adored because it was instituted to be received This cannot be otherwise understood than as relating to the Sacrament and so that whatever it be must be granted to be the Object of Adoration By the Sacrament saith Cardinal Pallavicini is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ and the Accidents The Worship then being confessed to be Adoration which is due to God alone and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object the Question now is Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament doth justify that Adoration Our Author saith He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine p. 9. Then I say by his own confession if it be only Bread he commits Idolatry for the Adoration he cannot deny But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions which to the People sound very well but have no sincere meaning for what is it he understands by his Breaden God If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread we do not charge him with it but if it be what we believe it to be the Substance of Bread but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it All that can excuse them is the Supposition and whether that will or not is now to be consider'd 1. If it be not true themselves grant it to be Idolatry The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher and Costerus are so well known to the purpose that I shall not repeat them And Catharinus a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host altho the Person through a Mistake believes it Consecrated And he quotes St. Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion and gives this Reason for it because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament but as he is under the Species and therefore if he be not so present a Creature hath Divine Worship given it As those were guilty of Idolatry who worshipped any Creatures of old supposing God to be there as that he was the Soul of the World They were not excused saith he that they thought they worshipped but one God because they worshipped him as present in such a manner as he was not And this Book of his he saith in the Review of it was seen and approved by the Pope's Order by their Divines at Paris 2. If the Bread were taken to be God our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry for that were to worship a breaden God Yet here would be a Mistake and a gross one yet the Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry as he confesses Why then should the other Mistake excuse them when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there but the Body of Christ to be under the Species Yes say they then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship But when the Bread is supposed to be God it must be supposed not to be a Creature There is no Answer to be given in this Case but that the Bread really is a Creature whatsoever they imagined and if this Mistake did not excuse neither can the other 2. Of Transubstantiation Three Things our Author goes upon with respect to this 1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it 2. He shews the possibility of it from God's Omnipotency 3. He argues against the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case from some parallel Instances as he thinks 1. He believes Jesus Christ made his words good pronounced at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful words changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests This is a very easy way of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation And from no better Ground to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock a Vine a Door because the words are every jot as clear and then call in God's Omnipotency which is as effectual to make them good I confess these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation that if I had never heard of it I should never have thought of it from these or any other words of Scripture i. e. not barely considering the sound of words but the Eastern Idioms of speaking the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body without any Objection made against it by his Disciples The Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh and withal if these words be literally and strictly understood they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words and the strict Rules of Interpretation Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd for then all that can be infer'd from these words is that when Christ spake these words The Bread was his Body But either Christ meant the Bread by This or he did not if he did the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal Sense if he did not then by virtue of these words the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant when Christ said This is my Body This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation But several Divines of the Church of Rome understood themselves better and have confessed That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words as it were easy to shew if it had not been lately done already It is enough here to observe that Vasquez confesseth it of Scotus Durandus Paludanus Ockam Cameracensis and himself yields that they do not and cannot signify expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can This is my Body literally signify this is changed into my Body If that Proposition were literally true This is my Body it overthrows the change For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already 2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency can make his Words good We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency but we may their familiar way of making use of it
to help them out when Sense and Reason fail them And therefore Cajetan well said We ought not to dispute about God's Absolute Power in the Doctrine of the Sacraments being things of such constant use and that it is a foolish thing to attribute to the Sacrament all that God can do But we must consider what he saith against Sense and Reason For the believing this Mystery he does not at all think it meet for any Christian to appeal from Christ's Words to his own Senses or Reason for the examining the Truth of what he hath said but rather to submit his Senses and Reason to Christ's Words in the obsequiousness of Faith What! whether we know this to be the meaning of Christ's Words or not And thus we shall be bound to submit to every absurd Interpretation of Scripture because we must not use our Senses or Reason for examining the Truth of what is said there Can any thing be plainer said in Scripture than that God hath Eyes and Ears and Hands Must now every Man yield to this in the obsequiousness of Faith without examining it by Principles of Common Reason And we think we are therefore bound to put another Sense upon those Expressions because they imply a Repugnancy to the Divine Perfections Why not then where something is implied which is repugnant to the Nature of Christ's Body as well as to our Senses But the Question about judging in this Matter by our Senses is not as our Author is willing to suppose viz. Whether our Senses are to be believed against a clear and express Divine Revelation but whether the Judgment of our Senses and Reason is not to be made use of for finding out the true sense of this Revelation And we think there is great reason for it 1. Because we have no more certain way of judging the Substance of a Body than by our Senses We do not say our Senses go beyond the Accidents but we say our Senses by those Accidents do assure us of the bodily Substance or else it were impossible for us to know there is any such thing in the World 2. Because Christ did himself appeal to the judgment of his Disciples Senses concerning the Truth of his own Body after the Resurrection Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Now we think we have Reason to allow the same Criterion which Christ himself did about the very same Body Unless he had then told his Disciples that there was to be another supernatural manner of Existence of the same Body concerning which their Senses were not to be Judges 3. Some of the most important Articles of the Christian Faith do suppose the Judgment of our Senses to be true As about the Truth of Christ's Body whether he had really a Body or only the outward Accidents and Appearance of a Body if he had not he did not really suffer upon the Cross and so the Sacrifice of Propitiation there offered up to the Father for the Sins of Mankind is lost There was a great Controversy in St. John's Time and afterwards Whether Christ had any real Body Those who denied it brought Revelation for it those who asserted it proved it by their Senses as S. John himself That which we have seen and heard and our hands have handled c. He doth not tell Men they must submit their Sense and Reason to the pretence of Revelation but they ought to adhere to the Judgment of their Senses concerning the Reality of Christ's Body Since therefore Christ himself appealed to it the Apostles made use of it without any Caution or Limitation we have great reason to rely still on the Judgment of our Senses concerning the same Object viz. the Body of Christ. 3. But we must now consider his Instances to overthrow the Judgment of our Senses and Reason in this Point 1. He believes Christ to be God though to Senses he seemed nothing but Man Do we ever pretend to judg of Christ's Divinity by our Senses How then can this be pertinent when our only Dispute is about judging his Body and the Substance of Bread and Wine by them And yet the Senses were of great use as to the proof of his Divinity by the Miracles which he wrought which if they had been like the pretended Miracles in Transubstantiation could have convinced no Man because they could never see them 2. He believes the Holy Ghost descended on our Saviour though Senses or Reason could discover it to be nothing but a Dove If there were no reason to judg otherwise the Judgment of Sense were to be followed but since the Scripture declares it was the Holy Ghost descending as a Dove we have no reason to question that Revelation For we do not pretend that our Senses are so far Judges of Divine Appearances as to exclude the possibility of God's assuming the shape and figure of his Creature when he pleases by moulding the substance of a real Body into such a Representation Thus we do not deny the possibility of an appearance of the Holy Ghost under Bread and Wine if God thought fit any more than under a Dove and in this Case we do not pretend that our Senses can exclude the presence of a Spirit under the Elements but that is very different from the present Case for here the Substance is supposed to be gone and nothing but Accidents remaining and no spiritual Presence of Christ is denied but that of his Body the very same Body which suffered on the Cross. 3. He believes the Man who appeared to Joshua ch 5. 13. and the three Men to Abraham Gen. 18. were really and substantially no Men notwithstanding all the Information and Evidence of Sense to the contrary from their Colour Features Proportion Talking Eating and many others And what follows from hence but that Spiritual Invisible Substances may be under the appearance of Bodies and that our Senses cannot be Judges of them Which is not our Question but Whether Bodies can be so present after the manner of Spirits as to lose all the natural Properties of Bodies and whether a Material Substance can be lost under all the Accidents proper to it so as our Senses cannot be proper Judges of one by the other But our Author seems to grant this in a natural way of the Existence of a Body but he saith Christ gives to his Body a supernatural manner of Existence by which being left without extension of Parts and rendred independent of Place it may be one and the same in many Places at once and whole in every part of the Symbols and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies This is to me a Mystery beyond all comprehension by Sense or Reason and there is certainly a great difference between governing our Understandings and giving them up as we must do if this Doctrine hold good for it overthrows any
fixed Principles of Reason in Mankind concerning the Nature and Properties of Bodies For 1. We must still suppose the Body of Christ to be the very same individual Body which suffered upon the Cross but if it have no extension of Parts and be reckoned independent upon Place it ceaseth to be a Body It is granted that after a natural way of Existence a Body cannot be in more Places than one but let the way of Existence be what it will if it be a Body it must be finite if finite it must be limited and circumscribed if it be circumscribed within one place it cannot be in more places for that is to make it circumscribed and not circumscribed undivided from it self and divided from it self at the same time Which is a manifest Contradiction which doth not depend only on Quantity or Extension but upon the essential Unity of a Body 2. If it be possible for a Body to be in several Places by a Supernatural Existence why may not the same Body be in several Places by a Natural Existence Is it not because Extension and Circumscription are so necessary to it that in a natural Way it can be but in one Place Then it follows that these are essential Properties of Bodies so that no true Body can be conceived without them 3. This Supernatural Existence doth not hinder the Body's being individually present in on Place My meaning is this A Priest Consecrates an Host at London and another at York is the Body of Christ at London so present there by virtue of Consecration as to be present at York too by this Supernatural Existence What then doth the Consecration at York produce If it be not then its Presence is limited to the Host where the Consecration is made and if it be so limited then this supernatural Existence cannot take off its Relation to Place 4. The same Body would be liable to the greatest Contradictions imaginable For the same Body after this supernatural way of Existence may not only be above and below within and without near and far off from it self but it may be hot and cold dead and alive yea in Heaven and Hell at once 5. What is it that makes it still a Body after this supernatural way of Existence c. if it lose extension and dependency on Place If it be only an aptitude to extension when that supernatural Existence is taken off then it must either be without Quantity or with it If it be without quantity how can it be a Body If with quantity how is it possible to be without Extension 6. This confounds all the differencs of Greater and Less as well as of Distance and Nearness For upon this Supposition a thing really greater may be contained within a less for the whole Original Body of Christ with all its Parts may be brought within the compass of a Waser and the whole be in every part without any distance between Head and Feet 7. This makes Christ to have but one Body and yet to have as many Bodies as there are consecrated Hosts No saith our Author This supernatural manner of Existence is without danger of multiplying his Body or making as many Christs as Altars P. 11. But how this can be is past all human Understanding For every Consecration hath its Effect which is supposed to be the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ. Now when a Priest at London converts the Bread into the Body of Christ there he doth it not into the Body of Christ at York but the Priest there doth it therefore the Body of Christ at London is different from that at York or else the Conversion at London would be into the Body as at York But if not what is the substantial Term of this substantial Change where nothing but an accidental Mode doth follow If there be any such Term whether that must not be a Production of something which was not before and if it be so Christ must have as many new Bodies as there are Consecrations 8. This makes that which hath no particular Subsistence of its own to be the Subject of a substantial Change for this is the condition of Christ's Body whatever its manner of Existence be after the Hypostatical Union to the Divine Nature For when Bellarmin Petavius and others of their greatest Divines undertake against Nestorius to explain the Hypostatical Union they tell us it consists in this that the Human Nature loseth its proper Subsistence and is assumed into the Subsistence of the Divine Nature From whence I infer That the Body of Christ having no proper Subsistence of its own there can be no substantial Change into that which hath no proper Subsistence but into that which hath and consequently the Change must be into the Divine Nature principally from whence it will follow the Elements losing their Subsistence upon Consecration the Divinity must be united hypostatically to them as to the Human Nature and so there will be as many Hypostatical Unions as there are Consecrations And so this Doctrine not only confounds Sense and Reason but the Mysteries of Christ's Incarnation too Which I think is sufficient for this Head VI. Of Merits and Good Works FOR the true stating this Controversy we are to observe 1. That we do not charge those of the Church of Rome That they believe Christ's Death and Passion to be ineffectual and insignificant and that they have no dependence on the Merits of his Sufferings or the Mercy of God for attaining Salvation but that they are to be saved only by their own Merits and Good Works as the Misrepresenter saith Pag. 12. 2. We do not charge them with denying the necessity of Divine Grace in order to Merit or with asserting that they can merit independently thereupon 3. We do by no means dispute about the Necessity of Good Works in order to the Reward of another Life or assert that Christ's Merits will save Men without working out their own Salvation but do firmly believe that God will judg Men according to their Works The Question then is Whether the Good Works of a just Man as our Author expresses it are truly meritorious of Eternal Life Which he affirms but qualifies with saying That they proceed from Grace and that through God's Goodness and Promise they are truly meritorious But the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against those who deny the Good Works of justified Persons to be truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and of Eternal Life Here then lies the Point in difference 1. Whether such Good Works can be said to be truly meritorious 2. Whether those who deny it deserve an Anathema for so doing As to what relates to God's Acceptance and Allowance and his Goodness and Promise we freely own all that he saith about it and if no more be meant what need an Anathema about this matter There must therefore be something beyond this when Good Works are
Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians were I hope the former Discourse hath shewed their Doctrines and Practices are not so very like those of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians that their Cases should be made so parallel but as in his Conclusion he hath summed up the substance of his Representations so I shall therein follow his Method only with this difference that I shall in one Column set down his own Representations of Popery and in the other the Reasons in short why we cannot embrace them Wherein Popery consists as Represented by this Author 1. IN using all external Acts of Adoration before Images as Kneeling Praying lifting up the Eyes burning Candles Incense c. Not merely to worship the Objects before them but to worship the Images themselves on the account of the Objects represented by them or in his own Words Because the Honour that is exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent 2. In joining the Saints in Heaven together with Christ in Intercession for us and making Prayers on Earth to them on that Account P. 5. 3. In allowing more Supplications to be used to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ For he denies it to be an idle Superstition to repeat Ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster 4. In giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Such as placing them upon Altars burning Wax-Candles before them carrying them in Processions to be seen touched or humbly kissed by the People Which are the known and allowed Practices in the Church of Rome P. 8. 5. In adoring Christ as present in the Eucharist on the account of the Substance of Bread and Wine being changed into that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. P. 10. 6. In believing the Substance of Bread and Wine by the Words of Consecration to be changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of Bread and Wine remaining as before P. 10. 7. In making good Works to be truly meritorious of Eternal Life P. 13. 8. In making Confession of our â—â—s to a Priest in order to Absoluâ—on P. 14. 9. In the use of Indulgences for taking away the Temporal Punishments of sin remaining due after the Guilt is remitted 10. In supposing that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the Temporal Pain which by order of God's Justice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the Eternal Pain are remitted P. 17. 11. In thinking the Scripture not fit to be read generally by all without Licence or in the Vulgar Tongues P. 19. 12. In allowing the Books of Tobit Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Maccabees to be Canonical P. 21. 13. In preferring the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before any other and not allowing any Translations into a Mother Tongue to be ordinarily read P. 24 26. 14. In believing that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any Private or Particular Person P. 28. 15. In relying upon the Authority of the present Church for the Sense of Scripture P. 29. 16. In receiving and believing the Churches Traditions as the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and assenting to them with Divine Faith just as he doth to the Bible P. 31 32. 17. In believing that the Present Guides of the Church being assembled in Councils for preserving the Unity of the Church have an Infallible Assistance in their Decrees P. 38. 18. In believing the Pope to be the Supreme Head of the Church under Christ being Successour to S. Peter to whom he committed the care of his Flock P. 40. 41. 19. In believing that Communion in both Kinds is an indifferent thing and was so held for the first Four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept for Receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. and confirmed by Pope Gelasius P. 51. 20. In believing that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded on Scripture Authority and Reason P. 54 c. 21. In believing that to the saying of Prayers well and devoutly it is not necessary to have attention on the Words or on the Sense of Prayers P. 62. 22. In believing that none out of the Communion of the Church of Rome can be saved and that it is no uncharitableness to think so P. 92. 23. In believing that the Church of Rome in all the New Articles defined at Trent hath made no Innovation in matters of Faith P. 107. Our Reasons against it in the several Particulars 1. THou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image or any likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which being the plain clear and express Words of the Divine Law we dare not worship any Images or Representations lest we be found Transgressors of this Law Especially since God herein hath declared himself a Jealous God and annexed so severe a Sanction to it And since he that made the Law is only to interpret it all the Distinctions in the World can never satisfie a Mans Conscience unless it appear that God himself did either make or approve them And if God allow the Worship of the thing Represented by the Representation he would never have forbidden that Worship absolutely which is unlawful only in a certain respect 2. We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2. 1. And but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. For Christ is entred into Heaven it self now to appear in the Presence of God for us Heb. 9. 24. And therefore we dare not make other Intercessors in Heaven besides him and the distance between Heaven and us breaks off all Communication between the Saints there and us upon Earth so that all Addresses to them now for their Prayers are in a way very different from desiring others on earth to pray for us And if such Addresses are made in the solemn Offices of Divine Worship they join the Creatures with the Creator in the Acts and Signs of Worship which are due to God alone 3. Call upon me in the Day of Trouble I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Psal. 50. 15. When we pray to Our Father in Heaven as our Saviour commanded us we do but what both Natural and Christian Religion require us to do But when men pray to the Blessed Virgin for Help and Protection now and at the Hour of Death they attribute that to her which belongs only to God who is our Helper and Desender And altho Christ knew the Dignity of his Mother above all others he never gives the least encouragement to make such Addresses to her And to suppose her to have a share now in the Kingdom of Christ in Hea. ven as a Copartner with him is to advance a Creature to Divine Honour and to overthrow the true Ground of Christs Exaltation to his
Kingdom in Heaven which was His suffering on the Cross for us 4. And no man knoweth of the Sepulcher of Moses unto this day Deut. 34. 6. Why should God hide the Body of Moses from the People if he allowed giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Why should Hezekiah break in Pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel did burn Incense to it 2 Kings 18. 4. Especially when it was a Type or Representation of Christ himself and God had wrought many Miracles by it 5. Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of the Restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. And therefore in the Eucharist we adore him as sitting on the Right Hand of God but we dare not direct our Adoration to the Consecrated Host which we believe to be the Substance of Bread and Wine tho consecrated to a Divine Mystery and therefore not a fit Object for our Adoration 6. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. This is spoken of the Bread after Consecration and yet the Apostle supposes it to be Bread still and the Communion of his Body is interpreted by the next Words For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all Partakers of that one Bread v. 17. Which is very different from the Bread being changed into the very Body of Christ which is an Opinion that hath no Foundation in Scripture and is repugnant to the common Principles of Reason which God hath given us and exposes Christian Religion to the Reproach and Contempt of Jews Turks and Infidels 7. When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you say We are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do St. Luk. 17. 10. And therefore in no sense can our best Works be truly Meritorious of Eternal Lise Which consisting in the enjoyment of God it is impossible there should be any just Proportion or due Commensuration between our best Actions and such a Reward 8. And the Son said unto him Father I have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight St. Luke 15. 21. Where Confession to God is required because the Offence is against him but it is impossible for any Man upon earth to forgive those whom God doth not forgive And he alone can appoint the necessary Conditions of Pardon among which true Contrition and Repentance is fully declared but Confession to a Priest tho it may be useful for the ease of the Penitent is no where in Scripture made necessary for the Forgiveness of Sin 9. I said I will consess my Transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Psal. 32. 5. If God doth fully forgive thâ— Guilt of sin there remains nâ— Obligation to punishment foâ— whereever that is the guilt remains It is true God may no sometimes fully pardon but hâ— may reserve some temporal pâ— nishment here for his own Hoâ—our or the Chastisement of penitent Sinner But then whâ— have any men to do to preteâ— that they can take off what Gâ— thinks fit to lay on Can any Indâ—gences prevent pain or Sickness sudden Death But if Indulgenâ— be understood only with respeâ— to Canonical Penances they aâ— a most notorious and inexcuâ— ble Corruption of the Discipliâ— of the Ancient Church 10. For if when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life Rom. 5. 10. And therefore no Satisfaction to the Justice of God is now required from us for the Expiation of any remainder of Guilt For if Christ's Satisfaction were in it self sufficient for a total Remission and was so accepted by God what Account then remains for the Sinner to discharge if he perform the Conditions on his part But we do not take away hereby the Duties of Mortification Prayer Fasting and Alms c. but there is a difference to be made between the Acts of Christian Duties and Satisfaction to Divine Justice for the Guilt of Sin either in whole or in part And to think to joyn any Satisfactions of ours together with Christs is like joyning our hand with Gods in Creating or Governing the World 11. Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all Wisdom teaching and admonishing one another c. Coloss. 3. 16. How could that dwell richly in them which was not to be communicated to them but with great Caution How could they teach and admonish one another in a Language not understood by them The Scriptures of the New Testament were very early perverted and if this Reason were sufficient to keep them out of the Hands of the People certainly they would never have been published for common use but as prudently dispensed then as some think it necessary they should be now But we esteem it a part of our Duty not to think our selves wiser than Christ or his Apostles nor to deprive them of that unvaluable Treasure which our Saviour hath left to their use 12. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy-Ghost 2 Pet. 1. 21. Therefore where there is no Evidence of Divine Inspiration those Books cannot be made Canonical But the Jewish Church To whom the Oracles of God were committed never deliver'd these Books as any part of them being Written when Inspiration was ceased among them And it is impossible for any Church in the World to make that to be divinely inspired which was not so from the Beginning 13. But I say Have they not heard Yes verily their sound went into all the Earth and their Words unto the ends of the World Rom. 10. 18. Therefore the Intention of God was that the Gospel should be understood by all Mankind which it could never be unless it were translated into their several Languages But still the difference is to be observed between the Originals and Translations and no Church can make a Translation equal to the Original But among Translations those deserve the greatest esteem which are done with the greatest Fidelity and Exactness On which account our last Translation deserves a more particular Regard by us as being far more useful to our People than the Vulgar Latin or any Translation made only from it 14. Thy Word is a Lamp unto my Feet and a Light unto my Path Psalm 119. 105. Which it could never be unless it were sufficient for necessary direction in our way to Heaven But we suppose Persons to make use of the best means for understanding it and to be duely qualified for following its Directions without which the best Rule in the World can never attain its End And if the Scripture hath all the due Properties of a Rule of Faith it is unconceivable why it should be denied to be so unless men find they cannot justify their Doctrines and Practises by it and therefore are forced to
Divine Worship to it And St. Jerom as hot as he was against Vigâ—antius yet he utterly denied giving any Adoration to the Reliques of Martyrs It seems then it is very possible to exceed that way 2. The Question then is Whether those Acts of Worship which are allowed in the Church of Rome do not go beyond due Veneration For it is unreasonable to suppose those who give it to believe those Reliques to be Gods and therefore it must be such a Worship as is given to them supposing them to be only Reliques of such Persons The Council of Trent decrees Honour and Veneration to be given to them but never determines what is due and what not it forbids all Excesses in drinking and eating in the visiting of Reliques but not a word of Excesses in worshipping of them unless it be comprehended under the name of Superstition But Superstition lies in something forbidden according to their notion of it therefore if there be no Prohibition by the Church there can be no Superstition in the Worship of them And if they had thought there had been any in the known Practices of the Church they would certainly have mentioned them and because they did not we ought in Reason to look on them as allowed And yet not only Cassander complains of the great Superstition about them but even the Walenbergii lately confess that the Abuses therein have not only been offensive to us but to themselves too But what saith our Representer to them He believes it damnable to think there 's any Divinity in the Reliques of Saints or to adore them with Divine Honour P. 7. But what is this adoring them with Divine Honour A true Representer ought to have told us what he meant by it when the whole Controversy depends upon it Is it only saying Mass to Reliques or believing them to be Gods Is there no giving Divine Honour by Prostration burning of Incense c. Nothing in expecting help from them Yes if it be from any hidden Power of their own But here is a very hard Question If a Man doth not believe it to be an intrinsick Power in the Reliques may a Man safely go to them Opis impetrandae causà as the Council of Trent saith in hopes of Relief from them Is it not possible for the Devil to appear with Samuel's true Body and make use of the Relique of a Saint to a very bad end Then say I no Reliques can secure Men against the Imposture of Evil Spirits who by God's Permission may do strange things with the very Reliques of Saints But God hath visibly worked by them saith our Author by making them Instruments of many Miracles and it is as easie for him to do it now P. 8 9. This is the force of all he saith To which I answer 1. It is a very bold thing to call in God's Omnipotency where God himself hath never declared he will use his Power for it is under his own Command and not ours But there is no Reason to deduce the Consequence of using it now because he hath done it formerly And that they may not think this is cavilling in us I desire them to read Pere Annat's Answer to the Jansenists pretended Miracle at Port Royal viz. of the Cure wrought by one of our Saviour's Thorns There he gives another account of such Miracles than would be taken from us But where he saith It is as much for the Honour of God's Name to work such Miracles now their own Authors will tell him the contrary and that there is no such Reason now as in former times when Religion was to be confirmed by them and when Martyrs suffered upon the sole account of the Truth of it and therefore their Reputation had a great Influence upon converting the unbelieving World 2. Suppose it be granted yet it proves not any Religious Worship to be given to them For I shall seriously ask an important Question Whether they do really believe any greater Miracles have ever been done by Reliques than were done by the Brazen Serpent And yet altho that was set up by God's own Appointment when it began to be worshipped after an undue manner it was thought fit by Hezekiah to be broken in pieces What now was the undue Worship they gave to it Did they believe the Serpent which could neither move nor understand was it self a God But they did burn Incense to it And did that make a God of it Suppose Men burn Incense to Reliques What then are they made Gods presently Suppose they do not but place them upon Altars carry them in Procession fall down before them with intention to shew the Honour they do them are not these as much as burning a little Incense which could not signifie so much Honour as the other do and it is hard then to make the one unlawful and not the other V. Of the Eucharist THere are two material Points under this Head which are to be examined because he endeavours to set them off with all the advantage he can viz. Adoration of the Host and Transubstantiation I. Of the Adoration of the Host. 1. The Question is far enough from being Whether it be lawful to commit Idolatry as our Representer puts it For the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes it lawful to commit Idolatry and to clear this our Author gravely saith He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry Pag. 9. As tho any Men ever owned it to be lawful Which is as if the Question were Whether such a Man committed Adultery and he should think to clear himself by saying he believed it unlawful to commit Adultery 2. The Question is not Whether Christ may be lawfully adored by us in the Celebration of the Eucharist which we are so far from denying that our Church requires our receiving it in the posture of Adoration 3. The true Question is Whether the Body of Christ being supposed to be present in the Host by Transubstantiation be a sufficient ground to give the same Adoration to the Host which they would do to the Person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Question will appear by these things 1. The Council of Trent first defined Transubstantiation and from thence inferred Adoration of the Host as is most evident to any one that will read the fourth and fifth Decrees of the 13th Session Nullus itaque dubitandi locus c. i. e. If Transubstantiation be true then Adoration follows It 's true the sixth Canon only speaks of Christ being there worshipped but that ought to be compared with the first second and fourth Canons where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is fully set down as the Foundation of that Adoration 2. The Adoration is not fixed on the Person of Christ as separate from the Host but as making one Object of Worship together with it And so the Council of Trent declares in the sixth Decree when it saith The Sacrament is never the less to be