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
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 §
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
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 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
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
who had the power of limiting what is lawful and what is not by the Law should declare to be unlawful But to think that their declarations ought to bind Christians were to imagine that Christians ought to be Jews And then a little after he goes on For Christianity saith he having put Idolatry to flight which the Law never pretended to do it is not to be imagined that the having of Images can make a man take those for God which they represent so long as the belief of Christianity is alive at the heart For neither was it Idolatry though it were a breach of this Commandment for a Jew to have such Images as were forbidden by their Elders not taking that for God which they represented But what honour of Saints departed or what signs of that honour Christianity may require what Furniture or Ceremonies the Churches of Christians and the Publick Worship of God in them may require now all the world professes Christianity and must honour the Religion which they profess this the Church is at freedom to determine by the Word of God expounded according to the best agreement of Christians This is Mr. Thorndike's Discourse in which the Reader may observe 1. That to think the Declarations of the Jews ought to bind Christians were to imagine that Christians ought to be Jews 2. That all things forbidden to the Jews by this Commandment were Not Idolatry 3. That the Images which the Precept supposeth were the Representations of other that is false Gods which his People were wont to worship for God 4. That what Furniture viz. of Images the matter he there treats of or Ceremonies the Publick Worship of God may require is left to the Judgment of the Church to determine 5. and lastly That the Opposition in this Point between Dr. St. and Mr. Thorndike is not onely concerning the obligation of the Jews as between Catholick Divines but of Christians also in order to this Commandment So that some are of opinion however Dr. St. â—eem to direct his arrows against the Church of Rome yet he meant at least by rebound to shoot them at Mr. Thorndike And had he made it any part of his business to answer his Arguments I might easily have been induc'd to have embrac'd their Opinion But those remaining untouch'd I cannot but look upon this Discourse of that Learned Person as a kind of Prophetical Confutation in the year 1662. when he printed that Book of all which Dr. Stillingfleet brings in 1671. for the proof of his Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the matter of Images As for his new way of answering the Testimony I alledged of St. Austin's Judgment of the sense of this Commandment by asking me how I am sure that it was his constant Judgment I have at large refuted it in the Third Chapter to which I remit the Reader CHAP. X. What kind of Honour the Church gives to Holy Images explained and the Doctors mixing School Disputes with matters of Faith shewn to be sophistical § 1. TO clear the Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church from his most Unjust Charge of Idolatry I told the Reader That the Honour we give to the Sacred Images of Christ and his Saints was an inferiour or Relative Honour onely not Latria the Worship due to God but a certain Honourary Worship expressed by kissing them or putting off our Hats or kneeling before them much like the Worship which is given to the Chair of State or the Reverence which Moses and Joshua gave to the Ground by putting off their Shoes c. That this was the meaning of the Council of Nice is confessed by Dr. Field and Mr. Thorndike as I have shewed p. 124. And that the Council of Trent means no more is manifest from the words of the Council related above Chap. 2. as also for that Sess 25. it refers us expresly to the Council of Nice Yet because the Doctor is resolved to quarrel the distinction of Absolute and Relative Worship that the Reader may see what is meant by it I shall desire him to take notice first That Adoration or Worship being an Act of the Will as the Will can love one thing for it self because of the Perfection it is endow'd with and another thing not for it self but purely for that others sake to whom 〈◊〉 belongs So likewise it may adore or worship a thing either for it self that is for some intrinsecal Excellency in the thing for which it deserves Worship and then it is said to worship the thing absolutely because for it self Or it may worship it for another's sake that is for some Excellency in the Person to whom the said thing hath a Relation or Union and then it is said to worship such a thing with a Relative or Inferiour Worship because purely for that Persons sake And because Intellectual Beings are capable of having some Excellency in themselves for which they deserve to be worshipped as Virtue Sanctity Wisdom Power c. and Inanimate Beings are capable of bearing a Relation to a Person endowed with such Excellencies it follows that as Intellectual Beings may have Absolute Worship given to them so Inanimate Things relating to them may for their sakes have a Relative Respect or Honourary Adoration given to them and that so far from being injurious to the Person to whom they belong that it would be look'd upon as a disrespect and affront if in due circumstances it were not done Such a kind of Relative Worship it is we affirm to be due and to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints when we kiss them or put off our Hats before them Secondly I must desire him to observe as Mr. Thorndike doth very well that the words Adoration Worship Respect Reverence or howsoever you translate the Latine word Cultus are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is sometimes they may signifie one kind of honour and sometimes another Sometimes that which belongs to God and sometimes that which belongs to the Creature And the cause of this equivocation he saith is the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signifie conceptions which came not from common sense And from this equivocation in the Words Adoration Worship c. the greatest part of the Difficulties which occur in this take their rise Now when the Doctor should set himself seriously to confute the aforesaid Explication he puts his Reader into a fit of laughing with a Drollish Parallel p. 100. that to give this Inferiour and Relative kind of Worship to the Image of Christ that is to honour and reverence it for his sake is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband that the person she was too kind with was extreamly like him and a near friend of his and that it was out of respect to him that she gave him the honour of his Bed But to lay open the
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
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
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
Humane but such as a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth By this it appears that if the Doctor mean by Religious Worship that Honor which is due to God alone it is true what the Fathers say that It is not to be given to the most excellent created Beings but nothing at all to the Point in debate between us If he mean that Honour of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake and that Relation which it settleth I shall show it to be false that the Fathers deny any such honour to be given to the Holy Angels and Saints And if he contend that this kind of worship ought not to be called Religious St. Austin will tell him that it is but a meer wrangling about words because the word Religion as he shows may be used in other senses besides that of the worship due to God and Himself speaking of the honour given by Christians to the Martyrs saith We celebrate their Memories with Religious Solemnity And who so saith Mr. Thorndike in the place above cited could wish that the Memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have been Martyrs had they been called to it Alas He never thought that for ought Dr. St. can know they were great Hypocrites had not been honoured as is plain they were honoured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed Whether this Censure of Mr. Thorndike's be applicable to my Adversary or no depends upon his allowing or not allowing such honour to the Saints as is plain was given them by Christians but for the distinction he makes between the Religious worship due to God and that of which a Creature is capable of for Religion's sake it will clearly dispell the Mâ—st he hath raised from the Testimonies of the Fathers and let the Reader see how he hath perverted their meaning and yet said nothing to the purpose § 2. The first he cites is Origen affirming that the Scripture doth indeed stile God the God of Gods and Lord of Lords but withall saith that to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by Him And his mind ascends up to the supreme God who worships him inseparably and indivisibly by his Son who alone conducts us to the Father Therefore seeing there are many Gods and many Lords we endeavour by all means not only to carry our minds above those things on Earth which are worshipped by the Heathen for Gods but above those whom the Scripture calls Gods by which Origen means the Angels To this I answer that it is plain from the very words themselves that the worship which Origen here contends ought not to be given to Angels is divine worship proper to God alone for he speaks only of that worship which is given to the Father inseparably and indivisibly by his Son And when-ever such worship is to be given we must not only carry our minds above those things which were worshipped by the Heathens for Gods but above the good Angels also because they are not inseparably and indivisibly One with the Father as the Son is who alone can conduct us by his Grace and Merits to the Father And this is yet more plain from the Reply which Origen gave to that Evasion of Celsus viz. that None were to be honoured for Gods but those to whom the supreme God doth communicate it for denying any such honour to have been granted by God to the Heroes or Daemons of the Heathens he proves from Miracles and Prophecies and Precepts that this honour was given to Christ Ut omnes honorent Filium sicut Patrem honorant that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father that is that they should honour him as God which the Doctor translates that they who honour the Father should honour the Son also tacitly insinuating that no honour at all mâ—ght be lawfully given but to the Son And again when Celsus objects that by the same Rule that Christians gave honor to Christ he thought they might give it to Inferiour Deities The account which Origen gives of the worship which Christians attribute to the Son viz. because it is said I and my Father are One makes it yet more evident that he speaks of divine worship which cannot be given to any created Beings and not of such an Inferiour Worship of which Creatures are capable upon account of their Holiness and Relation to God For of these he saith and who will not wonder to see it cited though but imperfectly by the Doctor himself that if Celsus had spoken of the true Ministers of God after his only begotten Son such as Gabriel Michael and all the Angels and Archangels and had contended that they were to be worshipped which last words though very material are left out by Dr. St. he acknowledges that by explaining the notion of worship or respect and the Actions of those that give it perhaps he should have said something of that Subject as far as the dignity of so great a thing and the reach of his understanding would have permitted But this not being objected by Celsus but only that they were by the same Rule by which they worshipped Christ for God to worship in like manner the Inferiour Deities of the Heathens he thought it not necessary to enlarge upon that Subject at present but only to show the different account upon which they worshipped Christ as one with his Father By which it is manifest he held a certain worship or respect due to the Angels inferiour to that which is due to God alone And all that the Doctor hath to say for himself is that Origen saith elsewhere Although the Angels be called Gods in Scripture yet we are not to worship them with divine worship which is a plain concession that when Origen denies worship to any created Beings he speaks of divine worship and so nothing against that Inferiour worship or respect which is given by Catholicks to the Holy Angels and Saints § 3. But now the Doctor would seem to say something to the purpose when he tells us that Origen utterly denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but Christ alone and that any word which is proper to Religious worship is to be attributed to the Angels themselves But he does but seem to come home to the Point for as Mr. Thorndike well observes The terms of Prayer Invocation calling upon and whatever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unless we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Men. And a little aâ—ter Prayer Invocation calling upon is not so proper to God but