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
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
sobriety But it is no less than insolency and madness and that in the highest degree saith St. Austin to dispute whether that be to be done or no which is practised by the whole Church through the World as this Custom of giving an Honourary Respect to the Images of Christ and his Saints hath been confessedly for many hundreds of years § 3. But before the Doctor can or will become a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome he desires seriously it seems he was but as I guess'd in a fit of Drolling before to know of me whether any Worship doth at all belong to the Image or no Because saith he if there be any Worship due as the Council of Trent saith there is to the Image either it is the same that is given to the Prototype or distinct from it If it be the same then proper Divine Worship is given to the Image If distinct then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self and not relatively as I would have it And was it not subtilly done to tell us that if the Worship given to an Image be distinct from that which is given to the Prototype God then the Image is worshipped with Divine Worship for it self The words had been more express but the sense had been the same had he said If an Image be not worshipped with Divine Worship then it is worshipped with Divine Worship for the Worship due to God is Divine Worship and that which is distinct from it is not Divine Worship So hard a thing it is for one who intends mischief to meddle with such edge-tools as School-distinctions are and not cut his own fingers And this is 〈◊〉 first time my Adversary hath done so However he will not lay them down yet 〈◊〉 if it be the former i. e. the 〈◊〉 Worship that saith he is condemned of Idolatry by Bellarmine because the Creature is equally worshipped with God and if the latter i.e. distinct this is oppugned by Vasquez a man of great Reputation too and of as sâ—arching a Wit as Bellarmine as a certain kind of Superstition or Idolatry because Man expresseth submission to an Inanimate Thing From whence he concludes that it is in mens choice what sort of Idolatry they will commit who worship Images but in neither way can they avoid it And here it is he thinks he hath pinch'd us sore and yet will not give us leave to cry out upon himself and his Partizans for their insincere and sophistical mixing the Disputes and Niceties of the Schools with the Doctrine of the Church But how little the Faith and Practise of the Church is concerned in them I shall let the Reader see by a Parallel example in a passage relating to Civil Worship A Gentleman at Court passing through the Guard-Chamber saw a Countrey-man there engaged in a Dispute with three or four of the Yeomen The Clown it seems would have gone into the Presence cover'd They pull'd him back and told him when he went into that Room he must pull off his Haâ— He asked them very pertly To whom or to what for he saw nothing but a Chair and a Canopy They told him It was the Kings Chair of State and he must do it to the Chair out of respect to the King The Countrey-man here perhaps he had read Dr. St.'s Argument or heard him preach it for such kind of preaching hath been the ground of that part of Quakerism began with a serious countenance to demand of them whether any Worship at all were due to the Chair or no For his part he was a Loyal Subject of His Majesties and had really a scruple in the case For if any Worship were due to it it was either the same which is given to the King or distinct from it If the same then proper Regal Worship would be given to something beside the King which were Treason to do If distinct then the Chair would be worshipped with Regal Honour for it self and not relatively which were for a man to submit himself to a piece of Wood And he had so much esteem for his Manhood that he would not debase it so far for all their Halbards Here the Yeomen of the Guard bid him leave his quibbling and do his duty which he refusing to do unless they would satisfie his scruple they took him by the shoulders and thrust him out of doors The passage no doubt was pleasant but withal so parallel to the Doctors proceeding in this matter that I cannot but seriously desire to know of him whether he judge it a sufficient excuse for the Clown not to put off his Hat because he did not or would not understand what kind of Worship was due to the Chair Or to put the example in a thing relating to the Worship of God of which I shall speak more in the next Chapter whether Moses and Josue might have refused to have put off their Shoes in reverence to the Ground where they stood till they had first been satisfied whether it were the same Worship they gave to God or distinct from it That they did lawfully testifie their Reverence towards the Ground is affirmed by himself p. 105. and if they were not retarded from doing it by the Doctors Dilâ—mma no more ought Christians from testifying their Reverence to the Images of Christ and his Saints Let Plato and Aristotle with their followers wrangle as much as they will about the manner how we come to see the former contending that it cannot be done by the Object 's uniting it self with the Eye the latter asserting as strongly that it cannot be done by the Eye 's sending forth Rays to the Object Must we therefore stand still with our Eyes shut till it be agreed between them by which of the two ways we are to see At this rate we must neither see nor hear nor feel nor move till it be accorded between Philosophers how these Operations are performed which will be never Let the Schoolmen then dispute as much as they please about the manner how Honour is given to an Image yet honest Nature will teach us to do it for his sake who is represented by it with as much security and as little danger of erring as any of the aforesaid Operations What the Councils declare in this matter and to them it is the Doctor himself confesses p. 209. that we must appeal for the Churches sense is that we are not to give Latria the Worship due onely to God but a honourary Respect or Adoration to Holy Images as to the Books of Holy Scriptures and other things belonging to God § 4. This is what the Church requireth of her Children to believe and this is all that a Catholick Controvertist is bound to speak to Nor do the Arguments the Doctor brings in reality deserve to be answered otherwise than Zeno's Arguments against Motion were answered by Diogenes For Zeno proves every jot as subtilly that a man cannot move an inch
continue in it And that upon these Grounds 1. Because they must by the terms of communion with that Church be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with Salvation Which I thus prove That Church which requires the giving the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry for if they do it they are guilty of the latter if they do it not of the former but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator therefore it makes the Members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry That the Church of Rome in these particulars doth require the giving the Creature the honour due only to God I prove thus concerning each of them 1. Where the Worship of God is terminated upon a Creature there by their own confession the Worship due only to God is given to the Creature but in the Worship of God by Images the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature which is thus proved The Worship which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature but God himself in the second Commandment not only denies to receive it but threatens severely to punish them that give it Therefore it cannot be terminated on God but only on the Image 2. The same Argument which would make the grâ—ssest Heathen Idolatry lawful cannot excuse any act from Idolatry but the same argument whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so For if it be not therefore Idolatry because they suppose the bread to be God then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry by them who supposed the Sun to be God and upon this ground the grâ—sser the Idolatry was the less it was Idolatry for the grâ—ssâ—st Idolaters were those who supposed their Statues to be Gods And upon this ground their Worship was more lawful than of those who supposed them not to be so 3. If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us be a sufficient ground for formal Invocation then the Heathen Worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry for the Heathens still pretended that they did not give to them the Worship proper to the Supream God which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papist in justification of the Invocation of Saints To these I expect a direct and punctual answer professing as much Charity towards them as is consistent with Scripture and Reason 2. Because the Church of Rome is guilty of so great corruption of the Christian Religion by such opinions and practises which are very apt to hinder a good life Such are the destroying the necessity of a good life by making the Sacrament of Penance joyned with contrition sufficient for salvation the taking off the care of it by supposing an expiation of sin by the prayers of the living after death and the sincerity of devotion is much obstructed in it by prayers in a language which many understand not by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not by discouraging the reading the Scripture which is our most certain rule of faith and life by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as we are ready to defend by the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences by denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn Celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ by making it in the power of any person to dispense contrary to the Law of God in oaths and Marriages by making disobedience to the Church in disputable matters more hainous than disobedience to the Lawes of Christ in unquestionable things as Marriage in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication By all which practises and opinions we assert that there are so many hinderances to a good life that none who have a care of their salvation can venture their souls in the communion of such a Church which either enjoyns or publickly allows them 3. Because it exposeth the â—aith of Christians to so great uncertainty By making the authority of the Scriptures to depend on the infallibility of the Church when the Churches Infallibility must be proved by the Scripture by making those things necessary to be believed which if they be believed overthrow all foundations of faith viz. That we are not to believe our senses in the plainest objects of them as that bread which we see is not bread upon which it follows that tradition being a continued kind of sensation can be no more certain than sense it self and that the Apostles might have been deceived in the Body of Christ after the Resurrection and the Church of any Age in what they saw or heard By denying to Men the use of their judgment and reason as to the matters of saith proposed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church by making the Churches power extend to make new Articles of faith viz. by making those things necessary to be believed which were not so before By pâ—etending to infallibility in determining Controversies and yet not determining Controversies which are on foot among themselves All which and several other things which my designed brevity will not permit me to mention tend very much to shake the faith of such who have nothing else to rely on but the authority of the Church of Rome 3. I answer That a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church doth incur a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible ignorance and therefore cannot equally be saved with such a one For a Protestant is supposed to have sufficient convictions of the Errors of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful ignorance if he hath not but although we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroys salvation To the second Question I answer 1. I do not understand what is meant by a Christian in the Abstract or in the whole Latitude it being a thing I never heard or read of before and therefore may have some meaning in it which I cannot understand 2. But if the Question be as the last words imply it Whether a Christian by vertue of his being so be bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians I answer affirmatively and that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church and not to leave that for a corrupt one though called never so
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 §
2. How vain and groundless to say no more this Assertion of his is I have already shewed in the foregoing Chapter which may serve for a full and just Refutation of all he brings to justifie his Charge of Idolatry not onely in this matter of Veneration of Images but also of the Adoration of the B. Sacrament and Invocation of Saints In regard none of the contrary Tenets are with him Articles of Faith nay he professes himself not obliged to give any interiour Assent to them so much as to inferiour Truths or Pious Opinions But lest he should take this Compendious way of Refuting by bringing things to Grounds and Principles for none at all as his very-well-assured Friend Dr. Tillotson does with my demonstrating Friend as he calls him Mr. J. S. after two Books set forth by him in answer to his Rule of Faith viz. his Letter of Thanks and Faith vindicated to remove I say the very Temptation of any such-like vapouring pretence from my Adversary I shall take the pains to examine and answer with as much brevity as his prolixity will permit the particular Arguments with which he endeavours to underprop his tottering because groundless Charge of Idolatry § 3. In order hereunto I shall first set down what it is that the Catholick Church teaches concerning the Veneration of Images and thus it stands recorded in the last General Council at Trent Conc. Trident. Sess 25. viz. That the Images of Christ and of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God and of other Saints are to be kept and reserved especially in Churches and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them not for that any Divinity or Virtue is believed to be in them or that any thing is to be asked of them or any confidence to be placed in them as was anciently done by the Heathens who put their trust in Idols but because the honour which is exhibited to the Images is referr'd to the Prototype or thing represented by them So that by the Images which we kiss and before which we kneel or put off our Hats we adore Christ and reverence his Saints whom the said Images represent This is what the Council teaches and the import of it is that we may lawfully and therefore ought upon occasion to put off our Hats or knâ—el before the Images of Christ and his Saints with intent thereby to adore him and reverence them and this is what the Council calls most conformably to the Light of Nature and Relâ—gion the giving of due Honour and Veneration to Images but Dr. Still most repugnantly to both Idolatry § 4 To maintain this Charge he lays down a Pâ—oposition which I said imply'd a Contradiction viz. that in the worship of God by Images the worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature For what greater Contradiction than that it should be the worship of God and yet be terminated wholly on the Creature What he brings in his Excuse p. 57. is a pretence that God hath forbidden it under the Notion of Idolatry and that the Worship which God calls by the name of Idolatry and its being terminated wholly on the Creature are but the sâ—me thing in other words And what is this in effect but to tell us first that it is Idolatry because it is wholly terminated on the Creature and then again that it is wholly terminated on the Creature because it is Idolatry A very proper deâ—ence for such a Cause And from hence Dâ— Tillotson may note that the use of Identical Propositions is not so despicable and ridiculous as he would make it but rather the most expedite way for Dr. St. to reconcile the Terms of the greatest Contradiction But to the matter it self I shall speak more anon Let us now see how he proves this main Proposition viz. In the worship of God by Images the worship aue to God is terminated wholly on the Creature The worship sath he p. 4. which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature But God himself in the second Commandment not onely denies to receive it but threatens severely to punish them that give it Therefore it cannot be terminated on God but onely on the Image § 5. This is the terrible Argument by virtue of which he passes the Sentence of Eternal Damnation upon all those who are of the Communion of the Church of Rome if they repent not of their â—doring Christ by putting off their hats or kneeling before his Image And that the Reader may see with what Justice and Charity he does it before I proceed to examine particulars I shall convene his own Conscience to declare to the World what kind of Argument he judges this to be If onely Topical or Probable what answer will he give to the Great Judge at the dreadful day of Judgment for positively condemning his Spouse the Church for an Adulteress upon an account which himself acknowledges to be inevident and uncertain I believe himself would condemn that person for unjust and uncharitable who should positively charge the meanest mans Wife of Adultery upon the like account If he judge it a Demonstration which I cannot easily believe he seems to have taken such a Pique against the Demonstrating Way then the Premisses must be evidently and certainly true and the Conclusion in virtue of them Impossible to be false and consequently he must have greater certainty that the Church of Rome is Idolatrous than he hath if he be of the same mind with his Friend Dr. Tillotson of the Scripture's being the Word of God or of the Sence of any Text of it for example that Christ is God for the said Doctor lays this down for his Fundamental Position in his Rule of Faith p. 118. and affirms it expresly of the Books of Scripture in the Preface to his Sermons that we are not infallibly certain either that any Book is so ancient as it pretends to be or that it was written by him whose name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such passages in it It is possible all this may be otherwise From whence I infer yet farther that if we are not sure of the Sence of any Text of Scripture but possibly it may be false Himself is not sure that God hath forbidden the worshipping himself by Images in the second Commandment and therefore cannot judge his own Argument to be a Demonstration nor consequently evidence sufficient to make out his Charge of Idolatry But to come now to particulars § 5. The worship saith he which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature and that wholly and onely on the Creature as he expresses it in the Context of his Discourse This is the Major Proposition of his Syllogism and if this fail the Charge he builds upon it must needs fall I asserted it in my Reply to be absolutely false as built upon a mistake of the nature of humane Acts which though they ought to be
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
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
speed any better in what he cites out of Dr. Taylor himself for by his manner of proceeding he would make the Reader believe that he had answer'd his own Argument when he speaks nothing at all of it § 3. None saith he is so fit to answer Dr. Taylor as himself after almost Twenty Years time in which also he was advanced to Episcopal dignity to consider more throughly of those things that is supposing Catholicks mistaken in their belief yeâ— they are excused from Idolatry as having in their minds no other Object of Adoration in the B. Sacrament but the only true and Eternal God And what is it that Dr. St. hath found in Dr. Taylor himself after Twenty Years consideration to Answer his Argument Marry this that Thou shalt not worship any Graven Images will out-weigh all the best and fairest Imaginations of the Church of Rome And again that the Second Commandment is plain and peremptory against all the making and worshipping any Image or likeness of any thing And who would not think here that the Doctor had forgot that we were not disputing now about the worship of Images but of Christ in the Sacrament Had I cited Dr. Taylor when I was treating the matter of Image-worship to say that the ordinary disputes between Catholicks and Protestants of which certainly that of the Veneration of Images is one have to no very great purpose disturbed the Peace of Christendome and that they are superstructures ill built and worse managed but yet they keep the Foundation The foundation of Faith saith he stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures the places he cites might have serv'd for a kind of Recantation not to give it the name of Contradiction because if it be Idolatry it destroys the Foundation But to tell us that Dr. Taylor answers his own Argument viz. that Catholicks in case they should be mistaken in the belief of Transubstantiation are not guilty of Idolatry as having no other Object of their Adoration in the Sacrament but the only true God because the second Commandment is peremptory against the worship of Images is such a trifling evasion as nothing but despair of saying any thing to the purpose could have cast so subtil a Discourser upon it But hath the Doctor nothing here to say for himself why he produced these Testimonies of so disparate a temper to the present purpose Yes For by these Assertions of Dr. Taylor it is clear saith he he did not think that Idolatry did lye only in giving divine worship to a Creature or to an Idol which is called the superstition of an undue Object but also will have the superstition of a prohibited manner or way of Worship to be Idolatry For he not only makes the Second Command peremptory against the Worship of the true God by an Image but elsewhere plainly determins this to be Idolatry as when he saith and I pray take notice what it is he saith that to worship false Gods or to give divine honour to an Image which only they who take an Image for God do is all one kind of formal Idolatry If therefore saith Dr. St. and we must grant him too it is all one to worship God himself by an Image and to worship an Image instead of God they cannot be excused from Idolatry who worship the true God by an Image though the Object of their Adoration be right and they think the manner of it lawful neither can they who worship Christ upon the account of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament This is the Doctor 's discourse and as it must cost him no little pains to squeez so subtil an Inference from Dr. Taylor 's words So I confess it cost me some to reduce it into such order as might make it intelligible to the Reader But the mischief is that whilst he labours thus to solve the argument he confirms it For as for the first part of the distinction Viz. the Superstition of an undue Object it is evident that Catholicks are not guilty of it in Dr. Taylor 's judgment because as Dâ— St. himself confesses he acknowledges the Object of Catholicks Adoration to be the only true God who I hope is no undue Object of our Worship And for the Second viz. the superstition of a prohibited manner or way of Worship he brings nothing out of Dr. Taylor to prove the worship of Christ in the Sacrament to be so but only tells us though Dr. Taylor 's words as I noted above import no such thing that he determines the worship of the true God by an Image to be Idolatry Neither did Dr. St. himself hitherto pretend any Prohibition to worship Christ in the Sacrament but only that there was no express Command p. 111. for the doing it So that upon the whole Catholicks supposing they were mistaken in their belief would not be guilty of Idolatry upon either of these accounts that is either for that they had an undue Object of worship in their thoughts or for that the worship of Christ in the Sacrament was forbidden But now § 4. In the 4th and last place the Doctor asserts p 134. that if a mistake in this case will excuse â—â—tholicks it would excuse the grâ—ssest Idolatâ—â—â— in the World And to make this out he â—â—lls us of some who as St. Austin relates said that Christ was the Sun and therefore worshipped the Sun and would fain understand why they should not be as free from Idolatry as those who are supposed to be mistaken in the belief of Transubstantiation But the disparity between the one mistake and the other is so clear that I shall appeal to the Readers whether I had not just reason to call the not seeing it in the Doctor a very gross mistake For what St. Austin relates of the Manichees as the Doctor himself reports it is that they worshipped the Sun whom they falsly thought to be Christ That is what they had in their minds and purposes to adore was the Sun But Catholicks supposing a mistake in their belief do not believe the Bread to be Christ or worship the bread which they believe to be Christ. No their mistake if there were any would be that they believed the bread not to be there at all and therefore what they would have in their minds and purposes to adore would not nor could not be bread but the only true and Eternal Son of God The difference then in the mistakes would be this that the Manichees had for the formal term of their Worship an undue Object viz. a Creature instead of the Creator but Catholicks in case of a mistake would have no other formal Object of Adoration in their minds but the Creator himself And the mistakes being so different it follows they must have as different an influence upon the Acts of Worship i.e. to make them guilty or not guilty oâ— formal Idolatry But then he moulds the Question anew and proposes it
Catholicks NO IDOLATERS Or a Full Refutation Of Doctor STILLINGFLEETS Vnjust Charge of Idolatry Against the CHURCH OF ROME Let not Them who charge the Pope to be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters lead the People by the Nose to believe that they can prove their Supposition when They cannot Mr. Thorndike Just Weights and Measures Chap. 2. Printed in the Year 1672. TO THE QUEEN MADAM THe Book before which I presume to fix Your Royal Name being the Product of some Hours defalkt from Your Majesties Service and the Subject of it Polemical set me for some time at dispute with my self whether I should let it venture to knock at Your Closet-Door Your Early Preventing the Sun to praise your Creator and Constant Retirements from the Tumults of the World which I could wish were as much imitated as they are admired to Vnite Your Soul by Prayer with Him and establish it in that perfect Peace which can only be enjoyed in becoming One Spirit with Him made me judg some Treatise of Divine Love which might minister matter to the Sacred Fire that burns continually upon the Altar of Your Heart would suit much better with that Better Part which you have chosen with Mary than a Book of Controversy Here then my thoughts were at a stand how to make my Address without Offence And I was ready to complain with Martha that I was left alone when that Admirable Mixture of Clemency and Zeal which disposes Your Heroick Mind not only to forgive Offences of this Nature but to esteem and cherish them as Pious convinc'd me I must be guilty of a greater Trespass should I doubt of obtaining either Your Pardon or Protection Nor was this All. The Glorious Saint whose Name You bear as she encourag'd me with her Example to engage in this Controversy so much more to recommend my endeavours to Your Majesties Patronage It was Her business to convince and reduce Idolaters to the Faith of Christ Mine is to defend the Faith which Christ planted in his Church from the Imputation of Idolatry An Aspersion so foul and Blasphemous that it betrays the Forger of it to be what the Anagram of his Name expresses a second Lucian Blasphemous I say For who-ever will undertake to maintain the Charge must at the same time profess that Christ who commanded us under pain of damnation to hear his Church hath permitted Her to require and enjoin her Children for many hundreds of years together to commit Idolatry as my Adversary contends parallel to that of the Heathens And consequently that Mahomet that grand Impostor whose Followers have been preserved by the Grounds he laid for above a Thousand Years from falling into Idolatry had more Wisdom and Power to contrive and carry on his design than the Son of God and that our Fore-Fathers in this Land had better have been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were These Madam are the detestable Consequences of charging Idolatry upon the Catholick-Roman Church which as they must needs strike horrour into Your Religious Soul nay even of any who values the name of Christian So I thought it my Duty being singled out by a particular desiance from this new Abettor of it to appear in Vindication of that Faith on which Your MAJESTY grounds Your Hope of Heaven and whose Influence hath enrich'd Your Mind with all the Noblest Vertues from so unjust and scandalous a slander Which nevertheless I have endeavoured to manage with that Moderation and Temper as Circumstances duly weigh'd can neither create just Offence in the dissenting Party nor I hope render it mis-deserving to be presented to Your Majesties View by MADAM Your Majesties Most Humble and Most Obedient Subject and Servant T. G. THE PREFACE Christian Reader THough I never design'd to trouble Thee with any thing in Print especially in a Contentious way from which those who know me think me to be naturally averse yet now I am forc'd to appear publickly in defence of a little Paper which Another hath Printed for me Three Years were almost elapsed and the subject of that Paper quite worn out of my Memory when a Particular Messenger from Dr. Stillingfleet delivers me in Answer to it a large Book intitled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome c. As Civility oblig'd me to return thanks for such a Present to a Person to whom I thought I had been unknown so it had been great dulness not to look upon it with the same regard that Men look upon a Glove when sent by a Person with whom they have happened formerly to have some difference Hereupon my thoughts presently began to incline me to meditate a return both to his Civility and Challenge at least as to the Principal Heads contain'd in his Book but finding in his Preface the performances of those who had as occasion serv'd replied to some Passages of his Rational Account compared by Him to the way that Rats answer Books by gnawing some of the Leaves of them and that He proclaimed a general defiance to All to come into the Open Field from which he saith they had of late so wisely with-drawn themselves I easily conceiv'd he would not want many abler Adversaries who would take themselves to be concern'd to stand up for the Publick cause of GOD's Church and his Saints Nor was I deceived in my expectation as those Learned Treatises witness which have been written against Him upon this occasion Some of them in Vindication of the Devotion of the Roman Church and of the sanctity of those Persons whom he traduces Others against his Principles One to show how he contradicts himself and another compendiously refuting his whole Book All which I supposed would cost him a larger time to answer than he tells us he spent in writing and pointing the Book it self which he saith was but from about Christmas to Midsumer at what time it came forth This made me waver a while after I had applyed my thoughts to the Confutation of what first occurr'd in his Title and Book viz. The Charge of Idolatry which he most unjustly fixes upon the Church of Rome whether I should expose them to publick view or no. But then considering the Foulness of the Charge the particularness of the Challenge and the General Expectation to see him traced step by step which was the design I had undertaken I thought my self oblig'd to commit them to the Press And that the Reader may know what he is to expect from me it is that I have endeavoured to make my self such an Adversary as the Author of the Account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conceiv'd would be a great pleasure and content of heart to Dr. St. if he could meet with viz. One who viewing his Aiery subtilties should oppose him seriously as if he were serious himself and then distinguish as if he were dealing with some solid Divine and then ply him with Proofs and Testimonies
have not seen anywhere proposed in these terms I answer that the first Proposition is built on a great mistake of the Nature of humane acts which though they ought to be govern'd by the Law of God yet when they swerve from it cease not to tend to their own proper objects Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship may make it to be unlawful but hinders not the act from tending whither it is intended and consequently if it be intended or directed by the understanding to God though after an unlawful manner it will not fail to be terminated upon God Thus when a Thief or a Murderer prays to God to give him good success in the Theft or Murder he intends though God denies to hear any such Prayer yet is the Prayer truly directed to him and thus when the Jews offered to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame though he had forbidden it yet was the oblation terminated on him and therefore he reproves them for having polluted him Mal 1. 8. and to convince them the more of their evil doings Offer it now says he to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person Though the Governor deny to accept what is presented to him yet it is truly offered to him by the Presenter and so although God deny to accept such or such Sacrifice yet it is truly offered to him though the offering of it after a forbidden manner make it to be sin Did not God refuse to accept the Sacrifice of Cain and yet the Scripture Gen. 4. 3. says expresly that he brought an offering to the Lord God had not respect to Cain nor his offering but this did not hinder but that Cain's offering had respect to God was terminated on him In like manner though God deny such or such a kind of Worship if it be offered though unlawfully by the Creature yet is it terminated on him The Proposition therefore which asserts that the Worship which God denies must be terminated on the Creature I deny as absolutely false and so will you too Madam when you shall see the sense of it to be no other but that a wicked Man cannot Pray to God or Worship him in an unlawful or forbidden manner who is therefore a wicked Man because he does so What follows from hence is that though God should have forbidden Men to Worship him by Images yet it does not follow but the Worship so given would be terminated on him But now to speak to his second Proposition in which the main force of this Argument consists We utterly deny that God in the second Commandment forbids himself to be Worshipped by a Crucifix for example or such like Sacred Image for such only are the subject of the present controversie What he forbids there is to give his Worship to Idols and this is clear from the circumstances of the Text First Because this Commandment if St. Austin's Judgment be to be followed is but a Part or Explication of the first Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Secondly because the Hebrew word Pescl in Latin Sculptile is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol Let them be confounded who adore Sculptilia that is Idols saith the Psalmist and so the Septuagint translate it in this very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol So that it was an artifice of the Protestants to make their assertion seem plausible to translate Image instead of Idol and not a certain kind of Image neither but any whatsoever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image Now what is all this to Catholicks who neither make to themselves nor adore Idols nor yield Soveraign honour or acknowledgment of Deity to any but God We give indeed a veneration to Images but the Image of God is not another God besides him nor is the Worship of it the Worship of another God but of him who is represented by it for St. Basil saith The Worship of an Image stays not there but is referred or carried to the prototype or thing represented We give therefore an insetior or relative honour only to the Sacred Images of Christ and his blessed Mother and Saints not latriam the Worship due to God but Honorariam adorationem a certain honorary Worship expressed by kissing them or putting off our Hats or kneeling before them much like the Worship given to the Chair of State or the Kings Picture or his Garment by the like actions or to come nearer to the subject such as was commanded to be given by Moses and Joshua to the ground whereon they stood by putting off their Shoos because it was holy and by the Jews in adoring the foot-stool of God or falling down before it Psal 98. 5. and in Worshipping as St. Jerome testifies they did that part of the Temple called the Holy of Holies because there were the Cherubims sacred Images ordered by God himself to be placed there the propitiatory representing Gods Throne and the Ark his foot-stool In a word such as the Protestants themselves give to the Name of Jesus when they hear it spoken by putting off their Hats and bowing at it or to the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Supper by kneeling before them as figures representing the death of Christ if condescendence to the conscience of weaker Brethren will permit them to own they have any honour or veneration for them or for the Altar before which they bow To conclude this point the Objector brings a Text which forbids us to give the Soveraign honor due to God to an Idol but let us hear out of Scripture an express Text that it is not lawful to give to holy Images and other things relating to God an inferiour or relative Worship such as we have declared and that will be to the purpose § 6. He aims to conclude the Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry from the adoration of the Bread as he believes it in the Eucharist Now to do this he ought to prove that what we adore in the Eucharist is bread indeed But instead of that he brings a comparison between our adoration of Christ in the Eucharist and the Heathens adoration of the Sun viz. That the Papists by the same Argument make the Worship of the bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry which would excuse the Heathens Worship of the Sun and of their Statutes from Idolatry For if it be not therefore Idolatry says he because they suppose the bread to be God then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry in them who supposed the Sun to be God I shall not complain here of the unhandsomness of the expression that Catholicks suppose the Bread to be God just as the Heathens supposed the Sun to be God whereas he knows that Catholicks believe that the substance of the bread is changed into Christs body but shall answer to the Argument That the Worship of Christ in
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 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
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
govern'd by the Law of God yet when they swerve from it cease not to tend to their own proper Objects and that Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of worship may make it to be unlawful but hinders not the Act from tending whither it is intended Of this I gave instances in the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good success the Jew's offering to God the Blind and the Lame which he had forbidden Cain's bringing a Sacrifice to the Lord Gen. 4. 3. which he refused to accept All which I shewed were notwithstanding terminated on God and from thence inferr'd that though God as he falsely supposes should have forbidden men to worship him by Images yet it does not follow but the worship so given would be terminated on him § 7. To shew the insufficiency as he calls it of this Answer he asserts that where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving Worship to himself that Worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him And to shew the Vanity and Impertinency of this Defence I answer That this very Assertion of his quite changes the state of the Question for his Charge being of real Idolatry and that antecedently to any Prohibition as appears by his contending that the Church of Rome doth require the giving the Creature the honour due onely to God p. 3. and by his asserting p. 62. that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do how down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment he now changes his Peremptory cannot be terminated on God into that Dwindling Expression of It cannot be said to be terminated on God giving his Reader to understand that his meaning now is not that Catholicks are really Idolaters that is by the very nature of Worship so given by an Image antecedently to any Law forbidding it but denominatively and in name onely and that upon account of a Law suppos'd by him most falsely as I shall make manifest in the following Discourse to prohibit the giving Worship to God by bowing or kneeling before an Image And lest we should any way doubt that this was his meaning himself in the contents of his First Chapter puts down the state of the Controversie between us in these words The main Question saith he is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion or as he explicates it pag. 57. under the name of Idolatry It were worth the while to see the Doctor reconcile the state of the Question put by himself with that Assertion of his above-cited pag. 62. that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment The former supposes it to have the notion or name of Idolatry upon the account of its being forbidden The later affirms it to be forbidden upon the account of its being Idolatry in the very nature of the thing antecedently to any Prohibition And in which sence soever of the two he take the Proposition in debate viz. The Worship which God denies to receive cannot be terminated on him but on the Image it is evident he contradicts himself For if he mean that it cannot be terminated on God antecedently to the Prohibition because any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment he must deny that it is the Prohibition which makes it to be terminated on the Image And if he mean that it cannot be terminated on God because it is prohibited by him to Worship Him by a◠Image he must deny what he asserted before that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it doth THEREBY become an Idol and ON THAT ACCOUNT is forbidden in the second Commandment Let him extricate himself as well as he can out of this Labyrinth I return to what he addes in defence of his Assertion viz. The Worship which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature § 8. To vindicate this Assertion from the Note of Falshood I had fix'd upon it he lays down these three Propositions 1. That Worship is nothing else but an external signification of Honour and Respect 2. That the signification of Honour which is due to God is not to be measured by the Intentions of Men against the declared Will of God 3. The Divine Law being the Rule of Worship all prohibited ways of Worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them As says he it would be Treason after the Princes Declaration of it by his Laws for any man to bow down to a Sign-Post with the Princes Head upon it And therefore if God have declared the Worship of himself by an Image to be Idolatry it cannot be terminated on God but onely on the Image This is the substance of his Defence and what it amounts to is this That if God have forbidden under the name of Idolatry to bow down before any Image though with intention to Worship Him by it this Act of Worship must be called Idolatry because not mens Intentions but the Will of God is the Rule of Worship A rare Defence indeed But nothing at all to the purpose although we should yield the Supposition to be as true as it is false viz. that God had forbidden it under that name unless he can shew that words can never be taken Metaphorically but that the very definition of a thing must always necessarily go along with its name What he charges upon us is the very definition of Idolatry viz. That we give to the Creature the honour due onely to God What he brings to prove it is a supposed extrinsecal denomination that if God have called the Worshipping him by an Image Idolatry it must receive the name of Idolatry and therefore be terminated on the Image And if this kind of arguing be good he may prove by the same Logick that a man worshipping a false God violates his Neighbours Bed because God himself calls the Worshipping a false God by the name of Adultery And that he that wears a Sword with intention to defend his Prince hath a real intention against his Life in case the Prince upon some occasion have forbidden to wear a Sword under the name of Treason He that has but look'd over Aristotles Threshold knows that from the definition to the name the consequence is good because the Name is but a Note of the Nature or Essence of the Thing defined But nothing more inconsequent than to argue from the Name to the Definition because the Name may be given upon the score of some similitude either intrinsecal or extrinsecal and not upon the account of the
Nature or Essence which is properly signified by such a Name The Doctor therefore to give him his due in the beginning of his Charge argues like a good Logician when he would conclude the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry because he says she requires the giving to the Creature the Honour due onely to God But he plays the downright Sophister in the close when he would prove that in worshipping God by an Image she gives to the Image the Honour due onely to Him because if God have given it the 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
and the other two places I but the word Pesel is oâ— so large a signification that he saith it properly signifies any thing that is carved out of Wood or Stone and being so often rendred by the Septuâ—gint a graven thing it is plain from thence saith he that when they translate it by an Idol they mean no more thereby than a graven Image But what a strange kind of consequence is this that because they oftentimes translate it a graven thing therefore when they translate it Idol they mean no more thereby than a graven thing As if the sense of a word of a stricter signification were to be regulated by another of a larger and not the more ample by the narrower especially in this place where the words Thou shalt not worship them nor serve them are as Tertullian above-cited saith a Restriction limiting the Generality of a Carved Image No assistance then can be given him from hence nor yet from the Alexandrian MS. rendring it glypton in the repetition of the Law Deut. 5. 8. nor its being translated â—ikoon Isa 40. 18. nor yet from the Vulgar Latin using Idolum Sculptile and Imago all to express the same thing Isa 44. 9 10 13. for in all these places as They may see who will look into them there is still some term or clause restraining the words Sculptile and Imago to signifie such a graven thing or Image as is made to be compared with God or to be the Object of Divine Worship that is to be an Idol from whence the contrary to what he infers is plain that when they translate it by graven Image they mean no more thereby than an IDOL As for that final Conclusion of his viz. By which it appears that any Image being made so far the Object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment not to spend time in divining what that is by which this appears it is so very mystical the Proposition it self 1. Supposes most falsely that to bow down before any Image though with intent to worship God is to make it the Object of Divine Worship and consequently an Idol 2. It contradicts also what he said before that to do so is Idolatry upon the quite contrary account viz. because it is forbidden as hath been shewn more at large above Let him not contradict Christs holy Spouse the Church if he will not contradict himself much less accuse her of Idolatry for worshipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix as the Jews were allowed to do by the like actions before the Ark and the Cherubins When he can prove this to be Idolatry from the Terms of the Law or any thing else he will do something Hitherto he hath done nothing there being not any one Term in the Law as I have shewed by which it is expresly prohibited to give Worship to God himself by an Image I advance now to his Second Proof drawn as he says from the Reason annexed to the Law CHAP. IV. Dr. St.'s Second Proof from the Reason of the Law Sophistical All Representations of God not dishonourable to him nor rejected as such by the Church of England The Proper Reason of the Law on Gods part assigned and asserted to be the Supream Excellency of his Nature § 1. THe Second Proof he brings p. 62. to shew that God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image is from the Reason annexed to it P. 58. And that he saith the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods Infinite and Incomprehensible Nature which could not be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it I expected to find this Reason because he saith it is annexed to the Law either in the Law it self or in the Preface or in the Commination against the Transgressors of it but it seems he could not find it there himself and therefore he cites for it that Text of Isa 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God Or what likeness will ye compare to him And that of Deut. 4. 15 16. Take good heed to your selves c. for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you And the Consequence from all is a desire to know whether by this Reason God doth not declare that all Worship given to him by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him This is the Sum of his Discourse apt enough I confess to dâ—lude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit but altogether empty and insignificant when brought to the Test of Reason as I shall make appear in this Chapter The Reader in the mean time may please to take notice that whereas he infers now onely from the Promisses That all Worship given to God by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him and not that it is flat Idolatry he is either grown kind all on the suddain or jealous that his Proof falls short of his Charge since every extreamly-great sin as Blasphemy and the like is extreamly dishonourable to God and yet not Idolatry As for the Conclusion it self whether and in what sense it may be true or false shall be examined below Let us see first what truth there is in the Antecedent from whence he infers it § 2. The Proposition he lays down for the Reason of the Law is this Gods Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it And if this be so what shall we say to one that should represent God in Picture as a Three-Corner'd Light casting out radiant Beams on all sides of it at a little distance a resplendent Cloud of Glory in a Circular form encompassing the Light Within the Cloud near to the Fountain of Brightness Angels adoring without the Cloud Faith and Religion praying and directly under it an Altar with an inflamed Heart offering it self in Sacrifice Would such a visible Representation as this be an infinite disparagement to God or no If my Adversary grant it as he must do if he speak consequently to himself then what becomes of the Church of England For in the Frontispiece of her Book of Common-Prayer Printed at London by Robert Barker 1642. in octavo this very Picture is exposed to the Eyes of all her People and to prevent their mistaking it as intended to represent any thing but God the incommunicable Name JEHOVAH is written in the midst of the Triangular Light and that in Hebrew Characters to strike no doubt a greater respect and reverence in the Beholders If he deny it to be an infinite disparagement then what becomes of his Fundamental Position that God being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to his Nature Whatever Calvin denies
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 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
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
not content to make a God of This Both Passible and Mortal Jesus try To thrust Him into one substantial knot With his Eternal sire who Him begot 228 Two yet not Two but One these Two must be Nay and a Third into the knot they bring The Spirit must come in to make up Three And yet these Three be but one single Thing Thus fast and loose they play or ev'n and odd And We a juggling Trick must have for God 229 If God be One then let Him be so still Why jumble we we know not what together Did all the World not know their God untill This old blind Age discover'd Him Did neither The Patriarks believe nor Prophets see Aright because They took not One for Three 231 Let Love and Duty make of Christ as high And Glorious a Thing as Wit can reach Provided that against the Deity No Injury nor Sacriledge they preach If only on such terms He lov'd may be Him to neglect is Piety say we And then a little after he concludes 234 For If your Faith relies on Men who are Themselves but founded and built up of dust If yoâ— by Reason's Rule disdain to square Yoâ—r Pâ—ety and take your God on Trust Which Heaven forbid You only are a Prize Unto Impostor's fair-tongu'd Fallacies Thus doth this Ingenious Person represent an Heretick in his true Colours arguing against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation upon the Principles with which Doctor St. 〈◊〉 the Doctrin of Transubstantiation aâ—d in terms so equivalent that the Dr. seems but to have resolv'd into Prose what the other wrote in Verse as may appear from this following Parallel 'T is Ignorance and Madness saith the Cerinthian Heretick to believe that God can be Three and One and that Christ is God Stanz 213. 220. 'T is Folly and Madness saith Dr. St. to believe Transubstantiation He becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man p. 120. The Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are monstrous Prodigies of abused Faith saith the Cerinthian Stanz 213. Transubstantiation saith D. St. is so strange and sudden a change that he can hardly say that God becoming Man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God p. 120. The Cerinthian affirms of the Trinity and Incarnation that they are against all reason and founded on Contradictions Stanz 214. Dr. St. affirms of Transubstantiation that it is absurd and for a Man to believe it he must swallow the greatest Contradictions to Sense and Reason Imaginable p. 130. In a word the Cerinthian makes his Sense and Reason to be the Rule of his Faith Stanz 234. And Dr. St. will believe nothing that seems to contradict them p. 561. Only the Cerinthian affirms the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation to transcend Pagan-blasphemy which I do not see yet that Dr. St. â—ath ventured to say of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Perhaps he will reply to this Parallel that the difficulties the Cerinthian objects against the Trinity and Incarnation are but seeming Contradictâ—ons but those in the Point of Transubstantiation are real ones but then he must grant according to his Principles that whilst they seem to be Contradictions they are not to be believed by those to whom they seem so that is by the unlearned who are the greatest part Or if they may notwithstanding believe those Mysteries they may much rather believe that of Transubstantiation since it seems a greater Contradiction that the very self same Nature should be whole and undivided in three distinct Persons than that the same Body should be in many places and that the Invisible Word should be made Flesh than that Bread should be converted into that Flesh How Dr. St. will extricate himself I know not but the way which Dr. Beaumont takes to secure the Soul from being startled with these seeming Contradictions is to introduce her Angel Guardian conducting her to Christ's Catholick Church the Ground and Pillar of Truth And upon this Ground it is For in his Preface he recants aforehand if any thing throughout the whole Poem should happen against his Intention to prove discord to the Consent of Christ's Catholick Church that he makes the Angel perswade his Pupil to contemn all the seeming Contradictions which crafty and subtil Wits object against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament if not against Transubstantiation it self And because the Book is not every where to be found as not having been so often Printed as Dr. St.'s because there is no Prophane Invective in it against the Persons and Lives of Gods Saints I shall venture to Transcribe another parcel of Verses out of it so proper to the present subject as if written on purpose by the Ingenious Author to crush in the Egg those secret workings of Atheism and Irreligion which the aforesaid Principle is apt to breed in the Wits of this Age under so colourable a pretence as that of not being fool'd out of their Sense and Reason 74 When Jesus by his Water cleansed had His Servant's Feet and by his Grace their Hearts Shewing what Preparation must be made By all who ever mean to have their Parts In his pure Banquet down he sits again And them with Miracles doth entertain And then having described the Institution of the Sacrament he goes on 81 Sweet Jesu O how can thy World forget Their Royal Saviour and his Bounty who Upon their Tables his own self hath set Who in their Holy Cups fails not to flow And in their Dishes lie Did ever Friend So sure a Token of his Love commend 82 Infallibly there dost Thou flow and lie Though mortal Eyes discover no such thing Quick-sighted Faith reads all the Mystery And humble Pious Souls doth easily bring Into the Wonder 's Cabinet and there Makes all the Jewels of this Truth appear 83 Shee generously dares on God rely And trust his Word how strange so e're it be If Jesus once pronounces This is my Body and Blood Far far be it cries she That I should think my dying Lord would cheat Me in his Legacy of Drink and Meat 84 His Word is most Omnipotent and He Can do what e're he says and more than I Can or would understand What is 't to me If He transcends Humane Capacity Surely it well becomes Him so to do Nor were He God if he could not do so 85 Let Him say what He will I must deny Him to be God or else believe His Word Me it concerneth not to verify What he proclaims I only must afford Meek Credit and let Him alone to make Good whatsoever He is pleas'd to speak 86 Gross and unworthy Spirits sure They be Who of their Lord such mean Conceptions frame That parting from his dearest Consorts He No Tokens of his Love did leave with Them But simple Bread and Wine a likely Thing And well-becoming Heavens Magnificent King 88 Ask me not then How can the Thing be done What power
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
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
in these 〈◊〉 Whether the worshipping false Gods supposing them to be true be not as Venial a fault as worshipping that for the true God which is not so As for Instance suppose the Aegyptians worshipping the Sun for God and the Israelites the Golden Calf believing it was the true God c. Upon what account saith he shall these be charg'd with Idolatry if an Involuntary mistake and firm belief that they worship the true God doth excuse from it And then adds that the most stupid and sensless of all Idolaters who worshipped the very Images for Gods were in truth the most excusable upon this Ground To this I answer that setting aside the new division he runs upon the old false ground that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God as the Worshippers of the Sun believed the Sun to be God the disparity as to the mistakes is still the same because the Aegyptians believed and worshipped the Sun for God and so did the Israelites the Golden Calf but Catholicks though supposed to be mistaken in their belief would not worship the Bread for Christ because their mistake would not be in taking the Bread for God as the Aegyptians did the Sun but in this that they conceived the Bread not to be there at all but in place thereof the only true and Eternal God And so although the Object or rather Subject materially there present would in such a case be Bread yet their act of adoration would not be terminated formally upon that but upon God For as Dr. Taylor saith if they thought Him not present they are so far from worshipping the Bâ—ead in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idolatrical And if the Doctor see not the force of this demonstration for demonstrations are very dazling Objects to Eyes unus'd to so great Light I shall lay it yet plainer before him in this Syllogism Whatever is taken for an Object of Worship the Understanding must affirm either truly or falsly to be and therefore neither the Aegyptians had worshipped the Sun for God nor the Israelites the Calf if their understanding had not first affirmed them to be But Catholicks whether mistaken or not in the belief of Transubstantiation do not in their minds affirm he Bread to be but not to be because 〈◊〉 both suppositions they believe it to be converted into the Body of Christ Therefore the Object of their worship is not Bread but Christ the only true and Eternal Son of God And therupon the same Dr. Taylor in the place above cited Numb 17. saith That before they venture to pass an Act of Adoration they believe the Bread to be annihilated or turn'd into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped And they who have these thoughts are as much Enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better as he thinks he does to avoid that Inconvenience which is supposed to be the Crime which they formally hate and we saith he materially avoid When therefore Dr. St. upon account that the mistake and firm belief of the Aegyptians and others that what they worshipped was the true God could not excuse them from being guilty of formal Idolatry because what they had in their minds and purposes to adore was that very Creature which they falsly took for God when I say he undertakes to infer from hence that a mistake in Catholicks as to the material object present in the Sacrament whereas what they would have in their minds and purposes to adore would be no other thing but the very true God with Exclusion of the Creature would involve them also in the same crime Or on the contrary because such a mistake were sufficient to excuse Catholicks from the guilt of Idolatry therefore another quite different would excuse those who directed their Intention to the Worship of a Creature which they falsly deemed to be God Both these consequences are so apparently irrational that nothing but Animosity to maintain perfas nefas an angry charge of Idolatry could extort them from a Person who would be held a Master of that Reason as none but Rats can Answer Nevertheless in vertue of them He concludes that what he hath said in behalf of the Heathen Idolaters is the utmost can be said for the Papists adoration of the Host supposing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation were as true as he says it is false and absurd And was this then the Effect of that great Work of the Conversion of this Nation to Christianity above a Thousand Years ago that St. Austin and the other Religious Monks who were sent hither with him by St. Gregory only perswaded the People to leave their old Idolatry for a new One as stupid and sensless as the former Surely no Christian Ear can hear this without horrour And the Judgement Mr. Thorndike would have made of this Conclusion could have been no other but that the Author of it had not Dr. Stillingfleet very luckily put his Name to the Book must have been a Jew or a Turk when after a serious consideration of Catholicks adoration of the Host he concludes in these words In fine Jews and Mahumetans are bound to take the Worship of the Host for Idolatry For they will needs take the Worship of the Holy Trinity for no less But they who know that the God-Head of Christ is the Reason for which his Flesh and Blood is worshipped in the Eucharist cannot take that worship for Idolatry because his Flesh and Blood is not present in the Eucharist as they who worship it there think it is For they know that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is no Idol to Christians wheresoever it is worshipped Wherefore if Dr. St. have no better arguments to prove his Charge of Idolatry with in this matter than his own discerning Faculty of Truth or Falshood in matters proposed to our belief or than what he hath said in excuse of the most stupid and sensless of Heathen Idolaters whose Patronage he seems to have undertaken all along in this Discourse I must conclude his Reasons to be as false and absurd as any Jew or Mahumetan imagins the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be The End of the Second Part. THE THIRD PART OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point supposed by Dr. St. to be Idolatry but not proved The disparity between the Worship given by Catholicks to the Saints and that of Heathens to their Inferiour Deities laid open § 1. THe Third Point which Dr. St. fix'd upon as a fit Subject to show his wit in proving the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry is the Invocation of Saints And that the Reader may see what a prodigious stock of that Faculty is necessary to make it out I shall first set down the Doctrin of the Church as it stands recorded in the Council of Trent What that
true notion of external sacrifice is when he takes it as distinguish'd from Prayer And it would seem as he saith p 159. very strange indeed that sacrifice so taken should be that Latria which is proper to God But it seems as strange to me that He should take it so when himself confesseth that those who did appropriate sacrifice to God by which it seems himself is none of them did comprehend Prayer as the most spiritual and acceptable part of it and that 〈…〉 that sacrifices of old were Solemn 〈◊〉 of supplication unless he meant to make his Reader believe that Catholicks wâ—â—en they speak of sacrifice as proper to Goâ— mean only the external action as distinguish'd from Prayer which as 〈◊〉 is far from the◠〈…〉 minds to think so the Doctor in applauding the Doctrine of the Heathens and siding with them against St. Austin manifestly shows that he judg'd the Argument of the Heathens more rational than St. Austin's Answer 3. His third Reason of dissatisfaction is p. 159. because upon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their Inferiour Deities those of the Roman Church he saith do so to Angels and Saints But this hath been sufficiently refuted already in the First Chapter § 6. And at present there needs no more but to put down the Negatives to the Doctor 's Affiâ—matives viz. that Catholicks do not use Solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship nor set up the Images of the Saints or Angels for that End nor consecrate Temples and erect Altars to them or keep Festivals and burn Incense before them as Gods or offer sacrifice to them as the Heathens did even to their Inferiour Deities These are all such known Truths both from the Doctrine and Practice of Catholicks that nothing but a Prodigious deal of Zeal to fix the black note of Idolatry upon that Church from which the English Nation receiv'd the Faith of Christ could occasion the frequent repetition of so notorious a slander Nor doth the Doctor so much as offer to prove the contrary of any of these Negatives against the Church of Rome but only the last of not offering sacrifice to the Saints and Angels And here he thinks he hath found something to catch at because Bellarmin saith That the sacrifices of the Eucharist and of Lauds and Prayers are publickly offered to God for their honour But is this what the Fathers say of the Heathens worship of their Inferiour Deities that they offered sacrifices to God for their honour No they say expresly that the Heathens offered sacrifices to them and maintained that they ought to do so whereas yet Catholicks profess it ought not to be done even to the Holy Angels and Saints but only to God though as Bellarmin saith it may be offered to God in honorem in or as the Doctor translates it for their honour And this is but what St. Austin professed when he said that what is offered at the Memories of the Martyrs is offered to God who made them both Men and Martyrs and joyned them in Heavenly Honour with his Holy Angels that by this solemnity we may give thanks saith he to the true God for their Victories and be excited to imitate what they did and suffered But the Doctor saith p. 116. that to sacrifice to one for the honour of another is a thing beyond his reach if that sacrifice does not belong to him for whose honour it is offered I have heard that some Beggars have the skill to shrink up their Armes into their Sleeves as if they could not reach above a span from their shoulders And now I perceive there is an Art of shrinking up Understandings as well as Armes For who can believe it beyond Dr. St.'s reach to understand how sacrifice may be offered to God in honour or for the honour of the B. Virgin but that it must be offered to the B. Virgin her self and that so as not to honour God by it as he most uncharitably and unchristianly would make his Reader believe we do A sudden twitch by the hand will serve to pluck out the Beggar 's arm to its full length and because I am perswaâ—ed a home-example may do as much for a shrunkâ— up Understanding I must desire the Doctor to reflect whether it would not be for his honour that his whole Party should keep a Solemn Day of Thanksgiving for the Great Wit and burning Zeal with which the Lord hath endow'd Him to the utter confusion of the Popish Cause If he think this would be much foâ— his honour although the Thanks were given to God and not to him I hope it is not beyond his reach now to Understand that sacrifice also may be offered to God in thanksgiving for the great Vertues and Prerogatives he bestow'd upon the B. Virgin although the sacrifice be offered to God and not to her In◠〈…〉 Honour is nothing but a Testimony oâ— Protestation of some excellency and whether Thanks be given to God by words or by sacrifice for the Gifts and Graces he hath bestowed on such a Person it is an evident Protestation of such excellency in that Person and consequently for his honour though both words and sacrifice be directed to God and not to him His 4th and last Reason that although Catholicks do not call the Saints and Angels Gods yet they give them the Worship of Invocation and the honour of sacrifices which are only due to God This I say is but a Repetition of the Burden of the old Song of Julian the Apostate and Faustus the Manichaean and hath been at large refuted in the precedent discourse I shall only add two Testimonies for a farther confutation of it as sung over anew by the Doctor The first is of S. Austin We do not saith he erect Temples or ordain Priests nor make Dedications nor offer sacrifices to the Martyrs because not They but their God is our God We honour indeed their Memories as of Holy Men of God who fought for the Truth even to the loss of their Lives But we do not worship them with divine honours as the Heathens did their Gods nor do we offer sacrifice to them The second is of Bishop Mountague in his Treatise of Invocation of Saints p. 60. Where he telleth all who are or will be concern'd for Truth that the Doctors of the Church of Rome do teach that the Saints are no Immediate Intercessors for Us with God but whatsoever they obtain for Us at GOD's hands that they do obtain by and through Christ And it is saith he for ought I know the voice of every Romanist Non ipsi sancti sed eorum Deus Dominus nobis est that is Not the Saints themselves but their GOD is our Lord. So it must not be imputed which is not deserved Were they worse than they are it is a sin they say to bely the Devil a shame to charge Men with what they are not guilty of
signification of the words I Answer not meerly from Lilly's Grammar Rules but from the Doctrine of the Church delivered in her Councils and Catechisms and from the common use of such words and expressions among Christians If a Child being taught by his Parents that God alone can give what we ask when he saith to his Father Bless me understands the meaning of the words to be that his Father should pray to God to bless him then surely much more must Catholick People when they pray to the B. Virgin to drive away all evils understand the sense to be that she would pray to God to deliver them from all evil there being besides the common Doctrine of Christianity by which they are taught that God alone is the Giver of all good things so many Sermons Catechisms and Explications both by word and writing daily made in the Catholick Church by Priests to the People and Parents to their Children in this particular Point Well but if this were all saith the Doctor why in all this time that those Prayers have been complained of viz. by those who have revolted from the Church hath not their sense been better expressed Why have they not been expunged all this while after that their Breviaries have been so often reviewed This I fear if done would not be enough to keep them from telling us Once upon a time there was a blasphemous Book or in the Mass-Book Printed at Paris in such a Year there was But why to comply with the humour of a few Opiniators whom no Reason can satisfy must Mankind be debarred the natural manner of expressing their affections And why have not those scrupulous Person◠all this while devised a Dictionary or Phrase-Book to furnish us with words and forms of speaking which may equal our Conceptions and express every little variation of our thoughts and all the different tempers and emotions of the Spirit Do we not do the same action sometimes more quick and smartly than at others Why then must we be tyed to use always the same form of words Why may we not sometimes utter the same affection in a more fervent manner of expression than at others He that sees himself in an imminent danger makes no long Preambles but cries out Help me And St. Gregory Nazianzen records it as an act of great devotion in St. Justina that to free her self from the snares of Satan she call'd upon the Virgin Mary to help and succour her But the Doctor hath now found a Staff to beat Bellarmin with for offering to instance in Scripture that the Apostles are said to save Men Viz. by their Prayers c. Therefore in the like sense we may desire them to save us And he lays on so hard that he hath beat all the brains out of the Cardinal's head at a blow For will any Man saith he in his Wits say the Case is the same in Ordinary Speech and in Prayer Is it all one saith he for a Man to say that his Staff helped him in his going and to fall down upon his Knees and pray to his Staff to help him And now I pray who so proper a Man to confute Bellarmin as Dr. St. Bellarmin speaks of such Instruments as have both Understanding and Will to help us to Heaven by their Prayers and he presently lets drive at Him with his Staff for speaking Non-sense Let the Reader judge whether the Instrument be more Irrational or the Use he makes of it I have long since observ'd that whenever he makes other Men out of their Wits The Reader hath reason to suspect all is not right at home But St. Paul doubtless was a Rational Instrument and What would He have said saith the Doctor to one who should say to him I pray you pardon my sins and assist me with the grace of God I believe he would neither have condemned him of gross Idolatry nor prodigious Folly as the Doctor doth but considering the bitterness of his Soul by the eagerness of his Expression would have given him the assistance of his Prayers to obtain what he aimed to procure by his means of God § 7. Having thus cleared the fense of those Forms of Prayer we sometimes use to the B. Virgin and other Saints to be no other than praying to them to pray to God for us as I asserted in my Reply and answered the little exceptions the Doctor made against it I shall conclude this Point with some Instances of like expressions either used or approved by the Fathers of the Primitive times And first for the usual form of Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us the Instances are so numerous that to transcribe them would make a Volume Many of the Fathers are taxed for this practice by the Magdeburgenses and other Protestant Writers and for this sort of Invocation Mr. Thorndike saith it is confessed that the Lights both of the Greek and Latin Church Basil Nazianzen Nyssen Ambrose Hierome Austin Chrysostom Cyrils both Theodoret Fulgentius St. Gregory the Great Leo more or rather all after that time have spoken to the Saints and desired their Assistance Nay the Doctor himself though diminute in his Confession acknowledges there are some Instances of them in good Authors although he will needs have them to be but Rhetorical Apostrophes and Poetical Flourishes or Wishes that the Saints would pray for us as we Englishmen when we are at play saith Mr. Perkins and I wonder so pat an Example could escape the Doctor call upon the Bowls to rubb or to run as we would have them At this sport he fancies St. Hierome to have been when he cry'd to Paul after her death Help me O Paul in my old Age with thy Prayers And so no doubt was the Emperor Theodosius too when as Ruffinus reporteth Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 33. He went to visit the Sepulchers of the Martyrs accompanyed with all the Clergy and People it was it seems a General Day of Bowling and prostrate before their Ashes You may imagin to take surer aim implored aid by their Intercession or as St. Chrysost hath it in the same or a like occasion Ho. 26. in 2 Cor. besought the Saints to be his Patrons and Advocates with GOD. And the Doctor Himself brings in Saint Austin as playing at the same Game when he says p. 173. that he wishes rather than praise that St. Cyprian would help him with his prayers Confessing also as I said before that there are some Instances of this pleasant kind of Invocation to be found in good Authors The difficulty then lies in those prayers which we make to Saints to help our Necessities But of these also there want not Instances in the Writings of good Authors of the Primitive times parallel to those which the Doctor objects out of the present Roman Breviary and Office of our Lady Do we say there Hail B. Virgin Thou alone hast destroyed all Heresies in the World Vouchsafe Holy Virgin to
be Intercessours to Him for them Now that such as piously and faithfully pray to them obtain their desires The Donaries when they pay their Vows do witness as evident Testimonies of their recovered health For some hang up the resemblances of Eyes others of Hands others of Feet made of Gold or Silver which their Lord how small and vile soever the gifts be disdains not most gratefully to accept measuring the gift by the ability of the Giver These therefore being exposed to the eyes of all Men and brought by those who have obtained health are most certain signs of the Cure of the Diseases These I say shew the vertues of the Martyrs who lye buried there and the vertue of the Martyrs declares the God whom they worshipped to be the true God 3dly St. Austin is so copious in this subject that he writes a Treatise rather than a Chapter of the Miracles which were done in his time at the Shrines of several Martyrs particularly of St. Stephen which those who desire to be informed of the Truth may read at their leisure I have instanced already in that of the devout Mother who exacted of St. Stephen to restore her Son to life and had her Petition granted God saith St. Austin doing it per Martyrem by his Martyr I shall only add at present what he relates of a poor but pious Man called Florentius who having lost his Cloak and not having wherewith to buy another went to the twenty Martyrs whose memory saith he with us is very famous and pray'd with a loud voice to be cloathed Certain young Men whom St. Austin calls Irrisores i. e. scoffers hearing him pray derided him as no doubt Dr. St. would have done had he been there as if he had begg'd so much money of the Martyrs as would buy him a Cloak But he departing from thence towards the Sea-side found a great Fish upon the shore in whose Belly when open'd there was found a Gold Ring which the Cook a good Christian to whom he had sold the Fish and knew what had passed gave him with these words Behold how the Twenty Martyrs have cloathed Thee Thus St. Austin little thinking then or now if he know nothing of what passes here below what sport this story will make for the Doctor and his Partizans though he good Mâ—n judg'd it worthy to be recounted that God might be glorified in his Saints And upon the same account I shall not omit though it may add matter of new Merriment to the scoffing humour of the Age to set down what I find related by John Patriarch of JERUSALEM to have passed in this kind with Saint John Damascen about the Year 728. He is known to have been a stout Asserter of the Veneration of Holy Images and when the Emperour Leo Isauricus raised a Persecution for that cause he wrote divers learned Epistles to confirm the Faithful in the Tradition of the Church He was then at Damascus where the Prince of the Saracens kept his Court and highly in the favour of that Prince for his Wisdom and Learning And the Emperor Leo not knowing otherwise how to execute his Fury against him causes a Letter to be forged as from Damascen to Him and to be transcribed by One who could exactly imitate his hand the Contents whereof were to invite him to pass that way with his Army with promise to deliver the City into his hands This Letter the Emperor as out of friendship to an Ally and detestation of the Treachery sent to the Prince of the Saracens who no sooner saw and read it but in a brutish Passion commanded the right hand of Damascen which he supposed had writ it to be cut off Dictum Factum A word and a blow His hand was struck off and hung up in the Market-place till Evening when upon Petition that he might have leave to bury it it was commanded to be delivered to him He takes the hand and instead of laying it in the Ground joins it to his Arm and prostrating himself before an Image of our B. Lady which he kept in his Oratory humbly besought her Intercession for the restoring of his hand that he might employ it in setting forth her Son's praises and Hers This done sleep seiz'd on him and he beheld the Image of the B. Virgin looking upon him with a pleasant aspect and telling Him that his Hand was restored which when he awaked he found to be true and a small Circle or mark only remaining in the place where it had been cut off to testify the truth of the Miracle This is recorded by John Patriarch of Jerusalem in the Life of St. John Damascen and to this I might add many more of the like kind But these may suffice to satisfy an Impartial mind that whether the Saints themselves hear us or no yet those who implore their Intercession are most certainly heard and as St. Austin saith helped by them And it can never be unlawful much less Idolatrous to use that means for the obtaining our just desires which God himself hath attested by so many Miracles to be acceptable to him All that the Doctor brings to uphold his slippery consequence is that it would be a sensless thing to desire some excellent Person in the Indies when we are at our solemn devotion to pray for us And so no doubt he would have derided those three Tribunes who being unjustly condemn'd by the Emperor Constantine commended themselves to the Prayers of St. Nicholas at that time far from the Court for double Innocents But God who is every where present and to whom the Wisdom of the World is Foolishness both could and did reward the simplicity of their Devotion by causing the Holy Man to appear to the Emperour in his sleep and divert him from executing the Sentence In fine if the Doctor will needs have it to be a sensless thing to call upon the Saints in Heaven for the Assistance of their Prayers he must either condemn the Lights both of the Greek and Latin Church as Mr. Thorndike calls them to have been sensless Men and they may thank God they escape so or he must grant this practise of theirs to be a convincing Argument that they believed the Saints did hear them § 4. The last thing he quarrels at is the setting up the Images of Saints in some higher place of the Church and burning Incense before them And what he says to show this to be very Evil is that which proves it to be very Good viz. That the Persons for whose sake this is done are as we suppose them truly such as for their assured sanctity would deserve to have it done to themselves though perhaps Humility or other Moral Considerations might weigh both with them and the Church not to permit it to be done Yet we know that Elias sate upon the top of a Hill and call'd Fire from Heaven upon those two Captains who came to seize him but