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
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
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
which he indeavours to disprove First from the Jews bowing towards the Ark of the Covenant over which were the Cherubims of Image work which says he could not be done without bowing before Images Secondly from Christians bowing at the name of Iesus Tuirdly and lastly he adds That the VVorship done to their Saints and Images is not by the Catholick Church commanded to be called Religious VVorship which he applies to the proof of my seventh Conclusion This is the main of what he brings against this seventh Conclusion For it were tedious to take notice of what things are so little pertinent to the purpose but onely brought in for a blind to the people And I have neither leasure nor any list to meddle with such things In which notwithstanding I acknowledge my Adversary an Egregious Artist for the imposing on poor Souls to use his own Phrase The Reply As to the first of his Preparatories that tells us Catholicks usually distinguish two sorts of Worship I wonder then that he has so soon forgot to be a Catholick himself as to assert there are three from that Instance of Abrahams bowing to God to Angels and to Men by a different Application of the heart viz. to be Divine Worship in respect of God an inferiour kind of Worship in respect of Angels and a Civil Worship as referred to men Wherefore says he he that would speak distinctly to the Catholick Tenet must distinguish these several modes of Worship one from another or else shew cause why he ranks them all under one and the same species of Religious Worship else he will not Cope with his Adversary like a Scholar Namely Unless contrary to the current of Catholicks he make three kind of Worships instead of two or take not heed of making all three one kind of Worship that is Religious which is impossible for any one to do that is not a meer dotard So perplextly and confoundedly does he speak of his sorts of Worship by reason of the tenderness and unsoundness of the cause he undertakes But if he would make any sense of the two sorts of Worship usually distinguished by the Catholicks he must either understand that general bipartition of Worship into Religious and Civil Or else that bipartition of Religious Worship into Latria and Dulia which later may again be subdivided into Dulia major or minor Major that which is given to the blessed Virgin and is particularly called Hyperdulia Minor that to the rest of the Saints and their Images But this he durst not speak out explicitly that he might not be found to allow Religious Incurvation to Images which is so manifestly forbidden in the second Commandment as is intimated in this seventh Conclusion Now to his second Preparatory That neither Sacrifice it self nor Dedication of Temples and Altars which he says are Acts of Latria excludes a secundary Remembrance or titular Honour of the Saints I say as it is little to the present Conclusion so it is in it self plainly false For it is expresly said Thou jhalt have no other Gods besides me And God himself knows and God be thanked we all know that it impossible there should be any Gods besides Him and that therefore we can have none but Him in any other sense than in doing some actions in honour to that which is not God which is proper to be done to God alone And therefore to make any Thing or Person to Communicate with God in these actions of honour is to have other Gods besides Him as much as it is possible to have any other Nor will it excuse the fact that this honour is but secundarily intended to the Saints or what ever else is thus worshipped besides God For besides that the direction of our intention will not change the nature of the proper Notes of an external Latria these can be no other than secondary Deities which are forbidden for as much as there can be no other but these besides him to be forbid and therefore no other than a secundary Honour or inferiour kind of Religious Worship can be possibly intended to them by those that institute it or do it to them they retaining as the Iews did the supreme God still for their God and therefore even that honour is also forbidden in that it is forbidden that we should have any Gods besides Jehovah himself And besides can be that is a jealous God endure that any other should any ways partake of that honour that is proper to Him even of Latria which these Acts are acknowledged to be by my Adversary whose insensibility therefore I stand amazed at in this point For he flatly affirms this to be warrantable Religion viz. That this Temple and this Altar be erected and dedicated to God and St. Francis That this or that Sacrifice be offered to God and St. Francis To God primarily as the supreme God to St. Francis secundarily or as to a Saint not as to the supreme God But does not Temples Altars and Sacrifices make a secundary or inferiour Deity as much as any Thing or Person can be made a Deity by them that hold one supreme God which was the case of the Jews And therefore thus having or making a secundary Deity is palpable Idolatry To the third Preparatory I Answer first That it is hard to conceive that we may choose whether we will call these acts of inferiour respect Religious or no without any offence to his Catholick Divinity when as the Catholicks as he calls them distinguishing two sorts of Worship it is necessary to make such bipartitions of them as I have hinted if they will have them run by twos which will empty these acts of inferiour respect as he Termes them to be Religious and himself plainly intimates they are so toward the end of his Answer to this seventh Conclusion For he says But if nothing will serve my turn but Religious and Divine Worship must be all one then we utterly deny that we are in any wise concerned in his Objection for we give no such Religious Worship to the Saints themselves much less to their Images that is no such Religious Worship as is Divine and is properly Latria but it implies that an inferiour Religious VVorship you do give nor do I contend for a Latria but Religious VVorship in general Secondly I deny that burning Incense lighting up Candles bowing our bodies to Saints and their Images are acts indifferent determinable as our intention shall be to either a Divine or Civil VVorship as Abrahams incurvation of his body to God to Angels to Men For bowing the body is a vulgar Ceremony of Civility known up and down in the VVorld to be so and does not become a Religious Ceremony till it be applied to an Object of Religious VVorship or in such circumstances that it is understood to be so but the bowing the body to the consecrated Image of some invisible Power or Spirit is as notoriously all over the VVorld known to be a
Religious Ceremony and to signity Religious Honour and VVorship And we may as well or rather better call the Saints Gods and pretend onely a Civil sense by it as bow to the Image of a Saint set up and Consecrated for the purpose and pretend we intend onely a Civil VVorship by it For this was the Universal Mode of acknowledging any person a God by erecting an Image and Honouring him in it by the above said Ceremony as it was the Universal Phrase of calling that a God which was so honoured And what is said of bowing the body to the consecrate Image of an Invisible Power or Spirit the same is also to be said of lighting Candels before the said Image it is an Universally well known Ceremony of Religion amongst the Nations not a Civil Ceremony whereby they acknowledged that to be a God whom they so Honoured And lastly for burning of Incense the Learned are agreed that it is a Sacrifice and therefore an act of Latria according to my Adversaries own Concession And the Primitive Christians were so sensible thereof that they would rather die than fling a few grains of Incenfe into the fire in honour of the Emperour they looking upon it as a Sacrificing to him And truly it is a very noble kind of Sacrifice as may be seen by the Altar of Incense next the Holy of Holies and highly significant of Honour that is of sending up prayers and Devotionally spending all the Powers of our Souls and bodies as an acceptable service and of a sweet smelling savour to him we thus Worship Which is the highest Worship imaginable so far is it from being determinable to a Civil Worship I mean the Type thereof from either custom or the nature of the thing it self It s Preparatories being thus swept away let us consider the Answer it self In which he lays to my charge what himself was just now so manifestly guilty of namely of mingling things of an Heterogeneous nature he making the burning of Incense to a Saint which is a Sacrifice a Civil Worship as well as the bowing of the body And he blames me for making Sacrificeing to an Image and bowing to an Image both of them acts of Idolatry Whenas notwithstanding I do not say that simply bowing towards an Image suppose to take up a pin or a glove from off the the flour betwixt the Image and us is Idolatry but a Religious Incurvation to the Image is Idolatry So that my Adversary is disingenuous in not representing my Aâ—sertion such as it is which addes Religious to that bowing or Incurvation to an Image which I pronounce to be Idolatry And all Incurvation is such that is made to a consecrated Image as to an Object of this Worship I but he has two proofs to evince that even Religious Incurvation to an Image is no Idolatry For the name of Jesus is Religiously bowed to and the Jews were commanded to bow toward the Ark of the Covenant over which were the Cherubims of Image-work And therefore they were commanded to bow to Images by God himself which therefore can be no Idolatry To the first I answer That a name or voice is no Image or Similitude accordingly as it is written Deut. 4. 12. ye saw no Similitude onely ye heard a voice And besides it is ridiculous to infer that we bow to the name of Jesus when we hear it named because we bow at the naming of it as to infer that those of your Church say their Ave-Maries to the Ave-Mary-bell because they say them at the tinkling of it neither the Ave-Mary-bell nor the Name or word Jesus are the Objects of our Devotion but onely the Occasions of it Besides they whose backs are turned off the Priests or Reader when he names the name of Jesus what a ridiculous bowing were that in them if they bowed to the name sounding behind them Therefore these are poor and weak shifts to make a show for the worshipping 〈◊〉 Images from an Example where there is neither any Image nor any bowing to that which they would fain fancy to be one To the second I Answer That be it so that there is a command to bow toward the Ark of the Covenant where Images are and consequentially towards Images and that this Incurvation is Religious yet the command to bow toward these Images is onely ex accidenti And mark the cunning of my Adversary here again my words are or make any Religious Obeisance or Incurvation to an Image in any wise as to an Object of this Worship which last words he craftily leaves out Which are of â—ssential importance to this act of Idolatry But God was so far from commanding the Jews to bow towards the Cherubims as to an Object of their Worship that he barred them from the very sight of them and suffered them not so much as to be an object of their eyes Which was a plain inhibition from bowing to them as an Object of their Devotion or any way of worshipping them It would be a very unjust imputation of any rash tongue touching suppose some chast Amazon that she was familiarly saluted by such a Knight at such a time when she did not so much as lift up the Beaver of her Helmet all the time they conversed together which therefore was a certain bar against any such audacious attempt And the Case is the same in this foul charge that God commanded the Jews to Worship the Cherubims over the Mercy sear and bow to them as an object when as he carefully hid them with a vail from their eyes that they might not be worshipped Besides how infinitely inconsistent is it with the Truth and Sanctity of the Divine Majesty to give so strict a Law against worshipping of Images and then at the same time to command the two Cherubims to be worshipped and yet to take away the lives of thirty Thousand men for worshipping that golden Cherub or golden Calf which Aaron had set up Which being in their view and they bowing before became the object of their Worship But the Cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant were onely a Ciâ—cumstance of their Worship as so much but were industriously hid from being any Object thereof And God alone who spake from betwixt the Cherubims was the onely object of their Worship And the Cherubims and other Holy things there were onely Holy figures and Hierogly phicks of mysterious and profound Truths which here it is not at all necessary to explain And now lastly touching his last shift concerning the nature of this Worship of Images and Saints which insinuates that though there be a middle Worship betwixt Divine and Civil the Catholick Church he means the Roman does not require that it should be called Religious besides that it is contrary to the common stream of Catholicks as I noted before and that he himself does imply that middle Worship to be Religious I add further what are we the better for not calling it Religious
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
words she has to befool the judgements of the simple 14. But as to the first it is plain that that Vnity that is by Force is no fruit of the Spirit and therefore no Sign of the true Church nor that which is from free Agreement if it be not to good Ends. For Salomon describes an Agreement of Thieves or Robbers heartening one another to spoil and bloudshed and to enter so strict a society as to have but one purse Prov. 1. 14. And therefore for a company of men under the pretense of Spirituality to agree in the inventing or upholding such Doctrines or Fictions as are most servlceable for a worâ—dly design and for the more easily riding and abusing the credulous and carnal-minded thereby to be masters of their Persons and Wealth this is no holy Unity but an horrid and unrighteous conspiracy against the deluded Sons of Adam 15. And for Antiquity and Universality they are both plainly on the Protestants side who make no Fundamentals of Faith but such as are manifestly contained in the Scripture which is much more ancient and more universally received then any of those things upon whose account we separate from the Church of Rome which are but the fruits of that Apostasâ—e which after four Hundred years or thereabout the Church was to fall into according to Divine Prediction So that we are as ancient and universal as the Apostolick Church it self nor do we desire to appear to be the members of any Church that is not Apostolicall And for their boasts of Miracles which are produced to ratifie their crafty Figments they are but Fictions themselves framed by their Priests or Delusions of the Devil according as is foretold concerning the coming of Antichrist that Man of sin which the Pope and his Clergy most assuredly is namely that his coming iâ— after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders 2 Thess. 2. 9. So that they glory in their own shame and boast themselves in the known Character of Antichrist and would prove themselves to be Holy Church by pretending to the Privileges of that Man of sin and by appealing to the palpable signs of the Assistence of the Devil For from thence are all Miracles that are produced in favour of Practices that are plainly repugnant to the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures 16. But now as for their Sanctity what an holy Church they are any one may judge upon the reading of the Lives of their Popes and History of their Cardinals and other Religious Orâ—ers of that Church of Rome how rankly all things smell of Fraud and Imposture of Pride and Covetousness of Ostentation and Hypocrisy what monstrous examples of Sensuality their Holinesses themselves have ordinarily been of Fornication and Adultery of Incest and Sodomie to say nothing of Simonie and that infernall sin of Necromancy But for Murther and Idolatry those horrid Crimes are not onely made familiar to them but have passed into a Law with them and are interwoven into the very Essence of their Religion Judge tâ—en how holy that Church must be whose Religion is tâ—e establishment of Idolatry and Murther Of the latter of which Crimes the holy Inquisition is an Instance with a witnâ—ss And yet that Den of Murtherers whose Office it is to kill men for not committing Idolatry with the Church of Rome must needs bear the title of Holy 17. And for their pretense of Infallibility it is expresly predicted in the Apocalypse of S. Iohn as well as their laying claim to Miracles For as the two-horned Beast is said Apoc. 13. 13 to do great Wonders and to bring fire from Heaven which two-horned Beast is the Pope and his Clergy so Iezebel which is the same Hierarchy is called the Woman that gives to her self the title of a Prophetess Apoc. 2 20. whose Oracles you know must be infallible For she does not mean that she is a false Prophetess though indeed and in truth she is so And the Pope with his Clergy is judged to be so by the Spirit of God in that he is called the false Prophet Apoc. 16. 13. as well as the two-horned Beast in those Visions of S. Iohn And while he pretends himself to be a Prophet even without Divine Revelation one may plainly demonstrate that he is a false one from this one notorious Instance of Transubstantiation which is a Doctrine repugnant to common Sense and Reason and all the Faculties of the Mind of man and bears a contradiction to the most plaâ—n and indubitable Principles of all Arts and Sciences as I have proved above So that we may be more sure that this is false then that we feel our own bodies or can tell our toes and fingers on our hands and feet Judge then therefore whether is more likely that the Church of Rome should be infallible or Transubstantiation a mere Figment especially it being so serviceable for their worldly Advantages and they being taken tardy in so many Impostures and Deceits So that Infallibility is a mere Boast 18. And now for their Sacerdotal Absolution that they can so safely dismiss men to Heaven or secure them from Hell thereby this power of their Priâ—st is such another vain Boast as that of Transubstantiation Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdome of God John 3. 3. And the form of words upon one's Death-bed can no more regenerate any one then their Quinqueverbiall Charm can transubstantiate the Bread and â— ine into the Body and Bloud of Christ. Where the form of Absolution has any effect it must be on such persons as are already really regenerate and unfeignedly and sincerely penitent which I have shewn to be incompetible to any one so long and so far forth as he adheres to the Roman Church So that in this case one Aethiopian does but wash another which is labour spent in vain There must be a change of Nature or no externall Ceremony nor words can do any thing For the form of Absolution is not a Charm as I said to change the nature of things but onely a Ticket to pass Guards and Scouts and to procure safe conduct to the Heavenly Regions But if by Regeneration and due Repentance one has not contracted an alliance and affinity with the Saints and Angels but is really still involved in the impure and Hellish nature the grim Officers of that dark Kingdome will most certainly challenge their own and they will be sure to carry that Soul captive into a sutable place let the flattering Priest have dismissed her hence with the fairest and most hopefull circumstances he could This is the most hideous the most dangerous and the most perfidious Cheat of that Church of Rome that ever she could light on for the damning of poor credulous Souls that thus superstitiously depend on the vain breath of their Priest for the security of their Salvation 19. And yet they are not content with this Device alone to Iull men secure
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