Catholicks no idolaters, or, A full refutation of Doctor Stillingfleet's unjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome.

Catholicks no idolaters, or, A full refutation of Doctor Stillingfleet's unjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome.

Table of contents

Title page

§

TO THE QUEEN.

THE PREFACE.

ERRATA.

THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS.

PART I. Of the Veneration of Holy Images.

PART II. Of the Adoration of the most Blessed Sacrament.

PART III. Of the Invocation of Saints.

The Two Questions, whence Dr. Still. took Occasion to raise this Controversy.

His Answer to the aforesaid Questions.

The Reply to Dr. Stillingfleet's Answer.

A Full Refutation OF Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Unjust Charge of IDOLATRY Against the Church of Rome.

The First Part. Of the Veneration of Holy Images.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

THE SECOND PART OF THE ADORATION OF THE Most Blessed Sacrament.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAP. VI.

THE THIRD PART OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

Catholicks NO IDOLATERS. Or a Full Refutation Of Doctor STILLINGFLEETS Vnjust Charge of Idolatry Against the CHURCH OF ROME.

Let not Them who charge the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters, lead the People by the Nose, to believe that they can prove their Supposition, when They cannot. Mr. Thorndike, Just Weights and Measures, Chap. 2.

Printed in the Year, 1672.

§

§

[Page]

[figure]

TO THE QUEEN.

[Page]

MADAM,

THe Book, before which I presume to fix Your Royal Name, being the Product of some Hours defalkt from Your Majesties Service, and the Subject of it Polemical, set me for some time at dispute with my self, whether I should let it venture to knock at Your Closet-Door. Your Early Preventing the Sun to praise your Creator, and Constant Retirements from the Tumults of the World (which I could wish were as much imitated as they are admired) to Ʋnite Your Soul by Prayer with [Page] Him, and establish it in that perfect Peace, which can only be enjoyed in becoming One Spirit with Him, made me judg some Treatise of Divine Love (which might minister matter to the Sacred Fire, that burns continually upon the Altar of Your Heart) would suit much better with that Better Part, which you have chosen with Mary, than a Book of Controversy. Here then my thoughts were at a stand, how to make my Address without Offence; And I was ready to complain with Martha, that I was left alone; when that Admirable Mixture of Clemency and Zeal, which disposes Your Heroick Mind, not only to forgive Offences of this Nature; but to esteem and cherish them as Pious; convinc'd me, I must be guilty of a greater Trespass, should I doubt of obtaining either Your Pardon or Protection.

Nor was this All. The Glorious [Page] Saint,S. Catharine. (whose Name You bear,) as she encourag'd me with her Example to engage in this Controversy; so much more to recommend my endeavours to Your Majesties Patronage. It was Her business to convince and reduce Idolaters to the Faith of Christ: Mine, is to defend the Faith which Christ planted in his Church, from the Imputation of Idolatry. An Aspersion so foul and Blasphemous, that it betrays the ForgerCalvin, Anagr. Lucian. of it to be, what the Anagram of his Name expresses, a second Lucian. Blasphemous, I say: For who-ever will undertake to maintain the Charge, must at the same time profess that Christ, who commanded us under pain of damnation to hear his Church, hath permitted Her to require and enjoin her Children for many hundreds of years together, to commit Idolatry (as my [Page] Adversary contends) parallel to that of the Heathens. And consequently that Mahomet, (that grand Impostor) whose Followers have been preserved by the Grounds he laid, for above a Thousand Years, from falling into Idolatry, had more Wisdom and Power to contrive and carry on his design, than the Son of God: and that our Fore-Fathers in this Land, had better have been converted to Judaism, or Turcism, than to Christianity, as they were.

These, Madam, are the detestable Consequences of charging Idolatry upon the Catholick-Roman Church; which, as they must needs strike horrour into Your Religious Soul (nay even of any who values the name of Christian) So I thought it my Duty, being singled out by a particular desiance from this new Abettor of it, to appear in Vindication of that Faith (on which Your MAJESTY [Page] grounds Your Hope of Heaven, and whose Influence hath enrich'd Your Mind with all the Noblest Vertues) from so unjust and scandalous a slander. Which nevertheless I have endeavoured to manage with that Moderation and Temper, as (Circumstances duly weigh'd) can neither create just Offence in the dissenting Party; nor I hope render it mis-deserving to be presented to Your Majesties View, by

MADAM,

Your Majesties Most Humble and Most Obedient Subject and Servant T. G.

THE PREFACE.

[Page]

[Page]

Christian Reader,

THough I never design'd to trouble Thee with any thing in Print, especially in a Contentious way (from which those who know me, think me to be naturally averse) yet now, I am forc'd to appear publickly in defence of a little Paper, which Another hath Printed for me. Three Years were almost elapsed, and the subject of that Paper quite worn out of my Memory, when a Particular Messenger from Dr. Stillingfleet delivers me in Answer to it, a large Book intitled, A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, &c. As Civility oblig'd me to, return thanks for such a Present, to a Person, to whom I thought I had been unknown; so it had been great dulness not to look upon it with the same regard, that Men look upon a Glove, when sent by a Person, with whom they have happened formerly to have some difference. Hereupon my thoughts presently began [Page] to incline me to meditate a return both to his Civility and Challenge, at least as to the Principal Heads contain'd in his Book; but finding in his Preface, the performances of those, who had (as occasion serv'd) replied to some Passages of his Rational Account, compared by Him to the way that Rats answer Books, by gnawing some of the Leaves of them, and that He proclaimed a general defiance to All to come into the Open Field, from which, he saith, they had of late so wisely with-drawn themselves, I easily conceiv'd he would not want many abler Adversaries, who would take themselves to be concern'd to stand up for the Publick cause of GOD's Church, and his Saints. Nor was I deceived in my expectation, as those Learned Treatises witness, which have been written against Him upon this occasion: Some of them in Vindication of the Devotion of the Roman Church, and of the sanctity of those Persons whom he traduces: Others against his Principles; One to show how he contradicts himself; and another compendiously refuting his whole Book: All which I supposed would cost him a larger time to answer, than he tells us he spent in writing and pointing the Book it self, which he saith, was but from about Christmas to Midsumer, at what time it came forth. This made me waver a while, after I had applyed my thoughts to the Confutation of what first occurr'd in his [Page] Title and Book, viz. The Charge of Idolatry, which he most unjustly fixes upon the Church of Rome; whether I should expose them to publick view or no. But then considering the Foulness of the Charge, the particularness of the Challenge, and the General Expectation to see him traced step by step, (which was the design I had undertaken) I thought my self oblig'd to commit them to the Press. And that the Reader may know what he is to expect from me, it is that I have endeavoured to make my self such an Adversary, as the Author of the Account, Pag. 14. [...]. conceiv'd would be a great pleasure and content of heart to Dr. St. if he could meet with, viz. One who viewing his Aiery subtilties should oppose him seriously, as if he were serious himself; and then distinguish, as if he were dealing with some solid Divine; and then ply him with Proofs and Testimonies; refell him by shorter Enthymems, and longer Syllogisms; search in what Mood and Figure he speaks; and then tell him how his Consequence flaggs, or Antecedent is Ambiguous, till he have consumed a hundred Pages in refutation of a Trifle. This I confess is a Character of my present Undertaking; though not to the full, because in the Prosecution of it, I shall be forced over and above to lay open frequent Contradictions, Calumnies, and Mis-representations [Page] of the words and sense of Authors, which can be no great pleasure nor content of heart to my Adversary to see discover'd. I was in good hope to have been freed from this ungrateful task of laying open faults of this nature, (which cannot be treated of without being named, nor named without offence) by the fair promise he makes to represent the matters in difference between us truly, report faithfully, and argue closely: And this Hope made me for a good while not exact that severity of quoting Authors, which is required and expected in the managing of Controversy; But since the necessity he hath drawn upon himself, by defending so Extravagant a Charge, as that of Idolatry upon the Roman Church, hath made him too often forget so good a purpose, I must begg his pardon, if at length I take the freedome to make the Reader a little sensible of it, with that Plainness which the Merits of the Cause will not only bear, but require: Of which the Reader must be Judge.

Whether the Laurels he fancies he hath acquired from his Adversaries, by their declining, as he saith, Personal Conferences, look as green and fresh to others, as to himself, I very much question. For Meetings of this nature being hardly to be undertaken by Catholicks without exposing themselves to the Danger of being accounted Bold and Insolent, and so of irritating His Majesty and the Government against [Page] them; All sober and impartial Men will easily judge, that they may be more prudently declined without prejudice to their cause; than Arguments in writing (which is a much more peaceable and satisfactory way of proceeding) be by their Adversaries (who run no such hazard) slighted, either as Inconsiderable, or upon account of business, or upon a reasonable Presumption that the Person concerned had already forsaken their Church. These (and such like) may be Prudential Motives to them, to slight answering a Paper, and also for declining Personal Conferences, as sometimes they have been; Yet they must not be allowed at any time, for such to Catholicks: Nay, even their modest comp [...]rtment towards Authority, must go for no other than a Pretence only of hazard; though we see a Private Paper (as this was, from which the Doctor hath taken occasion to make all this noise) published in Print with such Characteristical Notes of the Author, as might easily discover his Person, and in termes so Invidious, as were apt to create the greatest Prejudice against him. Why else was he stiled (and that upon every post & corner) a Revolted Protestant, when Roman-Catholick might have sufficed? And why was He made the Proposer of the Questions, when the Party concerned proposed them indifferently to both?

As for the Paper it self (which is now become the Subject of Debate) what others may [Page] have thought or said of its not being answered I know not, but from my Adversary's own Relation: nor doth the Person taxed in particular, remember any such thing. Besides I am certain, I never communicated any Copy of it, but to the Party, for whose satisfaction it was written. Yet since my Adversary hath thought good to publish it, together with his own Answer to the two Questions, at the beginning of his Book: I have judg'd [...]it to do the same before mine: not that I except against any thing as mis-represented in it, besides some little Errors of the Press; but that I conceive it may be some Satisfaction to the Reader in the perusing of this Rejoinder, to recur sometimes to the first Papers; at least that he may clearly see, that the Charge of Idolatry, was no way necessary to the Resolution of the Questions, (as I shall shew more at large in the First Chapter,) but meerly brought in by Him upon some other Account, which I am now to consider.

The Account Himself gives of reviving a Charge, which for many Years had lain buried under the ruins of its own Infamy, was, as he pretends, to] Justify more clearly the Separation of the Church of England, from the Guilt of Schism. For this, he saith, lies open to the Conscience of every Man, if the Church of Rome [...] guilty of Idolatry, our separation can be no Schism either before God or Man, because our Communion would be a [Page] Sin. This is what he pretends. Just Weights, c. 1. And this Cause indeed, (as Mr. Thorndike well observes) would be more than sufficient to Justify the separation, did it appear to be true: but then on the other side, saith he, it charges the mischiefs of the Schism upon those who proceed upon it, before it be as Evident as the Mischiefs are, which they run into upon it. So that should the Church of England declare, that the change which we call Reformation, is grounded upon this supposition, I must then acknowledg, saith he, that we are Schismaticks. For the cause not appearing to me (as hitherto it hath not, and I think will never be made to appear to me) the separation and the mischief of it, must be imputed to them that make the change.—In plain terms, We (of the Church of England) make our selves Schismaticks by grounding our Reformation upon this pretence. Thus Mr. Thorndike, whose Judgment, abetted by divers of the most learned and most Judicious Persons of the Church of England, (and this is thought to be the reason why the Doctor's Book came forth without the publick stamp of an Imprimatur from any of its Bishops) will stand as a convincing Prejudice against him, till he can make it as evident that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, as the mischiefs are that have ensu'd upon it.

[Page] This He saw was not possible to be done, and therefore laying those Divines aside for Men of more charity, than Judgment, least he should be thought in so severe a Censure, to contradict the sense of his Church (which, he saith, he hath so great a regard to) he undertakes to show that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome, by the greatest and most learned Defenders of it ever since the Reformation. But if he have such a regard, as he saith, for the Church of England, Why did he not appeal to her 39. Articles? For as himself saith (p. 209.) of the sense of the Church of Rome, that we are to appeal for it, not to the Writings of particular Doctors, but to the Decrees of her Councils; so in like manner for the sense of the Church of England, He ought to have appealed to Her Publickly-Authorized Articles? But in them the Church of England declares no such thing. For we see it hotly disputed between her Divines, whether any of the three Points instanced by the Doctor, viz. Veneration of Images, Adoration of the B. Sacrament, and Invocation of Saints, be Idolatry, or no: and those who side least with that Party, which are called Non-conformists, are for the Negative, Viz. that it is not Idolatry: whereas, if it had been the sense of the Church of England in those Articles, that it were Idolatry to do any of those things, they had by maintaining the contrary as [Page] erroneous, incurr'd Excommunication, ips. facto. as appears by the Canons Printed before the 39 Articles, set forth by Mr. Rogers.

Here therefore the Doctor to maintain his charge of Idolatry to be (as he calls it) the receiv'd Doctrin and practice of the Church of England, is forc'd to have recourse to the Book of Homilies; and to the Sentiments of Particular Persons, of which he cites no less than Seventeen: the greatest part of whom I shall show to be incompetent Witnesses in the case, and the rest, to speak nothing to his Purpose.

First then for the Book of Homilies, which he saith is not barely allow'd, but subscribed to as containing godly and wholsome Doctrine,Art. 35. and necessary for these times: I answer, this doth not Evince that every particular Doctrin contained in it, is such. And therefore Mr. Thorndike speaking of the very Homily against peril of Idolatry,Epil. 3. part. p. 363. here urged by Dr. St. saith, that in this particular he must have leave to think it fails, as it evidently doth in others. And Bish. Mountague saith, The Book of Homilies contains a general Godly doctrin, yet it is not in every part the publick dogmatical doctrin of the Church.Appeal, c. 23. And Dr. Heylin in his necessary Introduction [Page] to Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 14. tells us, that the vehemence used in those Homilies, was not against Images as Intolerable in themselves, but as they might be made in those broken and unsetled times an occasion of falling. But that People being well instructed in the right use of them, Images may be still kept for good uses in Churches, and for stirring up of devotion, in which respect they were called, saith he, by Pope Gregory, and not unfitly, the Lay-men's Books.

As for the particular Doctors he cites, I except against little less than two parts of three of them, as Incompetent Witnesses in the Case. And in Order to this I shall take the same measure, the Doctor himself puts into my hand, when to show the Testimony of Arch bishop Whitgift to be valid in his cause, he premises that none could be less suspected to be Puritanically inclined than He; that is, I shall cast out of the List all those, who shall be found to have been Puritans, or Puritanically inclin'd. And first for his two Arch-bishops Whitgift and Abbot, the Former (though otherwise a stiff Asserter of the Disciplin of the Church of England) is known to have consented to the frameing of the Lambeth Articles;Confer. at Hampton-Court. pag. 20. 40. and to have proposed them to the Divines of Cambridge: and the latter was so great a Favourer and [Page]Abettor of the Puritan Party, that to stop them in their full Carreer, Dr. Heylin saith, Cyprian. Angl. p. 242. it was found necessary to suspend Him from his Metropolitical Jurisdiction. of Dr. White, the same Heylin reports, (p. 135.) that for Licensing Bishop Mountague's Appello Caesarem, it was said, that White was turned Black. Jewel, Bilson, and Davenant were all excepted against by our late Soveraign K. Charles I. in his 3d. Paper to Hinderson, Dr. Fulk also (in Matth. 28. 46.) is noted for abetting Calvin in his blasphemous Opinion, that our Saviour Christ suffered in his Soul the very pains of a damned Person upon the Cross. Reynolds and Whitaker are notorious for their siding with the Puritans: the latter being a great stickler for the Lambeth Articles: and the Former appearing publickly the Fore-man or Champion of that Party at the Conference at Hampton-Court against the Church of England. Bishop Usher and Bishop Downam cannot be excused: The story of the first is to be seen in Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 271. where after many Calvinistical Opinions, of which the said Primate was the Contriver in Ireland, Dr. Heylin saith, he refused to receive the whole Body of the Canons made in the year, 1603, because he was afraid of bowing at the name of Jesus, and some other Reverences, which [Page] he neither practised, nor approved: and (p. 216.) that his Book called Gottescalchus, had run the same Fate of being called in, with that of Bishop Downam's about Perseverance, but that it seem'd not fit to put a publick disgrace, upon the Primate of a Nation. By all which it appears, that of Seventeen Authors He cites, to maintain his unjust charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome, to be the sense of the Church of England; no less than Eleven are shown to have been downright Puritans, or Puritanically affected.

For the Six which remain, viz. Dr. Jackson, Dr. Field, Isaac Casaubon, Bishop Andrews, Arch bishop Laud, and King James, whoever compares what the Doctor cites out of them, with what they write in other places; nay, whoever attentively considers but the very places cited by my Adversary, shall find, that they do not impugn the Doctrin it self of the Church of Rome, or the practice conformable to that Doctrin; but such things as they conceived to be great abuses in the Practice of it. For Dr. Jackson, as cited by the Doctor, doth not say, that to give a honourary Veneration to Images, is Idolatry; but to give divine honour to them, which he saith, the Papists do; and the Papists themselves deny. Bishop Andrews in like manner, giveth for the reason of his charge, that the Papists, do not meerly pray to the Saints to pray for them, but to [Page]give what they pray for, themselves; and the Papists profess they do no such things. Dr. Field doth not charge the Invocation of Saints, with Idolatry and Superstition, but speaks only of the Idolatry and Superstition, wh [...]ch he thought, but not truly, was committed in it. Arch-bishop Laud also (as his own words declare) speaks of the practice of Adoration of Images in the Modern Church of Rome, which he erroneously affirmeth to be too like to Paganism. And so K. James, in the place cited by the Doctor (had He not so soon forgot his promise of reporting faithfully) saith expresly, that what He condemns, is Adoring of Images (viz. with Divine Worship) praying to them, and imagining a kind of sanctity to be in them, all which are detested by Catholicks. And all that he cites out of Isaac Casaubon, when He was employed by the King to deliver His Opinion to Cardinal Perron, in the Invocation of Saints, was that the Church of England did affirm, that some Particular Practices were joyned with great impiety. So that it is not the Doctrin of the Church of Rome, if rightly practic'd, which these Authors condemn of Idolatry, but the abuses they conceiv'd to be committed in the practice of it; as to give the Worship due to God to an Image; to pray to it; or imagin any virtue or Divinity to be in it; or to pray to the Saints, as to those who are to give us what we [Page] pray for, themselves; All which are forbidden by the 2d. Nicen Council, and that of Trent: and for other practices which the Dr. occasionally objects, they shall be discuss'd in the following Discourse.

This being so as I have shewn, and the Judgment of these Divines differing only as more and less in the same kind, from what Mr. Thorndike, and other learned Protestants pretend, when they reprove some practices as Idolatrous, or at least in danger to be such: These last Six Authors cited by the Doctor, ought to have been alledged for the contrary position of what He affirms, viz. That the Church of Rome neither in her Doctrine, nor Practice, (conformable to her Doctrin) is guilty of Idolatry. For whilst they impeach only some Practices, which they judge different from the Doctrine, 'tis manifest, they i [...]ply the Doctrine it self, and Practice, if conformable to it, not to be Idolatrous.

Here then let the Reader judge, whether Dr. St, being (as He saith) by command publickly engag'd in the defence of so excellent a cause, as that of the Church of England against the Church of Rome, have not betray'd his trust, and his Church too (if it be his) in advancing such a Medium to justifie Her separation, as contradicts the sense of that Church, if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteem'd Her true and [Page] Genuin Sons; and in the Judgment of some of them, makes it in plain terms to be Schismatical: Which yet will appear more clearly, if we consider how this Charge of Idolatry subverts the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England. For it being a received Maxime, and not denyable by any one of common sense, that no Man can give to another that, which he hath not himself, it lies open to the Conscience of every man, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy, much more if Guilty of Idolatry, it falls under the Apostles Excommunication (Gal. 1. 8.) and so remains depriv'd of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders; and consequently the Authority of Governing, Preaching, and Administring Sacraments, which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves, as deriv'd from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction, but usurped and Antichristian. This is what follows against the Church of England from the charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome; and so much the more as issuing from his Pen, who in his Irenicum (a Book very humbly tendred by him to Consideration, after the Re-settlement of Episcopacy in the Church of England) maintains that no particular Form of Church Government is De Jure Divino; but mutable, as the Secular Magistrate, with the advice of learned [Page] and experienc'd Persons, shall see convenient for State and Church; and particularly, that the main Ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation, was not any pretence of Divine Right, but conveniency to the State, and condition of the Church at the time of its Reformation; citing for it the Testimony of Arch bishop Cranmer, and others. Mr. Foulis I know, speaking of that Book, calls Him a Bold Fellow that Published it, and affirms, that he little understood the compass and merit of that Controversie: I like not the rudeness of these, and other expressions of like nature He there uses, and I forbear to repeat; yet I could willingly joyn with Him so far in Charity, as to impute it rather to Inadvertence than design in my Adversary, did not this new charge of Idolatry seem but too apparently to be but a clinching of the nail which He had driven before to the Head. For if the Form of Church-Government be mutable, as the Secular Power well-advised shall see reason, what greater reason can there be for the actual changing of it, than the nullity of its Jurisdiction? This hath made me wonder not a little, how the Governours of the Church of England could see their Authority so closely attacqued (at least so manifestly betrayed) by their pretended Champion, and not vindicate themselves and their Jurisdiction from the [...]oul stain of Antichristian, which necessarily [Page] follows, if the Church of Rome, as He pretends, be guilty of Idolatry▪ and they derive together with their Consecration, their Episcopal Jurisdiction from it. But I shall leave these things to those whom it concerns; and betake my self to my present business, which is to show, that the Church of Rome neither in her Doctrine, nor Practice, conformable to her Doctrine, is guilty of Idolatry. And this I bid done much sooner, had not the Time spent i [...] Transcribing, least the Copy should be surprized; the Difficulty of the Press, (which also encreased the Errata;) and other Employments [...] a few, (for we also are none of those happy Men, who have only one thing to mind) re [...]arded me in my design.

ERRATA.

[Page]

IN the Preface, page 2. line 27. for Pointing, read Printing, p. 6. l. 8. r. Dr. Taylor; that neither. p 25. l. 15. r. Question thus put. p. 35. l. 30. for with, r. against. p. 38. l. 8. for couse, r. caus [...]. l. 9. for ers. r. eos. p. 41▪ l. 10 r. writings. p. 5 [...]. l. 28. r. Beholders. p. 64 l▪ 12 r. Irrepresentablenes. p. 80. l. 11. for the, r. his. p. 81. l. 18. f. seat▪ r. State. p. 87. l. 6. f. did, r. drew. p. 92. l. ult. r. advantages. p. 124. l. 11. add in the Marg. Of the Church, li. 3. c. 36. p. 134. l. 3. f. cross. r. Cross. p. 138. l. 23. r. [...]ue that by p. 140. l. ult. f. rashly, r. vainly. p. 158. l. 27. r. Obcaecans. l. 27. f. that. r. that is. p. 161. l. 25. or [...]magine, r. Imagine. l. 28. for Oracres, r. Oraces. p 172. l. 5. for in, r. me. p. 178. l. 25. r. in this matter. p. 212. l. 27. for honour, r. comfort. p. 2 [...]7. l 6. r. Wherefore. p. 246. l. 2. r. Begotten Son. p. 360. l. 30. f. first, r. [...]isth. p. 363. l. 2. after fo [...] Biu, put St. Nicholas; for Eru. p. 411. l. 7. 8. f. Paul. r. Paula. l. 23. Praises r. prayes. p. 448. l. 17. f. Flood r. Floods.

THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS.

[Page]

PART I.
Of the Veneration of Holy Images.

Chap. 1. DR. Stillingfleet's 1st. and 2d. Answer to the First Question, shown not pertinent. Necessity of Communion with the Church of Rome, proved; and his Charge of Idolatry overthrown by his own Principles. Pag. 1.

Chap. 2. His chief Argument to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, examin'd; and his Preposterous ways of arguing laid open. Pag. 17.

Chap. 3. The Mystery of making the same Proposition sometimes an Article of Faith, and sometimes none. No express Text against worshipping God by an Image. His first Proof from the Terms of the Law, manifestly groundless. The Arguments from St. [Page] Austin's Judgment, and the Septuagint's Translating the word Pesel, Idol, and not Image, reinforced. Pag. 33.

Chap. 4. The Doctor's Second Proof from the Reason of the Law, sophistical. All Representations of God, not dishonourable to him, nor rejected as such by the Church of England. The Proper Reason of the Law on God's part is assigned; and asserted to be the Supream Excellency of his Nature. pag. 57.

Chap. 5. Worship unlawful by the light of Nature, equally unlawful to Jews and Christians. A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. Stillingfleet, viz. What can an Image do to the heightning devotion, or raising Affections? How far his Devotion to the Sun may be allowed in the Judgement of St. Leo. pag. 76.

Chap. 6. Of the Notions and practice of the Wiser Heathens in the matter of their Images. The Texts of St. Paul, Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 21. explained. Some of the Doctor's Testimonies examined; in particular, the Relation He gives of what the Jesuites did in China. Pag. 95.

Chap. 7. Of the 2d. General Council of Nice, call'd most irreverently by Dr. St. that wise Synod. His Constantinopolitan Father's Objections answered by Epiphanius, and his Answers shown to be go [...]d. pag. 118.

[Page] Chap. 8. The Dr.'s Objection from the Council of Franckford examin'd, and shown to be no advantage to his Cause. pag. 140.

Chap. 9. Of the Doctor's Third Proof from the Judgment, as He pretends, of the Lawgiver. His Speculation concerning the Golden Calves, manifestly repugnant to the H. Scripture and Fathers. Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Meaning and Extent of the second Commandment. pag. 153.

Chap. 10. What kind of honour the Church gives to Holy Images, explained; and the Doctor's mixing School-disputes with matters of Faith, shown to be sophistical. pag. 176.

Chap. 11. Of the Instances brought to explicate the nature of the honour given to Images, from the like Reverence given to the Chair of State, to the Ground, to the Ark, to the Name of Jesus, &c. The weakness of the Doctor's Evasions laid open; and His own Arguments return'd upon Him. pag. 193.

[Page]

PART II.
Of the Adoration of the most Blessed Sacrament.

Chap. 1. THe Practice of the Primitive Church in this Point. The Doctor's Argument to prove it to be Idolatry, built upon an Injurious Calumny, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God. The sense of his first Proposition cleared, and the Proofs He brings for it, refuted. pag. 221.

Chap. 2. The true State of the Controversie laid open, together with the Doctor's endeavours to mis-represent it. His manner of arguing against the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, equally destructive to the Adoration of Him as God. pag. 243.

Chap. 3. 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. pag. 256.

Chap. 4. His Fundamental Principle of judging of matters proposed to our Belief by Sense and Reason, shown to be absurd in it self, and destructive to Christianity. p. 272.

[Page] Chap. 5. A Check to the Doctor's bigg words against the Grounds of Transubstantiation. With a New Example of reporting faithfully (as he calls it) the words and sense of an Author. pag. 294.

Chap. 6. Dr. Taylor's Argument in behalf of Catholicks, supposing them mistaken in the belief of Transubstantiation, not answered by Dr. St. The Parallel of such a supposed mistake, with that of Idolaters, shown to be a real and very gross mistake in Himself. pag. 317.

PART III.
Of the Invocation of Saints.

Chap. 1. THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point, supposed by Dr. St. to be Idolatry, but not proved. The disparity between the Worship given by Catholicks to the Saints, and that of the Heathens to their Inferiour Deities laid open. pag. 333.

Chap. 2. What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints. The Testimonies of Origen, and St. Ambrose explained. Of the practice of making Addresses to Particular Saints. pag. 353.

[Page] Chap. 3. What kind of Worship of Angels was condemned by St. Paul, Theodoret, &c. with a farther display of the disparity between the Heathens Worship of their Inferiour Deities, and that given by Catholicks to Holy Angels and Saints. pag. 377.

Chap. 4. Of the Term, Formal Invocation, and the different Forms used in the Invocation of Saints. Some Instances out of the Fathers, to show the like to have been used in their Times. pag. 397.

Chap. 5. The disparity assigned by Dr. St. between desiring the Saints in Heaven, and Holy Men upon Earth, to pray for us, shown to be Insignificant. pag. 414.

Chap. 6. Of the practice of Christian People in St. Austin's time, in the Invocation of Saints. pag. 430.

The Two Questions, whence Dr. Still. took Occasion to raise this Controversy.

[Page]

1. WHether a Protestant having the same Motives to become a Catholick, which one bred and born, and well grounded in the Catholick Religion, hath to remain in it, may not equally be saved in the profession of it?

2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract, or in the whole latitude; or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church, or Congregation of Christians?

His Answer to the aforesaid Questions.

The first Question being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant yet continuing so doth [Page] imply a contradiction, viz. That a Protestant continuing so, should have the same Motives to become a Catholick (taking that term here, only as signifying one of the communion of the Church of Rome) which those have who have been horn or bred in that communion. But supposing the meaning of the Question to be this, Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of our Church, upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church, may not be equally saved with those who are bred in it? I answer,

1. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed, can be no argument to leave the communion of a Church, wherein salvation of a person may be much more safe, than of either of them. No more, than it is, for a Man to leap from the plain Ground into a Ship, that is in danger of being wrackt, because he may equally hope to be saved with those who are in it. Nay, supposing an equal capacity of Salvation in two several Churches, there can be no reason to forsake the communion of the one for the other. So that to perswade any one to leave our Church to embrace that of Rome, it is by no means sufficient to ask whether such a one may not as well be sav [...]d, as they that are in it already: but it is necessary, that they prove, that it is of necessity to salvation to leave our Church, and become a Member of theirs: And when they [Page] do this, I intend to be one of their number.

2. We assert, that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome, do run so great a hazard of their Salvation, that none who have a care of their Souls, ought to embrace it, or continue in it. And that upon these Grounds.

1. Because they must by the terms of communion with that Church, be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, either of which are sins inconsistent with Salvation; Which I thus prove.

That Church which requires the giving the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator, makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry; for if they do it, they are guilty of the latter, if they do it not, of the former; but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images, the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist, and the formal Invocation of Saints, doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator; therefore it makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry.

That the Church of Rome in these particulars doth require the giving the Creature the honour due only to God; I prove thus concerning each of them.

[Page] 1. Where the Worship of God is terminated upon a Creature, there by their own confession, the Worship due only to God is given to the Creature; but in the Worship of God by Images, the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature; which is thus proved: The Worship which God himself denies to receive, must be terminated on the Creature: but God himself in the second Commandment not only denies to receive it, but threatens severely to punish them that give it. Therefore it cannot be terminated on God, but only on the Image.

2. The same Argument which would make the gr [...]ssest Heathen Idolatry lawful, cannot excuse any act from Idolatry, but the same argument, whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry, would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so. For, if it be not therefore Idolatry; because they suppose the bread to be God, then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry by them who supposed the Sun to be God▪ and upon this ground, the gr [...]sser the Idolatry was, the less it was Idolatry: for the gr [...]ss [...]st Idolaters were those, who supposed their Statues to be Gods. And upon this ground their Worship was more lawful, than of those who supposed them not to be so.

3. If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us, be a sufficient ground for [Page] formal Invocation, then the Heathen Worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry: for the Heathens still pretended, that they did not give to them the Worship proper to the Supream God; which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papist, in justification of the Invocation of Saints. To these I expect a direct and punctual answer, professing as much Charity towards them, as is consistent with Scripture and Reason.

2. Because the Church of Rome is guilty of so great corruption of the Christian Religion by such opinions and practises which are very apt to hinder a good life: Such are, the destroying the necessity of a good life, by making the Sacrament of Penance joyned with contrition, sufficient for salvation; the taking off the care of it, by supposing an expiation of sin (by the prayers of the living) after death; and the sincerity of devotion is much obstructed in it, by prayers in a language which many understand not; by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration, whether our minds be prepared for them or not; by discouraging the reading the Scripture, which is our most certain rule of faith and life; by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church, as we are ready to defend; by the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences, by denying the Cup to [Page] the Laity, contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn Celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ; by making it in the power of any person to dispense contrary to the Law of God, in oaths and Marriages; by making disobedience to the Church in disputable matters, more hainous, than disobedience to the Lawes of Christ in unquestionable things, as Marriage in a Priest, to be a greater crime, than Fornication.

By all which practises and opinions we assert, that there are so many hinderances to a good life, that none who have a care of their salvation, can venture their souls, in the communion of such a Church, which either enjoyns or publickly allows them.

3. Because it exposeth the [...]aith of Christians to so great uncertainty: By making the authority of the Scriptures to depend on the infallibility of the Church, when the Churches Infallibility must be proved by the Scripture: by making those things necessary to be believed, which if they be believed, overthrow all foundations of faith, viz. That we are not to believe our senses in the plainest objects of them, as that bread which we see is not bread; upon which it follows, that tradition being a continued kind of sensation, can be no more certain, than sense it self▪ and that the Apostles might have been deceived in the Body[Page]of Christ after the Resurrection; and the Church of any Age in what they saw or heard. By denying to Men the use of their judgment and reason as to the matters of saith proposed by a Church, when they must use it in the choice of a Church; by making the Churches power extend to make new Articles of faith, viz. by making those things necessary to be believed, which were not so before. By p [...]etending to infallibility in determining Controversies, and yet not determining Controversies which are on foot among themselves. All which, and several other things which my designed brevity will not permit me to mention; tend very much to shake the faith of such, who have nothing else to rely on, but the authority of the Church of Rome.

3. I answer, That a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church, doth incur a greater guilt, than one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Rome, and continues therein by invincible ignorance, and therefore cannot equally be saved with such a one. For a Protestant is supposed, to have sufficient convictions of the Errors of the Roman Church, or is guilty of wilful ignorance, if he hath not; but although we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance, we are sure that wilful ignorance, or choosing a worse Church before a better, is a damnable sin, and unrepented of destroys salvation.

[Page] To the second Question, I answer, 1. I do not understand what is meant by a Christian in the Abstract, or in the whole Latitude, it being a thing I never heard or read of before; and therefore may have some meaning in it, which I cannot understand. 2. But if the Question be as the last words imply it, Whether a Christian by vertue of his being so, be bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians? I answer affirmatively, and that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church, and not to leave that for a corrupt one, though called never so Catholick.

The Reply to Dr. Stillingfleet's Answer.

[Page]

Madam,

I Did not expect that two bare Questions could have produced such a super-foetation of Controversies, as the Paper you sent me is fraught with; But since the Answerer hath been pleas'd to take this Method, (for what end himself best knows) I shall not refuse to give a fair and plain return, to the several Points he insists upon, and that with as much brevity as the matter and circumstances will bear.

The Questions proposed were: 1. Whether a Protestant having the same Motives to become a Catholick, which one bred and born, and well grounded in Catholick Religion hath to remain in it, may not equally be saved in the profession of it?

The 2d. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract, or in the whole latitude; or there be a necessity of being a Member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians?

The first, he saith, being supposed to be put [Page]concerning a Protestant continuing so, implyes a contradiction; but where it lyes I cannot see, for a Protestant may have the same Motives, and yet out of wilfulness or passion not acquiesce to them. He saw no doubt this supposition to be impertinent to the Question, and therefore in the second part of the 1. §. states it thus: Whether a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church, upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church, may not be equally saved with those who were bred in it?

The Question thus stated in its true supposition, he answers first, §. 2. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed, can be no argument to leave the Communion of a Church, wherein the salvation of a person may be much more safe than of either of them. But before I reply, I must do both him and my self right in matter of fact; and it is, Madam, that when you first addressed to me, you professed your self much troubled, that he had told you, a person leaving the Protestant communion, and embracing the Catholick, could not be saved. That we should deny salvation to any out of the Catholick Church, you lookt upon as uncharitable, and this assertion of his had startled you in the opinion you had before of the Protestant Charity. Whereupon you desired to know my opinion in the case, and I [Page] told you I saw no reason, why the same Motives which secured one born and bred, and well grounded in Catholick Religion, to continue in it, were no [...] sufficient also to [...] a Protestant, who convinced by them, [...] embrace it. This Madam, [...] was the true occasion of your proposing the Question, and not [...] supposes, that I used the meer [...] self as a sufficient Argument to [...] you to embrace the Catholick Communion. This premised, I reply, that the Answer he gives, is altogether forrain to the matter in hand, the Controversie not being between a Bred and a Converted Catholick on the one side, and a person supposed to be in a safer Church than either of them on the other: nor yet between two several Churches supposed to have in them an equal Capacity of salvation, but between a person bred in the Catholick Religion on the one side, and another converted to it from Protestantism on the other, whether the latter may not be equally saved with the former? Nor is it to the purpose of the present Question, to prove that it is of necessity to Salvation to leave the Protestant Church, and become a Member of the Catholick, because the Question is only of the possibility, not of the necessity of Salvation. I say it is not necessary to the present Question to prove this, but rather belongs to [Page] the second, (where I shall speak to it.) Whether there be a necessity of being a Member of some distinct Church? Which being resolved affirmatively by both parts, it follows then in order to enquire which this true Church is. As for the Example of a Man leaping from the plain ground into a Ship that is in danger of being Wrackt, meaning by that Ship (as I suppose he does) the Catholick Church. Some will be apt to think he had come neerer the Mark, if he had compared the Protestant to a Ship, which by often knocking against the Rock on which the Catholick Church is built, had split it self into innumerable Sects, and was now in danger of sinking: his comparison was grounded only on his own supposition, but this is grounded on the truth it self of too sad an experience. But to leave words, and come to the matter. His second Answer is, §. 3. that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation, that none who have a care of their Souls ought to embrace or continue in it. The first answer as I have shewed, was nothing pertinent to the present Question, nor comes this second any nearer the matter, for though it be supposed, that none ought to embrace or continue in the Catholick Church by reason of the great hazard, he saith, they run of their salvation, yet if they do embrace or continue [Page] in it, why may they not be equally saved, that is, with equal hazard; but this assertion, however beside the Question, he makes it his main business to prove, First, §. 4. Because those who embrace or continue in the Catholick Church are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation. And here he must give me leave to return upon him a more palpable contradiction, than that he supposed to have found in the Question, viz. to assert only, that those of the Catholick Communion run a great hazard of their Salvation, and yet affirm at the same time that they are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, sins inconsistent with Salvation: which reduced into plain terms, is no other, but that they may be saved, though hardly, and yet cannot be saved. But to the Argument, The Church of Rome, by the Worship of God by Images, by the Adoration of Bread in the Eucharist, and the formal Invocation of Saints, doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator; Therefore it makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry. The charge is great, but what are the proofs?

Concerning the first he saith, § 5. that in the Worship of God by Images, the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature. And surely this implies another contradiction, that it should be the Worship of God [Page] by Images, and yet be terminated wholly on the Creature; Nevertheless he proves it thus; The Worship which God himself denies to receive, must be terminated upon the Creature; but God himself in the second Commandment, not only denies to receive it, but threatens severely to punish them that give it, that is, that Worship him by an Image. Therefore it cannot be terminated on God, but only on the Image. To this Argument, which to be just to the Author, I confess I 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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.Ep. 17. ad Marcellam. 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 [Page] 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 [Page]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 the Eucharist is not Idolatry, because we only suppose him to be really present under the form of bread; but because we know and believe this upon the same grounds and motives upon which we believe (and those motives stronger than any Protestant hath (if he have no other than the Catholick, to believe) that Christ is God, and consequently to be adored. And therefore that you may the better see the inefficaciousness of the Argument, suppose it dropt from the Pen of an Arrian against the adoration of Christ as God, and it will be of as much force to evince that to be Idolatry, as it is from the Objector's to prove the adoration of him in the Eucharist to be so. See there how an Arrian might argue in the same form. The same Argument which would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry lawful, cannot excuse any act from Idolatry: but the same Argument, whereby the Protestants make the Worship [Page] of Christ (a pure Man, says the Arrian) not to be Idolatry, would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so: For if it be not therefore Idolatry, because they suppose Christ to be God, then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry, by them who supposed the Sun to be God, &c. Now the same answer which solves the Arrians argument against the adoration of Christ as God, serves no less to solve the Objectors Argument against the adoration of him in the Eucharist, since we have a like Divine Revelation for his real presence under the Sacramental Signs, as we have for his being true God and Man.

But what if Catholicks should be mistaken in their belief? Would it then follow, that they were Idolaters? Dr. Taylor an eminent and leading Man amongst the Protestants, denies the consequence. His words are these, in the Liberty of Prophecying, Sect. 20. Numb. 26. Idolatry, says he, is a forsaking the true God, and giving Divine Worship to a Creature, or to an Idol, that is, to an Imaginary God, who hath no foundation in Essence or Existence: And this is that kind of superstition, which by Divines is called the superstition of an undue object: Now it is evident, that the object of their (that is, the Catholicks) adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts and purposes and [Page] by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of humane actions) in the blessed Sacrament, is the only true and Eternal God, hypostatically joyned with his Holy Humanity, which Humanity they believe actually present under the Veil of the Sacramental Signs; and if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess it Idolatry to do so; which is a demonstration (mark that) that their Soul hath nothing in it, that is Idolatrical. If their confidence and fanciful Opinion (so he terms the faith of Catholicks) hath engaged them upon so great a mistake (as without doubt, he says it hath) yet the will hath nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to Idolatry. Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas; that is, Nothing burns in Hell, but proper Will. Thus Dr. Taylor; and I think it will be a task worthy the Objectors pains, to solve his Argument, if he will not absolve us from being Idolaters.

§. 7. He proceeds to prove, that Catholicks are guilty of Idolatry, by their Invocation of Saints: And his Argument is this; If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us, be a sufficient ground for formal Invocation, then the Heathens Worship of their inferiour De [...]ities, could be no Idolatry, for the Heathens still pretended that they did not give to them the Worship proper to the Supream[Page]God, which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papists in justification of the Invocation of Saints. To answer this Argument, I shall need little more than to explicate the hard words in it; which thus I do. By persons of a middle excellency, we understand persons endowed with supernatural gifts of Grace in this life, and Glory in Heaven, whose prayers by consequence are acceptable and available with God: what at he means by formal Invocation, I understand not well: but what we understand by it, is desiring or praying those just persons to pray for us. The supream Deity of the Heathens is known to be Jupiter, and their inferiour Deities, Venus, Mars, Bacchus, Vulcan, and the like rabble of Devils, as the Scripture calls them, The gods of the Heathens are Devils. The terms thus explicated, 'tis easie to see the inconsequence of the Argument, that because the Heathens were Idolaters in worshipping Mars and Venus their in [...]eriour Deities, or rather Devils, though they pretended not to give them the Worship proper to Jupiter their Supream God: Therefore the Catholicks, must be guilty of Idolatry, in desiring the servants of the true God, to pray for them to him. Upon this account we must not desire the prayer of a just Man, even in this life, because this formal Invocation will be to make him an inferiour Deity.

[Page] But if some Sect of Heathens, as the Platonists, did attain to the knowledge of the true God, yet St. Paul says, they did not glorifie him as God; but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible man, adoring and offering Sacrifice due to God alone, to the Statues themselves, or the inferiour Deities they supposed to dwell or assist in them. Which inferiour Deities St. Austin upon the Ninety sixth Psalm, proves to be Devils or evil Angels, because they required Sacrifice to be offered to them, and would be worshipped as Gods. Now what comparison there is between this worship of the Heathens inferiour Deities, and Christians worship of Saints and Angels, let the same St. Austin declare in his twentieth Book against Faustus the Manichaean, chap. 21. Fa [...]stus there calumniates the Catholicks (the word is St. Austins) because they honoured the Memories or Shrines of Martyrs, charging them to have turned the Idols into Martyrs, whom they worship (said he) with like Vows. The Objection you see is not new, that Catholicks make inferiour Deities of their Saints. Faustus long ago made it, and St. Austin's answer will serve as well now as then. Christian People, says he, do with Religious Solemnity celebrate the Memory of Martyrs, both to excite to the imitation of them, and to become partakers of their Merits, and be holpen by their [Page] Prayers, but so that we erect Altars, not to any of the Martyrs: but to the God of Martyrs, although in Memory of the said Martyrs; For what Bishop efficiating at the Altar, in the places where their holy Bodies are deposited: does say at any time we offer to thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? but what is offered, is offered to God, who crown'd the Martyrs, at the Memories of those whom he crowned; that being put in mind by the very places, a greater affection may be raised in us to quicken our love, both to those whom we may imitate, and towards him by whose assistance we can do it. We worship therefore the Martyrs with that Worship of love and society; with which even in this life also Holy Men of God are worshipped, whose heart we judge prepared to suffer the like Martyrdom for the truth of the Gospel. But we worship them so much the more devoutly, because more securely, after they have overcome all the Incertainties of this World; as also we praise them more confidently now reigning Conquerors, in a more happy life, than whilst they were fighting in this; but with that Worship, which in Greek is called Latria, (and cannot be expressed by one word in Latin) for as much as it is a certain service properly due to the Divinity, we neither worship them, nor teach them to be worshipped, but God alone. Now whereas the offering of Sacrifice belongs to this Worship (of Latria) from whence they are called Idolaters, who gave it also to Idols, by no [Page] means do we suffer any such thing, or command it to be offered, to any Martyr, or any holy soul, or any Angel: And whosoever declines into this Error, we reprove him by sound Dectrine, either that he may be corrected, or avoided.— And a little after. It is a much less sin, for a Man to be derided by the Martyrs for drunkenness, then even fasting to offer Sacrifice to them. I say to sacrifice to Martyrs, I say not to sacrifice to God in the Memories (or Churches) of the Martyrs, which we do most frequently, by that rite alone, by which in the manifestation of the New Testament he hath commanded Sacrifice to be offered to him, which belongs to that Worship, which is called Latria, and is due only to God. This was the Doctrine and practice of Christian People in St. Augustine's time, and that he himself held formal Invocations a part of the Worship due to Saints, is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdom. Adjuvet nos itaque Beatus Cyprianus orationibus suis,Li. 7. de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 1. &c. Let Blessed Cyprian therefore help us (who are still encompassed with this mortal flesh, and labour as in a dark Cloud) with his Prayers, that by Gods grace we may, as far as we are able, imitate his good works. Thus St. Austin, where you see he directs his Prayer to St. Cyprian, which I take to be formal invocation, and for a further[Page]confirmation of it, we have the ingenuous confession of Calvin himself, Instit. li. 3. ch. 20. n. 22. where speaking of the third Council of Carthage, in which St. Austin was present, he acknowledged it was the custom at that time to say, Sancta Maria, aut Sancte Petre Ora pro nobis; Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us.

But now Madam, what if after all this, he himself shall deny, that any of the opposite Tenets are Articles of his faith, viz. That honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints; that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist, is not the Body of Christ: That it is not lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us. Press him close, and I believe you shall find him deny, that he believes any one of these Negative points to be Divine truths; and if so, you will easily see his charge of Idolatry against us, to be vain and groundless.

Having thus given a direct and punctual answer to his argument, I must now expect as much charity from him, as is consistent with Scripture and Reason. How much that is, you will see in his third Answer to the first Question. But to proceed.

§. 8. He brings a Miscellany of such Opinions and practices (as he calls them) which are very apt to hinder a good life, and therefore none who have a care of their Salvation,[Page]can venture their Souls in the communion of such a Church, which either enjoyns, or publickly allows them. He reckons up no less than Ten. 1. That we destroy the necessity of good life, by making the Sacrament of Penance (that is, confession and absolution) joyned with contrition, sufficient for salvation. And do not Protestants make contrition alone, which is less, sufficient for Salvation? But perhaps the joyning of confession and absolution with contrition, makes it of a malignant nature: If so, certainly when the Book of Common Prayer in the Visitation of the Sick, enjoyns the sick Man, if he find his conscience troubled with any weighty matter, to make a special confession, and receive absolution from the Priest in the same words the Catholick Church uses, it prescribes him that as a means to prepare himself for a holy death, which in the judgment of the Objector, destroys the necessity of good life.

2. Catholicks, he says, take off the care of good life, by supposing an expiation of sin (by the Prayer of the living) after death: But certainly the belief of temporal pains to be sustained after death, if there be not a perfect expiation of sin in this life, by works of penance, is rather apt to make a Man careful not to commit the least sin, than to take off the care of a good life. And though he be ascertained by faith, that he may be [Page] holpen by the charitable suffrages of the faithful living, yet this is no more encouragement to him to sin, than it would be to a Spendthrift to run into debt, and be cast into Prison, because he knows he may be relieved by the charity of his Friends. If he were sure there were no Prison for him, that would be an encouragement indeed to play the Spendthrift. And this is the case of the Protestants in their denyal of Purgatory.

3. The sincerity of Devotion, he says, is much obstructed by Prayers in a Language which many understand not. If he speak of private Prayers, all Catholicks are taught to say them in their Mother Tongue: If of the publick Prayers of the Church, I understand not why it may not be done with as much sincerity of devotion, the People joyning their intention and particular Prayers with the Priest, as their Embassador to God, as if they understood him: I am sure the effects of a sincere devotion, for nine hundred years together, which this manner of Worship produced in this Nation, were much different from those we have seen since the reducing of the publick Liturgie into English, as is manifest from those Monuments, which yet remain of Churches, Colledges, Religious Houses, &c. with their endowments, and in the conversion of many Nations from Heathenism to Christianity, effected by the labours [Page] and zeal of English Missionaries in those times, &c. But this is a matter of Discipline, and so not to be regulated by the fancies of private Men, but the judgment of the Church; and so universal hath this practice been both in the Primitive Greek and Latine Churches, and is still (by the confession of the (Protestant) Authors themselves of the Bible of many Languages, Printed at London, Anno 1655.) in most of the Sects of Christians, to have not only the Scriptures, but also the Liturgies and Rituals in a Tongue unknown, but to the Learned among them: that who will dispute against it, must prepare himself to hear the censure of St. Austin, Ep. 118. where he saith, That it is a point of most insolent madness, to dispute whether that be to be observed, which is frequented by the whole Church through the World.

4. He says, The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed, by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration, whether our minds be prepared for them or not. In what Council this Doctrine was defined, I never read; but as for the Sacrament of Penance, which I suppose he chiefly aims at, I read in the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. Falso quidam calumniantur, That some do falsly calumniate Catholick Writers, as if they taught the Sacrament of Penance did confer Grace without the good motion of the receiver, which [Page] the Church of God never taught nor thought. But I am rather inclined to look upon this as a mistake, than a calumny in the Objector.

5. He says, The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by discouraging the reading of Scriptures, which is our most certain Rule of Faith and Life. Here he calls the Churches prudential dispensing the reading of Scripture to persons, whom she judges fit and disposed for it, and not to such whom she judges in a condition to receive, or do harm by it, a discouraging the reading of Scriptures; which is no other than whereas St. Paul, Coloss. 3. 21. enjoyns Fathers not to provoke their Children, lest they be discouraged; one should reprove a Father for discouraging his Child, because he will not put a Knife or Sword into his hands, when he foresees he wil do mischief with it to himself or others; the Scriptures in the hands of a meek and humble Soul, who submits its judgment in the interpretation of it to that of the Church, is a Sword to defend it: but in the hands of an arrogant and presumptuous Spirit, that hath no Guide to interpret it, but its own fancy or passion, it is a dangerous Weapon, with which he will wound both himself and others. The first that permitted promiscuous reading of Scripture in our Nation, was King Henry the Eighth; and [Page] many years were not passed, but he found the ill consequences of it; for in a Book set forth by Him, in the Year 1542. he complains in the Preface, That he found entred into some of his Peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of it, presumption, arrogancy, carnal liberty, and contention: which he compares to the seven worse Spirits in the Gospel, with which the Devil entred into the House that was purged and cleansed. Whereupon he declares, that for that part of the Church ordained to be taught, (that is, the Lay People) it ought not to be denyed certainly, that the reading of the Old and New Testament is not so necessary for all those folks, that of duty they ought, and be bound to read it; but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient, so to be tolerated or taken from it. Consonant whereunto, saith he, the Politick Law of our Realm, hath now restrained it from a great many. This was the judgment of him, who first took upon him the Title of Head of the Church of England; and if that ought not to have been followed in after times, let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms, as have risen in England from the reading of it, bear witness. For as St. Austin sayes,Tract. 18. in To. Neque enim natae sunt Haereses; Heresies have no other Origen but hence, that the Scriptures which[Page]in themselves are good, are not well understood, and what is understood amiss in them, is rashly and boldly asserted, viz. to be the sense of them. And now whether the Scriptures left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit, as it is among Protestants, be a most certain Rule of Faith and Life, I leave to your self to judge.

6. He says, The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church, as he is ready to defend. he should have said to prove; for we deny any such to be used in the Church.

7. By the gross abuse of People in Pardons and Indulgences. Against this, I can asse [...]t as an eye-witness, the great devotion caused by the wholsome use of Indulgences in Catholick Countreys: there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted, but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it, to confess his sins, to receive the Sacraments, to pray, fast, and give alms, all which duties are with great devotion performed by Catholick people, which without the incitement of an Indulgence, had possibly been left undone.

8. He says, The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed, by denying the Cup to the Laity, contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a Thousand Years after Christ. This thousand [Page] years after Christ makes a great noise, as if it were not as much in the power of the Church a thousand years after Christ, as well as in the first or second Century to alter and change things of their own nature indifferent, such as the communicating under one or both kinds, was ever held to be by Catholicks. But although the Cup were not then denyed to the Laity, yet that the custom of receiving but under one kind was permitted, even in the Primitive Church, in private Communions, the Objector seems to grant, because he speaks only of the Administration of it in the solemn Celebration: and that it was also in use in publick Communions, is evident from Examples of that time, both in the Greek Church in the time of St. Chrysostome; Sozomen. li. 8. Hist. c. 5. & Niceph. li. 13. c. 11. S. Leo Ser. 4. de Quad. and of the Latin, in the time of St. Leo the great. As for the pretended obstruction of Devotion, you must know Catholicks believe that under either species or kind, whole Christ true God and Man is contained and received; and if it be accounted an hindrance to devotion to receive the total refection of our soul, though but under one kind, what must it be to believe that I receive him under neither, but instead of him have Elements of Bread and Wine? Surely nothing can be more efficacious to stir up [Page] Reverence and Devotion in us, than to believe, that God himself will personally enter under our Roof.

The Ninth Hinderance of the sincerity of devotion is, that we make it in the power of a person to dispense in Oaths and Marriages contrary to the Law of God. To this I answer, That some kind of Oaths, the condition of the Person and other Circumstances considered, may be judged to be hurtful, and not fit to be kept, and the dispensation in them is, no more than to judg or determine them to be so: and consequently to do this cannot be a hinderance, but a furtherance to devotion; nor is it contrary to the Law of God which commands nothing that's hurtful to be done. As for Marriages we acknowledge the Church may dispense in some degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity, but in nothing contrary to the Law of God.

His Tenth pretended Obstruction of Devotion is, that we make disobedience to the Church in Disputable matters, more hainous than disobedience to Christ in unquestionable things, as Marriage, he saith, in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication. I answer, That whether a Priest may Marry or no (supposing the Law of the Church forbidding it) is not a disputable matter; but 'tis out of Question, even by the Law of God, that Obedience is to be given to the Commands or Prohibitions [Page] of the Church: The Antithesis therefore between disobedience to the Church, in disputable matters, and disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things, is not only impertinent to the Marriage of Priests, which is unquestionably forbidden; but supposing the matter to remaind sputable after the Churches Prohibition, destroys all obedience to the Church. But if it suppose them only disputable before, then why may not the Church interpose her Judgment and put them out of dispute?

But still it seems strange to them, who either cannot or will not take the Word of Christ, that is, his Counsel of Chastity, that Marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication. But he considers not, that though Marriage in it self be honourable, yet, if it be prohibited to a certain order of persons, by the Church to whom Christ himself commands us to give obedience, & they oblige themselves by a voluntary vow to live in perpetual chastity, the Law of God commanding us to pay our Vows, it loses its honour in such persons: and if contracted after such vow made, is in the language of the Fathers, no better than Adultery. In the Primitive Church it was the custom of some younger Widdows to Dedicate themselves to the Service of the Church, and in order therunto to take upon them a peculiar habit, and make [Page] a vow of continency for the future. Now in case they married after this, St. Paul himself. 1 Tim. 1. 12. saith, That they incurred Damnation, because by so doing, they made void their first faith, that is, as the Fathers Expound it, the vow they had made. And the fourth Council of Carthage, in which were 214 Bishops, and among them St. Austin gives the Reason in these words; If Wives who commit Adultery are guilty to their Husbands, how much more shall such Widdows as change their Religious State, be noted with the crime of Adultery? And if this were so in Widdows, much more in Priests, if by Marrying they shall make void their first Faith given to God, when they were cons [...]e [...]ated in a more peculiar manner to his Service.

Thus much may suffice for Answer to the Argument, which with its intricate terms may seem to puzzle an unlearned Reader, let us now speak a word to the true state of the Controversy, which is, whether Marriage or single life in a Priest be more apt to obstruct or further devotion. And St. Paul himself hath determined the question, 1 Cor. 7. 32. where he saith, He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to our Lord, how he may please our Lord; But he that is Married careth for the things that are of the World, how he may please his Wife. This is the difference he putteth between the Married [Page] and Single life, that this is apt to make us care for the things which belong to God; and that to divert our thoughts from him to the things of the World. Judge therefore which of these states is most convenient for Priests, whose proper Office it is to attend wholly to the things of God?

Having thus cleared Catholick Doctrines from being any ways obstructive to good life or devotion, I shall proceed to his third Argument, by which he will still prove that Catholicks run a great hazard of their souls, in adhering to the Communion of the Church of Rome, Because it exposeth the Faith of Christians to so great uncertainty. This is a strange charge from the Pen of a Protestant, who hath no other certainty for his faith, but every Man's interpretation of the Letter of the Scriptures. But, First he saith it doth this, By making the Authority of the Scriptures to depend upon the infallibility of the Church, when the Churches infallibility must be proved by the Scriptures.

To this I Answer that the Authority of the Scripture, not in it self, for so it hath its Authority from God; but in order to us and our belief of it, depends upon the infallibility of the Church. And therefore St. Austin saith of himself, Li. contr. Epist. fund. That he would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the [Page] Catholick Church did move him. And if you ask him what moved him to submit to that Authority; he tells you, That besides the Wisdom he found in the Tenets of the Church, there were many other things which most justly held him in it: as the consent of People and Nations, an Authority begun by Miracles, nourished by Hope, increased by Charity, and established by Antiquity, the succession of Priests, from the very Seat of St. Peter, to whom our Lord commended the feeding of his Sheep, unto the present Bishoprick. Lastly, The very name of Catholick which this Church alone among so many Heresies hath not without cause obtained so particularly to her self; that wheras all Hereticks would be called Catholicks, yet if a stranger demand where the Catholicks go to Church, none of these Hereticks dares to shew either his own House or Church. These (saith St. Austin) so many and great most dear bonds of the name of Christian, do justly hold a believing Man in the Catholick Church. These were the grounds which moved that great Man to submit to her Authority: And when Catholick Authors prove the infallibility of the Church from Scriptures, 'tis an Argument ad hominem to convince Protestants who will admit nothing but Scripture, and yet when they are convinced quarrel at them as illogical Disputants, because they prove it from Scripture.

[Page] Next he saith we overthrow all foundation of Faith, because We will not believe our sences in the plainest Objects of them. But what if God have interposed his Authority, as he hath done in the case of the Eucharist, where he tells us, that it is his Body, must we believe our sences rather than God? or must we not believe them in other things, because in the particular case of the Eucharist we must believe God, rather than our sences? Both these consequences you see are absurd: Now for the case it self, in which he instances, Dr. Taylor above cited confesses, that they (viz. Catholicks) have a divine Revelation (viz. Christ's word, This is my Body) whose Litteral and Grammatical sence, if that sence were intended, would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences, in the Circle; but, I add, it would be no precedent to them not to believe their sences in other the plainest Objects of them, as in the matter of Tradition, or Christs Body after the Resurrection.

3. He saith that We expose Faith to great uncertainty, by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith proposed by a Church, that is, we deny particular Mens Judgment, as to matters of faith, to be as good, if not better than the Churches, and to infer from hence, that we make Faith uncertain, is just as if on the contrary one should say, that Protestants make faith [Page] certain by exposing matter of faith determined by the Church, to be discussed and reversed by the Judgment and Reason (or rather Fancy) of every private Man. We have good store of this kind of certainty in England. But as for the use of our Judgment and Reason, as to the matters themselves proposed by the Church, it is the daily business of Divines and Preachers, not only to shew them not to be repugnant to any natural truth, but also to illustrate them with Arguments drawn from reason. But the use, he would have of reason, is I suppose, to believe nothing, but what his reason can comprehend, and this is not only irrational in its self, but contrary to the Doctrin of St. Paul, where he commands us to captivate our understandings to the Obedience of Faith.

4. He adds, We expose faith to uncertainty by making the Church, power extend to making new Articles of Faith. And this, if it were true, were something indeed to his purpose. But the Church never yet owned any such power, in her General Councils, but only to manifest and establish the Doctrin received from her Fore-fathers; as is to be seen in the prooems of all the Sessions of the Council of Trent, where the Fathers before they declare what is to be believed, ever premise that what they declare, is the same they have received by Tradition from the Apostles. And [Page] because it may happen that some particular Doctrine was not so plainly delivered to each part of the Church, as it happened in St. Cyprian's case, concerning the non-rebaptization of Hereticks, we acknowledg it is in her power, to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before, not by inventing new Articles, but by declaring more explicitly the Truths contained in Scripture and Tradition.

Lastly he saith, We expose Faith to great uncertainty, because the Church pretending to infallibility, does not determine Controversies on foot among our selves. As if faith could not be certain, unless all Controversies among particular Men be determined, what then becomes of the certainty of Protestants faith, who could yet never find out a sufficient means to determin any one Controversie among them? for if that means be plain Scripture, what one Judgeth plain, another Judgeth not so, and they acknowledg no Judg between them to decide the Controversie. As for the Catholick Church, if any Controversies arise concerning the Doctrin delivered (as in St. Cyprian's case) she determines the controversy by declaring what is of faith. And for other Controversies which belong not to faith, she permits, as St. Paul saith, every one to abound in his own sence. And thus much in Answer to his third Argument, by which, and what hath been said to his former [Page] objections, it appears that he hath not at all proved what he asserted in his second Answer to the first Question, viz. That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation, that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it. But he hath a third Answer for us, in case the former fail; and it is,

§ 10. That a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church doth incur a greater guilt, than one who was bred up in the Church of Rome, and continues therein by invincible ignorance. This is the directest Answer he gives to the Question, and what it imports is this, That invincible Ignorance (and he doth not know what allowance God will make for that neither) is the only Anchor which a Catholick hath to save himself by. If by discoursing with Protestants, and reading their Books, he be not sufficiently convinced, whereas he ought in the supposition of the Answerer, to be so, that the Letter of the Scripture as interpretable by every private Mans reason, is a most certain Rule of Faith and Life; but is still over-ruled by his own Motives (the same which held St. Austin in the bosome of the Catholick Church) he is guilty of wilful Ignorance, and consequently a lost Man; there is no hope of Salvation for him. Much less for a Protestant who shall [Page] embrace the Catholick Communion, because he is supposed (doubtless from the same Rule) to have sufficient conviction of the Errours of the Roman Church, or is guilty of wilful Ignorance, if he have it not, which is a damnable sin, and unrepented of destroys salvation. So that now the upshot of the Answer to the Question, Whether a Protestant embracing Catholick Religion upon the same motives, which one bred and well grounded in it, hath to remain in it, may be equally saved with him, comes to this, that they shall both be damned, though unequally, because the converted Catholick more deeply, than he that was bred so. And now who can out lament the sad condition of that great Doctor and Father of the Church, and hitherto reputed St. Austin, who rejecting the Manichees pretended rule of Scripture, upon the aforesaid grounds, left their Communion to embrace the Communion of the Church of Rome? And what is become now of their distinction of points fundamental from not fundamental, which heretofore they thought sufficient to secure both Catholicks and Protestants Salvation, and to charge us with unconscionable uncharitableness in not allowing them to be sharers with us? The absurdness of these consequences may serve for a sufficient conviction of the nullity of his third and last answer to the first Question.

As for what he saith to the second, I agree [Page] so far with him, that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church, but which that Church is, must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches, to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles. That Church is to be judged purest which hath the best grounds: and consequently it is of necessity to salvation to embrace the communion of it.

What then you are bound to do in reason and conscience is, to see which Religion of the two, hath the strongest Motives for it, and to embrace that as you will answer the contrary to God and your own soul. To help you to do this, and that the Answerer may have the less exception against them, I will give you a Catalogue of Catholick Motives (though not all neither) in the words of the fore-cited Dr. Taylor, advertising only for brevity sake, I leave out some mention'd by him, and that in these I set down, you also give allowance for some expressions of his, with which he hath mis-represented them: Thus then he, Liberty of Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks, The beauty and Splendour of their Church, their pompous (he should have said solemn) Service; the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy, their Name of Catholick, which they suppose (he should have said, their very Adversaries give them) as their own due, and to concern no other Sect of Christians; the [Page] Antiquity of many of their Doctrines, (he should have said all) the continual succession of their Bishops, their immediate derivation from the Apostles; their Title to succeed St. Peter, the flattering (he should have said due) expressions of Minor Bishops (he means in acknowledging the Pope head of the Church) which by being old records, have obtained credibility; the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion; apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials, which other Churches have rejected; and a pretended, and sometimes (he should have said always) apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal; The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide (of Faith) The great differences which are commenced among their Adversaries, abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness; Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers (he should rather have said of all) Nations. The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women▪ The single life of their Priests and Bishops, the severity of their Fasts, and their exteriour observances, the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity; the known holiness of some of those persons, whose institutes the religious persons pretend to imitate; the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who d [...]parted from them, and amongst many other [Page] things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity (he should have said, upon the same grounds the Fathers did) fasten upon all that disagree from them. These things, saith he, and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason, and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Forefathers, which had actually possession and seizure of Mens understandings, before the opposite professions (to wit, of Protestant, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, &c.) had a name.

Thus Dr. Taylor, an eminent and leading Man amongst the Protestants; and if he confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion, they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it, unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater, or at least equal force, with these, which so great a Man among them confesseth, that Catholicks have for theirs. Here therfore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds, or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these: And as Dr. Taylor saith, divers others which he omitted, viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers, the determination of General Councils, the known Maxime of Catholicks, that [Page] nothing is to be believed of Faith, but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles; The testimony of the present Church, of no less Authority now, than in St. Austin's time, both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture, &c. Do this, and the Controversie will quickly be at an end. Particular disputes are endless, and above the understanding of such, as are not learned; but in grounds and principles, 'tis not so hard for Reason and common sence to Judge. That you may the better do it in your case, I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you:

First, That the Subject of the present Controversie, are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us, and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives, we do: But in those in which they dissent from us, such as are no Transubstantiation, no Purgatory, no honour due to Images, no Invocation to Saints, and the like, in which the very Essence of Protestant, as distinct from Catholick, consists. What Motives they can or will produce for these. I do not fore-see: The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain, hath no place here, because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths. And for their own Reason and Learning, it will be found too light when put into the Scale [Page] against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages.

The second Caution is, That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion, and finding fault with ours. An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned Men bring to prove a Deity, such as are the Order of this visible World, the general consent of Nations, &c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat: But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own Opinion? No, you see then 'tis one thing to produce grounds for what we hold, and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part. The latter hath made Controversie so long, and the former will make it as short; let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie, and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight, and consequently which are to be preferred.

A Full Refutation OF Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Unjust Charge of IDOLATRY Against the Church of Rome.

[Page]

The First Part.
Of the Veneration of Holy Images.

CHAP. I.

The First and Second Answer to the First Question, shewn not pertinent. Necessity of Communion with the Church of Rome proved; and his Charge of Idolatry overthrown by his own Principles.

§ 1. WHoever considers how Dr. Stillingfleet in his Answer to the Two Questions, has engag'd himself and his Adversary in Seventeen or Eighteen of the most material [Page] Controversies between Catholicks and Protestants, besides innumerable others of lesser concern, which together with the former have swell'd his Rejoynder to a short Paper, into a large Book; will not very easily free him upon his own word, from being fond of the practise of the Noble Science of Controversie, or, as his Friend Dr. T. calls it, The Blessed Art of Eternal Wrangling: especially, if he reflect how easie and obvious the Answer was to the Questions themselves, without running into farther Disputes: To the First, by shewing that the Motives which are sufficient to secure the Salvation of one bred up and well-grounded in Catholick Religion, are not sufficient to secure the salvation of one bred up in the Protestant, who convinced by them should embrace the Catholick. To the Second, by shewing the Motives for Communion with the Protestant Church, to be greater and stronger than those for the Roman; and therefore that to be necessarily embraced before this; it being agreed between us, that it is of necessity to salvation to be a Member of some distinct Church. This had been a ready way to put an end to the Dispute, and give Satisfaction to the Reader; and this had been sufficient; our Assent to the Articles in controversie, depending upon the strength of the Motives: But to multiply Disputes [Page] without cause, without end, and without bringing them to Grounds and Principles, as it is no good Argument to prove a man not to be fond of Controversie, so all the Satisfaction the Reader is likely to gather from it, is a despair of being ever satisfied. When therefore the Doctor says he had no other end in this increase of Controversies, but to let his Protestant Reader see there could be no reason to forsake the Communion of that Church; it is much like, as if a Mother, to deter her Son from travelling into other Countries, should tell him there was a great Sea between, full of Rocks and Pirates, and no Vessel strong enough to venture over: Besides, that the Countrey whither he was going swarmed with Bears and Lions. This is one way to let him see there could be no reason to think of leaving his Native Countrey; and this is the Method generally pursued by our Adversaries, for want of sound Principles, to retain their Adherents in their Communion, to make the dangers and difficulties they are to incounter with in that of the Roman, seem insuperable, and therefore best for them to sit down contented where they are. But what if all the dangers and difficulties he raises, prove but Bugbears and Scare-Crows? This I hope by GOD's Grace to make appear in the following Treatise.

[Page] § 2. His first Answer to the first Question, was, that an equal capacity of Salvation of those persons supposed, not onely in order to a safer Church, but in two several Churches supposed equally safe, can be no argument to forsake the Communion of the one for the other. To this, I reply'd, that the Answer was altogether impertinent to the Question, the Controversie not being between two persons compared with a third in a safer Church; nor yet between two several Churches supposed to have in them an equal capacity of Salvation, but between a Catholick bred so, and a Protestant converted to be so, whether the later, having the same Motives with the former, may not equally be saved with him? To what purpose then was it to talk of an equal capacity supposed in two persons compared with a third in a much safer condition, or in two several Churches compared to one another; unless it were to make his Reader believe that a supposed possibility of Salvation in the Catholick Church, was used by me as a sufficient Argument to embrace its Communion? Whereas his own telling the Person concerned, that however Catholicks who were bred so, might be saved; yet a Person leaving the Protestant Communion for the Catholick, could Not be Saved in it, was that which occasion'd the Question. A weak but common Artifice of the Doctor [Page]and his Party, to deter Persons from embracing the Catholick Communion; when yet the more genuine Sons of the Church of England are not so cruel as to damn all those who embrace it. The Answer then was nothing to the purpose of the Question; and this himself seems to acknowledge, when he adds Whether it were to the Question or no, he is sure it was very much to the purpose, for which this Controversie was first started. And then having gotten this loop-hole, he beseeches the Person who had proposed the Question, to propose another, and if not for her own sake, yet for his to insist upon, that he may know one reason at least, why the Believing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, may not be sufficient to salvation, unless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome. And this, he says, he cannot yet procure, though he have often requested it. Here himself is afraid he may be thought to digress; but so earnest a request must not be denied.

§ 3. I remember I promised to speak to this Point when it should be proper, (viz. in handling the second Question [Whether it be necessary to be a Member of some distinct Church?] where it came in order) and I did so, (though my Adversary takes no notice of it here) as far as was pertinent to the present purpose; when upon his Grant, [Page] that A Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to joyn in some Church, and to chuse the Communion of the purest; I subjoyned, that that Church was to be judged the purest, which had the strongest Motives for it: and then laid down a Catalogue of such weighty Motives for the Roman Catholick, allowed by Dr. Taylor Liberty of Prop [...]cy, Sect. 20.: To which I added, That neither himself in his Defence, nor Dr. Taylor when he had a mind to invalidate them, produced any thing to weigh against them, but a few Tinsel-words, P. 550. and one Scripture-Testimony, interpreted by and according to their own Fancy. Having done this, they sing Io Triumphe, that [Thou shalt not worship any graven Image] will out-weigh all the best and fairest Imaginations of the Roman Church. And now let the Reader judge whether he had any reason to say, that he could not procure an Answer to this Question, though he had often requested it.

§ 4. But because he seems so little satisfied with this Answer, as to take no notice of it, I shall now enforce it farther with this Argument ad hominem. There was in the World before Luther, a distinct Church, whose Communion was necessary to Salvation; But this was not the Protestant: Therefore it was the Roman. The Major is evident from his own Concession; that a Christian, by virtue of his being so, is bound to joyn[Page]in some distinct Church; which is not possible, if there be not such a distinct Church to joyn with. The Minor also, that this was not the Protestant, is manifest, because before Luther there was no such Church in the World distinct from the Roman. It follows therefore (the Question between him and us being of the necessity of Communion either with the Roman, or with the Protestant) that of the two, the Roman Church was, and still is, (as remaining still the same) that Church whose Communion is necessary to Salvation.

§ 5. Again, taking the term Roman-Church, not onely for the particular Diocess of Rome, but for the Churches also in Communion with it, as the Head, as we generally take it in this Controversie; nothing can render her Communion not necessary to Salvation, but either Heresie, that is, an adhesion to some private or singular Opinion or Errour in Faith; or Schism, that is a Separation from former Ecclesiastical Unity. For the first, my Adversary himself (Rat. Account, p. 54.) acknowledges (as I shall shew before I end this Chapter) the Church of Rome to believe all the same Articles of Faith with the Protestant, and that the Points in which the Protestant differs from the Roman, are not Articles of Faith; consequently, the Opposite Tenets to them, can be no Errours in Faith [Page] with him. And for the second, if he will make the Church of Rome guilty of Schism, he must assign some other distinct Church (then at least in being) from whose Unity she departed; which I think was never pretended, I am sure can never be performed. As for the Charge of Causal Schism, that is, the Churches having given just cause for Separation (the common plea of all Separatists) by Imposing, as is pretended, New Articles of Faith, and some of them Idolatrous; as it implies an acknowledgment of the Fact of Schism, that is, of breaking Church-Unity, to be on the Protestants side: so till the Accusation be made good, and judged so by some other more competent Judge than themselves, they stand arraigned of the Crime of Schism also, for breaking Communion with the Church of Rome.

§ 6. Lastly, not to spend too much time in a Digression, and yet satisfie his desire, (and if not his, the Readers) why the Believing all the Antient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, may not be sufficient to Salvation, unless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome: I argue thus: A Christian by virtue of his being so, is bound to be of the Communion of that Church which evidently was the true one, and the purest, until it be as evidently at least (if not more evidently) proved not to be so: for otherwise he wrongs both his Reason and [Page] Conscience, if he leave a greater evidence, and adhere to a lesser. But the Roman Church, as comprehending all those in Communion with her, by the Testimony not only of S. Paul (Rom. c. 1. and c. 16.) but of the whole Christian World of all Ages, was evidently once the onely true Church of Christ, and conseqently the Purest; and neither hath nor can be as evidently, much less more evidently, proved not to be so still, since the Testimony of those who do or will deny it, is incomparably short of the former. Therefore a Christian, by virtue of his being so, is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church.

§ 7. Having thus not only given one but more Reasons to his Demand (which I heartily pray may do him good, because he requested so earnestly to know them) I cannot but reflect how speciously soever it hath been hitherto pretended against the Church of Rome, that the believing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, is all that is necessary to Salvation; yet now there is more required by him, viz. to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians, by virtue of a mans being a Christian, and that he is bound to chuse the Communion of the Purest Church, by which I will suppose at present he means the Church of England. I hope I may without offence take the same liberty with him, [Page] which he did with me, and desire, if not for my own sake, at least for the satisfaction of the Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and other Separated Congregations, to know one Reason from him, why the believing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a Good Life, may not be sufficient to Salvation, unless one be of the Communion of the Church of England! I confess I may be mistaken to suppose him to mean by the purest Church, the Church of England: It is not improbable, as will appear in the following Discourse, that he means that of the Presbyterians; but let him mean which he will, it comes all to the same pass. I leave him to satisfie all other Sectaries, why they are bound, by virtue of their Christianity, to joyn in either of those two Congregations; or if not in them, in any other which he fancies to be the purest. Which done, I proceed to his Second Answer to the First Question, very fitly called by him the main business, because it serves him as a Foundation to raise so many Controversies upon, as by his manner of treating them, may frighten any one that shall but look toward the Roman Church, into despair of ever getting out of so intricate a Labyrinth.

[Page] § 8. His second Answer to the Frst Question, was, That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome, do run so great a hazard of their Salvation, that none who have a care of their Souls, ought to embrace it, or continue in it, because they must be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, sins inconsistent with Salvation. This, I said, was as little pertinent to the Question, as the former; for, though it be supposed that none ought to embrace or continue in the Catholick Church, by reason of the great hazard, he saith, they run of their Salvation; yet if they do embrace it, why may they not be equally saved, that is, with equal hazard? To this he returns, that he is amazed I should say this Answer of his was not pertinent to the Question, if the Question were propounded for any ones satisfaction, that doubted, which Churches Communion it were best to embrace. And who can chuse but be more amazed at this Reply, which gives no satisfaction at all to the Question? For the Question, supposing the same Motives, and consequently an equal capacity, or hazard (as he will have it) of Salvation in two persons, what answer is it to the Question, whether they may not equally be saved, though with hazard, to say the hazard they run is very great? And yet of 573 pages his Book contains, no less than 544 of them are spent upon this subject. Tant [...] [...]

[Page] I added farther, That this Answer of his implied a Contradiction, in asserting, that all those of the Catholick Communion do run indeed a great hazard of their Salvation, and then affirming for proof of this Assertion, that they must be guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, sins inconsistent with Salvation: Which reduced into plain terms, is no other but to say, they may be saved, though with danger, and yet indeed they cannot be saved at all. To salve this Contradiction, he runs to a pretended supposition of wilful embracing or continuing in Hypocrisie or Idolatry, sins (if unrepented of) inconsistent with Salvation: But this Salve is not at all proper for the Sore, since if the Motives convince the Understanding, and the Persons be sincere, as the Question supposes, there cannot with any shew of Reason be any thing of wilfulness supposed in the Case. The Answer then was nothing to the purpose of the Question; but onely that it might serve him for an occasion to bring the whole Body of Controversie into the Field, and give a treble Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, viz. in worshipping of Images, Adoration of the Host, and Invocation of Saints. There want not Learned and Eminent men of the Church of England, who think the Charge to be over great; and there needs no more than his own Principles to make the Metal of his Proofs appear of [Page] too inferiour an Alloy to bear it. Which thus I shew.

§ 9. In his Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, pag. 54. he lays down the state of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England, in these words: The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as necessary to Salvation.—But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self, and in other things (as that no Veneration is due to Images, the Bread is not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, Saints are not to be invocated, &c.) she requires subscription to them, not as Articles of Faith, but as inferiour Truths; or as Dr. Bramhall, (Lord Primate of Ireland, alledged by him) calls them, Pious Opinions, fitted for the preservation of Unity; not, says he, that we oblige any man to believe them, but onely not to oppose or contradict them. This then is the Basis and Foundation he lays of his Rational Account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, that no Doctrine of the Protestant Religion, as it differs from that of the Roman, is an Article of Faith; that is, that no Protestant believes, or if he do, he ought not to believe, as a matter of Faith, [Page]that the Images (for example) of Christ and his Saints are not to be honoured, that the substance of the Bread is not changed into the Body of Christ, that the Saints in Heaven are not to be invoked to pray for us: Nay, all that he is obliged to by the Church of England, is not to oppose or contradict them. This being so, let us now see what follows from this Doctrine.

1. It follows that the Church of Rome does not erre against any Article of Faith, because the Church of England as he saith, makes no Articles of Faith, but such as are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self.

2dly, It follows, that himself does not believe any of these Points to be Articles of Faith, Viz. That Veneration is not to be given to Holy Images, that Adoration is not to be given to the Eucharist, or that the Saints are not to be invocated; because to be Articles of Faith with him, they must have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages, and be acknowledged to be such by Rome it self.

3dly, It follows, that after all this bustle to make the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, in these very Points of Veneration of Images, &c. For ought any Man knows, himself gives no interiour assent to any of the forementioned Tenets, not even as to Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, because the Church [Page]of England, as he cites out of Dr. Bramhall, doth not oblige any Man to believe them, but only not to oppose or contradict them; and it is not likely he defers more to the Church of England, than she obliges him too.

4thly, and lastly, It follows, that his charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome is vain and groundless, for Idolatry being an Errour against the most Fundamental Point of Faith, and the Church of Rome according to him, not erring against any Article of Faith, 'tis evident, that to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, must according to his own Principles be the most groundless, unreasonable, and contradictory proceeding in the World. But it is time now to come to particulars; onely I must not omit to desire every indifferent Reader to reflect, and judge whether Dr. Stillingfleet, to render the Doctrine of the 39. Articles, digestible to the most squeamish stomack of the nicest Nonconformist, have not done a notable piece of service to the Church of England in degrading so many of them as are not acknowledged by the Church of Rome (although they be esteemed the distinctive badg of the purity of the Church of England) from the dignity of being Articles of Faith, into a lower Classe of Inferiour Truths, as he calls them, which neither himself nor any Body else know, whether they have a grain of truth in [Page] them, or no; and consequently are not bound to believe them? Nay, does he not undermine the Church of England both in her Doctrine and Government? In her Doctrine, by freeing her Subjects from any obligation of interiour believing her Articles (in which she differs from the Church of Rome) to be so much as Inferiour Truths; In her Government, by exposing her Ordination to be invaded without scruple, by such as in their hearts judg it Anti-Christian, when he tells them, her Sense is to oblige them no farther, than not to oppose or contradict it? Was it not worth the while to rend asunder the Peace of Christendom for a Company of Opinions, which (though Dr. Bramhall call them Pious) yet the greater part of Christians both in the East and West for many Ages have, and do condemn for Impious and Blasphemous? Is not this a very Rational, or rather (as Mr. J. S. expounds the word) a very Reasonable Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion; and a rare way of justifying her from the Guilt of Schism? Sure he never thought of charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry, when he laid such sandy Principles for his Foundation: Principles of so brittle a temper, that it was not possible they should bear so great a Charge, without breaking and discharging upon himself.

[Page]

CHAP. II.

Dr. St.'s chief Argument to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, examined; and his Preposterous ways of arguing laid open.

§. 1. IT is a known saying of St. Irenaeus, and St. Hierom, (Ep. ad Ctesiphont.) speaking of those, who set up their own fancies, in opposition to the Doctrine of the Church, that to lay open what they hold, is to refute it; and certainly it was never more true, than in the subject of the present Debate concerning the Veneration of Images, the very light of nature teaching, that the honour or dishonour, done to a Picture or Image reflects upon the Person represented by it. This Protestants themselves confess in civil matters, as in the Picture or Image of the King in order to his Person; and did they not corrupt themselves, in those things which they know naturally, they could not but acknowledg the same in the Image of Christ, and his Saints, in order to them. For, is it an honour to the King, to kiss his Picture and, is it not the like to Christ, to put off our Hats, or kneel before His▪ Was it a dishonour to the King, to shoot his Picture with Bullets, a [...] the [Page] Souldiers did in the late times, as they march'd along the Streets? And was it none to Christ, to have his Image bor'd through with hot Irons, as he was represented rising from the Grave upon Cheapside Cross? A Man would think there needed no more but the light of Nature and Common sence to decide this Controversie; and yet the Doctor will needs sustain, that the honour given to the Images of Christ and his Saints, does not redound at all to them; but is so far from that, that it is no other than down right Idolatry.

§. 2. How vain and groundless (to say no more) this Assertion of his is, I have already shewed in the foregoing Chapter, which may serve for a full and just Refutation of all he brings to justifie his Charge of Idolatry, not onely in this matter of Veneration of Images, but also of the Adoration of the B. Sacrament, and Invocation of Saints; In regard none of the contrary Tenets are with him Articles of Faith; nay he professes himself not obliged to give any interiour Assent to them so much as to inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions. But lest he should take this Compendious way of Refuting, by bringing things to Grounds and Principles, for none at all, (as his very-well-assured Friend Dr. Tillotson does with my demonstrating Friend, as he calls [Page] him, Mr. J. S. after two Books set forth by him in answer to his Rule of Faith, viz. his Letter of Thanks, and Faith vindicated) to remove, I say, the very Temptation of any such-like vapouring pretence from my Adversary, I shall take the pains to examine and answer (with as much brevity as his prolixity will permit) the particular Arguments with which he endeavours to underprop his tottering because groundless Charge of Idolatry.

§ 3. In order hereunto, I shall first set down what it is that the Catholick Church teaches concerning the Veneration of Images, and thus it stands recorded in the last General Council at Trent, (Conc. Trident. Sess. 25.) viz. That the Images of Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints, are to be kept and reserved especially in Churches, and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them; not for that any Divinity or Virtue is believed to be in them, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence to be placed in them, as was anciently done by the Heathens, who put their trust in Idols, but because the honour which is exhibited to the Images, is referr'd to the Prototype, or thing represented by them: So that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we kneel, or put off our Hats, we adore Christ, and reverence his [Page] Saints, whom the said Images represent. This is what the Council teaches, and the import of it is, that we may lawfully (and therefore ought upon occasion) to put off our Hats, or kn [...]el before the Images of Christ and his Saints, with intent thereby to adore him, and reverence them; and this is what the Council calls (most conformably to the Light of Nature and Rel [...]gion) the giving of due Honour and Veneration to Images, but Dr. Still▪ (most repugnantly to both) Idolatry.

§. 4 To maintain this Charge, he lays down a P [...]oposition, which I said imply'd a Contradiction, viz. that in the worship of God by Images, the worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature. For what greater Contradiction, than that it should be the worship of God, and yet be terminated wholly on the Creature? What he brings in his Excuse (p. 57.) is a pretence that God hath forbidden it under the Notion of Idolatry, and that the Worship which God calls by the name of Idolatry, and its being terminated wholly on the Creature, are but the s [...]me thing in other words. And what is this in effect, but to tell us first, that it is Idolatry, because it is wholly terminated on the Creature; and then again, that it is wholly terminated on the Creature, because it is Idolatry? A very proper de [...]ence for such a Cause! And from hence [Page] D [...]. Tillotson may note that the use of Identical Propositions is not so despicable and ridiculous as he would make it; but rather the most expedite way for Dr. St. to reconcile the Terms of the greatest Contradiction. But to the matter it self I shall speak more anon. Let us now see how he proves this main Proposition. [viz. In the worship of God by Images, the worship aue to God, is terminated wholly on the Creature.] The worship, sath he, (p. 4.) which God himself denies to receive, must be terminated on the Creature: But God himself in the second Commandment, not onely denies to receive it, but threatens severely to punish them that give it: Therefore it cannot be terminated on God, but onely on the Image.

§. 5. This is the terrible Argument, by virtue of which he passes the Sentence of Eternal Damnation upon all those who are of the Communion of the Church of Rome, if they repent not of their [...]doring Christ by putting off their hats, or kneeling before his Image. And that the Reader may see with what Justice and Charity he does it, before I proceed to examine particulars, I shall convene his own Conscience, to declare to the World, what kind of Argument he judges this to be. If onely Topical, or Probable, what answer will he give to the Great Judge at the dreadful day of Judgment, for positively condemning [Page] his Spouse the Church for an Adulteress, upon an account which himself acknowledges to be inevident and uncertain? I believe, himself would condemn that person for unjust and uncharitable, who should positively charge the meanest mans Wife of Adultery upon the like account. If he judge it a Demonstration, (which I cannot easily believe, he seems to have taken such a Pique against the Demonstrating Way) then the Premisses must be evidently and certainly true, and the Conclusion in virtue of them, Impossible to be false; and consequently he must have greater certainty that the Church of Rome is Idolatrous, than he hath (if he be of the same mind with his Friend Dr. Tillotson) of the Scripture's being the Word of God, or of the Sence of any Text of it; for example, that Christ is God; for the said Doctor lays this down for his Fundamental Position in his Rule of Faith, p. 118. (and affirms it expresly of the Books of Scripture, in the Preface to his Sermons) that we are not infallibly certain either that any Book is so ancient as it pretends to be, or that it was written by him whose name it bears, or that this is the sence of such and such passages in it: It is possible all this may be otherwise. From whence I infer yet farther, that if we are not sure of the Sence of any Text of Scripture, but possibly it may be false, Himself is not sure that God hath forbidden the worshipping himself by [Page]Images in the second Commandment, and therefore cannot judge his own Argument to be a Demonstration, nor consequently evidence sufficient to make out his Charge of Idolatry. But to come now to particulars.

§. 5. The worship, saith he, which God himself denies to receive, must be terminated on the Creature, and that wholly and onely on the Creature, as he expresses it in the Context of his Discourse. This is the Major Proposition of his Syllogism, and if this fail, the Charge he builds upon it, must needs fall. I asserted it in my Reply, to be absolutely false, ‘as built upon a 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, and that 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. Of this I gave instances in the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good success; the Jew's offering to God the Blind and the Lame, which he had forbidden, Cain's bringing a Sacrifice to the Lord, Gen. 4. 3. which he refused to accept. All which I shewed were notwithstanding terminated on God; and from thence inferr'd, that though God (as [Page] he falsely supposes) should have forbidden men to worship him by Images, yet it does not follow, but the worship so given would be terminated on him.’

§. 7. To shew the insufficiency (as he calls it) of this Answer, he asserts, that where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving Worship to himself, that Worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him. And to shew the Vanity and Impertinency of this Defence, I answer, That this very Assertion of his, quite changes the state of the Question; for his Charge being of real Idolatry, and that antecedently to any Prohibition, as appears by his contending that the Church of Rome doth require the giving the Creature the honour due onely to God, p. 3. and by his asserting, p. 62. that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship, that men do how down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment: he now changes his Peremptory [cannot be terminated on God] into that Dwindling Expression of [It cannot be said to be terminated on God] giving his Reader to understand, that his meaning now is not, that Catholicks are really Idolaters, that is, by the very nature of Worship so given by an Image antecedently to any Law forbidding it; but denominatively, and in name [Page] onely; and that upon account of a Law (suppos'd by him most falsely, as I shall make manifest in the following Discourse) to prohibit the giving Worship to God by bowing or kneeling before an Image. And lest we should any way doubt that this was his meaning, himself in the contents of his First Chapter, puts down the state of the Controversie between us, in these words: The main Question, saith he, is, Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image, under the notion or (as he explicates it, pag. 57.) under the name of Idolatry? It were worth the while to see the Doctor reconcile the state of the Question put by himself, with that Assertion of his above-cited, pag. 62. that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship, that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment. The former supposes it to have the notion or name of Idolatry, upon the account of its being forbidden: The later affirms it to be forbidden upon the account of its being Idolatry in the very nature of the thing, antecedently to any Prohibition. And in which sence soever of the two, he take the Proposition in debate, viz. [The Worship which God denies to receive, cannot be terminated on him, but on the Image] it is evident he contradicts himself; For if he mean that it [Page] cannot be terminated on God, antecedently to the Prohibition, because any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship, that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment, he must deny that it is the Prohibition which makes it to be terminated on the Image. And if he mean that it cannot be terminated on God, because it is prohibited by him to Worship Him by a [...] Image, he must deny what he asserted before, that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship, that men do bow down before it, doth THEREBY become an Idol, and ON THAT ACCOUNT is forbidden in the second Commandment. Let him extricate himself as well as he can out of this Labyrinth. I return to what he addes in defence of his Assertion, viz. The Worship which God himself denies to receive, must be terminated on the Creature.

§. 8. To vindicate this Assertion from the Note of Falshood I had fix'd upon it, he lays down these three Propositions: 1. That Worship is nothing else but an external signification of Honour and Respect. 2. That the signification of Honour which is due to God, is not to be measured by the Intentions of Men, against the declared Will of God. 3. The Divine Law being the Rule of Worship all prohibited[Page]ways of Worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them: As, says he, it would be Treason, after the Princes Declaration of it by his Laws, for any man to bow down to a Sign-Post with the Princes Head upon it. And therefore if God have declared the Worship of himself by an Image to be Idolatry, it cannot be terminated on God, but onely on the Image. This is the substance of his Defence, and what it amounts to, is this, That if God have forbidden, under the name of Idolatry, to bow down before any Image, though with intention to Worship Him by it, this Act of Worship must be called Idolatry, because not mens Intentions, but the Will of God is the Rule of Worship. A rare Defence indeed! But nothing at all to the purpose, (although we should yield the Supposition to be as true as it is false, viz. that God had forbidden it under that name) unless he can shew that words can never be taken Metaphorically, but that the very definition of a thing must always necessarily go along with its name. What he charges upon us, is the very definition of Idolatry, viz. That we give to the Creature the honour due onely to God. What he brings to prove it, is a supposed extrinsecal denomination, that if God have called the Worshipping him by an Image Idolatry, it must receive the name of Idolatry, and therefore be terminated on the [Page] Image. And if this kind of arguing be good, he may prove by the same Logick, that a man worshipping a false God, violates his Neighbours Bed, because God himself calls the Worshipping a false God by the name of Adultery: And that he that wears a Sword with intention to defend his Prince, hath a real intention against his Life, in case the Prince upon some occasion have forbidden to wear a Sword under the name of Treason. He that has but look'd over Aristotles Threshold, knows, that from the definition to the name, the consequence is good, because the Name is but a Note of the Nature or Essence of the Thing defined. But nothing more inconsequent than to argue from the Name to the Definition, because the Name may be given upon the score of some similitude, either intrinsecal or extrinsecal, and not upon the account of the Nature or Essence, which is properly signified by such a Name. The Doctor therefore (to give him his due) in the beginning of his Charge, argues like a good Logician, when he would conclude the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, because (he says) she requires the giving to the Creature the Honour due onely to God. But he plays the downright Sophister in the close, when he would prove that in worshipping God by an Image, she gives to the Image the Honour due onely to Him; because if God have given it the [Page] name of Idolatry, it must receive the denomination of Idolatry. Either he must make it out, that a meer Extrinsecal Denomination has the miraculous power to reflect against Nature, the Honour directed to God, from Him to the Image, or he must confess that Gods Prohibition of such Worship (if there were any) may make it indeed to be unlawful, but hinders not the Act from tending whither it was intended: and consequently if it be intended or directed by the Understanding and Will, to God, though after an unlawful manner, it will not fail to be terminated on God. Nor is this to make the Intentions of men to be the Rule of Divine Worship, for if God have forbidden himself to be Worshipped after such a manner, the giving him such Worship will be a dishonouring of Him, though the Giver intend it never so much for his honour. Disobedience it will be, or some other sin, and denominatively Idolatry (if forbidden under that name) but not a terminating the honour due to God upon the Image, unless the Doctor think it a good Argument to prove the Fields and Trees to be Merry Companions, because the Prophet says, The Fields are joyful, and the Trees of the Wood rejoyce. These he will say are Metaphorical denominations; and so must that of Idolatry be, in his supposed Prohibition, unless he can prove the Worship [Page] due to God, to be terminated wholly on the Image, and so the Act it self to have in it the true nature of Idolatry, antecedently to such a denomination.

§. 9. As for that Courtly Comparison of his, that it would be Treason in any man to bow down to a Sign. Post with the Princes Head upon it, though with an intention to honour him by it; (a most self-denying Ordinance I confess, and not unlike to that rare example of Self-denyal to which himself so Religiously exhorts the Prelates of the Church of England in the Preface to his Irenicum, viz. to reduce the form of Church-Government to its Primitive State and Order, by retrenching all Exorbitancies (as he calls them) of Power, and restoring Presbyteries) as the World is like to want such an unheard-of Example of Self-abnegation, at least till Princes can be perswaded that the honour or dishonour done to their Pictures reflects not upon Them; and that Act of the Civil Law be repealed, (L. unica. cod. de his qui ad Statuas) which declares it Treason for any man to deface his Princes Picture; So, were it enacted, it would not hinder the Act of Reverence and Respect from being terminated upon the Prince to whom it was intended.

[Page] §. 10. To the Instances I gave in my Reply, of the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good success, of the Jews offering to God the Blind and Lame, which he had forbidden, and of Cain's offering a Sacrifice to God, which he refused to accept; all which evidently shew that God's having forbidden such a kind of Worship, hinders it not from being terminated on him: All that he answers, is, That these Instances do not suppose any prohibited Object, or Means of Worship, as he supposeth the Worship of God by an Image doth. And here again he falls into the same Contradiction as before, viz. that it is the Worship of God by an Image, and yet the Image is made the whole and sole object of Worship. But to conclude this point: 'Tis evident, that the Image is not made the Object of Worship by the Intention of him that gives it; which (says Dr. Taylor) is that by which God principally, if not solely takes estimate of humane actions) for what he intends, is, to Worship God by it; and the Intention not making it the Object of Worship, an Extrinsecal Denomination from a Law forbidding, (if there were any such) cannot make it to be so, nor hinder the Act from being terminated on God, its intended Object. 'Tis manifest then, that the Major Proposition of the Argument brought by him to prove [Page] the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, viz. That the Worship which God denies to receive, must be terminated on the Creature, is absolutely false; and consequently all that he builds upon it, falls to the ground. But this was but a Prelude to usher in his Minor, viz. That God not onely denies to receive Worship by an Image, but threatens severaly to punish them that give it. Upon this it is he lays the main stress of his Charge of Idolatry; how inconsequently (though supposed to be as he would have it, a Prohibition) I have shewed already, and shall make yet more apparent, by laying open the nullity of the Proofs he brings to maintain it.

[Page]

CHAP. III.

The mystery of making the same Proposition sometimes an Article of Faith, and sometimes none. No express Text against Worshipping God by an Image. His first Proof from the Terms of the Law, manifes [...]ly groundless. The Argument from St. Austin's Judgment, and the Septuagints translating the word Pesel, Idol, and not Image, re-inforced.

1. WHat we are to consider in the first place here, is, what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove; and it is this, That God in the second Commandment (according to his reckoning) expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image. This is what upon his Second Thoughts (for the term expresly was not in his FIRST Answer) he undertakes to prove: And I cannot but wonder to see it drop now from his Pen, who on the one side asserts Scripture (doubtless express Scripture) to be his most certain Rule of Faith; and on the other side, denies (as I shewed above, Chap. 1.) any thing to b [...] an Article of Faith, which is not acknowledged[Page]to be such by Rome it self. What may the meaning of this be? If it be expresly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image, it is an Article of Faith. If it be not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self, it is no Article of Faith, but (as he calls it) an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion, yet such as neither himself nor any man else is bound to believe there is a jot of Truth in it. Is it then, or is it not an Article of Faith that God is not to be worshipped by an Image? If it be an Article of Faith, 'tis false what he asserts so stiffly in his Rational Account, p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. If it be not an Article of Faith, 'tis false what he affirms so positively here, that God hath expresly prohibited it in the second Commandment. Which side soever he takes, 'tis manifest he contradicts himself.

2. But perhaps his meaning is, that what at one time is but an Inferiour Truth, must at another be an Article of Faith, according as it may serve to the different ends and purposes he has designed to himself. And here if I mistake not, lies the Knack, or (if you will give it so venerable a name) the Mystery of the business. When the Hedge of the Church of England (viz. Subscription to her 39 Articles) must be broken down for [Page] the good Brethren the Nonconformists to enter in, and ravage without scruple her Rights and Revenues, so many of the said Articles as are not owned by Rome it self, must be a company of Inferious Truths, or Pious Opinions, not to be assented to, but not to be opposed for Unity's sake. But when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry, (the Pretence with which Ignorant Preachers, says Mr. Thorndike, (Just Weights, p. 128.) drive their Factions) then they are no more Infericur Truths, but Articles of Faith, expresly revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Now, would an Impartial Reader (to use Dr. Taylor's expression upon another occasion) say upon his conscience, that this was not kindly done, to make use of the Authority of the Church of Rome to unhallow so many of the 39 Articles as are not owned by her, and cast them down into the Class of Inferiour Truths, to stitch up the Rent made by the Nonconformists from the Church of England; And then to consecrate them again so easily by virtue of this one definitive word [Expresly] into Divine Revelations, against the Church of Rome, to make the Breach of the Church of England from her yet wider. But what cannot an Irenical Compliance with one Party, and a Polemical Animosity, or (as Mr. Thorndike calls it) Faction with another do▪ When the same Proposition as it respects [Page] the former, shall be rank'd onely amongst Inferiour Truths, which none are obliged to assent to; and as it oppugns the latter, shall be raised to an Article of Faith, which all are bound to believe? Here then lies the Mystery, that the same Proposition, viz. That God is not to be worshipped by an Image, taken Irenically, and in its Paci [...]i [...]k Temper, is but an Inferiour Truth, because not owned to be an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome; but taken Polemically, and in its [...]a [...]like Humour, it must be an Article of Faith, because expresly (as he says) revealed in Scripture. And if he will have it so, let us see how he goes about to prove it.

3. Our Contr [...]versie, says he, p. 58. being [...] about the sence of a Law, the best ways we have to find the meaning of it, are either from the Terms in which it is express [...]d, or from the Reason annexed to it, or from the Judgment of Th [...]se whom we believe best able to understand and interpret it. And he will prove from every one of these three ways, that it is expresly prohibited in the second Commandment to worship God by an Image. It were well, he would tell us here first, what he understands by the term Expresly. For if he calls that, for example, an express Text, which of it self is absolutely clear and manifest, and therefore as St. Austin says, (de unit. E [...]l. [Page] c. 19.) Non eget Interprete, needs no Interpreter; Mr. Thorndike (and those other Learned Men of the Church of England, who see no better than he) have reason to lament the loss of their Eye-sight. But if he mean no more, but that it is clear and manifest to himself, they may hope they see as well as their Neighbours, though they see the quite contrary; unless They will suffer themselves to be wrought upon by his stout asserting it to be clear and manifest; as the Travellers were by Polus in Erasmus his Exorcismus, when pretending that he saw a huge Dragon with [...]iery Horns in the Sky, by avouching it strongly, and pointing expresly to the place, he forced them (out of shame not to see so perspicuous a thing) to confess that they saw it also. That it is not absolutely clear and manifest of it self, the pains and the ways he takes to make it out, sufficiently evince. And whether it be clear and manifest even to himself we have cause to doubt; because the Proposition in debate, [viz. That God hath prohibited the worshipping himself by an Image in the second Commandment] not being acknowledged by the Church of Rome for an Article of Faith, the Church of England, says he, obliges no man to assent to it, but onely not to oppose it; and yet on the other side, every man is bound to assent to that which he sees to be clear and manifest. Such frequent [Page] self-contradictions are the natural Consequences of a Discourse not grounded upon Truth; And although the Reader may think I take a delight to discover them in my Adversary, yet I can assure him 'tis a much greater Grief to me to see so subtil a Wit so often entangled in them. The fault is in the Couse, which cannot be managed without falling into them. But as St. Austin says, Quis coegit ers malam causam habere? Who forced him and his Partizans to engage in a bad Cause? Nothing of Faith, if it be true which he tells us in his Rational Account: Nothing of Reason as I shall shew in the Examination of his Proofs.

4. The first way he takes to prove that God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image, is from the Terms in which the Law is expressed. And what are they in the Protestants own Translation Exod. 20. 4? Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing, &c. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them. These are the Terms in which the Law is expressed, and where I pray, is it expressed here, that we may not give any Worship to God himself by an Image? The first part touches not the Worship of Images, nor of God himself by them; but onely the making them; and gives matter to Divines to dispute whether [Page] it be forbidden by this Commandment to make any Image or any Likeness at all? A thing in which Catholicks and Protestants are equally concerned. The second forbids indeed in express terms, to bow our selves down to the Images themselves, but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them. So that in case we have not here another of the Doctors Identical Propositions, viz. that to treat a matter expresly, is the same in other words, as not to speak of it at all, it is manifest, that to worship God himself before or by an Image, is not expresly prohibited in this Commandment. Let the Protestant Reader consider this well, and not suffer himself to be deluded with the sound of words. To bow our selves down to the Images themselves, without any Relation to God, is by the Concession of all to worship them instead of God. And is it all one to worship an Image instead of God, and to worship God himself by bowing before an Image? The difference is too palpable not to be seen by any one who hath not the natural Conceptions of his mind corrupted by an over-eager desire to pursue at any rate so unjust and uncharitable a Charge as that of Idolatry. The Jews we know did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubims, and yet they did not worship them instead[Page]of God. And if the Doctor will needs contend that this was a particular dispensation to the Jews, that they might lawfully bow down before the Ark and the Cherubims, to worship God; he must acknowledge the Precept (if it were so) as to that part of not worshipping God by bowing before an Image, not to have been Natural, for then God had dispens'd with them in committing real Idolatry; but Ceremonial, and consequently not to oblige Christians, unless he will engage them also in the observance of all the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moses. Taking then the Terms of the Law as translated by Protestants themselves in favour of their own Cause, 'tis manifest that to worship God by an Image, is not expresly prohibited, because not at all spoken of in that Commandment.

5. What I asserted to be the meaning of the Law, was, That God forbad to give his Worship to Idols. To prove this, I urged 1. The Judgment of St. Austin, who makes those words, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven thing, &c. to be but an explication of the immediately foregoing ones, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. 2. That the word Pesel in Hebrew, in Latin Sculptile, (a graven thing) was used in Scripture to signifie an Idol, and particularly was translated by the Septuagint in this very [Page] place [...], Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol.

To the First he answers (pag. 99,) by asking, How am I sure this was St. Austin's constant Judgment, since in his later Writings he reckons up the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him? But before I reply to this Demand, it will be convenient to lay down what was S. Austin's Judgment in his former Writing, concerning the dividing of the Commandments.

6. In his LXXI Question upon Exodus, he treats this Point expresly, and at large, viz. Whether three Commandments onely are to be assigned to the first Table, and seven to the second? Or four to the First, and six onely to the Second? And he gives his Resolution in these words. ‘Those, saith he, who assign four to the First Table, will have those words, [Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol; where Idols are forbidden to to be worshipped] to be a distinct Precept from the foregoing words, Thou shalt have no other Gods besides me; and these other words, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbors Wife, and, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbors house, with the rest to the end of the second Table, to be but One. Those who assign but Three to the First Table, make whatever is commanded concerning the Worship of One God; that nothing else [Page] be worshipped for God besides him; to be but One Precept: and divide the last words of the Second Table into Two, so that, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbors Wife, is one Commandment; and, Thou shalt not covet his house, nor any thing that is his, another. Yet neither of them doubt of the Commandments being Ten, because this the Scripture it self witnesseth. But to me, says He, it seems more congruous to divide them into Three and Seven, because those which belong to God seem to insinuate a Trinity of Persons to such as more attentively look into them. And in reality the very same thing is more perfectly explicated, when Idols are forbidden to be worshipped, which was said in the forgoing words, Thou shalt have no other Gods besides me.’ Thus S. Austin. And then having shown the last words of the Second Table, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbours wife, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbours house, &c. to be two distinct Precepts from the distinct Prohibitions, [Thou shalt not, and Thou shalt not] answerable to the different nature of the Sins forbidden he adds, ‘But as to that which is forbidden by those words, Thou shalt have no other Gods besides me, it is apparent that a more diligent execution of this matter is imported by the words which follow. For to what does that Prohibition belong, Thou shalt not make to thy self and Idol, or [Page] any similitude of things in Heaven above, Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them, but to that which was said before, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me?’ These are the Words and the Discourse of S. Austin; in which the Reader may note, 1. That he translates, Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol, not an Image, as Protestants do very artificially, to make their Assertion seem more plausible. 2. That he makes the sence of the Law to be the forbidding to give the Worship of God to Idols. 3. That he does not make it a distinct Precept from the foregoing words, Thou shalt have no other Gods besides me, but onely a more particular and perfect explication of them. So that if the Judgment of S. Austin be to be followed, either for the meaning of the Law, or for the dividing of the Decalogue, it is evident he stands on the Catholick's side, and not on the Protestant's.

7. This Dr. St. saw very well, and therefore found no other way to evade the weight of his Judgment, but to call me to Account how I am sure that this was his constant Judgment, since in his latter Writings (upon his bare word you must take it, for there is nothing in the place to prove it) he reckons up the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him? He would seem [...] these last words to in [...]inuate as if S. Austin [Page] had changed his Judgment upon consideration of what other Fathers had done before him; but there is mention of no such thing in those later Writings cited by himself; and in the former cited by me, 'tis plain that he had considered the Opinion of those other Fathers before him (concerning the dividing the Commandments as Protestants do now) and that notwithstanding their Sentiment in the case, he rejected it as less congruous to the meaning of the Law, and the natures of the things forbidden. This then was a pretty Artifice to amuze the Reader, instead of speaking to the Point. But to come to his demand, How I am sure that S. Austin remained constant in this Judgment, Let us first see what the words are in the place to which he refers us in his Margin, Who will say, saith S. Austin) (Contra duas Ep. Pelag. li. 3. c. 4.) that Christians are not bound to observe, that God onely is to be served with the service of Religion, that an Idol is not to be worshipped, that the Name of God ought not to be taken in vain, that Parents are to be honoured, that Adulteries, Murders, Thes [...]s are not to be committed, that false witness is not to be born, that our Neighbours Wife, that no other thing which is his, is not to be coveted. These are the words of S. Austin. And his Intention here was no more, but to recapitulate the Duties enjoyned in [Page] the Decalogue, which Christians are bound to observe, as is evident, 1. From his first words, Who will say that Christians are not bound to observe, &c. 2. From the occasion of them, which was to answer the Calumny of the Pelagians, who accused him for asserting. That the Law was not given to justifie the Observers, but to be a greater cause of sin. 3. From his leaving out the keeping of the Sabboth, as it was commanded to be observed by the Jews, which he had before excepted. This was his Intention in the place cited by the Doctor, and not to meddle at all with the manner how the Commandments are to be divided; for whether Four be assigned to the First Table, and Six to the Second; or Three onely to the First, and Seven to the Second, the Duties which Christians are bound to observe, are still the same. So that the Doctor has no more ground from hence to say that St. Austin divides them in this place, as Protestants do, than he has from the very words of the Decalogue, as they are set down in Exodus, where although the Commandments are expresly said to be Ten; yet how many belong to the First Table, and how many to the Second, is not specified. Concerning this, he had delivered his Judgment professedly in the place cited by me, to be the same which Catholicks at this day follow; [Page] and if the Doctor question'd the Constancy of his Judgment, any man of Reason would think it had been his part to shew he had chang'd it; and not to ask his Adversary how he is sure he had not done so, when he could bring nothing to prove it, but the very matter it self in dispute. This I confess is a new way of answering the Fathers, and the readiest I ever met with, excepting that of denying them. Whether it be as Good as New, let the Reader judge. I am sure if it be allowed for good, there is no more to do, when an express Testimony is alledged out of any Father for any point in Controversie, but to stand up and ask the Alledger confidently, How he is sure that the Father did not afterwards change his mind, in his later Writings, although he speak not at all to that Question in them. As for the particular point in debate, viz. Whether those words, Thou shalt not make to thee a graven thing, be to be taken according to S. Austin, not as a distinct Commandment, but as an explication onely of the fore-going words, Thou shalt have no other Gods besides me? I am sure I have his Judgment professedly for me in his former Writings, and having possession on my side, I am yet farther sure, that I ought not in justice to be deprived of it, till the Doctor can bring some better evidence out of his later Writings, than a bare [Page] recital of the Commandments; this being in plain terms no other than to beg the Question. The Reader may note here also, that even in this place, cited by the Doctor for himself, the sense S. Austin gives of the Law (whether it be a distinct Precept or no) is the very same I gave in my Reply, ut Idolum non colatur, that an Idol is not to be worshipped. And if I mistake not, his Judgment is to be preferr'd before Calvin's.

8. The next thing I insisted upon to shew the meaning of the Law to be the forbidding to give the Worship of God to Idols, was the use of the Hebrew word Pesel in Scripture to signifie an Idol, and particularly its being translated so in this very place by the Septuagint. To this he returns a double Answer. 1. That supposing it signified onely an Idol, yet that were not enough, because there is added another Word of as large a signification as may be to this purpose, which is (Themuna) SIMILITUDE. But this is nothing at all to the purpose, for how large soever its signification be, when taken by it self, yet in our present case, it is limited by the following words, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them, to signifie the likeness of something which is made to be worshipped as God, that is, to be an Idol. And upon this account, as Mr. Thorndike (Epilog. Of the Laws of the Church, p. 361.) well observes, [Page] Tertullian contr. Marcion, li. 2. c. 22. manifestly affirms, the making of the Brazen Serpent and Cherubins, not to have been against the Law, because not made for Idols, alledging the words of the Precept, [Thou shalt not worship them, nor serve them] for a Restriction limiting the Generality of a Carved Image. And this Opinion, saith he; I doubt not to be true. But to what purpose, saith Dr. St. are words of the largest signification put into a Law, if the sense be limited according to the most narrow acceptation of one word mentioned therein? Instances I doubt not may be brought of Humane Laws, in which words of the largest signification are frequently put in, (and to purpose too) when the Intention of the Law-maker is, that they be understood according to the narrower signification of some other word or words in the Law. And that the Reader may see it was not done to no purpose, in the present Law under debate, I must desire him to take notice, that the Heathens (as Origen Hom. 8. in Exod. 20. and Theodoret Q. 38. in Exod. tell us, when they expound this very Commandment) had two sorts of Images; some which were purely sigments or Fictions of their own Brain, made to represent what had no existence but in their own Imaginations, as Sphynxes, Tritons, Centaurs, and the like; and others, which were made to represent such [Page] things as had a real and substantial being in the World, as the Sun, Moon, Stars, and other like things, which they esteemed and worshipped as Gods. And although the word [Idol] as it is generally taken, be used to signifie any thing that is falsely esteemed and worshipped as a God, whether real or imaginary, yet the former onely of those Images, say these Fathers, are signified in this Law by the word Idol, and the latter by the word Similitude. From whence it appears that the term Similitude in this place, is neither taken in its largest extent, to signifie any Image or Representation whatsoever, though with relation to the worship of the true God; nor yet in the narrowest signification of the word Idol, which is such an Image as is made to represent for Worship, a Figment that has 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 [Page] 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 s [...]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[Page]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 [Page]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 g [...]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 R [...]b [...]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' [...] own honour) by taking the word Image in [Page] 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 [...] [Page] 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 and the other two places? I, but the word Pesel is o [...] so large a signification, that he saith it properly signifies any thing that is carved out of Wood or Stone, and being so often rendred by the Septu [...]gint a graven thing, it is plain from thence, saith he, that when they translate it by an Idol, they mean no more thereby than a graven Image. But what a strange kind of consequence is this, that because they oftentimes translate it a graven thing, therefore, when they translate it Idol, they mean no more I suppose he means [...]o less. thereby than a graven thing? As if the sense of a word of a stricter signification, were to be regulated by another of a larger, and [Page] not the more ample by the narrower; especially in this place, where the words, Thou shalt not worship them, nor serve them, are (as Tertullian above-cited saith) a Restriction limiting the Generality of a Carved Image. No assistance then can be given him from hence, nor yet from the Alexandrian MS. rendring it glypton in the repetition of the Law, Deut. 5. 8. nor its being translated [...]ikoon, Isa. 40. 18. nor yet from the Vulgar Latin using Idolum, Sculptile, and Imago, all to express the same thing, Isa. 44. 9, 10, 13. for in all these places (as They may see who will look into them) there is still some term or clause restraining the words, Sculptile and Imago, to signifie such a graven thing or Image as is made to be compared with God, or to be the Object of Divine Worship, that is, to be an Idol: from whence the contrary to what he infers, is plain, that when they translate it by graven Image, they mean no more thereby than an IDOL. As for that final Conclusion of his, (viz. By which it appears, that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment;) not to spend time in divining what that is by which this appears (it is so very mystical) the Proposition it self, 1. Supposes most falsely, that to bow down before any Image, though with intent[Page]to worship God, is to make it the Object of Divine Worship, and consequently an Idol. 2. It contradicts also what he said before, that to do so, is Idolatry, upon the quite contrary account, viz. because it is forbidden, as hath been shewn more at large above. Let him not contradict Christs holy Spouse the Church (if he will not contradict himself) much less accuse her of Idolatry, for worshipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix; as the Jews were allowed to do by the like actions before the Ark and the Cherubins. When he can prove this to be Idolatry from the Terms of the Law, or any thing else, he will do something. Hitherto he hath done nothing, there being not any one Term in the Law, (as I have shewed) by which it is expresly prohibited to give Worship to God himself by an Image. I advance now to his Second Proof, drawn, as he says, from the Reason annexed to the Law.

[Page]

CHAP. IV.

Dr. St.'s Second Proof, from the Reason of the Law, Sophistical. All Representations of God, not dishonourable to him; nor rejected as such by the Church of England. The Proper Reason of the Law on Gods part assigned, and asserted to be the Supream Excellency of his Nature.

§. 1. THe Second Proof he brings (p. 62.) to shew that God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image, is from the Reason annexed to it. (P. 58.) And that, he saith, the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods Infinite and Incomprehensible Nature, which could not be represented to men, but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it. I expected to find this Reason, because he saith, it is annexed to the Law, either in the Law it self, or in the Preface, or in the Commination against the Transgressors of it: but it seems he could not find it there himself, and therefore he cites for it, that Text of Isa. 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare to him? And that of Deut. 4. [Page]15, 16. Take good heed to your selves, &c. for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you. And the Consequence from all is, a desire to know whether by this Reason God doth not declare, that all Worship given to him by any visible Representation of him, is extreamly dishonourable to him? This is the Sum of his Discourse; apt enough, I confess, to d [...]lude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit, but altogether empty and insignificant, when brought to the Test of Reason, as I shall make appear in this Chapter. The Reader in the mean time may please to take notice, that whereas he infers now onely from the Promisses, That all Worship given to God by any visible Representation of him, is extreamly dishonourable to him, and not that it is flat Idolatry, he is either grown kind all on the suddain, or jealous that his Proof falls short of his Charge: since every extreamly-great sin, as Blasphemy and the like, is extreamly dishonourable to God, and yet not Idolatry. As for the Conclusion it self, whether and in what sense it may be true or false, shall be examined below; Let us see first what truth there is in the Antecedent, from whence he infers it.

§. 2. The Proposition he lays down for the Reason of the Law, is this; Gods Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible, cannot[Page]be represented to men, but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it. And, if this be so, what shall we say to one that should represent God in Picture, as a Three-Corner'd Light casting out radiant Beams on all sides of it; at a little distance a resplendent Cloud of Glory in a Circular form encompassing the Light: Within the Cloud, near to the Fountain of Brightness, Angels adoring; without the Cloud, Faith and Religion praying; and directly under it, an Altar with an inflamed Heart offering it self in Sacrifice? Would such a visible Representation as this, be an infinite disparagement to God or no? If my Adversary grant it, (as he must do, if he speak consequently to himself) then what becomes of the Church of England? For in the Frontispiece of her Book of Common-Prayer, Printed at London by Robert Barker 1642. in octavo, this very Picture is exposed to the Eyes of all her People; and to prevent their mistaking it, as intended to represent any thing but God, the incommunicable Name JEHOVAH is written in the midst of the Triangular Light, and that in Hebrew Characters, to strike (no doubt) a greater respect and reverence in the Beholders? If he deny it to be an infinite disparagement, then what becomes of his Fundamental Position, that God being infinite and incomprehensible, cannot be represented to [Page]men, but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to his Nature? Whatever Calvin denies 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.

[Page] § 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 [Page] 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.

[Page] 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[Page]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.

[Page] To make this as clear as the matter will give me leave, I must desire the Reader to reflect, that although there be no distinction of Attributes or Perfections in God, but that All are really one and the same indivisible Perfection with his Nature; and consequently the same with one another, viz. his Mercy with his Justice; his Justice with his Truth, and his Truth with his Omnip [...]tence, &c. Yet We, by reason of the narrowness of our Understanding, are forced to apprehend, and discourse (for example) of his Mercy as distinct from his Justice, assigning them as the proper Causes or Reasons of several (even contrary) effects, which God produces by them. When he forgives, we say, he does so because he is Merciful; and when he punishes, we say, he does so, because he is Just; so that the formal Reason, as conceived by us, why he forgives, is his Mercy, and not his Justice; and why he punishes, is his Justice, and not his Mercy; and so immediate is the connexion between them and their effects, that if you abstract his Mercy, there is no reason left to conceive why he should forgive; nor to punish, if you abstract his Justice. But in case you abstract his Justice, and leave his Mercy, the effect of forgiving will still follow, and consequently his Mer [...], and not his Justice, must be assigned [...] the formal Cause or Reason why h [...] forgiv [...].

[Page] From hence, I think, I may infer, and lay down this General Rule, That that Notion or Perfection in God, upon which (considered precisely in it self) an effect depends, so that it follows or not follows as a consequence from it, according as the said notion is or is not considered by us; ought to be assigned for the proper Cause or Reason of such an effect. But so it is in our present case, that if we consider the Divine Nature precisely as Supreamly Excellent (abstracting from its Incongruity to be represented) it necessarily follows, that Soveraign Worship is due onely to It, and not to be given to any other either Image or Thing. But if we consider it as Invisible onely, and Irrepresentable, (abstracting from the notion of Supreme Excellency) it doth not follow on that account precisely, that Soveraign Worship, or indeed any Worship at all is due unto it. An Angel is invisible and cannot be represented as he is; doth it therefore follow that Soveraign Worship is due to him? Or that any Worship at all is to be given to a Sound, because it cannot be painted? Excellency then, and not Invisibility, is the Formal Reason of Worship. Whether a thing can or cannot be represented by an Image or Picture, if it have no Excellency, no Worship is due unto it; and if it have Excellency, Worship is due to it, according to the degree [Page] of Excellency it is endowed with. And upon that account Soveraign Civil Worship was equally due from the People to Moses, being constituted their Prince by God, when his Picture could be drawn, as when it could not because of the shining of his face; or when he kept on his Vail, or put it off: And God himself was no less adorable when he appeared to Daniel like the Ancient of Days, than when he gave the Law to Moses without any Similitude: To conclude, to be Supremely-Excellent is Proper to God alone; Not-to-be-representable by an Image, is Common to Him with Angels, though in a higher degree: and however it enter materially, or à parte rei, (as the Schools speak) as the other Attributes of Truth, Wisdom, Goodness, &c. do, to constitute the Divine Nature Supremely-Excellent; yet it is manifest that his Excellency precisely, and none of the other Attributes, is the immediate and formal reason why Soveraign Worship is to be given to none but Him; and consequently why this Law was made particularly to forbid it to be given (as at that time it was given by the Heathen) to Grave [...] Things, that is, Representations of Imaginary Beings; or to any Similitude, that is, the likeness of any thing, which although it had a real Being, yet was not God.

[Page] 3dly. Ad hominem, I argue thus. What follows precisely from the Divine Nature's being Invisible and Irrepresentable (abstracting from its Supreme Excellency, the proper Object of Latria) is onely this, that men therefore ought not to presume to make any Image or likeness, to represent it as it is: and the Law in virtue of it, must be to forbid the making any such Image: But Dr. St. utterly denies the Law we treat of to contain any such Prohibition in it; as appears by his words against Bellarmin and others, pag. 77.—[As though ever any Men were such fools to believe an Image could perfectly represent an Infinite Being; or that God need to make a Law to forbid that which is utterly impossible in the very nature of the thing: He might more reasonably forbid men to paint a Sound,—or to make new Worlds, than to command them not to make any Image which should perfectly represent his Nature.] Thus he, to shew the Law meant nothing less than to forbid men to make an Image of God; which yet is all that follows in virtue of his not being representable by any corporeal figure. Therefore, according to himself, the irrepresentableness of the Divine Nature, as precisely consider'd, cannot be assigned for the Proper Cause or Reason of this Law. Thus much from Reason.

[Page] §. 6. I come now to the places of Scripture; which, he saith, tell us, that the Reason of the Law was, That God's Nature being Infinite, could not be represented but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to him.

To the first. Isa. 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto him? I answer, The Prophet tells us, that nothing is or can be like or compared to God; but where doth he tell us that this is the Reason of the Law, unless we are bound to believe it because Dr. St. saith it? There is a likeness of Representation, and a likeness of Comparison (as the words themselves seem to import) but neither of them evince what he intends. For if the words be to be understood of likeness in Representation, all that can be inferr'd from them, is, that such a likeness is not to be made; the Prohibition whereof, as the Doctor denies to be any part of the Law; so the thing it self makes nothing against Catholicks, who abhor the very thought of making any such likeness; and the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. expresly enjoyns her Pastors, for preventing any mistake in ignorant and unlearned Persons, When some Historical passage of H. Scripture concerning God, is represented in Picture, to teach them that the Divinity it self is not thereby figured, as if it could be seen with corporeal[Page]Eyes, or drawn in Colours, or expressed in Figures; but that such kind of Pictures are onely Representations of some Apparition or Action of God, in a way proportionable to our Humane Conception. But if the Prophet speak not of a likeness in Representation, but in Comparison, as the Contents of the Chapter in the Protestant Bible affirm in these words, The Prophet comforteth the People v. 18. by the Incomparableness of God: that is, if his intent be (as their own Annotation hath it upon that place, Bible in Quarto, 1610.) to arm them against the Idolatry wherewith they should be tempted in Babylon, by shewing that none of the Idols of the Heathen were to be compared to Him in Wisdom, Greatness, Power, &c. as is manifest he does from v. 12. to the end of the Chapter; it is no more to the purpose for which he alledges it, viz. Therefore it is forbidden to worship God himself by bowing or kneeling before an Image, than if one should say, There is no comparison for Riches and Greatness between a King and a Peasant; therefore it is not lawful to give honour to the King, by putting off ones Hat before his Picture, or the Chair of State.

§. 7. To the other Text of Deut. 4. 15. where Moses saith, Take good heed to your selves, (for ye saw no manner of Similitude in the day that the Lord spake to you.) I answer, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 examining them; and the Reader may guess by this out of Tacitus, whether it be not likely I did him a kindness in it.

[Page]

CHAP. V.

Worship unlawful by the Light of Nature, equally unlawful to Jews and Christians. A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. Stillingfleet, viz. What can an Image do to the heightning of Devotion, or raising Affections? How far his Devotion to the Sun may be allowed in the Judgment of St. Leo.

§. 1. FRom the Notions of the Wiser Heathens concerning the Worship of Images, he passes to the Clearer Discoveries of the Gospel, S. 7. and wonders as at a thing of all things the most strange to him, that any Persons should think this Precept onely respected the Jewish Oeconomy; and he repeats his wonder in a higher strain, p. 67. when he asks, How any men in their Sense [...] can imagine that Worship to be lawful among Christians, which was unlawful to the Jews? It seems he wanted an Adversary to combate, and rather than lay down his Weapons, he was resolved to make one, though of empty Air: For there is not one word in the Reply (which he pretends to answer) to signifie that the Author of it [Page] ever look'd upon this Precept as a meer positive Law; (which by his wondering he would make his Reader believe) but the quite contrary. For the meaning of the Law there given, is this, That what God forbids in it, is, to give his Worship to Idols; which Prohibition being but an Explication of the Law of Nature, must equally oblige both Jews and Christians. Yet to speak to a Point, the occasion of so much wonder. What Worship is it he means was unlawful to the Jews, and is lawful to Christians? Was it to worship God by some Symbolical Figures instituted to raise their Minds to a more lively apprehension of Gods Majesty and Glory? No; for this the Jews did by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubins; and very lawfully they did it, as appears by David's exhorting them to bow or fall down before the footstool of God, Psal. 98. Or was it to worship God by some Corporeal Representation conceiv'd as Proper to his Nature? This he hath been told before, is no less unlawful to Christians now, than it was formerly to the Jews, but rather more, by reason of the clearer knowledge they have of the Nature of God. What Worship then does he mean? Pray take it in his own words, and make the best on't you can. God's being a Spirit, is given, saith he, as a particular Reason why we ought [Page]to worship him after a spiritual manner, and not by any Corporeal Representation, as the Jews said the Samaritans worshipped God in the form of a Dove. This is what he saith; and if his words be to be taken with relation to what the Samaritans did, he ought first to have told us what that was; For as it appears from Scripture, 4 Kings 17. 33. they made an erroneous Conceit of God, because they worshipped him together with the Gods of the Assyrians, and as One of Many, though the Best of the Company; which neither the Jews did, nor Christians (I hope) do, but as the onely true God. But if his words must be taken without that respect, as they make up an Antecedent and Consequence, viz. God is a Spirit, therefore we ought to worship him after a spiritual manner, and not by any Corporeal Representation whatsoever: As the Consequence will hold as well against worshipping God by any Corporeal Gesture or Ceremony, as by an Image; So the giving him Worship by any Corporeal Representation (supposing the Law not to be meerly Positive, but Natural, and the Consequence good) was, and is alike unlawful both to Jews and Christians. But in case there were a particular Prohibition given to the Jews (by reason of their proneness to Idolatry) of not making any Image or likeness for Worship, though of [Page] God himself, the Law as to that part is evin [...]'d to be only Ceremonial, from their being dispens'd with, in the making and use of the Ark and Cherubins, and so not obliging Christians, but manifestly inferring, that the use of Images (abstracting from such a positive Prohibition) is not unlawful. From hence it appears how incongruous his comparison is between the use of Images and Common Swearing: This being of its own nature evil, and always dangerous; That not such; nor dangerous in Christians, who are imbued from their Infancy, with a more clea [...] and perfect knowledge of the Nature of God, than ever the Wiser Heathens attained to by the Light of Reason, or the Jews by the Law of Moses. Yet is not their state so spiritual as to put them quite out of their Senses. The Maxim of the Philosopher holds still good with them, That nothing enters into their Understanding, but what passes first by the Gates of their Senses, and no Operation of the Sight (the quickest of them) is performed without an Image.

§. 2. Hitherto the Doctor hath been very careful to make his Reader believe him serious; but who can imagine him to be so, when he advances that strange Paradox, p. 68. What can such an Image, (that is, to use his own phrase, a Block or a [...]ewnstone, representing God to his mind) What can[Page]such an Image, saith he, do to the heightning of Devotion, or raising Affections? And he means not onely an Image of the Deity by way of Likeness, or Analogy, or Union; every one of which, he saith, tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity, and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship, but also of the Images of Christ our Lord, made to represent his Humane Nature with respect to his Worship; as is evident by his applauding the Constantinopolitan Fathers for condemning it as a great Absurdity, (p. 79.) the reason whereof he seems to give in this place, when he immediately addes, And is there no danger among Christians, that they should entertain too low and unworthy thoughts of God? And can any thing tend to it more effectually, than the bringing down the Representations of him to the Figure and Lineaments of a Man, drawn upon a Table, or carved in an Image? Thus He; And if he be serious, what can I do but admire the thrice-happy state of these men, who living in the Body as out of the Body, (it is so spiritualiz'd by continual Praying, Fasting, and other Macerations) can mount at pleasure into the Third Heaven, and need not the assistance of any visible Representations to raise them to the knowledge of the Invisible and Incomprehensible Deity? This, I confess, is a state more to be admired, than ever to be [Page] hoped for) in this life, by the greater part of the Children of Adam. And therefore God, to lead man to the knowledge of Him, by means proportionable to his Nature; (which, as I said, is to derive its knowledge from the Senses) created the stately Machin of this visible World, to serve as a Hieroglyphick of his Greatness and Power. Next, having chosen a peculiar People to his Service, although he forbad them to make the likeness of any of those things he had created, to worship them for Gods; yet he commanded Moses (Exod. 25. 10, 17, 18.) to place in the Temple where they were to worship him, a representation of his Footstool and Throne (the Ark and the Propitiatory) with two Cherubins of beaten Gold attending on each side of the Seat, to raise their thoughts to a more venerable apprehension of his Majesty and Greatness. Lastly, the fulness of time being come, in which he would shew the excess of his mercy towards Mankind, he was pleased (as S. Paul saith, Phil. 2. 7.) to take upon him the form of a Servant, and be made in the likeness of Man, that is, to become indeed true Man, not onely to work our Redemption by shedding his most precious Blood, but also by that visible form (as the Church sings upon the day of his Nativity) to carry, or rather ravish our hearts to the contemplation of his Invisible Deity, Ut [Page]dum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus, per hunc ad invisibilia rapiamur. And if this were the means made choice of by God himself, as most efficacious (because most connatural) to conduct us to the knowledge and love of Him; then certainly the Pictures or Images of his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, &c. which serve to put us in mind of what he did and suffered for us in that form of a Servant, cannot but conduce very much to work the like effects in us. And after all this, can any man (not to use his own phrase, in his Senses, but) who is serious, ask, What can such an Image do to the heightning of Devotion, or raising Affections? S. Gregory Nissen says of himself, (Orat. de Deitate Filii & Spiritus Sancti) That he often beheld, but never without Tears, the Picture of Abraham ready to sacrifice his Son Isaac; though but a rep [...]esentation onely of a Type of the Son of God upon the Altar of the Cross: And can any man, whose heart is not of Stone, behold attentively the Image of his dying Saviour himself with his Hands and Feet Nailed to the Cross, and not be touched with a sense of Devotion towards Him? Surely he must have lost the notion of Humane Nature who can soberly affirm, that the making such an Image with respect to His Worship, tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity, and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we [Page]are to worship: unless to remember that he dyed for us, be to think meanly and dishonourably of him. But whither will not a Resolution to maintain an Errour once espoused, hurry the subtillest Wit? The Doctor's eagerness to make us Idolaters, had made him fancy that where God forbids to give his Worship to Idols, he forbad to make any Image with respect to his own Worship: and this forced him (for I cannot believe he did it without force to his own thoughts) to assert that an Image can do nothing to the heightning of Devotion, or raising Affections. If he think I strain his words too far, (though no farther than what his discourse gives me cause to do) let him vindicate himself by professing candidly, that the Images of Christ according to his Humane Nature, may serve to raise our Affections, and heighten our Devotion to him as God. But then he must renounce the patronage of his Constantinopolitan Fathers, and retract or answer his own Reason, that if this be done by calling to our mind the Being we are to worship, there must be supposed some Likeness, or Analogy, or Union between the Object represented and the Image, every one of which tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity, and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship: and particularly that among Christians nothing can tend more effectually to it, than the bringing down [Page]the representations of him to the figure and lineaments of a man drawn upon a Table, or carved upon an Image. But what ought we not to do to free our selves from Mistake, much more from Errour? The Mistake at present (if I may give it so gentle a name) lies in this, That he considers not, that if one thing hath connexion with, or analogy to another, although Invisible, when the former is represented to a Person that understands the analogy or connexion there is between them, it is apt to bring to his remembrance the later. Hence it is, that although the Soul of man cannot be drawn in colours, yet when the Body to which it is united, is represented in Picture, the Representation serves as a means to bring to our minds the Perfections or Graces of the Soul which informs it; and not to bring them down (as against Nature and Experience he a [...]firms) to the figure and lineaments of a Body drawn upon a Table, or carved in an Image. Had the rest of Mortals been imbued with this Principle, they had never caused either their Pictures or Images to be made, lest they might be occasion to their Friends, from whom they expected Love and Honour, to entertain too l [...]w and unworthy thoughts of them. Much less ought Princes to permit any Chair of State to be placed in the Presenc [...] Chamber, for fear of bringing [Page]down the representations of them to the uncouth figure of four or five sticks put awkwardly together. But this is not all.

§. 3. On this account, he saith (p. 59.) it seems much more reasonable for him to worship God by prostrating himself before the Sun, or any of the Heavenly Bodies; nay to an Ant or a Fly, than to a Picture or an Image. And I have more kindness for him, if he should do it, than to suppose him therefore (as he supposes himself, p. 70.) to be a Heathen Idolater, unless he take the Sun for a God. Philosophy and Experience having given me so much insight into the nature of humane actions, as to know they go whither they are intended; and Religion so much Charity, as to believe his intent was onely to worship the true God by it. But why does it seem much more reasonable for him to worship God, by prostrating to the Sun, nay to an Ant, or a Fly, than to a Picture or an Image? The reason, he says, is, because in those he sees great evidences of the Power, and Wisdom, and Goodness of God, which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to his mind, (so then now it seems that analogy doth not always tend highly to the dishonour of the Deity, nor suggest mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship) whereas a Picture or an Image can have nothing worthy admiration, unless it be the Skill of the [...]. [Page] If this be the reason, he ought in my Judgment to have given the precedence to the Ant and the Fly, (or to the Ape, the Ass, and the Tyger, brought in by him in a former comparison) for all these have two degrees of Perfection beyond the Sun, viz. Life and Sense. If the danger be, that he is more like to take an Ant o [...] an Ape, by reason of their greater Excellency, for God, than the Sun, (the reason suppos'd by himself why we chuse rather to worship God by an Image, than by the Sun) on that account (to let him feel the force of his own Argument, if it have any) that which deserves most honour should have least given it, and that which deserves least, should have most. For the danger is there still greater, where the Excellency is greater, and by that means we ought rather to worship (he says to us, a Beast than a Saint; I say to him) the Earth than the Sun; for there is less danger of believing one to be God, than the other. But to return to his former words.

§ 4. Is there nothing then in a Picture worthy admiration, besides the Skill of the Painter or Artificer? I dare avouch for the greater part of Ladies, who sit for their Pictures, that they do it not purely to beget in the Beholders an admiration of the Painter; and those who procure an Author's Picture to be set before his Book, intend, no doubt, that [Page] those who fix their eyes upon it, should admire something besides the Skill of the Engraver. I have my self a Picture of a Friend which gives me occasion frequently to admire the great Endowments of his Mind, but not at all the Hand that did it, it is so rudely done. Something then there is in Pictures besides the Skill of the Painter, which may make them worthy, if not of admiration for the excellency of the work; at least of use, for their quick suggesting to our Mind, not onely the outward Features, but also the inward Graces of the Persons they represent. This virtue they have from their more express representation and likeness, even above other things, which have a greater resemblance in natural perfections; and this is one Reason why we make use of them so frequently since God was made Man, because they bring Him more immediately to our Mind, than either the Sun, or an Ant, or a Fly. And this may be the Reason (if I may have leave to suggest one) why Dr. St. Himself prefers the Sun for a Help to his Devotion, before an Ant or a Fly, though inferiour to them by two degrees in perfection; because amongst corporeal things, Light is the putest, and conceived by us to be likest to a Spirit. But to prefer them all, and with them the Ape, the Ass, and the Tyger, before an Image, because they have greater natural [Page] perfections than an Image hath, may (if it prevail in the World) quite undo the Company of Picture-drawers in a little time. For if it shall be made appear much more reasonable to make use of what approaches nearer in perfection, than likeness, the Ladies may come instead of the Pictures of their Friends, to wear Ants and Flies in Crystal Cases upon their Brests: and instead of their own Pictures to send them the Apes and Asses he brought in so lamely in his former Comparison, I and his Tygers too, when they can catch them, as greater resemblances of their Perfections. Perhaps he'll say, he speaks not of the Perfections of these Creatures, as barely such, but as great evidences to him of the Power and Wisdom and Goodness of God. But how many are there in the World not so Philosophical and Contemplative as he is, who think more how to free themselves from the importunity of the Ants and Flies, and from the heat of the Sun, than to consider their perfections as great evidences of the Wisdom, &c. of God; and yet if they come into a place where a Crucifix is, are presently put in mind of God, and testifie the venerable apprehension they have of him, by bowing their Knee, or putting off their Hats? If he find his Devotion more inflam'd by the light and heat of the Sun, and the motions of those little Beasts, [Page] than by an Image, much good may it do him. But this ought not to prescribe to the Generality of Christians, who I believe experience more frequent and more venerable thoughts of God suggested to their Minds by the sight of a Crucifix, than by seeing the Sun, with all the Ants and Flies in the World. 'Tis not the nearer approach in perfection, even in the effect, that brings us always soonest and surest to the knowledge of the cause. We see many Fathers are not known by their Sons, who yet are presently known by their Pictures. And Atheists deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidences at all of that Being we call God: but cannot deny a Crucifix to represent to their own thoughts, that Person whom we believe to be God. Pictures then we see have an advantage in representing, above the Creatures; though in natural perfections they be inferiour to them. But yet for all this,

§. 5. He says, He cannot for his Heart understand, why he may not as well, nay better burn Incense, and say his Prayers to the Sun, having an intention onely to honour the true God by it, as to do both these to an Image. And the reason is still the same, because he is sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image can have, and the beauty and influence of it may inflame and warm ones Devotion[Page]much more. I am sure too, the Sun hath far more advantages than any material word can have, even the Name of JESUS either written or spoken; and yet I do not find the beauty and influence of the Sun to inflame and warm ones Devotion so much as the hearing or reading of that Sacred Name. But I perceive he hath a particular Devotion to the Sun (though it have less advantages than an Ant or a Fly) and therefore must warn him in Charity, not to say his Prayers to it, no more than we do to Images, (as he very well knows, though he would make his Reader believe the contrary) for that were to terminate his Intention upon the Sun, to put his trust in it, and make it his God; but as for his bowing to it, with intent to worship the true God, (or burning Incense, using it, as it is used by the Church, for a Ceremony of like nature with bowing) he may have a Resolution of the Case, how far it may be allowed him, from the Pen of that Great and Learned Doctor S. Leo: and for his farther satisfaction I shall take the pains to transcribe his words.

‘From that Opinion (saith S. Leo, Serm. in Natal. Dom.) viz. That the life of Man is governed by the Stars, that Impiety also takes its rise, which is used by some who are less wise, to adore the Sun at his Rising from some eminent place. A thing which some Christians [Page] think they do so religiously in the observance of it, that before they enter into the Church of S. Peter the Apostle, which is dedicated to the One true and living God, they go up to the top of the Church, and turning themselves to the rising Sun, with low obeysance bow down themselves in honour of that Illustrious Planet. Which we are exceedingly grieved to see done, partly out of ignorance, and partly out of a Heathenish spirit. Because although some perchance do worship the Creator rather of that fair Light, than the Light it self which is a Creature; nevertheless they ought to abstain from the very show of such a kind of Service, which when some new Convert, who hath forsaken the Worship of false Gods, shall find exhibited to the Sun by the more ancient Professors of Christianity, will be induced to retain that part of his old Opinion as probable or allowable, which he shall see to be common both to Christians and Heathens. Let the Faithful therefore abstain from so perverse and worthy-to-be-condemned a Custom; nor let the honour due to God alone, be mixed with their Rites who serve the Creatures; for the H. Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serve, Matth. 4.’ This is the Resolution of that Ancient and Learned Father, at a time, whenas yet there were some Reliques [Page] of Paganism remaining in the World. And from it the Doctor may infer, That if he do not say his Prayers to the Sun, but onely bow down, or use some external signification of honour of the like nature, not out of ignorance, or a Paganish spirit, but with intent to worship the True God, in such sort as not to give scandal to the weaker Brethren, it may pass for a piece of private Devotion in a Person so Philosophical and Contemplative as I judge him to be. And this is all which Vasques (so much accused by him, p. 129.) doth teach; for as for publick and promiscuous adoring of Creatures, he condemneth it as undecent and scandalous,Lib. 3. de adorat. c. 1. saying expresly, that Indiscriminatim creaturas adorandas proponere, esset multis manifesta causa periculi. If he ask me yet again, Why he may not do this as well, nay better to the Sun, than to an Image, since he is sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image? I think I may ask him, why he may not as well, nay better put off his Hat to one of the Lyons in the Tower, with intent to honour the King, as do it to his Picture, or the Chair of State; since I am sure the Lyon in his Sense hath far more advantage than any Artificial Image or Figure [Page] can have; the Majesty and Generosity of the King of Beasts, may suggest more venerable apprehensions to him of the King he is to honour. But, to answer what for his heart he says he cannot understand, and give him a clear Solution of his Scruple, I must desire him to consider, that although the Creatures do represent God after their manner, yet it is so rudely, remotely, darkly, and imperfectly, that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discover the Analogy or Proportion they bear to their Creator; They are called Gods Foot-steps, and to gather the height and bigness of Hercucules from his Foot-step, was not the work of every Vulgar Capacity. Whereas an Image (for example) of Christ, is so apparently representative of him, that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly presently unto him: and his Picture is no sooner in our Eyes, than his Person by imagination in our Mind: and consequently the likeness it bears to Him, is much more apt to inflame and warm ones Devotion, than the beauty and influence of the Sun. Besides, that the Creatures being subsistent in themselves, and evidently the Causes of many great benefits to Mankind, the danger is greater of terminating Worship upon them, than upon an Image, whose [Page] formal Being consisting in Representation onely, connaturally carries our Thoughts and Affections to the Person represented by it. By what hath been said, he may see how far the Defence he makes for himself (p. 70.) by his abusive application of the distinction of Dulia and Hyperdulia, and of Supream and Relative Worship, in case he should bow down to the Sun, with intent to worship the true God, will bear him out. If he go farther, and (as he states the case himself) pay his Devotions to the Sun as a subservient and ministerial God, though with subordination to the Supream Deity; at his peril be it: For that which possibly would justifie his worshipping of God by the Sun, will most certainly not justifie his worshipping the Sun for a God.

[Page]

CHAP. VI.

Of the Notions and Practise of the Wiser Heathens in the matter of their Images. The Texts of St. Paul, Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 21. Explained. Some of the Doctors Testimonies Examined; in particular the Relation he gives of what the Jesuites did in China.

§. 1. THe next Onset the Doctor makes upon the Catholick use of Images, is with a fresh Recruit of his Wiser Heathens; the most Intelligent of whom, he saith, p. 74. did never look on their Images as any other than Symbols or Representations of that Being to which they gave Worship. What he would infer from thence, is so soul, he could not find in his heart to speak it out. Yet I cannot but acknowledge his kindness to us here, in comparing us at least with the most Intelligent among the Heathens; whereas p. 70. he had done his endeavour to insinuate into his Reader's belief, that the Aegyptians (who worshipped Crocodiles and Serpents, Leeks and Onyons [...]or Gods) were more excusable than the Papists. To usher in the Wisdom of the Heathens [Page] he premises two Texts out of S. Paul, Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 19. as a mighty Argument, he saith, to prove the unsuitableness of the Worship of Images to the Nature of God, to be of an unalterable and universal nature. And I wonder whoever denyed it of such Images as are conceived to be proper Likenesses or Representations of the Divinity, of which S. Paul speaks in the first place; or of the Images of the false Gods of the Heathens, of which he speaks in the latter. Must the words of Scripture be always taken barely according to their sound, without consideration had to the Times and Circumstances in which they were written? That the Athenians whom S. Paul reproved Acts 17. 24. thought the Divinity to be like to the Images they made of Gold and Silver, is evident by his words, as set down by Dr. St. himself, viz. Because God was He who made the World, &c. Therefore we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold, or Silver, or Stone, graven by Art or man's device. And himself grants this to have been their supposition. This then was a mighty Argument from the mouth of S. Paul, to drive that Erroneous Conceit out of the Minds of the Athenians, who believed the Divinity to be like the Images they made; but none at all from the Pen of Dr. St. against Catholicks, who detest the thoughts [Page] of having or making any such Image. To what purpose then was it brought, except he intended to make his Reader believe the Papists to be no wiser than the Athenians, who were so possessed with a wrong apprehension of the Nature of God, that (as St. Chrysostom tells us upon that place) when they heard St. Paul speak of Anastasis, that is, the Resurrection, because it was a new thing they never heard of before, and the word of the Feminine Gender, they concluded he brought them Tidings of some new Goddess?

§. 2. As for the second place of Rom. 1. 21, 23. nothing can be more clear, than that the Apostle speaks there of the Idols or Images of the Heathens; for after he had laid down the matter of fact which he condemned, viz. That although they knew God, yet they did not glorifie him as God, but changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man, he adds also, And to Birds, and four footed Beasts, and Creeping Things, (which words were clapp'd under Deck by the Doctor with an &c. because they plainly declare what kind of Images the Apostle meant) and then vers. 25. tells us that by so doing▪ They changed the Truth of God into a Lie, and worshipped and served the Creature, rather than the Creator. These are the words of the Apostle, [Page] so plain that the Doctor could find no evasion, but to tell us, that St. Paul doth not discourse here against the most gross and sottish Idolaters of the Heathen, but, as St. Chrysostom (saith he) well observes, against the Philosophers, and the wisest among them: who though they differed in their Opinions of Religion extreamly from the Vulgar, yet they concurred with them in all the external practices of their Idolatry. And before we go farther, it is well worth the observing what he observes out of St. Chrysostom. S. Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Rom. Dices, quid haec ad Philosophos? You will say, saith St. Chrysostom, if the Apostle reprehended the Heathens for giving the glory of God to irrational Creatures, and what was yet more sottish, to their very Images; what is that to the Philosophers, or more Intelligent among them? Marry I answer, saith he, that, what hath been said, most of all concerns them: For they have for their Masters the Aegyptians, who were the Inventors of these things. And Plato, who yet seems graver than the rest, glories in them. Nay his Master (Socrates) was a great Admirer of them; for this is He who commands a Cock to be offered to Aesculapius. Hence you may see the Images of Beasts and Creeping Things to be worshipped, and together with them, Apollo and Bacchus. This [Page] is what St. Chrysostom observ'd of the Philosophers: And was it not luckily done of the Doctor to make him the Patron of his Explication, viz. that the intent of the Apostle was not to charge them with false Notions of a Deity, but to shew their vanity and folly in thinking they had found out subtiller ways of defending the Common Idolatry among them, and instead of opposing them, made use of their Wits to excuse them? But suppose what he says were so: that the Philosophers were as subtil as he would make them, were they not worthily condemned by the Apostle, though but for the external profession of praying and offering Sacrifice to the Statues of Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, &c. and also to those of Birds, and four-footed Beasts, and Creeping Things, as the Vulgar did? And if they found out subtiller ways of defending the Common Idolatries among them, and instead of opposing them, made use of their Wits to excuse them, were they not to blame in so doing? But what is all this to Christians? To make his discourse from the Apostles words come home to them, he should show that the Images by which they honour Christ and his Saints, are worshipped by them as Gods, or as the Images of false Gods, as those were of which the Apostle speaks in that place; otherwise the subtil ways of defending he covertly aims at, wil be as allowable against the [Page] Deserters of the Churches Faith, in the point of Images, as in other Mysteries of Christianity. But to come to the point it self.

§. 3. The most Intelligent Heathens, saith he, did never look on their Images as any other than Symbols or Representations of that Being to which they gave Divine Worship. What Being this was, he doth not tell us, whether the onely true God, or those false ones represented by their Images. If he mean these latter, he knows in his Conscience he does wrong to Catholicks in comparing them even to his Wiser Heathens. If the former, he does those more right by his subtil way of defending them, than appears from the Testimonies he brings, They ever thought of doing themselves. For all that is expressed there (and you may believe he would suppress nothing that might make to his purpose) out of Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Arnobius, Augustin, Maximus Tyrius, and Julian, concerning the more Intelligent Heathens, is, that they did not look on their Images as Gods: That they look'd upon them nevertheless as Images or Symbols of false Gods, some of his own Testimonies affirm, as that of Celsus in Origen, lib. 7. That none but a stark fool believes the Images themselves to be Gods, had he not left out the latter part of it, viz. Non diis dicatas Statuas, but that [Page] they were Statues erected to the Gods. And that of Julian, when he saith, They are but Symbols of the presence of the Gods. But not any thing is there in them to signifie that they worshipped the true God by them, besides the two words of Divinity and Deity, which he cogg'd into the Testimonies of Arnobius and St. Austin to make his Reader believe so. I shall set down the passages both in his words and the Fathers, that the Reader by comparing them, may learn what credit he is to give hereafter to his citing of Authors; and at the same time receive a farther Testimony of my kindness to him in taking the rest upon his word.

First then for Arnobius. Arnob. What Dr. St. (p. 74.)Contra. makes the Wiser Heathens deny there,Gent. li. 6. is that they ever thought their Images to be Gods, or to have any Divinity in them, but what onely comes from their Consecration to such an use. And the Reader finding the word Divinity in a different Character, and in the singular number, as it were in opposition to the Gods he immediately mentions before, and that they have no Divinity but what comes from their Consecration to such an use; What can he think, but that those wise Heathen, intended to worship the true Divinity by those Images, and look'd onely upon them as Signs consecrated to such an use [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] by some extrinsecal deputation, like that of the Images of Christ and his Saints among Catholicks, or of the Communion-Cup or Table even among Protestants. But is this what Arnobius makes the Heathens to say? Pray hear what the wiser Heathens return upon him, when he upbraided them for worshipping Gods of Gold and Silver, the works of mens hands. Erras & laberis; nam neque nos aera, neque auri argentique materias esse per se Deos, & religiosa decernimus Numina. You erre (say they) and are mistaken, O Arnobius, in what you affirm, for we do not think the matter of Brass, Silver, and Gold to be Gods, and adorable Deities, PER SE, of themselves. No, we are wiser than so. But how then? Sed eos in his colimu [...] eosque veneramur, quos dedicatio infert sacra, & fabrilibus efficit inhabitare simulacris. But we honour and worship the Gods or Deities in those Statues, whom the virtue of sacred dedication hath brought into them, and made to dwell in those Images made by Art. And by Sacred Dedication is here meant Magical Incantation, by which the Souls of Wicked Men, or Evil Spirits, were evocated, and as it were tied to dwell in those Images, as St. Austin relateth, Lib. 8. de Civit. Dei. c. 23. & 26. And now I beseech you judge if this be fair play? When the wiser Heathens say, that they do not think their Images to be [Page]Gods PER SE, of themselves, that is, without Spirits dwelling in them; to say absolutely, that they denied they ever thought their Images to be Gods? And when they acknowledge that they did worship the Gods which by Dedication were made to dwell in them; to tell us they do not acknowledge any Divinity in them, but what comes from their Consecration to such an use; as if in the Opinion of those Heathens the End of the Consecration had been in order to the Worship of the True God, and not to introduce false Gods, (or evil Spirits) to reside in the Images. Nay when they say expresly, that the Object of their Worship was the Gods which inhabited in those Images, and that their Wisdom consisted in this, that they did not worship the Images themselves for Gods, but the Gods (Deos & Numina, in the Plural Number) which dwelt in them; to put for all this, Divinity in the Singular, as if their intention had been to worship the true God by them: is this, I say, fair dealing in a Controvertist? To set up a Flag upon a Fire-Ship to disguise it, is a commendable Stratagem in an Enemy;—Dolus an virtus, quis in hoste requirat? But when the bottom is full of Infernal Spirits, to fix upon it the Title of Divinity, and that in a larger Character, is no such laudable quality in a Writer, whose greatest virtue should [Page] be plain-dealing. But we shall see more of this in the Citation out of St. Austin.

§. 4. What Dr. St. says that the Wiser Heathens deny in St. Austin, is, that they worshipped the Images themselves; but through them they worshipped THE DEITY.S. Aug. in Psal. 113. These are the Doctors words. Let us now see St. Austin's. Videntur sibi purgatioris esse Religionis qui dicunt, Nec simulacrum nec daemonium colo; sed per effiigiem corporalem ejus rei signum intueor, quam colere debeo. These men, saith he, seem to themselves to have taken up a more refined Religion, who say, I neither worship an Idol, nor a Devil; but by or in the corporeal Image I behold a Sign or Symbol of that thing which I ought to worship. And what thing is that? The Doctor says, the Deity; and that indeed is the onely thing they ought to worship. But was that their meaning? No such matter, for as St. Austin immediately addes; They give this interpretation of their Images, viz that by the Image of Tellus, is signified the Earth; by that of Neptune, the Sea; by that of Juno, the Air; by that of Vulcan the Fire; by that of Venus, the Day-star; by another the Sun, by another the Moon, &c. This is what they meant by the thing (they say) they ought to worship. And if it be urged against them [Page] (saith St. Austin) that then they worship Bodies, viz. the Earth, the Sea, the Fire, and the Air; they boldly answer, that they do not worship the Bodies themselves, sed quae illis regendis praesident numina, but the Deities or Spirits which preside and govern those Bodies, Which Spirits, the same St. Austin (in Psal. 69.) proves to be Devils, because they proudly exact Sacrifice to be offered to them, and to be worshipped as Gods. These were the things which the Wiser Heathens professed they ought to worship by their Images, viz. the corporeal Creatures of Fire, Air, &c. or the Spirits which ruled over them, and not the Images themselves, nor yet the Deity by them. And thereupon S. Austin says, that their punishment and condemnation is set forth by the Apostle in that very Text cited above by the Doctor, out of Rom. 1. 25. Who changed the Truth of God into a Lie, and served the Creature rather than the Creator. For in the first part, saith he, of this Sentence, the Apostle condemns the Images or Idols themselves; and in the latter, their interpretation of them. For by calling Figures made by an Artificer by the name of those things which God made, they change the Truth of God into a Lie; and by esteeming and worshipping the things themselves for Gods, they serve the Creature rather than the Creator. These are the words of St. Austin: From whence it appears, first, [Page]That in his Judgment (and I do not read that he ever changed it in his latter Writings) when St. Paul condemns the Heathens for changing the Glory of God into the Image of a Man, or Beast, &c. he speaks of such Images as were worshipped for Gods, or made to represent false Gods: Secondly, That my Adversary deals very disingenuously with his Reader, in affirming that the W [...]ser Heathens did not worship the Images themselves, but through them the Deity, when 'tis evident, what they said they ought to worship by them, were the corporeal Creatures themselves, or the Devils, which they believed to rule over them. Thirdly, That for any thing appears from the Testimonies he brings, himself hath found out a subtiller way of defending the common Idolatry among them, than they ever thought on themselves; And so had he lived in that time, he might in all probability have had a Statue erected to him, with the Title of [...], Most useful Mercury. Let any Intelligent Person peruse his 74th page with attention, and see whether he have not made use of more than Mercurial subtilty in every passage of it, to blind his Reader. But not to spend more time in a matter of fact, which himself after all acknowledges tacitly not to have been necessary; for whether the Wiser Heathens intended to worship the true God, or [Page]no, he will have us to suppose they did so; and we must be content to suppose it with him.

§. 5. He desires to know whether in this supposition, that they were not mistaken as to the Object of their Worship, but intended through the Images to worship the true Deity, they were to blame or no in the manner of serving God by them? This Scruple I perceive hath long stuck in his mind; and as I gave him the Resolution of St. Leo concerning his Devotion to the Sun, how far it was allowable; so I shall let him see how far at least his Wiser Heathens were culpable in the supposed practice, by a Resolution which St. Paul himself gave in a case of like nature.1 Cor. 8. 1. Some there were in his time, who knowing an Idol to be nothing in the world, eat without scruple of meats offered to Idols, even in the Temples of the Idols. The Question was, whether they were to blame or no in using that liberty? And St. Paul declares they were to blame upon a double account. 1. Because in so doing they became a stumbling Block to them that were weak, 1 Cor. 8. 9. And 2. Because by partaking of the Table of Devils, they were guilty at least of the external Profession of Idolatry, 1 Cor. 10. 21. In like manner I answer to the supposed Practise of the Wiser Heathens, that they were to blame in [Page] serving God by their Images, 1. Because the Images being instituted by Publick Authority for the Worship of false Gods, they concurred, as the Doctor himself acknowledges, with the Vulgar in all the external practices of their Idolatry. And then again, 2dly, Because, though in the Schools they denied them to be Gods, yet as Origen answered Celsus, Orig. li. 7. contr. Cels. p. 518. one of Dr. St.'s Wiser Heathens, (when he pressed him with the like supposition) They, saith he, being esteemed wise and knowing men, did nevertheless give honour to them so far, that the People by their example were led into Errour, and their Souls so far depressed with a false Religion, that they could not endure so much as to hear any one deny them to be Gods whom they were accustomed to worship. Hoc est crimen quod Celso impingimus aliis (que) omnibus qui haec non esse deos fatentur, &c. This, saith he, is the Crime with which we charge Celsus, and all those who confess they are no Gods. But what is all this to Roman Catholicks? What he would infer, is, that they are alike to blame in worshipping God by putting off their Hats, or bowing down, for example, before a Crucifix: And who ever saw a wider Consequence? Suppose, saith Dr. St. that the Wiser Heathens did worship the true God by the Images of their false [Page]Gods; Suppose again, that this was the thing which St. Paul pitch'd upon to condemn them for. Therefore Roman Catholicks, saith he, were also condemned by him for worshipping Christ by his Image. Who sees not here that he should have bid us suppose one thing more, and that the very thing in Question, viz. That God hath forbidden in the Second Commandment to worship him by an Image? Or if he will not have us to suppose this, whilst he is endeavouring to prove it; to make good his Consequence he must first prove that a Crucifix and other like Images used by Christians, are Symbols and Representations of false Gods; or that the Jews were alike to blame with his Wiser Heathens for worshipping the true God by bowing down before the Ark: Otherwise the case will be nothing parallel, either as to Scandal or exteriour Profession of Idolatry: But by the Law of Contraries, as the Practice of the Wiser Heathens was both Scandalous and Idolatrous as to the exteriour action, even before the Law was given, because the honour given to the Image is referred to that which is represented by it; so upon the same account the practice of Christians in honouring the Images of Christ, will be both honourable to Him, and ed [...]fying to our Neighbour.

[Page] §. 6. By this it appears how invidiously he represents what the Jesuites did in China, (p. 75.) when he tells his Reader, that they never condemned the People for worshiping Images, but for worshipping false Gods by them; and perswaded them not to lay them aside, but to convert them to the honour of the true God: and so melted down their former Images, and made new ones of them. Who would not imagine by these words, but that the Jesuites had told the People that they need not lay aside their Images, but onely change their God, or at the most but melt down the old ones, & make new ones of them. The Doctor never met with an Adversary more willing to take a Testimony upon his word, than my self. But this seem'd so exorbitant, that I could not believe without seeing: And it cost me some pains to do it, for the Book is so scarce, a man may run through most of the Booksellers Shops in London, and not meet with it. At length I found it in the Library of a particular Friend; and what I found there was this, that the Jesuites in China had by their Preaching converted some Persons of that Nation from the Worship of false Gods, to the knowledge of the True One. And the said Converts, to testifie the Truth of their Conversion, (like those in the Primitive Church, who burnt their Books of curious [Page]Arts, Acts 19. 19.) brought a great heap of Idols, and consumed them in a flaming furnace which they had made for that purpose. This done, after they had re-edified or repaired the Altar from which they had cast down the Idols, (it seems they had demolished or defaced that also) there was placed, saith the Author, in their room the Image of Christ our Saviour; neither doth he say so much as that It was made of the melted Metal, though that had been no more than of the materials of a Pagan Temple to build a Church to the honour of Christ. His words are these. Simulacrorum (mark that) ingens cumulus extracta fornace flammis absvmptus est. In eorum locum successit Christi Servatoris Effigies, quam exturbatis Idolis in renovatam aram suffecerunt. This is what the Author reports of the Jesuites, Trigaut. de Christan. expedit. apud Sinas, lib. 5. c. 16. p. 588. and none can or will be offended with them for it; but such as would be displeased with him that should pull down an Usurper's Image, and set up the Kings in its place. But as Dr. St. relates it, (I should say translates the words, for he is so exact as to refer us to the very page) it appears with quite another aspect, something like the ruines of Nabuchadonosor's Image; but that there the materials onely of the [Page] Image, whereas here the Images themselves of Christ and false Gods, are confusedly blended together by him, when he says that the Jesuites never condemned the People for worshipping Images, but for worshipping false Gods by them, and perswaded them not to lay them aside, but to convert them to the honour of the true God; and so melted down their former Images, and made new ones of them. I would gladly know what Images those were by which he says they worshipped false Gods, were they not the Symbols or Representations of those very false Gods? How then could the Doctor add (without distinguishing them first from the Images of Christ) that the Jesuites perswaded the People not to lay them aside, but to convert them to the honour of the True God; And so melted them down, and made new ones of them? Did the People at the preaching of the Jesuites cast them into the fire, and They not condemn them? Did the People tear them from the Altar, and They perswade them not to lay them aside? Did the People consume them in the fire, and They make new ones of them? Of will he say, that the word Images being General, may be applied respectively to the Images of [...] false Gods, and of Christ? But where then was his Fidelity in translating the word Simulacra (used by Ecclesiastical Writers, and particularly [Page] by the Author in this place, to signifie the Idols of the Heathens) by the General word Images? Where was his sincerity in confounding together the Images of the false Gods and of Christ, with so many [...] one upon another (and the first of them, which was to guide the rest, supposing for the Images of the false Gods) that it was scarce possible for an ordinary Protestant Reader to avoid being mistaken; whereas Trigautius himself had distinguished them so clearly in his Relation, that it was impossible for any one to mistake, but by design? What that must be, in a Person who dares to charge the whole Church of Christ with Idolatry for so many hundreds of years together, a wise man will easily guess. What lies open to every one, is, that he hath an excellent faculty in reporting faithfully (as he calls it in his Preface, I suppose he means by Faithful there, the same as being True to his own Cause) the sense of an Author, especially if the Book be hard to be found, and the thing done as far off as China, and that by the Jesuites. As for the Fact it self, of burning the Images of false Gods, and setting up that of Christ in their room, it was no more (if not much less) than what St. Gregory did (by whom this Nation receiv'd its Christianity) in ordering the Pagan Festivals of our Ancestors to be converted to the Assemblies [Page] of Christians: Whose Wisdom in so doing, is highly extolled and justified by Mr. Thorndike from the very nature of Christianity; Just Weights, Chap. 1. which, saith he, sanctifieth all times, all places, all gestures, all circumstances, that can pretend to express, to procure, to advance, that attention of mind, that elevation of spirit, wherewith Christians profess to worship God in Spirit and Truth. And that the Images of Christ, among other things, may pretend to this, by calling him to mind, and raising our Affections to Him, I have shewed in the precedent Chapter.

§. 7. To adde new Colour to his supposed Reason of the Law, which he will have to be the Unsuitableness of an Image to represent the Deity, he tells us in the next place, that the Christian Church believed this Law to be immutable. And to prove this, he cites a passage or two out of Origen and Clemens of Alexandria, affirming that the making use of corporeal representations, makes the Deity contemptible, and that Christians have nothing to do with Images because of the second Commandment. And to this I answer as formerly, What Roman-Catholick ever denied it of such Images as they there speak of, viz. the Images of the Heathens (against whom they disputed) who thought their false Gods to [Page] dwell in their Images, Which thought, saith Mr. Thorndike, made them Idols? Just Weights, ch. 19. p. 127. or of such Images as were by the erroneous conception of the Maker or Worshipper, supposed to represent the Divinity, in it self? Which kind of Images are so far from the hearts of Catholicks, that we profess with St. Germanus and St. John Damascen, Damasc. Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. c. 17. cited by the Doctor, That it is the highest madness and impiety to go about to make an Image or Similitude of the Invisible Deity. And whereas he would make Clichtovaeus and Bellarmin to appear non-sensical and ridiculous, for expounding the aforesaid Fathers to speak of such Images as should be thought to be like unto God, and perfectly to represent him to us, by adding most triumphantly, As if ever men were such fools to believe an Image could perfectly represent an Infinite Being; or that God need make a Law to forbid that which is utterly impossible in the very nature of the thing. It is evident he does but trifle; for although it be impossible in the very nature of the thing, to make an Image which shall perfectly represent the Deity as it is; yet it is not impossible for men to be such fools as to conceive the Deity otherwise than it is, and so to go about to make an Image to represent it [...] [Page] which is plainly Clichtovaeus his sense, and Bellarmin's Answer likewise, as the Doctor himself confesses; yet rather than spoil so pretty a Comparison as he had in his head, he goes on to tell us, that God might more reasonably forbid men to paint a Sound, to grasp all the Air in the hollow of their hands, to drink up the Ocean, to wear the Sun for a Pendant at their Ears, or to make new Worlds, than to command them not to make any Image which should perfectly represent his Nature. These gay Expressions were too dear to be lost, (though the last of them, which is the ground of the rest,Chamier de Imag. lib. 21. cap. 3. were borrowed from Chamier;) and Bellarmin must be made seemingly to speak nonsense, rather than not be told he lies. So glorious a thing it is, to seem to have Confuted Bellarmin.

But to end this Chapter, Two things I desire to know of him:

The first is, How he reconciles himself with himself, when he makes the Irrepresentableness of Gods Nature to be the Reason of the Law, and yet will not have the Law forbid us to Think of making an Image to represent it; although this [Page] later be the immediate Consequence of the former?

The second, How he will reconcile himself to his Master Calvin, who expounding this very Law,Instit. lib. 1. c. 11. Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven thing, or any likeness, &c. expresly affirms, that God by those words restrains our licentiousness, that we should not attempt to represent Him by any visible figure? If not by any, then certainly not by such an one as we should think might represent him perfectly. I leave them conferring notes, and proceed.

[Page]

CHAP. VII.

Of the Second General Council of Nice, called most irreverently by Dr. St. That Wise Synod. His Constantinopolitan Fathers Objections answered by Epiphanius, and the Answers shewn to be Good.

§. 1. WE are come now to that Stone of Offence, that Rock of Scandal (as the Doctor would have it) the Second General Council of Nice, Anno 789. in which all such were anathematiz'd, and condemned as Hereticks, who should call the Images of Christ and his Saints, Idols, and assert the honour given them by Christians to be Idolatry. What wonder then if he who finds himself comprehended under that Anathema, be in such a passion against the Council, that in contempt and scorn he most irreverently calls it, That Wise Synod, p. 76. that is in plain English, the Three Hundred and Fifty Fathers who voted in it, Fools, together with the Pope's Legates who presided, and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees, who assisted in it. O my God! is it come to this, that an Inferiour Rector of [Page] one P [...]rochial Church, (whose name is scarce known but in the Bills of Mortality, and was never heard of in the List of any General Council) shall dare to condemn as foolish the Sentence of the most August and Venerable Tribunal upon Earth! Was he not afraid of that dreadful Sentence of our Lord,Matth. 5. 22. He that shall say to his Brother, (how much more to so many Fathers of the Church) Fool, shall be guilty of Hell-fire? What Order and Discipline can be observ'd in the Church, if it shall be lawful for any private person, upon presumption of his own wit, to contemn and deride the Decrees of those whom he is bound under pain of being accounted as a Heathen and Publican, to hear? Will he plead for his excuse, that he follows the Judgment of another Synod held not long before in Constantinople, in which bo [...]h the making and honouring of sacred Images was condemned? Let him shew that to have been a lawful Council, and not a Conventicle, as in reality it was, being called by the Secular Power, and wanting both the consent and presence of the Patriarchs of the East, and chiefly of the Bishop of Rome, by himself or Legates,Concil. Chalced. in Ep. ad Leon. whom the Fathers of the fourth General Council of Chalcedon acknowledge to have [Page] presided over them, as the Head over the Members, and without whose Authority, according to the Canon of the Church, Socrat. li. 2. Hist. Eccl. c. 13. & Sozomen li. 3. c. 91. no Decrees could be valid. None of which defects were in the Council of Nice. Besides that divers of the Bishops, who had voted in, and subscribed to the false Synod of Constantinople, came and abjur'd its Doctrine in the Council of Nice; and among them Gregorius Bishop of Neocaesarea, the Ringleader of the Faction. Yet Dr. St. takes up, and abets the Arguments of that Pseudo-Synod, as if they had never been retracted and anathematized as impious by the chief Author of it; and scoffs at the Answers of the Synod to them as insufficient. I pray God he may one day imitate him in his Repentance, as he hath done hitherto in his Passion against the Images of Christ and his Saints. Examples we know move much: and possibly it may be neither unprofitable to Him, nor ungrateful to the Reader, to set down the form and manner of that Bishops Recantation, and his Reception into the Church.

§. 2. Being brought into the Council by a Person of honour sent from the Emperour,Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 2. Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople ask'd him, If hitherto he had not known [Page]the Truth, or knowingly had contemn'd it? His answer was, that he hop'd it was out of ignorance: but desir'd to learn. And when Tarasius bad him declare what he desir'd to learn: he answered; Forasmuch as this whole Assembly doth say and think the same thing, I know and most certainly believe that the Point now agitated and preached (by this Synod) is the Truth: and therefore I beg pardon for my former evils, and desire with all these to be instructed and inlightned: For my Errours and Crimes are great beyond measure; and as God shall please to move the hearts of this Holy Synod to Compunction (towards me) so be it. Here Tarasius expressing some doubt he had least his submission might not be sincere, but that he might speak one thing with his mouth, and have another in his heart, Gregorius cry'd out, God forbid! I confess the Truth, and lie not, neither will I ever go back from my word. Whereupon Tarasius told him, that he ought long ago to have given ear to what the Holy Apostle St. Paul teaches, 2 Thes. 2. 15. saying, Hold fast the Traditions which ye have received, either by our word, or by our Epistle: And again, 1 Tim. 6. 20. Tit. 3. 9. to Timothy and Titus, Avoid profane Novelties of words. For what can be a greater Novelty in Christianity, and more profane, than to say, that Christians are Idolaters? [Page] To this Gregorius return'd, that what he and his Partizans had done, was evil; and we confess, saith he, that it was evil: So it was, and so we did, (by which words it seems he made a particular confession of what evil they had done) and therefore we beg pardon of our faults. I confess, most Holy Father, before you and this Holy Synod, that we have sinned, that we have transgressed, that we have done evil, and ask pardon for it. Upon this it was ordered, that he should bring in his Confession the next Session of the Synod; which he did, of the same tenour with that of Basilius, Bishop of Ancyra, and others in the first Session:Act. 3. viz. that he did receive and salute (or give Veneration to) the Holy and Venerable Images (of Christ and his Saints) and anathematize such as were not of the same mind; as he expressed himself in the vote he gave, after he had by the Sentence of the Popes Legates, and the consent of the Synod been restored to his Seat, upon his repentance. This is recorded of Gregorius Bishop of Neocaesarea in the Acts of the Council of Nice to his immortal Glory. May it be imitated with no less Glory by the Rector of St. Andrews. May he take to himself what St. Ambrose said to Theodosius, Secutus es errantem, sequere poenitentem. This I heartily pray for, and to this end shall take the pains to shew with what little Reason he abets the [Page] Arguments of that false Synod, and derides the Answers of the Nicen Fathers. If in doing this, I make his vanity appear here, (as elsewhere I have done) it is but what St. Austin tells us,S. Aug. in Psal. 36. we ought so much the more to endeavour towards those who oppugn the Church, by how much the more we desire their salvation. And I know not how possibly himself could have laid it more open than in the Ironical Title of That Wise Synod, he gives that very Council to which his Leader in the Charge of Idolatry, (the afore mentioned Gregorius) submitted himself, as to a most lawful Council, confessing, that what those Fathers so unanimously taught was the Truth, and the Tradition of the Catholick Church. Now what they taught, was,Act 7. this, that the Images of Christ and his Saints were to be placed and retained in Churches, that by seeing them, the Memory and Affections of the Beholders might be excited towards those who were represented by them: as also to salute and give an honourary adoration (or respect) to the said Images, like as is given to the figure of the Holy Cross, to Chalices, to the Books of the H. Gospels, and such like sacred Utensils: but not Latria, which (as true Faith teacheth) is due onely to God. What he could find in this definition, for which the Fathers deserved [Page] from him the title of Fools, I cannot imagin, unless he will have it to be Idolatry to reverence the Books of the Holy Gospels, or the sacred Utensils of the Altar. But in this the Council is vindicated by Eminent Divines of the Church of England. Epil. 3. p. p. 363. li. 3. c. 36. For Mr. Thorndike freely [...], that he must maintain as unquestionable, that the Council of Nice enjoyns no Idolatry. And Dr. Field affirms that the Nicene Fathers mean nothing else by adoration of Images, but embracing, kissing, and reverently using of them; like to the honour we (saith he) do the Books of Holy Scripture. Whereupon Bishop Montague saith, Let Doctrine and Practice go together, Gagg. c. 48. p. 3 [...]9. and we agree. Dr. St. perhaps will rank them for this in the same Predicament of—with the Nicen Fathers. But herein his vanity and presumption will appear, though less, than in condemning a whole General Council. A farther discovery of it, he makes in deriding the answers given to the Objections of his Constantinopolitan Fathers. Let us see what they are, and with what reason he does it.

§. 3. First, saith he, ‘When the Fathers of the Synod at Constantinople had said, that Christ came to deliver us from all Idolatry, [Page]and to teach the Worship of God in Spirit and in Truth, they bravely answer, that then it is impossible for Christians (meaning I suppose particular Christian) to fall into Idolatry, because (he should have added, as the Council doth, the Prophets had foretold, that all Idolatry should be extirpated by the preaching of Christ & his Apostles, and) his Kingdom was always to continue, and the gifts and graces of God are without repentance: Which would as well hold, saith the Doctor, against the prevalency of the Turk, as Idolatry among them.’ And is not this bravely answered by the Doctor? Doth he think that there are as great Promises in the Scripture, for the Turks not over-running Christendom, as there are for the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church? Or that the Church, which is Christs Kingdom, could apostatize so far as to enjoyn and allow the belief and practise of Idolatry, and the Gates of Hell not prevail against it? If he will not maintain these impieties to be true,Zach. 13. 2. nor deny what God hath said by the Prophet Zachary, Behold, the days come, and I will destroy the names of Idols from off the earth, and the memory of them shall be no more: and this not for four or five hundred years, but to the end of the World, for the Kingdom [Page]of Christ is to continue always, and his graces are without Repentance; let him give Glory to God, and acknowledge his charge of Idolatry to be false, and that Christ hath done what he came to do, that is, (as his Constantinopolitan Fathers confess) to deliver us from all Idolatry.

§. 4. The second thing he makes the Fathers of the false Synod at Constantinople to urge, is, ‘That the Devil not being able to reduce the World to the former Idolatry, endeavours underhand to introduce it, under a pretence of Christianity, bringing them again to the Worship of the Creature, and making a God of a thing that is made, when they have called it by the Name of Christ.’ The words here cited were taken out of St. Gregory Nissen, in the Oration he made upon his Brother St. Basil; and Epiphanius in the Name of the Council of Nice, charges them to have adulterated both the meaning and words of the Saint, by putting the name of Christ, instead of that of the Son. For whereas St. Gregory's Discourse there was against the Arrians, proving them to be Idolaters, because they acknowledged Christ to be a Creature, and yet, adored and served and put their trust in him, they wickedly pervert his words against the Images of Christ, which although Christians retain in memory, and reverence out of love to him, [Page] that is represented by them, yet they neither call them Gods, nor serve them as Gods, nor at any time put their hope of salvation in them, as the Arrians did in the Son, although they believed him to be a Creature. The Dr. thought it not to his purpose to take notice of this Juggle of his Constantinopolitan Fathers, in putting the name Christ for Son: No, it might put us in mind of his own dexterous managing the words and sense of Authors cited by himself, as I have shewed in the foregoing Chapter. Only, when Epiphanius makes the difference between the Arrians and Catholicks to consist in this, that the Arrians trusted in Christ, and gave properly divine honour to him; but Catholicks did not so to the Images of Christ, but only worshiped them for the sake of the Object represented by them. Summ. 3. p. 9. 25. a 3. He comes in (p. 79.) with a But Aquinas and his followers have at large proved, that where any thing is worshipped meerly for the sake of another, it must have the same kind of worship given it, which they give to the thing represented by it: For as Aquinas observes, the motion of the Soul towards an Image, as it is an Image is the same with that which is towards the thing represented by it: Therefore Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers are in the same case with the Arrians, whom they acknowledge to be Idolaters.

[Page] § 5. I remember the Dr. in his Preface tells his Reader, that his design is to argue closely. How much he hath failed in the performance of his design, (if ever he had any such) I have shown in almost every argument he brings: And for the present argument, there are so many failings in it, that a Junior Sophister in the Schools would have given it the name not of one, but of many Fallacies. For to make the consequence good, he ought first to have prov'd, that the Nicen Fathers were of the same opinion with Aquinas and his followers: or that their Argument was so evident a D [...]monstration, that they could not but be guilty of culpable ignorance if they did not see it. 2dly, That Aquinas and his followers did conclude themselves in virtue of so evident a proof, to be Idolaters; or at least they ought to have done so, for giving the same Worship or Reverence to Christ and his Image; to Him, absolutely for himself; to his Image, relatively, or meerly for his sake, as they explicate themselves. 3dly, That the Arrians were Idolaters upon this very account, that they gave onely relative Worship to the Son, and not properly Divine Worship, which St. Gregory Nissen saith they did, because though they acknowledged him to be a Creature, yet they ador'd, and serv'd, and put their trust in him as God. These things he ought [Page] to have prov'd, to make his own consequence good, viz. Therefore the Nicen Fathers are in the same case with the Arrians, whom they acknowledge to be Idolaters. But to tell us; that because Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers said, they onely worshipped the Images of Christ for his sake who was represented by them: and because (not They, but) Aquinas and his followers have at large proved that when Christ is worshipped by his Image, the same Worship or Reverence is given to him and his Image; Therefore Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers were in the same case with the Arrians, that is, Idolaters; is such a piece of Logick (if good) as would have serv'd Diogenes (had he known it) to conclude all the Platonists in the world to be blind. For thus he might argue from the Doctors Topicks; The Platonists, and all Philosophers, affirm that for a man to see, there must necessarily be some union between the Object and the Eye, that is, something must pass from the Eye to the Object, or from the Object to the Eye. But Aristotle and his Followers have at large proved, that this cannot be done by emission of Rays from the Eye to the Object, as the Platonists would have it; but by Immission of Species from the Object to the Eye: Therefore all the Platonists in the world are blind. What greater Sophistry can there be, than when there are different Opinions how the [Page] same thing may be done, and one of them really absurd, at least seemingly so to others, to make him who does the thing to be guilty of all the absurdities which follow from such an Opinion? Yet such is the Doctors manner of arguing in this place: All Catholicks agree that an Image may be worshipped for his sake whom it represents; St. Thomas and his followers will have this to be done by the same act by which the Prototype is worshipped: Others who take a different way of explicating the thing, look upon this as absurd, and think they can prove it to be Idolatrous: and Dr. St. from hence concludes Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers, because they say onely what all Catholicks agree in, viz. That they worshipped the Images of Christ onely for his sake who was represented by them, to be Idolaters. The Reader I suppose by this time sees the fallaciousness of this kind of arguing: and that the Doctor may feel it, (if seeing be not enough) I shall press him with his own Argument in a Point which himself affirms. To shew what kind of Reverence we give to holy Images, and that it is not Idolatrous, I instanced in Moses and Joshua's putting off their Shoes in reverence to the Ground where they stood, because it was Holy. To this the Doctor answers, p. 105. First, That for this there was an express Command; but in the [Page] case of Image Worship there is as plain a Prohibition. But let this pass, though I have manifestly proved the contrary. What I fix upon at present, is his Second Answer, in which he avouches, (abstracting from any Prohibition or Command) that the special presence and appearance of God, doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it, and this Reverence so testified towards the Ground by Moses and Joshua in putting off their Shoes, I suppose himself will grant, was not given to the Ground for it self, but meerly for His sake who appeared there present in a special manner, that is for God's. This supposed, I subsume according to his Logick: But Aquinas and his followers have at large proved, that where any thing is worshipped or reverenced meerly for the sake of another, it must have the same kind of reverence given it, which they give to the thing which sanctifieth it by its presence; for they do not onely maintain that the same reverence is to be given to the Cross on which Christ suffered,Summ. 3. p. q. 25. a. 4. because it represents him to us as crucified, but also because of his presence or conjunction to it; upon which account they say the King and his Garment are worshipped with the same act of Civil Worship. Therefore Moses and Joshua were Idolaters [Page] for giving reverence to the Ground meerly for his sake who sanctified it with his presence. The Consequence (though horrible to any Christian Ear) is parallel to that of the Doctor against Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers; and if it have any force against these, it must have the same against those. Thus is the Doctor fallen into his own Trap. Neither can he save himself by having recourse to an express command in the case; because Gods special presence is given by him there as a distinct reason why reverence might lawfully be given to the Ground for his sake who was present; and if it were Idolatry in it self to do so, because Aquinas and his followers have at large proved, that where any thing is reverenced meerly for the sake of another, it must have the same kind of reverence given it, which they give to the thing which sanctifieth it by its presence: it follows that God commanded Moses and Joshua upon his grounds to do an act which in it self is Idolatry; and this sounds no less, if not more horrible to a Christian Ear, than the former. Let him then take his choice, whether he will allow what Aquinas and his followers have at large proved for good, or no. If he grant it, he must show the disparity, why Moses and Joshua were not as much Idolaters according to his Principles, as Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers. If he [Page] deny it, let him tell us with what conscience he could condemn Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers for Idolaters, upon Grounds which himself denies to be good and solid. Thus much to the form of the Doctors Argument. As for the distinction it self of Absolute and Relative Latria (with which St. Thomas and his followers explicate their Doctrine) I shall have occasion to speak of it hereafter. In the mean time the Reader may p [...]ously believe, that to give Relative Latria to the Image of Christ, is no more Idolatry, than to give Relative Regal honour to the Kings Garment, is Treason.

§. 6. The third thing he urges from his Constantinopolitan Fathers, is, the great Absurdity (as they call it, and he applauds them for it, p. 80.) of making an Image of Christ for Worship, because Christ is God and Man; therefore the Image must be of God and Man: which cannot be, unless the Deity be circumscribed within the created flesh, or there be a confusion of both Natures after their Union, both which are blasphemies condemned by the Church. To this Epiphanius answers two things; 1. That the Name of Christ is significative of both Natures, and that an Image represents onely the Humane Nature, and agrees onely in name, and not in substance with the Prototype. 2. That the Divine is no more circumscribed within the Humane Nature in [Page] its being represented in an Image, than it was in its being laid in the Manger, or nailed to the [...]ross. And consequently that the Objection either of circumscription of the Divine Nature, or confusion of both Natures, was vain and frivolous. I, but says the Doctor, What doth this Answer signifie, unless there be an equal presence or union of the Divine Nature of Christ with the Image, as there was with the Humane Nature? And I would gladly know what this Answer of his is to the purpose, unless he think that nothing may be worshipped with relation to God, unless it have as great an Union with the Person of Christ, as his Humane Nature had? He will not deny, I hope, that the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our reverence towards it, and yet that presence or union is not equal to that of the Divine Nature of Christ with his Humane. It is not onely Union, but Representation also, that may occasion Worship; and so we see the King is worshipped by his Picture, as representing him, though it have not so close an union with his Soul as his Body hath. But what sticks in the Doctors mind (if I mistake not) is, how Christ God and Man, can be worshipped by an Image which represents him onely according to his Humane Nature? To this I have spoken already in the fifth [Page] Chapter; and himself may satisfie his Reader in the point, by telling him how the King, who consists of Soul and Body, can be worshipped by a Picture which represents him onely according to the Lineaments of his Body.

§. 7. In the fourth place, his Constantinopolitan-Fathers urge, that If the Humane Nature of Christ be represented in the Image of Christ to be worshipped as separate from the Divine; this would be plain Nestorianism. And what says Epiphanius to this? That never any man well in his wits, when he saw the Picture of a man, thought that the Painter by drawing him, had divided his Soul from his Body, that is, that he had not onely drawn the man, but hang'd and quarter'd him too? Was ever time so fondly mispent as in proposing and refuting such pitiful kind of Sophistry, as this of the Doctors Constantinopolitan-Fathers? And yet He says, the Good Nicen Fathers (where he means by Good, what he meant before by Wise) not knowing what to answer, deny the Conclusion, and cry, They Nestorians? No. They lie in their Teeth. Thus He. But what the Nicen Fathers answered like Good men and True, was this, that though the Images of Christ (like other Images) represent onely the external Lineaments of his Humane Nature, yet when they look upon them, they understand nothing but what is[Page]signified by them. For example, When he is represented as born of the Virgin (which is, I suppose, what the Doctor means by the Birth of the Virgin. p. 81.) what they conceive in their Minds, is not his Humane Nature as separated from the Divine, but one Emmanuel, true God and Man: and therefore were far enough from b [...]ing guilty of Nestorianism in the use of Images. Here the Doctor cries out, Alas for them! that they should ever be charged with the Worship of Images, who plead for nothing now but a Help to their profound Meditations by them! And may not I much better say, Alas for him! who, if they Worshipped the same which they conceived in their Minds, could not see their Worship (which is an Act of the Will) must be as free from Nestorianism, as their Understanding. But he had had nothing to reply, if he had not thrust in those Words of his own, (to be Worshipped as separate from the Divine Nature) For they are not in the Objection, as it stands Recorded in the Council. However, they signifie little to his purpose, because the Will is carried to the Prototype as it is conceived in the Understanding, nor doth it give to the Image t [...]e Worship due to the Principal, because the Image is not Worshipped [Page] at all for its own sake, but for the Principal's.

§. 8. The Fifth Argument which he makes his Constantinopolitan Fathers produce, is from the Institution of the Eucharist, which they call ‘Christs Image because instituted in Commemoration of him. And whereas he said, Do this in remembrance of Me, He did, as it were, tell them, That no other Figure or Representation under Heaven was chosen by Him, as able to represent His being in the Flesh. This, they say, was an HONOURABLE Image of his Quickning BODY, made by Himself, which he would not have of the shape of a Man, to prevent Idolatry. And as the Body of Christ was really sanctified by the Divine Nature; so this Holy Image is by Adoption Deified, or made Divine through sanctification of Grace.’ This is the sense of the Argument; to which Epiphanius answers, that from the Fury they were possess'd with against the making of Images, they were driven into another madness, of calling the Eucharist an Image, contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers. And the Doctor knows that it is a sufficient Answer to an absurd Objection, to shew that the Objector was driven to run into an Absurdity [Page] to maintain his Cause. What the Constantinopolitans would have inferr'd from thence, was, that because Christ (as They asserted) made the Eucharist an Image of his Body, therefore no other Image might be made or Worshipped. But this They did not, but left it perhaps (as too hard a Task for Themselves) to be undertaken by so Great an Admirer of Them and their Doctrine, as my Adversary: and at his Door it lies. Onely he is desired to bear in mind against a fit season, that the Eucharist with Them is an HONOURABLE IMAGE, made by Christ Himself, and therefore if he will not desert his Leaders, he must give honour to it, nay Divine Honour, because although his Beloved Constantinopolitans call the EUCHARISTICAL BREAD an IMAGE, yet they confess it in the same place to be NO FALSE IMAGE of Christs Natural Flesh, but by virtue of the Priestly Consecration, it is made his Divine Body.

§. 9. In the sixth and last place he jumbles together no less than Eight Arguments or rather Bare Assertions of his Constantinopolitan Fathers, all which Epiphanius denies and refutes as frivolous [Page] and false; as any one may see, who either considers the Objections in themselves; or will take the pains to read the Answers to them at large in the sixth Action of the Council of Nice. Which though my Adversary call weak and trivial, yet it is no sign he thought them so, when he omitted to set them down.

[Page]

CHAP. VIII.

The Doctors Objection from the Council of Frankford examined, and shewn to be no Advantage to his Cause.

§. 1. AFter the matter of the Veneration due to Holy Images, had been discussed, and defined, as you have seen, in the second General Council of Nice, the Doctor fearing that his Irony of that Wise Synod, would not stick fast enough, unless backed with a greater Authority than his own, tells his Reader that it was condemned by the Council at Francford, called together by Charles the Great, Anno 794. He should have added, By the Command of the Apostolick See, as it is in Hin [...]marus; but that had been an apparent disadvantage to his Cause, Li. contr. Laud. Episc. c. 20. and therefore better left out. Nevertheless the fact it self he looks upon as an apparent advantage to it. And thereupon he endeavours to show by many Conjectures, that the Fathers at Francford did expresly reject the Council of Nice, and that not out of misunderstanding its Doctrine, as some rashly, [Page] he saith, imagine: but that really they intended to condemn the Doctrine it self there defined. His proofs are, (p. 84.) Because the Acts of that Council, he saith, were very well known to the Author of the Caroline Book; and because the Copy of the Nicen Council was sent them by Pope Adrian; whose Legates also presided in the Council of Francford, and might easily rectifie any Mistake, if they were guilty of it. Besides, none of the Historians of that time do take notice of any such Error, and the second Canon of Francford published by Sirmondus, expresly condemns the Council of Nice. To this he adds, That the same Council was rejected here in England, and the Synod of Paris, called by Ludovicus Pius, condemned expresly Pope Adrian for asserting a superstitious Adoration of Images. Lastly, he confirms it from the Doctrine of the Caroline Books, (whose design, as Binius confesseth, was against all Worship of Images) and of Agobardus published by Baluzius, who ingenuously, saith he, confesseth, that Agobardus saith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age.

This is the sum and force of his Argument, and to manifest the insufficiency of it in order to his design, (supposing the matter of fact to be true, viz. that the Council of Francford did reject that of Nice, which divers learned men not improbably deny) I [Page] shall shew first, that de facto there was a mis-understanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice. Secondly, That supposing there had been no mistake, but that the Synod at Francford had really condemn'd the Doctrine of Nice, yet had it been no advantage to his Cause.

§. 2. First, there was a misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice. And to make this evident, I shall need no more than to compare what was taught in the Council of Nice, with what was condemn'd in the Council of Francford. What the Council of Nice taught, I have set down in the precedent Chapter, viz. That the Images of Christ and his Saints were to be placed and retained in Churches, &c. and that an honourary adoration (or respect) was to be given to the said Images, like as is given to Chalices, and to the Books of the H Gospels; but not LATRIA, which (as true Faith teacheth) is due onely to God. This was the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice. Let us now see what it was that the Synod of Francford condemned. Allata est in medium Quaestio, &c. A Question was proposed in the Council (saith the Author of the Caroline Book) concerning the late Synod of the Greeks held at Constantinople (a mistake of the place, for Nicaea) about the adoring of Images: In qua scriptum habebatur, In which there was written,[Page]that those should be anathematized, who did not give service and adoration to Images of the Saints, as to the Divine Trinity. Now, saith the said Author, our most Holy Fathers denying by all means Service and Adoration, did both contemn and unanimously condemn the said Synod. This is what the Fathers of the Synod at Francford condemned, as it stands represented by the Author himself of the Carolin Book, to whom my Adversary saith, that the Acts of the Council were very well known, and by Goldastus in Sir Henry Spelman, Concil. To. 1. p. 307. who cites them as the very words of the Council, and I suppose by Sirmondus also; for had he published any thing else, the Doctor would not have failed to let us know it. And now I appeal to any indifferent Reader, whether there were not a great misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice. For had the Fathers of Francford rightly understood that the Council of Nice declar'd onely an honourary Worship to be given to Images, like as to the H. Cross and to the Books of H. Scriptures, &c. and not Latria, or the Worship due only to God, they could never have condemn'd it for defining that the same Service and Worship was to be given to Images as to the Divine Trinity. And therefore Mr. Thorndike ingenuously professeth, that It is to be granted, that whosoever[Page]it was that writ the Book against Images under the Name of Charles the Great, Epilog. part. 3. p. 363. did understand the Council to enjoyn the Worship of God to be given to the Image of our Lord. But it is not to be denied that it was a meer mistake, and that the Council acknowledging that submission of the heart which the Excellence of God onely challenges, proper to the H. Trinity, maintains a signification of that esteem to be paid to the Image of our Lord. It is evident then there was a grand mistake: And to omit what Bellarmin and others say of the ocsion of it,De Concord. sacerd. & Imp. li. 2. c. 17. ex edit. Baluzii. Conc. Nic. Act. 3. Petrus de Marca (the late learned Archbishop of Paris) very probably judges it to have risen from the words of Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, unskilfully rendred by the Latine Translator. For (as he well observeth) the Council of Francford did not condemn the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice, but (as the Canon it self of Francford speaks) Quod scriptum habebatur, for that there was found written in the Acts of that Council, that the Worship due unto God, was to be given to Images. And the Author of the Caroline Book tells us, that this was found written in the Sentence of the aforesaid Constantinus, [Page] whom therefore he condemns of precipitancy and folly in these words, Infauste & praecipitanter sive insipienter Constantinus Constantiae Cypri Episcopus dixit, suscipio & amplector honorabiliter sanctas & venerandas Imagines, & quae secundum servitium adorationis quae substantiali & vivificatrici Trinitati emitto. But instead of precipitancy and folly in Constantinus, he should have laid the fault upon the ignorance of the Translator, or his own, if not his malice. For the sense in Greek is plain and facil to be this: Suscipio & honorarie amplector sanctas & venerabiles Imagines. Et adorationem secundum Latriam soli supersubstantiali & vivificae Trinitati impendo. ‘I receive and with honour embrace the holy and venerable Images (of Christ and his Saints) but for adoration of Latria, I give it onely to the supersubstantial and Life-giving Trinity.’ From whence it is is plain how ignorantly or maliciously rather it was said by Calvin, Instit. lib. 1. c. 11. §. 16. that the same Constantinus professed he did reverently embrace the said holy Images, cultumque honoris, qui vivificae Trinitati debetur, se illis exhibiturum, and that he would give that Worship to them which is due to the Holy Trinity; when what he professed, was the quite contrary. Such Arts as these were enough to make a man suspect [Page] a good Cause, much more to desert a bad one. But whether this were the occasion or no, 'tis evident (as I shewed before) that there was a great mistake, and while the matter of fact is evident, my Adversary labours in vain to argue from Conjectures, that it was not possible, especially since the Copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council, was so unskilfully if not maliciously translated, as to minister matter of mistake; and though the Popes Legates could not perswade the Francford Fathers from being engaged in it, yet 'tis certain they reclaimed against their proceedings; and if the Fathers at Francford persisted in their mistake, what wonder if the Historians of that time, who favour'd them, took no notice of it? Or if the English Historians ran into the same Errour, as it is manifest they did, by what Hoveden reports,Hoveden Annal. P. Prior. ad Anno 792. that the English Bishops believed the Doctrine of the Council of Nice to be, that Adoration was to be given to Images, which the Church of Christ abhors? That the Author of the Caroline Book, and Agobardus after him, did not content themselves with what the Council of Francford had condemned, viz. That Worship was not to be given to Images, as to the Holy Trinity; but denied any veneration at all to be due to [Page] them, (as the Doctor will have it) hinders not, but that the Council of Francford condemned that of Nice upon a misunderstanding of its Doctrine, as I have evidently shewed.

§. 3. Secondly, But now supposing there had been no mistake, but that the Fathers at Francford (as my Adversary would have it) had really condemned the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, yet I affirm it had been no advantage to his Cause, because as himself (p. 84.) saith, The Popes of Rome sided with the Worshippers of Images, that is, confirmed the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, whereas they opposed and rejected the condemnation of it by the Fathers of Francford. That the Popes Legates contradicted it in the Synod, Cent. 8. c. 9. is confessed by the Magdeburgenses; and that the Pope himself oppos'd it, is manifest from the Confutation he wrote of the Caroline Book; and that no Decrees of any Council could be valid without the Popes consent, was so undoubted a thing among all Christians, that the Author himself of that Book durst not deny it, but on the contrary affirms it to have been the sense even of the Fathers of Francford, as acknowledging and professing the last Judgment of Controversies to belong to the Bishop of[Page]Rome; and upon this account they affirmed the Council of Nice was to be rejected,Baron. An. 794. viz. for that it had not been confirmed (as they pretended, though falsely) by the Pope. And if the Fathers of Francford look'd upon it then as an advantage to their Cause, that the Pope (as they pretended) had not sided with the Worshippers of Images, that is, with the Nicen Fathers, how comes the Doctor to look upon it now as so apparent an advantage to the same Cause, that the Pope (as he confesseth) sided with them? What I can discover here, is nothing but a great improvement of confidence, to alledge that for an Advantage which in Church-Affairs is the greatest prejudice upon Earth. But if the Popes confirming the Council of Nice, were no advantage to his Cause, as little is it, that the Council at Francford denied it to be Occumenical, because the Greeks onely were there present, and none of the other Provinces were called; for what weight soever the Doctor may conceive that Exception to have carried at that time, yet 'tis certain now it hath no force at all, since the Council it self hath for many hundreds of years been accepted as a true and lawful General Council, and its Doctrine as Catholick by all the Provinces of Christendom, and the contrary to it condemned for Heresie. And this is no other [...] [Page] what Mr. Thorndike answers to two Objections urged from St. Epiphanius and the Council of Elvira, Jus [...] [...] chap. 19. that granting they held all Images in Churches dangerous for Idolatry (of which, saith he, there is appearance) it is manifest they were afterwards admitted all over. From whence it follows that what Dr. St. argues from the Synod of Paris under Ludovicus Pius (which was indeed but a Conference of some Learned Men) condemning Pope Adrian for a superstitious adoration of Images; Anno 825. From the Doctrine also of the Author of the Caroline Book, and that of Agobardus, which Baluzius, saith he, confesseth to be no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age, is no advantage at all to his Cause, because in supposition that they then did look upon the very true Doctrine of the Council of Nice, as dangerous, and impugn it as such, by reason of a very evil superstition, the same Baluzius saith, had possessed the minds of some persons in that Age, viz. that the same Worship was to be given to Images as to the Blessed Trinity; yet afterwards the Doctrine of the said Nicene Council prevailed all over, and was received as an Apostolical Tradition by the Gallican Church it self; like as the Doctrine of Non-rebaptization of Hereticks w [...]s [Page] received in the African Church, although it had been condemned there before in a Council by St. Cyprian. But upon a diligent survey of Baluzius his Discourse in that place,Baluzius in notis ad Abogard. tit. de Imag. p. 88. I do not perceive his meaning to be what the Doctor would have it, viz. that what Agobardus wrote was the belief of the whole Gallican Church in that Age: but that it was the Judgment and Design of the French Bishops at that time, to extirpate by all means the above-mentioned Superstition which then reigned, although in doing it they might seem to run into the other extream, of denying any Worship at all to be due to Images; all the whole business of the use of Images, being (as the Author of the Account very well observes, p. 18.) but a matter of Discipline and Government. For had he meant that what Agobardus wrote, was no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age; how could the same Baluzius tell us, that the French Bishops at that time, although they seemed to remove all Worship from Images, yet allowed them to be kept, that the Faithful by seeing them, might be excited to imitate those Holy Persons they represented: Papyrius Masson. in Synopsi Agob▪ Whereas Agobardus went so far as to affirm that they were kept for Ornament[Page]to delight the eyes, but not for the instruction of the people; nay, that they were not to be painted upon the Church-Walls? Was this the Belief of the Gallican Church in that Age, when Jonas Aurelianensis wa [...] commanded by Ludovicus Pius [...]o [...] against Claudius [...]aurinensis for casting them out of the Church? Surely the little care there was taken to preserve the Canon of the Council of Eran [...] ford against Image-Worship, or [...]ather the unanimous concurrence to suppress it (if there were ever any such Canon, for it lay in obscurity for above seven hundred years together, till it was published, as my Adversary says, about the middle of the last [...]entury, by Du Tillet) as also the prevalency of the contrary Belief in the Gallican Church, as it is at this day, without any noise or opposition, are no great Presumptions to men who have any insight into the Affairs of Religion, that the said Church in that Age believed (as Dr. St. would have us believe from the Confession of Baluzius) that no Veneration was to be given to Holy Images. It is upon the contrary supposition, that Baluzius endeavours to excuse Agobardus and some other French Bishops of that Age, as transported with zeal against a Superstition which, he says, had then prevailed among some Persons in giving the same Worship to Images as to the Holy Trinity. And for himself, he professes that [Page] he is much pleased with the Decree of the Council of Cambray, Anno 1565. That the People be taught that no Worship ought to be given to an Image, for the matter or elegancy of the work, &c. but for the Thing represented by it, to which the Worship and Honour is chiefly referr'd; and that the Mind or Intention of him that prayeth or worshippeth be carried to the thing signified, and not terminated on the sign, which can neither hear, nor see, nor understand. Thus much [...]o the Doctors Objection from the Council of Francford, a Passage (take it which way you will) so difficult and obscure, by reason of the various Opinions of Authors, and seeming, if not real Contradictions in Historians, that for one whose design is to blunder, not satisfie his Reader, a fitter Topick cannot be found, unless it be that which follows of the Calves, as he hath perplex'd it with his groundless Conjectures.

[Page]

CHAP. IX.

Of the Doctors Third Proof, from the Judgment, as he pretends, of the Law-giver. His speculation concerning the Golden Calves manifes [...]ly repugnant to the H. Scriptures and Fathers. Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Meaning and Extent of the Second Commandment.

§. 1. THe Third Reason Dr. Stilling fleet brings to prove that God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image, is taken, saith he, (p. 92.) from those who were best able to understand the meaning of it: and among these, none so competent a Judge as the Law-giver himself. Here we have a solid Principle indeed to work upon, and if the Doctor would give me leave to infer from it, I would argue thus: But the Law-giver himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubims to be placed in the Temple, with respect to his Worship; Therefore he did not expresly prohibit in the second Commandment the giving any Worship to himself by an Image. For it cannot be [...]onceived that himself would introduce [...] allow [Page] such a practise as should be contrary to its meaning. But I must not forestall, but attend my Adversary: and the substance of what he discourses upon that Principle, is this, That the Israelites were condemned by God of Idolatry, for worshipping the Golden Calf, and yet they did not fall into the Heathen Idolatry by so doing, but onely worshipped the true God under that Symbol of his presence. If you ask him how he knows for certain that the Israelites did not fall back into the Heathen Idolatry; when it is certain that in Aegypt they worshipped the Idols of the Aegyptians, Ezek. 20. 7, 8? He tells you upon his word, that they had not the least pretence of infidelity as to the true God; and yet the very Text he cites to prove it, tells us they pretended their despair of Moses returning, as a sufficient reason to move Aaron to make them Gods who should go before them. If you ask him how he knows for certain, that the Calf was intended to be onely a Symbol of Gods presence? He tells you, We (that is himself and his Master Calvin) cannot imagine the people so sottish, Calv. Instit. li. 1. c. 11. n. 9. Nec tam incogitantes erant Judaei▪ saith Calvin, to desire Aaron to make them a God in the proper sence, as though they could believe the Calf newly made, to have been the God, which before it was made, brought them out of the land [Page] [...] Egypt. And yet they can both of them very easily imagine Catholick Christians to be so sottish as to terminate their Worship upon a Block, or a hewn Stone, though [...] the same time they deny any Divinity to be in them, or have not the least pre [...]ence of Infidelity as to the True God. But (be their Imagination as much at the devotion of their Passion as they please) could not the People, taking it for granted (as he says they did) that Moses was not to be heard of more, fall into a dislike or a distrust of the God whom Moses had taught them to worship, and so run with their thoughts into Aegypt, and require of Aaron to make them a God to go before them, like unto the Gods which they had seen and worshipped there? That this was their Intention, and not to make a Symbol onely of the presence of the true God, the very making of the Calf, which was done in imitation of the Golden Bulls of Aegypt, the Symbols (as the Doctor calls them) of their chief God Osiris, sufficiently evinces. And for this it is they are so frequently reprehended in Holy Scripture. Deut. xxxii. 15. He (that is, Israel) forsook God which made him, and went back from the God of his Salvation; and vers. 18. Thou hast forsaken the God which made thee, and hast forgotten the God thy Creator. Psal. cv. 19. They made a Calf in Horeb, and worshipped the Molten Image. Thus they changed[Page]their Glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Grass. They forgat God who had saved them, who had done so great things in Aegypt, wonderous works in the Land of Cham, and fearful things in the red Sea. And again, Acts vii. 39, 40. Our Fathers, saith St. Stephen, would not obey, but thrust him (that is, the true God) from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Aegypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us Gods to go before us, &c. And they made a Calf in those days, and offered sacrifice to the Idol, and rejoyced in the work of their own hands. This is what the Scripture testifieth that the Israelites did, viz. that they forgat the God which made them; that they thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back into Aegypt; that the Molten Calf (which they had made after the pattern they had seen there) was an Idol, and that they offered sacrifices to this Idol: And must we now deny all this to be true, because Calvin and Dr. St. cannot imagine the People to have been so sottish? Is this to make Scripture the Rule of Faith, or Imagination to be the Rule of Scripture? Let the Reader observe here for his Instruction that according to Dr. St.'s behaviour here and elsewhere, if he meet with any passage in Scripture that thwarts his Imagination, he must understand it in a sense agreeable to what he can imagine, that is, as best pleases his own fancy. And This [Page] (how [...]unningly soever He and his Partizans disguise it) is indeed the onely Ground from which they take their measures in the Interpretation of Scripture, as Mr. E. W. hath clearly proved in his Book called Protestancy without Principles. And although His performance, among others, be likened by the Doctor to the way that Rats answer Books, by gnawing some of the leaves of them: yet an Impartiall Reader will compare it rather to the execution done by the Worm in Jonas, which smote the Gourd, and it withered. But to return to the Israelites, and their Golden Calf.

§. 2. Did the Fathers understand the same by it which Calvin and the Doctor do? Could They not imagine the People to be so sottish as to ascribe their deliverance, and the Miracles wrought in it, to this New God? Nothing less. There is no cause to wonder, saith St. Athanasius, at the Pharisees madness,S. Athan. in illud, Quicun (que) dixerit verbum. Tom. 4. in imputing the works of Christ to the Devil, because their Fathers were of the same mind before them; for being but newly gone out of Egypt, they attributed the benefits which God had bestowed on them, to the Calf which themselves had made, saying, These are thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of Egypt. You will ask, saith St. Hierom, how [Page] they offered sacrifices in the Wilderness, not to God, but to their King, whom they call Lucifer?St. Hierom in Amos, cap. 5. And the Answer he gives is, that from the time they transformed their Gold into a Calf, saying these are thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of Egypt, it is manifest, that all what they did, they did not to God, but to Idols. In like manner St. Chrysostom. After the people had heard those words,St. Chrysost. Tom. 5. Hom. 5. de Poenit. I am the Lord thy God, Thou shalt have no other Gods beside me; They made a Calf, and rejected God. They did not acknowledge him to be the Lord, but disowned their Benefactor, saying unto Aaron, Make us Gods to go before us: And then, as if he had foreseen the difficulty Calvin and my Adversary have of imagining how the people could believe the Calf newly made to have been the God, which before it was made brought them out of the Land of Egypt, He objects to himself, If they were Gods, why did they say, Make? For how can those be Gods which are made? And then answers, Sic malitia obsaecans sibi ipsi repugnat, & semetipsam extinguit. That, It is the nature of malice to blind the mind it possesses to that degree, that it makes it contradict and destroy it self.

[Page] §. 3. This is what the Holy Scripture and the Fathers say expresly of the Israelites making and worshipping the Calf. That they were Idolaters in so doing, we confess; but that their Idolatry consisted onely in worshipping the True God under that, as a Symbol of his presence, we utterly deny. And till the Doctor can prove it, by as great, if not greater Authority of Scriptures and Fathers, than I have done the contrary, he will never prove from this fact of theirs, that God hath expresly prohibited in the second Commandment the giving him any Worship by an Image. What he does is, to tell us that he cannot imagine the people to have been so sottish, as to believe the Calf newly made to have been the God, which before it was made, brought them out of the Land of Egypt: or to think the Gods of Egypt had wrought those Miracles for them in their deliverance. But these are Conjectures of his own Fancy, without any Authority of Scripture or Fathers; nay expresly against them, as I have shewed. And although Aaron perhaps, and some of the Wiser among them might not be so sottish, yet it is certain (as the Doctor confesses of his Wiser Heathens) they were so weak as to concur with them in the external practises of their Idolatry. But then he tells us again, (p. 94.) that the people took it for granted that Moses, by reason of his forty days absence, was to [Page]be heard of no more; and therefore they fell upon devising the fittest Symbol for the presence of God going before them; and herein the greatest number, saith he, being possessed with the prejudices of their Education in Egypt, where Golden Bulls were the Symbols of their chief God Osiris, they pitched upon that, and forced Aaron to a compliance with them in it. And all the proof he brings for this, is, that immediately before Moses his going up to the Mount, the last Promise God made to them was, that he would send his Angel before them, Exod. xxiii. 20, 23. as if those who had forgotten the God that made them, could not also forget this Promise; or at least think that He had forgotten it, or was not able to perform it; and so fall upon devising the making of a God like those they had seen in Egypt, whose Presence and Conduct they might have continually with them. This follows much more clearly from the prejudice of their Education in Egypt, than what the Doctor has devised for them; for they never devised any such thing to themselves, as is manifest out of the Scriptures and Fathers before alledged. And when I consider the Israelites, a people without Learning, oppressed for four hundred years together by the most Idolatrous Nation in the World, and serving their Gods, as it appears they did, out of Ezek. xx. 8. the prejudice which this custom had [Page] wrought in them, and their readiness upon every slight occasion, to turn back with their hearts into Egypt; lastly, the Character which God himself gives of them, Deut. xxxii. 28. that they were a Nation void of counsel, neither was there any understanding in them. When, I say, I consider all this on the one side; and the quaint device the Doctor would transfer from his own head into theirs, of making the Calf onely for the Symbol of the presence of the true God, on the other: I cannot but look upon it to be much of the same nature with those subtil fetches which Historians, to shew their own skill in Politicks, devise, rather than discover, in the Actions of those Persons (though never so stupid) who are the subject of their History. How many Plots and Designs have Tacitus and others framed for them, which they never dream't of themselves? much less were the Israelites guilty of any such subtil speculation as Calvin and the Doctor have invented for them. The highest pitch of their Fancy, if it staid not in the Image it self, was to magine some Deity, like those of Egypt, to insinuate it self into the Calf (as the Egyptians believed of their Gods) from thence to give Oracres, and conduct them into the Land of Promise; and not as the Doctor devises for them, that they look'd upon it onely as a Symbol of the true God, [Page]whom now they had thrust from them and forgotten. To make out this device, which had no other foundation but in his own fancie, he is forc'd to invent a new kind of Idolatry, distinct from the Heathen Idolatry; Because there is no intimation (saith he, p. 95.) made of their falling into the Heathen Idolatry. But why then does he charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry upon this account, (p. 3.) viz. that she requires the giving to the Creature the Worship due onely to the Creator? Is not the giving Divine Worship to a Creature, the same as to make it a false God? And is it not Heathen Idolatry to worship a false God? Either then he must retract the ground upon which he builds his Charge of Idolatry; or he must stand to it stifly without flinching, that both Catholicks, now, and the Jews then were Heathen Idolaters. For he does but contradict himself whilst he makes us guilty onely of Christian Idolatry; and yet does us no kindness at all, whilst he charges us to terminate the Worship due onely to God, upon the Creature. Oh, but, says he, when afterwards the Israelites fell into Heathen Idolatry, the particular names of the Gods are mentioned, as Baal-Peor, Moloch, Remphan, &c. What then? Is it the Idol's having a Name, that makes the Worshippers Heathen Idolaters? Aristotle tells us, that words are but the signs of the conceptions of our mind: and if [Page] they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God, were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worshipping it without a Name, as the Egyptians for worshipping it under the Name of Apis? The onely difference I find is, that the Egyptians by long practice were become Masters of their Trade, in making Gods, whereas the Israelites by this one Act were Novices onely in that Art.

§ 4. What hath been said of the Golden Calf in the Wilderness, may in like manner be applied to the Calves which Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel, viz. that the People did not look upon them as Symbols onely of the presence of the true God, but that, as St. Hierom saith, they forgat the Law of God, S. Hierom in Ose [...], c. 4. and wholly devoted themselves to Egyptian Idols. And the same is affirmed by the Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose, viz.S. Ambr. in Rom. 1. Tom. 3. that the Egyptians worshipped a four-footed Beast, whom they called Apis, in the likeness of a Calf: Which Evil of theirs, saith he, was imitated by Jeroboam, in setting up the Calves in Samaria, to which the Jews offered sacrifice. But this, saith the Doctor, was not so agreeable to his End, nor so likely to succeed: And why not? Was not his end to secure the Ten Tribes to himself, so that they [Page] might not think of returning to unite themselves any more to the House of David? And what more likely way to effect it, than the making them such Idols as their Fathers had worshipped in Egypt and the Wilderness? What he aimed at, (Achitophel-like) was to make the breach irreconcilable, and this of making them Calves he look'd upon as the properest means to that end, considering the inclination of that People, whose eyes, as the Scripture saith,Ezek. xx. 24. were after their Fathers Idols. I, but the Occasion, saith he, of the Kingdoms coming to him, was from Solomon's falling into Heathen Idolatry, and this would make him more cautious of falling into it, especially at his first entrance. And I believe it would have done so, had he been a Good Josias, and not a wicked Jeroboam. But why the Doctor should think him so tender conscienc'd, whom God himself upbraids for having made to himself strange and molten Gods, and cast him behind his back, 3 Kings xiv. 9. Or why he should think him so scrupulous, when the Scripture saith, that he sacrificed to the Gods which he had made, 3 Kings xii. 32. and that he ordained him Priests for the high places, and for the Devils, and for the Calves which he had made, 2 Paralip. xi. 15. I cannot imagine. The Ingenious Author of the Causes of the decay of Christian Piety, chap. 15. made a different [Page] Judgment of the matter, when to shew that Divinity has long since been made the Handmaid to Policy, and Religion modell'd by Conveniencies of State; he immediately adds for an example, that The Golden Calves became venerable Deities, when they were found apt to secure Jeroboam's jealousies. But had this been Jeroboam's Intention, how much better, saith the Doctor, had he then argued that they had been hitherto in a great mistake concerning the true God, and not meerly as to the place of his Worship, which is all he speaks against; for he continued, saith he, the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at J [...]rusalem? 1 Kings xii. 32. And what wonder if so great a Polititian as he was, ju [...]g'd it not fit to leave off on the sudden all that had been in use before? Sudden Changes from one extream to another, whether in the Natural or Politick Body, are always look'd upon as dangerous. And therefore the first Reformers nere in England, when they design'd a Service onely of Bread and Wine, thought it expedient to retain the Names of the Body and Blood of Christ, and many of the ancient Prayers and Ceremonies, which the nicer Brethren boggle at at this day, as Pelicks of Popery, and Politick Inventions to make the Bread and Wine go down the better. But for Jeroboam, he told the People plain enough what he meant, when pointing [Page] to the Calves, he bid them behold the Gods which had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt. And the Text cited by the Doctor 1 Reg. xii. 23. speaks but of one Feast he ordain'd like unto the Feast that was in Juda; though the Doctor will have it, that he continued the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Jerusalem. But Ahab's sin, he saith, was much greater than that of Jeroboam: It was so; but will absolve Jeroboam no more from the guilt of Idolatry, (which the Scripture calls spiritual Adultery) than one mans committing adultery with many, will free another from the guilt of the same crime, who commits it but with one: 2 Kings [...]. 16. Nor does Jehu's zeal for the Lord (nay though it were for his Lord, as the Doctor, not the Scripture, reads it) exempt him from Idolatry in following the steps of Jeroboam, any more than the lawful Act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery, who defiles his Neighbours Bed. But, How then, saith he, came the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes to be set in opposition to the Heathen Idolatry in 1 Kings xviii. 21? No otherwise surely than by the force of imagination. For when Elias said unto the people, How long will ye halt between two Opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. The sence is plain, that he meant to recal the people to the Worship of the onely True God, [Page] whom he preached to them, and in the manner he himself did worship him; and not that he intended to set the Israelites sacrificing to the Calves at Dan and Bethel (which is what the Doctor means by the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes) in opposition to the Worship of Baal. For in the very next Chapter the Prophet himself supposes such a general Apostacy of the ten Tribes to the Worship of Baal, that he complains as if he alone were left alive, who had not consented to his Worship; as appears by the Answer which God made him, that he had yet seven thousand left in Israel which had not bowed their knees to Baal, 3 Kings xix. 17, 18. How then could Elias set the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes in opposition to the Worship of Baal, when 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 [Page] 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 Hei [...]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 D [...]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[Page]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 L [...]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, Vasq. in 3. d. Th. disp. 103. q. 25. c. 1. but also to the making all kind of Images. And will the Doctor therefore [Page] condemn the Professions of Painting and Carving, Conc. Nicen. Act. 6. 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, Vasq. in 3. d. Th. disp. 104. q. 25. c. 3. 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 [Page] 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, Petav. Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 5. lib. 15. c. 13. s. 3. c. 14. 5, 8. 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, Just Weights, chap. 19. 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[Page]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,Just Weights, chap. 23. 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 [Page] Precept against it. Wherefore it is manifest that Jews by the Letter of this Precept are tied from all Images which their Elders, who had the power of limiting what is lawful, and what is not by the Law, should declare to be unlawful: But to think that their declarations ought to bind Christians, were to imagine that Christians ought to be Jews.’—And then a little after, he goes on. ‘For Christianity, saith he, having put Idolatry to flight, which the Law never pretended to do, it is not to be imagined, that the having of Images can make a man take those for God, which they represent, so long as the belief of Christianity is alive at the heart. For neither was it Idolatry, though it were a breach of this Commandment, for a Jew to have such Images as were forbidden by their Elders, not taking that for God which they represented. But what honour of Saints departed, or what signs of that honour, Christianity may require, what Furniture or Ceremonies the Churches of Christians, and the Publick Worship of God in them, may require, now all the world professes Christianity, and must honour the Religion which they profess, this the Church is at freedom to determine [Page] by the Word of God, expounded according to the best agreement of Christians.’

This is Mr. Thorndike's Discourse, in which the Reader may observe,

1. That to think the Declarations of the Jews ought to bind Christians, were to imagine that Christians ought to be Jews.

2. That all things forbidden to the Jews by this Commandment, were Not Idolatry.

3. That the Images which the Precept supposeth, were the Representations of other, that is, false Gods, which his People were wont to worship for God.

4. That what Furniture (viz. of Images, the matter he there treats of) or Ceremonies the Publick Worship of God may require, is left to the Judgment of the Church to determine.

5. and lastly, That the Opposition in this Point between Dr. St. and Mr. Thorndike, is not onely concerning the obligation of the Jews (as between Catholick Divines) but of Christians also, in order to this Commandment. So that some are of opinion, however Dr. St. [...]eem to direct his arrows against the Church of Rome, yet he meant at least by rebound to shoot them at Mr. Thorndike. And had he made it any part of his business to answer his Arguments, I might easily have [Page] been induc'd to have embrac'd their Opinion. But those remaining untouch'd, I cannot but look upon this Discourse of that Learned Person, as a kind of Prophetical Confutation in the year 1662. (when he printed that Book) of all which Dr. Stillingfleet brings in 1671. for the proof of his Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the matter of Images. As for his new way of answering the Testimony I alledged of St. Austin's Judgment (of the sense of this Commandment) by asking me how I am sure that it was his constant Judgment, I have at large refuted it in the Third Chapter, to which I remit the Reader.

[Page]

CHAP. X.

What kind of Honour the Church gives to Holy Images, explained: and the Doctors mixing School Disputes with matters of Faith, shewn to be sophistical.

§. 1. TO clear the Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church from his most Unjust Charge of Idolatry, I told the Reader, That the Honour we give to the Sacred Images of Christ and his Saints, was an inferiour or Relative Honour onely, not Latria, the Worship due to God, but a certain Honourary Worship, expressed by kissing them, or putting off our Hats, or kneeling before them: much like the Worship which is given to the Chair of State, or the Reverence which Moses and Joshua gave to the Ground, by putting off their Shoes, &c. That this was the meaning of the Council of Nice, Of the Church, l. 3. c. 36. is confessed by Dr. Field and Mr. Thorndike, as I have shewed p. 124. And that the Council of Trent means no more, is manifest from the words of the Council related above, Chap. 2. as also for that Sess. 25. it refers us expresly to the Council of Nice. Yet because [Page] the Doctor is resolved to quarrel the distinction of Absolute and Relative Worship, that the Reader may see what is meant by it, I shall desire him to take notice, first, That Adoration or Worship being an Act of the Will; as the Will can love one thing for it self, because of the Perfection it is endow'd with, and another thing not for it self, but purely for that others sake to whom [...] belongs. So likewise it may adore or worship a thing, either for it self, that is, for some intrinsecal Excellency in the thing, for which it deserves Worship; and then it is said to worship the thing absolutely, because for it self. Or it may worship it for another's sake, that is, for some Excellency in the Person to whom the said thing hath a Relation or Union: and then it is said to worship such a thing with a Relative or Inferiour Worship, because purely for that Persons sake. And because Intellectual Beings are capable of having some Excellency in themselves, for which they deserve to be worshipped, as Virtue, Sanctity, Wisdom, Power, &c. and Inanimate Beings are capable of bearing a Relation to a Person endowed with such Excellencies, it follows that as Intellectual Beings may have Absolute Worship given to them; so Inanimate Things relating to them, may for their sakes have a Relative Respect, or Honourary Adoration given to them; and [Page] that so far from being injurious to the Person to whom they belong, that it would be look'd upon as a disrespect and affront, if in due circumstances it were not done. Such a kind of Relative Worship it is we affirm to be due, and to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints, when we kiss them, or put off our Hats before them. Secondly, I must desire him to observe (as Mr. Thorndike doth very well) that the words Adoration, Epil. p. 3. p. 3 [...]3. Worship, Respect, Reverence, or howsoever you translate the Latine word Cultus, are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal; that is, sometimes they may signifie one kind of honour, and sometimes another: Sometimes that which belongs to God, and sometimes that which belongs to the Creature. And the cause of this equivocation, he saith, is, the want of words; vulgar use not having provided words properly to signifie conceptions which came not from common sense. And from this equivocation in the Words Adoration, Worship, &c. the greatest part of the Difficulties which occur in this, take their rise. Now when the Doctor should set himself seriously to confute the aforesaid Explication, he puts his Reader into a fit of laughing with a Drollish Parallel, p. 100. that to give this Inferiour and Relative kind of Worship to the Image of Christ, that is, to honour and [Page] reverence it for his sake, is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband, that the person she was too kind with, was extreamly like him, and a near friend of his, and that it was out of respect to him that she gave him the honour of his Bed. But to lay open the unparallell'd fondness of this Comparison, there needs no more than to appeal to any married man for his Opinion in the case, viz. Whether he think it a matter of like Resentment to find his Wife kissing his Picture as it hangs at her Breast, as to surprize her in Bed with a Friend of his, though never so like him? Some things done out of respect are very well taken, and cannot in reason be otherwise, by the Person for whose sake the respect is given; of this kind I take the wearing of her Husbands Picture to be in a Wi [...]e, or her being kind (though not too kind) to his Friend for his sake. But others there are, which would be very ill taken, though pretended to be done with never so much respect: And of this kind I suppose it would be, to give the Honour of her Husbands Bed to another, though never so like him. No man surely well in his Senses, can look upon these two with an equal Concern. And yet if the Doctor will make his Comparison hold good, he must prove the whole state of married Mankind do, or ought to do so: At least [Page] to infer any thing against us, he must shew it not possible to give any Honour or Respect (even inferiour) to the Image of Christ for his sake. For if this be possible, it will follow, that as in a Chaste Wife it is a laudable expression of the Honour and Respect she bears her Husband, to kiss his Picture, or wear it near her Heart; So it will be no less in a Christian towards Christ, to give an Honourary Respect [...]o his Image for his sake. God indeed hath declared himself, as the Doctor saith particularly jealous of his Honour in this Commandment, that he will not give his Glory to another, but hath reserved all Divine Worship as peculiar to himself; but where hath he declared that we may not [...]estifie the giving Him Divine Worship by kissing his Image, or the Books of the H. Gospels, or other things relating to Him? The Object of Jealousie is a Rival, or what hath relation to, or union with him; not what may serve to express Affection and Respect to the Person who ought to be loved: And therefore a Jealous Husband will neither permit his Wife to admit his Rival into her Company, nor his Picture into her Closet; yet never thinks her an Adulteress for carrying his own in her [...]osom. The Images which the Precept supposeth, were as Mr. Thorndike saith, the Representations of other Gods, which his people were wont to commit Idolatry with. And the [Page] Doctor, though in the Reply I challeng'd him to do it, neither hath nor can produce any Prohibition of giving to the Images of Christ and his Saints a relative Respect o [...] Worship for his sake. And in case he could, yet that I hope would prove it no more to be Idolatry in a Christian to kiss, for example, the Image of Christ crucified, than it would be Adultery in a Wife out of respect to her Husband, (though he should forbid it) to kiss his Picture. Disobedience there might be in either case, but Idolatry or Adultery in neither.

§. 2. Having prepared his Reader with so just a Comparison, and told him by the by, of the distinction of Absolutely and Relatively being very subtilly applied in Scotland to saying the Lords Prayer to a Saint, which in reality needed no such distinction, as signifying no more, than saying the Pater Noster to God, with an intention directed to such or such a Saint, to desire him to become Joynt-Petitioner with us for what we beg in it; He wonders, in the next place, (p. 101.) very much we stick at any kind of Worship to be done to Images. For his part, were he of our mind, he should as little scruple offering up the Host to an Image, as saying his prayers to it, and he doubts not to come off with the same distinctions. For if I do it, saith he, to God absolutely and for himself, and to the Image onely improperly [Page]and relatively, wherein am I to blame? This is his Discourse, and the Reader may observe in it, 1. That he hath not read, or at least takes no notice, that the answer in the ordinary Catholick Catechism, to the Question, Whether we may pray to Images? is a down-right No, by no means: and that the Council of Trent Sess. 25. hath declared that we are not to ask any thing of an Image. Let the Reader judge whether this were ignorance or no. 2. That he cannot contain himself any where within bounds of Mediocrity, but must always run into extreams, which side soever he take. He cannot be a Church-of-England-man, but with the Presbyterians he must deny Episcopacy to be of Divine Right, and any honour to be due to the Eucharist or Altar, &c. Neither will he be a Papist without offering up the Host and saying his prayers to an Image. So that if He become a Proselyte, He cannot content Himself with the Common Idolatry of the Papists, in kissing or putting off their Hats to the Images of Christ, but will needs make Himself twice a greater Idolater than they are. How much He would be to blame in so doing, He will better understand when He is become a Proselyte. In the mean time it may suffice Him to know, that the Church of God hath no such custom: for however the material action of Sacrifice may be done for several ends and intentions; [Page] yet when it proceeds from an intention to profess a total submission of our selves to God, as the Supream Author of Life and Death, (which gives it the formality of a Sacrifice) it is used and taken by the publick Use and Custom of the Church, for an acknowledgement of the absolute Worship due to God, and not of Relative to an Image: and that more especially in offering up the Host, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ, the true Christian Sacrifice, the Nature and Dignity whereof requireth that it be offered to God alone. As for the Rule of St. Basil, S. Bas. li. de Spiritu sancto. cap. 18. upon which he would ground his Practise (and which I quoted very sincerely, though he craftily insinuate the contrary to the Reader) viz. That the Worship of the Image is carried to the Prototype; Mr. Thorndike hath told him very well, that what Signs of Honour or Ceremonies the Publick Worship of God may require, the Church is at freedom to determin; and so onely such expressions of Honour are to be given to Images as the Church allows. What therefore I should advise him, were I worthy, and would he be of our mind, should be to lay aside what the Apostle calls languishing about Questions and strife of Words, 1 Tim. vi. 4. and (as a Modern Author phrases [Page] it) to use Ecclesiastical good manners to the H. Images of Christ and his Saints, and say his prayer [...] and offer Sacrifice (as other Catholicks do) to God alone. [...]t is Duty and Discretion in things we cannot understand, to follow the Apostle's Rule, Sapere ad sobrietatem, to be wise unto sobriety. But it is no less than insolency and madness, and that in the highest degree, S. Aug. Ep. 118. 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 [Page]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, P. 102, 103. this is oppugned by Vasquez (a man of great Reputation too, and of as s [...]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 [Page] 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 Ha [...]. 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 Countreyman 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 [Page] 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 Dil [...]mma, no more ought Christians from testifying [Page] 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.

[Page] §. 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 without breaking his neck, as the Doctor doth that we cannot honour the Image of Christ without falling into Idolatry. Nevertheless I shall yield so far to the Doctors importunity, (because he pretends to be serious) as to return an Answer to his Captious Demand, Whether the Worship given to the Image be the same that is given to the Prototype, or distinct from it? And I am the rather induced to do it, in St. Thomas his way, who bolds that the same Reverence is given to Christ and to his Image: because I find my Adversary himself (in case any Honour or Veneration be due to the Image, as the Council affirms there is) p. 79. very well inclin'd to allow of St. Thomas his Reason for it, because, as the said St. Thomas well observes (saith Dr. St.) the motion of the Soul towards an Image, as it is an Image, is the same with that which is towards the thing represented by it. When therefore he objects, that if it be the same, then proper Divine Worship is given to the Image, I deny [Page] the Consequence, because although it be the same as to the substance of the Act, yet it falls upon the Image after an inferiour manner, as a thing relating to God, and purely for his sake. Hence it is, that St. Thomas his followers distinguish in the same Act of Worship a double notion; the One of Absolute Latria, as it tends to God Himself; the other of Relative Latria, as it reflects upon the Image for his sake. Now to help the Fancy in so nice a Speculation, some instances are used of other Acts which tend to different Terms or Objects relating to one another; which though not in all things parallel, yet serve to show how the same indivisible Act may include different habitudes or respects, the one inferiour to the other. Is it not an Act of Christian Charity to help our Neighbours Horse or his Ass out of a ditch, and yet if we consider the Act as precisely tending to relieve the Horse, it is not Charity, but an inferiour kind of love, (if we may so call it) or rather compassion of the Beast? And do not the Saints in Heaven see God and the Creatures by the same Act of Beatifical Vision, and yet the Act as considered precisely in order to the Creatures, is not Beatifical, but of an inferiour kind to it self, as terminated upon the Essence of God? In like manner say these Divines, although the Act or motion of the Soul be the same to the Prototype [Page] and the Image; and as terminated upon the Prototype, it be Absolute Latria; yet as it falls precisely upon the Image, it is not so, but a Relative or inferiour Veneration for the Prototype's sake. As for what he urges out of Bellarmin against its being the same because it is, Bellarm. de Imagli. 2. c. 24. saith the Doctor, of the nature of Latria (Bellarmin saith true Latria) to be given for it self. It is evident Bellarmin takes the word Latria to signifie onely that Worship which is given to Soveraign Excellency for it self; whereas Saint Thomas and his Followers qualifie it with the addition of Relative, which is of a diminishing nature, to signifie that the Worship is given to the Image by the same Act, but after an inferiour manner for the Prototype's sake. So that the whole dispute in effect is rather de modo l [...]quendi, of the manner of speaking, than of the thing it self. For Bellarmin himself in the precedent Chapter maintaineth expresly,Cap. 23. that the Image may be worshipped with the same Worship as the Prototype; For, saith he, he that adoreth a Person, adoreth also all such things as are united to him; as he that adoreth the King in his Garment, adoreth together with him his Garment also. And where as the Image is conceived at the same time as united with the [Page]Prototype which is adored, it followeth that the Image it self is adored but per accidens, saith he, because it is neither the person adored, nor the reason of adoring, but a thing conjoyned to the Person who is adored.

Thus much to the Doctors Question in a Point belonging to the Schools, and not at all to Faith; for although neither St. Thomas, not Bellarmin, nor Vasquez, nor any other Schoolman, had ever disputed, Whether Worship be given to the Image by the same Act by which it is given to the Prototype, or a distinct one, yet Christians would have understood well enough by the Churche's declaration, that they are not to give the Worship due only to God, to an Image, but onely a Honourary Respect or Veneration for his sake, as to other Holy things. Whether the Doctor will be satisfied with what I have said to one side of his Dilemma, I cannot tell; but I shall give him occasion in the next Chapter, if he please, to speak to both; at least I expect he should use the same candor with me, that I have done with him, to let me know which Side he will take, for one he must.

[Page]

CHAP. XI.

Of the Instances brought to explicate the nature of the Honour given to Images; from the like Reverence given to the Chair of State▪ to the Ground, to the Ark, to the Name of JESUS, &c. The weakness of the Doctors Evasions laid open, and his own Arguments return'd upon him.

AFter I had in my Reply declar'd what kind of Honour it is which Catholicks give to the Images of Christ and his Saints, I added, as a farther Explication of it, that it was much like the Honour given to the Chair of State, or the Kings Picture, or his Garment; or to come nearer to the subject such as was given to the Ground by Moses and Josue's putting off their Shoes; to Gods Footstool, by the Jews adoring or falling down before it: and by Protestants themselves to the Name of JESUS, to the Eucharist and the Altar. By these Instances, he says, I thought to escape; what I thought was, that I had explicated clearly enough by them the nature of the honour we give to Images: but how much he finds himself entangled in them, and how [...]ore they pinch him on every side, whilst [Page] they force him to say and unsay; to shuffle, and shift, and make use of all his little Artifices, to free himself, but in vain, will appear from the Examination of the several Evasions, rather than Answers, he gives to them.

§. 1. For the honour given to the Chair of State, (and we may suppose he means the same of the Kings Picture and Garment) he says, that our dispute is not concerning Civil Worship, but Divine. And here, in the first place, he imposes upon his Reader, for the Dispute between Catholicks and Protestants, is not whether Divine Worship may be given to Images, for that they acknowledge to be due to God alone; but whether they may not give an inferiour or honourary respect and veneration to them for his sake? This I said was much like the honour given to the Chair of State; that is, as we honour the Chair for the Kings sake, and yet do not give the same Regal honour to the Chair, as to the King; so in like manner we honour Christs Picture or Image, and yet give not the same Divine honour to the Image as to Himself, but an inferiour Respect and Reverence, as hath been above declared. The Comparison then you see is onely about the way or manner of giving Honour, which may be the same to God and the King, although the Honour so given be very different; and therefore for the Doctor [Page] to tell his Reader, that the instance was in a matter of Civil Worship, is just, as if when St. Austin to perswade his friend Honoratus to believe the Mysteries of Religion without seeing them,Li. de utilit. Cred. because he did the like in many things in order to this present Li [...]e, he should have answered him, that he mistook the case, for their dispute was [...]not about Humane Faith; which is one of those Answers the Adag [...] terms [...], nothing to the purpose. But though he say our dispute is not concerning Civil Worship, yet 'tis observable, he does not tell us clearly, whether he hold it lawful to give any such Worship to the Chair or no. If he do not, I grant he proceeds conformable to his own Principles against the Worship of Images, and so leave him to dispute it with the Guard. If he do, the Countrey-man (of whom I spake in the precedent Chapter) sets upon him with his own Argument; that either the honour he gives to the Chair, is the same with that which he gives to the King, or distinct from it. If it be the same, then proper Regal Worship is given to the Chair. If distinct, then the Chair is worshipped with Regal Worship for it self, &c. and it is in his choice to take which part of the Dilemma likes him best. But to press the Instance yet closer: If he, do acknowledge [Page] that Civil Honour is given to the Chair of State, let him give a sufficient Reason, why a like proportionable Reverence (call it by what Name you will) may not be given to the Image of Christ. This will be to speak to the purpose, but that was not his intention, and therefore he flies for refuge to a frivolous supposition, that I would not say that were any honour to the King, in case he had absolutely forbidden it, as we have proved, saith he, God hath done in the case of Images. As for that pretty self-denying Ordinance of a Prince's forbidding any Reverence to be given to his Picture or Chair of State, (which perhaps the Doctor thinks very sit should be enacted in conformity to what God (he saith) hath forbidden in the second Commandment) were it, I say, enacted, I grant as formerly that to disobey it would be to dishonour the King, as the disobeying any other Law would be; but that hinders not but the Act intrinsecally and of its own nature would be an Act of Reverence to the King; for, H [...]nor, as the Phisopher saith, est in honorante, Honour resides in the mind that gives it. And for any Command of God forbidding to honour the Images of Christ and his Saints, besides that I have shown that Assertion of his and his Partizans, to be in every respect groundless▪ yet for the satisfaction of the true Protestant Reader, I shall adde [Page] one Observation more upon that subject: and it is this, that the Compilers of the 39 Articles (in which is contained the Doctrine of the Church of England) sufficiently insinuate they could find no such Command, when they rejected the Adoration of Images, Art. 22. not as Idolatry (as the Doctor doth) but onely as a fond thing, vainly invented; nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, (as they profess very roundly, though without ground, when they come to speak of Transubstantiation) but as being rather repugnant to the Word of God, Art. 28. which qualification of theirs plainly gives us to understand, that they had done their endeavours to find a Command, but could meet with none; for had they made any such discovery either in the Second Commandment, or elsewhere in the Word of God, they would not have spared to tell us of it, and have cry'd it down for flat Idolatry, as the Doctor does. In the mean time it is pleasant to see, what Veneration this Champion of the Church of England hath either for the Compilers of those Articles, or for the Articles themselves, when what they call onely a fond thing, a vain Invention; he condemns as Idolatry, most damnable Idolatry: and Magis [...]erially declares it to be expresly prohibited in the second Commandment; [Page] when they after the best enquiry they could make, pronounce onely Problematically that in their Judgment, they thought it to be rather repugnant to the Word of God, than conformable to it. So much does a Pigmy upon a Giant's Shoulders (the modest Emblem of Novel Wits) see farther than the Giant himself, upon whose Neck he presumptuously sets his feet.

§. 2. The second Instance was of the Reverence which God commanded Moses and Josue to give to the Ground whereon they stood, by putting off their shoes, because it was Holy. After a short descant upon the former erroneous Ground, viz. that he thinks there is some little difference between what God hath commanded, and what he hath forbidden, p. 105. After this short descant, I say, and one Note in it above Ela, that there is as plain a Prohibition against giving honour to the Image of Christ, as in the case of Moses and Jesue there was an express Command to do it to the Ground. (Alas for the Compilers of the 39 Articles, that they could not see it!) At length he gives Glory to God, and tells us, that the special presence & appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it. Who will not here admire the force of Truth, which after long standing out, makes all her Adversaries submit to her power? What could [Page]the Doctor have said so much to the ruine of his own Cause, and the establishing of ours, as to confess that Moses and Josue might and did lawfully testifie their Reverence towards the Ground? I can easily believe his Passion blinded him so far, that he did not foresee the Darts he threw so spitefully against the Images of Christ, would recoil (as they do) with double force upon his own head. For a subtil Logician like himself, would ask him here, whether this Reverence he speaks of, were Absolute or Relative, that is, were testified to the Ground for it self, or meerly for God's sake who appeared there present? His Answer, I doubt not, would be, that it was not to the Ground for it self, but meerly out of respect to God. And what would his Opposer do here, but first turn his own Comparison upon him, p. 100. that this was just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband, that the Person she was too kind with, was a near Friend of his, and that it was out of respect to him, she gave him the honour of his Bed? And then make a grave application upon it, as the Doctor does, That if such an excuse will not be taken by a Jealous Husband, how much less will such like pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of his honour, and that he will not give his Glory to another, but hath reserved all Divine Worship [Page] as proper to himself, and no such fond excuses of relative and inferiour Worship will serve, when they encroach upon his Pregrogative? Neither would this subtil Disputant be content to stop here, but would farther adde, that for his part he could see no reason, why had he been in Moses and Josue's place, but he might with as little scruple have offered sacrifice to the Ground, as put off his shoes to it. And he should think himself hardly dealt with, if he did not come off with the same distinction. For if he did it to God absolutely, and for himself, and to the Ground onely improperly and relatively, wherein were he to blame, in the Doctors Principles? Let him deal as he pleases with this Personated Sosta.

For my own part, (to pursue his Method of arguing a little farther, that the Reader may see whether it leads) I desire seriously to know of him whether any Reverence was due to the Ground or no? P. 102. If none at all, to what end did they put off their shoes, which if the Ground (as he saith of Images) had any sense in it, would think was done to it? Why was there an express Command to require it? And why doth the Doctor himself determine that they might lawfully testifie their Reverence towards the Ground because it was sanctified or Holy, if none were due? If there were any due, whether it were the same which was given to God, or distinct from[Page]it? If it were the same, then proper Divine Worship was given to the Ground; if distinct, then the Ground was worshipped with Divine Worship for it self, and not relatively. Again, either it was Divine Worship, or an Inferiour Worship distinct from it. If it were Divine Worship, then the Argument he urges out of Bellarmin, (p. 103.) returns upon him, that it is the nature of Divine Worship to be given for it self; and therefore if it were given to the Ground, the Creature was equally worshipped with God, which certainly was Idolatry. If it were not Divine, but an Inferiour Worship, distinct from that which is given to God, then Vasquez, (a man of great Reputation too, and of as searching a Wit as Bellarmin) comes upon him, that he that so gives it, incurs the crime of Idolatry, because he expresseth his submission to a meer inaninate thing, that hath no kind of excellency to deserve if from him. So that upon the whole, what follows in Doctor St.'s Logick is, that it was in Moses and Josue's choice what sort of Idolatry they would commit, when they testified their Reverence to the Ground, but in neither way could they avoid it. I cannot expect he will set much by the Authority of Bellarmin and Vasquez; but what I expect and in justice may exact from him, is, that he will answer their Reasons, at least one of them, if he embrace the other; or else give a sufficient [Page] reason himself why this manner of arguing is absurd against the Reverence he confesses due to the Ground, and not against the Reverence we assert to be due to Holy Images. If he fly to the old shift, of an express Command for the one, and a pretended Prohibition for the other, no relief is to be had from thence; for besides his giving Gods special presence here as a second and distinct reason why they might lawfully testifie their Reverence towards the Ground, whether there were any Command or no; yet taking in the Command, the Argument hath still the same force as before. For either the Reverence they were commanded to testifie towards the Ground, because it was Holy, was the same which they gave to God, or distinct from it. If the same, then proper Divine Worship was given to the Ground by Gods Command; If distinct, then the Ground was worshipped with Divine Worship for it self. Both Idolatry in their own nature according to his Principles: And consequently it is now in his choice, whether he will blame Moses and Josue for committing, or God for commanding them to commit Idolatry. If it were Idolatry in the nature of the thing to put off their shoes in reverence to the Ground, God's Command could not make it to be otherwise. And if it were not Idolatry in it self, neither is it to give a like honour to the Image of Christ. From [Page] whence it follows to the utter ruine of all he hath argued from his pretended Prohibition, that as no Command of God can make that to be not Idolatry, which is so in the nature of the thing; so no Prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idolatry, which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry. Here the Ax is laid to the Root, and if ever the Doctor will speak home to the purpose, it must be upon this point. He must speak to the nature of the thing, and not stand pointing at the Sky, as Polus did, to perswade the World he sees a siery Dragon, and that all are blind who see it not, when there is nothing but pure Air. What he faintly suggests at present, as some little difference between the case of giving reverence to the Ground, and that of giving the like to Images, viz. that God was present in the place by a special appearance, but is not so in Images, is (to use his own Comparison, that he may see how sit it was to the matter he applied it) just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband for giving a Friend of his the honour of his Bed, that she did it not when he was absent, but to testifie her greater respect to him, at a time when he was particularly present: and can any one think but that such an excuse as this would be taken by a Jealous Husband? He adds for a farther difference, that the Reverence then requir'd, [Page]was not kissing the Ground, or bowing to it, much less praying to it, but onely putting off their shoes. And I wonder what Edition of the Council of Trent he makes use of, to ground this calumny of praying to Images, so often repeated by him; for in all those printed in Catholick Countries, we are told we are not to ask any thing of them: and I wonder no less by what Rule he makes putting off the shoes to be a sign of less reverence, than kissing the Ground, or bowing to it. The Rubrick of the Missal prescribes it to be done but once a year by the Priest upon Good Friday to testifie a greater Reverence to the Image of our Crucified Lord. But I shall not dispute it with him, onely I perswade my self, that if the Common-Prayer-Book should ordain the Minister when he goes up to the Communion-Table either to put off his shoes, or to bow to it, he would scruple much more to go barefoot, than to nod to it with his Shoes on.

Two other pretences of difference he brings not unlike the former; The first, that in kising the Ground, or bowing to it, if these things had been done to the Ground, the danger had not been so great as to Images. The other, that the Reverence of Holy Places and Things, is of a quite different nature from the Worship of Images. For the first of danger, he may leave that (as Mr. Thorndike hath told him) to the Judgment of the Church. And for the [Page] second, Holy Places and Things may have several Relations to God, according to the different uses for which they serve in order to his Worship; and yet the Reverence given them may be proportionably alike, that is, an inferiour Respect and Veneration, and not Latria, which is due to God alone. But how different soever he would make it from that of Images, he must not think to escape; For if any be due at all to Holy Places and Things, I suppose it is given them for God's sake, and then all his own Arguments return upon him afresh; for either it is the same which is given to God, or distinct from it; and which way soever he take, Bellarmin or Vasquez will be upon him. Or none at all is due to them, and then he mocks his Reader, when he tells him, that the Reverence of Holy Places and Things, is of a quite different nature from the Worship of Images. And this is indeed what lies at the bottom, how speciously soever he pretend the contrary here in words, as will manifestly appear from his Answers to the following Instances. For first,

§. 3. To that of the Reverence given by the Jews to the Ark and the Holy of Holies, where the Cherubins and Propitiatory were, he plainly enough denies that any was given them. To prove there was, I produced first that Text of the Psalm, Adore ye the foot-stool of [Page]God, for it it is holy, Psal. xcviii. 5. (as all the Ancient Fathers read it without scruple) or as their own Translation hath it, Fall down before his Foot-stool, for He (the Margin hath it It) is holy. And secondly, the Testimony of St. Hierom, who saith expresly (Ep. 17. ad Marcel.) Venerabantur olim, that the Jews in times past did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies, because there were the Cherubins, the Propitiatory, the Ark, &c. To neither of these doth he vouchsafe any Answer at all, but with an Ipse dixit, tells us, p. 106. that the Jews onely directed their Worship towards that place where God had promised to be signally present among them; and signifies no more to the Worship of Images, than our lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth, when we pray. Thus He, Oracularly, without either Scripture, or Father, or Reason to abet him. But if Moses and Josue might lawfully testifie their Reverence to the Ground, because it was holy, why might not the Jews do as much to the Foot-stool of God, because that also was holy? Why was it placed in the Holy of Holies, and why were the People commanded to adore, or bow down before it, but to testifie their Reverence to it, and that a much greater, in the Doctors opinion, than putting off their shoes, for they were to adore it, or fall down before it: and all this, I hope, signifies something more to the Worship of [Page] Images than the lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth, when we pray; which might have been as well, if not better, without all this Ceremony, in an open field.

For the Cherubins, he tells, That they were always hid from the sight of the People; as if nothing could have Reverence given it, but what is seen: It may reasonably be presumed, that himself will charge us with Idolatry for adoring the Host, not onely when we see it upon the Altar, but when it is recluded in a Tabernacle, or covered with a Veil. Nor doth he mend the matter when he says, That the High Priest himself went into the Holy of Holies but once a year; for if at that time it were lawful for him to testifie Reverence to the Throne of God there placed, it is as much as we desire; and if unlawful, it was more than he ought to have done, though but once a year; for as St. Hierom saith,Li. advers-Vigilant. Quod semel fecisse bonum est, non potest malum esse, si frequenter fiat; aut si aliqua culpa vitanda est, non ex eo quod saepe, sed ex eo quod [...]it aliquando, culpabile est. What he adds of the Cherubins being placed meerly as Appendices to the Throne of God, was a means rather to increase than diminish the people's reverence to them; and for their form, there needed no more be known than what Calvin (in Exod. xxv. 18.) affirmeth [Page] of them, That they represented Angels.

§. 4. To bowing at the Name of JESUS. This Ceremony was appointed and allowed by the Injunctions made in the time of Queen Elizabeth, Art. 52. and was defended by Dr. Whitgift in his Defence against Cartright, Tr. 21. ch. 7. Ag. Rhem. Test. Phil. ii. 10. by Dr. Fulk, Dr. Andrews, (whose words are cited below) and others; and is at this day publickly practised in the Church of England, and that in Dr. St.'s own sight, by such as esteem themselves the onely true and genuine Sons of that Church. This Instance I thought to be very pertinent, because first it is allowed by Protestants, and so more easily understood; and secondly because of the Analogy there is between Words and Pictures, a Picture being a Word to the Eye, and a Word (as Aristotle calls it) a Picture to the Ear. Peri Herm. c. 1. Another reason I had also, because the Doctor being inoculated into the Church of England, or, (to speak his Dialect) a Revolted Presbyterian, I thought he would not dare to disavow all reverence to the Sacred Name of JESUS. But I find I was deceived; for he tells me plainly, I might as well have instanced in going to Church at the Toll of a Bell, as in bowing at the Name of Jesus; for as the one[Page]only tells us the time when, so the other only puts us in mind of the Person whom we are to worship. This is plain enough, I confess (if it be as mannerly) to tell us that no more Reverence is due to the most H. Name of JESUS, when we hear it spoken, than to a Bell when we hear it toll. And the Compari [...]on is somewhat more elevated, than if he had made it with Whittington's fancying the Bells to call him back to be Lord Maior of London. But was this all that St. Paul meant, when he told us, That at the Name of Jesus (or as Dr. St. himself reads it, p. 111. To the Name of Jesus) every knee shall bow? Phil. ii. 10. Was it for this that God so highly exalted Him, that He gave Him 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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[Page]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 no [...],Serm. 9th. of the Resurrect. 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 [Page] 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 [...]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 [Page] Rubrick, when I put down Kneeling at the Euc [...]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,Just. lib. 4. c. 17. 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 [Page]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.Reply against Hard. p. 379. 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, Of the Mass. l. 7. c. 2. S. 3. 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 [Page] 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; Reply. p. 409. 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 mi [...]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 [Page]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 [Page] 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 Churc [...] 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 [Page] 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 Respect given to it is a Fence against the Contempt of his Person. He that passes by that with his Hat on, thinks himself excus'd upon the same account from putting it off to the King himself.

The End of the First Part.

[Page]

[Page]

THE SECOND PART OF THE ADORATION OF THE Most Blessed Sacrament.

CHAP. I.

The Practise of the Primitive Church in this Point; The Doctor's Argument to prove it to be Idolatry, built upon an Injurious Calumny, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God. The sense of his first Proposition cleared, and the Proofs he brings for it, refuted.

§. 1. HAving cleared the Doctrin and Practise of the Catholick Church from my Adversaries Unjust Charge of Idolatry in the Worship or Veneration she gives to the Images of Christ, I [Page] come now to show the Injustice of a like accusation he brings in upon account of the Adoration she gives to Christ himself in the most H. Sacrament of the Altar: A th [...]g so universally practiced and recommended by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, both Greek and Latin, that who so will condemn the practise of it at this day in the Church of Rome, must have the confidence to involve the Church of that time in the same Condemnation with it. Among other Apostolical Traditions, which were delivered to the Church without Writing, St. Basil reckons the words of Invocation, Li. de Spir. S. c. 27. when the Eucharistical Br [...]ad and Cup of Blessing were shewed. Dialog. 2. And Theodoret affirms expresly, that The Mystical Symbols are understood to be what they are made, and are believed and adored, as being the things they are believed. In Epitaph. Gorgoniae. S. Gregory N [...]zianzen reporteth of his Sister Gorgonia as a great testimony of her devotion, that in a certain sickness she had, she went with Faith to the Altar, and with a lowd voice besought him, who is worshipped upon it, for remedy, giving him all his Titles or Attributes, and remembring him of all the miraculous things which he had done. And the same no doubt was done by St. Monica [Page] the Mother of St. Austin, in her daily devotions at the Altar, at which she used to assist without pretermission of any one day; Confess. li. 9. c. 13. and from whence she knew, saith he, that Holy Victime to be dispensed, by which the [...] writing was blotted out, which carried our condemnation in it. To this Sacrament of our Redempti [...] she had tied her Soul fast by the Bond of [...]ith. And in this she did no more, [...] what her Son teache [...] upon the 98th. Psal [...], S. Aug. in Ps. 98. where expounding [...] words of the Psalmist, Adore ye his Foot-stool, to be meant of the Earth, and by the Earth, to be understood the Flesh of Christ, he addeth, that whereas Christ walked here in the Flesh, and gave us that very flesh to be eaten for our Salvation, and no man eateth that Flesh, unless he have first adored, we find, saith he, how such a Foot-stool of our Lord may be adored; and that we do not only not sin in adoring, but we sin in not adoring. Viz. that Foot-stool of our Lord, by which he said before was meant his most Holy Flesh. And from whom did he learn this Doctrin, but from the same Master, from whom he learn't Christianity. St. Ambrose, who treating of the same place of the Psalmist, Li. 3. de Sp. Sto. c. 12. saith, By the Foot-stool is understood[Page]the Earth, and by the Earth the Flesh of Christ, which we adore also at this day in the Mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus. Upon this Account it is, that St. Chrysostome exhorts Christians to this duty by the Example of the Wise-men: Hom. 24. in l. ad Cor. These Men, saith he, though Barbarians, after a long Journey adored this Body (of our Lord) in the Manger, with great fear and trembling; Let us imitate what they did. Thou seest Him not in the Manger, but on the Altar. And then again by the Example of the Angels, who, saith he, assist the Priest at the time of offring the Holy Sacrifice; Li. 6. de Sacerd. and the whole order of Heavenly Powers list up their Voices; and the place round about the Altar is filled with the Quires of Angels, in honour of Him who lyeth upon it. And therfore it is called by St. Optatus, S. Opt. li. 6. f. 61. the Seat or Throne of the Body of our Lord. Thus these Holy Men, not as private Doctors delivering their own Opinions, but as Fathers, testifying and transmitting to Posterity the Doctrin and Practise of the Church of their time, which was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist, that the Heathens because they knew Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries, [Page] objected to them, (as St. Austin reports,)S. Aug. lib. 20. contr. Faust. c. 13. that they worshipped Ceres and Bacchus. And hereupon Mr. Thorndike (Epil. 3. p. pag. 351.) ingenuously saith, I do believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient Church, which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ—For I do acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of St. Ambrose, St. Austin, St. Chrysostome, St. Gregory Nazianzen: with the rest, and more than I have produced. And now it is in the Reader's choice, whether he will condemn so great and Holy Men, and with them the Church of that time, of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, or will absolve Uj for doing what they did. It is with them we must stand or fall. And the Doctor's argument will make neither or both Idolaters. But before I speak to that, and that the Reader may see what force it is like to have, behold how he ushers it in.

§. 2. I proceeded, saith he, to the Adoration of the Host, and here the argument I proposed, was to take off the common answer, viz. (of Catholicks) that it cannot be Idolatry, because they believe the Bread to be God. This is what the Doctor exposes in the front of his Rejoynder to publick view. And if the [Page] Reader meet with such sophisticate Ware in the Mouth of the Sack, What may he expect when he comes neerer to the bottom? The argument I proposed, saith he, was to take off the Common Answer, (viz. of Catholicks) that it cannot be Idolatry, because they believe the Bread to be God: And that too, just as the Worshippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God; For upon the same ground he saith, it is that they who believe the Sun to be God, and worship him on that account, would be excused from Idolatry too. The unhandsomness of this Proceeding I fairly hinted to him in my Reply, whereas I might justly have called it a most injurious calumny; and it became an Ingenuous Writer, either to have justified his charge; or (if he could not do that, nor yet had humility enough to retract it,) to have wav'd at least the repeating it in his Answer. But this he is so far from doing, that without any proof at all, what he did but insinuate before in the Body of his Argument, he lays down now expresly in his Rejoinder, as the Ground of his charge of Idolatry in this matter. Wherefore I must now challenge him to prove it, viz. that it is the Common Answer of Catholicks that their Adoration of the Eucharist cannot be Idolatry, because they believe the Bread to be God; or if that be too much, to produce at least any one Catholick Author, who ever excused [Page] himself from Idolatry upon that account. Nothing is more notorious than that Catholicks believe the whole substance of Bread to be converted into the Body of Christ, and consequently Bread not to be there. Wherefore to do both himself and us right, he should have said, the Common Answer of Catholicks, when they are charged with Idolatry in the Adoration of the Host, is not, that it cannot be Idolatry, because they believe the bread to be God; but because they believe no bread at all to be there, but the Body of Christ true God, into which it is changed. This had been to speak Truth; but withall it had been to stifle his argument in its birth, by choaking his Parallel between Catholicks and those who worshipped the Sun, supposing it to remain still the Sun. And why should be scruple more to preserve his own Child, than the Aegyptian Midwives did to save those of other People?

The Argument, as it is artificially proposed by himself, runs thus, that Upon the same Ground that Catholicks would excuse themselves from Idolatry, p. 109. because they believe the bread to be God: they who believe the Sun to be God, and worship him on that account would be excused from Idolatry too; which who so reads would think it intended directly to excuse the worshippers of the Sun from Idolatry. But because his [Page] Intention is to make it fall with a revers'd blow upon Catholicks, and conclude them guilty of Idolatry, that the Reader may see the force of the Argument, I shall reduce it to form, as it may serve to infer that Conclusion. And this it is. If the Worship of the Sun by those who believe the Sun to be God, and Worship him on that account, be Idolatry▪ then the Worship of the bread in the Eucharist, by those who believe it to be God, and worship it on that account, is Idolatry. But it is the Common Answer of Papisls, (saith Dr. St.) that they believe the bread to be God. Therefore they are Idolaters. This is the summe of this mighty Argument; and there needs no more to overthrow it, but to deny as most notoriously false, the second Proposition, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God, as the Worshippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God. Others may judge of it, as they please, but for my part I should wonder extreamly, how the Doctor could have the confidence to advance so palpable a calumny the second time, but that I see, what a [...]t and courage are necessary to uphold so unjust a charge. Perhaps he will reply, his meaning was, that Catholicks believe that to be God, which he and his Partizans believe to be meer bread. But then what a rare consequence is it to say, the worshippers of the Sun were Idolaters, because they worshipped [Page] for God what themselves believed to be the Sun: Therefore Catholicks are Idolaters, because they worship that for God, which Dr. St. and his Partizans believe to be but bread? Which is just, as if an Arrian should conclude both Catholicks and Protestants to be Idolaters, for worshipping Christ, because they worship him for God whom the Arrians believe to be but a pure creature.

§. 3. This is all which needed to have been replyed to the Argument, to show the inconclusiveness of it: but to prevent what I thought was likely to be objected by my Adversary, I added two things. 1. That Catholicks are not mistaken in their belief of the Bread's being changed into the Body of Christ, as having the same grounds and motives, and a like divine Revelation to believe this, as to believe that Christ is God, and consequently to be adored. Hereupon I affirmed that the Doctor's argument, altering only the names, would be of as much force from the Pen of an Arrian against the Adoration of Christ for God, as it was from his own, against the Adoration of him in the Eucharist. And I think sit to repeat the argument here, for the same reason, for which the Doctor seems unwilling to hear of it. What that was, the Reader will see below, §. 5. of this Chapter. The argument as I then proposed it was this. [Page] The same argument which would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry lawful, cannot excuse any Act from Idolatry; But the same argument by which Protestants make the worship of Christ (a pure Man, saith the Arrian; I should have said, creature, and I thank the Doctor for minding me of it,) not to be Idolatry, would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so. For if it be not therefore Idolatry, because they suppose Christ to be God, then the worship of the Sun was not Idolatry by them who supposed the Sun to be God. 2dly, I added, that supposing Catholicks should be mistaken in their belief, yet Dr. Taylor an eminent Man among the Protestants, denies it would follow from thence, that they were Idolaters. And I shall repeat his words, when I come to speak to that Point. The Doctor, to make good his Argument against these Answers (which he calls only appearances of answering) undertakes to prove four things. 1. That supposing there were the same Revelation of Christ's Divinity, and of his Presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation, yet there could not be the same reason for the Adoration of the Host, as for worshipping Christ himself. 2. That there are not the same motives and grounds to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that there are to believe that Christ is God. 3. That supposing they are mistaken in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [Page] this doth not excuse them from Idolatry. 4. That the same Reason which would excuse them, would excuse the most gross Idolaters in the World. These are the heads of what he rejoins in this matter, Great and Glorious things, if they can be made out. But how far the performance comes short of the undertaking, will appear by the ensuing Answers to the several Propositions, and wh [...]t he brings in proof of them, in order as they lye.

§. 4. The Doctor's first Proposition: Supposing there were the same divine Revelation of Transubstantiation, p. 111. (that is, of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, by the change of the Bread into his Body) and of His Divinity, yet there could not be the same reason for adoration of the Host, as of Christ himself. The first thing we are to consider here, is, what he means by the word Host, whether Christ himself under the species or accidents of Bread; or the Accidents themselves. If he mean Christ under the Accidents, the Question is, whether the same adoration be due to Christ in the Sacrament, as out of it? If he mean only the Accidents, the Question is, whether the same adoration, that is, as much or as great adoration is due to them as to Christ himself? The first he knows is affirmed by us, the second denyed, because as was said before [Page] of Images (p. 190.) although Christ and the Accidents be worshipped by the same Act of Adoration, yet as considered precisely relating to the Accidents, it falls upon them after an Inferiour manner. And it became a Generous Adversary, (as he shows himself to be, in supposing the same divine Revelation for Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, as for his Divinity, which he needed not have done) to have told us clearly his meaning in this Point. But this he thought not fit to do, but to blend both senses confusedly together, that when he found himself press'd in one, he might slie for refuge to the other. The Catholick sense is this, that the same or as great adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament, as out of it. Against this he objects two things. 1. That there is a plain Command in Scripture for the One, and none for the other. 2. That the One gives us a sufficient reason for our Worship, the other doth not. To the first I answer (as he foresaw very well I would) that a General Command (such as those cited by himself, Let all the Angels adore him, that is, Christ, Hebr. 1. 6. and to his Name every Knee is to bow, Phil. 2. 10.) doth extend to him wherever he is present: as a like command of honouring such a Person for King would do, wherever he should be known to reside: And this I take to be Intimation enough that we are to worship Christ [Page]under the Accidents supposing him present there. And whereas he saith this Answer proves no more his worship in them, than in a Turf, or any other piece of bread, because Christ, saith he, being God is every where present, (as if his being God made him every where present, as he is supposed to be in the Sacrament;) This was but an Artifice to divert the Reader from the matter in hand, which is not about the worship of God, as every where present, but as hypostatically present in the Flesh: And so the Question between us, is, whether in case there be a general command to worship the Son of God made Man, we may not as lawfully do it to him (supposing a divine Revelation, that he is so present) in the Sacrament, as the Apostles and others adored him, when he was conversant among them? To this Question I Answer affirmatively, and he Negatively, unless he can see a plain Command to do it to him, as present in the Sacrament. And who can but wonder to see him now so scrupulous in giveing adoration to God made Man, (believing him to be really present in the Host) unless he have an express command to do it; who professes of himself (p. 101.) that were he of our mind in the matter of Images, he should not stick to offer up the Host it self, that is, God-Man really present under the Sacramental signs, in Sacrifice to a block or a hewn [Page]stone, without any command at all either general or particular to do it? But to remove this scruple; as I have endeavoured to do some others, it may suffice to tell him, that although our worship be not to be guided by our fancies, but the will of God; Yet where there is a general command without any Exception, to worship the Word made Flesh, there he hath given a sufficient Indication of the lawfulness of doing it, wherever we are certain by Faith that He is so present. What particular command had the Wisemen to adore Him in the Manger, or the Thief upon the Cross? Was it not enough that they had a Divine Revelation, that He was the Son of God, to move them to adore Him with Divine Worship? Or is he less adorable under the Sacramental signs, than bound up in swadling-cloths, or covered with blood and spittle? Surely it was happy for the Wise-men and the Thief, that they had not Dr. St. to direct them what to do. For had they followed his Casuistry, they must have suspended their Adoration for want of an Express Command in their particular cases.

§. 5. But he had not advanced above a Leaf farther, when it seems he perceiv'd the weakness of this Answer; and therefore to piece it out, he tells us, (p. 115.) that in case of Christ's visible appearance to us in any [Page]place, we need not a particular command in such a case to make it lawful to adore him. But that which goes against the grain of his sense and reason, is, that he should do it to him under a Veil, though he be more certain by Faith, that it is He that is there present, than if he saw him with his eyes. This is such a self-denyal, as is not to be expected from flesh and blood. And if you ask him why there is not the same reason of believing Christ to be present, as seeing him? He answers with a distinction much more subtil, than that he alledged out of Scotland, for saying the Lord's Prayer to a Saint, p. 101. that in matters of pure Revelation, where the matter propos'd to our Faith can be no Object of sense, as Christ's Infinite presence in all places as God; there he may firmly believe, and worship Him upon the credit of Divine Revelation: but speaking of the visible presence of Christ, where honour is given on the account of the divine nature, but he can be known to be present only by his Humanity in this case I say, saith he, (and his Ipse dixit must be of no less authority than that of Pythagoras) I say, the evidence of sense is necessary in ord [...]r to the true worshipping of the Person of Christ. Here is indeed an appearance of a distinction, but such an one as quite overthrows his whole discourse, for if he suppose (as he doth at present) that the Humanity of Christ is really [Page] present in the Sacrament, in such a way that it cannot be the Object of sense, he must rank it among his matters of pure Revelation, and so not only firmly believe it, but also give him worship suitable to his presence. When therefore he tells us the question is concerning the visible presence of Christ, it is manifest he either changes the state of the Question, or retracts what before he so generously granted of his Invisible presence in the Sacrament. This then is plain was but to delude the Reader, and not answer to the Question, which was, Why there is not the same reason for worshipping Christ in the Sacrament, believing him to be there upon the credit of a Divine Revelation, as if we saw Him with our eyes. But to follow him a little in his wandrings, and speak to the visible presence of Christ. In case he can be known to be present only by his Humanity, Why must the Evidence of sense be necessary in order to his worship? Was he not so present in the Womb of the Virgin, after the Angels message? Was he not so present in his Ascension after he was intercepted from his Disciples sight by a Cloud? Was he not so present, before he opened the Eyes of the two blind Men, who sate by the way side, Matth. 20. 30.? And is he not believed by all Christians to be so present at the right hand of his Father? And might none of these worship him, because [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Revel [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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. Dr. T. Preface to his Sermons. [Page] 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, that it carries not the show of a Probability. For if the Bread be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature, and not meerly into that, but into the Person of Christ, does it follow that he hath as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements consecrated? No more, than because the Bread, the Flesh, the [Page] Fish which he eat upon Earth, were converted into the substance of his Body, and hypostatically united to him, it follows, that he had as many bodies hypostatically united to him, as there were several meats eaten by him. Before Digestion or Conversion they were distinct; by Conversion they were made the same body. But if this will not serve the turn, he wants not a false supposition, to blind his Reader with, Viz. that we make the Elements, i.e. the Accidents of Bread, (for we we will have nothing else remain after Consecration in spight, he says, of all the reason and sense of the World.) the Object of divine worship. But the falsity of this supposition I shall make appear in the next Chapter; together with his mistake (if it be no more) of the meaning of the Council of Trent.

[Page]

CHAP. II.

The true State of the Controversy laid open, together with the Doctor's Endeavours to misrepresent it. His manner of arguing against the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, equally destructive to the adoration of Him, as God.

§. 1. IN pursuance of his former design, my Adversary will now undertake p. ii4. to prove yet further, that upon the Principles of the Roman Church, no Man can be assured, that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host. And this he hopes will abundantly add to the disco [...]ering of the disparity between the worship given to the Person of Christ, and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation. But before he can come to this he must needs mistake, or rather misstate the Controversy, which he does in most ample manner; when after a great many Preambles for three whole Pages together, no more to the purpose, than the Flourishes of a great Text-letter are to the force of a Bond, he tells the Reader at length that the state of the Controversy between us, is, whether [Page]proper divine worship may be given to the Elements, (i. e. the Accidents) on account of Christ's corporal presence under them? But, (whatever Divines dispute concerning the Worship of the Accidents) the Object of Catholicks Adoration (as Dr. Taylor ingenuously confesses) Viz. (What is represented to them in their mind, their thoughts and purposes) in the B. Sacrament, is the only true and Eternal God hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity: And consequently the Question between us, is, Whether supposing our Lord Christ to be really present under the Sacramental signs, the same proper divine worship be not to be given to him there which is due to his Person, wherever it is present by hypostatical union with his sacred Humanity? Let the Doctor do thus, and we have no quarrel with him; which is an evident sign, that the Question between us, is not, as he says; whether the same Adoration ought to be given to the Accidents, which we would give to the very Person of Christ? But what may not be venture to say, who had the confid [...]nce to advance so notorious a calumny, as that it is our common answer in this matter, to excuse our selves from Idolatry, that we believe the Bread to be God? I told the Reader what he was like to find neer the bottom of the Sack, when he met [Page] with such sophistical Ware at the very top. But the Doctor pretends he hath something to say here in his defence; and it is this, that the Council of Trent hath expresly determin'd that there is no manner of doubt left, Sess. 13. c. 5. but that all Christians ought to give the same worship to this Holy Sacrament, which they give to God himself. For it is not therefore less to be worshipped, because it was Instituted by Christ our Lord, that it might be taken. But who tells him that the Council here by the word Sacrament means only the Signs or Accidents of Bread? Why may it not mean the Holy Victime which is dispensed from the Altar, as St. Austin did, when he said that his Mother St. Monica had tied her Soul fast to this Sacrament by the bond of Faith? If the Council may be allowed to explicate its own meaning, we shall find the sense of the word to be, the Body of Christ, and with it his Divinity, under the Sacramental Veil: for, the reason it gives in the words immediately following, (which the Doctor conveniently leaves out) of this adoration, is, because we believe the same God to be present in it, of whom the Eternal Father said, Let all the Angels of God adore him. And this is yet more plain from the 6th. Canon, where the Anathema is denounced against those, who shall say, that in the most [Page]H. Sacrament of the Eucharist, the only begotten of God is not to be adored with the worship of Latria. But let the Council say what it will, Dr. St. says, that by the Sacrament it must understand the Elements or Accidents, as the Immediate term of that divine worship, or else the latter words, [that the Sacrament ought not less to be adored, because it was instituted to be taken] signify nothing at all. And why so? Do Catholicks understand nothing by the Sacrament, but the Accidents! Or was nothing instituted to be taken, but the bare signs of Bread and Wine? Dr. St. is, or would be, an Author of great Authority; and from his own Confession we have it, (p. 111.) that the Holy Sacrament according to Catholicks is the Body of Christ under the Accidents of Bread. These are his own words: and if he will not believe the Council, let him believe himself, whether he do so, or no, [...] proceeding upon his supposition, that proper divine worship is to be given to the Accidents▪ he affirms, (p. 118.) that this is not denied, that he knows of, by any who understand the Doctrine or Practise of the Roman Church, I leave to the Reader to judg, when he shall have heard what Bellarmin, an Author not unacquainted with the Doctrin and Practise of the Church, says in this matter.Bellarm. de Euch. li. 4. c. 29. There is not, saith he, any one [Page]Catholick, who teaches that the External Symbols per se, (that is, absolutely) and properly are to be adored with the worship of Latria, but only to be reverenced with a certain inferiour worship, which is due to all Sacraments. What we affirm is, that Christ is properly and per se to be adored with the worship of Latria, and that this adoration belongs also to the Symbols of Bread and Wine, under which he is contained, as they are apprehended united with him, in such manner as those who adored him apparl'd upon Earth, did not adore him alone, but quodammodo, in a certain kind his Garments also. For neither 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 [Page] 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[Page]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 pres [...]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[Page]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, [Page]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 [Page] it self. And, (not to tire the Reader with particular Reflexions upon the s [...]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 [Page]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, 2 Pet. 3. 16. that there are certain things in Scripture hard to be [Page]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, [Page]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.

[Page]

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 [Page]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.

[Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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[Page]Idolatry, for so the Doctor calls it (p. 124.) and that without any Proof at all, but the old Ipse dixit, that without the Intention of the Priest in consecrating, it can be nothing else.

§. 2. The second Medium he takes (p. 125) to prove that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be assured, that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host, is, that no Man can be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving this worship to it. And the substance of the reason he gives, is, because if I worship Christ, saith he, in the Sacrament, it is upon account of his corporal presence, and he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church, that the humane Nature of Christ considered alone, ought not to have divine honour given to it; and hotly disputed among them, whether Christ's humane nature, though united to the divine, ought abstractedly considered, to have any true divine honour given it. And what will he infer from hence? That therefore he cannot be satisfied, that he hath sufficient reason for giving true divine honour to the humane nature of Christ considered alone, or abstractedly, in the Sacrament? Much good may it do him. But what is this to the purpose? Do Catholicks adore the Humanity of Christ alone, or abstractedly in the Sacrament? Do they separate, or abstract in their minds and [Page] thoughts his Body from his Person, when they adore him there▪ No more than the Wise-men did, when they adored him in the Manger, or the Apostles, when they adored him after his Resurrection; Or, than he is adored now at the right hand of his Father. All those Precisions and Considerations the Doctor speaks of, are only in the Heads of the Schoolmen, when they are disputing, not in the minds of Christians, when they are adoring. The Object they adore, whether in the Sacrament, or out of it, is the only-begotten Son of God made Man, without separating or abstracting one nature from another, any more than we do the King's Body from his Soul, when we worship him. And as Mr. Thorndike very well observes,Epil. 3. part. p. 350. whosoever proposeth not to himself the consideration of the Body and Blood of Christ, as it is of it self, and in it self a meer Creature (which he that doth not on purpose cannot do) cannot but conceive it, as he believes it to be, being a Christian: And consequently the primary reason of his adoration, is the divinity there present. I, but says the Doctor, when I worship Christ as in the Sacrament, I must worship him there upon the account of his bodily presence, for I have no other reason, to worship him in the Sacrament, but because his Body is present in it. And what may [Page] this mean? Have the Niceties and Precisions of the Schools so perplex'd his understanding, that he hath lost the very first Notions of Christianity? Is it not Christ's Body? Are they not the very words of Christ, This is my Body? And is not Christ true God? How comes it to pass then that he hath no other reason to worship him in the Sacrament, but because his Body is present in it? This indeed is the reason why his Divinity, as hypostatically united to his Humane Nature, is present in the Sacrament; but the reason of his being adored there is his Divinity, and not his Body. Philosophy tells us, that it is one thing that makes a Man to be in a place, and another, that makes him to be worshipped in that place: and yet he would not be worshipped there for this latter, unless he were present by vertue of the former. The speculation may not seem so clear to such as are not vers'd in the Schools; but an example will make it plain. There is a Preacher in the World much admired and honoured by his Party in the Pulpit. That which makes him to be present there, (or is the reason of his presence there,) is his Quantity or Bodily Dimensions; but what he is admired for and honoured, is his Wit, his Eloquence, his Zeal against Papists, &c. These are the Qualities for which I hear he is applauded, and I easily believe it. But if my Adversaries discourse [Page] be good (whom I take to have as much Eloquence, and to be of as subtil a wit, and of as flaming a Zeal as the other) I must tell his Admirers they are in a very great Errour, as to the reason of their admiration: and I doubt not but to make it appear upon his own Principles. For I find it generally agreed by all the old Philosophers, and by the Doctors also at present of both Universities, that Quantity, or corporal dimension, considered alone, ought not to have civil worship given to it: and I find it very uncertain, whether the Body it self though united to the Soul, ought, abstractedly considered, to have any true civil honour given it. But I am most certain that the only reason why he is present in the Pulpit, is his Quantity or Bodily dimensions; Therefore if they will honour or admire him in the Pulpit, it must be upon the account of his bodily presence, or corporal dimensions; and not for those other great parts and abilities for which they have hitherto admired him in that place; for if they consider well, they have no other reason to honour him, as in the Pulpit, but because his Body is present in it. And I am of Opinion, that if any thing can cure them of their Error, it will be the Parallel Argument, he brings against the worship of Christ in the Sacrament. Viz. that because worship must be given him there upon the account of his [Page] bodily presence, as the condition why his divinity as united with his humane Nature is there present; Therefore his Bodily Presence and not his Divinity united to it, must be the reason of adoration. As for what he adds, (p. 127.) That supposing Transubstantiation his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no End; I suppose he means by that particular manner, the hypostatical union with his humane nature wherever it is: And doth it not well become a Master in Israel to affirm that such a presence of the Divinity would be to no end, when and where himself supposes the Body of Christ to be really and substantially present? There wants but one step more, to deny that the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature to the Humane was necessary at all, either for Christ's offering himself upon the Cross, or now at the right hand of his Father; for although the Ceremony of offering him upon the Altar be performed by the Priest, yet Christ himself is there also both Offerer and Oblation, Priest and Victim, as the Fathers teach. [S. Greg. Niss. Orat. 1. de Resurr. S. Ambr. in Ps. 31. 1. Chrysost. Ho. 24. in 1. ad Cor.] Well, but the Divinity of Christ makes not the least manifestation of it self in the Sacrament to our carnal senses; And must this hinder us from giving him the worship due to his Person? Is it not enough that we [Page] know Him to be there by divine Revelation, as the Doctor at present supposes we do? What other manifestation had the Divinity of Christ made of it self to the Baptist, when before the appearing of the Holy Ghost he refused to Baptize him? An evident sign that he reverenc'd him as the Son of God, Matth. 3. 13, 14. Did not our Saviour himself, when St. Peter confessed him to be Christ the Son of the living God, declare that Flesh and Blood had not revealed this to him, but his Father which is in Heaven? And upon that very account pronounce Him Blessed? Matt. 16. 17. But it seems the Blessing is now revers'd, and instead of Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed, Jo. 20. 29. We must now say, Blessed are they who will not believe unless they see, Dr. St. p. 561. n. 5. And what will the end of this be, but the banishing Faith and Christianity out of the World?

§. 3. After all these endeavours to wrest out of our hands the supposition he so freely granted (p. 110.) of the same Revelation for Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, as for his Divinity, he would bring the business at last to a Composition, if we will beg of him to yield that the Body of Christ being present, his Divinity is there present too. And I am not so nice, (if it will come no cheaper way) as not to begg it of him, for Christianity's sake: but [Page]then he adds that even upon this supposition, that Christ's Divinity is present with his Body in the Sacrament, (p. 127.) his mind must still unavoidably rest unsatisfied as to the Adoration of the Host. For, supposing the divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account, to give the same worship to the thing wherein he is present, as I do to Christ himself. But here again he relapses into his former mistake of the Controversy, which (in spight of the practise of Catholicks, which is to adore Christ under the Accidents, in like manner as he was worshipped in his Apparel,) he will have to be, that proper divine worship is to be given to the Accidents: For, this is what he means here by the Host. Let him state the Question as it ought to be, that is, Whether Christ may not be worshipped under the Accidents, as well as in his Garments? Or (if he will needs mix the Questions of the Schools with those of Faith) Whether the Accidents may not be worshipped together with Christ, in like manner as his Garments were worshipped together with Him? And the Controversy will quickly be at an End. But, (not to tire the Reader with following him in his Repetitions) his scruple, if I mistake not, at present, is, why, supposing the divine nature present in any thing gives no ground to worship every thing in which he is present; yet his presence in the Eucharist should be a sufficient [Page] reason to worship the Accidents together with him? And to this I give Bellarmin's answer, lib. 4. de Euch. c. 30. (which I take also to be the sense of Greg. de Valentia, in the place cited by the Doctor.) Longe aliter Christus est in Eucharistia, &c. That Christ is in the Eucharist in a far different manner, than God is in other things. For in the Eucharist there is but one only Suppositum, and that divine: All other things there present belong to that, and in a certain manner make one with that, though not in the same manner. (mark that) Hence it is that the whole is rightly worshipped together, as we said before of Christ apparell'd. But although God be in all other things, yet not so, that he is one Suppositum with them, nor is there such an Union between God and the Creature in which he is, that they can be said to be in a manner One. By this it appears, that as Greg. de Valentia deservedly calls this presence of Christ to the Accidents, an admirable Conjuction, so the Doctor unjustly imposes upon Bellarmin, that he grants as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Accidents, as between the divine and humane Nature; for although Bellarmin say, that all things there present, in a certain manner make One with the Suppositum, yet he declares expresly, that it is not in the same manner. But [Page]here the Doctor complains of un-intelligible terms and notions used in this matter; And might he not do the same with as much reason of the terms and Notions used by the School-men in explicating the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation? How un-intelligible soever the School-terms appear to him, yet it is very easy to understand that neither Greg. de Valentia, nor Bellarmin mean to give divine honour to the Accidents for themselves; and yet much easier to understand what Christian People mean, when they profess, the Object of their Adoration in the Eucharist, to be the only begotten Son of God under the Accidents of Bread and Wine. As for what he alledges out of Vasquez, that supposing the presence of Christ to be the Ground of Adoration, it follows in his Opinion, that God may very lawfully be adored by us in any created Beeing, wherein he is intimately present; I have spoken to it in the 5th. Chapt. of the 1. Part: And as Vasquez himself acknowledges the danger of that Doctrine if it should be commonly and publickly put in practise by the People; (for possibly there may be another consideration for Philosophical and Contemplative Men in their private Devotions, as St. Leo there cited seems to grant) so if the Doctrine be Good, what follows from thence is that Christ, being supposed to be really present [Page] in the Sacrament, and in a particular manner by Transubstantiation, may most certainly be adored in it. Vasquez was a Man of great learning, and of a searching wit, but it is noted of him, as of Lactantius, that he was more subtil in oppugning the Opinions of others, than solid in establishing his own.

[Page]

CHAP. IV.

Dr. St.'s Fundamental Principle of judging of matters proposed to our Belief by Sense and Reason, shown to be absurd in it self, and destructive to Christianity.

§. 1. WE come now to the Doctor's Second Proposition, that there are not the same Motives and Grounds to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, p. 130. that there are to believe that Christ is God: which, he saith, I affirm without any appearance of reason. And he would gladly know what excellent Motives and Reasons those are, which so advantageously recommend so absurd a doctrine as Transubstantiation is, as to make any Man think he hath reason to believe it. He is sure, he saith, it gives the greatest advantage to the Enemies of Christ's Divinity, to see these two put together upon equal terms, as though no Man could have reason to believe Christ to be the Eternal Son of God, that did not at the same time swallow the greatest Contradictions to sense and reason imaginable. This is a Topick, in which the Doctor wonderfully delights himself (as all others have done before him who have deserted [Page] the Faith of the Church.) We have it over and over at every turn; as if the whole System of Christian Faith, and every particular Article of it, were to be measured by the Standard of Sense and Reason; so that if any thing seem absurd and contradictory to them, no grounds or motives can recommend it so advantageously, as to make any Man think he hath reason to believe it. This is what lies at the bottom of his Discourse; and himself lays it down for the only Principle o [...] Criterium by which we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation, when in his second C [...]asse of Principles, he affirms, There can be no other means imagined, p. 561. n. 5. whereby we are to judg of the Truth of divine Revelation, but a Faculty in us of discerning truth and falshood in matters propos'd to our Belief: which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of divine Revelation, we must be imposed upon by every thing which pretends to be so. The perfect discussion of this Principle, I shall not engage my [...] in at present. The Men of Principles, (as the Doctor calls them not without just cause) are likely enough to take it into Consideration a second, and perhaps a third time too. At present it may suffice to shew briefly now absurd in it self, and how destructive to Christian Religion this Principle of the Doctor's is, Viz. That [Page]we are to judge of the truth of divine Revelation, (i.e. whether God have revealed such a thing, or no) by exercising our Faculty of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief: that is, by making our Reason the Judge, whether the matter proposed to our belief be true or false. This is what I can understand by the Doctor's words to be his meaning. If He can give them a better, I shall be glad to find my self mistaken. But if this be, (as to me it seems to be) the sense of his words, I am sorry that any thing so irrational in its self, and so fatal to Religion, should proceed from the Pen of a Christian. For first, as I said, it is absurd in it self, because it can by no means subsist, unless we will equal Man's knowledge with that of God. For▪ if Man cannot comprehend the depth of the knowledge and power of God, (that is, if God both know and can do, more than Man can understand) it is evident, that the judgment of sense and reason about the Truth of the matter proposed, can never be a [...]it means to assure him whether God have revealed it, or no; and it is as evident on the contrary, that if it be sufficiently proposed and asserted as revealed by God, though it seem never so absurd and contradictory to humane sense and reason, we must submit our judgment to the belief of it, as True. 'T [...]s not all our reasonings and syllogisms against [Page] the matter proposed, that can excuse us from the Obligation of c [...]ptivating our Unde [...]standing to the Obedience of Christ. 2 Cor. 10. 5. That which seems a Camel to us, is not so much as a Gnat to the knowledge and power of God, and therefore rather than give Him the lye, we must strain our selves to swallow what seems to be the greatest Contradiction to Sense and Reason Imaginable. Our first Mother Eve, by taking part with her sense against Faith, destroyed her Self and Posterity by believing the Devil rather than God; and what more suitable Penance for this Fault, or Cure for this Pride, than for God to exact of us, that we should believe Him rather than our sense? and this particularly in the point of Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Redeemer; that as by following sense, and eating the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Death came upon all, both of Soul and Body; so all may receive Life by denying the suggestions of Sense, and eating the true food of the Body of Christ, under the forme of Bread. 2dly, It is destructive to Christianity, since if we must believe nothing, but what our Sense and Reason can comprehend, we must lay aside our Creed, and neither believe the Creation of the World, nor the Trinity of Persons, nor the Incarnation of the Son of God, nor the Resurrection of the Dead: all which seem [Page] to imply as many and great Absurdities and Contradictions, as the Doctor, for his heart, can Object against Transubstantiation. It would be too tedious to insist upon them all: Those who are curious may meet with them every where in the Writings both of those who impugn, and of those who defend the Catholick belief in those Points. Yet to give the Reader a clearer Insight into the absurdness and malignity of this Principle of the Doctors, and how agreeable this proceeding of his is in this Point to that of other Desertors of the Church's Faith: I shall instance in some of the Contradictions objected against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; and that in the words of Dr. Beaumont (now Master of Peter-House in Cambridge) in his most excellent Poem call'd Psyche, or Love's Mystery. Verses I know, in a Book of Controversy will seem as improper, and come as unexpected, as a Garden of Flowers in a rough and craggy Des [...]rt; but a Traveller will not find fault with his Guide for leading him thorough it, if he lead him not out of his way. My Adversary, without any occasion given him, to please the Atheistical humour of the Wits of the Time, could think fit to turn Spiritual Archy, and make sport with the Saints in so prophane a manner, as is no where to be parallel'd in the worst of Play-Books. And I hope after so [Page] many hard and spiny Questions of the Schools wherewith he hath perplex'd the minds of his sober Readers, I may have leave to divert them with citing a little Poetry, which doth but express in Verse, what the matter it self leads me to have said in Prose: See then how the aforesaid Dr. Beaumont introduces a Cerinthian Heretick endeavouring to seduce Psyche (that is, the Soul) from the belief of the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity upon Dr. St.'s Principles of Sense and Reason. Canto 15.

[213]

Blind Ignorance was grown so bold,

Before Cerinthus came.

that she

Sought to perswade the World it had no eyes.

Making the lazy Name of Mystery

Instead of Demonstration suffice.

From this black Pit those monstrous Prodigies

So Cerinthus calls the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation

Of Hood-wink'd and abused Faith did rise.

[214]

Who can imagin Heaven would e're ob'rude

Upon the Faith of Reasonable Men,

That which against all Reason doth conclude,

And founded is on Contradiction?

Sure God so strange a Law did never give,

That Men must not be Men if they believe.

[Page]

[219]

For though the Marvel-Mongers † grant that He

Was moulded up but of a Mortal Mettal,

And that his substance was the same, which we

Find in our selves to be so weak and brittle:

Yet an Eternal God they make Him too,

And angry are, that we will not do so.

[220]

Thus the quaint madness of a dreaming Brain

Holds the same thing a Mountain and a Mite,

Fancies the Sun▪ (Light's Royal Soveraign)

To look like swarthy and ignoble Night:

Imagins wretched Worms, although it see

They crawl in D [...]rt, Illust [...]ious Kings to be.

[221]

But Heaven forbid, that we should so blaspheme

And think our God, as poor a thing as we.

How can Eternity be born in Time?

How can Infinity a Baby be?

Or how can Heaven and Earth's Almighty Lord

To Aegypt fly for fear of Herod's Sword?

[226]

I know they strive to mince the matter by

Distinguishing his Natures. For their Art

Being asham'd of no Absurdity

H [...]mself from his own self presumes to part.

Yet we durst not admit a Deity,

Which must on a distinction builded be.

[Page]

[227]

But how much more than Mad, their doctrine is,

And how transcending Pagan Blasphemy,

Who not content to make a God of This

Both Passible and Mortal Jesus, try

To thrust Him into one substantial knot

With his Eternal sire, who Him begot?

[228]

Two yet not Two, but One these Two must be,

Nay and a Third into the knot they bring,

The Spirit must come in to make up Three,

And yet these Three be but one single Thing.

Thus fast and loose they play, or ev'n and odd,

And We a juggling Trick must have for God.

[229]

If God be One, then let Him be so still,

Why jumble we, we know not what together?

Did all the World not know their God untill

This old blind Age discover'd Him? Did neither

The Patriarks believe, nor Prophets see

Aright, because They took not One for Three?

[231]

Let Love and Duty make of Christ as high

And Glorious a Thing, as Wit can reach,

Provided that against the Deity

No Injury nor Sacriledge they preach;

If only on such terms He lov'd may be,

Him to neglect is Piety, say we.

[Page]

And then a little after he concludes.

[234]

For If your Faith relies on Men, who are

Themselves but founded and built up of dust;

If yo [...] by Reason's Rule disdain to square

Yo [...]r P [...]ety, and take your God on Trust,

(Which Heaven forbid) You only are a Prize

Unto Impostor's fair-tongu'd Fallacies.

Thus doth this Ingenious Person represent an Heretick in his true Colours, arguing against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, upon the Principles with which Doctor St. [...] the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, a [...]d in terms so equivalent, that the Dr. seems but to have resolv'd into Prose what the other wrote in Verse; as may appear from this following Parallel. 'Tis Ignorance and Madness, saith the Cerinthian Heretick, to believe that God can be Three and One, and that Christ is God, Stanz. 213. 220. 'Tis Folly and Madness saith Dr. St. to believe Transubstantiation, (He becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man.) p. 120. The Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are monstrous Prodigies of abused Faith, saith the Cerinthian, Stanz. 213. Transubstantiation, saith D. St. is so strange and sudden a change, that he can hardly say, that God becoming Man was so great a wonder, as [Page]a little piece of bread becoming God, p. 120. The Cerinthian affirms of the Trinity and Incarnation, that they are against all reason, and founded on Contradictions, Stanz. 214. Dr. St. affirms of Transubstantiation, that it is absurd, and for a Man to believe it, he must swallow the greatest Contradictions to Sense and Reason Imaginable, p. 130. In a word the Cerinthian makes his Sense and Reason to be the Rule of his Faith, Stanz. 234. And Dr. St. will believe nothing that seems to contradict them, p. 561. Only the Cerinthian affirms the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation to transcend Pagan-blasphemy, which I do not see yet that Dr. St. [...]ath ventured to say of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Perhaps he will reply to this Parallel, that the difficulties the Cerinthian objects against the Trinity and Incarnation, are but seeming Contradict [...]ons; but those in the Point of Transubstantiation are real ones: but then he must grant according to his Principles, that whilst they seem to be Contradictions, they are not to be believed by those to whom they seem so, that is, by the unlearned, who are the greatest part. Or if they may notwithstanding believe those Mysteries, they may much rather believe that of Transubstantiation, since it seems a greater Contradiction, that the very self same Nature should be whole and undivided in three distinct Persons, than [Page] that the same Body should be in many places; and that the Invisible Word should be made Flesh, than that Bread should be converted into that Flesh. How Dr. St. will extricate himself I know not; but the way which Dr. Beaumont takes to secure the Soul from being startled with these seeming Contradictions, is to introduce her Angel Guardian, Canto. 16. conducting her to Christ's Catholick Church, the Ground and Pillar of Truth. And upon this Ground it is, (For in his Preface, he recants aforehand, if any thing throughout the whole Poem should happen against his Intention, to prove discord to the Consent of Christ's Catholick Church) that he makes the Angel perswade his Pupil to contemn all the seeming Contradictions, which crafty and subtil Wits object against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, if not against Transubstantiation it self. And because the Book is not every where to be found (as not having been so often Printed as Dr. St.'s, because there is no Prophane Invective in it against the Persons and Lives of Gods Saints) I shall venture to Transcribe another parcel of Verses out of it,Canto. 12. so proper to the present subject, as if written on purpose by the Ingenious Author, to crush in the Egg those secret workings of Atheism and Irreligion, [Page] which the aforesaid Principle is apt to breed in the Wits of this Age, under so colourable a pretence, as that of not being fool'd out of their Sense and Reason.

[74]

When Jesus by his Water cleansed had

His Servant's Feet, and by his Grace their Hearts

Shewing what Preparation must be made

By all who ever mean to have their Parts.

In his pure Banquet: down he sits again

And them with Miracles doth entertain.

And then having described the Institution

of the Sacrament, he goes on.

[81]

Sweet Jesu! O how can thy World forget

Their Royal Saviour, and his Bounty, who

Upon their Tables his own self hath set;

Who in their Holy Cups fails not to flow,

And in their Dishes lie. Did ever Friend

So sure a Token of his Love commend?

[82]

Infallibly there dost Thou flow and lie;

Though mortal Eyes discover no such thing▪

Quick-sighted Faith reads all the Mystery,

And humble Pious Souls doth easily bring

Into the Wonder's Cabinet; and there

Makes all the Jewels of this Truth appear.

[Page]

[83]

Shee generously dares on God rely

And trust his Word, how strange so e're it be:

If Jesus once pronounces, This is my

Body and Blood; Far, far, be it, cries she,

That I should think my dying Lord would cheat

Me in his Legacy of Drink and Meat.

[84]

(His Word is most Omnipotent, and He

Can do what e're he says; and more than I

Can or would understand. What is't to me

If He transcends Humane Capacity?

Surely it well becomes Him so to do,

Nor were He God, if he could not do so;

[85]

Let Him say what He will I must deny

Him to be God, or else believe His Word;

Me it concerneth not to verify

What he proclaims; I only must afford

Meek Credit, and let Him alone to make

Good, whatsoever He is pleas'd to speak)

[86]

Gross and unworthy Spirits sure They be,

Who of their Lord such mean Conceptions frame,

That parting from his dearest Consorts, He

No Tokens of his Love did leave with Them,

But simple Bread and Wine; a likely Thing,

And well-becoming Heavens Magnificent King.

[Page]

[88]

Ask me not then, How can the Thing be done,

What power of Sense or Reason can digest it?

Fools as you are, what Demonstration

So evident as this, My God profest it?

And if you once can prove, that He can lie,

This Wonder, and Him too, I will deny.

[89]

What thank is it, that you can credit that

Which your own sense & Reason's eye reads plain?

Heaven's much to them beholden, who will not

Believe it higher is, than they can strain;

Who jealous are of God, and will not be

Induc'd to trust Him further than they see.

[90]

And yet had you these modest eyes of mine,

The words of the Angel to the Soul.

You in this gloomy Cloud would see the Sun;

That Sun who wisely doth disdain to shine

On those, who with bold prying press upon

His secret Majesty, which plainly I

Because I make no anxious search, descry.

[91]

This is the valorous Resolution

Of Gallant Faith: and this will serve to be

The Blessed Rule, by which all those must run,

Who are the Scholars of Humility.

Yet I must tell thee Psyche, itching Pride

VVill not hereafter thus be satisfied:

[Page] And then having inveigh'd in the following Stanza's, against those, who will needs be prying with the skill, they take for granted hath fill'd their brains; (that is with the Doctor's faculty of discerning Truth and falshood) into the manner how this Miracle is brought to pass, He concludes with these words in favour of Transubstantiation.

[99]

It is in vain to tell these Wranglers how

Jesus could graft cold Stones into the stock

Of Abraham, and make them fertil grow

In Israelites; or that the Bread he took

In's daily Diet, was not wholly spent,

But part into his Body's substance went.

[100]

In vain to tell them, how into his Blood

The Wine he drank was changed day by day.

For though such speculations understood

With prudent Reverence might make easier way

Unto the Mystery; yet Wranglers will

Because they will be so, be Wranglers still.

This and much more to this Purpose, (which not to surfet the Reader with too many delicacies I omit) saith the Author of that Illustrious Poem; in which to the satisfaction of all that read it himself hath made appear to the World, what his Modesty made him willing to expect rather from [Page] others, that a Divine Theam is as capable and happy a subject of Poetical Ornament, as any Pagan or Humane device whatsoever. And would the Gallants of both Sexes employ as many of their precious Hours in reading this excellent Piece, as they do in Romances and Play-Books, I dare be bold to affirm, (though perhaps I shall not be credited) They would find not only more substance, but more delight in this than in the best of them. But to return to my present business. My design was to let the Reader see, how far my Adversary's beloved Principles of Sense and Reason, are from being fit Umpires, to judge of matters proposed as of divine Revelation; particularly in what relates to the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist, and I thought I could not do it better, than in the words of this learned and Ingenious Author, whose whole Discourse seems but a Descant upon those words of St. Chrysostom, when speaking of this Mystery to the People of Antioch, Hom. 60. ad pop. he saith, Let us obey God in all things, and not gain-say Him, though what is said, seem to contradict both our Imaginations and Eyes. Let his word obtain more credit from us, than our thoughts or sight. And thus let us behave our selves in the Mysteries (that is in the most Holy Sacrament) not beholding only those things which lye before us, [Page](viz. the Symbols of Bread and Wine) but holding fast his words. For his Word is Infallible but our sense is easy to be deceived. That never fails, but this most frequently mistakes. Because therfore the Word saith. This is my Body, let us obey and believe and behold Him with the eyes of our Understanding. If the Doctor will not do so, but will have his Readers to measure matters of Faith by the Rule of Sense and Reason, and not trust God farther than they can see with them, I am sure he gives a far greater advantage to the Enemies of the most Holy Trinity and Christ's Divinity by so unChristian a Principle, than we can possibly do by asserting a like divine Revelation for his being present in the Eucharist, as for his being true God, notwithstanding the seeming contradictions that occur in it.

But perhaps the Doctor w [...]ll say, that I am mistaken all this while, and that he meant no such thing by the use of Reason: For I remember now, that when upon his Asserting,In his 3d. Answ. to the 1. Quest. p. 7. that Catholicks expose the Faith of Christia [...]s to a great uncertainty, by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason, as to the matters of Faith prop [...]sed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church: (which if it say any thing to the purpose, it must be this, that because Men must make use of their [Page] reason to find out the true Ground of believing (which Catholicks affirm to be the Church) therefore they must believe nothing which the Church proposes as a matter of Faith, but what the Faculty in them (called reason) of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our belief, shall judge to be true in it self; for otherwise how doth it follow that they expose the Faith of Christians to uncertain [...]y?) when I say upon this assertion of his, I supposed (and clearly enough I think) that the use he would have of reason, was to believe nothing, but what his reason could understand, He assures me (p. 542.) upon his word that he meant no such thing, for I believe, saith he, an Infinite Being, and all the Doctrines revealed by it in H. Scriptures, although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those Conceptions we call Reason. But here I observe first, (as no very great sign that he means not by the use of Reason, what I supposed) that he doth not tell us of any one particular Article he believes with that terrible condition, unless he mean he cannot reconcile all particulars concerning the existence of a Deity; but huddles them up in a blind Universal, that he believes all the Doctrines revealed by God in the H. Scriptures; as if it were enough for a Christian to believe in general all that God hath revealed in Scripture, without troubling himself about the [Page] Sense of any thing in particular, for fear of over-straining his Reason to swallow something that may seem a Contradiction. And I confess the Letter of the Scripture may be a sufficient Rule of such a Faith. 2dly, This Assertion of his exposes the Faith of Christians to as great uncertainty as that he charges upon Catholicks; by its denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith revealed by God in the Scriptures, when they must necessarily use them to find out the Scriptures, and the existence of a Deity. For whether the Scripture or the Church be supposed to be the Ground of believing, the case is the same as to the Point of Reason. Men must be allowed the use of their Judgment and Reason in the search of both. And therefore he must either acknowledge his Charge to have been groundless when he taxed Catholicks for exposing Faith to uncertainty; or he must grant to Men, (though it be with contradicting himself, which is much easier to do, than to swallow the least seeming Contradiction in a matter of Faith) that they may and ought to make use of their discerning Faculty, as to the truth or falshood of matters proposed to our belief, which I confess I take to be the same, as to believe no more than their Reason can comprehend: and so if Reason chance to meet with some seeming Contradiction, with which it is not able [Page] or willing to grapple, the Article ought and must be exploded for such a monstrous Prodigy of hood wink'd and abused Faith▪ as no Man can imagine God would e're obtrude upon the Faith of Reasonable Men.

But here again perhaps he will say, that although God may impose upon us an Obligation of believing against the Conceptions of our Reason, yet he cannot do it against the suggestion of our sense, because, as he asserts, p. 540. This would be to overthrow all certainty of Faith, where the matters to be believed depend upon matt [...]r of Fact. But here I would desire to know what Angel from Heaven reveal'd this Doctrin to him. Suppose in the case of the two Disciples at Emmaus, that our Saviour had vanished out of their sight, before he brake bread, might he not h [...]ve told them afterwards that it was He who had appeared to them in a disguise, without overthrowing all the certainty of Faith, where matters to be believed depend upon matter of Fact? St. Chrysostome above cited I am sure was of another mind in the very point of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, when he bids us obey God in that mystery, though what he say seem to contradict our thoughts and eyes. And so was St. Cyril too, when he exhorts Christians not to consider it as naked Bread and Wine, for it [...][Page]Blood of Christ according to the words of Christ himself. And although sense do suggest this to the [...], (viz. that it is Bread) yet let Faith confirm thee. Do not judge of the thing by thy tast, but know, and hold for most certain, that this Bread which is seen of us, is not Bread, though the tast judge it to be Bread, but the Body of Christ, and that the Wine which is seen by us, although it seem Wine to the sense of tasting, notwithstanding is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ. This is what these Holy Fathers teach in this matter; and with great reason; for as God is not only God of the Hills, 3 Kings 20. but also of the Valleys; So is he God not on [...]y of our Reason, but of our Senses also. And if the Antidote his Goodness hath pr [...]scrib'd to Cure our Corrupt Nature, be prepared in such a manner as requires the captivating of our Sense as well as of our Understanding, who shall question either his Wisdome or Power? He hath said, This is my Body, though it appear to us to be bread. And this being but one Exception from the General Rule of Sensation; why that should overthrow all certainty of Faith, more than so many exceptions, as the Trinity and other Mysteries lay upon the General Rules of our Reasoning, I leave to all Men of sense and Reason to judge. O but this is the strangest of Miracles, and Miracles ought to be the objects of sense, I grant it of [Page] such Miracles, as are done for the Conversion of Unbelievers; but this is not done upon such an account, but for the Sanctification of those who believe already. And for these it is enough that Christ hath said, It is his Body. They know very well the danger of not believing him more than their senses. And that others may know it also, I shall set it before them in the words of St. Epiphanius, no less than 1300. Years ago. We see (saith he speaking of the Blessed Sacrament) that It is neither equal, In Ancor. Circ. Med. nor like in proportion or Image to his Flesh, to the Invisible Deity, to the lineaments of a Body, for this is of a round forme, and insensible according to power. And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace, This is my Body, every one believeth his saying. For, who believeth not that it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace and Salvation. Thus much to the Doctors Principles of Sense and Reason. Let us now see what he says against the Grounds and Motives of Transubstantiation.

[Page]

CHAP. V.

A Check to the Doctor's bigg words against the Grounds of Transubstantiation; with a new Example of reporting faithfully (as he calls it) the Words and Sense of an Author.

§. 1. TO show there are not the same Grounds and Motives for Christs presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation, as for his Divinity, my Adversary instances in Three. 1. The Authority of the Roman Church. 2. Catholick Tradition. 3. Scripture. And for the first of these, Viz. The Authority of the Roman Church, if it have any at all, it stands against the Doctor for Transubstantiation, and that so evidently, that he is forced to take the confidence (p. 130.) utterly to deny that to be any ground of believing at all. For my part I believe every sober Person of his own Party will judge he had much better have said nothing at all. And I cannot but think how St. Austin, who calls the Chair of Peter that Rock, In Ps. cont. Part. Donat. Ep. 162. which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome: and professes that the Principality of the Apostolick[Page]Chair did always conserve its vigour in the Roman Church, would have startled to hear one single Doctor so pertly deny it to be any Ground at all of believing. How St. Hierome, who writing to Pope Damasus, saith,Ep. ad Damas. I know that upon this Rock the Church is built; and whosoever eateth the Lamb out of this House is Prophane, &c. would have whetted his stile more against him for denying her Authority to be any Ground of believing at all, than ever he did against Vigilantius, for deriding Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Relicks, or Lighting Candles at Noon-Day in the Church, &c. And how St. Irenaeus would have excluded him out of the Society of Christians, Li. 3. c. 3. for this peremptory behaviour, when he affirms it necessary for all other Churches (convenire) to have recourse, and agree with the Roman by reason of its more eminent Principality. That this was the Dignity and Prerogative of the Roman Church in the time of these Holy Fathers, the Doctor himself cannot deny; and if he pretend she is fallen from the Purity she then enjoyed, it is but what the Donatists his Predecessors in this point, said above twelve hundred years ago, when (as St. Austin tells us) they call'd the Apostolick Chair, Li. 1. cont. lit. Petilian. c. 51. the Chair of Pestilence, [Page] because it oppos'd their Novelities, as it does his at present. And although the Challenge have been often made, yet none of her Adversaries have ever been able to show the time when she fell from he [...] Primitive Purity, either into Schism, or Heresy. Nor yet before what Tribunal her cause w [...]s examined, or by what Judge she hath been condemned, unless by themselves, who are her Accusers; whereas not only Piety, but even Natural Reason teaches, that no particular Man is to be condemned, much less deprived of what he stands possessed, till his cause be Juridically heard and sentenced. Nor ought any Man to be Judge in his [...]wn cause, much less to execute the sentence given by himself: All which the New-Reformers in England, France, Germany, &c. have done in denying the Authority of the Roman Church, and setting up for themselves.

§. 2. But now instead of making Good his Assertion, Viz. That the Authority of the Roman Church is no ground of believing at all; he desires, he saith, with all his heart to see this Authority proved: which is just what all other Accusers do when their Proofs fail, to call upon [...]he Defendant to prove his Title, which after a long Possession ought in all Law to stand Good and Valid, till the Accuser can prove it to be otherwise. Cromwell might with much more reason have summon'd [Page] the King to prove his Title to the Crown after a Prescription of 500. Years, than the Doctor can exact it from the Church to prove her Authority, of which she hath been in Possession a far longer time. Olim possideo, Prior possideo was the Church's Plea in Tertullian's time. 'Tis their part then to prove, who are the Accusers; yet Catholick Authors to satisfy, if possible, the importunity of the Church's Adversaries, have receded from the Rigour of this Plea, and written large Volumes in Justification of her Authority; Particularly the two learned Cardinals, Bellarmin and Perron: And now very lately Mr. E. W. (The Book is called Religion and Reason, and being written particularly against the Doctor, expects his Answer.) These he may consult at his leasure; I shall only at present remind him of what I have proved already at his request in the first Chapter of the first Part, (to which I refer the Reader,) Viz. That a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church: And then subsume; But every Christian is bound to submit to the terms of Communion of that Church, whose Communion by being a Christian he is bound to be of. Therefore every Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to submit to the terms of Communion required by the Roman Church: And this the Doctor knows [Page] (for he often complains of it as a great violence put upon his Sense and Reason) to be a submission to her Decrees in matters of Faith; and particularly in the Point of Christ's presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation, as well as of his being the same True and Consubstantial God with his Father.

§. 2. The Second Ground or Motive he Instances in, (and I suppose he will deny this too to be any ground of believing at all) is Catholick Tradition. This done, he bids me again, to prove if I can (as if it belong'd not at all to him who is the Accuser to prove his Action; or as if it had been some new point which no Catholick Author had ever yet attempted to prove) that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from our Saviour's time: and here, he saith, when I please he shall joyn issue with me, And if I think fit to put the Negative upon him, he will undertake to instance in an Age, since the first Three Centuries, wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops (yea of Rome it self) be to be credited, Transubstantiation was not believed. These are bigg words indeed, and the Doctor might have done well to have remembred what the King of Israel answered to the proud message of the King of Syria, 3 Kings 20. 11. Let not him that [Page]girdeth on his Harness, boast himself as he that putteth it off. But it is no new Artifice in our Adversaries, then to speak biggest, when there is least cause for it; as I shall make appear my Adversary does in this matter from the very Confession of Protestants themselves: Which kind of proof is look'd upon by all sober Men, as very proper both to satisfie the Judgment of an Impartial Reader, and also to abate the boasting of over confident Spirits. For, as Bishop Hall saith, One blow of an Enemy dealt to his Brother, Peace of Rome, Ep. dedic. fol. 1. is worth more than many from an adverse hand. And upon this account it is, that when Bellarmin makes use of the like proof, (that is, undertakes to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church of God, by the Confession of Protestants,) Dr. Field saith, surely if he can prove, Of the Church p. 182. that we confess it to be the true Church, he needeth not to use any other arguments. Let us see then what Protestants say in this Point. And first that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from the time of Berengarius, that is 600. Years ago, is scarcely denied by any that I know of. Mr. Fox himself acknowledgeth,Act. Monum. Printed Ann. 1526. p. 1121. that about that time the denying of it began[Page]to be accounted Heresy, and in that number, saith he, was first one Berengarius, who lived about Anno 1060. And Mr. Perkins allows it a longer Date, when he says that during the space of 900 Years the Popish Heresy had spread it self over the whole World. Expos. Symh. p. 266. 2dly, That it had remained in quiet possession from the Year 850. (that is 200 Years before) until the time of Berengarius is confessed by Joachim Camerarius; Hist. Narrat. p. 161. as also that although it had been called into Question before by the prlvate Writings of some, yet the first that publickly impugned it was Berengarius. 3dly. That Damascene in the beginning of the 8th. Century, and Theophylact (who though he be not so ancient, yet his Authority is much esteem'd by learned Men, because he is look'd on as an Abridger of St. Chrysostome) did plainly incline to Transubstantiation, is confess'd by Ursinyus. Commonefact. p. 211. So is it of St. Gregory in the 6th. Age by Dr. Humfrey, Jesuitism. p. 2. Rat. 5. p. 626. when he saith, that he and St. Austin the Apostle of England, brought Transubstantiation into the English Church. In the fift Age Eusebius Emissenus is taxed by the Centurists, to have spoken not commodiously[Page](viz. for their purpose) of Transubstantiation. Cent. 4 c. 10. Col. 985. The like is affirmed by themCent. 5 col 517 of St. Chrysostome in the same Age, and of St. Ambrose Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. in the fourth; of S. Cyprian in the third by Ursinus, Commonefact. p. 211. & 218. of Tertullian and Origen in the second by the forenamed Centurists,Cent. 3. col. 58. 260. and S. Ignatius in the first is acknowledged by sundry Protestants Hamelman. de Trad. Apost. c. 746. Chemn. Exam. part. 1. p. 94. to have said of certain Hereticks of his time, That they do not admit Eucharists and Oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which Flesh suffred for our Sins; an evident sign that all those who held the Flesh of Christ to be true Flesh, and not Phantastical, believed also the Eucharist to be that very true Flesh.

This is what Protestants themselves confess of the most eminent Fathers of God's Church in each Age from our Saviours time concerning the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, as I find them cited in two Treatises, the one called The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church; the other, The Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants; whose Authors I never heard were taxed of insincerity in their quotations: [Page] And if it be true, what Dr. Field saith of Bellarmin, that if he could prove that Protestants confess the Roman to be the true Church, he needed not to use any other arguments, I might supersede any farther proof of this matter, and leave the Doctor to join issue with his Fellow-Brethren.

But the Reader perhaps may desire to see the Testimonies themselves of those Fathers, which were so pregnant as to force such learned Men of the Protestant Party to confess that they taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation. And in order to his satisfaction in this Point, I shall set down one Testimony of each Father in the same order as they stand cited above, and but One to avoid Prolixity.

TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

IN the beginning of the Eighth Century, St. Jo. Damascen, li. 4. de fid. c. 14. The Bread and Wine and Water are by the Invocation [Page] and Coming of the Holy Ghost, changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Christ: And with him agrees Theophylact, The Bread is transformed by the Mystical Benediction,In cap. 6. Joan. and the coming of the Holy Ghost, into the Flesh of our Lord.

At the end of the Fifth and beginning of the Sixth Century, St. Gregory. Our Creator well knowing our Infirmity,Paul. Diacon. in ejus vita. by that Power, with which he made all things of nothing, by the Sanctification of his Spirit, converts the Bread and Wine mixed with Water (their proper species or figure remaining) into his Flesh and Blood.

In the Fifth Eusebius Emissenus, and St. John Chrysostome. The former saith, Before Consecration, there is the Substance of Bread and Wine,Serm. de corp. dom. but after the words of Christ, it is the Body and Blood of Christ. For what wonder that he who created them with his Word, should convert or change them after they were created? The latter, The things we propose are not done by Humane Power:Hom. 83. in Matth. We hold but the place of Ministers, but he that sanctifieth and changeth them is Christ himself.

In the Fourth Century St. Ambrose▪ and [Page] because this is the Age I suppose the Doctor pitches upon, when he saith he will undertake to instance in an Age, since the first three Centuries, Wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops who lived in it are to be credited, Transubstantiation was not believed; I shall be somewhat larger in citing the words of St. Ambrose, and also add other Testimonies of Fathers of the same time to his, that the Reader may see what Issue his Undertaking is like to have in this matter. First, Then St. Ambrose, as if he foresaw my Adversaries objection,li. de Initiand. c. 9. puts it down in these formal words. You will say perhaps, How do you prove to me that I receive the Body of Christ, when I see another thing? And the way he takes to Answer it, is by comparing the change made here in the Nature of the Bread, with the examples of those miraculous changes, which were wrought by Holy Men of Old in the Natures of other things, as of Moses's Rodd being turned into a Serpent, the Waters of Aegypt into Blood, &c. From whence he infers, that if the Benediction of those who were but pure Men, was of such force, as to change Nature, What must we say of that divine Consecration, where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do operate?— Thou hast read, saith he, of the works of the Creation, how God spake the Word and they [Page]were made, he commanded and they were created, (that is, produc'd out of nothing) The Word therefore of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not, can it not change those things which are (viz. Bread and Wine) into that which before they were not, (viz. his own Body and Blood?) surely it is not a less matter to give new natures to things out of nothing, than to change them after they are made.—Again, You will say perhaps, my Bread is usual Bread, No, (saith he) this Bread is Bread before the Sacramental words; li. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. When the Consecration is performed, of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ.—He spake the Word and it was made; he commanded and it was created. —And that we may not doubt he meant it was made his true Flesh, he saith, As our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God, li. 6. c. 1. not as Men are by Grace, but as the Son, of the substance of his Father; so it is his very true Flesh, as himself hath said, which we receive, and his very true Blood which we drink. This and much more doth St. Ambrose write of this subject; so that no Man need to wonder, if the Centurists say, he wrote not well of Transubstantiation: Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. And I have either read or heard it reported of Calvin that [Page] he wish'd the Devil had struck the Pen out of St. Ambrose's hand, when he wrote those Books of the Sacraments. But let us now see what other Fathers of the same Age teach concerning this Point. S. Cyril, Orat. 4. C. Our Saviour, saith he, sometime changed Water into Wine, and shall we not think him worthy of our belief, that he changed Wine into his Blood? S. Gregory Nyssen. We do rightly believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God, Orat. magn. Catech. c. 37. is changed into the Body of God the Word. By vertue of his Benediction he changeth the nature of the things which are seen (Bread and Wine) into that, Viz. his own Body. S. Gaudentius. Tract. 2. de Exod. The Maker & Lord of Natures, who produceth Bread out of the Earth, doth again of Bread, because he can, and hath promised to do it, make his own Body; and He who made Water of Wine, maketh of Wine his own Blood. These are Fathers who lived in the Age immediately following the three first Centuries, to whom I might add St. Chrysostome above cited, (who flourished in this Century, though he dyed in the beginning of the next) and others; but these may suffice to let the Reader see, (if this be the Age which the Doctor intends to instance in) [Page] how unlikely it is he should make good what he asserts, that Transubstantiation was not believed in it.

In the Third Century St. Cyprian saith, The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, Serm. de coena Dom. being changed not in shape or figure, but in nature, was by the Omnipotency of the Word made Flesh. And Ursinus confesseth, There are many sayings in him which seem to affirm Transubstantiation. Commonefact. p. 211. & 218. And Tertullian in the same Age,li. 4. in Marcion. saith, that our Lord having taken Bread made it his own Body, by saying, This is my Body: and St. Ignatius in the first, confesseth the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffred for our sins. Ep. ad Smyrn. And now let the Reader judge whether those learned Protestants above cited, had reason to affirm of these Fathers (though they taxed them of error for it) that for what appears by their words they believed and taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation. I know the Doctor will not want many a pretty artifice to obscure, if possible, and elude the force of these Testimonies, but the Confession of his Brethren will still be a Potent Prejudice against him. Nor can he ever have the courage to deny, but [Page] that the words taken as they sound, seem evidently at least to teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and yet (what is highly observable in this case) this being a matter of so great consequence, that Dr. Morton confesseth,Prot. Appeal. li. 2. p. 105. if it be defensible, Protestants must stand chargeable of Heresie; but if it may be confuted, the Romanists must necessarily be condemned of Idolatry: None of those Fathers, who are cited by Protestants as Abettors of Transubstantiation, were ever taxed of Errour for what they asserted by any of their Contemporaries, whom we know to have been very jealous not only of new doctrines, but of any new forms of words; or by those who lived in the Ages after them: nor yet did the Greeks move any dispute about this Point in the Council of Florence; whereas Berengarius no sooner began to broach the contrary, but immediately the whole Church, as the Writers of that time witness, was startled at the Novelty, and condemned it as Heresie, as Mr. Fox above cited witnesseth.

§. 4. But what if the Doctor shall deny all this, that is, both the Testimonies of the Fathers, and the Confession of his Brethren to be sufficient to prove Transubstantiation to have been a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from Christ's time? To show the unreasonableness [Page] of such a denyal, I would propose this case to his Consideration, and the Readers. Viz. In supposition that a Controversy arise in this present Age about the sense of a Law, which was made 500. Years ago, and that a considerable number of those who started the Controversy, should confess, that for the last two hundred years the contrary to what they maintain, was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law, and should further confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former Ages, from the first enacting of the Law, held the same with the latter; Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that Point; whether it be not a sufficient proof, that what they taught to be the sense of the Law, was generally received to be the sense and meaning of it, from the beginning? The Testimonies themselves of those Ancient Lawyers would be conviction enough: how much more when strengthned by the Confession of the Adverse Party it self? Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a humane Law, where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments; how much more, in the delivery of a divine Doctrine, where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received, and the succeeding Age is stil bound to receive what they delivered? [Page] Surely, if we add to this the Confession of the very Adversaries themselves, the Proof (as St. Irenaeus saith) must be true and without contradiction. Adv. haer. lib. 4. c. 14.

§. 5. But if the Doctor will still persist in the denyal of so Evident a Proof; because the Proposition is comparative between the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that of Christ's Divinity, as to its general reception in the Church, I must desire him soberly to consider, how much less St. Athanasius thought sufficient to prove this latter to be a Catholick Tradition. For having cited the Testimonies of four Fathers only for the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father, viz. Theognostus, Dionysius Alexandrinus, De Decret. Nicen. Synodi. Dionysius Romanus, and Origen, he concludes with an Ecce. Behold, we demonstrate, saith he, this Doctrine to have been delivered from Fathers to Fathers, as it were by hand. And St. Austin using the like Argument in the point of original sin, Contr. Julian. li. 1. c. 2. &c. first makes this Preface, I will alledge, saith he, a few Testimonies of a few of the Fathers, with which nevertheless our Adversaries will be constrained to blush and yield, if either any [Page]fear of God, or shame of Men can over-power in them so pervicacious an obstinacy. And then having produced the Testimonies of five or six of the Latin Fathers, he tells Julian against whom he wrote, that that part of the World ought to suffice him, (that is, to make him yield it to be the Catholick Faith) in which our Lord was pleased to crown with a most glorious Martyrdome the First (or Prince) of the Apostles. And then to show that the Faith of the Greek Church was the same with that of the Latin in this Point, he cites the Testimonies only of three Greek Fathers; and to the first of them; viz. St. Greg. Nazianzen, he immediately adds, This is so great a Man, that neither he would say this but from the Christian Faith most notorious to all; neither would they have esteemed him so Venerable, if they had not acknowledged that he spake these things out of the rule of the most known Truth. And now let the Reader judg whether when we produce a far greater number of most manifest Testimonies of the Fathers of several Ages, teaching without any Contradiction that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ by Consecration; and this confessed of some of the most Eminent of them in every Age by Protestants themselves, we do not more than sufficiently prove that it was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from our Saviour's time? And, if he think [Page] yet he can produce greater Evidence for the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity, being universally received in the Church from Christ's time, the early contest of the Arrians about that Point, their Power, and Continuance for so many Ages, compared with the open and undisturbed delivery of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, may soon convince him of the vanity of such an undertaking.

§. 6. The 3d. and last Ground he instances in, is Scripture; and this, he saith, he doth and shall acknowledge for his only Rule of Faith in spight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition. When he hath considered well, what Mr. E. W. hath said to him upon this Subject in his two Learned Treatises, (Protestancy without Principles, and Religion and Reason) I hope this spight of his may be abated. But in the mean time what doth he alledge out of this his only Rule of Faith (as he will have it) against Transubstantiation? Not so much I can assure you as one single Text. But because Bellarmin produces One, and but One for that Point, (viz. the words of Christ, This is my Body.) whereas he cites many for proof of Christ's Divinity, he will appeal to him, whether there are the same Grounds and Motives from thence to believe Transubstantiation, as there are the Divinity of Christ. But if Catholicks do not acknowledge Scripture alone to be the Rule [Page] of Faith, what am I concern'd whether Bellarmin produce many Texts, or but One, or none at all? Does not the Doctor himself say, that some of our Religion have said, that Transubstantiation could not be prov'd from Scripture alone; and have not others of it said as much of the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father? I am sure this was believed before the Scripture was written; and so Scripture could not be the Rule of believing it. But then again, what if Bellarmin produc'd but One Text of Scripture for Transubstantiation, therefore can there no more be produc'd? Or, if no more could be produc'd, would there not be the same Ground of believing from thence, supposing I am certain of the true sense of th [...]s One, as if there were many? Are we not bound as much to believe God when he says a thing once, if we be sure of the true sense of what he saith, as when he says the same twice or thrice? And were not all those places cited by Bellarmin, for Christ's Divinity, as much impugned by the Arrians, as this, (of Christ's words, This is my Body.) is by Calvin and his Complices? Why then must I, because Bellarmin produces out of Scripture but one Text for Transubstantiation, and many for Christ's Divinity, acknowledge there are not the same Grounds or Motives to believe the one as the other?

[Page] §. 7. I, but Bellarmin himself acknowledges, that there is some obscurity or ambiguity in the very Text he cites; for after he had spent the greatest part of the Chapter against the Lutherans, li. 3. de Euch. c. 19. He concludes it thus, saith the Doctor, p. 131. Although there be some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord, yet that is taken away by Councils and Fathers, which is a plain Indication he thought, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone. But stay, am I bound to believe Dr. St. upon his bare word? May I not look into Bellarmin to see what he says, without incurring a sin of rash judgement against my Neighbour? The Book (God be thanked) is not so hard to be found, as that of Trigautius. I ventur'd to look the place upon the Remembrance of some former dexterity I had noted in him in citing of Authors, and (although I could hardly believe my Eyes, nor did not, till I look'd into another Edition) I found Bellarmin not to say what he affirms him to say, but in reality the contrary. For after he had proved from the words of our Lord, the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament against the Calvinists, li. 1. de Euch. c. 1. and in the present Chapter had shown against the Lutherans, that Transubstantiation is absolutely inferr'd from the very same words, [Page] being to carry on his Proofs from Scripture to Councils and Fathers, he concludes the Chapter in these words, and that by way of Transition:

Adde, quod LICET in verbis Domini ESSET aliqua obscuritas, vel ambiguitas, ea tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae, & Patrum Consensum. Add, saith he, that ALTHOUGH THERE WERE (or should be, which is as much as to say, suppose there were) some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord, yet that is taken away by the many Councils of the Catholick Church, and the Consent of Fathers. And now I appeal to the Reader, whether Dr. St. have not given us here a very rare example of reporting faithfully, (as he calls it in his Preface) the words and sense of an Author. Is it all one to say, although there be, and although there should be? He that saith, Although there be some ambiguity in the words, supposes them to be ambiguous: He that saith Although there should be some Ambiguity in them, supposes them not to be ambiguous. And this is the case between Bellarmin and the Doctor. Bellarmin only puts the case they were ambiguous, and by so doing supposes them not to be so: and the Doctor makes him acknowledge them de facto to be ambiguous: which is just, as if when the Doctor himself says, (p. 111.) supposing there were the [Page]same divine Revelation of Transubstantiation and of Christ's Divinity, &c. I should infer, that he acknowledges the Revelation to be the same, de facto, in both. 'Tis manifest then, that by this Translation he hath corrupted both the words and sense of Bellarmin. And this not by mistake, as appears but too too plainly, for that himself makes the words of Bellarmin, as he translates them, to be a plain Indication, that he thought Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone; whereas had he reported them as they stand in Bellarmin, (LICET ESSET) Although there were, (or should be) some ambiguity in the words of our Lord, &c. They had been a plain Indication, that Bellarmin for his part thought that he had sufficiently prov'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation out of Scripture. And now the Reader sees what the Doctor meant in his Preface, by his design (as he calls it) to report faithfully: And however he intended to make use of it for his advantage, yet it is a very plain Indication of what shifts and artifices they are fain to avail themselves of, who will maintain a bad cause. To conclude, I shall give him the Opinion of Dr. Taylor in this Point more faithfully: who in his Liberty of Prophecying, Sect. 20. n. 16. saith, that Catholicks have a Divine Revelation, (viz. This is my Body.) whose literal and Grammatical sense, if that were intended [Page] (is so clear and evident for Transubstantiation, that it) would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle.

CHAP. VI.

Dr. Taylor's Argument in behalf of Catholicks, supposing them mistaken, Un-answered by Dr. St. His Parallel of such a supposed mistake with that of Idolaters, shown to be a real and very gross mistake in himself.

§. 1. HAving shown in my Reply that the Dr's Argument by which he would prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Christ in the Eucharist, would be of equal sorce srom the Pen of an Arrian, against the adoration of him, as God, wherever present; I added, (p. 20.) that supposing Catholicks should be mistaken in their belief, (And I hope the Doctor will not infer from hence, that I acknowledge them to be mistaken, de facto,) yet so eminent and learned a Man among the Protestants, as Dr. Taylor, denies it would follow from thence, that they were Idolaters. And the words I cited were these, out of his Liberty of Prophecying. Sect. 20. Numb. 16. Idolatry, saith he, is a forsaking the true God, [Page] and giving divine worship to a Creature, or to an Idol, that is, to an Imaginary God, who hath no Foundation in Essence or Existence: And this is that kind of Superstition, which by Divines is called, the superstition of an undue Object. Now it is evident, saith he, that the Object of Catholick's Adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts, their purposes; and by which God principally, if not solely takes Estimate of humane Actions) in the B. Sacrament, is the only true and Eternal God, hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity; which Humanity they believe actually present under the Veil of the Sacramental Signs; and if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the Bread in that case, that themselves profess it Idolatry to do so, which is a demonstration, that their Soul hath nothing in it, that is, Idolatrical. If this Confidence and fanciful Opinion hath engaged them upon so great a mistake, (as without doubt, he saith, it hath) yet the Will hath nothing in it, but what is a great Enemy to Idolatry. Thus Dr. Taylor, and I said, I thought it would be a I ask worthy Dr. St.'s pains to solve this Argument, if he would not absolve us from being Idolaters. But it seems, he either thought it not worth his pains; or rather, that it would be but labour lost to go about it, and therefore endeavours to shift it off: First▪ By returning Us the Opinion of some of our own [Page] Divines; And, 2dly, By seemingly opposing Dr. Taylor to himself, though what he cite out of him be nothing to this purpose.

§. 2. The Divines, whose Opinions he returns me, are Coster and Bishop Fisher. If the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true, Enchir. Controv. c. 8. p. 308. saith Coster, the Idolatry of the Heathens in worshiping some Golden or Silver Statue, or any Images of their Gods; or the Laplanders worshipping a Red Cloth, or the Aegyptians an Animal, is more excusable, than of Christians who worship a bit of Bread. And if there be nothing but Bread in the Eucharist, saith Bishop Fisher, Contr. Oecolamp. li. 1. c. 2. they are all Idolaters. These are the Testimonies he produces: And what follows from hence? that because they seem to say in effect what he does, therefore the Reason alledged by Dr. Taylor is solved? This is a new way of solving arguments not unlike to his new way of answering the Testimonies of Fathers (I shewed above, p. 46.) which was to ask me, How I was sure, the Fathers had not changed their Judgment in their latter Writings, when himself brings nothing to prove they did. What I required of him in this point was, to solve the Argument, or absolve us [Page] from Idolatry. The one he cannot, the other he will not do. Only he tells us that two of our own Divines were of the contrary Opinion; as if because Vasquez holds an Opinion contrary to Suarez, that alone were a sufficient solution to all his Arguments.

As for the Testimonies themselves, they are but the Opinions of Divines, and so I might take the liberty of the Schools to deny the consequence, as Mr. Thorndike doth, when he saith, that such kind of expressions in Catholick Divines, [viz. if there be nothing but Bread in the Eucharist, they are all Idolaters,] Epil. 3. part. p. 352. show what confidence they would have the World apprehend, that they hold their Opinion with, but not that the Consequence is true, viz. that they are therefore Idolaters, unless, saith he, what I have said above be reprovable. And what was that, but the same which Dr. Taylor asserted? viz. That a Mans mistake in thinking the Elements to be away, (which indeed, saith he, are there,) cannot make him guilty of honouring those Creatures as God, which we know, if he thought they were there, he must needs take for Creatures, and therefore could not honour for God. And he repeats the same again in his Just Weights and Measures, c. 19. where he says, that they who worship the Host, do not believe that the Elements remain, nay, they say they must be flat Idolaters,[Page]if they he there. Zeal to their Opinion makes them say more than they should say. But if they were there, they would not take them for God; and that is it, saith he, (not saying that they should be Idolaters if the Elements did remain) that mu [...]t make them Idolaters. Thus Mr. Thorndike, and justifiably enough, had those Divines proceeded in the Doctor's supposition of formal Idolatry; which upon the best judgment I can make of Costerus his words, I have reason to think they did not, but only considered and compared the Material Object (Bread) as less worthy of adoration, with the Golden or Silver Statues of the Heathens, &c. And this I take to be manifest from Coster's discourse, (if entirely set down) which is this, that if the true Body of Christ be not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist▪ Christ hath dealt with his Church in a manner much unbecoming his Goodness, which was to leave her for 1500. Years together in such an Error and Idolatry, and that occasioned by his own words, as was never seen or heard of in the World. For, saith he, the Error of those who worship for God a Golden or a Silver Statue, &c. is more tolerable, (that is, less absurd to any Man's reason) than of Christians who worship a bit of Bread. And upon this account it is, he adds, that ignorance could not excuse such wise and learned Men, as Austin, Chrysostom, Hierom, &c. for adoring [Page] the Host (unless they were most certainly assured, that it was not bread, but the Body of Christ) and that the Heathens were more excusable from Idolatry, who adored their Statues, (because they must needs think them much more worth than a bit of bread.) By which it appears, that the whole force of his argument lies upon the Indignity of the thing, (which the Doctor omitted) viz. that Christ by his words should give occasion to his Church to run into so absurd an Errour, (though but material only) for so long a time together. And consequently he meddles not at all with the present Question, whether supposing Catholicks mistaken in their belief, they would be guilty (as my Adversary would make them) of Formal Idolatry? From whence it follows that Dr. St. hath neither solved Dr. Taylor's Argument, by which he proves that Catholicks, neither ought nor can be justly accused of Idolatry, (that is, of formal Idolatry) supposing them to be mistaken in their belief of Transubstantiation, because what is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts and purposes, (and by which God principally, if not solely takes estimate of humane Actions) in the B. Sacrament, is not Bread which they believe not to be there at all, but the only true and Eternal God: Nor yet in reality hath return'd us the Opinion of our own Divines, who were not [Page] concerned in the Question at present in debate between us. For they did not consider the act, as it was the worshipping God supposed to be in the place of Bread; but materially only, as it was the worshipping the Bread for God. No relief then is to be had from our Divines. Let us see whether the Doctor speed any better in what he cites out of Dr. Taylor himself; for by his manner of proceeding, he would make the Reader believe, that he had answer'd his own Argument, when he speaks nothing at all of it.

§. 3. None, saith he, is so fit to answer Dr. Taylor, as himself, after almost Twenty Years time, (in which also he was advanced to Episcopal dignity) to consider more throughly of those things, that is, supposing Catholicks mistaken in their belief, ye [...] they are excused from Idolatry, as having in their minds no other Object of Adoration in the B. Sacrament but the only true and Eternal God. And what is it that Dr. St. hath found in Dr. Taylor himself after Twenty Years consideration to Answer his Argument? Marry this, that Thou shalt not worship any Graven Images will out-weigh all the best and fairest Imaginations of the Church of Rome. And again, that the Second Commandment is plain and peremptory against all the making and worshipping any Image, or likeness of any thing. And who would not think here, that the Doctor had [Page]forgot, that we were not disputing now about the worship of Images, but of Christ in the Sacrament? Had I cited Dr. Taylor when I was treating the matter of Image-worship, Lib. of Proph. c. 20. Numb. 4. to say, that the ordinary disputes between Catholicks and Protestants (of which certainly that of the Veneration of Images is one) have to no very great purpose disturbed the Peace of Christendome; and that they are superstructures ill built,Ib. Numb. 3. and worse managed, but yet they keep the Foundation—The foundation of Faith, saith he, stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures; the places he cites might have serv'd for a kind of Recantation, (not to give it the name of Contradiction) because if it be Idolatry it destroys the Foundation. But to tell us that Dr. Taylor answers his own Argument, viz. (that Catholicks in case they should be mistaken in the belief of Transubstantiation, are not guilty of Idolatry, as having no other Object of their Adoration in the Sacrament but the only true God) because the second Commandment is peremptory against the worship of Images; is such a trifling evasion, as nothing but despair of saying any thing to the purpose could have cast so subtil a Discourser upon it.

[Page] But hath the Doctor nothing here to say for himself, why he produced these Testimonies of so disparate a temper to the present purpose? Yes. For by these Assertions of Dr. Taylor, it is clear, (saith he) he did not think that Idolatry did lye only in giving divine worship to a Creature, p. 133. or to an Idol, which is called the superstition of an undue Object; but also will have the superstition of a prohibited manner, or way of Worship to be Idolatry. For he not only makes the Second Command peremptory against the Worship of the true God by an Image, but elsewhere plainly determins this to be Idolatry; Doct. dubitant. li. 2. c. 2. as when he saith, (and I pray take notice what it is he saith) that to worship false Gods, or to give divine honour to an Image (which only they who take an Image for God do) is all one kind of formal Idolatry. If therefore, saith Dr. St. (and we must grant him too, it is all one, to worship God himself by an Image, and to worship an Image instead of God) they cannot be excused from Idolatry who worship the true God by an Image, though the Object of their Adoration be right, and they think the manner of it lawful; neither can they who worship Christ upon the account of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament. This is the Doctor's discourse; and as it must cost him no [Page] little pains to squeez so subtil an Inference from Dr. Taylor's words: So I confess, it cost me some to reduce it into such order, as might make it intelligible to the Reader. But the mischief is, that whilst he labours thus to solve the argument, he confirms it. For as for the first part of the distinction, Viz. the Superstition of an undue Object, it is evident that Catholicks are not guilty of it in Dr. Taylor's judgment, because (as D [...]. St. himself confesses) he acknowledges the Object of Catholicks Adoration to be the only true God, who, I hope, is no undue Object of our Worship. And for the Second, viz. the superstition of a prohibited manner or way of Worship, he brings nothing out of Dr. Taylor to prove the worship of Christ in the Sacrament to be so; but only tells us, (though Dr. Taylor's words, as I noted above, import no such thing) that he determines the worship of the true God by an Image, to be Idolatry; Neither did Dr. St. himself hitherto pretend any Prohibition to worship Christ in the Sacrament, but only that there was no express Command, p. 111. for the doing it. So that upon the whole, Catholicks, supposing they were mistaken in their belief, would not be guilty of Idolatry upon either of these accounts; that is; either for that they had an undue Object of worship in their thoughts, or for that the worship of [Page] Christ in the Sacrament was forbidden. But now,

§. 4. In the 4th. and last place, the Doctor asserts, p 134. that if a mistake in this case will excuse [...]tholicks, it would excuse the gr [...]ssest Idolat [...] in the World. And to make this out, he [...]lls us of some (who as St. Austin relates) said that Christ was the Sun, Profat. in Ps. 93. and therefore worshipped the Sun, and would fain understand why they should not be as free from Idolatry, as those who are supposed to be mistaken in the belief of Transubstantiation? But the disparity between the one mistake and the other is so clear, that I shall appeal to the Readers, whether I had not just reason to call the not seeing it in the Doctor, a very gross mistake. For what St. Austin relates of the Manichees, (as the Doctor himself reports it) is, that they worshipped the Sun, whom they falsly thought to be Christ: That is, what they had in their minds and purposes to adore, was the Sun. But Catholicks (supposing a mistake in their belief) do not believe the Bread to be Christ; or worship the bread which they believe to be Christ. No: their mistake (if there were any) would be, that they believed the bread not to be there at all; and therefore what they would have in their minds and purposes to adore, would not, nor could not be bread, [Page] but the only true and Eternal Son of God. The difference then in the mistakes would be this, that the Manichees had for the formal term of their Worship, an undue Object, viz. a Creature instead of the Creator; but Catholicks in case of a mistake, would have no other formal Object of Adoration in their minds but the Creator himself. And the mistakes being so different, it follows they must have as different an influence upon the Acts of Worship, i.e. to make them guilty or not guilty o [...] formal Idolatry. But then he moulds the Question anew, and proposes it in these [...], Whether the worshipping false Gods, supposing them to be true, p. 136. be not as Venial a fault, as worshipping that for the true God, which is not so? As for Instance, suppose the Aegyptians worshipping the Sun for God, and the Israelites the Golden Calf, believing it was the true God, &c. Upon what account, saith he, shall these be charg'd with Idolatry, if an Involuntary mistake and firm belief that they worship the true God doth excuse from it? And then adds, that the most stupid and sensless of all Idolaters, who worshipped the very Images for Gods, were in truth the most excusable upon this Ground. To this I answer, that (setting aside the new division, he runs upon the old false ground, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God, as the Worshippers of the Sun believed[Page]the Sun to be God) the disparity as to the mistakes is still the same; because the Aegyptians believed and worshipped the Sun for God, and so did the Israelites the Golden Calf; but Catholicks (though supposed to be mistaken in their belief) would not worship the Bread for Christ, because their mistake would not be in taking the Bread for God; as the Aegyptians did the Sun: but in this, that they conceived the Bread not to be there at all, but in place thereof, the only true and Eternal God: And so although the Object, (or rather Subject) materially there present would in such a case be Bread, yet their act of adoration would not be terminated formally upon that, but upon God. For as Dr. Taylor saith, if they thought Him not present, they are so far from worshipping the B [...]ead in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so; which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idolatrical. And if the Doctor see not the force of this demonstration, (for demonstrations are very dazling Objects to Eyes unus'd to so great Light) I shall lay it yet plainer before him in this Syllogism. Whatever is taken for an Object of Worship, the Understanding must affirm (either truly or falsly) to be: and therefore neither the Aegyptians had worshipped the Sun for God, nor the Israelites the Calf, if their understanding had not [Page] first affirmed them to be: But Catholicks whether mistaken or not in the belief of Transubstantiation▪ do not in their minds affirm he Bread to be, but not to be; because [...] both suppositions they believe it to be converted into the Body of Christ; Therefore the Object of their worship is not Bread, but Christ the only true and Eternal Son of God. And therupon the same Dr. Taylor (in the place above cited, Numb. 17.) saith, That before they venture to pass an Act of Adoration, they believe the Bread to be annihilated, or turn'd into his substance, who may lawfully be worshipped: And they, who have these thoughts, are as much Enemies of Idolatry, as they that understand better (as he thinks he does) to avoid that Inconvenience, which is supposed to be the Crime, which they formally hate, and we (saith he) materially avoid. When therefore Dr. St. upon account that the mistake, and firm belief of the Aegyptians and others, [that what they worshipped was the true God] could not excuse them from being guilty of formal Idolatry, (because what they had in their minds and purposes to adore, was that very Creature which they falsly took for God) when I say he undertakes to infer from hence, that a mistake in Catholicks as to the material object present in the Sacrament, (whereas what they would have in their minds and purposes to adore, would be no other thing, but the very [Page]true God with Exclusion of the Creature:) would involve them also in the same crime: Or, on the contrary, because such a mistake were sufficient to excuse Catholicks from the guilt of Idolatry; therefore another quite different, would excuse those who directed their Intention to the Worship of a Creature, which they falsly deemed to be God: Both these consequences are so apparently irrational, that nothing but Animosity to maintain perfas & nefas) an angry charge of Idolatry could extort them from a Person, who would be held a Master of that Reason, as none but Rats can Answer. Nevertheless, in vertue of them, He concludes, that what he hath said in behalf of the Heathen Idolaters, is the utmost can be said for the Papists adoration of the Host, supposing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation were as true, as he says, it is false and absurd. And was this then the Effect of that great Work of the Conversion of this Nation to Christianity above a Thousand Years ago, that St. Austin, and the other Religious Monks, who were sent hither with him by St. Gregory, only perswaded the People to leave their old Idolatry for a new One, as stupid and sensless as the former? Surely no Christian Ear can hear this without horrour. And the Judgement Mr. Thorndike would have made of this Conclusion, could have been no other, but that the Author of [Page] it (had not Dr. Stillingfleet very luckily put his Name to the Book) must have been a Jew or a Turk; when after a serious consideration of Catholicks adoration of the Host, he concludes in these words. In fine,Just Weights. c. 19. Jews and Mahumetans are bound to take the Worship of the Host for Idolatry. For they will needs take the Worship of the Holy Trinity for no less. But they who know that the God-Head of Christ is the Reason, for which his Flesh and Blood is worshipped in the Eucharist, cannot take that worship for Idolatry, because his Flesh and Blood is not present in the Eucharist, as they who worship it there, think it is. For they know, that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is no Idol to Christians, wheresoever it is worshipped: Wherefore if Dr. St. have no better arguments to prove his Charge of Idolatry with, in this matter, than his own discerning Faculty of Truth or Falshood in matters proposed to our belief; or than what he hath said in excuse of the most stupid and sensless of Heathen Idolaters, (whose Patronage he seems to have undertaken all along in this Discourse) I must conclude his Reasons to be as false and absurd, as any Jew or Mahumetan imagins the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be.

The End of the Second Part.

[Page]

THE THIRD PART OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

CHAP. I.

The Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point supposed by Dr. St. to be Idolatry, but not proved. The disparity between the Worship given by Catholicks to the Saints, and that of Heathens to their Inferiour Deities, laid open.

§. 1. THe Third Point, which Dr. St. fix'd upon, as a fit Subject to show his wit in proving the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry, is the Invocation of Saints. And that the Reader may see what a prodigious stock of that Faculty is necessary to [Page] make it out, I shall first set down the Doctrin of the Church, as it stands recorded in the Council of Trent. What that Council teaches, is: that, It is good and profitable for Christians humbly to invocate the Saints, Conc. Trid. Se [...]s. 25. and to have recourse to their Prayers, aid and assistance, wher by to obtain benefits of God by his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour. These are the very words of the Council; and any Man but of common Reason, would think it were as easy to prove Snow to be black, as so Innocent a practice to be Idolatry, even Heathen Idolatry. What we teach and do in this matter, is to desire the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, as we desire the prayers of one another upon Earth; and must we for this be compared to Heathens? Do we not acknowledg that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is our only Redeemer and Saviour? Do we not confess that what Benefits we obtain of God either by our own or others Prayers, must come by the merits of Him our only Redeemer? Do we not believe that God needs neither our own Prayers, nor the Prayers of others, to confer his Benefits upon us; but that all the need is on our part, and all that we can do either by our own Prayers, or humbly begging the Prayers of others, is little enough to make us capable of his Favours? Do we [Page] not profess to all the World that we look upon the Saints, not as Gods, but as the Friends and Servants of God, that is, as just Men, whose Prayers therefore are available with him? And that we worship them only with that worship of Love and Communion, with which even in this life also Holy men of God are worshipped, whose hearts we judge prepared to lose their Lives for the truth of the Gospel? Where then lies the Heathenism? Where lies the Idolatry? Had the Doctor held himself to the Doctrine of the Church of England, which terms the Invocation of Saints, a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture; there had been some colour for a dispute against the lawfulness of it. But to condemn us of Idolatry, down-right Idolatry for desiring the Servants of God in Heaven to pray for us, was to put the common size of Intelligent Readers quite out of hopes of ever seeing it proved. He says indeed in his Preface, that He thinks it no great skill to make things appear either ridiculous or dark: and here He gives us a very pregnant Example, of what himself can do in that kind.

§. 2. The Argument he made choice of to do this Feat, that is, to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints, was this. If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us, be sufficient [Page] ground for formal Invocation, then the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry, for they still pretended they did not give to them the worship proper to the supreme God; which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papists in Justification of the Invocation of Saints. To this I answer'd two ways in my Reply: 1. By shewing the disparity of Catholicks worship from that of the Heathens, in two things: 1. In the Objects; where I said, that by Persons of a middle excellency, we understand Persons endowed with supernatural gifts of grace in this life, and glory in Heaven, whose Prayers by consequence are acceptable and available with God. But the supreme Deity of the Heathens is known to be Jupiter, and their inferiour Deuits, Venus, Mars, Bacchus, Vulcan, and the like rabble of Devils, as the Scripture calls th [...]m; and therefore there can be no consequence, that because the Heathens were Idolaters in the worship of these though they pretended not to give them the worship proper to Jupiter the supreme God; therefore Catholicks must be guilty of Idolatry in desiring the servants of the true God to pray for them to him. 2. In the manner of worship, because I said, if any of the Heathens did attain (as the Platonists) to the knowledge of the true God, yet as St. Paul saith, they did not glorify him as God, but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible Man, ador [...]g [Page] and offering sacrifice, due to God alone, to the Statues themselves, or the inferiour Deities they supposed to dwell or assist in them; which St. Austin, upon the 96. Psalm, proves to be Devils, or evil Angels, because they required sacrifice to be offered to them, and would be worshipped as Gods. What he meant by formal Invocation, I said I did not well understand, but Catholicks, I told him, understand no more by it in this matter, but desiring or praying the Saints to pray for them. And if this were Idolatry, we must not desire the Prayers of a just Man, even in this life, because this formal Invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity. 2. I answer'd, that the same Calumny was cast upon the Catholicks in St. Austin's time, and is answered by him, and his Answer will serve as well now as then, in his Twentieth Book against Faustus, Chap. 21. who himself held such formal Invocation a part of the Worship due to Saints, as is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome, l. 7. de Bapt. c. Donat. c. 1. And Calvin himself confesseth it was the custome at that time to say, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for Us.

This indeed was my Answer, and to disprove it, he undertakes to show two things: 1. That the disparity between Catholicks worship of Saints, and the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities,p. 139. is not [Page] so great as to excuse them from Idolatry. 2. That the Answer given by St. Austin doth not vindicate them now, as well as then.

§. 3. 1. Concerning the disparity; 1. As to the Object of Worship, he abhors from his heart to parallel the H [...]ly Angels and Saints with the impure Deities of the Heathens, as to their Excellencies. No. He hath more honour for them than not to think them more excellent, than Devils, or wicked Wretches: I suppose in case they have the testimony of Scripture for their sanctity; otherwise it may go hard with the best of them, should he proceed in the same form with all the rest, as he doth a little below with St. Ignatius. But supposing them at present to be more excellent, than the impure Deities of the Heathens, yet if the Idolatry of the Heathens, saith he, lay not only in this, that they worshipped Jupiter, and Venus, and Vulcan, who are supposed to have been wicked Wretches; but in this, that they gave Divine Worship to any, besides God, then this disparity cannot excuse Catholicks from being Idolaters. Behold here the ground upon which he intends to build his Charge of Idolatry, Viz. That Catholicks give divine honour to the Holy Angels and Saints. This is what the Reader must suppose, otherwise his Arguments are at an End; and having laid this false and scandalous supposition, [Page] instead of proving it, he undertakes to show out of the Primitive Fathers, that it was the Property of the Christian Religion to give divine worship to none, but God himself and his Son Christ Jesus. To this purpose he cites Justin Martyr, and Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, to whom he says he might add, if it were requisite in so Evident a matter, the testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Athenagoras, Lactantius, Arnobius, (and who not, that ever pretended to the Name of Christian?) who all agree that Religious (by which he means divine) worship is proper to the true God, and that no created Being is capable of it; and in this strain he runs on for no less than Ten Leaves together: and at length without ever proving that Catholicks do give divine worship to the Holy Angels and Saints, he most triumphantly concluded them to be Idolaters. This is the summe of his performance, and by it I understand that it had been no great skill in the Pharisees, to have made any of those Persons who honoured St. Peter, or St. Paul, when they were upon Earth, or desired their Prayers, to be Idolaters. They needed not any other proof, but only to suppose confidently, that they gave to them the worship proper to God alone, and the work was done; especially if they had but cited that Text of Scripture, Thou shalt worship the [Page]Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. I confess when I said, that I thought it would be as easy to prove Snow to be black, as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this matter, to be Idolatry; I did not reflect, that Dr. St. might suppose Catholicks to give divine worship to the Saints, and so conclude them to be Idolaters. But this, (as I now remember) is a Peculiar Topick, of which all those who oppose the Faith of the Church, are forced to make use; Viz. to suppose her Doctrine not to be what she affirms, but what they would have her to affirm, and from thence to make her guilty of what Crimes and Enormities they p [...]ease themselves.

§. 4. Now although the Testimonies of the Fathers he alledges, are so impertinent to the present Question, as I have shewed, yet because some of them, as they are imperfectly reported, or advantageously translated by him, may give occasion to an unwary Reader to suspect, that they meant to deny that any worship at all was to be given to any besides God: I shal take the pains to unfold their meaning, and free him from any such Jealousy, by showing that when they deny in general terms worship to be given to a Creature, they mean divine worship, which is due to God alone; and not that worship which is given to Men, upon account either of their Natural [Page] or Supernatural Endowments; or for the Place or Office they hold in the Church or Common-Wealth. For as there is a worship due to Men for the former; so also doubtless for the latter. And we have an Example of it in Dr. St. himself, in his Irenicum, p. 413. [Printed at London, An. 1662.] Where, speaking of Mr. Baxter, he calls him, Our Reverend and Learned Mr. Baxter: Learned, I suppose for his knowledge; but Reverend for his Piety, and Place in the Presbytery, and so worthy of double, if not of treble honour.

Thus much premised of the different degrees there are of worship, as also that it is a thing notoriously known, that many of the Heathen Emperors exacted to be worshipped as Gods, that is, with divine worship;

The Testimony out of Justin Martyr (p. 141.) answers it self, because where he tells the Emperours, that Christ did perswade Men to worship God alone, &c. He presently adds,Apol. 2. that the same Christ commanded Christians to give unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, 1 Pet. 2. of which Honour is One, in the Judgment of St. Peter. And the like had been manifest of Theophilus Antiochenus, Theophil. ad Autol. li. 1. if the Doctor had fairly set down his words, for he expresly [Page] affirmeth, that although the King was not ordained to be adored, yet He was to be honour'd with that lawful worship, which belongs to Him. And this is insinuated in the very words cited by the Doctor himself. [viz. as the King suffers none under him to be called by his Name, nor is it lawful to give it to any, but himself, so neither is it to worship any but God alone] for although the King will suffer none under him to be called by his Name yet he requires that respect be given to those whom he constitutes Judges and Magistrates under Him, according to their degree and quality. And God himself, although he forbid to give his own Name or Honour to any but Himself, yet he commands us to give honour to whom honour is due, Rom. 13. 7. And that this was the meaning both of Theophilus and Justin, we need no better Expositor than Tertullian, who was neer upon contemporary with them;Scorpiac. c. 14. and tells us that the King is then to be honoured, when he keeps [...]imself within his own Sphere, and abstains from divine honours; Quum a divinis honoribus longe est. So that I cannot but wonder, what the Doctor meant by alledging these Testimonies of those two ancient Fathers, unless he intend to deny any worship at all to be due to any besides God; or that he think it not possible to worship a good Man for his vertue [Page] and sanctity, but we must give him divine honour. If he produc'd them for no other End, but to show that we ought not to give divine worship to any created Being whatsoever, it is evident they are not at all to the purpose, it being far from the minds and hearts of Catholicks to give that honour to the Saints.

§. 5. But then the old scruple returns again, Why he may not as well honour God by giving worship to the Sun, as to Ignatius Loyola, p. 143. or St. Francis, or any other late Canoniz'd Saint! (He might have added, if he had pleas'd, or to one not yet Canonized, his Reverend Mr. Baxter?) For he is sure the Sun (and why not the most Reverend Sun?) is a certain Monument of God's Goodness, Wisdome and Power, and he cannot be mistaken therein, but he can never be certain of the Holiness of those Persons, he is to give divine Worship to. Thus Dr. St. And certainly he must believe his Readers to be all stark blind, who cannot distinguish the Reverence due to a Person for his Holiness, from Divine Worship: or that a Saint is not a greater Monument of GOD's Goodness, Wisdome and Power, than the Sun. But by his particularizing the late Canonized Saints, it seems he is satisfied, that St. Peter, and St. Paul were greater Monuments of the Divine Goodness, Wisdome, and Power, [Page] than the Sun; that more were raised to love God by seeing the light of their example, than by gazing upon that bright Planet: and consequently, that we may much better honour God by giving worship to them, at least, than to the Sun; and perhaps to St. Francis too, because he is so kind as to honour him here with the title of Saint. But his quarrel, I perceive, is particularly to Ignatius Loyola, (as he irreverently calls him) who for ought he can know, (he says) was a great hypocrite, but he is sure the Sun is none. And whether will his spight against the Saints, at length hurry him, if we may not honour a Man for the great Vertue and Piety, which appears in him, because for ought we can know, he is a hypocrite? What if the like scruple should possess his mind in order to St. Hierome, St. Ambrose, St. Austin, and the rest of the Primitive Saints? It were but to say of them, what he doth of St. Ignatius, that for ought he can know, they were great hypocrites: For, He knows the best of Men have their corruptions, and to what degree it is impossible to understand, but he is certain the spots in the Sun are no moral impurities, nor displeasing to God. And may he not say the same of the Martyrs too, that for ought he knows, they did not lay down their lives purely for the truth of the Gospel, but perhaps because they were weary of them, or for vain glory, or out of obstinacy, [Page] not to yield to their Adversaries? If, I say, such a scruple as this should come into his mind, what possibility were there of his ever being freed from it, but by Divine Revelation? Yet some Assistance I may perhaps give him, by letting him see the unreasonableness of the scruple, by the absurdness of the Consequences, which must follow upon it. For if it be not lawful to honour a Saint, supposed to be in Heaven, because for ought he can know, he was a great hypocrite upon Earth; it follows by the same Rule, that we may not honour any Person in this Life; for the grace of God which shines in his life and conversation, for fear we should honour an Hypocrite for a Saint. And I should advise him by no means to preach this Doctrine to his Auditors, least they should entertain the same scruple of Him, which he doth of the Saints now raigning with God in Glory. O, but they are the late Canonized Saints, that he is not in perfect Charity with (for if he were, he would never refuse to honour them, upon a meer whimsy, that for ought he can know, they were great Hypocrites:) and Philip Nerius, he saith, could not be mistaken in the shining of the Sun, although he might be in the shining of Ignatius his face, which yet is thought so considerable a thing, (it seems it was not the only thing) that it is read in the Lessons of the Roman Breviary. But whoever considers [Page] the care and diligence, used at this Day by the Church of Rome, in examining the Lives, and Actions, and Miracles of those Persons whom She Canonizes, shall find it every way as great, if not greater than in the Primitive times. I must confess the Dr.'s desperate scruple of For ought he can know— is able to defeat the greatest diligence Imaginable: and so no doubt it had the dedication of that Church in the West, some years ago, in Memory of our late Royal Soveraign K. Charles I. had it depended upon his decisive Vote. As for the shining of S. Ignatius his face, he is not the first whom God vouchsafed to honour with that outward sign of the Grace which shined in his Soul; and although the Roman Breviary make mention of it only upon the Testimony of Philip Nerius, yet that Philip Nerius is known to have been a Man of that sanctity and integrity, that he would not have stained his own Soul, to cast a false light upon another Man's face. I am sure, though the spots in the Sun are no Moral Impurities, nor displeasing to God; yet such groundless suspitions, and rash judgments against Persons of so eminent and approved Vertue, must needs be highly displeasing to him. What he adds of giving worship to Kings and their statues, as well as to Saints and their Images, is altogether impertinent, for if he mean divine worship, we deny it may [Page] lawfully be given to either of them; and if he speak of such worship as may be given to Men, I would willingly understand, why the Saints may not be honoured as the adopted Children of God, as well as Kings for that they are his Vice-gerents? I would also willingly understand yet farther, whether he allow any honour at all to be due to Princes upon that account; for I do not remember hitherto any passage in him, (though he have had frequent occasion to speak of them) from whence I could gather, that he holds it lawful to give any worship either to their statues, or to themselves. And upon the same Principles that he denies any to be due to the Saints, a Quaker would prove that it must be denied to Princes.

§. 6. What hitherto hath been alledged by the Doctor, to prove us guilty of Idolatry, it seems was not so full to the purpose, as himself could wish it, and therefore he will now come home to the case. p. 145. And this it is. The Heathens were not such Fools, as some would make them: (nor yet altogether so wise as he would make them, if we may believe the Fathers,) to excuse themselves: For, though (saith he) they gave worship to some, whom they consider'd as the greatest Benefactors to Man-kind, yet still they acknowledged one supreme God, not [Page] Jupiter of Creet, but the Father of gods and men: Only they said, this supreme God being of so high a Nature, and there being other Intermediate Beings between Him and men, whose Office they conceived it was, to carry the Prayers of Men to God, and to bring down help from Him to them, they thought it very fitting to address their solemn supplications to them. Here now, saith he, is the very same case in debate, (altering only the Names of Things) which is between us and the Church of Rome, and if ever they speak home to our case, they must do it upon this Point. And so they do, but very little to their comfort. Here then we must fix our Foot, and if we can show the case not to be the same, we shall by his own Confession speak home to the Point; and we shall more-over have this comfort at least, that we suffer this reproach (of being parallel'd to Heathens) falsly, for God's sake. In order to this I shall show, 1. What the supreme God of the Heathens was. 2. What were those Intermediate Beings. 3dly. What was their Office; And, 4thly, What kind of service they required.

1. For the supreme God Jupiter, the Doctor says, it was not he of Creet, but the Father of gods and men. And the Poets indeed call him so, (of whom Horace confesseth, that they took the priviledge to dare to fain and say any thing.) But how glorious soever the [Page] Title be, yet Origen tells us in express terms,li. 5. contr. Cels. p. 487. that he was not the true God, but a Devil. We are ready to undergo, saith he, any torments rather than confess Jupiters to be God, for we do not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, neither indeed to be any God at all, but a Devil, who is delighted with the name of Jupiter, an Enemy to Men and God. 2dly, For the Intermediate Beings, it is asserted by the same Origen, that they were Devils also, and according to the differently formed statues, li. 8. cont. Cels. p. 525. in which they assisted, one was esteemed to be Bacchus, another Hercules, &c. The like is affirmed also by Theophilus Antiochenus above cited, and St. Austin upon the 96. Psalm. But then because the supreme God was conceived to be of so high a Nature, that he knew not what passed in this sublunary World: Therefore, 3dly, The Office of these Inferiour Deities or Devils, was to carry up the Prayers of Men to God (as the Doctor himself cites out of St.li. 8. de Civ. Dei. c. 14. 18. 21. Austin, but very insincerely, for St. Austin saith, not to God, but ad Deos, to the Gods, that is, to Devils,) out of a supposition, that they cannot know the necessities and prayers of Men, but by Intervention of [Page]these Spirits; and so to bring down to Men the blessings they prayed for: And, 4thly, To oblige them to perform this Office of Nuncii or Messengers, (as St. Austin calls them,) they exacted of Men to give them Divine Worship, De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 21. by the Oblation of Victims and Sacrifices, as the Fathers every where testify. This then is the Scheme of the Heathens Divinity and Devotion. The Doctor's Father of Gods and Men, was according to the Fathers, an Arch-Devil; The Inferiour Deities, were Inferiour Devils. Their Office was to inform the Superiour Gods, of what passed here below; and the reward they required for this service, was no less than the Offering of Sacrifice to their Devil-ships. And now, was this the very same case (altering only the Names of Things) which, he saith, is in debate between Him and the Church of Rome concerning the Invocation of Saints? Surely, a more Injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the Pen of the greatest Enemy of Christianity, except that of Julian the Apostate, who charged the Christians of his time for their worshipping the Martyrs, that for the one true God, they worshipped many Men who were not Gods. A most Injurious Calumny,As St. Cyril Alex. reports of him. li. 6. contr. Julian. I say. For, r. The God, whom we adore, is not [Page] that wise Father of Gods and Men, who was so high, as not to know what was done here below; but the true and Immortal God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, who sees the secrets of our hearts, and knows our necessities before we utter them. 2dly, The Persons to whom we address our selves for their Prayers, are not Devils or wicked Wretches, but the Friends and Servants of God, whom the Doctor himself (as little respect as he hath for them) acknowledges to exceed those other in excellency. 3dly, Their Office is not to inform the Supream God of what he knows not, but to be Joynt Petitioners with us, and for us, to his divine Majesty, as other Holymen are upon Earth. 4thly, and Lastly, We do not procure, or buy this favour of them, by offering Sacrifice to them; for as St. Austin saith, What Bishop officiating at the Altar, Cont. Faust. li. 20. c. 21. doth say at any time, We offer to Thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But, as the same Holy Doctor there saith, We celebrate their Memory with Religious Solemnity, both to excite us to their imitation, and to become partakers of their Merits and Prayers: but so that we erect Altars not to any of the Martyrs but to the God of Martyrs, although in Memory of them.

And now having spoken thus home to the Case, I leave it to the Reader's Judgment, [Page] whether the Practice of Catholicks in honouring and Invocating the Saints, be the same with that of the Heathens, in the worship of their Inferiour Deities? To make the Case run Parallel on all four, the Doctor must prove, either that the God we worship is not the very true God, but an Arch-Devil; or that the Holy Angels and Saints are not his friends and servants, but inferiour Devils; Or that we believe him to be so ignorant, that he stands in need of them to inform him; or that we offer sacrifice and erect Altars to them. And when he can do all, or any of these, he will speak something to the Point. But I believe these are none of those things, which he threatens largely to prove, if further occasion be given. And I have good reason to believe so, by his present undertaking, which is not to prove any of these things (in which the Parallel must consist, if there be any,) but to cast a mist before his Readers eyes, and make him lose both his labour, and the Question, as I shall show in the following Chapter.

[Page]

CHAP. II.

What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints. The Testimonies of Origen, and St. Ambrose explained. Of the Practice of making Addresses to particular Saints.

§. 1. THe Question at present between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome, is not whether divine worship be to be given to the Saints, (for this is abhor'd of all faithful Christians) but whether an Inferiour Worship, of like kind with that which is given to Holy Men upon Earth for their Holiness and neer Relation to God, may not be lawfully given to them, now they are in Heaven? This is the true state of the Question between us, which the Doctor, afraid to grapple with, turns aside, and will (he saith) insist upon these two things. 1. That the Fathers did condemn all such kind of worsh [...]p, p. 146. supposing their Principle true, that is, as far as I can understand it, supposing what they said was true. 2. That they did not only condemn it, in those spirits, which the Heathens worshipped, but in good Angels themselves. And before I engage with Him upon the Testimonies of the [Page] Fathers, I must disperse the Mist he raises by his Egregious equivocating in the words, All such kind of worship. What kind of worship is it the Fathers deny may be given to the most excellent created Beings? He tells us, (p. 145.) any Religious Worship. And what doth he mean by Religious Worship? To dispute, (saith Mr. Thorndike) whether we are bound to honour the Saints or not, Epil. part. 3. p. 353. were to dispute whether we are to be Christians, and to believe this or not. Whether this be Religious or Civil, nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable, and the cause of that equivocation the want of words; vulgar use not having provided words properly to signify conceptions, which came not from Common sense.—Plainly their excellence, and the Relation we have to them, being Intelligible only by Christianity, must borrow a Name from that, which vulgar language attributes to God, or to Men our Superiours. And then a little after he saith. That the Relation which God hath settled between the Church Militant and Triumphant, may be reasonably called Religious, provided that the distance be not confounded between the Religious honour of God, and that Honour of the Creature, which the Religious honour of God enjoins, being neither Civil nor Humane, but such as a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake, and that Relation which it[Page]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, de Civit. Dei. li. 10. c. 1. 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; Contr. Faust. li. 20. c. 21. 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 [Page]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 M [...]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, Contr. Cels. li. 8. in princ. 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, [Page] 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 m [...]ght be lawfully given, but to the Son. And again, when Celsus objects, that by the [Page]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, p. 148. 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 [Page] 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.li. 5. contr. Cels. 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, li. 8. contr. Cels. 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,Epil. part. 3. p. 353 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[Page]discretion counts superfluous, to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Men. And a little a [...]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 [Page] 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 [...]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) [Page] 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 Tooth [...]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 o [...] 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, [Page]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 hear [...] 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 Dis [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Saint above others, as Patience, Humility, Chastity, &c. (for which reason the Church saith of every one of them, Non est inventus similis illi, that there was no other found like to him) or upon the particular manner of his suffering Martyrdom, or some particular Miracle, or such like remarkable passage in his Life and actions; which may serve to excite the Hope of the suppliant to obtain redress by means of his Intercession, in a case which he conceives to bear a suitableness or conformity to something acted or suffered by him. Now the efficacy of Prayer being grounded on Hope, and it being natural to us to hope for redress where others have found it, or where it may more reasonably be expected, by reason of some particular qualification we apprehend in the Person to whom we address, it is manifest, that as the abovesaid Reflexion serves to erect our Hope, so also it conduces to the end of Prayer, that is, the obtaining of what we pray for. Hence it is, that although all the divine Attributes are really one and the same indivisible Perfection in God, yet for pardon we fly to his Mercy; for knowledge to his [Page] Wisdome, for Protection to his Power, &c. And St. Paul assigns the remission of our sins to the Passion of Christ, but our Justification (by which we rise to newness of life) to his Resurrection. He was delivered to death for our sins, Rom. 4. 25. and rose again for our Justification. The reason whereof he gives in the Epistle to the Hebrews. c. 2. v. 18. Where he saith, that it behoved Christ to be made like unto his Brethren in all things, that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the People; For, saith he, in that he suffred himself being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted; that is, by what he suffred himself, he is made prompt and ready to succour those who are in affliction and Temptation. For it was true even of his most sacred Humanity, what the Poet out of the very nature, of Humanity made another say, Ha [...]d ignara [...]li, miseris succurrere disco, that by his own sufferings he had learnt how to compassionate the sufferings of others. And this was laid down by St. Paul, as a powerful Argument to perswade the Hebrews to put their Hope in Him for their reconciliation with God, because he was so particularly qualified and fitted for that Work by what he had suffered. Why then may not a like Consideration of the fitness or qualification [Page] of one Saint above others, as so conceived by us, (either for his eminent Perfection in such a particular virtue, or some other Remarkable passage in his Life) be taken as a Motive to invite us to address for the obtaining what we stand in need of, to his Intercession before others? The Scripture we know to perswade us to Patience in Adversity, James 5. 10. bids us reflect upon the sufferance of Job; And why may not his eminence in that virtue, as it serves for an example of our Imitation, be also taken as a particular motive of our having recourse to his Intercession? And when Jacob blessed the two Sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasses, among so many Angels whose assistance he might have implored, he beggs for that Angel in particular to be their Guardian, who had delivered him out of all his troubles. The Angel, saith he; who delivered me from all evils, Gen. 48. 16. bless these Children. And why? but because he thought that he who had been so careful to deliver him, would be as careful to deliver them. And upon this account were I in danger of being ship wrackt, I should sooner fly to the Intercession of St. Paul, who had saved by his Prayers all his Fellow-passengers in the Ship from being drowned, than to another who had never been in the like [Page] danger. Behold here then the Crime of Catholicks in calling particularly upon the Angel Raphael when they travel, because he protected young Tobias in his Journey; upon St. Roch against the Plague, because his Charity was signal in assisting those who were insected with it: upon St. Nicholas against Tempests, because he saved some by his Prayers, who in a storm at Sea invoked him, while yet alive: upon St. Apollonia for the Tooth-ach, because all her Teeth were strucken out for her free Confession of Christ; and upon St. Michael and St. George against Enemies, because the latter was by Profession a Souldier, and a most valiant Martyr. And the former is recorded in Scripture to be the Protector of the People of God. This is the Crime for which the Doctor charges Catholicks with Idolatry. Dan. 10. 21. & 12. 1. But if it be a Crime in them, it is much like that of a Beggar, who hopes to find relief at that door, where he hears others have been relieved before. The Doctor perhaps to carry on his sport, will instance in some addresses that are made to particular Saints upon such accounts, which seem to him ridiculous, or it may be contrary to what happened to the Saint. But while I defend the reasonableness of the practice in it self, I am not bound to defend, that all who use it, take the hints of [Page] their application to one Saint before another from solid and reasonable Motives. This I know, that what seems ridiculous to One who scoffs at devotion, may serve to raise affections in another who is truly devout: And the Chananaean Woman, when our Saviour said to her, It is not good to take the Children's bread and cast it to Dogs, Matth. 15. 26. drew an Argument of Hope, from whence another who had not her Faith would have taken a Motive of despair. In fine, to conclude this Point, let us suppose that Martha and Mary Magdalen, who are now glorious Saints in Heaven, were again living upon Earth, I would gladly know whether a Person guilty of Incontinency, might not without being guilty also of Aegyptian Idolatry, conceive a greater Hope of obtaining God's favour by the Prayers of so Exemplar a Convert, than by those of her Sister, though more Innocent? Surely the Parallel Example of her Conversion, and the particular Zeal she must have for the Conversion of others, would soon determin the devotion of the Penitent to have recourse to her Intercession? The Case is the same now she is in Heaven, for she hath not lost her Charity by being there. And the case is the same in addresses made to other Saints, upon like accounts, as I shewed above. When therefore the Doctor [Page] hath a mind hereafter to change the names of the Aegyptian Gods, who according to their doctrin presided over the several parts of Man; let him, if he please, transcribe out of the Almanack the Anatomy of Mans Body, as the parts thereof are govern'd by the Twelve Signs, Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, &c. The Characters at least may stand indifferently, as Hieroglyphical Notes either of the Signs of the Zodiack, or Aegyptian Deities. But nothing can be more ridiculous, than to assert, that there is no disparity between the Aegyptians worship of those Deities, and the honour which Catholicks give to the Saints, but in the Names. Thus much for Origen.

§. 5. His second Testimony is out of the Commentaries, under the Name of St. Ambrose,In Ep. ad Rom. c. 1. where that Authour speaking against those who neglecting the true God, said it was sufficient for them to worship only the things which are seen, says, that they made use of a miserable excuse, which was, that access might be made to God by these, as we go to the King by his Courtiers, &c.

To this I answer, that it is evident by the Answer of that Author, as set down by the Doctor, that he speaks of those who gave the honour due to God, to a Creature, and forsakeing God, adored their Fellow-servants. Whom [Page] therefore he compares to those who give the honour due to the King, to any of his Courtiers; which as he doth not, who only makes use of a Courtier to recommend him to the King: so neither do Catholicks give the honour due to God, to the Saints, who only require the favour of their Prayers to God. But here the Doctor makes a terrible blunder by his dextrous translating those words of the Author, [Suffragatore non opus est, sed mente devota:] To signify, that because nothing is hid from God, therefore we need no one to recommend us to his favour; a devout mind is enough: which if it were the Author's meaning (as it is the Doctor's) would make him to exclude not only the necessity we have of the Prayers of our Fellow-members, as well of the Church Militant as Triumphant, but also of the Intercession of Christ himself: for, if a devout mind be enough, and that we need no one to recommend us to God's favour, what need we the Prayers of others, or the Intercession of Christ? But it is manifest, that the Author takes not the word in this sense; but as those are called suffragatores, whose vote or advice the King takes (for example) in the Election of his Officers, because as the Author there addeth, being but a Man, he knows not of himself whom to employ in publick affairs, without being inform'd by others. This is the Reason given by the Author, and this is what the [Page] Heathens affirm'd of their Inferiour Deities, De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 21. as St. Austin reports, Viz. That the Ethereal Gods who have care of humane affairs, would not know what Men do, unless the Aerial Daemons declared it to them. By which it appears, that when the Author says, Suffragatore non est opus, that because nothing is hid from God, there is no need of a suffragator, he means, that GOD needs not any one to inform or advise him what to do, as Kings do, and as the Ethereal Gods of the Heathen did; but not, according to Dr. St.'s Version, that we need no one to recommend us to his favour, that is, that we need not the Prayers and Intercessions of just Persons, which the Scripture saith, are available with Him.

§. 6. The like Piece of Legerdemain he uses in his next Testimony (p. 153.) out of St. Austin, for where he saith, that if the Ethereal Gods can see our minds, De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 21. [non ad hoc daemonibus indigent nunciis] they need not for this the daemons for Messengers or Informers. The Doctor translates it impersonalty, that if our minds can be known without their help, there is no need of their Mediation, intimating thereby, that if our necessities and prayers can be known to God without his being inform'd by the Holy Angels [Page] and Saints, we need not their Prayers and Intercession to recommend us to his favour. These are the shifts the Doctor is put upon, to wrest the Fathers to say what they never mean't. But now he thinks he hath knockt us on the Head with a down-right blow, when he tells us out of the same St. Austin, li. 9. c. 15. that those who are Christians do believe, that we need not many, but One Mediator, and Him the very Person himself, by whose participation we are made happy. But here also his Pen (that fatal Instrument by which he does us dead) moved not so even, as not to slant a little from the true translation and meaning of St. Austin's words. For whereas St. Austin disputing there against the Platonists, who made the Inferiour Deities to be Mediatours, said, Non multis sed uno Mediatore opus erat, that to bring us to happiness, there needed not many, but One Mediator; the Doctor first makes a Preface of his own, as if it were St. Austin's, that those who are Christians do believe; And then turns [opus erat, there was no need] (as Plato pretended) into we need not many, but One Mediator; as if St. Austin were disputing against Catholicks for desiring the Intercession of the Saints. To the Testimony it self, as it stands translated by the Doctor, I answer, that it is plain from the very words of St. Austin, that he speaks [Page] of such a Mediator, by whose Participation we are made happy, that is, of a Mediator of Redemption, and not a Mediator of Intercession, that is, such an one as may recommend us in his Prayers, to obtain God's favour through his Son Jesus Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer; for these may be many, as Mr. Thorndike well observs,Epil. 3. Part. p. 355. when he saith, that if whosoever be accepted to pray for another is necessarily by so doing his Mediator, Intercessor or Advocate to him, with whom he is admitted to deal on his behalf by his Prayers, then—Certainly neither could Job intercede for his friends, nor Samuel for the Israelites, nor Abraham for Abimelech or Pharaoh, nor any of God's Prophets, for any that had or were to have recourse to them for that purpose, but they must be by so doing Mediators, Intercessors and Advocates for them with God. And in this sense, (supposing that the Saints pray for us, which Dr. St. saith, he will not deny the Fathers did believe. p. 173.) He admits that the Saints may be called our Mediators, and Intercessors to God, and that to dispute whether they may be counted so or no, is a meer contention about words. Now that the word Mediator is not so appropriated to Christ, but that it may be and is applyed to some other,Bible in 4o. London, 1610. even in Holy Scripture, the Annotations set forth upon [Page] the Bible by Publick Authority tell us, when explicating that place of St. Paul, Gal. 3. 19. [The Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator] They affirm that the Mediator there meant was Moses. But however the word Mediator may be used, the Doctor says, it would be ridiculous here to distinguish Mediators of Redemption and Intercession, because all that the Heathens attributed to their good spirits, (for so he will have them to be in despite of St. Austin, who calls them Devils) was only Intercession.

This he avoucheth here in the face of the World, p. 156. but (as I suppose) in confidence, that neither his Reader, nor his Adversary will be so rude, as to remember him of what he told us out of Celsus, p. 150. that the Aegyptian Deities at least, I mean Chnumen, Chnaachumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biu, Eru, &c. Every one of them healed the diseases of the parts proper to themselves, and therefore might justly be invocated; nor yet of what he told us so lately out of St. Austin, p. 155. that the Heathens supposed that the Gods could not know the Necessities and Prayers of Men, but by the Intervention of those Spirits, and that the giving them divine worship proceeded upon that supposition; Viz. that it was their Office to inform the Superiour Gods of what they could not know otherwise. For, if these things be true, it is manifestly [Page] false what the Doctor affirms at present; Viz. that ALL that the Heathens attributed to their Inferiour Deities was only Intercession; and consequently, he not only contradicts the Truth, but (what perhaps to him is worse,) Himself also. So dear doth it cost him, to make the Church of Rome appear guilty of Idolatry, for desiring the prayers of the Holy Angels and Saints; not to inform God of what he knows not, nor for them to give what they ask, (as the Heathens believed of their Deities) but only to recommend us to his favour, as we begg the prayers of one another. But his Zeal is not all spent. There follows a second Part of it to the same doleful Tune; And we must dance step by step after it, if we will not be counted Rats.

[Page]

CHAP. III.

What kind of Worship of Angels was Condemned by St. Paul, Theodoret, &c. with a farther display of the disparity between the Heathens Worship of their Inferiour Deities and that given by Catholicks to Holy Angels and Saints.

§. 1. THe Second Thing the Doctor proposed to show out of the Fathers, (p. 154.) was, that they did not only condemn giving this worship to the Spirits, which the Heathen worshipped, but to good Angels too. And here again he deludes his Reader with that general term of this Worship; as if the honour which Catholicks give to the good Angels, by desiring their Prayers to the only true God, were the same with that worship which the Heathen gave to those spirits whom they worshipped with sacrifice as Gods. But we must give him leave to cry whoop, all hid, in Generals, and find him out if we can.

The first place he seeks to hide himself in, (and he was so afraid to be discover'd, that he would not set down the words) is that Text of St. Paul, Col. 2. 18. Let no Man [Page]beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of Angels, &c. and not holding the Head (Christ.) Here he saith, that St. Paul doth in the general condemn the worship of Angels, that is, all kind of worship of any kind of Angels, whether good or bad. But if so, why did St. Paul say, in a voluntary humility, and not holding the Head Christ? These Clauses sufficiently intimate a particularity in the Worship, which St. Paul condemn'd, and this was, saith St. Chrysostome, S. Chrysost. in Col. 2. 18. that some among the Colossians said that we ought to be recociled, and have access to the Father, not by Christ, but by the Angels. And this, saith he, is that which is said (i. e. condemned) by the Apostle, that they so admitted and worshipped the Angels for Mediators, as to exclude Christ; And the reason why they did so, is given by Theophylact, Theophyl. in Col. 2. 18. because they esteemed it a thing unworthy the Majesty of the only begotten Son, on the one side, to make the Reconciliation, and far transcending Man's Poverty or lowness on the other. This supposed, the Doctor's petty Objections of St. Paul's not distinguishing good Angels from evil ones, and our setting up other Mediatours besides Christ, vanish into Air, because good Angels themselves are not to be worshipped, but [Page] in subordination to Christ the Head, nor their Prayers to be desired as efficacious for us, but through his merits. And when we have recourse to them upon this account, it is no more to set up other Mediators besides Christ, than when we desire the Prayers of Holy Men upon Earth.

§. 2. But Theodoret upon this Place of the Apostle, saith, that those who defended the Law, perswaded Men to worship Angels, because the Law was delivered by Angels; which practice, he saith, continued a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia; and therefore the Synod of Laodicea doth forbid praying to Angels; And to this day the Oratories of St. Michael are among them. This they perswaded Men to, as a piece of humility, affirming that God the Creator of all things could not be seen nor comprehended, nor approached by us; and therefore we ought to obtain his favour by the Angels. This is what Theodoret saith, and the Import of it amounting only to this, that St. Paul and the Council of Laodicea (in his Judgment) forbad the worshipping or praying to Angels, upon account that the Law was deliver'd by them (and therefore, as Theophylact saith, they brought us salvation) or that God by reason that he is Invisible and Incomprehensible, cannot be approached, but by the Angels: The Reader sees how unjustly this Place is urged against Catholicks, who have [Page] recourse to the Holy Angels for their Prayers, not upon account that they brought us salvation without Christ by delivering the Law, or that God is so high we cannot have access to Him, but by them: but that they, as true Friends of GOD, would intercede for us through the Merits of Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer: as the Council of Trent declareth.

But if Theodoret will not do the Doctor's work, Baronius shall. No wonder, saith he, (p. 155.) Baronius is so much displeas'd with Theodoret for this Interpretation, for he very fairly tells us, what he condemns, Baron. An. 60. 20. 21. (and St. Paul too) was the practice of the Church of Rome, and those Oratories were set up by Catholicks, and not by Hereticks. And I shall wonder more, if he find any one who will believe him; that so great a Champion of the Church of Rome, as Baronius, should be so stupid, as to maintain in the face of the World the lawfulness of praying to Angels, as it is practised in that Church, and yet confess that as so practised, it is condemned by Theodoret and St. Paul too. Either Baronius was a very great Dolt, or the Doctor does not deal very fairly by him. And this is but too too evident: 1. Because the words as put by him for the words of Baronius, Viz. [what Theodoret[Page]condemns (and St. Paul too) was the practise of the Roman Church] are not Baronius his words, but the Doctor's, for Baronius saith there expresly, that Theodoret as to the Doctrine of the Veneration of Angels, recta sensit, that is, held the same which the Roman Church holds at this day. 2dly, Because the Point in which Baronius differs from Theodoret, is not that those were not condemn'd by him and St. Paul too, who worshipped Angels upon the erroneous account aforesaid, viz. That Access could only be made to God by the Angels: (whether the Authors of that Doctrine were Jews, or Hereticks, or Philosophers;) but that Baronius judged Theodoret mistaken in asserting the Authors of that Doctrine not to have been the Heathen Philosophers, but certain Hereticks; and much more in supposing the Oratories of St. Michael in Phrygia and Pisidia, to have been erected by those Hereticks; Incaute nimis, saith Baronius, Too unwarily attributing to them the erecting of those Oratories which had been of old instituted by Catholicks. Baron. An. 60. n. 20. This is what Baronius saith, grounding himself upon some ancient Records; And here lieth the depth of the Charge, that because Theodoret condemns the worship and Invocation of Angels, as he thought it was practis'd by those Hereticks [Page] in those Oratories of St. Michael; and Baronius thinks him mistaken in the matter of Fact, and that those Oratories were indeed erected by Catholicks, therefore Baronius (saith the Doctor) very fairly tells us, that what Theodoret condemns was the practice of the Roman Church. Which is just, as if the Doctor being to comment that passage of Scripture, Jos. 22. where the Children of Israel design'd War upon the Reubenites, &c. for erecting an Altar beside the Altar of the Lord, should tell us, that they too unwarily ascribed to a schismatical worship, what was intended for a testimony of the true and lawful worship of God. And another Author passing his judgment upon this Comment of the Doctor's should affirm, that Dr. St. very fairly tells Us, that what the Israelites condemned in the Reubenites, was the worship of the true God. Would not this be a fair tale. if well told by a credible Person of Dr. St.? If he would not own it for such himself; Why does he impose so foul a one upon Baronius? For as the Israelites were mistaken in the End, for which that Altar was Erected, so was Theodoret, saith Baronius, in the use of those Oratories of St. Michael; and therefore it follows no more in his Judgment, that what Theodoret condemn'd was the true and lawful Invocation of Angels, as practis'd in the [Page] Church of Rome, than that what the Israelites condemn'd was the worship of the true God, as exercis'd among them.

§. 3. But the Doctor saith yet further, that Baronius very fairly tells Us, that not only what Th [...]odoret condemn'd, but what St. Paul too condemn'd, was the practise of the Church of Rome. But this is yet fouler than the former; for himself (p. 156.) tells us, that what Baronius contended, was condemned by St. Paul, was the Idolatry of the Heathens. And although Dr. St. will needs make the Catholick Invocation of Angels, and the Heathens worship of their Daemons to be the same, yet a greater Authority than His is requisite to make us believe that Baronius thought so too. These are pitiful sleights of sophistry, to delude an unwary Reader:Advers. Haeres. li. 2. c. 57. And so are, his citing of Irenaeus, as denying any Invocation of Angels to be in use among Christians; and of the Council of Laodicea, as charging all who worship Angels with Idolatry in so doing: Can. 35. For Irenaeus speaks only of such superstitious Invocating of Angels, as was used by the Marcites and Carpocratians in their Magical Operations, and working of false Miracles. And whatever Practice that were of nominating [Page] Angels, which the Council of Laodicea is so severe against, (whether of the aforesaid Hereticks or Heathens) it is manifest that it cannot with any show of Probability be understood of that worship which the Catholick Church gives to Holy Angels. 1. Because the Council speaks of such as nominated Angels, and made private Assemblies to them, forsaking (or excluding) our Lord Jesus Christ, which words were conveniently omitted by the Doctor. And, 2dly, Because the Council both in the Canon immediately foregoing: (34.) As also Can. 51. alloweth the honouring and celebrating the Feast-days of the Martyrs; which is a plain Indication that it intended not to condemn in this Canon the worship due to Angels; of whom Theodoret saith, That they are more to be honoured than Men; Li. 3. de Angelis. yet not as secondary Gods, but as our Fellow-Servants and Ministers of God. By this the Reader may see, whether we had more reason to fear the force of this Canon; or he the discovery of what he so artificially concealed.

§. 4. To his Testimony out of Origen, p. 156. I have answered already, that he speaks of such Prayers, as are offred only to God; for he both acknowledges a distinction between the worship due to God and the [Page] Angels, and himself also directs his Prayer to an Angel, as I have showed above, p. 359. What he cites out of St. Austin, (de Civit. Dei. li. 10. c. 1.) is not in the least against the Honour or Invocation of Angels, as taught and practis'd in the Catholick Church. For the Question there in debate between Him and the Platonists, as it stands propos'd in the very Argument of the Chapter, is, Whether the Angels will that sacrifice be offered to God alone, or also to them? That they may be honour'd with that kind of worship, with which Holy Men or Blessed Souls are honoured by us, he sufficiently intimates in his 20th. Book against Faustus, c. 21. Where he equally denies the worship due to God, ought to be given to any of them. And elsewhere,Tom. 4. sup. Gen. 9. 61. as if he intended to prevent the Dr.'s Objection, as to the worship of Angels; he saith, Neither let it move you, that the Angel (Apoc. 19. 10.) forbiddeth St. John to worship Him, and admonisheth Him rather to worship God; For the Angel, saith he, appeared such, (that is, in so glorious a manner) that he might (by mistake) be worshipped for God, and therefore the Worshipper was to be corrected. And this he saith in reference to what he had said before, Viz. That it is observable in the Precept [Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve][Page]that it is not said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only, as it is said, Thou shalt serve Him only, which in Greek is [...]: by which it is plain, that in St. Austin's Judgment, although Latria be due to God alone, yet worship may be given to others. When therefore he saith in the place now under debate, that the Blessed spirits are not willing we should sacra facere, that is, dedicate, (the Doctor translates it equivocally to perform any sacred Offices) and sacrifice to them, or consecrate our selves, or any thing of ours to them by the Rites of Religion, it is evident he speaks of the worship which is due to God alone, that is, of such Dedications and Consecrations, as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods. And although in his 61. Q. upon Exodus, he makes this difference (as the Doctor objecteth against us) between Latria and Dulia, that Dulia is due to God, as he is Lord; but Latria is not due, but to God as he is God. Yet in the very place cited here by the Doctor, he affirms,Li. 10. de Civ. Dei. c. 1. that that service which is given by servants to their Masters, is wont to be called by another Name in Greek, that is, dulia. But this the Reader was not to know, for fear he might infer, that if some degree of the service called in Greek dulia, might be given by Servants to their Masters, then surely [Page] a higher degree of it may be given to the Holy Angels.

§. 4. But now after all these endeavours used by the Doctor, to hide himself in the General terms, of such worship, Religious worship, Prayer, Invocation, &c. and some obscure passages of the Fathers; He tells us, that he knows very well (and I pray God, his own knowledge may not rise against him in the Day of Judgment) by what Arts all these Testimonies are endeavoured to be evaded, (or rather, by what Light he will be discovered to have said nothing to the purpose,) Viz. That these sayings of the Fathers were intended against the Heathens Idolatry who worshipped those Spirits as Gods, and offered Sacrifices to them: But the Church of Rome denie [...] the Angels and Saints to be Gods, and asserts that the worship by Sacrifice is proper only to God. This Answer is indeed given by St. Austin very often, and others of the Fathers: And there needed no other, to the Testimonies he produces, if all who read his Book, knew as much as himself. But such devices as these, (for so he calls them, though prov'd to be the sense of the Fathers out of the very places cited by him) he saith, can never satisfy an impartial mind. And (to return him his own words in a like occasion) I must tell him, that if ever he speak home to our case, he must do it upon this Point, And so he does, but [Page]very little to his comfort; as I shall make appear, by showing the nullity of the Reasons, with which he endeavours to make the aforesaid Answer seem insufficient.

1. The First is, because The Fathers, he saith, (p. 158.) do expresly deny, that Invocation or Prayer is to be made to the Angels, and Saints. But this is but to say the same thing over again, or to equivocate (as Mr. Thorndike saith) in the terms of Prayer and Invocation, which are not so proper to God, but that in despite of our hearts, they may be used in signifying requests made also to Men.

2. His second Reason is, because It would be no more unlawful to sacrifice to Saints or Angels, than to Invocate them. And this Reason clearly destroys it self, because it supposes we hold it unlawful to sacrifice to the Saints, as the Heathens did to their Inferiour Deities. But to let that pass with the rest: If he take the word Invocation here to signifie the Prayer we make to God, as the Author and Giver of all Good, I grant it, no less unlawful to sacrifice to Saints and Angels, than to Invocate them. For what Catholick ever taught or thought that it was lawful to Invocate any Angel or Saint upon that account? But if the word Invocation on the one side (as in despite of all opposition it may be, and by the Custome of the Church it is used) be taken to signify the requests we [Page] make to Angels and Saints to pray for us; and on the other side the offering of sacrifice be not only by the custome of the Church, but of all Mankind (as St. Austin teacheth) appropriated to signify the absolute worship due only to God;De Civ. Dei. li. 10. c. 4. Who sees not the unlawfulness of offering it to any Saint or Angel, may consist with the lawfulness of desiring them to pray for us? The case is plain in just Men upon Earth. For St. Paul and Barnabas accepted willingly the Prayers which others made to them for their assistance, but utterly refused to admit the sacrifice which the Lycaonians (Acts 14.) would have offered to them: and it is as plain of the Saints in Heaven, because we pray no otherwise to them, than we do to Holy Men upon Earth, though more devoutly upon the account of their unchangeable state of Bliss. How then could the Doctor parallel these two together, and not only parallel them, but make it less unlawful to pray to the Saints, than to offer sacrifice to them? I'le tell you. Catholicks, when they write against In [...]idels or Hereticks, make use of the Answers which the Fathers have formerly given to their Objections. But Dr. St. being to oppose the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, in the Point of Invocation of Saints, is for [...]'t to maintain an Argument of the [Page] Heathens against St. Austin: Nay, saith he, (p. 158.) The Heathens in St. Austin argued very well, that sacrifices being meer external things, li. 10. de Civ. Dei. c. 19. might more properly belong to the Inferiour Deities: but the more Invisible the Deity was, the more Invisible the sacrifices were to be, and the greater and better the Deity, the sacrifice was to be still proportionable. Thus the Doctor, to show that in all reason the duty of Prayer ought to be reserved as more proper to God, than any External sacrifice; or, as he va [...]ies the Phr [...]se, than a meer outward sacrifice: and consequently that Prayer was less communicable to a Saint, than Sacrifice. But do you not think the Doctor us'd the utmost of his confidence here, to own and maintain for good (nay very good) an Argument of the Heathens confuted by St. Austin in that very place? The Heathen, saith Dr. St. argued very well. I deny it, saith St. Austin, because in so arguing they manifest that they do not know (nesciunt) that visible sacrifices are the signs of the Invisible Sacrifices of the mind; like as the words we speak are the signs of things. For as when we pray or praise, we direct the words to him, to whom we offer in our hearts the things themselves, which we signify by them: so when we sacrifice, we know that the visible Sacrifice is to be offered to no other, but [Page]to Him whose Invisible Sacrifice, we our selves ought to be in our hearts. And upon this account (he adds a little below) it is and no other, that the Devils require sacrifice to be offered to them, because they know it to be due to God alone—endeavouring by that means to hinder access to the true God; that Man may not be his sacrifice, whilst sacrifice is offered to any but to him. Thus St. Austin in Answer to the Heathens Objection and the Doctor's. By which it appears, 1st, That in the Judgment of St. Austin, external sacrifice being the highest expression of the highest part of Prayer, which is the devoting and sacrificing our selves in our hearts to God, it ought of all others to be reserv'd as most proper and acceptable to him: And that Religion which admits no external visible sacrifice, must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the Publick Worship of God. 2dly, That in the Judgment of the same St. Austin the Doctor (if he speak as he thinks) knows no more than the Heathens did what the true notion of external sacrifice is, when he takes it as distinguish'd from Prayer. And it would seem, as he saith, p, 159. very strange indeed that sacrifice, so taken, should be that Latria which is proper to God. But it seems as strange to me that He should take it so, when himself confesseth, that those who did appropriate sacrifice to God, (by which it seems himself [Page] is none of them) did comprehend Prayer as the most spiritual and acceptable part of it, and that [...] that sacrifices of old were Solemn [...] of supplication; unless he meant to make his Reader believe that Catholicks, w [...]en they speak of sacrifice, as proper to Go [...], mean only the external action, as distinguish'd from Prayer: which as [...] is far from the [...] [...] minds to think so the Doctor in applauding the Doctrine of the Heathens, and siding with them against St. Austin, manifestly shows that he judg'd the Argument of the Heathens more rational than St. Austin's Answer.

3. His third Reason of dissatisfaction is, (p. 159.) because upon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their Inferiour Deities, those of the Roman Church, he saith, do so to Angels and Saints. But this hath been sufficiently refuted already in the First Chapter, §. 6. And at present there needs no more, but to put down the Negatives to the Doctor's Affi [...]matives, viz. that Catholicks do not use Solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship; nor set up the Images of the Saints or Angels for that End, nor consecrate Temples, and erect Altars to them, or keep Festivals and burn Incense before them as Gods, or offer sacrifice to them as the Heathens did even to their Inferiour Deities. These are all such known Truths, both [Page] from the Doctrine and Practice of Catholicks, that nothing but a Prodigious deal of Zeal to fix the black note of Idolatry upon that Church, from which the English Nation receiv'd the Faith of Christ, could occasion the frequent repetition of so notorious a slander. Nor doth the Doctor so much as offer to prove the contrary of any of these Negatives against the Church of Rome, but only the last, of not offering sacrifice to the Saints and Angels. And here he thinks he hath found something to catch at, because Bellarmin saith,Li. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 7. That the sacrifices of the Eucharist, and of Lauds and Prayers are publickly offered to God for their honour. But is this what the Fathers say of the Heathens worship of their Inferiour Deities, that they offered sacrifices to God for their honour? No, they say expresly, that the Heathens offered sacrifices to them, and maintained that they ought to do so; whereas yet Catholicks profess it ought not to be done even to the Holy Angels and Saints, but only to God, though as Bellarmin saith, it may be offered to God in honorem, in, or (as the Doctor translates it) for their honour. And this is but what St. Austin professed,De Civ. Dei. li. 8. c. 27. when he said, that what is offered at the Memories of the Martyrs, is offered to God, [Page]who made them both Men and Martyrs, and joyned them in Heavenly Honour with his Holy Angels, that by this solemnity, we may give thanks, saith he, to the true God for their Victories, and be excited to imitate what they did and suffered. But the Doctor saith, p. 116. that to sacrifice to one for the honour of another, is a thing beyond his reach, if that sacrifice does not belong to him for whose honour it is offered. I have heard that some Beggars have the skill to shrink up their Armes into their Sleeves, as if they could not reach above a span from their shoulders; And now I perceive there is an Art of shrinking up Understandings, as well as Armes. For who can believe it beyond Dr. St.'s reach to understand how sacrifice may be offered to God in honour, or for the honour of the B. Virgin, but that it must be offered to the B. Virgin her self, and that so, as not to honour God by it, as he most uncharitably and unchristianly would make his Reader believe we do? A sudden twitch by the hand will serve to pluck out the Beggar's arm to its full length; and because I am perswa [...]ed a home-example may do as much for a shrunk [...] up Understanding; I must desire the Doctor to reflect, whether it would not be for his honour, that his whole Party should keep a Solemn Day of Thanksgiving for the Great Wit and burning Zeal with which the Lord hath endow'd [Page] Him, to the utter confusion of the Popish Cause? If he think this would be much fo [...] his honour; although the Thanks were given to God, and not to him; I hope it is not beyond his reach now to Understand that sacrifice also may be offered to God in thanksgiving for the great Vertues and Prerogatives he bestow'd upon the B. Virgin, although the sacrifice be offered to God and not to her. In [...] [...], Honour is nothing but a Testimony o [...] Protestation of some excellency; and whether Thanks be given to God, by words, or by sacrifice, for the Gifts and Graces he hath bestowed on such a Person, it is an evident Protestation of such excellency in that Person, and consequently for his honour, though both words and sacrifice be directed to God, and not to him.

His 4th. and last Reason, [that although Catholicks do not call the Saints and Angels Gods, yet they give them the Worship of Invocation, and the honour of sacrifices, which are only due to God] This, I say, is but a Repetition of the Burden of the old Song of Julian the Apostate, and Faustus the Manichaean: and hath been at large refuted in the precedent discourse. I shall only add two Testimonies for a farther confutation of it, as sung over anew by the Doctor. The first is of S. Austin.Li. 8. de Civ. Dei. c. 27. We do not, saith he, erect Temples, or ordain Priests, [Page] nor make Dedications, nor offer sacrifices to the Martyrs, because not They, but their God is our God. We honour indeed their Memories, as of Holy Men of God, who fought for the Truth, even to the loss of their Lives—But we do not worship them with divine honours, as the Heathens did their Gods, nor do we offer sacrifice to them. The second is of Bishop Mountague, in his Treatise of Invocation of Saints, p. 60. Where he telleth all, who are or will be concern'd for Truth, that the Doctors of the Church of Rome do teach, that the Saints are no Immediate Intercessors for Us with God; but whatsoever they obtain for Us at GOD's hands, that they do obtain by and through Christ. And it is (saith he) for ought I know the voice of every Romanist, Non ipsi sancti, sed eorum Deus, Dominus nobis est. (that is, Not the Saints themselves, but their GOD is our Lord.) So, it must not be imputed which is not deserved. Were they worse than they are, it is a sin, they say, to bely the Devil; a shame to charge Men with what they are not guilty of, to make the breach bigger, already too wide. Thus St. Austin, and Bishop Mountague; and were they alive, they might justly [...]ear, Preface, pag. 22. 12. that for these singular fancies, or superstitious Caprichio's, as the Doctor calls them, they should [...]all under his lash of being accounted Men of mere Charity than Judgment.

[Page]

CHAP. IV.

Of the Term, Formal Invocation, and the different Formes used in the Invocation of Saints: Some Instances out of the Fathers, to show the like to have been used in their Times.

§. 1. THe Doctor having made use, in his Answer to the two Questions, of the equivocal term of Formal Invocation, to amuze his Reader, I reply'd, I understood not well what He meant by Formal Invocation, but withall I told him, that what Catholicks understand by it in the present matter, is desiring or praying those just Persons, who are in Glory in Heaven to pray for them: To shew the palpable weakness (as he calls it) of this Answer, he says he will prove, that those of the Church of Rome, do allow and practice another kind of Formal Invocation from what I assert; and I think he never betrayed more pa [...]pably the weakness of his own cause, than in this undertaking. Let the Reader judge.

§. 2. First then, he says, that Never any Person before me imagin'd that to be the sense of Formal Invocation, which I do, when I say, [Page] that what we understand by it, is desiring or praying the Saints to pray for us. And [...] Himself in the very next words declar [...]s, that he imagins the very same sense of it that I do, when he says, that the term of Formal Invocation was purposely chosen by Him to distinguish it from Rhetorical Apostrophes, Poetical Flourishes, and general wishes that the Saints would pray for us, and from Assemblies at the Monuments of the Martyrs; of all which, he grants, there are some instances in good Authors, Viz. the Chief Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Church. For what is this, but to tell us, that he means by Formal Invocation, as I do, a real address of our minds to the Saints themselves to help us with their Prayers: 'Tis true indeed what He would have his Reader to understand by it, is, what he says is constantly practis'd in the Roman Church to offer up our Prayers to Saints and Angels, to help us in our necessities, as well as to pray to God for us. But what doth he say then to the Forme of Prayer used by us in the Letanies, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us: Is it only a Rhetorical Apostrophe, Poetical Flourish▪ or general wish, that the Saints would pray for us: Or, is it more? If it be no more, Why does he impugne what he grants was used by those good Authors. If it be more, 'tis then a part at least of Formal Invocation, as defin'd by Himself. And if [Page] when we pray them to help our necessities, the meaning be, that they should do it by their Prayers, the whole sense of Formal Invocation in this present matter, is to desire them to pray for us: so that though never any Person before me imagin'd this to be the sense of it, yet now I have the Doctor himself concurring with me in it. But to pass on to the Proofs of his Assertion.

§. 3. All the difficulty, he says, (p. 163.) lies in this, whether Catholicks pray to the Saints to help their necessities, as well as pray for them: that is, whether besides the usual form of saying, Holy Mary pray for us; we do not sometimes vary the Phrase, and say, Help me, or comfort and strengthen me, O B. Virgin: for, as for the meaning of the words, I never yet met with any Catholick so Ignorant, as not to understand the sense to be, to desire them to help us with their Prayers. Behold then here the terrible Mystery not to be made known to Proselites, saith the Doctor, until they be first made safe and fast enough! Viz. that sometimes they may use the like form of words to God, and the Saints, as a Child does to his Father, when instead of saying, Pray Father, Pray to God to bless me, he saith sometimes Bless me Father. But Catholicks he saith, (p. 163.) do this with all the same external signs of devotion, which they use to God Himself. And can he excuse a Child[Page]from Idolatry, when he kneels down with the same external sign of devotion, which we use to God, and saith Bless me Father, because he saith it in a different sense to his Father, than he doth to God; and will he not upon the same account be as charitable to us, when with the like external sign of devotion, we say, Bless me, or help me, Mother of God? Mr. Thorndike in all his discourses shows his unwillingness to free the Practise of the Church of Rome in this matter from Idolatry, yet convinc'd by the Evidence of Truth,Epil. 3d. Part. p. 358. he confesses, that the Church of England having acknowledg'd the Church of Rome, a true Church, though corrupt, ever since the Reformation, he is oblig'd so to interpret the Prayers thereof, as to acknowledge the corruption so great, that the Prayers which it alloweth may be Idolatries, if they be made in that sense, which they may properly signify; but not that they are necessarily Idolatries. For, if they were necessarily Idolatries, then were the Church of Rome necessarily no Church, the being of Christianity pr [...] supposing the worship of one true God. And although to confute the Hereticks, the style of Modern devotion, he saith, leaves nothing to God, which is not attributed to, and desired of his Saints, yet it cannot be denyed, they may be the words of them, who believe that God alone can[Page]give that which they desire. And if this cannot be denyed, where is the Doctor's either Charity or Sincerity to interpret these or the like words,Help me Mother of God, in the same sense they carry, when we say Help me GOD?

§. 4. But what do I do expecting Charity from Him, who makes it superstitious Fanaticisme, In his Preface. or at best but Fanciful singularity in others? The excess not of his Judgment, but Zeal, (if we must call it so) hath quite eaten up his Charity. And every thing he meets with, that is not down-right Ora pro nobis, must now be Idolatrous or Blasphemous. Nay, it is enough he hath heard of our Ladies Psalter, a Blasphemous Book, he saith, never yet censured, wherein the Psalms in their highest strains of Prayer to God are applyed to the Virgin Mary. But what, or whose Book soever that be, (which I first had news of from Himself) his only hearing of it, argues that it is no publick Devotion of the Church, and so not to be charg'd upon Her: And did it contain Blasphemy (as he saith it doth,) and were publickly known, no doubt it had been censured before this. But then again, as we are not to take all for Gospel, so neither are we to take all for Blasphemy, which the Doctor calls so. Every one, saith Aristotle, judgeth as he is affected, [Page] and nothing more subject to different construction, than words. They are like those Pictures which represent a Man to one that stands on the right hand, and a Beast to another who stands on the left; or like the Pillar of Cloud, which gave Light to the Israelites, but was darkness to the Aegyptians. For Example, those words of Christ to his Apostles. You are the Light of the World, if you set a Jew on the one side, and Dr. St. on the other: The Jew who owns Christ for no other than a Seducer, will call them Blasphemous; but the Doctor, I hope, will not do so, although Christ say of Himself, that He is the Light of the World. And the only Reason he can give, is, because though the words be the same, yet the sense in which they are applyed to Christ and his Apostles, is very different. And possibly those highest strains of Prayer to God, which he saith are applyed in that Psalter to the B. Virgin, may, if examined, be found not chargeable with Blasphemy, on the like account. For, if it be not the dead words, but the Intention of the Speaker that animates them, which makes them to be Prayer (otherwise a Parrot which should be taught to say, Help me God, would pray as well as a Christian) it follows that as the Intention of the Speaker is different, so will the Prayer be also; that is, the same words spoken to God will have respect [Page] to Him, as who alone can give what we desire; but applyed to the B. Virgin, will signifie only that we desire her Prayers to obtain for us of God, what we believe that he alone can give; and consequently no strain of Prayer, (properly so called) which is made to GOD, will be applyed to the B. Virgin.

§. 5. But now the Doctor will be so just, as not to insist upon the Ancient Breviaries, or Obsolete Forms, or Private Devotions, (among which surely the Psalter he speaks of may be ranked) There is Blasphemy and Idolatry enough, he thinks, in the present Roman Breviary, to serve his turn. The first Instance he gives, is that of the Antiphon, Hail B. Virgin, Thou alone hast destroy'd all the Heresies in the World; and least this should be interpreted of doing it by her Son, (as the Church doth, when she presently addeth, Dum virgo Deum & Hominem genuisti, that is, Miss. Vot. de B. Mar. a Purif. by bringing Him into the World, who was both God and Man) a Formal Invocation of Her, he saith, follows, Give me strength against thy Enemies: to which he adds those Ejaculations in the Hymn, Ave Maris stella. Wherein she is intreated to loose the bonds of the guilty, to give light to the blind, and drive away our evils (but he leaves out, and to beg for us all good things,) and to shew her self to be [Page] a Mother, (or as it is, saith he, in the Masse-Book at Paris, 1634. Jure Matris Impera Redemptori, As thou art a Mother, Command the Redeemer.) But then again, least the Hymn should be thought only Poetical, he saith, that in the Feast of S. Maria ad Nives, a formal Prayer, is made to Her to help the miserable, to strengthen the weak, to comfort those that mourn (where again he leaves out, Pray for the People, Intercede for the Clergy, &c.) And the like forms, he saith, are used to St. Michael, and the Angel Guardians, and to the Apostles. And now, saith he, is all this only praying to the Saints to pray for us? Yes surely, if it be the sense which makes the words to be Prayer, as I shewed above; and not the bare Characters or Letters. And that the Church's sense is no other, but to desire them to obtain for us of God the blessings expressed in those forms, viz. help, comfort, light, &c. is manifest both from her frequent intermixing that usual form of Pray for us, which the Doctor conveniently leaves out; and from her publick Doctrin, as set down in the Council of Trent, and inculcated to all the Faithful in their Cat [...]chisms.

But what can be said to those words in the Mass-Book at Paris, 1634. Jure Matris Impera Redemptori; As thou art a Mother, Command thy Son? I Answer, 1. That those words, [shew thy self to be a Mother] to [Page] which the Doctor makes these other of the Mass-Book at Paris correspond, are not found in any Mass-Book at all, that I can hear of; nor do the words cited by the Doctor, agree in their number and measure with the rest of the Verses of that Hymn, and consequently I have some Reason to believe him mistaken (at least) in citing that Mass-Book. But 2dly, Supposing the words, as cited by the Doctor, to be found in that Mass-Book, I confess they express a vehemency of Spirit, not unsuitable to the brisk and sudden efforts propet to that Nation; but yet they are such as may admit of a fair construction, if they meet with a Reader who is not obstinately bent to be way-ward. There are even in Scripture some expressions, which seem to carry with them as great an excess as this.Jos. 10. 12. 14. For example, when it is said that Josue spake to our Lord, and the Sun stood still, God obeying the voice of a Man: And when our Saviour saith of Himself, that in Heaven he will make his Servants to sit down to Meat, Luke 12. 37. and will serve them. Now, as the former of these expression doth not signify, a real Obedience in God to the voice of Man, but his readiness to do the will of those that fear him; nor the latter, that Christ will really serve the Elect at Table, but only signifies the great care He [Page] will take, that nothing shall be wanting to the complement of their joy and satisfaction. [...]o also the words objected by the Doctor, [A [...] thou art a Mother, Command the Red [...]em [...] ▪] [...] not signify, that she should really command Him, as she did when he was subject to her upon Earth; but that she would use that Grace and Favour on Our behalf, which She hath with Him, as a Mother, above all other Saints. And this being understood to be the sense of the words, all that the Doctor can say, is that the Author was too Hyperbolical in the manner of his Expression; and in this I dare affirm he will find very few Catholicks dissenting from him. Nay more, I have reason to believe, that the Parisian Missal of 1634. if there were any such words in it, hath been since corrected; Otherwise my Adversary would doubtless have cited the Mass-Book of 1670. and not of 1634. And then the words he objects, ought to have been cast among the Obsolete Forms, which he said before, he should not insist upon.

§. 6. But now again, if we use the same form of words to the B. Virgin, and other Saints, as we do to God, as when we desire her to strengthen the weak, to give light to the blind, &c. From whence, saith the Doctor, must the People take the sense of these Prayers, if not from the signification of the words? I [Page] 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 [Page] 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, Orat. in S. Cyprian. ut suppetias ferat. 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 [Page] desire them to save us: And he lays on so hard,Rom. 11. 14. 1 Cor. 9. 22. 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 [Page] 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, Epil. part. 3. pag. 358. 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, [Page] 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, Problem. p. 91. 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 [Page] 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 let me praise Thee? St. Cyril saith, By Thee, Holy Mother and Virgin, Hom. contr. Nestor. every Creature that worshipped Idols, hath been converted to the knowledge of the Truth, Praise and Glory be to Thee, O Sacred Trinity. Praise also be to Thee, O Holy Mother of God—Who can sufficiently set forth thy Praises? Do we entreat the B. Virgin to help the miserable, to strengthen the weak, &c.? St. Gregory Nazianzen abovecited, commends St. Justina for beseeching the B. Virgin to help and succour her. Do we desire her to protect us from our Enemies, and shew her self to be a Mother? Orat. in Theodor. Mart. St. Gregory Nissen, calls upon St. Theodorus to fight for his Country, as a Souldier, and to use that liberty of speech for his Fellow-servants, which besits a Martyr. Do we supplicate the Angels to come to our help, and defend Us? St. Ambrose saith,Li. de vidius. that they are to be supplicated for us, who are given us for our Protectors. Lastly, Do we desire the Apostles Jubere, the word signifies to wish or desire, as well as to command; but the [Page] Doctor will have it here to command the guilty to be loosed; (And He might as well have translated, Jubeo te valere, I command you to farewell) It is not so much, as what that devout Woman in St. Austin, Serm 33 de diversis. said to St. Stephen, De civ. Dei. li. 22. c. 8. when upon the death of her Child before Baptism, she brought the dead Body to the shrine of the B. Martyr, and there exacted ofhim, saith St. Austin, to restore her Son to Life with these words, Redde filium meum, &c. Give me my Son, that I may behold him in the presence of him, who crowned thee. A thing both commended by St. Austin, as a Testimony of her great Faith; and confirmed for such by God, in restoring her Son to Life, at the Intercession of the Saint. Thus much may suffice to show, that whil'st the Doctor casts so much Dirt upon the Doctrine and Practice of the present Roman Church, He makes it fly in the Faces of those great Fathers and Lights of the Primitive Times. And much less might have sufficed for an Objection, (which taken in all its parts, is as like the seeking for a knot in a Bul-rush, as ever yet I met with any) but that, as the Apostle saith, We are Debtors both to the Wise, and to the Unwise. Let us see whether the next be any better.

[Page]

CHAP. V.

The disparity assigned by Dr. St. between desiring the Saints in Heaven, and Holy Men upon Earth, to pray for Us, shown to be Insignificant.

§. 1. TO manifest farther the weakness of the Doctor's Argument, I added in my Reply, that if Catholicks must be guilty of Idolatry, for desiring just Persons in Heaven to pray for them, upon the same account we must not desire the Prayers of a just Man, even in this Life, because this formal Invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity. And the Doctor rejoins, p. 168. that supposing this were all, yet this would not excuse them. But from what? He was loath to name it, the consequence is so absurd, yet he would have his Reader believe, that it would not excuse them from Idolatry. And the Reason he gives is, For their practice is very different in their Invocation of Saints, from desiring our Brethren on Earth to pray for us. And he cannot but wonder how any Men of common sense can suffer themselves to be imposed upon so easily in this matter. But if he suppose, that what we do [...] Invocating [Page] the Saints, is no more than to desire them to pray for us, as we do other Holy Men upon Earth, How comes the one to be Idolatry and not the other? The difference, as far as I can gather from his words, consists in this, that amidst the Solemn Devotions of the Church, after we have prayed to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, to have mercy on us, remaining upon our Knees, we address to the Saints, and require the assistance of their prayers, saying, Holy Peter and Paul pray for us; and this without being sure that they hear us. This, together with a hint of our setting up their Images in some higher place in the Church, and burning Incense before them, is the whole summe of his Argument. These circumstances, he says, make the desiring the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, to be of a very different nature from desiring the same from our Brethren on Earth. And I wonder how any Men of common sense can suffer themselves to be so far imposed upon, as to believe that any thing of this, or all of it together can amount to Idolatry? Li. 20. contr. Faust. c. 21. Why we do not the same in all respects to Holy Men upon Earth, St. Austin gives the Reason, when he says, that we worship the Saints in Heaven so much more devou [...] ly, than when they were upon Earth, because more securely, after they have overcome all the[Page]dangers and uncertainties of this World, as also we praise them more confidently now reigning Conquerours in [...]a more happy Life, than whilst they were fighting in this. So that what we do more to them in Heaven, than whilst they were upon Earth, in praying to and praising of them, is an expression of a greater devotion to them now, (than then) upon the account of their secure injoyment of a state of Bliss, which they can never lose. But for that Worship, which is call'd Latria, for as much as it is a certain service proper to the Divinity, we neither worship them, (saith St. Austin, and all Catholicks with him) nor teach them to be worshipped, but God alone. But to return to the Doctor.

§. 2. The first thing he cavils at, is our turning to the Apostles with the same postures and expression of devotion, to desire them to pray for us, after we have invoked the Persons of the Holy Trinity: And where lies the Idolatry here, if we desire them only, as he supposes, to pray for us? Is the desiring a just Man to pray for us, to give him the honour due to God? Why then were Job's Friends sent to him for his Intercession? Or is it the doing it upon our Knees? Why then do Parents permit their Children to ask them blessing in that posture? Or, is it the using that posture in the Church? Are all the People then Idolaters, for desiring upon [Page] their Knees the Priest (nay one another) to pray unto God for them? These are such pitiful trifles, that they were not worth the reciting, much less refuting, if (as St. Hierom saith of the like) to recite them were not to refute them. Well, but St. Peter, he saith, who would not permit Cornelius to fall down before him, and St. Paul who rent his Garments and cryed out to the Men of Lystra, Why do you these things? would no doubt have been less pleased with this. And why so,Advers. vigilant. c. 2. if Cornelius, as St. Hierome thinks, intended through Error, to worship him with divine honour; and the Men of Lystra, (as St. Luke relates) to offer sacrifice to St. Paul, as to a God? But then again, supposing the honour which Cornelius there intended, to have been only an Inferiour respect, as to a Holy Man, and that St. Peter (as St. Chrysostome thinketh) refused it out of Humility, Hom. 21. in Act. (or as the Doctor terms it Modesty) Does that hinder, but that upon another occasion he might have admitted it, without danger to his Modesty, and much more securely now, that He is in Heaven? For my part, I believe that the Prophet Elizeus lost nothing of his Modesty, 4. King. 4. 27. or Humility, when the Sunamitess fell down [Page]and held Him by the Feet, and He forbad his Servant to thrust Her away. To accept, or refuse due honour is a matter belonging to Prudence; and as sometimes it may be refused with vain glory, so at an other it may be admitted with Humility. What a Caprichio then was it to say, that if we impute it only to St. Peter's Modesty, we will not allow him to carry it to Heaven with him? as if St. Peter could not, without forfeit forsooth of his Modesty, have seen Christians do to him, what they every Day do to one another in the Church.

§. 3. The Second thing he hints at, is that we can never be sure that the Saints do hear us, therefore it must be unlawful, or as he would make it, Idolatrous to desire them to pray for us. To this I answer first, that this can be no excuse for him not to desire the Angels to pray for him, for it is certain by many Texts of Holy Scripture, that they know our necessities and prayers, as Dan. 12. 1. At that time shall Michael stand up, that great Prince, which standeth for the Children of thy People. Zach. 1. 12. The Angel of the Lord said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of Juda, against which thou hast had Indigration these threescore and ten Years. Psal. 137. 2. I will sing unto thee in the sight or presence of the Angels. Luc. 15. 7. There shall [Page]be Joy in Heaven, and V. 10. There shall be Joy before the Angels of God, upon one Sinner that doth Penance. Apoc. 8. 4. The smoke of the Incenses of the Prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before God. All these places, and divers others do manifestly show, that our Prayers and Actions are not unknown to the Angels; And whereas our Saviour himself saith, that the Just in the Resurrection shall be as the Angels in Heaven. Matth. 22. 30. (the equality as to knowledge, not depending upon the Body) it follows by the Analogy of Faith, that our prayers and concerns are known also to the Saints, now enjoying the same Blissful Vision with the Angels; and they no doubt rejoice as much at the Conversion of a Sinner, as the Angels do; and of them it is recorded also, Apoc. 5. 8. as well as of the Angels, that they had golden Vials full of Odours, which are the prayers of Saints, that is, of the Faithful upon Earth, who are here called Saints, as they are often in other places of Holy Scripture also. To this I might add the Incomparable perfection of the knowledge which the Blessed enjoy in Heaven, with many other arguments both from Authority and Reason, brought by Catholick Divines to prove this Tenet. But because the Doctor brings nothing to prove the contrary, viz. that the Saints do not hear us, besides his own, Ipse [Page]dixit; I shall not inlarge further upon this Point, but give him all the fair play he can desire, which is to suppose with him at present, that the Saints do not hear our prayers. But will it follow from thence, that it is unlawful, or Idolatrical to desire their Intercession? I answer, (2dly,) with Bellarmine, De Sanct. Beat. li. 1. c. 20. and deny the Consequence. 1. Because, although Protestant Writers do cite some of the Fathers, as expressing themselves doubtfully, whether the Saints hear our prayers, or no; yet supposing this to be as those Protestants would have it, this was no Argument to those very Fathers, not to call upon the Saints in particular to pray for them, as is manifest from their own doctrin and practise, by what hath been said above, and from the Confession of Protestants themselves. 2. Because it is certain by many and great Miracles wrought by God upon Addresses made to the Saints, that those who call upon them are heard, and obtain what they desire. And for the Protestant Reader's satisfaction in this Point, I shall set down some of them, as they stand recorded in the Works of St. Basil, Theodoret, and St. Austin, witnesses of too great Authority and Integrity to be question'd, much less rejected, as Writers of Fables or Romances.

1. St. Basil, in his H [...]mily upon the 40. [Page] Martyrs, after he had told his Auditors. that there was Help prepared for Christians, Viz. The Church of the Martyrs, and that those who had taken pains to find one to pray for them, had here no less than Forty: and that it was the practise of Christians at that time for those who were in Tribulation, or Joy, to fly, and have recourse to the Forty Martyrs; those for deliverance from their Troubles, and these for the Conservation of their Prosperity: he adds, Here a Pious Mother praying for her Children, is accepted or heard; as also asking a saf [...] return for her Husband, when in a Journey; or health for him in sickness. Let us therefore pour forth our Prayers with these Holy Martyrs. The Doctor will be apt to catch at these last words, as if St. Basil meant, that Christians were only to join their prayers with the Prayers of the Martyrs, and not to desire them to pray for them; But this exception is excluded, by what he said before, that those who are in Affliction, fly, and have recourse to the Martyrs themselves: which practise of the People, saith Dr. Forbes,Consid. Modest. c. 3. p. 311. the first Bishop of Edinburgh, had not St. Basil approved, he would never have proposed as an Example to be imitated: and with him agrees Vossius there cited by him.

2dly, Theodoret is yet more express in this [Page] matter, Li. 8. de Graec. Affect. ‘The Temples of the Martyrs, saith he, are conspicuous, and Illustrious both for their Greatness and Beauty. Nor do we frequent them only once, or twice, or five times in a year; but we celebrate frequent Assemblies in them; and often sing praises every Day to the Lord of those Martyrs. Those who are in good health, begg of the Martyrs the conservation of it; and such as are afflicted with any disease, beg health. Those who are barren, pray that they may have Children; and those who have Children, that they may be preserved to them. In like manner, those who travel, desire the Martyrs to be the companions, or rather Guides of their Journey; and those who return safe, return also to give thanks for the benefit they have received; Not that they imagin they go to Gods; but they beseech and pray the Martyrs of God, as Heavenly Men, to be Intercessours to Him for them. Now that such as piously and faithfully pray to them, obtain their desires: The Donaries, when they pay their Vows, do witness, as evident Testimonies of their recovered health. For some hang up the resemblances of Eyes; others of Hands, others of Feet; made of Gold or Silver: which their Lord, how small and vile soever the gifts be, disdains not most gratefully [Page] to accept, measuring the gift by the ability of the Giver. These therefore being exposed to the eyes of all Men, and brought by those who have obtained health, are most certain signs of the Cure of the Diseases. These I say shew the vertues of the Martyrs who lye buried there; and the vertue of the Martyrs declares the God whom they worshipped, to be the true God.’

3dly, St. Austin is so copious in this subject, that he writes a Treatise rather than a Chapter, of the Miracles which were done in his time, at the Shrines of several Martyrs, De Civ. Dei. li. 22. c. 8. particularly of St. Stephen, which those who desire to be informed of the Truth, may read at their leisure. I have instanced already in that of the devout Mother, Chap. 4. who exacted of St. Stephen to restore her Son to life, and had her Petition granted, God, saith St. Austin, doing it per Martyrem, by his Martyr. I shall only add at present what he relates of a poor, but pious Man, called Florentius, who having lost his Cloak, and not having wherewith to buy another, went to the twenty Martyrs, (whose memory, saith he, with us is very famous, and pray'd with a loud voice, to be cloathed: Certain young Men, whom St. Austin calls Irrisores, (i. e. scoffers) hearing him pray, derided him, (as no doubt [Page] Dr. St. would have done, had he been there) as if he had begg'd so much money of the Martyrs, as would buy him a Cloak. But he departing from thence towards the Sea-side, found a great Fish upon the shore, in whose Belly, when open'd, there was found a Gold Ring; which the Cook, a good Christian, to whom he had sold the Fish, and knew what had passed, gave him, with these words: Behold how the Twenty Martyrs have cloathed Thee. Thus St. Austin, little thinking, then, or now, (if he know nothing of what passes here below) what sport this story will make for the Doctor and his Partizans; though he good M [...]n judg'd it worthy to be recounted, that God might be glorified in his Saints. And upon the same account I shall not omit, though it may add matter of new Merriment to the scoffing humour of the Age, to set down what I find related by John Patriarch of JERUSALEM, to have passed in this kind with Saint John Damascen, about the Year 728. He is known to have been a stout Asserter of the Veneration of Holy Images, and when the Emperour Leo Isauricus raised a Persecution for that cause, he wrote divers learned Epistles to confirm the Faithful in the Tradition of the Church. He was then at Damascus, where the Prince of the Saracens kept his Court, and highly in the favour of that Prince for his Wisdom and [Page] Learning; And the Emperor Leo not knowing otherwise how to execute his Fury against him, causes a Letter to be forged, as from Damascen to Him, and to be transcribed by One who could exactly imitate his hand; the Contents whereof were to invite him to pass that way with his Army; with promise to deliver the City into his hands. This Letter the Emperor, (as out of friendship to an Ally, and detestation of the Treachery,) sent to the Prince of the Saracens, who no sooner saw and read it, but in a brutish▪ Passion, commanded the right hand of Damascen, which he supposed had writ it, to be cut off. Dictum Factum. A word and a blow. His hand was struck off, and hung up in the Market-place, till Evening; when upon Petition that he might have leave to bury it, it was commanded to be delivered to him. He takes the hand, and instead of laying it in the Ground, joins it to his Arm, and prostrating himself before an Image of our B. Lady, which he kept in his Oratory, humbly besought her Intercession for the restoring of his hand, that he might employ it in setting forth her Son's praises, and Hers: This done, sleep seiz'd on him, and he beheld the Image of the B. Virgin looking upon him with a pleasant aspect, and telling Him, that his Hand was restored; which when he awaked he found to be true, and a [Page] small Circle or mark only remaining in the place where it had been cut off, to testify the truth of the Miracle: This is recorded by John Patriarch of Jerusalem, in the Life of St. John Damascen, and to this I might add many more of the like kind: But these may suffice to satisfy an Impartial mind, that whether the Saints themselves hear us or no, yet those who implore their Intercession are most certainly heard, De Cura pro mort. Cap. 15. and as St. Austin saith, helped by them: And it can never be unlawful, much less Idolatrous to use that means for the obtaining our just desires, which God himself hath attested by so many Miracles to be acceptable to him. All that the Doctor brings to uphold his slippery consequence, is that it would be a sensless thing to desire some excellent Person in the Indies, when we are at our solemn devotion to pray for us. And so, no doubt he would have derided those three Tribunes, Vita S. Nicol. apud Lipoman. who (being unjustly condemn'd by the Emperor Constantine, commended themselves to the Prayers of St. Nicholas at that time far from the Court,) for double Innocents. But God who is every where present, and to whom the Wisdom of the World is Foolishness, both could and did reward the simplicity of their Devotion, by causing [Page] the Holy Man to appear to the Emperour in his sleep, and divert him from executing the Sentence. In fine, if the Doctor will needs have it to be a sensless thing to call upon the Saints in Heaven for the Assistance of their Prayers, he must either condemn the Lights both of the Greek and Latin Church (as Mr. Thorndike calls them) to have been sensless Men, (and they may thank God they escape so) or he must grant this practise of theirs, to be a convincing Argument, that they believed the Saints did hear them.

§. 4. The last thing he quarrels at, is the setting up the Images of Saints in some higher place of the Church, and burning Incense before them. And what he says to show this to be very Evil, is that which proves it to be very Good, viz. That the Persons, for whose sake this is done, are (as we suppose them) truly such, as for their assured sanctity, would deserve to have it done to themselves, though perhaps Humility, or other Moral Considerations might weigh both with them, and the Church not to permit it to be done. Yet we know, that Elias sate upon the top of a Hill, and call'd Fire from Heaven upon those two Captains, who came to seize him; but condescended to go with the third, who fell on his Knees before Him. And I would gladly be inform'd what Evil at all it would be to set a Saint (were he present) in some [Page] higher Place in the Church, (as we do a Bishop) for the People to see Him, and desire his Prayers. Perhaps it is the smoke of the Incense, which troubles his Eyes, that he cannot distinguish between the use of it, as applyed to God, and as applyed to his Servants, or other things relating to him. But this being of its own nature an indifferent Ceremony (as bowing and kneeling also are) and not appropriated (at least in the new Law) to the worship of God, it is in the freedome of the Church to determine how and when it shall be used. And as when we kneel to God, that posture is a sign of the soveraign honour we give to him, as the Lord of all things; but when we do it to a Holy Man, or our Parents, it is but a sign of an Inferiour respect due to them. So likewise the Ceremony of Incense, when directed to God, signifies the worship we owe to him; but to Holy Persons or things, an Inferiour respect or veneration to them for his sake.Li. 2. de Missa. c. 15. The use of it is very ancient as Bellarmin shows, and the significations many, and very fitly adapted to the Publick Service of God, as well for the Reverence of the Place; as to mind us of the Inaccessible Glory of God, who appeared in a Cloud; and the sweet Odour our Prayers are to him, if sent up from a heart inflamed with the love of [Page] God. This then being the Intention of Catholick People in the use of these and the like Ceremonies, viz. to give only a Honourary respect or Veneration to the Saints, and to desire them only to pray for us, it is evident that neither in the place, nor the time, nor the manner, any incroachment at all is made upon the worship and service due to God alone; and all the Dr. hath done in this Paragraff, §. 14. p. 168. was, to endeavour to tye a knot in a Bull-rush, when he could find none, and the matter was so brittle, that it would not hold the tying.

[Page]

CHAP. VI.

Of the Practise of Christian People in St. Austin's time, in the Invocation of Saints.

§. 1. THe second Answer I gave to the Dr.'s Injurious Parallel of the Heathens Worship of their Inferiour Deities, and the worship given by Catholicks to the Saints, was, that the same Calumny (as St. Austin calls it) was cast upon the Catholicks in his time,Li. 20. contra Faust. c. 21. and is answered by him, and his Answer will serve now as well as then. That Himself held such Formal Invocation a part of the Worship due to Saints, as is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome;Li. 7. de Bapt. contr. Donat. c. 1. Let B. Cyprian therefore help us with his Prayers, &c. And for a farther Confirmation of it, I added, that Calvin himself acknowledgeth it was the custome at that time to say,Instit. li. 3. c. 20. nu. 22. Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us.

The Dr. comes now, as he saith (p. 170.) [Page] to consider the Answer of St. Austin, whether it will serve to vindicate us now as well as then: And I must desire the Reader to take the pains to peruse attentively the words of St. Austin, as they stand cited in the Reply, and the Doctor's Considerations upon them (for himself thought not fit to call them an Answer;) that by his Performance in this Point, he may see to what miserable shifts, and disengenuous Arts they are put, who will shut their Eyes, and fight against the light of a Noon-day Truth.

§. 2. His first Consideration is, that Sr. Austin utterly denies that any Religious worship was performed to the Martyrs. And how could he affirm this, if he had not shut his Eyes, when St. Austin says expresly in the place cited, that it was the custom of the Christian People in his time, to celebrate with Religious Solemnity the Memories of the Martyrs? That the Reader might not see this Contradiction, he corrupts the words of St. Austin by translating them after his mode, Viz. It was the Custome of the Christians in his time to have their Religious Assemblies at the Sepulchres or Memories of the Martyrs: As if their Meetings were only to honour God in Himself, and not his Martyrs for his sake. But this is both expresly opposite to the words themselves; and is refuted by St. Austin himself, when having admitted in [Page] Answer to Faustus his Objection, that Christians did celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity, he declares himself not to speak of that Religious Worship which is due only to God, but such a kind of worship, with which even Holy Men in this life are worshipped. We worship therefore, saith he, the Martyrs with that worship of Love and Society, &c. But we worship them so much more devoutly, than we do Holy Men upon Earth, because more securely, after they have overcome all the Dangers and Incertainties of this Life. He that hath but half an Eye open must see, that St. Austin speaks here of the Worship which the Christians of his time gave to the Martyrs themselves. And that the Dr. doth but Equivocate in the term [Religious worship] which may reasonably be applyed to the honour due to the Saints, as I shewed above in the 2d. Chap. And whereas he saith, that I conveniently left out, what St. Austin adds, that not only Sacrifice was refused by Saints and Angels, but any other Religious honour, which is due to God himself, as the Angel forbad St. John to fall down and Worship Him; had He not conveniently put those words [any other Religious honour] into the Text (for they are not in St. Austin) he had had nothing to blind his Reader with; and yet as himself cites the words, it is evident that St. Austin speaks of such Religious honour, as [Page]is due to God himself. Whoever looks into the Text (which I omitted only for brevities sake) will judge he had done much more conveniently for his cause, had he left it out.

§. 3. His second Consideration, is, (p. 171) that Invocation is expresly excluded by St. Austin, as no part of the Worship due to Saints. And how again without shutting his Eyes, could he affirm this, when St. Austin expresly says, that Christians did celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity, not only to excite to the Imitation of their Vertues, but also to be partakers of their Merits, and to obtain help by their Prayers? This he conveniently avoids the repeating of, and slies for refuge to another place of St. Austin, where he saith, We raise no Altars on which to sacrifice to Martyrs,De Civitat. Dei. li. 22. c. 10. but to One God, the God of Martyrs, as well as ours; at which as Men of God who have overcome the World by Confession of Him, they are named in their place and order, but are not invocated by the Priest who sacrifices. And here he thinks he hath done our work for us. For, This (saith the afore-cited Bish. Forbes) is a Testimony in which all Dissenters wonderfully exult,Consid. Mod. c. 4. p. 317. and even Triumph; But those of the Church of [Page] Rome, saith he, do answer, and indeed truly, that St. Austin speaks here of Invocation in the Liturgy, and at the Altar, where forasmuch as Sacrifice is truly offered to God, (though he think many of the Church of Rome mistaken in their Explication of it) Invocation is to be directed to God alone. And that this was St. Austin's meaning in that place, would have appeared from the Reason he gives, in the words immediately following the Doctor's citation, had he not most conveniently left them out, Viz. Because the Priest, saith St. Austin, sacrifices to God, and not to the Martyrs, although he sacrifice in Memory of the Martyrs, for he is the Priest of God, and not of the Martyrs: Who sees not, that St. Austin here speaks of Invocation made by the Priest at the Offering of the Sacrifice?

§. 4. But that He did allow at other times the direct Invocation of Saints, I have already shown in the 4th. and 5th. Chapters, from the Examples of the devout Mother exacting of St. Stephen the restoring her Son to Life; and of the poor Man, who prayed to the Twenty Martyrs to be cloathed. Both which St. Austin highly commends, and relates them no doubt as patterns for our Imitation. In his 17th. Sermon de verbis Apostoli, he expresly affirms, that it is an Injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose Prayers we ought [Page]to be commended. And in his Book of the Care for the Dead, c. 4. & 5. he saith, that the Christians of his time, did not only recommend the Souls of their deceased Friends to God, but to the Martyrs also, as their Patrons to be helped by them: And this he gives for the Reason, why they desired to have their Bodies buried neer the Shrines or Sepulchers of the Martyrs, Viz. That the Memory of the Place where they were buried, might excite their Friends to recommend them by their Prayers to those very Saints. These Testimonies are so clear, that they cannot possibly be evaded by any shift, or pretence whatsoever of Rhetorical Apostrophes, or Poetical Flourishes, or General Wishes that the Saints would pray for us. And although Bishop Mountague with his piercing Wit, being press'd with these Authorities, sought every chink to escape out at, yet Bish. Forbes (c. 4. p. 320.) confesses it was in vain; and that he is very sorry, that the said Bish. Mountague gave so just a cause to Joannes Barclaius to expostulate with Him, Paraen. li. 2. c. 7. for imposing upon the credulity of his Soveraign, and others in this matter. And had he been now alive, he might with grief enough have pronounced the same (as I doubt not but many other learned Protestanas do) of Dr. Stillingfleet. As for what he quotes to have been [Page] observed by Lud. Vives (if his Observation were true) that many Christians in his time did offend in re bona, in a thing good in it self, (which the Doctor leaves out) because they did, saith he, no otherwise worship Saints, than they did God himself, (the contrary whereof is asserted by St. Austin of the Christians of his time,) it imports at most but an Errour or Abuse in some particular Persons, such as St. Austin saith (in the place above-cited against Faustus) that whoever falls into it, is to be reproved by sound Doctrine, that he may be either corrected or avoided.

§. 4. From St. Austin's Testimony of the custome of Christian People in his time, I passed to his Practice, and for a Proof of it, I instanced in the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome, Li. 7. de Bapt. contr. Donat. c. 1. in these words; Let blessed Cyprian therefore help Us with his Prayers, &c. This the Doctor calls an Apostrophe, that is a Counterfeit Invocation, such as Mr. Perkins said, we English men make to a Bowl, when we pray it, (globum rogamus) to rubb or run; And the comparison being so Parallel between Mr. Perkins's Globum rogamus, and St. Chrysostom's Sanctos rogamus, Hom. 26. in 2 Cor. I cannot but wonder, that [Page] English-men who are generally esteemed the best Invocators of Bowls in the World, should nevertheless be no better Invocators of Saints. For, if the devotion be the same, it can be no more Idolatry to call upon the Saints, than upon the Bowls. But to speak to the words of St. Austin, [Let B. Cyprian therefore help us with his Prayers] whoever considers the Motive alledged by Him, why he addressed himself to St. Cyprian, which was for that in Heaven, He saw more clearly the truth of that Question, of which himself had formerly doubted, and St. Austin was then treating of; and the necessity he had of his Prayers, as being yet in this Mortal Flesh, and labouring as in a dark Cloud; will easily see that it was not a counterfeit, but a true and serious address to Him for the assistance of his Prayers: And Chemnitius no doubt understood it so,Exam. part. 3. p. 211. when speaking of this very passage of St. Austin's invocating St. Cyprian: This, saith he, Austin did, suffering himself to be carried away with the Times, and Custome. Well, but for all this, the Doctor will have it to be a wish, rather than a Prayer, and he doubts his saying the like to St. Austin, Let Blessed Austin now help me with his Prayers, would not be taken by us for a renouncing the Protestant Doctrine, and embracing that of the Church of Rome. [Page] To this I Answer, although the word Adjuvet taken Grammatically, be of the wishing or Optative Mood; yet taken with all the circumstances above-mention'd, and the custome of Christian People of that time approved by St. Austin, it imports as much a formal request, as if a Child should say to his Father, Benedicat, Let my Father bless me: For it is not so much the Mood, as the Mode (that is, use and custome) which determins the sense of words: And if the Doctor will hazard a tryal of it, Let him but profess as St. Austin did, that we ought to celebrate with Religious Solemnity the Memories of the Martyrs, to be assisted by their Prayers; and that it is good and lawful to commend our selves to their Prayers; and upon this account say, as St. Austin said, Let B. Cyprian help me with his Prayers, I dare undertake his own Party shall take it for renouncing the Protestant Doctrine, and embracing that of the Church of Rome. But he is so far either from making this Profession with St. Austin, or saying to him, Let B. Austin now help me with his Prayers, that he would have the Reader to take it for one of the superstitions, which he would give us to understand, crept in after the Anniversary Meetings at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, grew in request. For S. Austin himself, Contr. Faustum. li. 20. c. 21. saith he, affirmeth, that what they [Page]taught was one thing, and what they did bear with was another, speaking of the customes used at those Solemnities. And is it possible he could think so great a Forb as this could pass for current in the World? Is it possible he could have courage enough to cite the place, where those words are to be found, and not fear a Rat? Observe I pray: What St. Austin condemns in that place is this, that some who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, took so plentifully of them, that they made themselves drunk. His words are these, As for those who make themselves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, how can they be approved by us, whom sound Doctrine condemns, even when they do it in their own private Houses. This was the custome of which St. Austin saith, that the Governours of the Church did not teach it, but bore with, till it could be amended. And the Doctor had the Conscience, by a subtil Insinuation, to make his Reader believe, that what St. Austin condemned, was the desiring, or, as he calls it, wishing the Martyrs to pray for them. I shall leave him to make satisfaction to God and the World, and proceed to that which he calls the Question between us.

§. 5. The Question between us, saith he, is not how far such wishes, rather than prayers, being uttered occasionally, as St. Austin doth [Page]this to St. Cyprian, but whether solemn Invocation of Saints in the duties of Religious Worship, as it is now practised in the Roman Church, were ever practised in St. Austin's time? This he utterly denies, and here, saith he, (p. 174.) we stand and fix our Foot against all opposition whatsoever. Thus expiring Candle gathers up its spirits, and forces it self into a blaze before it dies. Alas! that so many learned Men should all this while have been mistaken in the Question! that they should have spent so much oyl and sweat to no purpose! The great Question hitherto controverted between Catholicks and Protestants, was held to be, Whether it be lawful to Invocate the Saints to pray for Us? and whether this were agreeable to the practise of the Primitive times? But now, like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand, this is dropt under the Table, and all the show above-board, is, whether it may be done in the duties (as he calls them) of Religious Worship? He saw how often his Foot had slipt, whilst he endeavoured to stand upon the denial, of its being the custome of the Fathers to desire the Saints to pray for them; and therefore he catches hold of this Twigg to save himself,Consid. Mod. p. 308. but in vain; for Bishop Forbes confesses that it was their custome to do so, both in publick and private prayers; although [Page] he be loath to give it any other name but that of wishing. But Chemnitius, (That great Light of the German Church, as our Doctor calls him in his Irenicum, p. 396. where he sets him in the Van for asserting the mutability of Church-Government, and of whom, he saith, Brightman had so high an Opinion, as to make Him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation) this great Man, without mincing the matter,Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 3. p. 200. acknowledges freely, that Invocation of Saints began to be brought into the publick Assemblies of the Church by Basil, Nissen, and Nazianzen, who lived in the Century before St. Austin: and could little doubt of the Continuance of it in St. Austin's time, when he witnesseth that Christian People did then celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity, to obtain the Assistance of their Prayers; But who can tell us what the Doctor means by the duties of Religious Worship? If he mean hearing of Sermons, (which is so much cry'd up by those of his Party, as if it were the Pro and Poop of Religion, though the Author of the Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety, Ch. 18. call it the most lazie of all Religious Offices;) he knows the Invocation of Saints was both commended and practised in their Sermons, by St. Basil. Hom. in 40. Mart. S. [Page] Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 20. & 21. S. Greg. Nissen. Orat. des. Theodoro, and others. If he mean the Letanies, although the use of them began to be more solemn in the time of Gregory the Great, yet Strabo affirms that,De-reb. Eccl. c. 28. that form of Invocating the Saints was believed to be much more Ancient: Viz. from the time that St. Hierom translated the Epitome of Eusebius his Martyrologe into Latin: or, (as others explicate his meaning) before that time, but not in so great a number. But then again, if he speak of that Part of the Mass, which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeni, and serves as a Preparatory devotion, both to Priest and People, the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar, desires the B. Virgin, and the rest of the Saints, as also the People, to pray to our Lord God for him, and in the Versicles between the Epistle and Gospel, there are some Instances (though very rare) of Holy Mary, or Holy Paul pray for us; but as these are not excluded by St. Austin, who speaks only of the Priest's directing his Invocation to God alone in the offering of the sacrifice; so neither can the Doctor give any satisfactory Reason, why the Priest may not lawfully use it then, (especially being appointed by the Church,) as in his private Oratory. But if he mean that Part of the Mass, which begins [Page] from the Offertory, and was anciently call'd the Mass of the Faithful, in which the Priest addresses himself expresly to Offer up the sacrifice of the New Testament, which Christ hath Instituted in his own Body and Blood; Let him, if he can, (for, he saith, he hath look'd into our Missals) produce any one Instance of Formal Invocation to any Saint or Angel. There they are named at this day (as they were in St. Austin's time) in their place and Order, but are not Invocated by the Priest that Sacrifices: So that in this, which is the most proper and peculiar duty of Religious Worship (as I have shown in the 3d. Chap. it was accounted by St. Austin) there is a most perfect Conformity between the Primitive and Modern Church: and the difference in other less solemn parts of Devotion, not at all material, as hath been shewed.

§. 6. In the last place (p. 174.) the Doctor saith, He is sent from S. Austin to Calvin, whose Authority, (though never owned as Infallible by Him) he need not, as he saith, fear in this point; and therefore the Errand, (if he will have it so,) could not be ungrateful. I may well think his heart leap'd for joy to hear Calvin alledged for a witness, that it was the custome in St. Austin's time to say, Holy Peter pray for Us: and thereupon, as if the day were his own, he says, He cannot but wonder,[Page]that if I saw the words in Calvin, or Bellarmin, that I would produce them. But hold: Have not I more Reason to wonder at his wonder, if it be true what Himself makes Calvin to say, Viz. That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints, lest the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind of Addresses, Holy Peter pray for us? For why, I pray, was such a Decree made, and why did the Fathers of that Council fear, lest the publick prayers should be corrupted with such kind of addresses; if there were no such custome at that time? Either the Dr. corrupts the words of his dear Master Calvin; or, it is manifest, they imply it was the custome at that time to say, Holy Peter pray for Us. And to make this clearer, I shall set down, 1. What Calvin really saith. 2. What Bellarmin answers to him. And from both it will appear, that Calvin supposes there was such a custome; and withall that Calvin hath corrupted the words and meaning of the Council, and D. St. misrepresented those of Calvin.

1. What Calvin really saith, is this, viz. That it was anciently forbidden in the Council of Carthage that direct prayer or Invocation be made to the Saints at the Altar. Instit. li. 3. c. 20. n. 22. And it is probable, the reason was, for that those Holy Men, when they could not totally Repress the force of an evil Custome, [Page]they thought good at least to put this restraint upon it, lest the publick prayers might be corrupted with this Forme; Holy Peter pray for Us. This is what Calvin saith. And who sees not, that the custome (no wonder if He call it an ill one.) whose force, he supposeth, the Council would, but could not totally Repress, was this form of address, Holy Peter pray for Us? And He that sees this, must shut his Eyes, if he sees not that in Calvin's Opinion, it was the Custome of that time (however reprovable he would make it) to say, Holy Peter pray for Us. For how could he make the restraining that Custome, to be the reason of the Law, if he did not suppose there was such a custome, and that a forcible one too? But then again, who sees not, that for fear the Reader should see this, the Dr. most conveniently left out of his citation those words of Calvin, which were most material to the present purpose [viz. that the Decree was made to forbid direct praying to Saints at the Altar, and the Reason in his Opinion, why those Fathers made that Decree, was to restrain the force of an evil custome, which they could not totally Repress?] For had these words been put down, the thing had been too clear to be denied, viz. that Calvin acknowledged there was such a custome at that time: As in a like case, if the Elders should make a Sanction, that hereafter it shall not be lawful for Dr. [Page] St. to mis [...]report the words and sense of their Patriarch Calvin; and I should say, that in my Opinion, the Reason would be to restrain the force of an evil custom, which they could not totally repress in him, of doing it in most of the Authors he cites; I dare confidently aver, he would not stick to charge me, that I said, he had such a custom: which if he think good to do, the many instances I have brought of his insincere dealing in this kind, wil more than sufficiently acquit me.

2. What Bellarmin (de sanct, beat. li. 1. c. 16.) answers to this Objection of Calvin, is, that Calvin corrupted the words and sense of the Council, when he said, that what it forbad, was to make direct Prayer or Invocation to Saints at the Altar, because the Council speaks not at all of praying to Saints, but only ordains that the prayer of him that sacrifices be directed to the Father, and not to the Son. He says indeed, that Calvin by his Logick deduces that, because prayer is to be directed to the Father, therfore the Saints may not be Invocated: and then farther, that the Council decreed, that that form of Invocation, Holy Peter pray for us, should not be used. And this I can easily believe was Calvins ultimate design in corrupting the Canon of the Council. But where doth Bellarmin say, that there was no such custome in St. Austin's time; or that Calvin said, there was no such custome at that time? Why then is it made a wonder, [Page] that if I saw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin, I would produce them? The Reason was, to make the Reader believe, that himself could not possibly be guilty at that very time of a crime, which he imputed to his Adversary. But whoever considers the nature of the cause, he hath undertaken, will see no cause to wonder at this procedure, because it is the natural effect of such a cause, to put the maintainer upon the desperate shift of mis-representing the words and sense of Authors, and no Man wonders at a natural effect, especially if it be frequent, as this of the Doctor's is.

§. 7. But now the blaze is spent, and there only remains a little smoke, viz. that I may as well the next time bring St. Austin's Testimony for worshipping of Martyrs, Images, and Angels, because he saith, he knew many who adored Sepulchers and Pictures, and had tryed to go to God by praying to Angels. What this [as well] relates to, I cannot tell; but I am sure he uses the same Art here, in bringing these Testimonies against us, which he did before in alledging the custom of those who made themselves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs. For either S. Austin speaks here of the Errours of such as were professed Hereticks; or, if any who professed themselves Catholicks fell into them, they were the Errors of particular Persons, (though many,) and justly reproved by him: Whereas the Custom of Invocating the Saints to pray for [Page] us, was the Universal practice of Christians at that time, not reproved, but owned, practised, and abetted by the most Religious Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church, and by St. Austin himself, as hath been shown: and by more, or all after their time; as Mr. Thorndike confesses. Wherefore if the Doctor be still resolved to keep his standing against so great a strength of Authority, and give no more satisfactory account hereafter, than he hath already done, of charging the Roman Church with Idolatry: It is manifest, that his Foot sticks fast (as the Psalmist saith) in the deep Mire, where no ground is: or, to speak in Mr. Thorndike's language, in the depth of Schism: From whence, that he may be drawn out before the Flood run over him, is the hearty wish of Him, who honours his Person and Parts, whilst he detects his Sophistry, and refutes his Calumnies.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Catholicks no idolaters, or, A full refutation of Doctor Stillingfleet's unjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome.

Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688.

Edition statement

1672

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A42896

ID [STC]

Wing G918

ID [STC]

ESTC R16817

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11734004

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11734004

ID [VID]

48446

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A42896)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 48446)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 532:4)

Source

— Catholicks no idolaters, or, A full refutation of Doctor Stillingfleet's unjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome., Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688..

Extent

[32], 448 p.

[s.n.],. [S.l.] :: 1672.. (Attributed to Thomas Godden. Cf. DNB.) (Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.