proposing this Argument seems to him I do not question to make it good notwithstanding his so peremptory denying it as absolutely false But in order to the clearing of it I shall lay down these Propositions 1. That worship is nothing else but an external signification of honour and respect For we do not here speak concerning the bare internal acts of the mind but of the way whereby the esteem we have in our minds is expressed in such a manner as to give honour to that which we so esteem 2. That the signification of honour which is due to God is not to be measured by the intentions of men against the declared will of God For it being in his power to determine in what way he will be worshipped we are not to enquire whether men do intend any act of theirs for his honour but whether God doth allow it or no And herein lyes his great mistake in thinking That mens intentions are to be the rule of Divine Worship so that what they design for the honour of God must needs end in it Whereas if God hath the power of making a rule for his own worship he cannot be honoured by mens doing any thing against his declared Will whatever their intention be For then God might be honoured by the most palpable acts of disobedience which is a plain contradiction for what can be greater dishonour to God than to break his Laws for his Honour 3. The Divine Law being the rule of Worship all prohibited wayes of worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them As if a Prince should declare it by his Laws to be Treason for any man to bow down to a Sign-Post with his head upon it under pretence of giving the greater honour to his Prince I desire to know whether a mans intentions of honouring his Prince thereby excuse him from Treason or no So it is in our case if God absolutely prohibits the worship of himself by an Image whatever the intention of the person be and calls this by the name of Idolatry no mans directing the intention of his mind beyond the Image can excuse him from it From whence it necessarily follows that the worship of God by an Image when himself hath prohibited it and declared it Idolatry as I shall prove he hath done in the second Commandment cannot be terminated on God but only on the Image for no man will be so absurd as to say that an act of Idolatry is terminated upon God By which we see how far it is from the appearance of a contradiction to say that the worship of God by an Image being declared to be Idolatry by himself should be terminated wholly on the creature which are but other words explaining the nature of Idolatry and what an easie answer will take off all his other Instances For those do not suppose any prohibited object or means of worship which is the only thing we speak of but either praying to the true God for bad ends as in the case of Thieves and Murderers praying for good success or bringing something in Sacrifice to him which he had forbidden as the Iews offering the blind and the lame or some miscarriage in the minds of them that sacrifice or pray to him as in Cains oblation and wicked mens prayers but all these are very remote from the present debate concerning an object or means of worship prohibited by God himself under the notion of Idolatry This being cleared I come to prove § 4. 2. That God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image and not meerly giving the worship of God to Idols as he asserts Our Controversie now being about the sense of a Law the best wayes we have to find out the meaning of it are either from the terms wherein it is expressed or from the reason annexed to it or from the judgement of those whom we believe best able to understand and interpret it I shall therefore prove that to be the meaning of this Law of God which I have set down from every one of these wayes 1. From the terms wherein the Law is expressed this I the rather insist upon because it is the way himself hath chosen for he saith The Hebrew word Pesel in Latin Sculptile is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol and so the LXX translate it in this place by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore saith it was an artifice of the Protestants to translate it Image instead of Idol and not any certain kind of Image neither but any whatsoever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image instead of Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol By his own acknowledgement then we are to judge the sense of the Law by the importance of the words therein used but I shall prove First That supposing Pesel did signifie only an Idol yet that were not enough Secondly That Pesel is very properly rendred by the Protestants and that it doth not signifie barely an Idol 1. Supposing that were the signification of Pesel which he contends for that were not enough unless there had been no other word but that used in the Law but another word is added to prevent a mistake of that nature of as large a signification as may be to this purpose which is Themuna which they render similitude as well as we and is never used in the whole Scripture to signifie such an Idol as he supposes this Law intends To what purpose then are words of the largest signification put into a Law if the sense be limited according to the most narrow acceptation of one word mentioned therein For there is no kind of Image whether graven or painted whether of a real or imaginary being but is comprehended under the signification of the words set down in the Law for not only the making a similitude in general is forbidden but any kind of similitude whether of things in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth to bow down to them or worship them I confess it cannot enter into my mind how God should have forbidden the worship of Images by more express and emphatical words than he hath done and if he had used any other words their sense might as well have been perverted as these are If a Prince should under a very severe penalty forbid all his subjects making any Image or resemblance with an intent to give honour to him by kneeling before them would not that man be thought very ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law thus that the Prince did not forbid them making any picture of himself or his Son or any of his Favourites for the worship of these could not but redound to his own Honour but only that they should make the Image of an Ape or an Ass or a Tyger thinking to honour their Prince thereby Much such an exposition is that here given of the Law God forbids any Image or
proposed in these terms I answer the first Proposition is built on a great mistake of the Nature of humane acts which though they ought to be governed by the Law of God yet when they swerve from it cease not to tend to their own proper objects Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship may make it to be unlawful but hinders not the act from tending whither it is intended and consequently if it be intended or directed by the understanding to God though after an unlawful manner it will not fail to be terminated upon God Thus when a Thief or a Murderer prayes to God to give him good success in the Theft or Murder he intends though God denyes to hear any such Prayer yet is the Prayer truly directed to him and thus when the Iews offered to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame though he had forbidden it yet was the oblation terminated on him and therefore he reproves them for having polluted him Mal. 1. 8. and to convince them the more of their evil doings offer it now sayes he to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person Though the Governour deny to accept what is presented to him yet it is truly offered to him by the presenter and so although God deny to accept such or such Sacrifice yet it is truly offered to him though the offering of it after a forbidden manner make it to be sin Did not God refuse to accept the Sacrifice of Cain and yet the Scripture Gen. 4. 3. sayes expresly that he brought an offering to the Lord God had not respect to Cain nor his offering but this did not hinder but that Cains offering had respect to God and was terminated on him In like manner though God deny such or such a kind of Worship if it be offered though unlawfully by the Creature yet is it terminated on him The Proposition therefore which asserts that the Worship which God denyes must be terminated on the Creature I deny as absolutely false and so will you too Madam when you shall see the sense of it to be no other but that a wicked man cannot Pray to God or Worship him in an unlawful or forbidden manner who is therefore a wicked man because he does so What follows from hence is that though God should have forbidden men to Worship him by Images yet it does not follow but the Worship so given would be terminated on him But now to speak to his second Proposition in which the main force of this Argument consists We utterly deny that God in the second Commandment forbids himself to be Worshipped by a Crucifix for example or such like Sacred Image for such only are the subject of the present Controversie What he forbids there is to give his Worship to Idols and this is clear from the Circumstances of the Text First Because this Commandment if St. Austins Iudgement be to be followed is but a part or Explication of the first Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Secondly because the Hebrew word Pesel in Latine Sculptile is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol Let them be confounded who adore Sculptilia that is Idols saith the Psalmist and so the Septuagint translate it in this very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol so that it was an artifice of the Protestants to make their assertion seem plausible to translate Image instead of Idol and not a certain kind of Image neither but any whatsoever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image Now what is all this to Catholicks who neither make to themselves nor adore Idols nor yield Soveraign honour or acknowledgement of Deity to any but God We give indeed a veneration to Images but the Image of God is not another God besides him nor is the Worship of it the Worship of another God but of him who is represented by it for St. Basil saith The Worship of an Image stayes not there but is referred or carried to the prototype or thing represented We give therefore an inferior or relative honour only to the Sacred Images of Christ and his blessed Mother and Saints not latriam the Worship due to God but Honorariam adorationem a certain honorary Worship expressed by kissing them or putting off our Hats or kneeling before them much like the Worship given to the Chair of State or the Kings Picture or his Garment by the like actions or to come nearer to the subject such as was commanded to be given by Moses and Joshua to the ground whereon they stood by putting off their Shoos because it was holy and by the Iews in adoring the footstool of God or falling down before it Psal. 98. 5. and in Worshipping as St. Jerome testifies they did that part of the Temple called the Holy of Holies because there were the Cherubims sacred Images ordered by God himself to be placed there the propitiatory representing Gods Throne and the Ark his footstool In a word such as the Protestants themselves give to the Name of Iesus when they hear it spoken by putting off their Hats and bowing at it or to the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Supper by kneeling before them as figures representing the death of Christ. If condescendence to the conscience of weaker Brethren will permit to own they have any honour or veneration for them or for the Altar before which they how To conclude this point the Objector brings a Text which forbids us to give the Soveraign honour due to God to an Idol but let us hear out of Scripture an express Text that it is not lawful to give to holy Images and other things relating to God an inferiour or relative Worship such as we have declared and that will be to the purpose § He aims to conclude the Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry from the adoration of the bread as he believes it in the Eucharist Now to do this he ought to prove that what we adore in the Eucharist is bread indeed But instead of that he brings a comparison between our adoration of Christ in the Eucharist and the Heathens adoration of the Sun viz. That the Papists by the same Argument make the Worship of the bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry which would excuse the Heathens Worship of the Sun and of their Statues from Idolatry For if it be not therefore Idolatry sayes he because they suppose the bread to be God then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry in them who supposed the Sun to be God I shall not complain here of the unhandsomness of the expression that Catholicks suppose the bread to be God just as the Heathens supposed the Sun to be God whereas he knows that Catholicks believe that the substance of the bread is changed into Christs body but shall answer to the Argument That the Worship of Christ in the Eucharist is not Idolatry because we
or asked their opinion and Pope Adrian himself he saith in his defence of it against the Caroline Books never gives it the name or authority of an Oecumenical Council The same Council was rejected here in England as our Historians tell us because it asserted the adoration of Images which the Church of God abhors which are the words of Hoveden and others And we find afterwards in France by the Synod of Paris called by Ludovicus Pius upon the Letters of Michael Balbus Emperour of Constantinople in order to the Vnion of Christendome in this point that these Western Churches persisted still in the condemnation of the Nicene Council which they would not have done after so long a time to inform themselves if a meer mistake of their Doctrine at first had been the cause of their opposition But whosoever will read the Caroline Books or the Synod of Paris or Agobardus and others about that time will find that they condemn all religious worship of Images as adoration and contrary to that honour which is due to God alone and to the commands which he hath given in Scripture And I extreamly wonder how any men of common sense and much more any of learning and judgement that had read the Book of Charles the Great against the Nicene Synod could imagine it altogether proceeded upon a mistake of the meaning of it when it so distinctly relates and punctually answers the several places of Scriptures and Fathers produced by it for the worship of Images In the first Book an answer is given to many impertinent places of the Old Testament alledged in that Council which the second proceeds with and examines several testimonies of the Fathers and in the two remaining Books pursues all their pretences with that diligence that no one can imagine all this while that the Author did not know their meaning And that by adoration he means no more than giving Religious Worship to Images appears from hence because he calls the Civil worship which men give to one another by the name of adoration when he shewes that it is another thing to give adoration to a man upon a civil respect and to give adoration to Images upon a religious account when God challenges all religious worship or adoration to himself and whatever reason will hold for such a worship of Images will much more hold for the worship of men who have greater excellency in them and more honour put upon them by God than any Images can ever pretend to That God allows no other kind of adoration to be given to any but himself but that which we give to one another Can any be so senseless to think that by this civil adoration he meant we honoured every man we met as our Soveraign Prince And as little reason is there to say that by adoration given to Images he meant only the incommunicable worship due only to God in the sense of those Fathers Can we imagine saith he that S. Peter would allow the worship of Images who forbad Cornelius to worship him Or St. John whom the Angel checked for offering to worship him and bid him give that honour to God Or Paul and Barnabas who with such horror ran among the men of Lycaonia when they were about to worship them and yet surely Angels and such persons as these deserved more to be worshipped than any Images can do But we see by these examples that even these are not to be adored with any other kind of adoration than what the offices of civility require from us Besides in his language those who followed the Council of Constantinople are said not to adore Images by which nothing else can be meant than their giving no Religious worship to them and when he shews the great inconsequence of the argument from the adoration of the Statues of the Emperours to the adoration of Images because in matters of Religious Worship we are not to follow the customes of men against the will of God he thereby shews what kind of adoration he intended not the worship of Latria but supposed to be of an inferiour sort In so much that Binius confesseth that the design of these books was against all worship of Images It is true Pope Hadrian in the answer he sent to these Books which is still extant in the Tomes of the Councils doth deny that the Synod intended to give proper divine worship to Images but that is no more than the Synod it self had in words said before but that was not the Question what they said but what the nature of the thing did imply Whether that religious worship they gave to Images was not part of that adoration which was only due to God And he that expects an answer to this from him will find himself deceived who is so pitifully put to it for an answer to the demand of any example of words of the Apostles to justifie Image-worship that he is forced to make use of some Mystical passages of Dionysius the supposed Areopagite wherein the word Image hapning to be is very sufficient to his purpose And this answer of Hadrians gave so little satisfaction to the Western Bishops that A.D. 824. the Synod at Paris being called by Ludovicus Pius to advise about this point did condemn expressely Pope Hadrian for asserting a superstitious adoration of Images which they look on as a great impiety and say that he produces very impertinent places of the Fathers and remote from his purpose and that setting aside his Pontifical authority in his answer to the Caroline Books there were some things apparently false and they have nothing to excuse him by but his Ignorance And therefore they at large shew that the Religious worship of Images came first from Hereticks and that it was alwayes condemned by the Fathers of the Christian Church and answer the arguments produced on the other side out of the Writings of the Fathers And supposing that superstitious custome of worshipping Images had for some time obtained yet they shew by several testimonies that it ought to be abrogated No wonder then that Bellarmine is so much displeased with this Synod for offering so boldly to censure the Popes Writings and a Synod approved by him wherein the saith they exceed the fault of the Author of the Caroline Books because as he confesseth they offered to teach the Pope and resisted him to the face And yet no doubt they had read and considered Hadrians words wherein he disowns the giveing true divine honour to Images Not long after this Synod came forth the Book of Agobardus Archbishop of Lyons against Images occasioned saith Papirius Massonus by the stupendous superstition in that Age in the worship of them And this saith he is the substance of his Doctrine out of St. Augustine and other Fathers that there is no other Image of God but what is himself and therefore cannot be
his honour in this Command above others and that he will not give his glory to another but hath reserved all divine worship as peculiar to himself and no such fond excuses of relative inferiour and improper Worship will serve when they encroach upon his prerogative It was well observed by a very learned Bishop of our Church that such kind of distinctions so applyed are like the dispute among some of the Church of Rome in Scotland whether the Lords Prayer might be used to Saints or no and it was well resolved and very subtilly that ultimately principally primarily and strictly they might not but secondarily less principally and largely or relatively they might The same would certainly hold for Images too And I wonder very much they stick at any kind of Worship to be done to Images for my own part were I of their mind I should as little scruple offering up the Host to an Image as saying my Prayers to it and I should think my self hardly dealt with if I did not come off with the same distinctions For if I do it to God absolutely and for himself and to the Image only improperly and relatively wherein I am to blame I cannot understand if the Image have the honorary adoration as he calls it given to it only with a respect to what is represented by it but I may give the same kind of Worship to the Image which I do to the Prototype and that upon the rule he quotes from St. Basil although he uses it quite upon another occasion as if he looks upon the place he may see that the Worship of the Image is carryed to the Prototype or thing represented I desire therefore seriously to know of him whether any Worship doth at all belong to the image or no if none at all to what end are they kneeled before and kissed which if the Images had any sense in them would think was done to them and why doth the Council of Trent determine that due worship is to be given them if there be any due whether it be the same then is given to the Prototype or distinct from it if it be the same then proper divine Worship is given to the Image if distinct then the Image is Worshipped with divine Worship for it self and not relatively and subordinately as he speaks I know Madam when any thing pincheth them they cry presently these are disputes of the Schools and Niceties too deep for you to be able to judge of but I assure you some of the best learned among them have determined which side soever you take you fall into Idolatry and I hope that is no Scholastick nicety with you I shall endeavour to give you their sense as plainly as I can Bellarmin saith That no Image is to be Worshipped properly with that Worship which the thing represented is worshipped by for Latria as he calls it is a Worship proper to God but no Image upon account of relation or any other way is God therefore that Worship doth not belong to it It may be saith he some will say that Latria is a Worship proper to God when it is given for it self and not for another or relatively I Answer that it is of the Nature of Latria or Divine Worship to be given for it self for that is the Worship which is due to the true God as the first principle of all things and it implyes a contradiction for the highest Worship to be given to the first principle and relatively or for another and therefore this worship is given to the Image for it self which is plain Idolatry or else it is not given for it self and then it is not Latria or properly Divine Worship Again either the Divine Worship or Latria which is given to the Image relatively for another is the same with that which is given to God or an inferiour Worship if it be the same the Creature is equally Worshipped with God which certainly is Idolatry For Idolatry saith he is not only when God is forsaken and an Idol Worshipped but when an Idol is Worshipped together with God If it be an inferiour worship then it is not Latria for that is the highest Worship Thus far Bellarmin On the other side Vasquez a Iesuite a man of great reputation too and of as searching a wit as Bellarmin he saith That it an inferiour Worship be given to the Image distinct from that which is given to the thing represented he that so gives it incurres the crime of Idolatry for he expresseth his submission to a meer inanimate thing that hath no kind of excellency to deserve it from him By which we see that it is in mens choice what sort of Idolatry they will commit who worship Images but in neither way they can avoid it § 12. But yet he thinks to escape by some parallel instances as he fancies them such as the honour given to the Chair of State or the Kings picture or garment Moses and Joshua's putting off their Shooes because it was holy ground the Iews falling down before Gods footstool and Worshipping the Holy of Holies where were the Cherubims Propitiatory and Ark Protestants bowing at the name of Iesus or kneeling at the Eucharist and bowing before the Altar from these he thinks he hath sufficiently cleared that inferiour and relative Worship which they give to Images To which I answer 1. To that of the Chair of State that our dispute is not concerning Civil Worship but Divine and as to civil worship I suppose he would not say that were any honour to the King in case he had absolutely forbidden it as we have proved God hath done in the case of Images 2. To the putting off the Shooes upon holy ground 1. That we think there is some little difference to be made between what God hath commanded and what he hath forbidden for in the case of Moses and Ioshua there was an express command Exod. 3. 5. Josh. 5. 15. but in the case of Image Worship there is as plain a prohibition 2. That the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our reverence towards it but this will not hold for Images unless God be proved present in them in the same manner as he appeared to Moses and Ioshua and yet even then the reverence he required was not kissing it or bowing to it much less praying to it but only putting off their Shooes 3. If these things had been done towards the ground the danger had not been so great as to Images because the ground had nothing of representation in it but was only Sacred by Divine consecration and therefore it could not pretend to be any similitude of God But in Images there is nothing Sacred but being an Image and so the representation is that which gives all the excellency and value to it and therefore the Reverence of holy places and things is of quite a
some degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity but in nothing contrary to the Law of God His tenth pretended Obstruction of Devotion is that we make disobedience to the Church in Disputable matters more hainous than disobedience to Christ in unquestionable things as Marriage he saith in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication I Answer That whether a Priest may Marry or no supposing the Law of the Church forbidding it is not a disputable matter but 't is out of Question even by the Law of God that Obedience is to be given to the Commands or Prohibitions of the Church The Antithesis therefore between disobedience to the Church in disputable matters and disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things is not only impertinent to the Marriage of Priests which is unquestionably forbidden but supposing the matter to remain disputable after the Churches Prohibition destroys all obedience to the Church But if it suppose them only disputable before then why may not the Church interpose her Iudgement and put them out of dispute But still it seems strange to them who either cannot or will not take the Word of Christ that is his Counsel of Chastitie that Marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication But he considers not that though Marriage in it self be honourable yet if it be prohibited to a certain order of persons by the Church to whom Christ himself commands us to give obedience and they oblige themselves by a voluntary vow to live in perpetual Chastity the Law of God commanding us to pay our Vows it loses its honour in such persons and if contracted after such vow made is in the language of the Fathers no better than Adultery In the primitive Church it was the custome of some Younger Widdows to Dedicate themselves to the Service of the Church and in order thereunto to take upon them a peculiar habit and make a vow of continency for the future Now in case they Married after this St. Paul himself 1 Tim. 1. 12. saith That they incurred Damnation because by so doing they made void their first faith that is as the Fathers Expound it the vow they had made And the fourth Council of Carthage in which were 214 Bishops and among them St. Austin gives the Reason in these words If Wives who commit Adultery are guilty to their Husbands how much more shall such Widdows as change their Religious State be noted with the crime of Adultery And if this were so in Widdows much more in Priests if by Marrying they shall make void their first Faith given to God when they were consecrated in a more peculiar manner to his Service Thus much may suffice for Answer to the Argument which with its intricate terms may seem to puzzle an unlearned Reader let us now speak a word to the true state of the Controversie which is whether Marriage or single life in a Priest be more apt to obstruct or further devotion And St. Paul himself hath determined the Question 1 Cor. 7. 32. where he saith He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to our Lord how he may please our Lord But he that is Married careth for the things that are of the World how be may please his Wife This is the difference he putteth between the Married and Single life that this is apt to make us care for the things which belong to God and that to divert our thoughts from him to the things of the World Iudge therefore which of these states is most convenient for Priests whose proper office it is to attend wholly to the things of God Having thus cleared Catholick Doctrines from being any wayes obstructive to good life or devotion I shall proceed to his third Argument by which he will still prove that Catholicks run a great hazard of their souls in adhering to the Communion of the Church of Rome Because it exposeth the Faith of Christians to so great uncertainty This is a strange charge from the pen of a Protestant who hath no other certainty for his faith but every mans interpretation of the Letter of the Scriptures But First he saith it doth this By making the Authority of the Scriptures to depend upon the infallibility of the Church when the Churches infallibility must be proved by the Scriptures To this I Answer that the Authority of the Scripture not in it self for so it hath its Authority from God but in order to us and our belief of it depends upon the infallibility of the Church And therefore St. Austin saith of himself That he would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church did move him And if you ask him what moved him to submit to that Authority he tells you That besides the Wisdom he found in the Tenets of the Church there were many other things which most justly held him in it as the consent of people and Nations an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and established by Antiquity the succession of Priests from the very seat of St. Peter to whom our Lord commended the feeding of his Sheep unto the present Bishoprick Lastly The very name of Catholick which this Church alone among so many Heresies hath not without cause obtained so particularly to her self that whereas all Hereticks would be called Catholicks yet if a stranger demand where the Catholicks go to Church none of these Hereticks dares to shew either his own house or Church These saith St. Austin so many and great most dear bonds of the name of Christian do justly hold a believing man in the Catholick Church These were the grounds which moved that great man to submit to her Authority And when Catholick Authors prove the infallibility of the Church from Scriptures 't is an Argument ad hominem to convince Protestants who will admit nothing but Scripture and yet when they are convinced quarrel at them as illogical disputants because they prove it from Scripture Next he saith we overthrow all foundation of Faith because We will not believe our sences in the plainest objects of them But what if God have interposed his Authority as he hath done in the case of the Eucharist where he tells us that it is his Body must we believe our sences rather than God or must we not believe them in other things because in the particular case of the Eucharist we must believe God rather than our sences Both these consequences you see are absurd Now for the case it self in which he instances Dr. Taylor above cited confesses that they viz. Catholicks have a divine Revelation viz. Christs word This is my Body whose Litteral and Grammatical sence if that sence were intended would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle but I add it would be no precedent to them not to believe their sences in other the plainest objects of them as in the matter of Tradition or Christs body after the
easily answered that this argument doth prove no more his Worship in the Elements than in a turfe or any other piece of bread for Christ being God is every where present and if his presence only may be ground of giving adoration to that wherein he is present we may as lawfully Worship the Sun or the Earth or any other thing as they do the Sacrament For he is present in all of them But our Worship is not to be guided by our own Fancies but the will of God and we have a command for Worshipping of the person of Christ and till we see one as to his presence in the Sacrament we ought not to think the one parallel with the other And by this the weakness of his retorting the argument in the Arrians behalf so he calls those who believe Christ to be a pure man against those who Worship the Son of God will appear for our Worship doth not meerly depend upon our belief but upon the divine command and therefore those who have denyed the one have yet contended for the other 2. The one gives us a sufficient reason for our Worship but the other doth not There can be no greater reason for giving his person adoration than that he is the eternal Son of God but what equivalent reason to this is there supposing the bread to be really converted into the body of Christ All that I can believe then present is the body of Christ and what then is that the object of our adoration do we terminate our Worship upon his humane nature and was it ever more properly so than in dying is it not the death of Christ that is set forth in the Eucharist And is his body present any other way than as it is agreeable to the end of the institution But it may be they will say the body of Christ being hypostatically united with the divine nature one cannot be present without the other That indeed is a good argument to prove the body of Christ cannot be there by transubstantiation for if the bread be converted into that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature then the conversion is not meerly into the body but into the Person of Christ and then Christ hath as many bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements Consecrated and so all the accidents of the bread belong to that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature Nay to make the Elements the object of divine worship as they do they must suppose an hypostatical union between them and the divine nature of Christ for if the only reason of joyning the humane nature with the divine in the person of Christ as the object of our Worship be the hypostatical union of those Natures then we can upon no other account make those Elements the object of Worship but by supposing such an union between Christ and them But I suppose they will not venture to say that Christ is hypostatically united with the shape figure and colour of the bread for they will have nothing else to remain after Consecration in spight of all the reason and sense of the world but meerly those accidents and the Council of Trent determines That the same Divine Worship which we give to God himself is in express terms to be given to the most holy Sacrament and pronounces an Anathema against all who deny it And what is the holy Sacrament but the body of Christ according to them under the accidents of the bread and although the body of Christ being believed to be there is the reason of their Worship yet the Worship is given to the Elements upon that account § 3. But this being a matter of so great importance to make it as clear as the nature of the thing will allow I shall yet further prove that upon the principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host and I hope this will abundantly add to the discovering the disparity between the Worship given to the person of Christ and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation But before I come to this I shall endeavour to give a true account of the State of the Controversie between us which I shall do in these particulars 1. The Question between us is not whether the person of Christ is to be Worshipped with divine worship for that we freely acknowledge And although the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration yet being considered as united to the divine nature that cannot hinder the same divine Worship being given to his person which belongs to his divine nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him 2. It is not whether the person of Christ visibly appearing to us in any place ought to have divine honour given to him For supposing sufficient evidence of such an appearance we make no more question of this than we do of the former Neither do we say that we need a particular command in such a case to make it lawful any more than the Patriarchs did at every appearance of God among them or those who conversed with our Lord on earth every time they fell down and Worshipped him Where our sense and reason is satisfied as well as St. Thomas his was in a visible appearance of Christ we can give divine Worship as he did when he said My Lord and my God for in this Worship given to the Person of Christ I am sure I give it to nothing but what is either God or hypostatically united to the divine nature But is there not the same reason of believing Christ to be present as seeing him I answer in matters of pure revelation there is where the matter proposed to our faith can be no object of sense as Christs infinite presence in all places as God I firmly believe upon the credit of divine revelation and I give divine Worship to him as God suitable to that infinite presence but our question is concerning the visible presence of Christ where honour is given on the account of the divine nature but he can be known to be present only by his humanity in this case I say the evidence of sense is necessary in order to the true Worshipping the person of Christ. If any should be so impertinent to urge that saying to this purpose blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed I shall only say that doth not at all relate to this matter but to the truth of Christs resurrection 3. It is not concerning the spiritual Worship of Christ in the Celebration of the Eucharist For we declare that in all solemn acts of Religious Worship and particularly in the Eucharist we give divine honour to the Son of God as well as to the Father We affirm that we
dangerous for me to be too confident of the sense of it I have heard some wise men of our church have said that these words may bear a figurative sense like that rock was Christ and that if there were no other evidence for transubstantiation but what the Scripture gives there were no reason to make it an Article of faith I have heard the great names of Scotus Aliaco Biel Fisher Cajctan Canus and others quoted to this purpose and their testimonies produced What a case am I in then if those words do not prove it Now I think better of it I must trust the Church for the sense of Scripture and if I be not strangely mistaken I am sworn to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers but alas what relief is this to my anxious mind This is a thing I am to do or not to do almost every day and to be resolved of it I am put to a task which will hold me all my life time and may be as unsatisfied at last as I am now For I see the world is full of Disputes concerning the sense of their words as well as the Scriptures One saith that a Father by a figure means a substance and that another by a substance means a figure one man sayes his adversaries authorities are counterfeit and another sayes the same of his one quotes the saying of an Heretick for the Orthodox and another makes it appear that if he spake his own mind he must contradict himself and others of the Fathers One produces a Pope confirming the Doctrine of transubstantiation and another as plain a testimony of a Pope of greater antiquity and more learning overthrowing it One appeals to the first Ages of the Church another to the latest one saith the Fathers spake Rhetorically and another Dogmatically One that they loved to talk mystically and another that they spake differently about this matter In this great confusion what ground of certainty have I to stand upon whereby to secure my mind from commission of a great sin I am sure if I live in wilful sin all my dayes I shall be damned but God hath never told me if I do not study the Fathers all my life I shall be damned It is satisfaction I desire and that I am not like to have this way when I see men of greater Wit and Subtlety and Judgement than ever I am like to come to are still disputing about the sense of the Fathers in this point Witness the late heats in France about it While I am in this Labyrinth a kind Priest offers to give me ease and tells me these are doubts and scruples I ought not to trouble my self about the authority of the present Church is sufficient for me I thank him for his kindness only desiring to know what he means by the authority of the present Church For I find we Catholicks are not agreed about that neither May I be sure if the Pope who is Head of the Church say it No not unless he defines it but may I be sure then No not unless a General Council concur but may I be sure if a General Council determines it Yes if it be confirmed wholly by the Pope and doth proceed in the way of a Council but how is it possible for me to judge of that when the intrigues of actions are so secret I see then if this be the only way of satisfaction I must forbear giving adoration or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it But suppose I am satisfied in the point of transubstantiation it is not enough for me to know in general that there is such a change but I must believe particularly that very bread to be changed so which I am now to worship and by what means can I be sure of that For my Church tells me that it is necessary that he be a Priest that consecrates and that he had an intention of consecrating that very bread which I am to adore But what if it should come to pass after many consecrations that such a person prove no Priest because not rightly baptized which is no unheard of thing what became of all their actions who worshipped every Host he pretended to consecrate They must be guilty of Idolatry every Mass he celebrated But how is it possible for me to be sure of his Priesthood unless I could be sure of the intention of the Bishop that ordained him and the Priest that baptized him which it is impossible for me to be Yet suppose I were sure he was a Priest what assurance have I that he had an intention to consecrate that very Wafer which I am to adore If there were thirteen and he had an intention to consecrate only twelve if I worship the thirteenth I give divine honour to a meer creature for without the intention of the Priest in consecration it can be nothing else and then I am guilty of downright Idolatry So that upon the principles of the Roman Church no man can be satisfied that he doth not worship a meer creature with divine honour when he gives adoration to the Host. 2. No man can be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving this worship to the Host. For which we must consider what suppositions the adoration of the Host depends upon if any of which prove uncertain I am in as bad a case as I was before I first suppose that the bread being really and substantially changed into that very body of Christ which was crucified at Hierusalem I ought to give the same honour to that body of Christ in the Sacrament which I am to give to the person of Christ as God and man and that the body of Christ being present in the Sacrament I may on the account of that presence give the same honour to the Sacrament in which he is present But if it prove uncertain whether the humane nature of Christ as conjoyned to the divine nature be capable of receiving proper divine worship then it must be much more so whether the body of Christ as present in the Sacrament be so But granting that it may be yet uncertain whether I ought to give the same honour to the visible part of the Sacrament which I do to the humanity of Christ for though Christ may be present there his presence doth not make the things wherein he is present capable of the same divine honour with himself Now that these things are uncertain upon their own principles I now make appear I find it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church that the humane nature of Christ considered alone ought not to have divine honour given to it and I find it hotly disputed among them whether Christs humane nature though united to the divine ought abstractly considered to have any true divine honour given it and those who deny it make use of this substantial argument proper divine honour is due only to God but the humane nature of Christ
is not God and therefore that honour ought not to be given it and I am further told by them that the Church hath never determined this controversie Let me now apply this to our present case It is certain if the body of Christ be present in the Eucharist as distinct from the divine nature I am not not to adore it It is very uncertain if it be present whether I am to give divine worship to the body of Christ but it is most certain that if I worship Christ in the Sacrament it is upon the account of his corporal presence For although when I worship the person of Christ as out of the Sacrament my worship is terminated upon him as God and man and the reason of my worship is wholly drawn from his divine nature yet when I worship Christ as in the Sacrament I must worship him there upon the account of his bodily presence for I have no other reason to Worship him in the Sacrament but because his body is present in it And this is not barely determining the place of Worship but assigning the cause of it for the primary reason of all adoration in the Sacrament is because Christ hath said this is my body which words if they should be allowed to imply Transubstantiation cannot be understood of any other change than of the bread into the body of Christ. And if such a sense were to be put upon it why may not I imagine much more agreeably to the nature of the institution that the meer humane nature of Christ is there than that his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no end and where it makes not the least manifestation of it self But if I should yield all that can be begged in this kind viz. that the body of Christ being present his divinity is there present too yet my mind must unavoidably rest unsatisfied still as to the adoration of the Host. For supposing the divine nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same Worship to the thing wherein he is present as I do to Christ himself This the more considerative men of the Roman Church are aware of but the different wayes they have taken to answer it rather increase mens doubts than satisfie them Greg. de Valentiâ denies not that divine honour is given by them to the Eucharist and that the accidents remaining after Consecration are the term of adoration not for themselves but by reason of the admirable conjunction which they have with Christ. Which is the very same which they say of the humane nature of Christ and yet this same person denies that they are hypostatically united to him which if any one can understand I shall not envy him Bellarmin in answer to this argument is forced to grant as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Sacrament as between the divine and humane nature for when he speaks of that he saith it lyes in this that the humane nature loseth its own proper subsistence and it assumed into the subsistence of the divine nature and in the case of the Sacrament he yields such a losing the proper subsistence of the bread and that what ever remains makes no distinct suppositum from the body of Christ but all belong to him and make one with him and therefore may be Worshipped as he is Is not this an admirable way of easing the minds of dissatisfied persons about giving adoration to the Host to fill them with such unintelligible terms and notions which it is impossible for them to understand themselves or explain to others Vasquez therefore finding well that the force of the argument lay in the presence of Christ and that from thence they must at last derive only the ground of adoration very ingenuously yields the Consequence and grants that God may very lawfully be adored by us in any created being wherein he is intimately present and this he not only grants but contends for in a set disputation wherein he proves very well from the principles of Worship allowed in the Roman Church that God may be adored in inanimate and irrational beings as well as in Images and answers all the arguments the very same way that they defend the other and that we way Worship the Sun as lawfully and with the same kind of Worship that they do an Image and that men may be worshipped with the same worship with which we Worship God himself if our mind do not rest in the Creature but be terminated upon God as in the adoration of the Host. See here the admirable effects of the doctrine of divine worship allowed and required in the Roman Church For upon the very same principles that a Papist Worships Images Saints and the Host he may as lawfully worship the Earth the Stars or Men and be no more guilty of Idolatry in one than in the other of them So that if we have no more reason to Worship the person of Christ than they have to adore the host upon their principles we have no more ground to worship Christ than we have to worship any creature in the World § 5. 2. There are not the same motives and grounds to believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation that there are to believe that Christ is God which he affirms but without any appearance of reason And I would gladly know what excellent motives and reasons those are which so advantageously recommend so absurd a doctrine as Transubstantiation is as to make any man think he hath reason to believe it I am sure it gives the greatest advantage to the enemies of Christs Divinity to see these two put together upon equal terms as though no man could have reason to believe Christ to be the Eternal Son of God that did not at the same time swallow the greatest contradictions to sense and reason imaginable But what doth he mean by these motives and grounds to believe The authority of the Roman Church I utterly deny that to be any ground of believing at all and desire with all my heart to see it proved but this is a proper means to believe Transubstantiation by for the ground of believing is as absurd as the doctrine to be believed by it If he means Catholick Tradition let him prove if he can that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the universal Church from our Saviours time and when he pleases I shall joyne issue with him upon that Subject And if he thinks fit to put the negative upon me I will undertake to instance in an Age since the three first Centuries wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops yea of Rome it self be to be credited Transubstantiation was not believed But if at last he means Scripture which we acknowledge for our only rule of faith and shall do in spight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition I shall appeal even to Bellarmin himself in this
case whether there are the same motives and grounds from thence to believe Transubstantiation as there are the Divinity of Christ. In the proof of Transubstantiation his only Argument is from those words this is my body which words saith he do necessarily inferre either a real mutation of the Bread as the Catholicks hold or a metaphorical as the Calvinists but by no means do admit the Lutherans sense and so spends the rest of the Chapter against them and concludes it thus although there be some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord yet that is taken away by Councils and Fathers and so passes to them Which are a plain indication he thought the same which others of his Religion have said that the doctrine of Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone But when he proves the Divinity of Christ he goes through nine several classes of arguments six of which are wholly out of Scripture the first out of both Testaments the second only out of the Old the third out of the New the fourth from the names of the true God given to Christ the fifth from the Divine Attributes Eternity Immensity Power Wisdome Goodness Majesty the sixth from the proper works of God Creation Conservation Salvation Fore-knowing of secret things and working Miracles All which he largely insists upon with great strength and clearness so that if he may be judge the motives to believe the Divinity of Christ are far from being the same in Scripture that there are to believe Transubstantiation § 6. 3. But supposing they are mistaken in the belief of this doctrine this doth not excuse them from Idolatry To his quotation out of Dr. Taylors Liberty of Prophecying to the contrary I shall return him the opinion of their own Divines The Testimony of Coster is sufficiently known to this purpose who saith the same thing in effect that I had done If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true the Idolatry of the Heathens in Worshipping some Golden or Silver Statute or any Images of their Gods or the Laplanders Worshipping a red cloth or the Aegyptians an animal is more excusable than of Christians that Worship a bit of bread And our Country-man Bishop Fisher confesseth That if there be nothing but bread in the Eucharist they are all Idolaters But none is so fit to answer Dr. Taylor as himself after almost twenty years time to consider more throughly of those things and then he confesseth That the Weapons he used for their defence were but wooden daggers though the best he could meet with and if that be the best they have to say for themselves which he hath produced for them their probabilities will be soon out-ballanced by one Scripture-testimony urg'd by Protestants and thou shalt not Worship any graven Images will outweigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church and elsewhere That the second Commandment is so plain so easie so peremptory against all the making and Worshipping any Image or likeness of any thing that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbidden it is so expressed that upon supposition that God intend to forbid it wholly it could not more plainly have been expressed By which it is clear he did not think that Idolatry did lye only in forsaking the true God and giving divine Worship to a Creature or an Idol that is to an imaginary God who hath no foundation in essence or existence which is the reason he brings why they are excused from Idolatry in Adoration of the Host because the object of their adoration is the true God for he not only makes the second command to be peremptory and positive against the Worship of the true God by an Image but elsewhere plainly determins this to be Idolatry and saith that an image then becomes an Idol when divine Worship is given to it and that to Worship false Gods or to give divine honour to an image which is not God is all one kind of formal Idolatry If therefore they cannot be excused from Idolatry who Worship the true God by an Image though the object of their adoration be right and they think the manner of it to be lawful neither can they who worship Christ upon the account of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament for not only the superstition of an undue object but of a prohibited manner or way of Worship is Idolatry even according to the opinion of him whom he produces as a testimony of their innocency § 7. 4. That if a mistake in this case will excuse them it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the world St. Austin speaks of some who said that Christ was the Sun and therefore worshipped the Sun I desire to know whether this were Idolatry in them or no They had Scripture to plead for it as plain as This is my body for he is not only called the Sun of Righteousness but the Vulgar Latin which they contend to be the only authentick version reads that place Psal. 19. 6. in sole posuit tabernaculum suum he hath placed his Tabernacle in the Sun and that this is to be understood of Christ may be proved from the Apostles applying the other words their line is gone out through all the earth to the Apostles Preaching the Gospel Rom. 10. 18. And the Manichees did believe that Christ had his residence partly in the Sun and partly in the Moon and therefore they directed their prayers alwayes to the Sun Let us now consider two persons equally perswaded that the Sun is now the Tabernacle of Christ and that he is really present there and dispenses all the comfortable influences of heat and light to the world he being so often in Scripture called the true light 1 Joh. 8. 9. and another that he is really present by Transubstantiation in the Sacrament I would fain understand why the one should not be as free from Idolatry as the other If it be said that all those places which speak of Christ as the Sun are to be understood metaphorically that is the same thing we say to them concerning those words of Christ this is my body and if notwithstanding that they are excused by believing otherwise so must the other person unavoidably be so too It is to no purpose to alledge Fathers and Councils for the opinion more than for the other for the question is not concerning the probability of one mistake more than of the other although if they be strictly examined the absurdities of Transubstantiation are much greater but we suppose a mistake in both and the question is whether such a mistake doth excuse from Idolatry or no and we are not to enquire into the reasons of the mistake but the influence it hath upon our actions And then we are to understand why a mistake equally involuntary as to the real object of divine adoration may not excuse from Idolatry as well as to the wrong
the Church of Rome they do nothing but pray to the Saints to pray for them And it is a very pitiful shift that Bellarmin is put to whereby to excuse such prayers as these That indeed as to the words themselves they do imply more than praying to them to pray for us but the sense of the words he saith is no more But whence I pray must the people take the sense of such prayers as these are if not from the signification of the words If this were all why in all this time that these prayers have been complained of hath not their sense been better expressed Have not their Breviaries been often reviewed if this had not been their meaning why have they not been expunged all this while Suppose then that any persons in the Roman Church as no doubt most do take their sense from the words and do not force it upon them and they pray according to the form prescribed do they well or ill in it If they do ill in it their Church is guilty of intolerable negligence in not preventing it if they do well then their Church allows of more than praying to Angels and Saints to pray for them Bellarmins instances of the Apostles in Scripture being said to save men do shew what shifts a bad cause will put a man to For will any man in his wits say the case is the same in ordinary speech and in prayer Is it all one for a man to say that his Staff helped him in his going and to fall down upon his knees to pray to his Staff to help him God did use the Apostles as instruments on earth to promote the salvation of mankind but may we therefore pray to them now in Heaven to save us May we not truly say that the Sun enlightens the world but may we therefore pray to the Sun to enlighten us No the Sun is but Gods instrument and our addresses must be in prayer to the Supream Lord over all But to take his own explication of praying to them for these things i. e. praying to them that they would pray to God for them as we desire one another to pray would not that man be condemned of gross Idolatry or prodigious folly who instead of desiring his Friends to pray to God for the pardon of his sins and the assistance of Divine Grace should say to them I pray you pardon my sins and assist me with the Grace of God What would St. Paul have said to such men that should have asked such things of him who yet saith that he was an instrument of saving some § 14. 2. Supposing this were all that were done and allowed in the Roman Church yet this would not excuse them for their practice is very different in their Invocation of Saints from desiring our Brethren on Earth to pray for us And I cannot but wonder how any men of common sense can suffer themselves to be imposed upon so easily in this matter For is there really no difference in St. Pauls desiring his Brethren to pray for him as he often did and a mans falling down upon his knees with all the solemnity of devotion he uses to God himself to St. Paul to desire him to pray for him when he was present upon earth and did certainly know what he desired of him Suppose in the midst of the solemn devotions of the Church where St. Peter or St. Paul had been present the Letanies of the Church had been then as they are now and after they had prayed to the persons of the Holy Trinity the people should with the same postures and expression of devotion have immediately turned themselves to the Apostles and cryed only Peter and Paul pray for us do you think this would have been acceptable to them No doubt St. Peter would have been less pleased with this than with Cornelius only falling down before him and yet then he bid him stand up I my self also am a man They who impute this only to his modesty will not allow him to carry it to Heaven with him For they suppose him to be very well pleased with that honour in Heaven which he refused on earth And St. Paul would have rent his garments and cryed out as he did to the men of Lystra Why do ye these things we also are men of like passions with you They would not receive any honour that might in the least seem to incroach upon the divine honour and yet they might upon better grounds have done it to them on earth than now in Heaven because they were then sure they heard them which now they can never be And would it not be a senseless thing to desire some excellent person in the Indies when we are at our solemn devotion to pray for us because it is possible God may at the same time reveal our minds to him I would willingly be informed if we had assurance of the Sanctity of a person in this life as great as they have in the Church of Rome of those they invocate whether there would be any evil at all in publick places of worship and at the time used for the service of God to set such a person up in some higher place of the Church to burn incense before him to prostrate themselves with hands and eyes lifted up to him if at last they pretended that all that time they only prayed to him to pray for them And certainly a good man is much more the Image of God and deserves more reverence than all the artificial Images of Saints or of God himself If they will condemn this they may conceive that supposing they only prayed to Saints in their devotions to pray for them this would not excuse them For they do it in those places at such times and in such a manner as highly incroaches upon the worship and service due to God alone § 15. 2. I now come to consider whether the answer given by St. Austin will vindicate them and whether invocation of Saints as it is now practised in the Church of Rome were allowed or in use then Here he tells us That Faustus the Manichean calumniates the Catholicks the word is St. Austins he saith and we do not quarrel with the word but that they are not such Catholicks as St. Austin speaks of because they honoured the Memories or Shrines of Martyrs charged them to have turned the Idols into Martyrs whom they worshipped said he with like vows To shew how very far what St. Austin saith is from justifying the present practices of the Roman Church we need no more than barely to represent what St. Austin affirms and what he denyes He affirms that it was the custom of the Christians in his time to have their religious Assemblies at the Sepulchres or Memories of the Martyrs where the place it self would raise their affections and quicken their love towards the Martyrs and towards God but he utterly denyes that any religious worship
first spread abroad and never so proper a season to give them caution as then But instead of that they advise them to take heed to the sure word of Prophecy and that they did well therein that the Scriptures were written for their instruction and comfort that being divinely inspired they were able to make them wise unto salvation What did the Apostles never imagine all this while the ill use that might be made of them by men of perverse minds yes they knew it as well as any and did foretell Schismes and Heresies that should be in the Church and saw them in their own dayes and yet poor men wanted that exquisite prudence of the Roman Church to prevent them by so happy an expedient as when they had written Epistles to several Churches to forbid the promiscuous reading of them But it may be it was the awe of the Apostles and their infallible Spirit in interpreting Scripture made this prohibition not so necessary in their own time did the Church then find it necessary to restrain the people after their Decease We have an occasion soon after given wherein to see the opinion of the Church at that time the Church of Corinth fell into a grievous Schisme and opposition to their spiritual Governours upon this Clemens writes his Epistle to them wherein he is so far from forbidding the use of Scripture to them to preserve unity that he bidds them look diligently into the Scriptures which are the true Oracles of the Holy Ghost and afterwards take St. Pauls Epistle into your hands and consider what he saith and commends them very much for being skilled in the Scriptures Beloved saith he ye have known and very well known the holy Scriptures and ye have throughly looked into the Oracles of God therefore call them to mind Which language is as far different from that of the Roman Church as the Church of that Age is from theirs Nay the counterfeit Clemens whom they can make use of upon other occasions is as express in this matter as the true For he perswades private Christians to continual meditation in the Scriptures which he calls the Oracles of Christ and that this is the best imployment of their retirements But we need not use his testimony in this matter nor the old Edition of Ignatius wherein Parents are bid to instruct their Children in the Holy Scriptures nor that saying of Polycarp to the Philippians out of the old Latin Edition I am confident you are well studied in the Scriptures for in the Greek yet preserved he exhorts them to the reading of St. Pauls Epistles that they might be built up in the faith So little did these holy men dream of such a prudent dispensing the Scriptures among them for fear of mischief they might do themselves or others by them Clemens Alexandrinus mentions the reading the Scriptures among Christians before their Meales and Psalmes and Hymns at them and Tertullian mentions the same custome Origen in the Greek Commentaries lately published perswades Christians by all means by attending to Reading Prayer Teaching Meditation therein day and night to lay up in their hearts not only the new Oracles of the Gospell Apostles and Apocalypse but the old ones too of the Law and the Prophets And elsewhere tells his hearers they ought not to be discouraged if they met with difficulties in reading the Scriptures for there was great benefit to be had by them But lest it should be thought he speaks here only of publick reading the Scriptures in his Homilies on Leviticus he speaks plainly that he would not only have them hear the Word of God in publick but to be exercised and meditate therein in their houses night and day For Christ is every where present and therefore they are commanded in the Law to meditate therein upon their journeys and when they sit in their houses and when they lye down and rise up But had not the Church yet experience enough of the mischief of permitting the Scriptures to the people Were there ever greater and more notorious heresies than in those first ages of the Church and those arising from perverting the words and designes of the Scriptures But did the Church yet afterwards grow wiser in the sense of the Roman Church In the time of the four General Councils they had tryal enough of the mischief of Heresies but did the Fathers of the Church forbid the reading the Scriptures on that account No but instead of that they commend the Scriptures to all as the best remedy for all passions of the mind so St. Basil and St. Hierome call it and this latter commends nothing more to the Women he instructed in devotion than constant reading the Scriptures and withall they say that infinite evils do arise from ignorance of the Scriptures from hence most part of Heresies have come from hence a negligent and careless life and unfruitful labours Nay so frequent so earnest and vehement is St. Chrysostome in this matter of recommending the reading of Scriptures that those of the Roman Church have no other way to answer him but by saying he speaks hyperbolically which in plain English is he speaks too much of it But how far different were the opinions of the wise men of the Church in those times from what those have thought who understood the interest of the Roman Church best We may see what the opinion of the latter is by the counsel given to Iulius 3. by the Bishops met at Bononia for that end to give the best advice they could for restoring the dignity of the Roman See that which was the greatest and weightiest of all they said they reserved to the last which was that by all means as little of the Gospel as might be especially in the vulgar tongue be read in the Cities under his jurisdiction and that little which was in the Mass ought to be sufficient neither should it be permitted to any mortal to read more For as long as men were contented with that little all things went well with them but quite otherwise since more was commonly read For this in short is that Book say they which above all others hath raised those Tempests and Whirlewinds which we are almost carryed away with And in truth if any one diligently considers it and compares it with what is done in our Churches will find them very contrary to each other and our very doctrine not only to be different from it but repugnant to it A very fair and ingenuos confession and if self-condemned persons be Hereticks there can be none greater than those of the Roman Church especially the prudential men in it such as these certainly were whom the Pope singled out to give advice in these matters But how different is the wisdom of the Children of this world from that of the Children of Light We have already seen what another kind of judgement
This is my body Why do not then the people as readily believe that as any other proposition By which we see it is not meerly reading but a more dangerous thing called considering or reasoning which make them embrace some things as they lye in words and interpret others according to the clearest evidence which the nature of the thing the comparing with other places and the common sense of mankind will give But why are we not all of a mind I would fain know the time when men were so This variety of Sects was objected against the Philosophers and thought no argument then it was objected against the primitive Christians and thought of no force then why must it signifie more in England than ever it did in any other age or place But say they It was otherwise in England before the Scriptures came to be read by all it was and is otherwise in all Churches where they are not read therefore these Sects and Fanaticisms are the dire effects of the promiscuous reading the Scriptures This is the common and popular argument All things were well with us when we offered up Cakes to the Queen of Heaven when all joyned in the communion of the Roman Church then there were no Fanaticisms nor New Lights no Sects as there are now in England therefore why should any one make any doubt but he ought to return to the Church of Rome This necessarily leads me into the examination of these two things 1. Whether there be no danger of Fanaticism in the Roman Church 2. Whether the Vnity of that Church be so admirable to tempt all persons who prize the Churches Vnity to return to it § 2. Concerning the danger of Fanaticism in the Roman Church By Fanaticism we understand either an Enthusiastick way of Religion or resisting authority under a pretence of Religion In either sense it shall appear that the Church of Rome is so far from being cleared from it that it hath given great encouragement to it 1. As to an Enthusiastick way of Religion I shall now prove that there have not been greater Enthusiasts among us in England than have been in the Roman Church all the difference is they have been some alwayes others for a time allowed and countenanced and encouraged by those of the Church of Rome but among us they have been decryed and opposed by all the members of the Church of England I shall not insist upon the resolution of faith and the infallibility of the Church which must be carried to Enthusiasm at last but I shall prove it by plain revelations which have been made the grounds among them of believing some doctrines in dispute and the reasons of setting up a more perfect way of life which in the highest strain of their devotion is meer Enthusiasm 1. Revelations have been pleaded by them in matters of doctrine such I mean which depend upon immediate impulses and inspirations since the Canon of Scripture and Apostolical Traditions Of this we have a remarkable instance in a late controversie managed with great heat and interest on both sides viz. of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary about the ending of which a solemn Embassy was sent from the Kings of Spain Philip the third and Philip the fourth to the Popes Paul the fifth and Gregory the thirteenth and an account is given of it by one concerned himself in the management of the Theological part of it which he saith is therefore published that the world may understand upon what grounds the doctrines of faith are established among them One of the chief whereof insisted upon was some private revelations made to some Saints about the immaculate conception which being once received in the Church adds no small strength he saith to any doctrine and gives a solid foundation for a definition i. e. that the matter may be defined to be of faith and necessary to be believed by all Christians Upon this he reckons up several revelations publickly received in the Church one mentioned by Anselm being a divine apparition to an Abbot in a storm a fit time for apparitions whereby he was admonished to keep the Feast of the Conception of the blessed Virgin upon which as Baronius observes that Feast was first kept in England Which revelation Wadding tells us is publickly recited in the office for the day and was not only extant in several Breviaries of England France Spain and Italy but he had divers himself authorized by the Pope wherein it was recommended as true and piously to be believed and accordingly have been publickly sung and used in the Church about an hundred years And what saith he is the consequence of disbelieving this but to say in effect that the Pope and the Roman Church are easily cheated and abused by impostures and forgers of false revelations to institute new Festival Solemnities upon the credit of them Another revelation was made to Norbertus the founder of the Order of the Praemonstratenses in which the Virgin Mary appeared and commended her veneration to him and gave him a white garment in token of her Original Innocency which revelation is believed by all of that Order and taken as the reason of their habit Besides these there are several other revelations to S. Gertrude and others to the same purpose reckoned up by several Catholick Authors which no man ought to reject unless he intends to be as great a Heretick or therein as wise a man as Erasmus was Nay these revelations were so frequent he saith that there hath been no age since the tenth Century wherein there hath not been some made to devout men or women about this matter But above all these most remarkable were those to S. Brigitt who had not one or two but many to this purpose and the latest were of Joanna a Cruce which it seems were at first eagerly opposed but at last came out with the approbation of two Cardinals and several Bishops of the Inquisition in Spain But now who could imagine a thing so often revealed so publickly allowed so many times attested from Heaven should not be generally received but the mischief of it was the contrary doctrine had revelations for it too For Antoninus and Cajetan say S. Catharine of Siena had it revealed to her that she was conceived with Original sin What is to be done now Here we have Saint against Saint Revelation against Revelation S. Catharine against S. Brigitt and all the rest of them Here to speak truth they are somewhat hard put to it for they grant God cannot contradict himself and therefore of one these must be false but which of them is all the question Here they examine which of these doctrines is most consonant to Scripture and Tradition which is most for the benefit of the Church which were persons of the greater sanctity and whose revelations were the most approved For. S. Brigitts they plead stoutly that when they were delivered by her
in which he was sometimes swallowed up in God as Bonaventures expression is and his soul melted at the sight of Christ and was so tender hearted to the poor that he sometimes put off his clothes to give them sometimes unript them sometimes cut them in pieces I suppose that he might give to the more All this while he had no Teacher but Christ and learnt all by inspiration but went besides himself at hearing the voice come from a Crucifix as any one almost would have done and it seems he was not well recovered when he came from the Cave for the people flocked about him as a mad man and gave him the common Civility to such persons of dirt and stones and his Father entertained him with dark rooms and chains as the fittest for him whom neither words nor blows could bring to himself But finding no amendment he made him renounce his Patrimony and so discharged him which S. Francis did so readily that he would not so much as keep the Clothes on his back Whereby saith Bonaventure in a wonderful zeal and being drunk in the Spirit casting away his very Breeches and being stark naked before them all said thus to his Father Hitherto I called thee Father on earth but hence forward I can securely say Our Father which art in Heaven As though his duty to God and his Parents had been inconsistent The Bishop in whose presence all this was done gave order to have his nakedness covered highly admiring his zeal and he no sooner had got some rags about him but he falls to makeing Crucifixes in Mortar with his own hands as Children do Babies in the dirt In this height of Fanaticism he goes about and preaches to the people whose words pierced their hearts much sooner than sense and reason would have done and he soon brought the superstitious and ignorant multitude to a great admiration of him for his very way of saluting the people he pretended he had by revelation At last one Bernard joyns with him but S. Francis tells him They must seek God for direction what to do and after prayers he being a great worshipper of the Trinity in honour to it opens the Gospel three times and the first three sentences he met with were to be the rule of their Order their second Brother was F. Gyles who though an Idiot and a simple man was full of God as he saith and had so many extasies and raptures that he seemed to live rather among Angels than men One day when S. Francis was alone in a solitary place He fell into an extasie of joy and had full assurance of the remission of his sins and being transported beyond himself he was catched up into a wonderful light wherein his mind being inlarged he foresaw all that should come to pass concerning his Order His number being increased to Rome he goes to confirm his Order but the Pope rejected him with scorn but in the night he saw a Palm growing between his feet into a goodly Tree which he wisely interpreting to be S. Francis sent for him and promised him fair things and upon the other Vision of his supporting the Lateran Church he approves his Rule and establishes his Order And his whole life afterwards was agreeable to this beginning 〈◊〉 and the Rule of his Order he called as Possevine tells us The Book of life the hope of salvation the marrow of the Gospel the ladder of Heaven the key of Paradise the Eternal Covenant Let any Fanaticks be produced among us though we are far from looking on them as the supporters of our Church who have exceeded S. Francis in their actions or expressions S. Brigitt saith of the Rule of S. Francis That it was not dictated or composed by the wisdom of man but by God himself nay every word therein was inspired by the Holy Ghost which she saith likewise of all the other Rules of Religious Orders What horrible blasphemy is this which is so solemnly approved in the Church of Rome for divine Revelations But lest Dominicus should seem to come behind S. Francis in â—â—sions he tells him at Rome where they met That it was revealed to him in a Vision that Christ was just coming to destroy the world for the wickedness of it and his Mother stopt him and told him she had two servants would reform it whereof himself was one and Christ approved of him as one that would do his work but his companion he did not know till he met S. Francis and so they embraced one another Which Vision out of his great humility S. Francis reported having it from the others own mouth I shall not insist on any more of Dominicus nor on the blasphemous Images set up in S. Marks Church at Venice one of which was of S. Paul with this Inscription By him we go to Christ the other of Dominicus with this but by him we go easier to Christ but I shall proceed to their followers among whom we meet with one of the most blasphemous pieces of Enthusiasm the world hath ever known § 8. For which we are to understand that in the beginning of the thirteenth Century one Almaricus a Student in Paris was suspected for some dangerous Opinions for which he was sentenced to recant and soon after dyed Among these Opinions he broached this blasphemy which was privately instilled into his followers That every person of the Trinity had his successive time of ruling the world that the Law of the Father continued till Christs comeing the Law of the Son to their time and then the time of the Holy Ghost was to begin In which the use of Sacraments was to cease and all internal administrations and every one then was to be saved by the inspiration and inward grace of the Holy Ghost without any external actions They so highly extolled Love that what would have been a sin without it they thought to be nothing with it as Fornication Adultery c. and promised impunity to the women with whom they committed these things because they said God was only good and not just That these were their opinions is delivered by Rigordus who lived in that age and was upon the place being a Monk of S. Denys and Physitian to the King of France and by Eymericus and Pegna and many others But by the care and endeavour of the Bishop and Vniversity of Paris though they had spread very far abroad and with a great deal of secrecy yet by the fraud and artifice of one imployed among them who pretended to revelations and the Spirit as highly as they could do they were convicted condemned and some of them executed Notwithstanding which severity about fifty years after this came forth a Book with the Title of Evangelium aeternum or the Eternal Gospel published by the Mendicant Fryers and supposed to be written by Iohannes de Parma
Fornication Indeed he saith that this falling from that holy chastity which was vowed to God may in some sense be said to be worse than Adultery but he never imagined such a construction could be made of his words as though the act of Fornication were not a greater falling from it than meer marriage could be So much shall suffice for the Instances produced in the Roman Church of such things which tend to obstruct a good life and devotion § 14. The 3. argument I used to prove the danger a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church was because it exposeth the faith of Christians to so great uncertainties which he looks on as a strange charge from the Pen of a Protestant As strange as it is I have at large proved it true in a full examination of the whole Controversie of the Resolution of faith between us and them to which I expect a particular Answer before this charge be renewed again To which I must refer him for the main proof of it and shall here subjoyn only short replyes to his Answers or references to what is fully answered already 1. His distinction of the authority of the Scripture in it self and to us signifies nothing for when we enquire into the proofs of the Authority of Scripture it can be understood no otherwise than in respect to us and if the Scriptures Authority as to us is to be proved by the Church and the Churches Authority as to us to be provved by the Scripture the difficulty is not in the least avoided by that distinction And as little to the purpose is the other that it is only an argument ad hominem to prove the Infallibility of the Church from Scriptures for I would fain know upon what other grounds they build their own belief of the Churches Infallibility than on the Promises of Christ in the Scripture These are miserable evasions and nothing else For the trite saying of S. Austin that he would not believe the Gospel c. I have at large proved that the meaning of it is no more than that the Testimony of the Vniversal Church from the Apostles times is the best way to prove the particular books of Scripture to be authentical and cannot be understood of the Infallibility of the present Church and that the testimony of some few persons as the Manichees were was not to be taken in opposition to the whole Christian Church Which is a thing we as much contend for as they but is far enough from making the Infallibility of our faith to depend on the Authority of the present Church which we say is the way to overthrow all certainty of faith to any considering man 2. To that of overthrowing the certainty of sense in the doctrine of transubstantiation he saith that divine revelation ought to be believed against the evidence of sense To which I answer 1. that divine revelation in matters not capable of being judged by our senses is to be believed notwithstanding any argument can be drawn from sensible experiments against it as in the belief of God the doctrine of the Trinity the future state of the soul c. 2. that in the proper objects of sense to suppose a Revelation contrary to the evidence of sense is to overthrow all certainty of faith where the matters to be believed depend upon matters of fact As for Instance the truth of the whole Christian doctrine depends upon the truth of Christs resurrection from the dead if sense be not here to be believed in a proper object of it what assurance can we have that the Apostles were not deceived when they said they saw Christ after he was risen If it be said there was no revelation against sense in that case that doth not take off the difficulty for the reason why I am to believe revelation at any time against sense must be because sense may be deceived but revelation cannot but if I yield to that principle that sense may be deceived in its most proper object we can have no infallible certainty by sense at all and consequently not in that point that Christ is risen from the dead If it be said that sense cannot be deceived where there is no revelation against it I desire to know how it comes to be deceived supposing a revelation contrary to it Doth God impose upon our senses at that time then he plainly deceives us is it by telling us we ought to believe more than we see that we deny not but we desire only to believe according to our senses in what we doe see as what we see to be bread that is bread that what the Apostles saw to be the body of Christ was the body of Christ really and substantially and not meerly the accidents of a body Besides if revelation is to be believed against sense then either that revelation is conveyed immediately to our minds which is to make every one a Prophet that believes transubstantiation or mediately by our senses as in those words this is my body if so than I am to believe this revelation by my senses and believing this revelation I am not to believe my senses which is an excellent way of making faith certain All this on supposition there were a revelation in this case which is not only false but if it were true would overthrow the certainty of faith 3. To that I objected as to their denying to men the use of their judgement and reason as to the matters of faith proposed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church he answers that this cannot expose faith to any uncertainty because it is only preferring the Churches judgement before our own but he doth not seem to understand the force of my objection which lay in this Every one must use his own judgement and reason in the choice of the Church he is to rely upon is he certain in this or not if he be uncertain all that he receives on the Authority of that Church must be uncertain too if the use of reason be certain then how comes the Authority of a Church to be a necessary means of certainty in matters of faith And they who condemn the use of a mans reason and judgement in Religion must overthrow all certainty on their own grounds since the choice of his Infallible Guide must depend upon it Now he understands my argument better he may know better how to answer it but I assure him I meant no such thing by the use of reason as he supposes I would have which is to believe nothing but what my reason can comprehend for I believe an Infinite Being and all the Doctrines revealed by it in Holy Scriptures although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those conceptions we call reason But therefore to argue against the use of mens judgements in matters of faith and the grounds of believing is to dispute against that which
ought not only perform the offices of Religion out of obedience to his divine commands but with a due Veneration of his Majesty and power with thankfulness for his infinite goodness and with trust in his promises and subjection of our souls to his supream Authority About these things which are the main parts of divine and spiritual Worship we have no quarrel nor do we find fault with any for giving too much to Christ in this manner but rather for placing too much in the bare external acts of adoration which may be performed with all external pomp and shew where there is no inward reverence nor sincere devotion And yet 4. It is not concerning external Reverence to be shewn in the time of receiving the Eucharist For that our Church not only allowes but enjoynes and that not barely for the avoiding such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefit of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers But it is withall declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as I have already recited it But the Controversie concerning the adoration of the Host lyes in these two things 1. Whether proper divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal presence of Christ under them 2. Whether out of the time of receiving the same adoration ought to be given to it when it is elevated or carried in procession which we would give to the very person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Controversie I appeal to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point For it is expresly determined by the Council of Trent That there is no manner of doubt left but that all Christians ought to give the same Worship to this holy Sacrament which they give to God himself For it is not therefore less to be Worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken By which words the true state of the Controversie is made evident which is not about the reverence due only to Christ supposed to be corporally present there but the adoration due to the Sacrament upon that account And by the Sacrament the Council must understand the elements or accidents or whatever name they call them by as the immediate term of that divine Worship or else the latter words signifie nothing at all For what was that which was instituted by our Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible signes or elements why do they urge that the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take off the common objection that we ought not to give divine Worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements But this is not denyed that I know of by any who understand either the doctrine or practice of that Church although to answer our Arguments they would seem to direct their Worship only to Christ as present under the elements yet yielding that on the account of this corporal presence that which appears ought to have the same Worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed And so they make the accidents of the Sacrament to have the very same honour which the humane nature of Christ hath which they say hath no divine honour for it self but on the account of the conjunction of the divinity with it § 4. The Controversie being thus stated I come to shew that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives Adoration to the Host. For it is a principle indisputable among them that to give proper divine honour called by them Adoration to a creature is Idolatry but no man upon the principles of their Church can be assured every time he Worships the Host that he doth not give proper divine honour to a creature For there are two things absolutely necessary to secure a mans mind in the performance of an act of divine Worship 1. That either the object be such in it self which deserves and requires such Worship from us as in the divine nature of Christ Or 2. That if of it self it doth not deserve it there be a reason sufficient to give it as is the humane nature of Christ upon its union with the Divine but in this matter of the adoration of the Host no man can be secure of either of these upon their own Principles 1. He cannot be secure that the object is such as doth deserve divine worship If a man should chance to believe his senses or hearken to his reason or at least think the matter disputable whether that which he sees to be bread be not really bread what case is this man in He becomes an Idolater by not being a fool or a mad man But because we are not now to proceed upon the principles of sense or reason but those of the Church of Rome I will suppose the case of one that goes firmly upon the received principles of it and try whether such a one can be satisfied in his mind that when he gives divine worship to the Host he doth not give it to a creature And because we are now supposing unreasonable things I will suppose my self to be that person The Mass-bell now rings and I must give the same divine honour to the Host which I do to Christ himself but hold if it should be but a meer creature all the world cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry how come I then to be assured that what but a little before was a meer creature is upon the pronouncing a few words turned into my Creator A strange and sudden change And I can hardly say that God becoming man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God When God became man he shewed himself to be God by Wonders and Miracles which he wrought for the conviction of the world I will see if I can find any such evidence of so wonderful a transformation from a Wafer to a Deity I see it to be the very same it was I handle it as I did if I taste it it hath the very same agreeableness to the Palat it had Where then lyes this mighty change But O carnal reason what have I to do with thee in these mysteries of faith I remember what Church I am of and how much I am bid to beware of thee but how then shall I be satisfied Must I relye on the bare words of Christ This is my body But I have been told the Scripture is very obscure and