manner?] Perhaps the Corporal preſence is not denyed, but the Corporal manner. Anſw. 1. Yes, in terms its ſaid [We maintain not his Corporal preſence] 2. And can a Body be preſent, and not in a Bodily manner? And why is [Spiritually] put as contradiſtinct? Sure when Paul ſaid our Bodies ſhall be raiſed ſpiritual bodies, he thought that they were nevertheleſs bodies for being ſpiritual; and therefore it is nevertheleſs a Bodily manner of preſence, for being a ſpiritual manner. But if by the Corporal preſence or manner (denyed) be meant nothing but the qualities and quantity by which it is fit to be the Object of our ſenſes, why had we not this plainly without jugling? To ſay Chriſt is preſent in Body but not ſenſibly, is plainer Engliſh, then to ſay that he is preſent in Body but not Bodily preſent.
2. Note alſo that he calls them [The accidents of bread] and yet ſaith [they are without a ſubject] And ſo doth the Explanation of the Roman Catholike Belief, and their ordinary writers ſay that the Body of Chriſt is under the forms of Bread and Wine, and yet ſay that Bread and Wine are none of the ſubject of thoſe forms.
3. Note alſo that he profeſſeth Tranſubſtantiation is a Miracle, and ſo every ignorant, drunken, adulterous Prieſt of theirs hath the gift of Miracles, which he worketh as oft as he conſecrateth: No wonder if Miracles be the glory of their Church, and the proof of their Infallibility; But let us come to the ſubſtance of his Anſwer.
1. He tells you that ſubſtance is not the proper and immediate object of ſenſe, but colour, quantity, &c. But 1 Is not the Mediate Object [Proper] as well as the Immediate? 2. But what gather you hence? be it a Proper or improper Object, I hope we may yet have leave to believe that Reaſon by the help of ſenſe doth judge as infallibly of Subſtances as Accidents. If you think otherwiſe, then all the forementioned conſequences are undenyable. You know not whether the world ſaw Chriſt on earth: or whether he were crucified, dead, buried, roſe, or aſcended: It might be but colour and quantity which men ſaw; and when Chriſt told them a ſpirit hath not fleſh and blood as ye ſee me have, they might have anſwered, We ſee no fleſh and blood, but colour and quantity: And Thomas had then ſmall reaſon to be convinced by ſeeing and feeling, when he ſaw but colour and quantity, and felt but quantity and quality. By this reaſoning the world is not ſure that ever there was a Pope of Rome, but the Colour of a Pope, or other accidents. And you know not that there is any earth under your feet, or that you are a man, or have a body, becauſe your ſenſes perceive but the accidents of it.
2. But what manner of men did H. T. imagine he had to deal with, when he puts off his Readers with ſuch an anſwer as this? Mark Reader the unfaithfull dealing of theſe men, and how groſly they abuſe poor people that follow them with meer deceits. The Queſtion or Objection which he undertook to anſwer was, Whether ſenſe telling us that it is Bread after the Conſecration be deceived? To this he takes on him to give an anſwer, and cunningly ſpeaks to another queſtion, and paſſeth this by. Its one queſtion, Whether ſenſe can infallibly diſcern Chriſt in the Sacrament, if he were there, or diſcern that he is not there? and another queſtion Whether ſenſe can infallibly diſcern Bread and Wine, and know whether they be there? The laſt was the queſtion in hand: but he ſlily anſwers to the firſt inſtead of it; and tells us, that ſenſe cannot judge of ſubſtance, though under ſenſible accidents, unleſs it be the ſubject of thoſe accidents, and have a ſenſible and corporal manner of being, which the body of Chriſt neither is nor hath in the Sacrament.] And ſo goes on. And what of all this? [therefore Chriſt may be in the Sacrament and you not diſcern him by ſenſe] Well: and whats that to the queſtion? O Sir, is it not the holy truth of God that you are about? and ſhould you thus abuſe it, and the ſouls of men? you knew the queſtion is, Whether ſenſe (and the intellect thereby) be infallible in judging Bread to be Bread when we ſee, feel and eat it? Had you never a word to ſay to this? to perſwade men that they have eyes and ſee not, and hands and feel not, or that the world knoweth not certainly what they ſeem to know by ſeeing and feeling? I pray you hereafter deal by us as fairly as Bellarmine did (and yet we will thank you for nothing) who quite gave away the Roman cauſe by granting and pleading [that ſenſe is infallible in Poſitives: and therefore we may thence ſay, This is a Body becauſe I ſee it; (and ſo this is Bread or wine becauſe I ſee, feel and taſte it) but not in Negatives: and therefore we cannot ſay, this is not a Body becauſe I ſee it not] I pray you give over talking of the Pope, or Church, or Religion, or Men, if you are uncertain of ſubſtances which are (ſuppoſe but per accidentia) the Objects of your ſenſe. And take nothing ill that I write of you, till you are more certain that you ſee it, and know what you ſee.
3. But you'l ſay [Senſe and Reaſon muſt here vail bonnet to faith. Anſw. In the Negative caſe let it be granted, and any caſe where faith can be faith. But if ſenſe (and the Intellect therewith) be fallible in Poſitives, ſo that we cannot know Bread when we ſee and eat it, faith cannot be faith then. What talk you of faith, if you credit not the ſoundeſt ſenſes of all the men in the world, when ſenſe and reaſon are preſuppoſed to faith. How know you that faith here contradicteth ſenſe? You'l ſay, becauſe the Church or Scripture ſaith: This is my Body: and that there is no Bread? But how know you that there is any ſuch thing in Scripture? or that the Church ſo holdeth? you think you have read or heard it: But how know you that your ſenſe deceived you not? He that cannot know Bread when he ſeeth and eateth it, is unlikely to know letters and their meaning when he ſeeth them.
See more of my anſwer to ſuch Objections in a Book entitled The Safe Religion, p. 241. to 248.
The ſimpleſt Reader that hath honeſty and charity, is ſecured againſt Popery by the firſt Argument, which he may make good to his own ſoul againſt all the Jeſuites on earth. And he that is unable to proceed on that account, may by the evidence of this laſt Argument confute any Papiſt living, if he be a man of ſenſe and reaſon. And having brought all our controverſie ſo low, that ſenſe it ſelf may be the judge, I ſhall go no further in Argument, as thinking it vain to uſe any reaſon with that man that will not believe his own eye-ſight, nor the ſight, and feeling, and taſte of all the world beſides.
CHAP. X.
I Come now to the next and principal part of my task, which is to open to you their Deceits, and give you Directions for the diſcovery and confutation of them, that by the help of theſe you may ſee the Truth.
Detect. 1. Remember this ground which they have given you, that If you prove them guilty but of any one Error in points of belief determined by their Church, you thereby diſprove the whole body of Popery, as ſuch. For you pull up the foundation which they build on, and the Authority into which they reſolve their faith. They will grant you, that if they are deceived by the Church in one thing, they have no Certainty of any thing upon the Churches credit. So that if you read Pauls diſcourſe againſt Praying in an unknown tongue, or the many precepts for our reading and meditating in the Law of God, or the like, and can but perceive that the Popiſh Latine ſervice, or their forbidding men to read the Scripture, &c. are contrary hereto, or if you find out but any one of their Errors, you cannot be a Papiſt, if you underſtand their Profeſſion.
But it is not ſo with us: for though we know that the Scripture and all that is in it is of infallible Truth, and that every true Chriſtian (while ſuch) is infallible in the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity; (for elſe he were no Chriſtian) yet we profeſs that we know but in part, and that our own Writings and Confeſſions may poſſibly in ſome things be beſides the ſenſe of Scripture, and there being much more propounded in Scripture to our faith, then what is of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, we may poſſibly after our ſtudying and praying miſtake in ſome things that are not of the Eſſence but the Integrity of Chriſtianity, and are neceſſary to the Melius eſſe, the ſtrength or comfort, though not to the being of a Chriſtian. So that every Error in their faith deſtroyes their grounds, and ſo their new Religion; but ſo doth not every Error of ours.
Or to ſpeak more diſtinctly; let us diſtinguiſh between the Fides quae & qua; their Objective faith, and our Subjective faith. 1. Their Objective Faith hath Errors in it, but ours hath none by their own confeſſion: For theirs is all the Decrees of their Popes and Councils: and ours is only the Holy Scripture, which they confeſs to be infallible. Our own writings do but ſhew how we underſtand the Scriptures, and ſo whether our ſubjective faith be right or not. 2. We confeſs that it is not only poſſible but probable, that we are miſtaken in ſome lower points, about the meaning of the Scriptures, and yet our foundation is ſtill ſure. But they have in a ſort confounded their Subiective and Objective faith: and one believes it on that account becauſe others do believe it; and ſo one age or part do but ſeek for the Object of their faith in the Actual faith of the other. Yea 3. They conclude that every point which is of faith, that is, thats determined by the Church to be ſo, is of ſuch neceſſity to ſalvation that no man can be ſaved that denyeth it, or that doth not believe it (if ſufficiently propoſed.) But we are aſſured, that though all that is in Scripture be moſt true, yet through miſunderſtanding, ſome points there propoſed to our faith, may poſſibly be denyed and diſputed againſt by a true believer; and yet his ſalvation not be overthrown by it. The Papiſts cry out againſt us for diſtinguiſhing between the Fundamentals (or eſſentials) of Religion and the Integrals: but we know it to be neceſſary.