which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of divine Revelation we must be imposed upon by every thing which pretends to be so The perfect discussion of this Principle I shall not engage my 〈◊〉 in at present The Men of Principles as the Doctor calls them not without just cause are likely enough to take it into Consideration a second and perhaps a third time too At present it may suffice to shew briefly now absurd in it self and how destructive to Christian Religion this Principle of the Doctor 's is Viz. That we are to judge of the truth of divine Revelation i.e. whether God have revealed such a thing or no by exercising our Faculty of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief that is by making our Reason the Judge whether the matter proposed to our belief be true or false This is what I can understand by the Doctor 's words to be his meaning If He can give them a better I shall be glad to find my self mistaken But if this be as to me it seems to be the sense of his words I am sorry that any thing so irrational in its self and so fatal to Religion should proceed from the Pen of a Christian. For first as I said it is absurd in it self because it can by no means subsist unless we will equal Man's knowledge with that of God For if Man cannot comprehend the depth of the knowledge and power of God that is if God both know and can do more than Man can understand it is evident that the judgment of sense and reason about the Truth of the matter proposed can never be a â—it means to assure him whether God have revealed it or no and it is as evident on the contrary that if it be sufficiently proposed and asserted as revealed by God though it seem never so absurd and contradictory to humane sense and reason we must submit our judgment to the belief of it as True ' Tâ—s not all our reasonings and syllogisms against the matter proposed that can excuse us from the Obligation of câ—ptivating our Undeâ—standing to the Obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 5. That which seems a Camel to us is not so much as a Gnat to the knowledge and power of God and therefore rather than give Him the lye we must strain our selves to swallow what seems to be the greatest Contradiction to Sense and Reason Imaginable Our first Mother Eve by taking part with her sense against Faith destroyed her Self and Posterity by believing the Devil rather than God and what more suitable Penance for this Fault or Cure for this Pride than for God to exact of us that we should believe Him rather than our sense and this particularly in the point of Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Redeemer that as by following sense and eating the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil Death came upon all both of Soul and Body so all may receive Life by denying the suggestions of Sense and eating the true food of the Body of Christ under the forme of Bread 2dly It is destructive to Christianity since if we must believe nothing but what our Sense and Reason can comprehend we must lay aside our Creed and neither believe the Creation of the World nor the Trinity of Persons nor the Incarnation of the Son of God nor the Resurrection of the Dead all which seem to imply as many and great Absurdities and Contradictions as the Doctor for his heart can Object against Transubstantiation It would be too tedious to insist upon them all Those who are curious may meet with them every where in the Writings both of those who impugn and of those who defend the Catholick belief in those Points Yet to give the Reader a clearer Insight into the absurdness and malignity of this Principle of the Doctors and how agreeable this proceeding of his is in this Point to that of other Desertors of the Church's Faith I shall instance in some of the Contradictions objected against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation and that in the words of Dr. Beaumont now Master of Peter-House in Cambridge in his most excellent Poem call'd Psyche or Love's Mystery Verses I know in a Book of Controversy will seem as improper and come as unexpected as a Garden of Flowers in a rough and craggy Desâ—rt but a Traveller will not find fault with his Guide for leading him thorough it if he lead him not out of his way My Adversary without any occasion given him to please the Atheistical humour of the Wits of the Time could think fit to turn Spiritual Archy and make sport with the Saints in so prophane a manner as is no where to be parallel'd in the worst of Play-Books And I hope after so many hard and spiny Questions of the Schools wherewith he hath perplex'd the minds of his sober Readers I may have leave to divert them with citing a little Poetry which doth but express in Verse what the matter it self leads me to have said in Prose See then how the aforesaid Dr. Beaumont introduces a Cerinthian Heretick endeavouring to seduce Psyche that is the Soul from the belief of the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity upon Dr. St.'s Principles of Sense and Reason 213 Blind Ignorance was grown so bold that she Sought to perswade the World it had no eyes Making the lazy Name of Mystery Instead of Demonstration suffice From this black Pit those monstrous Prodigies Of Hood-wink'd and abused Faith did rise 214 Who can imagin Heaven would e're ob'rude Upon the Faith of Reasonable Men That which against all Reason doth conclude And founded is on Contradiction Sure God so strange a Law did never give That Men must not be Men if they believe 219 For though the Marvel-Mongers †grant that He Was moulded up but of a Mortal Mettal And that his substance was the same which we Find in our selves to be so weak and brittle Yet an Eternal God they make Him too And angry are that we will not do so 220 Thus the quaint madness of a dreaming Brain Holds the same thing a Mountain and a Mite Fancies the Sun Light 's Royal Soveraign To look like swarthy and ignoble Night Imagins wretched Worms although it see They crawl in Dâ—rt Illustâ—ious Kings to be 221 But Heaven forbid that we should so blaspheme And think our God as poor a thing as we How can Eternity be born in Time How can Infinity a Baby be Or how can Heaven and Earth's Almighty Lord To Aegypt fly for fear of Herod's Sword 226 I know they strive to mince the matter by Distinguishing his Natures For their Art Being asham'd of no Absurdity Hâ—mself from his own self presumes to part Yet we durst not admit a Deity Which must on a distinction builded be 227 But how much more than Mad their doctrine is And how transcending Pagan Blasphemy Who
assistance we can do it We worship therefore the Martyrs with that Worship of love and society with which even in this life also Holy Men of God are worshipped whose heart we judge prepared to suffer the like Martyrdom for the truth of the Gospel But we worship them so much the more devoutly because more securely after they have overcome all the Incertainties of this World as also we praise them more confidently now reigning Conquerors in a more happy life than whilst they were fighting in this but with that Worship which in Greek is called Latria and cannot be expressed by one word in Latin for as much as it is a certain service properly due to the Divinity we neither worship them nor teach them to be worshipped but God alone Now whereas the offering of Sacrifice belongs to this Worship of Latria from whence they are called Idolaters who gave it also to Idols by no means do we suffer any such thing or command it to be offered to any Martyr or any holy soul or any Angel And whosoever declines into this Error we reprove him by sound Dectrine either that he may be corrected or avoided And a little after It is a much less sin for a Man to be derided by the Martyrs for drunkenness then even fasting to offer Sacrifice to them I say to sacrifice to Martyrs I say not to sacrifice to God in the Memories or Churches of the Martyrs which we do most frequently by that rite alone by which in the manifestation of the New Testament he hath commanded Sacrifice to be offered to him which belongs to that Worship which is called Latria and is due only to God This was the Doctrine and practice of Christian People in St. Augustine ' s time and that he himself held formal Invocations a part of the Worship due to Saints is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdom Adjuvet nos itaque Beatus Cyprianus orationibus suis c. Let Blessed Cyprian therefore help us who are still encompassed with this mortal flesh and labour as in a dark Cloud with his Prayers that by Gods grace we may as far as we are able imitate his good works Thus St. Austin where you see he directs his Prayer to St. Cyprian which I take to be formal invocation and for a further confirmation of it we have the ingenuous confession of Calvin himself Instit li. 3. ch 20. n. 22. where speaking of the third Council of Carthage in which St. Austin was present he acknowledged it was the custom at that time to say Sancta Maria aut Sancte Petre Ora pro nobis Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us But now Madam what if after all this he himself shall deny that any of the opposite Tenets are Articles of his faith viz. That honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ That it is not lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us Press him close and I believe you shall find him deny that he believes any one of these Negative points to be Divine truths and if so you will easily see his charge of Idolatry against us to be vain and groundless Having thus given a direct and punctual answer to his argument I must now expect as much charity from him as is consistent with Scripture and Reason How much that is you will see in his third Answer to the first Question But to proceed § 8. He brings a Miscellany of such Opinions and practices as he calls them which are very apt to hinder a good life and therefore none who have a care of their Salvation can venture their Souls in the communion of such a Church which either enjoyns or publickly allows them He reckons up no less than Ten. 1. That we destroy the necessity of good life by making the Sacrament of Penance that is confession and absolution joyned with contrition sufficient for salvation And do not Protestants make contrition alone which is less sufficient for Salvation But perhaps the joyning of confession and absolution with contrition makes it of a malignant nature If so certainly when the Book of Common Prayer in the Visitation of the Sick enjoyns the sick Man if he find his conscience troubled with any weighty matter to make a special confession and receive absolution from the Priest in the same words the Catholick Church uses it prescribes him that as a means to prepare himself for a holy death which in the judgment of the Objector destroys the necessity of good life 2. Catholicks he says take off the care of good life by supposing an expiation of sin by the Prayer of the living after death But certainly the belief of temporal pains to be sustained after death if there be not a perfect expiation of sin in this life by works of penance is rather apt to make a Man careful not to commit the least sin than to take off the care of a good life And though he be ascertained by faith that he may be holpen by the charitable suffrages of the faithful living yet this is no more encouragement to him to sin than it would be to a Spendthrift to run into debt and be cast into Prison because he knows he may be relieved by the charity of his Friends If he were sure there were no Prison for him that would be an encouragement indeed to play the Spend-thrift And this is the case of the Protestants in their denyal of Purgatory 3. The sincerity of Devotion he says is much obstructed by Prayers in a Language which many understand not If he speak of private Prayers all Catholicks are taught to say them in their Mother Tongue If of the publick Prayers of the Church I understand not why it may not be done with as much sincerity of devotion the People joyning their intention and particular Prayers with the Priest as their Embassador to God as if they understood him I am sure the effects of a sincere devotion for nine hundred years together which this manner of Worship produced in this Nation were much different from those we have seen since the reducing of the publick Liturgie into English as is manifest from those Monuments which yet remain of Churches Colledges Religious Houses c. with their endowments and in the conversion of many Nations from Heathenism to Christianity effected by the labours and zeal of English Missionaries in those times c. But this is a matter of Discipline and so not to be regulated by the fancies of private Men but the judgment of the Church and so universal hath this practice been both in the Primitive Greek and Latine Churches and is still by the confession of the Protestant Authors themselves of the Bible of many Languages Printed at London Anno 1655. in most of the Sects of Christians to have not only the Scriptures but
that none of the Idols of the Heathen were to be compared to Him in Wisdom Greatness Power c. as is manifest he does from v. 12. to the end of the Chapter it is no more to the purpose for which he alledges it viz. Therefore it is forbidden to worship God himself by bowing or kneeling before an Image than if one should say There is no comparison for Riches and Greatness between a King and a Peasant therefore it is not lawful to give honour to the King by putting off ones Hat before his Picture or the Chair of State § 7. To the other Text of Deut. 4. 15. where Moses saith Take good heed to your selves for ye saw no manner of Similitude in the day that the Lord spake to you I answer That de facto no manner of Similitude was seen at that time by the People that afterwards they might not take occasion as they were apt enough to conceive it to have been a proper Representation of the Divinity and so entertain an erroneous Conceit of God Notwithstanding if it had so pleas'd him when he gave the Law he might have appeared to the People in some visible likeness without disparagement to his Nature as it is likely he did in a glorious manner to Moses at the Second giving of the Law when he descended and stood with him on the Rock and he saw the back parts of God and bowed to the Earth and worshipped Exod. 33. 23. 34. 5 8. and as both before and after he appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets and consequently his not appearing so de facto could not be the Reason of the Law For as Dr. St. himself confesses very ingenuously p. 63. Although God had appeared with a Similitude then yet there might have been great reason for making a Law against worshipping the Heathen Idols or fixing the intention of their Worship upon the bare Image I add Even against thinking of honouring God by an Image made by men if that were the meaning of the Law as it is not since such a Law if necessary might have been made and would have obliged although God had chosen some visible likeness to appear in at that time The words then For ye saw no manner of Similitude on the day that the Lord spake to you though cited by the Doctor without a Parenthesis to make them seem of more force were not set down by Moses as the Reason of the Law But the matter of fact was made use of by him as a Motive to induce the People to the Observance of it in a Sermon he makes Deut. 4. to press them to that duty And this Explication also the Doctor might have found in his own Bible if he had but vouchsafed to cast his Eye upon the Contents of the Chapter where the whole Discourse is entituled An Exhortation to Obedience or on the Breviate on the top of the Page where the Arguments us'd in it are call'd Perswasions to Obedience But there was the word likeness in the first Text and Similitude in the second denied of God and these were enough without considering the Context or the intent of the Writer or the Contents of the Chapters to ask Whether God by that Reason doth not declare that all Worship given to him by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him Now though Protestants may hold with Dr. St. that the Scripture is the most certain Rule of their Faith yet unless they wilfully shut their Eyes they cannot think the Method he takes to be the most certain way to find out its Sense But to draw to a Conclusion in this matter § 8. Let us suppose the Argument notwithstanding all that hath been said to shew its deficiency in all its parts to be good and sound and that in its largest extent viz. The Nature of God being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it Let us grant I say this Antecedent and the Places of Scripture in the sense they are cited by him Let us grant the Consequence too he infers from them Therefore all Worship given to Him by any visible Representation of him whether Proper or Analogical is extreamly dishonourable to him Suppose I say all this to be so Will it follow from hence that Christ according to his Humanity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to Him Or that to put off our Hats when we behold the Figure of his Sacred Body as Nailed upon the Cross with intent to Worship Him must be extremly dishonourable to Him What if the Soul of Man be Invisible and cannot be represented by any Corporeal Figure or Colours Will it follow from thence that any Picture made to represent a Prince according to his External Features would be a disparagement to him and any Honour given him by means of such a Representation a Dishonour The Consequence he brings is no better in order to Christ and his Image If then his Argument do not at all concern the practise of Catholicks in making the Images of Christ and his Saints with respect to their Honour to what purpose was it to lay down for the Reason of the Law in which he will have it to be forbidden That God's Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible could not be represented without infinite disparagement to it To what purpose was it to spend no less than three Pages as he does § 6. in citing Authours to prove that the Wiser Persons of the Heathens themselves condemned the Worship of God by Images as incongruous to a Divine Nature Was it to make his Reader believe that Catholicks allow of any Pictures as proper Representations of the Invisible Deity Let him lay his Hand upon his Heart I have told him the Churches Sense in that Point What those Wiser Persons of the Heathens meant is evident from their Words and from the Time in which they lived to be this That the Nature of God being Spiritual and Invisible it could not be represented by any thing like unto it and therefore the Worship which the People gave to their Images as Gods or like unto the Gods they worshipped was incongruous to the Divine Nature and a disparagement to the Deity And if the Germans as Tacitus reporteth de morib German c. 9. rejected Images made in the likeness of men which the Doctor conveniently leaves out because they thought them unsuitable to the Greatness of Celestial Deities for Other Figures and Symbols they had in their consecrated Groves as the same Tacitus there witnesseth and Dr. St. suppresseth it was but what the Light of Nature taught them concerning the notion of a Deity which had the mystery of God made Man been revealed to them would have taught them also that it was no disparagement to Him to be represented in the likeness of Man and to be worshipped by such an Image His other Citations I took upon his word without
his Service although he forbad them to make the likeness of any of those things he had created to worship them for Gods yet he commanded Moses Exod. 25. 10 17 18. to place in the Temple where they were to worship him a representation of his Footstool and Throne the Ark and the Propitiatory with two Cherubins of beaten Gold attending on each side of the Seat to raise their thoughts to a more venerable apprehension of his Majesty and Greatness Lastly the fulness of time being come in which he would shew the excess of his mercy towards Mankind he was pleased as S. Paul saith Phil. 2. 7. to take upon him the form of a Servant and be made in the likeness of Man that is to become indeed true Man not onely to work our Redemption by shedding his most precious Blood but also by that visible form as the Church sings upon the day of his Nativity to carry or rather ravish our hearts to the contemplation of his Invisible Deity Ut dum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus per hunc ad invisibilia rapiamur And if this were the means made choice of by God himself as most efficacious because most connatural to conduct us to the knowledge and love of Him then certainly the Pictures or Images of his Nativity Passion Resurrection c. which serve to put us in mind of what he did and suffered for us in that form of a Servant cannot but conduce very much to work the like effects in us And after all this can any man not to use his own phrase in his Senses but who is serious ask What can such an Image do to the heightning of Devotion or raising Affections S. Gregory Nissen says of himself Orat. de Deitate Filii Spiritus Sancti That he often beheld but never without Tears the Picture of Abraham ready to sacrifice his Son Isaac though but a repâ—esentation onely of a Type of the Son of God upon the Altar of the Cross And can any man whose heart is not of Stone behold attentively the Image of his dying Saviour himself with his Hands and Feet Nailed to the Cross and not be touched with a sense of Devotion towards Him Surely he must have lost the notion of Humane Nature who can soberly affirm that the making such an Image with respect to His Worship tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship unless to remember that he dyed for us be to think meanly and dishonourably of him But whither will not a Resolution to maintain an Errour once espoused hurry the subtillest Wit The Doctor 's eagerness to make us Idolaters had made him fancy that where God forbids to give his Worship to Idols he forbad to make any Image with respect to his own Worship and this forced him for I cannot believe he did it without force to his own thoughts to assert that an Image can do nothing to the heightning of Devotion or raising Affections If he think I strain his words too far though no farther than what his discourse gives me cause to do let him vindicate himself by professing candidly that the Images of Christ according to his Humane Nature may serve to raise our Affections and heighten our Devotion to him as God But then he must renounce the patronage of his Constantinopolitan Fathers and retract or answer his own Reason that if this be done by calling to our mind the Being we are to worship there must be supposed some Likeness or Analogy or Union between the Object represented and the Image every one of which tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship and particularly that among Christians nothing can tend more effectually to it than the bringing down the representations of him to the figure and lineaments of a man drawn upon a Table or carved upon an Image But what ought we not to do to free our selves from Mistake much more from Errour The Mistake at present if I may give it so gentle a name lies in this That he considers not that if one thing hath connexion with or analogy to another although Invisible when the former is represented to a Person that understands the analogy or connexion there is between them it is apt to bring to his remembrance the later Hence it is that although the Soul of man cannot be drawn in colours yet when the Body to which it is united is represented in Picture the Representation serves as a means to bring to our minds the Perfections or Graces of the Soul which informs it and not to bring them down as against Nature and Experience he aâ—firms to the figure and lineaments of a Body drawn upon a Table or carved in an Image Had the rest of Mortals been imbued with this Principle they had never caused either their Pictures or Images to be made lest they might be occasion to their Friends from whom they expected Love and Honour to entertain too lâ—w and unworthy thoughts of them Much less ought Princes to permit any Chair of State to be placed in the Presencâ— Chamber for fear of bringing down the representations of them to the uncouth figure of four or five sticks put awkwardly together But this is not all § 3. On this account he saith p. 59. it seems much more reasonable for him to worship God by prostrating himself before the Sun or any of the Heavenly Bodies nay to an Ant or a Fly than to a Picture or an Image And I have more kindness for him if he should do it than to suppose him therefore as he supposes himself p. 70. to be a Heathen Idolater unless he take the Sun for a God Philosophy and Experience having given me so much insight into the nature of humane actions as to know they go whither they are intended and Religion so much Charity as to believe his intent was onely to worship the true God by it But why does it seem much more reasonable for him to worship God by prostrating to the Sun nay to an Ant or a Fly than to a Picture or an Image The reason he says is because in those he sees great evidences of the Power and Wisdom and Goodness of God which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to his mind so then now it seems that analogy doth not always tend highly to the dishonour of the Deity nor suggest mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship whereas a Picture or an Image can have nothing worthy admiration unless it be the Skill of the 〈…〉 If this be the reason he ought in my Judgment to have given the precedence to the Ant and the Fly or to the Ape the Ass and the Tyger brought in by him in a former comparison for all these have two degrees of Perfection beyond the Sun viz. Life and Sense If the danger be that he is more like
by it to the Bread and Wine or any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood Will the Doctor be so unkind as to make her say that no Reverence at all is due to that Holy Sacrament that this of all things in the World ought not to have been objected against them What! will he make them fall below Calvin in their respect to that Sacrament who saith it is to be received with reverence as the Pledge of our Holy Union with Christ Is it not time now to remind him as I promised above p. 138. how his Beloved Constantinopolitan Fathers call it an Honourable Image of Christ's quickning Body And thereupon invite all those and among them the Doctor unless he will leave himself out as he did these words all those I say to rejoyce and exult with confidence who desire worship and offer it for the Salvation both of Soul and Body Though He stile me very ineptly a Revolted Protestant yet I have so much respect for those learned Persons who made that Rubrick as to think they meant by Adoration what the word now signifieth by use in English that is Divine Worship proper to God alone and not that no more Reverence should be used towards the Bread and Wine in the Church than there is to the Remainder of it at home by some seemingly Revolted Presbyterians I cannot believe them to be truly Sons of the Church of England Now what the sense of that Church was and still is unless the Doctor will have us suppose these Modern Divines to have prevaricated from their Fathers Bishop Jewel tells us in these words We only adore Christ saith he as very God but we Worship also and Reverence the Sacrament we Worship the Word of God we worship all other like things in such Religious wise to Christ belonging The same is witnessed by Bishop Morton Under the degree of Divine Worship we our selvs yield as much to the Eucharist as St. Austin did to Baptisme where he said Epist 164. We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is Nor is this delivered by them as their private Opinion but as the sense of the Church of England as appears by their words And if you ask how they can excuse themselves from Idolatry you have the Answer of Bishop Jewel that the Sacraments be adored but the whole honour resteth not in them but is passed over from them to the things signified So that it seems I was not much miâ—â—â—ken when to paralel the Reverence given by Catholicks to Images I instanced in that which is given by Protestants to the Sacramental signs by kneeling at the Eucharist for they do not only allow a like Reverence but maintain it also with the same distinction Nor will the Doctor ever be able to perswade his Parishioners out of it till he can make them leave their usual Expression when they speak of this Sacrament that they do not receive it as Bread but as the Body of Christ § 6. The 6th and last Instance was of Reverence given to the Altar by bowing to it a practise of great Antiquity as Dr. Heylin shows in his defence of the Modern Practise of it in the Church of England against Burton p. 25. This Dr. Still saith is of the same nature with the putting off our Hats while we are in the Church And what is this to say Himself admits a Reverence to Holy Places p. 105. and surely the Church the House of God is one of them Here then we find him incline to admit a Reverence due to the Altar and if it be of the same nature with putting off our Hats while we are in the Church as he doth the one so he may lawfully do the other But then as if he had granted too much he presently draws back and tells us This is only determining a natural act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship which as far as I can understand the words is not of the same nature with putting off our Hats when we are in the Church but with going to Church when the Bell tolls which is to give no more Reverence to the Altar than to the Bell. But who can unfold the Riddle and tell me what he means by a natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship If he mean by that way the local situation of the Altar in the East which was the way the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship and that Nature teacheth us to direct our Worship that way although the Altar for example in St. Andrew's may serve for such a determination because it is placed in the East yet he must give another reason why those in the Savoy bow towards the Altar where it is seated in the North because it doth not there determin a Natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship which was towards the East But if he mean by that way a like manner of Reverence to the Altar as was used to be given by the Ancient Christians he will find in the aforecited place out of Dr. Heylin that they acknowledged an honour and veneration due to the Holy Altar and testified that honour by bowing and kneeling to it In fine whatever the meaning of the words be to speak to the practise it self either he condemns those of the Churcâ— of England who profess and testify their reverence to the Altar by bowing to it for Idolatry or no. If he do they are at age to answer for themselves If he do not an Inferiour or Relative honour may be given to it for his sake whose Throne it is under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone and as the allowing this will render him a true Son of the Church of England so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ will make him in this point a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome whose Councils have decreed that we are not to give to the Images of Christ and his Saints Latria or the worship due to God but a honourary respect and veneration as to the Books of H. Scripture and other Holy things But what himself may justly fear should success crown his endeavours in putting scruples into poor simple Mens minds to with draw them from the Reverence they owe to the Sacraments of Christ his Saints his Name his Image his Altars and such like Holy things relating to his Worship is that the Event whatever the design be of his labours will be no other as those Pious and Learned Doctors of Rhemes long since observed and we see at this Day in a great measure fulfilled than to inure Men by degrees to lose all honour and respect to Christ himself to abolish all true Religion out of the World and to make them plain Atheists The Chair of State is not more an Ornament to the King's Palace than the
present in his Ascension after he was intercepted from his Disciples sight by a Cloud Was he not so present before he opened the Eyes of the two blind Men who sate by the way side Matth. 20. 30. And is he not believed by all Christians to be so present at the right hand of his Father And might none of these worship him because they could not see him If he pretend a difference in the cases because in all them he was the Object of sense either before or after but as he exists in the Sacrament he can be no Object of sense he must grant his presence there to be a matter of pure Revelation and so falls upon the other edge of his distinction that in matters of pure Revelation where the matter proposed to our Faith can be no Object of sense there firm credit is to be given to the divine Revelation and worship also suitable to his presence But to go one step further In case a thing be knowable by evidence of sense May it not also be made known by Divine Revelation And will not God's Revelation ascertain us as well if not much better than our Eyes Who saw the World rise out of nothing No less a Philosopher than Aristotle not to speak of others held it never had any beginning And yet what Christian does not believe it had more firmly upon the account of God's Revelation than if he had been present in some corner of the spatium Imaginarium and beheld the foundation of it with his Eyes Upon the whole then which way soever the Doctor turn himself unless he will maintain what he seems indeed to suppose all along in this discourse that we are to give more credit to our sense then to God's revealed word he must confess that wherever there is a Divine Revelation of Christ's presence which at present he supposes in the Sacrament there is the same if not greater Reason to believe and worship him than if he saw him as clearly as the Wise-men did in the Manger or the Thief upon the Cross And consequently that he was but too too Prodigal in granting that supposing a like Divine Revelâ—â—ion for Christ's presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as for his being true God yet there would not be the same reason to worship him there as when he dwelt visibly among us All that he could devise to elude the Parallel argument I urged from the Pen of an Arrian Viz. that the Argument he brings to conclude Catholicks to be Idolaters for their adoration of Christ in the Eucharist would be of as much force from the Arrians against the adoration of him as God All I say he could devise to elude this argument with standing to the true state of the Question and supposing as he does a like divine Revelation for both was to say there was not an express command to worship him in the Eucharist which how pitiful an Evasion it is I have shewed above And yet as pitiful as it is it may serve well enough to make an unwary Reader believe he concludes all the Papists in the World Idolaters for worshipping our Lord Christ himself in the Sacrament But why it should do so when nothing less than an express Prohibition could make them Idolaters in the matter of Images I cannot imagin § 6. The Second Proof he brings to show that Supposing a like divine Revelation for Christ's being present in the Sacrament as for his being true God yet there is not the same reason of adoration is p. 112. because the One he saith gives us a sufficient reason of our Worship viz. his Divinity but the other doth not because all that He can believe then present supposing Transubstantiation is the Body of Christ and that is not the Object of our Adoration But this is altogether as weak as the former for however that be all he can believe and more than he does believe God encrease his Faith yet Catholicks believe much more viz. that together with his Body in the Eucharist are present his Soul his Person his Divinity in a word whole Christ and to his Person it is they terminate their worship as hypostatically united with his Body For as the Dr. himself saith very well p. 114. although the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason of 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 To elude this Answer for now his chiefest hope consists in seeking out ways to escape instead of rejoining to it upon the supposition of Transubstantiation he falls to dispute down-right against Transubstantiation it self where he tells the Reader that this Answer of Christ's Body being hypostatically united with the Divine Nature is indeed a good argument to prove the Body of Christ cannot be there by Transubstantiation And I desire the Reader to be very attentive to the argument as it is propos'd by the Doctor for otherwise perhaps it may cost him the labour of a second reading If the Bread saith he p. 113. 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 Therefore the Body of Christ cannot be in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation This is his argument which he calls a Good One. I am sure I may call it a sublime One and so sublime that there wants only an Adversary of the same humour with Mr. J. S.'s to set it out for a notable piece of new Mystical Divinity For I do verily believe that neither Harphius nor Rusbrochius nor the profound Mother Juliana have any thing in their writings so seemingly un intelligible and contradictory as this discourse of the Doctor 's is really such For beside the hard words of hypostatical union consecrated Elements Conversion into the Person of Christ c. which quite put down Mr. J. S.'s vulgar ones of Potentiality Actuality Actuation supervene subsume c. First He will have it to be the same Body because it is that Body which is hypostatically united with the divine nature Then he will have it not to be the same Body because Christ would have as many Bodies as there are Elements consecrated And then again it must be the same Body because all the Accidents of Bread belong to that Body which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature But this way of refining a discourse into Mystical Divinity is proper only to confute demonstrations and the argument I have to deal with is so far from that
divine ought abstractedly considered to have any true divine honour given it And what will he infer from hence That therefore he cannot be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving true divine honour to the humane nature of Christ considered alone or abstractedly in the Sacrament Much good may it do him But what is this to the purpose Do Catholicks adore the Humanity of Christ alone or abstractedly in the Sacrament Do they separate or abstract in their minds and thoughts his Body from his Person when they adore him there No more than the Wise-men did when they adored him in the Manger or the Apostles when they adored him after his Resurrection Or than he is adored now at the right hand of his Father All those Precisions and Considerations the Doctor speaks of are only in the Heads of the Schoolmen when they are disputing not in the minds of Christians when they are adoring The Object they adore whether in the Sacrament or out of it is the only-begotten Son of God made Man without separating or abstracting one nature from another any more than we do the King's Body from his Soul when we worship him And as Mr. Thorndike very well observes whosoever proposeth not to himself the consideration of the Body and Blood of Christ as it is of it self and in it self a meer Creature which he that doth not on purpose cannot do cannot but conceive it as he believes it to be being a Christian And consequently the primary reason of his adoration is the divinity there present I but says the Doctor 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 what may this mean Have the Niceties and Precisions of the Schools so perplex'd his understanding that he hath lost the very first Notions of Christianity Is it not Christ's Body Are they not the very words of Christ This is my Body And is not Christ true God How comes it to pass then that he hath no other reason to worship him in the Sacrament but because his Body is present in it This indeed is the reason why his Divinity as hypostatically united to his Humane Nature is present in the Sacrament but the reason of his being adored there is his Divinity and not his Body Philosophy tells us that it is one thing that makes a Man to be in a place and another that makes him to be worshipped in that place and yet he would not be worshipped there for this latter unless he were present by vertue of the former The speculation may not seem so clear to such as are not vers'd in the Schools but an example will make it plain There is a Preacher in the World much admired and honoured by his Party in the Pulpit That which makes him to be present there or is the reason of his presence there is his Quantity or Bodily Dimensions but what he is admired for and honoured is his Wit his Eloquence his Zeal against Papists c. These are the Qualities for which I hear he is applauded and I easily believe it But if my Adversaries discourse be good whom I take to have as much Eloquence and to be of as subtil a wit and of as flaming a Zeal as the other I must tell his Admirers they are in a very great Errour as to the reason of their admiration and I doubt not but to make it appear upon his own Principles For I find it generally agreed by all the old Philosophers and by the Doctors also at present of both Universities that Quantity or corporal dimension considered alone ought not to have civil worship given to it and I find it very uncertain whether the Body it self though united to the Soul ought abstractedly considered to have any true civil honour given it But I am most certain that the only reason why he is present in the Pulpit is his Quantity or Bodily dimensions Therefore if they will honour or admire him in the Pulpit it must be upon the account of his bodily presence or corporal dimensions and not for those other great parts and abilities for which they have hitherto admired him in that place for if they consider well they have no other reason to honour him as in the Pulpit but because his Body is present in it And I am of Opinion that if any thing can cure them of their Error it will be the Parallel Argument he brings against the worship of Christ in the Sacrament Viz. that because worship must be given him there upon the account of his bodily presence as the condition why his divinity as united with his humane Nature is there present Therefore his Bodily Presence and not his Divinity united to it must be the reason of adoration As for what he adds p. 127. That supposing Transubstantiation his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no End I suppose he means by that particular manner the hypostatical union with his humane nature wherever it is And doth it not well become a Master in Israel to affirm that such a presence of the Divinity would be to no end when and where himself supposes the Body of Christ to be really and substantially present There wants but one step more to deny that the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature to the Humane was necessary at all either for Christ's offering himself upon the Cross or now at the right hand of his Father for although the Ceremony of offering him upon the Altar be performed by the Priest yet Christ himself is there also both Offerer and Oblation Priest and Victim as the Fathers teach S. Greg. Niss Orat. 1. de Resurr S. Ambr. in Ps 31. 1. Chrysost Ho. 24. in 1. ad Cor. Well but the Divinity of Christ makes not the least manifestation of it self in the Sacrament to our carnal senses And must this hinder us from giving him the worship due to his Person Is it not enough that we know Him to be there by divine Revelation as the Doctor at present supposes we do What other manifestation had the Divinity of Christ made of it self to the Baptist when before the appearing of the Holy Ghost he refused to Baptize him An evident sign that he reverenc'd him as the Son of God Matth. 3. 13 14. Did not our Saviour himself when St. Peter confessed him to be Christ the Son of the living God declare that Flesh and Blood had not revealed this to him but his Father which is in Heaven And upon that very account pronounce Him Blessed Matt. 16. 17. But it seems the Blessing is now revers'd and instead of Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed Jo. 20. 29. We must now say Blessed are they who will not believe unless they see Dr. St. p. 561. n. 5. And what will
not content to make a God of This Both Passible and Mortal Jesus try To thrust Him into one substantial knot With his Eternal sire who Him begot 228 Two yet not Two but One these Two must be Nay and a Third into the knot they bring The Spirit must come in to make up Three And yet these Three be but one single Thing Thus fast and loose they play or ev'n and odd And We a juggling Trick must have for God 229 If God be One then let Him be so still Why jumble we we know not what together Did all the World not know their God untill This old blind Age discover'd Him Did neither The Patriarks believe nor Prophets see Aright because They took not One for Three 231 Let Love and Duty make of Christ as high And Glorious a Thing as Wit can reach Provided that against the Deity No Injury nor Sacriledge they preach If only on such terms He lov'd may be Him to neglect is Piety say we And then a little after he concludes 234 For If your Faith relies on Men who are Themselves but founded and built up of dust If yoâ— by Reason's Rule disdain to square Yoâ—r Pâ—ety and take your God on Trust Which Heaven forbid You only are a Prize Unto Impostor's fair-tongu'd Fallacies Thus doth this Ingenious Person represent an Heretick in his true Colours arguing against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation upon the Principles with which Doctor St. 〈◊〉 the Doctrin of Transubstantiation aâ—d in terms so equivalent that the Dr. seems but to have resolv'd into Prose what the other wrote in Verse as may appear from this following Parallel 'T is Ignorance and Madness saith the Cerinthian Heretick to believe that God can be Three and One and that Christ is God Stanz 213. 220. 'T is Folly and Madness saith Dr. St. to believe Transubstantiation He becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man p. 120. The Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are monstrous Prodigies of abused Faith saith the Cerinthian Stanz 213. Transubstantiation saith D. St. is so strange and sudden a change that he can hardly say that God becoming Man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God p. 120. The Cerinthian affirms of the Trinity and Incarnation that they are against all reason and founded on Contradictions Stanz 214. Dr. St. affirms of Transubstantiation that it is absurd and for a Man to believe it he must swallow the greatest Contradictions to Sense and Reason Imaginable p. 130. In a word the Cerinthian makes his Sense and Reason to be the Rule of his Faith Stanz 234. And Dr. St. will believe nothing that seems to contradict them p. 561. Only the Cerinthian affirms the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation to transcend Pagan-blasphemy which I do not see yet that Dr. St. â—ath ventured to say of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Perhaps he will reply to this Parallel that the difficulties the Cerinthian objects against the Trinity and Incarnation are but seeming Contradictâ—ons but those in the Point of Transubstantiation are real ones but then he must grant according to his Principles that whilst they seem to be Contradictions they are not to be believed by those to whom they seem so that is by the unlearned who are the greatest part Or if they may notwithstanding believe those Mysteries they may much rather believe that of Transubstantiation since it seems a greater Contradiction that the very self same Nature should be whole and undivided in three distinct Persons than that the same Body should be in many places and that the Invisible Word should be made Flesh than that Bread should be converted into that Flesh How Dr. St. will extricate himself I know not but the way which Dr. Beaumont takes to secure the Soul from being startled with these seeming Contradictions is to introduce her Angel Guardian conducting her to Christ's Catholick Church the Ground and Pillar of Truth And upon this Ground it is For in his Preface he recants aforehand if any thing throughout the whole Poem should happen against his Intention to prove discord to the Consent of Christ's Catholick Church that he makes the Angel perswade his Pupil to contemn all the seeming Contradictions which crafty and subtil Wits object against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament if not against Transubstantiation it self And because the Book is not every where to be found as not having been so often Printed as Dr. St.'s because there is no Prophane Invective in it against the Persons and Lives of Gods Saints I shall venture to Transcribe another parcel of Verses out of it so proper to the present subject as if written on purpose by the Ingenious Author to crush in the Egg those secret workings of Atheism and Irreligion which the aforesaid Principle is apt to breed in the Wits of this Age under so colourable a pretence as that of not being fool'd out of their Sense and Reason 74 When Jesus by his Water cleansed had His Servant's Feet and by his Grace their Hearts Shewing what Preparation must be made By all who ever mean to have their Parts In his pure Banquet down he sits again And them with Miracles doth entertain And then having described the Institution of the Sacrament he goes on 81 Sweet Jesu O how can thy World forget Their Royal Saviour and his Bounty who Upon their Tables his own self hath set Who in their Holy Cups fails not to flow And in their Dishes lie Did ever Friend So sure a Token of his Love commend 82 Infallibly there dost Thou flow and lie Though mortal Eyes discover no such thing Quick-sighted Faith reads all the Mystery And humble Pious Souls doth easily bring Into the Wonder 's Cabinet and there Makes all the Jewels of this Truth appear 83 Shee generously dares on God rely And trust his Word how strange so e're it be If Jesus once pronounces This is my Body and Blood Far far be it cries she That I should think my dying Lord would cheat Me in his Legacy of Drink and Meat 84 His Word is most Omnipotent and He Can do what e're he says and more than I Can or would understand What is 't to me If He transcends Humane Capacity Surely it well becomes Him so to do Nor were He God if he could not do so 85 Let Him say what He will I must deny Him to be God or else believe His Word Me it concerneth not to verify What he proclaims I only must afford Meek Credit and let Him alone to make Good whatsoever He is pleas'd to speak 86 Gross and unworthy Spirits sure They be Who of their Lord such mean Conceptions frame That parting from his dearest Consorts He No Tokens of his Love did leave with Them But simple Bread and Wine a likely Thing And well-becoming Heavens Magnificent King 88 Ask me not then How can the Thing be done What power