defined by the Pope who is Head of the Church Others require the concurrence of a General Council and that this General Council be wholly confirmed by the Pope and doth proceed in the way of a Council Yet I am sure that none of these are wanting in the point of Transubstantiation For it hath been defined long ago both by Popes and Councils and received as lawfully defined by the whole Church Catholick that our Lord Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament by the conversion of the Elements into his Body and Blood and therefore for any thing the Doctor hath said in this matter I may securely give the same proper divine worship to him there which is due to his Person without fear of Idolatry § 3. But because the Doctor professes that the end why he took this way was a hope he had that it would abundantly add to the discovering the disparity between the worship given to the Person of Christ and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation I shall in the next Place show how he hath failed of this End and there will need no more to do it but to suppose a Socinian to take up his own argument and retort it upon him in the point of the worship of Christ as God And if he approve not my Answer for good it will be expected from him to give a better Behold then a Socinian proposing the argument in Dr. St.'s own Mood and Figure The chimes now ring all in to Church where I must give the same divine worship to Christ as to the Eternal Father But stay saith the Socinian how can I be secure that the Object is such as deserves divine worship If I should chance to believe my senses and hearken to my reason which can discover nothing in him but his Humanity I become an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad man Again if I consider the miraculous union of the Divine and Humane Nature in one Person it seems more strange to me that Man should be God than what the Papists say that Bread should be converted into his Body Must I rely on the bare words of Christ I and the Father are One but I am told by no less a Man than St. Peter that there are certain things in Scripture hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable deprave to their own perdition and therefore it must needs be dangerous for me to be too confident of the sense of it in so difficult a point I have heard there have been great disputes concerning the meaning of those words among the Primitive Christians And What a case am I in then if those words do not prove it Must I have recourse for the interpretation of them to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Alas what relief is this to my anxious mind For I see the World is full of disputes concerning the sense of their words as well as the Scriptures And I have heard of a late Author one Christophorus Sandius who in a Set-Treatise contends that the greatest part of those Fathers who are esteemed Orthodox deny the Son to be consubstantially One with the Father In this great confusion what ground of certainty have I to stand upon whereby to secure my mind from the Commission of a great sin While I am in this Labyrinth behold a kind Catholick offers to give me case and tells me these are doubts and scruples I ought not to trouble my self about The Authority of the present Church is sufficient for me But how shall I know what he means by the Authority of the present Church For I find Catholicks themselves are not agreed about that neither May I be sure if the Pope who is Head of the Church say it No not unless he defines it But may I be sure then No not unless a General Council concur But may I be sure if a General Council determins it Yes if it be confirmed wholly by the Pope and doth proceed in the way of a Council But how is it possible for me to judge of that when the intrigues of actions are so secret I see then if this or any of these be the only way of satisfaction I must forbear giving the same adoration to Christ as to the Father or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it Behold here the Doctor 's argument return'd upon himself and if it have any force against the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist it must have the same against the worship of Him as God And what a case is Christianity in if it depend upon his solving his own Argument But his scruples are not yet at an End CHAP. III. Of Dr. St.'s Scruple about the Host's not being consecrated for want of Intention in the Priest and His mistake of the true Reason of giving Adoration to Christ in the Sacrament § 1. THe Doctor 's next Scruple is about the Priest's Intention or rather not Intention to Consecrate and I confess I never met with any Man so unevenly scrupulous as he is that is so resolute in some cases were he of our mind as in saying his Prayers to the Sun and offering up the Host to an Image and yet so timorous in others as in this of not daring to adore Christ himself were he of our mind in the Point of Transubstantiation as supposed present in the Sacrament for fear the Host should not be consecrated through defect or malice of the Priest Suppose saith he p. 123. I am satisfied in the Point of Transubstantiation by which you see he set himself to fight against it at the same time that he told us he would suppose it it is not enough for me to know in general that there is such a change but I must believe particularly that very Bread to be changed so which I am to worship And by what means can I be sure of that It is a very evil thing to be troubled with too many scruples While the mind is perplexed with them the tongue runs unawares into Contradictions What is it else to say that he is to worship that very Bread which he must believe to be changed What common sense will charge him to honour that which he must believe not to be there This hath a relish of the old Leaven that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God And I see a custome of any thing though it be self-contradiction will turn by degrees into a second nature But to let this pass and attend to his scruple Here he would seem to return again to his former supposition of a like divine Revelation for Christ's Presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as for his being true God but in reality he does but seem to do it For from his whole discourse p. 111. c. where he supposes the same divine Revelation for Transubstantiation as for Christ's Divinity it is evident he speaks not only of Transubstantiation in general but also in particular What
means else his first Proof p. 111. that there is a plain command in Scripture for adoring Christ himself but not the least intimation given that we are to worship Him in the Elements supposing Him present there And again what means his 2d Proof p. 112. that the one gives us a sufficient reason of our worship viz. that he is the Eternal Son of God but the other doth not supposing the Bread to be really converted into the Body of Christ Who sees not here that the supposition is of the real and undoubted presence of Christ by the change of the Bread into his Body and that he does but endeavour to take back by parcels what he unwarily gave away in the lump when he raises doubts and scruples about the certainty of the change of this or that particular Bread But let him contradict himself never so much it makes nothing for us We must be guilty of Idolatry every time we hear Mass unless we can be sure that there is a change made of the bread into the Body of Christ in that very particular Host which is to be worshipped And by what means can we be sure of that For the Church saith he p. 124. having declared that it is necessary that he that consecrates be a Priest and that he have an intention of consecrating if either the Consecrator should chance to be no Priest because not rightly baptized which is no unheard of thing or not have an intention to consecrate they who worship the Host must be guilty of Idolatry every time he celebrates This is the mighty scruple which torments his mind and although the absurdness of the Assertion that another Man's defect or wickedness should make me incur the crime of Idolatry whether I will or no might suffice to make any reasonable Man to depose so chimaerical a scruple yet because he will not or cannot do it I would ask him what kind of certainty it is he would have If no less than certainty of Faith or evidence of sense will serve his turn I would ask again what like certainty hath a Child or a Husband that those Persons whom they take the one for his Father the other for his Wife are so in very deed I cannot believe him so rigid a Casuist as neither to permit a child to do his duty to his Mother's Husband till he have a Divine Revelation that he is his true Father nor a Husband to pay the conjugal debt unless he first have as much evidence as sense can give him that Lia is not put in the place of Rachel and when that is done perhaps a Divine Revelation may be necessary to know whether she be not married before to another Man for this also is no unheard of thing Who might not say here as the Disciples did on another occasion Matth. 19. 10. If the case of a Man with his Wife be so it is not expedient to marry But as I said before I cannot believe the Doctor will be so rigid in this Point But why then must we be tyed up from giving worship to Christ as present in this or that particular Host unless we be certain either by evidence of sense or by Divine Revelation that it is truly consecrated If the want of such a certainty ought to make us suspend our Worship I am sure the want of the like for true disposition ought to make the Communicant forbear receiving But if he speak of such a certainty as is usually found in the aforesaid humane Actions and others of the like nature why may not this suffice as well to secure Christians from sinning in their adoration as those other Persons in paying their respective duties Doth it happen oftner that a Person supposed to be a Priest is no Priest because not rightly baptized than that a Person supposed to be a Father is not the Man Or doth it happen oftner that a Priest cheats the People by having no intention to consecrate than that a light Hous-wife wheadles a second Man to marry her while her Husband unknown to him is yet alive It is not in the nature of Man to sin so frequently out of pure malice as it is upon the account of some profit or pleasure thence resulting Why then must we be more guilty of Idolatry though the Host through defect or Malice on the Priest's side should happen not to be truly consecrated than such a Person is of Adultery or a Child of undutifulness for having their own good Intentions abus'd by the malice of others Wantonness may make a Wife forget her duty but doth not make a Child criminal in doing his to him whom he believes to be his Father And the wickedness of a Priest as there was one Judas among the Twelve may make him a Devil but that cannot make me an Idolater For whilst my Adoration is directed not to the Bread which I suppose not to be there but to the Person of Jesus Christ true God whom I firmly believe to be in every Host duly consecrated and have not the least reasonable cause to suspect other at present the Action on my part hath all that is requisite to make it good and lawful and is so far from being Idolatry that it is a real honouring of Christ and will be so accepted When Hephaestion was honoured by a mistake for Alexander that great Prince was so far from condemning the Person as a Traytor that he took the honour as done to himself And in case those Gentiles who were so desirous to see our Saviour Jo. 12. 21. had either for want of a Guide to direct them to the Person or by the treacherous malice of a Judas prostrated themselves at the Feet of some other what reasonable Man would have condemned them for Idolaters And yet we poor unfortunate Roman Catholicks if it should chance at any time to happen that either the Priest be no true one or have no intention to consecrate though our Intentions be never so sincere to adore only our Lord Jesus Christ must stand condemned of downright Idolatry for so the Doctor calls it p. 124. and that without any Proof at all but the old Ipse dixit that without the Intention of the Priest in consecrating it can be nothing else § 2. The second Medium he takes p. 125 to prove that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host is that no Man can be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving this worship to it And the substance of the reason he gives is because if I worship Christ saith he in the Sacrament it is upon account of his corporal presence and he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church that the humane Nature of Christ considered alone ought not to have divine honour given to it and hotly disputed among them whether Christ's humane nature though united to the 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
as would have serv'd Diogenes had he known it to conclude all the Platonists in the world to be blind For thus he might argue from the Doctors Topicks The Platonists and all Philosophers affirm that for a man to see there must necessarily be some union between the Object and the Eye that is something must pass from the Eye to the Object or from the Object to the Eye But Aristotle and his Followers have at large proved that this cannot be done by emission of Rays from the Eye to the Object as the Platonists would have it but by Immission of Species from the Object to the Eye Therefore all the Platonists in the world are blind What greater Sophistry can there be than when there are different Opinions how the same thing may be done and one of them really absurd at least seemingly so to others to make him who does the thing to be guilty of all the absurdities which follow from such an Opinion Yet such is the Doctors manner of arguing in this place All Catholicks agree that an Image may be worshipped for his sake whom it represents St. Thomas and his followers will have this to be done by the same act by which the Prototype is worshipped Others who take a different way of explicating the thing look upon this as absurd and think they can prove it to be Idolatrous and Dr. St. from hence concludes Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers because they say onely what all Catholicks agree in viz. That they worshipped the Images of Christ onely for his sake who was represented by them to be Idolaters The Reader I suppose by this time sees the fallaciousness of this kind of arguing and that the Doctor may feel it if seeing be not enough I shall press him with his own Argument in a Point which himself affirms To shew what kind of Reverence we give to holy Images and that it is not Idolatrous I instanced in Moses and Joshua's putting off their Shoes in reverence to the Ground where they stood because it was Holy To this the Doctor answers p. 105. First That for this there was an express Command but in the case of Image Worship there is as plain a Prohibition But let this pass though I have manifestly proved the contrary What I fix upon at present is his Second Answer in which he avouches abstracting from any Prohibition or Command that the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it and this Reverence so testified towards the Ground by Moses and Joshua in putting off their Shoes I suppose himself will grant was not given to the Ground for it self but meerly for His sake who appeared there present in a special manner that is for God's This supposed I subsume according to his Logick But Aquinas and his followers have at large proved that where any thing is worshipped or reverenced meerly for the sake of another it must have the same kind of reverence given it which they give to the thing which sanctifieth it by its presence for they do not onely maintain that the same reverence is to be given to the Cross on which Christ suffered because it represents him to us as crucified but also because of his presence or conjunction to it upon which account they say the King and his Garment are worshipped with the same act of Civil Worship Therefore Moses and Joshua were Idolaters for giving reverence to the Ground meerly for his sake who sanctified it with his presence The Consequence though horrible to any Christian Ear is parallel to that of the Doctor against Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers and if it have any force against these it must have the same against those Thus is the Doctor fallen into his own Trap. Neither can he save himself by having recourse to an express command in the case because Gods special presence is given by him there as a distinct reason why reverence might lawfully be given to the Ground for his sake who was present and if it were Idolatry in it self to do so because Aquinas and his followers have at large proved that where any thing is reverenced meerly for the sake of another it must have the same kind of reverence given it which they give to the thing which sanctifieth it by its presence it follows that God commanded Moses and Joshua upon his grounds to do an act which in it self is Idolatry and this sounds no less if not more horrible to a Christian Ear than the former Let him then take his choice whether he will allow what Aquinas and his followers have at large proved for good or no. If he grant it he must show the disparity why Moses and Joshua were not as much Idolaters according to his Principles as Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers If he deny it let him tell us with what conscience he could condemn Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers for Idolaters upon Grounds which himself denies to be good and solid Thus much to the form of the Doctors Argument As for the distinction it self of Absolute and Relative Latria with which St. Thomas and his followers explicate their Doctrine I shall have occasion to speak of it hereafter In the mean time the Reader may pâ—ously believe that to give Relative Latria to the Image of Christ is no more Idolatry than to give Relative Regal honour to the Kings Garment is Treason § 6. The third thing he urges from his Constantinopolitan Fathers is the great Absurdity as they call it and he applauds them for it p. 80. of making an Image of Christ for Worship because Christ is God and Man therefore the Image must be of God and Man which cannot be unless the Deity be circumscribed within the created flesh or there be a confusion of both Natures after their Union both which are blasphemies condemned by the Church To this Epiphanius answers two things 1. That the Name of Christ is significative of both Natures and that an Image represents onely the Humane Nature and agrees onely in name and not in substance with the Prototype 2. That the Divine is no more circumscribed within the Humane Nature in its being represented in an Image than it was in its being laid in the Manger or nailed to the â—ross And consequently that the Objection either of circumscription of the Divine Nature or confusion of both Natures was vain and frivolous I but says the Doctor What doth this Answer signifie unless there be an equal presence or union of the Divine Nature of Christ with the Image as there was with the Humane Nature And I would gladly know what this Answer of his is to the purpose unless he think that nothing may be worshipped with relation to God unless it have as great an Union with the Person of Christ as his Humane Nature had He will not deny I hope that the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our reverence towards it and yet that presence or union is not equal to that of the Divine Nature of
much or as great adoration is due to them as to Christ himself The first he knows is affirmed by us the second denyed because as was said before of Images p. 190. although Christ and the Accidents be worshipped by the same Act of Adoration yet as considered precisely relating to the Accidents it falls upon them after an Inferiour manner And it became a Generous Adversary as he shows himself to be in supposing the same divine Revelation for Christ's Presence in the Eucharist as for his Divinity which he needed not have done to have told us clearly his meaning in this Point But this he thought not fit to do but to blend both senses confusedly together that when he found himself press'd in one he might slie for refuge to the other The Catholick sense is this that the same or as great adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament as out of it Against this he objects two things 1. That there is a plain Command in Scripture for the One and none for the other 2. That the One gives us a sufficient reason for our Worship the other doth not To the first I answer as he foresaw very well I would that a General Command such as those cited by himself Let all the Angels adore him that is Christ Hebr. 1. 6. and to his Name every Knee is to bow Phil. 2. 10. doth extend to him wherever he is present as a like command of honouring such a Person for King would do wherever he should be known to reside And this I take to be Intimation enough that we are to worship Christ under the Accidents supposing him present there And whereas he saith this Answer proves no more his worship in them than in a Turf or any other piece of bread because Christ saith he being God is every where present as if his being God made him every where present as he is supposed to be in the Sacrament This was but an Artifice to divert the Reader from the matter in hand which is not about the worship of God as every where present but as hypostatically present in the Flesh And so the Question between us is whether in case there be a general command to worship the Son of God made Man we may not as lawfully do it to him supposing a divine Revelation that he is so present in the Sacrament as the Apostles and others adored him when he was conversant among them To this Question I Answer affirmatively and he Negatively unless he can see a plain Command to do it to him as present in the Sacrament And who can but wonder to see him now so scrupulous in giveing adoration to God made Man believing him to be really present in the Host unless he have an express command to do it who professes of himself p. 101. that were he of our mind in the matter of Images he should not stick to offer up the Host it self that is God-Man really present under the Sacramental signs in Sacrifice to a block or a hewn stone without any command at all either general or particular to do it But to remove this scruple as I have endeavoured to do some others it may suffice to tell him that although our worship be not to be guided by our fancies but the will of God Yet where there is a general command without any Exception to worship the Word made Flesh there he hath given a sufficient Indication of the lawfulness of doing it wherever we are certain by Faith that He is so present What particular command had the Wisemen to adore Him in the Manger or the Thief upon the Cross Was it not enough that they had a Divine Revelation that He was the Son of God to move them to adore Him with Divine Worship Or is he less adorable under the Sacramental signs than bound up in swadling-cloths or covered with blood and spittle Surely it was happy for the Wise-men and the Thief that they had not Dr. St. to direct them what to do For had they followed his Casuistry they must have suspended their Adoration for want of an Express Command in their particular cases § 5. But he had not advanced above a Leaf farther when it seems he perceiv'd the weakness of this Answer and therefore to piece it out he tells us p. 115. that in case of Christ's visible appearance to us in any place we need not a particular command in such a case to make it lawful to adore him But that which goes against the grain of his sense and reason is that he should do it to him under a Veil though he be more certain by Faith that it is He that is there present than if he saw him with his eyes This is such a self-denyal as is not to be expected from flesh and blood And if you ask him why there is not the same reason of believing Christ to be present as seeing him He answers with a distinction much more subtil than that he alledged out of Scotland for saying the Lord's Prayer to a Saint p. 101. that in matters of pure Revelation where the matter propos'd to our Faith can be no Object of sense as Christ's Infinite presence in all places as God there he may firmly believe and worship Him upon the credit of Divine Revelation but speaking of the visible presence of Christ where honour is given on the account of the divine nature but he can be known to be present only by his Humanity in this case I say saith he and his Ipse dixit must be of no less authority than that of Pythagoras I say the evidence of sense is necessary in ordâ—r to the true worshipping of the Person of Christ Here is indeed an appearance of a distinction but such an one as quite overthrows his whole discourse for if he suppose as he doth at present that the Humanity of Christ is really present in the Sacrament in such a way that it cannot be the Object of sense he must rank it among his matters of pure Revelation and so not only firmly believe it but also give him worship suitable to his presence When therefore he tells us the question is concerning the visible presence of Christ it is manifest he either changes the state of the Question or retracts what before he so generously granted of his Invisible presence in the Sacrament This then is plain was but to delude the Reader and not answer to the Question which was Why there is not the same reason for worshipping Christ in the Sacrament believing him to be there upon the credit of a Divine Revelation as if we saw Him with our eyes But to follow him a little in his wandrings and speak to the visible presence of Christ In case he can be known to be present only by his Humanity Why must the Evidence of sense be necessary in order to his worship Was he not so present in the Womb of the Virgin after the Angels message Was he not so
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
the end of this be but the banishing Faith and Christianity out of the World § 3. After all these endeavours to wrest out of our hands the supposition he so freely granted p. 110. of the same Revelation for Christ's Presence in the Eucharist as for his Divinity he would bring the business at last to a Composition if we will beg of him to yield that the Body of Christ being present his Divinity is there present too And I am not so nice if it will come no cheaper way as not to begg it of him for Christianity's sake but then he adds that even upon this supposition that Christ's Divinity is present with his Body in the Sacrament p. 127. his mind must still unavoidably rest unsatisfied as to the Adoration of the Host For supposing the divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein he is present as I do to Christ himself But here again he relapses into his former mistake of the Controversy which in spight of the practise of Catholicks which is to adore Christ under the Accidents in like manner as he was worshipped in his Apparel he will have to be that proper divine worship is to be given to the Accidents For this is what he means here by the Host Let him state the Question as it ought to be that is Whether Christ may not be worshipped under the Accidents as well as in his Garments Or if he will needs mix the Questions of the Schools with those of Faith Whether the Accidents may not be worshipped together with Christ in like manner as his Garments were worshipped together with Him And the Controversy will quickly be at an End But not to tire the Reader with following him in his Repetitions his scruple if I mistake not at present is why supposing the divine nature present in any thing gives no ground to worship every thing in which he is present yet his presence in the Eucharist should be a sufficient reason to worship the Accidents together with him And to this I give Bellarmin 's answer which I take also to be the sense of Greg. de Valentia in the place cited by the Doctor Longe aliter Christus est in Eucharistia c. That Christ is in the Eucharist in a far different manner than God is in other things For in the Eucharist there is but one only Suppositum and that divine All other things there present belong to that and in a certain manner make one with that though not in the same manner mark that Hence it is that the whole is rightly worshipped together as we said before of Christ apparell'd But although God be in all other things yet not so that he is one Suppositum with them nor is there such an Union between God and the Creature in which he is that they can be said to be in a manner One. By this it appears that as Greg. de Valentia deservedly calls this presence of Christ to the Accidents an admirable Conjuction so the Doctor unjustly imposes upon Bellarmin that he grants as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Accidents as between the divine and humane Nature for although Bellarmin say that all things there present in a certain manner make One with the Suppositum yet he declares expresly that it is not in the same manner But here the Doctor complains of un-intelligible terms and notions used in this matter And might he not do the same with as much reason of the terms and Notions used by the School-men in explicating the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation How un-intelligible soever the School-terms appear to him yet it is very easy to understand that neither Greg. de Valentia nor Bellarmin mean to give divine honour to the Accidents for themselves and yet much easier to understand what Christian People mean when they profess the Object of their Adoration in the Eucharist to be the only begotten Son of God under the Accidents of Bread and Wine As for what he alledges out of Vasquez that supposing the presence of Christ to be the Ground of Adoration it follows in his Opinion that God may very lawfully be adored by us in any created Beeing wherein he is intimately present I have spoken to it in the 5th Chapt. of the 1. Part And as Vasquez himself acknowledges the danger of that Doctrine if it should be commonly and publickly put in practise by the People for possibly there may be another consideration for Philosophical and Contemplative Men in their private Devotions as St. Leo there cited seems to grant so if the Doctrine be Good what follows from thence is that Christ being supposed to be really present in the Sacrament and in a particular manner by Transubstantiation may most certainly be adored in it Vasquez was a Man of great learning and of a searching wit but it is noted of him as of Lactantius that he was more subtil in oppugning the Opinions of others than solid in establishing his own CHAP. IV. Dr. St.'s Fundamental Principle of judging of matters proposed to our Belief by Sense and Reason shown to be absurd in it self and destructive to Christianity § 1. WE come now to the Doctor 's Second Proposition that there are not the same Motives and Grounds to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that there are to believe that Christ is God which he saith I affirm without any appearance of reason And he would gladly know what excellent Motives and Reasons those are which so advantageously recommend so absurd a doctrine as Transubstantiation is as to make any Man think he hath reason to believe it He is sure he saith it gives the greatest advantage to the Enemies of Christ's Divinity to see these two put together upon equal terms as though no Man could have reason to believe Christ to be the Eternal Son of God that did not at the same time swallow the greatest Contradictions to sense and reason imaginable This is a Topick in which the Doctor wonderfully delights himself as all others have done before him who have deserted the Faith of the Church We have it over and over at every turn as if the whole System of Christian Faith and every particular Article of it were to be measured by the Standard of Sense and Reason so that if any thing seem absurd and contradictory to them no grounds or motives can recommend it so advantageously as to make any Man think he hath reason to believe it This is what lies at the bottom of his Discourse and himself lays it down for the only Principle oâ— Criterium by which we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation when in his second Câ—asse of Principles he affirms There can be no other means imagined whereby we are to judg of the Truth of divine Revelation but a Faculty in us of discerning truth and falshood in matters propos'd to our Belief
concerning the lawfulness of representing God in Picture we see how far the Church of England allows it in the Front of her Publick Liturgy and there want not other examples not unparallel to this in some of her Churches also So that Dr. Stillingfleet must either condemn her of Impiety i◠making and exposing such kind of Representations to the Eyes of the People or himself of a most gross Errour when he asserts in so universal a manner that God cannot be represented to men in any way but what must be an infinite disparagement to him Perhaps he will say they are not exposed by the Church of England for Worship But that belongs to the Consequence Our Question at present is about the Antecedent whether they may not be made without disparagement to God Besides that himself not onely condemns them for Worship but also in order to the putting us in mind of God which how strange soever it seem he avowedly maintains p. 68. when he affirms That they tend highly to the dishonour of God and suggest mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship But of this more in the next Chapter Let him make his attonement with the Church of England as he can I come now to speak to the point it self § 3. Pictures or Images made with reference to God may be considered two ways either a◠made to represent the Divinity it Self out of an Erroneous Conceit which the Maker hath of it in his mind such as the Anthropomorphites had of God whom they conceived to have Eyes and Ears and Hands and other like bodily parts as we have or as representing immediately such things as bear a certain Analogy or Proportion to some divine Perfections and thereupon are apt to raise our Minds to the Knowledge and Contemplation of the Perfections themselves As when God the Father is pictured as he appeared to Daniel in the likeness of the Ancient of Days to manifest his Wisdom and Eternity and the H. Ghost in the likeness of a Dove to signifie his Purity and Simplicity in a manner suitable to our Conceptions The first sort of Representations are an infinite disparagement to the Divine Nature because being infinite and invisible it cannot be represented as it is in it self by any corporeal likeness or figures But the Second are no way dishonourable to him because they are not made to represent the Divine Nature by an immediate or proper similitude but by Analogy onely or Metaphorical signification as is above declared And if it were no disparagement to God to appear in such or such visible forms it can be none to represent them in Picture no more than it is to relate or describe them in Writing § 4. This premised I answer to the Preposition If his meaning be that Gods Nature being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men either Properly or Analogically but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it I deny it as false God the Father would never have represented himself in a humane form nor the H. Ghost in the likeness of a Dove had it been dishonourable Nor do I believe the Church of England would have permitted the Divinity to be pictured in the likeness of a Triangular Light had she thought it a disparagement But if his meaning be that the Divine Nature being infinite cannot be represented properly as it is by any corporeal similitude I grant it But then the Consequence in virtue of this Antecedent can onely be this that to worship God by such a visible Representation as conceiv'd proper to his Nature is extreamly dishonourable to him And in this we perfectly agree with him but utterly deny what he farther infers without any restriction or reason that all Worship given to God by any visible Representation of him whether conceiv'd as Proper or Analogical is extreamly dishonourable to him Having shown the Proposition it self 〈◊〉 taken in the unlimited Sense he gives it to be false it follows manifestly that it cannot be the Reason of the Law Yet for a more ample discovery of his Sophistical managing of Controversie I shall give it a farther Consideration as it is assigned by him for the Reason of the Law § 5. The Question at present between us is about the Reason of the Law viz. Why God forbad the making a graven Image or the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth to bow down and worship it And on the People's part to whom the Law was given it is evident that it was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone by restraining them from Idolatry But this it seems was too plain and obvious a Reason for so Metaphysical a Discourser He seeks therefore another more subtil and elevated and consequently more apt to lead a vulgar Reader into a maze viz. What Perfection in God was the Cause or Reason why he made this Law What he asserts it to be we have already heard viz. That the Divinity cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it What I affirm it to be is The Supreme Excellency of God's Nature to which Soveraign Worship is onely due and not the incongruity of an Image to represent it as he often expresseth it The Question thus stated I prove my Assertion 1. From the Preface of the Law the usual place where the Reasons of all Laws are expressed because the Reason there assigned by the Law-maker himself is this I am the Lord thy God And what is this but I am the onely Supreme and Super-Excellent Being above all and over all to whom therefore Soveraign honour is onely to be given and to none beside me Neither is there any mention at all made of the irrepresentableness of the Divine Nature or the incongruity of an Image to represent it to men But the same reason of his Supreme Excellency is enforced anew from the Zeal or Jealousie which God hath of his honour when immediately after the Prohibition he adds For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God as the Protestant Translation hath it by which he gives us to understand that the Reason why he will punish severely those who shall give his honour to any thing beside him is because he is the Lord their God to whom onely it is due 2. I prove it from the necessary Connexion there is as of an effect to its proper Cause between the Prohibition of the Law on the one side and the Supreme Excellency of the Divine Nature on the other To make this as clear as the matter will give me leave I must desire the Reader to reflect that although there be no distinction of Attributes or Perfections in God but that All are really one and the same indivisible Perfection with his Nature and consequently the same with one another viz. his Mercy with his Justice his Justice with his Truth and his Truth with
his Omnipâ—tence c. Yet We by reason of the narrowness of our Understanding are forced to apprehend and discourse for example of his Mercy as distinct from his Justice assigning them as the proper Causes or Reasons of several even contrary effects which God produces by them When he forgives we say he does so because he is Merciful and when he punishes we say he does so because he is Just so that the formal Reason as conceived by us why he forgives is his Mercy and not his Justice and why he punishes is his Justice and not his Mercy and so immediate is the connexion between them and their effects that if you abstract his Mercy there is no reason left to conceive why he should forgive nor to punish if you abstract his Justice But in case you abstract his Justice and leave his Mercy the effect of forgiving will still follow and consequently his Merâ—â— and not his Justice must be assigned 〈◊〉 the formal Cause or Reason why hâ— forgivâ—â—â— From hence I think I may infer and lay down this General Rule That that Notion or Perfection in God upon which considered precisely in it self an effect depends so that it follows or not follows as a consequence from it according as the said notion is or is not considered by us ought to be assigned for the proper Cause or Reason of such an effect But so it is in our present case that if we consider the Divine Nature precisely as Supreamly Excellent abstracting from its Incongruity to be represented it necessarily follows that Soveraign Worship is due onely to It and not to be given to any other either Image or Thing But if we consider it as Invisible onely and Irrepresentable abstracting from the notion of Supreme Excellency it doth not follow on that account precisely that Soveraign Worship or indeed any Worship at all is due unto it An Angel is invisible and cannot be represented as he is doth it therefore follow that Soveraign Worship is due to him Or that any Worship at all is to be given to a Sound because it cannot be painted Excellency then and not Invisibility is the Formal Reason of Worship Whether a thing can or cannot be represented by an Image or Picture if it have no Excellency no Worship is due unto it and if it have Excellency Worship is due to it according to the degree of Excellency it is endowed with And upon that account Soveraign Civil Worship was equally due from the People to Moses being constituted their Prince by God when his Picture could be drawn as when it could not because of the shining of his face or when he kept on his Vail or put it off And God himself was no less adorable when he appeared to Daniel like the Ancient of Days than when he gave the Law to Moses without any Similitude To conclude to be Supremely-Excellent is Proper to God alone Not-to-be-representable by an Image is Common to Him with Angels though in a higher degree and however it enter materially or à parte rei as the Schools speak as the other Attributes of Truth Wisdom Goodness c. do to constitute the Divine Nature Supremely-Excellent yet it is manifest that his Excellency precisely and none of the other Attributes is the immediate and formal reason why Soveraign Worship is to be given to none but Him and consequently why this Law was made particularly to forbid it to be given as at that time it was given by the Heathen to Graveâ— Things that is Representations of Imaginary Beings or to any Similitude that is the likeness of any thing which although it had a real Being yet was not God 3dly Ad hominem I argue thus What follows precisely from the Divine Nature's being Invisible and Irrepresentable abstracting from its Supreme Excellency the proper Object of Latria is onely this that men therefore ought not to presume to make any Image or likeness to represent it as it is and the Law in virtue of it must be to forbid the making any such Image But Dr. St. utterly denies the Law we treat of to contain any such Prohibition in it as appears by his words against Bellarmin and others pag. 77. As though ever any Men were such fools to believe an Image could perfectly represent an Infinite Being or that God need to make a Law to forbid that which is utterly impossible in the very nature of the thing He might more reasonably forbid men to paint a Sound or to make new Worlds than to command them not to make any Image which should perfectly represent his Nature Thus he to shew the Law meant nothing less than to forbid men to make an Image of God which yet is all that follows in virtue of his not being representable by any corporeal figure Therefore according to himself the irrepresentableness of the Divine Nature as precisely consider'd cannot be assigned for the Proper Cause or Reason of this Law Thus much from Reason § 6. I come now to the places of Scripture which he saith tell us that the Reason of the Law was That God's Nature being Infinite could not be represented but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to him To the first Isa 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God Or what likeness will ye compare unto him I answer The Prophet tells us that nothing is or can be like or compared to God but where doth he tell us that this is the Reason of the Law unless we are bound to believe it because Dr. St. saith it There is a likeness of Representation and a likeness of Comparison as the words themselves seem to import but neither of them evince what he intends For if the words be to be understood of likeness in Representation all that can be inferr'd from them is that such a likeness is not to be made the Prohibition whereof as the Doctor denies to be any part of the Law so the thing it self makes nothing against Catholicks who abhor the very thought of making any such likeness and the Council of Trent Sess 25. expresly enjoyns her Pastors for preventing any mistake in ignorant and unlearned Persons When some Historical passage of H. Scripture concerning God is represented in Picture to teach them that the Divinity it self is not thereby figured as if it could be seen with corporeal Eyes or drawn in Colours or expressed in Figures but that such kind of Pictures are onely Representations of some Apparition or Action of God in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception But if the Prophet speak not of a likeness in Representation but in Comparison as the Contents of the Chapter in the Protestant Bible affirm in these words The Prophet comforteth the People v. 18. by the Incomparableness of God that is if his intent be as their own Annotation hath it upon that place Bible in Quarto 1610. to arm them against the Idolatry wherewith they should be tempted in Babylon by shewing
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
Christ with his Humane It is not onely Union but Representation also that may occasion Worship and so we see the King is worshipped by his Picture as representing him though it have not so close an union with his Soul as his Body hath But what sticks in the Doctors mind if I mistake not is how Christ God and Man can be worshipped by an Image which represents him onely according to his Humane Nature To this I have spoken already in the fifth Chapter and himself may satisfie his Reader in the point by telling him how the King who consists of Soul and Body can be worshipped by a Picture which represents him onely according to the Lineaments of his Body § 7. In the fourth place his Constantinopolitan-Fathers urge that If the Humane Nature of Christ be represented in the Image of Christ to be worshipped as separate from the Divine this would be plain Nestorianism And what says Epiphanius to this That never any man well in his wits when he saw the Picture of a man thought that the Painter by drawing him had divided his Soul from his Body that is that he had not onely drawn the man but hang'd and quarter'd him too Was ever time so fondly mispent as in proposing and refuting such pitiful kind of Sophistry as this of the Doctors Constantinopolitan-Fathers And yet He says the Good Nicen Fathers where he means by Good what he meant before by Wise not knowing what to answer deny the Conclusion and cry They Nestorians No. They lie in their Teeth Thus He. But what the Nicen Fathers answered like Good men and True was this that though the Images of Christ like other Images represent onely the external Lineaments of his Humane Nature yet when they look upon them they understand nothing but what is signified by them For example When he is represented as born of the Virgin which is I suppose what the Doctor means by the Birth of the Virgin p. 81. what they conceive in their Minds is not his Humane Nature as separated from the Divine but one Emmanuel true God and Man and therefore were far enough from bâ—ing guilty of Nestorianism in the use of Images Here the Doctor cries out Alas for them that they should ever be charged with the Worship of Images who plead for nothing now but a Help to their profound Meditations by them And may not I much better say Alas for him who if they Worshipped the same which they conceived in their Minds could not see their Worship which is an Act of the Will must be as free from Nestorianism as their Understanding But he had had nothing to reply if he had not thrust in those Words of his own to be Worshipped as separate from the Divine Nature For they are not in the Objection as it stands Recorded in the Council However they signifie little to his purpose because the Will is carried to the Prototype as it is conceived in the Understanding nor doth it give to the Image tâ—e Worship due to the Principal because the Image is not Worshipped at all for its own sake but for the Principal 's § 8. The Fifth Argument which he makes his Constantinopolitan Fathers produce is from the Institution of the Eucharist which they call Christs Image because instituted in Commemoration of him And whereas he said Do this in remembrance of Me He did as it were tell them That no other Figure or Representation under Heaven was chosen by Him as able to represent His being in the Flesh This they say was an HONOURABLE Image of his Quickning BODY made by Himself which he would not have of the shape of a Man to prevent Idolatry And as the Body of Christ was really sanctified by the Divine Nature so this Holy Image is by Adoption Deified or made Divine through sanctification of Grace This is the sense of the Argument to which Epiphanius answers that from the Fury they were possess'd with against the making of Images they were driven into another madness of calling the Eucharist an Image contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers And the Doctor knows that it is a sufficient Answer to an absurd Objection to shew that the Objector was driven to run into an Absurdity to maintain his Cause What the Constantinopolitans would have inferr'd from thence was that because Christ as They asserted made the Eucharist an Image of his Body therefore no other Image might be made or Worshipped But this They did not but left it perhaps as too hard a Task for Themselves to be undertaken by so Great an Admirer of Them and their Doctrine as my Adversary and at his Door it lies Onely he is desired to bear in mind against a fit season that the Eucharist with Them is an HONOURABLE IMAGE made by Christ Himself and therefore if he will not desert his Leaders he must give honour to it nay Divine Honour because although his Beloved Constantinopolitans call the EUCHARISTICAL BREAD an IMAGE yet they confess it in the same place to be NO FALSE IMAGE of Christs Natural Flesh but by virtue of the Priestly Consecration it is made his Divine Body § 9. In the sixth and last place he jumbles together no less than Eight Arguments or rather Bare Assertions of his Constantinopolitan Fathers all which Epiphanius denies and refutes as frivolous and false as any one may see who either considers the Objections in themselves or will take the pains to read the Answers to them at large in the sixth Action of the Council of Nice Which though my Adversary call weak and trivial yet it is no sign he thought them so when he omitted to set them down CHAP. VIII The Doctors Objection from the Council of Frankford examined and shewn to be no Advantage to his Cause § 1. AFter the matter of the Veneration due to Holy Images had been discussed and defined as you have seen in the second General Council of Nice the Doctor fearing that his Irony of that Wise Synod would not stick fast enough unless backed with a greater Authority than his own tells his Reader that it was condemned by the Council at Francford called together by Charles the Great Anno 794. He should have added By the Command of the Apostolick See as it is in Hinâ—marus but that had been an apparent disadvantage to his Cause and therefore better left out Nevertheless the fact it self he looks upon as an apparent advantage to it And thereupon he endeavours to show by many Conjectures that the Fathers at Francford did expresly reject the Council of Nice and that not out of misunderstanding its Doctrine as some rashly he saith imagine but that really they intended to condemn the Doctrine it self there defined His proofs are p. 84. Because the Acts of that Council
that it was out of respect to him she gave him the honour of his Bed And then make a grave application upon it as the Doctor does That if such an excuse will not be taken by a Jealous Husband how much less will such like pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of his honour and that he will not give his Glory to another but hath reserved all Divine Worship as proper to himself and no such fond excuses of relative and inferiour Worship will serve when they encroach upon his Pregrogative Neither would this subtil Disputant be content to stop here but would farther adde that for his part he could see no reason why had he been in Moses and Josue's place but he might with as little scruple have offered sacrifice to the Ground as put off his shoes to it And he should think himself hardly dealt with if he did not come off with the same distinction For if he did it to God absolutely and for himself and to the Ground onely improperly and relatively wherein were he to blame in the Doctors Principles Let him deal as he pleases with this Personated Sosta For my own part to pursue his Method of arguing a little farther that the Reader may see whether it leads I desire seriously to know of him whether any Reverence was due to the Ground or no If none at all to what end did they put off their shoes which if the Ground as he saith of Images had any sense in it would think was done to it Why was there an express Command to require it And why doth the Doctor himself determine that they might lawfully testifie their Reverence towards the Ground because it was sanctified or Holy if none were due If there were any due whether it were the same which was given to God or distinct from it If it were the same then proper Divine Worship was given to the Ground if distinct then the Ground was worshipped with Divine Worship for it self and not relatively Again either it was Divine Worship or an Inferiour Worship distinct from it If it were Divine Worship then the Argument he urges out of Bellarmin p. 103. returns upon him that it is the nature of Divine Worship to be given for it self and therefore if it were given to the Ground the Creature was equally worshipped with God which certainly was Idolatry If it were not Divine but an Inferiour Worship distinct from that which is given to God then Vasquez a man of great Reputation too and of as searching a Wit as Bellarmin comes upon him that he that so gives it incurs the crime of Idolatry because he expresseth his submission to a meer inaninate thing that hath no kind of excellency to deserve if from him So that upon the whole what follows in Doctor St.'s Logick is that it was in Moses and Josue's choice what sort of Idolatry they would commit when they testified their Reverence to the Ground but in neither way could they avoid it I cannot expect he will set much by the Authority of Bellarmin and Vasquez but what I expect and in justice may exact from him is that he will answer their Reasons at least one of them if he embrace the other or else give a sufficient reason himself why this manner of arguing is absurd against the Reverence he confesses due to the Ground and not against the Reverence we assert to be due to Holy Images If he fly to the old shift of an express Command for the one and a pretended Prohibition for the other no relief is to be had from thence for besides his giving Gods special presence here as a second and distinct reason why they might lawfully testifie their Reverence towards the Ground whether there were any Command or no yet taking in the Command the Argument hath still the same force as before For either the Reverence they were commanded to testifie towards the Ground because it was Holy was the same which they gave to God or distinct from it If the same then proper Divine Worship was given to the Ground by Gods Command If distinct then the Ground was worshipped with Divine Worship for it self Both Idolatry in their own nature according to his Principles And consequently it is now in his choice whether he will blame Moses and Josue for committing or God for commanding them to commit Idolatry If it were Idolatry in the nature of the thing to put off their shoes in reverence to the Ground God's Command could not make it to be otherwise And if it were not Idolatry in it self neither is it to give a like honour to the Image of Christ From whence it follows to the utter ruine of all he hath argued from his pretended Prohibition that as no Command of God can make that to be not Idolatry which is so in the nature of the thing so no Prohibition if there were any could make that to be Idolatry which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry Here the Ax is laid to the Root and if ever the Doctor will speak home to the purpose it must be upon this point He must speak to the nature of the thing and not stand pointing at the Sky as Polus did to perswade the World he sees a siery Dragon and that all are blind who see it not when there is nothing but pure Air. What he faintly suggests at present as some little difference between the case of giving reverence to the Ground and that of giving the like to Images viz. that God was present in the place by a special appearance but is not so in Images is to use his own Comparison that he may see how sit it was to the matter he applied it just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband for giving a Friend of his the honour of his Bed that she did it not when he was absent but to testifie her greater respect to him at a time when he was particularly present and can any one think but that such an excuse as this would be taken by a Jealous Husband He adds for a farther difference that the Reverence then requir'd was not kissing the Ground or bowing to it much less praying to it but onely putting off their shoes And I wonder what Edition of the Council of Trent he makes use of to ground this calumny of praying to Images so often repeated by him for in all those printed in Catholick Countries we are told we are not to ask any thing of them and I wonder no less by what Rule he makes putting off the shoes to be a sign of less reverence than kissing the Ground or bowing to it The Rubrick of the Missal prescribes it to be done but once a year by the Priest upon Good Friday to testifie a greater Reverence to the Image of our Crucified Lord. But I shall not dispute it with him onely I perswade my self that
that it carries not the show of a Probability For if the Bread be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature and not meerly into that but into the Person of Christ does it follow that he hath as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements consecrated No more than because the Bread the Flesh the Fish which he eat upon Earth were converted into the substance of his Body and hypostatically united to him it follows that he had as many bodies hypostatically united to him as there were several meats eaten by him Before Digestion or Conversion they were distinct by Conversion they were made the same body But if this will not serve the turn he wants not a false supposition to blind his Reader with Viz. that we make the Elements i.e. the Accidents of Bread for we we will have nothing else remain after Consecration in spight he says of all the reason and sense of the World the Object of divine worship But the falsity of this supposition I shall make appear in the next Chapter together with his mistake if it be no more of the meaning of the Council of Trent CHAP. II. The true State of the Controversy laid open together with the Doctor 's Endeavours to misrepresent it His manner of arguing against the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist equally destructive to the adoration of Him as God § 1. IN pursuance of his former design my Adversary will now undertake p. ii4 to prove yet further that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host And this he hopes will abundantly add to the discoâ—ering of the disparity between the worship given to the Person of Christ and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation But before he can come to this he must needs mistake or rather mis-state the Controversy which he does in most ample manner when after a great many Preambles for three whole Pages together no more to the purpose than the Flourishes of a great Text-letter are to the force of a Bond he tells the Reader at length that the state of the Controversy between us is whether proper divine worship may be given to the Elements i. e. the Accidents on account of Christ's corporal presence under them But whatever Divines dispute concerning the Worship of the Accidents the Object of Catholicks Adoration as Dr. Taylor ingenuously confesses Viz. What is represented to them in their mind their thoughts and purposes in the B. Sacrament is the only true and Eternal God hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity And consequently the Question between us is Whether supposing our Lord Christ to be really present under the Sacramental signs the same proper divine worship be not to be given to him there which is due to his Person wherever it is present by hypostatical union with his sacred Humanity Let the Doctor do thus and we have no quarrel with him which is an evident sign that the Question between us is not as he says whether the same Adoration ought to be given to the Accidents which we would give to the very Person of Christ But what may not be venture to say who had the confidâ—nce to advance so notorious a calumny as that it is our common answer in this matter to excuse our selves from Idolatry that we believe the Bread to be God I told the Reader what he was like to find neer the bottom of the Sack when he met with such sophistical Ware at the very top But the Doctor pretends he hath something to say here in his defence and it is this that the Council of Trent hath expresly determin'd that there is no manner of doubt left but that all Christians ought to give the same worship to this Holy Sacrament which they give to God himself For it is not therefore less to be worshipped because it was Instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken But who tells him that the Council here by the word Sacrament means only the Signs or Accidents of Bread Why may it not mean the Holy Victime which is dispensed from the Altar as St. Austin did when he said that his Mother St. Monica had tied her Soul fast to this Sacrament by the bond of Faith If the Council may be allowed to explicate its own meaning we shall find the sense of the word to be the Body of Christ and with it his Divinity under the Sacramental Veil for the reason it gives in the words immediately following which the Doctor conveniently leaves out of this adoration is because we believe the same God to be present in it of whom the Eternal Father said Let all the Angels of God adore him And this is yet more plain from the 6th Canon where the Anathema is denounced against those who shall say that in the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist the only begotten of God is not to be adored with the worship of Latria But let the Council say what it will Dr. St. says that by the Sacrament it must understand the Elements or Accidents as the Immediate term of that divine worship or else the latter words that the Sacrament ought not less to be adored because it was instituted to be taken signify nothing at all And why so Do Catholicks understand nothing by the Sacrament but the Accidents Or was nothing instituted to be taken but the bare signs of Bread and Wine Dr. St. is or would be an Author of great Authority and from his own Confession we have it p. 111. that the Holy Sacrament according to Catholicks is the Body of Christ under the Accidents of Bread These are his own words and if he will not believe the Council let him believe himself whether he do so or no 〈◊〉 proceeding upon his supposition that proper divine worship is to be given to the Accidents he affirms p. 118. that this is not denied that he knows of by any who understand the Doctrine or Practise of the Roman Church I leave to the Reader to judg when he shall have heard what Bellarmin an Author not unacquainted with the Doctrin and Practise of the Church says in this matter There is not saith he any one Catholick who teaches that the External Symbols per se that is absolutely and properly are to be adored with the worship of Latria but only to be reverenced with a certain inferiour worship which is due to all Sacraments What we affirm is that Christ is properly and per se to be adored with the worship of Latria and that this adoration belongs also to the Symbols of Bread and Wine under which he is contained as they are apprehended united with him in such manner as those who adored him apparl'd upon Earth did not adore him alone but quodammodo in a certain kind his Garments also For neither
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
Saint above others as Patience Humility Chastity c. for which reason the Church saith of every one of them Non est inventus similis illi that there was no other found like to him or upon the particular manner of his suffering Martyrdom or some particular Miracle or such like remarkable passage in his Life and actions which may serve to excite the Hope of the suppliant to obtain redress by means of his Intercession in a case which he conceives to bear a suitableness or conformity to something acted or suffered by him Now the efficacy of Prayer being grounded on Hope and it being natural to us to hope for redress where others have found it or where it may more reasonably be expected by reason of some particular qualification we apprehend in the Person to whom we address it is manifest that as the abovesaid Reflexion serves to erect our Hope so also it conduces to the end of Prayer that is the obtaining of what we pray for Hence it is that although all the divine Attributes are really one and the same indivisible Perfection in God yet for pardon we fly to his Mercy for knowledge to his Wisdome for Protection to his Power c. And St. Paul assigns the remission of our sins to the Passion of Christ but our Justification by which we rise to newness of life to his Resurrection He was delivered to death for our sins and rose again for our Justification The reason whereof he gives in the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 2. v. 18. Where he saith that it behoved Christ to be made like unto his Brethren in all things that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the People For saith he in that he suffred himself being tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted that is by what he suffred himself he is made prompt and ready to succour those who are in affliction and Temptation For it was true even of his most sacred Humanity what the Poet out of the very nature of Humanity made another say Haâ—d ignara â—â—li miseris succurrere disco that by his own sufferings he had learnt how to compassionate the sufferings of others And this was laid down by St. Paul as a powerful Argument to perswade the Hebrews to put their Hope in Him for their reconciliation with God because he was so particularly qualified and fitted for that Work by what he had suffered Why then may not a like Consideration of the fitness or qualification of one Saint above others as so conceived by us either for his eminent Perfection in such a particular virtue or some other Remarkable passage in his Life be taken as a Motive to invite us to address for the obtaining what we stand in need of to his Intercession before others The Scripture we know to perswade us to Patience in Adversity bids us reflect upon the sufferance of Job And why may not his eminence in that virtue as it serves for an example of our Imitation be also taken as a particular motive of our having recourse to his Intercession And when Jacob blessed the two Sons of Joseph Ephraim and Manasses among so many Angels whose assistance he might have implored he beggs for that Angel in particular to be their Guardian who had delivered him out of all his troubles The Angel saith he who delivered me from all evils bless these Children And why but because he thought that he who had been so careful to deliver him would be as careful to deliver them And upon this account were I in danger of being ship wrackt I should sooner fly to the Intercession of St. Paul who had saved by his Prayers all his Fellow-passengers in the Ship from being drowned than to another who had never been in the like danger Behold here then the Crime of Catholicks in calling particularly upon the Angel Raphael when they travel because he protected young Tobias in his Journey upon St. Roch against the Plague because his Charity was signal in assisting those who were insected with it upon St. Nicholas against Tempests because he saved some by his Prayers who in a storm at Sea invoked him while yet alive upon St. Apollonia for the Tooth-ach because all her Teeth were strucken out for her free Confession of Christ and upon St. Michael and St. George against Enemies because the latter was by Profession a Souldier and a most valiant Martyr And the former is recorded in Scripture to be the Protector of the People of God This is the Crime for which the Doctor charges Catholicks with Idolatry But if it be a Crime in them it is much like that of a Beggar who hopes to find relief at that door where he hears others have been relieved before The Doctor perhaps to carry on his sport will instance in some addresses that are made to particular Saints upon such accounts which seem to him ridiculous or it may be contrary to what happened to the Saint But while I defend the reasonableness of the practice in it self I am not bound to defend that all who use it take the hints of their application to one Saint before another from solid and reasonable Motives This I know that what seems ridiculous to One who scoffs at devotion may serve to raise affections in another who is truly devout And the Chananaean Woman when our Saviour said to her It is not good to take the Children's bread and cast it to Dogs drew an Argument of Hope from whence another who had not her Faith would have taken a Motive of despair In fine to conclude this Point let us suppose that Martha and Mary Magdalen who are now glorious Saints in Heaven were again living upon Earth I would gladly know whether a Person guilty of Incontinency might not without being guilty also of Aegyptian Idolatry conceive a greater Hope of obtaining God's favour by the Prayers of so Exemplar a Convert than by those of her Sister though more Innocent Surely the Parallel Example of her Conversion and the particular Zeal she must have for the Conversion of others would soon determin the devotion of the Penitent to have recourse to her Intercession The Case is the same now she is in Heaven for she hath not lost her Charity by being there And the case is the same in addresses made to other Saints upon like accounts as I shewed above When therefore the Doctor hath a mind hereafter to change the names of the Aegyptian Gods who according to their doctrin presided over the several parts of Man let him if he please transcribe out of the Almanack the Anatomy of Mans Body as the parts thereof are govern'd by the Twelve Signs Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo c. The Characters at least may stand indifferently as Hieroglyphical Notes either of the Signs of the Zodiack or Aegyptian Deities But nothing can be more ridiculous