to have overspread her like a noisom Leprosy But how-ever we shall proceed and first to their Invocation of Saints Touching which the Council of Trent declares this Doctrine expresly Sanctos utique unà cum Christo regnantes Orationes suas pro hominibus offerre bonâ—mque atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium ejus Jesum Christum ad eorum oratines operam auxiliumque confugere Where Invocation of Saints is plainly allow'd and recommended and besides their praying for us or offering up our Prayers to God it is plainly imply'd that there are other Aids and Succours they can afford if they be supplicated that is invoked with most humble and prostrate Devotion And the pretending that this is all but the way of procuring those good things we want from God the first Fountain and that through his Son â—hrist that makes the Saints the more exactly like the Pagans Dii medioxumi and the Daemons that negotiated the affairs of men with the highest Deity 2. I say then that though they went no farther then thus even this is down-right Idolatry which the Council of Trent thus openly owns and consequently the whole Church of Rome as appears from the third fourth fifth sixth and eighth Conclusions of the first Chapter as also by the fifth seventh eighth tenth eleventh twelfth thirteenth fourteenth fifteenth and twenty-fourth of the second But if we examine those Prayers that are put up to the Saints their Invocation is still the more unexcusable 3. Wherefore looking to the publick Practise of the Church of Rome authorised by the Popes themselves the Invocation of a Saint does not consist in a meer Ora pro nobis as people are too forward to phansy that the state of the Question though the meer invoking of them to pray for us would be Idolatry as is already proved but which is insinuated in the Council it self there are other more particular Aids and Succours that they implore of them and some such as it is proper for none but God or christ to give Such as Protection from the Devil Divine Graces and the Joys of Paradise But as the things they ask of the Saints are too big for them to be the Disposers of so the Compellations of the Virgin Mary especially are above the nature of any Creature Whence this Invocation of Saints will appear a most gross and palpable Mode of Idolatry in that Church As I shall make manifest out of the following Examples taken out of such pieces of Dèvotion as are not mutter'd in the corners of their Closets but are publickly read or sung with Stentorian Voices in their very Churches I will onely give the Reader a taste of this kind of their Idolatry for it were infinite to produce all we might 4. And first to begin with the smaller Saints as indeed they are all to be reckoned in comparison of the blessed Virgin to whom therefore they give that Worship which they call Hyperdulia as they give Dulia to the rest of the Saints and Latria to God alone and to Christ as being God That Prayer to S. Cosmas and S. Damian is plainly a Petition to them to keep us from all Diseases as well of Soul as of Body that we may attain to the life of the Spirit and live in Grace here and be made partakers of Heaven hereafter O Medici piissimi Qui Meritis clarissimi In Coelis refulgetis A peste clade corporum Prâ—servetis operum Moribus nè langueamus Nec moriamur spiritu Sed Animae ab obitu Velociter surgamus Et vivamus in Gratia Sacra Coeli palatia Donec regrediamur 5. Such a piece of Devotion as this is that to S. Francis Sancte Francisce properè veni Pater accelera ad populum qui premitur territur sub onere palea luto latere sepultos Aegyptio sub sabulo nos libera carnis extincto vitio Which is plainly a Prayer to this Saint that he would deliver us from the bondage and drudgery of Sin which is onely in the power of our great Saviour and Redeemer Christ for to do That Invocation of S. Andrew is also for that spiritual Grace of duly Bearing the Cross here that we may obtain Heaven afterwards Iam nos foveto languidos Curámque nostrî suscipe Quâ— per Crucis victoriam Coeli petâ—mus gratiam But that to S. Nicolas is against the Assaults of the Devil Ergò piè nos exaudi Assistentes tuâ— laudi Nè subdamur Hostis fraudi Nobis fer auxilia Nos ab omni malo ducas Vitâ rectâ nos conducas Post â—anc vitam nos inducas Ad aeterna gaudia The like Devotion is done to S. Martin S. Andrew S. Iames S. Bartkoâ—omew and others though not in the same words 6. When I have given an example or two of their Prayers put up to their She-Saints â— shall a little more copiously insist on those to the blessed Virgin They beg of S. Agnes the greatest Grace that God is able to impart to the Soul of man that is to say to serve God in perfect Love And this Gift this one poor single She-Saint is solicited to bestow on all men Ave Agnes gloriosa Me in fide serves recta Dulcis Virgo dilecta Te exoro precibus Charitate da perfectâ Deum per quem es electa Colere piè omnibus That Devotion put up to S. Brâ—gitt is that she would play the skilfull Pilot and lead us through all the tempests and hazzards of this World so safely that at last by her good Conduct we may attain to everlasting Life The Rhyme runs thus O Bregitta mater bona Dulcis Ductrix Matrona Nobis fer suffragia Naufragantes in hoc Mari Tuo ductu salutari Duc ad vitae bravia 7. But that to S. Cathâ—rine is a piece of Devotion something of an higher strain or rather more copious and express But so great a Boon they beg of her as is in the power of none to give but God alone Ave Virgo Dei digna Christo prece me consigna Audi Preces praesta Votum Cor in bono fac immotum Confer miâ—i Cor contritum Rege Visum Auditum Râ—ge Gustum â—lfactum Virgo sancta rege Tactum Vt in cunctis te regente Vivam Deo purâ— mente Christum pro me interpella Salva Mortis de procella Superare fac me Mundum Nè demergar in profundum Nè me sinas naufragari Per Peccata in hoc Mari. Visita tu me infirmum Et in bonis fac me firmum Agonista Dei fortis Praestò sis in hora mortis Decumbentem fove leva Et de morte solve saeva Vt resurgam novus homo Civis in coelesti domo 8. Now it is observable in this devotional Rhyme to S. Catharine that whereas the Council of Trent advises men ad sanctorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere that in these many Verses
no man can maintain it by Truth And therefore to bring a true Argument against us in defense of it would be to bring an impertinent one For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth always agrees with never clashes with Truth as Aristotle has noted And therefore it is not to be imputed to the weakness of my Antagonist but of his Cause that with undeniable evidence I have perpetually confuted his Answers though I believe he has brought as good as the Cause is capable of and managed them and intermingled them with such circumstantial Rhetorical humours slights and tricks to make something of nothing and to make a show of Answering and confuting me that I must freely confess he is a complete Artist in that Roman Sophistry whereby they become cunning Anglers for poor deceivable Souls And thus much in short upon his Title-page and Advertisement We come now to his Introduction which I shall cast into so many Paragraphs and so Answer them in order Paragraph the first Dr. Henry More is a Person whose Learning and Parts have brought him into a name among the Professors of the refined Arts and Sciences Fame speaks him a great Philosopher And his Publick works are said to avouch no less Nay some have passed so far in favour of his Character as to term him The great Restorer of the Platonick Cabbala And truly if this be so I conceive the Gentleman had done himself a great deal of right if he had still kept to his own Element for as much as his late unlucky ingaging in Controversial Disputes cannot but prove a blot to his former undertakings For the Learned world must needs acknowledge that Dr. More the Controvertist is much degenerated from Dr. More the Philosopher The Answer Here observe the art and smooth cunning of my Adversary who drives at these two things First to make show of a great deal of equity and candor of judgment in acknowledging notwithstanding the Controversie betwixt us that I am not altogether nothing in matters of Philosophy but have writ with some success and acceptance on such Subjects that he thus seeming so impartial and indifferent a man and so readily acknowledging any thing well done by me he may the more easily be believed where he gives judgment against me and says That though I be something succesfull indeed in Philosophy yet I am very unlucky and unskilfull in Theological Disputes a tolerable Philosopher but a very mean Controvertist in points of Divinity The other drift is to make me if it were possible to melt and relent that I have thus lessened my credit in the world by my unfortunately ingageing in Controversies betwixt us and the Church of Rome as if he bemoaned my misfortune therein who if I had kept to my own Element of Philosophy might have been gratious and acceptable with all the world with the Pontifician party as well as vvith the reformed and kept up my Credit in force with all when as now I have hugely impaired my repute at least with those of his Party But to the first I Answer That though this Intimation of his own Impartiality be craftily enough managed yet that general acknowledged Testimony of my suffering in Philosophy is a witness against himself For if I have been so usefull and succesfull in my Philosophical demonstrations of the existence of God and Immaterial Beings in the vindication of Divine Providence in the proving of the Immortality of the Soul and in finding the ancient Iudaical Cabbala which the Platonick Philosophy is so near akin to so artificially couched in the Text of Moses and the like all which tend to the honour and safety of the Christian Religion the same clearness of sight which helps me to discern and judge of these things cannot but inable me to judge also in those concerning points that are betwixt you and us As that eye that can see one colour right is not confined to that colour but by the same faculty and soundness of sight can see another And it is more my impartialness and unprejudicedness than any thing else that makes me see so clearly and so truely in any thing As to the second my Adversary has suggested no more nor so much as I have diverse times reflected upon my self and was well aware of before I meddled with these kind of Controversies namely that it would lessen my repute and favour with many But if I seek to please men how shall I be the servant of Iesus Christ as the Apostle speaks Gal. 1. 10. And as for the business of Repute and Esteem in the world I thank God I am convinced even from my very Heart and Soul that I ought to be utterly dead to all Self-joy and Self-gloriation and therefore if any thing happen cross to that life that ought to be mortified in me if it moves me not I am at peace if it does it is yet the gift of God to me and I am admonished thereby to advance furthâ—r into that death by the power and Spirit of Christ that will at length lay asleep all such disturbances in my Soul for ever And there are greater matters than the esteem of men which I am not insensible but have always been well aware that I run the hazard of and such as that wisdom which is according to the Spirit of this world sets the greatest esteem of all upon But this I thank God could never affright me into the neglect of so undispensable a duty as the declaring so important truth so exceeding clear to my self and of so unspeakable consequence for the Church of God and for the settling of a true grounded peace in the Christian world That there might be truely one flock and one Sheepfold and Jesus Christ the true Shepherd over all which cannot be till such Barbarous and Idolatrous Laws and Instituâ—es be reversed as obtain still in the Papacy But for my part my great Fort and Shelter against all the Inconveniences I expose my self to by my just liberty of speech is to keep as near as I can in that frame of spirit which our Saviour commends to us in that Precept of his Matth. 5. 44. Love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despightfully use you and persecute you Father forgive them for they know not what they do Luk. 23. 34. This is the Sanctuary I desire to take shelter in even in that ineffably profound and humble Spirit of unself-interessed Love which I infinitely prefer before all the keenness of wit and crafty prudence of the Spirit of this world that so subtily shifts for it self which I envy no mans use or injoyment of may but my Soul sufficiently incorporate with this lovely Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ may that be the lot of mine inheritanec both in this life and for ever For this is that which is truely invincible indeed and will easily put by any such thrust as my
and most worthless thing that ever was penned Which if it be so my Antagonist has had a fair opportunity with ease to raise his Trophies on so great a Name as he is pleased to call it and so mean Performance And my Arguments being so plain and such as are not above the meanest Capacity if his Answers are as plain and bear covincing truth with them he need not fear but he will take away all the credit he says my Antidote has obtained amongst my vulgar Zealots to the irreparable dammage of their Souls But in the mean time that is either perversly or unskilfully insinuated As if there could be no zeal against Idolatry but it must be a sign of a vulgar Spirit so gentile a thing is it in contempt of God and his holy Commandments to complement Idols or Images or as if their being reclaimed from or fortified against Idolatry could be any prejudice to their Souls Paragraph the fifth And indeed I am already informed that some well-meaning Protestants who have a great kindness for the Author and no less value for the Work have cà lled for an Answer to it with a kind of insulting accent as conceiving no such Answer could be given They poor Souls thinking that surely the Doctor would never have been so positive in his Assertions if the strength of his evidences were not such as might bear all the stress he lays upon them The Answer It was but a plain expression of their confidence I dare say which the heighth of my Adversaries Rhetorick calls Insultation in that they professed they conceived my Antidote to be a Book unanswerable And it is a sign to me that they duely understood the weight and solidity of my Arguments that they did with such confidence pronounce them unanswerable And I hope upon the perusal of my Reply to my Adversaries pretended Answer not onely those that have a kindness for me but all lovers of the Truth will acknowledge them unanswerable And that those are no such poor Souls in his sense in that they deemed my Arguments no less strong than my self was positive in asserting of them but that they are persons of a clear and perspicacious Judgment The sixth and last Paragraph Wherefore seeing the concern of Souls is at stake whom he seeks by a pernicious wile to seduce venting poyson gilded over with the specious title of an Antidote the design of these few pages is to sum up briefly the Doctors Arguments allowing to each a due reflection and to represent the nullity and inconclusiveness of all that is material in him as to his foul and odious Charge of Idolatry drawn up against his and our common Mother Church The Answer This is fine Rhetorick again and an high boast as if he could so easily bring the solidity and firmness of my demonstrations to a mere Nullity Some men build Castles in the Air and others think they can batter down Castles on the Earth though built on Rocks although they have nothing but water-squirts or elderguns to discharge against them But it is a pious design he undertakes as if it were the concern of Souls not to be sufficiently heedfull how they commit Idolatry or as if I could seek by pernicious wiles to seduce them into the ancient pure Apostolick way unto that faith and practise which was in use and the known way to Heaven before that grand Apostasy into these gross Idolatries seized the Church And why should any Soul be afraid of being deceived by me when I show them no other way then what upon a free and impartial search I find to be true and go in my self driving on no worldly Interest at all in my choice thereof or in my charity of showing it to others I getting not a peny for my pains nor expecting nor desiring any thing nay it being even according to my Adversaries own acknowledgement against my worldly Interest But the love of Christ constraineth me as the Apostle speaks 2 Cor. 5. 14. which extendeth it self to your Church as well as to my own For He would all men should be saved and leave those ways that lead to eternal death Nor would our charge of Idolatry being true prove odious to you but that you hate the light that would convince you because your deeds are evil But for drawing any such Charge against my own Church I am so far from it that I have clearly Vindicated her from all suspition of Antichristianism of which Idolatry is no mean part at the end of my Synopsis Prophetica Nor know I what common Mother you and I can have unless you would become a Convert to the Truth and forsake all the gross corruptions and Idolatries of the Church of Rome For so we may be both members of the ancient Apostolick Church and Sons of that Jerusalem which is above which is the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. And thus I have Answered each Paragraph in my Antagonists Preface or Introduction In my Replies to his Answers I shall not always covet to set down his Text so intire For it would swell the Volume into too big a bulk but for both shortness and perspicuity disenveloping what pretended strength of Argument there may be from the manifold heterogeneous humours and strains of Art and Rhetorick I shall bring the bare edge of his Objections against my Antidote and then Reply to them which I suppose will be less tedious to the Reader For if I should bring in such things as are not essential to the Cause I must also be so impertinent as to Answer them and so we shall make so long a story of it betwixt us that the Reader may fall asleep before he gets half way which is ordinarily the fate of these Books of Answers and Replies But this Volume consisting of the Text of my Antidote each Chapter being prefixt before his Answers to the Conclusions or Paragraphs of them and my Replies set under each Answer I hope it may prove as little tedious and it may be more pleasant than if I had done all along as some do in their own Treatises raise Objections at the end of each Chapter or upon each Point and so Answer them And I will assure thee Reader that with all possible faithfulness and to my best skill I have represented the utmost strength of his Answers where I have not brought his Text intire Of which if thou hast any doubt his Book is not great so that thou maist satisfie thy scrupulosity at a very reasonable rate As for his harsh language to me I very seldom take notice of it in my Replies nor will I here concern my self to collect any specimens of it For I have no mind to quarrel but onely to defend the Truth let people reproach my Person as they please and am at perfect peace with my Adversary even while I am inforced to enter this Combate with him Of which I desire thee Reader to be a diligent and impartial Spectator For
I answer That he must understand by his Assertion either That the Pagans had not the knowledge of the supreme God and so could not Worship him at all and consequently not in an Image or else that having the knowledge of the supreme God yet they did not Worship him in an Image If he means the first it is a notorious untruth as may easily appear out of Plato Plutarch Aristotle Homer Tully Plotinus Jamblichus and many other of the Heathen Writers who were clear asserters of the supreme Godhead and many of them notable skilfull describers of the same This is a thing so well known among the learned that it is enough to mention it onely But if he mean the second that is also a mistake For the Inhabitants of Thebais worshipped the maker of the World in the Image of a man with an egg coming out of his mouth Dion Chrysostomus also and Maximus Tyrius do profess that in their Images of Gold and Silver and Ivory they worshipped the supreme God the maker and Governour of all things And what was more frequent than the Images of Iupiter who is the supreme Deity whom Aratus invokes in his Phanomena and St. Paul speaking of the supreme God Acts 17. 28. In whom we live and move and have our being alledges out of Aratus in that very place these words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we are his off-spring namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Jupiter and â—heon the Scholiast on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VVe must understand saith he here by Jupiter the maker of the VVorld So that that part of the Heathenish Idolatry is plain that they worshipped the supreme God in an Image But suppose they did not were it not then a shame that the Church of Rome should be greater Idolaters than they that stick not to Worship the supreme God in an Image and a shame for my Adveâ—â—ary who contends that the worshipping of the true God by an Image is not forbidden in the second Commandment and so proves himself a patron for greater Idolatry than he acknowledges to be among the very Heathen To the second thing Objected I answer That I might very well omit that branch of Idolatry the worshipping of their very Images for Gods because I did not intend any such charge upon you as if you worshipped Images taking them for the very Saints or Angels themselves because I hope that seldom happens even amongst the most ignorant of your Plâ—beians as I believe it very seldom happened amongst the Heathens themselves And the force of my arguing from this fourth Conclusion will never Iye upon the plenary enumeration of all the sorts of Pagan Idolatry but on my true application to those that are mentioned there So be they be there I refer to in my Arguments it is enough others not being there or there being more than I refer to neither strengthen nor weaken my Applications and Arguings so framed as I have intimated So that it is a superfluous thing for me to go about to disprove your Assertion That they called their Images Gods that they took them for Gods that they sacrificed to them as Gods Onely I shall return thus much That Dan. 5. 4. do's not prove that they themselves called their Images Gods but that the Holy Penman styleth them so As the Spirit of Truth also stiles them or rather stiles their Gods Images which is all one Isa. 46. Psal. 115. Habac. 2. Act. 19. 26. the very places you quote to prove they took their Images for Gods Which places yet do not at all prove it but onely prove what the sentence of the true God is touching the Gods of the Heathen in reference to their Images they worshipped complexly with them upon a supposal that upon their Consecration some invisible Power was conveyed into them and was ready there to hear and help all supplicants to them But now God who is the Prince and Commander of all Spirits knows that this their Religious Consecration has no such Power to convey any such assisting Spirits unto those Images so that they may be assured of their presence and ayd and therefore he must justly and truly contrary to their opinion of them who took them to be inhabited by some Dâ—mons calls them meer stocks and stones as they really are But to take the meer stock or stone which they saw hewed into such a forme to be a God is so excessively sottish that it is not credible that it ever fell into the mind of any number of the lowest dregs of the Heathen Common People or that they intended their sacrifices to them But that they phancyed the presence of some Daemons that received the Nidour and Odour of their Sacrifices is a thing so Vulgar and Trite that I hold it needless any more than to mention it And now whereas he saith That the souls of men departed their Daemons and particular Powers and Appearances of Nature they took them and worshipped them for Gods and calls my Conclusion a mincing Conclusion because it do's not mention that This omission was no intended cunning of mine to ruine the matter at all For I thought I spoke sufficiently home in saying they gave Religious Worship to these which is at least equal to the calling of them Gods especially in Greek and Latine For as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dii in the Greek and Latine signify as large as Elobim in the Hebrew which signifyes Angels or particular Spirits as well as the eternal God the maker and Governour of all And so does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dii signify all invisible Spirits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularly separate souls from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to divide or separate because they are separate from the Terrestrial body And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also is said of a separate soul amongst the Pythagoreans and Synesius himself also says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he would be an Angel or a blessed Spirit amongst the blessed Spirits Wherefore Dii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we usually translate Gods the words of themselves imply no more than Angels or souls separate But if Religious Worship be given to them then they become Gods Nor can any thing beside the supreme God be properly called God unless Religious Worship be instituted for it and then be it what it will the Notion and name of a false God properly belongs unto it so that in reality in saying They give Religious Worship to the souls of men or Daemons I say also That they were their Gods and that they worshipped them for such So that my Adversary has what he would and yet my Conclusion remains as strong as ever But in the mean time let me Observe That the calling of the Canonized souls of Holy men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Saints answers to it and consequentially is of the same sense so far forth as it respects their Canonization from the propriety of notation
Determination of clear and free Reason 1. WE will now try how obnoxious the Romanists are out of the plain Definitions and Determinations of free and clear Reason In which Method let us set down for The first Conclusion That Idolatry is a kind of Injustice against God That this is true may appear from that Definition of Religion in Tâ—lly who defines it Iustiâ—am adversus Deum Which is not the sense of Tully onely but the very voice of Reason and Nature And therefore Idolatry being one kind of Irreligion or Impiety it must needs inâ—lude in it a kind of Injustice against God 2. The second Conclusion That Idolatry is a very fore and grievous Disease of the Soul vilely debasing her and sinking her into Sensuality and Materialiâ—y keeping her at a distance from the true sense and right knowledge of God and leaving her more liable to bodily Lusts That the natural tendency of Idolatry is this and yet the Souls of men in this Lapsed state are naturally prone to so mischievous a Disease as both History and daily Experience do abundantly witness See the Mischiefs of Idolatry in my Mystery of Iniquity Part 〈◊〉 Lib. â— Ch. 16. Nor can it infringe the truth of this Conclusion that a man retaining still the true Notion of God according to his Divine Attributes may according to a sense of his own bow down toward a corporeal Object of worship For he must retain it by force against such a Practice as would and does naturally debauch the users of it And besides if he had really the Life of God in him as well as the Notion of him he would feel such Actions grate against his heart and perceive how they would invade and attempt the abating and extinguishing the more true and pure sense of God and of his Worship and seduce the Soul to external Vanity But suppose a man or two could keep their minds from sinking down from a right Notion of the Deity yet they are as guilty of Idolatry if they give religious Worship to corporeal Objects as he is of Adultery and Fornication that yet uses them so cautiously as neither to impair his bodily Health nor besott his natural Parts thereby And therefore though there may be some few such yet the Laws against Fornication and Adultery ought notwithstanding to be very sacred to every one even to those discreeter Transgressours of them and ever to be obeyed by them because the Observation of them is of such infinite importance to the Publick And what we have said of the Worship of God is analogically true of honouring of the Saints who are best honoured by the remembrance and imitation of their Vertues not by scraping Legs to or clinging about their Image which are no more like them than an Apple is to an Oister 3. The third Conclusion That those high expressions of the Jealousie of God and his severe Displeasure against Idolatry are very becoming the nature of the thing and his Paternal care of the Souls of men This appears from the foregoing Conclusions For both the Prerogatives and Rights of the Divine Majesty himself are concerned and also the Perfection Nobilitation and Salvation of the Souls of men This we discover by Reason and our Reason is again more strongly ratify'd by Divine Suffrage The fourth That Idolatry though it be so hainous a Sin yet where it is committed most in good earnest does necessarily involve in it Ignorance or Mistake in the Act of Worship or in the Object they either taking the Object to be God when it is not or to have some Attribute of God when it has not or to enjoy some Prerogative of God which yet it does not or else the Worship not to be Divine when it is or lastly they mistake in the Application of the Worship thinking they do not applâ— Divine Worship to an Object when they do The fifth That to be mistaken in the Object of Worship or in the Kind of Worship or in the Application cannot excuse any-thing from being downright Idolatry forasmuch as none are in good earnest Idolaters without some of these Mistakes The sixth That the peculiar Honour or Worship which is given to God is given to him not so much as his Honour and Worship as his Due and Right insomuch that he that does not give it to God or communicates it to another does an injury to the Divine Majesty This is plain and consonant to what was said on the first Conclusion That Religion is a kind of Justice towards God And indeed if Divine Honour was not given to God as his Due and Right it were no Honour at all but rather a Benevolence 4. The seventh The Right of that peculiar Honour or Worship we do to God is grounded either in the nature of his incommunicable Excellencies or in his Excellencies so far as we know incommunicated to any Creature or lastly in Divine Declaration or Prescription of the ways or Modes of thus or thus worshipping him which himself has some-time set down The eighth That any Actions Gestures or Words directed to any Creature as to an Object which naturally imply or signifie either the incommunicable or incommunicated Eminencies of God is the giving that Worship that is the Right and Due of God alone to that Creature and that Injury against the Divine Majesty which is termed Idolatry The evidence of this Conclusion may appear from hence because there is no other way of Application of external Worship than by directing such significant Actions Gestures or Words toward such a Being as to an Object The ninth That the using any of those Actions or Gestures or doing any of those things that the true and supreme God did chuse and challenge in the setting out the Mode of his own Worship towards or in reference to any Creature as to an Object this also is that Injury against God which we term Idolatry The Reason is this Because such a mode of Worship does thus manifestly appear to be the peculiar Right of God which none can transfer to another but God himself Wherefore this Right having not been communicated by him to any other when-ever such a kind of Worship is used it must be used to him and to none else Nor can his dereliction of any such Mode of being worshipped warrant the use of it to any Creature afterwards because no Creature can be God in those circumstances as he thought fit to institute such a Worship for himself in For no Creature can be God at all and therefore never capable of any of those Modes of Divine Worship which God ever at any time instituted for himself Besides if this dereliction and disuse of any Mode of Worship might make it competible to a Creature then might we sacrifice Beeves and Sheep besides other Services of the Temple to any Saint or Daemon 5. The tenth An omnipercipient Omnipresence which does hear and see what-ever is said or transacted in the World whether considered in the
no necessity of the granting of the production of a new Body which was not before but onely that the Body begins to be where it was not before As in the augméntation of our Bodies there is no need of a new Soul but the same Soul occupies those parts of matter that have accrewed to the Body in its augmentation The first is verbatim out of him The second Answer contains the full strength of his own words The Reply To the first Answer I Reply That it has no basis For Physicks exhibit no such probability nor has he nor can he produce the least Instance thereof But in the mean time it is worth the taking notice of in this Answer how well assured in his own mind for all his external cavilling before my Adversary is That the meaning of that Proposition of mine That that individual thing that can be and is to be made of any thing is not was intended by me of such things as which once made are not to be destroyed or in such a sense as this That that individual thing that can be made or is to be made of any thing in that point of time that it is to be made is not Which is an Axiome noematically true And therefore to say that a Body is by a first production but yet still remaining produced is to be again produced entirely even while it remains produced that is to say that it remains produced already in that very point of time that it is to be produced is plainly to confess that the very same individual thing is produced and not produced or unproduced at the same time For the terminus productionis is one and the same individual body A. Now according to Aristotle and the common sense of all men all production whether Accidental or Essential has its contrary termes and proceeds à Privatione ad Actum from Privation to Act. So that let A be Accident or Essence A must be supposed not to be that it may become A or be made A supposing A such an Individual Body when it is to be produced the Termini Productionis are non-A and A. That which is to be made A from not being A it becomes A. Otherwise it being the same Individual Body and being before it could not of not being this Individual Body become this Individual Body A but onely A would be in a new place Which is no Essential production as is here supposed but onely local mutation and consequently the Individual Body A is not produced when it is thus supposed reproduced And therefore if it be really reproduced as is pretended it is a demonstration that it then was not Wherefore it being certain that our Saviours Body does not cease to be if Transubstantiation be true that pretends it reproduced it necessarily implies that it then is not And therefore it plainly is and is not according to that doctrine at the same time Besides if it were possible that A suppose Socrates could be produced while Socrates is in being it can be no otherwise then thus that is to say That another man exquisitely Socrates to whom Socrateity is fully and essentially communicated in all points is also produced But then this will also follow that Socrates is now become a Genus and this and that Socrates are the species infimae of it which we usually call Individuals and so they will not be idem numero but diversa numero and consequently not the same Persons And so the same Individual Socrates or the same Individual A will be produced and not produced at the same breath For things that differ numerically cannot be the same Individuals So impossible every way is this first Fiction and implies still the same Repugnancy For iâ— in the second production the individual Body of Christ be produced it necessarily argues that Body before not to be his individual Body so that his Body then was not according to the doctrine of Transubstantiaâ—ion which yet certainly was and therefore if that doctrine be true it is again true That the Body of Christ is and is not at the same time To the second Answer I Reply First That it is apparently repugnant to the very Definition of Transubstantiation by the Council of Trent Which saith ' That there is a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ. Which say they is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation But if there were no production of the Body of Christ but onely the causing of it to be where it was not before this would not be properly Transubstantiation but mutatio Localis But in the action of Transubstantiation the terminus is substantia not Locus it being the transubstantiating one substance into another Secondly If the Body of Christ be not produced but there be onely mutatio Localis the substance of the Bread either remains or is annihilated That the Bread remains is expresly against the doctrine of the Roman Church That it is annihilated is to give the power of Annihilation to a creature which is onely proper to God and to supose that every consecration of the Host annihilates so much of the matter of the Universe which mustneeds seem very harsh and absurd to any unprejudiced Judgement Besides that there is this palpable repugnancy in it That whereas Transubstantiation is said to be the conversion of all the substance of the Bread into Christs Body this plainly implies that there is the conversion of none at all into it it being all annihilated and exterminated out of the Universe To say nothing of the Accidents of the Bread remaining after this Annihilation it being unconceivable where they should be subjected or that any modes of substance should be separated from their substance and exist without it And then to what end it should be that the species of the Bread should appear by the Divine Omnipotency the substance of Bread being annihilated When it would conduce far more to our belief of the corporeal Presence of Christ in lieu of the annihilated Bread if those species did not appear or were so changed that they seemed much above the nature of ordinary Bread Which things being not it is a plain Judication to the unprejudiced that the Bread is still Bread after the Consecration Else God would be found exercising his Omnipotency in exhibiting such perfest species of Bread and Wine in such a way as is most effectual to drive all Christians to the misbelief of the pretended Mystery of Transubstantiation Which were a grand absurdity and incompeâ—ible to the Divine Wisdom and Goodness if that Mystery were true And thirdly and lastly for his quaint allusion to the Soul which being the same yet extends it self into new parts of matter accrewing to the Body in its augmentation it is a pretty offer of wit but in my apprehension it extremely falls short of the present Case For the Soul being still one and the same Spirit undistanced from it self
Guilt whereby she is plainly equallized to the Son of God and made as it were a She-Christ or Daughter of God To this sense also are those Prayers put up to her in her Feast of the Conception and of the Annunciation But it were infinite to produce all Read that Prayer in 〈◊〉 sung to her by the Council of Constance It is a perfect â—mitation of the ancient Prayer of the Church to the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. Vpon the first Paragraph IN that Prayer to the blessed Virgin in this Paragraph are such Compellations as if they were in the masculine gender were onely proper for God and Christ and such things are asked as are in their power onely to give which is a further Reply to his second general Answer Vpon the second Paragraph And the very same may be said of the Invocation in this second Paragraph out of the same Rosary of the Virgin which though my Adversary seems desirous to signifie his slighting of yet he dare not deny but that it passes current with them And why may I not produce what forms of Invocation I please which are allow'd amongst them and are made use of in the devotions of them that are of the Church of Rome For this does plainly prove the Idolatry that Chuch is lapsed into But if some few flowers out of the Hortulus Animae may be more gratefull to him he shall find what will amount to as much as is in the above said Rosary For in a Recommendation to the blessed Virgin we read thus I commend unto thee blessed Virgin my whole Body and Soul and my whole life the five senses of my Body all my actions and my death who art with thy Son Christ blessed for ever and ever What can be said more to Christ or God himself This is surely more than an Ora pro nobis Pray for us For in a Recommendation immediately going before the form is Precor te I pray thee that thou wouldst keep me from sins from scandals from all the Confusion of humane life from unclean thoughts from all perils of Soul and Body And some few leaves before in the Canticum ad Virginem it is said Dignare dulcis Maria nunc semper nos sine delicto custodire O sweet Mary vouchsafe to keep us now and for ever without sin As if they had a mind to turn the Te Deum into a Te Deam and indeed in this Canticle they have indeavoured it as near as they can But this in it verbatim Answers to Vouchsafe to keep us this day without sin in the Te Deum I will close all with that Rhyme in their Oratio ad beatam Mariam Esto custos cordis mei Signa me timore Dei Confer vitae Sanctitatem Et da morum honestatem Da peccata me vitare Et quod justum est amare O Dulcedo Virginâ—lis Nunquam fuit nec est talis Can any one be the keeper of ones heart bâ—t God that knows the hearâ— This therefore is such a sweet strain of Devotion as never was heard till the lapse of the Church into gross Idolatry And yet all this and a great deal more is in that Hortulus Animae which questionless is a most delicious Paradise with those of that Church and has a sufficient stamp of Authority upon it Which I speak in reference to his third general Answer Nor have I gathered any examples of Invocation but such as the Author I have them out of does expresly profess to have been confirmed by publick Authority and to have been in publick use See Chemnitius his third part of the Examination of the Council of Trent pag. 135. I do not profess to have all their Rituals and Pontificals and Rosaries by me but what I have by me and under my eye are so like what Chemnitius has produced that I think it the greatest folly and stupidity in the World to misbelieve his Quotations Vpon the third Paragraph As for Example in the Invocation in this Paragraph Cor meum illumina fulgens stella Maris why should I at least doubt of that form when I have before mine eyes in Hortulus Animae Esto custos cordis mei Signa me timore Dei Out of both which in the mean time there may be a further Reply to his second general Answer or an Inâ—stance of one of those Generals in my general Reply to that Answer Vpon the fourth Paragraph That I take notice that these Invocations imply that the Virgin Mary is the daughter of God is in reference to my Exposition of the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira which the Reader if his Genius lead him to such things may please to peruse But in the mean time they implying so plainly that the Virgin is the daughter of God in such a kind of sense as Christ is his Son it plainly appears from hence that the Invocation is not a mere Ora pro nobis or the Praâ—ing for such things as are not greater then is in the power of any Creature to give which therefore again is a further Reply to the second and last general Answers Vpon the fifth Paragraph Besides that she is again in this Invocation made the daughter of God in that high sense and that the same Arguments that prove â—er Titles bigger imply the boons she can bestow to be greater then what is competible to a mere Creature and so it respects the second general Answer of my Adversary It is plain also from veni and visita that it is impossible to be understood of a mere Ora pro nobis contrary to my Adversaries last Answer And lastly it is to be observed in reference to his third general Answer that this song in her Feast of Visitation must be in the number of those forms quae publicè in Ecclâ—sus leguntâ—r magnis â—oatibus proclamantur Chemnitius speaks And the like is to be said of her Feast of Conception and Annunciation in Reply to the said third general Answer As also of that Prayer sung to her at the Council of Constance in imitation of Veni Creator Spiritus as that in Hortulus Animae is of Te Deum Laudamus And why should I doubt of that when I see this before mine eyes But instead of Vâ—ni Creator Spiritus which is the usual Prayer to the Holy Ghost it is here Veni mater Gratiae Fons misericordiae Miseris Remedium Veni lux Ecclesiae Triâ—tibus laetitiae Nunc infunde radium c. And now let any one judge whether these are the words of suppliants onely saying Ora pro nobis For whereas it is said Veni lux Ecclesiae Nunc infunde radium O come thou light of the Church Now infuse thy rayes This is both a calling her to them not a bidding her pray for them in Heaven and also the styling her the light of the Church and upon that account Praying her to illuminate them it is plain they suppose her from self to shine forth
In which there is not onely a similitude of Signification but of real and personal likeness But this was onely to bring in that sly saâ—ing He who honours man as he is the image of God honours God in his Image Whenas there is no man honours man in reference to God as you pretend to honour the Image of Christ terminating your Worship in him But we do civil honour onely to men and in bowing to them onely signifie our inclination and readiness to do them all good offices of love service and in the mean time acknowledge there is that in them that is worthy of civil honour and esteem And lastly I say as to the pretense of specifick similitude of Figure it signifies no more as to the intended honour of an Individual then if there were no similitude at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For not to signiâ—ie one determinate thing is to signifie nothing as Aristotle says But by vertue of the direction of our intention we may make any thing signifie any thing To the second I Reply That if the Case the Doctor puts be more than poâ—â—â—ible then it is probable or possible so that he yields what I would have But I will not yield him that he has brought a fit instance or that he has spoke right in that Instance For neither were these Cherubims â—ntended for the symbolical presence of Angels but of God nor was any honour done to the Cherubims or their Prototypes although here again he slily would infuse this poyson of Idolatry into his ignorant Party though with a reproach to God and Moses His Answer to the sixth Paragraph To the first part of this Paragraph he Answers That the Images of the Saints represent them such as they were upon Earth onely with an additional mark of a Crown or Lawrel to signifie their triumphant state in Glory And then That an Image may be like to a separate Soul as well as to an Angel or Cherubim he would infer from that Opinion of the Platonists who make separate Souls invested with aereall or aethereal Vehicles as well as the Angels To the second he Answers that if a terrestrial Image cannot represent that Person who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man then neither can a terrestrial eye represent him and so the Apostles whilest living did never see that Person who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man which is no less then blasphemy as implying that that Person called Iesus Christ whom the Apostles dayly beheld with their eyes was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man The Reply To the first I Reply That unless my Adversary here suppose what he can never make good that they have the true effigies of the Saints such as they were upon Earth he is never the near as to this first curiosity whether he phancy them represented such as they were on Earth or such as they are now in Heaven But being Religious Worship is not due to them till they be canonized to represent them such as they were on Earth is to represent them in Order to Religious Worship such as they were before they were capable of Religious Worship And the Lawrel and Crown he talks of those are not on their Images or Statues but onely a Glory over their Heads in their Pictures so far as I remember of which the genuine signification is That that picture stands for them such as they are now in glory and there is the same sense of their Statues and of their Pictures Moreover his supposal is false and contrary to his own Assertion before when he asserts that the Images of Cherubims or Angels are like in Figure to the Angels themselves as if there were Ox-headed and Lyon-headed Angels And lastly suppose we should be so courteous as to grant him the doctrine of the Platonists that Souls separate have aereal or aethereal Vehicles what would this advantage him they allowing no settled Figure to them And if there were an humane Figure allowed when we have no knowledge what was their individual terrestrial Figure how shall we know what is their aereal or aethereal And though the Figure was known what terrestrial matter can express that lively enravishing spiritual beauty that is in those lucid Vehicles So that though the Figure were 〈◊〉 the form which is the life of the Figure would be quite lost and be nothing near so like the separate Soul as the dead carcass of the greatest beauty on Earth after four days lying in the grave would be to the said party when alive So that my Adversary in his Answer to this first part seems to indulge to humours and fetches of wit rather than to reason soberly and so as to prove a personal likeness betwixt the Saints and their Images And this in like sort may be said of his Answer to the second part which is indeed an odd unexpected fetch of wiâ— but hugely rude and harsh that would pretend to fix on my Argument the horrid crime of blasphemy when it is in truth the asserting the transcendent excellency of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ not the denying of it which were an hainous piece of blasphemy against the Son of God indeed I say therefore that when I ask what terrestrial Image can possibly represent him that is truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man that no mans mind that is not very extravagant could ever phancy that I meant any other Image then what is external to our sight which that in our eye is not Again it is manifest that I mean it of some Image that represents the absent and invisible Humanity of Christ by reason of its absence and not such an Image as a Parelion or a Paraselene are that do not represent the Sun or Moon but by vertue of the presence of those Luminaries Nor did tâ—e Image of Christ in the eyes of the Apostles or other men represent Christ any otherwise then by 〈◊〉 of his Presence But it is plain to any that will not cavil that I understand my own words of such Images as represent the absent as the Statue of Caesar of Virgil and the like And then lastly I flatly deny that the Image of an external Object in the eye is terrestrial For the Image is not in the nervous bottom of the eye but butts onely upon it as the Images let in upon white paper through a Hole in a dark room That Image is not fixed nor subjected in the paper but in the ethereal matter that touches the paper And so the Image is in the ethereal matter that touches the bottom of the eye not in the bottom of the eye it self But ethereal matter is not terrestrial and therefore this no terrestrial Image Unto all which I add That it does not follow but that though the Image in the eye call it terrestrial or ethereal had not the adequate or principal power of representing Christ God-man to the Apostles when he was on Earth yet the presence of
our Saviour and the Divine graces of his Person shooting through that Image into the Souls and hearts of the beholders faith being wrought in them by the spirit of God according to his eternal purpose as it is written No man cometh to me unless my Father draw him they might behold him and give that Testimony that St. Iohn does of him Iohn 1. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld the glory of him as the glory of the onely begotten Son of God full of grace and truth But for others that saw the humane Presence of him who is truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they could not discern him to be such or to be the Messias so far as they saw it chiefly to be imputed to his humanity being present and not to the Image in the eye which but for his Presence could not represent him to the Soul But I hope the wicked and unbeliever noâ— discovering his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not at all argue him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man And now if the Image impressed by the very presence of Christ had not not the natural Power of representing that Divine Complexum God-man according to both the natures how far short shall Images of wood or stone or what ever materials be from representing him being absent In the mean time it is apparent how rash and inhumane my Antagonist is to charge me with blasphemy upon such slight and toyish pretenses as he is pleased to take up and every way so weak and insignificant I have insisted on this longer than was needfull But I was invited so to do because my Adversary here seems to have intended to make a show of induing his confutations of this seventh Chapter with so great Triumph when indeed he has one nothing at all he having not taken notice of the close of this â—ixth Paragraph that declares and proves that though there were this natural reference of Images to their Prototypes by reason of personal similitude of Figure yet it would be Idolatry to Worship them Vpon the seventh Paragraph Which I do more-fâ—lly inculcate in the beginning of the last part of this seventh Paragraph And in the first and second part thereof copiously demonstrate that though these Images have the similitude of Signification onely as he loves to call it and not of Figure yet it is Idolatry over and over again to Worship them Which Hypothesis he chiefly or rather onely adheres to and has sported and playd away his time in superfluously and weakly trifling against the first part of my Dilemma is if he would make good the similitude of Figure betwixt the Images and Prototypes when he seems to believe neither any truth nor necessity of it but onely to make a show of confuting this seventh Chapter when he has left the latter end of the sixth Paragraph and this whole seventh untouched which is the main drift of all namely to shew that whether the Images have any similitude with their Prototypes or no yet it is Idolatry to Worship them and that therefore the Council of Trent has no subterfuge in this regard to excuse themselves from the charge of Idolatry in appointing the honour they appoint to them CHAP. VIII The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice touching the Worship of Images to which the Council of Trent refers that it is grosly Idolatrous also 1. BUT now as for the other Reason of these Tridentine Fathers whereby they would support their Determination in this point Viz. the Authority of the second Council of Nice held about the year 780 to omit that long before this time the Church had become asymmetral which yet is a very substantial Consideration I shall only return this brief answer The God of Israel which is the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ has given this express command to his Church for ever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it But the second Council of Nice says Thou mayst and shalt bow down to to the Image of Christ of the blessed Virgin and of the rest of the Saints Now whether it be fit to believe and obey God or men judg ye I might add farther men so silly and frivolous in the defense of their Opinions so false and fabulous in the Allegations of their Authorities and the recitall of miraculous Stories as Chemnitius has proved at large in his Examen of the Council of Trent 2. I will give an Instance or two Mat. 5. 15. No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushell therefore the Images of the Saints are to be placed on the Altars and Wax-candles lighted up before them in due honour to them Again Psalm 16. But to the Saints that are on the Earth But the Saints are in Heaven say they therefore their Images ought to be on the Earth c. As for the Miracles done by Images as their Speaking the Healing of the sick the Revenging of the wrong done to them the distilling of roâ—id drops of balsame to heal the wounded sick or lame their Recovering water into a dry Well and the like it were too tedious to recite these Figments But that of the Image of the Virgin to whom her Devotionist spake when he took leave of her and was to take a long Journey intreating her to look to her Candle which he had lighted up for her till his return I cannot conceal For the Story says the same Candle was burning six months after at the return of her Devoto An example of the most miraculous Prolonger that ever I met withall before in all my days Such an Image of the Virgin would save poor Students a great deal in the expense of Candles if the thing were but lawfull and feasible 3. From these small hints a man may easily discover of what Authority this second Council of Nice ought to be though they had not concluded so point-blank against the Word of God But because that Clause in this Paragraph of the Council I have recited Id quod Conciliorum praesertim verò secundae Nicaenae Synodi c. may as well aim at the determination of what these Fathers mean by that debitus honor reverentia which they declare to be due to the Images of Christ and the Saints as confirm their own Conclusion by the Authority of that Nicene Council we will take notice also what a kinde of Honour and Reverence to Images the Nicene Council did declare for and in short it is this That they are to be worshipped and adored and to be honoured with Wax-candles and by the smoaking of Incense or Perfumes and the like Which smells rankly enough in all conscience of Idolatry as Grotius himself upon the Decalogue cannot but acknowledge But this is not all The Invocation of Saints their Mediation and propitiating God for us for adoring their Images â—ealing of Diseases and other Aids and Helps besides
own heads as they have herein given it against themselves in saying that all Idolaters are damned or that no idolater can be saved For it is demonstrated as clear as the Noon-light in this present Discourse that the Church of Rome are Idolaters 8. And in that of those of our Church that say they may be saved upon a sincere and hearty implicit Repentance of all their sins wherein they include the Idolatries and all other Miscarriages which they know not themselves guilty of by reason of the blinde Mis-instructions of their Church no more is given them by this then thus viz. That they are saved by disowning of and dismembring themselves from the Roman Church as much as it is in their power so to do and by bitterly repenting them that they were ever of that Church as such and by being so minded that if they did know what a corrupt Church it is they would forthwith separate from it So that in effect those of the Roman Church that some of ours conceit may be saved are no otherwise saved if at all then by an implicit renouncing Communion with it which in Foro Divino must go for an actual and formal Separation from it In which Position if there were any Truth it will reach the honest-minded Pagans as well but it can shelter neither unless in such Circumstances that they had not the opportunity to learn the Truth which since the Reformation and especially this last Age by the mercy of God is abundantly revealed to the world So that all men especially those that live in Protestant Nations or Kingdoms are without all excuse and therefore become obnoxious to God's eternall wrath and Damnation if they relinquish not that false Prophetess Iezebel as she is called in the Epistle to the Church in Thyatira who by her corrupt Doctâ—ines deceives the people and inveigles them into gross Idolatrous Practices 9. Thus little is conceded by those of our Reformed Churches that speak most favourably of those in the Church of Rome And yet this little must be retracted unless we can make it out that any of that Church are capable of sincere and unfeigned Repentance while they are of it For to repent as a Thief because he is afraid to be hanged is not that saving Repentance But to repent as a true Christian none can do unless he has the Spirit of God and be in the state of Regeneration For true Repentance arises out of the detestation of the ugliness of Sin it self and out of the love to the pulchritude and amiableness of the Divine Life and of true Virtue which none can be touched with but those that are Regenerate or born of God Now those holy and Divine Sentiments of the new Birth are so contrary to the Frauds and Impostures to the gross Idolatries and bloudy Murthers of the Church of Rome which they from time to time have perpetrated upon the dear Servants of Christ that it is impossible for any one that has this holy sense but that he should incontinently fly from that Church with as much horrour and affrightment as any Countrey-man would from some evil Spectre or at the approach of the Devil 10. He that is born of God sinneth not saith S. John 1 John 5. 18. How then can they be so born whose very Religion is a Trade of sin and that of the highest nature they ever and anon exercising gross acts of Idolatry besides that they are consenting by giving up their belief and suffrage to the murtherous Conclusions of that Church to all the barbarous and bloudy Persecutions of the Saints that either have happened or may happen in their own times or ever shall happen by that Church they become I say guilty thereof by adjoyning themselves to this bloud-thirsty Body of men with whom the Murther of those that will not commit Idolatry with them and so rebell against God is become an holy Papal Law and Statute And therefore I say how can any man conceive that those men are born of God who are thus deeply defiled with Murtherous and Idolatrous Impurities but rather that they are in a mere blind carnal condition and uncapable while they are thus of any true and sincere Repentance and consequently of repenting of their daily Idolatries which they commit and ordinarily to make all sure in ipso articulâ— mortis and therefore are out of all capacity of Salvation while they are members of that Church As plainly appears both by this present Reason fetch'd from the nature of Regeneration as also from the judgement of the Romanists themselves touching the state of Idolaters after this life and chiefly from the express sentence of the Spirit of God in Scripture as I intimated before 11. And therefore in the fifth and last place it is exceeding manifest how stupid and regardless those Souls are of their own Salvation that continue in the Communion of the Church of Rome and how desperately wild and extravagant they are who never having been of it but having had the advantage of better Principles yet can find in their hearts to be reconciled to it This must be a sign of some great defect in Judgement or else in their Sincerity that they ever can be allured to a Religion that is so far removed from God and Heaven 12. But this Church as the woman in the Proverbs is I must confess both very fair of speech and subtil of heart and knows how to tamper with the simple ones right skilfully She knows how to overcome all their carnal senses by her luxurious Enticements She has deck'd her bed with coverings of I apestry with carved work with fine linens of Aegypt She has perfumed her bed with Mâ—rrh Aloes and Cinnamon Prov. 7. 16 17. She entertains her Paramours with the most delicious strains of Musick and chants out the most sweet and pleasing Rhymes to Iull them secure in her lap Such as those Idolatrous forms of the â—nvocation of the Virgin Mary and of other Saints which I have produced of which she has a numerous store Unto which I conceive the Prophet Isay to allude in that passage touching the City of Tyre representing there mystically the relapsing Church of Rome Take an harp go about the City thou harlot that hast been forgotten make sweet Melody sing many Songs that thou mayst be remembred Isa. 23. 16. See Synopâ—is Prophetica Book 2. ch 16. 13. She gilds her self over also with the goodly and specious â—itles of vnity Antiquity â—niversality the power of working Miracles of Sanctity likewise and of Infallibility and boasts highly of her self that she has the power of the Keys and can give safe conduct to Heaven by Sacerdotal Absolution and if need be out of the Treasury of the Merits of holy men of their Church which she has the keeping and disposing of can adde Oyl to the Lamps of the unprovided Virgins and so piece out their Deficiency in the works of Righteousness Such fair speeches and fine gloâ—ing
kept in Error by such Topicks as these Dr. Thorndike is not of the same mind with Dr. More therefore Dr. More uses blustering arguments not much concerned whether true or false For my part I desire no man take my Arguments or Assertions upon trust but do appeal to Scripture and his own Reason whether what I say be not true and would have him examine them accordingly And therefore Dr. Thorndike must not be offended though I yield not to his name though I have a due respect for him till I have tried the strength of his Arguments in each Antithesis to my Assertions As to the first Antithesis therefore where he denies the Worship of the Host in the Papacâ— to be Idolatry Cap. 19. the short and long of his Argument is this That no Papist worships the Elements of the Eucharist nor the Accidents of it for God Therefore no Papist in this VVorship is an Idolater He Vâ— orships not the Elements of the Eucharist because he does not believe them to be there Nor the Accidents as they call them because he believes them to be no part of the Body of Christ into which the consecrated Bread is Transubstantiated But to this I brieflâ— Answer That the Bread Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and Hypostatically united with the Deity there where the Accidents shew us so that they become that very Person God-man is the intended Object of their Worship and Adoration being visible to them merely in vertue of those Accidents or species that are like Bread Now therefore it is plain if there be no such thing as Transubstantiation that their Adoration passes upon a mere untransubstantiated piece of Bread instead of the Body or corporeal presence of Christ supposed to be veiled with those Accidents of Bread which therefore is plain Idolatry For in that they are mistaken in their Object and intended no Worship to a piece of Bread but to Christ does not excuse the Idolatry by the 4th and 5th Conclusions of the second Chapter See also Conclusion 21. and 22. as also the last Conclusion of the same Chapter I have represented Dr. Thorndikes Argument with the utmost strength I could possibly and yet it is no other than you see To the second Antithesis Dr. More says he hoâ—ds that the placing and reverencing of Images in Churches is Idolatry Repl. I do not hold that the mere placing of Images in Churches is Idolatry though I must confess I had rather have their room than their Company but onely the worshipping of them And now let us hear what Dr. Thorndike Chap. 19. alledges to the contrary â—n doing honour saith he to the Images of Saints there can be no Idolatry so long as men take them for Saints that is Gods Creatures much less to the Images of our Lord. â—or it is the Honour of our Lord and not of the Image And a little after to the like sense For indeed and in truth it is not the â—mage but the Principal the Nicene Council calls it Prototype that is honoured by the honour that is said to be done to the Image because it is done before the Image This is the sum of his Argument to prove that Image-worship is no Idolatry Now in order to the better understanding my Answer you are First to take notice that both my Adversary and Dr. Thorndike understand such Images as have honour done to them in the Church of Rome viz. Images dedicated or consecrated as you have an example of the form above and therefore such as are the symbolical Presences of their Principals or Prototypes Secondly That this honour here mentioned in general by Dr. Thorndike is the Honour done and allowed by the Church of Rome unto Images viz. Invocation before them Incurvation setting up Wax-candles and burning Incense before them Noâ— that the doing of this honour to these Images is not Idolatry Dr. Thorndike would prove upon the Principel of Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice Because the Honour does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passes from or through the Image to the Principal in so much that the Principal alone seems to be worshipped not the Image And this Principal being either the Saints or Christ so long as we remember the Saints to be Gods Creatures it can be no Idolatry much less in the Image of Christ since the Principal or Prototype there is God Repl. To the first of which I Answer That the Primitive Christians knew the Emperor to be Gods Creature and even eo nomine because they remembred him to be Gods Creature would not cast a few grains of Incense into the fire in honour of him though it cost them their lives for not doing of it And the departed Souls of the great Heroes or Benefactors among the Heathen whom they after death made Damons and worshipped them were known well enough to be Gods Creatures that is to say the off-spring of the highest Numen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Heathen Poet could saâ— and yâ—t no Christians doubt but they were Idolaters in worshipping them And therefore by the third and fourth Conclusions of the first Chapter the worshipping of the Images of the Saints though terminating on the Saints themselves is Idolatry Besides Incurvation to an Image such as is here practised is Idolatry by the seventh and eighth Conclusions of the same Chapter See also the nineteenth Conclusion of the second Chapter And then for the Image of Christ though Christ be God yet to Worship God by an Image is Idolatrâ— By the nineteenth Conclusion of the second Chapter and by the second Commandment and the â—earfull vengeance on the Israelites for worshipping the golden Calf which not withstanding was the symbolical Presence of Jehovah And for the pretense that the Worship is done onely before the â—mage not the Image since the Image is a symbolical Presence dedicated to Christ or this or that Saint and that these are the Instances of Honor debitus viz. Incurvation toward it burning Incense and the like used by the Câ—urch of Rome and specified by the Council of Nice to which the Council of Trent does refer it is manifest that these honours are done to these Images as well as to their Protoypes as appears further from the tenth Conclusion of the first Chapter and the twentieth of the second which Conclusions are improvable also to the case of burning of Incense and lighting up wax-candles and bringing of Oblations to these symbolical Presences which please the simple people when they visibly behold their Masters to whom they pay their Religious Tribute or Offerings whether Money or money-worth What Idolatry can be more Pagan-like than this So little satisfactory is it what Dr. Thorndike produces for the freeing of the Church of Romes Image-worship from Idolatry To the third Antithesis Dr. Thorndike says he excuses Invocation of Saints from Idolatry Repl. Truly upon my perusal of that Chapter in Dr. Thorndike I think my Adversary has little reason to
that Dr. Thorndike has quitted the Church of Rome of the charge of Idolatry in this last Antithesis Repl. I grant he supposes you no Idolarers but how does he prove you none I have demonstrated over and over again in my Antidote that you are Idolaters and you have not been able to inervate one proof Now let us consider the demonstrations of Dr. Thorndike upon which he builds his assertion so prodigiously Paradoxical to all Protestants a thing never uttered by any member of the reformed Churches before I have poized his weights and fathomed the measures of his Reasonings to the utmost length and extent of them but find all too light and scant to make good so strange a Conclusion The utmost he says to prove you no Idolaters is this First saith he The Church of Rome is a true Church but a true Church presupposeth the profession of so much of Christianity as is necessary to the Salvation of all Christians and therefore men may be saved in the Church of Rome But no Idolaters can be saved Therefore the Church of Rome are no Idolaters Secondly The Church of Rome being a true Church must needs profess the true God and therefore if they believe that which they profess they cannot honour any Creature as they honour God knowing every Creature to be an infinite distance below him and therefore they cannot be Idolaters Thirdly and lastly A true Church which therefore professes the onely true God does necessarily profess to detest all Idolatry Which detestation of Idolatry the Church of Rome does expresly profess which profession therefore unless they expresly renounce they cannot expresly be Idolaters This is the utmost and represented to the utmost of Mr. Thorndikes Reasons whereby he would prove the Church of Rome to be no Idolaters All which he makes to depend upon that grand Assertion That the Church of Rome is a true Church To which before we can say I or No we must understand what is meant by a true Church For true sometimes signifies as much as pure and sincere without mixture of any other with this Nature or formal Essence which is really here As that is said to be true Wine that has no other liquour mingled with it and that true Gold that is not adulterated with any base alloy And in this sense I flatly deny the Church of Rome to be a true Church But there is another sense of true which excludes not impurity or some hurtfull superaddition to the nature and form of the thing the true formal nature of the thing still existing there As some subtil poyson conveyed into Wine the Wine is true Wine still And an house infected with the Plague or whose walls are over-run with the Leprosie is a true house still Or if it be not too homely a comparison a pair of Sheep-clippers shears fallen into the pitch-pan and so all over besmeared with pitch is a true pair of shears still all these having the true and essential form whereby they are constituted such And they have an aptitude in themselves for those ends they were made though their actual usefulness is for the present taken away or turned into the contrary by what incumbers them or is added to them but the definition of Wine an House and pair of shears dotâ— still belong to them and is truly predicated of them Now therefore though I will neither aver nor deny the Church of Rome to be a true Church you making so ill use of all our fair and ingenuous Concessions yet I will suppose with Dr. Thorndike the Church of Rome to be a true Church and that to be a true Church is to profess all those Articles of the Christian Faith to have that form of Government suppose Episcopal which was in the Primitive Church to administer the Sacraments in that form of words the Primitive Church did and in a word to profess so much of Christianity and preach it as of it self if there were no other Impediments added would be sufficient to Salvation And so supposing the Church of Rome to profess all those things which the true and unapostatized Church professed which were then and are still of themselves effectual for Salvation if men be not wanting to themselves in this regard I confess she may be said to be a true Church For so much as such a definition of a true Church would be competible to her But all this supposed and admitted I utterly deny that there is any validity at all in Dr. Thorndikes Arguments to prove she is not an Idolatrous Church For a true wife according to definition of Law yet may be a soul adulteress and noisomly infected with the disease of her Uncleanness and a true House may be infected with the Plague or stand in Pestilential air or be infested with the Devil or evil Spirits And now therefore to Answer to his first Argument I say it does not follow because the Church of Rome is a true Church men may be saved in it because a thing may truly be what it is said to be by reason of its intrinsick form and nature and yet notwithstanding be in such Circumstances that unless it be extricated out of them it is made quite useless for the end it was ordained and for which it has still an aptitude were it extricated and cleared from the present Incumbrances and admixtures as in the example of the pair of Shears of the House and of the Wine with poyson in it and the like Which for the present though it be a true House a true pair of Shears true Wine c. yet they are not good They retain the form but fall short of the end nay are quite opposite to it And so they in the Church of Rome though a true Church fall short of their Salvation nay fall into eternal damnation by reason of the deadly poyson in their Church which they wilfully keep infused in it To his second Argument I Answer That tâ—ey that profess the true God may notwithstanding commit Idolatry as I have demonstrated at large in my Idea of Antichristianism Chap. 6. and Chap 8. of the first Book And no man doubts but the Israelites committed Idolatry even then when they professed the Worship of the true God And the Indians at this day who Worship their Pa-gods and are universally accounted Idolaters I am certainly informed have a clear notion of the true God the Creatour of all things Besides this Argument of Dr. Thorndikes supposes that which is notoriously false as if there could be no Idolatry unless the Creature were so honoured as if it were done to God himself Which is abundantly confuted out of the third fourth fifth and sixth Conclusions of the first Chapter of my Antidote And lastly they do de facto give that honour to the Creature that is due to God alone And there is no arguing against experience His last Argument I conceive is the infirmest of all and the Conclusion the faintest oâ— all