The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholic religion against popery proving…The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving…

And is there not need of very strangely cogent evidence now to impel them to believe against the concurrent vote of Scripture, sense and reason? And what is the ground of their contrary belief? Not the Ancient Church (unless they wilfully or negligently deceive themselves) for the stream of antiquity is full against them: so full that its hard to believe that any of them that's versed in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them, if they have but the common reason of men to understand what they read. What is it then that bringeth them to this belief? Is it the Scriptures? That's not likely, because they make so light of it, and swear to take ⟨p. 158⟩it in the sense of the Church, or ancient Doctors (in which last they are here and oft most desperately forsworn) It must be then upon the Authority of the present Church, that is, the Pope and his Clergy, that they entertain this hard belief. That is, The Pope and his Clergy believe it, because they say it themselves, and the rest believe it because the Pope saith it. And is it truly possible that any man should have so good a conceit of himself, yea or any other think so well of him, as to believe unfeignedly so great a thing upon so weak a ground? Can the Pope therefore believe it because he doth believe it? Or is it not too probable that thousands of them are of that Belief which Melanchthon sometime told them of very smartly [You Italians (saith he) Believe Christ is in the Bread, before you Believe that there is any Christ in heaven] while they pretend to a faith above men (that is, to believe Impossibilities upon the Popes credit) I wish they prove to have the common belief of Christians; and that in heart they do not (as once one of their Popes did) account the Gospel but a commodious fable. But let us suppose that indeed it is the word of God that is the ground of their strange belief, and that [Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my body] is the very word that doth convince them, as some of them do pretend. I would here be bold to ask them that say so, a Question or two. 1. What, if the Ancient Church had interpreted this Text as we do, against your Transubstantiation? would you then have believed it upon the bare Authority of this Text? What need I ask this? Your own Oaths and Profession saith, No: It is not then any evidence in this Text that compelleth your belief.

And is there not need of very strangely cogent evidence now to impell them to believe against the concurrent vote of Scripture, sense and reason? And what is the ground of their contrary belief? Not the Ancient Church (unless they willfully or negligently deceive themselves) for the stream of antiquity is full against them: so full that its hard to believe that any of them thats verst in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them, if they have but the common reason of men to understand what they read. What is it then that bringeth them to this belief? Is it the Scriptures? Thats not likely, because they make so light of it, and swear to take