Sanctorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere where besides their Prayers and Intercessions there are other helps and assistences intimated And therefore these Forms of Invocation I have recited in these Chapters mentioning other help and assistence besides their praying and interceding for their Suppliants how is it possible but according to the indication of the Council they understand these Helps and Assistences as things distinct from their meer Interceding or Praying for us But now I further say That the grounds here offered of this Assertion will not hold For first I have already proved that the Apostle does not affirm any Power in himself of saving Souls there being no such Power in him nor his words to the Romans and Corinthians implying any such thing and himself elsewhere professing against it So that he has not the power of saving of Souls in himself neither in the quality of a God nor in any sense For to have the power of saving of Souls in himself as an Instrument is a repugnancy and plainly implies that he has not the power of saving of Souls in himself no more then a chissel has of carving in it self or a pencil of limming or an Harp or Lute of playing a lesson And therefore Holy Apostle save me would be as good sense as Lute or Harp play me a lesson Indeed David says Psalm 57. Awake Lute and Harp But then by a seasonable Epanorthosis he straitway adds I my self will awake right early For if he get not up before them and finger them they will certainly lye dumb and silent And so is the very word whether writ or spoken by the Apostle or others so are all Prayers put up by any one if the Spirit does not assist and God say Amen to their Prayers all is ineffectual all is as perfect dumbness and silence as in an Instrument hung up against the wall Besides that the mere Praying to another that a thing may be granted is a plain Argument that the thing is not in that parties power that so devoutly askes it So that though there be a great deal of fineness and subtilty in these Arguments of my Adversary yet we see they are plainly intangled and contradict one another And therefore it is not sense bluntly and absolutely to ask that of one that is not in his power to give but onely to try and intreat it if he can so procure it of another It is manifest therefore that Holy Apostle save me and Blessed Lady save me are groundless and incongruous forms of speech and plainly â—ignifie that to be asked of a Creature which is not in the power of any to give but God alone Iohn 6. 44. No man comes to me unless my Father draw him and consequently the implying that to be in the Creature which onely is in the Creatour are Idolatrous forms of speech by the eighth Conclusion of the second Chapter And thus we see my Adversary is far from proving by this fetch That all the forms of Invocation which I have recited amount to no more than an Ora pro nobis Which though it were true as it is most manifestly false yet the Reader is to remember they are down right Idolatry by the second Paragraph of this Chapter And most Paganically so while these Petitions are put up before the Image at the Altar and in the Temple dedicated to this or that Saint And thus I have fully Replied in the general to the general Answers of my Antagonist to these three Chapters which are all the Answers he has given I shall take occasion to make some more particular Replies to some of them as I run through the Paragraphs of these Chapters especially in reference to his last general Answer and his second proving plainly that the sense of these Invocations are more than an Ora pro nobis And that greater things are asked and greater Compellations used then are competible to mere Creatures to give or be invocated by In the mean time it is plain that the rest of his fourth Section falls of it self by vertue of what has already been spoken Vpon the fourth Paragraph In this Prayer to St. Cosmas and St. Damian it is observable how the Devotion is framed with a sutableness to the condition of the Saints when they dwelt on Earth And therefore Cosmas and Damian having been of the faculty of Physick here they are made to retain it still but in an higher degree and to have the power of curing both Body and Soul as if by their merits they had obtained such a Privilege from God And that Souls departed are exercised about such things as they were taken up with in this life was also the Opinion of the ancient Heathen as you may see in Virgil Plutarch Maximus Tyrius and others People may find evasions for any thing but considering the Council of Trent mentions Ayds and Assistences distinct from their Intercessions and the second Council of Nice to which the Council of Trent attributes so much to produces Instances hereof any one that has but half an eye will easily discern this meaning I have given to be true And that the Invocation of these Saints is not a meer Ora pro nobis but the craving of them such peculiar ayds and helps as are supposed proper for them to give contrary to my Antagonists last general Answer Vpon the fifth Paragraph Which is also manifest out of the Invocation of St. Francis in this next Paragraph Sancte Francisce properè veni c. For St. Francis being desired to hast and come to his people plainly intimates it is not a mere Ora pro nobis For that he might one would think most conveniently perform in Heaven before the face of God but by his Presence and Assistence to his Suppliant to deliver him from the â—oul bondage and burden of sin carnis extincto vitio he himself having been such an eminent example of Mortification here on Earth and therefore being now endewed with a peculiar Power of helping men to mortifie sin and to deliver them from that bondage accordingly as was observed in the former Petition Which is a boon too great for any but Christ himself to give So that it is gross Idolatry on that account also St. Andrew's being crucified on the Cross is supposed likewise to have intitled him to the right and Power of inabling men to bear the Cross. But whether St Nicolas was famous also for incountring the Devil in his life time I know not What has been said already on this Paragraph is sufficient to prove that the Invocation of Saints are not a mere Ora pro nobis Vpon the sixth Paragraph That Prayer to St. Agnes is both for a boon alone to be given by God and is plainly directed to her in a form so far from an Ora pro nobis that it is Te exâ—ro prâ—cibus I pray you to keep me in the right faith or Grant you that all may serve God in perfect
Guilt whereby she is plainly equallized to the Son of God and made as it were a She-Christ or Daughter of God To this sense also are those Prayers put up to her in her Feast of the Conception and of the Annunciation But it were infinite to produce all Read that Prayer in 〈◊〉 sung to her by the Council of Constance It is a perfect â—mitation of the ancient Prayer of the Church to the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. Vpon the first Paragraph IN that Prayer to the blessed Virgin in this Paragraph are such Compellations as if they were in the masculine gender were onely proper for God and Christ and such things are asked as are in their power onely to give which is a further Reply to his second general Answer Vpon the second Paragraph And the very same may be said of the Invocation in this second Paragraph out of the same Rosary of the Virgin which though my Adversary seems desirous to signifie his slighting of yet he dare not deny but that it passes current with them And why may I not produce what forms of Invocation I please which are allow'd amongst them and are made use of in the devotions of them that are of the Church of Rome For this does plainly prove the Idolatry that Chuch is lapsed into But if some few flowers out of the Hortulus Animae may be more gratefull to him he shall find what will amount to as much as is in the above said Rosary For in a Recommendation to the blessed Virgin we read thus I commend unto thee blessed Virgin my whole Body and Soul and my whole life the five senses of my Body all my actions and my death who art with thy Son Christ blessed for ever and ever What can be said more to Christ or God himself This is surely more than an Ora pro nobis Pray for us For in a Recommendation immediately going before the form is Precor te I pray thee that thou wouldst keep me from sins from scandals from all the Confusion of humane life from unclean thoughts from all perils of Soul and Body And some few leaves before in the Canticum ad Virginem it is said Dignare dulcis Maria nunc semper nos sine delicto custodire O sweet Mary vouchsafe to keep us now and for ever without sin As if they had a mind to turn the Te Deum into a Te Deam and indeed in this Canticle they have indeavoured it as near as they can But this in it verbatim Answers to Vouchsafe to keep us this day without sin in the Te Deum I will close all with that Rhyme in their Oratio ad beatam Mariam Esto custos cordis mei Signa me timore Dei Confer vitae Sanctitatem Et da morum honestatem Da peccata me vitare Et quod justum est amare O Dulcedo Virginâ—lis Nunquam fuit nec est talis Can any one be the keeper of ones heart bâ—t God that knows the hearâ— This therefore is such a sweet strain of Devotion as never was heard till the lapse of the Church into gross Idolatry And yet all this and a great deal more is in that Hortulus Animae which questionless is a most delicious Paradise with those of that Church and has a sufficient stamp of Authority upon it Which I speak in reference to his third general Answer Nor have I gathered any examples of Invocation but such as the Author I have them out of does expresly profess to have been confirmed by publick Authority and to have been in publick use See Chemnitius his third part of the Examination of the Council of Trent pag. 135. I do not profess to have all their Rituals and Pontificals and Rosaries by me but what I have by me and under my eye are so like what Chemnitius has produced that I think it the greatest folly and stupidity in the World to misbelieve his Quotations Vpon the third Paragraph As for Example in the Invocation in this Paragraph Cor meum illumina fulgens stella Maris why should I at least doubt of that form when I have before mine eyes in Hortulus Animae Esto custos cordis mei Signa me timore Dei Out of both which in the mean time there may be a further Reply to his second general Answer or an Inâ—stance of one of those Generals in my general Reply to that Answer Vpon the fourth Paragraph That I take notice that these Invocations imply that the Virgin Mary is the daughter of God is in reference to my Exposition of the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira which the Reader if his Genius lead him to such things may please to peruse But in the mean time they implying so plainly that the Virgin is the daughter of God in such a kind of sense as Christ is his Son it plainly appears from hence that the Invocation is not a mere Ora pro nobis or the Praâ—ing for such things as are not greater then is in the power of any Creature to give which therefore again is a further Reply to the second and last general Answers Vpon the fifth Paragraph Besides that she is again in this Invocation made the daughter of God in that high sense and that the same Arguments that prove â—er Titles bigger imply the boons she can bestow to be greater then what is competible to a mere Creature and so it respects the second general Answer of my Adversary It is plain also from veni and visita that it is impossible to be understood of a mere Ora pro nobis contrary to my Adversaries last Answer And lastly it is to be observed in reference to his third general Answer that this song in her Feast of Visitation must be in the number of those forms quae publicè in Ecclâ—sus leguntâ—r magnis â—oatibus proclamantur Chemnitius speaks And the like is to be said of her Feast of Conception and Annunciation in Reply to the said third general Answer As also of that Prayer sung to her at the Council of Constance in imitation of Veni Creator Spiritus as that in Hortulus Animae is of Te Deum Laudamus And why should I doubt of that when I see this before mine eyes But instead of Vâ—ni Creator Spiritus which is the usual Prayer to the Holy Ghost it is here Veni mater Gratiae Fons misericordiae Miseris Remedium Veni lux Ecclesiae Triâ—tibus laetitiae Nunc infunde radium c. And now let any one judge whether these are the words of suppliants onely saying Ora pro nobis For whereas it is said Veni lux Ecclesiae Nunc infunde radium O come thou light of the Church Now infuse thy rayes This is both a calling her to them not a bidding her pray for them in Heaven and also the styling her the light of the Church and upon that account Praying her to illuminate them it is plain they suppose her from self to shine forth
no man can maintain it by Truth And therefore to bring a true Argument against us in defense of it would be to bring an impertinent one For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth always agrees with never clashes with Truth as Aristotle has noted And therefore it is not to be imputed to the weakness of my Antagonist but of his Cause that with undeniable evidence I have perpetually confuted his Answers though I believe he has brought as good as the Cause is capable of and managed them and intermingled them with such circumstantial Rhetorical humours slights and tricks to make something of nothing and to make a show of Answering and confuting me that I must freely confess he is a complete Artist in that Roman Sophistry whereby they become cunning Anglers for poor deceivable Souls And thus much in short upon his Title-page and Advertisement We come now to his Introduction which I shall cast into so many Paragraphs and so Answer them in order Paragraph the first Dr. Henry More is a Person whose Learning and Parts have brought him into a name among the Professors of the refined Arts and Sciences Fame speaks him a great Philosopher And his Publick works are said to avouch no less Nay some have passed so far in favour of his Character as to term him The great Restorer of the Platonick Cabbala And truly if this be so I conceive the Gentleman had done himself a great deal of right if he had still kept to his own Element for as much as his late unlucky ingaging in Controversial Disputes cannot but prove a blot to his former undertakings For the Learned world must needs acknowledge that Dr. More the Controvertist is much degenerated from Dr. More the Philosopher The Answer Here observe the art and smooth cunning of my Adversary who drives at these two things First to make show of a great deal of equity and candor of judgment in acknowledging notwithstanding the Controversie betwixt us that I am not altogether nothing in matters of Philosophy but have writ with some success and acceptance on such Subjects that he thus seeming so impartial and indifferent a man and so readily acknowledging any thing well done by me he may the more easily be believed where he gives judgment against me and says That though I be something succesfull indeed in Philosophy yet I am very unlucky and unskilfull in Theological Disputes a tolerable Philosopher but a very mean Controvertist in points of Divinity The other drift is to make me if it were possible to melt and relent that I have thus lessened my credit in the world by my unfortunately ingageing in Controversies betwixt us and the Church of Rome as if he bemoaned my misfortune therein who if I had kept to my own Element of Philosophy might have been gratious and acceptable with all the world with the Pontifician party as well as vvith the reformed and kept up my Credit in force with all when as now I have hugely impaired my repute at least with those of his Party But to the first I Answer That though this Intimation of his own Impartiality be craftily enough managed yet that general acknowledged Testimony of my suffering in Philosophy is a witness against himself For if I have been so usefull and succesfull in my Philosophical demonstrations of the existence of God and Immaterial Beings in the vindication of Divine Providence in the proving of the Immortality of the Soul and in finding the ancient Iudaical Cabbala which the Platonick Philosophy is so near akin to so artificially couched in the Text of Moses and the like all which tend to the honour and safety of the Christian Religion the same clearness of sight which helps me to discern and judge of these things cannot but inable me to judge also in those concerning points that are betwixt you and us As that eye that can see one colour right is not confined to that colour but by the same faculty and soundness of sight can see another And it is more my impartialness and unprejudicedness than any thing else that makes me see so clearly and so truely in any thing As to the second my Adversary has suggested no more nor so much as I have diverse times reflected upon my self and was well aware of before I meddled with these kind of Controversies namely that it would lessen my repute and favour with many But if I seek to please men how shall I be the servant of Iesus Christ as the Apostle speaks Gal. 1. 10. And as for the business of Repute and Esteem in the world I thank God I am convinced even from my very Heart and Soul that I ought to be utterly dead to all Self-joy and Self-gloriation and therefore if any thing happen cross to that life that ought to be mortified in me if it moves me not I am at peace if it does it is yet the gift of God to me and I am admonished thereby to advance furthâ—r into that death by the power and Spirit of Christ that will at length lay asleep all such disturbances in my Soul for ever And there are greater matters than the esteem of men which I am not insensible but have always been well aware that I run the hazard of and such as that wisdom which is according to the Spirit of this world sets the greatest esteem of all upon But this I thank God could never affright me into the neglect of so undispensable a duty as the declaring so important truth so exceeding clear to my self and of so unspeakable consequence for the Church of God and for the settling of a true grounded peace in the Christian world That there might be truely one flock and one Sheepfold and Jesus Christ the true Shepherd over all which cannot be till such Barbarous and Idolatrous Laws and Instituâ—es be reversed as obtain still in the Papacy But for my part my great Fort and Shelter against all the Inconveniences I expose my self to by my just liberty of speech is to keep as near as I can in that frame of spirit which our Saviour commends to us in that Precept of his Matth. 5. 44. Love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despightfully use you and persecute you Father forgive them for they know not what they do Luk. 23. 34. This is the Sanctuary I desire to take shelter in even in that ineffably profound and humble Spirit of unself-interessed Love which I infinitely prefer before all the keenness of wit and crafty prudence of the Spirit of this world that so subtily shifts for it self which I envy no mans use or injoyment of may but my Soul sufficiently incorporate with this lovely Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ may that be the lot of mine inheritanec both in this life and for ever For this is that which is truely invincible indeed and will easily put by any such thrust as my
I answer That he must understand by his Assertion either That the Pagans had not the knowledge of the supreme God and so could not Worship him at all and consequently not in an Image or else that having the knowledge of the supreme God yet they did not Worship him in an Image If he means the first it is a notorious untruth as may easily appear out of Plato Plutarch Aristotle Homer Tully Plotinus Jamblichus and many other of the Heathen Writers who were clear asserters of the supreme Godhead and many of them notable skilfull describers of the same This is a thing so well known among the learned that it is enough to mention it onely But if he mean the second that is also a mistake For the Inhabitants of Thebais worshipped the maker of the World in the Image of a man with an egg coming out of his mouth Dion Chrysostomus also and Maximus Tyrius do profess that in their Images of Gold and Silver and Ivory they worshipped the supreme God the maker and Governour of all things And what was more frequent than the Images of Iupiter who is the supreme Deity whom Aratus invokes in his Phanomena and St. Paul speaking of the supreme God Acts 17. 28. In whom we live and move and have our being alledges out of Aratus in that very place these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we are his off-spring namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Jupiter and â—heon the Scholiast on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VVe must understand saith he here by Jupiter the maker of the VVorld So that that part of the Heathenish Idolatry is plain that they worshipped the supreme God in an Image But suppose they did not were it not then a shame that the Church of Rome should be greater Idolaters than they that stick not to Worship the supreme God in an Image and a shame for my Adveâ—â—ary who contends that the worshipping of the true God by an Image is not forbidden in the second Commandment and so proves himself a patron for greater Idolatry than he acknowledges to be among the very Heathen To the second thing Objected I answer That I might very well omit that branch of Idolatry the worshipping of their very Images for Gods because I did not intend any such charge upon you as if you worshipped Images taking them for the very Saints or Angels themselves because I hope that seldom happens even amongst the most ignorant of your Plâ—beians as I believe it very seldom happened amongst the Heathens themselves And the force of my arguing from this fourth Conclusion will never Iye upon the plenary enumeration of all the sorts of Pagan Idolatry but on my true application to those that are mentioned there So be they be there I refer to in my Arguments it is enough others not being there or there being more than I refer to neither strengthen nor weaken my Applications and Arguings so framed as I have intimated So that it is a superfluous thing for me to go about to disprove your Assertion That they called their Images Gods that they took them for Gods that they sacrificed to them as Gods Onely I shall return thus much That Dan. 5. 4. do's not prove that they themselves called their Images Gods but that the Holy Penman styleth them so As the Spirit of Truth also stiles them or rather stiles their Gods Images which is all one Isa. 46. Psal. 115. Habac. 2. Act. 19. 26. the very places you quote to prove they took their Images for Gods Which places yet do not at all prove it but onely prove what the sentence of the true God is touching the Gods of the Heathen in reference to their Images they worshipped complexly with them upon a supposal that upon their Consecration some invisible Power was conveyed into them and was ready there to hear and help all supplicants to them But now God who is the Prince and Commander of all Spirits knows that this their Religious Consecration has no such Power to convey any such assisting Spirits unto those Images so that they may be assured of their presence and ayd and therefore he must justly and truly contrary to their opinion of them who took them to be inhabited by some Dâ—mons calls them meer stocks and stones as they really are But to take the meer stock or stone which they saw hewed into such a forme to be a God is so excessively sottish that it is not credible that it ever fell into the mind of any number of the lowest dregs of the Heathen Common People or that they intended their sacrifices to them But that they phancyed the presence of some Daemons that received the Nidour and Odour of their Sacrifices is a thing so Vulgar and Trite that I hold it needless any more than to mention it And now whereas he saith That the souls of men departed their Daemons and particular Powers and Appearances of Nature they took them and worshipped them for Gods and calls my Conclusion a mincing Conclusion because it do's not mention that This omission was no intended cunning of mine to ruine the matter at all For I thought I spoke sufficiently home in saying they gave Religious Worship to these which is at least equal to the calling of them Gods especially in Greek and Latine For as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dii in the Greek and Latine signify as large as Elobim in the Hebrew which signifyes Angels or particular Spirits as well as the eternal God the maker and Governour of all And so does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dii signify all invisible Spirits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularly separate souls from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to divide or separate because they are separate from the Terrestrial body And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also is said of a separate soul amongst the Pythagoreans and Synesius himself also says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he would be an Angel or a blessed Spirit amongst the blessed Spirits Wherefore Dii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we usually translate Gods the words of themselves imply no more than Angels or souls separate But if Religious Worship be given to them then they become Gods Nor can any thing beside the supreme God be properly called God unless Religious Worship be instituted for it and then be it what it will the Notion and name of a false God properly belongs unto it so that in reality in saying They give Religious Worship to the souls of men or Daemons I say also That they were their Gods and that they worshipped them for such So that my Adversary has what he would and yet my Conclusion remains as strong as ever But in the mean time let me Observe That the calling of the Canonized souls of Holy men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Saints answers to it and consequentially is of the same sense so far forth as it respects their Canonization from the propriety of notation
from the ninth the fifteenth and the foregoing Conclusion The eighteenth Though it were admitted that there is communicated to Saints and Angels at least a terrestrial Omnipercipiency and that we had the knowledge of this Communication and so might speak to them in a civil way though unseen yet to invoke them in such Circumstances as at an Altar and in a Temple dedicated to them or at their symbolical presence this were palpable Idolatry The truth is manifest again from the ninth and sixteenth Conclusions 9. The nineteenth Incurvation in way of Religion towards any open or bare symbolical Presence be it what-ever Figure or Image as to an Object is flat Idolatry in the Worship of Saints Angels and Daemons double Idolatry in the Worship of the true God single The reason hereof is resolved partly into the ninth and sixteenth Conclusions and partly into the nature of Application of Worship For external Worship is not any otherwise to be conceived to be apply'd to asymbolical Presence but by being directed towards it as towards an Object Wherefore if Religious Incurvation be directed towards any Figure or Image as to an Object this Figure or Image necessarily Receives this Religious Incurvation and partakes with God if the Image be to him in it which is manifest Idolatry For the direction of our Intention here is but a Jesuitical Juggle And therefore I will set down for Conclusion The twentieh That Religious Incurvation toward a bare symbolical Presence wittingly and conscienciously directed thither though with a mental reserve that they intend to use it merely as a Circumstance of Worship is notwithstanding real Idolatry The Reason is because an external Action toward such a thing as is look'd upon as receptive of such an Action â— and has frequently received it if it be thus or thus directed will naturally conciliate the notions or respects of â—ction and Object betwixt these two whether we intend it or no. And it is as ridiculous to pretend that their motions or actions toward or about such a symbolical Presence are not directed to it or conversant about it as an Object as it were for an Archer to contend that the Butt he â—â—oots at is not the Scope or Object but a Circumstance of his Shooting and he that embraces his Friend that his Friend is not an Object but a Circumstance of his Embracing Which are Conceits quite out of the rode of all Logick See the last Conclusion of the foregoing Chapter 10. The twenty-first That the Adoration of any Object which we out of mistake conceive to be the true God made visible by Hypostatical union therewith is manifest Idolatry The Reason is because Mistake does not excuse from Idolatry by Conclusion the fourth and the fifth And in this Supposition we miss of one part of the Object and the onely part that single is capable of Divine Honour For God to be disunited from this adored Object is in this case all one as to be absent For God is not considered not intended in this act of Adoration but as united with this visible Object Which respect of Union if it fail that consideration or Intention also fails and the Worship falls upon a mere Creature In brief If out of mistake I salute some lively Statue or dead body for such or such a living man though this Man or his Soul were present and saw and heard the Salutation yet I play the fool and make my self ridiculous and an conceived not to have saluted him I would So if I do Adoration to any Object suppose the Sun or some Magical Statue for the true Deity visible when as neither of them are so I play the Idolater and make my self impious and have missed of the due Object of my Adoration 11. The twenty second That the Adoration of the Host upon the presumption that it is Transubstantiated into the living Body of Christ is rank Idolatry This appears from the precedent Conclusion To which you may add that the Romanists making Transubstantiation the true ground of their Adoration of the Host do themselves imply that without it were so their Adoration thereof would be Idolatry But that it is not so and that their Ground is false any body may be as well assured of as he can of any thing in the world and no less assured that they are Idolaters according to their own Supposition and Implication as Costerus indeed does most emphatically and expresly acknowledge it if they be mistaken in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation as we shall hear anon The twenty-third Conclusion That Adoration given to the Host by Protestants or any else that hold not Transubstantiation is manifest Idolatry The Reason is to be fetch'd from the nineteenth and twentieth Conclusions For it is Religious Veneration towards a bare corporeal Symbol of the Divine Presence and to make the Action more aggravable towards a Symbol that has Imagery upon it and that of the person that is pretended to be worshipped thereby What can be Idolatry if this be not The twenty-fourth That the Invocation of Saints and Angels though attended with these considerations that both that Excellency we suppose in them and which makes them capable of that Honour is deemed finite and also be it as great as it will wholly derived to them from God yet it cannot for all this be excused from gross Idolatry This is clear from the seventh eighth tenth and so on till the sixteenth Conclusion For though this Excellency be supposed finite yet if it be so great as that it is no-where to be found but in God it is his Right onely to have such Honours as suppose it And though it be deemed or conceived to be derived from God yet if it be not we give an uncommunicate Excellency to the Creature and rob God of his Right and Honour And lastly though this Excellency were communicated but yet the Communication of it unreveal'd to us it were a treasonable Presumption against the Majesty of God thus of our own head to divulge such things as may violate the peculiar Rights of his Godhead and for ought we know fill the world with infinite bold examples of the grossest Idolatry and therefore all our practices upon this Principle must be Idolatrous and Treasonable against the Divine Majesty Consider well the fifteenth Conclusion 12. The last Conclusion That this pretended Consideration that where Christ is corporeally present Divine Worship is not done to his Humanity but to his Divinity and that therefore though the Bread should not prove transubstantiated the Divine Worship will still be done to the same Object as before viz. to the Divinity which is every-where and therefore in the Bread this will not excuse the Adoration of the Host from palpable Idolatry For first That part of the Pretense that supposes Divine Worship in no sense due or to be done to Christ's Humanity is false For it is no greater presumption to say that in some sense Divine Worship is
communicable to the Humanity of Christ then that the Divinity is communicated thereto In such sense then as the Divinity is communicated to the Humanity which are one by hypostatical Union may Divine Worship also be communicated to it namely as an acknowledgment that the Divinity with all its adorable Attributes is hypostatically vitally and transplendently residing in this Humanity of Christ. Which is a kind of Divine Worship of Christ's Humanity and peculiar to him alone and due to him I mean to his Humanity though it be not God essentially but onely hypostatically united with him that is and does as naturally partake of Religious or Divine Worship in our Addresses to the Divinity as the body of an eminently-vertuous holy and wise man does of that great Reverence and civil Honour done to him for those Excellencies that are more immediately lodged in his Soul Which Honour indistinctly passes upon the whole man And as the very bodily Presence of this vertuous person receives the civil Honour so in an easie Analogy doth the Humanity of Christ receive the Divine bâ—â— both as partial Objects of what they do receive and with signification of the state of the whole case viz. that they are united the one with the Divinity the other with so vertuous a Soul Hence they both become due Objects of that entire external Worship done towards them to the one civil to the other Divine And therefore in the second place it is plain that there is not one and the same due Object capable of Religious Worship in either Supposition as well in that which supposes the Bread transubstantiated as in that which supposes it not transubstantiated For in the former it is the true and living corporeal Presence of Christ whose whole Suppositum is as has been declared capable of Divine Honour but in the latter there is onely at the most but his symbolical Presence whose Adoration is Idolatry by the nineteenth twentieth and twenty-first Conclusions And lastly The pretending that though the Bread be not transubstantiated yet the Divinity of Christ is there and so we do not miss of the due Object of our Worship this is so laxe an Excuse that it will plead for the warrantableness of the Laplanders worshipping their Red cloth or the Americans the Devil let them but pretend they worship God in them For God is also in that Red cloth and in the Devil in that Notion that he is said to be every-where Nay there is not any Object in which the ancient Pagans were mistaken in taking the Divine Attributes to be lodged there whether Sun Heaven or any other Creature but by this Sophistry the worshipping thereof may be excused from Idolatry For the Divine Attributes as God himself are every-where To direct our Adoration toward a supernatural and unimitable Transplendency of the Divine Presence or to any visible corporeal nature that is hypostatically united with the Divinity most assuredly is not that sunk and sottish that dull and dotardly sin of Idolatry For as touching this latter to what-ever the Divinity is hypostatically united or to avoid all cavil about terms so specially and mysteriously communicated as it is to Christ the Right of Divine Worship is proportionably communicated therewith as I have already intimated And as for the former That through which the Divine Transplendency appears is no more the Object of our Adoration than the diaphanous Air is through which the visible Humanity of Christ appears when he is worshipped But the Eucharistick Bread being neither hypostatically united with the Divinity nor being the Medium through which any such supernatural Transplendency of the Divine Presence appears to us Adoration directed toward it cannot fail of being palpable Idolatry For the Eucharistick Bread will receive this Adoration as the Object thereof by Conclusion the nineteenth and twentieth But the Adoration or any Divine Worship of an Object in which the Divine Attributes do not personally reside in such a sense as is intimated in those words of St. Iohn Ioh. 1. 14. And the word was made flesh but onely locally as I may so speak this according to sound Reason and the sense of the Christian Church must be downright Idolatry CHAP. II. His Answer to the first second and third Conclusions His first second and third Conclusions saith he quite digress from the charge in hand shewing what a grievous sin Idolatry is which is much more largely and Learnedly declared by our own Authors and readily granted by them with this further allowance that if he can fix the crime upon us with any shew of reason we shall acknowledge our guilt to be of a double dye The Reply THese three first Conclusions do not digress from the charge in hand For as much as they tend to the better understanding of the nature of the charge As for the first it is plainly referred to in the sixth Conclusion And the second and third yield their due Illustration to the fourth which is framed by way of an Axioma discretum That though Idolatry be a sin of that hainousness and provoke Gods wrath and Jealousie so yet it does necessarily involve in it ignorance or mistake c. Which does seasonably prevent all vain excuses and subterfuges all unskilfull extenuations of so deadly a crime Which I wish I could free the Church of Rome from When as of the contrary out of my love to the Truth and the Church of Christ I am necessitated to prove her guilty thereof not by shews of Reason but by solid and irrefragable Demonstration Which I pray God open their Eyes to see that they may wash away their guilt of a double dye by the tears of a timely Repentance Answer to the fourth and fifth Conclusion The fourth and fifth saith he tell us that Idolatry necessarily involves in it ignorance or mistake in the act of Worship The fifth advanceth a step higher and concludes very abruptly that because all Idolatry involves in it some ignorance or mistake therefore no Ignorance can excuse from Idolaâ—ry very learnedly The Reply Not so learnedly neither or rather not altogether so solidly as you have set down my Inference in the fifth Conclusion from what preceeded in the fourth For my own words are these in my fifth Conclusion That to be mistaken in the Object of Worship or in the kind of Worship or in the Application cannot excuse any thing from being down right Idolatry for as much as none are in good earnest Idolaters without some of these mistakes How very Learned this is is another matter but how firm and solid an Inference it is I leave any one to Judge Answer to the one and twentieth and two and twentieth Conclusion From the fourth and fifth the Doctor saith he makes a long stride to his one and twentieth Conclusion where he peremptorily concludes that because mistake does not excuse one from Idolatry by Conclusion the fourth and fifth Therefore the Adoration of any Object which we out of mistake
Incurvations being to the symbolical Presences of the Angels they bowed to my sixteenth Conclusion is unconcerned in it nor does it therefore at all enervate my ninth as is plain at first sight For it does not at all imply that either Abraham or St. John were Idolaters in their bowing to Angels or Men. His Answer to the sixteenth Conclusion The sixteenth seventeenth nineteenth and twentieth talk much says he of a symbolical Presence and Incurvation towards it whereof the sixteenth refers to the ninth and hath its Answer there The Reply How infirm my Adversaries Answer is to the ninth and unsatisfactory you have already seen and therefore I having already replied to it it is evident that his Answer to this sixteenth wants no further Reply His Answer to the seventeenth Conclusion To this saith he I have already answered shweing that the Pagans gave the Worship and Title of Deities to their Daemons and therefore became ipso facto Idolaters The Reply To that pretended Answer I have made a full and perspicuous Reply above which if the Reader be pleased to turn back and peruse the more he looks on it I do not question but the more he will be satisfied with it His Answer to the nineteenth Conclusion Here saith he I would know of the Doctor whether the Name of a person be not a symbolical Presence in its kind as well as an Image For as much as both of them are signs or tokens representing the same thing with this onely difference that the Image represents it to the eye the Name to the ear And why then may we not bow to the Image of Iesus as well as to the name of Jesus or how can the one be condemned of Idolatry but the other must incur the like brand The Reply The Doctor Answers that the Name may be a symbol as Aristotle has defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aword or Name may be a symbol of that conception I have in my mind says Aristotle but he says nothing of its being a symbol of the external Object But let that go Though it be a symbol yet it is very unnatural to conceive it a symbolical Presence not is any where called so nor accounted so by any one Besides a symbolical Presence must be a standing permanent representation of that which it is the symbolical Presence of consecrated and intended for that purpose How unnaâ—ural therefore is it to conceit a name that is no sooner sounded but vanishes from the senses to be a symbolical Presence but onely a meer note or symbol to help our memories and to be part of speech and discourse So plain is it there is not the same reason of the Image of Jesus and the Name of Jesus Noâ— is the second Commandment against bowing to sounds but Images Nor do we which is best of all bow to the Name of Jesus but at the Name of Jesus as I answered above And if it could be proved that the Name of Jesus were a symbolical Presence of one kind as my Adversary phrases it so long as it is not of that kind my nineteenth Conclusion speaks of and founded on the second Commandment what is it to the purpose Or if it were included unless that of the second to the Philippians commanded to bow to it in such a sense which my Adversary will be never able to prove what will it avail But I have even over-answered this Objection And it is already too too manifest that though bowing at the Name of Jesus be no Idolatry bowing to the Image of Jesus may be palpable Idolaâ—â—y His Answer to the twentieth Conclusion To me this Conclusion saith he seems big with a spirit of contradiction as being manifestly against Scripture against the practise of the Church of England and lastly against Dr. More himself First Against Scripture As is manifest besides what we have said says he in Answer to the last Conclusion of the first Chapter from the Incurvation the Scripture commands to the Name of Jesus which is as much a Religious Incurvation as any we give to t'ose symbolical Presences called Images Secondly Against the Church of England who bow the knee at the Eucharist to the bare Figurative or symbolical Presence of Christs natural flesh and blood and therefore they useing this Religious Incurvation towards a symbolical Presence are Idolaters Nor can excuse themselves by a mental reserve they intending it onely as a circumstance of their Worship because that is declared Equivocation in this very Conclusion and the foregoing one Thirdly and lastly This Conclusion is against my self Because my sixteenth Conclusion openly avoucheth That the erecting of a symbolical Presence with Incurvation thitherward was declared by the supreme God the God of Israel one of the manners of worship due to him but my twentieth runs counter and stifly presseth That Religious Incurvation towards a symbolical Presence without exception of any wittingly and conscientiously directed thither is real Idolatry These two Conclusions saith he are as perfect a contradiction as to say All Religious Incurvation toward a symbolical Presence is Idolatry Not all Religious Incurvation toward a symbolical Presence is Idolatry The Reply To all which three I Reply and First to the first That what he has said in Answer to the last Conclusion of my first Chapter I have replied to already and plainly proved there is nothing therein that clashes with the Scripture And as I said before so I again repeat that we are not commanded to bow to the name of Jesus but if it be understood of any external Ceremony onely at the name of Jesus and with all though the Incurvation be Religious that his name is no symbolical Presence as I declared before Never any one phancied a name any such thing so that it is a meer shift to amuze the ignorant To the Second that the Bread and Wine are no symbolical Presence or Figure of the very Person of Christ nor do I know that any Protetestants hold that any Blood or Flesh of Christ not actuated by his humane Spirit nor joyned with the Divinity is capable of Divine or Religious Worship sith nothing is capable thereof but God But a symbolical Presence is the representation of some Person or thing erected to represent the thing oâ— Person conceived by them that erect it adorable ' But we do not conceive the Body of Christ killed and Sacrificed and his Blood shed out of his Body adorable unless it could be proved what yet is impossible that it was even then Hypostatically united with God when it was disunited from the Soul So that the broken Bread and the Wine are but commemoration tokens of the Body of Christ killed and Crucified and his Blood shed for us this commemoration being as it were a feast upon a Sacrifice as the Apostle intimates 1 Cor. 5. 7. after the Lamb is perfectly slain Nor is any man on his knees at the Communion in order to direct their
Crime it is that the Jew and Protestant here commit Certainly the Jew's can be no less then Idolatry in the internal being that he has assented to the practise of what he thinks in his own Conscience is Idolatry the giving of Divine Worship to a meer Creaâ—ure And so much at least is true of the Protestant that adores the Sacrament But the Sacrament being not Christ he is also guilty of Idolatry in the compleatest Circumstances and becomes an Idolater as well in the external as internal Act. And if you ask what this is to the Doctors purpose he will tell you that his purpose is to perâ—â—â—â—â— all men as much as he can to deal uprightly and not to dissemble So that it is an intimation to as many as are not perswaded of Transubstantiation that they would not abuse themselves in communicating in your service they not being able to do it without apparent Idolatry His Answer to the twenty fifth Conclusion To the twenty fourth he Answered above where you have also my Reply To this twenty fifth or last he onely says touching my Objection there raised and Answered that he will leave the Doctor to the pleasure of his own thoughts raising his airy Castle with one hand and beating it down with another The Reply To which my Reply is onely this let the Reader seriously peruse this my last Conclusion and consider whether the Objection I raise be not material and whether the solution thereof be not solid And let him also impartially judge if I have not though briefly yet very clearly and perspicuously showed the Invalidity of all my Antagonists Objections against the Conclusions of these two first Chapters of my Antidote We proceed now to the third CHAP. III. That the Romanists worship the Host with the highest kind of â— orship even that of Latria according to the Injunction of the Council of Trent and that it is most grosâ— Idolatry so to do I. AND having thus clearly and distinctly evinced and declared what is or ought to be held Idolatry amongst Christians let us at length take morefull notice of some Particulars wherein according to these Determinations the Church of Rome will be manifestly found guilty of Idolatry and that according to the very Definitions of their own Council of Trent As first in the Point of the Adoration of the Host touching which the very words of the Council are Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione esse adhibendum and again Siquis dixerit in sancto Eucâ—aristiae Sacramento Christum non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum solenniter circumgestandum populóque proponendum publicè ut adoretur Anathema sit 2. This confident Injunction of gross Idolatry as it is certainly such is built upon their confidence of the truth of their Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the Chapter of the Adoration of the Host succeeds that of Transubstantiation as a natural or rather necessary Inference therefrom Nullâ—â— itaque dubitandâ— locus relinquiâ—ur c. That is to say The Doctrine of Transubstantiation being established there is no Scruple left touching the Adoration of the Host or giving Divine Worship to the Sacrament or Christ as it is there called when it is carried about and exposed publickly in Processions to the view of the people But the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being false it must needs follow that the giving of Divine Worship to the Host is as gross a piece of Idolatry as ever was committed by any of the Heathens For then their Divine Worship even their Cultus Latriae which is onely due to the onely-true God is exhibited to a meer Creature and that a very sorry one too and therefore must be gross Idolatry by the twenty-first and twenty-second Conclusions of the second Chapter 3. But now that their Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false after we have proposed it in the very words of the Council we shall evince by undeniable Demonstration Per consecrationem Panis Vini conversionem fieritotius substantiae Panis in substantiam Corporis Christi totius substantiae Vini in substantiam Sanguinis ejus quae conversio convenienter propriè à Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata And a little before cap 3. Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie sub singulis cujusque speciâ—i partibus separatione factâ totum Christum contineri Anethema sit In which passages it is plainly affirmed that not onely the Bread is turned into the whole Body of Christ and the Wine into his Bloud but that each of them are turned into the whole Body of Christ and every part of each as often as division or sepaâ—ation is made is also turned into his whole Body Which is such a contradictious Figment that there is nothing so repugnant to the Faculties of the humane Soul 4. For thus the Body of Christ will be in God knows how many thousand places at once and how many thousand miles distant one from another Whenas Ampâ—itruo rightly expostulates with hiâ— Servant Sosia and rates him for a Mad-man or Impostour that he would go about to make him believe that he was at home though but a little way off while yet he was with him at that distance from home Quo id malúm pacto pâ—test fiâ—ri nunc ntà 〈◊〉 hÃcsis â— domi And a little before in the same Colloquie with his Servant Nemo unquam â—omo vidit saith he nec potest fieri tempore uno homo idem dâ—obus locis ut simul sit Wherein Amphitruo speaks but according to the common sense and apprehension of all men even of the meanest Idiots 5. But now let us examine it according to the Principles of the learned and of all their Arts and Sciences Physicks Metaphysicks Mathematicks and Logick It is a Principle in Physicks That that internal space that a Body occupies at one time is equal to the Body that occupies it Now let us suppose one and the same body occupy two such internal places or spaces at once This Body is therefore equal o those two spaces which are double to one si gle space wherefore the body is double to that body in one single space and therefore one and the same body double to it self Which is an enormous Contradiction Again in Metaphysicks The body of Christ is acknowledged one and that as much as any one body else in the world Now the Metaphysical Notion of one is to be indivisum à â—se both quoad partes and quoad totum as well as divisum à quolibet alio But the Body of Christ being both in Heaven and without any continuance of that body here upon Earth alâ—o the whole body is divided from the whole body and therefore is entirely both unum and multa which is a perfect Contradiction 6 Thirdly in Matâ—ematicks The Council saying that in the separation of the
â—â—oration of the Blessed Sacrament or which is the same of Iesus â—hrist in the Sacrament Which is a quite different thing from that uncatholick expression of worshipping the Host For Catholick Principles own nothing of the Host to remain after Consecration but the species or symbols Nor does the Council enjoyn the Worship of Latria to the symbols but to â—esus Christ veiled with these symbols The Reply THis Answer is most what but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or strife about words Whether it be called Host or Sacrament it is all one to me and to the Cause I undertake For by the Host I mean tâ—e consecrated Bread and it is familiar in common spâ—â—ch to understand the Host in that sense As when they say At the elevation of the Host and As the Host passes by aâ—d the like which is understood of the Sacrament as my Adversary here had rather have it called Besides that the very Reason of the name implies so much that it is the Consecrated Bread because Hostia from whence the word Host is signifies a Sacrifice Which your Church will not grant the Bread to be before Consecration whereby you conceive it to become Christ himself And lastly Durandus and I doubt not but many others of your Church do call the Sacrament it self Hostia very often So that there is more of pomp then solidity in this rebuke and a cunning endeavour to make me seem less skilfull in these Points of Controversie in the eyes of your Party But now to the Second part of your Answer which seems more material That the Council enjoyns not the Worship of Latria to the symbols but to Jesus Christ veiled with the Symbols I Reply That for as much as they enjoyn adoration or bowing to this effigiated bare or visible sâ—mbolical Presence of Christ invisibly there it is Idolatry by Conclusion 20th Chapter 2. And though they pretend to omit the external species or shew of the pread in their Worship yet while it is acknowledged that they Worship Christ as Hypostatically united with the substance of the Bread not annihilated but changed and transubstantiated into his body there veiled with these Species and being this Transubstantiation is not this Latriâ— of theirs is turned into Idolatry by the twenty first twenty second and twenty fifth Concâ—usions of the second Chapter As it is manifest to any one that lists to compare the Case with these Conclusions which stand very firm still for any thing he has been able to alledge against them After this my Adversary gives a brief sum of this third Chapter of mine in this Enthymeme Transuâ—stantiation is a meer Figment Ergo The adoration of the Eucharist is palpable ldolatry and so runs out preposterously to the eighth Paragraph in Answer to the concealed Proposition of the Enthymeme But I will rather set his Answers in the same order that the numbers of the Paragraphs require And so his Answers to the Antecedent of the Proposition will come in view first We will consider his Answer to the consequence of it at the eight Paragraph which is its due place His Answer to the Argument in the fourth Paragraph To this he Answers This is indeed a fair demonstration that Dr. More is acquainted with Plautus his Comedies and can when he pleases descend from the Divinity-chair to a piece of unseasonable mirth anâ— stage Drollery But let this pass as a pleasant skirmiâ— before the main charge The Reply If it was not indecorous for St. Paul to quotâ— Heathen Poets as Aratus and Epimenides yea Comedians as Menander in his Thais how can it be below such an one as I to quote a Comick Poet 〈◊〉 in any point of Drollery but for an earnest 〈◊〉 ration That â—t never was seen nor is it possible that 〈◊〉 body can be 〈◊〉 two places at once But if this Testimâ—â— does not like you you may remember how I showd you above That Athanasius and Anastatius ancient Christians declare â—hat an Angel himself nor a Soul separate can be in two places at once But the stress of my Argument yes not in the â—uthority of Pâ—autus but in tâ—e sense of all mankind as I have inâ—imaâ—ed who by common suffâ—age unless infinitely prejudiced do ratifie this 〈◊〉 That one body cannot be in two places at once Which distinct force of this my first Argument 〈◊〉 Aâ—versary endeavoured to smother by a Rhetorical flourish and nimble-paced Transition 〈◊〉 those fetcâ—ed from Arts and Sciences c. To which you shall now hear his Answers His Answer to the Argument from Physicks in the fifth Paragraph To this he Answers First by asserting it possible That a Body occupying a space equal to it self in one place may â—et be elsewhere without occupying any place at all and he would prove this more then possible from the opinion of the Learned who maintain that actually the supreme Heaven occupies no place Secondly by denying the Inferences I make 〈…〉 of one Body being in two places at once as first That the Body will be equal to those 〈◊〉 sâ—aces What needs that Mr. Doctor saâ—s he It is enough that in each of those two spaceâ— it be onely equal or commensurate to that determinaâ—e place it there occupies suppose of six cubâ—â—s and in neither of them equal or commensurate to a space of twelve Cubits And then for my Inference That granting this Body equal to the spaces it occupies at once it will be double to it self he denies the consequence Because a Body of one Cubit rareâ—ied into a double dimension and therefore occupying a double space will not be double to it self And a rational Soul informing a Body of a span length when the Body is grown to another span still informed by the same Soul it does not follow that the Soul is double to it self Is not this rare Divinity says he Let the Doctor show a material disparity in these two Cases or else acknowledge the unconclusiveness of his own Objection This is the sum and substance of that wherewith he would enâ—rvate my Argument drawn from Physicks against Transubstantiation What follows belongs rather to his Answer to my Argument drawn from Metaphysicks which we shall consider there The Reply In the mean time to his first Answer I Reply thus That it is a fetch beyond the Moon or rather beyond the World to endeavour the enervation of my Consequences from the supposal of a Body in two internal places at once that it so filling those two places is equal to the two places equal to one another and that therefore it is double to it self by saying that a Body occupying a place equal to it self in one place may yet be elsewhere without being in any place beâ—cause the supreme or extimate Heaven is in no place which yet is to be understood of no exâ—ernal place But Eustachius and other Schoolâ—hilosopâ—ers and all that hold an internal place â— which Truth is plainly demonstrable do hold that it is in
a place internal upon which our Argument goes but is equally true of locus externus Nor then will this high flight beyond 〈◊〉 supreme or extimate Heaven serve for any evâ—◠〈◊〉 For as much as we speak of Bodies placed â—n this side of 〈◊〉 extimate Heaven and no Boâ—y can bâ— found amongst Bodies but it will be 〈◊〉 cumscrâ—bed bâ— the ambient superficies of the next Bodies about it that superficies of the ambient Bodies that do immediately compass 〈…〉 Body being its place And every Body â—ill hâ—ve such a place that is found on this 〈…〉 extimate Heaven This is a Truth that 〈◊〉 be denied And our Question is 〈◊〉 onely of sucâ— Bodies as are on this side 〈◊〉 extimate Heaven From which the unseasonablenâ—ss of my Adversaries subterâ—uge is plainlâ— dâ—cerned which in no sense will serve his turn unleâ—s for the amuzing the minds of the People To 〈◊〉 Second Answer I return this To the first 〈◊〉 thereof That it is not onely enough to him but it is also enâ—ugh to me that in each of the two â—paces the Body be equal to that deâ—erminate place it tâ—ere occupies understanding either an internal or external place For suppose one and the â—ame Body at each place at â—nce 〈◊〉 either an internal or external place of such a quantity of six Cubits suppose which it cannot fill unless it be commensurate to them it is plain it fills as much space as comes to twelve Cubits if six and six make twelve which is as sure as two and two make four And therefore that it is equal to twelve Cubits because it plainly fills up the space of twice six Cubits Or how ever at the same time fills the ambient superficieses that would exactly fit twice six Cubits in several There is no greater demonstration of equality then this which the Geometricians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Coâ—gruentia So certain is it that a Body adequately filling two places of six Cubits big at once has it self the magnitude of twelve Cubits But the Body is supposed but one and the same Body in both places and therefore can be but six Cubits Wherefore it is both six Cubits and twelve Cubits at once that is to â—ay it is double to it self at the same time which is impossible Nor does the Second part of my Adversaries Answer evade this Impossibility That it will no more follow that a Body occupying at â—he same time two places and so being equal to those two places which are double to one single place that the Body is double to it self then that a Body of one Cubit â—aâ—ified into a double dimension and therefore occupying a double space is double to it self Or the rational â—oul informing a Bodâ— of a span length at first but 〈◊〉 the same Body grown another span is thereby double to it self For not at all to quarrel with the mistake of the nature of Rarefaction which I must confess I take to be the Cartesian way not the â—ristotelean and candidly interpreting his meaning in those words a body of a span length and then grown up to another span which grown up to another span naturally implies the Body not double but octuple to what it was before passing by these and medling onely with his own meaning as it may be hoped and Hypotheses the examples do not at all reach the present purpose For speaking in his sense a body of one Cubit rarified into a double dimension is double to it self unrarified that is It is as big again as it was when it was unrarified But it is not as big again or double to it self at the same time but double it is to what it was before And the same is to be said of the soul in such a sense as extension is applicable to her and increase or decrease of it namely by dilatation and contraction Spiritual that it is double when the Body is grown as big again as it was when it was but a span long to what it was when the Body was but a span long But here in the present Case a Body is demonstrated double to it self compared with it self and its present condition at the same time Which is impossible viz. That the same Body should be double now to what it is now That it now should be as big again as it self is now For neither can the Soul her self be said to be now as wise again as she is now but onely as wise again as she was some time ago And so my Adversaries Answer does not at all reach the point in hand And therefore my Demonstration stands firm and unshaken of the Impossibility of Transubstantiation from this Argument taken from Physicks as any unprejudiced eye may easily discern Nor had we any need here to consider the continuity or discontinuity of places But all is clear from what we have thus briefly represented His Answer to the Argument from Metaphysicks in this fifth Paragraph To my Metaphysical Argument that infers that the Body of Christ will be Divisum à se and both Unum and Multa First he Answers to the first part If divisum à se secundum substantiam I deny it If divisum à se quoad locum transeat To the Second That it will not be Unum Multa but onely Unum in Multis one and the same in many places His second Answer is that I go upon a false supposition That essential Vnity is derived from the Vnity of local Presence not from the Intrinsick Principles of the subject For unless this be granted Plurality of local Presence at once will not prove a thing divided from it self His last Answer is That by this and my former Argument I put armes into the hands of Infideâ—s against the Mystery of the Holy Trinity For it will follow saith he That one and the same Divine Nature being in three distinct Persons at once the same Nature will be treble to it self as much as the same Body being in two places at once will be double to it self And secondly that one Divine Nature being in three distinct Persons it will be as much Divisa à se besides that it will not be Divisa ab aliis viz. from the three distinct Persons with which it is really identified as a Body will by being in two distinct places at once Thâ—s is the bare edge and full strength of his Answers against my Metaphysical Argument As for his Rhetorical Flourishes and Boasts they are no part of any proof and I list not to meddle with such things The Reply To the First part of his first Answer I Reply That it is plain that it is divisum à se secundum substantiam both quoad totum and quoad partes because it is separate or distant so many yards or so many miles suppose from it self nothing of it self being between As distant and separate as two several Individual Bodies at the same distance that is to say A is as many yards
no necessity of the granting of the production of a new Body which was not before but onely that the Body begins to be where it was not before As in the augméntation of our Bodies there is no need of a new Soul but the same Soul occupies those parts of matter that have accrewed to the Body in its augmentation The first is verbatim out of him The second Answer contains the full strength of his own words The Reply To the first Answer I Reply That it has no basis For Physicks exhibit no such probability nor has he nor can he produce the least Instance thereof But in the mean time it is worth the taking notice of in this Answer how well assured in his own mind for all his external cavilling before my Adversary is That the meaning of that Proposition of mine That that individual thing that can be and is to be made of any thing is not was intended by me of such things as which once made are not to be destroyed or in such a sense as this That that individual thing that can be made or is to be made of any thing in that point of time that it is to be made is not Which is an Axiome noematically true And therefore to say that a Body is by a first production but yet still remaining produced is to be again produced entirely even while it remains produced that is to say that it remains produced already in that very point of time that it is to be produced is plainly to confess that the very same individual thing is produced and not produced or unproduced at the same time For the terminus productionis is one and the same individual body A. Now according to Aristotle and the common sense of all men all production whether Accidental or Essential has its contrary termes and proceeds à Privatione ad Actum from Privation to Act. So that let A be Accident or Essence A must be supposed not to be that it may become A or be made A supposing A such an Individual Body when it is to be produced the Termini Productionis are non-A and A. That which is to be made A from not being A it becomes A. Otherwise it being the same Individual Body and being before it could not of not being this Individual Body become this Individual Body A but onely A would be in a new place Which is no Essential production as is here supposed but onely local mutation and consequently the Individual Body A is not produced when it is thus supposed reproduced And therefore if it be really reproduced as is pretended it is a demonstration that it then was not Wherefore it being certain that our Saviours Body does not cease to be if Transubstantiation be true that pretends it reproduced it necessarily implies that it then is not And therefore it plainly is and is not according to that doctrine at the same time Besides if it were possible that A suppose Socrates could be produced while Socrates is in being it can be no otherwise then thus that is to say That another man exquisitely Socrates to whom Socrateity is fully and essentially communicated in all points is also produced But then this will also follow that Socrates is now become a Genus and this and that Socrates are the species infimae of it which we usually call Individuals and so they will not be idem numero but diversa numero and consequently not the same Persons And so the same Individual Socrates or the same Individual A will be produced and not produced at the same breath For things that differ numerically cannot be the same Individuals So impossible every way is this first Fiction and implies still the same Repugnancy For iâ— in the second production the individual Body of Christ be produced it necessarily argues that Body before not to be his individual Body so that his Body then was not according to the doctrine of Transubstantiaâ—ion which yet certainly was and therefore if that doctrine be true it is again true That the Body of Christ is and is not at the same time To the second Answer I Reply First That it is apparently repugnant to the very Definition of Transubstantiation by the Council of Trent Which saith ' That there is a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ. Which say they is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation But if there were no production of the Body of Christ but onely the causing of it to be where it was not before this would not be properly Transubstantiation but mutatio Localis But in the action of Transubstantiation the terminus is substantia not Locus it being the transubstantiating one substance into another Secondly If the Body of Christ be not produced but there be onely mutatio Localis the substance of the Bread either remains or is annihilated That the Bread remains is expresly against the doctrine of the Roman Church That it is annihilated is to give the power of Annihilation to a creature which is onely proper to God and to supose that every consecration of the Host annihilates so much of the matter of the Universe which mustneeds seem very harsh and absurd to any unprejudiced Judgement Besides that there is this palpable repugnancy in it That whereas Transubstantiation is said to be the conversion of all the substance of the Bread into Christs Body this plainly implies that there is the conversion of none at all into it it being all annihilated and exterminated out of the Universe To say nothing of the Accidents of the Bread remaining after this Annihilation it being unconceivable where they should be subjected or that any modes of substance should be separated from their substance and exist without it And then to what end it should be that the species of the Bread should appear by the Divine Omnipotency the substance of Bread being annihilated When it would conduce far more to our belief of the corporeal Presence of Christ in lieu of the annihilated Bread if those species did not appear or were so changed that they seemed much above the nature of ordinary Bread Which things being not it is a plain Judication to the unprejudiced that the Bread is still Bread after the Consecration Else God would be found exercising his Omnipotency in exhibiting such perfest species of Bread and Wine in such a way as is most effectual to drive all Christians to the misbelief of the pretended Mystery of Transubstantiation Which were a grand absurdity and incompeâ—ible to the Divine Wisdom and Goodness if that Mystery were true And thirdly and lastly for his quaint allusion to the Soul which being the same yet extends it self into new parts of matter accrewing to the Body in its augmentation it is a pretty offer of wit but in my apprehension it extremely falls short of the present Case For the Soul being still one and the same Spirit undistanced from it self
to have overspread her like a noisom Leprosy But how-ever we shall proceed and first to their Invocation of Saints Touching which the Council of Trent declares this Doctrine expresly Sanctos utique unà cum Christo regnantes Orationes suas pro hominibus offerre bonâ—mque atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium ejus Jesum Christum ad eorum oratines operam auxiliumque confugere Where Invocation of Saints is plainly allow'd and recommended and besides their praying for us or offering up our Prayers to God it is plainly imply'd that there are other Aids and Succours they can afford if they be supplicated that is invoked with most humble and prostrate Devotion And the pretending that this is all but the way of procuring those good things we want from God the first Fountain and that through his Son â—hrist that makes the Saints the more exactly like the Pagans Dii medioxumi and the Daemons that negotiated the affairs of men with the highest Deity 2. I say then that though they went no farther then thus even this is down-right Idolatry which the Council of Trent thus openly owns and consequently the whole Church of Rome as appears from the third fourth fifth sixth and eighth Conclusions of the first Chapter as also by the fifth seventh eighth tenth eleventh twelfth thirteenth fourteenth fifteenth and twenty-fourth of the second But if we examine those Prayers that are put up to the Saints their Invocation is still the more unexcusable 3. Wherefore looking to the publick Practise of the Church of Rome authorised by the Popes themselves the Invocation of a Saint does not consist in a meer Ora pro nobis as people are too forward to phansy that the state of the Question though the meer invoking of them to pray for us would be Idolatry as is already proved but which is insinuated in the Council it self there are other more particular Aids and Succours that they implore of them and some such as it is proper for none but God or christ to give Such as Protection from the Devil Divine Graces and the Joys of Paradise But as the things they ask of the Saints are too big for them to be the Disposers of so the Compellations of the Virgin Mary especially are above the nature of any Creature Whence this Invocation of Saints will appear a most gross and palpable Mode of Idolatry in that Church As I shall make manifest out of the following Examples taken out of such pieces of Dèvotion as are not mutter'd in the corners of their Closets but are publickly read or sung with Stentorian Voices in their very Churches I will onely give the Reader a taste of this kind of their Idolatry for it were infinite to produce all we might 4. And first to begin with the smaller Saints as indeed they are all to be reckoned in comparison of the blessed Virgin to whom therefore they give that Worship which they call Hyperdulia as they give Dulia to the rest of the Saints and Latria to God alone and to Christ as being God That Prayer to S. Cosmas and S. Damian is plainly a Petition to them to keep us from all Diseases as well of Soul as of Body that we may attain to the life of the Spirit and live in Grace here and be made partakers of Heaven hereafter O Medici piissimi Qui Meritis clarissimi In Coelis refulgetis A peste clade corporum Prâ—servetis operum Moribus nè langueamus Nec moriamur spiritu Sed Animae ab obitu Velociter surgamus Et vivamus in Gratia Sacra Coeli palatia Donec regrediamur 5. Such a piece of Devotion as this is that to S. Francis Sancte Francisce properè veni Pater accelera ad populum qui premitur territur sub onere palea luto latere sepultos Aegyptio sub sabulo nos libera carnis extincto vitio Which is plainly a Prayer to this Saint that he would deliver us from the bondage and drudgery of Sin which is onely in the power of our great Saviour and Redeemer Christ for to do That Invocation of S. Andrew is also for that spiritual Grace of duly Bearing the Cross here that we may obtain Heaven afterwards Iam nos foveto languidos Curámque nostrî suscipe Quâ— per Crucis victoriam Coeli petâ—mus gratiam But that to S. Nicolas is against the Assaults of the Devil Ergò piè nos exaudi Assistentes tuâ— laudi Nè subdamur Hostis fraudi Nobis fer auxilia Nos ab omni malo ducas Vitâ rectâ nos conducas Post â—anc vitam nos inducas Ad aeterna gaudia The like Devotion is done to S. Martin S. Andrew S. Iames S. Bartkoâ—omew and others though not in the same words 6. When I have given an example or two of their Prayers put up to their She-Saints â— shall a little more copiously insist on those to the blessed Virgin They beg of S. Agnes the greatest Grace that God is able to impart to the Soul of man that is to say to serve God in perfect Love And this Gift this one poor single She-Saint is solicited to bestow on all men Ave Agnes gloriosa Me in fide serves recta Dulcis Virgo dilecta Te exoro precibus Charitate da perfectâ Deum per quem es electa Colere piè omnibus That Devotion put up to S. Brâ—gitt is that she would play the skilfull Pilot and lead us through all the tempests and hazzards of this World so safely that at last by her good Conduct we may attain to everlasting Life The Rhyme runs thus O Bregitta mater bona Dulcis Ductrix Matrona Nobis fer suffragia Naufragantes in hoc Mari Tuo ductu salutari Duc ad vitae bravia 7. But that to S. Cathâ—rine is a piece of Devotion something of an higher strain or rather more copious and express But so great a Boon they beg of her as is in the power of none to give but God alone Ave Virgo Dei digna Christo prece me consigna Audi Preces praesta Votum Cor in bono fac immotum Confer miâ—i Cor contritum Rege Visum Auditum Râ—ge Gustum â—lfactum Virgo sancta rege Tactum Vt in cunctis te regente Vivam Deo purâ— mente Christum pro me interpella Salva Mortis de procella Superare fac me Mundum Nè demergar in profundum Nè me sinas naufragari Per Peccata in hoc Mari. Visita tu me infirmum Et in bonis fac me firmum Agonista Dei fortis Praestò sis in hora mortis Decumbentem fove leva Et de morte solve saeva Vt resurgam novus homo Civis in coelesti domo 8. Now it is observable in this devotional Rhyme to S. Catharine that whereas the Council of Trent advises men ad sanctorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere that in these many Verses
speak of to be such a thing as being once made is not to be destroyed And therefore to quit my self of my Antagonists crafty Evasions I will mould my Proposition into a consistence more full and close that there may be no holes nor chinkes for a slippery wit to creep through and shall argue tâ—us That thing that once made is never to be destroyed when ever it may be truely said of it That it can be made and is to be made of any thing it then is not But the Body of Christ is a thing that once made to exist is never to be destroyed Therefore when ever it is truely to be said of it That it can be made or is to be made of any thing it then is not But Transubstantiation even now says That the Body of Christ can be made and is to be made of Bread or a Waâ—er consecrated Therefore according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation the Body of Christ is not But we know certainly and both the Scripture and the Church Universal do restifie that the Body of Christ is Therefore if Transubstantiation be true The Body of Christ both is and is not at the same time against that Logical and Metaphysical Principle Idem non potest esse non esse simul Is not this as clear as the Meridian Sun But he has not done yet To say the Body of Christ is to be made of the Consecrate Bread is sucâ— an unhappy absurdity with my Antagonist that he reflects on that in the third place even with the eye of pitty It is pitty says he to observe his words in the next Proposition The individual Body of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated Which implies as if the Wafer were the material cause of Christs Body What Philosophy ever spake so Unphilosophically Reply Good lack what Tragedies are here raised upon not an half-penny of harm done If my Antagonist had but observed the many significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristotles Metaphysicks he might easily have observed more significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of than the Material cause But he proceeds Yet to make amends he immediately contradicts himself and adds That the Wafer is turned into his individual Body which is a much different thing from being made of the Wafer Reply Water is turned into Ice or Crystal or into Wine by a Miracle and Lead by Chymical transmutation into Gold how much is that different from Ice or Crystal and Wine being made of Water and Gold of Lead But the particle for saith he goes beyond wonder The individual Body of Christ is made of the Wafer Consecrated mark the word for it is turned into his individual Body Which is a piece of as Learned Non-sense as if he said in open terms Because the Wafer is turned into Christs Body by a total Conversion which excludes a Material cause therefore his Body is made of the Wafer by generation which requires a Material cause Thus unfortunate are the Arts and Sciences when they ingage against Gods Church Reply Would not one think that in this high bluster and swaggering language he had plainly proved his Antagonist a meer dotard in matters of Divinity But let us reflect a little on the Reflecter And first upon his Hyperbolical wonderment on the particle for Crystal is made of Water for Water is turned into Crystal Vineger made of Wine for Wine is turned into Vineger Gold sometime made of Lead for Lead sometimes is turned into Gold Is the use of for in such cases as these so wonderfull Or were it not a wonder if for were not used upon such occasions And yet my Antagonist cannot abstain from calling it a piece of learned Non-sense though not half so Learned as the making of a Child of two spans long but double to the same Child when but one span long which yet I had the candour gently to connive at Nor do I understand any sense in this saying of mâ— Antagonist That a total conversion excludes the material Cause if he will allow the matter to be such For certainly the whole Bread includes the matter of the Bread as well as the form and the form perishing else it were Bread still what remains but the matter of the Bread to be turned into the Body of Christ and to become formally and individuâ—lly his Body And whether this may be called generation or no is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is no such generation as is ordinarily seen in Nature but being it is such a conversion changing or mutation as whose terminus is substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is properly and simplâ— generation So fortunate are the Arts and Sciences when they engage for Gods Church against Errour and Falshood But the best jest is yet behind All the stir and bluster he makes and crowing over me is because I say The Body of Christ is made of the Wafer which is the vâ—ry language of the School-men and the Fathers For besides that conficere corpus Christi is an usual phrase with tâ—em St. Ambrose plainly says Vbi accessit consecratio de pane sit Christi caro And again Scrmo Christi creaturam mutat â—ic ex pane fit Corpus Christi The Body or flesh of Christ is made of the Bread Which ex pane according to my Adversaries own sense designs the material Cause And St. Austin Corpus Christi sanguis virtute Spiritûs sancti ex panis vinique substantia efficitur The Body and Blood of Christ is made of the substance of the Bread and Wine No words can signifie the material Cause more fully then these expressions So that now my Antagonist may clap his wings and crow over St. Austin and St. Ambrose for their learned Non-sense as well as over me Thus unfortunate is humour wit and eloquence when it will ingage against true Religion sound Philosophy and right Reason But he knows this was but a farce to the people and does ingenuousl at last acknowledge he has said nothing as yet in Answer to my Argument in that he says he does but now come to it His Answer to the Argument from that Logical and Metaphysical Principle Nothing can be and not be at the same time in this sixth Paragraph I come now to his Argument saith he Transubstantiation implies that the same thing is and is not at the same time This says he I deny First because Physicks have rendred it probable that a thing which actually is may be reproduced without losing its actual existence And if we should say that Christs Body is thus reproduced in the Sacrament it will not follow that the Body of Christ is and is not at once viz. before the Consecration But onely that it is by a first production and is not by a second production till after the Consecration Secondly That when the Host is converted into the Body of Christ there is