let me praise Thee St. Cyril saith By Thee Holy Mother and Virgin every Creature that worshipped Idols hath been converted to the knowledge of the Truth Praise and Glory be to Thee O Sacred Trinity Praise also be to Thee O Holy Mother of God Who can sufficiently set forth thy Praises Do we entreat the B. Virgin to help the miserable to strengthen the weak c. St. Gregory Nazianzen above-cited commends St. Justina for beseeching the B. Virgin to help and succour her Do we desire her to protect us from our Enemies and shew her self to be a Mother St. Gregory Nissen calls upon St. Theodorus to fight for his Country as a Souldier and to use that liberty of speech for his Fellow-servants which besits a Martyr Do we supplicate the Angels to come to our help and defend Us St. Ambrose saith that they are to be supplicated for us who are given us for our Protectors Lastly Do we desire the Apostles Jubere the word signifies to wish or desire as well as to command but the Doctor will have it here to command the guilty to be loosed And He might as well have translated Jubeo te valere I command you to farewell It is not so much as what that devout Woman in St. Austin said to St. Stephen when upon the death of her Child before Baptism she brought the dead Body to the shrine of the B. Martyr and there exacted ofhim saith St. Austin to restore her Son to Life with these words Redde filium meum c. Give me my Son that I may behold him in the presence of him who crowned thee A thing both commended by St. Austin as a Testimony of her great Faith and confirmed for such by God in restoring her Son to Life at the Intercession of the Saint Thus much may suffice to show that whil'st the Doctor casts so much Dirt upon the Doctrine and Practice of the present Roman Church He makes it fly in the Faces of those great Fathers and Lights of the Primitive Times And much less might have sufficed for an Objection which taken in all its parts is as like the seeking for a knot in a Bul-rush as ever yet I met with any but that as the Apostle saith We are Debtors both to the Wise and to the Unwise Let us see whether the next be any better CHAP. V. The disparity assigned by Dr. St. between desiring the Saints in Heaven and Holy Men upon Earth to pray for Us shown to be Insignificant § 1. TO manifest farther the weakness of the Doctor 's Argument I added in my Reply that if Catholicks must be guilty of Idolatry for desiring just Persons in Heaven to pray for them upon the same account we must not desire the Prayers of a just Man even in this Life because this formal Invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity And the Doctor rejoins p. 168. that supposing this were all yet this would not excuse them But from what He was loath to name it the consequence is so absurd yet he would have his Reader believe that it would not excuse them from Idolatry And the Reason he gives is For their practice is very different in their Invocation of Saints from desiring our Brethren on Earth to pray for us And he cannot but wonder how any Men of common sense can suffer themselves to be imposed upon so easily in this matter But if he suppose that what we doâ— Invocating the Saints is no more than to desire them to pray for us as we do other Holy Men upon Earth How comes the one to be Idolatry and not the other The difference as far as I can gather from his words consists in this that amidst the Solemn Devotions of the Church after we have prayed to the Persons of the Holy Trinity to have mercy on us remaining upon our Knees we address to the Saints and require the assistance of their prayers saying Holy Peter and Paul pray for us and this without being sure that they hear us This together with a hint of our setting up their Images in some higher place in the Church and burning Incense before them is the whole summe of his Argument These circumstances he says make the desiring the Saints in Heaven to pray for us to be of a very different nature from desiring the same from our Brethren on Earth And I wonder how any Men of common sense can suffer themselves to be so far imposed upon as to believe that any thing of this or all of it together can amount to Idolatry Why we do not the same in all respects to Holy Men upon Earth St. Austin gives the Reason when he says that we worship the Saints in Heaven so much more devouâ—ly than when they were upon Earth because more securely after they have overcome all the dangers and uncertainties of this World as also we praise them more confidently now reigning Conquerours inâ—a more happy Life than whilst they were fighting in this So that what we do more to them in Heaven than whilst they were upon Earth in praying to and praising of them is an expression of a greater devotion to them now than then upon the account of their secure injoyment of a state of Bliss which they can never lose But for that Worship which is call'd Latria for as much as it is a certain service proper to the Divinity we neither worship them saith St. Austin and all Catholicks with him nor teach them to be worshipped but God alone But to return to the Doctor § 2. The first thing he cavils at is our turning to the Apostles with the same postures and expression of devotion to desire them to pray for us after we have invoked the Persons of the Holy Trinity And where lies the Idolatry here if we desire them only as he supposes to pray for us Is the desiring a just Man to pray for us to give him the honour due to God Why then were Job's Friends sent to him for his Intercession Or is it the doing it upon our Knees Why then do Parents permit their Children to ask them blessing in that posture Or is it the using that posture in the Church Are all the People then Idolaters for desiring upon their Knees the Priest nay one another to pray unto God for them These are such pitiful trifles that they were not worth the reciting much less refuting if as St. Hierom saith of the like to recite them were not to refute them Well but St. Peter he saith who would not permit Cornelius to fall down before him and St. Paul who rent his Garments and cryed out to the Men of Lystra Why do you these things would no doubt have been less pleased with this And why so if Cornelius as St. Hierome thinks intended through Error to worship him with divine honour and the Men of Lystra as St. Luke relates to offer sacrifice to St. Paul as to
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
Council teaches is that It is good and profitable for Christians humbly to invocate the Saints and to have recourse to their Prayers aid and assistance wher by to obtain benefits of God by his Son our Lord Jesus Christ who is our only Redeemer and Saviour These are the very words of the Council and any Man but of common Reason would think it were as easy to prove Snow to be black as so Innocent a practice to be Idolatry even Heathen Idolatry What we teach and do in this matter is to desire the Saints in Heaven to pray for us as we desire the prayers of one another upon Earth and must we for this be compared to Heathens Do we not acknowledg that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our only Redeemer and Saviour Do we not confess that what Benefits we obtain of God either by our own or others Prayers must come by the merits of Him our only Redeemer Do we not believe that God needs neither our own Prayers nor the Prayers of others to confer his Benefits upon us but that all the need is on our part and all that we can do either by our own Prayers or humbly begging the Prayers of others is little enough to make us capable of his Favours Do we not profess to all the World that we look upon the Saints not as Gods but as the Friends and Servants of God that is as just Men whose Prayers therefore are available with him And that we worship them only with that worship of Love and Communion with which even in this life also Holy men of God are worshipped whose hearts we judge prepared to lose their Lives for the truth of the Gospel Where then lies the Heathenism Where lies the Idolatry Had the Doctor held himself to the Doctrine of the Church of England which terms the Invocation of Saints a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture there had been some colour for a dispute against the lawfulness of it But to condemn us of Idolatry down-right Idolatry for desiring the Servants of God in Heaven to pray for us was to put the common size of Intelligent Readers quite out of hopes of ever seeing it proved He says indeed in his Preface that He thinks it no great skill to make things appear either ridiculous or dark and here He gives us a very pregnant Example of what himself can do in that kind § 2. The Argument he made choice of to do this Feat that is to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints was this If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us be sufficient ground for formal Invocation then the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry for they still pretended they did not give to them the worship proper to the supreme God which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papists in Justification of the Invocation of Saints To this I answer'd two ways in my Reply 1. By shewing the disparity of Catholicks worship from that of the Heathens in two things 1. In the Objects where I said that by Persons of a middle excellency we understand Persons endowed with supernatural gifts of grace in this life and glory in Heaven whose Prayers by consequence are acceptable and available with God But the supreme Deity of the Heathens is known to be Jupiter and their inferiour Deuits Venus Mars Bacchus Vulcan and the like rabble of Devils as the Scripture calls thâ—m and therefore there can be no consequence that because the Heathens were Idolaters in the worship of these though they pretended not to give them the worship proper to Jupiter the supreme God therefore Catholicks must be guilty of Idolatry in desiring the servants of the true God to pray for them to him 2. In the manner of worship because I said if any of the Heathens did attain as the Platonists to the knowledge of the true God yet as St. Paul saith they did not glorify him as God but changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible Man adorâ—â—g and offering sacrifice due to God alone to the Statues themselves or the inferiour Deities they supposed to dwell or assist in them which St. Austin upon the 96. Psalm proves to be Devils or evil Angels because they required sacrifice to be offered to them and would be worshipped as Gods What he meant by formal Invocation I said I did not well understand but Catholicks I told him understand no more by it in this matter but desiring or praying the Saints to pray for them And if this were Idolatry we must not desire the Prayers of a just Man even in this life because this formal Invocation will be to make him an Inferiour Deity 2. I answer'd that the same Calumny was cast upon the Catholicks in St. Austin's time and is answered by him and his Answer will serve as well now as then in his Twentieth Book against Faustus Chap. 21. who himself held such formal Invocation a part of the Worship due to Saints as is evident from the Prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdome l. 7. de Bapt. c. Donat. c. 1. And Calvin himself confesseth it was the custome at that time to say Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for Us. This indeed was my Answer and to disprove it he undertakes to show two things 1. That the disparity between Catholicks worship of Saints and the Heathens worship of their inferiour Deities is not so great as to excuse them from Idolatry 2. That the Answer given by St. Austin doth not vindicate them now as well as then § 3. 1. Concerning the disparity 1. As to the Object of Worship he abhors from his heart to parallel the Hâ—ly Angels and Saints with the impure Deities of the Heathens as to their Excellencies No. He hath more honour for them than not to think them more excellent than Devils or wicked Wretches I suppose in case they have the testimony of Scripture for their sanctity otherwise it may go hard with the best of them should he proceed in the same form with all the rest as he doth a little below with St. Ignatius But supposing them at present to be more excellent than the impure Deities of the Heathens yet if the Idolatry of the Heathens saith he lay not only in this that they worshipped Jupiter and Venus and Vulcan who are supposed to have been wicked Wretches but in this that they gave Divine Worship to any besides God then this disparity cannot excuse Catholicks from being Idolaters Behold here the ground upon which he intends to build his Charge of Idolatry Viz. That Catholicks give divine honour to the Holy Angels and Saints This is what the Reader must suppose otherwise his Arguments are at an End and having laid this false and scandalous supposition instead of proving it he undertakes to show out of the Primitive Fathers that it was the
But his quarrel I perceive is particularly to Ignatius Loyola as he irreverently calls him who for ought he can know he says was a great hypocrite but he is sure the Sun is none And whether will his spight against the Saints at length hurry him if we may not honour a Man for the great Vertue and Piety which appears in him because for ought we can know he is a hypocrite What if the like scruple should possess his mind in order to St. Hierome St. Ambrose St. Austin and the rest of the Primitive Saints It were but to say of them what he doth of St. Ignatius that for ought he can know they were great hypocrites For He knows the best of Men have their corruptions and to what degree it is impossible to understand but he is certain the spots in the Sun are no moral impurities nor displeasing to God And may he not say the same of the Martyrs too that for ought he knows they did not lay down their lives purely for the truth of the Gospel but perhaps because they were weary of them or for vain glory or out of obstinacy not to yield to their Adversaries If I say such a scruple as this should come into his mind what possibility were there of his ever being freed from it but by Divine Revelation Yet some Assistance I may perhaps give him by letting him see the unreasonableness of the scruple by the absurdness of the Consequences which must follow upon it For if it be not lawful to honour a Saint supposed to be in Heaven because for ought he can know he was a great hypocrite upon Earth it follows by the same Rule that we may not honour any Person in this Life for the grace of God which shines in his life and conversation for fear we should honour an Hypocrite for a Saint And I should advise him by no means to preach this Doctrine to his Auditors least they should entertain the same scruple of Him which he doth of the Saints now raigning with God in Glory O but they are the late Canonized Saints that he is not in perfect Charity with for if he were he would never refuse to honour them upon a meer whimsy that for ought he can know they were great Hypocrites and Philip Nerius he saith could not be mistaken in the shining of the Sun although he might be in the shining of Ignatius his face which yet is thought so considerable a thing it seems it was not the only thing that it is read in the Lessons of the Roman Breviary But whoever considers the care and diligence used at this Day by the Church of Rome in examining the Lives and Actions and Miracles of those Persons whom She Canonizes shall find it every way as great if not greater than in the Primitive times I must confess the Dr.'s desperate scruple of For ought he can know is able to defeat the greatest diligence Imaginable and so no doubt it had the dedication of that Church in the West some years ago in Memory of our late Royal Soveraign K. Charles I. had it depended upon his decisive Vote As for the shining of S. Ignatius his face he is not the first whom God vouchsafed to honour with that outward sign of the Grace which shined in his Soul and although the Roman Breviary make mention of it only upon the Testimony of Philip Nerius yet that Philip Nerius is known to have been a Man of that sanctity and integrity that he would not have stained his own Soul to cast a false light upon another Man's face I am sure though the spots in the Sun are no Moral Impurities nor displeasing to God yet such groundless suspitions and rash judgments against Persons of so eminent and approved Vertue must needs be highly displeasing to him What he adds of giving worship to Kings and their statues as well as to Saints and their Images is altogether impertinent for if he mean divine worship we deny it may lawfully be given to either of them and if he speak of such worship as may be given to Men I would willingly understand why the Saints may not be honoured as the adopted Children of God as well as Kings for that they are his Vice-gerents I would also willingly understand yet farther whether he allow any honour at all to be due to Princes upon that account for I do not remember hitherto any passage in him though he have had frequent occasion to speak of them from whence I could gather that he holds it lawful to give any worship either to their statues or to themselves And upon the same Principles that he denies any to be due to the Saints a Quaker would prove that it must be denied to Princes § 6. What hitherto hath been alledged by the Doctor to prove us guilty of Idolatry it seems was not so full to the purpose as himself could wish it and therefore he will now come home to the case And this it is The Heathens were not such Fools as some would make them nor yet altogether so wise as he would make them if we may believe the Fathers to excuse themselves For though saith he they gave worship to some whom they consider'd as the greatest Benefactors to Man-kind yet still they acknowledged one supreme God not Jupiter of Creet but the Father of gods and men Only they said this supreme God being of so high a Nature and there being other Intermediate Beings between Him and men whose Office they conceived it was to carry the Prayers of Men to God and to bring down help from Him to them they thought it very fitting to address their solemn supplications to them Here now saith he is the very same case in debate altering only the Names of Things which is between us and the Church of Rome and if ever they speak home to our case they must do it upon this Point And so they do but very little to their comfort Here then we must fix our Foot and if we can show the case not to be the same we shall by his own Confession speak home to the Point and we shall more-over have this comfort at least that we suffer this reproach of being parallel'd to Heathens falsly for God 's sake In order to this I shall show 1. What the supreme God of the Heathens was 2. What were those Intermediate Beings 3dly What was their Office And 4thly What kind of service they required 1. For the supreme God Jupiter the Doctor says it was not he of Creet but the Father of gods and men And the Poets indeed call him so of whom Horace confesseth that they took the priviledge to dare to fain and say any thing But how glorious soever the Title be yet Origen tells us in express terms that he was not the true God but a Devil We are ready to undergo saith he any torments rather than confess Jupiters to be God for we do not believe
Saint above others as Patience Humility Chastity c. for which reason the Church saith of every one of them Non est inventus similis illi that there was no other found like to him or upon the particular manner of his suffering Martyrdom or some particular Miracle or such like remarkable passage in his Life and actions which may serve to excite the Hope of the suppliant to obtain redress by means of his Intercession in a case which he conceives to bear a suitableness or conformity to something acted or suffered by him Now the efficacy of Prayer being grounded on Hope and it being natural to us to hope for redress where others have found it or where it may more reasonably be expected by reason of some particular qualification we apprehend in the Person to whom we address it is manifest that as the abovesaid Reflexion serves to erect our Hope so also it conduces to the end of Prayer that is the obtaining of what we pray for Hence it is that although all the divine Attributes are really one and the same indivisible Perfection in God yet for pardon we fly to his Mercy for knowledge to his Wisdome for Protection to his Power c. And St. Paul assigns the remission of our sins to the Passion of Christ but our Justification by which we rise to newness of life to his Resurrection He was delivered to death for our sins and rose again for our Justification The reason whereof he gives in the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 2. v. 18. Where he saith that it behoved Christ to be made like unto his Brethren in all things that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the People For saith he in that he suffred himself being tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted that is by what he suffred himself he is made prompt and ready to succour those who are in affliction and Temptation For it was true even of his most sacred Humanity what the Poet out of the very nature of Humanity made another say Haâ—d ignara â—â—li miseris succurrere disco that by his own sufferings he had learnt how to compassionate the sufferings of others And this was laid down by St. Paul as a powerful Argument to perswade the Hebrews to put their Hope in Him for their reconciliation with God because he was so particularly qualified and fitted for that Work by what he had suffered Why then may not a like Consideration of the fitness or qualification of one Saint above others as so conceived by us either for his eminent Perfection in such a particular virtue or some other Remarkable passage in his Life be taken as a Motive to invite us to address for the obtaining what we stand in need of to his Intercession before others The Scripture we know to perswade us to Patience in Adversity bids us reflect upon the sufferance of Job And why may not his eminence in that virtue as it serves for an example of our Imitation be also taken as a particular motive of our having recourse to his Intercession And when Jacob blessed the two Sons of Joseph Ephraim and Manasses among so many Angels whose assistance he might have implored he beggs for that Angel in particular to be their Guardian who had delivered him out of all his troubles The Angel saith he who delivered me from all evils bless these Children And why but because he thought that he who had been so careful to deliver him would be as careful to deliver them And upon this account were I in danger of being ship wrackt I should sooner fly to the Intercession of St. Paul who had saved by his Prayers all his Fellow-passengers in the Ship from being drowned than to another who had never been in the like danger Behold here then the Crime of Catholicks in calling particularly upon the Angel Raphael when they travel because he protected young Tobias in his Journey upon St. Roch against the Plague because his Charity was signal in assisting those who were insected with it upon St. Nicholas against Tempests because he saved some by his Prayers who in a storm at Sea invoked him while yet alive upon St. Apollonia for the Tooth-ach because all her Teeth were strucken out for her free Confession of Christ and upon St. Michael and St. George against Enemies because the latter was by Profession a Souldier and a most valiant Martyr And the former is recorded in Scripture to be the Protector of the People of God This is the Crime for which the Doctor charges Catholicks with Idolatry But if it be a Crime in them it is much like that of a Beggar who hopes to find relief at that door where he hears others have been relieved before The Doctor perhaps to carry on his sport will instance in some addresses that are made to particular Saints upon such accounts which seem to him ridiculous or it may be contrary to what happened to the Saint But while I defend the reasonableness of the practice in it self I am not bound to defend that all who use it take the hints of their application to one Saint before another from solid and reasonable Motives This I know that what seems ridiculous to One who scoffs at devotion may serve to raise affections in another who is truly devout And the Chananaean Woman when our Saviour said to her It is not good to take the Children's bread and cast it to Dogs drew an Argument of Hope from whence another who had not her Faith would have taken a Motive of despair In fine to conclude this Point let us suppose that Martha and Mary Magdalen who are now glorious Saints in Heaven were again living upon Earth I would gladly know whether a Person guilty of Incontinency might not without being guilty also of Aegyptian Idolatry conceive a greater Hope of obtaining God's favour by the Prayers of so Exemplar a Convert than by those of her Sister though more Innocent Surely the Parallel Example of her Conversion and the particular Zeal she must have for the Conversion of others would soon determin the devotion of the Penitent to have recourse to her Intercession The Case is the same now she is in Heaven for she hath not lost her Charity by being there And the case is the same in addresses made to other Saints upon like accounts as I shewed above When therefore the Doctor hath a mind hereafter to change the names of the Aegyptian Gods who according to their doctrin presided over the several parts of Man let him if he please transcribe out of the Almanack the Anatomy of Mans Body as the parts thereof are govern'd by the Twelve Signs Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo c. The Characters at least may stand indifferently as Hieroglyphical Notes either of the Signs of the Zodiack or Aegyptian Deities But nothing can be more ridiculous
here by the Doctor he affirms that that service which is given by servants to their Masters is wont to be called by another Name in Greek that is dulia But this the Reader was not to know for fear he might infer that if some degree of the service called in Greek dulia might be given by Servants to their Masters then surely a higher degree of it may be given to the Holy Angels § 4. But now after all these endeavours used by the Doctor to hide himself in the General terms of such worship Religious worship Prayer Invocation c. and some obscure passages of the Fathers He tells us that he knows very well and I pray God his own knowledge may not rise against him in the Day of Judgment by what Arts all these Testimonies are endeavoured to be evaded or rather by what Light he will be discovered to have said nothing to the purpose Viz. That these sayings of the Fathers were intended against the Heathens Idolatry who worshipped those Spirits as Gods and offered Sacrifices to them But the Church of Rome denieâ— the Angels and Saints to be Gods and asserts that the worship by Sacrifice is proper only to God This Answer is indeed given by St. Austin very often and others of the Fathers And there needed no other to the Testimonies he produces if all who read his Book knew as much as himself But such devices as these for so he calls them though prov'd to be the sense of the Fathers out of the very places cited by him he saith can never satisfy an impartial mind And to return him his own words in a like occasion I must tell him that if ever he speak home to our case he must do it upon this Point And so he does but very little to his comfort as I shall make appear by showing the nullity of the Reasons with which he endeavours to make the aforesaid Answer seem insufficient 1. The First is because The Fathers he saith p. 158. do expresly deny that Invocation or Prayer is to be made to the Angels and Saints But this is but to say the same thing over again or to equivocate as Mr. Thorndike saith in the terms of Prayer and Invocation which are not so proper to God but that in despite of our hearts they may be used in signifying requests made also to Men. 2. His second Reason is because It would be no more unlawful to sacrifice to Saints or Angels than to Invocate them And this Reason clearly destroys it self because it supposes we hold it unlawful to sacrifice to the Saints as the Heathens did to their Inferiour Deities But to let that pass with the rest If he take the word Invocation here to signifie the Prayer we make to God as the Author and Giver of all Good I grant it no less unlawful to sacrifice to Saints and Angels than to Invocate them For what Catholick ever taught or thought that it was lawful to Invocate any Angel or Saint upon that account But if the word Invocation on the one side as in despite of all opposition it may be and by the Custome of the Church it is used be taken to signify the requests we make to Angels and Saints to pray for us and on the other side the offering of sacrifice be not only by the custome of the Church but of all Mankind as St. Austin teacheth appropriated to signify the absolute worship due only to God Who sees not the unlawfulness of offering it to any Saint or Angel may consist with the lawfulness of desiring them to pray for us The case is plain in just Men upon Earth For St. Paul and Barnabas accepted willingly the Prayers which others made to them for their assistance but utterly refused to admit the sacrifice which the Lycaonians Acts 14. would have offered to them and it is as plain of the Saints in Heaven because we pray no otherwise to them than we do to Holy Men upon Earth though more devoutly upon the account of their unchangeable state of Bliss How then could the Doctor parallel these two together and not only parallel them but make it less unlawful to pray to the Saints than to offer sacrifice to them I 'le tell you Catholicks when they write against Inâ—idels or Hereticks make use of the Answers which the Fathers have formerly given to their Objections But Dr. St. being to oppose the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in the Point of Invocation of Saints is forâ—'t to maintain an Argument of the Heathens against St. Austin Nay saith he p. 158. The Heathens in St. Austin argued very well that sacrifices being meer external things might more properly belong to the Inferiour Deities but the more Invisible the Deity was the more Invisible the sacrifices were to be and the greater and better the Deity the sacrifice was to be still proportionable Thus the Doctor to show that in all reason the duty of Prayer ought to be reserved as more proper to God than any External sacrifice or as he vaâ—ies the Phrâ—â—se than a meer outward sacrifice and consequently that Prayer was less communicable to a Saint than Sacrifice But do you not think the Doctor us'd the utmost of his confidence here to own and maintain for good nay very good an Argument of the Heathens confuted by St. Austin in that very place The Heathen saith Dr. St. argued very well I deny it saith St. Austin because in so arguing they manifest that they do not know nesciunt that visible sacrifices are the signs of the Invisible Sacrifices of the mind like as the words we speak are the signs of things For as when we pray or praise we direct the words to him to whom we offer in our hearts the things themselves which we signify by them so when we sacrifice we know that the visible Sacrifice is to be offered to no other but to Him whose Invisible Sacrifice we our selves ought to be in our hearts And upon this account he adds a little below it is and no other that the Devils require sacrifice to be offered to them because they know it to be due to God alone endeavouring by that means to hinder access to the true God that Man may not be his sacrifice whilst sacrifice is offered to any but to him Thus St. Austin in Answer to the Heathens Objection and the Doctor 's By which it appears 1st That in the Judgment of St. Austin external sacrifice being the highest expression of the highest part of Prayer which is the devoting and sacrificing our selves in our hearts to God it ought of all others to be reserv'd as most proper and acceptable to him And that Religion which admits no external visible sacrifice must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the Publick Worship of God 2dly That in the Judgment of the same St. Austin the Doctor if he speak as he thinks knows no more than the Heathens did what the
no real Being but in a middle acception for an Image or resemblance of some real thing but falsely imagined to be a God And it was to the purpose that the Law should be thus enlarged for the Instruction of a people so rude and prone to all kind of Idolatry as the Jews were But supposing the Law to be Natural and not in part Ceremonial it was nothing to the purpose to put the word Similitude in its largest meaning that is as signifying any Image what soever though made with respect to the Worship of the true God when God himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubins to be made for that respect What the Doctor should prove and it is his part at present to prove against these Fathers and the General Sense of the Church of Christ for so many hundred years is that the word Similitude is to be taken so here that is for any Image made with respect to the Worship of God But all the Proof he brings is a confident I confess it cannot enter into my mind how God should have forbidden it by more express and emphatical words than he hath done and yet his own words p. 60. that God forbids any Image or Similitude to be made with respect to his Worship I conceive are much more express and emphatical to his purpose than those of the Law for Those bear a great dispute These none at all But to let this pass What he endeavours instead of proving his own Assertion is to render the explication brought by his Adversary ridiculous by a Comparison much of the same sâ—amp with his former one of a Princes making it Treason to bow down to a Sign Post with his Head upon it with Intention to honour him And to do him right the Reader shall have it as it lies If a Prince saith he should under a severe penalty you may suppose it Treason as in the other case forbid all his Subjects making any Image or resemblance with intent to give honour to him by kneeling before them would not that man be thought very ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law thus that the Prince did not forbid them making any Picture of Himself or his Son or any of his Favorites for the Worship of these could not but redound to his own honour but onely that they should not make the Image of an Ape or an Ass or a Tyger thinking to honour their Prince thereby Much such an exposition says he is that here given of the Law God forbids any Image or Similitude to be made with respect to his Worship for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else but he his Adversary saith This Law must not be understood to exclude a Crucifix or such-like Sacred Image with an intention to worship God by them but onely they should not worship Apis or Dagen an Ichneumon or a Crocodile or any the most ridiculous follies of the Heathen Behold here a quaint Comparison A product of pure Fancy indeed that a Prince should be imagin'd to enact a Law so much against Nature and his own honour But to make it run on all four with the Beasts mention'd in it viz. the Ape the Ass and the Tyger ought not the Doctor first to have prov'd the Sense of the Law in question to be That God forbids an Image or Similitude to be made with respect to his Worship by some better Reason than for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else when there is not one word in the Law expressing a Prohibition of any such thing as I shewed above and the Jews were expresly commanded to make the Ark and the Cherubins and to bow down before them to that very end How quaint soever then the Comparison be it is gâ—ounded on a false Supposition and so quite beside the matter I shall take leave to set it down as I conceive it ought to be and so leave it to the Reader to judge between us Suppose that the Râ—bâ—ls of Astracan having defaced all Images in the City had set up that of their Leader Stephan Radzin in every Street and as they pass'd by put off their Hats or bow'd to it with intent to honour him by those actions Suppose farther that the Czar of Muscovy their lawful Prince having reduced the City to his Obedience should forbid under a severe Penalty all his Subjects to uncover or bow themselves to an Image and at the same time or a little after command those which were set up for the Usurper's honour to be pull'd down and burnt and others relating to himself set up to the Intent to honour him by them would not that man be thought very ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law to be meant of any Image whatsoever though made with respect to the Prince'â— own honour by taking the word Image in its largest signification especially if there were another word or clause in the Law limiting the Generality of the word Image to those of the Usurper Just such an exposition of the Law is that given here by the Doctor Rebel Mankind had set up Idols and Images of false Gods in all parts of the World to honour that Arch Rebel the Devil by bowing down before them and God having reduc'd a part of it to his Obedience the People of the Jews forbids them to make an Idol or any similitude of things in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth to bow down to them or serve them restraining thereby the generality of the word similitude to signifie those of false Gods And at the same time or presently after commands them to make an Ark and Cherubins to give Worship to himself by bowing down before them Would not that man now be thought ridiculous who should go about to interpret the Law to mean by that general term Similitude the forbidding any Image or Similitude whatsoever to be made with respect to his own Worship Let the Reader judge whether this I have set down be not the plain state of the point in debate between us and whether there be any thing more extravagant than such an Exposition of the Law as this here given except the Reason it self he gives 〈…〉 ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else 9. His second Answer to my Argument is that the word Pesel is very properly rendred an Image and doth not signifie barely an Idol And what he offers by way of Proof is that it is no less than forty several times rendred by the Lxx. glypton a graven thing and but thrice by eidoolon an Idol and once by eikoon which is properly an Image But granting this to be so does it any way hinder but their Judgment was it was to be rendred by Idol in this place Nay is it not evident that translating it generally by glypton a graven thing they had some particular reason to render it by Idol rather than by graven thing or Image in this
concerning the lawfulness of representing God in Picture we see how far the Church of England allows it in the Front of her Publick Liturgy and there want not other examples not unparallel to this in some of her Churches also So that Dr. Stillingfleet must either condemn her of Impiety i◠making and exposing such kind of Representations to the Eyes of the People or himself of a most gross Errour when he asserts in so universal a manner that God cannot be represented to men in any way but what must be an infinite disparagement to him Perhaps he will say they are not exposed by the Church of England for Worship But that belongs to the Consequence Our Question at present is about the Antecedent whether they may not be made without disparagement to God Besides that himself not onely condemns them for Worship but also in order to the putting us in mind of God which how strange soever it seem he avowedly maintains p. 68. when he affirms That they tend highly to the dishonour of God and suggest mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship But of this more in the next Chapter Let him make his attonement with the Church of England as he can I come now to speak to the point it self § 3. Pictures or Images made with reference to God may be considered two ways either a◠made to represent the Divinity it Self out of an Erroneous Conceit which the Maker hath of it in his mind such as the Anthropomorphites had of God whom they conceived to have Eyes and Ears and Hands and other like bodily parts as we have or as representing immediately such things as bear a certain Analogy or Proportion to some divine Perfections and thereupon are apt to raise our Minds to the Knowledge and Contemplation of the Perfections themselves As when God the Father is pictured as he appeared to Daniel in the likeness of the Ancient of Days to manifest his Wisdom and Eternity and the H. Ghost in the likeness of a Dove to signifie his Purity and Simplicity in a manner suitable to our Conceptions The first sort of Representations are an infinite disparagement to the Divine Nature because being infinite and invisible it cannot be represented as it is in it self by any corporeal likeness or figures But the Second are no way dishonourable to him because they are not made to represent the Divine Nature by an immediate or proper similitude but by Analogy onely or Metaphorical signification as is above declared And if it were no disparagement to God to appear in such or such visible forms it can be none to represent them in Picture no more than it is to relate or describe them in Writing § 4. This premised I answer to the Preposition If his meaning be that Gods Nature being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men either Properly or Analogically but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it I deny it as false God the Father would never have represented himself in a humane form nor the H. Ghost in the likeness of a Dove had it been dishonourable Nor do I believe the Church of England would have permitted the Divinity to be pictured in the likeness of a Triangular Light had she thought it a disparagement But if his meaning be that the Divine Nature being infinite cannot be represented properly as it is by any corporeal similitude I grant it But then the Consequence in virtue of this Antecedent can onely be this that to worship God by such a visible Representation as conceiv'd proper to his Nature is extreamly dishonourable to him And in this we perfectly agree with him but utterly deny what he farther infers without any restriction or reason that all Worship given to God by any visible Representation of him whether conceiv'd as Proper or Analogical is extreamly dishonourable to him Having shown the Proposition it self 〈◊〉 taken in the unlimited Sense he gives it to be false it follows manifestly that it cannot be the Reason of the Law Yet for a more ample discovery of his Sophistical managing of Controversie I shall give it a farther Consideration as it is assigned by him for the Reason of the Law § 5. The Question at present between us is about the Reason of the Law viz. Why God forbad the making a graven Image or the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth to bow down and worship it And on the People's part to whom the Law was given it is evident that it was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone by restraining them from Idolatry But this it seems was too plain and obvious a Reason for so Metaphysical a Discourser He seeks therefore another more subtil and elevated and consequently more apt to lead a vulgar Reader into a maze viz. What Perfection in God was the Cause or Reason why he made this Law What he asserts it to be we have already heard viz. That the Divinity cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it What I affirm it to be is The Supreme Excellency of God's Nature to which Soveraign Worship is onely due and not the incongruity of an Image to represent it as he often expresseth it The Question thus stated I prove my Assertion 1. From the Preface of the Law the usual place where the Reasons of all Laws are expressed because the Reason there assigned by the Law-maker himself is this I am the Lord thy God And what is this but I am the onely Supreme and Super-Excellent Being above all and over all to whom therefore Soveraign honour is onely to be given and to none beside me Neither is there any mention at all made of the irrepresentableness of the Divine Nature or the incongruity of an Image to represent it to men But the same reason of his Supreme Excellency is enforced anew from the Zeal or Jealousie which God hath of his honour when immediately after the Prohibition he adds For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God as the Protestant Translation hath it by which he gives us to understand that the Reason why he will punish severely those who shall give his honour to any thing beside him is because he is the Lord their God to whom onely it is due 2. I prove it from the necessary Connexion there is as of an effect to its proper Cause between the Prohibition of the Law on the one side and the Supreme Excellency of the Divine Nature on the other To make this as clear as the matter will give me leave I must desire the Reader to reflect that although there be no distinction of Attributes or Perfections in God but that All are really one and the same indivisible Perfection with his Nature and consequently the same with one another viz. his Mercy with his Justice his Justice with his Truth and his Truth with
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
which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of divine Revelation we must be imposed upon by every thing which pretends to be so The perfect discussion of this Principle I shall not engage my 〈◊〉 in at present The Men of Principles as the Doctor calls them not without just cause are likely enough to take it into Consideration a second and perhaps a third time too At present it may suffice to shew briefly now absurd in it self and how destructive to Christian Religion this Principle of the Doctor 's is Viz. That we are to judge of the truth of divine Revelation i.e. whether God have revealed such a thing or no by exercising our Faculty of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief that is by making our Reason the Judge whether the matter proposed to our belief be true or false This is what I can understand by the Doctor 's words to be his meaning If He can give them a better I shall be glad to find my self mistaken But if this be as to me it seems to be the sense of his words I am sorry that any thing so irrational in its self and so fatal to Religion should proceed from the Pen of a Christian. For first as I said it is absurd in it self because it can by no means subsist unless we will equal Man's knowledge with that of God For if Man cannot comprehend the depth of the knowledge and power of God that is if God both know and can do more than Man can understand it is evident that the judgment of sense and reason about the Truth of the matter proposed can never be a â—it means to assure him whether God have revealed it or no and it is as evident on the contrary that if it be sufficiently proposed and asserted as revealed by God though it seem never so absurd and contradictory to humane sense and reason we must submit our judgment to the belief of it as True ' Tâ—s not all our reasonings and syllogisms against the matter proposed that can excuse us from the Obligation of câ—ptivating our Undeâ—standing to the Obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 5. That which seems a Camel to us is not so much as a Gnat to the knowledge and power of God and therefore rather than give Him the lye we must strain our selves to swallow what seems to be the greatest Contradiction to Sense and Reason Imaginable Our first Mother Eve by taking part with her sense against Faith destroyed her Self and Posterity by believing the Devil rather than God and what more suitable Penance for this Fault or Cure for this Pride than for God to exact of us that we should believe Him rather than our sense and this particularly in the point of Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Redeemer that as by following sense and eating the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil Death came upon all both of Soul and Body so all may receive Life by denying the suggestions of Sense and eating the true food of the Body of Christ under the forme of Bread 2dly It is destructive to Christianity since if we must believe nothing but what our Sense and Reason can comprehend we must lay aside our Creed and neither believe the Creation of the World nor the Trinity of Persons nor the Incarnation of the Son of God nor the Resurrection of the Dead all which seem to imply as many and great Absurdities and Contradictions as the Doctor for his heart can Object against Transubstantiation It would be too tedious to insist upon them all Those who are curious may meet with them every where in the Writings both of those who impugn and of those who defend the Catholick belief in those Points Yet to give the Reader a clearer Insight into the absurdness and malignity of this Principle of the Doctors and how agreeable this proceeding of his is in this Point to that of other Desertors of the Church's Faith I shall instance in some of the Contradictions objected against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation and that in the words of Dr. Beaumont now Master of Peter-House in Cambridge in his most excellent Poem call'd Psyche or Love's Mystery Verses I know in a Book of Controversy will seem as improper and come as unexpected as a Garden of Flowers in a rough and craggy Desâ—rt but a Traveller will not find fault with his Guide for leading him thorough it if he lead him not out of his way My Adversary without any occasion given him to please the Atheistical humour of the Wits of the Time could think fit to turn Spiritual Archy and make sport with the Saints in so prophane a manner as is no where to be parallel'd in the worst of Play-Books And I hope after so many hard and spiny Questions of the Schools wherewith he hath perplex'd the minds of his sober Readers I may have leave to divert them with citing a little Poetry which doth but express in Verse what the matter it self leads me to have said in Prose See then how the aforesaid Dr. Beaumont introduces a Cerinthian Heretick endeavouring to seduce Psyche that is the Soul from the belief of the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity upon Dr. St.'s Principles of Sense and Reason 213 Blind Ignorance was grown so bold that she Sought to perswade the World it had no eyes Making the lazy Name of Mystery Instead of Demonstration suffice From this black Pit those monstrous Prodigies Of Hood-wink'd and abused Faith did rise 214 Who can imagin Heaven would e're ob'rude Upon the Faith of Reasonable Men That which against all Reason doth conclude And founded is on Contradiction Sure God so strange a Law did never give That Men must not be Men if they believe 219 For though the Marvel-Mongers †grant that He Was moulded up but of a Mortal Mettal And that his substance was the same which we Find in our selves to be so weak and brittle Yet an Eternal God they make Him too And angry are that we will not do so 220 Thus the quaint madness of a dreaming Brain Holds the same thing a Mountain and a Mite Fancies the Sun Light 's Royal Soveraign To look like swarthy and ignoble Night Imagins wretched Worms although it see They crawl in Dâ—rt Illustâ—ious Kings to be 221 But Heaven forbid that we should so blaspheme And think our God as poor a thing as we How can Eternity be born in Time How can Infinity a Baby be Or how can Heaven and Earth's Almighty Lord To Aegypt fly for fear of Herod's Sword 226 I know they strive to mince the matter by Distinguishing his Natures For their Art Being asham'd of no Absurdity Hâ—mself from his own self presumes to part Yet we durst not admit a Deity Which must on a distinction builded be 227 But how much more than Mad their doctrine is And how transcending Pagan Blasphemy Who
Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same neither indeed to be any God at all but a Devil who is delighted with the name of Jupiter an Enemy to Men and God 2dly For the Intermediate Beings it is asserted by the same Origen that they were Devils also and according to the differently formed statues in which they assisted one was esteemed to be Bacchus another Hercules c. The like is affirmed also by Theophilus Antiochenus above cited and St. Austin upon the 96. Psalm But then because the supreme God was conceived to be of so high a Nature that he knew not what passed in this sublunary World Therefore 3dly The Office of these Inferiour Deities or Devils was to carry up the Prayers of Men to God as the Doctor himself cites out of St. Austin but very insincerely for St. Austin saith not to God but ad Deos to the Gods that is to Devils out of a supposition that they cannot know the necessities and prayers of Men but by Intervention of these Spirits and so to bring down to Men the blessings they prayed for And 4thly To oblige them to perform this Office of Nuncii or Messengers as St. Austin calls them they exacted of Men to give them Divine Worship by the Oblation of Victims and Sacrifices as the Fathers every where testify This then is the Scheme of the Heathens Divinity and Devotion The Doctor 's Father of Gods and Men was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil The Inferiour Deities were Inferiour Devils Their Office was to inform the Superiour Gods of what passed here below and the reward they required for this service was no less than the Offering of Sacrifice to their Devil-ships And now was this the very same case altering only the Names of Things which he saith is in debate between Him and the Church of Rome concerning the Invocation of Saints Surely a more Injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the Pen of the greatest Enemy of Christianity except that of Julian the Apostate who charged the Christians of his time for their worshipping the Martyrs that for the one true God they worshipped many Men who were not Gods A most Injurious Calumny I say For r. The God whom we adore is not that wise Father of Gods and Men who was so high as not to know what was done here below but the true and Immortal God Maker of Heaven and Earth who sees the secrets of our hearts and knows our necessities before we utter them 2dly The Persons to whom we address our selves for their Prayers are not Devils or wicked Wretches but the Friends and Servants of God whom the Doctor himself as little respect as he hath for them acknowledges to exceed those other in excellency 3dly Their Office is not to inform the Supream God of what he knows not but to be Joynt Petitioners with us and for us to his divine Majesty as other Holymen are upon Earth 4thly and Lastly We do not procure or buy this favour of them by offering Sacrifice to them for as St. Austin saith What Bishop officiating at the Altar doth say at any time We offer to Thee Peter or Paul or Cyprian But as the same Holy Doctor there saith We celebrate their Memory with Religious Solemnity both to excite us to their imitation and to become partakers of their Merits and Prayers but so that we erect Altars not to any of the Martyrs but to the God of Martyrs although in Memory of them And now having spoken thus home to the Case I leave it to the Reader 's Judgment whether the Practice of Catholicks in honouring and Invocating the Saints be the same with that of the Heathens in the worship of their Inferiour Deities To make the Case run Parallel on all four the Doctor must prove either that the God we worship is not the very true God but an Arch-Devil or that the Holy Angels and Saints are not his friends and servants but inferiour Devils Or that we believe him to be so ignorant that he stands in need of them to inform him or that we offer sacrifice and erect Altars to them And when he can do all or any of these he will speak something to the Point But I believe these are none of those things which he threatens largely to prove if further occasion be given And I have good reason to believe so by his present undertaking which is not to prove any of these things in which the Parallel must consist if there be any but to cast a mist before his Readers eyes and make him lose both his labour and the Question as I shall show in the following Chapter CHAP. II. What kind of Honour Catholicks give to the Saints The Testimonies of Origen and St. Ambrose explained Of the Practice of making Addresses to particular Saints § 1. THe Question at present between Dr. St. and the Church of Rome is not whether divine worship be to be given to the Saints for this is abhor'd of all faithful Christians but whether an Inferiour Worship of like kind with that which is given to Holy Men upon Earth for their Holiness and neer Relation to God may not be lawfully given to them now they are in Heaven This is the true state of the Question between us which the Doctor afraid to grapple with turns aside and will he saith insist upon these two things 1. That the Fathers did condemn all such kind of worshâ—p supposing their Principle true that is as far as I can understand it supposing what they said was true 2. That they did not only condemn it in those spirits which the Heathens worshipped but in good Angels themselves And before I engage with Him upon the Testimonies of the Fathers I must disperse the Mist he raises by his Egregious equivocating in the words All such kind of worship What kind of worship is it the Fathers deny may be given to the most excellent created Beings He tells us p. 145. any Religious Worship And what doth he mean by Religious Worship To dispute saith Mr. Thorndike whether we are bound to honour the Saints or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not Whether this be Religious or Civil nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable and the cause of that equivocation the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signify conceptions which came not from Common sense Plainly their excellence and the Relation we have to them being Intelligible only by Christianity must borrow a Name from that which vulgar language attributes to God or to Men our Superiours And then a little after he saith That the Relation which God hath settled between the Church Militant and Triumphant may be reasonably called Religious provided that the distance be not confounded between the Religious honour of God and that Honour of the Creature which the Religious honour of God enjoins being neither Civil nor