Aquinas's Rule that the Image must be worshipped with the same Worship which is due to the Proto-type or that Being whose Image it is which is such old Popery as Monsieur De Meaux and the Representer cry shame of well But how does he prove that any Worship was directed to these Cherubims I can find no proof he offers for it but David's Exhortation as he calls it to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to honour the Ark he should have said worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bow down to or worship his Footstool for it or he is holy Now suppose this did relate to the Ark What is that to the Cherubims When but four Pages before he tells us that the Ark is called God's Footstool and the Cherubims his Throne How then does David's Exhortation to worship the Ark which is God's Footstool prove that all their Worship must be directed to the Cherubims which are his Throne It is pitty that great Wits have but short Memories And yet I fancy our Author would have been much troubled to prove the Ark to be meant by God's Footstool for the Ark was in the Holy of Holies which was a figure of Heaven and neither the Heaven nor any thing in it but the Earth is in Scripture called God's Foot-stool and the Psalmist expresly applies it to Zion and to the Holy Hill which I will not prove was not the Ark. And this I suppose is a sufficient confutation of his Exposition of the words To bow down to or worship his foot-stool for I believe he did not think that Mount Zion or the Holy Hill was the object of worship or the symbol of God's presence but there God was present and that was reason enough to worship at his foot-stool and at his holy hill as our English Translation reads it But now suppose the Jews were to direct their Worship towards the Mercy-seat which was covered with the Cherubims where God had promised to be present how are the Cherubims concerned in this Worship The worship was paid only to God though directed to God as peculiarly present at that place which is no more than to lift up our Eyes and Hands to Heaven where the Throne of God is when we pray to him I grant that bowing to and bowing towards any thing as the Object of Worship is the very same as this Author observes and therefore had the Jews either bowed to or towards the Cherubims as the Objects of their Worship as the Papists bow to or towards their Images they had been equally guilty of Idolatry and the breach of the second Commandment but when bowing To signifies bowing to an object of Worship and bowing towards signifies bowing to this Object of Worship only towards such a place where he is peculiarly present this makes a great difference and this was all the Jews did at most if they did that they bowed to God towards the Mercy-seat where he dwelt without any regard to the Cherubims or Mercy-seat as the Object of Worship which was as invisible to the Jews then as the Throne of God and the Angels in Heaven are now to us and we may as well say that those who lift up their eyes and their hands to Heaven when they pray to God worship the Angels who incircle his Throne because they know that the Angels are there as say that the Jews worshipped their invisible Cherubims because they knew that the Cherubims were there For is there any necessity that the Jews must worship whatever they knew was in the Holy of Holies because they worshipped God towards that place any more than there is that we must worship whatever we know to be in Heaven when we direct our Worship to God in Heaven Men I grant may worship an unseen Object for so we all worship God whom we do not and cannot see but it is a good argument still that the Cherubims were not intended by God for the Objects of Worship because they were concealed from the Peoples sight for I believe the World never heard before of worshipping invisible Images The original intention of Images is to have a visible Object of Worship for an invisible Image can affect us no more than an invisible God and if our Author had consulted all the Patrons of Image-worship whether Pagan or Popish he would have found most of the reasons they alleadge for this Worship to depend on sight and therefore whatever he thought are all lost when a man shuts his eyes A man who directs his worship to an Image may be an Idolater in the dark and with his eyes shut but as blind as Idolaters are there never had been any Image-worship had their Images been as invisible as their Gods and therefore sight has more to do in this matter than our Author was aware of But it seems the High-Priest once a Year did see these Cherubims and adore and worship them But this is another mistake for the Jews did believe that the High-Priest never saw the Cherubims or Mercy-seat even when he went once a Year into the Holy of Holies and they have great reason for what they say since God expresly commanded That when he went into the Holy of Holies he should take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony that he die not 16. Levit. 12 13. which shews that the Cherubims and Mercy-seat were to be covered with a Cloud of Incense and to become as invisible to the High-Priest within the Veil as to the People without it But suppose the High-Priest did see the Cherubims when he entred within the Veil I have one plain Argument to prove that he did not worship them not only because no act of Worship was commanded him when he went into the Holy Place but because as the Holy of Holies was the figure of Heaven and the Cherubims the types of Angels who stand about the Throne of God so the High-Priest entring into the Holy of Holies was the type of Christ ascending into Heaven with his own Bloud and therefore the High-Priest must do nothing in the Holy of Holies but what was a proper figure and type of what Christ does in Heaven and then he must no more worship the Cherubims which covered the Mercy-seat or the Typical Throne of God than Christ himself when he ascended to Heaven was to worship the Angels who stand about the Throne So that notwithstanding God's command to make two Cherubims and to place them at the two ends of the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies all Image-Worship was strictly forbid by the Law of Moses and God has provided the most effectual remedy against it by the Incarnation of his Son Mankind have been always fond
possession of it by his or her Reliques This I confess is not Judaism for under the Jewish Law all Holiness of things or places was derived from their relation to God now the Names and Reliques and wonder-working Images of Saints and the Blessed Virgin give the most peculiar and celebrated Holiness and whether this be not at least to ascribe such a Divinity to them as the Pagans did to their Deified Men and Women to whom they erected Temples and Altars let any impartial Reader judge Those must have a good share of Divinity who can give Holiness to any thing else But since they must have Holy Places and something to answer the Jewish Superstition who cried The Temple of the LORD the Temple of the LORD I cannot blame them for making choice of Saints to inhabitate their Churches and sanctifie them with their presence since under the Gospel God is no more present in one place than in another He dwelt indeed in the Temple of Jerusalem by Types and Figures but that was but a Type of God's dwelling in Humane Nature the Body of Christ was the true Temple as he told the Jews Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which he spake of the Temple of his Body And now Christ is ascended into Heaven there is no Temple on Earth and therefore if they will have Temples they must have the Temples of Saints for the Presence of God is now no more confined to a House than his Providence is to the Land of Judaea as it was in a very peculiar manner while the Temple stood there God dwells not on Earth now as he did among the Jews but his Presence viz. our Lord Jesus Christ is removed into Heaven and therefore he has no House on Earth to answer to the Jewish Temple as the Ancient Fathers asserted that the Christians had neither Temples nor Altars The Christian Church indeed is a holy and living Temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells but that is built not with Stones or Brick but of living Saints and therefore the Holiness of Places and Altars and Garments c. which makes up so great a part of the Roman Religion is a manifest Corruption of the Simplicity of the Christian Worship The Jewish Temple made that Worship most acceptable to God which was offered there because it was a Type of Christ and signified the acceptance of all our Prayers and Religious Services as offered up to God only in the Name of Christ but to think that any place is so Holy now that the bare visiting it or praying in it should bestow a greater holiness upon us and all we do should expiate our Sins or merit a Reward is no better than Jewish or Pagan Superstition 4 hly That the Church of Rome does attribute Divine Virtues and Powers to senseless and inanimate Things is so evident from that great Veneration they pay to the Reliques and those great Vertues they ascribe to them from their Consecrations of their Agnus Dei their Wax-candles Oyl Bells Crosses Images Ashes Holy-water for the Health of Soul and Body to drive away evil Spirits to allay Storms to heal Diseases to pardon Venial and sometimes Mortal Sins meerly by kissing or touching them carrying them in their hands wearing them about their necks c. that no man can doubt of it who can believe his own eyes and read their Offices and see what the daily Practice of their Church is Whoever has a mind to be satisfied about it needs only read Dr. Brevint's Saul and Samuel at Endor Chap. 15. These things look more like Charms than Christian Worship and are a great Profanation of the Divine Grace and Spirit indeed they argue that such men do not understand what Grace and Sanctification means who think that little Images of Wax that Candles that Oyl that Water and Salt that Bells that Crosses can be sanctified by the Spirit of God and convey Grace and Sanctification by the sight or sound or touch or such external applications Christ has given his Holy Spirit to dwell in us which works immediately upon our minds and rational powers and requires our concurrence to make his Grace effectual to cleanse and purifie our Souls and to transform us into the Divine Image the grace of the Spirit is to enlighten our Minds to change our Wills to govern and regulate our Passions to instruct to perswade to admonish to awaken our Consciences to imprint and fix good thoughts in us to inspire us with holy desires with great hopes with divine consolations which may set us above the fears of the World and the allurements of it and give greater fervour to our Devotions greater strength to our Resolutions greater courage and constancy in serving God than the bare powers of Reason tho' enforced with supernatural Motives could do This is all the Sanctification the Gospel knows and he who thinks that inanimate Things are capable of this Sanctification of the Spirit or can convey such Sanctification to us by some Divine and Invisible Effluviums of Grace may as well lodge Reason and Understanding and Will and Passions in senseless matter and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch To be sure men who know what the Sanctification of the Spirit means must despise such Fooleries as these 5 ly That all this encourages men to trust in an External Righteousness is too plain to need a proof and therefore I shall not need to insist long on it For 1. such External Rites are naturally apt to degenerate into Superstition especially when they are very numerous The Jewish Ceremonies themselves their Circumcision Sacrifices Washings Purifications Temple Altars New Moons and Sabbaths and other Festival Solemnities were the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees and a cloak for their Hypocrisie and great Immoralities though they were never intended by God for the justification of a Sinner For such External Rites are so much easier to carnal men than to subdue their Lusts and live a holy and vertuous Life that they are willing to abound in such External Observances and hope that these will make Expiation for their other Sins and therefore when the Typical use of these Ceremonies was fulfilled by Christ the External Rites were Abrogated that men might no longer place any hope or confidence in any thing which is meerly External And therefore that Church which fills up Religion with External Rites and Ceremonies were there no other hurt in it laies a Snare for Mens Souls and tempts them to put their trust in an External Righteousness without any regard to the Internal Purity of Heart and Mind Especially 2. when such External Rites are recommended as very acceptable to God as satisfactions for our Sins and meritorious of great rewards and this is the use they serve in the Church of Rome as you have already heard They assert the necessity of Humane Satisfactions And what are these satisfactory Works wherewith men must expiate their
Image So that if a peculiar and appropriate place of worship be contrary to the notion of an infinite Spirit the worship of Images is much more so for besides that they are gross and corporeal representations of a Spirit they are Divine Presences too and appropriate places of worship Secondly As God must be worshipped under the notion of a Spirit so under the character of a Father as our Saviour expresly tells us The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him and therefore he taught his Disciples to pray Our Father which art in heaven Under the Law God was worshipped as a King and that not so much as the King of the whole world but as in a peculiar manner the King of Israel The Lord reigneth let the people tremble he sitteth between the Cherubims in his Temple at Jerusalem let the earth be moved The Lord is great in Zion and he is high above all people But under the Gospel the peculiar character of God is a Father and that not only as he is the maker of all men and so the Father of all but as he is the Father of Christ and in him the Father of all Christians Now this makes a vast difference in our worship from what is daily practised in the Church of Rome For 1. When we pray to God as our Father we must pray to him as dwelling in Heaven as our Saviour teaches us to say Our Father which art in Heaven For as a Father Heaven is his House and Habitation in my Fathers House are many mansions that is in in Heaven which is his House as a Father as the Temple at Jerusalem was his Palace considered as the King of Israel and this is one reason our Saviour intimates why the presence of God shall no longer be confined to any particular place or Temple because he shall be worshipped as the universal Father not as the King of Jury Now when he is to be worshipped as a Father from all parts of the world he must have such a Throne and presence to which all the World may equally resort and that can be no other then his Throne in Heaven whither we may send up our Prayers from all Corners of the Earth but had he confined his Presence to any place on Earth as he did to the Temple of Jerusalem the rest of the World must have been without God's peculiar Presence could have had no Temple nor place of Worship but at such a distance that they could never have come at it for though God fills all places it is a great absurdity to talk of more Symbolical Presences of God than one for a Symbolical Presence confines the unlimited Presence of God to a certain place in order to certain ends as to receive the Worship that is paid him and to answer the Prayers that are made to him and to have more than One such Presence as this is like having more Gods than One. So that all our Worship under the Gospel must be directed to God in Heaven and that is a plain argument that we must not Worship God in Images on Earth for they neither can represent to us the Majesty of God in Heaven nor is God present with the Image to receive our Worship there if God must now be Worshipped as dwelling in Heaven it is certain there can be no Object of our Worship on Earth for though God fill all places with his Presence yet he will be Worshipped only as sitting on his Throne in Heaven and then I am sure he must not be Worshipped in an Image on Earth for that is not his Throne in Heaven This the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies was an Emblem of for the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple did signifie Heaven and the Mercy-seat covered with Cherubims signified the Throne of God in Heaven whither we must lift up our Eyes and Hearts when we pray to him for though it is indifferent from what place we put up our Prayers to God while we have regard to the External Decency of Religious Worship yet it is not indifferent whither we direct our Prayers for we must direct our Prayers to the throne of grace if we would obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need Now the Throne of Grace is only in Heaven whither Christ is ascended to make Atonement for us for he is the true Propitiatory or Mercy-seat And therefore if to direct our Prayers to God to his Picture or Image or to the Images of the Virgin Mary or any other Saints did not provoke God to jealousie yet it would do us no good unless such Images are God's Throne of Grace for all other Prayers are lost which are not directed to God on his Throne of Grace where alone he will receive our Petitions If a Prince would receive no Petitions but what were presented to him sitting on such a Throne all men would be sensible how vain a thing it were to offer any Petition to him else-where And yet thus it is here A Sinner dare not must not approach the Presence of God but only on his Mercy-seat and Throne of Grace for any where else our God is a Consuming Fire a Just and a Terrible Judge now God has but one Throne of Grace and that is in Heaven as the Mercy-seat was in the Holy of Holies which was a Type of Heaven thither Christ ascended with his Bloud to sprinkle the Mercy-seat and to cover it with a Cloud of Incense which are the Prayers of the Saints as the High-Priest did once a Year in the Typical Holy Place Which is a plain proof that all our Prayers must be immediately directed to God in Heaven where Christ dwells who is our true Propitiatory and Mercy-seat who has sprinkled the Throne of God with his own Bloud and has made it a Throne of Grace and where he offers up our Prayers as Incense to God. 2. To Worship God as our Father signifies to Worship him only in the Name and Mediation of his Son Jesus Christ for he is our Father only in Jesus Christ and we can call him Father in no other Name By the right of Creation he is our Lord and our Judge but he is the Father of Sinners only by Adoption and Grace and we are Adopted only in Christ so that if Christian Worship be the Worship of God as a Father then we must pray to God in no other Name but of his own Eternal Son The Virgin Mary though she were the Mother of Christ yet does not make God our Father and then no other Saint I presume will pretend to it which shews what a contradiction the Invocation of Saints is to the Nature of Christian Worship and how unavailable to obtain our requests of God. If we must Worship God only as our Father then we must Worship him only in the Name of
in dispute between us and therefore can prove nothing till that be first proved by something else 1. To begin then with Reason Now we do allow of Reason in matters of Religion and our Adversaries pretend to use it when they think it will serve their turn and rail at it and despise it when it is against them Not that we make Natural Reason the Rule or the Measure of our Faith for to believe nothing but what may be proved by Natural Reason is to reject Revelation or to destroy the necessity of it For what use is there of a Revelation or at least what necessity of it if nothing must be revealed but what might have been known by Natural Reason without Revelation or at least what Natural Reason can fully comprehend when it is revealed But though we believe such things when they are revealed by God which Natural Reason could never have taught us and which Natural Reason does not see the depths and mysteries of and therefore do not stint our Faith and confine it within the narrow bounds of Natural Reason yet we use our Reason to distinguish a true from a counterfeit Revelation and we use Reason to understand a Revelation and we Reason and Argue from revealed Principles as we do from the Principles of Natural Knowledge As from that Natural Principle that there is but one God we might conclude without a Revelation that we must Worship but one God so from that revealed Doctrine of one Mediator between God and man we may as safely conclude that we must make our Applications and offer up our Prayers and Petitions to God onely by this one Mediator and so in other cases Now to direct Protestants how to secure themselves from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasoning of Roman Priests I shall take notice of some of the chief faults in their way of Reasoning and when these are once known it will be an easie matter for men of ordinary understandings to detect their Sophistry 1. As first we must allow of no Reason against the Authority of plain and express Scripture This all men must grant who allow the Authority of Scripture to be superiour to Natural Reason for though Scripture cannot contradict plain and necessary and eternal Reasons i. e. what the universal Reason of Mankind teaches for a necessary and eternal truth yet God may command such things as we see no Natural Reason for and forbid such things as we see no Natural Reason against nay it may be when we think there are plausible Reasons against what God commands and for what he forbids But in all such cases a Divine Law must take place against our uncertain Reasonings for we may reasonably conclude that God understands the Reasons and Natures of things better than we do As for instance when there is such an express Law as Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve No reason in the World can justifie the Worship of any other Being good or bad Spirits besides God because there is an express Law against it and no Reason can take place against a Law. The like may be said of the second Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing which is in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which is so express a Law against Image-Worship that no Reason must be admitted for it No man need to trouble himself to answer the Reasons urged for such Practices for no Reasons ought to be allowed nor any Dispute admitted against such express Laws This I suppose all men will grant but then the difficulty is What is an express Law For the Sence of the Law is the Law and if there may be such a Sence put on the words as will reconcile these Reasons with the Law we must not say then that such Reasons are against the Law when though they may be against the Law in some sence yet they are consistent with other sences of the Law and it is most likely that is the true sence of the Law which has the best reason on its side It must be confessed there is some truth in this when the words of the Law are capable of different sences and reason is for one sence and the other sence against reason there it is fit that a plain and necessary Reason should expound the Law but when the Law is not capable of such different sences or there is no such reason as makes one sence absurd and the other necessary the Law must be expounded according to the most plain and obvious signification of the Words though it should condemn that which we think there may be some reason for or at least no reason against for otherwise it is an easie matter to expound away all the Laws of God. To be sure all men must grant that such Reasons as destroy the Law or put an absurd or impossible sence on it are against the Law and therefore must be rejected how plausible soever they appear As for instance Some there are who to excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry in Worshipping Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary positively affirm that no man can be guilty of Idolatry who Worships one Supreme God as a late Author expresly teaches As for the Invocation of Saints unless they Worship them as the Supreme God the Charge of Idolatry is an idle word and the Adoration it self which is given to them as Saints is a direct Protestation against Idolatry because it supposes a Superiour Deity and that supposition cuts off the very being of Idolatry Now not to examine what force there is in this Reason our present inquiry is onely How this agrees with the first Commandment Thou shalt have none other Gods before me before my Face as it is in the Hebrew Which supposes an acknowledgment of the Supreme God together with other Gods for otherwise though they Worship other Gods they do not do it before the Face of God while they see him as it were present before them to worship other Gods in the presence of the Supreme God or before his Face as that Phrase signifies is to worship them together with him and therefore this is well expressed by the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides me which supposes that they Worshipped him too And our Saviour expounds this Law by Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve So that this Reason That there can be no Idolatry where the Lord Jehovah is Worshipped as the Supreme God contradicts the very letter of this Law. How then does this Author get rid of the first Commandment Truly by laying it all aside for he gives this as the whole Sence of the first Commandment That God enjoyns the Worship of himself who by his Almighty Power had delivered them from their AEgyptian
by this Law to forbid the Worship of any Images under what notion or respects soever I would desire to know what more significant and comprehensive words could have been used to have declared his mind unless he had expresly rejected those false Interpretations which the Patrons of Image-Worship have since invented but were never thought on at that time The same Author whom I have so often mentioned having expounded the first Commandment only to a positive sence not to forbid the Worship of other Gods but only to command the Worship of the Lord Jehovah expresly contrary to the very letter and plain sense of the Law agreeably to this he makes the second Commandment only to forbid the Worship of Idols or false Gods and not that neither unless they take them for the Supreme Deity His words are these In the next place he forbids them the Worship of all Idols i.e. as himself describes them the likeness or similitude of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth A plain and indeed a logical definition this that Idolatry is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing that can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can and to suppose such a Being the Supream Deity is the only true and proper Idolatry Now let any man judge whether this be not such a gloss as utterly destroys the Text. As for his Worship of Idols there is no such word in the Law but Images Likenesses Similitudes but yet I will not dispute about this for an Idol does not only signifie a false God but the Images either of false Gods or false and corporeal Images of the true God. For the Idols of the Heathens as the Psalmist tells us are silver and gold the work of mens hands which can relate to nothing but Images and Pictures for corporeal Deities which were made by God are not the work of mens hands Now Idolatry he says is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing which can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can Now how plain and logical soever this definition of Idolatry be there is not a word of it in the Text. That forbids not the Worship of any created corporeal or visible Deity which is forbid in the first Commandment but only the Worship of Images the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth or in the Water under the Earth Now an Image differs from the thing whose Image it is And it is a very strange Exposition of the second Commandment which forbids nothing else but the Worship of Images to take no notice of the Worship of Images as forbid in it According to this gloss upon the Law a man may worship ten thousand Images and Pictures so he do not worship any visible and corporeal Deity and not break this Commandment which I think is not to give the sense of the Law but to expound it away But how does the Worship of corporeal and visible Deities and nothing else appear to be forbid by this Law which mentions nothing at all but the likeness of things in Heaven and Earth and Water Why our learned Author imagines that no Images can be made but only for corporeal and visible Deities because nothing but corporeal Beings can be represented by an Image which Conceit is worth its weight in Gold for it evidently proves that there are no Pictures of God the Father nor of the Trinity in the Church of Rome because they are not corporeal Deities and therefore cannot be represented by an Image so miserably have all Travellers been mistaken who tell us of a great many such Pictures and not very decent ones neither There can indeed be no Picture or Image to represent the likeness and similitude of an incorporeal God but yet the visible parts of Heaven and Earth and the visible Creatures in them may be represented by Images and the Images of such visible things may be made the symbolical representations of invisible and incorporeal Deities and such invisible and incorporeal Deities may be worshipped in the likeness and similitude of corporeal things and then I am sure to forbid the Worship of Images may signifie something more than meerly to forbid the Worship of some visible and corporeal Deities for it may signifie the Worship of invisible and incorporeal Deities by visible Images But I perceive he imagined that when God forbad them to make and worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven in Earth or in the Waters under the Earth he only forbad the Worship of those Beings whose likeness or Images they made whereas all men know that those very Idolaters who worshipped these glorious parts of the Creation did not represent them in their proper likenesses and figures and that those who worshipped invisible and incorporeal Beings did it by material and visible figures which plainly proves that when God forbad the Worship of Images he had not respect meerly to visible and corporeal Deities but forbad Image-worship whether they were the Images of visible and corporeal or of invisible and incorporeal Deities Our Author durst not say as the Roman Advocates do that God in the second Commandment only forbids the Worship of Images as Gods which is such glorious Nonsence that he could not digest it and therefore he supposes that God does not forbid the Worship of Images at all but only of such corporeal Deities as may be represented by Images which is a more gentile way of discarding the second Commandment than to leave it out of their Books of Devotions But if he will stand to this he condemns the Popish Worship of dead Men and Women for they are corporeal Deities nay of Christ himself considered as a man who might be represented by an Image or Picture And thus I doubt he has done the Church of Rome no kindness at all for this is a Demonstration against the Worship of Saints and the Virgin Mary because they are created corporeal and visible Beings who may be represented by Images and he has thought of an Argument against Images which neither the Scripture nor the Church of Rome know any thing of The Church of Rome thinks it a good Argument for the Images of Christ and the Saints and the Virgin Mary that they are representable by Images and Pictures and therefore there can be no hurt in such Images And the Scripture perpetually urges that Argument against Images that the Deity cannot be represented by an Image but neither of these Arguments are good if our Author's Notion be good For then to worship such corporeal Beings as may be represented by Images is to worship corporeal Gods which is Idolatry And there is no danger in the Images of an incorporeal Deity which cannot represent the God for which they are made for whatever the
prove such an Institution Were there nothing in Scripture or Reason to prove that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead yet no Reason can prove that it is For the vertue and acceptation of a Sacrifice intirely depends upon the will and appointment of God at least so far that no Sacrifice can be Propitiatory without it And therefore there can be no other proof that the Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice but the declaration of God's Will and Institution that it shall be so 2. Those things also can be proved onely by Scripture which are done in the other World which is an unknown and invisible State to us any farther than the Scripture has revealed it and men may more reasonably expect to find out by the power of Reason what is done every day in China or the most remote and unknown parts of the Earth than what is done in the other World. And then there are a great many things wherein you must reject all pretences to Reason any farther than it is supported by plain and evident Scripture As to give some instances of this also 1. No Reason can prove that there is such a place as Purgatory for that is an invisible place in the other World if there be any such place no man living ever saw it and then how can any man know that there is such a place unless it be revealed To attempt to prove that there is such a place as Purgatory meerly by Reason is just as if a man who had some general notion of an Inquisition but never had any credible information that there actually was any such place should undertake to prove by Reason that there is and must be such a place as the Inquisition though he would happen to guess right yet it is certain his Reasons signified nothing for some Countries have the Inquisition and some have not and therefore there might have been no Inquisition any where how strong soever the Reasons for it might be thought to be We may as well describe by the power of Reason the World in the Moon and what kind of Inhabitants there are there by what Laws they live what their Business what their Pleasures and what their Punishments are as pretend to prove that there is a Purgatory in the next World for they are both equally unknown to us and if Reason cannot prove that there is such a place as Purgatory nothing else which relates to Purgatory can be proved by Reason 2. Nor can we know what the State of Saints in Heaven is without a Revelation for no man has been there to see the State of the other World is such things as neither Eye hath seen nor Ear heard neither hath it entred into the Heart of man to conceive And then I cannot understand how we should know these things by Reason The Church of Rome teaches us to Pray to Saints and to flie to their Help and Aid And there are a great many things which a wise man would desire to know before he can think it fit to pray to them which yet it is impossible to know without a Revelation as Whether the Saints we direct our Prayers to be in Heaven Which is very fit to be known and yet can certainly be known but of a very few of that vast number that are worshipped in the Church of Rome the Apostles of Christ and the Virgin Mary we have reason to believe are in Heaven and we may hope well of others but we cannot know it No man can see who is there and bare hope how strong soever is not a sufficient foundation for such a Religious Invocation of unknown Saints who after all our perswasions that they are in Heaven may be in Hell or at least in Purgatory where they want our Prayers but are not in a condition to interceed for us Thus it is very necessary to know what the power and authority of the Saints in Heaven is before we pray to them for it is to no purpose to pray to them unless we know they can help us The Council of Trent recommends to us the Invocation of Saints as of those who reign with Christ in Heaven and therefore have power and authority to present our Petitions and procure those Blessings we pray for And if I could find any such thing in Scripture it would be a good reason to pray to them but all the Arguments in the World cannot prove this without a Revelation they may be in Heaven and not be Mediators and Advocates Thus whatever their power and authority may be it is to no purpose to pray to them unless we are sure that they hear our Prayers and this nothing but a Revelation can assure us of for no natural Reason can assure us that meer Creatures as the most glorious Saints in Heaven are can hear our soft nay mental Prayers at such a vast distance as there is between Heaven and Earth Such matters as these which Reason can give us no assurance of if they be to be proved at all must be proved by Scripture and therefore as the pretence of proving these things by Reason is vain so no Protestant should be so vain as to trouble himself to answer such Reasons But you 'll say The Papists do pretend to prove these things by Scripture I answer So far it is very well and I onely desire our Protestant to keep them to their Scripture Proofs and to reject all their Reasons and then let them see what they can make of it As for Scripture-Proofs they shall be considered presently 3. More particularly you must renounce all such Reasons as amount to no more than some May-bes and Possibilities for what onely may be may not be and every thing that is possible is not actually done As for instance When you ask these men How you can be assured that the Saints in Heaven can hear our Prayers They offer to shew you by what ways this may be done They may see all things in the Glass of the Trinity and thereby know all things that God knows Which is but a may-be and yet it is a more likely may-be that there is no such Glass as gives the Saints a comprehensive view of all that is in God. Well but God can reveal all the Prayers to the Saints which are made to them on Earth Very right we dispute not God's power to do this but desire to know Whether he does it or not and his bare power to do it does not prove that But the Saints in Heaven may be informed of what is done on Earth by those who go from hence thither or by those Ministring Angels who frequently pass between Heaven and Earth but this may not be too and if it were it would not answer the purposes of Devotion for in this way of intercourse the News may come too late to the Saints to whom we pray for the Saints to do us any
good As suppose a man pray to the Virgin Mary in the hour of Death or in a great Storm at Sea the man may be dead and Ship wrackt before the Virgin knows of his Prayers and may carry the first news of it into the other World himself Such kind of May-bes and Conjectures as these are a very sorry Foundation for an Infallible Church to build her Faith on 4. You must reject also all such Reasons in Divine and Spiritual things as are drawn from Earthly Patterns A considering man would a little wonder how a Papist should so punctually determine what is done in the other World without speaking with any one who has seen it and without having any Revelation about it as I have already observed but whoever considers many of their Arguments will soon find that they make this World the Pattern of the next and reason from Sensible to Spiritual things Thus the true Foundation of Saint-worship is that men judge of the Court of Heaven by the Courts of earthly Princes The most effectual way to obtain any Request of our Prince is to address our selves to some powerful Favourite and they take it for granted that all Saints and Angels in Heaven are such Favourites and can obtain whatever they ask and therefore they pray very devoutly to them and beg their Intercession with God and their Saviour Especially in earthly Courts the Queen Mother is supposed to have a powerful influence upon the young Prince her Son and therefore they do not doubt but the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ can do what she pleases with her Son And since it is generally observed that Women are more soft and tender and compassionate than men they hope to gain that by her Intercession which He who died for them would not grant without it and therefore they beg her to shew her self to be a Mother that is to take the Authority of a Mother upon her and command her Son. Thus Princes and Great Men love to have their Pictures set up in publick places and to have all civil Respects paid to them which redounds to the honour of those whose Pictures they are and therefore they imagine that this is as acceptable to Christ and the Saints as it is to Men as if the other World were nothing else but a new Scene of Sense and Passion Mankind is very apt to such kind of Reasonings as these and indeed they can have no other when they will undertake to guess at unseen and unknown things But if there be any difference between the Court of Heaven and Earth if pure Spirits who are separated from Flesh and Sense have other Passions and Resentments than Men have that is if we must not judge of spiritual things by Sense of the Government of God by the Passions of men then such Reasonings as these may betray us to absurd and foolish Superstitions but are a very ill foundation for any new and uncommanded Acts of Worship 5. Never admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness conveniency or supposed necessity of any thing to prove that it is As for instance A Supream Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Judge of Controversies are thought absolutely necessary to the Unity of the Church and certainty of Faith and confounding of Schisms and Heresies If there be not a Supream Pastor there can be no Unity if there be not an Infallible Judge there can be no certainty in Religion every man must be left to his own private Judgment and then there will be as many different Religions as there are Faces Now if I thought all this were true as I believe not a word of it is I should only conclude that it is great pity that there is not an Universal Pastor and Infallible Judge instituted by Christ but if you would have me conclude from these Premises Ergo there is an Universal Bishop and Head of the Church and an Infallible Judge of Controversies I must beg your pardon for that for such Arguments as these do not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and therefore I must conclude no more from them Indeed this is a very fallacious way of Reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in it self and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of Reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Judge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that he ought to do it These Directions are sufficient to Preserve all considering Protestants from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasonings of Papists SECT II. Concerning Scripture-Proofs 2. LEt us now consider their Scripture-Proofs though it is not choice but necessity which puts them upon this Tryal When they have good Catholicks to deal with a little Scripture will serve the turn but Hereticks will be satisfied with nothing else and therefore in disputing with them they are forced to make some little shew and appearance of proving their Doctrines by Scripture but they come very unwillingly to it and make as much of a little as may be The truth is there is Evidence enough that they have no great confidence in the Scripture themselves and therefore do not deal honestly and fairly with poor Hereticks when they make their boasts of Scripture For did they believe that their Doctrines which they endeavour to prove from Scripture were plainly and evidently contained in them why should they deny the People the liberty of reading the Scriptures If the Scriptures be for them why should they be against the Scriptures The common Pretence is that those who are unlearned put very wild sences upon Scripture and expound it by their own fancies which in many cases indeed is too true but why should the Church of Rome be more afraid of this than other Protestant Churches If they think the Scripture is as much for them as we think it is for us why dare not they venture this as well as we We are not afraid men should read the Scripture though we see what wild Interpretations some put on them because we are certain we can prove our Faith by Scripture and are able to satisfie all honest men who will impartially study the Scriptures that we give the true sence of them and if they believed they could do so too Why do they avoid this tryal when ever they can For though they admit People to dispute from the Scripture in England where they cannot help it yet they will not allow them so much as to see the Scriptures in Italy or Spain where they have power to hinder it Nay they themselves do in effect confess that the peculiar Doctrines and Practices of their Religion wherein they differ from all other Christian Churches cannot be proved by Scripture And therefore to help them out
the Mercy-seat and the Cherubims covering the Mercy-seat and there God promised Moses to meet with him and to commune with him from between the two Cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony Now this was a Symbolical Representation of God's Throne in Heaven where he is surrounded with Angels as we know the Holy of Holies itself was a Figure of Heaven and therefore the Jews when they were absent from the Temple prayed towards it and in the Temple as is thought towards the Mercy-seat as the place of God's peculiar Residence as now when we pray we lift up our eyes and hands to Heaven where God dwells So that under the Law God had a peculiar place for Worship and peculiar Symbols of his Presence but no Images to represent his Person or to be the Objects of Worship I know some Roman Doctors would fain prove the Cherubims to have been the Objects of Worship and which is more wonderful a late Bishop of the Church of England has taken some pains to prove the same and thereby to justifie the Worship of Images in the Church of Rome and before I proceed I shall briefly Examine what he has said in this Cause One would a little wonder who reads the Second Commandment which so severely forbids the Worship of Images that God himself should set up Images in his own Temple as the Objects of Worship and a modest man would have been a little cautious how he had imputed such a thing to God which is so direct a contradiction to his own Laws That the Cherubims were Statues or Images whatever their particular Form was I agree with our Author and that is the only thing I agree with him in For 1. That they were Sacred Images set up by God himself in the place of his own Worship I deny For the Holy of Holies where the Ark was placed and the Mercy-seat over the Ark and the Cherubims at the two ends spreading their Wings and covering the Mercy-seat was not the place of Worship but the place of God's Presence The place of Worship is the place wherein men worship God now it is sufficiently known that none of the Jews were permitted to go into the Holy of Holies nor so much as to look into it and therefore it could not be the place of their Worship the Holy of Holies was the Figure of Heaven and therefore could be no more the place of Worship to the Jews than Heaven now is to us while we dwell on Earth The High Priest indeed entered into the Holy of Holies once a year with the Blood of the Sacrifice which was a Type of Christ's entring into Heaven with his own Blood and yet the Priest went thither not to Worship but to make an Atonement which I take to be two very different things however if you will call this Worship it has no relation to any Worship on Earth but to what is done by Christ in Heaven of whom the High Priest was a Type And this I think is a demonstration that the placing of Cherubims to cover the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies does not prove the lawful use of Images in Temples or Churches or in the Worship of God on Earth if it proves any thing it must prove the Worship of God by Images in Heaven of which the Holy of Holies was a Figure and if any man can be so foolish as to imagine that let them make what they please of it so they do but excuse us from worshipping God by Images on Earth 2. That these Cherubims were the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that nothing is more remarkable in all the old Testament than the honour done to the Cherubims that an outward worship was given to these Images as Symbols of the Divine presence that the High Priest adored these Cherubims once a year as this Author asserts I utterly deny and he has not given us one word to prove it For the Cherubims were so far from being the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that they were no part at all of it if by Religion he means Worship for there was no regard at all had to the Cherubims in the Jewish Worship and it is so far from being remarkable in the Old Testament that there is not the least footstep or intimation of any honour at all done to the Cherubims There is nothing in Scripture concerning them but the command to make them and place them at the two ends of the Mercy-Seat and that God is said to dwell between the Cherubims and to give forth his Oracles and Responses from that place but I desire to learn where the Jews are commanded to direct their Worship to or towards the Cherubims where the High Priest is commanded to adore the Cherubims once a year or what Protestant grants he did so as this Author insinuates He supposes the Cherubims to have been the Symbols of Gods presence and his representations and that the Jews directed their worship to them as such and that is to worship God by Images or to give the same Signs of Reverence to his Representations as to himself but how does it appear that the Cherubims were the Symbols of Gods presence God indeed is said to sit between the Cherubims and he promised Moses to commune with him from between the Cherubims but the Cherubims were no Symbols of Gods presence much less a representation of him if any thing was the Symbolical presence of God it was the Mercy Seat which was a kind of Figurative Throne or Chair of State but the Cherubims were only Symbolical representations of those Angels who attend and encompass Gods Throne in Heaven and were no more representations of God or Symbols of his presence then some great Ministers of State are of the King as this Author himself acknowledges when he makes the four beasts in the Revelations Rev. 4.6 7. which stood round about the Throne to be an allusion to the representation of the immediate Divine Presence in the Ark by the Cherubims if he had said to the Cherubims covering the Mercy Seat which was his Figurative Throne and where he was invisibly present without any visible Figures or Symbols of his presence he had said right for the Cherubims which covered the Mercy Seat were no more Symbols of Gods Presence than the four Beasts which stood before the Throne are the presence of God or then some great Courtiers or Ministers of State who attend the King are the presence of the King They attend the King where ever he is and so may be some sign of his presence but are not a symbolical presence as a Chair of State is But it seems our Author imagined that the Cherubims were such Symbols of Gods presence and such representations of him as Images were of the Pagan Gods and therefore might be worshipped with the same signs of reverence as God himself was according to
of some visible Deity and because God cannot be seen they have gratified their Superstition by making some visible Images and Representations of an invisible God now to take them off from mean corporeal Images and Representations which are both a dishonour to the Divine Nature and debase the minds of men God has given us a visible Image of Himself has cloathed his own eternal Son with Humane Nature who is the brightness of his Father's glory and the express image of his person 1. Hebr. 3. And therefore St. John tells us That the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth 1 John 14. And for this reason when Philip was desirous to see the Father Shew us the Father and it sufficeth Christ tells him that the Father is to be seen onely in the Son who is his visible Image and Glory Jesus saith unto him Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not seen me Philip He that hath seen me hath seen the Father and how sayest thou then Shew us the Father 14 John 8 9. This was one end of Christ's Incarnation that we might have a visible Deity a God Incarnate to represent the Father to us who is the living and visible Image of God and there could not be a more effectual way to make men despise all dead material Representations of God than to have God visibly represented to us in our own Nature It is true Christ is not visible to us now on earth but he is visible in Heaven and we know he is the only visible Image of God and that is enough to teach us that we must make and adore no other He is as visible to us in Heaven as the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies was to the Jews and is that true propitiatory of which the mercy seat was a Type and Figure 3 Rom. 25. Him hath God set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mercy-seat as that word is used 9 Heb. 5. He is the natural Image of God and his Mercy-seat or Presence and Throne of Grace he is his visible Image tho' he cannot be seen by us for the Typical Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies did praefigure that his residence should be in Heaven and therefore invisible to us on earth but there we may see him by Faith and there he will receive our Prayers and present them to his Father Now then to sum up this Argument since it was one main design of Christs appearance to root all the remains of Idolatrous Worship out of the world is it credible that the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary the worship of Images and Reliques as it is practised in the Church of Rome should be any part of Christian Worship or allowed by the Gospel of our Saviour If Creature-worship and Image-worship were so offensive to God here is the Worship of Creatures and Images still and therefore all the visible Idolatry that ever was practised in the world before All that they can pretend is that they have better Notions of the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images than the Heathens had but whether they have or no will be hard to prove The Pagan Philosophers made the same Apologies for their Worship of Angels and Daemons and Images which the Learned Papists now make and whether unlearned Papists have not as gross Notions about their Worship of Saints and Images as the unlearned Heathens had is very doubtful and has been very much suspected by learned Romanists themselves But suppose there were some difference upon this account can we think that Christ who came to root out all Idolatrous Worship intended to set up a new kind of Creature-Worship and Image-Worship in greater pomp and glory than ever and only to rectifie mens Opinions about it Suppose the Idolatry of Creature-Worship and Image-Worship does consist onely in mens gross Notions about it yet we see under the Law to prevent and cure this God did not go about to rectifie their Opinions of these things but absolutely forbids the Worship of all Images and of any other Being but himself which methinks he would not have done had there been such great advantages in the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images as the Romanists pretend and when God in the Law of Moses forbad all Creature and Image Worship can we think that Christ who came to make a more perfect Reformation should only change their Country Gods into Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and give new names to their Statues and Images Which whatever he had taught about it instead of curing Idolatry had been to set up that same kind of Worship which the Law of Moses absolutely forbad and condemned as Idolatry When God to cure the Idolatrous Worship of inferiour Daemons as their Mediators and Advocates with the Supreme God sent his own Son into the World to be our Mediator can we think that he intended after this that we should worship Angels and Saints and the Virgin Mary as our Mediators When God has given us a visible Image of himself his Eternal and Incarnate Son whom we may Worship and Adore did he still intend that we should worship material and sensible Images of Wood or Stone By the Incarnation of his own Son God did indeed take care to rectifie mens mistakes about Creature-Worship and to cut off all pretences for it Those who pleaded that vast distance between God and men and how unfit it was that Sinners should make their immediate approaches to the Supreme God and therefore worshipped inferiour Daemons as middle Beings between God and man have now no pretence for this since God has appointed his own Son to be our Mediator Those who worshipped Images as the visible Representations of an invisible God have now a visible Object of Worship a God Incarnate a God in the nature and likeness of a Man and though we do not now see him yet we have the notion of a visible God and Mediator to whom we can direct our Prayers in Heaven which is satisfaction enough even to men of more gross and material Imaginations without any artificial and senseless Representations of the Deity And was all this done that men might worship Creatures and Images without Idolatry or rather was it not done to cure mens inclinations to commit Idolatry with Creatures and Images Whoever believes that the Gospel of our Saviour was intended as a Remedy against Idolatry can never be perswaded that it allows the Worship of Saints and Images which if it be not Idolatry is so exactly like it in all external appearance that the allowance of it does not look like a proper cure for Idolatry SECT II. Concerning the great Love of GOD to Mankind and the Assurances of Pardon and Forgiveness which the Gospel gives to all Penitent
and Infinite Spirit who has now confined his peculiar Presence to no place as he formerly did to the Temple at Jerusalem for this was the present Dispute Whether God would be Worshipped at the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria as I observed above In opposition to which our Saviour tells the Woman that God is a Spirit and therefore not confined to any place he is every-where and present with us every-where and may be worshipped every-where by devout and pious Souls that though for Typical Reasons he had a Typical and Symbolical Presence under the Jewish Dispensation yet this was not so agreeable to his Nature who is a Spirit and therefore he must not now be sought for in Houses of Wood and Stone And indeed the Reformation of the Divine Worship must begin in rectifying our Notions and Apprehensions of God for such as we apprehend God to be such a kind of Worship we shall pay him as is evident from the Rites and Ceremonies of the Pagan Worship which was fitted to the Nature and History of their Gods for where there are no Instituted Rites of Worship all mankind conclude that the Nature of God is the best Rule of his Worship for all Beings are best pleased with such Honours as are suitable to their Natures and no Being can think himself Honoured by such Actions as are a contradiction to his own Nature and Perfections Now if God will be Worshipped more like a pure and infinite Spirit under the Gospel than he was under the Law if this be the fundamental Principle of Gospel-Worship that God is a Spirit and must be Worshipped as a Spirit I think it is plain that nothing is more unlike a pure Spirit then a material Image nothing more unlike an infinite Spirit which can have no shape or figure then a finite and figured Image made in the likeness of a man or of any thing in Heaven and Earth nothing more unlike an infinite Spirit which is Life and Mind and Wisdom than a dead and senceless Image and if under the Law where God suited his Worship more to a Typical Dispensation than to his own Nature he would not allow of the Worship of Images much less is this an acceptable Worship to him under the Gospel where he will be Worshipped as a pure Spirit for there is nothing in the World more unlike a Living Infinite Omnipotent Omniscient Spirit than a little piece of dead senceless figured Gold or Silver Wood or Stone whatever shape the Carver or Engraver please to give it since God has none Now would any man who understands this that God is a Spirit and will under the Gospel be Worshipped as a Spirit should he go into many Popish Churches and Chappels and see a vast number of Images and Pictures there and People devoutly kneeling before them suspect that these were Christian Oratories or this Christian Worship unless he knew something of the matter before For there you shall find the Pictures of God the Father and the ever Blessed Trinity in different Forms and Representations the Pictures of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints and Martyrs devoutly Adored and Worshipped and would any man guess that this were to Worship God as a pure and infinite Spirit A Spirit cannot be Painted and then to Worship God as a Spirit cannot signifie to look upon any Representation of God when we pray to him which to be sure cannot give us the Idea of an infinite Spirit He who Worships God as a Spirit can have no regard to Matter and Sense but must apply himself to God as to an infinite Mind which no man can do who gazes upon an Image or contemplates God in the art and skill of a Painter for to pray to God in an Image and in the same thought to consider him as a pure and infinite mind is a contradiction for though a man who believes God to be a Spirit may be so absurd as to worship him in an Image yet an Image cannot represent a Spirit to him and therefore either he must not think at all of the Image and then methinks he should not look on an Image when he worships God for that is apt to make him think of it or if he does think of the Image while his mind is filled with such gross and sensible representations it is impossible in the same act to address to God as to a pure invisible and infinite Spirit Which shews how unfit and improper Images are in the Worship of God for they must either be wholly useless and such as a man must not so much as look or think on which is very irreconcileable with that Worship which is paid to them in the Church of Rome or while he is intent upon a Picture or Image his mind is diverted from the contemplation of a pure and infinite Spirit and therefore cannot and does not Worship God as a Spirit And the same is true of the Images of Saints and the Blessed Virgin for though to makes Pictures of Men or Women is no reproach to the Divine Nature since they are not the Pictures or Images of God who is a Spirit but of those Saints whom they are intended to represent yet if all Christian Worship be the Worship of God it is evident that the Worship of Images though they be not the Images of God but of the Saints can be no part of Christian Worship because God must be Worshipped as a Spirit and therefore not by any Image whatsoever Now the Church of Rome will not pretend that the Worship of Saints and their Images is a distinct and separate Worship from the Worship of God but to justifie themselves they constantly affirm that they Worship God in that Worship which they pay to the Saints and their Images for they know that to do otherwise would be to terminate their Worship upon Creatures which they confess to be Idolatry since all Religious Worship must terminate on God and therefore should they give any Religious Worship to Creatures distinct and separate from that Worship they give to God it were Idolatry upon their own principles Now if they Worship God in the Worship of Saints and their Images then they Worship God in the Images of Saints and that I think is to Worship him by Images the Worship of a pure infinite and invisible Spirit will admit of no Images whether of God or Creatures as the Objects or Mediums of Worship But it may be said that this is to graft our own Fancies and Imaginations upon Scripture for though Christ does say that God is a Spirit and must be Worshipped in Spirit he does not say that to Worship God in Spirit is not to Worship him by an Image but to Worship God in Spirit in our Saviour's Discourse with the Woman of Samaria is not opposed to Image-Worship but to confining the Worship of God to a particular place such as the Temple at Jerusalem and Samaria was as I observed above Now to
is in Heaven at the right hand of God and on ten thousand Altars at a great distance from each other on earth at the same time Then a humane Body is contracted into the compass of a Wafer or rather subsists without any dimensions without extension of parts and independent on place Now not to dispute whether this be true or false my only inquiry at present is whether this do not contradict those natural notions all men have of the properties of a Humane Body let a man search his own mind and try whether he find any such notion of a Body as can be present at more places than one at the same time a Body that is without Extension nay that has parts without Extension and therefore without any distinction too for the parts of an Organical Body must be distinguished by place and scituation which cannot be if they have no Extension a Body which is present without occupying a place or being in a place if we have no such natural notion of a Body as I am sure I have not and I believe no man else has then let Transubstantiation be true or false it is contrary to the natural notions of our minds which is all I am at present concerned for Thus let any man try if he have any notion of an accident subsisting without any substance of a white and soft and hard nothing of the same body which is extended and not extended which is in a place and not in a place at the same time for in Heaven I suppose they will grant the Body of Christ fills a place and has the just dimensions and proportions of a Humane Body and at the same time in the Host the very same body is present without any extension and independent on place that is the same body at the same time is extended and not extended fills a place and fills no place which I suppose they mean by being Independent on place now is and is not is a contradiction to natural Reason and I have no other natural notion of it but as of a contradiction both parts of which cannot be true Let us then briefly examine whether it be likely that Transubstantiation which contradicts the evidence of sense and the natural notions of our Minds should be a Gospel Doctrine considering the Gospel as the most Divine and excellent Knowledge and most perfective of Humane understandings For 1. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from perfecting our Knowledge that it destroys the very Principles of all Humane Knowledge All natural knowledge is owing either to Sense or Reason and Transubstantiation contradicts both and whoever believes it must believe contrary to his Senses and Reason which if it be to believe like a Catholick I am sure is not to believe like a man if the perfection of knowledge consist in contradicting our own Faculties Transubstantiation is the most perfect knowledge in the world but however I suppose no man will say that this is the natural perfection of knowledge which overthrows the most natural notions we have of things and yet 2. All supernatural Knowledge must of necessity be grafted upon that which is natural for we are capable of revealed and supernatural Knowledge only as we are by nature reasonable Creatures and destroy Reason and Beasts are as fit to be preached too as Men And yet to contradict the plain and most natural notions of our minds is to destroy Humane Reason and to leave Mankind no Rule or Principle to know and judge by No man can know any thing which contradicts the Principles of Natural Knowledge because he has only these natural Principles to know by and therefore however his Faith may be improved by it he forfeits his natural Knowledge and has no supernatural Knowledge in the room of it For how can a man know and understand that which is contrary to all the natural Knowledge and Understanding he has There may be some revealed Principles of Knowledge super-added to natural Principles and these things we may know to be so though we have no natural Notion of them and this perfects because it enlarges our Knowledge as the Knowledge of three Divine Persons super-added to the natural Belief of one Supreme God which does not overthrow the belief of one God but only acquaints us that there are three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which whatever difficulty there may be in apprehending it yet overthrows no natural Notion this is an improvement of Knowledge because we know all we did before and we know something more that as there is one God so there are three Persons who are this one God and though we have no natural Notion of this how three Persons are one God because we know no distinction between Person and Essence in Finite Beings yet we have no natural Notion that there cannot be more Persons than one in an Infinite Essence and therefore this may be known by Revelation because there is no natural Notion against it But now I can never know that which is contrary to all the Principles of Knowledge I have such men may believe it who think it a Vertue to believe against Knowledge Who can believe that to be true which they know to be false For whatever is contrary to the plain and necessary Principles of Reason which all Mankind agree in I know must be false if my Faculties be true and if my Faculties be not true then I can know nothing at all neither by Reason nor Revelation because I have no true Faculties to know with Revelation is a Principle of Knowledge as well as Faith when it does not contradict our natural Knowledge of things for God may teach us that which Nature does not teach and thus Revelation improves enlarges and perfects Knowledge in such cases Faith serves instead of natural Knowledge the Authority of the Revelation instead of the natural Notions and Idea's of our Minds but I can never know that by Revelation which contradicts my natural Knowledge which would be not only to know that which I have no natural Knowledge of which is the knowledge of Faith but to know that by Revelation which by Reason and Nature I know cannot be which is to know that which I know cannot be known because I know it cannot be So that Transubstantiation which contradicts all the evidence of Sence and Reason is not the Object of any Humane Knowledge and therefore cannot be a Gospel-Revelation which is to improve and perfect not to destroy Humane Knowledge I can never know it because it contradicts all the Notions of my Mind and I can never believe it without denying the truth of my Faculties and no Revelation can prove my Faculties to be false for I can never be so certain of the truth of any Revelation as I am that my Faculties are true and could I be perswaded that my Faculties are not true but deceive me in such things as I judge most certain and