he supposed all that were remaining of the Ten Tribes except himself to have forsaken the true God to follow Baal As for the Embassy of the Samaritans to the King of Assyria that a Priest might be sent unto them from the Captivity the reason is plain why they sent to him and not to the King of Juda because they fear'd his displeasure should they have kept Correspondence with his Enemy Moreover they thought the God of Israel to be only a Topical God and therfore they call him the God of the Land 4 Kings xvii 26. as distinct from the God of Juda. Now what the Text saith is that the Priest when he came taught them how they should fear the Lord but there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worship him in the Calves as Symbols of his presence which was the onely thing for the Doctors purpose had it been there § 5. Having thus answer'd all the Doctors Conjectures or rather Monceius his as to the greater part of them for it is with his Heiâ—er he plows by which he endeavours to make the World believe that the Israelites intended the making of the Calves for no other end but onely to worship God in them as Symbols of his presence and shewn them to be perfectly groundless for a farther discovery of the weakness of his Dâ—scourse let us suppose it after all to be as he would have it It cannot be denied but the Calves were originally Symbols of Osiris the chief but false God of the Egyptians and himself confesses p. 94. that upon this account the Israelites made choice of them for the fittest Symbols of the presence of the true God Suppose I say they look'd upon them as such and that they were condemned of Idolatry for intending to worship the true God in them I affirm it follows no more from hence that God hath expresly prohibited in the second Commandment to give him any Worship by such Symbols or Images as are not the Symbols of false Gods than it would follow from a King 's condemning such Persons of Treason as should pretend to worship Him by honouring the Image of an Usurper that he had expresly prohibited the giving him any Worship by his own Image In fine if this discourse of the Doctors may be allowed for good I see no reason why he might not as well justifie the grossest of Idolaters the Aegyptians in their worship of Lâ—cks and Onyons from the guilt of Heathen Idolatry as the Israelites in worshipping the Calves for proceeding in his way it were but to imagin they could not be so sottish as to believe them to be Gods in the proper sense but that they look'd upon them onely as Symbols of Gods kindness to them in providing them Sauce as well as Meat though out of Reverence to those Deities they would eat neither of them § 6. To conclude this Point of the meaning of the Second Commandment he tells us that the Jews thought the Prohibition to extend to all kind of Images for Worship And I would gladly know whether we must stand or fall by the Interpretation of the Jews It was their Opinion that the Prohibition extended not only to the worshipping but also to the making all kind of Images And will the Doctor therefore condemn the Professions of Painting and Carving as unlawful and as his Constantinopolitan Fathers call them blasphemous Well but Vasquez saith he acknowledgeth with other Divines of the Roman Church that it is plain in Scripture that God did not only forbid that in the second Commandment which was unlawful by the Law of Nature as the worshipping an Image for God but the worshipping the true God by any similitude of him But to whom do they say he forbids it Does not Vasquez say expresly c. 2. that it was to the Jews which the Doctor conveniently leaves out And do not those Divines in the very words cited by himself plainly declare the Prohibition of worshipping God by any similitude of him to be but a Positive Precept when they so clearly distinguish it from the Prohibition of worshipping an Image for God which they say was unlawful by the Light of Nature And if they look'd upon that part of the Prohibition as a meer Positive Precept does he think they thought it obliged Christians Their Doctrine and Practice evince the contrary And if Divines agree not among themselves how far this Precept obliged the Jews what matter is it so they agree that what is forbidden in it to Christians is that which is unlawful by the Law of Nature The opposition then which the Doctor would make between my Assertion and that of other Catholick Divines is altogether impertinent for taking it as a Natural Precept and Immutable they say the same that I do that it onely forbids the worshipping of Idols To what he alledges of the Primitive Christians being declared Enemies to all Worship of God by Images which he saith is at last confessed by Petavius one of the most Learned Jesuites they ever had when he affirms that for the first four Centuries or farther there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians not to dispute the matter of fact of which he confesses there was some little use nor the truth of the Doctors relating the words of Petavius of which there is some little reason to doubt from what he did before with Trigautius I shall give him the Answer of Mr. Thorndike one of the most Learned Divines among the Protestants that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches before Idolatry was quite rooted out of which afterwards there might be no appearance And therefore they were afterwards admitted all over for it is manifest saith he the Church is tied no farther than there can appear danger of Idolatry And since he hath given in occasion to mention this Learned Person I shall conclude this Point with his Judgment concerning the meaning and extent of the Second Commandment that the Reader may see how diametrically opposite Dr. St.'s discourse is to the Sentiment of so Eminent a Divine in the Church of England Thus then Mr. Thorndike § 5. The second Commandment setting forth God for a God that is jealous of his People whether they worship him or not manifestly supposeth their Covenant to forsake all other Gods beside him a Contract of Marriage between Him and his People Which if it be so it is no less manifest that the Images which the Precept supposeth are the Representations of other Gods which his People were wont to commit Adultery with by Worshipping them for God For seeing it is manifest how much Idolatry was advanced by Imagery though it may be without it there can be no marvel that there should be a peculiar Precept against it Wherefore it is manifest that Jews by the Letter of this Precept are tied from all Images which their Elders
sobriety But it is no less than insolency and madness and that in the highest degree saith St. Austin to dispute whether that be to be done or no which is practised by the whole Church through the World as this Custom of giving an Honourary Respect to the Images of Christ and his Saints hath been confessedly for many hundreds of years § 3. But before the Doctor can or will become a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome he desires seriously it seems he was but as I guess'd in a fit of Drolling before to know of me whether any Worship doth at all belong to the Image or no Because saith he if there be any Worship due as the Council of Trent saith there is to the Image either it is the same that is given to the Prototype or distinct from it If it be the same then proper Divine Worship is given to the Image If distinct then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self and not relatively as I would have it And was it not subtilly done to tell us that if the Worship given to an Image be distinct from that which is given to the Prototype God then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self The words had been more express but the sense had been the same had he said If an Image be not worshipped with Divine Worship then it is worshipped with Divine Worship for the Worship due to God is Divine Worship and that which is distinct from it is not Divine Worship So hard a thing it is for one who intends mischief to meddle with such edge-tools as School-distinctions are and not cut his own fingers And this is 〈◊〉 first time my Adversary hath done so However he will not lay them down yet 〈◊〉 if it be the former i. e. the 〈◊〉 Worship that saith he is condemned of Idolatry by Bellarmine because the Creature is equally worshipped with God and if the latter i.e. distinct this is oppugned by Vasquez a man of great Reputation too and of as sâ—arching a Wit as Bellarmine as a certain kind of Superstition or Idolatry because Man expresseth submission to an Inanimate Thing From whence he concludes that it is in mens choice what sort of Idolatry they will commit who worship Images but in neither way can they avoid it And here it is he thinks he hath pinch'd us sore and yet will not give us leave to cry out upon himself and his Partizans for their insincere and sophistical mixing the Disputes and Niceties of the Schools with the Doctrine of the Church But how little the Faith and Practise of the Church is concerned in them I shall let the Reader see by a Parallel example in a passage relating to Civil Worship A Gentleman at Court passing through the Guard-Chamber saw a Countrey-man there engaged in a Dispute with three or four of the Yeomen The Clown it seems would have gone into the Presence cover'd They pull'd him back and told him when he went into that Room he must pull off his Haâ— He asked them very pertly To whom or to what for he saw nothing but a Chair and a Canopy They told him It was the Kings Chair of State and he must do it to the Chair out of respect to the King The Countrey-man here perhaps he had read Dr. St.'s Argument or heard him preach it for such kind of preaching hath been the ground of that part of Quakerism began with a serious countenance to demand of them whether any Worship at all were due to the Chair or no For his part he was a Loyal Subject of His Majesties and had really a scruple in the case For if any Worship were due to it it was either the same which is given to the King or distinct from it If the same then proper Regal Worship would be given to something beside the King which were Treason to do If distinct then the Chair would be worshipped with Regal Honour for it self and not relatively which were for a man to submit himself to a piece of Wood And he had so much esteem for his Manhood that he would not debase it so far for all their Halbards Here the Yeomen of the Guard bid him leave his quibbling and do his duty which he refusing to do unless they would satisfie his scruple they took him by the shoulders and thrust him out of doors The passage no doubt was pleasant but withal so parallel to the Doctors proceeding in this matter that I cannot but seriously desire to know of him whether he judge it a sufficient excuse for the Clown not to put off his Hat because he did not or would not understand what kind of Worship was due to the Chair Or to put the example in a thing relating to the Worship of God of which I shall speak more in the next Chapter whether Moses and Josue might have refused to have put off their Shoes in reverence to the Ground where they stood till they had first been satisfied whether it were the same Worship they gave to God or distinct from it That they did lawfully testifie their Reverence towards the Ground is affirmed by himself p. 105. and if they were not retarded from doing it by the Doctors Dilâ—mma no more ought Christians from testifying their Reverence to the Images of Christ and his Saints Let Plato and Aristotle with their followers wrangle as much as they will about the manner how we come to see the former contending that it cannot be done by the Object 's uniting it self with the Eye the latter asserting as strongly that it cannot be done by the Eye 's sending forth Rays to the Object Must we therefore stand still with our Eyes shut till it be agreed between them by which of the two ways we are to see At this rate we must neither see nor hear nor feel nor move till it be accorded between Philosophers how these Operations are performed which will be never Let the Schoolmen then dispute as much as they please about the manner how Honour is given to an Image yet honest Nature will teach us to do it for his sake who is represented by it with as much security and as little danger of erring as any of the aforesaid Operations What the Councils declare in this matter and to them it is the Doctor himself confesses p. 209. that we must appeal for the Churches sense is that we are not to give Latria the Worship due onely to God but a honourary Respect or Adoration to Holy Images as to the Books of Holy Scriptures and other things belonging to God § 4. This is what the Church requireth of her Children to believe and this is all that a Catholick Controvertist is bound to speak to Nor do the Arguments the Doctor brings in reality deserve to be answered otherwise than Zeno's Arguments against Motion were answered by Diogenes For Zeno proves every jot as subtilly that a man cannot move an inch
have not seen anywhere proposed in these terms I answer that the first Proposition is built on a great mistake of the Nature of humane acts which though they ought to be govern'd by the Law of God yet when they swerve from it cease not to tend to their own proper objects Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship may make it to be unlawful but hinders not the act from tending whither it is intended and consequently if it be intended or directed by the understanding to God though after an unlawful manner it will not fail to be terminated upon God Thus when a Thief or a Murderer prays to God to give him good success in the Theft or Murder he intends though God denies to hear any such Prayer yet is the Prayer truly directed to him and thus when the Jews offered to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame though he had forbidden it yet was the oblation terminated on him and therefore he reproves them for having polluted him Mal 1. 8. and to convince them the more of their evil doings Offer it now says he to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person Though the Governor deny to accept what is presented to him yet it is truly offered to him by the Presenter and so although God deny to accept such or such Sacrifice yet it is truly offered to him though the offering of it after a forbidden manner make it to be sin Did not God refuse to accept the Sacrifice of Cain and yet the Scripture Gen. 4. 3. says expresly that he brought an offering to the Lord God had not respect to Cain nor his offering but this did not hinder but that Cain's offering had respect to God was terminated on him In like manner though God deny such or such a kind of Worship if it be offered though unlawfully by the Creature yet is it terminated on him The Proposition therefore which asserts that the Worship which God denies must be terminated on the Creature I deny as absolutely false and so will you too Madam when you shall see the sense of it to be no other but that a wicked Man cannot Pray to God or Worship him in an unlawful or forbidden manner who is therefore a wicked Man because he does so What follows from hence is that though God should have forbidden Men to Worship him by Images yet it does not follow but the Worship so given would be terminated on him But now to speak to his second Proposition in which the main force of this Argument consists We utterly deny that God in the second Commandment forbids himself to be Worshipped by a Crucifix for example or such like Sacred Image for such only are the subject of the present controversie What he forbids there is to give his Worship to Idols and this is clear from the circumstances of the Text First Because this Commandment if St. Austin's Judgment be to be followed is but a Part or Explication of the first Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Secondly because the Hebrew word Pescl in Latin Sculptile is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol Let them be confounded who adore Sculptilia that is Idols saith the Psalmist and so the Septuagint translate it in this very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol So that it was an artifice of the Protestants to make their assertion seem plausible to translate Image instead of Idol and not a certain kind of Image neither but any whatsoever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image Now what is all this to Catholicks who neither make to themselves nor adore Idols nor yield Soveraign honour or acknowledgment of Deity to any but God We give indeed a veneration to Images but the Image of God is not another God besides him nor is the Worship of it the Worship of another God but of him who is represented by it for St. Basil saith The Worship of an Image stays not there but is referred or carried to the prototype or thing represented We give therefore an insetior or relative honour only to the Sacred Images of Christ and his blessed Mother and Saints not latriam the Worship due to God but Honorariam adorationem a certain honorary Worship expressed by kissing them or putting off our Hats or kneeling before them much like the Worship given to the Chair of State or the Kings Picture or his Garment by the like actions or to come nearer to the subject such as was commanded to be given by Moses and Joshua to the ground whereon they stood by putting off their Shoos because it was holy and by the Jews in adoring the foot-stool of God or falling down before it Psal 98. 5. and in Worshipping as St. Jerome testifies they did that part of the Temple called the Holy of Holies because there were the Cherubims sacred Images ordered by God himself to be placed there the propitiatory representing Gods Throne and the Ark his foot-stool In a word such as the Protestants themselves give to the Name of Jesus when they hear it spoken by putting off their Hats and bowing at it or to the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Supper by kneeling before them as figures representing the death of Christ if condescendence to the conscience of weaker Brethren will permit them to own they have any honour or veneration for them or for the Altar before which they bow To conclude this point the Objector brings a Text which forbids us to give the Soveraign honor due to God to an Idol but let us hear out of Scripture an express Text that it is not lawful to give to holy Images and other things relating to God an inferiour or relative Worship such as we have declared and that will be to the purpose § 6. He aims to conclude the Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry from the adoration of the Bread as he believes it in the Eucharist Now to do this he ought to prove that what we adore in the Eucharist is bread indeed But instead of that he brings a comparison between our adoration of Christ in the Eucharist and the Heathens adoration of the Sun viz. That the Papists by the same Argument make the Worship of the bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry which would excuse the Heathens Worship of the Sun and of their Statutes from Idolatry For if it be not therefore Idolatry says he because they suppose the bread to be God then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry in them who supposed the Sun to be God I shall not complain here of the unhandsomness of the expression that Catholicks suppose the Bread to be God just as the Heathens supposed the Sun to be God whereas he knows that Catholicks believe that the substance of the bread is changed into Christs body but shall answer to the Argument That the Worship of Christ in
no real Being but in a middle acception for an Image or resemblance of some real thing but falsely imagined to be a God And it was to the purpose that the Law should be thus enlarged for the Instruction of a people so rude and prone to all kind of Idolatry as the Jews were But supposing the Law to be Natural and not in part Ceremonial it was nothing to the purpose to put the word Similitude in its largest meaning that is as signifying any Image what soever though made with respect to the Worship of the true God when God himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubins to be made for that respect What the Doctor should prove and it is his part at present to prove against these Fathers and the General Sense of the Church of Christ for so many hundred years is that the word Similitude is to be taken so here that is for any Image made with respect to the Worship of God But all the Proof he brings is a confident I confess it cannot enter into my mind how God should have forbidden it by more express and emphatical words than he hath done and yet his own words p. 60. that God forbids any Image or Similitude to be made with respect to his Worship I conceive are much more express and emphatical to his purpose than those of the Law for Those bear a great dispute These none at all But to let this pass What he endeavours instead of proving his own Assertion is to render the explication brought by his Adversary ridiculous by a Comparison much of the same sâ—amp with his former one of a Princes making it Treason to bow down to a Sign Post with his Head upon it with Intention to honour him And to do him right the Reader shall have it as it lies If a Prince saith he should under a severe penalty you may suppose it Treason as in the other case forbid all his Subjects making any Image or resemblance with intent to give honour to him by kneeling before them would not that man be thought very ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law thus that the Prince did not forbid them making any Picture of Himself or his Son or any of his Favorites for the Worship of these could not but redound to his own honour but onely that they should not make the Image of an Ape or an Ass or a Tyger thinking to honour their Prince thereby Much such an exposition says he is that here given of the Law God forbids any Image or Similitude to be made with respect to his Worship for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else but he his Adversary saith This Law must not be understood to exclude a Crucifix or such-like Sacred Image with an intention to worship God by them but onely they should not worship Apis or Dagen an Ichneumon or a Crocodile or any the most ridiculous follies of the Heathen Behold here a quaint Comparison A product of pure Fancy indeed that a Prince should be imagin'd to enact a Law so much against Nature and his own honour But to make it run on all four with the Beasts mention'd in it viz. the Ape the Ass and the Tyger ought not the Doctor first to have prov'd the Sense of the Law in question to be That God forbids an Image or Similitude to be made with respect to his Worship by some better Reason than for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else when there is not one word in the Law expressing a Prohibition of any such thing as I shewed above and the Jews were expresly commanded to make the Ark and the Cherubins and to bow down before them to that very end How quaint soever then the Comparison be it is gâ—ounded on a false Supposition and so quite beside the matter I shall take leave to set it down as I conceive it ought to be and so leave it to the Reader to judge between us Suppose that the Râ—bâ—ls of Astracan having defaced all Images in the City had set up that of their Leader Stephan Radzin in every Street and as they pass'd by put off their Hats or bow'd to it with intent to honour him by those actions Suppose farther that the Czar of Muscovy their lawful Prince having reduced the City to his Obedience should forbid under a severe Penalty all his Subjects to uncover or bow themselves to an Image and at the same time or a little after command those which were set up for the Usurper's honour to be pull'd down and burnt and others relating to himself set up to the Intent to honour him by them would not that man be thought very ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law to be meant of any Image whatsoever though made with respect to the Prince'â— own honour by taking the word Image in its largest signification especially if there were another word or clause in the Law limiting the Generality of the word Image to those of the Usurper Just such an exposition of the Law is that given here by the Doctor Rebel Mankind had set up Idols and Images of false Gods in all parts of the World to honour that Arch Rebel the Devil by bowing down before them and God having reduc'd a part of it to his Obedience the People of the Jews forbids them to make an Idol or any similitude of things in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth to bow down to them or serve them restraining thereby the generality of the word similitude to signifie those of false Gods And at the same time or presently after commands them to make an Ark and Cherubins to give Worship to himself by bowing down before them Would not that man now be thought ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law to mean by that general term Similitude the forbidding any Image or Similitude whatsoever to be made with respect to his own Worship Let the Reader judge whether this I have set down be not the plain state of the point in debate between us and whether there be any thing more extravagant than such an Exposition of the Law as this here given except the Reason it self he gives 〈…〉 ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else 9. His second Answer to my Argument is that the word Pesel is very properly rendred an Image and doth not signifie barely an Idol And what he offers by way of Proof is that it is no less than forty several times rendred by the Lxx. glypton a graven thing and but thrice by eidoolon an Idol and once by eikoon which is properly an Image But granting this to be so does it any way hinder but their Judgment was it was to be rendred by Idol in this place Nay is it not evident that translating it generally by glypton a graven thing they had some particular reason to render it by Idol rather than by graven thing or Image in this
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
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
a Name which is above every Name that it might have as much Reverence given It as we give to great Meg of Westminster What would Bishop Andrews have said had he lived to hear this Verily saith He in his Sermon upon the foregoing words of St. Paul God will not have us worship him like Elephants as if we had no Joynts in our Knees He will have more honour of men than of the Pillars of the Church He will have us to bow our Knees and let us bow them in God's Name and To his Name For this is another Prerogative He is exalted to whose Person Knees do bow but He to whose Name onely much more But the cause is here otherwise For his Person is taken up out of our sight all we can do will not reach unto it But his Name he hath left behind to us that we may shew by our Reverence and Respect to it how much we esteem him How true the Psalm shall be Holy and Reverend is his Name But if we have much ado to get it bow at all much more shall we have to get it done to his Name There be that do it not what speak I of not doing it There be that not onely forbear to do it themselves but put themselves to an evil Occupation to find faults where none is and cast scruples into mens minds by no means to do it And again a little after But to keep us to the Name This is sure the words themselves of St. Paul are so plain as they are able to convince any mans Conscience And there is no Writer not of the Ancient on this place that I can find save he that turned all into Allegories but literally understands it and likes well enough we should actually perform it Thus Dr. Andrews a very Learned Bishop of his Church as Dr. St. himself calls him p. 101. And can any legitimate Son of that Church hear him preach that no more Reverence is due to the Name of JESUS than to the tolling of a Bell and yet cry him up hereafter for a Pillar of that Church unless it be in the Bishop's sense above-mentioned whose practise he exposes as ridiculous by so unhandsome a Comparison I remember at the beginning of the Long Parliament one of the first Wounds given to the Church of England was from a Book whose Title as I read it posted up in Westminster-Hall was Jesu-Worship Confuted and whether the same might not have been put for a Marginal Note to this Answer of the Doctors I leave to Judgment of the Reader Give me leave to speak a Word to you Sons of the Church of England what if the Doctor should come upon you for reverencing the Name of JESUS with your Hat or Knee as he doth upon us for honouring in like manner his Image viz. p. 102. that the Reverence you give to that Holy Name is either the same you give to God or distinct from it If it be the same then you give proper divine worship to the Name and if it be distinct then the Name is worshipped with divine worship for it self and it is in your choice what sort of Idolatry you will commit who worship the Name of JESUS but neither way can you avoid it If you tell him that the Reverence you give that H. Name is not the worship due to God but a Relative and inferiour respect for his sake he will tell you again as he did me in the case of Images p. 100. that this is just as if an unchast Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband that the Person she was too kind with was extreamly like him and a dear friend of his nay had his very name and that it was out of respect to him that she gave him the honour of his Bed I do not hear that he hath press'd this argument upon you and if he do not I cannot but wonder his zeal for God's honour suffers you so long to go on in your Idolatrous practise and much more if he comply with you himself in shewing any reverence to that Name for though like a wiser Christian there being degrees among Christians as well as Heathens he differ extreamly from the Vulgar in his Opinion of Religion yet this is to concur with them in the external practise of their Idolatry and so he falls under the same censure with his wiser Heathens p. 73. On the other side if he do it noâ— Bishop Andrews hath told him he hath just reason to fear least the Knee that will not bow be strucken with something which shall make it not able to bow and for the Name that they that will do no honour to it when time of need comes shall receive no honour by it But to conclude this Point If it be the sense of the Sons of the Church of England that they intend to give no more reverence to the most Holy Name of Jesus when they hear it read than to a Bell when they hear it toll I confess I was mistaken in alledging this Practise of theirs for an Instance But if they acknowledge more is due to that sacred Name than to a Bell and yet not so much as is due to God himself I have the end for which I brought it which was to let them see what kind of worship it is we give to the Images of Christ such as is given by themselves to the Name of Jesus For we make Images no more the Objects of our worship when we kneel before them than they do that Holy Name when they bow at it § 5. The Fift Instance was of the Reverence given to the Sacramental signs in the Supper by kneeling before them which if the Bread and Wine had any sense in them as he saith of Images p. 102. would think were done to them And what saith my Adversary to this Marry that this of all things should not be objected to them If you ask him why He tells you because they have declared in their â—ubrick after the Communion that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Dread and Wine there bodily received or any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored For that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians I confess I reflected up in this Rubrick when I put down Kneeling at the Eucâ—arist for an Instance but I could not imagin the Doctor would make it a matter of Triumph over the Church of England It is not yet more than a dozen years since this Rubrick was inserted into the Communion Book and the occasion is well known to have been a design to gain scrupulous and dissenting Parties to a conformity in so innocent a Ceremony And because the Church of England hath been so kind to those who dissented from her as to declare no adoration is intended
by it to the Bread and Wine or any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood Will the Doctor be so unkind as to make her say that no Reverence at all is due to that Holy Sacrament that this of all things in the World ought not to have been objected against them What! will he make them fall below Calvin in their respect to that Sacrament who saith it is to be received with reverence as the Pledge of our Holy Union with Christ Is it not time now to remind him as I promised above p. 138. how his Beloved Constantinopolitan Fathers call it an Honourable Image of Christ's quickning Body And thereupon invite all those and among them the Doctor unless he will leave himself out as he did these words all those I say to rejoyce and exult with confidence who desire worship and offer it for the Salvation both of Soul and Body Though He stile me very ineptly a Revolted Protestant yet I have so much respect for those learned Persons who made that Rubrick as to think they meant by Adoration what the word now signifieth by use in English that is Divine Worship proper to God alone and not that no more Reverence should be used towards the Bread and Wine in the Church than there is to the Remainder of it at home by some seemingly Revolted Presbyterians I cannot believe them to be truly Sons of the Church of England Now what the sense of that Church was and still is unless the Doctor will have us suppose these Modern Divines to have prevaricated from their Fathers Bishop Jewel tells us in these words We only adore Christ saith he as very God but we Worship also and Reverence the Sacrament we Worship the Word of God we worship all other like things in such Religious wise to Christ belonging The same is witnessed by Bishop Morton Under the degree of Divine Worship we our selvs yield as much to the Eucharist as St. Austin did to Baptisme where he said Epist 164. We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is Nor is this delivered by them as their private Opinion but as the sense of the Church of England as appears by their words And if you ask how they can excuse themselves from Idolatry you have the Answer of Bishop Jewel that the Sacraments be adored but the whole honour resteth not in them but is passed over from them to the things signified So that it seems I was not much miâ—â—â—ken when to paralel the Reverence given by Catholicks to Images I instanced in that which is given by Protestants to the Sacramental signs by kneeling at the Eucharist for they do not only allow a like Reverence but maintain it also with the same distinction Nor will the Doctor ever be able to perswade his Parishioners out of it till he can make them leave their usual Expression when they speak of this Sacrament that they do not receive it as Bread but as the Body of Christ § 6. The 6th and last Instance was of Reverence given to the Altar by bowing to it a practise of great Antiquity as Dr. Heylin shows in his defence of the Modern Practise of it in the Church of England against Burton p. 25. This Dr. Still saith is of the same nature with the putting off our Hats while we are in the Church And what is this to say Himself admits a Reverence to Holy Places p. 105. and surely the Church the House of God is one of them Here then we find him incline to admit a Reverence due to the Altar and if it be of the same nature with putting off our Hats while we are in the Church as he doth the one so he may lawfully do the other But then as if he had granted too much he presently draws back and tells us This is only determining a natural act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship which as far as I can understand the words is not of the same nature with putting off our Hats when we are in the Church but with going to Church when the Bell tolls which is to give no more Reverence to the Altar than to the Bell. But who can unfold the Riddle and tell me what he means by a natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship If he mean by that way the local situation of the Altar in the East which was the way the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship and that Nature teacheth us to direct our Worship that way although the Altar for example in St. Andrew's may serve for such a determination because it is placed in the East yet he must give another reason why those in the Savoy bow towards the Altar where it is seated in the North because it doth not there determin a Natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship which was towards the East But if he mean by that way a like manner of Reverence to the Altar as was used to be given by the Ancient Christians he will find in the aforecited place out of Dr. Heylin that they acknowledged an honour and veneration due to the Holy Altar and testified that honour by bowing and kneeling to it In fine whatever the meaning of the words be to speak to the practise it self either he condemns those of the Churcâ— of England who profess and testify their reverence to the Altar by bowing to it for Idolatry or no. If he do they are at age to answer for themselves If he do not an Inferiour or Relative honour may be given to it for his sake whose Throne it is under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone and as the allowing this will render him a true Son of the Church of England so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ will make him in this point a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome whose Councils have decreed that we are not to give to the Images of Christ and his Saints Latria or the worship due to God but a honourary respect and veneration as to the Books of H. Scripture and other Holy things But what himself may justly fear should success crown his endeavours in putting scruples into poor simple Mens minds to with draw them from the Reverence they owe to the Sacraments of Christ his Saints his Name his Image his Altars and such like Holy things relating to his Worship is that the Event whatever the design be of his labours will be no other as those Pious and Learned Doctors of Rhemes long since observed and we see at this Day in a great measure fulfilled than to inure Men by degrees to lose all honour and respect to Christ himself to abolish all true Religion out of the World and to make them plain Atheists The Chair of State is not more an Ornament to the King's Palace than the
present in his Ascension after he was intercepted from his Disciples sight by a Cloud Was he not so present before he opened the Eyes of the two blind Men who sate by the way side Matth. 20. 30. And is he not believed by all Christians to be so present at the right hand of his Father And might none of these worship him because they could not see him If he pretend a difference in the cases because in all them he was the Object of sense either before or after but as he exists in the Sacrament he can be no Object of sense he must grant his presence there to be a matter of pure Revelation and so falls upon the other edge of his distinction that in matters of pure Revelation where the matter proposed to our Faith can be no Object of sense there firm credit is to be given to the divine Revelation and worship also suitable to his presence But to go one step further In case a thing be knowable by evidence of sense May it not also be made known by Divine Revelation And will not God's Revelation ascertain us as well if not much better than our Eyes Who saw the World rise out of nothing No less a Philosopher than Aristotle not to speak of others held it never had any beginning And yet what Christian does not believe it had more firmly upon the account of God's Revelation than if he had been present in some corner of the spatium Imaginarium and beheld the foundation of it with his Eyes Upon the whole then which way soever the Doctor turn himself unless he will maintain what he seems indeed to suppose all along in this discourse that we are to give more credit to our sense then to God's revealed word he must confess that wherever there is a Divine Revelation of Christ's presence which at present he supposes in the Sacrament there is the same if not greater Reason to believe and worship him than if he saw him as clearly as the Wise-men did in the Manger or the Thief upon the Cross And consequently that he was but too too Prodigal in granting that supposing a like Divine Revelâ—â—ion for Christ's presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as for his being true God yet there would not be the same reason to worship him there as when he dwelt visibly among us All that he could devise to elude the Parallel argument I urged from the Pen of an Arrian Viz. that the Argument he brings to conclude Catholicks to be Idolaters for their adoration of Christ in the Eucharist would be of as much force from the Arrians against the adoration of him as God All I say he could devise to elude this argument with standing to the true state of the Question and supposing as he does a like divine Revelation for both was to say there was not an express command to worship him in the Eucharist which how pitiful an Evasion it is I have shewed above And yet as pitiful as it is it may serve well enough to make an unwary Reader believe he concludes all the Papists in the World Idolaters for worshipping our Lord Christ himself in the Sacrament But why it should do so when nothing less than an express Prohibition could make them Idolaters in the matter of Images I cannot imagin § 6. The Second Proof he brings to show that Supposing a like divine Revelation for Christ's being present in the Sacrament as for his being true God yet there is not the same reason of adoration is p. 112. because the One he saith gives us a sufficient reason of our Worship viz. his Divinity but the other doth not because all that He can believe then present supposing Transubstantiation is the Body of Christ and that is not the Object of our Adoration But this is altogether as weak as the former for however that be all he can believe and more than he does believe God encrease his Faith yet Catholicks believe much more viz. that together with his Body in the Eucharist are present his Soul his Person his Divinity in a word whole Christ and to his Person it is they terminate their worship as hypostatically united with his Body For as the Dr. himself saith very well p. 114. although the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason of adoration yet being considered as united to the Divine Nature that cannot hinder the same Divine Worship being given to his Person which belongs to his Divine Nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him To elude this Answer for now his chiefest hope consists in seeking out ways to escape instead of rejoining to it upon the supposition of Transubstantiation he falls to dispute down-right against Transubstantiation it self where he tells the Reader that this Answer of Christ's Body being hypostatically united with the Divine Nature is indeed a good argument to prove the Body of Christ cannot be there by Transubstantiation And I desire the Reader to be very attentive to the argument as it is propos'd by the Doctor for otherwise perhaps it may cost him the labour of a second reading If the Bread saith he p. 113. be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature then the Conversion is not meerly into the Body but into the Person of Christ and then Christ hath as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements consecrated and so all the accidents of the Bread belong to that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature Therefore the Body of Christ cannot be in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation This is his argument which he calls a Good One. I am sure I may call it a sublime One and so sublime that there wants only an Adversary of the same humour with Mr. J. S.'s to set it out for a notable piece of new Mystical Divinity For I do verily believe that neither Harphius nor Rusbrochius nor the profound Mother Juliana have any thing in their writings so seemingly un intelligible and contradictory as this discourse of the Doctor 's is really such For beside the hard words of hypostatical union consecrated Elements Conversion into the Person of Christ c. which quite put down Mr. J. S.'s vulgar ones of Potentiality Actuality Actuation supervene subsume c. First He will have it to be the same Body because it is that Body which is hypostatically united with the divine nature Then he will have it not to be the same Body because Christ would have as many Bodies as there are Elements consecrated And then again it must be the same Body because all the Accidents of Bread belong to that Body which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature But this way of refining a discourse into Mystical Divinity is proper only to confute demonstrations and the argument I have to deal with is so far from that
were they so scrupulous as to require him to put off his cloths before they adored him nor yet to separate him in thought from them at the time of adoration but worshipped him absolutely as then he was And then a little after whatever difference saith he there may be among Divines about the manner of speaking the Question is no other but whether Christ be to be adored with divine worship in the Eucharist This is what Bellarmin says And if the Doctor would not except against an Example from civil worship I should tell him that his stating the Controversy between us concerning the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist to be whether the Accidents be to be adored with proper Divine Worship which is due to God alone is just as if a Quaker should make the Question between him and a Protestant concerning the worship of the King in his Robes to be whether the Robes are to be worshipped with the same Regal worship which is due only to the King's Person The subtilty such as it is is Parallel in both Only the Doctor hath the fortune to be applauded for what the poor Quaker would be laughed at and hiss'd out of the Court. I cannot doubt but the Doctor who is so well vers'd in Bell. as his Objections show had read these passages in him when he subjoins that Catholicks to answer their adversaries arguments would seem to direct their worship only to Christ as under the Elements or Accidents a pretty self-conviction if well observ'd for who should we believe for the Doctrin and practise of Catholicks but themselves But what he adds that they yield that on the account of this corporal presence that which appears ought to have the same worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed is sufficiently convinced by what hath been cited out of Bellarmin in that absolute sense in which the Doctor charges it upon us to be a meer calumny as Bellarmin calls it for although he affirm that when Christ is worshipped under the Symbols that adoration belongs also to the Symbols yet he says it is in such manner as the adoration given to him upon Earth in his apparel belonged to his Garments which he qualifies with a quodammodo after a certain manner that is to say not as it is given to Christ himself but in an inferiour manner as hath been above declared Part 1. chap. 10. p. 190. § 2. After all this turning and winding to mis-represent the state of the Controversy to be whether on the account of Christ's corporal presence in the Sacrament that which appears viz. the accidents of bread ought to have the same worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed that is with Christ himself He comes at length to show 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 To prove this he makes use of a double Medium The first That no Man can be secure that the Object is such as doth deserve divine worship The second That no Man can be satisfied that he hath a sufficient reason for giving this worship to the Host And they are both of them impertinent to the present purpose and quite overthrow his supposition for proceeding upon the Principles of the Roman Church and supposing as he doth at presâ—nt a divine Revelation for the presence of Christ true God and Man in the Saccrament he must either deny Christ himself to be adorable or he must grant that the Object doth deserve Divine Worship and that there is sufficient reason to give it He that is too Prodigal in giving away what in time he may need himself casts himself upon a necessity either of begging what he gave or pretending an Error in the Deed of Gift And to these straits hath the Doctor brought himself by his over-liberality in supposing a like divine Revelation for Christ's presence in the Sacrament as for his being true God His honour will not permit him to begg what he so freely granted and therefore he takes the other course of pretending a double flaw in the donation and although his pretences be excluded by the very evidence of the deed as it stands upon Record in his own Book p. 111. yet I shall give them the hearing and show them to have nothing at all of proof in them 1. He saith p. 120. No Man can be secure that the Object is such as doth deserve divine worship If you ask him why He tells you the Mass-Bell now rings the Host is to be adored and if he should chance to believe his senses or harken to his reason he becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man Again if he consider the miraculousness of the change it is so strange and sudden he can hardly say that God becoming Man was so great a wonder as a little piece of Bread becoming God If he be recall'd from carnal Reason to the Words of Christ this is my body he is told that Scripture is very obscure and dangerous for any one to be too confident of the sense of it If he be sent for the meaning of it to the unanimous consent of the Fathers he sees the World is as full of disputes concerning the sense of their words as of the Scriptures Lastly If he be counsel'd to lay aside his scruples and submit to the authority of the present Church he finds that Catholicks are not agreed about that neither Some think it enough that it is defined by the Pope Others require the concurrence of a General Council and that it be confirmed wholly by the Pope and doth proceed in the way of a Council So that he sees he may spend all his life in the study and search of these things and yet never be satisfied in them nor consequently in Transubstantiation it self which is now the Point he pretends he is not satisfied in wherefore if this be the only way of satisfaction he must forbear giving adoration or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it And doth he not manifestly prove himself here to be in the case of the Prodigal I lately mentioned when supposing a like divine Revelation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as of his being true God he now spends no less than four whole Pages to prove that he cannot be satisfied there is any such Revelation Let Schollars judge of this illiberal manner of proceeding whilst I speak to the Argument it self And not to tire the Reader with particular Reflexions upon the sâ—veral difficulties he starts concerning the evidence of his sense the miraculousness of the change the obscurity of Scripture the consent of the Fathers which have been answered over and over by Catholick Writers to free my self from all scruples in the case I take the Authority of the present Church to be sufficient for me For however some Divines think it enough that it be
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
Humane but such as a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth By this it appears that if the Doctor mean by Religious Worship that Honor which is due to God alone it is true what the Fathers say that It is not to be given to the most excellent created Beings but nothing at all to the Point in debate between us If he mean that Honour of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth I shall show it to be false that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels and Saints And if he contend that this kind of worship ought not to be called Religious St. Austin will tell him that it is but a meer wrangling about words because the word Religion as he shows may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God and Himself speaking of the honour given by Christians to the Martyrs saith We celebrate their Memories with Religious Solemnity And who so saith Mr. Thorndike in the place above cited could wish that the Memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have been Martyrs had they been called to it Alas He never thought that for ought Dr. St. can know they were great Hypocrites had not been honoured as is plain they were honoured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed Whether this Censure of Mr. Thorndike's be applicable to my Adversary or no depends upon his allowing or not allowing such honour to the Saints as is plain was given them by Christians but for the distinction he makes between the Religious worship due to God and that of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake it will clearly dispell the Mâ—st he hath raised from the Testimonies of the Fathers and let the Reader see how he hath perverted their meaning and yet said nothing to the purpose § 2. The first he cites is Origen affirming that the Scripture doth indeed stile God the God of Gods and Lord of Lords but withall saith that to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by Him And his mind ascends up to the supreme God who worships him inseparably and indivisibly by his Son who alone conducts us to the Father Therefore seeing there are many Gods and many Lords we endeavour by all means not only to carry our minds above those things on Earth which are worshipped by the Heathen for Gods but above those whom the Scripture calls Gods by which Origen means the Angels To this I answer that it is plain from the very words themselves that the worship which Origen here contends ought not to be given to Angels is divine worship proper to God alone for he speaks only of that worship which is given to the Father inseparably and indivisibly by his Son And when-ever such worship is to be given we must not only carry our minds above those things which were worshipped by the Heathens for Gods but above the good Angels also because they are not inseparably and indivisibly One with the Father as the Son is who alone can conduct us by his Grace and Merits to the Father And this is yet more plain from the Reply which Origen gave to that Evasion of Celsus viz. that None were to be honoured for Gods but those to whom the supreme God doth communicate it for denying any such honour to have been granted by God to the Heroes or Daemons of the Heathens he proves from Miracles and Prophecies and Precepts that this honour was given to Christ Ut omnes honorent Filium sicut Patrem honorant that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father that is that they should honour him as God which the Doctor translates that they who honour the Father should honour the Son also tacitly insinuating that no honour at all mâ—ght be lawfully given but to the Son And again when Celsus objects that by the same Rule that Christians gave honor to Christ he thought they might give it to Inferiour Deities The account which Origen gives of the worship which Christians attribute to the Son viz. because it is said I and my Father are One makes it yet more evident that he speaks of divine worship which cannot be given to any created Beings and not of such an Inferiour Worship of which Creatures are capable upon account of their Holiness and Relation to God For of these he saith and who will not wonder to see it cited though but imperfectly by the Doctor himself that if Celsus had spoken of the true Ministers of God after his only begotten Son such as Gabriel Michael and all the Angels and Archangels and had contended that they were to be worshipped which last words though very material are left out by Dr. St. he acknowledges that by explaining the notion of worship or respect and the Actions of those that give it perhaps he should have said something of that Subject as far as the dignity of so great a thing and the reach of his understanding would have permitted But this not being objected by Celsus but only that they were by the same Rule by which they worshipped Christ for God to worship in like manner the Inferiour Deities of the Heathens he thought it not necessary to enlarge upon that Subject at present but only to show the different account upon which they worshipped Christ as one with his Father By which it is manifest he held a certain worship or respect due to the Angels inferiour to that which is due to God alone And all that the Doctor hath to say for himself is that Origen saith elsewhere Although the Angels be called Gods in Scripture yet we are not to worship them with divine worship which is a plain concession that when Origen denies worship to any created Beings he speaks of divine worship and so nothing against that Inferiour worship or respect which is given by Catholicks to the Holy Angels and Saints § 3. But now the Doctor would seem to say something to the purpose when he tells us that Origen utterly denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but Christ alone and that any word which is proper to Religious worship is to be attributed to the Angels themselves But he does but seem to come home to the Point for as Mr. Thorndike well observes The terms of Prayer Invocation calling upon and whatever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unless we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Men. And a little aâ—ter Prayer Invocation calling upon is not so proper to God but
that whether you will or not every Petition to a Prince or Court of Justice is necessarily a Prayer and he that makes it Invocates or Calls upon that Prince or Court for favour or for Justice The Notion then of Prayer may be distinguished as well as that of Worship and Protestants themselves when they pray others to pray for them use it in a quite different sense than when they pray to God for as applyed to God it imports a total dependance upon him as the Author of all good but as apply'd to Just and Holy-men it implies no more than a Communion of Love and Society in the Members of the Church Militant with those of the Triumphant for the assistance of their Prayers to him who only can give what we ask And in this sense the words Prayer Invocation c. are used by Catholicks when they are applyed to the Holy Angels and Saints And that Origen when he denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but Christ alone speaks of Prayer in the first sense and not in the latter is evident from what he had said before in the beginning of the first Book where he acknowledges that the Angels do offer up the Prayers of Men to God and surely it can never be Idolatry in us to desire them to do what they do and much more from his own practice in his first Homily upon Ezechiel where he Invocates an Angel in these words Come Holy Angel and receive Him who is converted from his former Errour And therfore when he says We are not to pray to them who pray for us He adds as the Doctor cites him p. 149. That we ought not to divide our supplications between God and them By which he explains himself to mean that we ought not to pray to them in the same manner as we do to God for that indeed were to divide our supplications But to desire them to offer up our Prayers or to pray for us is not to divide our supplications between God and them but to unite their Prayers to ours as we do the Prayers of â—ust Men upon Earth whom we desire to pray for us It is evident then and mostly out of the very places cited by the Doctor himself that the Invocation or Honour which Origen denies to be given to Angels is that which is due to God § 4. But now the Doctor weary it seems of being serious so long to no purpose thought fit to entertain his Reader with an other Essay for one Enterlude of this kind we have had already in the 1st Chap. of the peculiar Faculty he hath in exposing the Saints to derision Celsus saith he p. 150 yet further urges that according to the doctrin of the Aegyptians every part of a Man hath a particular Daemon or Ethereal God and every one of these being invocated heals the diseases of the parts proper to themselves why then may they not justly be invocated saith Celsus And if one of the Church of Rome saith Dr. Still had been to answer him he must have told him that the thing was rational which he said only they were out in their Names for instead of Chnumen Chnaachumen Cnat Sicat Biu Eru c. They should have chosen Raphael for travelling and against Diseases Apollonia against the Toothâ—ach Sebastian and Roch against the Plague St. Nicholas against Tempests Michael and St. George against Enemies and others in like cases Thus the Doctor makes sport for himself and others of his humour by deriding a practice used by some Catholick People of addressing themselves to some particular Saints rather than others against particular dangers oâ— diseases as if there were no difference between the Aegyptians daemons or Ethercal Gods and the Saints but in the Names or between the Aegyptians addresses to those Devils and those of Catholicks to the Holy Saints and Angels but in the language and that there needed no more but to correct the Names as you would do faults escaped in Printing viz. for Chnumen to read Raphael for Chnaachumen Apollonia for Cnat Sebastian for Sicat Roch for Biu Michael and I suppose for c. it is so like the Dragon's Tail St. George who otherwise must be left out But the sport is not more pleasing to those who mock at all Religion than I shall make it appear ridiculous to all sober Readers by showing Two things 1. The difference between the Doctrine and Practice of the Aegyptians and that of Catholicks 2. The reasonableness of the practice of making addresses to one particular Saint rather than another First then That Catholicks look upon the Saints with a different regard from what the Aegyptians did their Daemons is evident in that the Aegyptians believed them to be Gods which is far from the hearâ— of any Catholick to believe of the Angels and Saints And it is no less evident that the addresses they make to them are different from those the Aegyptians made to those Gods because as Origen saith the Invocation which Celsus contended for was Votiva illis sacrificia reddere to offer sacrifice to them which is due to God alone and that upon account that they had power to heal the Disâ—ases of the Parts proper to themselves But the Invocation which Catholicks make to the Holy Angels and Saints is but to desire them as we do Holy Men upon Earth to pray for us And therefore when the Doctor saith that If one of the Church of Rome had been to Answer Celsus he must have told him that the thing was Rational which he said I must tell him that what he saith is Irrational and false because both the Conceit they have of the Angels and Saints and the addresses they make to them as I have shewed are point blank opposite to those of the Aegyptians But now on the other side supposing the Aegyptians had the same conceit of their Daemons which Catholicks have of the Holy Angels and Saints and that they did no more but as Catholicks do desire them to pray for them to the supream God would it follow that Catholicks may not desire the Prayers of the Saints and Angels No more than because the Aegyptians erected Temples and offred Sacrifice to their great God Osiris therefore Catholicks may not do the same to the very true God himself or because they made their solemn supplications to a false God therefore Protestants may not offer up their Prayers to the true One 2. The reasonableness of making addresses to one particular Saint rather than another in some particular occasions And this will appear from the Consideration upon which it is usually done which is not a division of Offices among the Saints every one of whom may equally intercede without entrenching upon the Propriety of another and their Intercession may be implored by us in all kinds of necessities whatsoever but it is grounded upon a Reflexion which the suppliant makes either upon some signal Grace which shined in that
signification of the words I Answer not meerly from Lilly's Grammar Rules but from the Doctrine of the Church delivered in her Councils and Catechisms and from the common use of such words and expressions among Christians If a Child being taught by his Parents that God alone can give what we ask when he saith to his Father Bless me understands the meaning of the words to be that his Father should pray to God to bless him then surely much more must Catholick People when they pray to the B. Virgin to drive away all evils understand the sense to be that she would pray to God to deliver them from all evil there being besides the common Doctrine of Christianity by which they are taught that God alone is the Giver of all good things so many Sermons Catechisms and Explications both by word and writing daily made in the Catholick Church by Priests to the People and Parents to their Children in this particular Point Well but if this were all saith the Doctor why in all this time that those Prayers have been complained of viz. by those who have revolted from the Church hath not their sense been better expressed Why have they not been expunged all this while after that their Breviaries have been so often reviewed This I fear if done would not be enough to keep them from telling us Once upon a time there was a blasphemous Book or in the Mass-Book Printed at Paris in such a Year there was But why to comply with the humour of a few Opiniators whom no Reason can satisfy must Mankind be debarred the natural manner of expressing their affections And why have not those scrupulous Person◠all this while devised a Dictionary or Phrase-Book to furnish us with words and forms of speaking which may equal our Conceptions and express every little variation of our thoughts and all the different tempers and emotions of the Spirit Do we not do the same action sometimes more quick and smartly than at others Why then must we be tyed to use always the same form of words Why may we not sometimes utter the same affection in a more fervent manner of expression than at others He that sees himself in an imminent danger makes no long Preambles but cries out Help me And St. Gregory Nazianzen records it as an act of great devotion in St. Justina that to free her self from the snares of Satan she call'd upon the Virgin Mary to help and succour her But the Doctor hath now found a Staff to beat Bellarmin with for offering to instance in Scripture that the Apostles are said to save Men Viz. by their Prayers c. Therefore in the like sense we may desire them to save us And he lays on so hard that he hath beat all the brains out of the Cardinal's head at a blow For will any Man saith he in his Wits say the Case is the same in Ordinary Speech and in Prayer Is it all one saith he for a Man to say that his Staff helped him in his going and to fall down upon his Knees and pray to his Staff to help him And now I pray who so proper a Man to confute Bellarmin as Dr. St. Bellarmin speaks of such Instruments as have both Understanding and Will to help us to Heaven by their Prayers and he presently lets drive at Him with his Staff for speaking Non-sense Let the Reader judge whether the Instrument be more Irrational or the Use he makes of it I have long since observ'd that whenever he makes other Men out of their Wits The Reader hath reason to suspect all is not right at home But St. Paul doubtless was a Rational Instrument and What would He have said saith the Doctor to one who should say to him I pray you pardon my sins and assist me with the grace of God I believe he would neither have condemned him of gross Idolatry nor prodigious Folly as the Doctor doth but considering the bitterness of his Soul by the eagerness of his Expression would have given him the assistance of his Prayers to obtain what he aimed to procure by his means of God § 7. Having thus cleared the fense of those Forms of Prayer we sometimes use to the B. Virgin and other Saints to be no other than praying to them to pray to God for us as I asserted in my Reply and answered the little exceptions the Doctor made against it I shall conclude this Point with some Instances of like expressions either used or approved by the Fathers of the Primitive times And first for the usual form of Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us the Instances are so numerous that to transcribe them would make a Volume Many of the Fathers are taxed for this practice by the Magdeburgenses and other Protestant Writers and for this sort of Invocation Mr. Thorndike saith it is confessed that the Lights both of the Greek and Latin Church Basil Nazianzen Nyssen Ambrose Hierome Austin Chrysostom Cyrils both Theodoret Fulgentius St. Gregory the Great Leo more or rather all after that time have spoken to the Saints and desired their Assistance Nay the Doctor himself though diminute in his Confession acknowledges there are some Instances of them in good Authors although he will needs have them to be but Rhetorical Apostrophes and Poetical Flourishes or Wishes that the Saints would pray for us as we Englishmen when we are at play saith Mr. Perkins and I wonder so pat an Example could escape the Doctor call upon the Bowls to rubb or to run as we would have them At this sport he fancies St. Hierome to have been when he cry'd to Paul after her death Help me O Paul in my old Age with thy Prayers And so no doubt was the Emperor Theodosius too when as Ruffinus reporteth Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 33. He went to visit the Sepulchers of the Martyrs accompanyed with all the Clergy and People it was it seems a General Day of Bowling and prostrate before their Ashes You may imagin to take surer aim implored aid by their Intercession or as St. Chrysost hath it in the same or a like occasion Ho. 26. in 2 Cor. besought the Saints to be his Patrons and Advocates with GOD. And the Doctor Himself brings in Saint Austin as playing at the same Game when he says p. 173. that he wishes rather than praise that St. Cyprian would help him with his prayers Confessing also as I said before that there are some Instances of this pleasant kind of Invocation to be found in good Authors The difficulty then lies in those prayers which we make to Saints to help our Necessities But of these also there want not Instances in the Writings of good Authors of the Primitive times parallel to those which the Doctor objects out of the present Roman Breviary and Office of our Lady Do we say there Hail B. Virgin Thou alone hast destroyed all Heresies in the World Vouchsafe Holy Virgin to