owed to God to a Creature Mindfull of this wonder no more that a Man who leaves God may become as void of Reason as a Calf To return then to our Foolish Israelits was that way of speaking these are thy Gods in the plural number a representation of one God in one Essence and Nature From the Golden Calf let us come to our Images they are called the Books of Ignorants but in our Adversaries Judgement ought rather to be term'd the Books of Ignorance because they are the occasion of many Errors sayes he For Example the Picture of an Old Man representing God the Father a Dove the Holy Ghost are apt to make the Ignorant sort believe they have indeed some such shape Answer VVe must then blot out of the Holy Scripture all these expressions and ways of speaking by which God is said to Heare to See to repent Gen c. 6. v. 6. Lest the Ignorant People think that God has Ears and Eyes and sorrow in his Hart as we have Now reflect that these Pictures are not representatives of God the Father or of the Holy Ghost immediatly but of an old Man and a Dove which are the Symbols of God the Father and the Holy Ghost in as much as they in some sort represent to us the destinctive perfections of those Divine Persons As the old Man is the Principle of his son and not mutualy principal'd by him so God the Father is the principle of God the Son and God the Holy Ghost and is not principal'd by them Also the puritie and fecundity of the Dove makes us more sensible of the Sanctity we are said to receave particularly from the Holy Ghost as a fountain of purity and of the fecundity of his grace brought forth in us The occasion then of Deception if there be any is not in the Images but in the things Immediatly represented by Them I hope the Zeal of our Antagonist will not be so blind on this account as to study the Extirpation of Doves and ridding the World of old Men since it is not to be thought that Christians are easily to be found of so gross an imagination as to think that the Nature or Essence of God or the Holy Ghost can be Painted out to our Eyes altho ' they may be Painted in that Figure it pleased them to appear as God appeared to Daniel with the Hairs of his Head as pure Wool Daniel 7. v. 9. And the Holy Ghost in Form of a Dove Luke 3. v. 22. SECT II. The Protestants do not Adore God in Spirit and Truth nor the R. Catholick the Cross as GOD. ALtho' our Adversary think it undeniable that Protestants Adore more than R. Catholicks in Spirit and Truth because they Adore God immediatly sayes he without having recourse to Images Yet I think I reasonably deny both parts of his proposition the first because as a Protestant to make me believe that he has Faith must prove it by his Works according to St. Iames 2. v. 18. so to perswade me that he Adores God in Spirit he must manifest it to me by his outward respect to him Shall I say that Mans Heart Adores God whose Hand does not do his duty to him Protestants do not give to God the chief Adoration which is due to him as he is above all Creatures I mean a proper Sacrifice which was ever esteemed by all and is the great Act of Religion and how shall I believe that their Spirit Adores him Self-denyals and Mortifications of the Flesh instituted and practised by the Antient Church out of a respect to God they retrench and how shall I know that in Spirit they Adore him He requires as an Homage from Men to keep his Commands saying my Yoke is easie and my Burden is light and Protestants tell him flatly they can't do it Is this to submit their Judgment to his and so in Spirit Adore him Neither do they Adore him in Truth Who knew which way God was to be truly Ador'd or according to his will before he reveal'd it Now that he has reveal'd it in the Holy Scriptures and addrest us to the Church for the understanding of this way of Adoring in these Words Matth. 18. v. 17. Who will not hear the Church let him be to the c. Since Protestants will not hear Her shall I say that doing contray to his Command they Honour him truly or in Truth Adore him When Saul sent to destroy Amalek spared the best of the spoil 1 Sam. 15. as he excus'd himself to Samuel to Sacrifice to God did he in that truly Adore God No but his own will transgressing the Command of God so Protestants taking a way of their own to serve God contrary to his Command in his Holy Word they do not truly serve him nor in Truth Adore him When our Adversary condemns our serving of God by the help of Images he condemns himself For he can't Adore God without thinking of him this thought a good will cherishes drives away others which hinder or weaken it strives to conserve it and beggs of God to continue it and so shows by all this a great respect for it And why so much respect for it Because it helps the will to move more frequently and attentively to GOD. And at last this good thought is found to be an Image for it is an Act of the understanding and every Act of the understanding is a representation of its Object and this representation is an Inâ—ge presupposing another Image more material in the Imagination And this same is all the use Romanists make of Images O but you Adore sayes he confessedly the Cross cultu latriae with that Soveraign cult belonging to God only and what can we instance in defence of our Innocency Answer This assertion is false I instance First the second Council of Nice Act. 7. Where it saies that Pictures are to be Worshiped but not with the cult of Latry which is the Worship we give to God And speaking particularly of the Cross saies our Adoration of it is only a Salutation Aspasmos and brings a number of Examples of it as Iacob is said to have Ador'd Esau Gen. 33. v. 3. And Abraham the Sons of Heth for the Field he received from them for the Burying place of Sara his Wise Gen. 23. v. 7. I instance secondly for our Innocency of this Crime the Council of Trents Words Ses 25. de Invoc Vener reliquiarum S. S. Sa. Imag. mandat Sancta Synodus c. Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in Templis presertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum Vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda vel uti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis
Arguments are not fully solv'd by them many of their Learn'd Men must see this as I was told of a Minister in France when I was among the French who when his Wife startl'd by what he uttered in a Discourse said to him after if that be true why do we live as we live He answered Her Que Diable veut tu que je fasse avec toy mes Enfans that is What the Devil wilt thou have me do with Thee and my Children To wit if he Liv'd according to what he thought Thus they seeing the R. Catholick Truth and Teaching Protestancy are formal Protestants who as long as they remain so cannot be Sav'd Many of the material Protestants are it may be much held in their way by the Physical Arguments they frame to themselves against Transubstantiation And this depends much of the notion of a Body which hath been given them in Philosophy For if they have been taught for example that the nature of a Body consists in an actual extension of its parts and that accidents are not distinct from the substances it presently appears to them impossible that the whole Body of CHRIST can be in every the least particle of the Host and there under the sole Accidents of Bread But we Catholicks when we see such notions cannot stand with what the Holy Scripture saies the Holy Fathers unanimously teach and the whole Church hath believed from the Apostles time down to us we condemn them knowing that Reason must captivate it self to Obey Faith not Faith submit her self to Reason Don't think for what I have said that I acknowledge a material Protestant who has no doubt in his Faith secure as to his Salvation no I do not indeed deny but that he may be Sav'd but I do not absolutely say that he will be Sav'd for he seing so great changes in the Protestant Religion since its rise the R. Catholicks alone remaining alwayes the same seeing Preachers who were thought Learn'd and Good-men and who had stood stiff to the Covenant as conform to the Word of God now solemnly renounce it acknowledging they have got a new Light he can't I say well but doubt whether he ought to follow them in this Light or in the Light for which they said before as much as for this And since they changed from the former it may be hereafter they will change from this to a third there being no more infallibility in this then in the former And if he doubt he is bound to enquire and hearing that the R. Catholick Church believes Her self to be infallible in what She delivers of Faith Infallibility if it were true being as confess'd by all a certain means to settle Men in Conscience and secure them from all doubts in matters of Religion he is bound to enquire and try if Romanists have any solid ground to bring for this their Tenet and if he find it good in Charity to himself he 's bound to embrace it Next tho' a material Protestant have no doubt he is not in an equal condition in order to Salvation because if he fall into grievous Sin he has no other Remedy then an Act of Contrition or of Sorrow for it purely for the Love of God he has offended which is not so easily had Whereas the Catholick has frequent Sacramental Confession and by it pardon from God which is clearly intimated to us in Io. 20. chap. v. 23. The Sins which you remit are remitted to them A Protestant may say I believe from that passage it not ill but Lawful to Confess to a Minister of the Church but not that we are bound But weigh then say I the following Words Whose Sins you retain or do not pardon are retained are not pardon'd this can't be understood of Protestants Excommunication for if you don 't or can't pardon with what Authority do you or can you retain Both parts belonging to the Function of the same Ministers of God Also the Excommunication is not a formal retaining of Sin but a thing destinct and a sign of your retaining it posterior to the retaining of it Moreover how can the Priest know which Sin he may remit and which he must retain if you do not Confess them to him And St. Augustin in Confirmation of this Confession sayes in his 49. Hom. of the 50. Hom. Tom. 10. Do Penance as it is practised in the Church and let no Man say occulte ago apud Deum ago I do it secretly in the â—ottom of my Heart Ergo saies he Sine causa dictum est quaecunque Solveritis c. Matth. 16.19 Frusâ—ramus Evangelium frustramus verba Christi did Christ then say that in vain sayes He to the Ministers of the Church Whose Sins ye remit are remitted to them We frustrate the Gospel and make void the Words of Christ Besides many as some Apostats come to have no doubt in the Protestant Religion by a punishment from God Eo quod charitatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent ideò mittes iâ—lis Deus operat onem Erroris ut credant mendacio saies St. Paul ad Thess 2. cap. 2. v. 10. Because they have not cherish'd oâ— embrac'd the Truth which God out of Love manifested to them that by it they might be Sav'd therefore â—od will send them the Operation of Error to believe â—â—ing He will send i. e. saies St. Augustin L. 2. de Civit. Dei cap. 19. Will permit the Devil to do those things viz. to bring them to believe lying These People conscious to themselves of their tepid or vicious Life in the Religion they were in ought not to ground themselves upon their want of doubt in the way they have taken but to use much humble Prayer to God to enlighten them Here I add something our Adversary saies to justifie himself in a Letter to a Friend Sure I am saies He that a knowing Man as one may have Reason to think me to be in such matters can never resist a known Truth So if I be in an Error 't is not an Error of Will but Iudgement for which God damns no Man provided this Error be invincible as undoubtedly mine is allowing what your prepossession inclines you to believe that I am really mistaken There being an invincible Error but less reflected on that comes from knowledge as well as an other more talked of in the Schools that proceeds from want of knowledge Answer Did not Origen and Tertullian resist a known Truth If not why were they condemned If they did resist it may not you also Were they less knowing than you Or less Vertuous in their Moral Life then you One fault was found in them to wit that they would not submit their Judgement to the Church And this is found in you Tho' God damns no Man for an Error of Judgement He may damm a Man for the Sin to punish which he withdrew his Grace and for want of which Grace this Man sell into that Error
his empty talk of Roses and Lillies c. saying I can never acertain you of any thing my Eyes sees for if I see all the Accidents of a Rose and have no Revelation from the Author of Nature that the Substance of a Rose is not there I can asure you that it is a Rose The same Answer serves when he saies that as my Eye may be deceived so may also my Ear which gives a Mortal blow to Tradition it coming by hearing For we have said already that neither Eye nor Ear are deceiv'd in their Object because as the Eye ever represents the same Colour so the Ear conveys ever to the understanding the same sound and as the Substance which is under that Colour is the Object of the understanding and not of the Eye so likewaies the Truth or Falsehood of the Word is the Object of the understanding and not of the Ear. You 'l say if Accidents only are the Object of our senses how do you understand these propositions I see Bread I Taste Wine Which are common Expressions Answer We speak so because the denomination which fals upon the Instrument often is given to the thing of which it is an Instrument and so as when my Hand is hurt I am said to be hurt because my Hand is an Instrument of my Body by which it Acts so when the savour of the Wine is tasted the Wine is said to be tasted because it is an Instrument or Vertue that flowes from the Wine and by which the Wine affects your Taste Out of all I have said gather this Truth that neither Sense nor Reason is deceiv'd in the Eucharist not our senses because they find all the Accident in the same condition after Consecration in which they were before Not Reason because Reason tells me that I ought to believe that the Substance of Bread is there where all its Accidents are unless God reveal to me the contrary and in that case not to believe it to be there But God has reveal'd it not to be there so when I now believe it not to be there my Reason is not deceiv'd Now to oppose this revelation or Infallible word of Christ we claim to This is my Body he saies Litera occidit the letter kills Answer The letter kills indeed when it taken in the literal sense involves a contradiction or any thing against Faith or good manners otherwayes not So this proposition Christ is a Vine taken literally kills because the verb is in it taken literally Imports an Identification or samety of two natures specifically different contrary to that we know by Faith to wit that the Son of God hath assum'd no nature but that of man And in this proposition This is my Body taken literally the verb is imports onely an Indentification of the same thing with it self onely otherwayes exprest less destinctly in the subject This and more destinctly in the predicate my Body Subsect II. Shows that Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion OUr Adversary's second way of opposing Transubstantiation is to say that it Inclines mean Capacities to Idolatrie and the sharper wits to Hypocrisie The Common People no doubt saies he do frequently adore the Accidents according to his concession pag. 90. They are taught as he saies there to adore Christ under the Accidents they see which they call God saying when the Wafer is lifted by the Priest on leve Dieu God is lifted Answer The Doctrine of Transubstantiation expresly commands to adore what they do not see quod non vides and forbids to Adore what is seen If nevertheless some do the contrary the Doctrine is not therefore blameable no more then the Law is to be blam'd because some do quite contrary to its Rule and Instruction For that saying on leve Dieu God is lifted if it can be said without Blasphemy that God was lifted upon the Cross because Christ's Body was lifted upon the Cross it may likewise be said without Blasphemy that God is lifted up in the Sacrifice of the Mass because Christs Body is there lifted up By a Communication of properties what is atributed to Christ's Body is atributed to Christ and what is atributed to Christ is atributed to God For the sharp wits they see that according to the probable Opinion of Protestants Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not there as in a place because to be in a place is to be with the full extention of its parts corresponding to the parts of the place but this Christ's Body in the Eucharist has not and therefore it is not there in a place And therefore tho' it be there and in Heaven both at once it is not in two places both at once yet largely and improperly speaking the Body of Christ may be said to be in the Eucharist as in a place in as much as it is united to the Accidents which are in a place The Body then of Christ is there after the existing way of a Spirit If you say the Body of Christ can't be united to Accidents in different places I ask how is our Soul united to different parts of the Body which are in different places Just then as the Soul is not in a place yet is said to be above and below before and behind because the parts to which it is united are above and below before and behind so when the Accidents to which Christ's Body is united in the Eucharist are mov'd or lifted up it is said to be mov'd or lifted up So it s a silly thing for Protestants to object to Catholicks the obsurdities which seem to follow from a Body's being in two places since they may say that the Body of Christ by its being in the Eucharist is not in two places Thus you see our witty People have not occasion to be Hypocrites but sincere believers If our Adversary saies a Body can be no more without Extention then Water without humidity Fire without Heat a Stone without Hardness I grant it is so naturally but he must mutually grant to me that it may be as well without extention supernaturally as a Fire without burning having within the splear of its activity a thing combustible which was seen in the Furnice of Babylon Dan. 3. cap. And a Stone by the stroke of a Rod to yield a Fountain of Water Exod 17. cap. v. 6. is as surprising as Water it self without Humidity Let Catholicks then mark well this that Transubstantiation does not at all force them to avow that CHRIST's Body is in two parts extensivly or with the extension of its parts Our Adversary objects that all Miracles must be visible but in the Eucharist the Substance into which the Bread is changed is not visible then there is no such Miraculous change in the Eucharist Answer I deny the Major proposition for to whom was visible the Conception and Birth of CHRIST of a Virgin-Mother To whom was visible the Creation