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
2. How vain and groundless to say no more this Assertion of his is I have already shewed in the foregoing Chapter which may serve for a full and just Refutation of all he brings to justifie his Charge of Idolatry not onely in this matter of Veneration of Images but also of the Adoration of the B. Sacrament and Invocation of Saints In regard none of the contrary Tenets are with him Articles of Faith nay he professes himself not obliged to give any interiour Assent to them so much as to inferiour Truths or Pious Opinions But lest he should take this Compendious way of Refuting by bringing things to Grounds and Principles for none at all as his very-well-assured Friend Dr. Tillotson does with my demonstrating Friend as he calls him Mr. J. S. after two Books set forth by him in answer to his Rule of Faith viz. his Letter of Thanks and Faith vindicated to remove I say the very Temptation of any such-like vapouring pretence from my Adversary I shall take the pains to examine and answer with as much brevity as his prolixity will permit the particular Arguments with which he endeavours to underprop his tottering because groundless Charge of Idolatry § 3. In order hereunto I shall first set down what it is that the Catholick Church teaches concerning the Veneration of Images and thus it stands recorded in the last General Council at Trent Conc. Trident. Sess 25. viz. That the Images of Christ and of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God and of other Saints are to be kept and reserved especially in Churches and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them not for that any Divinity or Virtue is believed to be in them or that any thing is to be asked of them or any confidence to be placed in them as was anciently done by the Heathens who put their trust in Idols but because the honour which is exhibited to the Images is referr'd to the Prototype or thing represented by them So that by the Images which we kiss and before which we kneel or put off our Hats we adore Christ and reverence his Saints whom the said Images represent This is what the Council teaches and the import of it is that we may lawfully and therefore ought upon occasion to put off our Hats or knâ—el before the Images of Christ and his Saints with intent thereby to adore him and reverence them and this is what the Council calls most conformably to the Light of Nature and Relâ—gion the giving of due Honour and Veneration to Images but Dr. Still most repugnantly to both Idolatry § 4 To maintain this Charge he lays down a Pâ—oposition which I said imply'd a Contradiction viz. that in the worship of God by Images the worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature For what greater Contradiction than that it should be the worship of God and yet be terminated wholly on the Creature What he brings in his Excuse p. 57. is a pretence that God hath forbidden it under the Notion of Idolatry and that the Worship which God calls by the name of Idolatry and its being terminated wholly on the Creature are but the sâ—me thing in other words And what is this in effect but to tell us first that it is Idolatry because it is wholly terminated on the Creature and then again that it is wholly terminated on the Creature because it is Idolatry A very proper deâ—ence for such a Cause And from hence Dâ— Tillotson may note that the use of Identical Propositions is not so despicable and ridiculous as he would make it but rather the most expedite way for Dr. St. to reconcile the Terms of the greatest Contradiction But to the matter it self I shall speak more anon Let us now see how he proves this main Proposition viz. In the worship of God by Images the worship aue to God is terminated wholly on the Creature The worship sath he p. 4. which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature But God himself in the second Commandment not onely denies to receive it but threatens severely to punish them that give it Therefore it cannot be terminated on God but onely on the Image § 5. This is the terrible Argument by virtue of which he passes the Sentence of Eternal Damnation upon all those who are of the Communion of the Church of Rome if they repent not of their â—doring Christ by putting off their hats or kneeling before his Image And that the Reader may see with what Justice and Charity he does it before I proceed to examine particulars I shall convene his own Conscience to declare to the World what kind of Argument he judges this to be If onely Topical or Probable what answer will he give to the Great Judge at the dreadful day of Judgment for positively condemning his Spouse the Church for an Adulteress upon an account which himself acknowledges to be inevident and uncertain I believe himself would condemn that person for unjust and uncharitable who should positively charge the meanest mans Wife of Adultery upon the like account If he judge it a Demonstration which I cannot easily believe he seems to have taken such a Pique against the Demonstrating Way then the Premisses must be evidently and certainly true and the Conclusion in virtue of them Impossible to be false and consequently he must have greater certainty that the Church of Rome is Idolatrous than he hath if he be of the same mind with his Friend Dr. Tillotson of the Scripture's being the Word of God or of the Sence of any Text of it for example that Christ is God for the said Doctor lays this down for his Fundamental Position in his Rule of Faith p. 118. and affirms it expresly of the Books of Scripture in the Preface to his Sermons that we are not infallibly certain either that any Book is so ancient as it pretends to be or that it was written by him whose name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such passages in it It is possible all this may be otherwise From whence I infer yet farther that if we are not sure of the Sence of any Text of Scripture but possibly it may be false Himself is not sure that God hath forbidden the worshipping himself by Images in the second Commandment and therefore cannot judge his own Argument to be a Demonstration nor consequently evidence sufficient to make out his Charge of Idolatry But to come now to particulars § 5. The worship saith he which God himself denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature and that wholly and onely on the Creature as he expresses it in the Context of his Discourse This is the Major Proposition of his Syllogism and if this fail the Charge he builds upon it must needs fall I asserted it in my Reply to be absolutely false as built upon a mistake of the nature of humane Acts which though they ought to be
of Sense or Reason can digest it Fools as you are what Demonstration So evident as this My God profest it And if you once can prove that He can lie This Wonder and Him too I will deny 89 What thank is it that you can credit that Which your own sense Reason's eye reads plain Heaven 's much to them beholden who will not Believe it higher is than they can strain Who jealous are of God and will not be Induc'd to trust Him further than they see 90 And yet had you these modest eyes of mine You in this gloomy Cloud would see the Sun That Sun who wisely doth disdain to shine On those who with bold prying press upon His secret Majesty which plainly I Because I make no anxious search descry 91 This is the valorous Resolution Of Gallant Faith and this will serve to be The Blessed Rule by which all those must run Who are the Scholars of Humility Yet I must tell thee Psyche itching Pride VVill not hereafter thus be satisfied And then having inveigh'd in the following Stanza's against those who will needs be prying with the skill they take for granted hath fill'd their brains that is with the Doctor 's faculty of discerning Truth and falshood into the manner how this Miracle is brought to pass He concludes with these words in favour of Transubstantiation 99 It is in vain to tell these Wranglers how Jesus could graft cold Stones into the stock Of Abraham and make them fertil grow In Israelites or that the Bread he took In 's daily Diet was not wholly spent But part into his Body's substance went 100 In vain to tell them how into his Blood The Wine he drank was changed day by day For though such speculations understood With prudent Reverence might make easier way Unto the Mystery yet Wranglers will Because they will be so be Wranglers still This and much more to this Purpose which not to surfet the Reader with too many delicacies I omit saith the Author of that Illustrious Poem in which to the satisfaction of all that read it himself hath made appear to the World what his Modesty made him willing to expect rather from others that a Divine Theam is as capable and happy a subject of Poetical Ornament as any Pagan or Humane device whatsoever And would the Gallants of both Sexes employ as many of their precious Hours in reading this excellent Piece as they do in Romances and Play-Books I dare be bold to affirm though perhaps I shall not be credited They would find not only more substance but more delight in this than in the best of them But to return to my present business My design was to let the Reader see how far my Adversary's beloved Principles of Sense and Reason are from being fit Umpires to judge of matters proposed as of divine Revelation particularly in what relates to the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist and I thought I could not do it better than in the words of this learned and Ingenious Author whose whole Discourse seems but a Descant upon those words of St. Chrysostom when speaking of this Mystery to the People of Antioch he saith Let us obey God in all things and not gain-say Him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us than our thoughts or sight And thus let us behave our selves in the Mysteries that is in the most Holy Sacrament not beholding only those things which lye before us viz. the Symbols of Bread and Wine but holding fast his words For his Word is Infallible but our sense is easy to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therfore the Word saith This is my Body let us obey and believe and behold Him with the eyes of our Understanding If the Doctor will not do so but will have his Readers to measure matters of Faith by the Rule of Sense and Reason and not trust God farther than they can see with them I am sure he gives a far greater advantage to the Enemies of the most Holy Trinity and Christ's Divinity by so unChristian a Principle than we can possibly do by asserting a like divine Revelation for his being present in the Eucharist as for his being true God notwithstanding the seeming contradictions that occur in it But perhaps the Doctor wâ—ll say that I am mistaken all this while and that he meant no such thing by the use of Reason For I remember now that when upon his Asserting that Catholicks expose the Faith of Christiaâ—s to a great uncertainty by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to the matters of Faith propâ—sed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church which if it say any thing to the purpose it must be this that because Men must make use of their reason to find out the true Ground of believing which Catholicks affirm to be the Church therefore they must believe nothing which the Church proposes as a matter of Faith but what the Faculty in them called reason of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our belief shall judge to be true in it self for otherwise how doth it follow that they expose the Faith of Christians to uncertainâ—y when I say upon this assertion of his I supposed and clearly enough I think that the use he would have of reason was to believe nothing but what his reason could understand He assures me p. 542. upon his word that he meant no such thing for I believe saith he an Infinite Being and all the Doctrines revealed by it in H. Scriptures although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those Conceptions we call Reason But here I observe first as no very great sign that he means not by the use of Reason what I supposed that he doth not tell us of any one particular Article he believes with that terrible condition unless he mean he cannot reconcile all particulars concerning the existence of a Deity but huddles them up in a blind Universal that he believes all the Doctrines revealed by God in the H. Scriptures as if it were enough for a Christian to believe in general all that God hath revealed in Scripture without troubling himself about the Sense of any thing in particular for fear of over-straining his Reason to swallow something that may seem a Contradiction And I confess the Letter of the Scripture may be a sufficient Rule of such a Faith 2dly This Assertion of his exposes the Faith of Christians to as great uncertainty as that he charges upon Catholicks by its denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith revealed by God in the Scriptures when they must necessarily use them to find out the Scriptures and the existence of a Deity For whether the Scripture or the Church be supposed to be the Ground of believing
proof of Christ's Divinity he will appeal to him whether there are the same Grounds and Motives from thence to believe Transubstantiation as there are the Divinity of Christ But if Catholicks do not acknowledge Scripture alone to be the Rule of Faith what am I concern'd whether Bellarmin produce many Texts or but One or none at all Does not the Doctor himself say that some of our Religion have said that Transubstantiation could not be prov'd from Scripture alone and have not others of it said as much of the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father I am sure this was believed before the Scripture was written and so Scripture could not be the Rule of believing it But then again what if Bellarmin produc'd but One Text of Scripture for Transubstantiation therefore can there no more be produc'd Or if no more could be produc'd would there not be the same Ground of believing from thence supposing I am certain of the true sense of thâ—s One as if there were many Are we not bound as much to believe God when he says a thing once if we be sure of the true sense of what he saith as when he says the same twice or thrice And were not all those places cited by Bellarmin for Christ's Divinity as much impugned by the Arrians as this of Christ's words This is my Body is by Calvin and his Complices Why then must I because Bellarmin produces out of Scripture but one Text for Transubstantiation and many for Christ's Divinity acknowledge there are not the same Grounds or Motives to believe the one as the other § 7. I but Bellarmin himself acknowledges that there is some obscurity or ambiguity in the very Text he cites for after he had spent the greatest part of the Chapter against the Lutherans He concludes it thus saith the Doctor p. 131. Although there be some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord yet that is taken away by Councils and Fathers which is a plain Indication he thought the Doctrine of Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone But stay am I bound to believe Dr. St. upon his bare word May I not look into Bellarmin to see what he says without incurring a sin of rash judgement against my Neighbour The Book God be thanked is not so hard to be found as that of Trigautius I ventur'd to look the place upon the Remembrance of some former dexterity I had noted in him in citing of Authors and although I could hardly believe my Eyes nor did not till I look'd into another Edition I found Bellarmin not to say what he affirms him to say but in reality the contrary For after he had proved from the words of our Lord the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament against the Calvinists li. 1. de Euch. c. 1. and in the present Chapter had shown against the Lutherans that Transubstantiation is absolutely inferr'd from the very same words being to carry on his Proofs from Scripture to Councils and Fathers he concludes the Chapter in these words and that by way of Transition Adde quod LICET in verbis Domini ESSET aliqua obscuritas vel ambiguitas ea tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae Patrum Consensum Add saith he that ALTHOUGH THERE WERE or should be which is as much as to say suppose there were some obscurity or ambiguity in the words of our Lord yet that is taken away by the many Councils of the Catholick Church and the Consent of Fathers And now I appeal to the Reader whether Dr. St. have not given us here a very rare example of reporting faithfully as he calls it in his Preface the words and sense of an Author Is it all one to say although there be and although there should be He that saith Although there be some ambiguity in the words supposes them to be ambiguous He that saith Although there should be some Ambiguity in them supposes them not to be ambiguous And this is the case between Bellarmin and the Doctor Bellarmin only puts the case they were ambiguous and by so doing supposes them not to be so and the Doctor makes him acknowledge them de facto to be ambiguous which is just as if when the Doctor himself says p. 111. supposing there were the same divine Revelation of Transubstantiation and of Christ's Divinity c. I should infer that he acknowledges the Revelation to be the same de facto in both 'T is manifest then that by this Translation he hath corrupted both the words and sense of Bellarmin And this not by mistake as appears but too too plainly for that himself makes the words of Bellarmin as he translates them to be a plain Indication that he thought Transubstantiation could not be proved from Scripture alone whereas had he reported them as they stand in Bellarmin LICET ESSET Although there were or should be some ambiguity in the words of our Lord c. They had been a plain Indication that Bellarmin for his part thought that he had sufficiently prov'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation out of Scripture And now the Reader sees what the Doctor meant in his Preface by his design as he calls it to report faithfully And however he intended to make use of it for his advantage yet it is a very plain Indication of what shifts and artifices they are fain to avail themselves of who will maintain a bad cause To conclude I shall give him the Opinion of Dr. Taylor in this Point more faithfully who in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 20. n. 16. saith that Catholicks have a Divine Revelation viz. This is my Body whose literal and Grammatical sense if that were intended is so clear and evident for Transubstantiation that it would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle CHAP. VI. Dr. Taylor 's Argument in behalf of Catholicks supposing them mistaken Un-answered by Dr. St. His Parallel of such a supposed mistake with that of Idolaters shown to be a real and very gross mistake in himself § 1. HAving shown in my Reply that the Dr's Argument by which he would prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry for adoring our Lord Christ in the Eucharist would be of equal sorce srom the Pen of an Arrian against the adoration of him as God wherever present I added p. 20. that supposing Catholicks should be mistaken in their belief And I hope the Doctor will not infer from hence that I acknowledge them to be mistaken de facto yet so eminent and learned a Man among the Protestants as Dr. Taylor denies it would follow from thence that they were Idolaters And the words I cited were these out of his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 20. Numb 16. Idolatry saith he is a forsaking the true God and giving divine worship to a Creature or to an Idol that is to an Imaginary God who hath no Foundation in Essence or Existence And this is
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
also the Liturgies and Rituals in a Tongue unknown but to the Learned among them that who will dispute against it must prepare himself to hear the censure of St. Austin Ep. 118. where he saith That it is a point of most insolent madness to dispute whether that be to be observed which is frequented by the whole Church through the World 4. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not In what Council this Doctrine was defined I never read but as for the Sacrament of Penance which I suppose he chiefly aims at I read in the Council of Trent Sess 14. Falso quidam calumniantur That some do falsly calumniate Catholick Writers as if they taught the Sacrament of Penance did confer Grace without the good motion of the receiver which the Church of God never taught nor thought But I am rather inclined to look upon this as a mistake than a calumny in the Objector 5. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is our most certain Rule of Faith and Life Here he calls the Churches prudential dispensing the reading of Scripture to persons whom she judges fit and disposed for it and not to such whom she judges in a condition to receive or do harm by it a discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is no other than whereas St. Paul Coloss 3. 21. enjoyns Fathers not to provoke their Children lest they be discouraged one should reprove a Father for discouraging his Child because he will not put a Knife or Sword into his hands when he foresees he wil do mischief with it to himself or others the Scriptures in the hands of a meek and humble Soul who submits its judgment in the interpretation of it to that of the Church is a Sword to defend it but in the hands of an arrogant and presumptuous Spirit that hath no Guide to interpret it but it s own fancy or passion it is a dangerous Weapon with which he will wound both himself and others The first that permitted promiscuous reading of Scripture in our Nation was King Henry the Eighth and many years were not passed but he found the ill consequences of it for in a Book set forth by Him in the Year 1542. he complains in the Preface That he found entred into some of his Peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of it presumption arrogancy carnal liberty and contention which he compares to the seven worse Spirits in the Gospel with which the Devil entred into the House that was purged and cleansed Whereupon he declares that for that part of the Church ordained to be taught that is the Lay People it ought not to be denyed certainly that the reading of the Old and New Testament is not so necessary for all those folks that of duty they ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient so to be tolerated or taken from it Consonant whereunto saith he the Politick Law of our Realm hath now restrained it from a great many This was the judgment of him who first took upon him the Title of Head of the Church of England and if that ought not to have been followed in after times let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms as have risen in England from the reading of it bear witness For as St. Austin sayes Neque enim natae sunt Haereses Heresies have no other Origen but hence that the Scriptures which in themselves are good are not well understood and what is understood amiss in them is rashly and boldly asserted viz. to be the sense of them And now whether the Scriptures left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit as it is among Protestants be a most certain Rule of Faith and Life I leave to your self to judge 6. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as he is ready to defend he should have said to prove for we deny any such to be used in the Church 7. By the gross abuse of People in Pardons and Indulgences Against this I can asseâ—t as an eye-witness the great devotion caused by the wholsome use of Indulgences in Catholick Countreys there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it to confess his sins to receive the Sacraments to pray fast and give alms all which duties are with great devotion performed by Catholick people which without the incitement of an Indulgence had possibly been left undone 8. He says The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a Thousand Years after Christ This thousand years after Christ makes a great noise as if it were not as much in the power of the Church a thousand years after Christ as well as in the first or second Century to alter and change things of their own nature indifferent such as the communicating under one or both kinds was ever held to be by Catholicks But although the Cup were not then denyed to the Laity yet that the custom of receiving but under one kind was permitted even in the Primitive Church in private Communions the Objector seems to grant because he speaks only of the Administration of it in the solemn Celebration and that it was also in use in publick Communions is evident from Examples of that time both in the Greek Church in the time of St. Chrysostome and of the Latin in the time of St. Leo the great As for the pretended obstruction of Devotion you must know Catholicks believe that under either species or kind whole Christ true God and Man is contained and received and if it be accounted an hindrance to devotion to receive the total refection of our soul though but under one kind what must it be to believe that I receive him under neither but instead of him have Elements of Bread and Wine Surely nothing can be more efficacious to stir up Reverence and Devotion in us than to believe that God himself will personally enter under our Roof The Ninth Hinderance of the sincerity of devotion is that we make it in the power of a person to dispense in Oaths and Marriages contrary to the Law of God To this I answer That some kind of Oaths the condition of the Person and other Circumstances considered may be judged to be hurtful and not fit to be kept and the dispensation in them is no more than to judg or determine them to be so and consequently to do this cannot be a hinderance but a furtherance to devotion nor is it contrary to the Law of God which commands nothing that 's hurtful to be done
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
Nature or Essence which is properly signified by such a Name The Doctor therefore to give him his due in the beginning of his Charge argues like a good Logician when he would conclude the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry because he says she requires the giving to the Creature the Honour due onely to God But he plays the downright Sophister in the close when he would prove that in worshipping God by an Image she gives to the Image the Honour due onely to Him because if God have given it the name of Idolatry it must receive the denomination of Idolatry Either he must make it out that a meer Extrinsecal Denomination has the miraculous power to reflect against Nature the Honour directed to God from Him to the Image or he must confess that Gods Prohibition of such Worship if there were any may make it indeed to be unlawful but hinders not the Act from tending whither it was intended and consequently if it be intended or directed by the Understanding and Will to God though after an unlawful manner it will not fail to be terminated on God Nor is this to make the Intentions of men to be the Rule of Divine Worship for if God have forbidden himself to be Worshipped after such a manner the giving him such Worship will be a dishonouring of Him though the Giver intend it never so much for his honour Disobedience it will be or some other sin and denominatively Idolatry if forbidden under that name but not a terminating the honour due to God upon the Image unless the Doctor think it a good Argument to prove the Fields and Trees to be Merry Companions because the Prophet says The Fields are joyful and the Trees of the Wood rejoyce These he will say are Metaphorical denominations and so must that of Idolatry be in his supposed Prohibition unless he can prove the Worship due to God to be terminated wholly on the Image and so the Act it self to have in it the true nature of Idolatry antecedently to such a denomination § 9. As for that Courtly Comparison of his that it would be Treason in any man to bow down to a Sign Post with the Princes Head upon it though with an intention to honour him by it a most self-denying Ordinance I confess and not unlike to that rare example of Self-denyal to which himself so Religiously exhorts the Prelates of the Church of England in the Preface to his Irenicum viz. to reduce the form of Church-Government to its Primitive State and Order by retrenching all Exorbitancies as he calls them of Power and restoring Presbyteries as the World is like to want such an unheard-of Example of Self-abnegation at least till Princes can be perswaded that the honour or dishonour done to their Pictures reflects not upon Them and that Act of the Civil Law be repealed L. unica cod de his qui ad Statuas which declares it Treason for any man to deface his Princes Picture So were it enacted it would not hinder the Act of Reverence and Respect from being terminated upon the Prince to whom it was intended § 10. To the Instances I gave in my Reply of the Prayers which Thieves and Murderers make to God for good success of the Jews offering to God the Blind and Lame which he had forbidden and of Cain's offering a Sacrifice to God which he refused to accept all which evidently shew that God's having forbidden such a kind of Worship hinders it not from being terminated on him All that he answers is That these Instances do not suppose any prohibited Object or Means of Worship as he supposeth the Worship of God by an Image doth And here again he falls into the same Contradiction as before viz. that it is the Worship of God by an Image and yet the Image is made the whole and sole object of Worship But to conclude this point 'T is evident that the Image is not made the Object of Worship by the Intention of him that gives it which says Dr. Taylor is that by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions for what he intends is to Worship God by it and the Intention not making it the Object of Worship an Extrinsecal Denomination from a Law forbidding if there were any such cannot make it to be so nor hinder the Act from being terminated on God its intended Object 'T is manifest then that the Major Proposition of the Argument brought by him to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry viz. That the Worship which God denies to receive must be terminated on the Creature is absolutely false and consequently all that he builds upon it falls to the ground But this was but a Prelude to usher in his Minor viz. That God not onely denies to receive Worship by an Image but threatens severaly to punish them that give it Upon this it is he lays the main stress of his Charge of Idolatry how inconsequently though supposed to be as he would have it a Prohibition I have shewed already and shall make yet more apparent by laying open the nullity of the Proofs he brings to maintain it CHAP. III. The mystery of making the same Proposition sometimes an Article of Faith and sometimes none No express Text against Worshipping God by an Image His first Proof from the Terms of the Law manifesâ—ly groundless The Argument from St. Austin's Judgment and the Septuagints translating the word Pesel Idol and not Image re-inforced 1. WHat we are to consider in the first place here is what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove and it is this That God in the second Commandment according to his reckoning expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image This is what upon his Second Thoughts for the term expresly was not in his FIRST Answer he undertakes to prove And I cannot but wonder to see it drop now from his Pen who on the one side asserts Scripture doubtless express Scripture to be his most certain Rule of Faith and on the other side denies as I shewed above Chap. 1. any thing to bâ— an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self What may the meaning of this be If it be expresly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image it is an Article of Faith If it be not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self it is no Article of Faith but as he calls it an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion yet such as neither himself nor any man else is bound to believe there is a jot of Truth in it Is it then or is it not an Article of Faith that God is not to be worshipped by an Image If it be an Article of Faith 't is false what he asserts so stiffly in his Rational Account p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self If it be
that none of the Idols of the Heathen were to be compared to Him in Wisdom Greatness Power c. as is manifest he does from v. 12. to the end of the Chapter it is no more to the purpose for which he alledges it viz. Therefore it is forbidden to worship God himself by bowing or kneeling before an Image than if one should say There is no comparison for Riches and Greatness between a King and a Peasant therefore it is not lawful to give honour to the King by putting off ones Hat before his Picture or the Chair of State § 7. To the other Text of Deut. 4. 15. where Moses saith Take good heed to your selves for ye saw no manner of Similitude in the day that the Lord spake to you I answer That de facto no manner of Similitude was seen at that time by the People that afterwards they might not take occasion as they were apt enough to conceive it to have been a proper Representation of the Divinity and so entertain an erroneous Conceit of God Notwithstanding if it had so pleas'd him when he gave the Law he might have appeared to the People in some visible likeness without disparagement to his Nature as it is likely he did in a glorious manner to Moses at the Second giving of the Law when he descended and stood with him on the Rock and he saw the back parts of God and bowed to the Earth and worshipped Exod. 33. 23. 34. 5 8. and as both before and after he appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets and consequently his not appearing so de facto could not be the Reason of the Law For as Dr. St. himself confesses very ingenuously p. 63. Although God had appeared with a Similitude then yet there might have been great reason for making a Law against worshipping the Heathen Idols or fixing the intention of their Worship upon the bare Image I add Even against thinking of honouring God by an Image made by men if that were the meaning of the Law as it is not since such a Law if necessary might have been made and would have obliged although God had chosen some visible likeness to appear in at that time The words then For ye saw no manner of Similitude on the day that the Lord spake to you though cited by the Doctor without a Parenthesis to make them seem of more force were not set down by Moses as the Reason of the Law But the matter of fact was made use of by him as a Motive to induce the People to the Observance of it in a Sermon he makes Deut. 4. to press them to that duty And this Explication also the Doctor might have found in his own Bible if he had but vouchsafed to cast his Eye upon the Contents of the Chapter where the whole Discourse is entituled An Exhortation to Obedience or on the Breviate on the top of the Page where the Arguments us'd in it are call'd Perswasions to Obedience But there was the word likeness in the first Text and Similitude in the second denied of God and these were enough without considering the Context or the intent of the Writer or the Contents of the Chapters to ask Whether God by that Reason doth not declare that all Worship given to him by any visible Representation of him is extreamly dishonourable to him Now though Protestants may hold with Dr. St. that the Scripture is the most certain Rule of their Faith yet unless they wilfully shut their Eyes they cannot think the Method he takes to be the most certain way to find out its Sense But to draw to a Conclusion in this matter § 8. Let us suppose the Argument notwithstanding all that hath been said to shew its deficiency in all its parts to be good and sound and that in its largest extent viz. The Nature of God being infinite and incomprehensible cannot be represented to men but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it Let us grant I say this Antecedent and the Places of Scripture in the sense they are cited by him Let us grant the Consequence too he infers from them Therefore all Worship given to Him by any visible Representation of him whether Proper or Analogical is extreamly dishonourable to him Suppose I say all this to be so Will it follow from hence that Christ according to his Humanity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to Him Or that to put off our Hats when we behold the Figure of his Sacred Body as Nailed upon the Cross with intent to Worship Him must be extremly dishonourable to Him What if the Soul of Man be Invisible and cannot be represented by any Corporeal Figure or Colours Will it follow from thence that any Picture made to represent a Prince according to his External Features would be a disparagement to him and any Honour given him by means of such a Representation a Dishonour The Consequence he brings is no better in order to Christ and his Image If then his Argument do not at all concern the practise of Catholicks in making the Images of Christ and his Saints with respect to their Honour to what purpose was it to lay down for the Reason of the Law in which he will have it to be forbidden That God's Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible could not be represented without infinite disparagement to it To what purpose was it to spend no less than three Pages as he does § 6. in citing Authours to prove that the Wiser Persons of the Heathens themselves condemned the Worship of God by Images as incongruous to a Divine Nature Was it to make his Reader believe that Catholicks allow of any Pictures as proper Representations of the Invisible Deity Let him lay his Hand upon his Heart I have told him the Churches Sense in that Point What those Wiser Persons of the Heathens meant is evident from their Words and from the Time in which they lived to be this That the Nature of God being Spiritual and Invisible it could not be represented by any thing like unto it and therefore the Worship which the People gave to their Images as Gods or like unto the Gods they worshipped was incongruous to the Divine Nature and a disparagement to the Deity And if the Germans as Tacitus reporteth de morib German c. 9. rejected Images made in the likeness of men which the Doctor conveniently leaves out because they thought them unsuitable to the Greatness of Celestial Deities for Other Figures and Symbols they had in their consecrated Groves as the same Tacitus there witnesseth and Dr. St. suppresseth it was but what the Light of Nature taught them concerning the notion of a Deity which had the mystery of God made Man been revealed to them would have taught them also that it was no disparagement to Him to be represented in the likeness of Man and to be worshipped by such an Image His other Citations I took upon his word without
and some other French Bishops of that Age as transported with zeal against a Superstition which he says had then prevailed among some Persons in giving the same Worship to Images as to the Holy Trinity And for himself he professes that he is much pleased with the Decree of the Council of Cambray Anno 1565. That the People be taught that no Worship ought to be given to an Image for the matter or elegancy of the work c. but for the Thing represented by it to which the Worship and Honour is chiefly referr'd and that the Mind or Intention of him that prayeth or worshippeth be carried to the thing signified and not terminated on the sign which can neither hear nor see nor understand Thus much â—o the Doctors Objection from the Council of Francford a Passage take it which way you will so difficult and obscure by reason of the various Opinions of Authors and seeming if not real Contradictions in Historians that for one whose design is to blunder not satisfie his Reader a fitter Topick cannot be found unless it be that which follows of the Calves as he hath perplex'd it with his groundless Conjectures CHAP. IX Of the Doctors Third Proof from the Judgment as he pretends of the Law-giver His speculation concerning the Golden Calves manifesâ—ly repugnant to the H. Scriptures and Fathers Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Meaning and Extent of the Second Commandment § 1. THe Third Reason Dr. Stilling fleet brings to prove that God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image is taken saith he p. 92. from those who were best able to understand the meaning of it and among these none so competent a Judge as the Law-giver himself Here we have a solid Principle indeed to work upon and if the Doctor would give me leave to infer from it I would argue thus But the Law-giver himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubims to be placed in the Temple with respect to his Worship Therefore he did not expresly prohibit in the second Commandment the giving any Worship to himself by an Image For it cannot be â—onceived that himself would introduce 〈◊〉 allow such a practise as should be contrary to its meaning But I must not forestall but attend my Adversary and the substance of what he discourses upon that Principle is this That the Israelites were condemned by God of Idolatry for worshipping the Golden Calf and yet they did not fall into the Heathen Idolatry by so doing but onely worshipped the true God under that Symbol of his presence If you ask him how he knows for certain that the Israelites did not fall back into the Heathen Idolatry when it is certain that in Aegypt they worshipped the Idols of the Aegyptians Ezek. 20. 7 8 He tells you upon his word that they had not the least pretence of infidelity as to the true God and yet the very Text he cites to prove it tells us they pretended their despair of Moses returning as a sufficient reason to move Aaron to make them Gods who should go before them If you ask him how he knows for certain that the Calf was intended to be onely a Symbol of Gods presence He tells you We that is himself and his Master Calvin cannot imagine the people so sottish Nec tam incogitantes erant Judaei saith Calvin to desire Aaron to make them a God in the proper sence as though they could believe the Calf newly made to have been the God which before it was made brought them out of the land 〈◊〉 Egypt And yet they can both of them very easily imagine Catholick Christians to be so sottish as to terminate their Worship upon a Block or a hewn Stone though 〈◊〉 the same time they deny any Divinity to be in them or have not the least preâ—ence of Infidelity as to the True God But be their Imagination as much at the devotion of their Passion as they please could not the People taking it for granted as he says they did that Moses was not to be heard of more fall into a dislike or a distrust of the God whom Moses had taught them to worship and so run with their thoughts into Aegypt and require of Aaron to make them a God to go before them like unto the Gods which they had seen and worshipped there That this was their Intention and not to make a Symbol onely of the presence of the true God the very making of the Calf which was done in imitation of the Golden Bulls of Aegypt the Symbols as the Doctor calls them of their chief God Osiris sufficiently evinces And for this it is they are so frequently reprehended in Holy Scripture Deut. xxxii 15. He that is Israel forsook God which made him and went back from the God of his Salvation and vers 18. Thou hast forsaken the God which made thee and hast forgotten the God thy Creator Psal cv 19. They made a Calf in Horeb and worshipped the Molten Image Thus they changed their Glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Grass They forgat God who had saved them who had done so great things in Aegypt wonderous works in the Land of Cham and fearful things in the red Sea And again Acts vii 39 40. Our Fathers saith St. Stephen would not obey but thrust him that is the true God from them and in their hearts turned back again into Aegypt saying unto Aaron Make us Gods to go before us c. And they made a Calf in those days and offered sacrifice to the Idol and rejoyced in the work of their own hands This is what the Scripture testifieth that the Israelites did viz. that they forgat the God which made them that they thrust him from them and in their hearts turned back into Aegypt that the Molten Calf which they had made after the pattern they had seen there was an Idol and that they offered sacrifices to this Idol And must we now deny all this to be true because Calvin and Dr. St. cannot imagine the People to have been so sottish Is this to make Scripture the Rule of Faith or Imagination to be the Rule of Scripture Let the Reader observe here for his Instruction that according to Dr. St.'s behaviour here and elsewhere if he meet with any passage in Scripture that thwarts his Imagination he must understand it in a sense agreeable to what he can imagine that is as best pleases his own fancy And This how â—unningly soever He and his Partizans disguise it is indeed the onely Ground from which they take their measures in the Interpretation of Scripture as Mr. E. W. hath clearly proved in his Book called Protestancy without Principles And although His performance among others be likened by the Doctor to the way that Rats answer Books by gnawing some of the leaves of them yet an Impartiall Reader will compare it rather to the execution done by the Worm in Jonas which
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
smote the Gourd and it withered But to return to the Israelites and their Golden Calf § 2. Did the Fathers understand the same by it which Calvin and the Doctor do Could They not imagine the People to be so sottish as to ascribe their deliverance and the Miracles wrought in it to this New God Nothing less There is no cause to wonder saith St. Athanasius at the Pharisees madness in imputing the works of Christ to the Devil because their Fathers were of the same mind before them for being but newly gone out of Egypt they attributed the benefits which God had bestowed on them to the Calf which themselves had made saying These are thy Gods O Israel which brought thee out of Egypt You will ask saith St. Hierom how they offered sacrifices in the Wilderness not to God but to their King whom they call Lucifer And the Answer he gives is that from the time they transformed their Gold into a Calf saying these are thy Gods O Israel which brought thee out of Egypt it is manifest that all what they did they did not to God but to Idols In like manner St. Chrysostom After the people had heard those words I am the Lord thy God Thou shalt have no other Gods beside me They made a Calf and rejected God They did not acknowledge him to be the Lord but disowned their Benefactor saying unto Aaron Make us Gods to go before us And then as if he had foreseen the difficulty Calvin and my Adversary have of imagining how the people could believe the Calf newly made to have been the God which before it was made brought them out of the Land of Egypt He objects to himself If they were Gods why did they say Make For how can those be Gods which are made And then answers Sic malitia obsaecans sibi ipsi repugnat semetipsam extinguit That It is the nature of malice to blind the mind it possesses to that degree that it makes it contradict and destroy it self § 3. This is what the Holy Scripture and the Fathers say expresly of the Israelites making and worshipping the Calf That they were Idolaters in so doing we confess but that their Idolatry consisted onely in worshipping the True God under that as a Symbol of his presence we utterly deny And till the Doctor can prove it by as great if not greater Authority of Scriptures and Fathers than I have done the contrary he will never prove from this fact of theirs that God hath expresly prohibited in the second Commandment the giving him any Worship by an Image What he does is to tell us that he cannot imagine the people to have been so sottish as to believe the Calf newly made to have been the God which before it was made brought them out of the Land of Egypt or to think the Gods of Egypt had wrought those Miracles for them in their deliverance But these are Conjectures of his own Fancy without any Authority of Scripture or Fathers nay expresly against them as I have shewed And although Aaron perhaps and some of the Wiser among them might not be so sottish yet it is certain as the Doctor confesses of his Wiser Heathens they were so weak as to concur with them in the external practises of their Idolatry But then he tells us again p. 94. that the people took it for granted that Moses by reason of his forty days absence was to be heard of no more and therefore they fell upon devising the fittest Symbol for the presence of God going before them and herein the greatest number saith he being possessed with the prejudices of their Education in Egypt where Golden Bulls were the Symbols of their chief God Osiris they pitched upon that and forced Aaron to a compliance with them in it And all the proof he brings for this is that immediately before Moses his going up to the Mount the last Promise God made to them was that he would send his Angel before them Exod. xxiii 20 23. as if those who had forgotten the God that made them could not also forget this Promise or at least think that He had forgotten it or was not able to perform it and so fall upon devising the making of a God like those they had seen in Egypt whose Presence and Conduct they might have continually with them This follows much more clearly from the prejudice of their Education in Egypt than what the Doctor has devised for them for they never devised any such thing to themselves as is manifest out of the Scriptures and Fathers before alledged And when I consider the Israelites a people without Learning oppressed for four hundred years together by the most Idolatrous Nation in the World and serving their Gods as it appears they did out of Ezek. xx 8. the prejudice which this custom had wrought in them and their readiness upon every slight occasion to turn back with their hearts into Egypt lastly the Character which God himself gives of them Deut. xxxii 28. that they were a Nation void of counsel neither was there any understanding in them When I say I consider all this on the one side and the quaint device the Doctor would transfer from his own head into theirs of making the Calf onely for the Symbol of the presence of the true God on the other I cannot but look upon it to be much of the same nature with those subtil fetches which Historians to shew their own skill in Politicks devise rather than discover in the Actions of those Persons though never so stupid who are the subject of their History How many Plots and Designs have Tacitus and others framed for them which they never dream't of themselves much less were the Israelites guilty of any such subtil speculation as Calvin and the Doctor have invented for them The highest pitch of their Fancy if it staid not in the Image it self was to magine some Deity like those of Egypt to insinuate it self into the Calf as the Egyptians believed of their Gods from thence to give Oracres and conduct them into the Land of Promise and not as the Doctor devises for them that they look'd upon it onely as a Symbol of the true God whom now they had thrust from them and forgotten To make out this device which had no other foundation but in his own fancie he is forc'd to invent a new kind of Idolatry distinct from the Heathen Idolatry Because there is no intimation saith he p. 95. made of their falling into the Heathen Idolatry But why then does he charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry upon this account p. 3. viz. that she requires the giving to the Creature the Worship due onely to the Creator Is not the giving Divine Worship to a Creature the same as to make it a false God And is it not Heathen Idolatry to worship a false God Either then he must retract the ground upon which he builds his Charge of