as in the matter of Tradition or Christs Body after the Resurrection 3. He saith that We expose Faith to great uncertainty by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith proposed by a Church that is we deny particular Mens Judgment as to matters of faith to be as good if not better than the Churches and to infer from hence that we make Faith uncertain is just as if on the contrary one should say that Protestants make faith certain by exposing matter of faith determined by the Church to be discussed and reversed by the Judgment and Reason or rather Fancy of every private Man We have good store of this kind of certainty in England But as for the use of our Judgment and Reason as to the matters themselves proposed by the Church it is the daily business of Divines and Preachers not only to shew them not to be repugnant to any natural truth but also to illustrate them with Arguments drawn from reason But the use he would have of reason is I suppose to believe nothing but what his reason can comprehend and this is not only irrational in its self but contrary to the Doctrin of St. Paul where he commands us to captivate our understandings to the Obedience of Faith 4. He adds We expose faith to uncertainty by making the Church power extend to making new Articles of Faith And this if it were true were something indeed to his purpose But the Church never yet owned any such power in her General Councils but only to manifest and establish the Doctrin received from her Fore-fathers as is to be seen in the prooems of all the Sessions of the Council of Trent where the Fathers before they declare what is to be believed ever premise that what they declare is the same they have received by Tradition from the Apostles And because it may happen that some particular Doctrine was not so plainly delivered to each part of the Church as it happened in St. Cyprian's case concerning the non-rebaptization of Hereticks we acknowledg it is in her power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before not by inventing new Articles but by declaring more explicitly the Truths contained in Scripture and Tradition Lastly he saith We expose Faith to great uncertainty because the Church pretending to infallibility does not determine Controversies on foot among our selves As if faith could not be certain unless all Controversies among particular Men be determined what then becomes of the certainty of Protestants faith who could yet never find out a sufficient means to determin any one Controversie among them for if that means be plain Scripture what one Judgeth plain another Judgeth not so and they acknowledg no Judg between them to decide the Controversie As for the Catholick Church if any Controversies arise concerning the Doctrin delivered as in St. Cyprian's case she determines the controversy by declaring what is of faith And for other Controversies which belong not to faith she permits as St. Paul saith every one to abound in his own sence And thus much in Answer to his third Argument by which and what hath been said to his former objections it appears that he hath not at all proved what he asserted in his second Answer to the first Question viz. That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it But he hath a third Answer for us in case the former fail and it is § 10. That a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church doth incur a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible ignorance This is the directest Answer he gives to the Question and what it imports is this That invincible Ignorance and he doth not know what allowance God will make for that neither is the only Anchor which a Catholick hath to save himself by If by discoursing with Protestants and reading their Books he be not sufficiently convinced whereas he ought in the supposition of the Answerer to be so that the Letter of the Scripture as interpretable by every private Mans reason is a most certain Rule of Faith and Life but is still over-ruled by his own Motives the same which held St. Austin in the bosome of the Catholick Church he is guilty of wilful Ignorance and consequently a lost Man there is no hope of Salvation for him Much less for a Protestant who shall embrace the Catholick Communion because he is supposed doubtless from the same Rule to have sufficient conviction of the Errours of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful Ignorance if he have it not which is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroys salvation So that now the upshot of the Answer to the Question Whether a Protestant embracing Catholick Religion upon the same motives which one bred and well grounded in it hath to remain in it may be equally saved with him comes to this that they shall both be damned though unequally because the converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so And now who can out lament the sad condition of that great Doctor and Father of the Church and hitherto reputed St. Austin who rejecting the Manichees pretended rule of Scripture upon the aforesaid grounds left their Communion to embrace the Communion of the Church of Rome And what is become now of their distinction of points fundamental from not fundamental which heretofore they thought sufficient to secure both Catholicks and Protestants Salvation and to charge us with unconscionable uncharitableness in not allowing them to be sharers with us The absurdness of these consequences may serve for a sufficient conviction of the nullity of his third and last answer to the first Question As for what he saith to the second I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest which hath the best grounds and consequently it is of necessity to salvation to embrace the communion of it What then you are bound to do in reason and conscience is to see which Religion of the two hath the strongest Motives for it and to embrace that as you will answer the contrary to God and your own soul To help you to do this and that the Answerer may have the less exception against them I will give you a Catalogue of Catholick Motives though not all neither in the words of the fore-cited Dr. Taylor advertising only for brevity sake I leave out some mention'd by him and that in these I set down you also give allowance for some expressions of his with which
between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in these words The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as necessary to Salvation But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things as that no Veneration is due to Images the Bread is not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ Saints are not to be invocated c. she requires subscription to them not as Articles of Faith but as inferiour Truths or as Dr. Bramhall Lord Primate of Ireland alledged by him calls them Pious Opinions fitted for the preservation of Unity not says he that we oblige any man to believe them but onely not to oppose or contradict them This then is the Basis and Foundation he lays of his Rational Account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion that no Doctrine of the Protestant Religion as it differs from that of the Roman is an Article of Faith that is that no Protestant believes or if he do he ought not to believe as a matter of Faith that the Images for example of Christ and his Saints are not to be honoured that the substance of the Bread is not changed into the Body of Christ that the Saints in Heaven are not to be invoked to pray for us Nay all that he is obliged to by the Church of England is not to oppose or contradict them This being so let us now see what follows from this Doctrine 1. It follows that the Church of Rome does not erre against any Article of Faith because the Church of England as he saith makes no Articles of Faith but such as are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self 2dly It follows that himself does not believe any of these Points to be Articles of Faith Viz. That Veneration is not to be given to Holy Images that Adoration is not to be given to the Eucharist or that the Saints are not to be invocated because to be Articles of Faith with him they must have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and be acknowledged to be such by Rome it self 3dly It follows that after all this bustle to make the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in these very Points of Veneration of Images c. For ought any Man knows himself gives no interiour assent to any of the forementioned Tenets not even as to Inferiour Truths or Pious Opinions because the Church of England as he cites out of Dr. Bramhall doth not oblige any Man to believe them but only not to oppose or contradict them and it is not likely he defers more to the Church of England than she obliges him too 4thly and lastly It follows that his charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome is vain and groundless for Idolatry being an Errour against the most Fundamental Point of Faith and the Church of Rome according to him not erring against any Article of Faith 't is evident that to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must according to his own Principles be the most groundless unreasonable and contradictory proceeding in the World But it is time now to come to particulars onely I must not omit to desire every indifferent Reader to reflect and judge whether Dr. Stillingfleet to render the Doctrine of the 39. Articles digestible to the most squeamish stomack of the nicest Nonconformist have not done a notable piece of service to the Church of England in degrading so many of them as are not acknowledged by the Church of Rome although they be esteemed the distinctive badg of the purity of the Church of England from the dignity of being Articles of Faith into a lower Classe of Inferiour Truths as he calls them which neither himself nor any Body else know whether they have a grain of truth in them or no and consequently are not bound to believe them Nay does he not undermine the Church of England both in her Doctrine and Government In her Doctrine by freeing her Subjects from any obligation of interiour believing her Articles in which she differs from the Church of Rome to be so much as Inferiour Truths In her Government by exposing her Ordination to be invaded without scruple by such as in their hearts judg it Anti-Christian when he tells them her Sense is to oblige them no farther than not to oppose or contradict it Was it not worth the while to rend asunder the Peace of Christendom for a Company of Opinions which though Dr. Bramhall call them Pious yet the greater part of Christians both in the East and West for many Ages have and do condemn for Impious and Blasphemous Is not this a very Rational or rather as Mr. J. S. expounds the word a very Reasonable Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion and a rare way of justifying her from the Guilt of Schism Sure he never thought of charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry when he laid such sandy Principles for his Foundation Principles of so brittle a temper that it was not possible they should bear so great a Charge without breaking and discharging upon himself CHAP. II. Dr. St.'s chief Argument to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry examined and his Preposterous ways of arguing laid open § 1. IT is a known saying of St. Irenaeus and St. Hierom Ep. ad Ctesiphont speaking of those who set up their own fancies in opposition to the Doctrine of the Church that to lay open what they hold is to refute it and certainly it was never more true than in the subject of the present Debate concerning the Veneration of Images the very light of nature teaching that the honour or dishonour done to a Picture or Image reflects upon the Person represented by it This Protestants themselves confess in civil matters as in the Picture or Image of the King in order to his Person and did they not corrupt themselves in those things which they know naturally they could not but acknowledg the same in the Image of Christ and his Saints in order to them For is it an honour to the King to kiss his Picture and is it not the like to Christ to put off our Hats or kneel before His Was it a dishonour to the King to shoot his Picture with Bullets a◠the Souldiers did in the late times as they march'd along the Streets And was it none to Christ to have his Image bor'd through with hot Irons as he was represented rising from the Grave upon Cheapside Cross A Man would think there needed no more but the light of Nature and Common sence to decide this Controversie and yet the Doctor will needs sustain that the honour given to the Images of Christ and his Saints does not redound at all to them but is so far from that that it is no other than down right Idolatry §
own Body by saying This is my Body and St. Ignatius in the first confesseth the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffred for our sins And now let the Reader judge whether those learned Protestants above cited had reason to affirm of these Fathers though they taxed them of error for it that for what appears by their words they believed and taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation I know the Doctor will not want many a pretty artifice to obscure if possible and elude the force of these Testimonies but the Confession of his Brethren will still be a Potent Prejudice against him Nor can he ever have the courage to deny but that the words taken as they sound seem evidently at least to teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet what is highly observable in this case this being a matter of so great consequence that Dr. Morton confesseth if it be defensible Protestants must stand chargeable of Heresie but if it may be confuted the Romanists must necessarily be condemned of Idolatry None of those Fathers who are cited by Protestants as Abettors of Transubstantiation were ever taxed of Errour for what they asserted by any of their Contemporaries whom we know to have been very jealous not only of new doctrines but of any new forms of words or by those who lived in the Ages after them nor yet did the Greeks move any dispute about this Point in the Council of Florence whereas Berengarius no sooner began to broach the contrary but immediately the whole Church as the Writers of that time witness was startled at the Novelty and condemned it as Heresie as Mr. Fox above cited witnesseth § 4. But what if the Doctor shall deny all this that is both the Testimonies of the Fathers and the Confession of his Brethren to be sufficient to prove Transubstantiation to have been a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from Christ's time To show the unreasonableness of such a denyal I would propose this case to his Consideration and the Readers Viz. In supposition that a Controversy arise in this present Age about the sense of a Law which was made 500. Years ago and that a considerable number of those who started the Controversy should confess that for the last two hundred years the contrary to what they maintain was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should further confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former Ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that Point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sense of the Law was generally received to be the sense and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those Ancient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the Confession of the Adverse Party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a humane Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding Age is stil bound to receive what they delivered Surely if we add to this the Confession of the very Adversaries themselves the Proof as St. Irenaeus saith must be true and without contradiction § 5. But if the Doctor will still persist in the denyal of so Evident a Proof because the Proposition is comparative between the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Christ's Divinity as to its general reception in the Church I must desire him soberly to consider how much less St. Athanasius thought sufficient to prove this latter to be a Catholick Tradition For having cited the Testimonies of four Fathers only for the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father viz. Theognostus Dionysius Alexandrinus Dionysius Romanus and Origen he concludes with an Ecce Behold we demonstrate saith he this Doctrine to have been delivered from Fathers to Fathers as it were by hand And St. Austin using the like Argument in the point of original sin first makes this Preface I will alledge saith he a few Testimonies of a few of the Fathers with which nevertheless our Adversaries will be constrained to blush and yield if either any fear of God or shame of Men can over-power in them so pervicacious an obstinacy And then having produced the Testimonies of five or six of the Latin Fathers he tells Julian against whom he wrote that that part of the World ought to suffice him that is to make him yield it to be the Catholick Faith in which our Lord was pleased to crown with a most glorious Martyrdome the First or Prince of the Apostles And then to show that the Faith of the Greek Church was the same with that of the Latin in this Point he cites the Testimonies only of three Greek Fathers and to the first of them viz. St. Greg. Nazianzen he immediately adds This is so great a Man that neither he would say this but from the Christian Faith most notorious to all neither would they have esteemed him so Venerable if they had not acknowledged that he spake these things out of the rule of the most known Truth And now let the Reader judg whether when we produce a far greater number of most manifest Testimonies of the Fathers of several Ages teaching without any Contradiction that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ by Consecration and this confessed of some of the most Eminent of them in every Age by Protestants themselves we do not more than sufficiently prove that it was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from our Saviour's time And if he think yet he can produce greater Evidence for the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity being universally received in the Church from Christ's time the early contest of the Arrians about that Point their Power and Continuance for so many Ages compared with the open and undisturbed delivery of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation may soon convince him of the vanity of such an undertaking § 6. The 3d. and last Ground he instances in is Scripture and this he saith he doth and shall acknowledge for his only Rule of Faith in spight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition When he hath considered well what Mr. E. W. hath said to him upon this Subject in his two Learned Treatises Protestancy without Principles and Religion and Reason I hope this spight of his may be abated But in the mean time what doth he alledge out of this his only Rule of Faith as he will have it against Transubstantiation Not so much I can assure you as one single Text. But because Bellarmin produces One and but One for that Point viz. the words of Christ This is my Body whereas he cites many for
a Member of some distinct Church This had been a ready way to put an end to the Dispute and give Satisfaction to the Reader and this had been sufficient our Assent to the Articles in controversie depending upon the strength of the Motives But to multiply Disputes without cause without end and without bringing them to Grounds and Principles as it is no good Argument to prove a man not to be fond of Controversie so all the Satisfaction the Reader is likely to gather from it is a despair of being ever satisfied When therefore the Doctor says he had no other end in this increase of Controversies but to let his Protestant Reader see there could be no reason to forsake the Communion of that Church it is much like as if a Mother to deter her Son from travelling into other Countries should tell him there was a great Sea between full of Rocks and Pirates and no Vessel strong enough to venture over Besides that the Countrey whither he was going swarmed with Bears and Lions This is one way to let him see there could be no reason to think of leaving his Native Countrey and this is the Method generally pursued by our Adversaries for want of sound Principles to retain their Adherents in their Communion to make the dangers and difficulties they are to incounter with in that of the Roman seem insuperable and therefore best for them to sit down contented where they are But what if all the dangers and difficulties he raises prove but Bugbears and Scare-Crows This I hope by GOD's Grace to make appear in the following Treatise § 2. His first Answer to the first Question was that an equal capacity of Salvation of those persons supposed not onely in order to a safer Church but in two several Churches supposed equally safe can be no argument to forsake the Communion of the one for the other To this I reply'd that the Answer was altogether impertinent to the Question the Controversie not being between two persons compared with a third in a safer Church nor yet between two several Churches supposed to have in them an equal capacity of Salvation but between a Catholick bred so and a Protestant converted to be so whether the later having the same Motives with the former may not equally be saved with him To what purpose then was it to talk of an equal capacity supposed in two persons compared with a third in a much safer condition or in two several Churches compared to one another unless it were to make his Reader believe that a supposed possibility of Salvation in the Catholick Church was used by me as a sufficient Argument to embrace its Communion Whereas his own telling the Person concerned that however Catholicks who were bred so might be saved yet a Person leaving the Protestant Communion for the Catholick could Not be Saved in it was that which occasion'd the Question A weak but common Artifice of the Doctor and his Party to deter Persons from embracing the Catholick Communion when yet the more genuine Sons of the Church of England are not so cruel as to damn all those who embrace it The Answer then was nothing to the purpose of the Question and this himself seems to acknowledge when he adds Whether it were to the Question or no he is sure it was very much to the purpose for which this Controversie was first started And then having gotten this loop-hole he beseeches the Person who had proposed the Question to propose another and if not for her own sake yet for his to insist upon that he may know one reason at least why the Believing all the Ancient Creeds and leading a Good Life may not be sufficient to salvation unless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome And this he says he cannot yet procure though he have often requested it Here himself is afraid he may be thought to digress but so earnest a request must not be denied § 3. I remember I promised to speak to this Point when it should be proper viz. in handling the second Question Whether it be necessary to be a Member of some distinct Church where it came in order and I did so though my Adversary takes no notice of it here as far as was pertinent to the present purpose when upon his Grant that A Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to joyn in some Church and to chuse the Communion of the purest I subjoyned that that Church was to be judged the purest which had the strongest Motives for it and then laid down a Catalogue of such weighty Motives for the Roman Catholick allowed by Dr. Taylor To which I added That neither himself in his Defence nor Dr. Taylor when he had a mind to invalidate them produced any thing to weigh against them but a few Tinsel-words and one Scripture-Testimony interpreted by and according to their own Fancy Having done this they sing Io Triumphe that Thou shalt not worship any graven Image will out-weigh all the best and fairest Imaginations of the Roman Church And now let the Reader judge whether he had any reason to say that he could not procure an Answer to this Question though he had often requested it § 4. But because he seems so little satisfied with this Answer as to take no notice of it I shall now enforce it farther with this Argument ad hominem There was in the World before Luther a distinct Church whose Communion was necessary to Salvation But this was not the Protestant Therefore it was the Roman The Major is evident from his own Concession that a Christian by virtue of his being so is bound to joyn in some distinct Church which is not possible if there be not such a distinct Church to joyn with The Minor also that this was not the Protestant is manifest because before Luther there was no such Church in the World distinct from the Roman It follows therefore the Question between him and us being of the necessity of Communion either with the Roman or with the Protestant that of the two the Roman Church was and still is as remaining still the same that Church whose Communion is necessary to Salvation § 5. Again taking the term Roman-Church not onely for the particular Diocess of Rome but for the Churches also in Communion with it as the Head as we generally take it in this Controversie nothing can render her Communion not necessary to Salvation but either Heresie that is an adhesion to some private or singular Opinion or Errour in Faith or Schism that is a Separation from former Ecclesiastical Unity For the first my Adversary himself Rat. Account p. 54. acknowledges as I shall shew before I end this Chapter the Church of Rome to believe all the same Articles of Faith with the Protestant and that the Points in which the Protestant differs from the Roman are not Articles of Faith consequently the Opposite Tenets to them can be no
Nature or Essence which is properly signified by such a Name The Doctor therefore to give him his due in the beginning of his Charge argues like a good Logician when he would conclude the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry because he says she requires the giving to the Creature the Honour due onely to God But he plays the downright Sophister in the close when he would prove that in worshipping God by an Image she gives to the Image the Honour due onely to Him because if God have given it the name of Idolatry it must receive the denomination of Idolatry Either he must make it out that a meer Extrinsecal Denomination has the miraculous power to reflect against Nature the Honour directed to God from Him to the Image or he must confess that Gods Prohibition of such Worship if there were any may make it indeed to be unlawful but hinders not the Act from tending whither it was intended and consequently if it be intended or directed by the Understanding and Will to God though after an unlawful manner it will not fail to be terminated on God Nor is this to make the Intentions of men to be the Rule of Divine Worship for if God have forbidden himself to be Worshipped after such a manner the giving him such Worship will be a dishonouring of Him though the Giver intend it never so much for his honour Disobedience it will be or some other sin and denominatively Idolatry if forbidden under that name but not a terminating the honour due to God upon the Image unless the Doctor think it a good Argument to prove the Fields and Trees to be Merry Companions because the Prophet says The Fields are joyful and the Trees of the Wood rejoyce These he will say are Metaphorical denominations and so must that of Idolatry be in his supposed Prohibition unless he can prove the Worship due to God to be terminated wholly on the Image and so the Act it self to have in it the true nature of Idolatry antecedently to such a denomination § 9. As for that Courtly Comparison of his that it would be Treason in any man to bow down to a Sign Post with the Princes Head upon it though with an intention to honour him by it a most self-denying Ordinance I confess and not unlike to that rare example of Self-denyal to which himself so Religiously exhorts the Prelates of the Church of England in the Preface to his Irenicum viz. to reduce the form of Church-Government to its Primitive State and Order by retrenching all Exorbitancies as he calls them of Power and restoring Presbyteries as the World is like to want such an unheard-of Example of Self-abnegation at least till Princes can be perswaded that the honour or dishonour done to their Pictures reflects not upon Them and that Act of the Civil Law be repealed L. unica cod de his qui ad Statuas which declares it Treason for any man to deface his Princes Picture So were it enacted it would not hinder the Act of Reverence and Respect from being terminated upon the Prince to whom it was intended § 10. To the Instances I gave in my Reply of the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good success of the Jews offering to God the Blind and Lame which he had forbidden and of Cain's offering a Sacrifice to God which he refused to accept all which evidently shew that God's having forbidden such a kind of Worship hinders it not from being terminated on him All that he answers is That these Instances do not suppose any prohibited Object or Means of Worship as he supposeth the Worship of God by an Image doth And here again he falls into the same Contradiction as before viz. that it is the Worship of God by an Image and yet the Image is made the whole and sole object of Worship But to conclude this point 'T is evident that the Image is not made the Object of Worship by the Intention of him that gives it which says Dr. Taylor is that by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions for what he intends is to Worship God by it and the Intention not making it the Object of Worship an Extrinsecal Denomination from a Law forbidding if there were any such cannot make it to be so nor hinder the Act from being terminated on God its intended Object 'T is manifest then that the Major Proposition of the Argument brought by him to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry viz. That the Worship which God denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature is absolutely false and consequently all that he builds upon it falls to the ground But this was but a Prelude to usher in his Minor viz. That God not onely denies to receive Worship by an Image but threatens severaly to punish them that give it Upon this it is he lays the main stress of his Charge of Idolatry how inconsequently though supposed to be as he would have it a Prohibition I have shewed already and shall make yet more apparent by laying open the nullity of the Proofs he brings to maintain it CHAP. III. The mystery of making the same Proposition sometimes an Article of Faith and sometimes none No express Text against Worshipping God by an Image His first Proof from the Terms of the Law manifesâ—ly groundless The Argument from St. Austin's Judgment and the Septuagints translating the word Pesel Idol and not Image re-inforced 1. WHat we are to consider in the first place here is what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove and it is this That God in the second Commandment according to his reckoning expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image This is what upon his Second Thoughts for the term expresly was not in his FIRST Answer he undertakes to prove And I cannot but wonder to see it drop now from his Pen who on the one side asserts Scripture doubtless express Scripture to be his most certain Rule of Faith and on the other side denies as I shewed above Chap. 1. any thing to bâ— an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self What may the meaning of this be If it be expresly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image it is an Article of Faith If it be not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self it is no Article of Faith but as he calls it an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion yet such as neither himself nor any man else is bound to believe there is a jot of Truth in it Is it then or is it not an Article of Faith that God is not to be worshipped by an Image If it be an Article of Faith 't is false what he asserts so stiffly in his Rational Account p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self If it be
not an Article of Faith 't is false what he affirms so positively here that God hath expresly prohibited it in the second Commandment Which side soever he takes 't is manifest he contradicts himself 2. But perhaps his meaning is that what at one time is but an Inferiour Truth must at another be an Article of Faith according as it may serve to the different ends and purposes he has designed to himself And here if I mistake not lies the Knack or if you will give it so venerable a name the Mystery of the business When the Hedge of the Church of England viz. Subscription to her 39 Articles must be broken down for the good Brethren the Nonconformists to enter in and ravage without scruple her Rights and Revenues so many of the said Articles as are not owned by Rome it self must be a company of Inferious Truths or Pious Opinions not to be assented to but not to be opposed for Unity's sake But when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry the Pretence with which Ignorant Preachers says Mr. Thorndike Just Weights p. 128. drive their Factions then they are no more Infericur Truths but Articles of Faith expresly revealed in the Holy Scriptures Now would an Impartial Reader to use Dr. Taylor 's expression upon another occasion say upon his conscience that this was not kindly done to make use of the Authority of the Church of Rome to unhallow so many of the 39 Articles as are not owned by her and cast them down into the Class of Inferiour Truths to stitch up the Rent made by the Nonconformists from the Church of England And then to consecrate them again so easily by virtue of this one definitive word Expresly into Divine Revelations against the Church of Rome to make the Breach of the Church of England from her yet wider But what cannot an Irenical Compliance with one Party and a Polemical Animosity or as Mr. Thorndike calls it Faction with another do When the same Proposition as it respects the former shall be rank'd onely amongst Inferiour Truths which none are obliged to assent to and as it oppugns the latter shall be raised to an Article of Faith which all are bound to believe Here then lies the Mystery that the same Proposition viz. That God is not to be worshipped by an Image taken Irenically and in its Paciâ—iâ—k Temper is but an Inferiour Truth because not owned to be an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome but taken Polemically and in its â—aâ—like Humour it must be an Article of Faith because expresly as he says revealed in Scripture And if he will have it so let us see how he goes about to prove it 3. Our Contrâ—versie says he p. 58. being 〈◊〉 about the sence of a Law the best ways we have to find the meaning of it are either from the Terms in which it is expressâ—d or from the Reason annexed to it or from the Judgment of Thâ—se whom we believe best able to understand and interpret it And he will prove from every one of these three ways that it is expresly prohibited in the second Commandment to worship God by an Image It were well he would tell us here first what he understands by the term Expresly For if he calls that for example an express Text which of it self is absolutely clear and manifest and therefore as St. Austin says de unit Eâ—â—l c. 19. Non eget Interprete needs no Interpreter Mr. Thorndike and those other Learned Men of the Church of England who see no better than he have reason to lament the loss of their Eye-sight But if he mean no more but that it is clear and manifest to himself they may hope they see as well as their Neighbours though they see the quite contrary unless They will suffer themselves to be wrought upon by his stout asserting it to be clear and manifest as the Travellers were by Polus in Erasmus his Exorcismus when pretending that he saw a huge Dragon with â—iery Horns in the Sky by avouching it strongly and pointing expresly to the place he forced them out of shame not to see so perspicuous a thing to confess that they saw it also That it is not absolutely clear and manifest of it self the pains and the ways he takes to make it out sufficiently evince And whether it be clear and manifest even to himself we have cause to doubt because the Proposition in debate viz. That God hath prohibited the worshipping himself by an Image in the second Commandment not being acknowledged by the Church of Rome for an Article of Faith the Church of England says he obliges no man to assent to it but onely not to oppose it and yet on the other side every man is bound to assent to that which he sees to be clear and manifest Such frequent self-contradictions are the natural Consequences of a Discourse not grounded upon Truth And although the Reader may think I take a delight to discover them in my Adversary yet I can assure him 't is a much greater Grief to me to see so subtil a Wit so often entangled in them The fault is in the Couse which cannot be managed without falling into them But as St. Austin says Quis coegit ers malam causam habere Who forced him and his Partizans to engage in a bad Cause Nothing of Faith if it be true which he tells us in his Rational Account Nothing of Reason as I shall shew in the Examination of his Proofs 4. The first way he takes to prove that God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image is from the Terms in which the Law is expressed And what are they in the Protestants own Translation Exod. 20. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image or any likeness of any thing c. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them nor serve them These are the Terms in which the Law is expressed and where I pray is it expressed here that we may not give any Worship to God himself by an Image The first part touches not the Worship of Images nor of God himself by them but onely the making them and gives matter to Divines to dispute whether it be forbidden by this Commandment to make any Image or any Likeness at all A thing in which Catholicks and Protestants are equally concerned The second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selves down to the Images themselves but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them So that in case we have not here another of the Doctors Identical Propositions viz. that to treat a matter expresly is the same in other words as not to speak of it at all it is manifest that to worship God himself before or by an Image is not expresly prohibited in this Commandment Let the Protestant Reader consider this well and not suffer himself to be
he saith were very well known to the Author of the Caroline Book and because the Copy of the Nicen Council was sent them by Pope Adrian whose Legates also presided in the Council of Francford and might easily rectifie any Mistake if they were guilty of it Besides none of the Historians of that time do take notice of any such Error and the second Canon of Francford published by Sirmondus expresly condemns the Council of Nice To this he adds That the same Council was rejected here in England and the Synod of Paris called by Ludovicus Pius condemned expresly Pope Adrian for asserting a superstitious Adoration of Images Lastly he confirms it from the Doctrine of the Caroline Books whose design as Binius confesseth was against all Worship of Images and of Agobardus published by Baluzius who ingenuously saith he confesseth that Agobardus saith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age. This is the sum and force of his Argument and to manifest the insufficiency of it in order to his design supposing the matter of fact to be true viz. that the Council of Francford did reject that of Nice which divers learned men not improbably deny I shall shew first that de facto there was a mis-understanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice Secondly That supposing there had been no mistake but that the Synod at Francford had really condemn'd the Doctrine of Nice yet had it been no advantage to his Cause § 2. First there was a misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice And to make this evident I shall need no more than to compare what was taught in the Council of Nice with what was condemn'd in the Council of Francford What the Council of Nice taught I have set down in the precedent Chapter viz. That the Images of Christ and his Saints were to be placed and retained in Churches c. and that an honourary adoration or respect was to be given to the said Images like as is given to Chalices and to the Books of the H Gospels but not LATRIA which as true Faith teacheth is due onely to God This was the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice Let us now see what it was that the Synod of Francford condemned Allata est in medium Quaestio c. A Question was proposed in the Council saith the Author of the Caroline Book concerning the late Synod of the Greeks held at Constantinople a mistake of the place for Nicaea about the adoring of Images In qua scriptum habebatur In which there was written that those should be anathematized who did not give service and adoration to Images of the Saints as to the Divine Trinity Now saith the said Author our most Holy Fathers denying by all means Service and Adoration did both contemn and unanimously condemn the said Synod This is what the Fathers of the Synod at Francford condemned as it stands represented by the Author himself of the Carolin Book to whom my Adversary saith that the Acts of the Council were very well known and by Goldastus in Sir Henry Spelman who cites them as the very words of the Council and I suppose by Sirmondus also for had he published any thing else the Doctor would not have failed to let us know it And now I appeal to any indifferent Reader whether there were not a great misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice For had the Fathers of Francford rightly understood that the Council of Nice declar'd onely an honourary Worship to be given to Images like as to the H. Cross and to the Books of H. Scriptures c. and not Latria or the Worship due only to God they could never have condemn'd it for defining that the same Service and Worship was to be given to Images as to the Divine Trinity And therefore Mr. Thorndike ingenuously professeth that It is to be granted that whosoever it was that writ the Book against Images under the Name of Charles the Great did understand the Council to enjoyn the Worship of God to be given to the Image of our Lord. But it is not to be denied that it was a meer mistake and that the Council acknowledging that submission of the heart which the Excellence of God onely challenges proper to the H. Trinity maintains a signification of that esteem to be paid to the Image of our Lord. It is evident then there was a grand mistake And to omit what Bellarmin and others say of the ocsion of it Petrus de Marca the late learned Archbishop of Paris very probably judges it to have risen from the words of Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus unskilfully rendred by the Latine Translator For as he well observeth the Council of Francford did not condemn the plain and open Definition of the Council of Nice but as the Canon it self of Francford speaks Quod scriptum habebatur for that there was found written in the Acts of that Council that the Worship due unto God was to be given to Images And the Author of the Caroline Book tells us that this was found written in the Sentence of the aforesaid Constantinus whom therefore he condemns of precipitancy and folly in these words Infauste praecipitanter sive insipienter Constantinus Constantiae Cypri Episcopus dixit suscipio amplector honorabiliter sanctas venerandas Imagines quae secundum servitium adorationis quae substantiali vivificatrici Trinitati emitto But instead of precipitancy and folly in Constantinus he should have laid the fault upon the ignorance of the Translator or his own if not his malice For the sense in Greek is plain and facil to be this Suscipio honorarie amplector sanctas venerabiles Imagines Et adorationem secundum Latriam soli supersubstantiali vivificae Trinitati impendo I receive and with honour embrace the holy and venerable Images of Christ and his Saints but for adoration of Latria I give it onely to the supersubstantial and Life-giving Trinity From whence it is is plain how ignorantly or maliciously rather it was said by Calvin that the same Constantinus professed he did reverently embrace the said holy Images cultumque honoris qui vivificae Trinitati debetur se illis exhibiturum and that he would give that Worship to them which is due to the Holy Trinity when what he professed was the quite contrary Such Arts as these were enough to make a man suspect a good Cause much more to desert a bad one But whether this were the occasion or no 't is evident as I shewed before that there was a great mistake and while the matter of fact is evident my Adversary labours in vain to argue from Conjectures that it was not possible especially since the Copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council was so unskilfully if not maliciously translated as to minister matter of mistake and though the Popes Legates could not perswade the Francford Fathers from
he supposed all that were remaining of the Ten Tribes except himself to have forsaken the true God to follow Baal As for the Embassy of the Samaritans to the King of Assyria that a Priest might be sent unto them from the Captivity the reason is plain why they sent to him and not to the King of Juda because they fear'd his displeasure should they have kept Correspondence with his Enemy Moreover they thought the God of Israel to be only a Topical God and therfore they call him the God of the Land 4 Kings xvii 26. as distinct from the God of Juda. Now what the Text saith is that the Priest when he came taught them how they should fear the Lord but there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worship him in the Calves as Symbols of his presence which was the onely thing for the Doctors purpose had it been there § 5. Having thus answer'd all the Doctors Conjectures or rather Monceius his as to the greater part of them for it is with his Heiâ—er he plows by which he endeavours to make the World believe that the Israelites intended the making of the Calves for no other end but onely to worship God in them as Symbols of his presence and shewn them to be perfectly groundless for a farther discovery of the weakness of his Dâ—scourse let us suppose it after all to be as he would have it It cannot be denied but the Calves were originally Symbols of Osiris the chief but false God of the Egyptians and himself confesses p. 94. that upon this account the Israelites made choice of them for the fittest Symbols of the presence of the true God Suppose I say they look'd upon them as such and that they were condemned of Idolatry for intending to worship the true God in them I affirm it follows no more from hence that God hath expresly prohibited in the second Commandment to give him any Worship by such Symbols or Images as are not the Symbols of false Gods than it would follow from a King 's condemning such Persons of Treason as should pretend to worship Him by honouring the Image of an Usurper that he had expresly prohibited the giving him any Worship by his own Image In fine if this discourse of the Doctors may be allowed for good I see no reason why he might not as well justifie the grossest of Idolaters the Aegyptians in their worship of Lâ—cks and Onyons from the guilt of Heathen Idolatry as the Israelites in worshipping the Calves for proceeding in his way it were but to imagin they could not be so sottish as to believe them to be Gods in the proper sense but that they look'd upon them onely as Symbols of Gods kindness to them in providing them Sauce as well as Meat though out of Reverence to those Deities they would eat neither of them § 6. To conclude this Point of the meaning of the Second Commandment he tells us that the Jews thought the Prohibition to extend to all kind of Images for Worship And I would gladly know whether we must stand or fall by the Interpretation of the Jews It was their Opinion that the Prohibition extended not only to the worshipping but also to the making all kind of Images And will the Doctor therefore condemn the Professions of Painting and Carving as unlawful and as his Constantinopolitan Fathers call them blasphemous Well but Vasquez saith he acknowledgeth with other Divines of the Roman Church that it is plain in Scripture that God did not only forbid that in the second Commandment which was unlawful by the Law of Nature as the worshipping an Image for God but the worshipping the true God by any similitude of him But to whom do they say he forbids it Does not Vasquez say expresly c. 2. that it was to the Jews which the Doctor conveniently leaves out And do not those Divines in the very words cited by himself plainly declare the Prohibition of worshipping God by any similitude of him to be but a Positive Precept when they so clearly distinguish it from the Prohibition of worshipping an Image for God which they say was unlawful by the Light of Nature And if they look'd upon that part of the Prohibition as a meer Positive Precept does he think they thought it obliged Christians Their Doctrine and Practice evince the contrary And if Divines agree not among themselves how far this Precept obliged the Jews what matter is it so they agree that what is forbidden in it to Christians is that which is unlawful by the Law of Nature The opposition then which the Doctor would make between my Assertion and that of other Catholick Divines is altogether impertinent for taking it as a Natural Precept and Immutable they say the same that I do that it onely forbids the worshipping of Idols To what he alledges of the Primitive Christians being declared Enemies to all Worship of God by Images which he saith is at last confessed by Petavius one of the most Learned Jesuites they ever had when he affirms that for the first four Centuries or farther there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians not to dispute the matter of fact of which he confesses there was some little use nor the truth of the Doctors relating the words of Petavius of which there is some little reason to doubt from what he did before with Trigautius I shall give him the Answer of Mr. Thorndike one of the most Learned Divines among the Protestants that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches before Idolatry was quite rooted out of which afterwards there might be no appearance And therefore they were afterwards admitted all over for it is manifest saith he the Church is tied no farther than there can appear danger of Idolatry And since he hath given in occasion to mention this Learned Person I shall conclude this Point with his Judgment concerning the meaning and extent of the Second Commandment that the Reader may see how diametrically opposite Dr. St.'s discourse is to the Sentiment of so Eminent a Divine in the Church of England Thus then Mr. Thorndike § 5. The second Commandment setting forth God for a God that is jealous of his People whether they worship him or not manifestly supposeth their Covenant to forsake all other Gods beside him a Contract of Marriage between Him and his People Which if it be so it is no less manifest that the Images which the Precept supposeth are the Representations of other Gods which his People were wont to commit Adultery with by Worshipping them for God For seeing it is manifest how much Idolatry was advanced by Imagery though it may be without it there can be no marvel that there should be a peculiar Precept against it Wherefore it is manifest that Jews by the Letter of this Precept are tied from all Images which their Elders
Respect given to it is a Fence against the Contempt of his Person He that passes by that with his Hat on thinks himself excus'd upon the same account from putting it off to the King himself The End of the First Part. THE SECOND PART OF THE ADORATION OF THE Most Blessed Sacrament CHAP. I. The Practise of the Primitive Church in this Point The Doctor 's Argument to prove it to be Idolatry built upon an Injurious Calumny that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God The sense of his first Proposition cleared and the Proofs he brings for it refuted § 1. HAving cleared the Doctrin and Practise of the Catholick Church from my Adversaries Unjust Charge of Idolatry in the Worship or Veneration she gives to the Images of Christ I come now to show the Injustice of a like accusation he brings in upon account of the Adoration she gives to Christ himself in the most H. Sacrament of the Altar A thâ—â—g so universally practiced and recommended by the Fathers of the Primitive Church both Greek and Latin that who so will condemn the practise of it at this day in the Church of Rome must have the confidence to involve the Church of that time in the same Condemnation with it Among other Apostolical Traditions which were delivered to the Church without Writing St. Basil reckons the words of Invocation when the Eucharistical Brâ—ad and Cup of Blessing were shewed And Theodoret affirms expresly that The Mystical Symbols are understood to be what they are made and are believed and adored as being the things they are believed S. Gregory Nâ—zianzen reporteth of his Sister Gorgonia as a great testimony of her devotion that in a certain sickness she had she went with Faith to the Altar and with a lowd voice besought him who is worshipped upon it for remedy giving him all his Titles or Attributes and remembring him of all the miraculous things which he had done And the same no doubt was done by St. Monica the Mother of St. Austin in her daily devotions at the Altar at which she used to assist without pretermission of any one day and from whence she knew saith he that Holy Victime to be dispensed by which the 〈◊〉 writing was blotted out which carried our condemnation in it To this Sacrament of our Redemptiâ—â— she had tied her Soul fast by the Bond of â—â—ith And in this she did no more 〈◊〉 what her Son teacheâ—â— upon the 98th Psalâ—â— where expounding 〈◊〉 words of the Psalmist Adore ye his Foot-stool to be meant of the Earth and by the Earth to be understood the Flesh of Christ he addeth that whereas Christ walked here in the Flesh and gave us that very flesh to be eaten for our Salvation and no man eateth that Flesh unless he have first adored we find saith he how such a Foot-stool of our Lord may be adored and that we do not only not sin in adoring but we sin in not adoring Viz. that Foot-stool of our Lord by which he said before was meant his most Holy Flesh And from whom did he learn this Doctrin but from the same Master from whom he learn't Christianity St. Ambrose who treating of the same place of the Psalmist saith By the Foot-stool is understood the Earth and by the Earth the Flesh of Christ which we adore also at this day in the Mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus Upon this Account it is that St. Chrysostome exhorts Christians to this duty by the Example of the Wise-men These Men saith he though Barbarians after a long Journey adored this Body of our Lord in the Manger with great fear and trembling Let us imitate what they did Thou seest Him not in the Manger but on the Altar And then again by the Example of the Angels who saith he assist the Priest at the time of offring the Holy Sacrifice and the whole order of Heavenly Powers list up their Voices and the place round about the Altar is filled with the Quires of Angels in honour of Him who lyeth upon it And therfore it is called by St. Optatus the Seat or Throne of the Body of our Lord. Thus these Holy Men not as private Doctors delivering their own Opinions but as Fathers testifying and transmitting to Posterity the Doctrin and Practise of the Church of their time which was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist that the Heathens because they knew Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries objected to them as St. Austin reports that they worshipped Ceres and Bacchus And hereupon Mr. Thorndike Epil 3. p. pag. 351. ingenuously saith I do believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient Church which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ For I do acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of St. Ambrose St. Austin St. Chrysostome St. Gregory Nazianzen with the rest and more than I have produced And now it is in the Reader 's choice whether he will condemn so great and Holy Men and with them the Church of that time of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar or will absolve Uj for doing what they did It is with them we must stand or fall And the Doctor 's argument will make neither or both Idolaters But before I speak to that and that the Reader may see what force it is like to have behold how he ushers it in § 2. I proceeded saith he to the Adoration of the Host and here the argument I proposed was to take off the common answer viz. of Catholicks that it cannot be Idolatry because they believe the Bread to be God This is what the Doctor exposes in the front of his Rejoynder to publick view And if the Reader meet with such sophisticate Ware in the Mouth of the Sack What may he expect when he comes neerer to the bottom The argument I proposed saith he was to take off the Common Answer viz. of Catholicks that it cannot be Idolatry because they believe the Bread to be God And that too just as the Worshippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God For upon the same ground he saith it is that they who believe the Sun to be God and worship him on that account would be excused from Idolatry too The unhandsomness of this Proceeding I fairly hinted to him in my Reply whereas I might justly have called it a most injurious calumny and it became an Ingenuous Writer either to have justified his charge or if he could not do that nor yet had humility enough to retract it to have wav'd at least the repeating it in his Answer But this he is so far from doing that without any proof at all what he did but insinuate before in the Body of his Argument he lays down now expresly in his Rejoinder as the Ground of his charge of
of Sense or Reason can digest it Fools as you are what Demonstration So evident as this My God profest it And if you once can prove that He can lie This Wonder and Him too I will deny 89 What thank is it that you can credit that Which your own sense Reason's eye reads plain Heaven 's much to them beholden who will not Believe it higher is than they can strain Who jealous are of God and will not be Induc'd to trust Him further than they see 90 And yet had you these modest eyes of mine You in this gloomy Cloud would see the Sun That Sun who wisely doth disdain to shine On those who with bold prying press upon His secret Majesty which plainly I Because I make no anxious search descry 91 This is the valorous Resolution Of Gallant Faith and this will serve to be The Blessed Rule by which all those must run Who are the Scholars of Humility Yet I must tell thee Psyche itching Pride VVill not hereafter thus be satisfied And then having inveigh'd in the following Stanza's against those who will needs be prying with the skill they take for granted hath fill'd their brains that is with the Doctor 's faculty of discerning Truth and falshood into the manner how this Miracle is brought to pass He concludes with these words in favour of Transubstantiation 99 It is in vain to tell these Wranglers how Jesus could graft cold Stones into the stock Of Abraham and make them fertil grow In Israelites or that the Bread he took In 's daily Diet was not wholly spent But part into his Body's substance went 100 In vain to tell them how into his Blood The Wine he drank was changed day by day For though such speculations understood With prudent Reverence might make easier way Unto the Mystery yet Wranglers will Because they will be so be Wranglers still This and much more to this Purpose which not to surfet the Reader with too many delicacies I omit saith the Author of that Illustrious Poem in which to the satisfaction of all that read it himself hath made appear to the World what his Modesty made him willing to expect rather from others that a Divine Theam is as capable and happy a subject of Poetical Ornament as any Pagan or Humane device whatsoever And would the Gallants of both Sexes employ as many of their precious Hours in reading this excellent Piece as they do in Romances and Play-Books I dare be bold to affirm though perhaps I shall not be credited They would find not only more substance but more delight in this than in the best of them But to return to my present business My design was to let the Reader see how far my Adversary's beloved Principles of Sense and Reason are from being fit Umpires to judge of matters proposed as of divine Revelation particularly in what relates to the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist and I thought I could not do it better than in the words of this learned and Ingenious Author whose whole Discourse seems but a Descant upon those words of St. Chrysostom when speaking of this Mystery to the People of Antioch he saith Let us obey God in all things and not gain-say Him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us than our thoughts or sight And thus let us behave our selves in the Mysteries that is in the most Holy Sacrament not beholding only those things which lye before us viz. the Symbols of Bread and Wine but holding fast his words For his Word is Infallible but our sense is easy to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therfore the Word saith This is my Body let us obey and believe and behold Him with the eyes of our Understanding If the Doctor will not do so but will have his Readers to measure matters of Faith by the Rule of Sense and Reason and not trust God farther than they can see with them I am sure he gives a far greater advantage to the Enemies of the most Holy Trinity and Christ's Divinity by so unChristian a Principle than we can possibly do by asserting a like divine Revelation for his being present in the Eucharist as for his being true God notwithstanding the seeming contradictions that occur in it But perhaps the Doctor wâ—ll say that I am mistaken all this while and that he meant no such thing by the use of Reason For I remember now that when upon his Asserting that Catholicks expose the Faith of Christiaâ—s to a great uncertainty by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to the matters of Faith propâ—sed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church which if it say any thing to the purpose it must be this that because Men must make use of their reason to find out the true Ground of believing which Catholicks affirm to be the Church therefore they must believe nothing which the Church proposes as a matter of Faith but what the Faculty in them called reason of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our belief shall judge to be true in it self for otherwise how doth it follow that they expose the Faith of Christians to uncertainâ—y when I say upon this assertion of his I supposed and clearly enough I think that the use he would have of reason was to believe nothing but what his reason could understand He assures me p. 542. upon his word that he meant no such thing for I believe saith he an Infinite Being and all the Doctrines revealed by it in H. Scriptures although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those Conceptions we call Reason But here I observe first as no very great sign that he means not by the use of Reason what I supposed that he doth not tell us of any one particular Article he believes with that terrible condition unless he mean he cannot reconcile all particulars concerning the existence of a Deity but huddles them up in a blind Universal that he believes all the Doctrines revealed by God in the H. Scriptures as if it were enough for a Christian to believe in general all that God hath revealed in Scripture without troubling himself about the Sense of any thing in particular for fear of over-straining his Reason to swallow something that may seem a Contradiction And I confess the Letter of the Scripture may be a sufficient Rule of such a Faith 2dly This Assertion of his exposes the Faith of Christians to as great uncertainty as that he charges upon Catholicks by its denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith revealed by God in the Scriptures when they must necessarily use them to find out the Scriptures and the existence of a Deity For whether the Scripture or the Church be supposed to be the Ground of believing
to make the breach bigger already too wide Thus St. Austin and Bishop Mountague and were they alive they might justly â—ear that for these singular fancies or superstitious Caprichio's as the Doctor calls them they should â—all under his lash of being accounted Men of mere Charity than Judgment CHAP. IV. Of the Term Formal Invocation and the different Formes used in the Invocation of Saints Some Instances out of the Fathers to show the like to have been used in their Times § 1. THe Doctor having made use in his Answer to the two Questions of the equivocal term of Formal Invocation to amuze his Reader I reply'd I understood not well what He meant by Formal Invocation but withall I told him that what Catholicks understand by it in the present matter is desiring or praying those just Persons who are in Glory in Heaven to pray for them To shew the palpable weakness as he calls it of this Answer he says he will prove that those of the Church of Rome do allow and practice another kind of Formal Invocation from what I assert and I think he never betrayed more paâ—pably the weakness of his own cause than in this undertaking Let the Reader judge § 2. First then he says that Never any Person before me imagin'd that to be the sense of Formal Invocation which I do when I say that what we understand by it is desiring or praying the Saints to pray for us And 〈◊〉 Himself in the very next words declarâ—s that he imagins the very same sense of it that I do when he says that the term of Formal Invocation was purposely chosen by Him to distinguish it from Rhetorical Apostrophes Poetical Flourishes and general wishes that the Saints would pray for us and from Assemblies at the Monuments of the Martyrs of all which he grants there are some instances in good Authors Viz. the Chief Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Church For what is this but to tell us that he means by Formal Invocation as I do a real address of our minds to the Saints themselves to help us with their Prayers 'T is true indeed what He would have his Reader to understand by it is what he says is constantly practis'd in the Roman Church to offer up our Prayers to Saints and Angels to help us in our necessities as well as to pray to God for us But what doth he say then to the Forme of Prayer used by us in the Letanies Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us Is it only a Rhetorical Apostrophe Poetical Flourish or general wish that the Saints would pray for us Or is it more If it be no more Why does he impugne what he grants was used by those good Authors If it be more 't is then a part at least of Formal Invocation as defin'd by Himself And if when we pray them to help our necessities the meaning be that they should do it by their Prayers the whole sense of Formal Invocation in this present matter is to desire them to pray for us so that though never any Person before me imagin'd this to be the sense of it yet now I have the Doctor himself concurring with me in it But to pass on to the Proofs of his Assertion § 3. All the difficulty he says p. 163. lies in this whether Catholicks pray to the Saints to help their necessities as well as pray for them that is whether besides the usual form of saying Holy Mary pray for us we do not sometimes vary the Phrase and say Help me or comfort and strengthen me O B. Virgin for as for the meaning of the words I never yet met with any Catholick so Ignorant as not to understand the sense to be to desire them to help us with their Prayers Behold then here the terrible Mystery not to be made known to Proselites saith the Doctor until they be first made safe and fast enough Viz. that sometimes they may use the like form of words to God and the Saints as a Child does to his Father when instead of saying Pray Father Pray to God to bless me he saith sometimes Bless me Father But Catholicks he saith p. 163. do this with all the same external signs of devotion which they use to God Himself And can he excuse a Child from Idolatry when he kneels down with the same external sign of devotion which we use to God and saith Bless me Father because he saith it in a different sense to his Father than he doth to God and will he not upon the same account be as charitable to us when with the like external sign of devotion we say Bless me or help me Mother of God Mr. Thorndike in all his discourses shows his unwillingness to free the Practise of the Church of Rome in this matter from Idolatry yet convinc'd by the Evidence of Truth he confesses that the Church of England having acknowledg'd the Church of Rome a true Church though corrupt ever since the Reformation he is oblig'd so to interpret the Prayers thereof as to acknowledge the corruption so great that the Prayers which it alloweth may be Idolatries if they be made in that sense which they may properly signify but not that they are necessarily Idolatries For if they were necessarily Idolatries then were the Church of Rome necessarily no Church the being of Christianity prâ—supposing the worship of one true God And although to confute the Hereticks the style of Modern devotion he saith leaves nothing to God which is not attributed to and desired of his Saints yet it cannot be denyed they may be the words of them who believe that God alone can give that which they desire And if this cannot be denyed where is the Doctor 's either Charity or Sincerity to interpret these or the like words Help me Mother of God in the same sense they carry when we say Help me GOD § 4. But what do I do expecting Charity from Him who makes it superstitious Fanaticisme or at best but Fanciful singularity in others The excess not of his Judgment but Zeal if we must call it so hath quite eaten up his Charity And every thing he meets with that is not down-right Ora pro nobis must now be Idolatrous or Blasphemous Nay it is enough he hath heard of our Ladies Psalter a Blasphemous Book he saith never yet censured wherein the Psalms in their highest strains of Prayer to God are applyed to the Virgin Mary But what or whose Book soever that be which I first had news of from Himself his only hearing of it argues that it is no publick Devotion of the Church and so not to be charg'd upon Her And did it contain Blasphemy as he saith it doth and were publickly known no doubt it had been censured before this But then again as we are not to take all for Gospel so neither are we to take all for Blasphemy which the Doctor calls so Every one saith Aristotle judgeth
refell him by shorter Enthymems and longer Syllogisms search in what Mood and Figure he speaks and then tell him how his Consequence flaggs or Antecedent is Ambiguous till he have consumed a hundred Pages in refutation of a Trifle This I confess is a Character of my present Undertaking though not to the full because in the Prosecution of it I shall be forced over and above to lay open frequent Contradictions Calumnies and Mis-representations of the words and sense of Authors which can be no great pleasure nor content of heart to my Adversary to see discover'd I was in good hope to have been freed from this ungrateful task of laying open faults of this nature which cannot be treated of without being named nor named without offence by the fair promise he makes to represent the matters in difference between us truly report faithfully and argue closely And this Hope made me for a good while not exact that severity of quoting Authors which is required and expected in the managing of Controversy But since the necessity he hath drawn upon himself by defending so Extravagant a Charge as that of Idolatry upon the Roman Church hath made him too often forget so good a purpose I must begg his pardon if at length I take the freedome to make the Reader a little sensible of it with that Plainness which the Merits of the Cause will not only bear but require Of which the Reader must be Judge Whether the Laurels he fancies he hath acquired from his Adversaries by their declining as he saith Personal Conferences look as green and fresh to others as to himself I very much question For Meetings of this nature being hardly to be undertaken by Catholicks without exposing themselves to the Danger of being accounted Bold and Insolent and so of irritating His Majesty and the Government against them All sober and impartial Men will easily judge that they may be more prudently declined without prejudice to their cause than Arguments in writing which is a much more peaceable and satisfactory way of proceeding be by their Adversaries who run no such hazard slighted either as Inconsiderable or upon account of business or upon a reasonable Presumption that the Person concerned had already forsaken their Church These and such like may be Prudential Motives to them to slight answering a Paper and also for declining Personal Conferences as sometimes they have been Yet they must not be allowed at any time for such to Catholicks Nay even their modest compâ—rtment towards Authority must go for no other than a Pretence only of hazard though we see a Private Paper as this was from which the Doctor hath taken occasion to make all this noise published in Print with such Characteristical Notes of the Author as might easily discover his Person and in termes so Invidious as were apt to create the greatest Prejudice against him Why else was he stiled and that upon every post corner a Revolted Protestant when Roman-Catholick might have sufficed And why was He made the Proposer of the Questions when the Party concerned proposed them indifferently to both As for the Paper it self which is now become the Subject of Debate what others may have thought or said of its not being answered I know not but from my Adversary's own Relation nor doth the Person taxed in particular remember any such thing Besides I am certain I never communicated any Copy of it but to the Party for whose satisfaction it was written Yet since my Adversary hath thought good to publish it together with his own Answer to the two Questions at the beginning of his Book I have judg'd â—it to do the same before mine not that I except against any thing as mis-represented in it besides some little Errors of the Press but that I conceive it may be some Satisfaction to the Reader in the perusing of this Rejoinder to recur sometimes to the first Papers at least that he may clearly see that the Charge of Idolatry was no way necessary to the Resolution of the Questions as I shall shew more at large in the First Chapter but meerly brought in by Him upon some other Account which I am now to consider The Account Himself gives of reviving a Charge which for many Years had lain buried under the ruins of its own Infamy was as he pretends to Justify more clearly the Separation of the Church of England from the Guilt of Schism For this he saith lies open to the Conscience of every Man if the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 guilty of Idolatry our separation can be no Schism either before God or Man because our Communion would be a Sin This is what he pretends And this Cause indeed as Mr. Thorndike well observes would be more than sufficient to Justify the separation did it appear to be true but then on the other side saith he it charges the mischiefs of the Schism upon those who proceed upon it before it be as Evident as the Mischiefs are which they run into upon it So that should the Church of England declare that the change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this supposition I must then acknowledg saith he that we are Schismaticks For the cause not appearing to me as hitherto it hath not and I think will never be made to appear to me the separation and the mischief of it must be imputed to them that make the change In plain terms We of the Church of England make our selves Schismaticks by grounding our Reformation upon this pretence Thus Mr. Thorndike whose Judgment abetted by divers of the most learned and most Judicious Persons of the Church of England and this is thought to be the reason why the Doctor 's Book came forth without the publick stamp of an Imprimatur from any of its Bishops will stand as a convincing Prejudice against him till he can make it as evident that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry as the mischiefs are that have ensu'd upon it This He saw was not possible to be done and therefore laying those Divines aside for Men of more charity than Judgment least he should be thought in so severe a Censure to contradict the sense of his Church which he saith he hath so great a regard to he undertakes to show that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome by the greatest and most learned Defenders of it ever since the Reformation But if he have such a regard as he saith for the Church of England Why did he not appeal to her 39. Articles For as himself saith p. 209. of the sense of the Church of Rome that we are to appeal for it not to the Writings of particular Doctors but to the Decrees of her Councils so in like manner for the sense of the Church of England He ought to have appealed to Her Publickly-Authorized Articles But in them the Church of England declares no such thing For we see it hotly disputed between her
it or imagin any virtue or Divinity to be in it or to pray to the Saints as to those who are to give us what we pray for themselves All which are forbidden by the 2d Nicen Council and that of Trent and for other practices which the Dr. occasionally objects they shall be discuss'd in the following Discourse This being so as I have shewn and the Judgment of these Divines differing only as more and less in the same kind from what Mr. Thorndike and other learned Protestants pretend when they reprove some practices as Idolatrous or at least in danger to be such These last Six Authors cited by the Doctor ought to have been alledged for the contrary position of what He affirms viz. That the Church of Rome neither in her Doctrine nor Practice conformable to her Doctrin is guilty of Idolatry For whilst they impeach only some Practices which they judge different from the Doctrine 't is manifest they iâ—ply the Doctrine it self and Practice if conformable to it not to be Idolatrous Here then let the Reader judge whether Dr. St being as He saith by command publickly engag'd in the defence of so excellent a cause as that of the Church of England against the Church of Rome have not betray'd his trust and his Church too if it be his in advancing such a Medium to justifie Her separation as contradicts the sense of that Church if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteem'd Her true and Genuin Sons and in the Judgment of some of them makes it in plain terms to be Schismatical Which yet will appear more clearly if we consider how this Charge of Idolatry subverts the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England For it being a received Maxime and not denyable by any one of common sense that no Man can give to another that which he hath not himself it lies open to the Conscience of every man that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if Guilty of Idolatry it falls under the Apostles Excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains depriv'd of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing Preaching and Administring Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as deriv'd from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian This is what follows against the Church of England from the charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and so much the more as issuing from his Pen who in his Irenicum a Book very humbly tendred by him to Consideration after the Re-settlement of Episcopacy in the Church of England maintains that no particular Form of Church Government is De Jure Divino but mutable as the Secular Magistrate with the advice of learned and experienc'd Persons shall see convenient for State and Church and particularly that the main Ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not any pretence of Divine Right but conveniency to the State and condition of the Church at the time of its Reformation citing for it the Testimony of Arch bishop Cranmer and others Mr. Foulis I know speaking of that Book calls Him a Bold Fellow that Published it and affirms that he little understood the compass and merit of that Controversie I like not the rudeness of these and other expressions of like nature He there uses and I forbear to repeat yet I could willingly joyn with Him so far in Charity as to impute it rather to Inadvertence than design in my Adversary did not this new charge of Idolatry seem but too apparently to be but a clinching of the nail which He had driven before to the Head For if the Form of Church-Government be mutable as the Secular Power well-advised shall see reason what greater reason can there be for the actual changing of it than the nullity of its Jurisdiction This hath made me wonder not a little how the Governours of the Church of England could see their Authority so closely attacqued at least so manifestly betrayed by their pretended Champion and not vindicate themselves and their Jurisdiction from the â—oul stain of Antichristian which necessarily follows if the Church of Rome as He pretends be guilty of Idolatry and they derive together with their Consecration their Episcopal Jurisdiction from it But I shall leave these things to those whom it concerns and betake my self to my present business which is to show that the Church of Rome neither in her Doctrine nor Practice conformable to her Doctrine is guilty of Idolatry And this I bid done much sooner had not the Time spent iâ— Transcribing least the Copy should be surprized the Difficulty of the Press which also encreased the Errata and other Employments 〈◊〉 a few for we also are none of those happy Men who have only one thing to mind reâ—arded me in my design ERRATA IN the Preface page 2. line 27. for Pointing read Printing p. 6. l. 8. r. Dr. Taylor that neither p 25. l. 15. r. Question thus put p. 35. l. 30. for with r. against p. 38. l. 8. for couse r. causâ— l. 9. for ers r. eos p. 41 l. 10 r. writings p. 5â— l. 28. r. Beholders p. 64 l 12 r. Irrepresentablenes p. 80. l. 11. for the r. his p. 81. l. 18. f. seat r. State p. 87. l. 6. f. did r. drew p. 92. l. ult r. advantages p. 124. l. 11. add in the Marg. Of the Church li. 3. c. 36. p. 134. l. 3. f. cross r. Cross p. 138. l. 23. r. â—ue that by p. 140. l. ult f. rashly r. vainly p. 158. l. 27. r. Obcaecans l. 27. f. that r. that is p. 161. l. 25. or â—magine r. Imagine l. 28. for Oracres r. Oraces p 172. l. 5. for in r. me p. 178. l. 25. r. in this matter p. 212. l. 27. for honour r. comfort p. 2â—7 l 6. r. Wherefore p. 246. l. 2. r. Begotten Son p. 360. l. 30. f. first r. â—isth p. 363. l. 2. after foâ— Biu put St. Nicholas for Eru p. 411. l. 7. 8. f. Paul r. Paula l. 23. Praises r. prayes p. 448. l. 17. f. Flood r. Floods THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS PART I. Of the Veneration of Holy Images Chap. 1. DR Stillingfleet's 1st and 2d Answer to the First Question shown not pertinent Necessity of Communion with the Church of Rome proved and his Charge of Idolatry overthrown by his own Principles Pag. 1. Chap. 2. His chief Argument to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry examin'd and his Preposterous ways of arguing laid open Pag. 17. Chap. 3. The Mystery of making the same Proposition sometimes an Article of Faith and sometimes none No express Text against worshipping God by an Image His first Proof from the Terms of the Law manifestly groundless The Arguments from St. Austin's Judgment and the Septuagint's Translating the word Pesel Idol and
not Image reinforced Pag. 33. Chap. 4. The Doctor 's Second Proof from the Reason of the Law sophistical All Representations of God not dishonourable to him nor rejected as such by the Church of England The Proper Reason of the Law on God's part is assigned and asserted to be the Supream Excellency of his Nature pag. 57. Chap. 5. Worship unlawful by the light of Nature equally unlawful to Jews and Christians A strange Paradox advanced by Dr. Stillingfleet viz. What can an Image do to the heightning devotion or raising Affections How far his Devotion to the Sun may be allowed in the Judgement of St. Leo. pag. 76. Chap. 6. Of the Notions and practice of the Wiser Heathens in the matter of their Images The Texts of St. Paul Acts 17. 24. and Rom. 1. 21. explained Some of the Doctor 's Testimonies examined in particular the Relation He gives of what the Jesuites did in China Pag. 95. Chap. 7. Of the 2d General Council of Nice call'd most irreverently by Dr. St. that wise Synod His Constantinopolitan Father's Objections answered by Epiphanius and his Answers shown to be goâ—d pag. 118. Chap. 8. The Dr.'s Objection from the Council of Franckford examin'd and shown to be no advantage to his Cause pag. 140. Chap. 9. Of the Doctor 's Third Proof from the Judgment as He pretends of the Law-giver His Speculation concerning the Golden Calves manifestly repugnant to the H. Scripture and Fathers Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Meaning and Extent of the second Commandment pag. 153. Chap. 10. What kind of honour the Church gives to Holy Images explained and the Doctor 's mixing School-disputes with matters of Faith shown to be sophistical pag. 176. Chap. 11. Of the Instances brought to explicate the nature of the honour given to Images from the like Reverence given to the Chair of State to the Ground to the Ark to the Name of Jesus c. The weakness of the Doctor 's Evasions laid open and His own Arguments return'd upon Him pag. 193. PART II. Of the Adoration of the most Blessed Sacrament Chap. 1. THe Practice of the Primitive Church in this Point The Doctor 's Argument to prove it to be Idolatry built upon an Injurious Calumny that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God The sense of his first Proposition cleared and the Proofs He brings for it refuted pag. 221. Chap. 2. The true State of the Controversie laid open together with the Doctor 's endeavours to mis-represent it His manner of arguing against the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist equally destructive to the Adoration of Him as God pag. 243. Chap. 3. Of Dr. St.'s Scruple about the Host's not being consecrated for want of Intention in the Priest and his mistake of the true Reason of giving Adoration to Christ in the Sacrament pag. 256. Chap. 4. His Fundamental Principle of judging of matters proposed to our Belief by Sense and Reason shown to be absurd in it self and destructive to Christianity p. 272. Chap. 5. A Check to the Doctor 's bigg words against the Grounds of Transubstantiation With a New Example of reporting faithfully as he calls it the words and sense of an Author pag. 294. Chap. 6. Dr. Taylor 's Argument in behalf of Catholicks supposing them mistaken in the belief of Transubstantiation not answered by Dr. St. The Parallel of such a supposed mistake with that of Idolaters shown to be a real and very gross mistake in Himself pag. 317. PART III. Of the Invocation of Saints Chap. 1. THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point supposed by Dr. St. to be Idolatry but not proved The disparity between the Worship given by Catholicks to the Saints and that of the Heathens to their Inferiour Deities laid open pag. 333. Chap. 2. What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints The Testimonies of Origen and St. Ambrose explained Of the practice of making Addresses to Particular Saints pag. 353. Chap. 3. What kind of Worship of Angels was condemned by St. Paul Theodoret c. with a farther display of the disparity between the Heathens Worship of their Inferiour Deities and that given by Catholicks to Holy Angels and Saints pag. 377. Chap. 4. Of the Term Formal Invocation and the different Forms used in the Invocation of Saints Some Instances out of the Fathers to show the like to have been used in their Times pag. 397. Chap. 5. The disparity assigned by Dr. St. between desiring the Saints in Heaven and Holy Men upon Earth to pray for us shown to be Insignificant pag. 414. Chap. 6. Of the practice of Christian People in St. Austin's time in the Invocation of Saints pag. 430. The Two Questions whence Dr. Still took Occasion to raise this Controversy 1. WHether a Protestant having the same Motives to become a Catholick which one bred and born and well grounded in the Catholick Religion hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it 2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract or in the whole latitude or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians His Answer to the aforesaid Questions The first Question being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant yet continuing so doth imply a contradiction viz. That a Protestant continuing so should have the same Motives to become a Catholick taking that term here only as signifying one of the communion of the Church of Rome which those have who have been horn or bred in that communion But supposing the meaning of the Question to be this Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of our Church upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church may not be equally saved with those who are bred in it I answer 1. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed can be no argument to leave the communion of a Church wherein salvation of a person may be much more safe than of either of them No more than it is for a Man to leap from the plain Ground into a Ship that is in danger of being wrackt because he may equally hope to be saved with those who are in it Nay supposing an equal capacity of Salvation in two several Churches there can be no reason to forsake the communion of the one for the other So that to perswade any one to leave our Church to embrace that of Rome it is by no means sufficient to ask whether such a one may not as well be savâ—d as they that are in it already but it is necessary that they prove that it is of necessity to salvation to leave our Church and become a Member of theirs And when they do this I intend to be one of their number 2. We assert that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their Souls ought to embrace it or
Catholick The Reply to Dr. Stillingfleet's Answer Madam I Did not expect that two bare Questions could have produced such a super-foetation of Controversies as the Paper you sent me is fraught with But since the Answerer hath been pleas'd to take this Method for what end himself best knows I shall not refuse to give a fair and plain return to the several Points he insists upon and that with as much brevity as the matter and circumstances will bear The Questions proposed were 1. Whether a Protestant having the same Motives to become a Catholick which one bred and born and well grounded in Catholick Religion hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it The 2d Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract or in the whole latitude or there be a necessity of being a Member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians The first he saith being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant continuing so implyes a contradiction but where it lyes I cannot see for a Protestant may have the same Motives and yet out of wilfulness or passion not acquiesce to them He saw no doubt this supposition to be impertinent to the Question and therefore in the second part of the 1. § states it thus Whether a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church may not be equally saved with those who were bred in it The Question thus stated in its true supposition he answers first § 2. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed can be no argument to leave the Communion of a Church wherein the salvation of a person may be much more safe than of either of them But before I reply I must do both him and my self right in matter of fact and it is Madam that when you first addressed to me you professed your self much troubled that he had told you a person leaving the Protestant communion and embracing the Catholick could not be saved That we should deny salvation to any out of the Catholick Church you lookt upon as uncharitable and this assertion of his had startled you in the opinion you had before of the Protestant Charity Whereupon you desired to know my opinion in the case and I told you I saw no reason why the same Motives which secured one born and bred and well grounded in Catholick Religion to continue in it were no◠sufficient also to 〈…〉 a Protestant who convinced by them 〈◊〉 embrace it This Madam 〈…〉 was the true occasion of your proposing the Question and not 〈…〉 supposes that I used the meer 〈…〉 self as a sufficient Argument to 〈…〉 you to embrace the Catholick Communion This premised I reply that the Answer he gives is altogether forrain to the matter in hand the Controversie not being between a Bred and a Converted Catholick on the one side and a person supposed to be in a safer Church than either of them on the other nor yet between two several Churches supposed to have in them an equal Capacity of salvation but between a person bred in the Catholick Religion on the one side and another converted to it from Protestantism on the other whether the latter may not be equally saved with the former Nor is it to the purpose of the present Question to prove that it is of necessity to Salvation to leave the Protestant Church and become a Member of the Catholick because the Question is only of the possibility not of the necessity of Salvation I say it is not necessary to the present Question to prove this but rather belongs to the second where I shall speak to it Whether there be a necessity of being a Member of some distinct Church Which being resolved affirmatively by both parts it follows then in order to enquire which this true Church is As for the Example of a Man leaping from the plain ground into a Ship that is in danger of being Wrackt meaning by that Ship as I suppose he does the Catholick Church Some will be apt to think he had come neerer the Mark if he had compared the Protestant to a Ship which by often knocking against the Rock on which the Catholick Church is built had split it self into innumerable Sects and was now in danger of sinking his comparison was grounded only on his own supposition but this is grounded on the truth it self of too sad an experience But to leave words and come to the matter His second Answer is § 3. that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their Souls ought to embrace or continue in it The first answer as I have shewed was nothing pertinent to the present Question nor comes this second any nearer the matter for though it be supposed that none ought to embrace or continue in the Catholick Church by reason of the great hazard he saith they run of their salvation yet if they do embrace or continue in it why may they not be equally saved that is with equal hazard but this assertion however beside the Question he makes it his main business to prove First § 4. Because those who embrace or continue in the Catholick Church are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation And here he must give me leave to return upon him a more palpable contradiction than that he supposed to have found in the Question viz. to assert only that those of the Catholick Communion run a great hazard of their Salvation and yet affirm at the same time that they are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry sins inconsistent with Salvation which reduced into plain terms is no other but that they may be saved though hardly and yet cannot be saved But to the Argument The Church of Rome by the Worship of God by Images by the Adoration of Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator Therefore it makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry The charge is great but what are the proofs Concerning the first he saith § 5. that in the Worship of God by Images the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature And surely this implies another contradiction that it should be the Worship of God by Images and yet be terminated wholly on the Creature Nevertheless he proves it thus The Worship which God himself denies to receive must be terminated upon the Creature but God himself in the second Commandment not only denies to receive it but threatens severely to punish them that give it that is that Worship him by an Image Therefore it cannot be terminated on God but only on the Image To this Argument which to be just to the Author I confess I
also the Liturgies and Rituals in a Tongue unknown but to the Learned among them that who will dispute against it must prepare himself to hear the censure of St. Austin Ep. 118. where he saith That it is a point of most insolent madness to dispute whether that be to be observed which is frequented by the whole Church through the World 4. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not In what Council this Doctrine was defined I never read but as for the Sacrament of Penance which I suppose he chiefly aims at I read in the Council of Trent Sess 14. Falso quidam calumniantur That some do falsly calumniate Catholick Writers as if they taught the Sacrament of Penance did confer Grace without the good motion of the receiver which the Church of God never taught nor thought But I am rather inclined to look upon this as a mistake than a calumny in the Objector 5. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is our most certain Rule of Faith and Life Here he calls the Churches prudential dispensing the reading of Scripture to persons whom she judges fit and disposed for it and not to such whom she judges in a condition to receive or do harm by it a discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is no other than whereas St. Paul Coloss 3. 21. enjoyns Fathers not to provoke their Children lest they be discouraged one should reprove a Father for discouraging his Child because he will not put a Knife or Sword into his hands when he foresees he wil do mischief with it to himself or others the Scriptures in the hands of a meek and humble Soul who submits its judgment in the interpretation of it to that of the Church is a Sword to defend it but in the hands of an arrogant and presumptuous Spirit that hath no Guide to interpret it but it s own fancy or passion it is a dangerous Weapon with which he will wound both himself and others The first that permitted promiscuous reading of Scripture in our Nation was King Henry the Eighth and many years were not passed but he found the ill consequences of it for in a Book set forth by Him in the Year 1542. he complains in the Preface That he found entred into some of his Peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of it presumption arrogancy carnal liberty and contention which he compares to the seven worse Spirits in the Gospel with which the Devil entred into the House that was purged and cleansed Whereupon he declares that for that part of the Church ordained to be taught that is the Lay People it ought not to be denyed certainly that the reading of the Old and New Testament is not so necessary for all those folks that of duty they ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient so to be tolerated or taken from it Consonant whereunto saith he the Politick Law of our Realm hath now restrained it from a great many This was the judgment of him who first took upon him the Title of Head of the Church of England and if that ought not to have been followed in after times let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms as have risen in England from the reading of it bear witness For as St. Austin sayes Neque enim natae sunt Haereses Heresies have no other Origen but hence that the Scriptures which in themselves are good are not well understood and what is understood amiss in them is rashly and boldly asserted viz. to be the sense of them And now whether the Scriptures left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit as it is among Protestants be a most certain Rule of Faith and Life I leave to your self to judge 6. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as he is ready to defend he should have said to prove for we deny any such to be used in the Church 7. By the gross abuse of People in Pardons and Indulgences Against this I can asseâ—t as an eye-witness the great devotion caused by the wholsome use of Indulgences in Catholick Countreys there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it to confess his sins to receive the Sacraments to pray fast and give alms all which duties are with great devotion performed by Catholick people which without the incitement of an Indulgence had possibly been left undone 8. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a Thousand Years after Christ This thousand years after Christ makes a great noise as if it were not as much in the power of the Church a thousand years after Christ as well as in the first or second Century to alter and change things of their own nature indifferent such as the communicating under one or both kinds was ever held to be by Catholicks But although the Cup were not then denyed to the Laity yet that the custom of receiving but under one kind was permitted even in the Primitive Church in private Communions the Objector seems to grant because he speaks only of the Administration of it in the solemn Celebration and that it was also in use in publick Communions is evident from Examples of that time both in the Greek Church in the time of St. Chrysostome and of the Latin in the time of St. Leo the great As for the pretended obstruction of Devotion you must know Catholicks believe that under either species or kind whole Christ true God and Man is contained and received and if it be accounted an hindrance to devotion to receive the total refection of our soul though but under one kind what must it be to believe that I receive him under neither but instead of him have Elements of Bread and Wine Surely nothing can be more efficacious to stir up Reverence and Devotion in us than to believe that God himself will personally enter under our Roof The Ninth Hinderance of the sincerity of devotion is that we make it in the power of a person to dispense in Oaths and Marriages contrary to the Law of God To this I answer That some kind of Oaths the condition of the Person and other Circumstances considered may be judged to be hurtful and not fit to be kept and the dispensation in them is no more than to judg or determine them to be so and consequently to do this cannot be a hinderance but a furtherance to devotion nor is it contrary to the Law of God which commands nothing that 's hurtful to be done
As for Marriages we acknowledge the Church may dispense in some degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity but in nothing contrary to the Law of God His Tenth pretended Obstruction of Devotion is that we make disobedience to the Church in Disputable matters more hainous than disobedience to Christ in unquestionable things as Marriage he saith in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication I answer That whether a Priest may Marry or no supposing the Law of the Church forbidding it is not a disputable matter but 't is out of Question even by the Law of God that Obedience is to be given to the Commands or Prohibitions of the Church The Antithesis therefore between disobedience to the Church in disputable matters and disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things is not only impertinent to the Marriage of Priests which is unquestionably forbidden but supposing the matter to remaind sputable after the Churches Prohibition destroys all obedience to the Church But if it suppose them only disputable before then why may not the Church interpose her Judgment and put them out of dispute But still it seems strange to them who either cannot or will not take the Word of Christ that is his Counsel of Chastity that Marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication But he considers not that though Marriage in it self be honourable yet if it be prohibited to a certain order of persons by the Church to whom Christ himself commands us to give obedience they oblige themselves by a voluntary vow to live in perpetual chastity the Law of God commanding us to pay our Vows it loses its honour in such persons and if contracted after such vow made is in the language of the Fathers no better than Adultery In the Primitive Church it was the custom of some younger Widdows to Dedicate themselves to the Service of the Church and in order therunto to take upon them a peculiar habit and make a vow of continency for the future Now in case they married after this St. Paul himself 1 Tim. 1. 12. saith That they incurred Damnation because by so doing they made void their first faith that is as the Fathers Expound it the vow they had made And the fourth Council of Carthage in which were 214 Bishops and among them St. Austin gives the Reason in these words If Wives who commit Adultery are guilty to their Husbands how much more shall such Widdows as change their Religious State be noted with the crime of Adultery And if this were so in Widdows much more in Priests if by Marrying they shall make void their first Faith given to God when they were consâ—eâ—ated in a more peculiar manner to his Service Thus much may suffice for Answer to the Argument which with its intricate terms may seem to puzzle an unlearned Reader let us now speak a word to the true state of the Controversy which is whether Marriage or single life in a Priest be more apt to obstruct or further devotion And St. Paul himself hath determined the question 1 Cor. 7. 32. where he saith He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to our Lord how he may please our Lord But he that is Married careth for the things that are of the World how he may please his Wife This is the difference he putteth between the Married and Single life that this is apt to make us care for the things which belong to God and that to divert our thoughts from him to the things of the World Judge therefore which of these states is most convenient for Priests whose proper Office it is to attend wholly to the things of God Having thus cleared Catholick Doctrines from being any ways obstructive to good life or devotion I shall proceed to his third Argument by which he will still prove that Catholicks run a great hazard of their souls in adhering to the Communion of the Church of Rome Because it exposeth the Faith of Christians to so great uncertainty This is a strange charge from the Pen of a Protestant who hath no other certainty for his faith but every Man's interpretation of the Letter of the Scriptures But First he saith it doth this By making the Authority of the Scriptures to depend upon the infallibility of the Church when the Churches infallibility must be proved by the Scriptures To this I Answer that the Authority of the Scripture not in it self for so it hath its Authority from God but in order to us and our belief of it depends upon the infallibility of the Church And therefore St. Austin saith of himself That he would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church did move him And if you ask him what moved him to submit to that Authority he tells you That besides the Wisdom he found in the Tenets of the Church there were many other things which most justly held him in it as the consent of People and Nations an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by Hope increased by Charity and established by Antiquity the succession of Priests from the very Seat of St. Peter to whom our Lord commended the feeding of his Sheep unto the present Bishoprick Lastly The very name of Catholick which this Church alone among so many Heresies hath not without cause obtained so particularly to her self that wheras all Hereticks would be called Catholicks yet if a stranger demand where the Catholicks go to Church none of these Hereticks dares to shew either his own House or Church These saith St. Austin so many and great most dear bonds of the name of Christian do justly hold a believing Man in the Catholick Church These were the grounds which moved that great Man to submit to her Authority And when Catholick Authors prove the infallibility of the Church from Scriptures 't is an Argument ad hominem to convince Protestants who will admit nothing but Scripture and yet when they are convinced quarrel at them as illogical Disputants because they prove it from Scripture Next he saith we overthrow all foundation of Faith because We will not believe our sences in the plainest Objects of them But what if God have interposed his Authority as he hath done in the case of the Eucharist where he tells us that it is his Body must we believe our sences rather than God or must we not believe them in other things because in the particular case of the Eucharist we must believe God rather than our sences Both these consequences you see are absurd Now for the case it self in which he instances Dr. Taylor above cited confesses that they viz. Catholicks have a divine Revelation viz. Christ's word This is my Body whose Litteral and Grammatical sence if that sence were intended would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle but I add it would be no precedent to them not to believe their sences in other the plainest Objects of them
he hath mis-represented them Thus then he Liberty of Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks The beauty and Splendour of their Church their pompous he should have said solemn Service the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their Name of Catholick which they suppose he should have said their very Adversaries give them as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines he should have said all the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed St. Peter the flattering he should have said due expressions of Minor Bishops he means in acknowledging the Pope head of the Church which by being old records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes he should have said always apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide of Faith The great differences which are commenced among their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers he should rather have said of all Nations The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women The single life of their Priests and Bishops the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose institutes the religious persons pretend to imitate the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who dâ—parted from them and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity he should have said upon the same grounds the Fathers did fasten upon all that disagree from them These things saith he and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Forefathers which had actually possession and seizure of Mens understandings before the opposite professions to wit of Protestant Presbyterian Anabaptist c. had a name Thus Dr. Taylor an eminent and leading Man amongst the Protestants and if he confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater or at least equal force with these which so great a Man among them confesseth that Catholicks have for theirs Here therfore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these And as Dr. Taylor saith divers others which he omitted viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers the determination of General Councils the known Maxime of Catholicks that nothing is to be believed of Faith but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles The testimony of the present Church of no less Authority now than in St. Austin's time both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture c. Do this and the Controversie will quickly be at an end Particular disputes are endless and above the understanding of such as are not learned but in grounds and principles 't is not so hard for Reason and common sence to Judge That you may the better do it in your case I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you First That the Subject of the present Controversie are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives we do But in those in which they dissent from us such as are no Transubstantiation no Purgatory no honour due to Images no Invocation to Saints and the like in which the very Essence of Protestant as distinct from Catholick consists What Motives they can or will produce for these I do not fore-see The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain hath no place here because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths And for their own Reason and Learning it will be found too light when put into the Scale against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages The second Caution is That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion and finding fault with ours An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned Men bring to prove a Deity such as are the Order of this visible World the general consent of Nations c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own Opinion No you see then 't is one thing to produce grounds for what we hold and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part The latter hath made Controversie so long and the former will make it as short let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight and consequently which are to be preferred A Full Refutation OF Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Unjust Charge of IDOLATRY Against the Church of Rome The First Part. Of the Veneration of Holy Images CHAP. I. The First and Second Answer to the First Question shewn not pertinent Necessity of Communion with the Church of Rome proved and his Charge of Idolatry overthrown by his own Principles § 1. WHoever considers how Dr. Stillingfleet in his Answer to the Two Questions has engag'd himself and his Adversary in Seventeen or Eighteen of the most material Controversies between Catholicks and Protestants besides innumerable others of lesser concern which together with the former have swell'd his Rejoynder to a short Paper into a large Book will not very easily free him upon his own word from being fond of the practise of the Noble Science of Controversie or as his Friend Dr. T. calls it The Blessed Art of Eternal Wrangling especially if he reflect how easie and obvious the Answer was to the Questions themselves without running into farther Disputes To the First by shewing that the Motives which are sufficient to secure the Salvation of one bred up and well-grounded in Catholick Religion are not sufficient to secure the salvation of one bred up in the Protestant who convinced by them should embrace the Catholick To the Second by shewing the Motives for Communion with the Protestant Church to be greater and stronger than those for the Roman and therefore that to be necessarily embraced before this it being agreed between us that it is of necessity to salvation to be
Errours in Faith with him And for the second if he will make the Church of Rome guilty of Schism he must assign some other distinct Church then at least in being from whose Unity she departed which I think was never pretended I am sure can never be performed As for the Charge of Causal Schism that is the Churches having given just cause for Separation the common plea of all Separatists by Imposing as is pretended New Articles of Faith and some of them Idolatrous as it implies an acknowledgment of the Fact of Schism that is of breaking Church-Unity to be on the Protestants side so till the Accusation be made good and judged so by some other more competent Judge than themselves they stand arraigned of the Crime of Schism also for breaking Communion with the Church of Rome § 6. Lastly not to spend too much time in a Digression and yet satisfie his desire and if not his the Readers why the Believing all the Antient Creeds and leading a Good Life may not be sufficient to Salvation unless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome I argue thus A Christian by virtue of his being so is bound to be of the Communion of that Church which evidently was the true one and the purest until it be as evidently at least if not more evidently proved not to be so for otherwise he wrongs both his Reason and Conscience if he leave a greater evidence and adhere to a lesser But the Roman Church as comprehending all those in Communion with her by the Testimony not only of S. Paul Rom. c. 1. and c. 16. but of the whole Christian World of all Ages was evidently once the onely true Church of Christ and conseqently the Purest and neither hath nor can be as evidently much less more evidently proved not to be so still since the Testimony of those who do or will deny it is incomparably short of the former Therefore a Christian by virtue of his being so is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church § 7. Having thus not only given one but more Reasons to his Demand which I heartily pray may do him good because he requested so earnestly to know them I cannot but reflect how speciously soever it hath been hitherto pretended against the Church of Rome that the believing all the Ancient Creeds and leading a Good Life is all that is necessary to Salvation yet now there is more required by him viz. to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians by virtue of a mans being a Christian and that he is bound to chuse the Communion of the Purest Church by which I will suppose at present he means the Church of England I hope I may without offence take the same liberty with him which he did with me and desire if not for my own sake at least for the satisfaction of the Presbyterians Anabaptists and other Separated Congregations to know one Reason from him why the believing all the Ancient Creeds and leading a Good Life may not be sufficient to Salvation unless one be of the Communion of the Church of England I confess I may be mistaken to suppose him to mean by the purest Church the Church of England It is not improbable as will appear in the following Discourse that he means that of the Presbyterians but let him mean which he will it comes all to the same pass I leave him to satisfie all other Sectaries why they are bound by virtue of their Christianity to joyn in either of those two Congregations or if not in them in any other which he fancies to be the purest Which done I proceed to his Second Answer to the First Question very fitly called by him the main business because it serves him as a Foundation to raise so many Controversies upon as by his manner of treating them may frighten any one that shall but look toward the Roman Church into despair of ever getting out of so intricate a Labyrinth § 8. His second Answer to the Frst Question was That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their Souls ought to embrace it or continue in it because they must be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry sins inconsistent with Salvation This I said was as little pertinent to the Question as the former for though it be supposed that none ought to embrace or continue in the Catholick Church by reason of the great hazard he saith they run of their Salvation yet if they do embrace it why may they not be equally saved that is with equal hazard To this he returns that he is amazed I should say this Answer of his was not pertinent to the Question if the Question were propounded for any ones satisfaction that doubted which Churches Communion it were best to embrace And who can chuse but be more amazed at this Reply which gives no satisfaction at all to the Question For the Question supposing the same Motives and consequently an equal capacity or hazard as he will have it of Salvation in two persons what answer is it to the Question whether they may not equally be saved though with hazard to say the hazard they run is very great And yet of 573 pages his Book contains no less than 544 of them are spent upon this subject Tant◠〈…〉 I added farther That this Answer of his implied a Contradiction in asserting that all those of the Catholick Communion do run indeed a great hazard of their Salvation and then affirming for proof of this Assertion that they must be guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry sins inconsistent with Salvation Which reduced into plain terms is no other but to say they may be saved though with danger and yet indeed they cannot be saved at all To salve this Contradiction he runs to a pretended supposition of wilful embracing or continuing in Hypocrisie or Idolatry sins if unrepented of inconsistent with Salvation But this Salve is not at all proper for the Sore since if the Motives convince the Understanding and the Persons be sincere as the Question supposes there cannot with any shew of Reason be any thing of wilfulness supposed in the Case The Answer then was nothing to the purpose of the Question but onely that it might serve him for an occasion to bring the whole Body of Controversie into the Field and give a treble Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome viz. in worshipping of Images Adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints There want not Learned and Eminent men of the Church of England who think the Charge to be over great and there needs no more than his own Principles to make the Metal of his Proofs appear of too inferiour an Alloy to bear it Which thus I shew § 9. In his Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion pag. 54. he lays down the state of the difference
to take an Ant o◠an Ape by reason of their greater Excellency for God than the Sun the reason suppos'd by himself why we chuse rather to worship God by an Image than by the Sun on that account to let him feel the force of his own Argument if it have any that which deserves most honour should have least given it and that which deserves least should have most For the danger is there still greater where the Excellency is greater and by that means we ought rather to worship he says to us a Beast than a Saint I say to him the Earth than the Sun for there is less danger of believing one to be God than the other But to return to his former words § 4. Is there nothing then in a Picture worthy admiration besides the Skill of the Painter or Artificer I dare avouch for the greater part of Ladies who sit for their Pictures that they do it not purely to beget in the Beholders an admiration of the Painter and those who procure an Author's Picture to be set before his Book intend no doubt that those who fix their eyes upon it should admire something besides the Skill of the Engraver I have my self a Picture of a Friend which gives me occasion frequently to admire the great Endowments of his Mind but not at all the Hand that did it it is so rudely done Something then there is in Pictures besides the Skill of the Painter which may make them worthy if not of admiration for the excellency of the work at least of use for their quick suggesting to our Mind not onely the outward Features but also the inward Graces of the Persons they represent This virtue they have from their more express representation and likeness even above other things which have a greater resemblance in natural perfections and this is one Reason why we make use of them so frequently since God was made Man because they bring Him more immediately to our Mind than either the Sun or an Ant or a Fly And this may be the Reason if I may have leave to suggest one why Dr. St. Himself prefers the Sun for a Help to his Devotion before an Ant or a Fly though inferiour to them by two degrees in perfection because amongst corporeal things Light is the putest and conceived by us to be likest to a Spirit But to prefer them all and with them the Ape the Ass and the Tyger before an Image because they have greater natural perfections than an Image hath may if it prevail in the World quite undo the Company of Picture-drawers in a little time For if it shall be made appear much more reasonable to make use of what approaches nearer in perfection than likeness the Ladies may come instead of the Pictures of their Friends to wear Ants and Flies in Crystal Cases upon their Brests and instead of their own Pictures to send them the Apes and Asses he brought in so lamely in his former Comparison I and his Tygers too when they can catch them as greater resemblances of their Perfections Perhaps he 'll say he speaks not of the Perfections of these Creatures as barely such but as great evidences to him of the Power and Wisdom and Goodness of God But how many are there in the World not so Philosophical and Contemplative as he is who think more how to free themselves from the importunity of the Ants and Flies and from the heat of the Sun than to consider their perfections as great evidences of the Wisdom c. of God and yet if they come into a place where a Crucifix is are presently put in mind of God and testifie the venerable apprehension they have of him by bowing their Knee or putting off their Hats If he find his Devotion more inflam'd by the light and heat of the Sun and the motions of those little Beasts than by an Image much good may it do him But this ought not to prescribe to the Generality of Christians who I believe experience more frequent and more venerable thoughts of God suggested to their Minds by the sight of a Crucifix than by seeing the Sun with all the Ants and Flies in the World 'T is not the nearer approach in perfection even in the effect that brings us always soonest and surest to the knowledge of the cause We see many Fathers are not known by their Sons who yet are presently known by their Pictures And Atheists deny the perfections of the Creatures to be any evidences at all of that Being we call God but cannot deny a Crucifix to represent to their own thoughts that Person whom we believe to be God Pictures then we see have an advantage in representing above the Creatures though in natural perfections they be inferiour to them But yet for all this § 5. He says He cannot for his Heart understand why he may not as well nay better burn Incense and say his Prayers to the Sun having an intention onely to honour the true God by it as to do both these to an Image And the reason is still the same because he is sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any Artificial Image can have and the beauty and influence of it may inflame and warm ones Devotion much more I am sure too the Sun hath far more advantages than any material word can have even the Name of JESUS either written or spoken and yet I do not find the beauty and influence of the Sun to inflame and warm ones Devotion so much as the hearing or reading of that Sacred Name But I perceive he hath a particular Devotion to the Sun though it have less advantages than an Ant or a Fly and therefore must warn him in Charity not to say his Prayers to it no more than we do to Images as he very well knows though he would make his Reader believe the contrary for that were to terminate his Intention upon the Sun to put his trust in it and make it his God but as for his bowing to it with intent to worship the true God or burning Incense using it as it is used by the Church for a Ceremony of like nature with bowing he may have a Resolution of the Case how far it may be allowed him from the Pen of that Great and Learned Doctor S. Leo and for his farther satisfaction I shall take the pains to transcribe his words From that Opinion saith S. Leo Serm. in Natal Dom. viz. That the life of Man is governed by the Stars that Impiety also takes its rise which is used by some who are less wise to adore the Sun at his Rising from some eminent place A thing which some Christians think they do so religiously in the observance of it that before they enter into the Church of S. Peter the Apostle which is dedicated to the One true and living God they go up to the top of the Church and turning themselves to the rising Sun with low obeysance bow
down and made new ones of them Did the People at the preaching of the Jesuites cast them into the fire and They not condemn them Did the People tear them from the Altar and They perswade them not to lay them aside Did the People consume them in the fire and They make new ones of them Of will he say that the word Images being General may be applied respectively to the Images of 〈◊〉 false Gods and of Christ But where then was his Fidelity in translating the word Simulacra used by Ecclesiastical Writers and particularly by the Author in this place to signifie the Idols of the Heathens by the General word Images Where was his sincerity in confounding together the Images of the false Gods and of Christ with so many 〈◊〉 one upon another and the first of them which was to guide the rest supposing for the Images of the false Gods that it was scarce possible for an ordinary Protestant Reader to avoid being mistaken whereas Trigautius himself had distinguished them so clearly in his Relation that it was impossible for any one to mistake but by design What that must be in a Person who dares to charge the whole Church of Christ with Idolatry for so many hundreds of years together a wise man will easily guess What lies open to every one is that he hath an excellent faculty in reporting faithfully as he calls it in his Preface I suppose he means by Faithful there the same as being True to his own Cause the sense of an Author especially if the Book be hard to be found and the thing done as far off as China and that by the Jesuites As for the Fact it self of burning the Images of false Gods and setting up that of Christ in their room it was no more if not much less than what St. Gregory did by whom this Nation receiv'd its Christianity in ordering the Pagan Festivals of our Ancestors to be converted to the Assemblies of Christians Whose Wisdom in so doing is highly extolled and justified by Mr. Thorndike from the very nature of Christianity which saith he sanctifieth all times all places all gestures all circumstances that can pretend to express to procure to advance that attention of mind that elevation of spirit wherewith Christians profess to worship God in Spirit and Truth And that the Images of Christ among other things may pretend to this by calling him to mind and raising our Affections to Him I have shewed in the precedent Chapter § 7. To adde new Colour to his supposed Reason of the Law which he will have to be the Unsuitableness of an Image to represent the Deity he tells us in the next place that the Christian Church believed this Law to be immutable And to prove this he cites a passage or two out of Origen and Clemens of Alexandria affirming that the making use of corporeal representations makes the Deity contemptible and that Christians have nothing to do with Images because of the second Commandment And to this I answer as formerly What Roman-Catholick ever denied it of such Images as they there speak of viz. the Images of the Heathens against whom they disputed who thought their false Gods to dwell in their Images Which thought saith Mr. Thorndike made them Idols or of such Images as were by the erroneous conception of the Maker or Worshipper supposed to represent the Divinity in it self Which kind of Images are so far from the hearts of Catholicks that we profess with St. Germanus and St. John Damascen cited by the Doctor That it is the highest madness and impiety to go about to make an Image or Similitude of the Invisible Deity And whereas he would make Clichtovaeus and Bellarmin to appear non-sensical and ridiculous for expounding the aforesaid Fathers to speak of such Images as should be thought to be like unto God and perfectly to represent him to us by adding most triumphantly As if ever men were such fools to believe an Image could perfectly represent an Infinite Being or that God need make a Law to forbid that which is utterly impossible in the very nature of the thing It is evident he does but trifle for although it be impossible in the very nature of the thing to make an Image which shall perfectly represent the Deity as it is yet it is not impossible for men to be such fools as to conceive the Deity otherwise than it is and so to go about to make an Image to represent it◠which is plainly Clichtovaeus his sense and Bellarmin's Answer likewise as the Doctor himself confesses yet rather than spoil so pretty a Comparison as he had in his head he goes on to tell us that God might more reasonably forbid men to paint a Sound to grasp all the Air in the hollow of their hands to drink up the Ocean to wear the Sun for a Pendant at their Ears or to make new Worlds than to command them not to make any Image which should perfectly represent his Nature These gay Expressions were too dear to be lost though the last of them which is the ground of the rest were borrowed from Chamier and Bellarmin must be made seemingly to speak nonsense rather than not be told he lies So glorious a thing it is to seem to have Confuted Bellarmin But to end this Chapter Two things I desire to know of him The first is How he reconciles himself with himself when he makes the Irrepresentableness of Gods Nature to be the Reason of the Law and yet will not have the Law forbid us to Think of making an Image to represent it although this later be the immediate Consequence of the former The second How he will reconcile himself to his Master Calvin who expounding this very Law Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven thing or any likeness c. expresly affirms that God by those words restrains our licentiousness that we should not attempt to represent Him by any visible figure If not by any then certainly not by such an one as we should think might represent him perfectly I leave them conferring notes and proceed CHAP. VII Of the Second General Council of Nice called most irreverently by Dr. St. That Wise Synod His Constantinopolitan Fathers Objections answered by Epiphanius and the Answers shewn to be Good § 1. WE are come now to that Stone of Offence that Rock of Scandal as the Doctor would have it the Second General Council of Nice Anno 789. in which all such were anathematiz'd and condemned as Hereticks who should call the Images of Christ and his Saints Idols and assert the honour given them by Christians to be Idolatry What wonder then if he who finds himself comprehended under that Anathema be in such a passion against the Council that in contempt and scorn he most irreverently calls it That Wise Synod p. 76. that is in plain English the Three Hundred and Fifty Fathers who voted in it Fools together with
the Pope's Legates who presided and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchal Sees who assisted in it O my God! is it come to this that an Inferiour Rector of one Pâ—rochial Church whose name is scarce known but in the Bills of Mortality and was never heard of in the List of any General Council shall dare to condemn as foolish the Sentence of the most August and Venerable Tribunal upon Earth Was he not afraid of that dreadful Sentence of our Lord He that shall say to his Brother how much more to so many Fathers of the Church Fool shall be guilty of Hell-fire What Order and Discipline can be observ'd in the Church if it shall be lawful for any private person upon presumption of his own wit to contemn and deride the Decrees of those whom he is bound under pain of being accounted as a Heathen and Publican to hear Will he plead for his excuse that he follows the Judgment of another Synod held not long before in Constantinople in which boâ—h the making and honouring of sacred Images was condemned Let him shew that to have been a lawful Council and not a Conventicle as in reality it was being called by the Secular Power and wanting both the consent and presence of the Patriarchs of the East and chiefly of the Bishop of Rome by himself or Legates whom the Fathers of the fourth General Council of Chalcedon acknowledge to have presided over them as the Head over the Members and without whose Authority according to the Canon of the Church no Decrees could be valid None of which defects were in the Council of Nice Besides that divers of the Bishops who had voted in and subscribed to the false Synod of Constantinople came and abjur'd its Doctrine in the Council of Nice and among them Gregorius Bishop of Neocaesarea the Ringleader of the Faction Yet Dr. St. takes up and abets the Arguments of that Pseudo-Synod as if they had never been retracted and anathematized as impious by the chief Author of it and scoffs at the Answers of the Synod to them as insufficient I pray God he may one day imitate him in his Repentance as he hath done hitherto in his Passion against the Images of Christ and his Saints Examples we know move much and possibly it may be neither unprofitable to Him nor ungrateful to the Reader to set down the form and manner of that Bishops Recantation and his Reception into the Church § 2. Being brought into the Council by a Person of honour sent from the Emperour Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople ask'd him If hitherto he had not known the Truth or knowingly had contemn'd it His answer was that he hop'd it was out of ignorance but desir'd to learn And when Tarasius bad him declare what he desir'd to learn he answered Forasmuch as this whole Assembly doth say and think the same thing I know and most certainly believe that the Point now agitated and preached by this Synod is the Truth and therefore I beg pardon for my former evils and desire with all these to be instructed and inlightned For my Errours and Crimes are great beyond measure and as God shall please to move the hearts of this Holy Synod to Compunction towards me so be it Here Tarasius expressing some doubt he had least his submission might not be sincere but that he might speak one thing with his mouth and have another in his heart Gregorius cry'd out God forbid I confess the Truth and lie not neither will I ever go back from my word Whereupon Tarasius told him that he ought long ago to have given ear to what the Holy Apostle St. Paul teaches saying Hold fast the Traditions which ye have received either by our word or by our Epistle And again to Timothy and Titus Avoid profane Novelties of words For what can be a greater Novelty in Christianity and more profane than to say that Christians are Idolaters To this Gregorius return'd that what he and his Partizans had done was evil and we confess saith he that it was evil So it was and so we did by which words it seems he made a particular confession of what evil they had done and therefore we beg pardon of our faults I confess most Holy Father before you and this Holy Synod that we have sinned that we have transgressed that we have done evil and ask pardon for it Upon this it was ordered that he should bring in his Confession the next Session of the Synod which he did of the same tenour with that of Basilius Bishop of Ancyra and others in the first Session viz. that he did receive and salute or give Veneration to the Holy and Venerable Images of Christ and his Saints and anathematize such as were not of the same mind as he expressed himself in the vote he gave after he had by the Sentence of the Popes Legates and the consent of the Synod been restored to his Seat upon his repentance This is recorded of Gregorius Bishop of Neocaesarea in the Acts of the Council of Nice to his immortal Glory May it be imitated with no less Glory by the Rector of St. Andrews May he take to himself what St. Ambrose said to Theodosius Secutus es errantem sequere poenitentem This I heartily pray for and to this end shall take the pains to shew with what little Reason he abets the Arguments of that false Synod and derides the Answers of the Nicen Fathers If in doing this I make his vanity appear here as elsewhere I have done it is but what St. Austin tells us we ought so much the more to endeavour towards those who oppugn the Church by how much the more we desire their salvation And I know not how possibly himself could have laid it more open than in the Ironical Title of That Wise Synod he gives that very Council to which his Leader in the Charge of Idolatry the afore mentioned Gregorius submitted himself as to a most lawful Council confessing that what those Fathers so unanimously taught was the Truth and the Tradition of the Catholick Church Now what they taught was this that the Images of Christ and his Saints were to be placed and retained in Churches that by seeing them the Memory and Affections of the Beholders might be excited towards those who were represented by them as also to salute and give an honourary adoration or respect to the said Images like as is given to the figure of the Holy Cross to Chalices to the Books of the H. Gospels and such like sacred Utensils but not Latria which as true Faith teacheth is due onely to God What he could find in this definition for which the Fathers deserved from him the title of Fools I cannot imagin unless he will have it to be Idolatry to reverence the Books of the Holy Gospels or the sacred Utensils of the Altar But in this the Council is vindicated by Eminent Divines of
the Church of England For Mr. Thorndike freely 〈◊〉 that he must maintain as unquestionable that the Council of Nice enjoyns no Idolatry And Dr. Field affirms that the Nicene Fathers mean nothing else by adoration of Images but embracing kissing and reverently using of them like to the honour we saith he do the Books of Holy Scripture Whereupon Bishop Montague saith Let Doctrine and Practice go together and we agree Dr. St. perhaps will rank them for this in the same Predicament of with the Nicen Fathers But herein his vanity and presumption will appear though less than in condemning a whole General Council A farther discovery of it he makes in deriding the answers given to the Objections of his Constantinopolitan Fathers Let us see what they are and with what reason he does it § 3. First saith he When the Fathers of the Synod at Constantinople had said that Christ came to deliver us from all Idolatry and to teach the Worship of God in Spirit and in Truth they bravely answer that then it is impossible for Christians meaning I suppose particular Christian to fall into Idolatry because he should have added as the Council doth the Prophets had foretold that all Idolatry should be extirpated by the preaching of Christ his Apostles and his Kingdom was always to continue and the gifts and graces of God are without repentance Which would as well hold saith the Doctor against the prevalency of the Turk as Idolatry among them And is not this bravely answered by the Doctor Doth he think that there are as great Promises in the Scripture for the Turks not over-running Christendom as there are for the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church Or that the Church which is Christs Kingdom could apostatize so far as to enjoyn and allow the belief and practise of Idolatry and the Gates of Hell not prevail against it If he will not maintain these impieties to be true nor deny what God hath said by the Prophet Zachary Behold the days come and I will destroy the names of Idols from off the earth and the memory of them shall be no more and this not for four or five hundred years but to the end of the World for the Kingdom of Christ is to continue always and his graces are without Repentance let him give Glory to God and acknowledge his charge of Idolatry to be false and that Christ hath done what he came to do that is as his Constantinopolitan Fathers confess to deliver us from all Idolatry § 4. The second thing he makes the Fathers of the false Synod at Constantinople to urge is That the Devil not being able to reduce the World to the former Idolatry endeavours underhand to introduce it under a pretence of Christianity bringing them again to the Worship of the Creature and making a God of a thing that is made when they have called it by the Name of Christ The words here cited were taken out of St. Gregory Nissen in the Oration he made upon his Brother St. Basil and Epiphanius in the Name of the Council of Nice charges them to have adulterated both the meaning and words of the Saint by putting the name of Christ instead of that of the Son For whereas St. Gregory's Discourse there was against the Arrians proving them to be Idolaters because they acknowledged Christ to be a Creature and yet adored and served and put their trust in him they wickedly pervert his words against the Images of Christ which although Christians retain in memory and reverence out of love to him that is represented by them yet they neither call them Gods nor serve them as Gods nor at any time put their hope of salvation in them as the Arrians did in the Son although they believed him to be a Creature The Dr. thought it not to his purpose to take notice of this Juggle of his Constantinopolitan Fathers in putting the name Christ for Son No it might put us in mind of his own dexterous managing the words and sense of Authors cited by himself as I have shewed in the foregoing Chapter Only when Epiphanius makes the difference between the Arrians and Catholicks to consist in this that the Arrians trusted in Christ and gave properly divine honour to him but Catholicks did not so to the Images of Christ but only worshiped them for the sake of the Object represented by them He comes in p. 79. with a But Aquinas and his followers have at large proved that where any thing is worshipped meerly for the sake of another it must have the same kind of worship given it which they give to the thing represented by it For as Aquinas observes the motion of the Soul towards an Image as it is an Image is the same with that which is towards the thing represented by it Therefore Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers are in the same case with the Arrians whom they acknowledge to be Idolaters § 5. I remember the Dr. in his Preface tells his Reader that his design is to argue closely How much he hath failed in the performance of his design if ever he had any such I have shown in almost every argument he brings And for the present argument there are so many failings in it that a Junior Sophister in the Schools would have given it the name not of one but of many Fallacies For to make the consequence good he ought first to have prov'd that the Nicen Fathers were of the same opinion with Aquinas and his followers or that their Argument was so evident a Dâ—monstration that they could not but be guilty of culpable ignorance if they did not see it 2dly That Aquinas and his followers did conclude themselves in virtue of so evident a proof to be Idolaters or at least they ought to have done so for giving the same Worship or Reverence to Christ and his Image to Him absolutely for himself to his Image relatively or meerly for his sake as they explicate themselves 3dly That the Arrians were Idolaters upon this very account that they gave onely relative Worship to the Son and not properly Divine Worship which St. Gregory Nissen saith they did because though they acknowledged him to be a Creature yet they ador'd and serv'd and put their trust in him as God These things he ought to have prov'd to make his own consequence good viz. Therefore the Nicen Fathers are in the same case with the Arrians whom they acknowledge to be Idolaters But to tell us that because Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers said they onely worshipped the Images of Christ for his sake who was represented by them and because not They but Aquinas and his followers have at large proved that when Christ is worshipped by his Image the same Worship or Reverence is given to him and his Image Therefore Epiphanius and the Nicen Fathers were in the same case with the Arrians that is Idolaters is such a piece of Logick if good
being engaged in it yet 't is certain they reclaimed against their proceedings and if the Fathers at Francford persisted in their mistake what wonder if the Historians of that time who favour'd them took no notice of it Or if the English Historians ran into the same Errour as it is manifest they did by what Hoveden reports that the English Bishops believed the Doctrine of the Council of Nice to be that Adoration was to be given to Images which the Church of Christ abhors That the Author of the Caroline Book and Agobardus after him did not content themselves with what the Council of Francford had condemned viz. That Worship was not to be given to Images as to the Holy Trinity but denied any veneration at all to be due to them as the Doctor will have it hinders not but that the Council of Francford condemned that of Nice upon a misunderstanding of its Doctrine as I have evidently shewed § 3. Secondly But now supposing there had been no mistake but that the Fathers at Francford as my Adversary would have it had really condemned the Doctrine of the Council of Nice yet I affirm it had been no advantage to his Cause because as himself p. 84. saith The Popes of Rome sided with the Worshippers of Images that is confirmed the Doctrine of the Council of Nice whereas they opposed and rejected the condemnation of it by the Fathers of Francford That the Popes Legates contradicted it in the Synod is confessed by the Magdeburgenses and that the Pope himself oppos'd it is manifest from the Confutation he wrote of the Caroline Book and that no Decrees of any Council could be valid without the Popes consent was so undoubted a thing among all Christians that the Author himself of that Book durst not deny it but on the contrary affirms it to have been the sense even of the Fathers of Francford as acknowledging and professing the last Judgment of Controversies to belong to the Bishop of Rome and upon this account they affirmed the Council of Nice was to be rejected viz. for that it had not been confirmed as they pretended though falsely by the Pope And if the Fathers of Francford look'd upon it then as an advantage to their Cause that the Pope as they pretended had not sided with the Worshippers of Images that is with the Nicen Fathers how comes the Doctor to look upon it now as so apparent an advantage to the same Cause that the Pope as he confesseth sided with them What I can discover here is nothing but a great improvement of confidence to alledge that for an Advantage which in Church-Affairs is the greatest prejudice upon Earth But if the Popes confirming the Council of Nice were no advantage to his Cause as little is it that the Council at Francford denied it to be Occumenical because the Greeks onely were there present and none of the other Provinces were called for what weight soever the Doctor may conceive that Exception to have carried at that time yet 't is certain now it hath no force at all since the Council it self hath for many hundreds of years been accepted as a true and lawful General Council and its Doctrine as Catholick by all the Provinces of Christendom and the contrary to it condemned for Heresie And this is no other 〈◊〉 what Mr. Thorndike answers to two Objections urged from St. Epiphanius and the Council of Elvira that granting they held all Images in Churches dangerous for Idolatry of which saith he there is appearance it is manifest they were afterwards admitted all over From whence it follows that what Dr. St. argues from the Synod of Paris under Ludovicus Pius which was indeed but a Conference of some Learned Men condemning Pope Adrian for a superstitious adoration of Images From the Doctrine also of the Author of the Caroline Book and that of Agobardus which Baluzius saith he confesseth to be no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age is no advantage at all to his Cause because in supposition that they then did look upon the very true Doctrine of the Council of Nice as dangerous and impugn it as such by reason of a very evil superstition the same Baluzius saith had possessed the minds of some persons in that Age viz. that the same Worship was to be given to Images as to the Blessed Trinity yet afterwards the Doctrine of the said Nicene Council prevailed all over and was received as an Apostolical Tradition by the Gallican Church it self like as the Doctrine of Non-rebaptization of Hereticks wâ—s received in the African Church although it had been condemned there before in a Council by St. Cyprian But upon a diligent survey of Baluzius his Discourse in that place I do not perceive his meaning to be what the Doctor would have it viz. that what Agobardus wrote was the belief of the whole Gallican Church in that Age but that it was the Judgment and Design of the French Bishops at that time to extirpate by all means the above-mentioned Superstition which then reigned although in doing it they might seem to run into the other extream of denying any Worship at all to be due to Images all the whole business of the use of Images being as the Author of the Account very well observes p. 18. but a matter of Discipline and Government For had he meant that what Agobardus wrote was no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age how could the same Baluzius tell us that the French Bishops at that time although they seemed to remove all Worship from Images yet allowed them to be kept that the Faithful by seeing them might be excited to imitate those Holy Persons they represented Whereas Agobardus went so far as to affirm that they were kept for Ornament to delight the eyes but not for the instruction of the people nay that they were not to be painted upon the Church-Walls Was this the Belief of the Gallican Church in that Age when Jonas Aurelianensis waâ— commanded by Ludovicus Pius â—o 〈◊〉 against Claudius â—aurinensis for casting them out of the Church Surely the little care there was taken to preserve the Canon of the Council of Eranâ—ford against Image-Worship or â—ather the unanimous concurrence to suppress it if there were ever any such Canon for it lay in obscurity for above seven hundred years together till it was published as my Adversary says about the middle of the last â—entury by Du Tillet as also the prevalency of the contrary Belief in the Gallican Church as it is at this day without any noise or opposition are no great Presumptions to men who have any insight into the Affairs of Religion that the said Church in that Age believed as Dr. St. would have us believe from the Confession of Baluzius that no Veneration was to be given to Holy Images It is upon the contrary supposition that Baluzius endeavours to excuse Agobardus
unparallell'd fondness of this Comparison there needs no more than to appeal to any married man for his Opinion in the case viz. Whether he think it a matter of like Resentment to find his Wife kissing his Picture as it hangs at her Breast as to surprize her in Bed with a Friend of his though never so like him Some things done out of respect are very well taken and cannot in reason be otherwise by the Person for whose sake the respect is given of this kind I take the wearing of her Husbands Picture to be in a Wiâ—e or her being kind though not too kind to his Friend for his sake But others there are which would be very ill taken though pretended to be done with never so much respect And of this kind I suppose it would be to give the Honour of her Husbands Bed to another though never so like him No man surely well in his Senses can look upon these two with an equal Concern And yet if the Doctor will make his Comparison hold good he must prove the whole state of married Mankind do or ought to do so At least to infer any thing against us he must shew it not possible to give any Honour or Respect even inferiour to the Image of Christ for his sake For if this be possible it will follow that as in a Chaste Wife it is a laudable expression of the Honour and Respect she bears her Husband to kiss his Picture or wear it near her Heart So it will be no less in a Christian towards Christ to give an Honourary Respect â—o his Image for his sake God indeed hath declared himself as the Doctor saith particularly jealous of his Honour in this Commandment that he will not give his Glory to another but hath reserved all Divine Worship as peculiar to himself but where hath he declared that we may not â—estifie the giving Him Divine Worship by kissing his Image or the Books of the H. Gospels or other things relating to Him The Object of Jealousie is a Rival or what hath relation to or union with him not what may serve to express Affection and Respect to the Person who ought to be loved And therefore a Jealous Husband will neither permit his Wife to admit his Rival into her Company nor his Picture into her Closet yet never thinks her an Adulteress for carrying his own in her â—osom The Images which the Precept supposeth were as Mr. Thorndike saith the Representations of other Gods which his people were wont to commit Idolatry with And the Doctor though in the Reply I challeng'd him to do it neither hath nor can produce any Prohibition of giving to the Images of Christ and his Saints a relative Respect oâ— Worship for his sake And in case he could yet that I hope would prove it no more to be Idolatry in a Christian to kiss for example the Image of Christ crucified than it would be Adultery in a Wife out of respect to her Husband though he should forbid it to kiss his Picture Disobedience there might be in either case but Idolatry or Adultery in neither § 2. Having prepared his Reader with so just a Comparison and told him by the by of the distinction of Absolutely and Relatively being very subtilly applied in Scotland to saying the Lords Prayer to a Saint which in reality needed no such distinction as signifying no more than saying the Pater Noster to God with an intention directed to such or such a Saint to desire him to become Joynt-Petitioner with us for what we beg in it He wonders in the next place p. 101. very much we stick at any kind of Worship to be done to Images For his part were he of our mind he should as little scruple offering up the Host to an Image as saying his prayers to it and he doubts not to come off with the same distinctions For if I do it saith he to God absolutely and for himself and to the Image onely improperly and relatively wherein am I to blame This is his Discourse and the Reader may observe in it 1. That he hath not read or at least takes no notice that the answer in the ordinary Catholick Catechism to the Question Whether we may pray to Images is a down-right No by no means and that the Council of Trent Sess 25. hath declared that we are not to ask any thing of an Image Let the Reader judge whether this were ignorance or no. 2. That he cannot contain himself any where within bounds of Mediocrity but must always run into extreams which side soever he take He cannot be a Church-of-England-man but with the Presbyterians he must deny Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and any honour to be due to the Eucharist or Altar c. Neither will he be a Papist without offering up the Host and saying his prayers to an Image So that if He become a Proselyte He cannot content Himself with the Common Idolatry of the Papists in kissing or putting off their Hats to the Images of Christ but will needs make Himself twice a greater Idolater than they are How much He would be to blame in so doing He will better understand when He is become a Proselyte In the mean time it may suffice Him to know that the Church of God hath no such custom for however the material action of Sacrifice may be done for several ends and intentions yet when it proceeds from an intention to profess a total submission of our selves to God as the Supream Author of Life and Death which gives it the formality of a Sacrifice it is used and taken by the publick Use and Custom of the Church for an acknowledgement of the absolute Worship due to God and not of Relative to an Image and that more especially in offering up the Host that is the Body and Blood of Christ the true Christian Sacrifice the Nature and Dignity whereof requireth that it be offered to God alone As for the Rule of St. Basil upon which he would ground his Practise and which I quoted very sincerely though he craftily insinuate the contrary to the Reader viz. That the Worship of the Image is carried to the Prototype Mr. Thorndike hath told him very well that what Signs of Honour or Ceremonies the Publick Worship of God may require the Church is at freedom to determin and so onely such expressions of Honour are to be given to Images as the Church allows What therefore I should advise him were I worthy and would he be of our mind should be to lay aside what the Apostle calls languishing about Questions and strife of Words and as a Modern Author phrases it to use Ecclesiastical good manners to the H. Images of Christ and his Saints and say his prayerâ— and offer Sacrifice as other Catholicks do to God alone â—t is Duty and Discretion in things we cannot understand to follow the Apostle's Rule Sapere ad sobrietatem to be wise unto
if the Common-Prayer-Book should ordain the Minister when he goes up to the Communion-Table either to put off his shoes or to bow to it he would scruple much more to go barefoot than to nod to it with his Shoes on Two other pretences of difference he brings not unlike the former The first that in kising the Ground or bowing to it if these things had been done to the Ground the danger had not been so great as to Images The other that the Reverence of Holy Places and Things is of a quite different nature from the Worship of Images For the first of danger he may leave that as Mr. Thorndike hath told him to the Judgment of the Church And for the second Holy Places and Things may have several Relations to God according to the different uses for which they serve in order to his Worship and yet the Reverence given them may be proportionably alike that is an inferiour Respect and Veneration and not Latria which is due to God alone But how different soever he would make it from that of Images he must not think to escape For if any be due at all to Holy Places and Things I suppose it is given them for God's sake and then all his own Arguments return upon him afresh for either it is the same which is given to God or distinct from it and which way soever he take Bellarmin or Vasquez will be upon him Or none at all is due to them and then he mocks his Reader when he tells him that the Reverence of Holy Places and Things is of a quite different nature from the Worship of Images And this is indeed what lies at the bottom how speciously soever he pretend the contrary here in words as will manifestly appear from his Answers to the following Instances For first § 3. To that of the Reverence given by the Jews to the Ark and the Holy of Holies where the Cherubins and Propitiatory were he plainly enough denies that any was given them To prove there was I produced first that Text of the Psalm Adore ye the foot-stool of God for it it is holy Psal xcviii 5. as all the Ancient Fathers read it without scruple or as their own Translation hath it Fall down before his Foot-stool for He the Margin hath it It is holy And secondly the Testimony of St. Hierom who saith expresly Ep. 17. ad Marcel Venerabantur olim that the Jews in times past did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies because there were the Cherubins the Propitiatory the Ark c. To neither of these doth he vouchsafe any Answer at all but with an Ipse dixit tells us p. 106. that the Jews onely directed their Worship towards that place where God had promised to be signally present among them and signifies no more to the Worship of Images than our lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth when we pray Thus He Oracularly without either Scripture or Father or Reason to abet him But if Moses and Josue might lawfully testifie their Reverence to the Ground because it was holy why might not the Jews do as much to the Foot-stool of God because that also was holy Why was it placed in the Holy of Holies and why were the People commanded to adore or bow down before it but to testifie their Reverence to it and that a much greater in the Doctors opinion than putting off their shoes for they were to adore it or fall down before it and all this I hope signifies something more to the Worship of Images than the lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth when we pray which might have been as well if not better without all this Ceremony in an open field For the Cherubins he tells That they were always hid from the sight of the People as if nothing could have Reverence given it but what is seen It may reasonably be presumed that himself will charge us with Idolatry for adoring the Host not onely when we see it upon the Altar but when it is recluded in a Tabernacle or covered with a Veil Nor doth he mend the matter when he says That the High Priest himself went into the Holy of Holies but once a year for if at that time it were lawful for him to testifie Reverence to the Throne of God there placed it is as much as we desire and if unlawful it was more than he ought to have done though but once a year for as St. Hierom saith Quod semel fecisse bonum est non potest malum esse si frequenter fiat aut si aliqua culpa vitanda est non ex eo quod saepe sed ex eo quod â—it aliquando culpabile est What he adds of the Cherubins being placed meerly as Appendices to the Throne of God was a means rather to increase than diminish the people's reverence to them and for their form there needed no more be known than what Calvin in Exod. xxv 18. affirmeth of them That they represented Angels § 4. To bowing at the Name of JESUS This Ceremony was appointed and allowed by the Injunctions made in the time of Queen Elizabeth Art 52. and was defended by Dr. Whitgift in his Defence against Cartright by Dr. Fulk Dr. Andrews whose words are cited below and others and is at this day publickly practised in the Church of England and that in Dr. St.'s own sight by such as esteem themselves the onely true and genuine Sons of that Church This Instance I thought to be very pertinent because first it is allowed by Protestants and so more easily understood and secondly because of the Analogy there is between Words and Pictures a Picture being a Word to the Eye and a Word as Aristotle calls it a Picture to the Ear. Another reason I had also because the Doctor being inoculated into the Church of England or to speak his Dialect a Revolted Presbyterian I thought he would not dare to disavow all reverence to the Sacred Name of JESUS But I find I was deceived for he tells me plainly I might as well have instanced in going to Church at the Toll of a Bell as in bowing at the Name of Jesus for as the one only tells us the time when so the other only puts us in mind of the Person whom we are to worship This is plain enough I confess if it be as mannerly to tell us that no more Reverence is due to the most H. Name of JESUS when we hear it spoken than to a Bell when we hear it toll And the Compariâ—on is somewhat more elevated than if he had made it with Whittington's fancying the Bells to call him back to be Lord Maior of London But was this all that St. Paul meant when he told us That at the Name of Jesus or as Dr. St. himself reads it p. 111. To the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow Phil. ii 10. Was it for this that God so highly exalted Him that He gave Him
by it to the Bread and Wine or any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood Will the Doctor be so unkind as to make her say that no Reverence at all is due to that Holy Sacrament that this of all things in the World ought not to have been objected against them What! will he make them fall below Calvin in their respect to that Sacrament who saith it is to be received with reverence as the Pledge of our Holy Union with Christ Is it not time now to remind him as I promised above p. 138. how his Beloved Constantinopolitan Fathers call it an Honourable Image of Christ's quickning Body And thereupon invite all those and among them the Doctor unless he will leave himself out as he did these words all those I say to rejoyce and exult with confidence who desire worship and offer it for the Salvation both of Soul and Body Though He stile me very ineptly a Revolted Protestant yet I have so much respect for those learned Persons who made that Rubrick as to think they meant by Adoration what the word now signifieth by use in English that is Divine Worship proper to God alone and not that no more Reverence should be used towards the Bread and Wine in the Church than there is to the Remainder of it at home by some seemingly Revolted Presbyterians I cannot believe them to be truly Sons of the Church of England Now what the sense of that Church was and still is unless the Doctor will have us suppose these Modern Divines to have prevaricated from their Fathers Bishop Jewel tells us in these words We only adore Christ saith he as very God but we Worship also and Reverence the Sacrament we Worship the Word of God we worship all other like things in such Religious wise to Christ belonging The same is witnessed by Bishop Morton Under the degree of Divine Worship we our selvs yield as much to the Eucharist as St. Austin did to Baptisme where he said Epist 164. We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is Nor is this delivered by them as their private Opinion but as the sense of the Church of England as appears by their words And if you ask how they can excuse themselves from Idolatry you have the Answer of Bishop Jewel that the Sacraments be adored but the whole honour resteth not in them but is passed over from them to the things signified So that it seems I was not much miâ—â—â—ken when to paralel the Reverence given by Catholicks to Images I instanced in that which is given by Protestants to the Sacramental signs by kneeling at the Eucharist for they do not only allow a like Reverence but maintain it also with the same distinction Nor will the Doctor ever be able to perswade his Parishioners out of it till he can make them leave their usual Expression when they speak of this Sacrament that they do not receive it as Bread but as the Body of Christ § 6. The 6th and last Instance was of Reverence given to the Altar by bowing to it a practise of great Antiquity as Dr. Heylin shows in his defence of the Modern Practise of it in the Church of England against Burton p. 25. This Dr. Still saith is of the same nature with the putting off our Hats while we are in the Church And what is this to say Himself admits a Reverence to Holy Places p. 105. and surely the Church the House of God is one of them Here then we find him incline to admit a Reverence due to the Altar and if it be of the same nature with putting off our Hats while we are in the Church as he doth the one so he may lawfully do the other But then as if he had granted too much he presently draws back and tells us This is only determining a natural act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship which as far as I can understand the words is not of the same nature with putting off our Hats when we are in the Church but with going to Church when the Bell tolls which is to give no more Reverence to the Altar than to the Bell. But who can unfold the Riddle and tell me what he means by a natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship If he mean by that way the local situation of the Altar in the East which was the way the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship and that Nature teacheth us to direct our Worship that way although the Altar for example in St. Andrew's may serve for such a determination because it is placed in the East yet he must give another reason why those in the Savoy bow towards the Altar where it is seated in the North because it doth not there determin a Natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship which was towards the East But if he mean by that way a like manner of Reverence to the Altar as was used to be given by the Ancient Christians he will find in the aforecited place out of Dr. Heylin that they acknowledged an honour and veneration due to the Holy Altar and testified that honour by bowing and kneeling to it In fine whatever the meaning of the words be to speak to the practise it self either he condemns those of the Churcâ— of England who profess and testify their reverence to the Altar by bowing to it for Idolatry or no. If he do they are at age to answer for themselves If he do not an Inferiour or Relative honour may be given to it for his sake whose Throne it is under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone and as the allowing this will render him a true Son of the Church of England so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ will make him in this point a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome whose Councils have decreed that we are not to give to the Images of Christ and his Saints Latria or the worship due to God but a honourary respect and veneration as to the Books of H. Scripture and other Holy things But what himself may justly fear should success crown his endeavours in putting scruples into poor simple Mens minds to with draw them from the Reverence they owe to the Sacraments of Christ his Saints his Name his Image his Altars and such like Holy things relating to his Worship is that the Event whatever the design be of his labours will be no other as those Pious and Learned Doctors of Rhemes long since observed and we see at this Day in a great measure fulfilled than to inure Men by degrees to lose all honour and respect to Christ himself to abolish all true Religion out of the World and to make them plain Atheists The Chair of State is not more an Ornament to the King's Palace than the
were they so scrupulous as to require him to put off his cloths before they adored him nor yet to separate him in thought from them at the time of adoration but worshipped him absolutely as then he was And then a little after whatever difference saith he there may be among Divines about the manner of speaking the Question is no other but whether Christ be to be adored with divine worship in the Eucharist This is what Bellarmin says And if the Doctor would not except against an Example from civil worship I should tell him that his stating the Controversy between us concerning the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist to be whether the Accidents be to be adored with proper Divine Worship which is due to God alone is just as if a Quaker should make the Question between him and a Protestant concerning the worship of the King in his Robes to be whether the Robes are to be worshipped with the same Regal worship which is due only to the King's Person The subtilty such as it is is Parallel in both Only the Doctor hath the fortune to be applauded for what the poor Quaker would be laughed at and hiss'd out of the Court. I cannot doubt but the Doctor who is so well vers'd in Bell. as his Objections show had read these passages in him when he subjoins that Catholicks to answer their adversaries arguments would seem to direct their worship only to Christ as under the Elements or Accidents a pretty self-conviction if well observ'd for who should we believe for the Doctrin and practise of Catholicks but themselves But what he adds that they yield that on the account of this corporal presence that which appears ought to have the same worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed is sufficiently convinced by what hath been cited out of Bellarmin in that absolute sense in which the Doctor charges it upon us to be a meer calumny as Bellarmin calls it for although he affirm that when Christ is worshipped under the Symbols that adoration belongs also to the Symbols yet he says it is in such manner as the adoration given to him upon Earth in his apparel belonged to his Garments which he qualifies with a quodammodo after a certain manner that is to say not as it is given to Christ himself but in an inferiour manner as hath been above declared Part 1. chap. 10. p. 190. § 2. After all this turning and winding to mis-represent the state of the Controversy to be whether on the account of Christ's corporal presence in the Sacrament that which appears viz. the accidents of bread ought to have the same worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed that is with Christ himself He comes at length to show that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host To prove this he makes use of a double Medium The first That no Man can be secure that the Object is such as doth deserve divine worship The second That no Man can be satisfied that he hath a sufficient reason for giving this worship to the Host And they are both of them impertinent to the present purpose and quite overthrow his supposition for proceeding upon the Principles of the Roman Church and supposing as he doth at presâ—nt a divine Revelation for the presence of Christ true God and Man in the Saccrament he must either deny Christ himself to be adorable or he must grant that the Object doth deserve Divine Worship and that there is sufficient reason to give it He that is too Prodigal in giving away what in time he may need himself casts himself upon a necessity either of begging what he gave or pretending an Error in the Deed of Gift And to these straits hath the Doctor brought himself by his over-liberality in supposing a like divine Revelation for Christ's presence in the Sacrament as for his being true God His honour will not permit him to begg what he so freely granted and therefore he takes the other course of pretending a double flaw in the donation and although his pretences be excluded by the very evidence of the deed as it stands upon Record in his own Book p. 111. yet I shall give them the hearing and show them to have nothing at all of proof in them 1. He saith p. 120. No Man can be secure that the Object is such as doth deserve divine worship If you ask him why He tells you the Mass-Bell now rings the Host is to be adored and if he should chance to believe his senses or harken to his reason he becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man Again if he consider the miraculousness of the change it is so strange and sudden he can hardly say that God becoming Man was so great a wonder as a little piece of Bread becoming God If he be recall'd from carnal Reason to the Words of Christ this is my body he is told that Scripture is very obscure and dangerous for any one to be too confident of the sense of it If he be sent for the meaning of it to the unanimous consent of the Fathers he sees the World is as full of disputes concerning the sense of their words as of the Scriptures Lastly If he be counsel'd to lay aside his scruples and submit to the authority of the present Church he finds that Catholicks are not agreed about that neither Some think it enough that it is defined by the Pope Others require the concurrence of a General Council and that it be confirmed wholly by the Pope and doth proceed in the way of a Council So that he sees he may spend all his life in the study and search of these things and yet never be satisfied in them nor consequently in Transubstantiation it self which is now the Point he pretends he is not satisfied in wherefore if this be the only way of satisfaction he must forbear giving adoration or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it And doth he not manifestly prove himself here to be in the case of the Prodigal I lately mentioned when supposing a like divine Revelation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as of his being true God he now spends no less than four whole Pages to prove that he cannot be satisfied there is any such Revelation Let Schollars judge of this illiberal manner of proceeding whilst I speak to the Argument it self And not to tire the Reader with particular Reflexions upon the sâ—veral difficulties he starts concerning the evidence of his sense the miraculousness of the change the obscurity of Scripture the consent of the Fathers which have been answered over and over by Catholick Writers to free my self from all scruples in the case I take the Authority of the present Church to be sufficient for me For however some Divines think it enough that it be
as it does his at present And although the Challenge have been often made yet none of her Adversaries have ever been able to show the time when she fell from heâ— Primitive Purity either into Schism or Heresy Nor yet before what Tribunal her cause wâ—s examined or by what Judge she hath been condemned unless by themselves who are her Accusers whereas not only Piety but even Natural Reason teaches that no particular Man is to be condemned much less deprived of what he stands possessed till his cause be Juridically heard and sentenced Nor ought any Man to be Judge in his â—wn cause much less to execute the sentence given by himself All which the New-Reformers in England France Germany c. have done in denying the Authority of the Roman Church and setting up for themselves § 2. But now instead of making Good his Assertion Viz. That the Authority of the Roman Church is no ground of believing at all he desires he saith with all his heart to see this Authority proved which is just what all other Accusers do when their Proofs fail to call upon â—he Defendant to prove his Title which after a long Possession ought in all Law to stand Good and Valid till the Accuser can prove it to be otherwise Cromwell might with much more reason have summon'd the King to prove his Title to the Crown after a Prescription of 500. Years than the Doctor can exact it from the Church to prove her Authority of which she hath been in Possession a far longer time Olim possideo Prior possideo was the Church's Plea in Tertullian's time 'T is their part then to prove who are the Accusers yet Catholick Authors to satisfy if possible the importunity of the Church's Adversaries have receded from the Rigour of this Plea and written large Volumes in Justification of her Authority Particularly the two learned Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron And now very lately Mr. E. W. The Book is called Religion and Reason and being written particularly against the Doctor expects his Answer These he may consult at his leasure I shall only at present remind him of what I have proved already at his request in the first Chapter of the first Part to which I refer the Reader Viz. That a Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church And then subsume But every Christian is bound to submit to the terms of Communion of that Church whose Communion by being a Christian he is bound to be of Therefore every Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to submit to the terms of Communion required by the Roman Church And this the Doctor knows for he often complains of it as a great violence put upon his Sense and Reason to be a submission to her Decrees in matters of Faith and particularly in the Point of Christ's presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as well as of his being the same True and Consubstantial God with his Father § 2. The Second Ground or Motive he Instances in and I suppose he will deny this too to be any ground of believing at all is Catholick Tradition This done he bids me again to prove if I can as if it belong'd not at all to him who is the Accuser to prove his Action or as if it had been some new point which no Catholick Author had ever yet attempted to prove that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from our Saviour's time and here he saith when I please he shall joyn issue with me And if I think fit to put the Negative upon him he will undertake to instance in an Age since the first Three Centuries wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops yea of Rome it self be to be credited Transubstantiation was not believed These are bigg words indeed and the Doctor might have done well to have remembred what the King of Israel answered to the proud message of the King of Syria Let not him that girdeth on his Harness boast himself as he that putteth it off But it is no new Artifice in our Adversaries then to speak biggest when there is least cause for it as I shall make appear my Adversary does in this matter from the very Confession of Protestants themselves Which kind of proof is look'd upon by all sober Men as very proper both to satisfie the Judgment of an Impartial Reader and also to abate the boasting of over confident Spirits For as Bishop Hall saith One blow of an Enemy dealt to his Brother is worth more than many from an adverse hand And upon this account it is that when Bellarmin makes use of the like proof that is undertakes to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church of God by the Confession of Protestants Dr. Field saith surely if he can prove that we confess it to be the true Church he needeth not to use any other arguments Let us see then what Protestants say in this Point And first that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600. Years ago is scarcely denied by any that I know of Mr. Fox himself acknowledgeth that about that time the denying of it began to be accounted Heresy and in that number saith he was first one Berengarius who lived about Anno 1060. And Mr. Perkins allows it a longer Date when he says that during the space of 900 Years the Popish Heresy had spread it self over the whole World 2dly That it had remained in quiet possession from the Year 850. that is 200 Years before until the time of Berengarius is confessed by Joachim Camerarius as also that although it had been called into Question before by the prlvate Writings of some yet the first that publickly impugned it was Berengarius 3dly That Damascene in the beginning of the 8th Century and Theophylact who though he be not so ancient yet his Authority is much esteem'd by learned Men because he is look'd on as an Abridger of St. Chrysostome did plainly incline to Transubstantiation is confess'd by Ursinyus So is it of St. Gregory in the 6th Age by Dr. Humfrey when he saith that he and St. Austin the Apostle of England brought Transubstantiation into the English Church In the fift Age Eusebius Emissenus is taxed by the Centurists to have spoken not commodiously viz. for their purpose of Transubstantiation The like is affirmed by them of St. Chrysostome in the same Age and of St. Ambrose in the fourth of S. Cyprian in the third by Ursinus of Tertullian and Origen in the second by the forenamed Centurists and S. Ignatius in the first is acknowledged by sundry Protestants to have said of certain Hereticks of his time That they do not admit Eucharists and Oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which Flesh
suffred for our Sins an evident sign that all those who held the Flesh of Christ to be true Flesh and not Phantastical believed also the Eucharist to be that very true Flesh This is what Protestants themselves confess of the most eminent Fathers of God's Church in each Age from our Saviours time concerning the Doctrin of Transubstantiation as I find them cited in two Treatises the one called The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church the other The Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants whose Authors I never heard were taxed of insincerity in their quotations And if it be true what Dr. Field saith of Bellarmin that if he could prove that Protestants confess the Roman to be the true Church he needed not to use any other arguments I might supersede any farther proof of this matter and leave the Doctor to join issue with his Fellow-Brethren But the Reader perhaps may desire to see the Testimonies themselves of those Fathers which were so pregnant as to force such learned Men of the Protestant Party to confess that they taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation And in order to his satisfaction in this Point I shall set down one Testimony of each Father in the same order as they stand cited above and but One to avoid Prolixity TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION IN the beginning of the Eighth Century St. Jo. Damascen li. 4. de fid c. 14. The Bread and Wine and Water are by the Invocation and Coming of the Holy Ghost changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Christ And with him agrees Theophylact The Bread is transformed by the Mystical Benediction and the coming of the Holy Ghost into the Flesh of our Lord. At the end of the Fifth and beginning of the Sixth Century St. Gregory Our Creator well knowing our Infirmity by that Power with which he made all things of nothing by the Sanctification of his Spirit converts the Bread and Wine mixed with Water their proper species or figure remaining into his Flesh and Blood In the Fifth Eusebius Emissenus and St. John Chrysostome The former saith Before Consecration there is the Substance of Bread and Wine but after the words of Christ it is the Body and Blood of Christ For what wonder that he who created them with his Word should convert or change them after they were created The latter The things we propose are not done by Humane Power We hold but the place of Ministers but he that sanctifieth and changeth them is Christ himself In the Fourth Century St. Ambrose and because this is the Age I suppose the Doctor pitches upon when he saith he will undertake to instance in an Age since the first three Centuries Wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops who lived in it are to be credited Transubstantiation was not believed I shall be somewhat larger in citing the words of St. Ambrose and also add other Testimonies of Fathers of the same time to his that the Reader may see what Issue his Undertaking is like to have in this matter First Then St. Ambrose as if he foresaw my Adversaries objection puts it down in these formal words You will say perhaps How do you prove to me that I receive the Body of Christ when I see another thing And the way he takes to Answer it is by comparing the change made here in the Nature of the Bread with the examples of those miraculous changes which were wrought by Holy Men of Old in the Natures of other things as of Moses's Rodd being turned into a Serpent the Waters of Aegypt into Blood c. From whence he infers that if the Benediction of those who were but pure Men was of such force as to change Nature What must we say of that divine Consecration where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do operate Thou hast read saith he of the works of the Creation how God spake the Word and they were made he commanded and they were created that is produc'd out of nothing The Word therefore of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are viz. Bread and Wine into that which before they were not viz. his own Body and Blood surely it is not a less matter to give new natures to things out of nothing than to change them after they are made Again You will say perhaps my Bread is usual Bread No saith he this Bread is Bread before the Sacramental words When the Consecration is performed of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ He spake the Word and it was made he commanded and it was created And that we may not doubt he meant it was made his true Flesh he saith As our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as Men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as himself hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink This and much more doth St. Ambrose write of this subject so that no Man need to wonder if the Centurists say he wrote not well of Transubstantiation And I have either read or heard it reported of Calvin that he wish'd the Devil had struck the Pen out of St. Ambrose's hand when he wrote those Books of the Sacraments But let us now see what other Fathers of the same Age teach concerning this Point S. Cyril Our Saviour saith he sometime changed Water into Wine and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood S. Gregory Nyssen We do rightly believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word By vertue of his Benediction he changeth the nature of the things which are seen Bread and Wine into that Viz. his own Body S. Gaudentius The Maker Lord of Natures who produceth Bread out of the Earth doth again of Bread because he can and hath promised to do it make his own Body and He who made Water of Wine maketh of Wine his own Blood These are Fathers who lived in the Age immediately following the three first Centuries to whom I might add St. Chrysostome above cited who flourished in this Century though he dyed in the beginning of the next and others but these may suffice to let the Reader see if this be the Age which the Doctor intends to instance in how unlikely it is he should make good what he asserts that Transubstantiation was not believed in it In the Third Century St. Cyprian saith The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape or figure but in nature was by the Omnipotency of the Word made Flesh And Ursinus confesseth There are many sayings in him which seem to affirm Transubstantiation And Tertullian in the same Age saith that our Lord having taken Bread made it his
Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same neither indeed to be any God at all but a Devil who is delighted with the name of Jupiter an Enemy to Men and God 2dly For the Intermediate Beings it is asserted by the same Origen that they were Devils also and according to the differently formed statues in which they assisted one was esteemed to be Bacchus another Hercules c. The like is affirmed also by Theophilus Antiochenus above cited and St. Austin upon the 96. Psalm But then because the supreme God was conceived to be of so high a Nature that he knew not what passed in this sublunary World Therefore 3dly The Office of these Inferiour Deities or Devils was to carry up the Prayers of Men to God as the Doctor himself cites out of St. Austin but very insincerely for St. Austin saith not to God but ad Deos to the Gods that is to Devils out of a supposition that they cannot know the necessities and prayers of Men but by Intervention of these Spirits and so to bring down to Men the blessings they prayed for And 4thly To oblige them to perform this Office of Nuncii or Messengers as St. Austin calls them they exacted of Men to give them Divine Worship by the Oblation of Victims and Sacrifices as the Fathers every where testify This then is the Scheme of the Heathens Divinity and Devotion The Doctor 's Father of Gods and Men was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil The Inferiour Deities were Inferiour Devils Their Office was to inform the Superiour Gods of what passed here below and the reward they required for this service was no less than the Offering of Sacrifice to their Devil-ships And now was this the very same case altering only the Names of Things which he saith is in debate between Him and the Church of Rome concerning the Invocation of Saints Surely a more Injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the Pen of the greatest Enemy of Christianity except that of Julian the Apostate who charged the Christians of his time for their worshipping the Martyrs that for the one true God they worshipped many Men who were not Gods A most Injurious Calumny I say For r. The God whom we adore is not that wise Father of Gods and Men who was so high as not to know what was done here below but the true and Immortal God Maker of Heaven and Earth who sees the secrets of our hearts and knows our necessities before we utter them 2dly The Persons to whom we address our selves for their Prayers are not Devils or wicked Wretches but the Friends and Servants of God whom the Doctor himself as little respect as he hath for them acknowledges to exceed those other in excellency 3dly Their Office is not to inform the Supream God of what he knows not but to be Joynt Petitioners with us and for us to his divine Majesty as other Holymen are upon Earth 4thly and Lastly We do not procure or buy this favour of them by offering Sacrifice to them for as St. Austin saith What Bishop officiating at the Altar doth say at any time We offer to Thee Peter or Paul or Cyprian But as the same Holy Doctor there saith We celebrate their Memory with Religious Solemnity both to excite us to their imitation and to become partakers of their Merits and Prayers but so that we erect Altars not to any of the Martyrs but to the God of Martyrs although in Memory of them And now having spoken thus home to the Case I leave it to the Reader 's Judgment whether the Practice of Catholicks in honouring and Invocating the Saints be the same with that of the Heathens in the worship of their Inferiour Deities To make the Case run Parallel on all four the Doctor must prove either that the God we worship is not the very true God but an Arch-Devil or that the Holy Angels and Saints are not his friends and servants but inferiour Devils Or that we believe him to be so ignorant that he stands in need of them to inform him or that we offer sacrifice and erect Altars to them And when he can do all or any of these he will speak something to the Point But I believe these are none of those things which he threatens largely to prove if further occasion be given And I have good reason to believe so by his present undertaking which is not to prove any of these things in which the Parallel must consist if there be any but to cast a mist before his Readers eyes and make him lose both his labour and the Question as I shall show in the following Chapter CHAP. II. What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints The Testimonies of Origen and St. Ambrose explained Of the Practice of making Addresses to particular Saints § 1. THe Question at present between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome is not whether divine worship be to be given to the Saints for this is abhor'd of all faithful Christians but whether an Inferiour Worship of like kind with that which is given to Holy Men upon Earth for their Holiness and neer Relation to God may not be lawfully given to them now they are in Heaven This is the true state of the Question between us which the Doctor afraid to grapple with turns aside and will he saith insist upon these two things 1. That the Fathers did condemn all such kind of worshâ—p supposing their Principle true that is as far as I can understand it supposing what they said was true 2. That they did not only condemn it in those spirits which the Heathens worshipped but in good Angels themselves And before I engage with Him upon the Testimonies of the Fathers I must disperse the Mist he raises by his Egregious equivocating in the words All such kind of worship What kind of worship is it the Fathers deny may be given to the most excellent created Beings He tells us p. 145. any Religious Worship And what doth he mean by Religious Worship To dispute saith Mr. Thorndike whether we are bound to honour the Saints or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not Whether this be Religious or Civil nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable and the cause of that equivocation the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signify conceptions which came not from Common sense Plainly their excellence and the Relation we have to them being Intelligible only by Christianity must borrow a Name from that which vulgar language attributes to God or to Men our Superiours And then a little after he saith That the Relation which God hath settled between the Church Militant and Triumphant may be reasonably called Religious provided that the distance be not confounded between the Religious honour of God and that Honour of the Creature which the Religious honour of God enjoins being neither Civil nor
upon the erroneous account aforesaid viz. That Access could only be made to God by the Angels whether the Authors of that Doctrine were Jews or Hereticks or Philosophers but that Baronius judged Theodoret mistaken in asserting the Authors of that Doctrine not to have been the Heathen Philosophers but certain Hereticks and much more in supposing the Oratories of St. Michael in Phrygia and Pisidia to have been erected by those Hereticks Incaute nimis saith Baronius Too unwarily attributing to them the erecting of those Oratories which had been of old instituted by Catholicks This is what Baronius saith grounding himself upon some ancient Records And here lieth the depth of the Charge that because Theodoret condemns the worship and Invocation of Angels as he thought it was practis'd by those Hereticks in those Oratories of St. Michael and Baronius thinks him mistaken in the matter of Fact and that those Oratories were indeed erected by Catholicks therefore Baronius saith the Doctor very fairly tells us that what Theodoret condemns was the practice of the Roman Church Which is just as if the Doctor being to comment that passage of Scripture where the Children of Israel design'd War upon the Reubenites c. for erecting an Altar beside the Altar of the Lord should tell us that they too unwarily ascribed to a schismatical worship what was intended for a testimony of the true and lawful worship of God And another Author passing his judgment upon this Comment of the Doctor 's should affirm that Dr. St. very fairly tells Us that what the Israelites condemned in the Reubenites was the worship of the true God Would not this be a fair tale if well told by a credible Person of Dr. St. If he would not own it for such himself Why does he impose so foul a one upon Baronius For as the Israelites were mistaken in the End for which that Altar was Erected so was Theodoret saith Baronius in the use of those Oratories of St. Michael and therefore it follows no more in his Judgment that what Theodoret condemn'd was the true and lawful Invocation of Angels as practis'd in the Church of Rome than that what the Israelites condemn'd was the worship of the true God as exercis'd among them § 3. But the Doctor saith yet further that Baronius very fairly tells Us that not only what Thâ—odoret condemn'd but what St. Paul too condemn'd was the practise of the Church of Rome But this is yet fouler than the former for himself p. 156. tells us that what Baronius contended was condemned by St. Paul was the Idolatry of the Heathens And although Dr. St. will needs make the Catholick Invocation of Angels and the Heathens worship of their Daemons to be the same yet a greater Authority than His is requisite to make us believe that Baronius thought so too These are pitiful sleights of sophistry to delude an unwary Reader And so are his citing of Irenaeus as denying any Invocation of Angels to be in use among Christians and of the Council of Laodicea as charging all who worship Angels with Idolatry in so doing For Irenaeus speaks only of such superstitious Invocating of Angels as was used by the Marcites and Carpocratians in their Magical Operations and working of false Miracles And whatever Practice that were of nominating Angels which the Council of Laodicea is so severe against whether of the aforesaid Hereticks or Heathens it is manifest that it cannot with any show of Probability be understood of that worship which the Catholick Church gives to Holy Angels 1. Because the Council speaks of such as nominated Angels and made private Assemblies to them forsaking or excluding our Lord Jesus Christ which words were conveniently omitted by the Doctor And 2dly Because the Council both in the Canon immediately foregoing 34. As also Can. 51. alloweth the honouring and celebrating the Feast-days of the Martyrs which is a plain Indication that it intended not to condemn in this Canon the worship due to Angels of whom Theodoret saith That they are more to be honoured than Men yet not as secondary Gods but as our Fellow-Servants and Ministers of God By this the Reader may see whether we had more reason to fear the force of this Canon or he the discovery of what he so artificially concealed § 4. To his Testimony out of Origen p. 156. I have answered already that he speaks of such Prayers as are offred only to God for he both acknowledges a distinction between the worship due to God and the Angels and himself also directs his Prayer to an Angel as I have showed above p. 359. What he cites out of St. Austin de Civit. Dei li. 10. c. 1. is not in the least against the Honour or Invocation of Angels as taught and practis'd in the Catholick Church For the Question there in debate between Him and the Platonists as it stands propos'd in the very Argument of the Chapter is Whether the Angels will that sacrifice be offered to God alone or also to them That they may be honour'd with that kind of worship with which Holy Men or Blessed Souls are honoured by us he sufficiently intimates in his 20th Book against Faustus c. 21. Where he equally denies the worship due to God ought to be given to any of them And elsewhere as if he intended to prevent the Dr.'s Objection as to the worship of Angels he saith Neither let it move you that the Angel Apoc. 19. 10. forbiddeth St. John to worship Him and admonisheth Him rather to worship God For the Angel saith he appeared such that is in so glorious a manner that he might by mistake be worshipped for God and therefore the Worshipper was to be corrected And this he saith in reference to what he had said before Viz. That it is observable in the Precept Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve that it is not said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only as it is said Thou shalt serve Him only which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which it is plain that in St. Austin's Judgment although Latria be due to God alone yet worship may be given to others When therefore he saith in the place now under debate that the Blessed spirits are not willing we should sacra facere that is dedicate the Doctor translates it equivocally to perform any sacred Offices and sacrifice to them or consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by the Rites of Religion it is evident he speaks of the worship which is due to God alone that is of such Dedications and Consecrations as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods And although in his 61. Q. upon Exodus he makes this difference as the Doctor objecteth against us between Latria and Dulia that Dulia is due to God as he is Lord but Latria is not due but to God as he is God Yet in the very place cited
Forb as this could pass for current in the World Is it possible he could have courage enough to cite the place where those words are to be found and not fear a Rat Observe I pray What St. Austin condemns in that place is this that some who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchers of the Martyrs took so plentifully of them that they made themselves drunk His words are these As for those who make themselves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs how can they be approved by us whom sound Doctrine condemns even when they do it in their own private Houses This was the custome of which St. Austin saith that the Governours of the Church did not teach it but bore with till it could be amended And the Doctor had the Conscience by a subtil Insinuation to make his Reader believe that what St. Austin condemned was the desiring or as he calls it wishing the Martyrs to pray for them I shall leave him to make satisfaction to God and the World and proceed to that which he calls the Question between us § 5. The Question between us saith he is not how far such wishes rather than prayers being uttered occasionally as St. Austin doth this to St. Cyprian but whether solemn Invocation of Saints in the duties of Religious Worship as it is now practised in the Roman Church were ever practised in St. Austin's time This he utterly denies and here saith he p. 174. we stand and fix our Foot against all opposition whatsoever Thus expiring Candle gathers up its spirits and forces it self into a blaze before it dies Alas that so many learned Men should all this while have been mistaken in the Question that they should have spent so much oyl and sweat to no purpose The great Question hitherto controverted between Catholicks and Protestants was held to be Whether it be lawful to Invocate the Saints to pray for Us and whether this were agreeable to the practise of the Primitive times But now like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand this is dropt under the Table and all the show above-board is whether it may be done in the duties as he calls them of Religious Worship He saw how often his Foot had slipt whilst he endeavoured to stand upon the denial of its being the custome of the Fathers to desire the Saints to pray for them and therefore he catches hold of this Twigg to save himself but in vain for Bishop Forbes confesses that it was their custome to do so both in publick and private prayers although he be loath to give it any other name but that of wishing But Chemnitius That great Light of the German Church as our Doctor calls him in his Irenicum p. 396. where he sets him in the Van for asserting the mutability of Church-Government and of whom he saith Brightman had so high an Opinion as to make Him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation this great Man without mincing the matter acknowledges freely that Invocation of Saints began to be brought into the publick Assemblies of the Church by Basil Nissen and Nazianzen who lived in the Century before St. Austin and could little doubt of the Continuance of it in St. Austin's time when he witnesseth that Christian People did then celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity to obtain the Assistance of their Prayers But who can tell us what the Doctor means by the duties of Religious Worship If he mean hearing of Sermons which is so much cry'd up by those of his Party as if it were the Pro and Poop of Religion though the Author of the Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety Ch. 18. call it the most lazie of all Religious Offices he knows the Invocation of Saints was both commended and practised in their Sermons by St. Basil Hom. in 40. Mart. S. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 20. 21. S. Greg. Nissen Orat. des Theodoro and others If he mean the Letanies although the use of them began to be more solemn in the time of Gregory the Great yet Strabo affirms that that form of Invocating the Saints was believed to be much more Ancient Viz. from the time that St. Hierom translated the Epitome of Eusebius his Martyrologe into Latin or as others explicate his meaning before that time but not in so great a number But then again if he speak of that Part of the Mass which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeni and serves as a Preparatory devotion both to Priest and People the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar desires the B. Virgin and the rest of the Saints as also the People to pray to our Lord God for him and in the Versicles between the Epistle and Gospel there are some Instances though very rare of Holy Mary or Holy Paul pray for us but as these are not excluded by St. Austin who speaks only of the Priest's directing his Invocation to God alone in the offering of the sacrifice so neither can the Doctor give any satisfactory Reason why the Priest may not lawfully use it then especially being appointed by the Church as in his private Oratory But if he mean that Part of the Mass which begins from the Offertory and was anciently call'd the Mass of the Faithful in which the Priest addresses himself expresly to Offer up the sacrifice of the New Testament which Christ hath Instituted in his own Body and Blood Let him if he can for he saith he hath look'd into our Missals produce any one Instance of Formal Invocation to any Saint or Angel There they are named at this day as they were in St. Austin's time in their place and Order but are not Invocated by the Priest that Sacrifices So that in this which is the most proper and peculiar duty of Religious Worship as I have shown in the 3d. Chap. it was accounted by St. Austin there is a most perfect Conformity between the Primitive and Modern Church and the difference in other less solemn parts of Devotion not at all material as hath been shewed § 6. In the last place p. 174. the Doctor saith He is sent from S. Austin to Calvin whose Authority though never owned as Infallible by Him he need not as he saith fear in this point and therefore the Errand if he will have it so could not be ungrateful I may well think his heart leap'd for joy to hear Calvin alledged for a witness that it was the custome in St. Austin's time to say Holy Peter pray for Us and thereupon as if the day were his own he says He cannot but wonder that if I saw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin that I would produce them But hold Have not I more Reason to wonder at his wonder if it be true what Himself makes Calvin to say Viz. That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints lest the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind
means else his first Proof p. 111. that there is a plain command in Scripture for adoring Christ himself but not the least intimation given that we are to worship Him in the Elements supposing Him present there And again what means his 2d Proof p. 112. that the one gives us a sufficient reason of our worship viz. that he is the Eternal Son of God but the other doth not supposing the Bread to be really converted into the Body of Christ Who sees not here that the supposition is of the real and undoubted presence of Christ by the change of the Bread into his Body and that he does but endeavour to take back by parcels what he unwarily gave away in the lump when he raises doubts and scruples about the certainty of the change of this or that particular Bread But let him contradict himself never so much it makes nothing for us We must be guilty of Idolatry every time we hear Mass unless we can be sure that there is a change made of the bread into the Body of Christ in that very particular Host which is to be worshipped And by what means can we be sure of that For the Church saith he p. 124. having declared that it is necessary that he that consecrates be a Priest and that he have an intention of consecrating if either the Consecrator should chance to be no Priest because not rightly baptized which is no unheard of thing or not have an intention to consecrate they who worship the Host must be guilty of Idolatry every time he celebrates This is the mighty scruple which torments his mind and although the absurdness of the Assertion that another Man's defect or wickedness should make me incur the crime of Idolatry whether I will or no might suffice to make any reasonable Man to depose so chimaerical a scruple yet because he will not or cannot do it I would ask him what kind of certainty it is he would have If no less than certainty of Faith or evidence of sense will serve his turn I would ask again what like certainty hath a Child or a Husband that those Persons whom they take the one for his Father the other for his Wife are so in very deed I cannot believe him so rigid a Casuist as neither to permit a child to do his duty to his Mother's Husband till he have a Divine Revelation that he is his true Father nor a Husband to pay the conjugal debt unless he first have as much evidence as sense can give him that Lia is not put in the place of Rachel and when that is done perhaps a Divine Revelation may be necessary to know whether she be not married before to another Man for this also is no unheard of thing Who might not say here as the Disciples did on another occasion Matth. 19. 10. If the case of a Man with his Wife be so it is not expedient to marry But as I said before I cannot believe the Doctor will be so rigid in this Point But why then must we be tyed up from giving worship to Christ as present in this or that particular Host unless we be certain either by evidence of sense or by Divine Revelation that it is truly consecrated If the want of such a certainty ought to make us suspend our Worship I am sure the want of the like for true disposition ought to make the Communicant forbear receiving But if he speak of such a certainty as is usually found in the aforesaid humane Actions and others of the like nature why may not this suffice as well to secure Christians from sinning in their adoration as those other Persons in paying their respective duties Doth it happen oftner that a Person supposed to be a Priest is no Priest because not rightly baptized than that a Person supposed to be a Father is not the Man Or doth it happen oftner that a Priest cheats the People by having no intention to consecrate than that a light Hous-wife wheadles a second Man to marry her while her Husband unknown to him is yet alive It is not in the nature of Man to sin so frequently out of pure malice as it is upon the account of some profit or pleasure thence resulting Why then must we be more guilty of Idolatry though the Host through defect or Malice on the Priest's side should happen not to be truly consecrated than such a Person is of Adultery or a Child of undutifulness for having their own good Intentions abus'd by the malice of others Wantonness may make a Wife forget her duty but doth not make a Child criminal in doing his to him whom he believes to be his Father And the wickedness of a Priest as there was one Judas among the Twelve may make him a Devil but that cannot make me an Idolater For whilst my Adoration is directed not to the Bread which I suppose not to be there but to the Person of Jesus Christ true God whom I firmly believe to be in every Host duly consecrated and have not the least reasonable cause to suspect other at present the Action on my part hath all that is requisite to make it good and lawful and is so far from being Idolatry that it is a real honouring of Christ and will be so accepted When Hephaestion was honoured by a mistake for Alexander that great Prince was so far from condemning the Person as a Traytor that he took the honour as done to himself And in case those Gentiles who were so desirous to see our Saviour Jo. 12. 21. had either for want of a Guide to direct them to the Person or by the treacherous malice of a Judas prostrated themselves at the Feet of some other what reasonable Man would have condemned them for Idolaters And yet we poor unfortunate Roman Catholicks if it should chance at any time to happen that either the Priest be no true one or have no intention to consecrate though our Intentions be never so sincere to adore only our Lord Jesus Christ must stand condemned of downright Idolatry for so the Doctor calls it p. 124. and that without any Proof at all but the old Ipse dixit that without the Intention of the Priest in consecrating it can be nothing else § 2. The second Medium he takes p. 125 to prove that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host is that no Man can be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving this worship to it And the substance of the reason he gives is because if I worship Christ saith he in the Sacrament it is upon account of his corporal presence and he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church that the humane Nature of Christ considered alone ought not to have divine honour given to it and hotly disputed among them whether Christ's humane nature though united to the
divine ought abstractedly considered to have any true divine honour given it And what will he infer from hence That therefore he cannot be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving true divine honour to the humane nature of Christ considered alone or abstractedly in the Sacrament Much good may it do him But what is this to the purpose Do Catholicks adore the Humanity of Christ alone or abstractedly in the Sacrament Do they separate or abstract in their minds and thoughts his Body from his Person when they adore him there No more than the Wise-men did when they adored him in the Manger or the Apostles when they adored him after his Resurrection Or than he is adored now at the right hand of his Father All those Precisions and Considerations the Doctor speaks of are only in the Heads of the Schoolmen when they are disputing not in the minds of Christians when they are adoring The Object they adore whether in the Sacrament or out of it is the only-begotten Son of God made Man without separating or abstracting one nature from another any more than we do the King's Body from his Soul when we worship him And as Mr. Thorndike very well observes whosoever proposeth not to himself the consideration of the Body and Blood of Christ as it is of it self and in it self a meer Creature which he that doth not on purpose cannot do cannot but conceive it as he believes it to be being a Christian And consequently the primary reason of his adoration is the divinity there present I but says the Doctor when I worship Christ as in the Sacrament I must worship him there upon the account of his bodily presence for I have no other reason to worship him in the Sacrament but because his Body is present in it And what may this mean Have the Niceties and Precisions of the Schools so perplex'd his understanding that he hath lost the very first Notions of Christianity Is it not Christ's Body Are they not the very words of Christ This is my Body And is not Christ true God How comes it to pass then that he hath no other reason to worship him in the Sacrament but because his Body is present in it This indeed is the reason why his Divinity as hypostatically united to his Humane Nature is present in the Sacrament but the reason of his being adored there is his Divinity and not his Body Philosophy tells us that it is one thing that makes a Man to be in a place and another that makes him to be worshipped in that place and yet he would not be worshipped there for this latter unless he were present by vertue of the former The speculation may not seem so clear to such as are not vers'd in the Schools but an example will make it plain There is a Preacher in the World much admired and honoured by his Party in the Pulpit That which makes him to be present there or is the reason of his presence there is his Quantity or Bodily Dimensions but what he is admired for and honoured is his Wit his Eloquence his Zeal against Papists c. These are the Qualities for which I hear he is applauded and I easily believe it But if my Adversaries discourse be good whom I take to have as much Eloquence and to be of as subtil a wit and of as flaming a Zeal as the other I must tell his Admirers they are in a very great Errour as to the reason of their admiration and I doubt not but to make it appear upon his own Principles For I find it generally agreed by all the old Philosophers and by the Doctors also at present of both Universities that Quantity or corporal dimension considered alone ought not to have civil worship given to it and I find it very uncertain whether the Body it self though united to the Soul ought abstractedly considered to have any true civil honour given it But I am most certain that the only reason why he is present in the Pulpit is his Quantity or Bodily dimensions Therefore if they will honour or admire him in the Pulpit it must be upon the account of his bodily presence or corporal dimensions and not for those other great parts and abilities for which they have hitherto admired him in that place for if they consider well they have no other reason to honour him as in the Pulpit but because his Body is present in it And I am of Opinion that if any thing can cure them of their Error it will be the Parallel Argument he brings against the worship of Christ in the Sacrament Viz. that because worship must be given him there upon the account of his bodily presence as the condition why his divinity as united with his humane Nature is there present Therefore his Bodily Presence and not his Divinity united to it must be the reason of adoration As for what he adds p. 127. That supposing Transubstantiation his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no End I suppose he means by that particular manner the hypostatical union with his humane nature wherever it is And doth it not well become a Master in Israel to affirm that such a presence of the Divinity would be to no end when and where himself supposes the Body of Christ to be really and substantially present There wants but one step more to deny that the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature to the Humane was necessary at all either for Christ's offering himself upon the Cross or now at the right hand of his Father for although the Ceremony of offering him upon the Altar be performed by the Priest yet Christ himself is there also both Offerer and Oblation Priest and Victim as the Fathers teach S. Greg. Niss Orat. 1. de Resurr S. Ambr. in Ps 31. 1. Chrysost Ho. 24. in 1. ad Cor. Well but the Divinity of Christ makes not the least manifestation of it self in the Sacrament to our carnal senses And must this hinder us from giving him the worship due to his Person Is it not enough that we know Him to be there by divine Revelation as the Doctor at present supposes we do What other manifestation had the Divinity of Christ made of it self to the Baptist when before the appearing of the Holy Ghost he refused to Baptize him An evident sign that he reverenc'd him as the Son of God Matth. 3. 13 14. Did not our Saviour himself when St. Peter confessed him to be Christ the Son of the living God declare that Flesh and Blood had not revealed this to him but his Father which is in Heaven And upon that very account pronounce Him Blessed Matt. 16. 17. But it seems the Blessing is now revers'd and instead of Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed Jo. 20. 29. We must now say Blessed are they who will not believe unless they see Dr. St. p. 561. n. 5. And what will