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
seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshiping of Images Indulgences Supremacy c. but they must believe that without believing these things there is no Salvation to be had in the ordinary Way for after the enumeration of those Points it follows Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is thereby declared as necessary to Salvation as of any other Articles of the Creed But it may be objected The subscribing this Profession of Faith is not required of all Members of that Church To which I answer That to make a Man a Member of it he must declare that he holds the same Faith which the Church of Rome holds And this is as much the Faith of the Roman Church as the Pope and Council of Trent could make it And it is now printed in the Roman Ritual at Paris set forth by Paul V. as the Confession of Faith owned by the Church of Rome And therefore this ought to have been a Part of the true Representation as to the Doctrinal Points but when he comes to the 35th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved p. 96. and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all p. 97. Which may as well reach those who disown the Deposing Power and the Pope's personal Infallibility as Us since those are accounted Articles of Faith by the ruling part of their Church to whom it chiefly belongs to declare them and the former hath been defined both by Popes and Councils 3. He never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church We are often blamed for charging particular Opinions upon their Church but we desire to know what it is which makes a Doctrine of their Church i. e. whether frequent and publick Declaration by the Heads and Guides of their Church be sufficient or not to that End Our Author seems to imply the Necessity of some Conditions to be observed for besides the Pope's Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law p. 42. But who is to be Judg of these Circumstances and legal Proceedings And he never tells what these Circumstances are And yet after all he saith The Orders of the Supream Pastor are to be obey'd whether he be Infallible or not And this now brings the Matter home The Popes he confesses have owned the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it And others are bound to obey their Orders whether infallible or not and consequently they are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to Act when the Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Power But he seems to say in this Case that a Doctrine of their Church is to be judged by the Number for saith he There are greater Numbers that disown this Doctâ—â—ne p. 47. I will not at present dispute it but I desire to be informed Whether the Doctrines of their Church go by majority of Votes or not I had thought the Authority of the Guides of the Church ought to have over-ballanced any Number of Dissenters For what are those who refuse to submit to the Dictates of Popes and Councils but Dissenters from the Church of Rome The Distinction of the Court Church of Rome is wholly impertinent in this Case For we here consider not the meer Temporal Power which makes the Court but the Spiritual Capacity of Teaching the Church and if Popes and Councils may err in Teaching this Doctrine why not in any other I know there are some that say Universal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine of their Church But then no submission can be required to any Doctrine in that Church till the Universal Tradition of it in all Times and in all Parts of the Christian Church be proved And we need to desire no better Terms than these as to all Points of Pope Pius IV his Creed which are in dispute between us and them 4. He makes use of the Authority of some particular Divines as delivering the Sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them Whereas if we proceed by his own Rule the greater Number is to carry it Therefore we cannot be thought to Misrepresent them if we charge them with such things as are owned either by the general and allowed Practices of their Church or their Publick Offices or the generality of their Divines and Casuists or in case of a Contest with that side which is owned by the Guides of their Church when the other is censured or which was approved by their Canonized Saints or declared by their Popes and Councils whose Decrees they are bound to follow And by these Measures I intend to proceed having no design to misrepresent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction I. Of Praying to Images IN this and the other Particulars where it is necessary I shall observe this Method 1. To give a clear and impartial Account of the State of the Controversy in as few Words as I can 2. To make some Reflections on what he saith in order to the clearing them from Misrepresentations As to the State of this Controversy as it stands since the Council of Trent we are to consider 1. We must distinguish between what Persons do in their own Opinion and what they do according to the Sense of the Divine Law It is possible that Men may intend one thing and the Law give another Sense of it as is often seen in the Case of Treason although the Persons plead never so much they had no intention to commit Treason yet if the Law makes their Act to be so their disavowing it doth not Excuse them So it is in the present Case Men may have real and serious Intentions to refer their final ultimate and Soveraign Worship only to God but if the Law of God strictly and severely prohibits this particular Manner of Worship by Images in as full plain and clear Words as may be and gives a Denomination to such Acts taken from the immediate Object of it no particular Intention of the Persons can alter that Denomination or make the Guilt to be less than the Law makes it 2. There can be no Misrepresenting as to the lawfulness of many External Acts of Worship with Respect to Images which are owned by them But it doth not look fairly to put the Title Of Praying to Images for the Question is about the Worship of Images whereas this Title would insinuate as though we did directly charge them with Praying to their Images without any farther Respect Which we are so far from charging them with that I do not know of any People in the World who are not like Stones and Stocks themselves who are liable to that
Durandus but in that of Clement the 8th it is put in more largely and as authentically as if it had been always there And is not this the way to reform the Worship of Images To come now to our Author's Reflections on the Misrepresentation he saith hath been made as to this Point 1. A Papist represented believes it damnable to worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints These Expressions are capable of a double sense and therefore this is not fair Representing 1. To worship Stocks or Stones for Gods may signify two things 1. To believe the very Stocks and Stones to be Gods And this we do not charge them with 2. To give to Images made of Wood and Stone the Worship due only to God and so by construction of the Fact to make them Gods by giving them Divine Worship And if they will clear themselves of this they must either prove that external Adoration is no part of Divine Worship notwithstanding the Scripture makes it so and all the rest of Mankind look upon it as such even Jews Turks and Infidels or that their external Adoration hath no respect to the Images which is contrary to the Council of Trent or that Divine Worship being due to the Being Represented it may be likewise given to the Image And how then could the Gnosticks be condemned for giving Divine Worship to the Image of Christ which Bellarmine confesses and is affirmed by Irenaeus Epiphanius S. Augustin and Damascen 2. To pray to Images of Christ or the blessed Virgin may likewise be taken in two senses 1. To pray to them so as to expect to be heard by the meer Images and so we do not charge them with it 2. To pray to them so as to expect to be rather heard by themselves for praying to them by their Images And if this be not so to what end are the Prayers made in the Consecration of Images for those that shall pray before them To what purpose do so many go in long Pilgrimages to certain Images if they do not hope to be better heard for praying there But he goes on 2. He keeps them by him indeed to keep in his mind the memory of the things represented by them And is this all in good Truth We will never quarrel with them if this be true Representing No that he dares not say But 3. He is taught to use them p. 2. But how by casting his Eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes And is this all yet No. But 4. He finds a double conveniency in the use of them 1. They represent at one glance and Men may easily make good Reflections as upon the sight of a Death's Head or old Time painted with his Forelock Hour-glass and Syth And will he undertake that Images shall be used in Churches for no other End Was the Picture of old Time ever Consecrated or placed upon the Altar or elsewhere that it might be worshipped as the Roman Catechism speaks of their Images 2. They cure Distractions for they call back his wandring Thoughts to the right Object What is this Right Object the Image or the Person represented And that must be either a Creature or God himself If it be a Creature doth not this imply that it is made a Right Object of Worship If God himself how doth an Image cure our Distraction in the Worship of an Infinite Invisible Being when the very Image is most apt to distract our thoughts by drawing them down from his Divine and Adorable Perfections to the gross and mean Representations of an Image But are we yet come to the utmost use of them No. But 5. He cannot but love honour and respect the Images themselves for the sake of those they represent Will this content them And will he promise to go no further It is hard to part upon Terms of meer Respect and Decent Regard where there is no encroachment upon Divine Worship And here we are at a stand But he goes further 6. And so he is come at last to veneration before Images And is this all Dares he deny veneration to Images When the Council of Trent hath determined it Eisque venerationem impartiendam What is this veneration before Images only Bellarmine hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that true and proper Worship is to be given to Images And was he a Misrepresenter Suarez saith It is an Article of Faith that Worship is to be given to them But if the Veneration be only before them why are they Consecrated and set up in Places proper for Adoration But 7. To satisfy any one that he is far from making Gods of his Images he is ready to break them into a thousand pieces What a Consecrated Image Dares he take a Crucifix from the Altar and tear it in pieces This doth not look like the Love Honour and Respect he mentioned before not to name Veneration And I am afraid this is a strain beyond true Representing Yet at length he hath found some pretty Parallels for the veneration of Images themselves and so we are come at last to the main Point But this is not directly owned yet in the way of his Representing it is fairly insinuated by his Parallels 1. A Christian loves and honours his Neighbour because he bears the Image of God in his Soul But doth he therefore take him and set him before him when he kneels at his Devotion to raise his Mind and cure his Distractions Would he set him upon the Altar and burn Incense before him because of the Image of God in him Is there no difference between the Object of Christian Love and of Divine Worship Nor between a Spiritual Invisible Divine Image in the Souls of Men and a Material and Corporeal Representation 2. We may kiss and esteem the Bible because it contains and represents to Us God's Word But when we kiss and esteem the Bible we remember the Second Commandment is in it and we dare not break his Law when we pretend to honour his Word But we think there is some difference between Reverence and Respect to the Bible and falling down before an Image The Circumstances of the one declare it to be meer Respect and a Religious Decency and if the other be not external Adoration we know not what it is 3. A good Preacher is loved because he minds Men of their Duty But what should we say to him that should therefore kneel down and say his Prayers and burn Candles and Incense before him out of a respect to his good Doctrine Did S. Peter or S. Paul like this when Men would have worshipped them A good Preacher would tell them of their Duty as they did and take Men off from the Worship of any Creature animate or inanimate and direct them to worship God alone who made Heaven and Earth II. Of Worshipping Saints FOr the
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