A brief answer to the many calumnies of Dr. Henry More, in his pretended Antidote against idolatry. Shewing that no prudent person can, upon any rational ground, be deterr'd from returning to the communion of St. Peter's chair, by any of the doctors best and strongest evidences to the contrary.

A brief answer to the many calumnies of Dr. Henry More, in his pretended Antidote against idolatry. Shewing that no prudent person can, upon any rational ground, be deterr'd from returning to the communion of St. Peter's chair, by any of the doctors best and strongest evidences to the contrary.

Table of contents

Title page

Advertisement.

BRIEF •NSWER TO THE Many CALUMNIES of Dr. HENRY MORE, IN HIS Pretended ANTIDOTE AGAINST IDOLATRY. Shewing That no prudent Person can, upon any Rational Ground, be deterr'd from Returning to the Communion of St. Peter's Chair, by any of the Doctors best and strongest Evidences to the contrary.

The First Section. Containing an Answer to his First Chapter.

The Second Section. In Answer to the Doctor's Second Chapter.

The Third Section. Which answers to the Doctors Third Chapter.

The Fourth Section. Containing an Answer to the Fourth Fifth and Sixth Chapters.

The Fifth Section. Which is, in Answer to the Three next Chapters.

The Last Section. Concluding with an Answer to the Doctor's last Chapter.

ERRATA.

§

§

[Page]

A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE Many CALUMNIES of Dr. HENRY MORE, IN HIS Pretended ANTIDOTE AGAINST IDOLATRY.

Shewing That no prudent Person can, upon any Rational Ground, be deterr'd from Returning to the Communion of. St. Peter's Chair, by any of the Doctors best and strongest Evidences to the contrary.

Printed in the Year 1672.

Advertisement.

[Page]

[Page]

THe Reader may please to take notice, that what is here presented, was written about two Years since, without any thought or intention as then, for the Press; only at the request, & for the satisfaction of some worthy friends. But now, whereas, besides Dr. More, Dr. Stillingfleet [Page] hath thought it not below his Name and Abilities to descend to the like foul and injurious calumnies, in his late Book Concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome; the present juncture, and concern of the affair, may seem to render discourses of this nature, no less necessary, than seasonable, for the undeceiving of the many unfortunately-misguided Souls, whose Leaders (to speak favourably) seem not to understand, what themselves Object. This I say, because I [Page] know no other more civil construction, or indeed possible vindication (such as it is) of their many failings. As for Dr. Stillingst et I shal not forestall the intentions of better and abler Penns, so much as to step aside to any particular digression against him. Nor indeed do I meet with any thing considerable in him, relating to this Subject, which may not easily be answered out of this reply to Dr. More; both of them joyning in a like treble charge of Idolatry against the Adoration [Page] of the Eucharist, Invocation of Saints, and the due honor and veneration of Images.

BRIEF [...]NSWER TO THE Many CALUMNIES of Dr. HENRY MORE, IN HIS Pretended ANTIDOTE AGAINST IDOLATRY.
Shewing That no prudent Person can, upon any Rational Ground, be deterr'd from Returning to the Communion of St. Peter's Chair, by any of the Doctors best and strongest Evidences to the contrary.

[Page]

DOctor Henry More is a Person, whose Learning and Parts have brought Him into a Name, amongst the Professors of the refined Arts [Page] and Sciences. Fame speaks Him a great Philosopher. And his publick works are said to avouch no less. Nay, some have passed so far in favour of his Character, as to term him, The great Restorer of the Platonick Cabbala. And truly, if this be so, I conceive the Gentleman had done himself a great deal of right, if he had still kept to his own Element; for as much as his late unlucky engaging in Controversial Disputes, cannot but prove a blot to his former undertakings: for the learned World must needs acknowledg that Dr. More the Controvertist, is much degenerated from Dr. More the Philosopher. He hath lately set forth an Exposition of the Seven Epistles, to the Seven Churches of Asia. The whole Piece is of a pure Romantick strain, wherein the Authors fancy being broken loose from the command of Reason, and leaping over all boundaries of Church-Authority, and the Faith of his Ancestors, runs on at Elevenscore, as if he were upon a warm sent, giving chase to some of his Platonick ideas: To this he has adjoyned, a pretended Antidote against Idolatry, with [Page] Application to the Council of Trent, and for the putting a stop (as he phrases it) to the Romish infection. His most formidable Weapon is that harsh and unmanly Rhetorick, called railing. His phrase is rough, and clogged with much dirt, which he throwes too bountifully upon Persons, which never deserved it at his hands. His Objections are bold, uncivil, irreligious; not without a deep tincture of Geneva. And therefore were it not, that the Opinion of his supposed abilities, may cast a favourable reflection, upon all that issues from his brain, and gain credit to his Antidote, amongst his vulgar Zealots, to the irreparable dammage of their Souls, his work might have lain neglected, as without a Reader, so without an Adversary. But in regard the Doctor has prefixed his Name to the Book as Author; and that a great Name is a great Argument with some, to evince the truth of the contents; and that no Doctrine is so absurd, but may spread under the professed Patronage of a fam'd Divine; therefore some things must be said by way of Rejoynder to the Antidote, lest some unwary Readers seeing [Page] the Doctor so full gorg'd against Popish Idolatry, and repeating his invectives almost in every Page with endless tautologies, should tamely suffer themselves to be born down the stream with big words, and think all is Gospel and well-grounded, that falls with so much noise and confidence from the mouth of a Doctor. And indeed I am already informed, that some well-meaning Protestants, who have a great kindness for the Author, and no less a value for the Work, have call'd for an Answer to it, with a kind of insulting accent, as conceiving that no such Answer could be given. They (poor Souls) thinking, that surely the Doctor would never have been so positive in his assertions, if the strength of his evidences were not such, as might bear all the stress he lays upon them. Wherefore seeing the concern of Souls is at stake, whom he seeks by a pernicious wile to seduce, venting Poyson guilded over with the specious title of an Antidote; the design of these few Pages is, to summe up briefly the Doctors Arguments, allowing to each a due reflexion, and to represent the nullity and [Page] inconclusiveness of all that is material in Him, as to his foul and odious charge of Idolatry, drawn up against his, and our common Mother-Church.

The First Section.
Containing an Answer to his First Chapter.

THere are two ways in general (says the Doctor) of discovering what is, or ought to be held Idolatry amongst Christians; the one, divine declaration; the other, clear and perspicuous reason. And accordingly he spends his first Chapter in explicating what Idolatry is according to divine declaration: And his second pretends to declare, What Idolatry is according to the determination of clear and free reason. These are the Titles of the two first Chapters. The first of which, (to the end he might give us a Treatise, Girt up in the most close and convictive method that may be; for so speaks his Preface:) he thought good to divide into ten several [Page] Conclusions, as Principles of his ensuing Discourse: To each of which I shall speak singly by it self, taking them in the same order they lie.

The first Conclusion tells us, That as in civil Governments it is the right of the Supreme Power to define and declare, what shall be, or be held to be treason, and punishable as such: so it is most manifestly the right of God Almighty, who is also Infinitely good and wise, to define and declare unto his People, what shall be, or be held to be Idolatry. To this Conclusion, I only return this brief Remark; That the learned Simile, wherin the Doctor spends very many words, might well have been dispensed with, without any offence to Logick, or impeachment to the Authors judgment: For the Simile seems to aim at the clearing and setling the unquestionable Prerogative of an increated Power, upon the right of a meer humane Jurisdiction. Which is in effect an unskilful Piece of Hysteron Proteron; making a truth of the highest rank to truckle-under an inferiour principle; which (considering there is no power but of God, Rom. 13.) can have no [Page] truth in it, but by presupposing that very truth, which it pretends to illustrate and establish.

His Second Conclusion would universally beg our belief, That what is declared Idolatry by God to the Jews, ought to be acknowledged Idolatry by us Christians. First, Because Christianity being a far more spiritual Religion, than that of Judaisme, There cannot be the lest relaxation to the most rancid of all Superstitions, Idolatry. Secondly, Because all kind of Idolatry being forbidden in the Second Commandement; and the whole Decalogue being Moral, Christians can plead no exemption from it, any more than Jews. Now that the whole Decalogue is Moral, he makes some needless attempts to prove, chiefly for the Second Commandements sake. All which proofs, 'tis easie to take off by this single answer. I say then, that as to the Second Commandement (supposing at present the first Table divided into four Precepts) If he expound that Commandement so, as only to prohibit the making and worshipping of Idols, or Images of false Gods, I shall readily grant [Page] it to be Moral, and strictly binding, both as to Jews and Christians. But if he puts any other meaning upon the Text, he begs the question: And he must excuse me, if I call for his further proof, not to evidence the Morality of the Decalogue in general, or of this Commandement in particular, but also as taken in that particular sense, which he gives it. This I say, because I conceive, the Doctor will not stick to grant that one and the same Precept of the Decalog, may be (as considered under a double respect) both Moral and Ceremonial. Secondly, That some, both Catholick and Protestant Divines own no more than a Ceremonial Precept in the Second Commandement, if extended to an Universal Prohibition of all Images, and under that notion given only to the Jews. And to call this a Relaxation to Idolatry amongst Christians, (as the Doctor does) may prove an Argument of his mistake, but none to evidence the truth of his Conclusion; no more than the generally allowed use of servile works upon Saturday, can be called a Relaxation to the breach of the Sabbath. But, because [Page] the Doctor is so positive in his hitherto-unproved conclusion, I have an instance for him to pause upon, if he please to accept of it. Some of the learned, grounding themselves upon the first of Kings, ch. 12. and Chron. 2. 26. are of Opinion, that burning Incense was a Sacrifice in the old Law, as not being permitted to the Laity, but tyed only to the Priestly Function; and that the Hebrews did Sacrifice in this sort to the Brazen Serpent. Now, I would gladly know, by what certain topicks the Doctor will evince, either that burning incense was not a Sacrifice in the old Law, or that it is a Sacrifice and Act of Latria in the New? Unless he means to draw an Universal Consequence from Deuteronomy to the Gospel, and so to thrust our Heads under Moses his Girdle, and make us stoop to all the Legalities of the Old Testament:

The Doctor proceeds to his third conclusion, That whatever was Idolatry in the Heathen, the same is Idolatry in Us, if we commit it. I doubt much whether the Doctor understands his own Conclusion: For the assertion, taken as it lies in its [Page] [...]are expressions, sounds like one of those Identick Positions, which surfeit of too much truth: as much as to say, We are guilty of Heathenish Idolatry, if we commit Heathenish Idolatry: But, if the Doctors meaning be, that whatever external act of worship was Idolatry in the Heathen, is also Idolatry in Us, if applyed by Us to any other being on this side God; then I have a case to offer to his second and better thoughts: Suppose then that some of Saint Paul's new Converts, whom in Christ Jesus he had begotten by the Gospel, looking upon him as their spiritual Father, had paid him the duty of the knee, humbly asking his blessing: And that a Heathen of Lycaonia, had at the same time, upon his knees adored the Apostle for the god Mercury, (as some of them were ready to do, Acts 14.) is it the Doctor's sense, that this external act of worship, which in the Heathen would questionless have been Idolatry, must also be so in the Christian? If so, then his Conclusion is abundantly confused by the daily and uncontroulable practise of Protestants themselves, kneeling to their Parents, [Page] God-Fathers and God-Mothers. Whence it evidently appears, that the same kind of external act, which in a Heathen is Idolatry, may prove duty in a Christian.

The fourth Conclusion, The Idolatry of the Pagans, says the Doctor, consisted in this, viz. in that they either took something to be the supreme God, that was not, and worshipped it for such; or else worshipped the supreme God in an Image; or gave religious worship, that is to say, erected Altars, Temples and Images, offered Sacrifice, made Vows to, and invoked such, as they themselves knew not to be the supreme God, but either the souls of Men departed, or other demons, or else particular appearances or powers of nature. And concerning these demons, he adds in his eighth conclusion, That the Pagans demons exquisitely Answer to the Christian Saints and Angels, in this point; saving that this spiritual fornication is a rape upon our Saints and Angels, but single fornication in the Heathen with thier impure demons. Thus far the modest Doctor. But what proof does he give us for all this? Truly he does not so much as offer at any. [Page] And in that, we must not envy him the due commendations of his discretion: For the best proof of a proofless assertion is silence. Of all the Doctor's conclusions, there is none more intrinseck and fundamental to the subject now under debate; nor any that ought to speak more, or doth speak less to the point, than this. For it is most fondly erroneous, and most disingenuously obtruded upon the easy credulity of the vulgar; That the Pagans demons exquisitely answer to the Christians Saints and Angels. And no less proofless and false is it, That they (the Pagans) worshipped the supreme God in an Image. But on the contrary, (instead of worshipping the supreme God in an Image,) his conclusion should have added for another branch of Pagan Idolatry; That they worshipped their very Images for gods: They call'd them gods; they took them for gods; they sacrificed to them as gods. And the same is to be said of those souls of Men departed, demons or other particular appearances, or powers of nature; all which they took and worshipped for gods: For gods I say; which, this mincing conclusion [Page] seeks most warily to conceal. First then, that they called their Images, Gods, (to omit other instances) is clear from Dan. 5. 4. They drank Wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. Secondly, That they took their Images for Gods is as clear. Why else does the Spirit of God labour so much in Holy Writ,Isa. 46. to awake and reason the Gentiles out of their folly,Psal. 115. by proving that their Images,Habac. 2. or Idols were not gods, if they did not take them for such? Did not the Heathen charge S. Paul, that he had perswaded and turned away much People, saying that they be no gods, Acts 19. 26. which are made with hands? Therefore sure an easie Logick may conclude they took them for gods. Does not the learned Arnobius, Venerabar, inquit, ô caecitas, nuper simulacra-in incudibus deos, & ex malleis fabricatos.— Tanquam inesset vis praesens adulabar, & beneficia poscebam— Deos esse credebam ligna, lapides ossa, &c. Arnob. li. 1. contrae Genv. (once a Heathen himself) bewailing his former blindness in the first of his Seven Books against the Gentiles, profess to all the World, that he gave [Page] divine worship, and prayd to Images, taking stocks and stones, the works of the Hammer and Anvil for gods? Thirdly, They sacrificed to their Images, either as gods, or at lest as Images of false gods. Some, in their images adored devils, according to that of Psal. 96. 5. Omnes dii gentium daemonia: Or, as your Translation reads it, All the gods of the Nations are Idols. And, 1 Cor. 10. The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. Others, in their images worshipped the souls of Men.See Lactantius l. 1. c. 14, and 15. S. Austine, l. 8. c. 26. de Civit. Dei. And it has been fully proved by S. Austine, that divers of the Pagans gods were men.Euseb l. 3. praepar. c 2. S. Austine in Psal. 113. And lib. 4. de civit. dei, c. 10 And lib. 7. de Civit. Dei, c. 5. Others there were, who in their images adored some parts of the material World; as in the image of Apollo, the Sun; in the image of Neptune, the Sea; and so of others.Euseb. lib. 3. c. 3. praepar. And S. Austine ubi supra. Lastly, there were those, who conceiving the World to be animated, worshipped the souls of [Page] those material parts; as of Sun, Moon, Earth, &c. Is there any the lest hint here, either from divine or humane Record, of the Pagans worshipping the supreme God in an image, but rather the contrary; viz. That the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. 1 Cor. 10. Can any sober divinity brook such an inference from these premises, That the Pagans demons exquisitely answer to our Saints and Angels? Do we worship Saints and Angels for gods? do we call them gods? do we take them for gods? do we sacrifice to them as gods? far be it, as from our hearts to intend it, so from an ingenuous adversary to object it.

The next Conclusion that comes in play is the Fifth, That both divine declaration, and the common consent of Christendom do avouch to Us, that all the aforesaid Pagan modes of idolatry practised by them, were in those Pagans practises of idolatry. All the answer that truth can allow to this Fifth Conclusion, is Nego suppositum: for the Doctor here supposeth that he hath given us a true and adequate division of the Pagan idolatry, in the precedent conclusion, [Page] according both to divine declaration, and the common consent of Christendom; whereas I have already shew'd his hypothesis to be false, and laid open his foul and gross mistakes; ('tis a favour to call them so:) which indeed are such, as might invite a modest Man to wipe his Pen, and lay it aside, till he had taught it a more awful regard to ingenuity and truth.

The Sixth Conclusion: That giving religious worship, that is to say; erecting Temples, building Altars, invoking, makeing vows, and the like, to what is not the supreme God, though not as to him, but as to some inferiour helpful beeing, is manifest Idolatry. This Sixth Conclusion looks back upon the Fifth, and calls to it for help. But till the Fifth has learned to stand upon its own leggs, it is not in a condition to lend any proof or [...]upport to its Neighbours. And so I might pass over this Sixth Conclusion, as proofless; but only that the Doctor calls me back to hear a Confirmation of it; saying, That idolatry was very rare amongst the Nations, especially the Romans, if this mode of idolatry,[Page]be not truly idolatry: And searce any thing will be found idolatry amongst them, but taking that to be the supreme God, which is not, and adoring it for such. This Discourse whereby the Doctor confirms his Conclusion,Euseb. l. 5. Praepar. c. 15 minds me of a passage in Eusebius, concerning the number of the Pagan gods. Triginta, inquit, deorum millia in terra esse censet Hesiodus; ego autem multo plures lapideos, atque ligneos homines creatores esse video. Eusebius here adds to Hesiod's Thirty Thousand gods, many more of his own observation; amongst which, one only could be supreme, and the rest must needs sit down with the title of inferiour Deities. Now comes the Doctors Sixth Conclusion, and tells us that giving religious worship, to what is not the supreme God, though not as to him, but as to some inferiour helpful beeing, is idolatry. Why so? because, says the Doctor, unless we grant this, (that is, unless we grant that, the worshipping of some Thirty Thousand inferiour Deities, (for those are his inferiour helpful Beeings:) is Idolatry,) [Page] a great and manifest inconvenience will follow, to wit, That Idolatry was very rare amongst the Nations; and scarce any thing will be found Idolatry amongst them, but taking that to be the supreme God, which is not, and worshipping it for such. Which being so profound a truth, I conceive sew of the most severe and Cynical complexions can pass it over without a smile. But if the Doctor should chance to reply, that by (an inferiour helpful Beeing) he means not an inferiour helpful Deity, but something else best known to himself; Then his confirmation is most false, viz. That scarce any thing will be found Idolatry amongst the Heathens, but taking that for the supreme God, which is not, and worshiping it for such; when as we find, they worshipped so many Thousand Deities: So that, whether he understand by (inferiour helpful Being) an inferiour Deity, or no, his confirmation is either false, or ridiculous. Before I proceed to the Seventh Conclusion, let me entreat the Reader's patience for a brief Parenthesis: Catholicks usually distinguish two sorts [Page] of worship: For example, To sacrifice, say they, to erect Temples and Altars, are acts of Latria, that is, of the highest religious worship possible, only due to the One Almighty and Everlasting God, the first Principle and end of all created Beeings. Though none of these acts, neither sacrifice it self, nor dedication of Temple or Altar, excludes a Secondary Remembrance, or titular honour of the Saints. There are other acts of an inferiour respect, which the Doctor may at his pleasure, without offending Catholick Divinity, chuse whether he will call a religious worship, or no: As the honour we give to Saints and their Images, burning Incense or Candles, bowing the Body, and the like. These acts are of themselves indifferent, and variously determinable, by the particular tendency of the inward affection, either to a divine, or only a civil worship. As for instance sake, Abraham with the same kind of incurvation of Body, did adore God, Gen. 17. worship Angels, Gen. 18. and Men, Gen. 23. Where we evidently find that the same posture of bowing the Body, only as [Page] intentionally directed by a different application of the heart, is a divine worship, in respect of God; an inferior kind of worship, in respect of Angels, and a civil worship as referr'd to Men. Wherefore he who will speak distinctly to the Catholick Tenet, must distinguish these several modes of worship one from another; or else shew cause why, he ranks them all, under one and the same species of Religious worship. Otherwise he will make it appear, that he loves darkness more than light, and seeks not to cope with his Adversary like a Scholar. Haveing premised this Observation.—The Doctor's Seventh Conclusion, which speaks thus; (That to sacrifice, or burn Incense, or make any Religious obeysance, or incurvation to an Image in any wise, as to an object of this worship, is idolatry by divine declaration.) This conclusion, I say, will appear to have as much pertinent sense in it, as if a Junto of Civilians being requested to declare by a common vote, what Murther is; should give-in their learned answer, with a Resolved upon the question, That to take away a Man's life wilfully, [Page] and without cause; or to cut off a limb, or draw blood, is Murther. Just such a wild medley of truth and falshood, is the Doctor's Conclusion. Sacrificing to an Image, and bowing to an Image, suit not well together. The first is Idolatry, and the very crime which the Catholick Church condemns in Carpocrates, and his Adherents. But, that bowing to an Image of Christ, or his Saints, should be idolatry; rather then bowing to the Ark of the Covenant; or that honouring the Picture of Jesus, rather than the Name of Jesus, should be liable to the like exception; this, I say, should have been more strongly proved than by meerly alledging a broken Text of Scripture, Thou shalt not bow to them, nor worship them; which yet is all the Doctor does, save only an old thred-bare gloss upon it, which shall presently be answered. Only first I observe, that when Protestants read this their Second Commandment, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeness, that is in Heaven above, or that is in the water, under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve [Page]them▪) and withall are informed that Papists make Pictures and Images of Christ, place them in their Churches, put off their Hats, and bow the Knee before them, presently they endite the practise within their brests as guilty of idolatry; most inconsiderately, no less than uncharitably, charging Idolatry upon the practice of the Church, for doing those self-same things, which God himself commanded the Jews to do, to whom he gave this very Precept.Exod. 25. 18. Did not God command Moses to make two Cherubims of gold in the two ends of the Mercy-Seat? 2 Chron. c. 3. v. 7. ibid. v. 10. Were there not graven Cherubims on the Walls of the Temple?Psal. 99. 5. Were not the two Cherubims in the most Holy Place,1 Chron. 28. 2. of Image-Work? Were not the People to pray in the Temple, and commanded to worship at the Foot-stool of our Lord, that is, the Ark of the Covenant; over which were the Cherubims of Image-Work! and could this possibly be done, without bowing before [Page] Images? Behold now what an irrefragable consequence is drawn from hence. God himself commanded the making of Images, even after he had given the Second Commandment of the Decalogue: Ergo, Papists can make no Images, but they are Idolaters. Images were placed in God's own Temple; Ergo, Papists are Idolaters in placing Images in their Churches. God's People were commanded to bow down and prostrate themselves where it could not be done, without bowing before Images: Ergo, Papists, who kneel before an Image are Idolaters. If Protestants did but reflect how much this mistake of theirs is against Scripture, as well as against Charity, they would be more sparing of their censures. Now to the Objection, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: Of which undoubtedly the sense is, (says the Doctor) They shall not be in any wise the Object of that worship, which thou performest in a religious way—For the Second Commandement certainly is a declaration of the mind of God touching religious worship. Let us understand one another▪ that we may not have [Page] any cavil about words. The Catholick Church no where commands us to call the honour exhibited to Saints and their Images, a religious honour or worship. But, with the Doctor's good leave, Why may there not be some intermediate kinds of worship, between a divine, and a meer civil worship? Why may we not say, that such was the worship, which was given to the Ark? which Abraham gave to the Angels? and which we are all commanded to give to the Name of Jesus▪ Nay, why may we not add, that the honour and respect of the Knee, which is given to God-fathers, and God-mothers is such, as being not founded upon any bare relation of blood, or any meer natural, or civil excellency, but given wholly upon a spiritual account? And how is it proved, that such an intermediate honour as this, may not securely be given to Saints, and their Images? Let the Doctor find out a suitable name for it, besides that of Religious, and we shall not stand upon terms with him, but freely speak his language. But if nothing will serve his turn, but that religious and divine worship [Page] must be all one. Then we utterly deny that we are in any wise concerned in his Objection: for we give no such religious worship to the Saints themselves, much less to their Images. And I shall show in my▪ Answer to his Eighth Chapter, how weakly and disingenuously he makes use of the Second Council of Nice to make out his charge against us.

The Eighth Conclusion, scorning to be behind the Seventh in point of Scholarship, loudly proclaims, That to erect Temples, Altars, Images, or to burn incense to Saints and Angels, to invoke them, or make vows to them, and the like is plain Idolatry. This Conclusion for its proof appeals to the testimony of four false witnesses, to wit, the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Conclusions; and as such, I justly except against them.

The Ninth; Religious incurvation towards a Crucifix or the Host, or any Image, as to an object, and not a meer unconsidered accidental circumstance, is Idolatry. This Conclusion having thus coldly drawn up an enditement against us, pleads its evidence out of the Seventh and Eighth Conclusions; [Page] And so leaning upon two broken Reeds, falls to the ground, where I am sure, neither Reason or Authority wil ever stoop to take it up.

We are now arrived at the Tenth Conclusion, where we are told, That to use on set purpose, in religious worship, any figure or image only circumstantially, not objectively, but so as to bow towards it, or to be upon a Man's knees before it, with eyes and hands devoutly lifted up towards it.—Yet this even taken in its most favourable circumstances, is a most wicked and impious mocking of God; says the Doctor. And he adds, That if the image be the object of these postures and incurvations, (as it seems to him plain, and beyond all questioning that it will be so) then he says it will be idolatry. To this I return, that I hope the Ethicks cannot be offended with me, no more than divinity can be able to reprove me, if I say, this Conclusion gives God the lie, and makes Him the approver, commander and rewarder of Sin, even idolatry it self. For God promised a reward to Prayer made in the Temple, 2 Chron. 7. 15. Where notwithstanding there were graved [Page] Angels or Cherubims upon the wals. And he commanded his People to adore the Ark, over which were Cherubims or Angels of Image-work; where the worshipper could not possibly make his addresses, but he must needs bow at lest circumstantially, though not objectively towards an Image. And yet Pray'r, even thus circumstanced, was approved, commanded, and declared by God himself rewardable. Now this is the very posture, both for act and object, which cannot down with the Doctor, but he must needs have it to be idolatry; and his most charitable gloss upon the action, can afford it no name, under an impious and wicked mocking of God. Whence if reason may be allowed to make the inference, the Doctor's Tenth Conclusion must needs be found guilty of giving God the lie, and making him the approver, commander, and rewarder of sin, even the sin of idolatry.

Having thus made our way through all the Doctor's Ten Conclusions, the Reader may please to observe, how far he forgets himself, and over-runs the Title of his [Page] Chapter, insomuch that he scarce ever faces about to it from the beginning to the end: for whereas the Title promised to deliver, What idolatry is according to divine declaration; and that he himself makes his boast in the end of this Chapter; To have abundantly convinced the Church of Rome of multifarious idolatries; if they will stand, says he, to divine definitions, or the declarations of holy Scripture in this point; Yet on the contrary 'tis evident, there are not even so many Scripture-quotations, in this point, as may make up so much as a duall number. The only way then for the Doctor to make out the title of his Chapter, and his vapouring Rodomontado against God's Church, is to deify his own conceptions; that is, to make his own word pass for the Word of God, and his Authority for divine. And then truly we have no reason to be offended at him, for taking upon himself so kindly that very imputation, which he seeks no less weakly than injuriously to pin upon the doctrine and practice of the Church.

[Page]

The Second Section.
In Answer to the Doctor's Second Chapter.

THis Chapter, compared with the former, is but a second part to the same tune: longer in words, but as weak in performances to the full, as its Predecessor. The Title promises to declare, What Idolatry is according to the determination of clear and free reason; and this in 25. several Conclusions.

His first, second, and third Conclusions quite digress from the charge in hand, showing what a grievous sin idolatry is: which is much more largely and learnedly declared by our own Authors, and readily granted by us, with this further allowance, that if he can fix the crime upon us, with any shew of reason, we shall freely acknowledg our guilt to be of a double dye, to what it was in the Jew or Gentile.

The fourth and fifth, tell us that idolatry [Page] necessarily involves in it, ignorance, or mistake, in the act of worship, or the object. The fifth advances a step further, and concludes very abruptly, that because all idolatry involves in it some ignorance or mistake; therefore no ignorance or mistake can excuse from idolatry: very learnedly: From the Fourth and Fifth, the Doctor makes a long stride to his One and Twentieth Conclusion, where he peremptorily concludes, that because mistake does not excuse him from idolatry, by Conclusion the Fourth and Fifth, therefore the adoration of any object, which we out of mistake, conceive to be the true God, made visible by hypostatical union therewith, is manifest idolatry. Thus he. But let us put the case, that some Christian, contemporary to Christ our Lord, whilst he so journed upon earth, had through meer mistake, adored some other Person, for Christ: Here the Query arises, whether this Man's error would have pleaded his excuse, I, or no? The reformed Churches of France, in their Apology by Daille' declare for the affirmative. And truly Reason seems clearly to be on their side. For what reason or [Page] equity will condemn a loyal subject, who intending an address to his Prince, should take Hephestion, for Alexander, a Peer for his Soveraign, and so make tender of his allegiance to another Person, whom he innocently mistakes for his Prince? Let us parallel the two cases. As this loyal Subject's address is intended only to his Prince; so the Christians address in the instance above-said, is directed only to Jesus Christ. In both these cases there intervenes an error of fact: both the religious and civil worship being misplaced as to the circumstance, though not as to the object. And why this error should be imputable, either to treason in the one case, or to Idolatry in the other? or, why more to idolatry in the one case, then to treason in the other? is that, which it will concern the Doctor to speak to, if he means to maintain his conclusion. And till he hath done this, he shall never be able to prove, what he aims at in his 22. Conclusion, that any idolatry is committed though it should so fall out, through inadvertence, or any other accident, that an unconsecrated, or untransubstantiated [Page] Host, were exposed to the veneration of the People: for as no adoration is here due, so none is intended, but only to Jesus Christ, adorable whereever he is.

The 6th. 7th. 8th. 10th. 11th. 12th. 13th. 14th. 15th. 18th. and 24th. Conclusions talk big against Invocation of Saints. But the best speaks amongst them are the 8th. 10th. and 12th. The Eighth leads the Van in these terms: Any actions, gestures, or words, directed to any creature as to an object, which naturally imply or signify either the incommunicable or incommunicated eminencies of God, is the giving that worship, that is the right and due of God alone; to that creature, and that injury against the divine Majesty, which is termed idolatry. Then follows the Tenth, and in a high and mighty language speaks thus: An omnipercipient omnipresence, which does hear, and see whatever is said or transacted in the world, whether considered in the whole, or as distributed into terrestrial, celestial, and supercelestial; not only all these omnipercipiences, but any one of them is a certain excellency in God, and for ought we know, incommunicated[Page]to any Creature. The Twelfth brings up the Rear with an Ergo; If omnipresence or omnipercipience, at lest terrestrial (if not celestial) be not communicated to Saints and Angels by God, the invocation of either is palpable idolatry. Behold then the Doctor's Argument. Invocation implies an incommunicated excellency in the Saints; viz. an omnipercipient omnipresence, at lest terrestrial, if not celestial; and so communicates that right to them, that appertains only to God. Ergo invocation of Saints and Angels is palpable idolatry. Now if we can but acquit our selves handsomely in a fair return to this Argument, all the rest that is to be found in the abovesaid 11. Conclusions, will amount to no more than meer empty and insignificant nothings. We may consider then the state of the Church, with reference to different circumstances of time. The one wherein it was a question amongst the Orthodox, whether the Saints entred into Heaven before the Day of Judgment, or were confined to some other place of rest, excluded from the beatifick Vision? And this was not fully [Page] determined till the Council of Florence, which Council cleared the Point, defineing that The Souls of the dead, as soon as cleansed from all sin, are received into Heaven, and see God clearly, as he is in himself. Now as for those elder Centuries before the Council of Florence, they held invocation of Saints, for an undoubted truth, though some of them doubted, whether they heard our Prayers or no; because no Church-definition had as then ascertained them of their full beatitude. Let venerable Antiquity speak for it self by the mouth of a Saint Austine, who in his Book De cura pro mortuis, c. 16. speaks thus. This question exceeds the reach of my judgment, how the Martyrs relieve those, who are certainly assisted by them? whether they are pre [...]ent by themselves, at the same time, in so many several places where the benefit of their succour is received? or being retired from the conversation of men, in some place proportioned to their merits▪ and there interceding for the relief of those that call upon them, as we pray for the dead, who are not really present with them; and know not how they are, nor what they do: God omnipotent[Page]and ever present, hearing the Prayers of the Martyrs, grants to Men by the ministery of Angels, those helps where he will, when he will, and how he pleaseth. Thus B. S. Austine. Here we have it from an undoubted work of this great Saint and Doctor, (owned by himself in his Retractations) First, That Invocation of Saints was the constant, avowed practise of those elder and purer days. Secondly, (contrary to the Doctor's 15th. Conclusion, and all his Pharisaical scruples.) Here is a sure and certain ground of this invocation; to wit, unquestionable, ancient, and immemorial possession, and the often experienced benefit of it by those, who addressing themselves to the Holy Martyrs mediation, were (says S. Austine) certainly assisted by them. Thirdly, That the Saints presence, at the same time in so many several places, (which is equivalent to the Doctor's terrestrial Omnipercipient Omnipresence) does not at all in Saint Austine's Opinion, either imply an impossibility, or entrench upon any of the divine excellencies; for then he would certainly have rejected it, which yet he does not. [Page] Fourthly, Waving this Omnipercipient Omnipresence, S. Austine renders it easily intelligible, how the Saints might (even without that, and without their hearing our Prayers) relieve those that called upon them: Viz. God omnipotent and ever present hearing the Prayers of the Martyrs, and granting to Men, by the Ministery of Angels those helps—when he will, where he will, and how he pleaseth. Out of all which, I deduce this inference, which is home to the point, That, if S. Austine be to be credited before Dr. More, It is good and profitable to invocate the Saints, though we knew not whether they heard us or no. And till the Doctor can prove the contrary, his main Hypothesis upon which he builds, (to wit, that an omnipercipient omnipresence is the only ground of invocation of Saints) is fundamentally subverted, and all his vapouring pretences of idolatry, end in smoke and fancy. This which I have already said, renders invocation of Saints maintainable, though it were not certain they heard us; which yet is most certain from their blissful vision of God, not gain-said [Page] even by Protestants: For if Devils appear, and assist Witches and Sorcerers upon their invocation, Shall we deny this to the Saints in Glory? The Saints are as the Angels of God in Heaven, Mat. 22. 30. And of the Angels 'tis written: See you despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you, their Angels in Heaven always see the Face of my Father which is in Heaven: Mat. 18. 10. And again, There shall be joy in, Heaven upon one sinner that doth pennance, Luc. 15. 7. Why therefore cannot the Saints hear our Prayers, as the Angels see the contempt of one of those little ones, and as those in Heaven see the repentance of a sinner? The Schools indeed may freely dispute how this is done, and every one may freely abound in his own sense, and offer their several modes and ways; and learned Dr. More, may (as he does, p. 23.) in calling them all extremely ridiculous, render himself no less ridiculous in his weak censure; and when all this is done, the uncertainty of the manner does not argue against the certainty of the thing it self: For it is a fixed uncontroulable Maxime in the Principles [Page] of Christianity, that, Potest constare de re, quando non constat de modo rei; and he who denies this, may with equal ground except against the mystery of the incarnation, together with the incomprehensibility of the Unity and Trinity of God.

In the next place follows the Ninth Conclusion, which was left behind, as a stragler from the rest of the Flock, being owned by none of its next Neighbours as any thing akin to them, and speaks thus; That the using any of those actions or gestures, or doing any of those things, that the true and supreme God did chuse and challenge in the setting out the mode of his own Worship, towards or in reference to any Creature, as to an object, is idolatry. Because such a mode of worship does thus manifestly appear to be the peculiar right of God, which none can transfer to another, but God himself. Thus the Doctor. Let us then state the question, whether any of those exterior actions or gestures, which God did chuse in the setting out the mode of his own Worship, for example, Incurvation or bowing down the Body may be exhibited [Page] to a Creature without Idolatry? No, replys the Doctor. Let us now take this Conclusion for granted, and see what will be the Sequel. The using any of those actions, or gestures, says he, that the true and supreme God did chuse and challenge, in the setting out the mode of his own Worship, towards, or in reference to any Creature, as to an object, is idolatry. But according to his sixteenth Conclusion, Incurvation of the Body is one of the actions, or gestures, which God did chuse, in setting out the mode of his own Worship: Ergo, Incurvation towards or in reference to any Creature, as to an object, is idolatry. Now I subsume: But Abraham used this incurvation towards Men, and Angels, Gen. 18. and 23. And the beloved Disciple of Jesus reiterated the like incurvation towards an Angel, Apoc. 22. 9. I shall leave the (ergo) to the Doctor: for the premises being his, I shall not envy him the glory of the Conclusion, which makes Abraham, and Saint John Idolaters.

The 16th. 17th. 19th. and 20th. talk much of a symbolical presence, and incurvation [Page] towards it. Whereof the 16th. refers to the Ninth, and has its Answer there. The 17th. That the Pagans worshipping their demons, though not as the supreme God, by symbolical presences, &c. Become Ipso Facto Idolaters. To this I have already answered, shewing that the Pagans gave the worship and title of Deities to their demons, and therefore became Ipso Facto Idolaters. The 19th. defines magisterially; That incurvation in way of Religion towards an open or bare symbolical presence, be it whatever Figure or Image, as to an object, is flat Idolatry. Here I would gladly know of the Doctor, why he calls a Figure, or Image a symbolical presence, but only because the Image is a sign or token, signifying or representing the Person, whose image it is? Then I enquire further, whether (for the same reason) the Name of a Person, be not a symbolical presence in its kind, as well as the image? forasmuch as both of them are signs or tokens representing the same thing, with this only difference, that the Image represents it to the eye, the Name to the ear? And why then, may we not [Page] bow to the Image of Jesus, as well as to the Name of Jesus? or how can the one be condemned of idolatry, but the other must incur the like brand? The 20th. Harping still upon the same string of a symbolical presence, will needs maintain, That religious incurvation towards a bare symbolical presence, wittingly and conscientiously directed thither, though with a mental reserve, that they intend to use it meerly as a circumstance of worship, is notwithstanding real idolatry. To me this Conclusion seems big with a spirit of contradiction, as being manifestly against Scripture, against the practice of the Church of England, and lastly against Dr. More himself. That it is clearly against Scripture, (besides what I have said in my answer to the last Conclusion of the first Chapter) is sufficiently evidenced from the incurvation the Scripture commands to the Name of Jesus; which is as much a religious incurvation, as any we give to those symbolical presences, called Images. That it is against the practise of the Church of England, and proves that all Protestants, who kneel at [Page] the Eucharist are Idolaters, I conceive to be no less manifest: for Protestants in their Communion acknowledge [See the Protestant Rubrick after Communion.] no corporal and real, but a bare figurative and symbolical presence of Christs natural flesh and blood. And religious incurvation towards a symbolical presence, being real idolatry, according to the Doctor: What follows by a clear sequel, but that all Protestants, who bow the knee at the Eucharist, are Idolaters? And if the Protestant-Communicant, in his vindication, chance to fly to a mental reserve, and allege for his excuse, that he uses it meerly as a circumstance of worship; and that his intention terminates not in the symbolical presence, but looks up to the Person of Jesus Christ; the Doctor will smilingly tell him, (for they are his own words in the like case▪ Concl. 19.) That direction of our intention here is but a Jesuitical juggle, and that the using it meerly as a circumstance of worship, is idolatry; and so he cuts him off from that plea, and leaves him without all excuse. Thirdly, That it is against the Doctor, I [Page] appeal to the Doctor himself, by bringing his 16th. and his 20th. Conclusions face to face. The 16th. openly avoucheth, That the erecting of a symbolical presence with incurvation thither ward, was declared by the supreme God, the God of Israel, one of the manners of worship due to him. The 20th. runs counter, and stifly presseth, That religious incurvation towards a symbolical presence (without exception of any) wittingly and conscientiously directed thither, is real idolatry. These two Conclusions, as I conceive, do thwart each other no less, than if he had said in direct terms: All religious incurvation towards a symbolical presence, is idolatry: Not all religious incurvation towards a symbolical presence, is idolatry: For the 20th. is a Universal affirmative, and maintains the first; The 16th. implies no less, than what is asserted in the second. The 22th. and 23th. Conclusions weakly cavil at the adoration of the Host, as idolatrous either in Catholiques or Protestants. But these petty niblers at the most blessed and ever adorable Sacrament shall have their answer in the next Chapter, [Page] where the Doctor treats this Subject Ex professo: Only here I add, that for Protestants indeed to adore the Sacrament, who believe no corporal presence of Christ there; but that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances (so speaks their abovesaid Rubrick:) would be the like crime, as for an unconverted Jew to adore Jesus Christ, in whom he believes not. But what is this to the Doctor's purpose? Both the Jew and the Protestant lie under the prejudice of an erroneous perswasion, which upon application to rational and sound motives, may and ought to be deposed.

In the 25th. and last Conclusion, the Doctor starts a pretended Objection against his charge of idolatry in the adoration of the Eucharist, and overflows whole Pages in answer to it. But the Catholique Church makes no such Reply, nor stands in need of any such vindication of her doctrine and practise. And therefore I leave the Doctor to the pleasure of his own thoughts, raising his Aery Castle with one hand, and beating it down with [Page] the other. And so I pass on to the Third Section.

The Third Section.
Which answers to the Doctors Third Chapter.

THe Title of this Chapter delivers it self in these terms; That the Romanists worship the Host with the highest kind of worship, even that of Latria, according to the injunction of the Council of Trent, and that it is most gross idolatry so to do. It had been ingenuous in the Doctor, whilst he states Catholique Doctrine, to speak Catholique language. The Council of Trent (even as quoted by himself) mentions not the Host, but only the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, or (which is the same) of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. Which is a quite different thing from that uncatholique expression of worshipping the Host: For Catholick Principles own nothing of the Host to remain after consecration, but the species or [Page] symbols. Nor does the Council enjoyn the worship of Latria to the symbols, but to Jesus Christ veiled with the symbols. In this Chapter, the Doctor pretends to undeniable demonstration; which, if we take it summ'd up briefly, and girt up in his close and convictive method, gives us this brisk assault. Transubstantiation is a meer figment and enormous falshood (so he speaks, p. 49.) Ergo the adoration of the Eucharist is palpable idolatry. The greatest part of the Chapter is spent in proof of his Antecedent. The consequence he conceives no less then evident: because if the doctrine of Transubstantiation be false, then the Cultus Latriae is exhibited to a meer Creature: And Costerus the Jesuit sticks not to grant the sequel; Viz. that if our Church be mistaken in the doctrin of Transubstantiation, we Ipso Facto stand guilty of such a piece of idolatry, as never was before seen or known in this World. I answer: First, as to Costerus, the Doctor deals not fair [...]y with him; for Costerus does not so much as name Transubstantiation in that place. Secondly, The Doctor, both here and elsewhere boasts much [Page] of Costerus his concession, but wholly mistakes the ground of it. Costerus argues thus;Costerus in Enchirid. c. 8 de Sanct. mo. sacramto. n. 10 If in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the true Body of Christ be not contained, Christ has dealt unworthily with his Church, as having abandoned, and permitted her to fall, and continue for Fifteen Hundred Years together, in such error and idolatry, the like to which was never seen nor heard of, and all this, by occasion of his own words. Here is the ground of Costerus his concession: If the true Body of Christ be not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ had dealt unworthily with his Church; and by consequence would not be the true Christ; and therefore the adoration of the Eucharist, would be, not only a mistake, as to the circumstance, but also as to the, object; there being no such adorable object in the World, as a true Christ, according to this supposition, and so the Cultus Latria would be exhibited to a meer creature. Wherefore, to gratify the Doctor, if he can but prove his Antecedent, that [Page] Transubstantiation is a meer figment, and enormous falshood, I shall not at all dispute his consequence with him, but willingly grant as much as Costerus to the full. He begins then, and undertakes to evince by undeniable demonstration, that the doctrin of Transubstantiation is false. For, says he, Thus the Body of Christ will be in God knows how many Thousand places at once, and how many Thousand Miles distant one from another. Whereas Amphitruo (says the Doctor) expostulates with his servant Sosia, and rates him for a Mad-man or Impostor, that he would make him believe, that he could be in two places at once. This indeed is a fair demonstration that Dr. More is acquainted with Plautus his Comedies, and can (when he pleases) descend from the divinity chair to a piece of unseasonable mirth and stage-drollery. But let this pass, as a pleasant skirmish before the main charge. In the next place he musters up all the Arts and Sciences, Logick, Physicks, Metaphysicks, and Mathematicks, against us, to prove that one Body cannot be in two places at once. His first evidence is drawn from the Physicks. [Page] It is a principle, says he, of Physicks, that that internal space, that a Body occupies at one time, is equal to the Body that occupies it. Now let us suppose one and the same Body occupy two such internal places or spaces at once. This Body is therefore equal to those two spaces, which are double to one single space; wherefore the Body is double to that Body in one single space; and therefore one and the same Body double to it self; which is an enormous contradiction. To this objection, I answer: Respicientes ad pauca facile definiunt. The Doctor reckons here without his Host. You say, Mr. Doctor, 'Tis a Principle in Physicks, that the space which a Body occupies, must be equal to the Body that occupies it. But what Physicks tell you, that a Body in one place, occupying a space equal to it self, cannot possibly at the same time be elsewhere, without occupying there any place at all; (that is) be present there, without a local presence? And if this can possibly be, your Physicks are quite struck dumb, and your Demonstration blown up from its very foundation. Now that this supposition is more than meerly possible, [Page] is clear from the common opinion of the learned, who maintain that actually the supreme Heaven occupies no place. Secondly, Allowing the Doctor his own supposition; That one and the same Body, at the same time occupies two different places, equal to it self. What follows? Therefore First, (replies the Doctor) This Body is equal to those two spaces, which are double to one single space. Therefore 2dly, The Body is double to that body in one single space. And therefore 3dly, One and the same body is double to it self. I deny all these three Therefores; which are no more than meer empty Paralogismes. Let us examine the first inference (of which the two others depend) concluding from the bodies being in two places at once, that the said body is equal to those two spaces. What needs that, Mr. Doctor? It is enough that in each of those two spaces, it be only equal or commensurate to that determinate place it there occupies (suppose of six Cubits;) and in neither of them, equal or commensurate to a space of 12. Cubits. But yet further, admit the body were made equal to those two [Page] spaces, which are double to one single space. How does it follow from hence, that the body is double to it self? Let us suppose a body of one Cubit, rarified to its double dimension of two Cubits. Will Philosophy allow this inference for current? Viz. This body is now equal to two places, which are double to a place of one single Cubit. Therefore the body is double to that body, in the place of one single Cubit; Therefore double to it self. What answer you give to this instance, will serve for an Answer to your own Argument. Again, let us take a rational soul, informing a body a span in length: Then let us suppose the same body grown up to two spans, and still informed by the same soul. Behold now another parallel of the Doctor's Argument. This Soul is co-extended and commensurate to two spans, which are double to one single span; therefore the soul is double to that soul, which was under one span; therfore double to it self. Is not this rare divinity? Let the Doctor show a material disparity in these two cases, or else acknowledg the inconclusiveness of his own objection. But [Page] he may please to remember, that the places being continued, or discontinued, in one or the other case, will nothing avail him, unless he can demonstrate, that which the Schools will not easily subscribe unto; to wit, that each subject ows its unity, to the unity of place; and not to its own intrinsick essence. Thus much in Answer to his Physicks.

In his Second Objection, the Metaphisicks are up in armes against us, in defence of their great Maxime; That the notion of Unum, is to be Indivisum a se, as well as Divisum a quolibet alio. The first part of which Maxime seems to be manifestly infringed by us, putting a possibility of one Bodies being in more places at once: For in this case, the body will be Divisum a se, and both Unum and Multa. Thus the Doctor. And I shall crave the favour to return my Answer in the same Language the Objection speaks. To the first then, I reply thus: It will be Divisum a se secundum substantiam; I deny it. It will be Divisum a se quoad locum; transeat. Then Secondly, I deny, that it will be Unum & multa; but only Unum in multis: [Page] One and the same in many places. Secondly, I answer to the Objection, that the Doctor here rowles the same Stone, and relapses into the same error, which was reproved in the former Objection, as building upon a false and ruinous bottom; for he supposes that essential unity is derived from the unity of Local presence, and not from the intrinsick Principles of the Subject: For unless we grant this supposition, it will not follow, that the same body being in divers places at once is divided from it self, any more than it is divided from its intrinsick Principles, which it can never be by plurality of local presence, they being wholly extrinsecal to the subject. Thirdly, I answer, that both this, and the precedent Objection are of pernicious consequence, as putting armes into the hands of Infidels, to attempt against the mistery of the ever adorable Trinity. For, as the Doctor argues, that if one body can be in two places at once, it will follow that the said Body is double to it self: So it may be concluded with 'greater plausibility by the Antitrinitarian, that if one and the same [Page] divine nature, can be in three distinct Persons at once, it will follow that the same nature will be treble to it self. And as he objects that from the hypothesis of one Bodies being in divers places at once, the sequel will be, that the same body will be Divisum a se, contrary to one piece of a Metaphysical Principle; of the notion of Unum, being Indivisum a se: So may the Antitrinitarian object with a more close Logick, that from the hypothesis of one nature being in three distinct Persons, the sequel will be, that the same nature will be Divisa a se, and also not Divisa ab aliis (because really identified with three distinct Persons) which is contrary to the whole Metaphysical Principle of the notion of Unum, being Indivisum a se, & divisum a quolibet alio. And if there be any disparity in the case, it is wholly on the Antitrinitarians side, and to his advantage.

The Doctor's Third Objection is from the Mathematicks. I shall give it Verbatim from his own Pen. The Council of Trent saying, that in the separation of the parts of the species (that which bears the outward show of Bread and Wine) that from this division,[Page]there is a parting of the whole, divided into so many entire bodies of Christ, the body of Christ being always at the same time equal to it self, it follows that a part of the division is equal to the whole, against that common notion in Euclid, that the whole is bigger than the part. The Reader may please to take notice that the Doctor here gives us his own Paraphrase for the words of the Council. Now to the Objection. Surely the Mathematicks, which lent the Doctor this notion, never gave him commission to abuse his borrowed Principle by so unskilful a misapplication: For his Argument is this: It follows from the Council's doctrine, that a part of the division is equal to the whole, contrary to the generally established notion of the Mathematicks, that the Whole is bigger than the Part. I answer: The Argument is meer Cobweb stuff; half an Eye is enough to look through it: For these words of the Doctors (That a part of the division is equal to the whole) either refer to the species (and then it is false that a part of the division is equal to the whole) or they point at the Body of Christ (and [Page] then the words are De subjecto non supponente:) for there is no division of any part of Christ's Body from the whole.

His Fourth Objection is from Logick. In Logick (says the Doctor) it is a Maxime, that the parts agree indeed with the whole, but disagree one with another. But in the abovesaid division of the Host or Sacrament, the parts do so well agree, that they are entirely the very same individual thing. And whereas any division, whether Logical or Physical, is the division of some one into many, this is but the division of one into one, and it self. My answer to this is, that I may with much more reason say, that this and the precedent Objection is but the division of one into one and it self. For this is the same in effect with the former, and requires no new Answer. Because these his trifling expressions, if applied to the separated species, are false; if to Christs body, then they proceed upon a false supposition; as hath been declared in my Answer to the Third Objection. And therefore Logick hath great reason to take it ill at the Doctor's hands, for making her instrumental to such an illogical discourse.

[Page] But the Doctor distrusting the strength of his Logick, calls in his Metaphysicks again to her relief, and gives us a Fifth and mixed Objection from Logick and Metaphysicks. Transubstantiation, says he, implies that the same thing is, and is not at the same time. For that individual thing, that can be, and is to be made of any thing, is not. Now the individual body of Christ is to be made of the Wafer consecrated, for it is turned into his individual body. But his individual body was before the Consecration. Wherefore it was, and it was not at the same time. Which is against that Fundamental Principle in Logick and Metaphysicks, that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true: Or that the same thing cannot both be, and not be at once. Thus far the Doctor in his own expressions. Now before I answer his Objection; there are two or three particulars deserve a cursory reflection. And first a knowing Reader cannot chuse but smile to see, (Can be) or a capacity of being brought in for a piece of an Argument to prove that a thing is not: That individual thing that can be (says the Doctor) and is to be made of any thing, [Page]is not. Secondly, It is here observable, how fondly the Doctor plays the confident Dogmatizer, asserting as evident (for in this Chapter he professedly pretends to evidence an undeniable demonstration.) That that individual thing that can be and is to be made of any thing, is not. As if forsooth it were evidently demonstrable, that that individual thing, which is to day actually in being, could not possibly be destroy'd, and made anew again to morrow by a second generation. For if this be absolutely possible, it will be false to day to utter this Proposition: (That individual thing that can be, and is to be made of any thing, is not.) And is not this rashly to fetter God's Omnipotency, and to go about to wrest a power out of his Almighty Hand, which he may have, for any thing the Doctor knows to the contrary. Thirdly, It is pitty to observe his words in the next Proposition. The individual body of Christ, says he, is to be made of the Wafer consecrated. Which implies as much as if the Water were the material cause of Christ's body. What Philosopher ever spoke thus unphilosophically? [Page] Yet to make amends, he immediately contradicts himself, and adds, That the Wafer is turned (or converted) into his individual body. Which is a much different thing from being made of the Wafer. But the particle (for) goes beyond wonder. The individual body of Christ is made of the Wafer consecrated (mark the word) for it is turned into his individual body. Which is a piece of as learned nonsense, as if he said in open terms, Because the Wafer is turned into Christ's body, by a total Conversion, which excludes a material cause; therefore his Body is made of the Wafer by generation, which requires a material cause. Thus unfortunate are the Acts and Sciences, when they engage against GOD's Church. I come now to his Argument. Transubstantiation, says he, implies that the same thing is, and is not, at the same time. This I deny. First, Because Physicks have rendred it probable, that a thing which actually is, may be reproduced, without losing its actual existence. And if we should say, that Christs body is thus reproduced in the Sacrament, it will not follow, that [Page] the Body of Christ is, and is not at once: to wit, before the Consecration: but only that it is by a first production, and is not by a second production, till after the Consecration. Secondly, I will assign the Doctor another way, whereby to evade his contradiction: for as in nutrition and augmentation, when new matter is added to the body, (by conversion of our food and sustenance into flesh) the Soul presently begins to inform this new matter. And there is no need of producing a new Soul, which was not before; but only the Soul begins to be, where it was not before: So when the Host is converted into the Body of Christ, no necessity enforces us to grant the production of a new body, which was not before, but only that the body begins to be, where it was not before.

Let the impartial Reader now judge what great cause the Doctor had to cry Victory before his time, and so manfully to word us down, and conclude Hectorlike, as he does; That nothing could be more fully and entirely contradictious, and repugnant to all sense and reason, to all indubitable[Page]Principles of all Art and Science, then this figment of Transubstantiation: so that any one (says he) that is not a meer Bigot, may be as assured that Transubstantiation is a meer figment, or enormous falshood, as of any thing else in the whole World. I wonder whether they be not as meer Bigots, with the Doctor, whoever believe the mistery of the Holy Trinity. For let him but compare the mysteries of Transubstantiation and Trinity together, and then he shall be to me more than a great Apollo, if he can shew that there is any thing more fully and entirely contradictious, and repugnant to all sense and reason, to all indubitable Principles of all Art and Science, in the first mistery, then in the later. And that any one who is not a meer Bigot may be more assured, that Transubstantiation is a meer figment or enormous falshood, then Trinity. And I desire him to instance in particular by what Argument he has attempted to conclude the impossibility of one Bodies being in divers places at once, which is not emboldened from hence to lift up its head much more plausibly against the Unity and Trinity of God, to [Page] evince the impossibility of one divine nature in three distinct Persons, really identified with each Person, and yet most strictly one in essence, undistinguish'd and undivided from it self.

If Dr. More would proceed as every good and well-grounded Christian ought to do, he should rather make the seeming impossibility of these two mysteries an argument of their being true and divinely inspired doctrines: For so we may rightly say in respect of both; The more incredible, the more credible. That is, by how much the more incredible these mysteries are, if we only consult our senses, and the bare sentiments of the natural man; by so much the more credible it is, that there lies a divine revelation at the bottome; and that no art, perswasion, force, or any thing else in the whole World, but a divine Authority, could ever have wrought so firm and general a belief in the hearts of men of such high and transcendent objects.

[Page]

The Fourth Section.
Containing an Answer to the Fourth Fifth and Sixth Chapters.

IN the entrance of the Fourth Chapter the Doctor falls foul upon the Council of Trent, for teaching, That the Saints raigning with Christ offer up their Prayers for Men; and that it is good and profitable humbly to invocate them, and to fly to their mediation, aid and succour, for the obtaining of God's blessings, through Jesus Christ his Son. This the Doctor terms making the Saints the more exactly like the Pagans Dii Medioxumi, and the Demons that negotiated the affairs of Men with the highest Deities. Now to prove that this kind of invocation of Saints is down right Idolatry, and by consequence that we are worshippers of false Gods, he conjures up a spirit, which for its many names, and bad qualities, may well be termed Legion: Viz. the 3d. 4th. 5th. 6th. and 8th. Conclusions of the first Chapter. [Page] As also the 5th. 7th. 8th. 10th. 11th. 12th. 13th. 14th. 15th. and 24th. Conclusions of the Second Chapter. But I hope my answer to these Conclusions, in the first and second Section of this Discourse, will prove exorcism enough to lay this foul unclean Spirit of Calumny, and silence its impertinencies.

In the rest of this fourth, and the two ensuing Chapters, the Doctor acts a new Person: For laying aside his former Conclusions and Demonstrations, Protestants Translate it, Doting about Questions. he trades now wholly in Quotations, languishing about Questions and strife of words. I shall not be so discourteous as to give Him the Apostles Text after the Protestant Translation. Amongst these Quotations we are to meet with a great dearth of reason: Three entire Chapters having much ado to furnish out matter for one Argument, and that a poor one too, God knows. His business is to lay down, and amuse his Reader with a number of set formes of Invocation of Saints, which he pretends to be egregiously idolatrous. [Page] Yet scarce ever mentioning the Churches Publique Prayers, as her Liturgys, Litany, Canonical Hours, Pontifical or Ritual; he plays at small game and serves in the gleanings of his own observation, picked up here and there, out of several Books of devotion; as the Rosary of our Lady, the Mary Psalter, and others: importing (as he glosseth upon his Text) that the Romanists in their Prayers to Saints (especially to the Blessed Virgin) ask of them such things as are only in the power of our great Saviour and Redeemer Christ to grant: Such as are, to protect us from all evil, and from all the frauds of the Devil; To grant us strength, courage, and patience; spiritual illumination of the Soul, and purgation thereof from the filth of Sin; To comfort and support us in the agony of death, and to conduct us hence into Eternal Life. Lastly, He recounts some particular addresses to the Blessed Virgin Mary, under the Title of Saluatrix, as begging salvation of her, with a Domina salvum me fac: O Blessed Lady, save me. From whence he deduceth these consequences, as the bounteous overflowings [Page] of his Pen. That we ask such thing; of her, as are in the power of none but of Jesus Christ as he is God, to grant: That we make the Eternal God-head as hypostatically united with the Virgin, as with Christ Himself: That we make Her a She Christ, and the Daughter of God, in as high a sense, as Christ is his Son. As to the fidelity of his Quotations (having not the Books at hand to examine them) I can neither accuse nor acquit him. But I shall allow him all the fair play in the World, by supposing, his allegations to be true, and freely taking them upon trust; Though his carriage hitherto gives us no great cause to suspect him guilty of too much candor in that kind. Let us then single out one of the most harsh-sounding forms of Invocation, that is to be found throughout all the three Chapters: and if that, which is seemingly the unsoundest (nay virtually includes all the rest) and grates upon a Christian eare with the greatest show of offence of all others, may yet admit of an Orthodox sense, and this by clear warrant from Holy Scripture; then I hope the rest, which are not so seemingly injustifiable [Page] as this, may in all reason be excused from that odious Epithite of Idolatrous, and I from the labour of all further apology in their behalf. And there is no form of invocation produced by the Doctor of a higher or harsher strain than this, wherby salvation seems to be begged of our Lady, saying, Domina salvum me fac. Blessed Lady save me. But, why must this form needs be idolatrous? Must the flower which yields a wholesome juyce to the industrious Bee, needs be bad, because the venomous Spider turns it into poison? Hony soit qui mal y pense, is an useful piece of morality in things of ambiguous construction: For in this case, the evil is only to him, that evil thinks. And it is very possible that he who makes this form of Invocation a piece of his Litany; Domina salvum me fac. Blessed Lady save me. May think no more evil in it, nor be in any more danger of committing idolatry thereby, than Saint Paul was, when writing to the Romans (Rom. 11. 14.) he uttered these words: If by any means I may provoke to emulation, them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. Or, [Page] when he speaks to the Corinthians in this sort (1 Cor. 9. 22.) I am made all things to all Men, that I might SAVE all: or, as you read, That by all means I might SAVE some: which is all one, as to our present purpose. Conceive now that some humble and well meaning suppliant had made his applications to the Apostle in this very form of Prayer; Holy Apostle SAVE me. What idolatry had it been to Petition Saint Paul for a favour, which he professed himself both ready and able to grant? for here the Apostle cleerly supposeth in himself not only the will, but the power of saving Souls. But in what sense? not in the quality of a God, but as instrumental to their salvation by his Prayers and Preaching. So that (Holy Apostle SAVE me:) had signified no more, then, Holy Apostle teach me the way of salvation: or, Holy Apostle pray for my salvation. Say now the same in our case; that as Saint Paul had upon Earth, so the Virgin hath in Heaven the like, or a greater power of SAVING Souls, by her Patronage, Prayers, and Mediation: Her dignity and place (as Mother of God) affording [Page] her a neerer access to the Throne of Grace, And if the words of the abovesaid Invocation be expounded in this manner (as taking our measures from the Apostles own words and meaning) it will be one and the same kind of address, to say; Blessed Lady save me: or, Blessed Lady pray for my salvation. And so all the forms of Prayer assigned by the Doctor taken in the sense of the Apostle, will amount to no more than a meer Ora pro nobis. Now whereas the Doctor was pleased to discharge his Vollies of calumnies against us, upon the account of this, and the like formes of Invocation; let him turn his Paper-pellets against the Apostle, and discharge the overflowing of his gall upon him, as assuming to himself a Soul-saving Power in the Texts abovesaid; and he may please to tell him; That hereby he takes upon him to do such a thing, as is in the power of none but Jesus Christ, as he is God, to do; That he makes the Eternal God Head as hypostatically united to himself, as with Christ; and so makes himself a second Christ, and the Son of God, in as high a sense, as Christ is his Son. The [Page] inference is equally concluding, either in both cases or neither: And therefore it shall be at the Doctor's choice, either to clear us, or condemn the Apostle, with whom we shall not fear to stand, or fall.

The Fifth Section.
Which is, in Answer to the Three next Chapters.

IN the beginning of the Seventh Chapter the Doctor lays down the doctrin of the Council of Trent in these termes. That the Images of Christ, of the blessed Virgin, and other Saints are to be had and retained in Churches, and that due honor and reverence is to be done to them. Here the Doctor gives us a learned antithesis, between the Commandement of God, and the decree of this Council. Thus much, says he, as the Council of Trent has declared touching Images is plain and open idolatry by the Seventh Conclusien of the first Chapter, and expresly against the Commandment of God, who forbids us to make a [...][Page]graven Image to bow down to, or worship. But the Council of Trent says, yes, ye may make graven Images of the Saints, and set them up in their Temples, and give them their due honour and worship; nay, ye ought to do so; and instances in the very act of bowing, or kneeling and prostrating our selves before them. The like Rhetorical flourish he uses against the Second Council of Nice in the next Chapter. But how weak, frivolous, and Pharisaical this Antithesis is, I have sufficiently declared in my Answer to the Second, and Seventh Conclusions of the first Chapter. He goes on, saying, That this definition of the Council is so palpably against the Commandment of God, that they are fain to leave the second Commandement out of the Decalogue, that the People may not discern how grosly they go against the express Precepts of God, in their so frequent practises of idolatry. This charge from the Pen of a divine looks something more than strange; having been so often answered, and yet no notice taken of the answer, nor any reply made to it. That the Commandements are Ten, we have Scripture for it, Exod. [Page]34. 28. Deut. 4. 13. But that any part of the Decalogue, which our Catechismes leave out, is One of the Ten, the Scripture is not yet in beeing, by which it can be made out. The Scripture indeed delivers the Decalogue unto us in the Twentieth Chapter of Exodus, (which we own to a tittle) but doth not divide and parcel it out so punctually unto us, but that Orthodox Divines (even Saint Austine and Saint Hierome) have been divided amongst themselves about the division of it. As for these words; Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the Water under the Earth: Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them; nor serve them. These words I say according to our School-men (following herein the opinion of Saint Austine) do make but one with the first of not worshipping other gods. Hereupon divers of our Catechismes, as being abbreviations of Christian doctrin, fitted to the weaker memories of the vulgar, leave out the abovesaid words, together with divers others which follow in the fffth [Page] and sixth Verse; as also others belonging to the Commandement of keeping the Sabboth, in the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Verse. Now as our Catechismes leaving out these last words, through meer condescendence to the capacities of the ignorant, are not, nor cannot justly be censured by Protestants, as omitting any one Commandement of the Decalogue: so, before the Doctor could rightly charge us with leaving out the Second Commandement, he ought at lest to have gone about to prove, that that which he calls the Second, is really a distinct Commandement from the first: and that the understanding is not the same, whether we divide the Precepts of the first Table into three, or into four Commandements. This he absolutely omitting to do, his charge proves a meer calumny, and bearing false witness against his Neighbour. And so whilst he pleads for his Second, he very uncharitably breaks his Ninth Commandement.

Thus far the Doctor having discharged his passion against the Council's doctrin, his next exception is against the ground, [Page] or reason of the said doctrine: for wheras the Council declares, that due honour and reverence is to be done to Images, because the honour done to the Image is referr'd to the Prototype, or thing represented. Against this, the Doctor argues in this sort. This reference, says he, is either in vertue of that similitude the images have with those Persons they represent: Or else this reference (without any regard to personal similitude) is from the direction of the intention of the devotionist. Then he supposing that neither of these ways are maintainable, he infers that by no means, can the honour done to the image be referr'd to the Prototype, or thing represented. Now that this reference is not in vertue of the similitude the images have with those Persons they represent, he proves, First, Because it is oftentimes uncertain, whether there be any such similitude of figure betwixt the Image and the Prototype. Secondly, It may so happen, that the Image may be more like something else, then it is to the Prototype: For example, the Image of a Saint, may possibly be like some sinner, in which case [Page] this wicked Person will intercept the honour due to the same. Thirdly, No Images can be like the Saints, who are now separated Souls. Fourthly, What terrestrial Image (says the Doctor) can possibly represent him, that is truly [...], God-Man, and is not the object of our adoration, but as he is this divine Complexum, as well of the divinity, as of the humanity.

To the Argument I answer, that this reference is in vertue of that similitude, which the Image hath with the Prototype, as including the direction of the intention of the Devotionist, Ipso Facto, that he is supposed to be a rational Agent. And therefore the Doctor's disjunctive Dilemma is very vain and defective. To the first of the four proofs, my Answer is, that the honour done to the Image may be referr'd to the Prototype, though there be no personal similitude of figure betwixt the Image and the Person it represents. For besides the similitude of figure, there is another similitude, which the Doctor, if he please may call a similitude of signification; the Image signifying the dignity, quality, or other perfections [Page] of the Prototype: Thus, though there be no personal similitude of figure, betwixt God and man, yet man was made after the Image and likeness of God, Gen. 1. 26. And he who honours man, as he is the Image of God, honours God in his Image. And therefore, if where there is no similitude of figure, surely much more where there is a specifical similitude of figure, the honour done to the image, may be referr'd to the Prototype; as it happens in the case of the Images of Christ, and his Saints. To the Second I answer, that the case the Doctor puts is more than possible: For it did actually so fall out in the images of the Angels or Cherubims over the Ark, which (if we regard personal similitude of figure and feature) were more like some material and terrestrial Beeings, then those incorporeal intelligences; and yet the honour done to them was referred to the Prototypes. Whence it appears that it is the similitude of signification, more than the similitude of figure and feature, which draws the honour after it. My Answer to the Third is, that our Images pretend not to [Page] represent the Saints, as devested of their Bodies, but only according to their former state under the Church militant, with some additional marks of a Crown, or Lawrel, or some such significative representatives of their triumphant state in Glory. Yet, under favour, why may not an image be like a separated Soul, as well as like an Angel or Cherubim? If any one reply, that according to the Principles of the late revived Platonick Philosophy, Angels have their Bodies, and why may not those Bodies have their Images? Such a Replyer may please to reflect, that (besides that no one ever yet got a sight of those Angelical Bodies)See the ingenuous Author of Lux Orientalis, or the Pre-existence of Souls, (a happy Pen, and worthy of a better Subject) and a great honourer of Dr. More. The same Principles allow unto Souls separated and discharged from these gross terrestrial Elements, the like Aerial or Aetherial Vehicles with Angels; and therefore under this notion, either both, or neither of them, are capable of an imagery representation. To the fourth, I answer, that the Doctor's question, either comes to nothing, [Page] or to something worse than nothing, which is at lest indirect blasphemy: for, if a terrestrial Image can possibly represent that Person, who is [...] God-Man, then the Doctor's Query falls to nothing. But if a terrestrial Image cannot, then neither can a terrestrial eye represent that Person, who is truly [...] God-Man; and so the Apostles, whilst living, did never see that Person, who was [...], God-Man; which is no less than blasphemy, and so worse than nothing: implying that that Person, called Jesus Christ, whom the Apostles daily beheld with their eyes, was not [...] God-Man.

Having done with the Council of Trent, the Doctor begins to pick quarrels with the Second Council of Nice, pretending the doctrine of this Council touching the worship of Images to be grosly idolatrous; and to this purpose he produceth divers Objections, which it were a sin against Logick to call proofs; so little there is of manly reason in them. But because he gives us not the Councils own words, but contents himself with [Page] instancing in one or two weak arguments of his own molding, which he would gladly father upon the Council, we shall not wrong him so much, as to rob him of the child of his own brain, till he pleases to take the pains to prove it to be none of his own. Nor doth he end here, but whereas the Council relates some miracles in favour of the due honour given to the images of Christ and his Saints, these he most profoundly confutes by an unanswerable laughter: From laughing, he immediately falls a louring; and the reason is, because this Council declares that it is lawful to burn Candles, Incense, and Perfumes in honour of the Saints before their Images, which he in an angry mood concludes to smell rankly of idolatry, even (says he) by the authority of Grotius himself upon the Decalogue. Good Doctor, deceive not your self. Grotius was no Papist, as you seem to imagine. And if you will not believe me, take it upon trust from your good friend Doctor Pierce against Baxter. As for us, we have nothing to do with such amphibious heads, such self-divided Humorists, halting [Page] on both sides, as Grotius; As if Grotius his single word were of weight to counterballance the Authority of a general Council. After this he produceth the Collections of Photius in Justellus, and adds that according to these; One would think that they meant (the fathers of this Second Council of Nice) the Cultus Latriae to the Image of Christ; they using the word [...], as if that worship, which was done to the Image passed through to Christ himself, which would not be suitable to him, if it were not divine worship. Here is a discourse indeed, wherein all conformable Sons of the Church of England are concerned: For if an intelligent Protestant be asked, whether, when they bow the Knee at the Eucharist, (which to them is a bare figure, or symbolical presence) the Church of England intends this act of worship to terminate in the figure, or to [...], and pass on to Christ? If it be answered, that this worship is absolute, and rests in the bare figure, then Doctor More's Twentieth Conclusion of his Second Chapter concludes them absolute Idolaters. But if they profess their worship [Page] in this case not to be absolute, in respect of the Sacramental Bread and Wine, but relative, and to [...] and pass on to Christ, then the Doctor may please to address his abovesaid argument to them, in his own terms, and say; One would think that they (that is, all conformable Protestants kneeling at the Eucharist) meant the Cultus Latriae to the Figure, or symbolical presence, they using the word (or at lest the sense of) [...], as if that worship which is done to the figure or symbolical presence passed through to Christ himself, which could not be suitable to him, unless it were divine worship. Let him, I say, turn this Argument against his own Brethren; and I leave it to him and them to debate the Point. His next pretence is to prove positively by the testimony of Photius, that this Council gives the worship of Latria, to the Image of Christ; and such a kind of worship to the Images of the Virgin Mary, and the rest of the Saints, as that while we adhere to their Images or Statues, we are declared to be made fit for, and to be vouchsafed a tactual union with God Himself. This done, he insultingly tapers up, and [Page] tours himself over us, with a double interrogatory. Can any thing, says he, more inflame the Souls of Men with that mystical lust after Idols, then the doctrine of this Nicene Synod? What Philtrum more effectual to raise up that Idolomania, that being mad and love-sick after images and idols, then this? Thus the high-flown Doctor walks in wonders above himself. But why all this lavish of a passionate Rhetorique? The Doctor had plaid his Master-prize if he had given us all this rable in the Councils own words. But instead of that, he feeds upon reversions at second hand, takes his quotations from Photius (a Person of as much credit, as himself) and makes Photius the Paraphrast and Interpreter of the Councils meaning. But what if the Council say no such thing? Nay, what if the Council deliver the quite contrary doctrine? How blank then will the Doctor's charge look, upon the discovery of such disingenuity? And truly had the Doctor but taken so much as a cursory survey of Catholique Authors on this Subject, he might have found them frequently and truly quoting this [Page] very Council, act. 7. to prove that the Image of Christ is not to be honoured with the worship of Latria: but that such honour and reverence is due to images in general, as is to the Books of the Gospel, and the holy Utensils of the Altar. Now therefore whereas the Doctor was pleased to ask; What Philtrum more effectual to raise up that Idolomania, that being mad and love-sick after images, then this? We shall give him leave to take to himself this Idolomania and love-sick humor after the images of his own fond conceptions, and the idol of his own fancy: for therein, and in nothing else consists the main of his charge against us.

Next follows the Ninth Chapter, the Title whereof looks big, and speaks thus. The meaning of the doctrine of the Council of Trent, touching the worshipping of images more determinately illustrated, from the general practise of the Roman Church, and suffrage of their Popes, whereby it is deprehended to be stil more coursely and Paganically idolatrous. It cannot be denied, but here is a fair flourish of words. But the question is; Quid dignum tanto tulit hic [Page]promissor hiatii? Mark the words; (from the general practise of the Roman Church.) And yet instead of the said general practise of the Roman Church, He begins with the particular and generally rejected speculation of Saint Thomas and Saint Bonaventure, both of them declaring (as the Doctor words it) that the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of Latria. Good Doctor, there is a great difference between is, and may be. The one implies an obligation, the other a bare permission: and you produce no proof of any such obligation asserted by these holy Doctors; each of which was too much a Divine to be ignorant what Idolatry is, and too much a Christian to commit it. Now indeed that the Image of Christ may be worshipped with the worship of Latria (though expresly contrary to the doctrine of the Second Council of Nice) is the commonly supposed Opinion of Saint Thomas, and Saint Bonaventure. Who, as they never mention, so in all likelihood they never saw the said Council, nor the eighth General Synod, both of which lay concealed from the [Page] World a long time, and we owe the publishing of them, only to the later and more inquisitive discoveries of the precedent Age. It is hard to say what was the meaning of these two Doctors: for when they come to unfold their assertion, they wind about, and enter into such nice distinctions, as requires a long acquaintance with, and deep insight into the Schools, only to understand, much more to foil, and confute them. Wherein Dr. More might very much oblige the World, if he pleased to engage upon such a task, as a noble essay of his speculative faculty.

After Saint Thomas, and Saint Bonaventure, comes in Azorius the Jesuit, he also affirming (as the Doctor pretends) that it is the constant Opinion of the Theologers, (so the Doctor calls them) that the image is to be honoured and worshipped with the same honour and worship, that he is, whose Image it is. Which (says the Doctor) is not unlike that of the Council of Nice, [...], in the foregoing citation. Here is a proofless accusation, which the learned [Page] call a calumny, whereby Azorius is made the Author of a great untruth, without any the least allegation to evidence the charge. As to the Tenet, which the Doctor speaks of, it is far from being the constant Opinion of our Theologers; whereas 'tis now generally rejected by them, unless limited by that restriction and qualifying distinction of [...], which the Doctor either forgot, or purposely omitted, in his long translation out of Photius, in the last Chapter, though it was the only material word in the whole citation: For divers indeed (taking this restriction along with them) teach that the Image may be honoured and worshipped with the same honour and worship with the Prototype; not univocally but analogically, as the Schools speak; which comes to a meer verbal contest, and in reality imports a much inferiour kind of honour done to the Image, than what is due to him in his own Person, whose Image it is. I shall briefly open the distiction. As a Man and a Lion differ specifically: so a painted Man, and a painted Lion differ no less. [Page] Whence it is, that the painted Man is reduced analogically to the species of Man, and not to that of a Lion: no more than the painted Lion, to the species of Man, so that a Man, and a painted Man are (though not univocally) yet analogically the same. Now, says our Doctors, look what proportion the painted Man holds with the Man himself; the like comparison is to be made between the honour exhibited to the painted Man, and the Man himself, or to the Picture, and the Prototype. And therefore as the Man, and the painted Man, are analogically the same: So the honour done to the painted Man, and the Man himself, or to the Picture and the Prototype, are (not univocally but) analogically the same. Thus do Gabriel, and some others interpret Saint Thomas, and Saint Bonaventure. If the Doctor understand the distinction, and like it not, he hath his Christian liberty to impugne it. If he understand it not, he may do well to lay down the Cudgels, and leave these great Divines to themselves and their speculations, and not to obtrude their Schoolniceties [Page] upon us, as part of our Churches Faith, or practise; whereas he himself acknowledgeth in the beginning of this Chapter, that the Council of Trent never mentions any such worship of Latria due to the Image of Christ. And two General Councils, the Seventh and Eighth,Council. 7m. actio. 7. Conc. 8m. actio. ult. can. 3. declare definitively for the contrary to what the Doctor pretends: For, speaking of the Veneration which is to be given to Images, they compare it only with that reverence which is due to the Books of the Gospel, and the Utensils of the Altar. Which are both of them to be honoured with due Veneration; the one, as signifying holy things; the other, as consecrated to holy uses; both which considerations joyntly concur in the images of Christ and his Saints.

Secondly, The Doctor pretends,That the Consecration and Worship of Images makes them perfectly as the Idol-gods of the Heathen, as Octavius jearingly speaks of the Heathen-gods, in Minucius felix: ecce funditur, fabricatur, scalpitur, nondum est Deus.[Page]—Ecce ornatur, consecratur, oratur, tunc postremo Deus est. Behold it is clothed, or adorned, it is consecrated and prayed unto, then at length it becomes a god. And if this will do it, the Church of Rome's Images will prove as good Idol gods, as any of them all. Here is a calumny indeed of the first magnitude, most uncharitably implying that theRoman Churchprays to Images, as the Heathens did to their Idol-gods. The best excuse for so foul a charge is the palpable grossness of it, whereby it may possibly be hoped, that no Person, that is but one remove from a fool, can either believe the Doctor, or think that he believes himself.

Thirdly, He inveighs against two particular forms of consecrating Pictures, which he does not profess to have seen himself. But, says he, Chemnitius recites them out of the Pontifical he had read. Here is a third proofless accusation, called a Calumny: For Chemnitius his word is no proof with us, who is a known Sinon, a Person of that tried integrity, as that he who never trusts him, shall be sure never to be deceived by him.

[Page] Fourthly, He brings a form of consecration of Images, out of the Roman Rituall: Grant, O God, that whosoever before this Image shall diligently and humbly upon his Knees worship, and honour thy only begotten Son, or the Blessed Virgin, or this glorious Apostle or Martyr, Confessor, or Virgin, &c. That he may obtain, by his, or her merits and intercession, grace in this present life, and eternal glory hereafter. Upon this Prayer, the Doctor descants after this manner. So that, says he, The Virgin and other Saints are fellow-distributers of grace and glory with Christ himself to their Supplicants before their Images; and that upon their own merits; and for the service done to them in kneeling and pouring out their Prayers before their statues or symbolical presence. Thus far is the Doctor's charge who might have done well to have lent us his Opticks, or else to have set down in Capital Letters that sentence, word, or single syllable in the aforesaid Prayer (which yet differs from that in the Roman Rituall) whereby he pretends to infer his triple consequence. For, there is no such expression in the whole Prayer, as Grant [Page]O Virgin; or Grant O Saint: but, Grant O God. How then do we here make the Virgin and other Saints fellow-distributers of grace and glory with Christ himself? Much less do we make them fellow-distributers of grace and glory with Christ, upon their own merits, who have no merits of their own, but such as flow from, and have their absolute dependance of the merits of Christ. And lest of all are they here made fellow-distributers of grace, for the service done to them in kneeling and praying before their statues; there being no such causall as that (for) specified at all in the Prayer.

Fifthly, His weak Eye-sight cannot endure the light of Wax-candles, no more than his head the smoke of incense burning before the images of Saints; both which he pretends to be idolatrous. This he confidently affirms, but never offers to prove, and thereby proves himself guilty of a Fifth Calumny. As for Temples and Altars, I have already told him we erect Temples and Altars to God alone, reserving only a secondary honour or remembrance for the Saints. I shall not foul [Page] my Paper with taking notice of such unseemly brothel-language, as fills up his next Page. It is enough to say, it is more than becomes a modest Doctor.

Sixthly, He touches at some more gross extravagancies, which, says he, Though they have connived at, yet they would be loth to own upon publick authority: such as the making images to sweat, their eyes to move, the making them to smile, to loure, look sad, to feel heavy or light, and the like. The Doctor's Book would give me the lie, if I should term this any thing less than a Calumny, for he brings not so much as any one single instance to back his accusation, charging our Church with connivance at such unchristian impostures which have ever been the object of her sharpest censures, and most exemplar severities when-ever detected.

Lastly, He quotes a Rhyme to the face of Christ, called the Veronica. But because this was no part of any Ecclesiastical Office, for which the Church might be justly thought responsible, he teares a piece of a Hymn out of the Breviary, which he presents under the Title of a [Page] blind devotion. O crux, ave spes unica, hoc passionis tempore; auge piis justitiam, reisque dona veniam. Then he runs division upon this Text, in this sort. This, says he, must sound very wildly and extravagantly to any sensible Ear. And yet the invoking any Saint before his image, for aid and succour (the image bearing the name and representation of the Saint) with eyes and hands lift up to it, is as arrant talking with a sensless stock, or a stone, as this, and as gross a piece of Idolatry. If you had but added one clause more Mr. Doctor, which is every whit as well grounded as your own, you had done your deed, and changed your calumny against us into blasphemy against God: for, as you say, The invoking any Saint before his Image for aid and succour, (the Image bearing the name and representation of the Saint) with eyes and hands lift up to it, is as arrant talking with a sensless stock or stone, as this: So might you have added with no less colour of truth; That invoking Almighty God before the Ark of the Covenant, (the Ark being but a figure or symbolical presence, and of Wood, and had in it the Rod [Page] of Aaron, and the Tables of the Covenant) with eyes and hands lift up to it, was as arrant talking with a sensless stock or stone, as this which you object against the Worship of Images. As for the Churches Hymn, O crux ave spes unica; I recommend to the Doctor this following Text of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1. 18. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish, foolishness, but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. Where the Cross is figuratively taken for the Person crucified, which is Christ the Power of God, expresly so called, v. 24. of the same Chapter. Wherefore as those, who preach the Cross, may by an easy trope be said to Preach Christ crucified: So, allow but charity for Interpreter, and those who speak to the cross, may without scruple be supposed to speak figuratively to Christ crucified. So that the same interpretation which clears the Apostle, will absolve the Church; and her apostrophe to Christ crucified (under the Title of the Cross) shall pass for canonical, as long as this, and such like Texts, shall continue in being, to pattern and [Page] patronize the expression. And therefore I end with this parallel of the Apostle's Text; that as the preaching of the Cross, (so an address to the Cross) is to them that perish, foolishness; but to us it is the power of God, and wisdome of God.

The Last Section.
Concluding with an Answer to the Doctor's last Chapter.

THe Doctor concludes his Treatise with a hearty and vehement Exhortation to all Men, that have any serious regard to their salvation, to beware how they be drawn into the communion of the Church of Rome. So that this Chapter may be fitly entitled, Doctor Taylour Revived; or a second Dissuasive from Popery. But after a different Method: for Doctor Taylour is a Person of a more refined and plausible insinuation: a smooth tongue and oyly expression, cloaking his many and great disingenuities, with fair glozing words, and an affectate [Page] strain of Scripture-phrase, pretending to the power of godliness. But Dr. More is a Polemical man of a quite different temper. His fiery zeal wears no mask: His disputing is open railing; and his Arguments blustring words; not always too much concerned whether true or false. Witness the Contents of this Chapter; whereof I shall give my Reader a brief Extract, drawn up in form of a Homily, yet in the Doctor's own words, and charitable Dialect. Thus then begins the Dissuasive.

Dearly beloved; It is demonstrated as clear as noon-light in this present discourse, that the Church of Rome are Idolaters. And therefore come out of her my People, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues. Be not deceived, says the Apostle, 1 Cor. 6. 9. neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters shall inherit the Kingdom of God. And those of the Church of Rome are bound to continue Idolaters, as long as they live, or else to renounce their Church; and therefore they are bound to be damned, by adhearing to the Roman Church, [Page] unless they could live in it for ever. But because some Protestants have declared for the possibility of salvation in the Romish Church, this piece of charity, in some of our party, they turn to the fencing off all imputation of idolatry from themselves, arguing thus: That no Idolaters can be saved: but those in the Romish Church may be saved, according to those Protestants Opinion [...]; therefore those in the Romish Church are no Idolaters. But most assuredly in that some of our Church do say they may be saved, upon a sincere and hearty implicit repentance of all their sins, (wherein they include the idolatries and all other miscarriages, which they knew not themselves guilty of, by reason of the blind misinstructions of their Church) no more is given them by this, then thus; viz. That they are saved by disowning of, and dismembring themselves from the Roman Church, as much as it is in their power so to do, and by bitterly repenting them that they were ever of that Church, as such; and by being so minded, that if they did know what a corrupt [Page] Church it is, they would forthwith separate from it.—In which position, if there were any truth, it will reach the honest-minded Pagans as well. I conclude therefore with the Spirit of truth in the divine Oracles, declaring the See of Rome the seat

Apoc. 2. 13.

of Satan, & their Church

Apoc. 3. 9.

his Synagogue; The Pope and his Clergy

Apoc. 2. 13, 14.

to be Balaam the Son of Bozor, who loved the wages of Unrighteousness, and who was the murtherer of Christ's faithful Martyr Antipas; To be

Apoc. 2. 20.

that Woman Jezabel, who calls her self a Prophetess, but was indeed a Sorceress, and a murtherer of the true Prophets of the Lord. To be also that false Prophet

Apoc. 9. 20.

that is to be taken alive, and cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone. To be that great City, that spiritually is call'd Sodom and Aegypt,

Apoc. 11. 8

where our [Page] Lord was crucified. To be the Beast that has the Horns of a Lamb

Apoc. 13. 11.

but the voice of a Dragon, decreeing Idolatries and cruel Persecutions against God's People. To be that Babylon the great

Apoc. 17.

the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth.

This is mellifluous Dr. More's sweet harangue, with a long-winded, &c. too tedious to be inserted here. Now I would gladly know what there is in all this discourse, which an ingenuous Son of the Church of England will not be heartily ashamed of, and even blush for the Doctor's sake. Here is, I confess, stout railing, disingenuity more than is necessary for a Doctor, and an ill-grounded and schismatical discourse,Mr. Thorndike in his just Weights, and Measures. even admitting a Protestant Doctor for Umpire in the case. As for our Doctor's dexterity in the learned Science of railing, I envy it not; nor hath the Church of England any great reason to glory in it: For she may [Page] remember but too well, that in the black days of the late apostacy, when loyalty lay a gasping, and Religious Rebellion first took possession of the Pulpit, she felt the smart of this language her self, whilst he was looked upon as the best Man, and the greatest Servant of the Lord, who knew how to Curse Meroz the loudest; And there are not wanting in this Nation, those who can find a Rome in England, to make Meroz of it when they please.

But his great disingenuity, in averring so peremptorily that no Protestants allow us a possibility of Salvation, but only in case of such a repentance, as implies an absolute renunciation of our Religion, and its idolatrous doctrines and practises, by disowning of, and dismembring our selves from the Roman Church; this I say, will scarce appear pardonable in the eyes of his Fellow-Doctors: For, First, Arch-Bishop Lawd in his Fam'd Relation, § 35. expresly grants us this Possibility of Salvation; and to clear himself, and shew that he is not alone, he cites Bishop Abbot, Hall, Hooker, Field, and others, as concurring with him in the same Opinion; [Page] and this without any such renunciation of our Religion, as the Doctor pretends; or disowning and dismembring our selves from the Roman Church. I cannot pass by Mr. Hooker's remarkable expression upon this Subject, in his discourse of Justification, § 17. For my part, says he, I dare not deny the possibility of their salvation, who have been the chiefest instruments of ours. Secondly, Besides the Arch-Bishop, and the above mentioned Doctors, Dr. Potter. Dr. Hammond, and others glory much of the charitable Principles of the Church of England, and object want of charity to us, for maintaining, that Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation. Now if the Objectors should retaliate, and say that Popery unrepented destroys Salvation, I would willingly be instructed by Dr. More wherein lies the charity▪ and moderation they boast of. Thirdly, Nothing is more current amongst them, when they are pressed with the crime of Schism, then to return the charge upon us, from other grounds: Saying, that as the Donatists and Luciferians were, so we are Schismatiques, in cutting off from [Page] the Body of Christ, and the Hope of Salvation, other Churches from which we are divided in Communion. Whence is evidently inferred, that those who make this Objection, cannot cut us off from the hope of Salvation, unless they mean to evacuate the force of their own proof, and fall into the Pit, which they had digged for their Neighbours. Lastly, Whereas Dr. More makes the pretended Idolatries of the Church of Rome the ground of his dissuasive from Popery: That this Method of arguing is absolutely schismatical (even allowing the case to be ballanced in Dr. Thorndike's Just Weights, and ruled according to his Measures) Dr. More may find abundant satisfaction in the first Chapter of the abovesaid Treatise.

But, in regard I have mentioned so eminent a Person, and Member of the Church of England, as Dr. Thorndike, I shall make bold to turn him into the l [...]sts, against Dr. More. The antithesis of their doctrines is very remarkable; for they run diametrically opposite one to another. Dr. More affirms the Worship of the Host in the Papacy to be Idolatry. Dr. Thorndike [Page] (ch. 19.) denies the Worship of the Host in the Papacy to be Idolatry. Dr. More holds that the placing and reverencing Images i [...] Churches, is Idolatry. Dr. Thorndike (ch. 19.) holds that the placing and reverencing Images in Churches, is not Idolatry. Dr. More will have Invocation of Saints to be inexcusable Idolatry. Dr. Thorndike (ch. 16.) excuses Invocation of Saints from Idolatry. Lastly, Dr. More exhorts all Men to separate from the Church of Rome, as Idolaters. But Dr. Thorndike (chap. 1.) avows to all the World, that those who separate from the Church of Rome, as Idolaters, are thereby schismatiques before God. When the two Doctors are fully agreed upon these Points, Dr. More shall hear more from me, if he desires it. In the mean time▪ I shall entre [...]t him to respit my Pen for some other Imployment.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAge 7. line 10. for where read There. pag. 9. l. ult. for tare r. bare. p. 14. l. 5. f genu. r. gent. p. 17. l. 1. f. scarce, r. scarce. p. 32. l. 9. f. speaks, r. speakers.

Information about this book

Title statement

A brief answer to the many calumnies of Dr. Henry More, in his pretended Antidote against idolatry. Shewing that no prudent person can, upon any rational ground, be deterr'd from returning to the communion of St. Peter's chair, by any of the doctors best and strongest evidences to the contrary.

Walton, John, 1624-1677.

Edition statement

1672

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A97089

ID [STC]

Wing W675A

ID [STC]

ESTC R225655

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

43077748

ID [OCLC]

ocm 43077748

ID [VID]

151863

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. A97089)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 151863)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English Books, 1641-1700 ; 2279:18)

Source

— A brief answer to the many calumnies of Dr. Henry More, in his pretended Antidote against idolatry. Shewing that no prudent person can, upon any rational ground, be deterr'd from returning to the communion of St. Peter's chair, by any of the doctors best and strongest evidences to the contrary., Walton, John, 1624-1677..

Extent

[6], 103 p.

s.n.],. [London :: Printed in the year 1672.. (Attributed to John Walton by Wing.) (Place of publication suggested by Wing.) (Errata: foot of p. 103.) (Reproduction of original in: Newberry Library, Chicago, Illinois.)

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.